Title: Self-determination and personal approach as developing characteristics in college students
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097836/00001
 Material Information
Title: Self-determination and personal approach as developing characteristics in college students
Physical Description: vi, 98 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Otten, Mark William, 1937-
Publication Date: 1967
Copyright Date: 1967
 Subjects
Subject: Personality   ( lcsh )
Empathy   ( lcsh )
College students -- Psychology   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 65-68.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097836
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000559027
oclc - 13432909
notis - ACY4473

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

selfdeterminatio00otterich ( PDF )


Full Text














SELF-DETERMINATION AND

PERSONAL-APPROACH AS DEVELOPING

CHARACTERISTICS IN COLLEGE STUDENTS









By
MARK WILLIAM OTTEN














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











UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
August, 1967



































For Cynthia













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the ninety

freshmen and graduate students who served as the subjects of this

inquiry. Their freely-given time, cooperation and, at times,

genuine interest, are deeply appreciated. Without their help, this

study could never have been attempted.

I wish to acknowledge the profound contribution of my

chairman, Dr. Benjamin Barger. This study reflects his contributions

throughout, and is the result of repeated discussions with him

during the year since its inception. He not only gave instruction

and guidance while work was in progress, but added encouragement and

challenge when the end was lost to view.

I am indebted to the other members of my committee:

Drs. Louis Cohen, Marshall B. Jones, Marvin Shaw, and Wilbur Bock

for their helpful suggestions at several stages of this project. I

wish to also thank Drs. Everette Hall and Jack Wright for contributing

ideas in this study's early stages.

I want to thank Lawrence Tyree and Lawrence G. Ritt for

their capable, volunteer service as examiners in my absence.

To Claudia Batteiger and Edwin Earl Burkett, I owe special

thanks. They voluntarily served as raters in this study, sacrificing

many valuable hours of their time to make this dissertation possible.

I am also indebted to Geraldine Lennon, who magically

transformed my rough drafts into a readable manuscript.

iii














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACK:3 :W/LEDGEt; EN; TS .......................................... iii

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

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION....................................

The Concept of Self-Determination..... 2
The Concept of Personal-Approach...... 6
The College Student in Two Dimensions. 9
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH ..................... 11
Self-Determination.................... 11
Personal-Approach ........................ 17
DESIGN AND HYPOTHESES....................... 23
Rationale for the Selection of Groups. 23

II METHOD.......................................... 27

Independent Variables ................ 28
Dependent Variables.................... 29
Self-Determination 1: Rotter's
Internal-External Scale (IE)..... 29
Self-Determination 11: Ezekiel's
Personal Future Test (PF)........ 29
Personal-Approach I: Greene's
Self-Disclosure Sentence
Blank (SDSB)...................... 30
Personal-Approach 11: Carpenter's
Personal-Impersonal Scale (PI)... 30
Cont o Is .............................. 30
Analysis of Data...................... 32

Ill. RESULTS......................... ................. 34

Main Group Differences................ 35
Secondary Group Differences........... 37
Specificity of the Personal-Approach
and Self-Determination Scales....... 40
Exploration of Group Differences
via Intercorrelation ................ 42










IV DISCUSSION......................................

Group Differences as Developmental
Increases in Self-Determination.....
Group Differences as Developmental
Increases in Personal-Approach.....
The College Student in Two Dimensions.
The Question of Differential
Development.........................
Development as an Increasing Balance
Among a Variety of Positive
Characteristics.....................

V SUMMARY............................... ........

REFERENCES................................................

APPENDICES................................................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................














LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Inter-rater Reliability Coefficients
for Two Raters ...................................... 34

2 Differences Between Means of First-
Year Graduate and Freshmen Groups on
all Scales .......................................... 35

3 Differences Among Means of Graduate
Student Sub-Groups on the Personal-
Approach Scales ..................................... 37

4 Differences Among Means of Graduate
Student Sub-Groups on the Self-
Determination Scales ................................ 38

5 Graduate Record Examination Means
for the Graduate Student Sub-Groups................. 39

6 Intercorrelations Among Scales for
Freshmen Group...................................... 41

7 Intercorrelations Among Scales for
Graduate Student Group ............................ 42

8 Intercorrelations Among Scales for
the Graduate Student Sub-Groups..................... 44

9 Intercorrelations of Grade-Point-
Average and SCAT Verbal Ability
With all Scales for Freshmen and
intercorrelations of GRE Verbal
Ability with all Scales for Grad-
uate Students....................................... 45













CHAPTER 1


INTRODUCTION


This study is an attempt to elaborate and integrate two psycho-

logical concepts, and to explore their relation to group differences

in psychological maturity and development. The first concept is self-

determination, and refers to the view a person hold of his own capacity

to make events happen and to control the outcomes of such events. The

second concept is personal-approach, and refers to the degree of personal

intimacy in the view held by one person regarding another, as well as

the personal intimacy of expression of one person to another. Both

concepts refer to private views held by a person, views which are

assumed to be inseparable from significant on-going ways in which that

person behaves.

This study develops out of the author's interest in "positive"

growth in young adults. For this reason, the background upon which

the two main concepts will be projected is that of different levels of

development, and different areas of commitment, in young adults. Self-

determination and personal-approach are thus of interest primarily as

they relate to this developmental background. It is hoped that by

introducing these two concepts into the study of normal individuals,

a better understanding of the "positive" non-pathological processes

in such individuals will emerge.








2

In the discussion to follow, self-determination and personal-

approach will first be presented in the context of related concepts

in an effort at clear definitions. Secondly, several relevant studies

will be reviewed for each of the two concepts, then their potential

relation to development in the young adult will be discussed. Operations

will then be proposed for defining self-determination and personal-

approach. Finally, an experimental design for examining a variety of

"group" differences along these variables will be described. The

main empirical tests follow from the assumption that these two concepts

suggest valid and powerful operations for differentiating groups--

student groups which are assembled on the basis of academic level

and academic major.


The Concept of Self-Determination

The theoretical model of Andras Angyal (1941, 1951) offers

two main principles of human behavior, the first of which is very

relevant here. Angyal writes that the "human being seems to be striving

basically to assert and to expand his self-determination. He is an

autonomous being, striving....to exercise his freedom and to organize

the relevant items of his world out of the autonomous center of govern-

ment that is his self." (1951, p.131-132) Angyal terms it the "trend

toward increased autonomy," and says it expresses itself in spontaneity,

self-assertiveness, striving for freedom, and mastery. This is almost

a re-statement of the Lutheran-Calvin ethic.








3

A similar concept, and one which bears likeness to the learn-

ing theory of Harlow (1949), is set forth by White (1959). He believes

that it is characteristic of all species to explore and to attempt to

master the environment. White terms this drive the tendency toward

competence. He claims that such a tendency is not explained by pri-

mary drive, and though probably not as strong as some primary drives,

it is at least moderate in strength and persistence.

The achievement motive introduced by Murray (1938) and

elaborated by McClelland and his co-workers (McClelland, Atkinson,

Clarke, and Lowell, 1953) is also relevant. Data presented suggest

that persons high on need for achievement also view their own behavior

and its outcomes as self-determined. The relationship should not be

perfect, however, with a few high-achievers being influenced primarily

by immediate circumstances or social norms (possibly acting out of

self-sacrifice), with some low-achievers viewing themselves as self-

determing. Both achievement and competence denote a thing achieved

or a level attained through skill, work, or courage. But self-

determination, as conceptualized here, has the added connotation that

such activities are viewed as a matter of one's choosing or personal

initiative. Moreover, the self-determining person may not specifically

have achievement as a goal.

The "gestalt school" of psychology offers yet another concept

related to self-determination. Out of early studies of human perception,

Witkin and others (Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman, Machover, Meissner, and








4

Wapner, 1954) have begun to study individual differences in field-

independence. In this case, persons are ordered on the basis of

whether they utilize outside "field" cues, or internal organismic

sources, in making a perceptual judgment. Those who tend toward out-

side cues are field-dependent, and those utilizing inner cues are field-

independent. This breakdown is ostensibly very similar to that of

Riesman (1950). The latter describes three "ideal" types: the tradition-

directed, inner-directed, and other-directed. At first glance, one

might expect an inner-directed person to be correspondingly high on

indices of self-determination. However, Riesman states that "the

source of direction for the individual is 'inner' in the sense that

it is implanted early in life by the leaders and directed toward gener-

alized, but nonetheless inescapably destined goals." This implies

a rigid adherence to inner principles and goals quite at odds with

the feelings of individual choice and initiative implied in the concept

of self-determination. Field-independence actually appears to be a

better approximation of self-determination, though just how close is

an empirical question.

The concept of the ego in psychoanalysis is also relevant,

albeit less clearly so. When viewed as the conscious "center" which

organizes and controls behavior, and its consequences, the ego concept

touches firmly upon our notion of self-determination. But the ego is

merely one structural part of the complex psychoanalytic psyche, such

that it appears too abstract and too bound up with other aspects of the

theory to be of significant aid in guiding research efforts.







5

In a contrary fashion, Rotter (1966) has proposed a relatively

clear and simply-defined concept of Internal versus External control.

Just as the notion of field-independence developed out of studies of

human perception, the concept of internal control has analogously

been culled from research in human learning. Rotter and his colleagues

found that the effects of reward and reinforcement on preceding behavior

depend in part on whether the person perceives the reward as contingent

on his own behavior or independent of it. Internal control is defined

as the belief or expectation held by a person that his own behavior,

skills, or internal dispositions determine what reinforcements he

receives. Rotter (1966) reports several experiments which define

group differences in behavior when persons perceive reinforcement as

contingent on their behavior versus change or experimenter control. He

also describes the development of a test of individual differences in

belief in internal versus external control, which will be discussed more

fully, together with related research, in the next section. It suffices

to say here that the concept of internal control is clearly pertinent

to the present conceptualization of self-determination.

Self-determination is thus related to all of the above con-

cepts, but as discussed here, identical to none. The conceptual

definition of self-determination to be adopted here is as follows: the

view, feeling, or belief that a person holds of himself as agent; as

the initiator of his own actions and in control of the consequences;

and as the prime determiner of his personal future, both immediate and

distant. (Such a definition does not commit one to the doctrine of








6

the free will.) Barron (1963), though not terming it self-determination,

unknowingly sums up the conceptual meaning very well in a recent

statement regarding "psychological health": "The feeling that one is

free and that life and its outcome is in one's own hands." (p.5)

In this study, then, the extent to which a person holds such a view,

feeling, or belief will determine the amount of self-determination

present for him.


The Concept of Personal-Approach

The personal-approach concept owes its presence to a quite

different theoretical tradition. In psychology, Carl Rogers (1942, 1951)

was perhaps the first to emphasize the "personal." For example, he

writes that the ideal conditions for "client-centered therapy" exist

when "....the therapist has been able to enter into an intensely

personal and subjective relationship with his client--relating not as

a scientist to an object of study, not as a physician expecting to

diagnose and cure--but as a person to a person. It means that the

therapist has been comfortable in entering this relationship fully,

without knowing cognitively where it will lead, satisfied with pro-

viding a climate which will free the client to become himself." (1955,

p.2-3)

Elsewhere, Rogers extends the value of the personal relation-

ship beyond the special case of psychotherapy, but he is not the only

one. In philosophy, MacMurray (1954) and Buber (1955, 1958) have

articulated such theories, both expressing the view that intimate,

personal interactions with others are critical to one's own well-being.







7

The psychiatrist, Laing, (1960) also conceives of the highly personal

relationship as basic to fulfilling one's needs. He writes of its

occurrence as "when two sane persons meet, there appears to be a

reciprocal recognition of each other's identity. In the mutual recog-

nition there are the following basic elements: (a) I recognize the

other person to be the person he takes himself to be; (b) he recognizes

me to be the person I take myself to be." (p.35) And returning to

psychology, Barron (1963) suggests that there are two main principles

to be seen in what he calls creative personal interactions: "first,

a certain acceptance of things at face value, and second, a willingness

to let the other person be as he wishes, combined with an insistence

on yourself being as you wish." (p.106)

There is, nevertheless, some disagreement on the most signi-

ficant components of personal interaction. Jourard (1964) asserts

that self-disclosure, or one's revealing personal thoughts and feelings

to another, is the important factor. In his words, self-disclosure

is a symptom of "psychological health," and that persons become clients

in therapy because "they have not disclosed themselves in some optimum

degree to the people in their life." By disclosing to another, Jourard

believes that one not only comes to know oneself better, but also enters

into sincere relations with others. On the other hand, McCurdy (1965)

writes that a person's receptiveness determines the limits of his

capacity for personal interaction. He feels that every human being,

whether willingly or not, transmits in his own peculiar way his private

feelings and thoughts. He writes, "it is easy to be aware of this. We








8

tend to be selective, however, in our attention to the multitudinous

happenings around us, opening and closing our receivers, so to speak,

as required by our momentary capacity for assimilation, which in general

is small." (p.136) For McCurdy, then, personal interaction is a

function of the participants' receptiveness, whereas for Jourard it

is a matter of personal self-expression.

These different views appear to be mere elaborations of a

difference of perspective. A substantial degree of both mutual-

receptiveness and mutual-self-expression seems necessary for significant

human interaction to occur. Moreover, it is suggested that the capacity

for such interaction rests upon a personal quality in one's general

approach to others. In other words, it is assumed here that there is

a characteristic approach or readiness toward others that can be defined

as personal, and which enables a person to freely engage in interaction

with others who share such a readiness--interaction of the kind that

involves favorable outcomes for both parties.

Such a formulation owes much to Carpenter's (1966) contri-

bution of the construct Personal versus Impersonal. As defined by him,

"a person's view of someone is personal to the extent that it makes

reference to that person's internal, experiential frame of reference.

The view is impersonal to the degree that it lacks such reference." In

other words, one's view of another is personal to the extent that he

attempts to imagine the other's subjective thoughts, feelings, and in-

tentions. It is possible to carry this one step farther, and state that,








9

in like fashion, one's expression to another is personal to the extent

that he expresses his own thoughts, feelings, and intentions to the

other. The personal is then seen as cutting across both the views of,

and the expression to, the other person--the two aspects of personal-

approach as conceptualized in this study.


The College Student in Two Dimensions

The search that has resulted in the self-determination and

personal-approach concepts was initially guided by a general interest

in finding appropriate criteria of personal growth in young adults. In

this quest, two directions emerged: (1) such persons are in a struggle

to establish themselves in some distinct way, and (2) these persons are

also trying to form satisfying intimate relationships with others

(usually outside the family). As Erikson has very cogently pointed out,

the American culture seems to place special emphasis on "self-made'

identities" and this means that the young adult can probably best

establish himself in this culture by setting his own goals, "making it"

on his own, and, therefore, affirming the idea of self-determination.

And yet the connotation "making it on his own" almost conflicts with

the idea that intimate relationships are valuable. That such relation-

ships are important to the young adult is argued by numerous writers

(e.g., Buber, 1958; Chickering, 1967; Erikson, 1959; Jourard, 1964;

Maslow, 1954). Besides the more obvious reasons of love and sexual

fulfillment, close relationships can aid a developing sense of identity

by "talking things over endlessly, by confessing what one feels like,









10

and by discussing plans, wishes, and expectations." (Erikson, 1959,

p.95) Psychological growth is, therefore, viewed here as a growing

sense of unique identity, with an increasing personal relatedness to

others. In other terms, this can be seen as development toward an

increasing complexity and abstraction in the way an individual views

himself, his relationships, and his environment. And it is this develop-

ment that is assumed here to be most commonly derived in two ways:

through (1) self-determination, and (2) the personal-approach.

It is this value position which leads to the general hypo-

theses that: (1) self-determination and personal-approach will show a

general and significant increase as a function of age and academic level;

and (2) self-determination and personal-approach will show a differential

increase depending upon major area of academic commitment. In effect,

then, this study attempts to validate two "positive," complementary

constructs by utilizing the independent college student group criteria.

The notion that these are normal or "positive" constructs suggests

that this study will make a tangible research contribution to the field

of psychological health--an emerging field of novel speculation but

little fact.












REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH


Self-Determination


An interest in individual effort and growth similar to that

presented here has been followed up in the studies of achievement

motivation by McClelland, Atkinson, and their associates--studies

stretching back two decades (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark and Lowell,

1953; McClelland, 1955; Atkinson and Feather, 1966). They have typically

used a refined Thematic Apperception Test method as a measure of

achievement motive, which involves content analysis of fantasy-stories

given to pictures under specific instructions. The criterion for a

response being scored for achievement is that the story must include

some success in competition toward a standard of excellence. To

briefly summarize the early findings, persons with high achievement

scores complete more tasks under achievement orientation, solve more

problems on timed tests, improve faster in their ability to do anagrams,

tend to get better grades, tend to recall more incompleted tasks,

use more future tenses and abstract nouns in talking about themselves,

and so on. It is of note that there has been no advance in technique

for assessing achievement motivation since the first studies in 1949.

It's not due to lack of effort, but a matter of alternative, more

objective, measures not working out (see Atkinson and Feather, 1966,

p.351-352). The fact that objective assessments of achievement moti-

vation tend to correlate more highly with conformity measures, and the

1 1








12

more typical TAT assessment with individual goal-setting, indicates that

there is probably more to the concept-as-measured than originally

thought. It is possible that the measure involves not only a specific

motlve-to-achieve, but also some belief in individual choice and self-

determination. In their most recent review of their work, Atkinson and

Feather (1966, p.327-370) have begun to consider such a possibility.

A more experimental approach to a concept relevant to self-

determination is evident in social psychology. Pepitone (1958) discussed

the possible significance of attribution of responsibility and causality

in a social context after studies by Thibaut and Riecken (1955) and

Pepitone and Sherberg (1957) had shown positive relationships between

responsibility attribution and the social status of target persons.

In effect, higher status persons were more often viewed as responsible

for their actions. Wright (1964) has since found that under certain

conditions the degree of activity in target persons is the primary

factor in subjects attributing responsibility to them. A research project

has just been undertaken by Wright to determine the person's perception of

causality in others as a function of his tendency to attribute respon-

sibility to himself. The results of this latter study would be espec-

ially relevant here.

Julian Rotter (1966) and his associates have also developed

an interesting line of research which began as a study of differential

learning in situations clearly labelled as either skill or luck determined.

In the initial study, Phares (1957) used color matching as an ambiguous








13

task and instructed half of the subjects that the task was so difficult

as to be a matter of luck and the other half of his subjects that

success was a matter of skill. Phares confirmed the hypothesis that

the increments and decrements following success and failure, respect-

ively, were significantly greater under skill instructions than under

chance instructions. In short, it appears that when subjects think

the outcome or reinforcement is under their own control they perform

and learn the task better. James (1957) and others have replicated

(with slight design variations) Phares' study leading Rotter to the

conclusion that "when a subject perceives a task as controlled by the

experimenter, chance, or random conditions, past experience is relied

upon less. Consequently, it may be said that he learns less, and

under such conditions, he may indeed learn the wrong things and

develop a pattern of behavior which Skinner has referred to as super-

stitious." (1966, p.8)

Since then Rotter and his co-workers have begun to study the

person's belief or perception of internal versus external control as a

general personality variable. To this end, they have developed a 29-

item forced-choice questionnaire (termed the IE scale), and an inspec-

tion of the items indicates that they clearly deal in a variety of

ways with the subject's view of life and the nature of its outcome--

or a generalized view of how reinforcers are controlled. The reported

figures for reliability and internal consistency range mostly in

the .70's, and Rotter (1966) reviews numerous studies which indicate

modest, but consistent validity for both the test and the construct.








14

internal versus external control. For example, group differences on

the IE scale are not striking, but generally in the predicted

direction, with a group of Peace Corps Volunteers showing highest

internality scores. (Unfortunately, no more elderly normal-adult

samples were included.) As for concurrent validity, very low correla-

tions were found between the IE scale and both intelligence and social

desirability scales. On the other hand, two studies (Franklin, 1963;

Battle and Rotter, 1963) have shown rather clearly that internality is

associated with the upper socioeconomic levels.

Perhaps the most impressive data presented by Rotter involves

the attempts of internals to better their life conditions and to

resist subtle outside-influence efforts. Seeman and Evans (1962) and

Seeman (1963) have shown that both "internal" tuberculosis patients

and "internal" reformatory inmates learned more about how their instit-

ution was run, their own condition, and what life would be like after

they left the institution. Gore and Rotter (1963), in a study done

at a Negro college, found that students who were willing to take part

in a march on the state capitol or to join a freedom riders' group

were significantly more internal than those who were only willing to

attend a rally, were not interested in participating at all, or avoided

filling out a request form. Further research by Crowne and Liverant

(1963) and Gore (1962) strongly suggests that internals tend to resist

conformity-pressure and outside manipulation when it conflicts with

their own views. One final study by Rotter is of interest despite

his null findings. He obtained no significant relationship between








15

his IE measure and the Gottschalk Figures Test, which is frequently

utilized as an index of Witkin's field-independence concept.

The evidence for the validity of Rotter's IE scale is,

therefore, quite consistent, all considered. Moreover, insofar as it

measures a person's belief in his own control of life's outcomes, it

taps a central aspect of self-determination. But since the IE scale

is a forced-choice questionnaire, it limits a subject's response to

merely checking the most appropriate belief--the belief in either

internally or externally controlled outcomes as presented. Therefore,

in order to more fully assess self-determination, it seems wise to add

a measure utilizing the subject's more stylistic or expressive behaviors.

It happens that such a measure was introduced on a (well-reasoned)

hunch in the following research project.

A recent paper by M. Brewster Smith (1966) describes an

intensive study of the first group of Peace Corps Volunteers to go

overseas, who trained in Berkeley in 1961 and served for two years as

secondary school teachers in Ghana. The study was performed in two

parts: (1) the exploration of positive characteristics relative to com-

petence or effectiveness in the volunteers; (2) the prediction of com-

petent performance in the field. The first part, of less importance

here, involved Q-sorts derived from periodic interviews with each

volunteer. The Q-sort data were factor analyzed and presented relative

to the volunteer's personality on the one hand, and his role perfor-

mance on the other.









16

The second part of the study deals with the attempt to predict

volunteers' performance in their second year via independent person-

ality tests. Out of three separate attempts, two failed. The failure

consisted of measures of authoritarianism, and psychiatrists' ratings

of "mental health." In contrast, a third attempt, based on a volunteer's

view of his own personal future, and apparently introduced into the

study as an afterthought by Ezekiel (1964), was successful. The test

itself involves the writing of three essays: one about volunteer's

alternative immediate plans if not accepted in the Peace Corps; the

second a brief "mock autobiography" covering the three years after

return from the Peace Corps; and another mock autobiography covering

the year in which they would be forty years old.

The essays are then rated by independent judges on three

seven-point scales: Differentiation, the extent to which each essay

shows complex and detailed mapping of the future; Agency, the extent

to which all essays show the future self as the prime agent in deter-

mining the course of the person's future life; and Demand, the extent

to which they describe a life as demanding their own long-term, contin-

uing effort. Reliability coefficients for these dimensions are reported

in the .70's. Moreover, Smith (1966) reports in his Peace Corps study

a sum score (for all three dimensions) correlated .41 (p /_ .01) with

the overall administrative evaluation of the volunteers' effectiveness

in their second year. And among the Q-sort data in the study, the

Personal Future sum scores correlated most highly with those termed







17

"Intellectualizing Future Orientation" (r = .41, p / .05), and "Con-

trolling Responsibility" (r = .43, p /_ .05). In general, it seems

that Ezekiel's scale is measuring something very similar in meaning

to self-determination. This test also appears to meet the standards

of an expressive measure--a good alternative to Rotter's IE scale.

However, two qualifications must be stated. In Smith's study,

the predictive power of the Personal Future test is largely concentrated

in the Protestant group. For Protestants the correlation with second-

year evaluation was .64, for Catholics it was .13. It should be said

though, that the Catholic group was smaller (N = 11) and their scores

less reliable. A second qualification is more promising for the pre-

sent study. That is, in spite of the relationship of Ezekiel's test

with both intellectualizing future orientation and controlling respon-

sibility, it failed to correlate significantly with the most prominent

personality factor of all: "Interpersonally Sensitive Maturity."

Since this latter factor was shown to have high positive relationships

with other indicators of "competence," Ezekiel's test appears to be

missing an important positive interpersonal aspect of personality.

Perhaps the personal-approach concept presented here, and its corres-

ponding operations, could help fill such a void.


Personal-Approach

As the personal-approach concept has been defined here, the

most relevant research involves the attempts to measure what is termed

self-disclosure; and the construct personal versus impersonal. However,

passing mention should be made of efforts by Rogers and his colleagues










to measure what they consider essential changes in psychotherapy.

Rogers (1958) has stated the more changing, fluid, and the more rich

and immediate the personal feelings of an individual, then the more

he has "progressed" as a client in therapy. Rogers developed a "process"

scale to examine such changes, and at least one dimension of this scale

deals with the personal versus impersonal features of an individual's

experience. Gendlin (1962) has since studied more specifically the

immediate experiencing of the client, and Truax (1962) has developed

rating scales for assessing therapist, as well as client, characteristics.

Such work seems to set the background for research on so-called self-

disclosure--what is considered here the active or expressive aspect

of the personal-approach.

Self-disclosure was first described and researched by Sidney

Jourard. In 1958 he and Lasakow introduced a questionnaire designed

to utilize an individual's report of his personal disclosures toward

several "target persons." Jourard (1964) has summarized the work

with this instrument, saying self-disclosure is a function of (1) subject

matter, (2) the target person, and (3) the general willingness or capa-

city of a person to disclose. He further suggests that all self-disclosure

can be viewed as a sensitive indicator of one person's relationship

with another--a conclusion which appears quite compatible with Rogers'

position.

However, Jourard's questionnaire has at least two weaknesses:

(1) it relies upon an individual's own report, from memory, of past

disclosures; and (2) it appears to tap quantity more than quality or







19

style of self-disclosure. Several researchers at Ohio State University

have addressed themselves to the task of developing new techniques,

and designs for further validating Jourard's concept. Greene (1964)

and Suchman (1965) have developed scales for use with samples of

written and spoken behavior, respectively. Suchman's scale was con-

structed to tap fluctuations in the subject's language style and voice

quality as well as the degree to which the subject is communicating

personal or impersonal content to the listener. Interjudge reliabilities

ranging from .53 to .72 were found for a large pool of judges. Terming

it a "process" scale of self-disclosure, Suchman has labelled it a

test of "revealingness," or the REV scale.

Greene's scale is a modification of the sentence completion

method for assessing the willingness of individuals to disclose them-

selves to others. Greene (1964) defines self-disclosure as the degree

to which the subject purposely or willingly "reveals core aspects of

his private and personal world." In this Self-Disclosure Sentence

Blank (SDSB), the subject is asked to complete twenty incomplete sen-

tences which have been designed to have "high pull" for self-disclosure,

with the instructions intended to give the subject a clear understanding

of what the examiner is interested in. Greene has reported interjudge

reliabilities of .83, .84, and .91 for three pairs of judges using

Greene's scoring manual. In this regard, Greene's scale shows more

promise than Suchman's.

The validity studies are also encouraging. Greene (1964)

himself reports the results of three separate studies as follows:

(1) subjects role-playing a self-disclosing person score significantly








20

higher on self-disclosure on the SDSB than subjects role-playing a

non-self-disclosing person; (2) subjects score significantly higher on

self-disclosure under low-threat conditions than subjects under moderate-

threat conditions; and (3) therapists independent ratings of the subjects'

willingness to self-disclose yielded significant positive correlations

(ranging from .36 to .90) with the subjects' SDSB scores. Later studies

by Haggerty (1964) and McLaughlin (1965) have shown, as well, that Greene's

SDSB is significantly related to Suchman's REV scale, showing correl-

ations of .54 and .48, respectively. Moreover, Haggerty (1964) found

that a subject's score on Greene's scale is related to their view of

an interviewer as understanding (.33), and to the degree with which

subjects were seen as understood by the interviewer (.54). And finally,

Haggerty found no significant relationship between the SDSB and a

measure of social desirability. Because of the encouraging findings,

Greene's SDSB is used as the measure of personal-expressiveness, or

the expressive aspect of personal-approach in this study.

The work of Carpenter (1966) deals more directly with the

empathic, receptive aspect of the personal-approach. To do this,

Carpenter introduces the construct personal versus impersonal, and pro-

vides a general theoretical discussion of it. Most important here

is his development of a personal-impersonal (PI) scale intended to

show a difference between "a view or understanding of a person which

was predicated upon his being a unique, living, center of the world

and any other view, which was predicated upon different considerations."

(p.27) The datum for the scale is the written report of the subject--








21

ten complete sentences--giving what he believes to be his most import-

ant ideas about what a given person is "really like." Each such

report is then judged sentence-by-sentence and a total score for the

report is reached. For this purpose Carpenter has provided a judges'

manual, and with its use interjudge reliabilities range from .55 to

.94 with a mean of .78 (Carpenter, 1966).

Carpenter also presented the results of several studies bear-

ing upon the validity of his scale and construct. Summaries of three

main findings are presented by Carpenter (1966) as follows: "(1) Persons

who occupy a position of intimacy in an individual's world, tend to

be viewed in a more personal way than other individuals who are

either less well-known or less positively-valued; (2) The level of

'self-disclosure' (on Greene's SDSB) typical of a person tends to be

positively related to the degree to which other persons view him in a

personal manner. This finding, in a somewhat different form, has been

replicated (McLaughlin, 1965); (3) The self-disclosure of the subject,

as indicated by the SDSB, is positively related to the degree to which

persons of central importance to the subject are seen in a personal

manner." (p.89-90) Aside from these main findings, Carpenter also

reports the following relationships with other measures of personality:

a moderate negative relationship with authoritarianism (-.L

as measured by t;..

intelligence (.22, p .05) as measured by the Wide Range Vocabulary

Test; and persons who are typified by relative preference for both

intuitive and feeling approaches to the world, as indicated by the









22

Myers-Briggs scale, tend to view important other persons in a more

personal way than do any of the other type configurations on the

Myers-Briggs. And finally, Carpenter has found that the degree to

which a person's "attention set" is based upon instrumental or utili-

tarian aims, is negatively related to the personal quality of his view

of another person, as resulting from a single interaction with that

person.

Carpenter (1966) has, therefore, produced data which demon-

strate that, in close relationships, persons tend to view others more

personally. Moreover, the data show that self-disclosers are not

only viewed by others in a more personal manner, but see others more

personally as well. Those various preliminary findings of Carpenter,

Greene, and Jourard now begin to fit together. Both personal self-

disclosure and personal view of another are firmly linked to degree of

relationship or involvement with some specific other person. It is

quite possible that one's readiness to self-disclose to a relatively

intimate person in his life, when taken with one's readiness to hold

a personal view of that person (perhaps based upon one's receptiveness

to the other's disclosures), can be considered an index of one's personal-

approach (as defined earlier). What is termed personal-approach

here is very similar conceptually to what has been termed elsewhere

the capacity for intimacy or dialogue, but personal-approach seems more

parsimonious at this stage. For this reason, Carpenter's PI scale

and Greene's SDSB will serve as the two major indices of personal-

approach in this study.















DESIGN AND HYPOTHESES


This study is designed to explore the variability of the

self-determination and personal-approach characteristics in the young

adult, while attempting to fit this variability into a developmental

framework. To this end, a variety of college student groups are

studied. Selection of these groups is based upon considerations of

age, academic level, and academic major. Group selection is thus

grounded upon the following assumptions: (1) self-determination and

personal-approach show a general and significant increase as a

function of age and academic level; (2) self-determination and personal-

approach show a differential increase depending upon major area

of academic commitment.

The groups in this study are, therefore, constituted as

follows: one group of (45) high ability freshmen, and three groups of

(15 each) first-year graduate students chosen from rosters of students

in the graduate English, Psychology, and Physics Departments, respect-

ively. Students in each group have been administered all self-determinat'on

and personal-approach measures, and group scores s' stc

and tested f -


Ratio.2jwl ror Q ne zbeic.un o0 Gr-ous

The first consideration in choosing groups is an attempt to

provide an independent index of developmental level. Two groups of

equal size--one of first-year undergraduates and one of first-year









24

graduate students--are, therefore, chosen to represent two sufficiently

different points in young adult development. The freshmen are chosen

at random from an above average-ability group, the graduate students

are chosen from three divergent major fields, but all are considered

broadly representative of their respective populations.

The second consideration in choosing groups is an attempt

to provide an independent index of divergence in development. This has

taken the form of choosing first-year graduates from three diverse

major fields--English, Psychology, and Physics. To attempt to briefly

describe these three fields, English is characteristically the study

of the literature and the various linguistic arts of the English

language. Physics is the study or science of inanimate matter, motion,

and energy. English and Physics are clearly distinct in the sense

that the former is concerned with artistic verbal expression while the

latter is indisputably a basic physical science. Psychology is distinct

in another sense. It is the study or science of animate behavior, acts,

or mental processes. Psychology is, therefore, distinct from English

in its claim to be a science, and distinct from Physics in its subject

matter--animate behavior.

By choosing students from these three fields, it is assumed

that they are predisposed by the interests and approaches character-

istic of the field itself, and therefore, are expected to show predict-

able differences as a function of major. In regard to the personal-

approach measures, the students who deal with human behavior and human








25

interactions as subject matter, and approach the same in a subjective-

personal manner, can be expected to score highest. English students most

closely approximate this group. Psychology students, by approaching human

behavior (and in some cases infra-human behavior) in a more objective

manner, can be expected to score second highest on the personal-approach

measures. And since Physics students neither deal with human subjects,

nor approach their work in a subjective-personal manner, they are

expected to score lowest.

As for self-determination measures, ideally, students whose

work involves the postulate of determinism, and who view the "self"

as an agent for behavior as well, can be expected to score highest.

None of the three graduate student groups appears to fully meet these

criteria, so that differences on the self-determination measures are

not expected to be great. Nonetheless, slight to moderate differences

can be expected. Students in both Psychology and Physics work under

the postulate of determinism; English students do not. Moreover, in

some cases, Psychology and English students hold the belief of the

self-as-agent, whereas this is irrelevant to Physics. Psychology stud-

ents can, therefore, be expected to score somewhat higher than Physics

students, who in turn are expected to score somewhat higher than

English students.

The hypotheses for this study can now be stated as follows:

(1) The graduate student group, as a whole, will score significantly

higher on all self-determination and personal-approach scales than

the freshmen group.









26

(2) a. There will be moderate and significant differences among the

three graduate student groups on the personal-approach measures, with

English students highest, Psychology students intermediate, and Physics

students lowest.

b. There will be slight to moderate differences among the three

graduate student groups on the self-determination measures, with

Psychology students highest, Physics students intermediate, and English

students lowest.

(3) In terms of intercorrelations among the various scales (for all

subjects), the self-determination measures will bear a greate.- posi-

tive relationship to each other than to any of the personal-approach

measures. Similarly, the personal-approach measures will bear a

greater positive relationship to each other than to any of the self-

determination measures.

(4) This is not a hypothesis, as such, but a statement of intention

to explore the data further by examining scale intercorrelations. The

relationships among the various scales will be presented for each of the four

student groups separately--for closer scrutiny and easy comparison of

groups. However, no specific hypotheses are deemed appropriate

for these data, and statistical analyses beyond the mere presentation of

intercorrelations are not indicated.













CHAPTER 11


Method


The subjects (Ss) were 45 freshmen males and 45 first-year

graduate student males from the University of Florida. The freshmen

were chosen at random from a pool of high verbal-ability freshmen

males who had indicated a desire to attend graduate school as enter-

ing freshmen. A high verbal-ability sample (above a score of 40 on

the Verbal SCAT), and the desire to attend graduate school, was

instituted to make the freshmen group somewhat comparable with the

graduate student group. The graduate students themselves were sel-

ected from available rosters of first-year students in the graduate

English, Psychology, and Physics departments. Fifteen were chosen

from each of these three fields, with checks made on the comparability

of the groups' verbal GRE scores.

After being selected, each S was called by telephone. The

nature and purpose of the study was briefly and clearly stated, and

S was asked if he would help by devoting approximately one and one-half

hours of his time to the project. Since near 90% of those selected

were reached by telephone and agreed to serve as Ss, and since approxi-

mately 90% of those who volunteered actually submitted to the full

test-interview session, no significant bias due to volunteer-selection

factors was thought to have influenced the sampling.








28

Each S was then seen individually for one test-interview

session lasting approximately one and one-half hours. An individual

session maximized the possibility of establishing a collaborative

relationship with S in which, hopefully, he would take a frank and

cooperative approach to the task. Such an approach seemed best suited

to the measures used here, three of which involved the individualized

expression of personal material. In this way, the general purpose

of the study was revealed to the S early in the session, confidentiality

was stressed, and each specific test instruction was straightforward,

with no attempt to conceal its purpose. This writer served as examiner

for 75 out of the 90 Ss, the other 15 being seen by two substitute

examiners. Possible differences due to examiner will be explored.

In all, there are two independent variables (defined by the

choice of student-groups) and two dependent variables (self-determination

and personal-approach) in the present study. A total of four depen-

dent variable scales were used, two apiece for the self-determination

and personal-approach variables.


Independent Variables

As introduced, selection of the groups for this study was

based upon considerations of age, academic level, and academic major.

The various student groups were thus the independent variables in this

study, and were compared on the dependent variable measures. There

are two main group breakdowns. The first compared the freshman group

(N = 45) with the graduate student group as a whole (N = 45). The








29

second involved the comparison of English (N 15), Psychology (N = 15),

and Physics (N = 15), graduate students.


Dependent Variables

The dependent variables in this study were the concepts of

self-determination and personal-approach, and their corresponding

measures. There were two scales for each concept. Since each scale

is thought to measure a different aspect of its corresponding concept,

each scale was considered individually (rather than utilizing a method

of combining them). As designed, the individual scores were the

primary objects of the various statistical analyses performed. And

since the research bearing upon the reliability and validity of the

following four scales was discussed in the introduction, it will not

be further elaborated here.

Self-Determination I: Rotter's Internal-External Scale (IE)

The Ss were asked to take the 29-item forced-choice IE

scale developed by Rotter and his colleagues. It is believed to draw

upon a less expressive aspect of self-determination, that which is

involved when S is presented with ready-made choices by E.

Self-Determination II: Ezekiel's Personal Future Test (PF)

The Ss were asked to write two brief essays: the first a

brief "mock" autobiography covering the two years after they receive

the bachelor's (or doctorate) degree and a second "mock" autobiography

covering the year in which they would be 40 years old. The essays

were then rated by independent judges on four 7-point scales:








30

Differentiation I (the first essay); Differentiation II (the second

essay); Demand (for both essays); and Agency (for both essays).

This scale is believed to test a more expressive, individualistic

aspect of self-determination.

Personal-Approach I: Greene's Self-Disclosure Sentence Blank (SDSB)

The Ss were asked to complete 20 sentence stems with the

instructions and stems designed to have high pull for self-disclosure.

These sentences were then rated by two independent judges using

Greene's manual (his definitions of levels were used, but not his

examples--the latter seemed to score negative responses too high on

self-disclosure). As discussed, the SDSB was used in this study as a

measure of personal-expressiveness, or the expressiveness aspect of

personal-approach.

Personal-Approach II: Carpenter's Personal-Impersonal Scale (PI)

The Ss were asked to write a brief 10 sentence description

of what a "topic" person is "really like." The topic person was

selected by S himself as one who is "most central" or "most well-known"

to him in his life at this time. These descriptions were then rated

sentence-by-sentence by two independent judges using Carpenter's manual.

The PI scale was thus used as the measure of the more empathic, receptive

aspect of personal-approach.


Controls

(1) As mentioned, this writer was the examiner for 75 out

of the 90 Ss, the other 15 being seen by two substitute examiners.










Since all of the latter 15 were freshmen, comparisons can be made

between these 15 and the other 30 freshmen tested to check on possible

examiner differences. If such comparisons do show significant

differences, they will be reported, then examiner correction factors

will be instituted.

(2) The order of presentation of the test materials was

the same for all Ss, and arranged to minimize contamination of the

later by the earlier tests. The most unstructured, open-end, and

"personal" scales were administered first, while saving the more

objective scales for last. The specific order was as follows:

(a) rapport; (b) Carpenter PI scale; (c) Greene SDSB; (d) Ezekiel PF

test; and (e) Rotter IE scale.

(3) As mentioned, the freshmen were chosen from a pool of

high verbal-ability (above 40 on the Verbal SCAT) freshmen males

who had indicated a desire to attend graduate school upon entrance

to the University. This was an attempt to make this freshmen group

somewhat comparable to the graduate students in ability and motivation.

In addition, since verbal-ability scores and grade-point averages are

available for all freshmen, it is possible to correlate these with

all test scores for this group (N = 45). In this way, the contribution

of ability and academic-motivation to the various scales can be

approximated.

(4) For the three groups of 15 graduate students each,

checks will be made on the comparability of the group's Verbal GRE scores.











(5) For the PI, SDSB, and PF scales, the same two

"independent" judges performed the ratings. After being given identi-

cal, full instructions for rating these instruments, certain precautions

were rigidly followed in order to insure independence between raters,

between tests, and between subject groups. (a) Neither judge was

familiar with the purposes of the study, nor of the specific uses to

which the test results would be put; (b) there was no collaboration

between judges, they were in fact unacquainted; (c) judgments were

carried out by test, rather than by subject, so that a within-subject

rating "halo-effect" would not occur; (d) freshmen and graduate

student test batteries were randomly mixed so that a specific group

rating-bias was avoided; (e) lastly, interjudge reliability for all

ratings will be checked and reported, then ratings will be combined

into a single test score.


Analysis of the Data

The first step in data analysis was to compute interjudge

reliability values for all ratings. This took the form of intraclass

correlations. The pairs of ratings were then combined into single

values--with the intraclass correlations offering a reliability esti-

mate of the combined rating. The data were then analyzed to test

each hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis I: -- For all scales, the difference between the

total graduate student group (N = 45) mean and the freshmen group

(N = 45) mean was tested via student's t. In all, seven t tests











were computed (one each for the PI, SDSB, and IE scales, and four

for the PF scale). Any significant t value, when the difference

was in the predicted direction, was taken as support for the

hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2a: -- For the personal-approach scales, differ-

ences among the three graduate student groups (3 X N = 15) were tested

via the F ratio. Any significant F value when the differences were

in the predicted direction was taken as support for the hypothesis.

When the differences were in the predicted direction without a signi-

ficant F, it was taken as weak support for the hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2b: -- For the self-determination scales, differ-

ences among the three graduate student groups (3 X N = 15) were

tested via the F ratio. Five F ratios were computed. When the differ-

ences were in the predicted direction, a significant F was taken as

support for the hypothesis. If the differences were in the predicted

direction without a significant F, it was taken as weak support for

the hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: -- Pearson correlation coefficients were

computed between all pairs of scales--both for the freshmen and graduate

student groups. If the correlation values were uniformly higher

within each of the two dimensions of interest than between them, then

the third hypothesis was supported.

Hypothesis 4: -- Correlation coefficients were computed among

all scales for all groups--including the graduate student sub-groups.

This afforded further exploration of the data, and, as in hypothesis 3,

close inspection of the data satisfies the hypothesis.













CHAPTER III


RESULTS


This chapter first presents the reliability of all ratings,

then reports the findings in relation to the stated hypotheses.

The method of estimating the reliability of ratings in

this study has been described by Ebel (1951) and reported by Guilford

(1954). It involved the use of the intra-class correlation, which

is essentially an average intercorrelation of individual ratings.

The reliability values for ratings in this study are reported in

Table 1. The first column, under the heading "separate ratings,"


Table I

Inter-rater Reliability Coefficients for Two Raters


Scale Separate Combined
Ratings Estimate

Self-disclosure Sentence Blank .71 .83
Personal-Impersonal .67 .80
Personal Future:
Differentiation I .72 .83
Differentiation II .86 .92
Demand .49 .65
Agency .40 .55



gives the mean reliability for either rater taken alone. The column,

the "combined estimate," gives the reliability for mean ratings of

the two raters taken together. Since all pairs of ratings have in









35

fact been combined prior to data analysis in this study, the second

column is the appropriate estimate of inter-rater reliability. As

reported in Table 1, four of the six combined estimates exceed .80,

with only two--the Demand and Agency dimensions of the Personal

Future scale--falling below .80. All ratings were judged to be

within the acceptable reliability limits for use in testing the

stated hypotheses.


Main Group Differences

The first hypothesis predicted that the graduate student

group as a whole would score significantly higher on all scales

than the freshmen group. To test this hypothesis, means were com-

puted for the two groups on each scale, and student's t was used

to test the differences between these means. Table 2 presents the

means, standard deviation estimates, and t values for the two groups.


Table 2

Differences Between Means of First-Year Graduate and
Freshmen Groups on All Scales


Scales Graduates (N = 45) Freshmen (N = 45)

X S X S t
Self-disclosure Sentence Blank 49.4 8.47 49.5 7.75 .32
Personal-Impersonal 1.91 .51 1.76 .64 1.21
Personal Future:
Differentiation I 4.51 1.13 4.56 1.12 -.59
Differentiation 11 4.03 1.18 3.92 1.18 .45
Demand 4.96 .84 4.79 .97 .88
Agency 4.82 .80 4.38 1.01 2.32*
Internal-External Control 14.96 3.81 14.31 3.67 1.05


SP /_ .05









36

As shown in Table 2, six out of the seven mean differences were in

the predicted direction, but only one attained statistical significance.

This latter difference has the graduate students significantly higher

(P / .05) than the freshmen on the Agency dimension of the Personal

Future scale. In addition, there were substantial mean differences

in the predicted direction on the Personal-Impersonal and Internal-

External scales, but these differences fell just short of statistical

significance. The findings, then, offer partial support for the

first hypothesis. Six of the seven variables showed differences in

the predicted direction; one difference achieved significance, two

others approached it.

Findings related to two control variables are also relevant

at this point. There was interest in whether or not the introduction

of a second examiner would affect the results related to group differ-

ences. Fifteen of the 45 freshmen, and none of the graduate students,

were seen by a second examiner. However, no significant differences

were found between the group of 30 freshmen seen by the first examiner,

and the group of 15 seen by the second. Examiner differences were,

therefore, not expected to be a factor in the reported group differences.

Group differences in age were explored as a further control.

The freshmen group averaged 18.5 years of age, while the graduate

student group averaged 24.1 years. (This substantial difference

suggests that age must be taken into account in interpreting differ-

ences found between these groups.) A similar check on age differences

among the graduate student sub-groups revealed nothing significant.











Secondary Group Differences

The second hypothesis was stated in two parts. In general,

it dealt with differences among the Physics, Psychology, and English

graduate student sub-groups. Hypothesis 2a was concerned with

differences specific to the personal-approach scales, and predicted

significant variation among sub-groups with English students ranking

highest, Psychology students intermediate, and Physics students

lowest. To test hypothesis 2a, means have been computed for each

group on the Self-Disclosure and Personal-impersonal scales. Then

a simple analysis of variance has been computed for each scale across

the three groups. Table 3 presents the means and resulting F ratios.


Table 3

Differences Among Means of Graduate Student Sub-Groups
on the Personal-Approach Scales


Personal-Approach Graduate Student Sub-Groups
Scales English Psychology Physics F
N = 15 N = 15 N = 15

Self-Disclosure Sentence Blank 50.5 47.1 49.2 .579
Personal-impersonal 2.04 1.88 1.81 .821



As presented, the differences among Personal-Impersonal means were in the

predicted direction, the differences among Self-Disclosure means were

not. As expected, English students were highest on both scales, and

while Physics students were lowest on the Personal-Impersonal scale (as

expected), Psychology students were lowest on the Self-Disclosure scale











(totally unexpected). The F ratio neither reached nor approached

statistical significance for the personal-approach scales. These

findings, therefore, render only very weak support for hypothesis 2a.

Hypothesis 2b was concerned with differences among the

graduate student groups specific to the self-determination scales.

Significant variation was predicted among the sub-groups with

Psychology students ranking highest, Physics students intermediate,

and English students lowest. To test hypothesis 2b, means have been

computed for each group on the Personal Future dimensions and the

Internal-External Control scale. Then a simple analysis of variance

has been computed for each scale across the three groups. Table 4


Table 4

Differences Among Means of Graduate Student Sub-Groups
on the Self-Determination Scales

Graduate Student Sub-Groups
Self-Determination Psychology Physics Enqlish F
Scales N = 15 N = 15 N = 15

Personal Future:
Differentiation 1 4.17 4.57 4.80 1.21
Differentiation 11 3.67 3.97 4.47 1.81
Demand 5.20 4.73 4.93 1.18
Agency 4.80 4.63 5.03 .95
Internal-External Control 17.1 14.3 13.4 4.52*

* P f_ .05


presents the means and F ratios. As presented, the differences among

means on the Internal-External scale were in the predicted direction,

and statistically significant. That these differences were significant








39

appears largely due to the high score of the Psychology group. The

Psychology average was three and four scale points higher than

the Physics and English students, respectively, while the latter

groups had scores somewhat similar to the freshmen group.

On the other hand, the differences among graduate student

means failed to fall in the predicted direction on any of the

Personal Future dimensions. English students were highest on three

dimensions (Differentiation I and 11, and Agency), and Psychology

students were highest on the fourth (Demand). Physics students

were intermediate on three dimensions, and lowest on the fourth

(Agency). None of the differences was significant.

in general, then hypothesis 2b obtained partial support

with the Internal-External Control Scale showing the sole predicted

significant group differences.

Control data relevant to hypotheses 2a and 2b were obtained

in the form of graduate student GRE scores. Table 5 presents the


Table 5

Graduate Record Examination Means for the
Graduate Student Sub-Groups


Graduate Graduate Student Sub-Groups
Record Physics Psychology English
Examination N = 15 N = 15 N = 15

Verbal 588.0 667.3 643.3
Quantitative 719.3 623.3 562.0
Total 653.7 645.3 602.7









40

quantitative, verbal, and total GRE ability scores for the three

graduate student groups. In spite of the relative deficits of

the Physics students in verbal ability, and the English students

in quantitative and "total" ability, the groups are considered to

be moderately comparable. Moreover, graduate student group rankings

on ability are duplicated on only one of the scales--the Personal

Future Demand scale--and the group differences on that scale fall

far short of significance. Ability,is, therefore, ruled out as a

major factor in graduate student group differences, though a further

check on ability has been made and will be reported later in this

section.


Specificity of the Personal-Approach and
Self-Determination Scales

The third hypothesis predicted that the personal-approach

scales would correlate uniformly higher among themselves than the

other scales. Similarly, it was predicted that the self-determination

scales would correlate uniformly higher among themselves than with

the other scales. The test of this hypothesis is mere inspection

of the various intercorrelation values. Tables 6 and 7 present such

values for both the freshmen and graduate student groups. In general

these tables show that except for the high intercorrelations among

the four Personal Future dimensions, intercorrelations were not

uniformly higher within the personal-approach and self-determination

categories than between them. And the high intercorrelations among











the Personal Future dimensions must be discounted as supporting

evidence because the four ratings were based upon the same verbal

material and thus not independent.


Table 6

Intercorrelations Among Scales for Freshmen Group
N = 45


Personal-Approach Self-Determination
1. 2. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4
Personal-Approach
1. Self-Disclosure .053 .022 .019 -.047 -.058 -.121
2. Persona-Impersonal .131 .019 .021 .052 .132
Self-Determination
3. Personal Future:
a. Differentiation 1 .709 .199 .378 -.024
b. Differentiation 11 .417 .446 -.117
c. Demand .667 .080
d. Agency .057
4. Internal-External

a. No significance tests computed between non-independent Personal
Future dimensions.


A close look at Table 6 indicates that the freshmen inter-

correlations among independent scales are so low as to allow no

detection of trends within and/or between the personal-approach and

self-determination categories. Moreover, none of the freshmen int-

correlations among the independent ,-.!

chance.

On the other hand, Table 7 shows in .cor 9.-6ua ce sc aue.n .,L

Self-Disclosure scale attained significant correlations with the

Personal-Impersonal scale (.335), and the Differentiation 1 and 11










Table 7

Intercorrelations Among Scales for Graduate Student Group
N = 45


Personal-Approach Self-Determination

i. 2. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4.
Personal Approach
1. Self-Disclosure .335a .468b .423b .259 .098 .034
2. Personal-Impersonal .105 .224 .191 .185 -.246
Self-Determination
3. Personal Future:
a. Differentiation 1 .585c .558 .461 .040
b. Differentiation 11 .431 .451 -.093
c. Demand .616 .092
d. Agency -.174
4. Internal-External

a. P /.05
b. P / .01
c. No significance tests computed between non-independent Personal
Future dimensions.


dimensions of the Personal Future scale as well (.468 and .423).

There are interpretable trends also present in these graduate student

data, but hypothesized differences were found for only one of the

four scales. The Personal-Impersonal scale correlated more highly

with the other personal-approach measure (.335 with Self-Disclosure)

than it correlated with the self-determination measures. All data

considered, however, there is very weak support for the third

hypothesis


Exploration of Group Differences via Intercorrelation

The fourth hypothesis was a statement of intention to explore

the data further by examining scale intercorrelations for each of the










various student groups. Table 6 presents such intercorrelations

for the freshmen group, and Table 7 for the graduate student

group as a whole. In addition, Table 8 presents the scale inter-

correlations for the Physics, Psychology, and English graduate

student sub-groups.

The most striking feature of these data is the large

difference in magnitude between the freshmen and graduate student

intercorrelations. Excluding the intercorrelations among the non-

independent Personal Future dimensions, Tables 6 and 7 show that

graduate students attained consistently higher positive and

negative intercorrelations than freshmen on all scales. Graduate stud-

ents generated three statistically significant correlations, to

none for the freshmen; they generated six correlations greater than

.20, to none for the freshmen; and they produced ten correlations

greater than .10, to three for the freshmen.

Turning to the graduate student sub-groups, Table 8

reveals additional differences. Physics and English students

generated somewhat similar intercorrelation patterns, whereas

Psychology students produced a distinctly different pattern. More

specifically, the English and Physics students showed patterns with mixed

high positive and negative correlations, with the Internal-External

scale accounting for all but two of the negatives. The Psychology

students generated only positive correlations, with the Internal-

External scale having several high positives. Clearly, the Internal-

External scale, the only structured test, has a distinctly different

meaning for the Psychology group.










Table 8

Intercorrelations Among Scales for the Graduate Student Sub-Groups


Physics (N = 15)

Scales 2. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4.

1. Self-Disclosure .092 .408 .501a .415 -.056 .186
2. Personal-Impersonal -.355 .157 .144 .028 -.484a
3. Personal Future:
a. Differentiation I .590c .426 .337 .290
b. Differentiation II .576 .483 -.074
c. Demand .559 -.456
d. Agency -.506a
4. Internal-External



Psychology (N = 15)

Scales 2. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4.

1. Self-Disclosure .637b .238 .205 .032 .030 .279
2. Personal-Impersonal .518a .255 .231 .053 .180
3. Personal Future:
a. Differentiation I .311c .703 .570 .448
b. Differentiation II .169 .416 .149
c. Demand .689 .666
d. Agency .233
4. Internal-External



English (N = 15)

Scales 2. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4.

1. Self-Disclosure .167 .652b .459 .463 .260 -.046
2. Personal-Impersonal .255 .197 .193 .520a -.658b
3. Personal Future:
a. Differentiation 1 .680c .843 .601 -.176
b. Differentiation II .686 .477 .011
c. Demand .663 -.303
d. Agency -.398
4. Internal-External

a. P / .05
b. p .01
c. No significance tests computed between non-independent Personal
Future dimensions.









45

For the graduate student groups, then, there is a general

pattern of positive relationships among all (but the Internal-External)

scales. Within this pattern of positives, the Self-Disclosure scale

has shown the highest correlations with other scales. This suggests

the presence of a general self-disclosure factor for the graduate

student group--pervading all writing tasks for the group as a whole,

and reaching the paper-and-pencil task for the Psychology group. A

similar factor does not appear present for the freshmen group.

In addition, an attempt has been made to assess the relative

contribution of verbal ability and academic motivation to the various

scale scores. Correlations were computed between grade-point-averages,

SCAT verbal ability, and scale scores for freshmen, and GRE verbal

ability and scale scores for the graduate students. Table 9 presents

these correlations.


Tab le 9

Intercorrelations of Grade-Point-Average and SCAT Verbal Ability with

all Scales for Freshmen and Intercorrelations of GRE Verbal Ability
With All Scales for Graduate Students


Freshmen (N = 45) Graduates (N 45)
G.P.A. Ability Ability

1. Self-Disclosure .090 .069 .236
2. Personal-Impersonal .315* .259 ..
3. Personal Future:
a. Differentiation 1 -.094 .044 .
b. Differentiation 11 -.222 -.214 .097
c. Demand -.108 -.248 .242
d. Agency -.085 -.087 .310'-
4. Internal-External .025 -.118 -.127
G.P.A. x SCAT Ability
.494
SP / .05








46

In general, the correlation values were in the very low to moderate

range. Two of the 18 were significant (one would have been expected

by chance), with the Personal-Impersonal scale significantly correl-

ated with grade-point-average, and the Agency dimension significantly

correlated with GRE verbal ability. The increase in Agency's relation-

ship with ability from the freshmen to graduate student groups is of

special interest because of its significantly higher absolute level

in the latter group.

In spite of the generally low intercorrelation values

found in Table 9, there were trends somewhat similar to those pre-

sented in Table 8. With the exception of the Internal-External

scale, there has appeared a pervasive increase in the relationship

between ability and scores on the various scales. This is true not

only for the Self-Disclosure scale, which developed positive relation-

ships with all other variables in the graduate student group, but also

true for all four Personal Future dimensions. And at least two of

these Personal Future dimensions--Differentiation 11 and Demand--

showed consistent low negative correlations with G.P.A. and ability

in the freshmen group.














CHAPTER IV


DIS OJSSION


This chapter attempts to relate the present findings to

the concepts of self-determination and personal-approach as originally

presented, and will also attempt to pull all results into a general

developmental framework. The implications that these findings have

for further research will also be explored.


Group Differences as Developmental Increases
in Self-Determination

Self-determination was conceptually defined in this study

as the view, feeling, or belief that a person holds of himself as

agent; that is, as the initiator of his own actions and in control

of the consequences; and also as the prime determiner of his personal

future, both immediate and distant. It has been the general hypothesis

in this study that developing young adults show increasing amounts

of self-determination, as here defined. The Internal-External Control

and Personal Future scales were selected as the measures of self-

determination. Groups representing two different developmental stages

were selected to test possible developmental increases on these

scales. The findings relevant to the main group differences in this

study offer definite, but limited support for the hypothesis. The










Internal-External scale and three of the four dimensions on the

Personal Future scale show the expected increases for the older

and more academically-advanced graduate students. The extent of

these differences is not great. One dimension of the Personal

Future scale, Agency, attained significance; the Internal-External

scale and another dimension of the Personal Future scale, Demand,

approached significance. In other words, the graduate students

reveal significantly more Agency in projections of their own future,

admitting a somewhat stronger belief in the internal control of

life's outcomes, and putting somewhat more demand upon themselves

in projections of their future, than the freshmen.

The meaning of the Agency dimension can be explored

further by considering the basis of Agency ratings. The two raters

were instructed that Agency was the degree to which S's future self

was displayed by him as an active agent in shaping the future life.

After the ratings were completed, the raters were asked to state,

if possible, their bases for rating Agency. The raters' definitions

appeared to have three basic qualities in common: (1) that S's goals

and desires were distinctly his own; (2) that S's attainment of

goals and desires required his own work and effort; and (3) that

S, as opposed to environmental influences, was in control of his fate.

In the ratings, then, it is evident that Agency has aspects of both

demand and internal control within its realm of meaning. It is not

surprising, therefore, that the Demand and Internal Contro scales

accompanied Agency, though to a lesser degree, in its increase tor

the graduate students over the freshmen.











In the original study with the Personal Future scale,

Ezekiel (1964) acknowledged that Agency was strongly correlated with

Demand. But he states that "The definition of Agency reflects an

inner demand for autonomy, for the control of one's course, rather

than an inner demand for challenge." (p.104) Moreover, Ezekiel

carried out Q-sorts in his study which described some of the personal

characteristics of Ss high and low on the Agency dimension. In his

summary of the findings, he says "First and foremost, he requires

control of his own situation. In addition he feels himself engaged

in developing his own identity. Beyond this, he somewhat resembles

our previous high scorers....he envisions a challenging future....

he maintains a highly articulate intellectual formulation of his

situation....he has long-term goals and is pre-occupied with the

power aspects of relations." (1964, p.109)

The most distinct features of Agency, then, involve a

concern for personal autonomy, and a sense of one's own developing

identity. When taken together with the other meanings it shares with

Demand and Internal Control, Agency emerges as very similar in mean-

ing to the concept of self-determination. However, the intercorrelations

among the various scales suggest that such an interpretation must be

qualified. Agency showed high correlations with Demand (.667 and

.616 in the freshmen and graduate student groups, respectively--

high even for non-independent ratings), as expected, but showed

little or no relationship with the Internal-External Control scale








50

(.057 and -.174 in the freshmen and graduate student groups). Since

Internal Control was considered to be an important aspect of self-

determination, a high correlation was expected.

There are a number of possible interpretations of this

null relationship between Agency and Internality. First, it is possible

that the two tests are not measuring two aspects of the same thing,

but that Agency and Internality are independent characteristics

which cannot be combined under the rubic of self-determination.

Secondly, there is evidence that Ss may have had a special set toward

the Internal-External scale. It was the last test administered to

S. It was the only structured test in the battery, being a two-

alternative forced-choice questionnaire. And the other tests all

required open-end written responses. Moreover, in a post-test inter-

view the majority of Ss voiced complaints about the Internal-External

scale, and only that scale. The common complaint was that the

alternatives did not approximate their personal beliefs closely

enough, and that they resented being forced to make an unrealistic

choice. It is quite possible that the majority of Ss developed a

negative set toward the scale that reduced its validity as a measure

of belief in internal control. It was the only scale failing to show

substantial positive intercorrelations in the graduate student group.

Moreover, out of the four student groups, only the Psychology

graduate students showed significantly higher positive intercorrelations

on this scale. For these reasons, a negative-set interpretation

seems a plausible one. This assumes that Psychology students either









51

didn't develop a negative set, or were willing and able to suppress

negative reactions to such a scale.

The Agency dimension is, therefore, regarded as more

representative of self-determination, and its change across groups

is consistent with expectations for self-determination. On the

other hand, the additional assumption that self-determination is a

complex, but unitary characteristic which complements the concept

of personal-approach in understanding the development of young

adults remains in question.


Group Differences as Developmental Increases
in Personal-Approach

Personal-Approach was conceptually defined in this study

as both the extent to which a person attempts to imagine an other's

subjective thoughts, feelings, and intentions, and the extent to

which that person expresses his own thoughts, feelings, and intentions

to another. As with self-determination, it has been the general

hypothesis in this study that developing young adults show increasing

amounts of personal-approach, as here defined. The Self-Disclosure

Sentence Blank and Personal-Impersonal scale were chosen to reflect,

respectively, the expressive and receptive aspects of personal-

approach in groups chosen to feature such developmental differences.

The findings relevant to main group differences in this study offer

very limited support for the hypothesis. The older and more academ-

ically advanced graduate students show an increase over freshmen









52

on only the Personal-impersonal scale--a difference which approaches

statistical significance. In other words, the graduate students

describe others who are intimate in their lives in somewhat more

personal terms than do the freshmen. Graduate students thus show

more of the receptive, but no more of the expressive aspect of

personal-approach, as conceptualized earlier in this study. However,

the extent of this difference is not great. Considerably more

favorable evidence would be necessary to confirm the general hypo-

thesis. At present, there is no evidence that self-disclosure

increases with age or academic advancement within a college student

population. An additional question centers upon the possible unitary

nature of personal-approach. Is one's readiness to hold a personal

view of another person linked with a readiness to disclose personal

material to some other person? Once again, the present findings

do not render an unequivocal answer. For the freshmen, the Self-

Disclosure and Personal-Approach scales correlated .053--an unremark-

able finding in a matrix of negligible correlations. For the graduate

students, the two scales achieved a .335 correlation which was signi-

ficant at the .05 level. This was the highest intercorrelation for

the Personal-Impersonal scale, but it ranked behind two higher inter-

correlations for the Self-Disclosure scale. As with the main group

differences, the findings with the Personal-Impersonal scale offer

some support for the expectations with the personal-approach measures.

But there is simply no clear support for the assumption of the unitary








53

nature of the personal-approach construct. Neither is there support

for the notion that the latter is independent from, yet complementary

to, the self-determination construct.

In his original study with the Personal-Impersonal scale,

Carpenter (1966) found that "The self-disclosure of the subject, as

indicated by the SDSB, is positively related to the degree to which

persons of central importance to the subject are seen in a personal

manner" (p.89-90). In his study, the correlations were in the.30's

just as they were for the graduate students in this study. There is

thus some corroboration of the present results in Carpenter's study,

but it still does not explain the Self-Disclosure scale's higher

intercorrelations with two of the self-determination dimensions.


The College Student in Two Dimensions

It was mentioned earlier that the foundation for this

study was a theoretical interest in the personal growth of young

adults. In the search of the theoretical literature, drawing heavily

from the writing of Erik H. Erikson (1959) two directions emerged:

such persons are in a struggle to establish their identity in some

distinct way; and these persons are also trying to form satisfying

intimate relationships with others. This search resulted in the

proposed constructs of self-determination and personal-approach and

the general hypothesis that these are independent, yet complementary

constructs describing two parallel lines of development for the young










adult. The two scales chosen for each construct were thought to

represent different measurable aspects of their respective constructs,

and were expected to show the following results in keeping with the

two dimensional hypothesis of young adult development: (1) general

increases as a function of age and academic advancement; (2) greater

inter-relationships among scales within construct-categories than

between construct-categories. The findings have given moderate

support to the first expectation, but little or no support to the

second. Neither self-determination nor personal-approach scales

have shown consistently higher intercorrelations within than between

the two constructs.

The fact that the second expectation above (hypothesis three

in this study) was not supported has unfortunate consequences for

a two-dimensional theory. There is thus no evidence favoring the

relative independent or unitary properties of the self-determination

and personal-approach constructs, and therefore, no basis for con-

sidering them complementary. And neither is such a two-dimensional

dichotomy necessary to account for general increases on all scales

as a function of age and academic advancement.

Guided by Erikson's developmental framework, the attempt

to empirically integrate the two constructs of self-determination

and personal-approach has not met with success. The suggestion in

Ezekiel's 1964 study that a personality factor termed "Interpersonally

Sensitive Maturity" may be an independent but significant complement









55

to such a construct as self-determination has not found confirmation

in this study. The significant group differences on Agency, and the

near-significant differences on Demand and Internal Control, in this

study, indicate that there is probably something like an important

self-determination factor. But there appears little evidence for

a parallel and complementary personal-approach factor. Personal-

approach does not, therefore, appear to fit the expectation suggested

by Ezekiel's "Interpersonally Sensitive Maturity" factor.

There are several possible reasons for the two-dimensional

model's failure to fit the present data. First of all, the scales

selected to represent personal-approach may be inappropriate. In

spite of the scales' reliability and validity, written reports

may be too far removed from actual interpersonal behavior to serve

as indices of the readiness to enter into personal relations. In

addition, a personal-approach, as indicated by these scales, does not

necessarily mean that the subject is in fact ready to enter into

such relations. Moreover, self-disclosure as the expressive aspect

of personal-approach, and the personal view of another as the receptive

aspect, may be only distantly related to the factor of "Interpersonally

Sensitive Maturity" revealed in Ezekiel's Q-sorts.

A review of the Q-sort items which had high loadings on

"Interpersonally Sensitive Maturity" in Ezekiel's study seems

warranted. The following four items most characterize the factor:










(1) generally open toward others, not defensive in interpersonal

relations; (2) nurturant; enjoys helping the younger or less

adequate; (3) sensitively attuned to the thoughts and feelings of

others; characteristically high on empathy; and (4) tolerant and

understanding. The following items are least characteristic of

the factor: (1) feels lack of worth; has low self-esteem; (2) tends

to be suspicious of others. The general impression at this point

is of a complex factor centering upon interpersonal relations that

has simply not been well-represented by the Self-Disclosure and

Personal-Impersonal measures. And although the Personal-Impersonal

scale may pull for interpersonal sensitivity, the interpersonal

maturity implied in the openness and tolerance toward others has

probably been left unexplored in the present study's subjects.

The solution to this problem may rest with a revision or

extension of Ezekiel's Personal Future scale. For example, with

future autobiographies of sufficient length for each subject, and

adequate independence of ratings, the following could serve as guide-

lines for story-ratings:

1. A rating for degree of differentiation or complexity

in S_ future life;

2. A companion rating for integration, or how well the

different elements of future life are pulled together;

3. Ratings for agency and demand, particularly as they are

embedded in career and future tasks.








57

4. Ratings for interpersonally sensitive maturity, with

emphasis on nurturance, empathy, tolerance, and the importance of

personal relations in S_ future life;

5. Ratings for feelings about self as projected in the

future life; degree of a sense of personal worth, self-confidence,

and self-esteem.

That the Personal Future scale might be extended in this

way to cover the other content areas is suggested by the fact that

it produced the most encouraging findings in the present study.

Such a scale might be extended beyond self-determination variables to

provide a rather comprehensive test of such hypotheses as those suggest-

ed by the two-dimensional model of college student development.

It could be extended, as noted above, to include ratings of S in

relation to task, S in relation to others, and S's view of himself.

Such an extension is strongly suggested in future work with young

adults.


The Question of Differential Development

One of the considerations in choosing groups in this study

was addressed to the possibility of divergence in the development

of college students along the self-determination and personal-approach

dimensions. The act of choosing graduate students from three diverse

major fields was carried out on this basis. The second hypothesis

then, made predictions about differences among these groups, grounded

in the assumption that the graduate students would show a divergence










of development as a function of their commitment to a particular

field of study. Such predictions were made separately for the two

constructs, such that hypothesis 2a predicted a pattern of group

differences for the personal-approach measures, and hypothesis 2b

predicted a different pattern of group differences for the self-

determination measures. Neither of these hypotheses received sub-

stantial support. One of the two personal-approach measures (the

Personal-Impersonal) revealed group differences in the predicted

direction, but these were non-significant. And one of the two

self-determination measures (the Internal-External) showed group

differences in the predicted direction which were significant.

However, the Psychology graduate student group actually accounted

for all significant findings on the Internal-External scale and there

appears to be no theoretical-rational basis for their being that

much higher.

In essence, hypotheses 2a and 2b were more like calculated

guesses than theoretical expectations. It was supposed that students

would be swayed in their personal development by the interests and

approaches characteristic of their special field of study. This

involves a very substantial conceptual leap. Moreover, the fact

that the scales used in this study did not unequivocally represent

two distinct and complementary personal constructs poses further

problems. The question of differential development in college

students, therefore, remains an open one.









59

It is possible that new and improved instruments, such as

the revision of the Personal Future scale mentioned above hold the Key

to a better understanding of differential development. It is also

clear that a longitudinal design, in which students are studied

and re-studied at various stages through their college career, is the

design of choice in answer to such questions of student development.

In fact, longitudinal studies seem especially appropriate to

questions of differential development.


Development as an Increasing Balance Among a
Variety of Positive Characteristics

There still exists the problem of how to best explain the

findings in the present study. Several expectations were left

unsupported, but there were a limited number of positive findings.

Abstracting from the results, two main findings emerge: (1) graduate

students scored higher than freshmen on several scales, and most

significantly on the Agency dimension of the Personal Future

scale; (2) graduate students had substantially higher intercorrelations

among all but one of the scales than did the freshmen. A secondary

(control) finding is also worth noting. Verbal ability had more posi-

tive correlations with other scales for graduate students than for

freshmen. (Because verbal ability did not have generally positive

correlations with the latter group's scale scores, it cannot be

invoked to explain the higher level of positive graduate student

characteristics.) As a whole, these findings suggest there is both










a general increase in certain positive characteristics and a

general consolidation or balancing of positive characteristics as

a function of age, academic advancement, and/or general develop-

ment during young-adult years. In other words, added to the increase

of such characteristics as Agency from the freshmen to the graduate

school levels, there is a tendency for those high on one positive

characteristic, such as Agency, to also be high on one of the other

positive characteristics, such as self-disclosure. To a lesser extent

verbal ability also becomes one of these positively intercorrelating

characteristics in the graduate student group. Instead of picturing

development as moving along two independent but parallel lines such

as self-determination and personal-approach, there appears to be a

kind of general development along a number of interdependent

variables culminating in a more balanced pattern of positive

characteristics.

However, many questions raised in this paper remain unanswered.

and the study suggests a number of possible directions for future

research.

(1) One could follow upon the earlier suggestion that

the Personal Future scale be extended to assess other content areas

of interest. The present study, when taken with the earlier work of

Ezekiel (1964), indicates that future autobiography scores can indeed

serve as predictors in young adult groups.

(2) One might choose to explore further the group

differences for the scales used in this study by going outside the








61

college setting. For example, it would be of interest to examine

differences on Agency, Demand, and certain other variables in two

groups of recent Army inductees--a group of volunteers versus a

group of draftees.

(3) One might select a more experimental approach, and

choose to study the effect of various treatments on variables of

interest in this study. The affect of individual or group psycho-

therapy on such variables as agency or interpersonal sensitivity

might produce some interesting findings.

(4) An ambitious researcher might wish to undertake

repeated collection of year-by-year data on a group of college

students as they are in the process of completing their education,

and thus perform the definitive longitudinal analogue to the present

study. For example, a revision of the Personal Future scale could

be administered to a large group of students every year until grad-

uation. In this way, every student would be serving as his own control,

and the students could be divided into groups for comparison purposes

at any stage (on such variables as major field, vocational choice,

socioeconomic background, etc.), depending upon the specific

interests of the researcher. Five and ten year follow-ups might

even be instituted for such a group in order to determine the stability

of developmental changes observed.












CHAPTER V


SUMMARY


This study was designed to explore two theoretical constructs

as possible developmental characteristics in young adults. The first

construct was termed self-determination, and referred to the view a

person holds of his own capacity to make events happen and to control

the outcomes of such events. The second construct was personal-approach,

and referred to the degree of personal intimacy in the view held by

one person regarding another, as well as the personal intimacy of

expression of one person to another. These constructs were based in

part upon Erikson's (1959) conceptualization of young adult develop-

ment, with emphasis on the striving to gain a sense of identity through

both independent effort, and the establishment of intimate personal

ties. The general hypothesis stated that self-determination and

personal-approach represent two parallel but complementary character-

istics which are central to young adult development.

A variety of college student groups were selected for study.

To test hypotheses regarding the various developmental changes in

these characteristics, the selection of groups was based upon age,

academic level, and academic major. There was one group of (45) high-

ability freshmen, and three groups of (15) first-year graduate students










chosen from rosters of the graduate English, Psychology, and

Physics departments. Students in each group were administered two

scales representing self-determination, and two scales representing

personal-approach. The expectations in this study can be briefly

stated as follows:

(1) The graduate student group, as a whole, would score

significantly higher on all self-determination and personal-approach

scales than the freshmen group;

(2) There would be a predictable pattern of significant

differences among the three graduate student groups for self-

determination and personal-approach scales;

(3) There would be a predictable pattern of intercorrelations

among the various scales such that the two scales representing one

construct would intercorrelate more highly among themselves than with

the two scales representing the other construct.

The results indicated partial but direct support for the

first hypothesis. The graduate students revealed significantly more

Agency in projections of their own future, admitted a somewhat stronger

belief in the internal control of life's outcomes, and placed somewhat

more demand upon themselves in projections of their future, than did

the freshmen. Moreover, the graduate students described others of

central importance in their lives in somewhat more personal terms

than the freshmen.








64

On the other hand, very weak support was found for the second

hypothesis, so that expectations on the differential development of

college students as a function of major were left unconfirmed. Similarly,

little support was revealed for the third hypothesis. There was thus

no evidence favoring the relative unitary or independent properties

of the self-determination and personal-approach constructs.

Further exploration of the data suggested another inter-

pretation. Graduate students were found to have substantially higher

intercorrelations among all but one of the scales than did the freshmen.

When taken together with the results confirming the first hypothesis,

these findings suggest there is both a general increase in certain

positive characteristics and a general consolidation or balancing of

positive characteristics as a function of age, academic achievement,

and/or general development during young-adult years. Lastly, these

findings were discussed as indicating several possible directions for

future research.













REFERENCES


Angyal, A. Foundations for.a science of personality. New York:
Commonwealth Fund, 1941.

Angyal, A. A theoretical model for personality studies. Journal of
Personality, 1951, 20, 131-142.

Atkinson, J. W. & Feather, N. T. The theory of achievement motivation.
New York: Wiley, 1966.

Barron, F. Creativity and psychological health. Princeton, N.J.:
Van Nostrand, 1963.

Battle, Esther S. & Rotter, J. S. Children's feelings of personal
control as related to social class and ethnic group. Journal
of Personality, 1963, 31, 482-490.

Buber, M. Between men and man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.

Buber, M. I and Thou. New York: Scribner's, 1958.

Carpenter, J. C. The construct personal-impersonal. Unpublished master's
thesis, Ohio State University, 1966.

Chickering, A. W. The young adult--a new development. Mimeographed
report, 1967.

Crowne, D. P. & Liverant, S. Conformity under varying conditions of
personal commitment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1963, 66, 547-555.

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of ratings. Psychometrika,
1951, 16, 407-424:

Erikson, E. H. Identity and the life cycle (selected papers).
Psychological Issues, 1959, i, 1-171. (Monograph 1).

Ezekiel, R. S. Differentiation, demand, and agency in projections of
the personal future. A predictive study of the performance of
Peace Corps teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley, 1964.

Franklin, R. D. Youth's expectancies about internal versus external
control of reinforcement related to N variables. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1963.


65










Gendlin, E. Experiencing and the creation of meaning. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

Gore, Pearl M. Individual differences in the prediction of subject
compliance to experimenter bias. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962.

Gore, Pearl M. & Rotter, J. B. A personality correlate of social action.
Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 58-64.

Greene, R. A sentence completion procedure for measuring self-disclosure.
Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1964.

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.

Haggerty, Patricia A. The concept of self-disclosure. Unpublished
master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1964.

Harlow, H. F. The formulation of learning sets. Psychological Review,
1949, 56, 51-65.

James, W. H. Internal versus external control of reinforcement as a
basic variable in learning theory. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957.

Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. Princeton N. J.: D. Van Nostrand,
1964.

Laing, R. D. The divided self. Baltimore, Md.: Penquin Books, 1960.

MacMurray, J. Persons in relation. New York: Harper, 1954.

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954.

McLaughlin, Helen G. Interpersonal effects of self-disclosure.
Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1965.

McClelland, D. C. (Ed.) Studies in motivation. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1955.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A. & Lowell, E. L.
The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1953.

McCurdy, H. Personality and science. Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand,
1965.

Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford, 1938.











Pepitone, A. Attributions of causality, social attitudes, and cognitive
matching processes. In R. Taguiri & L. Petrullo (Eds.),
Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press, 1958. p. 258-276.

Pepitone, A. & Sherberg, Janet. Intentionality, responsibility, and
interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 1957,
L2, 757-766.

Phares, E. J. Expectancy changes in skill and chance situations.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 339-342.

Riesman, D. The lonely crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

Rogers, C. R. Counseling and psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1942.

Rogers, C. R. Client-centered psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1951.

Rogers, C. R. The concept of the fully functioning person. Unpublished
manuscript, 1955.

Rogers, C. R. A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal
relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework.
In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol. 3,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General
and Applied, 1966, 80, (1), Whole No. 609, 1-28.

Seeman, M. Alienation and social learning in a reformatory. American
Journal of Sociology, 1963, 69, 270-284.

Seeman, M. & Evans, J. W. Alienation and learning in a hospital setting.
American Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 772-783.

Smith, M. B. Explorations in competence: A study of Peace Corps teachers
in Ghana. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 555-566.

Suchman, D. I. A scale for the measurement of self-disclosure in
spoken behavior. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State
University, 1965.

Thibaut, J. W. & Riecken, H. W. Some determinants and consequences
of the perception of social causality. Journal of Personality,
1955, 24, 113-133.








68

Truax, C. B. Elements of psychotherapy. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Wisconsin, 1962.

White, R. W. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 297-333.

Witkin, H. A., Lewis, Helen B., Hertzman, M., Machover, Karen,
Meissner, Pearl B., and Wapner, S. Personality through
perception. New York: Harper, 1954.

Wright, J. M. The effects of activity, identification, and group
pressure upon responsibility attribution. Paper read at
SEPA convention in symposium on Responsibility Attribution,
Miami Beach, Florida, 1964.



































APPENDICES













APPENDIX A


The Rotter Internal-External Control Scale

(Instructions read by all subjects)

This questionnaire is intended to find out the way in which

people react to certain important events in our society. Each item

consists of a pair of alternatives lettered a or b. Please select the

one statement of each pair (and only one) which you more strongly believe

to be the case as far as you're concerned. Be sure to select the one

you believe to be more true rather than the one you think you should

choose or the one you would like to be true. This is a measure of

personal belief; belief in how things happen; and there are no right

or wrong answers.

Your answer to the items on this inventory are to be recorded

on the separate answer sheet. Please answer these items carefully, but

do not spend too much time on any one item. Be sure to find an answer for

every choice. Find the number of the item on the answer sheet and circle

a or b depending upon which you choose as the statement most true.

In some instances you may discover that you believe both state-

ments or neither one. In such cases, be sure to select the one you

more strongly believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. Also

try to respond to each item independently when making your choice; do not

be influenced by your previous choices.












APPENDIX A


Internal-External Control Scale Items

(Titled Social Reaction Inventory)

l.a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are
too easy with them.

2.a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad
luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

3.a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't
take enough interest in politics.
b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent
them.

4.a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no
matter how hard he tries.

5.a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are
influenced by accidental happenings.

6.a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage
of their opportunities.

7.a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to
get along with others.

8.a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality.
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like.

9.a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a
decision to take a definite course of action.

10.a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely, if ever,
such a thing as an unfair test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work
that studying is really useless.











APPENDIX A (Continued)

ll.a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or
nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at
the right time.

12.a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not
much the little guy can do about it.

13.a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things
turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

14.a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is some good in everybody.

15.a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a
coin.

16.a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be
in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck
has little or nothing to do with it.

17.a. As far as the world affairs are concerned, most of us are the
victims of forces we can neither understand, nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people
can control world events.

18.a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are con-
trolled by accidental happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."

19.a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.

20.a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.

21.a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by
good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness,
or all three.

22.a. 'With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. it is difficult for people to have much control over the things
politicians do in office.











APPENDIX A (Continued)

23.a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades
they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and grades
I get.

24.a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they
should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.

25.a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things
that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an
important role in my life.

26.a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if
they like you, they like you.

27.a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.

28.a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction
my life is taking.

29.a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the
way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a
national as well as a local level.













APPENDIX B


College Student Future Autobiographies Instrument



(Respondents were asked the following two questions at the top of every
other page of an otherwise blank booklet:)


1. Three years from now you will have completed your graduation require-
ments.

Please write a brief mock autobiography, as if you were writing five
years from now. In this autobiography, deal with the two years after
graduation. What will you have done in those two years? What will
have been your vocation and your avocations, your goals, your jobs,
your interests and your concerns? Please be detailed and concrete.
Try to give as full and as vivid a picture as you can.


2. Please write a similar mock autobiography covering the year in
which you are 40 years old. Again, what will you be doing, what will
you be concerned about? Please be detailed and concrete, giving as
full and vivid a picture as you can.













APPENDIX B


Raters' Definitions and Instructions

DIMENSION: Differentiation

Instruction: You will read the respondent's answers to question one,
two and three. After reading all three answers, you will then assign the
respondent a score on this dimension of differentiation as regards his
answers to question one, a second score regarding his answers to question
two, and a third score regarding his answers to question three. The
scores on differentiation will be made on a seven-point scale (points
one through seven) in line with the interpretation presented below.
In addition, you will note a confidence rating to accompany each of the
three scores on differentiation.

To recapitulate: (a) You will consider the discussion of the dimension
given below. (b) You will read all three parts of the protocol. (c) You
will then assign one score on differentiation to each part of the protocol,
yielding a total of three differentiation scores. (d) You will accompany
each differentiation score with a confidence rating, yielding a total
of three confidence ratings.


Interpretation:

The respondent has, three times, discussed his future life. How
well laid out--how definite and complex--is his picture of his future
life? Is the picture of this future, the map of this future, sparse
and skimpy and deserving of a low score? Does it, for example, simply
indicate one or two broad interests in that future, or, for example,
simply name one or two possible future activities? Or is the map quite
complex? Does it perhaps show in good detail the many inter-related por-
tions of a central activity in a future life, or does it, for an equally
high score, show moderately good understanding of the complexity of
several possible future directions?

We are not interested in mere verbal fluency. Thus, for example, the
use of a number of nouns does not elevate the score unless the degree
of definiteness or complexity is thereby increased.

Note also that some of the respondents have essentially discussed
their five year and their age 40 post Peace Corps futures in the body










APPENDIX B (Continued)

of answers to earlier questions; you may utilize material anywhere in
the protocol to arrive at your judgment of differentiation for the three
periods of the respondent's life.

A score of 1 indicates the most contentless or unclear or hazy
map of the future. A score of 7 indicates a rich, complex, well defined
map of the future. A score of 4 indicates an intermediate degree of
differentiation; ratings of 2, 3, 5, or 6 are employed appropriately.


DIMENSION: Demand-Character of the Future Life

Instructions: Consider the interpretation given below. Then read, at one
sitting, the answers to questions one, two, and three. Assign a single
score to the writer, placing him on the seven-point scale for this
dimension. After th;s, indicate your confidence rating.

Interpretation:

You are to concern yourself with the demands which are imposed
upon the writer by the future life which he envisions for himself.

Does the future life portrayed in this protocol demand of the
person effortful responses to major challenges or are the demands of this
life minimal, involving little challenge?

The sorts of demands which result in high scores are those that
entail long-continuing effort, challenge, and risk-taking. Such demands
result from the nature of the future life. They may result from goals
which are to be obtained only with difficulty; they may result from deeply-
felt values which impose a need for difficult action; they may result from
a desired style of life which pushes the limits of the individual's cap-
acity.

As a rater, your decision as to the demand-character rating of the
future life will entail two steps.

First, you will use your own sense of the real world, your own
common sense, to decide just how much demand of continuing effort,
risk-taking, and challenge-facing is entailed (for a person in the subject's
apparent present social position or psychological state) to attain or
maintain the sort of life which he envisions for himself. Your pre-
liminary decision as to the subject's rating is based, then, on this
perception by you of the real demand character of the life for which he
has opted.










APPENDIX B (Continued)

Second, you must be alert to cues from the protocol which suggest
that the subject's understanding of the demand character of that
envisioned life is dissimilar from yours. If the subject sees that life
in much the same way that you do, then your preliminary sense of the
appropriate rating holds. Some subjects, however, will give clear
evidence that they see much more or much less effort, risk, or challenge
as being entailed in a certain way of life than you do. Your preliminary
rating must then be altered to reflect the subject's sense of the demand
character of the goal, rather than your own.

One caution is appropriate here. You must exercise a high degree
of perceptiveness so that you may differentiate:

(1) a subject who has opted for a life that is difficult in the
real world but who simply is ignorant of that life's diffi-
culty, from
(2) a subject who has opted for such a difficult life, who is
aware of its difficulty, but has enough savoir-faire and
confidence not to overburden the protocol with notes about
the great amount of effort he will need to exert.

The first example is that of a subject who, in one sense, does
not envision a life of high demand character; he appropriately receives
a relatively low rating.

The second example is that of a subject who envisions a life that
both you and he realize has a high demand character, and who should accord-
ingly receive a relatively high rating.

A score of 7 indicates a future which is challenging and demands
great continued effort. A score of 1 indicates a future which imposes
minimum challenge and demand of effort. A future, the demand character
of which seems intermediate, is scored 4; the ratings of 2, 3, 5, or
6 are employed appropriately.


DIMENSION: Agency in Life Decisions

Instruction: Read the subject's entire protocol. The score assigned on
the dimension is based on the answers to questions one, two, and three.
A single score is given, descriptive of the respondent as he has shown
himself on those questions. A score is assigned on a scale from 1 through
7, in terms of the interpretation given below. After assigning this
score, note your confidence rating.








78

APPENDIX B (Continued)

Interpretation:

The respondent has written out for you a picture of his future
life. Included in that picture is a picture of his future self. Consider
that future self. Is it presented as one which is an active agent in
shaping the respondent's life? Or, is it presented as one which simply
receives the free gifts or the hard knocks of others, of society, etc.,
letting its life be shaped accordingly.

Assign a score of 7 if the future self is displayed as being
a most active agent in shaping the future life. Assign a score of 1 if
the future self is portrayed as being essentially a passive recipient
of influences, breaks, etc.

The respondent is scored 4 if the portrayed future self seems
intermediate between these extremes of activity. Ratings of 2, 3, 5,
or 6 are to be used appropriately.














APPENDIX C


Greene Self-Disclosure Sentence Blank

NAME

INSTRUCTIONS: This sentence completion blank is designed to
help gain an understanding of your basic feelings concerning
yourself and your personal world. Please complete these
sentences to express your real feelings, trying to be as frank
as possible about matters which are personally important to you.


Try to do every sentence. Be sure to make a complete sentence.

1. Sometimes 1

2. I can't

3. Sexual thoughts

4. I often wish

5. There have been times when

6. My biggest problem is

7. I secretly

8. I feel

9. Loneliness

0. I feel guilty


II. I have an emotional need to

12. I regret

13. I hate

l+. I am afraid

15. I








80

APPENDIX C (Continued)

16. I am best when

17. I am worst when

18. I need

19. I punish myself

20. I am hurt when














APPENDIX C


Scoring Manual: The Greene Self-Disclosure Sentence Blank

PURPOSE AND SCORING PROCEDURE

The Self-Disclosure Sentence Blank is an attempt to standardize

a method for scoring a subject's sentence completions for the degree

to which he willingly reveals core aspects of his private and personal

world.

The subject is asked to complete twenty sentence stems which

have been designed to have "high pull" for self-disclosure. Although

the subject's responses can be used for general interpretation in the

same manner that a clinician trained in dynamic psychology uses any

projective material, this particular scoring procedure is not designed

to take into account information about the subject which he in fact does

not purposely disclose. This is important for the scorer to keep in

mind so that he does not "read in" meaning to responses as he is scoring

them. For example, if a female should respond to the stem, "I hate...,"

with "umbrellas," this may yield rich information for anyone interested

in Freudian dynamics, but in keeping with the purposes of this scale,

it would be scored as grossly evasive and unrevealing (Level Five).

Another error to guard against is the incorrect scoring of a

response as unrevealing because the scorer finds it difficult to believe

that the subject was serious in his response. Such completions might

be: "I feel...crazy," "I regret...my whole life," "I...fear this test









APPENDIX C (Continued)

too much," or, "! am worst whcn...l am sober." In all instances, the

scorer is admonished to accept subject responses at face value, and

to score each response, as it is written, for its closeness to what

are likely to be core issues in a person's personal life. For example,

both the completions, "I feel...with my hands," and "I feel...crazy,"

might not be meant seriously, but the scorer is to assume that they are,

and to rate their revealingness accordingly. Thus, even if a subject

is serious when saying that he feels "with his hand," he is still being

grossly unrevealing of his personal life. But if a subject is taken

seriously when he says that he "feels crazy," he is being quite open

about an important aspect of his personal life. To repeat, all responses

are to be judged by their verbal content, and not the inferred intentions

of the subject.

The instructions for the Self-Disclosure Sentence Blank are

intended to give the subject a clear understanding of what the examiner

is interested in. These instructions are:

This sentence completion blank is designed to help gain an
understanding of your basic feelings concerning yourself and your
personal world. Please complete these sentences to express your
real feelings, trying to be as frank as possible about matters
which are personally important to you.
Try to do every sentence. Be sure to make a complete sentence.

These instructions are meant to say in effect, "I'd like to get to know

you as well as possible in the short time we have together. Please tell

me as frankly as you can what kind of person you really are deep down

under the skin."








APPENDIX C (Continued)

To score the subject's responses, the scorer assigns each

response a scale value from 1 to 5, depending on its judged degree of

revealingness. (Level One disclosures are very revealing; those at

Level Five are evasive.) The responses can be scored in a relatively

objective manner if the scorer (1) makes himself thoroughly familiar

with the descriptions which provide the rationale for the five levels,

and (2) compares each response with typical examples provided for

each level in the scoring-by-matching section of this manual. The sum

of the individual scale values for all stems provides the index of

self-disclosure.

In order to minimize the tendency to score all responses in

light of the overall impression made by the subject, each completion

is to be scored independently of all others, except when there is a

clear reference to a previous disclosure. When scoring a number of

individuals, each stem should be scored for all subjects before pro-

ceeding on to the next stem, that is, all stems numbered 1 before going

on to all stems numbered 2, etc. If, while scoring a particular stem,

the scorer should find a response which, in and of itself, makes little

sense, the immediate preceding completions should be re-read to see

whether or not the subject is continuing a train of thought from a

previous disclosure. For example, if a completion number 4 should read,

"I often wish...and pray they didn't," it would make little sense, as it

stands alone. But if this subject's completion number 3 is found to

read, "Sexual thoughts...possess me all the time and make me guilty,"

then completion number 4 gains meaning and revealingness when viewed as

a continuation of this previous disclosure.









APPENDIX C (Continued)

The scorer may find an occasion that despite his best efforts,

he cannot decide at which of two levels a response best fits. In order

to achieve some consistency in such cases, the response should be scored

at the higher level of self-disclosure.

THE FIVE SCORING LEVELS

The question to be kept in mind is this: How much does this

disclosure, taken alone, and at face value, contribute to an understand-

ing of this person's private and personal world? Or, to shift the emphasis

slightly, how willing has this person been to allow the examiner to know

him as he sees himself?

LEVEL ONE

He reveals basic feelings and emotions of a personally relevant

nature about a central aspect of his private and personal life. This

material is likely to play a major role, or have a fundamental effect,

on the shaping of a large part of the subject's personal as well as

public experience. His point of reference is his own inner experience--

his own subjective world. He speaks as an internal observer reporting

on internal events, even when the comment also includes mention of the

external world.

What is disclosed is likely to be the sort of thing which one

would never know unless told, and which would ordinarily be told only to

a close and ,-usted friend. There is no attempt to present himself in a

socially desirable manner. Facades are absent, and as a result, core

constructs by which he maintains his identity and existence, as well

as areas of extreme conflict, are likely to be directly and frankly











APPENDIX C (Continued)

discussed. For instance, statements concerning his self-image, his

approach to fundamental interpersonal relationships, sexual conflicts,

severe family problems, and strong feelings of personal confusion are

likely to be scored at this level.

This self-disclosure, taken alone, and at face value, contri-

butes significantly to an understanding of the subject's personal world

of experience.

LEVEL TWO

He expresses feelings and emotions of "secondary" importance

and/or of a less personal nature than at Level One. He may hint at or

speak in a qualified or more distant way about material which might

otherwise fall within Level One. Distance from the core theme may be

along a dimension of person, place, time, intensity, or frequency. Dis-

closures at this level, while personally important, often tend to be

more content and situation specific than at Level One. That is, the

content does not play as major a role over as wide an area of the subject's

life.

The focus remains, however, on internal experience which seems

of direct relevance to the person's personal life. What is revealed

would not ordinarily be said to casual acquaintances. He does not

necessarily present himself in socially favorable terms. He seems to

be honestly trying to express himself about important aspects of his

subjective world, but is unwilling or unable to reach the degree of

openness expressed at Level One. He does, however, purposely reveal

something important and fundamental about his basic personality.










APPENDIX C (Continued)

LEVEL THREE

He reveals important facts and/or details of an "external"

nature. Material revealed at this level probably plays a major role

in the shaping of the subject's public life. The focus of attention

is generally not on his subjective inner experience, but rather on people

and events in the world outside of himself, things happening to him, and

things which he does. When feelings or emotions are expressed, they do

not seem deep-seated or closely tied to the core construct by which

he maintains his identity and existence.

Although what is revealed is probably important to the

subject and his public life, it might be revealed to a casual acquain-

tance, and in general would not prove embarrassing if publicly known.

Some guardedness may be apparent, and personal statements of a socially

undesirable nature tend to be avoided. Although this material may

help in coming to know the subject, he is (purposely) revealing little

or nothing of significance about his private, experimental world.

LEVEL FOUR

He discloses facts and/or details of "secondary" importance

and of an "external" nature. This material probably plays a relatively

minor role in a limited area of the subject's life, and would appear to

have little or no lasting effect on his moment to moment personal

experience. His point of reference is clearly the external world, and

he may speak as a detached, nominally interested external observer.








APPENDIX C (Continued)

Guardedness is often apparent, and socially undesirable

statements are almost nonexistent. What is revealed might easily be

said to a stranger or made public without embarrassment. Problems,

when they are mentioned at all, are never deep-seated or in any manner

incapacitating. If feelings or emotions are expressed, they are dis-

tant from the core constructs by which the subject's identity and

existence are defined. Minor incidents, facts, wants, beliefs, etc.,

may be disclosed, but their sphere of influence is quite likely to be

content and situation specific, and relatively trivial when compared

with what might be said about central areas of a person's personal or

public life.

Vague or highly qualified reference may be made to material

which might otherwise fall within Level Three. The subject may reveal

strong negative attitudes, but only in socially approved ways.

Level Four statements help give the examiner very little, if

any, understanding of the subject's personal and private world.

LEVEL FIVE

Essentially neutral, meaningless, or grossly evasive material

is offered at this level. Omissions are scored at this level, as well

as stereotype answers, cliches, catch phrases, etc. The subject repre-

sents himself as having no real problems.

Statements at this level give the examiner no understanding

of the subject's personal or public life.














APPENDIX D


Carpenter Personal-Impersonal Scale

NAME

TOPIC PERSON

Please write a ten sentence essay about a "topic person" of central
importance in your life, saying what he or she is really like as a
person. That is, in exactly ten sentences, write the few most import-
ant things you can think of regarding what he or she is really like.














APPENDIX D


Judges' Manual: Personal-impersonal Rating Scale

The Construct

The scale is designed to measure the construct Personal vs.

Impersonal. This dimension is intended to describe certain qualities

of a person's view of another person.

Theoretical Definition. A view of someone is Personal to the

extent that it makes reference to that person's "internal" experiential

frame of reference. The view is Impersonal to the degree that it

lacks such reference. Another way of putting this is to say that a

Personal view definitely implies that the other person is a living,

experiencing center of a personal world; that is, that he feels, knows,

thinks, experiences, chooses, values, decides to act, etc. An Impersonal

view lacks this implication.

Operational Definition. The datum for this scale will be

the written report of a subject, giving what he believes to be his most

important ideas about what a given person is "really like." Each such

report will be analyzed sentence by sentence before a total score for

the report is reached.

The judge is to evaluate each sentence as being either Personal,

Impersonal, or Ambiguous. The sentence will be called Personal if

its meaning is heavily weighted by some reference to the "internal"

experiential frame of reference of the one being described. It will











APPENDIX D (Continued)

be called Impersonal if such reference is absent or treated as unimport-

ant. The class of Ambiguous is to be assigned as seldom as possible,

only when it is not possible to say whether the sentence contains an

important Personal reference or not.

Personal Sentences. In general, such Personal references can

usually be said to take one of the following forms.

The person described is explicitly shown to have experiences

of his own. For example, "private" or "inner" experiences are attri-

buted to him, as in: "I think I hurt his feelings," or "he does a lot

of planning before he acts," or "he has a lot of fantastic dreams,"

"children often make him angry."

If the sentence shows the person to have a unique point of

view of his own, that is, to have his own perceptions, opinions, atti-

tudes, prejudices, structure of meanings, etc., it is called Personal.

For example: "having such poor eyesight must affect his ideas,"

"he prefers brown suits," "he is very much in favor of urban renewal,"

"he feels all Italians are crazy."

Another way a sentence may be called Personal is if it makes

reference to the person's capacity to choose, decide, have goals, and

values. For example "he is working extra hard to get a raise,"

"h decided to leave town rather than stay," "he thinks that honor is

more important than money."

The judge will quickly come to spot the "key terms" which

distinguish a Personal sentence. In the above, for instance, such

phrases as the following were especially important: "his feelings








APPENDIX D (Continued)

(hurt)"; "he does...planning"; "he prefers"; "he feels"; "he is...work-

ing (in order to) get..."; "he decided"; "he thinks." While hard

and fast rules of diction cannot be relied on blindly in making a

decision, the majority of sentences which contain Personal reference,

use phrasing similar to the above.

Impersonal Sentences. Any sentence which plainly lacks any

important reference to the experiential dimension of the other person,

is called Impersonal. The variety of forms an Impersonal statement

may take seems endless; but the following cases, if not exhaustive,

may be illustrative.

The other person may be presented, not in terms of his own

experience, but as an entity in the experience of the describer. For

instance, "he always makes me feel good," "he's the person who is most

important to me," "he's a sort I cannot tolerate."

The description may be purely behavioral or "objective"

as in: "he always hangs around the Union, and bowls most every weekend,"

"he yells at you everytime you turn around," "he has a lot of good

times."

The other person may be described as a member of some class

or typology: "he's a cheater," "he's just a plain lazy man," "he's

a real leader." While such statements may in some sense seem to "get

at what he really is," they make no reference to "what he is" in terms

of his own experience.

Not being described as one who chooses, aspires, has values,

etc., his behavior is accounted for by things "exterior" to his








APPENDIX D (Continued)

experiential world, as in: "his childhood helped him have such strong

character," "he just isn't motivated to learn."

The following simple diagram may make clearer the difference,

as defined, between a Personal and an Impersonal view of another person.

Ambiguous Sentences. This category is to be assigned as

seldom as possible; only when the judge is unable to decide whether a

given sentence is Personal or Impersonal. If a sentence seems ambiguous

when standing alone, the judge is to read other sentences preceding

and following it. This will generally shed new light which makes a

decision possible. The following types of statements often seem to

make for difficulty in judging.

Descriptions employing psychological language may often be

difficult to assess. While such statements as: "his toilet training

led to later problems," and "he has a lot of drive," may appear to have

a certain "internal" reference, they are nevertheless to be scored

Impersonal in that they make no explicit reference to the experiential

dimension.

Descriptive cliches which employ Personal language but are

known to be generally used with Impersonal intent, also pose some problem

for judgement. Consider, for example, the statement: "she is suffering

from illusions of grandeur." The question is, does the writer intend

the word "suffering" to have its original, experiential meaning, or

is the term used for its popular (and degenerated) meaning as a non-

experiential quasi-explanation of behavior? In this case, examination

of surrounding statements make the latter interpretation seem the safer..








APPENDIX D (Continued)

Other examples of this problem are: "he is a fun-loving guy,"

"she goes out of her way to be friendly," "he knows how to get around."

In rare cases a sentence may contain two major clauses one

of which is Personal and the other Impersonal. If neither seems to

outweigh the other in importance for the meaning of the total state-

ment, the statement is scored Ambiguous.

Unscored Sentences. On only two occasions will a sentence

be left unscored. The first is when, at the beginning of a report,

the writer starts with an introductory sentence obviously outside the

body of the essay. For instance, "I am going to write about a friend

of mine." The other time a sentence will be left unscored is when

it is a simple repeat; that is, when it had been given previously

in the report.

Scoring the Report

It seems advisable that the judge first read each report

through once or twice before beginning scoring. He then considers each

sentence separately, and designates each one as either Personal, (P),

Impersonal, (I), or Ambiguous, (?). After this is done, he can proceed

to calculating the Personal-Impersonal Quotient (or PI-Q) for the whole

report.

The judge adds the total number of P-sentences and I-sentences,

(?-sentences are excluded from the calculation). The PI-Q is then

reached with the formula:
PI-Q = Sum P .(100)
Sum P + Sum I














APPENDIX E


Raw Scores and Combined Ratings
For Individual Subjects on All Scales

Freshmen


Ss A B C D E F G H I J K


3.20
3.33
1.76
2.20
3.20
2.93
2.64
2.64
1.93
2.64
1.73
3.20
3.00
3.00
3.93
3.82
2.18
3.25


6
5.5
3.5
3.5
4
3
5
3.5
6
5
4
5
5.5
6
4.5
4.5
3.5
3


4
4
2.5
3
3.5
2.5
5
4
4
4
4
3
5.5
5.5
4
4.5
3.5
3.5


4.5
5
4
3
2.5
4.5
5.5
3.5
5.5
5.5
5
4
5
5
6.5
4.5
5.5
5


4
5
4
2
3
2.5
5
3
5
5.5
5
4
3
5
5.5
5
5
4.5


41
45.5
47.5
45
57
59
43
49.5
39
51
44
36
52.5
39.5
67.5
46.5
38.5
56


1.89
1.57
1.79
1.36
2.26
2.10
1.26
.58
1.68
1.78
1.57
1.77
1.77
.93
2.36
3.14
2.36
.00


A = Age
B Grade-Point Average (Freshmen Only)
C Verbal Ability (Freshmen-SCAT, Graduate Students-GRE)
D = Quantitative Ability (Freshmen-SCAT, Graduate Students-GRE)
E = Rotter Internal-External Scale Raw Score
F = Ezekiel Personal Future "Differentiation I" Combined Rating
G Ezekiel Personal Future "Differentiation II" Combined Rating
H = Ezekiel Personal Future "Demand" Combined Rating
I Ezekiel Personal Future "Agency" Combined Rating
J Greene Self-Disclosure Scale Combined Rating
K Carpenter Person-impersonal Combined Rating




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs