2:5 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIll!lllllllllllllllllllll 3 1293 10405 0475 k T fi-m— mum“ meets EXT ‘ A a .. a- ‘37 film, .._! g p k This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 0F FRESHMEN AT A SMALL FOUR-YEAR STATE COLLEGE presented by Steven H. Childs has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph'D° degreein Higher Edllcation Date August 13, 1982 0-7 639 7 / A; V RETURNING MATERIALS: bV1631_) Place in book drop to LlBRARlES remove this checkout from Juaszglsss_ your record. FINES will ' be charged if book is returned after the date THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF FRESHMEN AT A SMALL FOUR-YEAR STATE COLLEGE by Steven H. Childs A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1982 (w I I 7g] 7"?) ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF FRESHMEN AT A SMALL FOUR-YEAR STATE COLLEGE by Steven H. Childs The purpose of the study was two-fold. First, to detennine if a relationship exists between motivational structure and academic achievement; secondly, to detennine if certain motivational traits could be used to differentiate between high achieving and less successful students. After completing an exhaustive review and analysis of several statistical models, it was detenmined that Partial Correlation Analysis would be the most appropriate model for the sample under investigation. Major Findings 1. For the group as a whole, there was a positive correlation found between academic achievement and the following traits: Achieve- ment, Cognitive Structure, Endurance, Order, and Succorance. In contrast, there was a negative correlation found between academic achievement and the following: Aggression, Autonomy, Impulsivity, and Play. Steven H. Childs 2. For Low Ability Females, there was no correlation found between academic achievement and motivational structure. 3. For Low Ability Males, Order was found to be positively correlated with GPA, whereas Aggression was negatively correlated. 4. For Average Ability Females, Defendence was found to be negatively correlated with GPA. 5. For Average Ability Males, Achievement and Endurance were positively correlated with GPA; whereas Aggression was negatively correlated. 6. Defendence, Order, Succorance, and Understanding were all positively related to GPA for High Ability Females. 7. For High Ability Males, Abasement was positively correlated with GPA while Aggression was found to be negatively correlated. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Gertrude Flagg, from whom I learned the importance of commitment, perserverance, and detennination. She was without question the driving force in our family. My only regret is that she passed away before I could complete my degree. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his utmost appreciation to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, the chairman of his doctoral committee. Dr. Johnson's insight, encouragenent, and advice over the years proved to be absolutely invaluable. Dr. Richard Featherstone has also provided a great deal of support and guidance throughout the program and dissertation. A special word of thanks is due Dr. Richard Houang who was totally unselfish with his time and energy. His insight and con- structive criticism proved to be extremely helpful. Michigan State is fortunate to have such a dedicated person on its staff. A word of appreciation is also extended to Dr. Stanley Stark who provided many constructive suggestions and recommendations. The writer is also most grateful for the assistance of Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker who was very supportive throughout the program. 111' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. viii Chapter I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY ............................... 1 Definition of Tenns ................................... 3 Statement of Theory ................................... 5 Overview of the Dissertation .......................... 12 11. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................. 14 Academic Achievement .................................. 14 Motivational Structure ................................ 16 Level of Academic Progress and Age .................... 20 Restricted Samples .................................... 23 Stratification by Ability Level ....................... 25 Commuters vs Residents ................................ 28 Summary ............................................... 31 III. RESEARCH DESIGN ....................................... 37 Definition of the Population and Sample ............... 37 Instrument Selection .................................. 39 Sequential Tests of Educational Progress ............ 42 ACT Assessment ...................................... 44 The Personality Research Form ....................... 45 Hypotheses ............................................ 46 The Statistical Model ................................. 46 Assumptions of the Study .............................. 48 Limitations of the Study .............................. 50 IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ................................... 52 Hypotheses ............................................ 61 Summary of Results .................................... 71 iv Chapter Page V. THE PROBLEM, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............... 73 The Problon ........................................... 73 Purpose ............................................... 73 Parameters of the Data ................................ 73 Findings .............................................. 74 Conclusions ........................................... 76 Implications .......................................... 80 Recommendations for Future Research ................... 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................. 87 APPENDICES A. Correlation Coefficients for the Six Sub-Groups: Low Ability Females; Low Ability Males; Average Ability Females; Average Ability Males; High Ability Females; High Ability Males ............... 96 B. Intercorrelations for PRF-E Scales ................ 108 Table N pan-4:.» (Tl->00 .10 .11 LIST OF TABLES Motivational Traits: Academic Predictors ........... Personality Research Form Scales: Descriptions and Definitions ..................................... Summary Statistics .................................. Academic Programs: Major Groupings ................. Levels of Academic Ability .......................... Correlation Between STEP and ACT .................... Means and Standard Deviations for Low Ability Females, Low Ability Males, Average Ability Females, Average Ability Males, High Ability Females, and High Ability Males .................................. Partial Correlation Coefficients between PRF and GPA for Entire Group, after Controlling for Sex, Ability, Course Load, and Major .............................. Partial Correlation Coefficients between the PRF and GPA for Low Ability Females, after Controlling for Major and Course Load ............................... Partial Correlation Coefficients between the PRF and GPA for Low Ability Males, after Controlling for Major and Course Load ............................... Partial Correlation Coefficients between the PRF and GPA for Average Ability Females, after Controlling for Major and Course Load ........................... Partial Correlation Coefficients between the PRF and GPA for Average Ability Males, after Controlling for Major and Course Load ............................... Partial Correlation Coefficients between the PRF and GPA for High Ability Females, after Controlling for Major and Course Load ............................... vi Page 33 34 53 55 56 57 58 63 64 65 67 68 69 Table 4.12 A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 B.1 Partial Correlation Coefficients between the PRF and GPA for High Ability Males, after Controlling for Major and Course Load ................................ Correlation Coefficients for Low Ability Females ..... Correlation Coefficients for Low Ability Males ....... Correlation Coefficients for Average Ability Females . Correlation Coefficients for Average Ability Males ... Correlation Coefficients for High Ability Females .... Correlation Coefficients for High Ability Males ...... Intercorrelations for PRF-E Scales ................... Page 70 97 99 100 102 104 106 109 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Hierarchical Organization of Personality .............. 8 2. Diagrammatic Representation of Motivational Structure . 9 viii CHAPTER I RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY It has been confirmed by numerous researchers that a signifi- cant number of students making the transition from high school to college will experience problems academically, especially during the first term of enrollment. In light of this fact, the primary concern of the current study will be to ascertain why students, of relatively equal ability, exhibit varying levels of academic performance. More specifically, the purpose of the study will be to detennine if there is a relationship between academic achievement and motivational structure. A second objective will be to detenmine if certain traits can be used to differentiate between high achieving and less successful students. High achievement in this instance, is defined by a grade point average of 3.00 or greater. This study is important for three reasons. First, if educators are to work effectively with students in a holistic fashion, they must have access to a student profile which is comprehensive in nature. Such a profile is essential when one is striving to meet the needs of students through such traditional programs as orientation, counsel- ing, academic advisement, student activities, and other innovative developmental programs. Second, if educators are to substantially reduce the effects of academic transition on students, they must 1 provide a mechanism through which students might gain a better under- standing of their needs, goals, and objectives. Concommitantly, it is essential that students thoroughly understand how such variables interface with their educational environment. Finally, declining enronents and soaring recruitment costs will necessitate the creation of an educational environment designed to effectively reduce student attrition. The individuals involved in the study are a representative cross-section of freshmen, both commuters and dormitory residents, from a broad range of academic disciplines, who are attending a small four-year public institution with an enrollment of 4,000 students. Hence, the findings of the study should have precedential value for institutions of comparable size and composition. The impetus for conducting the study evolved from the desire to accomplish two primary objectives, which are stated in the form of research questions. These questions are as follows: 1. Is there a relationship between motivational structure and academic achievement? 2. Can certain traits be used to differentiate between high achieving and less successful students? For the purpose of conducting the research study, these questions can be restated in tenns of research hypotheses: 1. There is a relationship between motivational structure and academic achievement. 2. Freshmen possessing dominant achievement oriented traits will earn higher grade point averages than freshmen possessing latent achievement oriented traits. 3. Freshmen possessing dominant socially related traits, will earn lower grade point averages than freshmen possessing latent socially related traits. Definition of Tenns For the sake of clarity, several terms used in the study have been defined. These definitions are as follows: Achievement Oriented Motivational Structure: Students possessing such a structure will tend to exhibit above average needs for the following traits: achievement, autonomy, cognitive structure, endurance, order, and understanding; while at the same time exhibiting average or below average needs for: affiliation, change, impulsivity, play, and succorance, as detennined by the Personality Research Fonn. Dominant Trait Group: A specific subgroup of traits mani- festing above average strength, as determined by the Personality Research Form (PRF) scale scores of traits within its group (M = 50, 5.0. = +10). Motivational Structure (Synonymous with Need Structure): A complex intra-structure within one's personality structure; character- ized by the existence of an intricate network of traits common to all mankind, which due to their varying levels of strength, ultimately influence an individual's pattern of behavior. Latent Trait Group: A specific subgroup of traits manifest- ing average or below average strength, as determined by the PRF scale scores of traits within its group (M = 50, 5.0. = -10). .Nggg: As defined by Murray (1938: 124) is "a force (the physio-chemical nature of which is unknown) in the brain region, a force which organizes perception, apperception, intellection, cona- tion, and action in such a way as to transform in a certain direction an existing, unsatisfying situation." Moreover, such needs are functional in nature and possess verying levels of strength. Personality: The dynamic organization, within the individual, of those psychophysical systems that detennine his unique adjustment to his environment (Allport, 1937: 48). Socially Oriented Motivational Structure: A student posses- Sing such a structure will tend to exhibit above average needs for the following traits: affiliation, change, impulsivity, play, succorance; and average or below average needs for: achievement, autonomy, cognitive structure, endurance, order, and understanding, as determined by the PRF. Trait: As defined by Allport (1937: 295), is "a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual), with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior." Trait Group: A specific subgroup of consistently manifested characteristics or behavioral acts. Type: A type is a specimen, or example, which reproduces in a characteristic way the character of a species or general class. Statement of Theory The theoretical framework of this study is housed in the body of knowledge known as Motivation Theory. One of the most promi- nent theorists in this field was Kurt Lewin (1951) who developed what is known as Value/Expectancy Theory. Lewin viewed behavior as being a series of steps in a path to a goal. His theory was later modified by Vroom (1964), who utilized the theory to assess employee motivation. Value/Expectancy theory is based on two premises. The first premise being that people usually assess the outcome of various courses of action, and subjectively assign values to those expected outcomes. As a result, a hierarchy of preferences is established. The second premise is that any explanation of motivated behavior must be prefaced by a consideration of what an individual expects to accomplish and the extent to which he/she believes his/her own actions will influence the desired outcome. From these premises, Vroom (1964: 18) sets forth the follow- ing theoretical proposition: The force on a person to perform an act is a monotonically increasing function of the algebraic sum of the products of the valences of all outcomes and the strength of his expectancies that the act will be followed by the attain- ment of these outcomes. According to the first premise, people usually weigh both the negative and positive aspects of various courses of action and make decisions about how they will perform, based in part on the average value of all perceived outcomes associated with successful performance. For example, an individual may view the expenditure of effort as a means of achieving successful performance, i.e., higher grades. Accordingly, successful performance may serve as a vehicle for achieving other goals such as acquiring power, prestige, influence, job security, salary increases and/or promotions. Vroom, however, indicates that wage increases or promotions may have no value by themselves, in that they might only become valuable in terms of their instrumental role in securing second level outcomes such as food, clothing, entertainment, status, and shelter, which are not obtained as the direct result of a particular action. Vroom further states that motivation to perform also depends on one's expectation that he/she can successfully carry out a particu- lar task, in addition to the expectation that such performance will help one accomplish his/her objectives. Accordingly, Vroom believes that if people give preference to wage increases as a desirable outcome of their job perfonnance, their level of motiva- tion will be dependent upon the degree to which they believe they can perform successfully, and the degree to which they believe high productivity is likely to help them achieve their financial goals. Moreover, Vroom states that people may place great value on “”i effectuating a certain outcome, but if they perceive a total lack of control over that outcome, they will not be inclined to expend any energy toward its fulfillment. Accordingly, an individual's level of motivation will be a function of the value he assignes to a particular end result and the degree to which he believes that the outcome depends upon his actions. Although Vroom's theory was originally designed for use in business and industry, several authors have demonstrated that his theory, with a few minor modifications, can easily be adapted for use in educational settings (Todd, Terrell, and Frank, 1962: 183— 190; Mitchell and Nebeker, 1973: 6l-67). Prior to 1950, little or no distinction was made between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards emanating directly from effort and successful perfonnance; however, several authors have pointed out that successful performance in and of itself is satisfying to some people under some conditions. A case in point has been presented by McClelland (1961), who has demonstrated that when an individual is provided with an opportunity to evaluate his performance as being a success or failure, the degree of satisfaction that can be derived fron task perfonnance is a function of both the probability. of success and the strength of the individual's need for achievement. When such conditions exist, the individuals most likely to experience satisfaction with accomplishment are those who possess high needs for achievement. Porter and Lawler (1968: 15-40) have expanded upon Vroom's theory by suggesting that even though individuals might be highly motivated to perform a certain act, their performance may still be poor if the requisite abilities are lacking or the individual's perception of what is required for successful performance is not accurate. Thus, Porter and Lawler suggest that adequate ability and accurate role perceptions are necessary, but not sufficient, for successful performance. At this juncture it is important to discuss another topic, namely motivational structure. As defined earlier, motivational structure is a complex intra-structure within one's personality structure, characterized by the existence of an intricate network of traits common to all mankind, which due to their varying levels of strength, ultimately influence an individual's pattern of behavior (see Figures 1 and 2). avu - ' 0" ”Mmm-m 1’ J A fififihllJlfllllllllllllllI Ill IIIIIII I-I ”ICING 0'0““ ““‘ 21:: “do!“ "on ”a. Figure 1.--Hierarchical Organization of Personality (Eyesenck, 1960: 13). As can be seen from these two illustrations, an individual's personality hierarchy (Eysenck, 1960: 13) is comprised of four distinct levels of behavioral organization: specific response level, habitual response level, trait level, and at level four, the person- ality "type." As shown in Figure 2, an individual's motivational structure, operating from level three (trait level) serves as an Aff TYPE RELATTVE STRENGTH Motivational Structure TRAH‘ lfigh LEVEL z m 0 Ci < < Moderate [ 1 [ B '5 < 0 Low HABITUAL RESPONSE LEVEL SPECIFIC RESPONSE C) LEVEL Figure 2.--Diagrammatic Representation of Motivational Structure. umbrella for all lower order behavioral responses. According to Murray (1938: 712-713) this level of behavioral functioning is con- trolled by a complex network of "needs" which in Murray's view is synonymous with Allport's concept of "trait" or as Murray called them, "motivational traits." These motivational traits represent 10 only one of several classes of traits, such as individual traits, which but a few people possess; common traits, which are shared to some extent by almost everyone; and instrumental traits, which are "primarily expressive in significance, and seem predominantly motor in organization . . . ." Thus, instrumental traits merely represent styles of behaving (Allport, 1937: 323). Hence, from this theoretical frame evolved "need structure" or "motivational structure." As shown in Figure 1, the specific responses, SR1, SR2, SR3 ... SRn are first level responses which according to Eysenck (1960: 13) "are acts such as responses to an experimental test or to experiences of everyday life, which are perhaps observed once, and may or may not be characteristic of the individual." The second level responses or habitual responses. HRI’ HRZ’ HR3 ... HR", are specific responses which tend to recur under similar circumstances; ixa, "if the test is repeated, a similar response is given or if the life situation recurs, the individual reacts in a similar fashion" (Eysenck, 1960: 13). Level three is comprised of the various traits T1, T2, T3, ... Tn. These traits--persistence, shyness, subjectivit -—are "theoretical constructs, based on observed inter-correlations of a number of different habitual responses" (Eysenck, 1960: 14). These traits, according to Allport (1937: 314) . are discovered not by deductive reasoning, not by fiat, not by naming, and are themselves never directly observed. They are discovered in the individual life . . . only through an inference (or interpretation) made necessary by the demonstrable consistency of the separate observable acts of behavior. 11 Thus, these traits may be described as being both functional and dynamic in nature; with the level of strength for each trait ranging from high to low (see Figure 2), but never equaling zero. Hence, all mankind possess such traits, but the relative strength of each trait will detenmine whether a trait becomes manifest or renains latent within the individual. Finally, it is most important for traits to be viewed in their proper perspective, for no single trait--nor all traits together--detennine behavior all by themselves, for according to Allport: Any specific action is a product of innumerable detenninants, not only traits but of momentary pressures and specialized influences. But it is the repeated occurrence of actions having the same significance (equivalence of response) following upon a definable range of stimuli having the same personal significance (equivalence of stimuli) that makes necessary the postulation of traits as states of being. Traits are not at all times active, but they are persistent even when latent, and are distinguished by low thresholds of arousal (1937: 349). At the fourth and uppennost level of the personality hierarchy lies what is known as the personality "type." Carl Jung was one of the chief exponents of the "type" concept and it was his belief that every individual possessed both the mechanism of intro- version and that of extraversion; however, he was of the opinion that it was only the relative strength of the one as compared to the other which created the type. Moreover, he believed that external circum- stances and inner dispositions frequently favor one mechanism and impede or restrict the other, which results in one being dominant. 12 Thus, it was the notion that chronic or habitual dominance lead to what is known as "type" (Jung, 1923: 412-517). Value/Expectancy theory, one of several theories of motiva- tion, was selected for the present research project because of its applicability to educational settings, particularly those of a post- secondary nature. The premises upon which the selection was based are as follows: 1. People who choose to attend college are a self- selected group of individuals who receive tangible incentives and rewards, as a result of their pursuit of identifiable goals and objectives. 2. Moreover, such individuals tend to be success- oriented, goal-directed, and are driven by numerous motivating factors. Furthennore, the tenninology and concepts involved in Value/ Expectancy theory seem to be directly applicable to the study of the various complexities of human behavior and motivation . In fact, the Value/Expectancy model has been used by researchers in several other studies (Todd, Terrell, and Frank, 1962; Arvey and Dunnette, 1970; Mitchell and Knudson, 1971; and Mitchell and Nebeker, 1973). Overview of the Dissertation There have been numerous research studies conducted to determine the relationship between academic achievement and various correlates of personality; accordingly, those studies will be reviewed in Chapter II. To facilitate the discussion, the pertinent literature will be divided into three areas, culminated with an overall summary as follows: (a) Academic Achievement, (b) Motiva- tional Structure, (c) Commuters vs. Resident Students, and (d) Summary. 13 In Chapter 111 there will be a thorough elucidation of the design and methodology employed in the investigation; followed by Chapter IV, which will be utilized to provide a delineation of the findings derived from the study. Chapter V, the final chapter, will be divided into five sections as follows: (a) The Problem, (b) Findings, (c) Conclusions, (d) Implications, and (e) Recommendations for Future Research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Academic Achievement According to Cope (1978), the projected attrition rate for colleges and universities during the 19805 will be approximately 40 percent. If this in fact becomes a reality, along with the predicted decline in enrollment, administrators will be under tremendous pressure to find answers to the attrition problem--especially if operational costs continue to spiral at their present rate. Poor academic performance is one of the primary reasons why our current attrition rate is hovering at 40 percent, and although a great deal of time, effort, and resources have been devoted to studying academic performance, a central question remains essentially unanswered.(/Namely, why is the academic performance of students often not commensurate with their ability? > Henry Morgan has presented a good example of this perplexing question: i L . A group of male sophomore students of high scholastic aptitude was selected from the College of Science, Literature, and Arts (SLA) of the University of Minnesota on the basis of their scores on the 1947 American Council on Education Psychological Examination (ACE) taken prior to their enroll- ment as freshmen in college. These students had obtained, on the ACE, a raw score of 136 or more which placed them at or above tne 90th percentile on Thurstone's 1947 norm group of 34,658 males who were freshmen in four year colleges. A total of 132 men were thus selected and a distribution of the freshman year grade point averages was computed. This 14 15 distribution revealed the following: Thirty-three percent (33%) of these students earned a "B" or better; 37% earned a "C" average; and 30% earned a I'D" or less (1952: 292-298). Considering the fact that these were high caliber students, this distribution of grades is not only alarming but it suggests that some factor other than ability is having a great impact on academic performance. During the Fall of 1955 a similar study was conducted at the University of Utah, utilizing a group of 300 freshmen classified as low achievers, based on a predicted grade point average of 1.50 (0+) or below. Their predicted GPA was derived from high school grades and achievement test scores. From this group of low achievers, two distinct subgroups were identified in the following manner: Over Achieving Group (N = 49): A student with a predicted GPA of 1.50 or below, who, after one quarter had attained a GPA of 2.00 or above; Achieving as Expected Group (N = 52): A student with a pre- dicted GPA of 1.50 or below, who, after one quarter had earned a GPA of 1.00 or below. The mean predicted GPA for the over-achieving group was 1.22, 5.0. = .23, while the mean predicted GPA for the group achieving as expected was 1.14, with a standard deviation of .19. At the end of the first quarter an analysis of the data revealed the following: the mean GPA earned by the over-achieving group was 2.36, 5.0. = .33, and the mean GPA earned by the group achieving as expected was .65 with a standard deviation of .88 (Merrill and Murphy, 1959: 207-210). 16 Assuming that the prediction model employed was not faulty, this study provides evidence of the divergence between the predicted and the actual level of performance of college freshmen. Krug (1959: 133-136) who in 1958 studied a sample of freshmen engineers at Carnegie Institute of Technology, also found that over- achievers and under-achievers quite often do not perform according to their predicted level of achievement. More specifically, he found that after one semester a group of over-achievers whose mean predicted GPA was 2.56 actually earned a mean GPA of 3.50. He also found, in the same study, that a group of under-achievers whose mean predicted GPA was 2.46 actually earned a mean GPA of 1.49 after completing one semester of coursework. Motivational Structure The aforementioned research projects are just a few of numerous studies which clearly indicate that academic performance is often affected by non-intellectual factors. One such factor is motivational structure. As defined in Chapter I, motivational structure is a complex intra-structure within one's personality structure, characterized by the existence of an intricate network of traits common to all mankind, which due to their varying levels of strength, ultimately influence an individual's pattern of behavior. Many researchers have investigated the relationship between various personality traits such as the Need (N) Achievement, N Autonomy, N Affiliation, N Order, and their relationship to academic achievement. As might be expected, the literature on this particular 17 subject reveals a great deal of inconsistency with respect to the relationship between academic achievement and the various correlates of personality. One of the primary reasons for such inconsistency is that projective and self-report (objective) instruments do not measure the same traits with an equal degree of accuracy. Secondly, some researchers have used only those subjects whose motivational scores fall in the extreme quartiles of a distri- bution, while others will use all subjects sampled for their particu- lar study. Furthennore, according to Clarke (1973), additional discrepancies emerge as a direct result of the fact that many instru- ments are contaminated by social desirability and response variables. Moreover, there is a great deal of variability among instruments currently available, with respect to reliability and validity--a fact which makes comparisons between findings extremely difficult. Overall, according to Clarke, the reliability estimates of internal consistency and stability for projective instruments, such as McClelland's Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and French's Test of Insight (TOI) are very low. The Sentence Completion Test (SCT), in contrast, has a relatively high internal stability coefficient of .75 over a three-month period (Clarke, 1973). As far as achievement motivation is concerned, Weinstein (1969) found very low reliability coefficients for the TAT, TOI, the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). In fact, the highest coefficient for either internal consistency or stability was .48. 18 Edwards (1959) reports relatively high stability coefficients of .74 for Achievement and .70 for Affiliation, but only over a seven-day interval. When the test was administered seven weeks apart, the coefficients were significantly lower and scores on the Achievement scale were considerably higher. In terms of predicting academic achievement, Bendig (1959), Goodstein and Heilbrun (1962), Izard (1962), and Reiter found that instruments such as the EPPS tend to yield low but significant correlations. In their studies they found that most of the variance was accounted for by high school GPA. In a related study, Bachman (1964) found that the prediction model for GPAs was not significantly improved by adding N Achievement scores to SAT scores. On the whole, according to Clarke (1973), the self-report measures tend to be more reliable than projective methods in terms of predicting academic performance. None of the instruments, how- ever, appear to be sufficiently valid to be used for individual prediction of any behavior. Nevertheless, according to several prominent researchers, among the self-report measures, the Personality Research Form is the most reliable instrument currently available for measuring achievement and affiliation motivation. Anastasi (1972) for example, states, "Technically the PRF appears to be exemplary," and Kelley (1972), refers to the PRF as an: "extremely promising" device which is "A welcomed contribu- tion to the field of personality assessment" . . . . "The resulting scales have high content validity and homogeneity, making possible the measurement of personality traits with levels of precision and validity formerly associated only with intellectual abilities and scholastic achievement." 19 Another major source of the confusion surrounding the subject of motivational structure and its relationship to academic achieve- ment, emanates from weaknesses in the design of various studies. Such weaknesses can usually be divided into three basic categories: failure to account for differences based on sex; inadequate stratifi- cation by age and/or level of academic progress; and inadequate stratification by ability level. For example, Osborne conducted a study at the University of Georgia in 1948, employing the Harrower Multiple Choice Rorschach. The Rorschach was administered to 504 freshmen, in an attempt to detennine its usefulness in predicting the scholastic perfonnance of college freshmen. Accordingly, at the end of the fall and winter terms, grades were obtained and ranked on a nine-point scale. After recording all pertinent data, biserial cor- relation coefficients were computed between each of the 300 Rorschach responses and the fall quarter GPAs. After the data were thoroughly analyzed, Osborne (1950) found that "several types of weighted Rorschach responses which, when combined with scholastic aptitude test scores, yield appreciably better predictions of college grades than those based solely on scholastic aptitude tests." Osborne's study yielded a wealth of information; however, he apparently failed to consider the effects of a very important variable, namely the sex of the respondents. As a result, the con- clusions drawn from the data are extremely clouded. 20 Level of Academic Progress and Age When conducting research involving personality variables, it is important to consider the level of academic progress of the respondent in conjunction with the individual's age. For, as Izard (1962), Rothman (1973a), and Rothman (1973b), have pointed out, one's motivational structure has a tendency to change in accordance with the changing priorities of the individual student, which is often a function of age and/or maturity in addition to the varying demands of one's academic program. The importance of controlling such factors was clearly demonstrated by Izard in a study conducted at Vanderbilt University. In 1957, during orientation week, the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was administered to 627 entering freshmen. Four years later a follow—up study was carried out to assess any changes that might have occurred between the freshman and senior year. Follow-up test data were obtained for 19 nursing students, 63 engineering students, 24 arts and sciences (A85) women and 28 A85 men. Subsequently, after completing an analysis of the data, Izard found the following: The nursing students showed significant mean decreases on Deference, Abasement, Order, Affiliation, and Endurance; with significant mean increases on Autonomy, Heterosexuality, and Aggression. The means for engineers decreased on Deference, Abasement, Succorance, and Endurance, and increased on Dominance, Heterosexuality, Autonomy and Aggression. The means for A&S women decreased on Deference, Dominance, Abasement, and Endurance while increasing on Heterosexuality and Autonomy. In contrast, the means for A&S men decreased on Abasement and Nuturance while increasing on Achievement, Aggression, and Heterosexuality (1962: 482). 2.1 Additional evidence concerning the importance of controlling for age has been presented by Serine (1976) in a study conducted at Mansfield State College. The purpose of Serine's study was to compare the needs of adults in a Continuing Education Program with those of traditional four year college freshmen. Serine's two samples con- sisted of 98 adults and 91 freshmen who were enrolled during the spring term of 1975. The adults were enrolled as part-time students in the Con- tinuing Education Program and the freshmen were full-time students enrolled in regular undergraduate programs. Each participant was administered the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) and a supplementary data questionnaire. After completing an analysis of his data, Serine found a distinct difference in the need systems of freshmen and adults. More specifically he found that: adults exhibited a higher need for exhibition, affiliation, succorance, and nurturance, than freshmen in his sample. When the study samples were compared by sex, he found a greater difference in need strengths between the freshman males and females as compared to the difference between the adult males and females. To his credit, Serine accounted for the differences in sex, but he failed to adequately stratify his sample by age groups. As a consequence, his sample of "traditional freshmen" (18-22 years of age) includes a large number of students who have been out of high school for several years. This fact alone presents a problem with respect to the wide variability in maturity levels, a problem Izard 22 (1962) and Rothman (1973) alluded to in earlier studies. Further- more, Serine's rather imprecise definition of the "adult student" as "a person who would not say 'student' when asked his occupation, a person who spends most of his time in pursuits not considered educa- tional . . . ," led to the mixing of seventeen "traditional freshmen" with those of the adult group. Consequently, his findiings are at best questionable. In a similar study conducted at Ohio State University, Carder (1977), sought to investigate the relationship among four variables: age, need for achievement, need for affiliation, and career salience (general attitude toward work) in female college students. Her subjects were divided into two groups: those under 22 years of age (40 students) and those 28 years of age and older (39 students). The younger students were enrolled in introductory psychology classes and/or were members of the university residence halls. The older female students were recruited from various academic classes, interest groups, and through an advertisement in the campus newspaper. The research instruments employed included the Achievement via Independence and Achievement via Conformance Scales of the California Psychological Inventory, the Adjective Check List, and a 27-item measure of career salience. After completing an analysis of her data, she found that: 1. College women over 28 score higher on a measure of Need Achievement than college women under 22; 2. There are no differences on a measure of N Affiliation between college women over 28 and college women under 22; 23 3. College women over 28 exhibit higher levels of career salience than college women under 22; 4. High career salient college women, regardless of age, score higher on a measure of N Achievment than low career salient women. Unfortunately, Carder made the same error as Serine in that her stratification by age group was inadequate; a fact that becomes particularly pronounced when one considers the fact that the tradi- tional four-year college student has usually completed college by age twenty-two. Restricted Samples Sample composition is another factor which should be con- sidered when studying motivational structure; for this will detennine the scope of any generalizations that might be drawn from the data. A case in point has been presented by Uhlinger and Stephens (1960: 259-266) who studied the academic performance of 72 freshmen at a midwestern state university, the majority of whom were male engineer- ing majors. Each of the students in their study had received a special merit scholarship, scored high on the Scholarship Qualifying Test (SOT) one year before entering college; ranked in the top 10 percent of his/her high school graduating class, were single and were between the ages of 17 and 19. Each of these students also completed the Edward Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), the Goal Preference Inventory (GPI), and the Incomplete Sentences Blank (ISB). All of the students were tested near the end of the fall semester, under normal testing conditions, and all tests were administered in the same sequence. 24 The mean GPA for the scholarship group was 4.97 on a six- point grading scale (A=6, B=5, C=4, D=3), whereas the mean for the entire freshman class was 4.11. Of the 72 students tested, 17 earned GPAs of 5.54 or above; these students were classified as high achievers. There were also 17 students in the low achieving group (GPAs of 4.5 or lower). Upon completion of their analysis, Uhlinger and Stephens found the following: The hypothesis that high achievers evidence greater need for achievement than do low achievers was supported by only one of four measures; high achievers show greater need for social love and affection that do low achievers; and generally, high achievers had a greater expectancy for academic success and higher minimal grade goals than did low achievers. Nevertheless, due to the pronounced homogeneity of the sample, any generalizations that might be drawn from the data must be restricted primarily to high ability male engineering freshmen. In fact, the lack of an acute differentiation between high and low achievers may have been a result of sample homogeneity. Another example of a restricted sample has been presented by Rothman (1973b: 180-182) in a study conducted at the University of Toronto. During the fall of 1967, all members of the entering medical class at the University of Toronto were administered a battery of psychological tests. The testing battery consisted of the Advanced Progressive Matrices, a non-verbal test of intellectual ability, and the Personality Research Form. After establishing a criterion for persistent high and low achievement, the progress of each student was monitored over a four- year period. At the end of the four-year period, there were 160 25 students who could be classified as persistent high and low achievers. Subsequently, various comparisons were made between the two groups. Upon completion of his analysis, Rothman found that in the first year the traits associated with conventional learning, such as Need Achievement, Need Endurance, and Need of Introversion, were the most effective differentiators between high and low achievers. In contrast, during the last two years, he found that differentiation between high and low achievers was exclusively in tenns of power and status-associated traits, i.e., Need for Dominance, Need for Social Recognition, and Exhibition. Again, the results of the study are enlightening, but due to the fact that the sample was comprised of a highly select group of students, any generalizations must be restricted chiefly to pre- medical students. Stratification by Ability Level One of the most common errors of researchers investigating the relationship between non-intellectual factors and academic achieve- ment, involves a lack of stratification according to ability level. Recognizing this as a potential problem, Gebhart and Hoyt (1958: 125-128) exercised great care in designing their study, which was carried out at Kansas State University. Their sample included 240 freshmen male students enrolled in the School of Engineering and Architecture, and the School of Arts and Sciences. Each school group was subdivided into three ability levels, and further divided into under and over-achievers for the purpose of investigating some of the 26 personality correlates of over- and under-achievement. Within the limits of the sample employed, the following conclusions were reached: 1. Over-achievers scored significantly higher than under-achievers on the Achievement, Order, Intra- spection, and Consistency Scales, and significantly lower on the Nurturance, Affiliation, and Change Scales. 2. High ability students scored significantly higher than those of low ability on the Achievement, Exhibition, Autonomy, Dominance, and Consistency Scales, and significantly lower on the Deference, Order, Abasement, and Nurturance Scales. 3. Engineering students scored significantly higher than arts and sciences students on the Endurance Scale and significantly lower on the Dominance Scale. A similar study was carried out at Iowa State University by Goodstein and Hielbrun (1962), employing many of the same precautions as Gebhart and Hoyt. Their study involved 321 undergraduate students, 206 males and 115 females, enrolled in two large intro- ductory psychology courses. The group was predominantly comprised of sophomores, with some juniors and a few seniors. Each of these students completed the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) early in the semester, under standard testing conditions. Addi- tionally, the score on a 20 minute, 60-item vocabulary test was used to assess their scholastic aptitude. At the conclusion of the semester, the GPAs for each student was secured and the product- moment correlations between the semester GPAs , the vocabulary test scores, and the scores on the EPPS were computed separately by sex for the entire group. The results were as follows: 27 The obtained correlation between vocabulary test scores and GPA was .46 for the males and .42 for the females (both p's < .01). The correlation between the vocabulary test scores and the EPPS scale scores ranged from -.23 to .37. Approximately 20% of the correlations between the vocabulary test scores and EPPS scale scores were statis- tically significant (p < .05). After analyzing these essentially negative results, from a group of students possessing a wide range of intellectual ability, Goodstein and Heilbrun hypothesized that personality correlates of college achievement may be specifically tied to ability levels, and that these relationships are obscured in the type of analysis which fails to consider varying levels of ability. To investigate this hypothesis, they subdivided each of the two sex groups into three equal sized subgroups, using scores on the vocabulary tests to define Low, Middle, and High intellectual ability. The product-moment cor- relations between GPA, vocabulary test scores, and the 15 EPPS scale scores were then computed for each of the six subgroups. An analysis of these subgroups revealed the following: For the males, the obtained correlation between the vocabulary test scores and GPA was .28 for the Low ability group, .11 for the Middle ability group, and .33 for the High ability group. In contrast, the correlations for females were .32, -.05, and .40, respectively. The correlations between the vocabulary test scores and the EPPS scale scores ranged from -.32 to .43 with approximately 25% of the correlations statistically significant (p < .05). . . . A further analysis revealed that for Low ability males, Autonomy and Nurturance are negatively correlated with GPA; for the Middle ability males, Achievement and Endurance are positively correlated with GPA, while Affiliation, Intraception, Nurturance, and Change are negatively correlated with GPA; and for the High ability males, Aggression is negatively correlated with GPA. In contrast, for the Low ability females, Abasement and Nurturance are negatively correlated with GPA, for the High ability females, Intraception is positively correlated with GPA, but none of the partial correlations for the Middle ability female group is statisti- cally reliable. 2‘8 Goodstein and Heilbrun made a significant contribution to Motivation Theory as a result of conducting this study; however, their results are extremely clouded because of their failure to con- trol for varying levels of academic progress; i.e., they mixed sophomores, juniors, and seniors without differentiation. After reviewing numerous studies on academic achievement and the various personality correlates associated with the same, it became apparent that the motivational structures of high achieving and less successful college students are quite distinctive. The pattern that most often emerges for the high achieving student is one dominated by high needs for the following traits: Achievement, Autonomy, Cognitive Structure, Endurance, Order, and Understanding. In contrast, the less successful student has a tendency to exhibit high needs for: Affiliation, Change, Impulsivity, Play, and Succorance. Substantial support for the components of these two patterns can be found in the following studies: Gebhart and Hoyt (1958); Merrill and Murphy (1959); Krug (1959); Izard (1962); Goodstein and Heilbrun (1962); Rothman (1973a); Rothman (1973b); Parlow and Rothman (1974); Loucks, Kobos, Stanton, Burstein, and Lawlis (1979); Maudal, Butcher, and Mauger (1974); and Capoor (1974). Commuters vs Residents The literature on the commuting student, as scarce as it may be, tends to depict the "commuter" as the "deprived" student; however, it remains to be seen as to whether this is an accurate characteriza- tion. Nevertheless, the research to date indicates the following: 29 Kyser (1964), based on his observations, thought that many students selected non—residential colleges because of emotional problems. He also suggested that a higher potential for mental disorder, dropout, and/or failure existed at urban commuter institutions than at residential schools. Schuchman (1966) reported that conflicting political and social attitudes were the greatest single producers of stress and unhappiness in the commuter's life. Commuters, he found, were forced to suppress their thinking at home or defend their "radical" views. Harrington (1972) revealed that commuters had fewer collegiate friends and acquaintances and identified more with people they had known in high school. Graff and Cooley (1970), in comparing commuters to resident students, found that: the commuter had poorer mental health, had more problems with curricular adjustment, and demonstrated less maturity in goals and aspirations. They concluded that commuters were less satisfied with their chosen curriculums, perceived less relevance in their coursework, and showed less responsibility in satisfying academic requirements. Their study also indicated that commuters manifested a lack of self-confidence, nurtured feelings of failure and insecurity, and displayed excessive anxiety when con- fronted with petty annoyances, in comparison to resident students. With respect to study skills, organization, and interpersonal rela— tions with peers, no differences were found between commuters and resident students. 30 Bishop and Snyder (1975), in a study conducted at an eastern university, found that commuters relied on themselves as sources of help more often than they did on friends, while the pattern for resi- dent students was just the opposite. Such findings tend to indicate that commuters may be more self-reliant and autonomous than students who live on campus. While it is not known whether such contrast is due to choice or circumstances, it should be noted that George (1971) found similar differences in a study of the personality structures of commuter and resident students. As a result of their studies of college attendance, Chicker- ing and Kuper (1971) made several generalizations about differences in the development of residential and commuting students. They sug- gested that the main impact of college on commuters occurred during the last two years of college, whereas, change occurred during the first two years for resident students. The commuter's slower transi- tion was thought to be a result of internal conflicts, parental pressure, and peer relationships formed before college. Chickering and Kuper concluded that the college experiences of commuters and residents were similar with regard to intellectual development; however, they found that substantial differences existed and persisted in the out-of—class experiences and interpersonal relationships, to the extent that non-intellectual changes occurred at a slower pace for the commuter. Their study also revealed that upon entrance to college, dormitory students exhibit a greater range of competencies than commuters. These competencies tend to expand during the freshman 31 year for resident students but contract for commuters, creating an even wider gap between the two groups. Summary The literature reveals a plethora of studies investigating the relationship between academic achievement and numerous variables of prsonality, but the findings emanating from these studies are often beset with conflicts. Aside from the conflicting results that can be attributed to highly unusual populations such as those based on high ability, pre-medical, or engineering students, there are numerous studies which are weak in design. These weaknesses usually fall into three basic categories: (1) some researchers have failed to consider differences in response based on sex; (2) others, despite strong evidence to the contrary, have failed to consider age differ- entials and levels of academic progress, i.e., mixing upperclassmen with freshmen; and (3) the most common error is the failure to con- sider the effects of varying ability levels. In spite of these shortcomings, a relatively clear pattern has emerged from these studies, revealing that high achieving students have a tendency to exhibit high needs for: Achievement, Autonomy, Cognitive Structure, Endurance, Order, and Understanding; and that less successful students tend to exhibit high needs for: Affiliation, Change, Impulsivity, Play, and Succorance. Substantial support for the components of these two patterns can be found in the following studies: Gebhart and Hoyt (1958); Merrill and Murphy (1959); Krug (1959); Izard (1962); Goodstein and Heilbrun (1962); 32 Rothman (1973a); Rothman (1973b); Parlow and Rothman (1974); Loucks, Kobos, Stanton, Burstein, and Lawlis (1979); Maudal, Butcher, and Mauger (1974); and Capoor (1974). With respect to differences and/or similarities between com- muters and donnitory residents, Graff and Cooley (1970) found that commuters tend to be more disenchanted with their curriculums, per- ceived less relevance in their coursework, and were not as con- scientious in satisfying their graduation requirements. In addition, Graff and Cooley found that commuters tend to be less self-confident when compared to resident students. In contrast, Bishop and Snyder (1975) found dormitory residents to be less self-reliant and autonomous than commuters. Chickering and Kuper (1971) in their study of the impact of college on students, found that significant changes occurred in resident students during the first two years of college; whereas, for commuters such changes did not occur until the last two years of college. They also concluded that the college experiences of com- muters and residents were quite similar with regard to intellectual development. This fact is further confirmed by Call (1974), Pugh and Chamberlain (1976); and Selby and Weston (1978), all of whom report no significant differences in achievement between the two groups. In light of these findings, no attempt was made to differ- entiate between these two groups in the current study. In view of these findings, those motivational traits which appear to be fairly reliable academic predictors will be separated into two groups as indicated in Table 2.1. Trait Group I is 33 TABLE 2.1.-~Motivational Traits: Academic Predictors. TRAIT GROUP I TRAIT GROUP 11 Traits of High Achievers Traits of Less Successful Students a. Achievement a. Affiliation b. Autonomy b. Change c. Cognitive Structure c. Impulsivity d. Endurance d. Play e. Order e. Succorance f. Understanding comprised of traits associated with the high achieving student and Trait Group II the traits of the less successful student. The primary focus of the investigation will be centered around the aforementioned traits; however, the results from the entire battery of scales from the Personality Research Form will be analyzed to detennine if any additional relationships exist among other traits with respect to academic achievement. A description of these traits is provided in Table 2.2 (Jackson, 1974: 6-7). 34 .Azuzou .uoucoaa .m:_~__m:o_uuc .m:_m=oxm-c_om .xgm: .m:_umouoca .mm_c_:ac_ mum_mog a.Lov—:ogm as» :o a_;u: a we: .o>_uocoom .maowowamam .u:_:oucou -m—mm .o>wm=mumu .m:_acou .mcwxupuman .m>_uowuocg-u—mm acauoacum memo: .u_a_c .m:.:_bmo .AHpamwnso mu_o>a ._mcouw_ .maocom_c.oucczooo .u_u__axm .mcpavam—u .upum_covuuowcon .maopauwuos .xu:_oucou mxmom .ou_=_»mu .m:_uu~xo .om_omga .ucaumcoucw .m:_ua___oo> .augmp_» .m>_uo>occp .m:o_uwcqco .o_aowco> .Lupsmoggw .o—acmmcogu .o—nauaoua .o_aouas .»._uoog sm_u_upcu vacuum no: moot aa—_mao oncowwo moan» “mos?“ _—m an upoms_z accent on Atoms me_g um:_omu one go snug e_s cues apnooa «as» muuonmam >_*vow¢ .mowuwppauaogn Lo mommmam con: can» Lozuoc .oauo—zocx oawc_»wu con: woman mco.m_oou egos cu moc_mou mx_oum_asou vogozmco meowumoza ..a mucus “cowuaECouc' :* auc'oucooca so xu*:a_nso wxp— uoc moon .ucoecog_>:m :_ mwucmgo o» »__vamc magnum "moucaumssuLFu acocmwu_u =_ mos—a) Lo «copcwao mmcugu »__uamg has “a, mu_o>o muzmozumuo waspuamhm u>~p~zuou .u:_go>a3 .o—ncuuwuocqcz .wpawxopm .o_xo_~ .ucoum_mcoocw vca ocwuaoc moxp—m_u ”moucopgmaxo acoLmCCFu can so: max“; mozomc: .o_umw_mau_>_uc_ .uocwogumcouca .mzow__oamc .mmcu .vwsuouuaca mcwoa mxoucm mug—x »:a mo mcopuuwgumog .maosocousm .ucoucmnoucp .uco_me-m—wm .mog» .o—ammmocasca Lo .acmsmcpmcou .mucwacumog soc» harm xoacg o» mw—Lh >zozop=< .o>wum__muog .uc:_n .ucmcom___mn ._acom:o>uc .a__umoz .sw; vmsco: m=_>m; mo mo>pwucaa a: sac: apnoea guvx sco>o .vocomcoux__mmm .vocanou-uos .zcmaa .u_um_commucm .a=_xuouum wow: 6» goon Ame “Au: my; won 6» opaomn nus: o» a:V—_.3 .mcwcmuowczu .m>_ucu:me:mcm .o_aouvccw .mEOmPoccmza .o>wmmogomo mms_uweom mvmxocca ap'moo "u:m=SmLa new aunsou macacu zo~mmu¢ww< .om——?3-uoom .o>_uo¢__»»a .upnu_uom .m_oou_amoc .o_noma zap: m:o_quuOmmu :_ou:_us .maovcammcm .m>_uocwaoou .o_no»»o .pawcom .o_nc:oPcoqsoo ecu mawgmucm_cw :_3 on mucoumw waxes m»_wvumc o—aooa .xpucmwcw .vocaumc-uoom .mpnmo_5m .Egoz ._mxop .x—Loncm_mc muamoom "pmcmcmm cw anoon can mucopgu saw: acmoa mxoncu zo~h<_g_um< .ouco—pmuxo :_aauo cu ugouwo .o>_u_uoasou .pawmocaomog .m:o_u_a=a .mcw>_cv .m>_uu=uoga cucow ”an on m:*——_z m:o_u_uoasou cu hpo>—u_moa mueoammg .mcw>ocaEP-»—om .mcwmwcacwucm .mcwc_amo .m:_>m,:om .m=o_cum:ucw mm_oom acoum_v ucozou sec: on mcw_—.z mp new mugmucaum .mcvcwauuo .pauomoacza .opaaamu .ac_;mvpasouua .m:_>_cum ;m_: mcpmucwms mmxmou ppauwwwvu :mppascuua o» mmgwam< pzuxu>u_:u< mcwuac_ucon:muwpom .—awu:ocm»mc .m:_u_mwm .u:o_uoao .u:m_>cmma:m .mc_uawuoum—mm on o» mono» “cou_moa Lo_cow:v cm cw a, a: .m:_~_mo_ono .opnssg ..aowu_go-w_om .um:m_mmc .ucwcovcoccam mums: mcowuaauwm ou »_ome_g momoaxo woo>gomou ac: cog: co>o .ac__uuv_manupom .m=o_:cmmno .m:_ee_anwpmm .m:_m=uoa-mpwm .xwws Emwu_upcu ecu oaapn muaouuo ma»*p_ssz mo oogmmu cap: a mxosm hzuxum_pumao< p~e_ -cae ..eegecwe .e>_uceem .;m_x:ece .m=e_e>_cw .e:_xew .m=_>e— .eupp ecezee eeeu_uue me_eo-xmee .eoueeeznusm__ e m:_eu:_es "mewseum scene can mexen axewee ”meeoEemese Lezue eee .me_e_>wuee _e_eem .mugeem .mesem e. mepueepepecee -cmucmeep .xcgee .uc_xeem-ecewee—e .»_pen .—ev>en .peu>epe eewu we —eoe teem e meceem gaeem Lem amen: mac's» xeee noes ><4e .ee~_eeaee a_—ee.ee:ues m—ewcaees .euecenppee .m=_xce>e= .peueepe me_eeex Lem meezuos newee—e>ee :_ ecumeceuew mee_ue~weemge .ee_eee;em ._ee'eeguee .eee_u .»_Leeee .eeeem_m:ee .eeeece Ce gee. .ee_m:»eee .Leeu:_e wex_—m_e mee~_eemge new use: .eeew—e_empe .eegeece-—_e3 .e_ueswumAm .»e_u .ee~peeoce .aee: mmcveeeeccem new mueeume _eeemgee mepeeex guvx eeegeeceu xuoao .mcenee Lem mge>ew mecemcee »—*eeec .me_um_mme .e_eeewce=e .mep—emeee .a:_coem_e_s meme: ep omega e» =eee; ee_e—ecs e mgeuee mecwwc— on» go .eewe_o .ocweceeeem .Peecoees .mc_ucew5ee .e>_eeeuece .m:_cee .eepnem_e use .eece__gu Lee newceu cw emameceee_ .epn_mmee .ecpemceoeee .ueepe>e:ee .peee_eg .peeceuee .eweegueesxm Le>eeezx mcegue mumwmme mugemsee use ageensxm me>Pu muz<¢=h¢=z .meeeueesw .e_neuwexe .xege;_eew .e>*mp:es_ .:e_mmecexo peee_ueee e— e—_ue—e> on has mxpeegm mxeeem .ee_gceg .m:e_u:ee:w .uce_uees_ .—ewg:ecee .mc_xc_gunxe_ee "mesm_: ecu «mew—mew e» »__eeeg uee> me>vm meewuegen_—ee .e_nwmmeceegcp .mme_xueL .meeeceueeem .eeuvewge_ee .gmeg .xume; usesu_z eee =eeese=_e;a we gene: may so you on meeeh >h~>~m4=ez~ .uce._o_> .xez m.=:e; we use macaw .Lemeee ea e>puemuee .mxmwe mewe>e .meeceeee>eeee .xeeee_e=eeece .e>_meeg .zuewem —ueemgee -mceee .meeces_e .xeewem exeem .m=e_e=ee ._awecee .ueee_e>e e~_s_xee ea exeem "ecu: a__eee we xm_g me_e>e mee>pe>:_ -ewae .ec_eeeeege-e—em .Leocee secw mzecezewx .peegee» m_ Lemeee ». appeweeeme .mowap>_eee me_a.exe xemee we: moon uuz_eecum:e2ee .auu_z Le u_uesege me_ee .emeeess_ .mee_ueeeeemo .e>_mmecaxe .e—neee_uee .mee=e_emeee Aence see amcecue we ee_ue= egu m:_z ze_gz Lep>ecee :. mememce .ewemweewu_e_gxe .mcweewn_peem ._eewec: .ocwcweuceeee ._eucepee meeee_eee ea oep>eg mxence neepueeuue we League as» on e» mace: zo_h~m_:xu .epeecee .m:e_ee~ .xeceum .ee_3eum we: .e_uemceco .mu_ae; see: m_; e. oewuee_ece: wee neurone .eemaee .mme_ecwu .mme_eee_ec .mc_ue_=mgee .m:_co>emeee axe—sewee_e emcee we wee» «ea c. ee>e .m:_ge>emcee uswpeece .a:_cee—eece .uewgeece .umeueeeum .ee:_=:eeee .eceum_mcee e co xpxewee e: e>wm u.emeee "maze; mee_ gee: e» ocwppw: muzceeam .—:$Lezee .o>_ueuwcezeee .e>wucemme .xpmeeeeeueeem a? assume has new Leeeep .eeee_see .meweeec_e .ec_eee_ .ueeeeeume .—eweecee .e>_me:mcee me e_p. one maence mxp—eueece» mee_=_ee mmmmecexe me_eeee Legue ._e_eeeepee_ .me_cmoemsee .ee_eeeeeee .aew—peceeee .ecwece>em eeeg_e Le meeeepue_ ea use .ueeeeeg_>ee up: pecueee ea mueeouu< muz_pemeo< ~_we_m_eeew ._eeeweeg .eeeeme ._eeweeceese .me_~_eweecem ._eewme— .mewoece .e>weemwume>e_ .e>_m_eew .e>_eee_wec ._oeueeppeeew .mewce_exe ._eowexpeee .meewcee .mewcweeew mmewemcmwee .me_xeem-e_ez .oeweee_e .cowueewwe me>ege .mewumeeeec .ceweeeeece meme: .mcwewwcee .mme_e_eg .ee_>ee mace: .uceeeem mxeem .e_e; Lew mewpeeeee .mewueecuee .ueeeeeeee .acwuewuecmew .oewumecu .A_euewceegeee me>ezee .eweoce we meecwmee .e>_e_m=em x__eweem .e_eeeeeme .mcwmw_ee .cowuecweee mxeem .LeeoLe a_~e_eem .oewueeeeseeee .Ae___aeeueemec mxeem .eewmmegesw eeom mexee .meeeeceoe .cewewcmeeec exeem .ee>e:ea-ppez .geeege .mewxeem _e>eeeee .meewmmecesw ee esw—e .meweec_s_LUmwe .mewuwuec .e>_mceemec .e>_ueeoeme .eeeewcoexe ee eeee .meeemcmm .e>_e_mcem .mew—eew .uceE:eL_>ee meewue: .eceze .xzucee .uee>gemne .meewuemcem .eemece whence .ewuogemee .eeweew>ee mmecm Le .eewmewcee .eeeew_e2eeleee e>wmmee .eewmeegecesee Leee .mmeemme_ogee ea use A_ewmmee .Leeeee seececueeeeme we opnwmeepesw cw meeeemem .meeeeeeeum mew—eeemwoe e» memeeemeg cw w_em we ogeuewe o_eege>ew meeemece .xpeueweeeecw Le >_eaeeeuee .A—meewemceee: we xpmeewemeee wepnacwmee we cemeen mete» cw wpem moewcemeo .xuwmewceu pezeee_—eu:w eewxwmwuem we eeeeocwe cog: xpce_=ewucee .unoeece ~euwme_ .ceweenw—eceeem e_newwwce> .meeew we mwmeceezm moepe> weave—gees we moose hens eceemgeuc: e» mace: .eemcoe o>wuememe e ea apweeec mewu_:u_wwwe meewweee megeeeem seam ueeguwz mmepepe; Le eceoemew peew Ace «apnoea Loewe we eeeecemmeec ecu .ee_>ee .e>e_ .eewuueeegq .agueesxm ecu axeem apaeeeeeww .mcezue we eewuwemeeeg nee _e>eceee use new exec: mew: we xcwzu e_eeee segue yes: eee :ewueueeec ozone eeeceoeee "meueeeeweeeee An Eweeme new; cw e—eg en ea mecwmeo u .eww— we 3ww> ewuegumee Le ewumweeee; x__ewu=emme ea eweecwee has “oecewgeexe we metew xees ea e>wu_meem mw newwp we acne eceeceeew one xmgu ease mo>mwpoe ecu meoweemcem omega meeeEoEeL m_eew mmewgu an: wee ecu .meumeu .mugmwm .meeeem .mppesw meuweez >uzuzcumwz— >h~dmm~bumao< p~eo coo: 532:5 e3: .8325“. :3: 532.6: :3: 5225.. so: .3325: :3: 032...» 32x33 Bees—Sm Eaves; vcevezm Eaves; P593; ..m.z_ A“..z. mn.z. .nm.zv .e~.xv ._o.zv w2.... ms.._a¢ go_: m~_ssa. .31_.a¢ =a_z no.4: .__.e< oaaau>< w33.; ».,_.a¢ ooacas< aa_ax we._.a< .54 no...u. ».___a< nae _. aeeme > aeoze .__ L. aeeae _ aeeae I‘VDVJIIIJJ '1 a I I .1!‘!I.Y..JT§.1III“'O Oil. 1 .593 ill I 14.. 91.1.VQI 0‘. I . .505 .i .1 I .. OTIEOWVI‘-.-uI Inn» :9 a I: V: .aaoLeaam an a=o_....aa aaaucaew ac. means--.m.c eda .AHe n zv mopesww xuwpwn< :04 Low mucowuwwwoeu :ewue—owgeunu.~.< m4m emacwucouuu.~.< m4m Ant-14‘4-aiiu I 1 «14.4441i mu =< o< INI1TI|H 144-1YII S.- \ .I.‘|.‘Oril . t. u441l1lé“ -. UCOIV‘IA l . 01.1214 VI .‘n .ll.‘1iu‘u I447 4% 11. 11.11:. «cw - z. mo—et Au___n< lea Lew mucuwuwwwwou cowua_owwou-i.~.¢ u4¢ .Amm u zv mm—eemw haw—wa< omewe>< Low mucowuwwwuou cowue—ogLOUuo.m.< m4m gin-.3.“ HIIIMMiMIMNFVMMM-IJM «IMMIM M. ”fidanill. Winui h. fi.flnalflulllu "MH!I.|I.I!H)9 l .. i .. 1 1b.! I HI I... u! ,l a I. i . INN; .eoecwucounu.m.< u4m .Amm n zv nope: xuwpwn< emewm>< Low mucmwuwwwweu cowue—uwgou--.v.< m4m 1(14 Io o< o< w< o< m< co» m: c: m: m: ~z I. In! M I ill VI.I.I.1WMH :ulfllhlhlflflwrfilllllllu "It." ... .M.Mnfil.fliwllil1lvt "(11.1.74 ":1 .143 “Mill: N I .I.MU.”Ihu.fl-IMIMH nil—1|” "UV”.NIMIMHHI. Min“. "111"“ Hit.» 1’ 0. i I. I 11 i I! ll PAIIIF Axe u zo me_a2aa »S___e< em_: Low meee_awwweoe :o_ea_eceoe--.m.< meme» xeezwaa< om mm mm on go oz rm <1 xm zm oo mo mo 105 oomwo.u ofimmo. voooo. mowmm.u cmomo. emmo~.u mommm.- w~o~o.- mmv-.u onfiom. oovoo. Noovo. -~e~. zo mmofim. mcofim. floowo. mmwmo. womwo. NoomH. Nvovm. ovmcm. vo~o~.a Nonum. mum—o.c odooa. om fieHmo. Hmvow. mwwmo.u v¢~v~.u eemo_. oommo. mummfi. ooo-.- omfimfi. mewnu. momvu. mm mmmmm. dummo.u oAch. mvmwu. ~m¢m~.n omoov. mumoo. odeom. Nvmm~.u oowvo. mm mwom~.: mmwvm. ommwc. ammo—.1 cameo. ommo~.u ommcm. Mnemo. m~oo~.- on oommo.u ~He<¢.n moogw. vmo-.u mmfiov. mNooH.n moooo. ovgoe. 1o vmm~o. moovo.n unmoo. unmoo. Hmomo. “swam.u mmoeo.u oz omm-.- ~c-o. muwmm.u omwow. omoufi. mowov.a =~ ommow.u oo~oo.- ongom.u ~m¢-. oooufi. <1 mvoo~.a oaooo. domed. ~m¢m~.u xu ommoo. Room~.u ~o-m. zm Nomfiu. o-o~.u oo cofioo. no mo 1o o< o< w< o< o< mob m: e: n: N1 "2 om mm mm on mo oz :_ <1 xu zm oo mo mo mo—oewge> oeaewuceuiu.m.< mom .AHm n zv mm_ez haw—wa< nowz Low mucmwuwwwooo cowuepmgweonu.o.< mom II .‘ VIM: I l. .I I. A Lil flil Al ml .unllu . 3!.“ "I: 3 .'".~.' flut.'..‘nd§ ‘1“ "I.“ ""4.“ I. ..| IT I I ll iI .um:=5cooi.o.< 59:. 523.2 APPENDIX B INTERCORRELATIONS FOR PRF-E SCALES 108 xm 2m Do 3o mo 1o o< o< w< o< o< 109 Nfivo.n Nomm. oovm. o¢-.u «moo.: emuo. Nfimo. memo. m¢o~.- movo. mnmo.u zH owom. mvo~.a mmvo. mmmo.- ommm. mmNo. o-~.- emmm.n somm. oocm. oefin. >o mmmo. mmmo. mm~m. vow". ova. eemfi. omfio.u m-_.u mono.» mmfin. coca. zo ommo. womm. ~w-.p mmwo. mmmfi. om-.- mooo.u m_~o. meow. Nw-.n mmno. om mom“. emo_. mwv~.u -mo.u nuoo. Homo.u Nona.a movw. «mod. soe~.u namo.o 1m ovmm. mmmo. ommw. moo~.n memo. Noom. ooeo. NHoo. mmmm. «com. mmeu. mm omom. mmw~.n vmmfi. "moo.u ooo~.u momm. ¢o~_. amom. omom. ¢¢-.n moeo.n on mmo~.a moom. momo. cumo.u ~moe. ~omo.: om-.u ome~.u ovoo.: meow. Nooo. 1o Nfimm. owmm. ommH. Noo~.- mmoo.u ommo. ono.u mmm~.u omen. Hom~. “mam. oz mmwm. mmmm.n cmoo.u swom. mumm.i mfififi. mmod. mofie. momo. mvm~.u mmmo.u z~ ~o~N.- wva.n mNoN.- oe~o. NMHN. m-m.- mmem.u mmvo.a somo.u o~o~.u weo~.s m1 ooo.H emvo. owfim. ~owo. H~o~.u coon. omoo. umwm. cove. nfimo.u evmo.n xm vmvo. ooo.~ momm. o~m~.- mwvm. e-o. mwfio.n «mom.n -vo. mmme. ¢~m~. zu omflm. momm. ooo.~ eo-. ommo. omom. mwwo. oomd. mmom. ommm. emmo.n oo "ooo. on~.n copp. ooo.— mowo.n ammo.u momo. Noam. oo-.u ommo.u m~¢v.o mo -o~.- owcw. ommo. oowo.u ooo.~ nw-.u movm.a He-.- omno.i Naou. neeo. mo vfiom. efimo. omom. mmwo.n moH~.u ooo.~ mflmm. smmo. Nana. mmoN. «moo. 1o omoo. mmfio.n mvmo. momo. Nmmo. momfi. ooo.~ mow“. mom~.u ammo. ~omo.u o< mmNN. nwom.u oowfi. wofim. dv-.- hmmo. mom". ooo.H memo.u n~o~.u owom.u o< emee. H~vo. mmom. wom~.- ommo.- mmmfi. mom~.u ovmo.a ooo.— NmNo.u "Avo. w< wfiwo.u mmmv. ommm. ommo.u Naom. mmoN. ommo. m~o~.n mmmo.u ooo.p e-~. o< ccmo.u own”. v~mo.- mmvv.u mevo. smoo. ~omo.u owom.u Hoeo. «Nag. ooo.~ m< xm zm oo mo mo 1o o< o< w< o< m< mm—newgmo r I'lti [IM.HII. ' ”hind!“ All}! A~m~ u zv mm—eum muuma Low meowuo—mwgeecwucunu.m uooo zo om mm mm on go oz z~ <1 ooo.~ mmeH.u mmwo. mm-.- mmwo. Nmeo.u mmv_.n mmmo. homo.u mo~o.- -mo.- zo m~v~.- ooo.~ “mag. mmmo.u mmmo.- ~N-. mm-.n meem. eom~. voom.n mmoo. >o ammo. Ho~_. ooo.~ omeo.u mmm~.n vmmw. oo-.u ommo. one". ommfi.i mmo~.u zo mmm~.- mmNo.u omvo.u ooo.~ mumm. homo. mmoo. mfifia. ammo. oooo. mamm. om mmoo. mmmo.u mmm~.- mwmm. ooo.~ mmoo.- oo-. MNoo.u m~mo. Amoo. ammo. 1m umeo.u Nmofi. emmm. wouo. mmfio.u ooo.~ mfimfi. mvmo.n «mom. mooo. mmo~.u um o~e~.- mm-.- oo-.- mwoo. ooofl. mom“. ooo.~ mmom.u ammo. omen. ~eo~.u on mmwo. meem. oomo. m-~. mNoo.u memo.u mmom.u coo.“ vmmo. m~¢¢.u owmfi. mo Nvmo.u coma. one”. gomo. mHNo.u comm. Ammo. emwo. coo.“ m-o.: mmo~.u oz mmwo.- voom.n omofi.u oooo. omoo. mwoo. movm. m~¢<.u mNNo.u ooo.~ n~m~.- to -mo.- mnoo. mmoH.u mamm. omwo. mmo~.- fieo~.s oNNH. mmoH.u m~m~.n ooo.~ m1 Nfivo.u ooofi. mmmo. ommo. mom". ovmm. comm. mmo~.u NHNN. mmmw. ~o-.u xm omoo. ommm. omom. ~m~_.u om-.u Nmmo. mm-.- moow. ofimm. mmmm.n wvm~.- zm meo.u mafim. momo. coco.u ommo. owmm. com". mmwo. omoa. cwoo.n mmo~.- oo memo. m-~.n mowo. mmmo. momm. moo_.- Hmoo.n vumo.n NomH.u snow. ovao. mo mmwo.u ommm. oo zo om mm mm on go oz to <1 mo—aowgeo CIIIIIIILIIIV ll! :u:h V litel. Tim |.I.Due|.u...' I111 i 0.1.1 IAIN -lwlh 5.4.31 1h HIT: .ee=e_eeoe--.m mom