EVENTS O? COLLEGE DRINKERS

Thesis {OF ”19 Degree 0* M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

William Duane Kukuk
1960

WWW

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman thh chockout tram your ncord.
TO A INES return on or before date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afflrmutlvo Action/Emu Opportunity Induction
Walla-9.1

TRAITS OF COLLEGE DRINKERS

BY

WILLIAM DUANE KUKUK

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Ps ychology

1960

 

 

 

A I .- .v .
I. . .1. ..A
.I I
y . .1. .
. . u
, l .
. ~
. .
.
u .
E {I
.II .
l 1
— ¢ 7
n . ~
It 1
. (.
.v I . .
. . Al x . o
. t .
I. t .
. l J
.. . x
. r .
i
. . . .l
I ‘ a»
.. . i ..
.A; . I .
. . a r l l. u l.
u I
,. . z
. t
y .
. q I. . .3
.I .u. o
n u
y . a
I . . 1
4 q
x
n l , ' . I
.
‘A
a d . . .
a ., I
\. ..
.

..
2.; .
r

l

 

-" VA’ .: ’1‘ 1‘) ii

ACKNOW LED GMEN T

I wish to express my sincere appreciation
for the stimulating and constructive advice received
from Dr. Henry C. Smith throughout the execution of
this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. T. M. Allen

and Dr. Donald M. Johnson for their helpful advice.

TRAITS OF COLLEGE DRINKERS

BY

WILLIAM DUANE KUKUK

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the College of Science and Arts 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

1960

iv
William Duane Kukuk

ABS T RAC T

The purpose of the study was to determine whether light
and heavy college drinkers differ with respect to (l) personality,

(2) physique, (3) smoking habits, and (4) the drinking habits of their
parents. The subjects were 225 Michigan State University male
undergraduate students. They were classified into light, moderate,
and heavy drinkers on the basis of their replies to a questionnaire.

The means of 22 personality traits measured by inventories
were computed for both the heavy and light drinkers. Significant
differences were obtained on four of the traits. The heavy drinkers
were less orderly, less conforming, less ambitious, and possessed
more manifest sexuality than the light drinkers.

Students with dominant endomorphic, mesomorphic, or
ectomorphic physiques were determined by utilizing an index of
height over cube root of weight, plus subjective estimates of body
type. The results indicated that endomorphs were heavier drinkers
than the ectomorphs.

The students were also classified into light, medium,
and heavy smokers. The heavy smokers were significantly more
often heavy drinkers.

The students were also asked to indicate whether both,
one, or neither of their parents used alcoholic beverages. Signifi-

cantly more heavy drinkers came from homes where both parents drank.
,/

V

Willi am Duane Kukuk

These results with college students were compared and
contrasted with the results of studies of alcoholics. While heavy
college drinkers do not seem to possess the emotional instability
of the alcoholic, they do tend to be relatively disorganized in their
daily lives, a quality that alcoholics possess to an extreme degree.
The limitations of the methodology of the present study as well as

some of its implications for further research were discussed.

A Q

Date MW \CG‘) quD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...................................

LIST OF TABLES .......................................

I. INTRODUCTION

II. METHOD AND PROCEDURE ......................

Subjects

Classification of Drinkers
Measurement of Personality Traits
Measurement of Physique

Smoking Habits

Drinking Habits of Parents

III. RESULTS ................................ . . . . . .

Personality Differences

Lack of Orderlinvess

Nonconformity

Sexuality

Ambition

Emotionality and Emotional Control
Differences in Physique
Drinkin and Smoking

Drinking I..al,"“‘ of Parents

IV. CONCLUSIONS ..................................

vi

10

11

11

l3

13

15

15

16

18

19

19

2.2

vii
Section Page

Similarities and Differences between Alcoholics

and Heavy College Drinkers 22

Limitations of the Study 24

Implications for Further Research 24

V. SUMMARY ....................... .. ..... 27
REFERENCES........... .............. 29
APPENDICES .......... 32
Appendix A--Summary of the H. C. S. Inventory 33
Appendix B--Index of Height over Cube Root of Weight 36
Appendix C--Norms of the H. C. S. Inventory 37

Appendix D--Items from the orderliness, ambition,

conformity, and sexuality scales 38

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Drinking classification of subjects in first sample .....
Drinking classification of subjects in second sample . . .
Selected items from the orderliness, ambition, con-
formity, and sexuality scale .................... . . . .
Mean scores, mean differences, and ”t" values of light
and heavy college drinkers on the H. C. S. Personality
Inventory .................................... . . . .
Trait loadings on the neuroticism factor and the "t"
values for the traits found in the present study ........
Drinking habits of students classified according to
dominant somatotypes .................. . ..... . . . . . .
Relationship between drinking and smoking ...... . . . . .
Relationship between drinking habits of the students

and their parents ............................ . . . . . .

viii

Page

12

17

18

20

20

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the present study was to determine the
relationship between the verbal reports of drinking behavior among
more than 200 Michigan State University students and their, scores
on 22 personality traits measured by inventories, their body types,
their smoking habits, and the drinking habits of their parents.

The author was unable to find any studies directly
concerned with the personality trait correlates of drinking behavior
in a normal population. Yet, drinking is widespread in our society
and has significant economic and personal consequences. McCarthy
(14) and Bacon 8: Straus (1) report that between 60-65% of the people
in this country drink some type of alcoholic beverage. McCarthy
(13) also reported that the costs of maintaining courts, mental
institutions, jails, and welfare departments to care for the victims
of excessive drinking are of special concern to the psychologist, for
he has a major responsibility for increasing the knowledge of drinking
behavior and improving methods of dealing with drinking problems.

At present, our knowledge is limited because studies relating drinking
to personality and physique factors deal with alcoholics, and these
studies cannot be safely assumed to have any relation to normal
drinking behavior. These alcoholic studies are later examined in
more detail in relation to the characteristics of normal drinkers

found in the present study in the hope of clarifying the similarities and

differences between the traits of normal drinkers and alcoholics.

II. METHOD AND PROCEDURE

All of the data collected and analyzed in the present
study were obtained by questionnaire. The subjects were classified
according to the drinking habits as they themselves reported them.
Traits were measured by inventories that the students completed.
Data on height, weight, dominant body type, smoking habits, and
parental drinking habits were likewise obtained from questionnaires

filled out by the subjects.

Subjects

The subjects were 225 undergraduate students at Iviichigan
State University enrolled in a large industrial psychology course.
They ranged in age from 19 to 39 years, and were enrolled in courses
during the fall and spring quarters of the 1958-1959 academic school
year. Since only 15 females were enrolled in the course, the present
study was limited to male subjects. The numbers of subjects used
in testing various relationships are presented in the tables of results.
Two samples of subjects were used in the present study. The number
of cases found in each sample is presented in Tables 1 and 2. The
first sample consisted of the students enrolled in the course during
the fall quarter of the 1958-1959 academic year, and the second sample

consisted of those students enrolled in the course during the spring

quarter of the same academic year.

Clas sification of Drinkers

 

The drinking habits of students in the first sample were
determined from their responses to the following item: Please
indicate the extent to which you use alcoholic beverag§_s_:

1. never drink,

2. drink rarely and lightly,

3. drink frequently, but lightly,

4, drink frequently, and sometimes heavily,

5. drink frequently and heavily.
In the course of the analysis, it was felt that the item was ambiguous
and that many students might have checked choice #3, whether this
choice actually represented their actual drinking behavior or not, in
order to appear not too deviant in their drinking habits.

In the second sample, the following item was used: Please
describe your habits in the drinking of alcoholic beveriggsj

1. never drink,

2. occasionally drink light wines and beer,
3. frequently drink light wines and beer,
4. occasionally drink distilled spirits,

5. frequently drink distilled spirits.

Later in the study, references are made to light, medium, 1

and heavy drinkers. These categories are defined as follows:

"heavy drinkers" those subjects in both samples who
selected alternatives 4 and 5 in the
drinking item.

”medium drinkers" those subjects in both samples who
selected alternative 3 in the drinking
item.

"light drinkers" those subjects in both samples who

selected alternatives 1 and 2 in the
drinking item.

A non-drinker category was desired, but there were only 15 subjects
who reported that they never drank, so the non-drinkers were included
in the light-drinker category. The number of heavy, medium, and light

drinkers found in the two samples is presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Measurement of Personality Traits

 

Twenty-two scales of personality traits developed by Dr. Henry
C. Smith were used as the measure of personality. Hershey (5). in
an unpublished master's thesis, has discussed the derivation, internal
consistency, stability, and factorial independence of these scales.
Thirty true-false statements made up each of these scales except
the Breadth of Interest scale which included 60 items. A listing of
these traits is given on page 6, and a brief description of them is

presented in Appendix A.

Table 1

Drinking Classification of Subjects in First Sample

 

 

 

Drinking classification Number of cases
Heavy drinkers 25
Medium drinkers 25
Light drinkers 50
Total 100
Table 2

Drinking Classification of Subjects in Second Sample

 

 

Drinking classification Number of cases
Heavy drinkers 59
Medium drinkers 28
Light drinkers 38

Total 125

 

1. activity 12. artistic values
2. sensory awareness 13. scientific values
3. sexuality l4. religious values
4. emotionality l5. liberalism
5. optimism 16 . ambition
6. expressiveness l7. orderliness
7. thinking-extroversion 18. emotional control
8. breadth of interests 19. gregariousness
9. self-confidence 20. warmth
10. self-insight 21. dominance
ll. economic values 22. conformity

Selected items from the four scales that are most significant
with respect to the present study--orderliness, conformity, ambition,
and sexuality are presented in Table 3. The complete scales are
presented in Appendix D.

Scores on the scales were available for only the first
sample. Mean scores were separately computed for light and heavy
drinkers. Conventional ”t" tests were used to test the significance of
the differences between the means of these two groups. These results
were checked by comparing the means of the medium drinkers with

the heavy drinker s .

Table 3
Selected Items from the Orderliness, Ambition,

Conformity, and Sexuality Scales

 

Orderliness
1. I am not particularly methodical in my daily life.
2. Once I begin any task, I always finish it.
3. I can always give good reasons for my actions.
Conformity
1. I almost always feel that people approve of me.
2. I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others.
3. I am apt to criticize those who are in authority.
4. I occasionally act contrary to customs.
Ambition
1. I don't especially care for serious people.
2. I prefer the company of fun-loving people.
3. Most of my spare money is used for pleasure.
4. I enjoy taking examinations.
Sexuality
1. I like to become sexually excited.
2. I occasionally have sexual daydreams.

3. I have had considerable sex experience.

 

Measurement of Physique

 

Subjects were instructed to indicate their height to the
nearest inch, weight to the nearest pound, and their dominant body
type. In relation to body type, the subjects were instructed to check

the following item: Please describe your general physique;

 

1. I am more fat than muscular,

2. My fat and muscles are about equal,
3. I am more muscular than fat,

4. I am about as muscular as thin,

5. I am more thin than muscular.

This item was used with the first sample. An examination
of the results, however, indicated a tendency to avoid classifying
oneself as being either thin or heavy. Therefore a new item was
developed and was presented to the subjects in the second sample. The

item was worded in the following manner: Please indicate what you

 

consider to be your dominant body type:

 

1. I tend to be heavy rather than muscular or thin,
2. I tend to be muscular rather than heavy or thin,
3. I tend to be thin rather than muscular or heavy.

Subjects were classified into Sheldon‘s system of somatotypes
by using a rough approximation of a subject‘s somatotype. The index
of each subject‘s height divided by the cubed root of his weight was first

obtained. Then a condensed table of somatotypes (Appendix B)

corresponding to a given height/ weight index was used to determine
the subject's somatotype. Where two or three different somatotypes
corresponded to the same index number, the somatotype was determined
on the basis of which dominant body type a subject considered himself
as having.

The only subjects used in testing for relationships
between drinking and physique were those whose number indicated that
their body type was at least 5. Thus, a subject having a somatotype
of 4-3-2 was not included, but one of 2-2-5 was classified as being
an ectomorph and was included. Using this method in determining
dominant somatotypes, 35 subjects were found to be dominantly
endomorphs, 81 were dominantly mesomorphs, and 17 were dominantly
ectomorphs. The chi-square test of independence was used to
determine whether there was a significant relationship between

drinking and physique.

Smoking Habits

 

The subjects were instructed to indicate the number of
cigarettes they smoked per day. The following item was used to

obtain this information: Please indicate the extent to which you use

 

cigarettes:
1. never smoke cigarettes,
2. 1/4 pack or less per day,

3. more than 1/4 pack, less than 1 pack per day

10

4. 1 to 2 packs per day,

5. more than 2 packs per day.

Subjects selecting alternatives 1 and 2 were called
"light smokers”; those selecting alternative 3 were called “medium
smokers"; and those selecting alternatives 4 and 5 were called
”heavy smokers. “ Subjects from sample I were used in testing
this relationship. The relationship between drinking and smoking

was again determined by chi-square.

Drinking Habits of Parents

Subjects from the second sample were used in testing
this relationship. They were instructed to select the proper alter-

native to the following item: Please indicate the drinkinghabits

 

of your parents:

 

1. neither of my parents drink,
2. only my father drinks,

3. only my mother drinks,

4. both my parents drink.

The chi-square test of independence was used to deter-
mine whether there was a significant relationship between the '

drinking habits of the students and those of'their parents.

11

III. RESULTS

The relationships found between drinking habits and
the various personality measures are presented first; then the
relationship between drinking habits and physique; then the relationship
between drinking habits and smoking habits; and, finally, the relation-
ship between the drinking habits of the students and those of their

parents.

Pers onality Differences

 

The mean scores on each of the 22 traits were computed
for both the light and heavy drinking groups. Mean differences were
computed and the significance of these differences was determined
by using a "t" test. These results are summarized in Table 4, in
which the trait differences are listed by descending values of t. These
differences are discussed, in turn below, with the results of other
studies with which they support or conflict.

It is apparent that heavy drinkers differed significantly
from light drinkers on four of the traits. The heavy drinkers were
higher in manifest sexuality and lower in ambition, conformity, and
orderliness than the light dr’inkers. The same procedure was then

un’dertaken using medium and heavy drinkers in order to check these

7‘ ' .

p
re’sults. Very similar results were obtained. Medium drinkers were

lower in ambition, orderliness, and conformity than the heavy
drinkers. Details of these significant results are now presented with

the studies of alcoholics which appear to be related to them.

Table 4

12

Mean Scores, Mean Differences, and "t" Values of Light and Heavy

Drinkers on the H. C. S. Personality Inventory

 

----Mean scores---—

 

 

Personality trait Heavy Light Mean "t"
drinkers drinkers difference
(n = 25) (n = 50)
Orderliness 12. 3 17.1 -4. 8 3. 56>:<
Conformity l3. 3 17. 4 -4. l 3. 42*
Sexuality 19. 6 15. 9 3. 7 3. 40*
Ambition 13. 2 16. 3 -3. l 2. 82*
Thinking-extroversion 15. 4 16. 5 —l.l 1. 77
Dominance 20. 5 18.6 1.9 1.67
Emotional control 15. 2 17. 4 -2. 2 1. 67
Emotionality 16. 8 14. 1 2. 7 1. 6O
Expressiveness 17. 5 15. 2 2. 3 1. 57
Economic values 19. 2 18. 3 O. 9 l. 52
Religious values 13. 8 15. 8 -2. 0 1. 25
Artistic values 12. 0 14. 3 -2. 3 l. 25
Liberalism 19. 4 18. 3 1.1 1. 01
Warmth 14. 5 15. 7 -1. 2 1. 00
Breadth of interests 38. 4 36. 7 l. 7 . 85
Sensory awareness 18. 2 17. 6 0. 6 . 65
Self-insight 16. 9 l6. 5 O. 4 . 60
Activity 18. 6 18. 1 O. 5 . 43
Self-confidence 13. 2 13. 6 -0. 4 . 36
Gregariousness 17. 5 17.1 0. 4 . 35
Scientific values 13. 3 14. 6 -1. 3 . 31
Optimism 16. 8 17. 2 -0. 4 . Z9
>FP = . 01. (The norms of the inventory are presented in

Appendix C. )

13

Lack of Orderliness

 

In the present study, heavy drinkers scored lower on
this trait than did the light drinkers and this was the most significant
difference of the personality trait analysis. The "t" value obtained
on this trait was significant at the . 0005 level.

Similar results have been obtained in alcoholic studies.
Strecher 8: Chambers (19) commented that the alcoholic's personality
is not so much defective as it is disorganized. Kaldegg (8) found
that heavy drinkers possessed a fear of "going to pieces“ and noticed
quick incapacitation in the face of personal difficulties. Force (2)
states that the alcoholic exhibits low perseverance and is easily
distracted from what he is doing. And Lewis (10) reports that when
alcoholic patients were asked to describe as well as possible their
feelings and motivations, they consistently made such statements as
the following: ”My whole life seems to have been disordered, a lot
of nothingness, and mess and confusion of things. "

The apparent consistency of results with normal drinkers
and alcoholics suggests the hypothesis that both heavy drinkers and
alcoholics lack concrete goals, are deficient in planning, and are
disorderly in their daily living. It is also possible that the interaction
of personal disorganization and social disorganization may intensify

drinking.

Nonc onformity

 

In the present study, heavy drinkers scored significantly

14
lower on this trait than the light. drinkers. The "t" value obtained
was significant at the . 005 level.

Some results obtained from studies of alcoholics can be
spec'ulatively related to this finding. Data obtained from an inter-
disciplinary study of 46 alcoholic subjects revealed that the majority
of alcoholic patients were nonconforming in a schizoid way, which
included a basic feeling of estrangement or isolation from people.
They appear outgoing and sociable, but beneath lies a pervasive
emotional detachment from people. Manson (11) found that many
alcoholics expressed feelings of aloneness and poor interpersonal
relationships. Schaefer (16), in an unpublished doctoral dissertation,
found that alcoholics, in general, Were also schizoid. They had low
self-esteem, poor external adjustment, and poor social adjustment
as revealed by seclusiveness and feelings of rejection. Consistent
with this picture, although statistically not significant, is the finding
of the present study that the heavy drinkers were more introverted
in their thinking,

In a university setting where student drinking is forbidden
by university regulations, it seems likely that the nonconformity of
the drinkers expresses not so much a schizoid response as it does a
desire for independence and a youthful rebellion against reStrictions
of their freedom of choice. It may be, however, that for a minority,

drinking is a symptom of withdrawal rather than rebellion.

15

Sexuality

The heavy college drinkers scored significantly higher
in manifest sexuality than the light drinkers. The "t" value obtained
was significant at the . 005 level.

A few alcoholic studies lend some indirect support to
this finding. Lentz, _et_al_._ (9) report that heavy drinkers are more
tolerant of breaches of generally accepted moral conduct. They
were also more impulsive and affectionate. Schilder (17), in attempting
to determine the psychogenesis of alcoholism, found that as drinking
progresses, actions occur which show the weakening of inhibitions.

Perhaps the most relevant study is the cross-cultural
study of drinking by Horton (6). He found the more frustrated a
society was, the more heavily it drank. The simplest explanation
of the present result is that single men with high sex drives are
more sexually frustrated in a university setting and drink to relieve
the feeling of frustration. One would also expect people with a
permissive attitude toward drinking to have a somewhat similar

attitude toward sex, and would be more ready to admit ”sexiness. "

. Ambition

Heavy drinkers scored significantly lower on this trait
than the light drinkers. The obtained "t" value was significant at the
. 005 level.

This finding is quite consistent with the results of alcoholic

studies. Halpern (3), in examining Rorschach protocols of 47 alcoholics

16
reports that alcoholics do not strive for activity and aggression. They
are satisfied with a passive role in the majority of instances. Kaldegg
(8), in analyzing Rorschach, Wechsler-Bellevue, and Bender-Gestalt
test results of alcoholic patients, found that some of the outstanding
common features possessed by the alcoholic in spite of the disparities
were: potentialities not fully used, passivity, and lack of drive.
Schaefer'(16) has also found that alcoholics tend to have few interests,
and quit readily under difficulty. Their plans. are unrealistic, and
they indulge in autistic thinking as a substitute for achievement.
Psychological conflicts and withdrawal from external interests in
reflected in anergic symptoms and in low energy levels.

Hershey's factor analysis of the 22 personality scales
used in the present study revealed that Factor F included the traits
of ambition and orderliness. This suggests that heavy drinkers may

tend to be unambitious because of their lack of concrete goals, their

disorderly living habits, and their deficiency in planning.

i

Emotionality and Emotional Control

 

Previous alcoholic studies, in general, point out that
alcoholic patients possess more emotionality and less emotional
control than non-alcoholics. Syme (20) found that the alcoholic has
a potential for relatively uncontrolled emotional reactions. Hampton
(4), in a psychometric study of alcoholics, also found that alcoholics

as a whole possessed emotional instability, with a weak degree of

l7

restraint and poise. Schaefer (16) states that one of the personality
types many alcoholics fall into involves over-emotionality, the
person being moody, unrestrained, and uncontrolled in his reaction
to frustration.

The results of the present study lend only slight statistical
support to the conclusion that normal drinkers share the alcoholic's
traits of high emotionality and poor emotional control. Hershey's
factor analysis revealed that. Factor B was identifiable as a ”neuroticism"
factor. The trait loadings on the factor and the ”t" values obtained

for these traits in the present study are shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Trait Loadings on the Neuroticism Factor and the ”t"

Values for the Traits Found in the Present Study

 

 

Trait Factor loading ”t" value
Lack of emotional control . 86 1. 67
Emotionality . 6O 1. 60
Pessimism . 59 . 29
Lack of self-confidence . 57 . 36
Lack of orderliness . 54 3. 56

 

Thus, the lack of orderliness was the only trait in this factor that

significantly differentiated the heavy drinkers from the light drinkers,

18
although emotional control and emotionality were suggestive. The
heavy drinkers were not. significantly more pessimistic or more
lacking in self-confidence than the light drinkers. It may be that
the lack of orderliness of the heavy drinkers accounts for the other

insignificant relationships.

Differences in Physique

 

Light, medium, and heavy drinkers of both samples
classified according to dominant somatotypes were used as subjects
in this analysis. Calculation of the chi-square yielded a value which
was significant at the . 05 level. The results indicated that the
- ectomorphs were predominantly light drinkers and the endomorphs

were heavy drinkers. These results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6
Drinking Habits of Students Classified according

to Dominant Somatotypes (n : 133)

 

Amount of drinking --------- Dominant somatotypes ----------

Ectomorphs Me somorphs Endomorphs

 

Light drinkers 10 28 8
Medium drinkers 4 24 8
Heavy drinkers 3 29 19

 

These results support Sheldon‘s hypothesis that the ectomorphic-

cerebrotonic type person would be resistant to habits. He stated

l9
specifically that persons high in this trait do not fall into well-
establljished habits like drinking, smoking, or the use of drugs. In
an unpublished master's thesis, however, Plath (15) found that the
ectomorphs were predominantly heavy smokers. Therefore, on the
basis of this finding, one would have predicted that the ectomorphs
would also be heavy drinkers. The students might have been more
reluctant to classify themselves as heavy drinkers than as heavy
smokers, and this might account for the conflicting results obtained.

On the other hand, ectomorphs may actually be heavy smokers but

lightudrinkers: endomorphs, light smokers but heavy drinkers.

Drinking and Smoking

 

Light, medium, and heavy drinkers from Sample 1
classified into light, medium, and heavy smokers were used as
subjects in testing this relationship. A chi—square value was obtained
which was significant at the . 005 level. These results are presented
in Table 7. The results support those obtained by McArthur, 31$
(12) who found that non-smokers are significantly often (. 01) non-

I
drinkers, and heavy smokers are also heavy drinkers.

Drinking Habits of Parents

 

Heavy, medium, and light drinkers from Sample 2 served
as subjects in testing this relationship. A chi-square value was obtained
which 'was significant at the . 001 level. These results are presented

in Table 8.

20

Table 7

Relationship between Drinking and Smoking (n = 100)

 

._ ________ A . _________
Amount of drinking mount Of smoking

 

 

Light Medium Heavy
smokers smokers smokers
Light drinkers 29 10 7
Medium drinkers 10 11 6
Heavy drinkers 9 7 11
Table 8

Relationship between Drinking Habits of the

Students and Their Parents (n = 122)

 

 

————— Drinking habits of students------
Drinking habits of parents Heavy Medium Light
' drinkers drinkers drinkers
Both parents drink 39 8 11
Only one parent drinks 10 8 9

Neither parent drinks 9 12 16

 

21
Bacon & Straus (1), in their comprehensive survey of
the drinking habits of college students in this country, found that:

1. 92% of the male students of families in which both parents
drank, were themselves users;

2. 83% of the students from families where only one parent
used alcoholic beverages drank themselves; and

3. only 58% of the students coming from homes where both
parents were abstainers, drank themselves.

The results obtained in the present study fully support those of Bacon

8: Straus.

3

22

IV . CON C LUSIONS

According to the present study, the heavy drinkers
could be characterized in the following manner: With respect to
personality traits, they are low in orderliness, ambition, and con-
formity, and are high in manifest sexuality. With respect to physique,
they are more likely to be endomorphic than light drinkers. It is
quite probable that they will also be heavy smokers; and finally, they
are likely to have been raised in a family where both of their parents
drink.

Previous studies have revealed that alcoholics differ
from non-alcoholics on such traits as religious values, emotionality,
emotional control, extroversion, and activity. Significant differences
were not obtained for these traits in the present study. Differences,
however, were all in the expected direction.

Light drinkers, appear to possess the following characteristics
according to the present study: They are low in manifest sexuality,
and high in ambition, conformity, and orderliness. They tend to be
ectomorphic in physique. They are much less likely to engage in
smoking than the heavy drinkers, and they were probably raised in
a family where neither of the parents drank.

Similarities and Differences between Alcoholics and

 

Heavy College Drinkers

 

There is a vast difference between the person who is a

heavy college drinker and an alcoholic patient. Jellinek (7) claims

23
that a person usually engages in uncontrolled and excessive drinking
for 15-20 years before he becomes a full-blown alcoholic. No student
in the present study, of course, has this kind of a drinking back-
ground. However, the results of the present study indicate that there
is some similarity between the personality of the heavy college
drinker and that of the alcoholic patient. Thus, the heavy college
drinkers in the present study obtained lower scores on orderliness
than the light drinkers. This trait also seems .to differentiate success-
fully between alcoholics and non-alcoholics according to Strecher 8!
Chambers (19) and Lewis (10). Also, numerous alcoholic studies
have found that alcoholic patients are less conforming, less ambitious,
and more sexually oriented than non-alcoholics. The results obtained
in the present study were consistent with these.

On the other hand, alcoholic studies report that alcoholic
patients are more emotional, and have less emotional control than
non-alcoholics. In the present study, however, light and heavy
drinkers did not differ significantly with respect to these two traits,
although the results were in the suggested direction. Alcoholics also
seem to have less self-esteem and self-confidence than non-alcoholics.
The light and heavy drinkers in the present study did not differ with
respect to the scores on these traits. Again, however, the differences

were in the expected direction.

24

Limitations of the Study

 

One weakness of the present study is concerned with
the data gathering techniques. Subjects were instructed to write
their names on the questionnaire answer sheets. It is felt that
students might have been reluctant to classify themselves as heavy
drinkers. More serious, this reluctance may have been related to
personality traits, thus, a nonconforming and unambitious drinker
may have been more ready to admit his drinking than a conforming
and ambitious drinker.

Another limitation was related to validity. Measures
of the personality traits were obtained for only one of the two samples
used, and as a result cross-validation was not possible. By comparing
the medium and heavy drinkers, however, at least some checking of
results was carried out.

A further limitation concerned the relationship between
the drinking habits of students and those of their parents. The
subjects were merely instructed to indicate whether their parents
drank or not, and no measure of the extent of their parents' drinking
was obtained. Also, more refined methods of determining somatotypes
might have established the relationship between drinking and physique

more strongly.

Implications for Further Research

 

The general purpose of this study was to determine

whether male college students, who are light and heavy drinkers,

25
differ with respect to personality, physique, smoking habits, and
drinking habits of their parents. The findings, in general, strongly
suggest that such differences do exist. What implications do these
findings have for further research?

If heavy drinkers do actually differ from light drinkers
with respect to certain personality traits, these differences might
account, in part, for the acquiring of the drinking habit itself. It
has also been observed that the personality differences between
alcoholics and non-alcoholics are some of the same differences found
to exist between light and heavy drinkers. Therefore, it would
appear to be a worthwhile undertaking to carry out several studies
of a longitudinal nature, measuring at periodical intervals the drinking
habits of people, known to have distinct personality differences similar
to the ones measured in this study. In this manner, it would be
possible to determine whether or not these personality differences are
related to an increase in the amount of drinking or not. It would also
be possible to notice whether any of the heavy college drinkers having
different personality traits from light college drinkers actually became
alcoholics or not.

Results obtained from studies of this nature might then
be used in developing more adequate techniques in dealing with the
alcohol problem at the preventative level, rather than trying to treat

patients who have already become alcoholics.

26

The results concerned with physique differences also
present possibilities for further research. Do endomorphs actually
tend to drink more heavily than ectomorphs, or were the results
obtained in this study just due to coincidence ? Studies concerned
with drinking and physique measures should be undertaken using more
refined techniques in measuring body builds. And if significant
differences are again obtained, this might open up a whole new area
of research in relation to possible causative factors in drinking.

The results of this study might also be used in a more
extensive and complex study. Personality or physique factors,
along with racial or ethnic factors, as well as socioeconomic factors
could all be included in one study, and the results could then be
analyzed by using an analysis of variance design. In this way it
would be possible to determine the major, separate, and interaction

effects of these variables.

27

V. SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to determine whether male
college students who drink different amounts of alcoholic beverages
differ with respect to: (1) personality, "(2) physique, (3) smoking
habits, and (4) drinking habits of their parents. The subjects were
225 Michigan State University undergraduate students.

The means of 22 personality traits from an inventory
developed by Dr. Henry C. Smith were computed for light and
heavy drinking groups. Significant results were obtained of four of
the traits. Heavy drinkers were found to be high in manifest sexuality
and low in orderliness, conformity, and ambition.

The procedure used to study physique differences
involved classifying the subjects into the three somatotype groups,
using subjects from both samples. The chi-square value obtained
was significant and indicated that there were significantly more heavy
drinkers in the endomorph group than in the ectomorph group.

Subjects from Sample 1 were classified as heavy,
medium, or light smokers on the basis of a five-choice item dealing
with their smoking habits. The results were significant and indicated
that a highly significant relationship existed between drinking and
smoking.

Subjects were instructed to indicate whether both, one,

or neither of their parents drank alcoholic beverages. Results

28
indicated that significantly more heavy drinkers came from homes
where both parents drank, and light drinkers came from homes where
neither parent drank.

The results obtained were then compared with those of
previous studies, and some limitations of the study were discussed.
And in conclusion, implications which these results might have for
further research were discussed, pointing out the possibility of
attempting longitudinal studies on the drinking habits of young people,
as opposed to the present practice of studying confirmed alcoholics.
The advantages of carrying out a study like this were also discussed,
as well as the possibility of carrying out a more inclusive study
involving several factors in one design.

It was hoped that the results of these suggested studies
might lead to the discovery of some of the relevant causes of drinking

which might be of help in dealing with this serious problem.

29

REFERENCES

Bacon, 5. D. 8t Straus, R. Drinking in college. New Haven,

 

Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1953.
Force, R. C. Development of a covert test for the detection
of alcoholism by a keying of the Kuder Preference Record.

Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol, New Haven, Connecticut, 1958, 19,

 

72-78.

Halpern, F. Studies of compulsive drinkers; psychological

 

test results. Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol, 1947, 6, 468-479.
Hampton, P. J. Representative studies of alcoholics and

personality III. Psychometric studies. J. soc. Psychol.,

 

1951, 34, 225-233.

Hershey, G. L. College grades in relation to inventory
measures of personality. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Michigan State University, 1958.

Horton, D. The functions of alcohol in primitive societies:

Across-cultural study. Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol, 1943, 4,

 

199-320.
Jellinek, E. M. Phases in the drinking cycle. Quart. J.

Stud. Alcohol, 1952, 13, 673- 684.

 

Kaldegg, A. Psychological observations in a group of alco-
holic patients-~with analysis of Rorschach, Wechsler-Bellevue,

and Bender-Gestalt test results. Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol. 1956,

 

17, 608~6Z8

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

3O
Lentz, T. R., Randel, R. &Nickel, E. F. Personality

correlates of alcoholic beverage consumption. Character

 

8.: Personality, 1943, 12, 54-70.

 

Lewis, N. D. C. Personality factors in alcohol addiction.

Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol, 1940, 1, 21-44.

 

Manson, M. P. A psychometric differentiation of alcoholics

from non-alcoholics. Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol, 1948, 9,

 

175-206.
McArthur, C., Waldron, E. 8: Dickinson, J. The Psychology

of smoking. J. Abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 267-275.

 

McCarthy, R. G. Drinking and intoxication. Glencoe, I11.,

 

1959.

McCarthy, R. G. Teen—agers and alcohol. New Haven,

 

Connecticut, Yale Center of Alcohol Studies, Yale University
Press, 1956.

Plath, D. W. Physique and personality differences between
male college cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Unpublished
master‘s thesis, Michigan State University, 1959.

Schaefer, E. S. Personality structure of alcoholics in out-
patient psychotherapy. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Catholic
University of America, 1954. I

Schilder, P. The psychogenesis of alcoholism. Quart. J.

Stud. Alcohol, 1941, 2., 277‘292.

 

l8.

19.

20.

31
Sheldon, W. H. (with the collaboration of S. S. Stevens.)

The varieties of temjerament: a psychology of constitutional

 

differences. New York: Harper, 1942.

 

Strecher, E. A. & Chambers, F. T. Alcohol--one man's

 

meat. New York: Macmillan, 1938.

Syme, L. Personality characteristics and the alcoholics.

Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol. 1957, 18, 288-303.

 

APPENDICES

32

10.

33

Appendix A

Summary of the H. C. S. Inventory

Activity
Inactive - - Active

Sensory Awarenes s
Unaware - -Aware

Sexuality
Low - -Hi gh

Emotionality
Unemotional- -
Emotional

Optimism
Optimism- -
Pe s simi sm

Expres sivene s s
Inhibited- -
Expr e s sive

Thinking
Introversion
Extr ove r sion

Interests
Narrow- -Broad

Self-Confidence
Low- -Hi gh

Self-Insight
Low- —High

An attempt to determine the general
activity level of the individual.

The degree to which an individual is
aware of his surrounds via his sense
organs.

Interest in members of the opposite
sex and activities pertaining thereto.

The degree to which an individual
becomes emotionally involved in_
situations, and with others.

The general pattern of responses
to situations; is it pessimistic or
optimistic ?

The relative amount of freedom or
restraint the individual displays in
expressing emotion.

The degree to which an individual is
inward or outward oriented in his
perception of the environment.

An attempt to measure an individual's
self extension through determining

the number of likes in such areas as
occupations, school subjects, amuse-
ments, activities, and types of people.

How the individual evaluates his own
worth, adequacy, and competence.

A measure scored on the basis of total
number of unpleasant traits, which a
person says describes him, plus total
number of pleasant traits which he says
do not describe him.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

18.

19.

20.

Economic Values
High- -Low

Artistic Values
Low- -Hi gh

Scientific Value 5
Low - -Hi gh

Religious Value 5
Low - -Hi gh

Liber ali s m
Conservative - -
Liberal

Ambition
Unambitious
Ambitious

Orderliness
Orderly--
Unorderly

Emotional Control
Uncontrolled- -
Controlled

Gregariousne s s
Unsociable
Sociable

Warmth
Cold- -Warm

34

Whether the individual is primarily
interested in what is useful; pre-
occupied with affairs of the business
world.

Measure of interest in form and har-
mony, beauty, and aesthetic activities.

Relative degree of interest in scientific
endeavors and scientific method.

Measure of the intensity and confidence
of the individual's belief in God, in the
supernatural, and in divine intervention.

Degree of liberalism and conservatism
the individual displays in relation to a
number of issues.

Whether the individual desires to do
things as rapidly and as well as
possible; whether he makes intense,
prolonged, and repeated efforts to
accomplish difficult things; and whether
he enjoys competition.

Attempts to measure some aspects
of Cattell's ”Positive vs. Immature
Dependent Character," e. g.
Consistently Ordered vs. Relaxed;
Conscientious vs. Undependable, etc.

What are the individual's reactions to
emotional emergencies and frustrating
situations.

Measures need for affiliation. Not
to be confused with "sociability" which
implies social skill, social values,
interests in intimate friendships, etc.

The degree to which an individual
likes, accepts, approves, feels close
to, and wants to help others.

21. Dominance
Submis sive - -
Dominant

22. Conformity
Nonc onformity- -

Conformity

35
Measures degree of dominance
through items related to dominance
feelings, behavior, and leadership.

Attempts to differentiate conformists
from non-conformists.

 

 

I

21 d'
Ini§€81

xiB
I

INDEX OF fifiIGHT OVbn CUBE ROOT OF WHIGHT*

Height 11

 

 

 

 

inches

36

 

 

 

 

 

INUEX 60" 61“““82“““tfi?“‘Zflf"?fi?r‘tfi?"1?WF‘75?“‘75?’”TKF“‘THT"19?"”ETFV“TflPF“"
14.7“ 88 71 ’75 '31 82 88 “”91”“1§‘”TKF”TIMf“IU8“TEE§‘1387“125‘TEET*"'
14.8 89 75 77 80 84 88 92 97 101 108 110 115 120 125 150
14.5 71 74 78 82 88 90 94 99 105 108 115 118 122 128 155
14.4 75‘ 78 80 "84? 88 92 98 101 105 110 115 120 125‘ 150 158
14.5 74 78 82 88 90 94 99 105 108 115 118 125 128 155 159
14.2 78 80 85 88 92 98 101 105 110 115 120 125 150 158 141
14.1 77 81 85 89 94 98 105 107 115 117 122 128 155 158 145
1983 .179 85 87 91 95 100 104 110 115 120 125 150 158 1:2 147
W 81' “"85"“9‘9""97~7""92"""1‘0‘5""107“‘112“ 117' " 22“ 71 1 55 159 1 1
16.8 82 88 91 95 100 104 109 115 120 125 150 157 142 1.9 1'4
1§.; 94 88 95 97 102 107 112 117 125 128 155 159 148 151 1:7
10.9 .8 90 ~94 99 104 110 114 120 125 150 157 142 148 155 181
1355> __18W 92 97 102 108 111 117 122 128 155 159 148 151 159 185
43.4“ TNT 94 1~~ 104““TTU“"114 120 “125‘7flif‘7887‘7fifif‘ffifif“1149"187“”188 ”
19.5 92 97 101 108 111 117 122 128 154 140 145 152 158 185 172
15.2 94 99 104 109 114 119 125 151 157 142 149 158 185 170 177
19.1 98 101 108 111 117 122 128 154 140 148 152 159 188 174 180
15.0 __97 105 109 114 119 125 151 157 114 149 158 185 170 178 184
12.9 101 108"111 118 22 ‘128“'1EHT‘1287”ffitf‘“155“”189"”188’ 174 181 189 ‘“
12.8 105 109 115 119. 125 151 159 144 151 .57 184 171 178 185 195
12.7 105 111 118 122 128 154 141 147 154 181 187 175 182 190 198
12.5 108 115 119 125 151 157 144 151 157 185 172 179 187 195 202
4§;§_ 111 117 122 128 154 141 147 154 181 188 178 185 191 199 207 .1
12.4“ 115 119 125 151 157 144“151 157 185 172 179“187 198““204 215
12.5 118 122 128 155 141 147 154 182 189 177 184 192 200 210 218
12.2 119 125 151 157 145 151 158 185 174 181 189 197 205 214 224
12. 121 128 154 141 148 155 185 170 178 185 195 202 211 220 229
12.0 125 151 158 145 152 159 188 174 182 190 198 207 218 228 255
11.0 128 155 *141 149 158 155 170 178 7187 195'7205 215 221 251 241
11.8 151 158 145 152 59 187 175 185 191 199 209 218 227 257 297
11.7 155 141 149 158 184 171 179 188 198 205 214 224 255 245 254
11.8 158 148 152 180 188 178 184 195 201 211 220 229 258 250 280
113§ 141 149 157 185 172 180 189 198 207 218 228 258 245 258 287
1--4T”””146“”15577181 188 178 185‘fnmf‘fixfif”1fl17 221 ’251 242*‘252 255 275
11.5 150 158 185 174 181 190 199 209 218 228 257 248 258 270 280
11.2 154 182 170 178 187 195 204 214 225 254 244 255 288 277 289
*NOTE: Follow down the prouer height column to the proper weight. The correct
index is then found in the left hand column.
TMHEII
Somatotypes corresponding to height weigh£_indqxi
181'1 SOMATUTYPE 15581 SO5MEOTY‘
“12:“”‘ ‘“117‘““*' '2f849‘ 4423:3553*I:555

14.8 127 12.8 552 4-522

14.5 127 12.7 552.-—552

14.5 217 12.8 5514«-515

14.5 128 12.5 l7lu—u525

14.2 218 12.4 542~.«561

14.1 228 12.5 852—--271

14.0 258 12.2 652--—27l

15.9 225 12.1 481——-851

15.8 525 12.0 631——~551

15.7 555 11.9 851

15.8 555 11.8 721

15.5 554--—244---154 11.7 21

15.4 554———254---424 11.8 721

15.5 514—-—454 ‘ 11.5 721

15.2 545——~444--—455 11.4 751

15.1 445~--554--—524 11.5 711

15.0 555---554 11.2 711

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pick somatotype Opposite index corresponding to the component
judged to be dominant.

 

4 u v - .,. an
L ‘ .-
.
i‘. 'I 'l- . n
1
, .
'-
. . . \
. .
1.. .. . I- 1

.
4.
.- s
.
.
. . . . . u .
n
v
. ~-
' .
. -.,., .._ -. , . . . - n..-
1 .
. , , .
..
u , .
' a. ’3
I _ u _ . u
. . .
. I r ,
. ‘ u ‘
. 3
, . '- .u o |. 1.. ....,
.
~ 0
\
. " .
.
. .
,u
_ , .
* . 'c ' . '
l .
.. .
~ 7 ' -
5 .
.
u 1. >4 -- . .. r 9,. ., ..
.' ' ‘
n .
-
. u. .
' u
. .
n
‘ ‘ n
I
. . .- ~ . . w.- . . ‘
. n
v
. 0‘ u .
’ .' “ * 1
Q
1
‘ ..
on
.o
w ..
r
...——. _ 1 ,

 

I I,
I
,.
.
.
.
1
r
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
. I
.
’ II
' u
_ .
b'u:
! I
O 0

D “ fi‘n‘v
o
'c
A
n
.... '.
s
- .
1
..

 

 

‘ . ‘l ‘ 4 l ‘
.‘ . ‘ ‘
. . .
. ' . ‘
.. . p . .9:., .. , - ~.... . .. . .. . . .‘f , - - .
. . -
. ‘ . ' -
- n . ' -. . - . -o . .hu.- '0 . . - . H. . ..y.n|q. an. . . -
' I
r ‘ . D I n
. , .
I o '
. ' ~ . . '
I
.. I. - -‘. 8-,. . - . nu ., .a.u‘o ~ 1 . . I u I I .q- 0 I . ~ .17 II I . -| ~'
, “ o. '
0 ' . .
I ‘ .
1 ( h 0
... l - D V
I -| .. '
' . ‘ v Q
‘ ¢ ‘ v u
. n - ~ . .
' . ‘ .
. ‘ ‘ .
l ' :
. . , ‘
~-[;' 0 I. l I - ~ . . . . .5 t-o. .0. - .0 v . -. - - . . ..
l . ' l
- .
5 .
- . .
I ‘ I
‘ c
- ‘ u
. .
u ‘ I
u ‘ k .
. . , a
< .
n 1 .9. v.' . n 1 I v ‘o I ' I . 0 . . I .~.- 0 --. 2'» - - -
|
‘ . I ' I:
' u
A I
. . . .
Q ' ‘ I I I
.‘. n .
. l . v f
v ' ' a l
. . u. .. - ..». . .c - - a... .-- 1. . \ . . ..v
. -~ 1 ‘
. .‘
I . .A. I. . ,
. . .
1 ., . - . . .
I . 0 _ .- ~ .
I. . ' . , ~
. . .n.
. > .u _r r I ' ’
' 9
\ g I O L I ‘
b . 4 I .
.
u I ‘ ’ I '0
c-_. .~.. . ._~ ‘8‘ .1- \, ...n ,'1_ ‘0‘" -- .. an. ‘- ._ ‘. .u .3.
' ‘ ' : ‘ 1
‘ I o
.
1
- I
. , , - . .
u . .
. . . .
. .
. ." > I . .
O ‘.
. . - ‘ . ' .
u . . ~ .
'- . - . ‘
' . p , | - , ‘ -
n I -..-.. v.4 s- - .In - O . ' 1‘!" . - I. u- .u u . ‘uh- -\ -. I Q".
I ' 1
.
. “
I ' ‘ .
' I
. .
.
. _ ‘ .
. . _ .
7 . .
. - .
a . .‘ ‘
. 1 . f .
l ' ‘ -. .'..
' ‘ - . ‘- I . , . _
»: .. - .0 . _ , . n o - . - I _ - n - I - -. . In. ‘ - ‘
‘ i
v O ‘ I
‘ . '- ‘ 1
. a
. I , ,7 .» .
I I
. I
.
. ' .
_ 5‘ ‘ . ., '
. . .
‘ -I 5 o ~.~- l
. .
‘ ' 2 ~ . Io V I
u
.
n
' a
,9
a
a
l
.
| c
n - , .
\ I Q
4.
I ' 9
0' I a .
. 0 - , - d
n
I .. . I

.; .,
. l
I'
l
r' 35
'0.
In“, ~ -.
' 2
‘9'»
‘.i
i‘ .
I .
o .
0.
.. ...‘.,
.'.

 

. u
v
. ‘r' .'.
. ”'3.
.
. . .
- .7 p—
.. o ‘ 4 I,
Ԥ
. 'u I a. U»
.V ' I. I
. O .
i .-
O I
a
.‘
' ‘ .A
' ' I. ..
‘ .
-. ’.. .

. ..
o .
I
u
o
I
I

Name .4 R00. Smith 37
(last) (fire 1:) Apru 1959

 

Date Appendix C

PERSONALITY PRQF‘IIE
(NOrmS based on 100 Midwestern College Students)

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERCENTIIE

TRAIT 1 19 29 3? #9 5? 6O 7O 89 99 110

1. ACTIVITY 12 11; 1Q 1'; 1 29 21 22 2t; ‘
Inactive—aActive #

2. SENSORY AWARENESS 1; 1§ 1'; 1? 1 29 21 2; 2,
Uhaware-aware

3. Simflifih ? 12 11; 1§ 1 17 1? 29 21

1h EMOTIONALITY ? 11 1? 1 1? 1? 2? 27
Uhemotional—amotional

5. OPTIMISM 11 11; 1; 17 1 29 22 211 25

6 Eisssimiam~0ptimismfi 1? 12 15 1? 1 2? 22 2% 2§

. ’RESSI‘VENESS ' ,
Inhibited 1v

7. THINKING ”mm“ a 8 10 12 11 1 16' 1'; 113 29
Introvortedsextraverted ' '

8. INTERESTS 3 1§ 29 2'13 2§ 2 3} 31 35 4?
Narrow—Broad 1 1 1 21 2

9. Sim—Cg]? g11111mm F '1 g 19 11 1 z 1 1

10. SEW—INSIGHT 11 1? 11'» 1§ ' 1 1'; 1? 29
Low—high 1

11. ECONOMIC VALUES 11 1Q 11 111 1§ 1 19 29 21 22
Low——h1gh .

12. ARTISTIC vmms > ‘t § 2 1% 1 1‘5 19 23: 2'?
Louuhigh

13. SCIENTIFIC VALUES 3 3 5 '1 q 19 111 1'; 21
Lowmhigh

14. BELI GI OUS VALUES P 5 q 11 111 1 16} 21 21; 2§
Low—high

15. LéBERzmISM I 11 1} 111 1§ 1 15; 2'1 221 25
onaervative——L1bera1

16. AfiRITICN 7 19 12 13 1 15 1§ 1? 13
nambitiouS—nAmbitious

17. ORGANIZATION 3 q q 3 11 1 15 1§ 15 21 26
Unorganiz ed~0rganized

18. EMOTIONAL CONTROL 1 5 11 111 1 1§ 11 21 2L1 a9
Uncontrolledr-Oontro1led

19. (ESEGARI OUSNTSS S 19 12 1’1- 1 11¢ 29 22I 21; 29
neociable~—Soc1able Q 12 1Q 29 2% £8

20. WARMTE 1 1 1 1
Gold—4Warm ? } 3 “A

21. DOMINANGE 12 111 115 1'; 1 2O 21 2} 211 r.
Submissive—~Dom1nant

22. CONFORMITY q 12 13 1t; 1 1§ 1'; 1g 21 as
Nanconformityuuconformity l

 

 

1

OTHER

 

 

38

Appendix D

Orderlines 3 Scale

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

I am not particularly methodical in my daily life.

Whenever I have to undertake a job I make out a careful
plan of procedure.

I have arranged my life so that it runs very smoothly.

I sometimes find it difficult to pin myself down to one line
of thought for a long time. '

I sometimes make useless moves as I go about my work.

I generally go from one thing to another in my daily life

. without a great deal of planning.

My desires are occasionally at war with one another.

I am extremely systematic in caring for my personal property.
Some of my tastes change rather rapidly.

I am guided in all my conduct by firm principles.

I find that a well-ordered mode of life with regular hours and
an established routine is most congenial to me.

I sometimes start new projects without waiting to finish up
everything that I have been doing.

I find it rather hard to keep to a rigid routine.

' I find that my minor likes and dislikes change rather frequently.

I am quick to discard the old and accept the new: new fashions,
new methods, and new ideas.

If I start working on a puzzle, I always stick to it until it
is solved.

I always finish one task before taking on others.

Once I begin any task, I always finish it.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

39

It is occasionally difficult for me to keep my mind on one
thing for a long time.

I find it difficult to keep my mind on one detail for very long.

I am very insistent on having all my written work extremely
neat and well organized.

I keep my workplace extremely neat and very orderly.

I like to keep all my letters and other papers neatly arranged
and filed.

I like to have my meals organized and a definite time set aside
for eating.

I like to have my life so arranged that it runs smoothly and
without much change in plans.

I like to make a very careful plan before starting in to do
anything.

If I take a trip, I like to consider it as an adventure rather
than to have everything planned in advance.

I have some difficulty in concentrating my thoughts on one
thing for long.

My minor interests change rather rapidly.

I can always give good reasons for my actions.

Conformity Scale

 

l.

I seldom do anything for which anyone could reproach me.

I control my sexual impulses by instituting prohibitions and
restrictions.

I carry a very strict conscience about with me wherever I go.

I have an extremely strong sense of responsibility about my
duties.

I think that I have a more rigorous standard of right and wrong
than most people.

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

40
I almost always feel that people approve of me.

I generally accept suggestions rather than insist on working
things out in my own way.

In matters of conduct I conform very closely to custom.

Let a man keep the law, any law, and his way will be strewn
with satisfaction.

We acquire the highest form of freedom when our wishes
conform to the will of society. ‘

I sometimes express unconventional opinions to people who
are likely to disapprove of them.

Before I do something I am apt to consider whether my friends
will blame me for it.

I take pains not to incur the disapproval of others.

I consider the close observance of social customs and manners
an essential aspect of life.

I occasionally act contrary to customs.
I go my own way somewhat regardless of the opinions of others.

I sometimes disregard minor rules and regulations that
hamper my freedom.

I am apt to criticize those who are in authority.

I believe that the individualist is the man who is most likely
to discover the best road to a new future.

I am strongly opposed to accepting anything just because an
authority says it is so.

Sometimes I rather enjoy doing things I'm not supposed to do.

At times I have been so entertained by the cleverness of a
crook that I have hoped he would get away with it.

Compared to your own self-respect, the respect of others
means very little.

24.
25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

41
I am a little careless about my manner of dress.
I am in favor of strict enforcement of all laws.

The trouble with many people is that they don't take things
seriously enough.

I like to work on some problems even when there is no clear-
cut unambiguous answer.

Science should have as much to say about moral values as
religion does.

Some of my friends think that my ideas are impractical, if
not a bit wild.

I avoid situations where I am expected to conform very closely
to conventional standards.

Ambition Scale

 

10.

I particularly like to work at tasks that require great effort.

I see life as a constant series of problems which must be
solved.

I can become so absorbed in solving a problem that I forget
everything.

I am driven to ever greater efforts by the challenge of
unsolved social problems.

I feel that nothing in life is a substitute for the solving of
great social problems.

I feel that my future place and self respect depend upon my
solving some important problem.

I set very difficult goals for myself.

I generally seek whatever makes me feel most cheerful here
and now.

I cultivate an easy-going attitude toward life.

I prefer the company of fun-loving people.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

2.9.

30.

42
I believe that I have the disposition of a "man of pleasure. "
I am extremely ambitious.
I enjoy work more than play.

I believe that when a man is no longer seriously trying to
do better he is half dead already.

No one can demand from me as much as I demand from myself.
I am guided in most of my decisions by strong ambitions.

I feel that friendship is more important in life than anything
else.

I like to be with people who don't take life too seriously.

When I am in a group discussion, my mind sometimes wanders
from the problem at hand.

Most of my spare money is used for pleasure.
I believe in getting as much fun as I can out of life.

I‘d give up a great many things rather than miss a wonderful
party.

I greatly enjoy studying the history of social problems to find
out what has been done about them in the past.

I would really work hard to find out why children resemble
their parents in some ways, yet are different in others.

I enjoy taking examinations.

In meetings I think it is generally better to go along with a
chairman's decision rather than to start a fuss.

I would rather see a musical comedy than a documentary film.

I would rather read a best seller than a book of an academic
nature. I

I don‘t especially care for serious people.

I occasionally neglect serious things in order to have a good time.

43

Sexuality Scale

 

l.

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

I would rather go out with attractive persons of the opposite
sex than do almost anything else.

I like to become sexually excited.

It is extremely important to me that I be regarded as physically
attractive by those of the opposite sex.

I like to participate in discussions about sex and sexual
activities.

I like to listen to jokes concerning sex.
I occasionally spend time thinking about sexual matters.

I feel that my sexual desires are almost as strong as my
ambition.

I occasionally have sexual daydreams.
I have had considerable sex experience.

I always prefer to spend my social evenings with members
of the opposite sex rather than my own sex.

I am rather modest about sexual matters.
I am somewhat indifferent concerning sexual matters.

In my first years of high school, I went out frequently with
members of the opposite sex.

I never engaged in petting during high school.
I believe I am a rather passionate person.

I have frequently refused to engage in petting and kissing when
a person of the opposite sexswanted to.

I think that obtaining sexual satisfaction is not a very important
thing in my life.

I had my first date after I was 15.

I seldom asked questions about sex when I was a child.

20.

21.

22.
23.

24.
25.

26.

27.
28.
29.

30.

44
My first sex curiosity arose sometime after I was 12.

I became sexually excited a little less than the average person
of my age. 8

I seldom become sexually excited.
I very rarely tell jokes in which sex plays a major part.

I think that the importance of sex is often overemphasized in
our society.

I am extremely particular about the members of the opposite
sex with whom I associate.

I enjoy the company of almost all members of the opposite sex.

I think that it is much more important to learn to control
sexual impulses than to express them.

I believe that everybody would be happier if both men and
women had more sexual freedom.

The control of my sex desires is a fairly difficult problem
for me.

I will have no difficulty controlling my sex desires until I
am married.

If". A"... {1,
“WIN

J ”5124:1961

 

lil'fi'fj,¢mr . fi"