VARIATIONS IN THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BEHAVIORAL MEANING OF PERSONALITY TEST SCORES

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xarox University Microfilms 300 North Zaab Rood Ann Arbor, Michigan 40100

7Z Z Z , m

LD3907 1950 0K6

a

Kornreich, Melvin, 1920Variations in the consistency of the behavioral meaning of personality test scores* N e w York, 1956* 171,112 typewritten leaves* tables* 29cm. Thesis (Ph.D.) - New York Univer­ sity, Graduate School, 1950* 3ibliography: p . 87-9 2 a C57642

Xerox University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN M ICROFILM ED EXA CTLY AS RECEIVED.

LIBRARY OP NEW YORK UNIVERSITY DBIVMRSIT7 VFIOHTP

VARIATIONS IN THE CONSISTENCY CF THE BEHAVIORAL MEANING OF PERSONALITY TEST SCORES

By

Melvin Kornreich

A dissertation in the department of Psychology submitted in partial fulfillment of the require­ ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at New York University.

April, 1950

ACKNarfLEDGEMENT

I wash to express my gratitude to Professor Thomas N. Jenkins for his advice, criticism, and constructive counsel, and to my colleagues, Gerald Bauman, Leonard Bernstein, Leonard Krasner, Alfred Libby, and Harry Stein for their assistance during all stages of this study.

I also wish to thank the medical staff of Halloran

V*A, Hospital for their cooperation in obtaining and examining the subjects used in this study.

Sheldon .Veinberg rendered valuable

assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.

Finally, this

study is affectionately dedicated to my wife, Sonya L. Kornreich, whose constant assistance and encouragement made it possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT CFTHE PROBLEM................

1

H.

BACKGROUND......................................

1

III.

RESTATEMENT CF THEPROBLEM.........................

19

IV.

RESEARCH DESIGN..................................

20

A.

Subjects..................................

20

B. Procedure.................................

21*

C. Scoring Procedure............... .

29

D. Treatment of Data......................... .

33

V. RESULTS..........................................

36

A.

Analysis of Interview Scores................

B.

Test Scores and Interview Scores.............. 36 1* The RorschachTest Scores................ .

36

Summary.............................

1*7

2m Rosenzireig PictureFrustration Scores..... Summary.

..................

3* Self-AppraisalScores................... . Summary............................ C.

36

1*7 $2 53 59

Intertest Results and Comparisons............. 60 Summary.............................

65

VI. DISCUSSION CF RESULTS............................ .

67

A.

The Different Groups of Subjects.......... .

71

B.

The Tests and Test Theories............... .

79

C.

Implications of this StucfcT- for the Use of Testing and Personality Theory....... •••••

81

VII.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...........................

83

VIII.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................

87

EC.

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

93

TABLES Page I.

II, III, IV.

LEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE AGE, YVECHSLERBELLEVUE I.Q. SCORE, AND YEARS OF EDUCATION CF THE FOUR GROUPS OF SUBJECTS...........................

21

NUNBER OF SUBJECTS IN EACH GROUP INTERVIEWED BY EACH SOPHISTICATED SUBJECT........................

26

AGREEMENT CF JUDGES ON EXTENSOR-FLEXQR JUDGMENTS OF HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES.......................

31

RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF PRINCIPAL SCORES OF SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION........................................

37

V. RESULTS OF "t» AND "F» TESTS BETWEEN THE SUBJECTS IN EACH GROUP WHO ..ERE TESTED YYITH SOPHISTICATED SUBJECT A AND THOSE WHO WERE TESTED WITH SOPHISTICATED SUBJECT B ON THOSE INTERVIEW SCORES FOR WHICH AN ®F« OF .05 CR BETTER WAS OBTAINED............................ 39 VI.

VII.

Vin.

IX.

X.

SIGNIFICANT PROIWCT-MCMENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NUMBER OF HUMAN 1JDVEMENT RESPONSES TO THE RORSCHACH TEST AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR HI THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION...................

UO

SIGNIFICANT FRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES TO THE RORSCHACH TEST AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCLVL SITUATION...........

la

TRISERIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EXTETTSOR-FLEXOR CATEGORIES OF HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES (SUBJECTS WITH MORE EXTENSOR THAN FLEXOR RESPONSES, THOSE WITH MORE FLEXOR THAN EXTENSOR RESPONSES, AND THOSE HI ’WHICH NEITHER PREDOMINATES) WITH SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.................................

h2

TRISERIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEE2I M:C CATEGORIES (SUBJECTS WITH A GREATER SUM CF HUMAN UOVHIENT RESPONSES THAN SUM OF COLOR, SUBJECTS WITH A GREATER SUM OF COLOR THAN CF HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES. AND SUBJECTS IN Y/HICH NEITHER PRE­ DOMINATES) TfETH SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION...........

h3

SIGNIFICANT PRODUGT-MGJENT CORRELATIONS BETYEEN EXTRAPUNITIVE SCCRE ON THE PICTURE FRUSTRATION STUDY AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVICR IU THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION...................

ltf

TABLES (Continued) Page XI.

XII.

Xin.

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

XVII. XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

SIGNIFICANT PRCDUCT-KOLtENT CORRELATIONS BETWEHI HJIROFUNITTVE SCORE ON THE PICTURE FRUSTRATION STUDY AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION..................

$0

SIGNIFICANT FRODUCT-MCLIENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN IUPUIJITIVE SCORE ON THE PICTURE FRUSTRATION STUDY AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR HI THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.....................

$1

SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT-NOUENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIAL INTROVERSION SCORE ON THE GUILFORD INVEN­ TORY CF FACTORS STDCR AND SCORES CF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION

$h

SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT-UDLENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THINKING HJTROVHtSIONS SCORE ON THE GUILFORD IN­ VENTORY OF FACTORS STDCR AND SCORES OF THE SUB­ JECTS VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.......................................

55

SIGNIFICANT PROUJCTVISOLDIT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ASCENDANCE SCORE ON THE GUILFQRD-UARTIN INVENTORY OF FACTORS GALON AIR) SCORES CF THE SUBJECT'S VER­ BAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION......

56

SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT-11CNENT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FREEDOM FROM INFERIORITY SCORE ON THE CRJILFCRDUARTIN DlVaiTORY OF FACTORS GAMIN AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION................................

57

SIGNIFICANT INTERTEST CORRELATIONS FOR AIL GROUPS CF SUBJECTS.....................................

61

SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT-MCUENT CORRELATIONS FOR THE TOTAL POPULATION BETWESf ALL TEST SCORES AND SCORES CF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BffiAVICR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION................................

72

SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT-MOUBIT CCRREUTIONS FOR THE CONTROL GROUP BETWEEN AIL TEST SCORES AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION................................

73

SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR THE DUODENAL ULCER CROUP BETWEEN AIL TEST SCORES AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.........................

7U

TABLES (Continued) Page XXI.

xxn.

SIGNIFICANT FRODUC T-UOUENT CORRELATIONS FCR THE ULCERATIVE COLITIS (SOUP BETWEEN ALL TEST SCORES AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.................

. 75

SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT-UCUENT CORRELATIONS FOR THE ANXIETY NEUROTICS BETWEEN ALL TEST SCORES AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION..................... .

. 76

APPENDICES Page SCRIPT OF THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION................

93

EXTEIISQRr*FLEXCR JUDGMENTS OF THE HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSE TO THE RORSCHACH TEST.......................

97

PRODUCT-MOIEIJT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN NUMBER OF HUMAN HOVEHENT RESPONSES IN THE RORSCHACH TEST AND SCCRES CF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR HI THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.........................

99

PROLUCT-MDMENT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS HETVEEN PERCENTAGE fF HUNAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES IN THE RORSCHACH TEST AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.........................

100

FRODUCT-tiCmiT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN EXTRAPUNITIVE SCORE ON THE PICTURE FRUSTRATION STUDY AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION............................

101

PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN MTROFUNITIVE SCORES ON THE PICTURE FRUSTRATION STUDY AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR LI THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.............................

102

PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN L.IPUNITIVE SCCRE ON THE PICTURE FRUSTRATION STUDY AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR LI THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.............................

103

PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN SOCIAL INTROVERSION SCORE ON THE GUIIFQRD LTVENTORY OF FACTORS STDCR AND SCORES CF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION..............

10U

PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN THINKLIG INTROVERSION SCCRE ON THE GUILFORD INVENTORY OF FACTORS STDCR AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION..............

105

PRODJCT—MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BET.IEEN ASCENDANCE SCCRE ON THE GUILFORD-MARTIN INVENTORY OF FACTORS GAMIN AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION..............

106

PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN FREEDOM FRCIi INFERIORITY SCORE ON THE OUILFORD-HARTIN INVENTORY OF FACTORS GALON AND SCORES OF THE SUBJECT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION........

107

APPENDICES (Continued) Page 108

L.

EITERTEST CORRELATIONS FOR ALL GROUPS OF SUBJECTS......

V,

PRODUCT—MOMENT CORRELATIONS FCR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN NUMBER CF HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES IN THE RORSCHACH TEST FOR SUBJECTS WHO GAVE ONE OR MORE HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES AND SCORES OF THE ’ StflJJiSCJT'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR Hi THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION.....................

110

PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS FCR ALL GROUPS BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES IN THE RORSCHACH TEST FOR SUBJECTS .VHO GAVE ONE OR MORE HUMAN MOVEMENT RESPONSES AND SCORES CF THE"StfBJSC'T*S VERBAL BEHAVIOR HI THE PLANNED SOCIAL SITUATION......................

Ill

FORMULA FOR TRISERIAL CORRELATION....................

112

N.

0.

1 I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this research is to study the consistency of the relationship betvreen certain personality test scores and ratings of verbal behavior in an informal social situation, and to determine the significance of the discovered consistency for the use and hy­ pothesized meaning of the test score for the prediction of behavior. Specific hypotheses will be stated after a brief discussion of ihe background.

H.

BACKGROUND Personality test scores are used to make specific predictions

of the behavior of the individual or to ascertain his "personality structure."

Although "personality structure" is frequently defined

in terms of a pattern of test scores and their interrelationships, there would be no point in using personality test scores if they had no predictive meaning for behavior beyond predicting how the subject would perform on similar tests.

Even here, Cronbach (16)

points out that tests apparently designed to measure the same or similar traits produce scores which correlate poorly with each other. Both single trait scores and the interconnected score elements of a pattern of scores are assumed to have certain definite and universal meanings for behavior.

However, the use of test scores to predict

behavior involves certain assumptions concerning the behavior of the individual, the instigating conditions for his behavior, the nature of the test, the relationship between the instigating conditions for the

2 subject*s behavior and the tost score or item, the nature of per­ sonality, and the nature of the interaction between the individual and the test item.

The purpose of the study is to question the

validity of certain of these assumptions* The assumptions regarding the behavior of the individual center around concepts of "typical behavior" or behavior ivhich is consist­ ent with regard to relevant instigating conditions.

Shuler (78),

using many measures of dominant—submissive behavior in children, found that, within & general environment, dominant or submissive behavior becomes more predictable vrith increasing age, but that it becomes less possible to predict such behavior for a different gen­ eral environment*

The problems which emerge for the predictor are

the exact specification of the environmental instigator of the kind of behavior which the tester wishes to predict and the determination of possible causes of inconsistent behavior. An obvious source of inconsistency is that the environmental instigator may not be the same from one situation to another.

Another source is the fact

that behavior does show "cycles and trends" (16).

Despite this

behavioral flexibility, it is usually assumed that the behavior of the individual is fairly consistent with reference to relevant en­ vironmental instigating conditions when gross motivational conditions are held constant.

If, however, it is assumed that test score var*

11dities are universal, then it is assumed that all individuals in a given population hove learned to respond vdth the same or similar behavior to a given instigator.

All members of the population,

3 therefore, must select this instigator out of the total situation. If the instigator cannot be identified by an the members of a popu­

lation, or if all members of a population have not learned to respond to it with the same behavior, prediction becomes difficult# The tester*s job is not a historical one# He usually has little time or opportunity to inquire into the past learnings of his subjects# He assumes that the individuals to whom he applies his test will identify the given instigator readily and respond to it with behavior comon to all members of the population# The question of what behavior, or^ rather, of what aspects of behavior can be predicted, and how this can best be done, brings us to a consideration of personality theory as it affects the con­ struction and use of personality tests#

Trait theorists hold that

personality consists of a series of tendencies to react in certain ways to a defined class of instigating conditions#

Specific items

on a personality tost which correlate highly with each other are considered to be measuring the same trait, the trait usually being identified by the general content of the group of items#

A configu­

rational (sometimes called "psychodynamic") theory of personality relates each aspect of an individual's behavior with every other aspect of behavior manifested by him#

The implication for pre­

diction from test scores is that the behavioral meaning of each test score is modified by t he other scores in a pattern#

Examiners

here attenpt to specify what kinds of behavior will be probable in various instigating conditions#

The difference between these two

u approaches is frequently made not in terms of the kinds of tests used, but in terms of how they are used*

It is quite possible to

use the scores from a battery of questionnaires in the same way in ■which one uses the scores from the Rorschach Test.

However, both

trait and psychodynamic approaches assume stability of modes of behavior and the universality of the meaning of the test responses or scores*

The psychodynamicist may insist that the basic meaning

of a test score is modified by other test scores and responses* However, he does act as if he ascribes a certain basic meaning to each component of the configuration (68).

Beck (6) points out that

the problem of the unity and unique organisation of personality, especially as expressed in a pattern of test scores, does not pre­ clude a study of the separate parts of the pattern*

They are two

separate and necessary scientific problems* tftiat aspects of behavior are our tests to predict?

YJhat are

the variables of personality, or, in other words, how are we to conceptualize interpersonal behavior and relate these concepts to specific aspects of interpersonal behavior?

One way is to accept

the results of a factoring procedure, such os Cattail*s (13)* which takes into account clinical observation, behavior rating, question­ naire, and objective test measurement*

Criterion and predictor are

here combined, and whan the factors emerge, they are christened in terms of the experimenter*s judgment of the elements, items, or test scores of which the factors are composed*

,/hile criterion

analysis by factoring may prove valuable in tbs long ran, at the

5 start it cannot t e U us how to order the very criterion data which it requires#

Another method of analyzing interpersonal behavior

is to accept the conceptualizations of theorists such as FToud, jung, and Adler#

The problem is how to sharpen their conceptual

analyses so that these have specific behavioral meaning#

However,

advocates of different theories apply the same concepts to quite different specific behaviors#

The pertinent illustration for this

study i3 the dispute about the nature of "introversion-extraversion'1 in which psychoanalysts, social psychologists, and factor analysts engage with each other and members of the other groups#

However,

an excellent test of a theory could be made, if one were able, with objectivity, to arrange behavioral data in terms of these theoretical concepts# A third way of arranging one's data in categories is moire pragmatic and experimental#

Such ordering could be done without

reference to any specific theory of personality or of Interpersonal relationships#

An oxazple of this is Chappie's (ill) finding of an

invariant tins relationship between the verbal responses of any pair of individuals#

Another is McClelland and Apicella's (U6) classi­

fication of verbal reactions to experimentally induced failure in terms of (a) aggressive responses directed by the subject at himself, at the examiner, at the material, or at psychology! (b) withdrawal responsesj and (c) rationalisations#

For these classifications,

there are no implications of theoretical meanings, and presumably the meanings of various classifications of responses with respect

6 to dominance—submission and introversion-extraversion will vary according to the specific instigatory situation to v/hich the responses are made and according to the theories of personality -which are applied to the responses* The categorizing of behavior has important theoretical and practical consequences for the relationshp between test and be­ havior*

Conversely, however, the nature of the stimulus which the

test presents is supposed to have important consequences for the kind of behavior which responses to the test enable one to predict* Conventionally, personality tests are divided into "projective" and "non-projective" tests*

The difference between -these two types of

tests is apparently the difference between the ambiguity and/or face-validity of the items contained in each of them and the diff­ erence in the degree of freedom in the form of the response which each type of test allows the subject*

Questionnaire of "self­

appraisal" tests are usually classified as non-proj ective • They frequently require the subject to report on his own habitual be­ havior or his attitudes toward other persons by answering the questions put to him "Yes," "No," or

Objections to self­

appraisal techniques are based on the grounds that individuals may not be able or willing to report their own behavior in the same way in which other observers might*

Some testers apply corrections and

tests of consistency to the test scores*

Other defenders of the

questionnaire, however, ore willing to accept the subject's test behavior as a sasple of behavior and to relate this to extrantest

behavior*

The clues of "which the predictor can make use ere the

inconsistency of the subject's responses and the nature of the sub— ject's appraisals of himself*

Since the examiner can no longer

attribute the behavioral meaning to the scores "which the author of the test indicated, he must himself establish the meaning of the test response for extra-test behavior* Projective tests, on the other hand, present unconventional, ambiguous items of various kinds in an attempt to elicit responses from the subject "which will represent his typical behavior without the added factor of the subject's censorship of what he considers socially unacceptable behavior#

In this way, the most ambiguous

stimuli are considered to provide the subject with the greatest opportunity to reveal his past experience and present wants (£2). Interpretations of the behavioral meanings of these responses are usually made in terms of the theory of personality held by the au­ thor of the test*

The question is whether or not the degree of

ambiguity in the test item and degree of restriction of freedom of the form of responses have any effect upon the use of the test score or test response as a predictor of behavior*

Perhaps an even more

pertinent question to ask is whether or not distinctions can profitably be rcmdft in terms of ambiguity of test item and degree of restriction of freedom of the form of responses so far as the most frequently used testa are concerned*

Projective tests, because of their sup-

poosed ability to elicit uncensored responses, are held (26) to act like an X-Ray apparatus or as Wilson Cloud Chambers do, in that the

8 "basic” structure of the personality is revealed.

Not only can

habitual overt behaviors of many kinds be predicted, but also covert behaviors together with the reasons for them.

Non-proj ective (self­

appraisal) tests scores are supposed to predict only that behavior about which the test items require information.

The difference in

the use of the scores from these two types of tests for prediction is made first in terms of the area of behavior predicted, and sec­ ondly, in terms of the "depth" or level of prediction* The tests which are to be used in this study are two selfappraisal tests, the STDCR and GAHHI questionnaires of the GuilfordMartin battery5 the Rorschach Test, which presents an ambiguous ink­ blot to the subject; and the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Study, which presents 2U cartoons of specific frustrating social situations which the subject must complete.

In conventional terms, the self­

appraisal inventories would be considered the least ambiguous of the three tests, so far as the nature of the test item is concerned* It would also be considered the test which allows the least freedom in the form of the response ("Yes," "No," "?")• of the STDCR Inventory:

Examine item 19

"Are you inpatient when waiting for a mem­

ber of your family or for friends?"

Compare this with situation

23 of the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Study*

A woman dressed

for travel has interrupted a telephone conversation to explain to a man surrounded by luggage, "It*s Auntie*

She wants us to wait

a while until she can get here to give us her blessing again*" Vftiile the "Yes," "No," or "?■ choice of the STDCR is apparently

9 much more restrictive than the blank space for the Picture Frustra­ tion answer* the Picture Frustration situation is a far more specific test item*

Hie STDCR, being less specific* requires more intelli­

gence of the subject in order for him to make accurate judgments* Much depends on the subject»s choice of instances of his own typical behavior with regard to many different persons who stand in different relationships to him* and on his interpretation of this behavior* The point at issue here is that conventional distinctions between so-called projective tests and non-projective tests may be invalid* A more useful distinction might be made in terms of the speci­ ficity of both question and answer*

Unless self-appraisal inventories

require highly specific information which can easily be checked by others* it seems reasonable to assume that the inventory scores nay be just as dependent on the individual*s needs and past experience as are projective test scores*

If this is true* it seems reasonable

to treat questionnaire scores as behavior samples and to investigate the relationship of this behavior to extra-test behavior without accepting any a priori meanings assigned to it*

The area of be­

havior measured by each type of test would be determined not only by the nature of the test items themselves but to same degree* at least* by the subject»s interpretation of the test item put to him* Some of the undsrlyii*? bases of the assumption of the universali­ ty of the meaning of a given test score have been questioned*

How­

ever* no evidence has been presented which precludes the ascription of some universal meaning to a test score*

The tests and test scores

10 which have been chosen for this study "were designed to predict various aspects of the individual’s social behavior#

The two

questionnaires were composed by factorial methods, the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Study in terms of Rosenzweig»s theory of frustra­ tion, and the Rorschach Test partly pragmatically and partly in terms of psychoanalytic theories of human behavior#

Guilford—Martin

questionnaire scores of Social Introversion, Thinking Introversion, Ascendance, and Freedom from Inferiority trill be used#

The Picture

Frustration Study scores of Extrapunitiveness (Outward Aggression), Intropunitiveness (Inward Aggression), and Impunitiveness (Non­ aggression) also will be used#

From the Rorschach Blots, the num­

ber and percentage of human movement responses to the cards will be utilized#

Prior studies of the validity of these test scores

in terms of the behavioral meanings hypothesized for them should give us some clue to the nature of the meaning of the score and of the possibility of its universal application# The only reported studies of the behavioral meaning of the Guilford-Uartin Inventories have been made in terms of other question­ naires (hli), in terms of factoring procedures (Li5, 82), and in terms of certain psychiatric categories (90)#

Thurstons (82) obtained,

with a different factorial approach, fewer and different factors from those which Guilford posited#

The objection to using most

psychiatric classifications is that reliability of psychiatric diag­ noses is frequently low ($9)«

Furthermore, similar kinds of behaviors

appear in individuals placed in different diagnostic categories and

11 ■widely different, behaviors with reference to the sane situations appear in individuals in the sane diagnostic category.

Care must

therefore be exercised to specify exactly -what the diagnostic label means in terms of the behavior In -which the experimenter is inter­ ested*

Of the validity of the STDCR Inventory, Guilford says in

his manual (30), "The determination of validities of scores of per­ sonality tests is a most difficult problem. versally lacking*

Good criteria are uni­

This statement merely expresses a situation

realistically* n No serious test of the predictive ability of the Picture Frus­ tration Study has been made.

Rosenzweig

(63) makes the distinction

between primary frustration or privation and secondary frustration in which emphasis is placed on obstructions in the path to the goal of "the active need**1 While Rosenzweig recognizes the existence and importance of substitutive responses to frustration, he divides the ego-defensive responses to frustration in terms of their direc­ tion: extrapunitive, intropunitive, and impunitive*

Franklin and

Brozek (27) report the results of a comparison of Picture Frustra­ tion Study scores of tests administered during and after semistarva­ tion.

No differences are reported*

This is scarcely a sufficient

test of the Picture Frustration Study or of Rosenzweig1a theory* Aside from the poor design of the study, the test responses may reveal modes of reaction to frustration which may remain the same, whatever the nature of the frustration* Among the test scores we are to consider in the present in—

12 vestigation, the human movement response to the Rorschach blots has been given the greatest number of different interpretations by different authors*

This makes the establishment of a specific

meaning "which has universal applicability difficult at the very start*

Piotrowski (55) gives the clearest statement of the Rorschach

examiner *s point of view regarding the meaning of the many scores with which he has to deal and points to the existence of a basic meaning for each score: "Every symbol has a basic or constant, and a conditional or variable meaning*

If properly defined, each symbol always has the

same basic meaning regardless of the quality and quantity of all the other symbols occurring v.ith it in the same Rorschach record* The conditional meaning is an addition to the basic meaning with which it cannot be incompatible j it specifies the basic meaning, adding useful information about the subject's personality," Rorschach discussed the human movement response in terms of its significance for imagination and "introversion*" He borrows from the psychoanalytic school the concepts of introversion and extraversion, quoting Freud (60) on introversion, n***a part of the love which previously belonged to a real love object, and still should belong to it, was introverted, was turned inward, into the subject and there caused increase in fantasy,"

Freudians (25)

divide fantasy into "creative fantasy," which prepares for some later action, and "daydreaming fantasy," which becomes a substi­ tute for action in introversion*

The latter is regarded as patho—

13 logical*

Rorschach is quick to point out that he, with Jung, does

not regard introversion as pathological but regards the basis of introversion as "thinking," and the basis of extraversion as "affect," Eysenck and his co-workers (21;) have recently reported that American psychologists tend to share the Freudian view, associating "intro­ version" with neuroticism, and that American and other questionnaire makers tend to define introversion—extraversion in terms of socia­ bility,

Lack of sociability, Eysenck demonstrated, is associated

with neuroticism*

However, he produces both introverted and extra-

verted neurotics, adhering to Jung's analysis.

The Guilfords (32)

break introversion-extraversion into three aspects: intellectual, emotional, and social,

Thornton and Guilford (81) using a ques­

tionnaire of introversion-extraversion, tested Rorschach*s conten­ tion that human movement scores indicate introversion and color scores indicate extraversion.

They find no relationship between

questionnaire scores and Rorschach*s experience types.

Of course,

Eysenck's criticism can be applied to the study* Rorschach treated the human movement response in another way* He characterized the behavior of individuals who see "extension" movements as self-assertive and the behavior of individuals who see "bent, burdened, or twisted figures" as passive, Rorschach in ascribing

ethers have followed

many meanings to the human movement response*

KLopfer (Uo) claims that the human movement response is an indicator of intelligence, of "creativity" or imagination, and reports in the same study that human movements are direct indicators of the social

behavior of the subject*

To Beck (8), the human movement response

is the “creative act*" indicating imagination; it is, in its ade­ quacy of form and its number, a measure of intelligence; and most importantly, it is “wish—fulfilling fantasy*"

Beck agrees (6) that

this fantasy may have different functions in different individuals, but underlines its significance as fantasy*

Piotrcrwski (f>£) claims

that the human movement response reveals the subjectfs conception of his role in life, "«*«a definite tendency, deeply imbedded in the subject and not easily modified, to assume repeatedly the same attitude or attitudes in dealing with others, when the subject feels important personal matters are involved*" The meanings of human movement responses are offered in terms of "creativeness," intelli­ gence, and either actual social behavior or "wish-fulfilling" fan­ tasy*" Creativeness is a difficult concept to define and to measure* Lane (hi) reports that after she suggested to one case under hyp­ nosis that the subject was a poet, the number of human movement responses rose from 3 to 13*

Hie problem of human movement as a

measure of intelligence is more easily approached*

Herts (88)

reports a correlation of *2£ between number of human movement re­ sponses and Stanford—Blnet I.Q, in children*

Wishner (88) reports

a correlation of *206 between number of human movement responses and Wechsler-Bellevue Scale I.Q. for a population of U2 neurotics* Altus and Thompson (3) report correlations of *37 end *Ul between number of human movement responses and Altus Measure of Verbal

15 Ability and Ohio Psychological Examination respectively, for a pop* illation of 100 college students*

Etas for these same two measures

of intelligence on number of human movement responses were m$h and .63. So far as the behavioral meaning of the human movement response is concerned, the last pair of interpretations discussed above, '•wish-fulfilling fantasy" and "role in life," is the most important far our study.

Host Rorschach testers accept the human movement

response, with few limitations, as an indicator of the overt social behavior of the subject.

Piotrcrwski (~>$) adds two provisions, that

the subject must regard the situation as having important personal meaning, and that other scores may modify the meaning of the response. It seems just as reasonable to accept the alternate hypothesis: human movement responses as indicators of substitute and/or compen­ satory behavior for overt behavior.

A case can be made for the

tendency to make covert substitute or compensatory responses in situations where hostility or assertiveness is provoked but pre­ vented by anticipatory responses to punishment or the withholding of reinforcement.

The studies of Swift (80), and Young and Higgin­

botham (91) on the behavioral meaning of various Rorschach scores in children and adolescents, using various ratings of their subjects* actual behavior, revealed either that there is no behavioral meaning for these scores or that the traits measured by them may not have appeared or have been recorded.

Hertzman and Pearce (38) studied

human responses to the Rorschach Test with and without movement in

16 twelve subjects undergoing psychoanalysis# Many different kinds of personal neanings were revealed in the course of the treatments# The authors suggest, "It is even possible that the ability of the person to accept himself without conflict may minimize the personal significance of the human response#" A survey of studies involving the four tests wo are using to predict various aspects of social behavior indicates either that no universal meanings have been demonstrated or that no demonstra­ tions of them have been attempted, whether in projective or nonprojective tests.

Cattell(l2), and more recently, Rosenzweig (67)

have addressed themselves to the problem of the lack of immediate interpretability of projective test results#

Cattell suggests that

these responses tap overt, covert, and unconscious levels of behavior# Rosenzweig approaches these levels from the point of view of the test respondent#

He calls these levels subjective (self-critical

or consored responses), objective (overt: sample of the subject's behavior), and projective (implicit: responses in terms of uncon­ scious or latent attitudes)# In view of these considerations, and in view of the lack of evidence to the contrary, it is suggested that personality test scores nay not have universal meanings of a specific nature, or that the universal neanings, if they do exist, become distorted beyond usefulness for predictive purposes in the interaction between the various factors in the test and the respondent#

The complexity

of personality and the uniqueness of different personalities are

17 arguments for this point of view. Such studies as Bruner and Goodman's (10), Sanford's (72), Levine's (1*2), and Bartlett's (f?0) indicate that materials of vary­ ing degrees of ambiguity are all interpreted in terms of personal meanings and that these personal meanings are more narked the greater the conflict or frustration.

The conflict may have been a product

of past experiences in the subject or of the experimental arrange­ ments.

It is suggested that the generalized questions and the am­

biguous items which personality tests contain present the opportu­ nities to the subject to respond to them in these personal terms* The subject Trill tend to respond to both types of personality tests in terms of his most important past experiences and present wants, in terms of frustrations, conflicts or deprivations.

To the degree

that specific frustrations, conflicts, or deprivations arc common problems, they will give a common meaning to the test response. To the degree that they are not connon, the relevant test scores will not have a consistent meaning from group to group.

Therefore,

it is quite likely that the test scores or responses v/ill have different predictive meanings for groups which have different back­ grounds in terms of the behavioral characteristic for which predic­ tion is attempted.

For individuals for whom there existed no frus­

tration or conflict in terns of the behavior variable, there would exist no motivated selection of the experiences reported.

Conse­

quently, the test scores might bear little relationship to the be­ havior.

This would also be true of a group of individuals which

18 had no homogeneity of experience for the kind of behavior studied. The subject's conflicts would be far mere important for prediction than the "projective" or non-projective" nature of the test itself. The testing of the opposing hypotheses of "wish-fulfillment" or "role in life" as the meaning of the human movement response to the Rorschach Test, for example, v/ould be meaningless in terns of this point of view.

The important question is for what groups would

either or neither interpretation be valid.

The implication of this

point of view for test interpretation is that one must know more about a subject than single test scores to predict his behavior adequately.

Perhaps to know some general biographical material*

e.g. - that a norson is a member of a group with a specifically defined behavioral disturbance, may be all that one needs to know in order to do this.

Perhaps scores on related tests are enough.

If this point of view has some basis in fact, it would suggest a reorientation with resnect to test theory and practice.

19 IH.

RESTATE ETJT OF THE FROBLEK Tlie purpose of this research is to study the consistency of

meaning or validity of certain test scores of assertiveness and hostility, using behavior in a plarnod social situation as a cri­ terion.

The foil wing hypotheses are proposed:

HYPOTHESIS I: Test scores will bear different relationships to criterion behavior in the planned social situation for various clinical groups.

HYPOTHESIS II: These relationships will be statistically significant for those traits which are considered to be clinically in ortant for the group. HYPOTHESIS III; Projective tests are no nore adequate than non-^projective tests as a means of predicting criterion behavior in the planned social situation.

The discussion of this h:/pothesis will naturally fall

into two categories: first, whether magnitude of validities is any greater for projective than for non-projective tests; secondly, whether number of significant relationships is any greater for nrojective than for nor—projective test scores.

20 17.

RESEARCH DESIGN A. Subjects The kinds of subjects chosen and the reasons why they were

selected constitute one of the most important elements of the ex­ perimental design#

There were four groups of subjects: Controls,

ArxLety Neurotics, Duodenal Ulcer patients, and Ulcerative Colitis patients. In all, 125 white male veterans of Viorld War U parti­ cipated#

Means and standard deviations for their age, I#Q,, and

education are reported in Table I# The Control group consisted of $0 patients who requested sur­ gical treatment for pilonidal cyst and inguinal hernia#

Neither

of these two conditions has been reported to be associated with psychological, psychiatric, or psychosomatic difficulties#

An in­

guinal hernia group had previously been used as a control group in a study concerning Aiodenal Ulcer patients (20)#

None of the pa­

tients used had a history of psychiatric or psychosomatic diffi­ culties, nor were any complaints reported by them in interview or by any members of the hospital staff associated with them. The Duodenal Ulcer group consisted of 2$ Qiodenal Ulcer pa­ tients for whom definite evidence of ulcer was obtained#

Those

patients who were not demonstrated to have an ulcer by gastrointes­ tinal examination were rejected although their complaints and symp­ toms resembled those of Duodenal Ulcer patients#

The reason for

the selection of this group of subjects was not the medical diagnosis per se,but the kinds of behavior which have been reported consistently

21 Table I Means and Standard Deviations of the Age, Wechsler-Bellevue I.Q. Score, and Years of Education of the Four Groups of Subjects Group Control

Duodenal Ulcer

Ulcerative Colitis

Age (Years) Mban S.D.

25 .11* Lu28

28.20 1*.60

28.16 l*.ll*

27 81 l*.2l*

Education (Years) Mean S.D.

10*51 2.73

10 1*8

. 2.01

11.92

11.96

2.79

2.33

113 .lU 11.67

110.72

119.68

115.61*

10.1*1

11.61*

9.07

I.Q. Score Mean S.D.

Anxiety Neurotics

.*

22 of Duodenal Ulcer patients.

The radical studies (11, 20,U9,69)

report the association of onset of symptoms with immediately pre­ ceding changes in work, financial difficulties, illness or misfor­ tune in a member of the family.

All the studies agree that the

Duodenal Ulcer patient has problems which center around security, responsibility, independence, and the adequacy of the social be­ havior of the patient.

The most complete report of pertinent lit­

erature (69) concludes that the psychological problems of this type of patient are nearly always associated with conflict over "dependence-nondependence,” and with compensatory behavior for desired assertiveness or dependency upon others. The Ulcerative Colitis group consisted of 25 Ulcerative Colitis patients.

In each of these cases, the cause was determined by the

medical staff to be idiopathic (cause unknown) rather than to be caused by a micro-organism. dramatic disease.

This is a comparatively unusual and

Daniels (19) reports that he knows of few osycho-

somatic conditions in which the relationship between precipitating situation and onset of synptoms is more striking.

The precipitating

situation often occurs from 2U to 28 hours before onset of symptoms. Mortality rate is reported ftom 30% to hO% (83)*

We are not directly

concerned with the relationship between onset and symptom, but we are interested in the kinds of behavior and conflicts which are con­ sistently reported of these subjects.

The various studies (11,18,

19,3£, 79,83) report the unequivocal dependence upon mother, wife, or sister and the usual lack of accomplishment despite good intellec­

23 tual and educational resources* is the reported area of conflict*

However, of cost Interest to us These subjects are characterised

by all of the studies as overly sensitive and fearful, with ‘'tre­ mendous pent-up rage," likely to stew over an imagined insult* Heath (35) points out the difficulty which most of these individuals would have if they did express hostility against the people upon whom they have been dependent all of their lives*

Dependency-

nondependency seems not to be the most important conflict in these subjects*

The dependency relationship seems to be accepted by the

subjects*

It is the inability of the subject to express his hos­

tility which would seem to be of importance, according to the lit­ erature. The Aixiety Neurotic group was composed of 25Ansti.ety Neurotics who reported to an outpatient cli-'-ic with complaints of generalized somatic tensions and pains which had no discoverable physiological basia*

These complaints prevented then from fully engaging in the

mwifli social, occupational, and recreational activities*

No subject

was accepted for this group who had ever been hospitalized in a psy­ chiatric hospital, who had a history or present complaints of spe­ cific gastrointestinal disorders, or who had complaints of delusions or hallucinations.

Nearly always, complaints of headaches, inability

to concentrate, nightmares, and visceral tensions were accompanied by difficulties with colleagues, ei^iloyers, friends, and members of one *s family*

Anxiety is generally considered to be the funda­

mental phenomenon in neurosis*

The cause of neurosis has come to

2h be considered a social one in large part; that is, it is related to a disturbance in interpersonal relationships,

While it is true

that neurotics exhibit as great diversity as normals in personality and that the "mechanisms of defense" or behavioral symptoms vary greatly, two of the principal characteristics of neurosis are social inadaptability and indiscriminateness of response, i . e . ..a given attitude is assumed not only when appropriate but even in the most unsuitable circumstances." (86)

Homey (39) suggests that the im­

portant general factor in the development of neurosis is the re­ pression of hostile impulses.

Although neurotics act in different

ways with reference to the expression to hostility, we^phould obtain some general findings i: this respect for this group, if Hon.oy is correct.

Their social behavior is most disturbed, and their con­

cern vrith their relationships with other people is Great.

B. Procedure The subjects were obtained as scon as nossible after t hey en­ tered the hospital or clinic for treatment.

They were told that,

although some of the tests they were about to undergo were routine, a good part of the six hours of testing would be devoted to experi­ mental tests, and that the examiner was attempting to obtain test norms for groups vdth their illness.

The testing usually took two,

and sometimes three sessions, totalling six to eight hours.

25 * These tests were administered: (A) Wechsler-BeHevue Intelli­ gence Scale Form I, (B) Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Study (adult form)3

(c) Quilford-Martin

Inventories of Factors STDCR and GAMIN,

and (d) the Rorschach Test. The Rorschach Test was always the last one administered, was administered in the conventional way (6, Uo).

it

After its con­

clusion, the subject was told that he would take one last, short test together with one or two other people, but that another examin­ er would conduct the test.

The subject was then led into another

room where the planned social situation was enacted. The purpose of the planned social situation was to provide an opportunity far the subject to respond under conditions of social stress.

The new examiner escorted the subject into a new testing

zoom and asked him to wait until the examiner returned with another subject.

The examiner soon returned with one of the two sophisti­

cated subjects.

(Table II describes the distribution of subjects

by sophisticated subject and group).

He asked the sophisticated

subject to take a seat at the end of the desk opposite from the subject.

He announced that he would return in a few moments with

# Reliability coefficients for the personality test scores and responses used in this study are as follows: Schwartz (77) reports the test-retest reliability of Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Study scores (N - 200) as .83 for E, *65 for I, and .1*6 for M. Guilford (30, 31) imports split-half reliabilities (N - 200) of .92 for S, .89 for T, .88for A, and .89 for I of the twolnventories used. Thornton and Guilford (81) report split-half reliabilities of human movement scores as .919 and .768 for two groups (N - U2 and 58). Herts (36) reports split-half reliability of .7U5 on the same score (N - 100).

26 Table II Number of Subjects in Each Group Interviewed V/ith Each Sophisticated Subject Sophisticated Subject A

Sophisticated Subject 3

Subject Group Control

25

25

IXiodenal Ulcer

10

15

Ulcerative Colitis

11

lU

Anxiety Neurotic

13

12

Total

59

66

27

the test which they were both to do and left the room*

A script

of the exact words and behavior of both examiner and sophisticated subject had been prepared and was scrupulously adhered to in almost all cases*

The script for the planned social situation is contained

in Appendix A*

The sophisticated subject waited for one minute in

order to give the subject an opportunity to start conversation* He then delivered his four statements about the weather, the loca­ tion of the hospital, and the purpose of the test, remaining as close to the time requirements of the script as possible by con­ sulting the stop-watch on his wrist*

The examiner entered two

minutes after his first departure, gave instructions, deposited test papers and pencils, and left*

The test consisted of 22 items,

each of which had a sample compass and five compasses with which it was to be compared* each sample compass*

A change of orientation was required with The instructions were confusing, the printing

difficult to make out, and the examiner not very helpful. phisticated subject*s copy contained his script.

The so­

The sophisticated

subject delivered four statements concerning these obstacles*

Four

minutes after the test started, the examiner re-appeared, checked the number of items which the subject and later the sophisticated subject had completed*

The sophisticated subject always claimed

to have done five more items than the subject*

The sophisticated

subject was commended and the subject*s performance was deprecated* Then, the examiner left the room*

The sophisticated subject waited

the customary one minute to allow the subject to speak, and then

28 made remarks about the examiners* the examiner left the room.

A buzzer rang two minutes after

He returned at the end of four minutes,

inquired about the performance of the two subjects, behaving as he did during the last interruption.

Before he left the room this

time, he requested that, if either subject finished before the ex­ aminer returned, the subject remain in the room,

’.Then the examiner

left, the sophisticated subject began to criticize the performance of the subject.

This continued for four minutes, at the end of

which the examiner returned and ended the test by asking first the subject and later the sophisticated subject what each thought of the test. The sophisticated subject was instructed to "reflect” or echo the words of the subject in case the subject's statements did not fit into the framework of his role.

He could give information about

himself, that is, parts of his "cover" story, only when this informa­ tion was specifically requested by the subject.

The cover story

of the sophisticated subject was that he was a job-seeker who lived in a distant part of the city, and had come looking for clerical work with this department.

He knew nothing about the test, but

assumed that it was part of the selection procedure,

The examiner

could give no information about the test in response to questions except to advise the subject to re-read the instructions.

Hie en­

tire interview was recorded on a tape recorder in the next room. The microphone was concealed between the two subjects.

The inter­

view was recorded from the time of the entrance of the examiner with

29 the sophisticated subject to the time of the subject*s response to the last question, ,rWhat did you think of it?"

The entire inter­

view took fourteen minutes and thirty seconds*

It was suggested

by the behavior samples and stress interviews used by the O.S«S. (5U)* Freeman (28, 29), and others*

C. Scoring Procedures Hie Picture Frustration Study responses were scored independ­ ently by tiro examiners according to the directions in Rosenzweig*s Manual (66).

In the few cases of disagreement, the examiners dis­

cussed the response and modified their scoring of it.

Clarke et.

al* (15) report^ 8l£ agreement in the scoring of 136 records by two examiners*

The scores used in this study were Extrapunitiveness,

Intropunitiveness, and Impunitiveness* The human movement responses and color responses to the Ror­ schach blots were scored according to Piotrowski1s definition of them (55)*

The MsC ratio was computed after the conventional man­

ner (60), and the number and percentage of human movement responses were obtained for each record. No general definition of extensor and flexor movement is avail­ able*

Piotrowski (55)* Beck (8), and Klopfer (UO) talk of exten­

sion and flexion, giving an example or two*

Rorschach (60) mentions

"extension" and "bent, burdened, or twisted figures*" The dynamicstatic scale proposed by Zubin (9U) in which he scores absence of movement 0, static or frozen movement 1, forced movement 2, tension

30 3, and active movement U, is not strictly applicable to the prob­ lem because he is concerned with the vigor of movement rather than its direction.

Moreover, the question of equality of scale inter­

vals arises when one combines two or more scores*

Because of the

supposed meaning of the extensor-flaxor classification of human movement responses for assertive or submissive behavior, the need for classifying a.n human movement responses in these terms arose* Therefore, the kind of movement reported was abstracted from all human movement responses, listed, and presented to five judges for independent judgment according to the following definitions: Extensor — movement directed toward the environment and away from the center of the body* or non-overt movement (about to do) having am outward direction or envi­ ronmental aim; Flexor -

movement of the body contracting toward its own center, or covert movement with no environmental aim*

Because of the need to have all human movement responses scored, the criterion was agreement of three out of the five judges* judgments for each kind of movement are listed in Appendix B*

The De­

grees of agreement for both kinds of response are contained in Table III.

On only 22 responses or 193 of the 118 responses did more than

one of the judges disagree with the others*

The various kinds of

responses were tabulated for each record and each record was placed in one of these classifications:

(a) number of extensor responses

greater than number of flexor ones; (b) number of flexor responses greater than number of extensor ones; and (c) equal number of both kinds of responses or no movement responses at all*

The records

31 Table III Agreement of Judges on Extensor-Flexor Judgments of Human Movement Responses Degree of Agreement of Judges: Total 3/5 V5 no*

5/5

%

Extensor judgments

h$

Hi

n

70

59

Flexor judgments

21

16

u

1*8

la

Total number

66

30

22

%

56

25

19

118 100

32 whose classifications were contingent upon a response which had re­ ceived a three out of five judgment totalled 29 of the 125 records (15 control records, 8 neurotic records, 5 ulcerative colitis records, and 1 duodenal ulcer record)*

Of these, 8 were in the neither cate­

gory, 8 in the predominantly extensor, and 13 in the predominantly flexor categories* The raw scores for the Quilford-Uartin Social Introversion, Thinking Introversion, Ascendance, and Freedom from Inferiority classifications were computed and used in their raw state* The verbatim scripts of the planned situation were scored in two ways*

First, the kinds of verbal behavior were classified in

terms of the number and kinds of expressions elicited by the planned social situation from the subject according to the following scheme: a)

number of statements made to sophisticated subject not in answer to direct questions; b) number of statements made to examiner not in answer to direct questions; c) total number of statements made not in answer to direct questions; d) number of answers made to sophisticated subjects ques­ tions; e) percentage of answers made to sophisticated subject's questions; f) number of answers made to examiner's questions; g) percentage of answers made to examiner's questions; h) total number of answers; i) sum of statements and answers made by subject; j) index: number of subject's statements number ot subject's answers * Obviously, we should not ascribe any a priori meanings to the presence or absence of any of these categories of verbal responses, in a subject's record*

Few statements may indicate independence

33 and application of the subject to the task at hand, or the with— holding of hostile responses, or in combination with many answers, submissiveness to the other people in the situation# The verbal responses were then scored in terms of direction of hostility#

The scheme used by Rosenzweig (66) for his Picture

Frustration Study was adopted with some modification#

It was con­

sidered an excellent conceptualization of the esqsression of hostil­ ity and possessed the further advantage of making interview hostil­ ity scores directly comparable with scores on the Picture Frustra­ tion Study# a) b) c) d) e)

The following interview scores were obtained:

Interview Extrapunitiveness (Outward Aggression) score; Interview Intropunitiveness (Inward Aggression) score; Interview Impunitiveness (Non-Aggression) score; Interview Extrapunitiveness directed against persons only (rather than against objects); Percentage of responses scorable in terms of hostility#

The verbal responses of the $0 control subjects, 1929 responses in all, were independently classified into the above categories by two judges#

There was agreement on l5U6#5 or 80#l£ of the scores#

This is as high as the percentage of agreement, 81%, which Clarke et# al# (15), report^ of two independent scorers of Picture Frus­ tration Study responses#

D.

Treatment of Data

First, the principal interview measures are to be examined by analysis of variance to determine if significant differences exist between those parts of each group tested by different sophisticated

3U subjects*

If there are significant differences, a more specific

analysis of the variance trill be made by diagnostic group, sophis­ ticated subject used, and interaction between the two (1*3j U8)* If required, Mt*sn and ,tF ,st? will be computed for separate groups in order to determine whether significant differences in scores are due to the behavior of the different sophisticated subjects* Product-nonent correlations will be computed for all of the test scores (number and percentage of human movement responses to the Rorschach; Extrapunitive, Intropunitive, and Inpunitive scores of the Picture Frustration Study; Social Introversion, Thinking Introversion, Ascendance, and Freedom from Inferiority scores of the Guilford-Martin Inventories) with all of the scores obtained from the planned social situation*

Correlations will be calculated

separately for the four subject groups and for the total population* In addition, triserial correlations will be computed for the four groups separately and for the total population by dividing each sample into three sections*

The three categories will be: those

in whose Rorschach record extensor human movements predominate, those in whose Rorschach record flexor human movement responses predominate, and those in whose records neither predominates* Secondly, the records will be divided into those records in whose Rorschach records human movement responses are greater than the weighted sum of color response, those in whose Rorschach records the reverse is true, and those in whose records number of human movements equals the weighted sum of color responses*

These two

35 sets of test characteristics will each be correlated with all the social situation scores, by means of the triserial correlation co* efficient*

See Jaspen, N* Serial Correlation* Psychametrika, 191*6, 11, 23-30, and Appendix 0 of the present study*

36 V.

RESULTS A,

Analysis of Interview Scores

Before the various interview scores could be used, it was nec­ essary to ascertain whether or not there were any systematic diff­ erences between the groups.

If there were, could these differences

in interview score be attributed to the behavior of the two sophis­ ticated subjects rather than to the subjects themselves?

The groups

were divided into categories by diagnostic group and sophisticated subject used (see Table II).

The results of the analyses of vari­

ance by principal interview score are listed in Table IV.

Group

differences at or above the .05 level of significance were obtained for the following interview scores: number of answers to the sophis­ ticated subject, interview extrapunitiveness, interview impunitiveness, interview extrapunitiveness directed against persons only, and percentage of responses scorable in terms of hostility.

Further

analyses of the variances of the scores into separate components revealed that in interview impunitiveraess, the significant differ ence was due to the difference in diagnostic category rather than to the sophisticated subject*s behavior.

Of the other four scores,

the only significant difference which could be traced to variance due to the sophisticated subject was the number of answers to the sophisticated subject. However, "t" and "Fn tests were conducted for all the inter­ view scores for which significant differences were shown except interview Impunitiveness.

(The significant difference in irtpuni-

37 Table 17 Results of Analyses of Variance of Principal Scores of Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation By Sophisticated Subject and Subject Group

Significance of "F”

.Vhere "F" is Significant, the Significance of Variance Due to: Sophisticated interaction Subject Subject Group

Subject*s Interview Scores Ihsig* No* of statements to SS*-* Insig* No* of statements to Ew-k* .01 No* of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered Ihsig. Ihsig. No* of answers to E Insig. % of E*s statements answered Insig. Index: Statement/answers Ihsig. Statements and answers Interview Extrapunitiveness 0$ Insig. Interview Intropunitiveness .01 Interview Inpunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against .05 persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility .05

-5H5- Sophisticated subject ■sKM* Examiner

Ihsig,

.01

.01

Insig.

Insig.

.01

.01

Ihsig.

Insig.

Insig.

Ihsig.

.01

Insig.

Ihsig.

.05

38 tive score was demonstrated to be a function of diagnostic category). Table V indicates that there were no significant differences in means when each subject group was divided on the basis of the sophisticated subject with whom the subjects were interviewed.

The difference be­

tween the two halves of the Anxiety Neurotic group in the variance in number of answers would seem to be a reflection of the somewhat greater number of statements addressed to this group by one of the sophisticated subjects.

Since there is no significant difference

between groups interviewed with different sophisticated subjects in percentage of answers to statements by the sophisticated subjects, we can accept with some confidence the findings of no significant differences between groups for number of answers to sophisticated subjects.

Generally, we can conclude that there do not seem to be

systematic differences in the subject's interview behavior, classi­ fied in terms of our rubrics, which are due to differences in sophis­ ticated subject, B.

Test Scores and Interview Scores 1.

The Rorschach Test Scores

Tables VI and VII contain those product-moment correlations significantly greater than zero at .05 level of confidence or better between number and percentage of human movement responses respectively and a n of the behavior scores.

Tables VIII and IX

contain all triserial correlations between extensor-flexor cate­ gories of the human movement response and interview scores and between categories of human movement to color ratios with all of

39 Table V Results of "t" and "F" Tests Between the Subjects in Each Group V/ho were Tested With Sophisticated Subject A and Those Who Were Tested With Sophisticated subject B on Those Interview Scores for Y/hich an WF" of .05 or Better was Obtained Control

Duod. Ulcer

Ulcerat. Colitis

Anxiety Neurotics

Insig. Insig.

Insig. Insig.

Insig. Insig.

Ihsig. .01

Insig. Insig.

Insig. Insig.

Ihsig. Insig.

Ihsig. Insig.

Insig. Insig.

Insig. .05

Insig. Ihsig.

Insig. Insig.

Ihsig. Insig.

Insig. Insig.

Insig. Ihsig.

Insig. Ihsig.

Subject *s Interview Scores Ho. of answers to SS t F Interview Extrapunitiveness t F Extrapunitiveness against persons only t F % of responses scorable in terms of hostility t F

Uo Table 71 Significant Product—Moment Correlations Between Number of Human Movement Responses to the Rorschach Test and Scores of the Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Control Number

$Q

Groups Duod, Ulcerat* Ulcer Colitis 2$ 2£

Anxiety Total Neurotics 25 12£

Subject*s Interview Scores I No* and It of responses: No* of statements to SS-** No* of statements to E-*** Total no* of statements No* of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered No* of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no* of answers Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

—

*li2#

—*38* —

— —

________________ *^8# — — — — — — — — —

II Direction of hostility: Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Intropunitiveness ______________________-*U0# Interview Impunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

*# **-

Significantly different from zero at *01 level Significantly different from, zero at *0£ level Sophisticated subject Examiner

Table VII Significant Product-Mbment Correlations Betireen Percentage of Human Movement Responses to the Rorschach Test and Scores of the Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Control Humber

£0

Groups IXiod. Ulcerat. Ulcer Colitis 2£ 2£

Anxiety Total Neurotics 2$ 12f>

Subject*s Interview Scores I No. and % of responses: No. of statements to SS* No. of statements to E-*bbcTotal no. of statements

________________________________ .U2#

No. of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered No. of answers to E _______ _ % of E*s statements ansvrered Total no. of answers Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

________________________ •hk# '

II Direction of hostility: Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Ihtropunitiveness Interview Impunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only _____________________ % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

* #

*^3# .5>5>*

Significantly different from zero at .01 level Significantly different from zero at .05 level Sophisticated subject Examiner

1*2 Table VIII Triserial Correlations Between Extensor-Flexor Categories of Human Movement Responses (Subjects with More Extensor than Flexor Responses, Those with More Flexor than Extensor Responses, and Those in littiich Neither Predominates) with Scores of the Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Control Number

50

Groups Duod. Ulcerat. Ulcer Colitis 25 25

Anxiety Total Neurotics 125 25

Subject *s Interview Scores I No* and 5 of responses:

No. of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered No. of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no. of answers Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers II

.11 .15 .li*

-.61* .39 -.80

-.10 -.01 -.09

-.01 .08 -.03

-.05 -.03 -.06

-.13 .23 .12 .10 -.11

-.01 .05 -.1*5 -.1*6 -.09

.11 .07 .21 .27 .17

.11* .11* .20 .11* .17

-.03 .15 -.01 .03 -.11*

.07 .22

-.001 -.92

-.02 -.17

.05 -.16

-.06 -.01*

-.26 .21* .07

-.la .73 -.31

-.08 -.10 .18

-.01* .19 .-.08

-.17 .17 .05

-.03

-.09

-.10

-.01*

-.06

.21*

CN CO . 1

No* of statements to SS->* No. of statements to Total no. of statements

.10

-.19

-.05

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Intropunitiveness Interview Impunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only % of responses scorable in terns of hostility

■5H:- Sophisticated subject -X&X Examiner

1*3 Table IX Triserial Correlations Between M:C Categories (Subjects with a Greater Sura of Ifuraan Movement Responses than Sum of Color, Subjects with a Greater Sum of Color than of Human Movement Responses, and Subjects in which Neither Predominates) with Scores of the Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Control Number

50

Groups Duod, Ulcerat* Colitis Ulcer 25 25

Anxiety Tot* Neurotics 25 125

Subject *s Interview Scores I No. and % of responses:

sh Sophisticated subject -:k h* Examiner :-

.11 .11* .13

•33 .17 -•21 -.23 .28

.1*2 .16 -.11 -.11 .38

-.16 .03 .27 .26 -.12

.03 .07 -.30 -.37 .001

.20 .09 -.09 -.10 .18

.38 .13

.09 -.la

-.01 .07

.21 .27

.18 .05

.11 .07 -.19

-.22 .28 -.10

-.18 .25 -.03

.11 -.35 .22

-.09 .05 —.05

.Oil

-.Hi

-.22

-.09

-.53

-.15

-.16

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Intropunitiveness Interview Impunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

•

.21* .08 .26

-3 CM .

II

-.03 .18 .02

. 1

Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

-.01 -.32 -.10

rn CM

No# of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered No# of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no# of answers

.22 •38 .30

0 *

Significantly different from zero at ,01 level Significantly different from zero at #05 level Sophisticated subject Examiner

“•^2$ __ #U3#

Anxiety Total Neurotics 25 125

Table XVI Significant Produet-Moment Correlations Between Freedom from Inferiority Score on the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN and Scores of the Subject's Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Control Number

50

Groups Duod. Ulcerat. Ulcer Colitis 25 25

Subject's Interview Scores I No. and % of responses: No. of statements to SS-::-* No. of statements to Total no* of statements No. of answers to SS % of SS's statements answerecT No. of answers to E % of E's statements answered Total no. of answers

•69*

•hi#

Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers H

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Ihtropunitiveness Interview Bnpunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

* if **

Significantly different from zero at .01 level Significantly different from zero at .05 level Sophisticated subject Examiner

Anxiety Total Neurotics 2$ 125

this factor.

All significant correlations with interview behavior

for Thinking Introversion are negative except for the correlations of test score with statements to the examiner and percentage of his statements answered, for the Control group.

For the total popula­

tion, Thinking Introversion correlates negatively with answers to sophisticated subject, total answers, and Interview Extrapunitiveness directed against persons.

There are no significant results

here for the Duodenal Ulcer Group.

For the Ulcerative Colitis group,

Thinking Introversion is correlated negatively with total answers and total verbal activity.

For the Neurotic group, Thinking Intro­

version is correlated negatively with number and percentage of an­ swers to examiner.

For the Controls, Thinking Introversion is cor­

related positively with statements to the examiner and with per­ centage of his statements answered, but negatively with Index, total verbal activity, and Interview Extrapunitiveness directed against persons.

Again, a universal meaning for the Thinking Introversion

score comes just short of being established.

While a general mean­

ing for Thinking Introversion might have been the withholding of verbal behavior, relationships found for other groups do not hold at a n for the Duodenal Ulcer group.

For the Anxiety Neurotic group,

Thinking Introversion is associated with behavior which has to do specifically with the examiner.

It is correlated negatively with

percentage of answers to the examiner's statements.

It is correlated

positively with the same score for the Controls, and it also relates to other aspects of the Control group's interview behavior.

59 Correlations with Ascendance scores are important principally for the Duodenal Ulcer group, which had no significant results at all in correlations with Thin!ring Introversion.

For this group,

Ascendance score correlates negatively with statements to sophisti­ cated subject, answers to sophisticated subject, total answers and total verbal activity. verbal responses.

Hence it is associated with an absence of

For the Ulcerative Colitis group, Ascendance

score is associated negatively with total verbal activity and with Interview Intropunitiveness.

For the Anxiety Neurotic group, As­

cendance is correlated positively with Interview Inrpunitiveness• For the Control group, it is correlated negatively with total an­ swers, as in the Duodenal Ulcer group, and positively with percent­ age of answers to examiner's statements. The correlations with Freedom from Inferiority are significant only for the Duodenal Ulcer group, correlating negatively with an­ swers to the sophisticated subject's statements and with total an­ swers •

This serves to confirm and to underline the findings for

this group with Ascendance score.

Correlations between questionnaire scores and interview scores reveal the sane patterns that we have obtained from other test scores. Correlations dealing with Social Introversion produce no significant results.

Correlations dealing with Freedom from Inferiority produce

results only for the Duodenal Ulcer group, test score correlating negatively with number of answers to the sophisticated subject and

with total number of answers*

Correlations dealing with Thinking

Introversion produce the most numerous results of any test score* For the Control group, Thinking Introversion correlates positively with number of statements to examiner, and percentage of examiner's statements answered*

For the same group, it correlates negatively

with percentage of sophisticated subject's statements answered, with Interview Extrapunitiveness against persons only, and with total verbal activity*

For the Ulcerative Colitis group, Thinking Intro­

version correlates negatively with total number of answers made and total verbal activity.

For the Anxiety Neurotic group, it correlates

negatively with number and percentage of examiner's statements an­ swered* group.

There are no significant results for the Duodenal Ulcer However, the Duodenal Ulcer group produces the most numerous

significant results for Ascendance score*

Test score correlates

negatively with number of statements to the sophisticated subject, number of answers to him, total number of answers, and total verbal activity*

For the Controls, test score correlates positively with

percentage of examiner's statements answered and negatively with total number of answers.

For the Ulcerative Colitis group, Ascend­

ance score correlates negatively with total verbal activity and with Interview Ihtropunitiveness. C . Intertest Re suits and Comparisons The intertest correlations may throw some light on the prob­ lems we have set for ourselves and upon the meanings of the test score — interview score correlations.

Table XVII contains the

61 Table XVII Significant Intertest Correlations for All Groups of Subjects Control Number

£0

Groups Duod# Ulcerat# Ulcer Colitis 2£ 2£

Anxiety Total Neurotics 2£ 12£

Correlations Between Picture Frustration Study Scores and rfuman Movement Responses to the Rorschach Test: Extrapunitive score and no# of human movements fj of human movements Intropunitive score and no# of human movements % of human movements Imnunitive score and no* of human movements % of human movements

#U£*—#91-*

Correlations Between Guilford-IJartin Scores and Human Movement Responses to the Rorschach Test: Social Introversion score and no# of human movements ______________ *1^4# % of human movements Thinking Introversion score and no# of human movements _________________________________________ #26-* % of human movements Ascendance score and no# of human movements % of human movements Freedom from Inferiority score and no# of human movements ____ —#36-* _________ —#60*- ____________ —#22# % of human movements _____ _ Correlations Between Guilford-Llartin Scores and Picture Frustration Study Scores: Social Introversion score and Extrapunitive score Intropunitive score Impunitive score______ _________________________ Thinking Extroversion score and “ Extrapunitive score Intropunitive score _______________ #61* Impunitive score______ _______________________ _ # #

Significantly different from aero at #01 level Significantly different from aero at #0£ level

62 Table X V H (Continued) Control Number

£0

Groups Duod* Ulcerat* Ulcer Colitis 2£ 2£

Anxiety Total Neurotics 2£ 12$

Correlations Between Guilford-ilartin Scores and Picture Frustration Study Scores: Ascendance score and Extrapunitive score Intropunitive score Bapunitive score Freedom from Inferiority score and Extrapunitive score Intropunitive score Impunitive score

*Wi#

Correlations Between V/echsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale and Human Nbvenent Responses to the Rorschach Test: Total I.Q, and no* of human movements______________________ *l£#______________ *22# % of human movements

*

Significantly different from zero at *01 level Significantly different from zero at *0£ level

significant results of intertest correlation.

The only significant

correlations of the Rorschach human movement response with Picture Frustration Study scores are a positive correlation between percent­ age of human movement responses and Ihtropunitiveness for the Con­ trol group* and a negative correlation for Bnpunitiveness and num­ ber of human movements in the Rorschach Test for the Ulcerative Colitis group.

It should be recalled at this point that the prin­

cipal difficulty pointed out in the literature for the Ulcerative Colitis group is the expression of hostility. Questionnaire correlations with the number and percentage of human movement responses of the Rorschach are interesting again be­ cause results from two groups, Control and Ulcerative Colitis, agree in a negative relationship between Eheedom from Inferiority and num­ ber of human movements in the Rorschach,

This relationship, although

it is mirrored in a low and significant correlation for the total population, is not revealed by the other groups.

Social Introversion

score correlated positively with number of human movement responses for the Duodenal Ulcer group, and Blinking Introversion with number of human movements for the total population, but this is a low cor­ relation despite its significance. Picture Frustration Study scores and Quilford-LIartin intercor— relations reveal these results.

For the Duodenal Ulcer group, Test

Ihtropunitiveness is associated positively with Thinking Introversion, (Vfliile Test Ihtropunitiveness correlates highly with certain aspects of Duodenal Ulcer interview behavior, Thinking Introversion correlates

6h not at all with these aspects of behavior,) For the Ulcerative Colitis group, Freedom from Inferiority correlates positively with Test Extrapunitiveness, and Thinking Introversion negatively with Test Impunitiveness, Correlation of the number and percentage of human movement re­ sponses in the Rorschach with Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence scores reveals product—moment correlations of ,iil for the Ulcerative Colitis group, and of ,22 for the total population. results are in line with prior studies.

The total population

However, an eta of ,U2,

significantly different from zero at the ,01 level and significantly curvilinear at ,01,was computed for I,Q, on percentage of human movement responses.

The eta for I.Q. on number of human movements

is ,28, but not significantly different from zero and not signifi­ cantly curvilinear.

This finding is somerv.'hat different than that

of Altus and Thompson (3), who found a high eta for I.Q, on number of, and not on the proportion of, human movements in the record. Comparisons of validity coefficients obtained with the various tests reveals that no single test provides measures which yield more numerous significant findings or correlations of a greater magnitude than those which the measures of other tests produce, The U:C ratio produces no significant results and the extensor— flexor aspect of the human movement response gives results only for the Duodenal Ulcer group.

Findings for number and percentage of

human movement responses are somewhat more numerous, involving the Control, Anxiety Neurotic, and Ulcerative Colitis groups.

So far

as the Picture Frustration Study is concerned, Impunitive score cor­ relations with the criterion yield no results*

Intropunitive score

gives significant results for the Duodenal Ulcer and Ulcerative Co­ litis groups.

The Extrapunitive score results give significant cor­

relations for all groups.

Questionnaire scores, ostensibly measures

of overt behavior, give the same kind of results.

Correlations of

criterion measures with Social Introversion yield no significant results, those with Freedom from Inferiority significant results for the Duodenal Ulcer group.

Correlations dealing with Thinking

Introversion reveal significant results for all groups except LUodenal Ulcer, and those dealing with Ascendance score, for all ex­ perimental groups, but not for the Total group*

Ihtertest correlations show different relationships from group to group*

Number of human movements is negatively correlated with

Picture Frustration Study Impunitive score for the Ulcerative Coli­ tis group.

Correlations between questionnaire scores and human

movement responses reveal principally a negative relationship between number and percentage of human movements and Freedom from Inferiority for the Ulcerative Colitis group.

There is a significant correlation

between Blinking Introversion and Picture Frustration Ihtropunitive­ ness for the Duodenal Ulcer group.

Correlations between percentage

of human movements and I.Q. are curvilinear. A comparison of validity coefficients indicates that projective test scores do not obtain more numerous, nor greater, correlations

66 than non-projective test scores*

Certain scores (LI:C ratio, Picture

Frustration Study Enpunitive score, and STDCR Social Introversion) yield no significant results*

Others give results for one or two

groups, and some (Picture Frustration Extrapunitive score and GALIIN Ascendance) give significant results for all groups*

67 VI.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS A review of the results obtained, group by group, reveals tiro

things.

First, there are no relationships between test scores and

criterion scores -which hold for all the groups.

Secondly, there

are significant and high correlations between different test scores and different behavior scores for different groups.

Our criterion

for consistency of variability is that the same significant rela­ tionship, no natter how small for the total group, should hold for each of the subgroups in the total population.

For example, the

product-moment correlation between Test Extrapunitiveness and amount of verbal activity in the interview is *3U for the total population. This is significantly different ffcom zero at the .01 level of con­ fidence.

However, this result is brought about by the contributions

of a correlation of .52 (.01) for the Control group and *7h (.01) for the Duodenal Ulcer group.

The Ulcerative Colitis group contrib­

utes an r of *08 and the Anxiety Neurotic group an r of -.07.

The

r of .3U for the Total group does not, despite its significant dif­ ference from zero, indicate a consistent behavioral meaning of the test score for

components of the total population.

An examination of the correlation tables shows that usually where there are significant correlations between the same test score and interview measure for two or more groups, these significant cor­ relations are not mutually contradictory, but are either all positive or ail negative*

This holds for all but one pair of correlations,

that of the Control group and the Anxiety Neurotics between Thinking

68 Introversion and percentage of the examiner*s statements answered. For the Control group, r is #29 and for tho Neurotic group it is — *50.

For the rest, the inconsistency of meaning of test score is

due to the fact that the same test score vd.ll, for the different groups, correlate significantly with different interview measures, or, for one group, a given test score will not correlate signifi­ cantly at all with any interview scores, while for other groups it will correlate significantly with several interview measures# The demonstrated inconsistency of meaning of the test scores for interview behavior does not argue against a "basic" meaning for test scores#

However, if there is such a basic meaning, it

would seem to be modified in some cases almost beyond recognition by the operation of other variables, one of which is here repre­ sented by the clinically known differences in behavior of the mem­ bers of the various groups# The way in v/hich one constructs and uses tests, and plans ex­ periments, is greatly dependent upon one*s conception of personal­ ity and of traits#

A trait may be considered a general disposition,

so that a person may be categorized in terms of the amount of hos­ tility he demonstrates#

A trait may also be considered a disposi­

tion called out or manifested in certain situations (51)•

It is

the latter view which Piotrowski (55) uses when he states that the human movement response to the Rorschach represents "role in life" in situations in which the subject is personally involved#

Thus,

even if a score had a consistent meaning for the behavior of every

69 subject in the social situation, it nay not have become apparent simply because the social situation nay have been interpreted dif­ ferently by members of the different subject groups, provided that the members of each group had certain behavior characteristics in common for the relevant variables which differed from those of mem­ bers of the other groups*

This is the very point of the study, that

prediction is a function not only of the test response itself, and of the tfbasic" meaning it supposedly has, but also is a function of the subject responding to the behavioral situation* Ihis point of view has been a common one among intelligence testers who carefully inquire about a subject's educational back­ ground, the geographical area in which he received the major part of his education, and the language or languages v/hich are spoken in his home*

From this body of information, the examiner draws

certain conclusions about the validity of comparing the results obtained from this subject with those of subjects from the stand­ ardization group about whose background with reference to the rel­ evant variables the author of the test has provided specific infor­ mation.

Authors of personality questionnaires provide only the

vaguest descriptions of the populations from which test norms have been derived*

Certainly, little is known of their behavior or back­

ground with reference to those traits or behaviors with which most questionnaires are concerned* different problems*

Projective techniques offer somewhat

Test norms are frequently obtained for different

populations, but these populations are seldom selected with an eye

70 to evidence of a common behavior "which the projective test response* or a certain aspect of it* is supposed to predict#

Khen a homogeneous

population is found* and a relationship discovered* between an aspect of the test and an aspect of the behavior of this population* such as the meaning of the c* (the response to the blackness of the Ror­ schach cards) in the records of the Alorese (22)* frequently this meaning is uncritically- applied to populations which do not have the same background with reference to the behavior* personality* or life history. However, the possibility arises that certain test scores will have more consistent relationships with behavioral measures than other scores# discussion#

Vfe can offer an explanation in terns of the previous

./e are all members of the same culture* sub-culture*

social group* etc#

“here are bound to be certain frustrations*

conflicts* and deprivations which are more common than others in a given culture*

The present study provides us with an example#

The Picture Frustration Extrapunitive score may have a more general meaning than the other test scores#

Ihrphy (£l) points out the as­

sociation of assertiveness with aggressiveness in our culture.

lie

also indicates the conflict which arises early in childhood because reinforcement is given for being obedient and dependent (upon one's parents* elders* and teachers) and also for success in competition with one's age-peers#

Later* the conflict becomes greater when

pressure is put upon individuals to “assert themselves*1’ “be ag—

71 gressive," and become "extraverted,11 after a life of learning to be submissive, obedient, and dependent*

Homey (39) emphasizes

another facet of the same problem in stressing the conflict over the expression of hostility as a response to the fear that parental affection will be withdrawn* In the present study, however, vre have not found any test scores which have the same behavioral meaning for all groups.

There are

six pairs of correlations which are in agreement, the same tost score being significantly correlated with the same interview measure for each pair*

The Control group and the Ulcerative Colitis group are

members of one pair, the Control group and the Duodenal Ulcer group are members of two pairs, and the Duodenal Ulcer and Ulcerative Co­ litis groups are members of three pairs*

Of all the groups of sub­

jects, the last two are most similar in the nature of their behavior problem* A.

The Different Groups of Subjects

What is the effect of different behavioral difficulties on the relationship between test score and behavior?

Tables XVIII through

XXII present a sunaary of significant correlations, this time group by group, omitting only the triaerial correlations computed (see Tables VIII and H ) • Perhaps the most significant question we can pose concerns the test score or scares around which the significant results for each group arrange themselves*

For the total population,

these scores are Test Extrapunitiveness and Thinking Introversion* This is also true of the Control group, and the Control group con-

72 Table XVIII Significant Product-Moraent Correlations for the Total Population (II oquals 125) Between All Itest Scores and Scores of the Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Rorschach #LI MJ&

Rosenzweig PF E I II

Ouilford-Uartin S T A I

Subject*e Interview Scores I No*' and % of responses: No* of statements to SS-«* No* of statements to E-s h h * Total no* of statements No* of answers to SS of SS*s statements answered Ho* of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no* of answers

- . 20# -»Zfr*

%

Statements and answers Index: Statements and answers II

'

-*26* *31**

Direction of hostility:

Interview Ertrapunitiveness Interview Intropunitiveness Interview Sqmnitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

* Significantly different from zero at *01 level # Significantly different from zero at *05 level ** Sophisticated subject *** Examiner #11 indicates no* of human movement responses in the Rorschach Test* indicates percentage of human movement responses in the Rorschach Test* E indicates Extrapunitive score in the Picture Frustration Study* I indicates Ihtropunitive score in the Picture Frustration S t u d y , II indicates Bnpunitive score in tho Picture Frustration Study* S indicates Social Introversion score in the Guilford STDCR* T indicates Thinking Introversion score in the Guilford STDCR* A indicates Ascendance score in the Ouilford-Uartin GAMIN* I indicates Freedom from Inferiority score in the (Xiilford-Uartin GAMIN.

73

Table XIX Significant Product-i^oment Correlations for the Control Group (N equals 50) Between All Test Scores and Scores of the Subject's Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Rorschach Rosenzweig PF Guilford-Uartin # M I $ 2 E I M S T A I Subject's Interview Scores I Ho. and % of responses: No* of statements to SS** No* of statements to E*** Total no* of statements No* of ansv.-ers to SS % of SS's statements ansrwered_ No* of answers to E % of E's statements answered _ Total no* of answers Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers II

-*U9#

.29#.52-.la *

.52^

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Intropunitiveness Interview Iiapunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persona only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

* #

S ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t from aero at .01 le v e l S ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t from ze ro a t .05 le v e l S o p h is tic a te d s u b je c t

*** Examiner

-.28#

127# .38*

7h Table XX Significant Product-Ifoment Correlations for the Duodenal Ulcer Grown (H equals 2£) Between All Test Scores and Scores of the Subject13 Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Rorschach Rosenzweig PF # H l £ E I H

Guilford-Liartin S T A I

Subject*s Interview Scores I No* and % of responses: No* of statements to SS-:h * No* of statements to Total no* of statements

_____ ______ ________ *K2*— *53*~

No* of answers to SS________________________________ ____________ -*58-«— *69* % of SS*s statements answered No* of answers to E % of E*s statements answered —*6U-tfTotal no* of answers_______ _____________________________________“•56-k— *lil# Statements and answers Index; Statements/answers

______________ •7k* ________________ “•51*

II Direction of hostility: Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview fivtropunitiveness Interview inpunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

Significantly different from zero at *01 level Significantly different from aero at *0f? level Sophisticated subject •a** Examiner

#

IS Table XXI Significant Product-Moment Correlations for the Ulcerative Colitis Group (II equals 2J>) Between All Test Scores and Scores of the Subject’s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Rorschach jftl 1$

Rosenzweig PF E I LI

Guilford-LIartin S T A I

Subject’s Interview Scores I No* and % of responses: No* of statements to SS** No* of statements to E*k* Total no* of statements

* W

No* of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered No* of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no* of answers

“JEST

-•91*

•SS*

-•lit# -•E 6 # -*ia #

Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers II

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Intropunitiveness Interview Impunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

* # ** ***

-*U3#

-*uo#

Significantly different from zero at *01 level Significantly different from zero at »0S level Sophisticated subject Examiner

76

Table XXII Significant Product-Moment Correlations for the Anxiety Neurotic Group (IJ equals 2*>) Between A H Test Scores and Scores of the Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Rorschach Rosenzweig FF Quilford-Martin l£ E I M S T A I Subject*s Interview Scores I No* and % of responses: No* of statements to SS** No* of statements to E*** Total no* of statements

_________

2# *U5#

No* of answers to SS___________ *1*2# % of SS*s statements answereH No. of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no* of answers Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

II

-*il3# -*U3# ______________ -*£0#

_ *1*8# *U1*#

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitiveness Interview Ihtropunitiveness Interview Jtapunitivemess Extrapunitiveness against —— — — — persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

»li3# —

—

—

Significantly different from zero at *01 level # Significantly different from zero at .0? level Sophisticated subject *** Examiner v-

—

—

—

—

77 tributes twice as many subjects to the total as does any other group of subjects,

The Control group was conposed of hospital patients

who were awaiting minor surgical treatment.

They were usually, at

time of testing, somewhat concerned about their treatment and about their being tested. of the surgery.

Self-concern was great despite the minor nature

Being tested would have done little to allay vrorry,

and a good deal to augment thinking about one1s self in these sub­ jects who had usually little to do with psychology or psychiatry. The significant findings for the Duodenal Ulcer group clearly concern ascendance and submission.

The test scores are:

Test In-

tropunitiveness and Test Extrapunitiveness, Ascendance, Freedom from Inferiority, and the extensor-flexor characteristic of the Rorschach human movoment response.

Test Extrapunitiveness refers

not only to the expression of direct hostility but also to demands that others help one out of difficulties.

Test Thtropunitiveneas

refers not only to the acceptance of guilt and blame, but also the acceptance of responsibility for solving one*s problems.

In theory,

the extensor human movement is concerned with ascendance, the flexor human movement with submissiveness.

Usually the Duodenal Ulcer re­

sults come in pairs of correlations for the sane series of test scores, one member of each pair confirming the other correlation. Of the U

significant correlations obtained for the Ulcerative

Colitis group, U are obtained with number or percentage of human movements, 1 with Test Ebctrapunitiveness, 2 with Test Intropunitiveness, 2 with Thinkii« Introversion, and 2 with Ascendance,

Cf the

78 11 significant correlations, 8 are negative ones, indicating the higher the test score, the less the verbal behavior.

Three of the

total of four correlations dealing with direction of hostility of interview were obtained with this group.

The known behavioral prob­

lem of this group is the withholding of responses of hostility# The results obtained would seem to concern both hostility and the withholding of responses in general# Cf the three groups with knov.-n behavioral difficulties, the Anx­ iety Neurotic group's difficulties are the least specific#

Of the

10 significant correlations, U are provided by human movement re­ sponses (both number and percentage), 2 by Test Extrapunitiveness, 1 by Test Impunitlveness, 2 by Thinking Ihtrcversion, and 1 by As­ cendance#

tilth the exception of the Ulcerative Colitis croup, the

Anxiety Neurotic group's significant correlations cover the widest range of test scores#

They have only one finding in common with

another group, and compared with the other groups, their findings show no consistent pattern.

In the other groups, where total ver­

bal activity correlates with any test score, it correlates with Test Bxtrapunitivenesa or Ascendance or both#

Here, it correlates

positively with number and percentage of human movement responses. Test Ertrapunitiveness and Thinking Introversion both correlate negatively with number and percentage of answers to examiner's state­ ments, but the correlation between Test Extrafunitiveneaa and Think­ ing Introversion for the Neurotics is insignificant#

The focal

problems which would seem to concern this group ease to have some

79 thing to do with whatever human movement represents, perhaps fan­ tasy and its relations with real life#

Cronbach (16) suggests ade­

quacy of self-concept as a general meaning# here.

it might be applicable

The second problem would seem to be dealing with hostility#

The most clear-cut results have been obtained from the two groups of whose behavior and history most is known: litis and Duodenal Ulcer#

Ulcerative Co­

The attempt was not to obtain the be­

havioral meanings of the test scores for even these groups, but rather to show that test meanings may wary with the nature of the personality (wresunably with the nature of the life-experience and learnings, and conflicts in learning#) D,

The Testa and Test Theories

So far as the prediction of the formal categories of behavior measured in the planned social situation is concerned, neither pro­ jective nor non-projactive test yields a greater number of signifi­ cant correlations, nor greater correlations#

If one cannot accept

the meanings of the questionnaire scores at their face value, and they cons to have meanings other then those which are hypothesised or which seem reasonable for them a priori# the same is true of projective test scores#

Illustrative of this point is the fact

that Ascendance score is frequently correlated with the withholding of responses rather than with making independent statements#

This

may very well be due to the nature of the planned social situation# Cto the other hand, Test Extrapunitlve, Ihtropunitive, and Definitive scores do not correlate signifioantly with their counterparts in

80 the interview scores, nor with any of the interview scores which indicate direction of hostility#

However, these test scores do

correlate significantly with scores of the statement-answer analy­ sis of the verbal behavior#

Rosenzweig (67) suggests that the rea­

son for this nay lie in the nary "levels" tapped by his test# "This discussion of levels in the P-F study obviously raises sons questions regarding the interpretations which are justified after a subject’s record has been scored and summarized#

As a

working assumption the P-F Study is ordinarily taken to have valid­ ity at Level II (behavioral), unless there is specific information to the contrary#

The reason for this assumption lies in the fact

of clinical experience, such as they are# would be harder to justify#

Any other assumption

At the sane tine, it must be recognized

that there is no guarantee of correctness for this working assump­ tion, .," Thus, the examiner cannot tell whether test scores indicate the subject's conception of his own behavior, or his conception of what constitutes socially acceptable behavior, or his "unconscious* tendencies to behave in a given manner, or "reaction formation," behavior which is the direct opposite of these "unconscious" tend­ encies#

order to use these results, the examiner must know such

more about the subject's behavior, his interpretation of various situations as instigators or non-instigators, and about the relation­ ship between the test score and the subject's behavior# The opposing interpretations of the meaning of the human move-

81 mant response, as "wish—fulfillment" or substitute activity, on the one hand, and "role in life" on the other, would seem to offer to the tester a neat conflict to study#

Our results suggest that

this is not a very fruitful question to put to the data#

A more

significant one is which interpretation is true for each of our groups#

The relationships between number and percentage of human

movement responses and interview scores for the Ulcerative Colitis group support the "wish-fulfillment" theory#

The triserial cor­

relations for the Duodenal Ulcer group between extensor-flexor cat­ egories and interview scores can be interpreted to support either theory#

The

greater number of statements associated with predom­

inantly flexor responses can be interpreted as demands for support and assistance made upon other people, or as assertiveness, since these are statements not dependent upon inquiry,

Ihe Interview

Intropunitiveness associated with predominantly extensor responses can be taken to indicate submissiveness and a tendency to take blame, or a willingness to take on responsibilities and to solve one*s own problems#

Either explanation is defensible#

Hie point is not the

multiplicity of explanations available, but the fact that these re­ sults are true of only one group# C,

Implications of this Study for the Use of Testing and Personality Theory

In dealing with single scores at both sides of the correlation forrula, we may have lost sight for a while of t}» fact that per­ sonality is a complex thing, that behavior in test and interview is mltiply determined, and that we are dealing with overt behavior

82 only*

However, clinical and other applied psychologists frequently

predict and predict successfully*

They predict not only what other

psychologists will say about a subject, but also specific aspects of the subject's behavior*

We know that they change the "basic"

meanings of a test score or response to arrive at the prediction* '.That we do not know is the nature of the modifying variable*

The

present study suggests that the search for this modifying variable is the path toward more accurate prediction*

It may be the subject's

past history, some aspect of his behavior, or another test score or response or pattern of scores which reveals this behavior*

.what­

ever it is, this study suggests that no psychologist can subscribe to a simple checklist of meanings for test scores, no matter what the nature of the test is which he employs *

83 VII.

SUMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS A search for consistent validities for both projective and

non-projective test scores, when different clinical groups are used, reveals no such consistencies so far as the present criterion is concerned.

Hie Present results do not argue against a "basic" mean­

ing or validity for these test scores, but they suggest that tliis behavioral meaning may be modified drastically by the operation of factors which are unknown to a tester or difficult for him to iso­ late.

i&cwledge of these factors, which would seem to be related

to a subject*s behavioral difficulties, would seem to be necessary for more adequate use of test scores to predict the behavior cri­ terion. 1.

No relationship between a given test score and a given criterion score holds for all experimental groups.

Fre­

quently, a given tost score correlates with different cri­ terion measures for different groups. 2.

Significant relationships between test score and criterion score8 are obtained for those test and criterion scores which seem to be related to the clinically observed dis­ turbance or conflict of the subject. a.

The Duodenal Ulcer group, with reported difficulties with "dependenee-nondepcndenee" and adequacy of social behavior, obtain significant correlations with the following test scores:

Picture Frustration Study Ebo-

trapunitive and Intropunitive scorea, Quilford—liartin

8U Ascendance and Freedom from Inferiority scores* and the extensor-flexor aspects of the human movement re­ sponse to the Rorschach Slots. b.

The Ulcerative Colitis group* with reported difficulties In the expression of hostility which is related to de­ pendency problems* obtain three of the four significant correlations which deal with scores of interview (cri­ terion) hostility.

This group obtains significant cor­

relations with the following test scores:

number and

percentage of Rorschach human movement responses* Pic­ ture Frustration Study Extrapunitive and Intropunitive scores* and Quilford—Martin Thinking Introversion and Ascendance scores. c.

The Anxiety Neurotics* with reported general somatic and social difficulties* obtain significant eorrola^ tions with the following test scores:

number and per­

centage of human movement responses* Picture Frustra­ tion Study Extrapunitive and Ispunitlve scores* and Quilford-Uartin Thinking Introversion and Ascendance scores* d.

The Control group* whose only reported difficulties were worry over their impending surgical treatment and eoneem over being tested* obtain significant cor­ relations with the following scores:

the fasrest re­

sults* except for the Duodenal Ulcer group* in number

85 and percentage of human movement responses. Picture Frustration Extrapunitive score, Quilford-Liartin Social Introversion and Ascendance scores, and the greatest number of results obtained, on Ouilford-LIartin Think­ ing Introversion score* 3*

The results of correlations between criterion scores and aspects of the Rorschach human movement response suggests that the proper question to put to the data is not which of the conventional interpretations is valid*

A more sig­

nificant question is which interpretation is valid for different subjects or different groups of subjects* a*

Triserial correlations, using classifications of the UxC ratio, do not yield results supporting the con­ ventional Rorschach introversion-extrarersion dichot­ omy for any group*

b*

Humber and percentage of human movements is associated with the appearance of verbal activity in Anxiety Neu­ rotics*

2fc the Ulcerative Colitis group, percentage

of human movement responses is associated with answers to the examiner, and both number and percentage are associated negatively with Ihterriew (orlterion) trapunitivenesa * e*

The extensor-flexor classifications of the human move­ ment response yields results only for the Duodenal Ulcer group*

Pairing statseents is associated with

predominantly flexor records, and Interview (criterion) Irrtropunitiveness with predominantly extensor records. Results obtained from questionnaire scores suggests that the behavior which the examiner wishes to predict be care­ fully specified in terms of the total behavioral situation* Test scores of Ascendance, where there are significant cor­ relations, correlate negatively with verbal behavior scores* La the planned social situation, the ability to do one's work and not engage in verbal activity, ray reveal ascend­ ance* Results from norv-proJoetive tests are as numerous and of as great a magnitude as those from projective techniques* frequently, results from a given group of subjects are sig­ nificant for similar theoretical areas for both types of test*

For exsqsle, the Duodenal Ulcer group obtains sig­

nificant results with questionnaire scores of Ascendance and Freedom from Inferiority, and also with the extensorflexor categories of the Rorschach which theoretically in­ dicate aecandanos suboleelcp behavior* The relationship between significant findings and subject groups suggests that the way to lagnrove prediction is to discover which aspects of a subjsot*s behavior or biograph­ ical data an evanlner aist tecs in order to ^ply the proper test eoore "Tfr'ng to the prediction of the subjsot's be­ havior*

BIBLIOGRAPHY

87

1.

Abt* LJS. The Analysis of Structured Clinical Interviews. J> Clin, Psychol., 19h9, 5, 36I1-369.

2*

AHport* Q#W.

3*

Altus, ff.D. and Thomson, G.U. Hie Roreehach as a Usasure of Intelligsnce. J. Consult* Psychol*, 19U9, 13* 3U1-3U7*

U*

Ansbaeher* H.L. Hurray's and Sinoneit's (German Military) Llsthods of Personality study. J* Abnom* Soo* Psychol.* 19la, 36, 589-592. ~ ----------- ----

5*

Baker, L«M* and Harris* J.S. The Validation of Rorschach Teat Results against Laboratory Behavior. J* Clin* Psychol*. 19U9, 5, 161-06U*

Personality* New York*

Henry Holt, 1937*

6 . Back, S*J* &tor, Symbol* and Usthod in the Rorschach Test* J* Abnom* Soc. Psychol*. 19U2, 37, 83-103*

7*

Back, S.J. Rorschach»s Test: Vol. I. New Taric: Stratton, l9W:*

Qrune and

8.

Deok, S.J. Roreohach'a Test: Vol. II. Hew York: Qruna and Stratton* l9Ue>.

9*

Bettlehala. B* Saif Ihterprctatlon of Fantasy* Orthopsychiat.* 19U7, 17, 80-101 .

Aner. J.

10.

Bnmar, J.S* and Ooodaan, C.E. Value and Need as Organising Factors in Perception* J. Abnom. Soo. Psychol** 19U7* 1:7, 3 3 - U i . ---------------- *----

U.

Brash, A.L* Recant Literature Ralatlve to the Psychiatric Aspects of Oastrointeetinal Diaorders - A Revise. Psychoson. Uad*. 1939, 1, U23-^28*

12.

Cattail, R.B* Projection and the Daelgn of Projective Tests of Personality* Char, and Para.* 19tik, 12, 177-19ii*

13.

Cattail* R.B.

Yonkers:

Oaaorlpticn and Ueasuraasnt of Personality*

W a M Boole “Co.,

9 U S ---------------------------

Hi.

Chappie, EJ9* and Aransbarg, C*U* Measuring Honan Rslstiens: An Introduction to the Study of the Interaotion of Individuals* Oanet. Psychol. Monocr*. 19b0, 22, 3-11:7*

15.

Claries, H.J.* Rosanswaig, S.* and Plaslng, 2.E. The Reliability of the Scoring of the loesnaselg Pleturo Frastratlan Study* J* Clin. Psychol** 191:7, 3, 361i-370.

88 16.

Croribach, L.J• Essentials of Psychological Testing* New York: Harpers, 1S>H^

17*

Crohbash, L.J. A Review.

18.

Daniels, O.E. Disease.

19*

Daniels, O.E. Psychiatric Factors in Ulcerative Colitis. Gastroenterology. 19U8, 10, 59-62.

20.

Davies, D.T. and HUsan, A.T.!'. Observations on the LifeHistory of Chronic Peptic Ulcer. Lancet, 1937, 2, 1353-1360.

21.

Doob, L.J. and Sears, R.R. Paotors Detenaining Substitute Dehavior and the Overt Expression of Aggression, j. Abnorm. See. Psychol.. 1939, 31*, 293-313.

22.

Du Dois. C. The People of Alor. Minnesota PiW / TflJi*---

23.

ELsenberg, P. Expressive 'Movements Related to Feelings of Docdnanee. Arch. Psychol.. 1937, No. 211.

Statistical Methods Applied to Rorschach Scores: Psychol. Bull,, 191*9, U6 , 393-1*29. Non-specific Ulcerative Colitis as a Psychosomatic lied. din. N. Aner., 19U*, 28, 593-602.

IhnneaDolis: Univ. of

21*. Eysenck, R.J. Dlnenslons of Personality. Trech, Truoner & Co., iyi*7.

London:

Kegan Paul,

2$.

Faniohel. C. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis: tf.J. Norton' 71 Co., 19U5.----

!.ew York:

26.

Frank, LJC. Protective llathods for the Study of Personality. J. Psychol.. 1939, 8, 389-613.

27.

Frenklin, J.C. and Brcmak, J. The Rosensseig P-F Test as a lieaeure of Frustration Response In Starvation. J. Commit. Psychol.. 191*9, 13, 293-301.

28.

preeaan, O.L. Suggestions for a Standardised ■Stress" Test. J. Oen. Peyohol.. 191*5, 32, 3-11.

29.

Fraanan, O.L.,Uaneon, 04., Katmoff, E.T., and Rothnan, JJI. The Stress Intarvlsa. J. Abnore. 3oo. Psychol., 191*2, 37 1*27-1*1*7.----------- -----

,

30.

Ouilford. J J*. An inventory of Factors STDCR. llm i al of fltrsotlons m a non e. rev, oa. aaarioanaupply bo.

31.

Ouilford. J J . The Onllforrt Martin Doventcry of Festors QANJM. Mmsm BT of TgreoOohs m d lofrs, Wret’Revision.

89 32.

Ouilford, J.P and Ouilford, R. An Analysis of the Factors in a Typical Test of Introversicui-Extreversion. J. Abnonxu Soc. Psychol., 193U, 28, 377-399.

33.

Ouilford, J.P. and Ouilford, R.B. Personality- Factors D, R, T, and A* J. Abnora. Soc. Psychol#, 1939, 3h$ 21-36.

3U.

H n'tliday, J.L. Psychosocial Medicine, & Co., 19U87^----- ------------

39.

Heath, FJC. et. al.

Ulcerative Colitis.

6, U8l-m.“

New York:

Vf.Yf. Norton

Amar. J. Med., 19l*9,

---------

36.

Herts, 1IJL» The Reliability of the Rorschach Ink-blot Test. J. Appl. Psychol.. 193a, 18, 1*61-1*77.

37.

Herts, U«R. and Kennedy, S. The U Factor in Estimating Intelligence. Rorschach Res. Bcch., 19l*0, 1*, 109-106, (abstract).

38.

Hertsman, 11. and Pearce, J. The Personal Meaning of the Hunan Figure in the Rorschach. Psychiatry, 19U7, 10, 1*13-1*22.

39.

Homey, K. The Neurotic Personality of our Time. Tff.’iV. Norton L Co., 19^/.

UO.

Klopfer, B. and Kelley, D. V /o rld Book Co., 191*2.

hi.

Lane, BJi. A Validation Test.of the Rorschach Movement Inter­ pretations. Anar. J. Qrthopsychlat., 191*8, 18, 292-296.

New York:

The Rorschach Technique. Yonkers:

1*2. Levine, R., Chain, I., and ttxrphy, G. The Relation of the Intensity of the Need to the Amount of Perceptual Distortion. J. Psychol.. 191*2, 13, 283-293. 1*3. Lindquist, E.F. Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. New York: Houghton lE ffllh , 1*1*. Loth, N.N. Correlations Between the Quilfard-hartin Inventory of Faotors"5Tfa and the klnnesota Hultlphaaic Foraoraaixy inventory at the College Level, Urpubllsned Master's Thesis, univ. or Umnesota, i9 a9 . 1*9. Lovell, C. A Study of the Factor Structure of Thirteen Personality Variables. Bduc. Psychol. Maasmt., 191*9, 9, 339-390. 1*6. McClelland, B.C. and Apioslla, F.S. A Functional Classification of Verbal Reactions to Experimentally Induced Failure. J. Abnom, Soc. Psychol., 191*9, 1*0, 376-390. "

90

U7• Macfarlane, J,W. Problems of Validation Inherent In Projective Methods. Amer. J. Qrthopsychlat., 1 $ U 2 $ 12, h O k - U l O * U8.

McNemar, Q .

P s y c h o lo g ic a l S ta tia t ic a .

New York:

Y /ile y , 19U9.

1}9# Mlttelmann, B., Wolff, H.Q., Scharf, II.p. Bnotions and Gastro­ duodenal Function! Experimental Studies on Patients with Gastritis, Duodenitis, and Peptic Ulcer. Psycho som. Med., ---------19142, 1*, 5-61. Personality.

New York:

50.

Liirphy, G.

51*

I4irphy, 0,, liirphy, L.B., and Newcomb, T.M. Experimental Social Psychology, rev. ed. New York: Harpers, 1937.

52.

Murray, H.A. Thematic Apperception Test Manual. Harvard IfnivV 1^ 8 8 7 1 9 1 3 7--- “----------

53*

Newcomb, T.M. Autistic Hostility and Social Reality. Relat., 1 9 k 7 , 1, 69-86.

Hum.

5U.

O.S.S. Staff. 19U8.

L

55*

Piotrowski, Z .A. A Rorschach Compendium, reprinted and rewritten from Psychiat. Quart., 19U2, 16, 3-37.

56.

Piotrowski, Z.A. The M, Fll, and m Responses as Indicators of Changes in Personality. Rorschach Res. Exch., 1936-37, 1, lhB-157. -- ----------------

57*

Rapaoart, D. Principles Underlying Projective Techniques. Char, and Pers., 19U2, 10, 213-219.

58.

Rapaport, D. Diagnostic Psychological Testing, Vol. II. Chicago: Year Hook 'Pub, Co., l9Ub.

59*

Rapaport, D. The Status of Diagnostic Psychological Testing. J. Consult. Psychol., 19U&, 12, 1-3.

60.

Rorschach, H.

61.

Rosenseeig, S., Lkerrer, D. et. al. Frustration as an Experimental Problem. Char, and Pare.,"1938. 1, 126-160.

62.

Roeensweig, S. Fantasy in Personality and Its Study in Test Procedures. J. Abnowu Soo. Psychol.. 19U2, 37 , 2iO-51*

63.

Rosensmeig, S. An Outline of Frustration Theory, in J. UdV. Hunt, Personality and the Behavior Disorders. User York: Ronald Press, lftli,' TC, TT R gB.-------

Assessment of Men.

Harpers, 19U7.

Hew York:

Cambridge:

Rinehart

Psychodlagnostica. Seitaerland:

Co.,

!I. Huber, 19U2.

91 6ii, Rosensweig, S. The Picture Association and Its Application in a Study of Rsaotions to Frustration* J* Personality, 19U5, lk, 2-23.----------------------- -----------

65.

Rosensweig, S., Clarks, H.J., Garfield, U.S., and Lshndorff, A. Scoring Sanplas for the Rosensweig Picture Frustration Study. J. Psychol*, 19U6, 21, U5-72.

66 .

Rosensweig, s., Planing, E.E., and Clarke, K*J* Rerised Scoring Manual for the Rosensweig Picture Frustration Stucfcr* J* Psychol*, 19U7, 2U, 165-206.

67.

Rosensweig, S* Levels of Behavior in Psychodiagnosia with Special Reference to the Picture Frustration Stuty* Aner* J* Orthopsychiat., 1950, 20, 63*72.

68 * Rotter, J.B* The Present Status of the Rorsohaoh in Clinical and Experimental Procedures. J. Personality, 19U8, 16, ----------301^311.

69.

Ruesch, J*

Duodonal Ulcer*

Berkeley!

Univ* of Calif* Press, 19U8.

70*

ffeiesch, J. and Bateson, G* Structure and Process in Social Relations* Psychiatry* 19U9, 12, 202 ff*

71*

Rust, R.U. Sorae Correlates of the Mu secant Response* sonality, 19U6, 16 , 369-bOl*

72*

Sanford, R.U* The Effeota of Abstinence fron Food upon lhaginal Processes! A Preliminary Experiment* J* Psychol** 1936, 2, 129-136.

73.

Sargent, H* Projective Methods: Their Origins, Theory, and Application in Personality Research* Psychol* Bull** 19U5, !t2 , 257-293.

7U*

Sargent, S.S* Reaction to Frustration * A Critique and Hypotheaia* Psychol* Rev** 19U6, 55, 108-111**

J* Per­

75. Sohaobtel, £.0* On Color and Affects Contributions to an Understanding of Rorschach's That* U * Psychiatry* 19l*3* 6, 393-U09. 76*

Schafer, B* The ffn«toal Applloatlon of Psychological Testa* International varsities rrses, ISfttf*

77*

Sohwarta, MO!* Relatlonahlps befeen Projective Test Scoring Categories and Activity hrererenoee* pn* n* oassertatien, yx ff., t m :------- ------------

78*

Stonier, R*A* A Study of the Oonaistency of Dnmtnsni and Bab■Lssive Behavior la Adolescent Beys. j. Qanet* Psarehol*, 1935, h6 , b03-U32.

92 19•

ftillivan, A.J• Psychogenic Factors in Ulcerative Colitis* Am* j* Digestive Disorders, 1936, 2, 6 $2-6 $6 .

SO.

Swift, J.w. Relation of Behavioral and Rorschach Measures of insecurity in Preschool Children. J. Clin. Psychol.. 19US. 1 , 196-20 $. *----

81.

Thornton, GJl. and Quilford, J.P. The Reliability and Meaning of Srletanistypus Scores in the Rorschach Test. J. Abnorra. Soc. Psychol.. 1936, 31, 32i*-330. —

82.

Thurstone, L.L. Dimensions of Tarperapsnt, Report No. 1*2, the Psychooetrle Laboratory, Chicago: univ. of Chicago, 19U7.

83 .

Trawick, J#D. Psychotherapy in Chronic Ulcerative Colitis. Pis. Herr. Syst.. 19U9, 10, 8U-66 ,

81*. Varrel, ¥JL. Suggestions Tcwrarda the 3-bcperimental Validation of the Rorschach Test* Bull. 'Jetminger Clinic. 1937. 1. -------220-226. 8 $.

Vernon, P.E. The Rorschach Ihk HLot Test, II. Psychol., 1933, 13, Part III, 179-20$.

86 .

Jhite, R..i.

87.

Jill Ians, I!. An Experimental Stui^r of Intellectual Control Under Stress and Associated Rorschach Factors. J. Consult. Psychol.. 191*7, 11, 21-29*

88 .

VLatmer, J. Rorschach intellectual Indicators in Neurotics. Anar. J. Crthopaychlat., 19U8, 18, 26$-279*

■9.

dttenbom, J.R. Certain Rorschach Response Cateporios and llental Abilities. J. Appl. Psychol.. 19U9, u6 , 330-3U6.

9C.

.‘ittean, J*.P. and Huffman, A.V. A Coa^arative Study of the Oarelopaental Adjustment and Personality Characteristics of Psychotic, Payohoneurotic, and Delinquent, and Normally Adjusted Then Aged Youths. J. Oanat. Psychol., 19l*5>, 66 , 167-182.

91.

Young, R.A. and Hlgginbothan, S.A. Behavior Cheeks on the Ror­ schach Method. Anar. ^ertho^ejjcddLat., 19l*2, 12, 87^9$.

92.

lirf, O.K. Hump Behavior and tha Principles of hM*st Effort. Caahrldgai Addison TTaalay hr— e,

93.

Zubin, J, Inay, DJ1., and Rost, R. U ori ent Raspenaoe in !!orcale, Bohisophrenioe, and llaurotioa on the levy Movement Cerda. Anar. Psychologist, 19U7, 2, 269.

9U

aahln, J. and Tom*, K. M w i al of Proiootlvaand Cognate Taohnlquae. t The coiiejs typing p p .,

The Abnonaal Personality.

Brit. J. Ltod.

New York!

Ronald, 19U8.

93 APPENDIX A SCRIPT OP THE PLA13JED SOCIAL SITUATION Tina sequence The subject (S) will be escorted into the room by the Examiner (E) • E will tell the S that he is go­ ing to leave and will return immediately with a sec­ ond subject who will take the test with the S* E leaves and returns with the Sophisticated Subject (SS) • Each subject will occupy the saas seat* one to the right of the E*s desk* The SS will always occupy the seat to the left of the ficaminer's desk* 0

15

ELi

Will you please sit here? You're L!r* (s), and you're Ur* (SS). I am going to give both of you gentlemen a test* I'll have to go and get it*

S leaves the room* (If9 at the end of 30 eeoonda* S has not said any^ thing* SS will smile at S and offer him a cigarette by gesture* S3 will have a watch* If* at the end of 1 minute* S has still not said anything* SS will begin to apeak* He will say these prescribed stand­ ard stiEull in prescribed order* If S should speak spontaneously* the stlsuli will be presented in each section of the interview* when appropriate* rather than in listed order* However* all stiauli for each section will be presented to the subject within that section of the interview* To any other remarks which S may say* SS will agree* or "reflect*")

1-15

SSlf

Long trip out here* isn't it?

1-30

332 s Cold (or wax*) out* isn't it?

1-1*5

S33s

Do you know what this is about?

2-00

SSlts

3hat are you hare for?

(If S asks where SS is from in reply to SSI* SS will answer "Brooklyn*" If S asks what SS is here for* SS will answer* "I ha here to get a permanent job. ■ If S asks S3 about the purpose of the testing* 33

9k ■will answer that he does not know#)

2-15

E enters* E2: Hiis is the Test I want you to do* Put your name on the answer sheet* Turn over the top sheet, and start when I tell you to* E3: (Immediately)* C.K* Start* (To the are any

any question, now or later, about the test or instructions, E will say: "The instructions all there* Read them again* I can't tell you more*")

When E says: "Start," he Trill place a stop watch on the desk between the two examinees and start the watch*

2-30

E will leave the room* (IT, at the end of 2 minutes, S does not say anything, SS will say these standard stimuli at 30 second in­ tervals*)

U-15

SS5:

Can't you make anything out of these instruc­ tions?

h-US

SS6 : You can hardly see the printing here* see it?

5-35

SS7:

5-^5

SS8: These tests are a pain in the neckl

6-15

E enters*

Can you

that's this stuff supposed to be for?

Eh: (To S first)* How many of these have you done? E will repeat aloud whatever number S indicates or says for SS to hear.) E5:

(Shakes his head)*

E6 : (To SS)* SS9: E7: about 6-30

■

"

Is that all?

And how many have you done? (SS will say always five more than 5.)

Very good*

E leaves the room*

95 (If S does not say anything for 1 minute, SS will say): 7-15

SS10:

Don *t you think we could get more work done if he left us alone?

7-U5

SSlli

8-15

A buzzer will sound 3 times for 5 seconds each time* at 1 second intervals* (If S says nothing, or as agreement v/ith the objec­ tion S will make, SS):

8-U5

SS12:

How do they expect U3 to concentrate?

9—15

SS13:

What do these guys expect to get out of this?

10-15

'.Vhat did you do with these fellows before?

E enters* E8 : (To S).

Well, how many have you got done now?

E9: Well, that’s not so good* procedure as above)* E10: SSlii:

10—30

(To SS). "

n

(Following same

IIow many have you done? (5 more than said by S).

Ell:

You’re doing pretty well*

E12:

O.K. 1*11 be back in a few minutes* If you finish before I return, don’t leave the room*

E leaves the room* (To any question about timing, E will say, "The stop watch is here," indicating the watch*)

11-00

SS15:

Is that all you’ve done?

11-30

SS16:

You seem to be going pretty slow*

12-00

SS3.7:

Don’t you get these things?

12-15

SS18:

You don’t seem to be doing so well*

12-30

3S19:

Did you get the answer to number 8?

96 (If S says ye3, SS will ask what it is, unless the answer is volunteered* If S gives an answer: eoon«. ux t don«t ' of then are right* none SS20b: No, I think that number two is right.) 13-00

SS21:

You*d better step on it# much time left*

I don*t think there*s

(SS will finish the test at least by 12-00, keeping 17311 ahead of S,) lii-15

E enters* E13*

O.K.

ELl;:

(To S, while E collects the papers)* did you think of it?

Stop#

(Stops and pockets the 3top watch)* Well, what

97

a p p e n d i x

b

EXTENSOR - FLEXCR JUDGMENTS OP THE HUMAN !!OVS.!EHT RESPONSE TO THE RORSCHACH TEST EXTENSOR 5 out of agreement about to grasp about to kiss beating drum bending over and shaking hands brewing voodoo climbing covering up something dancing dancing ballet digging doing acrobatics doing fancy tricks in a parade duelling fighting flying galloping gliding on skates bannering hovering - ready to strike jumping kicking lying down on back and pushing with foot painting playing drums playing violin playing pattycake pressing (someone else*a hand) pumping pushing ready to strike, club over shoulder riding running shaking hands skating smoking (puffing out smoke) spitting spitting fire

FLEXOR fj out oi 5 agreement balancing bowing facing each other (life indicated) have something in hands holding something holding hands (in prayer) laying in grass leaning over a pot looking mean lying down on back opening lips opening mouth pressing (own hands together) reclining resting or lying dorm sitting and leaning sitting rigid squatting standing stooping over thinking

98

f> out of $ agreement sticking crut ■tongue stretched cut - arm stretched out stretching arms swimming throwing something thumbing noses touching hands walking

$ out of $ agreement

k out of 5 agreement arguing - mouth open arguing arguing and standing biting cooking doing calisthenics greeting someone grasping something hollering at each other pirouetting pointing shouting stirring something waiting to fight yelling

U out of $ agreement being In a rage bent, pulling bent, bending over putting down an item bent or carrying cackling doing a balancing act leering lifting something perched on rocks picking up propped up, holding on riding (being supportod) sitting down staring warning hands over a fire

3 out of 5 agreement coming* Hcsm at you extended (arm up in the air* extended) glaring holding conversation holding on to some kind of shaft with mouth in position or stance (like ballet dancer's stance) laughing standing on hands talking to each other washing hands

3 out of 5 agreement carrying something clapping hands falling (falling on hands and knees) holding a bowling ball holding up fingers looking peering pulling, pulling on something smiling tugging tug of war turning wray

99 APPENDIX C Product-Moment Correlations for All Croups Between Number of Human Movement Responses in the Rorschach Test And Scores of the Subject's Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation

50

Groups Ulcerat. Duod* Colitis Ulcer 25 25

Anxiety Total Neurotics 25 125

*23 *18 *25

•OU •oU •05

-.31 .05 -.23

.37 .21; .37

No* of answers to SS 5 of ss's statements answered No* of answers to E 5 of E's statements answered Total no* of answers

*03 -.0 5 -*03 -*01 -*38

.1 1 .03 •o9 -*0 1 .12

-.15 .09 .12 .28 -.17

Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

*23 -*20

•09 -.03

-.25 -.15

-*12 *21 -*0U

-.11 .16 -.05

.28 .29

-*2 2

-.01

CO CNJ

-*1 2

-.03

Control Humber Subject's Interview Scores I No* and % of responses: No* of statements to SS*h0

Groups IXiod# Ulcerat# Ulcer Colitis 25 25

Anxiety Total Neurotics 125 25

No# of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered No# of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no# of answers Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers II

.11

#03 #17 #06 #11; .05

-.27 •02 -•25 -.20 -.31

-.03 .09 .12 .23 .05

.09 -.002 .20 .36 .12

— #10 -#18

-.26 .23

-.27 -.27

•lU .07

-.11 -.11

-#01 #0U -.02

.02 -.03 -.01

-.28 .OU .31

.21 -.12 -.21;

-.02 -.01 •Ql*

—#09

.12

.13

.26

.08

#0U

.16

-.12

.23

.07

-.02 .09 .06 .09

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitivenesa Interview Intropunitiveness Interview impunitiveness Extrapunitivenesa against persons only % of responses scorable in terms of hostility

# #

-.09 -.17

-#12 -#lli -#15

.01

-.10 -.13 -.13

-.20 -.16 -.30

.i o H

Ho# of statements to SS#-* No# of statements to E***■ Total no# of statements

•t o CD

Subject*s Interview Scores I Ho# and % of responses:

Significantly different from zero at #01 level Significantly different from zero at ,05 level Sophisticated subject Examiner

loll app endi x h

Product—llonent Correlations for A H Groups Between Social Introversion Score on the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR and Scores of the Subject’s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Control

Groups Duod* Ulcerat* Ulcer Colitis

£0

25

25

25

125

No* of statements to SS** No* of statements to E*** Total no* of statements

*00 -*03 *00

-.09

.16 .27 •21

-.Hi -.18 -.17

-*06 -.05

No* of answers to SS % of SS’s statements answered No* of answers to E fj of E ’s statements answered Total no. of answers

-*19 .01 *27# *17 -.08

-.02 .15 -.08 .01

1

0 .

-.28 .03 .18 -.19 -.2U

-.Oil

Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

—.Oh *06

.03 -.2*

.15 •3U

-.Hi

-*21 *31 -*01

-HI .26 -.18

-.20 .33 -.03

.22 -.111 -.25

*06 ‘ .17 -.0 8

-*03

-.05

-.16

.03

-*0li

*00

— -2li

-.17

-HO

-.11

Number

Anxiety Total Neurotics

Subject’s Interview Scores I No* and % of responses:

H

-•09 .20 .0$ •08

-.13

-.16

-.06

-.lli .01 .11 .05 -.18 -.08

-.OOli

Direction of hostility:

Interview actrapunitiveness Interview Ihtropunitiveness Interview Inpunitiveness Extrapunitiveness against persons only 2 of responses scorable in terns of hostility

* # ** ***

-.08

Significantly different fro® aero at *01 level Significantly different free aero at .05 level Sophisticated subject Qcaniner

105

APPENDIX I Produet-ifement Correlations for All Groups Between Thinking Introversion Score on the Guilford Inventory of Factors STDCR and Scores of the Sub­ ject »s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation

Number

Control

Groups Ulcerat* IXiod. Colitis Ulcer

Total Anxiety Neurotics

50

25

25

25

125

-•27 -.30 -.31

.13 .27 .18

-.08 -.002

-.02 t .06

-.25* -.19 -.oU -.09

Subject's Interview Scores I Ho* and % of responses: No* of statements to SS** Mo* of statements to E*->:: Total no* of statements

.05

-.31

.02 •Oil

.12 -.22

-.07

No* of answers to SS % of SS's statements answered No* of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no* of answers

-.26

-.27

-.28# .38* .29# -.19

-.21

-•35 -•25

-.23

-.20

-.28

-.07 -•Uo#

-.U3# —.5o* -.09

Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

-.07 -.31

-.32

-•U6# -.18

.11

-.19

.17

-.11

-.10 .20

-.21* .30

-.21 .11

-.11:

-.05

.00

-.10 -.00 •11

-.39*

-.15

-.00

-.3U

-.214#

.05

.07

-.00

.26

.07

II

.02

-*26*

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extranunitiveness Interview Intropunitiveness Interview Irapunitiveness Extrapunitivenesa against persons only % of responses scorable in terns of hostility

* #

-.31

Significantly different fron zero at *01 level Significantly different from zero at .05 level Sophisticated subject Examiner

.27

.18 .02

106 APPENDIX J Product-Moment Correlations for All Groups Between Ascendance Score on the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAliHT and Scores of the Subject*s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation Control Humber

So

Groups Duod. Ulcerat. Ulcer Colitis 25 25

Anxiety Tota: Neurotics 2$ 12?

Subject *s Ihtervievr Scores I No* and % of responses: No* of statements to SS#* No* of statements to E*:«* Total no* of statements

-.06 -.06 -.07

-•hk# .03 -.36

-.17 -.06 -.16

.30 .06 .29

i:o* of answers to SS % of SS*s statements answered Uo* of answers to E % of E*s statements answered Total no* of answers

.02 -.10 -.11 .52* -.la*

-.58* -.21 -.17 -.31 -.56*

.31 -.02 -.32 -.21 .17

•08 -.06 -.16 -.30 .0?

.02 -.0? -.15 .01 -.02

Statements and answers Index: Statements/answers

.22 -.11

-.51* •oU

-.10// -.36

.26 •21*

.01 .12

.19 -.25 -.03

•oU -.21 .23

.17 —*hZfr .15

-.31 .12 •U3#

.02 -.18 •ll*

•08

.08

.09

-.12

.02

.10

.17

.16

.13

.11*

II

Direction of hostility:

Interview Extrapunitivenesa Interview Intropunitiveness Interview Bnpunitiveness Extrapunitivenesa against persons only % of responses scorable in torr.fl of hostility

* # ** *•••*

-.02 .001* -.02

Significantly different Significantly different Sophisticated subject Examiner

from zero at *01 level from zero at .0? level

107 APPENDIX K

Number

Control

Groups Duod, Ulcerat. Ulcer Colitis

Anxiety Tot* Neurotics

50

25

25

25

-.16 .01 -.11

-.15 .Oli

-.23 -.13

-.12

-.12

-.21

.I o H

Product—Nonerrt Correlations for All Groups Between Freedom from Inferiority Score on the Guilford-Uartin Inventory of Factors GALIHi and Scores of the Subject *s Verbal Behavior in the Planned Social Situation

.17

.13 .19 .25

125

Subject's Interview Scores I No, and % of responses: CM

No, of answers to SS fj of SS*s statements answered No, of answers to E * of E*s statements answered Total no, of answers

-.16 -.12

-.69* .07 -.38 -.32

-•15

-.10#

Statements and answers Index: Statenents/answers

-.15 -.09

-.26

.15 -.19 -.02

.22 -.18 -.11

.10

.11

CN 0 « 1

.07

.17

-.Oil

-.20

.I o H

-.07 •oU -•oli

GO

,2? •15

O*

No, of statements to SS*-* No, of statements to E***Total no, of statements

.18 .06

-.01

CO

-.09

.16

-.1li -.33

.23

-.23

•Oli

-.22 -.08

•11 .28

“•12

Direction of hostility:

-.02

H•

Interview Extrapunitivenes s Interview Ihtropunitiveness Interview Snpunitiveness Extrapunitivenesa against persons only ?> of responses scorable in terms of hostility

-x # **• -w-irtt

.11

.05 -,0li -.05 .oU

.i o

II

.05

-.01 -.2U -.26 .11

Significantly different from aero at ,01 level Significantly different from zero at ,05 level Sophisticated subject Examiner

.07

108 APPENDIX L Interteat Correlations for A H Groups of Subjects Control Number

50

Groups Duod. Ulcerat. Ulcer Colitis 25 25

Anxiety Total Neurotics 2? 12?

Correlations Between Picture Frustration Study Scores and Hunan Movement Responses to the Rorschach Test: Extrapunitivc score and no. of human movements % of human movements IntroTTunitive score and no. of human movements % of human movements Impunitive score anti no* of human movements % of human movements

-.09 -.07

.07 .ol

.33 .07

-.01 .23

.01 .0^

.21

•o? -.02

-.11 .00

.19 -.19

.09 .12

-.16

-•91* -.08

-.11 -.11

-.11 -.08

.15*

-.oU -.03

-.07

Correlations Between Guilford-Uartin Scores and Human Movement Responses to the Rorschach Test: .35

-.21 -.28

.13 .05

.06

.37 .13

.21 .21

.26* .12

-.09 -.19

-.18 -.27

.32

r\ 0. 1

-.01 .15

—*60->