209 47 3MB
English Pages 95
232 73 7MB Read more
368 75 18MB Read more
255 21 4MB Read more
256 50 8MB Read more
288 109 8MB Read more
290 108 2MB Read more
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OP SOME RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SEVERAL INDICES OF STAGE FRIGHT AND PERSONALITY
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
by Paul Douglas Holtzman August 1950
UMI Number: DP31982
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI DP31982 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProOuest' ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
T h is d is s e rta tio n , w r itte n by
................PAUL..DOUGLAS..HQLT.^MAN................ u n d e r th e g u id a n c e o f h .A s .. F a c u lty C o m m itte e on S tu d ie s , a n d a p p ro v e d by a l l its m em bers, has been p re se n te d to a n d a cce p te d by th e C o u n c il on G ra d u a te S tu d y a n d R e se a rch , in p a r t ia l f u l f illm e n t o f re q u ire m e n ts f o r th e degree o f DOCTOR
P H IL O S O P H Y
Committee on Studies
TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION TO THE P R O B L E M .................... P R C S ............... ........................
Utzinger Scale ..............................
Observers 1 r a t i n g s .........................
P u r p o s e ............................. II.
EXPERIMENTAL P R O C E D U R E .......................... Evaluation of stagefright severity
. . . .
J u d g e s ......................................
Personality m e a s u r e m e n t ...................
F I N D I N G S ......................................... P R C S .......................................... Males
S u b j e c t s ........... ........................
Statistical treatmentof d a t a ............ III.
• • •
15 21 21
F e m a l e s ....................................
Utzinger S c a l e ....................... -. . . .
M a l e s ......................................
F e m a l e s .....................................
Observers 1 r a t i n g s ............................
Room G ......................................
Rooms B and R
SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ........................
iii CHAPTER V.
D I S C U S S I O N ......................................
PRCS and p e r s o n a l i t y .......................
B I B L I O G R A P H Y ...........................................
Instruction to S u b j e c t s .................
Combined Short-form PRCS and Utzinger S c a l e s ............................
Instruction to. J u d g e s ...................
Additional Analysis of Variance Tables
Distribution of Subjects on the PRCS
Distribution of Subjects on the Utzinger S c a l e ..............................
Relationships of Stage Fright Measures
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Means and Standard Deviations on MMPI Factors for 168 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright as Indicated by PRCS (Group At Severe, N 3 58; Group B: Moderate, N = 56; Group Gr Mild, N = 54) and Critical Ratios for Differences Between Group Means
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 168 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by the PRCS .
Means and Standard Deviations on MMPI Factors for 203 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright as Indicated by PRCS (Group A: Severe, N 3 66; Group Bs Moderate, N = 69; Group C: Mild, N = 68) and Critical Ratios for Differences Between Group Means
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 203 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by the PRCS Means and Standard Deviations on MMPI Factors for 168 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright as Indicated by the Utzinger Scale (Group A: Severe N = 49; Group Bs Moderate, N = 66; Group C: -Mild
PAGE N = 53) and Critical Ratios for Differences Between Group M e a n s .........................
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 168 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by the Utzinger Scale ..................................
Means and Standard Deviations on MMPI Factors for 203 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright as Indicated by the Utzinger Scale (Group A: Severe, N » 58; Group B: Moderate, N = 89; Group C: Mild, N = 56) and Critical Ratios for Differences Between Group Means
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 203 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by the Utzinger Scale ..................................
Distribution of Severe, Moderate, and Mild Mean Ratings by Judges in Three Separate (Expected Frequencies in Parentheses)
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 66 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Rated by Judges in Room G . .
Means and Standard Deviations on MMPI Factors for 66 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright
PAGE Severity as Indicated by Mean Judges 1 Ratings in Room G (Group As Severe, N = 9; Group Br Moderate, N = 21; Group Cs Mild, N * 36) and Critical Ratios for Differences Between Group M e a n s ..........................................
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 80 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Rated by Judges in Room G ........................................ • •
Means and Standard Deviations on MMPI Factors for 80 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by Mean Judges 1 Ratings in Room G (Group A: Severe, N = 13; Group B: Moderate, N = 28; Group Ct Mild, N = 39) and Critical Ratios for Differences Between Group M e a n s ..........................................39
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 65 Males Grouped^ According to Stage Fright Severity as Rated by Judges in. Room B . •
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 72 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Rated by Judges in Room B ........................................ „
vii TABLE XVI.
PAGE Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 37 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Rated by Judges in Room R . .
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 51 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Rated by Judges in Room R ............................................. 43
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 112 Males in Severe and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated
by the PRCS
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 114 Males in Severe and Moderate Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the P R C S ................... '...................... 71
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 110 Males in Moderate and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the PRCS
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 134 Females in Severe and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated
by the PRCS
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 135 Females in Severe and Moderate Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the P R C S .............................
viii TABLE XXIII.
PAGE Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 137 Females in Moderate and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the P R C S ........................................... 73
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 102 Males in Severe and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the Utzinger Scale ..................................
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 115 Males in Severe and Moderate Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the Utzinger S c a l e ................................ 74
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 119 Males in Moderate and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the Utzinger S e a l e ...............................
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 114 Females in Severe and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the Utzinger Scale .
Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 147 Females in Severe and Moderate Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the Utzinger S c a l e ................................ 76
ix TABLE XXIX.
PAGE Analysis of Variance of Patterns on Nine MMPI Factors for 145 Females in Moderate and Mild Stage Fright Severity Groups as Indicated by the Utzinger S c a l e ................................ 76
Distribution of PRCS S c o r e s ........................ 78
Distribution of Utzinger Scale S c o r e s .............. 80
Relationships of Stage Fright Measures ...........
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.
Mean MMPI Profiles for 168 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity
as Indicated by the
P R C S ............................................... 22 2.
Mean MMPI Profiles for 203 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by the P R C S ......................................... 25
Mean MMPI Profiles for 168 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity Utzinger Scale
as Indicated by the
Mean MMPI Profiles for 203 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by the Utzinger S c a l e .............................. 50
Mean MMPI Profiles for 66 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity
as Indicated by
Judges 1 Ratings in Room G . . . . . 6.
Mean MMPI Profiles for 80 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity
as Indicated by Judges 1 .
Ratings in Room G ......................... 7.
Mean MMPI Profiles for 65 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by Judges f Ratings in Room B .................................. 40
xi FIGURE 8.
Mean MMPI Profiles for 78 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by Judges 1 Ratings in Room B
Mean MMPI Profiles for 37 Males Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by Judges 1 Ratings in
Room R ........................
Mean MMPI Profiles for 51 Females Grouped According to Stage Fright Severity as Indicated by Judges1 Ratings in Room R
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Probably the primary single stumbling block to the teaching (and development) of speech skills is the problem of "stage fright," or, as Gilkinson terms it, "social fear."^ Summary of the writings in this field indicates only that stage fright is an emotional response to the speaking situation or to %h.e anticipation of such a situation*^
pedagogical treatment, too, of this phenomenon is in terms of tempering of the emotional response:
for relaxation and control, vigorous rostrum activity to divert and expend resulting excess energy, "substitution of emotion," etc*
It is difficult to avoid noting a need for
fuller understanding of whatever factors underly this behavior in the individual*
It was the purpose of the study
here reported to[examine the phenomenon broadly referred to as "stage fright behavior" in terms of and as related to personality structure of the stage "frightened" individual*
1 Howard Gilkinson, "Social Pears as Reported by Students in College Speech Classes," Speech Monographs, 91141-60, 1942. 2 Charles W. Lomas, "The Psychology of Stage Fright," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 23:35-44, 1937*
In the attempt to delineate less nebulously than has been done previously the dynamics involved in stage fright, this study was immediately limited by difficulties of definition of the two general factors, stage fright and personality structure, to be investigated. What is stage fright?
Aside from the fact that it is
a kind, or kinds of response, variously defined, to a kind, or kinds of situation, broadly classified, there is no ready answer. For the most part, researches have resulted in de scriptions of symptoms of emotional activity in the persons experiencing this difficulty:
circulatory rate and blood
changes, general disorganization, blocking of thought processes, body tension increases, etc.
from Hollingworth and Eisenson, presents as possibilities that stage fright may be: (2) emotional conflict, adequacy of response.
(1) direct fear reaction,
(5) a learned reaction, and (4) in And through a questionnaire study he
substantiates only the first definition.
In essence, he is
stating that (stage) fright is fear] The design of this study was to determine,- if possible not -the obvious emotional nature or even the’ characteristics 4 Howard Gilkinson, f,A Questionnaire Study of the Causes of Social Fears among College Speech Students,” Speech Monographs, 1943, pp. 79-80, quoting H. L. Hollingworth, The Psychology of the Audience, pp. 209 ff., and Jon Eisenson, The Psychology of Speech, pp. 261 f f .
3 of the stage-fright response, but whether there is a general personality structure in the severely stage-frightened indi vidual which differs from that of the less frightened person. This was primarily, then, a study of the person with stage fright rather than a study of stage fright per se. Some reports in the field indicate work in this direction,
Gilkinson reports some relationship between
speaker confidence as measured by his PRCS (Personal Report on Confidence as a Speaker) and the traits, social adjustment and emotional stability reported from the Minnesota Personality scale.
In the later report based upon this same
instrument for evaluating stage fright, he found that fearful speakers tend "toward generalized low self-evaluation, and toward anxieties about matters involving their social relation ships,"
He concluded further that "a generalized sense of
inferiority frequently operates as a primary cause of the a
emotional disturbance of a speaker in facing an audience.” Previous studies, then, give a general picture of the stagefrightened person as generally insecure, self-devaluating and feeling inadequate in varying social situations. Yet, though elusive and devious of definition, stage fright is a "thing” which is measured every day by teachers, 5 Gilkinson, "Social Fears as Reported by Students in College Speech Classes," 0 £. cit. 6 Gilkinson, "A Questionnaire Study of the Causes of Social Fears among College Speech Students," o£. cit.
4 by lay-audiences, by paper-and-pencil tests.
In a real
sense, these are rulers marked off in identical terms but 7 with very different calibrations. So it is that for this study, stage fright was operationally defined in terms of each of three instruments of measure of severity! 1.
Reference has already been made to the PRCS
(Personal Report on Confidence of a Speaker) which is a check-list scale constructed by Gilkinson to evaluate the extent of speaker confidence— or lack of it— in a given speaking situation.
Of the 104 items, 54 describe feelings
and physical symptoms related to fear.
The other 50 are
positive statements reflecting confidence.
All relate to
experiences prior to, during or after a speaking situation. In a recent study, Frail, having administered the PRCS to forty subjects, scored the test in the prescribed manner and scored it also in terms of the 50 items (25 fear Q
and 25 confidence) which Gilkinson found by item analysis to correlate most highly with total results.
the two sets of scores derived from Prallfs population was 7 This became clear when time-consuming attempts were made, early in the study, to deal only with subjects on whom the various measures of stage fright tended to agree. An obviously false and unworkable distribution resulted. 8 Gilkinson, "Social Fears as Reported by Students in College Speech Classes," o j d . cit.
On the basis of this finding, only those 50 items
were used as a ”short-form” PROS to provide one definition of stage fright for this study. This instrument, thon, may be considered as a kind of measure of subjective factors operating in stage fright as the speaker experiences it. 2*
In many ways similar to the PEGS,
another instrument for evaluating severity of stage fright is the check-list type of scale developed in a recent study by Utzinger.
Objecting to the ”empirically” derived items
in the PRCS, he asked fifty-one beginning speech students to report their feelings before, during, and after a speech situation.
Those descriptions of feelings and physical
symptoms reported with greatest frequency he summarized in the thirty-two items of the scale.
Ho so-called confidence
items were included.^ The Utzinger Scale, then, provides a somewhat differ ently derived and differently defined set of subjective measures of speaking fear. 9 Caleb Prall, ”An Experimental Study of the Measure ment of Certain Aspects of Stage Fright by Means of Rating Scale and Motion Picture Techniques,” (unpublished Doctor’s dissertation, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1950). 10 Vernon A. Utzinger, ”An Experimental Study to Develop an Improved Technique for Measuring Subjective Feelings During ‘Stage Fright*,” (unpublished study completed at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1949).
6 Observers f ratings.
Another defining measure of
stage fright is some kind of evaluation of the things which a group of listeners perceive in and project into a person in a speaking situation.
Severity here depends primarily
upon outward signs which the listener identifies as sympto matic or symbolic of whatever that listener conceives of as stage fright. One device for such rating is that developed for use in the Prall study cited above.
This is a five-point scale
on which, for each speaker, an observer is instructed to encircle the most appropriate numbers Speaker No. ____ 1 Virtually no observable degree of stage fright
Less than Average average degree degree of of stage stage fright fright
4 More than average degree of stage fright
5 Extreme degree of stage fright
Optimum number and the nature of observers for sueh rating of various attributes has been the subject of concern by several investigators.
In an extensive study on the
rating of oral reading effectiveness, Penland found that speech instructors and students were in essential agreement.
11 Prall, ££. cit. 12 Virgil Penland, "An Experimental Study to Measure Effectiveness in Oral Reading by Means of a Rating Scale Technique,11 (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1948).
7 Also Prall found as few as five speech instructors to be 13 highly reliable in rating severity of stage fright. Whether or not ratings of this kind of stage fright agree with other measures cannot be considered as necessarily indicative of accuracy.
If the raters function with a
modicum of reliability, they are measuring something which they all, as a group, know as stage fright. As a study of the kind proposed here was limited by lack of a definitive concept of stage fright, so a consider ation of "personality structure" posed another series of problems. The fields of psychology and psychometrics offer perhaps more generally standardized and accepted concepts and measures of personality structure than has been found in the case of stage fright.
But nature and size of an
experimental group and limitations of an experimental setting place restrictions upon the psychometric phase of such study. Any personality instrument or instruments used would have to be: 1.
Generally acceptable to the authorities having jurisdiction over the experimental subjects.
Relatively easy to administer in groups.
Widely used and standardized as a measure of personality structure.
13 prall, o£. cit.
Productive of results capable of statistical interpretation and manipulation.
Use of individually administered TAT or Rorschach. tests may be definitive enough* for instance, but would be 14 ruled out by any large population sample. And group forms of the standard projection techniques have not seemed suffi ciently promising of definitive results as reported to date. The MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) was ultimately selected as the instrument for defining and measuring personality structure for this study.
with its nine clinical subscales, was found to be relatively comprehensive, easily administered and enjoying widespread use as a personality measure in similar experiments.
MMPI provides standardized normative data on a (Minnesota) population .cross-section, has been used on precollege and college students, and provides results in terms of T-scores *1
on factors which provide descriptive profile patterns.
14 Rorschach Ink Blot Test results obtained from a small selected sampling of persons with severe and mild stage fright will be reported in a later study. 15 Starke H. Hathaway and J. C. McKinley, Booklet for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1943)V 16 Starke R. Hathaway and J. C. McKinley, Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1943), Revised edition.
9 Review of MMPI uses provided by Berdie
and a compre18 hensive summary of MMPI literature and uses by Gough suggest applicability of the instrument to a study of the nature proposed here. The defining of MMPI subscale or factor components by Harris and Christiansen
and a detailed breakdown of what
he calls ”sub-subscales” by Harris
basis for interpretation of results.
contribute a ready These works, in other
words, provide a means of clear understanding of psychological factors which contribute toward scores on each of the nine clinical subscales of the MMPI. It may be 'expected, then, that the MMPI would meet the criteria described above and provide some measure, in its own terms, of the personality structure of subjects selected for a stage fright study. The conclusions of any such study, of course, must be hypothecated upon the validity of the instruments used and in 17 R. p. Berdie, ’’Counseling Methods i Diagnostics,” in C. P. Stone (ed.), Annual Review of Psychology. 1950. 18 regarding entitled, Inventory
Harrison G. Gough, in a personal communication his manuscript now in preparation and tentatively ’’Survey of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Literature.”
19 Robert E. Harris and Carole Christiansen, ’’Prediction of Response to Brief Psychotherapy,” The Journal of Psychology. 21t269-84, 1946. 20 Robert E. Harris, in a summary presented from his files in the Division of Psychiatry, University of California Medical School (Langley Porter Clinic), San Francisco, California.
10 terms of those instruments*
Thus, the foregoing consider
ations were necessary before a clear statement of the problem was possible* Purpose *
It was the primary purpose of this study to
determine whether, among the subjects of this experiment, stage fright is a function of personality structure.
specifically, the following questions were posed: 1.
Is severity of stage fright, as evaluated by the PRCS, related to personality structure as defined by the MMPI?
Is severity of stage fright, as evaluated by the Utzinger Scale, related to personality structure as defined by the MMPI?
Is severity of stage fright, as evaluated by non expert observers, related to personality structure as defined by the MMPI?
Some additional questions, for which partial answers were anticipated, were suggested by the design of this study: 1.
Are there any clearly definable personality characteristics (or MMPI-suggested tendencies) which identify individuals with severe, moderate, or very mild stage fright (as measured by each of the methods cited)?
If some personality factors are a function of stage fright, do they vary for men and women?
11 The following chapter describes in detail the appli cations made of the instruments discussed above (and their results) in order to provide some answers to these questions. Findings are then presented in terms of individual MMPI subscale results for the stage fright groups (severe, moderate, mild) and in terms of over-all profile differences among those groups. A summary chapter provides a synthesizing of the experimental findings in terms of the questions stated above. Finally, discussion of these findings is made, limited to implications for the population studied, to the character istics measured, and to some suggestions for further research on these problems.
CHAPTER.II EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Evaluation of stage fright severity.
and placement examinations for entering freshmen at San Francisco State College in the Fall of 1949 provided the desired opportunity to conduct this experiment•
were required to report in two groups (morning and afternoon) for an "English Placement Test*"
As each group convened, the
students were instructed^* that as part of the test they were to prepare a one-minute talk on the subject, "The Best Study Method I Know," that this performance would have no effect upon college admission or academic status, and that their auditors were fellow students being tested in a "listening experiment.” They were then assigned to one of three rooms in random order according to numbers on information cards obtained by the students on arrival.
In the assigned room,
each subject spoke for approximately one minute before nine to eleven (depending upon the room) upper-class and graduate students.
In this situation, severity of stage fright was
rated by the members of the audience on the five-point rating P scale already cited in connection with the Prall study. 1 See Appendix A for instructions to subjects. 2 The rating scale appears on page
13 (One auditor in each room did not participate in the rating but served as informal chairman and in addition noted any students with speech defects for later referral to the Speech Laboratory.) Upon completing the speaking assignment, each subject then reported to a third room where he was administered the nshort^-form” PBCS and the Utzinger Scale, already described, combined into one eighty-two-item questionnaire. Subjects. sample.
There were 522 students in the original
Twenty-four subjects were eliminated from the tabu
lation of stage fright data for three reasons.
students were foreign-born persons who, it was assumed, might give inaccurate questionnaire and test responses because of language difficulties.
Two failed to follow
instructions, resulting in incomplete data.
And a confusion
in the subject-numbering obscured subject identity of two subjects whose data were dropped. Of the 498 subjects whose data were tabulated, 238 were male and 260 female.
Age range was sixteen to fifty-
seven years; median of the age distribution was 18.61.
for this group that data on agreement of the various stage fright measures (not the immediate concern of this study) are presented in Appendix D. 3 See Appendix B for combined scale as administered.
Twenty-seven observer-raters known by the
experimenter were selected from among upper-class and graduate students of the college. courses.
All but two had had public speaking
Their ages ranged from twenty to thirty years;
mean age 22,5 years.
Eighteen were men and nine were women.
These judges reported one half hour before the experimental subjects, received their instructions,
assigned in random order (every third person as they were sitting in meeting) to the nspeaking” rooms.
entered the wrong room, accounting for the ten-nine-eight distribution rather than the planned nine-nine-nine split. Asked to rate themselves on severity of stage fright before the experiment began, the judges scored a mean selfrating of 2.89 for the group. Results of the ratings by the judges were treated in terms of means of the ratings per individual speaker. Personality measurement. .By arrangement with the Education and Psychology Division of the College, the MMPI was given standard administration by instructors throughout the several sections of Psychology 5A, a course required of almost all entering freshmen.
Test administration was super
vised as carefully as possible by the experimenter and in the few cases where administration was non-standard or incomplete,
4 See Appendix C for instructions to judges.
15 the resulting records were discarded. Although some 425 MMPI records were obtained from this psychology class population, only 341 represented data on the original subjects of this study.
Late registrants not pro
cessed through the speech Sc r e e n i n g , ” absences the days of MMPI testing, and early withdrawal from the college account for most of the discrepancy. MMPI data from an additional 36 subjects were procured over a period of two weeks by individual and small group test administration by the experimenter. MMPI factor scores on the clinical and validity scales were obtained by IBM scoring machine, profiles drawn, and appropriate T-scores read from the profiles and recorded. Records from 371 subjects were used ultimately, after six were discarded due to F (Validity Scale) scores above the critical level (raw score over 16).
These appeared to
be representative of the original population since the ’’missing” subjects distribute normally over the distribution of any of the stage fright measures.
This figure includes
203 women and 168 men. Statistical treatment of data.
Throughout the study,
treatment of the data was in terms of upper (severe), middle (moderate), and lower (mild) stage fright groups and for men and women separately.
Group differences— in the case of each
16 stag© fright measure— were examined on each of the MMPI subscales by use of standard technique for determining critical ratios* In addition, however, to -test for the presence of personality patterns related to severity of stage fright as measured by each of the devices used, it was necessary to find a statistical treatment capable of expressing MMPI sub scale interrelationships in much the same way as does a clinician in consideration of a single profile.
The MMPI is
designed to provide an over-all measure of personality structure in terms of nine clinical scales depicted by T-scores on a profile sheet*
And clinical interpretations
are largely based on subscale interrelationships rather than on individual subscale scores or profile level alone* Essentially, an attempt was made to determine whether mean MMPI pattern differences among upper, middle, and lower stage fright severity groups were greater than would be expected from and accountable to individual differences alone. Because stage fright was, in this study, operationally defined in terms of three different measures, and because of population differences between MMPI scores of men and women (described later), these pattern differences were examined separately for men and for women for each of the stage fright measures. An analysis of variance technique, similar to that used by many statisticians in psychological and biological
research, was employed.
The specific procedure followed in
this study is that of Block, Levine, and McNemar.
authors present ”a test for the existence of group psycho metric patterns,” discussing tho procedure in part as follows Given V variables (tests or subtests) and G groups with m individuals per group. Let Xgiv stand for the score on variable v of individual i_ in group g, and let n = total number of individuals and N = total number of scores (n = mG, and N ® m V G ). . . . The scores can be arranged as for a three-way analysis of variance setup, with V variables corresponding to columns, the G groups corresponding to blocks, and the m rows within each group (or block) corresponding to individuals. . • • It will be noted that summing scores across columns leads to a total score, and a mean for each individual. Summing down with a group leads to separate group means for the several variables, and summing these sums across blocks leads to the means at the bottom for each variable for the groups combined. The separate group means for the several variables are, of course, the basis for possible group profiles or group psychometric patterns. Before deciding that the profile for one group differs from that for another, or from the pattern of the means for the groups combined, we need a test of statistical significance. Those versed in the analysis of variance will by now have realized that the question as to whether the profiles differ significantly is nothing more than the question as to whether the group by variable (block by column) interaction is significant. In the variance tables presented in the next chapter, then, is a breakdown of the sum of squares, degrees of 5 Howard W. Alexander, 11A General Test for Trend,” Psychological Bulletin. 43x533-57, and E. P. Lindquist, ^Goodness of Pit of Trend Curves and Significance of Trend Differences,” Psychometrika, 12:65-78, June, 1947, and others 6 Jack Block, Louis Levine and Quinn McNemar, ”Testing for the Existence of Psychometric Patterns,” a manuscript prepared for early publication.
18 freedom and variance estimates, according to sources of variation*
These sources are (1) MMPI subscale score vari
(2) upper (severe), middle and lower stage
fright group variation (Groups),
(3) variation of the scores
of each individual (Individuals), and (4) factor-by-group interaction (Interaction).
The error term (Residual) is
derived by subtracting the sums of squares of these sources from the total sum of squares.
The variance estimate derived
from this term is the basis for testing the significance of the estimate based on factor-by-group interaction. Analysis of variance was applied only to the pattern of the nine clinical scales.
The validity scales, ?, L, and
F, were used only to eliminate any subjects whose test might be invalid because of critical scores on those scales. In 7 accordance with the MMPI manual instructions, the K factor was used as a suppressor factor.
Otherwise these scales,
which have little known clinical value, were not subjected to statistical computations. For treatment of MMPI data, results from men (H *= 168) and women (N = 203) were grouped separately.
demanded by the fact that scoring on many of the scales is varied for men and women and because population differences 7 Starke R. Hathaway and J. C. McKinley, Supplementary Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory jNew York: The Psychological Corporation, 1946).
have been found in the Mf factor. is a measure of cultural interests.
Basically, the Mf factor Males indicating
interests in the arts will score high, females low.
interests in matters which the culture, by and large, con siders ’’feminine” are found more prevalently in a college population.
In the present sampling, for instance, males
show a mean T-score on the Mf factor of 62 and females show a mean T-score of 50.
Miller found similar results on the Mf
factor in working with college students at another institution. Thus, while the data were subjected to the usual treatment in terms of individual MMPI factors, tests for significance of differences among mean MMPI group patterns were made by analysis of variance in terms of subseale-bygroup interaction.
For each stage fright measure and for
men and women separately, differences among upper (severe stage fright), middle and lower groups were examined.
addition, upper and middle, upper and lower, and middle and lower group differences were tested separately. Grouping of subjects was in approximate thirds, varied for each stage fright measure and sex according to actual score grouping.
In other words, all subjects whose
8 Roy Alan Miller, "A New Application of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,” (unpublished Master’s thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1949).
20 PKCS score fell at the 33rd percentile, for instance, were grouped in the middle group.
This accounts for variation in
group sizes. Computations yielded ratios of variance estimates, significance of which were determined by reference to 9
appropriate F tables.
9 Quinn McNemar, Psychological Statistics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949), PP* 553 ff., and Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis (New York: Hinehart and Company, Inc., 1946), pp. 332 ff.
CHAPTER III FINDINGS Resulting data are here presented according to oach of the instruments used to define and measure stage fright severity. PRCS Males *
Group means on individual MMPI factors are
shown with pertinent data on group mean differences in Table I. TABLE I MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MMPI FACTORS FOR 168 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT AS INDICATED BY PRCS (GROUP A: SEVERE, N * 58; GROUP Bi MODERATE, N = 56; GROUP C: MILD, N » 54) AND CRITICAL RATIOS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUP MEANS
55.67 58.14 56.65 59.26 61.88 53.03 59.34 59.10 58.67 10.35 13.20 8 . 2 0 10.35 1 2 . 6 8 8 . 2 1 1 2 . 2 0 10.81 11.42
51.66 54.12 55.23 57.11 62.18 53.23 55.70 57.98 59.95 8.92 10.29 6.79 10.17 11.80 8.15 8.87 9.19 10.77
53.33 53.00 56.50 60.89 62.41 52.39 55.85 56.11 61.93 12.43 10.37 7.30 8.67 10.07 8.81 9.16 10.04 9.58
22 These are the data for the male subjects, grouped according to PRCS results*
It will be noted that significant differ
ences between group means occur between upper (severe) and lower (mild) groups (according to the PRCS) on the T) (Depression) factor.and between middle (moderate) and lower groups on the Pd (Psychopathic Deviate) factor* Mean MMPI profile patterns for the three groups are graphed in Figure 1*
Inspection of this figure indicates
that greatest pattern differences between upper and lower groups are:
(1) upper group— D greater than Hs (Hypochon
driasis) and Hy (Hysteria); lower group--D less than Hs and
63626159o 58? 57Eh 56— 55545352515049-
* G e n fl Population M
F a c t o r s FIGURE 1 MEAH MMPI PROFILES FOR 168 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE PRCS
23 Hy; and (2) upper group--Ma (Hypomania) less than Sc (Schizo phrenia); lower group--Ma greater than Sc factor. Significance of these and other differences is veri fied by analysis of the group pattern differences which yields a variance estimate 1.68 times the error term.
is greater than F for the appropriate degrees of freedom at the .05 level of probability. data for this computation.
Table II shows the variance
This difference is seen to be
attributable chiefly to the very significant difference between upper and lower groups while upper and middle, and middle and lower group pattern differences were not found to be significant.^*
tables of between-group variance
are presented for all groupings in Appendix D.) TABLE II ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PATTERNS ON NINE MMPI FACTORS FOR 168 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE PRCS •
Source of Variation Factors Groups Individuals Interaction Residual (Error) Total *2S> v Int/vE =
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
8 13,298 507 2 54,535 165 16 1,983 1,320 98,277 1,511 168,600 Significant at •05 level
Variance Estimate 1,662.25 253.50 330.52 123.94* 74.45 111.58
1 Upper vs. lower— Vjnt/^E = 2.55 (P less than .01) Upper vs. middle— Vint/VE = 1*20 (P greater than .05) Middle vs. lower— V m t / VE = 1*21 (P greater than .05)
MMPI factor means and between-group critical
ratios for females grouped according to PRCS results are presented' in Table III.
A very significant difference will
be noted on the Ma scale between upper and lower groups (P less than .01).
Upper and middle groups were differentiated
significantly on the Hs, D and Pt (Psychasthenia) factors of the MMPI. TABLE III MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MMPI FACTORS FOR 203 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT AS INDICATED BY PRCS (GROUP A: SEVERE, N = 6 6 ; GROUP B: MODERATE, N = 69; GROUP C: MILD, N = 6 8 ) AND CRITICAL RATIOS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUP MEANS
51.56 54.24 54.94 55.35 49.12 53.51 58.33 58.32 55.23 8.67 10.61 8 . 6 6 9.53 9.63 8.35 9.76 9.35 1 1 . 1 2
49.00 49.94 53.67 57.13 51.56 52.62 54.72 55.83 57.45 6.26 9.14 7.45 11.05 8.31 7.66 8.51 8.81 10.28
51.18 52.23 54.87 58.16 50.48 52.25 56.06 58.10 60.32 9.06 8.71 9.13 8.73 9.0 6 8.53 9.81 9.71 10.50
Mean MMPI profiles for the three groups are shown graphically in Figure 2.
Differing Hs-D-Hy relationships
seem less marked than for the males; the Pd is much greater
25 than Hy for the lower group than is the case for the upper group, and the Sc-Ma relationships are more marked and in the same directions as for the males* Hs D Hy 66 65- — •— Severe 64Moderate 65------ Mild 62610 60— & 59o 58? 57& 5655545352515049-
*Gen*l Population M
FIGURE 2 MEAN MMPI PROFILES FOR 203 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE PRCS Analysis of variance here yields
estimate 7*26 times greater than the error term which is in turn considerably greater than F at the .001 level of proba bility.
Table IV presents the variance data.
Highly significant differences were found also in p analysis of group pairs. 2 Upper vs. lower--Vjnt/^E = 2*87 (P less than *001) Upper vs. middle— Vjn-fc/Vg = 13*15 (P less than .001) Middle vs. lower--Vjn t/VE ~ 11*27 (P less than *001)
26 TABLE IV ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF PATTERNS OF NINE MMPI FACTORS FOR 203 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE PRCS
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Factors Groups Individuals Interaction Residual (Error) Total
13,856 565 51,737 7,097 97,713 170,968
* Vjn^/Vg = 7.26.
Degrees of Freedom
Variance Estimate 1,732.00 282.50 258.68 443.56* 61.07 93.63
8 2 200
16 1,600 1,826
Significant below .001 level
UTZINGER SCALE Males.
Mean and mean difference data on MMPI factors
for the men, grouped according to Utzinger Scale results, show significant differences at all levels and on six MMPI subscales.
As in the case of the PRCS, Utzinger Scale groups
were differentiated on the D (upper vs. lower) and on the Pd (lower scoring higher than upper) scales.
In addition, it
may be noted that upper and lower groups were differentiated on the Sc scale; upper and middle groups scored significant differences on the Hs, D, and Pt factors, and those subjects reported, ,fmild, ” in severity of stage fright by the Utzinger were significantly higher than the middle group on the Hs scale (P less than .01), Hy scale and the Pd scale.
27 TABLE V MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MMPI FACTORS FOR 168 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT AS INDICATED BY THE UTZINGER SCALE (GROUP A: SEVERE, N = 49; GROUP B: MODERATE, N » 6 6 ; GROUP C: MILD, N = 53) AND CRITICAL RATIOS FOR DIFFER ENCES BETWEEN GROUP MEANS
53.41 58.88 55.82 59.10 62.47 54.29 59.71 60.31 58.65 6 . 6 8 10.30 11.30 8.23 10.61 10.35 11.99 1 0 . 0 1 11.97
49.98 53.64 54.74 57.30 60.83 51.85 55.85 57.06 59.73 7.19 10.06 7.37 9.81 11.15 7.34 9.99 9.68 1 0 . 0 2
56.04 53.70 58.15 61.23 63.49 52.91 55.94 56.30 62.04 13.55 12.29 7.93 9.17 11.09 9.52 1 0 . 1 2 1 0 . 0 0 8.71
Mean MMPI profiles for the three groups appear in Figure 3.
Marked pattern differences again may be noted
between groups on the D and Ma scales and their ,Tneighboring 11 factors* Variance analysis shows very significant differences among the stage fright groups*
Computation yields an
estimate of 2.28 (P less than *01)* variance data*
Table VI summarizes the
As in the case of the males on the PRCS
grouping, greatest difference was found between upper and
28 Hs 66 55. 6463 62 61 60 u o 59 0 58 CO 1 57 E-* 56555453 52 51 5049-
Sever© Moderate •Mild
*Gen»l Population M
F a c t o r s FIGURE 3 \
MEAN MMPI PROFILES FOR 168 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE UTZINGER SCALE
TABLE VI ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PATTERNS ON NINE MMPI FACTORS FOR 168 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE UTZINGER SCALE
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Factors Groups Individuals Interaction Residual (Error) Total
13,298 1,826 53,216 2,694 97,566 168,600
* Virit/Vg = 2•28.
Degrees of Freedom 8 2
165 16 1,320 1,511
Significant below the *01 level
Variance Estimate 1,662.25 913.00 322.52 168.38* 73.91 111.58
29 lower group patterns with a highly significant estimate of 3.71*
Middle and lower group pattern differences also were
significant but this was not the case with the upper and 3 middle groups. Females»
Contrasted with Utzinger Scale results for
male subjects which showed significant mean differences on several MMPI scales, the same results for women failed to TABLE VII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MMPI FACTORS FOR 203 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT AS INDICATED BY THE UT2INGER SCALE (GROUP A: SEVERE, N = 58; GROUP B* MODERATE, N = 89; GROUP C: MILD, N = 56) AND CRITICAL RATIOS FOR DIFFER ENCES BETWEEN GROUP MEANS
52.33 53.74 55.15 57.00 49.29 52.81 57.48 58.95 56.59 9.96 8.58 9.28 8.80 10.70 9.50 11.16 9.55 1 0 . 0 1
49.61 51.94 54.30 56.88 50.88 53.77 56.82 56.34 57.64 6.94 8 . 6 8 7.55 9.98 8.80 7.89 9.43 9.33 1 1 . 0 1
50.25 50.68 54.07 56.82 50.82 51.20 54.23 57.48 58.91 8.14 9.23 8.57 9.62 8.38 8.03 9.50 9.75 10.56
3 Upper vs. lower--Vin t;/VE = 3*71 (P less than .001) Upper vs. middle— Vjnt/^E “ (P greater than *05) Middle vs. lower— Vjnt/Vg = 1 . 9 5 (P less than .05)
30 differentiate significantly on any of the MMPI factors* Table VII summarizes these data* Mean MMPI profile patterns for the three groups are graphed in Figure 4*
While pattern differences may be noted,
none are as marked as in previous figures.
® 5 o
Hs D Hy 66 6 5 - ----Severe 6 4 . ----Moderate 63----- Mild 6261605958-
*Gen*l Population M
FIGURE 4 MEAN MMPI PROFILES FOR 203 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE UTZINGER SCALE Analysis of variance on the MMPI for these groups also shows no significant pattern differences with variance *
estimates only slightly larger than the error term. VIII presents the variance data*
Paired groupings also
showed no greater pattern differences than might be attributed to chance.
31 TABLE VIII ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PATTERNS ON NINE MMPI FACTORS FOR 203 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY THE UTZINGER SCALE
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Factors Groups Individuals Interaction Residual (Error) Total
13,856 244 52,058 1,363 103,447 170,968
Degrees of Freedom 8 2 200
16 1,600 1,826
Variance Estimate 1,732.00 122.00
260.29 85.19 64.65 93.63
OBSERVERS» RATINGS An interesting set of data accrued from the judges* ratings of stage fright severity*
Since there were three
independent sets of judges, examination was made of the extent of agreement among the judge-groups•
TABLE IX DISTRIBUTION OF SEVERE, MODERATE, AND MILD MEAN RATINGS BY JUDGES IN THREE SEPARATE ROOMS (EXPECTED FREQUENCIES IN PARENTHESES)
32 the original 498 subjects, grouped in’upper, middle and lower thirds (approximate) was placed in a three-by-three Chi Square table (Table IX). o This seemingly systematic difference yielded a Chi*-' value of 58.35 which was considerably higher than Chi ♦01
level of probability for the.appropriate degrees of
Any hypothesis that this difference was due to
chance or errors of random sampling alone was untenable. Search for an explanation of this variance suggested three possibilities * 1.
Differences in the sex distribution of thejudges.
Variance among the subject groups.
Variance among the judge-groups.
The first possibility was discounted when it was
that Hoorn R held five male and five female judges and Room B (with distribution of ratings skewed toward the mild end of the scale) held six male and two female judges but that Room G (with distribution of ratings skewed toward the severe end of the scale) held seven male and two female judges. Variance among the subject groups was deemed unlikely by the highly significant Chi
cited, by the size of the
population and by the relatively even distributions on the other two stage fright measures. By such elimination, it was conjectured that the variance among judge-groups accounted for the wide differences
,35 in distribution.
Since this suggested that not one but
three measures or group-concepts of stage fright severity appeared in the data, a change was made in the procedure. To follow previously plotted methods of overfall analysis would have presented data of no real significance because of the lack of reliability or agreement among judge-groups. However, it was felt that to complete analysis of stage fright as rated by each set of judges (on the scale basis of "average stage fright” ) might yield interesting and usable data. Hoorn G.
Figure 5 presents mean profiles for the
Severe (9) Moderate (21) Mild (36) « G e n rl Population
F a c t o r s
.1 _________L .
FIGURE 5 MEAN MMPI PROFILES FOR 6 6 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY MEAN JUDGES 1 RATINGS IN ROOM G
34 three stage fright groups (male) selected by the judges in Room G.
It will be noted, of course, that smaller numbers
of subjects are represented, the upper group containing 9, the middle 21, and the lower 36.
Analysis of variance
indicated that factor-by-group interaction was not significant• These variance data are summarized in Table X. TABLE X ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PATTERNS ON NINE MMPI FACTORS FOR 6 6 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS RATED BY JUDGES IN ROOM G
Source of Variation Factors Groups Individuals Interaction Residual (Error) Total
Sum of Squares 6,310 2,095 16,334 1,191 37,632 63,562
Degrees of Freedom 8 2
63 16 504 593
Variance Estimate 788.75 1,047.50 259.27 74.44 74.67 107.19
While the factor-by-group interaction variance estimate was not significant, it was noted that between-group and within-group variance estimates varied significantly.
this reason, investigation was made of possible differences between groups on individual MMPI subscales.
summarizes these data which indicate that the mild group, as selected by the nine judges in Room G, were significantly differentiated from the middle group on the Hs, Pd, Mf
35 (P less than #01), and Ma scales#
Except Tor the addition
of the,Mf factor, this seemed to duplicate patterns'appearing in previous analyses# TABLE*XI MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MMPI FACTORS FOR 6 6 MALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY MEAN JUDGES* RATINGS IN ROOM G (GROUP A: SEVERE, N - 9; GROUP B: MODERATE, N = 21; GROUP Ct MILD, N = 36) AND CRITICAL RATIOS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUP MEANS
51.78 63.78 57.89 60.89 64.11 57.44 60.44 59.33 59.67 9 ♦32 16.52 8.95 6.41 11.05 9.08 13.36 14.76 8 . 6 8
50.24 52.19 55.86 56.05 59.48 52.52 56.67 57.00 57.52 6.82 10.82 6.17 9.62 9.62 6.95 7.64 7.79 10.69
54.56 56.06 55.67 62.50 66.67 55.83 58.67 60.17 63.28 9.25 9.29 7.46 10.26 10.79 7.62 9.48 11.43 9.60
Female subjects who spoke in Room G were distributed by the mean judges
ratings, 13 in the upper group, 28 in the
middle and 39 in the lower# in Figure
Group mean profiles are graphed
It may be noted, in contrast to all preceding
figures, that the upper group shows a peak at the Pd scale# A high Pd (and Ma) has been the mark of the mild stage fright or confident speakers on other profiles shown#
Severe (13) Moderate (28) Mild (39) * G e n fl Population M *
F a c t o r s *
FIGURE 6 MEAN MMPI PROFILES FOR 80 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY JUDGES » RATINGS IN ROOM G Analysis of variance (factor-by-group) of these patterns yields a variance estimate significant between the 9
.01 and .05 levels.
Variance data are presented in Table XII.
Differences between within-group and between-group variance suggested here, also, that the components be investi gated.
Examination of the critical ratios summarized in
Table XIII shows that for this group of women, all MMPI factors but one (Mf) differentiated significantly between paired stage fright severity groups.
Upper and middle group
means on the Hs, D, Hy (P less than .01), Pd, Pt (P less
37 TABLE XII ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PATTERNS ON NINE MMPI FACTORS FOR 80 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS RATED BY JUDGES IN ROOM G
Sum of Squares
Source of Variation
7,009 3,573 20,898 1,729 34,887 68,096
Factors Groups Individuals Interaction Residual (Error) Total * VI n t^E
Degrees of Freedom 8 2
77 16 616 719
Variance Estimate 876.12 1,786.50 271.40 108.06* 56.63 94.71
Significant below .05 level
than .01), and the Sc (P less than .01), were found to be significantly different.
Between upper and lower groups,
means on the D, Pa, and Sc scales were significantly different below the .01 level of probability and the Pt factor demonstrated significant difference as well.
the Pa scale differentiated between middle and lower stage fright groups♦
38 TABLE XIII MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MMPI FACTORS FOR 80 FEMALES GROUPED ACCORDING TO STAGE FRIGHT SEVERITY AS INDICATED BY MEAN JUDGES* RATINGS IN ROOM G (GROUP A: SEVERE, N * 13} GROUP B: MODERATE, N = 28; GROUP C: MILD, N * 39) AND CRITICAL RATIOS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUP MEANS
58.31 59.77 62.5*4 64.15 51.00 57.77 64.54 66.92 58.92 11.33 14.09 10.65 10.50 10.28 6 . 0 1 9.88 9.69 10.34
49.79 51.00 52.75 55.93 51.04 54.75 55.92 58.57 56. 82 8.67 6.36 8.58 8.45 7.71 9.24 6.78 7.75 8 . 0 0
51.77 52.31 56.67 58.69 49.26 50.69 57.20 56.79 59. 20 8.15 10.16 9.29 8.46 9.69 7.42 7.74 8.17 9.15
Rooms B and R.
In sharp contrast to the results just
cited, the MMPI data failed to show significant differences among any of the stage fright groups selected by the judges in Rooms B and R.
Nor did the analysis of variance data
suggest differences among groups on any of the MMPI factors. Mean group profile patterns for the stage fright severity groups as selected by the judges in these two rooms are graphed in Figures 7,
9, and 10.
Figures and alternating with them are the appropriate Tables (XIV, XV, XVI, XVII) summarizing the variance and estimates*
20 21 11
+ 2 4* 3 + 4 + 5 + 6
+ 7 + 8
Score 4s 9
+10 +11 +12
+13 +14 +15 +16 +17 +18 +19
+20 +21 +22
14 13 13 18 17
+23 +24 +25 Total
4 5 8
4 4 6
1 Howard Gilkinson, ”Social Pears as Reported by Students in College Speech Classes,” Speech Monographs, 9J141-60, 1942.
APPENDIX F DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS ON THE UTZINGER SCALE
80 DISTRIBUTION OP SCORES ON THE UTZINGER SCALE Any f,Yes,f response on the Utzinger Scale was marked as a fear response.
Utzinger score, then, is a simple total of
the number of fear responses out of thirty-two possible--the highest score representing the most severe stage fright. Table XXXI shows the distribution of these scores. TABLE XXXI DISTRIBUTION OP UTZINGER SCALE SCORES
Score 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22
N 0 1 1 1 2 2 0
4 3 3 4
19 18 17 16 15 14 13
29 17 14 31
5 4 3
2 1 0
N 41 39 23 33 34 21
28 28 21
An estimate of the reliability of scores on the Utzinger Scale was determined by use of the Rulon formula®^ True reliability may be said to be equal to or greater than the obtained figure of .84 according to Guilford.^
1 J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education (New York* McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1942) 2 Loc. cit.
APPENDIX G RELATIONSHIPS OP STAGE FRIGHT MEASURES
82 RELATIONSHIPS OF STAGE FRIGHT MEASURES Extent of agreement among the three measures of stage fright severity was determined in terms of correlation coefficients (Pearson product-moment) which are summarized in Table XXXII. TABLE XXXII RELATIONSHIPS OF STAGE FRIGHT MEASURES
PRCS vs. Utzinger
PRCS vs. Judges 1 Ratings
Utzinger vs. Judges 1 Ratings