PRGBLEM ~ SOLWNG ' PERSlSTENCE AS A FUNCHON 3? TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT ANS NEED FOR APPROVAL AMONG COLLEGE STEEDENTS f' Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE unmasm mm w. mums. * 192a m LIBRARY "‘ r7 l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\l\l\\\\\\l\\\\ ' 3 1293 10370190 rHs-tmsk‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Problem-Solving Persistence as a Function of Type of Reinforcement and Need for Approval Among College Students presented by Marlot W. Williams has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ! Ph. D. degree in Education 724/, ;‘ gm” Date April 21+, 15 / 0-169 BINDING BY HUAB & SBNS' 800K BINDERY INC. LIBRARY BINDERS ant-non nun-ml ABSTRACT PROBLEM—SOLVING PERSISTENCE AS A FUNCTION OF TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT AND NEED FOR APPROVAL AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS Marlot W. Williams Statement 2£_the Problem For years researchers have explored the hypothesis that college students differ in the degree to which they are capable of performing the kinds of academic tasks which are generally demanded of them. Since there are demands other than academic which are made upon college students, there are other than academic reasons why some students do not perform as well as they are capable while in college. In trying to understand why some college students succeed while others fail, it is especially important to understand both the academic and non-academic variables associated with learning. Problem— solving persistence is one such non—academic variable. Some individuals are willing to work on a task for longer periods of time than other individuals, and some in— dividuals are more willing to withstand discomfort in order to achieve a goal than others. Persistent behavior varies according to the way it is motivated. Some college students respond readily, and with sustained activity, to a minimum of motivation, while others appear unre— sponsive to any except the most extreme pressure. Marlot W. Williams The purpose of this study was to determine those differences which exist among college students in regard to the amount of persistence they display toward a problem—solving task with different types of incentive, or reinforcement, and according to different levels of need for approval. As used in this study, persistence referred to an active, voluntary, productive, continuous response to a task in order to achieve a goal. Need for approval referred to a motivational variable characteristic of individuals who are highly sensitive to self-evaluative and social-evaluative conditions. Procedure Three hundred forty—three college students were asked to provide objective measures of problem—solving persistence, socio-economic status, and need for approval. Persistence was measured in terms of the time spent working number series problems. Socio-economic status was operationalized by obtaining a rating assigned the father's occupational status according to Duncan's Socio- economic Status Scale. Need for approval was operation— alized by obtaining a score on the Marlowe—Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The students were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (social reinforcement group, material reinforcement group, no reinforcement control group). Marlot W. Williams Reinforcement was considered to be optimal in each condition. Encouragement was considered to be optimal social reinforcement. Money was considered to be optimal material reinforcement. A least squares solution to a fixed effects model factorial analysis of variance with unequal cell sizes was computed to test main effects of type of reinforce— ment, socio-economic status, need for approval, and sex as well as their interactions. Level of significance was set at the .05 level. Summary‘gf the Findings 1. There were differences in the problem-solving persistence of students according to the type of rein- forcement they received. Social reinforcement was significantly more effective than material reinforcement, but either was significantly more effective than no rein— forcement. 2. Socio-economic status made no difference as to . how the students responded according to type of rein- forcement. Both low and high socio-economic status students were more responsive to social reinforcement than material reinforcement. 3. Females persisted longer than males even without reinforcement, but both males and females were more Marlot W. Williams responsive to social reinforcement than material rein- forcement. 4. There was no difference in the amount of per— sistence displayed toward the different types of rein- forcement between the high need for approval students and the low need for approval students. Both high and low need for approval students persisted longer for social reinforcement than material reinforcement. 5. There was no difference found in this study in need for approval according to socio-economic status. 6. There was no difference found in this study in need for approval according to sex. PROBLEM—SOLVING PERSISTENCE AS A FUNCTION OF TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT AND NEED FOR APPROVAL AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS By Marlot W: Williams A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1970 This dissertation is dedicated to: Kay, Doug, Leigh Ann, and Todd ...who have waited a long time. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation to his committee chairman, Dr. James Costar, for his support throughout the doctoral program. Special thanks are due Dr. Ralph Kron for his willingness to serve as disser- tation chairman. His valuable suggestions and whole- hearted assistance made this study possible. Thanks are also due to other members of the committee, Dr. Norman Abeles and Dr. David Smith. Dr. Bart M. James made a valuable contribution to the author's early professional development. ’The author also wishes to express his regards to a colleague, Dr. Larry McOmber, whose interest and encouragement was most helpful, and to Arval Williams and Pearl Williams who were willing to make many sacrifices to make hope become a possibility. Finally, grateful appreciation is expressed to Kay, who was willing to experience much adversity to share in her husband's undertaking. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION. O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ........ O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ii. ACKNOWIJEWENTS O ....... O O O O O O O ........ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 j- i 1 LIST OF TABIJESOOCOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO Vi- LIST OFAPPENDICESOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC ix Chapter 1. STATEMENT OF TIE PROBI—‘EMOOOO0.0.0.00000000000 1 Need for the Study Purpose of the Study Research Hypotheses Theoretical Foundation of the Study Definition of Terms Delimitations of the Study Limitation of the Study Overview of the Study II. BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH........... 10 Review of Literature on Persistence Historical Perspective Persistence Conceived as a Trait Persistence Conceived as Resistance to Extinction Persistence Conceived as a Motivational Phenomenon Review of Literature on Need for Approval Summary III. DESIGN OF TI'IE STUDYOOCOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO ..... O 33 Sample Instrumentation Numerical Ingenuity Test Socio-economic Status Scale Marlowe-Crowns Social Desirability Scale Experimental Design Procedures Used in the Study iv Chapter Page Social Reinforcement Condition Material Reinforcement Condition No Reinforcement Control Condition Statistical Hypotheses Methods of Testing Hypotheses Assumptions of Analysis of Variance Summary IV. ANAIIYSIS OF TIE DATAOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.000... 45 Results of the Analysis Interpretation of the Main Effects Interpretation of the Interaction Effects Post hoc Comparisons Statement and Results of Hypotheses Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTIER RESEARCH-OCOOOOCOCOCCOCCC... 71 Summary Summary of the Findings Conclusions Suggestions for Farther Research BIBLIOGRAPIHOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 85 APPENDICES...0.0.00COOOOOOOOOO'OOOIODOOOOO...0...... 88 Table l. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Adjusted Analysis of Variance: Overall Regression (About Mean)................... Adjusted Analysis of Variance: Type of Reinforcement............................. Adjusted Analysis of Variance: Socio— economic Status........................... Adjusted Analysis Approval-.0000...COCO-OOOOOOOOOCOOOOO0.0... ‘ Adjusted Analysis Adjusted Analysis Reinforcement x Adjusted Analysis Reinforcement x Adjusted Analysis Reinforcement x Adjusted Analysis economic Status Adjusted Analysis economic Status Adjusted Analysis of Variance: of Variance: of Variance: Need for Sex......... Type of Socio-economic Status..... of Variance: Type of Need for Approval......... of Variance: Type of SBXCOICCOCOOOCOCOOC0...... of Variance: Socio- x Need for Approval....... of Variance: Socio— xSeXOOOOOOOOOOOOOCODOCOOO of Variance: Need for ApprovalxSeXOOOOOOOCOCOOOOCOOOOOOOOOCOOO Adjusted Analysis of Variance: Type of Reinforcement x Socio—economic Status x Need for Approval......................... Adjusted Analysis Reinforcement x Socio-economic Statusx SeXOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO Adjusted Analysis of Variance: Reinforcement x Need for Approval x Sex... Adjusted Analysis of Variance: economic Status x Need for Approval x Sex. of Variance: vi Type of Type of Socio- Page 46 47 48 49 49 50 51 51 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Page Adjusted Analysis of Variance: Type of Reinforcement x Socio-economic Status x Need for Approval x Sex........... 57 Summary of Adjusted Analysis of Variance Dependent Variable—NIT............ 58 Scheffe's Test for Multiple Comparisons Type of Reinforcement...................... 61 Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores Across Levels of Reinforcement............. 62 Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of Low Socio-economic Status Students on Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores Across Levels of Reinforcement............. 63 Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of High Socio-economic Status Students on Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores Across Levels of Reinforcement............. 63 Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of Male Students on Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores Across Levels of Reinforcement.............................. 65 Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of Female Students on Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores Across Levels of Reinforcement.............................. 65 Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of High Need for Approval Students on Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores Across Levels of Reinforcement............. 67 Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of Low Need for Approval Students on Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores Across Levels of Reinforcement............. 67 vii Table Page 26. Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS) Scores Accross Levels of Socio- economic Status...........................- 68 27. Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC—SDS) Scores Across Levels of Sex....... 69 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page magma» Numerical Ingenuity Test.................... 89 Duncan's Socio-economic Status Index........ 93 Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.... 120 Personal Data Sheet......................... 124 Statistics of Numerical Ingenuity Test (NIT) Scores for All Cells in the Experimental DeSj-gn..0000.0000000000 ..... 0.0000000000...0 126 ix “QWERI STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Need for the Study For years researchers have explored the hypothesis that college students differ in the degree to which they are capable of performing the kinds of academic tasks which are generally required of them. Of course, there are demands other than academic which are made upon college students and, therefore, there are reasons other than academic reasons why some students do not perform as well as they are capable while in college. In trying to understand why some college students succeed while others fail, it is especially important to understand both the academic and non-academic variables associated with learning. Persistence is one such non-academic variable. Some individuals are willing to work on a task for longer periods of time than other individuals, and some individuals are more willing to withstand discomfort in order to achieve a goal than Others. Persistent behavior varies according to the way it is motivated. Some college students respond readily, and with sustained activity, to a minimum of motivation, while others appear unresponsive to any except the most extreme pressure. Some students are capable of continued effort with no apparent incentive influence. On the other hand, some students with high ability refuse to exert themselves. Why some students persist longer in their efforts to accomplish a given task than others, and why some respond more readily to different types of incentive are significant issues on which more information is needed. Purpose gf the Study This study is an attempt to determine those differ- ences which exist among college students in regard to the amount of persistence they display toward a problem- solving task with different types of incentive, or rein- forcement, and according to different levels of need for approval. As used in this study, persistence refers to an active, voluntary, productive, continuous response to a task in order to achieve a goal. Need for approval refers to a motivational variable characteristic of in— dividuals who are highly sensitive to self-evaluative and social-evaluative conditions. Research Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There will be differences between high socio-economic status students and low socio—economic status students in the amount of persist- ence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. Hypothesis II: There will be differences between males and females in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. Hypothesis III: There will be differences between high need for approval students and low need for approval students in the amount of persistence they dis- play toward the different types of reinforcement. Hypothesis IV: There will be no difference in need for approval according to socio- economic status. Hypothesis V:~ There will be no difference in need for approval according to sex. Theoretical Foundation 2£.£D£.§£221. The model provided by Rotter's Social Learning Theory1 will be employed in this research. It is a "social" learning theory because it stresses the fact that the basic modes of behavior are learned in social situations and are inextricably fused with needs requiring inter— action with other persons for their satisfaction. There are several reasons for selecting Social Learning Theory as the theoretical construct for this study. It is an explicit theory of personality which gives central impor— tance to the goal-oriented character of behavior. It is usually recognized that motivational constructs which use situational variables provide greater accuracy in pre— diction than constructs which place little or no importance on immediate environmental factors. Rotter provides all his constructs with operational definitions. According to Rotter, reinforcement value is one of the variables which determines strength of reinforcement.- The reinforcement value of any external reinforcement may be ideally defined as the degree of preference for any reinforcement to occur if the possibilities of its occurring were all equal.t0 each other. 1For a complete and comprehensive discussion of Rotter's Social Learning Theory, see J. Rotter, Social learnin and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice- HaII, 15547— Strength of reinforcement is a function of a specific goal or the reinforcement value of a group of functionally related goals. Reinforcements become functionally related primarily on the basis of two generalization principles. The first manner is through a similarity predictable by means of stimulus generalization principles. For example, a slap on the wrist and a slap on the arm are two negative reinforcements that could become functionally related on the basis of stimulus generalization. The second manner is through an extension of mediated stimulus generali- zation, in which a number of different reinforcements that tend to lead to the same reinforcement become related. For example, a number of different responses of the mother, all of which lead to increasing the mother's attention, tend to develop some type of functional relationship. The greater the reinforcement value of a goal, the greater is the effect associated with the attainment or non-attainment of that goal. Strength of reinforcement also serves to change expectancy. Expectancy may be defined as a probability or contingency held by the subject that any specific rein— forcement or group of reinforcements will occur in any given situation or situations. Expectancy may be considered to be both (1) a function of probability, which can be calculated from past histories of reinforcements, necessitating the consideration of special problems such as patterning and reducing increments, and (2) a general- ization of expectancies from other related behavior— reinforcement sequences. Such generalization effects may represent the failure to make the differentiations that are necessary for adequate or efficient adjustment to any given situation. Such effects may be illustrated by the person who has been rebuffed or rejected by his parents and who therefore consistently expects rejection from other people even though such rejection is not likely to occur. The stronger the reinforcement associated with a particular event, the greater the change in expectancy for future occurrence of that event. The effects of the strength of reinforcement may be measured in the change of expectancy for the behavior being reinforced or by the degree of generalization of change in expectancy for other behavioral responses lead- ing to similar goals. Substantial emphasis is placed on the inter- relationships of four classes of variables: (1) the subject's measurable behavior, (2) the subject's expectation that his be— havior will be followed by particular kinds of reinforcements, (3) the value of these reinforcements, and (4) the psychological environment in which behavior occurs. In Social Learning Theory, need is the behavioral abstraction of primary consequence. The environmental conditions determining the direction of behavior are referred to as goals. Both needs and goals have the same referent, goal-directed behavior. Various behaviors be- come functionally related through a process of learning and generalization. The theory assumes that the person functiOns in an integrated, holistic manner. The fundamental proposition of Social Learning Theory is that knowledge of the significance of stimuli for an individual permits prediction of that individual's be- havior. Behavior is conceived of as being the outcome of one activity taking precedence over all other activities available to an individual in a given situation. Which behavioral pattern takes precedence depends upon how the situation is perceived and interpreted by the individual. Consequently, behavioral prediction depends upon knowledge of certain factors which determine the meaning of a situation for an individual and the knowledge of his responses. In other words, there is no objective reality. What a person perceives is, for that person, reality. Rotter's Social Learning Theory states that the study of personality is the study of learned behavior. Learned behavior is modifiable. Therefore, the relevance of Rotter's Social Learning Theory to this research involves the assumption that problem-solving persistence is modifiable precisely because it is a learned pattern of behavior. Definition gf Terms 1. Persistence is operationally defined as an active, voluntary, productive, continuous response to a task in order to achieve a goal. 2. Material reinforcement is operationally defined as a known amount of money, S 3.00. 3.' Social reinforcement is operationally defined as verbal encouragement. 4. Socio-economic status is operationally defined in terms of the rating of the father's occupational status according to Duncan's Socio-economic Status Scale. 5. Need for approval is operationally defined in terms of a score obtained on the Marlowe—Crowns Social Desirability Scale. Delimitations 2f the Study 1. The study includes only undergraduate students at Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. 2. The study includes only Caucasian students. Limitation 2£_the Study 1. The possible lack of validity of criteria used in making the socio-economic status classifications is a limitation of this study.) Overview 2f the Study In this introductory chapter, the need for the study and the purpose of the study were spelled out, the re- search hypotheses were set forth, the theoretical model was explained, and a definition of the principal terms and concepts utilized in the study was presented. In Chapter II, the pertinent literature is reviewed. Chapter III deals with methddological procedures. A description of the sample used in the investigation is presented. The research design, including the instrumenta- tion, the working hypotheses, and the methods and techni- ques employed to test the hypotheses is elaborated. Chapter IV constitutes the essential core of the investigation. It is considered essential because it deals with the statistical tests used to analyze the data. Attention is now turned to a review of literature concerning persistence and need for approval, the variables of primary consequence to this research. CHAPTER II BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH Review of Literature on Persistence Historical Perspective Historically, there have been three different approaches to the study of persistence.2 The first approach has been concerned with persistence as a trait. In such studies, a common technique has been to show the relationship between persistence scores, usually in terms of time, for a variety of different tasks. Initially, these studies were essentially correlational in nature. In more recent studies, factor analytic techniques have been used in an attempt to account for the obtained relationships. The area of primary interest in these studies is in consistency of behavior, whether a person who persists at one task will also tend to persist at another. Proponents of this approach have assumed that such consistency allows the inference of the existence of 2For a complete and comprehensive discussion of per- sistence, see N. T. Feather, "The Study of Persistence," Psychological Bulletin, 59, 1962, 94-115. 10 11 a relatively stable personality characteristic. The role of situational factors in the determination of behavior tends to be ignored since the emphasis is on personality factors which transcend the situation. This approach has difficulty in accounting for variations in persistence from situation to situation. The second approach has been concerned with the issue of resistance to extinction. In such studies, the subject typically-has performed a task without reinforce- ment after having been subjected to a particular type of reinforcement schedule during an acquisition series. Extinction studies usually ignore the possible effect of personality differences and focus on the influence of situational variables, particularly differences in the pattern and amount of reinforcement in the acquisition series. This approach has difficulty in accounting for variations in persistence from person to person. Finally, the third approach has been concerned with persistence as a motivational phenomenon. This approach conceives of personality characteristics interacting with expectations and incentives which are both situationally defined. This approach is thus unlike the two preceding ones for it has the potential of being able to account both for variations in persistence from situation to situation and for variations from person to person. In addition, it allows for the study of both in interaction. 12 The three approaches to the study of persistence may be viewed as falling on a continuum with personality— oriented trait studies at one end, situation-oriented extinction studies at the other end, and motivation studies which consider the interaction of personality and situation between the two extremes. Persistence Conceived as.a Trait The first factorial study of persistence was done by Ryans (1938a) who used a number of objective tests of persistence with 40 college students. Ryans concluded that there was evidence of a "general factor of persist- ence...(which) seemed to be relatively independent of such other capacities as intelligence or perseveration.” In later studies, Ryans (1938b, 19380) showed that a battery of three tests measuring persistence was unrelated to general intelligence, but showed correlations of between 0.4 and 0.5 with success in school. Ryans, D. G. An experimental attempt to analyze persistent behavior: 1. Measuring traits presumed to involve persistence. Journal of General Psychology, 19:333- 353. 1938a. —'— " Ryans, D. G. An experimental attempt to analyze persistent behavior: 11. A persistence test. Journal 2f General Psychology, 19:355-371. 1938b. Ryans, D. G. The meaning of persistence. Journal gf General Psychology, 19:79-96. 1938c. 13 Thornton (1939) criticized Ryans' findings because of the small number of subjects used, and reported a study of his own. His factor analysis of persistence tests was carried out with 22 variables derived from measuring 189 college students. A factor called "willingness to with— stand discomfort in order to achieve a goal" was identified. A second factor, described as patience or "willingness to spend time at a task" was also identified. Another factor analysisby Rethlingshafer (1942) was based on 29 variables involving persistence and other measures of continuance of activities. Although her analysis was based on the scores of only 38 subjects, a total of seven factors was obtained. Rethlingshafer's analysis agreed with previous work in identifying the factors of "keeping at a task once started" and "willing— ness to withstand discomfort in order to achieve a goal." Kremer (1942) studied 156 boys and obtained ratings on 17 traits and scores on six persistence tests. In addition to the six persistence tests and the 17 ratings, Thornton, G. R. A factor analysis of tests designed to measure persistence. Psychological Monographs, 51, No. 229. 1939. Rethlingshafer, D. Relationship of tests of persistence to other measures of continuance of activities. Journal 2; Abnormal and Social Psychology, 37:71—82. Kremer, A. H. The nature of persistence. Studies in Psychology and Psychiatry, 5:1-40. 194 . l4 mental age and school grades were included in the matrix of intercorrelations, from which six factors were extracted. Kremer was able to suggest that a factor exists which allows for a distinction between persistence under group pressure and persistence in isolation. The time spent by students on their final examinations is an easily obtained datum that could be taken as an indication of this persistence factor. It has been demonstrated by Briggs and Johnson (1942) that the first third of the students to hand in their papers get lower scores than would be expected from their intelligence, while the last third get higher scores than expected. MacArthur (1955) intercorrelated and factor analyzed 21 variables for 120 subjects. MacArthur's conclusions agree with the best of the previous studies. He identified (1) the general persistence factor, (2) a factor contrast- ing individuality with prestige suggestibility which bears a close relationship to Kremer's factor, (3) a factor corresponding to Thornton's "willingness to spend time at a task", and (4) a factor corresponding to "willingness to withstand discomfort in order to achieve a goal." The Briggs, A. and Johnson, D. M. A note on the relation between persistence and achievement. Journal 2f, Educational Psychology, 33:623—627. I942. MacArthur, R. S. ’An experimental investigation of persistence in secondary school boys. Canadian Journal 2£_Psychology, 9:42-54. 1955. 15 rediscovery of these factors in this technically more perfect, methodologically more complete, investigation clarifies the psychological traits underlying persistence to a considerable extent. Persistence Conceived as Resistance to Extinction The rationale of considering how resistance to extinction, which is concerned with reinforcement schedules, is related to persistence needs to be clarified. Such investigations are not commonly classified as persistence studies. However, continuing an activity in the absence of uniform non-reinforcement is similar to the persistence situation in which the subject works at a task without success. According to Semler (1967), the prototype of per- sistence can be found in the partial reinforcement effect where results generally show that resistance to extinction is greater following partial reward acquisition in comparison with continuous reward acquisition. Since it is possible to manipulate reward to increase persistence, it is reasonable to assume that individual differences in persistence are a function of variations in the individual's history of reward and non-reward. Semler, I. J. Persistence and learning in young children. Child Development, 38:127—135. 1967. 16 Nakamura and Ellis (1964) conducted two experiments in which children were divided into four groups based on two levels of persistence and two reward treatments. The rewards given to the high and low persisters were either relatively high or relatively low with the absolute magnitude being the same in both conditions. The relative reward values were established by manipulating the per— ceived context from which the rewards were received. The experiments were designed to test the prediction that such relative rewards and rated levels of persistence would affect task performance and also task persistence following discontinuation of the rewards. The results clearly supported the first part of the prediction but were ambiguous on the second part regarding task persist- ence as measured by trials to extinction. It was anticipated that the results could be accounted for by arguing that the relative sizes of the rewards were subjectively different for the low reward and high reward subjects. However, in a later experiment, Nakamura and Lowenkron (1964) studied incentive magnitude Nakamura, C. Y. and Ellis, F. F. Methodological study of the effects of relative reward magnitude on perform— ance. Child Development, 35:595-610. 1964. Nakamura, C. Y. and Lowenkron, B. Z. Incentive magnitude, task orientation, and persistence. Child Development, 35: 610-621. 1964. 17 in relation to task orientation and persistence. Their results clearly showed that reward treatment affected the high persistence subjects quite differently than it did the low persistence subjects. Lewis and Duncan (1956) used a slot machine, modified so that payoffs could be controlled, to study resistance to extinction. The payoffs used were 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, 37.5 percent, 25 percent, 12.5 percent, and 0 percent. Each payoff was worth 5 cents to the player. The total number of plays to quitting- was found to be an inverse function of the percentage of reward with the 100 percent subjects quitting first and the 0 percent subjects quitting last. In another experiment, with 100 percent, 67 percent, 33 percent, 11 percent, and 0 percent reward, Lewis and Duncan (1957) asked their subjects to state for each trial of the 9-trial acquisition series their "expectation" of winning or not winning on the next trial. The results ~showed that expectancies were a regular function of Lewis, D. G. and Duncan, C. P. Effect of different percentages of money reward on extinction of a lever pulling response. Journal 2£_Experimental Psychology, 52:23-27. 1956. Lewis, D. G. and Duncan, C. P. Expectation and resistance to extinction of a level pulling response as a function of percentage of reinforcement and amount of reward. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54:115-120. “1557—. ‘— 18 percentage of reinforcement both during acquisition and extinction, and that the expectancy of winning dropped off very rapidly during extinction for the 100 percent group. This was also the group that quit first. These studies which involve percentage of reward suggest the existence of a non-monotonic function. Because a non-monotonic function usually means that at least two processes are operating, Grant and Schipper (1952) guessed as to what these two processes might be. The first process, they hypothesized, is a discriminative one. The higher the percentage of reinforcement, the more the acquisition series should "stand out" from the extinction series, and the less partial reinforcement effect should result. A discrimination process thus results in a decreasing function as a result of percent— age of reinforcement. The second process is a learning one. With a response starting close to zero response strength, the greater the percentage of reward, for equal numbers of trials below some limit, the greater the response strength. Thus the learning process produces an increasing function, and the discrimination process should produce a trend in the opposite direction. The combination of these two results in a non-monotonic function. Grant, D. A. and Schipper, L. M. The acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyelid responses as a function of the percentage of fixed-ratio random reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, .43:313-320. 195 . '_- 19 Persistence Conceived asig Motivational Phenomenon Within the framework of Atkinson's (1957) theory of achievement motivation, Atkinson and Litwin (1960) pre- dicted that, holding task constant, stronger motive to achieve success should be associated with greater per— sistence, and stronger motive to avoid failure should be associated with less persistence. According to Atkinson's theory, the strength of motive to achieve, motive to avoid failure, incentive value of success, and expectancy of success, interact to determine the strength of achieve- ment motivation. Using 149 college undergraduate subjects, Atkinson and Litwin observed their behavior in a simple ring toss game as indicative of risk taking, the grades they received on their final examination in a course as indicative of performance level, and the amount of time spent working at the final exam as a measure of persist— ence. They found, as predicted, that motive to achieve success was positively related and motive to avoid failure was negatively related to persistence. Atkinson, J. W. Motivational determinants of risk—taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64:359-372. 1957. Atkinson, J. W. and Litwin, G. H. Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived as a motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal 2f Abnormal 22g Social Psychology, 60:52-63. I960. 20 It should be noted that the Atkinson-Litwin study was restricted to the investigation of persistence at a task in relation to differences in strength of achievement related motives. It made no attempt to vary systematically the subject's expectations of success and failure as related to situational cues or to specify clearly the subject's level of expectancy of success. Feather (1961) focused on these problems and investi— gated persistence in relation to the interaction of motives and situationally elicited expectations by varying both factors simultaneously. He found, consistent with his hypotheses, that subjects in whom the motive to achieve success is stronger than the motive to avoid failure per- sist longer at a task for which the initial subjective probabilityof success is high than similar subjects for whom the initial subjective probability for success is low. Conversely, he also found that subjects in whom the motive to avoid failure is greater than the motive to achieve success persist longer at a task for which the initial subjective probability for success is low than similar subjects for whom the initial subjective proba— bility for success is high. Feather, N. T. The relationship of persistence at a task to expectation of success and achievement-related motives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 : 552-561—1961“. .— 21 Blanton (1967) conducted a study on the effects of type of reinforcement and amount of information on the performance of lower and middle class children which was designed to test the hypothesis that while middle class children performed better with performance-oriented, abstract reinforcers than with praise or person-oriented reinforcers, the converse held for lower class children. A verbal conditioning situation was employed. Subjects were 168 third grade students. Blanton found that performance reinforcers produced significantly higher scores than did person reinforcers, regardless of socio- economic status. She also offered an alternative theory to the Common assumption that differences in performance reflect differences in the incentive values of the reinforcers. In situations in which there is some degree of uncertainty about the reward-reinforcer contingency, she feels that performance reinforcers will tend to produce better performance than person reinforcers regardless of the socio-economic status of the subject. Blanton, J. The effects of type of reinforcement and amount of information on the performance of lower and middle class children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Austin: University of Texas, 1967. 22 Marshall (1967), studying learning as a function of task interest, reinforcement, and social class variables, found that prior research results showing that high socio- economic status elementary school children learn better for symbolic rewards and low socio—economis status children learn better for material rewards were not supported. Marshall found that the second important con- clusion to be drawn concerns the importance of the in- trinsic interest of the task. The results indicate that on the task of high interest, there is no significant difference in performance between socio—economic status groups. That is, when given an interesting task, low socio-economic status children perform just as well as high socio-economic children. Wasson (1967) studied the effects of achievement orientation, academic achievement, and monetary incentive on expectancy of success and persistence of sixth grade boys at an insoluble task. She found a complex inter- action between achievement—orientation, academic achieve- ment, and monetary incentive on expectancy of success scores. Marshall, H. H. Learning as a function of task interest, reinforcement, and social class variables. Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California, 1967. Wasson, B. B. The effects of achievement orientation, academic achievement, and monetary incentive on expectancy of success and persistence at an insoluble task of sixth grade boys. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1967. Brown (1969) studied the effect of alternating social approval comments and tangible rewards on task performance of kindergarten children. The task was key pressing. Twenty children were assigned to each of three experi- mental groups under social approval comments from an adult, tangible reinforcement, or alternated social and tangible reinforcement. There was no evidence that tangible reinforcement was better than social reinforce- ment except when they were alternated. Review 2f Literature 2g Need for Approval Marlowe and Crowne (1964) assert that individuals who have high need for approval are more sensitive to self-evaluative and social—evaluative conditions than persons low in need for approval. The approval-dependent individual is characterized by defensiveness and vulnerable self-esteem. Barthel (1963) hypothesized that approval-oriented subjects (especially those with a low expectancy of Brown, R. A. The effect of alternating social and tangible rewards on task performance of kindergarten children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1969. Marlowe, D. and Crowne, D. P. The approval motive. New York: John Wiley and Sons, I964. Barthel, C. E. The effects of the approval motive, generalized expectancy, and situational cues upon goal-setting and social defensiveness. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1963. 24 success) would exhibit greater defensive rigidity of goal—setting than would subjects less dependent upon approval (especially those with a relatively high ~expectancy of success). This hypothesized differentiation of behavior would be enhanced under conditions of increased threat to self-esteem and minimized under conditions designed to bolster a subject's self-concept. One hundred twenty subjects participated in the study and were categorized on the basis of their scores of need for approval and level of generalized expectancy. In order to study goal-setting behavior, a dart-throwing task was employed in which subjects were allowed to choose the distance at which they would like to stand during each of 15 performance trials. The variance in shifts of position constituted the measure of rigidity; a low score would indicate constricted, rigid goal-setting behavior. Subjects were assigned to one of three experi— mental conditions: neutral, threatening, and positive self-esteem. Consistent with predictions, results showed that approval-oriented persons, especially those with low expectancy of success, exhibited greater rigidity under neutral experimental conditions than those with high expectancy of success. Subjects less dependent upon approval were relatively less affected by experimental conditions. 25 Cooper (1964) tested the hypothesis that high need for approval subjects would avoid the recognition of failure in contrast to low need for approval subjects. Moreover, it was hypothesized that high need for approval subjects in contrast to low need for approval subjects would attempt to represent themselves as being relatively successful. Subjects were undergraduate students from an introductory course in psychology. Prior to the main experiment they were pretested to measure their level of need for approval, and to obtain projective material from which their base level of failure fantasy was determined. Subsequent to the pretest, subjects from the same course were given failure feedback on a perceptual judgment task. The reaction to failure feedback was compared to control groups who received success feedback, or no feedback, on the perceptual task. The results showed that low need for approval subjects, in contrast to high need for approval subjects, increased their decision time to a significant degree during failure feedback on the perceptual judgment task. This was interpreted as indicating that because high need for approval subjects deny failure they do not adapt to the situation by increasing their decision time as did the low need for approval subjects. It was also found that Cooper, J. R. The need for approval and the reaction to failure. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Evanston: Northwestern University, 1964. 26 even in the face of failure high need for approval subjects estimated their percentile rank to be signifi- cantly higher than the estimate given by the low need for approval subjects. Smith (1964) hypothesized that subjects with high need for approval are initially more responsive to social reinforcement than are subjects less motivated to receive approval. The hypothesis was not confirmed. Differences in need for approval did not differentially affect responsivity scores. Warehime (1965) proposed that (1) mode of reaction to psychological interpretations depends on the social desirability or social undesirability of those inter— pretations, and that (2) mode of reaction to psychological interpretations is associated with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale score of the person evaluated. The dependent variables were subject's ratings of the quality of the interpretations given, subject's reactions Smith, C. O. Interpersonal responsivity in a free responding verbal conditioning situation as a function of need for approval, expectancy of experimenter congeniality, and evaluation of task performance. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Palo Alto: Stanford University, 1964. Warehime, R. G. The approval motive and mode of reaction to socially desirable and socially undesirable psychological interpretations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1965. 27 toward the psychological interpreter, subject's reactions toward the study, and subject's personal reactions to the interpretations (unhappiness, anger, and discomfort). As predicted, high need for approval subjects rated the experimenter more favorably and attributed more scientific value to the study than did low need for approval subjects no matter whether they received socially desirable or socially undesirable interpretations. Contrary to prediction, high need for approval subjects reported as much unhappiness and anger associated with the receiving of the interpretations as low need for approval subjects. When given socially undesirable interpretations, high need for approval subjects reported more discomfort than low need for approval subjects. Barber (1966) conducted a study in which it was hypothesized that (1) subjects who received a high percentage of reinforcement for imitative responses would imitate more than subjects who received a low percentage of reinforcement for imitative responses, (2) subjects with a high need for approval would imitate more than subjects with a low need for approval, and (3) subjects with simulated compatible partners would Barber, K. J. Imitative behavior as a function of task reinforcement, need for social approval, and simulated interpersonal compatibility. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1966. 28 imitate more than subjects with simulated incompatible partners. Using 144 male undergraduate college students in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, Barber found that imitative behavior was not a function of need for approval or compatible partners. The major conclusion was that imitative behavior was a function of behavioral conse— quences and not of personality or social variables. Moffett (1967) was concerned with investigating whether individuals who were high and low in need for social approval respond differentially but in a predict- able fashion to a fixed category attitude scale with respect to the regions of acceptance and non-commitment, and subsequent shifts in these variables after the appli- cation of treatment effects. Two hundred eighty—seven introductory psychology students were dichotomized into high and low need for approval groups and subsequently administered a nine-point attitude scale on the Viet Nam War. Subjects' responses were evaluated with respect to the frequencies of acceptance, and non-commitment for each of the nine positions. Subjects were readministered the attitude scale following the application of treatment effects to three of four groups. The fourth group served Moffett, F. L. Effects of need for social approval on judgments of statements about a central issue. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Stillwater: University of Oklahoma, 1967. 29 as a control. All groups contained high and low approval- motivated subjects. Treatment effects consisted of reinforcing a different attitude position for each of the experimental groups by stating to the subjects that a large majority of them had chosen a particular attitude position as most acceptable on the first administration of the attitude scale. As predicted, high approval- motivated subjects had larger regions of non—commitment on the first administration of the attitude scale. High approval-motivated subjects shifted their most acceptable position to conform to the treatment effects on the second administration of the attitude scale. Contrary to the prediction, high approval-motivated subjects did not significantly decrease their regions of non—commitment on the second administration of the attitude scale. These studies tend to provide corroborating evidence that the individual with high need for approval is a more conforming and restrictive individual than is the person with low need for approval. Such an interpretation is supported by evidence that individuals who score high on the Marlowe-Q32! e Social Desigability §£filfi give less revealing and shorter projective test protocols, leave psychotherapy sooner, and display less hostility and aggression following frustration than do low scorers. The approval-dependent individual is characterized by defensiveness and vulnerable self—esteem. 30 Summary In this chapter, research on persistence was reviewed. The research findings were separated on the basis of different historical approaches to the study of persist— ence. The different historical approaches were persistence conceived as a trait, persistence conceived as resistance to extinction, and persistence conceived as a motivational phenomenon. In studies of persistence as a trait, a common technique has been to study consistency of behavior by demonstrating the relationship between persistence scores and a variety of different tasks. Using factor analytic techniques, several investigators identified the factor called "willingness to spend time at a task" and the factor called "willingness to withstand discomfort in order to achieve a goal." These early investigators also concluded that there existed a general factor of persist- ence which seemed to be relatively independent of other .capacities. This approach has difficulty in accounting for variations in persistence from situation to situation. In studies of persistence conceived as resistance to extinction, the subject typically has performed a task without reinforcement after having been subjected to a particular type of reinforcement schedule during an acquisition series. Studies involving resistance to extinction are essentially concerned with the effect of 31 partial reinforcement in comparison with continuous rein- forcement. They are usually concerned with magnitude of reinforcement, percentage of reinforcement, and expecta- tion of reinforcement. This approach has difficulty in accounting for variations in persistence from person to person. The study of persistence conceived as a motivational phenomenon allows the investigator to account both for variations in persistence from situation to situation and for variations from person to person. In addition, it allows for the study of both in interaction. These studies tend to provide evidence that motivational determinants affect achievement orientation, task interest, risk taking, and expectancy of success and failure. Several. of the investigators were concerned with social class variables, but most were concerned with subjects who were elementary school children. A review of literature on need for approval was also included in this chapter. The individual with high need for approval is characterized as a more conforming, restrictive, defensive individual than is the person with low need for approval. Such an inter— pretation is supported by evidence that individuals who score high on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale give less revealing and shorter projective test protocols, leave psychotherapy sooner, and display less hostility and aggression following frustration than do 32 individuals with low scores. The review of literature included no sex comparisons, either in terms of the amount of persistence displayed or in response to type of reinforcement. The present study will include sex comparisons between these variables. Several other variables, including socio-economic status and need for approval, are important to this study be- cause the study is concerned totally with college students. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Sample The population from which the sample was chosen consisted of all Caucasian undergraduate students enrolled in Central Michigan University during the 1969-70 academic school year. The sample included 343 students. The sample of 153 males and 190 females was drawn and randomly assigned to treatment groups. Instrumentation Objective measures of persistence, socio-economic status, and need for approval were obtained from individuals in the sample. The following instruments were selected to measure the above variables. Persistence--Time spent working number series problems on the Numerical Ingenuity Egg}, Socio-economie Status-—Rating assigned the subject's father's occupational status according to Duncan's Socio-economic Status Scale Need for Approva1--Score obtained on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. 33 34 Numerical Ingenuity Test The Numerical Ingenuity Tee; (Appendix A) consists of 30 number series problems. The subjects were asked to find the rule governing the construction of six numbers and then to write the seventh and eighth numbers in the series. The items range from medium difficulty to extreme difficulty, with two items having no solution whatsoever (numbers 3 and 8). In the directions to the test, the subjects are told that some of the items have no solution. They are told to respond to such items by entering an X in the appropriate answer space. This feature is designed to encourage the unpersistent subjects to give up early, using a large number of X's. The subjects are told that they may work on the task for as long as they wish. The "score" corresponds to the number of minutes the subject works on the test. Socio—economic Status Scale To operationalize socio-economic status, subjects were asked to respond to the following items on the demographic information sheet: (1) What does your father (or whomever supports your family) do for a living? (2) Describe what your father (or whomever supports your family) does on the job. Occupations indicated by the subjects were assigned decile ratings 35 according to Duncan's Socio-economic Status Scale (Appendix B). Where occupation of the father was not clearly specified by the subject in response to the first item, the description given in response to the second item was used to classify the occupation. A subject's socio-economic status thus becomes the rating on the Duncan Scale of his father's occupation or the occupation of whomever supports his family. A decile score of 1—5 will be considered "low" on the socio- economic status scale. A decile score of 6-10 will be considered "high" on the socio-economic status scale. Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale The 33 true-false items which constitute the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Sggleé(Appendix C) are items which are regarded as being highly socially desirable (or undesirable) statements to attribute to oneself. Persons who endorse socially desirable items or reject socially undesirable ones are said to be demonstrating a social-desirability response set. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability S2213 is composed of 15 culturally acceptable but probably untrue statements and 18 probably true but undesirable statements, making an acquiescence interpretation highly improbable. It is not necessary to assume either that subjects who acknowledge the "good" items and reject the "bad" 36 items on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Seals are accurately describing how they actually behave or that they are consciously lying and that their responses represent deliberate deceit. Marlowe and Crowne assume that people conform to social stereotypes of what is good to acknowledge concerning oneself in order to receive approval from others. The Marlowe—Crowne Social Desirability §£212_is thus an indirect measure of need for approval. A score of 12 or less will be considered as indicative of low need for approval. A score of more than 12 will be considered as indicative of high need for approval. To determine the reliability of the scale, both internal consistency and test-retest coefficients were obtained. Using the Kuder—Richardson formula 20, the internal consistency coefficient for the scale was found to be .88. After an interval of one month, a test-retest correlation of .88 was obtained. These correlations indicate that reliability was very satisfactorily achieved. The mean score of the Central Michigan University experimental sample was 10.83 with a standard deviation of 5.16. The Kuder-Richardson formula 21 coefficient for the Central Michigan University experimental sample was .75. 37 Experimental Design The design of the study includes three levels of reinforcement (social, material, and none). Additionally, there are two levels of socio-economic status (low and high), two levels of sex (male and female), and two levels of need for approval (low and high). Therefore, there are 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 24 cells in the design. Need for No Material ' Social Approval Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement High High M F M F M F Socio- economic Status Low M F M F M F LOW , High M F M F M F Soc10- economic Status Low M F M F M F Procedures Used in the Study Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups (social reinforcement group, material reinforcement group, no reinforcement control group). Reinforcement is considered to be optimal in each condition. Encouragement is considered to be optimal social reinforcement. Money is considered to be optimal material reinforcement. Each subject was tested alone in a private office. 38 Social Reinforcement Condition Subjects assigned to the social reinforcement condition received optimal encouraganent of a specific nature, in a specific sequence, in a precise timed pattern, varying only the name of the subject. The following protocol was followed: 1. The experimenter explained to the subject that the research project was part of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree in counseling psychology. 2. After the subject was given the test, the experimenter remained with him until he completed reading the instructions. The subject was then asked, "Do you understand the directions?" 3. When the subject answered in the affirmative, the experimenter said, "Okay, why don't you start and I'll be back in a few minutes." The experimenter inconspicuously noted the precise time. 4. Exactly 15 minutes later, the experimenter returned to the office and said, "How are you doing, ? (Looks at test.) Oh, you're doing fine. See you later." 5. Exactly 15 minutes later, the experimenter returned to the office, glanced at the test over the subject's shoulder, and said, "Very good. Keep at it. I'll be back in a few minutes." 39 6. Exactly 15 minutes later, the experimenter returned to the office, glanced at the test and remarked, "How are you doing now? (Answers own question.) Good. I'll be back soon." 7. Thereafter, at precise 15 minute intervals, the experimenter alternated number 5 and number 6. 8. At any point in the above sequence, when the subject made a negative statement (such as, "I can't do any more."), the experimenter said, "Stay with it a little longer. Do all you can." 9. The experimenter noted the precise time when the subject turned the test in. Material Reinforcement Condition Subjects assigned to the material reinforcement condition were told that the research project was part of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree in counseling psychology.r They were told that if they obtained or exceeded the average score of Central Michigan University students on the Numerical Ingenuity Igstn they would be paid 33.00 at the completion of their testing period. It was explained to subjects who wanted to know what the average score was that the information could not be divulged until all the data were gathered. For the Same reason, they were not told their own score, but 40 were told that such information could be shared with them later. NQ_Reinforcement Control Condition Subjects assigned to the no reinforcement control condition were told that the research project was part of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree in counseling psychology and asked if they would participate. Upon answering in the affirmative, the subject was given the test, told to be sure and read the directions carefully, told where to turn the test in when they were finished with it, and placed in the testing office. As in the other reinforcement conditions, all subjects were tested alone. Conversation was held to a minimum in order to avoid inadvertently reinforcing the subject. 41 Statistical Hypotheses Five hypotheses were developed from theory as discussed in Chapter I. These are presented below in null and alternate form. HO 1: No statistically significant differences exist between the low socio-economic status students and the high socio-economic status students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. H A I: There will be statistically significant differ- ences between the low socio-economic status students and the high socio-economic status students in the amount of persistence they dis- play toward the different types of reinforcement. a. Low socio—economic status students will persist longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforcement. b. High socio-economic status students will persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement. 0 II: No statistically significant differences exist between males and females in the amount of per- sistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. II: III: III: 42 There will be statistically significant diff- erences between males and females in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. a. Male students will persist longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforcement. b. Female students will persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement. No statistically significant differences exist between high need for approval students and low need for approval students in the amount of persistence they display toward the diff- erent types of reinforcement. There will be statistically significant diff- erences between high need for approval students and low need for approval students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. a. High need for approval students will persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement. b. Low need for approval students will persist 43 longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforcement. H0 IV: There will be no statistically significance difference in need for approval according to socio-economic status. HO V: There will be no statistically significance difference in need for approval according to SEX. Methods 2f Testing Hypotheses The data will be analyzed by a least squares solution to a factorial analysis of variance technique. The statistical hypotheses will be stated in null form and will be rejected at the .05 level of significance. Where null hypotheses of effects have been rejected, appropriate post hoc procedures will be applied to comparisons within these effects. Assumptions f Analysis g£_Variance The statistical assumptions of the analysis of variance procedure are normality, homoscedasticity, and independence. Normality refers to the assumption of randon selection of subjects. Homoscedasticity refers 44 to the requirement that the coefficient is such that the distribution of Y scores have the same standard deviation as the distribution of X scores. Independence refers to the assumption of mutual exclusiveness of treatment effects. Within the limitations of this study, it was decided that none of these assumptions was violated. Therefore, analysis of variance is an appropriate statistical technique to use in analyzing the data. Summary The population of the study consisted of all Caucasian undergraduate students enrolled in Central Michigan University during the 1969—70 academic school year. The instruments used in the study were the Numerical Ingenuity Test, Duncan's Socio-economic Status Scale, and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. All instru- ments were assumed, on the basis of prior research, to have sufficient reliability and validity to be used as the criterion measures for this study. An analysis of variance technique was used to analyze the data. Analysis of variance is a statistical procedure for analyzing data which assumes normality, homoscedasti— city, and independence. The data used in this study meet these requirements. The .05 level of significance was used as the criterion of acceptance or non—acceptance of the null hypotheses. The results of the analysis are presented in the following chapter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Results 2f the Analysis As a measure of problem-solving persistence, the amount of time each subject worked on the Numerical Ingenuity Test was computed. The time is reported to the nearest minute. The minimum value obtained was 16, while the maximum score obtained was 165. The mean score, across reinforcement groups, was 64.56 with a standard deviation of 27.ll. A least squares solution to a fixed effects model factorial analysis of variance with unequal cell sizes was computed3 to test main effects of type of reinforce— ment, socio-economic status, need for approval, and sex as well as their interactions. Level of significance was set at the .05 level. 3For a complete and comprehensive discussion of the least squares method, see Walter R. Harney, Least Squares Anal sis of Data With Unequal Subclass Numbers. BuIIetin ARS—20-8. Agriculture Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. July, 1960. 45 46 The data for the overall regression are reported in Table 1. TABLE 1 ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OVERALL REGRESSION (ABOUT MEAN) Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F Regression 81,051.56 23 3,523.98 6.60 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 251,336.64 542 The obtained F value of 6.60 with 23 and 319 degrees of freedom is significant beyond the .05 level of confidence. To find the effects due to type of reinforcement, the analysis of variance technique was used to compare the differences among treatment means for the three groups: social reinforcement, no reinforcement, and material reinforcement. The data are reported in Table 2. 47 TABLE 2. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A 23,951.29 2 11,975.64 22.43 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 194,236.37 321 The obtained F value of 22.43 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is significant beyond the .05 level of confi- dence. To find the effects due to socio—economic status, the analysis of variance technique was used to compare the differences among means for the low socio-economic status as opposed to the high socio-economic status students. Low socio-economic status students were identified as having a score of 5 or less on the Duncan 'SQEigfeconomic Status S2212, High socio-economic status students were identified as having a score greater than 5 on this scale. The data are reported in Table 3. 48 TABLE 3. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOCIO—ECONOMIC STATUS L A.. ‘Sfim 6T ATV ‘ Mean Source Squares df Squares F B 21.99 1 21.99 .04 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 170,307.07 320 The obtained F value of .04 with l and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. To find the effects due to need for approval, the analysis of variance technique was used to compare the differences among means for the low need for approval students as opposed to the high need for approval students. Low need for approval students were identified as having a score of 12 or less on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability_§gele, High need for approval students were identified as having a score greater than 12 on this scale. The data are reported in Table 4. 49 TABLE 4. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE NEED FOR APPROVAL Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F C 65.24 1 65.24 .12 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 170,350.32 320 The obtained F value of .12 with l and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. To find the effects due to sex, the analysis of variance technique was used to compare the differences among males and females. The data are reported in Table 5. TABLE 5. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SEX Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F D 3,646.81 1 3,646.81 6.83 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 173,931.89 320 50 The obtained F value of 6.83 with 1 and 319 degrees of freedom is significant beyone the .05 level of confi- dence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the type of reinforcement x socio-economic status interaction. The data are reported in Table 6. TABLE 6. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT x SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A x B 1,218.51 2 609.26 1.14 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 171,503.59 321 The obtained F value of 1.14 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the type of reinforcement x need for approval interaction. The data are reported in Table 7. 51 TABLE 7. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT x NEED FOR APPROVAL Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A x C 802.04 2 401.02 .75 Error W 3.1.9. $33-81 Total ' 171,087.12 321 The obtained F value of .75 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the type of reinforcement x sex interaction. The data are reported in Table 8. TABLE 8. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT x SEX Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A x D 1,059.39 2 529.69 .99 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 171,344.47 321 [C The obtained F value of .99 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the socio-economic status x need for approval interaction. The data are reported in Table 9. TABLE 9. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOCIO—ECONOMIC STATUS x NEED FOR APPROVAL Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F B x C 320.90 1 320.90 .60 Error 1704285.08 319 533.81 Total 170,605.98 320 The obtained F value of .60 with l and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the socio-economic status x sex inter- action. The data are reported in Table 10. 53 TABLE 10. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOCIO—ECONOMIC STATUS x SEX Sum of .Mean Source Squares df Squares F B x D 145.77 1 145.77 .27 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 170,430.85 320 The obtained F value of .27 with 1 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the need for approval x sex interaction. The data are reported in Table 11. TABLE 11 . ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE NEED FOR APPROVAL x SEX Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F C x D 1,887.72 1 1,887.72 3.54 Error 1704285.08 319 533.81 Total 172,172.80 320 54 The obtained F value of 3.54 with l and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the type of reinforcement x socio—economic status x need for approval interaction. The data are reported in Table 12. TABLE 12. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT x SOCIO—ECONOMIC STATUS x NEED FOR APPROVAL Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A x B x C 1,328.31 2 664.16 1.24 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 170,613.39 321 The obtained F value of 1.24 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the type of reinforcement x socio-economic status x sex interaction. The data are reported in Table 13. 55 TABLE 13. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT x SOCIO- ECONOMIC STATUS x SEX Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A x B x D 1,005.11 2 502.56 .94 Error 1704285.O8 .319 533.81 Total 171,290.19 321 The obtained F value of .94 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the type of reinforcement x need for approval x sex interaction. The data are reported in Table 14. TABLE 14. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT x NEED FOR APPROVAL x SEX Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A x C x D 450.72 2 225.36 .42 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 170,735.80 321 56 The obtained F value of .42 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of socio—economic status x need for approval x sex. The data are reported in Table 15. TABLE 15. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS x NEED FOR APPROVAL x SEX Sum of . Mean Source Squares df Squares F B x C x D 711.69 1 711.69 1.33 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 Total 170,996.77 320 The obtained F value of 1.33 with 1 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The analysis of variance technique was used to find the effects of the type of reinforcement x socio-economic status x need for approval x sex interaction. The data are reported in Table 16. 57 TABLE 16. ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT x SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS x NEED FOR APPROVAL x SEX Sum of Mean Source Squares df Squares F A x B x C x D 243.95 2 121.98 .22 Error 1704285.O8 319 533.81 Total 170,529.03 321 The obtained F value of .22 with 2 and 319 degrees of freedom is not significant at the .05 level of confidence. All the basic data for the preceding information is summarized in Table 17 which follows. [r '.\.= L lami'." ' 58 TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF ADJUSTED ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DEPENDENT VARIABLE—NIT Source Sgaggs df ”saggres F A 23,951.29 2 11,975.64 22.43 B 21.99 1 21.99 .04 c 65.24 1 65.24 .12 0 3,646.81 1 3,646.81 6.83 A x B 1,218.51 2 609.26 1.14 A x C 802.04 2 401.02 .75 A x 0 1,059.39 2 529.69 .99 B x C 320.90 1 320.90 .60 s x D 145.77 1 145.77 .27 c x D 1,887.72 1 1,887.72 3.54 A x B 0 1,328.31 2 664.16 1.24 A x B D 1,005.11 2 502.56 .94 A x c D 450.72 2 225.36 .42 B x c 0 711.69 1 711.69 1.33 A x B c x D 243.95 2 121.98 .22 Error 170,285.08 319 533.81 H 59 Interpretation gf the Main Effects The type of reinforcement main effect indicates that the three means, averaged over the two levels of socio—economic status, the two levels of need for approval, and the two levels of sex, differ significantly. Similarly, the sex main effect indicates that the two means, aver- aged over the three levels of type of reinforcement, the two levels of socio—economic status, and the two levels of need for approval, differ significantly. The fact that significance is obtained according to type of reinforcement does_not indicate which type of reinforce- ment is mest effective. Similarly, the fact that significance is obtained according to sex does not indicate which sex has the higher score. Interpretation 2f the Interaction Effects None of the interaction effects is significant. The fact that significance does not occur indicates that the difference between the means of one level of a main effect isnot significantly different from the difference be- tween the other level of the main effect across the other main effects. Specifically, the fact that the A x B interaction, for example, is not significant indicates that the difference between the means of the different reinforcement types for the first level of B is not 60 significantly different from the difference between the means of the different reinforcement types for the second level of B. With a nonsignificant A x B inter— action, it may be concluded that the A effect, the difference between the three types of reinforcement, is independent of B. The same rationale is applicable for all the other nonsignificant interaction effects. Post hoc Comparisons Scheffe's test4 for multiple comparisons was applied to the type of reinforcement main effect to determine how the main effect was significant. The formula F = (A1 - A )2 Error Mean Square l.+ 1 n1 n2 was used to compare the mean of the social reinforcement 2 group with the mean of the no reinforcement group, the mean of the material reinforcement group with the mean of the no reinforcement group. and the mean of the social reinforcement group with the mean of the material reinforcement group.‘ S 4For a complete and comprehensive discussion of (:heffe's.test see A. L. Edwards Experimental Design 9 ’ 0 —— it. Psychological Research. New York: , Rinehart and ins on, 1 O. 61 Scheffe‘s test is rather conservative; that is, larger differences are required for significance than are necessary for planned orthogonal comparisons. Scheffe suggests, therefore, that alpha level be .10 rather than .05. The comparisons were evaluated by the formula F' = (k-l)F where F' is k—l times the tabled value of F for k-l and k(n-l) degrees of freedom. In this instance, with alpha equal to .10, F' : 18.98. The data are reported in Table 18. TABLE 18. SCHEFFE'S TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS TYPE OF REINFORCEMENT Comparison F value F' value Social Reinforcement vs. No Reinforcement 422.16 18.98 Material Reinforcement vs. No Reinforcement 268.94 18.98 Social Reinforcement .vs. Material Reinforcement 32.26 18.98 The obtained F values with 2 and 319 degrees of freedon are significant at the .10 level of confidence. 62 Statement and Results 2f Hypotheses Hypothesis I predicted that there will be differences between the low socio-economic status students and the high socio-economic status students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. It was predicted that low socio-economic status students would persist longer for material rein- forcement (money) than for social reinforcement (encouragement), and that high socio-economic status students would persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement. The data for type of reinforcement, upon which several other hypotheses are based, are reported in Table 19. TABLE 19. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF REINFORCEMENT Social No Material Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement N 116 121 106 Mean 77.18 46.36 71.50 Variance 707.56 231.04 723.61 S. D. 26.66 15.22 26.97 63 The data for the low socio—economic status students are reported in Table 20. TABLE 20. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS STUDENTS 0N NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF REINFORCEMENT Social No Material Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement N 26 32 29 Mean 79.65 47.15 66.17 Variance 646.68 190.44 636.55 S. D. 25.43 13.80 25.23 The data for the high socio-economic status students are reported in Table 21. TABLE 21. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF HIGH SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS STUDENTS 0N NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF REINFORCEMENT Social No Material Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement N 90 89 77 Mean 76.47 46.07 73.50 Variance 727.38 246.18 746.93 S. D. 26.97 15.69 27.33 64 The hypothesis that there will be differences be- tween the low socio-economic status students and the high socio-economic status students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement is rejected. The directional prediction that low socio-economic status students would persist longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforcement was not substantiated. The directional prediction that high socio-economic status students would persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement was substantiated. Hypotheses 11 predicted that there will be differences between the males and the females in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. It was predicted that male students would persist longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforcement. and that female students would persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement. The data for the males are reported in Table 22. 65 TABLE 22. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION 0F MALE STUDENTS ON NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF REINFORCEMENT Social N0 Material Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement N _ 60 48 45 Mean 71.36 41.22 (63.91 Variance 769.51 147.62 619.01 S. D. 27.74 12.15 24.88 The data for the females are reported in Table 23. TABLE 23. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION 0F FEMALE STUDENTS 0N NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF REINFORCEMENT Social No , Material Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement N 56 73 61 Mean 83.42 49.73 77.09 Variance 572.64 258.24 733.33 s. o. ' 23.93 16.07 27.08 66 The hypothesis that there will be differences between the males and the females in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement was not rejected. Significance was obtained at the .05 level of probability as reported in Table 5. The directional prediction that male students would persist longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforce— ment was not substantiated. The directional prediction that female students would persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement was substantiated. Hypothesis III predicted that there will be differences between the high need for approval students and the low need for approval students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. It was predicted that high need for approval students would persist longer for social reinforcement that for material reinforcement, and that low need for approval students would persist longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforcement. The data for the high need for approval students are reported in Table 24. 67 TABLE 24. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF HIGH NEED FOR APPROVAL STUDENTS ON NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF REINFORCEMENT Social No Material Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement N 41 41 41 Mean 75.07 47.24 73.48 Variance 508.05 199.94 656.38 S. D. 22.54 14.14 25.62 The data for the low need for approval students are reported in Table 25. TABLE 25. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION 0F LOW NEED FOR APPROVAL STUDENTS ON NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF REINFORCEMENT Social No Material Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement N 75 80 65 Mean 78.34 45.91 70.24 Variance 817.96 247.73 767.84 S. D. 28.60 15.73 27.71 68 The hypothesis that there will be differences be- tween the high need for approval students and the low need for approval students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement was rejected. The directional prediction that high need for approval students would persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement was sub— stantiated. The directional prediction that low need for approval students would persist longer for material reinforcement than for social reinforcement was not substantiated. Hypothesis IV predicted that there will be no difference in need for approval according to socio-economic status. The data are reported in Table 26. TABLE 26. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION ON THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE (MC-SOS) SCORES - ACROSS LEVELS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS High Low N 256 87 Mean 10.95 10.49 Variance ' 69.55 23.22 S. D. 8.34 4.82 69 The hypothesis that there will be no difference in need for approval according to socio-economic status was not rejected at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis V predicted that there will be no difference in need for approval according to sex. The data are reported in Table 27. TABLE 27. MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION ON THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE (MC—SDS) SCORES ACROSS LEVELS OF SEX Males Females N 153 190 Mean 10.01 11.49 Variance 41.33 49.69 S. D. 6.43 7.05 The hypothesis that there will be no differences in need for approval according to sex is not rejected at the .05 level of confidence. As a matter of interest, however, it may be noted that the obtained level of significance was .06, so the margin of substantiation for the hypothesis was rather small. 70 Summary In Chapter IV an analysis of the data obtained in the study was presented. The data was obtained from Central Michigan University students who completed the Numerical Ingenuity Iggy (Appendix A) under different conditions of reinforcement. In addition, the students also completed the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Spele’ (Appendix C) and a bibliographical information sheet (Appendix D). A decision was made to reject or not reject each of the statistical hypotheses. A summary of the findings, together with conclusions and suggestions for further research arising from them, will be found in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary This study was an attempt to demonstrate that problem- solving persistenCe is a function of type of reinforcement and need for approval among college students. As used in this study, persistence refers to an active, voluntary, productive, continuous response to a task in order to achieve a goal. Need for approval refers to a motivational variable characteristic of individuals who are highly sensitive to self-evaluative and social-evaluative con- ditions. Five hypotheses were advanced: Hypothesis 1. There will be differences between high socio— economic status students and low socio-economic status students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. 71 72 Hypothesis I}, There will be differences between males and females in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. Hypothesisllll. There will be differences between high need for approval students and low need for approval students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement. Hypothesis 1!. There will be no difference in need for approval according to socio-economic status. Hypothesis,!. There will be no difference in need for approval according to sex. Summary 2f the Findings Within the limitations imposed by the nature of the sample, the instrumentation, and the design of the study, the following findings were obtained: 1. There are differences in the problem- solving persistence of students according to the type of reinforcement they receive. Social rein- forcement is significantly more effective than 73 material reinforcement, but either is significantly more effective than no reinforcement. 2. Socio-economic status makes no difference as to how the students will respond according to type of reinforcement. Both low and high socio— economic status students are more responsive to social reinforcement than material reinforcement. 3. Females persist longer than males even without reinforcement, but both males and females are more responsive to social reinforcement than material reinforcement. ‘4. There is no difference in the amount of problem-solving persistence displayed toward the different types of reinforcement between the high need for approval students and the low need for approval students. Both high and low need for approval students will persist longer for social reinforcement than for material reinforcement. 5. There was no difference found in this study in need for approval according to socio-economic status. 6. There was no difference found in this study in need for approval according to sex. 74 Conclusions Personality can be defined as a construct describing the aspect of a unified, complexly organized person which influences his Characteristic modes of interpreting the world in which he lives. However, such a theoretical definition should be accompanied by working definitions which deal with observable behavior. The theoretical construct within which this study was developed is Rotter's Social Learning Theory. Persistence and success are bound together in the popular mind. Achievement through aptitude or ability alone is undoubtedly the exception rather than the rule, however. Most tasks demand more than brilliance. Examples of persistence and its rewards are not difficult to find. It is not unusual to learn that many years of effort were devoted to the production of one of the recognized masterpieces of music, art, or literature. Certainly in the province of science, where nature has been particularly resistant to efforts to penetrate her secrets, success has been attained only after continued and diligent research. Persistence, then, is defined as an active, voluntary, productive, continuous response to atask in order to achieve a goal. Another sort of a response, one usually considered to be diametrically opposite in nature, perseveration, has also been associated and confused with persistence. 75 Confusion of these terms probably arises from the fact that both persistence and perseveration apply to con- tinued response. But there is a distinction. Whereas persistence refers to an active, voluntary, productive, continuous response, perseveration refers to an un- productive repetition of response through inability to shift to another. That academic success is a compound of effort and aptitude is a truism. Knowledge that effort is strongly affected by the student's motivation to learn has also become a generally accepted fact. The relationship between effort and aptitude, however, is not so well known. Since this study has been concerned with problem- solving persistence, the implicit assumption is that persistence is related to academic success. In many instances, however, academic success may be related to speed, as in timed tests. Thus, it may be that academic success is as much a function of intellectual ability as of persistence. In this study, significant differences were obtained on persistence scores for type of reinforcement and for sex. Both were related to socio-economic status and need for approval. The evidence in the literature concerning the effects of type of reinforcement on performance according to socio-economic status is quite contradictory. The findings of the present study are supported by 76 Marshall (1967) who studied learning as a function of task interest, reinforcement, and social class variables. Marshall concluded that prior research results showing that high socio-economic status elementary school children learn better for social rewards and low socio-economic status children learn better for material rewards were not supported. Marshall found that on tasks of high intrinsic interest, there is no significant difference in performance between the two socio-economic status groups. Blanton (1967) studied the effects of type of rein- forcement and amount of information on the performance of lower and middle class children. Her study was designed to test the hypothesis that while middle class children performed better with performance—oriented reinforcers, the converse held for lower class children. Blanton found that performance reinforcers produced significantly higher scores than did person reinforcers, regardless of socio- economic status. It should be pointed out that both Marshall and Blanton were using children as subjects. Only the present study dealt with college students. Considering the fact that most college students have an interest in learning irrespective of socio-economic status, perhaps the non- significant findings of the present study may be ex- plained by the task having a similar interest for both the high and the low socio-economic status students. 77 It may be, too, that task orientation differs between children and college students. 80 without resolving the contradictory effects of type of reinforcement on per- formance, the results of this study do suggest that the same kinds of educational procedures are equally valid for college students as for elementary school children with respect to type of reinforcement. lThe issue that the money and the encouragement rein- forcement conditions used in this study may not have been truly equivalent needs some clarification. The students who received encouragement were reinforced every fifteen minutes. The students who were promised money were required to wait until completion of their task to learn whether or not they would be reinforced. While these conditions were considered optimal, the finding that per- sistence is greater under conditions of social rein- forcement may be an artifact. Rotter's theory specifies that the reinforcement value of any external reinforcement may be defined as the degree of preference for any reinforcement to occur if the possibilities of its occurring were equal to any other. Therefore, apparently social reinforcement is as meaningful for students of low socio-economic status as for students of high socio-economic status, because they feel the possibilities of its occurring are as great for them as for high socio-economic status students. 78 In other words, the strength of reinforcement criteria is such that no distinction is made relative to the rein- forcement value of social reinforcement between the high and the low socio-economic status students. These find— ings suggest that the same kinds of educational procedures are equally valid for high or low socio-economic status college students. Similar motivational techniques and instructional methods would appear to be equally appro- priate for high or low socio-economic status students once it has been determined that they have equivalent academic skills. This investigation has been concerned with the study of certain motivational variables ifl:§l£2» which is con- sistent with the importance that Social Learning Theory places on immediate environmental factors. The finding of this study that social reinforcement is more effective than material reinforcement tends to emphasize Rotter's premise that behavior is inextricably interwoven with needs, and needs require interaction with other persons for their satisfaction. The findings also suggest that individuals attach more reinforcement value to social reinforcers than to material reinforcers. They accept money and are stimulated by it, but it apparently does not have the motivating properties which were initially attributed to it. One explanation for this may be that all college students, of both high and low socio-economic 79 status, have enough money to meet their immediate financial needs. In other words, because of the avail- ability of jobs, because of the availability of grants and scholarships, and because of the ability of most parents to assist students, there apparently has been a great leveling phenomenon in the financial condition of students. In terms of educational planning, these findings suggest that colleges and universities should strive even more to meet the personal needs of students through adjunctive services. Health care, counseling services, off-campus housing, and a social environment conducive to need satisfaction are becoming more important to students than many prevailing artificial conditions now existing. With increased awareness of the influence they can exert through student power, and because of their own affluence, students are now less dependent upon institutions than ever before. The institutions must adjust accordingly by striving to involve the students more in the institutional decision-making process. As previously mentioned, the review of literature included no sex comparisons, either_in terms of the amount of persistence displayed or in response to type of rein- forcement. The finding of this study was that females display more problem-solving persistence than males, but that both males and females are more responsive to social reinforcement than to material reinforcement. 80 This finding might be explained in terms of reinforcement value. The reader may recall that reinforcement value is one of the variables which determines strength of rein- forcement. It is important to avoid the confusion of considering a reinforcement value and a reinforcement as synonymous. Reinforcements may have the same value but still be quite different in nature. Further, for different individuals the same objectively described reinforcements may have considerably different values. The finding that there are differences between males and females in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement may lend credence to the assumption that the strength of rein- forcement was greater for females than for males because of the sex of the experimenter. Before going further, it should be noted that the data of this study do not suggest that males are more difficult to motivate than females. It may suggest that sex itself is a powerful motivating force which could not be partialed out of the results of the study. The findings in this study of no difference according to socio-economic status, sex, or the amount of per- sistence displayed toward the different types of rein— forcement between the high need for approval students [and the low need for approval students suggest that the students respond similarly irrespective of their need 5.. 81 for approval. The reader will recall that earlier in this discussion it was stated that the same kinds of educational procedures were equally valid for high and low socio- economic status students. In terms of these findings of no difference in need for approval, therefore, educational programs need to focus on other issues. An appropriate focus would be in terms of individual differences in need for approval rather than on differences according to socio- economic status. The finding in this study was that the hypothesis of no difference in need for approval according to sex was not rejected. The margin of substantiation for the hypothesis was rather small, .06, so any con- clusions based upon this hypothesis must be considered highly tentative. A more desirable approach would be to find a discriminating measure for the hypothesis in a study designed more precisely to test it. The approval motive, as conceived in Social Learning Theory, is defined in terms of both generalized expectancy and need value. These are involved with dependence on the favorable evaluations of others and an avoidance of self-criticism. From the totality of needs and general- ized expectancies is derived the desire for social en- couragement, self-protection, and avoidance of failure that has been labeled the approval motive. It seems reasonable to assume that the high need for approval individual has learned that conformity and submission entail the fewest risks of social rejection and threats to self-esteem. His self—justification and attempts to validate his own self-worth appear to repre- sent defensive efforts to cope with anticipated failures. The research on the approval motive and the Social Learning Theory conceptualization of the findings casts the issue of personal maladjustment in an interesting light. In a sense, high need for approval individuals are normal in that they exemplify many of the values of the American middle class. Approval-oriented individuals say the right things about themselves, appear to hold the proper attitudes, reflect common language associations in their speech, set goals of acceptable intermediate risk, do not show hostility, and seem in general to reflect the values defining the well-adjusted individual. On closer scrutiny, however, those individuals identified as approval-dependent frequently seem to resolve personal and social conflicts in ways that result in detriment to themselves. As traditionally conceived, maladjustment is associated with personal dissatisfaction, self-rejection, and inappropriate social behavior. However, viewed in another manner, these criteria of maladjustment are fallible. More to the point, perhaps, would be to recognize the importance of the individual's goals and his expectancies of success or failure in achieving them. 83 Suggestions for Further Research This study has raised several questions regarding research in the area of problem-solving persistence, the effectiveness of different types of reinforcement, and need for approval among college students. 1. To more appropriately validate the findings of this study, a replication of the study should be done. Because this study utilized a fixed effects model analysis of variance, the person who tried to generalize the data beyond this study would be in a very tenuous position. 2. Some interesting conclusions were reached regarding the function of sex roles. There is some doubt whether there are differences in need for approval between males and females. One might wonder if the sex of the experimenter affected the subjects' scores differentially according to sex. 3. Perhaps the hypothesis that there will be differences between Caucasian and Negro students in the amount of persistence they display toward the different types of reinforcement should be tested. 4. Perhaps the hypothesis that there will be differences between Caucasian and Negro students in need for approval should be tested. '\ 84 5. Perhaps a future study might investigate whether the money and encouragement reinforcements used in this study were truly equivalent. The students who received encouragement were reinforced every fifteen minutes. The students who were promised money were required to wait until completion of their task to learn whether or not they would be reinforced. In other words, a future study could partial out the reinforcing effects which come from success. 6. Perhaps a future study might use actual performance indices rather than time as the relevant dimension for measuring persistence. BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkinson, J. W. Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 1957, 64:359-372. Atkinson, J. W. and Litwin, G. H. Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived as a motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal gf Abnormal 222 Social Psychology, 1960, 60:52-63. Barber, K. J. Imitative behavior as a function of task reinforcement, need for social approval, and simulated interpersonal compatibility. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1966. Barthel, C. E. The effects of the approval motive, generalized expectancy, and situational cues upon goal-setting and social defensiveness. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1963. . Blanton, J. The effects of type of reinforcement and amount of information on the performance of lower and middle class children. Unpub. Ph.D. disser— tation. Austin: University of Texas, 1967. Briggs, A. and Johnson, D. M. A note on the relation between persistence and achievement. Journal gf Educational Psychology, 1942, 33:623-627. Brown, R. A. The effect of alternating social and tangible rewards on task performance of kinder— garten children. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1969. Cooper, J. R. The need for approval and the reaction to failure. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Evanston: Northwestern University, 1964. Duncan, 0. D. A socio—economic index for all occupations. In A. J. Reiss (ed.) Occupations and social status. Glencoe: The Free Press,*I961. Edwards, A. L. Experimental desi n in psychological research. New York: HoIt, RinzharfandWTnston, 85 86 Feather, N. T. The relationship of persistence at a task to expectation of success and achievement- related motives. Journal of Abnormal eng_Social Psychology, 1961, 63:552-56II Feather, N. T. The study of persistence. Psychological Bulletin, 1962, 59294-115. Grant, D. A. and Schipper, L. M. The acquisition and extinction of conditioned eyelid responses as a function of the percentage of fixed-ratio random reinforcement. Journal 2f Experimental Psychology, 1952, 43:313-320. Harney, W. R. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. Bulletin ARS-20-8. Agriculture Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1960. Kremer, A. H. The nature of persistence. Studies i2 Psychology and Psychiatry, 1942, 5:1-4 . Lewis, D. G. and Duncan, C. P. Effect of different percentages of money reward on extinction of a lever pulling response. Journal 2£_Experimental Psychology, 1956, 52:23-27. Lewis, D. G. and Duncan, C. P. Expectation and resistance to extinction of a lever pulling response as a function of percentage of reinforcement and amount of reward. Journal g£.Experimental Psychology) 1957, 54:115-I20. Marlowe, D. and Crowne, D. P. The aaproval motive. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 19 1. Marshall, H. H. Learning as a function of task interest, reinforcement, and social class variables. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California, 1967. MacArthur, R. S. An experimental investigation of - persistence in secondary school boys. Canadian Journal pf Psychology, 1955, 9:42-54. Moffett, F. L. Effects of need for social approval on judgments of statements about a central issue. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Stillwater: University of Iklahoma, 1967. 87 Nakamura, C. Y. and Ellis, F. F. Methodological study of the effects of relative reward magnitude on performance. Child Development, 1964, 35:595-610. Nakamura, C. Y. and Lowenkron, B. Z. Incentive.magnitude, task orientation, and persistence. Child Develop: ment, 1964, 35:610-621. Rethlingshafer, D. Relationship of tests of persistence to other measures of continuance of activities. Journal pf_Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1942, 37:71-82. Rotter, J. B. Social learnin and clinical psyChology. New York: PFentice-HaII, I954. Ryans, D. G. An experimental attempt to analyze persistent behavior: 1. Measuring traits presumed to involve persistence. Journal pg General Psychology, 1938a, 19:333-353. Ryans, D. G. An experimental attempt to analyze persistent behavior: 11. A persistence test. Journal pf General Psychology, 1938b, 19:355-371. Ryans, D. G. The meaning of persistence. Journal pf General Psychology, 1938c, 19:79-96. Semler, I. J. Persistence and learning in young children. Child Development, 1967, 38:127-135. Smith, C. O. Interpersonal responsivity in a free responding verbal conditioning situation as a function of need for approval, expectancy of experimenter congeniality, and evaluation of task performance. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Palo Alto: Stanford University, 1964. Thornton, G. R. A factor analysis of tests designed to measure persistence. Psychological Monographs, 51, No. 229. 1939. Warehime, R. G. The approval motive and mode of reaction to socially desirable and socially undesirable psychological interpretations. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1965. Wasson, B. B. The effects of achievement orientation, academic achievement, and monetary incentive on expectancy of success and persistence at an insoluble task of sixth grade boys. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1967. I APPENDICES 88 APPENDIX A NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST 89 90 On the following page is a test called the Numerical Ingenuity Test. The test is designed to test your problem solving ability. However, the fact that you may not have a strong background in mathematics will p21.constitute a serious limitation in your performance on this test: Directions: The Numerical Ingenuity Test consists of 30 number series problems. You are to find the rule governing the construction of six numbers and then write the seventh and eighth numbers in the series. The number series 2 6 3 9 6 18 May be analyzed as follows: 2 (x3) 6 (-3) 3 (x3) 9 (-3) 6 (x3) 18 (-3) l§'(x3),1§ DO NOT PROCEED FURTHER UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE SAMPEE PROBLEM I Some of the test items have no solution. You are to respond to such items by plaCihg an X in the appropriate space. You will receive full credit for all problems properly answered, including those correctly answered with an X. You may turn the test in to the experimenter whenever you are finished. There is no time limit. {condom-outcl— O p—u O c 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 35 13 16 140 60 51 100 ll 34 13 30 137 11 59 25 la H olra H 18 91 NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST 34 14 23 139 64 47 10 95 14 25 15 15 73 13 10 82 Harbfllh 16 32 11 15 28 137 32 44 18 85 10 11 36 51 22 41 17 46 58 11 (On-b 22 29 15 13 38 131 21 36 43 29 80 18 15 22 49 53 ll 25 19 21 15 16 25 19 24 25 19 10 17 49 118 41 17 18 46 43 7O 21 16 25 38 35 18 17 23 37 31 91 50 35 28 20 23 15 12 62 95 72 34 22 57 60 65 63 16 11 50 81 37 13 29 28 63 49 91 12 61 36 p—s 0 CD 00 \1 O3 01 14> CA N 0 r— H PI r— H a on no t— O 0 O O O O p— 01 14 27 19 7O 59 118 ll 53 8O 55 31 11 77 184 15 50 103 198 17 30 ANSWER SHEET NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 53 40 46 16 ll 31 32 127 25 154 12 103 13 42 106 12] 48 10 35 31 255 82 246 3 19 161 21 44 APPENDIX B DUNCAN'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS SCALE 93 94 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR soch-IEEONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP CA DECIIE SCORE NOTES“ Professional, technical, and kindred workers Accountants and auditors 78 10 a Actors and actresses 6O 9 Airplane pilots and navigators 79 10 a Architects 9O 10 a Artists and art teachers 67 10 b Athletes 52 9 Authors 76 10 a Chemists 79 10 a Chiropractors 75 10 Clergymen 52 9 a College presidents, professors, and instructors (n.e.c.) 84 10 a Dancers and dancing teachers 45 8 Dentists 96 10 a Designers 73 10 Dieticians and nutritionists 39 7 d Draftsmen 67 10 Editors and reporters 82 10 Engineers, technical 85 10 c Aeronautical 87 10 Chemical 90 10 Civil 84 10 a Electrical 84 10 Industrial 86 10 Mechanical 82 10 Metallurgical, and metallurgists 82 10 *See end of table for explanation of "Notes." 95 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Mining 85 10 Not elsewhere classified 87 10 Entertainers (n.e.c.) 31 6 Farm-and home-management advisers 83 10 b Foresters and conservationists 48 8 Funeral directors and em- balmers 59 9 a Lawyers and judges 93 10 a Librarians 60 9 Musicians and music teachers 52 9 b Natural scientists (n.e.c.) 80 10 b Nurses, professional 46 8 Nurses, student professional 51 9 d Optometrists 79 10 Osteopaths 96 10 Personnel and labor-relations workers 84 10 Pharmacists 82 10 Photographers 50 9 Physicians and surgeons 92 10 a Radio operators 69 10 Recreation and group workers 67 10 b Religious workers 56 9 Social and welfare workers, except group 64 9 a Social scientists 81 10 b Sports instructors and officials 64 9 Surveyors 48 8 96 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Teachers (n.e.c.) 72 10 a Technicians, medical and ,dental 48 8 Technicians, testing 53 9 Technicians (n.e.c.) 62 9 Therapists and healers (n.e.c.) 58 9 Veterinarians 78 10 Professional, technical, and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 65 9 Farmers and farm managers Farmers (owners and tenants) 14 3 b Farm managers 36 7 Managers, officials, and proprietors, exc. farm Buyers and department heads, store 72 10 Buyers and shippers, farm products 33 7 Conductors, railroad 58 9 a Credit men 74 10 Floormen and floor managers, store 50 9 Inspectors, public administration 63 9 c Federal public administra- tion and postal service 72 10 State public administra- tion 54 9 97 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Local public administration 56 9 Managers and superinten- dents, building 32 7 Officers, pilots, pursers, and engineers, ship 54 9 Officials and administrators (n.e.c.), public administration 66 10 c Federal public administration and postal service 84 10 State public administration66 10 Local public administration 54 9 Officials, lodge, society, union, etc. 58 9 b Postmasters 6O 9 Purchasin agents and buyers (n.e.c.§ 77 10 Managers, officials, and proprietors (n.e.c.)- salaried 68 10 c Construction 60 9 Manufacturing 79 10 Transportation 71 10 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 76 10 Wholesale trade 7O 10 Retail trade 56 9 c Food- and dairy- products stores, and milk retailing 50 8 General merchandise and five- and ten-cent stores 68 10 98 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Apparel and accessories stores 69 10 Furniture, home furnishings, and equip- ment stores , 68 10 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 65 9 Gasoline service sta- tions 31 7 Eating and drinking places 39 8 Hardware, farm implement, and building material, retail 64 9 Other retail trade 59 9 Banking and other finance 85 10 Insurance and real estate 84 10 Business services 80 10 Automobile repair ser- vices and garages 47 8 Miscellaneous repair services 53 9 Personal services 50 9 All other industries (incl. not reported) 62 9 Managers, officials, and proprietors (n.e.c.)- self-employed 48 8 c Construction 51 9 Manufacturing 7 61 9 a Transportation 43 8 Telecommunications and utilities and sanitary services 44 Wholesale trade 59 99 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIOHEOONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Retail trade 43 8 a, Food- and dairy- products stores, and milk retailing 33 7 General merchandise and five- and ten-cent stores 47 8 Apparel and accessories stores 65 9 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 59 9 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 7O 10 Gasoline service stations 33 7 Eating and drinking places 37 7 b Hardware, farm implement, and build- ing material, retail 61 9 Other retail trade 49 8 Banking and other finance 85 10 a Insurance and real estate 76 10 Business services 67 10 Automobile repair services and garages 36 7 Miscellaneous repair services 34 7 Personal services 41 8 All other industries (incl. not reported) 49 8 Clerical and kindred workers Agents (n.e.c) 68 10 100 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-EOONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCAIE DECILE SCORE NOTES Attendants and assistants, library 44 8 d Attendants, physician's and dentist's office 38 7 d Baggagemen, transportation 25 6 Bank tellers 52 9 Bookkeepers 51 9 a Cashiers 44 8 Collectors, bill and account 39 8 Dispatchers and starters, vehicle 40 8 Express messengers and railway mail clerks 67 10 Mail carriers 53 9 a Messengers and office boys 28 6 Office-machine operators 45 8 Shipping and receiving clerks 22 6 Stenographers, typists, and secretaries 61 9 Telegraph messengers 22 6 Telegraph operators 47 8 Telephone Operators 45 8 Ticket, station, and express agents 60 9 Clerical and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 44 8 Sales Workers Advertising agents and salesmen 66 10 Auctioneers 4O 8 101 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-EOONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Demonstrators 35 7 Hucksters and peddlers 8 2 Insurance agents and brokers 66 10 a Newsboys 27 6 Real-estate agents and brokers 62 9 Stock and bond salesmen 73 10 Salesmen and sales clerks (n.e.c.) 47 8 c Manufacturing 65 9 Wholesale trade 61 9 b Retail trade 39 7 a Other industries (incl. not reported) 50 9 Craftsmen, foreman, and kindred workers Bakers 22 6 Blacksmiths 16 4 Boilermakers 33 7 Bookbinders 39 7 Brickmasons, stonemasons, and tile-setters 27 6 Cabinetmakers 23 6 Carpenters 19 5 a Cement and concrete finishers l9 5 Compositors and typesetters 52 9 Cranemen, derrickmen, and hoistmen 21 5 Decorators and window- dressers 4O 8 102 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE Electricians Electrotypers and stereotypers Engravers, except photoengravers Excavating, grading, and road-machinery operators Foremen (n.e.c.) Construction Manufacturing Metal industries Machinery, including electrical Transportation equipment Other durable goods Textiles, textile products, and apparel Other nondurable goods (incl. not specified mfg.) Railroads and railway express service Transportation, except railroad Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services Other industries (incl. not reported) Forgement and hammermen Furriers Glaziers Heat treaters, annealers, and temperers 44 55 47 24 49 4O 53 54 6O 66 41 39 53 36 45 56 44 23 39 26 22 DECILE SCORE cocooooocaoo CD 10 CO Oixlwm NOTES 103 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE Inspectors, sealers, and graders, log and lumber Inspectors (n.e.c.) Construction Railroads and railway express service Transport, exc. r.r., communication, and other public util. Other industries (incl. not reported) Jewelers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silver- smiths Job-setters, metal Linemen and servicemen,. telegraph, telephone, and power Locomotive engineers Locomotive firemen Loom fixers Machinists Mechanics and repairmen Airplane Automobile Office machine .Radio and television Railroad and car shop Not elsewhere classified Millers, grain, flour, feed, etc. Millwrights Molders, metal 23 41 46 41 45 34 36 28 49 58 45 10 33 25 48 19 36 36 23 27 19 31 12 Motion-picture projectionists43 DECILE SCORE on GK] maqqmmmqmmwm m ND-d m NOTES ll III-I'll. III] It'll II Illlhl' Ill 104 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCAUE DECILE SCORE NOTES Opticians, and lens grinders and polishers 39 7 Painters, construction and maintenance 16 4 Paperhangers lO 2 Pattern- and model—makers, except paper 44 8 Photoengravers and lithographers 64 9 Piano and organ tuners and repairmen 38 7 Plasterers 25 6 Plumbers and steam—fitters 34 7 a Pressmen and plate printers, printing 49 8 Rollers and roll hands, metal 22 6 Roofers and slaters 15 4 Shoemakers and repairers, except factory 12 2 Stationary engineers 47 8 Stone-cutters and stone-carvers 25 6 Structural-metal workers 34 7 Tailors and tailoresses 23 6 'Tinsmiths, coppersmiths, and sheet-metal workers 33 7 Toolmakers, and die—makers and setters 50 9 Upholsterers ‘ 22 6 Craftsmen and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 32 7 Members of the armed forces 18 4 e 105 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Operatives and kindred workers Apprentices 35 7 c Auto mechanics 25 6 Bricklayers and masons 32 7 Carpenters 31 6 Electricians 37 7 Machinists and tool- makers 41 8 Mechanics, except auto 34 7 Plumbers and pipe—fitters 33 7 Building trades (n.e.c.) 29 6 Metalworking trades (n.e.c)33 7 Printing trades 4O 8 Other specified trades 31 6 Trade not specified 39 7 Asbestos and insulation workers 32 7 Attendants, auto service ' and parking 19 5 a Blasters and powdermen ll 2 Boatmen, canalmen, and lock-keepers 24 6 Brakemen, railroad 42 8 Bus-drivers 24 6 Chainmen, rodmen, and axmen, surveying 25 6 Conductors, bus and street railway 30 6 Deliverymen and routemen 32 7 Dressmakers and seamstresses, except factory 23 6 106 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Dyers 12 2 Filers, grinders, and polishers, metal 22 6 Fruit, nut, and vegetable graders and packers, exc. factory lO 2 Furnacemen, smeltermen, and pourers 18 4 Heaters, metal 29 6 Laundry and dry-cleaning operatives 15 4 b Meat-cutters, except slaughter and packing house 29 6 Milliners 46 8 d Mine operatives and laborers (n.e.c.) lO 2 c Coal mining 2 1 Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction 38 7 Mining and quarrying, except fuel 12 2 Motormen, mine, factory, logging camp, etc. 3 l Motormen, street, subway, and elevated railway 34 7 a Oilers and greasers, except auto 15 4 Painters, except construc- tion and maintenance 18 5 Photographic-process workers 42 8 Power-station operators 50 9 Sailors and deck hands 16 4 Sawyers 5 1 Spinners, textile 5 l 107 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Stationary firemen l7 4 Switchmen, railroad 44 8 Taxicab-drivers and chauffeurs 10 2 a Truck- and tractor-drivers l5 4 a Weavers, textile 6 1 Welders and flame-cutters 24 6 Operatives and kindred workers (n.e.c.) l8 4 c Manufacturing 17 4 a, c Durable goods ' Sawmills, planing mills, and misc. wood products 7 2 c Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 7 2 Miscellaneous wood products 9 2 Furniture and fixtures 9 2 Stone, clay and glass products 17 4 0 Glass and glass products 23 6 Cement; and concrete, SYPSum; and plaster products 10 [0 Structural clay products 10 [‘0 Pottery and related products 21 5 Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products 15 4 108 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Metal industries 16 4 c Primary metal industries 15 4 c Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills 17 4 Other primary iron and steel indus- tries 12 2 Primary nonferrous industries 15 4 Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal)16 4 c Fabricated steel products 16 4 Fabricated nonferrous metal products 15 4 Not specified metal industries 14 3 d Machinery, except electrical 22 6 c Agricultural machinery and tractors 21 5 Office and store machines and devices 31 6 Miscellaneous machinery22 6 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies26 6 Transportation equip- ment 23 6 c Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equip- ment 21 5 Aircraft and parts 34 7 Ship and boat building and repairing 16 4 109 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Railroad and misc. transportation equip- ment 23 6 Professional and photographic equip- ment and watches 29 6 c Professional equipment and supplies 23 6 Photographic equipment and supplies 4O 8 watches, clocks, and clockwork-operated devices 28 6 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 16 4 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products 16 4 c Meat products 16 :4 Dairy products 22 6 Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables, and sea foods 9 2 Grain-mill products 14 4 Bakery products 15 4 Confectionery and related products 12 2 Beverage industries 19 5 Misc. food preparations and kindred products 11 2 Not specified food industries 19 5 Tobacco manufactures 2 l Textile mill products 6 l Knitting mills 21 5 11() OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIOuECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Dyeing and finishing textiles, exc. knit goods 8 2 Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings 14 4 Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 2 1 Miscellaneous textile mill products 10 2 Apparel and other fabri- cated textile products 21 6 c Apparel and accessories 22 6 Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 17 4 Paper and allied products 19 5 0 Pulp, paper, and paper- board mills 19 5 Paperboard containers and boxes 17 4 Miscellaneous paper and pulp products 19 5 Printing, publishing, and allied industries 31 6 Chemicals and allied products 20 5 c Synthetic fibers 9 2 Drugs and medicines 26 6 Paints, varnishes, and related products 15 4 Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 23 6 Petroleum and coal products 51 9 c Petroleum refining 56 9 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 14 3 111 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Rubber products 22 6 Leather and leather products 16 4 c Leather:tanned, curried, and finished 10 2 Footwear, except rubber 9 2 Leather products, except footwear 14 3 Not specified manu- facturing industries 16 4 Nonmanufacturing industries (incl.not reported) 18 4 c Construction 18 5 Railroads and railway express service 15 4 Transportation, except railroad 23 6 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 21 5 Wholesale and retail trade 17 4 Business and repair ser- vices 19 5 Personal services 11 2 Public administration 17 4 All other industries (incl.not reported) 20 5 Private-household workers Housekeepers, private house- hold 19 5 Living in 10 Living out 21 5 [0 9:0 112 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Laundresses, private household 12 2 d Living in - — d Living out 12 2 d Private-household workers (n.e.c.) 7 2 c Living in 12 2 Living out 6 1 Service workers, except private household Attendants, hospital and other institution 13 2 Attendants, professional and personal service (n.e.c.) 26 6 Attendants, recreation and amusement 19 5 Barbers, beauticians, and manicurists l7 4 a Bartenders 19 5 a Boarding- and lodging-house keepers 3O 6 Bootblacks 8 2 a Charwomen and cleaners 10 2 Cooks, except private household 15 4 a Counter and fountain workers 17 4 a Elevator operators 10 2 Firemen, fire protection 37 7 Guards, watchmen, and door- keepers 18 5 a 113 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—EOONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Housekeepers and stewards, except private household 31 7 Janitors and sextons 9 2 a Marshals and constables 21 6 Midwives 37 7 Policemen and detectives 39 8 c Government 40 8 Private 36 7 Porters 4 1 Practical nurses 22 6 Sheriffs and bailiffs 34 7 Ushers, recreation and amusement 25 6 Waiters and waitresses 16 4 a Watchmen (crossing) and bridge—tenders l7 4 Service workers, except private household (n.e.c.) ll 2 §§£m_laborers agg_foremen Farm foremen 20 Farm laborers, wage workers 6 1 b Farm laborers, unpaid family workers 17 4 Farm-service laborers, self- employed 22 6 Laborers, except farm and mine Fishermen and oystermen 10 2 b Garage laborers, and car- washers and greasers 8 2 Gardeners, except farm, and groundskeepers ll 2 114 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Longshoremen and stevedores ll 2 b Lumbermen, raftsmen, and wood-choppers 4 l b Teamsters 8 2 Laborers (n.e.c.) 8 2 0 Manufacturing Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, and misc. wood products 3 l c Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 3 1 Miscellaneous wood products 2 1 Furniture and fixtures 5 Stone, clay and glass products 7 2 c Glass and glass pro- ducts l4 3 Cement; and concrete, gypsum, and plaster prod. 5 1 Structural clay products 5 1 Pottery and related products 7 2 Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products 5 1 Metal industries 7 2 c Primary metal indus- tries 7 2 c Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills 9 [‘3 I III VIII I I '1'" 11 ‘ 115 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Other primary iron and steel industries 4 1 Primary nonferrous industries 6 l Fabricated metal ind. (incl. not spec. metal) 7 2 c Fabricated steel products 7 2 Fabricated nonferrous metal products 10 2 Not specified metal industries 9 2 d Machinery, except electri- cal 11 2 c Agricultural machinery and tractors 14 3 Office and store machines and devices 17 4 d Miscellaneous machinery lO 2 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies 14 3 Transportation equipment 11 2 c Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 13 2 Aircraft and parts 15 4 Ship and boat building and repairing 2 1 Railroad and misc. transportation equip- ment 8 [‘0 Professional and photo- graphic equipment , and watches 11 2 Professional equipment and supplies lO 2 d Photographic equipment and supplies 16 4 d III I. 1111.1" lit-I'll, dill. I1 - 116 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO—ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Watches, clocks, and clockwork-operated devices - - d Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 12 2 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products 9 2 c Meat products 8 2 Dairy products 13 2 Canning and preserving fruits, veget., and sea foods 6 1 Grain-mill products 6 1 Bakery products 10 2 Confectionery and re- lated products 10 2 Beverage industries 16 4 Misc. food preparation and kindred products 5 1 Not specified food industries 14 3 Tobacco manufactures O 1 f Textile mill products 3 l c Knitting mills 4 l d Dyeing and finishing textiles, exc. knit goods 9 2 d Carpets, rugs and other floor coverings l4 3 Yarn, thread, and fabric mills l 1 Miscellaneous textile- mill products 6 l d Apparel and other fabri- cated textile products 9 2 c OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUP 117 SOCIO—EOONOMIC POPULATION SCALE DECILE SCORE Apparel and accessories Miscellaneous fabricated textile products Paper and allied products Pulp, paper, and paper- board mills Paperboard containers and boxes Miscellaneous paper pulp products Printing, publishing, and allied industries Chemicals and allied products Synthetic fibers Drugs and medicines Paints, varnishes, and related products Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal pro- ducts Petroleum refining Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products Rubber products Leather and leather products Leather:tanned, curried and finished Footwear, except rubber Leather products, except footwear Not specified manufacturing industries 11 2 6 l 7 2 6 l 10 2 8 2 23 6 8 2 4 1 22 6 8 2 8 2 22 6 26 6 3 l 12 2 6 l i 2 l 10 2 12 2 8 2 NOTES 118 OCCUPATIONS, BY MAJOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC POPULATION OCCUPATION GROUP SCALE DECILE SCORE NOTES Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 7 2 b, c Construction 7 2 Railroads and railway express service 3 1 Transportation, except railroad 9 2 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 6 1 Wholesale and retail trade 12 2 Business and repair services 9 2 Personal services 5 1 Public administration 7 2 All other industries (incl. not reported) 6 1 Occupation not reported 19 5 119 Explanation 2£_Notes: a. One of 45 occupations used in deriving socio- economic index from predictors of National Opinion Research Center prestige ratings. b. One of 16 occupations poorly or partially matched to National Opinion Research Center titles. 0. Occupation omitted from statistical analysis of 425 detailed occupations, because it is a grouping of specific titles listed below it. d. Occupation omitted from statistical analysis of 425 detailed occupations, because census data are based on fewer than 100 sample cases (corresponding to an estimated population of fewer than 3,000 males). e. Occupation omitted from statistical analysis. The census data do not pertain to current members of the armed forces, but to currently unemployed civilians whose last occupational experience was in the armed forces. The data for this occupation do not, therefore, describe soldiers, sailors, and related occupations. f. The computed value of the socio-economic index for this occupation was -3. To avoid the inconvenience of having one index value with a negative sign, this index was arbitrarily changed to zero, which remains the lowest value in the table. g. This scale includes all occupations listed in the detailed classification of the Bureau of the Census: 1950. h. n. e. c. means "not elsewhere classified". APPENDIX C MARLOWE—CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE 120 121 PERSONAL REACTION INVENTORY Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false and circle the correct response. T T F 1. 2. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. I have never intensely disliked anyone. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. I am always careful about my manner of dress. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do it. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. I like to gossip at times. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 122 There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. I always try to practice what I preach. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. I sometimes try to get even, rather than for- give and forget. When I don't know something, I don't mind admitting it. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. I never resent being asked to return a favor. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. CANI— CDCDQOfiCJer 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE True True False True False False True True False False False False True False False True 123 ANSWER SHEET 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. ~30. 31. 32. 33. True True False True True False False True True True True False True False True False True APPENDIX D PERSONAL DATA SHEET 124 10. 125 PERSONAL DATA SHEET Nalne ........ O 0000000000 O O O O 0000000000 O C O O O I O O O O O I O O 0 Last First Midd1e Initial Inca]- Address 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O ...... O ..... O O O O O O O O O 0 Date Of Birth. 0 O O ..... O O O O I C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Sex: (a) Male........... (b) Female.............. Class Standing: (a) Freshman... (b) Sophomore... (c) Junior..... (d) Senior...... Marital Status: (a) Single..... (b) Married..... (c) Divorced, Widowed, or Separated.............. What does your father (or whomever Supports your family) do for a living? Describe what your father (or whomever supports your family) does on the job. Does someone other than your father support your fatnily?............OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... If so, Who?.......0....00....COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO What particular feelings or thoughts would you like to express now that you have completed your involvement in this research project? APPENDIX E STATISTICS OF NUMERICAL INGENUITY TEST (NIT) SCORES FOR ALL CELLS IN THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 126 127 mu.nmuom n¢.nmunm ¢¢.~Huam um.msuam mo.mmuam om.~munm mm.¢wuz os.smuz an.m¢uz on.¢enz mm.nmuz mm.mnuz zoa In.mz, onz, ¢HHZI, [cHuz, n uz m mz, mascam owEOGOoH Hm.nmuam an.qmuam sm.s~nnm oo.o "am mu.emuam om.mmuam nosoom on.mmuz mm.4ouz mm.m¢uz oo.nwuz om.amuz oo.wouz ems: sea 4 "z m "2 s "2 H "z m "2 m "z ne.mmuam oo.¢muom mm.m~uam so.msunm Ha.smuam m¢.onunm mm.muuz om.oeuz mm.~muz H¢.mnuz no.4mnz mo.munz zen nwuz msuz smuz mmuz emuz mnuz msampm OHBOGOOH Hm.mmuam mm.umunm mm.¢suam sm.m "am mm.s~unm u¢.mmuam -oaoom mn.smuz om.nsuz «m.m¢uz ms.o¢uz on.wnu: .m¢.mmuz nus: new: usuz mfiuz mmuz m "z omuz dauz moamsoa mods: modwsom mods: woassom moan: ao>ohnn< HGGEOOQOMGMQG HflmEOOBOHGHGG HEOEOOQOHfiwmm EOE wahmawz OZ Haunoom 6002 zuHmmo a