Differentiating characteristics of autoevolutionary and modal persons

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Differentiating characteristics of autoevolutionary and modal persons
Physical Description:
xi, 129 leaves : ; 28cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Weikel, William Joseph, 1949-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Self-actualization (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
Personality   ( lcsh )
Mental health   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 98-110.
Statement of Responsibility:
by William Joseph Weikel.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000163039
oclc - 02733093
notis - AAS9389
System ID:
AA00004924:00001

Full Text












DIFFERENTIATING CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL PERSONS









By

WILLIAM JOSEPH WEIKEL


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY













UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1975
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


A doctoral dissertation is very rarely an individual

endeavor. From its inception it requires the combined

talent of many persons, who each in their unique way aid

the author in shaping and polishing the finished product.

The author wishes to thank those who contributed their time

and talents.

Dr. Richard H. Johnson, Chairman of the writer's

doctoral committee and good friend, who for two years has

helped the author to learn and grow both as a professional

and as a person. Knowing and working with Dr. Johnson is

something the author will always cherish and remember.

Dr. E. L. Tolbert, member of the writer's committee,

who was always willing to give advice and support, often

on very short notice.

Dr. James Joiner, member of the writer's committee

and minor advisor for invaluable teaching experience, help

and support all along the way.

Dr. Larry Loesch for many valuable suggestions that

improved the quality of the research.

Dr. Harold Riker, former Acting Department Chairman,

and Dr. Joe Wittmer, current Chairman, for advice, guidance

and the graduate assistantships that eased financial

pressure.










Dr. Ted Landsman, for encouraging the author's interest

in positive health and optimal functioning and for his many

suggestions and assistance in completing this research.

Dr. David Lane, for his critical review of the manu-

script.

Dr. Harry Grater, for providing the author with a

teaching assistantship and making this last year financially

easier.

A number of other people have also been a great help:

Nancy Spisso, Fred Piercy, Rick Davis and the other members

of Dr. Johnson's seminar gave much help and advice.

Barbara Rucker for doing an excellent job of typing the

manuscript on very short notice. Judy Youmans for her

clerical help and skills. Mr. Ed Johnson of the Gaines-

ville Sun for his invaluable aid in securing subjects,

and all of the wonderful men and women of Gainesville, who

gave so freely of their time by taking part in the study.

Last, and most important, has been the continued

support and encouragement of my wife, Jo Ann,and son, Billy.


iii


















TABLE OF COIITEIIT1


Page


ACKII ,/ULEDGC1EirT: .

LIST OF TABLES .


ABSTRACT . .

Chapters

I INTRODUCTION .

Purpose of the Study .
Significance of the Study.
Definition of Terms .

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .


Self Actualization .
Values . .
Theories of Psychological Health
Optimal Functioning. .
Autonomy . .
Self-Concept . .
Sense of Mission .
Humor . .
Physical Health .
Creativity . .
Active States of Positive Health
Summary . .


and

. .

* .


9
. 9
. 15

. 18
. 28
. 29
. 30
. 30
. 31
. 31
. 33
. 34


III METHODOLOGY. .


. 38


Subjects .
Instruments--Rationale .
Instruments--Description
Procedures .
Hypotheses .
Data Analysis. .


S38
S41
. 42
. 49
. 52
54


IV RESULTS . .

V DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .

Implications for Further Research.


. 55


. 95


. . vi










TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

Chapters Page

Summary . . .. 97
Conclusions. . . 98

REFERENCES . . .. 99

APPENDICES . . 111

Appendix A Do You Act or React? ... 111
Appendix B Defining Trait Adjectives and
Description of High Scorers on Fifteen
Scales of the PRF, Form A . .. 113
Appendix C Form E, Rokeach Dogmatism Scale 117
Appendix D Abridged Means-End Problem
Solving Procedure . .. 121
Appendix E Questionnaire Completed by Both
Groups . . 125
Appendix F Initial Contact Letter to Subjects. 128

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. . .. .130

















LIST OF TABLES


Number


1 Motivations and Gratifications of Self-
Actualizing People, Obtained through Their
Work as Well as in Other Ways .

2 Two Illustrative Conceptions of Positive
Mental Health in Terms of Multiple
Criteria . . .

3 The Fully Functioning Person as Described
by Carl Rogers . .

4 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Achievement Scale of the PRF .


. 12



. 18


. 23



. 56


5 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Affiliation Scale of the PRF .

6 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Aggression Scale of the PRF .

7 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Autonomy Scale of the PRF .

8 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Dominance Scale of the PRF .

9 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Endurance Scale of the PRF .

10 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Exhibition Scale of the PRF .

11 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Harmavoidance Scale of the PRF


. 56



. 57


. 58



. 58



. 59



. 59


Page










LIST OF TABLES continued


Number

12 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Impulsivity Scale of the PRF.

13 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Nurturance Scale of the PRF .

14 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Order Scale of the PRF. .

15 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Play Scale of the PRF .

16 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Social Recognition Scale of the
PRF . .

17 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Understanding Scale of the PRF.

18 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Infrequency Scale of the PRF. .

19 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale .


Page


. 60


. 61


. 63



. 63


20 Analysis of Variance between Autoevolu-
tionary and Modal Subjects as Measured
by the Abridged Means-End Problem
Solving Procedure . .

21 Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for
Autoevolutionary and Modal Subjects on
15 PRF Scales, the Dogmatism Scale and
the Abridged Means-End Test. .

22 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I am a Religious Person .

23 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
At Times, I Enjoy Being Alone. .


. 65


67


vii










LIST OF TABLES continued


Number

24 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I am Capable of Forming Intimate Rela-
tionships with Others. . .

25 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Enjoy My Job, Profession or Vocation

26 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Have a Good Sense of Humor .


Page


. 68



. 69


27 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Have an Enjoyable Sex Life .

28 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Enjoy Life . .

29 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Am a "Good" Person . .

30 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Enjoy Good Physical Health .. ..

31 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I am a Dependent Person .

32 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Usually Catch Colds, the Flu, etc.

33 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I am a Creative Person .

34 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I am an Optimist . .

35 Response Frequencies of Autoevolutionary
and Modal Subjects to the Statement:
I Enjoy Leading Other People .


viii


. 69


. 71


S 72


. 74










LIST OF TABLES continued


Number Page

36 Response Frequencies and Categories of
Response Given by Autoevolutionary and
Modal Subjects to the Question: What
Do You Like about Yourself?. . 74

37 Response Frequencies and Categories of
Response Given by Autoevolutionary and
Modal Subjects to the Question: What
Do You Dislike about Yourself? .. 76

38 Response Frequencies and Categories of
Response Given by Autoevolutionary and
Modal Subjects to the Question: How
Do You Think You Became the Type of
Person That You Are Now? . .. 77

39 Response Frequencies and Categories of
Response Given by Autoevolutionary and
Modal Subjects to the Question: If You
Weren't Working at Your Present Job,
Profession, etc., What Other Job or
Profession Would You Be Engaged In?. ... .78

40 Response Frequencies and Categories of
Response Given by Autoevolutionary and
Modal Subjects to the Question: If
You Do Any Volunteer, Public Service
Work, etc., Why Do You Do It?. 79











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


DIFFERENTIATING CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL PERSONS

By

William Joseph Weikel

August, 1975

Chairman: Richard H. Johnson
Major Department: Counselor Education

Autoevolutionary persons were defined as psychologi-

cally healthy people who act upon the environment to effect

adaptive change. In addition, they strive to be fully-

functioning or self-actualizing persons. These persons

were identified in a community, based on the nominations

of their peers, for their high degree of community service.

Judges selected those nominees who appeared to exhibit a

great deal of community service and seemed psychologically

healthy. These people comprised the group of autoevolu-

tionary subjects. A comparison group of modal or average

citizens was drawn from the same community and matched so

that the groups would be approximately equal in age. Both

groups completed the Personality Research Form, Rokeach

Dogmatism scale, Means-End Procedure and responded to a

number of experimental questions. Significant differences

were noted between the groups on four of the seventeen

measures: Order, Social Recognition, Understanding and
x









the quantitative measure of Means-End thinking. Differ-

ences were discussed and suggestions were given for further

research in the area of positive psychological health.















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Historically, helping professionals have concerned them-

selves with individuals experiencing a wide range of develop-

mental problems, maladjustments, neuroses, and psychoses.

Relatively few theorists or researchers have considered the

psychologically healthy personality ". generalized

interest in the positive dimensions of psychological health

among psychologists and social scientists has arisen

largely in the last twenty (now thirty) years" (Puttick,

1964, p. 14).

Jahoda (1958) was among the first to offer concepts of

positive mental health and to suggest research strategies

to examine positive health. Maslow (1950) pioneered the

study of the super-healthy personality and postulated the

existence of "self-actualizing" people. Until his death in

1970, Maslow continued to study optimal functioning and

stimulated much research in this area. Landsman (1968)

defined the "beautiful and noble person" as a more exter-

nally observable self-actualizing individual; a product of

positive experience. Others have presented theories of

positive mental health and optimal functioning including

Jourard (1959, 1964, 1968), Allport (1955, 1961), Yamamoto

(1966), Rogers (1961), Angyl (1952), Erikson (1959), Combs

1







2

and Snygg (1959), Combs (1962), Frankl (1960), Buber (1937,

1955), Drevdahl and Cattell (1958), and Puttick (1964).

These and others will be examined at length in Chapter Two.

The present thesis offers a new conception of positive

mental health and optimal functioning, based on a variety

of previous theories and the author's interpretation and

expansion of these ideas. The term coined to describe this

newly conceptualized individual is the "Autoevolutionary

Person."

The term "autoevolutionary" or "autoevolution" was

chosen over previously employed terms such as "self-

actualizing" (Maslow, Goldstein) or "beautiful and noble

person" (Landsman) because it more aptly describes the

qualities of the subjects chosen for study. Self-actualizing

was defined as "developing and fulfilling one's innate,

positive potentialities" (Wolman, 1973, p. 342); it is

basically an individual internal process. Terms such as

"fully-functioning" (Rogers, 1957, 1957, 1961) and the

"disclosed self" (Jourard, 1964, 1967, 1968) also stressed

an internal process of growth and optimal functioning.

Landsman's (1968) "beautiful and noble person" is a

more external, observable state, including "how the person

is perceived by others" (1968, p. 15) and a "joyful,

passionate relationship with his environment" (1968, p. 16),

as well as other criteria listed by theorists such as

Maslow, Jourard and May.

The autoevolutionary person is seen in two distinct









ways. When the "auto" or self is considered in a constant

state of change, growth or evolution, the concept is akin

to Roger's "fully functioning person," Maslow's "self-

actualizing" person, and Landsman's "beautiful and noble

person." It is in the second sense of the word that

differences from previous conceptions of positive mental

health become apparent. In this sense, the "auto," self

or person acts upon the external environment (persons,

things, etc.) in an attempt to effect adaptive change.

These persons are seen as actively directing the evolution

of their species, by acting upon the environmental structure

to which the species will eventually react. These actions

could be improving a neighborhood park so that children

have a healthier environment in which to play and grow, or

by acting (with love, openness, honesty, etc.) rather than

reacting to other people (See "Do You Act or React,"

Appendix A). Levels of autoevolutionary development may

range from very low to very high. The concept of auto-

evolution is examined in-depth later in this chapter.


Purpose of the Study


The purpose of the study was to identify autoevolu-

tionary persons in a community and to compare these persons

to average or "modal" functioners in the same community.

Specific research questions were:

1. Are those persons selected by judges for their
high degree of community service also "fully
functioning" and psychologically well-adjusted









as measured by standard personality inventories;
thus justifying the use of the term "autoevolu-
tionary?"

2. What psychological traits or constructs distinguish
the autoevolutionary person from the modal perfor-
mer and in what quantitative and qualitative ways
do they differ in these traits?

3. What demographic and experential variables are
significantly different between the two groups?


Significance of the Study


In the late sixties and early seventies, thousands of

"normal" people have flocked to various encounter, growth

or enrichment groups. Obviously, something beyond society's

stamp of "normality" is desired by these people. By study-

ing the optimal functioners among us, it may be possible

to determine how they reached this state, and if we so

desire, develop pathways for others to increase their func-

tioning. Landsman (1968) feels that "the study of man's

best self is the proper study of mankind" (p. 15). Landsman

has pointed out "wishes" that may be fulfilled by studying

man's best self. They include restoring abnormal and mal-

adjusted persons not only to normality, but to a higher

state in which they may realize their full potential;

discovering the developmental process which fosters growth

into the beautiful, self-actualizing or autoevolutionary

person so that we may offer this to our children; and,

finding the therapies or experiences which will facilitate

the transition of normal adults into the state of optimal

functioning.









Smith (1959) felt that we needed specific guidelines

to distinguish whether the values associated with positive

mental health differed from those held by the average

citizen. In justifying the study of positive health,

Smith wrote, "For the institutional psychiatrist still

baffled by the treatment of gross mental disease (cf,

Barton in Jahoda, 1958, p. 111-119), there is no problem

here: mental health, for his practical purposes, is the

absence of flagrant mental illness. .but the parent, the

teacher, the psychological counselor can hardly avoid

concern with the positive end of the spectrum" (p. 674).

Another aspect is that autoevolutionary persons, like

Maslow's (1967b) "metamotivated" persons are seen as trans-

cending the work-play dichotomy and deriving tremendous

stimulation and enjoyment from their particular vocation.

They identify with the job and utilize it as a source of

self-definition. By studying the person in relation to the

job, it may be possible to gain valuable insights applicable

to vocational counseling, career development, rehabilitation

counseling, and vocational adjustment.

Finally, if we consider Maslow's (1969d) adoption of

the term "growing-tip"--the tip of the plant where the

greatest genetic action is taking place--and consider the

optimal functioner as our species growing tip, we will have

some idea of human capabilities and our evolutionary future.

By nurturing the conditions that are growth fostering in

the internal and external environment, we can, if so









desired, approach the level of optimal functioning. Maslow

explained his rationale for studying the actualization of

the highest human potential:

If we want to answer the question how tall can
the human species grow, then obviously it is
well to pick out the ones who are already tallest
and study them. If we want to know how fast a
human being can run, then it is no use to average
out the speed of a "good sample" of the population;
it is far better to collect Olympic gold medal
winners and see how well they can do. If we want
to know the possibilities for spiritual growth,
value growth, or moral development in human beings,
then I maintain that we can learn most by studying
our most moral, ethical or saintly people (1969d,
p. 726).

That we have failed in the past to study those who

approach human nature's farthest reaches has been stressed

by Maslow:

Even when "good specimens," the saints and the
sages and great leaders of history, have been
available for study, the temptation too often
has been to consider them not human but super-
naturally endowed (1969d, p. 726).


Definition of Terms


Autoevolution

The autoevolutionary person is seen primarily in two

ways. First, as "auto" or self evolvers, they act upon the

external environment to modify it. This gives them a

favorable medium with which to react. In other words, if

autoevolutionary persons are to live in a particular

society, country, family, etc., they will act upon and

influence that unit to make it the best possible unit,

knowing that the environmental structure will powerfully









influence all of its members. By shaping the environment,

these persons in turn shape their own destiny as evolving,

reacting residents within that environment.

In the second sense of the word, the auto or self is

constantly evolving or in flux. It is a dynamic, ever-

changing, risk-taking self, seeking adaptive evolutionary

change. The self in this sense is very similar to Roger's

(1957, 1959, 1961) "fully-functioning person," and Maslow's

self-actualizing persons. These people are open to

experience, tolerant of ambiguity and possess confidence

and trust in the self. The autoevolutionary process like

the self-actualizing process is never complete:

(it) is a self-perpetuating, ongoing and
never finished process. .each new involvement
of the self begets further involvement. .a
person is never "self-actualized" but is always
in the process of finding new goals and new
expression. .to paraphrase Shakespeare, self-
actualization is. .as if increase of appetite
grows by what it feeds on (Rush, 1969, p. 19).

The autoevolutionary person is constantly assimilating and

accommodating experiences in the sense described by Piaget

(1950) and is becoming an "active master of his environ-

ment" (Yamamoto, 1966, p. 601).

Modal Functioners

The term "modal" was chosen for this study rather than

"average" or "normal" to avoid the confusion that often

accompanies these terms. Duncan (1970) said, "normal

implies that anything above or below it is abnormal" and

that average "has a rather negative connotation" (p. 20).









Modal functioners are defined as those who function on

the same level as most others in a particular setting. The

statistical use of the term mode is "the score on a set of

scores that occurs most frequently" (Glass 6 Stanley, 1970,

p. 58). Translating this into actual behavioral terms, the

modal person is the one who behaves as most others do in a

particular setting. This person is representative of the

"norms" for a particular group. A modal airline pilot may

be one who originally began as a combat flyer, is 44 years

old, flies 12,500 miles in a nine-day period, is divorced

and drinks scotch. The closer a person is to these norms,

the more he/she approaches the definition of the modal

person. Because of individual differences, a true "modal

person" is unlikely. Most persons are better in some areas

and are weaker or score lower on others, but their overall

profile appears modal.
















CHAPTER II

PFVIET'. OF THE LITERATURE


Self-Actualization

For many years, the most prominent theorists in the

field of positive psychological health and optimal func-

tioning was Abraham H. Maslow. He outlined the many

aspects of positive functioning: motivation, self-actuali-

zation, values, needs, cognition, creativity, peak

experience, religion, transcendent functioning and others.

A complete bibliography of Maslow's related work appears

in the reference section.

Central to Maslow's theories was the existence of a

need hierarchy, a progressive series of needs that must be

satisfied in ascending order, before one could progress to

the higher need. Maslow called these "deficit needs" and

"growth needs." He used the term "self actualizing" to

describe high-level functioners who had satisfied the

deficit needs and were expanding and exploring the possi-

bilities of the true self (1950, 1962a, 1962b). This was

a redefinition of the term, since Goldstein (1940) had used

it to describe the motivation basic to man. In Goldstein's

sense

S. .a goal of such outgoing, exploring, and adjus-
tive activity is self-actualization--the fullest,

9









most complete differentiation and harmonious blend-
ing of all aspects of man's total personality, the
realization of inherent potentialities (Fuerst,
1965, p. 2).

Goldstein felt that it was "any gratification, whether it

be a hungry person eating or an ignorant person's quest

for knowledge" (Rush, 1969, p. 17).

Maslow saw the self-actualizing process as more of an

internal, growth-oriented phenomena. A self-actualizing

person has

.an inner compulsion to integrate his interests,
talents and abilities to the point that he works
toward becoming what he must become. .similar
to Nietzche's admonition "Be what thou art!"
(Rush, 1969, p. 19).

Jung (1935) called this the "individualization process"

or the attainment of the true self. Maslow felt that the

self-actualizing process was self-perpetuating. Fuerst

(1965) gave the example of a college professor who was

economically secure, had tenure and yet worked himself sick

for the sake of his research:

Hard work, once a means to an end, becomes an end
in itself. What now is motivating him was at
first instrumental to some other end, that is
to some earlier motive (p. 4).

Self-actualizing individuals were seen as no longer

motivated by the basic needs. Maslow (1967, 1971) postu-

lated that they had "meta-needs" and were "meta-motivated."

He wrote:

It is therefore convenient to call these higher
motives and needs of self-actualizing persons by
the name "meta-needs" and also to differentiate
the category of motivation from the category of
"meta-motivation". .. Meta-motivation now
seems not to ensure automatically after basic









need gratification. One must speak also of the
additional variable of "defenses against meta-
motivation". it may turn out to be useful to
add to the definition of the self-actualizing
person, not only (a) that he be sufficiently
free of illness, (b) that he be sufficiently
gratified in his basic needs, and (c) that he
be positively using his capacities, but also
(d) that he be motivated by some values which
he strives for or gropes for and to which he is
loyal (1971, p. 301).

Maslow saw self-actualizing people as being dedicated to

some task, call, vocation or beloved work outside of them-

selves (1971, p. 300). In their vocation, they transcend

the dichotomy of work and play; things such as wages,

vacations and hobbies are defined at higher levels. Maslow

described the metamotivated self-actualizer in the work

setting:

This person is the best in the world for this
particular job, and this particular job is the
best job in the whole world for this particular
person and his talents, capacities and tastes.
He was meant for it, and it was meant for him
(1971, p. 304).

These people use their work as a source of self-definition

and identify strongly with their vocation; they embody the

values of a particular job, rather than the job itself.

Maslow felt that if these values could be identified and

examined, a greater understanding and improvement of the

species would be possible. Intrinsic reinforcers such as

peak experiences (high level positive human experiences)

are the pay-offs that make even routine aspects of a job

or task worthwhile.

Maslow (1967, 1971) translated these reinforcers into

a series of subjective values and states of being (see









Table 1). The majority of people are motivated by defi-

ciency or neurotic needs, or a combination of these, but it

is possible that all persons are metamotivated and less

basic need motivated than the average person (1971, p. 315).

Maslow (1967, 1971) said, "The closer to self-actualizing,

to full-humanness, etc., the person is, the more likely I am

to find that his 'work' is metamotivated rather than basic-

need motivated" (1971, p. 310).





TABLE 1

MOTIVATIONS AND GRATIFICATIONS OF SELF-ACTUALIZING
PEOPLE, OBTAINED THROUGH THEIR WORK AS WELL AS IN OTHER WAYS.
(THESE ARE IN ADDITION TO BASIC-NEED GRATIFICATIONS.)


Delight in bringing about justice.
Delight in stopping cruelty and exploitation.
Fighting lies and untruths.
They love virtue to be rewarded.
They seem to like happy endings, good completions.
They hate sin and evil to be rewarded, and they hate people
to get away with it.
They are good punishers of evil.
They try to set things right, to clean up bad situations.
They enjoy doing good.
They like to reward and praise promise, talent, virtue, etc.
They avoid publicity, fame, glory, honors, popularity,
celebrity, or at least do not seek it. It seems to be not
awfully important one way or another.
They do not need to be loved by everyone.
They generally pick out their own causes, which are apt to
be few in number, rather than responding to advertising
or to campaigns or to other people's exhortations.
They tend to enjoy peace, calm, quiet, pleasantness, etc.,
and they tend not to like turmoil, fighting, war, etc.
(they are not general-fighters on every front), and they
can enjoy themselves in the middle of a "war."
They also seem practical and shrewd and realistic about it,
more often than impractical. They like to be effective
and dislike being ineffectual.









Table 1 continued

Their fighting is not an excuse for hostility, paranoia,
grandiosity, authority, rebellion, etc., but is for the
sake of setting things right. It is problem-centered.
They manage somehow simultaneously to love the world as it
is and to try to improve it.
In all cases there was some hope that people and nature and
society could be improved.
In all cases it was as if they could see both good and evil
realistically.
They respond to the challenge in a job.
A chance to improve the situation or the operation is a big
reward. They enjoy improving things.
Observations generally indicate great pleasure in their
children and in helping them grow into good adults.
They do not need or seek for or even enjoy very much flat-
tery, applause, popularity, status, prestige, money,
honors, etc.
Expressions of gratitude, or at least of awareness of their
good fortune, are common.
They have a sense of noblesse oblige. It is the duty of
the superior, of the one who sees and knows, to be patient
and tolerant, as with children.
They tend to be attracted by mystery, unsolved problems, by
the unknown and the challenging, rather than to be
frightened by them.
They enjoy bringing about law and order in the chaotic
situation, or in the messy or confused situation, or in
the dirty and unclean situation.
They hate (and fight) corruption, cruelty, malice, dis-
honesty, pompousness, phoniness, and faking.
They try to free themselves from illusions, to look at the
facts courageously, to take away the blindfold.
They feel it is a pity for talent to be wasted.
They do not do mean things, and they respond with anger
when other people do mean things.
They tend to feel that every person should have an oppor-
tunity to develop to his highest potential, to have a
fair chance, to have equal opportunity.
They like doing things well, "doing a good job," "to do well
what needs doing." Many such phrases add up to "bringing
about good workmanship."
One advantage of being a boss is the right to give away the
corporation's money, to choose which good causes to help.
They enjoy giving their own money away to causes they
consider important, good, worthwhile, etc. Pleasure in
philanthropy.
They enjoy watching and helping the self-actualizing of
others, especially of the young.
They enjoy watching happiness and helping to bring it about.
They get great pleasure from knowing admirable people
(courageous, honest, effective, "straight," "big,"









Table 1 continued

creative, saintly, etc.). "My work brings me in contact
with many fine people."
They enjoy taking on responsibilities (that they can handle
well), and certainly don't fear or evade their responsibi-
lities. They respond to responsibility.
They uniformly consider their work to be worthwhile, impor-
tant, even essential.
They enjoy greater efficiency, making an operation more
neat, compact, simpler, faster, less expensive, turning
out a better product, doing with less parts, a smaller
number of operations, less clumsiness, less effort, more
foolproof, safer, more "elegant," less laborious.
(Maslow, 1971, pp. 308-309)



Landsman (1967) presented the concept of "one's best

self." He defined this as "an individual's functioning on

the highest levels of his uniquely human characteristics"

(p. 37). Landsman expanded the concept of self-actualiza-

tion and stressed the ability of the person to engage in

meaningful human relationships.

In addition to intelligence, productivity and talent
actualization, such functioning includes sensiti-
vity, warmth, skill in human relationship, courage,
kindness, gentleness, and the capacity to help in
conflict resolution or to help in general (1967,
p. 37).

Landsman and his students (Puttick, 1964; Privette, 1964;

Duncan, 1970) extended Maslow's studies of "peak experience"

by examining how people dealt with positive, and later

negative, experience. Generally, high functioners, no

matter what label was applied to them, were found to be the

product of constructive use of positive experience. Maslow

(1971) agreed that a greater number of peak experiences

characterized "transcenders" from "merely healthy people"

(p. 283).









Values

Smith (1959,'1961) has pointed out that any discussion

or theory of positive mental health necessarily involves

values. He recognized that the healthy person was more than

"average." "Averageness is surely a far cry from optimal

functioning, however we are to define it. ." (1959, p.

673). Smith reasoned that although the "mean" or statis-

tical average is value-free, it is useless. He called for

guidelines in identifying the values that we deem "healthy."

The criteria used must be "measurable, or inferred from

behavior, articulate with a personality theory, and relevant

to the social context of the group under investigation"

(1961, pp. 304-305.)

Jahoda (1958) recognized the "value dilemma." The

assertion that a certain set of values or attributes are

present in psychological or mental health implies that they

are "good." Jahoda asked,

Good for what? Good in terms of middle class
ethics? Good for democracy? For the continuation
of the social status quo? For the individual's
happiness? For survival? For the development of
the species? For the encouragement of genius or
of mediocrity and conformity? (1958, p. 77).

Jahoda questioned the influence of culture and social class

values on those who define criteria of positive health.

Smith (1959) cited Maslow's (1950) historical list of self-

actualizing figures such as Lincoln, Jefferson, Thoreau,

and reviewed the "distinguishing characteristics" of these

people as listed by Maslow:









A more efficient perception of reality; acceptance
of self, others and nature for what they are; spon-
taneity; problem-centeredness rather than ego-
centeredness; the quality of detachment with a
need for privacy; autonomy in relation to culture
and environment; freshness rather than stereotypy
of appreciation; openness to mystical experiences,
though not necessarily religious ones; identifica-
tion with mankind; capacity for deep intimacy in
relations with others; democratic attitudes and
values; strong ethical orientation that does not
confuse means with ends; philosophical rather than
hostile sense of humor; creativeness (Smith, 1959,
p. 675).

Smith felt that rather than providing evidence for a self-

actualizing syndrome, Maslow described to us his values and

preferences and the types of people whom he admired.

Jahoda (1958) realized that mental health values are

a complex issue beyond simplistic definitions of "good"

and "bad." She felt that a person could be positively

evaluated in many areas yet not be mentally healthy.

Determining the values or criteria for mental health was

not the sole responsibility of professionals: "politicians,

humanists, natural scientists, philosophers, the man in the

street, and the mental health expert must jointly shoulder

the responsibility" (Jahoda, 1958, p. 80).

Landsman (1967) pointed out that two value judgments

are involved in the conception of "one's best self" as a

psychologically healthy person: "one as judged by social

or sub-cultural values and another as judged by personal

values" (p. 38). Landsman feels that there also exists a

third criterion, that of "universal values." He stated:

I innocently presume that these do exist, can be
determined, measured, are to be cherished, and









are illustrated (by those). whose functioning
wins immediate, adequately universal approval by
all cultures, though not necessarily by all
persons (pp. 38-39).

Rogers (1964) as well as Landsman (1967) defended the

existence of universal values and felt that different

cultures agree that ". .murder, theft and cowardice

are bad and that kindness, courage and sensitivity are

good" (1967, p. 39). Rogers (1964) felt that the values

held by the "fully-functioning" person would be consistent

with that which was best for the individual, society and

ongoing evolution (Puttick, 1964, p. 16). Fromm (1947),

May (1961) and Maslow (1959) also supported the idea of

universal values.

Jahoda (1958) stated that no consensus of criteria

for positive mental health had been established. Knutson

(1963) elaborated on the many difficulties such as the

value question, that hinder research in positive health.

In a review of the literature (1958) Jahoda presented six

major categories to be investigated in the quest of posi-

tive mental health: 1) Attitudes of an individual toward

his own self; 2) Degree of growth, development, or self-

actualization; 3) Integration (synthesizing psychological

function); 4) Autonomy; 5) Perception of reality; and 6)

Environmental mastery (1958, p. 23). Table 2 compares

Jahoda's concepts with Allport's (1960) proposals; it is

rearranged to bring out "correspondences and discrepancies

in the two lists" (Smith, 1961, p. 299).









TABLE 2

TWO ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF POSITIVE MENTAL
HEALTH IN TERMS OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA


JAHODA (1958) ALLPORT (1960)


attitudes toward the self self-objectification

growth and self- ego-extension
actualization

integration unifying philosophy of
life

autonomy

perception of reality

environmental mastery realistic coping skills,
abilities, and perceptions

warm and deep relation of
self to others

compassionate regard for
all living creatures

NOTE: Rubrics rearranged to bring out parallels.
(Smith, 1961, p. 300)


Theories of Psychological Health and Optimal Functioning

Landsman (1967) presented a group of factors from

research and hypothesized their role in optimal functioning.

Among these factors were: solitude during the functioning;

a foundation of early positive human experience; the avail-

ability of a helping person during episodes of negative

experience and a sense of yearning. Landsman also hypo-

thesized that "one can learn to be or not to be one's best

self ennoblementt), and that the worst and the best can

reside in the same self" (1967, p. 41).







19

Privette (1964) analyzed factors which were present in

instances of high-level functioning which she called "trans-

cendent functioning." Present in the majority of trans-

cendent episodes were: 1) Clear focus upon self and object

and the relationship between self and object; 2) Determina-

tion to excel or achieve; 3) Awareness of other persons in

a positive sense; 4) Intense involvement or commitment;

5) Spontaneous expression of force and power; 6) Response

to the demands of a significant person (Privette, 1964;

quoted by Landsman, 1967, p. 42). Privette added "it

seems likely that physical, psychological and social well-

being could free a person to function efficiently" (1964,

p. 23).

Puttick (1964) identified the top ten percent of extra-

ordinary, psychologically healthy women in a teachers

college. He listed the factors discriminating the highest

group from the lowest ten percent as: 1) Zestful joy in

living; 2) Relaxed non-pretentiousness; 3) Guileless

autonomy; 4) Objectified self-knowledge; 5) Spontaneity;

6) Trust in inner self; 7) Capacity for intimacy; and 8)

Sense of mission (1964, p. 153). The lowest ten percent

were discriminated by: 1) Limited self-knowledge; 2)

Reserved joyfulness; 3) Absence of sense of mission; 4)

Self-facade; 5) Introverted self-concern; 6) Independence

(pseudo-autonomy); and 7) Meticulousness (1964, p. 156).

Puttick concluded that:

the subjects in the two groups were two very
different kinds of people. They seemed to view









the process of living from two very different
frames of reference. Their attitudes toward
self, others, and the world seemed quite dis-
parate (1964, p. 157).

Puttick found that the absence of neuroticism does not

mean the presence of positive mental health, although it

may be a necessary prerequisite. Puttick said that "mental

health and psychopathology, as they were defined in (his)

study may represent two different continue" (1964, p. 160).

Duncan (1970) also proposed separate continue for extreme

psychological health and normality/pathology.

Otto (1967) held the idea that

S. the average healthy individual is functioning
at 10 percent or less of his capacity, actualizing
our possibilities can become a joyous and
exciting journey which adds both new depth and
new meaning to our existence (p. 50).

Maslow, Murphy, Fromm, Rogers, Mead, Rhine and others also

held this view. Otto felt that psychologists, psychia-

trists and social workers needed to study healthy people and

optimal functioning. To stress the lack of concern of psy-

chologists in studying psychological health, Otto surveyed

the American Psychological Association's 1966 list of

program presentations. Of 2,140 individual presentations

that year, less than one-half of one percent were related

to fostering growth or health in normal individuals! Otto

(1966, 1967) nurtured the actualizing process by concen-

trating on the following areas: 1) Creating sustained

interest; 2) Enlarging self-concept and enhancing self-

image; and 3) Encouraging an assessment of values and life









goals (1967, pp. 50-51). For Otto, man was "a continuous

act of self creation" and that "genuine pleasure becomes a

major fulcrum in creative self-realization" (1967, p. 54).

People fail to grow and actualize by being trapped in

"pseudo-pleasures" and avoiding new experiences and ideas.

They prefer to continue in the ever deepening rut
of their habit-dominated existence. .a habit is
a rut which a person digs progressively deeper
until it reaches the depth of six feet, at which
time it becomes a grave with the ends knocked out
(Otto, 1967, p. 51).

Otto (1962) worked with normalss" as a "strength-seeker,"

persuading them to invest themselves in a planned, syste-

matic way towards the task of actualizing.

Erickson (1959) saw a sense of identity as a prerequi-

site to psychological health. He emphasized that "ego-

integration" is necessary before intimate relationships

with others can develop. Like Maslow, Erickson too stressed

the importance of healthy sexual relationships which he

termed "orgiastic potency." This term implies:

The capacity for full, heterosexuality maturity
involving complete genital sensitivity and an
overall discharge of tension. This discharge of
tension includes not only physical tension but
something more; it includes transcendence of all
potentially frustrating (tension producing)
opposites such as male and female, fact and fancy,
work and play, etc. Orgiastic potency, in the
sense described, is the indicator of mature ego
integration (Puttick, 1964, p. 19).

Rogers (1959) used the term "fully functioning person" in

describing "perfect adjustment." This person was described

as a:

.person in process, a person constantly chang-
ing. .specific behaviors cannot in any way be









described in advance. The only statement which
can be made is that the behaviors would be ade-
quately adaptive to each new situation, and that
the person would be continually in a process of
further self-actualization. .fully functioning
person is synonymous with optimal psychological
maturity, complete congruence, complete openness
to experience, complete extensionality, as these
terms have been defined (Rogers, 1959, quoted in
Sahakian, 1969, p. 179).

Rogers' "ultimate hypothetical person" is synonymous with

"the goal of social evolution" (Sahakian, 1961, p. 177).

Table 3 describes in detail Rogers' "fully functioning

person." Jahoda (1958), Combs and Snygg (1959), Scachtel

(1959) and others have stressed that the idea of openness,

as outlined as Rogers, is central to a concept of healthy

functioning.

Frankly (1958, 1962) discussed man's "will to meaning."

The healthy individual is one who has found meaning in life

and can survive life's challenges. The person who experi-

ences a lack of meaning is in a "state of inner emptiness"

or the "existential vacuum." Frankl's therapeutic approach,

termed "logotherapy," helped man find meaning in existence.

By fulfilling this meaning the person actualized:

.as many value potentialities as possi-
ble. In short, man is motivated by the will
to meaning. .Man's search for a meaning is
not pathological, but rather the surest sign of
being truly human (Sahakian, 1969, p. 229).

By "self-transcending" or rising above the biological and

psychological foundations of existence, a person can

realize the essence of experience, the "specifically human

mode of being" (p. 230). Frankly saw self-actualization as

a by-product of self transcendence.









TABLE 3

THE FULLY FUNCTIOI]TIJG PERSON AS DESCRIBED
BY CARL ROGERS



A. The individual has an inherent tendency toward actuali-
zing his organism.
B. The individual has the capacity and tendency to symbo-
lize experiences accurately in awareness.
1. A corollary statement is that he has the capacity
and tendency to keep his self-concept congruent
with his experience.
C. The individual has a need for positive regard.
D. The individual has a need for positive self-regard.
E. Tendencies A and B are most fully realized when needs
C and D are met. More specifically, tendencies A and
B tend to be most fully realized when
1. The individual experiences unconditional positive
regard from significant others.
2. The pervasiveness of this unconditional positive
regard is made evident through relationships marked
by a complete and communicated empathic understand-
ing of the individual's frame of reference.
F. If the conditions under E are met to a maximum degree,
the individual who experiences these conditions will be
a fully functioning person. The fully functioning
person will have at least these characteristics:
1. He will be open to his experience.
a. The corollary statement is that he will exhibit
no defensiveness.
2. Hence all experiences will be available to awareness.
3. All symbolizations will be as accurate as the
experiential data will permit.
4. His self-structure will be congruent with his
experience.
5. His self-structure will be a fluid gestalt, changing
flexibly in the process of assimilation of new
experience.
6. He will experience himself as the locus of evaluation.
a. The valuing process will be a continuing
organismic one.
7. He will have no conditions of worth.
a. The corollary statement is that he will
experience unconditional self-regard.
8. He will meet each situation with behavior which is
a unique and creative adaptation to the newness of
that moment.
9. He will find his organismic valuing a trustworthy
guide to the most satisfying behaviors, because
a. All available experiential data will be avail-
able to awareness and used.









Table 3 continued


b. No datum of experience will be distorted in, or
denied to, awareness.
c. The outcomes of behavior in experience will be
available to awareness.
d. Hence any failure to achieve the maximum possi-
ble satisfaction, because of lack of data, will
be corrected by this effective reality testing.
10. He will live with others in the maximum possible
harmony, because of the rewarding character of
reciprocal positive regard. .
(Sahakian, 1969, pp. 178-179)




Existential theorists often wrote of higher states of

functioning. Existential psychotherapy grew largely from

the work of Heidegger and Kierkegaard. The unique state

postulated by them was termed Dasein. Authentic existence

is the state of the healthy individual. The structures of

human existence have been outlined by Kierkegaard:

Man is not a ready made being; man will become
what he makes of himself and nothing more. Man
constructs himself through his choices, because
he has the freedom to make vital choices, above
all the freedom to choose between an inauthentic
and authentic modality of existence. Inauthentic
existence is the modality of who lives under the
tyranny of the plebs (crowd). Authentic existence
is the modality in which a man assumes the respon-
sibility of his own existence. In order to pass
from inauthentic to authentic existence, a man
has to suffer the ordeal of despair and "exis-
tential anxiety," i.e. the anxiety of a man facing
the limits of this existence with its fullest
implications: death, nothingness. This is what
Kirkegaard calls the sickness unto death (Ellen-
berger, 1958, paraphrased in Sahakian, 1969, p.
253).

Buber (1937, 1955) saw higher levels of existence present

in the "I-Thou" relationship, an intimate mature relation-

ship. He contrasted this in later writings (1958) to the









"I-It" relationship, a shallow, deceptive mode of relating.

Buber spoke of the

.importance of self differentiation as a pre-
requisite to the capacity for relating in the I-
Thou manner. This differentiation involves "experi-
encing" self and "using" self in the process of
living (Puttick, 1964, p. 32).

In surveying Buber's work, Puttick (1964) added:

Buber seems to be saying that essential encounters
with others both foster self-differentiation or
identity and also enable self-transcendence. Self-
identity and the I-Thou relationship are both
necessary to abundant living, but the relating is
the key (p.32).

Conrad (1952) differentiated positive mental health

or transcendent existence from non-health or ordinary

existence. Her criteria for positive health stressed

social relationship factors including mutual cooperation,

a deep, intimate and positive relationship and altruistic

behavior.

Dunn (1957, 1959) also discussed health, non-health,

and "high-level wellness." Dunn defined high-level well-

ness as "a dynamic, integrated mode of functioning which

is oriented toward maximizing the potential of the indi-

vidual" (Puttick, 1964, p. 34). Dunn also defined another

well state which he defined as absence of sickness, a dull

unproductive way of life. Leach (1962), like Dunn, Maslow

and Landsman, felt that a person attained high-level well-

ness through positive or peak experiences. Lack of positive

experience will not trigger lower functioning but will

prevent the development of optimal functioning. Fiske and

Maddi (1961) stressed the importance of a variety and









diversity of experience in attaining psychological health,

while Thorne (1963) classified peak experience into six

categories. Landsman (1961) wrote". .we have opened the

hidden half of the adjustment continuum, the realm of posi-

tive experience" (p. 43). Landsman (1968) found that

nearly one-half of the significant positive experiences

reported by subjects were interpersonal ones. Duncan (1970)

reported "a direct relationship between life experiences

and the level of mental health" (p. 18).

Jourard (1958a, 1959, 1964, 1967, 1968) felt that the

healthy person must be able to self-disclose and to be

"transparent" to both the self and to others. Through deep

relationships marked by openness, the person enjoys

heightened perception and a richer sense of experiencing.

The transparent person was seen as a truly authentic person,

free from the sham and facade that marks a less-open rela-

tionship or encounter.

The Rogers-Dymond Group (1954) demonstrated a relation-

ship between positive self-concept and positive levels of

adjustment in the majority of the cases that they studied.

Chordorkoff (1954a, 1954b), Hanlon, Hoffstaetter and

O'Conner (1954) and Lepine and Chordorkoff (1955) have all

found an empirical relationship between emotional adjust-

ment and congruence of attitudes between the real and ideal

self. Using a wide variety of measures of adjustment, all

researchers reported positive correlations between optimal

adjustment and high levels of congruence. In summarizing

these groups of studies, Puttick (1964) wrote:









The experience of self-adequacy and congruence or
self-integration, it seems, can be considered as
empirically derived criteria for positive mental
health. .it appears from the evidence that the
ability to accept the self is a prerequisite to
accepting and respecting other people. .(and)
that efficiency in living has something to do with
the efficiency with which the self is conceptua-
lized (pp. 36-37).

Norrell and Grater (1960) found a relationship between

accurate self-concept and realistic vocational choice.

Maslow's (1967) "metamotivated persons" were partially

defined as being the best persons for their particular jobs

and vice versa. Sheerer (1949), Conrad (1952) and Vargas

(1954) all supported the idea that self-acceptance is related

to respect and acceptance of others. Similar results have

been reported in a variety of research studies.

Fromm (1956) talked of the importance of love and the

ability to love in establishing "productive" life orienta-

tion. All forms of love were seen as implying "care, respon-

sibility, respect and knowledge" (1956, p. 26). Landsman

(1961) also stressed the importance of "one person caring

for another" in a relationship; for him, this was the

essence of the relationship.

Allport (1937, 1950, 1955, 1957) saw the attainment of

psychological health as a process of "becoming." He out-

lined the two tendencies that are in conflict within a

person.

The first is "self-objectification" described as
"that peculiar detachment of the mature person
when he surveys his own pretentions and objectives
for himself, his own equipment in comparison with
the equipment of others and his opinion of himself
in relation to the opinion others hold of him."









The other tendency is "self-extension" which is
defined as "losing oneself in relations with others
and with the outside world." A healthy mature
person will integrate these conflicting tendencies
through "a unified system of ideals and goals which
constitutes the 'proprium,' the central charactero-
logical core of the individual" (Allport, 1937, pp.
213-214 in Puttick, 1964, p. 27).

Herzberg (1959, 1961, 1966) has talked of lower and

higher needs in the sense presented by Maslow. The lower

or "hygiene needs" are satisfied by man as "Adam." "Adam"

or man in a state of low level functioning strives to avoid

harm or unhappiness. Man as "Abraham" represents the

innate potential and possibilities of actualization. Herz-

berg saw man as both Adam and Abraham, striving to satisfy

the needs of both natures. Rush (1959) wrote "man is

endowed with a nature that impels him to utilize and ful-

fill his capabilities toward accomplishment" (p. 23).

Autonomy

Certain traits such as autonomy and creativity are

cited by many theorists of optimal functioning. Hartmann

(1951) saw autonomy as a healthy aspect of personality. He

conceptualized it as a motive or drive toward independence

from the environment, which enabled the individual to

regulate actions from within, rather than bowing to social

anxieties or pressures (Puttick, 1964, p. 18). Riesman,

Glazer and Deeny (1950) talked of the "autonomous person"

and the choice between social conformity and independence.

Angyl (1952) described the well integrated person in terms

of "self-determination" (autonomy) and "self-surrender."









Puttick (1964) added:

The healthy individual both actively organizes his
environment and, at other times, willingly submits
to the world. He can and should be both indepen-
dent and dependent (p. 18).

Foote and Cottrell (1955) like Erikson (1959) stressed the

need for individual identity in mental health; they asso-

ciated this concept of identity with both autonomy and

empathy. It seems that a certain level of autonomy is

crucial to optimal functioning and that the person must

know how and when to act in an autonomous manner.

Self-Concept

Combs and Snygg (1959) have described the psychologi-

cally healthy or "adequate" person as one with a positive

self-concept. Murphy (1958), Moustakas (1956) and Rogers

(1959) are among the many who noted the importance of posi-

tive self-attitudes in the development and maintenance of

a healthy personality. Just as a person may use a negative

experience as a source of growth or change, so too may

negative aspects of the personality be used as stimuli for

self-improvement. Although some aspects of the personality

may be negative, the healthy individual has an overall sense

of well-being and psychological health. Combs (1959) felt

that:

The healthy person who sees himself as generally
adequate is not easily threatened and can afford
to gamble, take risks, and move out toward others
and the world, because he is not threatened by
feelings of inadequacy. .he can seek self-
enhancement in relationships and activities rather
than having to devote his energies to careful
maintenance of his self-organization (Combs, 1959,
quoted in Puttick, 1964, p. 20).









Shostrom (1964) developed the Personal Orientation

Inventory (POI), which purports to measure self-actualiza-

tion. Shostrom agreed that the self-actualizing person

can accept negative aspects of the personality, such as

anger and lust, and integrate these negative aspects succes-

fully into the total personality. Low functioners were

seen as failing to make full use of the self, by rejecting

as foreign, certain aspects of their personalities.

Solitude

Maslow often spoke of the need for solitude in self-

actualizing people. Moustakas (1961) termed this solitude

"existential loneliness" and saw this as an opportunity for

the person to re-charge, by getting in touch with the inner

self. Landsman (1967) said that the opportunity for soli-

tude in episodes of high functioning is "more facilitative

(to being one's best self) than the presence of cheering-on

of others, even of the important others" (p. 41).

Sense of Mission

Maslow (1967, 1971), Landsman (1967), Privette (1964)

and Puttick (1964) have all postulated that high functioners

possess a sense of devotion, mission, commitment or a

yearning towards some calling or vocation. Privette (1964)

found "intense involvement and commitment" as an important

factor present in spisodes of transcendent functioning.

Humor

Allport (1961) and Maslow (1954) have identified

healthy, unhostile humor as important to psychological









health. Allport (1950, 1961) related humor to self-

insight or "objectification" and to a religious sense.

Puttick (1964) explained that ". .religion attempts to

reconcile basic incongruities, (while) humor may assist

the individual in living with incongruities in a similar

way" (p. 27).

Physical Health

Maslow noted that on many occasions his self-actualizing

subjects seemed to enjoy not only optimal psychological

health but also superb physical health and resistance to

disease. Selze (1958) noted the relationship between high

levels of stress and certain physical conditions. It is

now generally accepted that many physical illnesses such

as ulcers, colitis and possibly the common cold are related

to or caused by psychological states such as stress and

anxiety. The relationship between optimal psychological

health and physical well-being seems likely.

Creativity

Although research on creativity has been widespread

and would fill numerous pages if presented in one volume,

relatively little study has been devoted to the relationship

between creativity and psychological health. Craig (1966),

who was a student of Maslow's, compared Torrance's (1962)

personality characteristics that correlate with creativity

to Maslow's (1954) defining traits of self-actualizing

people and found almost perfect overlap. Maslow (1958,

1963, 1965, 1971) had long postulated a high relationship









between psychological health and creativity. Commenting

on Craig's findings, Maslow wrote:

There were two or three characteristics in that
list of thirty or forty which had not been used
to describe psychologically healthy people, but
were simply neutral. There was no single char-
acteristic which went in the other, opposite
direction, which makes, let's say arbitrarily,
nearly forty characteristics or perhaps thirty-
seven or thirty-eight which were the same as
psychological health--which added up to a
syndrome of psychological health or self-
actualization (1971, p. 73).

Rogers (1961) viewed the creative process as

S. .the emergence in action of a novel relational
product, growing out of the uniqueness of the
individual on the one hand, and the materials,
events, people or circumstances of his life on
the other (p. 350).

Privette (1964) compared her concept of transcendent func-

tioning with Rogers' definition of creativity. She saw

both as stressing the urge to expand, "to express and

activate all the capabilities of the organism" (1961, pp.

349-351; Privette, 1964, p. 15).

McKinnon (1960) described highly effective persons as

possessing a syndrome of combined personal soundness and

creativity. Cattell (1958), Guilford (1959), McKinnon

(1960), Peck (1962) and Puttick (1964) have all linked the

combination of intelligence and creativity to psychological

health. Anderson (1959) reviewed a variety of theories of

creative functioning and described the many aspects of this

process:

.Affection for an idea, absorption, concentra-
tion, intensity of encounter, peak experience,
delight, ecstasy. .desire to grow, capacity to
be puzzled, awareness, spontaneity, spontaneous









flexibility, adaptive flexibility, originality,
divergent thinking, learning, openness to new
experience, no boundaries, permeability of bound-
aries, yielding, readiness to yield, abandoning,
letting go, being born every day, discarding the
irrelevant, ability to toy with elements, change
of activity, persistence, hard work, composition,
decomposition, recomposition, differentiation,
integration, being at peace with the world,
harmony, honesty, humility, enthusiasm, integrity,
inner maturity, self-actualizing, skepticism,
boldness, faith, courage, willingness to be alone,
I see, I feel, I think, gust for temporary chaos,
security in uncertainty, tolerance of ambiguity
(pp. 237-238).

Active States of Positive Health

Landsman (1973) expanded his views of positive human

experience and the "beautiful and noble person." He listed

three stages of the healthy personality that were ripe for

research: 1) A self-loving person; 2) An environment-

loving person; and 3) A compassionate person (p. 10).

He discussed each of these stages in two states, an "active

or expressive state" and a "passive or receptive state"

(p. 11). Three of Landsman's six states are important to

the concept of autoevolution. The "self-loving person" in

the active state is defined as one who

.actively, joyously seeks out new experiences
of new learning but selectively in relationship
to his needs for growth, the needs of others and
in relationship to his self-discovered abilities
(1973, p. 11).

The environment-loving person in the active or expressive

state

S. .manifests a hunger for the physical world. He
builds, he plants, he produces physical objects,
he makes things in his work, he repairs, decorates,
creates beauty and a healthy environment about him.
He protects his environment and enhances it (p. 12).









This person is one who acts in some way to improve the

environment. Landsman's highest level, the compassionate

self was seen as an excitorr" of others. "He is a task-

facilitator, helps get jobs done, is socially facilitative,

helps persons to know and care for one another and most of

all is a personal growth facilitator. ." (p. 13).

Yamamoto (1966) discussed the healthy person who

"actively masters his environment, shows a unity of persona-

lity, and is able to perceive the world and himself

correctly" (Rosenblith and Allinsmith, 1962, p. 202)

"within the limiting biological and social conditions

specific to that particular developmental stage" (Yamamoto,

1966, p. 601). The healthy individual possesses a persona-

lity that is "being" (Lovelinger, 1963, p. 243; Maslow,

1962a, p. 40; Yamamoto, 1966, p. 601), or fully functioning

at one particular developmental level. "At the same time

he is continuously 'becoming' or actively changing himself

or his environment to attain the next stage of equilibrium"

(Yamamoto, 1966, p. 601, underline mine). This conception

of active change of the self and the environment is central

to the concept of autoevolution.

Summary

The following statements, gleaned from the literature,

have been attributed by various theorists to high func-

tioners or psychologically healthy people. This author has

combined and modified these statements to describe persons

who are highly autoevolving. The hypotheses presented in









Chapter III will examine specific aspects of some of these

statements in depth.

The autoevolutionary person has satisfied the basic

human needs and is in the process of "becoming," "self-

actualizing," or functioning fully.

The autoevolutionary person is self-dedicating or

committed to some cause, task or job.

The autoevolutionary person does not envision a work-

play dichotomy.

All human beings possess autoevolutionary tendencies.

All human beings have the potential for higher actuali-

zation of autoevolutionary tendencies.

The autoevolutionary person is warm, sensitive and

humanistic.

The autoevolutionary person is loving and caring.

The autoevolutionary person is highly creative.

The autoevolutionary person has a need for solitude.

People can choose between autoevolutionary and "modal"

behavior, i.e. higher levels of functioning need not

necessarily follow basic need gratification.

The autoevolutionary person has a deep sense of inner-

trust and self-confidence.

The autoevolutionary person is optimistic.

The autoevolutionary person has a positive self-image.

The autoevolutionary person uses "positive" and "peak"

experiences as sources for growth.

The autoevolutionary person is autonomous.









The autoevolutionary person is empathic and congruent.

Autoevolutionary persons accept all parts of their

personality--they are ego-integrated.

The autoevolutionary person can experience and enjoy

intense and intimate relationships.

The autoevolutionary person can experience full genital

sensitivity and healthy sexuality.

The autoevolutionary person is open to experience.

The autoevolutionary person is free of serious malad-

justment, neorosis or psychosis.

The autoevolutionary person is fluid rather than


static.

The autoevolutionary

a zest for living.

The autoevolutionary

reality.

The autoevolutionary

The autoevolutionary

follower.

The autoevolutionary

others.

The autoevolutionary

others.

The autoevolutionary


person lives in the "now" and has



person accurately perceives



person can accept responsibility.

person is an individual, not a



person has no strong need to lead



person sees potential goodness in



person accommodates and assimi-


lates experience so that the "self" remains in a state of

congruence with the environment.

The autoevolutionary person enjoys good physical health.








37

The autoevolutionary person functions at consistently

high levels.















CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY


Autoevolutionary persons, or persons who are actuali-

zing their own potential as well as actively working to

improve their environment, were identified in a certain

community on the basis of their community service. They

were compared to "average citizens" or "modal functioners"

in the same community on a variety of psychological tests

and behavioral traits and constructs.

Subjects

Many studies of positive health and optimal functioning

have been criticized for the manner in which the sample was

chosen. Often, persons scoring high on the Personal Orienta-

tion Inventories' (1962) self-actualization scale were

identified and subjected to various tests, measures and

experimental conditions.

Smith (1959, 1961) called for clarification of the

values defining positive health. One consideration cited

by Smith was that the values should be ". .relevant to

the social context of the group under consideration" (1961,

p. 305). Smith criticized Maslow and others who based their

models of positive health on their own personal values,

rather than on consensual criteria. Likewise, Shostrom's

38









POI reflects his conception of self-actualization. Jahoda

(1958) suggested that values associated with positive health

should be determined by all citizens, rather than the mental

health "professionals."

In order to avoid value questions and problems that

are often associated with paper and pencil tests or training

judges to follow some pre-set definition in selecting a

sample, a rather unorthodox procedure was employed. The

Gainesville Sun, a local newspaper serving Gainesville,

Florida, and the surrounding areas, sponsors a yearly

contest to identify a person for a Community Service Award.

Any person or organization may nominate a candidate for the

award. They are asked to provide the nominee's name, and

to describe in what way the person serves or served the

community. Nominating letters must be signed, although

nominees can request that they remain unidentified.

Because it is an annual award, the nominees must have

performed part of their service during the current year.

The person's service, rather than the nominating letter

per se, is judged by a panel independent from the newspaper.

The author received permission from the editor to secure

the names of all finalists for the 1973 and 1974 contests.

These finalists were then subjected to further screening

(see Procedures). This was done after the 1974 contest

closed and all nominations had been evaluated by the

community judges. The subjects represented citizens who

were selected by their peers, for their community service









and personal characteristics. It was stated that to be

eligible, the nominees must work in some way to improve

or serve the community. This community service aspect

implies at least a moderate level of autoevolution in the

sense that these people are actively working to modify and

improve their environment and the lives of other people.

Qualities of the self as evolving or actualizing can be

inferred from the behavior of these people as well as the

nominating letters. All nominees lived in Gainesville,

Florida; the largest industry and employer in Gainesville

is the University of Florida. Gainesville has been called

the University City and "City in the Country." Area resi-

dents vary from poor farm-workers (white and black) to

factory-workers and international scholars and authors.

Many of Gainesville's residents are students, staff and

professors at the University. All residents were potential

nominees regardless of age, sex, race, or socio-economic

level.

Control subjects were recruited from the same community

as the autoevolutionary group. An initial attempt to

randomly select control subjects was modified when the

control group began to significantly differ in age from the

autoevolutionary group. It was felt by the author, and has

been suggested by others, that age is an important factor

in attaining higher levels of functioning. Older subjects

initially contacted in a random procedure were retained and

about 75% of a new control group were recruited with the









help of friends, neighbors, students and faculty. An

attempt was made to select a group who were truly "modal"

or average in every respect except for their age. This

considerably older sample then became the final modal group

that was studied.

Instruments Rationale

The instruments chosen in the present study purport

to measure certain psychological traits or constructs that,

based on the review of the literature, appear to be impor-

tant in differentiating between optimal and modal func-

tioners. The Personality Research Form (1967) was chosen

because of its better than average construction and relia-

bility in measuring many of the traits that seem central to

optimal functioning. Earlier studies of various aspects of

psychological health and varied aspects of positive and

negative experience employed the Personal Orientation

Inventory (1962) as a check to confirm that judges can

identify selected groups of high-functioners. Horn (1975)

as well as McMillan (1965) and Seeman (1964) confirmed that

judges can identify these people; for this reason as well

as Shostrom's somewhat controversial definition of self-

actualization, the Personal Orientation Inventory was

excluded in favor of a second judging procedure.

The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (1960) is one of the few

instruments that reliably differentiates between open and

closed thinkers. Openness was seen by many theorists as

an important factor in optimal functioning and in attaining









psychological health. An advantage of the Rokeach scale

is that it doesn't equate open and closed with liberal and

conservative. It is possible for a person to be "liberal"

and still score as highly dogmatic or closed, if that person

rigidly adheres to a strong liberal or radical philosophy.

The authors of the Means-End Problem Solving (MEP's)

procedure offer data to support their claim that means-end

thinking may plan an important role in successful behavioral

adjustment (Platt and Spivack, 1972, p. 18). An abridged

form of this rather new instrument was included to measure

any differences between the two groups in the quantity or

quality of their cognitive problem-solving skills.

Instruments Description

The Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1967), the

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale Form E (Rokeach, 1960) and an

abridged form of the Means-End Problem Solving procedure

(Platt, Spivack and Bloom, 1971) were administered to both

the autoevolutionary and comparison (modal) groups.

The Personality Research Form (PRF), developed by

Jackson and his associates (1967), attempts to combine

modern principles of personality and testing theory to

develop a "more rigorous and more valid assessment of

important personality characteristics" (Jackson, 1967, p.

4). The PRF is based on Murray's "need theory" and

variables of personality (1938). It was designed as a tool

to be used for personality research and to provide an instru-

ment to accurately measure "broadly relevant personality







43

traits" (1967, p. 4) in a variety of settings. The various

forms of the test (A, B, AA, BB) were carefully developed

to provide a concise, convenient format that would possess

the qualities of reliability, validity and generalizability.

Form A was employed in the present study; like the parallel

Form B, it provides information for fifteen scales. There

are twenty items keyed to each scale, yielding a total of

three hundred true or false questions. The longer forms

provide seven additional scales, but these were not rele-

vant to the present study. The faster administration time

(35 to 45 minutes) also makes the shorter forms desirable

for this study.

A primary reason for the selection of the PRF was that

unlike many personality inventories, it is geared toward

areas of normal functioning rather than psychopathology

(Jackson, 1967, p. 4). The test is also an improvement

over Murray's scales because rather than being constructed

in only one direction, which causes the confusion of whether

the absence of a trait or the presence of an opposing trait

is responsible for a specific score, it is constructed in a

bipolar manner. This bipolarity was conceived theoreti-

cally as well as in measurement terms.

The PRF (Form A) yields fourteen scales as measures of

personality. The fifteenth scale (Infrequency) is a validity

check. Descriptions of a high-scorer on each scale as well

as the defining trait adjectives for each scale are presented

in Appendix B. The fifteen variables are: Achievement,









Affiliation, Aggression, Autonomy, Dominance, Endurance,

Exhibition, Harm Avoidance, Impulsivity, Nurturance, Order,

Play, Social Recognition, Understanding and Infrequency.

The PRF is self-explanatory and can be given on a

"take home basis" although it was standardized under super-

vised conditions. Norms were derived for over two thousand

college males and females. A possible criticism of the

present study would be inappropriateness of these norms for

a non-college sample. Local norms or norms for the general

public are not available. Jackson wrote that in most

investigations, this should not interfere with the results:

While experience has indicated that non-college
samples conform reasonably in terms of summary
statistics, investigations using the PRF with
groups which are very different from college
students should exercise caution in applying
standard PRF forms without first evaluating the
differences (1967, p. 8).

Raw scores on the PRF can be converted to both standard

scores and percentiles. The PRF profile is developed by

converting the raw score for each scale to cumulative pro-

portions and then to deviates of the normal curve. This

provides a profile

...which most accurately reflects a given sub-
ject's standing with respect to the normative
group. about 68 percent of the subjects will
fall between 40-60 standard score units for any
given scale, and about 95 percent will fall within
a range of 30-70 (1967, p. 11).

Reliability for the PRF's fourteen scales ranges from

.77 to .90. Jackson felt that these respectable figures

may represent the lower bound estimate because test condi-

tions on the two occasions were not identical. Also,









.the estimate of reliability--the generalized
classical test theory reliability coefficient, the
intraclass correlation--is generally smaller in
size than the simple intercorrelation (1967, p. 20).

The Infrequency scale (validity check) may appear to have

a low reliability coefficient (.46), but this is common

for scales with "very small means and skewed distribution"

(p. 21).

Two measures of validity are reported for the PRF,

the usual measure of convergent or concurrent validity

and also a measure of discriminant validity. Jackson wrote,

To demonstrate convergent and discriminant vali-
dity, a set of measures should correlate substan-
tially with corresponding traits measured by
different methods and in addition show evidence
of independence from conceptually unrelated traits
(p. 25).

Convergent validity was tested in a variety of studies and

was generally around .50. Jackson feels that this

exceeds() those typically reported for per-
sonality inventories by a comfortable margin, and
attest(s) to the value of the strategy of scale
construction employed in the development of the
PRF (p. 24).

To test the discriminant validity of the PRF, it was

necessary to develop a new statistical procedure which would

focus upon the variance common to two or more methods of

measurement. This "multimethod factor analysis" (Jackson,

1966) showed that the PRF was sufficiently discriminant and

that it was ". .possible to treat each PRF scale as

distinct, and to have confidence that each is providing a

unique contribution to assessment" (p. 25).

The Dogmatism Scale (1960), often called the Rokeach









Dogmatism Scale after the author Milton Rokeach, measures

"individual differences in openness or closedness of belief

systems" (1960, p. 71). Dogmatism is defined as a

closed way of thinking which could be asso-
ciated with any ideology regardless of content,
an authoritarian outlook on life, an intolerance
toward those with opposing beliefs and a suffer-
ance of those with similar beliefs (pp. 4-5).

Open and closed are seen as two extremes on a continuum.

Highly dogmatic people hold closed thoughts about a variety

of issues; those scoring very low in dogmatism are seen as

being open.

The scale was developed in a deductive manner. State-

ments were designed to tap the defining characteristics of

"open" and "closed." Rokeach commented on the idea behind

the scale:

Insofar as possible, we looked for statements
that express ideas familiar to the average person
in his everyday life. Some of the statements
appearing in the Dogmatism Scale were inspired
by spontaneous remarks we overheard being made
by persons we thought intuitively to be closed-
minded. Above all, each statement had to be
designed to transcend specific ideological posi-
tions in order to penetrate to the formal and
structural characteristics of all positions.
Persons adhering dogmatically to such diverse
viewpoints as capitalism and communism, Catholi-
cism and anti-Catholicism, should all score
together at one end of the continuum and should
all score in a direction opposite to others
having equally diverse yet undogmatic view-
points (1960, p. 72).

The Dogmatism Scale is constructed in a forced-choice

manner. Respondents are asked to mark from +3 to -3,

depending on how they feel about each statement. Positive

scores mark agreement and are scored as closed; negative









scores mean disagreement and are viewed as open. Unlike

the Rokeach Opiniation Scale which is dated and culturally

bound, the Dogmatism Scale is relatively free of these

restraints. Form E, which was used in this study, contains

the best forty items, factor analyzed from previous scales.

The reliability ranges from .68 to .93 (1960, p. 90).

Appendix C lists the instructions and forty items presented

in Form E. Norms are not necessary for the present study

because only the mathematical differences between the

numerical scores of the two groups are of importance in

measuring any differences in their degree of dogmatic

thinking. Rokeach presented his theory of dogmatism as well

as the various Dogmatism and Opinionation scales and the

scores for various groups in his book, The Open and Closed

Mind (1960). Kemp (1962), Stefflre, King and Leafgren

(1962), Cahoon (1962) and Russo, Kelz and Hudson (1964)

have all reported significantly lower levels of dogmatism

for counselors who were judged as "good" or effective. Open-

mindedness seems facilitative to successful interpersonal

relationships, which are important in attaining and main-

taining psychological health.

The Means-End Problem Solving Procedure (MEP's, Platt,

Spivack and Bloom, 1971) attempts to measure cognitive

mediational functioning in real life problematic situations.

The nine stories in the original version measure

the extent to which the S, when presented
with a situation involving an aroused need and
the resolution of the problem (i.e. satisfying
that need), is capable of conceptualizing









appropriate and effective means of reaching the
problem resolution stage of the stories (Platt
and Spivack, 1972, p. 3).

The stories deal with both interpersonal and impersonal

themes. The MEP's consist of stories or story-stems in

which a beginning and ending are provided; the subject is

asked to write a middle for the study, i.e. to connect the

beginning and the end. In each situation, a need is

aroused in the protagonist and satisfied in the ending

provided. Primary scoring is for the number of means used

in reaching the solution stage, but the type of mean given

may also be placed into empirical categories. Enumeration

of means in reaching the goal, obstacles to the goal,

passage of time in reaching the goal, and the ratio of

relevant to irrelevant responses may also be scored. The

present study focused primarily on the quantitative measure

of means. Reliability coefficients for total number of

means on nine stories for fifteen control subjects selected

at random and scored by two student raters was .98. Agree-

ment between the raters for placing the means into empirical

categories was .84, with a range of .77 to .95 for the

individual stories (Platt et al., 1971, p. 4). Reliability

and validity for the MEP's are within acceptable ranges.

A complete report on the validity of the concept of means-

end thinking was presented by Platt (1968, U.S.P.H.S.

Institutional Support Grant, #751-20-9966). To keep the

testing time within a reasonable limit, only three means-

end stories were used in the present study. These three







49


stories were representative of the overall validity and

reliability of the traditional form of the test. Appendix

D lists the abridged Means-End test.

Subjects were also asked to complete a questionnaire

(Appendix E). In addition to assessing demographic data,

certain areas not measured by previous tests were included.

Likert-type scales were used to question subjects about

specific behaviors that may differentiate autoevolutionary

people from modal functioners. These scales are con-

structed so that subjects mark their degree of agreement or

disagreement to statements. Responses range from strongly

agree to strongly disagree. An example is the item "I

enjoy good physical health." Maslow suggested that self-

actualizing people may enjoy better physical health and

resistance to disease. Specific items reflect attributes

of psychological health and optimal functioning postulated

by various theorists throughout the literature. They were

included in an attempt to explore these possible relation-

ships and as areas for further research. Landsman (personal

communication, March 6, 1975) suggested that certain open-

ended questions be included in an effort to discover

unknown or unexpected traits that autoevolutionary people

may possess.

Procedures

Potential autoevolutionary subjects were nominated by

a variety of citizens throughout the community as candidates

for a Community Service Award. The names of all acceptable







50

niminees for 1973-1974 (those who had served the community

in any manner) were secured from the newspaper sponsoring

the contest. There had been 34 nominees for the two

yearly contests. Two had since died, or were nominated

posthumously, so there were actually only 32 possible

autoevolutionary subjects.

An informal poll was taken by asking a person who knew

all of the people to identify anyone that he felt was not

functioning in a psychologically healthy manner. One

person was eliminated. Copies of the original nominating

letters for the remaining 31 subjects were secured from the

newspaper. These letters were then given to a panel of

three judges, who were asked to identify those people who

showed a high degree of selfless community service, i.e.

those who were acting to improve the environment and who

also seemed from the letters to be functioning fully in a

psychologically healthy way. Using this definition, each

judge was asked to select the "best" twenty people from the

sample. The judges unanimously selected sixteen names.

Four more names were added after discussion and majority

agreement. Letters were sent to each potential subject,

saying that the author, as part of his doctoral research,

was interested in studying people who were active in

community service (see Appendix F). Three days after the

letters were mailed, the author personally phoned each of

the people and asked for their cooperation. Nineteen

people were reached by phone; all of them agreed to









participate. Testing packets were delivered to the sub-

jects in pre-paid return envelopes. One subject returned

the packet with an apology, saying that she didn't have the

time to answer the questionnaires. Although the subjects

were asked to complete and return the packets within one

week, it actually took almost three weeks and follow-up

calls before sufficient data were gathered. The final

group was comprised of 16 subjects who, based on the selec-

tion process, were termed "autoevolutionary." Two addi-

tional subjects failed to complete the testing packet

before the final cut-off date.

Control subjects were initially chosen at random and

contacted in the same manner as the above subjects (see

Appendix F). Only about 40 percent of those contacted

would even consent to look at the questionnaires to con-

sider completing them. Partially for this reason, but

more so because of the previously mentioned significant age

difference, a matching procedure was employed. Approxi-

mately 25 percent of the original random sample was

retained. Additional people were recruited with the help

of friends, neighbors and students. They were asked to

give the packet to "someone over 40" or "someone about 50,"

etc. In this manner the two groups were approximately

matched for age. There were 17 subjects in the control or

comparison group. Twenty people had "agreed" to complete

the testing packet, but, like the previous group, some

failed to return the data after the cut-off date and

repeated phone calls.









Hypotheses

This study focused on 17 specific major hypotheses

related to traits or constructs that may differentiate

autoevolutionary from modal persons. A number of minor

hypotheses were also examined.

The major hypotheses presented in null form were:

1) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners as measured
by the Personality Research Form's 15 scales.
(This will be tested as 15 separate null hypotheses.)

la) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Achieve-
ment as measured by the Personality Research Form
(PRF).

lb) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Affilia-
tion as measured by the PRF.

Ic) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Aggres-
sion as measured by the PRF.

Id) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Autonomy
as measured by the PRF.

le) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Dominance
as measured by the PRF.

If) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Endurance
as measured by the PRF.

Ig) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Exhibi-
tion as measured by the PRF.

Ih) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Harm-
avoidance as measured by the PRF.

li) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Impul-
sivity as measured by the PRF.









lj) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Nurtu-
rance as measured by the PRF.

1k) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Order
as measured by the PRF.

11) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Play as
measured by the PRF.

lm) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Social
Recognition as measured by the PRF.

In) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Under-
standing as measured by the PRF.

lo) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners in Infre-
quency as measured by the PRF.

2) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners as measured
by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, Form E.

3) There will be no significant differences between
autoevolutionary and modal functioners as measured
by an abridged form of the Means-End Problem
Solving procedure. (The quantitative score or
measure will be used.)

A questionnaire (Appendix E) was also included to

gather demographic information and to investigate possible

differences between the groups in areas not measured by the

other tests that were administered. Open-ended questions

were included in an attempt to discover any unknown or

unexpected characteristics of autoevolutionary or modal

functioners.

The minor hypotheses are that there will be no

difference, item by item, in the responses for the two


groups on the questionnaire.









Data Analysis

All data were tallied and compared by the Analysis of

Variance procedure (ANOVA). One-way ANOVA's were computed

to test each hypothesis. This method is appropriate for

comparing two groups on measures that are independent. The

level of significance was set at .10, which is not as

stringent as the more frequently employed .05, .01, or .001

levels. The author and his supervisory chairman felt that

a less sensitive measure of significance would aid in

identifying possible relationships that would be overlooked

if higher significance levels were employed. Since the

purpose of this study was to identify a large number of

possible variables that discriminate autoevolutionary from

modal functioners, Type II or "beta" errors were more

acceptable.

Likert-type items from the questionnaire were cate-

gorized according to level of agreement by counting the

frequency of each response. Open-ended responses were

placed into empirical categories and their frequency of

occurrence noted. These categories were based on the

specific content of each response. An example would be

"How do you think you became the type of person that you

are now?" Categories were: "Family," "Schooling," etc.















CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The Analysis of Variance procedure (ANOVA) was used in

examining the differences between the autoevolutionary and

modal group. Seventeen one-way ANOVA's were computed.

Tables 4 through 18 list the source and obtained F's for

the 15 scales of the Personality Research Form. Table 19

lists the sources and F for the Rokeach Dogmatism scale,

while Table 20 lists this information for the abridged

Means-End Problem Solving procedure. The level of signifi-

cance for each was set at .10.

Hypothesis 1 stated: "There will be no significant

differences between autoevolutionary and modal functioners

as measured by the Personality Research Form's 15 scales."

Each specific scale was tested as a separate null hypothesis.

The ANOVA (Table 4) for the Achievement scale showed no

significant differences between the two groups and failed

to reject the null hypothesis (la). Table 21 lists the

means, standard deviations and ranges for the two groups.

One way ANOVA's also failed to reject the null hypo-

theses lb, Ic, Id, le, If, Ig, lh, li, lj, 11 and lo.

Hypotheses Ik, im and In proved significant at or beyond

the .10 level. The null hypotheses were rejected for these

three scales. Tables 5 through 18 list ANOVA's for these

55
















TABLE 4

ANALYSTS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
ACHIE,'EtIENT SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 .24 .24 .03

Within 31 282.00 9.10

Total 32 282.24


TABLE 5

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
AFFILIATION SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 .01 .01 .001

Within 31 262.05 8.45

Total 32 262.06
















TABLE 6

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
A',,PESLSION SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 8.79 8.79 .99

Within 31 274.18 8.84

Total 32 282.97


TABLE 7

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
AUTONOMY SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 3.49 3.49 .69

Within 31 157.05 5.06

Total 32 160.54

















TABLE 8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
DOMINANCE SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 12.88 12.88 .74

Within 31 539.00 17.39

Total 32 551.88


TABLE 9

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
ENDURANCE SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 1.09 1.09 .11

Within 31 299.91 9.67

Total 32 301.00

















TABLE 10

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
EXHIBITION SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 25.56 25.56 1.40

Within 31 565.41 18.24

Total 32 590.97


TABLE 11

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
HARMAVOIDANCE SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 9.63 9.63 .82

Within 31 363.27 11.72

Total 32 372.90

















TABLE 12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
IMPULSIVITY SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 30.24 30.24 2.15

Within 31 435.82 14.06

Total 32 466.06


TABLE 13

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
NURTURANCE SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 .64 .64 .09

Within 31 229.24 7.39

Total 32 229.88









scales in alphabetical order. Table 21 lists means,

standard deviations and ranges for each of these scales.

Autoevolutionary subjects scored significantly lower

than modal functioners on the PRF's "Order" scale (Table

14). This indicates less need than the modal group for

neatness, organization, tidyness and well-ordered systems.

Autoevolutionary subjects in this study seemed to lack

these compulsive-type traits.




TABLE 14

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
ORDER SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 81.25 81.25 4.47*

Within 31 562.81 18.16

Total 32 644.06


*p<.10


Table 16 indicates a significant difference for the

Social Recognition scale. The means for the groups (Table

21) show a greater need for social recognition to be

present in the modal group. Neither group scored very

high in this trait, but the data suggest that the behavior

of autoevolutionary persons is less approval seeking,

proper, and recognition seeking than modal functioners. It









seems that those in the autoevolutionary group do not

works() for the approval and recognition of others"

(Jackson, 1967, p. 7).


TABLE 15

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
PLAY SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 5.15 5.15 .58

Within 31 274.06 8.84

Total 32 379.21


TABLE 16

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
SOCIAL RECOGNITION SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 58.56 58.56 4.73*

Within 31 383.32 12.37

Total 32 441.88


*p<.10


Autoevolutionary persons scored significantly higher

than the modal group on the PRF's Understanding scale










(Table 17, Table 21). This higher mean score for the

autoevolutionary group indicates a greater need in these

people for a broad understanding of many areas of knowledge.

They can be seen as more inquiring, curious, analytical and

intellectual than the modal group.


TABLE 17

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEErl AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
UNDERSTANDING SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 34.19 34.19 3.10*

Within 31 341.87 11.02

Total 32 376.06


*p<.10




TABLE 18

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
INFREQUENCY SCALE OF THE PRF


Source df ss v F


Between 1 .94 .94 1.00

Within 31 29.12 .94

Total 32 30.06









Hypothesis 2 stated: "There will be no significant

differences between autoevolutionary and modal functioners

as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, Form E." An

ANOVA was computed, and the resultant F was not significant.

Null hypothesis 2 was not rejected (Table 19). Means,

standard deviations and ranges for the two groups on the

Dogmatism scale are presented in Table 21.




TABLE 19

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE


Source df ss v F


Between 1 202.44 202.44 .21

Within 31 30200.53 974.21

Total 32 30402.97



The F for hypothesis 3 proved significant beyond the

.10 level and the hypothesis that "There will be no signifi-

cant differences between autoevolutionary and modal func-

tioners as measured by an abridged form of the Means-End

Problem Solving procedure (quantitative score)" was

rejected (Table 20). Table 21 lists the means, standard

deviations and ranges for the two groups on the Means-End

procedure.









TABLE 20

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS AS MEASURED BY THE
ABRIDGED MEANS-END PROBLEM SOLVING PROCEDURE


Source df ss v F


Between 1 14.69 14.69 6.83*

Within 27 58.14 2.15

Total 28 72.83


The first part of the questionnaire used in this study

(Appendix E) asked subjects to respond to a variety of

statements by marking their agreement or disagreement on a

continuum from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Responses to this soft data were tallied and subjected to

visual inspection. The response frequencies for each ques-

tion are presented in Tables 22 through 35. The number

of subjects, unless otherwise noted, was 16 in the auto-

evolutionary group and 17 in the modal group. The minor

hypothesis' stated that there would be no difference, item

by item, in the responses for the two groups to the ques-

tions. This seemed to hold true for most items, but there

were some notable exceptions. For the statement "I am a

religious person" (Table 22), it seems that the members of

the autoevolutionary group do not see themselves as being

quite as religious as those people in the modal group. A

few subjects in the autoevolutionary group wrote objections

to this question, asking "In what way?"

































>-



00'
H


0: D




0 o

E-H H



O) I





0 0m
Z














0 w
MoU









o w-
0 <4




EE




COI)
-CO
E-< ^ ^








00 M~
Q M






-

0) 0 r CD 0) 0) r- M ) L C 0M) L) D C )
r-4 H- H -H H -H H r-H H CJ r-H H n-I (N LO
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
CO 0o C -I 0) 0) (N r>- U) 0) N C(N O CU C


C(






cs-


LO














r-
00


UCO









[U)
CD









U3
O
d(


U) H
o co

Y) CN






t r-


LO -
r--I


LO CM









O) c


H r-
H H


r )


) n

H


LO r-
. -

D -T
1-1 r-4


O r-H
Hr













H


m-
Ho U


CO (N

H CH
i-l i-


o) H C r- U) LO O r-- .3-- r- Z-
CN4 r- r--iH H H- H --IH H H H- H H-
I I I I I I I I I I I I
H- CU r- CN CO C4 O U) C(4 C
H- r--


CD O
( C--









CO LO
o0 C--

co o,


r-q
U) U)


C4 00'
or-
U) H





U) Z



U) Z


o -
C CO
(N (N






LO O



H


0U 0)
CD U)


C >


C)
00
I I
CD










w-Z






hi

03 Ub


0) m
(N 0)
aCD

om
N











+

I c
f-<
,-, I











CN C)
I






coa












LO LO
C1


N
I





E
*H

4rj

E -

0 w
Q x


p" O 0 x < P 0 4 p Z 2H
< < < < P 0 M S ::D H









TABLE 22

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I AM A RELIGIOUS PERSON


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 1 8 4 3 0 16

Modal 5 8 2 2 0 17

Totals 6 16 6 5 0 33



Visual inspection of Tables 23 through 29 show that

the two groups responded in essentially the same manner

to these questions.




TABLE 23

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
AT TIMES, I ENJOY BEING ALONE


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 7 8 1 0 0 16

Modal 9 6 1 1 0 17

Totals 16 14 2 1 0 33

















TABLE 24


RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I AM CAPABLE OF FORMING INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH


OTHERS


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 4 10 2 0 0 16

Modal 6 6 3 2 0 17

Totals 10 16 5 2 0 33


TABLE 25

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I ENJOY MY JOB,PROFESSION OR VOCATION


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 6 10 0 0 0 16

Modal 7 9 1 0 0 17

Totals 13 19 1 0 0 33


















TABLE 26

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 5 8 3 0 0 16

Modal 9 5 3 0 0 17

Totals 14 13 6 0 0 33


TABLE 27

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I HAVE AN ENJOYABLE SEX LIFE*


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 3 8 1 2 0 14

Modal 6 6 1 1 2 16

Totals 9 14 2 3 2 30


*Three did not respond.










TABLE 28

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMErNT:
I ENJOY LIFE


Group SA A U S SD Total


Autoevolutionary 9 6 1 0 0 16

Modal 10 5 2 0 0 17

Totals 19 11 3 0 0 33


TABLE 29

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I AM A "GOOD" PERSON


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 4 12 0 0 0 16

Modal 9 7 1 0 0 17

Totals 13 19 1 0 0 33




Table 30 indicates that autoevolutionary subjects

report that they enjoy good health more frequently than


do the comparison subjects.










TABLE 30

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEtlENIT:
I ENJOY GOOD PHYSICAL HEALTH


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 2 13 1 0 0 16

Modal 9 3 1 2 2 17

Totals 11 16 2 2 2 33


Table 31 shows the responses to the statement "I am

a dependent person." The modal group was much more likely

to see themselves as dependent, while many in the auto-

evolutionary group showed disagreement and saw themselves

as independent.


TABLE 31

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I AM A DEPENDENT PERSON


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 0 3 2 9 2 16

Modal 3 4 3 6 1 17

Totals 3 7 5 15 3 33









Subjects responded in a very similar manner to the

statement "I usually catch colds, the flu, etc." The

modal group had two subjects who agreed to this, while no

one in the autoevolutionary group showed agreement. There

were also no strong differences for the item "I am a

creative person" (Table 33).


TABLE 32

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I USUALLY CATCH COLDS, THE FLU, ETC.*


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 0 0 3 5 7 15

Modal 0 2 2 7 6 17

Totals 0 2 5 12 13 32


*One no response



TABLE 33

RESPONSE FREQUE1r1IES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I AM A CREATIVE PERSON


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 2 10 4 0 0 16

Modal 4 9 3 1 0 17

Totals 6 19 7 1 0 33









Autoevolutionary subjects were more likely than

models to agree with the statement (Table 34) "I am an

optimist."




TABLE 34

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEIIHEIT:
I AM AN OPTIMIST


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 7 9 0 0 0 16

Modal 8 5 2 1 1 17

Totals 15 14 2 1 1 33



The groups responded very similarly to the statement

"I enjoy leading other people" (Table 35). Two people in

the modal group showed disagreement, while a few in both

groups were "uncertain."

In the second part of the questionnaire (Appendix E),

subjects were asked to respond to five open-ended questions.

Their responses were placed in general categories which

were derived by examining the content of the responses.

Many subjects gave more than one answer to specific ques-

tions, so the number of responses differs for the various

questions. Individual responses that did not fit into a

specific category are not presently; only those responses

that were cited by three or more subjects appear in the

following tables.









TABLE 35

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES OF AUTOEVOLUTIONARY
AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE STATEMENT:
I ENJOY LEADING OTHER PEOPLE


Group SA A U D SD Total


Autoevolutionary 5 9 2 0 0 16

Modal 5 7 3 1 1 17

Totals 10 16 5 1 1 33



Visual inspection of the data shows no strong differ-

ences between the responses of the two groups to the

question "What do you like about yourself?" Both seem to

stress certain (and varied) personal qualities as their

likeable characteristics. Table 36 lists the frequencies

and categories of response cited by the two groups.


TABLE 36

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES AND CATEGORIES OF
RESPONSE GIVEN BY AUTOEVOLUTIONARY AND MODAL
SUBJECTS TO THE QUESTION: WHAT DO
YOU LIKE ABOUT YOURSELF?


Category
Others Like
Personal Appreciate Helping
Group Qualities Them Others Total


Autoevolutionary 17 4 3 24

Modal 20 4 2 26

Total 37 8 5 50







75

Some interesting differences appeared between the two

groups for the question "What do you dislike about your-

self?" (Table 37). The autoevolutionary group cited

laziness, procrastination, lack of order or "nothing" most

frequently. They were saying that they should be doing

more, or shouldn't procrastinate or need more order. In

short, they realize some positive trait that they lack.

The modal group cited weakness of conviction, (bad) temper

and stubbornness or intolerance most frequently. The modal

group was reacting and responding to a negative trait that

they do have.

When asked how they thought they became "the type of

person that you are now," both groups cited the influence

of their family or parents. The autoevolutionary group

cited this influence twice as many times as the modal

group. Many in the autoevolutionary group cited their

education as being important to their development, while

no one in the modal group mentioned this. A few people in

both groups felt that their attitude, effort or "positive

thinking" aided their development. A considerable number

of people in the modal group cited negative experiences as

influencing their current personality. There were such

statements as "unhappy childhood" and "overcoming physical

disability." Table 38 lists the responses for the two

groups.

Table 39 shows the responses to the question "If you

weren't working at your present job, profession, etc.,



















r-I i-I Co







0 c- o-







CD CY)


U)
r-
-I-j







,Q v)
0

H






E








o O
0


C)




b.0
0 -


0
.H
1
0
(1)
0
,-t


.i- O -
& o f








f a


> c-
OH


0 M






Om

SH

0 PQ






ozo
S0
0(3
u0 t 0




0 :2 E-i
S0 <





















c,.
0



S
C-1


<







iH 0



,p ow




Pn U 0




coo



U0) p)
H M






E Z
UUO)
SE- 0











W 0









0 >






W o
H >I
0o
ZPDH
M00








0

c5 0
MS
U 2
< Ml3
Q OQ(
S >-
< K ^
< 0O







SM 3=
Pi
p-.Ei -


U)

4-J
0





u)
0
00
>C
S*H a
























J *H

d-
0
cu










4- 0
-H 4-4
4-








Cd
4-J
r





*f 0
U- -
5 f
.i W



Om


rm r-
CN H m





























































>1


Oc
O H
*rl
4-I


0

a) rH
0 Cd Cd
4-J a 4--
3 0 0
4 Z E-H









what other job or profession would you be engaged in?"

The majority of people in both groups were able to list

specific jobs or professions, but three times as many

subjects in the autoevolutionary group cited the exact same

job or gave a very vague answer. These people have trouble

seeing themselves doing anything vastly different from

their present vocation.




TABLE 39

RESPONSE FREQUENCIES AND CATEGORIES OF RESPONSE GIVEN
BY AUTOEVOLUTIONARY AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE
QUESTION: IF YOU WEREN'T WORKING AT YOUR
PRESE;!T JOB, PROFESSION, ETC., WHAT
OTHER JOB OR PROFESSION WOULD YOU BE ENGAGED IN?


Category
Other
Same Job Specific No
Group Or Same Area Job Title Response Totals


Autoevolutionary 6 8 2 16

Modal 2 14 1 17

Total 8 22 3 33



The final question attempted to determine whether

there were any differences in motivation for volunteer or

public service work between the groups. The autoevolution-

ary group overwhelmingly listed such reasons as "improving

the environment," "making the world a bit better" or

"making this a better place to live." The modal group saw









their volunteer work as giving them personal pleasure or

reward. Some people in the autoevolutionary group also

said that it was their "duty" as a citizen, parent or that

others needed the help they could give. Table 40 lists

the categories and frequency of response.




TABLE 40

RESPONSE FREQUEIICIES AND CATEGORIES OF RESPONSE GIVEN
BY AUTOEVOLUTIONARY AND MODAL SUBJECTS TO THE
QUESTION: IF YOU DO ANY VOLUNTEER, PUBLIC
SERVICE WORK, ETC., WHY DO YOU DO IT?



Make a
Better Personal
Place Pleasure Help
Group To Live Or Reward Duty Others Totals


Autoevolutionary 9 4 4 3 20

Modal 0 10 0 1 11

Total 9 14 4 4 31



Complete demographic data were gathered for only 15

of the 16 autoevolutionary subjects but for all (17) of the

modal group. An attempt was made to match the subjects for

age. The mean age for the autoevolutionary group was

51.47 years; for the modal group, 49.94 years. There was

a bi-modal age distribution of 44 years and 56 years in the

autoevolutionary group with a median age of 51 years. The

range was 26 to 77 years; corrected range was 36 to 69









years. The modal age for comparison group was 47 years;

their median age was 50 years with a representative range

of 30 to 65 years.

The groups turned out to be equal on the basis of sex.

There were nine females and six males (actually the seventh

person who gave incomplete demographic data was a male) in

the autoevolutionary group. The modal group was comprised

of ten females and seven males. The majority of subjects

in both groups were married. The breakdown for the auto-

evolutionary group was: ten married (including a widow

who remarried), three divorced, one single and one widower.

A similar breakdown for the modal group shows: fourteen

married, two divorced and one widow. All subjects in both

groups listed their race as white although no attempt was

made to control for race.

The majority of subjects in both groups were members

of Protestant denominations. There were essentially no

differences between the two groups in their religious

preferences. Two people in each group listed "none."

A strong educational difference emerged between the

two groups. Both were above the educational level of the

general population, perhaps because the research was

conducted in a "university" town. Mean education for the

modal group was 13.82 years; for the autoevolutionary

group it was 17.47 years. This is a difference between

attending at least some college modelss) and some graduate

work (autoevolutionary group).










The educational differences are better reflected in

the degrees held by members of the two groups. Although

the range from high school education to doctorate was

basically the same for both groups, twelve modal subjects

did not complete a bachelors degree, two held the bachelors,

one a masters and two had doctorates. The autoevolutionary

group held two doctorates, seven masters, four bachelors

and only two persons with less than a bachelors.

There were no major occupational differences between

the groups. Four persons in each group were housewives;

this was the most frequent category. Teachers, including

college professors, was the next most frequent category

followed by "retired" persons in both groups. All of the

autoevolutionary group were members of one of the three

listed groups or of other "people-oriented" occupations.

The remaining modal people included management, sales,

technical service, clerical and secretarial occupations.

Length of time in the occupation, including those who were

housewives, was 17.17 years for the autoevolutionary group

and 13.54 years for the modal group. These figures are

somewhat misleading because the retired persons only

listed the length of their retirement.

Salary or income level for the two groups is also some-

what difficult to assess. The housewives generally listed

"none" for their salary, while the retired person's data

were often unclear. Based on the data that was given, the

median income for the autoevolutionary group was $15,000







82

with most falling in the $14,000 to $17,000 range. Modal

subjects had a median income of about $10,000 with most

falling in the $8,000 $11,000 range. Overall range of

income was the same at the upper salary limit for both

groups, but the modal group had a lower, lower range limit.

These salary differences seem to reflect the general

educational differences between the two groups.















CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Subjects who were judged as mentally healthy were

selected on the basis of their service to the community and

for working to improve the environment. They did this in

a variety of ways such as donating their time to aid the

elderly, coordinating life enriching and educational

activities for children and serving on public projects for

the disadvantaged. Most of the subjects were involved in

a great many such endeavors over a period of many years.

The final group that was chosen was termed autoevolutionary.

They were seen as psychologically healthy people who were

functioning fully and striving to constantly grow and

evolve. Most importantly they were people who were acting

upon the environment (persons, things, etc.) in an attempt

to effect adaptive change. These people were compared to

a group of "modal" or average citizens who were matched

to be of the same approximate age. The two groups were

also essentially the same in terms of sex, marital status,

race and religion although they weren't deliberately

matched for these traits.

There were no significant differences between the two

groups on 12 of the 15 scales of the Personality Research

Form: Achievement, Affiliation, Aggression, Autonomy,

83









Dominance, Endurance, Exhibition, Harmavoidance, Impul-

sivity, Nurturance, Plan and Infrequency. There would be

no expected differences between the two very similar groups

on most of these 12 scales. The review of the literature

had many references to the autonomy of psychologically

healthy people (Jahoda, 1958, Footeand Cottrell, 1955,

Erickson, 1959). Puttick (1964) saw the psychologically

healthy person as both "independent and dependent" (p. 6).

Jackson's (1967) definition of autonomy as measured by the

PRF includes terms such as rebellious, ungovernable,

resistant and lone-wolf. A high-scorer on the PRF's

autonomy scale is independent but is also "not tied to

people, places or obligations" (p. 6). The type of person

termed autoevolutionary in the present study was one who

devoted considerable time and energy to serving the community.

They accepted the responsibility for the welfare of others

and the community at large. Most of them were serving

through formal agencies, committees and programs. This is

one possible reason why they may not have scored higher on

autonomy as measured by the PRF. These people also

generally disagreed to the statement "I am a dependent

person" (Table 31) to a greater extent than the companion

group. This somewhat conflicting data would support

Puttick's (1964) claim that "the healthy individual both

actively organizes his environment, and at other times,

willingly submits to the world. ." (p. 18).

A possible difference on the Nurturance scale might









be expected. This is defined as one who:

Gives sympathy and comfort; assists others when-
ever possible, interested in caring for children,
the disabled or infirm; offers a "helping hand"to
those in need; readily performs favors for others
(Jackson, 1967, p. .7).

When asked why they volunteer or do public service work,

the majority of the autoevolutionary group responded that

they were trying to make the world (community, etc.) a

better place (Table 40). Most modal subjects cited personal

reward as their motive. The means of the two groups were

approximately the same, and both fairly high (60th percen-

tile), but apparently neither group is exceedingly high in

traits defined as "sympathetic, paternal, helpful, benevo-

lent, etc." (Jackson, 1967, p. 7).

Significant differences were found for three of the

PRF scales: Order, Social Recognition and Understanding.

Autoevolutionary subjects scored significantly lower on the

Order scale which indicates that they do not have as great

a need as modal persons in terms that are often associated

with compulsivity such as "neat, organized, tidy, syste-

matic, well ordered, disciplined, etc." (Jackson, 1967,

p. 7). Four of the autoevolutionary subjects responded to

the question "What do you dislike about yourself?" (Table

37) with "Not orderly enough." At least some of the auto-

evolutionary subjects see order as a desired trait that

they lack.

There was a significant difference in the Social

Recognition scores of the two groups as measured by the









PRF. This difference was one of the strongest, exceeding

the .05 level of significance. Social recognition is defined

in terms such as "approval seeking, seeks recognition" and

"desires to be held in high esteem by acquaintances"

(Jackson, 1967, p. 7). Although the autoevolutionary group

does much that could be motivated by a need for social

recognition, they scored considerably lower in their need

for it than did the modal subjects. Most autoevolutionary

subjects stated that they worked to improve the environment

and to fulfill their "duty." Only a minority cited personal

reward as their motivation although this was the reason

cited by the majority of modal subjects. In Table 1,

Maslow was quoted as saying that self-actualizing people:

.avoid publicity, fame, glory, honors, popu-
larity, celebrity, or at least do not seek it. .they
do not need or seek for or even enjoy very much
flattery, applause, popularity, status, prestige,
money, honors, etc. .(Maslow, 1971, pp. 308-
309).

This seems to be the case with autoevolutionary subjects

in the present study.

Autoevolutionary subjects scored significantly higher

in their level of understanding than did modal subjects.

Understanding is defined as inquiring, curious, analytical,

exploring, intellectual, reflective and as a person who

"wants to understand many areas of knowledge" (Jackson,

1967, p. 7). The higher score of autoevolutionary subjects

can be explained in terms of a quest to be fully func-

tioning as defined by Rogers (see Table 3) or self-

actualizing as discussed by Otto (1966, 1967). The









synthesis of ideas that accompany understanding can aid in

effective self-integration. Understanding also related to

creativity. Privette (1964) linked Rogers' definition of

creativity with her concept of transcendent functioning and

saw both as the desire "to express and activate all the

capabilities of the organism" (Rogers, 1961, pp. 349-351;

Privette, 1964, p. 15). This tendency also seems evident

in autoevolutionary subjects.

Anderson (1959) saw flexibility and adaptive flexibil-

ity as important components of the creative process and as

being important to psychological health. Maslow, Rogers and

others have agreed that positive health is linked to open-

ness, adaptability and flexibility. Although the auto-

evolutionary group scored as very open on the Rokeach

Dogmatism scale, there was no significant difference between

the groups. The modal group also scored as open but showed

a much wider range of scores, some of which were in the

extremely "closed" range. A few highly negative scores

balanced out these differences. It could very well be that

in the rapidly changing world of today, adaptiveness,

flexibility and openness of thought and belief systems are

vital to an individual's survival. The dogmatism scale

was developed in 1960 and may no longer be a valid predictor

of "openness" and "closedness" because of the vastly

changed socio-political environment.

The autoevolutionary group scored significantly higher

than modal subjects in the number of means given on an









abridged form of the Means-End Problem Solving procedure.

This score was also significant beyond the .05 level. This

finding, coupled with the significant difference on the

Understanding scale of the PRF, suggests that in addition

to having a greater level of curiosity, analytical thinking

and need to understand and synthesize, the autoevolutionary

people are more capable in problem-solving. Their MEP's

scores suggest successful behavioral adjustment as well as

skills in providing the cognitive steps necessary for

effective problem solving. Scores for modal subjects were

within the normal range for adult subjects. Caution should

be exercised in examining the results of the MEP's, because

subjects completed an abridged form of three stories, rather

than the complete set of nine or ten stories. Also, two

subjects in each group failed to complete the stories

because of the time necessary even for the abridged form.

This left an extremely small number in each group (14 auto-

evolutionary and 15 models), but it is worth noting that

even with such small numbers, statistical differences did

occur.

Responses to a variety of statements and questions

posed in Appendix E were tallied and visually inspected.

It would not be appropriate to apply statistical procedures

such as the ANOVA to single-item, self-report questions.

These items were based on theories postulated in the

survey of the literature and were intended as areas to be

examined in future research.









The first statement read "I am a religious person."

There were more modal persons who strongly agreed with this

statement than autoevolutionary persons. More auto-

evolutionary persons than modal persons responded as

uncertain or wrote to protest the ambiguity of the term.

Maslow (1967, 1971), Moustakas (1961) and Landsman

(1967) discussed the need for solitude in self-actualizing

and psychologically healthy people. Both groups agreed

that they liked to be alone at times. A possible explana-

tion is that both groups contained psychologically healthy

individuals who maintain their health by periods of

solitude. There was also general agreement by both groups

to the statements that they could form intimate relation-

ships, that they enjoyed their jobs, their sex lives, and

that they possessed a good sense of humor. They reported

that they "enjoyed life" and saw themselves as "good"

persons. All of these traits are seen as being important

to attaining psychological health. Because no psycho-

pathology was evident in either group, they appeared

similar in their responses to these statements. Perhaps a

more sensitive instrument is needed to see if higher levels

of functioning correlate with higher need levels in these

areas. It is very likely that the Likert type scale was

inappropriate in finding any real differences that may

exist between the two groups.

Responses to the statement "I enjoy good physical

health" showed some differences. In the autoevolutionary