f.. :1: . 2.1.x ..... Wm M IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ . f ’V v ”I‘- I r- CbI S a? 9“. 310453 3280 , as ‘fx <‘sp~v-~ .~ - u '- .‘o‘~.-- g: . f‘ ""‘ L . ":3" '7. '. .- i ‘ '-"~ A $1: '3‘ ' “' *3 ”I 1" - .1 2.9 :11 i 7- ’7: ._,I I.) c . ’- ‘i‘m'y 3; 9 .~ “ L‘i 5 "1- '3‘:- r1 '3' . ' 5‘ c' ' 1P ‘i 5' ‘3 r" '5 as?" £30 (4." I: J‘ “3 ‘l .. .51; w ¢,~ .._. ‘1 "' J i :94 Mh‘md‘cmm 4- ‘F'..-.'.‘J This is to certify that the dissertation entitled "An Item, Factor and Guttman Analysis of an Objective Instrument Designed to Measure the Constructs of Erikson's Epigenetic Develop- mental Theory" presented by James A. Azar has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for . Ph.D. (kgmfin Counseling; Educational Psychology and Special Education (Counseling Speciality). ‘ :‘a Major professor Date July 27, ,1,§_2_ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 m3. I IV‘ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: . Place in book drop to I LIBRARIES remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ~— fl)- m5 5' rec. I4 00 .a 09 2 fiI/W v< ‘ HI /4// -~. {5/37 AN ITEM, FACTOR AND GUTTMAN ANALYSIS OF AN OBJECTIVE INSTRUMENT DESIGNED TO MEASURE THE CONSTRUCTS OF ERIKSON'S EPIGENETIC DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY BY JAMES A. AZAR A DISSERTATION Submitted To Michigan State University in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education 1982 ABSTRACT AN ITEM, FACTOR AND GUTTMAN ANALYSIS OF AN OBJECTIVE INSTRUMENT DESIGNED TO MEASURE THE CONSTRUCTS OF ERIKSON'S EPIGENETIC DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY BY James A. Azar The Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP) was devised by Farquhar, Wilson and Parmeter to operationalize the ego stages proposed by Erik Erikson. In its original form it contained 719 items reflecting the eight ego stages and a set of Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability items. The purpose of the study was to refine the item pool and explore the reliability and validity of the instrument. There were 354 subjects consisting of staff and faculty at Michigan State University (n=322) and psychiatric patients at Pine Rest Christian Hospital.(n=32%. The item analysis consisted of criteria of eight steps that each item needed to meet. The refined AAAP consisted of 258 items refleting the eight ego stage scales and three validity indexes. The internal consistency of the scales ranged from .85 no.95 using the Cronbach alpha coefficient. The items in each stage were factor analyzed using a principal factor solution and a varimax rotation. ZEach stage, except Stage 1, had a multiple factor structure. There were 23 factors that emerged from the 8 stage scales with reliability coefficients ranging from .68 to .92 (mean= .84). The sample of MSU faculty and staff had higher means on all of the ego scales as compared to the psychiatric sample. The differences were significant (p < .001) on seven of the eight scales. The Social Desirability validity index consisted of Modified Crowne-Marlowe items that were designed to detect respondents wishing to appear in a highly favorable manner. The F scale validity index was designed to identify subjects trying to fake bad or appear pathological. A consistency validity index was not established in this study. The hier- archical properties of the AAAP were explored. When mastery was defined as responding in the resolution direction to 80% of the items in a stage, the stages were not ordered by a Guttman scale from Stage ltx>8 as Erikson proposed. When the mastery level was altered a quasi Guttman scale was obtained. DEDICATION To Jules for every reason ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere thanks to the following people: Dr. William W. Farquhar for his availability, support, supervision and expertise throughout the project. Dr. Robert Craig and Dr. Ralph Kron for their thoughtful reading of the text and their contributions to the final draft. Dr. Richard Houang for his statistical consultation throughout the project. Ms. Jan Vredevoogd for her statistical and computer assistance throughout the design and analysis por- tions of the study. Dr. Bob Wilson for his suggestions concerning the analytical features of the project and supplying me with a historical perspective of the AAAP. Dr. Thomas Elivinga and Dr. Harold Piersma for their assistance at Pine Rest Christian Hospital. Mr. Larry Straight and his staff at Battle Creek Community College for the use of their scanner in transcribing the data onto tapes. Those persons who volunteered their time and energy in filling out the AAAP. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the Dream Institute for keeping this project in its proper perspective and providing the environment to pursue activities that are close to my heart. I wish to also thank Jud, Muddy, Ron, D.P. and Zeke. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 0.0.0.000...0............OOOOOOOOOOOOOO LIST OF FIGURES ....... 00...... ...... ......OOOOOOOO... Page vi vii LIST OF APPENDICES ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOVij-i Chapter I THE PROBLEM Need for the Study ........................... Purpose of the Study ... ..... ... .......... .... ResearCh criteria 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Theory ......OOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOO ...... O oveer-ew ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000.00.00.00... II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Multiple Stage Studies ....................... Stages 1 Thru 8 ............................ Unit Utterance Approach ............... Self Description Questionnaire ........ Stages 1 Thru 7 ............................ Stages 1 Thru 6 ............................ Ego Identity Scale .................... Self Description Blank ................ Inventory of Psychosocial Development . Single Stage Studies ......................... Stage 5 .................................... General Identity Studies .............. Ego Identity Status ................... Identity Status Scales ................ Ego Identity Questionnaires ........... Stage 6 .................................... Summary ...................................... Non-Questionnaire Assessment Formats ....... Questionnaire Formats-Stages 5 and 6 ....... Questionnaire Formats-Multiple Stages ...... Stage 5 Identity Studies ................... Multiple Stage Studies ..................... III METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Description of the Development of the AAAP ... Subsequent Work with the AAAP ................ iv \DU'iLONH 56 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page Sample ....................................... 68 Procedures ................................... 72 Design ....................................... 75 Testable Criteria ............................ 75 Analysis ................................;.... 77 Summary ...................................... 83 IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY Reflection of Mastery Items .................. 90 Criterion l ................... ..... .......... 91 Criterion 2 .................................. 92 Criterion 3 .................................. 92 Criterion 4 .................................. 93 Criterion 5 .................................. 94 Criterion 6 .................................. 95 Criterion 7 .................................. 96 Criterion 8 .................................. 121 Criterion 9 .................................. 125 Criterion 10 ................................. 125 F Scale ...................................... 125 Scale Statistics ............................. 125 Comparison Between Samples ................... 127 Summary ...................................... 129 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Preliminary Work with the AAAP ............... 136 sumary Of the StUdy ......OOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... 136 CODClUSionS ......OOOOOOOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOOOOO 141 Implications For Future Research ............. 144 APPENDICES Q00.0.0...............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY 0..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... 227 . O NI—‘O HHonooqoxmprt—‘I—‘Hi—Jxoooqmmpwwt—ano.) .bppnppopbpppwwwwwwwwwwwwNM NI—‘O fink . FJH be») .5 o ...—0 U1 LIST OF TABLES Non-Questionnaire Formats Used To Measure Erikson's Stages of Development .....O... ...... Questionnaire Formats Used To Measure Eriskon's Stages of Development Findings Related to Stage 5 Findings Associated with Non—Identity Stages .... Distribution of Items by Stage, Type And Form ... Examples of Mastery And Stage-Specific Items .... Age of Respondents .............................. Race of Respondents Sex of Respondents ....... ..... ... ....... ........... Respondent's Number of Children .... ..... . ...... . Age of Respondent's Children .. Marital Status of Respondents ................... Respondent's Number of Marriages ................ Income of The Respondents Education of The Respondents .................... Social Standing As Rated by the Respondents ..... Item Loadings on Stage 1 Scale .................. Item Loadings on Stage 2 Scale .................. Item Loadings on Stage 3 Scale . ..... ............ Item Loadings on Stage 4 Scale .................. Item Loadings on Stage 5 Scale .................. Item Loadings on Stage 6 Scale .................. Item Loadings on Stage 7 Scale .................. Item Loadings on Stage 8 Scale .................. Percentage of the Sample Who Mastered the Stages. Scale Statistics ...... .......................... Correlation Matrix of Ego Stages ..... ........... Comparison Between the Normal and Psychiatric samples or the Ego Stage Scales The Factors Emerging from the AAAP. Results of Tests of Criteria 1 Thru 7- Number of Eliminated Items ............ Items Retained And Eliminated From Tests of Criterion 9 And 10. vi 124 128 130 132 134 135 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1 Elaboration of Erikson's Epigenetic Model ....... 57 3.2 Diagram of Scoring And Classifieation of Items In A Hierarchical Classification of Erikson‘s Epigenetic Model .................... 62 3.3 Chi Sguare Design to Test Item Disceimination ... 81 3.4 Flow Chart of Analytic Procedures ............... 84 vii LI ST OF APPENDI CES Appendix A W 10 "U 0 Z Z L" N La HCEO'TIFJU O m I-SU) Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP) Questionnaire ................................... Respondent's Assessment of Their Physical Well Being ......................O.................... Respondent's Assessment of Their Emotional Well Being ........................................... Respondent's Job Satisfaction ..................... Respondent's Rating of Their Personal relationships Request for Participation in Study ................ Consent Form For Michigan State University Sample . AAAP Fact Sheet ................................... Consent Form For Pine Rest Christian Hospital Sample Correlations with Ego Stages Desirability Scale - Stage Correlations With Ego Stages Desirability Scale - Stage Correlations With Ego Stages Desirability Scale - Stage Correlations With Ego Stages Desirabiltiy Scale - Stage Correlations With Ego Stages Desirability Scale - Stage Correlations With Ego Stages And The 1 Items And The 2 Items And The 3 Itmes And The 4 Items And The 5 Items And The Social éééiéi........ éééiéi°'°"°°° éééiéi°"°°"° éééiéi........ .............. Social Desirability Scale - Stages 6 Items ............. Correlations With Ego Stages And The Social Desirability Scale - Stages 7 Items ............. Correlations With Ego Stages And The Social Desirability Scale - Stages 8 Items ............. Social Desirability Items And Their correlation To The Ego Stages ............................... Consistency Items And Their Correlations .......... F Scale Items viii Page 151 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 196 198 203 206 211 215 217 219 222 224 225 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM Erik Erikson's eight stage epigenetic theory of ego development has received considerable clinical and theoreti- cal attention. The theory is arranged in a hierarchical manner in an attempt to describe the psychological develop— ment that occurs from birth to death. His model expanded classical psychoanalytic theory to include sociological and cultural influences. Erikson's theory is often used by clinicians and educators as a framework to conceptualize an individual's ego stage development. Need for the Study Although Eriksonfis theory has been used over the last 30 years, there is no current objective means to meaSure all eight of the ego stages in a form that would be useful in both a research and clinical setting. Counseling psycholo- gists that use Eriksonls model rely on history taking and clinical experience in assessing an individiualfls psycho- logical development. A need exists for an objective instru- ment that operationalizes the constructs that pertain to each of the ego stages. Such an instrument could be included in a clinical assessment battery to complement and facilitate a counselor's initial interview and subsequent 2 therapy since it would measure and highlight crucial developmental areas. In addition, the instrument could supply research psychologists with the means to empirically validate Erikson's theory, in particular, and to study normal psychological development, in general. In summary, both research and clinical psychologists could use an objective, reliable and valid measure of the constructs of Eriksonfs Epigenetic Developmental Theory. Purpose Qf The Study The purposerof the study was to refine the Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP) Instrument. The instrument was designed by Farquhar, Wilson and Parmeter.l The AAAP was constructed to provide data concerning the development issues that have been resolved as well as the client's present areas of concern. The AAAP consisted of 719 items. 'There had not been an analysis of its validity or reliability, nor had an item analysis of the instrument been performed. An item analysis of the AAAP is necessary before it can be used as a clinical assessment tool. The purpose of this study was to perform this function, as well as to explore the internal consistency and factor structure of the ego stage scales that make-up the AAAP. In addition, the validity indexes and the Guttman properties of the 1William W. Farquhar, Frederick R. Wilson, and Elizabeth J. Parmeter, Assessment 9f Adult Adjustment Patterns (East Lansing, Michigan State University Printing Service, 1977), pp. 1-27. 3 instrument were explored. The refined AAAP would be useful to the research psychologist interested in empirically validating Erikson's theory and/or studying normal psychological development. It was also designed to aid the clinician in diagnosis and treatment. Research Criteria The objective of this study was to refine the AAAP Instrument through a series of analytical procedures. The criteria for testing the items are arranged in the order that they were conducted. The research criteria for this study were the following: 1. All items are responded to in both the mastery and non-mastery direction by more than 5% of the respondents. The items that have a:frequency of less then 5% in any one direction are eliminated from the stage scale and were considered for a validity index to detect faking or responding in a disfavorable light. 2. Each item correlates higher with the total stage score for which it was written than it does to the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale embedded in the AAAP. 3. Each item correlates higher with the total stage score for which it was written or to a previous stage total score than it does to a subsequent ego stage. 4. Each item increases the internal consistency of the stage scale. 4 5. Respondents who have mastered an ego stage, as defined by responding in the resolution direction to over 80% of the items, respond in the mastery direction to the individual items in the stage. Likewise, the respondents who have not mastered an ego stage will fail the items in that stage, i.e. respond in the non-mastery direction. 6. A factor analysis of the items screened through tests of Hypotheses 1 thru 5 yields an interpretable structure for each stage which corresponds to the constructs outlined by Erikson's theory. The items were factor analyzed stage by stage. 7. Each item increases the internal consistency of the stage factor. 8. The AAAP has Guttman-like properties, that is, scales are mastered in ascending order from Stage 1 to Stage 8. 9. The social desirability items correlate higher with the total Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale than to any of the ego stage scales. 10. Every pair of consistency items, i.e., items reflecting the same content but placed in different parts of the AAAP, are responded to in a similar way and are highly correlated. 5 111.2251 Erik Erikson's personality theory is an extension of classical Freudian thought.2 Erikson views the ego as a developing part of personality in its own right rather than as a prooduct of the id. Ego development is assumed to occur in a systematic fashion in conjunction with somatic, psychological and social changes. Erikson divided ego development into eight stages, whereby each successive stage enables the individual to develop more complex behaviors and interpersonal relationships than the previous one. He postulated that each stage is related to a certain chronological age and that at each of these periods the ego faces a central problem or crisis. The successful or unsuccessful resolution to each developmental conflict has a major influence (Hi the subsequent behavior of the individual. However, Erikson believed that at a certain point an individual is propelled into the next stage regardless of his solution to the present conflict. The unsuccessful resolution of the previous crises generally prevents satisfactory outcomes of the present and subsequent developmental conflicts. The healthy adult personality is determined by the successful resolution of the eight specific crises. For Erikson, the eight ego-stages with approximate age levels and descriptions may be characterized as follows: 2Erik H. Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York: Norton, 1968). 6 I Trust-Mistrust (Hope), Age: 0-1 1/2 Trust is learned as the child can rely on the sameness and consistency of the primary caretakers. The child develops the capacity to deal with one's own urges and this is manifested in the depth of the child's sleep, the ease in feeding and the relaxation of bowel movements. Additionally, feelings of optimism and faith result when remembered and anticipated sensations and images become correlated with the familiar and predictable things and people in the environment. Mistrust occurs when inconsist— ency is the rule rather than the exception. II Autonomy-Shame and Doubt (Will), Age: 1 1/2 - 3 Autonomy is learned as the child can hold on and let go without destructive consequences. This results in the pro- duction of decision-making behaviors, free choices, judgments and the feeling of being able to "stand on his own feet". This time is often referred to as the 'Terrible TwosJ because of the child's developing sense of autonomy and will, which often comes in conflict with the mother's sense of order. On the other hand, shame occurs when children are exposed when they are not ready to be looked at. Doubt and indecision result when the child's decisions are constantly thwarted. III Initiative-Guilt (Purpose). Age: 3-5 Initiative is learned as the child contemplates and initiates acts without experiencing feelings of guilt or fear of punishment. A pleasure in conquering and being 7 aggressive is seen in the child's play. 'Feelings of guilt may result in two extreme behaviors. At one pole are the behaviors of flight and withdrawal. While the other extreme is over-aggressiveness and manipulation of others. IV Industry-Inferiority (Competence), Age: 5-12 Industry is learned when the child wins recognition by producing things. Such traits as perseverance and diligence appear. A sense of inferiority results when the child's productions are not valued by his family or peers. V Identity-Role Diffusion (Fidelity), Age: 12-18 Identity is the crucial issue for the adolescent. It is learned as the adolescent is able to answer the question, "Who am 1?". Adolescents begin to be concerned with the roles they play, and the occupations they imagine themselves entering. Peer group identity becomes an all embracing issue. Role Diffusion results when individuals are not certain about their dominant personality characteristics and do not have a sense of continunity when they view their past and present notions of themselves. VI Intimacy-Isolation (Love), Age: 18-30 Intimacy is learned as individuals risk being hurt in an attempt to fuse with a member of the opposite sex and commit themselves to a loving relationship. This learning results in feelings of warmth, closeness and oneness with the chosen partner and the world. Isolation occurs when the individual fears ego loss in situations where deep intimacy is called for. 8 VII Generativity-Stagnation (Care), Age: 30-45 Generativity takes place as the adult begins to take an active interest in establishing and guiding the next genera- tion. This results in a type of parental responsibility. Stagnation is seen when intimacy, caring, productivity and creativity no longer occur and the individual begins to return to a narcissistic view of the world. VIII Ego Integrity-Despair (Wisdom), Age: 45-Up If the individual has successfully completed the pre- vious seven stages, a sense of integration and wisdom develops. It is manifested as the acceptance of one's life cycle and as an orderly and proper unfolding of their life. It results in behaviors of calm and reasonable acceptance of life's triumphs and disappointments. Despair occurs when the previous stages resulted in unsuccessful resolutions. It manifests itself in regret, a lack of meaning, and a denial of death. Each crisis in some form exists before it becomes phase-specific. Erikson stated that although an ego stage may have been resolved positively, there is likely some negative residue. In addition, previously unresolved issues reemerge at a subsequent ego—stage. Although Erikson‘s theory is widely accepted in both clinical and academic settings, very little research has been conducted to 1) operationalize the theory in a form conducive to a large population, and 2) examine the constructs underlying the stages. There have been some 9 attempts to design assessment tools to test the validity of the theory and to obtain normative data. However, most of the studies have focusedcnia.particular stage rather than addressing all eight developmental periods. The refinement of the AAAP will hopefully provide a reliable and valid measure of the constructs underlying Erikson's epigenetic, developmental theory. The AAAP is a self-report measure and will be conducive to computer scoring. As a result, it can be administered to a large population and scored easily. The AAAP may supply the means to evaluate the constructs and the hierarchical configura- tion that Erikson postulated. Overview In Chapter II there is a review of the previous attempts to operationalize either specific stages or the entire epigenetic model. The aspects of Erikson's theory that have received support will also be presented. The design of the study, a description of the Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP), and the proposed analysis will be the topics addressed in Chapter III. In Chapter IV there is an analysis and interpretation of the results with respect to the retained AAAP items, the reliabilities of the scales, and the constructs that emerge from each ego stage. Chapter V is devoted to integrating the results of the research, drawing conclusions, and discussing the implications of the findings. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The major goal within this chapter is to review the previous attempts to operationalize either specific ego stages or multiple stages of Erikson's epigenetic model. The aspects of Eriksonis theory that have received empirical support from these studies will also be presented. The review proceeds from multiple to single stage studies. Multiple Stage Studies There have been some attempts to measure all eight of the ego stages as well as the first six and seven stages. The review begins with the more comprehensive efforts to operationalize Erikson‘s theory. Stages 1 thru 8 The two previous attempts to measure the entire theory were devised by Boyd. They were the Unit Utterance Approach and the Self Description Questionnaire. A description of the Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP) witch also operationalites the eight ego stages is found in Chapter III. Unit Utterance Approach. Boyd's procedure to measure all eight ego stages with adults consisted of analyzing the responses from a semi-structured interview schedule. A 10 ll coding system was devised based on Eriksonian concepts in an attempt to match the content of the interview responses with the appropriate ego stage. He then designed a series of projective pictures for children, each of which portrayed a basic aspect of one of the first six ego stages. The child was asked to tell a story about the picture or to tell what he believed has happened, is happening or will happen. The analySis of the child's or adult's interview into coded utterances provided a frequency count which gave a quantitative profileeof the individualfs eight ego stages. Skilled coders achieved agreement between..81 and .98 on twelve distinct measures over an entire interview. When studying children at ten different age groups (8 thru 17), Boyd found that ego stage development did progress with age. The age span for the ego stages as stated by Erikson also received empirical support, i.e., the younger children were more concerned with Stage 3 (Initiative vs. Guilt) while the older children were more concerned with Stage 5 (Identity vs Role Diffusion). Boyd also found that all sixty adult subjects had a profile characterized by only one stage significantly outranking the other stages. This relation- ship was not found with children or adolescents. It appears that children deal with 2 or 3 stages simultaneously wich is quite different than Erikson's conceptualization.3 3Robert D. Boyd "Analysis of the Ego-Stage Develop- ment of School-Age Children," The Journal pf Experimental Education, 32(1964), 249-257. 12 Ciaccio used Boyd's procedure for children and also tested Erikson's theory of ego epigenesis. He tested a sample of 120 boys aged 5, 8 and 11. The results supported the epigenetic notion of ego stage progression with increa- sing age. The four year-olds were more concerned with Stage 2 (Autonomy vs Shame and Doubt) and 3 (Initiative vs Guilt) issues, while the 8- and 11-year olds showed peak interests in Stages 3 and 4 (Industry vs Inferiority), respectively.4 He also found that all three groups showed more conflict for the Stage 2 crisis suggesting that this may be the focal crisis of the first five ego stages. Self Description Questionnaire. Due to the length of time needed in administering and scoring the "unit utterance" procedure, Boyd and Koskela designed the Self- Description Questionnaire, consisting of 160 items. The content of the items were procured from nondirective interviews of adults. A panel of judges tested the content validity of the items and showed total agreement. The items were divided equally between positive and negative aspects of each ego stage. Thus for each ego stage there were ten positive and ten negative items. Undergraduate and graduate students were asked to respond to the items in two ways: 1) "Like-Unlike Me"; and 2) "Concern- No Concern For Me" using a six—point Likert scale for both ways of responding. The 4N.V. Ciaccio, "A Test of Erikson's Theory of Ego Epigenesis," Developmental Psychology, 4(1971), 306-311 l3 Like-Unlike scale measured the subject's perception of his behavior in relation to the particular content of the item. The latter or Pertinency approach was a means to obtain a hierarchy of concern among the eight stages. The internal consistency of the Like-Unlike and the Concern-No Concern scales ranged from .61 to .89, and .67 to .80, respectively. Using the Self-Description Questionnaire, they hypothesized and found that students in a given ego stage, as defined by their chronological age, produced a higher pertinency score on the items pertaining to that or the adjacent ego stage than to items from other ego stages. Their rationale in. including the adjacent stage was that there is a considerable range of individual difference in the time at which a given crisis becomes phase-specific. Since an ego crisis does not begin and end at the same chronological age for each person, the ego stages were grouped in sets of twos. However, it is important to note that the sample was primarily university students. As a result, their procedure established the predictive validity of only Stages 5 and 6. Boyd and Koskela also computed a correlation matrix of the ego stage scores for scales 1 thru 8, resulting in 28 correlation coefficients. The correlations ranged from .12 to .60. They found that for every correlation coefficient, except between ego stages 2 and 8, the null hypothesis that the population 3 is equal to 0 could be rejected. Multiple regression equations were also derived using previous ego stages as predictors for ego stages 3, 4, 5, and 6. Ego l4 stages 7 and 8 were not examined since the sample was composed mainly of college students; stages 1 and 2 were not studied since the correlation between them was only .21. The multiple correlation coefficients were D47,.63, .67, and .68 for Stage 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. They found that both stages 1 and 2 were significant partial predictors of Stage 3 and the two variables accounted for 22 percent of the variance. Ego stages 1 and 3 were significant predictors of ego stage 4. Using all previous stages as partial predictors accounted for 40 percent of the variance. Ego stage 5 had three significant predictors, namely ego stages 1, 3, and 4. The total regression equation accounted for 45 percent of the variance. The five predictors of ego stage 6 were able to account for 46 percent of the total variance. The significant predictors were stages 1, 3, and 5. The findings indicated that there were 10 of 14 E values significant at or above the .05 level. On these grounds they concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Eriksonfs contention that the measure of resolution of an ego crisis is a positive monotonic function of the resolution of the preceeding ego crisis.5 A limiting factor of Boyd and Koskela's work was that the subjects were primarily undergraduate students and were 5Robert D. Boyd and Robert N. Koskela, "A Test of Erikson's Theory of Ego-Stage Development By Means of a Self—Report Instrument," The Journal 9f Experimental Education, 38 (Spring, 1970), 1-14. 15 thus clustered in the identity (stage 5) and intimacy (Stage 6) stages. Only some of the graduate students had children and were involved with generativity (Stage 7) issues. A comprehensive examination of Eriksonfis eight stages cannot be conducted with undergraduate students. However, the study was the first and only attempt to measure all eight ego stages in an objective manner. Through the use of the Pertinency scale, the study supported Erikson's contention that the ego Stage crises are ordered chronologically for a university population. Finally, it provided some evidence that the resolution of an ego crisis is systematically related to the resolutions of the preceeding ego crises. 0 Stages 1 Thru 1 Wessman and Ricks constructed 60 Q-sort items, 5 reflecting successful and 5 unsuccessful resolutions of each of Erikson's first six stages of psychological development.6 The items consisted of single words or short phrases. Evans simplified the language used by Wessman and Ricks and added items for Stage 7 (Generativity vs Stagnation). The revised test contained 70 items divided equally over seven stages to represent developmental conflict resolution and failure. The test-retest reliability after 6 weeks with 50 urban college undergraduates of both sexes ranged form .48 for Intimacy—Isolation to .76 for Trust-Mistrust; the mean 6A. Wessman and D. Ricks, Mood and Personality (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), pp. 107—109. l6 correlation was .61. Tm>estab1ish construct validity for the scales, he found with the exception of Autonomy vs Shame and Doubt (Stage 2), the following correlations with other personality measures: Family Concept Inventory, .36 to .64; Tyron's MMPI Depression, -.59 to -.83; Tyron's MMPI Aggression, -.51 to -.66; and California Personality Inventory Sense of Personal Worth, .52 to .70. Stage 2 (Autonomy vs Shame and Doubt) was only marginally associated with other non-Eriksonian measures. In addition, using the scale he found that abusive mothers scored significantly lower on measures of the first six developmental stages than nonabusive mothers.7 The scale has not appeared in the literature since Evans' original work. Stages 1 Thru 6 There have been three attempts to operationalize the first six ego development stages. They were: (1) Ego Identity Scale; (2) Self-Description Blank; and (3) Inventory of Psychosocial Development. Egg Identity Scale. Rasmussen devised the Ego Identity Scale (EIS) consisting of 72 items that reflected the first six developmental stages. A total ego identity score was obtained as well as a score for each of the six psychological crisis stages. The reliability of the EIS 7Alan L. Evans, "An Eriksonian Measure of Personality Development," Psychological Reports, 44(1979), 963-966. 17 using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula on two samples of Navy male recruits was .849 and .851. For the study two groups of subjects were selected from a Naval recruit population. One group was composed of recruits making a highly adequate psychosocial adjustment to training; the second group contained individuals vflu) demonstrated a minimally adequate adjustment. Highly significant differences between the two groups on the EIS were found. They also predicted and found a positive relationship between the measures of ego identity and self acceptance. Discriminant validity for the instrument was seen in the fact that subjects meeting two different criteria of psychological adjustment were differentiated in the predicted manner using the EIS. The results lent support to Erikson's position that an adequate ego identity is necessary for a person to cope effectively with his environment.8 Bauer and Synder used the EIS to support Erikson's contention that individuals who manifest high motivation, both in affiliation and achievement as measured by the Thematic Apperception Test, show a more satisfactory ego identity than individuals who manifest lower levels of 8John E. Rasmussen, "Relationship of Ego Identity to Psychological Effectiveness," Psychological Reports, 15(1964), 815-25. l8 achievement and affiliation motivation.‘9 Using the EIS as the measure of ego identity, Protinsky tested the Eriksonian epigenetic concept that older adolescents would have a greater degree of ego identity than would younger adoles- cents. There was an equal distribution of males and females. He found that age was the main variable in determining ego identity and that both males and females are 10 involved in the identity crisis. Self-Description Blank. McClain devised the Self- Description Blank, consisting of 70 Idkert type items designed to measure the first six Eriksonian stages. The 70 items were divided into 14 separate scales of five statements each. A success scale and a failure scale for each of the six Eriksonian dimensions make up 12 of these while the other 2 are defense scales designed to identify subjects whose self-protection attitudes might invalidate their responses to the whole instrument. Test and retest after seven days with university students provided reliability coefficients ranging from .77 to .93 for indivi- dual scales. The scale was also able to assess differences among subjects already identified as living at differing 9Rudolph Bauer and Robert Synder, "Ego Identity and Motivation; An Empirical Study of Achievement and Affiliation in Erikson's Theory," Psychological Reports, 30 (1972), 951-955. loHoward O. Protinsky, Jra, "Eriskonian Ego Identity in Adolescence," Adolescence, 10 (1975), 428—432. 19 levels of maturation and fulfillment. The Self Description Blank was used to make cross-cultural comparisons. The subjects consisted of 2609 adolescents ranging from 12 to 18 years of age. There were about equal proportions of males and females within each community. They found that subjects and from Brussels, Belgium, Munich, Germany, and white Knoxville, Tennessess scored higher on all 6 scales than those from black Knoxville, Tennessee, Charlevelle-Mezieres, France, and Malager, Spain. It appeared that socioeconomic conditions and psychological development were related.11 It appears that McClaian finding is consistent with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such that, basic conditions (food and shelter) must be met before higher-order functioning (self— esteem, love, and self-actualization) can take place.12 The Self-Description Blank has not appeared in the literature since McClainFs work. Inventory 9f Psychosocial Development. Constantinople substituted a 7-point scale for Wessman and Ricks' Q-sort items13 and named the instrument the InventorycMEPsycho- social Development. The subjects consisted of 539 male and 439 female undergraduates. They were asked to circle the llEdwin W. McClain, Jr" "An Eriksonian Cross Cultural Study of Adolescent Development," Adolescence, 10 (1957), 527-541. 12A.H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality. 2nd Edition, (New York: Harper and Row, 1970). l3Wessman and Ricks, pp. 330-301. 20 number from 7 to 1 which described how characteristic or uncharacteristic that phrase was for them. The ratings on the 5 items for each of the 12 subscales were summed to obtain 12 subscale scores. High scores on the positive scales and low scores on the negative scales were indicative of successful resolutions. The six test-retest £‘S,\flith six weeks between administrations, ranged from .45 on identity diffusion to .81 on intimacy, with a median of .70 (n=150). No validity estimates were made on the subscales. A social desirability response set did have an influence on the questionnaire. 131a.pilot study with 50 males and 50 females, scores on the Crowne—Marlowe measure of social approval were correlated with a total positive and a total negative score, obtained by summing across the respective 15 items for the fourth, fifth and sixth stages. For the females, the correlations were .20 and -.25 for the positive and negative items, respectively, neither of which were significant. For the males, however, the correlations were .38 and -.52 both of which were significant. It appears that the scale is contaminated by social desirability when males are tested. Using the Inventory of Psychosocial Development with 952 undergraduate subjects, she found significant differences between freshmen and senior scores on industry, inferiority and identity for both sexes and for males on identity diffusion. Two follow-up studies indicated that, within the same subjects, changes in the expected direction occurred on identity, identity diffusion, 21 and isolation, but not on industry and inferiority. In addition, the males showed a clearer pattern of increasing maturity over the four years than did females.l4 Using the Inventory of Psychosocial Development, Santrock examined the influence of paternal absence on the first four Eriksonian stages with fifth grade boys. He found that father absence at anm early age (0-2 years) resulted in more detrimental personality characteristics at age 10 than father absence at a later age. The finding provided support for Eriksonis contention that the develop- ment of basic trust in the chi1d4slear1y years served as a foundation on which ensuing stages are built.15 ‘Waterman employed the Inventory of Psychosocial Development to investigate the relationship between the psychosocial maturity of entiring college freshmen and their expecta- tions about college. He found that successful psychosocial development is related to high expectations concerning the faculty, the administration, the students, and the major field.16 l4Anne Constantinople, "An Eriksonian Measure of Personality Development in College Students," Developmental PsychologY, 1 (1969), 357-372. 15John W. Santrock, "Influence of Onset and Type of Paternal Absence on the First Four Eriksonian Developmental Crises," Developmental Psychology, 3 (1970) 273-274. 16Alan S. Waterman, "Relationship Between the Psychosocial Maturity of Entering College Freshmen and Their Expectations about College," Journal 9; Counseling Psychology, 19 (1972), 42-46. 22 Munley studied the relationship between psychosocial development and vocational behavior using the Inventory of Psychosocial Development. The sample consisted of 123 male college students between 18 and 21 years of age. He found that individuals vflu) show adjusted vocational choices demonstrate a higher level of psychosocial development across Erikson's first six stages than do individuals with problem vocational choices. The findings substantiate Eriksonis claim that individuals who are more successful in resolving the stage crises and developing positive stage resolution attitudes are more successful in coping with age- appropriate decisions and developmental tasks.l7 Bach and Verdile compared Rasmussen's Ego Identity Scale (EIS)18 and Constantinople‘s Inventory of Psychosocial Development (IPD)19. The sample consisted of 279 male and female high school seniors. Significant positive relation- ships (£=.45) were found between the identity scores obtained from the two scales. However, while the relation- ship between the EIS and IPD measures of identity were significant, eighty percent of the associated variance was unaccounted for. Three patterns of scores emerged from the IPD: Peudoidentified (high scores on identity but a lack of 17Patrick A. Munley, "Erik Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development and Vocational Behavior," Journal gf Counseling Psychology, 22 (1975), 314-319. 18Rasmussen, p. 818. 19Constantinople, p. 359. 23 resolution in the previous stage, IndustrY); Identified (high scores on all scales); and Nonidentified (low scores on all scales). 'The pattern of scores on the IPD revealed differences on the EIS measure, such that, those classified as Peudoidentified emerged as the most EIS identified.20 The finding implies that a single stage questionnaire may be less valid and lead to misclassification of subjects. It also lends support to Schilling's contention21 that there is a need for subscales representing distinct constructs within each stage. Whitbourne and Waterman conducted a 10-year follow-up of Constantinople's original sample and a simultaneous testing of current undergraduates attending the same private university. They found that there were significant increases in overall scores on the longitudinal analysis and significantly higher scores for alumni on the crosssectional analysis. In addition, the largest increase appeared on Stage 4 (Industry vs Inferiority), suggesting that orienta- tion to the work ethic may be of particular concern during this portion of the adult years.22 20Thomas R. Bach and Robert Verdile, "A Comparison of Two Measures of Ego Identity in High School Adolescents," The Journal 9f Psychology, 90 (1975), 269-274. 21Karl Lewis Schilling, "Ego Identity Status: A Re- Evaluation and Extension of Construct Validity," Diss., Univ. of Florida, 1975. 22Susan Krauss Whitbourne and Alan S. Waterman, "Psychosocial Development During Adult Years: Age and Cohort Comparisons," Developmental Psychology, 15 (1979), 373-378. 24 Single Stage Studies Most of the research surrounding Erikson‘s develop- mental theory centers around the fifth stage of identity vs role diffusion. In fact, of the single stage studies, only Stages 5 and 6 have received any attention. Stage 5 The emphasis on Stage 5 has resulted in an assortment of procedures to operationalize the constructs of the stage and a validation of many of Erikson's conceptualizations concerning identity formation. The following is a review of the studies pertaining to the fifth stage that takes place from approximately age 12 to 18. The following is a review of the general identity studies, the ego identity status as conceptualized by Marcia, identity status scales and general ego identity questionnaires. General Identity Studies. Bronson postulated that persons in a state of identity diffusion should: a) be less certain about the relationship between their past and current notions of self; b) show a higher degree of internal tension or anxiety; c) be less certain about dominant personal characteristics; and d) fluctuate more in their feelings about self. He conducted 20 minute interviews to assess continunity with the past (a) and the degree of tension and anxiety (b). Bronson used an adaptation of the semantic differential technique to measure the certainty of self (c) and temporal stability of self-ratings UN. The 25 technique consisted of the subjects rating themselves on five key concepts at two different administrations sequenced a month apart. It was predicted and found that these various aspects re1iabi1ity information for the scale was provided. Using this scale, she hypothesized and found that the psychosocial crisis of ego identity crystallized within late adolescence and that diffused ego 39Gerald R. Adams, Judy Shea and Steven A. Fitch, "Toward the Development of an Objective Assessment of Ego— Identity Status," Journal pf Youth and Adolescence, 8(1979), 223—237. 35 identity was correlated with anxiety.40 Using the Ego Identity Scale, Howard and Kubis reported odd-even reliability coefficients of .74 and .64 for 130 freshmen and 115 college sophomores, respectively. The test-retest coefficients for alone—week interval were .72 and .78 for a smaller group of 83 freshmen and 96 sophomores. From this smaller group of subjects, an estimate of the validity of the Ego Identity Scale was obtained by correlating ego identity scores with self ratings on the Rating Scale for Identity Traits. The freshmen coefficient was .34 and the sophomore coefficient was .60. They found using this scale that ego identity manifests a strong, consistent inverse relationship to anxiety.41 Stark and Traxler extended the use of Dignamfs scale to provide empirical support for the role of sex differences in identity formation. They found significant differences between age groups and grade levels, supporting Dignan's contention that identity processes crystallize within late adolescence. Significant differences were also apparent between the sexes, with females reporting less ego diffusion than males.42 i0Sister Mary Dignam, "Ego Identity, Identification and Adjustment in College Women," Diss., Fordam University, 1963. 41S.M. Howard and JxF. Kubis, "Ego Identity and Some Aspects of Personal Adjustment," The Journal pf Psychology, 58(1964), 459-466. 42Patricia A. Stark and Anthony Traxler, "Empirical Validation of Eriksonis Theory of Identity Crises in Late Adolescence," The Journal pf Psychology, 86(1974),25—33. 36 Baker derived four aspects of ego identity from Eriksonfs writings. They were: 1) knows who he is; 2) knows where he is going; 3) perceives self as having “inner sameness and continunity"; and 4) certain about the way his perception of himself compares to the perceptions which others have of him. An eight item Likert-type scale was designed for each of the four aspects of ego identity. The Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficients (M5 the four measures ranged from .28 to .48. In addition, Baker devised a sentence-completion instrument which consisted of eight sentence stems for each of the four aspects of identity. A scoring manual was devised and adopted. The Kuder- Richardson reliability coefficients of the four measures using the sentence completion instrument ranged from .28 to .55. He intercorrelated the total scores of the four aspects of identity, as measured by the Likert-type scale and the sentence completion instrument. A matrix of intercorrelations resulting when each of several traits or constructs is measured by each of several methods is known as alnultitrait multimethod matrix. ‘Using this method he found that three of the four aspects of ego identity were significantly correlated. "Inner sameness and continunity" appeared to be unrelated to the other measures.43 43Frank‘Baker, "Measures of Ego Identity: A Multitrait Multimethod Validation," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31(1971), 165-174. 37 Recently, Tan, Kendis, Fine and Porac devised the Ego Identity Scale (EIS), a 12-item scale with a forced choice format to measure ego identity. Their scale had an average inter-item correlation of.ll4 and an odd—even split-half reliability of .68. The Ego Identity scores based on the 12 items correlated .136 with the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Two studies were conducted to test the validity of the scale. The studies showed that the EIS correlated positively with measures of locus of control, intimacy and Tomkins"Left and negatively with dogmatisnn Tomkins' Left is a test which reflects the extent to which an individual derives his values from his own life experiences rather than adopting the values held by various reference groups.44 Most of the research pertaining to Erikson's develop- mental theory focused on the Identity Stage. Attempts were . made to measure the constructs of the stage using such pro— cedures as semantic differentials, Q-sorts, adjective ranking, semi-structured interviews and six Likert-type scales designed exclusively to operationalize the ego identity stage. A summary of the questionnaires with their respective reliability and validity data appears in Table 2- 2 in the Summary Section of this chapter. Although some of the questionnaires have strong reliability and validity 44Allen L. Tan, Randall Jay Kendis, Judith T. Fine, and Joseph Porac, "A Short Measure of Eriksonian Ego Identity," Journal pf Personality Assessment, 41(1977), 279-284. 38 support, notably the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status45 and Rasmussen's Ego Identity Scale46, none of the instruments are used consistently in the literature as research tools (n: as clinical assessment instruments. However, using these various devices it has been found that ego diffusion is generally associated with anxiety, a lack of continunity with the past, uncertainty about personal characteristics, poor adjustment and inconsistent moral reasoning. It has been established that ego identity is correlated with affiliation and achievement motivation, self-esteem, knowing oneself and knowing where one is going. A summary of the results relating to the ego identity stage can be found in Table 2-3. Stage 6 While studying ego identity status, Orlofsky, Marcia and Lesser made an attempt to operationalize Erikson's sixth stage of Intimacy vs Isolation by devising a scale to measure these constructs and by proposing five styles of coping with the crisis. The five intimacy statuses were intimate, preintimate, pseudointimate, stereotyped relation- ships and isolate. The sample consisted of 53 male undergraduate students. The procedure to determine the 45Adams, Shea, and Fitch, p. 234. 46Rasmussen, p. 118. 39 status consisted of a 20-30 minute semi-structured interview that evaluated the presence or absence of close interpersonal relationships with peers and the extent to which openness, responsibility, closeness, mutuality and commitment was found in the subjects' most significant relationships. The intimacy-isolation scale consisted of 20 intimacy items (e.g., talking with people about their innermost problems and difficulties, being constant in the subject}s affections) and 20 isolation items (eéh, avoiding excitement.or'emotional tension, remaining unnoticed in a group, picking someone else's argument to pieces). In addition, they focused on the association between the Intimacy vs Isolation Stage and the Identity vs Role Diffusion Stage that precedes it. Concerning the intimacy status rating, interjudge agreement between two independent raters was .81%. No reliability or validity data were presented concerning the intimacy-isolation scale. As predicted, the identity diffused subjects scored the lowest on the intimacy-isolation scale, while subjects high on identity (achievement and alienated achievement) had the highest scores on the intimacy—isolation scale. The association between intimacy status and the intimacy scale was as expected. Intimate and preintimate subjects scored significantly higher on the scale than psudointimate and sterotyped relationships subjects.47 47Orlofsky, Marcia, and Lesser, pp. 211-219. 40 The Orlofsky, let. al.%3 study supported Erikson's theory that intimacy generally occurs only after a reasonable sense of identity has been established. Although the study was a fine beginning in investigating the intimacy—isolation stage, there has been no subsequent research dealing with the intimacy statuses or the scale that was devised. Summary The summary focuses on the non-questionnaire assessment formats, the single and multiple stage questionnaire formats and a review of the findings from the Stage 5 and multiple stage studies. Non-Questionnaire Assessment Formats A variety of non-questionnaire formats have been used to operationalize Erikson‘s ego stages with the Stage 5 issues of identity and role diffusion receiving the most attention. Bronson used a semantic differential to measure "continunity of self conception" by having the subject rate 15 concepts at two different administrations.48 To measure ego identity discrepancy Gruen used a Q-sort of 100 items and instructed adolescents to sort them in terms of how they 48. view their real and ideal selves. Block had subjects rank 20 adjectives with respect to!3"re1evant others"imitheir 48Bronson, pp. 414—417. 49Gruen, pp. 231-233. 41 50 Marcia lives to devise an index of role variability. conducted semi-structured interviews focusing on crisis and commitment to assess four styles of coping with the identity stage.51 There were a number of procedures used to measure other stages besides Identity vs Role Diffusion. Boyd conducted unstructured interviews with adults and used projective pic— tures with children to initiate the interviews. He then analyzed the interviews into "unit utterances" as a means to count the number of references to the first six develop- mental stages.52 Wessman and Ricks, like Gruen, used a Q- sort with real and ideal instructions to assess Stages 1 thru (L53 Orlofsky, Marcia and Lesser conducted semi- structured interviews to measure an individualis style of dealing with the Intimacy—Isolation issues of Stage 6.54 A listing of the non-questionnaire formats used and the stages and concepts measured are presented in Table 2-1. Questionnaire Formats 2 Stages 5 and 6 The non-questionnaire formats resulted in scoring pro- cedures that were time—consuming and often subjective. .A number of questionnaires were devised to eliminate these SOBlock, pp. 392—397. 51Marcia, 1966, pp. 551—558. 52Boyd, pp. 249-257. 53Wessman and Ricks, pp. 107-109. 54Orlofsky, Marcia, and Lesser, pp. 211-219. 42 Table 2—1 Non-Questionnaire Formats USed To Measure Erikson' 8 Stages of Developnent Type of Stage(s) Concepts Measured Procedure Author, Format Studied Year unstructured 1-8 All Eight Stage Analysis of inter- Boyd, Interview constructs view into "unit 1966. with Adults utterances" Q—sort 1-6 First six ego Real vs Ideal inr ‘Wessman stage constructs struction to sort & Ricks, items 1966 Projective 1-6 First six ego Analysis of inter- Boyd, Pictures and stage constructs view into "unit 1966 Semistructured utterances" Interview with Children Semantic 5 Identity Rate 15 concepts Bronson, Differential Diffusion on 5-point scale, 1959 2 administrations Q—sort 5 Ego Identity Real vs Ideal in— Gruen, structions to sort 1960 100 items Adjective 5 Role variability Rank 20 Adjectives Block, Ranking with respect to 8 1961 significant others Semi- 5 Ego Identity Interviews focusing Marcia, Structured Status on crisis and 1966 Interview commitment Semi- 6 Intimacy— 20-30 minute inter- Orlofsky, Structured Isolation view to assess open— Marcia, & Interview Status ness, responsibility, Lesser, closeness, mutuality, 1973 and commitment in subjects' relationships 43 difficulties. As was the case with the non-questionnaire formats, most of the objective procedures dealt with Identity-Role Diffusion Stage. Six different questionnaires were designed to measure the constructs of the fifth stage. Simmons devised the Identity Achievement Status scale (IAS) consisting of 24 items with a forced choice format. He reported a test-retest reliability of .764 with college sophomores.SS Schilling designed the Ego Identity Question- naire:(EIQ) and reported test-retest<1f.78 with.a college 56 Baker developed a 32 item questionnaire population. (unnamed) to measure four constructs of ego identity. The internal consistency of the 4 subscales using the Kuder- Richardson formula ranged from .23 to .43.57 Dignan designed the Ego Identity Scale consisting of 50 items. She reported odd-even reliability coefficients of.74 and.64, and test-retest coefficients of .72 and .78 with college freshmen and sophomores,respectively.58 Adams, Shea and Fitch devised the Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (OM-EIS) to replace Marcia's semi-structured interview to measure ego identity status. The OM-EIS consisted of 24 items and he reported test—retest reliability coefficients 55Simmons, pp. 241-244. 56Schilling, 1975. 57Baker, pp. 165—174. 58Howard and Kubis, pp. 459—466. 44 of .7lenni.93 with college students.59 Tan, Kendis, Fine and Porac designed the Ego Identity Scale (EIS) which consisted of 12 items. They reported an odd-even reliability coefficient of .68 with college students.60 Orlofsky, Marcia and Lesser designed 40 Intimacy- Isolation items to measure the sixth stage. No reliability or validity data were reported.61 This study was the only attempt to measure exclusively the Intimacy vs Isolation Stage. Questionnaire Formats 2 Multiple Stages Constantinoplehs Inventory of Psychosocial Development focused on the first six ego stages. There were 10 items per stage scored on a 7-point Likert scale. Test-retest coefficients with college students ranged from .45 to .81. The scale was contaminated for males by a social desirability response set.62 McClain devised the Self- Description Blank, consisting of 70 items, which also measured the first six developmental stages. He reported test-retest coefficients of .77 to .93 with 21 college population.63 Evans adapted Wessman and Ricks'64 Q-sort 59Adams, Shea, and Fitch, pp. 223-237. 60Tan, Kendis, Fine and Porac, pp. 279-284. 6J'Orlofsky, Marcia, and Lesser, pp. 211—219. 62Constantinople, pp. 357—372. 63McClain, pp. 527-541. 64Wessman and Ricks, pp. 107—109. 45 items as a means to measure the first seven stages. The test-retest coefficients on the scale scores ranged from .48 t<>.76.65 The Self-Description Questionnaire by Boyd and Koskela has been the only objective format to assess all eight developmental stages as of this date. Subjects respond to 160 items using two six—point scales with the following instructions: 1) Like-Unlike Me; and 2) Concern-No Concern For Me. The test—retest and the internal consist- ency coefficients for the individual scales ranged from .45 ‘U3.85, and {76‘U3.84, respectively. Predictive validity for the scale was established by correlating the subjects ego stage, as defined by the age of the respondents, with the Pertinency scores (Concern-No concern measure).66 As was the case with the other procedures to operationalize EriksonNs theory, Boyd and Koskela used primarily a college population. With this approach, the range of developmental issues was restricted to Stage 5 (Identity) and 6 (Intimacy). There was also no attempt to measure consist- ency or a social desirability response set. A listing of the questionnaire formats with their respective reliability and validity data can be found in Table 2-2. Stage 5 Identity Studies It has been noted that the majority of the studies have focused on the Identity-Role Diffusion Stage. A summary of 65Evans, pp. 963-966. 66Boyd and Koskela, pp. 1-14. 46 the results pertaining to Stage 5 can be found in Table 3. In general, it has been found that ego diffusion is associated with anxiety, a lack of continuity with the past, uncertainty about personal characteristics, poor adjustment and inconsistent moral reasoning. On the other hand, it has been established that ego identity is correlated with affiliation and achievement motivation, self-esteem, knowing oneself, and knowing where one is going. Concerning ego identity statuses, Marcia proposed and validated four styles of coping with the identity crisis: achievement, moratorium, foreclosure and diffusion. Identity achieved individuals experienced a decision-making period about their occupation and ideology and have made commitments to them. Moratorium adolescents are currently imlan identity crisis with commitments present.but vague. Foreclosure individuals are generally comitted to parental values having made few decisions of their own. Identity diffused adolescents are largely uncommitted.67 Orlofsky, Marcia and Lesser found evidence to include alienated achievement status to the previous four conceptualizations. Alienated achievement individuals expressed 21 lack of occupational commitment but it is due to a strongly committed ideological rationale that precludes an occupational commitment.68 67Marcia, 1966, pp. 551—558. 68Orlofsky, Marcia and Lesser, pp. 211-219. Name of Stage Measure (s) Self- 1-8 Description Questionnaire Unnamed 1-7 (adaptation of wessman & Ricks' Q—sort) Ego 1-6 Identity Scale Self- 1—6 Descr ip— tion Blank Inven- 1-6 tory of Psychosocial Development Objective 5 Measure of Ego Identity Status (OM-BIS) Unnamed 5 Dignan Ego 5 Identity Scale 47 Table 2-2 Questionnaire Formats USed to Measure Erickson' 8 Stages Of Developnent Sample Relia- bility* tion Group Items college TRT Predic- college 160 students .48- tive students .85 IC .76- .84 college TRT Construct abusive 70 students .48- Predictive mothers .76; Mean: .61 Navel SB Construct Navel 72 Recruits .849- Predictive recruits .851 college TRT Predictive Juvenile 70 students .77- delinquents, .93 gifted child- ren, counsel- ing center college TRT Concurrent college 60 students .45- students .81 freshmen TRT Construct college 24 .71- Predictive students .93, & concurrent IC .67- .78 freshmen KR Concurrent college 32 males .23- students .48 college OE Construct college 50 freshmen .74- concurrent students sophmores. 64 TRT .72- .78 Validity Valida— rkm of Scale Author Year 6-pt Boyd & Like— Koskela, Unlike 1970 Me; 6- pt. Cbncern- No Concern 7-pt Evans, Likert— 1979 Scale 0 ,1 Rasmussen Agree, 1964 Disagree lO-pt MCC1ain, Likert, Always- Never 7-pt Constan- Likert tinople 1969 5—pt Adams, Likert Shea & Fitdh, 1979 S—pt Baker, Likert 1971 0,1 Dignan, True- 1963 & False Howard & Kubis, 1964 48 Table 2—2 (cont.) Questionnaire Formats USed to Measure Erikson's Stages of DevelOpment Nane of Stage Sample Reiliar validity valida- No. of Scale Author, Instrument (s) bility* tion Items Group Ego Identity 5 college TRT Cnstruct Construct ? ? Schil- Questionnaire students .78 students ling, (EIQ) 1975 Identity 5 freshmen TRT Concur— sophmores 24 0,1 Simmons Achievement .764 rent & Forced 1970 Status Scale Construct Choice (IAS) Format Ego Identity 5 college OE Construct college 12 0,1 Tan, Scale (EIS) students .68 Predictive students Forced Kendis Choice Fine & Format Porac, 1977 Intimacy- 6 college not Content none 40 0,1 Orlofsky Isolation students inves- rated True- Marcia, Scale tigated by False Lesser, judges 1973 *TRT - Test-Retest IC - Internal Consistency SB — Spearman-Brown Kuder-Richardson Odd-Even Q OE Author, Bronson, year 1959 Gruen, 1960 Block, 1961 Dignan, 1963 Heilbrun, 1964 Howard & Kubis, 1964 Rasmussen 1964 Marcia, 1967 Marcia & Friedman, 1970 Simmons, 1966 1970 49 Table 2-3 Findings Related to Stage 5 (Identity vs Role Diffusion) Findings Identity diffusion was correlated with anxiety, lack of continuity with the past, uncertainty about personal charac- teristics and a fluctuation of feelings about self. Ego Identity was associated with rejec- tion of false information about oneself. Excessive role variability (14L, diffu- sion) was related to poor adjustment and anxiety. Developed the Ego Identity Scale. Found that ego identity crystallized within late adolescence; role diffusion and anxiety were associated. Ego Identity was associated with conformity to masculinity-femininity sterotypes. Provided reliability information on Dignan's Ego Identity Scale; found a strong inverse relationship between ego identity and anxiety. Devised Ego Identity Scale (EIS); found that ego identity and coping effectively were associated. Four styles of meeting the identity crisis were validated: achievement, moratorium, foreclosure and diffusion. Identity achievers had more difficult majors; foreclosures were highest in self-esteem and authoritarianism; and identity diffused were the most anxious. Devised the Identity Achievement Status (IAS) Questionnaire to assess ego identity status. Author, year Waterman & Waterman, 1970 Baker, 1971 Bauer & Synder, 1972 Podd, 1972 Waterman & Waterman, 1972 Waterman, Geary & Waterman, 1972 Orlofsky, Marcia & Lesser, 1973 Toder & Marcia, 1973 Stark & Traxler, 1974 Protinsky, 1975 Schilling, 1975 50 Table 2-3 (continued) Findings Identity diffused college students had the least favorable evaluations about their education. Using a multitrait, multimethod correla- tion matrix, found that ego identity was associated with: l) knowing oneself; 2) knows where one is going; and 3) congruity between one's perception of self and others' perception of oneself. Used Rasmussen's EIS; found that ego identity and motivation, both in affilia- tion and achievement, were related. Role diffused individuals were unstable and inconsistent iJi their moral reasoning. No relationship between ego identity status and academic performance. Ego identity achievement increases from freshman to senior years. Validated alienated achievement as an identity status; found that intimacy- isolation crisis (Stage 6) is related to successful resolution of the identity status. Stable ego identity statuses conformed less to pressure and felt more comfortable than less stable statuses. Found significant differences ix: ego identity between age groups and grade levels; sex differences in ego identity with females reporting less diffusion. Found that ego identity is a function of age; no sex difference was found. Devised the Ego Identity Status Ques- tionnaire (EIQ); replicated and extended construct validity of the ego identity statuses. Author, year Marcia, 1976 Tan, Kendis, Fine & Porac, 1977 Adams, Shea, & Fitch, 1979 51 Table 2—3 (continued) Findings High identity status students were more vulnerable to change when measured 6 years after college graduation. Devised the Ego Identity Scale; provided reliability and validity data. Devised the Objective Measure of Ego Identity (OM-EIS); provided a typology and a distribution of stage responses. 52 Multiple Stagg Studies There have been several studies focusing on the entire ego development. Boyd,69 Ciaccio,70 Whitbourne and water- 72 provided support for Erikson's man71 and Constantinople contention that ego stage development is a function of age. McClain found a positive relationship between socioeconomic levels and psychological development.73 Santrock focused on father absence at different age levels and found that absence at the ages 0 to 2 resulted in more detrimental personality characteristics at age 10 than father absence at a later age. He felt that the finding supported Erikson's contention that trust serves as a foundation for the ensuing stages.74 A positive relationship between psychosocial development and vocational behavior was established by Munley.7S Evans found that abusive mothers scored signi- ficantly lower on the ego stage scales than nonabusive mothers.76 The most comprehensive study was conducted by Boyd and Koskela. They found that the ego crises were 59Boyd, pp. 249—257. 7°Ciaccio, pp. 306-311. 7lWhitbourne and Waterman, pp. 373—378. 72Constantinople, pp. 357*372. 73McClain, pp. 527-541. 74Santrock, pp. 273-274. 75Mun1ey, pp. 314-319. 76Evans, pp. 963—966. 53 ordered chronologically for a university population. In addition, they found that the resolution of an ego crisis is systematically related to the resolutions of the preceeding ego crisesxr7 Aisummary of the findings relating to non- Stage 5 studies can be found in Table 2-4. In short, there has been only one objective device designed to measure all eight Eriksonian stages, namely the Self-Description Questionnaire by Boyd and Koskela. It has only appeared in the literature on one occasion and it con- sisted of a sample of college students restricted to Stages 5 and 6. It is important to note that the questionnaire does not have a consistency or a social desirability response set to assess the individual's test-taking attitude. In addition, the constructs underlying the ego stages, other than the Stage 5 issues of Identity and Role Diffusion,-have been largely ignored. The AAAP- Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns- operationalizes all eight of the stages, as well as including validity indexes measuring social desirability and test-taking consistency. In addition, a factor analysis was conducted on each ego stage to investigate the construct(s) that underlie each scale. 77Boyd and Koskela, pp. 1-14. 54 Table 2-4 Findings Associated with Non-Identity Stages Author, year Boyd, 1964 Constantin— ople, 1969 Boyd & Koskela, 1970 Santrock, 1970 Ciaccio, 1971 Bach & Verdile, 1975 McClain, 1975 Munley, 1975 Findings Developed "unit utterance" approach to measure all ego stages“ ‘With children he found that ego-stage development was a func- tion of age. Developed the Inventory of Psychosocial Development (IPD) to measure Stages 1 thru 6. The scale had a social desirability response bias when used with men; found that ego stage progression was a function of age. Designed the Self-Description Questionnaire to measure all eight stages. Found that ego crises are ordered chronologically for a university population and that the resolution of an ego crisis is systematically related to the resolutions of the preceeding ego crises. Using the IPD he found that father absence at an early age (0-2) resulted in more detrimental personality characteristics at age 10 than father absence at a later age. Provided support for Erikson's contention that trust serves as a foundation for the ensuing stages. Used "unit utterance" approach with children and replicated Boyd's finding that ego stage progression is a function of age. Compared IPD and Rasmussen's Ego Identity Scale (EIS). Although the scales were positively associated, he found that misclassification of subjects resulted when the EIS was used alone. Devised Self-Description Blank to measure first six ego stages. In a cross-cultural comparisons, he found a positive relationship between socioeconomic conditions and psychological development. Found :3 positive relationship between psychosocial development using the IPD and vocational behavior. Author, year Whitbourne, & Waterman, 1978 Evans, 1979 55 Table 2—4 (continued) Findings Conducted a lO-year follow-up of Constan— tinople's original sample; found significant increases in overall scores and provided further support that ego stage progression is a function of age. Devised a scale to measure the first seven stages; found that abusive mothers scored significantly lower on the ego stage scales than nonabusive mothers. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY In Chapter 3 a description of the AAAP— the Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns- Instrument is presented. In addition, the sample, design, item criteria and the analytic procedures are discussed. Description pf the Development pf the AAAP The approach used by Farquhar,Wilson and Parmeter78 in devising the AAAP was modeled on that used by Jackson79 during the development of the acclaimed Personality Research Form.80 Jackson proposed that personality measures would have a broader import and substantial construct validity when they are derived from aui explicitely formulated, theoretically based definition of the constructs.81 As a result, the first activity in the formulation.of the‘AAAP consisted of closely examining Eriksonis writings to find descriptions that related to each of the developmental stages. The outline persented in Figure 3-1 resulted from 73Farquhar, Wilson, Parmeter, 1977. 79Douglas N. Jackson, Current Topics 12 Clinical and Community Psychology: V01. 2, ed. CJL Spielberger (New York: Academic Press, 1970), pp. 229-248. 80Douglas N. Jackson, Personality Research Form Manual (Goshen, New York: Research Psychologists Press, 1967). 81Douglas N. Jackson, "The Dynamics of Structured Personality Tests: 1971," Psychological Review, 78(1971), pp. 229—248. 56 1. 57 FIGURE 3-1 Elaboration of Erikson's Epigenetic Model Trust-Mistrust (Hope) Age: 0 -1 1/2 Mutual recognition vs autistic isolation Capacity for faith Oral incorporative & sadistic Assured reliance on parent's integrity Autonomy-Shame & Doubt (Will) Age: 1 1/2 - 3 _ Will to be oneself Holding on-letting go Initiative—Guilt (Purpose) Age: 3 - 5 Anticipation of roles vs inhibition Motor movement Language Intrusive (phallic) mode Rivalry Conscience (family) Ease of feeding Depth of sleep Relaxation of bowel Let mother out of sight Rely on sameness, consistency, constancy Trust self to cope with bodily urges Basic faith in existence, law & order Control from outside is firmly reassuring Stand on own feet Guidance gradually encourages independent choice Pleasure in conquest Self-Observation Self-Guidance Self-Punishment Sense of Responsibility Obedience Industry-Inferiority (Competence) Age: 5 - 12 Task identification vs Sublimation of drives I am what I make work Identification Trust of adults (other than parents) Win recognition by producing things Renunciation of wish to live forever in the family Apply self to tasks Perseverence, diligence Submit to instruction "What works" 58 FIGURE 3-1 (continued) 5. Identity-Confusion (Fidelity) Age: 12 - 18 Trust in peers Fidelity tests Occupational search Cliques-heroes Identification without heroes Stereotyping self Social group pressures Ideological mind Ideological thought Rituals, creed, programs Molding identity 6. Intimacy-Isolation (Love) Age: 18 - 30 Fusion with another Commitment to affiliation Uses of identity Ethical strength to honor Genital maturity commitment Sensitivity of sex organs Orgastic potency Mutual regulation of work, Heterosexual mutuality procreation, recreation 7. Generativity-Stagnation (Care) Age: 30-45 Maturity Belief in the species Establishing and guiding Charity-Supplements but next generation doesn‘t replace Productivity & creativity generativity 8. Integrity-Despair (Wisdom) Age: 45+ Order & meaning Acceptance of one's life cycle Acceptance of others significant to it vs disgust, regret "I am what survives of me" Accrued assurance of order & meaning Love of the "human ego" Defend dignity of one's own life cycle Consolidation of meaning Acceptance of death Note. Prepared by Fredrick R. Wilson and William W. Farquhar, Michigan State University, 1977. 59 reviewing Erikson's work. Using the outline, a research team consisting of a Ph.D. Counseling Psychologist, a Ph.D. Educational Psychologist and three doctoral-level, counseling psychology students, all of whom were well versed in Erikson's epigenetic theory, generated a pool of about 2500 items over a period of two years. These items were either written by the research team or were adapted from other personality inventories. An attempt was made to write items that were: 1) non-sexist; 2) written. in common language; 3) non- pathological; 4) affirmatively stated; and 5) not a cardinal virtue, i.e., not highly correlated with social desira- bilityu An initial screening of the items with respect to the above five criteria took place. Additionally, any item which appeared to reflect more than one stage issue were rewritten, usually by splitting it into two items. Items were then categorized according to an 8 x 8 matrix in an attempt to select only items which were pure examples of the stage rather than reflecting remnants of previous or future stages. Once the items were initially selected, the members of the writing team cross-validated the sorting procedure. An item was retained if it was sorted into the same category both times. During item editing and selec- tion, all work by any team member was cross-checked by all other members; only items which were consensually validated by all five members were included in the instrument. There were 666 retained items which formed the basis of the 60 Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP)..82 The AAAP items were written to reflect positive and negative aspects of each ego stage in an attempt to measure mastery and non-mastery of the relevant developmental issues. It was assumed that an individual would proceed through the stages in one direction, namely from non-mastery to mastery. Subsequent Work with the AAAP Upon examining the AAAP items it became apparent to the present investigator that in some cases individuals prior and subsequent to the stage would respond differently than individuals in that stage. These items were labelled stage- specific items. At that point, all of the items were reexamined with the intent of placing them into two groups: mastery and stage-specific. A mastery item corresponded besidevelopmental issue that remains resolved once it is resolved. The point at which the individual proceeds from non-mastery tOInastery should correspond to the stage that the item is representing. For example, a Stage 5 mastery item should be consistently responded to ixiione direction (non-resolution) by individuals in Stage 1 thru 4, and in the opposite direc- tion (resolution) by those in Stages 6 thru 8. The item could be responded moimiboth directions by individuals in 82Farquhar, Wilson and Parmeter, p. 1—27. 61 Stage 5 depending on the respondent‘s level of development in that stage. With a stage-specific item, an individual in that stage should respond to the statement differently than an individual in a prior or subsequent developmental stage. It is as if the individual is embedded in the issues of that stage. For example, with a Stage 5 specific item, individuals in Stages 1 thru 4 would not have encountered the developmental issue that the item addresses, while individuals in Stages 6 thru 8 would have had resolved it. Stage 5 individuals respond ix) the opposite direction (embedded). Some of the items contained negative aspects of the constructs to reduce the possibility of a response set from occuring. In the process of differentiating the items into mastery and stage-specific groups, four possible response patterns were conceptualized. flfimefour patterns were the result of the two forms (positive and negative aspects of the constructs) and the tuna types (mastery and stage- specific) of items. The four response patterns are illus- trated in Figure 3-2. As can be seen, Pattern A results with a non-mastery item. The proposed scenario is that a person prior to the stage would respond "True of Me" (+) and after resolving the developmental tasks (M5 the stage, respond "Not True of Me" (-). Pattern B corresponds to a positive mastery item, whereby the individual initially responds "Not True of Me"(—) and then "True of Me"(+) after the related issues are resolved. iPattern C results with a 62 Q EH5; Ame EH oEHBmmumofim o "me/BEE Emma 888 E: .. mmoom .. mmoom m Ema: :5 EH mo Ema: Himmoom 1 + $58 a mguzoz mofim mogm moaem mzmmEam E 0228 mmofim Emma 508 59: dog UHHMEUHAE m.ZOmMHmm .mO ZOHeéHmHmmfldv ggHm an 2H EH m0 ZOHHEUHmHmmg 92¢ wsz8m m0 EHO mum “559E 63 stage-specific item, such that, only an individual in the stage would respond "True of Me" (+). A negative stage- specific item would be responded to negatively ("Not True of Me") by only individuals embedded in that stage. Individuals whom are developmentally before or after the stage would respond positively (mrrue of Me"), since they are not engaged with the issue that the item addresses. This response pattern would be characteristic of Pattern D. Using these four response patterns as a model, the items were differentiated into groups for determining the scoring direction. The item breakdown by- stage, type (mastery and stage-specific) and form (positive and negative aspects of the constructs) is found in Table 3-1. It can be seen that 81% of the items were either mastery or nonmastery items. This finding was expected since the items were originally constructed to reflect the resolution or non- resolutiOn of the issues of each developmental stage. The stage-specific pattern was conceptualized when the scoring direction was being established which was after the item- construction stage. In the item construction process in the initial development of the AAAP, the team members experienced difficulty in writing mastery items that reflected inclusion in the stage. It was easier to write items that excluded an individual from a particular developmental period. ‘However, an instrumentls content validity vastly improves when items reflect the constructs of the stage rather than reflecting 64 Table 3-1 Distribution of Items by Stage, Type and Form STAGE MASTERY STAGE-SPECIFIC TOTAL MASTERY NON-MASTERY POSITIVE NEGATIVE EMBEDDED EMBEDDED l 25 8 1 1 35 2 65 42 14 2 123 3 34 33 19 1 87 4 70 26 14 1 111 5 64 16 54 7 141 6 31 13 8 1 53 7 39 3 1 0 43 8 59 11 2 1 73 387 152 113 14 666 65 what is not a part of the stage. As a result, the team members strove to write more mastery items, which accounts for the imbalance between the number of mastery and non- mastery items. An example of mastery and stage-specific items can be found in Table 3—2 for each stage. To permit control for social desirability responding, the Crowne-Marlowe desirability measure was modified to cor- respond to the AAAP item structure and response scaling.83 84 verified the A unpublished study by Farquhar and Wilson acceptability of the modification. The Modified Crowne- Marlowe was administered to a sample of 380 university students and found to yield results similar to the original Crowne—Marlowe administered contiguously. The correlation between the two forms was .96. Every twentieth item and items 709 to 719 in the AAAP are Modified Crowne-Marlowe items. The following are examples of the Crowne-Marlowe items: "My table manners at home are as good as they are as when I eat out in a restaurant", and "I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off". Responding "True of Me" to these items is indicative of a high need to respond in a socially desirable manner. Each scale had at least one pair of consistency items. These items have the same content but are phrased slightly 83D.P. Crowne and D. Marlowe, "A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology," Journal pf Consulting Psychology, 24 (1960), pp. 349-354. 84’William M. Farquhar and Frederick R. Wilson "Development of the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Scale", Unpublished Manuscript, 1977. Example Stage Type* 1 M SS 2 M SS 3 M SS 4 M SS 5 M SS 6 M SS 7 M 88 8 M SS * M - Mastery SS — Stage—S 66 Table 3-2 s of Mastery and Stage-Specific Items Item I feel optimistic about life. I can tell right away whether I can trust a stranger. I make my own decisions. No matter what the task, I prefer to do it myself. I am happy with the pace or speed with which I make decisions. When I do something wrong, I know I'll get caught. I do many things well. I am more inclined to compete than I am to cooperate. I am determined to be the kind of person I am. I'm a friend to everyone. With the person I am closest to, I share my inner feelings of tenderness. I get so lonely I find myself desperately trying to impress the opposite sex. I work to make my community better for children. Children should play mostly with children, not with adults. My life is a delightful mixture of work and play. When I stop to look at something, I find that I am fascinated by what I see. pecific 67 different and appear in different places in the question- naire. They are used to check an individual's consistency in responding to the items. There were 12 consistency pairs in the AAAP. The following pairs are examples: Stage 1 Trust vs. Mistrust # 287 I find people are consistent. (+) # 407 I do not expect people to be consistent. (-) Stage 2 Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt # 297 No matter what the task I prefer to get someone to do it for me. (-) # 604 No matter what the task I prefer to do it myself. (+) There were 719 items in the AAAP of which 666 items pertained to the ego stages (a breakdown can be seen in Table 3-1). In the process of differentiating the items into mastery and stage-specific groups, seven items were eliminated because, on reexamination, these items appeared not to reflect the constructs they were intended to measure. The Modified Crowne-Marlowe items accounted for the remaining 46 items. The 12 pairs of consistency items are a part of the 666 item pool. In summary, the items of the AAAP reflect the progression of development in both intrapsychic and socio- adaptive domains. The AAAP operationalizes Erikson's. constructs in a way that permits the collection of norms and 68 the examination of developmental trends. Items included in the final version of the AAAP were randomly ordered, typed 'on masters and printed on machine readable answer forms. The twenty-seven.pages of questions were assembled into a bound booklet for ease of administration (see Appendix A). Sample The sample of the study consisted of two groups:staff and faculty an: Michigan State University (n=322) and psychiatric patients (n=32) at Pine Rest Christian Hospital in Grand Rapids, MI. The mean and median age of the respondents were 42 and 39 years old, respectively. The subjects ranged in age from 19 to 69 and the standard devia- tion was 12.04. Most of the testees were Caucasian (91.5%) with an under representation of Orientals (1.1%) and Blacks ( 1.7%). There were also slightly more males (55.1%) than females (42;7%L. This demographic information can be found in Table 3-3 to 3-5, respectively. Most of the subjects had children (69.8%) with the mean number of children approaching 2. The mean age of the oldest and youngest child was approximately 14 and 19, respectively. The predominant marital statuses were married (76%), never married (9.3%), and divorced (8.2%). ‘Few of the respondents had been married more than once (12.2%). In Table 3-6 thru 3-9 one can find an expansion of this demographic information. The median income of the respondents was between 69 Table 3-3 Age of Respondents Mean Median Range Standard Deviation Table 3-4 Race of Respondents Race Number Oriental 4 Cancasian 324 Black 6 Other ‘ 10 No Response 10 Table 3-5 Sex of Respondents Sex Number Male 195 Female 151 No Response 8 41.64 '39 50 12.04 Percent 1.1 91.5 Percent 55.1 42.7 70 Table 3-6 Respondent's Number of Children Number/Category Frequency Percent None 107 30.2 1 36 10.2 2 95 26.8 3 59 16.7 4 38 10.7 5 11 3.1 6 5 1.4 7 l .3 8 l 3 l3 1 .3 Mean Number of Children = 1.887 Table 3-7 Age of Respondent's Children* Category Frequency Mean Standard Deviation Age of Youngest Child 212 13.92 8.91 Age of Oldest Child 247 18.57 10.07 No Children 107 N/A N/A * If respondent has only one child, then the child was placed in the age of the oldest child category. 71 Table 3-8 Marital Status of Respondents Category Frequency Percent Married 269 76.0 Pair Bonded 10 2.8 Divorced 29 8.2 Widowed 3 .8 Never Married 33 9.3 Never Pair Bonded 2 .6 No Response 8 2.3 Table 3-9 Respondent's Number of Marriages Category Frequency Percent 0 or 1 303 85.6 2 41 11.6 4 1 .3 5 l .3 No Response 8 2.2 72 $20,000 and $25,000. The educational level of the subjects was high, such that, approximately 50% had obtained a PhJL or a Medical Degree. Only 28.4% had obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree or less. This information is presented in Table 3-10 and 3-11. Seventy-three percent of the respondents rated their social standing as middle class (see Table 3-12). Most of the respondents rated themselves as healthy (78%) and happy (70%). Likewise, most of the respondents were satisfied with their jobs (67%) and their personal relationships (69%). There is an expansion of this demographic informa- tion in Appendixes.B thru E. Procedures The staff and faculty of Michigan State University received a letter requesting their participation in the study (see Appendix F). If they were willing to participate, they received the AAAP instrument and a consent form (see Appendix G). The respondents were instructed that due to the length of the AAAP, it was necessary to answer it over a number of sittings. They were also notified that the questionnaire would be coded and that the names and codes would be kept under tight security; The first page of the AAAP consisted of a fact sheet (see Appendix H) that was used to describe the characteristics of the sample (see Table 3-3 to 3-13 and Appendixes B thru E). The respondents returned the AAAP and the consent form upon completion. 73 Table 3-10 Income of The Respondents Category Frequency Percent Under $4000 6 1.7 $4 - $6,000 6 1.7 $6 -$10,000 31 8.8 $10-$15,000 35 9.9 $15-$20,000 45 12.7 $20-$25,000 67 18.9 $25-$30,000 46 13.0 $35-$40,000 69 19.5 Over $40,000 39 11.0 No Response 10 2.8 Median Income = $20—$25,000 Table 3-11 Education of Respondents Category Frequency Percent Junior High 2 .6 High School 53 15.0 Trade School 13 3.7 Bachelor of Arts 30 8.5 Master of Arts 62 17.5 Educational Specialist 4 1.1 Ph.D./M.D. 178 50.3 No Response 9 2.5 74 Table 3-12 Social Standing As Rated By The Respondents Respondent Frequency Percent l O 0.0 2 Lower l 0.3 3 7 2.0 4 37 10.5 5 Middle 110 31.1 6 111 31.4 7 52 14.7 8 Upper 18 5.1 9 7 2.0 No Response 11 3.1 75 Psychiatric patients at Pine Rest Christian Hospital were asked to respond to the AAAP. An assessment of their reading ability was made and if it was adequate, they were given a copy of the AAAP. As was the case with the normal population, a consent form was required (see Appendix I) and confidentiality was assured. The directions for the two groups were virtually identical. Design The designcnfthis study was primarily correlational. An item was examined by investigating its correlation to the total scores for each of the eight ego stages, as well as to the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. The factor analysis of the retained items for each ego scale was also correlational in nature. The social desirability and consistency validity indexes were based on correlations, while the 'faking' or F Scale index was obtained by computing item frequencies. Testable Criteria The hypotheses were formulated as criteria, not in classical null form. 1. All items are responded to in either the mastery or nonmastery direction by more than 5% of the respondents. The items that have a frequency of less than 5% in any direction will be eliminated from the stage scale and be considered for a validity index to detect faking or responding in a disfavorable light. 76 2. Each item correlates higher with the total stage score for which it was written than it does to the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale embedded in the AAAP. 3. Each item correlates higher with the total stage score for which it was written or to a previous stage total score than it does to a subsequent ego stage. 4. Each item increases the internal consistency of the scale when it is a part of that scale as opposed to when it is not. 5. Respondents who have mastered an ego stage, as defined by responding in the resolution direction to over 80% of the items, respond in the mastery direction to the individual items in the stage. Likewise, the respondents who have not mastered an ego stage will fail the items in that stage, i.e., respond in the non-mastery direction. 6. A factor analysis of the items screened through tests of hypotheses 1 thru 5 yields an interpretable structure for each stage which corresponds to the constructs outlined by Erikson's theory. The items were factor analyzed stage by stage. 7. Each item increases the internal consistency of the stage factor. 8. The AAAP has Guttman-like properties, that is, scales are mastered in ascending order from Stage 1 to Stage 8. 9. The social desirability items correlate higher with 77 the total Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale thay to any of the ego stage scales. 10. Every pair of consistency items, iue., items reflecting the same content but placed in different locations in the AAAP, are responded to in a similar way and are highly correlated. We The data analysis was conducted using Jackson's sequen- tial system for personality scale development.85 The first activity consisted of examining the item difficulty to determine whether the proportion of subjects endorsing the item was within an acceptable range. Items with a p value below .05 or above .95 were eliminated as too weak in informational value. The rationale was that an item which only a small percent of the respondents endorsed would have a very small variance and wouldifail to add.appreciably to scale reliability and validity. However, some of these items were retained and constituted a validity index. The purpose of the scale was to detect respondents attempting to respond in a disfavorable light. This function is identical with the F Scale in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.86 85Jackson, 1970, pp. 229-248. 86Roger L. Greene, The MMPI: Ap Interpretative Manual (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1980), pp. 36—39. 78 The second activity was an evaluation of the degree to which an item elicited an individual's tendency to respond in a socially desirable fashion. If an item correlated higher with the total social desirability score than it did to its own total stage score, then it was eliminated. Social desirability responding will often make individual scales within a test more highly correlated than they should be. By suppressing desirability, inflated scale inter- correlations should be reduced because the correlation between each ego scale and desirability is lowered. The third activity was an evaluation of the items' con- vergent and discriminant validity. Iflfan item correlated higher with any ego stage total score beyond the one for which it was written, it was eliminated. Since the stages are organized in a hierarchical manner, an item should correlate higher with its intended or with a previous stage than with the subsequent ego stages. The fourth activity consisted of computing the relia- bility of the total stage score when the item was removed from the stage and when it was retained. If the reliability of the scale was higher by .005 or more when the item was a componentcflfthe stage,it was retained. Choosing.005 as the cut-off point was an arbitrary decision. The rationale was that a decrease in the reliability of less than .005 would imply than the item was having little effect on the internal consistency of the scale. Since the item may have provided some useful information during the factor analysis 79 stage, it was retained. On this basis as well as the fact that the reliability of the factors were examined in Criterion 7 and that the item was reevaluated at that time, the .005 decision point was considered appropriate. The item analysis procedures proposed by Jackson and used in the AAAP analysis were directed at increasing within scale homogeneity. The aim was to increase the internal consistency of the scale and decrease the independence between scales. Further, it was designed to eliminate social desirability responding aseniextraneous source of covariance. An item discrimination procedure was also used. For this analysis responses that reflected mastery was scored as '1‘ and non-mastery as '02 In other words, the 4-point scale was converted into a 2-point scale. Respondents who had mastered an ego stage were expected to pass the individual items in the stage as compared to respondents who had not mastered the ego stage. Mastery was defined as responding in the resolution direction, ide., positively to the mastery items and negatively to the non-mastery items, over 80% of the time. The 80% standard is adapted from the mastery learning model.87 A two-by-two Chi-Square was used for this test. The respondents were separated into "should pass" and "should fail" as defined by their resolution score. These groups were compared to the actual responses 87Benjamin S. Bloom, "Learning For Mastery," UCLA-CSEIP Evaluation Comment, 1, No. 2, 1968. 80 on the individual items. The design of the two-by-two Chi Square can be seen in Figure 3-3. An item was retained if the Chi-Square was significant at the .05 level. The items for each scale that had survived the previous analytic procedures underwent a factor analysis to examine the constructs of each ego stage. Factor analysis is the traditional method of identifying specifically how responses to items relate to each other. A principal factor solution was used. Use of a principal factor solution allows the in- vestigator to examine the relationships among items and to find how item responses relate to each other. This method of analysis uses common variance or variance shared by items to arrive at a solution. Typically, one general factor will emerge from this analysis with other factors which account for smaller proportions of common variance. A varimax rotation was executed following the principal factor analysis. This procedure maximizes the within factor loading for any one item. Only those factors which had a sum of squares (Eigenvalue)ixiexcess of one were rotated. Rotation was continued until: 1) at least three items or more remained on all factors; and 2) the results made psychological sense. Items that did not load onto a factor were considered for elimination. The reliability of each of the factors was computed. If an item lowered the reliability of the factor'by.005, it was eliminated from the factor and the scale. 81 Figure 3-3 Chi-Square Design To Test Item Discrimination Passed The Item Failed The Item Should Pass (Passed Over 80% of The Items) Should Fail (Passed Less Than 80% of The Items) 82 The fundamental concept of Er ikson's ego stage theory is its hierarchical nature, i.e., the stages build upon each other as a function of psychological development. Eriksonfs theory is that Stage 1 issues need to be resolved before successful resolution of Stage 2 issues. A scale which attempts to operationalize Erikson's theory would appear to closely approximate a Guttman scale or scalogram due to the hierarchical configuration of the ego stages. As a result, the final analytical procedure consisted of a scalogram analysis. The assumption was that individuals who have mastered a particular stage should have resolved the issues of the previous stages. Again, the criteria of mastery consisted of responding in the resolution direction, iJL, positively to the mastery items and negatively to the non- mastery items, over 80% of the time. The internal consistency of the items composing the ego scales that had survived tests of criteria 1 thru 7 were computed using Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient. An examination of the validity indexes was also made. The items from tflue Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale were inspected. Items that correlated higher with the scale than with the ego stage scales were retained. Since the size of the AAAP was a factor, the highest 20 correlations were retained for the validity index. The items that were responded to in either the mastery or non-mastery direction by less than 5% of the subjects 83 qualified for a validity scale to detect "faking". These items would be used to identify subjects attempting to respond leii disfavorable manner. Again, due to size constraints, only 20 items were selected from the pool of qualifying items. The twelve pairs of consistency items were examined. If the correlation between the pair of items was greater than .75 they were retained. A flow-chart of analytic procedvres can be found in Figure 3-4. Summary Erik Eriksonis writings were studied with the intent of designing items that operationalized each of the ego developmental stages. An outline of the constructs for each ego period served as a model in the item construction process. 'A five-member item-writing team generated over 2000 items and mutually agreed upon 673 items that reflected positive and negative aspects to the eight Eriksonian stages. The resulting instrument was named the Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP). To permit control for responding in a socially desirable manner, the Crowne- Marlowe social desirability response scale was modified to correspond to the AAAP structure and response scaling. .A study was conducted and verified the acceptability of the modification. The last eleven items, as well as every twen- tieth item in the AAAP, were the Modified Crowne-Marlowe items. There were 46 Modified Crowne—Marlowe items. In addition, there were twelve pairs of items reflecting the 8 4 FIGURE 3-4 FLU/V CHART OF ANALYTIC PROCEDURES AND NON-MASTERY SOCIAL DESIRA— < ITEM BILITY SCALE CRITERION 2 YES RECODE ITEMS DOES ITEM HIGH SCDRES I that particular developmental issue but would nevertheless increase the total stage score. As a result, the mastery items were recoded, such that, a ‘Definitely Not True of Me' response was assigned a value of l, and a 'Definitely True of Me' response, a value of 4. Likewise, 'Not True of Me' resulted in a '2' value and 'True of Me', a value of '3'. In this way, there is a positive relationship between the stage score and the degree of stage resolution. Criterion l Criterion 1 states that each item will be responded to in either the mastery or non-mastery direction by more than 5% of the respondents. The items that had a frequency of less than 5% in any one direction were eliminated from the stage scale and were considered for a validity index to detect faking or responding in a disfavorable light. Thus, the first analytical procedure was an examination of an item's distribution. An item that was responded to in any one direction (iJL, mastery or non-mastery) by more than 95% of the sample was eliminated from the stage scale. The rationale for this decision was that the item would have too little variance, thus prounding little appreciable information. There were 33 items eliminated from the eight ego scales with this pmocedure. The number of items eliminated from each stage was as follows: Stage 1-1; Stage 2—9; Stage 3-4; Stage 4-7; Stage 5-5; Stage 6-2; Stage 7-2; 92 and Stage 8-3. The eliminated items are noted in Appendixes J thru Q. These items were considered for a validity index to detect faking or responding in a disfavorable manner. A discussion of these items follow the results of Criterion 10. Criterion 2 Criteritu12 states that each item will correlate higher with the total stage score for which it was written than it does to the Modified Crowne- Marlowe Social Desirability Scale which was embedded in the AAAP. Any item that correlated higher with the social desirability scale than the stage scale for which it was written, was eliminated. There were 57 items that correlated higher with the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Scale than with the stage for which it was intended. The number of items eliminated from each stage was as follows: Stage 1-2; Stage 2-9; Stage 3-13; Stage 4-11; Stage 5-10; Stage 6- 6; Stage 7-1; and Stage 8-5. In Appendixes J thru Q there is a listing of the stage items and their correlation with the social desirability scale. The eliminated items are noted. Criterion Q Criteritni3 states that each item will correlate higher with the total stage score for which it was written or to a previous stage total score than it will to a successive stage. To test this hypothesis an item was correlated with all eight ego stages. In 159 cases an item had a lower correlation with its intended or with a previous ego stage 93 than to a subsequent ego stage. The number of items eliminated from each scale was as follows: Stage 1-12; Stage 2-45; Stage 3—21; Stage 4-11; Stage 5-25; Stage 6-7; Stage 7-6; and Stage 8-32. In Appendixes J thru Q there is a listing of the scale items and their correlation.toleach of the ego stages, as well as to the social desirability scale. The items that were eliminated by each procedure are noted. The retained items were reevaluated for content validity and the magnitude of the correlation to its own total stage score. Items with correlations less than .25 to its intended scale and with weak content validity were eliminated. This procedure resulted in the removal of five items from Stage 2, and one item from Stage 5, 7, and 8. The eliminated items are noted in Appendixes K, N, P, and Q. Upon examining the Stage 2 items, it was noted that several of the items correlated higher with Stage 1 than with any other stage. These items were reevaluated in terms of their content validity. In seven out of ten cases, it was decided that the items would be more appropriately placed in Stage 1. 'The relabelled Stage 1 items are noted in Appendix J. Criterion 4 Criterion 4 states that each item will contribute to the internal consistency of the scale. The reliability of the scale was computed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient with the item retained and 94 eliminated from the scale. If the reliability increased by 0.005 or more when the item was not a part of the scale, it was eliminated. The intent of the procedure was to eliminate any item not contributing to the internal consistency of the scale. In only one case did an item lower the reliability of the scale by more than JHHL The item was in Stage 5 and is noted in Appendix N. Criterion Q Criterion 5 states that each respondents who have mastered an ego stage, as defined by responding in the resolution direction to over 80% of the items, will respond in the mastery direction to the individual items in the stage. Likewise, the respondents who have not mastered an ego stage will fail the items in that stage, i.e. respond in the non-mastery direction. A Chi—Square analysis was used to test this criterion. There were five items that resulted in the rejection of the criterion. One item each was eliminated from Stage 2 thru 6. These items are noted in Appendixes K thru 0, respec- tively. Upon reexamination, it became evident that the Chi Square analysis'wasaiconservative testixithis situation. It would Ina consistent with Erikson's theory that individuals who were intflua"should fail" category, on the basis that they had not passed 80% of the items, could have passed individual items in that stage. This scenario would imply that individuals were 1J1 the stage but had not mastered it. However, the Chi Square was constructed with the assumption that the cell frequency (the lower left cell 95, in Figure 3—3) that contained individuals who did pass the item but had not mastered the stage, would be 0. Although the test was conservative, the results were accepted, such that, five items were eliminated from the AAAP due to this item criterion test. Criterion Q Criterion 6 states that a factor analysis of the items screened through tests of criterion 1 thru 5 will yield an interpretable structure for each stage which will correspond to the constructs outlined by Eriksonls theory. The items were factor analyzed stage by stage. A principal factor solution was used. Use of a principal factor solution allows the investigator to examine the relationships among items and to find how item responses relate to each other. A varimax rotation was executed following the principal factor analysis. This procedure maximized the within factor loading for any one item. Only those factors with an eigenvalue in excess of one were rotated. Items that did not load onto a factor with a value greater than .25 were eliminated from the stage scale. A multiple-factor structure resulted for each stage, except Stage 1, which made psychological sense and was consistent with the issues of each stage as outlined by Erikson. The factors for each stage were as follows: Stage 1- basic trust; Stage 2— will to be oneself, solitude, and holding on, letting go; Stage 3- self punishment and guilt, and anticipation of roles by parents; Stage 4- apply self to 96 task, win recognition by producing things, perseverance, competence, trust in adults, and confidence; Stage 5- trust in peers, ideological thought, molding identity, and fidelity tests; Stage 6- commitment to affiliation, genital maturity and fusion with another; Stage 7- establishing and guiding the next generation, and charity; and Stage 8- order and meaning,and accepting of one’s life cycle. The factor structure of the retained items that survived the test of Criterion 7 are presented in Tables 4-1 thru 4-8. Criterion Z Criterion 7 states that each item will increase the internal consistency of the stage factor. The reliability of each of the stage factors was computed using the Cronbach alpha coefficient. An item that lowered the reliability of the factor by more than .005 was eliminated. It was found that in seven cases an item lowered the reliability of the factor. The eliminated items were from the following factors: one item each from Stage 3 factor 2, Stage 4 factor 6, Stage 5 factors 1 and 2, and Stage 7 factor 2 and two items from Stage 5 factor 4. 'The items are noted in Appendixes I” 14, N and P. The reliability of the factors ranged from .68 to .93 with the mean equal to .84. The factor structure of the retained items with loadings above .25 and contributing to the internal consistency of the factor, are presented in Table 4-1 thru 4-8, respectively. 97 Table 4—1 Item Loadings on The Stage 1 (Trust vs Mistrust) Scale Factor I: Basic Trust; Reliability = .88 Item * Factor Loading 414 I am happy. (+) .77628 106 I am basically an unhappy person. (-) .68019 494 I feel optimistic about life. (+) .58137 1 Whatever stage of life I am in is the .54185 best one. (+) 52 I worry about my future. (-) .50984 299 Basically I feel adequate. (+) .50673 658 When it is time to go to bed, I fall asleep .50184 easily. (—) 285 I have feelings of doom about the future. (-) .47405 522 I believe the best times are now. (+) .44962 156 I have alot of energy. (+) .38321 583 I eat balanced meals. (+) .37270 524 I take the unexpected in my stride. (+) .34527 550 If I were one of the few surviving persons .32930 from a world wide war, I would make it. (+) 701 I trust others. (+) .32399 478 I an calm. (+) .31966 416 I worry about things that never happen. (-) .27118 287 I find people are consistent. (+) .26052 271 I frighten easily. (-) .25527 *Mastery = + 98 Table 4-2 Item Loadings on The Stage 2 (Autnomy vs Shame And Doubt) Scale Factor I -Will to be Oneself; Reliability = .89 Item * Factor Loading 707 I like myself. (+) .69654 606 I make my own decisions. (+) .68165 493 I am strong enough to make up my own mind on .67246 difficult qvestions. (+) 189 I am self-confident. (+) .63679 699 It's pretty neat to be me. (+) .60568 665 I would not care to be much different than .56312 I am. (+) ' 14 I can make big decisions by myself. (+) .53589 323 I can take a stand. (+) .53297 558 I trust the big decisions I make. (+) .48760 467 I can see little reason why anyone would .48194 want to compliment me. (-) 551 If someone criticizes me to my face, I feel .38988 low and worthless. (-) 270 Circumstances beyond my control are what .38410 make me a basically unhappy person. (-) 599 I am independent of others. (+) .36450 41 Compliments embarrass me. (-) .33108 582 I act independently of others. (+) .32998 404 Even when I am doing something I really .32914 enjoy, I can never get totally involved. (-) 388 The best times of my life were in the past. .32428 (-) 257 My morals are determined by the thoughts, .31629 feelings and decisions of other people. (-) 77 158 48 293 314 99 Table 4-2 (cont.) My basic state of happiness is dependent .30255 upon me. (+) I am outspoken. (+) .29293 When someone says something critical about .28009 me, I keep my composure. (+) I don't worry whether anyone else will like .27184 the friends I choose. (+) If someone criticizes me to my face, I .26096 listen closely to what they are saying about me before reacting. (+) Factor II - Solitude; Reliability = .82 534 252 549 245 161 329 84 405 293 582 467 I am comfortable being alone. (+) .78940 I like being by myself. (+) .65054 I cannot stand silence. (-) .58901 I like to be by myself a part of every day. .58852 (+) I enjoy privacy. (+) .53628 I find there are alot of fun things in the .52160 world to do alone. (+) When I am alone, Silence is difficult to .44078 handle. (-) I like being able to change my plans without .31871 having to check with somebody. (+) I don't worry whether anyone else will like .30913 the friends I Choose. (+) I act independently of others. (+) .30642 I can see little reason why anyone would .28282 want to compliment me. (-) Factor III — Holding on, Letting Go; Reliability = .82 492 When I get angry at someone, I boil inside .64755 without letting them know. (-) 302 679 551 214 129 48 314 158 599 665 293 707 100 Table 4-2 (cont.) When I get angry at someone, I tell them .57278 about it and it's over. (-) I feel free to express both warm and hostile .51853 feelings to my friends. (+) If someone criticizes me to my face, I feel .47477 low and worthless. (-) I go out of my way to avoid being .43330 embarrassed (—) When I get angry at someone, it rarely .39350 wrecks our relationship. (+) When someone says something critical about .38991 me, I keep my composure. (+) If someone criticizes me to my face, I listen .38098 closely to what they are saying about me before reacting. (+) I am outspoken. (+) .34201 I am ashamed of some of my emotions. (-) .32437 I would not care to be much different than .31544 I am. (+) I don‘t worry whether anyone else will like .27703 the friends I choose. (+) I like myself. (+) .26086 * Mastery = + 101 Table 4-3 Items Loading on The Stage 3 (Initiative vs Guilt) Scale Factor I - Self Punishment, Guilt; Reliability = .86 Item * Factor Loading 667 I constantly need excuses for why I behave .67449 the way I do. (-) 590 When somebody does me wrong, I get so hung .59466 up in my own feelings I can't do anything but brood. (-) 198 I worry or condemn myself when other people .57870 find fault with me. (-) 681 Feelings of guilt hold me back from doing .52165 what I want. (-) 564 I punish myself when I make mistakes. (-) .50326 27 I am happy with the pace of speed with which .50307 I make decisions. (+) 387 My day—to-day frustrations do not get in the .48057 way of my activities. (+) 17 I don't need to apologize for the way I act. .47252‘ (+) 347 My feelings are easily hurt. (-) .46917 350 No one understands me. (-) .45785 102 I must depend my past actions. (—) .45115 326 My word is my bond. (+) .44838 22 My mistakes annoy me, but do not frighten .43431 me. (+) 382 My free time is spent aimlessly. (+) .42185 355 It's hard for me to say "no" without .41794 feeling guilty. (-) 112 People hurt my feelings without knowing .36950 it. (—) 438 694 44 504 619 30 213 102 Table 4-3 (cont.) I think the best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. (-) Guilt is a feeling I seem to have outgrown. (-) My duties and obligation to others trap me. (-) Mostly I like to just sit at home. (-) If a clerk gives me too much change, I correct the error. (+) I admit my mistakes. (+) My parents caused my troubles. (-) Factor II - Anticipation of Roles by Parents; Reliability = .81 543 231 465 213 My parents treated me fairly. (+) I was raised in a happy family. (+) My family understood me while I was growing UP- (+) My parents csused my troubles. (-) *Mastery = + .35884 .35848 .35561 .33371 .28652 .28509 .26180 .77856 .74381 .73669 .55374 Factor I - Apply Self to Task, Task Identification; 103 Table 4-4 Item Loadings on The Stage 4 (Industry vs Inferiority) Scale Reliability = .92 Item * 86 282 82 628 43 399 596 145 124 I like problems that have complicated solutions. (+) I can work on ideas for hours. (+) I enjoy finding out whether or not complex ideas work. (+) I enjoy explaining complex ideas. (+) I like problems that make me think for a long time before I solve them. (+) I like to solve problems. (+) I enjoy things that make me think. (+) It is hard for me to work on a thought problem for more than an hour or two. (-) When the situation demands, I can go into deep concentration concerning just about anything. (+) 423 When I get hold of a complicated problem, 338 96 345 643 518 I return to it again and again until I come up with a workable solution. (+) If I can‘t solve a problem quickly, I lose interest. (-) When I argue I use facts to support my position. (+) I will probably always be working on new projects. (+) I am good at solving puzzles. (+) I am confident when learning a complicated task. (+) Factor Loading .69578 .68963 .67157 .64839 .62754 .61330 .59576 .53293 .51880 .50968 .47520 .45998 .38614 .36653 .36194 104 Table 4-4 (cont.) Item * Factor Loading 186 Iamconfident whenlearningsomething .36096 new which requires that I put myself on the line. (+) 499 In my work I Show individuality and .35535 originality. (+) 247 I pubically question statements and ideas .34449 expressed by others. (+) 88 I check things out for myself. (+) .34185 366 I can stay with a job a long time. (+) .31953 225 When I sit down to learn something, I get .30556 so caught up that nothing can distract me.,(+) 572 I learn well when comeone gives me the .29147 problem and lets me work out the details for myself. (+) 168 I read a great deal even when my work does .28567 require it. (+) 373 I get caught up in my work. (+) .27141 157 It is hard for me to keep my mind on what .26728 I am trying to learn. (-) 142 When things are not going right in my work, .26684 I reason my way through the problems. (+) Factor II - Win Recognition by Producing Things; Reliability = .93 375 I am proud of my accomplishments. (+) .76626 573 I am proud of my work. (+) .72811 431 I feel proud of my accomplishments. (+) .72632 301 I am proud of the accomplishments I have .66271 made at work. (+) 365 My work is usually up to the standards set ‘.42552 for me. (+) 426 366 430 485 499 345 18 94 346 353 423 535 295 138 518 596 526 572 88 399 105 Table 4-4 (cont.) I get those things done that I want to do. (+) I can stay with a job a long time. (+) My plans work out. (+) I am dedicated to my work. (+) In my work I show individuality and originality. (+) I will probably always be working on new projects. (+) I do many things well. (+) My judgement is sound. (+) \Completed and polished products have a great appeal for me. (+) I feel more confident playing games of skill than games of chance. (+) When I get hold of a complicated problem, I return to it again and again until I come up with a workable solution. (+) When I decide to do something, I am determined to get it done. (+) I feel useless. (-) I feel there is nothing I can do well. (-) I am confident when learning a complicated task. (+) I enjoy things that make me think. (+) Once I have committed myself to a task, I complete it. (+) I learn well when someone gives me the problem and lets me work out the details for myself. (+) I think things out for myself. (+) I like to solve problems. (+) .41749 .41659 .41359 .39225 .37110 .37054 .36554 .34740 .33028 .32400 .31995 .30910 .30308 .29530 .28972 .28477 .28167 .27707 .27188 .27080 106 Table 4-4 (cont.) Item * Factor Loading 142 When things are not going right in my work, .26651 I reason my way through the problems. (+) 613 I learn fast. (+) .26562 476 When I was prepared teachers couldn't fool .26497 me with trick questions. (+) 249 When I am in a group, I feel confident that .25870 what I have to say is acceptable. (+) 4 My happiness is pretty much under my .25819 control. (+) 373 I get caught up in my work. (+) .25439 Factor III - Perseverance, Diligence; Reliability = .86 187 I have difficulty getting down to work. (-) .56406 327 I find it hard to keep my mind on a task .55815 or job. (-) 207 I see to it that my work is carefully .55293 planned and organized. (+) 526 Once I have committed myself to a task, .53320 I complete it. (+) 55 I play around so much I have a hard time .51492 getting a job done. (-) 535 When I decide to do something, I am .49721 determined to get it done. (+) 390 I go at my work without much planning .43585 ahead of time. (-) 365 My work is usually up the standards set .41241 for me. (+) 366 I can stay with a job a long time. (+) .37476 157 It is hard for me to keep my mind on what .36108 I am trying to learn. (-) 426 I get those things done that I want to .34543 do. (+) 107 Table 4-4 (cont.) Item * . Factor Loading 145 It is hard for me to work on a thought .31164 problem for more than an hour or two. (-) 142 When things are not going right in my .30686 work, I reason my way through the problems. (+) 124 When the situation demands, I can go into .26499 deep concentration concerning just about anything. (+) 373 I get caught up in my work. (+) .25051 Factor IV - Competence; Reliability = .85 430 My plans work out. (+) .48461 273 People expect too much of me. (-) .45649 94 My judgement is sound. (+) .43734 4 My happiness is pretty much under my own .42990 control. (+) 295 I feel useless. (-) .40247 477 I can work even when there are distraction. .36744 (+) 652 When I have to speed up and meet a deadline, .34649 I can still do good work. (+) 617 I feel inferior to most people. (-) .34011 503 I feel uneasy if I don't know the next .33782 step in a job. (-) 186 I am confident when learning something new .29366 which requires that I put myself on the line. (+) 142 When things are not going right in my work, .28351 I reason my way through the problems. (+) 168 I read a great deal even when my work does .28015 not require it. (+) 108 Table 4—4 (cont.) Item* Factor Loading 518 I am confident when learning a complicated .27819 task. (+) 6 I feel disappointed and discouraged about .27270 the work I do. (+) 399 I like to solve problems. (+) .27237 556 I can work under pressure. (+) .27059 35 For me to learn well, I need someone to .26406 explain things to me in detail. (-) 338 If I can‘t solve a problem quickly, I lose .25278 interest. (-) Factor V - Trust in Adults; Reliability = .85 569 The thought of making a speech in front .65407 of a group panics me. (-) 159 I get stage fright when I have to appear .64885 before a group. (-) 10 I generally feel pleased with my performance .63817 when I talk in front of a group. (+) 617 I feel inferior to most people. (-) .36082 157 It is hard for me to keep my mind on what .34377 I am trying to learn. (-) 249 When I am in a group, I feel confident .30892 that what I have to say is acceptable. (+) 327 I find it hard to keep my mind on a task .28855 or job. (—) 247 I publically question statements and ideas .27126 expressed by others. (+) 145 It is hard for me to work in a thought .26987 problem for more than an hour or two. (-) 295 I feel useless. (-) .26806 556 I can work under pressure. (+) .25858 628 I enjoy explaining complex ideas. (+) .25474 109 Table 4-4 (cont.) Factor VI — Confidence, "what works"; Reliability = .79 Item * Factor Loading 613 I learn fast. (+) .61294 518 I am confident when learning a complicated .40514 task. (+) 441 When I took a new course in school, I felt .37746 confident that I would do all right. (+) 157 It is hard for me to keep my mind on what .34361 I am trying to learn. (-) 499 In my work I show individuality and .33893 originality. (+) 652 When I have to Speed up and meet a deadline, .32663 I can still do good work. (+) 59 When I was a Child I was proud of my .29981 schoolwork. (+) 18 I do many things well. (+) .29745 35 For me to learn well, I need someone to .26658 explain things to me in detail. (-) 168 I read a great deal even when my work does .25094 not require it. (+) *Mastery = + 110 Table 4-5 Item Loading on The Stage 5 (Identity vs Role Diffusion) Scale Factor I - Trust in Peers; Reliability = .86 Item * Factor Loading 532 I feel self-confident in social situations. .74820 (+) 172 I handle myself well at social gatherings.(+) .65898 330 I enjoy going to a social function either .58351 with a group or by myself. (+) 626 If I want to, I can charm a member of the .52643 opposite sex. (+) 304 My social life is full and rewarding. (+) .50631 646 People of the opposite sex think well of .46571 me. (+) 653 I find it easy to introduce people. (+) .46194 530 I enjoy parties. (+) .44534 435 People like to be with me. (+) .42351 708 I feel awkward around members of the .41905 opposite sex. (-) 199 I fell that people are geuinely interested .41454 in me. (+) 519 In terms of crisis, I am one of the first .34714 people my friends call for help. (+) 188 I get along with people. (+) .34695 312 It's easy for me to know whether people .34061 really like me. (+) 577 In terms of trouble I have friend I turn .33385 to. (+) 303 I have "put myself on the line" in my .27579 relation with others. (+) Factor II - Ideological Thought; Reliability = .79 111 Table 4-5 (cont.) Item * 663 I like to participate actively in intense discussions. (+) 153 I like to participate in intense discussions. (+) 204 I like to discuss ways to solve the world's problems. (+) 195 I think about the big issues of life. (+) 664 I never have serious talks with my friends. (-) 95 People are more important than material things to me. (+) 51 I analyze my own motives and reactions. (+) 235 I'm interested in people. (+) Factor III - Molding Identity; Reliability = .84 635 229 678 672 693 708 576 532 Because I have to be so different from situation to situation, I feel that the real me is lost. (-) I do not understand myself. (-) Other people determine the kind of person I have very few good qualities. (-) I am pretty much the same person from situation to situation. (+) I feel awkward around members of the opposite sex. (-) I am always a loyal friend. (+) I feel self-confident in social situations. (+) Factor Loading .77802 .76802 .55582 .53945 .38136 .36131 .34979 .29525 .68313 .63031 .53440 .46817 .42847 .38867 .32537 .32371 112 Table 4-5 (cont.) Item * Factor Loading 199 I feel that people are genuinely interested .31093 in me. (+) 577 In times of trouble I have friends I .31891 turn to. (+) 304 My social life is full and rewarding. (+) .27549 653 I find it easy to introduce people. (+) .26125 146 am determined to be the kind of person .25950 I I am. (+) Factor IV - Fidelity Tests; Reliability = .79 235 I am interested in people. (+) .48322 95 People are more important than material .47081 things to me. (+) 512 I enjoy doing favors for my friends. (+) .42669 576 I am always a loyal friend. (+) .37677 577 In times of trouble I have friends I .37340 turn to. (+) 188 I get along with people. (+) .35885 435 People like to be with me. (+) .33947 216 I have difficulty imagining how other .3126? people feel. (-) 312 It's easy for me to know whether people .25922 really like me. (+) 646 People of the opposite sex think well .25569 of me. (+) *Mastery = + 113 Table 4-6 Item Loadings on The Stage 6 (Intimacy vs Isolation) Scale Factor I - Commitment to Affiliation; Reliability = .90 Item * Factor Loading 692 With the person I am closest to, I share .76190 my inner anxieties. (+) 689 There is at least one person in my life .69872 with whom I can talk about anything. (+) 601 With the person I am closest to, I share .68190 my inner feelings of confidence. (+) 584 With the person I am closest to, I share .67023 my inner feelings of weakness. (+) 107 With the person I am closest to, I share .65036 my inner feelings of tenderness. (+) 241 With the person I am closest to, I share .64852 my inner fears. (+) 683 I have a person with whom I talk about my .64853 deepest feelings about sex. (+) 364 Being close to another person means sharing .57263 my inner feelings. (+) 369 I am close to someone with whom I talk .63906 about my feelings. (+) 447 I have been so close to somebody, that it .47157 is not possible to find aduquate words to describe the feeling. (+) 165 The closest I get to another person is to .43424 share my opinions and ideas. (-) 122 I have not found a person with whom I can .42510 be close. (-) 281 I have been so Close to someone, that our .42337 relationship seemed almost mystical. (+) 633 I have been so close to someone, that at .40903 times it seemed we could read each other's mind. (+) 114 'Table 4-6 (cont.) Item * Factor Loading 636 I have no one with whom I feel close .39478 enough to talk over my day. (-) 615 I value highly the deep relationships I .34508 have formed with members of the opposite sex. (+) 529 I don't think I will ever find someone .31441 to love. (-) 690 I am sensitive to how other people feel. (+) .29436 511 I seem to understand how other people .27943 are feeling. (+) Factor II - Genital Maturity; Reliability = .83 362 It is very important that my mate likes to .75948 touch me and be touched by me (hold hands, hug, etc.). (+) 292 It is very important that my mate loves .67889 me. (+) 169 It is very important that my mate likes .60693 to snuggle. (+) . 469 Being deeply involved with someone of the .59439 opposite sex in really important to me. (+) 211 It is very important that my mate be .49253 thoughtful of me. (+) 615 I value highly the deep relationships I .45226 have formed with members of the opposite sex. (+) 622 For me, sex and love are tightly linked .43169 together. (+) 364 Being close to another person means sharing .31146 my inner feelings. (+) 657 For me to act on a sexual urqe, I have to .31035 have feelings for the other person. (+) 947 I have been so close to somebody, that it .29474 is not possible to find adequate words to describe the feeling. (+) 115 Table 4—6 (cont.) Item * Factor Loading 107 With the person I am closest to, I share .26509 my inner feelings of tenderness. (+) Factor III - Fusion with Another; Reliability = .68 690 I am sensitive to how other people feel. (+) .66457 511 I seem to understand how other people are .54128 feeling. (+) 152 I ignore the feelings of others. (-) .50511 657 For me to act on a sexual urge, I have to .46134 have feelings for the other person. (+) 561 As far as I know about myself, once I .32532 choose a mate, I do so for life. (+) 622 For me, sex and love are tightly linked .27933 together. (+) 633 I have been so Close to someone, that at .27897 times it seemed like we could read each other's mind. (+) *Mastery = + 116 Table 4-7 Item Loadings on The Stage 7 (Generativety vs Stagnation) Scale Factor I - Establishing And Guiding Next Generation; Reliability = .88 Item * Factor Loading 333 I enjoy interacting with children. (+) .84114 669 I like children. (+) .76124 25 I like to answer children‘s questions. (+) .66368 31 Children bore me. (-) .65650 413 Children's imaginations fascinate me. (+) .65650 62 I'm just not very good with children. (-) .62488 296 I like curious children. (+) .60320 54 Children talk to me about personal .59838 things. (+) 370 I enjoy the times I spend with young .57527 people. (+) 209 I like the way young children say exactly .50910 what they think. (+) 452 I know the children who live in my .50829 neighborhood. (+) 290 I feel deep concern for people who are less .41354 well. (+) 116 I devote time to helping people in need. (+) .36779 103 I lend things to my neighbors when they .35272 need them. (+) 352 Young people today are doing a lot of .32915 fine things. (+) 176 I work to make my community a better for .32294 children. (+) 203 I give clothing and other items to .29411 charitable organizations such as The Salvation Army. (+) 117 Table 4-7 (cont.) Factor II - Charity; Reliability = .84 Item * Factor Loading 650 I have actually sought out information .69609 about my school board members in order to form an opinion. (+) * 496 I am active in community or school .67229 organizations. (+) 250 I have met and formed my own opinions .66952 about the leaders of my community. (+) 696 I do things for my community. (+) .65740 627 I generally attend community or school .63356 meetings. (+) 176 I work to make my community better for .62696 children. (+) . 586 I have gone door-to-door collecting .50704 signatures on a petition. (+) 649 I make it a point to vote in all .47853 elections. (+) 127 I keep up with community news. (+) .45039 21 I have worked on a school committee. (+) .43297 116 I devote time to helping people in need. (+) .39699 630 I give blood (or would if not medically .39009 prohibited). (+) 237 I have gone door—to-door collecting money .30357 for charity. (+) 452 I know the children who live in my .28396 neighborhood. (+) 328 I have volunteered my name as a witness .26706 at a scene of a crime or an accident. (+) *Mastery = + 118 Table 4-8 Items Loading on The Stage 8 (Wisdom vs Despair) Scale Factor I - Order And Meaning; Reliability = .83 Item * 383 705 150 384 126 674 184 428 319 516 484 71 483 344 I have had moments of intense happiness when I felt like I was experiencing a kind of ecstasy or natural high. (+) I get a feeling for the meaning of life through beauty. (+) I get a feeling for the meaning of life through contemplation. (+) I get a feeling for the meaning of life through music. (+) I have had experiences in life which were so intense that they were almost mystical. (+) My feelings about nature are almost sacred. (+) I get a feeling for the meaning of life through nature. (+) I have had experiences in life which I have felt so good, I have felt completely alive. (+) I have a sense of awe about the complexity of things in the universe. (+) The inner wisdom of people never ceases to amaze me. (+) My values change as I discover more about life and the universe. (+) I get a feeling for the meaning of life through art. (+) I find myself thinking about things much more deeply than I did in years past. (+) Even though I am pretty much in touch with who I am, I am always discovering new aspects of myself. Factor Loading .57248 .55926 .55835 .54277 .53253 .51251 .49439 .46507 .46020 .44132 .41996 .37732 .33453 .31126 119 Table 4-8 (cont.) Item * Factor Loading 267 I have had an experience where life seemed .30499 just perfect. (+) 81 I have had experiences in life when I have .28955 been overwhelmed by good feelings. (+) 644 I am amazed at how many problems no longer .27054 seem to have simple right and wrong answers. (+) Factor II - Acceptance ofChufs Life Cycle;Re1iabilitya80 455 283 487 342 344 638 428 411 64 267 642 Life gets better as I get older. (+) .60300 My values are formed from many sources .58491 and I integrate them to give meaning to my life. (+) Whatever age I am always seems to be the .57756 best. (+) After a lot of hard struggling, I am .53590 comfortable being me. (+) Even though I am pretty much in touch .48479 with who I am, I am always discovering new aspects of myself. (+) As I look back at my past decisions, .45902 although I wish I might have done things differently, I realize those were the best decisions I could make at the time. (+) I have had experiences in life when I .44178 have felt so good, I have felt completely alive. (+) The more I look at things, the more I see .42504 how everything fits with everything else. (+) I am a citizen of the world. (+) .33732 I have had a experience where life seemed .33084 just perfect. (+) Even though I do not like the thought of .32141 it, my death does not frighten me. (+) 120 Table 4-8 (cont.) Item * Factor Loading 81 I have had experiences in life when I .28978 have been overwhelmed by good feelings. (+) 383 I have had moments of intense happiness, .25549 when I felt like I was experiencing a kind of ecstasy or a natural high. (+) *Mastery = + 121 Criterion 8 Criterion 8 states that the scales will have a Guttman-like structure, that is, scales are mas- tered in ascending order from Stage 1 to Stage 8. To test this criterion the scalogram program of the 88 was used. A. Statistical Package fortiueSocial Sciences restriction of the scalogram program is that no scale may have more than 50 items. Since Scale 4 had 63 items, fifty items were randomly chosen to represent the scale. Mastery of a scale was defined as responding in the resolution direction to 80% of the items. The results of this analysis was that the stages were not ordered from Stage ltx>Stage 8. The order of the stages from least to most difficult was the following: Stage 5, Stage 6, Stage 2, Stage 4, Stage 1, Stage 3, Stage 8 and Stage 7. The mastery level was manipulated with the intent to rearrange the stages in the proper order. It was found that with the following mastery levels the stages were ordered as Erikson proposed: Stage l-67%; Stage 2-78%; Stage 3-69%; Stage 4-78%; Stage 5~85%; Stage 6-80%; Stage 7-73%; and Stage 8-84%. With this manipulation, the coefficient of reproducibility and theininimum marginal reproducibility were .80 and .66, respectively. 88Norman H. Nie, C. Hodlai, Jean G. Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner and Dale H. Bent, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), p. 533. 122 The coefficient of reproducibility is a measure of the extent to which a respondent's scale score is a predictor of one's response pattern. Mathematically, it is 1 minus the result of dividing the total number of errors by the total number of responses, and it varies from_0 to l. A general guideline to the interpretation of this measure is that a coefficient of reproducibility higher than .9 is considered to indicate a valid scale. The minimum marginal reprodu- cibility provides the minimum coefficient of reproducibility that could have occurred for the scale given the cutting points used and the proportion of respondents passing and failing each of the items. It is calculated by summing the maximum marginals for each item and dividing this sum by the total number of responses. The difference between the coefficient of reproducibility and the minimum marginal reproducibility indicates the extent to which the former is due to response patterns rather the inherent cumulative interrelation of the variables used.89 Since the mastery levels were manipulated, it may be useful to examine the hierarchical properties of the instru- ment when mastery was defined as responding in the resolu- tion direction to over 80% of the items. When mastery was defined at this level, the following percentages of the sample passed the stages: 1—66; Stage 2-73; Stage 3-54; 89Nie, Hodlai,Jenkins, Steinbeenner and Bent, pp. 532-533. 123 Stage 4-68; Stage 5-76; Stage 6—74; Stage 7-46; and Stage 8- 51. It may be illustrative to examine the mastery percentage levels across stages, that is, the percentage of the respondents who mastered both Stage 1 and 2, or 1 and 3, ettu Such alnatrix of mastery percentages can be found in Table 4-9. Due to Erikson's epigenetic notion, one would expect the mastery levels to be highest near the diagonal and then decrease as one proceeds away from it. It.can be seen that this general pattern did emerge implying that the stages have some hierarchical order. The obvious exceptions are Stages 7 and 5, since the former appears to have been too difficult and the latter too easy to master. Criterion g Criterion 9 states that the social desirability items will correlate higher with the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale than to any of the ego stage scales. It was found that in 28 cases the social desirability items did correlate higher with the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale than with any of the ego stages. The eighteen items that correlated higher with the ego stage scales were eliminated. Due to the size constraints of the AAAP, the items with the highest 20 correlations were re- tained for the validity index. As a result, eight addi- tional items were eliminated. Appendix R presents all of the Modified Crowne-Marlowe items, their correlation to their intended scale and to the ego stage scales, and the decision concerning their retention or elimination from the revised AAAP. 124 Table 4-9 Percentage of the Sample who Mastered the Stages* 2 73 51 59 57 59 53 41 3 54 46 49 44 34 31 4 68 60 SS 38 29 5 76 64 41 44 6 75 39 42 7 46 29 8 51 * Mastery was defined as responding in the resolution direction to over 80% of the items. 125 Criterion IQ Criterion 10 states that the pair oflconsistency items, iue., items reflecting the same content but placed in different locations in the AAAP, will be responded to in a similar way and are highly correlated. The correlations of the twelve pairs were computed. A correlation of .75 was needed to retain the pair in the validity index. The pairs correlated higher than.fl5 only once. The pairs of items and their correlations are listed in Appendix S. E. égelf—i The items eliminated from the test of Criterion 1 (item frequencies of less than .05) were considered for a validity index to detect subjects trying to respond in a disfavorable manner on the AAAP. There were 33 items with a frequency of less than 5% in the non-mastery direction. These F scale items and their frequencies are found in Appendix T. Scale Statistics The number of items in a stage ranged from 18 to 63 with the median being 29. The total stage scores were computed by summing the responses in a scale. The mean and standard deviation of the scales ranged from 54 to 191, and Sito 21,respectively. The Cronbach alpha.coefficients of the scales ranged from .85 to .95. The scale statistics are presented in Table 4-10. The total stage scores for each of the stages were Stage 126 Table 4-10 Scale Statistics Number Standard of Items Mean* Variance Deviation Reliability 18 54.01 53.71 7.33 .88319 36 108.86 134.24 11.59 .90717 26 75.27 79.29 8.90 .87019 63 190.56 440.53 20.99 .95076 33 100.08 108.39 10.41 .90255 28 88.09 116.72 10.80 .90126 29 84.37 116.03 10.77 .88837 25 74.23 75.83 8.71 .85431 *Based upon individual items summed across the scale. 127 Summed and the correlations between the stages were computed. The correlations ranged from .25 to .80. For the most part, adjacent stages had the higher correlations. For example, Stage 1 correlated .74avui.80 with Stages 2 and 3, and .45 and .40 with Stages 7 and 8, respectively. In addition, the correlations between the first five stages were higher L80 to Ann than correlations between the last three stages L61 to JR”. The 8x8 correlation matrix can be found in Table 4—11. Comparison Between Samples A comparison was performed between the Michigan State University sample of 322 subjects and the 32 psychiatric patients from Pine Rest Christian Hospital. The sample of Michigan State University staff and faculty were expected to have higher ego stage scores than the psychiatric sample. A high ego stage score was intended to reflect resolution to the stage and thus greater mental health. As a result, a group of faculty members and staff who were well—educated and satisfied with their jobs and personal relationships should have higher scores than a psychiatric sample that was presently in treatment. To control for an inflated Type 1 error, a multivariate test was performed rather than a series of p-tests. The multivariate test between the two groups on the 8 ego stages was highly significant (p<.00001). The psychiatric group had lower means on each of the ego stage scales than the 128 Table 4-11 Correlation Matrix of Ego Stages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1.0000 .7352 .8019 .6709 .5971 .2836 .4399 .4019 2 1.0000 .7265 .7770 .7384 .4150 .3527 .5321 3 1.0000 .6449 .6127 .2548 .4034 .3038 4 1.0000 .7113 .3861 .4419 .4467 5 1.0000 .6061 .5515 .5797 6 1.0000 .4019 .5800 7 1.0000 .3992 8 1.0000 129 normal population. The univariate F-tests between the two samples were significant on seven of the eight scales, with intimacy being the exception. lkiTable 4-12 one can find the mean and standard deviation of the ego stage scores for both samples as well as the F-test and probability values. Summary Eight criteria were applied to refine the item pool in each of the eight ego stage scales and to establish three validity indexes. These were 33 items that were eliminated from the stage scales since their frequencies in the non- mastery direction were less than .05. There were 57 items that correlated higher with the social desirability scale than with the ego stage for which it was written. The majority of the eliminated items (159) correlated higher with a successive stage than with its intended or with a previous ego stage. The content validity of items with a correlation of .25 or less with its own stage were re- evaluated and in 8 cases the items were eliminated. The reliability of the scales were computed and it was found that an item lowered the reliability of the stage scale only once. In addition, the discrimination value of the items were computed and with five items it was evaluated as being too low. The factor structure of the retained items within each stage scale were inspected- A principal factor solution was used and was followed by a varimax rotation. Only those factors with an eigenvalue in excess of one were rotated. l 3 0 Table 4—12 Comparison Between the Normal and Psychiatric Samples on the Ego Stage Scales Means Standard Deviation Fetest P Scale Nonmal Psychiatric Nonmal Psychiatric Trust 55.08 43.19 6.45 6.92 97.65 .00001 Autonomy 110.30 94.34 10.17 14.75 65.27 .00001 Initiative 76.49 63.00 7.81 10.01 82.13 .00001 Industry 193.14 164.59 18.72 24.96 63.34 .00001 Identity 103.44 91.66 9.73 12.21 40.62 .00001 Intimacy 88.34 85.56 10.74 11.30 1.94 .16504 Genera— 84.84 79.62 10.62 11.26 6.94 .00879 tivity Wisdom 74.75 69.06 8.56 8.64 12.81 .00039 131 Itenusthat.did not load onto a factor with a value greater than .25 were eliminated from the stage scale. This procedure resulted in the elimination of 22 items. The reliability of the factors were examined and in four cases an item lowered the internal consistency of the factor. There were 23 factors that emerged from the 8 stage scales. The reliability of the factors ranged from .68 to .92 with a mean of .84. The name of the factors, as well as their size and reliability, can be found in Table 4—13. The Guttman-like structure of the AAAP was investigated. Mastery of a stage was defined as responding in the resolution direction to over 80% of the items. It was found that the stages were arranged in the following order from least to most difficult: Stage 5, Stage 6, Stage 2, Stage 4, Stage 1, Stage 3, Stage 8, and Stage 7. This arrangement was not consistent with Eriksonis epigenetic conceptualzathmm. However, when the mastery levels were manipulated, the coefficient of reproducibility and the minimum marginal reproducibility were .80 and .66, respectively. There were three sets of validity indexes that were also examined in this study. There were 46 Modified Modified Crowne-Marlowe items embedded in the AAAP. It was found that 28 items correlated higher with the total social desirability scale than with any of the ego stage scales. These items were retained for a validity index to detect responding in a socially desirable manner. Likewise, the 33 Stage 132 Table 4-13 The Factors Emerging From the AAAP Name of Factor Number Basic Trust Will to be oneself Solitude Holding on, letting go Self-punishment and guilt Anticipation of roles by parents Apply self to task Win recognition by producing things Perserverance Competence Trust in Adults Confidence Trust in peers Ideological thought Molding identity Fidelity tests Commitment to affiliation Genital maturity Fusion with another Establishing and guiding next generation Charity Order and Meaning Accepting one‘s life cycle of Items 18 23 ll 13 23 4 26 31 15 18 12 10 16 8 13 10 19 11 7 17 15 17 13 Reliability .88 .89 .82 .82 .86 .81 .92 .93 .86 .85 .85 .79 .86 .79 .84 .79 .90 .83 .68 .88 .84 .83 .80 133 items that were responded to in either the mastery or non- mastery direction by less than 5% of the respondents were retained in a validity index to detect faking or responding in a disfavorable manner. There was also twelve pairs of consistency items, iJL, items with the same content but placed in different sections of the AAAP, that were designed to make up the third validity index. However, the correla- tion between the pairs was less than JNSiJieleven of the twelve pairs. There was no evidence at this time that these items can constitute a validity index to detect consistency. In Table 4-14 the number of items that were eliminated from the tests of Criterion 1 thru 7 and the total number of retained items are presented. IkiTable 4-15 the number of social desirability and consistency items eliminated and retained from the tests of Criterion 9 and 10 are presented. 134 Table 4-14 Results of the Tests of Criterion 1-7. Number of Eliminated Items STAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Criterion 1 l 9 4 7 5 2 2 3 33 (Item Frequencies Less than .05) Criterion 2 2 9 13 ll 10 6 l 5 57 (Correlates higher with social desirability) Criterion 3 12 45 21 11 25 7 6 32 159 (Correlates higher with successive stage) Content Reevaluation 0 5 0 0 l 0 l 1 8 Criterion 4 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 l (Decreases reliability of scale) Criterion 5 0 l l 1 l l 0 0 5 (Items discrimination is low.) Criterion 6 7 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 21 (Value less than .25 on a factor). Criterion 7 0 0 0 1 2 0 l 0 4 (Decreases factor reliability) Original Number 33* 107 67 96 80 44 42 70 539 Total Eliminated 22 71 41 33 47 16 13 45 288* Total Retained 18 36 26 63 33 28 29 25 258 *7 items were added from stage 2. 135 Table 4-15 Items Retained And Eliminated From Tests of Criterion 9 And 10 Eliminated Retained Social Desirability Items 18 28 Consistency Item Pairs 11 1 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter consists of a capsule summary of the study and the conclusions that were reached. In addition, impli- cations for future studies with the AAAP are discussed. Preliminary Work with the AAAP The AAAP had been designed by Farquhar, Wilson and Parmeter90 to measure the constructs of Eriksonls ego stage development theory as well as to assess a respondent's test- taking attitude through a set of validity indexes. The AAAPHs 673 items reflected positive and negative aspects to the eight Eriksonian stages. Embedded within the AAAP were 46 Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability items. In addition, there were twelve pairs of consistency items that were designed to assess the respondent's care in filling out the questionnaire. There had been no assessment of the instrument's validity or reliability. Summary of the Study During a content reevaluation period, the present investigator found that there were two types of items within 90Farquhar, Wilson and Parmeter, 1977. 136 137 the AAAP: mastery and stage-specific. .A mastery item corresponded to a developmental issue that once it is resolved, it remains resolved. With a stage-specific item, an individual in that stage responds to the statement differently than an individual in a prior or subsequent developmental stage. It is as if the individual was embedded in the issues of that stage. In the process of differentiating the items into mastery and stage-specific groups, four possible response patterns were conceptualized. The four patterns were the result of the two types of items (mastery and stage—specific) and the two directions (iJL, positive and negative aspects of each stage). It was found that of the 673 Eriksonian items, 539 were mastery and 127 were stage-specific. Seven items were eliminated since they did not adequately reflect the developmental constructs they were intended to measure. ‘ There were 354 subjects consisting of faculty and staff from Michigan State University and psychiatric patients at Pine Rest Christian Hospital. The sample was composed of middle age adults (mean age = 42), who were well educated (77% had at least a bachelor's degree), and had above average income (median = $20- $25,000). There were slightly more males (55%) than females (43%), and an overabundance of Caucasians (91%). The respondents volunteered to complete the AAAP, a consent form, and a demographic fact sheet. Due to the size of the instrument (719 items), they were instructed to 138 complete it over a number of sittings. They were also notified that the questionnaire was coded and that the names and codes were kept under tight security. The subjects responded to the items using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from "Definitely True of Me" to "Definitely Not True of Me". The analyses pertained to the mastery items solely since the pool of stage—specific items was inadequate. An item analysis was conducted to increase the internal consistency of each of the ego developmental scales. The item analysis consisted of examining an itenfls difficulty, discriminatory ability, and its correlation to the social desirability scale as well as to the ego stage scales. The reliability of the scale was also computed when the item was removed from the scale. The items for each stage that had survived the item analysis procedures were factor analyzed. A principal factor approach was used for each scale to examine the relationship among items and to find how item responses related to each other. A varimax rotation was executed following the principal factor analysis. Only those factors which had an eigenvalue in excess of one were rotated. Rotation was continued until: in at least three items or more remained on all factors, and 2) the results made psychological sense. Items that did not load onto a factor were eliminated. The reliability of the factors were also computed. In addition, the AAAPNs Guttman-like properties 139 were explored through the use of a scalogram analysis, since Erikson's proposed theory is hierarchical. The ten item criteria for the study and the results of the statistical tests are listed below. 1. Each item will be responded to in either the mastery or nonmastery direction by more than 5% of the respondents. It was found that 33 items had a frequency distribution in one direction of less than 5%. These items were considered for the F Scale. 2. Each item will correlate higher with the total stage score for which it was written than it will to the Modified Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale embedded in the AAAP. There were 57 items that correlated higher with the social desirability scale and were thus eliminated. 3. Each item will correlate higher with the total stage score for which it was written or to a previous stage total score than it will to a successive ego stage. It was found that 159 items correlated higher with a suc- cessive stage than with its intended or with a previous ego stage. These items were eliminated. 4. Each item will increase the internal consistency of the stage scale for which it was written. In one case an item decreased the reliability of the scale and was thus eliminated. 5. Each item will have a moderate or a high discrimi— nation value. There were 5 items with a low discrimi- 140 nation value and were thus eliminated from the scales. 6. A factor analysis of the items screened through tests of Criteria 1 thru 5 will yield an interpretable structure for each stage. Stage 1 had only one factor with an eigenvalue above 1. However, the remaining seven stages had multiple-factor structures. The items that did not load onto a factor with a valuetof.25 or greater were eliminated. There were 22 items that did not load at the required level. 7. Each item will increase the reliability of the factor. In 4 cases items lowered the internal consistency of the factor and were thus eliminated.’ 8. The AAAP will have a Guttman—like structure, such that, the stages will be mastered in ascending order from Stage ].‘UD Stage 8. Mastery was defined as responding in the resolution direction to over 80% of the items. It was found using the 80% criterion that stages were mastered from least to most difficult in the following order: Stage 5, Stage 6, Stage 2, Stage 4, Stage 1, Stage 3, Stage 8, and Stage 7. The mastery level was maniputed to arrange the stages in the proper order. The necessary mastery levels were as follows: Stage 1-67%: Stage 2-78%; Stage 3-69%; Stage 4-78%; Stage 5-85%; Stage 6-80%; Stage 7-73%; and Stage 8-84%. The coefficient of reproducibility was .80 and the minimum marginal reproducibility was .66 when the mastery levels were manipulated. 141 9. A social desirability item will correlate higher with the Modified Crowne—Marlowe Social Desirability Scale than to any of the ego stage scales. There were 28 items that correlated higher with the Social Desirability Scale than with any of the ego stage scales and were considered for retention in the social desirability validity index. 10. The twelve pairs of consistency items will be responded to in a similar manner and each pair will have a correlation of at least .75. It was found that only one pair had a correlation greater than .75. Conclusions The conclusion reached from the study were the following. 1. Stage 1 had 18 items that survived the tests of criterion 1 thru 7. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .88. There was only one faCtor that emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one. It was labelled Basic Trust. 2. There were 36 items in Stage 2 with an internal consistency of .91. Three factors emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one. The factors and their reliabilities were as follows: Will to be oneself (.89); Solitude (.82); and Holding on, letting go (.82). 3. There were 26 items in Stage 3 that survived the 142 tests of Criterion 1 thru 7. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .87. The two factors that emerged were: Self punishment and guilt (.86); and Anticipa- tion of roles by parents (.81). 4. Stage 4 had 63 items that were retained and an internal consistency of .95. Six factors emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one. They were: Apply self to task (.92);1Nin Recognition by producing things (.93); Perseverance L86); Competence L85);Tmust hi adults (.85); and Confidence (.79). 5. There were 33 items in Stage 5 with a reliability coefficient of .90. The four factors that emerged were: Trust in peers (.86); Ideological thought (.79); Molding identity (.84); and Fidelity tests (.79). 6. Stage 6 had 28 items that survived the tests of Criteria 1 thru 7. The alpha coefficient for the scale was .90. Three factors emerged with an eigenvalue greater than one. They were: Commitment to affiliation L90); Genital maturity L83); and Fusion with another L68). 7. There were 29 items in Stage 7 with an alpha coefficient of .89. The two factors that emerged were: Establishing and guiding the next generation L88); and Charity (.84). 8. Stage 8 had 25 items that survived the tests of Criteria 1 thru 7. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .85. The two factors that emerged were Order and 143 meaning (.83); and Accepting one's life cycle (.80). 9. There were 28 Modified Social Desirability items that correlated higher with the Crowne-Marlowe total scale than with any of the ego stage scales. The correlations ranged from .17 to .51. 10. The F Scale consisted of 33 items that had a frequency distribution of less than .05 in any one direction. This scale was designed to detect respondents trying to respond in a disfavorable manner. 11. The consistency validity index consisted of only one pair of items with a correlation above .75. The validity index did not perform the function for which it was designed. 12. The hierarchical structure of the AAAP was moderately evident. The mastery levelscfifthe stages were manipulated to order the stages from 1 to 8. The resulting index of reproducibility and the minimum marginal reproducibility were .80 and .66, respectively. 13. The correlations between stages were as expected. The correlations between the first five stages were higher L80 to ARM than the correlations between the last three stages (.61 to .25). Likewise, the correla- tions were higher with adjacent stages than with distant stages. 144 Implications for Future Research The Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP) is an objective and easily scored questionnaire designed to opera- tionalize the constructs of Erikson's epigenetic theory. The internal consistency of the ego scales are quite high (mean = .89) and the factors that emerge from each stage scale are consistent with Erikson's theory and are moder- ately reliable (mean = .84). The social desirability index is composed of items from the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desira- bility Scale, therefore, there is reason to trust the construct validity of this scale. The F scale validity index was constructed in the same manner as the MMPI F Scale. However, the cross-validation of the F scale, as well as the ego stage scales, are needed at this point since the development of the scales were based solely on the item responses of the sample. The number of items across stages is not uniform. Presently, there are 63 Stage 4 items and 18 Stage 1 items. The distribution of items in the other six stages range from 25tx336. There were seven items eliminated from Stage 1 because they loaded onto a factor that had an eigenvalue of less than one (the items are noted in Appendix J). However, the eigenvalue was .94 and all the items loaded on it with values greater than .20. These items reflected the "coping and stability" aspect of Stage 1. It may be wise to retain these seven items in a future study and reexamine their contribution at that time. The rational for this proposal 145 is that they appear to be measuring a secondary component of the stage. In addition, they contribute to the reliability of the scale and balance the distribution of items across stages. Likewise, a reevaluation of Stage 4 items in a future study is warrented. If there is an overlap of information with the six factors in Stage 4, then a further item analysis with the intent of eliminating items is justified. The consistency index did not behave as expected. The correlation between the pairs of items were quite low (mean = .47). Some may argue that the size of the original instrument may have been the cause, particularly with the directions to complete it over a number of sittings. However, the items are measuring constructs that should not change over a short period of time. A redevelopment of the consistency index or a reevaluation of it on a new sample is needed. There is evidence from this study to support the construct validity of the AAAP Scales. Cronbach and Meehl discussed the use of internal consistency and factor analysis in the establishment of construct validity. They stated that if a trait, such as Autonomy (Stage 2) is hypothesized and the items inquire about behaviors subsumed under this label, then the hypothesis requires that these items be generally intercorrelated.91 In this study the 9fTLee J. Cronbach and Paul Meehl, "Construct Validity in Psychological Tests," in Problems in Human Assessment, Eds. Douglas N. Jackson and Samuel Messick, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). 146 hypothesized traits representing Stages 1 thru 8 had internal consistency coefficients from .85 to .95. The items within each scale were highly homogeneous. Guilford92 and Eysenck93 discussed the use of factor analysis in the establishment of construct validity. They used factor analysis as a confirmatory procedure, such that, the factors that emerge from each stage should be consistent with the intended or hypothesized constructs. This consistency can be seen in the AAAP scales. An initial procedure in the development of the AAAP was the breakdown 'of the stages into components (see Figure 3—1). This outline served as a guide during item construction and editing. Evidence of construct validity was reflected in the congruence between the factors that resulted from the factor analysis and the outline of the constructs that was used in the item-construction process. The items clustered into expected sets that were consistent with Erikson's theory. However, a much stronger case would have been made if the items were identified a priori for each factor and the factor analysis confirmed the classification. It will be much easier to perform the confirmatory analysis in a future study since items are presently grouped under distinct factors within each stage. 92J.P. Guilford, "Factor Analysis in a Test-Develop- ment Program, Psychological Review, 55 (1948), 79-94. 93HflJ. Eysenck, "Criterion Analysis- An Application of the Hypothetico-Deductive Method in Factor Analysis," Psychological Review, 57 (1950), 38-53. 147 Future work with the AAAP should be in the form of cross validation studies. Although the ego stage scales have content and construct validity and are highly consistent, there isru>evidence of criterion validity at this time, run: is there a test-retest reliability coefficient. There are a number of approaches to establish the validity of the AAAP stage scales“ One approach is to identity two sets of individuals judged to be mastering and not mastering a particular stage. Differences would be expected between these two groups on the AAAP stage scale in question. For example, a group of adolescents with poor identity formation may be contrasted with a group of individuals beyond Stage 5 or with a set of individuals who are presently resolving the adolescent struggle. Differences in the Stage 5 AAAP scores should result between these two groups. This procedure would establish the predictive validity of a stage. The construct validity of the stages can be further established by identifyimg the characteristics surrounding mastery and nonmastery of a stage. For example, the research concerning Stage 5 indicates that role diffusion is related to anxiety, uncertainty about personal character- istics and poOr adjustment, while identity is associated with self-esteem“ a healthy self-concept, and consistency. The AAAP as well as measures of anxiety, adjustment and self-esteem may be administered to a group of adolescents. High scores on Stage 5 of the AAAP should be associated with 148 high scores on the self-esteem and adjustment measures. Likewise, low Stage 5 AAAP scores should be correlated with anxiety and maladjustment. The validity indexes also need to be validated. Individuals responding to the AAAP with 'fake good' and 'fake bad' instructions may shed some light on the social desirability and F scale indexes. 'Fake good' instructions should result in higher scores in the social desirability scale while 'Fake bad' instructions should increase the scores on the F Scale. A questionnaire composed of stage-specific items would complement and enhance the AAAP ego stage scales. The stage—specific scales would identify particular develop- mental issues that presently occupy the individual. This information as well as the factor scores on the mastery items, would be particularly helpful to practicing psycho- logists planning their therapeutic interventions. At this time more stage-specific items are needed since there is an under-representation in Stages 1, 6, 7, and 8. To analyze and establish the validity of the stage-specific items, it would be necessary to show that they correlate with the ego stage for which they were written and and show little rela- tionship with the other stage scores. The rationale for this analysis is to truly demonstrate their stage specifi— city. Erikson's epigenetic notion may be addressed with the use of the AAAP. Erikson assumed that the stages were 149 mastered in the same order for both sexes. However, there has been some speculation94 that the identity and intimacy stages may be reversed for women, such that, intimacy is a necessary prerequisite before a full resolution of the identity crisis can take place. In addition, the eight stages may, in fact, be reduced to a smaller set of factors. For example, in this study some form of trust was evident in the factors for Stages 1 (Basic Trust), 4 (Trust in Adults), and 5 (Trust in PeersL. It is also logical to assume that trust is a necessary prerequisite for intimacy (Stage 6) and in the belief that there is order and meaning in the world (Stage 8). The only other objective instrument designed to measure the eight ego stages was Boyd and Koskela's Self Description Questionnaire. The Self Description Questionnaire95 was developed with a college sample. There was no attempt to measure the constructs of the stages nor was there any attempt to establish scales to assess an individual's test- taking attitude. In addition, a scalogram analysis with the instrument was not made. However, the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) had two types of response instructions: Like-Unlike Me, and Concern-No Concern For Me. These two response categories may be similar to the mastery and stage- 94Carol Gilligan, "Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle," Harvard Educational Review, 49(1979), 431-446. 95Boyd and Koskela, pp. l-l4. 150 specific classifications, respectively. The SDQ also reported moderately high internal consistency coefficients for the Like-Unlike Me, and Concern—No Concern For Me Stage Scales (.61 to .89, and .67 to .80, respectively). A comparison between the SDQ and the AAAP may be helpful in further refining the properties and establishing the construct validity of the AAAP. In summary, this study has paved the way for future validation studies by refining the instrument into a more efficient and manageable form. The psychometric properties of the AAAP with the present sample should provide the necessary incentive for future investigators' efforts in cross validating the instrument. APPENDICES Appendix A - Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns (AAAP) All items are to be rated: l = Definitely true of me 2 = True of me 3 = Not true of me 4 = Definitely not true of me 1. Whatever stage of life I am in is the best 1 2 3 4 one. 2. Even when I find a grudge I hold is unfounded, 1 2 3 4 I have a hard time letting go of my resentment. 3. Compliments make me feel good. 1 2 3 4 4. My happiness is pretty much under my own 1 2 3 4 control. 5. My life is a delightful mixture of work and 1 2 3 4 play. 6. I feel disappointed and discouraged about 1 2 3.4 the work I do. 7. I am able to give reasons for my opinions 1 2 3 4 and reactions. 8. I believe in a personal God. 1 2 3 4 9. Most of my high school friends pretty well 1 2 3 4 had their heads together. 10. I generally feel pleased with my performance 1 2 3 4 when I talk in front of a group. 11. I do not show my weaknesses to anyone. 1 2 3 4 12. I have sufficient energy which I use to reach 1 2 3 4 my goals. 13. I can't tell ahead of time how people will 1 2 3 4 feel about the way I act. 14. I can make big decisions by myself. 1 2 3 4 151 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 152 As I look back at decisions I would now change I realize that I did the best I could at the time. At times I feel just plain sexy. I don't need to apologize for the way I act. I do many things well. I like to be with a group that plays jokes on each other. Before voting, I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all candidates. I have worked on a school committee. My mistakes annoy me, but do not frighten me. Even when I am doing something I really enjoy, I seem to be watching myself. Wishing is bad. I like to answer children's questions. I want to live a long life. I am happy with the pace or speed with which I make decisions. I believe laws should be strictly enforced. Ideas are more important than people to me. I admit my mistakes. Children bore me. When making a snap judgment, my first impulse is to trust my logic. I can make up my mind without difficulty. I can tell right away whether I can trust a stranger. For me to learn well, I need someone to explain things to me in detail. I handle my disappointments. 153 37. I stall rather than follow a rule I don't 1ike.l 2 3 4 38. No matter what the task, I prefer to get 1 2 3 4 someone else to help me. 39. When a mechanical thing goes wrong, I take 1 2 3 4 care of it myself. 40. I do not hesitate to go out of my way to 1 2 3 4 help someone in trouble. 41. Compliments embarrass me. 1 2 3 4 42. My high school friends, though unconventional, l 2 3 4 had their heads pretty well together. 43. I like problems that make me think for a long 1 2 3 4 time before I solve them. 44. My duties and obligations to others trap me. 1 2 3 4 45. I am irritable. 1 2 3 4 - 46. I would not like to have someone else tell me 1 2 3 4 how to solve my personal problems. 47. I lose my temper when things go wrong. 1 2 3 4 48. When someone says something critical about me, 1 2 3 4 I keep my composure. 49. I was made to feel extremely guilty about 1 2 3 4 masturbation. 50. It annoys me to be interrupted when I am 1 2 3 4 concentrating on something. 51. I analyze about my own motives and reactions. 1 2 3 4 52. I worry about my future. 1 2 3 4 53. New situations excite me. 1 2 3 4 54. Children talk to me about personal things. 1 2 3 4 55. I play around so much I have a hard time 1 2 3 4 getting a job done. 56. I'm a friend to everyone. 1 2 3 4 57. I do well in activities that require me to l 2 3 4 use my body rather than my mind. 154 58. I live in the past. 1 2 3 4 59. When I was a child I was proud of my 1 2 3 4 schoolwork. 60. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with l 2 3 4' my work if I am not encouraged. 61. The only person I am critical of is myself. 1 2 3 4 62. I'm just not very good with children. 1 2 3 4 63. When meeting other people for the first time, 1 2 3 4 I can tell right away whether they like or dislike me. 64. I am a citizen of the world. 1 2 3 4 65. There seems to be some kind of barrier between 1 2 3 4 the members of my own sex and me. 66. I had to work hard to break away from my 1 2 3 4 family. 67. For me, the persent is an island unrelated to 1 2 3 4 the past and future. 3 68. I can cry. 1 2 3 4 69. I must justify being selfish. l 2 3 4 70. I have taken time to help my neighbors when l 2 3 4 they need it. 71. I get a feeling for the meaning of life 1 2 3 4 through art. 72. Life is pretty confusing to me. 1 2 3 4 73. My basic responsibility in life is to take 1 2 3 4 care of my own needs. 74. I belong to a group that gets together 1 2 3 4 regularly for a sport or activity. 75. I don't show much mercy to a loser. 1 2 3 4 76. When I do something wrong, I know I'll get 1 2 3 4 caught. 77. My basic state of happiness is dependent upon 1 2 3 4 me. 155 78. I have never been close to anyone. 1 2 3 4 79. I need to have periods when I just let go and 1 2 3 4 act on my impulses. 80. I do not intensely dislike anyone. 1 2 3 4 81. I have had experiences in life when I have 1 2 3 4 been overwhelmed by good feelings. 82. I enjoy finding out whether or not complex 1 2 3 4 ideas work. 83. I am a stable, dependable worker. l 2 3 4 84. When I am alone, silence is difficult to l 2 3 4 handle. 85. I am obedient. l 2 3 4 86. I like problems which have complicated l 2 3 4 solutions. 87. I decide for myself whether I'll be what other 1 2 3 4 people want me to be. 88. I check things out for myself. 1 2 3 4 89. When I get bored, I like to stir up some 1 2 3 4 excitement. 90. When I finish a job, I feel satisfied with l 2 3 4 what I have done. 91. I am fun to be with. l 2 3 4 92. I think life is absurd. l 2 3 4 93. When I get angry at someone, I am afraid to l 2 3 4 let them know. 94. My judgment is sound. 1 2 3 4 95. People are more important than material things 1 2 3 4 to me. 96. When I argue, I use facts to support my 1 2 3 4 position. 97. I don't need much help from others to get 1 2 3 4 myself going. 98. I keep my word. 1 2 3 4 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 156 By church standards, I'm not very religious. On occasion, I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. I go out of my way to avoid an argument. I must defend my past actions. I lend things to my neighbors when they need them. I am at peace with myself. I feel most creative when I am alone. I am basically an unhappy person. With the person I am closest to, I share my inner feelings of tenderness. I like to talk about the people I know. My enthusiasm spreads to those around me. I have a good life. I give help when a friend asks a favor. People hurt my feelings without knowing it. I have clear ideas of what's right and wrong. I like to show off. I tell the truth, even if the consequences may be unpleasant. I devote time to helping people in need. I go out of my way to keep other people from littering. I wonder what I really should be like. I feed uncomfortable when things around me aren't orderly. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. I am not ashamed that at times I cry. 157 122. I have not found a person with whom I can 1 2 3 4 be close. 123. I feel I am drifting along in life without 1 2 3 4 much to do. 124. When the situation demands, I can go into deep 1 2 3 4 concentration concerning just about anything. 125. Most of my misfortunes have been the result of 1 2 3 4 my lack of ability, ignorance, or laziness. 126. I have had experiences in life which were so 1 2 3 4 intense that they were almost mystical. 127. I keep up with community news. 1 2 3 4 128. I purposely pick friends who lead their lives 1 2 3 4 effectively. 129. When I get angry at someone, it rarely wrecks 1 2 3 4 our relationship. 130. I'm a pretty together person. 1 2 3 4 131. I enjoy my work so much that it seems like 1 2 3 4 play. 132. I choose to be pessimistic because it's safer. l 2 3 4 133. When things are not going right in my work, 1 2 3 4 I let my feelings be my guide. 134. I'm proud that I have a lot of friends. 1 2 3 4 135. How many friends I have depends on how humble l 2 3 4 I am. 136. I play fair. 1 2 3 4 137. I refuse to do things if I know I‘m not good 1 2 3 4 at it. 138. I feel there is nothing I can do well. 1 2 3 4 139. Criticism in any form is hard for me to take. 1 2 3 4 140. I am careful about my manner of dress. 1 2 3 4 141. I began to masterbate when I was a child. 1 2 3 4 142. When things are not going right in my work, 1 2 3 4 I reason my way through the problems. 158 143. I am aware and sensitive toward others. 1 2 3 4 144. I am basically cooperative when I work. 1 2 3 4 145. It is hard for me to work on a thought problem 1 2 3 4 for more than an hour or two. 146. I am determined to be the kind or person I am. 1 2 3 4 147. In school there was a direct connection 1 2 3 4 between how hard I studied and grades I got. 148. I am willing to admit it when I don‘t know 1 2 3 4 something. 149. I'm the life of the party. 1 2 3 4 150. I get a feeling for the meaning of life 1 2 3 4 through contemplation. 151. I am exceptionally good at learning new sports 1 2 3 4 or activities requiring physical coordination. 152. I ignore the feelings of others. 1 2 3 4 153. I like to participate in intense discussions. 1 2 3 4 154. I dominate my acquaintances of my own age. 1 2 3 4 155. I have made arrangements for part of my estate 1 2 3 4 to go for humanitarian purposes. 156. I have a lot of energy. 1 2 3 4 157. It is hard for me to keep my mind on what I l 2 3 4 am trying to learn. 158. I am outspoken. 1 2 3 4 159. I get stage fright when I have to appear 1 2 3 4 before a group. 160. My table manners at home are as good as when 1 2 3 4 I eat out in a restaurant. 161. I enjoy privacy. 1 2 3 4 162. When I tell a story, I bend the facts to 1 2 3 4 make it interesting. 163. I learn things at least as fast as the 1 2 3 4 average person does. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177 I 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 159 I learn things as fast as most people do who have my ability. The closest I get to another person is to share my opinions and ideas. People get only one chance with me. My body is sufficiently healthy to allow me to do what I want to do. I read a great deal even when my work does not require it. It is very important that my mate likes to snuggle. I hide my feelings from others. I remember the things people say to me. I handle myself well at social gatherings. 1 l I get along better with people of the opposite 1 sex than I do with people of my sex. I feel uneasy when I am diffferent from the people around me. 1 I like people who say what they really believe.l I work to make my community better for children. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be. Injustice makes me feel angry. I master a new sport or physical activity at least as well as the average person. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do it. I belong to a club or lodge. People can tell when I lie. How many friends I have depends on how pleasant a person I am. 1 2 2 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199 O 200. 201. 202. 203. 160 I get a feeling for the meaning of life through nature. My misfortunes have been the result of mistakes I have made. I am confident when learning something new which requires that I put myself on the line. I have difficulty in getting down to work. I get along with people. I am self—confident. I'd like to be younger than I am. I feel jealous when others get ahead of me in life. The closest I get to another person is to share facts and information. A person's social standing in life has little effect on how I treat them. I try to figure out what people really mean by what they say. I think about the big issues of life. I compare prices before I buy anything. When I'm with a sexually attractive person, I feel aroused. I worry or condemn myself when other people find fault with me. I feel that people are genuinely interested 1n me. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. Even if I don't agree with someone, I figure out some way to get along with them. I have worked out my philosophy of life. I give clothing and other items to charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army. H H H 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 161 I like to discuss ways to solve the world's problems. Not having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex makes me feel lonely and empty. I have so many goals, I get bogged down. I see to it that my work is carefully planned and organized. I am more concerned with the way things should be than with the way things are. I like the way young children say exactly what they think. I deeply resent it when people try to control life. It is very important that my mate be thoughtful of me. I feel ashamed of myself. My parents caused my troubles. I go out of my way to avoid being embarrassed. 'I need persons of authority to tell me what I am to do. I have difficulty imagining how other people feel. When I stop to look at something, I find that I am fascinated by what I see. In order to be popular, I often put on an act. As I look back over my life, I find very little about which I feel proud. I like to gossip at times. I do not litter. Although it annoys me, I do favors for people when they ask. I am more inclined to compete then I am to cooperate. (A a. w: .9 p 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 162 In general I'm satisfied with my decisions about right and wrong. When I sit down to learn something, I get so caught up that nothing can distract me. When I'm angry, I am afraid I may do something terrible. People like me. I do good work with my hands. I do not understand myself. I have been taken advantage of by my friends. I was raised in a happy family. When making an important decision, I trust my gut level feelings. I worry about being different from other people. When I find inconsistencies within myself, I resolve them. I'm interested in people. Children should play mostly with children, not with adults. I have gone door-to—door collecting money for charity. There are some things I feel so strongly about that I will not give in on them. I only feel good when I make someone else happy. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. With the person I am closest to, I share my inner fears. About the only time I do much thinking is at my work. My life is what I made it to be. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 163 I enjoy the unpredictable. I like to be by myself a part of every day. I make sure I know something about the issues and the candidates when I vote. I publically question statements and ideas expressed by others. I lose control when things go wrong. When I'm in a group, I feel confident that what I have to say is acceptable. I have met and formed my own opinions about the leaders of my community. When someone finds fault with me, I feel uneasy. I like being by myself. I prefer to stay at home rather than to go to parties. I enjoy unexpected free time. I think people like to help each other. I ask others for help. My morals are determined by the thoughts, feelings, and decisions of other people. I accept disappointments and learn from them. I handle my problems on my own. No matter who I'm talking to, I‘m a good listener. I can toterate a temporary discomfort to gain a greater good. The notion of a personal god seems ridiculous. I believe people are basically good. I don't work well with someone watching over my shoulder. I believe most conversations are insincere. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 164 I enjoy being sexually stimulated by someone I care about. I have had an experience where life seemed just perfect. People find it easy to tell me things that really bother them. Reading or talking about sex stimulates me. Circumstances beyond my control are what make me a basically unhappy person. I frighten easily. If I have something to say, I say it. People expect too much of me. I have a great sex life. I like to flirt. 1 1 My life would not be meaningful without a mate.l The best experiences of my life are those that occur spontaneously. I know who I am. I enjoy being in a crowd just to be with people. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. I have been so close to someone that our relationship seemed almost mystical. I can work on ideas for hours. My values are formed from many sources, and I integrate them to give meaning to my life. I have developed an interest in something new in the past year. I have feelings of doom about the future. I get into relationships faster then I really want to. 1 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 165 I find people are consistent. I never have a serious talk with my friends about my sexual experiences. I believe in life after death. I feel deep concern for people who are less well off than I am. I am more rebellious than most people. It is very important that my mate loves me. I don't worry whether anyone else will like the friends I choose. I spend time reflecting on good experiences I have had in the past. I feel useless. I like curious children. No matter what the task, I prefer to do it myself. I express my feelings. Basically I feel adequate. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. I am proud of the accomplishments I have made at work. When I get angry at someone, I tell them about it, and it's over. I have "put myself on the line" in my relations with others. My social life is full and rewarding. When I feel worried, there is usually a pretty good reason. I get along well with members of the opposite sex. I have intervened when I thought one person was taking advantage of another. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 166 I'm not the person I pretend to be. I am not afraid of my anger. I have known someone who was such an extraordinarily fine human being that I held that person in awe. When things are not going right, I look to my inner feeling to figure out what's wrong. It's easy for me to know whether people really like me. To gain a greater good, I will express my feelings even though I expect that others will be upset with me. If someone criticizes me to my face, I listen closely to what they are saying about me before reacting. I work well under a great deal of tension. At a large party, I spend a little time with almost everybody there. When I get tricked, I am bitter toward those who tricked me. The closest I get to other people is to go through the social amenities, such as "hi" or "how are you". I have a sense of awe about the complexity of things in the universe. I'm willing to admit it when I make a mistake. I am comfortable in the presence of people of any age. The rudeness of other people does not determine how I respond. I can take a stand. When I get angry, I blow off steam and it's over. I am a worthwhile person. My word is my bond. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 34].. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 167 I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. I have volunteered my name as a witness at the scene of a crime or an accident. I find there are a lot of fun things in this world to do alone. I enjoy going to a social function either with a group or by myself. I prefer to save good things for future use. I am totally trusting about my friendships. I enjoy interacting with children. I need reasons to justify my feelings. When I get bored, I do something that generally gets me in trouble. I have broken rules. I enjoy acting on the spur of the moment without stopping to think. If I can't solve a problem quickly, I lose interest. I am surprised at how many people know me. I try to practice what I preach. People respect my work because I do a good job. After a lot of hard struggling, I am comfortable being me. I have worked out my own guidelines for living my life. Even though I am pretty much in touch with who I am, I am always discovering new aspects of myself. I will probably always be working on new projects. Completed and polished products have a great appeal for me. H F4 +4 168 347. My feelings are easily hurt. 348. I like spending money the way I want. 349. There is little point in doing things if the timing is not right. 350. No one understands me. 351. When I was younger, I wanted to run away from home. 352. Young people today are doing a lot of fine things. 353. I feel more confident playing games of skill than games of chance. 354. Gossip makes me angry. 355. It's hard for me to say "no" without feeling guilty. 356. I put on a show to impress people. 357. When I am trying to work through my feelings of sadness, I will not let someone take away those feelings. 358. Rather than bluff, I admit I made a mistake. 359. When I discipline even a little child, I try to give a reason. 360. I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loudmouthed, obnoxious people. 361. I like it when others vigorously challenge my point of view. 362. It is very important that my mate likes to touch me and be touched by me (hold hands, hug, etc.). 363. I can't make people like me. 364. Being close to another person means sharing my inner feelings. 365. My work is usually up to the standards set for me. 366. I can stay with a job a long time. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 169 My life is the result of choices I have made. I like other people to notice me. I am close to someone with whom I talk about my feelings. I enjoy the times I spend with young people. The truth belongs to every person; there should be no secrets. I feel angry when people tell me things just to make me feel good. I get caught up in my work. The best experiences in life are those that I plan, do, and then remember with fondness. I am proud of my accomplishments. I get so lonely I find myself desperately ‘ trying to impress the opposite sex. My pet makes my life less lonely. I wonder about questions such as whether people really have free choice in life. When I do something against my basic values, I get disgusted with myself. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. I feel strongly about some things. My free time is spent aimlessly. I have had moments of intense happiness, when I felt like I was experiencing a kind of ecstasy or natural high. I get a feeling for the meaning of life through music. I get a thrill out of understanding what‘s below the surface of an idea. I am critical of my own behavior. My day-to-day frustrations do not get in the way of my activities. 388. 389 O 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 170 The best times of my life were in the past. My sexual life is satisfying. I go at my work without much planning ahead of time. I can be silly only under very exceptional circumstances. There are people I don't like. When I start to care about someone, I usually end up hurting the person. People intrigue me. I will be punished for my sins in the hereafter. I am afraid of making mistakes. LIfe has treated me pretty well. My past dictates what kind of person I am. I like to solve problems. When I don‘t know something, I don't at all mind admitting it. Being teased by someone who cares for me can be fun. I feel good when others do something nice for me. I work poorly under leaders who make all the decisions by themselves. Even when I am doing something I really enjoy, I can never get totally involved. I like being able to change my plans without having to check with somebody. I am afraid of growing old alone. I do not expect people to be consistent. There are questions that interest me which will not be answered in my lifetime. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. I I 171 am an even-tempered person. 1 try hard to impress people with my ability. 1 The more I look at things, the more I see 1 how everything fits with everything else. I have felt so angry, I have wanted to l destroy or hurt others. Children's imaginations fascinate me. 1 I am happy. 1 In order to be popular, at times I am phony. l I worry about things that never happen. 1 I work at predicting what will happen in l the future. I enjoy children, but not infants. 1 I take good care of myself physically. l I never like to gossip. l I get along best with another person when 1 I can get my own needs met in the relationship. When doing a routine job, my imagination l helps keep me entertained. When I get hold of a complicated problem, 1 I return to it again and again until I come up with a workable solution. I I I I I live by the rules and standards of society. 1 like who I am. 1 get those things done that I want to do. 1 enjoy acting on my impulses. l have had experiences in life when I have 1 felt so good, I have felt completely alive. When I get angry at someone, I fight dirty. 1 My plans work out. 1 I feel proud of my accomplishments. l 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 172 I enjoy being playful like a child. I have intentionally hurt someone's fellings just to make myself feel better. I fight dirty. People like to be with me. I pick up other people's litter. It seems right to me that some people like me, and some people don't. I think the best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. When I was young, there were times I wanted to leave home. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. When I took a new course in school, I felt confident I would do all right. I am for truth, no matter how the chips may fall. I have known some people who seemed like saints. I'm too easily influenced by other people's opinions. I can express affection without always needing to have it returned. I enjoy being sexually stimulated by someone I don't know. I have been so close to somebody, that it is not possible to find adequate words to describe the feeling. I enjoy using my imagination. I think people pretend to care about each other than they really do. I feel annoyed when I am pushed to be just like everybody else. H H P‘ k4 be M NNNN 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460. 461. 462. 463. 464 O 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 173 I don't back off from something when I think I am right. I know the children who live in my neighborhood. I am annoyed with people whose indecisiveness interferes with my work. When in school, I enjoyed trying to figure out the questions the teacher might ask on a test. Life gets better as I get older. How many friends I have depends on how pleassing a person I am. I will go to great lengths to avoid feeling sad. There are some people I hate so much I wish they were dead. I give in if a person insists on a point, even if I don't agree with them. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. I am lovable. I pretend I care about people more than I really do. I like being able to come and go as I please. I believe the best times are yet to come. My family understood me while I was growing up. Even in my friendships, I look out for my own interests. I can see little reason why anyone would want to compliment me. I look forward to having a deep, intimate relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Being deeply involved with someone of the opposite sex is really important to me. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 481. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 174 Having a long-term relationship with a mate is not for me. It's good to be alive. I cannot focus my attention on one thing at a time. When someone does me wrong, I examine my own feelings in depth, to see what I might have done to contribute to the situation. I'm choosy about whom I select as a friend, because I know I can be taken advantage of easily. I wouldn't enjoy having sex with someone I was not close to. When I was prepared, teachers couldn‘t fool me with trick questions. I can work even when there are distractions. I am calm. I am picky about my food. I would not think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. I live mostly for the moment. I think I will go on being curious until the day I die. I find myself thinking about things much more 1 deeply then I did in years past. My values change as I discover more about life and the universe. I am dedicated to my work. I believe the best times were in the past. 1 1 Whatever age I am always seems to be the best.l I have taken action to donate vital organs to 1 science for research or for transplants. An unimportant thought may bother me for days. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 175 It makes me furious when I have to work under 1 pressure. It annoys me to have to work hard. 1 When I get angry at someone, I boil inside 1 without letting them know. I am strong enough to make up my own mind on 1 difficult questions. I feel optimistic about life. 1 I welcome the opportunity to meet new people. 1 I am active in community or school 1 organizations. There seems to be some kind of barrier 1 between me and members of the opposite sex. Religion is not very important to me. 1 In my work I show individuality and l originality. I do not resent being asked to return a favor.l It is very important that my mate be faithful.1 I am annoyed with people whose indecisiveness l affects my life. I feel uneasy if I don't know the next step 1 in a job. Mostly I like to just sit at home. 1 I no longer feel the need to prove myself to 1 other people. With conditions as they are, I find little 1 hope for the future. I can't stand the children who live in my 1 neighborhood. I don't care whether or not I get anywhere 1 in life. When I get tricked, my basic faith in people 1 is shaken. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 530. 176 I like being me. I seem to understand how other people are feeling. I enjoy doing favors for my friends. Everything I do has a purpose. I enjoy thinking about the things I do better than other people. My only ambition is to develop myself as a person. The inner wisdom of people never ceases to amaze me. No one person meets all my needs. I am confident when learning a complicated task. In times of crisis, I'm one of the first people my friends call for help. I am not irked when people express ideas very different from my own. I like finding out how things work. I believe the best times are now. I enjoy working on practical problems more than on theoretical problems. I take the unexpected in my stride. I feel ill at ease when I am introduced to someone. Once I have committed myself to a take, I complete it. How many friends I have depends on how sexy a person I am. I am dissatisfied with my sex life. I don't think I'll ever find someone to love. I enjoy parties. H 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544. 545. 546. 547. 548. 549. 550. 551. 177 I regret the times my behavior has hurt others. I feel self-confident in social situations. When meeting people for the first time, I can tell right away whether I like or dislike them. I am comfortable being alone. When I decide to do something, I am determined to get it done. Gossip annoys me. I am a good liar. It takes something of real significance to upset me. I am desperate to have a deep intimate relationship with the opposite sex. I do not make long trips without checking the safety of my car. I joke with my friends about sex. My time is spent preparing to live. My parents treated me fairly. People look up to and respect me. I do things just to get a reaction from other people. Every day I need periods of quiet. I save my energy for important issues. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am. I cannot stand silence. If I were one of the few surviving persons from a worldwide war, I would make it. If someone criticizes me to my face, I feel low and worthless. H he re 178 552. I take extreme likes or dislikes to people. 1 553. I get so lonely, I find myself trying to find 1 ways to attract someone to be close to. 554. I dreaded growing older, and I was right. 1 555. I don't follow fads. l 556. I can work under pressure. 1 557. I prefer to carry out an activity or job, 1 rather than to do the planning for it. 558. I trust the spontaneous decisions I make. 1 559. My secret ambition is to become a famous 1 person. 560. There have been times when I was quite l jealous of the good fortune of others. 561. As far as I know about myself, once I choose 1 a mate, I do so for life. 562. I like loud fun. 1 563. I like both my aggressive and tender feelings.l 564. I punish myself when I make mistakes. '1 565. It takes a lot to frighten me. 1 566. At a large party, I seek out a few people 1 and spend my time only with them. 567. I cheat when I think I won't be caught. 1 568. I like everyone I know. 1 569. The thought of making a speech in front of 1 a group panics me. 570. I obey rules without questioning them. 1 571. I think most people dislike putting l themselves out to help other people. 572. I learn well when someone gives me the 1 problem and lets me work out the details for myself. 573. I am proud of my work. 1 179 574. I avoid talking about my past, because I feel bitter about the things I have missed. 575. Most of my high school friends were pretty messed up. 576. I am always a loyal friend. 577. In times of trouble I have friends I turn to. 578. Being helpful to others comes naturally for me. 579. People cannot expect to get to know me in a short period of time. 580. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. 581. When I'm angry with someone, I cannot continue to work with them. 582. I act independently of others. 583. I eat balanced meals. 584. With the person I am closest to, I share my inner feelings of weakness. 585. It is important to me to know how I will live each moment of my life. 586. I have gone door—to-door collecting signatures on a petition. 587. I am a highly emotional person. 588. I feel a deep sense of bitterness about what I have missed in life. 589. I usually talk with strangers when I travel. 590. When somebody does me wrong, I get so hung up on my own feelings I can't do anything but brood. 591. My friends tend to have a lot of personal problems. 592. I am cool and calm when I work. 593. I get so caught up with what I am doing, that I lose track of time. 594. 595. 596. 597. 598. 599. 600. 601. 602. 603. 604. 605. 606. 607. 608. 609. 610. 611. 612. 613. 614. 615. 180 I enjoy being sexually stimulated. I only like learning facts that relate to my own experiences. I enjoy things that make me think. I have more social life than I really want. I'm a loner. I am ashamed of some of my emotions. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. With the person I am closest to, I share my inner feelings of confidence. I enjoy the challenge of having to do things for myself. I am proud of having a clear moral position. No matter what the task, I prefer to get someone to do it for me. I have a basic respect for myself. I make my own decisions. I am confused by the way people treat me. When I die, it's going to take three days to wipe the smile off my face. I say things that hurt people's feelings. Living for the future gives my life basic meaning. I do my duty. When making a snap judgment, my first impulse is to trust my gut feelings. I learn fast. I feel embarrassed when people give me presents. I value highly the deep relationships I have formed with members of the opposite sex. H F‘ rd H H H' h“ H 616. 617. 618. 619. 620. 621. 622. 623. 624. 625. 626. 627. 628. 629. 630. 631. 632. 633. 634. 181 I find it difficult to carry on a light conversation. I feel inferior to most people. How many friends I have depends on how decent a person I am. If a clerk gives me too much change, I correct the error. I have not felt that I was punished without cause. I want concrete or tangible products, not ideas, to show for my work. For me, sex and love are tightly linked together. I get a feeling for the meaning of life through ideas. If I see children doing something destructive, I ask them to stop. How many friends I have depends on how right and perfect a person I am. If I want to, I can charm a member of the opposite sex. I generally attend community or school meetings. I enjoy explaining complex ideas. I either tell the truth or shut up. I give blood (or I would if not medically prohibited). I have definite views about religion. The happiest years of my life were when I was younger. I have been so close to someone, that at times it seemed like we could read each other's mind. My life has clear direction. ...—I 635. 636. 637. 638. 639. 640. 641. 642. 643. 644. 645. 646. 647. 648. 649. 650. 651. 652. 653. 654. 182 Because I have to be so different from situation to situation, I feel that the real me is lost. I have no one with whom I feel close enough to talk over my day. My life is all mixed up. As I look back at my past decisions, although I wish I might have done things differently, I realize those were the best decisions I could make at the time. I have serious doubts about my religious beliefs. Sometimes I think that when people have misfortunes, they are getting what they deserve. I am a serious person. Even though I do not like the thought of it, my death does not frighten me. I am good at solving puzzles. I am amazed at how many problems no longer seem to have simple right and wrong answers. I feel angry when peOple say one thing and mean something else. PeOple of the opposite sex think well of me. I am good at making small talk. I am fair in my dealings with others. I make it a point to vote in all elections. I have actually sought out information about my school board members in order to form an opinion. I feel guilty when I am selfish. When I have to speed up and meet a deadline, I can still do good work. I find it easy to introduce people. I value keeping contact with my family. H H‘ k4 (a H WOOD) 655. 656. 657. 658. 659. 660. 661. 662. 663. 664. 665. 666. 667. 668. 669. 670. 671. 672. 673. 674. 183 I take care of myself. Nothing is worth losing contact with my family. For me to act on a sexual urge, I have to have feelings for the other person. When it's time to go to bed, I fall asleep easily. I learn from constructive criticism. I have not deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. My religious beliefs and values are complex and not easily explained. People rarely forget my first name. I like to participate actively in intense discussions. I never have serious talks with my friends. I would not care to be much different than I am. I make my own decisions without relying on the directions of other people. I constantly need excuses for why I behave the way I do. I feel that others care about what happens to me. I like children. There are moments when I feel as though I might go to pieces. There are some things in life that people just should not question. I have very few good qualities. For me to work well, I need to have things explained in detail. My feelings about nature are almost sacred. 675. 676. 677. 678 O 679. 680. 681. 682. 683. 684. 685. 686. 687. 688. 689. 690. 691. 692. 693. 184 I tend to lose a sense of my own personal significance in the face of the complexity of the universe. I get a feeling of the meaning of life through people. My life has meaning only when my day-to-day existence fits with my plans for the future. Other people determine the kind of person I am. I feel free to express both warm and hostile. feelings to my friends. I have no doubts about my ability to succeed in life. Feelings of guilt hold me back from doing what I want. When I do something wrong, I do something to make up for it. I have a person with whom I talk about my deepest feelings about sex. I sometimes get so involved in others that I lose my sense of self. As I think about my past, there are some points about which I feel ashamed. I can be silly when I feel like it. When it comes to sex, I like the thrill of the chase most. I resent being bossed. There is at least one person in my life with whom I can talk about anything. I am sensitive to how other people feel. I am proud of the things I have acquired. With the person I am closest to, I share my inner anxieties. I am pretty much the same person from situation to situation. 694. 695. 696. 697. 698. 699. 700. 701. 702. 703. 704. 705. 706. 707. 708. 709. 710. 711. 712. 713. 714. 185 Quilt is a feeling I seem to have outgrown. 1 My free time is usually spent with my friends.l I do things for my community. I want the people I value to know what I'm really like. I think it is all right to get around the law, if I don't actually break it. It's pretty neat to be me. I am sloppy about my manner of dress. I trust others. I don't particularly enjoy nature; therefore I don't spend much time being in it. When someone questions my worth as a person, I worry that they may be right. I wonder whether people react to things the same way I do. I get a feeling for the meaning of life through beauty. When I feel tense, there is a good reason. I like myself. I feel awkward around members of the opposite sex. I try to cover up when I make a mistake. Getting along with loudmouthed, obnoxious people is impossible for me. When I don't know something I try to cover it up. I just can't be courteous to people who are disagreeable. I would let someone take the blame for my wrongdoings, if I thought I could get away with it. I hate it when people expect me to return a favor. 1 1 NNN 186 715. When people express ideas very different from my own, I am annoyed. 716. I rarely check the safety of my car no matter how far I am traveling. 717. The urge to tell someone off is not part of my make up. 718. I have been punished unfairly. 719. Sometimes I deliberately hurt someone's feelings. 187 Appendix B Respondent's Assessment of Their Physical Well Being. Rating Frequency Percent l 0 0.0 2 Unhealthy l .3 3 2 .6 4 11 3.1 5 Average 1 25 7.1 6 31 8.8 7 75 21.2 8 Healthy - 135 38.1 9 65 18.4 No Response 9 2.5 188 'Appendix C Respondent's Assessment of Their Emotional Well Being Rating Frequency Percent l 0 0 2 Unhappy 6 1.7 3 10 2.8 4 17 4.8 5 Average 27 7.6 6 39 11.0 7 74 20.9 8 Happy 136 38.4 9 36 10.2 No Response 9 2.5 189 Appendix D Respondent's Job Satisfaction Rating Frequency Percent l 5 1.4 2 Dissatisfied 5 1.4 3 13 3.7 4 19 5.4 5 Average 23 6.5 6 39 11.0 7 96 27.1 8 Satisfied 105 29.7 9 38 10.7 No Response 11 3.1 190 Appendix E Respondent's Rating of Their Personal Relationships Rating Frequency Percent l 0 2 Dissatisfied 8 2.3 3 18 5.1 4 11 3.1 5 Average 21 5.9 6 41 11.6 7 92 26.0 8 Satisfied 119 33.6 9 35 9.9 No Response 9 2.5 191 Appendix F Request for Participation in Study Dear MSUEA Member: A psychology is not complete if it studies illness but not health, weakness but not strength, surviving but not thriving. After nearly four years of preparation, we have developed a research instrument to study the mastery of problems encountered in the development of adults. What we need from you is your time to answer a measure of adult adjustment patterns. This instrument is long so it will take about three hours of your time to complete. But most people find filling out the instrument interesting because they get a chance to think over many issues about their own total development. If you are willing to do this task for us, fill out the enclosed card and send it to us in the campus mail. You will then‘receive a copy of the instrument which has a special code sheet enclosed. ‘Your name and code number will be separated from your questionnaire and kept under tight security so no one but Dr. William W. Farquhar or Dr. Frederick R” Wilson will have access to such information. Because of the length of the instrument we want yout to take it over a number of sittings. Work until you feel tired-- come back to it later when you are refreshed. We know we are asking a lot form you but we need your help desperately. For too long we have neglected research on the normal, functioning person. One reason, of course, is that you are not an easy group to contact. Therefore, if you will send in the enclosed form and take it upon yourself to complete the instrument you will be making a magnanimous contribution to the science of human behavior. We need roughly 2000 volunteers to answer the questions in our instrument in order to facilitate analysis of the adjustment scales. If you are willing to participate or if you would like additional information before deciding, fill out the card below and mail it through campus mail to Dr. William W. Farquhar, 439 Erickson Hall, MSU. Sincerely, William W. Farquhar, Professor Frederick R. Wilson Assistant Professor 1. 192 Appendix G Consent Form For Michigan State Sample I freely consent to take part in a scientific study being conducted by William W. Farquhar, Professor of Education, and F. Robert Wilson, Assistant Professor of Education. I have read the letter of explanation of the study, and I understand the explanation and what my participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participa- tion in study at any time. ‘However, in the interest of contributing to the knowledge of how normal adults develop, I will try my best to finish the part of the study to which I have committed myself, if I can do so in good conscious. I understand that if I do not complete the questionnaire within three weeks I will be contacted by William Farquhar. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that after I return the AAAP my responses will be coded and remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, resultscnfthe study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participa- tion is completed. Signed Date 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 193 Appendix H AAAP Fact Sheet Code Number Your age in years: Your race: l-Oriental, 2-Caucasian, 3-Black, 4-Other Sex: l—Male, Z-Female How many children do you have: Age (in years) of youngest child: (put X if no children) Age (in years) of oldest child: (put X if no children) Marital Status: l-Married 2-Pair Bonded 3-Divorced 4-Widowed 5-Never Married 6-Never Pair Bonded If married more than once, how many marriages? (If once or none put X) Income: l-Under $4000 2-$4000-6000 3-$6000-10,000 4-$10,000-15,000 5-$15,000-20,000 6-$20,000-25,000 7-$25,000-30,000 8-$30,000-35,000 9-Over $40,000 Education: (CHeck highest level completed) l-Grade school 2-Junior High 3—High School 4-Trade school 5-BS/BA 6-MS/MA 7-EDS 8-PhD/MD Rate Your social standing: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lower Middle Upper Rate your sense of physical well being: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unhealthy Average Healthy Rate your sense of emotional well being: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unhappy Average Happy Rate your sense of job satisfaction: 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 Dissatisfied Average Satisfied Rate your sense of satisfaction with personal relationships: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dissatisfied Average Satisfied 1. 194 Appendix I Consent Form For Pine Rest Christian Hospital Sample I freely consent to take part in a scientific study being conducted by William W. Farquhar, Professor of Education, and F. Robert Wilson, Assistant Professor of Education. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participa- tion in the study at any time. However, in the interest of contributing to the knowledge of how normal adults develop, I will try my best to finish the part of the study to which I have committed myself, if I can do so in good conscious. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that after I return the AAAP my responses will be coded and remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, resultscnfthe study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participa— tion is completed. Signed Date C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 CR Rejected Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion 195 Key For Appendix J Thru Q 6: 7: Item frequency less than .05. Item correlates higher with social desirability. Item correlates higher with subsequent stage. Item Item Item Item lowers reliability of scale. has low discriminatory value. loads less than .25 on factor. lowers reliability of factor. Item eliminated due to content reevaluation. 196 Appendix J Stage 1 Items Correlations With Ego Stages And The Social Desirability Scale Item** # l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* 12 .49 .47 .49 .51 .43 .21 .30 .40 .30 R-C3 36 .57 .57 .59 .49 .46 .24 .34 .47 .42 R-C3 53 .37 .41 .35 .36 .44 .31 .30 .35 .28 R-C3 78 .22 .29 .29 .17 .34 .39 .22 .26 .10 R-C3 156 .48 .43 .44 .44 .44 .28 .31 .40 .31 167 .34 .35 .37 .30 .31 .21 .17 .24 .24 R-C3 258 .42 .45 .41 .43 .40 .27 .23 .43 .35 R-C3 263 .41 .31 .37 .33 .38 .26 .36 .36 .30 R-C6 271 .49 .46 .48 .45 .37 .18 .33 .36 .37 285 .53 .45 .48 .40 .37 .19 .30 .41 .43 287 .34 .22 .32 .24 .14 .00 .12 .16 .27 317 .12 .07 .10 .01 -.01 -.01 .03 -.02 .23 R-C2 402 .29 .34 .31 .34 .41 .38 .24 .38 .21 R-Cl 407 .00 -.09 .04 -.05 -.08 -.11 -.07 -.04 .05 R-C2 409 .38 .26 .30 .23 .22 .04 .25 .23 .36 R-C6 414 .63 .59 .61 .49 .51 .28 .35 .56 .43 419 .32 .32 .34 .30 .31 .23 .16 .25 .27 R-C3 461 .32 .35 .31 .28 .49 .45 .31 .41 .21 R-C3 478 .52 .44 .43 .39 .30 .13 .22 .39 .40 479 .29 .18 .23 .16 .18 .13 .21 .21 .19 R-C6 494 .68 .61 .56 .55 .52 .33 .44 .61 .45 495 .47 .46 .47 .42 .55 .43 .42 .45 .37 R-C3 197 Appendix J (cont.) Stage 1 Items Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* 509 .29 .30 .29 .28 .18 .02 .16 .15 .26 R-C3 524 .53 .52 .53 .41 .38 .19 .28 .39 .43 525 .42 .36 .40 .30 .43 .26 .30 .27 .26 R-C3 538 .49 .37 .39 .37 .34 .17 .27 .38 .45 R-C6 550 .49 .47 .40 .43 .47 .29 .37 .41 .30 565 .47 .44 .42 .40 .37 .20 .32 .34 .36 R-C6 583 .37 .32 .33 .33 .28 .21 .24 .29 .31 658 .41 .36 .37 .31 .28 .25 .24 .32 .26 668 .43 .45 .45 .35 .58 .47 .37 .44 .36 R-C3 701 .50 .38 .41 .36 .38 .26 .35 .38 .46 706 .52 .51 .50 .42 .47 .33 .35 .43 .37 R-C6 1 .49 .45 .46 .33 .35 .20 .21 .44 .32 52 .47 .40 .41 .31 .27 .14 .18 .31 .35 106 .55 .50 .52 .37 .40 .18 .29 .45 .34 299 .59 .59 .57 .58 .51 .22 .31 .53 .33 305 .52 .46 .48 .46 .44 .28 .36 .41 .39 R-C6 416 .49 .45 .46 .34 .31 .14 .27 .30 .39 522 .50 .44 .39 .37 .41 .31 .28 .44 .23 *Refer to p.195 **Items 1, 52, 106, 299, 305, 416, and 522 were originally Stage 2 items. 11 14 23 33 38 41 46 47 48 52 68 77 79 84 93 106 121 129 158 Correlations With Ego Stages And .19 .53 .39 .48 .30 .36 .11 .22 .47 .40 .05 .43 .06 .30 .23 .50 .29 .37 .38 .48 .39 .09 .45 .31 .48 .22 .29 .02 .34 .44 .47 .38 -.10 .22 .24 .55 .20 .37 .18 .46 .39 .15 .51 .36 .49 .25 .32 .07 .29 .44 .41 -.02 .34 -.09 .28 .26 .52 .18 .36 .24 Appendix K 198 Stage 2 Items Desirability Scale .33 .32 .14 .51 .24 .49 .32 .26 .02 .19 .48 .31 .02 .37 -.03 .29 .19 .37 .15 .26 .32 .35 .32 .23 .44 .23 .44 .21 .29 .01 .17 .34 .27 .11 .35 .13 .23 .20 .40 .34 .34 .36 .20 .19 .20 .22 .14 .22 .14 .21 .05 .49 .18 .14 .23 .28 .19 .18 .12 .18 .32 .18 .20 .21 .24 .15 .31 .12 .29 .07 .12 -.07 .17 .22 .18 .09 .19 -.02 .13 .06 .29 .23 .20 .07 The Social 8 SD .44 .32 .30 .33 .19 .06 .40 .31 .20 .25 .37 .32 .21 .12 .21 .17 .06 -.07 .22 .40 .35 .41 .31 .35 .07 -.08 .40 .25 .12 -.19 .23 .18 .12 .09 .45 .34 .26 .08 .28 .32 .26 .01 Decision* R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-CR R-Cl R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 Item 161 171 182 189 196 210 212 214 215 226 232 238 245 248 252 254 257 259 270 277 293 299 302 305 .29 .18 .01 .59 .14 .21 .54 .32 .52 .41 .24 .27 .27 .55 .39 .37 .37 .42 .44 .03 .46 .59 .43 .46 .12 .08 .01 .57 .19 .02 .50 .29 .47 .44 .13 .16 .09 .57 .25 .20 .29 .38 .42 -.07 .38 .59 .35 .52 .22 .20 -.03 .53 .22 .11 .57 .29 .51 .47 .18 .27 .16 .57 .26 .29 .35 .38 .44 -.08 .39 .57 .38 .48 199 Appendix K (cont.) Stage 2 Items .25 .26 -.03 .58 .21 '.18 .44 .19 .53 .25 .14 .27 .22 .47 .31 .28 .32 .47 .42 -.07 .43 .58 .32 .46 .19 .24 -.02 .55 .16 .20 .43 .21 .42 .31 .28 ‘.29 .13 .41 .25 .33 .32 .29 .36 .11 .34 .51 .42 .44 .16 .21 -.08 .28 .20 .16 .28 .10 .25 .25 .24 .30 .09 .26 .14 .25 .26 .10 .23 .10 .22 .27 .20 .28 -.00 .15 -.08 .30 .25 .05 .25 .13 .29 .24 .16 .13 .05 .25 .07 .19 .16 .20 .16 -.04 .25 .31 .24 .36 .22 .14 -.08 .54 .15 .17 .42 .19 .37 .27 .24 .33 .22 .41 .31 .29 .26 .35 .36 .10 .36 .53 .35 .41 SD .07 .04 -.09 .31 .22 -.05 .41 .21 .37 .45 .04 .10 .01 .43 .11 .17 .28 .31 .30 -.18 .36 .33 .20 .39 Decision* R-C3 R-C3 R-CZ R-C5 R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 Items # 2 309 .48 314 .47 322 .22 323 .58 324 .38 325 .61 329 .43 337 .08 348 - .30 381 .40 388 .42 391 .08 392 .14 396 .44 398 .19 403 .22 404 .44 405 .34 412 .20 416 .45 427 .33 432 .28 448 .49 451 .41 200 Appendix K (cont.) Stage 2 Items 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 SD .48 .48 .41 .43 .24 .27 .37 .38 .44 .44 .42 .38 .21 .27 .35 .40 .28 .23 .24 .19 .08 .21 .26 .36 .47 .55 .53 .57 .41 .30 .58 .33 .31 .31 .29 .39 .23 .20 .33 .12 .58 .55 .59 .57 .40 .32 .58 .35 .35 .34 .42 .36 .21 .27 .42 .23 .00 -.06 -.04 .10 .11 -.01 .07 -.10 .13 .20 .23 .31 .26 .13 .27 .01 .31 .37 .38 .41 .38 .26 .42 .18 .35 .34 .36 .32 .21 .16 .39 .18 .01 .01 -.03 .08 .16 .07 .05 -.07 .03 .08 .15 .12 .12 .00 .09 -.16 .45 .45 .35 .30 .14 .15 .30 .35 .13 .15 .15 .13 .10 .01 .13 .07 .12 .14 .22 .27 .18 .10 .21 -.05 .39 .39 .40 .39 .38 .28 .39 .27 .19 .26 .29 .30 .20 .10 .25 .13 .36 .32 .17 .15 .07 .20 .16 .52 .49 .46 .34 .31 .14 .27 .30 .39 .20 .18 .17 .30 .27 .10 .28 .09 .18 .16 .19 .34 .35 .19 .29 .08 .41 .40 .50 .51 .43 .33 .52 .25 .32 .41 .40 .42 .33 .25 .39 .23 Decision* R-C3 R-C2 R-C3 R-Cl R-C3 R-C3 R-Cl R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-CR R-C3 R-C2 R-C3 R-C6 R-C3 R-Cl R-C3 201 Appendix K (cont.) Stage 2 Items Item # 2 l 3 4 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* 457 .68 .05 .03 .01 -.06 -.04 -.13 -.02 -.07 R-CR 458 .28 .36 .33 .19 .18 .13 .19 .23 .38 R-C2‘ 463 .31 .16 .23 .24 .23 .15 .01 .22 .08 R-Cl 464 .21 .20 .15 .18 .24 .24 .12 .30 .16 R-C3 467 .53 .45 .48 .48 .45 .29 .25 .40 .24 486 .41 .36 .37 .31 .32 .25 .16 .42 .24 R-C3 489 .48 .49 .49 .43 .37 .22 .27 .35 .32 R-C3 492 .42 .34 .35 .30 .40 .25 .24 .31 .21 493 .68 .58 .62 .63 .54 .35 .34 .56 .41 522 .44 .45 .39 .37 .41 .31 .28 .44 .23 R—C3 534 .41 .27 .31 .31 .25 .14 .13 .29 .17 542 .24 .18 .23 .18 .13 .04 .07 .09 .19 R—CR 546 .13 -.04 .04 .09 .11 .16 .02 .19 -.10 R-C3 549 .39 .26 .36 .31 .25 .27 .13 .31 .14 551 .55 .52 .51 .47 .42 .20 .29 .36 .40 558 .47 .40 .35 .42 .40 .29 .29 .38 .26 563 .48 .48 .40 .40 .52 .44 .35 .44 .28 R—C3 581 .24 .24 .27 .18 .21 .14 .14 .20 .32 R—C2 582 .41 .28 .27 .37 .30 .15 .00 .27 .09 585 .38 .30 .29 .26 .25 .13 .10 .23 .18 R-C6 593 .28 .21 .19 .34 .23 .22 .14 .33 .25 R-C3 599 .53 .47 .51 .47 .44 .29 .24 .32 .42 602 .56 .44 .47 .60 .49 .38 .27 .52 .28 R-C3 202. Appendix K (cont.) Stage 2 Items Item # 2 l 3 4 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* 604 .32 .29 .34 .37 .29 .23 .23 .31 .26 R-Cl 605 .63 .61 .60 .58 .54 .39 .35 .58 .39 R-Cl 606 .63 .55 .61 .60 .48 .27 .32 .49 .41 614 .26 .20 .23 .18 .24 .17 .17 .14 .06 R-CR 655 .42 .44 .43 .42 .44 .33 .24 .43 .29 R-Cl 659 .45 .44 .45 .44 .44 .34 .29 .43 .36 R-Cl 665 .55 .52 .53 .50 .49 .27 .24 .48 .34 670 .45 .52 .53 .44 .32 .09 .28 .31 .46 R—C2 679 .41 .32 .33 .30 .41 .30 .23 .29 .21 685 .32 .28 .35 .27 .20 .05 .09 .20 .40 R-C2 686 .29 .15 .19 .23 .34 .34 .16 .26 .00 R-C3 688 .21 .07 .14 .20 .23 .18 .06 .18 .09 R—C3 699 .58 .56 .51 .49 .54 .42 .31 .58 .31 703 .45 .44 .46 .41 .30 .15 .19 .25 .38 R-C3 707 .69 .66 .63 .59 .63 .42 .41 .63 .39 * Refer to p. 195 203 Appendix L Stage 3 Items Correlations With Ego Stages And Social Desirability Scale Item # 3 l 2 4 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* 7 .35 .31 .38 .44 .38 .25 .26 .34 .23 R—C3 17 .41 .40 .39 .37 .30 .17 .24 .31 .32 22 .47 .51 .45 .44 .41 .30 .27 .12 .35 R-C7 24 .16 .10 .23 .14 .15 .15 .04 .15 .02 R—C6 27' .46 .45 .48 .45 .42 .26 .23 .43 .23 30 .32 .27 .30 .29 .28 .21 .19 .21 .31 37 .20 .16 .13 .13 .09 .07 .16 .10 .29 R-C2 44 .36 .36 .30 .28 .27 .15 .20 .23 .32 69 .16 .14 .18 .13 .07 .04 .00 .08 .14 R-C6 75 .24 .17 .20 .22 .23 .23 .27 .20 .20 R—C3 89 .03 .02 .06 .01 .19 .12 .04 .07 -.15 R-C3 91 .28 .34 .39 .26 .49 .36 .27 .32 .14 R-C3 97 .52 .55 .56 .60 .46 .20 .32 .46 .41 R-C3 98 .51 .45 .43 .43 .43 .29 .34 .38 .41 R-Cl 101 .13 .05 .20 .13 .14 .10 .03 .08 -.03 R-C3 102 .39 .34 .39 .26 .24 .15 .13 .17 .26 109 .30 .34 .38 .35 .42 .33 .32 .34 .15 R-C3 112 .28 .28 .26 .21 .15 .02 .06 .15 .21 113 .32 .27 .21 .26 .26 .11 .19 .25 .25 R—CS 115 .38 .33 .31 .33 .31 .24 .21 .36 .39 R—C2 123 .44 .46 .46 .47 .41 .28 .28 .45 .31 R-C3 204 Appendix L (cont.) Stage 3 Items Item 136 .49 .40 .40 .39 .41 .31 .31 .36 .38 178 .18 .15 .21 .15 .23 .18 .13 .20 .07 198 .43 .43 .48 .35 .35 .16 .14 .32 .33 213 .42 .36 .30 .22 .20 .10 .13 .21 .32 224 .55 .50 .54 .48 .45 .33 .32 .51 .44 231 .31 .35 .19 .12 .17 .11 .18 .22 .28 272 .05 .26 .44 .39 .42 .23 .21 .35 .13 284 .33 .38 .48 .41 .44 .39 .29 .49 .19 291 -.05 .00 -.21 -.17 -.15 -.02 .09 -.11 .15 326 .53 .47 .48 .47 .45 .27 .34 .43 .46 335 .44 .38 .39 .35 .37 .34 .25 .33 .32 347 .34 .40 .35 .30 .24 .02 .16 .23 .32 350 .51 .49 .46 .40 .47 .37 .33 .42 .36 355 .32 .22 .34 .25 .29 .14 .15 .24 .14 372 -.13 -.18 -.07 -.19 -.01 .01 -.13 -.03 -.12 379 .15 .08 .16 .16 .20 .22 .17 .24 .07 382 .47 .45 .45 .45 .38 .27 .27 .36 .34 387 .46 .48 .46 .44 .40 .18 .28 .39 .41 395 .17 .12 .24 .22 .19 .13 .06 .15 .02 401 .26 .28 .32 .22 .31 .23 .20 .28 .26 429 .34 .29 .26 .15 .21 .23 .19 .23 .40 434 .42 .36 .32 .24 .28 .29 .28 .32 .45 438 .33 .25 .37 .26 .33 .26 .19 .28 .21 459 .26 .21 .28 .29 .26 .18 .13 .18 .11 Decision* R-Cl R-C3 R-Cl R-C2 R-C3 R-C2 R-Cl R-C2 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 R-C2 Item # 3 205 Appendix L (cont.) Stage 3 Items 2 4 5 6 7 8 SD 465 .27 .29 .14 .09 .10 .04 .12 .10 .22 472 .53 .47 .50 .54 .40 .32 .28 .39 .35 504 .37 .34 .30 .30 .35 .21 .27 .23 .26 508 .30 .28 .27 .30 .24 .20 .16 .21 .17 521 .38 .40 .41 .44 .38 .26 .30 .34 .33 531 .11 .07 .10 .10 .16 .23 .17 .17 .05 537 .17 .09 .03 .10 .08 .06 .09 .13 .24 543 .42 .36 .24 .20 .22 .09 .17 .22 .31 545 .21 .18 .18 .20 .10 .16 .12 .17 .34 564 .39 .37 .35 .18 .17 .00 .18 .18 .34 567 .36 .27 .26 .25 .22 .22 .15 .18 .38 578 .37 .44 .39 .32 .48 .38 .48 .39 .46 590 .55 .57 .52 .43 .39 .20 .32 .36 .42 611 .35 .31 .26 .35 .18 .08 .23 .19 .30 619 .41 .32 .38 .35 .37 .36 .29 .37 .37 629 .33 .30 .28 .29 .24 .13 .19 .30 .36 645 -.01 -.04 .02 .03 .10 .11 .06 .14 -.10 648 .47 .44 .45 .45 .47 .37 .38 .44 .42 667 .63 .55 .62 .52 .48 .32 .34 .45 .51 681 .52 .45 .46 .44 .35 .22 .30 .32 .43 694 .29 .32 .31 .24 .26 .01 .18 .25 .23 698 .20 .17 .13 .17 .02 .04 .13 .05 .33 *Refer to p. 195 Decision* R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-CZ RfCZ R-C2 R-C3 R-CZ R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 206 Appendix M Stage 4 Items Correlations With Ego Stages And Social Desirability Scale # 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* 4 .38 .43 .46 .42 .37 .21 .28 .38 .29 6 .33 .37 .30 .37 .30 .09 .20 .28 .30 1o .51 .42 .47 .39 .40 .15 .29 .37 .22 18 .56 .48 .51 .43 .47 .29 .32 .45 .29 35 .36 .22 .28 .23 .19 .10 .10 .17 .20 43 .32 .15 .16 .14 .12 .05 .05 .15 .13 55 .36 .32 .28 .37 .26 .11 .25 .25 .25 57 .06 .oo .07 .05 .oo .06 -.05 .08 .oo R-C2 59 .18 .06 .16 .15 .16 .05 .08 .13 .02 R-C7 82 .58 .34 .40 .39 .40 .22 .29 .38 .26 83 .44 .42 .41 .45 .38 .20 .26 .36 .30 R-Cl 86 .50 .20 .27 .26 .26 .17 .20 .27 .14 88 .53 .42 .51 .51 .49 .34 .34 .42 .34 9o .47 .36 .41 .38 '.4o .27 .27 .39 .31 R—Cl 94 .57 .46 .51 .52 .44 .25 .31 .43 .31 96 .52 .37 .35 .40 .40 .25 .33 .37 .34 124 .49 .29 .32 .31 .36 .25 .26 .40 .24 125 -.26 ~18 -.23 -.24 -.23 -.19 -.13 -.14 -.18 R-C2 133 .00 -.03 -.1o -.02 -.15 -.2o -.08 -.17 .06 R-C3 137 .26 .32 .29 .25 .25 .23 .19 .23 .27 R-C2 138 .43 .39 .40 .38 .42 .32 .35 .40 .19 139 .29 .37 .34 .36 .32 .18 .20 .26 .36 R-C2 207 Appendix M (cont.) Stage 4 Items Item 142 .52 .50 .46 .52 .44 .23 .31 144 .32 .35 .35 .36 .40 .34 .41 145 .44 .20 .25 .23 .21 .15 .12 147 .03 .16 .03 .11 .03 .03 .11 148 .24 .25 .28 .27 .24 .15 .18 157 .61 .43 .45 .48 .37 .26 .29 159 .37 .31 .33 .31 .22 .10 .11 163 .51 .37 .44 .39 .40 .28 .26 164 .55 .40 .48 .46 .44 .36 .28 168 .45 .31 .36 .33 .30 .17 .23 179 .14 .20 .17 .16 .19 .16 .09 185 -.09 —.06 -.10 -.14 .00 -.01 -.04 186 .55 .46 .48 .38 .42 .27 .30 187 .37 .27 .23 .33 .24 .15 .23 206 .11 .14 .10 .20 .09 .04 .10 207 .29 .19 .15 .29 .23 .15 .19 225 .32 .10 .18 .15 .14 .15 .08 228 .13 .18 .18 .16 .15 .18 .18 247 .43 .22 .42 .38 .36 .22 .18 249 .55 .48 .55 .50 .52 .29 .32 264 -.13 —.19 -.06 -.15 -.01 .06 -.13 273 .32 .34 .34 .39 .21 .13 .06 282 .60 .30 .37 .34 .37 .36 .20 .41 .35 .16 .10 .25 .33 .24 .37 .41 .32 .12 .02 .46 .22 .01 .16 .17 .20 .31 .44 .21 -.04 .21 .38 SD .41 .40 .21 .13 .25 .30 .20 .23 .29 .21 .16 -.13 .35 .26 .17 .22 .18 .15 .17 .34 .32 -.19 .30 .27 Decision* R-Cl R-C2 R-Cl R-Cl R-Cl R-C2 R-C3 R-CZ R-C2 208 Appendix M (cont.) Stage 4 Items Item # 4 l 2 3 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* 295 .53 .56 .60 .55 .50 .31 .29 .49 .31 301 .61 .50 .53 .48 .53 .33 .37 .53 .27 327 .63 .50 .50 .51 .42 .31 .26 .42 .37 338 .45 .34 .34 .38 .30 .18 .24 .31 .38 341 .55 .37 .44 .44 .48 .29 .32 .45 .24 R-C1 345 .54 .44 .52 .43 .50 .38 .31 .54 .27 346 .23 .14 .17 .15 .15 .09 .11 .16 .06 351 -.15 -.33 -.17 -.32 -.11 -.06 -.13 -.12 -.29 R-C3 353 .35 .31 .26 .29 .31 .21 .23 .25 .21 358 .38 .38 .42 .43 .34 .19 .26 .38 .40 R-C2 365 .56 .47 .49 .51 .44 .34 .22 .42 .33 366 .63 .45 .49 .49 .46 .33 .32 .46 .33 373 .41 .25 .28 .24 .31 .15 .16 .32 .17 375 .61 .46 .53 .50 .52 .35 .33 .55 .33 390 .34 .21 .28 .28 .23 .18 .18 .24 .16 394 .39 .40 .44 .37 .56 .48 .41 .51 .21 R—C3 399 .66 .43 .51 .46 .48 .31 .32 .47 .33 422 .36 .32 .37 .31 .36 .26 .18 .37 .19 R-C3 423 .59 .39 .46 .43 .46 .31 .31 .46 .31 426 .54 .49 .50 .54 .41 .28 .27 .44 .33 430 .46 .50 .46 .47 .43 .26 .21 .45 .34 431 .52 .42 .45 .44 .49 .34 .28 .50 .30 439 .11 -.29 -.12 -.27 -.08 -.05 -.11 -.10 -.31 R-C6 441 .48 .33 .41 .32 .36 .13 .19 .32 .23 Item # 4 453 .32 454 .23 476 .36 477 .40 485 .48 490 .29 491 .30 499 .61 503 .28 518 .63 526 .44 535 .45 544 .54 556 .52 569 .57 572 .46 573 .62 592 .36 595 .34 596 .64 613 .51 617 .46 628 .59 643 .32 209 Appendix M (cont.) Stage 4 Items .20 .32 .24 .30 .17 .17 .10 .06 .07 .17 .06 .27 .26 .29 .32 .35 .21 .15 .35 .33 .33 .30 .24 .20 .44 .37 .43 .38 .19 .32 .32 .32 .33 .23 .17 .27 .31 .29 .30 .20 .19 .16 .45 .53 .46 .51 .32 .37 .26 .31 .23 .20 .12 .22 .48 .54 .45 .45 .28 .32 .37 .37 .42 .38 .26 .26 .33 .38 .39 .37 .28 .24 .56 .56 .56 .59 .34 .38 .43 .50 .44 .40 .25 .25 .41 .48 .41 .33 .18 .20 .31 .39 .30 .36 .22 .14 .50 .56 .54 .57 .38 .36 .42 .33 .37 .30 .18 .26 .29 .35 .33 .30 .24 .22 .37 .51 .46 .51 .39 .38 .30 .41 .32 .38 .27 .25 .47 .51 .46 .42 .25 .27 .34 .41 .35 .44 .31 .31 .20 .21 .19 .19 .16 .21 .33 .10 .28 .28 .41 .21 .26 .46 .22 .43 .28 .33 .51 .37 .31 .35 .56 .26 .25 .51 .32 .39 .38 .15 SD .11 .04 .17 .28 .36 .28 .19 .36 .21 .31 .37 .32 .33 .29 .24 .20 .37 .41 .28 .31 .23 .27 .28 .16 Decision* R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C6 R-C3 R-C2 R-CS 210 Appendix M (cont.) Stage 4 Items 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 SD Decision* .35 .44 .36 .36 .25 .26 .33 .28 -.00 -.18 -.04 -.17 -.09 -.15 -.17 -.10 -.25 R-C3 *Refer to p. 195 —- 211 Appendix N Stage 5 Items Correlations With Ego Stages And Social Desriability Scale # 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 SD Decision* 9 .11 .18 .07 .21 .08 .08 .16 .08 .21 R-C2 16 .33 .21 .25 .16 .16 .28 .08 .31 .03 R-C7 29 .21 .12 .ll .11 -.05 .29 .25 .15 .12 R-C3 42 .07 .09 .23 .08 .05 .03 .17 .01 .12 R—C2 51 .36 .21 .30 .25 .35 .30 .23 .31 .18 87 .48 .48 .62 .54 .48 .36 .28 .51 .32 R—C3 95 .44 .28 .31 .30 .25 .42 .38 .40 .24 99- .04 -.01 .10 .01 .15 —.05 -.15 -.04 -.08 R-C7 111 .38 .35 .37 .41 .35 .30 .41 .37 .31 R-Cl 143 .44 .35 .29 .29 .28 .46 .45 .35 .37 R-C3 146 .44 .40 .42 .38 .44 .30 .23 .43 .24 153 .44 .24 .38 .28 .42 .30 .30 .38 .16 172 .44 .36 .35 .32 .34 .33 .26 .26 .19 175 .35 .27 .42 .37 .33 .21 .17 .35 .25 R-Cl 188 .48 .44 .40 .38 .34 .37 .44 .43 .34 192 .37 .25 .35 .26 .23 .47 .20 .30 .05 R-C3 193 .22 .22 .25 .23 .24 .17 .21 .29 .21 R-C3 194 .21 .07 .09 .06 .14 .29 .13 .18 .02 R-C3 195 .44 .25 .30 .29 .40 .34 .36 .39 .18 197 .17 .03 .09 .01 .05 .08 .01 .ll .11 R-C5 199 .59 .52 .50 .48 .46 .43 .37 .44 .35 201 .20 .22 .13 .16 .14 .15 .27 .20 .27 R-C2 212 Appendix N (cont.) Stage 5 Items Item # 5 l 2 3 4 6 7 8 SD 204 .37 .28 .27 .29 .39 .22 .32 .34 .23 216 .33 .29 .28 .29 .20 .32 .27 .27 .20 227 .58 .48 .49 .44 .42 .44 .33 .45 .37 229 .53 .59 .62 .66 .54 .34 .37 .50 .42 235 .52 .38 .38 .38 .31 .50 .43 .45 .29 255 .30 .42 .31 .34 .29 .17 .29 .31 .36 261 .43 .46 .48 .45 .46 .36 .28 .44 .35 269 .25 .13 .17 .10 “.18 .27 .10 .21 -.06 274 .27 .30 .27 .26 .21 .38 .14 .29 .17 278 .53 .65 .64 .66 .55 .31 .31 .56 .41 288 .20 .04 .04 .01 .04 .28 .05 .13 -.10 289 .04 .01 .10 .07 .17 -.08 -.09 —.04 -.05 303 .39 .23 .36 .26 .30 .30 .21 .37 .01 304 .47 .43 .36 .41 .35 .34 .33 .41 .26 306 .49 .43 .41 .33 .33 .37 .22 .37 .24 308 .47 .52 .56 .57 .50 .26 .26 .48 .37 310 .17 .10 .05 .05 .11 .23 .17 .28 .02 311 .28 .12 .19 .13 .14 .28 .19 .28 .08 312 .44 .39 .35 .39 .35 .30 .32 .34 .31 313 .49 .34 .53 .44 .40 .28 .16 .43 .13 330 .43 .34 .32 .28 .31 .26 .25 .38 .15 354 .02 .02 —.02 .01 -.03 .00 .17 .04 .19 363 -.23 -.26 -.21 -.25 —.25 -.2o -.21 —.20 -.22 378 .00 —.15 —.11 -.11 —.11 .07 .06 .02 -.12 Decision* R-Cl R-C2 R-Cl R-C6 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C4 R-C1 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-CZ R-C2 R-C3 Item # 5 389 .24 425 .55 435 .55 450 .32 466 .00 502 .19 512 .39 519 .37 530 .28 532 .57 536 .08 541 .15 571 .06 576 .43 577 .50 589 .34 594 .30 607 .43 626 .36 631 .12 634 .47 635 .51 637 .48 639 -.20 213 Appendix N (cont.) Stage 5 Items 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 SD .30 .27 .28 .25 .34 .08 .27 .22 .65 .64 .60 .60 .40 .40 .61 .42 .41 .41 .38 .43 .38 .33 .40 .21 .18 .30 .22 .20 .24 .12 .31 .05 .03 .00 .07 .03 .08 .16 .00 .24 .11 .23 .15 .19 .11 -.08 .21 -.03 .33 .31 .33 .27 .35 .34_ .38 .32 .30 .29 .24 .28 .28 .40 .29 .25 .22 .18 .21 .11 .22 .16 .15 .14 .52 .48 .45 .46 .31 .33 .42 .29 .12 .02 .07 .03 .05 .19 .15 .26 .00 .01 -.02 -.03 .07 .09 .11 -.15 .14 .13 .12 .08 .04 .14 .04 .26 .34 .34 .40 .30 .34 .33 .30 .36 .38 .41 .41 .34 .40 .39 .41 .26 .23 .20 .20 .16 .28 .34 .27 .18 .14 .24 .12 .22 .42 .14 .26 .04 .53 .52 .59 .51 .26 .32 .42 .46 .24 .25 .13 .18 .25 .15 .22 .05 .12 .15 .15 .16 .16 .19 .22 .11 .59 .54 .60 .58 .28 .37 .52 .43 .56 .63 .62 .54 .33 .30 .46 .38 .63 .62 .64 .56 .32 .33 .49 .46 -.26 -.28 -.31 -.27 -.18 -.21 -.18 -.24 Decision* R-C3 R-C3 R-C6 R-CZ R-C3 R-CZ R-CR R-C2 R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 214 Appendix N (cont.) Stage 5 Items Item # 5 l 2 3 4 6 7 8 SD Decision* 641 .11 .08 .08 .08 .22 .12 .06 .13 .12 R-C3 646 .49 .36 .35 .28 .31 .37 .27 .37 .23 653 .42 .33 .35 .35 .36 .23 .27 .21 .29 663 .56 .34 .45 .37 .52 .42 .36 .29 .22 664 .46 .21 .33 .28 .29 .40 .27 .32 .15 672 .48 .44 .52 .45 .50 .32 .28 .46 .24 678 .44 .40 .51 .49 .43 .29 .22 .39 .30 693 .34 .39 .36 .41 .38 .17 .22 .31 .34 697 .36 .23 .26 .23 .26 .35 .18 .36 .05 R-C3 708 .44 .41 .46 .41 .43 .31 .26 .33 .30 *Refer to p. 195 Item # 6 107 .60 122 .42 152 .39 165 .36 169 .36 211 .39 241 .53 266 .42 281 .38 292 .51 298 .42 318 .40 362 .49 364 .57 369 .59 393 .35 421 -.01 433 .05 445 .39 446 .10 447 .54 469 .42 215 Appendix 0 Stage 6 Items Correlations With Ego Stage And Scoial Desirability Scale 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 SD .27 .38 .33 .32 .49 .30 .39 .16 .33 .32 .31 .22 .35 .22 .27 .17 .30 .27 .32 .24 .38 .37 .30 .30 .21 .24 .22 .23 .35 .22 .23 .10 .03 .11 .04 .06 .19 .07 .13 -.06 .04 .15 .10 .12 .26 .08 .18 -.05 .18 .31 .22 .22 .43 .17 .36 .06 .26 .29 .24 .28 .36 .14 .27 .10 .16 .21 .11 .18 .35 .26 .38 .04 .06 .10 .10 .06 .23 .15 .15 .05 .35 .53 .43 .46 .57 .32 .44 .20 .36 .46 .39 .35 .49 .24 .37 .19 .07 .13 .10 .09 .26 .13 .21 .01 .16 .31 .21 .29 .46 .23 .40 .06 .25 .32 .27 .32 .46 .28 .38 .15 .44 .45 .48 .36 .36 .30 .36 .43 -.06 -.04 -.12 -.04 -.01 -.16 -.01 -.31 .29 .22 .33 .14 .16 .17 .18 .47 .41 .44 .42 .36 .44 .30 .41 .43 .03 -.02 .07 -.04 —.03 .09 .00 .16 .25 .26 .20 .21 .38 .24 .40 .09 .10 .12 .07 .14 .25 .11 .17 -.03 Decision* R-Cl R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 R-C3 R-C2 R-C2 R—C2 216 Appendix 0 (cont.) Stage 6 Items Item # 6 l 2 3 4 5 7 470 .45 .16 .18 .20 .17 .22 .17 475 .20 .06 .11 .16 .06 .03 .08 497 .34 .46 .40 .40 .39 .40 .34 501 .26 .04 .01 .06 .00 .03 .11 511 .42 .37 .36 .32 .33 .49 .41 517 .13 .10 .19 .11 .16 .21 .13 528 .20 .26 .26 .25 .19 .22 .03 529 .42 .35 .32 .34 .28 .33 .24 561 .26 .13 .06 .15 .08 .09 .19 579 -.04 -.19 -.05 -.13 -.03 -.06 -.16 584 .59 .22 .37 .29 .31 .45 .21 601 .63 .27 .40 .32 .38 .49 .28 609 .11 .22 .13 .26 .16 .16 .26 615 .55 .31 .33 .30 .15 .48 .28 622 .37 .11 .10 .12 .12 .20 .17 633 .48 .20 .23 .17 .21 .41 .29 636 .36 .23 .25 .27 .20 .29 .29 659 .41 .29 .21 .31 .17 .28 .31 683 .48 .15 .19 .15 .15 .35 .20 689 .57 .25 .28 .26 .21 .43 .27 690 .46 .37 .37 .35 .31 .51 .41 692 .58 .26 .36 .33 .32 .49 .26 *Refer to p. 195 .19 .09 .32 .02 .40 .18 .23 .31 .13 —.O4 .37 .39 .15 .38 .14 .39 .30 .24 .25 .34 .40 .40 SD .16 .24 .31 .12 .34 .00 .19 .21 .15 -.19 .11 .17 .44 .17 .13 .08 .17 .34 .03 .15 .34 .15 Decision* R-Cl R-C2 R-C3 R-CS R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 217 Appendix P Stage 7 Items Correlations With Ego Stages And Social Desirability Scale Item # 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 SD Decision* 21 .33 .30 .21 .28 .27 .20 .09 .18 .27 25 .48 .25 .22 .28 .21 .30 .28 .30 .26 31 .46 .28 .21 .28 .19 .27 .25 .25 .27 54 .52 .24 .19 .18 .16 .32 .30 .29 .24 62 .46 .27 .21 .27 .23 .30 .23 .24 .24 70 .43 .33 .28 .31 .24 .30 .27 .28 .32 R-Cl 103 .38 .29 .24 .30 .27 .34 .26 .25 .31 116 .53 .28 .19 .27 .25 .35 .32 .30 .32 117 .25 .12 .04 .04 .06 .13 .09 .10 .10 R—C6 127 .39 .33 .19 .31 .28 .28 .17 .20 .32 155 .17 .03 .03 .06 .02 .07 .04 .06 .11 R-CR 181 .14 .02 -.09 .02 -.07 -.02 —.05 -.03 .06 R-C7 203 .37 .24 .27 .29 .26 .28 .25 .27 .23 221 .18 .18 .23 .21 .25 .19 .25 .19 .22 R-C2 237 .23 .04 -.01 .00 —.02 .05 .10 .04 .06 246 .41 .35 .39 .41 .46 .40 .27 .35 .31 R-C3 250 .45 .17 .07 .16 .22 .19 .10 .10 .20 268 .30 .33 .36 .30 .33 .51 .47 .43 .21 R—C3 290 .11 .23 .20 .26 .21 .36 .33 .29 .28 Item # 7 296 .47 .37 321 .41 .49 328 .23 333 .57 . 352 .40 . 359 .37 . 370 .44 . 413 .46 . 436 .18 452 .54 . 488 .16 . 496 .56 . .18 28 40 38 21 .17 29 11 30 507 .44 .40 586 .37 .10 624 .26 .26 627 .44 .20 630 .40 .31 649 .47 .34 650 .52 .28 669 .54 .32 696 .62 .34 *Refer to p. 195 .38 .46 .15 .24 .32 .36 .35 .18 .17 .25 .10 .21 .34 .02 .29 .07 .24 .29 .17 .21 .26 218 Appendix P (cont.) Stage 7 Items .40 .42 .43 .37 .44 .42 .52 .40 .15 .13 .22 .08 .27 .23 .35 .35 .33 .32 .34 .21 .37 .36 .42 .34 .35 .35 .39 .32 .26 .18 .34 .34 .11 .13 .15 .15 .27 .31 .34 .32 .08 .05 .07 .00 .29 .25 .31 .21 .38 .31 .36 .32 .07 .07 .12 .01 .29 .20 .31 .33 .17 .14 .14 .08 .29 .27 .25 .14 .36 .35 .29 .20 .29 .30 .22 .09 .24 .18 .33 .31 .30 .33 .36 .27 .46 .46 .19 .35 .38 .42 .43 .05 .28 .14 .28 .28 .13 .32 .36 SD .34 .40 .15 .26 .35 .33 .34 .13 .16 .28 .09 .24 .24 .13 .20 .21 .25 .28 .29 .25 .25 Decision* R—C3 R-C3 R-C6 R-Cl Stage 8 Items Appendix Q 219 Correlations With Ego Stage And Social Desirability Scale Item # 15 64 67 71 81 92 104 126 130 131 132 150 184 202 219 234 243 283 307 319 .39 .42 .31 .29 .34 .38 .29 .54 .33 .56 .42 .36 .36 .44 .48 .36 .31 .43 .57 .33 .30 .45 .42 .23 .35 .13 .27 .37 .65 .12 .67 .43 .44 .14 .18 .49 .56 .38 .30 .34 .48 .34 .10 .37 .46 .26 .36 .24 .27 .27 .60 .20 .65 .37 .38 .18 .26 .50 .59 .29 .33 .35 .56 .37 .12 .39 .50 .24 .35 .14 .23 .34 .63 .07 .66 .42 .40 .13 .22 .51 .59 .40 .27 .29 .55 .36 .09 .36 .38 .26 .36 .23 .22 .27 .50 .11 .57 .49 .29 .17 .28 .47 .58 .31 .35 .34 .55 .34 .07 .31 .37 .32 .32 .28 .36 .29 .45 .30 .58 .35 .34 .27 .26 .44 .52 .34 .32 .40 .57 .45 .13 .15 .27 .20 .23 .22 .36 .16 .20 .26 .33 .14 .19 .17 .21 .27 .38 .22 .20 .43 .40 .19 .25 .26 .23 .26 .20 .25 .32 .35 .17 .39 .34 .30 .19 .22 .33 .33 .27 .17 .25 .38 .36 .18 SD .28 .32 .22 .19 .06 .12 .31 .43 .00 .39 .39 .34 .12 .16 .35 .42 .35 .24 .19 .33 .23 .05 Decision* R—C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 R-C3 220 Appendix Q (cont.) Stage 8 Items Item 342 .46 .38 .43 .38 .39 .39 .22 343 .55 .56 .60 .58 .57 .51 .27 344 .50 .39 .43 .31 .36 .44 .41 349 -.06 -.11 -.13 -.08 —.11 -.14 -.10 357 .02 -.14 —.01 -.09 -.04 .00 .00 361 .26 .20 .30 .23 .32 .30 .13 367 .41 .38 .46 .44 .50 .40 .22 371 .10 .03 .08 .08 .08 .07 .04 374 .18 .09 .08 .11 .16 .16 .14 383 .44 .18 .26 .17 .22 .32 .36 384 .34 .08 .18 .10 .17 .24 .26 385 .49 .32 .42 .38 .49 .55 .42 397 .47 .57 .48 .52 .47 .39 .27 408 .28 .17 .29 .25 .30 .29 .23 411 .44 .32 .31 .30 .34 .34 .25 428 .54 .33 .39 .33 .38 .48 .48 437 .31 .27 .37 .28 .27 .24 .17 442 .18 .12 .13 .21 .19 .15 .10 443 .13 -.02 -.11 —.01 -.03 .04 .09 455 .54 .47 .53 .44 .43 .54 .49 471 .54 .55 .51 .46 .44 .49 .37 473 .30 .17 .21 .19 .18 .30 .31 482 .44 .37 .44 .39 .48 .44 .36 483 .28 .15 .12 .12 .08 .23 .23 .21 .26 .27 -.08 -.10 .17 .20 .05 .04 .18 .11 .29 .34 .15 .23 .33 .06 .09 .13 .34 .32 .26 .28 .21 SD .24 .40 .16 .08 .14 .14 .30 .05 .06 .04 .07 .27 .36 .08 .27 .23 .15 .21 .03 .26 .29 .25 .29 .15 Decision* R-C3 R-C3 R-C2 R-C3 R-C3 R-C6 R-C6 R-C3 R-C3 R-Cl R-C3 R-C2 R—C3 R-Cl R-C3 R-C3 221 Appendix Q (cont.) Stage 8 Items Item # 8 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 SD Dicision* 484 .33 .19 .23 .ll .14 .28 .25 .18 .12 487 .48 .47 .46 .45 .36 .40 .35 .28 .32 505 .20 .28 .30 .27 .21 .21 .03 .08 .25 R-C2 506 .49 .55 .47 .46 .42 .46 .31 .34 .37 R-C3 510 .61 .60 .63 .57 .56 .59 .40 .38 .40 R-C3 516 .28 .06 .06 .05 -.01 .19 .22 .17 .02 547 .14 .10 .06 .08 .14 .10 .01 .07 .04 R-C6 554 .54 .50 .60 .51 .48 .46 .36 .27 .31 R-C3 574 .35 .46 .48 .52 .40 .42 .26 .23 .29 R-C3 588 .44 .54 .54 .58 .42 .42 .28 .27 .39 R-C3 608 .17 .08 .08 .03 .09 .10 .02 .08 .05 R-CR 623 .48 .27 .34 .32 .44 .48 .37 .35 .22 R-C3 632 .35 .29 .41 .36 .31 .34 .34 .23 .21 R-C3 638 .48 .45 .45 .46 .37 .44 .37 .28 .25 642 .29 .26 .27 .29 .26 .26 .19 .23 .31 644 .12 -.02 -.03 -.07 ~.05 .05 .08 .05 -.11 661 .11 -.08 -.03 -.07 .00 .01 .06 .03 -.08 R-C6 674 .34 .08 .12 .06 .07 .17 .15 .10 .08 675 -.01 -.14 -.12 -.06 -.07 -.17 -.15 -.10 -.08 R-C3 676 .38 .27 .29 .21 .28 .44 .45 .35 .11 R-C3 677 .11 .21 .28 .19 .18 .15 .11 .10 .18 R-C2 684 .13 .03 -.05 -.11 -.O6 .10 .19 .18 .02 R-C3 702 .37 .33 .34 .36 .32 .33 .30 .26 .32 R-Cl 705 .42 .16 .24 .18 .27 .29 ».25 .24 .09 *Refer to p. 195. 222 Appendix R Social Desirability Items And Their Correlation To The Ego Stages Item # SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Decision* 20 .33 .34 .32 .38 .43 .35 .23 .48 .27 R-C9 40 .33 .34 .22 .26 .16 .37 .26 .45 .29 R-C9 60 .41 .37 .31 .42 .37 .21 .06 .21 .21 R-C9 80 .43 .24 .09 .21 .08 .07 -.02 .20 .13 100 .32 .34 .26 .32 .32 .21 .10 .21 .23 R-C9 120 .42 .27 .23 .32 .18 .13 .04 .15 .18 140 .15 .14 .05 .12 .04 .13 .12 .16 .08 R-C9 160 .30 .25 .21 .23 .19 .24 .19 .22 .20 180 .29 .16 .22 .28 .23 .16 .19 .16 .17 R-SC 200 .32 .38 .34 .33 .36 .27 .16 .17 .28 R-C9 220 .32 .16 .06 .15 .06 .08 .02 .17 .13 240 .29 .18 .03 .21 .06 .05 .04 .12 .01 260 .35 .31 .27 .27 .25 .30 .23 .24 .28 280 .41 .34 .21 .36 .25 .17 .03 .22 .15 300 .28 .07 .00 .18 .00 .01 .01 .11 .09 R-SC 320 .31 .38 .43 .40 .40 .38 .23 .23 .40 R-C9 340 .43 .42 .43 .50 .44 .47 .39 .41 .47 R-C9 360 .17 .16 .06 .06 .08 .04 .00 .06 .04 R-SC 380 .51 .37 .32 .39 .24 .27 .22 .25 .27 400 .47 .48 .44 .47 .48 .42 .23 .38 .42 R-C9 420 .33 .14 .03 .13 .04 .03 .00 .18 .12 440 .26 -.02 —.16 -.04 -.16 -.22 .14 -.01 -.15 R-SC 460 .35 .26 .12 .22 .11 .10 .06 .16 .07 223 Appendix R’(cont.) Social Desirability Items Item # SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Decision* 480 .30 .23 .27 .32 .27 .24 .22 .19 .31 R-C9 500 .34 .33 .38 .37 .38 .30 .26 .27 .29 R-C9 520 .33 .29 .32 .29 .28 .29 .26 .18 .26 540 .23 .17 .11 .15 .16 .19 .24 .24 .22 R-C9 560 .50 .30 .21 .32 .19 .16 .05 .17 .13 580 .23 .02 —.17 —.02 -.12 —.13 —.19 .00 —.07 R—SC 600 .29 .20 .ll .21 .06 .08 .03 .11 .07 620 .32 .18 .06 .20 .09 .05 .01 .07 .06 R-SC 640 .26 .12 .10 .15 .05 .12 .10 .17 .06 R-SC 660 .42 .19 .07 .22 .08 .04 .06 .20 .07 680 .33 .59 .58 .52 .53 .49 .33 .37 .50 R-C9 700 .25 .22 .15 .22 .11 .23 .22 .18 .11 R—SC 709 .37 .34 .35 .42 .29 .28 .19 .19 .28 R-C9 710 .31 .23 .21 .24 .18 .18 .18 .23 .16 711 .33 .27 .34 .35 .35 .32 .20 .17 .26 R-C9 712 .42 .34 .34 .33 .29 .30 .24 .29 .29 713 .38 .41 .47 .50 .45 .48 .38 .33 .44 R—C9 714 .26 .28 .30 .31 .31 .25 .19 .18 .24 R-C9 715 .41 .37 .40 .40 .37 .35 .25 .24 .33 716 .31 .25 .25 .29 .27 .26 .27 .28 .25 717 -.30 -.17 .03 .08 .00 .01 .03 -.08 -.03 R-C9 718 .30 .28 .21 .28 .18 .14 .09 .11 .14 719 .46 ..23 .14 .26 .10 .12 .14 .22 .15 R-Rejected C9—Criterion 9: Corrlated higher with ego stage. SC—Size Constraint 224 Appendix S Consistency Items And Their Correlations Consistency Items* Stage Correlation 287 (+), 407 (-) l .1701 297 (-), 604 (+) 2 .1223 98 (+), 326 (+) 3 .5253 390 (—), 207 (+) 4 .4078 351 (+), 439 (+) 4 .7529 183 (+), 456 (+) 5 .4787 269 (+), 594 (+) 5 .4664 241 (+), 692 (+) 6 .5294 152 (-), 690 (+) 6 .4018 333 (+), 669 (+) 7 .6819 627 (+), 496 (+) 7 .5619 243 (+), 367 (+) 8 .5608 *Mastery +; Non-Mastery = - 225 Appendix T F Scale Items Item Number Percent of Responses in Non-Mastery Direction 111 .3 381 .6 144 1.4 136 2.3 471 2.3 659 2.5 98 2.8 402 2.8 507 2.8 83 3.1 325 3.1 341 3.1 463 3.1 604 3.1 70 3.7 148 3.7 164 3.7 175 3.7 227 3.7 408 3.7 163 4.0 254 4.0 335 4.0 226 Appendix T (cont.) Item Number Percent of Responses 1n NonTMastery D1rect1on 655 4.0 90 4.2 261 4.2 266 4.2 470 4.2 605 4.5 702 4.5 224 4.8 306 4.8 448 4.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Gerald R., Judy Shea and Steven A. Fitch. "Toward the Development of an Objective Assessment of Ego-Identity Statusfl The Journal of Youth And Adalescence, 8 (1979), 223l237. Bach, Thomas R. and Robert Verdile. "A Comparison of Two Measures of Ego Identity in High School Adolescents." The Journal of Psychology, 90 (1975), 269-274. Baher, Frank. "Measures of Ego Identity: A Multitrait Multimethod ValidationJ' Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31 (1971), 165—174. Bauer, Rudolph and Robert Synder. "Ego Identity and Motivation: An Empirical Study of Achievement and Affiliation in Eriksonfis TheoryJ' Psychological Reports, 30 (1972), 951-955. Block, Jack. "Ego Identity Role Variability and Adjustment." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25 (1961), 392-397. Bloom, Benjamin 8. "Learning for Masteryu" UCLA_: Evaluation Comment, 1 (1968). Boyd, Robert D. "Analysis of the Ego-Stage Development of School-Age Children. Journal of Experimental Education, 32 (1964), 249-257. Boyd, R. D. and Robert N. Koskela. "A Test of Erikson's Theory of Ego-Stage Development By Means of a Self- Report Instrumentfl' The Journal of Experimental Education, 38 (1970), 1—14. Bronson Gordon W. "Identity Diffusion in Late Adolescents." Journol of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59 (1959), 414-417. Ciaccio, N. V. "A Test of Erikson's Theory of Ego Epigenesis." Developmental Psychology, 4 (1971), 306-311. Constantinople, A. "An Eriksonian Measure of Personality Development in College Students." Developmental 227 228 Cronbach, Lee J. and Paul E. Meehl. "Construct Validity in Psychological Testsfl Problems in Human Assessment. Ed. Douglas N. Jackson and Samuel Messick. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1967. Crowne, D. P and D. Marlowe. The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York: John Wiley, 1964. Dignam, Sister Mary. "Ego Identity, Identification and Adjustment in College Womand' Buss. Fordam University, 1963. Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and Society. Rev. ed. New York: Norton, 1963. . "Configurations in Play — Clinical Notes." Psychological Reports, 6 (1973), 139-214. . Identity: Youth and Crisis, New York: Norton, 1968. . "Problems of Infancy and Early Childhood." Outline of Abnormal Psychology Eds. G. Murphy and A. Bachroch. New York: Modern Library, 1954. Evans, Alan L. "An Eriksonian Measure of Personality." Psychological Reports, 44 (1979), 963-966. Eysenck, H. J. "Criterion Analysis - An Application of the Hypothetico-Deductive Method in Factor Analysis." Psychological Review, 57 (1950), 38-53. Farquhar, William W3, Fredrick R. Wilson and Elizabeth J. Parmeter. Assessment of Adult Adjustment Patterns. East Lansing; Michigan State University Printing Service, 1977. Geene, Roger L. The MMPI- An Interpretative Manual. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1980. Given, Walter. "Rejection of False Information about Oneself as an Indication of Ego Identity." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (1960), 231-233. Guilford, J. P. "Factor Analysis in a Test-Development Program." Psychological Review, 55 (1948), 79—94. Heilbrun, Alfred B. Jr. "Conformity to Masculinity- Feminity Sterotypes and Ego Identity in Adolescents." Psychological Reports, 14 (1964), 351-357. 229 Howard, S. M. and J. F. Kubis. "Ego Identity and Some Aspects of Personal Adjustment." The Journal of Psychology, 58 (1964), 459-466. Jackson, Douglas N. "The Dynamics of Structured Personality Tests: 1971". Psychological Review, 78 (1971), 229-248. . Personality Research Form Manual. Goshen, New York: Research Psychologists Press, 1967. . "A Sequential System for Personality Scale Developmentfl Current Topics in Clinical and Community Psychology. Vol. 2. Ed. C. D. Spielberger. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. 2nd Ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Marcia, James E. "Development and validation of Ego Identity Status." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 (1966), 551-558. . "Ego Identity Status: Relationship to Change in Self-Esteem, 'General Maladjustment', and Authorianism." Journal of Personality, 35 (1967), 120-133. . "Identity Six Years After: A Follow-Up Study." Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 5 (1976), 145-160. Marcia, Jones E. and M. L. Friedman. "Ego Identity Status in College Woman." Journal of Personality, 38 (1970), 249-263. McClain, Edwin W. "An Eriksonian Cross Cultural Study of Adolescent Development." Adolescence, 10 (1975), 527-541. Munley, Patrick A. "Erik Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development and Vocational Behavior." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22 (1975), 314-319. Nie, Norman H., et. al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Orlofsky, Jacob L., James E. Marcia and Ira Lesser. "Ego Identity Status and the Intimacy Versus Isolation Crisis of Young Adulthood." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27 (1973), 211-219. 230 Podd, Marvin H. "Ego Identity Status and Morality: Relationships Between Two Developmental Constructs." Developmental Psychology, 6 (1972), 497-507. Protinsky, Howard 0. Jr. "Eriksonian Ego Identity in Adolescence." Adolescence, 10 (1975), 428-432. Rasmussen, John E. "Relationship of Ego Identity to Psychological Effectivenens." Psychological Reports, 15 (1964), 815-825. Santrock, John W. "Influence of Onset and Type of Paternal Absence on the First Four Eriksonian Developmental Crises." Developmental Psychology, 3 (1970), 273-274. Schilling, Karl Lewis. "Ego Identitiy Status: A Re- Evaluation and Extension of Construct Validity." Diss. University of Florida, 1975. Simmons, Dale D. "Development of an Objective Measure of Identity Achievement Statusfl Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 34 (1970), 241-244. Stark, Patricia A. and Antihony Traxler, "Empirical Validation of Erikson's Theory of Identity Crises in Late Adolescence." The Journal of Psychology, 86 (1974), 25—33. Tan, Allen, Lu et. al. "A Short Measure of Eriksonian Ego Identity." Journal of Personality Assessment, 41 (1977), 279-284. Toder, Nancy L. and James E. Marcia. "Ego Identity Status and Response to Conformity Pressure in College Woman." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26 (1973), 287-294. Waterman, Alan S. "Relationship Between the Psychological Maturity of Entering College Freshmen and Their Expectations about College." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19 (1972), 42-46. Waterman, Alan 8., Patricia S. Geary, and Caroline K. Waterman, "Longitudinal Study of Changes in Ego Identity Status from the Freshman to the Senior Year at College." Developmental Psychology, 10 (1974), 387—392. 231 Waterman,Adan S.and CarolineIL Waterman. "Relationship Between Freshmen Ego Identity Status and Subsequent Academic Behavior: A Test of the Predictive Validity of Marcia's Categorization System for Identity Status." Developmental Psychology, 6 (1972), 179. Waterman, Alan S. and Caroline K. Waterman. "The Relationship Between Ego Identity Status and Satisfaction with College." The Journal of Educational Research, 64 (1970), 165-168. Wessman A. and Rieks, D. Mood and Personality. New York: Halt, Rinebart and Winston, 1966. Whitbourne, Susan Krauss and Alan S. Waterman. "Psychological Development During Adult Years: Age and Cohort Comparisons." Developmental Psychology, 15 (1979), 373-378. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES ”WWWHIWHIWHIHIHWIHHHWWIHI 312931.4533280