fl A STUDY OF THE PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GROUP OF WOMEN WHO NAD PARTICIPATED IN SEWING flLASSES IN AN ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAM AND A GROUP OF THEIR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WHO HAD NOT ‘ PARTICIPATE!) IN ANY ADULT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES Thesis for tho D's-9m of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MarvIn R. Sifis I960 (THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled PMT11\VV {\Y‘I "1'7" 7"“13 y"('a\v‘1-JTM" .‘T?FV§7 "'I" ‘ I} h"m~ m"'v ‘ fw-‘),'\evv‘ ‘f-vv-q ”L ULK / K" 17‘s" f ~ I i ' ’ ~ 'L\;I_ . I'- ... -._,“,--‘, Yvyol\‘ yvo rxuv- Tn Y‘ P71" \' *NTT‘: "fi WT A f‘IV“(’§ V“ "V ‘F‘fiYT ‘ 'I ‘JI' ‘ " x.) _?'T'__ T T 47‘ T v 9’17. 1A_)“ ‘ : .l. . I, I . Il\ . - J‘ g.‘ . Q \ I 11i‘\y fi~m , s' TI\I~"V' '1‘ y I‘V IN???“ ‘7‘! "1"“T1 T“,)T‘I\vs -‘ ‘1 \ A ‘1 I ’. T '\ ‘_'T_ .1 .‘L f) “I {I r. ._ l . .. I ,1; V "“T'f‘ Tfin'fir" " "_ YT" ‘1’ 'n hsfi Tn h! I “a" a 1797p!" - 1.3.1I‘I \ II.) LII LAJIX) .ik' I TI JT '1) .\ .. L“ M'N'VH‘W'VTK“ ‘ ”'11 ‘1' "17' “"" -J-;I _,:1_ I.‘ —eJl 1. t) presented by r\ do v Vervin I. ~Itts has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degree in Teacher Education Major professor Date-274W t3/ /7&0 0-169 PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 106i) 9 A STUDY OF THE PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A.GROUP OF WOMEN WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN SEWING CLASSES IN AN ADUET EDUCATION PROGRAM AND A GROUP OF THEIR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WHO HAD NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY ADUUT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES by w“ Marvin R‘Z Sitts AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Education Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1960 ‘ Approved‘ 1;;/4R,c.io£L4/ /£; ;<:£;/{LZ;~711 \J V y I I / ‘MARVIN R. SITTS ABSTRACT This study was concerned with the personality differences between a group of women who had participated in sewing classes offered by the 'Mott Adult Education Program of the Flint Board of Education and a group of their friends and neighbors who had not participated in any adult education activity. Membensof a sample of women who had each taken three classes in sewing were asked to permit interviewers to enter their homes and administer the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire by Cattell, Saunders, and Stice and the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" prepared by this researcher. Each woman selected was asked to invite to her home a friend or neighbor who had never taken an adult education class and who would also be willing to fill in the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the "Adult Education Interview SheefiL' There were two hundred two women in the two groups. The scores on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire indicated a difference between the two groups at the one per cent level on the bright—-~dull continuum and on the aggressive--mild continuum. The participators were brighter and more aggressive. In other personali— ty factors the participators tended to be more persistent, less polished, more confident, and with a less clear pattern of socially approved be- hav ior . From the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" it was revealed that the adult education participator had enrolled in more special schools, had a larger income, and belonged to more service clubs and neighborhood clubs. The participator attended more activities in school buildings. y. Hflfiv— 3 SHe voted more frequently in recent elections. SHe had known about the adult education program longer. In these items the difference be~ tween the participator and non-participator was significant at the one per cent level. The participator was older than the non—participator. The difference in age was significant at the five per cent level. In all other of the forty~two questions and observations on the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" there were no differences at any acceptable level. These findings suggest that since the women participating in these classes have personality factors which are unlike the personality factors of non-participators chosen for this study, these differences should be kept clearly in mind by the adult educator both when he is trying to attract the nonuparticipators to the adult education program and when he is trying to satisfy the needs of the former non-participator once she has enrolled in adult education classes. Recommendations are given in areas where the differences would suggest modifications in the adult education program. This study represents an effort to measure with care a segment of the adult education population and a segment of the non-participa- ting population. It is hoped that additional similar studies will eventually produce a body of knowledge which will give the adult educator a clear picture of the people with whom he works. This picture will include personality factors as well as factors not usually considered personality factors. A STUDY OF THE PERSONAIITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GROUP OF WOMEN WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN SEWING CLASSES IN AN ADUEI EDUCATION PROGRAM AND A GROUP OF THEIR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WHO HAD NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY ADULT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES by v \‘€ Marvin R9 Sitts A,THESIS Submitted to the College of Education Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1960 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Harold J. Dillon for his encouragement and guidance during the planning of this study and the preparation of this thesis. In addition, the author is grateful for valuable criticism and suggestions received from.Dr.‘Walter JOhnson, Dr. Clyde Campbell, and Dr. Max Smith. .A special note of thanks is due Dr. Charles H. Proctor for his assistance in the analysis of the data. The author wishes to acknowledge his special indebtedness to Dr. Myrtle F. Black, Mrs. Anne Dressel, Mrs. Marion Gordon, Mrs. Magdalene Fild, and Mrs. Frances Cameron of the staff of the Mott Adult Education Program of the Flint Board of Education. Encouragement from his wife, Elizabeth, made this study possible for the author. ii TA ‘3 OF CONTENTS ACKIOILZDUUENTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Ti‘LDI-AES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 LIST OF Carat? P18 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. THE PRCBLEX o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o IntFOdUCtion o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . Background and Need for This Study . . . . . . Basic Assumptions of This Study . . . . . . . The SCOpe and Limitations of This Study . . . . The HypOthGSQS o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Importance of Thi Study . . . . . . . . . REVIEA CF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . Certain Personality Considerations of Adults . . . Studies Related to the Characteristics of Participators in Adult Education Activities . . zernonc IIITCFIGJTICE . . . . . . . - - ° ° The Instruments of‘; easurement . . . . . . . l. The Sixteen Personality Factor ;uestionnaire. 2. The "Ad 02d acation Interview Shee t" . . . The Sample 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Tie Telephone Interview . . . . . . . . . . The Home Interview . . . . . . . . . . . The Proceedure for inal'sis of the Data . . . . AILXLYSI: CFJ. MI E4 SUR‘JAY DATA 9 o o o o o o o o 0 Part A: Report on Results of Sixteen Personality FaCtor LUCStiC'nnaire a o o o o o o 0 Summary of the Aesults of the 5 :teen PGPSOHFiIItV 3CDOI‘ ~._LU' u ulCAlicli‘r‘C- o o o o o o o o 0 Part B: Report on issults of "Adult Lducation IntGFVieL‘J Sheet" 0 o o o o o o o o Age 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o [.10 Ho F. Page Ho Ho Chapter Education . . . . . . . . . . . . Health 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o Socio-economic Position . . . . . . . Participation in Cut—of—the-home Activities. Extent of Participation in Adult Classes . Political Involvement . . . . . . . . Religious Involvenent . . . . . . . . Conditions in the Home . . . . . . . hobility . . . . . . . . . . . . Familiarity with the Adult PrOgram . . . Summary of Results of the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" . . . . . . . V. SUNRARY, CONCLUSICLS, AK) ILFLICA’ICXS CF TIE 9“"JY APPELUIX BIBLICCRA H Summary of Aesponses to the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire . . . . . . . . Summary of Responses to the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications of This Study . . Page Table l. 2. 3. A. 5. 6. 7o 8. 90 IO. 15. LIST CF TABLES Reliability (Consistency: Split Half) Coefficients for Factor Measurements on Battery Length: Form A Plus Form B. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o validities, Estimated from Loadings (A and B Forms Together). 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o Validities, Estimated from Correlation of Two Factor Halves (A and B Forms Together) . . . . . . . Continuum Representation of Personality Factors . . . Statistics Relative to Arranging for the Interview . . Means of Differences of Scores for Two Groups Taking Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire . . . . Personality Factor Keans of Subgroups . . . . . . Response of Women to Home Interview . . . . . . . Comparison of Means on Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Significance for Difference of Means. . . . Mean of Differences of Pairs of Respondents on Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire . . . . . . . Personality Factors Ranked According to the Size of the Mean of the Differences of Pairs of Respondents . . Personality Factors Ranked According to the Size of the Means of the Scores of Participators and Non-parti- cipators o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Correlation of Means of Differences of Pairs of Respondents for Personality Factors Where Participators and Nonpparticipators Tend Toward Similarity . . . . Correlation of Means of Differences of Pairs of Respondents for Personality Factors Where Participators and ‘Non-participators Tend Toward Similarity . . . . V Page A9 50 5O 52 59 O) \h 87 Table l6. 17. 18. 19. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Age 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Education 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Special School Enrollments . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for Enrolling in Special School, Trade School or Correspondence School in Order of Frequency of Response Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jobs Held by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Value of House . . . . . . . . . . . Visitations in Last Year in the Home of a Friend or Relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Groups Joined . . . . . . . . . . . Clubs Joined by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . Club Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activity in School Buildings . . . . . . . . . Adult Education Classes Attended by Participators in the LaSt Year 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Classes Other Than Sewing Attended by Adult Education PartiCipatOTS in the LaSt Year 0 o o o o o o o Cther Classes Attended by Participators in the Last Five Years 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Classes Taken by Adult Education Participators in the Last Five Years Other than Sewing . . . . . . . Political Party Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Church Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Church Attendance--Number . . . . . . . . . . Church Attendance-—Selection . . . . . . . . . vi 96 97 98 103 104 104 106 107 110 110 111 111 113 113 114 116 118 A2. 43. AA. A5. 46. L7. A9. 50. 51. 52. 53. Size 0f Family 0 o 0 Family Harmony . . . Neighborhood Harmony . Number of Years Lived in Flint Number of Houses Lived in Location of Previous House . . Length of Time Adult Pregram Has Method of Learning About the Adult Education Reasons for Hot Participating Summary of the Results from "Adult Education Sheet" Where Significant Differences Here Been Known Prozram . O O O 0 Interview Determined Cosine Matrix of Correlations Among Reference Vectors . Form A, Stens: General Population (Hon-Students): American Adult Women (20-60 Years), 1959 Revision and Expansion of Norms Bipolar Descriptions of Source Traits(Factors) A Through Q4 0 o o X or Column Vector (Means) . . S or Covariance Katrix (Triaigular Form) Correlation Coefficients vii Page 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 125 126 146 147 149 154 155 LIST OF GRATHS Graph Page I. Groups of Selectees Reached as a Percentage of Total Number Reached by Telephone . . . . . . . . . 67 II. Groups of Selectees Participating as a Percentage of Total Number Participating . . . . . . . . . 67 III. Factor A . . . . . . . . . . 70 IV. Factor B . . . . . . . . . . 70 V. Factor C . . . . . . . . . . 71 VI. Factor E . . . . . . . . . . 71 VII. Factor F . . . . . . . . . . 72 VIII. Factor G . . . . . . . . . . 72 IX. Factor H . . . . . . . . . . 73 X. Factor I . . . . . . . . . . 73 X . Factor L . . . . . . . . . . 7A XII. Factor M . . . . . . . . . . 7A XIII. Factor N . . . . . . . . . . 75 XIV. Factor 0 . . . . . . . . . . 75 XV. Factor Q1 . . . . . . . . . . 76 XVI. Factor Q2 . . . . . . . . . . 76 XVII. Factor Q3 . . . . . . . . . . 77 XVIII. Factor Q . . . . . . . . . . 77 'IX. Age Groupirgs for Participators and Non—participators 92 la. Last Grade or Year of Attendance in Regular School . 95 viii Graph XXI. XXII. XXIII. Activity in School Buildings . VOt ing 0 o o o o o o 0 Church Attendance . . . . ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction When dealing with any complex situation, which must be understood and perhaps modified, a first step is to observe and systematically record the observations. However, meaningful observations require the careful use of measuring instruments. And, measuring instruments are specialized and must be applied properly if results are to be of value. The field of adult education is complex; In it are found all kinds of peeple and all kinds of non—personal factors, many and diverse relationships among the elements, and a continual state of change. It is sometimes felt that no man and no part of man's environment are entirely free of implications for adult education. Instruments for measuring man and his surroundings leave much to be desired. In fact, in physical engineering of all kinds it is an axiom that no measurement aside from mere counting of units is or can be perfect. However, it can be better. Maintaining of accuracy of the.simp1est measurements of weight and length requires frequent international gatherings of the most informed national leaders and involves well-protected air-conditioned standards in Washington and Geneva. By comparison instruments designed for measuring human characteristics often seem crude and their application indifferent. (a Another accepted procedure in physical science is to consider any structure which is to be measured broken into homogeneous parts. The measure of each part is taken. Carried to the extreme this means counting electrons and protons and the other building stones of the atom. Carried to the extreme this can also mean such a preoccupation with minutiae that essential interconnections and the whole, greater than its parts, may be forgotten. However, if ignored, it can and usually does mean much ado about nothing. In this paper it will be contended that adult education is a composite of many elements of the tangible and the intangible. Therefore, it cannot be said in sweeping style that this or that is true of adult education or even that it is true of a participator in adult education in general. It can only be said that available evidence indicates that a certain observation has been made with respect to a small, partially homogeneous segment of the adult education complex, and, within the limits of fallibility of the measuring instrument, a truth is being approached. Statement of the Problem This thesis is concerned with the.measurenent of the personality factors of a group of women who have participated in three terms of sewing in the adult education program in Flint, Michigan. [Also measured are the personality factors of a group of women who have not participated in any activity which could be considered adult education. Members of the second group were selected by the first group and were, in general, friends and neighbors of the individuals of the first group. The women of each group were given, in their homes, the Sixteen Personality l Factor Questionnaire by Cattell, Saunders, and Stice and a personal interview questionnaire, the “Adult Education Interview Sheet," constructed by this researcher.2 It was expected that in some ways the personalities of the two groups would differ. It was also expected that in many ways the two groups would be alike in important non—personality areas. Thus it was hoped a more clear picture of both the participators and non- participators could be found. The personality characteristics of the participator are extremely important to the adult educator because he is working with her and it is her educational need which must be.met. Almost equally important are the personality characteristics of the non-participator because it is this person whom the adult educator hopes to draw into the program. And, since it is further expected that the non-participator, who is a close acquaintance of the participator, is more apt to become a participator, the group comprised of friends and neighbors of the participator is of particular interest. The field where measurements are to be taken, though containing a large number of women, is a comparatively small part of the total field of adult education. It is composed of women only and women involved in one particular group of classes in the adult education program in Flint. Considered also is a second group limited in that 1Raymond B. Cattell, D. R. Saunders, and G. Stice, Sixteen Personality Factorgguestionnaire, Form,A (Champaign, 111.: Institute for Farsonality and Ability Testing, 1959). See‘Appendix, p. 140 for a copy of this questionnaire. 2" O O O C see Awnendix, p. 1&1 for a cony of thIS interView sheet. it is composed of women and non-participators. It bears with respect to the first group relationships of acquaintance and proximity. Individuals in both groups must, as in all surveys, have a willingness to cooperate. Assuming a reasonable accuracy of the measuring instrument and a careful application, the findings can contribute to understanding in several ways. [A trustworthy measure of a small part of the adult participating population and a similar measure of a related non- participating group will result. This will be another step toward the measure of all factors in adult education which is an overall goal of adult education research. It is not to be doubted that certain immediate benefits can be derived from using the results of this study of these restricted groups. And even though conclusions of this study cannot be extended beyond the population of which the groups are samples, they will hint at fruitful areas for further study. Backstage and Need for This Study To state that adult education is an area of increasing importance in modern society will not startle anyone who has even a casual knowl- edge of the bulging enrollments in adult education programs throughout the United States. Figures for the nation and figures for even one city that are clear and meaningful are often hard to obtain but some attempts have been made. ZMOrse‘L. Cartwright, a director of the CAIerican Association of AdultiEducation, estimated 14,881,500 participants in 19.24 and 22,311,000 in 1934.1 Paul Essert of Columbia HMorse,A. Cartwright, Ten Years of Adult Education (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1935), cited by Edmund deS Brunner, David S. Wilder, Corrinne Kirchner, and John S. Newberry, An Overview of Adult Education Research (Chicago: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., 1959), p.2. University claims 29,000,000 in 19501 and.Ma1colm.Know1es believes almost 50,000,000 were in adult education in 1955.2 These authors all admit that their figures may be in error, but feel they are the best estimates possible. Considering the number of communities offering adult education courses, Edmund deS Brunner has this to contribute: In 1924, only nine high schools in a nationwide representative sample of one hundred forty village—centered agricultural communities offered any adult education and almost all of it was vocational. In 1936, forty—two of these schools had adult education offerings, over one—fifth of them non-vocational. By mid-century, according to another study, better than three-fourths of the.school districts with populations under 10,000 conducted courses for adults, many non—vocational. Urban proportions were higher.3 Looking at Flint, in which the current study was conducted, it again is evident that adult education participation has become large in a relatively short period. Before 1935 there were certain adult activities in churches, Y;M.CMA. and YJW.CMA. groups, libraries, and other non—public school areas. There were no composite figures then as to number of enrollments in these classes nor do such figures exist for total enrollments today. However, it is contended by people involved that there has been considerable growth. With respect to the public school adult education story, the 1Paul Essert, Creative Leadership of Adult Education (New York: Prentice Hall, 1951), p. 40. 2Malcolm.Knowles, “Adult Education in the United States,“ Adult iEducation, V, No. 2 (Winter, 1955), cited by Edmund deS Brunner, David S. Wilder, Corrinne.Kirchner, and John S. Newberry, An Overview of Adult Education Research (Chicago: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A.. 1959 , p. 3. 3Edmund deS Brunner and Others, An Overview of,Adu1tiEducation Research (Chicago: ,Adult‘Education Association of the U.S.A., 1959), p. 3. picture is much clearer. Prior to 1935 there was no organized public school adult education; in 1935 there was a beginning with three parent education classes involving about 25 people; by 1945 this had become 80 classes and 2,016 enrollments; in 1958 there were 3,201 classes and 77,644 enrollments. Flint‘s population from 1945 to 1958 grew from about 160,000 to 200,000. Thus, adult education increased 4,000% while popu— lation increased only 25%. Not only is it possible to measure the growth in adult education up to this time, it is further possible to note social and economic trends which give promise of further great strides in adult education programs. The theme that increased leisure time will force the creation of an ever greater adult program if good living is to be had is so widely held it needs little elaboration here. However, a few items which apply directly to Flint may support the contention. One Flint automobile plant which formerly employed 30,000 men can now produce an equal number of more complicated cars with 19,000 men. This means, first and immediate, unem- ployment. It means retraining. It indicates greater productivity. And, if the immediate maladjustments can be corrected, it can mean more leisure time to be used for adult education activities. One particular product manufactured in.Flint, in a plant,current1y employing 11,000 men and women, cost, in 1950, forty—eight cents to produce. Today this same product can be produced for twenty-four cents. This is again an indi— cation of greater productivity which further can.mean greater leisure and learning. The'U.A.W.—C.I.O. claims productivity per man in the auto- mobile plants of Flint has increased nearly 4% each year during the last decade. This is still more evidence that the American standard of living may be maintained with fewer hours of work. Approaching the same problem from a more negative viewpoint, it can be stated that our society is most demanding on the individual mentally and emotionally, and if provision is not made for lifelong mental and emotional health, society will reap the heavy punishment of care for one person inten1 in corrective or custodial institutions. Wilbur C. Hallenbeck writes: People have a sense of frustration. They realize they are surrounded with controls and forces with which they cannot cope. Bigness and remoteness put the forces which mold their lives beyond their reach. Nothing is more disillusioning or disheartening than to realize that one can do nothing about the things which affect his life.2 Malcolm.8. MecLean offers: ‘We have moved from the isolated calm of farm lands to the turmoil of great cities; from a majority of children and young folk to a preponderance of oldsters; from the soft sounds of bird calls, lowing cattle and splashing streams to the roar of a million motors, the jangling of a billion bells, the scream of fire, police, and ambulance sirens; and from the safety of intimate knowledge of a few friendly neighbors to the insecurity of ignorance, hostility or indifference of many masses of folks jammed in slums, theatres, claustrophobic apartment cells. Under the impact of these accumulations of noise, movement, machines, and people, disinte— gration sets in. Solid cores of value crumble, conflicts replace stability, and bewilderment overcomes understanding.3 It is apparent, therefore, that adult education has had a rapid growth nationwide and in the Flint community. Also if mental and emotional health are to be.maintained and America is to escape the 1Education Flint, II, No. 5 (Flint: Flint Board of Education, 1959), p. 1. zfililbur c. Ballenbeck, "Participation in Public Affairs," Adult Education, 11, No. 1 (October, 1951), p. 15. 3Malcolm 8. MacLean, "Learning to Live with.Atomic Energy," (address before the Institute on Atomic‘Energy, University of California at Los Angeles, May 28, 1947; unpublished),_cited by Paul H. Sheats, Clarence D. Jayne, and Ralph B. Spence, Adult Education, The Community ,Approach (New York: The Dryden Press, 1953), p. 43. dire future so many predict, forces must be encouraged which oppose the threatened dissolution. An ever broader, more effective adult education program may be one of these beneficent forces. But no plan of action can hope to be effective without measurement and understanding of the specific elements involved. This paper is planned to provide some of those measurements and contribute toward an understanding. There is strong suspicion among adult education leaders that the challenge of adult education is not being fully met. Studies indicate that in a democratic society whose very life’s blood depends on voluntary association and participation as high as 65% of the people are not participating at all in anything.1 ‘And further, even among those who try to avail themselves of opportunities in existing adult education programs, satisfaction is by no means assured. It is estimated that, nation wide, 50% of those who join adult programs drop out before realizing appreciable benefits.2 This in a sense is a measure of the lack of systematic observations of the groups with whom adult leaders are and should be working. 'Many testify to the confusion with respect to research in the field of adult education. Edmund deS Brunner wrote in 1959: any examination in research in adult education reveals a rather chaotic situation. A few pertinent areas such as adult learning, have been explored far more thoroughly than others. Some have received almost no research attention. Where any considerable body 1William.G.lMather, "Income and Social Participation," American Sociological Review, VI, No. 3 (June, 1941), p. 382. 2Stephen Russell Deane, “A Psychological Description of Adults ‘Who Have.Participated in Selected.Eflucational Activities" (unpublished 'Doctoral thesis, Graduate School, University of Maryland, 1949), p. l. of effective research is available other than in the field of methods, typically it has been conducted, not by adult educators, but by social scientists who had available a considerable body of theory, generalizations and methodologies developed by their disciplines which could be applied to the problems of adult education. Thus the movement has benefited much from the work of psychologists and to a considerable but lesser extent, from that of social psychologists and sociologists.1 Brunner also contends that what has been done by adult educators in research has been chiefly ”descriptive studies which record, sometimes with satisfactory detail and analyses, the experiences, successes, and mistakes of a single program or of a total effort in a single community or area";2 or, “studies of local situations used for building programs appropriate to the people and locality studies.“3 Limited though these studies may be, he does not "decry the value of such work."4 He merely warns that in such cases improper generalizations must be avoided.- It is interesting to note that the 1948 issue of the Handbook of Adult Education in the United States covers over five hundred pages with fifty-four chapters and nearly fifty—four authors without mentioning research except briefly in connection with governmental research organizations which have nothing to do with adult education directly.5 Research has contributed in some ways to the understanding of behavior. Certain information is available concerning the individual adult. For example, something is known about his ability to learn, 1Brunner, p. 2. 2Ibid., p. 6. 3Ibid. 41bid. 5Mary L. Ely (ed.), Handbook ofAdult Education in the United States (New York: Institute of Adult Education, 1948). 10 his motivation to learn, his interests, and educational level. His socio-economic condition can be described. There are techniques for manipulating him. He can be taught to do certain things for himself. Relationships and dependencies among these factors are also known. However, if the additional fact is given that this adult being studied is a participator in adult education activity, research reveals little more, personality—wise, about him. It may be guessed that he is more intelligent, or more ambitious, or more lonely, or more free to go out nights. Other stereotyped attitudes adult educators have about their clientele may be inferred, but nothing is known through measurement. The conclusions to be drawn from this paper should include that if a certain person is a participator in a certain type of activity then it follows that he, within given statistical limits, certainly is different from, or similar to, a given person of a non—participating group. It is important to know this if adult educators are to provide more satis— factions for the participator and entice, as they feel they should, the non—participator into the fold. This idea of specifically what research has to contribute to understanding of adults will be developed more fully in the chapter on the review of literature in the field. It is sufficient to say here that there seems to be a kind of research missing and a need which this paper hopes to help fill. To say that a paper is valuable because it studies women does not imply that it is more valuable than if it studied men. However, in Flint there are more women involved in adult education than men. In Flint's public school adult educational program about 60% of the participants are women. This would mean there were about 45,000 women 11 participating in 1959. Secondly, the values of adult education as already stated are particularly pertinent to women. The increased leisure due to increased productivity is felt in the home. Further, men commonly work to the age of sixty—five while a woman's work is greatly reduced at forty or forty—five when children leave home. JAt the same time the pressures of modern living bear just as relentlessly on her. The man may bring home all of his anxieties to add to hers and the woman will be exposed to them but even more helpless to do anything about them. If it is accepted that complete understanding of the people in adult education involves measurement of those people and if it should be agreed that measurement of the larger and more important groups should be undertaken first, then there is justification for measuring personality characteristics of the women in sewing classes. Flint has about 2,500 women in sewing classes each year. About four hundred of these, in the third.year of sewing, comprise one of the groups studied in this survey. Better information about this group can result in its better being served by the program. If it could be estimated that the well—being of each woman is closely tied with the well-being of more than three other people (and this guess is justified from later statistics on this group), over 1,600 people each year or nearly 1% of Flint's population are affected. In conclusion, it is contended that this groUp is of sufficient size and importance to make this study worthwhile even though it is a specialized group and conclusions reached about it cannot be generalized to include all adult education participators everywhere. 12 Robert Plummer wrote in a study he had made of participators in a certain adult education program the chief method of learning about the program was through a friend. This is more important than news- papers, or radio, or television, or special pamphlets, or any other device commonly used by promoters of adult programs.1 Other evidence that promotion of adult programs is through acquaintanceship and word-of—mouth includes a study by Stephen Deane in 1949. He wrote: It is apparent . . . that very few persons seek adult education courses entirely on their own initiative. Most frequently they are told about courses by friends and relatives. In many of the answers the respondent indicated that he was talked into attending by some neighbor who was hesitant to go alone.2 From this it may be reasoned that the acquaintances of a group of participators in adult education are members of the non-participating group on which the most effective promotional device is being focused. This group is of interest to the adult educator because members of it are in a position to be drawn into adult education and he may soon have to be dealing with them as class members. But they are of interest in in this study not only for this reason but also because, being acquaintances, they are in many ways, it is believed, like the partici- pating group so whatever differences are found will possibly be relevant to a participation pattern. What little has been done on the study of participators in adult education has been done without comparison to non—participating groups. 1Robert H. Plummer, "An Experiment In Counseling," Adult Education, II, No. 1 (Autumn, 1958), p. 34. 2Deane, p. 24. 13 Probably this is true because the participators have been considered a fairly easy group to reach through actual classes attended while non—participators are scattered, heterogeneous and, in general, much harder to reach. There is even some doubt that accurate information, especially in psychological areas, can be obtained through classroom surveys of participators. The extremely negative reaction, noted in these captive groups to imposed surveys, would lead one to doubt results. These silent rebellions are often unknown to the teacher, who is generally a likable fellow and may even give grades, and to the survey director who is a good friend of the teacher. Finally, to be considered in discussing the importance of the problem, is the value of measuring the personality differences of the two groups. The value lies chiefly in the assumption that more or less persistent personality factors are at least partly responsible for adult behavior, and the adult behavior and the modifying of it make up the province of the adult educator. There is almost nothing in adult education research on classified personality characteristics of participators in adult programs. There are certain personality differ- entiations for men compared to women; for younger adults compared to older adults;1 but “0t for participators compared to non—participators. This measure is not easy, but as Cattell implies this should not be left to the novelist while the psychometrist has fled to the laboratory "where the husk of measurement may be exhibited even when the kernel is lost."2 112. s. Cattell, n. a. Saunders, and G. Stice, Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign, 111.; Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, 1957). 2R. B. Cattell, Description and Measurement of Personality (Yonkers— on-Hudson, New York: ‘World Book Co., 1946), p. l. 14 Basic Assumptions of This Study The following assumptions were considered basic to this study: 1. 2. that the sixteen personality factors described in the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire by Cattell, Saunders, and Stice comprise a meaningful classification of personality factors. that the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire when properly used measures the stated elements of personality. that women in their own homes who have been asked by the investigator by telephone to participate responded truthfully. in general, to the questions on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the fiAdult'Education Interview Sheet." that women in the homes of neighbors who have been invited by their neighbors to participate responded truthfully, in general, to the questions on the.8ixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the “Adult Education Interview Sheet.“ that the groups studied are an important segment of the adult population, participator and non—participator. that results of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and "Adult Education Interview Sheet" can be used by adult educators to improve classes and to encourage greater participation. The Scope and Limitations of This Study This study attempted to measure the personality factors of a group of women who had completed a third class in sewing offered by the Mott Program of the.Adult‘Education Division of the Flint Board of Education 15 and the personality factors of a group of their friends and neighbors who had never participated in any adult education classes. Interviewers entered the homes of women to be tested after a telephone appointment had been made and waited while the two questionnaires were completed. It is recognized that the method used to gather information is vulnerable in the following ways: 1. Certain individuals, when telephoned, refused to be interviewed. Non-respondents may produce bias, and there is a possibility that their returns, if they could be obtained, would alter the results. In some cases women telephoned were unable to find a friend or neighbor who had not participated in adult education and was willing to fill in the questionnaire. This situation could introduce more bias. Some women may have falsified answers because they did not feel sure of the anonymity of their answers. In some cases there was no answer to the telephone even after repeated recalls over a two month period. There may have been some hidden but a real variation in the seriousness with which the women regarded the questionnaire. Interviewers saw no evidence of a lack of seriousness but it is well known that various physical states may alter toleration of interferences to normal living such as this questionnaire represented. The participator sample chosen was a sample of those Flint women who had participated in three sewing classes. In 16 Therefore, generalization in the most strict sense will have to be limited to this population. The non-participator sample was of friends and neighbors of the participating sample and so generalizations of this sample in the most strict sense will have to be limited to friends and neighbors of the first total population selected in manner given. This was an attitudinal study in part and as such is probably less dependable than a factual study. The degree of inaccuracy cannot be fully measured. However, some limited estimation will be attempted in the statistical analysis. The Hypotheses formulating hypotheses for this study, the investigator was motivated by the following considerations: 1. 3. That knowledge of the personality factors of participators in a portion of the Flint adult education program will help in improving that portion of adult education. That knowledge of the personality factors of a group of non-participators who were well known to the participators will help in devising methods to attract the non-participators and of providing proper educational opportunities for them when they once become involved. A comparison of the personality factors of the two groups will make the personality factor measure of each more meaningful. 4. 17 Knowledge of certain non-personality factors of the two groups measured with comparisons to each other and to personality factors will make more meaningful the personality factors. The hypotheses are as follows: 1. 2. There are statistically significant differences between personality factors of the selected participators and personality factors of the selected non-participators as measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire by Cattell, Saunders, and Stice. The participators and non-participators as selected will not be significantly different statistically in other non—personality factors which will be measured by the WAdult Education Interview Sheetk” The differences and likenesses found will suggest adjustment of methods in adult education. Importance of This Study Adult education has grown so fast in recent years that adult educators have been more than busy merely trying to satisfy insistent demand. This has been attempted on a trial-and—error basis with resulting inefficiencies. The groups which have endured have been judged to be effective and right for reasons unknown. The groups which have fallen by the wayside have been judged ineffective often for reasons unknown. Further, groups accommodated in adult education have generally 18 been those which clamored the loudest for attention and little attempt has been made to consider out—groups. It has been quite possible that a public school adult education program like the one in Flint has served the same group many ways while other large groups have been unheard and unknown. This is not good when it is considered that a public school program is paid for by all citizens and should serve all citizens. Measures of adults taken with a view to increasing the effective— ness and service of adult programs have largely been limited to the measuring of only participators and to the measuring of factual and descriptive features. However easy and useful this has been in the past, it is not sufficient because it has neglected the non-participators who are harder to reach and neglected the important personality factors on which so much human direction depends both for the non—participator and the participator. This study is an attempt to add to participator studies these two heretofore neglected factors. It is designed to examine personality as related to adult education participation. And it is an attempt to bring into the picture a selected group of non—participators in order to sharpen the focus and extend the usefulness. The area delineated for observation is necessarily limited, but it is hoped it will point the way for similar studies to continue until a body of knowledge has been assembled that will put adult education on a firmer scientific base than it now enjoys. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE When one studies the literature related to the question of personality differences between a group of participators in a specific adult education activity and an associated group not participating, it becomes evident that the study may be very broad if a large number of suggested relationships are pursued or quite limited if only close relationships are considered pertinent. This section will present literature in two areas. First, there will be a limited discussion of certain personality considerations and in particular personality of adults. Here, also, will be included comment on the present state of personality testing again with respect to adults. Lastly, and most fully, will be examined those writings which purport to explain reasons for adult participation in group activity with special emphasis on reasons having to do with personality factors and with adult activities which may be considered adult education. Certain Personality Considerations of Adults Personality has been defined as those characteristics which are measured on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. This paper deals with differences in two chosen groups as measured on this questionnaire. However, as background to comparison of these measure- ments, a few references to personality in general and to personality measurements in particular are in order. 19 20 James S. Plant explains the development of the attitude of the social worker toward personality. He writes that years ago people were considered on the basis of their accomplishments and, therefore, a person's acts tended to be equated with his personality. Later the person involved in the act received greater emphasis and so personality became a person behaving. Finally, he believes each person and his behavior came to be thought of as a part of a cultural pattern and so personality, without an understanding of the cultural whole, was meaningless.1 The words used to describe the elements of personality vary with the authors. Plant uses alertness, complexity, pliability, temperament, and cadence as well as attitudes toward security, reality, and authority with all the relationships between these and the outer world. ‘David C. McClelland discusses trait (expressive performance) as a personality variable, schema (ideas, values, roles) as a personality variable, motive as a personality variable, and the integration of all of these.2 Raymond B. Cattell uses the sixteen factors discussed earlier although these were the final product of an evolution. Leonard V. Gordon lists only ascendancy, responsibility, emotional stability, and sociability.3 ‘McClelland is comprehensive when he writes, “to do the job [describe personality:lwell requires a knowledge of practically all of present day 1James S. Plant, Personality and the Cultural Pattern (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1937), pp. 3-23. 2David C. McClelland, Personality (New York: ‘William Sloane .Associates, 1951). 3Leonard‘V. Gordon, Gordon Personal Profile Manual (Yonkers- on—Hudson, New York: ‘World Book Co., 1953). 21 psychology."1 Cattell emphasized the difficulties of personality measurement when he wrote in 1956 in the Journal of Clinical Psychology: Although the ideal in personality measurement, as in ability measure- ment, is to deal with functionally unitary traits, there are as yet extremely few personality factor scales available. The clinical, educational, or industrial psychologist who is ready for the sophisticated and effective diagnosis and prediction which the use of factors . . . makes possible, finds available only a few instruments of objective factor measurement and three or four questionnaires.2 Cattell, in this article, further explains the validation factor analyses and research basis that makes the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire a suitable measure of adult personality. Anne.Anastasi wrote in 1954: [A phase of psychological testing which is still in its infancy is represented by the various efforts to measure non-intellectual aspects of behavior. Tests designed for this purpose are commonly known as 'personality tests”, . . . .3 She further wrote that: For the present, it will suffice to point out that personality testing lags far behind aptitude testing in its positive accomplish— ments. Nor is such lack of progress to be attributed to insufficient effort. Research on the measurement of personality has reached vast proportions during the last decade, and many ingenuous devices and technical improvements are under investigation. It is rather the special difficulties encountered in the measurement of personality that account for the slow advances in this area. An interesting study related to personality of adult females is 1McClelland, p. xi. 2Raymond B. Cattell, "Validation and Intensification of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XII (July, 1956), p. 206. éAnne.Anastasi, Psycholggical Testing_(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954), p. 16. 4Ibid. 22 that of Helen Kerr Maxham reported in the Journal of Genetic Psychology in 1944. ‘Maxham had an interest in two areas. First, she wanted to know the status of women as perceived by themselves, and second, she wished to have rated by these women traits of personality which they considered ideal in a husband. Five hundred thirty college women composed the sample. Conclusions pertinent to this study include: The most conspicuous feature of the study as a whole is the close agreement upon most points of the women reporting here. The conclusion is that the social environment of the moment was of greater weight in determining answers than was any difference in age, the variations between age groups being usually one of relatively small degree.1 However, insofar as there was change with age, the ideas about status of women became more fixed and uniform in the older groups while ideas about a husband remained fairly fixed regardless of age.2 Because the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire used in this study included intelligence as a factor, and because evidence to be presented later indicates there may be statistically significant differences between participators and non-participators in this area, observations on adult intelligence are in order. Whether intelligence is a proper subject for study under the heading of personality is not fully agreed upon. Cattell, himself, in his early accounts of his Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire refers to fifteen personality factors and intelligence. Nevertheless, in later writing be.makes no differentiation and none shall be made in this paper. Much more has been done with intelligence than any other personality 1Helen Kerr Maxham, ”A Study of the Viewpoints of women of ‘Different Age Groups," Journal of Genetic Psychoiggy, LXIV (June, 1944), p. 314. 21bid. 23 factor, but, as David Wechsler pointed out in 1947, not so much has been done with intelligence of adults. ‘Wechsler wrote: [Although the earliest investigations in the field of psychometrics were.made largely with adult subjects, the great bulk of test data which now forms the basis of intelligence scales has been derived from the examination of school children. The reasons for this are several. Perhaps the most important is the relative ease with which one may obtain young subjects. If we enquire why the Binet and other children's scales have continued to be used for the testing of adults, in spite of the criticism that has been leveled against this practice, the answer is not far to find. No better instruments were on hand . . . . The scales now in use fail to meet some of the most elementary requirements which psychologists ordinarily set themselves when standardizing a test. . . . . Most of them were never standardized on any adults at all. Wechsler emphasized further the lack of suitable materials for adults and the stress that current intelligence tests place on speed rather than power.2 The situation with respect to intelligence testing of adults may have improved some in recent years but still leaves much to be desired. Edmund deS Brunner is emphatic in his appraisal of present day methods of the evaluation of adult intelligence. He believes measurement of adult intelligence is complicated beyond what has been commonly believed, that perhaps the extended use of any tests in use today is bound to be nonproductive. Brunner today is in essential agreement with.Plant of twenty-five years ago in emphasizing the importance of environment and the cultural aspects of intelligence.3 1David Wechsler, The Measurement of Adult Intelligence (Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Co., 1944), p. 13. 21bid., p. 3. 3Edmund deS Brunner, David S. Wilder, Corrinne Kirchner, John S. Newberry, An Overview of Adult Education Research (Chicago: Adult ‘Education Association of the U. S. A.. 1959), p. 24. 24 One particular problem that may well be involved in conclusions drawn from the current study is that of constancy of intelligence and of the other personality factor. This will have to be properly handled if the groups or sub—groups being examined differ particularly in age. Sidney L. Pressey in 1939 observed: As measured by typical group test intelligence, mental ability grows rapidly during childhood and adolescence, reaching a peak somewhere during the late teens or early twenties. According to the tests a gradual decline begins soon thereafter and by the age of fifty—five ability has receded to about the fourteen year level. . . . These data suggest that either ability does not begin to decline as soon as tests indicate, or that accumulation of knowledge and experience, and.maturing of judgment more than compensate for the first decline. Both tests and accomplishment indicate a definite decline after sixty. But individual differences are great. Through childhood and youth interests are increasingly active and increasingly social . . . . Slowly through adult life there is a settling back into interests less active and into a narrowing and established social life.1 R. B. Cattell in 1947 argues: "The writer's former contention that the greater part of the variance in the personality sphere can be accounted for by about twelve factors that these factors are stable over adult age ranges and that they have the specific characteristics previously described is, therefore, sufficiently confirmed."2 In 1950 he wrote: .Although the period now to be examined, say from 25 to 50 or 55 is chronologically the longest, it is in most ways the least eventful in regard to personality Change . . . . .As with adolescence we shall find the issues best handled systematically by considering on the one hand, the inner biological maturation and changes and on the other, the environmental stimuli and poses of possible expression, 1Sidney‘L. Pressey, J.‘E11iott Janney, and Raymond G. Kuhlen, Life: A.Psychologica1 Survey (New‘York: Harper and Bros., 1939), p. 213. 2Raymond B. Cattell, "Confirmation and Clarification of Primary Personality Factors, "PsychometrikaJJIII, No. 3 (September, 1947), p. 217. 25 finally reviewing the interaction of these. . . .1 That he period of maturity results in a certain narrowing of interests and at length in a lack of spontaneity and a separation from unconscious needs, evident in some feeling of emptiness and dissatisfaction, has been discussed at length by Jung; but how prevalent this is and what its exact nature.may be, is not known In terms of objective psychology.2 An interesting side light on the use of Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire is reported in the proceedings of the Iowa.Academy of Science in 1953. .A significant difference was found between accident prone drivers and others at the five per cent level. Factors F and Q3 were significantly different at slightly higher than the ten per cent level. The author feels the results merited further study.3 E. Lowell Kelly, reporting in the American Psychologist in 1955, describes a longitudinal study designed to reveal personality constancy or the lack of it. The personality characteristics measured by Kelly were physical energy, intelligence, voice quality, neatness of dress, breadth of interest, conventionality, quietness, kind of temper, modesty, and dependability. The subjects were three hundred engaged couples. 4 The span of the study was twenty years. The findings are not conclusive. The author is extremely cautious in stating his results. He comments 1Raymond B. Cattell, Personality: ..ezge...e1. Theoretical and Factual Study (New York: IMcGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950), p. 610. 21bid., p. 616. :Virtus‘W. Suhr, The Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Test as a Prognosticator oféfcident Susceptibility, Proceedings of Iowa .Academy of Science, LX,.Des Moines: State of Iowa, 1953. . 4E. Lowell Kelly, "Consistency of the Adult Personality," American Psychologist,:x, No. 11 (November, 1955). 26 thus: ‘We found evidence for considerable consistency of several variables, in spite of fallible tools and a time span of nearly 20 years. But we also found evidence for considerable change in all variables measured. These changes were shown to be relatively specific rather than reflecting any over-all tendency to change. While measurable changes occurred on most variables, it appears that correlates of these changes are many and elusive, and hence, changes in scores are likely to be difficult to predict for individuals. .A firmer statement concluded the report: Such changes, while neither so large nor sudden as to threaten the continuity of the self concept or to impair one's day-to-day interpersonal relations are potentially of sufficient magnitude to offer a basis of fact for those who dare to hope for continued psychological growth during the adult years. / O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O In view of the considerable evidence for the general constancy of I.Q. during developmental period, and as reported by Owens and by Bayley and Oden for adult groups, it is likely that intelli- gence would have appeared at the top of this chart.3 ZEven in 1938 Herbert Sorenson may have been right when he observed on the subject of age and ability: "In general then, abilities that are used throughout adult experience tend to increase with age, while abilities required by situations that do not come within the scope of adult experience show a definite decline over a range of adult years."4 Anastasi in her usual clear style warns: Thus if we are interested in the effect of age upon test scores, we need groups which vary systematically in age while being as uniform as possible in all other relevant variables. For example, owing to the increasing educational level of the U. 8. population during the past decades, older persons living 11bid., p. 680. 21bid., p. 681. 31bid., p. 675. , 4Herbert Sorenson, Adult Abilities: .A Study of University Students GMinneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1938), p. 181. 27 today have had less education, on the average, than younger adults.1 ZEdward.A. Runquist wrote the Handbook of Applied.Psychology in 1950 on personality testing. He stated: “While the importance of personality factors in occupational success has been uniformly emphasized, attempts to measure these factors have by and large failed."2 Studies Related to the Characteristics of Participators in Adult Education Activiti53 With respect to participation in adult education, Coolie Verner and John S. Newberry stated: “The nature of participation in organized adult education has been studied less thoroughly than nearly any other aspect."3 Brunner and his associates comment on the “paucity and limited scope of research on participation in adult education.“4 They further contend that there have been two basic approaches in the study of pa ticipation: "(1) study of the characteristics of partici— pants in particular institutions or types of institutional programs, and (2) sampling of a population or area to determine differences between participants and non-participants in various types of adult education . . . Most of these studies are purely descriptive."5 The emphasis has been on the description of participators in.existing 1Anne Anastasi, "Age Changes in Adult Test Performance," Psycholggical ReporggJ II (1956), p. 509. 2Edward.A. Runquist, "Personality Tests and Prediction," Handbook ofprplied Psycholggy, edited by Fryer, H. Douglas, and Edwin Henry, I (New York: Rinehard and Co., 1950), p. 183. 3Coolie Verner and John S. Newberry, "The Nature of,Adult Participation,“ Adult Education, VIII, No. 4 (Summer, 1958), p. 213. ABrunner and Others, p. 98. 51bid., p. 90. 28 studies and characteristics of non-participators have been inferred but not measured. A good example of a descriptive study is the adult education Survey undertaken by the Los Angeles City School District, Division of Extension and Higher Education, Adult Education Branch, in October, 1959. This study reveals that participators in the Los Angeles program were born in 89 different countries; that they were 41.53 per cent male and 58.47 per cent female; that they ranged from 18 years to 69 years with the largest percentage in the 30—39 group. Further, 63.285 per cent were married, and 68 per cent had attended college. The total questionnaire not only included numbers and percentages of these afore- mentioned items, but similar statistics under the following headings: United States citizen, registered voter, number of years in California, ownership of home, personal property tax, children in school, distance from home to school, method of transportation, reasons for attending adult school, ways of improving the adult school experience, rating of adult school classes, attitude toward taxing for adult school, attitude toward tuition for adult school, annual family income, and employment status.1 There is no attempt to measure the non-participating groups. There is no reference to figures, which are possibly known in Los Angeles, descriptive of the population as a whole in some of the listed areas. To an adult education worker these given figures are interesting and to the school people of Los Angeles they could be useful, but there 1Informational Report on Adult Education to the Los Angeles City Board of—Education, Minnographed report to :the Los Angeles City School Districts, Division of Extension and Higher Education, Adult Education Branch (December 10, 1959). 29 is much to be done before they would be considered complete. Literature abounds in this type of study. The well-known verner and Newberry study is also descriptive of more or less surface characteristics of participating adults. The five headings used are: sex, age, education level, economic status, and occupational group. This study has two important improvements over the Los Angeles study referred to earlier. verner and Newberry_produce figures in each category for the general population for comparison. They also break the adult education program into several subheads: public school, junior college, university extension, private corres- pondence, Great Books, and home demonstration. The general population figures, of course, include both participators and non—participators and comparisons consequently are not between participators and non- participators. The subdivisions of adult education are of utmost importance also if meaningful results are to be obtained. For example, in the Verner and Newberry study the participation rate for "professionals" ranges from 5.8 per cent in public school programs to 55 per cent in university extension programs. The participation rate also ranges from seven per cent for professionals participating in private correspon- dence studies to 19.6 per cent for the white collar worker in private correspondence studies. To combine the various phases of adult educa— tion and produce one figure would be quite meaningless. Similarly, to combine various classifications of people and produce one figure for participators in a broad area should be treated with care.1 1V'erner and Newberry. 30 This supports the contention made elsewhere in this paper that a study of the characteristics of participators in adult education must be done within highly restricted adult groups. Another study which casts some light on the characteristics of adults participating in adult education activities is that of George Baxter Smith. This study considers in part the characteristics of those adults who completed home study courses of Columbia University as opposed to the characteristics of those adults who enrolled in home study courses but did not complete them. Dr. Smith discovers what has been rediscovered several times; that, in general, the tendency is for those who have the most regular education to enroll in and complete the adult education activity. He further shows evidence that those adults with vocationally oriented goals are also more apt to enrollin and complete adult education home courses. When classified according to age, older adults from forty years of age on complete considerably more courses than those in the lower age levels. The Smith study con- siders many breakdowns within educational and occupational areas, but makes no attempt to examine further personality or psychological factors.1 Abraham Abbott Kaplan studied the socio—economic relationship to participation in adult education activities. Again, this is not a deliberate attempt to investigate personality characteristics of ‘participating adults, but in the study certain non-personality (in the 1George Baxter Smith, "Purposes and Conditions Affecting the Nature and Extent of Participation of Adults in Courses in the Home Study Department of Columbia University, 1925-1932," Contributions to Education, No. 663 (New York: Bureau of Publications:_TEachers College, Columbia University, 1935). _ 31 sense used in this study) but related characteristics are measured. For example, Kaplan wrote: "In general, residents of areas of higher socio-economic status participatedto a greater degree and in a larger number of the educational activities than residents of lower status areas."1 High rank correlations were obtained between education and participation and between economic status and participation. A high rank correlation was also apparent between socio-economic status and percentage of cases participating in three or more activities. There did not appear to be a very high correlation for the fourteen areas between percentage of native—born and participation. In the realm of attitude, Kaplan notes: . . . it was apparent that there were many persons who did not participate because of a feeling of 'not belonging', or of not feeling welcome, or because of a conviction that their particular problems were not being considered or would not be given a favorable hearing.2 Kaplan also found that in Springfield younger persons participated more than older, and single persons more than married.3 A recent descriptive study of participation in adult activities which is noteworthy is that of John B. Holden. This study, undertaken in 1957 in collaboration with the Bureau of Census and the United States 1Abraham.Abbott Kaplan, "Socio—economic Circumstances and Adult Participation.in.Certain Cultural and Educational Activities," Contributions to Education, No. 889 (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1943), p. 114. 2Ibid., p. 68. 31bid . 32 Office of Education, was designed primarily to find the nature of the participation, the number of participators, and characteristics of participators as to age, previous education, and occupation. Conclu- sions reached included the estimate in 1957 of 8,000,000 persons en- rolled in adult education, as defined by that survey. Further,it was found that the types of activities having the greatest enrollment were trade, business, and technical classes. These accounted for nearly one-third of the total. The next largest groups were general education classes and civic and public affairs classes in diet order. Home and family living classes and recreational skills classes ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. Measure of a limited number of characteristics of adult partici— pators revealed the following. Over 40 per cent of the participators were in the 30-44 year age group, with a falling off in number steeply, but symetrically, on each side of this group. The retired group, 60—74, managed only a participation rate of 2.8 per cent. As to education, the percentage of the total population participating increased directly as formal school attainment increased. The "functionally illiterate" had 1.4 per cent participation rate while 25.5 per cent of those with four or more years of college were involved. Finally, professional technical groups and clerical sales groups led the list of participators and farmers, farm.managers, and laborers trailed when occupations were examined.1 Several comments may be made on this survey. As the author er. 1John B.‘Holden, "A Survey of Participation in Adult Education Classes," Adult Leadership, VI (April, 1958). 33 points out, it is a start in the direction of developing a scientific measure of the adult education population, and certainly suggests a limited and selected participation at the present time. However, be— cause of the definitions and methods used, the reliability of some of the figures is open to question. Finally, it can be said that no attempt was made here to examine psychological or personality charac— teristics of adult participators except as they may be deduced from some of the categories established. Holden’s concluding sentence is interesting even if it may be debatable. "If adult education is to help meet the challenge of the present and foreseeable future, we should have more complete statistics on adult education on the local, state, and national levels classified by personal, social, and economic factors which might be made available only through the decennial Census."1 George M. Beal, writing in 1956, stresses the inadequacy of mere measurement of age, class, and income categories usually considered in studies of participation. He suggests more attention to "dynamic factors." By "dynamic factors" he refers to having a say in decision— making in the group and to a feeling of responsibility for group action and group values.2 This is felt to be a step ahead but, nevertheless, measurable personality factors associated with decision-making, behavior, and feelings of responsibility should not be neglected. Emory J. Brown in 1954 explored the hypotheses that: (1) differen- fi— llbid., p. 270. 2George M. Beal, "Additional Hypotheses on Participation Research," Rural Sociology, XXI, No. 1-4 (1956), p. 249. 34 tial formal participation patterns are associated with positions in the community social structure; (2) differential formal participation patterns are associated with ecological factors and means of communica— tion; (3) differential participation patterns are associated with self images; and (4) differential participation patterns are associated with varying "other" images of the community. The study claims that each hypothesis was supported by the facts. With respect to the "self image" hypothesis, two traits were examined. These were a.fee1ing of being at ease in social groups and the image of self as a participator. Those who both were at ease and who considered themselves participators were judged to be the participa- tors by the researchers. Finally, certain expectancies of the community, as, for example, the expectancy that farm owners would make better par— ticipators, were a barrier which would have to be broken before full participation could be expected.1 Roy C. Buck and Louis A. Ploch approached the subject of adult social participation by considering change in participation over a period from 1937 to 1949. Certain interesting results include the finding that heads of households tended to participate more in the latter years. This was accompanied by an increase in the mean socio— economic status of all household heads during this period, and so agrees with other related research. It was found that younger rather than older age was associated with participation. In both survey years 1Emory J. Brown, Elements Agsociated with Activity and Inactivity in.Rural Organizations, Bulletin 574, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station, February, 1954. 35 church affiliation was found to be related to participation. Finally, both short and long term residence in the community were related to low participation, but this was more pronounced in 1949 than in 1937.1 Harold Kaufman's study of 1949 of participation in group activi— ties in Kentucky is another study in a limited area which may be of value in Kentucky, but which seems only to confirm other research and offers no new broad generalizations. Kaufman notes a large number of people who lacked organized contact. He finds a great difference of participation among various socio-economic classes. Finally, he finds a concentration of leadership among those with high participation rates.2 W. A. Anderson described a research in 1953, related to rural social participation and the family life cycle. In this study a definite relationship was found between each of the six stages into which a family life cycle can be divided and formal md informal participation.3 Again, this tends to be a description of surface characteristics and yields essentially the same conclusions so often found in participation studies. For example, owner husbands and wives participate more than tenant—- laborer husbands and wives. Income increases in the post—child care 1Roy C. Buck and Louis A. Ploch, Factors Related to Changes in Social Participation in a Rural Pennsylvania Community ,Tulletin 58—27 Pennsylvania State College: Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1954, p. 29. 2Harold F. Kaufman, Participation in Organized Activities in Selected Kentucky Localities, Bulletin 525: Lexington: University of fintucky AgriculturalfiExperTment Station, 1949. 3W. A. Anderson, Rural Social Participation and the Family Life Cycle, Part 1: Formal ParHcipation, Memoire 314, Ithaca, New York: Cornefi University Agricultural Ec—per iment Station, 1953. 36 years, and so does participation, but this study does not suggest a casual relationship.1 ' A second study by W. A. Anderson, also in 1953, on the same sub- - ject, in another part of New York, verified the findings of the first.2 A study which would appear from its title to approach the hypotheses suggested in the present study is, "A Psychological Descrip— tion of Adults Who Have Participated in Selected Educational Activities" by Stephen R. Deane. Deane stated no hypotheses and professed to be exploratory. Three groups of participators were interviewed with respect to their attitudes toward their adult education experiences and life in general. Deane was interested in possible attitudinal differences among the three groups and between the group of the participators who finished the courses and the group which did not. He used open—ended questions and allowed each respondent thirty minutes in a personal interview situation. The three groups of participators were from: (1) the Great 'Books program, (2). non—credit evening classes at Baltimore City College, (3) college credit students from the University of Maryland. A total of two hundred sixty-four students were eventually reached. The question- naire included forty-five questions. The author found statistically significant differences on twenty-three items. These included, for example, "How often do you actively seek competition with other groups?" 1Ibid., p. 52. 2W. A. Anderson, Rural Social Participation andithe Family Life Cycle, Part II: Informal Participation, Memoire 318, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1953. 37 and “How did your parents feel about your choice of vocation and educational plans?"1 William G. Mather and his staff in 1940 made a door—to-door canvass of three hundred eighty—five households in Franklin, Indiana, to determine the organizational affiliation of the adult section of the population and to relate it to income.2 He concluded that: "The implications of these findings are not pleasant for the lover of demo— cracy."3 Further, with certain minor qualifications, he wrote: ". . . these findings indicate that 65 per cent of the 6,264 people living in this typical farmers' town are rather completely dominated in their recreation, politics, religion, patriotism, culture,—-every phase of their organized living-—by the remaining 35 per cent."4 The 35 per cent were those people in the higher income groups. F. Stuart.Chapin wrote in 1939 of social intelligence as opposed to abstract intelligence. {By social intelligence he meant the ability to get along with people. He stated: "We concluded that a.measure of overt social participation in the organized groups and institutions of the community is itself a rough measure of social intelligence md may be a useful supplement to the existing scales of social intelligence 1Stephen.R.‘Deane, "A Psychological Description of Adults‘Who 'Have Participated in Selected Activities" (unpublished Ph. D. disser— tation, University oijaryland, 1949). 2WilliamG. Mather, "Income and Social Participation," American Sociological Review, VI, No. 3 (June, 1941). 3Ibid., p. 382 411:16. 38 which depend on the measurement of attitude and feeling, rather than upon observable total overt behavior."1 A finding upon participation stressed in the work of Alvin H. Scaff in 1952, is summarized as follows: 1 Without any conscious effort to be exclusive, the organizations in the community are highly selective of the educational and pro— fessional groups. High participation scores are thus made by these groups; the lowest participation scores bythe poorer educated and employees in industry. Other general conclusions of the Scaff study relating to commuting and participation are quite remote from the current topic. An interesting study in social participation was undertaken by John M. Foskett in 1954. Using two hundred sixty adults and a scale "measuring overt behavior such as voting in elections; discuss ion of educational, governmental, and civic affairs, with members of one's family, friends and officials; and membership in organizations,"3 Foskett conc luded: It may be assumed . . . that to attribute participation as measured here directly to the effect of education, income or age, or even a combination of these items, would be too easy an ex- planation. It is generally recognized that traits such as these considered do not operate directly but are part of a.wider com— plex of circumstances . . . One possible approach would be to draw upon role behavior theory as a theoretical framework for analysis. The basic proposition in role behavior theory is that social behavior is primarily learned behavior and is a function of the position the individual occupies in the social system. lF. Stuart Chapin, "Social Participation and Social Intelligence," American Sociological Review, IV, No. 2 (April, 1939), p. 165. , 2Alvin H. Scaff, "The Effect of Commuting on Participation in Community 0rganizations,',' American Sociological Reviegj XVII, No. 2 (April, 1952), p. 220. 3John M. Foskett, "Social Structure and Social Participation," American Sociological Review, XX, No. 4 (August, 1955), p. 432. 41bid., p. 532. 39 Foskett summarized by writing that people in different classes may or may not be expected to participate in various ways; may or may not benefitfrom participation; and, finally, may or may not be qual i— fied to participate. This, then, throws the question of participation as related to personality factors back to the personal ity factors basic to social class determination.1 John C. Scott in 1957 attempted to determine the extent of participation of Americans in voluntary associations and to relate this to certain other of their characteristics.2 He concluded: The idealxvoluntary association member in this community might be characterized as a forty-f ive year old married man who is a Protestant, a non-manual worker and possibly a son of native born parents; who has two children, a college education, fifty or more 'friends', his own home which is no more than the third house in which he has lived since he came to the community less than eleven years ago; and who participates as a member only in a fraternal association, which he attends approximately twice a month, which costs him twenty-three dollars a year and of which he has been a member for ten years. This research again seems to support the relationship between participa- tion and education and socio-economic position. A one new idea seems to be in the rel igious factor. Wendell Bell and Maryanne T. Force studied participation in formal associations in San Francisco in 1953. They produced the con- clus ions that education and socio—economic position relate to partici- pation. ASide from this, they found a notable lack of correlation 11bid., p. 438. 2John C. Scott, "Membership and Participation in Voluntary Association," American Sociological Review, XXII, No. 3 (June, 1957). 31bid., p. 325. 40 between family status and participation. Further, they discovered an increasing participation with age in high income groups, but no such trend in lower income groups.1 William M. Evan wrote in 1957 with respect to participation that three things to be considered in such a study should be: (1) decision making by the rank and file, (2) activity of the rank and file, and (3) value commitment or acceptance, again by the rank and file, of goals and values of the group. Evan felt that enough has been done with studies that deal with familiar social categories of class, religion, nativity, sex, and age, and more should be done with the "why" and "what of it."2 Philip Taietz and Olaf F. Larson studied in 1947—1948, in con— nection with a major research project of Cornell Univers ity,social participation with respect to old age. Conclusions drawn included: (1) ' Low socio-economic status and retirement combine to produce low participation in formal organizations among aged male household heads in rural communities; (2) retirement produces a change in the pattern of participation through a shift in emphasis from occupational oriented activities to activities which provide sociability and face—to—face group satisfactions; and (3) advanced age bring about less of a reduction in participation than either low socio-economic status or retirement. It is interesting to note here that it was not old age itself that 1Wendell Bell and Maryanne T. Force, "Urban Neighborhood Types and Participation in Formal Associations," American Sociological Review, XXI, No. 1 (February, 1956), p. 33. 2William M. Evan, "Dimens ions of Participation in Voluntary Association," Social Forces, XIOWI, No. 2 (December, 1957). 3Philip Taietz and Olaf F. Larson, "Social Participation and Old Age," Rural Sociology, XXI, No. 1—4 (December, 1956), p. 229. 41 produced non-participation, but situations which often accompanied old age and which would result in low participation at any age. Hester Chadderdon and Mary S. Lyle investigated reasons given by Iowa women for attending homemaking classes for adults in 1955. This was accomplished by presenting a questionnaire to the women in the adult.classes. Reasons for attending adult classes included a strong desire for new ideas and skills which would help the women participating directly in their problems, especially problems in the home. A sur—l prising, but common, reason for attending was a desire to help fine adult education program by their attendance. A side light on the attitude of these women was their tendency to prefer passive rather than active roles in the classes.1 The only study found which was planned to show relationships between participation and personality factors is by Herbert Goldhamer, written in 1942. This study relates age and education with participa- tion, and, in a sub-portion of the study, relates neuroticism.as measured in the Thurstone Inventory. Conclusions reached were: (1) 30 per cent of the men and 40 per cent of the women responding listed no affiliations at all; (2) age and associational participation were inversely related in the early years of the age range studied and directly related in the later years; (3) participation in voluntary associations varied directly with education for adults; (4) membership frequency varied inversely with total neurotic score. 1Hester Chadderdon and Mary S. Lyle, Reasons Given by Iowa Women for Attendinngomemaking Classes for Adults, Special Report No. 12, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1955. 42 The conclusion reached should be qualified because of the pro- cedures used. No attempt was made to secure a statistically random sample, and so conclusions cannot be generalized beyond the group selected. A one—page questionnaire was used in addition to the Thurstone Inventory. The study is of interest because it considers participation in some depth. It not only asked whether or not the respondent joined an organized group, but also asked about his frequency of attending, his holding of a position of responsibility, his financial contributions, and the nature of the group. .A list of non—personality factors which Goldhamer proposes as relevant to this type of study, but which he felt he could not include in his one-page questionnaire, parallels almost exactly the non-personali- ty factors examined in the current study.1 Literature that is related directly to measurement of personality factors of adults participating in adult education courses is limited in quantity. The majority of studies of adult participators have dealt. with factors which are termed in this paper non—personality factors. They have considered,to a large extent, age, socio—economic position, extent of all kinds of participation and education, more than any other factors. They, with a few exceptions, have agreed that a typical par— ticipator is a somewhat older person, but not retired; he is in higher socio-economic level; he has a broad participation pattern; and is better educated than the non—participator. 1Herbert Goldhamer, "Participation in VOluntary Association" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, 1942). 43 Several of the authors quoted have advocated measurements of more "dynamic" qualities and a more careful attention to the relation— ships between all factors of personality, non-personality factors, and cultural and environmental factors in general. This is seen to be a logical development, but complicated. It is not surprising that almost nothing has been done in an effort to measure these qualities in par- ticipators in adult education projects. CHAPTER III METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Instruments of Measurement 1. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire In order to measure the personality factors of a group of women who have participated in adult education activities and of a group of women who have never participated, it was necessary to select.a.suit— able questionnaire. The questionnaire had to be an established in- strument, accepted by workers in the field of personality testing. It had to be of sufficient length to cover all possible personality areas. Yet, it had to be short enough to be administered in the time it was felt could be asked of the women responding, which was about one hour. It had to be accompanied by sufficient descriptive material to enable the investigator to judge its reliability, valility, and general design. The questionnaire had to be suitable for adults, and, in particular, non—college women, which was the expected population. There were on the market several psychological questionnaires which, though not strictly designed for the use which this study proposed, were designed,for adults and for measuring personality differences. Among these questionnaires were: L. L. Thurstone, Temperament Schedule (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949—1953); J. P. Guilford and Carle C. Zimmerman, Temperament Survey (Beverly Hills, California: Sheridan Supply Co., 1949); Leonard V. Gordon, Ah Gordon Personal Profile (Yonkers, New York: World Book Co., 1951-1953); C. Frederic Kuder, Kuder Preference Record-Personal, (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1948); and R. B. Cattell, D. R. Saunders, and G. F. Stice, Sixteen Personality Factor Question— naire (Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality Testing, 1950—1957). Literature related to these questionnaires was examined, and sample copies were ordered. The Thurstone Temperament Schedule had much to recommend it. It received favorable comment from both Anastasi1 and Traxler.2 It had an easy-to—handle answer sheet. It seemed to have a large number of suitable items, yet, was short, requiring only about twenty minutes. Its methods of determining validity were most carefully described. A smaller number of items was used than was included in the questionnaire finally chosen. Since more time was available than twenty minutes, it seemed that, assuming equally well—devised questions, a questionnaire containing a greater number of questions would have greater chance of yielding meaningful results. Individual questions on the Thurstone questionnaire often involved references to boxing and hunting and other more masculine considerations, which would apply less well tothe women to be measured. Finally, the Thurstone questionnaire contained no intelligence measure, which is an important element of personality, though a difficult one to measure rapidly. The Guilford and Zimmerman questionnaire also appeared to be 1Anastasi, Psychological Testing (New York: The MacMillan Co. , 1954) . 2Arthur Traxler, Techniques of Guidance (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957). 46 a strong test from review in Anastas i1 and Traxler.2 However, it was not available until after a selection was made. The Gordon Personal Profile was an exceptionally brief measure. _— The handbook was almost popular in style. The personality factors numbered only four, cautiousness, original thinking, personal relations, and vigor. The description of these traits was much clearer than the descriptions in the Cattell questionnaire chosen. The question of validity was not thoroughly examined in the handbook supplied with this questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed for adults as were all the questionnaires considered. It seemed the major strengths in the Gordon Personal Profile were in simplicity and brevity rather than accurate measurement . The Kuder Preference Record-Personal is a highly regarded scale. It contains a large number of items and an ingenious scoring device. It claims a.means of identifying the falsifier. The aim of the questionnaire is to "identify types of personal and social activities"3 and relate these to vocational groupings. This was not directly the aim of the study at hand. While personality traits may be observable through behavior, it is assumed in this study that they are qualities of a person to some extent apart from, and responsible for, behavior. For example, a person may have intelligence and not act in an intelli- gent fashion. The'vocational emphasis also is not of particular value lma~tas i o 2Traxler . 3G. Frederic Kuder, Examine; Manual for the Kuder Preference Record:Persona1 (Chicago: Science Research Associates, T953), p. 3. A7 in this study. The Kuder areas of concern are: (A) preference for being active in groups; (B) preference for familiar and stable situations; (C) preference for working with ideas; (D) preference for avoiding conflict; and (E) preference for directing or influencing others. Of the questionnaires examined, the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire seemed best for use in this study for several reasons. First, the division of personality into sixteen factors would tend to cover the area more fully than would fewer divisions. Cattell wrote in 1957: "The busy psychometrist may sometimes feel that 16 sub-scores is a lot, but if such is the real complexity of human nature, and if, as studies show, the majority of these personality characteristics are involved in most criterion predictions, a much better multiple correla- tion is to be obtained by respecting the complexity than by indulging 1 Further "intelligence" in a fools” paradise of over simplification." is omitted as a personality factor in other questionnaires studied. This is seen to be a serious omission. It is felt that for intelligence there are much better measuring instruments than are provided by this small section of one questionnaire. But as an indication of the com- parative intelligence level of two specific groups it is adequate, granting an author claimed reliability of .86 and a validity of .80 or .93 depending on the method of figuring.2 There is some question, both from.Anastasi and from those with whom the researcher has discussed 1R. s. Cattell, D. R. Saunders, and G. Stice, Handbook for the Sixteen_Persona1ity Factorguestionnaire (Champaign, 111., Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957). 21bid . 1+8 the test, as to suitability of the language used in describing per- sonality characteristics. This difficulty was greater in early editions of the Handbook for the Sixteen Personality_Factor Question- naire. The author writes he has used ". . . the technical names used by the professional psychologist based on the discussion of scientific meaning of the factors . . . e.g., cyclothymia - vs schizothymia, for Factor A; ego strength - vs - neuroticism for Factor C; and simpler descriptive labels for use in communicating with the lay public, e.g., warm, outgoing — vs — stiff, aloof, for factor A; and stable mature - vs — emotional, ill-abalanced for factor C."1 Another group of features of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire in its favor is associated with the questions themselves. First, there is a comparatively large number of questions, over twice as many as in Gordon's questionnaire. Further, they seem to apply better to the group of women under study since there are few questions that would invite the response, "These do not have anything to do with me." And, finally, the language used is understandable. Reliability for this questionnaire is indicated by Table l on the following page. Because this study used only form A, a lower reliability would be expected. Cattell further states, "Since it is desirable that the 16 P.F. have a good range and discriminate, for example, among clinical cases as well as in industry and college, we have not aimed at the artificially high reliabilities to which some handbooks accustom their readers."2 11bid.. p. 2 2 . Ibid., p. 3 49 TABLE 1 . RELIABILITY (CONSISTENCY: SPLIT HALF) COEFFICIENTS FOR FACTOR MEASUREMENTS ON BATTERY LENGTH: FORM A.PLUS FORMIBa Factor Reliability Coefficient A 0.90 B .86 C .93 E .91 F .84 G .85 H .83 I .76 L .77 M .88 N .79 O .85 Q1 .71 Q2 .79 Q3 .76 Q4 0.88 3Table taken from R. B. Cattell, D. R. Saunders, and G. Stice, Handbook_for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign, 111., Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957), p. 4. As to validity, the author stated: The concept validities of the 16 factor scales can be calculated in two ways: (1) From the known factor loadings of the items on the factors, in the original researches, according to the formula for combining items (26). This gives a mean validity for the A and B forms of the test as follows: TABLE 2 VALIDITIES, ESTIMATED FROM LOADINGS (A.AND B FORMS TOGETHER)a 0.88 .80 .76 .82 .91 .85 .96 .84 .89 .74 .73 .91 .74 .81 .92 0.96 rOrOrOrOozzr'Hmo'nmow» mei-J aIbid., p. 4. (2) From the split half reliability of the factor, assuming that the items have no "specifics" in common but only the common factor, when validity = \lreliability. This yields validities of: 1 TABLE 3 VALIDITIES , ESTIMATED FROM CORRELATION OF Two FACTOR HALVES (A AND B FORMS TOGETHER)b 0.95 .93 .96 .95 .92 .92 .91 .87 .88 .94 .89 .92 .84 .89 .87 0.94 coco-oozzL-n-umommoww- «l-‘LNNH b1bid., p. 4. llbid., p.A. 51 Again, Form.A alone would tend to have lower validity co— efficients. Traxler believes these validity findings may be open to question.1 He believes they may be properly determined, but the hand— book description of their determination is inadequate. However, he does not feel the question is serious. Anastasi feels that Cattell's questionnaire is not well sup» ported by the accompanying handbook, and, further, that some of the trait names and other terms are unclear.2 She, however, was writing in 1954. Since 1954 an article by Cattell, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology3 and a revised Handbook for the Sixteen Per- sonality Factor Questionnaire, would make less applicable her criticism.4 Finally, a group d5 miscellaneous desirable features of Cattell’s questionnaire include an estimated time of forty minutes for adminis— tering, which was believed about right in light of methods to be followed. Also, the test has published norms especially for non~ college women which provide a valuable comparison with samples to be used. Age corrections are available if needed. Although no built-in lie detector is proved for Form A, rapport was expected with group to be tested and so this was not important. 1Traxler. 2Anne Anastasi, Psychological;Testing (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954), pp. 540-541. 3R. B. Cattell, "Validation and Intensification of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XII (1956), pp. 205—214. 4Cattell, Handbook (revised ed., 1957). Cattell, in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, in July, 1956, wrote that: "The Sixteen_Personality Factor Questionnaire . . . has been in use seven years. During that time it has been translated for use in eight countries."1 In this article Cattell also explains the validation factor analyses and research basis that makes, in his opinion, a suitable measure of adult personality. The personality factors considered in Cattell’s questionnaire are shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 CONTINUUM REPRESENTATION OF PERSONALITY FACTORS Factor Continuum A Aloof, cold .................... Warm, sociable B Dull, low capacity ........ Bright, intelligent C Emotional, unstable .............. Mature, calm E Submissive, mild ......... Dominant, aggressive F Glum, silent .......... Enthusiastic, talkative G Casual, undependable .. Conscientious, persistent H Timid, Shy ..........Adventurous, "thick skinned" I Tough, realistic .......... Sensitive, effeminate L Trustful, adaptable ......... Suspecting, jealous M Conventional, practical ... Bohemian, unconcerned N Simple, awkward ......... Sophisticated, polished 0 Confident, unshakable ......... Insecure, anxious Q1 Conservative, accepting..Experimenting, critical 1Cattell, "Validation and Intensification . . .," XII, p. 205. 53 TABLE 4--C ontinued .* Factor Continuum Q2 Dependent, imitative ... Self—sufficient, resourceful Q3 Lax, unsure 00‘00000000000000000009 CODtI'Olled’ exact Q4 Phlegmatic, composed ............... Tense, excitable *Cattell, Handbook . . . (1957), pp. 11-19. On pager&)of the Appendix is a copy of Cattell's Sixteen Per- sonality Factor Questionnaire used in this survey. 2. The "Adult Education Interview Sheet" The second instrument used was a fact sheet and questionnaire designed by this researcher to reveal a number of non-personality areas in the two groups to be examined. By non~personality factors are meant factors not included in Cattell's list of personality factors. The questions on this sheet could be grouped under the following eleven headings. The numbers appearing below the headings are the numbers of the questions on the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" which pertain to that heading. 1. Age 10 2. Familiarity with adult program. 15, 16 3. Extent of participation in adult classes. 1, 2, 3, 4, l7 ' 4. Extent of participation in other out-of—home activities. 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 35, 36 - 5. Socio-economic position. 13, 18, 19, 20 5h 6. ‘Mobility 11, 12, 14 7. Conditions in the home. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 8. Education. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 9. Health. 21 10. Religion. 37, 38 11. Political activity. 39, 40 A reason for including the interview sheet in this survey was that in these non—personality areas it had been hypothesized that fewer differences would be revealed between participators and non-participa- tors. Also, it was reasoned that a knowledge of these non—personal ity areas would make more understandable the personality factor differences. On page1A1.0f the Appendix is a copy of the "Adult Education Interview Sheet." The "Adult Education Survey Sheet" was pretested on six women chosen at random from the populations later sampled for the survey itself. .A copy of the revised form of the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" is shown on pagelid.of the Appendix. The Sample The sample was obtained from the class attendance lists for Sewing III in the Mott Adult Education Program.of the Flint Board of Education for the year beginning September, 1958, and ending Jhne, 1959. The names of four hundred thirty women were on these lists. 55 Initially, every fourth name was selected for the interview. The first fourth of the names selected did not produce the required one hundred pairs of women to be interviewed. Therefore, the class list was gone through again. This time the name preceding the one chosen the first time was selected. Of these a random selection was made which resulted in the number of women being chosen which is reported in the Chapter on Statistical Analysis of Data. The sample of participators can be said, with minor qualifica~ tions, to be a random sample of the four hundred thirty women who had taken three semesters of sewing during the period specified. The non- participators who were chosen by the participators were an.unknown fraction of the unknown total number of friends and neighbors of the participators who were willing to co-operate in this survey. The Telephone Interview Each woman was telephoned. The telephone call was typically as follows: "This is of the‘Mott Program.Adult Education staff. Is this the Mrs. who has recently taken a class in sewing in the adult program"? If the answer was "yes," the conversa- tion continued. "Have you a few minutes? I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you." Again, if "yes": "In co—operation with Michigan State University, we are conducting a study of people who are taking adult education classes, and, also, of people who arelmot taking adult education classes, with the purpose of securing information about these people which will eventually result in better adult classes. This study involves a questionnaire which will take about an hour of your 56 time. ‘My first question is: ’Is it possible that you would let someone from our staff visit your house any time at your convenience and preSent this questionnaire to you'?" Again, if "yes," the interviewer would say: "That is very nice of you. However, before we set a date, I must ask you one more question. Is it possible that there is some other adult woman in your neighborhood who has never taken a so-called adult education class anywhere who might be willing to come to your home the same time you let us come to your home, and who would also fill out one of our questionnaires? You see, as I have said, we are trying to reach two kinds of people, those who have taken adult classes and those who have not taken adult classes; and, in this way, we can reach both kinds at the same time." At this point, it was expected the interviewer might encounter hesitancy. (In fact, the interviewee sometimes said that she did not know offhand who had not taken an adult education class who would be willing to be questioned. Mbst of her friends, she would say, had taken classes.) The interviewer would agree that this would be no easy job, and say, further, the only incentive that could be offered would be a letter presented to each interviewee which would entitle the holder to an adult education class of her choice without charge. (This letter seemed to make little difference in an interviewee's attitude. If she was reluctant before the letter was mentioned, she was reluctant afterward, as far as one could tell by her voice. The effectiveness of the letter offer cannot be determined. However, it was reasoned that the letter which would have a value up to eight dollars in.c1ass fees made possible some interviews which otherwise might have been lost.) The conversation concluded with: "May I leave my telephone number and 57 name again, and, if you find someone who will join us, we would appre— ciate a call. Thus, no one was interviewed unless she, herself, called back. The Home Interview Members of the Mott Adult Education Program staff conducted the interviews. Over 90 per cent of the interviews were conducted by this researcher and one assistant. When more than two interviews were scheduled at the same time, other members of the staff helped. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered first. Instructions were given to the two women as directed in the Handbook. When one of the women finished, she was handed, without further direction, the "Adult Education Interview Sheet." There was no time limit on either questionnaire. The women were encouraged to ask any questions which might interest them. The Procedure for Analysis of the Data The data is of two types. First, there are scores on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Secondly, there are the responses on the "Adult Education Interview Sheet." The scores on the Sixteen Per— sonality Factor Questionnaire were treated first. The scores on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire were changed to sten scores and presented graphically, using superimposed graphs. In this way were compared the personality factor scores of the participators with the non-participators and with given norms. Also, Hotelling's T2 characteristic was evaluated, using Mistic, so that a possible significant difference between participators and non-partici- 58 pators on the sixteen factors could be determined. The correlation factors of the differences of scores by pairs were developed in order to justify consideration of differences between means of individual factors. Finally, differences of means and means of differences by pairs were found for the separate factors, and the factors ranked in order of these differences. The responses on the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" were examined. In all cases involving comparative statistical information, the sign test was applied, and the level of significance of the difference between participator and non-participator was determined. In a few of the areas, the difference of means also was examined to support evidence secured otherwise. Tables were used to present the information in almost all cases. Some of the information could only be tabulated. Graphs were used to emphasize skewed distributions. The acceptable level of significance was the five per cent level. If differences existed at the one per cent level, this was noted. When differences of means were under consideration, this was noted at the ten per cent level. CHAPTER IV ANALYSES OF THE SURVEY DATA Part A: Report on Results of Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire This questionnaire was administered to two hundred twenty—eight women. One hundred fourteen of these women had enrolled in three sewing classes of the Mbtt Program of the Flint Board of Education. The other one hundred fourteen women were selected because they had never participated in any activity commonly known as adult education. The individual members of the first group of one hundred fourteen each chose one woman for the second group. The questionnaire was administered to the women two at a time, a sewing class participator and her selectee, in the home of the participator. ,Arrangements for administering the questionnaire were made by telephone. Statistics relative to arranging for the interview are indicated in Table 5. TABLE 5 STATISTICS RELATIVE TO ARRANGING FOR THE INTERVIEW Kind of Statistic Frequency Number of women selected from class list for telephoning . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Total number of home interviews held . . . . . . 228 59 60 TABLE 5-—Continued Kind of Statistic Frequency Total number of home interviews accepted ascomplete..............202 Number of phone calls to which there was no answer initially . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Number of selectees where no one answered the phone initially, but who were eventually reached . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Number of selectees where no one answered initially but who were eventually reached and finally participated in the interview . . . . 36 Number of selectees who were not at home at initial phone call but were committed to call interviewer by person answering phone . . . 18 Number of selectees who were not at home on initial phone call but were committed to call interviewer by person answering phone and did call as committed . . . . . . . . . 4 Number of selectees who were not at home on initial phone call, were committed to call interviewer by person answering phone, who did not call back, but who were eventually reached after one or more recalls by interviewer. . 8 Number of selectees who were not at home on initial phone call but who were eventually reached and finally participated in the interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Number of selectees reached on first phone call . . 78 Number of selectees who were reached on first phone call who found a co—participator and actually participated in the interview . . . . . 68 Number of all selectees who agreed to participate immediately on request . . . . . . . . . . 112 Number of selectees who agreed to participate but were slightly more reluctant to find a CO—Part iCipatOI‘ o o o o o o o o o o o 0 35 61 TABLE 5-7gontinued Kind of Statistic Frequency Number of selectees who immediately refused to PartiC1Pate e e e e e e e e o e o e e 3 Number of selectees who agreed to try to find a co—participator but who found a co—participator only after interviewer phoned an additional one or more times . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Average number of days waited by interviewer before recalling selectee who had agreed to find a co-participator but who was not calling back . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 NIH Number of selectees reached on first call who agreed to try to find a co—participator and called back as requested . . . . . . . . . 69 Average number of days for selectee to call back ready with a co—participator . . . . . . l NIH Number of selectees who set up appointments on the phone but later changed or cancelled them . . 6 Percentage of all selectees who eventually participated in the interview and were accepted 0 e e e e e e e e e e e o e o 62.0 Percentage of all selectees who did not answer the phone initially but who finally participated in the interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Percentage of women reached by phone who eventually participated . . . . . . . . . . 87.0 Percentage of home interviews given which were acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 Percentage of home interviews out of total number of selectees . . . . . . . . . . . 69.9 Total number of phone calls made by interviewer and selectees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 In Table 5 some definitions should be noted. The word{'interviewer," refers to telephone interviewer who may or may not be the interviewer 62 making the call to the home with the questionnaire. The word, "co-participator," refers to women who submitted to the interview in the home and not to only the half of the women who had earlier enrolled in three sewing classes. The word, “selectee," refers to those women who were selected by the survey group from class lists to participate in the survey. These were all women who had taken three semesters of sewing. The word, "selectee,“ does not refer to those women who had never taken adult education classes, but who were chosen by the selectees as defined above. Since the survey was conducted in July and August of 1959, an unusually large number of women would be expected to be on vacation. This was hoped to be offset by making recalls over a long enough period to enable the survey group to reach the women sought after their vacation ended. Mbst of those not reached initially were recalled regularly over a period of a month or more. However, those who received an initial call near the end of August were recalled only during a two-week period. The fact that thirty—two or 19.7% of the women selected were not reached by telephone should be considered in evaluating the sample. The question is whether or not the inclusion of this group would have affected the results. If it can be assumed that this group might resemble to some degree those women who were not reached on the initial telephone call but did eventually participate, then it may be argued that to examine those who did participate but were hard to reach would throw light on the characteristics of those not reached at all. Table 6 compares the means of the differences of scores on the 63 Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire of the group not answering the phone initially with the group which did answer initially. There were forty—one women in the hard-to—reach group and sixty women in the group which answered the first phone call. TABLE 6 MEANS OF DIFFERENCES OF SCORES FOR TWO GROUPS TAKING SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE Personality Group Requiring Initially .Absolute Factor Repeated Telephone Responsive ‘Differences Calls Group .A -0.07 p -0.15 0.08 B ' .98 .56 .42 C ' .10 : .89 .79 E . .41 A 2.20 1.79 F —1.29 i — .20 1.09 G — .17 A .86 1.03 a -1.46 I; 1.02 2.48 I — .24 .29 .53 L - .29 — .60 .31 M .27 .50 .23 N — .71 — .41 .30 O — .32 - .79 .47 01 .37 .02 .35 02 .17 — .10 .27 93 I - .05 —1.67 ‘ 1,62 Q4 -0.12 0.56 A, 0.68 64 Considering a confidence region investigation which will be discussed later1 and using as a region boundary the figure 1.31, it is seen from Table 6 that a significant difference at the 5% level between the two subgroups on any one factor is revealed possible, by this statistic,in factors E, H, and Q3. Considering the approximate methods used and the smallness of the subgroups even this possibility is small, except in factor H. Table 6 suggests that the harder—to—reach groups paired in much the same fashion as the easier-to—reach groups with no certain differences between the two on any one factor. Another way to consider the relationships between the responses of the hard-to-reach group and the group reached on the first telephone call is by observing the means of the two groups on each factor. These means are presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 PERSONALITY FACTORHMEANS_OF SUBGROUPS_ 1,.1 Factor 1 Group Requiring Initially Difference Repeated Telephone Responsive ' of Means -.l.., Calls_-,.l_,, .HgVGroup1. ' A : 8.36 i 9.10 ; 0.74 B I 6.49 f 6.32 1 .17 c E 14.44 {15.53 E 1.09 E L 11.39 §12.43 ; 1.09 F E 11.71 212.45 f .74 G E 12.73 €13.05 2 0.32 11. W. Anderson, An Introduction to Multivariate satistical Analysis (New York: John‘Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957), p. 24. 65 TABLE 7——Continued Factor :5 Group Requiring ;Initially ‘Difference‘ Repeated Telephone ‘Responsive of Means Calls Group ’ a : 10.65 '12.37 1.81 I 10.90 ' 10.52 .38 L l 8.07 7.42 .65 M’ 11.41 11.70 .29 N 8.70 8.83 .13 O 11.41 3 10.53 .88 Q1 ’ 8.24 4 8.15 .09 02 9.98 8.77 1.21 03 10.24 8.73 1.51 04 I 14.12 : 13.53 0.59 Examining the differences of the means, we find that the difference of means for factors H and Q3 are largest and, further, prove to be significantly different at the 5% level.1 This could indicate that individuals in the hard-to—reach group are more’ adventurous and, therefore, not at home as much. that the hard—to-reach group is less controlled or lax. It could indicate Finally, it may reflect the fact that a small sample is not as reliable as a larger sample chosen in the same manner. There were also nineteen women reached who were unable.or HMargaret Jarman Hagood and Daniel 0. Price, Statistics for Sociologists (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952), p. 323. 66 unwilling to participate. Some of these may have had personality factors quite different from those who co—operated. Of the three who refused immediately to consider the intrview, two were quite unpleasant and suspicious. However, of the three major reasons given for non-participation, the first was illness—~0ften pregnancy; the second largest number pleaded about—to—leave-on—vacation or to make a major family move which left them.no time and house in no condition to receive an interviewer. The last major reason given for not participating was newness in the neighborhood or other reason for being unable to find a second woman in the neighborhood who had not ever participated in an adult education activity. The effect of the loss of these nineteen women to the survey is unknown. The results can only be properly interpreted when qualified by this situation. Some of the major results of Table 7 are presented in Graph 1 and Graph 2. Graphs l and 2 show that those more difficult to reach con— tributed a share of participators equal to their percentage of the total number participating. That is, 40% of all people reached were hard to reach but when finally contacted contributed 40% of the participators. 67 mam so on ' so "Homo ocean . #0 OH HmflpwcH on LoamC¢ o- \ ”Haoo amass son oooaoaoaooaa 12H Op onooemmr :mfiom Um. #02: m amour oopsowoflpsmm moo so me "Haeo.ooogmoaoa pmsfim vosozmsd was empocwowpsem GZHHH enema 3=O B 0 fl 2.: 3.0 o w a 85s chasm seam o m e 5?. o~ «m .Jh woueeuouuuomleoz 0| Rowan uoaeeuoauuem II com - N a K 4 HHH mm mm<flu Na 0H ON «N QN Nn 0% 3050: 00-! :z s 3.0 u u a 85E ouoom seam 9H a o h o no 1 d / uoaeeuouuuemleoz LI madam noueeuoauuem I: cum e n N H a d i - HH> =m3 E48 3060:: 044 :z a 6.0 o u z .8st ouoom seam OH O O b O m en.N 7/ 1 1 a a wouoeHOHuuamlsoz LI xoaHm noueeHoHauem II oom 4H d HHHN Ea NH OH ON ON NM 0% 3030:: ON in s 3.0 o u 76 we moses 5 SEE euoom scum ouoom seam OH O O O mu n O n N H d u a q H q q u 4 1 H OH O O H. O n. O n I d1 d I [Iii [1 ‘ dN H 3050: 1 8 OH Q N :z s 3.0 o u wouueHOHuuemleoz II xoeHm . woueeHOHuueglsoz LI xoeHm 032363": -.. com E $28 333383 .... sum as ESE 3030:: OH 293.008 77 on. aosofi ouoom seam OH O O H. O m a u H . q u uouaeHOHuuemlcoz II xoeHm 3336303 I. one n rm 8... HHH>x mmI:I->I:Ie>I:I>I:I >DI:I~I:Ie->IJ ee 5 . .D.D.D.D.D =D=D=DaD=U .[j- g -DI:Ie-I:I-I:I eeeee ee 2 E E E E - 5 i! E .3. - 2 E eeeee eeeee ~DI:I~I:I~I:I~I:I eeeee ~I:Ie«>DI:I-I:I l eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee I eeeee -Cl-El-D-Cl-El -I:I-I:Ie-I:I-I:I eeeee e-I;-DDI; ‘ =§§-- -§§-- §§§§- -§§§§ E ' A < < ”fl eee-DI: eeeee eeeee «EIeee-Ij e I: D De g >33: eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee E A -DDDDD-DDDDD-DDDDD-DDDDD-D-D-D-D-D be“ -555- 5.585- -!§§§- iflgi- E’s’ 1 m ; «DDDDU-DDDDuoDDDDD-DDDDU-DWDDDU : ; eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee >I:I>I:IeaDI:I F 5"“ g m D eeeee eee-DI; -I:Ie-I;e-I:I ee-I;ee -I; I;-;- D g '_ ‘U--§§- -§§-:: ===== ====- E e g . eeeee eeeee eeeee e-I:I~DI:I~I:I -D e- D D D In 17. 5 3 D eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee eeeee E -DDDDD-DDDDD-DDDDD-DDDDD-;-D-U-D-u z ”D kg: 58888 388 8888 < .[j . "eeeee eaeeu eueeu eDeeD eDDDZl e eeeee >I:I=I:I>I:I>I:Ie eeeee eeeee eeeee “ E eeeee eDeeD eDeee eDeee e-g-geel .[j .. s s s s s s a s 8 s g 4;] eDeeD eeeee eueea eeeee eeeuu 9D .D.D.[j.[j.[j aElaClaClaClnD aElnCI‘ClsU-Cl .[pEJ-Cpcpg aElaClaElaClaE] [1.3% ,Demeen eeeee eeeDe eeeee eee I:‘31 t Eflfl Sfiflxfi 83883 $8838 {I‘D eeeee eeeee e-Ijee-Ij eeeee eeeee E d geeeee eaI:I>-I:Iee eeeee eeeee eeeee I . | £1. E 8 42.9.9434; .g.g.g.g.g 49.9.9.9.[3 .g.g.g.g.g .g.g.g.g.g 141 ADULI EDUCATION INTERVIEW SHEET This is a study designed to secure information both from people attending adult education classes and from those not attending adult education classes. This information will make possible a more worthwhile adult education program. We appreciate your frank answers. Once the papers are turned in, your name will be removed and it will not be possible at any time for anyone to identify people answering with answers given. Thank you for your help. 1. Are you attending any adult education class or classes now or have you attended any during the last year? [:1 Yes D No 2. If yes, name the class or classes. 3. Have you attended any other adult education class or classes in the last five years? [:3 Yes [:3 No 4. If yes, name these classes. 5. 'What was the last grade or year which you attended regular school? 8th grade or less 9th-lOth—11th or 12th grade but not graduate 12th grade graduate College but not graduate Four year college degree Graduate work in college 6. Did you enjoy regular school when you attended? [:1 Yes DNO 7. Have you enrolled in any special school, trade school or corres- pondence school since leaving regular school? D Yes [:3 No 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. lh2 If yes, name the school or schools. If yes, why did you enroll in this special school, trade school, or correspondence school? What is your age group? 20 years or less 31-35 i46-50 61—65 21-25 36-40 |51-55 66 or 26-30 41—45 ‘ I 56-60 more How many years have you lived in Flint? jLess than 1 year 4 - 5 years ‘ 11 - 15 years I l - 3 years 6 -- 10 years 16 years or more How many different houses have you lived in in.Flint? E31 ’ D2 US [:34 D5 DMore thanS Do you: own your present home or rent? [:1 Own [:3 Rent Where did you live innnediately before coming to Flint? About how many years ago did you first hear of the Mott Foundation Adult Education Program? [3 Never :1 less than 1 year 1:! 1 _- 2 years [3 3 - 5 years [:3 More than 5 years How did you hear of this program? (you may check more than one) Newspaper E Pamphlets 1:] Other ‘ Friends {Red 10 or TV - —-d If you have not taken part in the Mott Foundation Adult Education Program, what would you say are the chief reasons? Your total yearly family income would fall in which group? Less than $1,000 $4,001 - $6,000 $7,001 - $10,000 $1,000 - $4,000 $6,001 - $7,000 More than $10,000 Do you, yourself, work for money? Bites [:3 No 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 143 If yes, what is your job? How is your health? [:1 Often ill or handicapped D 111 sometimes DAlmost never ill How many members of your family live in your house with you? [:31 :12 D3 D4 D5 [:36 D7 [:8 or more Do you feel crowded in your home? D Yes DNO Do you have any serious illness among the members of your family or are any members very old or very young? [3 Yes D No If yes, do these incapacitated persons require much or your time in caring for them? D Yes D No Do you feel busier than you would like to be with housework? [:l Yes DNO Do you have a lawn and garden on which you work? D Yes I: No Do the members of your family get along well together? [3 Yes C] Usually D No Do the members of your family get along well with their neighbors? D Yes D Usually D No How many times in the last year have you visited in a friend's or relative's home? None 6 ... 10 21' - 50 DMore than 100 ‘ l - 5 11 u 20 .51 ... 100 (twice a week) Do you usually visit alone or with your husband and family? [:lAlone [:1w1th husband and family Do you belong to service clubs, neighborhood clubs, or any social, recreational, political, or organized group? DYes DNo 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 4 14% What is the name or are the names of your clubs or groups? How many times total in the last year have you attended regular meetings of these clubs? E None N 6 - 10 21 - 50 [:I More than 100 ’1 - 5 ‘ ll - 2O 51 - 100 (twice a week) — How many times in the last year have you attended an activity in a s chool build ing? 1 }None E: 6 - 10 21 .. 50 [:1 More than 100 _ 1 - 5 _1l - 20 51 . 100 (twice a week) l # Do you usually go alone or with a member of your family? [:1 Alone [:3 With member of family What is your church affiliation? [3 Catholic [:1 Protestant . [:1 Jewish [3 Other or none How many times total in the last year have you attended a regular church meeting? ENone I: 1 .. 5 D6 - 25 [:j 26 - so ,[jMore than 50 With which major political party do you usually find yourself voting? DRepublican D Democratic [:1 Neither or varies In the last five local and national'elections, how many times have you voted? C35 [:14 [:13 :1?- Cl1 D0 145 July 17, 1959 Dear Friend: We would like to thank you for your fine co—operation in the adult education survey. ‘We expect the information so obtained will be very helpful in planning future programs. As a token of our appreciation, if you are interested, we would like you to be our guest (without charge) for a‘Mott Foundation Adult Education class of your choice. This letter, presented at registration time, will serve in place of the registration fee. (Unfortunately, we are unable to include college credit classes, driver education, and a few other specialized classes in this offer.) If you have any questions, please call the Adult Education Office, CE 8—1631, Extension 365. Thank you again. Very truly yours, Myrtle F. Black, Ph. D. Director of Adult Education MFBsz 146 .OHN .m .AOmmHv HHN .Hmeaoromme Hmoeceao mo Hmcpsoo aaoeemccoepmosa genome hpwamcomsom soouxam one mo cowpeofimeosoch new nsowpmcwam>= aaaoopmo .m ocoaamm "Seem soxmem 00.H mN.0 ao.o mH.o sH.oI so.oI H0.0I mH.0I mH.0 Ho.o no.0I no.0 No.0 00.0 s0.0 so 00.H NH. 00. 0N. NN. I so. I HH. N0. 0N. I 0H. I NN. NH. 0H. om. mo 00.H sH. I 00. m0. HH. I H0. I HH. m0. N0. NN. mH. Ho. so. N0 00.H Ho. 00. 0H. I Ho. N0. 00. I HH. No. Hm. I m0. mH. I Ho 00.H s0. 00. I 00. I HH. mH. N0. so. 00. 0H. No. 0 00.H No. I mo. I 0N. mo. I mH. NH. HH. I Ho. m0. 2 00.H so. I sH. m0. so. I 0N. 00. sH. no. a 00.H so. 0N. so. I HH. 00. I H0. H0. I o 00.H sH. 00. H0. 00. I so. 0N. I H 00.H 00. oN. 0H. I NH. on. I : 00.H m0. No. I so. 00. 0 00.H 00. mo. Ho. I a 00.H so. 50. m 00.H mH. 0 00.H s so no No Ho 0 z z s H m o a m 0 s oneness moaosoms mozmmmaom ozoas maoHessmmmoo so mepsa mszoo “Masosmse TABLEI49 AMERICANéADULT WOMEN (20.60 YEARS) TU 1959 REVISION AND EXPANSION OF NORMS DENTS) GENERAL POPULATION (NON-S FORM A, STENS: Factors 147 M 10 10 Raw Score 10 ll 12 148 .00 .0 .000H somssom .wnHaaoa aaHHHns 0:0 ssHHsaoasaa non 0.50.303 ..HHH newsman-008 £00398: 039303330 .Hopomh header-003m coogm one. o..- saasmH-Hoao sad-nae. .330 .0 as 6.80550 .0 .0 .HHossao .m .0 “ash asses Ha Ts 0.0 0.N 0.0 0a .0 T0 0.0. 0.0 .N as? 0.0 0.H HA L. 0.NH s.0H_0.0H 0.0 0.0H 0.0 0.0H .0 0.0H o.NH .mHk0.NH H.NH s.0H 0.0 0.0 has: 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0N 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0N 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H sN 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0 MN 0 0H 0H 0 0H 0H 0 NN 0 0H 0H 0 0 0H 0 HN 0 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0 0H 0 0H 0 0H 0N 0 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 0 0H 0 0H 0 0H 0H 0 0H 0H 0H 0 0H 0H 0H 0H 0 0 0 0 0 0H 0H 0 0H 0H 0H 0 0H 0 0H 0H 0 0 0 0 0 0H 0H 0 0 0 0H 0 0H 0 0H 0 0 0 0 0 m 0H 0H 0 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0H s 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 sH so no No H0 0 z z a H m 0 a m 0 m {s choom anon-owe 3am 02-03000! 0s H.303 149 TABLE 50 BIPOLAR J08CRIPTICHS OF SOURCE TRAITS (FACTORS) A THROUGH Qha High Score Low Score Factor A YCLOTHYHIA Versus SCIIZOTHYIIA (2.2mm, SOCIABI—E) (ALOCF, STIFF) Good natured, easy going vs. Agressive, critical Ready to co-Operate vs. Obstructive Attentive to people vs. Cool, aloof Softhearted, kindly vs. Hard, precise Trustful vs. Suspicious Adaptable vs. Rigid Harm hearted vs. Cold Factor B ENERAL INTELLIGENCE Versus LEKTAL DEFECT (BRIGHT) (0ULL) The measurement of intelligence has been shown to carry with it as a factor in the personality realm some of the following ratings: Conscientious vs. Of lower morale Persevering vs. Quitting Intellectual, cultured vs. Boorish Factor C EROTIONAL STABILITY CR EGO Versus DISSATISFIED EhOTIONALITY STIIIIIIGTII (Larvae, CALM) (mom-010m, Il-fi-ATIEE, UNSTABLE) Emotionally mature vs. Low in frustration toler- ance Emotionally stable vs. Changeable (in attitudes) Calm, phlegmatic vs. Showing emotionality Realistic about life vs. Evasive in facing decisions Absence of neurotic fatigue vs. Neurotically fatigued Placid vs. werrying 150 TABLE SO-—Continued High Score Factor E DONINANCE OF AS ENDAKCE Versus (AGGRESSIVE, CCHPE TITIV3) Assertive, self-assured vs. Independent minded vs. Hard, stern vs. Solemn vs. Unconventional vs. Tough vs. Attention getting vs. Factor F SUNGEIICY Versus BNTHUSIAS IC, HAPPY—GO—LUC l'Y) Talkative vs. Cheerful vs. Serene, happy-go—lucky vs. Frank, expressive vs. Quick and alert vs. Factor G "hIRACT33 or SUP33-300 STE EFGTH Versus (CONSCIEIITIOUS, FnRJIoTLwT) Persevering, determined vs. Responsible vs. Emotionally mature vs. Consistently ordered vs. Conscientious vs. Attentive to people vs. Factor H PAREIA Versus (ADVENTURCUS, "THICK—SKINNED") Adventurous, likes meeting peeple vs. Overt interest in Opposite sex vs. Reaponsive, genial vs. Friendly vs. Low Score sunrise ("MILK—TOAST", MILD) Submissive D pendent Kindly, soft—hearted Expressive Conventional Easi y upset Self-sufficient DLSURGENCY (CLUE, 50333, 5331003) Silent, intrOSpective Depressed Concerned, brooding Incommunicative, smug Languid, Slow LACK OF RI CID I‘lTENllAL STUUAMXI(P‘NTI,IKUJWJDAEAJ Quitting, fickle Frivolous Demanding, impatient Relaxed , indolent Undependable Obstructive TIERECTIA (any , TIFID) $w,wflhhem1 Retiring in face of opposite sex Aloof, self-contained Apt to be embittered 151 TABLE 50--Continued High Score Low Score Factor H—-Continued Impulsive and frivolous Emotional and artistic interests Carefree P133313 (SENSITIVE, EFFEIJINATE) Demanding, impatient, subjective Dependent, seeking help Kindly, gentle Artistically fastidious, affected Imaginative in inner life and in conversation Acts on sensitive intuition Hypochondriacal, anxious (PROTEIJSION) PARANOID (SUSPECTII‘IG, JEALOUS) Jealous Self-sufficient Suspicious Withdrawn, brooding Tyrannical Hard Irritable AUTIA (30331133 III‘TROVERTED, ABSF. IT-IIIIIJED) Unconventional, self-absorbed Interested in art, theory vs. Restrained, conscientious vs. Restricted interests Careful, considerate Factor I Versus HARRIA (TOUGH, IIBALISTIC) vs. Realistic, expects little vs. Self-reliant vs. Hard (to point of cynicism) vs. Few artistic responses vs. Unaffected by "fancies" vs. Acts on 10gical evidence vs. Unaware of physical disabilities Factor L Versus RELAXED SECURITY (ACCEPTING, ADAPTABLE) vs. Accepting VS. 011thng vs. Trustful vs. Open, ready to take a chance vs. Understanding, tolerant vs. Soft-hearted vs. Composed and cheerful Factor E Versus PRAXERYIA (PRACTICAL, CONCERNED NITH FACTS) vs. Conventional, alert to practical needs vs. Interests narrowed to immediate issues TABIE 50 --Continued High Score Low Score Factor Né-Continued Imaginative, creative vs. No spontaneous creativity Frivolous, immature vs. Sound, realistic, dependable Generally cheerful vs. Earnest, concerned or worried Factor N SHRENDNESS Versus NAIVETE SCPHISTICATED, POLISHED (SIMPLE, UNPRBTENTIOUS) Polished, socially alert vs. Socially clumsy and "natural" Exact, calculating mind vs. Vague and sentimental mind Aloof, emotionally disciplined vs. Warm, gregarious, spontaneous Esthetically fastidious vs. Simple tastes Insightful regarding self vs. Lacking self-insight Insightful regarding others vs. Fails to analyze motives Ambitious, possibly insecure vs. Content with what comes Expedient, "cuts cor ners" vs. Trusts in accepted values Factor 0 GUILT PliONENES S Versus ( CCM “133? T ADFQUACY (TIIZID, IIISEC UIIE) (CONFIDEIT, SELF- Q30333) werrying, anxious vs. Self-confident Depressed vs. Cheerful, resilient Sensitive, tender, easily upset vs. Tough, placid Strong sense of duty vs. Expedient Exacting, fussy vs. Does not care Hypochondriacal vs. Rudely vigorous Phobic symptoms vs. No fears Moody, lonely, brooding vs. Given to simple action Factor Q1 RADICALISN Versus CO WIS HIVITISH OF TSIPURANENT Factor Q2 SELF—SUFFICIENCY Versus GROUP DEPENDENC (SELF-SUFFICIENT, RESOURCEFUL) (SOCIABLY GROUP DEFENDENT) 153 TABLE 5 O——Cont inued High Score Low Score Factor Q3 HIGH SELF-SENI‘IT-IENT Foaz-mTION Versus POOR 33 -33::TI:C3I;T FCPd-IATICN (CONTROLLED, EJO‘ICTING IILL 307.233) (UNCONTROLLED, LAX) Factor Q4 HIGH ERGIC TENSION Versus LON ERGIC TENSION (Till-ESE, EXCITABL3) (Timer-MIC, cox-230333) aTaken from: Raymond B. Cattell, D. R. Saunders, and G. Stice, Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957), pp. ll-l9. 154 TABLE 51 I 03 00mm VECTOR (2.33333) -00113811381 07227722773 OOS7A257h25 Olh85148515 -0039603960h OOAASBALESS 00227722772 00079207921 -004752A752h OOL05940595 —00523752u76 -06039603961 0356h356h37 00009900990 -01019801980 00287128712 s 03 COVARIALCB NATRIX (TRIALGULAR 3033) 00115106270 -00129036406 07408293076 —0002l496032 00033741841 00228187280 00015427929 00104538754 ~00015162262 00347646241 00021806671 ~00072365395 00033561487 00123901623 00319619433 00029143170 00057896240 00003382002 00028432414 -00006552323 00116133624 00057201257 00110273627 00047405186 00163350671 00119812714 00043242785 00441758456 155 TABLE 52 00028410920 -00228497157 -00050751884 —00026225909 00003284028 -00004511288 -00003299182 00158947113 00006465132 00013557480 —00041825283 00016265982 00041385186 -00005110281 —00080897874 00014435779 00170414518 00000977352 -00107558133 -00023222261 00037535532 -00032055722 00001260619 -00030429390 00033539827 00037869796 00190134222 00017198383 -00079894126 -00012927l32 00015813137 00008911926 00021941958 00038026604 00025267206 00003347714 -00010642l8l 00128434380 ~00080344078 -00740701864 -00406091248 ~00783174188 -00270948997 -00084179998 -00920107905 00237259098 00771791905 00121051882 00240089174 20458795906 00085423029 00217625673 —00126409103 00279737336 00248769787 00006891427 00363170269 -00209753979 00185256353 00082560628 00095931754 00021213637 13437309812 -00026522856 00121066572 -00029957869 -00008958946 -00049168717 —00001529289 -00074478022 00010289198 00016581613 00081543943 00005695513 00153964294 00104597559 00183068223 00008095321 - 207479639 00005559180 —00059111725 -00066316111 00004642714 00025589719 00006847325 -00051777329 00012654657 00009202974 -00316443492 —20102264514 -00002968350 00272867274 00000044071 —00010851941 -00074322l78 00016527842 00023315370 -00015635740 -00094614243 00008287365 00137503306 00025567077 —00008394212 01115658313 -00039937309 00058189450 -00104497571 00379076435 156 TABLE CORRELATION Fac- 1 I 874 c E F 0 H I tor E A 1.3. I, B - .1397 1.0000; c - .1326 .0260: 1.0000 E .0771 .0651?- .0538 1.0000 F ; .1137 - .0470‘ .1243 .3717 1.0000 G .2521 .0624 .0208 .1415 - .0340 1.0000 H .2530 .0610 .1493 .4168 .3183 .1909 1.0000 I .2100 - .2106 - .2665 - .1116 .0146 - .0332 - .0313 1.0000 L .0462 .0121 - .2121 .0668 .1773 - .0363 - .2948 .0877 M'. .0066 — .0906 - .1115 .1460 - .1300 .0085 - .1050 .1929 N .1414 - .0819 - .0755 .0748 .0440 .1797 .1596 .1768 0 — .0524 - .0602 - .1883 - .2937 - .1060 - .0546 - .3061 .1316 01 .0687 .0218 - .0722 .1294 .1200 .0055 .1491 - .1435 02 - .1827 .1040 - .1466 - .0355 - .2033 - .0105 - .2619 .0603 03 .0457 - .1456 .0222 - .1919 - .2246 .0261 .0734 .0329 04 0.0002 -o.0065 -0.2527 0.0455 0.0670 -0.0745 -0.2312 0.0338 53 CCEFFICIENTS L M N 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q2; 1.0000 .2104 1.0000 .0226 - .0681 1.0000 .4133 .0614 .1481 1.0000 .1224 .0517 .0730 .0013 1.0000 .0939 .4371 .0371 .0796 .0667 1.0000 - .2401 .0556 .0492 - .1339 - .0534 - .0133 1.0000 <3.0541 0.0952 -0.0380 0.4006 -0.0177 0.2209 —0.3249 1.0000 BIBLIOGRAPHY 158 5. 9. 10. 11. 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anastasi, Anne. "Age Changes in Adult Test Performance," Psychological Reports, II (1956). Anastasi, Anne. PsychOIOgical Testing. New York: The Eacmillan C0 0, 1951+. Anderson, I. W. An Introduction to Kultivariate Statistical Analysis. New York: John ailey and Sons, Inc., l957. Anderson, William A. Rural Social Participation and the Family Life Cycle,_Part I: Formal Participation, hemoire 314, Ithaca, new York: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1953. Anderson, William A. Rural Social Participation and the Family Life CY 18, Part II: Informal Participation, Memoire 318, Ithaca, .L New York: Cornell University Agricultural Sxperiment Station, 1953. Beal, George M. "Additional Hypotheses in Participation Research," Rural 500101033, XXI, No. l-A (1956). Bell, Hendell, and Force, Naryanne T. "Urban Neighborhood Types and Participation in Formal Associations," American Sociological Review, XXI, No. 1 (February, 1956). Brown, Emory J. Elements Associated with Activity_and Inactivity in Rural Organizations, Bulletin 574, University Park: Penn. State University Agricultural Experiment Station, February, 1954. Brunner, Edmund deS, Wilder, David S., Kirchner, Corrinne, and Newberry, John S. An Overview of Adult Education Research. Chicago: Adult Education Association of the U. S. A., 1959. Buck, Roy 0., and Ploch, Louis A. Factors Related to Changes in a Rural Pennsylvania Community, Bulletin 582, Penn. State College: Penn. State University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1954. Cartwright, Morse A. Ten Years of Adult Education. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1935. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 160 Cattell, Raymond B. "Confirmation and Clarification of Primary Personality Factors," Psychometrika, XII, No. 3 (September, 1947). Cattell, Raymond 8. Description and Measurement of Personality. Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: world Book Co., 19A6. Cattell, Raymond B. Personality: A Systematic Theoretical and Factual Study. New York: McCraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950. Cattell, Raymond B. "Validation and Intensification of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XII (1956). Cattell, Raymond B., Saunders, D. 3., and Stice, G. Handbook for Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaipn, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957. Cattell, Raymond B., Saunders, D. R., and Stice, G. Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957. Cattell, Raymond B., Saunders, D. R., and Stice, G. Tabular Supplement to the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Revised. Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1959. Chadderdon, Hester and Lyle, Kary 3. Reasons Given by Iowa Women for Attending Homemaking Classes for Adults, Special Report No. 12, Amers, Iowa: Iowa State Agricultural Experiment Station, June, 1955. Chapin, F. Stuart. "Social Participation and Social Intelligence," American Sociolggical Review, IV, No. 2 (Apil, 1939). Deane, Stephen R. "A PsychOIOgical Description of Adults Who Have Participated in Selected Activities." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1919. Dixon, Wilfred J. and Massey, Frank J. Introduction to Statistical New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1951. Analysis. Education Flint, II, No. 5, Flint: Flint Board of Education, 1959. Ely, Mary L. (ed.). Handbook of Adult Education in the United States. New York: Institute of Adult Edication, 1948. Essert, Paul. Creative Leadership of Adult Education. New York: Prentice Hall, 1951. 26. 27. 28. 35. 38. 39. #0. 161 Evan, William M. "Dimensions of Participation in Voluntary Association," Social Forces, XXXVI, No. 2 (december, 1957). Foskett, John K. "Social Structure and Social Participation," American Sociological Review, XX, No. A (August, 1955). Goldhamer, Herbert. "Participation in Voluntary Association." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Dept. of Sociology, University of Chicago, 19A2. Gordon Personal Profilekaanual. Yonkers-on- Gordon, Leonard V. York: norld Book Co., 1953. Hudson, New Guilford, John P. and Zimm rman, C. Temperament Survey. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sheridan Supply Co., 1949. Havood Harvaret Jarmen and Price Daniel 0. Statistics for o ! o ’ Sociologists. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952. Hallenbeck, Wilbur C. "Participation in Public Affairs," Adult Education, II, No. 1 (October, 1951). Holden, John B. "A Survey of Participation in Adult Education Classes," Adult Leadership, VI (April, 1958). Kaplan, Abraham A. "Socio-economic Circumstances and Adult Participation in Certain Cultural and Educational Activities," Contributions to Education, E0. 839. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1943. Kaufman, Iarold F. Participation in Organized Activities in Selected Kentucky Localities, Bulletin 528, Lexington: University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, 1949. Kelly, B. Lowell. "Consistency of the Adult Personality," American PsycholOgist, X, No. 11 (November, 1955). Knowles, Malcolm. "Adult Education in the United States," Adult Education, V, No. 2 (winter, 1955). Kuder, G. Frederic. Examiner Manual for the Kuder Preference Record,_Personal. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1953. Kuder, G. Frederic. Kuder Preference Record, Personal. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1948. MacLean, Malcolm 8. "Learning to Live with Atomic Energy." Unpub- lished address before the Institute on Atomic Energy, University of California, Los Angeles, Kay 28, 19h7. 41. 42. 43. 1+5. 46. 47. A9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 162 Los Angeles City Board of Education. "Informational Report on Adult Education to the Los Angeles City Board of Education." Los Angeles: December 10, 1959. (Eimeogr phed.) McClelland, David C. Personality. New York: Uilliam Sloane Associates, 1951. Nether, William G. "Income and Social Participation," American Soci010gical Review, VI, No. 3 (June, 1941). Naxham, Helen K. "A Study of the Viewpoints of Nemen of Different Age Groups," Journal of Genetic ngchOIOgy, LXIX (June, 19AA). Plant, James S. Personality and the Cultural Pattern. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1937. Plummer, Robert H. "An EXperiment in Counseling," Adult Education, IX, No. 1 (Autumn, 1958). Pressey, Sidney L., Janney, J. Elliott, and Kuhlen, Raymond G. Life: A Psychological Survey. New York: Harper and Bros., 1939. Runquist, Edward A. "Personality Tests and Prediction," Handbook of Applied Poychology, edited by Fryer, Douglas, and Henry, New York: Rinehard and Co., 1950. Scaff, Alvin H. "The Effect of 00mmuting on Participation in Community Organizations," American Sociological Review, XVII, No. 2 (April, 1952). Scott, John C. "Nembership and Participation in Voluntary Association," American Sociological Review, XXII, No. 3 (June, 1957). Sheets, Paul H., Jayne, Clarence D., and Spence, Ralph B. Adult Eduoation, the Community Approach. New York: The Dryden Press, 1953. Smith, George Baxter. "Purposes and Conditions Affecting the Nature and Extent of Participation of Adults in Courses in the Home Study Department of Columbia University, 1925-1932," Contributions to Education, No. 663. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. Sorenson, Herbert. Adult Abilities: A Study of University Exten- sion Students. Minneapolis: The University of Ninnesota Press, 1938. 5A. 55. 57. 58. 59. 163 Suhr, Virtus w. The Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Test as a PrOgnosticator of Accident Susceptibility, Proceedings of Iowa Taietz, Philip and Larson, Olaf F. "Social Participation and Old Age," Rural Sociology, XXI, No. 1-4 (December, 1956). Thurstone, Louis L. Temperament Schedule. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949—1953. Traxler, Arthur. Techniques of Guidance. New York: Harper and Bros., 1957. Verner, Coolie and Newberry, John, S. "The Nature of Adult Participation," Adult Education, VIII, No. A (Summer, 1953). Wechsler, David. The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. Baltimore: The fiilliams and Jilkins Co., 19AA. VIII).| I R O G :5 ' "1‘: - n r.- t ‘ i " '6 PI .1”. I ‘J JLL'é‘H‘J‘. “*3 . ‘ . . " 1" I. l 1" ; .v ‘ 1‘1.) : u n x. - ‘6' *1 fl. '\ I'K‘ . ._ '_ 11' “er"; 2%;