ABSTRACT

PROJECTED SEX-BLAME AND RELIGIOSITY
IN COLLEGE MEN

by Edward J. Daly

College men who blamed a woman for sexual relations
(sex-blame projectors) in the course of a story completion task
were compared on a variety of relevant variables with other men
who did not complete the story in this manner. From the total
sample of 120 college men, 31 were classified as sex-blame pro-
jectors.

In exploring hypotheses derived from Alperson' s finding
that such projection in this population was associated with Catholi-
cism (p < .001), the participants were also asked to respond to the
Mosher Forced~Choice Guilt Scale, the California F-Scale of Autho-
ritarianism, the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, the Hurley Preferred
Qualities Survey, a variation of the Fichter scale of religiosity, and
to various questions about their background and socio—economic

level. They also wrote a short essay on the meaning of religion in

Edward J. Daly

their lives. Data were analyzed by XZ-tests and one-tailed Mann-
Whitney U tests.

It was found as hypothesized that the projectors had signif-
icantly lower self-concepts and felt significantly less sex guilt in
general than did the non-projectors. This is consistent with theo-
ries which hold that defensive reactions to transgression serve as
anxiety—reducers as opposed to theories which emphasize the impor-
tance of a harsh superego as a punisher for transgression.

Also as hypothesized, the projectors had more training
in religious schools and saw their parents, and especially their
mothers, as more religiously involved than did the non-projectors.

At variance with expectations were the findings that the
projectors were not significantly more authoritarian than the non-
projectors, did not view themselves as significantly more religious,
and did not experience less hostile or moral guilt than the non-
projectors. Only two men out of 120 projected blame for anger upon
a woman in their completions to another story stem which had a
hostility theme. A possible explanation for these findings is that
young men may be selecting from their religions only those pro-
scriptions which fit their current personality needs, while tending
to reject the religious establishment in general. Rejection of the

establishment was commonly mentioned in the religious essays. A

Edward J . Daly

supporting inference can be drawn from the ratings of personal
religiosity, where only 39% of the men rated their religious involve-
ment as active or regular.

The same kind of consideration may explain the findings
that, contrary to an underlying notion in this research, Catholic
men did not project sexual blame in significantly greater numbers
than non—Catholic men in general, although there was a strong ten-
dency in that direction. Further, some projectors were found even
among men of extremely divergent religious belief systems. Other
findings were that the Catholic men were not significantly more
authoritarian than the non—Catholics, and tended to score higher in
guilt and self—concept than that group.

A fringe benefit from this research developed from
attempts to cope with the frustration induced by the administration
of the group of personality questionnaires. In group de-briefing
sessions, the anger was elicited, and the men were told that they
could request that their records be destroyed. Despite assurances
that there would be no penalty for such action, and that research
credit would be given in any case, not one man made such a request.
Another finding was that the median self-concept of these men was
at the 20th percentile of the norms used by Fitts in his Tennessee

Self—Concept Scale.

Edward J. Daly

Suggestions were made for improving the current proce-
dures of sampling the student population from which the sample was

taken.

PROJECTED SEX-BLAME AND RELIGIOSITY

IN COLLEGE MEN
By

Edward J. Daly

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1968

To

Tim and Ann

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I don' t know how to measure the effect that many of my
friends have had on this project, and mentioning specifics reflects
only in a very pale way what they have given.

It is clear, however, that John Hurley has been so inter-
ested that in many ways he shared the labor. He also coped
beautifully with even my unclear anxieties in times of particular
stress.

It is also clear that Dozier Thornton and Norm Abeles
offered suggestions which made the research more meaningful and
more interesting than it would otherwise have been.

I know that Bill Kell' 5 value had less to do with specifics
and more to do with my awareness that he was with me and support-
ing me in the endeavor.

My wife, Marie, who typed her fingers to the bone some-
where along the way, was a source of constant help, encouragement,
and enthusiasm. She was especially helpful in questioning the ambi-
guities in the original draft, and so in forcing me to tighten the think-

ing in it .

iii

Dick Does and Mary Sue Larsen were my mind-reading co-
raters. Their obvious willingness to help made the asking easier.

Paul Laemmle and Karen Kamerschen made contributions
of which they may not be aware.

Finally, the unsung, and in many cases anonymous, heroes
of the piece, the SS, deserve special commendation for 1% hours of
uninterrupted giving of themselves.

All these people helped me, and I thank them for the giving.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION
II. METHOD

Subjects
Measures . . . . . .
Story Completion Test
Mosher Guilt Scale
Opinion Survey . . . . . . .
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
Preferred Qualities of Children
Family Data Questionnaire .
Religious Background
Procedure
Instructions
De-Briefing

III. RESULTS
Reliabilities

Ratings of the Sex Story
Ratings of the Hostility Story

Ratings of the Essay on Religious

Background
Hypothesis Testing
F-Score . . . .
Parental Religiosity .

Page
iii
vi

Vii

10
10
ll
11
12
13
13
15
15
15
16

18

18
18
18

20
21
21
22

Chapter

Personal Religiosity
Religious Education
Self— Concept
Sexual Guilt .
Hostile and Moral Guilt

Other Findings .
Association Between Religion and

Projection of Sex Blame

Background Variables
ReSponse Set . .
Preferred Qualities of Children

IV. DISCUSSION .
Summary of Hypothesis Testing .
General Findings
Religious Implications
A Divergent Finding .
Suggestions for Future Work

V. SUMMARY

REFERENCES .

APPENDICES

vi

Page

25
26
27
28
28
29

29
29
30
30

32
32
33
36
40
43
46
49

51

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Inter-rater Reliability of Religious Essay . . . . . 19
2. Personal Religiosity: Association Between

Self-Rating and Essay Rating . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Association Between Sample Groups and
Authoritarianism (F-Scale) . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. Perceived Parental Religiosity vs. Projected
Sex Blame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Perceived Parental Religiosity vs. Projected
Sex Blame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Perceived Maternal Religiosity vs. Projected
Sex Blame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Perceived Paternal Religiosity vs. Projected
Sex Blame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Years in Religious Schools vs. Projected
Sex Blame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Association Between Sample Groups and
Self-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Association Between Sample Groups and
Sexual Guilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Distribution of Religious Affiliations . . . . . . . 37

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
1. Additional Tables of Associations . . . . . . . . . 51
II. Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
III. Summary of Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In a recent study of expressive style in undergraduate
males, Alperson (1967) elicited completions to stories with depen-
dent, aggressive, and sexual themes. In this process she dis-
covered a group of men who completed the sexual theme by indicat-
ing transgression followed by projection of the blame upon the
female figure who was featured in the story stem. Of 27 males who
did this, 21 identified themselves as being Catholics. Of the 93
who indicated either withdrawal from the story situation, transgres-
sion with self-blame, or transgression without guilt, 11 were
Catholics and 82 were not. The association between declared Cathol-
icism and projected blame is statistically significant (X2 = 46. 5,

E < .001). There was no evidence of this kind of projection in
stories dealing with the expression of hostility, although anger was
often expressed toward a woman in the stories.

There are several ways of accounting for the necessity for
placing blame upon the woman in the fantasied sexual situation. We

could say, as Miller and Swanson suggest (1960), that the sexual

impulse, blocked in its expression, simply breaks through any resis-
tance to temptation in fantasy, and that the consequent overwhelming
guilt must be handled by such a primitive mechanism as denial, re-
pression, or projection. The projectors, according to this line of
‘ reasoning, would be considered high in guilt and in conscience devel-
opment. This is said to represent a well-internalized sense of guilt.

An allied explanation is that the guilt is not wholly displaced,
but that it is so great that it must be shared.

It is possible, however, to find other explanations. Sullivan
(1956) has described a kind of person who might use projection in
such an instance in his exposition of the paranoid dynamism, which
he sees as, "rooted in (1) an awareness of (obvious) inferiority of
some kind, which then necessitates (2) transfer of blame onto others"
(Sullivan, 1956, p. 145). He goes on to say that this constitutes a
paranoid slant on life, not a full-blown paranoid state. He does not
delimit in any way the etiology of the inferiority feelings, nor does
he Specify that the driving force behind the projection must be guilt.
It could be, alternatively, guilt, shame, fear, or anxiety aroused by
the realization of a damaged self-system. Moreover, Hoffman (1964)
cites evidence from research which involved free responses to trans—
gression stories that self-blame, or internalized guilt, is positively

correlated with experimental resistance to temptation, avoidance of

delinquent acts, and the development of moral judgment. If then,
one were high in guilt, he would not be as likely to transgress at all
as another person low in guilt. On the other hand, given that one
has transgressed, shame, fear, or anxiety could be sufficiently
intense to necessitate projection of blame, and these feelings are
generally considered to reflect a lower level of moral judgment than
is internalized guilt (Hoffman, 1964).

While externalization responses such as projection can
develop in various ways, the disparate number of Catholic boys who
displaced their guilt leads one to wonder whether the conscience of
these men in sexual matters is located in the Confessional. This
notion suggests a two-step process of displacement: first, as Miller
and Swanson (1960) have conjectured, the availability of confession
may reduce resistance to temptation; then, after transgression,
Catholic boys may very well fear the Confessional, and distort
reality in order to avoid censure there. This is consistent with
Kavanaugh' s declaration (1967) that, "In reducing a profound area
of human experience to a set of rules, we somehow manage to take
away the conscience of the young Catholic and substitute the sexual

l

hang-up.’ In this kind of person, projection of blame would be used

against the fear of external, rather than internal punishment, and it

would be expected to occur most in the sexual area, where no direct
expression is permitted outside of marriage.

In this context one might also consider the implications of
this prohibition from the standpoint of ego and superego development.
Ego functions improve, according to Sanford (1962, p. 278), "as
they are performed with success in increasingly difficult situations.
A major requirement is that tasks calling for a wide variety of ego
performance be assigned to the individual, but in situations that are
not so difficult or anxiety-provoking that he is forced to make use of

primitive defensive devices. "

He says further that, ”as the ego
develops, it becomes increasingly able to integrate conscience within
itself, taking over functions that once were performed automatically
in accordance with the training of childhood" (Sanford, 1962, p. 278).
Further, he sees authoritarian discipline as restrictive of ego growth
in that the ego is not given the opportunity for handling a variety of
situations. From this reasoning it is clear that ego and conscience
development in the sexual area are inhibited culturally, and that in
an authoritarian the sexual value system in particular may be poorly-
internalized. This effect should be especially pronounced in male

adolescents where it is pushed by changes in body chemistry and by

the male' 8 typical resistance to conformity.

Some research which seems particularly relevant to the
fear-induced projection of blame has been reported by Adorno (1950):
He found that the projection of taboo impulses and the presence of an
externalized superego are characteristics of ethnocentrics. Roth-
stein (1960) has since found the projection of sexual desires to be
true of authoritarian college men in an experimental situation.

Since it makes intuitive sense that ethnocentrism might, in
turn, correlate positively with the dogmatic severity of one' s reli—
gion, Adorno and others have investigated this possibility. They
found that Catholics are not significantly more ethnocentric than
Protestants, but that, in a small sample situation, middle-class
Catholic men were significantly more ethnocentric than middle-class
Protestant men. He also found ethnocentrism positively correlated
with regularity of church attendance and with parental religiosity.
Subsequently, Jones (1958) found that those who have high F-scores
are significantly more likely to be Protestant or Catholic rather
than Jewish or "none, " and to be significantly more likely to attend
church regularly. Byrne (1966) reports other research which indi-
cates an F—scale hierarchy from "no religious affiliation" at the low
end, through an intermediate area of Jewish, Methodist, Presbyte-
rian, and miscellaneous Protestant, to Baptist, Episcopalian and

Catholic at the high end.

Brown (1965) has found extrapunitiveness, another charac-
teristic of the authoritarian personality, to be significantly higher in
Catholics than in Methodists. Adorno also found suggestibility sig-
nificantly related to authoritarianism, and it is interesting in this
context that Mosher (1965) has found that males who showed little
sexual guilt on his Incomplete Sentence Test, were more influenced
by cues of fear-induction or fear-reduction related to the probability
of external punishment than were males who were high in sexual
guilt.

All these studies, taken as a group, suggest that Alperson' s
projectors of sexual blame may be a relatively pure sample of
authoritarian personalities. This would also be consistent with the
Piers and Singer (1953, p. 36) conception of guilt and shame, wherein
"guilt transfers the demands of society through early, primitive
parental images" and the subsequent social conformity is one of

submission, whereas shame can become a reSponse in the process

 

of comparing and competing with peers, and the social conformity

achieved will be essentially one of identification. Shame, rather

 

than guilt, would be the feeling of an authoritarian raised in an
authoritarian system. The process of comparing and competing has
been noted by Bronfenbrenner (1962) in the Soviet schools. As

fostered by any parochialism, and perhaps by parochial schools, it

could lead to the feelings of inferiority which Sullivan refers to as
well as to the desired opposite. This conclusion is particularly
interesting in view of the fact that religiosity and education in reli-
gious schools have been thought to contribute to conscience forma-
tion.
This has been a statement of some of the theoretical view—
points and research findings about peOple who use the mechanism
of projection. From this statement, eight hypotheses were formed
about the men who project sex blame in their completions to Alper-
son' 8 sex story. These hypotheses constitute the basis for this
research, and throughout them and this study, the term ”projector, "
when unqualified, means "projector of sex blame":
I. The projectors will have a higher F-score than the non—

projectors.

II. The projectors will have more religious parents than
the non-projectors.

III. The projectors will see themselves as more religious
than the non-projectors.

IV. The projectors will have attended church more regularly
than the non-projectors.

V. The projectors will have attended religious schools

longer than the non-projectors.

VI. The projectors will have a lower self-concept than the
non—projectors.
VII. The projectors will show less sexual guilt than non-
projectors.
VIII. The projectors will show less hostile and moral guilt

than the non—projectors.

CHAPTER 11

METHOD

Subjects

The sample of subjects was, insofar as possible, a rep-
lication of Alperson' 3 sample. This represented an attempt to
obtain the projection of sexual guilt which she observed. Therefore,
the 120 _S_s were men between 17 and 20 years old (that is, 17-0
months through 20-11 months), and from unbroken homes. They
were drawn from 166 male volunteers who were enrolled in a begin-
ning course in Psychology at Michigan State University in the Fall
and Winter of 1967-1968. That is, 39 of the volunteers who partic-
ipated in this research did not meet the specifications of the sam-
ple, and another 7 presented data which were unscorable in one way
or another. Only 8 of the 128 students who volunteered for Alper-
son' s study did not meet the sample criteria. In this respect the
present sample proved to be unexpectedly divergent from Alperson' 8

sample.

10

Measures

Story Completion Test

 

Four stories were used, of which only two were germane
to this study. One was a sex story designed by Bandura and Walters
(1959), as modified by Alperson for her college population. In this
story, the male hero is invited by the neighborhood "Brigitte Bardot"
to visit with her awhile. The completion was scored simply in two
ways: (1) Did the hero feel that he had transgressed sexually with
the girl; and (2) did the hero project his part of the blame for trans-
gression upon the girl? Both these conditions were necessary for
classification of a man as a projector in the Alperson study within
her criterion of a dependent style of expressing sexuality.

The second relevant story stem concerns aggression, and
was devised for this study. While Alperson did not report the pro-
jection of aggression, the stories which she used may not have been
good elicitors of it, and it was felt that a story stem analogous to
that of the sex story might be more effective. This story was
included in order to investigate the possibility that the projectors of
sex blame might also project hostility. It is in the nature of a pilot
study. The aggression story stem has no validity other than face
validity. No hypotheses rest on it. Two of Alperson' s dependency

stories were given to the Ss before the sex and aggression stories

11

in order to provide practice in writing story completions. These

completions were not scored.

Mosher Guilt Scale

 

Mosher originally developed this scale as a sentence com-
pletion test using stems and a scoring system derived from the
psychoanalytic conception of guilt. Subsequently he modified it both
as a true-false and as a forced-choice instrument, constructing
these variations to control for social desirability of the response.
In a rather extensive analysis of the three forms (1966) using a
multitrait-multimethod procedure, he found the forced-choice
method to be the most reliable and to have the highest convergent
validity of the three scales. It consists of 79 pairs of stems, 28 of
which are related to sex, 29 to hostility, and 22 to moral conflict.
These subscales can be used and scored separately or in combina-

tion with one another.

Opinion Survey

 

This was the third revision of the California F-Scale.
While this measure of authoritarianism was conceived by the Adorno
group (1964), the revision used in this particular study is that

described by Byrne (1966).

12

Tennessee Self-Concept Scale

 

Out of the wealth of information provided by the 100 ques—
tions of this 13-minute instrument, only two factors were scored.
These are called, by Fitts (1965), the Total P (Self-Esteem) score,
and the T/F (True-False ratio). The reported test-retest reliabili-
ties of these scores are 0.92, and 0.82 respectively.

The large body of data supporting the validity of this Scale
can be divided into evidence concerning content, discrimination
between groups, correlation with other measures, and changes in
score during the course of therapy. Fitts (1965) makes a convincing
case for this instrument in all these categories. The Scale does,
for example, discriminate (p < . 001) in the expected directions
between a group of psychiatric patients, a normative group, and a
collection of people judged to have well-integrated personalities.
That is, the Total P score was found to increase, and the T/F ratio
to decrease along this continuum. Moreover, these kinds of changes
were found to occur during the course of psychotherapy.

Persons with ”high Total P scores tend to like themselves,
to feel that they are persons of value and worth, to have confidence
in themselves, and to act accordingly. PeOple with low scores are
doubtful about their own worth; see themselves as undesirable; often

feel anxious, depressed, and unhappy; and have little faith or

 

13

confidence in themselves" (Fitts, 1965, p. 2). While extremely high
scores are said to be found only among very disturbed people, there
is a significant negative correlation (p < .05) between Total P and
every major MMPI scale except for Mf and Ma.

The T/F is meaningful as a result of the careful counter-
balancing of questions in the instrument. People with an affirmative

response set have a high ratio of true to false answers.

Preferred Qualities of Children

 

This instrument was originally designed by Hurley (1968)
to measure the extent of parental preference for conformity as
opposed to self-expression in children. §S in this study were asked
to rank order their preferences for the list of qualities in both a boy
and a girl of 8 years of age. No hypotheses are dependent upon this

instrument.

Family Data Questionnaire

 

Besides the usual personal data, this questionnaire elicited
specific information about socio—economic level, church and school
attendance, and perceived personal and parental religiosity.

The socio-economic indicators were the classifications of
father' s job and education cited by Miller and Swanson (1960, p. 62).

These authors claim the same multiple correlation, 0. 92, "between

 

 

14

occupation, education and our subjective ratings when we used the
multiple regression weights (0. 36 and 0. 22 respectively) from the
(Hollingshead and Myers) study in New Haven. "

The measure of religiosity is essentially that devised by
Fichter (1953), which is based on his study of white, Southern
Catholics, and which classifies Catholics as nuclear, modal, mar—
ginal, or dormant. He found that of the approximately 14, 800 SS
in his sample, 48% fell into the nuclear or modal categories, and
52% into the other two. His marginal group tended not to attend
religious services regularly, not to receive the sacraments, and
not to send their children to parochial schools. Their religious
thinking was characterized by beliefs in such practicalities as that
the end does justify the means, that God will understand a modified
morality, that the parishes should not be tightly-knit communities,
and that blind obedience to the church is not essential to salva-
tion.

In the present study, Fichter' s classifications of nuclear,
modal, marginal, and dormant are coded as "a, " ”b, " and "c, "
and "d" respectively. Since a few §S indicated that they had never
been exposed to any religion, their involvement was rated "0. "
This additional category was also used in rating the religious

essays.

15

Religious Background

 

Each S wrote a short essay on the meaning of religion in
his life. This was designed as a measure of religiosity independent

of that obtained in the Family Data Questionnaire.

Procedure

 

All data were obtained from groups of 10—26 SS in 1% -hour
periods. Individual numbered booklets containing the story stems,
Guilt Scale, Opinion Survey, Self-Concept Scale, Preferred Qualities
Survey, Family Data Questionnaire, and essay on Religious Back-

ground were presented in that order.

Instructions

 

The introductory verbal message was this paraphrase of
the instructions used by Alperson:

We are interested in finding out what men your age are like.
The booklet which you have just received contains four stories
which we would like you to finish. Read each story in your
booklet, then finish the story, starting where the story leaves
off. You have the rest of the blank page on which to write your
story ending. Be sure that you limit yourself to this one page.
When you have completed the first story, please indicate that
you are finished by raising your hand. We want to make sure
that everyone is through at the same time. This is not an
English class. Don't worry about spelling. There are no right
or wrong answers; you can say anything you want in your sto-
ries, and use any language you want. No one at the University,
besides the experimenter, will see your stories. Please read
the first story beginning and then finish the story, telling what

 

 

16
happens and how it turns out, and what the people in your story
are thinking and feeling.
Alperson' s procedure of limiting story completions to seven minutes,
and to one page of writing, was also used.
The other instructions appeared on the scales, and are

shown with them in Appendix II.

De—Briefing

 

Since some of the questions asked in this study were of a

 

highly personal nature, and since some of the choices posed by the
Guilt Scale are frustration-inducing, a rather elaborate de-briefing
procedure was employed. The various scales were numbered and
handled in such a way that they could be collated by Subject. There-
fore, it was not necessary to this study that any man sign his name
to any instrument. However, §S were told as they completed the
last instrument that there might be a follow-up study in this area,
and that if they wished to participate they could Sign their names to
the religious essay. Seventy-three out of the 166 men tested did
identify themselves in this way.
The actual de-briefing of each group took this form:
Thanks for helping me in this research. All of you will
receive research credit slips for your work here. But I know
that sometimes when you volunteer for these experiments, you

don' t quite know what you' re getting into, and that you some-
times come out wishing you had never got involved. So I want

 

17

you to feel free to refuse to let me use your materials if you
want to. All you have to do is tell me your wish as you leave,
and I' ll destroy them.

Now, if you have any questions about this study, or any

feelings left over from this session, or from parts of it, I' d
like to hear them.

In the absence of a response, further attempts were made
to elicit reactions. Only one group could not be persuaded to
respond. Most comments had to do with when and in what manner
results would be available. One criticism was made of the Self-
Concept Scale. All other assaults, and they were many, were
levelled at the Guilt Scale, and were handled, with apparent satis-
faction to the §S, by hearing and understanding the objections and by
emphasizing the realization that S' S own experience may have been
only a distant approximation to either of any particular pair of

choices.

Not a Single S requested that his materials be destroyed.

 

 

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Reliabilities

 

Ratings of the Sex Story

 

In 70 of the 120 stories, there was no doubt at all about the

 

rating. In most of these there was no transgression: the hero
simply said "hello" and walked away or he talked awhile, decided
that Sally was a nice girl, and made a date for another time. In
other cases there was transgression followed by either sheer delight
or accepted guilt. In a few stories the hero was clearly raped. The
remaining 50 stories, which were more difficult to assess, were
scored also, and then one of Alperson' s raters was asked to score
them independently. Forty—eight of the ratings were identical.
Alternate §S were substituted for the two other cases. In Alperson' 8

study, the co-raters reached 95% agreement in rating this same story.

Ratings of the Hostility Story

 

There were only two instances in which any part of the blame

was projected upon the girl friend, and both the §S involved also

18

19

Table 1. Inter-rater Reliability of Religious Essay

 

 

Involvement Rating Given by

 

Rater 1 Rater 2

 

14
18
28
38
43
47
51
52
78
86
89
91
104
106
107
117
118
125
127
129
130
135
138
140
142
147
149
154
160

 

OOU’U‘U‘OQOU‘QOWOOU'OOOU‘C‘OQOQQ-U'Q-Q-WO
OOOU’U‘Q—QONOOWOQWOD—OWWOOCLOOU‘QO-WO

 

 

 

 

20

projected sex blame. In the other 118 cases, anger was levelled
freely at the parents, and no attempt was made to even Share that
anger.

Ratings of the Essay on
Religious Background

 

 

The essays on religious background were rated on the
four elements of the scale of perceived personal religiosity and the
fifth element of no religion at all. As can be inferred from Table 1,
on a random sample of 30 essays 97% agreement was reached with
another rater on the involved versus non—involved dichotomy; that
is, on the combinations ab versus ch. Table 2 shows the associa-
tion (2 < .001) between self-ratings and the essay ratings of personal
religious involvement.

Table 2. Personal Religiosity: Association
Between Self-Rating and Essay-Rating

 

 

 

 

Self-Rating
Essay
R tin Totals
a g ab ch
ab 32 14 46
cd0 16 ‘ 58 74
Totals 48 72 120

 

 

 

 

2
X = 25.2 (p < .001) using Yates correction. 75%
agreement.

 

 

21

Hypothesis Testing

 

The X2 —test and the Mann-Whitney U test (Siegel, 1956)
were used as appropriate in order to avoid the assumptions of
interval-scales and homogeneity of variance implicit in the use of
t—tests. There is little reason to believe that the variance along the
dimensions in question among men who use one particular defense
mechanism is the same as that among those who use all others.
Then too, while Catholics may be thought of in some contexts as a
homogeneous group, the "all-others" category with whom they are
compared in this study can probably not be considered homogeneous
with respect to religious background or characteristics. Since all
hypotheses were directional, one-tailed tests were used in conjunc-

tion with the Mann-Whitney U-test.

F-Score

The hypothesis that projectors have a higher F-score than
non~projectors was not supported. In fact, as is Shown in Table 3,
the association was little better than that of chance. There was a
slightly stronger association between Catholicism and high F—scores.
However, the most significant finding in this area was a tendency
(p < .06) for §S to be more authoritarian (high F) if they rated them-

selves as religiously involved rather than uninvolved. This tendency

 

22

was stronger among Catholics, of whom 47% said that they were
involved, than among others, of whom only a third claimed involve—
ment. None of the nine Jewish men felt that they were involved in

the practice of their religion.

Table 3. Association Between Sample Groups and Authoritarianism

 

 

 

(F—Scale)

Compared Groups U Z 1-t:iled
Projectors vs. 1382.5 0.02 <50
Non-PrOjectors
Nzhhgiictfio‘lfcs 1631.0 0.68 <. 25
5231211: Eifii‘fifififil’is 252. 5 0. 88 <. 19
52313112 fi‘é’fffffoi’fgd 241- 5 1. 56 3. 06
11332152333: E‘S’El’ffoffgd 449- 0 1- 02 <. 16

 

 

 

 

Parental Religiosity

 

The hypothesis that projectors have more religious parents
than non—projectors found strong support. When both parents were

rated "b" (modal) or higher, the association between projection of

23

fantasied sexual blame and parental religiosity was statistically sig-

nificant (p < . 01). This is Shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Perceived Parental Religiosity vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

 

Perceived Parental Religiosity
_S_s Totals
< bb bb or higher
Projectors 8 23 31
Non-Projectors 49 40 89
Totals 57 63 120

 

 

 

 

X2 = 6. 77 (p < .01) using Yates correction.

Moreover, when the standard of parental religiosity is lowered to an

average of "b, " that is, to allow 'ac" scores, the association, as is

indicated in Table 5, is still Significant.

Table 5. Perceived Parental Religiosity vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

 

Perceived Parental Religiosity
§S Totals
< ac, ca ac, ca or higher
Projectors 6 25 31
Non-Projectors 44 45 89
Totals 50 70 120

 

 

 

 

X2 = 7. 36 (p < .01) using Yates correction.

 

 

 

24

Of related interest is the relative significance of maternal and
paternal religiosity. AS Table 6 indicates, the former is strongly
associated with projection (p < . 005), while Table 7 shows that the

latter is less clearly associated (p < . 07).

Table 6. Perceived Maternal Religiosity vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

 

Perceived Maternal Religiosity
§S Totals
a b c, d, 0
Projectors 17 10 4 31
Non-Projectors 22 35 32 89
Totals 39 45 36 120

 

 

 

 

 

 

X2 = 10.74 (E< .005) At (if: 2.

Table 7. Perceived Paternal Religiosity vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

 

Perceived Paternal Religiosity
§S Totals
a b c, d, 0
Projectors 8 15 8 31
Non-Projectors 16 29 44 89
Totals 24 44 52 120

 

 

 

 

 

X2: 5.42(p<.07)Atdf=2.

25

As is indicated in these tables, it was necessary to combine some
ratings in order to meet the requirements of the Xz-test. However,
if the data are not combined in any way, maternal religiosity is still
associated with projection of fantasied sexual guilt at the . 025 level
(X2 = 11.42, df = 4), while paternal religiosity is less-clearly
associated (X2 = 5. 88, df = 4, p< .25).

While these trends apply across projectors and non-
projectors of fantasied sexual blame, they are not nearly so signifi-
cant among the Catholic subjects as a separate group. The associa-
tion between parental religiosity and projection among Catholics is
somewhere between B < . 06 and p < .20, depending upon the criterion
of religiosity upon which the sample is dichotomized. The associa-
tion with maternal religiosity is in the same direction (2 < . 07), but
the association between perceived paternal religiosity and fantasied

projection of sexual blame is not as great as chance expectancy.

Personal Religiosity

 

The hypothesis of regularity of church attendance is sub-
sumed under that of personal religiosity. Of itself, the former is
said to be of restricted research value (Fichter, 1953), and so it
was not investigated specifically. While the evidence is in the

direction of support for the hypothesis of an association between

 

26

fantasied projection of sexual blame and reported personal religios-
ity, it does not reach statistical significance. As is shown in Appen-
dix I, this is true not only of projectors as compared with non-
projectors, but also of Catholic projectors compared with Catholic
non-projectors and of "other" projectors compared with "other"

non-projectors. It is also true whether the self-ratings or the essay

 

ratings are used as the measure of religiosity.

Religious Education

 

There was, however, an association (2 < . 05) between
fantasied projection of sexual blame and a history of religious edu-

cation, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Years in Religious Schools vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

 

Years in Religious Schools
SS Totals
Zero 1 or More
Projectors 14 17 31
Non-Projectors 60 29 89
Totals 74 46 120

 

 

 

 

2
X = 3. 93 (p < . 05) using'Yates correction.

AS is shown in Appendix I, this association was not nearly so strong

(2 < .25) among Catholic projectors as compared with Catholic

27

non-projectors, indicating that the finding under this hypothesis may
be an artifact of the prevalence of CatholicSamong projectors and of

the Catholic tradition of religious education.

Self-Concept

 

AS is shown in Table 9, the hypothesized association between
low self-concept and the fantasied projection of sexual blame received

considerable (p < .005) support.

Table 9. Association Between Sample Groups and Self-Concept

 

 

 

Compared Groups U 5.7: 1 “tifled
ggfiififigfjcfils 950. 0 2. 57 .005
girlhgfifiovhscs 1583. 5 0. 94 < .20
5:12:33: Eiii‘i-ffié’ficl’igs 207- 5 1- 77 < .04

 

 

 

 

Moreover, Catholic projectors were also found to have lower self-
concepts than Catholic non-projectors (p < . 04). On the other hand,
Catholics as a whole had somewhat higher self—concepts than non-
Catholics. The difference was not, however, statistically signifi-

cant.

 

28

Sexual Guilt

 

Projectors of fantasied sexual blame did Show less sexual

guilt (p < .04) than did non-projectors. This is shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Association Between Sample Groups and Sexual Guilt

 

 

 

Compared Groups U E: 1-tz:.)iled
Projectors vs. 1098.0 1.75 < .04
Non-Pr0jectors
Nzgigailsio‘lfcs 1448. 0 -1. 60 < .06
5231232 Eifiifiifificl’fgs 213. 5 1. 70 < .05

 

 

 

 

Catholic projectors were also found (_p < .05) to exhibit lower sexual
guilt than Catholic non-projectors. However, Catholic §S as a group

showed more sexual guilt (p < .06) than did the non—Catholic §S.

Hostile and Moral Guilt

 

Although the relationship between either hostile guilt or
moral guilt and fantasied projection of sexual blame was in the hypo-
thesized direction, the associations failed to reach statistical sig-
nificance. Relevant data are shown in Appendix I. The former

seems especially appropriate in view of the fact that only two of the

 

29

120 §S showed evidence of fantasied projection of hostile blame.
That is, there were only two projectors of hostile blame, and so the
sample was more homogeneous with respect to guilt scores than was

the case with sexual guilt.

Other Findings

 

Association Between Religion
and Projection of Sex Blame

 

 

 

Whereas Alperson found a clear association (2 < .001)
between Catholicism and the projection of sexual blame in her study,
this association did not reach statistical significance in the present
sample. There was, however, as is shown in Appendix I, a strong

tendency (p < . 08) in that direction.

Background Variables

 

As is shown in Appendix I, there was no statistical difference
between the projectors and the non-projectors of fantasied sexual
blame in socio-economic level, size of home community (urban vs.
rural), or age. Nor was there a significant difference on any of
these dimensions between the Catholic projectors and the Catholic

non-projectors.

30

Response Set

 

Since there has been some criticism that the F-Scale is
subject to reSponse bias (e. g. Byrne, 1966), the T/F scores of the
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale were compared with F-Scores. A
XZ-test of association revealed no Significant correlation between
F-Score and affirmative response set (X2 = 0. 52; p < . 50). This
is also shown in Appendix I Moreover, there were no significant
associations across §S (total or Catholic) between degree of religious

involvement (involved or uninvolved) and response set.

Preferred Qualities of Children

 

Chi-square tests of association were run between projectors
and non-projectors of fantasied sexual blame on the scores for eight
year old BOY and GIRL separately. No statistically significant dif-
ferences were found. Similar results were obtained when projectors
were compared with non-projectors on whether they scored GIRL
higher than BOY on the one hand, or equal to or lower than him on
the other. A comparison of Catholics with non-Catholics on the
scores of BOY and GIRL separately, also revealed no Significant
associations.

Across all SS, however, there was a preference (X2 = 25. 16,

B < .001) to score GIRL (SE: 27. 7) higher than BOY (i: 21. 6) on the

 

31

Good Slave versus Expressive Person Index. That is, the male _S_s
prefer more conformity and less self-expression in eight year old

girls than they do in eight year old boys.

 

 

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Summary of Hypothesis Testing

 

It was predicted that in contrast to the non-projectors, the
projectors of sex-blame would have more-religious parents, would
have attended religious schools longer, and would have lower self-
concepts and less sexual guilt. These predictions, which were
statedin Hypotheses II, V, VI, and VII respectively, found statisti-
cally significant support.

Hypothesis VIII, which predicted that the projectors would
Show less hostile and moral guilt than the non-projectors, received
some support, but it was not statistically Significant.

Receiving no statistically reliable support were Hypotheses
I and III (including TV), which made predictions about the relative
authoritarianism and personal religiosity of the projectors and non-
projectors. In general, however, those §S who rated themselves
toward the more-involved end of the religiosity scale did tend to
score higher in authoritarianism than those who rated themselves
lower.

32

 

33

General Findings

 

Results of this study support several of the theoretical
positions on which the research was based. One such position is
that of Mosher, who suggested an interaction between fear and guilt
in inhibiting unacceptable behavior. He found that SS low in sexual
guilt are more influenced than the more guilty SS by cues of fear-
induction and fear-reduction. This notion, which formed part of the
argument for Hypothesis VII, is supported here by the negative
association between sexual guilt and the projection of fantasied sex-
ual blame. That is, the low-guilt projectors can be seen as so
influenced by internal cues associated with fear, anxiety, or shame
that they were forced to rid themselves of the blame for transgres-
sion. Statistically fewer high-guilt SS were so influenced. Perhaps,
as Hoffman (1964) suggests, these latter SS tend Simply to avoid
transgression, both in fantasy and in fact. These findings also
Oppose the position of Miller and Swanson which argues that such
projection is the result of overwhelming guilt, and the results argue
for the use of projection more generally, as Sullivan suggests, as
protection against awareness of a damaged self-system.

Further support for Sullivan' S argument arises from the

finding that the projectors of fantasied sexual blame do tend to have

 

34

lower self- concepts than those who do not project this blame. That
is, Hypothesis V1 is also supported.

As well as these several theories handle these results, there
is a theory Similar to Sullivan's, which does a more explicit job of
unifying them. Based on prior work by Aronfreed (1966), Vogel
(1967) has conceptualized transgression responses on a continuum
from internalized to externalized responses. Guilt is handled in
this framework as a phenomenological feeling associated with certain
kinds of internalized responses. Aronfreed views both internalized
and externalized responses as learned in various ways and through
specific disciplinary techniques. Further, all these responses are
considered to serve the Single function of reduction of anxiety. In
this framework the hypotheses concerning guilt and self-concept
could have been rephrased in this way: Are adolescent men in a
fantasied non-detection sexual Situation more likely to use an exter-
nalized response (such as projection) if they are externalizers (e. g.
low in guilt) on the one hand or if they are internalizers (e. g. high
in guilt) on the other? It seems like no surprise at all that the
results should support the hypotheses as stated in this way.

From a slightly different viewpoint one can see that high-
guilty SS require such externalized defenses as projection to a lesser
extent than low-guilty SS because they can reduce their anxiety by

punishing themselves to some degree.

 

35

The projectors of sexual guilt in this study share character-
istics other than low sexual guilt and a low self—concept: that is, they
also see their parents, and eSpecially their mothers, as relatively
involved in their own religions, and they tend to have attended reli-
gious schools. These findings support Hypotheses II and V respec-
tively. The relative importance of these characteristics to the
prediction of the projection of fantasied sexual blame differs, how-
ever, for SS of high and low guilt. In comparison with non—projectors,
low-guilt projectors also have lower self-concepts, religious educa-
tions, and more religious parents, in decreasing order of difference
in percentage of occurrence. High—guilt projectors, on the other
hand, are differentiated from non-projectors chiefly by a negative
correlation between self— concept and authoritarianism, and then by
their religious educations and more-religious parents.

The low-guilt projectors are apparently those who feel the
greatest need for security. They show a slightly greater tendency
than their non-projecting counterparts toward the negative correlation
between self-concept and authoritarianism, but the low self-concept
is a far more important part of their syndrome. This is especially
true among Catholics.

High—guilty projectors, on the other hand, apparently fall

into two major categories; those who, like the low-guilty projectors,

 

 

36

have a low self-concept but also a greater identification with the
guilt-inducing authority, and those others who have perhaps rejected
the values of the guilt-inducer, but whose high, but new self-systems
are still so fragile that they must be protected by projection. More-
over, in view of the Sizeable number (9) of high-guilt Ss who do
project, it seems clear that despite self-punishment or guilt, some
anxiety remains to be reduced. Projection iS apparently used, there-
fore, as an anxiety-reduction, or ego defense, mechanism, but not
Specifically as a guilt—reducer. That is, it is not used as a defense

against having to punish oneself with a harsh superego.

Religious Implications

 

This study was undertaken with the notion that the few non-
Catholics who did project sexual blame in Alperson' 8 study might
belong to denominations having belief systems and structures similar
to those of Catholicism. A further notion was that the Catholics who
did not project blame might not be so devoted to their religion as the
projectors.

It is now clear that deSpite Alperson' S finding of a remark-
ably high association (2 < . 001) between Catholicism and the projec-
tion of fantasied sexual blame, this characteristic and the dynamic
elements underlying it are not the exclusive property of followers of

Catholicism. In fact, as Table 11 shows, almost as high a percentage

 

37

Table 11. Distribution of Religious Affiliations

 

 

 

 

 

Rokeach Non- a]
Denomination Scale Projectors . Totals . o
. Projectors Projectors
Ranking
Catholic 0 18 33 5 1 35
Armenian
Orthodox 1 1 O
Episcopalian 4 2 2 0
Lutheran 1 0 4 8 12 33
Presbyterian 14 4 8 12 33
Methodist 1 5 2 8 1 0 2 0
Congrega-
tionalist 1 1 0
Church of
Christ 3 3 0
Baptist 1 7 1 2 3 33
Protestant 1 1 1 1 0
Mormon 1 1 0
Jewish 2 7 9 22
Buddhist 1 1 0
None 1 8 3 3 0
Totals 3 1 89 12 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

of projectors was found in the present study among Lutherans,
Presbyterians and other groups as among Catholics. One ready
explanation might be that these belief systems are Similar in some
way. Rokeach (1960), however, has ranked religions along an 18-
point continuum of belief Similarity from Catholic = 0 at one end
I

through Baptist = 17 near the other. The non—Christian religions Ii
carry the scale to its completion. While the placement on this con- )
tinuum of the unranked religions is arbitrary, it is clear that the j
projectors in the present study almost span Rokeach' S belief con-
tinuum.

A larger sampling from the individual non-Catholic religions
would give a more reliable indication of the strength of these find-
ings.

Notably absent from among the projectors, however, were
those _S_S who said they had no religion or who designated themselves,
Simply, as Protestants.

While the religions of the projectors differ in belief systems,
they agree in general upon proscriptions against sexual pleasures
outside of marriage. Since this proscription is so general, why do
all SS not project the blame for sexual transgression? To begin, it
is clear in the story completions that many of the non-projectors of
sexual blame have already resolved this conflict area in a mature

fashion, at least in fantasy.

39

But what of those who have not? To answer this, one can
fall back upon that individuality in each man' 8 experience which leads
him to rely on one defense mechanism rather than another, and to be
more concerned about one area of feeling than another. At some
given time he may be concerned, for example, about dependency.

In order to protect himself against the threat of independence, he
might then emphasize in importance his church' S dogmas regarding
honoring his parents. On the other hand, if he has trouble control-
ling his aggressive feelings, he might espouse turning the other
cheek. That is, he is.able to extract from his religion whatever
dogma fits his dynamics, and most religions provide dogmas which
can be employed against having to feel the basic human conflicts.
While sexuality presents a rather common conflict, it is also clear
in the story completions that many young men use withdrawal or
denial to escape the conflict.

If there is so much reliance on the various churches to pro-
tect a man from his conflicts, why was there so little association in
this study between the projection of sexual blame and authoritarian-
ism? That is, why was Hypothesis I not supported? The relative
importance (P. < . 06 in Catholics) of general religious involvement
among the high F-scores might provide a clue here. College men

are in the process of rebelling in many ways, and it has been found

 

4O

(Sanford, 1962) that with few exceptions, freshmen who score high in
authoritarianism on their entrance examinations Show dramatic
decreases in F-Score during their college careers. Perhaps they
tend to hang onto those religious elements which serve a current
function and also to the old and useful defense mechanisms, while
objecting to the larger body of dogma or to the religious establish-
ment in general. ‘ This line of reasoning may also be employed to

explain the failure of support for Hypothesis III.

A Divergent Finding

 

While the present study tends to support Alperson' s finding
of an association between Catholicism and the projection of sexual
guilt, the strength of this association in the two studies is so different
as to require some consideration at this point. It is so divergent
that it could be expected to occur less than one time in one hundred
samples from the same population. This finding is surprising in
view of the fact that the samples were taken from the same course
at the same university less than 1% years apart. The criteria for
inclusion in the study were identical, the same sex story was used
in order to induce projection of blame, and one of the story raters
was common to both studies. It is true that the sex of the experi-
menter was different in the two studies, and it is also clear from

the considerably greater number of rejected SS (39 vs. 8) in the

 

41

present study that the groups which volunteered to participate were,
somehow, different.

With respect to the data, the most striking divergence
between the two samples is in the notably lower ratio between Catho-
lic and non—Catholic non-projectors found by Alperson. It seems
unlikely that recent changes in the Catholic Church could have
already produced a change in the defense style of young Catholic men,
or that the sex of the administrator may have had such an important
differential effect; it seems more likely that this divergence may
have resulted from difficulties in sampling this population, and it is
difficult to say which sample is more valid.

At the end of Fall term, when about a third of the sample
was collected, all classes in Psychology 151 were held in Anthony
Hall, and research participants registered on a bulletin board there.
The research data were collected at OldS Hall, about a mile away.
Of the SS who participated at this time, 29% were discarded as over
age or as coming from broken homes. Fifty percent were Catholics,
and 12% were identifiable as non-Caucasian.

The remainder of the sample was collected at the beginning
of Winter term in two parts. At this time the classes in Psychology
151 were held at four separate locations, of which two were in the

Wilson and Fee dormitory complexes. Sign-up sheets were circulated

 

42

in these latter two classes, and the research data were collected in
those two complexes. Of the men who participated in Wilson Hall,
only 12% were discarded as over age or from broken homes, and
only 21% were Catholics. Of the participants in Fee Hall, 13% were
discarded and 60% were Catholics. No non-CaucaISians participated
in either of these complexes, although some of them live there and
attend classes there.

Besides these clear differences in the three samples, one
particular research finding leads to the question of how the element
of self-selection among the SS might have affected the results of this
study. It was found that while the range of scores was covered, the
median self-concept (P) of SS in this study was at the twentieth per-
centile of Fitts' normative group. This group is said to be over-
represented in college students, and Fitts (1965) found no significant
differences among the scores of the various demographic groups
which constituted his normative sample.

It is possible that students in Psychology 151 do have lower-
than-normative self-concepts. It also seems possible either that
potential SS with high self—concepts tend not to participate in research
projects, or that this study had a preferential "pull" upon students
with low self—concepts. While any argument here is conjectural, it

was found that deSpite the fact that participation in research is a

v-— —- u—n—h,‘ — .7
'0

43

course ”requirement, " 5% of the students in one Fall term lecture
section did not so participate, and that an additional 4% accumulated
fewer than the "required" number of research credits.

Fitts (1965) has found a low negative correlation between
self-concept and authoritarianism, and in View of the tendency in
that direction among the projectors in this study, it is possible that
the process of self-selection has also truncated the data on authori-
tarianism at the low end of the scale.

In view of these findings, it is suggested that the students
in Psychology 151 be assigned in a random fashion to various

research projects and that the requirement be a firm one.

Suggestions for Future Work

 

One result of this study which was identical with Alperson' S
is that no projectors of sexual blame rated themselves as without
religion. Moreover, in the present study no projectors listed their
denomination simply as Protestant. An interesting follow—up study
might be the identification of elements common to the Specific reli-
gious beliefs, rather than the religions, of the projectors.

An allied investigation could grow out of the previously
expressed speculation that the SS in the present study might be cling-
ing to those religious beliefs which serve a current function (and to

the old and useful defense mechanisms) while objecting to the larger

 

44

body of dogma or to the religious establishment in general. Such a
study could be made by identifying specific conflict areas from the
Edwards Personal Preference Survey and correlating these areas
with paraphrases of ecclesiastical thought ranked in order of per-
sonal importance. For example, a need for order might correlate

with "Cleanliness is next to Godliness. "

A need for abasement might
correlate with "Blessed are the meek," A need for dependence might
correlate with "Honor thy father and thy mother, " and so forth.
Another kind of study suggested by the present one is an
attempt to correlate early experiences with the tendency to project
sexual blame. One approach is the retrospective investigation of
parental postures in such areas as love, rejection, strictness, and
punitiveness. While an analysis of Alperson' 8 data reveals no sig-
nificant correlation between the projection of sexual blame and
retrospective feelings about parental love or rejection, Coopersmith
(1968) has found relationships between high self~esteem and parental
behavior characterized by a deep interest in the children, non-
punitive treatment, respect for the children' s views, and expected
adherence to well-defined rules of behavior. Such elements of pa-
rental behavior bear investigation especially in view of the high asso-

ciation in the present study (_p_ < . 005) between low self-concept and

the projection of sexual blame.

 

45

Further, it would be interesting to discover whether results
Similar to those of the present study would be found among older
college men and among married men. Young college girls, accord-
ing to an informal pilot study by Alperson, were extremely guarded
in their completions to a sex story. It is possible, however, that a
procedure such as group discussion of the value of research, of safe-
guards of anonymity, and of other elements of confidentiality might
reduce their defensiveness sufficiently to permit a meaningful inves-

tigation of the projection of sex-blame among them.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY

College men who blamed a woman for sexual relations
(sex-blame projectors) in the course of a story completion task
were compared on a variety of relevant variables with other men who
did not complete the story in this manner. From the total sample of
120 college men, 31 were classified as sex-blame projectors.

In exploring hypotheses derived from Alperson' S finding
that such projection in this population was associated with Catholi-
cism (B < . 001), the participants were also asked to respond to the
Mosher Forced—Choice Guilt Scale, the California F-Scale of Author-
itarianism, the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, the Hurley Preferred
Qualities Survey, a variation of the Fichter scale of religiosity, and
to various questions about their background and socio-economic
level. They also wrote a Short essay on the meaning of religion in
their lives. Data were analyzed by XZ-tests and one-tailed Mann-
Whitney U tests.

It was found as hypothesized that the projectors had signifi-

cantly lower self-concepts and felt significantly less guilt in general

46

 

47

than did the non—projectors. This is consistent with theories which
hold that defensive reactions to transgression serve as anxiety-
reducers as opposed to theories which emphasize the importance of
a harsh superego as a punisher for transgression.

Also as hypothesized, the projectors had more training in
religious schools and saw their parents, and eSpecially their mothers,
as more religiously involved than did the non—projectors.

At variance with expectations were the findings that the pro-
jectors were not significantly more authoritarian than the non-
projectors, did not view themselves as significantly more religious,
and did not experience less hostile or moral guilt than the non-
projectors. Only two men out of 120 projected blame for anger upon
a woman in their completions to another story stem which had a hos-
tility theme. A possible explanation for these findings is that young
men may be selecting from their religions only those proscriptions
which fit their current personality needs, while tending to reject the
religious establishment in general. Rejection of the establishment
was commonly mentioned in the religious essays. A supporting
inference can be drawn from the ratings of personal religiosity,
where only 39% of the men rated their religious involvement as active

or regular.

48

The same kind of consideration may explain the findings
that, contrary to an underlying notion in this research, Catholic
men did not project sexual blame in significantly greater numbers
than non-Catholic men in general, although there was a strong ten-
dency in that direction. Further, some projectors were found even 1.
among men of extremely divergent religious belief systems. Other

findings were that the Catholic men were not significantly more

 

authoritarian than the non—Catholics, and tended to score higher in g
guilt and self—concept than that group.

A fringe benefit from this research developed from attempts
to cope with the frustration induced by the administration of the
group of personality questionnaires. In group de-briefing sessions,
the anger was elicited, and the men were told that they could request
that their records be destroyed. DeSpite assurances that there
would be no penalty for such action, and that research credit would
be given in any case, not one man made such a request. Another
finding was that the median self—concept of these men was at the
20th percentile of the norms used by Fitts in his Tennessee Self-
Concept Scale.

Suggestions were made for improving the current proce-
dures of sampling the student population from which the sample was

taken.

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper,
1950. 1

 

Adorno, T. W. The authoritarian personality, Science Editions,
1964.

 

Alperson, Erma. Expressive style and perceived parental
acceptance-rejection. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Michi-
gan State Univ. , 1967. 5

 

 

 

Aronfreed, J. Punishment control of children' S behavior. Oral
presentation American Psychological Association, 1966.

 

Bandura, A. 8: Walters, R. H. Adolescent aggression. New York:
Ronald Press, 1959.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. Soviet methods of character education: some
implications for research. Amer. Psychol., 1962, 17.

 

Brown, L. B. Aggression and denominational membership. Brit.
J. Soc. 8: Clin. Psychol., 1965, 4(3), 175—178.

 

Byrne, Donn. An introduction to personality. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

 

Coopersmith, S. Studies in self—esteem. Scientific American,
1968, 218(2), 96.

 

Fichter, J. H The marginal catholic: an institutional approach.
Social Forces, 1953, 32, 167-172.

 

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

 

Hoffman, M. L. & Hoffman, Lois W. Review of child development
research. New York: Russell Sage, 1964.

 

49

50
Hurley, J. R. & Randolph, C. C. The attribute preference inven-
tory. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State Univ. , 1968.

Jones, M. B. Religious values and authoritarian tendency. J. Soc.
Psychol., 1958, 48, 83-89.

Kavanaugh, James. A modern priest looks at his outdated church.
New York: Trident (Simon & Schuster), 1967.

 

Miller, D. R. & Swanson, G. E. Inner conflict and defense. New
York: Holt, 1960.

 

Mosher, D. L. Interaction of fear and guilt in inhibiting unaccept-
able behavior. J. Consult. Psychol., 1965, 29(2), 161-167.

 

Mosher, D. L. The development and multitrait-multimethod matrix
analysis of three measures of three aspects of guilt.
J. Consult. Psychol., 1966, 30(1), 25-29.

 

Piers, G. & Singer, M. B. Shame and guilt. Springfield, 111.:
Thomas, 1953.

 

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind: investigations into the
nature of belief systems and personality systems. Basic
Books: New York, 1960.

 

 

Rothstein, R. Authoritarianism and men' s reactions to sexuality
and affection in women. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1960,
61, 32 9-334.

 

Sanford, N. The american college. Wiley: New York, 1962.

 

Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

 

Sullivan, H. S. Clinical studies in psychiatry. New York: Norton,
1956.

 

Vogel, B. S. Amoral responses to transgression. Unpubl. Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State Univ., 1967.

 

APPENDIX I

ADDITIONAL TABLES OF ASSOCIATIONS

?_’
o'fir - ."

 

 

52

Table 12a. Years in Religious Schools vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

Years in Religious Schools

 

 

_S_s Totals
Zero 1 or More
Catholic 3 1 5 1 8
PrOJectors
Catholic
Non-Projectors 12 2 1 33
Totals 15 36 51

 

 

 

 

X2 = 1. 22 (B < .25) using Yates correction.

Table 12b. Years in Religious Schools vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

Years in Religious Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS Totals
< 8Years 8 Years or More

Catholic 6 12 18
PrOjectors
Catholic
Non-Projectors 17 16 33
Totals 23 28 51
X2 = 0. 90 (E < .35) using Yates correction.

 

Table 13.

Moral Guilt vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

Moral Guilt Score

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SS Totals
< +7 +7 and Over
Projectors 19 12 31
Non-Projectors 40 49 89
Totals 59 61 120
X2 = 1. 85 (B < .10) using Yates correction.
Table 14. Hostile Guilt vs. Projected Sex Blame
Hostile Guilt Score
SS Totals
< +7 +7 and Over
Projectors 18 13 31
Non-Projectors 40 49 89
Totals 58 62 120
2 . .
X = 1.10 (B < . 30) usmg Yates correction
Table 15. Total Guilt vs. Projected Sex Blame
Total Guilt Score
SS Totals
< +9 +9 and Over
Projectors 19 12 31
Non—Projectors 40 49 89
Totals 59 61 120

 

 

 

 

X2 = 1. 84 (E < . 10) using Yates correction.

 

54

Table 16. Catholicism vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

SS Projectors Non-Projectors Totals
Catholics .18 33 51
Non-Catholics 13 56 69
Totals 31 89 120

 

 

 

 

X2 = 3. 34 (_p < . 08) using Yates correction.

 

 

 

 

Table 17a. Socio-economic Status vs. Projected Sex Blame
Socio-economic Score
SS Totals
< 1. 9O 1. 90 and Over
Projectors 15 16 31
Non-Projectors 45 44 89
Totals 60 60 120

 

 

 

 

X2: 0.044 (B<-90)

Table 17b. Socio-economic Status vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

Socio-economic Score

 

 

SS Totals
<2.2 2.2 and Over
Projectors 8 10 18
Non-Projectors 18 15 33
Totals 26 25 51

 

 

 

 

X2: 0.48 (B< .50)

 

 

55

Table 18a. Type of Home Community vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

SS Rural Urban Totals
Projectors 6 25 31
Non-Projectors 20 69 89
Totals 26 94 120

 

 

 

 

X2 = 0.13 (B.< .75)

Table 18b. Type of Home Community vs. Projected Sex Blame

 

 

 

SS Rural Urban Totals
Cathohc 4 14 1 8
Pr0jectors
Catholic
Non-Projectors 5 2 8 33
Totals 9 42 5 1

 

 

 

 

X2 = 0.40 (E< .60)

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 19a. Age vs. Projected Sex Blame
Age
SS Totals
< 18 yrs. 10 mo. 18yrs. 10 mo.
or Over
Projectors 12 19 31
Non-Projectors 44 45 89
Totals 56 64 120
X2 = 1.06 (g< .35)
Table 19b. Age vs. Projected Sex Blame
Age
SS Totals
< 19 yrs. 19 yrs. or Over
Cathohc 9 9 18
PrOJectorS
Catholic
Non—Projectors 16 17 33
Totals 25 26 51

 

 

 

 

X2: 0.01 (B<-95)

 

 

 

 

Table 20. True/False Fitts Ratio vs. California F-Score
T/F
F—Score Totals
< 1.04 1.04andOver
< 114 34 27 61
114 and Over 28 31 59
Totals 62 58 120

 

 

 

 

X2 = O. 52 (_p_ < . 50) using Yates correction.

57

Table 21a. Association Between Personal Religiosity and Projected
Sex Blame

 

 

Perceived Personal Religiosity

 

 

SS Totals
ab ch
Projectors 13 18 31
Non—Projectors 34 55 89
Totals 47 73 120

 

 

 

 

X2 = 0.135 (B<-75)

Table 21b. Association Between Personal Religiosity and Projected
Sex Blame

 

 

Perceived Personal Religiosity

 

 

SS Totals
ab cd0
Catholic 10 8 18
Projectors
Catholic
Non-Projectors 14 19 33
Totals 24 27 51

 

 

 

 

X2 = 0.806 (_13< .40)

 

58

Table 21c. Association Between Personal Religiosity and Projected
Sex Blame

 

 

Perceived Personal Religiosity

 

 

SS Totals
ab ch
Non.- Cathol1c 3 1 0 1 3
Projectors
Non-Catholic
Non-Projectors 20 36 56
Totals 23 46 69

 

 

 

 

X2 = 0.707 (B< .45)

APPENDIX II

MEASURES

 

60

STORY COMP LE TIONS

Instructions

 

We are interested in finding out what men your age are like.
The booklet which you have just received contains four stories which
we would like you to finish. Read each story in your booklet, then
finish the story, starting where the story leaves off. You have the
rest of the blank page on which to write your story ending. Be sure
that you limit yourself to this one page. When you have completed the
first story, please indicate that you are finished by raising your hand.
We want to make sure that everyone is through at the same time.
This is not an English class. Don't worry about Spelling. There are
no right or wrong answers; you can say anything you want in your sto-
ries, and use any language you want. No one at the University, be-
sides the experimenter, will see your stories. Please read the first
story beginning and then finish the story, telling what happens and how
it turns out, and what the people in your story are thinking and feeling.

Story 1

Jerry has been dating Susan, an extremely attractive coed,

for almost a year. He feels that they have much in common and is
seriously considering marrying her. Jerry values his mother' s judg-
ment and when Jerry tells his mother of his plans to marry Susan,
She remains silent and looks greatly disappointed. When Jerry asks
her what' S wrong, she informs him that Susan is not only of a differ-
ent faith than theirs but has a reputation for being promiscuous. She
suggests that he weigh his decision to marry Susan more carefully.

Story 2

Don admires his father and has always felt close to him.
When he graduated from college two years ago he went to work for
his father. His father was so pleased when Don joined his Realty
Company that he promised him that sometime in the future he would
hand over the business to him. Last week one of his father' s busi-
ness associates made Don a job offer--a full partnership--in a very
large and lucrative Insurance Agency.

 

61

Story 3

One night about 10 o' clock, Ted is walking home from a
friend' s house. As a general rule he is expected to be home by 11
on week nights. He sees Sally sitting all alone on the front steps of
her house. Sally is known as the girl in the neighborhood who looks
most like Brigitte Bardot. She does a lot of dating and has a reputa-
tion for being sexy. Sally asks Ted if he would like to talk with her
for awhile. She says that she' s all alone because her parents have
gone to Chicago for several days.

Story 4

Fred and his college sweetheart have been planning to work
this summer at the same resort. That way they can earn a substan-
tial amount of money and still see quite a bit of one another. Fred
and Barbara will drive up in his car and he will be able to keep it at
the resort. Suddenly, Fred' S parents, who have usually been pretty
reasonable, decide that it doesn't smell like such a good arrange-
ment. They have suggested to Fred that he work in town for a friend
of the family this summer instead. Fred and Barbara had a date this
evening, during which he mentioned his folks' idea. Barbara had an
uneasy feeling about it, and they decided that they preferred the
resort idea. Fred' s parents have waited up for them in order to set-
tle the issue. They are surprised that the young folks have rejected
their idea, and blurt out their suSpicions.

 

 

62

MOSHER F-C INVENTORY

This questionnaire consists of a number of pairs of state-
ments or opinions which have been given by college men in response
to the "Mosher Incomplete Sentences Test": These men were asked
to complete phrases such as "When I tell a lie. . . " and "To kill in
war. . . " to make a sentence which expressed their real feelings about
the stern. This questionnaire consists of the stems to which they
responded and a pair of their responses which are lettered A and B.

You are to read the stem and the pair of completions and
decide which you most agree with or which is most characteristic of
you. Your choice, in each instance, should be in terms of what you
believe, how you feel, or how you would react, and not in terms of
how you think you should believe, feel, or respond. This is not a
test. There are no right or wrong answers. Your choices should be
a description of your own personal beliefs, feelings, or reactions.

In some instances you may discover that you believe both
completions or neither completion to be characteristic of you. In
such cases select the one you more strongly believe to be the case
as far as you are conc—e_r_ned. Be sure to find an answer for every
choice. Do not omit an item even though it is very difficult for you
to decide; just select the more characteristic member of the pair.
Encircle the letter, A or B, which you most agree with.

1. When I tell a lie. . .
A. it hurts.

B. I make it a good one.
2. To kill in war. . .

A. is a job to be done.

B. is a shame but sometimes a necessity.
3. Women who curse. . .

A. are normal.

B. make me sick.

4. When anger builds inside me. . .
A. I usually explode.
B. I keep my mouth shut.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

63

If I killed someone in self-defense, I. . .
A. would feel no anguish.
B. think it would trouble me the rest of my life.

I punish myself. . .
A. for the evil I do.
B. very seldom for other people do it for me.

If in the future I committed adultery. . .
A. I won't feel bad about it.
B. it would be sinful.

Obscene literature. . .
A. is a sinful and corrupt business.
B. is fascinating reading.

"Dirty" jokes in mixed company. . .
A. are common in our town.
B. should be avoided.

AS a child, sex play. . .

A. never entered my mind.

B. is quite wide Spread.

I detest myself for. . .

A. my sins and failures.

B. for not having more exciting sexual experiences.

Sex relations before marriage. . .
A. ruin many a happy couple.
B. are good in my opinion.

If in the future I committed adultery. . .
A. I wouldn' t tell anyone.
B. I would probably feel bad about it.

When I have sexual desires. . .
A. I usually try to curb them.
B. I generally satisfy them.

If I killed someone in self-defense, I. . .
A. wouldn't enjoy it.
B. I'd be glad to be alive.

Unusual sex practices. . .
A. might be interesting.
B. don' t interest me.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

64

If I felt like murdering someone. . .
A. I would be ashamed of myself.
B. I would try to commit the perfect crime.

If I hated my parents. . .
A. I would hate myself.
B. I would rebel at their every wish.

After an outburst of anger. . .
A. I usually feel quite a bit better.
B. I am sorry and say so.

I punish myself. . .

A. never.

B. by feeling nervous and depressed.
Prostitution. . .

A. is a must.

B. breeds only evil.

If I killed someone in self-defense, I. . .

A. would still be troubled by my conscience.
B. would consider myself lucky.

When I tell a lie. . .
A. I' m angry with myself.
B. I. mix it with truth and serve it like a Martini.

As a child, sex play. . .
A. is not good for mental and emotional well being.
B. is natural and innocent.

When someone swears at me. . .
A. I swear back.
B. it usually bothers me even if I don' t Show it.

When I was younger, fighting. . .

A. was always a thrill.

B. disgusted me.

As a child, sex play. . .

A. was a big taboo and I was deathly afraid of it.
B. was common without guilt feelings.

After an argument. . .
A. I feel mean.
B. I am sorry for my actions.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

65

"Dirty" jokes in mixed company. . .
A. are not proper.
B. are exciting and amusing.

Unusual sex practices. . .
A. are awful and unthinkable.
B. are not so unusual to me.

When I have sex dreams. . .
A. I cannot remember them in the morning.
B. I wake up happy.

When I was younger, fighting. . .
A. never appealed to me.
B. was fun and frequent.

One Should not. . .

A. knowingly Sin.

B. try to follow absolutes.
To kill in war. . .

A. is good and meritable.

B. would be Sickening to me.

I detest myself for. . .
A. nothing, I love life.

B. not being more nearly perfect.

"Dirty" jokes in mixed company. . .

A. are lots of fun.

B. are coarse to say the least.

Petting. . .

A. is something that Should be controlled.
B. is a form of education.

After an argument. . .
A. I usually feel better.
B. I am disgusted that I allowed myself to become involved.

Obscene literature. . .
A. Should be freely published.

B. helps people become sexual perverts.
I regret. . .
A. my sexual experiences.

B. nothing I've ever done.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

66

A guilty conscience. . .
A. does not bother me much.
B. is worse than a Sickness to me.

If I felt like murdering someone. . .
A. it would be for good reason.
B. I'd think I was crazy.

Arguments leave me feeling. . .

A. that it was a waste of time.

B. smarter.

After a childhood fight, I felt. . .

A. miserable and made up afterwards.

B. like a hero.

When anger builds inside me. . .
A. I do my best to suppress it.
B. I have to blow off some steam.

Unusual sex practices. . .
A. are O.K. as long as they' re heterosexual.

B. usually aren't pleasurable because you have preconceived

feelings about their being wrong.

I regret. . .
A. getting caught, but nothing else.
B. all my Sins.

When I tell a lie. . .
A. my conscience bothers me.
B. I wonder whether I' ll get away with it.

Sex relations before marriage. . .
A. are practiced too much to be wrong.
B. in my opinion, should not be practiced.

As a child, sex play. . .
A. is dangerous.
B. is not harmful but does create sexual pleasure.

When caught in the act. . .
A. I try to bluff my way out.
B. truth is the best policy.

As a child, sex play. . .

A. was indulged in.

B. is immature and ridiculous.

When I tell a lie. . .

A. it is an exception or rather an odd occurrence.

B. I tell a lie.

 

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67

If I hated my parents. . .
A. I would be wrong, foolish, and feel guilty.
B. they would know it that' S for sure.

If I robbed a bank. . .
A. I would give up I suppose.
B. I probably would get away with it.

Arguments leave me feeling. . .
A. proud, they certainly are worthwhile.
B. depressed and disgusted.

When I have sexual desires. . .
A. they are quite strong.

B. I attempt to repress them.

Sin and failure. . .

A. are two situations we try to avoid.
B. do not depress me for long.

Sex relations before marriage. . .
A. help people to adjust.
B. Should not be recommended.

When anger builds inside me. . .
A. I feel like killing somebody.
B. I get Sick.

If I robbed a bank. . .
A. I would live like a king.
B. I should get caught.

Masturbation. . .
A. is a habit that should be controlled.
B. is very common.

After an argument. . .

A. I feel proud in victory and understanding in defeat.
B. I am sorry and see no reason to stay mad.

Sin and failure. . .

A. are the works of the Devil.

B. have not bothered me yet.

If I committed a homosexual act. . .

A. it would be my business.

B. it would show weakness in me.

When anger builds inside me. . .
A. I always express. it.
B. I usually take it out on myself.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

68

Prostitution. . .
A. is a Sign of moral decay in society.
B. is acceptable and needed by some people.

Capital punishment. . .
A. should be abolished.

B. is a necessity.

Sex relations before marriage. . .

A. are O.K. if both partners are in agreement.
B. are dangerous.

I tried to make amends. . .

A. for all my misdeeds, but I can't forget them.

B. but not if I could help it.

After a childhood fight, I felt. . .
A. sorry.
B. mad and irritable.

I detest myself for. . .
A. nothing, and only rarely dislike myself.
B. thoughts I sometime have.

Arguments leave me feeling. . .
A. satisfied usually.
B. exhausted.

Masturbation. . .
A. is all right.
B. Should not be practiced.

After an argument. . .
A. I usually feel good if I won.

B. it is best to apologize to clear the air.
I hate. . .

A. Sin.

B. moralists and "do gooders. "

Sex...

A. is a beautiful gift of God not to be cheapened.

B. is good and enjoyable.

Capital punishment. . .
A. is not used often enough.
B. is legal murder, it is inhuman.

Prostitution. . .
A. should be legalized.
B. cannot really afford enjoyment.

 

69

OPINION SU RVEY

The following is a study of what the general public thinks
and feels about a number of important social and personal questions.
The best answer to each statement below is your personal opinion.
We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view;
you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements,
disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about
others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can
be sure that many other people feel the same as you do.

 

On these Sheets please mark each statement as provided
according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark
every one. Circle number 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7 depending on how you
feel in each case, using the following system:

 

 

1. I disagree very much. 5. I agree a little.
2. I disagree on the whole. 6. I agree on the whole.
3. I disagree a little. 7. I agree very much.

1 2 3 5 6 7 1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most
important virtues children should learn.

1 2 3 5 6 7 2. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breed-
ing can hardly expect to get along with decent peeple.

1 2 3 5 6 7 3. If peOple would talk less and work more, everybody
would be better off.

1 2 3 5 6 7 4. The business man and the manufacturer are much
more important to society than the artist and the
professor.

1 2 3 5 6 7 5. Science has its place, but there are many important
things that can never possibly be understood by the
human mind.

1 2 3 5 6 7 6. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but
as they grow up they ought to get over them and
settle down.

 

 

OONH

70

I disagree very much. 5. I agree a little.
I disagree on the whole. 6. I agree on the whole.
I disagree a little. 7. I agree very much.

2 3 5 6 7 7. What this country needs most, more than laws

10.

11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

and political programs, is a few courageous,
tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can
put their faith.

No sane, normal, decent person could ever think
of hurting a close friend or relative.

Nobody ever learned anything really important
except through suffering.

What the youth needs most is strict discipline,
rugged determination, and the will to work and
fight for family and country.

An insult to our honor should always be punished.

Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children,
deserve more than mere imprisonment; such
criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse.

There is hardly anything lower than a person who
does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect
for his parents.

Most of our social problems would be solved if
we could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked,
and feeble-minded people.

Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and
ought to be severely punished.

When a person has a problem or worry, it is best
for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with
more cheerful things.

Every person should have complete faith in some
supernatural power whose decisions he obeys with-
out question.

Some people are born with an urge to jump from
high places.

 

WNH

71

I disagree very much. 5. I agree a little.
I disagree on the whole. 6. I agree on the whole.
I disagree alittle. 7. I agree very much.

3567

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.
27.

28.

29.

People can be divided into two distinct classes:
the weak and the strong.

Some day it will probably be shown that astrology
can explain a lot of things.

Wars and social troubles may someday be ended
by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the
whole world.

No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we
have enough will power.

The true American way of life is disappearing so
fast that force may be necessary to preserve it.

Most people don' t realize how much our lives
are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.

Human nature being what it iS, there will always
be war and conflict.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Nowadays when so many different kinds of people
move around and mix together so much, a person
has to protect himself especially carefully

against catching an infection or disease from them.

Nowadays more and more people are prying into
matters that Should remain personal and private.

The Wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans
was tame compared to some of the goings on in
this country, even in places where people might
least expect it.

 

PLEASE NOTE:

Pages 72-78, "Tennessee Scale",
1965 by William F. Fitts not
microfilmed at request of author.
Available for consultation at
Michigan State University Library.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS.

'y

72

TENNESSEE SCALE

Instructions

 

The statements in this booklet are to help you describe
yourself as you see yourself. Please respond to them as if you were
describing yourself to yourself. Do not omit any item! Read each
statement carefully; then select one of the five responses listed
below. On your answer sheet, put a circle around the response you
chose.

 

 

As you start, be sure that your answer sheet and this book-
let are lined up evenly so that the item numbers match each other.

Remember, put a circle around the response number you
have chosen for each statement.

 

Completely Mostly Partly false Mostly Completely

false false and true true
Responses:
partly true
1 2 3 4 5

You will find these reSponse numbers repeated at the bottom
of each page to help you remember them.

© William H. Fitts 1965

 

73

 

Item
No.
1. I have a healthy body ................................ 1
3. I am an attractive person ............................ 3
5. I consider myself a sloppy person .................... 5
19. I am a decent sort of person .......................... 19
21. I am an honest person ............................... 21
23. I am a bad person ................................... 23
37. I am a cheerful person .............................. 37
39. I am a calm and easy going person .................... 39
41. I am a nobody ...................................... 41
55. I have a family that would always help
in any kind of trouble ................................ 55
57. I am a member of a happy family ..................... 57
59. My friends have no confidence in me .................. 59
73. I am a friendly person ............................... 73
75. I am popular with men ............................... 75
77. I am not interested in what other people do ............ 77
91. I do not always tell the truth ......................... 91
93. I get angry sometimes ............................... 93

Completely Mostly Partly false Mostly Completely
false false and true true
partly true
1 2 3 4 5

Responses:

'I‘L‘LI man—.—

74

 

 

Item
No.
2. I like to look nice and neat all the time ............... 2
4. I am full of aches and pains ......................... 4
6. I am a sick person ................................. 6
20. I am a religious person ............................ 20
22. I am a moral failure ............................... 22
24- I am a morally weak person ........................ 24
38. I have a lot of self-control .......................... 38
40. I am a hateful person .............................. 4O
42. I am losing my mind .............................. 42

56. I am an important person to my friends and family . . . . 56

58. I am not loved by my family ......................... 58
60. I feel that my family doesn' t trust me ............... 60
74. I am popular with women ........................... 74
76. I am mad at the whole world ........................ 76
78. I am hard to be friendly with ....................... 78

92. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about . . . 92

94. Sometimes, when I am not feeling well, I am cross . . . . 94

Completely Mostly Partly false Mostly Completely
false false and true true
partly true
1 2 3 4 5

Responses:

75

 

 

Item
No.
7. I am neither too fat nor too thin ...................... 7
9. I like my looks just the way they are ................. 9
11. I would like to change some parts of my body ,,,,,,,,,, 11
25. I am satisfied with my moral behavior ................ 25
27. I am satisfied with my relationship to God ............ 27
29. I ought to go to church more ......................... 29
43. I am satisfied to be just what I am ................... 43
45. I am just as nice as I should be ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 45
47. I despise myself ................................... 47
61. I am satisfied with my family relationships ,,,,,,,,,,, 61 l
63. I understand my family as well as I should ........... 63
65. I should trust my family more ...................... 65
79. Iamassociableaslwanttobe 79
81. I try to please others, but I don't overdo it ........... 81
83. I am no good at all from a social standpoint .......... 83
95. I do not like everyone I know ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 95
97. Once in a while, I laugh at a dirty joke .............. 97

Completely Mostly Partly false 'Mostly Completely
false false and true true
partly true
1 2 3 4 5

Responses:

76

 

Item
No.
8. I am neither too tall nor too short .................... 8
10. I don' t feel as well as I should ....................... 10
12. I should have more sex appeal ....................... 12
26. I am as religious as I want to be ..................... 26
28. I wish I could be more trustworthy ................... 28
30. I shouldn't tell so many lies ......................... 30
44. I am as smart as I want to be ........................ 44
46. I am not the person I would like to be ................. 46
48. I wish I didn't give up as easily as I do ............... 48
62. I treat my parents as well as I should (Use past tense

if parents are not living) ............................. 62
64. I am too sensitive to things my family say ............. 64
66. I should love my family more ....................... 66
80. I am satisfied with the way I treat other people ........ 8O
82. I should be more polite to others .................... 82
84. I ought to get along better with other people ........... 84
96. I gossip a little at times ............................. 96
98. At times I feel like swearing ......................... 98
Completely Mostly Partly false Mostly Completely

Responses: false false and true true

partly true
1 2 3 4 5

 

”1"!“ an“

77

 

 

Item
No.
13. I take good care of myself physically ................. 13
15. I try to be careful about my appearance .............. 15
17. I often act like I am "all thumbs" .................... 17
31. I am true to my religion in my everyday life .......... 31
33. I try to change when I know I' m doing
things that are wrong .............................. 33
35. I sometimes do very bad things ...................... 35
49. I can always take care of myself in any situation ...... 49
51. I take the blame for things without getting mad ........ 51
53. I do things without thinking about them first .......... 53
67. I try to play fair with my friends and family .......... 67
69. I take a real interest in my family .................. 69
71. I give in to my parents. (Use past tense if
parents are not living) ............................. 71
85. I try to understand the other fellow' 8 point of view . . . . 85
87. I get along well with other people .................... 87
89., I do not forgive others easily ........................ 89
99. I would rather win than lose in a game ............... 99

Completely Mostly Partly false Mostly Completely
false false and true true
partly true
1 2 3 4 5

Responses:

78

 

 

Item

No.

14. I feel good most of the time .......................... 14
16. I do poorly in sports and games ...................... 16
18. I am a poor sleeper ................................. 18
32. I do what is right most of the time .................... 32
34. I sometimes use unfair means to get ahead ............ 34
36. I have trouble doing the things that are right ........... 36
50. I solve my problems quite easily ...................... 50
52. I change my mind a lot .............................. 52
54. I try to run away from my problems .................. 54
68. I do my share of work at home ....................... 68
70. I quarrel with my family ............................ 70
72 . I do not act like my family thinks I should ............ 72
86. I see good points in all the people I meet ............. 86
88. I do not feel at ease with other people ................ 88
90. I find it hard to talk with strangers .................. 90

100. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow

what I ought to do today ............................. 100

Completely Mostly Partly false Mostly Completely
false false and true true
partly true
1 2 3 4 5

Responses:

79

PREFERRED QUALITIES OF CHILDREN

Instructions

 

After reading completely through the qualities or character-
istics of children, as listed below, assign number "1" to the quality
or attribute which you believe would be the most desirable quality
in this list for an 8-—y_é-ar-old child. Then assign "2" to the attribute
which you regard as second most important, "3" to the third most
important and so on until you have assigned a number to all ten of
these listed qualities. You may, of course, change your mind or
correct any assigned numbers as you go along. Please assign a
number to each of these ten attributes, even if you find it quitedif—
ficult to make some choices. No tie scores, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92X GIRL
Responsible and Trustworthy A

Neat and Clean B

Curious C

Interacts Well with Others D

Considerate and Cooperative E

Assertive and Self-Reliant F

Able to Make Friends G

Respectful Toward Adults H

Fun-Loving and Carefree I

 

 

Imaginative and C reative J

 

 

 

80

FAMILY DA TA QU ESTIONNAIRE

 

Married or Single Birthdate Age
mo. yr. date
Ages
Education: Name of School Denomination When Attended

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Grade Completed

 

Religion: You Mother Father

Denomination

 

Attendance - - che ck one:

(a) active church
worker; dedicated
parishioner .........

 

(b) regular church
attender; as faithful
as most others ......

 

(c) show expected
patterns; not much
real involvement

 

(d) "given up"--but haven' t
joined other church . . .

 

81

Father' 8 Job--check one:

(a) professional, proprietor or executive of
large organization .........................

(b) proprietor or executive of smaller

organization ..............................
(c) independent "neighborhood" businessman .....
(d) office worker .............................
(e) skilled worker .............................
(f) semi~skilled worker .......................
(g) unskilled worker ...........................

Father' 5 Education-scheck one:

(a) graduate work or professional school .........
(b) college graduate ...........................
(C) 1-3 years of college ........................
(d) business college graduate ..................
(e) high school graduate .......................
(f) 10-11 years of school ......................
(g) 7-9 years of school ........................
(h) less than 7 years of school .................

Are your parents:

Married and living together? . . . .

 

 

Separated or divorced? (Date) . .

 

Deceased ? (Date) .............

 

Approximate hometown population . . .

 

Would you call it urban or rural?

 

Description of father' s occupation:

82
RE LIGIOU S BACKGROUND

Please use this page to describe freely how your religious
orientation or background has influenced you in relating to the world
around you and the people in it. Do some features of your religious
training seem of great importance to you? If so, what are they?
Does this orientation influence your ways of evaluating or relating
to others? If so, how? How pleased or dissatisfied are you with
this religious background? These are some of the issues which your
response might include, but please express your thoughts as freely
as possible without regard to language or style of expression.

I

APPENDIX III

SUMMARY OF SCORES

 

 

84

 

 

 

If
2. D 22 o u 722 2.2.2 «« m 2.2 222 2. «2- - 2. - «m- w«. 2.« .55 on
o m u o 0 22-2 2.« «« 2.2 «22.22 2« «m 2.2. + 2+ 2+ 2+ «2 .5852 2
228-2
25 D22 25 o e m-o« 2.2 2 2 22.22 «cm 2. «22 - 2- 2.- ««- 22 52.-2:5 2.
m D o .2 2 22-2 2.22 m« on 2.5 «2 «« «« + ««+ £- m«+ 22 .55 x 3
2V D 2. o 2. «-2 8.2. 22 22 «22.22 222 2 2 - o ««- 2+ 2 2872 2.
.2 .55 22: 2-22 m .2 .2 .2 2-8 2.22.« 2 «« 2.«.2 «2 2 22+ 8+ ««+ 5+ 22 .55 2
e D 2 22 o «-o« 2.« 2.« 5 8.22 222 2 2.« + 22- ««+ 22+ 22 .55 2.«
e .55 22 2 2- D .2 .2 2. 2-2 2.« «m 2.« «22.22 2.« mm 8 - 2«- 2.«- ««- 2.« .55 x ««
o .55 22. 2 2-2 D a a o. «-2 8.2 «« 2.« 2.222 2.« 2.« a + 2 + « + 22 + 2 .55 ««
a m .2 n n o-o« 2.2 2.«. 2.« 2.22 222-. 2 «22 + «4+ 2+ .2+ «2 .222 2«
o .2222 22. 2 D 22 o o «-2 22.2 22 22 2.22.2 o«« «22 2 - 2V - 2.«- 2- 2. .32. 2.«
a .55 2: 2; D 22 a o «2.« 8.2 «m «m 8.2 22 2 2. + m + 2. + 22 - a2 .55 2
a .55 222 2.2. D a a n 212 2.« «« 2 2222.22 2.« 2. 2. + m + 2+ ««+ 22 .55 2
2U .55 22: 2-« D a a 0 22-2 2.« 2.«. «« 8.2 22. 3 «2- 2- 2- 2- «a .55 2
c D o o a 22-2 2.« 2 2 2.2 «2 2.. 2 - 2. - 2- 2- S 22 .55 2
22 .55 222 22.22 D 22 2 0 22-2 2.« 22 2 2.2 «2 «m 2 + m + 2. + 2 + 22 .55 x 2
a .55 222 2-2.. D .2 .2 n2 «2.« 2.« 2.« 2.« «22.2 .22. «a 2 - m + m - 2- «2 .55 +2
22 m .2 a 22 2-2 2.222 22 2 2.2 2.« «2. o« - « + 2- 2. - 22 .55 x 2
2e 2 «2-42
.2 .55 8 2 22.2 D o .2 a «2.« 92.2 2.« 2 2.2 2.« 2. on + m + a + ««+ 22 .55 «2
e 22 25 0 2V «-2 2.2 2 m« 222 2.2 22. 2« + 2 + « - 2+ .22 sea-Em 22
o .55 C 2 2.22 D o 2 22 2-2 8.2 on 2« 22 2« 2 «« + o - ««+ 2- + +2 .55 2
25 .55 8.2 2.22 D o. u o 2-o« o«.« 2 on 2.22 222 2. 2. + 2+ 2+ «2+ 2 .55 a
o D o o o 212 2.22 2 22 S2 2.« 2. 2.« - 2+ 2.«- « - 2 +282 22
a D 22 o a 2-2 2.2 2 o« «22.2 «2.. 2 m - 2+ 2- « - 22 5...: 2
.2 D m a a 2-2 2.2 2.« «« 2.22 222 2. 2.« - 2- m - 2 - 2.2 258.22 x m
m .55 222 2-22 D n a o 2-2 2.22 2 o« 2.2 22 2. on - a - m - 2- «2 .55 x m
22 D 2 22 o 2-2 2.2 «m 22 £2 2.« 3 2 - « + ««- 2. + 22 .522 x 2.
o .55 a: 2.2 D o a 22 2-2 2.« «m 2.« «22 2.« 2 2.« - 2. - o«- 2- 222 .55 x m
o D o m n «-2 2.222 22 w 8.2 «2 2.« 2.« - ««+ «m- 2- «2 .55 «
2U 22 22 e o 2-2 2.« «« m« 2222 22 2.« «2. - m - 2.«- a - $2 .282 2
.232 .222 «ma. .2 22 m o m .2:- 2+2 om .2. 22 m 22
«222252 22 . m . .2
zmmmm 282282282 .8 .2 w . mm< scum-m .8 mo .2 2o 8225 .922 m
222222825 D 2282 2282 2.225 38225.2. 22 2 s2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

 

 

 

 

 

n .55 222 2-« D 22 n o «-2 ««.2 «2 «« ««.2 ««« «« 2.« + 2+ «2+ 2- + 2.2 .55 ««
o .55 22. 2-« D a n o «-2 ««« 2 «2 ««.« ««« «a 22 + « + 2. + 2 - «« .55 ««
o D o u o «-2 ««.2 2 «« «2.2 2« 2« « - s - « - « + «2 .32. ««
n .55 a 2 «2-« 22 22 22 2 «-2 2.«.« 2.« 2.« ««« 2.« «2. 2 - «2+ 22- ««- «« .55 x 2.«
m .55 222 2-« D 2 .2 .2 «-2 ««2 «« « 2«.2 ««« «2. 2. + ««+ ««+ ««+ «2 .55 ««
o D a 22 o «2.2 A2.«.« «« 2.2 ««« ««« 22. « + 2+ 2.2- 22+ 22 25.6.22 ««
n m a a a «-2 ««.« «« 2.« 2.«.2 «2« ¢« «« + 2«+ ««+ ««+ 222 29:2 2.«
a 22 2. 2. o «-2 ««.« « « «2.2 ««« «2. «« + ««+ « - ««+ 22 .522 ««
2 D n 22 .2 «-2 ««2 «« 2.« ««.2 ««« «2. S. + 2+ ««+ 2+ ««2 .282 ««
« D « « o «-2 «2.« 2.« «« ««« ««« «« «2 - 2.«- 2 - « + ««2 22 282 2«
22 22 n 22 .2 «-2 «2.2 «« «« ««.« 2-2« «2. «« - 2... «T 2«- ««2 29:2 ««
o D o 22 2. 2-2 ««« «« 2 ««.2 2«« «« « - « + 2- « + ««2 25.22 «2.
22.253
0 22 22 a .2 «-2 ««.2 2« «« ««.2 ««« «« «2- + ««+ ««+ ««+ ««2 222:5 «2.
. .8235-20
a D o 22 o «-2 ««« «2 2« 2«.« ««« «« « + 2. + 2 - « + «2 22255:. 2.
2. D 22 22 o «-2 ««.2 22. «« «2.2 2« «« «« - 2. - «2- «2- «2 .32. x «2.
2. .55 a 2 2-« D a a o «-2 ««.2 i«« «« ««« ««« «« «« - 2- 2- 2 + 22 .55 x 2.
o m 2. 2. 2. 2-2 ««2 «« «« ««.2 ««« «2. 2 + 2. + 2+ 2.2- 22 .55 2.
o .55 222 2-« D .2 22 .2 «-2 ««« «« «« ««.2 ««« «« 2.« + « - «2+ ««+ 22 .55 x «2.
o 22 o a o «-2 «2.« «« «« «v.2 ««« 2« « + p + 2«- «2+ ««2 same-:2 «2.
2. D a a 2. «-2 «2.« «2 «2 «2.2 2«« «2. 2.« - «2+ ««- v«- «« .32. 22.
o .55 222 2.2. D .2 .2 2. «-2 ««2 «« «« 2«.« ««« «« 2. + «2+ « « - ««2 .55 «2.
2222.28
22 D o 22 o «2-2 ««« «« 2.« 2.« ««« «« 2 - ««+ 2.«- « - «22 5.22225 ««
2... D o o a «2-2 2 .« 2 «2 ««.« ««« «« 2« + ««+ ««+ ««+ 2« .3322 ««
o .55 222 2-« D a o 2. T2 ««.2 «2 « ««.2 2«« 2« «« + « + « + «2+ 2« .55 2.«
o 22 .2 n .2 «-2 ««.2 2.« «2 2.« 2.« «« «« + 2+ « + «2+ 22 .2922 ««
« D 22 o o «T2 2.«.« « « «2.« ««« «« «« + 2+ «2+ ««+ «22 22.2.2.5 ««
a D n 22 22 «-2 ««.2 2.« 2.« ««« ««« «2. «« + ««+ «2+ ««+ 82 .282 2.«
2. D 2. o 2. «-2 ««« «« «« ««.2 ««« «« «« + ««+ ««+ 8+ «2- .32. ««
o D n a 22 «2-2-2 ««.2 «« «« 2.« 2« «« «« + ««+ 2 - 2 - ««2 .53 x ««
o .55 3 2 «2-2 m a a o «-«« ««.« «« «« 2«.2 ««« 2.« «« - ««- 2.«- 22- 2.2 .55 2«
.222 .22 2.« -.2 22 m o «2 «22.2. 2+2 Um s 22 m 22
«222222 , m . m . m . .2
222me cofimuoium .20 o 2 coom-m h .20 50:00 .922 m
D 52529232 330 commonsen- 22252 E

 

22228.25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

 

 

 

 

 

2. D .. o 2. «-2 «2.« 2.« «2 2.« «2.« «2. 2.«- «2- 2. « - «2 2.222 x ««
« D o o o «2-2 «22.2 «« «2 ««.2 ««« «2. 2 - «2- «+ 2.- «« 22.2 ««
u .58 2«2 «2-« D 2. .2 o «-2 2.« 22. «2 2«.« ««« «2. 2.« - ««- ««- 2- «2 .522 x ««
o D o a 2. «-2 ««« «« «« ««.« ««« 2.« «2 - « - .22- «+ 2.2 .53 ««
m .53 2«2 «2-« m a a a «-2 ««« 2.« 2.« ««.2 ««« «« ««+ 222+ ««+ ««+ «2 .53 ««
.2 22 2 2 2 2-2 ««« «« «« ««« ««« «« ««+ «2+ 2.+ ««+ ««2 2.22m ««
2 m .2 .2 .2 «-«2 ««« «« «« ««.2 ««« «v «« + ««+ « + ««+ ««2 .522 2.«
a D a a 2. «-2 2.« «2.. «« ««.2 «2.« 2.« «.2 + ««+ ««+ «2+ 22 2.3m ««
2 D o 2 ... «-«« ««« «« «« ««.« ««« «2. 2.« - 2«- «2.- «2- 2«2 .522 ««
o 22 o a o 22.2 ««.2 «« 22 ««.« ««« 2 ««+ ««+ ««+ 2+ ««2 .522 2«
o D o a .. 2-«2 ««.« «2 «2 ««.2 ««« «« 2 + 2+ 2- 2+ «2 2 .32. x ««
o D .. o o «-«2 «2.« «« «« 222 ««« «« ««- 2- 2.+ 2- ««2 .32. ««
o D 2. 2. o «-2 2.« «« «2 ««« ««« «2. 22 + «+ « - «+ «2 .53 ««
2 D a a .2 2-2 2.« «« «« ««.2 ««« 2.« ««+ 2.+ «+ ««+ «2 .522 ««
.2 D .2 .2 2 «-«2 ««« 2« «« ««« ««« «« ««+ «2+ «2+ ««+ ««2 22.2 ««
a D 2 .2 2 «-2 ««.2 «« «« ««.« ««« «« «« + « + ««+ ««+ ««2 .56 ««
«.223
han—
.. D 2. a a «2.2 ««« « « ««.2 ««« «« «2 - 2..r ««- 2+ «2 2223 2.«
u D o o o «-2 ««.2 «« «« ««.2 ««« «« «« - «- ««- «2- «2 .32. ««
.2 D 2. o o «-2 ««« «« 2« «2.2 ««« «« «« + ««+ « - 2+ ««2 .53 x ««
2 .56 2.222 «2-« D .2 a 2 2.2 2.« «2 «2 2.« ««2. «« ««+ « - «2+ 2+ «« .53 x 2«
« D « « « 2.2 2.« «« «« 2.«.2 ««« «« «« - 2- «2- «- «22 «.82 ««
a D « 2 a 2-«« 2.« «« «2 ««.2 ««« «« ««+ «2+ ««+ ««+ «2 5.222220 ««
o D 2 a .. «-2 2.« «« «« 2«.2 ««« «2. ««+ ««+ ««- «2+ 22 «232.2 ««
2. D o a 2. «-2 ««« «« «2 $2 ««« «2. ««- «2- 2- «+ «« .53 ««
2 D o .. o «-2 «2.« «« « ««« ««« «« «« + ««+ ««+ ««+ ««2 .53 ««
.. D a a o 2-2 «22 «« 2 ««.2 «2« «2. «« + ««+ 2«+ ««+ «2 2232.2 x ««
o D a a 2 «-2 ««.2 2« «« 2.«.2 ««« 22. 2.« + ««+ «2+ ««+ ««2 .295 2.«
o .222 22.2 2-« D o o 2. «-«2 «22 «2 « ««.2 ««« «2. «« - «2- 2.«- ««- ««2 .32. ««
a D a a a «-«2 ««.2 «« «« «2.2 ««« 2 ««+ «+ «2+ ««+ ««2 .53 ««
o m o o u «-2 ««« «« «« 2«.2 ««« 2. « - «+ 2-. «+ 2«2 .53 x 2«
.222 .222 2«2. .2 2 m o m .22. 2+2 Um .2. 22 m 2
«222232 22 . . m . .2
haumm 22033an .20 and. ach-m .m no 22.20280 .92 m m
D «2282222 2.2220 33225-2. 3282 2

222.2822

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

 

 

 

 

 

U D a u u .0an «$6 a m co." Sn mm mv . o mm. m : mm .5502 omq
o D o 5 o «4: mm; mm mm 3.4 Sm mm X” + om+ m - 2+ 2: .omEm m:
o D 5 m 5 «A: vmé pm 2 3.6 mmm pm mm + 5+ 3+ o 52 .530 w:
o .532 Am 0 :u: D m a o mucn vmd mm mm mud avm 3. m: + v + p + m + m2 .535 h:
o .530 Am: muum m m a a mum: mm.m on m on." o; ow m: + m + 5 + w + mm“ .530 X o:
5 D n 5 0 Sum: 24 vm a no.“ «.8 5 m + om+ mm- «5+ mm“ .3me& X m:
o D m a 5 m4: ~m.u pm 2 mm." mom 9v mm .. mm- «N- m u an: .hnmmpm X 5‘:
U D o 5 U cnmu vod mm mm co.“ mvN mv 3. u p + mm: NT 5ND .omam m:
o .530 3: me D m m 6 73 cm; mu 2 36 man an N .. mm+ mm- m n or .530 X m:
5 .530 8 v gum D 5 5 5 mum" Sim «m «m mad an an mu + mw+ mm+ 2+ 2: .530 :5
o D c o v rum: 2.« mm 5 34 5mm ov a .. m + N5- 3. S .530 o:
o .5534 Am v 3.2 m 5 w my mum: «56 N5 N“ be; mwm NV mm .. N7 mm- 5 . mam .535 X cg:
5 D o o o cum" and mm 3 mm; 3m pm rm . 05- o? N. n ma .mnmmpm we
5 D 5 5 0 T3 cm.N mm. mm mm." mam pm 3 .. Nu... cm. a. u m3 .530 ho“
a D 5 5 0 «1mm coiu vm mg 36 :N mm mm + v + w + «5+ mg .530 we
5 . D u o o «A: and vu «.N «6.6 ppm «V cm - 3+ mm- a + m: .562 X m2
5 .530 3 V «Tm m 5 a 5 «13 mad «m «m we.“ vmm mm m: + a. .. m + :+ 5: .530 X S:
v .530 Am: mm; D 5 m o :4: mm.~ rm 3 cm.” wmm 5m 5. .. 05+ 2.. N u m: .580 X mo"
9 D 5 5 5 Tm” and on S 3‘; man an «.m + -+ m + 3+ pm .530 mofi
o D 5 5 5 mum: SJ mm mm mad mmm mm 3. + wm+ o5- mm+ mm .hnmmnm 2:
o .530 8: Sum D a a o «-2 wo.~ : m and mum av mm u 2- mm..- mm- cm .550 X on:
c m 5 5 5 v-3 mm.~ mm mm ma." com um m + c m u m + mm" .554 ma
0 .530 Am: :6 m o. 5 a $4: mm.~ mm mm :4 «mm ov mv + 3+ 2+ 2+ on .530 ma
0 .530 Am: mflnm D u 5 u 0.2 «$6 on 2 on; non pm N5 n em- 3+ v + N: .530 pm
0 D o o o mum: 3.4 pm mm 5.9.5 NZ" mm 3.. + 3+ m : ¢~+ com .534 mo.
c D 5 5 5 2:2 mm.“ 3 m5 :4 «mm vm cm + w: a + m + :5 .550 X ma
0 .530 2 v 2 m o a o mum: 3.4 an on up." man on m: .. m u 3.. m u o: .530 E
o .530 8 0 «Te D o 5 o 572 «.06. S 3 «£6 mam mm mm u m .. on- v + 9: .530 mm
5 .530 Am: mu; D m a 5 bum: No.5 am an $1" an mm mm + :+ 2.4 vm+ ca .530 X Na
5 .530 Am: wfiuo D a a 5 pug and 2 m.— mmd pom mm 5% + p + ««+ a: 3 .530 5m
.3m .8» «3. m 2 m o m .19 2+5 8 H m m 2
mccam m . m . A
hmmmm :oCausum 50 «m4 :oaMam b no 50500 .05 m m
D hummofimfiwm 3550 wmmmwgofi 5m5m02 E

 

5.2500me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
\IHI“11111111111“MINIMUMWIWIHIIIW
31293105437416