.. E. .4... A

‘ lift:

 
 

. . . . ‘ ,
.. i 3.... . . ,3... .53.: . cw .
v.12. . ..a.h4.fi....v.b....m¢hu.W-lflfl .v.d£s..m‘..u.m.ww..nil.Wu ..
h .3: v i! .1. ‘10. .« ln'l Q09 . 1...! Au. .
n3: Nugtpk.l 13! . lug. .n‘!.od.oufl.!o!}.-5.zs.:
L 4.1 Ivfl....l....7 .fl.l|3‘ . n1- I: .
u L. 11h. .. alt-u. Ir. Nashua". v.1. .icr..:.v...v... c9
(‘1 I. ‘0'! i 1’0f‘h' I
. .q‘tli: - intrinulv - ‘71.. Q1. .-
. M‘krv‘tI’Jf' \o .alfinl n" avlfivoOtm'UV « .
"Mi ulni..ba41¢.ll|3.1.\.vzv JunothQm—m.» tawny!” uoden-valttlvflw .
PU .913? h: .9... 3 ‘1 t. .i! In!!!
v. .muaimu JIJIW.n:.. and: .94“... .
ring... lion». 1.: 4... . 2.4%.... 3.5..

   
            

  

  

    

n... at. . 7!. > . - c . f v.
0:11.-.. 31.53899. 3.1!. .u-.. Hon» 3. bud.

v5. flaw?“ {”5344}... Ind... itch. I.
. Ln 4 l ‘0. liti¥~ ‘0 1‘ cool .a
italivc infivtbyl...~ I! . 2 .1: .ur. . n
- ‘

711%“... qn(luudb..31£ ax... 31:1 .3 . .
vmtouuvoi‘dfiv'lnt ) .I u...»\hH21.. ...n.u)v.n)lhn . X
‘ u

’0‘: .nl.ntcv ‘IC:
.' v: .

‘LH

iii
‘4‘ ‘\.\[h

     

    

  

.
v0»: .101.”

     

        

0 1‘0 I
.Ov&.aw..o¢‘0vv 99"!- u l v <‘qnotol9
.u‘ _ 4m . nvb o0 v..uvlllt‘q§to1u.flflov.fluntbll
. . . 3.0.0:.
. 1| .t 00.14
.

 

 

a: 2 :2 .2. 2
gt! ‘(OJN' “CI in..‘ 1. -
5.....z..me.-..~i... ..

   

. It. vrn¢uiz¢
\cltllt . {3.3.1.6031
.i “khan” 3:5

Q‘K‘ I Int-OOJlu‘sv
In. {and-iii

   

e. . .. v
7. . r . o ‘
vols-III! III“. a .. a ‘1
It tot-'13. Hub
Envtvlgw .u|vot‘
a J‘ vain-alt 1:!
#:0510595 .n. h
|9|CQ1QI¢£¢ .t .
v {.tmm-
1 ‘il.
9

lr‘l-I...1vlq .Dvnvfi
OVIOI’"!%V

            

  

 

 

..¢. 3..
...|~O\.:‘ ttubk‘l.‘
. Dtkvv uzl
. | v ..u~' .!

           

a.-. . ..‘9Al
Viluul~1.

 

 

    

 

 

Q A i 0.! '0‘! .ulchJA‘|.-

.‘I . (193 2:3. . u.-....| . 211.1 . ;.

1. . . .£ ‘ltl a in“?! nvliid‘ “10.11........H};.X.)h.3?tt.n..v:

«'31 " Ett‘dyA-‘Vfiklvolu \II‘QCI. .nu 1|. .Dl. “v:.v\$

1 2 1a} . 2 i I! Eon“... I d..- :3 {cl ..... 13.239331. 3%.... . I
.‘v \‘ 1-7990 1 1 L . . Z i . I 3".“I vi Qilvlnr} . .0 H.V.ool...o|9.|3§$‘a..2.vlt09nlc 1.... Inv‘t‘v‘ 3.-.. .31..» .. ‘07..th v .1: It 73.01
4-9:}: - u . .. .. , . ..... ‘ s- f .. ‘ . r. .c u- '
1‘ 1?- ....o.. . . .I‘ . :1... 3.... ‘3'...,.v‘d.o'l1e1l...la _.l»vov“WW.l" I’.‘

 

 

 

 

'b '5, "
Whigmr’érate '
gépulvemity

      
   

THESiS

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PERSONALITY TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH. LOEVINGER'S
MEASURE 0F EGO DEVELOPMENT

presented by

SALLIE ANNELLE NORQUIST

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. Psychology

degree in

 

 

 

Major professor

Date \Z/r’N /Z /ff5

0-7639 MS U i: an Aflirrnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

llll

HHIIIJHZIIUH[UNIHNIIIHHIIHIIIIHINNHIHIIUI

293 10466 4507

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

x.

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

as. your record. F__I____NES W'ln

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

if‘F‘E‘B ”‘0 é" 2005

 

 

PERSONALITY TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH LOEVINGER'S
MEASURE 0F EGO DEVELOPMENT

By

Sallie Annelle Norquist

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michi an State University
in partial fuléillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1983

ABSTRACT

PERSONALITY TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH LOEVINGER'S
MEASURE OF EGO DEVELOPMENT

By
Sallie Annelle Norquist

,Loevinger's assumption that personality organization
is coherently structured within each stage of ego develop-
ment was explored by searching for linkages between ego
levels, as measured by Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test
(SCT), and the diverse traits assessed by Jackson's Person-
ality Inventory (JPI). The responses of fifty participants
in an ongoing research project (21 medical students and 29
psychotherapy outpatients) to both tests were examined. A
few linkages were found although data analyses were hampered
by insufficient representatives below Loevinger's I-3/4
stage and complicated by significant JPI differences. sex
imbalances, and age disparities between the psychotherapy
and student subsamples. Ego develOpment correlated posi-
tively with JPI Complexity and inversely with JPI Conform-
ity, while JPI Anxiety remained independent of the SCT as
anticipated. However, few of the expected bonds between
JPI traits and specific ego levels were found. Future stu-
dies mmploying multiple measures that assess each trait's
qualitative and quantitative features would probably be more

definitive.

Dedicated to
John

and to my parents

ii

’)

—L~

—\

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to
‘my thesis committee members; Dr. John Hurley, Dr. John
Mckinney, and Dr. Elaine Donelson. The present study
would never have come to fruition without their help.

Dr. Hurley's moral support, genuine acceptance, and
gentle guidance have helped to carry me through many tunes
of personal as well as academic trials. I am also most
grateful to him for his skillful ability to nurture in-
dividual growth.

My initial exposure to the excitement of research was
under the guidance of Dr. John Mckinney. His friendship.
enthusiasm, and suggestions have all left their mark on me.

Although my contact with Dr. Elaine Donelson was
limited, I've appreciated her dependability, practicality,
honesty. and intellectually stimulating inquiries.

Thanks also to Judie Shepherd who, as always, did an
excellent job in typing this final draft, and to depart-
mental secretaries Marjorie Curtis and Jackie Benson for

their cOOperation with the typing of earlier drafts.

iii

‘(

s
.
' l
l
.
.
. .
.
.
-.
l
, I
'0
D
.- .
.
s .7
.
I
. .}.
4
..
,
“L.-
\ I
5!
1'.
.
0"

\r'v
.

I I
.9

+'\

_ .
,.

..

n

f

’. fr

4

v 1 Ox
.‘ *r‘ ‘ a
. .
WV " -
a u 0- y ' o
. .
. , .
+ ' '

C
C A .
.,. I. v , , _
s
I.-. . ,. .. -,
v» ' .. ‘ .I )(a
' .
. 7 -. . --
I; I, r s \ ’1 ,
A L
‘ " V
a r . . —‘ ‘N‘
4’ I - C ‘ .A ‘ g l
r g y
o--'-- . .c ‘ ~ '
.a‘s . , ‘
-
.r ‘ -0 ,, \t .
v
‘ t
‘ . vf o I
3 r . 'rf‘f'vF'
1 t-

. I- - r .-
“(I . .4 \ ‘I . .“
. . 'o

A ,‘ . f. .
\
. 7 ~ .
l ' .
u n '
w- I "uf‘f‘ n" r yr
i- r ‘1 A. v I ' I
2‘ y .-
.. - 4““ I. ’ i
, .- ..; ( .
- I u
* rx 'r~ " ‘ " '
- I' a J ‘ A .
v D .' ' ‘
\ - , "
Ir ‘ ' ~
' I
" . 0*!- p r ‘- - ‘.\
1 ' L [,1 -- 3 1

-‘.
C .
, .
C
...,
.
-..
.p

I
.- Lu...
t
fiat-q
l.

v , J
o
o
u
,‘- . ~-
I
l- .
. . r,
) .
.. A
a .' - "q
t
.
A
.1..- -
.'...- 1. '
i
II?
a. . r
../1
I
‘,
C
I ‘r’;
o A n
f
.r‘ r
A' '
. r \
‘ -1
‘ a ‘.y ’
.0, -v
- J.

F‘s

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .

Concept of Development. . . . . . .
Related Theorists . . . .
Loevinger' 3 Stages of Ego Development .
validity Issues and Loevinger' s Model

of Ego Development. . . . . .
Reliability of the SCT. . . .
Relevance of Longitudinal Studies .
Relevant Research . . . . .
Jackson Personality Inventory .

HYPOTHESES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Participants. . . . .
Instruments . . . . . . . .
Procedure . .

Statistical Analyses.

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Ego Deve10pment Ratings .
Participants' Mean JPI Scores in Relation

to JPI Norms. . . . . . . .
Participant Group Differences . . . . . . . . .
Sex Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental Hypotheses . . . . . . . .
Supplemental Data Analyses. . . .

DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nature and Distribution of Participants .

Overall Results . . . . . . . .
Assumption of Structural Coherence. .

iv

Page

o 79!

v
.
.
.,\
A
’\
O
.1'
D
.
'1
,
.
.
I
I\
o t'
O
o
.
I
o
.
-.
,,
l
I
G
. -

, _
, ,
‘. ,
D
4
.
' 0
l P
r
-.
n
r
.. .
A
.,..L.
.. .
0'}
é. '
.
Q
_ .
_.
, .u
'.A.I.,.
I‘ .
.,

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX

A.

Differences between Medical Students
and Psychotherapy Patients. .

Differences between Female and
male Participants . . . . .

Raw Data Used in Analyses . . . . . .

D. Automatic Rules for Assigning Total
Protocol Ratings to the Ogive of Item
Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES. . . . .

Page

58

59
60

61
62

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

Some Milestones of Ego DevelOpment.

Interrater Reliability for Loevinger'. s
Ego-DeveIOpment Measure . .

Distribution of Ego-Development Scores .

Mean Raw Scores of Medical Student,
Psychotherapy Patient, and JPI
Normative Sample Groups .

Means and Standard Deviations Obtained by
the Participant Groups on the JPI
Scales Showing Significant Inter-
action Effects. . . .

vi

Page

38
39

42

43

'

[I

I
,
i
w,-
n

I r(‘

-~
.4'

T'Yf

A

A

1'

I'

1.
1 .
Q

.

'1 7‘: f
+“
,o

“i
. 1'
. .

‘

U o s
x v
, ~

I
p
t)"
. -
.
v-
“ k

"The successive cycles of self could be identified,
marking off the phases by which.maturation takes place and
by which varying degrees of meaning emerge in a human exis-

tence." Progoff, 1975.
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In the past few decades, developmental psychology's
conventional stress on the first 15-20 years of life has
undergone a change in emphasis and perspective. Concurrent
with an increasing emphasis on the importance of longitudinal
studies is a change in perspective leading some theorists to
devise an integrated conceptualization of developmental
changes throughout the life span. DevelOpmental tOpics that
they have explored included psychosocial (Erikson), cognitive
(Piaget), moral (Kohlberg), and ego (Loevinger). According
to Loevinger (1976), however, subjects previously discussed
under psychosocial, cognitive, and moral develOpment are
subsumed by her hierarchical stage theory of ego deve10pment.
She reserved the term "ego deve10pment" for "just what is
common to a certain develOpmental sequence, and a certain
characterology" (1966, p. 196). Further, "It is the master
trait in personality, the frame that provides more specific
traits with their meaning, and around which the whole edifice
of personality is constructed" (1976, p. 41). Increasing
evidence obtained from studies of adult deve10pment (Block,
1971; Heath, 1968;~Levinson, 1978; Vaillant, 1977; and White,
1952) tends to support the stages of increasing differentia-

tion and complexity that Loevinger formulated in her model
1

2
of ego develOpment. Although her model delineates for each
stage a characteristic cognitive style, interpersonal style,
mode of controlling impulses, and stage related conscious
preoccupations, a further elucidation of characteristics of
Loevinger's stages of ego deve10pment seems merited. The
possibility of using self-report scales to measure and elu-
cidate ego developmental levels has been investigated by
several researchers, including Lorr and Manning (1978) and
Harakel (1971), who used the Interpersonal Style Inventory.
The relationship of ego level to the diversity of traits
measured by other self-report scales appears largely unex-
plored. The purpose of the present study was to look at
the relationship between ego develOpment level, as measured
by Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test (SCT), and the di-
verse set of personality traits measured by Jackson's
Personality Inventory (JPI). As a test of construct vali-
dity, hypotheses were constructed concerning expected rela-
tionships between specific JPI personality scales and levels
of ego development. These hypotheses were based upon
Loevinger's model and prior JPI studies. The results may
serve to further an integrated conceptualization of develop-
mental changes throughout the life-span, while also eluci-
dating the traits and abilities characterizing Loevinger's

various ego levels.

A. The Concept of Development.

 

The mechanistic and organismic conceptualizations of

"development" are saliant in the contemporary literature.

3
The mechanistic view refers to changes during the life-span
(ontogenetic) and changes during the course of evolution
(phylogenetic). Inherent organization and change directed
toward some goal are not implied in the mechanistic view,
but these are featured in the organismic view. Nagel (1957,
p. 17) states that the organismic view of deve10pment con-

notes . the notion of a system possessing a definite
structure and a definite set of pre-existing capacities and
the notion of a sequential set of changes in the system,
yielding relatively permanent but novel increments not only
in its structure but in its modes of Operation as well."

The organismic view further implies that changes are uni-
directional, irreversible, and directed toward certain end-
state goals (i.e., teleological). Loevinger's theory of ego
develOpment stems from the organismic model, as well as an
assertion that deve10pment can be represented by reference

to stages. Her notion of ego deve10pment is that it proceeds
through sequentially ordered stages, in an invariant hierar-
chical order. In theory all humans have the capacity to
reach Loevinger's highest level of ego development. Empiri-
cally, however, only about 1% of persons investigated in
most social groups attain this stage. Most people do not
deve10p beyond one of the earlier stages. Reese & Overton
(in Goulet/Balles, 1970) stated that, according to the organ-
ismic model, "The organism can know the world only through
structures that mediate his behavior. Developmentally consi-

dered, as psychological structures change, there is a quali-

tative change in the mode of knowing the world" (p. 134).

4

This is the essence of Loevinger's theoretical construction,
that the stages of ego deve10pment reflect an abstract con-
tinuum of customary orientations (or modes of knowing the
world) that one may take toward her/himself and the world.
One's ego deve10pment level constitutes a framework of

meaning that one subjectively imposes upon the world.

B. Related Theorists

 

Having defined Loevinger's model of ego deve10pment as
an organismic stage theory, what similarities and differences
exist between it and other related theories? Erikson, Piaget
and Kohlberg have each deve10ped organismic, stage theories
which have influenced Loevinger's formulations.

Erikson (1968) was one of the earliest theorists to
define stages of growth extending over the entire life—span.
He defined stages of psychosocial growth as arising from
potential crises because of a change in perspective. Each
crisis, or stage, was represented by Erikson by alternative
basic attitudes that may be taken as the crisis is resolved
(i.e., trust vs. mistrust, autonomy vs. shame and doubt, etc.).
Each stage shows an increasing capacity for drawing upon inner
resources, accepting one's responsibilities towards society,
and learning to care more deeply for self and others. Erik-
son's most mature stages, generativity vs. stagnation, and
ego integrity vs. despair, correspond roughly to Loevinger's
highest ego development levels. Loevinger asserted that
Erikson has intertwined psychosexual deve10pment with ego

develOpment, although he is primarily referring to ego

5
deve10pment. She disagrees with his representation of the
stages as tied to age-specific problems (courtship, marriage,
aging, etc.). Loevinger clearly stated that her definition
of ego deve10pment applies almost independently of age level,
although the highest ego deve10pmental levels are rarely
(if ever) found before puberty.

Piaget has focused more on cognitive or intellectual
stages of growth. Viewed from the ego develOpment model,
Piaget's theory has confounded ego growth with purely cogni-
tive develOpment. The Piagetian concept of maturation, how-
ever, reflecting unfolding patterns of mastering and making
sense of one's own experience, seems similar to Loevinger's

model of ego develOpment. Piaget's The Moral Judgment of

 

the Child (1932) bears the closest kinship to Loevinger's

 

model. Similar to the ego develOpmental model, Piaget con-
ceives of develOpment as a striving for coherence and equili-
brium. He did not, however, prOpose an invariant sequence

of stages. He also stated that a rise in the social mode of
c00peration, rather than inner development, accounts for
moral judgment.

Several studies have compared Loevinger's theory of ego
deve10pment with Kohlberg's theory of moral development
(Sullivan et a1, 1970; Lambert, 1972; and Haan et al, 1973).
Similar to Loevinger, Kohlberg has proposed an invariant,
hierarchically-ordered series of stages of differing forms.
Assuming that moral judgment is one aspect of ego develop-
ment, Loevinger has cited Kohlberg's theory as influential

in the development of her own model. Studies relating ego

6
development stage with moral stage have found moderate cor-
relations. Their interpretation, however, has been tempered
by the fact that each study has used a different meaning of
moral deve10pment. Lambert (1972) found an overall correla-
tion coefficient of .80 (reduced to .60 when controlled for
age) between Kohlberg's and Loevinger's stages. Snarey and
Blasi (1980) noted that these findings were important in
suggesting that moral development could be predicted from a
knowledge of ego level. An individual at the highest level
of moral deve10pment. however, would not necessarily be at
one of the highest ego deve10pment levels. Moral develop-
ment seems a necessary but insufficient condition for ego

deve10pment.

C. Loevinger's Stages of Ego Deve10pment

 

Having outlined the framework from which Loevinger de-
rived this model of ego deve10pment. I will next describe
the successive stages arrived at through empirical work with
the specifically designed 36-item sentence completion test
(SCT) used to measure ego level. Table 1 provides a synap-
sis of the relevant characteristics of each stage. There
are seven basic stages and three transitional phases in the
model, constituting an invariant hierarchical order. No
stage may be skipped, although an individual may regress to
earlier stages during periods of stress or crisis. Each
stage is progressively more complex than the preceding

stage.

uaouuao
Scum ammo
noun mo coma

nocuuoan "pod

wouso scum

saga yucca mo

cowuugucouomuwo

.naoanoun auaooo
.unuanoao>on mmmfl

soaouounxo
.uuwuuu .uucma

soanoun
Honouuoau no
oocuoaoaoo mmmfl

suaauaua>aeewnu
you uoomnum ”oo<

cameo“ can
«doom abouuwcoa

nxeaH owuadacnva>wvaH

 

 

 

 

1" [H'

 

 

 

 

H «Hash

usuamoam>on emu mo aucoumaawz anm

wswcuuuuun uo>oa£ou .uooouou coausuqcua. .oouausuuacoo you
no mood umaoo .uo«>uson you uaoo Mom auooaou uses» .auaoauauo
.muaxuamaoo ao>auoa .umnuaoum .Huauaa .oagaucomo suave .nvuuvcuun
Hanummucoo wouuaucuuomuan non .o>«unou:H vouaauo>oumuom qua oaoaucoauusoo
Aoswu>v
aoauusauuoamo magmas: .nsouw
.auouuuu .uaoHA ou codumsuu :« madam .oaho: mo uoaahomaoo
muaouaaauaaz noun .usuaunano< «Hon mo oum3< scuuowuaouomman «\nuH nosoauaowowcoo
cognaau How>unun amass wcaxuoun
.uunmuoououu .nwswauom Hanna you unwnw .oadnu
7. .huaouamaau .huaaunuuuooon flea caucuses owoam .nouau Husuouxo
Husumoocou noon .oocauuuam< unease .wca aoaom ou huwauouaoo nun uuaahomaoo
Houucoo .aowuu uguoadfluuoamo
nco>ou .owaanu .oaan wads“
.oonuws .0 Avon» o>auuuuoaaxo .o>au naocusuuo .unwauo u>wuoououm
.couuoouou umaom nuasawsua_.hu¢3 means no snow .AV nmaom
coaunucoo o>uaaoumwa and o>wuuuuoamxo
assuaooaco uaaxoo hdgaaoomoo .ucopsonov
.mnammuoououm .nwcaaoom haaoom .w:«>«ooq¢ uuou .ebwnnneEH mum a>wonsnaH
Nassau: .a> «Ham oauoaaasm A-H usuoanasm
owuoaus< Huquamum
osmum maowuunsouooum uHhum m . . .
o>auwcwoo «sououcoo HuaouuomusucH unwflomwmmmaowmwwmwuao soon owuum

 

li'.

.onma

 

uswauhaoo nu0w=a>ooa .H h: moauoons can ocowuuoocoo "uncanoao>oo own aoym

.Ho>oH ufiOH>oua on» o» madmaemo couuawuoaov on» on couuuvou ca acuoe_:vo<:

.uaumuhooaon k;
”ouoz

"cuoz

 

hua>auoonno
.oaoou vmoun
.muwswanaa Mom
coduuuudouifiuu
turn Koaaaoo
.huaxoaa

:aoo finaunoo
ucoo poomouocm

muaucova unv<

unsucoo

Hudson nu was» .usua
-HH«MH5Mamacu .sowu
smooaoo anon .uoabmn
-un mo couudnaou
wwoaonO£umua .aouaw
a0a0£0hmm was amuaw
:o owmmxm o coau
may ouaw .o cwaoom
ooho>noo haoa>a>

an:
-Huava>auca mm:
meanuauonu "cn<

oocovaonoo
unsung .haocouau
how uoommflm uvv<

oapocauuuucb
mo flouuuauauauu
.muouamcoo Hoccm
wnaaauaooou "uu< o-H

acauuuoaou
.ooooc Macaw
wcauoaauemwu
auaa.waaaoo ”ue< m-H

osuahwounH

msoao:0u:<

 

 

samum unowuuaaooooum samum unwaaono>on Houuuuuno o o owe
o>qufiawov asowoasoo Anacouonuoucu .Houusoo onasmaw o o um
Aquacauaoov H «Home

9

The first stage (I-l) has two phases, Presocial and
Symbiotic. The task of the Presocial stage is to achieve
object constancy, allowing the infant to differentiate her/
himself from the surroundings. This process is furthered in
the Symbiotic phase. This stage of ego development is pre-
linguistic and therefore inaccessible to psychometric
assessment.

In the Impulsive stage (I-2) the child's impulses help
her/him to affirm her/his own separate identity (i.e., "No,"
"Do it by self," etc.). Dichotomies such as good-bad, clean-
dirty, and mean-nice are common. There is a very limited time
perspective, a focusing almost exclusively on the present,
and a limited emotional range. Affects are generally seen as
bodily states or impulses. Other peOple are seen as sources
of supply, and magical ideas (rather than a sense of causa-
tion) prevail. Examples of I-2 responses include the
following:

Most men think that: women are bad but some are good.

A pregnant woman: is sick.

A woman should always: keep clean.

The next stage ([5) is labeled Self—Protective. In it
the child has learned to control her/his impulses when it
seems advantageous to do so. Concerns at the self-protective
stage are with controlling and being controlled, domination,
competition, and not getting caught. Persons at this stage
tend to take an eXploitive, manipulative attitude toward
others, and a hedonistic approach towards life. Blame is

projected outward. Instances of self-protective responses

10
include the following:

A woman should always: be alert and on guard.

My mother and I: get along when she has money.

When peeple are helpless: I don't like to be bothered

by them.

The A/3 stage is considered a transitional phase be-
tween the Self—Protective and Conformist stages. Responses
here are not complex enough to merit a higher rating, nor
impulsive enough to gain a lower rating.

The I-3, or Conformist stage, is reached by most indi-
viduals generally during the early school years. The Con-
formist stage constitutes either a majority, or a large minor—
ity, of most social groups. Individuals at the I-3 stage see
the world in conceptually simple generalizations. Rules are
accepted without questioning. The conventional and socially
approved is viewed as right. Friendliness and social "nice-
ness" are highly valued by these individuals. Inner states
are perceived in a superficial manner (i.e., sad, happy,
angry, glad, etc.) and cognitive preoccupations include
appearance, material items, social acceptance, and reputa-
tion. Those at the Conformist stage never mention sex and
love as two aspects of a single relationship. Representative
Conformist responses include:

Being with other peOple: makes you feel like you belong.

A woman should always: keep her figure.

Usually she felt that sex: was less important than love.

The second transitional phase (I-3/4) is labeled

Self-Aware, and apparently is the mode for students during

11

the first two years of college. During this phase there is
a heightened consciousness of self and of inner feelings.
Rules are seen to have exceptions, and multiple alternatives
can be considered. The I-3/4 person has a stronger awareness
of feelings, of individual differences, and of purposes and
expectations. However, all of these are expressed in more
global and banal terms than at higher levels.

A pregnant woman: is happy but uncomfortable.

I feel sorry for peeple: when embarrassed in a crowd.

A woman feels good when: she has a purpose.

True conceptual complexity is first found at the I-4,
or Conscientious stage. Here motives and consequences loom
as more important than rules per se; therefore, one may feel
guilty for hurting someone rather than for breaking a rule.
The achievement motive, self-criticism, self-evaluated
standards, and valuing responsibility now come to the fore.
Inner states are vividly described, psychological causation
is perceived, and there may be an excessive feeling of con-
trolling or molding others. Interpersonal interaction is
intensive for an individual at the I-4 stage. A clear con-
ception of mutuality is displayed.

Usually she felt that sex: was a sharing experience.
WOmen are lucky because: they can control themselves
more than men.
I am: a thinking, reasoning individual possessing a
body and soul.
The last transitional phase, Individualistic (1-4/5),

bridges the gap between the Conscientious (I-A) and the

12
Autonomous (I-S) stages. The 1-4/5 stage is characterized
by a concern for emotional dependence and a heightened sense
of individuality. An individual at this stage is more likely
to see and tolerate paradox, rather than forced choice, in a
situation. There is a greater distinction between process
and outcome, inner life and outer life, and the psychological
and physical realms. Less egocentrism and a broad view of
life as a whole characterize responses at the 1-4/5 level and
above. Interpersonal relations are cherished, somewhat re-
placing the 1-4 priority on achievement.

A woman should always: strive for growth and increas-
ing depth in her marriage.

Being with other peOple: is often a defense against
being alone.

The worst thing about being a woman: the conflict of
being independent and self-sufficient and being
expected to be dependent such as on dates, etc.

The I-S, or Autonomous individual recognizes others'
needs for autonomy, and that conflict is part of the human
condition. There is a feeling for the complexity and multi-
faceted nature of oneself, others, and the world, along with
a recognition that not all problems are solvable. Inner
conflict is acutely felt and coped with in the process of
seeking a sense of self-fulfillment. Objectivity, lack of
prejudice, and a concern for broad social issues are values
esteemed by the I-5 person. Spontaneity, genuineness, inten-
sity, and existential humor often characterize the Autonomous

person's mode of interacting.

13

I am: At times a question mark, at times just a
period, but many times an exciting exclamation
mark.

What gets me into trouble is: my honesty in matters
involving injustice and pettiness.

A pregnant woman: is a contradiction of unattractive
bulk and vast feminity and womanliness.

Less than 1% of the members of any known social group
reach the I-6, or Integrated stage. Maslow's portrayal of
self—actualized individuals serves as an apt description of
the I-6 person. At this stage inner conflict is transcended,
as the person proceeds "beyond caping with conflicts to re-
conciliation of conflicting demands, and, where necessary, a
renunciation of the unattainable" (Loevinger, 1966, p. 200).
Several thoughts are combined in I-6 responses, generally
uniting inner and outer life, the specific and the general.
Responses are unique and often touching.

At times she worried about: money, health, the state
of the world, and whether her son needed new shoes
right now.

A good mother: is kind, considerate, tender, sensitive
and always aware a child is master of its own soul.

Raising a family: can break your heart and be wonder-
ful too. One sometimes learns almost too late to

accept and love and not try to change.

D. Validity Issues and Loevinger's Model of Ego Development
Hauser's (1976) critical review of Loevinger's model is

the most comprehensive critique of studies relevant to

‘1

l4
validity issues in the conceptualization of ego development.
I will briefly mention here several of the most salient
validity issues not yet resolved.

In the area of discriminant validity, several research-
ers have questioned whether the SCT was actually measuring
IQ level (Blasi; in Loevinger and Wessler, 1970, and HOppe,
1972), and whether an appreciable relationship existed be-
tween ego level and verbal fluency on the SCT (Loevinger and
Wessler, 1970; McCrae and Costa, 1980). These findings sug-
gested that the SCT measures something more than IQ or verbal
fluency, although there does appear to be a relationship
between ego level and both IQ and verbal fluency. The nature
of this relationship remains ambiguous (i.e., is high IQ and
verbal fluency necessary but not sufficient for high ego
levels, or vice versa?).

An unresolved construct validity issue concerns the
relationship between age and ego level. Loevinger explicitly
excluded age as a significant factor in ego deve10pment.
although she has referred to specific age trends in her
manual (Loevinger and Wessler, 1970, pp. 4-5) when defining
the different ego levels (i.e., the Conformist level is
reached by most children "during the early school years,"
and the Self—Aware phase appears to be "modal for students
during the first two years of college"). The pertinent
studies have differed in the correlations found between age
and ego level. Sullivan's data (1970) shows high correla—
tions between age and ego level, while McCrae and Costa

(1980) found ego level to be independent of age. Lasker

15
(1974) and Kusatsu (1978), utilizing the SCT in Curacao and
Japan, respectively, found adult ego development to be cor-
related with socionomic status, education, occupation, and
occupational prestige, but not with age.

A related issue is Loevinger's assumption that the ego
deve10pment levels have an invariant hierarchical order; that
individuals progress through each of the stages, one by one,
in a set pattern. Blasi (1972) attempted to test this assump-
tion and found support for sequential trends in the ordering
of the ego levels. His results supported the sequence of
increasingly complex deve10pmental stages posited by Loevin-
ger's model, but not the assumption of invariant order (for
example, that no stages are skipped). Only the results of
future longitudinal studies will adequately test this assump-
tion.

The question of structural validity is the final un-
resolved validity issue that I will mention. It is also the
most relevant to the present study. According to Loevinger's

definition, ego deve10pment is the "master trait,"

encompass-
ing moral, social, affective, and cognitive lines of develop-
ment. This assumed degree of structural integration implies
that diverse personality traits are organized at each ego
level. Factor analysis has been utilized to support the
unitary dimension or "master trait" assumption (Loevinger

and Wessler, 1970; Lamber, 1972). Predictive hypotheses
inferred from the theoretical description of the various

stages have been employed to test the assumed organization

of diverse personality traits at each ego level. Several

16
researchers employing this design (Blasi, 1972; Happe, 1972;
Lorr and Manning, 1978; McCrae and Costa, 1980; Rosen and
Nordquist, 1980) have found support for Loevinger's theore-
tical description of specific stages. This study is similar
in that it employs predictive hypotheses derived in part
from theoretical descriptions to identify personality traits

corresponding to the various ego levels.

E. Reliability of the SCT

 

Reliability prOperties of the sentence completion test
have utilized three estimates; test-retest, split half, and
internal consistency (alpha). Significant reliabilities
were reported on all three of these indices in both of the
reliability studies reported by Hauser (1976). These
studies contained samples of 51 ninth grade students, and
81 undergraduates. Internal consistency coefficients ranged
from .80 and .89, and split half reliability correlations
were .90 and .85 (corrected for test length). With an
interval of one week between taking test halves, the split
half reliability correlation decreased to .68. Test-retest
correlations varied between studies (from .44 to .79). The
possibility that situational factors may have a significant
influence on SCT scores is suggested by the significantly
lower retest scores in the studies reviewed by Hauser. One
interpretation given for these results is that unless a
rationale is given for the retesting, the task of taking
the test becomes less meaningful and more tedious the second

time around. The consequent lack of effort put forth during

17
retesting may then yield lower SCT scores. It is important
to note that although the reliability estbmates given so
far are significant, testing is needed on larger and more

varied samples to consolidate these results.

F. Relevance of Longitudinal Studies

 

How have the results of studies of adult deve10pment
supported and/or contradicted Loevinger's stages of inner
growth? As stated earlier, Loevinger excluded age specific
contingencies in describing levels of ego deve10pment. If
ego development is conceived of as proceeding inwardly and
marked by increasing differentiation and complexity, however,
then generalized deve10pmental changes noted throughout the
human life span may reflect the inner growth depicted in
Loevinger's stages. Ego development is not highly corre-
lated with age in studies focused on determining individual
ego deve10pment levels. When looking at the human species
as a whole, however, it cannot be concluded that there is
not a general developmental trend over the life span that
is similar to Loevinger's hierarchy of ego deve10pment
stages. Results derived from studies of adult deve10pment
seem to support this speculation. Also, many studies of
adult deve10pment have focused on the lives of well-educated
men in relatively high socioeconomic brackets and having
rather prestigious occupations, thus making them prime
candidates for the capacity for growth toward higher levels
of ego deve10pment. The aspects of this literature that have
relevance for Loevinger's ego deve10pment stages are

reviewed next.

18

White's (1952) Lives in Progress focused upon case
studies of normal peOple (2 males, 1 female) in an attempt
to gain an enhanced understanding of lives. Summarizing
his findings. White delineated four significant growth
trends: (a) stabilizing of ego identity, (b) freeing of
personal relationships, (c) deepening of interests, and
(d) humanizing of values. The stabilizing of ego identity
moved from a dependence on the judgment of peers (Loevinger's
I-3 stage) to self-judgments (ego level I-4) to increasing
autonomy (moving towards I-5). Growth towards more spon-
taneous, warm, respectful,and less ego centered interpersonal
interaction was characteristic of the freeing of personal
relationships, as well as an increase in ego level. The
deepening of interests trend showed an increasing ability to
become absorbed in objects of interest, and to do something
for its own sake (I-4), rather than for outside support (I-3).
A growth towards discovering the human meaning of values
(in their relationship to society), and creating one's own
personal value system (I-4), characterized the humanizing of
values growth trend. This growth occurred through conflict
between existing values and new values, as one moved toward
a more unified philosOphy of life (I-6).

In studying the maturing process of students during
college, Heath (1968) prOposed a model of the maturing per-
son that was generally supported in the results of his study
(which included 73 male college seniors and freshmen). This

model delineated five major areas of deve10pment, all

19
supportive of the traits characteristic of Loevinger's higher
levels of ego deve10pment. The first area, "the capacity to
represent experience symbolically" includes the development
of an inner private world, rich differentiated awareness,
and a knowledge of one's own motives, beliefs, and values.

Becoming "allocentric, the second area, involved becoming
more "other-centered" and less autocentric in one's motives,
values, and ideas about oneself.

Greater differentiation, complexity, Openness, curiosity,
and the capacity to be actively involved, characterized the
third or "becoming integrated" area of deve10pment. Gaining
a greater sense of internal stability described the fourth
area of the model of the maturing, while the fifth and last
area was labeled "becoming more autonomous". It entailed
becoming more objective in one's thought and judgment, learn-
ing not to sacrifice one's own independence in relationships,
and becoming less manipulable by the environment.

Levinson's (1969) study of forty 35-45 year-old males
of differing occupations (executives, industry workers,
novelists, and biologists) resulted in clearly defined, age-
related life phases and transitions. He labeled these the
Novice phase (age 17-33), the Settling Down period (age 32-
41), the Mid-Life Transition (age 40-45) and Middle Adulthood
(beyond age 45). Each era was found to have characteristic
psychological, biological, and social aspects. The eras were
found to occur in a fixed sequence, similar to Loevinger's
model, but unlike the model of ego development, these eras

were not defined as hierarchical. Any given era was not

considered higher or better than the preceding one.

20

The Novice phase was characterized by ambiguous values
and aspirations, the task of breaking away from one's family
and forming a dream, (i.e., aspirations) an occupation, and
love relationships. This era or phase seems to be most
similar to Loevinger's I-3 or 1-3/4 stages of ego deve10p-
ment,although the correspondence is not clearly demonstrated.

The Settling Down era seems to be most similar to the
I-4 stage of ego development. It entailed the pursuit of
long range goals, a heightened sense of commitment and re-
sponsibility, and an urgency to get serious, make priorities,
and work at advancement. A growth in responsibility to
society was another prevalent feature.

During the third era, the Mid-Life Transition, the sub-
jects dealt with the polarities that were sources of deep
division in their lives. Tasks of this time period included
individually resolving the polarities of young/old, destruc-
tion/creation, masculine/feminine, and attachment/separate-
ness. The self became more complex, and there was a growing
interiority and individuation. The above could serve as a
description of Loevinger's I-4/5, and I-S levels of ego
deve10pment.

The Middle-Adulthood era had not been researched at the
time Levinson wrote his book. He postulated that during this
period of time the subjects would work to build a life struc-
ture around the choices they had made in their lives.

It is interesting to note that Levinson hypothesized
that "this sequence of eras and periods exists in all socie-

ties throughout the human species at the present stage in

21
human evolution" (Pg. 322). Loevinger's test of ego deve10p-
ment has been given in various cultures, including Israel
(Snarey & Blase, 1980), Japan (Kusatsu, 1978), Argentina &
Pakistan (Suzman, 1974), and Curacas (Tasker et a1, 1974).
The results of these studies have strengthened the cross-
cultural validity of Loevinger's model.

In Adaptation to Life, Vaillant (1977) summarized the

 

results of a longitudinal study of college sOphomores selec-
ted from 1939-1944. His sample consisted of 268 men attend-
ing a very competitive and demanding college, selected on

the basis of evidence of their independence and ability to
achieve. Vaillant stated that a central thesis of his book
was "if we are to master conflict gracefully and to harness
instinctual strivings creatively, our adaptive styles must
mature" (Pg. 329). On this basis, Vaillant prOposed a
hierarchy of immature, neurotic, and mature ego defenses,
applying them to the results of his study. He stated that
his data supported the observations of Block (1971) and

Haan (1972); i.e., that mature defenses are used with rela-
tively greater frequency with the passage of years. Immature
defenses (acting-out, fantasy, passive-aggression, hypo-
chrondriasis, and projection) were found to be more predom-
inant below the age of twenty. These correspond.most closely
with the lowest (I-2,A ,A/3) stages of ego deve10pment.
Suppression, altruism, sublimation, and anticipation, cate-
gorized by Vaillant as the mature defenses, are examples of
the defenses most likely to be utilized by those at the

higher levels of ego deve10pment (1—4/5, I-S, & I-6). The

22
classification of the neurotic defenses according to ego
deve10pmental level is less clear. These defenses include
reaction formation, intellectualization, displacement, re-
pression, and dissociation.
Perhaps Block (1971) has formulated the most extensive

and complex theory of adult development. In Lives Through

 

gigs, Block defined alternate paths along which personality
evolves over time (creating 5 male types & 6 female types).
His sample included approximately 160 male and female sub-
jects chosen between 1929 and 1932 from the Berkeley area.
Three different life periods (junior high school, senior high
school, and adulthood) were examined and contrasted for each
subject by a Q-sort methodology. Block was so impressed
with the fit between the female and male types that emerged
from his data analyses and Loevinger's ego development

stages that he devoted a major section of his book to this
tapic. Rating each one of his types according to Loevinger's
definitions of the stages of ego development, Block found
that both his male and female types ranged from stages I-2

to I-5. Further growth seemed likely for some of Block's
types, while others appeared fixed at the ego level that
presently characterized their behavior. "In the main,.

then Loevinger's stages subsume the types reasonably well.

A continuum of maturation and of maturity may be seen to

be involved, with different individuals achieving different
places along it" (Block, pg. 252).

 

 

23

G. Relevant Research

 

Several previous studies have utilized Loevinger's
SCT and various self-report measures. Lorr and Manning
(1978) explored how well ego deve10pment level can be mea-
sured by the Interpersonal Style Inventory and several
supplementary scales. They were also interested in compar-
ing "the characteristics of the ego development continuum
as revealed by incomplete sentences and self-report scales"
(Pg. 354). They found that two dimensions of differences
accounted for 75% of the variance in the female protocols:
(a) level of socialization increased with increasing ego
level, and (b) degree of "rule boundness" decreased with
increasing ego level. Among males, 63% of the variance was
accounted for by only one dimension: level of socialization
tended to increase with increasing ego level. Additionally,
there was a tendency with increasing ego level for defen-
siveness to increase among women, and an increase in achieve-
ment orientation among men. Self-Protective (A level)
subjects were found to be highest on closed-mindedness,
external control and counter-attack, and lowest on nurtur-
ance, conscientiousness, trust, tolerance, sensitivity, and
psychological mindedness. This pattern was exactly re-
versed for the Individualistic (I-4/5) and Autonomous (I-S)
stages. The Conformists (1-3) were found low'on rule-free,
while the Conscientious (I-4) level subjects, characteris-
tically, were found to be highest on achievement, persis-
tence and future-orientation. These results supported the
view that ego deve10pment can be measured reliably by self-

report inventories.

24

Rosen and Nordquist (1980) gave Loevinger's SCT and
Rokeach's value survey (Form D) to members of a California
Yogic Community. Persons at lower ego levels tended to
value their friendships, a world at peace, and cheerfulness
more highly than did those at higher ego levels. The latter
judged ambitiousness, responsibility, social recognition,
and mature love as being more important. Given the Yogic
community context, it is interesting to note that most of
the members scored at the Conformist ego level, where group
support is sought to uphold one's beliefs.

Using the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness (NEO)
model of personality, a "conceptual classification of
personality traits based on factor analysis of a number of
standard and new self-report personality measures," McCrae
and Costa (1980, pg. 1180) hypothesized that Openness to
experience would be associated with Loevinger's measure Of
ego deve10pment. They found that seven of ten measures of
Openness to experience correlated positively with ego deve1-
0pment, versus no such correlations among five extraversion
measures. Their five neuroticism measures yielded only two
significant correlations (both negative) with ego level.

The following correlations were statistically significant
(p .05 by the z-tabled test): Liberal Thinking (from 16PF,
.27), Values (.26), Aesthetics (.23), Experience Inventory
Total Openness (.23), Actions (.16), Ideas (.13), Anger
(-.l4), Fear (-.16), and Traditional Family Ideology (-.24).
The results of this study suggested that ego level is a

broader concept than Openness. A range of Openness was

25

found within any ego developmental level. Openness did tend
to increase with ego level, however, only a part of ego
level could be identified as Openness.

Ego maturity and interpersonal style were studied in
a doctoral dissertation by Harakel (1971). After adminis-
tering the SCT, the Interpersonal Style Inventory, and the
Schedule Interpersonal Responses (Peer Form), Harakel used
multivariate statistical methods to analyze the inter-
relationship Of the interpersonal responses of groups low,
medium, and high in ego-maturity level. Differences among
these three groups were accounted for by a dependence-
autonomy dimension. High maturity subjects were character-
ized by independence, autonomy, greater freedom from both
group pressure and expedient behavior, and interpersonal
involvement tempered by reserve. Low ego maturity subjects
emerged as defensive, and emotionally dependent. Re-
grouping subjects according to the similarity of their
response patterns, a single dimension labeled expedience-

conscientious again emerged to account for the differences.

H. Jackson Personality Inventory

 

The present study explores the relationship between
ego deve10pment level and the personality traits measured by
the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI; Jackson, 1976).
Designed for use by non-clinical, average-intelligence pOp-
ulations, the JPI is comprised Of 320 true-false items,
divided equally into sixteen 20 item scales. Norms were

based on the responses of two thousand male and two thousand

26
female college students representing forty-three colleges
and universities across North America. Scale construction,
begun some fourteen years before the JPI's publication,
employed empirical procedures that are "perhaps the most
elaborate ever applied to personality scale construction"
(Pg. 60, 1976). Bentler's coefficient theta was used to
Obtain internal consistency reliability estimates for the
JPI. Two groups Of college students served as the samples.
In the California cdllege sample (N582) values ranged from
.84 to .95, with a median of .93. Values ranging from .75
to .93 were found in the Pennsylvania sample (Nb307), with
a median of .90. These values are relatively high, con-
sidering that the scales consist of only 20 items. Con—
cepts selected for measurement encompass a broad range of
interesting and useful personality measures, from energy
level, innovation, value orthodoxy, and social adroitness,
to anxiety, organization, and self-esteem. The breadth of
the concepts measured, the careful attention devoted to
scale definition and item writing, and the Obtained validity
‘measures enhance the JPI's potential to provide meaningful

data.

HYPOTHESES
The following hypotheses delineate the expected rela-
tionships between specific Jackson Personality Inventory
(JPI) scales and ego deve10pment, as measured by Loevinger's
(SCT). They are based upon her extensive theory of ego

development (see especially Loevinger, 1976), Jackson's

27
Interpreter's Guide to the JPI (1978) and results from
previous studies using the SCT and self-report (or other
relevant) measures. Following each hypothesis is a clarifi-
cation of its basis.
Hypothesis 1: Scores for the JPI's Social Participation,

value Orthodoxy, and Conformity scales will be higher for

 

those subjects at the Conformist_(I-3) ego deve10pment level
than for those subjects at other ego development levels.
Persons scoring high on the JPI Social Participation
scale tend to focus on social activity for its own sake,
join a variety of social groups, and to be friendly, out-
going, fun loving, and cordial. This scale correlated
positively with Cheerfulness from the Bentler Psychological
Inventory (BPI) and Affiliation from the Psychological Re-
search Form - E (PRF-E), while it correlated negatively with
the PRF-E Autonomy scale. According to the ego deve10pment
model, those at the Conformist level like to be part of a
group, depend on expressions of social approval, value a
friendly, pleasing personality, and describe interaction in
terms of behaviors. Previous studies supporting this hypo-
thesis include Rosen and Nordquist (1980) and Harakel (1971).
Rosen and Nordquist found that lower ego deve10pment levels
(i.e., below I-4) valued cheerfulness and true friendship
more than those at the higher ego deve10pment levels.
Harakel, positing one dimension of dependence-autonomy to
account for interpersonal and moral deve10pment differences
between high or low ego maturity groups, found the post-

Conformist ego maturity group to be towards the autonomous

28
end of the continuum. This supports the negative correlation
between autonomy and the JPI Social Participation scale, if
the results are significant.

The JPI Value Orthodoxy scale correlates positively
with the BPI scale for Religious Commitment, and with a
self-rating of "Traditional vs. modern in outlook." It is
negatively correlated with the BPI scales for Liberalness
and Sexual Experience. Peer raters place high scorers on
this scale high on the BPI scale of Law Abidance. Persons
at the Conformist ego level are described in Loevinger's
SCT rating manual (1970) as manifesting behavior governed by
rules, and accepting laws and conventional social norms
without question. McCrae and Costa (1980) Offer support for
this hypothesis in their study showing the higher (i.e.,
post-Conformist) ego deve10pment levels to be more Open,
less dogmatic, more liberal in their thinking and less
oriented toward traditional family ideology, than the lower
ego deve10pment levels.

Persons obtaining high scores on the JPI scale of
Conformity tend to be susceptible to social influence and
group pressure, and to adapt to pressure of group membership.
They are compliant and acquiescent. Lorr and Manning (1978)
found those at the Conformist ego levels to be low on Rule-
Free, as measured by the Interpersonal Style Inventory. A
curvilinear relationship between a self-report measure of
conformity and ego level was reported by HOppe (1972) with
the highest levels of conformity corresponding to the I-3,

or Conformist ego deve10pment level. Cliches are frequent

29
in Conformist level SCT responses. Conformist level indivi-
duals tend to describe themselves in socially acceptable
terms, and react to the world in a global, banal, super-
ficial manner.
Hypothesis II: Scores for the JPI scales measuring

Organization,»Responsibility, and Energy Level will be higher

 

for those subjects at the Conscientious (1:4) ego development

 

level than for subjects at other levels.

 

The JPI scale measuring Organization tends to Obtain
higher scores from individuals who are disciplined, syste-
matic, orderly, and consistent. These individuals use their
time effectively, generally completing their work on time.
Persons obtaining high scores on the JPI Responsibility
scale tend to feel an obligation to be honest and upright,
have a sense of duty towards others, have strong inflexible
consciences and feel guilt for transgressions of moral pre-
cepts. They are generally honest, ethical, dependable,
conscientious, and reliable. The ego deve10pment model
portrays the Conscientious or 1-4 level as one where the
achievement motive is at its highest. There is a strong
sense of responsibility, long-term goals and ideals, one's
own self-evaluated standards, and guilt over the consequences
of one's actions. Procrastination, wasting time, and dis-
organization are seen as problems. Two previous studies
support this hypothesis. Rosen and Nordquist (1980) found
their post-Conformist ego level subjects to value Ambitious-
ness and Responsibility (from Rokeach's Value Survey) more

than those at lower ego deve10pment levels, and, using the

30
Interpersonal Style Inventory, Lorr and Manning (1978) found
their (I-4) level subjects to be highest on Achievement, Per-
sistence, and Future Orientation.

High scorers on the JPI Energy Level scale are charac-
terized as active, spirited, vigorous, perservering, indus-
trious, dynamic, enthusiastic, and eager. This scale ob-
tained significant positive correlations with the PRF-E
scales for Achievement, Endurance, and Understanding. In
Loevinger's characterization of the I-4 ego deve10pment level,
as stated before, procrastination and wasting time are seen
as problems, and achievement motivation is at its highest.
Perserverence, industriousness, endurance, and understanding,
although not explicitly stated as defining traits of the I-4
individual, are characteristics conceptually related to the
I-4 defining traits of responsibility, achievement orienta-
tion, conceptual complexity, long-term goals, and an intensive
approach to life.

Hypothesis III: The scores for the Breadth of Inter-
est; Complexity, Innovation, Interpersonal Affect, and
TOlerance JPI scales will be higher for subjects at the_pgg£-
Conformist ego development levels than for subjects at lower
195.12..

High scorers on the JPI Breadth of Interest scale are
characterized by an interest in experiencing and becoming a
variety of things. They are involved, curious, and inquisi-
tive. This scale correlated with the Sentience and Under-
standing scales of the PRF-E, and the Art Interest, Percep-

tiveness, and Travel Interest scales of the BPI. This

1.
p
1
.1
p—.~ . ~ .‘
J .:

 

i
,L_,
)
\
'—
vv,‘
;
‘r;
j
o
- ~o.
.1

v
.(
I
O
,.

(x

r- '

r.

.
a
. r
'-
,.‘,
'J
- '~
.
Ft
.
.I,
ll,
fnxv \
,‘_,
.o
.'
.
.
- D
~’vv‘
’ u-A'
-~
r, '
.
4r.
l
C
\
.. .
\" I
, .
f\
‘r‘y
.

F1

t.—

t
A . 'P
. 'J)(-).
’v“' N
i
r
’ " f
u '-. 3
..
.
I

i
I
a v V
. .
a
.3 .r '
a
F" ' '
.
g \
’ Y
-. \r'
7 /,
u
.‘(I
. .
'
j - Av. ,
.
-..’ --«
I 'e
, -
I \
.
.0..y ' .
x .
,
l ‘7‘ .,'.P”
‘ -v-
‘ I
I
('0 .,‘ ..,\
J\ _
' To '0
,. n,“ .
a
t
_ . . _
"‘ r
’ e
.
. \
I .
an, . 9..
I A
. -
pa ‘ ,

.
‘r. .-
""')f:
. ' I
.
a- -- "V‘K
( 'l ' |I
. _,\
. ‘ .0
r " -
Y
‘ I u \ - ,
' .1
. a. l‘
.0
.
. A ' ‘
.
’,u.
f
’ J .
\
,».- -4 . .
l , .
. V
. ~
.. ,, ..
.
(v P
' '. I
1 ..
»‘ u— . . .
. i. ,,
.
AA .‘ ..
. ,
.
: .
r
(\
J
r

, ' .
1 .
- , V
, n \ , s
u
| . - r I
' v
. ,
.
.
. A
' .
, 3 » » _‘ J
. .
, , , I
5 .
I ’ , a ’ .
a .
f u
.
.
. '.‘ o ,
A - . .‘ ' ,
' . .
- * s . ,-‘ o ’
, .’ .
.
o < , A»
a -A e
. . . . .. .
o
..
. , . - o I
I
’ .
v - .
. .
0
. - - .
‘ l
o
' . L , , ‘ I . , b
' J , , o
. .
. .' ' L ,
e : ~
1
. fl.
7 - ~ , ' - 0
D l | . - ' 4 I
V ‘ I '
.. .. r , . .- ,_
v .. I - s
' O
- . . — r1
2 5 l A x
O .- 4 , .4
l 0 v v
' ‘ ‘ ‘ r v
‘ J
' r . y
-4 . ' Y ~ ‘ I) ~ 0
. n ) . ‘
O ' c
., s s
r )
~. . .
._ . . . - o ‘
, , .
o
I P, . o
I ' '
I |
, ‘
¢ .

31
appears related to Loevinger's definition of the post-
Conformist ego levels as characterized by savoring and
appreciating experiences, valuing that which is interesting,
being concerned about broad social perspectives and issues,
and manifesting a richness and variety of tOpics in their
SCT responses.

High scorers on the JPI Complexity scale manifest
interest in intellectual and artistic problems requiring
complex analyses or thought processes, enjoy abstract
thought, and are contemplative, thoughtful, analytical, and
impatient with oversimplification. Loevinger states that
true conceptual complexity is not shown until the post-
Conformist ego levels, where it is the modus Operandi of
cognitive style. These individuals see life situations as
being many-faceted and have a high tolerance for ambiguity.

The JPI scale measuring innovation was constructed to
identify a personality dimension predisposing one to seek
novel solutions in a variety of situations. Originality of
thought, valuing new ideas, imaginativeness, and productive-
ness are characteristic of high scorers on this scale. These
individuals are perceived by others as high in art interest.
It is positively correlated with the PRF-E scales for
Autonomy, Change, and Sentience. The postulated correlation
between this scale and the post-Conformist ego developmental
level is harder to justify directly from previous research
or descriptions of the various ego levels. However, concep-
tually it can be related to Openness to experience, liberal

thinking, aesthetics, and ideas, all of which have been found

32
to be correlated with post-Conformist ego levels by McCrae
and Costa (1980). Its positive correlation with autonomy
and sentience support the postulated relationship between
the Innovation scale and post-Conformist ego levels, as
autonomy and sentience define some of the characteristics
of post-Conformist ego deve10pment levels.

Persons scoring high on the JPI Interpersonal Affect
scale tend to identify closely with others, be concerned
about others, and be tender, kind, affectionate, sympathetic,
and compassionate. This scale has been found highly corre-
lated with the PRF-E Nurturance scale. The post-Conformist
ego deve10pment levels are characterized in Loevinger's
rating manual (1970) by a deepening relationship with
Others, a cherishing of interpersonal relationships, a clear
conception of mutuality, sympathy, companionship, identifi-
cation and emotional support. Lorr and Manning (1978) found
the highest ego levels to manifest the highest degree of
nurturance, sensitivity, and trust. Rosen and Nordquist
(1980) found that those at the higher ego levels valued
mature love more than those at lower ego deve10pment levels.

The JPI scale measuring tolerance was constructed to
be positively related to broadmindedness, receptiveness,
judiciousness, and lack of prejudice. High scorers on this
scale are Open to new ideas, accepting of those with differ-
ing beliefs, and welcoming of dissent. Lorr and Manning
(1978) found individuals at the post-Conformist ego levels
to be highest on the Interpersonal Style Inventory Scale of

Tolerance, and lowest on the Closed-Minded and Counter

33
Attack measures. Loevinger, in defining the I-4/5 subject
stated, that she/he "goes beyond perceiving individual
differences to true toleration of others and to the concept
of tolerance" (1970, pg. 96).

Hypothesis IV: The JPI Anxiety Scale will be systema-
tically related to the various ego development levels.

The JPI Anxiety scale assesses an essentially consis-
tent level Of anxiety as it has developed throughout an
individual's lifetime. High scorers tend to worry, and to
have physical complaints associated with tension. They are
apprehensive, preoccupied, fearful, and easily upset. If
anxiety level and degree of adjustment are conceived of as
related, then Loevinger's assertion (1966, 1976) that level
of ego deve10pment and degree of adjustment are conceptually
distinct is relevant here. This assertion has been syste-
matically pursued in a study by Gold (1977), although he did
not specifically assess level of anxiety per se in relation
to ego deve10pment level. Negative findings would be con-
sistent with the conceptual distinctiveness of ego level and
psychosocial adjustment as manifested in trait anxiety.

Hypothesis V: The JPI Self-Esteem scale will be lower
for subjects at the Conscientious (1-4) ego deve10pment level
than for others.

The JPI scale measuring Self-Esteem was constructed
based upon the social and interpersonal aspects of self-
esteen. Those scoring low on this scale were characterized
as having a negative evaluation of themselves as group mem-

bers and having feelings of awkwardness among peOple

I h
. .. .
p
e .. a
,
a
. a:
. .
. .
.
—
. .
n I
L
~ DI 7
,
n O,
u
.9 T.
.
.
r r
\IJ
y.
.. I .
.
- f I .
, ..
. _
. . r
c
. v
.
v
u .
. I
1
. p .
. t1 0
\
I . O
l . p
.
.
- )
L
y .
u . a:
\ .
r .. ..
I (I.
. . a.
I
LL ,
n \l
V
\. .
x .K
I
v .
rs.
.
O .c 0
ft. VI.
'1» 'u 7
. r.
p.. r .
-
'. ‘Ol | ‘
.
. v.
.
r .I.
- I K) .-
.. i . l.
. ..
Or a n
.
v D
7 a p
\ .

T

34
(especially strangers). On a twenty item adjective check-
list they endorsed items such as self—deprecating, timid,
unassuming, modest, shy, humble, and self-conscious. Among
peer ratings they were described as experiencing "feelings
of inferiority in dealing with others."

Evidence supporting this hypothesis is limited. None
of the previously published studies have tested self-esteem
in relation to ego level. I base my hypothesis on several Of
the theoretical characteristics of the I-4 ego level. Self-
criticalness is a defining characteristic of the I-4 ego
level. The I-4 subject is self-aware, she/he reflects on,
and expects a lot of her or himself. It is here, for example,
that the achievement motif is at its height. The strong
sense of responsibility, and the predisposition for feeling
guilt over the consequences of her or his actions, both de-
fining traits of the I-4 subject, could tend to augment the
ruminative, self-critical tendencies characteristic of the
1-4 individual. It is the above stated I-4 traits that have
lead to the hypothesis that the I-4 subject manifests lower

self-esteem than those at other ego levels.

METHODOLOGY
Participants
A total of 50 participants (24 females and 26 males)
were utilized in this study. Twenty-nine of these partici-
pants (18 females and 11 males) came from a psychotherapy

patient pOpulation, while the other 21 were first year

medical students (6 females and 15 males). Among the

’\
.1
-0
l
“s
O
b

. I '
( -.‘.
fl .

‘-
V
I
I
If ‘
A.
:\.f{.
'-
.‘-,..
_ Y
“14—.
I
V.
I. '.
V.
i
.
.
. .
. r- '
l
\ l
’ t
7
T
A
. ,
l "
1 .
4.0

O
-b
I
.7
v '1
I \
)1
"a
1

I -‘
\ f

I . V

A

‘, u

“ I
'\
'57.—
f‘
I fl
’ s
..
. a
I
..
O' 0‘
,1 .
t".
o
r" c r ’
.‘ . p
.,
..
' L
V7r\ /‘
I ”v
I
‘ 6
A H '
'U'
r, -\ -
l
\ I"
1, J \
.
~ ‘9 \

v
.‘
o
9
(3 ‘
,4
I
f
t
I
a
I
,.
q
o

(
V
v‘ '\
r.
I
O

.
~0‘ I'v
C
, .-
.
r ‘4
' u.
, .
.
.
Y

t .—
o
I
' ‘
I o
,

\
l
. \
- I
' I
I a
U

y}

\
Q
I
.-.
.
.
.
.73
’
'1
’
, .
C
‘
.
.I
.
‘ l
P l
“N
,.
.

Or-

,9

0
, a

c

‘

' ‘

I
l
‘ -
r

7' '1

35
psychotherapy participants, the vast majority (26 out of 29)
had some college experience and several held professional
degrees. All of the participants were part of a continuing
research project and, as much as possible, were given
Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test (SCT) and the Jackson
Personality Inventory (JPI) at approximately yearly inter-
vals for the past four years. This study utilized only the
data from each person's first administration of the SCT and
the JPI (1977-1978). At that time, the patient population
ranged in age from 17 to 63. The corresponding age range
for the medical students was 20 to 28. All lived in or near

the Detroit metrOpolitan area.

Instruments
The Sentence Completion Test (SCT)

Ego deve10pment level was measured by Form.9-62 of the
washington university Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger &
wessler, 1970). The following instructions were printed at
the head of each form: ‘

Please fill out this sentence completion form. Below

are incomplete sentences; please finish each one.

Notice that there are two pages; please make sure

you have completed each one.

The ego deve10pment scoring manual for women and girls
(Loevinger, Wessler and Redmore. 1970) was utilized to rate
all of the women's, and most of the men's sentence stems.
The pre-publication version of the scoring manual for men

and boys (Redmore, Loevinger. and Twmashiro. 1978) was used

36
for the eight stems from the form for men which were not
covered in the scoring manual for women and girls. One stem,
"I am.embarrassed when:", was not covered in either manual,
and was, therefore, rated from a general knowledge of the
different ego levels. Chapter four in Measuring Ego Develop-
ment. Vol. I (Loevinger, 1970) provided examples of typical
manifestations of ego level in sentence completions and
served as a heuristic device for rating responses to this
stem. Using the manuals, each of the other 35 stems was
rated according to the level of the response in the manual
with which it coincided most closely. After each of the 36
stems had been rated, the total protocol rating (TPR) was
determined. This was done for each protocol by applying
Loevinger's set of ogive rules to a listing of the frequency
and cumulative frequency of the responses at each ego level.
Given an ogive of 36 item ratings. these rules yield only
one possible TPR. See Appendix D for clarification of these
rules and how they are used.
The Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI)

Information on the background of the JPI was given
earlier (see p. 25). It consists of 320 true-false items
divided into 16 scales of 20 items. Directions printed on
the front of the booklet asked the participant to answer
"true" if the statement described her or himself, or if she/
he agreed with the statement. and "false" if the statement
was not descriptive of the self or if she/he did not agree
with the statement. The participant was instructed to answer
every question as either true or false, even if she/he was

ambivalent about the answer.

-L ,
. , f‘
\ ‘
'v t
J
A
. .
~\.,
' s
o
,, . .l
.0
.-',-. .
‘
p
sar‘I‘-
l'
I. I
7 1'
A _ L,
V. f
. ..,'.
‘ I
,) ' '-
. s
I" ’ l
m. I~ '.‘
.J '
'l" .
"I
.\ 1 O
) ‘
T I
. ,. I.
,

.r-v
8
.Q
7.
Y
n

0‘ I
.' " ‘I
.
.
r
I
O
.
' 0
Y
r".
,
I

-,
a
I
n
I
.I
v
1 _,\
.
...
‘,

I.-.

‘I

7‘

,-
.
. ,
~ .
.
I
o
.
.
..
. .
V
VI
.-
{'1
A
"/
.
a,
.
, -I
‘
I"
..
A.
.
‘ I

-.‘o

,

...1

,..
.!

..
.-,
I

,— s,.
.-

' I
—t,
|
.\
Q -,.
a , ..
v
.
A
I\
J.
x .‘r
/\I'
‘4
.3 ,
.4
)‘)
~_1
t
O

I
1
O
.
z
'7‘
V
( a
(i
O

.
r
,
r
\\
l ,x
l
O
.
.I '
'I
v
t
'0‘

-
1"
,
.
r
'\
J1
.
’ I
I
. ,
I
,f‘
. .
v L
I
's
O
,. .
r. J

.-
‘ ‘ ,(\.
-o‘
.,r '
-. ‘5
O u
\
I. .
in
p
:,r'-.
. :
'e‘
v
‘- ’
(.
o
,
4
e

37

Procedure
Administration:

All of the participants were given the SCT and the JPI
individually. in the office of a psychotherapy clinic in
Detroit's Fisher Building, a well-known and ornate office
building located across the street from the general head-
quarters of General Motors Corporation. Psychotherapy pa-
tients participated in this test as a required part of their
psychotherapy program. The medical students were financially
reimbursed for their time and effort. The sex, educational

level attained, and age of each participant was recorded.

Scoring:

To minimize rater bias, responses of all of the proto-
cols were grouped by sentence stem.and then randomized be-
fore rating. In all cases the automatic ogive rules were
applied to obtain the final TPR rating. The experimenter
and one other graduate student ranked each of the 50 proto—
cols. When differing final TPR ratings were given to the
same protocol, the two raters decided upon a compromise
rating through mutual consultation. The interrater reliabil-
ity coefficient (computed before compromise ratings were
made) was .77. as shown in Table 2. Agreement was higher
for females (.92) than for males (.71), probably due to the
less adequately refined ego development scoring manual for
men. Both raters were within one-half stage of each other
in the TPR ratings given to 98 percent of the protocols
before compromise ratings were made. The JPI was hand-

scored in the standard manner.

f‘\

. ,.
. .
. - J I
..
I
‘J
I)- I"
- -
l
, .
- f
. ,
I
I
.
1" ’-
,) ' £
.
7 ,. ...
5‘ -6 r'
”a...
-
I
I '1’
r a' ‘
,_
. . -3 ..
O
.
m‘.“ J
r V .1
, I ‘
t \ "
'
V l \
‘1 . '
7‘ 0
, .
U
.. x .
i f .
r_f‘
.' A :

A

38

Table 2

Interrater Reliability for Loevinger's
Ego-DeveIOpment Measure

 

 

 

Participant Exact Agreement within
Group Agreement in ‘7. One-Half Stage in 7!. Pearson's g

24 Females 92 100 .92

26 Males 62 96 .71

29 Psychotherapy 79 97 .77
Patients

21 Medical 71 100 .78
Students

50 Overall 76 98 .77

Statistical Analyses

To obtain interrater reliability for the ego-development
measure, each of the rated ego levels was numerically coded
(from one to five). The Pearson product-moment correlation
was computed between ego deve10pment level and the JPI scores
plus respondent's sex and age. To assess any mean differences
between the medical students and the psychotherapy patients
on these measures and also between the sexes, the tftest was
used. Hypotheses I and II required a mix of Conformist and
pre-Conformist ego level subjects but only one of the 50 par-
ticipants scored within this range, so a rigorous test of
these hypotheses was impossible. A Efitest for mean scale
score differences between ego levels was made to test Hypo-
theses II and V. Hypothesis IV was assessed by Pearson
product~moment correlations.

Beyond these planned steps. the following supplemen-

tary analyses were conducted:

o , _
r-‘o — . v
I c‘ .
1' r) .v". r‘ i H r
I s l
r
o
.
r“;- '
!
‘ I
T- ""
\ . g
t '- ,
Po -. ~ ‘ ' .— ‘
‘. ( I J . .
r , .
I , . '7' r . w. ,
' l
. --l ‘ .
1' f A r“ T -r- , Er,
I J . ’- _
" . \V ' l ' f " ‘ . I rs
‘ ’, . ~
I r
,. y r .a . I ~ I ’ 7'
.' . ‘ .
‘ """1‘.
I .t. ‘ \ . ‘ '4 "
,- ‘ ’ I) I I . 4
z . ., . .- 7 fl .
‘ ‘A
O ‘K V . -‘
11 " I“ 3 ,x‘ . ”(J
.a A ' - N
‘4 Q | p ‘. .‘I ‘ Q»
~ ) >7 " -.:' a g
D - a
‘ I ‘. 'r- (-
' ‘ ‘ l.
' I ' " 9 -I P _‘
H I ‘ ' ‘ )1
V .
,, ,‘
‘ ( r J 9 O
I . '
a... ‘I I .

-*
-

ia-

"a
2';
r,,(
,.
.q.
A
II

\
I

a

r
rw
r‘~
.

o
5“"
. . ‘7‘

a
.\
D
TI

\‘4

I

v

- l
r(-'
a.

'
.
r.-
' .-
'r
I
|

. . "
, _,'_ J
.-
r-
'-
'17 ' I"
If
O. f.
.Y i (
[-. _
I ll #
‘ w . \
."
. .
.
’ 'v I) .
L- ‘
.
t
l +
J
.
' O
- 'L.
I’ - .\.
' o
v, Q». ., _ I
' ‘ ’ - J l
' I
(w" .)'; P
-I
q .r .n ‘
i
l‘ ' ' I

39

1) an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed for
each JPI scale with the following independent variables: ego
level, sex, and participant group (i.e., medical student or
psychotherapy patient).

2) Pearson product-moment correlations and gftests
were run for each participant group separately.

3) bivariate and multiple regressions were run with
the JPI scales regressed against ego level.

Appendix C lists the raw data used in all of the

above analyses.

RESULTS
Distribution of Ego-Development Ratings
The distributions of ego levels obtained from the SCT
are listed in Table 3. As noted in the Statistical Analyses
section, the range of ego levels included solo I-3 and 1-5

level participants.

Table 3
Distribution of Ego-Develogment Scores

1.1;. 1-34 1:5. 1-45 1:2

21 Medical Students 1 6 ll 3 0

29 Psychotherapy 0 l7 8 3 1
Patients

24 Females l 10 11 2 0

26 Males 0 l3 8 4 1

All 50 Participants 1 23 19 6 1

r-M

.) .
',
|
a
-Q.

\L
.
.
l
4.')
.
V‘"
.
.
.

\n,

..-

C
r
. _
I
' Iv:-

t.,,.

C
1". .
.

o
s
.,’fi
1
I
f‘
I .
)
'
y
o '-
r
I
‘.
\ Ar

(\Vr
;

I".

Q.‘- I v

I n .

\ "\

I
o

‘ f I

o

V

rv ' ‘ r

p

0" ’
r: J
,- P
Q
,‘ i
r“ ‘
. .
u.
f‘

. _ rs
» o .
1 a ‘.
.
. o .' .
4] I
‘ w ,.,. , hr.
7‘ 4
D
.l v r
‘ \
b-f ,.
f
w, -‘
. . V.’ A.
, l . t
. -
L, .
.u‘. r - .
.
fl ,- 4,. v
0 l I O
r- v-
. '1
o 1 I)

I"

x

. A
'

L- .

J.s\

, '4
a. .
.. , .r
a‘. I

v
‘3
.
.

. r", -

. .
'..

A ol
5 o
”"5'
Du 4' .
C
‘»

o

:-r>"\

¢ ‘1
\ a

f"
.4
-I l.
. O
r v-

- .3-

‘ Y

J
.3

o
D
o
’ r
b;.‘
n" v
‘1.
' .4

. .
J
x
j
A
.
.
. l
r '-
A
r" ‘
..‘I
IfV
.
'-
‘
a

I.
J
|
‘f-r
‘ A
r1?
.i)
.ar‘
7 v

40

Participants' Mean JPI Scale Scores
in Relation to JPI Norms

Nbrms for the JPI were derived from the responses of
2000 males and 2000 females drawn from a total of 43 North
American colleges and universities (Jackson. 1976). In
terms of both.means and standard deviations, the present
participants did not differ significantly (p;<.05) from this
normative sample on 13 of the JPI's l6 scales. The three
that differed significantly were: Conformity, Social Partici-
pation. and Tolerance (see Table 4). Specifically, the
present participants were more conforming, less tolerant,
and less inclined toward social participation, than was the
normative sample. An examination of the separate means ob-
tained by the student and psychotherapy subgroups revealed
that the Conformity. Social Participation. and Tolerance
scale score differences were primarily due to the patients'
deviant means (i.e., they were more conforming, less toler-
ant. and less inclined toward social participation). In
light of the general senses of alienation and depression
that often characterize seekers of psychotherapy, as well
as their deficiencies in self-assurance and self-respect,

these findings are unsurprising.

Participant Group Differences
Intergroup differences overshadowed sex differences on
JPI scores. Seven JPI scales yielded significant group
differences (see Appendix A). The medical students scored
significantly higher on Energy Level (5,- 4.19), Self-Esteem
(§'- 3.87), Tolerance (£_- 2.31), and Risk-Taking (§.- 2.03).

P
a
.
P_,
f.
V
l.
\
..."
r
i

_ \

.‘.‘~.- '
q s, "
;. '
er
. .
O’r "‘
‘ I
O J I.‘
.
.. ‘ 'C
, .
I o
.; » "
f O
' .
r
‘_- I 4
rs: ' . .
z. 1
.) ~ ‘
. ' 91'
a- ’ A r
f ,' .» l
)‘J .5
. . .
, _.
'.
. “f ' '1
‘ J 1...;
a". /
‘ O \
O
I ' ‘ ll
I -‘.‘ ‘
r O
’ 'v
4 ’ I I 7“
4 .1 '
' .
‘.
“)t\ " ~. "
. . ) ~a
. v'{'
\
r. o.
\-t "

‘,
.
u'
7
A
.
.
'
. x
I
I
.-l
J
I ’
'V
1,
1‘ ‘.
A
9.
J
,
r I '
-...

I
X
x
v
v r
I
t

_ V
.
.
l’ .
o
2. I
, .
.
.c .
. s
I
O
.
/ \
-
.‘- ,‘o
. . '
> 77‘
\
l
D
'
I
t I l
. 1’“
A I
1‘ - ‘
_/ .

41

while the psychotherapy patients scored higher on Anxiety
(£_- -2.88) and Conformity (g.- -2.29). The psychotherapy
patients also averaged being nearly 13 years older than the
medical students (§'- 22.6 for students, §’- 35.4 for patients.
£_- -6.55, Eu<9001) and consisted of significantly more fe-
males (18 of 29 patients were female, versus of 6 of 21 stu-
dents, £.- 2.46, p_<.05). The students' Energy Level and
Self-Esteem scores significantly exceeded those of the JPI's
normative group. Conversely, the patients' scores on Energy
Level. Self-Esteem, Tolerance. Social Participation. and Risk-
Taking were significantly below the JPI norms, while their
Anxiety and Conformity scores exceeded these norms (see Table.
4). These personality differences seem readily interpretable
in terms of the participant groups. especially when there are
logical grounds for thinking that the medical students are
likely to be functioning better than the psychotherapy pa-
tients. As stated earlier. it seems reasonable to assume
that the depression, alienation, and lack of self-confidence
often characteristic of psychotherapy seekers would result in
the patients obtaining JPI scores similar to those found in
this study.

ANOVA results showed significant interactions between
ego deve10pment level and participant groups on Conformity
(l: - 4.30, p<.05). and Self-Esteem (E - 6.48. p_<.01). A
near-significant interaction was obtained for Energy Level
(§_- 3.91, p_- .053). Table 5 lists the relevant means and
standard deviations for each of the participant groups at
each of the obtained ego levels on the JPI scales showing

significant interaction effects.

‘ f ’ "‘ ‘4 ‘, ' “ [\fl ') ‘t H.'\' r 4 ‘. (7. ‘r ‘ , r‘
-0 . ‘ , a (4 . - n . , ' - -4 . I
V, r r .7 >1 . . . ,-. - ‘ ‘ ' _ J x , _. _, - , " Y ,,
. -- < - l
. . -1 - e - I
' Q ' I
v . 'u L .r \ , o. r-r .. -.. n 'V ,f A ,t ‘n, . ,
c . ‘ ‘ ‘ I! ‘ f‘ . d] .v ‘L
.. u . o ‘ , .
- .1 l n -1. -— r. t r ‘ v- ‘ - 1 ‘ .— .. Q --
) . , ' I. ) o .
’ o u
n . - 4 rr- ' . '~‘s \ ' )4 r n r- r‘ ' 'c * 4
a J 4 1 IA o
.."‘-x I '(~ ~yv “ r " !(- - .‘ "r ‘-‘ v-\‘ 1 - f‘
a _’ j t _ I a
u . .. r —. ~
"' ' ’ t‘~-d" ' 'f , +N“ *7 1 ’ ' I, ‘ .
' . k ; ‘. . ,I I 4 ’ o o I
' ‘ ‘ r " ' ' ' o u a r o
'; . q 1’) r; u i \f‘ 7 . 4 , ,\ .' H ,) , .. .' ‘. r ‘ A ’ 7-
’ .4 . r . 4 . .I - \o ' A J - ’ . .
~- . - r‘\- , (\r) ' '4 . 0“ ' - . -v \V' ' '0' f“ r- '- a
. , . . . , -
' , . a. r. - - I, ‘ , . _. ' .- . j _' .7.
~ r- r - . > ‘ . . - y- . r .
, f0 r r ’ .- bor ‘ 7V . , Hm. - t v» .
. .0 x, )F- .) , )_. ° . ‘ -
° ' ' ' r ‘ c y .‘ ' , ' ' o c u .
a (7 —+ " . v u 7‘ O ‘ , -l 't ,. ‘ . A... « rev r
» . . . .3 .v . ’ ' - ‘ ‘ . . - .
' .,, - -, ‘.i. . \'. ‘ “2.33 -7. , ‘.— 7....-. o,_. ’ -. .,.a '
J .’ ) r. L ‘ a .‘ . .. ‘r‘gj ~ . » a w) . - I) .a V j
v ‘ I | u y a [4"
» .1! w . ,f’ . ‘-r r '."v )nr'; ' ' 1.! ' “‘T—tr' ' ‘
A . | _ A J u j a -J. .J ‘ |n us - . '
f ‘ . - . - - l ‘i - ‘ .
‘a‘ .‘O' ‘ »‘ v . I u‘ \ 1‘1'F 'i v '- ~ . 1 ‘ - re 0
' L ’ ‘1 J ‘1 ' a- I .L .j _, 4 Or ‘ . (T) u A l
. . . . . P
‘.’ 1 , V r - fi'. ‘ ‘ " {-9 . - .. Yip. . q ‘ I A . ,. .1. r .x ' V .
a 4‘ J -. i. , .i .i. . . ' . .. . . -
v e ' . O V
. - ral‘ '\"- "f '. " ”\‘t f , ....."4,\..,.~ .' A ~ °
.J ' ._. - , ,J . .‘ I J i. . i _I .. .
,- ' . . v D ‘ v
. r r\ \ 3 , ro vs V\ ‘ . , - r, . -. a! _ , -A r. 1.. ..| .
1. ‘ (4|. 3 I. 'A ‘ ' ’1 j (. . q .a ‘4‘ . \Ad - O (a _,
‘ .- 7‘ .4 p I g a '
. . I . V , . , _ . ., , o x 1.;
., . -. .\ .. . r . ~ . . [a I ~
‘1 - J.) _‘ p. .JJ. 1. . ., ' . . ." ~ 3 .
- ‘ I ’ r f. ' - .' ~ . ‘ . 1 o + O .' ‘ . ‘ V _ r
> " I ‘ ) f. txf‘ " ' ' ‘f ' '5 ' .fi 0 r I. 0\ Y.‘ -. -v
— o‘() \ x . .' Lu ( ar‘ . , (- -...I a J(. - . J r. .ell J .10 t -
e t ’\ V o » , ~ I e ‘ ‘ - f
l" P 3" ' , v‘ ‘ ‘ ~V . . “t !‘. ,' " r' " ‘ ‘- "l ' . '
.. |_ A ‘ , J . l _ ~
' 71“ " ' . ‘. °
. 0/ J ’.
a o e a r u v
P‘ ’ \r —-l q.‘ 7 ., '- 4. f“?! I ‘—.r 4f. as r j . "(Q r a V "- v - a _ ,. . r, , 3 -.
, ‘ . .5 .4 , ,. J A. . a ‘ I o . 1.
§ 3 ' r< " o c ' - e
' ' ' """I "‘ FT n -vo - - (Y I‘ t 1‘ ‘? rs v- .fv . v‘ ‘ , v . '
I 1... a‘ ‘ ) -() '1). If) I I ‘ PI " f >‘ . Ll ' . ‘ , J y x r ' I 1 ’
n
‘ r r ' r‘ .\_. 1‘! _ .. \ . ‘ ‘ r .. - - rt .) r f'(‘ . r' ,s \ _ . \o
O I‘ - n ' I . . . ~ _‘ ‘..,, ‘ l ‘. . g
. . .-
5 - r v‘ .\ r' 'I ,3 I \ . I ,.v r'(" . «‘l . 7. -.. ,3 b ’ .- ~. aw," ‘ In r- '1 'I “-’
I , 1 ‘ - 1.. ..- - ‘314 ‘ 7‘ "
' ’ ' o N ‘ .-c‘ " \ ~ r \
. . .p 1" ., an. , 4 . .1 ‘ , . V ‘_ ' l
V v t . I J o c O
O o " *' a n C
1 ~-. l . . . d A ‘ —. ‘ o r . , e ' N' u -. x r .
g ) - r ‘ " ' .. ; A . n. .
,- ~ ‘ , 9 a 4 v
3 .47 -,-. ',.‘ . ~n. y, P" -'-5 '7 r.‘rr~‘. 0- v- ~ ~? Jr- I ' '5 ‘-
~I ‘ 'l ' a 43') o ‘l J J ' ‘ - ) a. ". 7
, H J . ' ‘ . ‘ .
i ‘ 5 (Of. 7 1" "' V .' "r '
a , - L l . n

IABLE 4

flan Raw Scorss of Modical Studsnts (X) , Ps chothcrapy

Patisnt (O). and JPI Normative Sampls (O

Salt-Estcac ' ‘1

Ensrgy Lmlc ' d

‘rolarancs‘ ' ‘1

Social 1: d
Participation '

am: Taking.

Anxioln‘l

Confonityb ' d

Intsrpcrsonal
Aficct

Innovation

Broadth of
Intsrast

Rasponsibility

Social _
Adroitncss

Organization
Valua Orthodoxy
Infrsqucncy
Complaity

0

 

Groups

1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

O O X

X.

00X
00X

OX
OX

OX 0
OX
00X
X00
am

15

 

 

 

‘Rornativc lc's man significantly sxcacdcd (g <.Ol)
poolsd pattic pants' nun.

l’Noi-Illativa sanpls's naan diffsrsd significantly (g<.05)
from poolsd participants' moan.

cnsdical studsnts' moan significantly acceded (g< .01)
nomativc sanplc's. '

dYsychothsrapy patisnts' nun diffcrsd significantly
(2 (.01) from normativs sanpls's.

°Nornativs sugés's nun significantly (E<-°5)
sxcssdcd psyc thorapy patients' .

42

43

mno.v2~ «au.n |_M “noduoououca anon» uconuouuuun can Ho>oa owuo

no.uhm "an.e I.M "noduoououcw noon» uaonaowuuon was Ho>on owns
.8.vu “so I M "coauoououfi anon» uaonuoauusa van H25." ammo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.o~ oc.~ H oo.a~ o unuH
An.~v so.oa An.Nv mn.NH an.nv nn.e An.uv_nn.a m Aa.ev so.nH n Ao.ev nn.oa "nxcuu
A<.ov mn.m Aa.uv ma.n~ Aa.uv oo.nH Ao.mv oo.a m Ac.nv no.5 HH Au.nv om.nH "onu Howmw
An.Nv ma,» Am.ev oo.e~ Ao.¢v oo.- A~.nv so.c 5H Aw.nv se.s o Am.¢v so.HH ”cxnun
cc.~H co.o c a co.m~ ”nun
uuooauom ouoovaum nunoauom ounovnum m "ounoauom .m "ouoovaum
oao>oAleuoom ANuwahomcoo snoououumaom

 

 

ouooumu coauwflwoucn unsoumamuum unafionm madman Huh can to
u none on a a you oau A to sync o o uoa>on vuovnoum can undo:

 

n «Home

44

Sex Differences

Males in this study markedly exceeded (pg<.05) females
on Innovation, Risk-Taking, and Energy Level. This is
consistent with the normative data which also showed males
scoring higher than females on each of these scales. In
addition, there was a near-significant trend (p5<.06) for
the male participants to be younger than the females. In
light of these findings, the interrelationship between some
of these variables and their relationship to the factor of
participant groups needs to be considered. Thus, both
Energy Level and Risk-Taking correlated significantly and
inversely with age (5 - -.l+5; p<.01, and g - -.35; p<.01
respectively). Also, the medical student and psychotherapy
groups differed significantly in Energy Level, age, and sex.
The only sex difference unconfounded by other obvious fac-
tors was on the JPI Innovation scale (£_- -3.l7; 23<.01).
Based on these considerations, and the fact that partici-
pant sex was not a major variable in this study, it seem

fruitless to speculate about these sex differences.

Experimental Hypotheses

flypothesis I: A deficiency of low ego deve10pment

 

level participants (at the I-3 level or below) precluded
testing this hypothesis. Consequently, productdmoment
correlations between ego level and each of the relevant
scales were computed to determine if these variables were
related within the present data. A significant correlation

held between ego level and the Conformity scale (g.- -.24;

J

..
.
I
”
U
—I
'V
.
[
.4
.-.
r“
I o
.,J.
A. .
A. .
1
r
r ,~-
LJJ
.4

4 r.

r\
-I
..
n'\

.fipv

.

‘~.‘

.1,

'4 .
/'(
'-

‘ J:
a.

,-
.‘.
s,-
.4-

.
I
.-
I
.
.V.
‘.

v
an.
n
'-
I
- l
.
,-
3
r

. to

L
ff:
«..
r

-
a
.
.
I
. 0
g x
_ .

s
I
q .
0
Q
.
o
g .

r.
I

, .
I s - '
d «I ' ' r
,1 x ’
. .
u
l -
r. . . .
. . .
v . v

i ’ I
r v . y ‘ 'V r -
s l
‘ I
’- __ ,‘
. . . .
I
.
o ‘ s 7*
. -
‘ ‘
., -- ‘ I‘
1 C
. ‘ \r
.
, .
.
. 4 . '.
, - . ..
‘ \- Y
r., I 'v ’
J O
. -
' ..
, .
I ' O
r -; _ - .
.
.1 c
‘ .
v t D- . a;
’ .
I r ‘
m, r v '4‘ l
I _ . u
' V .L \
\ , ' . .
,
. .
.
r ,. L ..
7' . T . Y ,- .o
J ‘ 7
t " u
i- \ '1 , Dr - .
I - . (I

o . .
L
I
. - . .
/ ' . r h
J r
A ,. . ‘.
I
. 4
. , .
5 ~ ., -
,‘ n u '
1 . O
Q
o ,
, .
-I J ' .
")f
L )
V I
.
..
.
. _ ..,.
1 ' .i
7' u .»'5
. v
.. I»- - 1,“. - ...
v 0 .a '
I ’ I
. .
. .
, - . .
.. , ,
. .
‘ ‘ . \N ~
.I‘ i
, x | 7
«b «
' . | .J
, f
v s .. J . .
-..
. . or
\ r ‘ v t
u o r
"‘--yr~_’ Q -
' a.,
. p‘ ‘ ‘. .14
' I
_ ..
‘ ,‘. Al .. -
'P v' a) 'A"' r
.I , u
.

4S
p<.05). As exPected, participants at the highest (1-4/5)
ego development level scored significantly lower on Conform-
ity than did those at the I-3/4 and 1-4 levels (_t_ - -2.61;
p<.05). Ego level did not correlate significantly with
Social Participation (g - -.07; p - .31) or with Value
Orthodoxy (g - .01; p - .46).

Hypothesis II: Energy Level scores tended to rise with
increasing ego level (5 - .28; p< .05). Post-hoe analyses
showed significant Energy Level differences between 1-4/5
level participants and those at the I-3/4 and I-4 ego levels
(P. - 2.56; p< .05) . The highest mean score for the Organi-
zation scale was at the 1-4 ego development level, however.
it was not significant (_t_ - 1.11; p - .28). The g values
of the Responsibility and Energy Level measures were also
nonsignificant (E - 0.35 and 0.51. respectively).

Hypothesis III: Since 49 of the 50 participants were
at post-Conformist ego levels, Pearson product-moment corre-
lations were calculated to assess the strength and direction
of the relationship between ego development and each of these
scales. Results showed ego deve10pment was not significantly
correlated with Breadth of Interest (_r_ - .06; 'p_ - .34).
Innovation (5 - .18; p - .11), Interpersonal Affect (g - .02;
p - .45). or Tolerance (g - .03; p - .43). The Complexity
scale, however. did correlate significantly with ego level
(3; - .24; p<.05).

fiypothesis IV: The Pearson product-moment correlation
between ego development level and the JPI Anxiety scale

closely approached significance (_r_' - -.19; p - .096, NS).

1.

y.

-‘

.l
.
.
v 0
.
I
V,
,l
.

.. .

-. .
. . .
F
. a
. w.
. _ p.

_
L
a

,

..
.
.
.
a .
V
a v-

; r.

; r l

.- \
.

O \

r \.
.
. s e .
. n.
. P
h. .
In A
V
- .
O f
.
. ~ .
e O
. L
O
t I
I
'
3
.. .
r x \
«rt _ .
a. r
'
A»! ‘1 I
‘ I
\ +I r
. .
0 .t
I. \.
— r
. r

r a J
4., . .
o.
r . \a x
N w
r
H. a -
.1 .
.. . \ p
.

O ‘ .
1|
\ J
P.
l.
u ‘
.x
a»
n
o
r
a . I .
As
- u
u
a n...
u
x; c.
i
o

o.
a
J.
I. A
.
V
_.
.
.
‘-
VI
,
x.
0|.
—‘
a
o
1
F.
I;
,Ill
.
.
t
. ,
. a
o
A
u
L)
e
5,1)
n-
/
r .

46

However, planned E-tests showed no significant differences
between any ego level as compared with the two others.

Hypothesis V: T-tests revealed near-significant dif-
ferences between the 1-4 participants"mean scores and those
of participants at the 1-3/4 and 1-4/5 ego levels. although
these differences were contrary to the hypothesized direction
(£’- 1.80; p_- .08). The Self-Esteem scores of I-3/4 ego
level persons fell significantly below those of the other
two groups (£_- -2.79; px:.05). The Self-Esteem scale yield-
ed the highest correlation with ego deve10pment level
(5 - .33; p_<.01).

Supplemental Data Analyses
Separate Analyses for Each Participant Group

Both groups in this study (the medical students and
the psychotherapy patients) had been pooled initially. The
number of significant differences between the mean JPI scores
of each group, however, suggested the need for separate
analyses for each participant group.

Considering the psychotherapy patients separately.
results on the first hypothesis were similar to the pooled
group's results except for an increased inverse correlation
between ego level and Conformity. For the pooled groups, p
exceeded the .05 level (£,- -.24), whereas within only
psychotherapy patients a correlation of g,- -.44 (pg<.01)
was found. Among only medical students. a nonsignificant
positive correlation with Conformity (g.- .18; p.- .22) was

found.

‘-

1
.
I ,
1
,—
.
. '
I
4
V
l
.
,.
I
.
v
u-
0

I
_)
.'.
r . _
,‘
.. ,
,
r‘ ‘ ’\
D .‘
I
l r
.
.
.‘r', ’
I
.
.

‘ O
I
' f
I A
'u t -.
\ ' T
.' '4 r“
J ..
v r ,1 'f
, .
.,r\ ‘ .
‘ fl} ..
r {‘N
V r '1
4. ,.,-,°.
)
\‘r "n
. ,- )p‘
. Y
' 0
~r
.
1 ‘ "

I"
v.
‘ l
C
,-. .
A
.
-G
~
.
f' .
_. i
I
,
r, -
‘4
l
l o-
. .
9

“f

l ‘i

e . ‘ ,
‘ \
, L '
\ o
\ f l
I
.- I
C
..
1 v. ‘ l
... .
I O .
r f. > - '- ‘
.
_ .r
C e I
. . D l
- , e .
‘ |
’ r .. ,,.
.r ',\ - -_,
‘l w
,, ‘ '4
.
V _ I
. , ‘
7‘ rt.
1
.
' ‘ 4”
I’ f. A '
.‘. b - 4| .
.
5 7‘ I ’ 7
. .1 _L .
- .\ r ,
, l.‘ .r’ ." I”,
\ r
N - ‘rs ‘
’ ‘ ‘. ‘ f p ' f r~
4 . ’
O
| . I §' N-r‘

O’\

T
4
a
I)
‘
I

I
.
9
-
,
,— .
p

47

Results for Hypothesis II for separate groups were
similar to the pooled findings. The significant Hypothesis
III results for pooled groups on Complexity were upheld with-
in only the psychotherapy patient group (£_- .36; p (.05;
medical student group £.- .04). This may be partially due
to high Complexity scores obtained by the 1-4/5 level psycho-
therapy patients (§.- 3.44; pg<.05) which exceeded those of
that group's I-3/4 and I-4 participants. The 1-4 level
medical students were significantly lower in Tolerance
(5 - 2.11; p_<.05) than that group's I-3/4 and I-4/5 parti-
cipants, while the I-4/5 psychotherapy patients obtained
nearly significant higher Tolerance scores (£,- 2.27; p.-
.07) than did its 1-3/4 and 1-4 participants.

. For Hypothesis IV the medical students' data showed
a nonsignificant. slightly positive correlation between ego
level and the Anxiety scale (g.- .10; p.- .33). The near-
significant negative correlation that obtained for pooled
groups (£.- -.19; 2" .096) appears largely attributable to
the psychotherapy group's significant negative correlation
between Anxiety and ego level (£.- -.37; p;<.05). In all
cases. planned Eftests showed no significant differences
between ego levels.

Considering Hypothesis V, the near-significant Self-
Esteem differences found at the I-4 level for pooled groups
became significant when the I-4 medical students were con-
sidered separately (£_- 2.38; p (.05), but these differences
were apposite to the direction predicted. The psychotherapy

group's Self-Esteem scores did not differ significantly

—n
-r
x
'V
,y
I
\
D
f
V
. u
n
.
> _
A

‘ . v
t
b
. o
, '
I l

" I
I
1'
fl 1
q'r‘
,
,.
I
.
r
L
I l‘.
. f
-‘ I.‘
. .
D
,,. ,1“
J

v

r
l
V
v
f
73
r
\I
\
{
-,r
'\
‘-
P
'7’
u ‘-
F- v
-
b
- r
\,
a
I
u
I
-..
a
o
.4

I
I
'r
. .
l. ,-
I
r 0-.-
.
v.
.
.
0
.

o.r

r-..

.. ,
C
C
’ V
J
r
,_
I
f
,1
I ,
I
.
1 ‘t
,--
-.l
v.... ,
l‘
- \
.

V
s
e
.
Y
.
v
I
.
w I
«.1 ., I
.
. r‘

(H
I
'-
O
i
r.
\
\

.. \
n
.
'.(\

o
I
\
u...
0
.Aec
I
'7
~
‘H
U

47

Results for Hypothesis II for separate groups were
similar to the pooled findings. The significant Hypothesis
111 results for pooled groups on Complexity were upheld with-
in only the psychotherapy patient group (g_- .36; p_<.05;
medical student group £.- .04). This may be partially due
to high Complexity scores obtained by the 1-4/5 level psycho-
therapy patients (E.- 3.44; pg<.05) which exceeded those of
that group's 1-3/4 and 1-4 participants. The 1-4 level
medical students were significantly lower in Tolerance
(£_- 2.11; p,<.05) than that group's I-3/4 and 1-4/5 parti-
cipants, while the 1-4/5 psychotherapy patients obtained
nearly significant higher Tolerance scores (£.- 2.27; p.-
.07) than did its 1-3/4 and 1-4 participants.

' For Hypothesis IV the medical students' data showed
a nonsignificant, slightly positive correlation between ego
level and the Anxiety scale (£,- .10; p_- .33). The near-
significant negative correlation that obtained for pooled
groups (£,- -.l9; p_- .096) appears largely attributable to
the psychotherapy group's significant negative correlation
between Anxiety and ego level (£,- -.37; p3<.05). In all
cases. planned Eftests showed no significant differences
between ego levels.

Considering Hypothesis V, the near-significant Self-
Esteem differences found at the 1-4 level for pooled groups
became significant when the 1-4 medical students were con-
sidered separately (£_- 2.38; p_<.05), but these differences
were Opposite to the direction predicted. The psychotherapy
group's Self-Esteem scores did not differ significantly

‘74

Fr -7 1
7,‘ 4 . '
‘1‘
' .
r". '"' '
V
r- v" ‘
./
)
1 \ Y
' ‘
-_. .
‘ ~‘ § '
r ‘P—
k A.
v
fl fl
_ u
. i 4
‘
- 3
t ' ‘
r".‘

., I‘
. .
’9
'-
P‘ '-F
, ,A.
.. ‘.A ,
I “
:~. .
l
— .'
.p s
‘.
‘ x
| .
‘ r _, _
! H ‘
7
q 'a
- 0

, u r "
' ‘l . . ' 7‘
v~ ' '
. 4'. , -
r " ' '
I I ' . A ‘
‘s ' 5 ' ‘
. ,
,..',.\., O -- ll ( ‘ '
o 0 - /
no r) v ‘l "" A '
a \u . I . .
a ' .
J " \ ,, ° \. , , r ‘
. , ‘I . .
J "
I
'r_ g .. . \w ' ’
s ' ' ‘ _
..
I ‘ '
r. ‘ z - l.‘ +" c . ‘ "
‘ I ul-
'- , .
' , _* ' . . ‘o , s...
4 .
. V
. r" ' ‘ . r .
.I ' ‘
Q
' 'II V v '
~ - . . ‘ a ' ‘ . '\
r .w r ‘ |
/~ , ( ' ’ r ‘ '
_ _ l s . ‘ b
I u ' ~ .
!I‘ h a "O k b
. ‘ . J
r - ' .
n ,‘ I I ' " ‘ 7 .
u . ‘
, n ' ‘
. Q . . r ~ '
_ -
‘ ' _ . .
.. - V .
. . V ‘
( I
' V
\ ' ‘. " r.’ ‘9 ’ ‘ ' 2-
I . ‘
_ ‘ . . I
. . - . 1 r '
.b -
. v
\ .“ I .~ . ' 7 -
1 ‘ t .
— I '—
‘ . (._\ \Av \ ' ‘.
A v A I
. . o .
I- .
.
.
V
o
. b D ' h
i. ‘ ' I
I
Q
I 7‘ I
v- ‘ ‘ k . .9 o .. \
. w
.
. V‘ e F
‘ ‘ ' O- ' I . I} v v ' ’ ‘ '
' .
. . . I‘
H - .. -
0 . I . ’
.. l
, s ‘ ‘ - I '
n .. . . rl‘ - 4 ' " ' ' 7* ‘
I .
D - ' ‘
.V - r ‘ 4 " $-
, .' ' l

48
between ego levels although this group's correlation between
ego level and Self-Esteem was highly significant (g.- .57;
p_<.001), well above that (g - .33; p<.01) of the pooled
groups. The corresponding ego level versus Self-Esteem

correlation for the medical students was not significant

(5- -.10; p_ - .34).

Predicting Ego Level from the JPI Scale Scores

Regressing all JPI variables plus sex accounted for a
total of 35.25% of the variance in ego development. Only
Social Adroitness contributed significantly to ego level's
variance (5? - .104; §.- 5.59; p_<.05) when all variables
were entered on the same step. Self-Esteem and Complexity
were the second and third highest contributing variables
(£23 of .064 and .055, respectively).

Utilizing a hierarchical inclusion regression design,
the variables Self-Esteem, Social Adroitness. Complexity.
and Energy Level were entered in a stepwise fashion. in the
preceding order. Then, Self-Esteem accounted for 11.2% of
the variance (§'- 6.03; p (.05), while Social Adroitness
accounted for 5.3%. Complexity and Energy Level had contri-
butions of 2.6% and 1.8% of the variance, respectively.
Jointly, these four variables accounted for 20.97% of the
total variance. Due to their capitalization on chance, the
regression analyses' findings that accounted for 35% and
21% of the variance in ego deve10pment are likely inflated.

Finally. a bivariate regression was carried out between
ego development level and age. Age was found to account for

only 0.87% of the total variance.

.4
'r
u
. [‘1
.
I
.
P r
’1
I ' 0
r\.
. P
r ..‘
‘ .
\
. .
4
,u' i
< 7
l
( T
o
. ,.O
I:
r,
. J
' -
—+
J
\.,‘
D '-
0’s
(or .
f;
' )
'52" .v}

F?

.
'v u
- <
.r.
-,(
( ‘
.
."
- (‘0
J .
.-
r
'l
. J.
E
,.
f‘l
.-
',
O
,.. .
I
I I
-.
1.

PP

p
("3
~v,

‘
I
P
.
a: ‘
1
‘ a
v. ‘ r:
o
.
, .
‘0...
'
.
. ,
‘ '.
N
0
V',
._N
‘ a
.
.
y ,1'
- ..
v

v

v-I

n
I
1
s
.
\
I

9
o
v
-
7
.
o- ,
..
.
a.
.
var
V
' '

F
x
-‘
1
.
.
.p‘

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to appraise rela-
tionships between ego deve10pment level. as measured by
Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test (SCT), and the diverse
personality traits measured by Jackson's Personality Inven-
tory (JPI). The task was to elucidate the traits and abili-
ties characterizing Loevinger's various ego levels. The
results were complicated by significant differences between
the two components of the pooled participant group and in-
sufficient representatives of the lower levels (i.e., Con-
formist and below) of ego development. Despite these
limitations, several notable linkages between the SCT and
JPI were observed, some of which supported certain of this
study's hypotheses.

This chapter contains three sections. The first dis-
cusses findings related to the distribution of participants
among ego levels and age effects. The second section inter-
prets both the overall results and the separate analyses
for each hypothesis. Derived from the foregoing. the final
part discusses questions regarding Loevinger's assumption
of structural cohesiveness of ego levels. and considers

suggestions for future research.

Nature and Distribution of Participants
Subjects Distribution Among Ego Levels
The present study had a distribution of ego level
ratings ranging from I-3 to I-5, but this included only solo

49

‘ [fl . . ~
. . .
"‘ .\ \ V '3 I ft 1
.I I l I 1 I .
- “wart”? ", r; err - ' n
A | A I~ — J c. : to .«

.-?" .! '7'f\_“r~‘ ‘frf -

> I" ‘I‘ .~ t.‘ .' ‘- .‘. '
. s a O Q '
/ r,_ (4 ' “.; I ,A‘ I
' ..‘ e - A. ,
o ‘, '
.,. “J, ,.._‘...l.
‘ u I)
a v ‘ - g ‘ - l
I ‘ I f I ‘7' ‘\ '
. A E) A ., ,I ' “I 4
. I f'»* I'II .' "‘ mm
K . , ‘4 -\‘ o :l"
0
.-fr - I. r v-rf (y ‘3" Fr I 4
4,; . .L 1' . J
u o . r
".1-‘- "r“ » no """2"
. ' - I a~ r .
o
v‘ .o o: f‘ -’ .‘O (s . I
I .1. j .) - ‘0
v 0 "~
A '3 ‘firfq ./ .,.. . ...-,
' . o’ V ‘ II in)
o ' I
-. o s . - .. a
. M 1 I, ‘- . . J a ..
I. » t .’ Ilr— \. 1 r0 \ 1
I .‘.A, x u . .
- o
._1
t. (
(. . . .I .
7‘ _ i‘ w o
‘ It '0; ' {'f )'
..~ g A _
r- - . .
,' 9‘, fr ’\ ° \ '0 r: — -‘ .7
4 x {r(‘ I z I _

- f v v} I :- r
A! . J
‘ ‘ fl - » - I‘ .
.
O r I . O
- n , .. Y _ , . s ,
‘ I \ l 1 .
r 3 . a
s - f 0
‘ ; . ‘ ,\ . I , - .
. A " 2
' v . . o I
. l i a ,, _ , o - a, ~ 3 y .x ‘v ‘ v -0
. .
- IJ A a
o P ' p . - _, a
u. 4 r ‘\~r ' r; 5 " n 0" ‘ W '1' . , (I ' “V
' a . o .
. ‘ l O C - I
9". f -' n, - N I wr’ I r 0‘ v d
k. , I
.4 . ' ' ,-. - '. ' . 5 .. '. , A , . L I. -,
, .
, l: 5
i ‘I
r _ ‘I‘ ... ,, . l I \ a ‘4' I
1 ‘ I I .
0! .fi ' ,_' Q , ' .¢ ‘Ax .- , V I I
‘ ' 7‘ | a . a _
I' O r .
... - fl 1“”. . , 1" f m x ' _' _ 7“,
o ‘.,' A t \_' n l. .
,e , '. r ». 1" r . , .- , , . + j. ‘
. 3 I . ‘ ,_ _ , . , ,_,
O I
N-‘r rw ,u. '3 ‘ . - » , sq I -w . --. s
.L . k 4' o ' o s 4
| n .
I v‘ ' ’
o l }
C . c . y . . .
. . n, — n '. ,’ , ','—’ II. ._ v- I. .| F ,"_ r
d. ' a J ., .
c o o y I . .
..,1 , -.. ‘ ) , ,g- . , g a! . T . ‘ , , . \ J
A L A J ‘ I . z .. L '1 .
I ‘, ' ‘ I
. 7‘ '0 ( fn‘ . . I) f ,‘
s .l ‘ . -
o r . u- . I
f‘ r’I - -\ ‘ y r \ , ., - — - . ' - . ‘ -a .
I ' , I I. -o'
- v v u ’
L ... . . - ,‘ ,.‘
j l ) .1 . I L I | _¢‘ . I
I O I .
, a, ' - -‘ . 1 I. . + , ,.7 ‘ . v ,y . . s O f
I C . , . ’ o _' a a .
r r- O ' l a I-
’\" ‘ " , ‘ " q ‘ tr 0 - - a" 7- h , .{
) arr) ' ) , I 4' . < a . . ) a _ I
I § -. - .
‘ o a ,‘ - .-— ,‘ . .' . r ,y I . .
I J 1' j I b I I I .I L h
o ‘ .
‘Orr ' I (I , I ‘ v I ’ ’~ Q r v Fr, ‘ .' I .
A I ' ‘ . I D ‘ | '
‘ '- O-v- ’ V 0 ‘ "V ’ O
W" . (~ ‘ f. ’ \ ’ ‘ ‘ '
I ' q 4 . .-
y e . ‘ s f v I . | - . z"'
w,» r q - - . . r r) ,'
A,‘ A .L I . A' .' p 7 ‘ e I)
v r -. » ‘v o .
‘ ‘u ‘ , 'I " o ',)-- fl ' a ‘ f r o
. , >. . b ‘ .. .¢_ -.

50
representatives of each.extreme. The lack of lower ego level
participants in this study (e.g.. I-2,A ,A/3) is comparable
to prior research evidence that less than 5 percent of the
average adult pOpulation will belong to pre-Conformist ego
levels. Similarly, prior research indicates that approxi-
mately 5-82 of the average adult population could be eXpected
to represent the Conformist ego level. This is from two to
four times the present study's 2% total of Conformist
ratings.

It had been anticipated that more of the present parti-
cipants would belong to the pre-Conformist and Conformist
levels. This expectation arose from the premise that the
psychotherapy patients would include a greater percentage of
persons in the lower stages of ego development. While no
normative distributions for individuals undergoing psychia-
tric or psychological treatment were available, Loevinger
(1976) speculated that individuals under stress may regress
to earlier lower ego levels. Unfortunately this expectation
was not realized. The preponderance of post-Conformist level
ratings among the psychotherapy sample likely reflected these
persons' above-average socioeconomic status. educational
level, and occupational prestige (Kusatsu. 1978; Lasker.
1974). Thus, this sample's character precluded a data-
based discussion of personality correlates relevant to

Conformist or pre-Conformist ego levels.

ége Effects
‘Within the present sample age did not relate to ego

level significantly. A bivariate regression analysis

if”.

'v.

o
.
IL
. .
0.;
\.
o
..
.
l
.
..
0
ll
1
.
-
a".

o
.
4
»
l
o.
~l
.
o.r
.
u
o
c,
i»
.4
v
'4
\1
A
«I
>
p
I
\
r
n
—|
s
‘H
«.1.

.r
r'
,
I

.l.

.

r

y

r
.

r
..
,

.
..
.

.
.
.
.
.
..
-.
-
A
.
o.
\
.o
,
.

.

I.

.f

.
..
0‘)

-9

fi'
. VI

(r-

.
.Ilk
p

—
or .
(A
D
t
l
r
at
n
'
7
~.
r
u
\e
...
as
a .
r.
O
. .

7"

. i.
.) 4
f
.

w
\, 1
IR I
. I
O
1
w“ s

r

)
l\ I\
7 3:
.. 0‘
\ ‘1
r. ..
~ '
'1
r 1
. h
.’ ‘
I fi
,
.
,J
o
.
' .
.
.1 .
I
. i\
I ...
t
0".
v
(
\.

or. .
\I
I». v
i. ~
-y ’
.~

0
b v
. .
t O.
O
I r |
\

.
ark
. .I’
t.

n ~..

r I

.\
..r
I
It a
«.4
0|

V .

r..

51
revealed that age accounted for only .0871 of ego level's
variance. Although other studies have found higher prOpor-
tions of pre-Conformist ego level ratings among younger
samples (i.e., age 14-15), the present findings suggest
that age may be unimportant when the sample consists of

adult participants at the I-3/4 ego level or above.

Overall Results

hypothesisil

The hypothesis predicted highest Social Participation,
value Orthodoxy, and Conformity JPI scores by persons repre-
senting the Conformist (1-3) ego level. The dearth of
Conformist level participants precluded a rigorous test of
this hypothesis, but a significant negative correlation
(g,- -.24) was found between ego level and JPI Conformity.

This result supported one feature of Hoppe's (1972)
findings. The nonmonotonic trend revealed in HOppe's re-
search showed maximum conformity at the 1-3 ego level which
tended to decrease as one moved either higher or lower on
the ego development scale. The present negative linear
relationship seems a function of the lack of pre-Conformist

level participants.

hypothesis II

It had been hypothesized that Conscientious (1-4) ego
level representatives should score higher on Organization,
Responsibility. and Energy Level than other persons. Re-
sults showed that 1-4/5 participants scored higher on Energy

Level than other persons (p (.05), while these subsamples'

- '1"
I
‘ _.
. ‘
‘3
C
.

7‘ I

0'

-. ‘ 3
\
i 0
a
, .

'4 A
-
'I
6
r
p
r
.
, A.
,.‘._
1
-O
fur.
,‘l
|
f. - ‘
R.
o
a
' T
1
A
3" N
.a -«
~'
~
y-v l'
I’ \
\
I
. .. q

p
v
\
o
771‘
¢
,"

o
,, .
.
,
,.
.
"
o
\
r- T
\
I
o
'1
..
‘
-5 f1
.. s
..
‘ r.
”r
o

f u

fl

.
D

a .-

2 &

4p,
'3

‘J

.—

f"

.
a
v
’I
c.

D

‘ \
‘,
.

C

. w-

I

‘.
.
“I
1
.|
I

p 7

~

l

-| .

V‘-
.
o
p
,
w'h
v
.
I.
l
.
J
n
I
a
I
._
'ir

I ‘ \ . .
I 4 0
' e
‘ .
- ~J

I
, -
' l
I I
t , .
.
_. r
.
.
, x ' I
a, A
I

? O

'\

r

I

, l
I

- o;

, A
.

I.

J

b

'-

y u

52
mean Responsibility scores were approximately the same at
each ego level. Although not statistically significant,
only the Organization scale was higher (X’- 12.00; §_- 19)
for persons at the I-4 level than for all others (§'- 10.81;
gl- 31).

This dearth of significant 1-4 (Conscientious) stage
findings suggests that there may be little relationship be-
tween Loevinger's Conscientious stage and the JPI's Organiza-
tion, Responsibility, and Energy Level measures. Scrutiny
of the individual items of each scale revealed them to be
biased towards behaviors, rather than toward opinions, be-
liefs, or values. The present results. therefore, suggest
the possibility that those at the 1-4 ego stage may be no
‘more likely to act 9g.or to manifest these behaviors than

are persons at the other ego levels.

flypothesis III

The third hypothesis predicted that the JPI's Breadth
of Interest. Complexity. Innovation. Interpersonal Affect,
and Tolerance scores would be higher for post-Conformists
than for those at lower levels. As stated earlier, an
adequate test of this hypothesis required a broader range
of ego levels than was available here. The significant rise
(p_<.05) of Complexity scores with increasing ego level

nevertheless partially supported Hypothesis III.

n. o
a,
.
I
i
V
. .
r. .
-
P.
a
x
. ‘
a c
a
‘ )
u
L
.
.
. n
A
.
.
,
u.
I r n
.
r
o
v
u

’v

o. .
\A- a n}.
I
I a 0..
.
P o
A I
v
.I/
. t
1
s . .
- . \l
r f
.

Or
1
.. .
. 4
\ r
. a
v r
l v ..
..
.
U
) pt
It. ..
. \
7
_ .
Va -
‘t’
.y
n
n
n
v n l l
I
r
I .
'
. _
I . .
L I .
.
|
u» c
. s
p 1
v
,.

p
, v
I
I.
In
. l
V
\.
o
v.
. .
.
x. r .
. .
r1. 0 I.
./ I
, ‘
4d (
a i
h
. ..
?
.
u...
. .
l
,J u
z _
_
c
. 4 6
r.
.
I
. .r.
f .
.r
0 ‘
_ 0}
e
..
..

I
L
f
O. Q
#4
.(l
.
f
\’
.L
.
.
.
'l
or.
.4.
o
,KI.
I
D
V
.
f.
.A
o
.
.
\

\

c,"

53
Hypothesis IV
The Anxiety scale was not found related to ego level,
supporting the conceptual distinctiveness of ego level and

psychosocial adjustment as measured by anxiety level.

flypothesis V

The fifth and final hypothesis predicted lower Self-
Esteem scores for 1-4 ego level persons. Near-significant
self-esteem differences obtained between the 1-4 level per-
sons and those at the 1-3/4 and 1—4/5 levels, but these were
contrary to the direction hypothesized. Fewer than half
(8 of 19) of the I-4 level participants were psychotherapy
patients, who averaged significantly below (i'- 7.63) the
normative group (i about 11.0) on Self-Esteem. They were
counterbalanced by the 1-4 level students, who significantly
exceeded (X'- 15.36) the normative group's Self-Esteem.mean.
It appears that the medical students' and psychotherapy
patients' deviant Self-Esteem scores rendered these sub-
groups unsuitable for testing hypothesis V. The present
results do suggest. however, that 1-4 level individuals do
not manifest lower Self-Esteem than do persons at the I-3/4

and I-4/5 ego levels.

The Assumption of Structural Coherence

Loevinger presents ego deve10pment as a single variable
that "gives a parsimonious account of a wide variety of data"
(1976. p. 253) and cannot be adequately represented by a

small set of traits. Any attempt to do so, she asserts, is

'r
q
I
v
t"-
).
a
,.
.
C
9.!
L i

,_
\
r! e
. u
" ‘f .~p‘—
. _. I
o s O
| .
'-
r W.-.
.\
. I
:5 ' v
| ~ '
.‘l
' C
’r
‘ t Ilr!
. A I
o ._ ,
.r- .‘ ’.
.I
I
I ‘ (
'7‘) n ?
h " »‘ o""‘
f O n
' I
I _x a
+ ..
l
V‘
7‘
' O
‘ ~VA
'-
é-v- \.\ .fi\ .
".L . ‘.‘. .

’— <a
\
v- ,
.
OK
‘ 7L
' C
'.
‘- I
. v
r'\
A
o
I’V
':
f-.
in
"r

f.
o r
1..
V
l
o

.s u
-
I
-
‘I'I'
' '
I l
I
v
o r‘
- t

.r—.

54
a denial of its holistic or organismic nature. Adequate
studies of stage characteristics are essential. however, in
order to test Loevinger's assumption of structural coherence
within ego levels. Her description of each ego level as
having definable characteristics (i.e., interpersonal and
cognitive styles, conscious preoccupations, and ways of
controlling hmpulses) follows from this assumption. Accord-
ing to Hauser (1976. p. 950), Loevinger's assumption of
structural coherence within ego levels hmplies that "diverse
personality traits are but manifestations of ego develop-
ment." The present study probed the validity of this as-
sumption by proposing relationships (between the JPI traits
and the various ego levels) derived from Loevinger's de-
scription of each of the stages. Although the results were
limited by a restricted range of ego levels. and the two
subgroups of participants differed significantly in several
respects, it is interesting that only the JPI's Conformity,
Anxiety, and Complexity scales yielded findings consistent
with Loevinger's ego level descriptions. It appears that
the present sample's characteristics and the study's design
precluded an adequate test of this assumption. The reasons
for this statement are clarified in the remainder of this
section.

Loevinger (1976) has questioned the use of personality
trait measures to test the assumption of structural coher-
ence. She claims that the monotonic (polar) relationships
that undergrid trait models tend to generate measures that

are deficient for testing structural conceptions. Lorr and

. ,
, .
J
.
.
.
.
.
I
».
o. f!
‘ §
I
. i
- r
e "
1 0
.
I
- A

O
4 .
.
I I
I v N,
'a . --

l
r' , . l
|
~ I-
. ~
vi ' *0
r-
s
- ..
' \
s.
..
- -

‘ s
o .
.r “x '
O C
0
. . .
Q
. . ,. . - .
. .1 ‘
r 1' ' ' "
O
' r
9 r
I. (1y - \ ‘
. .
. 4., tr‘ ,
. ‘ .
I
, .
O — I ‘
t \
A‘ , I
,. -7
. F .
‘ I
I x .
. I

a v- "\
v rfi - I Q J
a .I '. .
74 v 9 fl
3 _- .
, . J
I
o ‘ \ "fl

‘. -~ v- v r -
J.( .V., ‘
. .( .‘ a n
0
r‘ ,- r'.‘.‘r'-.4
‘ . .

O .
‘
_ r
A .
0
4, .
0‘ g A
\
v.
. .
.
.-.
_.
.-
' i
r
, r.
A,
I
,-
. _.
t' .

.: .\o'

I c. I
‘3 -. r. ,\
_. .
7‘ ~f —’. .
1 1 i)
r-. y s
‘ .
o ‘ -

.
' A
r'
l
v
D
.'
C
, n
I
.
4 r.
a. v
.
\"
'r
'
.
. .
p

SS
Manning (1978) obtained evidence to the contrary. however.
Their results indicated that ego deve10pment could be relia-
bly measured by self-report data, in this case, the Inter-
personal Style Inventory. It is reasonable to assume that
the JPI, another self-report instrument could also measure
ego development reliably.

II

If ego development is the "master trait, the frame
providing more specific traits with their meaning, then
perhaps it is the manner in which certain traits are ex-
pressed, rather than the traits themselves. that should be the
focus of measurement. Rozsnafszky (1981) assessed the manner
of eXpression of various traits in order to rate partici-
pant's personality. Using Q-sort personality ratings by

self and observers. she obtained confirming evidence that
certain milestone traits corresponded with certain ego lev-
els. The results of this study suggested that "the ego
deve10pment of subjects is a hidden dimension influencing
observer ratings and self-ratings in personality assessments"
(p. 119). An important implication of Rozsnafszky's results
is that not only does there appear to be an organizing struc-
ture, the ego. that influences an individual's personality
characteristics, but her observers unknowingly responded to
that structure.

This organizing structure that determines the expres-
sion of personality (i.e., ego development) is viewed by
Loevinger as "the master trait." a function of the whole
organimm. The various personality traits such as those

measured by the JPI are, on the other hand, considered

‘f
)
‘
V
Y'_
W
n

U
’
.l
' I
rx f
I n
:3 '
n ' '
\ n

or

. .
’.
I
o
b . ‘
a
I .

._
I
"f\
.

.
. e

,
.
l

'K
- , ,‘
.' J

‘. '.
v
1 ‘ I l
s
' ‘ ,. ° , I ' ..
» o
O ’ ’
r f‘ . u
l ' o
’ I ' ..
' 1
o
- . + . °
r ' ‘
o ' v.9 .\ 4 O, ‘
. . I
., " ’ . z , a .-
r- r -
y ‘ ’? *
\ . ( , ..
- o
, f \ ~- . s - ‘
3 ' . .
o —|.
f ‘ .
.’ I
.‘K I _ '
," , (N) \‘
O O
'— u ‘ .-A . ‘v"
. . . z
'
. § .. I
a . .
. r p v u p n
u,“ ‘
. A. ‘.
A r ,. 3 r0 ‘ “f '
I . J . |‘
-‘ l C a
I ~ 'I . v
.' ( D ‘ ,'J r‘. /‘
‘ I
. 1 . .
, _ (. u .
I _ ,‘
' O

?_ x S , \ ,--pr’... ....

IA I. O
_. ,. ., , -I . .._- J
j '
, I ' L I
c o O
4 . a l r . -
.‘ a .
s 1.. V ‘ ,
u ' I

. o .
t .' .—~ -
. I
v D
ID ‘ I -
. )r
\ V' I
'0 'r -
I V ‘ '
' 4 »
T u
. fi~ ‘ t'\
o
, 14 ,‘
.-L .
I‘ ' 'r
_) I , . (
‘ I
'1‘,, A .. ‘ 7‘ -
L ,_
a V
-' " ‘ 4 '4 T
_ o ‘
{Po ‘ '
I I In. a.
. -
a ‘ V ,‘ ro'
’ t'. '
I
. . .
-.-+ i . ‘ ‘
_‘ .
o - I
v ‘ ‘ V
.

i - §-, ‘ . I
§ 1 )n' ‘ . .
a P ' ‘ O t. \
. ' ‘
' . . - . . 4
a , 1 1
7 '
o .
r‘ H v- - ‘ ”1'
. . . x J
- v-
v i r u' r-\ '\
. I r
,
1 ' r‘ A '
. a
u '0

b
r‘~.
.
F
\
c
')
I,
o
’7‘
o.

‘.
\
.
s
t
r
‘,
‘1
a
r
l

56
peripheral. There are many possible manifestations of a
peripheral trait. all of which flow from the basic struc-
ture of the central trait, the ego. It follows then, that
various peripheral traits may show a similar pattern of
manifestation among individuals representing each ego level.
The trait of Social Participation. for example, may be ex-
pressed in a conforming rule-bound manner at I-3. show an
increase in interpersonal sensitivity with increasing ego
level, and, at the highest levels, involve in-depth, spon-
taneous, mutual interpersonal interactions with a concern
for communicating feelings. Obtaining multiple measures of
each trait would be one approach to assessing divergent
manifestations of a trait at each ego level. This approach
was taken by McCrae and Costa (1980), who used 10 different
measures of the trait Openness to Experience in order to
test their hypothesis that this trait bore a relationship to
ego deve10pment. Their broad (open) approach to measurement,
using subscales such as fantasy. actions, values. aesthetics,
etc., yielded supportive results.

In conclusion, the present findings provided limited
support for Loevinger's assumption of structural coherence
within ego levels. There are reasons for thinking that
both the nature of the present samples and this study's de-
sign hindered an adequate test of this assumption. The
present study did not use multiple trait measures and did not
attempt to assess the qualitative aspects of the manner of
expression of each trait measured. These are factors which

may have hampered a test of the structural coherence within

-
J.‘
3).
'\Y'/
,.

#0 “M

'
r.
O
0‘ .
‘ A
A
‘ I

‘J ‘{
‘ re
9

2

T r

. .

\
A 10'
\ ‘."
' .
(-
- as
1
.,a,
.
rr-y

"‘f."

l
I
I'§ ;
D
. 4 ~
‘ .
l
‘\
. jg) '
. _)
.’\ T
I — “
~r ,\
_ .‘l
b -
J ‘ '

o
H . ' .
r 0

fl(

5-!

‘r

‘I

'\
1 r‘
1
O
V
-
I
r
O
r.

v
-I.
-J
I
b
i
i
J

(‘i 1(
J-.
V'DP'
0 s
I. '
’
' f
I
~‘,.,.L

.
7"
v ‘9 v
‘ Q
(J
yo - I
A9 i
..‘ O
a
u
l ‘
I
. ’ _
. a v
9 s
.
\
I
' {
.

4
, l r
47‘; f‘ ’\
o
r v Y r
-‘ - .,‘, A.
) . VI 7‘
.» r'r I. 9
’ - ‘ .J
’
r\ ‘ , . ' .
.. A 1‘,
U . I
. 9 . =- 4 ,
; ,' _ a
' F
‘ ' I
‘ , I‘. I

0' [A {'3
x ’ -III I
I . ~
7 I. | V
J I \
o 1...“, X P. Q ,
a l
- , .
(\' i . .
. .3 .4
\
r'( ”r. u
I
O
'9(‘ r J 1“ \' .
‘ _L - I l n
V
., -s
s ..
r~ v r \
I e l-
' o
. (\ O'~ ‘ "
fl 7, 7f, » ’
’ -|‘ )
V. _.
"V‘ . I ‘ a
' J-‘ - -1
)
., . -‘ n J
. . V . . , I
:4 —A J .
~ - x} . ‘ 4
J ;
.. '
~ I A 'f
0
rr~v (‘3! ‘ ‘ ’

‘ '1
. .l
' o
'1 A
C O
I . r g
1, ,,
rt,“
"' .. L
,
.,r',
. I
r J.
‘j )
,.
1""
O
I " O.
\

{J‘\" ‘
'4 sh
I .
' P
I \
‘
..-?., 1

’ ' r V
,W
| ..
'0'. .y.
. s, ‘
\‘ " t,
' \O
rr,)o ‘1'

r, f‘
\4 .

v - ' (2‘
-n J u ‘-I
. .
. . I
. -.
D $ ‘
. . .

‘
7.7 .,
n
u-
.C
'9‘ x
o
\

.
a, (\
.7. .(a‘
.
I “’ §
.i a:
I ,-..
I
‘ o
r
3 ,
.
W ,A‘
.L .‘ I
‘11
A I
' I
. ' L
‘
‘ .I
. L
_ ) Y) I
I
I
.. ,
J5) :‘

. 4 '
f I .
‘I . u,
l' r
r * r

‘ .
I

I ‘l

.4

.‘ . .

'Y(\

I

A F"
I.“
I

. v- a
-. a) I .- .‘
o 4 J . _
O I
f: "" ‘ r ', r '-
4—L i .
I .a ! n-rr
' I
o
r ‘_'r.:_ ‘. v v ‘ r‘. r '
x . 1' \- _- L
. .- ,' a- “ '. .
A l‘
. ‘ .
‘ ' ’3 , a. ' ._ .A ’
,I x, .__1 . . .)
' f
' '1 r~ N .- rwv- 1'.-
. 5‘ at a a .. I,
O O
«“1 I ': 1":t‘ )‘j':
,.
b >8 . r refs V \
s ‘ he! s ‘ a
v
'-.p'.-rv -, 5(x.r.‘.
. -‘|-'a . - .0: l
.. '- h- = - .. a
J] .1 n
o
r r,-_ v ‘ . ~‘~--‘ -‘
C) _‘ ,- . 1‘, .
o
. ,',—~‘ — -‘ . . r r
\.' gl‘. .1 - . .' _
O O I
‘r o to” ,‘
.J . J _, . -
. ‘ .,. . 1
. ~ )_
v - '
’f V ‘4' - l‘ '+ s ‘
4 ‘ -4 - ' .4
' a \ f "‘ I“
. I ,r y. I. .
r ' C
' I ’ '\'3 'J ' l’ '
A ; ’ 0 l _A l
”h I. f 15..."...
A I § ' ‘ e
f‘
. ' ’ PO! \ ‘71.
. . J ‘. .
.'|’\( l . Acr ' f
O 0 f ‘ g
‘ v, a \ f . r ‘
. ‘) . '. w
( - MA ' l ' I
\l , '1 y I
' v o
‘ r . t , ; .
‘ ‘ ‘ ll ..
'I
‘ ‘ on" ‘ rs. ,--
. . v
. -,r. . .
A I.\ ' V.
' - 'Y O
' I
.. .- , . _
2 ;"a . .

57
ego levels. Additionally, the sample was modest, there were
many significant differences between participant groups. and
the range of ego levels was limited. One example of a more
adequate test of this assumption would be a study aimed at
testing Loevinger's predicted differences in interpersonal
style at each ego level. An ideal sample would consist of
150 fourteen and fifteen year-olds, as this would be most
likely to yield a broad enough range of both ego levels and
interpersonal styles. Assessing multiple measures of both
qualitative (i.e., self-report and/or peer report) and
quantitative aspects of interpersonal style would facilitate
the investigation of the divergent manifestations of inter-
personal styles at each of the ego levels. Further tests
of Loevinger's assumption of structural coherence would
benefit from.taking the above discussed factors into account.
In this regard, the present researcher hopes that this study
will serve as a heuristic device for future similar eXplor-

ations of Loevinger's Ego Deve10pment construct.

. )'T' ' A
'
.., .
f) . ‘I v ' I (V
r - v ,
‘ ‘ v ‘ s P ‘
1) .l ‘ . . .
- O
a. ,. - g - -— rev ’ . ‘ -
J . t 1 . 5' ‘. ‘
Q ‘ ~. II " to 3" ' v ‘
o .. .1 a. in W
‘ F Y ' ' P ’
I 'i ' ‘ ' " 9 "
-JO' .
v)! 5-7.. I - ‘ '.I‘ _
I _ ' ,I ’
7 ' . , - . . ‘
T;' T _; x
I r
‘1 1 '1‘ \" " , I
4 '7 ‘ ...) “ r I" _r ‘
, . c I 4 ’ _;
A . "f N‘ . - -V‘ . - '\ '
’ . . (J F.‘ . ‘.1-_ ’1' .f
'
. I r . or ‘n' rt
« 1"." * 1,) f .1} I "- -- '
Y r v v I) )I" -,o ,3? ,1 :—
—A .4 ' '
. _,_ a- - r“? .r
\ 3). r) . . iC). -)'.A
|.. . . ? ‘.. '1. ‘ 7- r' >
p ‘
' I v ‘ A"; n- I)”.'O'.'t
r v; D 1-. ) '-
f ‘r-- '4 .(.(- 4“
. . . ‘ .

' .
.
.
4
-
:)
.‘r.
.s
.
‘
a \
-.
.
._
e
!"
..-
‘3
"Dr
.4-.'
\'\
t
r .
‘ I

I
‘- D
o . -
3'.
I
.. C
— 'I. V .l
r e
' r
I -\
I ~ ' ’
- .,’,
. , ‘1
.
1

0“!

I . 'r/
‘J_ ) n,
:4 )I‘-'
-.'. ‘1.
. ‘>v\
a I
x' 1

f t

L 4 ;.'1 ‘
. I L I
I .. .
l l
l
r
y .—
,. ' ML...
1 ..
f' t’ ‘
. .
. a. ,
n , f'
r~ f. ‘ I) r
\
o .o‘.
?r\ y ‘ v
' , .1
I u
r ‘ . ‘I ‘
. _ ‘
n, _ ,.:Y‘,f
v .e'l)
.
. I)” H
’s . . - ‘ ‘
(
l
‘ ’ . ' ?
‘ . ‘7 \f .1

5-. u

l
.

‘
—O
.
b 0’

t
. '.
A
"A
I

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEDICAL STUDENTS
AND PSYCHOTHERAPY PATIENTS

 

APPENDIX.A

Differences between Medical Students
and Psychotherapy Patients

 

‘Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

JPI Scale 21 Students 29 Patients t-value
Energy Level 13.24 (2.57) 9.10 (4.37) 4.19***
Self-Esteem 13.71 (4.22) 8.76 (4.79) 3.87***
Tolerance 12.43 (3.59) 9.45 (3.49) 2.93**
Social Participation 10.29 (4.51) 7.41 (4.12) 2.31*
Risk Taking 9.90 (4.44) 7.21 (4.91) 2.03*
Interpersonal Affect 13.33 (3.94) 11.72 (3.29) 1.52
Responsibility 12.33 (3.06) 10.86 (3.91) 1.49
Breadth of Interest 11.95 (4.10) 10.52 (4.58) 1.08
Innovation 13.38 (4.51) 12.00 (4.75) 1.04
value Orthodoxy 7.48 (3.04) 6.93 (3.21) .61
Organization 11.43 (2.86) 11.14 (3.41) .33
Complexity 11.19 (3.09) 11.10 (3.24) .10
Social Adroitness 10.29 (4.28) 11.00 (3.09) - .65
Infrequency 0.33 (0.48) 0.59 (0.63) -1.61
Conformity 8.71 (4.23) 11.69 (4.91) -2.29*
Anxiety 10.14 (4.91) 13.93 (4.11) -2.88**
*

B<.05 **p_<.01 ***E (.001

58

IV V‘
.
v
.
,.
f
-

/ I

f,

V".

APPENDIX B

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FEMALE
AND MALE PARTICIPANTS

APPENDIX B

Differences between Female and Male Participants

 

 

 

JPI Scale 24 Females 26 Males t-value
Innovation 10.58 (4.30) 14.42 (4.25) -3.17**
Risk Taking 6.38 (4.21) 10.15 (4.78) -2.97**
Energy Level 9.50 (4.54) 12.08 (3.57) -2.22*
Complexity 10.63 (2.53) 11.62 (3.61) -1.13
Organization 10.88 (3.18) 11.62 (3.16) - .82
Self-Esteem 10.33 (5.54) 11.31 (4.82 - .66
Social Participation 8.25 (4.53) 8.96 (4.49) - .56
Tolerance 10.42 (3.01) 10.96 (4.45) - .51
Social Adroitness 10.46 (3.90) 10.92 (3.93) - .45
Anxiety 12.21 (4.90) 12.46 (4.81) - .18
Breadth of Interest 11.25 (4.31) 11.12 (4.55) .11
Interpersonal Affect 12.50 (4.01) 12.31 (3.32) .18
Infrequency 0.54 ( .66) 0.42 ( .50) .71
Conformity 11.08 (4.83) 9.85 (4.85) .90
Responsibility 12.00 (3.39) 11.00 (3.82) .98
Value Orthodoxy 8.00 (2.89) 6.38 (3.18) 1.88
*p<.05 **E<.Ol

59

v
'
1 n‘
\
o
I

r ‘
O
I

-.‘ r\

APPENDIX C

RAW DATA USED IN ANALYSES

u.
uu
uu

28828

cu
nu

33883

nu
Cu

3 uo
no no
nu no
no Ou
no nu

nu cu

uu nu
uu nu
nu nu
cu cu
un ou
cu ou
uu nu
no nu

nu nu

888

nu

Du

.—
z
2
2.
2

nu
no
Ou

uu
nu

no
nu
cu
nu
n u
n0
n u
n u
cu

m..—

8 8
Bu 3
no uu
8 8
no g
n. no
Ou nu
no uu
nu uu
nu no
Ou no
8 8
cu nu
8 no
no a.
nu nu
T T
un nn
no no

n.
no
nu

nu
nu
nu

nu
nu
nu
nu

nu

uu
nu
nu

no
nu

nu
un
nu
nu
nu

nv
n

no
cu
no
uo
nu
cu
nu
nu

nu

no
nu

7n

nu
nu

nn

288328.
8388838828

nu
nu

.2

nu
nu
nu
nu

uu

a:

nu

nu
nu

288288
#3233588

nu cu
nu 8
nu nu

Cu 8
uu cu
nu nu
nu no

no
nu

nu
nu

8
on
uu
8
3
8
no
nu uu
nu on
no nu
n.
n.
nu
n.
nu
8

=38:

nu
nu

S'382233238

nu

nu
uu
nu
nu

:8:

822882888828383

cu
nu
nu
nu
uu
nu
nu

uu

nu
nu

nu

1T1

nnnncn
nnnnnn

nu
nu
nu
nu
nu

nu
nu

nu
nu
cu
nu

28328888

nu

2888832888

:38:

3:88

nu

3288:

nu

=33:

nu

:

n. nu
‘ nu
n. nu
n u uu
cu nu
n.
in

nu
nu nu
n. nu
Du nu
cu nu

uu nu
nu uu
n. .u

nu
nu

nu

nu
Ou
nu
nu
nu

zrwrzrr

nnnn
nnnn

323838

: 8
no ‘
cu .
n. ‘
n. cu
nu 0n
. nu
nu n.
nu no
uu nu
no nu
cu nu
nu nu
nu nu
nu Cu
cu nu
1 1n
nn. nn
nu nu
u

2888288

CSSSSSBZSSSSSSSS

nu nu
nu nu
nu nu
nu nu
nu uu
on nu
cu nu
nu n.
no nu

1?

388

uu
nn

uu

388228:

'1'
'1‘

u.
no
nu
nu
nu

uu
nu

no
8
nu
nu
n.
nu
nu

nu
nu

Tr

unnnnnnnnnun
nu nu cu nu nu uu

u

an

Ion—181888!-

0:

82.983288883882388

T

nu
nu

nu
nu

uu
uu
nu
no
nu
no

Ou
uu
nu
nu

nu
nu
nu

82882

BIS» sea-canoe»... 8!
ousouuu gaseous. sue-on

colossa- uouuvos out.
ease-sue use... 8':

nu
uu
cu
nu

nu
nu
nu

28:38:

nu

sz‘r

.
no
nu
8
n0
nu
8
cu
8
no
nu

nu
a.
nu
uu
8

n
J.

8:888:38

nu
uu
nu
nu
nu
nu

nu
nu

8
no
nu
Ou
no
nu
nu
nu
nu
nu
cu
nu
nu
nu

nu
n.

no
Ou
nu
no
uu
nu
8
cu
nu
n u
Ou
nu
no
n u
no
no

1
nn

Snug
57:
inn.
3:: soon-u
nun-Drona:
£95 onus.
ole-ouch
souusnuuucusn u-uvon
coo-:33 uouuo.
Iceman-u.-
.luuon noun
nun—agile.-
8:32.88
use: union-onus:
83253.:
78.. 38..-
bulbous-o
53.2.18
~00...qu no ans-ou-

APPENDIX D

AUTOMATIC RULES FOR.ASSIGNING TOTAL PROTOCOL
RATINGS TO THE OGIVE OF ITEM RATINGS

APPENDIX D

AUTOMATIC RULES FOR ASSIGNING TOTAL PROTOCOL

RATINGS TO THE OGIVE OF ITEM RATINGS*

TPR is: If there are:

I-6a No
I-S No
I-4/5 No
1-4 N0
1-3/4 No
1-2 At
(Delta) At
(Delta/3) At

more than 34 ratings at I-5
more than 31 ratings at I-4/5
more than 30 ratings at I-4
more than 24 ratings at I-3/4
more than 21 ratings at I-3
least 5 ratings at I-2

least 6 ratings at Delta

least 6 ratings at Delta/3

Note: Apply these rules in the order given, from I-6 to

Delta/3.

8To receive an I-6 rating, the I-5 criterion

must also be met.

*From Loevinger and Wessler. 1970. p. 129.

r‘

REFERENCES

~24

 

References

 

Blasi, A. A developmental approach to responsibility
trainin . Doctoral dissertation. Washington Univer-
sity, 1 72.

Block,1.9Ii1 Lives Through Time. Berkeley: Bancroft Books,

Erikson, E.H. Identity; Youth and Crisis. New York: W;W.
Norton & Company.Inc., 1968.

 

Favell, J.H. The Developmental Psycholo of Jean Piaget.
Harvard University:iThe University eries inPsy-
chology. 1963.

Gold, S.N. Relationship Between a Measure of Ego Development
and Symptom Patterns in Adolescents. M.A. Thesis,
Michigan State University, 1977.

Goulet. L.R., & Baltes, P.B. (Bds.). Life-S an Developmental
Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 970.

Haan, N. Personalit development from.adolescence to adult-
hood in the Ga land growth and guidance studies.
Seminars in Psychiatry, 1972, 4, 399-414.

Haan, N., Stroud, J.. & Holstein. J. Moral and ego stages
in relation to ego processes: A study of "hippies.
Journal of Personality, 1973, 41, 596-612.

Harakel. C. Ego maturity and interpersonal style: A multi-
variate study of Loevinger's theory. Doctoral disser-
tation, Catholic University, 1971.

Hauser. S.T. Loevinger's model and measure of ego
development: A critical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 1976, 83(5). 928-955. ‘—

Heath. D.H. Growin u in Colle e. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Inc., Puglishers, I966.

Hoppe, C. Ego development and conformity behavior. Doctoral
dissertation, washington university, 1972.

Jackson. D.N. Jackson Personalit Inventor Manual. New'York:
Research Psychologists Press. Inc., 1576.
Jackson, D.N. Interpreter's guide to the Jackson Personality

Inventory. From.Advances in Psychological Assessment,

'Mgggynolds (Ed.), vol. 4. San Francisco: ossey- ass,

 

 

62

A
1' 'Q.. '-
I’T’) "
of .' .
- ‘ ‘
‘t
"
o--
- ' 9 I:-
-. J .
_ < f)... d

. ' .
r s o.
A
r v r -

. I y

u I a
i r v .

\

.
.
. 4
“Q
.
7
.
.. .
. "'
.
..
l
.
, .
O
, .
i
o n. V
O
' §
7

(‘0
g
nn
0. r
r
I‘

-3
O
fo r

l
.
.v
.
o
r
\
—-

/
Y
.1"

Q_

\n
o
,.
n .
A
«r
.
N, \_
. .
'
.
‘1‘ A
19"
‘ -.

' -
r
O
I)-
(I .L
~
0
,1 .
D"
o
u
.
‘--
u
I
s
.

I
I
r
x
'
‘
.h
6
.
7"
.4

a
I
O
4
. n
‘ e

U
"T'
..
‘.
L
7‘
.
.
‘ ,
n
I
.J
-.

r
.n,
o
.
'7
n
C
b
t
v
,4
'l
I
.o"
.
. -
o
r"
.u

I
T!
,
.,.
I r
is
(v
\
.
r
‘
9
:r
I
.
f'
.
I
‘r‘r
v1.1
.4
.2

.2

63

Kusatsu, O. ‘Ego development and socio-cultural processes
in Japan. Journal of Economics, (Asia University.
Tokyo, Japan , , _, -

Lambert. H. Comparison of cognitive developmental theories
of ego and moral development. Progeedings of the 80th
annual convention of the American Psychological'
Association, 1972, 1, 115-116. (Summary)

Lasker, H.M. et a1. “Stage specific reactions to ego
development training.‘ In Formative Research in Ego
Change: Study No. 3. Williamstad, curacas; Humanas
FOundation, 1974.

Levinson, D.J. The Seasons of a Man's Life. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1978.

Loevinger, J. The meaning and measurement of ego develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 1966. 21, 195-206.

Loevinger,J. E o Develo ment: Conce tions and Theories.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1976.
Loevin er. J., & Wessler, R. Measurin Ego Develo ment

2V01. 1). San Francisco:-Jossey- ass Inc., PEEIishers.
Loevin er. J., & Wessler, R. Measurin Ego Develo ment

iVol. II). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Bfiblishers,

Lorr,‘M., & Manning, T.T. Measurement of ego development
by sentence completion and personality test. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1978, 34(2), 354—360.

 

 

 

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. Openness to eXperience and
ego level in Loevinger's sentence completion test:
Dispositional contributions to developmental models
of personality.’ Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1980, __ , - .

Nagel, E. Determination and development. In D.B. Harris
(Ed.), The Concept of Develo ment, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press. 1957.

Progoff. I. At a Journal workshop. New York: Dialogue House
Library, 1975.

Redmore, C.. Loevinger, J .. 6: Tamashiro, R. Measurin E 0
Development: ScoringgManual for Men and So 8. fire-
pfiblication version. SociaI Science Institute,
Washington university. 1978.

 

‘ ‘ '1 ~ cu
J 1‘. I, ,
I b
Vv 5 5 ' o .
o .5 A . .- I.
. I o—
: ". ‘9 g 3.
‘i. - ,, ,. I
- _ .
- ,o .
a.
a 4 Q
P . ~ I- i/‘ul n.
- ‘ P.
.l ’ '
1
‘. ‘ ‘ ' " I
U y,
.. - I
l! ’ ' '
I -l I I ’
‘ fi ' ‘ ". ,I~o' .-
'. ~Ir , I .._ ‘J‘ ) '
. , .
. I
D
. I
.
.1. "‘l’y\ ‘ (~- .~ I
. I
0 0
~ 3 - r h,
r V. I .: J
v-.\ r
a I c I
- .- . .3"
" " I
I
O n
. . .
.I/‘.I’. n,‘ hf.
-l . , o .1
r us
I, . - .
_-‘ - ., 1
. - .' T
. '. ,
. ' a ’ a
r v
‘ ff,‘ "I r 3*. mm -,
‘1-. n 4 ‘ ~
I c '0
. ,.. ”I .-, I
A‘s . ‘ o
' . Q I
o
' \
’t' ' I- ~-; (. ~
. ‘ o. J Q .
. I
. '4 vwr f J
. I-, _ . _' .
, .
4 . ~ .., . , -‘ .
" ‘ ' . J
. ».
I, — W . ,: .,
J) I ~-
- --
.-{nr, pf‘
JV J .4. I I s
a
‘\ r'\/-/\r - (o
1.1 s ~ ‘ 90'
0’ ' e '- .
If ‘~.
. ). .
-' C ‘ I
(, [-- r - .o'\ . -
.- I' ' 1"
‘ U
._ -
‘0
" 1 ‘rr'
' ‘j I. I A

I r ‘
I .
A
~‘ rv- ~ A
‘. § ’
~ r
Q
-
I .' , . , v..
.2. 1 .
V e
I v
\ I,
‘
.
. . no r
. |
s -. t . ‘
'I
. I
O ' ‘ I
I- J . .
.~ \ ’
. .
v .
v‘. - ,4 .
\I o . 1.. _,
. . r V ~ '
O) .
r I
. t ‘ f-
., . J
. n
A II y-v’ '3“
, u.\ I.
,' P
. - A\
l.
- (vs .1
O
. I
4 'I 1"»
I . - I
r .
. .
.. ‘7 '
v ) V..
A o l
r“ 7 .I:
I , ( ~
I ~ f’ \ I

t".

- .
\ .
c I
. ,
A ,
’1
V
l
7 l
D
I
;
,
P, ‘
,
.
..
l
O 4
.
‘I
.
.‘l'
I , .
I
' I
I
f.
.
.
I

3 .
a _
I
I ’ ,

~r
\
.
.
I‘
J
P
I
‘.
.
I D
V
.
.
..
.Hw
l
I?
..
.
'\
I.
.
.

p—i'
f
‘ I
[x

I

.
1
I
up.
I
A I
n
a
_.I
o
.l
,I
r
.
J
'.
. .

f‘
8
.

I
.
r
I

.

\
o
'-
.
o
O
r- ,‘
,.
u
v
.
.
V :'
.A
s
‘ '
.-
I
.
,
l
\
f.
,
I
. u
n
y

I
/-n .
\f
1'. J
' t
.. ‘-
t .
0
r. -l
.A .
v
"‘1
’
1"
\
a
\ rf1‘)
_4\. A
. l‘
f
r. ..
m
D
(
. l
I
,.
n3.»
I
o-.
o
I
"! ".
o
,.
_}
9" ,
l u
I

I
V
o .
‘ ro
(
.
'.
I a,
_ .
- l
.
.,-
‘ .
I

o
I
V
o
r) ,

. -
, r
'\

‘ I

.
, .
.
D
I
.3 .
'\
I
r.
L
Q

~ I
v
\

. \ .
'
A..
i .
9']
a

lo

I
a
.
.,.
[u
1
.
1
n
I
I
, .
I
.0

|!
I
,
I
y
0
I
I
j
.
I
t
O
’I
I
I.
.
'0
I
I
ll
,-
I.

64

Rosen, A.S., & Nordquist, T.A. Ego deve10pment and values
in a Yogic Community. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1980, 32255, IIEZ-Iléb.

 

 

Rozsnafszky, J. The relationship of level of ego development
to Q-Sort personality ratings. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1981, 31(l5, 9§Fl20.

 

Snarey, J.R. and Blasi. J.R. Ego deve10pment among adult
kibbutzniks: A cross-cultural application of Loevinger's

theory. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1980, 19;,
120-157.

Sullivan, E.V., McCollough, G., & Stagen, M. A developmental
study of the relationship between conceptual, ego, and
moral development. Child Development, 1970, 3;,
399-411.

Suzman, R. Psychological Modernity. International Journal
of Comparative Sociology. 1974, 14, 273-287.

Vaillant, G.E. Adaptation to Life. Boston: Little, Brown
and Company, 1977.

 

7"“

J
r. wt 9
I
0
up.
‘
o

y
r'
‘
‘l"
r-f '

 

 

"‘mnirflnjifitmmngwfifliflfl“