PERSONALITY MFFERENCES WHEN GRADUATE mums m mama m: Emmaxm FSE’CEOEAEGY m mama EXFEREERCE LEVELS TEESKS FGR THE DEGREE 0;? PH. D. MICHEGAR‘ STATE UNEVERSETY RQBEHT M. NAGLE 1957 in: i} RA RY Ll:t.l’:$&fl Sum University This is to certify that the thesis entitled PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GRADUATE STUDENTS IN CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AT VARYING EXPERIENCE LEVELS presented by ROBET M. NAGLE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the—$13131— degree in Mo gy’ 4(5) Wm“, A£~£Q93 Major professor Date October-i 124—1967 0-169, A; J .1. IL;CLL FIX“, .- .‘ h \P“ "_' '_‘-",“~‘ T 5"! ’ [.4‘” "\"-'I"‘*';‘:‘ f1. 'Cv ‘ ,. “‘- 1‘ "l.“ ILL.-.) U..:21.LJI 11’. 4.1.1. I‘ J. 4.21;.41 . vii“) B..- .I._.a..r J. ULJLUk/n‘l .C.’ - 11-1: “‘7' '.'-I— ‘. -' f 1; ,2:7 "I —— .-‘ li‘. A - \JU ‘ :i-LU I-- CLi." .1. C(hi. [h L.’ £445; ...A 1...-_:J..l.o'h.l.l ESICZCLGGI AT VARIZ G LIPLBIE CE LchLS By Robert A. Eagle The gain function of the or sent study was to determine :‘s theoretical assurotion (“that differstt occupations f—‘o vhether lord afford differih 1'4 opportuéitiss f3r tho :Xprrssion of inpulses, for the utilization of defenses, azd IDI or cuizini mac's ;ccl': s H with the world; and that occupatiojsl groups do Vary Sig if‘cuqtly froi ox: a other in imgortaht porsohality charactéristios“) applies to clinical sad eX3€_.i noctal psvchologists. The sec d f‘:v etion 5;s to excuiuc whether training during graduate school and/or experi; cc 3 Jior t;) siwission to rc.uote so ool are responsible for personality differences iv clinical and cxgcriuehtsl psycholo- gists. “he thiri functioc of this study was to iaV'stigste the effcct of exceri ence on the p:rsonelity of rrsiuete stuCcnts in asychology irrespective of field. The fourth function of the study was to obssrve and .rcdict the pettarhihfi of graduate studett groups on each scale st tidied in coucarison t3 unier rgrad- ate horn croloo for each variable. To ass ( 0 (0 1') pcrs3 elity diffcrcices a: 1 cho.;es on the saie persouslity characteristics curing graiuete school, 82 gale graduate students at michigsn Stats Luivcrsitf in clinical ego Iiu;1t l (sychology at on»i~ora (first year) a;i s1vs‘ced (third and fourth - k:- year) levels ca clcted three personality scales. lie tests used were hitkih's Hidden figures T st, 3 ficasur; of field e»‘ndeoce- indepehde cs (Eu-51), R)ttar's Istrrgalizatiou - Exter‘slisation Scale, 3 mtasurc of expectancy rt atfilfifi locus 01 reinforcement dobert h. Nagle (1-3), and Byrne's revised Repression - Sensitization Scale, as a measure of defense mode (B—S). Sun ing over level of gre duate school education, it ras found that clinicians were significantly core field dependent, intern- alized, and repressed than experimentalists. The results on the repression - sensitization dimension were sisnificant in the opposite direction from that predicted. EXperience orior to graduate school education does not apoea r responsible for the personality differences in clinical and ex erinental psychologists 31: cc on 1y on the repression - sensitization dimension were be- ginning clinicians sijnificantly different (clinicians were more repressed than be :inni ng exp erinentalists). On the other hand, exocrie nce and selection factors during grain te school do appear to cause advanced clinicians to be significantly more internalized and Iield deoendent than advarced eioerinentoli ts. Summing over field of soecialization, advanced graduate students were significantly more field independent than beginning students. Advanced clinical students showed n3 significant dif- ferences from beginning clinical students. Advanced 0: (pczrimental students though, were significantly nore ield in dep oender t and regress ed the! be inning er psrincatal students. Also, on two of the three variables (the 8-5 dimension bein: the exception) the trend of mean scores from be innina to advanced levels increases for both clir icians and experimentalis ts. Thus it does appear that experience in graduate school in ps: y'chology ca uses changes in person- ality, ard :Xperiez' ce in each of the two fields discussed in the present study affects the sa;e pars nality characturistics differ- O entially. The results did not fully s pport Bordin's thoorv since beginning clinicians and expe rims“ H1tali to were not diifcrent on two of the three personality variables. It nust not be forgotten, though, that beginning clinicians and cxpcrinentsliste are sig- nificantly different on the 3-3 scale, so this variable could act as a diff er ntia tizia force in the selection of a major field along with other variables not studied in this research. On the other hand, it does appear that experience in graduate school a1d more ecifically in each of the two major fields results in important and QiLLlf1C°Qt p :rso: ality chant s. Tnesc chanaes produce groups of clinicians and exoerimentalists who have widely different personality charact ristics by the time they earn their doctorates. The results on the 3-8 scale were op osite fro: those predicted. However, it does not appear that 68 of 82 rndt te students in psycholo:y could be repr ssors. It ices ap ear, from :rior research as well as fro t the present study, that the 5-8 scale is more a measure of social dxzirr ility and adjustment than it is a measure of re pr ssion. Further study in this area is essential. The present study has shown that clinicians and cxperinentalists at M.S.b. are diff Ierc -nt on the prasent personality ciaractoristics. However, other more E; I (\ central characteristics also i;ei to be assass; nceor tunity to co curious about inte personal relations both from the vantagepoint of hearinj about the b,iavior of -10- peoole outs mi3 tne family as well as frJi having the opportunity to observe emotional interaction within the family. Physicists had more intellectual interests and more int': llectual sti ula- tion frog; their fan ly than did clinical psychologists. Internalization - E"t ern~li7ctirn LI ~31 Rotter (1966) states, "When a reinforcencnt is perceived by the subject as following some action of his own, but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then in our culture, it 1 tYPlCally perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate; U) or it may be perceived as under the control of pomergul others, or as un pres ictaole because of the great occplexity of the forces surrounding him.“ "When the event is interpretled in this way by an individual, we have labeled this a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event is contingent upon his own behavior or his own relatively perma- nent characteristics, we have ter ed this a belief in inter- nal control." The 1-3 continium is similar to borgin's description of his dimension of manipulation. The I-E scale ne asures a continuum of power versus powerlessness, but it is the power to reinforce one's own actions and behavior versus the control of reinforcement of the self by the environgent or others. Rotter (1966) has noted that internalization is a pre- requisite for control of the environment enc of others. There has also been sons research relating hordin's dimension of eanipulation to various occupational groups. bocial workers and lawyers resorted an e ihasis in their family on firm but reasonable self discipline, whereas dentist's relate: their faiily's discipline as harsh and repressive. Regard for feelings of others as an aim of discipline, conCern for human suffering as an ethic instilled in the children, and apneal to consideration for others as a nethnd of discipline was .nore frequent in the homes of social workers than dentists or lawyers. dalinsky (1962) found that the discipline of physicists was rigid, stressed obedience and was neted out by their mothers. Repression - §ensitisation (h-S) “— Byrne (1961) has defined the dimension of personality characterized as repression-sensitization in targs of an individual's usual response to anxiety evoking stimuli. At the repressing extre e are behaviors which serve to avoid anxiety arousing stimuli and at the sensitizing extre.e are behaviors which involve approaching or controlling the threatening stimuli. Then the middle of the dimension should represent those individuals who do not defend against anxiety but adjust realistically to it. This variable fits into Bordin's affective co ponent of his dimensions, except that Eyrne's test deals not only with defenses against affect but with defenses against any anxiety producing stimuli. There is als sone e neral res: rch relating other occupations and duties to their handling of affect. Nachna;n (1960) found that social worker”: apparently repressed -12... negative feelings toward their fathers. Galinsky (1962) found that the intellectual discussion in ohysicists faiilies seemed to be for the purpose of avoiding more personal matters. He also found the ohysicists were more isolated froo their peers and girls than clinical osvcholoaists. Clinical psycho- oaists had sore conflict with their fanilies than physicists but also faced the anxietv that broufht and were also closer to their fauilies. Differences in Training Many psycholocists assert that if the traini g programs were better, clinicians would also be nublishing scientists. Thus various methods have been prooosed to impler,nt the training of the clinician as a researcher (Garfield, 1966; Hoch, Ross, and hinder, 1964; and Rainy, 1950). This View has grown desnit: the fact that frw clihical psychologists carry out the role of nublishinn researcher (Levy, 1942), regardless of what kind of trainirg proaran they come froi. Shaffer (1953) collected data from over 500 clinical psychologists on questions concerning their work, training, and backgrounds. They were also separated by means of an attitudinal scale into those des~rihing themselves as being intuitive or objective. The intuitive psychologist received psychotherapy, was insoired by clinically oriented writers, and identified with idealized persons who were in practice. Objective psychologists were interested in research, were stimulated b? authors of well designed research, and ids tified -13- with research workers. He concluded that clinical psychologists do not fall at either extreac of the attitude scale, nor does he believe that pe sonality differences account for the sub grougs that were either intuitive or objective. Rather he believes that the sub gro1os can be accounted for by the training they received and to the work they have done. Bordin (1966) takes the View that clinicians are motivated mainly by co passion and the ic.ri entalists are usually activated by doubt. He concludes that there will be only a .ninority of ps ycholo;ia ts in when compassion and doubt are equally strong. He believes then that an undue enphasis on doubt in graduate training can alienate the potential clinician. The training progra s, therefore, should be flexible enough to allow an individual clinician to follow his inclinations and yet teach him enough of the reSearch method so that he can cs.rry out naturalistic and obser mtional studies which are a very necessary part of psychology. Thus, the present Study investi'rtes whether graduate 9 J. students in clinical [isycholog Jeni est dif”erent personality characteristics Tron vreduate students in experimental osychology. And further it investigates whethe r experiences duri ng Ere duate school )r experiences obtained b f re graduate son; 1 are reSponsible for any personality diL is re nces between the tw groups. scoordingly e comparison of beginning (first year) graduate students in clinical and experimental psychology and a comparison of advanced (third and fourth year) graduate students in clinical and echrioental psychology will give. -1u- evidence as to whether orior experiences or experiences throughout graduate school have the major effect on personality characteristics and differences of graduate students in psychology. Following Bordifls(1933) theory,differences should be found between clinical and experimental psychologists at both beginning and advanced levels, since he hypothesizes that basic personality differences steining from methods of infantile instinctual gratification are responsible for later occupational choice. Shaffer's (1953) theory would asparently predict that clinical and experincntal psycholopists would not manifest different persoiality characteristics until the advanced level since he found no USSiUl relationships between antecedent experiences and his intuitive-objective attitudes. The second Lajor aspect of the present study is to exauine the trend and nature of personality changes fro; beginning to advanced leVels of graduate study. Although only two very linited points in the continuous progression of a person's life are being sa pled, it is assumed that these points are indicative of earlier and later trends in the psychologist's personality and develogment in his occuqation. It is possible that graduate school experiences cause no change in the person- ality characteristecs of a gajority of students. it is also possible that only randon changes occur in the personality of most students. The present author, however, contends that knowledge of personality characteristics and occuoational interest will allow the direction of change to be predicted. The prediction then can be tested by comparing advanced students with bevinni*” etude ts c9 3 Frouo and bv carparing advanced and beginning students for each specialty. Owing to the fact that experience or training is a Very important part of this study, it is imperative that the type Of experiences obtained by graduate students in clinical and eXperimental psychology car be generally identified. This variable has been ontrolled i he present study since the graduate school free which students have been drawn does emphasize and value both applied and research training in psychology. DIEEEREWCZS ETTAEEN CLIEIUAL VE_UUS EX ERI lesL AJ AfilimhrD V538 US lEGIQHIfiG STUDENTS {’1 Clinical virsus xoerinental Stud mx‘t - Roe (1956) found that research psychologists had higher standard scores on the non veroal Dart Of the EAIS than clinical ps.m cliolo;e ists who reversed those scores. Goodenough and Karp (1961) reported that the embedded fi9 ur:s test and block design, picture completion, and object assembly free the hAIS we e highly and positively related. They also foun. that the connreiension sub test of the WAIS was highly and c1 tively re ls ted to the FD-EI test. Thus the research would indicate that exocrinental psychologists who generally perform better on non verbal IQ tests than clinical psychologists should have highs er FQ-EI scores. We would expect the higher F3~EI scores for exocri- nental os ch‘lovists to hold for beginning and advanced students since we assume that this is one of the personality differences that leads to a person's choice of one field or the other. -15- One of the assumgtions of the present research is that research psychologists at both beginning and advanced levels .ore than clinical psychologists perceive rcwaris and punish- ient as e anating froa personal and non personal forces external to themselves. It is assumed that researchers are nore concerned with controlling the external environment, including other peo le, than they are with changing or examin- ing themselves. The author contends that Persons who become primarily researchers have been reinforced, more often than clinicians by parents, peers, and once in graduate school by their teachers, for controlling change in the environment. They are not rewarded as often by the authoriti s in their environeent for introSgooting and changing their own behavior in order to have more bower over their own behavior and also that of others. The clinician, one might speculate, has iore often felt that he is resoonsible for his behavior and the behavior and feeling: of peo;1e who interact with him. He has been reinforced, especially by his teachers, for altering his own feelings and behavior. The clinician throu nout life has been interested in peoole and is usually introsyective (Galinsky, 1)42). He has found that he is rewarded for dging things for other peo 1e and for controlling his own behavior, at first in line with what others want and then to meet the needs of his own self actualization. This makes it more likely that he will also be able to change important booele in his milieu. Shaffer's (1953) finding that the intuitive clinician wanted to know himself better and tne objective n3 Hfi {W -17- clinician was more interested in theory and research could be extended to clinicians and experimentalists quite easily. He also found that the intuitive clinician was more interested in therapy and diagnosis and the objective clinician was interested in research and teaching which fits the present thevry nicely. Kell and hueller (1966) state the main thesis well: "The exsansion of feelings, which is the basic deans for internalizing may, of course, lead to a fulmination of feelings of conflict. ihis is the counseling obgective, however, since the acute eXperience of conflict as internal to one's self is the necessary emotional prelude to the development of new alternatives and new internally felt means of control. Parents and other perceived sources of conflict (authority) can then be incorporated and integrated in new ways and even eXperienced as meaningful and helpful in the continuous unfolding of life." Fron the time of Freud it has been considered imperative that the therapist in training have a personal analysis to prevent the therapist from defending against anxiety brought about by his own interpersonal difficulties. Assuming that therapy is effective, advanced clinical students, who usually have had personal therapy and supervision which trains the clinician to handle anxious circumstances without overly defending, should be less defensive than adVEUCCd experimental ~students. Roe's (1956) study defends this View since she found that clinical psychslofists were sli htly better adjusted on the HMPI, Rorschach, and Guilford-Martin tes s than experi- mental psycholo ists. beginning clinical students should be -18- less defensive than beginning experimentalists since this appears to be one of the prime selection criteria for clinical students. Also their greater interest in theasclves and their problems may have motivated then to seek helo for any emotional difficulties at an earlier time in their life. .Advanced versus beginninngtudents - Kell and nueller (1966) stress that a supervisor helps a student thgrapist become a better therapist by helping him differentiate his feelings and conflicts frog those of his client. Gottesman (1961) found that therapeutic ability and exwericnce in a group of counselor trainees was significantly and positively related to degree of differentiation of concepts achieved by subjects in distinguishing other people in the world. Thus there is some theoretical and experimental evidence that more experienced therapists are more field independent than less experienced ones. All of the groups of grad students should be more field independent than college undergrads (hitkins, et a1., 1962; Goodenough and Karp, 1961; and Gardner, Jackson, and Messick, 1960). Although hitkin, et al., (1962) has stated that differentiation is a stable characteristic which does not show increasing development past maturity, the author suggests an increase in differentiation from beginning to advanced graduate student levels. Should this be found it does not necessarily mean a developmental change in differentiation but more likely shows the hiqh relationship between differ- entiation and intellectual abilities (Gardner, Jackson, and Messick, 1960). Since some of the students who are less -19- differentiated might tend to drop out leaving only the most highly differentiated individuals at the advanced levels. Another possibility, especially in clinical psychology, is that persons who are field dependent tend to use repression under stress as resorted by Nitkin (1965). One miaht speculate that clinical psychology students who are highly repressed are more likely to leave the program than those using sensi- tizing defenses. Researchers as they increase in competence should also increase in externality as it relates to their feeling more capable in controlling the environment. It is assumed experi- nentalists perceive anxiety as arising froe external events and persons. Thus, they would try to take luck out of trans- actions by developing their abilities to control external events to the utmost. With increasing eXperience would cone increasing order and prediction of events. Ehe advanced experimentalist would treat himself as part of the environment and would seek to control his own behavior as an objective and controllable series of events. He would be less likely to tolerate mysterious fantasies and internal subjective emotional forces which are not quantifiable. On the other hand, clinicians should increase in inter- nality with increasing experience. Advanced clinicians would be expected to experience feelin s and thoughts opposite to those just described. Their training would accentuate their tendency to be aware of their own feelings and traits in relation to and separated frog others. For exanple, Abeles (1963) found that more advanced counseling trainees responded -20- with a greater range and complexity of effect to a projective test. Instead of controlling details of the ervironnent, as exiorinohtaliSts do, they would be expected to analyze them- selves and others when-under stress in order to gain more understanding of how they can thTHaSG their ability to hardle the situation. Both the beginninf clinicala Ed the oginning experimental students perceive a grra at deal of environmental pressure. They are in inte2s e co petition with each other and are liter- ally fighting for their professional futures. Ihey often feel that they are never allowed to let up for a minute since they are forced to jnhp CVer more difficult hurdles and they believe that if they do ease up any other pe re»a in the graduate stqunt group can easily take overifor them. This intense Competition means that many of then, eLD‘Clwlly if they have even mild difficulties in interpersonal relations, will isolate themselves even further from close neaningful relationships with fellow Oradutt2 studen s. The relative laCk Of competence will foster feelings of inadfiouacv which their teachers and supervisors often so entue ate by their overcontrol anf "naxagement frrm afar" (Sell and nuelle r, 1966). All of these circumstances would, of course, increase anxiety and result in defensiVeness. Most advanced graduate st dents have demonstrated that thvy belOLg in graduate school, possessing more concrete and fewer obstacles to their goal. Th ey've been around long enough to find fellow graduate students that they can trust and like, their compete cy is no lOnfi C1 in doubt, and they have usually found teachers xho have fostered -21- their professional and personal deveIOpnent without stifling their independence. Pattern Study In order to enhance the study of differences between experimental and clinical and beginning and advanced students an attenpt is made to compare scores made by these groups to available normative data on the criterion instruments. In this context an attempt is made to predict patterns of scores for sub groups as they would be exoected to differ free normative data. CHAPTER II .0 STATEhENT or ERU7LEA AND Hreoressss Clinical versus aXperinental Students Nachmann (1960), a student of Bordin, exeresSes the general assumptions with which the first part of the present study is concerned. "(a) different occupations afford differing opportunities for the exoression of impulses, for the utilization of defenses, and for or anizing one's dealings with the world.” "(b) occupational groups do vary signifi- cantly from one another in important personality characteristics, despite the modifying and perhaps sometimes obliterating circumstances that all men have basically the sane impulses and that many occupations can be bent to serve many aims." Thus clinicians and eXperinentalists should be significantly differentfron each other in the directions predicted on the indicated three personality variables. I. Clinical students will be significantly less field independent, more internalizet, and loss defensive (re ressing or sensitizing) than experimental students. In order to test whether experiences nrior to admission to graduate school have affected the personality traits observed in this study, beri hing clinicians and beginning exporimontalists V111 be compared. Our expectation will follow Bordin's theory that persons who enter a field should be significantly different on the variables studied herein, especially since those traits are similar to the variables described by Bordin and his students which differentiated the -22- -23- practitioner from the scientist. Ia. Beginning clinical students will be significantly less field independent, more internalized, and less defensive (repressing or sensitized) than beginnigg eXperimental students. The personality characteristics and differences of advanced graduate students in clinical and experimental psycho- logy in a graduate school which emphasizes clinical practice for clinicians and research for experimentalists should be maintained or enhanced from those that were found for beginning graduate students. Ib. AdVanced clinical students will be significantly less field independent, more internalized, and less defensive (reoressing or sensitized) than advanced experimental students. Advanced versus Beginning Students The experiences and selection factors occurring throughout graduate school should have an affect on the personality of graduate students irrespective of field as indicated in the last section of this study. II. Advanced students will be significantly more field independent and less defensive than beginning students. Over and above the shared experiences of graduate school each field should have significant influence on its students' personality characteristics that is different for each variable or characteristic because of the different experiences, personality attributes, and selection factors involved in that area. IIa. Advanced clinical students will be significantly more field independent, more internalized, and less defensive (repressing or sensitized) tha; beginning clinical students. -24- 11b. Advanced experimental students will be significantly more field independent, more externalized, and less defensive (repressing or sensitized) than beginning experimental students. Pattern g: hean Scores The detailed hypotheses of differences between nearly each group and every other group has allowed a prediction of mean scores for each group on each scale. These predictions were broken into six broad categories in terms of the mean of the undergraduate norm group for that variable. IIIa. The mean score of beginning clinical students will fall into the pattern h-H, h-L, and h-H on the FD-FI, I-E, and 3-8 tests respectively. b. The mean score of beginning experimental students will have the pattern H, N-L, and H on the FD-FI, I-E, and H-8 dimensions respectively. c. Advanced clinical students will have mean scores exhibiting the pattern H, L, and h on the FD-FI, 1-3, and 8-8 continua resnectively. d. Advanced experimental students will have mean scores with the pattern H1, M, and h-H on the Fu-FI, 1-3, and 3-5 tests respectively. The six categories used for the pattern of mean scores were: 1. H1 - 28D above the mean of the reSpective norm group. 2. H - 18D above the mean of the reSpective norm group. 3. M-H- Between the mean of the norm group and H. 4. M - At the mean Of the respective norm group. -25- 5. h-L- between the mean of the norm group and L. 6. L é 15D below the mean of the respective norm group. A score was considered M-H or M—L if a test for the difference between means showed it to be significantly diffsrent from the mean of the norm group or significantly different frog the score 18D from its respective norm group mean. -25- 5. h-L- between the mean of the norm group and L. 6. L 6 18D below the mean of the respective norm group. A score was considered M-H or m-L if a test for the difference between means showed it to be significantly difi:rent from the mean of the norm group or significantly different from the score ISD from its respective norm group mean. -25- CHAPTER III RETEOD Sub ects Eighty-two male-first, third, and fourt. year graduate students in clinical and eXperimcntal psychology at hichigan State University who agreed to participate enc: contacted by phone were the subjects for the present study. Two advanced experi- mental and five beginning experimental students refused to participate in the study. No clinical students at either level refused participation. One beginning clinical student, six beginning experimental, two advanced clinical and two advanced experimental students could not be contacted because they had changed their address or had left the campus. An attempt to compare the clinical and experimental psychologists in the present study with graduate students in the Humanties and the Physical Sciences was unsuccessful. The assumption was that clinical psychologist would have been more like students in the Humanities and would have been different than students in the physical sciences on the three variables tested. It was also assumed that experimen a1 psychologists would have been more like students in the khysical Sciences and different from those in Humanities. These assumptions could not be tested since 15 out of 17 graduate students in Physics contacted either would not participate or did not show up on their scheduled testing time. This compares with 7 out of 9 graduate students in English and Philosonhy who did participate in the -27- study when contacted. In light of the lack of cooperation fron students in Physics, the plan to conpare Students in Humanities and the Physical Sciences with rsychologists was dropped for the present stud3. For the purposes of the study, clinicians were those men registered with the psychology department as clinical or counseling psychology students. Clinical and counseling psychology students were grouped together since all of the research and theory comiaring different areas of psychology has found them to be alike (Roe, 1956; Schoefield, 1966). Also, only counseling students were used who had taken essentially the same courses as the clinical students and who had idegtical prac- ticum and intern experience. Two counseling psychology students were included in the advanced clinical sample. All other graduate students in psychology, including those in child, personality and social, were considered experimental students. There has been no research comparing the three areas named above with other areas in psychologi. Persons in those areas do appear to have more academic and research interests, and their training is also usually quite different from clinical students since they have no practicum or intern experiences. Students in industrial psychology were not used in the study since prior research has shown that they combine some of the characteristics of clinicians and experimentalists (Roe, 1356; Goldberg, 1959). Significant sex differences, with wonen being extremely variable, have been found to exist in the measurement of field dependence - independence (Nitkin, at al., 1362). Therefore, only -23- male graduate students were used as subjects. Beginning graduate students were students who were in their first year of graduate study with 1 to 36 graduate credits frzm Michigan State University or sode other accredited university. Advanced g aduate students were students who were in their third or fourth (or more) year of graduate study with 73 graduate credits or above. Third and fourth year graduate students were used as advanced students since it does aspear that third year graduate students are usually considered advanced by faculty and other students. By the end of their third year goth clinical and exoerimental students have finished many of their u per level courses and have had at least a year and probably two of qractical exocrience in their resrective areas. This should differentiate then fran beginning students who usually have ha only minimal practice experience in testing and finrapy or research. Instrunents Egg Hidden Ficures Test - Level of psychological differ- entiation was measured by scores on the field dGPEGLGflCE - independence dimension. These scores were obtained through the administration of the Hifiden Figures Test, an embedded figures instrument, The Hidden Figures Test, Test cf - 1 fron the 4-4. Educational Testing Service iattr (L) ry, rowresents a measure of flexibility of closxre as originally constructed. This is an adaptation of Thurstone's Qattscheldt Figures Test (Tnurstone, 1944). Several studies have indicated that flexibility of closure and field dependence - independence dimensions are the same (sarinor, Jackson, and messick, 1903; Jae son, seasick, and heyers, 1264; hithin, -29- The test is comprised of thirty-two patterns containing an embedded figure which the subject is to locate. All patterns are achromatic and the use of memory is required at only a minimal level. Total number of identified enbedded figures represents the score on the field dependence — independence dimevsion. .Epstein (1957), and Silvernan, Cohen, Shmavonian, and Green- berg (1961) have confirmed Mitkin's finding of the relationship between articulation of body concent and the cognitive study of osychological differentiation. Mitkin, et al., (1962) report that persons with an articulated cognitive style give evidence of a developed sense of separate identity, in other words, they have an awareness of needs, feelings and attributes which they identify as distinct from th se of others. Sense of separate identity implies experience of the self as segregated. it also implies experience of the self as structured internal frames of reference have been formed and are available as guides for definition of the self. The less developed sense of separate identity of persons with a global cognitive style manifests itself in reliance on external sources for definition of their attitudes, Judgements, sentiments, and of their views of themselves. Witkin (1965), and Shonbar (1964) reported that perso 5 who eXperience in articulated fashion tend to use Specialized defenses, as isolation. In contrast, persons with a global cognitive style tend to use such defenses as massive repression and primitive denial. These latter defenses involve an indescrisinate total blotting out of memory for past experiences and of perception of stinuli. Their feelings " “'* strongly influence thought and -30- perception, in other words, that feelings are not kept suffici- ‘ently discrete from thoughts and percents. The relationship between psychological differentiation and types of pathology has also been denonstrated by many studies. kitkin (1965) stated that there is sone suggestion of greater frequency of pathology at the extranes than in the middle of the range of differentiation. Also, pathology takes quite different ferns at the two ex“remes. Differentiated oersons when they break down, show delusions, exuansive and euphoric ideas of grandeur, outward direction of aggression, overideation, and/or continuing struggle for the maintenance of identity, however bizarre the atteipt. With persons of a global cognitive style there are often severe identity problems, with little siruggle for maintenance of identity, deep seated dependency problems, inadequately develoced controls, resulting in chaotic functioning, and passivity and helplessness. . 222.£.f g Scale - Internal versus external control of reinforcement was measured by scores on the I a E scale developed by Rotter (1966). Many investigators have recognized that differ- ences in subject behavior are related to task difference along a dimension of skill and chance (Goodnow and Bostnan, 1955; Cohen, 1960; Feather, 1959). many studies on complex learning can be summarized in a clear cut manner, when a subject perceives the task as controlled‘ by the experimenter, chance, or random conditions, past experience is relied upon less. Consequently, it may be said that he learns less and learns the wrong things (Phares, 1961; James, 1957; Rotter, Liverant, and Crowns, 1)61). -31- Rotter (1966) found that the 1-3 scale was not related to social desirability. The items are concerned with the subjects' eroectations about how reinforcement is centrolled and not to the preference for internal or external control. burther, it is not identical to the measure of inner versus outer - directedness or introversion - extrovegsion. The scale was develoued so as to include a minimum number of items :hich are internally consistent (.70), reliable over time L72), and are not related to IQ (-.C9). The I-E scale has high construct validity rs measured by the ability to predict differences in behavior for individuals above or below the median of the scale, or frOu correlations with behavorial criteria (Rotter, 1966). haladjustment and I-E scores are related but in a rather conclex feShion. 30 significant sex differences were found, but negros and lower social class persons were more externalized (Battle and Better, 1)63). Seaman (1963) and (196k), and Strickland (1965) found strong 1 support for the hypot esis that a generalized oxyectency - tnat one can affect the environment through one's own behavior - is present in at least two different cultures, in many different ways. It was also found that ittJflPlS were usually dire achievement oriented, although this is a conplex relationship and that internals resist Subtle suggestion more successfully than externals (Hotter, 1366). The 1-3 test is a 29 item, forced choice test including 6 filler items intended to make sonewhat more ambiguous the purpose of the test. High scores represent externalization. -32- 122.3 -fl§ Scale (Health and Opinion Survey)- Defense mode was measured by scores on the dimension of repression - sensitization as develoned by Byrne (1961). On the basis of research with this strument Byrne (196fl), found that se sitizers in comparison with reoressers may be characterized as more intellectualizing, taking more deviant responses on adjective check lists (byrne, 1961) describing theaselves in more nerative t rms (Altrocchi, Parsons and Dickoff, 1960), and characterizing themselves as more anxious than repressors (Joy, 1963; Ullman and McReynolds, 1963). At the same time sensitizers seem more appreciative of humor (O'Connell and Peterson, 196”), exhitit less autononic responsiveness with a stressful situation (Lazarus and Alfert, 1964), and seem less disrupted than renressors on a word association test containing "threatening words" (Losont, 1965). Cozpared to sunsitiaers, repressers are reported to have greater difficulty in recalling nonsense syllables associated with poor performance on an intel- ligencctest and personality test (Gossett, 1964), and to have a higher perceotual threshold for words associated with failure (Terpone, 1966). In describing their own esotional resgonse to threat, reprqssers tend to deny an? sensitizers freely to a nit fcelijgs of a riot; (Davison, 1J6}; Lazarus and Alfert, 1J64; Pomerance, 1963). There is considerable confusion existing on the basis of research findings regarding the relationship of repression end of the dimension to saladjustment. byrne, Golightly, and Sheifield (1965); Toy (1963); and Teupone and Lanb (1967) found that the relationship between 3-5 and adjustment is linear. -33- On the other hand Ullman (1962) found data to support a curvilinear hypothesis. HoweVer, there seems to be little question that the sensitizing end of the dimension reflects maladjustment. Thus, the relative position of the groups in this study should remain the same even if'a linear relationship exists. The only effect should be, in that case, that the scores will fall nearer the repression end of the scale than hygothesized. The H-S scale has been found to have high internal consistency (.94) as well as high test-retest (.82) reliability (Byrne, Barry, and Nelson, 1963). The scale is comprised of 127 items plus 55 filler items and is administered as the "Health and Opinion Inventory." Answers to the thI derived scale are true - false and are not subject to a time limit. High scores on the scale represent the sensitizing end of the dimension while low scores classify subjects as repressors. Procedure Each of the subjects were contacted by telephone by the experimenter to solicit their aid in taking part in the research. They were told: My name is sob eagle. I'm in clinical psychology and I'm working at the MSU Counseling Center this year. I'm working on my dissertation and I'm using graduate students in psychology as my subjects. I need every person I can get and I'm wondering if you would help me by being a subject in my study. About all I can tell you without contaminating the results is that the study is about various -3u- personality characteristics of graduate students. There are three short tests and they are all paper and pencil tests. It will only take you an hour to complete them. The results of your tests will be confidential and only group data are being used. Any time that you have an hour free during the next three weeks I will meet you in room 219 in the Counseling Center and administer the tests. Now can you tell me what day and what hour you have free so that you can take the tests. The subjects were tested individually and in small groups of not more than five in a large study room in the MSU Counseling Center. Each subject took the entire battery of three tests in one sitting. Half of the subjects were administered the tests in the order: 1. Hidden Figures Test, 2. The I-E Test, 3. The R-S Test. The order of the tests was then reversed for the second half of the subjects. lAll of the tests were administered by the author who also kept time on the Hidden Figures Test. Instructions for the R-8 and Hidden Figures Test were as printed in standard fashion on the test booklets. Subjects were given no help with regard to questions about individual items except to tell them to read the instructions again or answer the best they could. The R-3 and I-E Tests were not timed but the subjects were encouraged to finish as quickly as possible and to put down the first answer they thought of. They were asked not to try to figure out how they were eXpected to answer, but to answer the questions as truthfully as possible. Instructions for the I-E scale were those used by Crego (1966). 1 Tests of differences between means found no significant differences between subjects in the same group on the same test from an order effect. -35... CHAPTnB IV RESULTS The responses of the 82 gale graduate students in psychology on each of the three instruments are close enough to a nornal distribution, as shown in a pendix A, to use tests of means in analyzing the results. Data concerning the distribution of total scores on each dimension are given in Table 1. Clinical versus Experimental Students I. Clinical students will be significantly less field independent, more internalized, and less defensive (reeressing or sensitizing) than experimental students. v ' ’ Ia. beginning clinical students wfll be significantly ess field independent, more internalized, and less defensive (repressing or sensitized) than beginning experimental students. Ib. Advanced clinical students will be significantly less field independent, Lore internalized, and less defensive (repressing or sensitized) than adVenced experinental students. A two way classification analysis of variance was carried out between level of graduate school education and stwdents' major area for each of the three personality variables. Tables 2,3, and 4 indicate that hypothesis I was confirned for the FU-FI and I-E dimensions, but was significant in the o;eosite direction from that predicted on the 3-3 scale. Clinical students were signi- ficantly less field independent and more internalized than eXperimental students; however, they were also significantly -36- TABLE 1 IRnnge of Scores, Standard Deviations, Means, and the Number of Subjects in Graduate Student Groups and Norm Groups for Total Scores on Measures of Field Independence - Dependence, Internalization - Externalizstion, and Repression - Sensitization. Test Group Measures FD - FI I - E R - S IBeginning Range 1 - 23 O - 12 9 - A6 Clinical S D 6.97 3.61 11.04 CN= 13) Mean 11.15 5.30 21.00 Beginning Range A - 29 l - 16 2 - 9h EXPGrimen- S D 6.08 “>051 230714- tal (N = 17) Mean 13.88 6.88 37.h1 Advanced Range 1; - 214, l - 9 9 - 52 Clinical S D 5.09 2.19 10.50 (N = 27) Mean lu.7o 4.63 20.78 Advanced Range 7 - 30 l - l9 7 - 58 Experimen- S D 5091 3077 12.148 tal (N = 25) Mean 17.96 7.76 25.hu Norm. N 99 575 733 Groups Range 2 ' 25 O ' 20 l - 105 S D 5.60 3.88 20.10 Mean 11.69 8.15 h2.25 ‘Normative Data on FD - F1 from Creso (1966) bNormative Data on I - E from.Rotter (19b6) . cNormative Data on R - S from.ByTn°: Barry, and Nelson (1963)“ TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance of Field Dependence - Field Independence Scores Source df MS F Grade School Class (11) 1 2112.36 7.03° Students' Major ’ . Area (B) 1 150.01 8.533 A 11B 1 36.08 1.06 Error 78 30.h6 ‘p< .05 TABLE 3 °p<1.01 Analysis of Variance of Internalization - Externalization Scores Source df MS F Grade School Class (A) l .08 .006 Students' Major Area (B) 1 138.72 11.09d A x B 1 10.75 .88 Error 78 12015 dp I. .005 TABLE 11 Analysis of Variance of Repression - Sensitization Scores Source df MS F Grade School Class (A) 1 8.08 .00 Students' Major Area (B) 1 1825.09 8.33° A x B 1 111111.211 b.58b Error 78 218.99 °p I. .01 bp ( .025 -38— lower on the R-S scale than experimental students. On the other hand, there was also a significant interaction effect between level of graduate school education and major eras as Table 4 shows. Individual tests of differences between means showed that Hypothesis Ia was completely rejected. Beginning experimentalissts (D were more field indenendent than beginning clinicians (t=1.2 ; p ‘6 C “N ,4, * s O 0 ‘- 5. gfiélgfifig‘ :0 Q a Clinical 5:04, \ $13 [2" StUdentS 145* \‘ '2 (‘5 1/ Wm. Wm. MM. 92%”. Level of Graduate Student Group Level of Graduate Student Group Comparison of Mean Scores of Fig. 1. Comparison of Experimental and Clinical Students Mean Scores of Experimental from First to Fourth Year Level on I-E and Clinical Students from First to Fourth Year Level on FD-FI —43-4# TABLE 5 Predicted and Actual Position of the Mean Score for hach Graduate Student Group on Each Test Relative to the Norm Group Means Graduate Student Groups Be innin Advanced Advanced *t 3% $22238 Exgerimegtal Clinical Experimental Actual Fred. M A°§Fal Pred.M A°§Fal Fred. M M Pred.M Actual M $1 M-H M ' H M-H H M-H H1 g -E M-L M-L M-L M-L L L M L -S MAH L H M M L M-H M- Note — H1 := 2 SD above the mean of the respective norm group H = 1 SD above the mean of the respective norm group M-H = between the mean of the norm group and H M = at the mean of the respective norm group M-L = between the mean of the norm group and L L = lSD below the mean of the respective norm group Note - see Table l for M and SD of each group including norm group Note - A score was considered M-H or M-L if a test for the difference between means showed it to be significantly different from the mean or the score 1 SD from its respective norm group mean. -u5- categories lower than predicted on the 3-8 tact and are also not in the predicted position relative to the other groups. Therefore, each graduate student group has a pattern of mean scores, at least on two of the three dime‘nsions, that closely apsroximates those scores that would be predicted fro; the theory. -45- categories lower than predicted on the 3-3 test and are also not in the predicted position relative to the other groups. Therefore, each graduate student group has a pattern of mean scores, at least on two of the three dime nsions, that closely aerOXimates those scores that would be predicted frog the theory. -ue- CHAPTER v DISCUSSION Differences in Personality The present study gives only qualified support to Bordin, et al's., (1963) contention that clinicians and experimentalists manifest personality differences and that these personality differences are expressed by the type of occupation they choose. The results were somewhat equivocal since beginning clinicians were not significantly different from beginning experimentalists on the field-dependence-independence and internalization- externalizations dimensions. The only test on which beginning_ clinicians and experimentalists were significantly different was the repression-sensitization scale. Nevertheless, this study does not prove that clinicians and experimentalists have similar personality characteristics. It does indicate that clinicians and experimentaiists were not different on two of the three personality variables measured in this investigation at one point during their first year of graduate school. First year clinicians were significantly lower on the R-S scale than beginning experimentalists. This is certainly an indication that the two beginning groups are different on at least one personality trait that may stem from earlier experiences and may have had an influence on or be the result of the choice of their respective major areas. The differences on the FD-FI and I-E scales for the two beginning groups were not statistically significant, though they were in the predicted direction. Further, the samples of beginning _h7- , . students were small. one speculates that if the proportions presently founc were maintained in sarples of only ten more subjects in each, the differences would have been significant on the FQ-hl and 1-3 tests. Finally, the results fit the theory presented in this study very closely in terns of differ- ences between groups and in trends over time. And each one of the measurement scales appears to have bran extended near to its upper or lower ceiling and the author doubts that more extreme differences in absolute scale points, maintaining the trend of scores, could have been obtained. ror exanple, the mean scores for both groues of clinicians on the 1-3 scale were ery near the lower linit of neasureuent for that test. It might be that clinicians are gore internalized than their scores on the I-n test indicated, but the range of the test simply might not be great enough to neasurc that anount of internalization. The sane possibility exists for the here extreme mean scores on the 3-5 and ED-EI scales as well. Another factor that could have been res onsible for the lack of significant differences between beginning grougs on the FD-FI and 1-3 diuensions was the fact that most of the subjects in the beginning groups were tested near the end of their first year of graduate school. The first year of graduate school is dominated by enéhasis on didactic teaching of theory, research methodology, azd statistics, goth for clinicians and exaerimentalists. Therefore, since ex eriences during graduate school have been found to be a potent force later in their careers, it might also he that clinicians and excerinentalists -48- are drawn closer together during their first year as manifested by their :erfornance on the measures used in this study. Another factor to be considered is that there ’s no objective evidence relating the instrueeits used in this study to any of Bordin's dimensions. The only study carried out relating Eordin's dimensions to a personality test was Segal's (1961) investigation in which he used the Rorschach test. The scales uscd in the present study are sore linitod in their 0 scooe. Unlike the Rorschach test which atten;ts to use ure 1’ the whole oersnnality, the tests used in this study are objective and cognitive tests LhiCh do not measure late t personality characteristics. rurthor, the method of moasurencnt on Bordin's dimensions and on our three continua are v;ry different; the forner requires an observer to rate an occuvation in terns of the dimensions, whereas th? latter deqauds a subject to answer questions about himself and the world. Thus the neasurecents used in this research are very different from any utilized by bordin. It is thus possible that the bi-poler variables do not reasure the sane personality traits as described by Bordin, et al., (1963). The present investigation would not necessarily invalidate Bordin's dimensions and theory. If tersons do not enter the various fields of psychology 5 because of their different needs 0 and motivating personality characteristics, it would follow that nost individuals who enter graduate school in psychology have very similar person- ality traits and needs. Bordin (1966) theorizes that all psychologists share equal amounts of the element of interperconal curiosity and it nay be that they are alike in many other -u9_ personality Characteristics and motivations as well. o‘uQvort- ing this View is the knowledge that beginning graduate students at Mich gen State University in clinical and —Xoerimental psychology have a1pro ’mctely the sace IQ, achievement scores, and Grade Point Average. It may be Eat all persois who enter psychology for are *ate study are interested in Knowing about people and in helping peoole. rut it is only after entering graduate school that an lflllel ‘1‘al finds out how to study and cnan ge huran behavior. It is at this :oint and thereafter that the individual's peers an; professors train him and have a doninant effect on the ty'e of work thvt he does. All of these influen e-s then would gradually change his method of p. some of his personality characteristics a” expressiz.3 these characteristics. But it may also be that even advanced students in psychology have not cha nged in their pers.on3lity characteristics, rather that they have learned different we aI s o satisfying the ease needs. For example, behavior therapists seen t3 be mainly experimentally oriented {sycholog is mt who are also intcrgs ted in helping pecule. rheir main difference fro: sore traditional theraéists appears to be tiet they are more i itcre ted in satisfying their nurturant needs by the use of objective and scientifically proven heories and techniques. prerimental psychologists seen able to defer their needs for nurtura ce more than practicing clinicians. Their need to nurture eight be exeressed in their intzera ctions with their colleagues and evidence supeortins this appears to be the frequency of multiple author and teen publication and research. Of course, this still leaves us with th; problea of any 1 (‘0 individuals choose to model themselves sitzr an intuition clinician or an objective researcher. Is it just chance that leads one p rso: t» be 2 ts ratiet aau agoth-r a pure scientist? 1 Could it be that there are many different types or environuental, social, and nersonelity factors that interact to Wroduce the typical clinician or researcher, so that any one variable or kind of variable does not produce enough of the variance to allow prediction? There is one aspect that the present study hints at which needs to be studied in more detail. That is the question of whether there are nereonality nredispositions. For exan;le, - Bordin (1966) states that clinicians can be alienated b; an undue emphasis on doubt in their ear ier graduate training. Another thread of evidence is that no matter what type training program they were in most clinicians do not carry out research. Could it be then that there are certain personality character- 4.4 ma her until 1,. istics that manifest thenselves in a Very liniter a certain type of training and exnerience allows then to be .- expreesed? Thus the person who has cersonality traits that credisoose him to do the work of a therapist, who is trained as a researcher, may do neither job very well as Lorain implied. This would tean that a person who was prediszoscd strongly one way or the other would be vrry unlikely to change to the opposite type of occupation no matter wnat type or training he was given. -50- multiple author and teen publication and research. Of course, this still leaves us with th; problen of why individuals choose to model themselves after an intuitionel clinician or an objective researcher. Is it just chance that leads one person to be a tn>rapist and anoth r a pure sc entist? Could it be that there are many different types of environsental, social, and oersonality factors that interact to broduce the typical clinician or researcher, so that any one variable or kind of variable does not produce enough of the variance to allow prediction? There is one aspect that the p es nt study hints at which needs to be studied in more detail. That is the question of whether there are personality predispositions. For exanole, Bordin (1966) states that clinicians can be alierated by an undue euphesis on doubt in their earlier graduate training. Another thread of evidence is that no matter what type training program they were in most clinicians do not carry out research. Could it be then that there are certain personality character- istics that manifest thenselves in a very linited manner until a certain type of training and exnerience allows then to be :1 expressed? Thus the per.on who has personality traits that t credisoose his to do the work of a therapist, who is trained as a researcher, may do neither job very well as bordin implied. This would mean that a person who was predisposed strongly one way or the other would be very unlikely to change to the opposite type of occupation no hatter wnat type or training he was given. -51- Differences in Exoerience The results of the present study show that beginning clinicians and experimentalists do not attain signiiicant differences on the bD-sI and I-i scales, but that advanced clinicians and experimentalists are significantly different on those tests. Therefore, these findings anpear to support Shaffer's (1953) theory that the crucial factors in differences between psychologists, sone of whom are objective and more interested in research and others who are intuitive and inter- ested in professional practice, are the persons whom they choose to model themselves after, the type graduate training they receive, and the work they engage in during their pro- fessional life. The analyses con aring advanced students to beginning students, which are then broken down into individual comparisons of advanced and beginning students in each field, offer more support for t.e assumption that the selective factors and eXperiences in each field during graduate school are the main forces tnat cause differences between clinicians and experi- mentalist's personality. It was found that advanced eXperimentalists were significantly more field independent than beginning experimentalists, that advanced clinicianc approached signifi- cance in being more field independent than beginning clinicians, and that advanced exnerimentalists had scores significantly lower on the reprrssion-sensitization scale than beginning o): FCI‘l zliez.t3ll sts . Honsv:r, it lvES not only absLlute differences between advanced a d ocriiuir: qroups that sunoorted the theory that experiences and selective factors are of paramount importance in the differences in personality variables between clinicians ud researcher; but it was also the direction of scores fron 93 be 5L} M M] lg to advanced levels that sup orted that idea and the (’1‘ id a the the forces are selective or different on each field (0 The direction of scores on the field dependence-independence scale were toward higher 31 for both advanced clinicians and researchers as predicted; nevertheless, clinicians' scores rose more slowly than excerimentalists' scores and their rl scores at the advanced level were only a.oout even with be5in- hing experimentalists. Thus, whatever the exceriehtial and selective factors are during graduate SChODl, thw) e that affect exoerimehtalists oncear to cause a relatively greater increase 01 BI scores for researchers than for clinicians as predicted. This supports the idea that ex eriences and selective factors are di ffer snt for clinicians and experi- ientalists, or at least that they are sore intehse for experi- nentali ts than for clinicians if thqy are similar. fhe results of the re pre sion-se: sitizaticn scale are strong 1221 support of the above contention. The factors that affect excerineatalists asparehtly cause a significant drop in 5-3 scores fr01 beet: n ing to advanced levels; whereas 3, there is no change in clinicians' scores from beginning to ad anced levels. But it is the intern eliza tion-ext; rrzali sation dinehsion that gives strrirg cst suoport to the supposition that exueri- ences are different for clinicians and cxgorinehtalists and cause diiforeit types of personality change. chn though neither adVaxced clinicLa-s air Lav: (ed ci,~ri;u t lists were significantly different from beginning students in each of those areas, the trend of charge was in diverging directions so that advanced clinicians were highly more internalized than advanced eXEerimentalists. That would appear to give strung sucport to the hypothesis that the influences on the person- ality of clinicians are often differsrt from those on exocri- mentalists. FIELD DEESEDEACE - FILLD IHDJFiflDE CE AdVanced clinicians scored lower on El than advanced experimentalists, as predicted. In line with the definition of the test this means that eXperimentalists are able to separate details from a complex background better than clinicians. They should be better able to analyze, articulate, a;d structure experience according to witkin (1965). The present finding fits with the activities exnectcd from the researcher. The research psychologist has to filter nary ideas and bits of evidence from widely varied sources in order to devise and design his research. He has to be objective and separate himself fron persotal Edd e otional consiJeratlom: a. uen as ocs:ible. H Cu I- .ust aualyze an" synthes 2e searingly extraneous ence in order to code up with testable hypotnCSes )1. bits Oi evia and tieories fron the results of his studies. He is constantly curiousand constantly unsure that anything is ex:lained or carried out correctly enough. -54- The finding that advanced students score sianificantly higher on F1 than beginning students also fits the predictions. There are four possible interpretations of results: (a) graduate school experiences cause a rise in PI scores for a majority of clinical ard experimental students; (b) students with lower FD—FI scores drop out of graduate school; (c) the samples were not comparable; (d) some combination of the stove possibilities. witkin (1?65) and Gardner, et a1. (1960) naintain that FD-FI scores are stable with increasing age, experience, and under many different circumstances. Thus, the research seems to contradict the first possibilty. However, there has been no research on the effects of long tern scecific training on FD-FI scores. Graduate school exderience does aioear to be directed twoard this type of activity which would train a student to analyze and articulate his experiences more fully and correctly for both clinicians and experimentalists, although the uses which the different areas would rake of these analyses would be different. Since that is the case the first possibility must be strongly cunsLdered until further research either proves or disproves it. The second possibility should be considered Very serio-ely. There is a large dropout rate from graduate school in psychology at M.S.U. and other similar schools in the country. _Ahd, since FJ-rl supnosrdly relates not only to ion-verbal intelligence, but also to various_persorality traits it is conceivable that those students with lower HI scores (exoeciallv along with other deviant traits) are the ones who terd to droo out or be dropped from graduate SCHDJl. The student whose oer cation -55.. and coanitive style is not well articulated would undoubtedly have difficulty in carrying out the various activities e;xuec cte' of his in graduate school. Ihe person with a global cognitive style whose sense of se*arate identity was poorly developed add who tended to use repressing deiorscs would also have troubles in the clinical area (Allen, 1967; genichel, 1945; and fiogers, 1i51) and in eXperinental Lsycholoay. The third alternative, that the b =’dnin~ and adVaoced groups ale not conp a iblc, does not a :ear to be as likely as the first two interpretations, but still is conceivable. test scoresmacadenic achievenent of beginning students is all htly higher tn 3:: those of the advanced students when they entered graduate school, but this does uCt apgear to have affected tn; EL-xI ewe ile which is highly related to intellectual ability. Ali none or the other selection critsris have bTVL chniged CV7? the ‘ast four years so that all known variables seem comoarable. Thus this interpretation looks to be the least tenable, es ecielly since the scores of the beginning students fit the theory as well as they do. However, the only may to rule out this nos s1 bilty is by a longitudiral study that follows the same suqucts throughout their graduate career. Possibility (d), that scie Cuiblu tion of the above three alternatives has occured, cannot be evaluated since none of the other alternatives have 0' en tested and studied individually. but it should be considered in any future study that SCERS to solve this issue and possibly seVeral factors could be tested in the same study: The results for the retrcssiOh-sensitizatiOh dimension, in which siyhificart differences between clinicians asd exocrine talists, but in the o: osite direction from those tre- dicted were found, were somewhat unexpected. An examination of the significant interaction effect ihdicates that beginning experi- mentalists have an observed mean score eight yoints higher than expected on the 3-8 scale. Ihereiore, each of the otler three groups except beginnih§ experimentclists shows lower scores on the 8-8 scale than the horn group. Since it seems h ghly unlikely that nearly all graduate students in psychology at M.S.U. (6% of 62) are re resscrs, some other explegetiohs rust be found for the resalts. iwo explanations a pear most likely to have some Validity: (a) graduate students answered the questions in a socielly desir- able manner (b) the 8-8 scele neesures adjustment (d) - hel- edjustmeht (s). (a) Since the HMPI, the parent cale of the 3-3 test, is .0 highly and positively related to scv rel mersures of social desirability (Edwerds, 1953; Crorhe sad farlowe, 1360; Henley, 1961; and Boe chi Roger, 1966 , it is logical to exoect that the 3-3 scale would also be related to the tendency to answer true-false cuestiOhs in a socially desirable manner. However, Bernhardson (1967), Eyrhe (1964), and Silber and Greestein (1964) found siqhificaht :egetive correlations with the 3-8 -57.. (1966) and Wilcox and Krasnoff (1967) found that various ”ssures can ini‘Lue 11cc test taking attitude H r’ types of reality p and increase or decrease a s.criam in a socially desirable direction.x Graduate students in psycholoiy are a highly so- yhiSCiCatEd group in the interpretation and taking of tests. -4 .—J ‘fhey probably would not want to seem atnornal or 1aladjusted in the eyes of a fellow student and any professors :ho might see the result.. Ih2y nght feel that they had a stake is appearing well adjusted a ;.\1 their knowledge 01 the thI would easily allow this to occur. It is di ficult to eiuloia why 1irst year clinicians should show so iuch more of a tendenc; to answer the ques- tions on the 8-8 scale in a socially desirable ma nor than beginnin~ researchers. in both other scales they were much closer together in their scores and o'efzei to CJJC from the same pogulation. However, it could be tiat beginning clinicians would feel strongly thgt they he vc to look sell adjusted, whereas beginning c’X9 r:.n- talists would not feel L" 2 that a relatively poorer score would affect their graduate school career. In as much as most of the beginning students were hear the end of their first 3car it Iould also seem like- ly that many of the clinicians would have had sons exocricnce with the NEPI which the eroe rim ntalists would not have had. (0 They then would be able to give a bett r impression oi them selves than beginning researchers. However, both Silber and Grebstein (1964) and hoe and KO an (1966) discovered that the progortion or v”11:“cc carumc n ,_. to the two Cir ensio.s of 3-5 and SJ feil within the ragga oi 10 to 20%. There is son rfaeon to believe thw: xuch more a of the variance can be attributed to social desirability (Boe, aruilKogan, 1966), but even so there is orobably at le‘st one othor'jmjor factor that contributes 93 large anouit of the var- iance. (b) The second exolanation is that the R-S scale measures ziijustment (R) é Taladjustment (5). The definition of well adjusted would be thwt the behavior patterns which are COfiflOH in a group may come to be deemed desirable; hence itens reflecting such traits would validly be endorsed more fre- quently (Meeargee, 1966). Of course, whether persons who en- dorse these items actually show then more often in behavior is still a question, but there has been a wealth of research evidence to suvport the idea thtt the 3-8 scale neasures en- dorsement of adjustment items as well as behavioral adjustment. Ullnahn (1962) found that neuro-psychiatric Datiehts are significantly more sensitizing than undergraduates; sensiti- zers respond more deviantly to Goueh's Adjective Check_List than do repress-rs (Bvrne, 1961; Lucky and Grieg, 1964); Sensitizers have a greater discrenancy between self and ideal than repressors (Brrne, 1961; hvrnc, et al., 1963) sensiti- U. zers are more anxious than ropressors on 7-MAPI scales (Joy, 1263); Sensitizers resoond to sexual stimuli with acre anxiety and positive and negative affect than do reoressors (syrne and Sheffield, 1965); and Tenpone and Lanb (1967) found a linear relationship between the 3-8 scale and other ncasu es of adjustment. Only two studies support a curvilinear hyoothesis for the 8-3 scale (Ullran, 1162; Lonoht, 1365). -59- According to this int roretation beginning experimental- ists would be the least well adjusted of the groups. However, since the mean score of beginning researchers is only slightly lower than the seen of the norm group of college frec men and sophomores, it is assumed that they are at least as well ad- justed as the average college student. Part of the explana- tion of the relatively high mean score for beginning experi- mentalists is that there are a few individuals who have very high R-S scores. It would occur by chance that there are a few individuals who are poorly adjusted which raises the mean score of the whole group inordinately. The acceptance of an adjustment and conforuity descrip- tion of the 3-8 scale does not detract fron the findings of this study. Both advanced clinicians and experiuentalists pi would be expected to be very well a justed ani highly con- forming. Both groufis have learned what is expected of them and have become fairly comfortable in their Jobs or they would not have survived to near the completion of graduate school. It is interesting that clinicians show no change in conformity and adjustnent from beginning to advanced level, but that experimentalists change to the point where their score: are the same as clinicians. Could it be that graduate school turns ‘ people into absolute c afornists or do the low scores repre- O sent optiual adjustment'to life? Actually the answer could involve both explanations. People need to comfort to their societids laws and mores. The clinician must behave and apgear well adjusted because that is what is expected of his by his clients and colleagues. He may anpear ecc ‘0- (i) ntric in some areas -60- of living but if this becomes too visible the effect on his clients may be to make him ineffective. The Same exolana- tion holds for researchers as well. The researcher is en- pected to spend much of his tine doing research. is has learned to conforn to the extrenely cc alex rules of scienti- fic research ard writing. So further r search is needed to explain the nature and extent of the conformity and adjust- ment of graduate students in psychology. 11313241 “LII 2:411‘1 v'5'u “443.1. ;:L"-&ILLI ZpfiTI C11 ihe rESults on the 1-3 test also su port the hypotheses. Advanced clinicians were significantly more internalized than advanced experimentalists. Creyo (1966) found that inter- ‘\ .102? D nslization-externali:ation is en integratinf factor ) ps heleeic al differentiation and defense type. Ho discov; -red that there were sev are al different patterns of i: t-trated personelity and behavior that could be descriied by the three continua. Thus all of the mean patterns described in the present study are of integrated people, as defined by Crogo, TrPthT in different ways. For example, i . who carry out their int; the clinician is highly diiiercgtiated and Fl, though not as high as the experinentelist. H: highly structures his eXperience and has a strong sense of his separate identity. but his curiosity and analysishdirected toward hinself and through his self to others. He is tau ht thrvughout life that he must know hir.“lI in orier to know others, that he must control his own needs and behaviors in order to control the needs and -61- ~— behaviors of others. Internalization of reinforcesent appears to be a necessary foreruener of the use of one's feelings in dealing with other persons. Therefore, internalization- externalization is a dimension through ia'hich ty';e o 'o-~r':.-:pti‘.::-, cognitive style, and defense form is focused and integrated into behavior. The trend of changes between beginning and advanced students in both areas is extremely important. both beginning groups of students are significantly lower than tn? norn group 1nean and then the scores diverse for the mean scores for advanced student. Advanced experimentalists have approximately the same mean score as the norm groun and advanced clinicians have an even lower mean score than the two beginning groups. The sane possibilities for explaining the changes in scores from beginning to advanced students exist for IE scores as for FD-FI scores. The theory predicts that experimentalists should become more externalized with experience and then clinicians should become more internalized with exuerience. That is exactly what did happen. The clinician learns to depend on hinself in therapy and @1833081f. *At first he is closely supervised in all clinical activities, but as he gains more experience he is allowed more and more on his own. The success or failure of his cases, diagnosis, and suggestions deiends more often on his ability to convince his clients to follow his advice and believe in him to help them. As Begers (1955) states, n‘\ -62- "It is the fact that the therarist has let himself float in this stream or excerience Of life previously, and found it rewarding, that makes him each time less fear- ful of taking the plunge. It is my confidence that makes it easier for the client to embark also, a little hit at a time." ‘ The exoerimentalist learns researcn desifin, statistics, learns to be (1" and many ways of controlling for error. H objective and doubting (Bocdin, 1966) about every detail of his resharch. No matter how often he feels he has carried out tne perfect exteri‘ent his colleagues will resind him of details that he has missed or forrotten to control. Thus he becomes better at controlling the environment, but the very 1 nature of the scientific method also makes him more ~nd more aware of his own fallicility. fhe researcher criticizes the therapist for beconing too subjective and involved and having no check on his flaws and imperfections (nogers, 1955), whereas the researcher attenpts to remove hinsslf as much as possible from his subjective self in order to find as many flaws as possible. The probability that clinicians with relatively high I-E scores drop out_of school or change fields and that excerimentalists with low I-d scores also droo out must be sopraised. That interoretation as an exalagation for the higher I-E scores of advanced researchers and the lower I-L scores of advanced clinicians does not seen to have much power. It might occur in that way but it would have to be part of a v.ry complex crocess. It is bossible that a clinician with high I-E scores in a school thst stresses intuition and introspection would find himself 2311:: uncomfortable and 51‘ out of place. The same thing could hapoen to n or erimentalist -62- 'witkllow I-E scores wha was in a school oriented only toward cibjectivity and pure science. Howev r, it would anpear that cyther factors would need to be in operation rath.r than Just tin: locus of reinforcement being integrated poorly with the prevailing atmosphere of the school or the field. So thst ‘this interiretstion, by itself, does not seen to sxylein tge :results on the I-E scale. EgTTERTS or 3351 ecc;ss The pattern of mean scores for each group fits into whet Crego (1366) calls "an integrated tattern of adjustment.” The mean scores for each grouo on eacn ‘sriable, exce t for ‘beginning clinical 01 Ffl-EI and advanced experimen'al on 1-5 are significantly different from the average scores for college students. This is strong evicence that all groups of psycholo- gists manif;st different personality characteristics than the aVerage college population. It should then be possible to use the actual cattern of mean scores for each group in oredicting the interest, satisfaction, and success of an individual in clinical or experimental psychology. This type of predictive- pattern has often showed great erorise, but few results (for example, Wechslsr's patterns using the wAIS). However, if it is able to stimulate further research in this arze it will be worthwhile. ' ) 1_l,,'1') D"‘_";",\b':>;"i-T J. LJLLJ- email. -‘.'..’.1-—JA..J.";.~.L'\IL.L The present study has iiportant implicatiors for further research and practice in the selection and training of graduate (D students in psychology. mh conclusion that advenced clinical and experimental psycholo ists are differcnt is the persanality continua studied has been usheld. However, an important study that should be carried out is a longitudinal inv stiaation of the variables inepected in this study to centrol for non comparable cro s sectional samples. Each subject could then be studied sore carefully and it might be possible to identify more precisely some of the influences that cause change in individuals and within groups. A research effort that ties differences between clinicians and experimentalists at the beginning level to earlier isfluences that flight cause those differences would appear worthwhile. How much does undergraduate training and peer group relation- ships in collese have to do with the specific selection of a field in graduate school? Do undergraduate experiences affect the specific ariablss looked at in tie curr nt study? How do basic needs and sta es, in the analytic sense, make an influence on these later interests and motivations? Much of this type of research would have to be retrospective, but it might also be possible to look at undergraduate majors in psychology and com are ties with graduate students which would extend the immediate measurement of personality character- istics and make some of the unreliable retrospective work unnecessary. It might be possible to take undergraduates and graduates in psychology and test then with the instruments used in this study and then make predictions about the fields they would enter. For example, the person wno had a low I-a score would not necessarily go into clinical psychology, but he would be more likely to go into a field where he was -55- nflatively isds“$sdent and N11 ch had a lot 01 _-ntcr9c ion with and influence ovwr oth r poodle. Further r search snould exssire more clusxly the trend and types of changes thzt take place in aradustv students in psychology. It eens uxlil rely that the traini;g in graduate school will be able to make a person who is intvrested in being a practitioner, whose persorslity Cher ct ristics are similar to tie applied psychologist, add WE c has been rein- forced most of his life for helping people into a sure scientist, or vice versa. This is es ecisllv tru e when we are not sure what types of trsihisp Have the host effect on how a student picks a persoh to model hi self after. The present stuiy shows :3 ‘that the treads pre 3: t in beWi hihg students continue and ihcrease is streafith to the end of graduate school. It does not Show whether there were indi viduals who reversed their trends and why they would ‘ave d;:c sc. Another quest10¢ that sends investigation centers on research into the meaning of the dimensions studied. Are clinical psychologists who have thy advanced clinical pattern, as discovered in this study, the best diegnosticians or therapists? Are those students with the awlv p:zced exgeritEhtgl patte rh the best scientists? Of course, a study such as the one a proposed would require some kind 0: hcdsures of outcoue, which are a thorny problem in their own right. ”his particular problem we.s what defeated the Kellv and~kiske (1951) study, but a study that is based or theoretical pri ciples with research backing it up and showing differences between clinician and experimentalists 89628 Lora licely to find relationships -55- rémfiivelv indeoehdeht and which had a lot of interaction with sod influence oVer other peoole. Further research should ezshihe wore closely the trend e.hd types of Cheeses th t tel» is place L yrsouete students in psychology. It seems unlikely that the training in graduate school will be able to make a person who is interested in being a practitioner, whose oersorelity characteristics are Similar to the applied psychologist, ago who has bees rein- forced most of his life for hcloing people into a sure scientist, or vice versa. This is es: ecielly true when we are not sure what types of training have the most effect on how a stuflent piers a person to n‘del himself after. The present stufiy shows I) 0 that the trend s pre»ent ih bc*idhihv students continue and f ihcrease in strength to the end of graduate school. It does not show whether there were individuals who reversed the r trends and why tfley would have done sc. Another QUCSthL that h:.cis inves »~tio centers on r seerch into the meanir‘ I of the dimensions studied. Are clinical psych0103i ists who have tha advanced clinical pattern, as discovered in this study, the best disgnosticiohs or therapists? Are those students with the adVehced ergerihehtal pattern the best scientists? Of course, a stuiy suci es the one oroposed would require some kind of measures of outcome, which are a thorny problem in their own right. This particular problem was whe t defeat ed the Kellv and-Fiske (1951) study, but a study that is based on theoretical prircioles with re search baCKlr* it uo ant showing diIW reWic . between clinicians and exosrimehtelists 85838 more likely to find relationships -55- with crit ria than a hit and miss exploratory study. How do graduate schools differ in their selection and training of graduate etudents in the different areas of psychology? If the nresent study were carried out at another graduate school that emphasizes research or traching or diag- nostics, :ould the results have been different? This is an essential study but one that has never been carried nut. The Kelly and Fiske study nentionéd that.there were wide differences but made no attempt to study that part of the problem. Are the bi-polar Variables used in this study actually related to Eordin's dimensions? Are there other variables that need to be added to or used in olace of the nresert ones? Could better scales or instruments be developed that are more refined zith higher and lower ceilinas? It was the author's Opinion that many of the questions in each of the scales did not get at what he was theoretically interested in. Possibly a configursl or pattern analytic model would help in the delineation of questions that are most nertinent for describing each grouping. Also variables such as an ennathy scale might be Very valuable in differentiating the two Jain groups used in the present research. ‘I There is a great deal that needs to be done in the selection and training of graduate students in all a ass of psychology. It appears that we need t3 investigate ourselves as well as others in order to make psychology a science and DraCti Ce 0 -67- CAAPTEB VI 7“ I .3 J klj-KRY The main function of the preseht study was CO deternine whether Bordin's theoretical aseuaption ("that diffgren occupations afford differing opoortunities for the expression of impulses, for the utilization of defenses, and for organizing one's dealings with the world; and that occupational groups do vary significantly from one another in immortant personality characteristics") applies to clinical and eXperirental psycholoyists. Taa sec~ni function was to examine whether training during graduate school and/or experience prior to admission to graduate school are responsible for o'rsunality differences is cliniCal and ex criiental psycho- lOgists. The third function of this study was to investigate the effect of experience on the personality of graduate students in psychology irresoective of field. ”he fourth function of the study was to observe and predict the patterning of graduate student groups on each scale studied in comparison to undergraduate norm groups for each variable. To assess personality differences and changes on the sane personality characteristics during graduate school, 82 sale graduate students at Kichigan State University in clinical and experimental psychology at beginning (first year) and advanced (third and fourth year) levels coepleted three persozality scales. ”1e tests used were Mitkin‘s Hidden Fi urea Test, a measure of field dependence - indenendence (FD-El), Hotter's Internalization - Externalization Scale, a measure of eXpectancy regarding locus of reinfo: rcenent (E-I), and Lyrne's revised Rep rtssion - Se.sitiviedtiO1 Scale, as a neasure of defense node ). Su ming over level of graduate school education, it was (11- (0 found that clinicans were Sigi-ficartl more field dependent, internalized, and repressed than exnerinextelists. The results on the repression - sensitization dim;nsion were significant in the opnosite direction frag that orc-ictci. Exocrience prior to graduntw school educati1i i1es not 2 weer rssocnsitle for the purse slity iiffsrd ces i1 clinical avd oxpe n1ental ps ycho- logists since only on the renression - sensitization dimension were '1 ‘ beginning clinicians sifinificahtly oi ferent (clinicians were more repressed that. oeuLniinb experimentslists). on the other hand, experience and selection factors during graduate school do appear to cause sdvanced clinicians to be Significaxtly more internalized and field dependent than edVaned c‘xp rizn entslists. Su1m Eng OW r field of specie ”liz t101, adVanced graduate students were significantly more field indepenient t1en bigin::1ing students. Advanced clinical students showed no significant differences from beginning clinics students. Adenced experiment- al students though, were significantly nore field independent and repressed than beginning GXperinental students. Also, on two of the ti1ee variables (the 3-3 dimension being the exce tion) the trend of n-en scores from beginning to advanced levels increases for both clinicians and Cfilnrluvit lis;ts. ihus it does a pear tradu ate scniol in p¢“Cholfi J CSuSCS Changes in .— k that exocrience in personality, and experience in each of the two fields discussed in the presegt study affects the same pgr rsozality caaTIct ristics differentially. The results did not fully suooort Lordih's theory since bexihhiha clinicians and _xtdri“ htalists were not different on two of the three per50"ality variables. It must not be forgotten, though, that beginni nq cli hicie. :s and experirestalists are signi- ficantly different on the -3 scale, so this variable could act as a differextiating force in the selection of a major field along with other variables not stag died in this researcn. Ch the other hand, it d,es appear that eXperierce in Izrae Mu to school and more specifically in each of the two fajOT ficlcs results in important and significant personality changes. These cram; s produce Erou s of cliniciahs azd e: D“’l”c ta list s who have widely different personality characteristics by the time t11ey earzi their doctorates. The refiults Oh the 3-3 scale were opposite from those predicted. However, it does not appear that 68 of 82 graduate stu eats in psychology could he rep essors. It does apps r, from prior research as well as from the preseht study, hct the 8-8 scale is more a mea sure of social desirability and adjustment than it is a measure of repression. 5'} Further study in this area i essential. The prtsent study has shown the t clinicians and eXperincntalists at M.S.U. are different on the prs sent per mility c: aract'ristics. However, other more central charact; risti cs also need to be ass asset. he need to stufy charect~ristics tact can b» cldsalfi tlfi to important behavoral manifestatioas of clihi cia is ard ex: riwnUtalth Then we can begin to predict and select perssfls who would have the best chance of being successful 1; their graduate study aid in their later professional duties. -70- ADLlCS W. The nearihg and develOpneot of sensitivity in e troiuixg of thsraoists. Pap3r or se:ted at the Inter- tioaal Congress of Psychology, Ha: >hi; gton, D. C., Auéust, 1963. Allen, Thomas W. Effectiveness of Cou:S3lor ‘lWr inees as a function of psyc chological ope mess. Journal of Oslo eligg :sycholosv, 1967, ii, 35-40 Altrocchi, J., Parsons, C. A., Dickoff, dilda. Cha .35 in self-ideal fiiscreoarcy in repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Agpormal and Social Psycholo"¥, 1J60, 61, 67-72 sonality dimaosion. Barron, F. Complexity-simplicity as a pe r m: cholo y. 1953. _3, 163-172. Journal of Abnormal and Socialr battle, Esther 8., and Rotter, J. B. Children's feelings of personal control as related to social class 83d ethnic group. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 482-490. Eerqin, A. 3., Garfi"l'q S. L., 911d Thomoson , A. 3. The Chi ca 0 conference on clinical trainii~ and clinical psy- chology at Teacher' 3 College. Nnorican Psychologist, 1967, 2a: 307‘3160 Bernhardsou, C. Dornatism, defense mechanisms, and social desirability responding. Psvcholorical Pspor£§,1967,gg, 511-5130 Boe, 3., ard 7 e‘ao, u. S. Socia.l desirability in individual performaqce on 13 iWiPI scals s. :ritish Journal of Psychologx, 1166, 21, 161- 170 Bordin, E. S. Curiosity, coopassioo, and a ubt: the 'ileiua of the psychologist. An rica: Psgghologist, 1966, 31, 116-121. Bordin, E. S., Sachxatn‘, Barbara, and 53331, S. J. Am articulatefi framework for vocatio 3.1 devolopneut. J urasl of Counselisg Psgchology, 1963, 10, 107-117. Byrne, D. The rcoression 4 eusitizution sea 13: rationale, roliability, ani validity. Journal of Der onality, 1)61, 12 334-3u9. Eyrne, D. .3pression - sensitization as a dimension of person- ality. In B. A. ”aker (51.), Pr3;ros: i: Experixiotol Personality 3*se rch. Vol. 1 m. 1.: Academic Press, 1963. Pp. 169-220. -71- Byrne, D., Larry J., m1 ~elsoh, D. £31atioh of the revised repression - so:s;tization scale to n Jasuxcs of self-descrip- tion. Pstcholfirical Re orts, 1563,13, 323-334. byrue, D., Golightly, Carol, aid ohcfficld, J. rhe ro~r SSlOn - sau°:t*~atiol scale as a measure of adjustmeit: re lrtionship th th CPI. Journa of ,“Lth‘Z; 1:"1h-l;‘1 1265, 2 , :i 586 -589. Cohen, J. Chaace, Lkill1 sci Luck. Baltimore: Penguia Books, 1260 Crs~o, C. A., Jr. A fattcrh a alytic ap'ro: ch to th :casure of “odes of excrcssioh of ps3ciiolo 108.1 difioréstiation. Uo\uolished doctoral dissertation, michigao State Univcrsity, 1Q66 Crowns, D. P., and narlowe, D. E. A no: sea a of social desir- ability indepesdcnt of psrc hope thcley. JDUTCCl of Con- sultih3_Psycholo;3, 1960, 20, 347-353. Davisoc, L. A. Adaptation to a threatening stimulus. Unpublished doctora dissertation, University or C3 lif Ior -is , 1963. Edwards, A. L. THC relati {ship between the judaed desirability of a trait and the probaiility that the trait kill be ehdorsed. Journal of Apfilied Psvchology, 1953, 32, 90-93. Epstein, L. The rvlatio shin of 03 rte in aspects of the body irafc '3 the perception of thc upri_ht. UnpubliShed doctoral dissertatio:, few York University, 1957. Feather, N. T. Subjective probability and decision under crtaihty. Es chological Riview, 125), 66, 150-164. Fenichcl, O. The 6 “C333 alytic theor 3 of (ourosig. N. Y.: '1‘”. TI'Jo iJ’OI‘t'Jfl 8.1-1 COO, 191415. Galinsky, M. D. Par of clinicalP ps:3 Counselin" ‘ r:a.lity dev013\ri"t and vocational choice czholo: i: .rts and physicists. Journal o£ (; C ..... cholo;;, 13 62, 2, 239-305. cardaer, R. H., Jacksox, D. 3., and Kessicx, S. J. Personalit3 organization in COL? ‘itive cortrnls add intellectual abilities. Psychological Is su._, 1960, Z, Socojraph Ho. 8 Garfield, S. L. Clinical ""cnolo"3 and the scarcn for ideatity. Afiericao PsycholOaist, 136/, g1, )‘-{ Ginzbsrg, 3., Cinsburg, S. w., “xelrad, 3., and fi:r' a, J. L. Occuratitual Choice: 9: avornach to a 39,0ral theorz. Columoia UAiVii Isity grass , 1951. ” Y.. *1 K. O Goldberg, L. 3. Personality developuewt and voczational choice: a study of th rapists, acaxc;iciahs, BLQ a} IIIDtIatcrc in clih;cal psycholo~y. Unpublished Loctoral dsi ertati)o, Universitf of .ichi an, 1958. -79.. L. 324dgnc; and intellectual Goodenough, D. 3., & K5r3, E. A. Licld d a1 éocial -3.LJ‘)13 u, fugctioning. J\‘5i'l _Qiu01cf Ll 1961, Q, 241‘2 2WD. 5}? (J Goodnow, Jacqu 11Ue J., 331 Postman, L. Probability leawning in a pro 13 s olvin3 situCtion. Jvurnal of typprijcntsl Psycholgmv, 1255, u§, 16- Gossctt, J. T. An :xper Ni 3nt31 d If; j“I‘:'.‘S Si 0:; pI‘OfJCI‘. L' l 1U. 011‘ University of Ark33133s, 1964 nons str3tion of Freudian nei doctora dissertation, U30 Gottesman, L. E. The r l3ti:nship of COg 1i.tive v-riobl s to therapeutic ability 3;d training of client ce.t3r3d tncrapisus. Journal of Counseliz; quchology, 1961, 25, 119-125. Hanlcy, C. Social desirability and ruspo 1183 bias in the hull. Journal of Consulting rsychclogx, laol, 2”, 13-20. ~~ .1 _‘ _ as 3. “Olfiud (33.) 3 Harrison, R. Thematic apgerce cotive methods. In ”110.9. ”-J-iilll,1965o D Handoook of Cli 1 Psychology. 3. Y.: Kc C.“ IOCh, E. L., H053, A. 0., and dinder, C. L. Confersic: on Cthe Wmcontiv of clinic3l psychologists. Ancricén -5 wlogist, 19C6, 21, 2-51. —s¢ic“, 8., 335 Nsyers, C. I. Eve.lu3.ti:n of diviiual Horns of eab3died - ii urc s acasures of :“fllrucc. Lducatioral and ngchologic3l goesure- 24,177-192. Jackson, D. W. group a. field - anent, 19 1 1’3 (.18 .- ':\l'-" LL! ll )4. James, W. 5. Internal versus external control of reinforce eat as a has ic vari3bls in 133 3133 th-.ry. L3,”,ubli nci c)ctoral dis :ertatio;, Ohio stat: University, 1957. Joy, V. L. ficpr:ssion-sensitizgtiov, personality, 33d 11 iter— pars; .31 0:33vio r. Us doctoral disccr pation, UillVa:‘31”Slt,f Of. Liliasi, 19?}. Kell, b. L., 3rd Mueller, U. J. Irpact 3Ld ch3ug3. a. Y.: Appleton - Century - Crafts, 1)66. Kelly, S. L., and Fiske, D. w. Tne_§r3diction of g rforuences in clinical p3ychology. Ann Arbor: University of michigan tress, 1951. Lazarus, R. 3., aad Alfart, Elizab 3th Short circuiting of threat by 3xneriment311y 5lt3rin5 cognitive 3p3r3isal. Jourqgl of ,1 Abnornal and Social Psychology, 1964, fig, 195-203. Levy, L. H. The skew in clinical psychologg. Aqaricun ;—>sychologist 1962, 12, 244-249. -73.. Lomont, J. F. Tho roorc to anxiety rcswonse 196 5,29 , 84-11-11 ssio u-coh‘iti7at10h digcnsion in relation 8' )urqfil 0' CO ;5L lttq Esychology, ri , A. E. Pncrcssioo-svvsitizatioo as a cvi Q.nt resooudih' Journal of Clinical is; cho- 0, ?2- -93- Lucky, A. w., 3rd varieole in _Ofl‘ 9 1964: 9r,oo, 3. I. The Livorc SD 50313: a “99°““* of adjustacnt or of dissimulation. Journal of C: "ultiov isvchrlouv, 1966, 31. 566. Kachnann, Larbara Childhood er ?ericnce and vocational choice in aw, degtistry, ago social 111k, Journal of Counseling Esycholorv, 1960, Z, 2L3—2 50. I1\) Q1 (3 0—0 5. “1? O'Connell, 1., and Patcrson, Po :y H‘morl jnd rcrr“ssioa. Journal of Existential PS"chiatry, 6L, L, 30')- 316. Ehares, E. J. P6. rcextual threshold decrements as a function of skill and chance eXpectancies. gournol of PEIEEQJOPI, 1962, 21, 379-1107 . Pollack, I. 5., and Kiev, A. bietial oric1itat10h and psycho- therapy: an expzriucntal stud; of porccrbtm o Joura9l of Nervous ffii K ztol J‘S‘”‘?£. )o3, 12K: 93:9/o Ponsrriy, D. fl. The rnrr9¢siOh-00haitizatioc dimwnsiou and reactions to stro ss. Um doctoral flissertation, University of hochistor, 1263 IJCCJCICC, f., :35 Kovscs, A. Hoxo to University of Eichigan clinical luiii and facultv. Unoublished ma uscript, University of Michigan, 1942. 313:1, (Eoulier rt tic c-uall, 1950. Rainy, V. C. (E'.) £““lfii”" in clilica :s;cr h :‘nlwvlaout “CliIIS, 1.. o: I Conference). Hoe, Anne The r""ca)l I? of 11c1nc, Bel, 23, 48-61. Strickland, JJOI hie B. The prediction of social action from a dimension of internal-external control. Journal of Social Pszpholosy. 1965. 66. 353--35:j Super. D- E. The_psxchology of car: er en introductiox to vocational development. 1. 1.: harpesr and now, 1957- Tenpone, V. J. Differential thresholds of reprogsors and sensitizers as a function of a success ard failure experience. Unpublis‘ed doctoral dissertation, Lniversity of Texas, 1962. Tenoone, V. J. and Lanb, U. Betression-secC1ti/stioi and its relation to measures of adjustment and conilict. Jouri l of Consulting Psychology, 1347, 2_, 131-135- Thurstone, L. L. A factor ial stgdy of oerceotion. Psychoeot-i monogragh Ho. 4, Univers itv of Chicago. U11111“, L. P. An empirically derived EMPI scale which measures facilitation-inhibition of recoenition of threatening stimuli. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19‘2, 18, 127-132. Ullnann, L. P. and Hcfioy holds, P. Differential yerccrtual recognition in psychiatric pati fits: erpirical findings and theoretical formulations. Pater re ad at American Psycholo- gical Association, Philadel ‘hiau au;ust, 1953 o , - n a . ¢ , ., - . 4,. . o — . ' . . . u o . . Q ~ . I I ‘ a o p ? u I ¢ n. . o O o I o v n u o I . - . n ._ - . - C t v . - ‘ .. - r o a O O o ‘ . o o .- _-...- , - ~ 0 . -7 . . , . I O V . - . - . o ' -75.. ‘hilcox 3 .nd Krasnoff, A. Influence of tact taking attitude sonality inventory scores. Jiurésl of Cwfisultinq »lcrf, 1767, 31, 138-194. rL ., Lewis, 3. 13., Hertz'aaz'1, I-‘1., I‘Jachcv-Er, K., car, P., and Warner, 3. Personality txrcugh pgrcertion. uiitkin, H. A. Dyk, R. 3., Fatvrson, H. F., Goodenough, D. 1. and Harp, S. A. Psychc10r10?1 differcqtistion. E. Y.: _ . . , "’ ”‘5‘“? hi" Jonn fillry and Sons, 1304. ’ Eiitkin, H. A. Psychological differentiation. qurnel of acgprnal Ps'cholcgy, 1965, 20, 317-332. r7 (7 ""7 7 APPENDIX A Distribution of FD - FI, I - E, and R - S Scores for 02 Male Graduate Students in Psycnology at Michigan State University FD-FI f Cum 1‘ I-E 1‘ Cum f R-S f Score Score Score 30-32 1 82 22-23 0 82 125-129 0 27-29 1 81 20-21 0 82 120-1211 0 211-28 5 80 18-19 1 82 115-119 0 21-23 8 75 18-17 1 81 110-1111 0 18-20 111 87 111-15 0 80 105-109 0 15-17 15 53 12-13 5 80 100-1011 0 12-111 13 38 10-11 8 75 95-99 0 9-11 12 25 8-9 11 87 90-911 1 8-8 9 13 8-7 18 58 85-89 0 3-5 2 u 11-5 11+ 38 80-98 0 0-2 2 2 2-3 18 2% 75-79 0 0-1 8 70-7u 0 25-09 2 ‘8'“ "‘82— 0-64 0 2 55-59 3 50-51:, 1 LLB-L19 3 1404114 2 35-39 M 30-38 7 25-29 8 20-21 17 15-19 18 10-18 9 5-9 5 0-21 2 O) N Cum f PLEASE NOTE: Appendices B-D, "Hidden Figures Test ," © 1962 by Educational Testing Service, pages 78-9”, not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at Michigan State University Library. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. WI "' ~ —~ CL-1 Chis is a test of ycur ni‘lft; Lg €111 vLL;h cm: of five single 5;,, ., Can he fuanl in a sore CCmp Al :x p1zt¢ . A? the 3: Cf each pc3e in this test 11L 1-70 s1~nle rig tres 1»: terLd A, 2, C, D, 1.; E.‘ Lenesth e. eh row of ‘iyur:s is a putje of p9.ttezn;;. Rush p;ttern_hxs a row of letters b aresth it. szieate yoxr unSHer b3 puttfnfi en X throcuh the le ter of t1 9 fi fare kthh vou find in the pattern. HOPE: There is only ewe 9? iLkar figm. rLs in each pattern, and this fi :u1e will always be rie‘lt side cy .4: exwzctl the same size as one cf Iivc lettered I‘igures. Now try these 2 cxvmples. X :- m o O m /\ 8' 6 A B C U 3 1he rim mres below show hO'J the f}. res eie included in the problems. F1 gure A is in the first prom :m are fi ms D in the second. $a. / L ,< \ :Z\ / X \J . /\ B C D b A B \ ”a / I 3-( B Your score on this test will 122 the nuznber mc.rkcd correctly minus a fraction of the number marked Szxcesrectly. 1her eforc, it will not be to your seventege to guess unless you are able to eliminate one'br-EEre of the answer choices as wrong. You will have 10 minuigs for c1ch of the two parts of this test. Each part has 2 pages. ann you Lave finished Part 1, STOP. Please do not go on to Part 2 unti ycu are asked to do so. DO NOT TURN THIS fm‘i“ U3-1. «ST"D TO DO 80. Copyright C) 1.962 by EducatioL.l $-1ting Service. All right rescr'ed. Developed under KILn Contract M-h186 78’ /'\ In no _, W $7527. - - ~ 17“ 5' ("I ' 1' ’ E. “hm“ ‘ . 1- l‘ ‘dI\ _ n h . , ' «(H Y F») _. by r #77 V j‘.“'.' ‘3- - ,. ' j , I q r . _/~ "New, 1'. ..~ '1 ‘1' ,..__... -.‘ ‘ . 4 A. f--. ID.»“\A\.: 'l) w......» -11. . ..,..-..:.,.-.-;.:Q.1. r7“ ““7 / . * // ,-’ J . \ . , / ‘\\ / _ . '1}.- A B C D . ‘ E . % W .‘ L\><1\ 1! ABCDE AB'CDE ABCDE 1 , txx \1 7° \ 6:. ‘\}‘/\// \ ‘\1\'§ \. \9/ \/ ABCDE 1130131: 113099 GO ON T0 T1??? NEXT PAGE 79 / ‘ .,-—-’ R " x."° a-Q‘ - nus-I “1... . . 1 firm “ ‘4" —--~..___,;_3 "‘”'" ":_ 1" _ _-_ __1 . ._ "“_._ '-_ ,W trmoy m _ .‘ ¢Wr_ __ - Hu- 1 L1,, " s ABCDE ‘ABCDE A B c’ D E w . A B c D E ABCDE' ABCDE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED To DO so. STOP. 3’0 ER ,’ ~-.. -»~..,-‘__j_r_k_ . vrm‘” (‘an ._ )Ernc ll Ht) ~--—---—-—— .-~ vi--.‘ v-.- “w ; A, . _ _ . __, _‘ -r w- ..._.- (”“7 H__ _;..,,fl, ___~*a ,, _: , jl‘uv-y __ I I» “74%“- m. ' . T ’ 3 . E t r A f" . I Q \ \ ABCDE ABCDE ABCDE \ / l 5N: .> 20. '37: w 2!. / Y 22. gene ‘ '1 ABCDB .4 \; l f/ x’ — 24. ‘ 25. ~—-— "DE 'ABCDB A~C GO ON TO "DIE NEXT PAGE 8/ A“ . - i X. NO xfnc a..- ~ _‘ (‘(H " xv". ' “WV" . 9" ‘1 v (,‘(N ' Y L.,, A , ' “.l' 1.; J 5 ~' n , « r , 5' L 27. 28. ABCDE so. 5 i \\\\ . A B c D"E U] h) DO NOT CO E'ACK 'T“ NIT l, ATID no x0? no on To AXY utiji 2;)? UNTIL Arxxv To DO 30. 32 ./'\_ /- \ "U ”0 )(l ncr ml.‘llll a :74 ~... __ _ aru~A n14- ‘.‘)"' a w— ‘ V 77 -- , , , ‘ pl ha a“ ” ‘- ~' '* * u‘ k ‘ _-. _g-_~_,___...A H..-__.-.________,,.___ '4.__ J .___.‘_.____.__4_,._.___- v. ._ ‘ ' FAA ~ A.‘ . w )0 M103 Adoo: Ad a ix 083 5339 05 x ' ‘ Arm/om c lsE SCALE On answer sheet, "l” corresponds to “a“. “2" corresponds to "b". l.' a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much. b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them ,2. a. Many of the unhappy things in peOple' s lives are partly due to bad luck. b. People' s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. 3. a. One of the major reasons why we_have wars is because peOple don't take enough interest in politics. b. There will always be wars, no matter how herd people try to prevent them, h. a. _In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. b. Unfortunately. an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. 5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are in- fluenced by accidental happenings. 6. a. without the right breaks one cannot be an effictlve leader, b. Capable peOple who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their Opportunities', 7. a. No matter how hard you try some peeple just don't like you. b. Peeple who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get . along with others. - 8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality. b. -lt is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like. 9. a. l have often found that what is going to happen will happen. b, Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a de- cision to take’a definate course of action. 10. a, in the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test, b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless“ ii. a, Becoming a success is a matter of hard work. luck has little or nothing to do with it b, Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time 83 12. :3. 14. i5. l6. l7. l8. IS. 20. 2|. 22. 23. 2h. 25. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. This world is run by the few people in power. and there is not much the little guy can do about it. When I make plans, 2 am almost certai n that I can make themwork. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. There are certain people who are just no good. ihere is some good in everybody. in my case getting what i want has little or nothing to d0*with luck. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability. luck has little or nothing to dowith it 7 As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor aontrol. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events. Host people don't realize the extent to which their lives are con- trolled by accidental happenings. There is really no such thing as “luck". One should always be willing to admit mistakes. it is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. it is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption. it is difficult for peOpie to have much control over the things pol- iticians do in office. Sometimes i can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. Yhere is a direct connection between how hard l study and the grades 1 get. A good leader eXpects peeple to decide for themselves what they should do. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. Many times i feel that i have little influence over the things that happen to me. . 34 A “ i a mi . j 4 n. H-’ hm-.A nae- ‘ -- - . - ---r—‘-.——-‘__Oo— .—H_.. .._> _- -ue .~~—--<-*—~t —.— 26. 27. 28- 29. -~—-—~-~—-- ~W ”away LA “5.. .——.—.—*--__e.--- ._-, AL‘OS‘ Mm ,_-..-..._ M..— ”M— 53X it is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. Peepie are lonely because they don‘t try to be friendly. ihere' s not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you Yhere is too much emphasis on athletics in high school Yeam sports are an excellent way to build character. What happens to me is my own doing Sometimes I feel that E don' t he we enough control over the direction my life is taking Most of the time i can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. ' in the long run peeple are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level- 85‘ Ad y 08 X .. ‘ 1‘ ‘ LL._1 \I ~ L \i AdOO' *“ J. ‘283! . Dug” 14 I AWE/MM 0 . EEALTH AND OPiNJON SQRJEY This Inventory consists of numbered statemcnts Séctlon of Answer sheet Read each statement and decide whether it is ELEfiuié. correctly marked. 92211.96! toqugr 781.29.-“ anQLLfié 49.31039 You are to mark your ansaer on-the answer sheet _ Y F you have. Look at tho example of the avswor :hcet shown at the right, 2f a statement is ERuE ov HOSELV TRUE, as applied to you, biacken between the lines In the column headed T. (888 A at the right.) if a state- A ment is FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE, as appiipd to you, blacken between the lines in the column headcd F. (Sée B B at the right ) Rf a statement does not apply to you or if It Is something that you don‘t know about, make no mark on the answer shoot. Remember to give VOUR CNN Opinion of yourself PP~59§_lEQ1§.§EZMELEQE 7921:.»..L£..1rqvga.n_«ugidm3$ - ' in marking your answers on the ansaer sheet, §§miflifiuLflfiimfihfimflflfléiimeiwfibfi ;?.§1?m.e..r;mt gangs-i.,;v.4uLt.._h..tb..€m9-7wzbczL.9?331:7.c15i~<°~::::;hr‘t Hake Wuf ma rks heavy and black. Erase completeby any ensuer you wish to change 00 not make any marks on this booklet. Remember, try to make somg answer to evnry statement. HOW OPEN YuE BUCKLE? AED GO AWEAD 311' 20. 2i. 22, 23. 2k, AdOO' 83X 3 home a good appetite i wake up fresh andJrestnd most mornings. i am easily awakened by noise. 3 like to read newspaper articles on crime My hands and feet are usually warm enough. My daily life is full of things that kecp mo intorested, i am about as able to work as 1 ever was Yhere seems to be a lump in my throat much of the time. i enjoy datoctiva or mystery Stories Once in a while i think of things too bad to talk about. i am vety seldom troubled by constipation. . At times i have fits of laughing and Ciylng that i cannot control, 9 am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting: i feel that it is certainly best to kcap my mouth shut when l”m in trouble At times i feel like swearing. i find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job, i seldom worry about my health, At times i feel like smashing things i have had periods of days, weeks, or months when H couldn't take care of things because i couldn‘t “got going “ Ny sloop is fitful and disturbed. Much of the time my head seams to hurt all over. a do not always tell the tvuth. My judgment is better than it ever wag Once a week or oftener . fenl suddenly hot all ownr, withowt apparent cause» 97 . ‘ _ , .. ..- _ .“_-......__ ..__._..-__. ...__.... .--_ .. L9 X 25, 26. 27“ 28‘ 29, 30. BI‘ 32 33 34 35 36. 37~ 38‘ 39- how a; f 2 ‘ V , v: 31* . r ‘ ,,,._, -‘ H~A fl-lt‘w‘omg ‘n-‘kKC‘ \A‘ AdOO' A 9%; ‘-~—~-—-A- v~~- -» -— —»«--'~~~-~- ~ Ad y on x. y .l l i am in just as good phyuical health as most of my friends. i profor to pass by school Friends, or pacple 1 know but have not soon for a long time, unless thvy Spook to ma first‘ i am almost never botharvd by palms ever the haart or in my chest. i am a good minor. Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would‘ i do not read every editorial in the ntwspapor every day, 9 sometimes keop on at a thing until others lose their patience with ma; i wish i could be as happy as others seem to be. i think a great many people cxaggsrmte their misfortunes in order to gain the sympathy and help of others a get angry some-tiara. Most of the ti.e l fool bluaa l sometlmas teaSe animals. 1 am certainly lacking in salf-confidanco- i usually feel that life is worthwhile it takes a loss of argument to convince most pcOple of the truth. Once in a while i put off urtil tomorrow what i ought to do today. a think most people would lie to get ahead. l do many things i regret afterwards' i go to church almost emery Hmokr l have very f€w_quarrals whth membhrs of my family. i believe in the sccond ccm?ng of Christ fly hardest battles are with myself. i have little at no troubfiu with my musclus twitching or jumping 35’ 53 51.. SS 57- 53.. 59. 60‘ 62, 62- 63. 6h 65. 66 67. 68. 69 AdO' Adoo Ad Lm E35 E23: 3 don't seem to care what happfififi to am» Sometimas when 3 am not feeling well 1 an ('055~ Much of the time I fael as if 3 hey? dcrn Somethurg wrong or evil“ l am happy most of tho time, Some pGOple are so bossy that 3 {:91 lik? doing the opposite of what they requeat, even though t know they are right. Often fl feel as lf there were a tight band about my head. Hy table manners are not quite as gcod at home as whcn 3 am out in company a seam to be about 85 capable and smart as mast others around me. flost peOple will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than to lose it rho slght of blood neither frightens me nor makes me sick Often 1 can't urderstand why l have bprn so ctoss and grcuchy. 1 have newer vomited blood or coughed up blond“ 3 do not worry about catchlrg diseases. At times my thoughts have raced ahead Faster than 1 could speak them~ hf I could get into a mm In wrthou: pay3rg and be sure 3 was not saen n would probably do it- ; commonly wonder what hidden reason ancther person has for doing somethlng nice for me. 3 believe that my home life is es plcasant 68 that of most people 3 know. Crltlclsm or scolding hurts me terribly My conduct is largely corttolled by the customs of those about me. i certainly feel u:eiass at tlmrs} At times J feel like pickarg a fist fight with someone a have often lost out on thing: b causc t co ldn’t make up my mind soon erquh. ' S"? \"tlh. 707 71, 72“ 73‘ 71+ 75 . 76. 77... 73. 79 80- 81. 32 83v 8h“ 85. 86, 87. 88. 89. 9l. 92. @2229 logs» Egg it makes me impstient to hawc peepie ask my advice or otherwise interrupt me when i am working on something important\ 3 would rather win than lose in a game. Most nights 1 go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me. During the post few years i have been wall most of the time. i have never had a fit or conwulsion l am neither gaining or loslng weight“ a cry easily; 5 cannot understand what i read as well as i used to l have never felt better in my life than i do new—1 3 rosent having anyone take me in so ClemEUlY that l have to admit that it was one on me. ' ' I do not tire qdlckly. 3 like to study and read about things that l aniworking at. i like to know some inportant people brcouso it makes me feel important. What others think of me does not bother me‘ it makes me uncu.fortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others at: doing the same sort of thing 3 frequently have to fight against showing that i am bashful. i hate hover had a fainting spell” J seldom 0? never have dizzy spells My momety sepms to be all right. 3 am worrisd about sex matters. 1 find it hard to make talk when l mutt ntw people. 3 am afraid of losing my mind 5 am against giving money to boggurs l frequcntly notice my hand shukcs vhan 1 try to do scanthing. 90 94 lOOA iOl. logo l03~ lob. l05. l06, 107, 308; l09. llO. lll. ll2, ll3 ilk. llS» il6 ll7 " 9' .3 "1 ”‘1 ' N U . “€03 " ' “‘ 3, ~ —r