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. Siï¬s
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
â€L ULK / K" 17‘s" f ~ I i ' ’ ~ 'L\;I_ .
I'-
...
-._,“,--‘, Yvyol\‘ yvo rxuv- Tn Y‘ P71" \' *NTT‘: "ï¬ WT A f‘IV“(’§ V“ "V ‘F‘ï¬YT ‘
'I ‘JI' ‘ " x.) _?'T'__ T T 47‘ T v 9’17. 1A_)“ ‘ : .l. . I, I .
Il\ . - J‘ g.‘ . Q
\
I
11i‘\y ï¬~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‘ Tï¬n'ï¬r" " "_ YT" ‘1’ 'n hsï¬ Tn h! I “a" a 1797p!"
- 1.3.1I‘I \ II.) LII LAJIX) .ik' I TI JT '1) .\ .. L“
M'N'VH‘W'VTK“ ‘ â€'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 Sheeï¬L' 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.
Hflï¬v—
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.
zï¬lilbur 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 â€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 ï¬Adult'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 Sheetkâ€
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 testsâ€, . . . .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, â€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-
ï¬â€”
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
ï¬ntucky Agriculturalï¬ExperTment Station, 1949.
3W. A. Anderson, Rural Social Participation and the Family Life
Cycle, Part 1: Formal ParHcipation, Memoire 314, Ithaca, New York:
Corneï¬ 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 ï¬ne
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-
\ â€Haoo amass son oooaoaoaooaa
12H Op onooemmr
:mï¬om Um. #02:
m amour oopsowoflpsmm
moo so me
"Haeo.ooogmoaoa pmsï¬m vosozmsd
was empocwowpsem
GZHH<NHOHHmdN
.HNMZDZ AdHQH m0 Md¢HZMQMMN.<.m<
GZHHdeUHHMQN WMMHOMHMW m0 mmDOMG
N mudmw
mam so as
hazard oz eaamflpflsH
sonar oocosom
&\ no NH
mmzoemom zoso: um
pox: m seams venous:
moo so we
â€H 80 pmsï¬m CH UOSQmom
mzommHuMH Mm £EEI¢MM.MMMZDZ AdHOH ho
MGdemummm.< m4.nMMU¢MM mMMHOMHMW MO mmbomw
H unflmw
68
‘Elements of the response of the women to the interview in the
home itself is indicated in Table 8. Several observations could be
made with respect to Table 8. In all of the cases where the non—class
person was not available when the interviewer visited the home, the
interview was salvaged either by waiting or by rescheduling the inter—
view. Whenever a wrong person was chosen by the selectee, the inter—
view proceeded on schedule and the scholarship was given, even though
it was quite obvious that the interview sheet would be useless for
survey purposes. It was thought this was time well spent from the point
of view of public relations. The two women who filled in the question—
naire,even though they did not appear to want to, were poorly briefed
by the selectee who picked them and had, in both cases, a wrong idea
of time involved and purposes.
TABLE 8
RESPONSE OF WOMEN TO HOME INTERVIEW
Response Frequency
Number of selectees who were not at home
when interviewer called at the home even
though appointment had been made . . . . . . . 1
Number of selectees who did not have a non—
class participator available when inter—
viewer called at the home . . . . . . . . . . 3
Number of selectees who could not read
queStionnai-re . o e e e o e o o o e o o o 2
Number of selectees who had chosen as
co-participator a person who had
been involved in adult education . .' . . . . . 6
Number of selectees who did not
satisfactorily complete questionnaire . . . . . . 3
Number of selectees who filled in question—
naire but seemed to have objection to doing it . . . 2
69
The results of applying â€he Sixt en rersonality Factor
-\
‘ucstionnaire to the two groups of women are contained in the following
F
sixteen graphs. The scores used are sten scores obtainable from raw
scores from a table suoolied by R. D. Cattell, D. R. Saunders and G.
L‘
,
Stice, authors of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.‘ The
red line is the graph of he participator. The black line is the
graph of the noneparticipator.
la a o H c u 0 0
see Appendix. Page 147 contains the table used in converting
raw scores to sten scores.
70
mm MOHQ<h
ouoom seam
On a Ma 5 mV n .e n
d u d 4 d d
«N
«1H
1
8
OH
non
Loo
housewouuuemlaoz II madam
nouoeaouuuem II can >H 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<du
Na
0H
ON
on
NM
cc
3030:
OH
2;: 3.9 o u
m mosses o 893s
ouoom seam euoom seam
OH a o n. o m. e n N H ea m. a 5 mu m o
W
G a J d
d
1
d
d
u
d
u 1 a
3060:
1
O
N
04-!
«a
cs
2.: 3.0 o u
nouemuouuuomlsoz II madam nouaeuouuuomlsoz 1| xoeum
0633333 ..- 8a 2. E56 8338383 .... cos
3 0 B 0 s
OH
Zia 3.0 o u
72
My MOHU<h
euoom seam
OH 0 m N. .c n
q I
G
q
q
uouueuouuueeleoz 1| madam
noueeuouuuem In new
e
d
1
d
HHH> 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> =m<do
NH
ca
ON
oN
Nn
co
3030:
ON
:3 s 3.0 o u
73.
H MOHO<h
ouoom seam
OH o O n. O m
1 I
nouemHOHuuemlaoz II xoeHm
uoaeeHOHuuem In com
mm<uu
NH
.OH
ON
ON
ON
NM
on
Oï¬
3050:
ON
:2 a 6.0 o u
m 8.8%
ouoom seam
OH O O b 0 mm o
q u d a 1 d
n
woueeHOHauemlsoz ll soaHm
nonemHoauuem II can
undue
NH
OH
ON
ON
Nn
Oo
3 0 E 0 a
ON
:5 s 3.0 o u
a 85$ a 85E
74
euoom seam ouoom seam
OH O .O N. o m. Q n N H OH o. O 5 mu m e n. N H
u u H a q d d a l q q a 1 d 1 a a . u
e o
a O
NH : NH
0
.s
.OH 0 OH
3
on m cm
0
«N u «N
o
n
.. om a on
a
2
Nn Nn
on on
OO Oc
wouaeHOHuuomlsoz It xoeHm
wouseHOHuuem I: cum
HH
Aw
kr
wouomHouuuamlsoz t1 suaHm
uoueeHOHuuem II com
Us :28
3030!:
004
295.0084
o MOBUSO
ouoom seam
OH o O H. O n O n N H
n
l'
wouaeHOHuuemlsoz II xoeHm
3:30:03 .i was >3 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. aosoï¬
ouoom seam
OH O O H. O m
a u H . q u
uouaeHOHuuemlcoz II xoeHm
3336303 I. one
n
rm
8...
HHH>x mm<mO
NH
.OH
ON
ON
ON
N».
O».
OO
3OEOG
O‘H
2:13.001.
mo 899E
ouoom seam
OH O O h O m
u a H H a -
noueeHOHuuemusoz LI soaHO
uoaeeHoHuuom II oom
HHEH Esau
NH
OH
ON
ON
Nn
On
O4»
3030::
ON
zaanou
78
To determine possible significant differences between the
personality factors of the participators and non—participators is a
multivariate problem. The statistical treatment decided upon for the
personality scores involved in the preceding sixteen graphs follows:
Hotelling's T2 statistic was computed from the sample of 101
measurements on 16 variables. Using Mistic at Michigan State
University to compute the statistic T2, the line vector, the co—
variance matrix, the column vector and S inverse were obtained.
T2 was defined as (101) E, S-L§’ where i, is the line vector of sample
means, S is the sample covariance matrix, T is the column vector,
and where
Sijzz (Kick-ii) (xjï¬-Sc'j)/N-l.
Figures produced by Mistic from which the factors of T2 were obtained
are listed in Tables 51, 52, and 53 1V“ the Appendix, oases 15A to 157.
iMatrix multiplication as directed in the definition of T2 yielded
an observed T2 of 1.788. AT2 of this magnitude indicates a significant
difference between the personality factors of participators in adult
education activity and non-participators at the 5% level. The compara-
tive figure taken from T2 table by interpolation is 1.7611, This
reveals a significant difference when all personality factors are
considered together in the manner described, but reveals nothing about
possible differences when individual factors are considered.
1I. W. Anderson, An Introduction to_Multivariate Statistical
Analyses (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957), p.
79
It Slould be noted that if the sixteen factors were distinctly
independent, the individual scores could be considered separately
without question with respect to significant differences. .As to
independence, the authors of the Sixteen Personality Factor Question—
naire write:
It will be recognized that although the above sixteen dimensions
have been shown to be functionally unitary and independent . . .
yet some slight correlation exists among them for genetic reasons
and because they may interact with one another through environment.
For example, there are reasons in environmental experience why
dominance E and intelligence B tend to become correlated. Orthogonal
factors are a mathematical fiction—~a model which nature disowns.1
Be that as it may for the universe selected by the test authors,
it would seem the correlation in the universe of this survey is more
than slight. The correlation coefficients yielded by Mistic, found in
the Appendix, page 196, are larger than would be expected with a high
degree of independence. A correlation coefficient of .165 or less
indicates independencez at the 5% level. It can be shown that only
about 33 or roughly .3 of the relationships are independent at the 5%
level, that is, of the correlation coefficients only .3 are less than .165.
Another concept which could possibly reveal the correctness of
examining the individual factors for significant differences, once know—
ing that the factors when grouped are significantly different at a
certain level, is the “confidence region for the mean vector."3 This
involves obtaining a 16 dimensional ellipsoid, the boundaries of which
determine the limits of a region, which.region, if it.does.not contain
1Wilfred J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Introduction to Statistical
Analysis (New York: ‘McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1951).
2Dixon and Massey.
3Anderson.
80
0, indicates a significant difference. .Assuming a standard deviation
for all factors which is high, 4, and the same standard deviation for all
factors, thus making the ellipsoid a sphere, it can be shown that the
interval boundary is 1.31 which is larger than the mean of the differences
of paired scores and which, therefore, includes 0 in most cases and so
reveals no significant difference at the 5% level. Factor E is an
exception in that the mean of the differences is 1.485 and so the
interval of 1.31 does not contain 0. This could indicate a significant
difference. This coincides with other evidence to be supplied later.
However, the standard deviation for factor B is larger than the 4 taken
in determination of the 1.31, so doubt arises again.
The question still to be resolved is whether or not significant
differences can be determined for the separate factors. For example,
can it be determined whether or not the class participators are
significantly higher on the B personality factor than the non-class
participators? This question cannot be answered beyond all doubt, but
certain evidence can be marshalled which points toward this conclusion.
In the first place, means of the scores of the participators and
non—participators may be determined for the various factors and they
may be compared for significant differences. When this is done, the
results are shown in Table 9.
81
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF MEANS ON SIXTEEN PERSONALITY
FACTOR.QUESTIONNAIRE
Factor Participator Non4Participator ZDifference
A f 5.42 5.52 0.10
B Q 4.01 3.17 .84
c i 4.84 V 4.46 .38
s 5.38 i 4.55 .83
F 5.26 5.45 .19
G 5.35 4.99 .36
H 5.39 5.31 .08
I 5.54 5.61 .07
L 5.51 5.71 .20
M 6.03 5.77 .26
N 4.71 5.13 .41
0 5.76 6.18 .42
91 5.82 5.61 .21
02 5.19 5.32 .13
Q3 4.95 5.51 .56
0,, ..W. . ,..5.95 H 5.99 0.03
82
Some of these are so close together there could be no significant
difference. Others, however, are far enough apart to be doubtful and
so a test for the significant diflerence of means is employed. The
factors in question are E, C, E, G, N, C, and 93° Application Of a
O O O J. C l 0
test for the Significant difference Of means yields an answer expressed
in standard deviation units which, when compared with the values in a
P table, indicates the level Of significance of the difference. This
test, applied to the factors in question, yields Table 10.
TABLE 10
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR U EFSRENCE CF KSAKS
Factor Level
B 0.0096
C .19
E .0088
G .091
N .097
O .1188
93 0.0702
lMargaret Jarman Hagood and Daniel 0. Price, Statistics for
Sociologists (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952), p. 323.
Thus it is seen that factors B and E have means which are
significantly different at the 1% level. No other factors have
means which are significantly different at the 1% or 5% level.
However, factors G, N, and 03 have means which are significantly
different at a level close to the 5% level and, therefore, later
consideration will be given to these personality ratings. In other
words, the class participators are significantly more dominant and
aggressive and bright and intelligent, while the non—participators
are significantly more submissive and mild and of lower capacity.
'Means for the participators and non—participators on the scales
relating the lax, unsure versus controlled, exact; the casual,
undependable versus conscientious, persistent; and, finally, the
simple, awkward versus sophisticated, polished are close to being
significantly different at the 5% level and, therefore, should not
be entirely ruled out.
Table 11 of the mean of differences of pairs of respondents
tends to support the above tentative conclusions.
TABLE 11
MEKN 0F DIFFERENCES OF RAIRS OF RESPONDENTS 0N
SIXTEENIPERSONKLITY FACTOR.QUESTIONNAIRE
Factor 'Mean of;Differences
orjx
A —O.119
B .725
C .574
E 1.485
F —0.396
8h
TABLE ll—~Continued
Factor Mean of4pifferences
or;X
G 0.446
H .228
I .079
L - .475
M 0.406
N -0.525
0 ~ .604
91 .556
92 .010
03 —l.020
Q4 0.287
It will be noticed that factor B has a mean of differences of
over .7 and is the third largest mean of differences of pairs of
respondents in the group. Factor E has a mean of differences of pairs
of respondents of almost 1.5 and is the largest mean of differences of
the group. Factor 03 is the second largest. In Table 12 the factors
are ranked in order of the size of the mean of the differences of
pairs of respondents, with the largest given first.
In Table 13 the differences of the means of the scores of the
participators and non-participators on the individual personality
factors are ranked in order of size beginning with the largest.
85
TABLE 12
PERSONALITY FACTORS RANKED ACCORDING TO
THE SIZE OF THE MEAN OF THE DIFFERENCES
OF PAIRS OF RESPONDENTS
Rank Factor
LN
\oooqcnm-butou-n
HHHHH
#MNI-‘O
Hhem‘LO'IPWKQï¬ZOOUUOtd
......
mm
C
to
TABLE 13
PERSONALITY FACTORS RANKED ACCORDING TO THE SIZE
OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THE MEANS OF THE SCORES
OF PARTICIPATORS AND NON~PARTICIPATORS
Rank Factor
1 B
2 E
3 Q
4 O3
5 N
6 C
7 G
8 M
9
10 El
11 F
12 92
13 A
14 H
15 I
16 Q4
86
Looking at the similarities in personality factors between
participators and non—participators, it will be found that both
methods of ranking agree that the two groups most resemble each
other on factors 02,45, E, I, and 04. That is, the two groups
most resemble each other on the dependent,imitative versus self—
sufficient, resourceful scale; on the tough, realistic versus
sensitive, effeminate scale; on the aloof, cold versus the warm,
sociable scale; on the timid, shy versus adventurous, "thick—skinned"
scale; and on the tense, excitable versus phlegmatic, composed scale.
Looking at correlation coefficients in the dissimilar area of
the personality factors, we find correlations as follows in Table 14.
TABLE 14
CORRELATION OF MEANS OF DIFFERENCES OF FAIRS OF RESPONDENTS
FOR PERSONALITY FACTORS WHERE PARTICIEATORS AND
NON—PARTICIPATORS TEND TOWARD SIMILARITY
B C N 0 Q3
s .07 .05 .07 :_2_9 L13
B ‘ .02 .08 .06 .15
c .07 £3 .02
N .15 .05
0 .13
The underlined correlation coefficients are sufficiently large
to justify considering dependency at the 5% level. This is determined
by using the test number of .165 described before. These factors show
a dependency in fewer than the 30% noted earlier for the group as a
whole. In fact, this shows a dependency in 20% of the coefficients
87
listed.
In both methods of testing it is evident that on certain factors
the participators resembled the non—participators. These factors are
03, I, A, H, and Q4.
Looking at the correlation coefficients in the area where the
personality factors of the participators and of the non—participators
are similar, we find correlations as follows in Table 15.
TABLE 15
CORRELATION OF MEANS OF DIFFERENCES OF PAIRS OF RESPONDENTS
FOR.PERSONALITY FACTORS WHERE PARTICIPATORS AND
NON—PARTICIPATORS TEND TOWARD SIMILARITY
02 .06 .18 .26 .22
I ._2_1_ .03 .03
A ,5_5 .00
H -_33.
.Again, the underlined correlation coefficients are sufficiently
large to justify considering dependency at the 5% level. This is
determined by using the test number of .165. These factors show a
dependency in about 60% of the cases which is double that for the
group as a whole.
Summary of the Results of the Sixteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire
Results of the Sixteen Personality Factor QueStionnaire indicated
that the participators and non—participators:
l. are significantly different at the 5% level with respect to
88
scores on the sixteen personality factors measured in
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. This was
determined by Hotelling's T2 characteristic. This charac—
teristic does not specify in which of the sixteen factors
the differences are greatest.
2. are significantly different at the 1% level on scores for
factors B and E as determined by the application of the
test for significant difference of means given by'M; J.
Hagood and D. 0. Price in Statistics for Sociologists.1
3. are significantly different near the 10% level on scores
for factors G, N, 0, and Q3 as determined by the appli—
cation of the test for significant difference of means
given by‘M; J. Hagood and D. 0. Price in Statistics for
Sociologists.2
4. are significantly different on scores for factor E at the
5% level as determined by a consideration of the confidence
region for the mean vector given by I. W. Anderson in An
. . . .,. . r ,,,._... - _...... ..,_.. _. 3
Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis.
5. have scores which, of the sixteen factors, tend to be most
different on factors B, E, O, and 03 whether means of
differences of the scores of pairs of respondents are
1Margaret Jarmen Hagood and Daniel 0. Price, Statistics for
Sociologists (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952), p. 323.
2Ibid.
3I. Wk Anderson, An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical
Analysis (New York: John‘Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957).
89
considered.
have scores which of the sixteen factors tend to be most
alike on factors H, A, I, Q4, and 02 whether means of
differences of the scores of pairs of respondents are
considered or differences of means of the scores of
respondents are considered.
have scores on the personality factors, the differences
of which correlate at the 5% level in 30% of the cases
involving all sixteen factors; in 60% of the cases
involving factors which tend to be alike; and in 20%
of the cases involving factors which tend to be different.
90
Part B: Report on Results of "Adult Education
Interview Sheet"
To each pair of women, included in the survey, was administered
an "Adult Education Interview Sheet." This sheet contained forty ques-
tions related to the woman's age, extent of participation in adult
classes, participation in other "out-of—the-home" activities, conditions
in the home, mobility, education, socio—economic position, health, religion,
familiarity with the adult education prOgram, and political involvement.
These elements, although related to personality, are not personality
characteristics as defined by the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.
It was heped that a measure of these elements, which shall be called
"non-personality" factors, would throw light on the personality factors
of the women.
Age
Table 16 is desisned to show the are rouos of adult education
a 5 g 1
participators and non-participators.
TABLE 16
AGE
Age Participators Nonvparticipators
Group
20 years
or less 0 1
21 - 25 10 23
26 — 30 19 20
31 — 35 28 15
36 - 40 16 15
41 - 45 9 ll
91
TABLE l6—-Continued
Age Participators Non-participators
Group
51 — 55
56 - 60
OJ-‘(Dxl
6
A
A
l
more 0
66 or 1
Testing for significant difference of means of ages between the
two groups of women by the method described above1 reveals a P of .2502
and so no significant difference at any acceptable level. The mean age
for the participators is 36.39 years. The mean age for the non-partici-
pators is 34.73 years. This makes a difference of means of 1.64 years.
In spite of the results above, the table of ages seems to in-
dicate a preponderance of younger women in the non-participating group.
Two superimposed graphs further emphasize this non—normal distribution.
This is shown in Graph XIX. However, the skewed form of the graph sug-
gested that tests based on a normal distribution assumption might be
unreliable. Therefore, a test was used which would compare distributions
without regard to the form of the distribution. The test used was the
Sign test.2 Applying the sign test it was revealed there is a difference
lMargaret Jarmen Hagood and Daniel 0. Price, Statistics for
SociOIOgists (New York: iHenry Holt and Co., 1952), p. 323.
2The sign test will be used for all data on the "Adult Education
Interview Sheet".
92
whoa mo 00 mm
no
em
on on on
Ho . on Hm
mdsoao om<
Om m: 04 mm om
on on ow op ow
ww Ma Mm Hm ow
‘1
,<\\\
maopmeaoï¬pnmdlsOZIJxomHm
shoemaaoaptaauuemm
amoedeUHem¢mlzoz
92¢ mmoe<mHOHem¢m mom mOZHmDOmo mu<
HHM mm¢mw
OH
ma
ON
mm
on
nose?
go
honssz
93
at the 5% level. The test figure is .0488. It can then be said the
probability of a difference like the one found and in the direction
found (that is, with the non-participators younger than the participators)
will occur by accident one time in twenty. But, if the direction of
the difference is ignored, the chance of such a difference is but one
in ten.
Education
There were five questions in the "Adult Education Interview
Sheet" related to education. They were numbered questions 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9. These will be reported in this order.
Question number five asked, "what was the last grade or year
which you attended in regular school?" The results are reported in
Table 17.
TABLE 17
(I'-
F“
O
I—I-
c":-
O
*3
0}
Last Grade or Year of Participators Nonrpar
Attendance in Regular
School
0 — 8 8 13
9 — 10 0 0
ll — 12 (not graduated) 21 22
12 (graduated) 59 57
College (not graduatai] 8
Colege (graduated) 2
F4 F4 «a
Graduate work 2
94
It appears from Table 17 the nonrparticipators are slightly less well—
educated than the participators. The grade levels of the participators
and non—participators are displayed in Graph XX. The average gradeomn-
pleted for the participator is 11.6 years, while for the non-participator,
it is 11.3 years. This is a small difference. Also applying the sign
test, a test figure of .30h is found which indicates a significant
difference at no acceptable level.
Question six was stated: "Did you enjoy regular school when you
attended?" 0f the participators, 97% reported enjoying school when
they attended. 0f the non—participators, 93% reported enjoying school
when they attended. Applying the sign test, we find a test figure of
.172 and, therefore, a significant difference at no acceptable level.
Question seven was stated: "have you enrolled in any special
school, trade school, or correSpOndencc school since leaving regular
school?" Of the participators, 41 had attended such a school while
only 19 of the non-participators had so attended. The sign test discloses
a significant difference here at better than the 13 level. The test
figure was .00006.
Question eight was stated: "If, 'yes,'( to question 7) name
the school." Schools named are tabulated as follows in Table 18.
HCDU‘BCZ
H30
509505:
LA
95
GRAPH XX
ST GRADE CR YEAR OF ATTENDANCE N REGULAR SCHOOL
Red-—Participator
60 _ B1ack—-Non-participator
Av—
55
50
45 L
40
35;
30
25
20
15‘
10
0 l
' lIth T12th COI. col. grad.
to to to (grad.) (not (grad.) work
8th 10th 12th grad.)
(not
grad.)
Last Grade or Year of Attendance in Regular School
‘5'." ‘ 777 T
Anuha
18
SPECIAL 30300 - BIS‘IZOIUEIJTS
Type of School Participator Non~participator
Business school 18 7
School for comptometry 7 2
Nursing school 5 1
General hotors Institute 3 A
School of Cosmetology 3 2
College or university 3 l
thers:
U. 8. Navy Store Keeper's
School 1
Corresponding school for
dieticians 1
Flight school 1
Indiana University Extension
Northwestern University
hedical School 1
Cook's and baker's school 1
Detroit Restern High School 1
Studies on understanding
Children 1
Studies on understanding
adults 1
Study on aging at Ann Arbor -1
Owosso Bible College 1
Southern Pilgrim College 1
Hoody Bible Institute 1
97
Question nine was stated: "If, 'yes,‘ to question 7 why did
you enroll in this special school, traie school, or correspondence
school?"
The results are found in Table 19 listed in order of frequency
of response.
A.
B.
‘1'? a n
H.143.)
TABLE 19
CKS FOR EHROLLIXC N SPECIAL SCHCCL, TRADE SCHCCL; OR
CORRESPCKJEECE SCHOCL IN ORDER OF FRBWUENCY CF RESPCYSE
Participators
1.
To secure a better job.
2. To improve typing and shorthand.
3. Help out in the type of work being done at that time.
A. To learn thing and shorthand.
5. To further education.
6. Because the work in this field was liked.
7. To finish high school credits.
8. To prepare for self—support.
9. To prepare for business world.
10. To receive nurse's registration.
11. Required.
12. Wanted to practice this profession (medicine).
13. heped to do some writing.
'. Blue print reading to help with inspection job.
15. To help people.
Non-participators
1. To further education
2. To learn typing and shorthand.
B. Non-partic
). To
A. To
5. To
6. To
7. To
8. To
9. To
10. To
98
TABLZ l9--Continued
ipators--Continued
advance Speed in typing and shorthand.
better self.
sharpen business skills to hold job had at that time.
prepare for work.
acquire a better position.
be a nurse.
become a rural teacher.
learn all about foods.
11. Mother wanted her to.
Health
Only one question was asked which related directly to health.
This was question twenty—one and was stated: "How is your health?"
Results from this question appear in Table 20.
3,
5a
Riv
L4
Hï¬ibfli
Condition of Health Participator Nonsparticipator
Almost never ill 76 79
Ill sometimes 24 21
Often ill or handicapped l l
in it seems there is little difference revealed here. The sign test
es a test figure of .A09 and th refore, a significant difference at no
99
acceptable level.
Socio—economic Position
There were four questions and two observations which were
designed to show socio—economic position. The questions were
numbers 13, 18, 19, and 20.
Question 13 was stated: "Do you own your present home or rent?"
0f the participators, 95 owned their homes or were buying while 86 of
the non-participators owned their homes or were buying. Applying the
sign test, a figure of .095 was obtained which does not indicate a
significant difference at any acceptable level.
Question 18 was stated: “Your total yearly income would fall
in which group?" The results from this question are found in Table 21.
The table shows the participators have a higher yearly income than
the non—participators. The mean difference for the two groups is $295.
The sign test when applied to the two groups gives a test figure of
.0166 which indicates a significant difference at near the 1% level.
The difference would still be significant at better than the 5% level
if the direction of difference were ignored and the test figure were
doubled.
Question 19 was stated: "Do you, yourself, work for money?"
Answering, "Yes,“ were 26 non-participators and 18 participators.
Applying the sign test, one has a test number of .132 which indicates
a difference at no acceptable level.
Question 20 was stated: "If 'Yes' to question 19 , what is
your job?" The results of this are found in Table 22.
100
TABLE 21
INCOME
Income Level
Participators
Non—Participators
Less than .
$1,000. . 0
$1,000—4,ooo. f 3
$4,001—6,ooo. : 46
$6,001—7,ooo. : 18
$7,001—1o,ooo. } 19
Mere than ;
$10,000. : 11
11
47
22
12
TABLE 22
JOBS HELD BY RESPONDENTS
Type of Job
Participator
NonéParticipator
Store Clerk
Factory‘Worker
Secretary
Baby Sitter
iElevator Operator
Timekeeper
Part—time Aunt Mary
Membership Club
Housekeeper
Singing with dance bands
Maid
Flower Shop
Ironings
Press Operator
Office,Worker
H
hardrd
l—‘HMUIU'IG
.P‘P‘h‘h‘h‘h‘P‘P‘
101
TABLE 22u—Continued
Type of Job Participator Non—Participator
44
School Bus Driver '~ 1
Part-time Typist l
Instructor of -
Practical Nurses 1
Emerson School '
Cafeteria ' 1
Telephone Operator
Teacher of the‘Deaf
Assistant Librarian for
Preschool Story Hour
Substitute Organist
Cook at Camp
Printer
Sewing at Home
Medical Secretary
HH
l-‘UlI-‘Hl-‘H
Observation one was as to whether participators and non—
participators were white or non—white. Of the non—participators, 97
were white and 4 were non—white. Of the participators, 98 were white
and 3 were non~white. There is no significant difference here, the sign
law result being close to 1.
Observation two was regarding the type of house in which the
participators and non—participators lived. The results are found in
Table 23.
The â€no answers“ in the non—participator column are due to the
number of people who were brought in by the participator from a distance
too great to permit direct observation of the home. Using the sign test
and ignoring the pairs where there was no observation for one member of
the pair,one found no significant difference.
102
TABLE 23
ESTIMATED VALUE OF HOUSE
Estimated Value Participator Non—Participator
$10,000 or less 42 37
$10,odl—2o,ooo 48 43
$20,001 or more 9 4
No Answer 2 17
Participation in “Out—of—the-Home“ Activities
Questions dealing with participation in “out—of—the—home“
activities, other than adult education classes, were numbered 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, and 36.
Question 30 was stated: "How many times in the last year have
you visited in a friend’s or relative‘s home?" The answers to this
question are summarized in Table 24. The mean difference is very
slight here. Participators visited in a friend’s or relative's
home 65.5 times in the last year while non—participators visited
63.1 times. A test number of .191 is obtained by the sign law which
indicates a difference significant at no acceptable level. It must
be remembered that in addition to the friendly visiting noted in this
question, class participators will be shown to be out an additional
30 nights a year, and this must be added to the small edge they have
in friendly visiting when total nights out are figured.
Question 31 was stated: “Do you usually visit alone or with
103
TBBLE 24
VISITATIONS IN THE LAST YEAR IN THE
HOME OF A FRIEND OR RELATIVE
Number of Visits Made Participator Non—Participator
None 0 0
1 - 5 3 2
6 — 10 4 5
ll — 20 13 ll
21 - 50 18 19
51 - 100 19 29
More than 100 43 33
your husband and family?“ To this question, 82 of the participators
answered with husband and family. Of the non—participators, 84
answered with husband and family. Thls is a significant difference
at no acceptable level.
Question 32 was stated: "Do you belong to service clubs,
neighborhood clubs, or any social, recreational, political, or
organized group?" Of the participators, 72 belonged to such a group.
Of the non—participators, 42 belonged to this kind of a group. Apply—
ing the sign test, a test number of .00003 was found which indicates a
significant difference at better than the 1% level.
Question 33 stated, "What is the name or are the names of your
clubs or groups?" From this question was obtained not only the names
of the groups but also the number of groups joined by each respondent.
The number of groups joined is found in Table 25.
104
TABLE 25
NUMBER OF GROUPS JOINED
Number of Groups .Participator Non—Participator
Joined -
1 30 22
2 22 13
3 ' 13 3
4 3 0
5 2 2
6 O 1
The names of clubs or groups joined are found in Table 26.
TABLE 26
CLUBS JOINED BY RESPONDENTS
Club . ,Participator, , Non—Participator
A
H
b
Bridge
Parent—Teacher
Associations
Church Guilds
Child Study Group
Altar Society
Church Clubs
Order of Eastern Star
Square Dan Club
Hospital Auxiliaries
Cub Scouts
women's Service Clubs
Sunday School Group
Sororities
Neighborhood Sewing
Club J
‘Druggist Auxiliary ; 2
MumbUIU-bUIUIVVW
NHWHMNMUIU‘IU‘NV
on
h‘h‘
105
TABLE 26—-Continued
iv
Club ‘Participator jNon-Participator
Missionary Association 2 f 1
Church Fellowship “
Group 3 ,
Bowling 1 I 2
Garden Club 2 3
School Group 2 1
Sunday School
Teacher
Card Club
Coffee Club
International
Business Girls
International Order
of Oddfellows
P.E.O.
Adult Choir
MedicalyAssociation
Flint Nurse's Assoc.
Boy Scout Auxiliary
Girl Scout Leader
Cooperative Nursery
Maize and Blue Club
Postal‘Workers of
America - 1
Flint Sorosis .
W. C. T.U. l
Y.W. C.A.
Ladies‘ Aid
Extension Service
Kiwanis
Junior Chamber of
Commerce Auxiliary
OptiéMrs. Club ‘
High School Council _ 1
Order of Amaranth -
Burton Democrats Club
Marion Study Group
N.A.A.C.P.
Michigan Hemophilia
Chapter , 1
Mayfair Bible Church
Civil Air Patrol
Genesee Sportsman Club
P‘P‘k)
HH
H HHHHHHNNN N
HHl-‘I-l
v-n-a
HHHH
HHH
106
TABLE 26~~Continued
Club lParticipator Non-Participator
Saginaw Valley Pilot's
Association 1
Charmettes 1
Lucky in Love Club 1
Question 34 was stated:
you attended regular meetings of these clubs?“
"How many times in the last year have
question are tabulated in Table 27.
CLUB ATTENDANCE
TABLE 27
The answers to this
Number of Meetings -
Attended , Participator <3Non—Participator
0 2 O
1 — 5 10 5
6 — 10 9 6
ll - 20 l7 13
21 — 50 22 12
51 — 100 4 4
101 or more 5 1
The participators attended a total of 1935 club meetings. The
non—participators attended a total of 1085 club meetings last year.
This meant the “club joiner" who was a participator in adult education
107
attended an average of 27 meetings last year while the "club joiner"
who was a non—participator in adult education attended an average of
26 meetings.
Question 35 stated, "How many times in the last year have you
attended an activity in a school building?" Answers to this question
are summarized in Table 28.
TABLE 28
.ACTIVITY IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Number of Times -
Attended ,Participator Non—Participator
None : 0 25
l - 5 ' 2 40
6 — 10 ' 7 9
11 — 20 ' l9 16
21 — 50 i 60 3
51 - 100 P 9 3
101 or more . 4 0
This information is also given in Graph 6.
[All the participators in the sewing classes were attending
activities in school buildings. Applying the sign test, a signifi—
cant difference at better than the 1% level is obtained. The adult
education participator attended a school building activity an average
of 36 times a year while the non-participator attended a school
building activity an average of less than 8 times a year. This is a
difference not to be entirely accounted for by attendance at sewing
moat-bra
OQSMQ-SOCV‘d'P
108
GR AFB XXI
ACTIVITY IN SCHOOL BUILDING
Redo-Partici-
60 _ pator
‘;B13ck-Non~
\ participator
55 r
50 _
1.5 p
o I I I I I
0 1 6 ll 21* 51 10.
to to to to to or
5 10 20 50 100 more
Number of Women
109
classes.
Question 36 stated: "Do you usually go alone or with a
member of your family?" This question refers to attendance at some
kind of a school building activity. The answers to this question
were not given by 12 participators and by 33 non—participators. Of
those answering, 49% of the participators indicated attendance alone
and 39% of the non—participators indicated attendance alone. Apply—
ing the sign test, a test figure of .229 was obtained. This indicates
a significant difference at no acceptable level.
Extent of Participation in Adult Classes
Additional information concerning only adult education partici—
pators and their participation in classes other than sewing classes
is found in questions 2, 3, and 4.
Question 2 asked the participator to name adult education
classes attended during the last year. From these answers can be
found both the number of classes attended and the names of the
classes. Table 29 gives the number of classes attended during the
last year by adult education participators.
Table 30 lists the names of the classes, other than sewing,
taken by adult education participators and the number of women
listing each class. This averages 2.72 classes other than sewing
attended by each participator in the last year.
110
TABLE 29
ADULT EDUCATION CLASSES ATTENDED BY
PARTICIPATORS IN THE LAST YEAR
Number of Classes Number of WOmen
,Attended Given
Number of Classes
0 0
1 17
2 15
3 58
4 6
5 3
6 1
7 0
8 1
TABLE 30
CLASSES OTHER THAN SEWING ATTENDED BY ADULT
EDUCATION PARTICIPATORS IN THE LAST YEAR
Class Number of WOmen
Attending Class
Millinery
Baking
History
‘Drawing
Oil Painting
Cake‘Decorating
Handicraft
English Vocabulary
Building
Upholstering
SquareflDancing
Bridge
‘Driver Training
Skin‘Diving
Party Foods
Physical Fitness
for'Women
Ice Skating
Golf
P‘P‘P‘P‘P‘k’Ufl
P‘P‘P‘P‘P‘P‘P‘
F‘F‘F‘
111
Question 3 stated: "Have you attended any other adult
education classes in the last five years?" The number of adult
education classes attended by the participators is given in
Table 31.
TABLE 31
OTHER CLASSES ATTENDED BY PARTICIPATORS
IN THE LAST FIVE.YEARS
Number of Classes Number of Women Who Have
Attended Each Given
Number of Classes
0 36
1 14
2 15
3 13
4 13
5 2
6 4
7 3
8 1
This averages 1.96 classes other than sewing taken by participators in
the last five years. This does not include classes attended in the
last year which are noted in question 2. The names of classes taken
by these women are listed in Table 30.
TABLE 32
CLASSES TAKEN BY ADULT EDUCATION PARTICIPATORS IN
THE LAST FIVE YEARS OTHER THAN SEWING
Class Number of WOmen
Taking Class
Cake‘Decorating l
Square‘Dancing
Typing
Swimming
U1\1\ILN
112
TABLE 32--Continued
Class Number of‘Women
Taking Class
Textile Painting
Leathercraft
Couple Dancing
Millinery
Bridge
History
Glove‘Making
Slip Covering
Grapho—analysis
Ceramics
Gift Wrapping
Oil Painting
Shorthand
Chair Caning
Movie Camera
Secretarial Training
Figurine.Painting
Memory Improvement
Public Speaking
Hooked Rugs
Interior‘Design
‘Art
Bookkeeping
Fly Tying
Insurance
Ice Skating
Draperies
‘English
I.B.M.
‘Music Appreciation
Dresden Painting
Poster Work
Upholstering
Drawing
Music
HHHHHHHHHI—IHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMNNNqu-I-‘J-‘k
Political Involvement
Another type of participation is related to political interest
and is touched briefly in questions 39 and 40.
Question 39 states: “With which major political party do you
usually find yourself voting?" The answers to this question are
113
summarized in Table 33. The sign test reveals no significant
difference here at any acceptable level. The test number was .244
TABLE 33
POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION
Party
Affiliation Participator Non—Participator
[ ,
Republican 30 25
Democratic ' 38 43
Neither or
varies 29 30
Question 40 stated: "In the past five local and national
elections how many times have you voted?" The answers to the
question are summarized in Table 34.
TABLE 34
VOTING
Number of Times . .
Voted Participator Non-Participator
0 9 27
1 7 10
2 i 10 11
3 7 19 14
4 l9 9
5 36 25
114
The sign test indicates a significant difference here at
nearly the 1% level. The test number is .012. This information
is shown in Graph 22.
Religious Involvement
_A last type of participation considered was related to the
church. Questions 37 and 38 pertained to this.
Question 37 stated, "What is your church affiliation?" The
answers given are shown in Table 35. Using the sign test a figure
of .425 was obtained so no significant difference at any acceptable
level is indicated.
TABLE 35
1 CHURCH AFFILIATION
Church tyParticipator Non—Participator
Catholic . 24 i 28
Protestant . 74 g 67
Jewish f 0 g 0
Other or T
None ; 3 t 6
HQU‘BCZ
H30
50503:;
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
ii,
GRAPH XXII
VOTING
Red-Participator
Black-Non-participator
k
l l l l
l 2 3 4 5
Number of Times Voting
116
Question 38 stated: "How many times in the last year have
you attended a regular church meeting?“ The results are in Table
36.
TABLE 36
CHURCH ATTENDANCE ~ NUMBER
Number of Times 3
Attended Participator Non—Participator
0 i ll 16
1 — 5 j 13 22
6 — 25 . 12 14
26 — 50 A 24 12
51 or more ‘ 39 36
117
The sign test gives no significant difference at any acceptable
level. The test figure is .181. Graphs of the distribution are found
in Graph
GRAPH XXIII
CHURCH ATTENDANCE
‘Red—-Participator
N 40 Black-Non—participator
u
m
b 35 t
e
r
30
o
f
25 I
W
o
m 20
e
n
15!
10 i
5
O . A I
o 1 6 26 51
to to to or
5 25 50 more
Number of Times Attended
The distribution of church attendance is found in Table 36.
118
- T“ o
TABLAL J
' A (we; -"-.-TV,1/Vr'1 A?!
171' [‘7' a: (71?“ , K ,
11b; .11: ILPLHA.32LJ‘VLP-~JALLJ.LJUL v-4
Number of Times Attending
Lo 0 l 6 26 51 Total
Ans. to to to or
5 25 50 more
Number No Ans. 1 1
of 0 1 1 3 5 6 16
Times 1-5 1 4 2 1 7 7 22
Attending 6—25 2 1 2 3 6 IA
26-50 1 3 3 l A 12
51 or 1 3 6 3 3 15 36
Thor 9
Total L 2 11 13 12 2t 39
The mean number of times the participators attend‘d church in year was
31, while the non-participators had a mean of 25. Considering the
significant difference of means P came out .057, so it can be said the
means are significantly different at close to the 5 per cent level.
Conditions in the Home
Questions 22, 23, 2A, 25, 26, 27, 23, and 29 dealt with condi-
tions in the home which could have had an influence in participation
practice.
Question 22 stated: "Eow'many members of your family live in
your house with you?" The answers given are shown in Table 33.
119
TABLE 38
SIZE OF FAMILY
:11
Number in Part ic ipator N on—par t ic ip ator
Family
1 0 0
2 10 7
3 16 17
4 28 28
5 27 22
6 13 13
7 4 5
8 l 2
9 1 3
The average size of the family for the class participator was
4.4 members, while for the non—participator it was 4.6. The sign test -
gave a test figure of .409, and so indicated a.significant difference
at no acceptable level.
Question 23 stated: “Do you feel crowded in your home?" Of
the class members, 25 said they felt crowded. Of the non-participators,
21 said they felt crowded. The test figure for the sign test is .364,
so no significant difference at any acceptable level is shown.
Question 25 stated: "If yes (to question 24), do these in~
capacitated persons require much of your time caring for them?" Of
the participators, 26 said "yes" to this question. Of the nonépartici—
pators, 30 made a similar response. Applying the sign test, a test
120
figure of .344 was found indicating a significant difference at no
acceptable level.
Question 26 stated: "Do you feel busier than you would like to
be with your house work?" of the participators, 41 said "yes" to this
question, and 46 of the non-participators also said "yes.“ The sign
test gave a test figure of .161, and so there is no significant dif—
ference at any acceptable level.
Question 27 stated: "Do you have a lawn or garden on which you
work?" Of the participators, 80 answered yes to this question. Of the
non-participators, 87 also answered yes. The sign test figure is .500
and, therefore, no significant difference at any acceptable level is
shown.
Question 28 stated: "Do the members of your family get along
well together?" The results of this question are found in Table 39.
TABLE 39
FAMILY HARMONY
Hammony Participator Non-participator
Yes 81 73
Usually 20 25
No 0 2
The sign test gave a figure of .128, and so there is no significant
difference at any acceptable level.
121
Question 29 stated: “Do the members of your family get along
well with their neighbors?" ‘The results of this question are found in
.Table 40.
TABLE 40
NEIGHBORHOOD HARMONY
Harmony Participator Non-participator
Yes 83 89
Usually 18 11
No 0 0
The sign test gave a figure of .115, and so there is no significant
difference at any acceptable level. However, if a lower level of
significance should be accepted, it would be noted that greater har-
mony seems to be with the non-participators in this neighborhood
question while in the previous question dealing with harmony within
the home, the participators are ahead.
Mobil ity
Questions 11, 12, and 14 were concerned with the mobility of
the respondents.
Question 11 stated: "How many years have you lived in Flint?"
Table 41 presents a summary of the answers to this question.
122
TABIE 41
NUMBER OF YEARS IlVED IN FLINT
W
Number of Years Participator Non-participator
Less than 1 year 0 4
1 - 3 8 6
4 - 5 6 6
6 - 10 10 9
ll - l5 7 7
16 years or more 69 59
The test number given by the sign test is .235, so there is a signi—
ficant difference at no acceptable level.
Question 12 stated: "How'many different houses have you lived
in, in Flint?" The answers to this question are summarized in Table 42.
TABLE 42
NUMBER OF HOUSES LIVED IN
Number of Houses Participator Non—participator
1 7 9
2 21 26
3 22 21
4 13 16
5 10 9
More than 5 28 19
123
The participators have lived in an average of 3.8 homes each, while
the non—participators have lived in an average of 3.5 homes. This
gave a sign test reading of .109, so there is no significant difference
at any acceptable level.
Question 14 asked: "Where did you live immediately before
coming to Flint?" The responses are given in Table 43. The test
figure given by the sign test is .095, so, again, there is no signi—
ficant difference indicated by this test at any acceptable level.
TABLE 43
LOCATION OF PREVIOUS HOUSE
Location Participator Now-participator
Born in Flint 38 37
Lower Michigan 22 32
Upper Michigan 2 I 1
Southern U. S. 9 13
Eastern U. S. 4 3
Western U. S. 3 0
Northern Mid-west 23 Q 14
Other . o 1
Familiarity With the Adult Education Program
The final group of questions on the "Adult Education Interview
Sheet" was related to the familiarity of participators and non-partici—
pators with adult education and their feelings toward it. Questions 15,
124
16, and 17 were in this group.
Question 15 asked: “About how many years ago did you first
hear of the Mott Adult Education Program?" The answers to this ques—
tion are summarized in Table 44.
TABIE 44
LENGTH OF TIME ADUII PROGRAMIHAS
BEEN KNOWN
Length of Time Participator Non~participator
Never 0 0
Less than 1 year 0 4
l — 2 years 7 l4
3 - 5 years 26 33
More than 5 yearq 67 46
The sign test gave a figure of .001, indicating significant difference
at greater than the l per cent level.
Question 16 states: "How did you hear of this program?"
Answers to this question are given in Table 45. The number of
answers exceeds the total of 101, because many indicated they had
heard of the program through several media.
TABLE 45
METHOD OF LEARNING ABOUT THE ADULT EDUCATION
PROGRAM
sq:
Medium Participator Nonuparticipator
Newspaper 69 66
Friends 64 77
Pamphlets l8 17
Radio and television 5 12
Other 10 9
The sign test does not apply here, because of the multiple responses,
but the table indicated little difference between the two groups on
this question.
Question 17 stated: "If you have not taken part in the adult
education program, what would you say are the chief reasons?" Answers
to this were given only by the non-participators and their responses
are listed in Table 46.
TABLE 46
REASONS FOR NOT PARTICIPATING
Age.
Not enough time and money.
Doesn't leave family, but does things with them.
Had two babies in three years.
Transportation-~does not drive.
Marriage and a family.
Not enough time.
Irregular working hours.
Husband on second shift and need to hire a sitter.
Not interested.
Illness and children.
No reason.
Working and being in the army for two years.
Just hadn't thought of it.
Summary of the Results of "Adult Education Interview Sheet"
Results of the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" indicated that
the participators and non—participators were significantly different
in their answers to the questions listed in Table 47.
TABLE 47
SUMMMRY OF THE RESULTS FROM "ADUIT EDUCATION INTERVIEW SHEET"
WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE DETERMINED
Question Level of Significant Direction
Number Question Difference by Sign of
Test Difference
10 What is your age group? 5% Participators
were older.
7 Have you enrolled in any special school, 1% Participators
18
31
35
40
15
trade school, or correspondence school
since leaving regular school?
Your total yearly income would fall in 1%
which group?
Do you belong to any service clubs, 1%
neighborhood clubs, or any social, recrea-
tional, political or other organized group?
How many times in the last year have you 1%
attended an activity in a school building?
In the past five local and national elec- 1%
tions, how many times have you voted?
About how many years ago did you first 1%
hear of the Mott Adult Education Program?
‘had enrolled
in more special
schools.
Participators
had higher
income.
Participators
belonged to more
activity groups.
Participators
attended more
school building
activities.
Participators
voted more
times.
Participators
had known of pro—
gram longer.
For all other questions on the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" the sign
test revealed a difference significant at no acceptable level.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study was concerned with the determination of differences
and stmilarities between those women who had taken three classes in
sewing in the Mott Adult Education Program of the Flint Board of
Education and a group of their friends and neighbors who had never
participated in any adult education activity. Differences and simi-
larities considered were those in personality factors as defined by
the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and differences in speci-
fied non-personality areas as defined by items on the "Adult Education
Interview Sheet" designed by this researcher.
Telephone appointments were made with members of a sample of
the class participators. Each class participator was asked to invite
to her home a friend or neighbor who had never participated in any
activity known as an adult education activity. The two women were
visited at the appointed time and were asked to complete the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire and the "Adult Education Interview
Sheet" according to directions given by the interviewer.
' Information gathered through the use of the Sixteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire concerned the respondent's personality in sixteen
areas grouped by the following continua: sociable---aloof, bright—.
-dull, calm---—emotional, aggressive-—-mild, enthusiastic——.-glum,
cons c ientious --——casual , adventurous n-«mshy , sens it iven—u—tough ,
28
-jealous-~«accepting, absent-minded-o-upractical, polished——-—simple,
timid—«unconfident, radical-—--conservative, resourceful~-~dependent,
controlled-w—lax, and tense—--—-phlegmatic. Information gathered
through the use of the "Adult Education Interview Sheet" was grouped
under the following headings: age, extent of participation in adult
classes, participation in other out-of—the-home activities, conditions
in the home, mobility, education, socio-economic position, health,
religion, familiarity with the adult program, and political involvement.
This chapter summarizes the data analyzed in Chapter IV. Con—
clusions are drawn, and implications for the Mott Adult Education Program
of the Flint Board of Education are suggested.
Summary of Responses to the Sixteen Personality
Factor Questionnaire
The class participators and the non-participators were signi-
ficantly different on the continuum, bright--dull. The class parti-
cipators rated brighter than the non-participators. There was also
a significant difference between the two groups on the aggressive-
unmild continuum. The class participators were the more aggressive.
Different, but at a lower level of significance, were scores on
the continua; persistent--aundependable, polished—--simp1e, insecure-
-confident, and controlledn-n-lax. The class participators were more
persistent, simple, confident, and lax, while the non-participators
tended to be more undependable, polished and controlled, but insecure.
A class participator in this study may, therefore, be described
as a definitely intelligent and aggressive woman who perseveres, is
confident, and has fewer fears. She is simple in her tastes and has
—_-
...—~—
—_-__
...-
.--
.—_..4.~_.
a--———
...—....--
—.._._.
~.a——i.
129
not, in the words of Cattell, "crystallized for herself a clear, con-
sistent admired pattern of socially approved behavior to which she
strives to conform."1
We might picture the class participator as searching for new
ways of conducting her life, because she does not have a.good image of
socially approved behavior. She approaches the problem with confidence
and has few fears about not succeeding. Her intelligence soon makes
her aware of adult education classes and their possibilities for her.
Flint adult education classes are unsophisticated adult activities
which fit well with her unsophisticated personality characteristics.
She enrolls in the classes and remains to complete the work.
The non-participator in this study, by comparison, may be said
to be of lower intelligence and less aggressive. She perseveres less,
is less confident and more fearful than the participator, but still has
a clearer picture of "socially approved behavior to which she strives to
conform."2
With respect to adult education participation, the non—participa-
tor presents quite a different picture from that of the participator.
The non-participator has a better idea of what her behavior should be,
but she is worried and is not sure she can behave in conformity with
her standards. Her lower intelligence makes it difficult to see
possible solutions including benefits from adult classes. And, finally,
1Raymond B. Cattell, Handbook for Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability
TestIng, 1957), p. 19.
21bid.
when she does think about adult classes, they appear to her as too
simple and not in keeping with the polished sophisticated life she
dreams for herself. She is slower to enroll in adult education classes.
It should be remembered that the differences between the parti-
cipator and the non-participator have been established at a high level
of significance only with respect to the factors of intelligence and
aggressiveness. The use of other factors in picturing the participator
and non-participator must be qualified by their level of significance.
The participators and non-participators tended to be alike in
the continua: sociable—un-aloof, adventurous-uuqshy, sensitive-—
-—tough, resourceful—-—dependent, and tense-—-ph1egmatic. Each group
was close to the norms in each area provided by the author of the
questionnaire. However, in every case the mean score was slightly
higher than the norm.
Summary of Responses to the “Adult Education Interview Sheet"
The class participators and non-participators were significantly
different in certain specific elements of the non-personality area.
Under the general heading of education there was revealed that, even
though the participators did not have a record of a greater number of
years in regular school, they had enrolled in many more special schools,
trade schools, and correspondence schools since leaving regular school.
When answering questions about participation in other out-of-the-home
activities, two major differences were revealed. The participators
belonged to many more clubs than the non-participators. The partici~
pators also attended various meetings in the community schools to a
much greater extent than the non-participators. As to socio—economic
131
position, the participators claimed a significantly higher income than
the non-participators. In the socio—economic area there were no other
revealed differences. The participators were older than the non-
participators. The difference in age was at the five per cent level
of significance, while all other differences reported in this section
were at the one per cent level. Under "political involvement" a
difference was shown in the Voting record. The class participators
voted in more elections than did the non—participators.
The "Adult Education Interview Sheet" contained fortyutwo ques—
tions and observations under eleven different headings. Among the
forty-two questions and observations there were seven significant dif-
ferences. Of the eleven general headings, there were found to be five
containing some question where a significant difference appeared.
There were findings of similarity between participators and non-
participators which were important enough to merit special emphasis.
In recording grades of regular school completed, the participators
claimed more years in school, but not enough more to indicate a signi—
ficant difference. Both groups seemed to like school. The two groups
were matched in health. The two groups tended to own their own homes,
had lived in Flint about an equal length of time, and presented similar
distribution of living areas prior to coming to Flint. Conditions in
the homes of the two groups were very much alike both as to demands on
the women's time and energy, and as to harmony. In spite of the dif~
ferences in income, the houses lived in were much alike. Of the seven
questions about participation in out—of~the—home activities, only two,
as reported earlier, showed a significant difference. As to "political
132
involvement" there was no difference with respect to claimed party
affiliation, though the participators voted more regularly than non-
participators. Church affiliation seemed to be unrelated to class
participation, as did church attendance.
Findings in the non—personality area of this survey in general
conform to the findings of other related studies. One outstanding disa—
greement is in the area of education. Other studies find that for the
populations measured the participators are the better educated. Here
educational levels are nearly.equal, at least in years of regular school
completed. The common finding that participation is positively corre—
1ated with socio-economic position is substantiated to the extent that
income is a measure of socio-economic position, although homes lived
in were of nearly equal value and neighborhoods in most cases the same.
It was again revealed in this study that participators in adult education
classes were also participators in other adult activities.
Conclusions and Implications of this Study
The findings of this study appear to support the hypotheses of
this study with the qualifications noted below.
Hypothesis 1: There are statistically significant'differences between
. the personality factors of the selected participator and
the personality factors of the selected non—participators
as measured in the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
by Cattell, Saunders and Stice.
From the investigation it appears that the participators were
significantly different at the five per cent level from the non—parti-
cipators in the scores made on all sixteen factors when treated as a
group. When treated as individual factors, it was found that on
133
factor B which designates the continuum, bright~——~dull, and factor E
which designates the continuum, aggressive----mild, the differences
were significant at the one per cent level. The participators tended
toward the "bright" end of the B continuum and toward the "aggressive"
end of the E continuum, The two populations were different also at a
lower level of significance in the factors represented by the G, N, 0,
and Q3 continua. These continua are the persistent-u—aundependable,
polished—--—simple, insecure—--confident, and controlled-—--lax.
Hypothesis 2: The participators and non-participators as selected will
not be statistically different in other non—personality
factors which will be measured on the TAdult Education
Interview Sheet."
There were eleven non-personality factors considered in this
part of the survey. These eleven non—personality factors were age,
extent of participation in adult classes, participation in other out-
of-the—home activities, conditions in the home, mobility, education,
socio-economic position, health, religion, familiarity with the adult.
program and political involvement. ‘Within six of the eleven areas
there were significant differences in individual questions. The six
areas showing at least one element of significant difference were age,
education, socio-economic position, participation in out—of-the-home
activities, political involvement, and familiarity with the adult pro—
gram. There were forty-two questions and observations which were de—
signed to reveal the respondent's condition with respect to the eleven
non-personality factors. 0f the forty-two questions and observations,
there were significant differences on seven.
134
Therefore, it can be said that this hypothesis is not fully
supported since differences were found significant at a high level.
However, more likenesses were found than differences. Further, some
likenesses were found in each of the eleven areas except in age. And,
finally, where differences were found, even though significant, they
were not large.
Hypothesis 3: The differences and likenesses found will suggest
adjustment of methods in adult education.
The worker in adult education has two basic responsibilities.
First, he must acquaint people with the opportunities available through
adult education. Second, he must adequately provide for the needs of
people once they have become participators. These two responsibilities
will each be considered in the light of significant differences found.
With respect to intelligence it should be noted that neither
population measured very high compared to the norms supplied by the
authors of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. The non-
participator was significantly lower than the participator. This means
that to attract the non-participator of the population sampled all the
devices of popular advertising must be used. The logical appeal or the
overly dignified appeal will not reach these women who may be nearly
ready to participate but need a final incentive. This argument assumes
that much of popular advertising is effective and is also keyed to the
people of lower levels of intelligence.
Once in class, the teaching methods must be directed to the slow
learner. Although some books on the market consider the gifted adult
and his learning problems, no book found discusses the slow learning
135
adult. What can be done for her must be inferred from studies of
children. However, if it is recognized that the adult in a certain
class is a slow learner, she can be taught more carefully, and more
frequent evaluation of her learning will indicate the effectiveness of
the methods used.
In accordance with the results on the aggressiveness————mild
continuum, methods of appealing to the non—participator should be
devised which will not only seek the non—participator, since she will
not seek the class, but also methods which will assure her that once
involved her wish to remain mild and submissive will be respected. She
will remain in the class longer if teaching methods eschew the boisterous
and hearty in favor of the quiet and gentle.
The problem of dropout is one of the most difficult which the
adult educator faces. This promises to be a greater problem if the
non—participator of this study is drawn into the classes because she
tends to be less dependable and has a score on the personality factor G
which indicates she has a tendency to "quit." Extra knowledge and skill
will have to be applied to keep this woman satisfied.
If the non—participator is the more sophisticated or polished as
the results of the questionnaire indicate, then she must be convinced
that the adult class activity is consistent with this desire to be in
a sophisticated environment. She will not be so much attracted by a
"cracker barrel" approach and will not remain in a "folksy" atmosphere.
The non—participator in the population studied is less secure
than the participator. Some commercial advertisers would use this lack
of security to help produce the type of response wanted. How far the
136
adult educator is justified in manipulating the potential participator
by means of her anxieties is a question which is beyond the scope of
this study. But when the non—participator has become a participator,
it behooves the adult educator to sooth rather than aggravate these
anxieties.
The implications of the scores on the controlled—-——lax con—
tinuum are varied. If the non—participator has "crystallized for
herself a clear, consistent admired pattern of socially approved be—
1 then one reason for attending
havior to which she strives to conform,"
adult classes does not apply. If one seeks merely to learn, there are
perhaps more efficient ways than by attending adult classes. The adult
class probably has its strongest appeal to the person who is looking
for something new and is not sure what it is and to the person who needs
for motivation the stimulation of working with others. The uncontrolled
and lax individual perhaps wants and needs to throw upon others the re-
sponsibility for developing a pattern of socially approved behavior and
for encouraging him to strive for it. The results on this factor could
lead to a re—examination of the basic questions of who should be a
participator in adult education and what are its values.
The difference in age is probably not important even though it
is statistically significant. The actual median age difference is only
1.64 years. According to several studies reported in Chapter II,
personality factors, especially intelligence, are much more constant
throughout life than was formerly supposed. If this is true, then it
11bid., p. 19.
137
follows that so small a difference could signify nothing to the adult
educator either in his efforts to promote the program or in the
teaching methods he accepts.
The fact that participators in adult education classes have
enrolled in other special schools, trade schools and correspondence
schools more than non—participators has little significance here. The
same drives or personality factors which have led the participator
into current adult classes have contributed to her joining other school
activities. This study does not show that we are educating the best
educated, as has been suggested elsewhere, but it does show we have as
participators those who have been in the habit of participating.
In our two populations we have as participators those with the
larger income. This is another situation where the difference, even
though statistically significant, is not large. The mean difference
of income is two hundred ninety—five dollars. This difference does
not suggest implication for adult education.
There were three questions: (1) Do you belong to any service
clubs, neighborhood clubs, or any social, recreational, political, or
other organized groups? (2) How many times in the last year have you
attended an activity in a school building? And (3) In the past five
local and national elections, howrmany times have you voted? The
answers to the three questions are related in that each indicates that
the participator in adult classes is also a participator in other
areas. This suggests, as previously noted, that whatever is behind
participation, or lack of it, in adult classes is responsible for a
similar pattern in other areas.
135
The last difference noted in the non—personality section of
the survey revealed that class participators had known about ï¬le adult
education program longer than had the non—participators. This could
be very important. It is possible that a certain time lapse is necessary
before any idea can be translated into action. If so, it may be that the
non—participators lack of knowledge of the program is a large factor in
their non—participation. An implication of this for the adult educator
would be merely to seek ways of reaching more people sooner. But it is
probable that the non—participator was exposed to much the same promo—
tional devices as was the participator, so it may be reasoned that the
same methods do not reach, with equal speed, people with different per—
sonalities. This must be accounted for in any promotional plan.
These data further suggest that this investigation can only be
viewed as an initial exploratory attempt to measure an important but
small segment of the population participating in adult classes and an
important but small segment of the population not participating. If
similar methods could be used on other populations of participators and
non—participators, eventually a body of knowledge could be secured
which would enable the adult educator to know and better serve an ever
increasing number of people.
APPENDIX
139
THE SIXTT'T‘ mam†- '
.... .....st.....LIm FACTOR QUESTIOI‘JNA .3
140
iPAT 16 P. F. FOR“
WHAT TO DO: Inside this booklet are some questions to see what attitudes and interests you
have. There are no “right†and “wrong†answers because everyone has the right to his own
views. To be able to get the best advice from your results, you will want to answer them exactly
and truly.
If a separate “Answer Sheet†has not been given to you, turn this booklet over and tear off
the Answer Sheet on the back page.
Write your name and other particulars at the top of the Answer Sheet.
First, you should answer the four sample questions below so that you can see whether you
need to ask anything before starting. Although you are to read the questions in this booklet,
you must record your answers on the answer sheet (alongside the same number as in the booklet).
There are three possible answers to each question. Read the following examples and mark your
answers at the top of your answer sheet where it says “Examplesâ€. Put a mark, x, in the left-
hand box if your answer choice is the “a†answer, in the middle box if your answer choice is
H 7’
the “b†answer, and in the right-hand box if you choose the c answer.
EXAMPLES:
l. I like to watch team games. (a) yes, (b) occasionally, (e) no.
2. I prefer people who:
(a) are reserved, (b) (are) in between, (c) make friends quickly.
3. Money cannot bring happiness. (a) yes (true), (b) in between, (e) no (false).
4. Woman is to child as cat is to: (a) kitten, (b) dog, (c) boy.
In the last example there is a right answer—kitten. But there are very few such reasoning items
among the questions.
Ask now if anything is not clear. The examiner will tell you in a moment to turn the page and
start.
When you answer, keep these four points in mind:
1. You are asked not to spend time pondering. Give the ï¬rst, natural answer as it comes
to you. Of course, the questions are too short to give you all the particulars you would some-
times like to have. For instance, the above question asks you about ‘ ‘team games†and
you might be fonder of football than basketball. But you are to reply “for the average gameâ€,
or to strike an average in situations of the kind stated. Give the best answer you can at a
rate not slower than ï¬ve or six a minute. You should ï¬nish in a little more than half an hour.
2. Try not to fall back on the middle, “uncertain†answers except when the answer at either
end is really impossible for you—perhaps once every two or three questions.
3. Be sure not to skip anything, but answer every question, somehow. Some may not
apply to you very well, but give your best guess. Some may seem personal; but remember
that the answer sheets are kept conï¬dential and cannot be scored without a special stencil
key. Answers to particular questions are not inspected.
4. Answer as honestly as possible what is true of you. Do not merely mark what seems “the
right thing to say†to impress the examiner.
} no NOT rum PAGE unm row TO no so
9 1956. International Copyright. Institute for Personality 8: Ability Testing,
1602 Coronado Drive, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
1152:: EH EJ2L2-_ - Au‘ _..2..L2_.. 1080- - -J ...._‘_L2__ enzn
. I have the instructions for this test clearly in mind. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (c) no.
. I am ready to answer each question as truthfully as possible. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (c) no.
. It would be good for everyone if vacations (holidays) were longer and everyone had to take them.
(a) agree, (b) uncertain, (c) disagree.
. I can ï¬nd enough energy to face my difï¬culties. (a) always, (b) generally, (c) seldom.
5. I feel a bit nervous of wild animals even when they are in strong cages. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
6. I believe it is right to understate how good I am at something, when people ask. (a) yes, (b) in between,
10..
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
23.
(e) no.
. I make smart, sarcastic remarks to people if I think they deserve it. (a) generally, (b) sometimes,
(c) never.
. I get on better with people who: (a) keep an open mind and rc-fuw to come to an early conclusion,
(b) are in between (a) and (c), (c) know exactly what their 0“ 1 opinions are.
If I saw two neighbors’ children ï¬ghting I would: (a) leave them to settle it, (b) uncertain, (0) reason
with them. ~
On social occasions I: (a) readily come forward and speak, (b) respond in between, (c) prefer to
stay quietly in the background.
I would rather be: (a) a construction engineer, (b) uncertain, (c) a teacher of social studies.
I would rather spend a free evening: (a) with a good book, (b) uncertain, (c) working on a hobby
with friends.
I can generally put up with conceited people, even though they brag or show they think too well of them-
selves. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I prefer to marry someone who: (a) commands general admiration, (b) in between, (c) has artistic
and literary gifts.
I sometimes get an unreasonable dislike for a person: (a) but it is so slight I hide it easily, (b) in
between, (c) which is so deï¬nite that I tend to express it.
I think it is more important: (a) to teach all people an international language, (b) uncertain,
(c) to abolish the laws which prevent a person’s managing his sex life according to his own
good judgment.
I am always keenly aware of attempts at propaganda in things I read. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (c) no.
I wake up in the night and, through worry, have difï¬culty in sleeping again. (a) often, (b) sometimes,
(0) never.
I feel sure that I could “pull myself together†to deal with an emergency. (a) always, (b) generally,
(0) seldom.
I think the spread of birth control is essential to solving the world’s economic and peace problems. (a) yes,
(b) uncertain, (e) no.
Many troubles arise today through lack of: (a) moral and religious idealism, (b) uncertain, (c) sci-
entiï¬c education and thinking.
. In constructing something I would rather work: (a) with a committee, (b) uncertain, (c) on my
own, perhaps with one or two assistants.
Through getting tense I use up more energy than most people in getting things done. (a) constantly,
(b) occasionally, (c) never.
. In my job I appreciate constant change in the type of work to be done. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
25.
I feel an urge to “doodleâ€, make little designs on the corner of the paper, and busy my ï¬ngers in some
way, when kept sitting still at a meeting. (a) never, (b) occasionally, (c) often.
(End of Int column on answer sheet.)
3
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
With the same work hours and pay, I would prefer the life of: (a) a house carpenter or cook, (b) un-
certain, (c) a waiter in a good restaurant.
I would prefer to work in a business: (a) keeping accounts and records, (b) in between, (c) talk-
ing to customers.
“Spade†is to "dig†as “knife†is to: (a) sharp, (b) cut, (c) shovel.
I think it best to avoid very exciting, fatiguing events. (a) yes, (b) in between, (o) no.
I would rather listen to: (a) a brass band, (b) uncertain, (c) a good choir, as in a church.
I doubt my ability to do ordinary things as well as other people. (a) generally, (b) often, (c) oc-
casionally.
I tend to feel nervous and harried in the presence of business superiors. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
I sometimes make rash remarks in fun, just to surprise people and see what they will say. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I am an easygoing person, not insisting on always doing things as exactly as possible. (a) true, (b) in
between, (c) false.
I get slightly embarrassed if I suddenly become the focus of attention in a social group. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I am always glad to join a large gathering, for example, a party, dance, or public meeting. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (0) no.
In school I preferred: (a) music, (b) uncertain, (c) handwork and crafts.
I believe most people are a little “queer†mentally, though they do not like to admit it. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (0) no.
I like a friend (of my sex) who: (a) seriously thinks out his attitudes to life, (b) in between, (c) is
efï¬cient and practical in his interests.
My deeper moods sometimes make me seem unreasonable, even to myself. (a) yes, (b) in between,
(0) no.
I think people should make more of their decisions on: (a) what their natural feelings tell them' is
right, (b) in between, (c) cold realism and intelligent logic.
Young people get rebellious, impractical ideas, but as they grow up they should get over them and settle
down. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I am inclined to worry when there is no sufï¬cient reason for doing so. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
I feel grouchy and just do not want to see people: (a) occasionally, (b) sometimes, (c) rather often.
I feel a strong need for someone to lean on in times of sadness. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
When I was about fourteen and ï¬fteen, if I had a difference of opinion with my parents I usually: (a) kept
my own opinion, (b) in between, (0) accepted to some extent my parents’ opinion.
When I was about fourteen and ï¬fteen, I joined in school sports: (a) occasionally, (b) fairly often,
(0) a great deal.
I would rather stop in the street to watch an artist painting than to listen to some people having an
argument. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (c) no.
I sometimes get in a state of tension and turmoil as I think of the day’s happenings. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I sometimes doubt whether people I am talking to are really interested in what I am saying. (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
(End of second column on snswer sheet.)
51
52.
3‘
55.
56 .
57.
60.
61.
62.
65.
67.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
I would prefer to be: (a) a forester, (b) uncertain, (c) a grammar or high school teacher.
I enjoy music that is: (a) light, dry, and brisk, (b) in between, (c) emotional and sentimental.
. “Tired†is to “war †as “proud†is to: (a) rest, (b) success, (0) exercise.
. Which of the following items is different in kind from the others? (a) candle, (b) moon, (c) electric
light.
I admire my parents in all important matters. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (o) no.
I have some characteristics in which I feel superior to most people. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (c) no.
I have no objection to a job that involves my looking soiled and messy all day. (a) yes, (b) in between,
(e) no.
. I tend toward: (a) a rather reckless optimism, (b) in between, (c) an overcautious pessimism.
59.
I think that plenty of freedom is more important than good manners and respect for law. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I tend to keep quiet in the presence of senior persons (people of greater experience, age, or rank). (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
I ï¬nd it hard to address, or recite to, a large group. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
My friends consider me a highly practical, realistic person. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
. If I make an awkward social mistake I can soon forget it. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
. I can compete strongly with a rival without much feeling of jealousy or hostility. (a) yes, (b) in be-
tween, (c) no.
My memory tends to drop a lot of unimportant, trivial things, for example, names of streets or shops
in town. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
. I would enjoy better: (a) trying to puzzle out a problem story on my own, (b) uncertain, (c) play-
ing a game needing tactical skill of hand and eye.
I would prefer to be shown over: (a) a prison for hardened criminals, (b) uncertain, (c) a model
town sewage disposal plant.
. I feel well-adjusted to life and its demands. (a) always, (b) sometimes, (c) hardly ever.
69.
People sometimes tell me that I show my excitement in voice and manner too obviously. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I sometimes ï¬nd it impossible to get done all that has to be done in the day Without getting hurried
and cross. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I prefer to marry someone who can: (a) keep the family interested in its own activities, (b) in
between (c) make the family part of the social life of the neighborhood.
One can hardly do a thing these days without being regulated or exploited by “big business" or govern-
ment agencies. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I can work on most things without being bothered by people making a lot of noise around me. (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
I feel that on one or two occasions recently I have been blamed more than I really deserve. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
At times of stress or overwork I suffer from indigestion or constipation: (a) never, (b) just occasionally,
(c) sometimes.
(End of third column on snswer sheet.)
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99 .
100 .
In starting a useful invention I would prefer: (a) working on it in the laboratory, (b) uncertain,
(0) selling it to people.
“Surprise†is to “strange,†as “fear†is to: (a) brave, (b) anxious, (c) terrible.
Which of the following fractions is not in the same class as the others? (a) 3/7, (b) 3/9, (c) 3/11.
I would enjoy being a newspaper writer on drama, concerts, opera, etc. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (e) no.
I feel that people are not as considerate to me as my good intentions deserve. (a) often, (b) occasionally,
(c) never.
The use of foul language, even if not in a mixed group of men and women, still disgusts me. (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
I have decidedly fewer friends than most poeple. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
If people on a team (or anything else) I am managing will just follow ordinary instructions, I will guarantee
its performance. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
People sometimes call me careless, even though they think me a ï¬ne person. (a) yes, (b) in between,
(e) no.
My reserve always stands in the way when I want to speak to an attractive stranger of the opposite
sex. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I would rather have a job with: (a) a ï¬xed, certain salary, (b) in between, (c) a larger salary, but
depending on my constantly persuading people I am worth it.
I prefer reading: (a) a realistic account of military or political battles, (b) uncertain, (c) a sensi-
tive, imaginative novel.
When bossy people try to “push me around,†I do just the opposite of what they want. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
A person who hurts and damages a close friend or relative can still be reasonably regarded as a de-
cent, normal being. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I like continually to have to learn to work new gadgets in everyday things, from can openers to cars.
(a) yes, (b) uncertain, (e) no.
One should be careful about mixing with all kinds of strangers, for there are dangers of infection and
other things. (a) yes, (b) uncertain, (e) no.
I would like to see a move toward: (a) eating more vegetable foods, to avoid killing so many ani-
mals, (b) neither, (c) operations to stop people having children who would be idiots.
If acquaintances treat me badly and show they dislike me: (a) it does not upset me a bit, (b) in be-
tween, (c) I tend to get downhearted.
Those who think “the best things in life are free†are usually the ones who own nothing but what is
free. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
It would be better if we had more strict observance of Sunday, as a day to go to church. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
When I was about seventeen or eighteen I went out with the opposite sex: (a) a lot, (b) as much 85
most people, (c) very little.
I like to take an active part in social affairs, committee work, etc. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) 110'
The idea that sickness comes as much from mental as physical causes is much exaggerated. (a) Yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
Quite small setbacks occasionally irritate me too much. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
When annoyed I may blurt out remarks that hurt people’s feelings: (a) never, (b) rarely, (c) sometimes'
(End of fourth column on answer sheet.)
6
101 .
102 .
103 .
104 .
105 .
106 .
107 .
108 .
109 .
110.
111.
112 .
113.
114 .
115.
116.
117.
118 .
119 .
120 .
121 .
122.
123.
124 .
125 .
When traveling I like to spend spare time: (a) talking to people about their work, interests, etc.,
(b) in between, (c) enjoying the scenery.
“Size†is to “length†as “dishonesty†is to: (a) prison, (b) sin, (c) stealing.
AB is to dc as SR is to: (a) qp, (b) pq, (c) tu.
When people are unreasonable I just: (a) keep quiet, (b) in between, (c) despise them.
I can always change old habits without difficulty and without relapse. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I think I am better described as: (a) polite and quiet, (b) in between, (c) lively and active.
I feel some of my gifts have never been expressed enough for people to recognize them. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I like to go out to a show or entertainment: (a) less than once a week (less than average), (b) about
once a week (average), (c) more than once a week (more than average).
I make sure that anyone who hurts my good name regrets it in the long run. (a) generally, (b) some-
times, (0) not usually.
I have at least as many friends of the opposite sex as of my own sex. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
Even in an important game, I am more concerned to enjoy it than to win it. (a) always, (b) generally,
(c) occasionally.
I would rather be: (a) a guidance worker with young peeple seeking careers, (b) uncertain,
(c) a manager in a technical manufacturing concern.
If I am quite sure that a person is unjust or behaving selfishly, I show him up, even if it takes some
trouble. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
Most people resent putting themselves out for others, no matter how politely they deny it. (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
My artistic feelings sometimes outweigh common sense. For example, I would not live in a wrongly-
decorated apartment even if it saved money. (a) true, (b) uncertain, (c) false.
I like to: (a) be free of personal entanglements, (b) in between, (e) have a circle of warm friend-
ships, even if they are demanding.
I think it is more important in the modern world to solve: (a) the political difï¬culties, (b) uncertain,
(c) the question of moral purpose.
I occasionally have a sense of vague danger or sudden dread for no sufficient reason. (a) yes, (b) in be-
tween, (c) no.
As a child I feared the dark. (a) often, (b) sometimes, (c) never.
On a free evening I would prefer to: (a) see an historical ï¬lm about our country’s past, (b) un-
certain, (c) read a science ï¬ction novel, or essay on “Science and Society".
It bothers me if people think I am being too unconventional or odd. (a) a good deal, (b) somewhat,
(c) not at all.
Most people would be happier if they lived more with their fellows and did the same things as others.
(a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
When talking I like: (a) to say things just as they occur to me, (b) in between, (c) to wait and
say them in the most exact way possible.
Often I get angry with people too quickly. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
If something badly upsets me, I generally calm down again quite quickly. (a) yes, (b) in between,
(0) no.
(End of ï¬fth column on answer sheet.)
126 .
127 .
128 .
129 .
130 .
131 .-
132 .
133 .
134 .
135 .
136 .
137.
138 .
139 .
140 .
141 .
142 .
143 .
144.
145 .
146 .
147 .
148 .
149 .
150.
If the earnings are the same I would rather be: (a) a lawyer, (b) uncertain, (c) a freight air pilot.
“Better†is to “worst†as “slower†is to: (a) fast, (b) best, (e) quickest.
Which of the following should come next at the end of this row of letters: xooooxxoooxxx? (a) xox,
(b) oox, (c) oxx.
When I have planned and looked forward to something, I sometimes do not feel well enough to go.
(a) true, (b) in between, (c) false.
I could enjoy the life of an animal doctor, handling diseases and surgery of animals. (a) yes, (b) in be-
tween, (c) no.
I occasionally tell strangers about the things I am interested in and good at, without direct questions
from them. (a) yes, (b) in between, (0) no.
I spend much of my spare time talking with friends over social events enjoyed in the past. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I enjoy doing “daringâ€, foolhardy things “just for funâ€. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
I think the police can be trusted not to ill-treat innocent people. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I consider myself a very sociable, talkative person. (a) yes, (b) in between, (o) no.
In social contacts I: (a) express my emotions very readily, (b) in between, (c) keep my emotions
to myself.
I would rather spend an afternoon in: (a) a game of cards, (b) uncertain, (c) working on a project
with friends.
I try to make my laughter at jokes quieter than most people’s. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
When people jostle me about in a crowd I (a) never mind it, (b) sometimes dislike it, (c) get irri-
tated.
The teaching of different beliefs about right and wrong is (a) always interesting, (b) something we
cannot avoid, (c) unpleasant and wasteful.
I am always interested in mechanical matters—for example, in cars and airplanes. (a) yes, (b) in be-
tween, (c) no.
I like to tackle problems that other people have made a mess of. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I am properly regarded as only a plodding half-successful person. (a) true, (b) uncertain, (c) false.
If people take advantage of my friendliness I: (a) deeply resent it and act accordingly, (b) in be-
tween, (c) soon forget and forgive.
I am considered a thoughtful person, depending a lot on my own ideas. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I like to do my planning alone, without interruptions and suggestions from others. (a) yes, (b) in be-
tween, (c) no.
I sometimes let my actions get swayed by feelings of jealousy. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
I know I do most things at least a bit more thoroughly than most people. (a) yes, (b) in between, (c) no.
I tend to tremble or perspire when I think of a difï¬cult task ahead. (a) generally, (b) occasionally,
(c) never.
In the past year I have: (a) found life â€plain sailing", (b) had just average troubles, (c) had a
bit more than my share of trouble.
(End of sixth column on answer sheet.)
151 .
152 .
153 .
154.
155.
156 .
157 .
158 .
159 .
160.
161 .
162.
163 .
164 .
165 .
166 .
167 .
168 .
169.
170 .
171 .
172 .
173 .
174 .
175 .
I would prefer the life of : (a) an artist, (b) uncertain, (c) a secretary running a social club.
Which of the following words does not properly belong with the others? (a) any, (h) some, (c) most.
“Flame†is to “heat†as “rose" is to: (a) thorn, (b) red petals, (c) scent.
I have vivid dreams, disturbing my sleep. (a) often, (b) occasionally, (c) practically never.
If the odds are really against something’s being a success, I still believe in taking the risk. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (e) no.
I like it when I know so well what the group has to do that I naturally become the one in command.
(a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I prefer to dress: (a) very quietly and correctly, (b) in an average way, (c) with a bit of deï¬nite
style that people can see.
I enjoy more an evening: (a) with a good hobby of my own, (b) uncertain, (c) in a lively party.
In thinking of difï¬culties in my work, I (a) assume I can handle them when they come, (b) in
between, (c) try to plan ahead, before I meet them.
I always make a point, in deciding anything, to refer to basic principles of right conduct. (a) yes, (b) in
between, (0) no.
I somewhat dislike having a group watching me at work. (a) yes, (b) in between, (o) no.
I keep my room well organized, with things in known places almost all the time. (a) yes, (b) in between,
(e) no. '
In school I preferred: (a) English, (b) uncertain, (c) mathematics or arithmetic.
I have sometimes been troubled by people saying bad things about me, behind my back, with no grounds
at all. (a) yes, (b) in between, (0) no.
Talk with ordinary, habit-bound, conventional people: (a) is often quite interesting, (b) in between,
(0) annoys me because it is superï¬cial and insensitive.
I ï¬nd it embarrassing to have praise or compliments bestowed on me. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I think it is wiser to keep the nation’s military forces strong than to seek international agreements.
(a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
People regard me as a kind of solid, unperturbable person they can leave in charge of things. (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
I think society should be quicker to adopt new customs and throw aside old habits and mere traditions.
(a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
My viewpoints change in an uncertain way because I trust my feelings more than logical reasoning.
(a) yes, (b) to some extent, (e) no.
I learn better by: (a) reading a well-written book, (b) in between, (c) joining a group discussion.
I have periods when I cannot stop a mood of self pity. (a) often, (b) occasionally, (c) never.
I like to wait till I am sure that what I am saying is correct, before I put forward an argument. (a) always,
(b) generally, (c) only if it’s practicable.
Small things sometimes “get on my nerves†unbearably though I realize them to be trivial. (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
In physical and mental work I seem to need rest: (a) only when everyone else is exhausted. (b) about
like most people, (c) before many people, if I am to do my best.
(But! of seventh column on answer sheet.)
9
176 .
177.
178.
179.
180 .
181,.
182 .
183 .
184.
185 .
186 .
187 .
I prefer marrying someone who is: (a) eflective in a social group, (b) in between, (c) a thoughtful
companion.
Which of the following words does not belong with the other two? (a) wide, (b) zigzag, (c) regular.
“Soon†is to “never†as “near†is to: (a) nowhere, (b) far, (c) next.
I go to sleep just as easily when I drink coffee or tea (or coca cola) before bed as when I do not. (a) yes,
(b) in between, (e) no.
I have sometimes been described as a rather headstrong person, following my own ideas regardless of
the opinions of others. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I think I am better at showing: (a) courage in meeting challenges, (b) uncertain, (c) tolerance
of other’s views.
I am generally considered a lively, enthusiastic person. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I like a job that offers change, variety, and travel, even if it involves some danger. (a) yes, (b)‘ in be-
tween, (c) no.
Everyone could make a success of his life with reasonable effort and perseverance. (a) yes, (b) in be-
tween, (c) no.
I enjoy work that requires careful, exacting, hand skills. (a) yes, (b) in between, (e) no.
I don’t believe in persuading friends to go out if they just want to sit around at home. (a) true, (b) in
between, (c) false.
I am sure there are no questions that I have skipped or failed to answer properly. (a) yes, (b) un-
certain, (c) no. '
10
BUOOSMW #5:: lm Jo la: la. la la ... 1.: I2 lz [0 Id" 0? c5" ld’i‘i
->I: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
<
< â€ï¬‚ 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 â€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 Sï¬ï¬‚xï¬ 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 cowpeoï¬meosoch 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-ï¬-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 ï¬illiams and Jilkins Co., 19AA.
VIII).| I
R O G :5
' "1‘: -
n r.- t ‘ i " '6 PI .1â€. 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%;