I ‘I ‘ w ‘ ‘

 

LIBRARY

llllllllllllll MW”

527 2060 ‘ University _

\ll

___,_.—'-

\\

.a
N
(D
(A)
.a
O

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A STUDY OF THE CONSTRUCT OF
FEAR OF SUCCESS: AN EXAMINATION OF

ITS INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND ITS

RELATIONSHIP TO SELECTED VARIABLES
presented by

Lewis Steven Krash

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Eh._d‘____degree in Jdncatinna 1
Psychology

«Wflwz‘
A

Major professor

Date 11-6-78

 

0-7639

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF THE CONSTRUCT OF
FEAR OF SUCCESS: AN EXAMINATION OF
ITS INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO SELECTED VARIABLES

BY

Lewis Steven Krash

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1978

rj\ol/

'1'

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE CONSTRUCT OF
FEAR OF SUCCESS: AN EXAMINATION OF
ITS INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO SELECTED VARIABLES

BY
Lewis Steven Krash

Fear of success, as measured by the Fear of Success
Scale (Zuckerman and Allison, 1976), was hypothesized
to be multidimensional. The factor structure of fear
of success was explored to test this hypothesis. The
relationship of the resultant fear of success factors
to selected variables was then investigated. A second
hypothesis was that fear of success scores would be
influenced by situational variables. This hypothesis
was tested by observing the stability of fear of success
over a time span.

Three hundred and twenty-seven questionnaires were
distributed to several student and non-student groups.
Two hundred and thirty-one subjects' responses were
analyzed. Questionnaires measured; fear of success, self-
satisfaction, sex, age, education, heterosexual attach-

ment, parental education, parental occupation, perceived

closeness to father, perceived closeness to mother, im-
portance of career and importance of family. Additional
variables were measured for student subjects only:
traditional versus non-traditional major, grade point
average (GPA), grade point expectation, grade point
aspiration, weekly time spent studying and weekly time
spent socializing.

Several different statistical procedures were
utilized to study the data. Initially, a factor analysis
of the Fear of Success Scale was carried out. The
relationship of the selected variables to each resul-
tant fear of success factor was then examined by means
of bi-variate correlational analysis. The selected
variables were also entered into a multi-regression
analysis to determine their efficacy in predicting each
fear of success factor. Differences in fear of success
scores between groups and each sex were explored through
the use of multiple and one way analysis of variance.
Test-retest reliability of fear of success was determined
by bi-variate correlational analysis.

Fear of success was found to consist of two main
factors: cost of success and importance of success.

Cost of success and importance of success were negatively
correlated. A number of variables were significantly
related to one fear of success factor but not the other.

Multiple regression analysis resulted in the deriva-

tion of a significant regression equation for predicting

cost of success. However, no significant regression
equation was calculated for predicting importance of
success.

Test-retest reliability was calculated for both
fear of success factors over a nine week period. Each
fear of success factor was found to be stable over the
nine week period.

The lack of a significant relationship between fear
of success factors and a number of variables challenges
fear of success theory. The variables in this study
did not account for a substantial portion of the variance
in fear of success scores. For females only, it was
found that variables relating to family and interpersonal
relationships were positively related to importance of
success. This finding suggests that females may see
and define success in a different manner than males.

The stability of fear of success scores indicated that

fear of success was not effected by situational variables.

DEDICATION
To those of whom I think of now and again

and when I do a warm thought emerges which comforts

my very being.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The formulation and completion of this study was
greatly facilitated by the cooperation and help of many
individuals. This researcher is not only indebted to
Dr. Louise Sause for her continual help and thoughtful
suggestions throughout this research, but also for her
warm support and knowledgeable guidance over several
years of graduate study. Other members of the disser-
tation committee, Dr. Eileen Thompson, Dr. James Costar,
Dr. William Mehrens and Dr. William Farquhar provided
beneficial assistance in the planning and implementation
of this study.

The assistance of two friends, Dr. Mark Swerlick
and Dr. Gene Kales, in the collection of data was greatly
appreciated. Each graciously and unhesitantly gave
of their time. Once the data had been gathered, the
analysis was facilitated by the assistance of the con-
sulting staff at the Office for Research Consultation,
Michigan State University. Lastly, the written presenta-
tion of this research was enhanced by the editing of
Barbara Evans and Mickey Tom and the typing of Helen

Benedict.

iii

Chapter

I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

LIST OF TABLES . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . .
Sex Differences in Achievement . . . . . .
Horner's Motive to Avoid Success . . . . .
Introduction to Fear of Success Research .
Horner's Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research on Fear of Success . . . . . . . .
Sex Differences in Fear of Success . . .
Age and Fear of Success . . . . . . . .
Cognitive Development Level and Fear of
Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Femininity and Fear of Success . . . . .
SES, Race, Ethnic Affiliation and Fear
of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parental Employment, Parental Education
and Fear of Success . . . . . . . . .
Achievement Motivation and Fear of
Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Education and Fear of Success. . . . . .
IQ, Grade Point Average and Fear of
Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Job Status and Fear of Success. . . . . .
Summary- Achievement and Fear of Success.
Heterosexual Attachment, Family Orien-
tation and Fear of Success. . . . . . .
Self-Esteem and Fear of Success. . . . .
Locus of Control, Affiliation Need and
Fear of Success. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fear of Failure and Fear of Success. . .

Competition and Fear of Success. . . . .
Task Difficulty, Importance and Fear

of Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The "Cultural Hypothesis" . . . . . . .

Sex Differences in Content of Fear of
Success Stories . . . . . . . . . . . .
Situational Variables and Fear of
Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Chapter

Summary - Research on Fear of Success.
Measurement of Fear of Success . . . .
Shortcomings in the Literature . . . .
Purpose of this Study . . . . . . . .

II 0 MWODOLOGY O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anslyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structure of Fear of Success Measure .
Results of the Tests of Hypotheses II
through VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship of Fear of Success to
Selected Variables, Multi-Regression
Analyses, Group and Sex Differences
and Stability of Fear of Success . . .
Relationship of Fear of Success to
Selected Variables . . . . . . . . . .
Multi-Regression Analyses . . . . . .
Group and Sex Differences in Fear of
Success and Self—Concept . . . . . . .
Stability of Fear of Success . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methodological Issues and Limitations
of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Future Research. .

APPENDIX A O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0

APPENDIX B

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

85

85
89

-100
107
108
110
110

117
119

121
134
145

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

LIST or TABLES

 

Subjects Participating in Study. . . .

Results of Multiple Group Factor
Analysis of Sixteen Items from
the FOSS O O O O Q 0 O O O O I O O O 0

Results of Factor Analysis of Sixteen
Items from the FOSS . . . . . . . . .

Results of Analysis of Variance on
Group and Sex Using FOSl as the
Fear of Success Measure . . . . . . .

Results of Analysis of Variance on
Group and Sex Using FOSZ as the Fear
of Success Measure . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Scores by Sex on Fear of Success
Factors. . . - -..H.-. . . . - . - ..-

Correlations Between Fear of Success
Factors and Variables in Hypotheses II
through VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of Multiple Group Factor
Analysis of Seven Items from the DAS.

Item—Scale Correlations for Seven Item
DAB 0 I I O I O I O I O O O O O O O 0

Correlation Between Seven Item.DAS
Scale and Fear of Success Factors . .

Results of Multiple Group Analysis of
Twenty—Five Items from the TSCS . . .

vi

48

67, 68

69, 70

72

72

73

76

79

80

82, 83,

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

'Bble XVIII .

Table

Table

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XVI.

XVII.

XIX.

XX.

Tablelflfli.

Table XXII.

Correlations Between the Four Factors

from Twenty-Five Items of the TSCS. . .

Correlations Between Fear of Success
Factors and Selected Variables

Correlations Between Fear of Success
Factors and Selected Variables Applic—

able Only to Student Subjects .

Results of Multi-Regression Analysis
Using Eighteen Variables in Forward

Stepwise Inclusion to Predict F051.

Results of Multi-Regression Analysis
Using Eighteen Variables in Forward
Stepwide Inclusion to Predict F052 .

Results of Multi-Regression Analysis
Using Eighteen Variables in Predeter-
mined Order to Predict F052.

Results of Multi-Regression Analysis
Using Nine Variables in Forward Step-
wise Inclusion to Predict F052 for

Student

Results of Multi-Regression Analysis
Using Nine Variables in Predetermined
Order to Predict F052 for Student

Subjects. .

Subjects . . . . .

Results
Between
of Fear

Results
Between
of Fear

Group Means and Standard Deviations

on FOSl

of One-Way Analysis of Variance
Groups Using F051 as the Measure

of Success.

of One-Way Analysis of Variance
Groups Using F052 as the Measure

of Success.

vii

84

86
90
92, 93
96

97, 98

101

102

103

103

104

Table

Table

Table

Table

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

Group Means and Standard Deviations
m F082. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O 104

Results of Analysis of Variance on

Group and Sex Using Twenty-Five Items

from the TSCS as a Measure of Self-

Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Results of One-Way Analysis of

Variance Between Groups Using Twenty-

Five Items from the TSCS as the Measure

of Self-Concept. . . . . . . . . . . 105

Group Means and Standard Deviations
on Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . 107

viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Statement of the Problem

American Society concerns itself with any minority
group not having the opportunity to succeed according
to its ability. Yet, not until recently has society
become interested in a majority group, not realizing
its full potential. This majority group (51% of the
population) is women. Although female achievement is
comparable to male achievement throughout the formal
schooling period, once this period has ended, female
achievement drastically declines in areas outside their
domestic accomplishments (Ivhccoby and Jacklin, 1974).
Women are disproportionately represented in the pro-
fessions and in higher education. In 1974, women repre-
sented 40% of the professional and technical workers
yet less than 20% of the managers and administrators
that year were women (U.S. Department of Labor, 1974).
In 1970, only 5% of all lawyers and judges, 6% of all
industrial managers, and 9% of all physicians were

women (Council of Economic Advisers, 1973). Of 30,000

-1-

doctorates awarded in America in 1969-1970, only 4,000
(approximately 13%) went to women (Roby, 1973).

One factor which may inhibit a womens' achievement
is the psychological motive to avoid success. Horner
(1968) has hypothesized that when women aspire toward
educational and career goals which are achievement-
oriented and which connote need achieving, dominant,
autonomous, and competitive behavior, they are deviating
from what is assumed to be the traditional female sex
role. Thus, women can be expected to experience con-
flict between their need for success and their concomi-
tant need to maintain their femininity. This conflict
produces a motive to avoid success in some women which
is demonStrated through their fear of success. This
study investigates fear of success.

Specifically, it explores the structure of fear
of success, and the relationship between fear of success
and selected demographic, attitudinal and personality
variables. It attempts to determine whether fear of
success is a unitary construct or multidimensional. In
addition, it investigates whether fear of success fits
the theoretical framework that Horner (1968) has constructed.

Many research studies on fear of success have been
done. However, researchers have extensively utilized
college students as subjects. This study examines

fear of success in a non-college sample as well as in

graduate students.

Researchers have not addressed the issue of whether
fear of success is a state or a trait. By examining the
consistency of fear of success scores over a short time
interval, this study will determine if fear of success

demonstrates the properties of either a state or a trait.

Sex Differences in Achievement

 

Field (1951) first pointed out that there was a
difference in male and female achievement patterns.
According to Field (1951), female achievement motivation
is linked to the need for social acceptability, the need
to be liked. However, as Alper (1974) points out, Field's
findings were largely ignored until the late 1960's.

Recently, there appears to be a growing dichotomy
between researchers who are attempting to understand sex
differences in achievement motivation from a global per-
spective and those researchers who are interested in very
specific situational factors. Lenney (1977) indicates
that researchers like Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) who don't
account for isolated studies in which women are more self
confident than men may miss evidence of great theoretical
importance. These isolated studies provide evidence that
”. . .women have been socialized not to be low in self-
confidence regardless of the specific situation, but in-

stead to be discriminative in making their self-evaluations

and to vary their opinions of their own ability in re-
sponses to specific achievement situations." (Lenney,
1977, p.11). Lenney asserts that women unlike men may
be excessively vulnerable to situational influences and
these influences could adversely effect their perfor-
mance. A number of researchers (Stein, Pohly and Mueller,
1971; Montmayor, 1974; Brickman, Linsenmeier and
McCareins, 1976; Deaux and Farris, 1977; Halperin, 1977)
have also been recently looking at situational variables
which directly effect achievement performance. A task's
sex appropriateness (Stein, Pholy and Mueller, 1971;
Deaux and Farris, 1977, sex role label (Montemayor, 1974)
or relevancy of success (Brickman, Linsenmeier and
McCareins, 1976) can differentially effect each sex's
performance. Even the sex of the task administrator can
evoke a sex difference (Halperin, 1977).

Jellison, Jackson-White, Bruder and Martyna (1975)
indicate that it is the reward contingencies of the
immediate situation rather than an enduring personality
disposition which will determine the level of performance.
When the cues in the situation indicate that high perfor-
mance will be followed by positive external consequences,
then people will not perform at a high level. Women have
been shown to alter their performance to obtain maximal
rewards (Fisher, O'Neal, Edgar and McDonald, 1974;

Jellison et al., 1975). Jellison et al., (1975) assert

that the lower performance of women in many areas is

due to the reward structure in our current society be-
ing such that women may be punished for their accomplish-
ments by disapproval of valued males. Thereé .

fore, while males may see success as related to their
quality of performance, females may define success in
terms of the consequences of their performance. Hence,
females will lower their performance where necessary to
obtain maximal rewards.

Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) have speculated that the
decline in achievement for women beginning in college is
attributable to women's lower sense of "internal control".
In Maccobyand Jacklin's (1974) review of five studies of
college students, three showed that males had higher in-
ternal locus of control than females. The remaining two
studies showed no differences. Nine studies of internal

locus of control for children through high school showed

no consistent sex differences (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974) .
However, several recent studies show that boys are more
likely to attribute their success to ability while girls
will label luck as the cause of their success more fre-
quently (Nicholls, 1975; Parsons, Ruble, Hodges and Small,
1976; Deaux and Farris, 1977). Observers are also more
likely to explain a male's successful performance

by a'bility,while the equivalent performance by a female
is more readily attributable to luck (Deaux and Emswiller,

1974; Feather and Simon, 1975). The relationship of

internal attributes and achievement appears to be greater
for success than failure (Schultz and Pomerantz, 1976).
Also, on masculine tasks there appears to be a stronger
relationship between internal attributes and achievement
than on feminine or neutral tasks (Deaux and Farris,
1977). -
Parsons et a1. (1976) assert that sex differences
in achievement motivation can be explained within an
attributional theory of achievement motivation framework.
The different expectancies of future success for men and
women will result in different attribution patterns (Deaux
and Farris, 1977). These differential attributions
effect future performance. When success is related to
ability, continued effort is called for to facilitate
future success. However, when luck is the cause of success,
effort is not an important factor in obtaining future
success. Men being higher in the attribution of success
to ability (internal locus of control) than women means
that they will, therefore, have higher future performance

and achievements (Feather, 1969; Nicholls, 1975).

Horner's Motive to Avoid Success

 

Martina Horner introduced the concept of the motive
to avoid success to account for otherwise inexplicable
differences in Atkinson's (1964) achievement motiva-

tion theory. Horner (1970) reported that the few

results collected on female subjects have not been con-
sistent with the theory of achievement motivation (Atkinson,
1964), with the men's findings, or with one another. These
few studies used dissimilar methods and diverse samples of
subjects to further confuse the issues (Horner, 1970).
Horner speculated about the psychological meaning of
achievement for women as it differed from men. She noted
that in our society intellectual striving is seen as com-
petitively aggressive behavior (Mead, 1949) which is con-
sequently unacceptable for females. Freud (1933) felt
that the whole essence of femininity lies in repressing
aggressiveness. Kagan and Moss (1962) pointed out that
the typical female has greater anxiety over competitive
behavior than the male and that she, therefore, experiences
greater conflict over intellectual competition which,in
turn,leads to inhibition of intense strivings for academic
excellence. Success in competitive situations implies that
one has actively competed or been aggressive. However,
without the success, simple involvement in achievement
activity does not carry the implication of intense striv-
ing or aggressive, unfeminine behavior. By the time the
average female reaches college age she has generally been
subjected to a.broad range of soico-cultural
pressures to be feminine. If her indoctrination has been
total, she has learned to avoid aggressive, domineering
behavior, to cultivate a nurturant and primarily passive

demeanor, get along well with people, and seek her

full identity through marriage, child-bearing, and home-
making (Erickson, 1968).

Horner hypothesized that a girl equates intellectual
achievement with loss of femininity, "A bright woman is
caught up in a double bind. . .If she fails she is not
living up to her own standards; if she succeeds she is
not living up to societal expectations about the female
role" (Horner, 1969, p.38). Since a female may face
social rejection and unpopularity if she succeeds there
develops in her a psychological barrier to achievement,
the motive to avoid success. Horner (1968) wrote that this
barrier involves fear of negative consequences resulting
from success in a competitive situation. The resulting
fear of success should be considered in attempting to un-
derstand the behavior of women in achievement situations.
However, it should be emphasized that the motive to avoid
success does not imply a wish to fail.

Horner (1968) enumerated several assumptions regarding
the motive to avoid success and fear of success:

1. The motive to avoid success is a stable
personality characteristic that the in-
dividual acquires early in life in con—
junction with sex-role socialization. The
motive to avoid success can be conceived of
as a disposition to feel uncomfortable when
successful in competition because this is

inconsistent with femininity and females

expect negative consequences including
social rejection to occur if they succeed.
The motive to avoid success is more common
in females than males because success in
competitive achievement situations is more
consistent with masculinity than with
femininity.

Fear of success is stronger for women who
are highly motivated to achieve and/or highly
able than women lower in motivation and/or
ability. For those women for whom success
is neither a major goal nor one readily with-
in their reach, there is no reason to feel
anxious about succeeding.

Fear of success is more strongly aroused in
competitive situations, with internal stan—
dards of excellence and competition against
others, than in non-competitive situations
where competition is directed only against
an impersonal standard.

Once aroused, the motive to avoid success
either functions to (a) inhibit the positive
tendency to achieve success or (b) stimulate
defense responses which act to relieve the
anxiety aroused by the motive to avoid
success.

Fear of success is greater for women in

-10..

competitive achievement situations than
in non-competitive situations when women
are competing against males rather than
females, especially if the males are

”importanfk

Introduction to Fear of Success Research

 

Horner's doctoral dissertation (1968) marks the
origin of the concept of fear of success and the begin-
ning of research on this construct. Since Horner's (1968)
original study there has been a proliferation of research
on fear of success, resulting in over 200 studies.
Several reviews of the fear of success literature
have been done (Zuckerman and Wheeler, 1975; Tresmer,
1976). Tresmer (1976) in his extensive annotated biblio-
graphy has listed 158 references on fear of success.

Unfortunately.the press has conveyed the wrong im-
pression of fear of success in general,and Horner's work

specifically,to the American public. The National Enquirer

 

reported that, ". . .women see success as an outright
threat and a woman who has talent and a desire to succeed
pays a terrible price in anxiety." ("Most women fear

success, doctor says," National Enquirer). In describing

 

Horner'Time Magazine explained that "Her doctoral research

 

at the University of Michigan paved the way for subsequent

studies revealing that most American women fear success"

-11-

(p.50). These statements by the National Enquirer and

 

Time Magazine are misleading for several reasons:

 

1. Horner's findings have not been subsequently
supported. .

2. Horner's study and virtually every subsequent
study has utilized college students, limiting
the generalizability of any findings.

3. Horner's study itself has been shown to be
methodologically flawed.

4. Comparability of studies on fear of success
is limited by each study using different
measures of fear of success. In fact, each
study may be measuring different factors of
fear of success which might help account for
inconsistent findings.

A theory of psychological construct is not supported
through one experiment but rather by an extensive body of
research literature. The subsequent review of the fear
of success literature does not deal kindly with Horner's
construct. However, Horner's work does indeed have value,
being a powerful step in an important area of human moti-
vation. The historical importance of Horner's study
results from its focus on the many fears, and ambitions,
surrounding various sorts of success experienced by
male and female. The value of Horner's work lies in its

proven ability to have generated further thought and research

-12-

rather than in its conclusiveness. Thus, Horner's study

deserves the attention that it will be subsequently given.

Horner's Study

 

Horner's study attempted to investigate sex differ-
ences with respect to achievement motivation and perfor-
mance in competitive and non-competitive situations. One
hundred and seventy-eight (178) undergraduate students
(90 female, 88 male) who were fulfilling requirements for
introductory psychology courses at the University of
Michigan during the Winter of 1965 were tested for in-
dividual differences in the strength of the motive to
avoid success, to achieve, to avoid failure, and to affil-
iate with others. Data were gathered in two different
sessions. In the first session subjects worked on a num-
ber of tasks in 1arge,mixed sex groups. In the second
session subjects worked on tasks similar to those in the first
session,howeven subjects were either non—competitively
working alone, competitively working in mixed sex groups
or competitively working in same sex groups. The presence
of the motive to avoid success was determined from responses
to a single cue: "After the first-term finals Anne (John)
finds herself (himself) at the top of her (his) medical
school class". Female subjects responded to the Anne cue
while males responded to the John cue. Fear of success
was scored as either being present or absent. Responses

evidencing negative consequences of success, avoidance of

-13—

future success, expressions of conflict over success,
denial of responsibility for succeeding or bizarreness
indicated the presence of fear of success.

Results of the first session of Horner's experiment
showed 65.5% of the female subjects, but only .9.0%
of the males, wrote fear of success responses. Female
subjects' fear of success stories demonstrated several
themes: social rejection, concern for normality and fem-
ininity and denial or bizarre responses. The results of
the second session were that 77% of the female subjects
high in fear of success imagery were found to per-
form better in the non—competitive conditions while
93% of those low in fear of success imagery performed
better, as did the men, in the competitive conditions.
High fear of success females who worked alone repor-
ted doing well was more important than it was for the
high fear of success female subjects in the two other com-
petitive situations (p<.05). There was no significant
difference in reported importance of doing well for
females low in fear of success among the three experimen—
tal conditions. On the basis of these results, Horner
(1968) concluded that females have a higher fear of
success than males and that the motive to avoid success
detrimentally effects the performance of women involved
in competetive situations.

Horner's study has been depicted as having method-

ological flaws which,if corrected,wou1d negate her findings

-14-

(Zuckerman and Wheeler, 1975). Zuckerman and Wheeler

(1975) feel that Horner's analysis can be criticized on

the following grounds:

1.

The difference in percentage of fear of
success stories between the sexes may be
actually reflecting a difference between

sex apprOpriate and sex inapprOpriate success
rather than differences in general avoidance
of success. The Anne cue refers to success
in a male dominated field, therefore, it is
possible that female responses reflect
anxiety about success in competition with
males rather than anxiety about success in
.general.

InapprOpriate statistics were used by Horner
in her comparisons of the subjects' reports
of the importance of succeeding on a task.
Horner conducted t tests for differences
between the means of each condition (competi-
tive and non-competetive) for each group
(high and low fear of success) individually,
instead of correctly,computing a t test be-
tween the two groups on the difference (com—
petitive and non-competitive) scores. When
Zuckerman and Wheeler (1975) reanalyzed the
data correctly bgth low and high fear of

success subjects working alone on a task

-15-

reported that doing well was more impor-
tant than it was for their fellow stu-

dents in the competitive situation.

There was no clear difference between the
competitive and non-competitive conditions.
In the competitive condition, subjects were
not told that their performance would be
compared to the performancezof other sub-
jects (Horner, 1968, p. 52). Also, the in-
structions for the non-competitive condition
(p.52)were almost identical to the instruc-
tions given to subjects in the competitive
group.

Assuming that the instructions for all

three conditions were uniformly achieve-
ment oriented,Horner's results actually
contradict her original predictions. Thus,
the results would actually indicate that
high fear of success subjects perform better
than low fear of success subjects in com-
petitive situations. In addition, working
alone versus competing with males or females
does not interact with fear of success to

effect performance.

-15-

Research on Fear of Success

 

Sex Differences in Fear of Success

An important conclusion of Horner's study was that
fear of success is more common to females than males.
However, Tresmer (1974) reviewed 46 studies on fear of
success, 22 of them including males, and found that the
levels of fear of success for females ranged from 11 to
88%, 47% being the median, while male levels of fear of
success ranged from 22 to 86%, with a median of 43%.
Zuckerman and Wheeler (1975) found,in reviewing nine out
of sixteen studies on fear of success, females showed
more fear of success imagery than males, while males
showed more fear of success imagery in the remaining
seven studies. An exact replication of Horner's study
done in 1971 resulted in 76.2% of the male subjects
telling stories evidencing fear of success while 62.2%
of the female subjects told fear of success stories
(Hoffman, 1974). While the level of fear of success for
the females in Hoffman's (1974) study was consistent with
Horner's findings, there was a striking difference between
Hoffman's findings that 3/4 of her male subjects ex—
hibited fear of success compared to less than 1/10 of
Horner's male subjects showing fear of success. Hoffman
(1977) also did a follow-up study using 177 of Horner's

original subjects and found that in 1974 Horner's males

-17-

displayed more fear of success than the females. Hoffman
(1977) felt the discrepancy between male levels of

fear of success in 1965 and 1971, 1974 was largely due

to coding differences in the scoring of fear of success.
Some recent studies (Dalsimer, 1975; Walton, 1975) have
found that females showed higher fear of success than
males. However, there have been a greater number of
recent studies indicating no sex differences in fear of
success (Logan, 1974; Wood, 1974; Griffore, 1976, 1977;
Romer, 1975, 1977). Zuckerman and Wheeler (1975) men—
tion two possible explanations advanced to account for
the discrepancies between Horner's results and later
research: 1) Horner's findings may be due to the highly
competitive environment surrounding her subjects, and

2) the increased liberation of females and their changing
role in our society has decreased females anxieties over
success while increasing males. However, Zuckerman and
Wheeler (1975) concluded that neither explanation is
supported by the research literature they have reviewed.
Horner's suggestion that fear of success is more common

in females than males has not been empirically supported.

Age and Fear of Success

 

Since fear of success is viewed as a learned dispo-

sition, it may be hypothesized that it will increase

-13-

with age. Horner and Rhoem (1968) found that 88%

of undergraduate female students reported fear

of success compared with only 47% of 7th grade girls.
Tenth grade girls were reported to have written more

fear of success stories than fifth grade girls (Baruch,
1975). However, among 10-16 year old girls frequency

of fear of success declined with age while for 10—16 year
old boys there was no relationship between fear of
success and age (Monahan, Kuka and Shaver, 1974). Romer
(1975, 1977) found no relationship between fear of success
and age for both male and female fifth through eleventh
graders. For 18-50+ year old males and females,fear of
success declined with age (Moore, 1974). The results

of the research on fear of success and age do not support

the hypothesis that fear of success increases with age.
Cognitive Development Level and Fear of Success

Since a childs age usually indicates his/her cogni—
tive develoPment, Horner's theory would also predict a
positive correlation between fear of success and cognitive
develOpment level. However, Walton (1975) found that
there was no significant correlation between fear of
success and general cognitive develOpment, as measured by

two Piagetian tasks, for either high school boys or_girls.

-19..

Femininity and Fear of Success

According to fear of success theory, women who are
more traditionally feminine would be expected to have
high fear of success.. A woman's femininity can be ex-
pressed in many ways, some of these being her sex-role
orientation, choice of academic major, views toward
family and career, and attitude toward the women's liber-
ation movement. Fear of success researchers exhibit
interest in these indicators of a woman's traditional
femininity.

A woman's sex-role orientation may be of critical
importance in eliciting the motive to avoid success,
since it would effect her perception of the appropriateness
of success and its probable consequences. Alper (1974),
using a direct measure of role orientation (the Wellesley
Role Orientation Scale she developed), reported that
female undergraduates with traditional sex role attitudes
showed a relatively high level of fear of success.
Greenspan (1974) found that female undergraduates with
a traditional sex—role orientation had higher fear of
success than their fellow female students with non-tra-
ditional sex-role orientation. However, several studies
show no significant relationship between fear of success
and sex—role orientation (Zanna, 1973; Moore, 1974;

Unger and Krooth, 1974; Gearty and Milner, 1975; Williams
and King, 1976; Jones, 1977). Heilbrun, Kleemeier and

Piccola (1974) ‘reported that high levels of fear of

-20-

success were related to a masculine orientation in fe-
male graduates. Tangri (1974) reports a negative rela—
tionship between fear of success and traditional Sex—
role orientation. Females who consider home and family
more important and professional careers less important
have been shown to be higher in fear of success, and
consider themselves more feminine, than low fear of
success females (Makowsky, 1972).

Schwenn (1970) reported that high fear of success
females tended to major in the hmmanities, which are
usually perceived as more feminine, and that these high
fear of success females changed their career aspirations
towards more traditionally feminine occupations during
their college years more frequently than women low in
the motive to avoid success. However, several studies
reported no difference in fear of success between women
pursuing traditional academic majors and women pursuing
non-traditional areas of study (Moore, 1972; Zuckerman
and Allison, 1976). In fact, one study (Jones, 1977)
found that non-traditional majors had higher fear of
success than traditional majors.

Although one would predict a negative relationship
between women's attitudes towards the women's libera-
tion movement and fear of success, Unger and Krooth (1974)

found no difference in fear of success between women who

-21-

were activists and those that were not. While the women's
liberation movement has grown in the last decade,females
fear of success levels have not declined during this same
period (Tresmer, 1974; Zuckerman and Wheeler, 1975). In .
conclusion, research utilizing several indicators of
femininity has not provided consistent support of the
prediction that women's fear of success is positively

related to traditional feminism.
SE5, Race, Ethnic Affiliation and Fear of Success

The motive to avoid success, according to Horner
(1968),is a stable personality disposition learned early
in life. As such, it is predicted that the motive to
avoid success is influenced by the individuals 5E5 as well
as the mores of the race, culture and ethnic group of
the individual and his/her parents. Unfortunately,
the vast majority of fear of success studies utilized
undergraduate college students, who were predominantly
middle class whites. Yet the few studies done on SES and
fear of success have shown no relationship between them
(Weston and Mednick, 1970; Moore, 1974; Krishnan, 1975).

Peplau (1974) found that both Jewish males and females
had lower fear of success than either Catholics and Pro-
testants. Winchel, Fenner and Shaver (1974) reported low
levels of fear of success imagery for Jewish male and fe-

male high school students,however,unfortunately the

-22-

researchers did not have an equivalent non-Jewish sample
in their study.

Weston and Mednick (1970) hypothesized that black
women will have lower fear of success than white women.
American society places women in more dominant roles
than those assumed by black men. Lower fear of success in
black women is due to a successful black women being view-
ed as an economic asset and, therefore, attractive to the
black male. Intellectual and professional achievement in
that case is not threatening and will in fact not lead to
rejection by the male. Weston and Mednick (1970) found
less fear of success imagery for black undergraduate wo-
men than white undergraduate women. Bright (1970) found
that black college women told a low percentage (22.1%) of
fear of success stories. However, several studies have
shown no difference in fear of success between black and
white females (Esposito, 1975; Mednick, 1976). Addition—
ally, no race difference has been found among Mexican-
Americans and Anglo-Americans (Hernandez, 1976). Reseach
extending to non-college populations may help define any
relationship that exists between fear of success and race,

SES and ethnic affiliation.
Parental Employment, Parental Education and Fear of Success

Only a limited amount of research has been done on
the relationship between parental employment, parental ed—

ucation and fear of success. The few studies done point to no

-23-

relationship between fear of success and either parental
employment (Baruch, 1973; Peplau, 1974) or parental ed—
ucation (Tomlinson-Keasy, 1974; Groszko and Morgenstern,
1974). However, these studies did not examine the specific
type of employment of each parent and it has been reported
that mothers of females without fear of success were more
often employed in atypical female occupations than were
mothers of females with fear of success (Patty and Shelley,
1974). In addition, Berens (1972) found that mothers who
exhibited fear of success were more likely to have sons

and daughters with fear of success than without. In
general the research that has been done attempting to
examine which variables,early in an individuals life,effect
the deve10pment of fear of success has been neither ex—

tensive nor conclusive.
Achievement Motivation and Fear of Success

Horner (1968) postulated that women who were high in
fear of success were actually also high in achievement
motivation and,usually in a position where they are likely
to achieve and, therefore, experience the negative conse-
quences of their success. However, Horner (1972) has also
suggested that fear of success may inhibit achievement
related activities since these activities are inconsistent
with apprOpriate sex-role standards, and this inconsistency

causes anxiety. Zuckerman and Wheeler (1975) have pointed

-24-

out that these views would cause one to predict that a
high fear of success female would either be successful
and anxious or passive and non-achieving. One way of
determining the achievement characteristics of high fear
of success women would be to examine the correlation be-
tween fear of success and achievement motivation. How-
ever, attempts to correlate achievement motivation and
fear of success have resulted in inconclusive findings.
Several studies have found no correlation (Wellens, 1972;
Sorrentino and Short, 1974). One study found a signifi-
cant negative correlation between fear of success and
resultant achievement motivation (Zuckerman and Allison,

1976).

Education and Fear of Success

 

Taking Horner's (1968) first description of a women
high in fear of success, it would be expected that women
who were better educated would have higher fear of
success. Caballero, Giles and Shaver (1975) found that
women who had some graduate school education exhibited
more fear of success imagery than women who had only a
BA degree or less. Fear of success for females increased
as their education increased (from 43% in high school
to 90% in graduate school), whereas a slight decline
occurred for males as their education increased (Moore,
1974). Upper class undergraduate women were shown to be

more likely to show fear of success than lower class students

-25-

(Breedlove and Cicerelli, 1974). The only other study
(Veroff, Mcelland and Marquis, 1971) dealing with fear
of success and education revealed a negative correlation,
however, this study was methodologically flawed by using
different measures of fear of success for groups that

were compared. “
IQ! Grade Point Average and Fear of Success

The relationship between IQ, grade point average
and fear of success is unclear. Two studies have shown
a positive relationship between fear of success and IQ
and/or grade point average (Kresojevich, 1972; Sorrentino
and Short, 1974). However, there have been several other
studies which have not supported this relationship (Zanna,
1973; Baruch, 1975; O'Leary and Hammack, 1975; Zuckerman
and Allison, 1976). Heilbrum, Kleemeier and Piccola
(1974) found that the relationship between fear of success
and academic performance was effected by the individuals
reported similarity to his/her parents. For male and
female subjects who reported greater similarity to their
fathers than to their mothers fear of success was nega-
tively correlated with academic performance. However,
for subjects who reported greater similarity to their
mother than their father there was no relationship between'

fear of success and academic performance.

-25-

Job Status and Fear of Success

 

Since job status is one measure of achievement in
society, Horner's (1968) first depiction of women high
in fear of success should lead to the prediction that
these women would be in high status vocational positions.
Very limited research has been done in this area of fear
of success. Moore, (1974) has reported that white
females who were in management told more fear of success
stories than homemakers or those otherwise employed.
However, white males were less likely to tell fear of
success stories if management, professional or technical

than if otherwise employed.

Summary - Achievment and Fear of Success

 

The only significant findings in the research liter-
ature related to achievement and fear of success is the
positive correlations between education, employment status
and fear of success. However, there have only been a
limited number of research studies done on education, job
status and fear of success. Interestingly, the studies
looking at these two correlates of fear of success were
the only studies which utilized subjects (adults from 18
to 50+ years old) other than college undergraduates. Lack
of consistent findings between other achievement indica-

tors and fear of success may be due to those studies

-27-

using a homogeneous population sample.

Heterosexual Attachment, Family Orientation and Fear of

SUCCESS

A woman might not only seek success on her own, but
may vicariously gain satisfaction through the accomplish-
ments of her mate. High fear of success women have been
reported to be more likely to date less (Major and Sherman,
1975) and to be unmarried (Tomlinson—Keasy, 1974) than
low fear of success women. Yet two studies found no
difference in fear of success between attached and un-
attached women (Puryear, 1974; Stewart, 1975). When asked
about their future goals, women with high fear of success
were more likely to talk of family-centered goals (as
opposed to career-centered goals) than women without fear

of success (Robinson, 1974).

Self-Esteem and Fear of Success

 

One can attempt to understand the motive to avoid
success by examining the environmental influences which
effect its development. However, as for any hypothesized
personality characteristic, the motive to avoid success
can be more clearly defined and understood if its rela—
tionship to other personality variables is determined.
Several researchers have measured self—esteem using the
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, and looked at its relation—

ship to fear of success (HOpkins, 1974; Patty and Shelley,

628'-

1974; Stericker, 1976). Except for one study (Patty and
Shelley, 1974), finding'that fear of success was posi-
tively correlated with personal and family self—scores,
none of the other studies (HOpkins, 1974; Stericker,
1976) found any relationship between fear of success and
self-esteem.

Pappo (1972), using his own measure of both fear of
(academic) success and self-esteem, reported that high
fear of success subjects were more likely to have low
self-esteem than were low fear of success subjects. Major
and Sherman (1975) found that women who were high in fear
of success perceived themselves as less attractive than

low fear of success women.
Locus of Control, Affiliation Need and Fear of Success

Although no consistent relationship has been found
between fear of success and self-esteem, consistent find-
ings of a positive relationship between externality and
fear of success have been reported by several researchers
(Midgley, 1974; Patty, 1974; Sturm, 1974; Zuckerman and
Allison, 1976). Individuals high in fear of success will
attribute their success more readily to factors outside
their own ability than to their ability while the Oppo—
site pattern. predominates; in low fear of success in—
dividuals.

Another personality variable that was examined

is need for affiliation. Karabenick (1977) points
out that no consistent relationship has been found be-

tween affiliative needs and fear of success.
Fear of Failure and Fear of Success

According to Horner (1968), fear of success is a
separate construct from fear of failure. Theoretically,
there should be no correlation between fear of success
and fear of failure. Although researchers have found
positive correlations between fear of failure and fear
of success (Pappo, 1972; Griffore, 1976), several studies
have reported no significant correlations (Sorrentino

and Short, 1974; Groszko and Morgenstern, 1975).
Competition and Fear of Success

Griffore (1976) has postulated that the most impor-
tant evidence supporting the construct of fear of success
would be that high fear of success individuals perform
poorly in competitive,success-producing situations in
which they expect to succeed. Zuckerman and Allison
(1976) presented subjects with a thirteen item anagram
test; half the subjects being given instructions that it
was a task (low arousal condition) and the other half
being told that it was a test (high arousal condition).
Although the interaction between fear of success and type
of instruction was not significant, there were some

sex differences. High fear of success males (but not

-30-

females) performed better under task instructions, while
low fear of success subjects (especially females) per-
formed better under the test condition.

Several studies show that high fear of success
females did not perform as well in competition against
men as against women or working alone (Makowsky, 1972;
Groszko and Morgenstern, 1974; Allen and Boiven, 1976).
However, several researchers have found no significant
relationship between fear of success and working alone,
in same sex groups or mixed sex groups (Feather and
Simon, 1973; Zuckerman and Allison, 1973). Furthermore,
whether a high fear of success woman's performance is
lowered when she competes with males may be moderated
by such variables as the sex-appropriateness of the task
(Karabenick, 1977) and perceived similarity of herself
to her father (Heilbrun, Kleemeier, and Piccola, 1974).
In addition, Morgan and Mausner (1973) found that high-
achieving (on a pretest) girls when paired with low-achiev-
ing boys either lowered their performance level sufficiently
to drop below the boy's performance or showed evidence that
their performance generated considerable tension. High
boys paired with low girls showed a small decline in per-
formance, and low females paired with high males demon-
strated consistent performance while low males paired with

high females showed markedly increased performance.

-31-

Task Difficulty, Importance and Fear of Success

The difficulty or importance of a task should also
differentially effect the performance of individuals low
and high in fear of success. High fear of success fe-
males performed better on a task when they believed
that the task was not measuring any ability,while low
fear of success females exhibited higher performance
when the task was understood to involve a measure of in-
tellectual or social skills (Patty, 1974). Yet, re-
search has also shown no relationship between the dif—
ficulty of a task Opposite either males or females,
and fear of success levels (Zanna, 1973). Further high—
lighting inconsistent findings between fear of success
and task difficulties is Griffore's (1977) findings that
different measures of fear of success resulted in
different correlations (or no correlation) with exam

performance and item difficulty.
The "Cultural Hypothesis"

Horner depicted the motive to avoid suCcess as
a stable trait unamenable to specific situational
influences. However, Zuckerman and Wheeler (1975) suggest
that fear of success imagery may be reflecting a predomi-
nant cultural sterotype that women do not in fact,succeed
as highly as men rather than subjects' anxiety about

success. This "cultural hypothesis" has received support

-32-

from several studies which show that both males and
females wrote more fear of success stories to the Anne
cue than to the John cue (Robbins and Robbins, 1973;
Alper, 1974; Feather and Raphelson, 1974; Monahan, Kuhn
and Shaver, 1974).

The "Cultural Hypothesis" explanation of fear of
success predicts that changing the sex-role apprOpriate-
ness of success for the presented cue will alter the
resultant fear of success imagery. Modification of
Horner's Anne cue to "After first term finals, Anne
finds herself at the tOp of her nursing school" increased
the sex-role appropriateness of this one for females
since female success is more sexually appropriate in
nursing school than medical school. Subjects responded
to the modified cue with less fear of success imagery
(Grainger, Kostick and Staley, 1970). Katz (1971) hy—
pothesized that if responses to the Anne cue reflected
cultural stereotypes then making Anne's success less
deviant would reduce fear of success imagery. In order
to test his hypothesis, Katz (1971) added to Horner's
cue one of the following two sentences: "All Annes'
classmates in medical school are men," and "Half of Annes'
classmates in medical school are women". Although fe-
males were not affected by the variation in cues, the
male subjects demonstrated more fear of success imagerywhen

responding to the deviant.cue. Lockheed (l975)found that when

~33?

an activity was described as typical for both.sexes no
sex difference in fear of success occurred,.but when the
activity was described as typical for males but deviant
for females, a higher percentage of men than women re-
ported negative consequences for female success. However,
Hoffman (1974) found no relationship between the content
of the presented cue and fear of success imagery. Other
studies support the conclusion that the response to
deviancy, while apparent in both sexes, is not uniform;
men appearing to be more disturbed by deviancy in.women
than women. (Pappo, 1972; Bishop, 1974; Lockheed,

1975). Individuals of each sex high in fear of success
view their Opposite sex relationships as more precarious
than individuals low in fear of success (Schnitzer, 1977).
Lockheed (1975) and Condry and Dyer (1976) postulate that
fear of success is explainable in terms of the hostile
reaction of men to womens'achievements. Women who des—
cribe such negative consequences as male rejection and
punishment in their fear of success stories may be
simply demonstrating a clear perception of reality.

Thus, Condry and Dyer (1976) conclude that fear of success
might be more apprOpriately relabeled fear of response

to deviancy.

Sex Differences in Content of Fear of SucceSS‘Storigs

 

Horner's theory of fear of success predicts that

-34-

females' fear of success stories would differ in content
from males' fear of success stories. Several studies
have supported this prediction (Krussel, 1973; Morgan
and Mausner, 1973; Zuckerman and Allison,l973; Hoffman,
1974). Males who evidenced high fear of success either
questioned the value of achievement and rejected tra-
ditional goals and life-styles or wrote bizarre and/or
hostile stories. Females' fear of success stories dealt
with a loss of femininity or social rejection. Al-
though these studies support Horner's conception of

fear of success the data could also support the "cultural
hypothesis," since the subjects' responses also reflect
their beliefs about appropriate male and female achieve-

ments.
Situational Variables and Fear of Success

Fear of success researchers have treated the motive
to avoid success as a intrapersonal dispositional factor.
However, Condry and Dyer (1976) have recently postulated
that fear of success effects are determined by situational
variables. The nature of the cue has been shown to effect
fear of success imagery (see The "Cultural Hypothesis").
Patty and Ferrell (1974) have reported that more premen-
strual women exhibited fear of success than intermenstrual
and menstrual women. Fear of success scores were found

to be higher when the interviewer was a white male rather

-35-

than a black male (Veroff, McClelland and Marquis, 1971).
Situational variables which had been thought to be fear
of success evoking may instead be effecting it, that is,

fear of success may be a state rather than a trait.
Summary - Research on Fear of Success

The inconsistency and inconclusiveness of the fear
of success literature challenges the validity of the
psychological construct of the motive to avoid success.
Two-hundred studies done on fear of success resulted in
extremely few consistent findings. The widespread use
of college students as subjects limits the generalizability
of the few findings. Important variables such as sex,
age, femininity, achievement and competition have not
been shown to be systematically related to fear of success.
Evidence indicating that fear of success is amenable to
situational influences challenges the concept that the
motive to avoid success is a trait. Although fear of
success comes out of expectancy-value theory, it appears
that there is as much evidence to support that fear of
success stems from cultural stereotypes as there is to
support fear of success as being a latent personality
trait. In conclusion, the research done on fear of success
does not provide a firm foundation for the theoretical
validity of fear of success. One would hesitate to put
any weight on the theoretical framework of fear of success

less it collapse.

-35-

Measurement of Fear of Success

 

Approximately 90% of the research literature on fear
of success uses a projective cue to evoke fear of success
imagery. This results in several concerns related to
the accurate measurement of fear of success. One impor-
tant concern is the large degree of subjectivity in
scoring fear of success. Twenty stories written to one
cue were scored by eight fear of success researchers who
concurred on the absence or presence of fear of success
in only six of the twenty stories (Moreland and Liss-
Levinson, 1975). Tresmer (1974) believes that fear of
success percentages may be inflated by coding errors,
especially errors labelling all negative comments in a
story as fear of success imagery. Tresmer (1974) first
scored some protocols by his strict standards then after
familiarizing himself thoroughly with Horner's scoring
he rescored the protocols. Fear of success percentages
leaped from 23 and 22 percent for boys and girls, respec-
tively, under Tresmer's scoring, to 76 and 73 percent
under Horner's system. Female scorers scored more fear
of success imagery for females than male scorers (Robbins
and Robbins, 1973). This compells one to wonder whether
wide differences in reported fear of success is largely due
to scoring differences.

Horner (1968) used a single one to evoke fear of
success but over the ast decade there has been a pro-

liferation of cues in research literature. Tresmer

-37-

(1976) in his extensive annotated bibliography lists 12 cues
that have been used in the literature and comments,
"Sometimes the wording of these cues was slightly changed
and often their names were different" (p. 23). When
different cues were presented to the same subjects,
measured fear of success across cues varied (Weston and
Mednick, 1970; Karabenick and Marshall, 1974). Several
studies found very low correlations in fear of
success imagery between different cues presented to one
subject (Major and Sherman, 1975; Moreland and Liss-
Levinson, 1975).

The very limited research looking at the
consistency of fear of success for the same individual
over a time span additionally questions the reliability
of projective measures of fear of success. Moore (1974)
found that 10 of 17 subjects who demonstrated fear of
success imagery to a cue did not display fear of success
to the same cue one year later. Halprin (1974) reported
a correlation of .45 for fear of success scores four weeks
apart. High scores tended to decrease while low scores
increased.

Another drawback using a thematic measure
of fear of success is that the length of the protocol
may effect the scoring. Entwisle (1972)highly
criticized the use of thematic measures of achievement

motivation in motivational research suggesting that

-33-

productivity is the single most important mediating
variable between motive measures and the behavior that
they are supposed to predict. Although the research is
limited, there appears to be a positive correlation be-
tween fear of success and story length (Moore, 1974;
Sorrentino and Short, 1974; Tresmer, 1976).

Considering all the problems inherent in utilizing
thematic measures of fear of success,there appears to
be a clear need for a reliable objective measure of
fear of success. Recently,two objective measures of
fear of success were introduced: one by Marice
Pappo (1972), the F05, the other by Miron Zuckerman and
Stephen Allison (1976), the F055. The F05 measures
academic fear of success, while the F055 measures gen-
eral fear of success. Zuckerman and Wheeler (1975)
recommended the use of the F05 and F055 in future re-
search hoping that they will lead to the resolution of
some of the inconsistencies reported by previous re-

searchers on the motive to avoid success.

Shortcomings in the Literature

 

There are several shortcomings in the fear of success
literature which are a barrier to determining if fear of
success has psychological reality, and, if so, its rela-
tionship to variables of interest. An important short-

coming in all areas of fear of success research is the

-39-

over utilization of college students as subjects. Com-
parisons between fear of success in student and non-
student groups have not been made. Yet, generalizations
have been made from female undergraduates to all American
women.

The question of whether fear of success and fear
of failure are separate,unrelated constructs has not
been clearly determined in the research literature.
Griffore (1977) indicates that fear of success and fear
of failure may be measuring a number of factors in
common.. However, researchers have largely ignored look-
ing at the factor structure of fear of success and fear
of failure. Examining the factor structure of fear of
success would help to clearly define what fear of success
is. The research on fear of success does not clearly
specify what is meant by fear of success and success. Is
fear of success analogous to Freud's success neurosis
and’therefore,an emptional inhibitor of the full use of
one's resources or, is it limited to vocational success,
academic success, fear of failure or plain old anxiety?
Is success limited to academic and vocational achievements,
or does it also encompass personal growth? Inconsistent
results in the research literature could be related to
each researcher applying his own definitions to the same
terms as well as each study tapping different factors of

fear of success if, indeed,fear of success is multidimensional.

-40-

Two objective measures of fear of success, the F05
and the F055, have been created in an attempt to alle-
viate concerns over the use of thematic measures of
fear of success. However, there has been little re—
search done on indices of reliability and validity of
the F05 and F055. Furthermore, examining the consistency
of F05 and F055 scores over a time interval would be ben-
eficial in exploring the effect of situational influences

on fear of success.

Purpose of this Study

 

The purpose of this study was to explore the
factor structure of fear cf success and its relationship
to several important variables. Variables that were
examined are; sex, age, race, education, academic area,
opposite-sex attachments, parental education and work
history, self-esteem, grade point average, birth order,
career and family orientation, perceived closeness to
mother, perceved closeness to father, GPA expectation,
GPA aspiration, weekly time spent studying, weekly time
spent socializing, and fear of failure. In order to avoid
the shortcomings of previous research studies several steps
were taken:
1. Subjects who are not college students were
utilized in order to gather- a heterogeneous
sample selection.

2. An objective measure of fear of success,

-41_

the F055, were used.

The reliability of the F055 was '
determined.

The consistency of fear of success scores

over a time interval were examined.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

 

Hypotheses

 

The internal structure of fear of success has been
examined in this study. The purpose was to determine
if the internal structure of fear of success is unitary
or multidimensional. The following hypothesis was first
examined:

Hypothesis I:

 

Fear of success will consist of several factors

rather than one general factor.

Following an examination of the internal structure
of fear of success, an investigation was made of the
relationship of fear of success to variables of interest.

Hypothesis II:

 

Females will obtain higher fear of success scores
than males.

Hypothesis III:

 

Older males and females will obtain higher fear of
success scores than younger males and females.

Hypothesis IV:

 

Females who are majoring in traditionally feminine

-43-

-44..

academic areas will obtain higher fear of

success scores than females who are majoring in

traditionally non-feminine academic areas.

Hypothesis V:

 

Black females will obtain lower fear of
success scores than white females.

Hypothesis VI:

 

Males and females who have more formal education will
obtain higher fear of success scores than males

and females with less education.

Hypothesis VII:

 

For males and females, there will be no sig-
nificant correlation between fear of success
scores and fear of failure.

Hypothesis VIII:

 

For males and females, there will be a negative

correlation between fear of success scores and

self-satisfaction.

The relationship between fear of success and several
other variables was studied. These variables are:

A. Opposite-sex attachment.

B. Employment status of parents.

C. Perceived closeness to parents.

D. Parental education.

E. Importance of career and family.

F. Birth order.

-45-

In addition, for student subjects, the relationship
of fear of success and the following variables was also

investigated:

A. Prior work experience.

B. Grade point average.

C. Grade point average expected.
D. Grade point average aspired to.

E. Time spent studying.

F. Time spent socializing.

While not stated as a formal hypothesis,
it was predicted that fear of success scores would be
subject to situational influences. Thus, retest reli-
ability was expected to be significantly lower than fear

of success's internal consistency.

Subjects

Data was collected from five different groups of
subjects. One group of subjects were 0.5. citizens
who were students living in Owen Graduate Hall, Michigan
State University, Spring term 1978. During Fall term,
1977, there were 896 residents of Owen Graduate Hall of
which 195 were non- U.S. citizens (foreign students
attending Michigan State University). The housing
clerk estimated that during Spring term 1978, Owen Gradu-
ate Hall would be filled to its full occupancy level of

896 residents and that the number of foreign students

-45-

would still be approximately 195 or 22% of the total
occupants. Based on Owen's full occupancy level
(896residents),a list of 224 (25%) room numbers was
generated by this researcher with the utilization of a
random number table. With the c00peration and help of
the housing and advisory staff in Owen, room numbers

of all non-U.S. citizens and unoccupied rooms on the
randomly-generated list were deleted. Questionnaires
were then distributed to the U.S. citizens who were
occupants of the rooms on the room list through the Owen
mail boxes. Following the distribution of questionnaires,
a first and second reminder note was sent to subjects.

A total of 144 questionnaires were distributed and
ninety-eight (68%) were returned. Four questionnaires
were not included in the data analyses (three belong-
ing to foreign students and one only partially filled
out). Seventy-three (78%) of the ninety-four subjects
returning the first questionnaire responded to a retest
questionnaire.

The second group of subjects consisted of staff members
of the Project Head Start Program for Lansing,Michigan.
Questionnaires were distributed April 1978, to the total
Head Start staff of seventy-three members either through
their in-service workshops or in their mail boxes at work.
Follow-up procedures were identical to those for the

first group. Fifty-five staff members or 75% of the total

-47-

returned completed questionnaires.

The third group of subjects consisted of parents of
Head Start children enrolled in the Lansing Project Head
Start Program as of April 1978. The questionnaires were
distributed to the parents by either the Head Start Social
Service coordinators or Home Start teachers. Sixty-two
parents were asked to participate in this study. Thirty-
four (55%) of the Head Start parents agreed to partici-
pate and filled out questionnaires. Twenty-three out
of thirty-three parents in counties outside of Ingham
refused to participate in this study; hence the low re-
turn rate. Additionally, one social service coordinator
lost a group of filled-out questionnaires from Ingham
county parents.

The fourth group of subjects was thirty—three un-
dergraduate and graduate students Spring 1978, at Illinois
State University, Normal, Illinois. These students were
in two psychology classes taught by Dr. Mark Swerdlick.

He collected, the data from these subjects.

The fifth and last group of subjects was fifteen
students from Lansing Community College, Lansing, Michi-
gan, Spring term 1978. These students were in a natural
science class taught by Dr. Gene Kales. Six of these
students (40%) returned retest questionnaires. The re-
test data from these subjects was not used in this study.

Data from a total of 231 subjects (148 females, 82

males, 1 subjects' sex was undeterminable because ijpwas

-43-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me see me mma masons nemesumueoz

was was was was monouo namesum

Hmm awn mmm hmm mnmaoe

ma wooa ma ma mucmcsum
oomHHoo muwcsesoo mcflmcmq

mm mood mm mm mucoooum
>uwmum>wco mumum mflOGMHHH

em wmm am No mucoumm uuoum comm

mm wmn mm me uwmum uuoum poo:

em wmm mm was mucoooum coso
momwwmcd sumo occusuom cmsuouom oousofiuumao msouu

ca comaawua monocoonom
mOHHMCCOwumOSO
woDBm zH ozHadeUHBmdm maumbmom “H mqmda

-49-

not indicated), was utilized in this study. Table I

summarizes subjects participaing in this study.
Measures

Two separate but similar questionnaires were de-
vised to measure variables of interest. One questionnaire
was utilized with thesamdent groups. The second ques-
tionnaire was used with the non-student groups. Both
questionnaires are largely comprised of Zuckerman and
Allison's Fear of Success Scale (FOSS) with thirty
items (Row 2 - Self-Satisfaction) from the Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale (TSCS). The student questionnaire
alSo contains the Debilitating Anxiety Scale (DAS) from
the Alpert-Haber (1960) Achievement Anxiety Test (AAT)
which is not included in the non-student questionnaire.
Both questionnaires also contain items designed to assess
the following variables of interest; sex, race, age,
education, heterosexual attachment, parental education,
parental occupation, birth order, perceived closeness to
father and mother, and family versus career orientation.
In addition, the questionnaire given to student subjects
contains items assessing several variables which the non-
student questionnaire does not. The additional variables
assessed on the student questionnaire are: traditional
versus non-traditional major, year in program, grade point

average, grade point average expectation, grade point

-50-

average aspiration, weekly time spent studying and weekly
time spent socializing. Appendix A shows the questionnaire
that was given to the student groups, while Appendix B
displays the non—student questionnaire.

The measure of fear of success for this study was
the Zuckerman and Allison (1976) Fear of Success Scale
(FOSS). The F055 is composed of twenty-seven items for
which respondents are required to indicate agreement or
disagreement along a 7-point agree-disagree continuum.
Originally,thirty-five 7-point agree-disagree statements
were written by Zuckerman and Allison and their colleagues.
These thirty-five statements described, (a) the benefits
fo success, (b) the cost of success, and (c) respondent's
attitude toward success. These thirty-five items were
administered to 183 male and 193 female undergraduates.
On the basis of correlations between each of the items
and the total score excluding that item, eight items
were deleted and the remaining twenty-seven items became
the F055. Of the twenty-seven items in the F055, sixteen
are scored such that subjects' agreement indicates
high fear of success while for eleven items dis-
agreement indicates high fear of success. Zuckerman and
Allison (1976) reported that coefficient alpha for the
F055 was .69 among males and .73 among females.

The potential range of scores on the F055 is from
twenty-seven to 189, high scores indicating high fear

of success. Fear of success theory indicates

_51-

a prediction that females score higher on the FOSS

than males. Zuckerman and Allison (1976) reported three
studies in which females scored significantly higher on
the F055 than males; female means were 111.3, 107.2,
and 109.4; while the respective male means were 106.7,
101.4, and 103.5. However, Griffore (1976) found that
there was no significant difference between the prOpor-
tion of females (52.6%) compared to males (44.0%)

that obtained high fear of success scores on the F055.

Zuckerman and Allison (1976) reported low but sig-
nificant correlations for males and females combined
between the F055 and Horner's original measure of fear
of success of .19 (p<.05) and .25 (p<.05). Ior males
alone, reported correlations were .18 (p<.05) and .30
(n.s.). Correlations between the £055 and Horner's
measure of fear of success may be because each instrument
tapped either different constructs or different factors
of the same construct.

The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS) is composed
of 100 self-description items,ninety of which assess
self-concept and ten assess self-criticism (the self-
criticism items are all Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory Lie Scale items). For each item, the respon-
dent chooses one of five response options labeled from
"completely false" to "completely true." According to

Fitts (1965), the construction of the TSCS began with

-52-

the selection of a large pool of items from earlier
self-concept measures and written self-descriptions of
patients and non-patients. The selected items were
sorted into a two-dimensional 3 x 5 clasification
scheme. The ninety items that are used in the TSCS

are all items for which there was perfect agreement

on their classification and direction of content by

all the judges. The 3 x 5 format of the TSCS divides
items into both columns (external frame-of-reference)
and rows (internal frame-of-reference). The three row
classifications are: identity, self-satisfaction and
behavior. The five column classifications are; physical
self, moral-ethical self, personal self, family self
and social self. This study utilized only the thirty
items that comprise the self-satisfaction row in the
interest of saving respondents' time. The self-
satisfaction scores consist of those items where ". . .
the individual describes how he feels about the self he
perceives. In general, this score reflects the level of
self-satisfaction or self-acceptance" (Fitts, 1965,
p.2).

The TSCS was normed on a broad sample of 626 persons
of varying age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, in-
telligence and education. Fitts (1965) reported that
demographic variables such as race, sex, education
and intelligence have a negligible effect on the scale

scores. Retest reliability varies for the

-53-

different scales, but is generally in the high 805. The
retest reliability for college students over a two week

period for Row 2 self-satisfaction has been reported as

.88.

Two factor analytical studies of the TSCS
supported Fitts' model of the construct of self-concept
on which the TSCS is based.(Vacchiano and Struss, 1968;
Bertinelli and Fabry, 1977). However, the results of
another study (Fitzgibbons and Cutler, 1972) did not
appear to concur with constructs as proposed by Fitts
(1965). The strongest evidence for the validity of the
TSCS is in its ability to distinguish between groups.
Suinn in his review of the TSCS in The Seventh Mental

Measurement Yearbook found that the TSCS appears to be

 

especially valuable in differentiating normals from
psychiatric patients. High correlations between scores
on the TSCS and other measures (Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory, Taylor Anxiety Scale, Cornell
Medical Index, etc.) for which correlations should be
predicted have been found. Bentler;in his review of the
TSCS (Buros, 1972), reported ". . .many psychometric
qualities of the scale meet the usual test construction
standards that should exist in an instrument that hopes
to receive wide usage" (p. 366). Suinn, in his review
of the TSCS, concluded that, "In all, the TSCS offers
great potential as a promising clinical instrument"

(Buros, 1972, p. 369).

-54-

The Debilitating Anxiety Scale (DAS) has been used
frequently as a measure of fear of failure. The DAS is
a ten-item questionnaire which is part of the Alpert-
Haber (1960) Achievement Anxiety Test (AAT). Along with
some neutral buffer items, the AAT also contains a nine-
item Facilitating Anxiety Scale (FAS). The DAS measures
anxiety interfering with students' performance on
academic tasks while the FAS independently measures the
anxiety which leads to improved students' performance.
This study has utilized only the DAS, since the DA5 has
been the traditional measure of fear of success. Incor-
porating more items into this studys' questionnaire
might have jeopardized the response rate.

The DAS has a test-retest reliability of .76 after
an eight-month interval and .87 over a ten-week time
span (Alpert and Haber, 1960). Alpert and Haber (1960)
reported that when the DA5 was correlated with the
Mandler Sarason Test Anxiety Scale (1952) they obtained
a correlation of .64 (p (.01).

"Closeness to father" was assessed by present-
ing subjects with two statements, one that they felt
close to their father while growing up, and the other that
they feel close to their father now (for which they had
to indicate the extent of their agreement-disagreement

along a 7-point scale). The same procedure was used to

-55-

assess "closeness to mother". Comparisons of the sub-
jects' responses to the statements of closeness to
mother and father indicates whether the subject perceives
himself/herself as closer to his/her mother, father
or equally close to both.

Career versus family orientation was measured

through subjects' indicating agreement/disagreement

along a 7-point scale to two statements: "I feel that
it is important to have a career," "I feel that having
one's own family is important. . .". The numerical dif-

ference between the responses to the two statements
shows the magnitude and the direction of the individuals
career versus family orientation.

Whether respondents (students only) academic major
is traditional was determined by examining the number
of males and females obtaining degrees for the school

year 1972 - 73 (as reported in the Digest of Education

 

Statistics 1975), at the level that the respondent

was working toward. For the school year 1972-73,

518,191 men and 404,171 women received bachelor's degrees,
while 154,468 men and 108,903 women were awarded master's
degrees and 28,571 men and 6,206 women earned doctoral
degrees (U.5. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare/Education Division, 1976). The approximate
ratios of men to women in the school year 1972-73 re-
ceiving bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees are:

1.3: 1.0, 1.5: 1.0,and 4.5 :l.0, respectively. For the

-56..

purposes of this study, women were considered to be in

a traditionally non-feminine academic major if.the ratio
of men to women who obtained a degree in the 1972-73
school year at the level that the woman is working
toward, exceeds the following ratios for bachelor's,
master's and doctoral degrees, respectively; 2.5:1.0,
3.0:l.0, 9.0:l.0. A man was considered to be in a non-
traditional academic major if,in his academic area.twice
as many females as males were awarded the degree that

he was working toward in 1972-73.

Procedure

 

During the first two weeks of Spring quarter (per
Michigan State University), 1978, all subjects were asked
to complete either the student or non-student questionnaire.
During the last week of Spring quarter 1978, approximately
eight weeks after the initial collection of data, the
Owen Graduate Hall subjects and the Lansing Community
College subjects were asked to complete a second ques-

tionnaire (containing the F055 and the DAS).

Analyses

An important use of factor analysis is to find ways
of identifying fundamental and meaningful dimensions of
a multivariate domain (Cooley and Lohnes, 1962), factor

analysis was used in this study to determine whether fear

-57-

of success is multidimensional and, if so, what groupings
of variables comprise factors within the fear of success
construct. The factors derived from the factor analysis
of a psychological construct can either add to or chal—
lenge the validity of the theoretical base of that psy-
chological construct. Further, variables of interest

may emerge from a factor analytical study. Cattell

(1952) indicates that the use of factor analysis can

help avoid the mistake of making the wrong arbitrary choice
of variables that the experimenter wishes to examine.

Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent (1975),
listed three main uses of factor analysis. The first
(and most common) use of factor analysis is the
exploration and detection of patterns of variables with
a view toward discovering new concepts and possible
reduction of data. The second use is to test hypotheses
about the structure of variables in the construct under
examination in terms of the expected number of signifi-
cant factors and factor loadings. The third use of fac-
tor analysis is to aid in the construction of indices to
be used as new variables in later analyses.

Factor analysis is readily distinguishable from
other statistical procedures by its data-reduction cap-
ability. However, factor analysis is far less stand—
ardized in its procedures and application than other

statistical techniques. Dubois (1965) reminded

-S8-

us that factor analysis is far from an exact
set of procedures for drawing inferences about the struc-
ture of a construct under examination. Furthermore, the
results of any factor analytical procedure must be
cautiously interpreted. Fruchter (1954) has warned
researchers that factors do not necessarily have psy-
chological reality, but merely represent fundamental
underlying sources of variation operating in a given
set of scores or other data observed under specific con-
ditions. Thus, one might question the value of derived
factors from a factor analysis. However, when these de-
rived factors originate from empirically measured in—
dividual differences, they do have value. Perceived
communalities in groups of variables comprising separate
factors aid one's understanding of the construct under
examination. In addition, these derived factors do have
psychological reality when personality is defined
by the differences between individuals. Further
evidence for the psychological reality of derived factors
is their correlation with other variables in the environ-
ment or in the biological composition of the individual
not included in the factor analysis.

Factor analysis was chosen for this study because,
(1) it is a parsimonious analytical tool, and (2) it is
a method that can be used to explore and identify

underlying relationships between variables from different

-59-

sets of measures.

Initially a factor analysis of all items on the non-
student questionnaire was done with the data collected
the first two weeks of Spring quarter from all subjects.
Factor analyses were then done on each scale (DAS, TSCS
and F055) used by this researcher in the questionnaire
and two scales combined (F055 and TSCS). The results of
the factor analysis on each scale was used to create
subscales wherever a scale was shown to be composed of
multiple factors. Items with low factor loadings on a
subscale and/or scale were deleted. This process in-
creased the reliability (coefficient alpha) of that sub-
scale and/or scale. The newly created subscales/scales
were used in subsequent analyses.

All the analyses done in this study were done at
the Michigan State University Computer Facility. Two
computer packages were utilized for the analyses of
data. The two computer packages used were the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Package
(Hunter and Cohen, 1969). Initially, factor analyses
were done utilizing the SPSS subprogram factor. These
first analyses with subprogram Factor utilized all the
default options. Principal factoring with iteration
(PA2) was the factoring method. The number of factors
extracted was determined by the number of factors with

an eigenvalue greater than or equal to 1.0. The

-60-

diagonals of the correlation matrix were initially re-
placed by squared multiple correlations. The iterations
were stopped when the convergence reached the .001 cri-
terion. The maximum number of iterations was twenty-
five; and finally, the varimax rotation was used. Sub-
sequent SPSS factor analyses utilized all the default
options except for indicating the number of factors
desired and in one case, increasing the number of allow-
able iterations to 100.

Factor analyses utilizing the FACTRB program of
Package were done. Like Factor, FACTRB does a prin-
cipal components analysis followed by varimax rotations.
However, FACTRB automatically performs a cluster analysis
following the last varimax rotation. Thus, variables
are grouped according to their largest factor loading
and factors are listed in the order of the amount of
accountable variance. Another advantage of FACTRB
over Factor is the reliability coefficient (coefficient
alpha) of each factor being printed along with the cor-
relations (Pearson) between each factor.

After completion of the factor analyses, computed
with Factor and FACTRB, subscales were formed. Oblique
multiple-group analyses were then done using each sub-
scale as a group or indicating the number of groups

(equal to the number of subscales) desired. The oblique

-6l-

multiple-group analyses were done utilizing routine MGRP
from Package.

Subsequent to the factor analyses, two 2 x 5 analyses
of variance were done utilizing subprogram Anova of SPSS.
The dependent variable for each Anova was a newly created
subscale (factor) of the F055. The independent variables
for each Anova were Sex (2) and Group (5). After these
two Anova's were done, several oneway Anova's (subprogram
Oneway) were run to examine significant main effects
found in the previous 2 x 5 Anova's.

Bi-variate correlational analysis was used to examine
the relationship between the newly created subscales/
scales of the F055, DAS and TSCS. Specifically, Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated
using subprogram Pearson Corr of SPSS. Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficients had also been previously
generated from the FACTRB factor analyses. FACTRB also
provided reliability coefficients (coefficient alpha) for
the subscales and scales.

Subprogram Pearson Corr was used to examine the re-
lationship of the following variables to each fear of
success factor: sex, age, race, education, heterosexual
attachement, divorce, number of children, father's occu-
pation, mother's occupation, father's education, mother's
education, birth order, past closeness to father, current

closeness to father, past closeness to mother, current

-52-

closeness to mother, importance of career, and importance
of family. For the student groups only, the relationship
of several other variables to each fear of success factor
were examined. These additional variables were; education
level, major, year in program, previous work experience
(or lack of), grade point average, grade point average
expected, grade point average aspired to, weekly time
spent studying, and weekly time spent socializing.

Also examined was the relationship of the variables
of interest, previously listed, to the fear of success
factors through the use of multiple regression analysis.
The subjects in this study were randomly assigned to
two groups of 128 and 103 subjects, respectively. A
multiple regression analysis was done on the first group
of 128 subjects, with independent variables being the
eighteen variables of interest previously listed. Sub-
program Regression (SPSS) was used with forward (step-
wise) inclusion. The resultant regression equation was
used on the second group of 103 subjects to calculate
predicted fear of success factor scores. The predicted
fear of success factor scores were then correlated with
the actual fear of success scores of the subjects in the
second group. The correlation coefficient was then
squared to obtain coefficients of determination through
cross validation. After the initial multiple regression

equation was derived, the independent variables in the

-53-

equation were entered into another multiple regression
equation in a predetermined order. The predetermined
order specified that the variables with the lowest pre-
dictive value in the prior regression equation be entered
first. This second multiple regression analysis allowed
examination of the effect of multicollinearity
on the initial regression equation. Multiple regression
analysis was done with the nine variables applicable to
the student groups. A group of seventy-six students was
utilized to derive the initial regression equation with
the nine variables and cross validation, as described
above, was done on a second group of sixty-six students.
Subprogram Pearson Corr was used to determine the
retest reliability of the fear of success factors. Re-
test reliability for the fear of success factors was

calculated only for the Owen group.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Introduction

 

The results of the statistical analysis conducted
are presented here. Each research hypothesis will be
restated and the outcome of the test of this research
hypothesis described. Following the results of the
tests of the formal research hypotheses, the results
of several additional analyses are discussed. These
additional analyses include the examination of; the
relationship between fear of success and several other
variables, the stability of fear of success, and group
and sex differences in fear of success and self-concept.

All of the statistical analyses depicted in this
chapter were calculated on the Control Data Corporation
6500 Computer System at the Michigan State University

Computer Center.

-64-

-65-

Structure of Fear of Success Measure

 

Results of the Test of Hypothesis I:

 

Fear of success will consist of several factors

rather than one general factor.

The initial factor analysis (SPSS) of the twenty-
seven item FOSS scale resulted in eight factors being
generated. These eight factors had eigenvalues ranging
from a high of 4.56 to a low of 1.02. A review of this
analysis, by this researcher, indicated that there was
a scree distribution of factors. The first two factors
had eigenvalues of 4.56 and 3.17, while the third factor
had a eigenvalue of 1.58. These first two factors
accounted for 16.9% and 11.7% of the cumulative variance
while the third factor only accounted for 5.9%.

A factor analysis (SPSS) was done on the twenty-
seven item FOSS scale with the number of factors to be
generated set at two. The results of this analysis were
reviewed, by this researcher, and items that had low or
equal loadings on both factors :noted. The items
having low or equal loadings on both factors were number
1, 5, 6, 7, ll, 15, 19, 22, and 24. These nine items
were deleted from subsequent factor analyses .

A multiple group factor analysis (Edpack) done

on the remaining eighteen items from the F055 scale.

-66-

Two factors resulted composed of ten and eight items,
respectively. For each factor, the item with lowest
item-scale correlation, Item 3 (.35) and Item 26 (.36),
was dropped from the remaining analyses.

The last factor analyses of the F055 scale were
done utilizing the sixteen remaining items. Both a
multiple-group factor analysis (Edpack) and a factor
analysis (SPSS) were done. The results of these analyses
are depicted in Tables II and III, respectively. Two
factors composed of nine and seven items resulted.

These factors were named "Cost of Success" and "Importance
of Success" for this study. They will be referred to
as F051 and F052, respectively.

The results of the factor analyses done on the F055
scale support Hypothesis I. Fear of success has been
shown to be multidimensional rather than being composed
of one general factor. Subsequent analyses involving
fear of success utilize each derived factor of the F055
separately.

The reliability (coefficient alpha) of FOSl (Cost
of Success) was calculated as .78 while the reliability
of F052 (Importance of Success) .74. The correlation

between F051 and F052 was -.35.

-67-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mn.a He.v Ho. mm. .>mmocs Home $5 mmxms
woflaflnwmcommmu one now so So H cosz mm
mm.H mo.v HH.I Hm. .hamcoH com can cwumo
one oaoomo Hsmmmooosm umsu o>mflaoo H mm
ms.e «a.¢ mm.- om. .ecmnuo use» mo ago 0: ecu swash
Moo» we mso>Ho>o .oou so ou.so> coco om
hm.a mm.v HH.I vm. .Hsmmmmoosm mEoomn mos» Hound
umHo3 one How omcmso Hofl>osmo m.mHoomm ma
mm.a oo.v mm.n we. .smflooosm can moods soon on on mumcuo we
omuoofimsoo coumo we conned Hommmooosm d 0H
mm.e oo.v GN.- mm. .snaeenemcoammu
oceaaonznm>o we mmooosm mo umoo one ma
Hm.e Sm.m mm.- we. .mone as manage new man
on o>flm umsE moo o>mflcom o» Hoouo :H NH
mm.a mm.m mm.1 mm. .onmsp Scum ou odomouum ucmomcoo m asp
maesuo: moose now no me 0:3 cOmHmo d m
om.a mm.m oo. ov. .ouosms 0:» cos» mmmoosm
Houooum we mmooosm mo umoo ecu coumo N no umou
cm coo: N.HO H.HO EmuH .oz mEmz
EmuH Houmsau
mnoom onus com noumoao
sows EouH mo cowumaouuoo
mmom osu Eoum mEouH :mmuxam
mo memaamce Houomm osouu mamwuasz mo muasmmm “HH momma

-53-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om.H mm.q am. No.) .zocx H oedema one mo ones can»
HommmoUOSm ouoE on HHHB H o>oHHon H hm
oo.m vm.m mm. mm.: .cooo
one muooo HHo .umoo osu ou.oo> con: Hm
on.H mm.m me. no.1 .50» on
on mxooH oco>Ho>o .oou so os.oo> cos: SH
vw.H mm.e me. mm.| .uooomou mocoEEoo uooEo>oflso< vH
mh.H om.m mm. mm.1 .muosuo cosy
uouuon mCHoo Em H cosz waoo homo: as H OH
mm.H mm.~ mm. HH.I .uoss
HouuoE o: :«3 Cu >Hu H coHquooEoo :H m
mm.H mm.~ om. vm.| .xmou o co HHo3 mcHoo no oEom o mowcsHB
an mH suHOB >5 o>ouo coo H >o3 HHco one v mmoooom Ho
oooouuooEH
om coo: N.HO H.HO EouH .oz oEoz
EouH HoumsHO
ouoom osue poo HoumsHO
suHS EouH Ho coHumHouuoo
mmom osu Eoum mEouH coouxwm -.ucouv
mo nonsense nouomm ozone oHoHanz mo muHammm .HH moose

-59-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wm.H mo.v mo. mm. .HHonoH one cow coumo
oHo oHooom HommmoUUSm umnu o>oHHon H mm
ms.H sa.e mo.: Hm. .eameno use» me one on one scene
Moo» mH onoxuo>o .oou no ou.so> ooco om
hm.H om.e mo. om. .Hommmooosm oEooon Hon» Houwo
umuoz on» HOH omnono How>onon m.oHooom mH
mm.H oo.¢ no.1 he. .annnocm ono HOOHo noon on on muonno an
oouooncoo noumo mH nomuoo Hsmmmooosm 4 SH
mm.H oo.e HH.- mm. .sueeanemcoammu
ocHEHon3Ho>o mH mmoooom Ho umoo one mH
Hm.e Gm.m m-.- as. .moee an mucosa can we»
on o>Hm umsE ono o>oHnoo on Hoouo nH NH
em.H mo.m mm.| mm. .ononu Houm on onmsnum unoumcoo M van
onwnuoc mooow oou on» no mH on3 common n m
om.H mm.m mo. mm. .ouozon one conu mmooosm
sonooum mH mmoooom Ho umoo on» noumo N No umoo
am new: ~.Ho H.Ho aonH .oz osmz
EouH HoumsHO
ouoom osne one HoumsHO
nuHs EouH Ho noHuoHouuoo
mmom onu Eonw mEouH coouxem mo mHmHHocm nouoom mo muHsmom "HHH mqm<a

-70-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oe.n mm.¢ me. oo. .3ocn n endows man no nmos can»
Hommmooosm onoE on HHHB H o>oHHon H em
no.~ ee.m ma. em.u .cooo
one mnooo HHe .nmon onn on.:o> non3 Hm
oe.H em.m mm. OH.I .oo> on on
mxooH onowno>o .oon co on.so> nonz eH
vm.H mm.w em. mm.l .nooomon moceSEoo nooEo>oHnoa vH
we.H om.~ mm. eH.| .mnonuo nenu
nonnon ocHoo Ee H con; >Hno women Se H OH
mm.H mm.m mm. HH.I .uen3
nonnee on :HB on >nn H coHanoofioo nH m
mm.H mm.m he. mm.| .xmen
e no HHo3 mnHoo no oEem e mannHS en
mH nnnoz HE o>ono ceo H >e3 HHno one e mmoooom Ho
oonennooEH
me.H Hv.v eH. em. .ameocs Hoom oE moer mmoooom
HnHHHnHmnoomon on» moo no Ee H nonz mm mo nmou
om neoz ~.HO H.HO EonH .oz oEez
EouH nonmsHO
onoom oone one noumsHO
nan EonH mo coHneHonnou
..ncoo-

mmom onn Eonm mEonH nooume Ho mHmHHecn nonoem Ho muHomom

"HHH mqmde

-71-

Results of the Tests of Hypotheses II through VIII:
Females will obtain higher fear of success scores
than males.

Since the main tenet of fear of success theory is
that females will score higher than males on measures
of fear of success, the results of the test(s) of
Hypothesis II were of prime interest. Sex differences
in the fear of success were examined by a variety of
analytical methods; analysis of variance, Pearson
product-moment correlation and multiple regression.

The findings of the first two analytical approaches
will be discussed in this section while discussion of
the results of the multiple regression analyses will be
presented in a later section of this chapter.

Two 2 x 5 analyses of variance were done. The
independent variables in each analysis were sex and
group, while the dependent variable in one was F051
and in the other F052. The results of these analyses
are shown in Tables IV and V.

Since, for each analysis, there was no significant
interaction effect between group and sex, it was appro-
priate to look at the main effect of sex. For F051
there was no significant (5= .393) main effect for sex.
Therefore, for F051 Hypothesis II is not supported. However,

the analysis of variance with F052 as the dependent variable

-72-

showed a significant (p (.01) main effect for sex. A one-way
analysis of variance indicated that females scored sig-

nificantly (p <.05) higher on F052 than males.

TABLE IV: Results of Analysis of Variance on Group and
Sex Using FOSl as the Fear of Success Measure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Significance
Source 55 df MS F Level
Group 1300.653 4 325.163 3.626 p<.01
Sex 65.676 1 65.676 .732 n.s.
Group X Sex 408.390 4 102.098 1.139
Within-Groups 18830.994 210 89.671
Total 20605.713 219
TABLE V: Results of Analysis of Variance on Group and

Sex Using F052 as the Fear of Success Measure

 

 

 

Source 55 df MS F Significance
Level

Group 1711.506 4 427.876 8.095 p<.01

Sex 458.821 1 458.821 8.680 p<.01

Group X Sex 375.895 4 93.974 1.778 n.s.

Within-Groups 11311.399 214 52.857

 

Total 13857.621 223

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-73-

Tests for homogeneity of variances indicated
a significant difference between the variances
of each sex's score on F051. Both Cochran's C test
(.6619, p<.01) and Bartlett's Box F (10.394, p<.01)

showed more variance in F051 scores for females than

males. There was no sex difference in the variance

of F052 scores

 

 

 

TABLE VI: Mean Scores by Sex on Fear of Success Factors
Factor Male Female
FOSl (Cost of Success 38.5823 38.6312
F052 (Importance of Success) 28.5500 32.4167

 

 

 

 

A significant (p<.01) positive correlation was found
between sex and F052, while almost zero correla-
tion between sex and F051 (see Table VII). These results,
as expected, are congruent with the results of the analy-
ses of variance previously discussed.

Hypothesis III:

 

Older males and females will obtain higher fear of
success scores than younger males and females.

Hypothesis IV:

 

Females who are:majoring in traditionally feminine
academic areas will obtain higher fear of success

scores than females who are majoring in traditionally

-74-

non-feminine academic areas.

Hypothesis V:

 

Black females will obtain lower fear of success
scores than white females.

Hypothesis VI:

 

Males and females who have more formal education

will obtain higher fear of success scores than

males and females with less education.

Hypotheses III through VI were tested by
bivariate correlational analyses. The variables of in-
terest in each hypothesis was correlated with each fear
of success factor. The results of these analyses are
presented in Table VII.

The relationships of the variables in Hypotheses
III through VI to the fear of success factors was also
investigated with the use of multi-regression analysis.
The results of the multi-regression analyses are des-
cribed later in this chapter.

No significant correlation was found between age
and F051 for either sex separately or combined. A sig-
nificant correlation (.19977, p <.05) was found for males
but not for females between age and F052. However, for
females there was a trend in the direction of a positive
relationship between age and F052. For male and female
subjects combined there was a significant positive cor-

relation (.1337, p<.05) between age and F052. Thus, for

-75-

one fear of success factor Hypothesis III is supported.
On the other hand, the results of the analyses utilizing
the other fear of success factor (F051) would reject
Hypothesis III.

There was no significant correlations for female
subjects between major (traditional versus non-tradi-
tional) and either FOSl or F052. These findings lend
no support to Hypothesis IV. However, an interesting
finding, for which no hypothesis had been formulated,
was that males who were enrolled in traditional majors
had higher scores on F052 than males Lunch-traditional
academic majors. This finding is derived from the sig-
nificant negative correlation (-.3069, p<.01) between
major and F052 for males alone (see Table VII).

For male and female subjects alone and combined
there were no significant correlations between race
and either fear of success factor. Thus, there is no
support for Hypothesis V.

No significant correlations were found between
education and F052 for male and female subjects either
alone or combined. A significant positive correlation
was found between education and F051 for females alone
(.2993, p<.01) and male and female subjects combined
(.2135, p<.01). For males alone there was no correla-
tion between education and F051. The positive relation-

ship (.2135, p<.01) between education and F051 is the

-75-

.HenoHnHoenulco: momno> HenoHuHoene *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

veH.nm mom.um mmv.um Hoo.nm Hoo.nm 5mm.um
mmoo.| mmmo. oomo.| mMHN. momm. omvo. coHueooom
eoH.um ooH.um omm.um m-.nm eoH.nm omm.um
«moo.n mmmo.u ommo.u ono.I mmmo.u oomo. ooem
on.um N~¢.um moo.um mmm.um mmm.um eH¢.nm
23.- 38.- moon... $8. 23. SS... . no.3:
«mo.nm oMH.um ovo.nm mom.nm Hm~.nm qu.um
eMMH. ammo. hemH. mmoo. movo. emmo. ood
HOG-"m WQVonm
ommm. u I «moo. I u now
oocHnEou oHeEom oHez oonnneoo oHeEoe oHez oHneHne>
mmom Hmom
H> nmsonnn HH mononnooxm CH moHneHne> one
mnonoem mmooosm mo neon nooznom mnoHueHonnoo "HH> anode

.47-

result of the strong positive relationship (.2993, p<.01)

that exists between education and F051 only for females.

Hypothesis VII:

 

For males and females, there will be no significant
correlation between fear of success scores and fear

of failure.

A factor analysis on the ten item DAS indicated

that the scale had one underlying main factor. Two
factors were generated that had eigenvalues in excess
of 1.00000, 4.24843 and l.l6485,respectively. The first
factor accounted for 42.5% of the variance while the
second factor accounted for 11.6%. After the factor
matrix was rotated, the first factor had a eigenvalue
of 3.70418 and accounted for 87.4% of the variance while
the second factor's eigenvalue was .53532 and only 12.6%
of the variance from the two factors was accounted for
by the second factor. Thus, the DA5 was treated as a
unitary scale. However, as a result of the factor
analysis (Edpack) and item-scale correlations (SPSSL
three items were deleted. These items were numbers 3,
6 and 7. The revised scale utilized in this study is
shown in Tables VIII and IX.

The reduced seven item DAS scale was positively
correlated (.535, p<.05) with FOSl. There was no sig-

nificant relationship between the seven item DAS scale

-78-

 

mm.

Hm.

vo.H

mm.

mm.

oo.H

Hm.

Hv.N

mm.m

mm.m

mv.m

mm.N

mm.~

Ho.m

 

50.

mm. A

no.

mm.

mm.

no.

me.

 

neoZ:

mnmom can
noHneHonnOQ

.no noueH mnoHumono

ameo no>o no nooHn H uenu om oE Home:

on monou uH .Eexo no mo mannHmon onn ue
mEouH anoHHHHo no HHoB oo n-noo H nonz

omnom ones HHH3 Hon» nenn om Eonu no>o xoen
om none H one Bonn mnHoneumnoonn unonuHB
mnoHnmono Sexo onHoeon HHomHE onHH H

.mnoHuHonoo neHHEHm
noon: onono on» no umon onu nenn omnos
0o on on momneo Sexo no no onnmmono oEHe

.no>o on Sexo one
we nOOm me Eonn nonEoEon uanS H nononn
no>o .mnoSmne on» Bonn H noan on mnoHn
amono no nooHn H .mumon no meexo manno

.oo on Soon H HHo3 nmoH
onn .noHnenHEexo onu nnennomEH onoe one

.HonoHOHHmo
>E n30o mono ooenm oen e no neom >5
.HHnooo mnHoo noon o>en H onon3 omnnoo e nH

.HHo3 mnHoo Eonm o5 nnooan
Eexo no noon e monen oHan noonmno>noz

 

EOHH

OH

 

ooz
EOUH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHmHHenn nonoee moonu oHQHanz Ho manmom

moo onn none mEouH no>om Ho

"HHH> mamfie

-80-

and F052. The reliability (coefficient alpha) of the

seven item DAS scale was .85.

TABLE X: Correlation Between Seven Item DAS Scale and

Fear of Success Factors

 

 

 

Factor Correlation with DAS
F051 .1535

=.034
F052 .0459

=.295

 

 

Hypothesis VIII:

 

For males and females, there will be a negative
correlation between fear of success scores and

self-satisfaction.

An initial factor analysis of the thirty items (self-
satisfaction row) from the TSCS revealed eight factors.
Only four of the eight factors had eigenvalues over 1. A
subsequent factor analysis was done designating the num-
ber of factors to be four. After reviewing the results
of the last factor analysis, five items were deleted from
subsequent factor analyses. The deleted items were Numbers
1, 2, 22, 24 and 30. A multiple group factor analysis was
then done on the remaining twenty-five items. The re-
sults of the twenty-five item multiple group factor analy-

sis are displayed in Table XI. Four factors emerged which

-81-

were named; trust and sensitivity (nine items), family
and social relationships (nine items), physical self
(four items), and religious self (three items). The
correlations between the four factors are depicted in
Table XII.

Fitts (1965) depicts five subscales within the
self-satisfaction row; physical self, moral-ethical
self, personal self, family self, and social self. Al-
though only four factors were generated in this study,
the factor structure of the TSCS self-satisfaction row
per this study appeared close to Fitts' model. Family
and social self grouped together to form family and
social relationships. Fitts' moral-ethical self cone
tained all the items in this researcher's religious self.
Trust and sensitivity were comprised mainly of items
that.Fitts grouped under personal self.

The reliability (coefficient alpha) of each TSCS

factor derived in this study was:

Trust and Sensitivity .80
Family and Social Relationships .80
Physical Self .72
Religious Self .75.

The reliability of the full twenty-five items from the
TSCS was .87.
Correlations between each factor of fear of success

and each factor of the twenty-five items from the TSCS

-82-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm. mm.m HH. mo.| mo. eH. .-oomeoooo one
mnnoneo HH omnon umeo omn- oHnonm mmHnm
H me HHoB me mononem HE neonn H oH InoHueHom
HeHoom one
¢N.n ne.N en. NN. mm. HH. .on On one; H we onesm me an H e snnsen
mH.H Nm.m NH. mo.| no. em. .onOE HHHEeH HE nonnn oHoonm H eN
mn.n seam so. NN. nm. mm. .mnaoma
nnHB nonnon mnoHe noo on nnono H mH
eo.H mo.m mo. oo. oH. mm. .mnonuo on onHHoo onoe on oHnonm H oH
NN.H mo.m eN. Ho.u mN. mm. .onOE >HHEeH HE o>oH oHnonm H NH
m~.n mo.m mo. em. on.. me. .smm annsen
HE monnnn on o>HuHmnom 00» Se H HH
VN.H mo.m mo. NN. mo. .Nm. .oo H me
HHHmeo me on o>Hm u.noHo H an3 H m
mo.H om.m mo.| ov.. eN. em. .on
on oxHH oHDOB H nOmnoo onn non Ee H m
mo.H oH.¢ no. mo.1 mH. mo. .moHH HneE ow HHon u.noHnonm H o HuH>Hu
IHmnom
HN.H mm.m mo. «H. NN. om. .Hnnnoznmnnu once on oHnoo H an3 H m a umnne
om seem v.no m.no ~.no n.no amen .oz msez
onoom osne one nonmsHO EouH nonmnHO
nun: EonH mo n0mweHonnoo
mume onn Eonu mEouH
o>Hm|>nno3e mo mHmHHen< onono oHoHanz Ho manmom "Hx mqmne

-83-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HH.; m~.m no. mn. an. mn. .mnm Hon»
Hm: man nmsn mxoon as mnnn n nn
ov. mN.m no. em. oH. mo.. .neH oon non ann 00» nonnHon Se H oH
HHom
mm. mm.m on. Hm. mn. mm. .neoaae xmm mnos m>mn encore n m neonmsaa
No. oo.m mo. oH. «v. No. .uH onono>o
u.noo H non .mnonno omeoHo on Hnn H mN
mo. om.m mo. oN. Nm. MH. .on 0» ones H me oHneHoom me Se H oN
no. nv.m no.I No.| mm. oH. .oHnonm H
me HHoB me HHHEeH HE oneumnoonn H oN
mn.¢ ~n.m mo.- as. am. am. .mannmnonnmnmn
HHHEeH HE nan oonmHuem Se H mN
om. me.m MH. oN. om. NN. .on oHnonm H me ooHn me none Se H mN
No. mm.m oN. MH. no. oH. .noH>enon
Hence HE nuns ooHHmHuem Se H mH moHnm
unoHneHom
om. on.m mo. mn. mm. on. .mnaomn nonno nenoom one
ueonu H He: onu nuH3 ooHHmHuen 5e H MH HHHEem
om neoz v.HO m.HO N.HU H.HU SouH .oz oEez
onoom oone one noumnHO SonH noumnHO
news EouH Ho noHneHonnoo
mome onn Eonm meonH A.unouv
"Hx mqmde

o>HmIHnno3e Ho mHmHHenn ononw onHanS «0 manmom

-84-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.n mm. me. we. nnom moOHSHHom .H
mm. oo.n Hm. oe. nnom Hmonmnoo .m
Ne. Hm. oo.H om. monnmomenenom HeHoOm one Hnnsen .N
we. ow. oe. oo.H Hnn>nnnmnom one nmsne .H
a m N H
HOUOMW EHHZ COHHMHOHHOU .HOHO-mrm
mome onn no
mEouH o>HmIHuno3e Eonw mnouoeh noom onu noo3nom mnoHneHonnoo "HHx mqm<e
Nv.H mo.m Hm. oH. No.1 oH. .onoE n.0no
.onmomenHm- nonnno on cm on unmno H HN
34 $.m me. on. 3. on. .ooo on one...
.5333 a: fin: eonnmnnmm s... n om
HHom
GH.H mm.m me. no. em. HH. .on on use; H mm msOHmHHon me Ee H q onenmnnoe
mm; «TN 3.- 2. no. 2. Neon He no How
muneo oEOm omneno on oxHH oHnoz H mH HeOHmHnH
no new: e.Ho m.Ho N.Ho H.Ho noun .oz osez
wHoom 09MB nor-m kumDHU EQHH Hmumn-HO
Sufi-5 EOHH NO GOHHMHTHHOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

o>Hm|Huno3e Ho mHmHHen<

mume on» Eonm mEonH -.unooo
onono onHanz mo manmom "Hx mHm<e

-35-

were calculated. The correlations between F051 and trust
and sensitivity, family and social relationships, physical
self and religious self were .15, .45, .22, and .18,
respectively. The correlations between F052 and the TSCS
factors were -.29, -.21, -.06, and -.l9. Thus, F051 showed
a positive relationship to self-satisfaction while, contrary-

wise, F052 and self-satisfaction were negatively correlated.

Relationship of Fear of Success to Selected Variables,

 

Multi-Regression Analyses, Group and Sex Differences and

 

Stability of Fear of Success

 

Initially, in this section, the results of the examin-
ation of the relationship between fear of success and sev-
eral variables of interest are presented. The results of
the multi-regression analyses, using the aforementioned
variables and the variables in Hypotheses II to VI, are
then discussed. The penultimate analyses examines group
and sex differences in fear of sex. Finally, the stability

of fear of success is examined.

Relationship of Fear of Success to Selected Variables

 

The relationship of selected variables of interest
common to each fear of success factor are presented in
Table XIII. There was a significant positive relation-
ship between current closeness to father (.1848, p 4.01),

closeness to mother growing-up (.1616, p4 .01) ,

-86-

TABLE XIII: Correlations Between Fear of Success Factors

and Selected Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F081 F082

Variable Male Female Combined Male Female Combined
Heterosexual .1573 -.0285 .0158 .0056 .1524 .1367
Attachment S=.086 S=.369 S-.408 S-.481 S-.035 S-.021
Divorce .0643 -.0064 .0108 -.0734 -.2361 -.2183

S=.292 S=.471 S=.439 S=.264 S=.003 S=.001
Number of .0793 -.0726 -.0382 .2610 .1075 .1937
Children S=.248 S=.198 =.289 =.Oll =.101 =.002
Father's .0184 .0877 -.0651 .0355 -.1154 .0730
Occupation S=.438 S=.158 S=.l76 S=.381 S=.09l S=.l46
Mother's -.0021 -.0779 .0534 -.l830 .0621 .0390
Occupation S=.493 =.180 S=.218 =.057 =.231 =.283
Father's -.0364 .0812 .0475 -.0487 -.0951 -.0890
Education S=.376 S=.l7l S=.243 S=.335 S=.l30 =.094
Mother's -.l345 .2288 .1085 -.l882 -.0838 -.1638
Education S=.120 S=.003 S=.056 S=.048 S=.l6l S=.007
Birth Order .1451 .0543 .0789 .1284 .0591 .0839

52.102 S=.261 S=.122 =.130 =.24l S=.106
Closeness to .0511 .1447 .0995 .0588 .1557 .1337
Father Growing- =.332 =.046 S=.074 S=.307 S=.033 =.025
UP
Current Close- .0314 .2676 .1848 .0446 .1409 .1159
nose to Father S=.400 S=.002 S=.006 S=.3S9 S=.062 S=.056
Closeness to -.0027 .2666 .1616 .0650 .0905 .0854
Mather Growing- S=.108 S=.001 S=.009 S=.287 =.l42 S=.104

P

Current Close- -.0027 .1812 .1799 .1140 .0831 .1128
ness to Mother S=.49l S=.001 S=.005 S=.165 =.l73 S=.053
Importance of .0089 .1210 .0771 -.ll73 -.2548 -.2095
a Career S=.469 S=.076 S=.127 S=.150 S=.001 S=.001
Importance of -.0719 .2116 .1169 -.l354 .0344 .0009
Family S=.265 S=.006 S=.04l =.ll6 S=.342 S=.495

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-37-

importance of a family (.1169, p <.05), and F051 for sub-
jects of both sexes combined. There was a trend towards
a significant positive relationship between mother's
education, closeness to father growing-up and F051 for
all subjects. No significant relationship existed be-
tween F051 and eight other variables (heterosexual
attachment, divorce, number of children, father's occupa-
tion, mother's occupation, father's education, birth order
and importance of a career) for all subjects. For the
four variables which had a significant positive rela-
tionship with FOSl,and the two with the trend toward
significance,the relationship of females alone for that
variable was significantly positive. However, for males
alone there was no significant relationship between any
of those variables and F051. Thus, it was always the
strong positive relationship between females and F051

on the significant variables that caused the overall (all
subjects) significant relationship to FOSl.

There was a significant relationship between six
variables and F052. The variables that were signifi-
cantly related to F052 are; heterosexual attachment
(.1367, p <.05), divorce (-.2183, p <.01), number of
children (.1937, p <.01), mother's education (-.1638,

p <.01), closeness of father growing-up (.1337, p <.05)
and importance of a career (-.2095, p <.01). There was

a trend toward significance for two additional variables

-88-

(father's education and current closeness to father) and
F052 for both sexes combined. For five of the six vari-
ables that were significantly related to F052, the over-
all relationship was determined by the strong relation-
ship for females only, within that variable, to F052,
while males alone showed no relationship. The single
exception (a variable with males alone showing a signif-
icant relationship to F052), was number of children.

For number of children females alone did not show a
significant relationship to F052 although there was a
trend toward significance.

The relationships of selected variables of interest,
common only to student subjects, to each fear of success
factor are presented in Table XIV. There was no sig-
nificant relationship, for both sexes combined, between
any of the eight variables of interest (education level,
year in degree program, prior work experience, grade point
average (GPA), GPA expected, GPA aspired to, time spent
studying and time spent socializing) and F051. However,
there was a trend towards significance between F051 and
four variables (year in degree program, GPA, GPA expected
and time spent studying). Females who had high GPA's
scored higher on the F051 than females with lower GPA's,
however, there was no difference between males with high
or low GPA's on F051.

There was no relationship for both sexes, alone or

combined, between five variables (education level, year

-89-

in degree program, prior work experience, time spent
studying and time spent socializing) and F052. Students
of both sexes, alone and together, who expected higher
GPA's scored higher on the F052 than students who ex-
pected lower grades. Females with higher GPA's scored
higher on the F052 than females with lower GPA's. While
no relationship existed for males alone between GPA

and scores on the F052, the positive relationship for
females was strong enough to determine a positive re-
lationship between GPA and F052 for both sexes combined.
Surprisingly, females who aspired toward a high

GPA scored lower on the F052 than females with lower
aspirations in that area. For males the trend in the

opposite direction.

Multi-Regression Analyses

 

Eighteen variables were entered into two multi-re-
gression analyses predicting F051 and F052 scores. The
eighteen variables were;the variables in Hypothese II,
IV, V, VI and those variables in Table XIII. Two other
multi-regression analyses were done utilizing the vari-
ables in Hypothesis III, (traditional major versus non-
traditional), and Table XIV to predict F081 and FOS2
scores for student subjects.

The eighteen variable multi-regression analysis used

to predict FOSl scores derived no significant regression

-90-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo~.um mo~.um ~n~.um oom.um mo~.um nom.um mononnonoom
nooo. onoo. mono. mooo. noon. nomo.u nooom mane
omo.um oo~.um ooo.um ono.um moo.um nnm.um manneonm
oono. oooo. nono. moon. Noon. «moo. nooom mane
oon.um ono.um omn.um no~.um nmm.um mom.um
nmoo.u ooo~.- ommn. oooo. mooo. nnmo. on connomo «no
noo.um moo.um moo.um ooo.um omo.um moo.um oonoooxm
onom. anon. anon. nnnn. moon. omno. one
omo.um omm.um «mo.um ooo.uo noo.um mom.um
ooon. oooo. omom. ommn. mono. nmoo. «no
ooo.um oom.um oom.um ooo.um nmm.um om~.um moronnooxe
oooo. oooo.u onno. oooo. mmmo.: omoo. xnoz nonna
oom.nm «mo.um mon.um moo.um oon.um noo.um sonoono
oomo.u ooon. noon.- noon.- noon.u n~o~.- oonomo on new»
~n~.um ono.um ooo.nm noo.uo nmm.um mm~.uo no>mn
momo.u mooo.- nono. oono.u mmmo. onoo.- connoosem
ooanEou oHeSoh oHez ooanEou oHeEoH oHez oHneHne>
Neon noon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muoonnnm nnoonnm on HHno oHneoHHoon moHneHne>

UGHUQHQm UGM GHOUOMK mmGUUQm NO .Hflmm Gmm3flmm mCOflMflHmHHOU

">Hx mamfla

-91-

equation. However, the first nine variables in the
equation did determine a significant regression equation
(1.9981, p <.05). The results of the multi-regression
analysis are presented in Table XV. Only one variable,
current closeness to father, was a significant predic-
tor of FOSl (4.7371, p <.05). When current closeness
to father was entered into another multi-regression
analysis,as the fifteenth variable it was not signifi-
cant. The significance level for other variables changed
when the entry order was altered. Thus, changing the
order in which variables were entered into the multi-
regression equation revealed multicollinearity was
effecting the significance level of the variables in the
regression equation. The second multi-regression
analysis, which changed the order of entry of the vari-
ables, was also not a significant predictor of FOSl.
NOne of the variables were significant alone.

After the initial regression equation for predicting
FOSl scores was determined on 128 subjects, the equation
was used to compute predicted FOSl scores for the re-
maining 103 subjects. The predicted FOSl scores were
correlated with the actual FOSl scores for the remaining
103 subjects as a cross—validation procedure. The re-
sulting pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
was not significant.

A significant regression equation (2.1012, p <.05)

-92-

 

oNnH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omno. noo. nooo. ooon.- Hnnsen

e Ho ooneunooEH

onnn. nono. nmo. Nnmm. oomo. oo-o:nzono

Anonuoz on mmonomoHU

nmoH. mHHo. mom. mnmn. oHom.Hl noHueonooo m.nonuoz

nNoH. omoo. nnN. momH.H HmoH.N| ooem

mHmH. Nmmm. mom. ovoo.H HHoN.N noHneonom m.nonuoz

mHvH. Honm. ooN. onN.H mmoN.| oon

omNH. Hoom. NnH. mmmo.H mmoo. nonnoz 0»

mmmcmeHU UCOHHDU

nHHH. Nvmm. omH. Hmnn.H mmmo.N nonoHHnO Ho nonEnz

nooo. mnom. NoH. momm.H ovmo.m noono nnnHm

omno. mvnN. omo. onm.N mnom.N noHneonom

onvo. moHN. Nmo. Hnmn.v move. nonnem 0»

moonomoHO nnonnno

onenom m Ho>oH m m oHneHne>
m oHoHuHsz ooneoHHHanm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HmOh HOHQOHQ 0U COfiWflHUCH 0mfl3amum CHM3HOh CH mQHQMflHM>

noounon mnHmo mHmHHen¢ nonmonmomlHanz Ho manmom ">x

Hand?

-93-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I «no. oooo. I nooneo e Ho ooneunooEH

I I onm. oooo. I noHueonom m.nonnem

I I ono. «Hoo. I oono>Ho

I I mno. noon» I xom

noHuesmm onn nH uoz moHneHne>

mmnn. oono. nno. mono. monn.I oo monsono

nonnee on nmonomoHO

mmnH. moHv. vow. mmNo. «woo. noHueonooo m.nonnem

omnH. omHo. Hmm. nmvo. vomH. unofinoeunn Henxomonouom

oneoom m Ho>on m m oHneHne>
m oHoHanz ooneonHanm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmoe uoHoonm on nOHmnHonH omHzooum onesnoe nH moHneHne>

noounon mnHmD mHmHHen< nonmonoomIHHuoz mo manmom

n.s.-oo-
u>x Sean.

-94-

predicting F052 was calculated by entering eighteen vari-
ables into a multi-regression analysis. The coefficient
of determination was .29. Thus, twenty-nine percent of
the variance of F052 scores was accounted for by sixteen
variables (see Table XVI). Only two of the variables
alone, divorce (16.3697, p <.01) and importance of a
career (4.3242, p <.05), were significant predictors of
F052. These two variables were still significant at the
same levels when they were entered into another multi-
regression analysis in a different entry order (see
Table XVII). Thus, they seem to account for a unique
portion (18%) of the variance of F052 scores.

The cross-validation of the derived regression equa-
tion for predicting F052 resulted in a significant corre-
lation (.3116, p <.01) between predicted and actual F052
scores. The coefficient of determination was .097. Thus,
approximately 10% of the variance of F052 scores for 103
subjects was accounted for by the sixteen variables in
the regression equation.

The regression equation that was derived from a
multi-regression analysis with nine variables did not
significantly predict FOSl scores for seventy-six stu-
dent subjects. None of the nine variables were,by them-
selves,significant predictors of FOSl. Another multi-

regression analysis with the same nine variables entered,

-95-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooom. mono. nmo. ommm. oonm. oSISonzono
. nonnoz on moonomoHO
ommN. enmm. one. onNm. onm. unoEnoennn Henxomonouom
mvoN. mmmm. MHm. Hva. mmoN.H noHueonom m.nonnoz
momN. oomm. oov. emHn. nvmn. noHneonom
HmnN. mVNm. noe. ovoo. onH. I om<
qmmN. HmHm. omm. NNmm. «moo.H noono nnnHm
mNmN. vNHm. omH. non.N moom.H nonoHHnO Ho nonsnz
omvN. ommv. mmH. oHNn.H move. nonnoz 0»
moonomoHO nnonnno
moNN. oono. mMH. momN.N onom.NI ooem
moHN. mmmv. mno. mmoN.m vva.N xom
moon. onmo. ooo. momm.o NooN.nI noonoo e no mononnoosn
nmoH. nHom. ooo. nmom.oH momm.oI oono>Ho
onenom m Ho>on m m oHneHne>
m oHoHanz ooneOHHHanm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NmOaH “UHUTHQ 0Q. COHMDHOCH 0mfl3nwmum Ghana-(HOE Cw. mGHDMflHMNV

noonanm mnHmo mHnHHen< nonmonmomIHanz mo manmom

uH>x MHm<B

-96-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I moo. oooo. I Hnnson

e no ooneunooEH

I I NNo. nooo. I nonneosooo m.nonnen

noHnenom on» nH noz moHneHne>

mmmN. ova. oHo. Nomo. oHoH. I noHneonom m.nonuem

omom. nnom. ooo. nooo. omon. ooIoonzono

nonnee On moonomoHO

mNmN. ooom. Non. ammo. NNHm. I nonuem on

moonomoHO nnonnnu

nHmN. Hoom. an. nooH. nmnm. I noHneonooo m.nonuoz

onenom m Ho>on h m oHneHne>
m oHQHanz ooneOHmHanm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nmom nOHoonm on nonnHonH omHsooum one3noe nH noHneHne>

noounmnm onHmo mHoHHenn nonmonoomIHanz Ho manmom

-.unOU-

uH>x mHmGB

-97-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«mom. Noam. mam. omoo. ammo. L xaaemm m we muamuuomea
«new. amam. mum. mao~.a mama. I mm¢
mmmm. amam. amm. aoaw. cum». coaumoswm
mmmm. mmam. mac. mama.q hema.aI ummumu a mo mocmuuom2a
NmNN. have. 5mm. mamm. oavm. unmenomuum amsxmmoumumm
omam. mama. mph. ommo. ”mam. I soaummsooo m.umnuoz
moan. mama. moo. moaa.m mnmm.m- mouo>ao
mooa. sham. mph. ammo. vuma. QDImcasouu
Hannah 0» mmmcomoao
mooa. opam. aaa. mmcm.~ ~omm.~L mama
mono. mhnm. baa. pmmm.a qhmv.~ xmm
wmmo. mama. ham. ~mmm.a mmmm.a “mono suuam
aomo. maqa. «mm. mmmm. amhm. “mayo: 0»
meGQmOHU HGMHHDU
mmao. mmma. mum. mmoc. mmom. :Oaummsooo m.umnumm
mumswm m Hm>m4 m m mannaaw>
m mamauasz cosmoaaacmam

 

 

 

 

«mom uoavmum ou Hmnuo omcwEHmumcwum Cw mGaflMfium>
ammunmwm mcflma mamxamcm GOammmummmeuanz mo apazmmm “HH

>x mqm¢8

-93-

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmm. pavm. mma. qaw~.~ nmmm.a cmucaasu mo umnssz

ampm. mamm. «a». puma. upon. I “magma 0»

mmmcmmoau uanuDU

ompm. mmmm. omm. ammo. swam. I coaumosom m.um:amm

mmhm. vmmm. am”. Name. mNaN. asImcazouo

Hmnuoz on mmmcmmOHU

«cum. mmam. mmv. mmam. nae~.a scaumosnm m.um:uoz

mumnvm m am>mq h m mannaum>
m mamauasz mocmowmwcmam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nmom HOflUmHm 0H HGUHO GGGMEHmflmmVUHm fifl mmHQMflHMNV

ammucmflm 02am: mamxamc¢ sawmmmamomIfluasz mo muasmmm

..ucouv

"HH>X wands

-99-

in a different order,did not produce either a significant
regression equation or any variables that were signifi-
cant predictors of F081. The cross-validation procedure
resulted in no significant relationship between predicted
and actual F081 scores.

Nine variables were entered into a multi-regression
analysis to compute a regression equation predicting
F082 scores for student subjects. A significant regression
equation (2.4958, p <.05) was calculated. The results of
the multi-regression analysis are depicted in Table XVIII.
The coefficient of determination was .29. Thus, 29% of
the variance of F082 scores were accounted for by the
nine variables in the regression equation. Only one vari-
able, GPA expected,was found by itself to be a signifi-
cant predictor of F082. GPA expected was also found to
be a significant predictor of F082 when it was entered
into another multi-regression analysis in a different
order. The results of the multi-regression analysis with
the nine variables,entered in a different order from step-
wise inclusion is presented in Table XIX. Interestingly,
in this analysis four variables were,by themselves,sig-
nificantly related to F082 scores. These four variables
were; GPA expected (12.9118, p <.01), education level
(9.8055, p <.01), time spent studying (4.1775, p <.05),
and GPA aspired to (4.0474, p <.05).

The cross-validation of the derived regression

~100-

equation predicting F082 on sixty-six student subjects
produced a significant Pearson product-moment correla-
tion coefficient (.2379, p <.05). The coefficient of
determination for the correlation of predicted and actual
F082 scores was .057. Thus, approximately 6% of the
variance of F082 scores were accounted for by the nine
variables in the regression equation for the sixty-six

student subjects.

Group and Sex Differences in Fear of Success and Self-Concept

 

Earlier, two 2 x 5 analyses of variance were pre-
sented (see Tables IV and V), and sex differences in
fear of success were discussed. Group differences in
fear of success were not discussed at that time. They
are first discussed here.

Since, for each analyses, there was no significant
interaction effect between group and sex, it was appro-
priate to look at the main effect of group. Both analyses
showed a significant main effect for group. This main
effect was investigated through two one-way analyses of
variance, groups being the independent variable and F081
and F082 being the dependent variables. The results of
these one-way analyses of variance are presented in
Tables XX and XXI.

The F081 and F082 means and standard deviations of
each group are presented in Tables XXII and XXIII,

respectively.

-lOl-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmm. omam. mam. Foam. mama. I mommaummxm ago: Hoaum
aomm. mmmm. mmm. mean. ommo.aI ago
ommm. mmmm. ava. mama.~ mmm>.v “one:
55mm. whom. Noa. ammn.~ Gmeq.aI museum moummo :a mum»
mamm. cane. mom. aamm.a ~vaa.mI ca cmuadmm «mo
aoom. mass. ooa. emaa.~ moaa. mcasosum gamma asaa
mmwa. smog. mac. pmoa.m amaa. .mcauaamaoom usmam msae
mmaa. beam. boa. amao.~ oaom.mI am>ma coaumosom
aomo. ammm. mmo. mooe.m m~o~.oa umuoomxm emu
mumswm m am>ma m m mannaam>
m maaauasz mocmoaaacmam
muomflnsm

ucmcsuw new «mom uoacmum on scamsaoca mma3mwum cumsuom cw
moanmwum> mcaz moan: mamaamc4 ceammmammmIauasz mo muazmmm

"HHH>X mam<8

-102-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmm. mmqm. mmm. mmom. mmmo.aI mac
mmmm. mmmm. moo. mmom.m mmom.mI am>ma coaumoscm
mmma. mmam. mqo. mmmo.m mmaa.mI om mmmadmm «mo
mama. mmmm. amo. maam.ma mmom.oa omuomdxm mac
mmmo. mmmm. mmo. ommm.m mmem.aI smumoum
wmammo :a mum»
mmmo. mamm. mma. momm.a mmmm.m momma
mmmo. ammm. mmo. mmma.e moaa. mcammsam
ucmmm mama
ammo. moma. mma. mmmm.a amaa. mcamaaaoom
ucmam mama
ammo. mmmo. mam. momm. mmmm. I mocmaumdxm xuoz uoaum
mamsvm m am>ma m m mannaum>
m mamauasz mocm0mmmcmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muomnnsm ucmcsum now mmom nomcmum o» Hmcuo cocaEHmumomum am
moanmwum> moaz momma mamxamc< scammwummmImuaaz mo mua9mmm

"xHx mamme

~103-

 

 

 

 

 

TABLB XX: Results of One-Way Analysis of Variance Between
Groups Using F081 as the Measure of Fear of
Success
Significance
Source 88 df MS F Level
Between
Groups 1323.3215 4 330.8304 3.6546 p <.Ol
Within
Groups 19553.3663 216 90.5248
Total 20876.6878 220 ’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE XXI: Results of One-Way Anlaysis of Variance Between
Groups Using F082 as the Measure of Fear of

 

 

 

 

 

Success
Significance

Source 88 df MS F Level
Between
Groups 2005.4464 4 501.3616 9.0690 p <.01
Within
Groups 12162.2692 220 55.2830
Total 14167.7156 224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-104-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE XXII: Group Means and Standard Deviations on F081
Group Mean SD

1 39.5056 8.4479

2 41.3889 10.7325

3 37.4667 11.7039

4 33.6875 11.3035

5 37.4516 6.5566
Total 38.6968

 

 

 

 

TABLE XXIII: Group Means and Standard Deviationscmi F082

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group ' Mean ' SD
1 29.5652 6.6849
2 34.9811 7.8532
3 24.8000 10.0655
4 33.7576 7.7299
5 28.8438 7.0890
Total 31.0356

 

 

 

 

Groups 1 and 2 scored significantly higher than Group
4 on F081, according to the Tukey post hoc procedure. How-
ever, according to the Scheffe procedure,only group 2 was
significantly higher than Group 4. There were no other
significant differences between group means on F081 utilizing

either the Tukey or Scheffe approaches.

-105-

TABLE XXIV: Results of Analysis of Variance on Group and
Sex Using Twenty-Five Items from the TSCS as

a Measure of Self-Concept

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Significance
Source 88 df M8 F Level
Group 3664.045 4 916.012 5.127 p <.01
Sex 15.757 1 15.757 .088 n.s.
Group
X Sex 1454.847 :4 363.712 2.036 n.s.
.
Within
Group 34663.195 194 178.676
Total 39797.844 219
TABLE XXV: Results of One-Way Analysis of Variance
Between Groups Using Twenty-Five Items from
the TSCS as the Measure of Self-Concept
Significance
Source 88 df M8 F Level
Between
Groups 390.5852 4 97.6463 1.8404 n.s.
Within
Group 10611.1709 200 53.0559
Total 11001.7561 204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~106-

Bartlett's Box F Test indicated that there was a
significant difference (3.458, p <.01) between groups
on the variance of F081 scores. However, Cochran‘s C
Test yielded no significant difference in variances
between groups.

The Tukey and Scheffe methods obtained the same re-
sults for the analyses of group differences in F082.
Members of Groups 2 and 4 scored higher on F082 than
members of Group 3. In addition, members of Group 2
scored higher on the F082 than members of Groups 1 and 5.

Cochran's C Test found a significant difference
(.3189, p <.01) between groups in the variance of F082
scores. However, Bartlett's Box F Test indicated no
significant difference.

Group and sex differences in self-concept were ex-
amined by a two-by-five analysis of variance. The
independent variables were sex and group, while the
measure of self-concept was the twenty-five items from
the TSCS (see Table XI). The results of this analysis
of variance are given in Table XXIV.

Since, for this analysis, there was no significant
interaction effect between group and sex, it was appro-
priate to look at the main effects of group and sex
individually. There was no significant main effect for
sex. However, there was a significant main effect for
group (which was further investigated). A one-way analy-

sis of variance between groups was done to examine group

-lO7-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

differences in self-concept. The results of this analy-
sis are presented in Table XXV.

The one-way analysis of variance revealed no signif-
icant difference between groups in self-concept. The
group means on self-concept are detailed in Table XXVI.
TABLE XXVI: Group Means and Standard Deviations on

Self-Concept
Group Mean SD
1 73.8023 5.6105
2 74.3333 6.0295
3 72.8462 4.3750
4 77.7586 13.4607
5 74.9310 5.7441
Total 74.5854

 

 

 

Both Cochran's C Test (.6016, p <.01) and Bartlett's

Box F Test (13.146, p <.01) indicated that the variances

in self-concept scores differed significantly between groups.

Stability of Fear of Success

 

The stability of fear of success was examined by

looking at the test-retest reliability of each fear of

success factor over approximately a nine week period.

The

 

-108-

test-retest reliability was only calculated for students
living in Owen Graduate Hall, Michigan State University
(Group 1). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
were computed between F081 and F082 test scores and re-
test scores on F081 and F082, respectively. For F081

the test-retest relaibility was .76 (p <.01), while F082
had a test-retest relability of .80 (p <.01). Thus, each
fear of success factor exhibited a high degree of sta-

bility over the nine-week period.

Summary

Fear of success, as measured by the F088, was found
to be comprised of two factors, F081 (Cost of Success),
and F082 (Importance of Success). Each hypothesis was
tested for each fear of success factor separately. For
F081, Hypothesis VI was supported, while Hypotheses II,
III, IV, V, VII, and VIII were rejected. For F082,
Hypotheses II, III, VII, and VIII were supported, while
Hypothesis IV, V, and VI were rejected.

Additional analyses examined the relationship of
twenty-two variables (eight of which were only applicable
to students subjects) to each fear of success factor.
Twelve variables, four for F081 and eight for F082, were
significantly related to one fear of success factor.
None of the twelve (or twenty-two) variables were sig-
nificantly related to both fear of success factors. For

eight of the twelve variables there was a significant

~109-

relationship between that variable and one fear of success
factor for females alone, but not males alone.
Multi-regression analyses with eighteen and nine
variables failed to obtain a significant regression equa-
tion predicting F081. A significant regression equation
predicting F082 was obtained for both eighteen and nine
variables. In several of the analyses the entry order
of the variables was a factor effecting the significance
levels of several variables. Less than 1/3 of the vari-
ance of F082 scores was accounted for by the eighteen
and nine variables separately. Cross-validation indicated
a low,but significant correlation between actual and pre-
dicted F082 scores.
The calculation of test-retest reliability for both
F081 and F082 indicated that each fear of success factor

was stable over a nine-week period.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

 

This chapter, in addition to discussing the results
of this study, will also focus on: methodological
issues and limitations, and recommendations for future

research.

Discussion

 

An important finding is that fear of success, as
measured by the F088, is composed of two factors.
These two factors, cost of success and importance of
success, are negatively correlated. Thus, the relation-
ship of variables of interest to fear of success has to
be discussed factor by factor. Previous studies of
the relationship of numerous variables to fear of success
reveal inconsistent findings. The gypothesis that in-
consistent findings result from different studies tapping
different factors of fear of success is supported by the
findings. Important variables such as sex and age were
related to one fear of success factor, but not the other.
In fact, there were no situations where the same variable was
significantly related to both fear of success factors. Finding

-110-

~111-

two fear of success factors explains why measuring fear
of success by individual reactions to different cues
varied (Weston and Mednick, 1970; Karabenik and Marshall,
1974). One cue may have tapped cost of success while
the next cue could have evoked importance of success.
The relationship between several variables and the
fear of success factors leads to some interesting inter-
pretations. Females may have been defining success as
having a family and developing close interpersonal rela-
tionships. Females who felt that having a family was
very important scored higher on cost of success (F081)
than females who did not. This pattern did not exist
for males. A review of the variables significantly
related to F081 indicated a pattern for females where
closeness to both parents, in the past and present, was
positively related to high cost of success. Again,
this pattern did not exist for males. Females who had
a close relationship to a male saw success as more impor-
tant than females who were less closely attached to a
male. This finding suggests that females who feel that
success is important may strive for social success
through attachment to a male. Another finding suppor-
ting the idea that females may not define success in
terms of academic and vocational accomplishments is that

females who rated a career relatively unimportant still

-112-

rated success important. These findings suggest that for
females success and social relationships are inexorably
intertwined. These findings may lead to the hypothesis
that females avoid paying the price of academic and/or
vocational success by emphasizing family concerns and
developing close interpersonal relationships. This
greater emphasis on social relationships and family
structure by women fearing the high cost of success is
a method of achieving satisfaction (success) from the
social sphere and thereby avoiding the negative features
of success. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) concluded that
". . .women have less confidence than men in their ability
to perform well in a variety of tasks assigned to them;
they have less sense of being able to control the events
that affect them, and they tend to define themselves more
in social terms" (p. 162). Even when women achieve
academic success, the reasons for achievement may differ.
Females may seek achievement for more personal goals
(Ladon and Crooks, 1976).

Divorced females saw success as more important than
females who had not been divorced. Marriage being
a prerequisite to divorce, the divorced group may
have contained a higher percentage of females who origi-

nally felt that marriage was important and desirable.

-ll3-

If importance of success is measured in social terms,
then divorcees would score higher having already achieved
the success of marriage at one time. Another explana-
tion is that the divorced females perceiving their di-
vorce as a failure might have increased their desire

for future success. These individuals might attempt

to compensate for their failed marriages by achievements
in academic and vocational areas.

Subjects whose parents were not well educated saw
success as more important than subjects whose parents
were well educated. Parents who were not well educated
may have stressed the importance of succeeding to their
children more than the parents who were well educated.

One puzzling finding is that the number of children
that a subject had was positively related to importance
of success. A possible explanation is that having chil-
dren increases the responsibility an individual feels
to support those children. Success, then, becomes
necessary in order to provide for a large family.
Another explanation is that a large family may be con-
sidered a type of success. Males may be unconsciously
displaying their virility by producing a large number
of progeny. For females, having a large family may
assure and confirm their role as a mother and home-

maker.

-ll4-

It is not surprising that subjects who had a high
GPA and those who expected high grades scored higher
on the importance of success. However, when GPA aspired
to was looked at, an interesting sex difference appeared.
Females who felt that success was important did not
aspire to as high grades as females who felt that success
was less important. Meanwhile, males who aspired to
high grades saw success as more important than males
who had lower grade aspirations. A possible explana-
tion for this strange finding could,again,lie in differ-
ent interpretations of success. For females success
was not defined in terms of a grade point average.

Subjects who were better educated had higher cost
of success scores. This may reflect a clearer perception
that life on top has its drawbacks. These subjects
can be seen as having already obtained a measure of
success, and, therefore, they may have some first-hand
knowledge of the price one pays for success. As subjects
become older the time left for achieving one's aspirations
lessens. Thus, the importance of achieving success in
life may increase as less time remains.

Fear of failure, as measured by the DAS, was posi-
tively correlated (.1535, p <.05) with F081, but not
significantly related to F082. Other researchers found
a positive relationship between fear of failure and
fear of success (Pappo, 1972; Griffore, 1976).

However, some researchers found no relationship

-115-

(Sorrentino and Short, 1974; Grinzko and Morgenstern,
1975). Whether fear of failure was positively related

or not to fear of success may have depended on which fear
of success factor previous research studies evoked.

Self-satisfaction, as measured by the TSCS, was
found to be positively related to F081 and negatively
related to F082. Again, inconsistent past research find-
ings may have been the result of these findings tapping
different fear of success factors.

The results of the multi-regression analyses indi-
cated that none of the variables were significant pre-
dictors of F081 either alone or combined in a regression
equation. FOR F082,only three of the variables were
significantly related to F082 when order of entry was
taken into account. While two significant regression
equations were derived for predicting F082 only a small
portion of the variance in F082 scores was accounted for
by the variables in each of the equations. Since the
majority of variables in the regression equation were
those that fear of suCcess theory postulated would
be related to fear of success, the finding of weak and/or
non-existent relationships challenges the theoretical
groundwork of fear of success.

Differences in fear of success between groups were
found. Group 2 (Head Start Staff) scored higher than any

other group on both fear of success factors. Group 2

-116-

differs primarily from the other groups in that all its
members are working while the majority of members of
every other group are not working. It appears that a
relationship between work and fear of success might
exist. One might hypothesize that individuals who are
working see botthhe cose of success as higher and the
importance of success as more desirable than their non-
working peers.

Group 4 (Head Start Parents) scored higher on
self-satisfaction than any other group. They had the
lowest percentage return rate of any of the groups.

This researcher feels that many individuals who would
have been in Group 4, but did not want to fill out the
questionnaire, are individuals with low self-concepts.
Thus, since Group 4 did not contain as many low self-
concept individuals as the other group, its mean was
higher. The mean of Group 4 could also have been
effected by the fact that this group had the largest
variance of scores.

Fear of success scores were quite stable. Group 1
was first measured during the beginning of an academic
quarter. Retest scores were then collected at the end of
the quarter. These collection times were deliberately
selected to maximize the effect of situational variables upon
the individual responding to the questionnaire. Yet the

stability of fear of success scores were quite high;

-117-

This indicated that fear of success scores were not
effected by the increased pressure and anxiety that

students face at the end of an academic quarter.

Methodological Issues and Limitations

 

Several shortcomings appear in this study. First,
the generalizability of this study is limited. Groups
were selected to obtain widespread representation
across several variables, i.e., age, education, work
experience, etc. However, because the groups were
arbitrarily picked rather than randomly selected, the
generalizability of this study is severely limited.

For example, although adults of all ages are included,
the majority of subjects were in their twenties, Thus,
generalizations to older populations is not warranted

due to their under representation in the subject pool.

There are many different measures of fear of success.
Unfortunately, not all of these measures correlate
(Griffore, 1976; Zuckerman and Wheeler, 1975). Thus,
the generalizability of the discussion of fear of success
in this study is limited by the instrumentation that
was selected by this researcher.

The measurement of self-concept in this study was
determined by this researcher. Self-concept is a

hypothetical psychological construct. Scales that

-118-

purport to measure self—concept may be measuring different
constructs. Thus, it is important to point out that

the definition of self-concept is twenty-five items from
the TSCS. Self-concept as measured in this study differs
from the measurement of self-concept using the total

TSCS or other instrumentation.

Over one-quarter (28%) of the subjects that were
asked to participate in this study declined. The char-
acteristics of this substantial group are unknown.
Whether this group differed from the subjects in this
study on any of the scales and/or variables being
measured is a relevant but unanswered question.

Although the same instructions and explanations of
this study were given to all the groups participating
in the study, the relationship of this researcher to
each group may have differentially effected responses.
Whether an individual was responding to a questionnaire
from the staff psychologist, a fellow graduate student
living in the dormitory, or a friend of the instructors
could be a factor effecting an individuals answers.

Factor analysis is far from an exact set of stan-
dard procedures. Decisions as to what factoring methods
to use had to be made. Likewise, decisions about which
items to delete from a scale were judgments of this
researcher rather than determined by set guidelines.

These pragmatic decisions were necessary, yet each

-ll9-

may have effected the final results.
Recommendations for Future Research

This study can be characterized as largely explora-
tory. The factor structure of fear of success and the
relationship of fear of success to selected variables
of interest was probed. Several important questions
and issues were raised from the findings. The value
of this study is not in its conclusion, but rather in
its heuristic strength. Several areas of future re-
search are suggested. One involves the continued
examination of the factor structure of fear of success.
Instruments measuring fear of success other than the‘
F088 should be factor-analyzed and the results of these
analyses compared across the various fear of success
scales. Thus, factors that are common to all measures
of fear of success can be determined.

The relationship of additional variables, not
included in this study, to each fear of success factor
would add to the accumulated knowledge of fear of success.
Two important variables are; achievement motivation,
and competition. The relationship of the motive to
achieve success to the cost of success and the impor-
tance of success suggests that the higher the cost
of success, the lower the importance of success, and an

increase in the motive.

~120-

Another avenue of fear of success research involves
adding new test items to the F088 scale. Items that
tap different areas of success, especially social,
would be incorporated into a new fear of success instru-
ment. Thus, the question of sex differences in the
meaning of success and the measurement of fear of success
could be explored.

This study has challenged the traditional view of
fear of success. The findings of this study have
questioned the theoretical paradigm of fear of success,
as originally conceived by Horner (1968). Future re-
searchers will have the difficult task of unraveling
the complexities of the nature of fear of success while
developing a theory that can account for the findings

of recent research studies.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Lewis Krash
E 526 Owen Graduate Hall
Michiran State University

‘121‘ April 6. 1978

Resident Room
Owen Graduate Hall

Fellow Owen Resident:

I would creatly appreciate your helpins me to learn more about adult
attitudes and values. Would you please fill out the attached quest-
ionnaire. Althouth it may look long, this questionnaire will only
take you approximately 20 minutes to fill out. In addition,I may
ask 5 more minutes of your time to respond to a shorter similar
questionnaire later in the quarter. Nothing else is required. This
research that I am doinc is part of the requirements for my doctoral
decree. Since you have been randomly selected from the Owen popula-
tion to receive a questionnaire. your response is very important to
me. All responses will be kept confidential and you are not asked to
put your name or any identifyinz number anywhere on this questionnaire.
When you return this questionnaire. you can detach this cover letter
and consent form (please sian below) and return it separately. Thus
I will know that you have responded but not which response is yours.

After you have finished fillina out this questionnaire and sisned the
consent form would you please leave them in my box or at the desk.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thank you

ror you? cooperation. ’déf/r , .
. 2/’ -,
, I (A ‘2’ -..

Lewis Krash

CONSENT EDS"

 

i. I freely consent to take part in a scientific study being cor-
ducted by Lewis Krash MA. doctoral candidate, Department of
Counselinz, Personnel Services and Educational Psycholosy.

2. I have read the above letter and I understand what my partici-
pation will involve.

3. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in
the study at any time.

b. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict
confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrict-
ions. results of this study will be made available to me at my request.

5. I understand that my participation in this study does not quarantee
any beneficial results to me.

6. I understand that, at my request. I can receive additional eXpla-
nation of the study after my participation is completed.

Sisned

 

Date

 

Lewis Krash

E 526 Owen Graduate Hall

Michiaan State University
‘122- E. Lansina. Michiaan 08924

Dear Student:

I would creatly appreciate your helpinz me to learn more about adult
attitudes and values. Would you please fill out the attached quest-
ionnaire. Althouzh it may look lone. this questionnaire will only
take you approximately 20 minutes to fill out. This research that I
am doina is part of the requirements for my doctoral decree and your
participation is very important to me. All responses will be kept
confidential and you are not required to put your name or any identi-
fyinv numbers anywhere on this questionnaire. When you return this
questionnaire. you can detach this cover letter and consent form
(please sian below) and return it separately. Thus I will know that
you have responded but not which response is yours.

Thank you for your cooperation. - /,: /;/ _,>f

_,;;!—~_~a/" €:**s-*1.Q:;

Lewis Krash

CONSENT OCR"

i. I freely consent to take part in a scientific study beinc con-
ducted by Lewis Krash MA. doctoral candidate. Department of
Counselina. Personnel Services and Educational Psychology. Michi-
oan State University.

2. I have read the above letter and I understand what my participation
will involve.

3. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in
the study at any time.

3. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict
confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these re-
strictions. results of this study will be made available to me
at my request.

<. I understand that my participation in this study does not zuarantee
any beneficial results to me.

‘. I understand that. at my request. I can receive additional ex-
planation of the study after my participation is completed.

Sianed

 

Date

 

Democraphlc Information -123-

1. 59X! Male Female ?. Date of Birth: _ _ / _ _ / _ _
mo. day year

3. 0.8. Citizen: Yes No b. Race: White Black Other

 

S. Educational Level: ____JUnderaraduate ._____Ph.D. candidate
_____NA candidate _____Professiona] (MD.DC. etc.)
_____Post-Doc ‘____;Other
4. Richest Decree Obtained:
7. Academic Department:
9. ”afior Area of Study:
0. Veer in Program: ____Pirst‘____Second‘___;Third ____Vourth ___Qver Pourt’
1”. Current Marital Status: ____Sinzle ____Married
11. Previously divorced: ____Yes ____No

19. No. of Children. if any:

13. Are YOU:
r"ormally encased

Datinc one person reaularly with informal plans for
a future committment

Datinz one person regularly with no informal plans
for a future committment

Not datine any one person reqularly

1“. "eye you ever had a full time job (exclude any position held for
loss than one year):
Yes No

-124-

Family Backvround Information

What is (or was. if retired) your father's occupation?

What is (or was. if retired) your mother's occupation?

How old were you when she beaan workina?

Has she worked steadily since then (exclusive of periods of
unemployment of less than one year) ?

What is your father's educational attainment?
___Less than hich school ___MA. MS
___hiah school ___Ph.D.
___8A.BS ___Professional (MD.JD.DDS.etc.)
___pther (please specify)
What is your mother's educational attainment?
___Less than Hioh school ___NA.MS
___hiah school ___Ph.D.
___BA.BS . ___Professional (MD.JD.DDS.etc.)
__;0ther (please Specify)
Number of:
Older brothers_____
Older Sisters
Youneer brothers

Younser sisters

-125-

Doepond to the next items by circling one of the responses. 1 to 7.

A response of 1 indicates that you strongly disagree with the state-
ment. and a response of 7 indicates that you strengly agree.

If either parent is deceased. write deceased next to the appropiate
item and leave response blank if you are unable to respond.

1. I felt close to my father while growing up.

i 2 3 LI 5 6 7
strong undecided strong
Ligagreement agreement

2. I feel close to my father now.

1 2 3 h 5 6 7
3. I felt close to my mother growing up.

i 2 3 I: 5 6 7
b. I feel close to my mother now.

1 2 3 U 5 6 7
5. I feel that it is important to have a career.

1 2 3 U 5 6 7
6. I feel that having one's own family is important.

1 2 3 h 5 6 7

What is your current grade point average (GPA)? Please respond to
tho ”queSt tenth, 108023040 A=ou00o g: 3.0. C: 200' D: 1.0, F: 0.0.

What grade point average do you realistically eXpect to get this
tern?

What grade point average would please you (for this term)?

During the average week (over the term) how many hours-do you spend
studying?

During the average week how many hours do you spend socializing?

-126-
Self Description Inventory

"he followina statements are to help you describe yourself as you see
vourself. Please respond to them as if you were describing yourself
to yourself. Read each statement carefully: then select one of the
'iv- responses listed below by circling the appropiate number:

Completely Mostly Partly I-'alse Mostly Completely
False False and True True
Partly True
1 2 3 h 5

i. I am neither too short nor too tall.
1 2 3 h 5
2. I don't feel as well as I should.

1 2 3 h

\n

3. I should have more sex appeal.

1 2 3 ‘h 5
U. I am as religious as I want to be.

1 2 3 h c

‘. I wish I could be more trustworthy.

1 2 3 u 5
‘. I shouldn't tell so many lies.

1 2 3 u 5
7. T em as smart as I want to be.

1 2 3 h 5
9. I am not the person I would like to be.

1 2 3 h 5
0. I wish I didn't give up as easily as I do.

1 2 3 h 5

10. I treat my parents as well as I should(use past tense if parents
are deceased).

1 2 3 h 5
11. I am too sensitive to things my family say.

1 2 3 h 5

14.

1‘.

17.

1f“

70.

21.

??.

23.

2h.

24.

-127-

should love my family more.
2 3 1*
am satisfied with the way I treat other people.
2 3 u
should be more polite to others.
2 3 u
ought to get along better with people.
2 3 h
am neither too thin nor too fat.
2 3 u
like my looks Just the way they are.
2 3 a
would like to change some parts of my body.
2 3 u
am satisfied with my moral behavior.
2 3 L.
am satisfied with my relationship to God.
2 3 z.
ought to go to church(synagogue. etc.) more.
2 3 h
am satisfied to be Just what I am.
7- 3 u
am Just as nice as I should he.
2 3 h
despise myself.
2 3 n
am satisfied with my family relationships.
2 3 h

24.

27.

2Q.

2Q.

30.

*4 r4 i4 H' vi rd .4

understand my family as well as I should.

2

3

-128-

should trust my family more.

2

3

am as sociable as I want to be.

2

try to please others. but I don't overdo it.

2

am no good at all from a social standpoint.

2

3

3

’3

n

u

h

h

-129-

IWQTPNCTIONS: Read each statement and set of alternatives carefully.
Then select the answer which best describes your own actual feelings

or behavior and circle the letter that corresponds to the alternative
you have selected for that particular item.

h.

. b.

Please answer ALL items. giving only one response for each.

Nervousness while taking a test or exam hinders me from doing well.
a. always

b. often

c. sometimes

d. rarely

e. never

In a course where I have been doing poorly. my fear of a bad grade
cuts down my efficiency.

a. never

b. hardly ever

c. sometimes

d. usually

e. always

When I am poorly prepared for a test or exam. I get upset and do
less well than even my restricted knowledge should allow.

a. This never happens to me.

b. This hardly ever happens to me.

c. This sometimes happens to me.

d. This often happens to me.

.e. This practically always happens to me.

The more important the examination. the less well I seem to do.
a. always

b. usually

c. sometimes

d. hardly ever

e. never

During exams or tests. I block on questions to which I know the
answers. even though I might remember them as soon as the exam is over.
a. This always happens to me.

h. This often happens to me.

c. ”his sometimes happens to me.

d. This hardly ever happens to me.

e. I never block on questions to which I know the answers.

I find that my mind goes blank at the beginning of an exam. and it
takes‘me a.few minutes before I can function.

a. I almost always blank out at first.
I usually blank out at first.

c. I sometimes blank out at first.

d. I hardly ever blank out at first.

e. I never blank out at first.

-130-

7. I am so tired from worrying about an exam that I find that I almost
don't care how well I do by the time I start the test.

a.
h.
c.
d.

99

never feel this way.

hardly ever feel this way.
sometimes feel this way.
often feel this way.

almost always feel this way.

HHHHH

9. Time pressure on an exam causes me to do worse than the rest of the
group under similar conditions.

R.

Time pressure always seems to make me do worse on an exam than
others.

Time pressure often seems to make me do worse on an exam than
Others 0

Time pressure sometimes seems to make me do worse on an exam
than others.

Time pressure hardly ever seems to make me do worse on an exam
than others.

Time pressure never seems to make me do worse on an exam than
others.

0. I find myself reading exam questions without understanding them
and I must go back over them so that they will make sense.

a.
b.
C.
d.

a.

never

rarely
sometimes
often

almost always

10. When I don't do well on difficult items at the beginning of an
‘exam.it tends to upset me so that I block on even easy questions
lat“- one

a.
b.
Ce
do

This never happens to me.

This very rarely happens to me.
This sometimes happens to me.
This frequently happens to me.
This almost always happens to me.

~131-

ttitudes Inventory

INSTRUCTIONS: In this questionnaire you will find a number of statements.

For each statement a scale from 1 to 7 is provided. with 1 representing one
extreme and 7 the other extreme. In each case, circle a number from 1 to 7
to indicate whether or not you agree with the statement. This is a measure

of personal attitudes. There are no right or wrong answers. Please answer
all items.

1.

I expect other people to fully appreciate my potential.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Often the cost of success is greater than the reward.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 a 5 6 . 7

For every winner there are several rejected and unhappy losers.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The only way I can prove my worth is by winning a game or doing well on
a task.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 a S 6 7

I enjoy telling my friends that I have done something especially well.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 h S 6 7

It is more important to play the game than to win it.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 a S 6 7

In my attempt to do better than others. I realize I may lose many of my
friends.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 a S 6 7

In competition I try to win no matter what.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

-132-

A person who is at the top faces nothing but a constant struggle

to stay there.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 5 6
I am happy only when I am doing better than others.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 5 6

I think ”success" has been emphasized too much in our culture.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 5 6
In order to achieve one must give up the fun things in life.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 5 6

The cost of success is overwhelming responsibility.

Definitely
Agree Undecided
l 2 3 h 5 6
Achievement commands respect.
Definitely
Agree Undecided
l 2 3 A 5 6

I become embarrassed when others compliment me on my work.

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree

Definitely
Agree Undecided
l 2 3 a 5 6
A successful person is often considered by others to be both aloof and
snobbish.
Definitely
Agree Undecided
l 2 3 4 S 6

When vou're on top, ever one looks up to you.
) Y

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 5 6

7

Definitely
Disagree
7

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

-133-

People's behavior change for the worst after they become successful.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When competing against another person, I sometimes feel better if I lose
than if I win.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Once you're on top, everyone is your buddy and no one is your friend.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When you're the best, all doors are open.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7'

Even when I do well on a task, I sometimes feel better if I lose than
if I win.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe that successful people are often sad and lonely.

Fefinitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 A 5 6 7

The rewards of a successful competition are greater than those received
from cooperation.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

When I am on top the responsibility makes me feel uneasy.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is extremely important for me to do well in all things that I undertake.

Definitely
Agree Undecided
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

I believe I will be more successful than most of the people I know.
Definitely Definitely

Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

APPENDIX B

NON-STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Lewis Krash
-l34- E 526 Owen Graduate Hall
Michigan State University

April 6. 1978

uead Start Staff
uead Start
101 W. Willow St.

Dear

I would ereatly appreciate your helping me on some research that I

am doine on adult attitudes and values. Would you please fill out
the‘ attached questionnaire. This questionnaire will take you
apprnximately 15 minutes to completely fill out. In addition. I

may ask you at a later period to fill out another short questionnaire
(similar to the first)‘which should only take you 5 minutes or less.
”othina else is required. This research that I am doing is part of
the requirements for my doctoral degree and your participation in

this study is very important to me. All responses will be kept con-
fidential and you are not required to put your name or any identifyine
numbers anywhere on this questionnaire. You can detach this cover
letter and consent form (please sign below) and return it separately.
Thus. I will know that you've responded but not which response is yours.

After you have finished filling out this questionnaire would you please
leave it either in my box or on my desk. If you have any questions
please feel free to contact me. Thank you, for your cooperation.

;.
m w,"
t ~11

Lewis Krash
CONSENT FORM

1. I freely consent to take part in a scientific study beina con-
ducted by Lewis Krash MA. doctoral candidate. Department of
Counseling. Personnel Services and Educational Psychology.

2. I have read the above letter and I understand what my partici-
pation will involve.

3. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in
this study at any time.

u. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict
confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrict-
ions. results of the study will be made available to me at my request.

5. I understand that my participation in this study does not guarantee
any beneficial results to me.

6. I understand that, at my request. I can receive additional explana-
tion of the study after my participation is completed.

Signed

 

Date

 

Lewis Krash

-l35- E 526 Owen Graduate Hall
Michigan State University

Head Start Parent

Project Head Start

Lansing, Vichigan

near

I would greatly appreciate your helping me on some research that I am
doing on adult attitudes and values. Would you please fill out the
attached questionnaire. This questionnaire will take you approximately
1% minutes to fill out. In addition. I may ask you at a later period
to fill out another short questionnaire (similar to the first) which
should only take you five minutes or less. Nothing else is required.
This research that I am doing is part of the requirements for my
doctoral degree and your participation is very important to me. All
responses will be kept confidential and you are not required to put
vour name or any identifying numbers anywhere on this questionnaire.
vou can detach this cover letter and consent form (please sign below)
and it will be returned separately. Thus. I will know that you have
responded but not which response is yours.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thank you.

for your cooperation.
/ ' ’ 1
., /é9/ ‘9/
'. ’wfl . ' '1-‘1’ ”Le-é

Lewis Krash
CONSENT PORN

i. I freely consent to take part in a scientific study being con-
ducted by Lewis Krash MA. doctoral candidate, Department of
Counseling. Personnel Services and Educational Psychology,
"ichigan State University.

2. I have read the above letter and I understand what my participation
will involve.

3. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in thiS'
study at any time.

h. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in
strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these
restrictions. results of the study will be made available to me
at my request.

6. I understand that my participation in this study does not guarantee
any beneficial results to me.

6. I understand that, at my request. I can receive additional ex-
planation of the study after my participation is completed.

Signed

Date

 

Demographic Information

1. Sex: Male Female

30 Race! White

3. Sdncation:

high school completed

BA.RS

<. Current Marital Status:

6. Previously divorced:

9. If single. are you:

Q. Are you currently working:

Black

-136-
2. Date of Birth: _ _ / /

Other

Less than high school completed MA.MS
Ph.D.
Other
Single Married
Yes No

. Number of Children. if any:

Formally engaged

Seeing one person regularly with informal
plans for a future committment

Seeing one person regularly with no informal
plans for a future committment

Not seeing any one person regularly

r’ull Time Part Time

At Head Start Not for Head Start

-137-
Family Background Information

. What is (or was. if retired) your father's occupation?

What is (or was. if retired) your mother's occupation?

how old were you when she began working?

“as she worked steadily since then (exclusive of periods of
unemployment of less than one year) 7

What is your father's educational attainment?
___Less than high school ___NA. NS
___high school ___Ph.D.
___BA.BS ___Professional (ND.JD.DDS.etc.)
‘__Jnther (please specify)
What is your mother's educational attainment?
___Less than High school ___NA.MS
___high school ___Ph.D.
___BA.BS . ___Professional (MD.JD.DDS.etc.)
___Other (please specify)
Number of:
Older brothers_____
Older Sisters
Younger brothers

Younger sisters

~138-

t”napnnd to the next items by circling one of the responses. 1 to 7.

A. response of 1 indicates that you strongly disagree with the state-
vnent, and a response of 7 indicates that you strongly agree.

'If either parent is deceased.
item and leave response blank if you are unable to respond.

1.

I felt close to

1

strong

1 sagreement

?

I feel

1

I felt

I feel

I ”eel

I feel

2

close to
2

close to
2

close to

2

that it is impertant to have a career.

5

that having one's own family is important.

2

2

“V

“Y

"V

my

father

3

father

3

mother

3

mother

3

3

3

write deceased next to the appropiate

while growing up.

5

h

710" e

a
growing up.
u

NOW 0

u

a

u

S

5

6

6

7

strong
agreement

-139—
Self Description Inventory

The following statements are to help you describe yourself as you see
vouraelf. Please respond to them as if you were describing yourself
to yourself. Read each statement carefully: then select one of the
five responses listed below by circling the appropiate number:

Completely Mostly Partly False Mostly Completely
False False and True True
Partly True
1 2 3 4 ' S

1. I am neither too short nor too tall.
1 2 3 4 5
2. I don't feel as well as I should.

1 2 3 4

\l'i

3. I should have more sex appeal.

1 2 3 ‘4 5
4. I am as religious as I want to be.

i 2 3 4 S
<. I wish I could be more trustworthy.

1 2 3 4 5
6. I shouldn't tell so many lies.

1 2 3 4 S
7. I am as smart as I want to be.

1 2 3 4 <.
°. I am not the person I would like to be.

i 2 3 4 5
o. I wish I didn't give up as easily as I do.

1 2 3 4 5

10. I treat my parents as well as I should(use past tense if parents
are deceased).

i 2 3 4 5
ii. I am too sensitive to things my family say.

1 2 3 u 5

19.

13.

1‘.

1‘.

17.

la.

10.

21.

Z‘?

73.

24.

-l40-
should love my family more.

2 3 4
am satisfied with the way I treat other people.
2 3 . 4
should be more polite to others.
2 3 4
ought to get along better with people.
2 3 a
am neither too thin nor too fat.
2 3 4
like my looks just the way they are.
2 3 u
would like to change some parts of my body.
2 3 4
am satisfied with my moral behavior.
2 3 4
am satisfied with my relationship to God.
2 3 4
ought to go to church(8ynagogue. etc.) more.
2 3 a
am satisfied to be Just what I am.
2 3 4
am just as nice as I should he.
2 3 4
despise myself.
2 3 a
am satisfied with my family relationships.
2 3 4

\I‘

2'7.

30.

-l4l-
understand my family as well as I should.

2 3 4
should trust my family more.
2 3 u
am as sociable as I want to be.
2 3 L»
try to please others. but I don't overdo it.
2 3 u
am no good at all from a social standpoint.

2 3 4

-l42-
ttitudes Inventory

INSTRUCTIONS: In this questionnaire you will find a number of statements.

For each statement a scale from 1 to 7 is provided, with 1 representing one
extreme and 7 the other extreme. In each case, circle a number from 1 to 7
to indicate whether or not you agree with the statement. This is a measure

of personal attitudes. There are no right or wrong answers. Please answer
all items.

1.

I expect other people to fully appreciate my potential.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Often the cost of success is greater than the reward.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

For every winner there are several rejected and unhappy losers.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The only way I can prove my worth is by winning a game or doing well on
a task.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 a 5 6 7

I enjoy telling my friends that I have done something especially well.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

It is more important to play the game than to win it.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In my attempt to do better than others, I realize I may lose many of my
friends.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In competition I try to win no matter what.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 A 5 6 7

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

-14 3-

A person who is at the top faces nothing but a constant struggle

to stay there.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 S 6

I am happy only when I am doing better than others.

Definitely

Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 S 6

I think "success" has been emphasized too much in our culture.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 5 6
In order to achieve one must give up the fun things in life.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 5 6

The cost of success is overwhelming responsibility.

Definitely
Agree Undecided
l 2 3 4 5 6
Achievement commands respect.
Definitely
Agree - Undecided
l 2 3 4 5 6

I become embarrassed when others compliment me on my work.

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely

Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree
7

Definitely
Disagree

Definitely
Agree Undecided
1 2 3 4 5 6
A successful person is often considered by others to be both aloof and
snobbish.
Definitely
Agree Undecided
l 2 3 a S 6

When you're on top, everyone looks up to you.

Definitely
Agree Undecided

l 2 3 4 S 6

7

Definitely
Disagree
7

18.

19.

ZCL

21.

22.

23.

25.

26.

27.

-l44-
People's behavior change for the worst after they become successful.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

when competing against another person, I sometimes feel better if I lose
than if I win.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Once you're on top, everyone is your buddy and no one is your friend.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When you're the best, all doors are open.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7’

Even when I do well on a task, I sometimes feel better if I lose than
if I win.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe that successful people are often sad and lonely.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The rewards of a successful competition are greater than those received
from cooperation.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

When I am on top the responsibility makes me feel uneasy.

Definitely Definitely
Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is extremely important for me to do well in all things that I undertake.

Definitely
Agree Undecided
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I believe I will be more successful than most of the people I know.
Definitely Definitely

Agree Undecided Disagree
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Allen, J.L., and Boiven, M.R. Women's will to fail in a
disjunctive reaction time task. Bulletin of the
Psychonic Society, 1976, 8(5), 401-402:

 

 

Alper, T.G. Achievement motivation in college women:
A now-you-see-it-now-you-don't phenomenon. American
Psychologist, 1974, 19(2), 99-104.

 

Alpert, R., and Haber, R.N. Anxiety in academic achieve-
ment situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology: 1968, 47, 166-173.

 

Atkinson, J.W. An introduction to motivation. Princeton,
New Jersey: Van Nostrafid, 1964.

 

Baruch, G.K. The motive to avoid success and career
aspirations of 5th and 10th grade girls. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, August,
1973.

Baruch, G.K. Sex-role stereotyping, the motive to avoid
success, and parental identification: A comparison
to preadolescent and adolescent girls. Sex roles,
1975, 1(4), 303-309.

Berens, A.E. The socilaization of achievement motives
in boys and girls. Proceedings of the American
Psychological Association, 1972, 7, 273-274.

Bertinetti, J.F., and Fabry, J. An investigation of the
construct validity of the Tennessee Self-Concept
Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33(2),
416-418.

Bishop, J.D. The motive to avoid success in women and
men: An assessment of sex-role identity and situ-
ational factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Cornell University, 1974.

Breedlove, C.J., and Cicirelli, V.G. Women's fear of
success in relation to personal characteristics and
type of occupation. Journal of Psychology, 1974,
86, 181-190.

-l45-

-l46-

Brickman, P., Linsenmeier, J.A., and McCareins, A.G.
Performance enhancement by relevant success and
irrelevant failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1976, 33(2), 149-160.

 

Bright, M.V. Factors related to the traditionality or
innovativeness of career choices in black college
women. Unpublished master's thesis, Howard Univer-
sity, 1970.

Buros, G.K. (Ed.) The Seventh Mental Measurements
Yearbook. New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1972.

 

Caballero, C.M., Giles, P., and Shaver, P. Sex role
traditionalism and fear of success. Sex roles,
1975, 1, 319-325.

 

Catell, R.B. Factor analysis: An introduction and manual
for the psychologist and social scientist. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1952-

 

 

Condrey, J., and Dyer, 8. Fear of success: Attribution
of cause to the victim. Journal of Social Issues,
1976, 32, 63-83.

 

Cooley, W.W., and Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate procedures
for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley, 1962.

 

 

Council of Economic Advisors. Economic Report of the
President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973.

 

 

Dalsimer, K. Fear of academic success in adolescent
girls. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry,'1975, 14(4), 719-730.

 

 

Deaux, K., and Emswiller, T. Explanation of successful
performance on sex-linked task: What's skill for
the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 80-85.

 

 

Deaux, K., and Ferris, E. Attributing causes for one's
own performance: The effects of sex, norms and
outcome. Journal of Research in Personality, 1977,
11, 59-72.

 

DuBois, P.H. An introduction toypsychological statistics.
New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

 

Entwisle, D.R. To dispell fantasies about fantasy based
measures of achievement motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 1972, 77, 377-391.

 

-147-

Erikson, E.H. Identity youth and crisis. New York:
W.W. Norton, 1968.

 

Esposito, R.P. The relationship between the motive to
avoid success and vocational choice by race and
sex. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham
University, 1975.

Feather, N.T. Attribution of responsibility and valence
of success and failure in relation to initial con-
fidence and task performance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1969.

 

 

Feather, N.T., and Raphelson, A.C. Fear of success in
Australian and American student groups: Motive or
sex-role stereotype? Journal of Personality, 1974,
42, 190-201.

 

Feather, N.T., and Simon, J.G. Fear of success and causal
attribution for outcome. Journal of Personality,
1973, 41, 525-542.

 

Feather, N.T., and Simon, J.G. Reactions to male and
female success and failure in sex linked occupa-
tions: Impressions of personality, causal attribu-
tions, and perceived liklihood of different conse-
quences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1975, 31, 20-31.

 

Field, W.F. The effects of thematic apperception of
certain experimentally aroused needs. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1951.

Fisher, J., O'Neal, E.C., and McDonald, P.J. Female
competitiveness as a function of prior performance
outcomes, competitor's evaluation and sex of
competitors. Paper presented at the Mid-western
Psychological Association, Chicago, 1974.

Fitts, W.H. Manual: Tennessee self-concept scale.
Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1965.

 

Fitzgibbons, D.S., and Cutler, R. The factor structure of
the Tennessee self-concept scale among lower-class
urban psychiatric patients. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1972, 28, 184-186.

 

 

Freud, S. New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis.
New York: Norton, 1933.

 

Fruchter, B. Introduction to factor analysis. Princeton,
New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1954.

 

-l48-

Gearty, J.Z., and Milner, J.S. Academic major, gender
of examiner, and the motive to avoid success in
women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1975, 31,
13-14.

 

Grainger, B., Kostik, B., and Staley, Y. A study of
achievement motivation in two southern, non-co-
educational segregated colleges. Unpublished
manuscript, 1970.

Greenspan, L.J. Sex role orientation, achievement
motivation and the motive to avoid success in
college women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Case Western Reserve University, 1974.

Griffore, R.J. A study of the construct of fear of
success: The validation of its measures and an
extension of its nomological network. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1976.

Griffore, R.J. Fear of success and task difficulty:
Effects on graduate students' final exam perfor-
mance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1977,
69(5), 556-563.

 

Groszko, M., and Morgenstein, R. Institutional discrimi-
nation: The case of achievement-oriented women in
higher education. International Journal of Group
Tensions, 1974, 4, 82-92.

 

Halperin, M.S. Sex differences in children's responses
to adult pressure for achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1977, 69(2), 96-100.

 

 

Halprin, R. The motive to avoid success: Personality
and performance correlates in alone and group testing
situations. Unpublished honors thesis, Smith College,
1974.

Heilbrun, A.B., Kleemier, C., and Piccola, G. Develop-
mental and situational correlates of achievement
behavior in college females. Journal of Personality,
1974, 42(3), 420-436.

 

Hernandez, A.R. A comparative study of fear of success
in Mexican-American and Anglo-American college women.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School
of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, 1976.

-149 ...

Hoffman, L.W. Fear of success in 1965 and 1974: A
follow-up study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1977,345(2), 310-321.

 

Hoffman, L.W. Fear of success in males and females:
1965 and 1972. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1974, 42, 353-358.

 

Hopkins, L.B. Assessment of the motive to avoid success
in men and women using male and female cue charac-
ters. Unpublished master's thesis, Temple University,
1974.

Horner, M.S. Sex differences in achievement motivation
and performance in competitive and non-competitive
situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1968.

Horner, M.S. Women's will to fail. Psychology Today,
1969, 3, 36.

Horner, M.S. Femininity and successful achievement:
A basic inconsistency. In J.M. Bardwick, E. Douvan,
M.S. Horner, and D. Douvan (Eds.), Feminine
Personality and Conflict. Belmont, CA.: 'Brooks/
Cole, 1970, 45-76.

Horner, M.S. Toward an understanding of achievement-
related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues,
1972, 28, 157-175.

Horner, M.S., and Rhoem, W. The motive to avoid success
as a function of age, occupation and progress at
school. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan,
1968.

Hunter, J.E., and Cohen, S.H. Package: A system of
computer routines for the analysis of correlational
data. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
1969, 29, 697-700.

Jellison, J.M., Jackson-White, R., Druder, A., and Martyna,
W. Achievement behavior: A situational interpreta-
tion. Sex Roles, 1975, 1(4), 369-384.

 

Jones, A.F. Motive to avoid success, sex role, parental
role model, academic ability, and academic classifi-
cation: Predictors of coed college major. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University,
1977. .

-lSO-

Kagan, J., and Moss, H.A. Birth to maturity. New York:
Morrow, 1949.

 

Karabenik, S.A. Fear of success, achievement and affilia-
tion dispositions, and the performance of men and
women under individual and competitive conditions.
Journal of Personality, 1977, 45(1), 117-149.

Karabenik, S.A., and Marshall, J.M. Performance of
females as a function of fear of success, fear
of failure, type of opponent and performance-
contingent feedback. Journal of Personality, 1974,
42, 220-237.

Katz, M.L. Female motive to avoid success: A psychological
barrier or a response to deviancy. Unpublished
manuscript, Educational Testing Service, Princeton,
N.J., 1971.

Kresojevich, 1.2. Motivation to avoid success in women
as related to year in school, academic achievement
and success context. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1972.

Krishman, A. The relationship of motive to avoid success
and selected variables to resultant achievement
motivation in twelfth graders. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Kent State University, 1975.

Krussel, J.L. Attribution of responsibility for perfor-
mance outcomes of males and females. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1973.

Ladon, C.J. and Crooks,M.M. Continuing education for men.
Canadian Counsellor, 1976, 10(2), 83-88.

 

Lenney, E. Women's self-confidence in achievement settings.
Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84(1), 1-13.

 

Lockheed, M.E. Female motive to avoid success: A
psychological barrier or a response to deviancy.
Sex Roles, 1975, 1, 41-50.

 

Logan, D.D. Sex & race differences in fear of success.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, 1974.

baccoby,E.E., and Jacklin, C.N. The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University
Press, 1974.

 

 

-151-

Major, B.N., & Sherman, R.C. The competitive woman:
Fear of success, attractiveness, and competitor
sex. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, 1975-

Makowsky, V.P. Fear of success, sex-role orientation of
the task, and competitive condition as variables
affecting women's performance in achievement oriented
situations. Paper presented at the meeting ofithe
Midwestern Psychological Association, Cleveland,

May, 1972.

 

Mandler, G., & Sarason, 8.8. A study of anxiety and
learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1952, 47, 1663173.

Mead, M. Male and female. New York: Marrow, 1949

 

Mednick,M.T., & Puryear, G.R. Race and fear of success
in college women: 1968 and 1971. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44(5),
787-789.

Midgley, N., & Abrams, M.S. Fear of success and locus
of control in young women. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 19747 42, 737.

Monahan, L., Kuhn, M., & Shaver, P. Intrapsychic versus
cultural explanations of the ”fear of success"
motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1974, 29, 60-64.

Montmayor, R. Children's performance in a game and their
attraction to it as a function of sex-typed labels.
Child Development, 1974, 45, 152-156.

 

Moore, K.A. Fear of success: The distribution, correlates,
reliability and consequences for fertility of fear of
success among respondents in a metropolitan surve
population. Paper presentediat the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.,
August, 1974.

 

Moore, L.L. The relationship of academic group membership
to the motive to avoid success in women. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1971.

Moreland, J.R., & Liss-Levinson, N. An evaluation of
fear of success scoring. Unpublished manuscript,
Southern Illinois University, 1975.

-152-

Morgan, S.W., & Mausner, B. Behavioral and fantasied
indicators of avoidance of success in men and women.
Journal of Personality, 1973, 41, 457-469.

 

Most women fear success, doctor claims. National Enquirer,
1973, 47(23), 32.

 

Nicholls, J.G. Causal attributions and other achievement-
related conditions: Effects of task outcome,
attainment value and sex. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 379-389.

 

 

Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K.,
& Brent, H. Statistical package for the social
sciences: SPSS. New York: McGraw Hill, 1975.

 

 

O'Leary, W.E., & Hammack, B. Sex-role orientation and
achievement context as determinents of the motive
to avoid success. Sex Roles, 1975, 1(3), 225-234.

 

Pappo, M. Fear of success: .Atheoretical analysis and
the construction and validation of a measuring
instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University, 1972.

Parsons, J.E., Ruble, D.M., Hodges, K.L., & Small, A.W.
Cognitive-developmental factors in emerging sex
differences in achievement-related expectancies.
Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32(3), 47-61.

 

Patty, R.A. The motive to avoid success and instructional
set. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA., August,
1974.

 

Patty, R., & Ferrell, M.M. A preliminary note on the
motive to avoid success and the menstrual cycle.
Journal of Psychology: 1974, 86, 173-177.

 

Patty, R.A., & Shelley, H.P. Motive to avoid success: A
rofile. Paper presented at the annuaIimeeting of
e Southeastern Psychological Association, Hollywood
Florida,.l974.

Peplau, L.A. When do women fear successful achievement?
Unpublished manuscript, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1974.

Puryear, G.R., & Mednick, M.T. Black militancy, affective
attachment, and the fear of success in black college
women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1974, 42, 263-266.

 

-153-

Robbins, L., & Robbins, E. Comment on "Toward an under-
standing of achievement-related conflicts in women".
Journal of Social Issues, 1973, 29(1), 133-137.

Robison, K.A. Fear of success and future orientation..
Paper presented at the annual meeting ofithe American
Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1974.

Roby, P. Institutional barriers to women students in
higher education. In A.S. Rossi, and A. Calderwood
(Eds.), Academic Women on the Move. New York:
Russel Sage Foundation, 1973.

Romer, N. The motive to avoid success and its effect on
performance in school-age males and females.
Developmental Psycholsgy, 1975, 11(6), 689-699.

Romer, N. Sex related differences in the development
of the motive to avoid success, sex role identity
and performance in competitive and non-competitive
conditions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1977,
1(3), 260-272.

Schnitzer, P.K. The motive to avoid success: Exploring
the nature of the fear. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 1977, 1(3), 273-282.

 

Schultz, C.B., & Pomerantz, M. Achievement motivation,
locus of control, and academic achievement behavior.
Journal of Personality, 1976, 44(1), 38-51.

 

Schwenn, M. A study of fear of success in eighteen
Radcliff undergraduates. Unpublished manuscript,
Radcliff College, 1970.

Sorrentino, R.M., & Short, J.A. The arousal of fear of
success as a function of male vs. female role orien-
tation. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974,
8, 277-290.

Stein, A.H., Pohly, S.R., & Mueller, E. The influence of
masculine, feminine and neutral tasks on children's
achievement behavior, expectancies of success and
attainment values. Child Development, 1971, 42,
195-207.

 

Stericker, A. Fear-of-success in male and female college
students: Sex-role identification and self-esteem
as factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola
University of Chicago, 1976.

-154-

Stewart, A.J. Longitudinal prediction from personality
to life outcomes among college-educated women.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University,
1975.

Sturm, S.G. An examination of the motive to avoid
success, performance, locus of control, and role
orientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Tennessee, 1974.

Tangri, 3.8. Effects of background, personality, college
and post-college experiences on women's psst-
graduate employment. Final report, U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights, Manpower Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 1974.

 

Time, July 15, 1974, p.50.

Tomlinson-Keasy, C. Role variables: Their influence on
female motivational constructs. Journal of Counseling
Psychology: 1974.

 

Tresmer, D. Fear of success: Popular but unproven.
Psychology Today, 1974, 3(7), 82-85.

 

Tresmer, D. Research on fear of success: Full annotated
bibliography. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents,
1976, 6, 38, MS No. 1237.

 

Unger, R.K., & Krooth, D.M. Female rols_perception and
attitudes towards competence as related to activiém
in housewives. Paper presented at the meeting of the
the American Psychological Association, New Orleans,
August, 1974.

 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare/Education
Division. Digest of education statistics 1975.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Pfinting Office, 1976.

U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. The myth and the
realit . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1974.

Vacciano, R.B., & Strauss,P.S. The construct validity of
the Tennessee self-concept scale. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1968, 24, 323-336.

 

Veroff, J., McClelland, L., & Marquis, K. Measuring
intellectual and achievement motivation in surveys.
Final report, Office of Educational Opportunity,
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Project No. OED-4180, 1971.

-135-

Walton, J. Adolescent thinking and the fear of success.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University
School of Education, 1975.

Wellens, G.R. The motive to avoid success in high school
seniors: N-achievement shifts and the psychological
correlates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Illinois Institute of Technology, 1972.

Weston, P.J., & Mednick, M.T. Race, social class and
the motive to avoid success in women. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1970, 1(3), 264-291.

 

 

Williams, D., & King, M. Sex role attitudes and fear of
success as correlates of sex role behavior. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 1976, 17(6), 480-484.

 

Winchel, R., Fenner, D., & Shaver, P. Impact of coeducation
on "fear of success" imagery expressed by male and
female high school students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1974, 66, 726-730.

 

Wood, L. An investigation of the effects of subjects
sex, partner sex and competition on the performance
of an achievement related task. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York, Stony
Brook, 1974.

Zanna, M.P. Intellectual competition and the female
student. Report to the U.S. Department oleealth
Education and Welfare, Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1973.

 

Zuckerman, M., & Allison, S.N. The effects of the motive
to avoid success on performance and attribution of
success and failure. Unpublished nanuscript,l973.

Zuckerman, M., & Alison, S.N. An objective measure of
fear of success: Construction and validation.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1976, 40(4),

422-430.

 

Zuckerman, M., & Wheeler, L. To dispel fantasies about
the fantasy-based measure of fear of success.
Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82(6), 932-946.