University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship of sex and ethnicity to anxiety, self-concept, and creativity among continuation high school students

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship of sex and ethnicity to anxiety, self-concept, and creativity among continuation high school students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RELATIONSHIP OF SEX AND ETHNICITY TO ANXIETY, SELF-CONCEPT, AND CREATIVITY AMONG CONTINUATION ’ HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS by Mary Rotchford Panucci A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree • DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) February 1977 UMI Number: DP24233 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP24233 Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A TE S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PARK -OS A N G E LE S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, w ritten by ....... Mary__.Ro.tchf ord..Panucci....... under the direction of hfe.V..... Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean Date..J3PP^Y..dlK..W.l. DISSERTATION COMMITTEJ DEDICATION To Carmen, Angela, Annette, Carmelo, and Juliana. Without the understanding and support of my husband, the doctoral program would never have been undertaken. Without the continued patience, help, and enthusiasm of each of my children, it could never have been completed. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge and express grati tude to those whose advice, encouragement, and assistance contributed to the preparation and completion of this study Viola Owen, Assistant Superintendent, Instruction Services Division, and Dr. Joseph Diamond, Director, Cur riculum Department, Office of the Santa Clara County Super intendent of Schools, supported and encouraged the study as an enhancement of the writer's job effectiveness. Special gratitude is accorded Dr. Calvin Burke, Director of Continuation Education, Los Angeles City Schools. His encouragement and assistance as an ex officio consultant were vital factors in the completion of the study. A sincere thank you is extended, also, to the prin cipals, staff, and students of the continuation high schools that were involved in the investigation. Without the cooperation of participating staff and students of the Los Angeles City Schools, the investigation, would have been impossible. The writer is indebted to Dr. John Martois who pro vided invaluable assistance in facilitating computer analy sis and interpretations of the data. Finally, the writer in indebted to those University of Southern California faculty members who consented to iii serve as the dissertation committee. The guidance and direction of Dr. Newton Metfessel, Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, School of Education; Dr. Flavian Udinsky, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education; and Dr, Constance Lovell,, Associate Profes sor,, Department of Psychology, is profoundly appreciated and most humbly acknowledged. A special word of gratitude is accorded to Dr. Metfessel who served as chairman of the dissertation committee. The assumptions, the instruments, and the findings of Project Potential for which Dr. Met fessel was the chief investigator are intrinsic to the present study. iv CONTENTS Page DEDICATION . . ..................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................... iii LIST OP TABLES..................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES................................... xvHl Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 1 The Problem Purpose of the Study Questions To Be Answered Hypotheses Importance of the Study ^Definitions of Terms Assumptions Delimitations and Limitations Organization of the Remaining Chapters II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......... 11 Purpose and Organization Anxiety ^Self-Concept Creativity Creativity and Other Education- Related Variables Summary III. SOURCE OF DATA AND METHODOLOGY........... 38 The Sample Instrumentation Administration and Scoring Procedures Statistical Design and Procedures Summary v Chapter Page IV. FINDINGS.................................... 47 Analysis of Variance Results Correlations V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 68 Summary Summary of Findings Conclusions Recommendations REFERENCES............. 8l APPENDICES......................................... 97 A. TABLES AND FIGURES . . ........... 99 B. DATA COLLECTION FORM...................... 164 C. CASP INVENTORY ADMINISTRATION MANUAL . . . 166 D. FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL . . . ............. 179 E. FACES TEST................................. 184 F. MEANING OF WORDS T E S T .................... 187 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Summary of Data Sources ...................... 39 2. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Anxiety ............. 48 3. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Anxiety . ............................... 48 4. Summary of ANOVA Results Evaluating Sex and Ethnicity Differences in Self- Concept as Measured by FACES and Meaning of Words Inventory (MOWI) ......... 50 5. Summary of ANOVA Results Evaluating Sex and Ethnicity Differences in Creativ ity Characteristics ........................ 52 6 . Correlations between Faces and Meaning of Words Measures of Self-Concept for Sex and Ethnic Croups ...................... 57 7. Summary of Significant Correlations for Sex Groups: Anxiety and Self-Concept . . . 60 8. Summary of Significant Correlations for Ethnic Groups: Anxiety and Self-Concept. . . 6l 9. Summary of Significant Correlations: Anxiety and Creativity .................... 62 10. Summary of Significant Correlations for Sex Groups: Self-Concept and Creativity ............................ 63 11. Summary of Significant Correlations for Ethnic Groups: Self-Concept and Creativity........................ 64 12. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- Classmates .................... ........... 99 13. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Classmates .... vii 99 Table Page 14. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on■Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Classmates--Total ............. 100 15. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Classmates--Total ........................ 100 16. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Classmates--Evaluative Factor................... . . ............... 101 1 7. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of'Words)-- Classmates--Evaluative Factor............. 101 18. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Classmates--Potency Factor . . 102 19. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Classmates--Potency Factor ............... 102 20. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Classmates--Activity Factor . . 103 21. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Classmates--Activity Factor ............. 103 22. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- School Ability ............................ 104 23. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- School Ability ............................ 104 24. Means and Standard "Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--School Ability--Total ......... 105 25. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- School Ability--Total .................... 105 viii Table Page 26. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--School Ability-- Evaluative Factor ........................ 106 27. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- School Ability--Evaluative Factor .... 106 2 8. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--School Ability-- Potency Factor ............................ 107 29. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- School Ability--Potency Factor ........... 107 30. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--School Ability-- Activity Factor .......................... 108 31. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- School Ability--Activity Factor ......... 108 32. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- Self....................................... 109 33. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Self ........... 109 34. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Self--Total ......... ......... 110 35. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Self--Total .............................. 110 36. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Self--Evaluative Factor .... 111 37. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Self--Evaluative Factor .... ......... ix 111 Table Page 3 8. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Self--Potency Factor . 112 39* Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Self--Potency Factor ...................... 112 40. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Self--Activity Factor ......... 113 41. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Self--Activity Factor ...................... 113 42. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on. Self-Concept (Faces )-- Teachers................................... 114 43. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Teachers ......... 114 44. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Teachers--Total . . . ......... 115 45. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Teachers--Total............................ 115 46. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Teachers--Evaluative Factor. . . 116 4 7. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Teachers--Evaluative Factor ............... 116 48. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Teachers--Potency Factor . . . . 117 4 9. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Teachers--Potency Factor ................. 117 x Table Page 50. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Teachers--Activity Factor .... 118 51. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Teachers--Activity Factor ................. 118 52. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- Family....................................... 119 53- Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Family ........... 119 54. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Family--Total ..... ......... 120 55* Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Family--Total ............................... 120 5 6. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Family--Evaluative Factor .... 121 57* Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Family--Evaluative Factor.................... 121 5 8. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Family--Potency Factor ......... 122 59* Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Family--Potency Factor ...................... 122 60. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Family--Activity Factor . . . . . 123 61. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Family--Activity Factor .................... 123 xi Table Page 62. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- Friends.............................. 124 6 3. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Friends ...... 124 64. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Friends--Total ................. 125 6 5. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Friends--Total ...................... 125 66. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Friends--Evaluative Factor . . . 126 6 7. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Friends--Evaluative Factor ................. 126 68. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Friends--Potency Factor ......... 127 6 9. Analysis of, Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Friends--Potency Factor . . ............... 127 70. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Friends--Activity Factor .... 128 71. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Friends--Activity Factor ............... .. . 128 72. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- Counselor........................... 129 73. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Counselor ......... 129 Table Page 74. Means and. Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Counselor--Total ............... 130 75• Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Counselor--Total ...................... 130 7 6. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Counselor--Evaluative Factor....................................... 131 77* Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Counselor--Evaluative Factor ............... 131 7 8. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Counselor--Potency Factor .... 132 79- Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Counselor--Potency Factor ................. 132 80. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Counselor--Activity Factor . . . 133 81. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Counselor--Activity Factor ................. 133 82. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)-- Ideal Self . 134 8 3. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Ideal Self .... 134 84. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Ideal Self--Total ............... 135 8 5. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Ideal Self--Total.......... 135 Table Page 86. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Ideal Self--Evaluative Factor.......................... 136 8 7. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Ideal Self--Evaluative Factor ............. 136 88. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Ideal Self--Potency Factor . . . 137 8 9. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Ideal Self--Potency Factor ................. 137 90. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Ideal Self--Activity Factor . . . 138 91. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Ideal Self--Activity Factor ............... 138 92. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Conceot (Faces)--Total . . 139 93- Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)--Total ............. 139 94. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words )--Self-Concept Mean............... 140 95* Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Self-Concept Mean .................... 140 9 6. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Evaluative Factor Mean ......... l4l 97. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Evaluative Factor Mean ...................... l4l xiv Table Page 9 8. Means and Standard Deviations: . Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Potency Factor Mean ............. 142 99* Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Potency Factor Mean ................. 142 100. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Activity Factor Mean ........... 143 101. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)-- Activity Factor Mean ........... 143 102. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)-- Redefinition A & B .......................... 144 103. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Redefinition A & B ....................................... 144 104. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)-- Sensitivity to Problems .................... 145 105. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Sensitivity to Problems................... 145 106. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)-- Fluency of Thinking........................ 146 107. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Fluency of Think ing .......................................... 146 108. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)-- Flexibility of Thinking ..................... 147 109. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Flexibility of Thinking................................. 147 xv Table Page 110. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)-- Originality ................................. 148 111. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Originality ......... 148 112. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)-- Propensity for Elaboration ............... 149 113. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Propensity for Elaboration .................... . . . . 149 114. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Total . . . 150 115. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)--Total ........ 150 116. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity Interaction on Self-Concept (Faces)-- Teachers ................................... 151 117. Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity Interaction on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)--Teachers--Evaluative Factor . . 152 11 8. Correlation Coefficients: Feelings About School with GTOC .......................... 153 119. Correlation Coefficients: Feelings About School with Faces and Meaning of Words Inventory by Sex Groups .................... 154 120. Correlation Coefficients: Feelings About School with Faces and Meaning of Words Inventory by Ethnic Groups ............... 155 121. Correlation Coefficients: GTOC with Faces by Sex Groups ........................ 156 122. Correlation Coefficients: GTOC with Meaning of Words by Sex Groups ........... 157 123. Correlation Coefficients: GTOC with Faces by Ethnic Groups ................... xvi 158 Table Page 124. Correlation Coefficients: GTOC with Mean ing of Words by Ethnic Groups............. 159 xvii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. ANOVA: Statistical Model for 2 x 3 Factorial Design..................... 45 2. Profile of Sex Groups: Plottings of Self-Concept (Meaning of Words) Factor Scores (According to Total Sex Groups)............................ 160 3. Profile of Ethnic Groups: Plottings of Self-Concept (Meaning of Words) (According to Total Ethnic Groupings) .................................. l6l 4. Profile of Sex and Ethnicity Interaction: Plottings of Self-Concept (Meaning of Words) Factor Scores for Mexican- Americans According to Se x................... 162 xviii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Perhaps the outstanding characteristic of educa tional literature of the 1 9 70’s has been a dual emphasis on humanism and preparation for the future (Bohn., 197^; Combs., 1971; Konopka, 1973; Lee, 1973; Long, 1971; Smithy 1970). There is growing awareness that social evolution must be guided by a conscious, creative design to meet human needs (Barron, 1968; Toffler, 1970). The emphasis has not only been at the national level and in general trends, but in specific curricular innovations and in the concerns of specific subject matter areas as well (Birch, 1971; Fenni- more, 1970; Freese, 1971; Howe, 1971; Kabakjian, 1973; Kokovich, 1971; Peterson, 1972; Throm, 1971)• Humanism in education has been aided by theory and research showing the. importance of the affective domain in scholastic achievement (Binder, 1970; Deo, 1970; Herren- kohl, 1972; Rosenthal, 1965) well as in personal fulfillment and the actualization of human potential (MasloWj 1965; Strem, 1966). Certainly the fires of humanism have been fanned by the popular critics of con- 1 2 temporary education such as Holt (1972), Leonard (1968), Rogers (1969), and Sizer (1973)* That an increasingly complex future requires a much greater utilization of human potential in terms of • identifying and nurturing creativity is recognized (Getzels & Madaus, 1969)• He are constantly reminded of mushrooming problem areas: population■control, environmental protec tion, energy production (Toffler, 1970). The potential benefit of developing human creative behavior has been said to be analogous for the 19 7 0's and 1980's to what the development of atomic energy was in the 1950's (Parness, n.d.). Assembly Bill 2240, passed by the California legis lature in 1965 and written into the California Education Code under Section 5952, required that each high school and unified district establish and maintain continuation educa tion classes. Reed (1967) praised the approach of Cali fornia continuation high schools to the goals of fully utilizing human resources and providing all youth with the attitudes necessary to achieve worthy personal and social goals. It is difficult to attach a stereotype to continu ation high school students because they are so divergent in attitudes, characteristics, problems, needs, and personal values (Knoeppel, 1989)* The continuation high school student is unique in his divergency--a student not neces sarily delinquent, but different. The student is often one whose performance in school has deteriorated to the point that he is told he must go to the continuation high school. Lucas (1969) related legislation mandating the transfer of any student to a continuation high school when the student had been suspended more than 10 school days of the school year to the tendency of the comprehensive school to actu ally "push out" the deviant student. It does not seem unreasonable that the divergent behavior of the continua tion school student reflects divergent thinking charac teristics. The approach developed by the California continua tion schools has centered on an understanding that the student is indeed a "divergent youth." Reed (1967) empha sized the appropriateness of this term; unlike the students of a comprehensive high school, for whom statistical stand ards are readily established and to whom they are easily applied, divergent youth constitute a population for which meaningful statistical norms cannot be established. Knoeppel (1969) cited the gaining of a positive self-image as an important goal among California continuation schools. Elder (1969) assigned, specifically, to continuation educa tion the ideal of educating humanely. The Handbook on Continuation Education in Califor- 4 nia (Halliwell, 1968) called for the gathering of Informa tion on which Intelligent and sympathetic guidance of the continuation school student might be based. Among atti- tudlnal variables that have been shown to have special relevance to positive change and achievement are self- concept (Rogers,, 19^-7) and. anxiety (Adams., 1969; Greene., 1971; Sarason et al., I960; Strem, 1966; Tulley, 1967). Purpose of the Study The main purpose of the study was to Investigate relationships between and among sex, ethnicity, anxiety, self-concept, and creativity characteristics of California continuation school students. The study had a dual intent: 1. To determine whether anxiety, self-concept, and creativity characteristics existed dif ferentially among continuation high school students according to sex and ethnicity. 2. To explore the relationships among anxiety, self-concept, and creativity among continu ation high school students. Questions To Be Answered 1. Among continuation high school students, do differences in anxiety exist between males and females and/or among black, white, and Mexican-American students? 2. Among continuation high school students* do differences in self-concept exist between males and females and/or among black* white* and Mexican-American students? 3. Among continuation high school students* do differences in creativity exist between males and females and/or among black* white* and Mexican-American students? 4. Among continuation high school students* are there interactions between sex and ethnicity on measures of self-concept* creativity* and anxiety? 5. Among continuation high school students* are there correlations among self-concept* crea tivity* and anxiety variables for either males or females and/or for students of black* white* or Mexican-American ethnicity? Hypotheses The two independent variables investigated were sex and ethnicity. The four dependent variables were creativ ity (GTOC scores)* anxiety (Peelings About School scores)* self-concept (Meaning of Words Inventory-modified scores)* and self-concept (scores on the Paces Scale). The experimental hypotheses may be summarized as follows: ________ ^ Hypothesis I Among continuation high school students there are significant differences in performance on tests of self-concept* anxiety., and creativity by sex and ethnicity singly and in combination. Hypothesis 2 Measures of creativity* self-concept* and anxi ety are related among continuation high school students. Importance of the Study The importance of the present study is twofold. First* defining the relationship of sex and ethnicity to anxiety* self-concept* and creativity among continuation high school students extends and augments existing research in accord with the recommendation of those who have explored these relationships among other student popula tions (Russell* 197^-; Tulley* 19^7) . Surprisingly little research has been done on the teaching and learning of attitudes within an educational framework. There has similarly been a paucity of research dealing with adolescent creativity* especially in regard to, personality characteristics (Phillips* Martin* & Meyers* 1972; Russell* 197^0 . The second importance of the present study is that 7 it addresses the need to investigate the particular pat terns and relationships existing in a given population,, adolescents enrolled in the Los Angeles City continuation high schools., in the development of strategies and inter ventions aimed at humanizing programs and promoting crea tivity. These particular patterns and relationships can cautiously be generalized to other California continuation school populations, all of which use.similar criteria in enrolling students. Definitions of Terms The terms defined as operationally as possible for this study are as follows: Anxiety. A characteristic represented by the low end of the scale on the Test Anxiety Scale for Chil dren (TASC)--modified for use with continuation high school students and called Peelings About School. Black. Persons having origin in any of the black racial groups (not of hispanic origin). Creativity and divergent thinking. While there is some concern about the appropriateness of synonymous use of the terms divergent thinking and creativity (Van Mondfrans, Feldhusen, Treffinger, & Perris, 1971)* for purposes of this study, both terms shall refer to those characteristics 8 measured by the Group Test of Creativity (GTOC) developed by Risser and Metfessel (1965b)* i.e.* redefinition ability,, sensitivity to problems., fluency of thinking* flexibility of thinking* originality* and propensity for elaboration. Ethnicity. Race or ancestry. Self-concept. Two operational definitions of self- concept are used. First is a characteristic represented by the total score obtained on the Faces scale--an adaptation for use with continuation school students of the Self- Perception Rating Scale developed by Dr. Newton Metfessel (1965) at the University of Southern California for use in Project Potential. Second is a characteristic represented by the total score obtained on the Meaning of Words Inven tory (Metfessel* 1963) adapted for use with continuation school students in measuring the same components of self- concept as in the Faces scale. Assumptions Fundamental to the research design are certain assumptions: 1. It is assumed that the CTOC is a valid and reliable measure of divergent thinking (cre ativity) for the population studied. 2. It is assumed that TASC--modified is a valid 9 and reliable measure of anxiety in the school setting for the population studied. 3. It is assumed that the Paces scale is a valid and reliable measure of self-concept for the population studied. 4. It is assumed that the Meaning of Words Inven tory is a valid and reliable measure of self- concept for the population studied. 5. It is assumed that the population studied possesses the characteristics being measured in sufficient amounts so that valid measure ment of the characteristics will occur. 6. It is assumed that the research design and data analysis procedures selected for the study were appropriate. Delimitations and Limitations The study is limited to a sample of students in the Los Angeles City continuation high schools and restricted to those for whom all data could be collected. The study is not longitudinal in nature and is concerned with finding relationships rather than with establishing causality. The basic instruments to be used in the study* the Group Test of Creativity, the Paces scale, the Meaning of Words Inventory, and the Test Anxiety Scale for Children-- 10 modified* are experimental and findings from them should be cautiously interpreted. The constructs of creativity,, self-concept* and anxiety are those measured by the instruments indicated. (it is assumed other instruments measure slightly different constructs.) Organization of the Remaining Chapters Chapter II is a review of the literature that relates to the study. The review is organized around three main topics: anxiety* self-concept* and creativity. Reviewed for each of these topics are the theoretical nature* measurement* and relationship to other variables in the study. Special consideration is given to the seman tic differential as a means of attitude measurement. Chapter III presents details on the source of data and methodology. The nature of the sample* the instru ments* the research design* and the statistical treatment of data are discussed. Chapter IV reviews the data and findings of the study. Chapter V presents a summary of major findings* conclusions* and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE Purpose and Organization This review focuses on the three constructs under investigation, namely, anxiety, self-concept, and crea tivity. The purpose is to elucidate the theoretical nature of the constructs; to elucidate the relationships that have been discovered among these constructs and sex and eth nicity variables; to highlight the relevance of the con structs to educational concerns; and, finally, to explore briefly some instruments by means of which the constructs are operationally defined and measured. Considered in order for each of the constructs of anxiety, self-concept, and creativity are its theoretical nature, its relation ships, and its measurement. Anxiety Theoretical Nature of Anxiety The concept of anxiety was introduced into psycho analytic literature by Freud in 193^ (Phillips, 1966). Since then it has been studied from several theoretical 11 12 positions. Phillips (1971) reviewed some of the theoretical approaches to anxiety: learning (S-R) theory based on contributions made by Dollard and Miller., I. Sarason, Spence and Spence, and Spielberger and Smith; psychoana lytic theory of Freud and Sarason; and cognitive theory with contributions from Atkinson, Mandler and Watson, and Lazarus. In an integrative summary of the viewpoints of anxiety, Phillips (1971) stated that the consequences of anxiety are most likely to be disruptive, to interfere with organized behavior patterns, and to have a debilitating effect on learning efficiency. Sarason et al. (i960) hypothesized that anxiety'was an individually learned drive which disrupted or facili tated performance depending upon the person and the situa tion. Both Sarason and Faust (1968) suggested that anxiety can be so debilitating that the individual assumes charac teristics which can become a permanent aspect of his personality, crippling him emotionally and intellectually. The work of Spence and his colleagues at the University of Iowa, and Mandler and Sarason at Yale (Levitt, 1967)^ has provided insights relative to the effects of anxiety on learning. Spence (i960) conceived of anxiety as a general, energizing drive that was individually acquired. Anxiety, he believed, facilitated performance on simple tasks and impeded initial learning on complex tasks while strengthen- 13 ing the probability of learning, when, as a result of practice, correct habits move up in the hierarchy of response. Anxiety and Self-concept Several researchers have found a significant inverse relationship between test anxiety and self-percep tion (Bledsoe & Garrison, 1962; Coopersmith, 1967; Gotler & Palmer, 1970; Phillips et al., 1972; Ruebush, 1963; Sarason et al., I960; Simha, 1968). In contrast, Russell (197*0 concluded the self-concept was relatively independ ent of anxiety. Sarason et al. (i960) criticized the narrowness of the usual testing programs of schools and concluded, specifically, that more importance should be placed on the child’s attitude toward himself in relation to school and on identifying students with creative poten tial . Anxiety and Creativity In separate studies, Evans and Frederiksen (1972), Pleh (1970), and Rosenblum, Treffinger, and Feldhusen (1970) advanced the possibility of a negative relation ship between anxiety and divergent thinking. The findings of Rosenblum et al. indicated anxiety was negatively related to originality but not to flexibility and fluency. On post hoc analysis, the authors speculated that origi- 14 nality might he the most strongly defensible criterion of creativity. Anxiety and Other Education- Related Variables Although studies relating to anxiety have been based on diverse theories and researchers have used a wide variety of anxiety measures, several findings relating anxiety to other school relative variables are common. There are numerous studies that indicate the sig nificance of anxiety in relation to academic performance and personal development (Sarason et al., i960). Anxiety tends to correlate negatively with performance on achieve ment and intelligence tests (Greene,, 1971; Hawkes & Furst, 1971; Neville, Pfost, & Dobbs, 1967; Phillips, 1966, 1971; Sarason et al., I960; Tulley, 1967). The effects of anxi ety have been found to be even more debilitating among low IQ persons than among higher IQ persons. High levels of test anxiety appear to interfere with short and long term memory tasks (Sieber & Kameya, 1968; Sieber, Kameya, & Paulson, 1970). High anxious persons have demonstrated higher impulsiveness (Barratt & White, 1969); higher school dropout rate (Barratt, 1971); a tendency to perceive time events relatively more in terms of the past than in terms of the present or future (Krauss & Ruiz, 1967); a tendency to set minimal goals.for themselves (Niland & Hansen, 15 1970); to do more poorly on timed tasks than less anxious persons (Morris & Liebert, 1969); and to be dependent upon others and unaggresslve (Sarason et al., i960). Phillips (1966) found that anxiety interacts with social behavior,, often producing increased peer rejection and social isola tion . Phillips et al. (1972) suggested that some school practices increase anxiety in learners and impede their progress while others show promise of assisting high anxious students to reduce the debilitating effects of anxiety (DuCette & Wolk, 1971). Anxiety and Sex Several sex differences related to test anxiety have been found (Chambers, 1968; Dale, 1969; Hawkes & Koff, 1969; Sarason et al., i96 0). Girls consistently get higher anxiety scores than boys and have also obtained consist ently lower lie scores. Sarason et al. believed that sex- related differences derived from culturally established role expectancies and reinforcement patterns so that, for example, boys might tend to be more defensive about admit ting anxiety if it were perceived as a weakness. Anxiety and Ethnicity Research supports the position that minority ethnic groups who are disadvantaged tend to have higher anxiety levels which interact adversely with some variables (Hawkes 16 & Furst, 1971; Hawkes & Koff, 1969)• Evidence of the negative effects of anxiety has been consistent regardless of ethnic extractions of the subjects (Entwisle, 1972). Measurement of Anxiety Sarason and his associates believed they might Improve theoretical explanations of anxiety which might guide future research of anxiety in general, by studying how anxiety affected student performance in a test situa tion. Studies done at Yale tended to show that children having high test anxiety levels also had greater anxiety in non-test situations than did children of low test anxiety. Sarason and his associates (i960) hypothesized that anxiety results in an anticipation of failure which is experienced as a negative affective state. In the test situation, an anxious person is more aware of his covert responses than he is of the nature of the external stimulus situation, which includes the stimulus task and accompanying instruc tions. The effect of anxiety on students in test situations is to narrow the perception of the anxious student and to prevent objective assessment of the task to be. solved. To explore their hypotheses, Sarason et al. (i960) developed a test to measure test situational anxiety. This instrument, the Test Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC) was later revised by Bloom (1963)5 who changed the format from a yes-ho response to a 4-choice response. 17 The rationale advanced by Sarason et al. for vali dating the anxiety scales was that such scales should allow prediction of behavior in a number of different but related situations. The several research studies reported consist ently supported the hypotheses that high anxiety scores are related negatively to performance on various group intel ligence and achievement tests; that variables such as self- concept,, socioeconomic status, and sex interact with high and low anxiety levels; and that, generally, girls tend to have higher anxiety scores than boys. To the extent, then, that their anxiety scales allowed correct prediction of behavior in a number of different but relevant situations, Sarason et al. assumed what has been termed Mconstruct'r validity (Wilson, Roebeck, & Michael, 1969). Tulley (1967) used Bloom’s (1963) modified version of the TASC to study the relationships of sex and anxiety to several characteristics of seventh-grade students. Both Bloom and Tulley obtained supportive correlational data when correlating the TASC--modified with standardized group IQ measures, r = .21 and r = .39^ respectively, both sig nificant beyond the .05 level of confidence. Since the Bloom and Tulley research, numerous studies have been made in which the TASC--modified has been used as an indicator of anxiety levels for the purposes of relating anxiety to other variables (Botler & Palmer, 1970; 18 Entwisle & Greenberger, 1970; Forhetz, 1969; Kozma, 1969; Levy, Gooch, & Kellmer-Pringle, 1969; O'Reilly & Wightman, 1971; Russell, 1974; Sarason,, 1973; Sieber & Kameya, 1968; Sieber et al., 1970; Silverman & Waite, 1969; Warner & Kauffman, 1972). The concept of construct validity in relationship to test anxiety research was reviewed by Pagano and Katahn (1972), who acknowledged that many positive results con tributed favorably to the original Sarason text anxiety theory, and consequently, the test scale itself. Sarason et al. (i96 0) made the same point, that is, that each study undertaken to validate the scales is not, in itself, a "crucial, T either-or kind of study. It merely adds to the total network of studies which constitute evidence for the validity of the construct (anxiety) from which the item content of the instrument has been derived. The essential validity, according to Sarason et al., rested in the accumulation of diverse confirmations, not upon separate ones. The item homogeneity of TASC--modified was investi gated by Dunn (1964), who concluded that the scales are not unidimensional assessments of test anxiety but, more, appropriately, measures of school anxiety. Test anxiety was found to account for the greatest part of the variance in later analyses by Dunn (1965) and Feld and Lewis (1967). 19 Inherent in the use of paper-pencil instruments are such problems as controlling for lying, defensiveness, and testing sets (Levitt, 1967). Sarason et al. (i96 0) recog nized this concern relative to validity and cautioned against interpreting low scores as pure lack of anxiety because of the error effect of defensive responses. O'Reilly and Wightman (1971)* working with lie scales, developed an adjusted TASC score. Other problems faced in using these scales include: invasion of privacy, possible production of traumatic reaction, and possible inappropri ateness as diagnostic tools (Waterman, 1971). Nighswander et al. (1970) and Nighswander and Beggs (1971) found generally low correlations between the Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) and the TASC and concluded that the TASC is measuring some other factor than test anxiety. Beck (1972) suggested that the different types of anxiety may account for the difficulty in relating specific measures to anxiety in general. Tulley (1967) reported an 8-week test-retest product-moment correlation in the .5^ to .75 range, signif icant beyond the .01 level of confidence. Self-Concept Theoretical Nature of Self-Concept Another area of the affective domain of particular interest to educational research is that of self-concept. 20 The distinction between self and self-concept has been made in theory, but in practice the constructs have been treated as synonymous. Wylie (197^0* whose book is the source most often cited as a comprehensive discussion and compendium of research on the self-concept, pointed out two chief mean ings of self: self as subject (the individual as experi- encer) and self as object (the individual as known to him self) . Her review of the literature was concerned primarily with the second meaning, that is, with self-concept, which typically has referred to the composite of ideas and percep tions that the individual has about his abilities, accom plishments, faults, weaknesses, and values. Self-concept has been treated as a hypothetical construct, inferred from specified behaviors and rendered quantitatively measureable. Educational emphasis on the self-concept assumes that it is amenable to change. Research suggests that self-concept is developmental, most determinations being made in infancy and early childhood with imperviousness to change coming with the years (Engel, 1959)• Developmental aspects of self-concept may be inferred from several studies dealing with the self (such as that of Sullivan et al., 1970) as well as from developmental theories dealing with the self (Kohlberg & Turiel, 1971). When Ciaccio (1971) tested the basic postulates of Erikson1s theory of ego epigenesis on a sample of 5-* 8-, and 11-year-old boys, 21 that of ego stage progression with increasing age found preliminary confirmation. Numerous studies have addressed themselves to various age-related differences and changes. Mullener and Laird (1971) concluded that there were age- related differences in the kind and complexity of informa tion individuals receive about themselves. Gardner and Moriarty (1968) found a number of developmental changes to occur in structural organization of the self-concept from early to late preadolescence. Grant (1969) found age differences in self-concept from early adulthood through old age. Jorgensen found changes in self, ideal self correlations from ages 8 through 18. Botwinick (1970) found age differences in self-ratings of confidence. Bortner and Hultsch (1972) found age differences in personal time perspective defined as self-assessment at present in comparison with 5 years backward. That it is possible to effect change in self-concept has been demonstrated. A study by Kennedy (1971) deter mined that a single incident, the events of May 4, 1970, on the campus of Kent State University, had significantly influenced the self-concepts of students. A research project of the North Carolina Advancement School measured significant change in self-concept among secondary school students after a four-month period of treatment (1970). Evaluations of various programs emphasizing, for example, 22 transcendental meditation, value clarification, group counseling, use of closed circuit TV, sensitivity training, positive reinforcement, or various group processes have shown such programs to achieve some success in modifying attitudes toward self. Ely and Minars (1973) showed that large scale mastery environments were successful in modify ing attitudes towards self. In a paper presented at the national seminar on adult education research, Abbatiello (1968) reported results of an evaluation of attitude change in training that concluded that negative attitudes were more amenable to change than positive and that the direction of change was from extremes of polarities to a neutral position. In 1971j> in a study of counterattitudinal advocacy, Burgoon also found prior attitude to be a predictor of attitude change. Self-Concept and Sex Some recent studies_su_ggest_ajrelation_between sex and self-concept change (Gottlieb^JL9JL3) and between sex and other attitudinal changes (Halliwell, 1970; Jandt, 1973; Knowles, 1972). In the separate studies of Gottlieb, Kohler, and Halliwell, females tended to gain more when gains in positive attitudes did appear. Both the Jandt and Knowles studies found consistently different attitude responses in males and females. In a comparative valida- 23 t i on of two me a su re so f __a c ademic self-confidence,, . Kirby.,.^and Hiller (1973) found predications. Xpf-.Ce,m^le.s„^on, Jbo-tbu-te,sts^ ^ ^ ^ t i > | M n i n . lower than for males. — - r. , - . ^ ■ f t " * * ' ' Self-Concept and Creativity Many authorities have specifically related a posi tive self-concept to creativity (Campbell., 19^7; Jordan., 1971; Rogers,, 1969) . Coopersmith (1967) maintained that persons of high self-esteem achieve better on tasks of creativity. Some empirical support for this position was found in a study by Felker and Treffinger (1971) of the relationship between self-concept and divergent thinking among 23 boys and 26 girls in the fourth grade. Exploring the relationship between self-concept and creativity in adolescents., Schaefer and Anastasi (1968) found that high creative students stood apart from their low creative counterparts by their self-image of being aloof., individu alistic., unconventionalj poised., influential., and control ling in social situations. Self-Concept and Other Education-Related Variables It is an open question as to whether school dysfunctioning causes low self-concept or vice versa, but there is little doubt that where one is found., so is the other (Soars & Soars., 1971). Jordan (1971) concluded that if a student's self-concept is low„ the student will lack 24 motivation,, have low expectations of self., and engage in a failure oriented self-fulfilling prophecy. This relation ship makes self-concept an important factor when one con siders the affective domain in a school environment., but it is not the only rationale for serious attention to self- concept . Several studies have related self-concept to voca tional maturity and career preference (Blake* 1971; Sievert, 1972; Walsh & Osipow„ 1973)• In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Chicago., Ford and Muse (1972) discussed their findings on the relationship between students' self- concept and students' future educational plans: the more positive a student's self-image., the more likely he is to have "long range" educational plans. Recent research has investigated both directly and indirectly a wide range of influences and effects of self- concept. In fact., the importance of the self-concept for the understanding of human behavior must be regarded as one of the most outstanding developments of the past 25 years in American psychology. Rogers (1947) wrote that one's behavior is consistent with one's self-concept. Some writers have argued that attitude change is the key influ ence in behavior change. Certainly., the accumulated research suggests that one must relate the cognitive sys tem of a person to his behaviors (Hazen., 1973) • 25 In a study by Kay (1972) of the sanctions which control moral conducts carried out on a sample of primary and secondary school children, the most interesting finding was the importance of self-concept as a regulating factor in moral judgment. Previously, Sullivan et al. (1970) studied age differences in a developmental study of the relationship between conceptual ego and moral development. Results obtained by Wax (1972) on the semantic differential seem to suggest that the Negro preadolescent delinquent identity is an aspect of self-perception. Research has specifically related self-concept to other attitudes (Miller, 1972; Porter, 1971)* to cognition and locus of control (Ruble & Nakamura, 1973; Sherman, 1971)* to perception of others (Richmond & Mason, 1972), and to personality changes (Soars & Soars, 1973)* Measurement of Self-Concept The semantic differential. The semantic differen tial was the outgrowth of diverse experimentation that began in 1938 with investigations of color-music synesthe sia. Osgood and his associates (1957) followed with a series of research programs substantiating generalized interrelationships between color, adjectives, and graphic visual representations which quite evidently exist even between diverse cultures. It seemed to Osgood et al. that the imagery found in synesthesia was intimately tied up 26 with language metaphor and that both represented semantic relations. The development of an operational device to measure meaning depended upon the postulate of a semantic space,, , r a region of some unknown dimensionality,, and Euclidian in character" (Osgood., Suci* & Tannenbaum* 1957). The semantic scales., composed of a set of bipolar adjectives., constituted a linear function that passed through the origin of that space. An initial list of adjectives was determined by orally presenting 40 nouns from the Kent-Rosanoff list as stimuli to 200 undergraduate students. The subjects were instructed to write the first descriptive adjective that came to mind. Definition of the dimensions of semantic space was accomplished by factor analysis* determined by the number of orthogonal dimensions that could reasonably be extracted. The first rotation of the adjective responses yielded responses of an "evaluative" nature* the second rotation identified factors which were labeled "potency*" and the third rotation produced an adjective list identified as "activity." The fourth rotation accounted for less than 2 percent of the total variance. Fifty percent of the total variance remained unexplained. Even though some part of this remainder can be attributed to error variance* part of it* according to Osgood et al.* does represent the presence of some unknown number of 27 additional factors. These factors appeared in Osgood et al.'s study as specific to particular scales and poten tially extractable in more extensive analyses. Abbatiello (1968) found the evaluative factor to be the most sensitive indicator of change. Osgood et al. presented sample formats for the semantic differential* together with typical instruction pages. No preference was expressed for any format* except that convenience in responding and scoring should be considered. Pairs of adjectives commonly used are fair/unfair* weak/strong* active/passive* unpleasant/pleasant* large/small* dull/ sharp* sweet/sour* light/heavy* and fast/slow. Meaning is assessed by the set of rating scores assigned by the subject (or the mean factor score for a group of subjects). Differences in meaning between indi viduals* scales* or concepts can be expressed in terms of the geometric distance between concepts. The scale scores establish a set of coordinates fixing each of the concepts as a point in space. Each coordinate establishes the distance of a concept from the origin along an axis which represents one of the factors. Some researchers (Everett* 1973) question the reliability of personality assessment at the individual level using the semantic differential. Wylie (197^0 believed that when the subject's mode of reporting is circumscribed* as by a semantic differential technique* one 28 has no way of knowing to what extent the external limits imposed by the measuring instrument prevent the subject from giving an accurate report of his conscious cognition or feelings. Wylie argued further against the use of the semantic differential on the grounds that the goal of Osgood et al. was not primarily self-concept measurement and* accordingly* the scales were not chosen to be pri marily relevant to self-concept. Wylie also pointed out that self-concept studies employing the semantic differen tial have not used comparable scales* thus vitiating their value in assaying the construct validity of the technique. Nevertheless* the semantic differential seems to have much to recommend it as a measuring device for self- concept and other attitudes* especially for group atti tudes. Problems of providing contextual consonance and insuring that the language difficulty level is commensurate with proficiency level of the subject are minimized. Prob lems associated with desirability sets (Greene* 1971) a^e likewise minimized. The semantic differential permits measurement of evaluative* potency* and activity factors. The pervasive dimensionality of the semantic differential is another advantage. Besides merely measuring change* the process enables the investigator to clarify which aspect of self-concept has changed. Osgood and his associates them selves effectively argued the merits of the semantic dif ferential as a generalized attitude measure. They noted 29 that it was less laborious to construct than either the Thurstone or Guttmann scales* claiming that a single set of bipolar adjectives against which selected sets of concepts could be rated was less cumbersome than the separate "master” scales of Remmers* and what is perhaps more impor tant* the response mode freed the subject from answering specific questions or making forced decisions regarding agreement or disagreement. The flexibility in application and relative ease of construction and administration* together with demonstrated comparability* effectively sup ported the semantic differential process as a generalizable measure of attitude. Osgood et al. provided a comprehen sive evaluation of the semantic differential process in terms of objectivity* reliability* validity* sensitivity* comparability* and utility. The wide acceptance and varied use of the semantic differential throughout educational research as an effec tive means for the evaluation of generalized attitude is reflected in numerous comments by Cronbach (1965)^ Gagne (1959)j and others. Wylie herself reported that more than 80 studies have employed the semantic differential method of measuring self-referent concepts. In a comparative study of high school dropouts and stayins* Strem (1966) employed the semantic differential as a measure of several attitudes* including self-concept* in the Meaning of Words Inventory (Metfessel* 19^3)• Adams' 30 (1967) adapted the Meaning of Words Inventory for use In his study of the achievement motive among achievement,, sex, and ethnic groups. Self-Perception Rating Scale. Wylie (197^0 pointed out that much of the ambiguity in the measuring of self- concept can be traced to inadequacies In the theories' definitions of their terms and considered at length the general conceptual and methodological problems of defining self-concept variables operationally. One method widely used to operationalize a definition is to equate self- concept with the stated view of a person about himself on test or non-test indicators. It Is In the context of this definition that the Self-Perception Rating Scale of Project Potential at the University of Southern California was designed. According to Metfessel (1973)* the purpose of the Self-Perception Rating Scale was to develop an instrument which would meet the following criteria: provide a measure of the student's perception of himself, be easily adminis tered, be easily scored, be essentially nonverbal, be amenable to statistical interpretation, and be flexible enough to measure global or limited aspects of the self- concept without changing the essential format or instruc tions of the Instrument. 31 The rating scale uses a set of five graduated stick figures. Each figure is scored from 1 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater positive self-concept. Metfessel (1973) reported that if there is good rapport and the children perceive the test administrator as a person worthy of trust., valid (.44 with teacher ratings) and reliable (.87)* 4-week test-retest ratings may be expected. Creativity Theoretical Nature of Creativity Parness and Harding (1962) provided a comprehensive compendium of research on divergent production. Razik (1965)* reviewing the literature on creativity dating from 1744* identified 4*176 references to the topic. Creativity originally was discussed in psychology and education as an attribute of high intelligence* referred to as being gifted (Getzels & Dillon* 1973* Metfessel* 1967). Guilford (1950) was one of the first researchers to consider creativity a measurable phenomenon related to intelligence. Guilford (1967) described creativity in terms of divergent production and as a combination of several factors: redefinition* sensitivity to problems* fluency of thinking* flexibility of thinking* originality* 32 and elaboration. His research suggested that creative abilities are present in all individuals to some degree and in different combinations and that the ability for divergent production is distinct from convergent produc tion* although both can exist in the same individual to varying degrees. Guilford's research was the first systematic attack of significance on the problem of creativity (Metfessel* 1967). Facilitated by Guilford's (1959) conceptualization of the structure of intellect* creativity has become one of the most widely explored topics of recent attention (Stauts* 1973)* Concern over the effect of current testing has also encouraged the research of creativity (Bloom* 1958; Guilford* 1968; Metfessel & Hammond* 1972; Metfessel & Michael* 1967; Sarason* i960).. Roweton (1970) and Warren (1971) at the University of Wisconsin recently reviewed research on creativity and classified the existing literature into highly similar categories. Warren (1971) outlined the following orienta tions to the study of creativity: identification of traits* abilities* and personalities of creative individuals; examination of the introspections of innovative people; and multivariate methods of factor analysis* psychoanalytic* behavioristic* and operational methods. Regardless of the approaches taken to study creativity* the identified char 33 acteristics of creative thinking and the creative process have been remarkably similar (Clark., 1958; Guilford., 1968; Jackson & Messick, 19^7; Kagen, 19^7; Metfessel,, 19^7; Torrance, 1972). Studies done on the developmental pattern of crea tivity of the dominant white culture in the United States (Khatena, 1972; Torrance, 1962, 19^7^ 1988) indicate that development 'of creative behavior follows a generalized progression with decrements in creative thinking just prior to entry into grade 1 and in about grades 4, 7* and 12. In the dominant white culture., growth in creativity peaks between grades 3 and 4 and again in about grade 1 1. Creativity and Other Education- Related Variables During the first decade of study of creativity, attention was given to seeking fundamental information to define the parameters of the creative process, describe creative individuals, and identify conditions which facili tate or impede creativity. More recently, development of measures to identify creative individuals and to find pos sible relationships of divergent production with intelli gence, achievement, or other personal characteristics has oecome more frequent (Getzels & Dillon, 1973)• Torrance (1962) hypothesized that an intelligence threshold estimated to be about 120 might be necessary for 34 creative thinking. Yamamoto (1964) replicated Torrance's threshold concept studies with secondary level students and found that the level of creative thinking abilities related differentially to academic achievement among those who were in the top 20 percent on creativity and whose IQ was above 120. Recent findings from several centers of research on creativity indicate that tests of creativity are as effec tive as intelligence tests in predicting academic success and more effective than other methods in measuring an indi vidual's capacity for creative performance (Metfessel., 1965) . Application of the knowledge of creativity to edu cational planning has been slow to occur. Guilford (1968) appealed to educators to give more attention to development of the skills of divergent thinking and to show more tol erance of the outcome of divergent thinking, noting that while most of our problem solving in everyday life involves divergent thinking, the educational system still emphasizes convergent thinking. Taylor (1964) also noted the need for the development of programs designed to nurture creativity during the high school years, the period which has been most neglected to date in creativity research. 35 Creativity, Sex, and Ethnicity There have been several studies which investigated sex-creativity relationships. The findings are somewhat consistent, but not definitive. A majority of the studies which have investigated sex-creativity relationships have found no significant differences between, the sexes (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Khatena, 1971; Pogue, 1964; Torrance, 1968; Yamamoto, 1967). In a recent study of cross- cultural differences of sixth-grade subjects, Mearig (1967) strongly cautions that measured sex differences in terms of creativity tests must be evaluated in light of their respective populations. Low anxiety and high self-esteem, as has been mentioned, are considered necessary for diver gent production (Coopersmith, 1967)• Measurement of Creativity Some of the more widely used tests of creativity were developed by Wallach and Kogan (1965) and Metfessel and his staff at Project Potential (Guilford, 1967; Mednick & Mednick, 1967; Metfessel et al., 1965; Risser & Metfes sel, 1965a,b; Starkweather, 1971; Torrance, 1968). The tests of creativity developed by Metfessel et al. were intended particularly for use in identifying creative potential in disadvantaged children. The Group Test of Creativity (GTOC) (Risser & 36 Metfessel, 1965b) Is an adaptation of the Individual Test of Creativity (Risser & Metfessel, 1965a), which is more appropriate for younger children. The theoretical base for the test is J. P. Guilford's work related to creativity (Metfessel, 1965). The test, in accordance with Guilford's model of the intellect, postulates six major components of creativity. These components of creativity have been defined by Metfessel et al. (1965) as: 1. Redefinition--The ability to redefine or to see things in different ways. 2. Sensitivity to Problems--The ability to see defects, the unusual, or to be aware that some thing needs to be done. 3. Fluency of Thinking--The ability to generate a high rate of ideas, and communicate them to others. 4. Flexibility of Thinking— The ability to adapt one's thinking to different conditions and requirements. 5. Original!ty--The ability to do something or to create something that is statistically infrequent but adaptive, or of reality. 6. Elaboration--The ability to generate implica tions from given information. 37 Nivette (1966) and Fox (1967) have done reliability and validity studies on the GTOC. Scorer reliability was found to be .88 (Fox., 1967). Validity statements were inferentially drawn from Guilford’s structure of intellect model and from the previously validated Individual Test of Creativity developed by Risser and Metfessel (1965a). Summary This review provided an overview of the constructs of anxiety., -self-concept* and creativity: their theoretical nature* specific suggestions for measurement* the relation ship among the constructs and variables of ethnicity and sex* and their relevance to education. The literature suggested that the constructs* operationalized as suggested* are both related to one another and highly relevant to humanistic* future-oriented education. CHAPTER III SOURCE OF DATA AND METHODOLOGY The Sample The subjects represented the Intact populations of six Los Angeles City continuation high schools. Adminis tration of the experimental CASP (Creativity/Anxiety/Self- Perception Inventory) was authorized by Dr. Calvin Burke, Director, Los Angeles City Continuation High Schools. The six schools were randomly selected from among those whose populations were representative of the three ethnic groups under consideration. The procedure constituted a major but necessary limitation of the study. Because of de facto segregation of ethnic minority populations, black subjects were drawn entirely from low socioeconomic communities, the brown subjects almost entirely from among low socio economic communities, and the white subjects from middle socioeconomic communities. Only students who completed all items of the CASP Inventory were included in the study. The students were not obligated to participate in the testing. After the nature of the inventory was explained, students were free to respond or not to the several instruments or to any part 38 39 Table 1 Summary of Data Sources Ethnicity Sex Number Inventoried Incomplete Data Final Sample Black Male 38 10 28 Female 35 7 28 Mexican- American Male 33 6 27 Female 33 9 2k White Male 30 4 26 Female 37 8 29 Total 20 6 kk 162 40 of them or to absent themselves entirely from the testing area. A summary of data sources Is presented in Table 1. Instrumentation Constructs of anxiety, creativity, and self-concept were operationalized through use of group administered instruments developed by Newton Metfessel, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Southern Cali fornia, and his staff at Project Potential, a federally funded research project. The anxiety and self-concept instruments were modified by the investigator for use with continuation high school students. Anxiety A modified version of the Test Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC), the Peelings About School test of Project Potential, was used to determine level of anxiety. Minor adjustments were made in the Peelings About School test to accommodate the peculiarities of the population and the instructional environment under consideration. Two items judged irrelevant to the continuation high school student were omitted. Self-Concept The eight self-concept components chosen for . measurement were among those considered by Project Poten tial: school ability; ideal self; and the self perceived by 41 self,, classmates, teachers, counselors, family, and friends. These eight self-concept components were judged by the investigator equally relevant both to the continuation high school student and to his educational setting. Two measures of self-concept were used, both adap tations of instruments developed and used by Project Potential. Meaning of Words Inventory The Meaning of Words Inventory employs the semantic differential (Osgood, 1957) and depends upon the postulate of a semantic space with evaluative, activity, and potency dimensions. The. adjective pairs used for the evaluative factor are fair/unfair, pleasant/unpleasant, and sweet/sour. The activity factor uses fast/slow, active/passive, and sharp/dull. The potency factor uses light/heavy, small/ large, and weak/strong. Differences in meaning between individuals, scales, or concepts can be expressed in terms of the geometric distance between concepts. For purposes of the CASP Inventory, the self-concept components measured were worded in exactly the same way as for measurement by the Faces instrument. Faces Scale The Faces Scale replaces the five stick figures of the Self-Perception Rating Scale with nine faces forming a 42 scale from very sad to very happy. Use of the nine faces accommodates the ability of older subjects to make finer discriminations along a continuum and thus provides a greater range of responses. The stick figures of the Self- Perception Rating Scale were designed specifically to meet the needs of young students. The Paces Scale, while meet ing the criteria established by Metfessel et al. (1965) and based upon the same broad definition of self-concept, is intended for the older subject. Metfessel (1973) held that reliable and valid measures of individual self-concept could be obtained from the Self-Perception Rating Scale provided that the test administrator had rapport with the subjects. Metfessel reported a validity coefficient of .44 with teacher ratings and a reliability coefficient of .87 on a 4-week retest. Creativity Creativity was measured by the Group Test of Cre ativity (GTOC) constructed by Newton Metfessel (Risser & Metfessel, 1965b) and his staff at Project Potential. The GTOC contains seven subtests, measuring six areas of diver gent production identified by Guilford (1959)• The sub tests are the following: Redefinition A, Redefinition B, Sensitivity to Problems, Fluency of Thinking, Flexibility of Thinking, Originality, and Elaboration. Validity 43 studies done by Nivette (1966) and Fox (1967) were inferen- tially drawn from work done by Guilford on the structure of intellect model., and from the previously validated Indi vidual Test of Creativity developed by Risser and Metfessel (1965a). Administration and Scoring Procedures The CASP Inventory was administered by the investi gator at each of the six continuation high schools selected for the study. The investigator also met with the poten tial subjects at each of these schools to explain the nature of the inventory and to share personal enthusiasm for the study. Students were given the option of remaining anonymous and were promised selected results of the final data analysis. Scoring of the CASP Inventory was done by a trained assistant. Procedures for the hand scoring of the Meaning of Words, Feelings About School, and Faces tests were straightforward. Criteria and procedures given ,in the "Group Test of Creativity: Administration Manual; Scoring Guide; Record Booklet," first revision, 1972, by Metfessel and Hammond, were followed to score the tests of creativ ity. Cantey (1973) reported interjudge reliability using the criteria given in the manual at .96 and .9 8. 44 Statistical Design and Procedures The statistical procedures required for analysis of the data included means, standard deviations, ratios, product-moment correlations, and analysis of variance. The two-way factor analysis procedures used random reduction to achieve equal cell sizes after all subjects were assigned to a cell. The two-way ANOVA used was a 2 x 3 factorial design presented in Figure 1. Random reduction was used to exclude subjects from cells with n’s larger than 24, the n of the identified smallest cell, until all cell n's were equal to 24. The two independent variables were sex and ethnic ity. Fifty-three dependent variables related to the measures of anxiety, self-concept, and creativity. When significant F ratios were obtained, the analysis for sig nificance of differences among means was made using Tukey’s HSD (Kirk, 1968). Data were statistically analyzed through existing SPSS programs at the Computer Science Laboratory, Univer sity of Southern California, on an IBM 370-158 computer. All variables were analyzed in context of the null hypoth eses which were rejected at the .05 level of significance. 45 Male Female Black White Mexican- American Sex: Male Female E T H N I C I T Y Independent Variables Ethnicity: Black. Mexican- American White Dependent Variables Creativity (7) (Group Test of Creativity) Self-Concept (9) (Faces) Self-Concept (36) (Meaning of Words) -Classmates - Redefinition A & B Sensitivity to Problems Fluency of Thinking Flexibility of Thinking Originality Propensity for Elaboration Total Classmates School Ability Self Teachers Family Friends Counselor Ideal Self Total Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor Mean Concept Score -School - Evaluative Factor Ability - Potency Factor - Activity Factor -Self - Evaluative Factor - Potency Factor - Activity Factor -Teachers - Evaluative Factor - Potency Factor - Activity Factor -Family - Evaluative Factor - Potency Factor - Activity Factor -Friends -Counselor - -Ideal Self - -Mean Anxiety (l) (Feelings About School) Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor Mean Concept Score Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor Evaluative Factor Potency Factor Activity Factor Concept Figure 1. ANOVA: Statistical Model for 2 X 3 Factorial Design 46 Summary In this chapter, a description of the sample, an account of procedures, and the design for statistical analysis were presented. The results of the statistical tests, relating variables in context of the null hypotheses, comprise the contents of the following chapter. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS In this chapter results of the study are related to each of the research questions. Summary tables containing information bearing directly on the answers to these ques tions are presented. Analysis of Variance Results To answer questions 1-4, data for 162 subjects were cast into a 2 x 3 factorial design and randomly reduced to N = 144 with cells of n = 24. Tables 2 through 5 summarize ANOVA results evaluating sex and ethnicity differences in anxiety, self-concept, and creativity characteristics, respectively. (The ANOVA results are presented in more detail in the Appendix.) Where significant main effects due to ethnicity were indicated, Tukey’s HSD procedure was used to determine which pair-wise comparisons were signifi cant. Sex, Ethnicity, and Anxiety The research question was whether, among continua tion high school students, differences in anxiety existed between males and females and/or among black, white, and 47 48 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Anxiety Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 76.62 79.37 90.58 1 e SD 16.52 15.20 12.65 s F e m Mean 70.33 78.04 81.29 a 1 SD 22.47 20.73 15.04 e s O n oj oo lA o i —i LTV LTV vo t- . i i IX 0 0 Black X=73.47 Mexican- _ American X=78.70 White X=85.93 Note. Since anxiety has been operationally defined as the low end of the scale on the Feelings About School test, the lower the mean score, the higher the anxiety. Table 3 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Anxiety Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 1144.69 1 1144.69 3.76* Ethnicity (B) 3757-04 2 1878.52 6. 17* A X B 387.68 2 193-84 0.637 Error 41986.10 138 304.24 Total 47275.51 143 350-59 *p ^ .05. 49 Mexican-American students. Significant main effects of both sex (p ^.0 5) and ethnicity (p ^.0 5) on anxiety (Feeling About School scores, Tables 2 and 3) were found. Females measured significantly more anxious than males. Blacks measured significantly more anxious than whites (q = 4.95)* These findings of significant differences in anxiety among continuation high school students between males and females and between ethnic groups are consistent with previous research. Several sex differences related to test anxiety have been found (Chambers, 1968; Dale, 1969; Hawkes & Koff, 1969; Sarason et al., i960). Girls con sistently get higher anxiety scores than boys and have also obtained consistently lower lie scores. Sarason and his coworkers believed that sex-related differences have derived from culturally established role expectations and reinforcement patterns so that, for example, boys might tend to be more defensive about admitting anxiety if it were perceived as a weakness. Research also supports the position that minority ethnic groups who are disadvantaged tend to have higher anxiety levels (Hawkes & Furst, 1971; Hawkes & Koff, 1969). Sex, Ethnicity, and Self-Concept The research question was whether, among continua tion high school students, differences in self-concept exist between males and females and/or among black, white, 50 ' \ Table 4 I Summary of ANOVA Results Evaluating Sex and Ethnicity Differences . / in Self-Concept as Measured by FACES and / ^ Meaning of Words Inventory (MOWl) Measure of Self-Concept Sex (A) ---- F'Value Ethnicity (B) Interaction (A X B) Classmates FACES 10.85*- 0 .2 5 0 .2 3 MOWI— Total 4.58* O.58 1.86 Evaluative Factor 2 1. 50* 0 .1 8 O.85 Potency Factor O.78 0.37 0.22 Activity Factor 1.15 O.69 2.01 School Ability FACES 3.87* 1.76 1.48 MOWI— Total 11.85* 2.15 .00 Evaluative Factor 14.27* 2.69 0 .3 1 Potency Factor 2 .6 5 2.68 o.64 Activity Factor 7.88* 0.14 0.05 Self FACES 0.20 0.90 0 .4 3 MOWI— Total 4.74* 1.37 0.46 Evaluative Factor 14.95* 5.22* 0.89 Potency Factor .00- 0.30 0.04 Activity Factor 2 .7 2 0.15 O.65 Teachers FACES 4. 77* 2.39 3.64* MOWI— Total 11. 92* 0.37 2.73 Evaluative Factor 25.64* 1.29 3.49* Potency Factor 1 .2 6 1.13 I.03 Activity Factor 5-97 0.15 1.32 Family FACES 1.52 1.38 0 .4 7 MOWI— Total 5. 61* 3.64* 1.40 Evaluative Factor 7-55* 4.66* 0.99 Potency Factor .00 0.65 1.85 Activity Factor 11.48 3. 83* 2.66 Friends . FACES 6.02* 2.73 1.74 MOWI— Total 0 .8 5 0.64 0.16 Evaluative Factor 11.20* 2.85 0 .9 6 Potency Factor O.58 0.73 1.43 Activity Factor .00 0 .1 6 0.37 Counselor FACES 1.26 O.54 0 .0 8 MCWI— Total 4.21 0 .9 8 0.42 Evaluative Factor 10.94* 4.02* 1.0 9 Potency Factor 0 .2 8 0.43 1.08 Activity Factor 6.20* O.58 O.65 Ideal Self FACES 6.94* 1.11 0.20 MOWI— Total 6.54* 0.79 0.01 Evaluative Factor 20.00* 2.80 0.66 Potency Factor 0.93 0.02 0.64 Activity Factor 9.92* 0.46 0.06 Total FACES 8.12* 0.90 1.22 MOWI— Self-concept mean 10. 26* 1.34 O.56 Evaluative Factor 2 9. 76* 4.53* 0,40 Potency Factor .00 0.49 0,52 Activity Factor 3.88* 0.23 0.99 *p s . 0 5. 51 and Mexican-American students. Significant differences by sex,, favoring females, occurred (p g .01) in all components of self-concept measured by the Meaning of Words Inventory (Table 4). Differences occurred across all evaluative factors; across the activity factors of school ability, teachers, family, counselor, and ideal self; and across the total means for evaluative factors, activity factors, and total self-concept. None of the nine comparisons involving the potency factor involved a significant difference. Some significant differences by sex, favoring females, also occurred (p ^ .0 5) across components of self-concept meas ured by the Faces Scale. Differences by ethnicity were not significant across any of the components of self-concept measured by the Faces Scale. However, several significant differences by ethnicity occurred (p g. 0 5) over components of self- concept measured by the Meaning of Words Inventory (Table 4). More specifically, the 36 comparisons revealed 6 sig nificant F values. Since the comparisons are not independ ent, it is impossible to evaluate whether this number is more than would be expected by chance. However, it is of interest to note that 4 of the 6 significant _F values were obtained in comparisons involving the evaluation factor, which also involved significant differences in all nine comparisons of males and females. 52 Sex, Ethnicity, and Creativity The research question was whether., among continua tion high school students,, differences in creativity exist between males and females and/or among black., white., and Mexican-American students. Significant differences by sex, favoring females., were found with several creativity char acteristics (Table 5)* redefinition (p ^.01); fluency of Table 5 Summary of ANOVA Results Evaluating Sex and Ethnicity Differences in Creativity Characteristics F Value Interaction Measure Sex (A) Ethnicity (B) (A X B) Redefinition A & B 8.74** 5. 41** 1.25 Sensitivity to Problems 2.08 5. 36** 0.52 Fluency of Thinking 15-97* 8. 88*** 0.20 Flexibility of Thinking 706* 15. 23** 1.15 Originality 0.1k 7. 02* 0.1k Propensity for Elaboration O.87 13. 16** 2.22 Total 10.02** 20.21** 1.36 *p = § . 05. **p = § . 01. ***p ^ . 001. 53 thinking (p £ . 0 5); flexibility of thinking (p £.0 5); and total creativity (p s.01). In contrast* the following did not show significant sex differences: sensitivity to prob lems., originality, and propensity for elaboration. The findings of several studies which have inves tigated sex-creativity relationships are not definitive. However, a majority of the studies which have investigated sex-creativity relationships have found no significant dif ferences between the sexes (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Khatena, 1971; Pogue, 1962; Torrance, 1968; Yamamoto, 1967). The findings of this study of significant differ ences among continuation high school students between the sexes favoring females may, in fact,, reflect uncontrolled variables such as IQ differentiated between the sexes in the population under consideration. In a recent study of' cross-cultural differences of sixth-grade subjects, Mearig (1967) strongly cautioned that measured sex differences in terms of creativity tests must be evaluated in light of their respective populations. Significant differences by ethnicity were found in all creativity characteristics. Whites received signifi cantly higher scores on all characteristics than either blacks or Mexican-Americans: redefinition (p £.01; q = 4.39 and q = 3.47.? respectively); sensitivity to problems (p £ .0 1; q = 4.49 and q = 3.43, respectively); fluency of 54 thinking (p £.0 1; q = 5*27 and q = 5*0 6, respectively); flexibility of thinking (p £.0 1; q = 6.64 and q = 6.92, , respectively); originality (p £.0 5; q = 4.79 and q = 4.31* respectively); propensity for elaboration (p £.0 1; q = 7.03 and q = .50. , respectively); total creativity (p £.0 1; q = 7.65 and q = 7*90. , respectively). Again., the findings of this study of significant differences among continuation high school students among ethnic groups favoring whites over both blacks and Mexican- Americans might reflect uncontrolled variables related to the differing socioeconomic status of the ethnic groups under consideration. Interaction of sex and ethnicity on anxiety,, self- concept, and creativity. The research question was whether., among continuation high school students., there exists significant interaction between sex and ethnicity with respect to anxiety,, self-concept, and creativity. There were no significant interactions of sex and ethnicity on either anxiety or creativity. Thus, the sex differences found in anxiety and creativity were similar for all three ethnic groups, or, put in another way, the findings for the three ethnic groups were similar for the two sexes. For self-concept, of the 50 F values evaluating interaction between sex and ethnicity on the Faces Scale and Meaning of Words Inventory results, only two were significant at the 55 .05 level (a number that might be attributed to chance with this many comparisons) . Thus,, with only two possible exceptions, there is no evidence to indicate that the dif ferences in self-concept found in the study for males and females were not similar in all three ethnic groups. Correlations The fifth and final question addressed by the study was the following: Among continuation high school students., are there correlations among self-concept, creativity, and anxiety variables for either males or females and/or for students of black, white, or Mexican-American ethnicity? Significant correlations among measures of crea tivity, self-concept, and anxiety for sex and ethnic groups were determined using tabled values of significant correla tions based on the _t test. (in addition to the correla tions needed for the research question, the results for the two measures of self-concept, Paces and Meaning of Words Inventory, were also correlated separately for the two sex groups and the three ethnic groups.) The sex groups had an n = 72, requiring a correlation of .23 for significance at the .05 level. The ethnic groups had an n = 48, requiring a correlation of .28 for significance at the .05 level. Because the question addressed involved 53 vari ables, a large amount of random "noise" is assumed among the many significant correlations. For this reason, 56 patterns and trends, rather than correlations between indi vidual character!sties, are emphasized. Self-Concept Different correlations between the two measures of self-concept components by sex and ethnicity were not anticipated; and nonsignificant differences were found when the correlations of total scores were compared (the difference between .58 for females and .43 for males and the differences among .47* .68, and .49 for the blacks, Mexican-Americans, and whites, respectively). However, when the correlation results for individual factor scores were compared, an interesting pattern of differences betweer and among sex and ethnic groups was found (Table 6). Not all the differences in correlation for females and males were significant. However, there were consist ently higher correlations (.50--.59) for females for those components of self-concept directly related to school (classmates, school ability, teachers, and counselor) than for the males (.09--.40). In contrast, for those compo nents only indirectly related to school (self, family, friends, ideal self), the correlations were consistently higher for males (.32--.48) than for females (.26--.34). There were similar differences in correlations between the Paces and Meaning of Words Inventory measures of self-concept among the ethnic groups. For those 57 Table 6 Correlations between Faces and Meaning of Words Measures of Self-Concept for Sex and Ethnic Groups Self-Concept Component Sex (N=72) Females Males Ethnicity (N=48) Mexican- Blacks American White Classmates • 59** .27* • 53** . 47** . 37** School Ability . 56** .19 .48** .41** . 32* Self . ^4** . 46** .35* .33* . 44** Teachers .50** .40** . 54** . 56** . 29* Family .^4** . 46** .19 . 43** . 58** Friends . 30** . 32** .04 . 36* . 60** Counselor .51** .09 . 33* . 55** .15 Ideal. Self . 26* .48** . 36* . 36* . 49** Total . 58** . 43** . 47** . 68** . 49** Total Self-Concept — FACES— with Meaning of Words Evaluative Factor Mean . 47** . 45** . 44** . 65** . 46** Note. For df = 7°^ a correlation of .23 is necessary for signifi cance at .05 and a correlation of . 30, for significance at . 01. For df = 46, a correlation of .28 is necessary for signifi cance at .05 and a correlation of . 31* for significance at . 01. •^Significant at or beyond . 05. ^Significant at or beyond .01. 58 components of self-concept directly related to school there were consistently higher correlations for blacks (.33--.54) than for whites (.13“~•37). For those components of self- concept only indirectly related to school, the correlations were consistently higher for whites (.44--.60) than for blacks (.04--.34) or Mexican-Americans (.33““•44). Thus, the pattern of differences in correlations between males and females was like that of differences among the ethnic groups. (As with the results for the two sex groups, not all the differences in r_ values were statistically signifi cant. ) Anxiety and Self-Concept Several researchers have found a significant inverse relationship between test anxiety and self-percep tion (Bledsoe & Garrison, 1962; Coopersmith, 1967; Cotier & Palmer, 1970; Phillips et al., 1972; Ruebush, 1963; Sarason et al., i960; Simha, 1968). In contrast, Russell (1974) concluded that self-concept was relatively independ ent of anxiety. The findings of the present study were predominately in accord with the findings of Russell. Most of the correlation coefficients betwe.en anxiety and self- concept measures were not significant. More specifically, 76 of the 90 correlations for the two sex groups were below the value needed for significance at the .05 level; and the same was the case with 119 of the 135 correlations involv- 59 ing the three ethnic groups. (Table 7 and Table 8 summa rize these results. The complete listing of the correla tions is given in the Appendix.) Of the 31 correlations significant at the .05 levels it may be noted that only five are positive correla tions and that four of these involved the correlation of anxiety with Ideal Self: for males on Faces; for blacks on both Faces and Meaning of Words Inventory; and for whites on Faces. For females and for Mexican-Americans; Ideal Self did not show up in any of the significant correla tions. On the other hand; all but four of the 26 signifi cant negative correlations occurred with females and with Mexican-Americans. Although these differences may be simply a matter of random noise; there is at least the sug gestion that somewhat different patterns of relationship between anxiety and self-concept exist for males and females and also among the three ethnic groups studied. Anxiety and Creativity Among males; anxiety had a significant negative correlation with each of the creativity characteristics except that of propensity for elaboration (Table 9). Among other groups there were significant negative correla tions of anxiety with creativity characteristics as fol lows: among Mexican-Americans with flexibility of thinking; among whites with originality; and among females with 60 Table 7 Summary of Significant Correlations* for Sex Groups: Anxiety and Self-Concept (Males) FACES (total of 9 correlations) Ideal Self .38 MEANING CF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 36 correlations) No significant correlations (Females) FACES (total of 9 correlations) School Ability -.23 Self -.25 Teachers -.kk- Counselor - 0 2 Total Self-Concept -.31 MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 36 correlations) School Ability— Activity Factor -.31 School Ability— Total -.29 Teachers— Activity Factor -.36 Teachers— Total -.31 Counselor— Activity Factor -•33 C ouns elo r— Total ~.2b Total Activity Factor -.23 Note. Critical value for Sex Groups (70 df) is + .23. The signs of the correlation coefficients from the complete table in Appendix A have been reversed in this summary table because anxiety has been operationally defined as the low end of the scale on the Feelings About School test. *p S . 05. 61 Table 8 Summary of Significant Correlations* for Ethnic Groups : Anxiety and Self-Concept (Blacks) FACES (total of 9 correlations) Teachers -*23 Ideal Self .^0 MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 36 correlations) Ideal Self— Evaluative Factor .28 Classmates— Potency Factor .28 (Mexican-Americans) FACES (total of 9 correlations) School Ability -*36 Self -.32 Family -. 35 Counselor --29 Total Self-Concept -*35. MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 36 correlations) School Ability— Evaluative Factor -*37 School Ability— Activity Factor --32 School Ability— Total -. 33 Classmates— Activity Factor -*23 Teachers— Activity Factor -*35 (Whites) FACES (total of 9 correlations) Ideal Self .43 Total Self-Concept -.35 MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 36 correlations) Counselor— Activity Factor -*29 Counselor— Total -•32 Note. Critical value for Ethnic Groups (h6 df) is + . 23. The signs of the correlation coefficients from the complete table in Appendix A have been reversed in this summary table because anxiety has been operationally defined as the low end of the scale on the Feelings About School test. *p ^ .05. 62 Table 9 Summary of Significant Correlations*: Anxiety and Creativity (Total of 7 Correlations for Each of the Comparison Groups) (Males) Redefinition A & B -*31 Sensitivity to Problems -*32 Fluency of Thinking -•31- Flexibility of Thinking -*36 Originality -.35 GTOC Total -. k-2 (Females) Fluency of Thinking -.26 GTOC Total -.23 (Blacks) No Significant Correlations (Mexican-Americans) Flexibility of Thinking -.28 , GTOC Total -.28 (Whites) Originality -.36 Note. Critical value for Sex Groups (70 df) is + .23* Critical value for Ethnic Groups (1+6 df) is + .28. The signs of the correlation coefficients from the complete table in Appendix A have been reversed in this summary table because anxiety has been operationally defined as the low end of the scale on the Feelings About School test. *p g .05. 63 Table 10 Summary of Significant Correlations* for Sex Groups: Self-Concept and Creativity (Males) FACES (total of 63 correlation coefficients) Family and Flexibility of Thinking Teachers and Propensity for Elaboration -.23 .29 MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 252 correlation coefficients) Family and Fluency of Thinking Ideal Self and Fluency of Thinking Mean Evaluative Factor and Fluency of Thinking School Ability and Redefinition School Ability and Originality School Ability and Total Creativity -•25 -.25 -.23 .2k .26 .27 (Females) FACES (total of 63 correlation coefficients) Ideal Self and Redefinition -.26 MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 252 correlation coefficients) Classmates and Originality Self and Originality Mean Evaluative Factor and Originality -.26 -.27 -.2 k Note. Critical value for Sex Groups (70 df) is + . 23. 0 VII S' 64 Table 11 Summary of Significant Correlations* for Ethnic Groups: Self-Concept and Creativity (Blacks) FACES (total of 65 correlations) No significant correlations MEANING CF WORDS INVENTOR! (total of 252 correlations) No significant correlations (Mexican-Americans) FACES (total of 65 correlations) Teachers and Fluency of Thinking • 31 MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 252 correlations) None (Whites) FACES (total of 65 correlations) Classmates and Redefinition A & B .50 Classmates and Flexibility of Thinking • 39 Self and Redefinition A & B .30 Counselor and Sensitivity to Problems -.29 Total Self-Concept and Redefinition A & B .28 MEANING OF WORDS INVENTORY (total of 252 correlations) School Ability and Flexibility of Thinking .41 School Ability and Originality .29 School Ability and Total Creativity .42 Self and Redefinition .30 Evaluative Factor and Redefinition •32 Counselor and Elaboration .28 Family and Elaboration -•31 Activity Factor and Elaboration -.28 Note. Critical value for Ethnic Groups (46 df) is + .28. *p . 05. 65 fluency of thinking. The direction of these correlations is consistent with the separate studies of Evans and Frederiksen (1972), Pleh (1970), and Rosenblum, Treffinger, and Peldhusen (1970), each of which advanced the possibil ity of a negative relationship between anxiety and diver gent thinking. However, it is to be noted that for these 35 comparisons, only 11 were significant and 6 of these occurred in the male group. Thus, except for the male group, the results predominantly suggest independence of anxiety and the creativity measures. Self-Concept and Creativity Sex groups. For both males and females, most of the correlations between self-concept measures and crea tivity measures were not significant, suggesting independ ence of the two characteristics for continuation high school students. Actually, of the small number of signifi cant correlations found, more were negative than positive. However, in view of the large number of correlation coef ficients involved in these comparisons, the presence of only 12 significant correlations (4 positive and 8 nega tive, with none larger than .36) might well indicate simply chance results. Ethnic groups. A very small number of significant correlation coefficients was found also for the data 66 analyzed according to ethnic grouping (14 correlations sig nificant at the .05 level out of the total of 1,14-5 com puted for these comparisons). Thus, the predominant picture is one of lack of relationship between self-concept and creativity scores for all three of the ethnic groups. To the extent that the significant correlations reflect anything other than chance, it is of interest in this comparison to note that all but one of the significant correlations occurred with the white group. Moreover, the large majority of these coefficients were positive rather than negative (in contrast to what was found in the anal ysis of the data by sex groups). Summary of Correla tion Findings These findings may be summarized as follows: Among continuation high school students there are some signifi cant correlations (p g.0 5) among self-concept, creativity, and anxiety variables for both sex and ethnic groups. How ever, a very large majority of the'correlations were not of sufficient size to be significant at the .05 level, sug gesting predominantly independence of the various charac teristics measured. Examination of the significant correlations that were obtained indicated somewhat different patterns of distribution between males and females and the same was 67 also found among the three ethnic groups. Whether these patternings were chance results cannot be determined from the data. However^ whether they will show up again In future studies Is worth examining. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary A review of the literature revealed that the con structs of anxiety, self-concept, and creativity have been repeatedly related to variables directly and indirectly significant to educators: achievement, perception, locus of control, intelligence, personal development, and many more. The psychological and educational studies reviewed further related the constructs of anxiety, self-concept, and cre ativity to sex and ethnicity. No studies investigated, specifically, possible relationships among sex, ethnicity, anxiety, creativity, and self-concept characteristics among continuation high school students. Summary of Design and Procedures The subjects were 204 students representing the intact populations of six Los Angeles City continuation high schools. The six schools were randomly selected from among those continuation schools whose populations included blacks, Mexican-Americans, and whites. The constructs of anxiety, creativity, and self 68 ___ concept were operationalized through use of group- administered instruments developed by Newton Metfessel and his staff at Project Potential, a federally funded research project. The anxiety and two self-concept instruments were modified by the investigator for use with high school stu dents. Eight self-concept components, judged by the inves tigator to be relevant both to the continuation high school student and his peculiar educational setting, were used: school ability, ideal self, and the self perceived by self, classmates, teachers, counselor, family, and friends. These were measured with both the Meaning of Words Inven tory and the Paces Scale. The former involves the semantic differential approach, and with it adjectives for evalua tion, potency, and activity factors were chosen. To test for significant differences in performance on the tests of self-concept, anxiety, and creativity by sex and ethnicity singly and in combination, data for 162 subjects were cast into a 2 x 3 factorial design and ran domly reduced to N = 144 with cells of n = 24. Where significant main effects due to ethnicity were indicated, Tukey's HSD procedure was used to determine which pair wise comparisons were significant. Significant correla tions among measures of creativity, self-concept, and anxiety were determined using tabled values of significant correlations based on the t test. 70 Summary of Findings Sex* Ethnic!ty* and Anxiety The research question was whether,, among continua tion high school students* differences in anxiety existed between males and females and/or among black* white* and Mexican-American students. The findings of the study* consistent with previous research* showed that there were significant differences in anxiety associated with both sex and ethnicity. Females measured more anxious than males. Blacks measured more anxious than whites. Sex* Ethnicity* and Self-Concept The research question was whether* among continua tion high school students* differences in self-concept existed between males and females and/or among black* white* and Mexican-American students. The study showed there were some significant differences between males and females on the measures of self-concept. Differences by sex* favoring females* occurred on at least one factor in all components of self-concept measured by the Meaning of Words Inventory. Some significant differences by sex* favoring females* also occurred across components of self- concept measured by the Faces Scale. Differences by ethnicity were not significant across any of the components of self-concept measured by 71 the Paces Scale. Several significant differences by eth nicity occurred over components of self-concept measured by the Meaning of Words Inventory. However,, since the com parisons are not independent, it is impossible to evaluate whether the significant J? values were more than would be expected by chance. (it is interesting to note that 4 of the 6 significant F values were obtained in comparisons involving the evaluative factor,, which also involved sig nificant differences in all nine comparisons of males and females.) Sex, Ethnicity, and Creativity The research question was whether, among continua tion high school students, differences in creativity existed between males and females and/or among black, white, and Mexican-American students. Findings of the present study support the conclusion of differences between the sexes among continuation high school students tested favor ing females in the creativity characteristics of redefini tion, fluency of thinking, flexibility of thinking, and total creativity. Differences in sensitivity to problems, originality, and propensity for elaboration were not sig nificant. Although the findings of several studies which have investigated sex-creativity relationships are not definitive, a majority of the studies have found no sig nificant differences between the sexes. 72 The findings of the present study also support the conclusion of differences among the ethnic groups favoring whites over both blacks and Mexican-Americans in all cre ativity characteristics. However, generalization of con clusions of either sex or ethnic differences in creativity among the continuation high school students tested to other populations should not be made because important confoundirg variables such as intelligence and socioeconomic status were not controlled. Interaction of Sex and Ethnicity on Anxiety, Self-Concept, and Creativity The research question was whether, among continua tion high school students, there exists significant inter action between sex and ethnicity with respect to anxiety, self-concept, and creativity. Results showed no signifi cant interaction between the two variables on either anxiety or creativity. Moreover, of the 50 F values evalu ating interaction between sex and ethnicity on the Paces Scale and Meaning of Words Inventory results, only two were significant at the .05 level and thus, quite possibly, random noise. Thus, with only two possible exceptions, there is no evidence to indicate that the differences in self-concept found in the study for males and females were not similar in all three ethnic groups, or viewing the lack 73 of interaction from the standpoint of the other variable., that any differences in self-concept between the three ethnic groups were not similar for males and females. Correlations The fifth and final question addressed by the study was the following: Among continuation high school students., are there correlations among self-concept, creativity, and anxiety variables for either males or females and/or for students of black., white., or Mexican-American ethnicity? Self-Concept Different correlations between the two measures of self-concept components by sex and ethnicity were not anticipated,, and nonsignificant differences were found when the correlations of total scores were analyzed. However, when the correlation results for individual factor scores were compared, an interesting pattern of differences between and among sex and ethnic groups was found. There were consistently higher correlations for females for those components of self-concept directly related to school than for males. In contrast, for those components only indi rectly related to school, the correlations were consist ently higher for males. There were similar differences in correlations among the ethnic groups. For those components of self-concept directly related to school, there were 74 consistently higher correlations for blacks than for whites. For those components of self-concept only indi rectly related to school, the correlations were consist ently higher for whites than for either blacks or Mexican- Americans . Anxiety and Self-Concept The results of the present study were predominantly in accord with the finding of Russell (1974) that self- concept was relatively independent of anxiety. Russell's findings are in contrast to those of several researchers who have found a significant inverse relationship between test anxiety and self-concept. Of the 31 correlations significant at the .05 levels only five were positive correlations and four of these involved the correlation of anxiety with Ideal Self. Ideal Self did not show up in any of the significant correlations for females and Mexican-Americans. On the other hand, all but four of the 26 significant negative correlations occurred with females and with Mexican-Americans. Although these differences may be simply a matter of random noise, there is at least the suggestion that somewhat different patterns of relationship between anxiety and self-concept I exist for males and females and also among the three ethnic groups studied. 75 Self-Concept and Creativity For both males and females, most of the correla tions between self-concept measures and creativity meas ures were not significant, suggesting independence of the two characteristics for continuation high school students. The presence of only 12 significant correlations, 4 posi tive and 8 negative with none larger than . 30^ might well be simply chanpe results. A very small number of significant correlation coefficients was found also for the data analyzed according to ethnic grouping. To the extent that the significant correlations reflect anything other than chance, it is of interest in this comparison to note that all but one of the significant correlations occurred with the white group. Moreover, the large majority of these coefficients were positive rather than negative (in contrast to what was found in the analysis of the data by sex groups). Anxiety and Creativity Among males, anxiety had a significant negative correlation with each of the creativity characteristics except that of propensity for elaboration. The direction of these correlations is consistent with a number of studies which have advanced the possibility of an inverse relationship between anxiety and divergent thinking. Except for the male group, the results predominantly _ __ suggest independence of anxiety and creativity measures. This is another instance of differences among the groups studied. Gonclu sions The statements following recognize■that, in the present study, the relevant variables of intelligence and socioeconomic status were not controlled. 1. With the group of 144 continuation high school students measured, a number of significant differences were found between the female and male subgroups. The former had significantly higher anxiety scores (as found in a number of other studies). Both nonsignificant and signifi cant differences were found in the various self-concept comparisons and creativity comparisons. Where the differ ences were significant, the females had more favorable scores. However, because intelligence level and socio economic level were not controlled in this study, it may be that what appear to be sex differences were actually associated with different levels of the female and male groups on other characteristics. 2. In comparing the black, Mexican-American, and white subgroups also, some significant differences in mean scores were found. The black group had significantly higher anxiety scores than the white group (a result in accord with previous findings concerning anxiety scores of 77 minority groups). The white group scored higher on all the creativity measures than either of the other groups. However., because intelligence and socioeconomic levels were not controlled in this investigation* what appear to be ethnicity differences actually may be associated with differential level of the ethnicity groups on other charac teristics. 3. With only two exceptions* in all the compari sons made there was lack of significant interaction between sex and ethnicity on the measures of anxiety* self-concept* and creativity. Predominantly* then the results for the two sex groups were similar for the three ethnic groups* and vice versa. 4. Among this group of continuation high school students there were some significant correlations among self-concept* creativity* and anxiety variables for both sex and ethnic groups. However* a very large majority of the correlations were not significant at the .05 level* suggesting predominantly independence of the various char acteristics measured. Examination of the significant correlations that .were obtained indicated somewhat different patterns of distribution, between males and females* and the same was also found among the three ethnic groups. — Recommendations Recommendations are presented based upon the con clusions of the present study. Recommendations for Future Research In further exploration of sex and ethnic differ ences* research is needed using the measuring instruments employed in this study but controlling for intelligence level and socioeconomic status. Such a study needs to be done with continuation high school students to determine whether the differences found in the present investigation are characteristic of such students when these two impor tant variables are controlled. Research controlling IQ and socioeconomic status is also needed to explore sex and ethnic differences in other student populations. It would be valuable to use these instruments with regular-school students and also with students of ethnic groups not included in this study. Such research would not only pro vide information regarding the generality of the sex and ethnic group differences obtained in this study* but would also lead to a body of information on continuation school students and regular-school students that would be helpful to educators working with continuation school students. If the sex and ethnicity differences found in this study hold up with such additional testing* then research 79 to study possible causes of the differences will be in order. The two Instruments used for operationalizing self- concept gave somewhat different results with respect to sex and ethnic group differences in mean score. Research is needed to study such subject-instrument interaction. Recommendations to Educators The results of this study suggest that., for con tinuation school students, the possibility should be con sidered of (l) sex differences in anxiety, self-concept, and creativity and (2) ethnicity differences in anxiety and creativity. However, the interrelations found among these constructs in this investigation should be interpreted cautiously in light of the possibility that the differences found in the study may reflect confounding variables (e.g., IQ and socioeconomic status) or subject-instrument inter action . REFERENCES REFERENCES Abbatiello, A. A. An objective evaluation of attitude change in training, a before and after study of 12 stimuli in a supervisory program. Paper presented at the National Seminar on Adult Education Research, Chicago, 19 68. Adams, B. A. A semantic differential investigation of sig nificant attitudinal factors related to three levels of academic achievement of seventh grade students. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1967. Barratt, E. S. Impulse control and anxiety related to school adjustment and academic achievement among high school males (Final report: Office of Education Project S-484). Galveston: Texas University Medical Branch, 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 056 35^) Barratt, E. S., & White, R. Impulsiveness and anxiety related to medical students' performance and attitudes. Journal of Medical Education, 1969* 44, 6 0 6-6 0 7. Barron, F. Creativity and personal freedom. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, i960. Baughman, E. E., & Welsh, G. S. Personality: A behavioral science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Beck, A. T. Cognition, anxiety, and psychophysiological disorders. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Cur rent trends in theory and research. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Binder, D. M., Jones, J. G., & Strowig, R. W. Non- intellective self-report variables as predictors of scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 1970, 6 3, 364-366. Birch, D. R. Self in society: The future of social study. Social Science Record, 1971* Is 26-29. 81 82 Blake, D. L., & Taziri, K. Human potential development: The difference between taskmaster and teacher. American Vocational Journal, 1971* 46, 78-79* Bledsoe, J. C., & Garrison, K. C. The self-concept of elementary school children in relation to their aca demic achievement, intelligence, interests and manifest anxiety. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 003 004. Bloom, B. S. Toward a theory of testing which includes measurement evaluation-assessment (CSEIP Occasional Report No. 9)• Los Angeles: University of California, 19 68. Bloom, R. D. Some correlates of test anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963* Bohn, M. B., & Simon, S. B. What schools should be doing about values clarification. NASSP Bulletin, 1974., 58, 54-60. Bortner, R. W., & Hultsch, D. F. Personal time perspective in adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 7* 98- 103* Botwinick, J. Age differences in self-ratings of confi dence. Psychological Reports, 1970., 27., 856-8 6 6. Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. Prior attitude and language intensity as predictors of message style and attitude change following counter-attitudinal advocacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971* 20, 246- 253* Campbell, P. B. School and self-concept. Educational Leadership, 1967* 24, 510-515* Cantey, R. Correlates of creativity among father-absent children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer sity of Southern California, 1973* Chambers, A. C. Anxiety, physiologically and psychologi cally measured and its consequences on mental test performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni versity of Southern California, 1968. S3 Ciaccio, N. V. A test of Erikson's theory of ego epigene sis. Developmental Psychology, 1971* 4, 306-311. Clark, C. H. Brainstorming. New York: Doubleday., 1958. Combs., A. W. New concepts of human potentials: New chal lenge for teachers. Childhood Education., 1971* 47* 349-355. Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1967. Cotier., S., & Palmer, R. J. The relationship among sex, sociometric^ self, and test anxiety factors and.the academic achievement of elementary school children. Psychology in the Schools, 1970, 7* 211-216. Cowen., L. Anxiety, self-concept, and the semantic differ ential. Journal of Psychology, 1972, 80, 6 5-6 8. Crockenberg, S. B. Creativity tests: A boon or boondoggle for education? Review of Educational Research, 1972, 42, 27-45. Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. Psychological tests and personal decisions. Urbana: University of. Illinois Press, 1965. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955* 52, 281-302. Dale, R. R. Anxiety about school among first-year grammar school pupils, and its relation to occupational class and co-education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969* 39* 18-25. Deo, P., & Sharma, 8. Self-ideal discrepancy and school achievement. Adolescence, 1970, 5_, 353-360. Ducette, J., & Wolk, S. The limitations of the interac tion hypothesis in regard to ability grouping. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 056 330, 1971. Dunn, J. A. Factor structure of the test anxiety scale for children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 92. 84 Dunn, J. A. Stability of the factor structure of the test anxiety scale for children across age and sex groups. Journal of Consulting Psychology, , 1965; 29; 187. Dunn., J. A. A new look at the effects of anxiety and stress on the performance of complex intellectual tasks., Study II: School anxiety and cognitive function ing--exploratory studies. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service,, ED 014 77.0; 1967. Eales, J. R. Clip sheet on continuation education; Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1976. Elder, G. H. Continuation schools and educational plural ism: A vision of the future. Journal of Secondary Education, 1969; 44(7); 324-32^ Ely, D., & Miners, E. The effects of large scale mastery environment on students' self-concept. Journal of Experimental Education, 1973; 4l, 20-22. Engel, M. The stability of the self-concept in adoles cence. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1959; 58, 211-215. Entwisle, D. R. Questions about social class, internality- externality, and test anxiety. Developmental Psychol ogy, 1972, 7; 2 1 8. Entwisle, D. R., & Greenberger, E. A survey of cognitive style in Maryland ninth graders: II test anxiety (Report number 6 8). Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 042 l8l, 1970. Evans, F. R., & Frederiksen, N. The effects of models on creative performance in relation to sex, ability and anxiety. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association., 1972, 7; 491-492. Everett, A. V. Personality assessments at the individual level using the semantic differential. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1973; 33(^ 0; 837-644. Faust, V. The counselor-consultant in the elementary school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. 85 Feld, S., & Lewis, J. The assessment of achievement anxieties in children: How important is response set and multidimensionality in the Test Anxiety Scale for Children? Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 025 313, 1967. Felker, D. W., & Treffinger, D. J. Self-concept, diver gent thinking abilities and attitudes about creativity and problem solving. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 047 347, 1971. Fennimore, F. Developing the adolescent's self-concept with literature. English Journal, 1970, 59, 1272-1275. Ford, W. S., & Muse, D. Self-concept and students' future educational plans. Paper presented at the annual meet ing of the American Educational Research Association in Chicago, 1972. Forhetz, J. E. Anxiety differences in difficult and easy test conditions. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Repro duction Service, ED 053 421, 1969. Fox, L. J. A study of the relationships between grades and measures of scholastic aptitude, creativity, and attitudes in junior college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Califor nia, 19 67. Freese, M. Where is the human? Social Science Record 1971, 7, 50-54. Gagne, R. M. Psychology and human performance: An intro duction to psychology. New York: Holt, 1959. Gardner, R. W., & Moriarty, A. Personality development at preadolescence: Explorations of structure formation. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 023 215, 1968. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. Q. Creativity and intelli gence. New York: Wiley, 1962. Getzels, J. W., & Madaus, G. F. Creativity. In R. J. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Getzels, J. W., & Dillon, J. T. The nature of giftedness and the education of the gifted. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. 86 Gottlieb, M. R. The effects of laboratory training methods on highly stable variables such as self-esteem and self-disclosure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Mon treal, 1973. Grant, C. H. Age differences in self-concept from early adulthood through old age. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Docu ment Reproduction Service, ED 079 813., 1989* Greene, D. L. The relations among general anxiety, defen siveness, intelligence, and scholastic achievement in elementary school children. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Southern California, 1971* Grossman, B. D. Anxiety as a factor in the child's respon siveness to social reinforcement. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 027 074, 1984. Guilford, J. P. Creativity. American Psychologist, 1950, 5, 444-454. Guilford, J. P. Three faces of intellect. American Psy chologist^ 1959, 14, 469-479. Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Guilford, J. P. The structure of intellect and its educa tional implications. San Diego: Knapp, 1968. ~ Halliwell, J. W. Handbook on continuation education in California. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 19 68. Halliwell, J. W. Effects of counseling on attitudes and grades with intermediate grade pupils designated as having poor attitudes. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1970, 5., 113-121. Hawkes, T. H., & Burst, N. F. Race, socioeconomic situa tion, achievement, IQ and teacher ratings of students' behavior as factors relating to anxiety in. upper ele mentary school children. Sociology of Education, 1971j 44, 333-350. Hawkes, T. H., & Koff, R. H. Social class differences in anxiety of elementary school children. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 030 892, 1969. 87 Haz_en, M. D. The role of attitudes in the prediction of behavior: A new perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Speech Associa tion., Minneapolis^ 1973. Herrenkohl, R. C. Factor-analytic and criterion study of achievement orientation. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, . 1972, 6 3, 31^-3 2 6. Hill., K. T., & Dusek, J. B. Children's achievement expec tations as a function, of social reinforcement, sex of S, and test anxiety. Child Development, 1969, 40, 547- 557. Holt, J. C. Freedom and beyond. New York: Dutton, 1972. Howe, L. W. Educating to make a difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 1971, 5 2, 547-549. Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. The person, the product, and the response. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967. Jandt, F. E. Sex differences in the factor structure of Berger's expressed acceptance of others scales. Report delivered to the Department of Speech, State Univer sity of New York, 1973. Jordan, D. C. The disadvantaged child. In D. W. Allen & E. Seifman (Eds.), The teachers handbook. Glenview, 111.: Scott Foresman, 1971- Kabakjian., E. Tell us what you think. Man/Society/ Technology--A Journal of Industrial Arts Education, 1973, 32, 165-167. Kagan, J. Personality and the learning process. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967. Kay, W. The self-concept as a moral control. Journal of Moral Education, 1972, 2_, 6 3-6 7. Kennedy, W. R. A comparison of selected student attitudes preceding and following the events of May 4, 1970, on the campus of Kent State University. Paper presented at the 55th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1971. 88 Khatena* J. Developmental patterns in production by- children aged 9 to 19 of original verbal images as measured by sounds and images: A study of construct validity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1971, 15, 117-122. Khatena* J. Developmental patterns in production by chil dren aged 9 to 19 of original verbal images as meas ured by sounds and images. Psychological Reports,, 1972, 30, 649-650. Kirby* E. A.* & Hiller,, J. Comparative validation of a direct and indirect measure of academic self-confi dence. Paper presented at annual American Educational Research Association Meeting,, New Orleans,, 1973* Kirk* R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behav ioral sciences. Belmont* Calif.: Brooks/Cole* 1968. Knoeppel* J. W. The students served in continuation educa tion.. Journal of Secondary Education* 1969, 44(7), 298-301. Knowles* D. W. Attitudes of students in a student- centered high school. Canadian Counselor* 1972* 6* 20-2 6. Kohlbert* L.* & Turiel* E. (Eds.). Recent research in moral development. New York: Holt* Rinehart & Winston* 1971. Kokovich* A.* & Matthews* G. E. Reading and the self- concept. National Elementary Principal* 1971, 50* 53- 54. Konopka* G. Requirements for healthy development of adolescent youth. Adolescence* 1973, 8_* 291-316. Kozma* A. The effects of anxiety* stimulation* and isola tion on social reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology* 1969, 8* 1-8"! Krauss* H. H.* & Ruiz* R. A. .Anxiety and temporal perspec tive. Journal of Clinical Psychology* 1967, 23(3), 340-342. Lee* D. M. Views of the child. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook* 1973, 72* 138-17 2. Leonard* G. Education and ecstasy. New York: Delacorte Press* 1968. 89 Levittj E. E. The psychology of anxiety. New York: Bobbs- Merrill, 1967. Levy, P., Gooch, S., & Kellmer-Pringle, M. L. A longitu dinal study of the relationship between anxiety and streaming in a progressive and traditional junior school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 39, 166-173. Long, B. E. , & Wolsk, D. Projective education for the child's need to know. Social Education, 1971, 35, 295- 299. Lucas, J. E. A comparative study of the health behavior of successful high school students and potential drop outs in selected California high school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation., University of Oregon., 1969* Magary, J. P. (Ed.). School psychological services. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Maslow, A. Self-actualization and beyond. Address pre sented on the Conference on the Training of Counselors of Adults, Chatham, May 1965. Mearig, J. S. Sex and cultural differences in performance on certain verbal creativity measures. Journal of Edu cational Research, 1967, 6l, 114-117. Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. Examiner's manual: Remote associates test: College and adult forms 1 and 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967. Metfessel, N. S. Meaning of words inventory. Los Angeles: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Southern California Press, 1963. Metfessel, N. S. et al. Group test of creativity. Los Angeles: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Southern California Press, 19 6 5. Metfessel, N. S. The school psychologist's role in devel oping creativity. In J. F. Magary (Ed.), School psy- chological services. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1967- Metfessel, N. S. Interpretive guide: Self-perception rat ing scale, revised. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California, 1973. 90 Metfessel., N. S., & Hammond * M. D. Group test of creativ ity: Administration manual., scoring guide and record booklet. Unpublished manuscript, first revision., University of Southern California, 1972. Metfessel., N. S.* & Michael., ¥. B. A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs. Educational and Psy chological Measurement, 1967* 279 931-9^3 • Miller, T. W. Male attitudes toward women's rights as a function of their level of self-esteem. Paper pre sented at the 1972 American. Psychological Association Convention., Hawaii., September 1972. Morris., L. W., & Liebert, R. M. Effects of anxiety on timed and untimed intelligence tests: Another look. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology., 1969* 339 240-244. Mullener, N., & Laird, J. D. Some developmental changes in the organization of self-evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 1971* 5* 233-236. Nelson, W. M., Finch, A. J., Kendall, M. S., & Nelson, S. B. Anxiety and locus of control in delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 2(4), 275-279- Neville, D., Pfost, P., & Dobbs, V. The relationship between test anxiety and silent reading gain. American Educational Research Journal, 1967* 4, 45-50. Nie, N., Bent, D., & Hull, C. H. SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Nighswander, J. K. et al. A validity study of self-report and physiological measures of test anxiety. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 039 564, 1970. Nighswander, J. K., & Beggs, D. L. A study of the rela tionships between test order, physiological arousal, and intelligence and achievement test performance. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 046 983* 1971. 91 Niland, T. M., & Hansen,, J. C. The relationship of minimal goal discrepancy to adjustment and anxiety in elemen tary school children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970, 26, 32-33. Nivette, J. D. An investigation into some critical factors in a group test of creativity. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Southern California, 19 6 6. North Carolina Advancement School. North Carolina Advance ment School: An interim research report, Winston Salem, Summer 1970. O'Reilly, R. P., & Wightman, L. E. Improving the identifi cation of anxious elementary school children through the use of an adjusted anxiety scale. In B. N. Phil lips (Ed. ), Anxiety and school related interventions: A selective review and sunthesis of the psychological literature. Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1971. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The meas urement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Pagano, D. P., & Katahn, M. Construct validity, discon- firming evidence and test-anxiety research. Journal of Personality, 1972, 40, 137-147. Parness, S. J. Creative potential and the educational experience. In Seminar report: Creativity, the state of the art. Dayton: Institute for Development of Educational Activities, n.d. Parness, S. J., & Harding, H. F. A source book for crea- tive thinking. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962. “ Peterson, K. Integrity development as a curricular basis. Education, 1972, 92, 4-7. Phillips, B. N. An analysis of causes of anxiety among children in school. Austin: Division of Research, Texas University, 1966. Phillips, B. N. Anxiety and school related interventions: A selective review and synthesis of the psychological literature. Interpretative Study II. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 053 401, 1971. 92 Phillips., B. N., Martin, R. P., & Meyers, J. Intervention in relation to anxiety in school. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Pleh, C. Effects of anxiety, success and failure on some factors of creative thinking. Magyar Pszechologiai Szemle (English summary), 1970,"^71 242-255. Pogue, B. C. A study to determine whether or not there is a relationship between creativity and self-image. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State Univer sity, 19 62. Porter, J. Black child, white child: The development of racial attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer sity Press, 1971. Putnam, B. A., & Hansen, J. C. Relationship of self- concept and feminine role concept to vocational matur ity in young women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19, 4 3 6-4 4 0. Razik, T. A. Bibliography of creativity studies and related areas. Buffalo: State University of New York, 1965. Reed, D. R. The nature and function of continuation education: An overview of an exciting and expanding field of education. Journal of Secondary Education, 1967, 44(7)j 292-297. Richmond, B. 0., & Mason, R. L. Self-concept and percep tion of others. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1972, 12, 103-111. Risser, J. J., & Metfessel, N, S. Individual test of crea tivity. In Project Potential. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1965. (a) Risser, J. J., & Metfessel, N. S. Group test of creativity In Project Potential. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1965. (b) Rogers, C. R. The organization of personality. American Psychologist, 19^-7* 2, 358-368. Rogers, C. R. Freedom to learn. Columbus: Merrill, 1969. 93 Rosenblum, N. D., Treffinger,, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. The effects of need for approval and general anxiety on divergent thinking scores, Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University, March 1970. Rosenthal, A. 0. A comparative analysis of the perceived meaning of selected variables for achieving and under achieving high school students as measured by the semantic differential. Unpublished doctoral disserta tion, University of Southern California, 1965. Roweton, W. E. Creativity: A review of theory and research. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 044 012, 1970. Ruble, D. N., & Nakamura, C. Y. Outerdirectedness as a problem solving approach in relation to developmental level and selected task variables. Child Development, 1973, 44, 519-528. Ruebush, B. K. Anxiety. In H. W. Stevenson, J. Kagan, & C. Spiker (Eds.), Child psychology, 62nd N.S.S.E. year book . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19 63. Russell, D. M. Correlates of sex and anxiety to divergent production, convergent production and self-concept in rural disadvantaged children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1974. Sarason, I. G. Test anxiety and cognitive modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973* 28, 58-61" Sarason, I. G. et al. Anxiety in elementary school chil dren. New York: Wiley, i9 6 0. Schaefer, C. E., & Anastasi, A. A. A biographical inven tory for identifying creativity in adolescent boys. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 42-48. Sherman, S. J. The effects of perceived locus of control and social influence techniques on attitude change. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Associa tion Convention in Detroit, 1971- Sieber, J. E., & Kameya, L. L. The relation between test anxiety and need for memory support in problem solving: Revised research memorandum no. 11. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction. Service, ED 021 6l6, 19 68. 94 Sieber, J. E., Kameya, L. I., & Paulson, P. L. Effect of memory support on the problem-solving ability of test- anxlous children.. Today's Education, 1970, 59., 76-77. Sievert, N. W. The role of the self-concept in determin ing an adolescent's occupational choice. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 1972, 9* 47-53. Silverman, I. W., & Waite, S. V. Test anxiety and the effectiveness, of social and nonsocial reinforcement in children.. Child Development, 1969* 40, 307-314. Simha,, J. B. A test of dependence proneness. Journal of Psychological Researches, 1968, 12, 66-70. Sizer, T. R. Places for learning, places for joy. Cam bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Smith, A. G. What it means to become human. In M. Scobey & G. Graham (Eds.), To nurture humaneness: Commitment for the 70's. 'Washington, D.C.: Association for Super vision and Curriculum Development, 1970. Soars, A., & Soars, L. M. Expectancy, achievement and self-concept correlates in disadvantaged and advantaged youths. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 056 134, 1971. Soars, A., & Soars, L. M. Tests of self-concept as meas ures of personality change. Address presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, 1973. Spence, K. W. Behavior theory and learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.JTl Prentice-Hall, i9 6 0. Starkweather, E. K. Creativity research instruments designed for use with preschool children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1971* 5.* 245-254. Stauts, D. M. Teacher assessment of creative potential in fifth grade students. Unpublished doctoral disserta tion, University of Southern California, 1973. Strem, B. E. An attitude survey of high school dropouts by means of the semantic differential process. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation., University of Southern California, 1966. 95 Sullivan,, E. V. et al. A developmental study of the rela tionship between conceptual ego and moral development. Child Development, 1970/41, 399-411. Taylor, C. W. (Ed.). Creativity: Progress and potential. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1904. ! Throm, S. H., & Arredondo, D. Teaching for attitude change. American Biology Teacher, 1971* 33* 401-404. Toffler, A. Future shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Torrance, E. P. Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Torrance, E. P. Non-test ways of identifying the crea tively gifted. In J. C. Gowan, G. D. Demos, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implica tions . New York: Wiley, 1967. Torrance, E. P. A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1968, 12, 195-199. Torrance., E. P. Training teachers and leaders to recognize and acknowledge creative behavior among disadvantaged children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1972, 16, 3-10. Tulley, J. E. An investigation of the relationship of sex and anxiety to intellectual, achievement, and personal characteristics of seventh grade students. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1967. Van Mondfrans, A. P.., Feldhusen, J. F., Treffinger, D. J., & Ferris, D. R. The effects of instructions and response time on divergent thinking test scores. Psychology in the School, 1971* 8_, 65-71. Wallach, M. k., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt^ Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Walsh, W. B., & Osipow, S. Career preferences, self- concept, and vocational maturity. Research in Higher Education., 1973* 1* 287-2 9 5. Warren, T. F. Creative thinking techniques: Four methods of stimulating original ideas in sixth grade students (Technical Report No. 1 6 9). Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1971. 96 Warner, R. S., & Kauffman., J. M. Effect of prearrangement of testing on anxiety and performance of second- and sixth-grade boys. Psychology in the Schools., 1972,, 9, 75-78. Waterman, A. S. Summary of the problems encountered in. administering psychological questionnaires in the school setting. In C. N. Phillips (Ed.), Anxiety and school related interventions. Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1971• Wax, D. E. Self-concept in negro and white preadolescent delinquent boys. Child Study Journal, 1972, 2, 175- 184. Wilson, J. A. R., Robeck, M. C., & Michael, W. B. Psycho logical foundations of learning and teaching. New York: MeCraw-Hi11, 1969. Wylie, R. C. The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments (Rev, ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1974. Yamamoto, K. Threshold of intelligence in academic achievement of highly creative students. Journal of Experimental Education, 1964, 32, 401-405. Yamamoto, K. Creative thinking: Some thoughts on research. In J. G-owan, G. Demos, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.), Crea tivity: Its educational implications. New York: Wiley, 1957^ Zimmerman, B. J. The relationship between teacher class room behavior and student school anxiety levels. Psychology in the Schools, -1970, 74 89-93* APPENDICES 97 APPENDIX A TABLES AND FIGURES Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Classmates Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 6.33 6.20 6.4 5 1 e SD 1-55 0.97 1.56 s F e m Mean 6.95 7.25 7.25 a 1 SD 1.85 1.39 1.48 e s vo , i i IX! < D L f \ 1 -1 C ^ - . I I IX < D I -1 c u | l i Black X=6.64 Mexican- _ American X= 6. J2 White X=6. 85 Table 13 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Fac e s)— Clas smates Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 24.17 1 24.17 10. 85* Ethnicity (B) 1.05 2 0.52 0.23 A X B 1.05 2 0.52 0.23 Error 307.20 138 2.22 Total 333.48 143 2.33 *p < .05. 99 100 Table 14- Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Total Mexican- Black American White M 4.60 4.79 t " — 0 0 a Mean 5.21 1 e SD 0.72 0.85 1.52 ix /I* s VL/ r —j F KA O J e m Mean 5-3^ 5.19 5.14 L f \ , I I IX a 1 SD 0.99 0.96 0-93 a ) 1 —1 a 0 s 0 _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 4.97 American X=4.99 White X=5*l8 Table 15 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Total Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 4.65 1 4.65 4.38* Ethnicity (B) .1.23 2 0.61 O.58 A X B 3.96 2 1.98 1.86 Error 146.63 138 1.06 Total 156.49 143 1.09 *p < .05. 101 Table 16 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Evaluative Factor Black Mexican- American White M a - Mean 4.76 4.91 5.11 1 e SD 0.85 1.10 O.72 s F e m Mean 5.90 5.63 5.70 £ L 1 SD 1.50 1.05 0.94 e s rA ON , i i IX ( D UN t — U " \ , I I IX ( D i — I a ( D Black X= 5-33 Mexican- _ American X= 5*27 White X= 5*41 Table 17 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 24.17 1 24.17 21. 50* Ethnicity (B) 0.42 2 0.21 0.18 A X B 1.93 2 O.96 O.85 Error 155.13 138 1.12 Total 188.66 143 1.27 *p < .05. 102 Table 18 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Potency Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 4.34 4.61 4.69 1 e SD O.96 1.07 1.08 s F e m Mean 4.41 4.54 4.43 a p SD 1.61 1.22 1.32 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 4.38 American X= 4.57 White X= 4.56 Table 19 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Potency Factor S ource SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 0.27 1 0.27 0.18 E t h n i c i t y (B ) 1.13 2 O.56 0.37 A X B O.67 2 0.33 0.22 E r r o r 209.91 138 1.52 T o t a l 211.99 143 1.48 *p < .05. 103 Table 20 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Activity Factor B la c k M e x ic a n - A m erica n White M a Mean 4.69 4.86 5.83 1 e SD 0.82 1.13 4.01 s F e m Mean 5.72 5.40 5.30 a 1 SD 1.29 1.19 1.22 e s i — 1 LP v \A o I T\ 0 i —1 a 0 Black X= 5-20 Mexican- _ American X= 5 • 15 White X= 5.56 Table 21 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Classmates— Activity Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 4.34 1 4.34 1.15 Ethnicity (B) 5.24 2 2.62 O.69 A X B 15.20 2 7.60 2.01 Error 520.97 138 3.77 Total 545.75 143 3.81 *p < .05. Io¥ Table 22 Means And Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— School Ability Mexican- r Black American White M vo O a Mean 6.12 5.62 6.45 vo 1 . 1 1 e SD 1.45 1.71 1.4l IX! ( D s r — | F O V e LPV m Mean 6.12 6.75 6.91 M D . II IX a 1.34 1 SD 2.19 1-35 ( D 1 —1 KZ s s (U _ Mexican- _ _ _ _ _ _ Black X= 6.12 American X= 6.18 White X= 6.68 Table 2J Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— School Ability Source SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 10.02 1 10.02 3. 87* E t h n i c i t y ( b ) 9.12 2 4.56 1.76 A X B 7-68 2 3.84 1.48 E r r o r 357.15 138 2.58 T o t a l 383.99 143 2.68 *p < .05. 105 Table 2k Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— School Ability— Total Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 4.49 ^.23 4.63 1 e SD 0.92 1.0k 0.81 s F e m Mean 5.08 4.79 5.23 a 1 SD 1.1k 1.15 0.95 e s _ Mexican- _ _ _ _ Black X= 4.78 American X= ^.51 White X= 4.95 Table 25 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— School Ability— Total S o u rce SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 12.18 1 12.18 11. 85* E t h n i c i t y ( b ) k.k2 2 2.21 2.15 A X B 0.01 2 .00 .00 E r r o r 1^1.93 138 1.02 T o t a l 158.56 1^3 1.10 *p < .05. 106 Table 26 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— School Ability— Evaluative Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 4.54 4.13 i f - . 91 1 e SD 1.17 1.29 1.05 s F e m Mean 5.V7 5.06 5-48 a 1 SD 1.31 1.70 1.06 e s L f \ , I I IX a ) i —I , I I IX ( D i —I f r t g 0) f i t Black X= 5-00 Mexican- _ American X= 4.60 White X= 5-20 Table 27 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— School Ability— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 23.63 1 23.63 14.27* Ethnicity (b) 8.90 2 4.45 2.69 A X B 1.O i l - 2 0.52 0.31 Error 228.41 138 1.65 Total 261.99 143 I.83 *p < .05. 107 Table 28 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— School Ability— Potency Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 4.55 4.13 4.45 1 e SD 1.19 1.16 O.89 s F e m Mean 4.68 k.33 5.08 a 1 SD 1.44 1.18 1.04 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 4.61 American X= 4.23 White X= 4.77 Table 29 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— School Ability— Potency Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 3.56 1 3.56 2.63 Ethnicity (B) 7.28 2 3-64 2.68 A X B I.76 2 0.88 0.64 Error 187.13 138 1.55 Total 199.75 143 1.59 *p < .05. 108 Table 30 Means and. Standard. Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— School Ability— Activity Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean u.37 k.kj k.5k 1 e SD 0.90 1-35 1.39 s F e m Mean 5.09 ^•97 5.13 a p SD 1.60 ,1-35 1.214- e s - d " - d " - d " , 1 1 IX 0 1 — 1 VO o L T \ . I I IX 0 I—I a 0 £ 4 Black X= J+.73 Mexican- __ American X= I 4 -. 7O White X= k.Qk Table .31 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept Source SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 1 3 . 8 5 1 1 3 .8 5 7 .8 8 E t h n ic i t y (B ) 0 . 5 0 2 0 . 2 5 0.114- A X B 0 . 2 0 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 5 E r r o r 21+2 .14-2 1 3 8 1 . 7 5 T o t a l 2 5 6 . 9 8 lij-5 1 . 7 9 *p < .05. 109 Table 92 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Self Mexican- Black American White M 7 . 1 6 ' 6 . 5 0 C O vo a Mean 6.37 vo 1 , II e SD I . 6 5 1.44 1 . 8 1 IX 0 s r - j F - c h e L f \ m Mean 6 . 6 2 6.54 6 A 5 vo II a IX 1 SD 2 . 1 2 1.97 1-93 0 1 —1 a s 0 _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 6.89 American X= 6.52 White X= 6. 4l Table 39 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Self S ource SS df MS F Sex (A) O.69 1 O.69 0.20 E t h n i c i t y ( b ) 6.09 2 3.04 0.90 A X B 2.93 2 1.46 0.43 E r r o r 466. ^9 138 3.38 T o t a l 476.21 143 3.33 *p < . 05. 110 Table 34 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Total Mexican- Black American White M lA 0 \ a 1 Mean 5.07 4.70 5.09 -= £ i.11. e SD 1.01 0.99 O.96 IX Q) r H s F e 1 —1 K ~ \ m Mean 5.49 5.20 5.23 L f \ a 1 SD 1.10 0.86 0.86 IX Q) 1 -1 F* a ( D [ i t s _ M e x ic a n - _ _ Black X=5*28 American X= 4.95 W h ite X=5*l6 Table 35 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Total Source SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 4.49 1 4.49 4.74* E t h n i c i t y (B ) 2.61 2 1.30 1.37 A X B O.87 2 0.43 0.46 E r r o r 130.69 138 0.94 T o t a l 138.68 143 0.97 *p < .05. Ill Table 36 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Evaluative Factor Mexican- B la c k A m e ric a n W h ite M & Mean 5-33 4.66 5.23 1 e SD 1.19 1.09 1.11 s F e m Mean 6.25 5.48 5.69 a 1 SD 0.97 1.09 1.03 e s Black X= 5.79 Mexican- _ American X= 5*07 White X= 5.41 Table 37 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 17.59 1 17.59 14.95* Ethnicity (B) 12.28 2 6.14 5. 22* A X B 2.11 2 1.05 O.89 Error 162.37 138 1.17 Total 194.36 142 1.35 *p < .05. 112 Table 38 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Potency Factor on vo , 1 1 IX! 0 1 —I On vo - 3 * IX! 0 1 — I r r t g 0 _ Mexican- _ " _ Black X=4.70 American X= 4 -.59 White X= 4-.79 Table 39 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Potency Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Ethnicity (B) O.98 2 0.^9 0.30 A X B 0. 1^ - 2 0.07 0. 0^ - Error 220. kO 138 1.59 Total 221.53 1^3 1.5^ *p < .05. Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 4.75 ^•55 b.77 1 e SD 1.32 1.25 1.11 s F e m Mean b .66 k.62 b. 80 a 1 SD 1.66 1.01 1.09 e s 113 Table 40 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Activity Factor Black Mexican- Ameri can White M a Mean 5.13 4.88 5.26 1 e SD 1.24 1.30 1.25 s F e m Mean 5.55 5.51 5.29 a 1 SD 1.54 1-35 1.00 e s On O L T \ , 1 1 IX! Q ) H LTN L T \ , I ' IX Q ) H 3 (U £ 4 Black X= 5 . 3^ Mexican- _ American X= 5*20 White X= 5.27 Table 4l Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self— Activity Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 4.57 1 ^.57 2.72 Ethnicity (B) 0.51 2 0.25 0.15 A X B 2.20 2 1.10 O.65 Error 231.44 138 1.67 Total 238.73 143 I.67 *p < .05. 114 Table 42 - Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Teachers B la c k M e x ic a n - A m e ric a n W h ite M a Mean 6.54 5-79 6.83 1 e SD I.38 1.31 1.34 s F e m Mean 6.33 7.20 7.25 a ! SD 2.16 1.25 1.26 e s oo N " \ vo , n IX! O i —I K\ 0\ VO , I I IX 0 I—I f r t a 0 pi Black X= 6. 4^ Mexican- _ American X=6.50 White X= 7-04 Table 43 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Teachers S ource SS df MS F Sex (A) IO.56 1 IO.56 k.77 E t h n i c i t y (B) 10.59 2 5.29 2.39 A X B 16.12 2 8.06 3.64* Error 305.03 138 2.21 T o t a l 342.32 143 2.39 *p < .05. 115 Table bb Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Total Black Mexican- American White M a Mean ^.7^ b.20 ^.78 1 e SD 0.81 1.09 0.95 s E e m Mean 5.02 5-53 5.10 a 1 SD 1.16 1.09 O.83 e s oo L f \ . I ' IX o L f \ i —I LTN . H IX 0 I —I a 0 Black X= ^.88 Mexican- __ American X= ^.77 White X= ^.9^ Table ^5 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Total Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 11.99 1 11.99 11. 92* Ethnicity (b) 0.7^ 2 O.37 0.37 A X B 5.50 2 2.75 2.73 Error 138.78 138 1.00 Total 157.02 1^3 1.09 *p < .05. 116 Table 46 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Evaluative Factor Mexican- Black American White M a Mean 5.16 4.23 4.90 1 e SD 1.00 1.29 1.10 s F e m Mean 5.63 5 .8 3 , 5.55 a 1 SD 1.30 1.02 0.93 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 5*40 American X= 5*03 White X= 5*22 Table 47 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 29.64 l 29.64 23.64* Ethnicity (B) 3.25 2 1.62 1.29 A X B 8.76 2 4.38 3.49* Error 173.01 138 1.25 Total 214.66 143 1.50 *p < .05. 117 Table 48 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Potency Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 4.36 3.93 4.59 1 e SD 0.95 1.28 0.98 s F e m Mean 4.38 4.55 4.61 a 1 SD 1.35 1-39 1.07 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 4.37 American X= 4.24 White X= 4.60 Table 49 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Potency Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 1.77 1 1.77 1.26 Ethnicity (B) 3.20 2 1.60 1.13 A X B 2.92 2 1.46 1.03 Error 194.86 138 l.4l Total 202.76 143 1.4l *p < .05. 118 Table 50 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Activity Factor B la c k Mexican- American White M a Mean 1 e SD s 4.70 0.88 4.45 1.45 4.86 1.18 F e m Mean 5.05 5.62 5.15 a 1 SD 1.65 2.16 1.20 e s Black X= 4.88 Mexican- _ American X= 5*04 White X= 5-00 Table 51 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Activity Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 13.04 1 13.04 5.97* Ethnicity (b) O.67 2 0.33 0.15 A X B 5.76 2 2.88 1.32 Error 301.10 138 2.18 Total 320.58 143 2.24 *p < .05. 119 Table 52. Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Family B la c k M e x ic a n - A m erica n W h ite M a Mean 7.20 6.16 6.4l 1 e SD 2.22 1.76 2.20 s F e m Mean 7.16 6.87 7.00 a 1 SD 2.14 I.87 1.88 e s ON LTN vo . 1 1 IX! (I) I —I iH O E>- I!*! <D i —I I ( U Black X= 7-18 Mexican- _ American X= 6.25 White X= 6.70 Table 53 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Family Source SS df MS F Sex (A ) 6.25 1 6.25 1.52 E t h n i c i t y ( b ) 11.34 2 5.67 1.38 A X B 3.87, 2 1.93 0.47 E r r o r 565.07 138 4.09 T o t a l 586.54 145 4.10 *p < .05. 120 Table 54 Means and. Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Total Black Mexican- American White M . a Mean 5.50 4.56 4.89 1 e SD 1.09 1.03 1.30 s F e m Mean 5.61 5.41 5.25 a 1 SD 1.13 1.0Q 1.08 e s oo o\ -d- . 1 1 IX Q) i —I OJ •■ih LTN' . I I IX CD I—I I CD fa Black X= 5.56 Mexican- __ American X= 4.99 White X= 5 .07 Table 55 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Total Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 6.96 1 6.96 5. 61* Ethnicity (B) 9.04 2 4.52 3.64* A X B 3.47 2 1-73 i.4o Error 171.14 138 1.24 Total 190.62 143 1.33 *p < . 05. 121 Table 56 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity' on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Evaluative Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 5.68 4.66 4.66 1 e SD 1.24 1.22 1.60 s F e m Mean 5.93 5.38 5.56 a 1 SD I .56 1.44 1.27 e s o o LTA . I I IX! ( D K\ VO LTA . I I IX ( D 1 —I C r t a CO Black X= 5 .80 Mexican- __ American X= 5-02 White X= 5.11 Table 57 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Sell*-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 14.06 1 14.06 7.55* Ethnicity (B) 17.56 2 8.68 4.66* A X B 2.72 2 ' 1.56 0.99 Error 256.80 158 1.86 Total 290.95 Ikj 2.03 *p < .05. 122 Table 58 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Potency Factor Mexican- Black American White M a Mean 5.34 k.Gk 1 e SD 1.29 1.30 1.57 s F e m Mean 4.77 5.00 k.91 a 1 SD 1.56 1.27 1-57 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X=5*06 American X=^.73 White X=^*88 Table 59 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Potency Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Ethnicity (b) 2.56 2 1.28 0.65 A X B 7.28 2 3. 6^ 1.85 Error 271.39 138 1.96 Total 281.25 lV3 1.96 *p < .05. 123 Table 60 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Activity Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 5. 5O 55 5.16 1 e SD 1.24 1.12 1.29 s F e m Mean 6.12 5.86 5.29 a 1 SD 1.15 '1.15 1.28 e s x- o L f \ , n 1X1 Q ) u - \ C- lt\ . H 1X1 Q ) H a ( D Black X=5 • 81 Mexican- _ American X= 5*20 White X= 5.22 Table 6l Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Family— Activity Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 16.90 1 16.90 11.48* Ethnicity (B) 11.28 2 5.64 3. 83* A X B 8.42 2 4.21 2.86 Error 203.04 138 1.47 Total 239.66 143 I.67 *p < .05. 12b Table 62 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Friends B la c k M e x ic a n - A m e ric a n W h ite M a Mean 1 7.16 6A 5 7.58 e SD 1A 0 1 .1 0 1 .2 8 s F e m Mean 7.62 7-5^ 7.66 a 1 SD 1.52 l.kl 1 .1 6 e s vo o i k - , i i IX! ( D i —I rH V O IK ( D i —I I ( D P4 Black X= 7.39 Mexican- _ American X= 7.00 White X= 7.62 Table 63 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Friends Source SS d f MS F Sex (A ) IO.56 1 IO.56 6. 02* E t h n i c i t y (B ) 9.59 2 IK79 2.73 A X B 6.12 2 3.06 1.74 E r r o r 2^2. O i l - 138 1.75 T o t a l 268.32 lk-3 1.87 *p < .05. 125 Table 64 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Friends— Total B la c k M e x ic a n - A m e ric a n W h ite M a Mean 5-39 5.01 5.18 1 e SD 0.99 1.70 1.04 s F e m Mean 5.47 5. 3^ 5.30 a 1 SD 0.97 1.02 O.87 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 5•43 American X=5«l8 White X=5*24 Table 65 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Friends— Total Source SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 1.07 1 1.07 O.83 E t h n i c i t y (B ) 1.65 2 0.82 0.64 A X B 0.4l 2 0.21 0.16 E r r o r 178.39 138 1.29 T o t a l 181.54 143 1.27 *p < .05. 126 Table 66 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Friends— Evaluative Factor Mexican- Black American White M 0 O J a Mean 5.62 4.75 5.23 irs 1 e SD 1.25 I.07 * 1 .0 6 IX O s rH F V O 00 e m Mean 6.05 5-79 5.73 ir\ . 1 1 IX a 1.46 1 SD 1.15 1 .0 0 0 ) 1 — 1 e 1 s 0 ) P > 4 _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 5*84 American X= 5*27 White X= 5*^8 Table 67 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Friends— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 15.55 1 15.55 11. 20* Ethnicity (B) 7.93 2 3.96 2.85 A X B 2.68 2 1.3^ O.96 Error 191.66 138 1.38 Total 217.84 143 1.52 *p < . 05. 127 Table 68 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Friends— Potency Factor Mexican- Black American White M a 1 Mean 5.29 4.56 4.93 e SD 1.25 1.23 1.08 s F e m Mean 4.69 4.81 4.88 a 1 SD 1.43 1.30 1.14 e s KN OA ■ i i IX! <D H O 00 -= ir IX! 0 I —I 1 0) Black X=4.99 Mexican- __ American X=4.69 White X=4.91 Table 69 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Friends— Potency Factor S o u rce SS df MS F Sex (A) 0.60 1 0.60 O.38 E t h n i c i t y (B) 2.27 2 1.13 O.73 A X B 4.44 2 2.22 1.43 E r r o r 214.30 138 1.55 T o t a l 221.62 143 1.55 *p < .05. 128 Table 70 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Friends— Activity Factor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 5.26 5*73 5-3 8 1 e SD 1.01 l.k-2 s F e m Mean 5.66 5 . k i 5.27 a 1 SD 1.18 1.18 1.06 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X=5A 6 American X= 5*57 White X= 5*33 Table 71 A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e : Sex and E t h n i c i t y on S e lf-C o n c e p t (M e an in g o f W o rd s )— F r ie n d s — A c t i v i t y F a c to r Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Ethnicity (B) l.k-2 2 0.71 0.16 A X B 3.31 2 I.65 0.37 Error 607.65 158 k.ko Total 612. ko lkj> k.2 8 *p < .05. 129 Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity- On Self-Concept (Faces)— Counselor Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 6.08 6.00 6.33 1 e SD 1.93 1.31 2.16 s F e m Mean 6.25 6A 5 6.70 a 1 SD 2.17 i.4i 1.45 e s K\ r H VO \A t- MD \A CD H I CD Black X= 6.16 Mexican- _ American X= 6.22 White X= 6.52 Table 73 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Face s)— Counselor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 4.00 1 4.00 1.26 Ethnicity (B) 3-^3 2 1.71 0.54 A X B 0.54 2 0.27 0.08 Error 436.57 138 3-16 Total 444.34 143 3.10 *p < .05. 130 Table 74 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Counselor— Total Mexican- Black American White M LTN [ > - a Mean 4.83 4.49 4.94 - ^ l“ 1 . I I e SD 0.97 O.87 1.12 IX! <D s H F H H e m Mean 5.22 5.03 5.08 I T \ I I a IX! 1 SD 1.19 1.16 0.90 O H r ? s Cl ) (1 ) _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 5 • 03 American X= 4.76 White X=5-01 Table 75 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Counselor— Total Source SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 4.61 1 4.6l 4.21* E t h n i c i t y ( b ) 2.15 ' 2 1.07 O.98 A X B 0.92 2 0.46 0,42 E r r o r 150.98 138 1.09 T o t a l 158.68 143 1.11 *p < . 05. 131 Table 76 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Counselor— Evaluative Factor M e x ic a n - B la c k A m e ric a n W h ite M 0 CT\ a Mean 5.09 4.50 5 .1 2 1 . I I e SD 1 .1 8 1 .0 5 1.32 IX ( L ) s r— j F LfA e LfA m Mean 6 .0 2 5 .2 6 5.37 LfA || a 1 .2 8 IX 1 SD 1.15 1 .0 3 CD H a 0 s CD fit _ M e x ic a n - _ _ _ _ B la c k X= 5 • 56 A m e ric a n X = 4.88 W h ite X = 5.25 T a b le 77 A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e : Sex and E t h n i c i t y on S e lf-C o n c e p t (M e an in g o f W o rd s )— C o u n s e lo r— E v a lu a t iv e F a c to r S ource SS d f MS F Sex (A) 1 5 .1 2 1 1 5 .1 2 10 . 94* E t h n i c i t y (B) 1 1 .1 3 2 5.56 4 . 02* A X B 3 .0 2 2 1 .5 1 1 .0 9 E r r o r 190. 7 7 ' 138 1.38 T o t a l 2 2 0 .0 6 143 1.53 *p < .05. 132 Table 78 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Counselor— Potency Factor M e x ic a n - B la c k A m erica n W h ite M a Mean 4.65 ^.4 0 4.62 1 e SD 0.95 1 .0 9 1 .2 9 s F e m Mean 4.12 k . 5 9 4.62 a 1 SD 1.48 1 .3 8 1 .1 6 e s vo L f \ - = £ , i i IXJ 0) I -1 -3 r - = 3 r -j- . I I IXJ 0) i — I I ( U B la c k X=4.38 M e x ic a n - _ _ A m e ric a n X=4.50 W h ite X=4.62 T a b le 79 A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e : Sex and E t h n i c i t y on S e lf-C o n c e p t (M e an in g o f W o rd s )— C o u n s e lo r— P o te n c y F a c to r Source SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 0.44 1 0.44 0 .2 8 E t h n i c i t y ( b ) 1.34 2 0 .6 7 0.43 A X B 3 0 5 2 1 .6 7 1 .0 8 E r r o r 2 1 3 .8 0 138 1 .5 4 T o t a l 218.44 143 1 .5 2 *p < .05. 133 Table 80 Means and S ta n d a rd D e v ia tio n s : Sex and E t h n i c i t y on S e lf-C o n c e p t (M e an in g o f W o rd s )— C o u n s e lo r— A c t i v i t y F a c to r M e x ic a n - Black American White M a Mean 4 .7 6 4.58 5 .0 6 1 e SD 1.32 0.95 1 . 4l s F e m Mean 5.52 5.23 5 .2 6 a 1 SD 1.55 1 .2 8 1.15 e s _ M e x ic a n - __ _ B la c k X= 5 .14 A m e ric a n X= 4.91 W h ite X= 5 .16 T a b le 8 l A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e : Sex and E t h n i c i t y on S e lf-C o n c e p t (M e a n in g o f W o rd s )— C o u n s e lo r— A c t i v i t y F a c to r Source SS df MS F Sex (A) IO .3 8 1 IO .3 8 6 . 2 0 * Ethnicity (B) 1.95 2 0.97 0 .5 8 A X B 2 .1 8 2 1 .0 9 0 .6 5 Error 2 3 0 .9 0 1 38 I . 6 7 Total 2 ^ 5 .3 1 143 1.71 *p < .05. 134 Table 82 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Ideal Self Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 1 7 .6 2 7 .5 4 7.29 e SD 1.74 1 . 4l 2 .2 7 s F e m Mean 8.37 8.54 7.83 a 1 SD 1 .0 9 1.17 2 .3 1 e s _ M e x ic a n - _ _ B la c k X= 8.00 A m e ric a n X= 8.04 W h ite X= 7 .5 6 T a b le 83 A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e : Sex and E t h n i c i t y on S e lf-C o n c e p t (F a c e s )— I d e a l S e lf S ource SS d f MS F Sex (A) 2 1 .0 0 1 2 1 .0 0 6 . 94* E t h n i c i t y (B ) 6 .7 8 2 3-38 1 .1 1 A X B 1 .2 6 2 O .6 3 0 .2 0 E r r o r 417.45 138 3 .0 2 T o t a l 446.48 143 3 .1 2 *p < .05. 135 Table 84 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Ideal Self— Total Black Mexican- American White M a- Mean 5.51 5 .2 8 5.29 1 e SD 1.13 1 .1 6 1.55 s F e m Mean 6 .0 3 5 - 7^ 5.75 a 1 SD O .8 3 1 .0 8 0 .8 1 e s vo L f \ . I ' IX! 0) I —I - d " CO . I I IX 0) i — l f r t a CD B la c k X= 5-77 M e x ic a n - _ _ A m e ric a n X= 5*51 W h ite X= 5-52 T a b le 85 A n a ly s is o f V a r ia n c e : Sex and E t h n i c i t y on S e lf-C o n c e p t (M e an in g o f W o rd s )— Id e a l S e l f — T o t a l S ource SS d f MS F Sex (A ) 8 .2 9 1 8 .2 9 6 . 5 4 * E t h n i c i t y ( b ) 2 .0 1 2 1 .0 0 0 .7 9 A X B 0.02 2 0.01 0 .0 1 E r r o r 174.86 138 1 .2 6 T o t a l 185.20 143 1 .2 9 *p < .05. 136 Table 86 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Ideal Self— Evaluative Factor Black Mexican- American White M a * Mean 5.9b 5.26 5.15 1 e SD 1.21 1.32 1.94 s F e m Mean 6.62 6.16 6. 43 a 1 SD 0.88 ■'1.17 0.80 e s lt\ UA . I I IX O - 3 " VO \& < D i —I a ( U Black X= 6.28 Mexican- _ American X= 5*71 White X= 5 • 79 Table 87 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Ideal Self— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 32.74 1 32.74 20. 00* Ethnicity (B) 9.16 2 4.58 2.80 A X B 2.18 2 1.09 0.66 Error 225.87 138 I.63 Total 269.97 143 1.88 *p < .05. 137 Table 88 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Ideal Self— Potency Factor Mexican- Black American White M a Mean 1 e SD s 5.01 l.kk 5.15 1.22 5.30 l.kl F • e m Mean 5.06 5.GO 4.73 a 1 SD 1.50 I.38 1.28 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X=5*0^- American X=5*07 White X=5-02 Table 89 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Ideal Self— Potency Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 1.77 1 1.77 0.93 Ethnicity (B) 0.07 2 0.03 0.02 A X B 2.^3 2 1.21 0.6k Error 262.29 138 1.90 Total 266.57 lij-3 1.86 *p < .05. 138 Table 90 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Ideal Self— Activity Factor Mexican- Black American White M a Mean 1 e SD s 5.58 1.29 5.44 1.51 5.43 1.88 F e m Mean 6.4 0 6.06 6.11 a 1 SD 0.94 1.20 1. 02- e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 5 *99 American X= 5«75 White X= 5*77 Table 91 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Ideal Self— Activity Factor Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 18.06 1 18.06 9. 92* Ethnicity (B) 1.68 2 0.84 0.46 A X B 0.24 2 0.12 0.06 Error 25i.ll 138 1.82 Total 271.10 143 1.89 *p < .05. 139 Table 92 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Total Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 53*62 49.95 54.08 1 e SD 9.52 8.01 7-37 s F e m Mean 55.25 57*16 57.83 a 1 SD 11.84 7-95 7.38 e s _ Mexican- _ __ Black X= 54.43 American X= 53 *56 White X= 55*95 Table 93 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Faces)— Total Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 633.36 1 633.36 8. 12* Ethnicity (B) 141.09 2 70.54 0.90 A X B 190.59 2 95.30 1.22 Error 10753.41 138 77.92 Total 11718.47 143 81.94 *p < .05. 140 Table 9k- Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self-Concept Mean Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 5.02 4.66 5.00 1 e SD O.70 0.78 0.70 s F e m Mean 5.41 5.25 5.26 a O.85 0.82 1 SD 0.77 e s - o\ oo - = t - . i i Ixi 0) I —I I —I KN LTN . I I 1X1 ( 1 ) i —I a 0) fa Black X= 5-21 Mexican- __ American X= 4.96 White X= 5-15 Table 95 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Self-Concept Mean Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 6.21 1 6.21 10. 26* Ethnicity (B) 1.62 2 0.81 I.34 A X B 0.68 2 0.34 O.56 Error 83.49 138 0.60 Total 92.01 143 0.64 *p < .05. 141 Table 96 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Evaluative Factor Mean Mexican- Black American White M a Mean 5.26 4.64 5.04 1 e SD 0.80 0.79 O.77 s F e m Mean 5.98 5.58 5.68 a 1 SD 0.94 O.90 0.80 e s Black X= 5-62 Mexican- _ American X= 5»H White X= 5•56 Table 97 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Evaluative Factor Mean Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 21.07 1 21.07 29. 76* Ethnicity (B) 6.4l 2 5.20 4.55* A X B 0.57 2 0.28 o.4o Error 97.69 158 -O.70 Total 125.76 145 O.87 *p < . 05. 142 Table 9& Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Potency Factor Mean Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 4.79 4.47 4.78 1 e SD 0.80 0.94 O.76 s F e m Mean 4.60 4.68 4.76 a 1 SD 1.12 0.97 0.97 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 4.69 American X= 4.58 White X= 4.77 Table 99 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Potency Factor Mean Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Ethnicity (B) O.87 2 0.45 0.49 A X B 0.92 2 0.46 0.52 Error 121.94 158 0.88 Total 125.74 145 0.86 *p < .05. 143 Table 100 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Activity Factor Mean Mexican- Black American White M OJ 0 a Mean 5.00 4.87 5.19 LTV 1 . I I e SD 0.72 1.14 0.95 IX! < L > s H F O e i r \ m Mean 5.64 5.51 5-35 i r \ . I I IX a 1 SD I.05 0.95 0.91 0) Cl H a C s , ( U _. Mexican- _ _ Black X= 5*32 American X= 5-19 White X= 5*27 Table 101 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Activity Factor Mean Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 8.32 1 8.32 8. 88* Ethnicity (B) 0.43 2 0.21 0.23 A X B 1.85 2 0.92 O.99 Error 129.32 138 0.93 Total 139-94 143 0.97 *p < .05. 144 Table 102 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Redefinition A & B Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 1 1. in 12.04 13.75 1 e SD 5.67 7*56 6.48 s F e m Mean 13.25 14.45 19.70 a 1 SD 6.99 8.08 6.54 e s _ Mexican- __ _ Black X= 12.33 American X= 13*25 White X= 16.72 Table 105 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Redefinition A & B Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 4l6.84 1 416.84 8.74* Ethnicity (B) 516.29 2 258.14 5.41* A X B 119.59 2 59-79 1.25 Error 658O.59 158 47.68 Total 7633.32 145 53.38 *p < .05. 145 Table 104 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Sensitivity to Problems Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 3.41 3,5^ 5' . 58 1 e SD 2.70 4.23 3.37 s F e m Mean 5.00 3.87 6.04 a 1 SD 5.19 2.89 3.11 e s _ Mexican- _ __ Black X= 4.20 American X= 3.70 White X= 5.81 Table 105 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Sensitivity to Problems Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 22.56 1 22.56 2.08 Ethnicity (B) 116.01 2 58.00 5.36* A X B 11.37 2 5.68 0.52 Error 1491.19 138 10.80 Total 164.14 143 11.47 *p < .05. 146 Table 106 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Fluency of Thinking Mexican- Black American White M a Mean 10.70 11.70 15.91 1 e SD 4.52 6.59 5*77 s F e m Mean 15*79 15.20 20.91 a ! SD 6.45 6.40 9.86 e s _ Mexican- _ _ Black X= 13*25 American X= 13*45 White X= l8.4l Table 107 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Fluency of Thinking Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 738.02 1 738.02 15*97* Ethnicity (B) 821.16 2 410.58 8.88 * A X B 19*05 '2 9.52 0.20 Error 6375 * 40 138 46.19 Total 7953.65 143 55.62 *p < .05. 147 Table 108 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Flexibility of Thinking Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 1 8.75 ' 8.83 13.83 e SD 5.68 6.77 6.79 s F e m Mean 11.08 io.4i 19. 5^ a 1 SD 7.62 6.12 9.04 e s - c f o i —i \A <D i —I 00 vo id i — i . i i IX! <D i —I c r t a 0) Black X= 9.91 Mexican- _ American X=9.62 White X= 16.68 Table 109 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Flexibility of Thinking Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 370.56 1 370.56 7.3 6 * Ethnicity (B) 1532.93 2 766.46 15. 23* A X B 115.87 2 57.93 1.15 Error 6940.69 138 50.29 Total 8960.06 143 62.65 *p < .05. 148 Table 110 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Originality Black Mexican- American "White M a Mean 16.87 15.87 20.08 1 e SD 5-3^ 5.00 5-71 s F e m Mean 15-75 I5. 9I 20.04 a 1 SD 6.32 8.08 4.94 e s Black X= 16. J1 Mexican- _ American X= 15.89 White X= 20.06 Table 111 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Originality Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 5.06 1 5.06 o.i4 Ethnicity (B) 505.55 2 252.77 7. 02* A X B 10.16 2 5.08 o.i4 Error 4968.27 138 36.00 Total 5489.06 143 38.38 *p < . 05. 149 Table 112 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Propensity for Elaboration Black Mexican- American White M a - Mean 12.83 11.12 15.87 1 e SD 6.69 505 9.46 s F. e m Mean 12.70 9.87 20.87 a 1 SD 8.21 5.18 10.09 e s t — CM k4 i —1 , I I IX 0) i —l 00 - d " -d" i —I , I I IX 0) I —I a C D f i t Black X= 12.77 Mexican- _ American X= 10.50 White X= 18.37 Table 113 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Propensity for Elaboration Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 52.56 1 52.56 O .87 Ethnicity (B) 1577.26 2 788.63 13.16* A X B 266.37 2 133.18 2.22 Error 8264.68 138 59-88 Total 10160.88 143 71.05 *p < .05. 150 Table 114 Means and Standard Deviations: Sex and Ethnicity- on Creativity (GTOC)— Total Black Mexican- American White M a Mean 63-53 65.29 84.41 1 e SD 18.64 24.59 25.19 s F e m Mean 72.66 70.87 107.58 a 1 SD 27.56 25.55 29.50 e s - d - K\ O C — IX ( D O C — K3 03 IX < D i —I a C D Black X= 68.00 Mexican- __ _ American X= 67*08 White X= 96.00 Table 115 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity on Creativity (GTOC)— Total Source SS df MS F Sex (A) 6426.69 1 6426.69 10. 02* Ethnicity (B) 25956.22 2 32968.ll 20. 21* A X B 1749.05 2 874.52 1.56 Error 88510.45 158 641.58 Total 122622.45 145 857.50 *p < .05. 151 Table 116 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity Interaction on Self-Concept (Faces)— Teachers Source SS df MS F a at bx .52 1 •52 .24 a at b2 24.08 1 24.08 10. 90* a at b3 2.09 1 2.09 • 95 b at ai 13.86 2 6.93 3.14* b at a2 12.86 2 6.43 2.91 *p < .05. Note. A: Sex B: Ethnicity a j . : Males bi: Black a .2 ’ . Females b^: Mexican-American b3: White 152 Table 117 Analysis of Variance: Sex and Ethnicity Interaction on Self-Concept (Meaning of Words)— Teachers— Evaluative Factor Source SS df MS F a at bi 2.55 1 2.55 2.02 a at l>2 51.69 1 51.69 25.57* a at b3 5-5^ 1 5.5^ 4.27 b at ax 11.59 2 5.80 k,6k* b at a2 1.09 2 •55 .kk *p < . 05. Note. A: Sex B: Ethnicity aj.: Males bx: Black a2: Females b2: Mexican-American b3: White Table 118 Correlation Coefficients*: Feelings About School with GTOC Sex Ethnicity Male Female Black Mexican- American White Redefinition A & B 31* 16 09 16 07 Sensitivity to Problems 32* 04 -05 09 13 Fluency of Thinking 31* 26* 21 27 -03 Flexibility of Thinking 36* 15 08 28* -03 Originality 35* 21 23 10 36* Propensity for Elaboration * 02 15 -04 24 -11 Total 42* 23* 16 28* 05 Note. Critical value for Sex Groups (70 df) is + . 23. Critical value for Ethnic Groups (46 df) is + .28. *p ^ . 05. 153 Table 119 Correlation Coefficients*: Feelings About School with Faces and Meaning of Words Inventory by Sex Groups Meaning of Words Male Female Male Faces Female Classmates-E -09 14 Classmates-P -14 -19 Classmates-A 11 16 Classmates-T 02 03 -10 18 School Ability-E 07 22 School AbiXi£y-P 10 17 School Ability-A 17 31* School Ability-T 15 29* 13 23* Self-E 03 -03 Self-P 01 -07 Self-A 13 02 Self-T 04 -03 0 25* Teachers-E -18 20 Teachers-P 03 09 Teachers-A 03 36* Teachers-T -05 31* -06 44* Family-E -17 10 Family-P -13 -16 Family-A -04 13 Family-T -13 02 -03 19* Friends-E -22 02 Friends-P -32 09 Friends-A 02 07 Friends-T -09 08 01 16 Counselor-E 09 09 Counselor-P -07 20 Counselor-A 05 33* Counselor-T -04 24* 05 32* Ideal Self-E -23* -10 Ideal Self-P -14 06 Ideal Self-A -23* -13 Ideal Self-T -23* 05 -38* 14 Evaluative Factor -18 11 Potency Factor -09 03 Activity Factor 05 23* Total Self-Concept -08 13 08 31* Note. Critical value for Sex Groups (70 df) is + .2J. E - Evaluative Factor P - Potency Factor A - Activity Factor T - Total *p 5 .05. 155 Table 120 Correlation Coefficients*: Feelings About School with Faces and Meaning of Words Inventory by Ethnic Groups Meaning of Words Mexican- Black American White Black Faces Mexican- American White Classmates-E -07 09 -10 Classmates-P -28* -08 -19 Classmates-A 09 23 lk Classmates-T -20 10 02 0 17 -16 School Ability-E -19 37* Ok School Ability-P 17 10 09 School Ability-A 03 32* 30 School Ability-T -02 33 20 10 36* -18 Self-E -19 16 10 Self-P -09 01 08 Self-A -05 15 07 Self-T -lk lk Ok 20 32* 05 Teachers-E — 08 03 03 Teachers-P -13 20 0 Teachers-A 15 33* 05 Teachers-T -02 26 01 23 18 -02 Family-E -06 19 -15 Family-P -17 -Ok -22 Family-A -03 30 -12 Family-T -11 18 -19 0 35* -02 Friends-E -11 -1 7 03 Friends-P 02 03 -03 Friends-A 03 02 16 Friends-T -03 -02 07 -05 17 01 Counselor-E -15 -05 20 Counselor-P 11 -Ok 18 Counselor-A 15 08 32* Counselor-T 05 0 29* 17 29* 03 Ideal Self-E -28* -16 -12 Ideal Self-P -08 Ok 02 Ideal Self-A -27 -13 -20 Ideal Self-T -25 -10 -13 -ko* 09 -k3* Evaluative Factor -18 09 -05 Potency Factor -09 Ok -Ok Activity Factor 0 22 15 Total Self-Concept -11 lk 03 05 35* -23 Note. Critical value for Ethnic Groups (k6 df) is + .23. E - Evaluative Factor P - Potency Factor A - Activity Factor T - Total *p % . 05 - Table 121 Correlation Coefficients*: GTOC with Faces by Sex Groups : f [ A j G. . T 0 C c i e t s Classmates School Ability Self Teachers Family Friends 0 1 —1 0 C Q f l 3 0 0 Ideal Self Total Redefinition A & B 12 17 09 -17 -11 -07 -02 Ok 0 Sensitivity to Problems -02 02 -06 -15 -16 -05 -22 05 -09 M A Fluency of Thinking 16 09 -10 16 -15 10 0 01 01 L Flexibility of Thinking 10 05 -09 -20 -23* 01 -Ik 01 09 E Originality -18 ^06 -15 05 -13 -03 -08 -22 -17 Propensity for Elaboration 09 08 08 29* -15 17 10 -01 07 < • • ' Total 05 08 -12 01 -21 02 -08 -04 -07 Redefinition A & B -05 02 -09 01 0 0 07 -26* -04 F E Sensitivity to Problems -22 -04 -Ik -17 -17 -10 -21 -09 -21 M Fluency of Thinking -l4 06 08 06 -10 01 0 -05 -01 A L Flexibility of Thinking 02 18 -03 04 01 14 08 -11 02 E Originality 0 0 06 13 06 17 05 -Ik 01 Propensity for Elaboration -02 02 -03 -02 -10 ok 0 -13 -03 Total -06 08 0 05 -05 08 06 -17 -02 Note. Critical value for Sex Groups (70 df) is + . 23. v J j J *p g . 03. ___________ ; _______________. ____________ o\ ► 3 > * W ► 3 > ^ W O O O < c t c t c+ p P H » P H H < D g H * O P <+<< C t* «< H * 7 * J < ' ■ ■ • • P P P o 1 + Female 1 - 3 *TJ c *i •*! co a o a a h r* ts H o m k c a e p t j o x co ts H *S Male 3 1 O vj vvj eg a 0 id id H H H IS c+ O H H C 2 O P U O X CO IS H *S O O H O O S3 H S > H 2 k o a c s *s o i i ti O O W O H O O oo ro ro owo o\ h 1 1 1 1 1 O H O O O O H vji vji -f" ro ro vji vji Classmates-E i i i i i i O H ro O O H H VO VO -F- H Vi ON O * i i i i i H O O IO IO IO H OOVji -4 Vji Vjl O -F- * * Classmates-P 1 1 1 1 1 I h h h o ro o Vji Ovvji Vji H CD O 1 O O H O O H O vo 00 oovo OO O Ov Classmates-A I I I II H H ro H H O Oi vji -g O VO Oi 00 * 1 1 1 H O O O O O -4 H H O -F- Classmates-T 1 1 0 H H H H O 01 o r o o-i-g — I l l O H IO O O O O Ov O Vji VjJ Vji Vji vji * School Ability-E r o o h ro h o ro •p-vo -4 ov -f-vji ro * * Vj H I O H H O V ji ro - f-vji to to oo ro * * * School Ability-P H H O H O H H ro o yi to - f*vji ov ro IO H H H O IO -4 Vji -4 H H IO H * * School Ability-A H H O H O H H Ov to Vji VO -4 H 00 ro ro ro o o o to -4 O Ov GO OOVji -F* * * * School Ability-T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ro h vot o ro h o H H VJJ ro Ov -F- oo * * * O O H H O H VJI O IO K) H —4 Ov Self-E <b rb h h <b o h Vjl H -F"VX -F"Vjt vri O O O O O IO -4 O ro Vji Vji vji v j j ) Self-P I I I I I I H o IO O H o o O F" O v _ > i vji -4 vji O H O O O O H OO -F* —4 -F- -F-Vji O Self-A I I I II H P U O H H O -F-vji o O' oo o ro * O O O O O O IO OOVJi Vjl -4 -4 vn H Self-T i i i i H ro H H H O 00 O OO H O * O H O O O IO -F--4 00 00 O O Teachers-E LI II O O O O O H O VO On—4 -F-VO 00 ro h o o h o ro o vo oo oo oo oo oo * Teachers-P <b < h & O H O Vjl Ov H O -4 00 -F- H H H O O O H ro IO Vji vji -4 vji vji Teachers-A <b <b H O H H O vri -4 (V) Vji to -4 VO H H H O O O H V ji -4 H IO OOVJI On Teachers-T i i n i n H O OOV/i Vji Ov N ) H Ov 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ro H H ro Vjl H H Vil VJI lO OOVJI Ov * * Family-E 1 1 1 1 1 1 H ro H O H H H Vji —4 —4 H O O IV) I I I 1 O O O H H H H VJI H O VJI O VO Family-P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IO ro H O IO H o ro vjj vo vo ro oo oo * 1 1 1 1 I I 1 H H O O IO O O Vji IO -4 CO H ro IO Family-A i i i i i i H ro IO O H H o 00 ro H Ov 00-4 vn 1 1 1 1 1 1 H H O H ro o vji to -4 o vji ro o * Family-T 1 1 O H O H O O O CDVJ1 VJI H Ov —4 1 1 1 1 1 O O O H H ro o VO-4 -F- OOVJI -F-—4 * Friends-E M i H O 6 H OVji vo Vji H —4 vo * II I I I O O O H O IO O OOVJI IO vji vji o vo Friends-P o o o o o o Vji Vjl ro VO —4 H H 1 H H o O ro H H Vji IO H IO VJI O O Friends-A o i p p i i n h oo o to oo h to O H O H H O O F O FlO O Ov—4 Friends-T i i i i i i i H H H o ro H o vjl H HVUVJi lO-l * 1 t i l l O H O H H H O -F* H O0 IO vji O Ov Counselor-E • 1 1 O I O H O H O I O Vjl O HVJ1 OVJI O O O O O O O IO 00 -F-Vji VO -4 VJI OO * Counselor-P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O O O O H O vji —4 vji h oo ro vjj 1 1 H H H O H O O IO -F--4VJI H VO 00 Counselor-A L i i i i O H H O H O OvOvO O anvn 1 O O O O O H —4 vo VO O H Os H Counselor-T i i n o n o H -F" Ov lO ro -F* Ov H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IO O IO H Vji H H FCBO O Vji IO VO * * Ideal Self-E i) ii) o o i i h Ov O 00 H -F--4 H 1 1 1 1 O H H O O O H VJI -4 vo Vji 00-4 O Ideal Self-P o i i o h h ro ov -F* - fi ro o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 h h ro o ro ro h Ov H o CO io ro -4 Ideal Self-A I I I II O H H O H O H VJI -F" O ro H H Vjj i i i i i i H O O O ro H H •F"—4 VO OOVJI Ov 00 * Ideal Self-T I I I II H O IO O IO H O o ro r - ro o to vji * 1 1 1 1 1 H O H I O H O ro - F - O ro Vji ro VO * Evaluative Factor b ivo h h b b io H HVH O HVO IO o o o i o o i o 00 OVVO H FlO H Potency Factor <b i o ~h H“0 ovvovjivji f-vjivji H'HO'CrH O H~ ro to VO Vji o ro o Activity Factor l i i i i O H H O H H H -4 Vjl OO Ov V j l V j l H 1 1 1 o o o o o o o ■f-vo oo - f- ro - f- oo Total Self-Concept 157 Table 123 Correlation Coefficients*: GTOC with Faces by Ethnic Groups F A GTOC C E S Classmates School Ability Self Teachers Family Friends J , Counselor Ideal Self Total Redefinition A & B 0 -15 -14 -26 -17 -09 -08 — 06 -15 B Sensitivity to Problems 01 -16 -11 -20 -05 05 -19 15 -06 L Fluency of Thinking -03 -09 -04 -13 -15 13 0 14 -01 A Flexibility of Thinking -02 -19 -15 -27 -05 11 -20 09 -10 C Originality -21 -26 0 06 -10 -03 -16 02 -15 K Propensity for Elaboration -10 -04 03 05 -08 -01 -21 27 -03 Total -11 -22 -10 -16 -10 o4 -19 12 -12 M A Redefinition A & B -08 19 -16 0 -06 -14 -06 13 -04 E M Sensitivity to Problems -19 05 -21 -18 -26 -21 -21 -07 -24 X E Fluency of Thinking 03 26 04 31* 09 0 16 05 13 I R Flexibility of Thinking -22 17 -23 -05 -18 -15 -05 0 -11 C I Originality -10 06 -11 -02 16 -01 -03 -17 -03 A C Propensity for Elaboration 11 19 19 07 06 16 07 01 13 N A Total -10 25 -12 07 -03 -11 02 02 -01 - N Redefinition A & B 30* 2k 30* 08 18 23 20 -11 28* W Sensitivity to Problems -12 02 05 20 -17 -13 -29* 08 “17 H Fluency of Thinking 12 06 05 14 -13 08 -09 13 03 I Flexibility of Thinking 39* 36* 20 03 -01 22 11 05 16 T Originality 04 04 13 11 -16 16 08 -27 -16 E Propensity for Elaboration 10 07 -19 07 -27 05 21 -15 -09 Total 25 14 09 09 -14 17 10 -07 03 Note. Critical value for Ethnic Groups (46 df) is + .28. *p S . 05. . U1 00 159 Table 124 Correlation Coefficients*: GTOC with Meaning of Words by Ethnic Groups M 0 * V ' f E h I U O P c Pi 0 ) O > » > » > » O P c 0 d T A W f * V I5 p • H H p • H p • H f - J •H H • V « * E h Is E h 1 a ) F n 0 p 0 p 0 a ) 0 0 1 N 0 0 1 R V < D a < 1 > t o < 1 > • P 0 3 < 1 > % • H S • H 5 S ♦ H 0 1 PM 1 CQ F h U E h 1 1 / 1 t n ? PM 1 1 E H 1 ? w c o 1 P c 0 r— \ 1 U O r— \ 1 P c 0 r-\ 1 P c O r— \ % < U C Q X cS % < 0 < u > • H r 0 5 Pa > > Pa > > p % & c *s 1 W $ | I Q 4 3 8 0 3 0 } $ < —i 0 0 0 rH O O X } O r — \ O O X l 0 r — \ O O •a < D % ( 1 ) •f U < D E H 1 s 0 3 0 ) O O j < u 1 < D < D ■3 0) < 1 > J S 0 0 1 < 1 > > > H 1 ! » H 1 r— \ ! » H • H 1 t a j • H h ' d d < u • H u a < 0 • H u < 0 v H P c < 1 > I Q 9 0 < 1 > t o 9 0 < V C Q B 0 < 1 > t o B 0 < U 73 73 < 0 • n 73 < 0 • n d 0 d < 0 p 0 ? ! • H O 7 3 p 0 G 0 a a a co co to co CQ co $ C Q E h E h E h E h Pa Pa Pa P a Pa a a a a H M H H P C PM < EH REDEF -04 -11 -01 -O', 02 o4 08 06 16 09 0 10 11 26 11 19 14 11 18 17 03 05 08 07 -08 21 03 07 -0 8 0 08 0 05 11 09 10 SENS 2g* -17 21 15 -03 -14 -07 -10 22 02 08 13 15 05 02 08 16 -02 25 07 26 -12 14 12 0 -02 04 01 15 07 17 16 20 -05 10 10 FLU 06 -11 03 -01 01 14 08 10 -06 -06 -10 -09 -10 02 -09 -07 -0 8 -27 -12 -19 01 -22 -16 -16 -12 -07 03 -06 -22 -06 -20 -1 8 -08 -12 -0 8 -11 qFLEX 20 -27 13 02 -06 -o4 -01 -05 22 04 12 15 17 09 -03 09 09 -06 15 07 13 0 19 13 -01 0 10 04 03 07 14 10 13 -03 13 09 a ORIG -12 -15 11 -0 8 -0 8 17 -0 8 0 -31* -17 -10 -23 o4 -1 7 01 -o4 -08 -13 -17 -15 12 06 05 10 21 03 26 21 -24 22 -2 8 -0 8 -07 11 -28* 26 PROP 17 25 10 0 03 -05 0 0 -10 -27 09 -12 11 -07 -01 01 -15 -25 -19 -24 24 -0 8 13 07 15 -10 18 10 -11 17 -11 0 06 03 15 11 Total 07 -30* 11 -06 -05 06 01 0 -02 -12 0 -06 10 02 0 04 03 -19 02 -07 20 -o4 16 10 08 02 17 12 -11 13 -0 7 0 05 18 34* 30* | REDEF -o4 o4 16 07 06 30* 24 23 0 17 01 07 0 19 10 12 06 15 08 06 -02 08 08 08 -01 14 -06 03 -05 01 -02 -02 -02 17 11 11 - ; h SENS -21 -25 10 -l4 -14 05 -05 -07 -11 07 03 -06 -11 -07 -09 -12 -23 -01 -05 -0 8 -30* -21 l4 -o4 -03 -02 -17 -0 8 -24 -14 -28* -26 -23 -12 -02 -14 a j FLU -09 -10 12 -03 17 16 20 21 05 o4 -02 23 o4 16 15 15 08 -01 02 -03 -06 12 31* 25 -07 01 0 -02 -11 -09 -05 -10 -02 05 18 09 | flex -16 -28* 02 -17 15 06 12 09 -06 -05 03 -03 -12 -07 06 -03 -14 -03 07 -04 -27 07 -05 -14 0 -03 -10 -05 -12 -15 -11 -15 -13 -10 0 -09 q ORIG -31* 27 -24 -34* -12 05 05 -02 -26 -18 -13 24 32* 0 03 -11 -16 -09 -10 -l4 -32* -11 07 -07 -21 -26 -24 -27 -15 -13 -07 -14 -30* -16 -07 -20 0 PROP 05 -02 09 05 19 14 33* 27 0 16 28* 20 o4 23 20 20 23 19 l4 23 -07 08 28* 21 16 -0 8 0 03 08 0 19 10 12 11 31* 22 2 Total 0 ) -17 -21 07 -12 08 24 26 23 -07 04 o4 01 -0 9 12 14 08 -08 07 06 01 -21 -01 20 08 -02 -01 -10 -05 -12 -09 -06 -11 -11 03 14 03 REDEF 23 13 0 09 24 52* 35* 45* 25 35* 18 30* 25 23 14 24 09 24 -09 10 31* 29* 08 26 11 29* 22 25 23 -02 03 11 29* 32* 15 30* SENS -21 -15 -07 -15 -15 24 0 03 -09 0 -15 -09 -01 -05 -05 -05 -16 0 -24 -15 -18 -13 -10 -16 -27 -03 -1 8 -19 0 -15 -12 -10 -18 -05 -17 -16 0 FLU -09 -01 -0 7 -08 -03 33* 19 19 -13 03 -o4 -05 06 -06 03 01 -10 -10 -16 -14 -03 — 08 02 -03 -15 18 10 °? 01 08 0 -0 3 -0 8 02 0 -02 H FLEX 21 12 -02 07 19 54* 32* 42* 17 20 06 17 10 13 14 15 -06 07 -14 -05 16 o4 l4 -13 -07 09 08 04 19 03 12 12 14 18 12 17 S ORIG 08 o4 12 12 13 28* 29* 29* 0 01 02 0 01 02 12 05 -10 -11 -09. -12 05 -13 -12 -0 8 -13 -05 06 -05 -10 C7 -07 -04 -03 01 08 03 PROP 02 -0 8 -27 -2 4 0 12 19 13 -08 -2 3 -14 -1 8 09 -15 -10 -07 -17 -39* -28* -31* 05 -35* -10 -1 6 -26 -30* -14 -28* -04 -22 10 — 06 -0 8 -28* -18 -22 Total 10 0 -10 —Oo 12 52* 38* 42* 04 05 -01 03 15 01 06 09 -11 -10 -26 -18 13 -13 0 0 -18 01 05 -o4 10 -10 07 03 05 03 01 04 Note. Critical value for Ethnic Groups (46 df) is + .28 E - Evaluative Factor P - Potency Factor A - Activity Factor T - Total «pS . 0 5. 16 0 Self-Concept Component Mean Factor Scores Male Female Classmates School Ability- Self Counselor Ideal. Self Self-Concept Mean Teachers Family Friends Male Female 4.93 5.75* 4.55 4.46 5-13 5.47 4.53 5.34* 4.38 4.69 4.44 5. 06* 5.07 5-77* 4.69 4.69 5.09 5.45 4.90 5-55* 4.56 4.44 4.80 5.34 5.45 6.4o* 5.15 4.93 5.48 6. 19** 4.98 5-75* 4.68 4.68 5.02 5. 50** 4.76 5. 67* 4.29 4.51 4.67 5. 27** 5.00 5. 63* 4.88 4.89 5.07 5.75 5-20 5.86* 4.93 4.80 5.46 5.45 Figure 2. Profile of Sex Groups: Plottings of Self-Concept (Meaning of Words) Factor Scores (According to Total Sex Groups) l6l Self-Concept Component Mean Factor Scores Mexican- Black American White Self Family Counselor E E Mean Self-Concept E_ P Black Mexican- American White a. Blacks significantly higher than Mexican-Americans Blacks significantly higher than Mexican-Americans or -whites (p § . 05, q = 3*45) 'Blacks significantly higher than Mexican-Americans or -whites (p S . 05, q = 3-28) ^Blacks significantly higher than Mexican-Americans 'Blacks significantly higher than Mexican-Americans 5.79a 5.07 5.4i 4.70 4.59 4.79 5-34 5.20 5.27 5. 8ob 5.02 5.11 5.06 '4.73 4.88 5.8lc 5.20 5.22 5-56d 4.88 5.25 4.38 4.50 4.62 5.14 4.91 5.16 5.62d 5.11 5.36 4.69 4.58 4.77 5.32 5.19 5.27 (p ^ ■ •05.> q = 4.50) (p ^ ■ ■05.> q = 3.90) (p s ■05., q = 3-59) (p s . .05.> q = 4.00) (p S .01. > q = 4. 25) Figure 3. Profile of Ethnic Groups: Plottings of Self-Concept (Meaning of Words) Factor Scores (According to Total Ethnic Groupings) Mean Factor Scores Self-Concept Component k 56 Male Female Teachers E P A Males ---- Female s ... *Females significantly higher than males at or beyond, the .05 level of significance. Figure 4. Profile of Sex and Ethnicity Interaction: Plottings of Self-Concept (Meaning of Words) Factor Scores for Mexican-Americans According to Sex ro APPENDIX B DATA COLLECTION FORM 163 NAME _______________________ ' SCHOOL BIRTHDATE ________________________________ SEX (circle) MALE FEMALE ETHNICITY (circle) BLACK MEXICAN-AMERICAN WHITE OTHER G T 0 C GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY raw stan<J REDEFINITION A + B----------- - ----- SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS ____ _____ FLUENCY OF THINKING___________ _____ FLEXIBILITY OF THINKING ____ ■ _____ ORIGINALITY___________________ _____ PROPENSITY FOR ELABORATION ____ _____ TOTAL GTOC____________________ _____ MEANING OF WORDS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL EVALUATIVE ___ _______ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ P O T E N C Y ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ ACTIVITY ___ _ _____ ___ ___ ___ _____ TOTAL ___ ___________ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL _____ FACES ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ Adapted for use with secondary school students, with permission, from instruments developed and used by Project Potential, N. S. Metfessel, University of Southern California, 197G. 164 APPENDIX C CASP INVENTORY ADMINISTRATION MANUAL 165 CASP* INVENTORY ADMINISTRATION MANUAL Group Test of Creativity Feelings About School Meaning of Words Faces *CRE ATI'VITY/ANX1ETY/ SELF - PERCEPTION Adapted for use with secondary school students, with permission, from instruments developed and used by Project Potential, N. S. Metfessel, University of Southern California, 1976. 166 CONTENTS General Instructions ................................ 1 G T O C . . 2 Anxiety/Self-Perception......................... 6 MEANING CF WORDS . . . 6 FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL.............................. 9 F A C E S ...................................................... 9 168 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS each subject hai received a copy of the CASP Inventory and a pencil, give the following imtAuctiom and general information: — THE PURPOSE OF THIS INVENTORY IS TO MEASURE SEVERAL DIFFERENT CREATIVE ABILITIES YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SEE HOW YOUR CREATIVE ABILITY IS RELATED TO THE WAY YOU THINK AND FEEL ABOUT SCHOOL. — THE TEST WILL TAKE A LITTLE MORE THAN ONE HOUR. — PLEASE GIVE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF THE COLORED COVER SHEET. THAT COLORED SHEET WILL BE RETURNED TO YOU IN CARE OF YOUR SCHOOL ALONG WITH A BRIEF EXPLANATION WHEN THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED. — NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO TAKE THE TEST. — PLEASE DO NOT OPEN THE INVENTORY UNTIL DIRECTED TO DO SO. — ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? Move aAound the room answering any question* that might arise and checktng that all blanks are filled in. when aJUL subjects have completed the necessary information; PLEASE TURN TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THE INVENTORY WHICH SAYS "GTOC" AT THE TOP 1&9 MANY PEOPLE TODAY FEEL THAT CREATIVITY (THE ABILITY TO THINK AND ACT IN UNUSUAL AND DIFFERENT WAYS) IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD AND THAT CREATIVITY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED AND DEVELOPED IN YOUNG PEOPLE. IN THIS GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY (GTOC) yOU WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE DIFFERENT OR UNUSUAL RESPONSES TO A WIDE VARIETY OF QUESTIONS. THESE TESTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM MOST OF THE ONES YOU HAVE TAKEN BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER. PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE DIRECTIONS, BUT FEEL FREE TO GIVE UNUSUAL OR DIFFERENT RESPONSES THAT MAY OCCUR TO YOU. THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT ANSWER. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON ANY OF THESE PAGES, PLFASE RAISE YOUR HAND. PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO "REDEFINITION A”. TuAn to Rede ^tuition A and aay to the AubjectA: I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THIS DRAWING MIGHT BE. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER. I JUST WANT TO SEE HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS DRAWING MIGHT BE A SUNRISE (pause) OR IT MIGHT BE A HAT. NCW WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS MIGHT BE? YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. PLEASE DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE DIRECTED TO DO SO. 170 The subject may tuxn the dxawZng Zn any way he choos es, aZthought no Zn- stnuctZons axe gZven that he may do this, Ii he shouZd ask Zi it Zs pexmZssZble ion. him to tuxn the dxawZng, say: YES, YOU MAY IF YOU WISH. Aitex iZve. (5) minute*: PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO "PEDEFINITION B. " Tuxn to doodZe 8 and say to the subjects: I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THIS DRAWING MIGHT BE. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER. I JUST'WANT TO SEE HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. Aitex iZve (5) mZnutes: PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO "SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS." I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TELL ME SCME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH A BROOM. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU. MIGHT GET A SPLINTER IN YOUR HAND FROM A WOODEN HANDLE, OR THE BRISTLES MIGHT MISS SCME OF THE DIRT. NOW CAN YOU THINK OF OTHER PROBLEMS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH A BROCM? YOU HAVE FIVE (5) MINUTES. 171 k^tzA (Jive (5) minutzii PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO "FLUENCY IN THINKING". NCW I WANT TO SEE HOW MANY THINGS YOU CAN DRAW IN FOUR MINUTES. EACH DRAWING MUST HAVE A CIRCLE IN IT. YOU MAY ADD ANY OTHER LINES YOU NEED TO. DRAWING ABILITY IS NOT IMPORTANT. I AM JUST INTERESTED IN HOT MANY THINGS YOU CAN BRAN. REMEMBER, EACH DRAWING MUST HAVE A CIRCLE. LABEL EACH DRAWING. YOU HAVE ONLY FOUR MINUTES. k^tzn. &ouA. (4) minutii: PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO "FLEXIBILITY OF THINKING." YOU CAN DO MANY THINGS WITH A SHOESTRING. FOR ONE THING, YOU CAN USE A SHOESTRING TO KEEP YOUR SHOES ON YOUR FEET OR YOU COULD ALSO USE IT TO FLY A BALLOON. THT.T, ME ALL THE KINDS OF DIFFERENT AND USEFUL THINGS THAT COUID BE DONE WITH A SHOESTRING. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. kfitex iS-tve (5) minuutzA: PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO "ORIGINALITY." IF I TOID YOU THAT I WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE WALK HOME, HOT COULD YOU SAY THE SAME THING BY DRAW ING ON A PIECE OF PAPER? WELL, ONE WAY WOULD BE LIKE THIS. (Show AampZe. neAponse. in si&cosid bookeZ.) HERE ARE MORE THINGS THAT PEOPLE CAN DO, AND I WANT YOU 172 TO SAY THE SAME THINGS BY DRAWING IN THE SQUARES ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER. THE ONLY THINGS YOU MAY NOT DO IS. TO DRAW PEOPLE DOING THE THINGS, OR USE LETTERS OR NUMBERS. ARTISTIC ABILITY IS NOT IMPORTANT. I i 5 a iubjzct ihouZd dhow a pzuon, oh. tu>z numbzh. oh. ZzttzhA 6ay: REMEMBER, YOU SHOULD NOT DRAW PEOPLE DOING THE THINGS OR USE LETTERS OR NUMBERS. Tltii hzmindzh. aj> gZvzyi only oncz. k^tzh. &ivz (5) mZnutzi: TURN THE PAGE TO "PROPENSITY FOR ELABORATION." THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A DRAWING. IT COUID BE A DRAWING OF ALMOST ANYTHING. WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS FINISH THE DRAWING. THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT DRAWING. YOU MAY DRAW ANYTHING YOU LIKE. PLEASE MAKE YOUR DRAWING AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE. k^tzh. llvz (5) minwtzi,. * PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE "ANXIETY/SELF PERCEPTION." 173 A N X IE T Y / SELF- PERCEPTION IN THE FOLLOWING THREE SECTIONS YOU WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOT YOU THINK AND FEEL ABOUT SCHOOL. PEOPLE DIFFER IN HOT THEY THINK AND FEEL ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS. THE PERSON NEXT TO YOU MIGHT ANSWER A QUESTION ONE WAY. YOU MIGHT ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION IN ANOTHER WAY BUT BOTH WOULD BE RIGHT BECAUSE YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE MATTER. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS IN A THHUTHFUL MANNER. PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE "MEANING OF WORDS." MEANING OF W ORDS THE SAME WORDS MAY OFTEN MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. ON FACH OF THE NEXT FOUR PAGES YOU WILL FIND TWO GROUPS OF WORDS, ONE AT THE TOP AND ONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE. dzmon&tfiatz BENEATH EACH GROUP OF WORDS ARE PAIRS OF ADJECTIVES dzmonitfiatz HERE IS HOW YOU ARE TO USE THESE SCALES: de.monitfia.tz on chalkboafid ofi, pfiz&zfiably, a pofitablz znlafigzmznt o I Invzntofiy HOW MY CLASSMATES SEE ME Sharp (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Dull Sour (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sweet Lar ge (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Small 174 LOOK AT THE FIRST SCALE: "SHARP— DULL." demon&taate IF YOU FEEL THAT WHAT YOU ARE JUDGING IS VERY CLOSE TO "SHARP, YOU SHOULD MARK OUT THE BUBBLE AS FOLLOWS: dzmonAtfi&te. by faZZZZng Zn bubbZe "3" LOOK AT THE NEXT SCALE: "SOUR— SWEET." demomtaate IF YOU FEEL HOW YOUR CLASSMATES SEE YOU IS CLOSE TO "SWEET" (BUT NOT VERY CLOSE), YOU SHOULD MARK OUT THIS BUBBLE. demonitaate by &ZZZZng Zn bubbZe "2." LOOK AT THIS LAST SCALE: "LARGE— SMALL." de.womZA.ate. IF WHAT YOU ARE JUDGING SEEMS ONLY SLIGHTLY RELATED TO "LARGE" OR "SMALL," YOU SHOULD MARK OUT ONE OF THE BUBBLES MARKED "1". demomtA.ate IF YOU FEEL THAT WHAT YOU ARE JUDGING IS AS CLOSE TO "LARGE" AS IT IS TO • ’ 'SMALL," OR THAT THE ADJECTIVES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU ARE JUDGING, THEN MARK OUT THE BUBBLE IN THE MIDDLE SPACE MARKED "0". demomtaate cZaA.Z$y; "LARGE" AND "SMALL" DO NOT REFER TO WHETHER YOU ARE LARGE OR SMALL, BUT TO HOW YOUR CLASSMATES FEEL TOWARD YOU. take tZme to eZaaZiy uie o£ the icaZei ai neeeaaA.y. 175 IMPORTANT 1. BE SURE TO CHECK EVERY PAIR OF ADJECTIVES FOR EVERY GROUP OF WORDS. DO NOT OMIT ANY. 2. DO NOT SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON ANY ITEM. ’ IT IS YOUR FIRST IMPRESSIONS, THE IMMEDIATE FEELINGS ABOUT THE ITEMS THAT WE WANT. ON THE OTHER HAND, PLEASE DO NOT BE CARELESS BECAUSE WE WANT YOUR TRUE IMPRESSIONS. 3. EACH ITEM SHOULD BE JUDGED SEPARATELY. MARK EACH ITEM ACCORDING TO WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU. YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES TO COMPLETE THE NEXT FOUR PAGES. Hove, abound the fioom checking to iee that the iubjecti atve marking the i calei according to diKectiont>. Although thii te&t ii not neceaatiily a timed one, a tactful fieminden. might be given fi/iom time to time to aauA.e that each itudent completei the teit. Afaten 10 minutea PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO "FEELING ABOUT SCHOOL." 176 FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL I AM GOING TO BE ASKING YOU SCME QUESTIONS— QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO THINK AND FEEL ABOUT SCHOOL. PEOPLE DIFFER IN HOW THEY THINK AND FEEL ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS. THE PERSON NEXT TO YOU MIGHT ANSWER A QUESTION IN ONE WAY. YOU MIGHT ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION IN ANOTHER WAY BUT BOTH WOULD BE RIGHT BE CAUSE YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE MATTER. I WILL READ EACH QUESTION. WAIT UNTIL I FINISH EACH QUESTION . AND THEN ANSWER BY FILLING IN THE BUBBLE IN FRONT OF THE BEST ANSWER FOR YOU. W/ien the. tcuh - L z , ccmplztzd: PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE "FACES." FACES BELOW AND ON THE NEXT PAGE YOU WILL FIND EIGHT GROUPS OF WORDS. BELOW EACH GROUP CF WORDS THERE IS A RCW CF NINE FACES. THE FACES GO FROM A VERY SAD FACR TO A VERY HAPPY FACE. [Point to each (ac.Z &siom Zz&t to Slight). YOU WILL USE THESE FACES IN GIVING YOJR FEEL INGS ABOUT EACH GROUP OF WORDS. 177 FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE GROUP CF WORDS WERE "MX ABILITY TO HANDLE A CAR": JOHN JONES FEELS PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THE WAY HE CAN HANDLE A CAR, BUT THAT THERE ARE SCME WHO DO BETTER. JOHN WOULD PROBABLY FILL IN THE BUBBLE UNDER ONE CF THE SECOND OR THIRD FACES FROM THE RIGHT. (VeiwnitAate). DICK JONES HAS NEVER DRIVEN A CAR AND FEELS HE KNOWS PRACTICALLY NOTHING ABOUT DRIVING. DICK WOULD PROBABLY FILL IN THE BUBBLE UNDER THIS LAST FACE ON THE LEFT. (VemonitAdte). SALLY JONES FEELS THAT THERE ARE JUST ABOUT AS MANY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HANDLE A CAR AS WELL AS SHE DOES AS THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HANDLE A CAR BETTER. SALLY WOULD PROBABLY FILL IN TIE BUBBLE UNDER THE FACE IN THE MIDDLE. (VejnOHAtAClte}. I WILL READ EACH GROUP OF WORDS. THEN I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FILL IN THE BUBBLE UNDER THE FACE THAT BEST SKCX'TS YOUR FEELINGS. Ao'-teA the AtudeiitA have ccmpCeted the txuk; THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS PROJECT. WILL YOU PLEASE CLOSE YOUR BOOKLETS. Give ^unth ex dtxectionA in teAnu o£ the eotteetlon pAoeeduuxe io be LU>ed. APPENDIX D PEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL 178 FEELINGS ABOUT SCHOOL I am going to be asking you some questions— questions about how you think and feel about school. People differ in how they think and feel about certain things. The person next to you might answer a question in one way. You might answer the same question in another way but both would be right because you feel differently about the matter. I will read each question. Wait until I finish each question and then answer by filling in the bubble in front of the best answer for you. 1. Do you worry when the teacher or counselor says that he is going to ask you questions to find out how much you knew about sore thing? (1) Worry a lot (2) Worry sane (3) Worry a little (4) Never worry 2. Do you worry about whether or not you will graduate, pass the GED, or the high school proficiency exam? (1) Wbrry a lot (2) Worry some (3) Worry a little (4) Never worry 3. When you are asked to read aloud, are you afraid that you are going to make scire mistakes? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 4. When the teacher says that he is going to call upon some students to do math problems, do you hope that he will call on someone else ? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 5. Do you sometimes dream at night that you are in school and cannot answer the teacher's questions? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 179 18 0 6. When you think that you are going to be called on by the teacher, does your heart begain to beat faster? (1) Often (2) Sometines (3) Once in a while (4) Never 7. When the teacher is explaining a difficult subject, do you feel that others in the class understand it better than you do? (1) Often (2) Sore times (3) Once in a while (4) Never 8. When you are out of school, do you worry about hew well you are going to do in class the next day? (1) A lot (2) Sane (3) A little (4) Never 9. Do you think that you worry more about school than other students? (1) A lot more than others (2) A little more than others (3) More than others (4) About the same as others 10. When you are at hare and you are thinking about school the next day, do you become afraid that you will not know the answers to questions the teacher asks you? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 11. Do you dream at night that others in your class can do things you cannot do? (1) Very much (2) Some (3) A little (4) Never 12. When you are home and thinking about your classwork for the next day, do you worry that you will do poorly on the classwork? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) A little (4) Never 181 13. When you think you are going to be called on by the teacher, do you get a funny feeling in your stomach? (1) Often (2) Sore times (3) Once in a while (4) Never 14. If you did very poorly when the teacher called on you, did it bother you and make you feel unhappy? (1) Very much (2) Scms (3) A little (4) Never 15. Do you dream at night that the teacher-is angry because you do not knew your lessons? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 16. Are you afraid of school tests? (1) A lot (2) Scire (3) A little (4) Never 17. Do you worry before you take a test? (1) A lot (2) Sane (3) A little (4) Never 18. Do you worry while you are taking a test? (1) A lot (2) Sane (3) A little ' (4) Never 19. After you have taken a test, do you worry about hew well you did on the test? (1) A lot (2) Sane (3) A little (4) Never 20. Do you dream at night that you did poorly on a test you had in school that day? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 21. When you are taking a test, does the hand you write with shake? (1) A lot (2) Sore (3) A little (4) Never 182 22. When the teacher says that he is going to give the class a test, do you became afraid that you will do poorly? (1) Often (2) Seme times (3) Once in a while (4) Never 23. When you are taking a difficult test, do you forget seme things you knew well before you started taking the test? (1) Often (2) Semetimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 24. Do you ever wish that you didn't worry so much about tests? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 25. When you knew you are going to have a test, do you get a nervous feeling? (1) Often (2) Semetimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 26. While you'are taking a test, do you usually think you are going poorly? (1) Often (2) Sometimes (3) Once in a while (4) Never 27. While you are on your way to school, do you worry that you might have a test? (1) Often (2) Seme times (3) Once in a while (4) Never APPENDIX E FACES TEST 183 Below and on the next page you will find eight groups of words. Below each group of words there is a row of nine faces. The faces go from a very sad face to a very happy face. You will use these faces in giving your feelings about each group of words. I will read each group of words. Then I would like you to fill in the bubble under the face that best shows your feelings. HOW MY CLASSMATES SEE ME 0 O \ ^ ' MY SCHOOL ABILITY HOW I SEE MYSELF 4 . HOT MY TEACHERS SEE ME 184 185 HOW MY FAMILY ME 3 O 1 ( ^ HCW MY FRIENDS SEE ME < & ) w HCW MY COUNSELOR ME HOW I WOULD LIKE TO BE APPENDIX F MEANING OF WORDS TEST 186 APPENDIX E MEANING OF WORDS 1. HCW m CLASSMATES SEE ME Fair (3) (2) (1) ( 0) ( ) (2) (3) Unfair Weak (3) - (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Strong Unplesant (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Pleasant Active (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Passive Large (3) (2) (1) (0) . ( ) (2) (3) Small Dull (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Sharp Sweet (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Sour Light (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Heavy Fast (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Slew 2. My SCHOOL ABILITY Sour (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Sweet Heavy (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Light Slew (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Fast Pleasant (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Unpleasant Small (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Large Sharp (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Dull Unfair (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Fair Strong (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Weak Passive (3) (2) (1) (0) ( ) (2) (3) Active 187 188 3. HCW I SEE MYSEIT Fair (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Unfair Weak (3) (2) (1) (0) (-1) (2) (3) Strong Unplesant (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Pleasant Active (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Passive Large (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Small Dull (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sharp Sweet (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sour Light (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Heavy Fast (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Slow 4. HCW MY TEACHERS SEE ME Sour (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sweet Heavy (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Light Slew (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Fast Pleasant (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Unpleasant Small (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Large Sharp (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Dull Unfair (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Fair Strong (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Weak Passive (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Active 189 5. HOW MY FAMILY SEES ME Fair (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Unfair Vfeak (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Strong Unplesant (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Pleasant Active (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Passive Large (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Small Doll (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) . Sharp Sweet (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sour Light (3) (2) (1) (0) (2) (3) Heavy Fast (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Slow 6. HOW MY FRIENDS SEE ME Sour (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sweet Heavy (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Light Slew (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Fast Pleasant (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Unpleasant Small (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Large Sharp (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Dull Unfair (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Fair Strong (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Weak Passive (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Active 190 7. HOW My COUNSELOR SEES ME Fair (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Unfair Waak (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Strong Unplesant (3) ( 2 ) ( 1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Pleasant Active (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) ( 2 ) (3) Passive Large (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Small Dull (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sharp Sweet (3) ( 2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sour Light (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Heavy Fast (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Slav 8. HOW I WOULD LIKE TO BE Sour (3) ( 2 ) ' (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Sweet Heavy (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Light Slav (3) (2) ( 1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Fast Pleasant (3) (2) (1) (0) ( 1 ) (2) (3) Unpleasant Small (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Large Sharp (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Dull Unfair (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Fair- Strong (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) (2) (3) Weak Passive (3) (2) (1) (0) (1) £) (3) Active

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effect of screen size, compressed sound, and sex on cognitive learning in intermediate level science

PDF

Relationship of sex and anxiety to convergent production, divergent production, achievement, self-concept, and other personal characteristics in fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students

PDF

Self-efficacy, job/home attitudes and career concept relationships in pairs of mothers and undergraduate daughters

PDF

Factorial invariance and the construct validity of a school related self-concept measure

PDF

The relationship of selected personality and cognitive factors to critical thinking among graduate students in educational psychology

PDF

Anxiety, self-concept, and personality correlates of cognitively-enhanced low activation EEG biofeedback training

PDF

The effects of a group meditation technique upon degree of test anxiety and level of digit-letter retention in high school students

PDF

Interrelationships among constructs of fear of success, locus of control, and sex-role orientation for a community college sample differentiated by sex, ethnicity, and traditionality of major rel...

PDF

Interaction effects of introversion/extraversion and goal structure on performance and attitude

PDF

Attentiveness and awareness as a variable in psychopathology and therapy: The relationship between neurosis, anxiety and the ability to attend

PDF

A study of teacher expectancy induction as related to expectancy information, teacher dogmatism, and student sex

PDF

Response to cooperative learning processes among the elementary-age students

PDF

The relationship between critical thinking ability, personality, and academic achievement of graduate students in the School of Education at the University of Southern California

PDF

The effects of meditation on general anxiety, test anxiety, and non-verbal intelligence

PDF

The relationship between teacher perceptions of local school factors and the use of student study teams

PDF

A comparative analysis, and consequent synthesis, of selected contemporary psychological concepts of creativity and their implications for education

PDF

Preference for gender stereotypic job applicants as a function of ethnicity and sex

PDF

The effects of group counseling on the self-concept and achievement of primary grade Mexican-American pupils

PDF

An investigation of the relationship of measured creativity to anxiety, self-concept, sex and other personal characteristics in early adolescent students

PDF

The impact of acculturation, study skills, self-esteem, family and home characteristics upon the educational achievement of Japanese-American students

Asset Metadata

Creator Panucci, Mary Rotchford (author)

Core Title The relationship of sex and ethnicity to anxiety, self-concept, and creativity among continuation high school students

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-460148

Unique identifier UC11246951

Identifier usctheses-c26-460148 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24233.pdf

Dmrecord 460148

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Panucci, Mary Rotchford

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA