II

      

‘ III

III

EGO - STRENGTH, MANIFEST ANXIETY,
AND DEFENSIVENESS

 

5.1% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!

Thesis for III: Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Marvin SchiIIer

1958

g ,IL»IIIZIIILIIIIIIIIIIIHJIII . °

. ,I‘I‘ .

 

 

 

EGO-STRENGTH, Hammer ANXIETY,
AND mamas

BY
MARVIN $CHII.LER

A 'I'I-IEIS
Submitted to the College of Science and.Arts
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in Inrtial mlfilllment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psycholog

1958

ACKNOWEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his thanks and appreciation to
Dr. Gerald F. King for his continuous advice and guidance in the
preparation and completion of this research. His unselfish assistance
and supervision as chairman of the master's committee helped to make
this an interesting and invaluable learning experience. The constructive
suggestions provided by the other committee members, Dr. Carl F. Frost
and Dr. Albert I. Rabin, is also deeply appreciated.

Further gratitude is expressed to the Driver and Vehicle
Services, Office of the Secretary of State, Lansing, Michigan,
particularly to Mr. Fred Vanosdall and Mr. Raymond Davis, for the use
of their facilities and for cooperation in the acquisition of pertinent
data.

Finally, but far from least important, is the grateful recognition
of the never-ending inspiration offered by w wife and nv parents.
Without their supportive confidence in 11v ability, this thesis might
never have been completed.

14.3.,

ii

EGO—STRENGTH, 'mNIFrsT mm,
AND Dmsrvmms

BY
MARVIN 3011mm

.EN.ABSTRACT
submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
.Applied Science in.partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER.DF5ARTB

Department of Psychology

1958

ABSTRACT

In testing the construct validity of the Barron Ego-Strength Scale
and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, the following hypotheses were
fornmlated: (a) ego—strength is negatively related to defensiveness,
and (b) manifest anxiety is positively related to defensiveness.

the subjects were 60 rule problan drivers who, due to excessive
violations or accidents, had been summoned to the Office of the
Secretary of State (Michigan) for re-examination of their qualifications
as drivers. It was assumed that this situation, which could result in
the loss of the individual' a driving permit, was sufficiently anxiety-
producing to elicit defensive behavior. Prior to re-examination, the
subjects were administered the Barron Ego-Strength Scale, Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale, _I_(. Scale of the MMPI, Vocabulary Subtest from
the WAIS, and the DDB Inventory. The latter test, especially con-
structed for this research, was designed to measure defensiveness
against accepting personal reaponsibility for one! a traffic record.

Neither a pilot study nor the present study confirmed the hypothe-
ses although trends were obtained 'in the predicted directions.
Additional analyses revealed the following results: (8.) intelligence
was not significantly related to either the ego-strength or the anxiety
scale, a controversial issue in regrd to the latter; and (b) the
response set "acquiescence" was a significant factor in both the ego-

strength and _I_(_ scales. The contaminating effects of response set

iv

present difficulties in interpreting any relationships obtained with
these scales.

The concept of defensiveness was given some attention. On the
basis of a pilot study, it was suggested that a more appropriate
approach to this problem might lie in utilizing a typolog of defenses,
as emphasized by Freud, rather than a general level of defensiveness

(as was used in the present research).

 

Approved

 

g' morgI-fmf'essory f Ft. fi

..\’ ’l' I 5 Q.— If";
K") ,' FT:
. i J I i --

m @Eefi Mfi H

Table of Contents

I. Wien'OOOOOOOOOOOOOEOC'OOOOO0......0.000.000.00000000

mmeseSOOIOOiooeCloooo'ooooooooooooaol0000.00.00.00...

Secondary issues”

II. HdeOl'o—EOC'OOOOCOCOOOOOCO...0.0...OOCDOCOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO

MJmWOOCOOCOOOOOOCOUOOOOOOIOOOOOO'OO'OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO

W8 dmcesoooooo-0.0000000...ooooooooooooioco oooooo

Procme...OOOG'OIOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOO

HI. MtSOOCOIOOCO000.9....0...00.0.0...OOOO‘COOOOOOOOIOOOCQOO.

mtheSi-S 1.000000000IOOCOQOOOOO?O00.000.00.00.00.00...

Wth381s ZOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOQOOOOOO0.00000000000000GOOOOO

correlates Of megweoooooOOOOOoooo ...... ode-000.000

E 5" ”Id mtelugmBSOQOoooooooaaoqoooooooooqooooooo‘oo

Response set asafactor................................

IV. Dismm‘.0..9..0.000....0.0.0.0.0QOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

V0 Woooooo9.900cocooéoo0000000000-oooaooooooco.ooooooooo
Hg Bibljnmphyoooooooogocooooooooooooooooopoooooooooooooooooo

Appendix A.

Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Appendix E.

Appendices

The Relationship of Ego-nStrength and Manifest
Anxiety to Defensivenessx Pilot Study (E = 50)... ..

Permm ImmtomQOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO

DDB Inventory (Revised).............................‘

Interview Rating of Defensiveness (Revised). . . . . . . . .

Intercorrelation Among Scales (ES 'A, K D CD and
with Other Variables Q7, Age, EE’cafio‘fiS .7173)...“

vi

Page

Cfififich‘orrw

[.1
#5

20
22

25
27

36

38

List of Tables

Page
Table l . Product-Moment Correlations Betsee'n the DEB Measures
of Defensiveness and Interview Ratings of Defensive-
neSSoocococoon00000000O.'O'OOOOODO00.00000aooooooqocooo. 1-0

Table 2. Gonnarison of the D scores of the 60 Subjects Equally
Divided into Highfhedinm, and Low Groups According
wEscoreaOOOI00000910.0.0..000.00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'OO 12

Table 3. Comparison of the D Scores of the 60 Subjects Equally
Divided into High,-T{edimn, and Low Groups According
toAaores.‘...OC..'..".......O....'O..‘..00"..00... 12

Table 1; . Product-Moment Correlations Between Acquiescence and
E) 2’ and E00060000ooooooooncobioo000000.000.coo-000000 15

I . Introduction

In recent years there Ins been a flood of research using measure-
ments derived from the Barron Ego-Strength Scale (l) and the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale (28). This treni seems understandable what it
is considered that the variables supposedly measured by these two
scales are crucial ones in several theoretical considerations of
personality. The present investigtion represents an attempt to
evaluate the Barron and Taylor scales on the basis of that has been
termed "construct" validity (6). More specifically, the theoretical .
eh empirical focus will be on their relationship to the variable
"defensiveness." Since the interaction of these variables has usually
been considered in a psychotherapeutic context, this frame of reference
will be employed to some extent for deriving hypotheses. Actual data,
however, will. not be collected in a psychotherapeutic setting.

In developing the Ego-Strength Scale (9.2 scale), Barron (1)
selected items from the Minnesota Hultiphasic Personality Inventory
(MHPI) which were related to good prognosis in psychotherapy with
neurotic outpatients. The items held up in a cross-validational study
with an independent sample of neurotics. The item content of the scale
was interpreted by Barron as indicating the strengths that are "generally
ascribed to a well-functioning ego." Wirt (30) has found that the ES;
scale also predicts response to psychotherapy in hospitalized neuro-
psychiatric patients. The Manifest Anxiety Scale (5 scale) (28) was

also derived from the HMPI, the itens being selected by Judges on the

0

basis of Camercn's (h) description of chronic manifest anxiety.
Although the A scale was originally devised by Taylor in the context
of thlian.drive theory, it has frequently been used in reference to
clinical situations. Several studies (2, 15, 16, 27) have correlated
the A; scale with clinical mifestations of anxiety; and although there
are equivocal features in the findings, the results generally indicate.
that the A scale shares some common variance with clinical ratings of
anxiety.

‘Defensiveness is a general concept, essentially a quantitative
extension.of Freud's specific type of defenses. Thus, defensive
behavior pertains to general pnttems 'I of response which allow the
individual (usually on.an.unconscious level) to reject certain experi-
ences that are deemed incongruent or threatening to his ego-structure
or self-concept. Rage and Markowitz (23) describe the defensive person
as one failing to ascribe to himself behavior of a generally valid but
socially unacceptable nature. Infermation.contradictory to the self—
concept is viewed as irrelevant and‘unreliable. In.the psychotherapeutic
situation, defensive behavior can be seen.in.terms of resistance,
resistance to critical self appraisalvand acceptance of negative self
aspects. It would therefore be expected that persistent defensiveness
would act as a barrier to therapeutic progress. There is some empirical
evidence indicating that successful therapy is negatively correlated
with defensiveness (25). ch evidence is compatible with-a negative
relationship'between ego-strength and defensiveness, as the latter in
the form of the fig scale was found to be positively related to psycho-

therapeutic success.

.;‘g., 9“ ' I , ~ .
‘ufi—A. 4-...»h‘ _ thud -'__‘

O

- r -' '29-‘23

 

.As an.individual matures he learns to differentiate between the
satisfying and frustrating stimli impinging upon him. He learns to
protect himself from feelings which are inappropriate and from.situ-
ations that might prove to be dangerous. Attempts at satisfaction of
basic needs that are denied by the self (or ego) are said to bring
about a state of tension (lo, 21;). The result of the awareness of this
tension is anxiety, which in turn.triggers some form of defensive
behavior. This defensiveness then.alleviates the anxiety by reducing
the awareness of threat (1h).

When the ego lacks sufficient strength to adequately deal with
threatening situations, some defensive maneuvers are resorted to as a
means of avoiding and denying the situation so as to gain protection.
,According to the psychoanalytic approach, as exemplified by Feniohel (10),
a necessary precondition for the use of a defense mechanism is a weakness
of ego organization. He states, "The gradual development of the ego
and of the reality principle strengthens experience and menary and
slowly'weakens the tendency to deny. .As long as the ego is weak, the
tendency toward denial may remain.relatively superior." .(pp. lhheth)
The individual entering therapy, though displaying a wide'variety of
protective defensive behavior,‘is unable to muster enough ego-strength
to enable him to cope'with and be protected from.anxiety~producing
threats. In the course of thenapy, defensive behavior is seen to
decrease and at the same time certain latent strengths. of the ego begin

to reveal themselves (2h, 25).

masses
In light of the preceding discussion, the following hypotheses

have heel posed: (a)'Hypothesis l, the E scale, as a measure of ego-
strength, is negatively related to defensiveness; and (b) Hypothesis 2,
the .1}. scale, as a measure of mifest anxiety, is positively related to
defensiveness.

The theoretical framework employed in this research suffers from
a certain vagueness and a lack of well-defined concepts. It is quite
possible that other hypotheses could be set up which would be contra-
dictory to those formulated here. A pilot study provides some support
for the present hypotheses (see Appendix A) 3 and although not statis-
tically significant, the relationships were generally in the predicted
direction. As compared to the pilot study, the present research

represents a refinement in methodology.

Secow issles

The E scale of the mm was constructed by Meehl and Hathaway (22)
as a empressor variable to We defensiveness, test-taking defensive-
ness. There is some. controversy, however, over what the if scale actually
measures. Meehl and Hathaway acknowledge that more than test-taking
defensiveness may be involved in this scale. It may measure, to some
degree, the adequacy of a subject ls ego-strength. The latter contention
receives some support from the correlation of .31, reported by Barron (1),
between the it; scale and 5.. Feldlmn (9) “has also obtained results
which lead him to suggest tint the items contained in the .1; scale may

indicate "realistic self criticism and good ego strength." The present

research seems to offer an opportunity for an evalilation of this scale,
so provisions were made to include it in the methodology.

Conflicting reports have recently been presented in the literature
concerning the relationship between intelligence and mnifest anxiety.
A mmber of researchers (3, 12, 17, 20) reported a slight, but signifi-
cant neptive correlation. between intelligence and the Taylor A scale,
while others (7, 8, 21, 27) found no relationship. Studies concerning
intelligence and ego—strength are not as Mama and appear less
controversial. Barron (1), while equating "ego-determined behavior"
with intelligent behavior, reports several significant positive corre—
lations between his _F_S_ scale and various measures of intelligence.

A. further clarification of these relationships will be' attempted in the

present study .

II . Hethodologr

One of the major problems in studying defensive behavior involves
devising a situation, within ethical limits, which will. be sufficiently
threatening to the subjects so that defenses will be elicited. As a
mans toward this end, the anther worked in conjunction with the
Highway Traffic Safety Center (Michigan. State University) and the Driver
and Vehicle Services, Office of the Secretary of State, Lansing, Hichign.
The subjects (§.§) under study were problem drivers. (high-violation
and/or high-accident drivers) who were required by law to appear for a
re-examination of their driver qualifications . Host of the .33. were
aware that, as a result of their interview with one of the license '
examiners, their future driving privileges were in Jeopardy. In practice,
the examiners made one of the following dispositions z a) revocation of
driver's license for a minimsm of one year, b) temporary suspension of
driver's license (60 to 180 days), 0) retention of driver's licmse
with a warning against further violations. The assumption was made that
this situation, which could result in the loss of the individual' s
driving permit , was sufficiently fraught with anxiety as to provoke the
elicitation of defensive behavior .

Subjects
The .33. were 60 rule problen drivers ranging in age from 17 to 62

years (1!.- 25.67, L32" 10.014). The edumtimal achievement of the _S_s
ranged from 8 to 16 years (14 a 11.82, gig-n 1.99). Due to the verbal

nature of the instruments presented to each §_, restrictions had to be
made on the suitability of each 'of the examinees in terms of literacy
and verbal intelligence. Any question arising about reading difficulty
resulted in the i being asked to read aloud as a test of ability. The
Vocabulary Subtest (1 subtest) of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(WAIS) served as a meamre of intellectual performance. All potential
is achieving below an arbitrarily established. cut-off point (scale score
of 7) were also disqualified from consideration in this research.

W devices

The items of the g, A) and .1: scales‘were randomly combined into
one instrument labeled the Personal Iuvmtory (see Appendix B). As was
previously mentioned, the E subtest was routinely presented as a
screening device. The correlation between 1 and the Full Scale IQ of
of the WAIS is of the order of .85 (29).

A special device was developed to yield a quantitative measure of
"defensiveness against accepting personal responsibility for one! 3
traffic record" (18). More than 300 interview records with problem
drivers seen at the Driver and Vehicle Services were examined and culled
for defensive statements . , Twmty-eight such items were assanbled and
randomly combined with 12 ncnedefmsive statements to comprise the DDB
(Defmsiveness About Driving Behavior).Inventory (see Appendix C).

The ageement among three Judges in classifying the ho items as either
defensive or non-defensive was 100%.
There was considerable -va.r"..a‘b:l.'l_i.13r in the "defensive content," or

in the obvious-subtle nature, of the statements in the DDB Inventory.

The following are sample items.
Defensive items:

#7 "Anyone who drives as much
as I do is almost certain
to pick up traffic tickets."

#15 "I think that paying fines
is enough. pmishment for
traffic violations.“
Non-defensive item:
#39 "When you get right down to
it, I don't have any excuses
for my record."

The instructions for the DDB Inventory were as follows: § wrote
"0" if he disagreed with the statement, "1" if he agreed a little or to
some extent, and "2" if he agreed very much with the statement. Two
scores were derived from the scale. A defensive score (2) was simply
the aim of theweighted responses to the defensive items. A corrected
defensive score Q32) took into consideration responses to the non- _
defensive items by the following formic; 92 .. (g- 2912+ 2h.

The distributions of the scores were found to approximate normality;
and the correlation between E and 92 was established at .83, indicating
that they are very similar measures of defensiveness.

'Ehe reliability of the DDB Inventory was assessed by the split-—
half method using the Specimen-Bram correction. The obtained relia~
bility coefficients were .81 for 9' and .894 for 9.19. q = 60).

The relationship betwaen DEB defensive measures and interview
ratings of defensiveness was examined for information on the concurrent
validity of the DDB Inventory. Problem drivers were rated on a five-
point scale by one of two examiners from the content of an interview

conducted shortly after the DDB and Personal Inventories had been

completed. The miners? ratings were uninflnenced by an awareness
of the test results . The five well-defined anchoring descriptions on
the rating scale (see Appmdix D) were developed in terms of the degree
of acceptance for past driving behavior.

The correlations in Table 1 represent the relationships bebwoen
DDB Wes of defensiveness and interview ratings (.133) of defensive-
ness in the present investigiticn, as well as a pilot study. A nine—
point rating scale ($32) was used in the pilot study. With the
aception of one, all of the correlations are statistically sigmificant
at the .01 level of confidence, ranging iron .33 to .61. (Interkrater
reliability compited for the interview measures, using two independent
Judges, was .72 (.1: =- 35).) The results, in general, give evidence for
the concurrent validity of the DDB Inventory as a measure of defensive-

13.388.

Procedure

Upon arrival at the Driver andVehicle Services according to an
appointment schedule, each Q (E - 60), without an explanation, was asked
to "fill out" the DDB Inventory. Prior to the administration of the
l subtest and the Pessonal Invmtory, the .53 were made aware of the
fact that neither his convermtion with the test administrator nor his
responses on the various scales would be considered in the final
disposition concerning his driver's license. ,

Following the testing situation, each subject was interviewed and
informed of his standing with reapect to his traffic record and driver! 3
license by an official of the State of Michign.

10

Table 1

Product-Homent Correlations BeWeen the DDB ,Measnres of
Defensiveness and Interview Ratings of Defensiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i "'"W" t "" "'"“"v v ' ‘7 ‘mm"?
i Intervi I one to DDB 1mm '1 I}
. ew en. , # en - ,
, m p a...“ m i. 3%..
i D 92 P. 92 E-
iii “ -wv‘f-V-Fbv- Vtvvrv— m - vrfi ~*'bfifi :Eb‘lfi
1.13.1 i la“ .56m .61 .53 :
._i r
_ I
; LI}; t .33“ .17". :
h ' .
:sigiéricent at the .01 level of confidence.
I - o.
b

CF: 260
Egg).

11

III. Remlts

mthesis l

The scores on thefiscalewere mad with the lam measures of
defensivmess from the DDB Inventory, gand 9.19, for the 60 is.
The obtained product-moment correlation for R was --.18 and for 9.2 was
~ .11 . Both of these relationships, though not statistically signifi-
cant, were in the predicted direction. 33; was also correlated with the
interview ratings of defensiveness (33.1), and the _I_'. was found to be
-.02. The results appear to be similar to those obtained in the pilot
study. 1

A further analysis of the findings appmrs in lable 2. The 60 §£
were divided into three equal sized mp3 (high, medium, and low)
according to their £3; scores. 'me 2 scores of the twenty highest and
WW lowest were compared by meansof a. I" test, and no significant
differmce was found between the group means. A similar analysis with
the 93 scores also yielded negative results. Conseqiently, the hy‘pothe- -
sis that 33’ is negatively related to defensiveness is not confirmed.

.........

An W of the relationship between the scores of the A scale
and the defensiveness measures was made as a test of the second
hypothesis. ”The product-eminent correlation between A and 2 ms .165
for g and 92', it ms .06. The relationship between A and 31 was. -.16,
which is neither statistically significant nor in the predicted

12

.kblez

Comparison of the D, Scores of the 60
Subjects Equally Divided into High, Medium,
and Low Groups According to _E§_ Scores

in

 

 

E tr ‘ *
D scores *
L W . Medium Rig].
1! lb.6l 12.90 12.89
' S.D. } 7.50 6.1;]. 7.15

 

 

* tratio between extrane groups (Low vs. Rial) a t I- 0.7);

Table 3

Go ,sonoi'theRScoresoftheéo
311wa s Equally Divided into High, Medium,
andLow Grosps According to AScores

A _ H __

 

 

 

t *mmrestgAmetz'“.
D scores "II' '“ v ' 3
> Low , Medium . High. . . .
M . ‘ ' 109513. . 114015 15011.0
. 30D. 1' 6018 t 7092 8027

 

 

WT‘ Vtfifimvfii fiv—VV—F‘ 77rvvvvv—v w ' v—v—vw—v—v—v—v—vv—r'

* 3 ratio between extreme gasps (Low vs.» High) =- t = 2.10 (p < .05)

l3

direction. As in the pilot study, nest of the correlations are in the
predicted direction but not statistically significant .

A procedure similar to that employed in hypothesis 1 was used with
the scores of the A scale. The is. with the twenty higiest and twenty
lowest scores on the A scale were compred for differences in defensive-
ness (9). The results of this comparison. is seen in Table 3.

A significant difference at the .05 level between the group means was
revealed via. a. _t_ test. When the 9.19. scores were used in this analysis,
no siglii‘icant difference was found. the results are thus quite
inconsistent, and the hypothesis concerning a positive relation between
the 5 scale and defensiveness must be regarded as not confined.

madness 2: as a. as.

A 00er between the E scale and the measures of defensiveness
revealed a -.32 correlation with D and a -.12 correlation with 92,
the former being statistically 'siglificant at the .02 level of
confidence. The product-mmnent correlation betweal 1g and g was .26,
Significant at the .05 level of confidence. Thus, these correlations
suggest that it, rather than being a measure of defensiveness, is
associated more with functions pertaining to ego-strength.

................

Scores on the 1 subtest correlated .13. with the a. scale and .07
with E. Neither of these relationships was found to be statistically
significant.

Appendix E gives the intercorrelations among the various scales,
as well as with 1, age, and education.

sense as as a. m

The importance of response sets in test takers on objective test
results has been emphasized by Gronbmh (5). Fricke (ll) and Henley
(13) have recently presented evideme showing the influence of the
response set "accmiescmce," the mtematic tendency to agree or
respond "yes" to test items independent of content. It was decided to
explore the role of acquiescence in the present data.

line E scale, which 0011313158 of 25 items keyed "true! and 1&3 kwed
"fuse," was revised by combining the as true items vith 25 item
randomly selected from those keyed false. A. correlation of ~31;

(p -< .01) between. the scores of the 25 true and 25 false items indicated
a set to respond systmtically independent of item content. This point
was further pirsued by compiting linden-Richardson reliability coefficients.
When the revised _E§. scale was scored for egc~strength, the reliability
coefficient was .314. When scored for miescenoe (all items keyed
"true" ), the reliability was .07. These findings suggest that the
revised _E_S_ scale more reliably measures acquiescence than it does ego-—
strength.

The following signifimnt correlations were obtained in this study:
_K_v:s. Q. ~.32 (p < .02); and Eva. g; .26 (p < .05). .The question
arisesasto whether these correlationswere due to commonvariance
contributed by acquiescence. liable 1; shows the relationship of lg, g,
and g to acquiescence, as derived from the revised _F._3_ scale. when the
variance attributable to this measure of acquiescence was partialed out,
the correlation between .1; and a dropped from ~.32 to a statistically

15

Tablet

Pradnct-Homelrt Correlations
Between Acquiescence
and .Is 2. and 2.3..

 

 

 

 

 

-—v v—fi v—v v—r www, __,ifi7fi kf—Wfi—f fiw - 3";
' ‘ K D I ES
y alt ‘ c— , CID-w
I
fivwvv fif-‘—;*_ 'fit“v}i,fivl_€ ii i fififi-
I r
. . see. .; *-
Acqxiescencc - f -.62 - .28 I -.08
’ i t
.A . b. 4‘:

 

* Significant at the .05 level of confidence-
we Significant at the .01 larel of confidence.

16

insignificant ~.l9. The correlation between E and _E§_ remained
essmtially unchanged, from .26 to .27, when acquiescence was taken
into consideration. This is accounted. for by the lack of correlation
(g; - —.08) betHeen acquiescence and the 1% scale. It would appear that
the additional 18 false items in the original _F§_ scale necked the
operation of acquiescence that is present in the scale.

3-7

IV . Discussion

The relationships of ego-strength and amtiety with defensiveness,
as stipllated by this study's two hypotheses, were not confirmed.
Although the results were in the predicted direction in both a pilot
and the present study, the correlations were not statistimlly signifi-
cant . In attempting to account for negtive results, the usual
procedure is to re-enamine both the theoretical orientation and the
mthodologr that was alployed .

‘It was pointed out earlier that the theoretical considerations
that led to the hypotheses suffered from a certain lack of specificity.
The possibility of alternative hypotheses was acknowledged. Klopfer (19)
provides an example in $1 ggesting a curvilinear relationship beta-sen
ego-strength and defalsivmess. The data, as shown in Table 2,‘ do not
support this contention . The trmd of the nonsiglificant relationship
ms linear in nature .

no concept of defensiveness seems to warrant some attention.

It is a (mantitative concept that has evolved from Freud' s typolog of
defenses- The question arises as to whether it would not have been
more appropriate to relate ego-strengthto certain types of defenses
rather than general defensiveness. Psychoanalytic theory would seem
to be compatible with this type oforientation. By classifying the
items of the DDB Inventory into specific .types of defenses (e.g., pro-
Jection, denial), the present data. an be used for such an analysis.
In a pilot study based on a W8 of the present data, the author

0

18

(26) has found a significant interaction between level of ego—strength
and type of defensive behavior (projection and rationalization).

' The available evidmlce thus suggests that future research in this area
might more profitably be concerned with types of defenses instead of an
overall mmsure of defensiveness.

The results also uncovered certain methodological problems,
jarticularly in reyrd to the personality scales. Gontmnination due to
the response set of acquiescmce was found to be present in both the
E. and 5.. scales. Such deficiencies make it difficult to interpret the
correlations obtained with these scales. The correlations, for entangle,
suggested that the measlrements provided by the g scale were more
related to (egos-strength than to defensiveness, but the interpretative
picture is obscured by common variance: contributed by acquiescence.

In fact, the 15 scale was found to be so highly saturated with response
set (33-- ~.62) that its diagnostic value would seem to be highly
limited.

No relationship was found between intelligence and either the g;
or the .4. scale, this. being a controversial issue in regard to the latter
scale. is shown in Appendix E, the, as scale ms found to be correlated
with age and education, 5: - .26 in both cases (p -< .05). The interpre-
tation might be offered that the E scale tends to reflect "mturation"
factors rather than intelligence.

In conclusion, it might be said that construct validity, as a
relatively new orientation in test theory, offers a broad, flexible
frame of reference for validating personality scales. other more basic

19

features of test construction cannot be neglected, however. For example,
well-designed research in terms of construct validity cannot overcome
deficiencies steaming from the low reliabilities of the instrumaits.

The present study pointed to the operation of response set, a systematic
set to respond to the test items independent of their content. If valid
tests are to be constructed, initial attention must be devoted to
correcting such basic deficiencies . 1

............

vW—fivvfivv v—fi v—fiv—V

1A short paper on the analysis of response set in the present
study has been prepared. King, G. F., & Schiller, 1!. ”Note on ego-
strength, defensiveness, and acquiescmce. ngh'ol. £93., in press.

v.8unmary

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the Barron Ego-
Strength (g) Scale and the 'Jhylnr Manifest Anxiety (5? Scale in terms
of construct validity. The particular focus was on the relationship of
these scales to the variable "defensiveness.“

The DDB (Defmsiveness About Driving Behavior) Inventory was
developed as a measure of defensiveness and found to be both reliable
and valid for this purpose. The 60 role is. were high-violation and/ or
high-accident drivers , who were required to report for a re—examination
of their driver qxalifications . It was assumed that this situation, in
which the possibility of the loss of the individual's driving permit
existed, as sufficiently anxiety-producing to bring about the elici-
tation of defensiveness. p

In addition to the g, g, and DDB Inventory, the _Ig_ scale of the
mp1 and the Vocahflary Mtest of the “AIS were also administered,
which allowad the exploration of several secondary issues.

It was hypothesized that l) ego-strength is negatively related to
defmsiveness, and 2) manifest anxiety is positively related to
defensiveness. Neither a pilot study Q; - 50) nor the present investi-
gtion (E = 60) confirmed the hypotheses although the trends were in
the predicted direction. .

An analysis of the g and 3; scales revealed that the response set
"achiescence" was a significant factor in both scales.

21

Such contamination nukes it difficult to interpret amr results obtained
with ‘these scales. It was also found that there was no significant
relationship between intelligence and either the _E§ or A scales, which
has been a controversial issue for the latter.

In discussing the results, the concept of defensiveness was given
some scrutiny. A pilot study involving a reanalysis of the data mig-
gests that a more appropriate approach to this problem might lie in
utilizing a typology of defenses, as emphasized by Freud ’, rather than
a general. level of defensiveness as the primry frame of reference.
Attention was also given to some basic methodological problems relevant
to test construction and validation.

l.

7.

‘8.

22

VI . 13119110312pr

Barron, F. An ego-strength scale which predicts response

to psychotherapy. i. consult. 3M” 1953, 17, 327-333.

Buss, A. H., Wiener, 11., Durkee, A., 8: Baer, M. The measurement
of anxiety in clinical situations. 1. consult. Pwholq 1955,
19, 125-129.

Calvin, A. D., Koons, P. 3., 3mm, J. L., & Fink, H. H.

A further investigtion of the relationship between manifest
anxiety and intelligence. ,1. .mm‘t. 2533' ‘ hol., 1955, 19, 280-282.
Cameron, N. 3.11—9.ng behavior. disorders: 3.. big-:social
uteri-station. Boston: Houghton Miffljn, 191.7 .

Gronbsnh, L. J. Response set and test validity. m. whol.
W» 19h6. 6. Ins-1.91..

Cronbach, L. J ., & Meehl, P. E. Construct validity in psycho-
logical tests. Pachol. £111., 1955, 52, 281-302.

m, R. H. Manifest anxiety, intelligence, and psychomthologr.
2'. some a. 5.1., 1.957, 21, 384.0.

Farber, I. E., & Spence, K. W. Main and interactive effects of
several variables on rmction time. U. S. Naval Res. Lab. ,
Mar. 1, 1955, Tech. Rep. R0. 3. (Gontract N9 our-93802, State
Univer. of Iowa.)

Feldmn, M. J. An evaluation scale for shock therapy. :1. 9—11.43

. l . ;

mg. 1958, 11., 1.1-1.5.

12 ..

15.

16.

17.

18.

19 .

20.

Fmichel, 0. 3315 W than 93 neurosis. New York:
W. W.,lorton & Company, Inc., 19145.

Fricke, B. G. Response set as a. mppressor variable in the OAIS
and um. i. consult. mum, 1956, 20,.161-169.

-Grice, G. R. Discrimination reaction time as a function of

amciety and intelligence. 9;. m. .925: nghoL, 1955, 50,
71-71..

Hanley, C. Social desirability and response to- items from three
HEPI eagles: D,'Sc, and K. :1- 5231. Pm 1101., 1956, to, 32h~328.
Hillson, J. 8., &Worchel, "P. Self concept and defensive behavior
in the mladjusted. g. comfit. Pasha” 1957, 21, 83-88.

Hoyt, D. P., a. Magcon, T. u. A. validation study of the Taylor
Manifest Scale. 3. 9131.. 3323931., 19514, 10, 357—361.

Kendall, E. The validity of kylor’s West Anxiety Scale.

_.I_. w. Pg}; hol., 1951;, 18, 1.29-1.32.

Kerrick, Jean 8. Some correlates of the, Taylor Manifest Amiety
Scale. g. m. 3.3. Pg: ho1., 1955. 50, 75-77.

King, G. F. A scale for wring "defensiveness" in problem
drivers: The DDB Inventory. Progress Report, Highway Traffic
Safety Center, Mich. State Univer., Nov. 11, 1957.

Homer, B., Ainsvorth, Margret D., flopfer, W. G., & Holt, R. W.
Develoments in the Rorschach We. Vol. 1: Technique and
theory. Yonkers: World Book 001nm, 19511.

Matarazzo, J. 13., Ulett, G. 1., sue, a. B., & Saslow, G. The
relationship between anxiety level and several measures of

intelligence. :I: consult. mtg” 1951;, 18, 201-205. ‘

21.

22.

23.

25.

26.

27.

28.

2h

Mayzner, M. 3., Semen, E., “a Iresselt, M. E. The Taylor Manifest
Anxiety Scale and Intelligmce. 11- my. P51191101” 1955, 19,
1401-41011.

Meehl, P. E., & Hathanay, S. R. The K factor as a suppressor
variable in the mom. g. 5331'. Payer, 19116, 30, 525-6611.

Page, H. A. & Markovitz, Gloria. The relationship of defensiveness
to rating scale bias. ,1, Wu 1955, 110, 1131-1135.

Rogers, C. R. £1313 centered theram. ‘ Boston: Houghton Hifflin,
1951. '

Rogers, G. R., & Dymond, Rosalind F. (Eds.) thctheramfl
W 3.33.3.3. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 19911.
Schiller, H. Ego-strength and the developnent of defenses. Paper
albndtted for the Seminar on Psychomtholog, Mich. State Univer . ,
Spring Quarter, 1958. .

Siegnan, A. W. Goglitive, affective, and psychopathological
correlates of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. :1. consult.

2m ' 11.1., 1956, 20, 137-1111.

bylor, Janet A. A personality test for mnifest armiety.

,1. w. 5133. Rwy-1101., 1953, 118, 285-290.

Wechsler, D. M 3353311311313- 1331}; nosing no 3333
New York: .Psyenologoal corp.,'l955. ’

Wirt, 'R. D. Further validation Iof the ego-strength scale.

3;. cannot. '@ ‘ ' 11.1., 1955, '19, 111.

Appendix A

25

Appendix A

The Relationship of Ego-«Strength and Manifest
Anxiety to Defensivenessz Pilot smdy (N = 50)

 

 

f fi‘ "5 "'"WWH "fifi ' 1 V ‘ IfiL
* Renamed * . i ,
I defensiveness £3. 9. 3; H
E 2 “020% 01-h E
I E
CD -..13 16 E
I

I . _
i, 3:; ”008 “'07 E

 

 

 

* Key: 3 and .01) are defensive scores derived
from a preliHnary version of a defensive
inventory (DUB). IR pertains to an inter-
view rating of deifiiveness . '

** None of the correlations are statistically
‘ significant at the .05 level of confidence.

Appendix B

FBI-30668688888

0-3

0-30-3888

Dakar-3%!

”3 .

"d’lfl’fl'fl’li "i

”1'13'11'11

'fl’d’fi‘d'fl’u’fl'fl'fl’fl'fi

1!

3.
h.
5.
6.
7.
8?
92
10.
11.

12.

13.

15.
16.

17.
18.
19.
21.
22.

23.

25.

PERSONAL INVENTORY

I do not tire easily.

I have very few headaches.

I am often sick to my stomach.

I work under a great deal of strain.

I am about as nervous as other peeple.

I cannot keep my mind on one thing.

I have a good appetite.

I seldom worry about my health.

At times I hear so well it bothers me.

Often I cross the street in order not to meet someone I see.

Sometimes some unimportant thought will run through my mind and bother
me for days.

When I leave home, I do not worry about whether the door is locked
and the windows closed.

I have nst problems so full of possibilities that I have been unable
to make up my mind about them.

I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something.
I blush as often as others.

I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any
special reason.

I have diarrhea ("the runs") once a month or more.
I worry quite a bit over possible troubles.

I believe my sins are unpardonable.

I have had some very unusual religious experiences.

Everything is turning out just like the prophets in the Bible said

I have nightmares every few nights.
I am often afraid that I am going to blush.
My hands and feet are usually warm enough.

I sweat very easily even on cool days.

757-29h

I—3

Farah-36668898666688

FBI-380609

0-3

pv

wwwwwwwwwuwumnom-aw

'dhd'd'fl’fil

’33

33.
31..
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

ill.
1.2.
1.3.

1.5.
1.6.
A7.
1.8.

49.

51.
52.

I worry over money and business.

I find it hard to set aside a task that I have undertaken, even for
a short time.

I practically never blush.

When embarrassed I often break out in a sweat which is very annoying.
I have had quite a few quarrels with members of my family.

I feel hungry almost all the time.

At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than I could epeak them.
I am against giving money to beggars.

Often my bowels don't move for several days at at ime.

I do not often notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath.
I have a great deal of stomach trouble.

I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep out of trouble.

Christ performed miracles such as changing water into wine.

Sometimes I enjoy hurting persons I love.

I do not like to see women smoke.

I like to talk about sex. .

I like to let people know where I stand on things.

I have often net peOple who were supposed to be experts who were no
better than I.

At time I lose sleep over worry.

I am easily embarrassed.

I never attend a sexy show if I can avoid it.
I am attracted by members of the Opposite sex.

Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the Opposite of what
they request, even though I know they are right.

m sleep is restless and disturbed.

I think a great many people exaggerate their misfortunes in order
to gain sympathy and help of others.

I certainly feel useless at times.

I have often felt that I faced so many difficulties I could not overcome
them.

- 2 - 757-291.

harsher-3»;

eaeaeeeeeeaea

aeaeeeaa

Q

’d'fl‘d’d'fl'fi'fl’d’d'fl’fii’d'fl *11'11’11’11'21

'31’11'11'11’11’11'11W

53.

5h.
55.
56.
57.

58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
6h.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.

72.
73.
7h.
75.
76.
77.
78.

79.

I like to flirt.

I can be friendly with peOple who do things which I consider wrong.
What others think of me does not bother me.

I often dream about things I don‘t like to tell other peOple.

Parts of my body often have feelings like burning, tingling,
crawling, or like "going to sleep".

W skin seems to be unusually sensitive to touch.

I have had no difficulty in keeping my balance in walking.

At times I have fits of lazghing and crying that I cannot control.
My feelings are more easily hurt than most peOple.

I wish I could be as happy as others.

I am usually calm and not easily upset.

I cry easily.

I feel anxious about something or someone almost all of the time.
I often find myself worrying about something,

I get mad easily and then get over it soon.

I am happy most of the time.

It makes me nervous to have to wait.

When someone says silly or ignorant things about something I
know, I try to set him right.

I like to cook.

I like collecting flowers or growing house plants.

If I were an artist, I would like to draw children.

At times I am so restless that I cannot sit in a chair for very long.
Sometimes I become so excited that I find it hard to get to sleep.

I am not afraid of fire.

I am made nervous by certain animals.

At times I have been worried beyond reason about something that
really did not matter.

Dirt frightens or disgusts ms.

757-291.

Hat-38806668686688 F3

0-3

*5

EH *3 F-J F—J D-J 0-3

wwwwujwwwwuawmuaqhanj

’11

’11

W’flfilfij'fl’fl

80.
61.

82.
83.
81+.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
9o.
91.
92.
93.
9h.
95.
96.

97.
98.

99.
100.

101.
102.
103.
106.
105 e
106.

I am afraid of finding myself in a closet or small closed space.

Most people will use somewhat unfair mans to gain profit or an
advantage rather than to lose.

I have never felt better in my life that I do now.
I have a cough most of the time.

My hands have not become clumsy or awkward.

I do not have as nary fears as my friends.

I have been afraid of things or people that I know could not hurt me.
I am more self-conscious than most peOple.

I am the kind of person who takes things hard.
Peeple often disappoint me.

I am a very nervous person.

Life is often a strain for me.

I feel weak all over much of the time.

I find it hard to make talk when I meet new peOple.
At times I think I am no good at all.

I am not at all confident in myself.

It makes me impatient to have people ask Hy advice or otherwise
interrupt me when I am working on something important.

I have never had a fainting spell.

I feel sympathetic towards people who tend to hang on to their
griefs and troubles.

I brood a great deal.

When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right
things to talk about.

I feel tired a good deal of the time.

If I were an artist, I would like to draw flowers.

At times I feel like swearing.

It takes a lot of «argument to convince most peOple of the truth.
I don't like to face a difficulty or make an important decision.

I like science.
757-291.

Habit-388 80-30668 karat-3'96

Fit-380%

*3

'13’31'31'11'11

*Ij'ii'll’fl'fl

’11’11’11’31 Ml.'l"‘¢:|""‘1"-I:l"=11’11!

’11

117.
118.
119.

121.
122.
123.
125.
126.

127.

129.
130.

131.
132.

I very mch like horseback riding.

One or more members of my family is very nervous.
Criticism or scoldirg hurts me terribly.

At tines I am full of energy.

The man who had most to do with me when I was a child (such as
father, stepfather, etc.) was very strict with me.

I am very confident of nyself.

I have often been frightened in the middle of the night.
I feel unable to tell anyone all about nyself.

I go to church almost every week.

It makes me unconfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when
others are doing the same sort of thing.

At times I feel that I am going to crack up.

Often I can't understand why I have been so cross and grouchyI.
I often think "I wish I were a child again."

I pray several times every week.

I have strange and peculiar thoughts.

I have had blank spells in which ny activities were interrupted and
I did not know what was going on around me.

When I am with people, I am bothered by hearirg very queer things.
I think Lincoln was greater than Washington.
My way of doing things is apt to be misurderstood by others.

In ny home we have always had the ordinary necessities (such as
enough food, clothing, etc.).

When I get bored, I like to stir up some excitement.

W plans have frequently seemed so full of difficulties that I have
had to give them up.

During the past few years I have been well most of the time.

I do new things which I regret afterwards (I regret things more or
more often than others seem to.)

I have had very peculiar and strarge experiences.
I 'am-reaeily downed in an argument.

757-294

80-36806

"13’11’21'11'11

133.
DA.
135.
136.
137.

I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends.
I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.

I would certainly enjoy beating a crook at his own game.

At times I feel like smashing things.

At periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual.

757-291»

Appwdix C

33

Name

DDB Inventory (Revised)
(G.F.K.)

Date

 

 

We are interested in finding out your reaction or attitude toward your driving

record.

in explaining their violations.
statements, d isagreeing with others, and being uncertain about others.
statement in the left hand margin according to how you feel.
disaggee with th___e_ gtatement, wri___t_e '_'___1" if
wri___t_e '_'__2"-_ if m agr_ee gm___ much with the statemnt.

___1-

2.

10.

The following are some statements that have been given by other drivers
You may find yourself agreeing with some of the
Mark e ach
Writ_____e_ ‘__'O" _i_:_f_ 19.!

123 agree _a_ little 9__r to sone extent; an__§_
Please mark every statement.

A person can be expected to violate traffic laws when he has serious
problems on his mind.

I don't think ny driving record is so bad, and I've never had any serious
accidents.

I'll have to admit that I've been careless and negligent in my driving.

I believe that since a good driver lmows how to handle himself, it
doesn't hurt to go over the speed limit once in a while.

I don't think I should have been called in because a lot of peOple have
worse d riving records.

I can honestly say that the traffic tickets I got were ny own fault.

Anyone who drives as much as I do is almost certain to pick up traffic
tickets.

I consider nyself a pretty good driver and feel that in some cases I can
judge how fast to drive better than the traffic signs.

What. it boils down to is that I haven't taken my driving seriously enough.
I just don't plan well enough ahead so I end up speeding.
I think I have some pretty good excuses for 11y driving record.

I've been given tickets when I wasn't guilty, but it's either plead guilty
or spend a lot of money on lawyers and lay off work.

I've noticed that the police are more apt to give tickets to certain types
of cars.

I don't feel the few traffic tickets I have should cause such a fuss..
I think that paying fines is enough punishment for traffic violations.

I think that in some cases the police lay for certain drivers and give
them tickets no matter how they drive.

As I see it, I have some bad driving habits that I'll have to change.

I guess I'm just the impatient type and drive too fast.

7 57-301

19.
20.

21.

___32-
___33.
31..
___35.
___36.
___37.
___38.

__39-
150.

I think that the police are often too strict in enforcing the traffic laws.

Almost everyone violates the traffic laws, and I was just unlucky enough
to get caught.

My driving can stand a lot of improvement.
It's ny opinion that the speed traps they have today are unfair.
I wouldn't have my record if I'd paid more attention to aw driving.

Highway safety is important, but I think the police should spend more time
on other matters instead of spending so much time giving traffic tickets.

Sometimes I wouldn't be able to get certain things done if I didn't drive
fast“

I must admit that I'm ashamed of my traffic record.

The way some people drive, you have to violate the law in order to avoid
accidents.

Most of the time I obey the traffic signs, but some of them are not logical
and don't make sense.

If the law was enforced like it should be, a lot more peeple would get
tickets, not just a selected few.

My record may look bad, but I really don't drive that way.

It's been my experience that the police and courts often work together,
so you don't stand a chance even when you're not guilty.

I've changed since my last ticket so 11y traffic record really doesn't
apply to me.

I think that tickets are just one side of the story, and don't really
indicate what kind of a driver you are.

It's kind of a blow for me to be here, but maybe that's what I need to
make me more aware of ny duties as a driver.

I think the police should give sone consideration to the person who uses
his car to make a living.

With all the highway deaths, the police have to crack down on violations,
so you'll get no complaints from me.

The cars of today are built safely for high speeds, and many of the
traffic laws need to be changed to fit modern times.

In the case of 11y record, I think it should be taken into consideration
that I didn't know yOu could have your license taken away.

When you get right down to it, 'I don't have any excuses for my record.

I'm not trying to build nyself up, but more than one person whose judgment
I respect has complimented me on my driving.

-— 2 - 757-301

AppendixD

36

Interview Rating of Defensiveness (Revised).

Name of Interviewee

 

Interviewer Date:

 

This scale is an attempt to measure how defensive the examines is
in his reaction to his past driving record. The following are some
examples of what might be considered “defensive" behavior: (a) offers
excuses or rationalizations for his past d riving behavior, (b) minimizes
the seriousness of his record, (0) suggests that he was not guilty
in certain instances. In some cases, the defensive examines will argue
with the examiner or resist the latter' s explanations or suggestions.
Accepting responsibility for one's past driving record would be the
opposite of defensiveness. At the end of the interview, rate the examinee
gr: the smogt 9f defensiveness that he showed during the re-examination

towieW.

 

l. Showed no defensive behavior. Completely accepted responsi-
bility for his past driving record.

2. Showed some indications of defensive behavior but in general
accepted responsibility for his past driving record.

3. Showed defensive and acceptance behavior to an almost equal
degree.

1.. Showed defensive behavior mainly but accepted some aspects of
his past driving record.

 

5. Showed nothing but defensive behavior. Completely avoided
accepting responsibility for his past driving record.

G. F. K.

PV 757-300

AppendixE

38

 

39

Appendix E
Intercorrelations Among Scales (33-, A g, D, OD)
and with Other Variables LE. Age, ca-

n 8. .15. 1 .92 a 1 Ase 59194

 

-.61** .26* -.18 -.11 -.02 .07 26* .26*
~61.” .16 .06 -.16 .11 .10 -.01.
-.32* -.12 9.06 -.07 -_-.01. -.08
.83“ .33“ -.27* .16 -.28*

.17 -.22 .26” -.21

«10 .01. .08
.21 .36“

.20

:9:

Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Significant at the .01 level of confidence. V

W1 35E LLY

11211

JAN 23 1260 1..-

Wt 19 13.“: ~63
ebivcu}5

Ell/H

«(wag-v ,
$-01 b1

_ “K M
Mvgwmo, Q ”/11"

“W

message
JW/

ester-a 965

 

 

 

v"

 

 

 

 

 

73."

 

11111111111