-. .I A

 

x/

 

DEFENSE MECHANISMS OF AN

ALCOHOLIC POPULATION AS COMPARED

TO A NORMAL POPULATION

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
m

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wi11
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped be10w.

 

 

'..—-.-.I-:""

DEFENSE MECHANISMS-SQ? AN ;
ALCOHOLIC POPULATION' AS comm TO A
NORMAL POPULATION

J

by

Rbnald G. Aldridge
Gail I. Baxter
Lowell M. Nofziger
Anita L. Roggenbuck
Robert L. Shimanski
Donna J. Wolthuis

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for
the degree of

MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

Michigan State University
School of Social Work
East lensing, Michigan

1967

THESIS

C-l

AN ABSTRACT Uri par - -r. . w e:

 

‘ W“. —— ‘1 m

From an.understanding of the psychosgrual develop-
ment of individuals as well as the resultant pattern of
defenses which the ego uses to ward off anxiety, the following
.hypotheses regarding alcoholics' defenses were formulated:

Hypothesis #1: Alcoholics differ from an established now
on the use of ego defense mechanisms.

Hypothesis #2: With an increase in sobriety, the alcoholic
will differ less from normals in the use of

thgfego defense mechanism of turning-against-
se .

It was theorized that alcoholic persons lack assertive,
aggressive defenses in their attempts to cope with stressful
situations and therefore use turning-against-object very
little. In an effort to allay anxiety, alcoholics tend
to internalize stress, thus turning-against-self. It is
known that alcoholics tend to deny reality situations and
frequently use drinking to reinforce the defense of denial
(reversal). Because alcoholics are frequently viewed as
persons with little ego strength, it would follow that the
defense of principalization would be used less than it would
by non-alcoholics. The preceding is in keeping with the
established norms which indicate that dependent subjects
are high on turning-against-self and reversal, but low on
turning-against-object.

The instrument selected to measure the ego defense

patterns was the Defense Measuring Instrument (DMI).

2

The investigation of the major problem included a
research group of 54 subjects.' These subjects were divided
into three groups: (1) active alcoholics who had been
admitted for treatment at Hurley Hospital in Flint, Michigan;
(2) active alcoholics who were clients of the Flint Committee
on Alcoholism; and (3) inactive alcoholics who were clients
of the Flint Committee on Alcoholism.

Because the DMI and accompanying questionnaire were
self-explanatory and no directions were necessary, it was
administered to the subjects by hospital personnel and
staff members of the Flint Committee on Alcoholism.

When the data regarding the ego defense patterns
of alcoholics was computed and analyzed, the following
results were obtained.

Alcoholics differed from normals in these ways:
they were (1) lower on the use of turning-against-others;

(2) lower on principalization; (3) higher on turning-against-
self; and (4) higher on reversal. Further, it was found

that with an increase in length of sobriety, the alcoholics'
use of turning—against-self approaches that of the estab-
lished norm. This trend toward the norm, however, was not

statistically significant.

DEFENSE MECHANISMS OF AN
ALCOHOLIC POPULATION AS COMPARED TO A

NORMAL POPULATION

by

Rnnald G. Aldridge
Gail I. Baxter
Lowell M. Nofziger
Anita L. Roggenbuck
Robert L. Shimanski
Donna M ‘Wolthuis

A RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for
the degree of

MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

Michigan State University
School of Social Work
East Iansing, Michigan

1967

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincerest
appreciation to Mr. David Ihilevich, Genesee County
Community Mental Health Services Board, Flint, Michigan,
for his assistance in the formulation and analysis of
results in this project. We are indebted to him for
permitting the use of his Defense Measuring Instrument
and his many helpful comments pertaining to the
instrument.

We wish to acknowledge those who assisted in
administering the tests without whose cooperation this
study would not have been possible: Mr. John Crane of
the Flint Committee on Alcoholism, and Mr. Ebbert Cross,
Mr. John Keaton, and their staff of Hurley Hospital in
Flint.

A note of thanks is in order for Dr. Gwen Andrew,
Michigan State University, whose scholarly aid, provocative

spirit, and human kindness were greatly appreciated.

ii

 

 

a.
“I. . -
.
‘ .
c
“I
' .
.

 

\ .
6-) :-
I
. n
‘ .‘
' I
.
.
o, .A
.
A o
. I
.
‘ .
. o
.
'd

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .
Statement of purpose. .
Definition of terms . .

Review of literature. .

II. MTHOD Q O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0

Selection of the Defense Measuring

InStrument (DMI). o o o o o o 0

Description of populations. . . .

Administration of the DMI .

Preliminary treatment of the data

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . .

Limitations of the study. . . . .

Implications of the study . . . .

Indications for additional research

summam I O O O O O O O O O O O O O

BIBLIO GRAB-1Y0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O

APENDIX. O O O O O O O O O O O O

111

PAGE

(DNA)

10
11
12
13
15
17
18
18
20
25

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE

I. Means and Standard Deviations for the
Five Defense Mechanisms of the DMI
foraNormalS.amp1e...........10

II. Mean Differences Between Alcoholic and
Normal Male Phpulations on the Five
Defenses of the DMI . . . . . . . . . . . 13

III. A Comparison of TAS Mean Scores of

Alcoholics with Varying lengths
or Sobriety e o e o o o e o e o e o o e o 15

iv

INTRO DUCT ION

Fbr some time now, laymen, psychologists, and social
workers have been impressed by the phenomenon of compulsive
drinking found in alcoholics. Both physiological deteriora-
tion and ego breakdown are seen, but a scientifically pre-
pared demonstration of the cause-effect relationship in
alcoholism is lacking. Much of the confusion seems to stem
from the difficulty in typifying the alcoholic personality.
Several psychological testing instruments have been adminis-
tered in an attempt to find some homogeniety among alcoholic
subjects. Many trends have been noted and generalizations
drawn, resulting in contradictory theories. Stimulated by
this previously unsuccessful search for a profile of the
alcoholic personality, the present study used a recently
developed defense measuring instrument to determine the ego

defense mechanisms of alcoholics.

Statement of purpo se
The purpose of this study is to examine the ego

defense mechanisms of alcoholics. The object of this
examination is twofold: (1) to show that alcoholics differ
from.an established norm in the use of defense mechanisms,
and (2) to show that with increasing continuous sobriety,
the alcoholic's use of turning-against-self will differ less
from the norm. Since the defense mechanisms of alcoholics

have not been scientifically outlined, this study may contri-

8

0‘

‘v

M
l.’
'54
'- l
..
5‘-
‘ -

 

-*

 

buts to an understanding of the alcoholic personality.

f ti f terms

As defined in this study, the term "alcoholic" refers
to a person who has been medically diagnosed as an alcoholic
and/er is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. "Ego defense
mechanisms" are the methods, conventionally defined, which
are used by the ego (self) to protect against experiencing
excessive anxiety. This is a dynamic process which involves
coming to terms with affects, fantasies, and memories
associated with instinctual impulses. Ego defense mechanisms
have been categorized under five titles, and each is defined

on page 9. The "established norm" is defined in the section

describing the Defense Measuring Instrument.

Rgzigw of Literature
According to psychoanalytic theory, the inability of

an infant to meet his own biological needs results in a state
of tension. Continued high states of biological tension are
experienced as diffuse anxiety, which is later differentiated
into specific ego emotions. The ego then learns to ward

off dangerous or inappropriate internal impuldes and external
stimuli in order to protect itself from painful anxiety.
Mechanisms that were first directed toward external stimuli
may become turned against inner drives if sufficient anxiety
is not alleviated. The ego’s primary aim is to reduce
anxiety, and it is paradoxical that, in order to do so, it

must turn against its own desires. This happens for two

 

.“

3
reasons: (1) The infant realizes his needs must be met
externally. Since the external world cannot always be at
his immediate disposal, he experiences pain. The memory
of previous painful experiences provides him with the first
impression that his primary excitations may be dangerous,
and these must be repressed. (2) The violent force of his
own repressed impulses is projected and makes him expect
drastic punishment from a misunderstood external world.1
He then becomes guilty because he feels he deserves this
punishment, but since others do not give it to him, he resorts
to self-punishment, and "turns-against-self" in order to
reduce anxiety. . .

Throughout the literature, the alcoholic personality
has been variously described as follows. Arieti,2 Cameron,3

Fox,4 Lewis,5 Peltenburg,6 Pike,7 and Sapir8 typify the

1Otto Fenichel, The Ps choanal tic Theor of Neur sis,
New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Ific., 1955.

QSilvano Arieti, Ed., American Handbook of Psychiatry,
Vol. 1. New York: Basic B00 3. Inc., 1959.

3Norman Cameron, P’rsonalitr Development and Psyche-
patholggy, Boston: Houghton MA 1 n Company, 9 .

4Ruth Fbx, "Psychiatric Aspects of Alcoholism," Amfigigan,

9 9 0

Werner. Vol. .19. No. 3 (408-416

5Margaret L. Lewis, "The Initial Contact with Wives of
Alcoholics,' Social Casework, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1956.

 

 

5Oathrin M; Peltenburg, "Casework with the Alcoholic
Patient,’ Social Casework, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1956.

7Lillian Pike, Ed., Manual on Alcoholism for Social
Workers, North Carolina: 19 5.

8Jean V. Sapir, "The Alcoholic as an Agency Client,"
Social Casework, Vol. 24, No. 7. 1953. -

.5,

-.
' .
. o
v
. ' ..
a
. I
. e
. . u .
v
D
‘ c t
u
. . . , . .
. . s
‘ l
a,
. is
. . c
a' A u
. .
n
o
I
‘ .
o . n
.
.
a
u
. ‘ , ,
o . u
. . . -
l
' .
n e
n g ' -
I a - ..
n
' . _ . ‘n
-. o
o
- 5": I .
I .
‘
t ' I .
' o
..
o .

 

4

alcoholic as an oral dependent person who is childishly
impulsive. Many authors, including Fox and Pittman, 9 see
the alcoholic as narcissistic; Fenichel says the most obvious
trait of an alcoholic is depression, and White,1c’Cameron,
and Arieti also believe this to be prevalent. The alcoholic
has been described as self-depreciative (Wenneis11), self-
destruotive (Wenneis, Fox, Kuhn, 12 and Palola”), having
low self esteem (Fbx, Peltenburg) and being emotionally
insecure, inconfident, and morally depraved (White, Pike,
and Peltenburg). Fox, Peltenburg, Pittman, and Kuhn see
guilt as being very common in the alcoholic. He is usually
thought to have low ego strength (White), and Borowitz14
says the alcoholic has so few strengths that he needs to
drink until he can achieve ego re-integration--his defense
mechanisms are inadequate, leaving him anxiety-ridden (as
described by Pittman and Pike). His drinking then dulls
his perception and allows him to be relatively anxiety-free.

David J. Pittman, Alcoholism, Illinois: Thomas, 1959.

10William F. White, "Personality and Cognitive Learning
Among Alcoholics with Different Intervals of Sobriety,"

ggzghqlg ical Re orts, vol. 16, No. 3. (352-355). 1966.
11Arnold J. Kuhn, Ed., What Tamil encies Can to

H Alcoh lies and their Fami ie , 1 no 3: 1 .
12Anne C. Wenneis, "Responding to the Emotional Needs

of the Alcoholic," S ci 1 Gas rk, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1957.

9

" 13Ernest B. Palola, Joan K. Jackson. and Daniel Kelleher'
Defensiveness of Alcoholics: Measures Based on the MMPI,"
Journal of Health and Human Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 3 (185-189).

14G.H. Borowitz, "Some Ego Aspects of Alcoholism," Baitigfi,
Journ l of Medical P cholo , Vol. 37, No. 3 (257-263 , 19 .

 

 

 

 

 

moo.

 

.
. a
a o
c .
v .
,. .
I s
I
t
i
c
. 1
.
.
I
. .
V J .
. o
.
a -
~
‘.
.
‘\
.
u. 1
. .
a
I
r
c
l I
.
r u
I .
o
a
n I
.
I . .
.
1 -
'
l
o a n O.
.
. ..
i I
n
. . A
a
. ‘
.. .,
. O 1 . .
o a. .
.
.
u
0 C
3.
v
. a . i
‘ a
a .
. s
O
I

5
The alcoholic is usually seen as isolated15 and detached
from social responsibility.

These characteristics describe a dependent, narcissis-
tic, helpless infantile state. Since the ego defense of
turning-against-self (TAS) is a result of the primary conflict
of insufficiently met dependency needs, the person who uses
TAS is referred to as arrested at the oral stage of develop-
ment and is described as oral dependent. He therefore would
be expected to use the ego defense mechanism of TAS more
than would a non-alcoholic.

Since the alcoholic is dependent and infantile, he
lacks assertiveness and is therefore unable to release
anxiety through aggressive behavior. It follows, then,
that he would employ the ego defense of "turning-against?
others less than a member of a normal population.

As stated above, the alcoholic has low ego strength.
Literature on defense mechanisms points to a direct correla-
tion between ego strength and the ego defense of intellec-
tualization (PRN). That is, a low use of PRN points to low
ego strength, and conversely. Therefore, the alcoholic
would be expected to score lower on PRN than normals.

Much of the literature tends to agree that use of
denial as a defense mechanism is inadequate in the alcoholic

due to defensive disintegration. Contrary to this, Cameron

15E. Singer, H, Blane, and R. Kasschau, "Alcoholism and

Social Isolation ' u a of Abn rm 1 d Soci P ch 10 ,
Vol. 69, No. 6 (ési-g[%§5%',ll"9'o‘T—LL‘&'“£—m". ex

6
states that denial is a primitive defense, which suggests
that a person experiencing defensive disintegration would
revert to use of this primitive defense. Therefore, the
alcoholic personality would employ denial more than normals.
Palola.has found that alcoholics were unwilling to admit
any unhappiness with their lot in life, thus supporting
the conclusion that denial is used to a greater degree by
alcoholics than normals.

The above conclusions, then, lead to the formulation
of the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis #1: Alcoholics differ from an established norm
on the use of ego defense mechanisms.

As an outgrowth of this hypothesis, it was further
hypothesized that:

a. The alcoholic will use the ego defense
mechanism of turning-against-others less
than the non-alcoholic.

b. The alcoholic will use the ego defense
mechanism of turning-against-self more
than the non-alcoholic.

c. The alcoholic will use the ego defense
mechanism of intellectualization less ”
than the non-alcoholic.

d. The alcoholic will use the ego defense
mechanism of denial more than the non-
BICOhOIICe

Relatively little has been written about the effects
of continuous sobriety on the alcoholic's personality charac-
teristics. Several authors agree, however, that with sus-
tained abstinence the alcoholic becomes less distinguishable

from the norm. White has done extensive studies on the

 

,. . .. r
.. o .
a . .
. K . a a
1 I
I
1.
I O n. .
I . c n
. a .
1 u .
. .e
e .
f
. . U
n I. l
. .
O I
. .
. . ..
.1". .
.-
0 -
el ~ 0
— ..
. . . o ..
.
..
‘u e. V
I a
1 u.
a
a 1 . .
. .
I a o a
I D
. r
. a!
.c .
e or
. .1
.
a
. .
t
. . .
I 1 . .4
.
l
s I
n. .
.1
~I

CK

7
effects of continuous sobriety on the personality factors
of alcoholics. He found that the long-term sober individual
became more mature, had more ego strength, was less guilt-
prone, developed a higher self-concept, retained less tension,
and decreased his narcissistic investment. Fbx concurs
that many of the distinguishing characteristics of the
alcoholic abate when he becomes consistently abstinent.
On the basis of these reports, the second hypothesis
was formed:
Hypothesis #2: With an increase in sobriety, the alcoholic
will differ less from normals in the use of

the ego defense mechanism of turning-against-
self. *

* It was decided to examine only one of the five ego defense
mechanisms for this second hypothesis. TAS was chosen
because it was thought likely to show the greatest initial
deviation from the norm.

METHOD

Selection of the Defense Measuring Instrument (DMI)
In the selection of the instrument to be used in

this study, certain criteria were judged as important.

Its administration and scoring for a group of subjects had
to be characterized by ease, rapidity, and facility. It
was necessary that the test could be administered by laymen
and that it was relatively uncomplicated to take. Availa-
bility of the instrument as well as its validity were also
weighty considerations.

The Defense Measuring Instrument (DMI) was selected
as having met all of the criteria described above, as well
as the fact that one of the originators of this instrument
(David Ihilevich) was available for consultation. The DMI
is a test recently developed by Mr. Ihilevich and Dr. Goldine
Glaser. The instrument has not yet been published, but
data thus far accumulated suggests this test has more validity
indicators than any other known device for assessing ego
defense mechanisms. The instrument consists of a form for
men (Fbrm M) and a form for women (Form F), each made up
of ten stories, eight of which are designed for use by both
sexes, and two sets of two stories specifically designed
for each sex. Following each story the subject is asked to
respond to four questions (regarding his actual behavior,

impulsive behavior, thoughts, and feelings) by marking a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

plus for the most representative and a minus for the least
representative response for him. Each response is designed
to represent one of five defense mechanisms. These defenses
were defined in the following manner:16

Turnin - ainst-Ob ect (TAO) refers to a process
of conflict resolution whereby aggressive behavior
is directed against an external object which the
subject considers to be the cause of a threat to
his ego. This category includes such classical
defenses as displacement, acting out, and identifi-
cation-with-the-aggressor.

Projection (PRO) refers to a process of conflict
resolution in which the subject attributes behavior
with a negative connotation,to an external object
without having an objective, unequivocal basis for
doing so. Various forms of externalization can be
Subsumed under the concept of projection as used

ere.

Princi alization (PRN) refers to a process of
con lict resolution in which a general principle
is employed in order to separate affect from
content, content from content, or affect from
affect. This category includes such defenses
as intellectualization, isolation and rationali-
zatlon.

Turning-Againgt-Sglf (TAS) refers to a process
of conflict resolution in which the subject directs
his aggressive behavior against himself. Maso-
chism and autosadism are considered forms of TAS.

Raver a (REV) refers to a process of conflict
reso ution in which behavior of a positive quality
is eXpressed under conditions where a negative
type of behavior would be expected. Negation,
denial, reaction formation, and repression can
be subsumed under this category.

The means and standard deviations for each of the
five defense mechanisms of the DMI for a normal sample

are shown in Table I. This is the "established norm."

16David Ihilevich, from unpublished literature regarding
the Defense Measuring Instrument.

.o‘
v
.
.
c

4
Ce
8

10
TABLE I

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE
FIVE DEFENSE MECHANISMS OF THE DMI FOR A NORMAL SAMPLE

 

 

 

—; *
—— n -

 

N TAO PRO PRN TAS REV
Men 43
X 39.40 38.44 48.42 34.40 39.58
SD 7.77 6.68 6.76 7.58 6.33
Women 71
x 34.80 36.90 47.30 41.90 40.50
SD 8.05 5.39 6.43 4.92 6.75

 

Description of populations

The subjects used in this study were drawn fbom two
pOpulations: (a) males between the ages of 22 and 65 who
were admitted to the alcoholic ward or seen as out-patients
at Hurley Hospital in Flint, Michigan between March 1, 1967
and May 1, 1967; and, (b) males between the ages of 22 and
65 who are members of Alcoholics Anonymous and clients of
the Flint Committee on Alcoholism in Flint, Michigan who
have had varying lengths of continuous sobriety, from one
to twenty years. The subjects were limited to males in
order to control any variation due to sex which may exist.
They were age-limited because the DMI's validity has been
proven with this age group. The subjects were drawn from
Flint, Michigan for practical reasons, as they were readily
available. It was these groups, along with the normal
sample (above) that finally constituted the samples used

for comparison in this study.

 

0-

 

 

. .
.
...
.
. .
s . . .
I A -
1 I
. v
. 1 . . f
.
_ .
. .
c .
. . I
.
.
I ‘1 ‘ . ~
. . .
. e .
f
I I n
.
. I
s a o ,
I
..
I .
. 1
. .
.
O
. e .
.
.
. .
. I .
I 'I I
v 0 . 1 1
.. . .
.
.t . .
..
,. .
..
. .
u r
1 9 u I
I .y. a u.-
. .
a
u . u
. o n e ~ ~
4‘.
l I .
1 o 0 .
.II. a I v
. . . . .
. .
O . s
.N . no
.
.rn.

 

11
Administration of the DMI

For purposes of this study, the DMI was administered
with a brief questionnaire concerning age, sex, date,
length of sobriety (continuous or not), education, occupa-
tion, and previous treatment. Although occupation and
education were included on this questionnaire, these indi-
cators of social class were not analyzed as variables when
comparing the subjectsi DMI scores because a preliminary
examination of questionnaires showed no relationship between
age defense patterns and social class. In addition, it
was initially thought that length of sobriety and defense
mechanism change could be correlated to quantity and quality
of treatment. Fbr this reason, items pertaining to length
and kind of previous treatment for drinking problem were
included on the questionnaire. However, the individual's
involvement in his mode of treatment was not measured and,
therefore, conclusions concerning the relevance of treatment
to defense mechanism change could not be drawn: '.

The DMI and questionnaire were administered by hospital
personnel and members of the Flint Committee on Alcoholism.
They were simply handed to the subjects with the statement
that both test and questionnaire were self-explanatory and
no further directions were necessary. The questionnaire
included the following instructions:

This test is given in cooperation with a student
research project at Michigan State University.

YOur Participation is greatly appreciated. Before

taking the test, please complete the following
questions.

 

12
The instructions for completing the DMI were described
on pages eight and nine above. The subjects were permitted
to have as much time available to them as they needed to

complete the task.

Preliminary treatment of the data

Answer sheets were scored using a previously prepared
key. The responses pertaining to each defense mechanism
were scored by giving a value of two (2) to a + (most likely)
response, zero (0) to a - (least likely) response, and one
(1) to no response. These values were added to provide a
score for each of the five defense mechanisms. thus yielding
a raw score profile of ego defense mechanisms. These raw
scores were computed to produce a mean defense pattern for

all alcoholics tested.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this section is to report and discuss
results obtained in the present study. To facilitate clarity
and understanding of the results, the following will be
treated in two separate parts, each dealing with one of
the major hypotheses.

In consideration of the first hypothesis, a one
tail test was used to compare alcoholics with normals.

The alcoholic group consisted of alcoholics who were either

active (those who were still drinking at the time they

completed the DMI or who had been continuously sober less

than one year) or inactive (those who had been continuously

sober one or more years at the time they completed the

test). The results of this comparison are shown in Table II.
TABLE II

MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALCOHOLIC AND
NORMAL MALE POPULATIONS ON THE FIVE DEFENSES OF THE DMI

 

V1

 

Normals Alcoholics
N=43 N: 4 Mean

Iean D ean D diff. t P
TAO 39.40 7.77 35.24 9.93 4.16 2.298 .025
PRO 38.44 6.68 37.13 6.72 1.31 .960 n.s.
PRN 48.42 6.76 46.24 6.50 2.18 1.590 .10
TAS 34.40 7.58 38.77 8.96 4.37 2.590 .01
REV 39.58 6.33 42.61 10.20 3.03 1.770 .05

In this comparison of alcoholics and normals, several

conclusions may be drawn. Alcoholics scored significantly

IO.-

 

O
.
I
.
n .
V. ‘ in. .
' 1
\

.‘\‘.I

'i

 

14
different on all of the defense mechanisms with the exception
of PRO, the one defense for which no prediction was made.
Alcoholics were found to use TAO and PRN less than normals,
thus substantiating the original predictions. Alcoholics
scored significantly higher on both TAS and REV than did
normals. These results substantiate the predictions that
alcoholics would turn-against-self and deny more than
normals.

From the above results on the Defense Measuring
Instrument, many generalizations may be drawn regarding
the alcoholic personality. Alcoholics, as expected, lack
assertive, aggressive defenses in their coping with stress.
They tend rather to internalize the stressful situation and
turn-against-self. This is in keeping with ego defense
patterns showing that dependent subjects are high on TAS
and REV and low on TAO. Since the alcoholic did score
higher on denial, he does revert to this primitive defense
in order to aid his disintegrated ego in coping with the
reality situation. The fact that the alcoholic has low
ego strength is shown by the low PRN score, and this again
explicates his difficulty in dealing with reality on a
day-to-day basis.

In dealing with the second hypothesis, the alcoholic
sample was subdivided into three groups: (a) active alco-
holics, (b) One to three year inactive alcoholics, and
(c) four or more year inactive alcoholics. The mean scores

of these three groups were compared with the mean of the

15
normal sample as shown in Table III.
TABLE III

A COMPARISON OF TAS MEAN SCORES
OF ALCOHOLICS WITH VARXING LENGTHS OF SOBRIETY

L

Alcoholics __. Normals
71- years or more years (N:43)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Active Inactive Inactive
113533) Apalo) (T59 L
Mean
Scores 28,82 37e10 36,6] 3Q;&Q_.

 

 

On the basis Of these results, it appears that with
an increase in the length of sobriety, the alcoholic does
move toward the TAS score of the established norm. However,
this movement toward the norm was not statistically estab-

lished by use of the t test.

Limitations of the study
Fbr purposes of the first hypothesis (comparing

both active and inactive alcoholics with the norm), the
sample drew only persons who were accepting treatment for
alcoholism and who cooperated in taking the test. This
excluded many alcoholics who were unable or unwilling to
accept treatment and who, if tested, might have altered
the findings considerably. Because of the selectivity
of the sample, these results are not applicable to all
alcoholics.

In the conclusions surrounding the second hypothesis

(comparing alcoholics with varying lengths of sobriety with

 

bur—r

 

'-

-- wi',

la

 

 

 

16
normals), it is felt that the sample size was not adequate
to support the hypothesis.

The questionnaire which was administered with the
DMI referred to the DMI as a "test". It would have been
wiser to avoid use of the word test because unnecessary
anxiety may have been aroused.

There was a general lack of cooperation on the part
of the authorities approached in administering the DMI.
Since Alcoholics Anonymous is a traditionally closed organi-
zation, outsiders were not allowed to do the testing. It
was therefore necessary to rely on professional and clerical
workers within A.A. to administer the test. In some cases,
considerable resistance was encountered. Even more resis-
tance was found in several medical settings where medical
doctors vehemently opposed allowing their patients to take
the DMI. a

There were limitations with the DMI itself in that
it is a profile test and responses on each of the five
defense mechanisms are dependent on responses on the other
four. In addition, the subjects were forced to choose
both the most and the least likely response in each set of
questions with no room for qualitative gradations. While
the subject might view one response as more representative
of his reaction than another, each was scored with the

same weight.

17

Implications of the study
This study revealed a greater use of TAS and REV

and a lesser use of PRN and TAO among alcoholics when
compared with an established norm. These differences
suggest a therapeutic focus when working with alcoholics
in a treatment setting. One therapeutic goal may be to
aid the alcoholic in reaching defensive homeostasis, i.e.,
to employ defense mechanisms in a more healthy manner
(nearer the DMI established norm).

It is generally assumed by the layman that, "Once
an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." If, as the review of
literature implied, alcoholism is caused by emotional need,
with increasing sobriety or therapy, this need could be
dissipated and the problem resolved. The description of
the alcoholic personality's ego defense pattern (low TAO
and PRN, high TAS and REV) shown in this study was sub-
stantiated, and therefore a change in this pattern (move-
ment toward the norm) might show the dissolution of the
alcoholic's "emotional need". The DMI could be used, then,
as a tool in identifying the alcoholic personality and
evaluating his progress.

The real question may emerge: "How much of the
alcoholic's drinking problem is in response to emotional
needs and how much due to biological needs?" Experts in
the past have Seen alcoholism as a biological disease--
if this could be substantiated, a change in defense pattern
may not dissipate the alcoholic's desire to drink. The

18
results of this study, on the other hand, show the presence
of a significant emotional component within the alcoholic
personality.

r r e rc

In future research, it would be necessary to increase
the size of the sample to further study the second hypothesis.
In addition, it would be helpful to obtain a sample more
representative of alcoholics as a whole. To this end,
better understanding and working cooperation with medical
doctors would be desirable.

Close consideration could be given to the length,
kind and quality of treatment as an influence on the defense
mechanism change which may or may not occur with increasing
sobriety.

Additional research could be done in the area of the
biological origin of alcoholism. After the physiological
deterioration of sustained alcoholism, the alcoholic may
consume alcohol in response to a biological rather than

emotional need.

Summary
The first hypothesis that alcoholics differ from

normals in the use of defense mechanisms was substantiated
as shown in the preceding section. Specifically, alcoholics
differed from normals in the following ways: they were (1)

(1) lower on use of turning-against-others, (2) lower on

19
principalization, (3) higher on turning-against-self, and
(4) higher on reversal.

The second hypothesis that with an increase in length
of sobriety the alcoholics' use of turning-against-self
would approach that of the norm was found to be correct as
a trend but the differences were not statistically signifi-
cant. However, the sample used in both groups of inactive
alcoholics were very small, and thus the second hypothesis

is in need of additional testing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Arieti, Silvano, Ed. American Handbeek ef Psyehiatry,
Vol. I. New Yerk: Basic Books, Inc., 1959.

2. Ale phelice Anonymeus. New YOrk: Alcoholics
Anonymous Publishing, Inc., 1 52.

3. Alcohelice Anemymeus in Hespitale. New
York: Alcoholics Anonymous Publishing, Inc., 1965.

 

4. . Alcoholics Anonymous and the Medical
Prefeeeiep. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous Pub-

lishing, inc., 1955.

5. . Alcoholism the Illness. New York:
Alcoholics . onymous PUinshing, Inc., 1958.

6. Borowitz, G.H. "Some Ego Aspects of Alcoholism,"

Br t sh Journal f Medical Ps ch 10 , Vol. 37.
No. 3 (257-263), 1953.

7. Brock, Rupert R. "Personality Correlates Associated
with Differential Success of Affiliation with
Alcoholics Anonymous, Di sertation Ab tracts, Vol. 23.
No. 5 (1778-1779). 1962.

8. Cameron, Norman. Personalit Devel ment and Pa cho-
pathelogy. Boston: Hough on in Company, 19 3.

9. Canter, Francis. "Personality Factors Related to
Participation in Treatment of Hospitalized Male

Alcoholics," Journal of Clinical Psycpology, Vol.
22, NO. I (11 '11 19

10. Edwards, Allen. Statistical Metmods for tpe Bepavioral
Sciences. New York: Rinehart 00., 195 .

11. Fenichel, Otto. The Psychoanalypic Theopy of Neumpsis.
New York: W.W. Norton an Company, c.. 1 .

12. Fbx, Ruth. "Psychiatric Aspects of Alcoholism,"

American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 19, No. 3
0-1y1960

13. Freud, Anna. e E o and the Mechanisms of Defense.

New YOrk: International Univers ties Press, 0..

1946.

.
.. . . . . -. h—w
\. ,.
. ‘ ' l .
a
- I v
I a
‘ C
I .' I ‘l .
o
C $ ‘
. a
' l
. ‘ ' o
u _ ‘ ‘
~ .
.
.
I . I . " ‘nfi ..- .
.- .
1
.
' .
. . .
. v
.
I . ‘
O
v . .
‘ I
. .
a . ‘ '
I " Vs. ~- .
.
I
I A
n
.
.
‘ I
v . I
1 . . '. .
‘ \' I. ._ . ‘ .
‘ I
i . . h '
. I .
.
. A
P
' a
l .
., .
‘ b
v - o
‘ ' . I
_.. . ‘ ' ‘
.0
I . J
.
. _
I I. a. .. ‘ ‘-
. .
.- . * . I . o
‘ ‘
C L
' ' , I _
. ‘ i
q ' . 7".
i u
. . '-
P S o .- .,
.- ‘ - ' ‘ t oruI Q...
t
.
..
1 . _ . A
n. . .... ‘ . . . ..., .h. . . . . .I'
. ‘ e __ ‘ . . ‘ l

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

21

Freund, John E. Modern Elementa Statistics. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950.

Goldstein, Gerald and Chotlos, John W. "Dependency
and Brain Damage in Alcoholics," Perce tual d
Motor Skills, Vol. 21, No. 1 (135-1ZOSLL1955.

Ihilevich, David and Glaser, Goldine. The Defense
Measuring Instrument (unpublished).

Jellinek, E.M. The Disease Conce t of Alcoholism.
Connecticut: HIIIhouse Frees, 1955.

Kuhn, Arnold J., Ed. What Familg Agencies Can Do to
Hal Alcoholics and he r Fami . nois:
Illinois Division of Alcoholism, 1962.

Iewis, Margaret L. "The Initial Contact with Wives
of élcoholics," Social Casework, Vol. 27, No. 2.
195 . ~

Mooney, M.J. Facts from Figures. Iondon: Penguin
BOOkB ’ 19570

Palola, Ernest 6.. Jackson, Joan K. and Kelleher,
Daniel. "Defensiveness in Alcoholics: Measures

Based on the MMPI," Journal or Hegitn and goggn
Behavior, Vol. 2, No. -1 9 .

Peltenburg, Cathrin M. "Casework with the Alcoholic
Patient,’ Social Casework, Vol. 27. No..2, 1956,

Pike, Lillian, Ed. Manual on Alcoholism for Social
workers. North Carolina: North Caro na partment
of Mental Health, 1965.

Pittman, David J. Alcoholism. Illinois: Charles C.
Thomas PubliSher, 1959.

Pollack, Donald, "Coping and Avoidance in Inebriated
Alcoholics and Normals " urnal A rmal P c -
lo , vol. 71, No. 6 (£17- 19 .19 .

Sapir, Jean V. "Relationship Factors in the Treatment
of the Alcoholic," §gcial Casegork, Vol. 28, No. 4,
1957.

Sapir, Jean V. "The Alcoholic as an Agency Client,"
Social Casework, Vbl. 24, No. 7. 1953. '

Selltiz, Claire, Jahoda, Marie, Deutsch, Mbrton, and

Cook, Stuart. Research Methods in Sgci%l galatigns.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and inston, c., 195 .

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

22
Singer, E., Blane, H., and Kasschau, R. "Alcoholism
and Social Isolation," J urnal of Abn rmal d S 0 a1
PflzcnOIOEE' V01. 69, NO. 6 1" 5 0 9
. The Alcoholic Husband. New4 York: Alco-
Eolics Anonymous Biblishing, Inc., 1954 .

. Th Alcoholic Wif . New York: Alcoholics
Anonymous Publ sh ng, c., 1954.

. This 1 Alcoholics Anon o s. New Ybrk:
Alco olics ANonymous BEblishing, Inc., 1953.
Wenneis, Anne C. "Responding to the Emotional Needs

of the Alcoholic," Social Casework, V01. 28, No. 4,
1957.

White, William F. "Personality and Cognitive Learning
Among Alcoholics with Different Intervals of Sobriety,"

Pszchglogical Reports, Vol. 16, No. 3, part 2 (352-
355 9 196.

White, William F‘. and Gaier, E. L. "Assessment of Body
Image and Self-Concept Among Alcoholics with Different

Intervals of Sobriety, f Cl cal P
logg, vol. 21, No. (374-377;. 1955.

White, William F. and Porter, Thomas L. "Self- Concept
Reports Among Hospitalized Alcoholics During Early

Periods of Sobriety," Journal of Counselin Ps c o-
m, Vol. 139 NO. 3(352-355 ’ 96 o

Yuker, Harold E. A Guide to Statistical Conclusions.
New Ybrk: G.P. Putman and Sons, 195 .

APPENDIX

 

This test is given in cooperation with a student research project
at Michigan State University. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
Before taking the test, please complete the following questions.

DATE

.4—

AGE SEX-- Male Female

 

EDUCATION-- last grade completed
OCCUPATION _ h
“MARITAL STATUS-- Married Separated
Single Divorced
PREVIOUS TREATMENT FOR DRINKING PROBLEM:
I. Alcoholics Anonymous-- Yes No
Number of meetings
Approximately when?
2. Physician-- Yes No

For how long?
Approximately when?

 

 

 

3. Hospital-- Yes No
For how long?
Approximately when?

 

 

4. Psychiatric-- Yes No
Individual?
Group?

5. Other (please explain)--

 

HOW LONG SOBER?
Continuous? Yes No

 

.
.
g“... N.

l“ V .

. 1 "
. . '
Luv-"I“ ‘-
.-..

u
.e
- .
s
~—~
.‘v
__ .ssy ' O
. u

r
‘l
..
.
-.
nu. -
.~ 'I.
l
‘_ \
)- .

\
-..

 

A
u
. I
u
. 9
.
, .

 

>.
I
a.
v
c
e
..«u

n7

DO NOT MAKE ANY flAl<S ON TVIS BOOKLET

INSTRUCTIONS: Read carefully

On each of the following pages is a short story. Following
each story are four questions with a choice of five answers for
each. The four questions relate to the following four kinds of
behavior: actual behavior, impulsive behavior in fantasy, thoughts,
and feeling. Of the four, it is only actual behavior which is
outwardly expressed; the other thtee take place only in the privacy
of one’s mind and, therefore, haVe no external repercussions.

What we want you to do is to select the 223 answer of the five
which you think is the most representative of how you would react,
and mark the number corresponding to that answer on the attached
answer sheet, with a plus (+) sign. Then select the 925 answer
which you think is least representative of how you would react and
mark it with a minus (-) sign. For example, let us assume that
out of the five possible answers to a question (e.g., numbers 236,
237, 238, 239, 240), reopense number 237 is the one you consider
most representative of the way you would react, and reaponse
number 240 as the least representative. In this case, the
corresponding part ofthe answer sheet would look like this:

236

237 +
238
239
240_:_.

Read all the five answers following the question before you
make your selections. In marking your answers on the answer sheet,
be sure that the number of the statement agrees with the number on
the answer sheet.

There are no right or wrong answers here, the only thing
that should guide your selections is your own knowledge of your-
self. Allow your mind to imagine for a moment that the event
described in the story is really happening to you, even though you
may never have experienced such an event. When you select your
responses remember we are 1333 asking hhiCh answer you like most
and like least, but rather the answers which would best and least
represent the way y22.would act and feel in these situations.

If you have no questions, phease turn to the next page and
begin.

 

ll
' O
s. .
.-‘- -
U
.
..
i.
.
..
.\, -
s
n- .
.
.C
-l
. .
.e.- "

 

.
.
l 9
.
.
.
.
U
c
I».
I '-
l1 .
.
I
s O ‘
I

. I
u
e
.' u
4
I
a, .
Q I
' n
l
u
.
I
u

.
. ~.
. ." _
.
.
- O
. l
. a ' >
. '4
. ' ‘
o
'. e- v
.
e
‘ .
I
I‘ .' . ‘
. P
‘0
o
. . . l I I '
a
I I
. i
I . l I ‘
.‘
'.I f ‘
. . “
t
\
.
O
.
. ,l —‘ . I Q
I ' ‘ . . I
. . '3.
L ( e ~|"
I
.. J Q ‘ .
.: g . . .
. .‘I
I -- r. . _ I
e . ' '
I I.’
. .
. . ' L. e
e
5......-
1
. e
.
g, “a. _.’
o
u.
..
. 1..
.
. . ‘ " II
' 1
' i
7 la ' v '
‘ ‘
. e
0
-ll
'. e
.
.-
I
0 . t .71 o
.
s
.
.
I l ‘A‘ '
. . '
. . |
. s
‘ . -- " . . .
‘ -
I ,
' G
.
III

You are waiting for the bus at the edge of the road. The
streets are wet and muddy after the previous night's rain. A
car sweeps through a puddle in front of you, splashing your
clothing with mud.

A. What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

1. I would note the car's licence number in order to find out
whether the driver had a motive for Splashing me.

2. I'd wipe myself off with a smile.

3. I'd yell curses after the driver.

4. I would scold myself for not having worn at least a raincoat.

5. I'd shrug it off, after all things like that are unavoidable.

B. Ehat wouldgyou IMPULSIVELY (in fantagy) want to do?

6. Wipe that driver's face in the mud.

7. Report that incompetent driver to the police

8. Kick myself for standing too close to the edge of the road.
9. Let the driver know that I don't really mind.

10. Let that driver know that bystanders also have rights.

C. What THOUGET might occur to you?

 

11. Why do I always get myself into things like this?

12. To hell with that driver!

13. I'm sure that basically that driver is a nice fellow.

14. One can expect something like this to happen on wet days.
15. I wonder if that fellow splashed me on purpose.

D. How would_you FEEL and why?

16. Satisfied, after all it could have been worse.

17. Depressed, because of my bad luck.

18. Resigned, for you've got to take things as they come.

19. Resentment, because the driver was so thoughtless and
inconsiderate.

20. FUrious that he got me dirty.

as

In the army you hold a post of responsibility for the smooth
Operation of an important department which is constantly under
great pressure to meet deadlines. Because things haven't been
running as smoothly as they should lately, despite your initiative
and resourcefulness, you have planned some changes in personnel
for the near future.

Before you do so, however, your superior officer arrives
unexpectedly, asks some brusque questions about the work of the
department and then tells you that he is relieving you of your
post and assigning your assistAnt to your place.

A. flhat wouldkyour ACTUALgpaction be?

21. I'd accept my dismissal gracefully, since the superior is
only doing his job.

22. I'd blame my superior for having made up his mind against me
even before the visit.

23. I'd be thankful for being relieved of such a tough job.

24. I'd complain about my superior to the appropriate authorities.

25. I'd blame myself for not being competent enough.

B. What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

26. Congradulate my assistant on his promotion.

27. Expose the probable plot between my superior and my
assistant to get rid of me.

28. Tell my superior to go to hell.

29. I'd like to kill myself for not having made the necessary
changes sooner.

30. I'd like to quit, but one can't do that in the army.

C. Eh§t_, HOUGHT might occur to you?

 

31. I wish I could come face to face with my superior in a

dark alley.
32. In the army it is essential to have the right man in the

right job.
33. There is no doubt that this was just an excuse to get rid of me.
34. I'm really lucky that I only lost my job and not'my rank as well.
35. How could I be so dumb!

D. flgw would you FEEL and why;

 

36. Resentful, because he had it in for me.

37. Angry, because he took away my job.

38. Delighted that nothing worse had happened.

39. Upset that I am a failure.

40. Resigned, after all, one must be satisfied with having
done the best one can.

U.

You are living with your aunt and uncle, who are helping to put
you through college. They have taken care of you since your parents
were killed in an automobile accident when you were in your early
teens. On a night that you have a late date with your "steady",
there is a heavy storm outside. Your aunt and uncle insist that
you call and cancel your date because of the weather and the late
hour. You are about to disregard their wishes and go out the door
when your uncle says in a commanding tone of voice, "Your aunt and
I have said that you can't go, and that is that."

A. What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

41. I would do as my uncle said because he has always wanted what
was best for me.
42. I'd tell them, "You think that I am not old enough to take
care of myself."
43. I would cancel my date, since one must keep peace in the family.
44. I'd tell them that I was going anyway.
45. I'd agree to remain at home and apologize for having upset them.

B. What would_you IMPULSIVELY gin fantasy) want to do?

46. Knock my head against the wall.

47. Isll them to stop ruining my life.

48. Thank them for being so concerned with my welfare.

49. Leave, slamming the door in their faces.

50. Make them realize that it is important that I keep my
engagements, rain or shine.

C. What THOQQET might occur*to 3993,

51. Why don't they shut up and let me alone?

52. They think that I owe them blind obedience.

53. They are so good to me, I should follow their advice without
question.

54. You can't take without giving something in return.

55. It's all my own fault for planning such a late date.

D. How wouldfiyou FEEL and why?

56. Annoyed, that they think I am a baby.

57. Miserable, because there is nothing much I can do.

58. Grateful for their concern.

59. Resigned, after all you can't get your own way every time.
60. FUrious, because they interfere with my business.

You are extremely eager to do well in sports, but of all those
at which you have tried your hand, only in basketball have you been
able to achieve a measure of success. However, until now, whenever
you have applied for membership in a team or Sports club, although
the judges have appeared impressed with your initial performance,
their final decision has always been the same---they tell you that
you've just missed making the grade.

One afternoon your car breaks down and you are forced to take
a bus home during the rush hour. As you stand in the crowded bus,
you hear your wife's voice. She is seated together with the manager
of the team to which you have just applied. You overhear the manager
tell her, "Your husband has a nice style of play, we're thinking of
asking him to join our club." Then you hear your wife laugh and
reply, "Take it from me, he hasn't got what it takes in the long run."

A. What wouldgyour ACTUAL reaction be?

61. I'd have it out with her.

62. I would greet her affectionately, as usual, when I arrived
home because I know she really appreciates me.

63. I'd be quiet and withdrawn for the rest of the evening, not
mentioning what I had overheard.

64. I'd take it in my stride, for women's talk is novel taken
seriously.

65. I'd tell her that I wasn't surprised by what I'd overheard
because I had always thought she was two-faced.

B. What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantagy) want to do?

66. Tell my wife that I overheard her, and was proud of her frankness.
67. Break her neck.
68. Tell her that men expect loyalty from their wives.
69. Let her know that I'd always suspeCted her of talking behind
my back.
70. Step off somewhere so I wouldn't have to face her.

C. What THOUGHT might occur to you?

71. I bet she talks about me that way to everybody.

72. What could I have done that makes her feel this way about me?
73. I'm sure she's only kidding.

74. One shouldn't be bothered by such talk.

75. She needs to be taught a lesson.

D. How would you FEEL and why?

76. worthless, because I'd realize what a failure I was as a
husband.

77. Outraged, that she had spoken of me that way.

78. Unconcerned, because women are like that.

79. FUrious, because her gossip has probably contributed to
most of my past failures.

80. Serene, because I know the manager will realize that she
doesn't know what she is saying.

At your job you want to impress upon your foreman the fact
that you are more skilled than your fellow workers; YOu are
eagerly awaiting an opportunity to prove yourself.

One day a new machine is brought into the factory. The fore-
man calls all the workers together snd asks whether anyone knows
how to Operate it.. Ybu sense the chance you have been waiting for,
so you tell the foreman that you have worked with a similar machine
and would like a chance to try your hand at this one. But he
refuses, saying, "Sorry, we can't take a chance," and calls a
veteran worker to come over and try to get the machine started.

No sooner has the veteran worker pulled the starter, than
sparks begin to fly and the machine grinds to a halt. At this
point the foreman calls and asks you if you still want a chance
to try and start the machine.

A. Hhat would your aCTUAL reaction be?

81. I'd say that I doubt if I could do it either.

82. I'd tell my fellow workers that the foreman wants to hold me
responsible for the machine's crack-up.

83. I'd tell the foreman that I appreciated his giving me the chance.

84. I'd decline, cursing the foreman under my breath.

85. I'd tell the foreman that I would try because one must never
back down from a challenge.

B. What would you IMPULSIVELX (in fantasy) want to do?

86. Tell that foreman that he'll not make me the scapegoat for
a broken machine.

87. Thank the foreman for not letting me try it first.

88. Tell the foreman that he should try to start a broken machine
himself.

89. Point out to the foreman that experience doesn't guarantee
success.

90. Kick myself for talking myself into an unbearable situation.

C. Ehat THOUGHTtnight occur to you?

91. That foreman is really a pretty decent guy.

92. Damn him and his blasted machine.

93. This foreman is out to get me.

94. Machines are not always reliable.

95. How could I be so stupid as to even think of Operating
that machine.

D. How would you FEEL and why?

96. Indifferent, because when one's abilities are not appreciated
one's enthusiasm is lost.

97. Angry that I was asked to do an impossible job.

98. Glad that I didn't wreck the machine.

99. Annoyed that I was purposely put on the Spot.

100. Disgusted with myself because I risked making a fool out
of‘myself.

 

.l
.l

 

a
- a
J O .
u
x
v
n
A
O
n
V
a
o

 

t.

On your way to catch a train, you are hurrying through
a narrow street lined with tall buildings. Suddenly a piece
of masonry comes crashing down from a roof where repairmen are
working. A piece of brick bounces off the sidewalk, bruising
you in the leg.

A. Ehat would your ACTUAL reaCtion be?

101. I'd tell them I ought to sue them.

102. I'd curse myself for having such bad luck.

103. I'd hurry on, for one should not permit oneself to be
diverted from one's plans.

104. I'd continue on my way, grateful that nothing worse had
happened.

105. I'd try to discover who the negligent persons are.

Do Ehat wouldgyou IMPULSIVELYALin fantasy) want to do?

106. Remind the men of their obligation to public safety.
107. Assure those men that nothing serious had happened.
108. Give them a piece of my mind.

109. Kick myself for not having watched where I was going.
110. Sea to it that those careless workers lose their job.

9' What: THCJQGHT might. PSEQLtBflBl

111. Those men don't know how to do their job right.
112. I'm lucky that I wasn't seriously hurt.

113. Damn those men!

114. Why do these things always happen to me?

115. One can't be too careful these days.

D. How would you FEEL and why?

 

116. FUrious, because I was hurt.

117. Angered, because I was almost killed by their negligence.
118. calm, for one must practice self control.

119. Upset by my bad luck.

120. Thankful that I'd gotten away with no more than a scratch.

 

h.-
A CC.
.
C
1 I
u
.. .. .
I
v..
I.
.
. . .
'C.
.
I
I I
p
U I
.
I
. .
v
.. . .
. .v
.
. f
'3 II.
.
n O
.
. u S.
0 V»
I r Q
q
n
.. w
c

-.d.

it

 

 

I ' I .l
u . . (a
-
. . lo
.
.9
a
O
C a n
.
C n
.
i ..
. .
o.
o
I .
.
. .
1..
I
I
n
. u.
l
v
I I o
9'
not
I
I l
v n
I
.
n . .
o
. . .rl .
l I
.
O . .

 

Driving through town in the late afternoon, you arrive at

one of the busieSt intersections. Although the light has changed
in your favor, you see that pedestrians are not obeying the

"wait" sign and are blocking your path. You attempt to complete

your turn with due caution before the light turns against you.

As you complete the turn, a traffic policeman orders you over

to the side and charges you with violating the pedestrians' right-
of-way. You explain that you had taken the only possible course

of action, but the policeman proceeds to give you a ticket nevertheless.

A. What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

121. I'd blame myself for having been careless.
122. I'd go to court and bring counter charges against the policeman.
123. I'd ask the policeman why he has such a grudge against drivers.
124. I'd try to c00perate with the policeman, who, after all,

is a good guy.
125. I'd take the ticket without question, since the policeman

was just doing his duty.

B. What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

126. Tell the policeman he can't use his position to push

me around.
127. Kick myself for not having waited for the next green light.
128. Thank the policeman for saving me from a possible accident.
129. Stand up for my rights as a matter of principle.
130. Slam the door in his face and drive off.

C. What THOUGHT might occur to you?

131. He's doing the right thing, actually I ought to thank him
for teaching me an important lesson.

132. Each man must carry out his job as he sees it.

133. This guy ought to go back to pounding a beat.

134. New could I be so stupid!

135. I bet he gets a kick out of giving tickets to people.

D. How would you FEEL and why?

136. Boiling anger, because he's making trouble for me.

137. Resentment, because he's picking on me.

138. Ashamed, because I was negligent.

139. Indifferent, after all, this sort of thing happens all the time.

140. Relieved, because I'd been prevented from getting into worse
trouble.

You return home after Spending two years in the army.

f.

At the

time you joined you had had a choice between enlistment and a position

in your fathers business.
advice.
Opportunity hasn't widened appreciably.
father's business or get a job as an untrained worker.

You preferred the army despite parental
Now that you are home again, you find that your range of
You can either join your
You would

like to open a coffee shop, but you lack the capital necessary to

carry out such an enterprise.
decide to ask your father to put up the money.

After a great deal of hesitation, you
After listening to

your preposal, he reminds you that he had wanted you to take a job with

his firm instead of joining the army.

Then he tells you, "I'm not

prepared to throw away my hard-earned money on your crazy schemes.
It's time you started helping me in my business."

A.
141.

142.
143.
144.

145.
B.

146.
147.
148.

149.
150.

C.

151.
152.
153.
154.
155.

D.

156.
157.
158.
159.
160.

Ehagfigeg}§,ygur ACTUAL reaction be?

I'd accept his offer, since everyone depends on everyone
else in this world.

I would admit to him that I guess I am a bad risk.

I'd tell him off in no uncertain terms.

I'd tell him that I'd always suSpected that he had a grudge
against me. _ . .

I'd thank him for holding a job open for me all these years.

flgwuwouldAygu_IHPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to react?

Go to work for him and make him happy.

Give up trying and end it all.

Take my father's offer since offfers like that don't grow
on trees.

Let him know what a miser everyone thinks he is.

Tell him that I wouldn't work for him if he were the last
man on earth.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

He'll get what's coming to him one day.

Family considerations can't enter into business decisions.
Why was I so stupid as to bring the Subject up.

I must admit that my father is acting for my own good.
This proves what I've suSpected all along, that my father
has never believed in me.

flow would YOUAEEEL and wyy?

 

Angry, because he doesn't want me to succeed on my own.

Grateful for his offer of a job with a future.

Resentful that he is sabotaging my future.

Resigned, since you can't have everything your own way all the time.
Repeless, because I couldn't get my father's support.

Having just come out of an exhibition at the art museum, you stop
by to visit your 531 friend. You are rather'exhausted but impressed,
and deeply inspired by what you have just seen. Referring to your
visit to the museum, you rema k that it must be very exciting to be a
creative artist. Your girl friend asks, "fibuld you really like to be
an artist?" You reply eagerly, "Not a painter, but a ballet dancer!

A ballet dancer is what I've always wanted to be." Ybur girl friend
jerks away from you in dismay, exclaiming, "What kind of a man are
you, anyway?"

A. Ehat would_your ACTUAL_reaction be?

161. I'd tell her that it's obvi~;us now that she'd never liked me.
162. I'd tell her, "One's profession is no indicator of one's manliness."
1630 I'd inSUlt her.
164. I'd tell her that I'm sure she doesn't really mean what she
is saying.
165. I'd tell her how sorry I am to disappoint her.

B. What would_you IMPULSIYELY (in fantasy) want to do?

166. Tell her I can't help being the way I am.

167. Leave, slamming the door in her face.

168. Assure her that I have no intention of really going into ballet.

169. Thil her that she is ignorant about art and is just jealous
because she doesn't know as much about the arts as I do.

170. Tell her that there is nothing unmanly about ballet dancing.

C. Ehat THOUGHT might occur toyyou?

171. I deserve such a rebuff.

172. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

173. She is an extremely limited girl.

174. This girl deserves to be taught a lesson she won't forget.
175. She really cares about me.

D. How would you FEEL and why?

176. Happy that she is so frank with me.

177. Annoyed at myself for discussing it with her.

178. Unaffected, because girls say things like that‘wlthout really
meaning them.

179. Angry became. 0112 18 so stupid.
190- serious that she dared to speak to me in that way.

 

9"-

)‘a

.
. a.
.
-.
.
l""
. .-

~~l-'l"-

. I
l
u
n

l ' n
u .

. . .

l

 

,
.
.'
w. -0.
a
.
.
I.
. .
.'
.
a
.

 

I. .
. ‘.
I .'
. (
.
.
t
_‘ l
u
o
9
.
I
. .
I
\ ‘ t
.
I
’.
.

~-..-.-.o

C.

You and an old school friend are competing for a newly
vacated executive position in the firm where you work. Although
both your chances seem about equal, your friend has had more
Opportunity to show resourcefulness in critical situations.
Recently, however, you have successfully pushed through some
excellent deals. In spite of this, the board of directors
decides to promote your friend rather than you.

A. What would your ACTUAL_reaction be?

181. I'd try to find out which director "blackballed" me.

182. I'd continue to do my duty as a respossible person must.

183. I'd accept the outcome as proof that I'm not executive
material.

184. I'd protest the decision of the board most vehemently.

185. I'd congradulate my friend on the promotion.

B. What would you IMPULSIVELY Lin fanfasy ) want to do?

186. Ask the board to reconsider, since a mistake would be
detrimental to the company.

187. Kick myself for having aspired to a job for which I
wasn't qualified.

188. Show the board how biased they've been in their unjust
treatment of me.

189. Help my friend make a success at the new job.

190. Break the neck of each and every member of the board of
directors.

C. What THOUGHT might occur to you?

191. I guess I just don't have what it takes.
192. I probably wouldn't enjoy an executive position as much
as the one I have now.
193. There certainly is something fishy about the board's decision.
194. One must take a blow such as this in one's stride.
195. Damn that board of directors.

D. How would you FEEL and why?

196. Happy that I still have the job I am used to.

197. Upset because my inadequacy was made public.

198. Furious at the directors because of their treatment of me.
199. Resigned, for that's the way it goes in the business world.
200. Angry, because I have been the victim of an unjust decision..

‘4

MIC

111

SAN

rim/m:

3

T

Ill/El

1

 

115113111711111111“