INDICES OF SELF ANE ATTITUDE TOWARD
EWERONMENT EN THE PREDECTION

OF ACHIEVEMENT

Thesis gov Hm Degree of M. A,
MECHEGAN STRTE {SNE‘JERSITY
Mary-Clare Miiligan Boroughs
1959

 

 

 

fflfli ’11
L [J (/l ’x‘? .

INDICES OF SELF AND ATTITUDE TOWARD
ENVIRONMENT IN THE PREDICTION OF

ACHIEVEMENT

by

Mary—Clare Milligan Boroughs

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1959

MARY-CLARE MILLIGAN BOROUGHS ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine aspects of
self-concept and attitude toward environment in relation to
achievement. The research was planned as the initial stage
in test construction for the measurement of achievement-
related personality characteristics.

The review of relevant literature led to three hypoth—
eses. These predicted that achieving students would report
(1) self-concepts differing in specified respects from
those reported by underachievers, (2) greater self-esteem
than underachievers, and (3) more positive attitudes toward
environment than underachievers.

The sample for this study included all identified (270)
boys and girls with IQs of 125 and above (Stanford-Binet)
who attended the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades of the four
public junior high schools of Lansing, Michigan. Two tests
were developed: an adjective list from which a self-rating
on both self-concept and self-esteem were procured and the
semantic differential technique applied primarily as a
measure of attitude toward environment. The responses of
200 studentstsignated as achievers and underachievers on
the basis of grade point average were subjected to item
analysis. In addition the variables of sex, grade, and IQ
were investigated for their relation to results.

It was found that responses to 17 of the 110 items

discriminated between achievers and underachievers. All

iii

MARY—CLARE MILLIGAN BOROUGHS ABSTRACT

three hypotheses received some support. It was particularly
noted that the majority of discriminating items of self—
concept, self-esteem, and attitude toward environment were
themselves achievement oriented. Other analyses indicated

that results were not contaminated by sex, grade, or IQ.

iv

DEDICATION

to
Art, my husband,
and

Becky, our first-born

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

It was the enthusiastic interest and
support of Dr. Elizabeth Monroe Drews that
made this project a reality. For this the
author is most grateful.

Further thanks go to Dr. Louis L.
McQuitty for his many suggestions on the
research plan, and to both Dr. McQuitty

and Dr. John R. Hurley for their assistance

with the manuscript.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Viii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . .

Se lf— Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social Adjustment . . . . .
Personal or Emotional Adjustment . . . . .
Intensity and Efficiency of Activity. . . . .
Scholarliness . .. . . . . . . . . . . lO

Self—Esteem . . . . . . . . . . lO

Perception of Reality Beyond Oneself. . . . . . 13

ODCNLUU) h)

HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Statistical Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . 36

Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Other Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
RESst 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LA]-

Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al
Other Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . AA

DISCUSSIOE‘I OF RESULTS 0 o o o o o o o o o o o “6

Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Other Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 50
Implications for Further Research. . . . . . . 53
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vii

TABLE

Sample:
Sample:
Sample:

Sample:

LIST OF TABLES

IQ.
School Representation
Grade Point Average

Social Status . . . . .

Semantic Differential

Achievers and Underachievers . .

Results

Other Analyses: Correlation Results

Other Analyses: T-Tests on Mean P—Scores.

viii

PAGE
18
20
22
24
31
38

43
43

INTRODUCTION

The topic of school achievement has long concerned
educators and psychologists. Recently a focus has been
the question of identification and stimulation of superior
potential in a school system now geared to the average
student. The apparent waste of some gifted ability has led
to an increase in research on the gifted.

This present study evolved as part of ongoing research
with superior students in the Lansing schools by Dr. Eliza-
beth Monroe Drews. The particular area for this investi-
gation was delineated in response to the plea by Rogers that
the fundamental object of psychology ”be the person and his
world as viewed by the person himself" (AA, p. 362). This
study examines aspects of self-concept and attitude toward
envrionment in relation to achievement. The study was
restricted to gifted students. The research was planned
as the initial stage in the development of an instrument
or instruments which could eventually prove helpful in the
measurement of personality characteristics related to

achievement.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In the selection of the literature to review in rela-
tion to the problem of concern two limits were applied. Only
original sources were used, thus eliminating some interesting,
but incomplete or vague references to unpublished research.
Secondly, and in keeping with the stated purpose of this
study, emphasis was placed upon literature using self—report
of students on paper and pencil or projective tests or inter-
views, thus precluding such material as ratings by others,
number of school offices held, and sociometric studies.

The review of the literature includes studies using
these four types of subject sample: children and youth,
gifted children and youth, college students, and gifted col-
lege students. Further restriction was not made for several
reasons. It has not been established that gifted students
differ from other students in perceptions of self and the
world related to achievement. In addition, gifted youth score
very much like college students on certain types of tests.
There is also evidence that patterns of achievement remain
rather constant from adolescence on into college (l3,l€,20,54).

The original terminology used by the authors for both
samples and personality variables was applied as their
material was cited. The terms for achievement selected for
this study were achiever and underachiever.

2

Self—Concept

The first area of literature reviewed is that of the
self-concept in relation to level of achievement. The self-
concept is here accepted to have the meaning given it by
Snygg and Combs: "Those parts of the phenomenological field
which the individual has differentiated as definite and
fairly stable characteristics of himself" (A6, p. 111). The
literature is reviewed in four separate areas: social
adjustment, personal or emotional adjustment, intensity and

efficiency of activity, and scholarliness.

Social Adjustment

 

Social adjustment in this context includes those
attitudes toward self which relate to general sociability,
social concern, socialization or conformity to cultural
standards, and independence.

The concepts of introversion and extroversion have
often been used in studies of social adjustment. In a
summary of literature prior to 1933, Stagner (A7) concluded
that the introverted have generally been shown to do better
in college than the extroverted. Flemming (18) reported a
low but significant correlation between college grades and
introversion measured by the Colgate Schedule C—2. Gough
(21) in 1953 criticized these earlier studies as inadequate
in personality measures. In two more recent studies using

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI),

both Altus (l) and Owens and Johnson (Al) found that high
achievers exceed low achievers in the number of introverted
type responses. It should be noted that Altus' measure of
achievement was limited to test scores in one course, and
Owens and Johnson's subject sample may have been biased by
scientific vocational choice (11, 43, 51, 53). Eckert's
results (16) seem to support those of the above studies in
that superior college students in her study rated themselves
less able at meeting new people in social situations than
did inferior students.

Although achievers tend to be introverted, other
studies show that they have greater maturity of social con-
cern and responsibility than underachievers. Gough (23)
reported that gifted achievers are socially responsible and
tolerant. Morgan (38) found awareness and concern for
others with a sense of responsibility in the MMPI responses
of students of superior ability. He concluded that non-
achievers may be more callous, socially insensitive,
irresponsible, and self-centered than achievers. Tentative
results of research by Hobbs (29) on gifted adolescents
showed high achievers are more responsible, and committed
in their outside activities.

Also in the area of social adjustment are studies
dealing with conformity. The high achieving high school
students studied by Gough (21) were more accepting of con-
ventions than underachievers. He also found (23) under-

achievers among gifted students to have response patterns

similar to delinquents. He concluded that academic achieve-
ment is, in itself, a form of social behavior. Conformity
and control were typical of high achievers in Grade III
studied by Haggard (25). These children were more antago-
nistic toward adults by Grade VII, but their intellectual-
ization, lowered creativity, and their roles as respected
leaders still point to conformity. Harris (27) reported
that non-conformity is associated with low grades in college.

While achievers seem to evidence greater social con—
cern and conformity in their self-concept, research also
indicates independence or self-sufficiency to be associated
with achievement. Gough (21), Gowan (2A), and Stagner (A7)
all mentioned that self-sufficiency differentiates between
high and low achievers, although Gough did not find this in
his high school samples. Both Gough and Stagner found a
positive correlation between degree of self-sufficiency and
achievement level. Gowan, however, believes that self-
sufficiency is basic to.lQH achievement. Further evidence
for the conclusion of Gough and Stagner is probably found
in studies by Altus (1), Kimball (31), and Lewis (34).
Dependency was evident among low achievers studied by Altus
and Kimball, and Lewis noted that self-reliance characterized
that responses of accelerated students.

Summary. The literature on social adjustment seems to
show social concern, conformity, and independence or self-

sufficiency to be more typical of achieving students than

underachieving students. On the other hand, general socia-
bility or extroversion is more often found in underachievers

than achievers.

Personal or Emotional Adjustment

 

Literature on this topic is divided into general
personal adjustment, emotions, and confidence.

Some studies indicate that good personal adjustment is
related to high achievement. Stagner (A7) interpreted early
experiments by stating that the unstable do less well. Stone
and Ganung (SO) found that girls at Utah State with one or
more high MMPI scales had lower grade point averages. This
was corroborated by Owens and Johnson (A1) as well as by
Altus (1). However, some investigations (13, 29) did not
reveal differences.

In the area of emotions, the results of a variety of
studies appear to be in agreement. Using a Thorndike Scale,
Flemming (18) found higher grades went to college students
with emotional steadiness and consistency. Gough (21)
mentioned the self-control of achieving high school students.
Immaturity, fearlessness, self-assertiveness, and a manic
tendency were noted by Altus (1) in the responses of non-
achievers in college. The minus-achieving school children
studied by Kurtz and Swenson (32) showed more emotional
conflict than plus-achieving school children. Kimball (31)
found that underachieving gifted high school boys were con-

trolling of early aggression with resultant passivity.

Walsh (56) observed restriction and inadequacy of emotional
expression in the self-roles of doll play by MO young boys
who were low achievers. This material seems to point to the
existence of problems in emotional control in underachievers,
as contrasted with emotional steadiness and adequate control
in achievers. The sense of emotional well—being found in
Terman's successful men (54) is further support for this view.
In the phase of emotional adjustment termed confidence,
five studies (3, 21, 32, 38, 48), representing all four types
of subject sample, report that achieving students indicate
feelings of personal worth, adequacy, and confidence. In
addition Haggard's (25) high achieving gifted Grade III
children were characterized by a high sense of security and
confidence, and Kimball (31) noted feelings of inferiority
in low achieving gifted clinic cases. Thus confidence has
frequently been found in the self—concept of achieving stu—
dents, while underachievers appear to be subject to feelings
of inadequacy. Kimball vividly expressed the meaning of
this difference as she observed it among clinic cases:
‘"When feelings of inferiority are strong, we see a pattern

of almost deliberate failure" (31, p. #08).

Summary. All three divisions of this category give
the weight of evidence to more adequate personal and emotional
adjustment among achieving students than among underachievers.

A general sense of confidence and worth is perhaps most

characteristic of achieving students, and this seems likely
to be coupled with the feeling that emotions are adequately

controlled.

Intensity and Efficiency of Activity

 

Such terms as energy, persistence, and efficiency
appear frequently in the literature on achievement. A re—
lated topic also mentioned in this context concerns voca—
tional plans.

On the high school level, responses of high achieving
students showed greater capacity for sustained diligent
application, personal efficiency, vitality, and integration
on the Gough Scale (21) than did underachievers. Barrett
(3) mentioned both ability to persist in the face of dif-
ficulty and amount of interest in leisure time activities
as characteristic of the responses of the achieving gifted
high school student. Persistence was also found among Grade
VII achievers by Haggard (25). While his results were
tentative, the gifted adolescents of Hobbs (29) appeared
to be more committed to outside activity and notahuafor
concentration, effort, and intensity of activity.

Similar results have been published in studies of
college students. Stevens (48) concluded that the academ—
ically successful conceive of achievement related character—
istics such as energy, productivity, and efficiency as
salient. Brown, Abeles, and Iscoe (12) used the phrase

'"activity delay" to describe poor students. The superior

college students studied by Eckert (16) were more persistent
in problemsplving than were inferior students, as shown by
self-ratings. Efficiency and energy also characterized
Morgan‘s achieving students (38) of high ability.

Five of the articles reviewed deal with some phase of
vocational interest. Although Harris (27) found no signifi-
cant correlation between presence of vocational decision and
grades, a more recent study by McQuary (36) found that under-
achievers were more uncertain about vocational choice than
were achievers. However, McQuary's sample represented those
students seeking counselling center services in a college,
and could have been biased by those students who specifically
sought vocational help. The minus-achievers of Kurtz and
Swenson (32) had limited aims as contrasted with the plus-
achievers who had high aims, and whose goals were related to
school work. Both Armstrong (2) on the high school level and
Dowd (13) among college students concluded that underachievers
are aiming toward goals at variance with their personal
interests. These articles together seem to point to greater
clarity and heighth of purpose in achieving students than in

underachieving students.

Summary. In this category research results indicate
a higher level of interest, energy, and persistence in
achieving students than in underachieving students. This
appears to be true even in activities outside of school.
Achievers see themselves as efficient, capable, vital persons.

Maturity of goals seems to fit in with these characteristics.

lO

Scholarliness

 

Much of the material on intensity and efficiency of
activity applies also to the individual‘s view of his
scholastic potential, since most of the subjects were prim-
arily occupied as students. Further evidence reveals that
the achiever most specifically sees himself as scholastically
capable.

A sense of academic effectiveness and accomplishment
characterized Gough's achieving high school students (21).

A trend toward stronger intellectual concern during the

school years was found among Terman's successful men (5A) as
contrasted with the unsuccessful. Self-insight into their
intellectual ability was noted among the academically suc-
cessful students of Stevens (48). Furthermore, underachievers
seem to show a greater interest in less academic areas than
achievers. Armstrong (2) studied underachievers who preferred
outdoor activity. Research by Drews (14) and Kurtz and Swenson
(32) indicates that low achievers are directed toward "how-to"
reading and handwork, respectively.

Summary. Thus the self-concept of achieving students
includes the View of self as a successful scholar. This may
be the most basic aspect of self-concept as it relates to

achievement.
Self-Esteem

Closely allied to self-concept is the evaluation of

self-as-conceived. Rogers (AA), Litwinski (35), and Hilgard

(28) have all emphasized the fundamental identification of

11

this evaluation or self-esteem with the structure of the
self. Interesting evidence for this theory is the fact

that such terms as self—confidence and feelings of worth
were used in the section on personal adjustment. The con-
cept of self as successful in the academic area also entered
into the preceding discussion under the title of scholar-
liness. Thus it is difficult in practice as well as in
theory to separate self-esteem from self-concept.

Further reports on research in self—esteem are
available in the literature. Some of these deal more
directly than others with the relationship between self-
esteem and achievement. Drews (1A) found high achieving
gifted high school students were more positive than low
achievers in their attitude toward themselves. In a task
of recall ofsolvable and insolvable sentences, Mellett (37)
shows that individuals who accept themselves repress less
than those who do not. If this research is applicable to
school achievement, then it suggests that the self-accepting
student has more material available in the school situation
and may thus attain higher grades. Hanlon, Hofstaetter, and
O'Connor (26), using a g sort test in paper and pencil form,
compared the congruence between real and ideal self with
results on the California Test of Personality. The corre—
lation between self-ideal congruence and adjustment was
marked, rectilinear, and not a function of intelligence.

The research shows its possible relationship to achievement

12

in the items distinguishing those with low self-ideal con-
gruence. These included ”lack of persistence in work
habits . . . feelings of oppression and inadequacy . .
dislike (for) school . . . and . . . negativistic attitudes
(which) made for difficulties in their relationship with
teachers, fellow pupils, and the opposite sex" (26, p. 217).
While these authors did not study achievement per se, the
qualities listed are qualities which have been shown to
belong most typically to underachievers. Bills (9) work
indicates that self-ideal congruence, the measure used in
the above study, is significantly related to self-esteem.
Elements of inner conflict which seem to be related
to low achievement represent, in themselves, the problem
of conflict between self-concept and failure to accept self-
concept or aspects of it. Berger and Sutker stated that
"the well-adjusted groups in all ranges, particularly in
the highest intellectual range, do better academically than
those in conflict" (4, pp. 75-76). Terman's successful men
(54) differed from the unsuccessful in their higher academic
achievement in high school and college, their integration
toward goals, self-confidence, and lack of inferiority
feelings. Here again the higher self—esteem with lack of

conflict accompanied higher achievement.

Summary. The literature, therefore, presents evidence
that high self-esteem is more characteristic of the achiever

than the underachiever. Achieving students appear to have

13

greater unity within, greater confidence in their abilities,
and greater freedom from conflict. This is more specifically
true for those aspects of self-concept related to achieve-

ment itself.
Perception of Reality Beyond Oneself

The relationship between self-concept and behavior
is not clear without the further ingredient of perception
of reality beyond oneself. This perception "is deeply
affected by the phenomenal self" (46, p. 128) and together
with the self-concept forms the more inclusive basis for
behavior "as a reaction to this (total) reality-as-perceived"
(44, p. 368). The perceptions of three aspects of reality
are considered here: attitudes toward school, others, and
family.

Attitudes toward school include attitudes toward
school curriculum, attendance, and teachers. The under—
achievers in the gifted high school group of Barrett (3)
were negative in their attitudes toward school. Drews' high
achieving gifted (14) were more positive toward school than
low achievers. Less happiness with school was noted of
minus—achievers by Kurtz and Swenson (32), and Dowd (13)
observed that non-achievers in college tend to dislike both
courses and teachers. In all of these reports low achieve-
ment was coupled with a dislike for some aspect of the

school environment.

14

Whereas the literature cited in the section on social
adjustment and self-concept shows achievers to be generally
more introverted and less sociable, there is limited evidence
that these same achievers would show more positive attitudes
toward others than might be expected. Both Stock (49) and
Omwake (39) observed that there is a positive relationship
between attitudes toward self and attitudes toward others.
If the achiever has a more positive attitude toward himself,
as the literature on self-esteem indicates, then this would
be reflected in reports of attitude toward others. Gough‘s
report of tolerance in gifted achievers (23) is evidence of
this.

Attitudes toward family are mentioned as such in only
a few articles. However, other research in the area of
family relationships appears to have relevance. Owens and
Johnson (41) found family relationships a problem for under—
achievers. Kurtz and Swenson (32) compared the home situ—
ations of plus—and minus—achievers and noted that their
sample of plus-achieving children came from more affection-
ate homes where children were more eager to please their
parents. Kimball (3o, 31) reported boys of high ability and
low achievement had poor father-son relationships. Drews'
high achievers (14) were more positive in their attitudes
toward home. Two additional articles (3, 29) indicate that
more positive family relationships exist as the background

for high achievement than for low achievement. Although at

15

first glance in some disagreement, further study shows that
the findings of Drews and Teahan (l5) corroborate this view.
The one disagreement seems to come from the research by
Haggard (25) in which, by Grade VII, the high achieving
gifted children were more antagonistic toward adults than
low achieving gifted children. In several areas Haggard's
results were at variance with other research findings, and
it is possible that personal bias and/or a clearly biased
sample (an exclusive school population at the laboratory
school of the University of Chicago) are responsible for
this difference. Certainly the major portion of the litera—
ture supports the prediction that a general positiveattitude

toward family can be expected of achievers.

Summary. The attempt to predict the relationship
between achievement and perception of reality beyond oneself
led to an examination of research literature on attitudes
toward school, others, and family. The strongest evidence
is that more positive attitudes toward school are found
among achieving students than among underachievers. However,
the literature may also point to more positive attitudes

toward family and others by these same students.

HYPOTHESES

The review of the literature led to a series of

hypotheses regarding expected differences between achieving

and underachieving students.

I.

II.

III.

Achieving students report self—concepts which differ_
in certain respects from those reverted by wader-
achieving students. It is predicted that achievers
will exceed underachievers in introversion, social
concern, conformity and self-:foiciency, confidence
and control, and efficiency, energy and interest.
The view of self as an able scholar is predicted to
be a basic component of self-concept related to high
achievement.

Achieving students report greater esteem for them-
selves as they see themselves than do underachieving
students.

Achieving students report more positive attitudes
toward their environment, particularly the school
environment, but also toward family and ophir , bnan

do underachieving studfints.

l6

METHOD

Sample

The sample for this study included all identified w
gifted boys and girls who attended the 7th, 8th, and 9th
grades of the four public junior high schools in Lansing,
Michigan during the school year of 1957—1958.

For this research "gifted” was specified to include
individuals with IQs 125 (Stanford—Binet) and above. In an
effort to identify all Lansing students of superior ability,
individual tests had been administered in the public schools
upon recommendation from teacher or principal. Choice for
this referral was based on a reading level judged to be two
or more years above the average for grade placement, ability
shown on achievement tests, high grades and/er teacher
opinion. Students in this sample had been tested within
the past three years. Table 1 shows the ranges and medians
of IQs of girls and boys identified in each grade. In the
7th grade girls' IQs ranged from 126—160 with a median of
137.5 and boys' IQs ranged from 125-167 with a median of 135.0.
In the 8th grade girls' IQs ranged from 125-167 with a median
of 135.3 and boys‘ IQs from 127-161 with a median of 136.8.
In the 9th grade girls' IQs ranged from 126—164 with a
median of 137.6 and boys' IQs from 125—167 with a median

of 136.6. The range for all IQs was 125-167 with a median
1?

l8

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1
SAMPLE: IQ
IQ
Group

Range Median
7th Grade Girls 126 — 160 137.5
7th Grade Boys 125 — 167 135.0
8th Grade Girls 125 - 167 135.3
8th Grade Boys 127 — 161 136.8
9th Grade Girls 126 — 164 137.6
9th Grade Boys 125 - 166 136.6
Total 125 - 167 136.7

 

19

of 136.7. Plotted with an interval of 3, the distribution
of all IQs was flat from 125-139, but resembled the upper
extreme of a normal distribution beyond 139. The sample
apparently does not include all of the junior high pupils
with IQs above 125. It may be estimated that three percent
of those with IQs of 125 and above are missing. This esti-
mate was made using the standard deviation for age 13. At
that age an IQ of 125 is 1.4 standard deviations above the
mean. According to this eight percent of the school popu-
lation should score 125 and above. This sample of 270
includes only five percent of the total enrollment in junior
high. Further evidence for this missing group is in the
rectangular distribution of IQs from 125 to 139, as well as
the smaller groups identified and tested in grades 7 and 9.
This criterion for giftedness resulted in a subject
sample representing the four schools as shown in Table 2.
School 1, with a total enrollment of 1,332 had 51 gifted
girls and boys: 9-7th grade girls, lO-7th grade boys, lO-8th
grade girls, 9-8th grade boys, 6-9th grade girls, and 7-9th
grade boys. School 2, with a total enrollment of 1,386 had
62 gifted girls and boys: l8—8th grade girls, l7—8th grade
boys, 14-9th grade girls, and l3-9th grade boys. School 3,
with a total enrollment of 1,268, had 82 gifted girls and
boys: ll-7th grade girls, 8-7th grade boys, 24-8th grade
girls, 9-8th grade boys, l7-9th grade girls, and l3-9th

grade boys. School 4, with a total enrollment of 1,355 had

SAMPLE: SCHOOL REPRESENTATION

TABLE 2

2O

 

 

 

 

School

Group 1 2 3 4 Total

Total Enrollment 1,332 1,386 1,268 1,355 5,341
(Oct. 1, 1957)

7th Grade Girls 9 -- ll 2 22
7th Grade Boys 10 —— 8 ll 29
8th Grade Girls 10 18 24 27 79
8th Grade Boys 9 17 9 15 50
9th Grade Girls 6 l4 l7 8 45
9th Grade Boys 7 l3 l3 12 45

Total 51 62 82 75 27c

 

 

21

75 gifted girls and boys: 2—7th grade girls, ll-7th grade
boys, 27-8th grade girls, l5-8th grade boys, 8—9th grade
girls, and l2-9th grade boys. The total of 270 students
includes 146 girls (7th grade--29, 8th grade--50, and 9th
grade--45) and 124 boys (7th grade-~29, 8th grade--50, and
9th grade--45).

Grade point averages were also compiled for this group.
With the exception of a few students whose records were in-
complete, these were based on grades from the preceding
1—1/2 years for those in grades 7 and 8 and the preceding
2-1/2 years for those in grade 9. Grades for the first part
of the school year 1957-1958 were included. Grade point
average was based on all school courses with 4.00 for A,
3.00 for B, 2.00 for C, 1.00 for D, and 0.00 for F. Table 3
shows the total range of grade point averages to be 2.13-4.00,
with a median of 3.61. Separation into boys and girls in
each grade shows that 7th grade girls had a range of 2.77-4.00
with a median of 3.65, 7th grade boys had a range of 2.55-4.00
with a median of 3.37, 8th grade girls had a range of
2.22-4.00 with a median of 3.62, 8th grade boys had a range
of 2.22-3.93 with a range of 3.36, 9th grade girls had a
range'of 2.53—4.00 with a median of 3.82, and 9th grade boys
had a range of 2.13-3.96 with a median of 3.36.

In addition, information on socio-economic status
was available. Students had been rated on a scale of 1-7

using the Warner Scale (see Appendix) of father's occupation.

TABLE 3

SAMPLE: GRADE POINT AVERAGE

 

 

Grade Point Average

 

 

Group Range Median
7th Grade Girls 2.77 - 4.00 3.65
7th Grade Boys 2.55 - 4.00 3.37
8th Grade Girls 2.22 - 4.00 3.62
8th Grade Boys 2.22 - 3.93 3.36
9th Grade Girls 2.53 - 4.00 3.82
9th Grade Boys 2.13 - 3.96 3.36

Total 2.13 - 4.00 3.61

 

 

On this scale 1 represents high level managerial and profes-
sional occupations, and 7 the transient, unemployed, and
jailed. As Table 4 shows, the group status ranged from

1-6 with a median of 2.93, Within the total group grade 7
girls had a range of 2-5 with a median of 3.10, grade 7

boys had a range of 1—6 with a median of 2.93, grade 8 girls
had a range of 1-6 with a range of 2.64, grade 8 boys had

a range of 1-6 with a median of 3.00, grade 9 girls had a
range of 1—6 with a median of 3.11, and grade 9 boys had a
range of 1-6 with a median of 2.83.

The adequacy of this sample can be noted in several
respects. First, the choice of 125 as a minimum IQ for
giftedness is defensible. Although Terman (52) used 140
as the minimum for his genius classification, other more
recent studies specify 125 or 130 for the gifted (15, 23,
24, 31). Roe's research with scientists (43)may indicate a
minimal IQ as low as 125, although tests comparable to the
Stanford-Binet could not be administered. Furthermore, the
concern which leads to this present—day research with the
gifted centers around those students for whom the average
courses are not sufficiently stimulating, and the experience
of teachers seems to indicate that children with IQs of 125
and above generally belong in this category. In addition
to the IQ limit itself, a further advantage here was the use
of individual testing rather than the less reliable group

testing as found in some research (1, 13, 32, 36, 38).

SAMPLE:

TABLE 4

SOCIAL STATUS

24

 

 

Social Status

 

 

Group

Range Median
7th Grade Girls 2 — 5 3.10
7th Grade Boys 1 - 6 2.93
8th Grade Girls 1 - 6 2.64
8th Grade Boys 1 - 6 3.00
9th Grade Girls 1 - 6 3.11
9th Grade Boys 1 — 6 2.83
Total 1 - 6 2.93

 

 

25

Other advantages of this sample include its size and
the inclusion of both sexes. A number of studies have been
limited to groups of 25-50 (1, 3, 10, 14, 29, 3o, 31, 56)
and only a few contain as many as 150 or more (16, 21, 34,
52).

The use of grade point average over a period of at
least 1-1/2 years also distinguishes this group. The grade
point average has been shown to be relatively stable over
time (13, 20) and therefore this measure of the achievement
for these students as of 1957-1958 will probably continue
in a similar pattern. Research by both Drews (14) and Terman
(54) seems to indicate that these grade point averages
represent levels of achievement as measured by group tests
as well. Terman's research also points to the relationship
between low achievement on both school work and achievement
tests and later vocational maladjustment and failure. Thus,
the grade point average is both readily acquired and meaning-
ful as a measure of achievement, while that used here has
the further advantage of representing grades over time.

Another asset is found in theemamination of the socio-
economic status of sample subjects. Although the median
status of 2.93 is probably well above the average of the
total Lansing population, it is considerably below that
represented in Terman's work (52) and in other studies such
as Bowman (10), Gallagher (l9), Haggard (25), and Kimball
(30). Most college samples are probably also biased by

higher socio-economic status (22).

Finally, mention should be made of the age group
represented in this study. It is important that findings
in the area of personality and achievement be studied at
all ages. However, much of the research found in the liter-
ature is limited to college students. Thus, this group of
early adolescents provided a needed sample for experimenta-
tion.

But since this sample was gifted students, it was
recognized that general conclusions from the results would
be correspondingly limited. This limitation could have
been removed by the use of a control group, a random sample
of the total junior high school population. Such a control
group would have supplied information regarding the appli-
cability of measures to average as well as gifted students,
and in addition some comparative data on personality factors
in the gifted versus a random sample of adolescents. However,
this additional sample was not acquired, because the high
reading ability and intellectual perception of these gifted
allowed the choice of mature measures which could be easily
and quickly administered. These same measures could not

have been used with a random sample in this age range.

Measures

For the gifted sample described in the preceding
section, applicable measures were then sought. Three prac-
tical requirements immediately limited the possibilities.

It was determined that the measures be group tests which

27

could be developed to use with large samples. In addition,
a time limit of 30-45 minutes was set. Finally, to increase
the ease of scoring as well as reliability, tests with
objective scoring methods were sought.

The personality variables described in the section on
the literature lend themselves readily to adjective form.
Several forms of adjective check lists have been used in
research, and appear to have some adequacy (45). An adjec-
tive scale developed by Robert E. Bills (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) was
used by him and by Roberts (42) as a measure of self—esteem
and discrepancy between real and ideal self. The scale also
contained a measure of self-concept. Bills used 49 adjec-
tives which the subject rated on a scale of one to five.
Each adjective was rated three times: (1) how much of the
time this is like me, (2) how I like myself this way, and
(3) how much of the time I would like this to be me.
Summated scores for the second and third ratings had relia-
bilities of .83 and .91 (9) as well as validity judged by
several different criteria (5, 6, 7, 8, 42). The correlation
between self-esteem and the discrepancy between real.and
ideal self was -.77 (9) showing that these two probably
measure similar aspects of personality.

This scale was adapted for research by utilizing the
directions and those 19 adjectives which were judged by the
experimenter to be most relevant. Other adjectives were

added to test the hypotheses made regarding self-concept

and achievement.

28

In addition a few adjectives were included

which could be related to the use of talent generally, but

for which the literature indicated no hypotheses.

In the

interest of preventing test set a few adjectives with

negative connotation were specifically interspersed in the

series.

This scale was then considered applicable to test

self-concept by rating (1) and self-esteem by rating (2).

In the interest of further research the ideal self rating

(3) was retained.

'._J

H
O

I'"
H

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

\OCDNCDUIEWM

The final list of adjectives was as follows:

academic
acceptable
active
adjusted
ambitious
argumentative
artistic
attractive
capable
competent
confident
conforming
considerate
creative
dependable
efficient

energetic

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
3o.
31.
32.
33.

34.

enthusiastic
fearful

free
friendly
impatient
independent
inspired
intellectual
intelligent
logical
mature
nervous
organized
original

odd
optimistic

persistent

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
5o.

persuasive
productive
purposeful
rebellious
responsible
scholarly
scientific
secure
self-sufficient
serious
sociable
studious
successful
teachable
tolerant

worthy

29

The expected direction of response was determined in
advance by the experimenter. Although some adjectives may
have applied to more than one category, the predictions were
as follows. Sociability, social concern, conformity, and

self-sufficiency were specified by argumentative, conforming,

 

considerate, dependable, friendly, impatient, independent,

 

 

 

 

odd, rebellious, responsible, self—sufficient, sociable, and

 

 

 

tolerant. It was predicted that achievers would rate them-

selves as conforming, considerate, dependable, independent,

 

 

 

responsible, self—sufficient, and tolerant more often than

 

underachievers, with the reverse true for argumentative,

 

friendly, impatient, odd, sociable, and rebellious. Confi-

 

 

 

dence and control were intended in ratings on acceptable,

 

ad usted attractive capable confident com etent mature
.9 J J J 1 1

 

 

 

 

optimistic, secure, successful, and worthy, with the reverse

 

for fearful and nervous. Energy, efficiency, and interest

were stated by active, ambitious, efficient, energetic,

 

 

 

enthusiastic, inspired, organized, persistent, persuasive,

 

 

 

 

productive, and purposeful. For all of these achievers were

 

 

predicted to rate themselves above underachievers. Finally
in this series of adjectives those most directly related to

scholarliness were academic, intellectual, intelligent,

 

 

logical, scholarly, serious, studious, and teachable. Again,

 

 

 

all the adjectives were predicted to be reported as true of
themselves more often by achievers than by underachievers.
No predictions were made for a few other adjectives,

While it is possible that artistic and scientific are

 

30

related to scholarliness, the direction of response was not
predicted because no report on the relationship between
these aspects of self-concept and achievement were found in
the literature. Similarly no prediction was made for

creative, free, and original.

 

Turning to the search for a scale to measure attitudes,
the semantic differential of Charles E. Osgood (40) offered
advantages and seemed worthy of further research investi—
gation. Since Osgood has presented a method for adapting
his findings, the scales for this research were developed
as he directs. The evaluative factor (Factor I) was selected
as most applicable for this study. However, it was decided
to include two scales each of the other two factors with six
scales of Factor I. This totalled ten scales for each con-
cept; six to be utilized for this research and four others
to be available for further study. The scales selected were
those having the highest loading of the desired factor and
the lowest loadings of the other two factors (Table 5).

Because of the time limitation, only ten concepts were
chosen for this stage of research. School attitudes were

selected for primary interest, and represented by the five

 

 

concepts school, teacher, studying, learning, and marks.
Attitudes toward home and family were presented in the single
concept family, and attitude toward others was intended by
friends. In addition the usefulness of this measure for

self-concept was briefly investigated by the concepts being

31

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIALl
Factor
Scale I II III
clean - dirty .82 -.05 .03
fair - unfair .83 .08 -.07
happy — sad .76 .11 .OO
honest - dishonest .85 .07 -.02
nice - awful .87 -.08 .19
sweet - sour .83 -.14 -.O9

 

 

1(40, p. 37).

approved g£”(conformity), being intelligent (scholarliness),

 

and myself (self-esteem). These ten concepts were ordered
in the effort to vary meanings and limit generalization from
one to the next. Directions were also given to discourage
reference to completed pages. It was predicted that
achievers would rate all ten concepts with more positive
value than underachievers.

Thus two types of measures were developed to test the
A hypotheses of self-concept, self—esteem and the perception
of reality. The tests were designated Test I, the adjective
scale, and Test II, the semantic differential (see Appendix).
These two measures were designed to administer to the gifted
sample already described. From the analysis of results, the
potentiality of these measures for further research and

development was to be determined.

Administration

 

Tests I and II were then administered during the last
week of May and the first week of June, 1958. Arrangements
were made in advance by Dr. Drews. In each school testing
was to be conducted with the assistance of school personnel
as well as Dr. Drews, two research assistants, and this
experimenter. In schools 1, 3, and 4 one four hour morning
session was scheduled. In school 2 two afternoon sessions
of two hours each were scheduled. Students in schools 1,
3, and 4 were to assemble in their respective cafeterias;

students in school 2 were to assemble in their library.

33

These facilities are physically similar in all four schools.

Since all research required the presence of the com-
plete sample, special arrangements were made to conduct
further sessions with absent pupils in each school. These
sessions were to take place within a week of the original
testing. The experimenter and the two research assistants
were to share the responsibility for testing these small
groups.

The four hour test battery included achievement and
problem-solving as well as personality measures. Some of
these tests were to be administered to all three grades,
others to only one grade. The need to schedule carefully
within the allotted time led to a plan whereby achievement
and problem—solving tests were to be administered first and
followed by personality tests. This examiner was to give
all initial instructions for the measures of this research.

The above plan presented one difficulty for this study.
The experimental measures were ordered to follow tests
requiring intense concentration for at least one hour. It
was felt that this would mean restlessness and some negativ-
ism by the time scheduled for the measures of this research.
During administration it was found that attention was
actually diminished after the first tests, and students
showed increased negativism by complaintsebout.the testing
situation.

Some other unforeseen problems arise in the testing

sessions. First, in one school the arranged faculty

34

assistance failed to appear, causing a delay in testing and
difficulties in the plan. In that school discipline proved
difficult to maintain, the lunch hour was confused, and
students were particularly restless and easily distracted
throughout testing.

Further, in all four schools only a limited explana-
tion of the reasons for testing could be offered by the
researchers, and in three of these schools comments by
school authorities emphasized the importance of good work
by the students. Questions were asked again and again by
school pupils about where the results would be sent. Stu-
dents wanted to be assured that their teachers would not see
their scores. Although reassurrance was offered, the
possibility may have remained that their response on the
personality tests would have been affected by special
motivational factors.

Finally, although the researchers had limited the
sample to be tested, the schools added some students whom
they deemed eligible. Later investigation showed that IQs
were not all within the desired range. The lower limit was
an IQ of 99: Although it was not possible to check this,
it was the opinion of the four examiners that many of the
questions asked about test directions and meanings arose
among this less intelligent group. This lengthened testing
and in addition made it difficult for this experimenter to
assess the importance of questions regarding the research

measures of this study.

35

The questions which did arise during the administration
of Tests I and II were predominantly in two areas: the
meanings of certain adjectives of Test I, and the use of
the self-esteem section (2) of Test I. Adjectives more

frequently questioned were academic, adjusted, competent,

 

 

 

conforming, intellectual, and optimistic. Since academic

 

 

was the first word, it was defined each time for the whole
group. Other questions were answered individually. It was
discovered that adjusted was most often confused with the

so-called "adjusted" classes for students needing remedial

help. Competent and intellectual were apparently unfamiliar

 

 

words to those who requested help. Many of those asking

about conforming and optimistic had opposite meanings in

 

 

mind. These difficulties may have obscured results with
these adjectives, especially if other students neglected
to clarify their definitions before responding.

As mentioned above, a number of students found the
directions for the self-esteem section (2) of Test I dif-
ficult to apply. The directions were that they rate them-
selves in Column II on the basis of their response in
Column I: "HOW DO YOU FEEL about yourself as described
in Column I?" Students apparently sought instead to answer
how they felt in general about the adjective. While every
effort was made to clarify these instructions, questions
during administration and odd patterns of response found
later on some tests seemed to indicate that, for at least

some of the students, the problem remained.

L2.)
ON

Thus problems of administration existed in the areas
of scheduling limitations, motivational factors, sample
changes, and test use. However, testing was conducted
essentially in accordance with the plan, and the majority of

the students were attentive and cooperative.

Statistical Treatment

 

Item analysis. The next step in research was the

 

statistical analysis of test responses of the subject sample.
In order to analyze items it was first necessary to divide
the 270 subjects into achievers and underachievers. Some
differences in median achievement (grade point average) of
boys versus girls and among the three grades led to a special
technique for this division. For each sex in each grade sub-
groups were formed. The median grade point average of each i
of these six sub-groups was used as the dividing point for
achievers and underachievers for that group. Thus a total
of 135 achievers and 135 underachievers were designated. [f
But, in order to simplify computations and to increase the
reliability of responses, these two groups were limited to
the 100 achievers and 100 underachievers at the extremes in.
grade point average. The 70 withdrawn around the medians
were proportioned amongthe six sub-groups according to the
total number in that sub-group.

By the above described technique the numbers of boys

and girls and of each grade were equalized for achievers and

37

underachievers (Table 6). In the 7th grade there were 8
achieving girls and 8 underachieving girls, 11 achieving
boys and 11 underachieving boys; in the 8th grade there
were 29 achieving girls and 30 underachieving girls, 19
achieving boys and 18 underachieving boys; in the 9th grade
there were 17 achieving girls and 16 underachieving girls,
16 achieving boys and 17 underachieving boys. This totals
54 achieving girls and 54 underachieving girls, 46 achieving
boys and 46 underachieving boys, with further totals of 108
girls and 92 boys, 100 achievers and 100 underachievers.
The discrepancy in number between boys and girls was not
eliminated. The effect of sex on these results was judged
to be less important than the need to maximize sample size.

Item responses were then assembled for the 100 achievers
and 100 underachievers. These responses were narrowed into
two ratings for each item by division above and below the
interval closest to the median response for that item; 2 x 2
Chi Square tables were prepared for each item. These 110
tables were then analyzed by the Chi Square formula including
Yates' Correction for Continuity (17, p. 384) using an
electronic computor. Where the direction of item response
was specifically predicted a one—tailed test of significance
was to be applied, for other items a two-tailed test.

Before evaluation of results it was necessary to know
how many items would differ by chance alone. It was found

that by chance alone 6 of the 110 items would obtain Chi

38

TABLE 6

ACHIEVERS AND UNDERACHIEVERS

 

 

 

 

 

Grade
Group 7 8 9 Total

Achievers 8 29 17 54
Girls

Underachievers 8 3O 16 54

108

Achievers 11 19 16 46
Boys

Underachievers 11 18 17 46

 

92

 

U)
KO

Squares significant at the .05 level of confidence, and
that 1 of these would obtain a Chi Square significant at

the .01 level of confidence.

Other analyses. Several other analyses were also

 

deemed necessary. Although the range of IQs was limited to
125 and above, the relationship between IQ and grade point
average was determined. A Product-Moment Correlation 00-
efficient was obtained (17, p. 148).

In addition, following item analysis a "personality
score" (P-score) was compiled for each student. This P-score
gave equal weight to all the 17 item responses which item
analysis showed to discriminate between achievers and under-
achievers. For each item a response value from 1 to 5 was
used. For the 15 items of Test I this was the actual student
response. For the two items from Test II, the scores of 6
to 42 were narrowed to 1 to 5 by division into 5 units of 7
points each. The 17 responses were added to give the P-score.
Further study of the relationship between this score and the
variables of sex, grade, grade point average, and IQ were
then possible.

Because the literature (55) does indicate that sex
differences may affect testing in the personality area, the
relationship between P—score and sex was investigated. A
Point Biserial Correlation Coefficient (17, p. 184) was

computed.

40

Difference in grade also reflects difference in age,
and, therefore, the possibility of personality differences
affected by maturity arose. T—tests (17, p. 254) were
applied to determine whether the mean P-scores for each
grade differed significantly.

The P-score was also examined more directly for its
relationship to the main purpose of this research, the re-
lation between test items and achievement. For this a
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (17, p. 148) was com-
puted for P—score and grade point average.

Finally the relationship between IQ and P-score was
treated. The correlation between IQ and P-score was deter-

mined by a Product—Moment Correlation Coefficient.

RESULTS

Item Analysis

 

The results of item analysis showed that responses to
17 of the 110 items discriminated between achievers and under-
achievers. Eight of these were significant at the .01 level
of confidence, the remaining nine at the .05 level of con-
fidence. Of these responsesjnine are from the self-concept
(1) section of Test I, six from the self—esteem section (2)
of Test 1 and two from Test II. Table 7 presents these
results.

Responses to the following items of Test 1, self—
concept, differentiated achievers from underachievers:

academic, argumentative, capable, efficient, intelligent,

 

 

logical, productive, scholarly, and successful. Academic,

 

 

 

argumentative, logical, and scholarly were significant at

 

 

the .01 level of confidence. Capable, efficient, intelligent,

 

(productive, and successful were significant at the .05 level

 

 

of confidence. On all nine of these adjectives achievers
found them more often true of themselves than did under-
achievers.

The six items of Test I, self-esteem, for which
responses of achievers and underachievers differed signifi-

cantly were academic, argumentative, fearful, rebellious,

 

 

 

 

scholarly, and studious. Responses to academic, rebellious,

41

 

 

42

 

 

 

TABLE 7
RESULTS
Test Item X2 p
I Self-Concept 1. academic 14.143 ‘<.Ol
6. argumentative 8.019 <;.Ol
9. capable 4.066 <.O5
16. efficient 5.169 ‘<.O5
26. intelligent 5.012 ‘~.O5
27. logical 5.805 <..Ol
36. productive 3.625 <‘.05
40. scholarly 11.031 -.01
47. successful 4.103 4..05
I Self—Esteem 1. academic 6.281 .01
6. argumentative 4.100 (.05
19. fearful 4.500 <..O5
38. rebellious 5.460 \..01
40. scholarly 3.764 4..05
. 46. studious 22.214 s..Ol
II Semantic Differential 1. school 2.879 e. .05
6. marks 12.500 .01

 

 

 

aTwo—tailed test.

43

TABLE 8

OTHER ANALYSES: CORRELATION RESULTS

 

 

 

Variable T p
IQ and a
Grade Point Average .22 <¢.ol
Sex and P—Score .03b not significant
IQ and P-Score .07a not significant
P—Score and a
Grade Point Average .38 (.01

 

 

aProduct-Moment Correlation Coefficient

bPoint Biserial Correlation Coefficient

TABLE 9

OTHER ANALYSES: T—TESTS ON MEAN P-SCORES

 

 

 

Variable T df p
Grades 7 and 8 .1914 132 not significant
Grades 7 and 9 .4575 102 _ not significant

Grades 8 and 9 .2531 160 not significant

 

 

44

and studious were significantly different at the .01 level

of confidence; responses to argumentative, fearful, and

 

scholarly were significantly different at the .05 level of

 

confidence. On all six of these adjectives responses of
achievers indicated that they were more satisfied with their
self-concept in respect to that adjective than were under-
achievers.

Responses to two of the ten concepts in Test II dif-
ferentiated between achievers and underachievers. These two
were school and marks. Responses to magks were significantly
different at the .01 level of confidence; responses to
school at the .05 level of confidence. In both cases
responses of achievers were more positive than responses of

underachievers.

Other Analyses

 

Results of other analyses can also be reported (Tables
8 and 9). The Product Moment Correlation Coefficient for
IQ and grade point average was .22 (p <:.01) revealing that
students with higher IQs (even in these upper limits) tend
to have higher grades. However, the same coefficient re-
lating P-score and IQ was .07 (not significant). Results of
other analyses to determine the relationship between P-score
and other variables follow. The Point Biserial Correlation
Coefficient for sex and P—score was .03, too low to be
significant. T-tests to determine whether mean P-scores

of Grades 7, 8, and 9 differed showed no significant

difference among the three grades. The Product-Moment
Correlation Coefficient relating P—score and grade point

average was .38 (p ‘< .01).

45

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Item Analysis

 

Before a discussion of the content of the results of
item analysis, the significance of these results needs to
be further clarified. Whereas, as stated in the section on
statistical treatment, probability indicates that six items
of the 110 would have Chi Squares significant by chance alone
at the .05 level of confidence, results show that 17 items
were significant at at least this level. Furthermore, at
the .01 level of confidence, where only one Chi Square
would have been significant by chance alone, 8 of the 17
items were significant. Therefore, the results of this
study show differences which did not arise from chance alone.
The 17 items which discriminated between achievers and
underachievers may be inspected in the light of the three
hypotheses of this research. It should be reiterated that
all 17 items were answered as more true of themselves, or
more positively, by achievers than by underachievers.
Hypothesis I predicted that achieving students would
report self-concepts differing in certain respects from those
of underachievers. Nine of the 50 self-concept adjectives
did elicit responses revealing this difference. More spe-
cific predictions were made that achievers‘ self-concepts

would exceed those of underachievers in the following areas:

46

47

introversion, social concern, conformity, and self—
sufficiency; confidence and control; efficiency, energy,

and interest; and the view of self as an able scholar. This
last was predicted to be a basic component of the achiever's
self-concept. An examination of the nine significant items
in the light of predictions for these items (p. 28 ff.) is
revealing. Only one adjective of the nine is inthe area
called "social adjustment"; that one isthe adjective apgu-

mentative. The Chi Square for this adjective was highly

 

significant, well beyond the .01 level of confidence, but
significant in the opposite direction from that predicted.

Argumentative was included in the test to represent non-

 

conformity, and the prediction was that underachievers would
report it more often true of themselves than achievers.

The results may show that conformity is not characteristic
of achievers in all its aspects. However, the evidence of
self—sufficiency and independence in achievers may provide

a more adequate explanation for their response. Responses
to the other eight adjectives were in the predicted direc-

tion. Two adjectives were significant in the area of

personal adjustment: capable and successful. Interestingly,

 

both of these are adjectives denoting active ability, rather
than the more passive descriptive adjectives such as

acceptable, adjusted, and attractive. Both also appear to

 

 

be related to the area of energy, efficiency, and interest,

where two adjectives were significant: efficient and pro-

 

ductive. Four adjectives were significant in the area of

48

scholarliness: academic, intelligent, logical, and scholarly.

 

 

 

The preponderance of adjectives in the area of scholarliness
seems to bear out the prediction that the view of self as an
able scholar is a basic component of self-concept as it
relates to achievement. Actually the other adjectives,

including argumentative, are all related to this self—view

 

in some degree.

Two additional comments can be made. First, while
the test wasweighted with predictions that the achievers
would find adjectives more true of themselves than would
underachievers, it is still interesting that all the signi-
ficant adjectives were those on which achievers rated them-
selves higher, including the one for which the opposite
prediction had been made. This may represent a test
response set which has its roots in some form of confidence
and positive attitude, particularly when responses are
called for in the school setting.

Then, it should also be noted that, with the exception
of academic, where a group definition was given, responses
to none of the five other frequently questioned words dif-
ferentiated between the two groups. While it cannot be
known whether results were obscured on these words, this
remains a possibility.

Hypothesis II was simpler in its form, predicting that
achieving students would report greater esteem for themselves,

as they see themselves than would underachieving students.

49

The six significant items were all in the predicted
direction. For no item did underachievers show greater
self-esteem than achievers. While the results are limited

in number, they support the hypothesis to a degree. The
problems in the use of this section of the test could have
been responsible for some limitation in results. The partic-
ular adjectives which differentiated the two groups appear

to fall into two categories. Responses to academic, scholarly,

 

 

and studious are clearly related to an acceptance of self

in the scholarly role already noted. Argumentative may fall

 

in the same category, but argumentative, fearful, and

 

rebellious all may have special meaning in relation to

 

adolescence. The responses suggest that achievers feel
more control over their adolescent feelings than do under-
achievers. This suggestion is not out of line with reports
of control in achievers found in the literature.

Hypothesis III predicted that more positive attitudes
toward school, others, and family would be reported by
achievers than by underachievers. This distinction was
particularly emphasized for attitudes toward school. The
two concepts which differentiated significantly were in the
school area: school and markg. The inclusion of only one
item each for family and others may well have been insuf-
ficient to obtain results. The same may be said of the
other three concepts in Test II. It was rather surprising

to this experimenter that differences were not found in the

other three school related concepts: teachers, studying,

 

and learning. Certainly these have discriminated with other
methods and other samples. The number of negative scores
observed during the recording of responses made by achievers
for these three may bear out the opinion of some educators
that these gifted students are often dissatisfied with what
school offers to them. This could be accentuated for these
students by current publicity on the inadequacies of educa—
tion. Perhaps hope lies in the fact that school itself still
seems to have positive meaning for gifted achievers!

In summary, the significant material seems to point to
achievement as primarily related to aspects of self-concept,
self-esteem, and attitude toward environment which are
themselves achievement oriented. To this extent the three
hypotheses are supported by this research. These results
are not surprising when the theory of self—concept is re-
examined. The majority of significant items are consistent
and would seem to be in line with Lecky's theoretical posi-
tion (33) emphasizing the "self—consistency" of self-concept

and view of environment.

Other Analyses

 

However, the claim that the significant results of
item analysis support the hypotheses needs some further
substantiation. The additional analyses made in this
research were designed to examine variables other than

achievement which might have affected results.

51

While the role of sex in personality testing is often
important (55), thecorrelation between sex and P—score
showed that at least the EBB of responses to significant
items was not affected by sex. It is still possible that
individual items included some for which responses of boys
and girls differed. There may also be additional items
which would discriminate between achievers and underachievers
of one sex only. Such possibilities should be more completely
investigated in further research.‘

Another potential source of bias lies in the use of
three grades for subject sample. With this age spread
greater differences in maturity are included than with one
grade alone. Furthermore, differences found in the statis-
tics of the sample at the three grade levels suggest that
the samples for grades 7 and 9 are not complete and may be
biased. The possible effect of such bias was examined by
the application of T-tests to the mean P-score for each
grade (Table 9). The results were far from significant,
and appear to indicate that the use of all three grades for
this research was defensible.

The effect of IQ on achievement, here measured by
grade point average, raises the most serious problem in
research of this kind. Gough (21) found a correlation of .47
between IQ and grades, while his test correlated .44 with
grades. Both of these figures come from the sample used

in cross-validation. In the original study these

52

correlations were higher, but the correlation between test
scores and grades was lower than the correlation between

IQs and grades in each of the four schools. Without a con-
trol for IQ the test results have unknown meaning. Examin-
ation of the analyses of this research shows somewhat more
promising results, although the limited IQ range is probably
an important factor. The initial correlation of .22 between
IQ and grade point average showed that IQ had some relation-
ship to the division of the sample into achievers and under-
achievers. This necessitated the further investigation of
the results for effect of IQ. The correlation between
P-score and grade point average (.38) is somewhat law, par-
ticularly since it represents the scores of the same sample
used for item analysis. But it is higher than the correla-
tion between I? and grade point average. In addition, the
correlation between IQ and P—score (.07 and not significant)
does show that this P-score is relatively free from IQ
effect. However, since many of the items appear to be
related to the View of self as an able scholar, these results
may well be limited to the type of sample used in this
research. Further study is now needed.

From these findings it may be concluded that the results
of this study do, indeed, point to differences in self-
concept, self—esteem, and attitude toward environment which
are related to achievement, and which are not contaminated

by sex, grade (within grades 7 to 9), or IQ (within the

53

range of 125-167). The qualifications for grade and IQ do
place limitations upon the applicability of this research

to the more general school population.

Implications for Further Research

 

These results indicate several possible directions for
further research. First, this data should be reexamined
more completely for sex differences, as suggested in the
preceding section. In addition, since a 2 x 2 Chi Square
examining social status and grade point average showed that
those with higher status tend to have higher grades
(x2 = 4.022, p,( .05), the influence of social status on
test variables also needs to be investigated. Then the next
most obvious study on a large scale is cross-validation of
these findings with another gifted junior high sample._

Several other research studies could also be conducted
using these instruments. Although these tests are too dif-
ficult for a random sample of junior high students, it would
be possible to use them with high school seniors and with
college students. Both comparative information and the
possible development of these tests at those levels would
make such studies worthwhile.

A further suggestion includes departure from these
test forms utilizing the differences this research seems to
indicate. From these differences a form of sentence ques-
tionnaire or materials for standardized interviews might be

developed for use with average students in junior high school.

54

Another practical area, already being examined in
several current projects, is that devoted to an under-
standing of the factors which lead to this combination of
self-concept and achievement. It is the results of these
studies which will provide clues for the educators seeking

to develop students to their fullest academic potential.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to examine aspects of
self—concept and attitude toward environment in relation to
achievement. The research was planned as the initial stage
in test construction for the measurement of achievement-
related personality characteristics.

The review of relevant literature led to three hypoth-
eses. These predicted that achieving students would report
(1) self-concepts differing in specified respects from those
reported by underachievers, (2) greater self-esteem than
underachievers, and (3) more positive attitudes toward en-
vironment than underachievers.

The sample for this study included all identified (270)
boys and girls with IQs of 125 and above (Stanford—Binet)
who attended the 7th, 8th,and 9th grades of the four public
junior high schools of Lansing, Michigan. Two tests were
developed: an adjective list from which a self-rating on
both self-concept and self-esteem were procured and the
semantic differential technique applied primarily as a meas-
ure of attitude toward environment. The responses of 200
students designated as achievers and underachievers on the
basis of grade point average were subjected to item analysis.
In addition the variables of sex, grade, and IQ were inves-

tigated for their relation to results.
55

56

It was found that responses to 17 of the 110 items
discriminated between achievers and underachievers. All
three hypotheses received some support. It was particularly
noted that the majority of discriminating items of self-
concept, self-esteem, and attitude toward environment were
themselves achievement oriented. Other analyses indicated

that results were not contaminated by sex, grade, or IQ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altus, W. D. A college achiever and non-achiever scale
for the MMPI. J. appl. Psychol., 1948, 32, 385-397.

 

Armstrong, Marion Elizabeth. A comparison of the inter-
ests and social adjustment of underachievers and
normal achievers at the secondary school level.
Dissert. Abstr., 1955, 12’ 1349.

 

Barrett, H. 0. An intensive study of 32 gifted children.
Personnel Guid. J., 1957, 36, 192-194.

 

Berger, I. L. & Sutker, A. R. The relationship of
emotional adjustment and intellectual capacity to
academic achievement of college students. Ment. Hyg.,

 

N.Y., 1956,39, 65-77.

Bills, R. E. A comparison of scores on the index of.
adjustment and values with behavior in level-of-
aspiration tasks. J. consult. Psychol., 1953, AZ,
206-212. '

 

Bills, R. E. Rorschach characteristics of persons
scoring high and low in acceptance of self. J.
consult. Psychol., 1953, 17, 36-38.

 

Bills, R. E.‘ Acceptance of self as measured by inter-
views and the index of adjustment and values.
J. consult. Psychol., 1954, 18, 22.

 

Bills, R. E. Self concepts and rorschach signs of
depression. J. consult. Psychol., 1954, 12: 135-137.

 

Bills, R. E., Vance, E. L., & McLean, O. S. An index of
adjustment and values. J. consult. Psychol., 1951,
15, 257—261.

 

Bowman, Lillie Lewin. A longitudinal study of the
national merit award finalists San Francisco Unified
School District. Unpublished manuscript. San
Francisco Unified School District Bureau of Research,
March 8, 1958.

Brandwein, P. F. The Gifted Student as Future Scientist.
New York: Harcourt Brace, 1955.

 

57

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Brown, W. F., Abeles, N., & Iscoe, I. Motivational
differences between high and low scholarship students.-
J. educ. Psychol., 1954, 45, 215-223.

 

Dowd, R. J. Underachieving students of high capacity.
J. higher Educ., 1952, 23, 327-330.

 

Drews, Elizabeth Monroe. What about the gifted child?
Coll. Educ. Quart., Mich. St. Univer., 1957, 3, 3-6,
18, 22.

 

Drews, Elizabeth Monroe, & Teahan, J. E. Parental
attitudes and academic achievement. J. clin. Psychol”

1957. 13, 328—332.

 

Eckert, Ruth. Analyzing superior college students.
Sch. & Soc., 1935, El, 69-72.

 

Edwards, A. L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: Rinehart, 1955.

 

Flemming, E. G. 'College achievement, intelligence,
personality and emotion. J. appl. Psychol., 1932,
1.6.: 668-674.

 

Gallagher, J. J. & Crowder, Thora. The adjustment of
gifted children in the regular classroom. J. except.
Child., 1957, 23, 306-312, 317-319, 353-363, 399-398.

 

Garrett, H. F. A review and interpretation of investi-
gations of factors related to scholastic success in
colleges of arts and acience and teachers colleges.
J. exp. Educ., 1949, 18, 91-138.

 

Gough, H. G. What determines the academic achievement.
of high school students? J. educ. Res., 1953, 46,
321—331.

 

Gough, H. G. Some personality differences between high
ability high school students who do, and who do not,
go to college. Paper read at West. Psychol. Assn.,
Long Beach, Calif., May, 1954.

Gough, H. G. Factors related to differential achieve-
ment among gifted persons. Paper read at Amer.
Psychol. Assn., San Francisco, Sept., 1955.

Gowan, J. D. The under-achieving gifted child--a problem
for everyone. J. except. Child., 1955, 2;, 247-249.

 

Haggard, E. A. Socialization, personality, and academic
achievement in gifted children. Sch. Rev., 1957, 65,
388-414.

26.

27.

28.

‘29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.

37.

38.

59

Hanlon, T. E., Hofstaetter, P. R., & O'Connor, J. P.
Congruence of self and ideal self in relation to
personality adjustment. J. consult. Psychol., 1954,
_l__8, 215-218.

 

Harris, D. The relation to college grades of some
factors other than intelligence. Arch. Psychol., N.Y.
1931) NO. 131.

 

Hilgard, E. R. Human motives and the concept of self.
Amer. Psychologist, 1949, 3, 374-382.

 

Hobbs, N. Motivation to high achievement, Paper read
at the Internatl. Council on Except. Child., Kansas
City, April, 1958.

Kimball, Barbara. The sentence completions technique
in a study of scholastic achievement. J. consult.

PSyCh01-o: 1952) _]_-__6_: 353‘3580

 

Kimball, Barbara. Case studies in educational failure
during adolescence. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1953,
_2_3_, 406-415.

 

Kurtz, J. J. & Swenson, Esther J. Factors related to
over-achievement and under-achievement in school.
Sch. Rev., 1951, 55, 472-480.

 

Lecky, P. Self—Consistency, A Theory of Personality.
F. C. Thorne, ed. and interpretor. New York: Long
Island Press, 1951.

 

Lewis, W. D. A comparative study of the personalities,
interests and home backgrounds of gifted children of
superior and inferior intellectual achievement.

J. genet. Psychol., 1941, 52, 207-218.

 

Litwinski, L. Toward a reinstatement of the concept of
the self. Brit. J. Psychol., 1951, 5, 246—248.

 

McQuary, J. P. Some differences between under- and over-
achievers in college. Educ. Adm. Superv., 1954, 39,
117-120. -

 

Mellett, T. P. Recall of tasks and expressed self-
acceptance among patient groups. Dissert. Abstr.,
1954, 13: 2402.

 

Morgan, H. H. A psychometric comparison of achieving
and non-achieving college students of high ability.
J. consult. Psychol., 1952, $5, 292—298.

 

39.

40.

41.

42.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

6O

Omwake, K. Relation between acceptance of self and
acceptance of others shown by three personality
inventories. J. consult. Psychol., 1954, IE: 443-446.

 

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The
Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: Univer. Ill. Press,

1957.

 

Owens, W. A. & Johnson, Wilma 0. Some measured person-
ality traits of collegiate under-achievers. J.educp
Psychol., 1949,39, 41-46.

Roberts, G. E. A study of the validity of the index of
adjustment and values. J. consult. Psychol., 1952,
r5, 302-304.

 

Roe, Anne. The Making of a Scientist. New York: Dodd,
Mead, 1953.

 

Rogers, C. Some observations on the organization of
personality. Amer. Psychologist, 1947, 2, 358-368.

 

Sarbin, T. R. & Rosenberg, B. G. Contributions to role—
making theory: IV A method of obtaining a qualitative
estimate of the self. J. soc. Psychol., 1955, 42,

71-81.

 

Snygg, D. & Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior. New York:
Harper, 1949.

 

Stagner, R. The relation of personality to academic
aptitude and achievement. J. educ. Res., 26, 648-660.

 

Stevens, P. H. An investigation of the relationship
between certain aspects of self-concept behavior and
students' academic achievement. Dissert. Abstr.,l956,
L6. 2531.

 

Stock, Dorothy. An investigation into the interrelations
between the self~concept and feelings directed toward
other persons and groups. J. consult. Psychol., 1949,

_l_3_, 176-180.

 

Stone, D. R. & Ganung, G. G. A study of scholastic
achievement related to personality as measured by the
M.M.P.I. J.edud Res., 1956, 59, 155-156.

 

Taylor, C. W. The 1955 University of Utah Research Con-
ference on the Identification of Creative Scientific
Talent. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press, 1956.

 

 

52.
53.

'54.

55.

56.

61

Terman, L. M. Genetic Studies of Genius, Volume I.
Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1926:

 

Terman, L. M. Are scientists different? Sci. Amer.,

1955) 3:2?) 25-29 .

Terman, L. M. & Oden, Melita M. Genetic Studies of
Genius, Volume IV. Stanford: Stanford Univer.
Press, 1947.

 

 

 

Terman, L. M. & Typer, Leona E. Psychological sex dif-
ferences. In L. Carmichael (ed.), Manual of Child
Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1954, pp. 1064-
1114.

 

 

Walsh, Ann Marie. Self-concepts of bright boys with
learning difficulties. Psychol. Abstr., 1956, 59,

519.

 

APPENDIX

62

A.

B.

C.

D.

Warner, W. L., Meeker, Marcia, and Bella, K.
Chicago: Sci. Res. Assoc., 1949 Social Class in America

I (.8 w£g

INDEX 92 STATUS CHARACTERISTICS

'~—

 

Qirggjiggg: Assign the individual or the status parent appropriate
values on the scale from "1" (high) to "7” (low) for each of the
characteristics selected for the index to be used in the study.

AREA LIVED EN

10 Select residential area (or areas) of highest repute in the community.

20 Better suburban and apartment house area; homes with large grounds.

3: Preferred residential areas, adequate grounds; good apartment buildings.

A, Residential neighborhoods with no deterioration; reputed to be average.

53 Area beginning to deteriorate; business or industry entering into it.

60 Area considerably deteriorated but not a slum area; depreciated reputation.
7o Slum Area (or areas) of the community; neighborhood in bad repute.

HOUSE TYPE
10 Large houses in good condition; adequate grounds -— 1A, 2A, 1B, 2B.
2. LH in medium condition; NH in good condition; best apartments -- 3A, 3B,
10, 20.
3. MH in.medium condition; large apts. in well-kept buildings - 30.
h. LH and MH in fair condition; aptc buildings in medium condition -- 1D,
20, 3D.
5. SH in good condition; good aptsa in remodelled houses -- AA, AB, SA, SB.
6. SH in medium condition or fair condition; aptso in fair condition --
4C, 4D, 50, 530
70 All houses and apts. in bad condition; store fronts et. a1. - 1E, 2E,
3E, hE, 5E.
Note: Houses are rated according'to size ~~ (LH) = l or 2, MH = 3,
(SH) = h or 5 ~- and condition (good) = A or B, (medium) a 20,
(fair) = D, (bad) = E, The twenty possible types are fitted
into the seven ratings .

 

OCCUPATION

Classify the individual or status parent according to kind of occupation --
professional, proprietor, business man.9 white-color worker, manual worker,
service and miscellaneous, landowners and farmers -- and then rate the
person concerned according to level, consulting the accompanying chart for
guidance.

 

series QE sees

10 Savings'and investments, inherited -- 50% or more of the income.

20 Savings and investments, gained by the earner —- not retirement pensions.
3o Profits and fees -~ including higher executives who share in profits.

h. Salary or commission - including retirement earned thereby. ("Check

List”)
5. wages, based upon hourly rates or piece—work. ("Time Card" personnel)
6. Private aid or assistance -— may be supplemented by part-time work;

7. Public relief and nonwrespectable income, according to reputation.

 

E.

 

Alternate and Modifying Indicese

_- .-

FD’Ji’bi‘I‘fON
10 Completed one or'more years of graduate work at college or university.

2. Graduated from fourmyear college, university, or professional school.

30 Attended college for two or more years, or equivalent highefir _ education.
40 Graduated from high school, or equivalent secondary education.

56 Attended high school, completed at least one year but did not graduate.

Level

1.

2.

6. Third to eight grade (older persons), shifting to below eighth

(young adults),

7. Below third grade (older persons, shifting to beIOW'eighth(yeungeKhfl:

F. ETHNIC

 

GRO UPS w ETI‘EI‘JIC :TY
m

nanny—«m..- ...

 

1. Old American or AngloeSaxpn
2. Assimilated American
3. French Canadian or Irish Catholic

h. Northern European ethnic group or sect

PROFESSIONALS

Lawyer, doctor,
dentist, judge,
minister, pro-
fessor,.engineer,
ind '1 o ChemiSt,
school suptd,
coun. vet‘n.

High school
teacher; trained
nurse (RN);Chir-
op‘st, chiro—
practor, archi-
tect, undertaker,
minister (no col-
lege) -

rammHEMQ

 

Value $75,000
plus, depending
upon nature of ‘
the community .

value‘fi20,000
to 75,000.

use gym-710 SECTS .. _qgrggmsm

5. Southern European or

Jewish

6. Eastern European or

Near East '

7.Color Casts - Negro,

Oriental
OCCUPATIONAL RATINGS

*m —~ -1."—

BUSINESS MEN

 

Top executives:
president,n3r,

etc. of corpora-
tions,public ut-

ilities, banks,
at. ale

Assistant,of-
fice,& dept.
managers or
supervisors;
mars. of medium
sized branches;
mfrs. agents

'WHITE COLLAR
WORKERS
Executive
secretary of
status or or-
ganizations;
C.P.A; editor
of reputed
newspaper or
magazine.

 

WT?

Accountant; in-

surance, stock
and bond, real
estate salesmen
in reputed fi-
rms; columnist
or editorial
writers, etc.

 

3.

Grade school teac.-
er, optometrist,
undertaker‘s asst.
pharnicist (employ-
ee); city vet.

Value $5,000
to “20,000 or
similar equity

l-Igrs . of small
branch stores &

Bank & broker's
clerks; secty.,

similar business- sr. postalclerk,

es; sales—men '

(better mdse. &
known customers);

buyers.

R.R. agent,
spvsy, staff of
telegraph,R.R.'
pub. utilities,
elected civic
and county offi-
cials, newspaper
reporter, etc.

 

h.

value or equity
$2,000 to $5,000

Stenographer,

bookeeper,

rural mail clerk; ticket agent;
auto salesman; auto, clothing,
book, drygoods salesman.

 

5.

Value or equity

$500 to 2,000

(Small Proprietors)

Drug store, hardware, gro-
cery, dime store clerks,
telephone & beauty operators,
dressmaker, practical nurse.

..-..

Value or

equity

less than $500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.

Level _ MANUAL.WORKERS SERVICE &;¥ISCEIEANEOUS LAYDJH§§R§_§ND FARMERS

1. Gentleme n: f armers;

large landowners &
operators who patronize
the local activities

2. Managers & land opera-

tors with active urban
life. (20M)

3. Small contractor Commercial pilot. Owners and operators of
who works at or good mechanized farms
superintends his jobs. (10M).

h. Construction, fac- Police captain at.al; Small landowners and
tery, or mine foreman; butcher, tailor, dry the "forgotten.farmer"
carpenter, electrTn, cleaner (small town); who owns a "decent"
plumber, welder, master Pullman conductor. place.
mech; R.R. engineer &
trainmen; linotype oper-
ator, printer.

5. Apprentice to skilled Policeman; barber, gas Tenants on good farms;
trades; Time-keeper; station op3rs.; butcher owners of farms who
R.R. firemen & brakemen; apprentice; bar tender, just manage to make a
tel. and tel. linemen: liquor salesman; head living.

medium—skilled factory waiter.
workers; lead hands, sec-
tion chiefs._

6. Semimskilled factory Taxi and truck drivers; Sharecroppers; esta-
and production workers; baggagement; delivery blished farm laborers;
warehouse-men; janitor; man; gas»station at- subsistence farmers
watchman; cook. tendant; waiter or wait- who "work out".

ress.
7. Laborer, miner, mill Domestic servant; bus Migrant workers, un-

hand; migrant worker;
section hand; scrub
woman, laundress.

boy, etc.

 

Reputed lawbreakers.

established and does
not want to be.

 

a!

 

. .4.-.

Name":

 

 

SChodl :20 . o.

 

.Grads:

Date :

 

INSTRUCTIONS

There is a need for each of us to know more about ourselves, but seldom do we
have the opportunity to look at ourselves as we are or as we would like to be. On
the following page is a list of terms that to a certain degree describe people.
Take each term separately and apply it to yourself by completing the following
sentence:

1 AM A (AN) Wrmson.

The first word in the list is meryy; so you would substitute this term in the
above sentence. It would read -- I am.a merry person.

Then decide HOW MUCH OF THE TIME this statement is like you, i.e. is typical or
characteristic of you as an individual, and rate yourself on a scale from one to
five according to the following key.

1. Seldom, is this like me.

2. Occasionally, this is like me.

3. About hglf 9f tag time, this is like me.

h. A good deal:of the tipg, this is like me.

5. Mpgt 9f the time, this is like me.
Select the number beside the phrase that tells how much of the time the statement
is like you and insert it in Column I on the next page.

_gzgygpgg Beside the term.mer;y number two is inserted to indicate that--
Occasionally, I am a merry person.

now go to Column 11. Use one of the statements given below to tell HOW YOU
FEEL about yourself as described in ColumnI.
l. I vegy much dislike being as I am in this respect.
2. I dislike being as I am in this respect.
3. I neither dislike nor like being as I am in this respect.
h. I like being as I am in this respect.
5. I very much like being as I am in this respect.

You will select the number beside the statement that tells how you feel about the
way you are and insert the number in Column 11

EXAMPLE: In Column 11 beside the term mezzy, number one is inserted to indicate
that I vegy much dislike being as I am in respect to the term, merry.
the that "being as I am? refers to the way you described yourself in Column I.

 

Finally, go to Column III; using the same term, complete the following
sentence:

I WOULD LIKE TO BEAA (AN) -PERSON.

Then decide HOW MUCH OF THE TIME you would like this trait to be characteristic of
you and rate yourself on the following five point scale:

1. Seldom, would I like this to be me.

2. Occasionally, I would like this to be me.

3. About half of the time, I would like this to be me.

u. Agood deal 9: th e time, I would like this to be me.
5. Most of the time, I would like this to be me.

You will select the number beside the phrase that tells how much of the time you
would like to be this kind of a person and insert the number in Column 111.

EXAMPLE: In Column III beside the termgmezzy, the number five is inserted to in-
dicate that Most of the time, I would like to be this kind of a person.

Start with the word gggdemig and fill in Columns I, II and III before going on to
the next word. There is no time limit. Be honest with yourself so that your
description will be a true measure of how you look at yourself.

EX. merry

academic
acceptable
active
adjusted
ambitious
argumentative
artistic
attractive
capable
competent
confident
conforming
considerate
creative
dependable
efficient
energetic
enthusiastic
fearful
free
friendly
impatient
independent
inspired

intellectual

III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33-
3h.

36.
37.
38.
39.
ho.
hl.
1+2.
1.3.
u.
us.
1.6.
1.7.
us.
1.9.
50.

intelligent

II

III

 

logical

 

 

mature

nervous

 

 

organized
original

 

odd

 

optimistic

 

persistent

 

 

persuasive

productive

 

purposeful -

 

rebellious

 

responsible

 

 

scholarly

scientific

 

secure

 

self-sufficient all,

serious

 

 

 

sociable

studious

 

successful

 

teachable

 

tolerant

 

worthy

 

 

 

DIRECTIONS NAME:
SCHOOL:
GRADE:le__e. DATE:

 

 

 

The purpose of this study is to measure the meanings that different things have to
different people. One way of describing the meaning of something is to Judge it
against a series of descriptive scales. In taking this test, please make your
Judgments on the basis of what these things mean to you: On each page of this
booklet you will find a different concept to be Judged and beneath it a set of
scales. The scales consist of a pair of descriptive Opposites such as fairaunfair.
Ydu are to rate the concept on each of these scales.

HERE IS THE WAY YOU ARE TO USE THE SCALES:

If you feel the concept at the top of the page is vegy closely related to one end of
the scale, you should place your check mark as follows:

cold 3 : : : : : hot

or
cold : : : : : : X hot

If you feel that the concept is quite closely related (but not extremely) to one side
as opposed to the other, you should check as follows:

active ________ :_";K__,: : :

 

' passive

or

active : ~: :eMJL-l-:.".

passive

 

If the concept seems only slightly related to one side of the scale as opposed to
the other, you should check as follows:

strong : : X : :

“w : weak
or

strong : _: : X“. : : weak

If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale, both sides eggally associated,
or if the scale is completely irrelevant, then you should check.the middle space on
the scale, as follows:

 

 

hazy : : X_ :.“- : M:mww_mw“clear
or
hazy : : : X : _: : clear

 

 

The success of this method depends upon.how accurately you describe your own
picture of the concepts. werk at a fairly high speed without worrying or puzzling
over individual items, but at the same time be as careful and accurate as you can.
Remember to describe your own personal ideas.

G0 AHEAD IN ORDER -- PLEASE DO NOT LOOK BACK AT YOUR CWPIETED FACES!

page 1

$329.1».

 

sweet : : : : : : sour
dishonest : : : : : : honest

 

E

large ..,......,.-.-.. ...--:

 

 

 

 

 

happy : : :. : ..__.- : : sad
fast : : : : : : slow
weak : :. : _ : : : strong
unfair : : _: : : . fair
passive : : w : :. : : active

 

 

nice . : : : : : : awful
dirty : : : : : . clean

 

sweet

dishonest

large

happy

fast

weak

unfair

passive

nice

dirty

STUDYING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

page 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

: : : : : .sour
: : : : : : honest
: : : : : : small
: : : : : : sad

: : : : : slow
: : : : : : strong
: : : : : : fair
: : : : : : active
: : : : : : "awful
: : :_, : clean

 

 

sweet

dishonest

large

hEPEy

fast

weak

unfair

passive

nice

dirty

BEING INTELLIGENT

page 3

sour

 

honest

 

small

 

sad

 

 

slow

 

 

strong

 

fair

 

active

 

 

awful

 

 

.fl-m“""-clean

page A

TEACHERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sweet : : : : : : " sour
dishonest : : : : :. : honest
large : : : : : : small

happy : : : : : : sad

fast : : :. : : .: slow
weak a. : : l : : : . strong

unfair : : -:_Melmee:r_mmmMe: : ..... -fair
passive.__”mwmw: N: _: : : : active

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nice : : _: : : : awful
dirty- : : ,: : : : _clean

 

 

 

 

sweet

dishonest

large

happy

fast

weak

unfair

passive.

nice

dirty

IEARNING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o o o o o
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
o e o. e e e
O o e o o o
O I O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O .0 O O
o e o o o o
O I O

o o .. o
e o o o o o
0 o o o o o
e e o o o o
o 0,. 0,. e e o
o s o o o o
o o o e e o
I o o o o o
o e o e o o
e o o o o e

 

page 5

sour

honest

small

sad

slow

' strong

_fair

active

awful

clean

sweet

dishonest

large

happy

fast

weak

unfair

passive

nice

dirty

page 6

SOUI‘

 

honest

 

 

e--. small

sad

 

slow

 

 

 

 

strong

fair

 

active

 

 

awful

 

o o o o o o
o o o e e e
o o e o e o
o e o e o o
o e o o e o
o o e o o o
e e o e o e
o e e c o o
o e e e o e
e o e o o o
o e e o e e
o e e e . e e
o o e o e e
O o e o o e
I ‘.l v“... pnfiu~~
o o e e o e
e _ o e o o o
e o o o o e
o e e e e e
o e e e o o
0 e ...o o o 0

clean

 

. ('7’

'O

sweet

dishonest

large

happy

fast

weak

passive

nice

dirty

FRIENDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O D I C O

I O O C O O

O O O Q C O

O O O O O O

O O O . O O

. . . . 0 . - . -O~fl.oo~.--ow-QO-Q¢
O O O O I O

O O O O O O

O O C O O O

O O O O p O O

o O O O O o

O O C O O I

O O O C O O

O O O O O O

O O O O O

O O O Q . O . .

O C O C C O

. . . . o t . *mekooeuo-
O O O O O O

. O . O , O O O

 

page 7

sour

henest

small

sad

-slow

strong

fair

active

clean

page 8

FAMILY

sweet : : : : : : sour

 

 

 

 

 

 

dishonest : : 2 : : : honest
large : : : : : small
happy : : : : : sad
fast : : : : : : slow
weak : : : : : strong
unfair : ° _: : : : fair
passive : : : : : : active

 

E

nice

dirty : : : clean

sweet

dishonest

large

happy

fast

weak

passive

nice

dirty

BEINGVAPPROVED

OF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P8889

sour

honest

small

slow

strong

fair

active

clean

sweet

dishonest

large

happy

fast

weak

unfair

passive

nice

dirty

MYSELF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e o 0 0 o
o e o 0 o
O O O 0 O O
O . O - 0 O O— O
O O O O O O
0 O O O O o
o 0 o o o
o O o o o
O 0 O O O 0
e o o o O O
o a o O o o
—. 0 . O . O. O O 0
O I O O O O
o o o o o 0
0 O O I O O
0 o O o e o
O o o O o o
I‘m-o "wean-.te.’ . . . . . .
o o O o o o
O O . O O O. O

 

 

 

page 10

sour

honest

small

sad

slow

strong

fair

active

awful

clean

fie-‘12.?) Ubt URL?

.. ,,;;_,.. - ‘
iii! in? sf: ‘5} <‘ i. ‘11:; V”
OCT 7 1950 u '

.OCTZ 2 1960 M "
My) 10-3; ‘KON'I’I

JAN 2.". .ad a m
4, . .; ~~

FEB 6 1961 .51, a 386

312.1,).0 ICI‘OJ "

‘0‘"

     

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llillllmlmMWNlmlmlllllmWHWIH‘IWIIIWI
31293000095335