III I ‘ II I I‘I‘ ‘ II I; II I “ I II I I g: I| I II I‘M I ;|‘ I N‘ I I | I I I II I l “I | I de 1004:. (DUI-h THE EFFECTS OF HIGH AND AVERAGE PROBLEM ADMISSION ON THE CONTENT OF FREE VERBALIZATIONS Thesis for the Degree of M. A, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BENJAMIN BEIT-HALLAHMI 1968 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LIBRARY 3 1293 01068 9523 Michigan State ‘ University "III"? II was I I IIIIIK BIIIIIEIIY IIII:..h ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF HIGH AND AVERAGE PROBLEM ADMISSION ON THE CONTENT OF FREE VERBALIZATIONS by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi This study investigated verbal behavior in an un— structured situation, with special reference to defensive patterns and self exposure. The independent variable in this study was the readiness to admit having personal problems, as measured by the number of problems checked on the Mooney Problem Check List. The dependent variable was the S's behavior in three free verbalization sessions, of 20 minutes duration each. One hundred ninety-eight male students in General Psychology 151 classes took the MPCL. Those in top 15% of the distribution and those in the middle 15% were asked to participate in free verbali- zation sessions. Eleven of the High Problem Admitters (HPA) and nine of the Average Problem Admitters (APA) com- pleted three sessions of free verbalization under the following conditions: The S had to spend 20 minutes at a time alone in an undecorated 10 x 10 room, instructed to talk to a microphone about "anything at all," with the knowledge that E is going to listen to the recording. The Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi free verbalization recordings were scored on ten formal categories. It was predicted that the ambiguity and lack of reinforcement le the situation would arouse anxiety in the Ss and that the HPA would be more anxious than the APA. Accordingly, it was predicted that the HPA group will show more defensive behavior and less readiness for self exposure. The results gave little support to the original predictions, since the difference between the two groups was found to be significant only on one out of ten categories. The following explanations for the lack of clear- cut results were suggested: 1) The situation failed to arouse the Ss' anxiety, because of the permissive atmosphere and the small number of sessions. 2) Talking on an impersonal level was the charac- teristic reaction of college students to the impersonal situation. 3) The number of Ss was too small. An unexpected finding was the high degree of con- sistency in the Ss' behavior over the three sessions. Approved: gxfifltbg/ é§:¥ 94: ”41% (Zr Dommiftee ai an Date: ~ {/91th 9’. 7 ( THE EFFECTS OF HIGH AND AVERAGE PROBLEM ADMISSION ON THE CONTENT OF FREE VERBALIZATIONS BY Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Gary E. Stollak, the chairman of the thesis committee, for his guidance and encouragement throughout the course of work on this study. A special debt of gratitude is due the other mem- bers of the committee, Dr. T. M. Allen and Dr. N. Abeles, for their interest in the study and their help in solving certain problems. I am also indebted to Pam Jackson, who collaborated with me in carrying out the experiment and the scoring, and to Jim Love, who helped with the scoring. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . . . . . I. Psychoanalytic studies of free association . . . . . II. Autoanalytic studies . . . . III. Other related studies of free verbalization . . . . IV. Studies of the Mooney Problem Check List . . . . . . . . A Conceptualization of the Free Verbalization Process . . . . . . . Theoretical Background of Predictions. I I 0 METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mooney Problem Check List . . . . Selection Procedure . . . . . . . . . Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page ii vi 13 13 13 14 16 17 18 18 19 19 21 CHAPTER III 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Consistency Over Sessions . Differences in Raw Scores . Scores-Per-Minute Analysis . IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES APPENDICES The Importance of the Talking Factor Personal and Non-Personal Topics the Two Groups . . . . . Other Factors . . . . . . . Suggestions for Future Research Summary . . . . . . . . . . iv in Page 22 22 24 24 3O 32 33 35 36 36 38 41 LI ST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Means and standard deviations of the Mooney scores for the two groups . . . . 15 2. Maudsley Extraversion and Neuroticism scores for 6 Ss of each group. . . . . . 16 3. Percentage of agreement between two coders on each category . . . . . . . . 20 4. Mean correlation coefficients over the three sessions for the ten categories. . 22 5. Reliability coefficients for the 10 categories over three sessions. (N = 20) O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 23 6. Mean raw scores of high and average problem admitters over three seSSionS O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 25 7. Simple correlations of silence scores and other categories (N = 20) . . . . . . . 26 8. Simple correlations of actual talking time and other categories (SPM). (N = 20) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 27 9. Mean scores-per-minute and total talking time in minutes of high and average problem admitters over three sessions. . 28 10. Summary of results regarding hypothesis teSting O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 31 APPENDIX I. II. III. IV. LIST OF APPENDICES The Mooney Problem Check List . . . . . Mean, standard deviation, and range of the Mooney Problem Check List scores Recruiting letter to 60 selected S tudents O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Instructions to Ss . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of the II Coding Categories vi Page 42 44 45 47 48 I . INTRODUCTION Review of the Literature I. Psychoanalytic studies of free association. In an article describing the psychoanalytic method, Freud (1904) discussed "free association" as the basis and the essence of his method: The patient lies on a couch; the analyst is behind him. In Freud's words, the patient "is spared every muscular exertion and every distracting sensory impression" (p. 266) and then is asked to follow the "basic rule," "to relate everything that passes through" his mind (p. 267). Though widely used in therapy, the process of free association has been little studied or analyzed outside the analyst's office. A comprehensive review of the liter- ature reveals the following studies. Temerlin (1956) had patients rated by their thera— pists as good or poor free associators and correlated the ratings with the performances on an autokinetic experiment. The good free associators, who were supposed.to be more flexible, actually were more variable in judging the ex- tent of autokinetic movement on successive trials, thus supporting his hypothesis. 2 Schneider (1953) found a correlation between Rorschach balance indexes and free association behavior in therapy, also as rated by the therapist. Since the therapist in this study had access to the Rorschach rec- ords, this finding is a little less than convincing. Bordin (1966a, 1966b) tried to create an experi- mental analogue of the psychoanalytic situation by having subjects free-associate in the presence of a completely passive E. Relating personality characteristics, as measured by a variety of psychological tests, to the Ss response to the free association task, rated on scales of Involve- ment, Spontaneity and Freedom, Bordin (1966b), found the following discriminating characteristics: 1. Rorschach R, Sex, F%, H and Hd scores. 2. Perception of reversible figures. This paucity of findings in Bordin's study is somewhat disappointing, in View of the large number of measures studied and the considerable SOphistication in the use of statistical techniques. Bordin's major conclusion from this study was that the free association task is similar in nature to the task of the S in a projective technique like the Rorschach. Colby (1960) studied the effects of the therapist's presence or absence on 85' free association, in another form of an experimental analogue to the psychoanalytic situation. He found that the therapist's presence was re- lated to more references to persons in the 83' verbaliza- tion, while in his absence there were more references to objects. Dimascio and Brooks (1961) and Lowinger and Huston (1955) reported case studies that showed that free asso- ciation behavior and transference behavior, which had been thought possible only in the traditional psychoanalytic setting, were actually manifested in the therapist's absence. II. Autoanalytic studies. Guerney and Stollak (1966) coined the term "auto- analysis" to describe the following situation: The sub- ject is alone in a room, seated in a comfortable chair, and instructed to "think aloud" into a microphone, with the obvious knowledge that the experimenter is going to listen to his thoughts via the recordings made of his verbalizations. The two most important differences between auto- analysis and psychoanalytic free association are: l. The absence of a therapist. 2. The S is given a frame of reference, calling him to concentrate on feelings and interpersonal relation- ships, and sometimes even suggesting specific topics. Studies of autoanalysis, mainly as a simulation of psychotherapy, were done by Foley (1966) and Steinberg (1966). In these studies the verbalizations by the 55 were directed, by giving them a list of topics for dis- cussion before each autoanalytic session. Stollak and Guerney (1964) found autoanalysis to be a "promising" therapeutic technique, enabling them to reach juvenile delinquents, who would not enter voluntarily into an interpersonal relationship with a therapist or other "authority" figures. In this case the impersonal nature of the situation proved to be an asset. In a study most similar in method and theoretical background to the present one (Stollak gt_§l., 1967), the effects of self-ideal-self discrepancy on the content of free verbalizations were studied. Two groups, one of 83 having high self-ideal-self discrepancy (SISD) and the other of Ss having low SISD, as measured by the Leary In- terpersonal Check List (Leary, 1957), were compared on ten categories, some of them similar to those used in the pre- sent study. As compared to high SISD Ss, low SISD Ss talked significantly more, made more direct references to the experimental situation, and used the present tense more in their free verbalizations. In this study, 55 with low SISD were considered Inore "healthy" psychologically, and the findings were viewed 533 supporting the speculations originating in Rogers' (1961) conceptualization of changes in the process of therapy. III. Other related studies of free verbalization. Weintraub and Aronson (1962) studied patterns of defensive speech in 10 minute samples of free verbaliza- tion, with E present. A defensive pattern of speech was claimed to be characterized by the following categories of analysis: non-personal tOpics, direct references to the experimental situation, quantity of speech when used together with "qualifiers" and "retractors" and shift to past tense. Martin, Lundy and Lewin (1960), in a study on the effects of therapist communication in a simulated therapy situation, had one group of Ss instructed to talk to a tape recorder, imagining that they actually were in psycho- therapy. Over five sessions, the Ss in the group showed a rise in anxiety, as measured by GSR,accompanied by avoid- ance of "emotionally important content." The authors describe this finding as suppressive behavior accompanied by anxiety. IV. Studies of the Mooney Problem Check List Singer & Stefflre (1957) correlated scores on the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey with the number of problems checked on the MPCL. On the basis of these cor- relations, they describe high problem admitters as tending to be withdrawn, unsociable, emotionally unstable, sub- jective, less friendly and less cooperative. They suggest that a high score on the MPCL may indicate basic adjust- ment problems in the individual. Hammes (1959) compared the MPCL scores of 83 who scored high and those who scored low on the Heineman Forced- Choice Anxiety Scale. High anxiety 83, according to the Heineman Scale were also significantly higher in the num- ber of problems checked on the MPCL. Barnett & Tarver (1959) compared the MPCL scores of delinquent and non-delinquent girls. The delinquent girls were significantly higher on the number of problems checked. Heller (1966) found significant differences between high problem admitters and low problem admitters on the MPCL in a simulated therapeutic interview situation. In this situation, high problem admitters emitted the greatest number of self references and problem statement when con- fronted by ambiguous evaluation by interviewers. Mooney & Gordon (1950), on the basis of their ex- perience with the MPCL, claimed that students whose total number of problems checked is in the upper 25% of the local distribution are likely candidates for counseling. Gordon (1950) found that a direct relationship exists between the number of problems marked and the de- sire for counseling; all of the students in his sample in the upper 10% in number of problems marked desired counseling and the majority in the upper 25% desired it. A Conceptualization of the Free Verbalization Process "Free association is a process characterized by keeping situational pressures at a minimum in order to maximize the patient's or subject's response to the flow of his ideas, images, bodily sensations and affects" (Bordin 1966b, p. 30). Bellak (1961) and Rapaport (1958) suggested that Obsessives are better able to deal with the adaptive and synthesizing aspects of free association and will be more bound to external stimuli, while hysteric and schizophrenic patients will be more able to respond in the regressive phase and, especially schizophrenics, are more .bound by internal stimuli. This differentiation of broad diagnostic categories was of little help, since the present study dealt with "normal" Ss outside the therapy situation. However, view- ing references to external stimuli as a defensive reaction was supported by the Weintraub and Aronson (1962) study. Leaving aside, for the moment, notions derived from psychotherapy, let us try to assess the basic characteris- tics of the free verbalization task, especially as perceived by the S. The task, as defined in the present study, fol- lows the description of autoanalysis presented above with one important exception: the instructions are to talk about "anything at all." The main quality of this situa- tion for the S is its ambiguity, or lack of structure. What would be the effect of this ambiguity on the S in the situation? From the literature it seems clear that ambiguity in a situation tends to arouse anxiety. Ambiguity has been found to increase anxiety in a clinical interview (Dibner, 1958), in a group setting (Smith, 1957) and in the context of a psychological ex- periment (Dittes and Zemach, 1964). That ambiguity in- creases anxiety has never been really disputed, even by the proponents of its use in psychotherapy. Let us take one step further and try to predict what would be the S's basic problem in this fulfilling the de- mands of this most unstructured "projective" test (Abt and Bellak, 1950). Judging on the basis of clinically oriented litera- ture, we would suggest that the basic problem would be talking, or basically responding to the task. Dollard and Miller (1950) say: "Talking, talking while anxious is the 'patient's work' . . . else the patient will remain silent or hit upon lines of sentences which do not produce anxi- ety" (p. 245). Similarly, in the free verbalization situa- tion, the S's task is to talk, as he is asked, "about anything at all" despite his anxiety in this situation: either becoming silent or talking about "neutral" topics (direct references to the situation or non-personal references, as suggested by Weintraub and Aronson, 1962). The findings of the study by Martin, Lundy and Lewin (1960), quoted above, are especially significant in this context, since it showed that: a) The autoanalytic situation caused a rise in anxiety. b) This anxiety was accompanied by avoiding "sensi- tive" topics. An important characteristic of the situation, some- times neglected in free verbalization studies, is that this situation is basically interpersonal, even when the S is asked to verbalize when he is alone, since he knows that somebody is going to listen to the recordings. Actually, the S is not talking to himself. He is talking to us, and we should keep it in mind. The fact that the situation is interpersonal is evident in the large number of personal references to the absent experimenter, noted by Stollak and Guerney (1964) and in the Lowinger and Huston (1955) study. The unique feature of this form of interpersonal communication is the complete lack of reinforcement or feedback on the part of the listener.\ This feature, no doubt, can contribute to the S's anxiety in the situation. To summarize, the free verbalization situation is characterized by its anxiety arousing qualities, which are a) Ambiguity. 10 b) Absence of any feedback or reinforcement. Under these conditions, we would expect two basic problems for the SS: 1) How to keep talking while anxious. 2) The content of his verbalization; talking on personal or impersonal topics. Theoretical background of predictions. Rogers' (1961) description of a process conception of psychotherapy was the source of our predictions regard- ing the differences in behavior between the two groups, in the experimental situation. Rogers describes changes in the client in psycho- therapy as occurring along six dimensions: 1) In relationship to feelings. 2) In the manner of experiencing. 3) In personal constructs. 4) In communication of self. 5) In relationship to problems. 6) In interpersonal relations. If we take the first dimension, for example, Rogers states that at one extreme the person disowns his feelings, and does not recognize them as being related to the self. At the other extreme, the person experiences a continually changing flow of feelings, and he is freely and acceptantly "living them." 11 Although Rogers was interested in the changes along these dimensions, brought about by psychotherapy, we as- sumed, for the purpose of this study, that behaviors at each end of these dimensions are characteristic behaviors of psychologically more "healthy" and less "healthy" individuals. Using the first five out of the six dimensions proposed by Rogers we can derive empirical predictions concerning the behavior of more "healthy" individuals in the free association situation. We would predict that those persons will: 1. discuss more positive and negative feelings, 2. refer more to present life situations, 3. refer more to themselves and less to others, objects or to non-personal experiences, 4. be more ready to discuss problems, 5. be more certain and less qualified in their speech, and 6. have fewer silence periods compared with a group of less "healthy" persons. In the present study, Ss whose scores on the Mooney Problem Check List were in the middle range, around the mean of the MSU group were regarded as more "healthy," and these predictions were applied to them. 85 with scores on the Mooney Problem Check List in the tOp fifteen percent of the distribution were 12 considered less "healthy," and served as the comparison group. It was expected that the anxiety arousing quali- ties of the experimental situation, as discussed above, would affect the High Problem Admitters and bring about more de— fensive behavior. The findings of the study by Stollak §E_al. (1967), reported above, were regarded as supporting the use of Rogers' theoretical framework in the present study. II . METHOD Subjects The 20 85 who took part in the free association sessions were selected from among 198 male students in General Psychology 151, Spring term, 1967, who were ad- ministered the Mooney Problem Check List in their classes. The Mooney Problem Check List The Mooney Problem Check List (College Form) is a list of 330 potential problems, out of which the subject is asked to check the items that correspond to his actual problems (see Appendix I). As one of the reviewers of this instrument has noted (Burgess, 1966): "The MPCL does not pretend to be a measuring device . . . there is no mys- tery here, only a straightforward list of problems and an obvious approach which leaves the counselee free to com- municate to the extent of his readiness to do so" (p. 318). What Burgess implies here is that actually the MPCL does not measure "problems" (there are very few validational studies), but may be measuring the readiness to admit problems. 13 14 Selection Procedure On the basis of the MPCL we computed one score: the total number of problems checked. The following criteria were used in selecting the 85 for the two groups: Mooney Problem Checklist Group 1: (Average problem admitters.) $5 for this group were selected from among those whose scores were be- tween the 45th and 60th percentiles of the distribution. Group 2: (High problem admitters.) 53 for this group were selected from among those scores were in the 85th to the 99th percentile range of the distribution. In using the MPCL scores we used the middle and the tOp groups in the distribution, rather than the top and the bottom groups, since we regarded those admitting a small number of problems as no less deviant than those in the top group. A student checking three problems on the MPCL, out of the possible 330, cannot be considered problem-free, but probably defensive, when the group average is around 40 problems checked. Appendix II includes the means and standard devia- tions of the Mooney scores distribution. On the basis of these distributions and following the criteria that we had set before, two groups of 30 students each were selected. We expected problems in getting students to volunteer for such a procedure, which involved eight sessions, and so 15 we selected 60 students, among whom we hoped to find 20 volunteers, 10 for each group. Throughout the selection process students were being identified by student number and not by name, in order to avoid any later recognition of a subject as belonging to the High Problem Admitters group (HPA) or the Average Prob- lem Admitters (APA) by the experimenters, who were to meet him before each session. The list of 60 student numbers was given to a faculty member, who returned a list of 60 names. These 60 students were contacted by mail, and asked to participate, with "research credit" as the main incen- tive (See Appendix III for recruiting letter). Eleven students from the High Problem Admitters (HPA) group and nine students from the Average Problem Ad- mitters (APA) group responded positively to the recruiting letter and completed at least three sessions of the free verbalization procedure. Table 1 lists means and standard deviations of the Mooney Problem Check List scores for the two groups. Table l.--Means and standard deviations of the Mooney scores for the two groups. Group Mean S. Deviation APA 37.4 1.3 HPA 83.8 14.8 16 The median age for Ss in the HPA group was 19 years and 6 months, and for Ss in the APA group 19 years and 3 months. Through a research project conducted by Dr. Paul Bakan and using some of the same 85, we were able to obtain Extraversion and Neuroticism scores for 12 out of our 20 Ss, 6 out of each group. Though the data are incomplete, the trend, as shown in Table 2, is clear. Table 2.--Maudsley Extraversion and Neuroticism scores for 6 $5 of each group. HPA APA N =v6 N = 6 Mean S. Devi- Mean S. Devi? tion tion t Significance Extraversion 4.16 1.36 5.16 1.07 1.29 NS Neuroticism 3.66 1.50 1.16 0.40 3.60 p<.005 The six Ss from the APA group are a little higher on Extraversion, while the six 55 from the HPA group are much higher on Neuroticism. The last difference is statis- tically significant. We can see these data as partially supporting our notion of the HPA group as being more "deviant." Setting The sessions took place in a small (10 x 10) un- decorated, soundproof windowless room. The furniture in 17 the room included a small table, a cardboard box, and a comfortable aluminum and saran cord lounge chair in which the S could sit in a reclining position, almost lying down on his back. This reclining position was chosen to mini- mize discomfort and facilitate free expression (Berdach and Bakan, 1967). An ash tray was provided for the S's use. The tape-recorder used to record the free verbaliza- tions was kept outside the room and Operated by the experi- menter. The microphone was tied to a string running around the S's neck and was placed on his chest, thus minimizing discomfort. Procedure The S was met outside the experimental room and led in by the B. After being comfortably seated, with the micrOphone hanging near the S's chest, the instructions (see Appendix IV) were read by the E. The essence of the instructions was the suggestion to "say aloud whatever- comes to your mind." After reading the instructions the E left the room and after closing the door turned on the tape recorder and knocked on the door, as the signal for S to begin. The session lasted for 20 minutes and at the end of this period E knocked on the door again and then entered the room. Each S had eight sessions of 20 minutes each, but only the first three sessions (60 minutes of talking time) were analyzed for the purposes of this study. 18 Contact between Ss and Es was kept minimal and formal, to avoid any influence or inadvertent reinforce- ment. The answer to all questions about the purpose of experiment was that the purpose was just what was stated in the instructions. The Es had no knowledge of the S's classification as an APA or a HPA. Coding On the basis of the tape recordings made of the Ss verbal productions, these productions were coded in the following way: the 60 minutes of recorded talking time were divided into 240 intervals of 15 seconds each. Each 15 seconds interval was scored for the categories listed below. In any interval (except when Silence was scored) more than one category could be scored but any category could be scored only once in any given interval. The two coders were unaware of the classification of a S as an APA or a HPA. Categories The following categories were used in coding the recordings: 1. Expression of positive feelings. 2. Expression of negative feelings. 3. Discussion of others. 4. Discussion of self. 19 5. Discussion in past tense. 6. Discussion in present tense. 7. Direct references to the experiment, experi- menter or setting. 8. Discussion of problems. 9. Active c0ping with problems. 10. Uncertain and qualified speech. 11. Silence. In deciding on the categories and defining them opera— tionally we used the experience gathered in using similar categories in the Winetraub & Aronson (1961), the Foley (1966) and the Stollak gt_§1. (1967) studies. For definitions of scoring categories see Appendix V. Category 9 had to be dropped, due to the small number of scorings obtained in it. Reliability Table 3 lists the percentage of agreement between two coders on each category. Hypotheses 1. There will be more instances of expression of positive feelings (Category I) in the APA group compared with the HPA Goup. 2. There will be more instances of negative feel- ings (Category 2) in the HPA group compared with the APA group. 20 Table 3.-—Percentage of agreement between two coders on each category. Category Percentage of Agreement 1 92 2 90 3 96 4 91 5 85 6 94 7 100 8 98 9 no scores 10 84 11 100 3. There will be more discussion of others (Cate- gory 3) in the HPA group, compared with the APA group. 4. There will be more self references (Category 4) in the APA group, compared with the HPA group. 5. There will be more references to the past (Category 5) in the HPA group, compared with the APA group. 6. There will be more discussion in the present tense (Category 6) in the APA group, compared with the HPA group. 21 7. There will be more discussion of problems (Category 8) in the APA group, compared with the HPA group. 8. There will be more direct references to the situation (Category 7) in the APA group, compared with the HPA group. 9. There will be more instances of uncertainty (Category 10) in the HPA group, compared with the APA group. 10. There will be more instances of silence (Cate- gory 11) in the HPA group, compared with the APA group. Analysis of Data For each S, the total number of responses on each category, for each session, was obtained. This score has served as the basic raw score for analysis purposes. We have performed three basic Operations on these raw scores as we progressed with our analysis: 1. Combining the three scores for the three sessions together. 2. Comparing the combined raw scores. 3. Dividing raw scores by talking time and obtain- ing Scores-per-Minute. Computation of central values for the various scores, transformation of scores, and computation of correlation coefficients were all performed through the use of the MSU CDC 3600 computer. Two tailed t tests were used to deter- mine significance of differences between means. III. RESULTS Consistency Over Sessions The Ss behavior over the three sessions was found to be highly consistent. Mean correlation coefficients between the mean scores, on each category, over three ses- sions are reported in Table 4 below. Table 4.--Mean correlation coefficients over the three sessions for the ten categories. Category Mean Correlation Positive Feelings .425 Negative Feelings .465 Self .755 Others .755 Past .775 Present .735 Direct .765 Problems .625 Uncertain .775 Silence .825 22 23 The mean correlation coefficients reported in Table 4 were transformed into reliability coefficients, by using the Spearman-Brown formula. Table 5 presents the reliabil- ity coefficients, which ranged from .689 to .933 with eight of them above .800. It was decided, therefore, to combine the scores obtained on each category over the three sessions, and treat the 60 minutes of free verbalization time as one unit. Table 5.--Re1iabi1ity coefficients for the 10 categories over three sessions. (N = 20) Category Reliability Coefficient Positive Feelings .689 Negative Feelings .722 Self .902 Others .902 Past .911 Present .892 Direct .907 Problems .833 Uncertain .911 Silence .933 24 Differences in Raw Scores Means and standard deviations for the combined raw scores were computed in each group for the ten categories. Table 6 summarizes the differences between the two groups on ten categories. From this table the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. There is a statistically significant difference between the two groups on one out of ten categories. 2.There is a difference between the two groups in the amount of silence during the three sessions or, in other words, in the amount of talking. 3. Though in some cases the differences between means look substantial, they did not reach statistical significance because of large variances. It was hypothesized that the amount of talking done during the sessions might have an effect on scores in the other categories. Table 7 summarizes the coefficients of correlation found between silence and other categories in the combined (APA + HPA) group of 20 $5. The coefficients are all nega- tive, since the correlation is with Silence. The correla- tion with talking is in the Opposite direction, obviously. Scores-Per-Minute Analysis The correlation coefficients reported in Table 7 clearly point to the possibility of contamination Of 25 mz ~m.a mm.vo ww.om No.mm wm.m~ mocmaflm mz H>.H mm.wm nh.¢m mm.mm om.mm cwmunoocs mz mm. mm.ma mm.m~ mv.mm om.m~ mamanoum mz HHIH oa.ma mm.ma mv.mm om.om pomuwo mz Hm.H hm.mm oo.hma oo.mm hm.mna unemmum mz mmm. hw.mm mm.m¢ Hm.mm mm.wm ummm mo. v m mm.~ ~m.mm mm.~s No.5m ma.maa mumnno mz mo.H mw.mm mm.mma mm.mv ma.oma maom mz Gm. me.ma we.am -.GH mm.s~ mmanammm m>fiummmz mz ooa. mv.oa mm.ma hm.HH mm.ma mmsaammm O>Huflmom OOOMOHMAcmflm u OOHDOH>OD cmmz coaumw>mn COOS mnomoumo cumocmum unmocmum Am 21 «ma “Ha I zv «mm .mcoammom mossy Hm>o mnmuuflfium fimanoum mommm>m one goes mo monoom sun cmmzll.m magma 26 Table 7.--Simp1e correlations of Silence scores and other categories (N = 20). Category Correlation Positive Feelings -.474 Negative Feelings -.438 Self -.826 Past -.557 Present -.946 Direct -.254 NS Problems -.165 NS Uncertain -.809 various categories by the silence-talking factor, and for that reason it was decided to use a new measure, taking into effect the amount of talking done by each S. An actual talking time in minutes was computed by: 1. Dividing the Silence score (which was actually the number of 15 second intervals during which the S was silent) by 4, and thus obtaining an actual silence time in minutes. 2. Subtracting the actual silence time from the potential talking time of 60 minutes. This computation was done for each individual 8. Then, each S's score on each category was divided by his 27 actual talking in minutes. Thus, a Score Per Minute (SPM) was Obtained for every 5, and these scores were used to Obtain central SPM values for the two groups. Table 8 reports the coefficients of correlation between talking time and SPM scores on the nine categories in the combined (APA + HPA) group of 20 55. Table 8.--Simple correlations of actual talking time and other categories (SPM). (N = 20) Category Correlation Positive Feelings .232 NS Negative Feelings .074 NS Self .334 NS Past .372 Present .584 Direct .117 NS Problems -.227 NS Uncertain .687 Others .573 As Table 8 shows, the use of SPM instead of raw scores partially neutralized the effect of talking as a contaminating factor in scores. However, even with the use of SPM there are still significant positive correla- tions with four categories. 28 Table 9 reports mean Scores Per Minute and actual talking time for the two groups, together with the respec- tive t values for differences. The values reported in Table 9 were used to test our ten hypotheses. Table 10 summarizes the hypothesis testing. 29 mz Hm.H om.ma Ha.m¢ Ho.a am.mm Ammuscns any man» mcnxama mz ma. am. mm. mm. as. mamanoum mo coflmmsomflo O O O O O nommmm mz mm a om Hm H mm an a pmflmaamsv one cflmuumoca mmsflpcsonusm Ho mz am. an. mm. mm. mm. .nmucmsnnmmxm ucmsnumm Ixm ou mocmummmu uomuflo O O O O O mmcmp mz mm H Hm mm m mm em m ucmmmum mo cowmmsomflo mz mm. he. mm. mm. mo.H wmcmp ummm mo conmsomflo mo. v m mm.~ «w. Hm.H mm. NH.N muwnuo mo coflmmsomaa mz nma. vb. an.m mm. he.m mamm mo coammsomflo . . . . . manammm mz mam H mm hm mm Hm O>Hummmc mo scammmnmxm . . . . . manammm mz mow on em ma Hm m>fluflmom mo coammmumxm OOGOOHMAcmHm u cowuma>mo cmmz cowumflbmo new: huommumo pumpcmum oumocmum Am I zv Add 21 mumuuflEO¢ mumunwepd Emanoum mmmum>¢ smanoum swam .mGOHmmmm moan» nm>o mumuuflfipm EOHQOHQ ommnm>m one amen mo mouscHE OH mafia mcwxamu Hmuou can mussflzlummlmmuoom :mszI.m magma IV. DISCUSSION In terms of direct support given to the hypotheses, only one hypothesis (no. 3) was supported by a finding of a statistically significant difference in the predicted direction. In addition, the differences on four other categories were in the predicted direction though they did not reach statistical significance. Rather than dealing with specific hypotheses and discussing their confirmation or disconfirmation, it seems that it would be more fruitful to deal with patterns of behavior in the two groups, since in our predictions we were trying to delineate patterns of reaction to the ex- perimental situation, that would differ in the two groups. In the introductory section, we tried to analyze the effect of the experimental setting on the S, and we concluded that the main characteristics of the situation, a) ambiguity, and b) lack of reinforcement, will arouse anxiety, and thus create the basic problem that the S has to face. 30 31 Table 10.--Summary of results regarding hypothesis testing. Hypothesis Result I 1 NS 2 NS 3 Supported 4 NS 5 NS 6 NS 7 NS 8 NS 9 NS 10 NS *TO use this table consult the list of hypotheses in the Method section. We expected the heightened level of anxiety to create two specific problems: 1. How to keep talking while anxious, 2. talking on personal or impersonal tOpics. It was, therefore, expected the two groups would differ in their level of anxiety and, thus, in their reaction to the situation. The HPA group, viewed as the more "disturbed" or deviant group, was expected to become more anxious, considering the findings of Singer & Stefflre (1957) and Hammes (1959). 'k 32 This was the background of the specific predictions. We followed the Rogerian analysis of change in psychotherapy to recognize specific modes of behavior, in which the two groups differ. One possible explanation for the absence of more clear-cut differences between the groups is that the situation failed to bring out the differences, because it was not actually as anxiety provoking as was assumed. Ambiguous and non-reinforcing as the situation was, the permissive atmosphere of the sessions, and the possi- bility that lack of reinforcement was interpreted as a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the experimenters may have further reduced whatever anxiety the situation might have aroused. It may be that more structure in the form of instructions to discuss feelings, personal prob- lems, etc. could have brought out more differences between the two groups. Another reason for the failure to arouse the ex- pected level of anxiety may have to do with the fact that only three sessions of free verbalization were analyzed. As the findings of Martin, Lundy and Lewin (1960) show, there was a rise in anxiety when 83 were in a free verbal- ization situation for five consecutive sessions. The Importance of the Talking Factor. Talking was recognized as the basic and most dif- ficult task of the S in the situation. It was predicted 33 that the HPA group, being more anxious, would be less talk- ative. The actual difference was in the Opposite direction. Let us examine the meaning of this "taklativeness" in the HPA group. Does the HPA group come out as more "open"? Are the HPA 53 more ready to discuss personal experiences? Table 8 reports the correlation of actual talking time with content categories. As we see in this table, talking time is significantly and positively correlated with four content categories: Discussion in Past, Present, Uncertain and Qualified Speech and Discussion of Others. Two of these categories, Uncertain and Others, can be re- garded as defensive, in View of the analysis offered by Winetraub A & Aronson (1961). If we go back to our original analysis, we may say that the HPA talked more, but failed to talk on a personal level. Personal and Non-Personal Topics in the Two Groups. It is interesting to note that personal tOpics and feelings were little discussed by $5 of both groups. Table 9, showing the SPM scores, shows low scores for both groups on Positive Feelings, Negative Feelings and Problems. Category 9, Active COping with problems, had to be dropped due to very few scores in it. This means that both groups were somewhat "defensive" in the situation. 34 According to Dollard and Miller (1950), we would predict either silence or talking on neutral topics as a reaction to an anxiety provoking situation. It was predicted that the HPA group would react with silence and more neutral activity (talking on non- personal topics), compared to the APA group. The results show that both groups reacted with talking on neutral topics. Silence as a defensive measure is possibly used only in extreme anxiety arousing situations. A medium degree of anxiety, such as with most 53 here, did not bring about this reaction. One source of the failure to predict Ss reaction to the situation (and the predictions of silence and "de- fensive" measures) might have been the application of clinically derived concepts to a basically normal pOpula— tion. We applied a clinical prediction of behavior fol- lowing ambiguity-related anxiety to a situation that for most Ss did not arouse extreme anxiety. It may well be that talking on impersonal topics is the apprOpriate reaction of college students to such a sit- uation. Most of the previous studies were done in a medical or psychotherapeutic setting, or at least Ss were told about the similarity of the situation to psychotherapy. In the present study the setting was completely neutral, and no references to psychotherapy were made. Under such condi- tions, it might have been apprOpriate not to "Open up." 35 It may be that this is the characteristic behavior of Ss in such a neutral non-personal situation. Colby (1960) found that in the absence of an observer to free associations there is a decline in references to persons, and in the Observer's presence there is an activation of the "imago system," or the system of personal images and feelings. Other Factors. A possible source of trouble in a study of this scope is the small number of Ss, that certainly might have contributed to the lack of statistical significance in the differences. Another possibility is that we might have had more significant differences, had we chosen the Low Problem Ad— mitters group for comparison with the Average Problem Ad- mitters. It seems that, if we consider extremely low scores on the MPCL an indication of defensiveness, we could have more defensive behavior manifested in the situa- tion, had we used the Low Problem Admitters. There seems to be a relationship between "productivity" on the MPCL and productivity in the free verbalization situation. The HPA group in the present study was the more productive one in terms of talking. It may be that the Low Problem Ad— mitters would have been the less productive in the situation, compared with the APA. 36 Suggestions for Future Research. Some of the explanations Offered here could be tested in future research projects. It seems worthwhile to examine Ss behavior in a free verbalization situation with a greater number of sessions per S. It could, then, be determined if a greater number of sessions would cause a rise in anxiety and a change in Ss behavior. A worthwhile variation in the procedure would be giving more specific instructions, and especially direct- ing 83 towards discussions of personal problems and feelings. Having a completely passive observer in the room with the S could bring about a similar effect, according to the study by Colby (1960), discussed above. We would assume that the presence of an Observer would increase references to persons and discussions of a more personal nature. Then it would be possible to see if there are any differences in the degree of self exposure in Ss differing in their number of admitted problems or their self-ideal- self discrepancy. Summa y. The results of the present study failed to support the predictions concerning differences between the two groups in the free verbalization situation. The following explanations for the lack of clear-cut differences were attempted: 37 1) It was possible that the permissive atmosphere in the situation failed to arouse anxiety, as had been as- sumed, and thus did not give rise to different patterns of reaction to such anxiety. The 83 went only through three sessions of this procedure, and this was not enough to induce anxiety. 2) The similar behavior of talking on a non-personal level in both groups might have been the appropriate or characteristic reaction of college students to the neutral, non-personal situation. 3) The small number of Ss might have contributed to the lack of statistically significant differences. 4) More differences might have been found between a group of Low Problem Admitters and a group of Average Problem Admitters, instead of APA and HPA, as was the case in this study. REFERENCES Abt, L. E. and Bellak, L. Projective Psychology, New York: Knopf, 1950. Barnett, C. D. and Tarver, W. N. Self-rated problems of institutionalized delinquent Vs. non-delinquent girls. Psychol. Reports, l959,5,333-336. Bellack, L. Free association: conceptual and clinical as- pects. Internat. J. of Psychoanal. 1961,42J9-20. Berdach, E. and Bakan, P. Body position and the free re- call of early memories. Psychothoeray, l967,4,101- 102. ' Bordin, E. S. Free association: an experimental analogue of the psychoanalytic situation, in L. A. Gotts- chalk and A. H. Auerbach, (eds.) Methods of Research in Psychotherapy, New York: Appleton, 1966a. Bordin, E. 8. Personality and free association, J. Consult. Burgess, T. C. A review of the Mooney Problem Check List. In Buros, O. K. (Ed.) The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.= Gryphon, 1965. Colby, K. M. Experiment on the effects of an observer's presence on the imago system during psychoanalytic free-association. Behavioral Sci., 1960,§,216-232. Dibner, A. S. Ambiguity and anxiety, J. ab. and soc. Psychol., 1958,§§,165-174 DiMascio, A. and Brooks, C. W. Free association to a fantasied psychotherapist: a case report. Arch, Dittes, J. E. and Zemach, M. The effect of cognitive am- biguity on anxiety and affiliative preference. Paper presented at the APA convention, Los Angeles,. 1964. 38 39 Dollard, J. and Miller, N. S. Personality and Psycho- therapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. Foley, L. J. Positive and negative attitudes related to verbal behavior in a therapy-like task. Un- published M.A. thesis. Rutgers, the state uni- versity, 1966. Freud, S. (1904) English translation in Freud,s., Collected Papers, Vol. I, pp. 264-271. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Gordon, L. V. The problems of two university populations. Educ. Res. Bull., 1950, 29, 209-215. Guerney, B. and Stollak, G. Problems in living, psycho- therapy process research, and an autoanalytic method. In Stollak, Guerney and Rothberg (eds.) Psychotherapy Research. Chicago: Rand, 1966. Hammes, J. A. Relation of manifest anxiety to specific problem areas. J. Clin. Psychol. 1959, 15, 298- 300. ’— Heller, K. Ambiguity in the therapeutic interview. Paper presented to the 3rd conference on research in psychotherapy, Chicago, 1966. Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality, New York: Ronald, 1957. ' Lowinger, P. and Huston, P. E. Transference and the physi- cal presence Of the physician. J. Nerv. ment. Dis., 1955, 121, 250-256. Martin, B., Lundy, R. M. and Lewin, M. H. Verbal and GSR responses in experimental interviews as a function of three degrees of "therapist" communication. g; ab. and soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 234—240. Mooney, R. L. and Gordon, L. V. The Mooney Problem Check List Manual. New York; The Psychological Corpora- tion, 1950. Rapaport, D. The theory of ego autonomy: a generalization. Bull. Menninger Clinic, 1958, 22, 13-15. Rogers, C. R. The process equation of psychotherapy. Am. J. of Psychotherapy, 1961, 15, 27-45. 40 Schneider, S. F. Prediction of psychotherapeutic relation- ship from Rorschach's test. An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1953. Singer, S. L. and Stefflre, B. Concurrent validity of the Mooney Problem Check List. Personnel and Guidance, 1957, 35, 298—301. Smith, E. E. The effects of clear and unclear role expecta- tions on group productivity and defensiveness. J;_ ab. and soc. PsychglJ 1957, §§J 213-217. Steinberg, J. A. A Comparison Of autoanalytic behavior with and without the influence of interpersonal sugges— tion and feedback. An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers, the State University, 1966. Stollak, G. and Guerney, B. Exploration of personal prob- lems by juvenile delinquents under conditions of minimal reinforcement. J. Clin. Psychol.,l964, 20, 279-283. — Stollak, G. B., et al. The effects of Self Ideal-Self discrepancies on the content of free association, Paper presented at the 1967 MPA meeting in Chicago, Ill. Temerlin, M. K. One determinant of the capacity to free association in psychotherapy. J. ab. and soc. Psychol., 1956, 52! 16-18. Weintraub, W. and Aronson, H. The application of verbal behavior analysis to the study of psychological defense mechanisms: methodology and preliminary report. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis" 1962, 134, 169-181. APPENDICES 41 APPENDIX I . The Mooney Problem Check List. 42 43 Cir. I Tot. HPD MOONEY PROBLEM CHECK LIST 1950 Ross L. MOONEY COLLEGE {EVISION Assisted by LEONARD V. GORDON FORM FLE Bureau of Educational Research Ohio State University SRA Age ................ Date of birth ...................................................................................................... Sex ................ Class in college ............................................................ Marital status .............................................................. (Freshman, Sophomore. etc.) (Single. married. etc.) SPR Curriculum in which you are enrolled ........................................................................................................... (Electrical Engineering. Teacher Education. Liberal Arts. etc.) Name of the counselor, course or agency for whom you are marking this check list ................................................................................................... PPR Your name or other identification, if desired ......................................................................................................................................................... Date ...................................................... CSM DIRECTIONS This is not a test. It is a list of troublesome problems which often face students in college—problems HF of health, money, social life, relations with people, religion, studying, selecting courses, and the like. You are to go through the list, pick out the particular problems which are of concern to you, indi- cate those which are of most concern, and make a summary interpretation in your own words. More specifically, you are to take these three steps. MR First Step: Read the list slowly, pause at each item, and if it suggests something which is trou- bling you, underline it, thus “34. Sickness in the family.” Go through the whole list, underlining the items which suggest troubles (difliculties, worries) of concern to you. Second Step: After completing the first step, look back over the items you have underlined and ACW circle the numbers in front of the items which are of most concern to you, thus, “ 34. Sickness in the family: V Third Step: After completing the first and second steps, answer the summarizing questions on pages 5 and 6. FVE \P CTP _ 0 Copyright 1950. All rights reserved. 56-177T The Psychological Corporation ted in L'.S.A. 304 El“. Il-SEII Stat, New York 17, N. 3'. TOTAL. , , , ‘ .‘U. ”Our. ov .- raw-gnu...- vvu-uu “VIII-ll“ JV“, “Human-c .0 Page 2 Feeling tired much of the time Being underweight Being overweight Not getting enough exercise Not getting enough sleep Too little money for clothes . Receiving too little help from home Having less money than my friends Managing my finances poorly . Needing a part-time job now . Not enough time for recreation . Too little chance to get into sports . Too little chance to enjoy art or music . Too little chance to enjoy radio or television . Too little time to myself . Being timid or shy . Being too easily embarrassed . Being ill at ease with other people . Having no close friends in college . Missing someone back home . Taking things too seriously . Worrying about unimportant things . Nervousness . Getting excited too easily . Finding it difficult to relax . Too few dates . Not meeting anyone I like to date . No suitable places to go on dates . Deciding whether to go steady . Going with someone my family won't accept . Being criticized by my parents . Mother . Father . Sickness in the family . Parents sacrificing too much for me . Not going to church often enough . Dissatisfied with church services . Having beliefs that differ from my church . Losing my earlier religious faith . Doubting the value of worship and prayer . Not knowing how to study effectively Easily distracted from my work Not planning my work ahead Having a poor background for some subjects . Inadequate high school training . Restless at delay in starting life work . Doubting wisdom of my vocational choice . Family opposing my choice of vocation . Purpose in going to college not clear . Doubting the value of a college degree . Hard to study in living quarters . No suitable place to study on campus . Teachers too hard to understand . Textbooks too hard to understand . Difficulty in getting required books 61. 62. . Graduation threatened by lack of funds 64. 65. 106. . Dull classes . Too many poor teachers . Teachers lacking grasp of subject matter 1 10. Not as strong and healthy as I should be . Allergies (hay fever, asthma, hives, etc.) . Occasional pressure and pain in my head . Gradually losing weight Not getting enough outdoor air and sunshine Going in debt for college expenses Going through school on too little money Needing money for gaduate training Too many financial problems . Not living a well-rounded life . Not using my leisure time well Wanting to improve myself culturally . Wanting to improve my mind . Wanting more chance for self-expression . Wanting a more pleasing personality . Losing friends . Wanting to be more popular . Being left out of things . Having feelings of extreme loneliness . Moodiness, “having the blues" . Failing in so many things I try to do . Too easily discouraged . Having bad luck . Sometimes wishing I’d never been born . Afraid of losing the one I love . Loving someone who doesn’t love me . Too inhibited in sex matters . Afraid of close contact with the opposite sex . Wondering if I’ll ever find a suitable mate . Parents separated or divorced . Parents having a hard time of it . Worried about a member of my family . Father or mother not living . Feeling I don’t really have a home . Differing from my family in religious beliefs . Failing to see the relation of religion to life . Don’t know what to believe about God . Science conflicting with my religion . Needing a philosophy of life Forgetting things I've learned in school . Getting low grades . Weak in writing . Weak in spelling or grammar . Slow in reading . Unable to enter desired vocation . Enrolled in the wrong curriculum . Wanting to change to another college . Wanting part-time experience in my field . Doubting college prepares me for working College too indifferent to student needs Teachers lacking personality Page 3 Page 4 111. Poor posture 112. Poor complexion or skin trouble 113. Too short 114. Too tall 115. Not very attractive physically 116. Needing money for better health care 117. Needing to watch every penny I spend 118. Family worried about finances 119. Disliking financial dependence on others 120. Financially unable to get married 121. Awkward in meeting people 122. Awkward in making a date 123. Slow in getting acquainted with people 124. In too few student activities 125. Boring weekends 126. Feelings too easily hurt 127. Being talked about 128. Being watched by other people 129. Worrying how 1 impress 13801316 130. Feeling inferior 131. Unhappy too much of the time . Having memories of an unhappy childhood 133. Daydreaming 134. Forgetting things ' . Having a certain nervous habit 136. Being in love 137. Deciding whether I’m in love 138. Deciding whether to become engaged 139. Wondering if I really know my prospective mate 140. Being in love with someone I can’t marry 141. Friends not welcomed at home 142. Home life unhappy 143. Family quarrels 144. Not getting along with a member of my family 145. Irritated by habits of a member of my family 146. Parents old-fashioned in their ideas 47. Missing spiritual elements in college life 148. Troubled by lack of religion in others 149. Affected by racial Or religious pICIUdice 0. In love with someone of a different race or religion 151. Not spending enough time in study ‘ aving too many outside interests . Trouble organizing term papers 154. Trouble in outlining or note-taking 155. Trouble with oral reports 156. Wondering if I’ll be successful in life 157. Needing to plan ahead for the future 158. Not knowing what I really want ' Trying to combine marriage and a career 0. Concerned about military service igé- NOt having a good college adviser - Not getting individual help from teachers - Not enough chances to talk to teachers 64- Teachers lacking interest in students . Teachers not considerate of students’ feelings 166. Frequent sore throat 167. Frequent colds 168. Nose or sinus trouble 169. Speech handicap (stuttering, etc.) 170. Weak eyes 171. Working late at night on a job 172. Living in an inconvenient location 173. Transportation or commuting difficulty 174. Lacking privacy in living quarters 175. Having no place to entertain friends 176. Wanting to learn how to dance 177. Wanting to learn how to entertain 178. Wanting to improve my appearance 179. Wanting to improve my manners or etiquette 180. Trouble in keeping a conversation going 181. Being too envious or jealous 182. Being stubborn 0r obstinate 183. Getting into arguments 184. Speaking or acting without thinking 185. Sometimes acting childish or immature 186. Losing my temper 187. Being careless 188. Being lazy 189. Tending to exaggerate too much 190. Not taking things seriously enough 191. Embarrassed by talk about sex 192. Disturbed by ideas of sexual acts 193. Needing information about sex matters 194. Sexual needs unsatisfied 195. Wondering how far to go with the opposite sex 196. Unable to discuss certain problems at home 197. Clash of opinion between me and parents 198. Talking back to my parents 199. Parents expecting too much of me 200. Carrying heavy home responsibilities 201. Wanting more chances for religious worship 202. Wanting to understand more about the Bible 203. Wanting to feel close to God 204. Confused in some of my religious beliefs 205. Confused on some moral questions 206. Not getting studies done on time 207. Unable to concentrate well 208. Unable to express myself well in words 209. Vocabulary too limited 210. Afraid to speak up in class discussions 211. Wondering whether further education is worthwhile 212. Not knowing where I belong in the world 213. Needing to decide on an occupation 214. Needing information about occupations 215. Needing to know my vocational abilities 216. Classes too large 217. Not enough class discussion 218. Classes run too much like high school 219. Too much work required in some courses 220. Teachers too theoretical 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. Frequent headaches Menstrual or female disorders Sometimes feeling faint or dizzy Trouble with digestion or elimination Glandular disorders (thyroid, lymph, etc.) Not getting satisfactory diet Tiring of the same meals all the time Too little money for recreation No steady income Unsure of my future financial support Lacking skill in sports and games Too little chance to enjoy nature Too little chance to pursue a hobby Too little chance to read what I like Wanting more worthwhile discussions with people Disliking someone Being disliked by someone Feeling that no one understands me Having no one to tell my troubles to Finding it hard to talk about my troubles Afraid of making mistakes Can’t make up my mind about things Lacking self-confidence Can’t forget an unpleasant experience Feeling life has given me a “raw deal” Disappointment in a love affair Girl friend Boy friend Breaking up a love affair Wondering if I’ll ever get married Not telling parents everything Being treated like a child at home Being an only child Parents making too many decisions for me Wanting more freedom at home Sometimes lying without meaning to Pretending to be something I’m not Having a certain bad habit Unable to break a bad habit Getting into serious trouble Worrying about examinations Slow with theories and abstractions Weak in logical reasoning Not smart enough in scholastic ways Fearing failure in college Deciding whether to leave college for a job Doubting I can get a job in my chosen vocation Wanting advice on next steps after college Choosing course to take next term Choosing best courses to prepare for a job Some courses poorly organized Courses too unrelated to each other Too many rules and regulations Unable to take courses I want Forced to take courses I don’t like 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 32 1. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. Having considerable trouble with my teeth Trouble with my hearing Trouble with my feet Bothered by a physical handicap Needing medical advice Needing a job during vacations Working for all my expenses Doing more outside work than is good for me Getting low wages Dissatisfied with my present job Too little chance to do what I want to do Too little social life Too much social life Nothing interesting to do in vacations Wanting very much to travel T00 self-centered Hurting other people’s feelings Avoiding someone I don’t like Too easily led by other people Lacking leadership ability Too many personal problems Too easily moved to tears Bothered by bad dreams Sometimes bothered by thoughts of insanity Thoughts of suicide Thinking too much about sex matters Too easily aroused sexually Having to wait too long to get married Needing advice about marriage Wondering if my marriage will succeed Wanting love and affection Getting home too seldom Living at home, or too close to home Relatives interfering with family affairs Wishing I had a different family background Cir. I Tot. HPD FLE SRA SPR PPR CSM Sometimes not being as honest as I should be Having a troubled or guilty conscience Can’t forget some mistakes I’ve made Giving in to temptations Lacking self-control ACW Not having a well-planned college program Not really interested in books Poor memory Slow in mathematics Needing a vacation from school Afraid of unemployment after graduation Not knowing how to look for a job Lacking necessary experience for a job Not reaching the goal I’ve set for myself Wanting to quit college Grades unfair as measures of ability Unfair tests Campus activities poorly co-ordinated Campus lacking in school spirit Campus lacking in recreational facilities Second Step: Look back over the items you have underlined and circle the numbers in front of the problems which are troubling you most. TOTAL. . Third Step: Page: 5 and 6 Page 5 Page 6 3. Whether you have or have not enjoyed filling out the list, do you think it has been worth dOing? ............ Yes. ............No Could you explain your reaction? Third Step: Answer the following four questions. QUESTIONS 1. Do you feel that the items you have marked on the list give a well-rounded picture of your problems? ............ Yes. .............No If any additional items or explanations are desired, please indicate them here. 2. How would you summarize your chief problems in your own words? Write a brief summary. 4. If the opportunity were offered, would you like to talk over any of these problems with someone on the college staff? ............ Yes. ............ No. If so, do you know the particular person(s) with whom you would like to have these talks? ............ Yes. ............ No. (Questions are continued on next page» ) APPENDIX I I Mean, standard deviation, and range of the Mooney Problem Check List scores. N = 198 x 3 Range Mooney 40.0 23.7 2 - 142 44 APPENDIX I I I Recruiting letter to 60 selected students. The following concerns the second phase of the per- sonality research study for which you have already taken three tests, and have received one (1) hour of research credit. You have been chosen to participate in the second phase of the experiment. This phase will require four hours of your time, for which you will receive four (4) hours of research credit. Perhaps this is more research credit than you need to fulfill your requirements for Psy- chology 151; so consider this carefully before you decide to volunteer for this part of the study. We are doing an experiment concerned with free association--an activity which many MSU students have found exciting, rewarding, and challenging. Our plan is to see you at least twice a week, for half hour seesions, scheduled according to your convenience. At this point, we are ready to start scheduling half-hour appointment times. In the following blank schedule, please indicate only your free half-hour breaks. We will schedule you on 45 46 the basis of your free time; therefore INDICATE ONLY THOSE PERIODS DURING WHICH YOU ARE USUALLY FREE. After the schedule has been planned, we will notify you of your regular appointment times. If you do not care to participate, please sign your name on the schedule sheet, leave the schedule blank, and return it. APPENDIX IV Instructions to 85. "We are interested in obtaining information about the free associations of college students. We would like you to sit here alone for the next 20 minutes and say aloud whatever comes into your mind. There are no restrictions as to language used, topics, problems or issues discussed. Some people have difficulty talking out loud alone, so if you do have difficulty, just sit back, try to relax, and something will come to you to talk about. Again, feel free to talk about anything at all. As you can see by this microphone, we are tape recording your talk and will analyze it later. To preserve confidentiality, when I leave and knock on the door, state your student num— ber, session number, and today's date and then begin. I will knock again at the end of the 20 minutes." 47 APPENDIX V Definitions of the 11 Coding Categories “a, Categories 1 and 2: Expression of positive (1) and nega- tive (2) feelings. Any reference to having a certain feeling in the present or in the past was scored as an expression of feeling. Feelings were scored in category 1 or category 2 according to their place on a good-bad dimension as per- ceived by the S; and elegance of language was not important .for categorization purposes. If "feel? was used as a sync- nym for "think," the category was not scored. Examples of words and phrases included in state- ments of positive and negative feelings for categories 1 and 2, respectively, are as follows: Category 1: love, like, dig, cool, groovy Category 2: hate, can't stand, bugged, pissed, ugh Category 3: Discussion of Others. Any reference to a person other than the g, whether known or unknown by him, but excluding the E, were scored as non-personal references. Examples of words or inferred subjects of statements scored as non-personal references are as follows: he, they, 48 49 she, others, and general references such as "peeple," "one, ll "you. II Category 4: Discussion of self Any reference that g made to himself directly, or any statement in which S referred to himself and others jointly was scored as discussion of self. Examples of words or inferred subjects of state- ments scored as discussion of self are as follows: I, me, we, us. Category 5: Discussion in past tense Any statement by § about a past event, feeling, or situation was scored as discussion in past tense. Category 6: Discussion in present tense Any statement by g about a present event, feeling, or situation was scored as discussion in present tense. Category 7: Direct references Any statement made by g which included any of the following three referents was scored as a direct reference: a. the experimenter b. the experiment itself or experimental method c. the immediate physical surroundings Category 8: Descriptive discussion of problems Any reference to or description of an actual hypo- thetical problem was scored as descriptive discussion or 50 problems. Words and phrases used in scoring descriptive discussion of problems included the following: "bothers me," "worry about," "trouble," "confused," "afraid," "problem I have," "difficulty," "I don't like to. . .but I have to," "I don't know what to do about. . ." Category 9: Discussion of personal coping with problems Any reference made by S to an apparently positive means of coping with an actual or hypothetical problem in his personal life was scored as discussion of personal coping with problems. An example follows: "I am going to talk to X about our relationship." Category 10: Uncertain and qualified speech Any use of qualifiers, retractions, and explanations regarding statements about feelings, situations and events were scored as evidence of guardedness. Examples are as follows: a. Phrases, words, or clauses indicating uncertainty (e.g., "I suppose," "I guess," "I wonder," "I don't know," "it seems," "maybe," "possibly"). b. The use of modifiers that partially or totally retracted from the immediately preceding state- ment (e.g., "more or less," "except," "although," "but," "however," "nevertheless,") c. Words or phrases which introduced an element of vagueness (e.g., "what one might call," "whether or not.") 51 d. Words or phrases indicating a causal relation- ship (e.g., "because," "due to," "on account of"). Category 11: Silence Any interval of 15 sec. during which no words or sounds were uttered by S was scored as silence. “8-919% "llllllllilllllll