University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Comparison Of The Values Of High And Low Creative Seventh Grade Students In Selected Junior High Schools In The Los Angeles District

(USC Thesis Other)

A Comparison Of The Values Of High And Low Creative Seventh Grade Students In Selected Junior High Schools In The Los Angeles District

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 7 -1 0 ,7 7 0 MITCHELL, Carl Gene, 1926- A COMPARISON OF THE VALUES OF HIGH AND LOW CREATIVE SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS IN SELECTED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1967 Education, psychology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Carl Gene Mitchell All Rights Reserved 1967 A COMPARISON OF THE VALUES OF HIGH AND LOW CREATIVE SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS IN SELECTED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT by Carl Gene Mitchell 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 (Educational Psychology) June 1967 UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SC H O O L UNIVERSITY PARK LOS A NGELES, C A LIFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ....... Carl_ _ Gene_ Mitchell.......... under the direction of h.X.$...Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y ^ a & s j S L ^ s e ..... Dean /'I. .. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE P - / o v : * K ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer expresses to his doctoral committee chairman, Professor Newton S. Metfessel, appreciation for his help and encouragement during the development of this study. Acknowledgment is also made to the director and staff of the University of Southern California Sciences j |Laboratory Center where the data were processed. | i Special recognition is extended to Mrs. Jean Barlow I j for her assistance in editing and typing the manuscript. [ ; Finally, the writer expresses deep appreciation i [ i jto his wife, Frankie, and to his children, Mickey, Cary, [ jand Michelle, who agonized and sacrificed in the interest |of the completion of this project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................ ii LIST OF TABLES........................................ vii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND THE PROCEDURE............... 1 The Problem Introduction 1 Statement of the problem | Purpose of the study Questions to be answered | Research hypotheses | Importance of the study j The Procedure J Origin of the data | The research population Definitions of terms Assumptions Limitations I Delimitations Organization of the study II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................... 32 i Values Definition of values The importance of values iii Chapter Page Should schools teach values Are schools teaching values Problems schools face in teaching values How values are transmitted Goals in values education Pupil behavior associated with a lack of proper values Dogmatism vs values Values and cultural level Values and sex differences Values and creativity Values of the creative individual Summary Testing for Values Descriptions of various techniques The Semantic Differential Summary Creativity Definition of creativity The importance of creativity The nature of creativity Characteristics of the creative individual Teachers and creativity Encouraging creativity The problem of conformity Summary Testing for Creativity Problems involved in creativity testing Creativity tests Opinions regarding tests of creativity Summary Summary of the Chapter iv Chapter Page III. THE RESEARCH DESIGN The research population Instruments Statistical approach Summary of the Chapter IV. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS......................... Z and t tests for differences between means MOWI concepts Charts and tables Area one: Associations Area two: Social Relations Area three: Adult Approval Area four: Moral and Social Values Area five: Perceiving Utility of School Experiences Area six: Success Patterns Area seven: Authority Relationships Area eight: Goal Direction Area nine: Self-Concept Area ten: Spontaneous Interest Creativity group comparisons Summary of the Chapter V. SUMMARY, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS................... Summary The problem Methodology Review of literature The population sample Statistical method 170 179 272 v Chapter Page Summary of Findings Associations Social Relations Adult Approval Moral and Social Values Perceiving Utility of School E:xperiences Success Patterns Authority Relationships Goal Direction Self-Concept Spontaneous Interest Null hypotheses regarding MOWI mean factor scores Summary of major findings Conclusions Recommendations Recommendations for future research APPENDICES 322 APPENDIX A 323 APPENDIX B 326 I BIBLIOGRAPHY 402 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Means, Standard Deviations of the Means, and Z Ratios for E, P, A Factor Scores for the MOWI Concepts According to Creativity Groupings.................................. 217 2. Means, Standard Deviations of the Means, and Z Ratios for E, P, A Factor Scores for the MOWI Concepts According to Creativity X Sex Groupings.............................. 219 3. Means, Standard Deviations of the Means, and Z Ratios for E, P, A Factor Scores for the MOWI Concepts According to Creativity X SES Groupings.............................. 227 4. Means, Standard Deviations of the Means, and t Ratios for E, P, A Factor Scores for the MOWI Concepts According to Creativity X SES X Sex Groupings ............... 236 | j 5. Means, Standard Deviations of the Means, and t Ratios for E, P, A Factor Scores for the MOWI Concepts According to creativity X SES X Sex Groupings....................... 245 6. Means, Standard Deviations of the Means, and t Ratios for E, P, A Factor Scores for the MOWI Concepts According to Creativity X SES X Sex Groupings ............... 254 7. Means, Standard Deviations of the Means, and t Ratios for E, P, A Factor Scores for the MOWI Concepts According to Creativity X SES X Sex Groupings....................... 263 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBHEM AND THE PROCEDURE The Problem Introduction Within recent years, a vast amount of research has been undertaken by the educational world to arrive at a better understanding of one of its most valuable products— i I | the highly creative student. Much progress has been made t ! in the attainment of this goal, but one important area is | ! noticeably lacking. A rapid survey of the literature | ! regarding the creative student reveals that only a paucity I I of effort has been put forth to arrive at an insight into i j the most vital sector of the human personality— the value ! | system of the creative person. In addition, the whole situation is further complicated by the fact that there is growing concern on the part of many educators regarding what they consider the values crisis in the American public school system. While the particular thrust of this study 2 involves an investigation of the values of the highly creative students, the writer is also sensitive to the premise (based upon research evidence) that if the public school is involved in such a crisis, the highly creative student would be especially affected. In order to provide a broad base for this study, some background information concerning the changing views of educators regarding the role of the public school in values education is here pre sented. The first institutions of education in our country j were under the leadership of clerical presidents and under i : the control of denominational boards (40). Not only were i I these schools interested in the advancement of learning, I I | but they were (after the English tradition) firmly dedicat- ; I ! ed to the development of character. The founders of these : j early schools believed that a climate of learning could be 1 established where their youth would be developed into | "gentlemen" capable of accepting the responsibility of I I I ! church and government (85, 16). In succeeding generations, many changes appeared in the American school, but educational leaders held to their conviction that the question of values was foremost I 3 in all formal instruction. Horace Mann, sometimes referred to as the father of the American public school, believed the principles of morality should be "copiously intermin gled with the principles of science" (260). His greatest pleasure consisted in the noting that school reports assigned a position of prominence to the teaching of morals (261) , and he openly deplored the insufficiency of moral and religious instruction given in some schools (262). The i 1 first United States commissioner of education, Henry | I Bernard, listed the ability to test one's life according I i to moral and religious principles as one of the nine char- i acteristics of a good teacher (249) . William T. Harris, j also a commissioner of education, believed it essential that there be an 1 1 inculcation of forms and conventional- | ities" (140:262). William D. Butler, in a comprehensive i I statement indicative of American educational philosophy j until recently, stated: On all proper occasions [teachers were] to impress upon the minds of their pupils the principles of morality and virtue, a sacred regard for truth, love to God, love to man, sobriety, industry and frugality; each teacher being left to the guidance of his own conscience and sense of duty as to the manner and means of inculcating these principles and virtues. (250:74) i 4 i i Within this generation, there has been a growing i j tendency to consider "values education" as no longer a responsibility of the public school. Several factors seem to have contributed to this trend. Griffen (136) believes the complexities of an industrial society have forced the schools to concentrate almost wholly on services and occupational training. He also states that the many com peting values systems within the nation have caused i teachers to "play it safe" by ignoring the question of i ! values completely. Brown sees the overstressing of the | "cognitive-intellectual" aspects of the student's develop- i ! ment as threatening the exclusion of the "moral implica- i i tions of one's intelligence" (118). Clifton states that ! the present great emphasis on the gifted has led to a con- I cept of excellence that ignores the value dimension (20). ! : ' ; Smith stresses five reasons why college faculties have ! j concluded that values instruction is not their responsibil ity. They are as follows: I j (1) According to the enlightenment view, j education provides the individual with knowledge | and reason; therefore it is assumed he will choose the good life. (2) All values are rela tive; therefore there are no universally valid standards by which to judge better from worse. (3) Maintenance of objectivity is a prerequisite 5 to seeking truth; consequently concern for value may distort truth. (4) Division of labor is necessary in a complex society; therefore, the school is responsible for intellectual values while home and church care for moral values. (5) Respect for autonomy is necessary in higher education; thus students should be allowed to find their own means of gaining freedom. (57i89) In reference to these points, Smith observed, "It is rather shocking to recognize that faculties have become so immersed in their separate disciplines that they have almost abdicated that which traditionally has been one of the primary responsibilities of education" (57:89). r | It would seem, then, that at least some present- i ! i j day leaders in education have concluded that the school no t jlonger has an important function to perform in the teaching jof values. These are to be relegated to the home and to I I the church. However, with the disintegration of the home j |and the decreasing role of the church in the lives of many Americans, there is considerable question as to whether or not the United States can afford such a philosophy. Duncan presented a list of ten dangers which he believes are facing the public schools, and at least two of these relate directly to the question of values: (5) Reduce the development of ethical character by opposing the teaching of everything which can be called religion or religious. 6 (9) Provide programs which tend to develop pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-sophisticates who | have little real understanding of and appreciation for virtues and values which have made America great. (127) On the other hand, there appears to be an increas ing number of educators who are alarmed at such a trend and are raising their voices to encourage a return to a "values" commitment within the public school. The old statement, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," seems very apropos here. Their alarm appears to stem from what they consider the fruits of the antivalues position in | the school system. Mattaliano holds that the apathy that exists concerning worthy values has permitted the develop- I ment of a values system among the youth which is completely I ! | out of line with the goals and purposes of this nation. : i j He wrote: j I ! Contemporary adolescent society, mirror of | contemporary adult society, honors athletic heroics, \ material possessions, pretty girls, and magnetic j personalities. So strongly are these values em- | bedded in youth that schools and parents, in their own lack of direction and their insecurity, allow these teenage symbols to become the symbols of life's relationships, endorsed by school, home, and community. The academically successful boy becomes a failure. The serious, creative boy becomes an outcast. The teenage car owner or stylish dresser becomes an idol. (16 7) 7 Raths also is concerned about what he terms "values confusion" and holds that research with underachievers shows that unclear values and purposes are directly related to poor school performance. He concludes, "If a student has not had the chance to develop his values in the home or in the church, or elsewhere, the school must provide j experiences for him to do so" (185). Newman sees the "new" values system as character ized by (1) personal interest rather than mutually benefi cial goals and ideals, (2) self indulgence, (3) pride in | one's ability to change rather than to hold a firm position | | and (4) commitment to self, rather than to something great- ! er (175). I Griffen warns, "When a society loses the ambition i to identify values and pursue them, its members are likely ! j ! to have their destiny fixed by an impersonal determinism" 5 j (136). i | A statement by Duncan becomes increasingly pro- I | phetic in terms of a widely publicized recent happening. He said, "Schools must have objectives which are compatible with the values of the individuals or groups which support I them. Without valid objectives based upon articulated j 8 j values schools would be chaotic and even useless" (127) . i j J The instance referred to was reported in a United Press ! International release from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The I | following excerpts are from that release: | Police said Wednesday that a gang of high school "geniuses" burglarized chemicals and text books to set up their own laboratory for the manufacture of the hallucinatory drug LSD. "The gang was planning to make the drug and | sell it at school and at junior colleges, but they still lacked one chemical," said detective Lt. William McCutcheon. Three youths were arrested on breaking and entering charges and police said at least eight j others were involved. More arrests were expected, i Several implicated youths led officers to a j cache of 131 sticks of dynamite to be used in a | proposed bank robbery, police said. Money from | the bank and drug sales were to be used to equip \ a chemical lab for "legitimate research." ! "They apparently come from good families and | they really mean no harm, but the potential of their minds and the direction they were headed is chilling— a big waste," said McCutcheon. "I spoke to one boy and it was like taking a statement from Einstein himself, the way he talks, his language— it's not my language," said detective Herb Pugmire, Deerfield Beach. Two of the youths charged, Norman Allen, 18, ! of Pompano Beach, and Hugo Duras, 18, of Deerfield | Beach, were described as "laboratory geniuses," at | highly rated Nova High School and had received college scholarships. They were charged only with burglarizing chemicals from a junior high school. (214) The statement of the policeman, "... The poten tial of their minds and the direction they were headed is tchilling— a big waste," is worth pondering. This incident I | involved highly creative students who somehow seem to have grown up without any sort of identity with the traditional values of society, even though they came from "good families." How could such a thing happen? It may be that with the decreasing influence of the church and the disin tegration of the home, coupled with the sometimes contra dictory views as to the role of the school in values educa tion, students are left with poor preparation in the area | of values. On the other hand, it may be that the natural i ! nonconformity of the highly creative individual is at | j fault. It is also possible that in the process of attempt- t I ing to differentiate the creative youth and offer him a j i i special challenge, the school system has, even more than ; with students generally, failed to help him establish j j guidelines by which his creative powers can be used in a nondestructive way. Whatever the cause, history is replete I with examples of persons who were highly creative but ruthlessly used their genius in the enslaving or destruc tion of mankind. It, therefore, seems especially important! ! that educators undertake to assist all students, but per- j I haps in a special way the creative students, to use their 10 unique talents to the benefit of humanity. This, of course has to do with values. In the study which follows, an attempt has been made to present a comprehensive view of values and crea- f tivity and of the interrelationship between them, particu- | larly as they involve the highly creative junior high school student. I i | | Statement of the problem I ! Since Guilford*s famous "creativity declaration" ! of 1950, educational leaders in the United States have I | been involved in a race for creativity development of ever- | increasing proportions. Two things seem to have influenced j this tremendous emphasis: first, the realization that in ; many areas extremely vital to man the frontiers of knowl- I ! s i i | edge potentially can be pushed back enormously with great j benefit to all mankind; and second, the fact that this i i nation is involved with Russia and other Communist powers for world leadership and perhaps even for the survival of the American way of life. Consequently, the past decade and a half have witnessed continuously growing attempts to encourage the creative powers of all, but especially to individuate and cultivate the highly creative person. The 11 main weight of this responsibility has fallen upon the public schools. Whenever the continuance of a specific nation is involved, the question of values immediately comes to the front. Every nation has a system of values which is vital to its identity, which must be preserved if that nation is to continue. Without entering a lengthy discussion in merit, it seems obvious that values are not only important to the maintenance of a united front before any world i i | threat, but they are also essential to the internal opera tion of a nation. j Americans, naturally, believe that their values i ! system has contributed immeasurably to the greatness of ! | the nation, and that it is worthy of preservation. It is ! further assumed that each oncoming generation (including j the creative individuals) will accept the basic tenets of the existent values system, although a certain degree of constructive change will be tolerated and even encouraged. I Here again, the popular expectancy is that the public school will aid in the accomplishment of this task. The American concern for both creativity and values has been further heightened by two vital facts from 12 recent history: first, the understanding of the threat of a highly creative mind not armed with values which take into consideration the well being of others. Second, it has become obvious that whenever the leadership of a nation is taken up by persons with values which are differ ent from, or in conflict with, the traditional values of that nation, then the values system will be changed, and the direction and destiny of the nation will be changed with it. ! The problem that is here raised involves the values ! | of the highly creative person. While a great deal is i I ; expected from the investment presently being made in crea- ! tivity by the public schools, the truth is, the "creativity | race" is so new in America that it is not really known how | well highly creative students identify with that body of values held important by Americans. As Yamamoto has said, "To state the problem bluntly, we do not know what to do I with these crazy kids" (226). In addition, and as already j i emphasized, there are increasing signs of a diminishing interest in values education at the public school level. It is possible that the unusual personal qualities of the highly creative student would make him most sensitive to 13 such a de-emphasis. Purpose of the study The principal purpose for which this study was j undertaken was to determine whether significant differences 1 in value orientation exist between high and low creative | seventh grade students in selected junior high schools in the Los Angeles area. i I J Questions to be answered | In view of the foregoing material and the above I stated purpose of the present study, the following ques- | tions have been posed: i ! 1. Do high and low creative students of this population manifest significant differences j | in their ratings of the meanings of concepts ! I | | related to the following major values s j clusters? Associations Social Relationships ! Adult Approval Moral and Social Values Perceived Utility of School Experiences Success Patterns Authority Relationships Goal Direction Self-Concept Spontaneous Interest 14 2. To what degree do sex differences appear to influence high and low creative students of this population in their rating of the meanings of value concepts related to the above major values clusters? 3. To what degree does socioeconomic status appear to influence high and low creative students of this population in their rating of the mean ings of value concepts related to the above ! major values clusters? I | 4. To what degree do sex differences and socio- i ! economic status appear to influence high and ! ! low creative students of this population in t ! their rating of the meanings of value concepts j | i i related to the above major values clusters? j f I s I Research hypotheses i | ! In the interest of the above questions and for the i i |purpose of noting differences in any direction, the follow ing null hypotheses are presented: 1. There are no significant differences between the high and low creative students of this populationin their rating of the meanings of 15 the value concepts of the MOWI (Meaning of Words Inventory) on the evaluation, potency, and activity factors of the following ten major areas of value concepts: Associations Social Relationships Adult Approval Moral and Social Values Perceived Utility of School Experiences Success Patterns Authority Relationships Goal Direction Self-Concept Spontaneous Interest 2. There are no significant differences between high and low creative students of this popula tion in their rating of the meanings of the value concepts of the MOWI on the evaluation, potency, and activity factors of the ten major areas of value concepts with respect to sex differences. 3. There are no significant differences between i high and low creative students of this popula tion in their rating of the meanings of the value concepts of the MOWI on the evaluation, potency, and activity factors of the ten major areas of value concepts with respect to 16 socioeconomic status. 4. There are no significant interactions between creativity, socioeconomic, and sex groupings in this population in their rating of the mean ings of the value concepts of the MOWI on the evaluation, potency, and activity factors of the ten major areas of value concepts. Importance of the study The question of values is important to the whole American population. There is no segment of the contem- I i i | porary scene that is not touched by values considerations. i I | The present study, while basically exploratory, potentially offers great dividends to many crucial sectors, not only i ; within the public school system but within other vital , i i I . . > | institutions of the nation. j i i : | | The public school teacher should be interested in | this study from the standpoint of values instruction. It | can help the teacher gauge the extent to which the public I school is actually "getting across" a desired values sys- i tern. It can also allow him to see whether or not it is safe to assume that the home and the church are adequately supplying the necessary values education. Potentially, a 17 study such as this can aid the teacher in pinpointing specific areas where weaknesses in the values structure exist. Finally, it can give important insights into the thoughts and attitudes of the highly creative student which can be extremely important to the teacher. Counselors should also view this research with interest. It is axiomatic that discipline and adjustment problems have a "values" core. The current study can aid the counselor in individuating the relationship between problem attitudes and conduct and particular areas of I - | values crisis. In addition, this study can aid the counse- ! S lor in achieving a better understanding of the highly crea- I tive students. i ! The attention of administrators should be particu- | larly drawn to this study because of its importance to curriculum planning. From the standpoint of critique, it can aid in an evaluation of the effectiveness of the pres ent curriculum, so far as values training is concerned. Administrators can also be helped to give attention to specific areas of weak values orientation, as they plan future curricula. The present research can also aid the administrator in setting up special instructional programs for the highly creative which take into account the values needs of this vital segment of the nation's resources. Parents will he very much concerned with the find ings of this project. Not only can it supply them an over- I i | view of the general student attitude toward important national values, but it can achieve a more sensitive coop eration between the home and the school in the area of values instruction. The home can also be aided by this study to give more attention to values education in the | home, and perhaps it can lead to a great insistence on the | part of parents for more planned values experiences in the : public schools. This research can be of assistance to j | those parents who are dealing with highly creative children. i ] 1 The church can benefit as well from this explora- ; tion of student values. Religious teachers and leaders mayj find in it important insights that can aid them as they j I plan instructional programs for the young. Today the i i j church is particularly concerned with being relevant. This i i | study can be of great assistance as the church evaluates i the relevance of its program to the needs of students, and particularly those who are highly creative. Various community agencies which work closely with 19 adolescents can gain insights from this study which will aid them in the establishment and execution of programs designed to aid American youth. Finally, this research can furnish information of j interest to the nation. The question of values is a matter i I of national concern. It is extremely important to the nation as a whole that all students, and especially the highly creative.ones, accept a values system consistent with contemporary law and order policies. It is even more urgent that students come to respect those values that are so basic to the American social order. This study can at ; least be suggestive of procedures that will make it possi- j ! ble to evaluate beliefs and value commitments of the coming i i ! generation and especially of the future leaders of the i | nation. I i I i ] i i The Procedure Origin of the data The data which serve as the basis of the present j research were made available to this writer by Dr. Newton Metfessel, chief investigator of Project Potential, a government sponsored study designed to explore the situa 20 tion of the culturally deprived. In the course of the investigation, Metfessel and his staff had tested seventh grade students in five junior high schools in the Los Angeles school district on both the Group Test of Creativ ity and The Meaning of Words Inventory. The Meaning of Words Inventory is composed of thirty important value con cepts (each of which is measured in terms of three factors: evaluation, potency, and activity) and thus was ideally ! ! j suited to this writer's purpose in comparing the values of the high and low creative students. Therefore, Dr. Metfessel1s invitation to the writer to have a small part ; in the project was eagerly accepted. j In the initial planning of this study, it was the I intention to use a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design. However, ! as the project advanced, it was discovered that no such i ■ computer program had been written capable of dealing with j data of the type presented by the MOWI. Consequently, the j ; decision was made to use the more time-consuming but equally powerful 2 or t test (depending upon sample size) for differences between means. The research population The experimental population afforded the following 21 categories: high creative-low creative, hoy-girl, and nonculturally deprived-culturally deprived. The IQ rating was held constant at the average range (90 to 110) and therefore was not a category. High creative was designated as the fourth quartile of the Group Test of Creativity i (Guilford, et al.), while low creative was designated as the first quartile. Socioeconomic status was decided on ! the basis of Warner's seven-point scale, with nonculturally deprived including divisions five and above and culturally | deprived including divisions seven and six (unskilled and j i ] semiskilled). | ! Since the purpose of this research was to compare i i ! the values of the high and low creative students, the main j | effects of sex and socioeconomic status and the sex X i j socioeconomic interactions were not considered. Therefore,j I j i I the attention of this study was focused on the main effect of creativity and the interactions of creativity X sex, creativity X socioeconomic status, and creativity X socio- ! economic status X sex. As a result, the various combina- ! i tions of the above stated groups made possible twenty-five group comparisons for each of the thirty concepts of the MOWI, which resulted in a total of 2,250 items of data 22 (twenty-five group comparisons X thirty concepts X three factors). Definitions of terms In the course of this investigation, certain dis tinctive terms were used in the classification of the subjects and are defined as follows: High creative.— Subjects who scored in the fourth quartile on the Group Test of Creativity were grouped as high creative students. Low creative.— Subjects who scored in the first quartile on the Group Test of Creativity were grouped as low creative students. Nonculturally deprived.— Subjects whose fathers' occupations fell in categories five and above on the Warneri i scale were grouped as nonculturally deprived students. Culturally deprived.— Subjects whose fathers' occupations fell in categories seven or six (unskilled and semiskilled) on the Warner scale were grouped as culturally deprived students. Average IQ range.— Subjects who scored between 90 and 110 on the California Test of Mental Maturity were considered to be in the average IQ range. | 23 The following definitions describe the instruments of measure used in the course of this study: CTMM.— This refers to the California Test of Mental Maturity, Short Form, Junior High Level, 1957 edition. j GTOC.— This refers to the Group Test of Creativity developed by Guilford, et al., at the University of Southern California. MOW!.— This refers to The Meaning of Words Inven- I r [ S tory developed by Metfessel (1958) at the University of f t i Southern California. j [ The key words about which this study is designed ! are briefly described below as defined by English and j | English (25) . Fuller definitions are included in the i | review of literature, Chapter II. Creativity.— This term is defined as the "ability | | to find new solutions to a problem or new modes of artistic expression; bringing into existence a product new to the individual (not necessarily new to others)" (25). i Value.— This term is defined as "the worth or excellence, or the degree of worth, ascribed to an object / or activity or a class thereof" (25). 24 Certain words which are central to an understanding of the theory underlying the Semantic Differential used by Osgood, et al.. are defined by them as follows: | Semantic Differential.— The Semantic Differential i | is a combination of controlled association and scaling procedures, where the subject is provided with a concept to be differentiated in terms of a set of bipolar adjec tival scales separated by a seven-step scale. This pro vides a rating of the concept in terms of both direction and intensity (79). j Significate.— That stimulus which will repeatedly, i in a given situation, produce a predictable action on the part of the experiencing organism is defined as a signifi- i | | cate (79). i Siqn.— A sign is that pattern of stimulation which, j I while not the significate, becomes the sign of the signifi cate when it produces with the organism a mediating pro- ‘ cess (1) consisting of some factional part of the total i i behavior called forth by the significate and (2) bringing about responses which occur only as a result of the 1 ... previous contiguity of nonsignificate and significate patterns of behavior (79). 25 Decoding,— Decoding refers to the association of signs with representational mediators. A sign is believed to bring about in the brain a complex pattern of mediating reactions. This constitutes the "interpretation process" (79). Encoding.— Encoding refers to the association of mediated self-stimulation with overt instrumental sequen ces. The mediating reaction involved in decoding now be comes associated with and produces overt behavior; i.e., the expression of ideas (79). The following symbols, or abbreviations, are used throughout the study for repeated references to terms and concepts central to the research: E.— This refers to the evaluation factor for measuring value concepts. P.— This refers to the potency factor for measur ing value concepts. A.— This refers to the activity factor for measur ing value concepts. SES.— This refers to the socioeconomic status of the students in the research population. HC.— This refers to the high creative students in 26 the research population. LC.— This refers to the low creative students in the research population. HCB.— This refers to the high creative boys in the research population. HCG.— This refers to the high creative girls in the research population. LCB.— This refers to the low creative boys in the, i i j research population. j ! LCG.— This refers to the low creative girls in the l i research population. i I i HCNCD.— This refers to the high creative, non- | | culturally deprived students in the research population. j i LCNCD.--This refers to the low creative, non- ; t ! culturally deprived students in the research population. | j | HCCD.— This refers to the high creative, culturally I ( | deprived students m the research population. ! I | LCCD.— This refers to the low creative, culturally deprived students in the research population. HCNCDB.— This refers to the high creative, non culturally deprived boys in the research population. XiCNCDB.— This refers to the low creative, non- 27 culturally deprived boys in the research population. HCNCDG.— This refers to the high creative, non culturally deprived girls in the research population. LCNCDG.— This refers to the low creative, non culturally deprived girls in the research population. HCCDB.— This refers to the high creative, cultur ally deprived boys in the research population. LCCDB.— This refers to the low creative, culturally deprived boys in the research population. HCCDG.— This refers to the high creative, cultur ally deprived girls in the research population. | LCCDG.— This refers to the low creative, culturally ! deprived girls in the research population. i : Assumptions i | The following presuppositions have been made in the interest of the present study: 1. The CTMM is a valid instrument for the assess ing of general intelligence. 2. The GTOC is a valid instrument for the measur ing of creative ability. 3. The Semantic Differential is an acceptable technique for the measuring of the / 28 psychological meaning of the key value concepts here utilized. 4. The concepts employed in the MOWI do represent key value areas according to popular views in the United States. i | i Limitations Any interpretation of the results herein presented must be made in terms of the following limitationsi 1. The results of this study apply to the large metropolitan Los Angeles area, but do not necessarily apply to areas where the population may be more or less homogeneous, or to rural areas. I 2. Conclusions drawn as a result of this research j j apply to seventh grade students in the Los ! Angeles area and do not, therefore, necessarily apply to students in higher or lower grades. Delimitations This study involves students in a large metropoli tan area. With the exception of absentees, the subjects represented the total seventh grade population of five junior high schools in the Los Angeles school district. The study was limited to the value concepts included in the MOWI and was further limited to the three factors of evaluation, potency, and activity which Osgood and others have found to include most, but certainly not all, of the psychological meaning of any given concept. Organization of the study ! Chapter I has presented the problem, discussed its J importance, outlined the research procedure followed, ! } defined terms central to the study, identified the research i i i population, and presented the limitations involved. | Chapter II presents an extensive review of related i J literature, divided into four parts. Part one presents a | I | broad discussion of values, especially in terms of their I i : importance in the school setting. This section also i | discusses the interrelation of values, cultural level, ! sex, and creativity. Part two presents a discussion of I i i ! theory and technique involved in values testing, giving i I I ! special attention to the development of the Semantic i l Differential. Part three has to do with creativity. A discussion of the nature of creativity and of the charac teristics of the creative student is undertaken. Attention 30 is also directed to the problems involved in teaching in such a way that creativity is encouraged. Part four deals with creativity testing, including a discussion of some of the problems involved. A description of the GTOC is found in this section. Chapter III presents the research design. A description of the study is given which deals with the population, the instruments used, and the statistical approach employed. Chapter IV presents a full report of the findings of the research. The data are interpreted in terms of the mean differences between the groups on the evaluation, potency, and activity factors for each concept. A complete set of tables is included to facilitate the interpretation of the data. j j Chapter V presents a summary of the project, in cluding a treatment of the questions posed at the beginning of the study. The hypotheses are considered in light of the research evidence. This chapter also presents con clusions, recommendations, and recommendations for future research based on the evidence gained from this study. 31 Appendix A contains a description of the Group Test of Creativity as prepared by the staff of Project Potential, Appendix B contains charts, numbered 1 through 25, lA through 25A, and IB through 25B, which illustrate the mean differences found and discussed in this research. A bibliography of references used in connection with this research project concludes the dissertation. i CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The present study has been designed to answer questions concerning the values of the high and low crea tive students. In order to cast light on an area of very little prior study, it seems important to present a com prehensive review of literature in the areas of both values t and creativity. Part one of this review deals with the question of values. The following topics are discussed in terms of the literature: (1) definition of values, (2) the impor tance of values, (3) should schools teach values? (4) are ! i schools teaching values? (5) problems schools face in teaching values, (6) how values are transmitted, (7) goals in values education, (8) pupil behavior associated with a lack of proper values, (9) dogmatism vs values, (10) values and cultural level, (11) values and sex differences, (12) values and creativity, and (13) values of the creative 32 33 i individual. Part two presents a discussion of values testing, including (1) a description of various techniques used for values testing and (2) a consideration of the Semantic Differential. This treatment includes information con cerning the development of the instrument, its validity and reliability, and how others evaluate it. Part three relates to the question of creativity. Included in this portion of the review of literature are the following sections; (1) definition of creativity, i J | (2) the importance of creativity, (3) the nature of j j i creativity, (4) characteristics of the creative individual, i (5) teachers and creativity, (6) encouraging creativity, I i * and (7) the problem of conformity. | Part four has to do with creativity testing. | j j ! Topics discussed are (1) problems involved in creativity i testing, (2) creativity tests, and (3) opinions regarding I tests of creativity. Values Definition of values If not limited, the term "value" appears to become 34 a sort of catch-all word which may include almost anything! A comparison of the various definitions given by those who have written on the subject seems to stress five concepts which are involved in a proper understanding of the word. First, values have to do with that which is tra- I I ditional. Piaget stated that the moral order given the child is the result of an ". . . uninterrupted succession of earlier adult generations" (81:2). In the process of time, certain traditional beliefs are accumulated and passed on to succeeding generations. i | There is also a personal element involved in the i | definition of values. Whether the values system is only ! the acceptance of that which is traditional or is the creative evaluation and selection of a values system, it ' is still intensely personal. Allport described values as the "dominating force in life" (4:543). In the third place, there is a scientific aspect to values (at least in the ideal sense). Values are the j result of examination, experimentation, and selection. The mature individual is constantly in this process and even after selection is ready to discard that which has been selected if further investigation proves this 35 necessary. The Seventh Yearbook of the John Dewey Society makes this point clear. It defines the term value as implying ". . .a good which has passed through the pro cess of examination and evaluation” (17:29). Kluckhohn i i i I stated, "A value is a conception, explicit or implicit, i distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from | available models, means and ends of action" (51:395). j The social nature of values is stressed in the ! I | definition given by the Educational Policies Commission: | "By moral and spiritual values we mean those values which, j when applied in human behavior, exalt and refine life and i | bring it into accord with the standards of conduct that I ; are approved in our democratic culture" (253:3-4). The ! commission further stated, "A system of moral and spiritual i ! values is indispensable to group living. As social struc- ! 1 tures become more complex, as the welfare of all depends ( ! I j increasingly upon the cooperation of all, the need for i j common moral principles becomes more imperative." A pub- I I J lication of the Kentucky Department of Education holds J that values inhere ". . .in the relation of the individual f to society" (251:1165). 36 Finally, values are seen as an activity. Regard- | less of what one may claim his values to he, only as life is inacted does his values system become clear. This point is presented by Lang in the following statement: Valuing is an instrumental process in which activity or behavior is an indispensable element. Valuing is believed to be an overt process of examining, acquiring, reflecting, and acting based upon the theory that individuals and their values are not good or bad but that individuals | do good or bad. (156) The importance of values | A survey of the literature indicates that the ques j i tion of values has acquired importance not merely in view j of a traditional stance but because of a number of very S i j important considerations. These will be briefly stated i here, but it will be noted that they are frequently re peated throughout other portions of this study. Many authors hold that an essential characteristic ! of man, and one which differentiates him from lower ani- I mals, is his ability to make judgments based upon a values system. In a document entitled "Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Schools," the Kentucky Department of Education underscored this principle: 37 Some seem to think and act as if the indi vidual need consider only himself and his par ticular interests, including family and friends. This idea will not bear scrutiny. Physically, each is born of two parents. And after birth without their continuing care the individual would starve to death. Beyond this, civilization t depends on division of labor, so that anyone who lives well does so because others contribute. It is literally true that no man liveth to himself. Culturally, except for what we have socially in herited we had all been beasts. What each mostly is and does and enjoys comes from culture. (251: 1165) The urgency of values is also expressed in terms I of mental health. It is insisted that man does not really i i j i enjoy optimum mental health, except as he accepts and j i i lives up to a values system. Ginsburg is representative i i | of those who believe that good mental health is merely a process of living up to a set of values (133). This is i also the thrust of Mowrer and his work in what he calls ! I ! "integrity therapy" (68). j i j The question of being, or autonomy, is the vital j ! issue in values for a whole school of contemporary | i theorists. When an individual has no personal core of values, then he is often a slave to conformity. London and Lim, after reviewing a number of studies on this subject, concluded the following: The results of these many studies are basically congruent in showing that the re sponses of a unanimous majority can effectively influence the responses of a lone naive subject in a small group. . . . The extent to which yielding is resisted in a small group depends largely on the clarity or certainty with which a subject can make his personal judgment of the correct task solution. . . . (161) It is, of course, understood that if a person does not have a basis for making a personal judgment, then he will allow the majority to decide for him. The very process of coping with life, with the ! problems and adjustments involved, has much to do with j j values. Schiavone affirmed, "It is through discipline and | I the development of moral and spiritual values that man j finds the strength and courage to face the vicissitudes of i | life" (195). . j i The relationship between school success and values ; | j I ! is another area of importance frequently mentioned. Winter, in a study at San Jose State College, used the Gough E and F scales to investigate the correlation between | j values and grade point average. He reported a positive correlation between democratic, unprejudiced, and broad minded values and grade point average (219). Lang reviewed a number of studies which indicated that students who were 39 formerly a problem began to improve when given the oppor tunity of freely exploring values. He stated, The theory underlying the studies was that students who were mixed up or who lacked orienta tion or commitment to valued ends manifested their lack of valuing by: achieving far below their potential, displaying a lack of interest or re sponse to normally challenging classroom situa tions and course activities, displaying a general lack of purposefulness in school. (156) One other area emphasizing the importance of values seems worthy of mention. This has to do with the finding that persons with goals based on an interiorized i | values system tend to be more productive and constant in I I ! their efforts than those who do not have such an interior ized standard. Research in the "achievement motive" has shown this to be consistently true (71:99-101). ! I ! Should schools teach values l ; ------1 j i The Educational Policies Commission stated in 1951, A great and continuing purpose of education has been the development of moral and spiritual values. ! To fulfill this purpose, society calls upon all its j ' institutions. Special claims are made on the home j and the school because of the central role of these two institutions in the nurture of the young. (253:3) Although from time to time contrary voices have been raised, and especially within this century, the traditional and evidently predominant belief of educators has concorded 40 with the above statement. Horace Mann, who perhaps had more to do with the forming of America's public school > system than any other man, held that "moral education is : a primal necessity of social existence" (262). The | Seventh Yearbook of the John Dewey Society answered the i j critics of values education in tax-supported institutions of learning by stating, "Any such denial to the public I school of either the right or the possibility of teaching the needed spiritual values we reject" (17:3). In com menting upon the challenges involved in significant | changes taking place within the United States, the society 1 i : stated that it regarded "... the public school, in spite j ‘ of its present inadequacies, as one of the most powerful i ! I spiritual resources American democracy has on its side in i i ! this difficult period of social upheaval and transition" j ! (17:60). In answer to those who would claim the home and the church must have the full responsibility in teaching i values, the society countered: ( The public school is the agent of the family and of society as it is organized in the state. The family can no longer carry on the educative function alone, because of the increasing com plexity of civilized life. Hence a large part of it has been delegated to the school, which has been provided by the state in the interest of the 41 common good. It does not, therefore, compete with the church. In fact, the public school has been completely secularized to eliminate any such competition. The school is not 1 1 Godless," but restricted so far as the teaching of religion is concerned so that the religious rights and pre rogatives of citizens will not be infringed upon I by school any more than by any other agency of I the state. By shaping education so that experiences I of high spiritual value receive greater emphasis, the public school is not usurping the function of the church. (17:82-83) j Even at the level of higher education, this has i I ! been the avowed purpose of the school. Lehman noted in his important work regarding both intellectual and non- j intellectual changes taking place during the college ! experience, "There is also a widespread belief among col- | lege administrators, parents, and students that college I i experience is instrumental in producing personality changes which are desirable and socially useful in a democratic I | | i society” (55:2). Ortega drew attention to this fact in j ! I the following statement: In the thick of life's urgencies and its ! passions, the university must assert itself as | a major "spiritual power," higher than the press, j standing for serenity in the midst of frenzy, for seriousness and the grasp of intellect in the face of frivolity and unashamed stupidity. (78:77-78) One of the principal reasons for insisting that schools must teach values has been the conviction that | there is no true education without character education. Kilpatrick, great protagonist of Dewey's beliefs, held that moral education was basic to all educational pursuit and | that the development of character was the prime aim of the | | | school (47:325). To this, Aleck assented, emphasizing that in education the problem of character is fundamental, i Some would make character training the primary aim of the school. Training for character is no longer limited to the church and to private schools. | Leaders in public school work have taken an increas- I ing interest in the development of ethical character, j Moreover, to assert the rights and perform the I duties of citizenship implies high quality of char- | acter. (2:163) | It is also held that the development of a values | I core is essential to a realization of whatever potential i j man may have. Ekstein wrote, i I A school which seeks only to provide skills and does not evaluate and elucidate purposes will create technicians who may be valuable to some- | body, but who are neither truly valuable to them selves nor value generating, since they have no true values, no purposes of their own. The skills are but vehicles toward a goal, but without a goal they will constitute the mere mechanics of life, rather than fulfill its purposes, give it a true and lasting value. (129) Oberteuffer believes that if the school does not capitalize on its opportunity of teaching values through the offering of daily experiences affording value over tones, it misses its greatest opportunity (178). 43 Educators also believe that the continuity of I [ society is dependent upon values instruction. John Dewey j was an outspoken advocate of this position. He wrote, t j Let us change the scene of discussion to the [ school. The child who is educated there is a i member of society and must be instructed and cared j for as such a member. The moral responsibility of j the school, and of those who conduct it, is to society. The school is fundamentally an institu tion erected by society to do a certain specific work— to exercise a certain specific function in j maintaining the life and advancing the welfare of j society. The educational system which does not ! recognize this fact as entailing upon it an ethical ! responsibility is derelict and a defaulter. It is not doing what it was called into existence to do, j and what it pretends to do. Hence [there is] the | necessity of discussing the entire structure and I the specific workings of the school system from the standpoint of its moral position and moral i function to society .... (23:10) J i i j The very essence of education is the handing down of beliefs which have been found important to a society, according to Childs. He wrote, A school system is organized whenever a human | group begins to become conscious of its own esqperi- I ence, and desires to select from the totality of I its beliefs and practices, certain things which it | is concerned to preserve and foster by reproducing j them in the lives of its young .... A manifes tation of preference for certain patterns of living as opposed to others is therefore inherent in every program of deliberate education. (19:6-7) Smith warned that a society dare not turn aside from the process of indicting its youth into its values j 44 i j system if ". . . the core values of that society are to be | preserved in the lives of its people" (197). Kirk, in his eulogy at the death of President Kennedy, sounded a grim note concerning what he considered subversive elements in i | this nation. A part of the solution, he said, consisted ! in the need of schools at all levels to ". . . re-examine their functions and to try to discover how, along with their traditional duties, they can impart to their students a greater sense of social responsibility" (152). | | Are schools teaching values I While it is generally contended that schools are i j teaching values, the research evidence raises considerable I I I N t ! question as to how successful the school actually is as a ! value teaching medium. Wubben observed: j i E Schools have long claimed that their efforts j are directed toward their students' believing in | the "worth and dignity of the human being," and j other similar values. There appears, however, to I be a discrepancy between the claim of educators ! that they provide for the conscious development of values in students and contradictory evidence which indicates that such development is not taking | place .... (224) ! In a report by Getzels of a study undertaken with Prince on students' values in selected Chicago high schools, he stated that no appreciable differences in values tested 45 existed between freshmen and seniors. Getzels interpreted this finding as indicating that " . . .on the average, j whatever values a child brought with him when he entered a particular high school he took away with him when he j left the high school— nothing gained, nothing lost, nothingj changed. . . ." (30:159) i By far the greater number of studies involving an investigation of values changes during the students' education experiences has taken place at the college level. I An early review of literature by Murphy, Murphy, and New- | comb discussed the findings of seventeen studies having to I j do with attitudes of college students. Most of these con- i i eluded that changes in attitudes do take place in the I i ! desired direction through educational stimuli (70). | Conflicts over changes in religious attitudes were i I measured by Arsenian in 1943 (111). Using the Allport- Vernon instrument, he found changes in men extensively | occurring at Springfield college. The changes were away i i | from the formal and dogmatic views to the tolerant and i i | social attitudes. A study by Jacob in 1957 (45), sponsored by the Hazen Foundation, in the field of values change in college j students, has received wide attention. His study of twenty- i j six colleges produced the following findings which he said applied to 75 to 80 per cent of the students: 1. The values of American college students are remarkably homogeneous, considering the variety of their social, economic, ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds, and the relatively unrestricted opportunities they have’ had for freedom of thought and personal development. 2. A dominant characteristic of students in the current generation is that they are gloriously contented both in regard to their present day- to-day activity and their outlook for the future. 3. The great majority of students appear unabash edly self-centered. They aspire for material gratifications for themselves and their fami lies. They intend to look out for themselves first and expect others to do likewise. 4. Social harmony with an easy tolerance of diversity pervades the students' environment. Conformists themselves, the American students see little need to insist that each and every person be and behave just like themselves. 5. The traditional moral virtues are valued by almost all students. They respect sincerity, honesty, loyalty, as proper standards of con duct for decent people. But they are not in clined to censor those who choose to depart from these canons .... For instance, standards are generally low in regard to academic honesty, systematic cheating being a common practice rather than the exception at many major institutions. 6. Students normally express a need for religion as a part of their lives and make time on most weekends for, an hour in church. But there is a "ghostly quality" about the beliefs and practices of many of them, to quote a sensitive 47 observer. Their religion does not carry over to guide and govern important decisions in the secular world. Students expect these to be socially determined. God has little to do with the behavior of men in society, if widespread student judgment be accepted. His place is in church and perhaps in "the home, not in business, or club or community. He is worshipped duti fully with propriety, but the campus is not permeated by a live sense of His presence. 7. There is more homogeneity and greater consistency of values among students at the end of four years than when they begin. Fewer seniors espouse beliefs which deviate from the going standards than do freshmen .... The college man or woman thus tends to be more self-important— more conservative— more tolerant— and less fear ful of evil forces in this world and outside than those who have not been "higher educated." 8. This study has not discerned significant changes in student values which can be attributed directly either to the character of the curricu lum or to the basic courses in social science which students take as part of their general education. 9. Equally disturbing is evidence that the quality of teaching has relatively little effect upon the value-outcomes of general education— in the social sciences or in other fields— so far as the great mass of students is concerned. 10. The method of instruction seems to have only a minor influence on students' value judgments. 11. Similar as the patterns of student values appear on a mass view, the intellectual, cultural or moral "climate" of some institutions stands out from the crowd .... They do seem to have in common a high level of expectancy of their students. What is expected is not the same .... Where there is such unity and vigor of expectation, students seem drawn to live up to the college standard, even if it means quite a wrench from their previous ways of thought, or a break with the prevailing values of students 48 elsewhere .... A climate favorable to a | redirection of values appears more frequently at private colleges of modest enrollment. 12. Recent research has identified certain per sonality characteristics of students which "filter" their educational experience .... | Some students have a set of mind so rigid, an i outlook on human relations so stereotyped and j emotionally incapable of understanding new j ideas, and seeing, much less accepting, educa tional implications which run counter to their pre-conceptions. This particularly limits their responsiveness in the social sciences and the humanities whenever controversial ! issues arise. (45:1-10) Riesman (190) and Plant (182) have criticized I Jacob's work from various standpoints, but nonetheless it | remains a most significant accomplishment in the area of ! |college impact on student values. i | I Lehman, in comparing freshmen with seniors at j i |Michigan State University, found seniors showed a decrease : ! |in stereotypic beliefs, were more receptive to new ideas, i I |and increased in critical thinking. The greatest change occurred during the freshman and sophomore years. However, Lehman was not able to relate the changes to the academic program of the college. It was his opinion that nonacadem ic factors such as bull sessions probably had more to do with the changes that occurred than did the academic fac tors (55:152-69). Plant essentially confirmed this opinion in his study at San Jose State College (82) . In contrasting individuals of the same age who did and did not attend college, he found similar changes in values orientation taking place. | It can he seen that the picture is not too clear i j and somewhat conflicting as to exactly how much influence I the school does have on student values. What seems obvious j is that it could and should do more. Brubacher stated, i I j "The conclusion therefore seems to follow that the public i school can and should aim more intensively than it has at | the inculcation of habits embodying spiritual values" ! (17:14). Griffen observed, "There ought to be something i ! added to the secondary school, not a course, but a format, | I to allow a subjective value dialogue to move parallel with ; and complement the primarily factual and objective course j : I : 1 i offerings" (136). i | i ! Problems schools face in j teaching values i i , j Educators hold that there are certain basic prob lems which make the task of teaching values very complex. One of these has to do with the values set with which a student comes into the school. Buhler sees the age of five as an important time in values commitment. She wrote, "From five years on they are known to identify with prejudices of their environment. After that time, it be- 1 comes increasingly difficult for an individual to think j about values without bias" (119). ! Another factor emphasized by Buhler is the person ality make-up of the student. Other reasons lie in personality factors. Some people are more adaptive than creative, and adhere to some group1s opinions so as to be accepted and to belong. They feel securer in this complete identification with a group. Some I people lack the flexibility to completely adopt ! new ideas. They prefer to stick by what they always believed in. This inflexibility becomes particularly marked in certain types of neuroses. I (H9) I I The social and political climate of any given time may also influence to a considerable extent the ability i of the school to teach values. Smith indicated that [ j I efforts to either preserve or overthrow a given values | | system become more intense in times of "deep anxiety and ! rapid social change" (197). Brameld illustrated how great | j changes in Japan following the war have disorientated the i whole values picture: Millions of citizens are bewildered by the disintegration of older standards and the imma turity or evasiveness of newer ones. In this ! 51 I I atmosphere of groping and anxiety, issues center ing in values quite suddenly become more than an academic curiosity. They become issues of poignant personal and social urgency. (16:153) i However, the changes that occur through the social | and political climate may be quite gradual, as illustrated I I j in the study of teenage values reported by Remmers and Radler (84:162). A list of the sixteen practices con sidered most objectionable as ranked by teenagers in 1919 is compared to a similar list compiled by teenagers in | 1954. It is noted that five of the worst practices of j i 1919 are dropped from the list entirely in 1954, while i j others dropped in negative value. I It is the conviction of Peters that the rigid j curriculum in our regimented school system is basically opposed to the climate in which values can be successfully | taught. It is his claim that it will take more than a | course in "study or hall routine" to effect this change. 1 I i I If we are to have children who become wise and just through 1 j the school experience, then we must have "leaders, finally, j | who trust themselves enough to trust their teachers who can | then trust the students" (181). Perhaps one of the most crucial problems involved in the school's attempts to teach values is the apparent | 52 I | lack of pupil understanding on the part of the teacher. A study was undertaken by Goldman (135) in which teachers, noneducators (chosen from the PTA and other organizations) , and high school students were tested on their impression i i j of the real and ideal image of the high school graduate. i i I The ratings of the teachers were found most dissimilar to j the ratings of the high school students. This finding is l i in line with the frequently verified low correlation be tween teaching ratings of students and ratings obtained | from tests and other more refined sources. ! How values are transmitted I Four underlying basic conditions to the trans- | | mission of values appear in the literature. These are: j ' (1) A model of values to be communicated is to be estab- ■ | | lished, (2) Values are to be drawn from the storehouse of | our heritage, (3) Values are to be transmitted in the light of certain basic realities, and (4) Values are to be 1 i arranged in a hierarchy according to importance. Each of these shall be considered briefly. Clifton wrote, "To become a potent factor in value development, the institution must furnish a model that is liberal in scope and filled with idealism in the sphere of 53 | I ! desirable values for its students" (20:92). This suggests that a school must first intellectualize the "values model" I which it wishes to propagate and then intentionally set j about putting it into operation. In order to do so, Dewey i | 1 emphasized that values must be recognized as real. | The one thing needful is that we recognize that moral principles are real in the sense in which other forces are real; that they are inherent in community life, and in the running machinery of the individual. If we can secure a genuine faith in this fact, we shall have secured the only condition which is finally necessary in order to get from our ! educational system all the effectiveness there is in it. The teacher who operates in this faith will find every subject, every method of instruction, I every incident of school life pregnant with ethical i life. (23:33) That educators must dip into the experience of the | past in teaching values is indicated by Brubacher. Home and school must then both successively i and simultaneously work along these lines. Spirit- j | ual values have to be individually built, but they | are seldom individually devised— at least not in childhood and youth. The race-wrought spiritual heritage must be the source of learnings, and for this parent and teacher are essential. (17:121) A list of contemporary circumstances which must be I considered in teaching values is offered by Wiles (217). The reai'ities which must be considered according to this author include the following: (1) The world in which we live faces the possibility of destruction through powers 54 I | at man's disposal, (2) This power is principally in the i i I hands of two nations, (3) There is the possibility of the | j development of a worldwide community, (4) Science has be- I come a great force touching and shaping the lives of all | | mankind, (5) The modern age has confronted man with forces that threaten his sense of worth, and (6) Vast inequalities exist in resources and in the development of I human potential. Values are not held to be on one plane. Times, ’ places, and situations all contribute to the establishment of a particular hierarchy of values. Muller made the ; following general statement: Despite the considerable individual differences ! in genetic predispositions, and also in the forma tive experiences of life, any culture that has achieved a fair measure of stability in its main characteristics tends to organize the major human | drives into a system of values that is rather j similar for the majority of individuals of any J given social category or class in that culture, j But in different cultures, and even in different j categories of the same culture, the manner of i organization of the drives into value systems may | differ a good deal. (69:76) I ] . j Wolfson pointed out how the teacher s hierarchy of j values affects the entire teaching situation. As teachers we all have to make decisions every day. To a large extent, the values we hold in- | 55 I ! fluence the decisions we make. We can be better i I teachers if we clarify our value systems so that ! we are conscious of priorities and consistencies. Do I care more about neatness than about a child's feelings? Do I value following directions more i than I value initiative? (222) ! [ i When this hierarchy has been established, then it becomes ! what Lippitt called a "substantive core" (56:67) which the I i | I i i school intentionally attempts to transmit to the students. t i : | A first, and very important, consideration in teaching values is the awareness that much of such teach- j ! ing must be through example. It has been observed ; repeatedly that children tend to learn values from the i | people who are important in their lives (149). The ; teacher is in a unique position to teach by example, since I I he has so much of the student's time at his disposal (255). Clifton held that the teacher, in order to teach values ! i i ; effectively, must "... believe that he can and will make i i ; an impact on the students. ..." (20:96-97) She stated t i also that a teacher must have a ". . . well-defined per- | sonal value commitment." Kilpatrick preferred to call | this a "map of values" which he believed should be in a | constant process of revision and refinement in order that the teacher's life be as effective and rich as possible (48;19). The impact of the life of the teacher is under- 56 scored by Brubacher. i i ! Every teacher has spiritual effect on his pupils in many ways. Pupils learn from him to value cer tain things and to disregard others. He influences their personality, their outlook on life, their attitudes toward themselves and toward others, their j disposition to build a world better for all, their i ability to help in the building, their techniques | of doing so . . . . It is essential for teachers to think in these terms and to keep in mind that pupils are constantly learning for good or ill along all these lines. (17:123) j The teacher who grasps the fact that youth need j models, in both their imaginative life and in their I r' i environment, of what man can be at his best will seek to ! manifest an enlightened consistency in his values conduct 1 (29:124). Powell has so well stated, "Our teaching of ! values will always be chiefly through example. Let us j realize that and strive both to teach what we know and to j know what we are teaching" (183). When this concern for ; teaching through example is mixed with warm personal ! | qualities of interest and love (20:97; 148), then the ! positive identification process so necessary to learning i i | (157) can very easily take place. | A second important consideration involving the actual teaching of values has to do with the method of j teaching. While some success may be achieved by auto- cratic and lassez-faire approaches, it seems the best method is the democratic process of guidance (253:1174-75, 1178-79). The Educational Policies Commission used the term guidance in its 1951 declaration concerning values in i I the public schools (253:7). I I Values are transmitted by introducing and encour- \ I j aging the questioning process in students. It is in the [ ! arena of free examination that values must be tested and i ! | discarded or accepted. Clifton wrote: | Students should be encouraged to raise ques- j tions in the process of searching for the applica- j tion of specific knowledge to societal use. I Through this process they may achieve a percep tiveness of their world which aids in developing ! personal sensitivity. (20:95) i It is also indicated in the literature that values must be learned in a setting of competition and conflict. : Reichart expressed, | Perhaps out there on the voice of the wind | more than any other cry is that of William Blake: | "Father, 0 Father1 . What do we here, in this land ! of unbelief and fear?” For one thing, we seek i human fulfillment through the pursuit of values, ! recognizing that as some of these compete and con- | flict we find it necessary to design patterns of | compromise and mutual adjustment. (188) Hook also called attention to the sifting process r of competition and conflict in establishing a personal I 58 values system, in advising that "... to teach values means to develop within students a willingness to commit themselves to new values, and to reaffirm or reject the values to which they find themselves previously committed" | (42:178). The transmission of values involves as well the establishment of an inner discipline which will work inde pendent of the presence or absence of external restraints or influences. According to the Educational Policies Com- f mission, "No social invention however ingenious, no im- ! provements in government structure however prudent, no j enactment of statutes and ordinances however lofty their I aims, can produce a good and secure society if personal I | integrity, honesty, and self-discipline are lacking" I (253:4). ; i j Friedenberg lamented that an important factor in I | failure to transmit values successfully is ". . . the I | I inner discipline that is lacking; the school fails to pro vide a basis for it. The undisciplined behavior which sometimes results is often a sign of the anguish which results from having no core of one's own" (27:83-84). This establishment of a personal values core will, of course. make possible the "intrinsic motivation" of which Crescim- beni spoke (122) . The wise teacher of values also allows ample oppor- j tunity for the interaction of experience and choice (253: I 58-59). This affords the direct approach to values ! acquisition suggested by Brameld (16:165). The process of ! i J experimentation may be a group activity in which, as a i ! group, the class investigates the meaning and consequences I j of certain values (2:168). Thorpe also suggested the j ; necessity of reinforcing values instruction by the crea tion of situations where the students can see the alterna- i } ' tives involved (103:521). j ; Another crucial step in values transmission is the j ; encouraging of critical thought. The student must not only learn to "answer questions, but to question answers" ! ! > i i (125). Dawson wrote, 1 1 Fundamental to our task in teaching is helping students to develop habits and techniques of ' critical thought, so that their value judgments will be I j | both informed and responsible" (125). A very basic step in values training has to do with an identification with, and a sensitivity to, the feelings of others (149). This is especially true since 60 of necessity a values program is involved to a consider- j able extent in the interpersonal situation. i | A final important quality which the teacher must j attempt to develop in himself and in the student in the j i I interest of an enlightened values commitment is a spirit I of openness. Wiles referred to this as "commitment without closure" (217). This point is, of course, implied in a number of the foregoing principles, but it seems to i i j deserve special mention. Only as one's values are in a j fluid state, where one can acquire and discard as the | learning process continues, can a mature system be built. i Duncan gave a resume of the way a teacher may i : perpetrate values (127). He presented the following ten | ! points which he believed crucial: (1) give an understand- , ing of the inherent and developmental characteristics of j i ! values, (2) serve an interpretive function, (3) plan the j ! curriculum for values, (4) afford increasing numbers of i j | relationships with persons and groups outside the school I | environment, (5) preparethe student to deal with conflict, ■ ! (6) establish leadership with values harmonious with democratic commitment, (7) present those value judgments with highest validity, (8) provide better techniques to 61 aid the student in the development of his own values sys tems, (9) have as a goal successful operation in a con stantly changing society, and (10) effectively employ i I values in evaluating one's own program. I ■ The power of a dedicated teacher whose example and i 3 i teaching center upon values commitment is indicated by I ! Hughes in his "Tribute To A Teacher and Headmaster"i What was it after all which seized and held these three hundred boys, dragging them out of themselves, willing or unwilling? True, there always were boys scattered up and down the school, ! who in heart and head were worthy to hear and able to carry away the deepest and wisest words there spoken. But these were a minority always, gener- 1 ally a very small one, often so small a one as to ; be countable on the fingers of your hand. What was it that moved and held us, the rest of the three hundred reckless childish boys? [ We couldn’t enter into half that we heard; we hadn't the knowledge of one another; and little enough of the faith, hope and love needed to that ; end. But we listened, as all boys in their better moods will listen (aye, and men too, for the matter of that), to a man who we felt to be, with all his j heart and soul and strength, striving against what- | ever was mean and unmanly and unrighteous in our I little world. It was not the cold clear voice of • one giving advice and warning from serene heights ! to those who were struggling and sinning below, but I the warm living voice of one who was fighting for us j and by our sides, and calling on us to help him and ourselves and one another. And so, wearily and little by little, but surely and steadily on the whole, was brought home to the young boy, for the first time, the meaning of his life; that it was not fool's or sluggard's para- 62 dise into which we had wandered by chance, but a battlefield ordained from of old, where there are no spectators, but the youngest must take his side, and the stakes are high. And he who roused this consciousness in the boys showed them at the same time, by every word he spoke and by his whole daily life, how that battle was to be fought; and stood there before them their fellow-soldier and the captain of their band. (44:141-42) Goals in values education i | Research and writing by various educational leaders indicate a surprising concensus as to the specific values held important for students. In the following i paragraphs, an attempt has been made to classify these ] I under several headings. , Respect for the individual is a broad base inti- | mately related to other values and listed by various i authors as the fundamental goal among values (125, 254, ! 197, 259, 253). Dawson asserted, "Basic to all other l | values is respect for the human personality, for the worth I | and dignity of each human being" (125). | A second value is the recognition of the worth of ! j man above institutions and things (125, 253). Man is not | j subordinate to anything created by man, nor to any purely | material thing. All of these must serve man without man | becoming their servant.______________________________ _ 63 Devotion to truth is certainly fundamental to the | whole educational procedure and is frequently stressed i (125; 20:85; 108:170; 259; 253). This devotion is the | necessary factor in the elimination of superstition, prejudice, and the various slaveries of ignorance. Respect for and the pursuit of excellence are tremendously urgent in the production of quality in work and life (125; 167; 218; 254; 20:86; 108:170; 253). The obvious failure of many students to develop this value is I | everywhere evident. However, it is a stated goal of j public education that every student must be encouraged to ; reach the ultimate of his potential. This is, of course, < l ! excellence in the individual sense. i j The pursuit of happiness is not only an American ; dream but is held to be a value worthy of transmission and ! i ; encouragement (125, 253). j j Spiritual enrichment and appreciation of the | aesthetic are also frequently numbered as principal goals i i in values training (127; 125; 49:428; 253). These would include an appreciation of religion, music, art, and of all that is beautiful. Moral responsibility has been a cornerstone of the 64 American society (125; 127; 254:7; 253). Every citizen has a stake in this value, since "the general morality depends on choices made by individuals; hence the schools have cultivated moral habits and upright character" (254: 7). j Moral and social equality are also underscored as vital to a democratic society (125, 218, 113, 259, 253). | "The law is equal for all" is the theory of the courts of America, and while social class does exist, it is probably true that this country has come as near as any nation in j ; history to a classless society. | ; Democratic procedure, also referred to as "common ! consent" by some authors, is frequently numbered among | : those values held dear by this nation (125; 127; 218; : 254:7; 49:428; 113; 253). This value includes the accept- ; ; I ! ance of the responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic | society and the basic belief in the democratic way. ! An altruistic sense of brotherhood has historically | been a virtue of strength (125; 127; 167; 197; 81:324; | ! i 259; 253). A statement from Brothers Karamazov is quoted by Dawson in reference to the spirit of brotherhood which pervades American educational philosophy: "Everyone is 65 i really responsible to all men for all and everything" (125). | Planned progress toward thoughtful goals is an j i i I element of maturity which is important to the whole life i I | of the student (125, 259). It is important here that | students be able to see the relationship between curricu lum and life with its varied requirements. Autonomy (variously called a sense of being or self-actualization) is important to personal identity | (127; 197; 49:428; 81:102-103; 113; 259). It involves an [ I awareness of separateness from others, but also an element i ! of personal adjustment by which mastery over self, mastery j j over the environment, and adaptation to one's abilities i j and limitations and the environment are brought into a ; workable balance. i j Productive effort, a kind of sharing in life's ! responsibilities, is also held to be an important value i i | (127; 81:102-103; 113). Many choice expressions such as "gold brick," "free loader,” or "bum" show the disdain l ! j society in general holds for those without this value of i productive effort. As Duncan indicated, personal responsibility has 66 had a difficult battle with some psychology theorists, but it has managed to remain as a basic value in our culture (127) . The desire to perpetuate at least the stronger and j | more noble aspects of the strivings of mankind seems to be I a common goal of educators as they view values to be j transmitted (127, 218). There is the conviction that man | has achieved something worthwhile, that something can be i f [ gained from experience of others, that there is a core r ‘ learning and culture which is worthy of continuance. ! Acting on critical thought is a value often men- : tioned (218; 49:428; 17:46; 81:194; 259; 180). It seems I | that too few people escape dumb conformity, and many of i t ' those who do take the equally objectionable route of total j | nonconformity (both of which constitute intellectual i j slavery). The ideal is to conform or not to conform as a | result of careful analysis of all that is involved. I j Social adeptness is perhaps included in several of i the above but merits special mention due to the fact that | much unhappiness and even mental anguish come from a fail ure to acquire this value (81:194; 113; 6:509-514). As these important values are considered, it is i 67 well to note the following admonition given by the Educational Policies Commission in 1961: The ability to recite the values of a free society does not guarantee commitment to those values. Active belief in those values depends on awareness of them and of their role in life. The person who best supports these values is one who has examined them, who understands their function in his life and in the society at large, and who accepts them as worthy of his own support. For such a person these values are consciously held and consciously approved. (254:3) Pupil behavior associated with a lack of proper values | Black warned that a nation can go down in ruin if i 1 there is value confusion among its people which in turn I leads to a failure to develop moral character (113). The j Educational Policies Commission announced in 1951 that i "no society can survive without a moral order" (253:3). ; | | Muller also saw this interrelation between national ; stability and a positive values system. He wrote, "... Any culture that has achieved a fair measure of stability I 1 in its main characteristics tends to organize the major human drives into a system of values that is rather similai i for the majority of individuals of any given social cate gory or class in that culture" (69:76). If the conclu- sions of these men are right, then one would expect to 68 I find many problems in the lives of those uncommitted to the standard of values generally accepted within this i | nation. i | | Turning to the school scene, it would seem that the j i | above conclusion is warranted. Lang underscored the re- I lationship between undesirable behavior patterns and a lack I of values and stated that when students are given an oppor tunity, to explore values freely, their negative qualities i | begin to disappear (156). Friedenberg believed that "the ■ undisciplined behavior which sometimes results is often a | : sign of the anguish which results from having no core of ! : one's own" (27:83-84). Raths (184; 185; 83:315-42), Jonas (240), and ■ Kievan (241) identified pupil behavior associated with a ■ lack of values, classroom behaviors involved included ; overconforming, underachieving, apathy, flightiness, dissenting, uncertainty, and role playing. Raths stated | ; that these "interfere with concentration, involvement, and I I | openness in the learning process. Therefore, value devel opment should be one of the many central concerns of the teacher" (184). A study by Raths in a rural high school in New 69 York indicated that some underachievers (students with 115 IQ or above but in the bottom quartile in achievement) seem to underachieve at least partially due to confusion in values. He reported: This experiment implies that to teach some j students effectively the subject matter deemed important at the secondary level, their attitudes and beliefs must be clarified. If a student has not had the chance to develop his values in the home, or in the church, or elsewhere, the school must provide experiences for him to do so. It is important for the reason that learning seems to become blocked for some students who have unclear values and purposes. (185) ! Lang mentioned several studies when he wrote: ! The theory underlying the studies was that students who were mixed up or who lacked orienta tion or commitments to valued ends manifested I their lack of valuing by: achieving far below | their potential, displaying a lack of interest or response to normally challenging classroom sit uations and course activities, displaying a general ’ lack of purposefulness in school. (156) j | i | Lang concluded that "the findings of the studies tended to j I I ! confirm the theory" (156). i I j Brameld, in a penetrating analysis of the causes 1 i ! behind the failure of the public school to teach values ! more dynamically, listed the following four reasons: j (1) The secularization of the public school has produced a curriculum which stresses only objective knowledge and 70 skills, thus safeguarding the teachers from venturing into the precarious territory of values where they might become entangled in controversial issues saturated with ethical implications; (2) No traumatic changes have been experi- I enced which would force a re-evaluation of the values i | system; (3) This is a conforming culture, with a conform- i ! ing curriculum taught by conforming teachers who are pro- i l i | fessionally unprepared to enter adeptly into the area of values; and (4) There is limited innovation and experi- ! mentation going on in our school system, due to the fore- I going three points (16:154-58). i Chariop-Hyman believes that the failure of the i | traditional curriculum to meet student needs and goals | ; brings about a corresponding rejection of the values ! standard presented by the public school. I I Many pupils are becoming increasingly alienated from the standards of society as represented by those of the school, its instrument. The continued imposition of frustrating or unrewarding experiences upon these pupils may serve to extend their hostility, ; rejection, or indifference concerning school to i other social institutions. (232:156) Dogmatism vs values Wiles related that a teacher who was told he was highly committed and asked how he got that way, answered, I 71 "I don't know that I like to Toe considered committed, I hope I'm open to new data and new truth" (217). Wiles pointed out that this response is illustrative of a diffi culty which frequently is expressed when values are dis cussed. There seems to be the popular belief that in "discussing life-directing beliefs [there] is the assump tion that intellectual rigidity and enslavement are com ponents of commitment” (217) . "Commitment without closure" is offered as the solution to the problem (217). Dogmatism appears to be the result of an improper exposure to values education. Kilpatrick emphasized that while "education must adopt character building as its fundamental goal" and "exemplify the finest attainable quality of living," youth should not be indoctrinated, i even with these ideals. "We cannot indoctrinate— teach i I unthoughtful acceptance— and at the same time be true to democracy or to our highest ethics" (49:220-21, 417). Piaget defined what he called "moral realism" as j i an early phase in the small child's moral development. It would appear that the dogmatic person never progresses beyond the childish state of "moral realism." 72 In the first place, duty, as viewed by moral realism, is essentially heteronomous. Any act that shows obedience to a rule or even to an adult, regardless of what he may command, is good; any act that does not confirm to rules is bad. A rule is therefore not in any way something elaborated, or even judged and interpreted by the mind; it is given as such, ready made and external to the mind. It is also conceived of as revealed by the adult and imposed by him. The good, therefore, is rigidly defined by obedience. (81:106) i On the other hand, there appears to be no valid reason why a value system as such must effect a rigid, dogmatic outlook. Parsons stressed that one's degree of openness decides if his values are to be chains or tools. He stated the goal in teaching values is to turn out pupils "who have some relativistic commitments, who are inquiring, open-minded, and tolerant, and who use these attributes to develop broader and more insightful rela- i tionships with others" (180). Jones indicated the true j j i goal m values education is the establishment of an under lying spirit which can evaluate and reject, accept, or change standards according to the need. In character we are concerned primarily not with the formal standards but with an underlying spirit— a spirit which may at times suggest changes in standards. The student of character is of course not unconcerned about conventional standards and the failure of people to meet them. . . . However, this is not the main challenge of character. In 73 I i i character we are concerned more with the drives and inhibitions which are self-initiated and more directly connected with the ongoing purposes of the individual. (259:4) Brameld introduced the concept of "consensual validation" as the solution to the problem of dogmatism in values. He wrote: I am supported by philosophers like Dewey and psychologists like Abraham Maslow in contending that the hoary dichotomy between descriptions of value and prescriptive choices among values is no longer unbridgeable. I have tried to suggest that the way to build a bridge is by what may be called consensual validation— an admittedly complex and | insufficiently defined way, to be sure, but one which has the advantage of considerable testability i in classrooms as well as in communities. By con sensual validation, in briefest terms, I mean a process by which I express to others one or more of my own value preferences, each of which I define ! as a want-satisfaction, in the richest possible | dialectic of cooperative, open, searching examina tion— a process by which I also seek their own evidence and reasons for sharing or not sharing in ! my preferences, and by which we then try to reach whatever agreements or disagreements that we can together, with a view to actions that will overtly dramatize our judgments and thereby help to check them. (16:162) I Wiles seemed to reassume the above points, but on I a broader base when he challenged Americans to fight no longer to maintain the way of life we have had, but to go i on from that basis to greater heights. 74 Unless Americans see the future as an oppor tunity to evolve an even better society, instead of a continuous battle to hold to the way of life we have had, we will lose our sense of destiny and our leadership. A sense of destiny comes from a belief in better things in the future. Leadership is provided by those who seek to help others obtain a better future. (218) Values and cultural level In recent years great attention has been focused on socioeconomic differences in American society. Warner i devised a seven-point scale of occupations, which has | frequently been used to denote the "culturally deprived" | and the "nonculturally deprived." Children having a parent j in either class seven or six (unskilled and semiskilled, | 1 respectively) are referred to as culturally deprived, and i i children with a parent in class five or higher (skilled to | professional) are considered nonculturally deprived. I I Many studies have shown fundamental differences in child behavior which were apparently related to social j structure (41). One classic is Elmtown1s Youth by | Hollingshead. As a result of his study of this rather typical American community, he concluded: There is a functional relationship between the class position of an adolescent's family and his social behavior in the community. . . . The home 75 an adolescent comes from conditions in a very definite manner the way he behaves in his rela tions with the school, the church, the job, recreation, his peers, and his family. (41:441) Havighurst made the following remarks concerning differences in the ways in which socioeconomic classes value school: The characteristic middle-class attitude toward education is taught by middle-class parents to their children. School is important for future success. One must do one's very best in school. Report cards are studied by the parents carefully, and the parents give rewards for good grades, warnings and penalties for poor grades. Lower-class parents, on the other hand, seldom push the children hard in school and do not show by example or by precept that they be lieve education is highly important. In fact, they usually show the opposite attitude. With the excep tion of a minority who urgently desire mobility for their children, lower-class parents tend to place little value on high achievement in school or on school attendance beyond minimum age. When the middle-class child comes to a test, he has been taught to do his very best on it. Life stretches ahead of him as a long series of tests, and he must always work himself to the very limit on them. To the average lower-class child, on the other hand, a test is just another place to be pun ished, to have one's weaknesses shown up, to be reminded that one is at the tail end of the pro cession. Hence this child soon learns to accept the inevitable and to get it over with as quickly as possible. (38:21) Various differences between middle class and lower class are presented by Mussen who stated that "the values associated with class and ethnic groups are reflected in 7S children's motivations, personality characteristics, and attitudes" (73:64-65). For example, middle-class children value the inhibiting of expressions of aggressive feelings, while lower-class children are more likely to value the expression of aggressive feelings. Other value differences i ■ show middle-class parents encouraging the inhibiting of j sexual expression, stressing and rewarding achievement, j and encouraging the delay of gratification in terms of j "long-range" goal-directed activity, while lower-class i parents may often not be so concerned about these values, j | Brazziel used the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale i i : of Values (AVLSV) in a study involving 100 Negro upper- i i i ! classmen of a southern college frequented by students who I i were mostly from semiskilled and unskilled families (116). | The AVLSV yields six values based on Splanger's "Types of j ' ■ : i | Man" classification (Theoretical, Economic, Aesthetic, Social, Political, and Religious). Brazziel also employed : the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) which I I yields fifteen indicies of basic psychological needs of individuals according to Murray's "Need-Drive" theories (Achievement, Deference, Order, Exhibition, Autonomy, Affiliation, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, 77 Nurturance, Change, Endurance, Heterosexuality, and Aggression). He reported that his study lends support to | the contentions of many 1 1 that the needs and values of the | low socioeconomic college matriculant are different from i i • ! the middle and upper socioeconomic student" (116). I Metfessel recently presented a number of findings from Project Potential which have to do with the values of | the culturally deprived. I I Youth from the culture of poverty are generally | unaware of "ground rules" for success in the school culture. Youth from the culture of poverty have generally had little experience in receiving approval for success in a task, an assumption on which the school culture is organized, j Youth from the culture of poverty need assistance | in perceiving of an adult as a person from whom you J ask questions and receive answers— an assumption on which the school culture is organized. Youth from the culture of poverty frequently feel that too much formal education can 1 1 spoil" one, and that it widens the gap between parent and child, i To the culturally disadvantaged family, truancy j from school seemingly expresses the pre-eminence of j family needs over school attendance laws. Consequent- | ly big city schools ordinarily do not receive much j cooperation from these parents. | Negative appraisals of education are communicated j to the students by the family which does not under- | stand the middle-class values taught by teachers, j The typical metropolitan, middle-class church, with its emphasis on formal, highly structured activities with a good deal of authority involved, lacks emotionalism, and apparently does not appeal to the disadvantaged. Therefore, the disadvantaged 78 lose goal-oriented life plans, which are replaced by a more existential day to day existence. Children and youth from the culture of poverty frequently have parents who communicate negative appraisals of the school establishment because of their own difficulties in coping with the school culture. Children and youth from the culture of poverty typically are characterized by weak ego-development, a lack of self-confidence, and a negative self-concept. These conflicting feelings about themselves frequently result in exaggerated positive and negative attitudes towards others. (242) Values and sex differences I — — — — — -— — — — j Anastasi noted that even a casual glance shows j there are many personality differences between men and i | women, some of them observable from early age. Areas of | difference presented by Anastasi include "interests, pref- | erences, ideals, attitudes, and personal sense of values" ' (6:478). i In a comprehensive study of high school students, Symonds (201) found boys valuing physical health, safety, and money more than girls, and also showing a more openly expressed interest in the opposite sex. He indicated that his study showed girls valuing personal attractiveness, personal philosophy, planning the daily schedule, mental health, manners, personal qualities, and home and family relationships more than boys. 79 | The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale of Values (5) has also indicated significant sex differences according to Anastasi: . . . Women's responses rate highest in the aesthetic, social, and religious values. This suggests that the immediate enjoyment of artistic experiences, a concern for the welfare of other | people, and an emphasis upon spiritual values may j be relatively important in the life goals of women. | The men's profile shows peaks in the theoretical, j economic, and political values. Such a profile indicates an interest in abstract knowledge and understanding, a drive for practical success, and a desire for prestige and power over others. i (6:480) ! However, Anastasi added, "Although all statistically significant, these sex differences are not large, and the i i | overlapping is considerable" (6:481). | Wubben (224), using an instrument he designed called the "Wubben V-T Device," tested 186 seniors in | selected public high schools in Colorado. This approach ! j features a situation involving an adolescent boy and girl, j both seniors. The situation is divided into two parts, j and twelve questions are asked concerning each, with the I purpose of arriving at student values. The first part deals with personalities and backgrounds of the two characters. The second portion shows the couple going steady and eventually marrying while still in high school. 8° Wubben concluded that as a total group, the students embraced essentially middle-class attitudes. In comparing girls with boys, he found the boys more liberal in their attitudes toward morals and more realistic in their attitudes toward the opposite sex. Values and creativity It would appear that values and creativity have j sometimes been at opposite poles in the public school emphasis. A study by Getzels and Jackson (31:30) repli- Icated by Torrance (210) indicated greater teacher prefer- jence for the high IQ student as opposed to the highly |creative student. A study by Wubben among high school seniors in Colorado led him to conclude that the school j iwas influencing the students to accept "essentially middle-i j I class attitudes" including the "tendency to exclude criti cal thought" (224) . Lin Yutang bemoaned the tendency of educational institutions to value mechanical conformity and rote learning rather than the development of a critical mind. After all, the old scholar is on the whole a sounder product than the modern college graduate. His knowledge of world geography is less reliable, but his training in character and ordinary manners i 81 is more thorough. Both the old and modern educa tional systems suffer from the foolish belief that you can weigh a man's knowledge by a series of | examinations, which must by necessity be of a | mechanical nature, and which must concentrate on | the storing of information rather than on the | development of a critical mind. For a critical | mind cannot be easily graded or given a marking j of 75 or 93, while a question on the dates of the Punic Wars can. Moreover, any college examination | must be of such a nature that students can prepare for it at a week's notice, or all of them will flunk, and any knowledge that can be crammed at a week1s notice can be forgotten in as short a j period. There have not yet been devised any ! series of examinations which are cram-proof, and | student-proof, ' and the victims are only the pro- i fessors who are led to believe that their students | have really understood their subjects. (227) ! Starkweather stressed that "... when the focus ! | of education is on the acquisition of information, the j tendency is to emphasize rote memory and conformity which in turn inhibit creative thinking" (92:5). Torrance, in I a study in which he raised the question, "What kind of | i persons do we want gifted children to become?" compared I the ratings of specialists in the area of creativity with those of junior high school and senior high school teachers (213). The ratings of the secondary school I 1 J teachers showed a low correlation with those of the i j specialists in creativity (.36 for junior high teachers and .45 with senior high teachers). A sixty-six item 82 checklist made up from fifty research studies "comparing the personality characteristics of outstanding, productive, creative individuals in some field of achievement with less productive and creative persons in the same field" served as the basis of comparison. Of special interest is a comparison of the ten characteristics valued most highly by the specialists and the junior high teachers. The specialist judges indicated that they valued a person who is (1) courageous in convictions, (2) curious, (3) inde pendent in thinking, (4) independent in judgment, (5) will ing to take risks, (6) intuitive, (7) absorbed in tasks, (8) persistent, (9) unwilling to accept things on mere say-so, and (10) visionary. The junior high teachers indicated that they valued a person who is (1) considerate of others, (2) independent thinking, (3) courteous, (4) industrious, (5) determined, (6) possessed of a sense of humor, (7) sincere, (8) on time with his work, (9) a self-starter, and (10) curious. Torrance further discussed a comparison of the values of teachers of the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades with the values of junior high school teachers: 83 Compared with teachers in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades, junior high school teachers place more emphasis on the value of being courteous, less on being courageous in one's convictions, less on being curious, more on being obedient and sincere, and less on being self-confident, self-sufficient and versatile. The junior high school teachers are more punitive of the child who finds fault with things. All of these are values which are likely to inhibit the creativity of students when they first enter junior high, until they learn how to cope constructively with this kind of discourage ment of their creative needs and abilities. (213) Komadina also questioned the value many teachers place on imitation but stressed that imitation has its place, and whether or not it is negative or positive de pends upon the emphasis. If imitation is used correctly, it may be a tool for creative expression. What happens to a classroom that places em phasis solely on imitation? What happens to creativity, experimentation, inspiration? If a course of "first things first" is pursued instead of a policy of imitation as an end in itself, the dilemma will soon be dissipated. D. M. Dow, who edited The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, says of Gibbon that he extolled nothing more than freedom. Yet Gibbon himself has this to say about imitation: "However laudable, the spirit of imi tation is of servile cost. . . . Genius may antic ipate the season of maturity; but in the education of people, as in that of an individual, memory must be exercised before the powers of reason and fancy can be expended, nor may the artist hope to equal or surpass until he has learned to imitate the works of his predecessors." (154) 84 As the above statement by Komadina indicates, the contrast between the values system of the classroom and i creativity does not seem at all necessary. Lippitt saw | | this contrast as a part of a greater struggle between the j leaders in the sciences and the humanities, as indicated by the following statement: . . . I think the heated conflicts between the scientists and representatives of the humani- i ties have created a mass culture posture of j alienation and withdrawal from communication j which is preventing the discovery of the basic ! potential of complementaity of their resources ' and driving them to defensive postures of arti- i ficial purism, so that, in their struggle to de- | fend, they are creating artificial boundaries. I The scientists are talking more puristically about their methodology, about scientific values, j The same occurs with the humanities people. And j this, I think, is basically a mass culture pos- ! ture adopted by the two parties. . . . I think ! there are, clearly, educational methods for tackling the problems of dialogue between the two j postures and their complimentarity. (56:45-46) ! Opler pointed out that innovation must have a i ! context. According to him, it is on the basis of past ! j experience with all of its ethical, social, and scientific i gleanings that creativity must build. A concept of culture which takes into account man's strivings, his creativity, and his capacity to modify his world need not lead to a jungle of extravagant claims on his behalf or a loss of per spective. Effort and innovation have a context. 85 They have antecedents. They are often hampered hy inertia and special interest. They are sometimes frustrated; their fruits are many times delayed. But they do exist, they are ultimately effective, and the human and cultural record cannot be under stood without them. (77:127) Robb advocated the need of a balance between values | and creativity when he wrote: I Therefore the problem of creating an atmosphere in which there is a balance between a humanistic ally oriented educational philosophy on the one hand, and an opportunity for creative research and | significant scholarship on the other, is equally I pressing whether the institution is large or small. | It is obvious that the educational process is inex- ! tricably related to the education of persons. Machines do not educate each other; education is ! I a distinctively human enterprise. Jacob Bronowski, in his book. Science and Human Values, makes the distinction between the findings of science, which are amoral, and the activity of science, which is ! essentially a human function, and thus is fraught i with concerns for value. This distinction is t equally valid for education as a whole; knowledge in itself can be viewed from an amoral stance, but j : the discovery and application of knowledge are | essentially human activities, and as such, are re- I lated to the whole process of human growth and | development. (191) Jackson saw this balance between values and crea tivity as achieved through the establishment of a " . . . conceptualization that serves to unify the psychological, aesthetic, and social aspects of this phenomenon" (146). Nygreen stated that in order to encourage creativity, an atmosphere must be established which gives the "... ! 86 i ! ] j individuals the right to be mistaken and to suffer little j or not at all for it" (177). Rogers believed that creativity is itself a value j and must be treated as such. Correctly seen, it is at once a means and an end in the living of life. What life asks of us has to be acknowledged as a perennial challenge. And the demand upon us is by general consensus that life ideally requires us to be at once loving, rational, aesthetically appreciative, responsible for participation in society, and creative in our own novel and unique manner. In this sense crea- | tivity becomes one of the major channels and goals I of life itself. It is intrinsic to the life pro- ; cess fully lived. (9:108) [ i i Educators often stress that values are needed to | i | guide creativity properly, so that its expression will be I I beneficial to mankind. Lowenfeld wrote, i ! I I would like to stress with all the convincing power which I have at my disposal that creative teaching per se is no virtue, unless it is carried | by the deep desire to promote human values. It is not enough merely to promote creativity, for we | have witnessed during our own lives how creativity | can be misused. (58:129) ! i Lawson also saw values as affording guidance to I creative performance. "What man actually does with his growing knowledge will depend not upon that knowledge, but upon man's attitudes, his philosophy, his value judgments" (54:84). Hall very strongly urged that value commitments are 1 1 . . . necessary to a complete science" (35:v) and j ". . .of the greatest value to growing minds. ..." I (36:280) Dow believed the progress of the nation depends upon the guidance of creativity by value norms. "If we j are going to grow into the great creative people we must I become in order to maintain our standard of living, we must actively express our beliefs in truths and principles" (24:33). i Maddi saw creativity principally in view of two ! important motives: the needs for quality and for novelty. ! j ! j The need for quality, of course, involves value judgment. By the need for quality, I mean something like j Murray* s (1938) mode need. The person motivated | toward quality wants to exercise his capacities in such a way that he sees himself doing things that are special and valuable in his own terms. I do not mean that he wants to do what others prescribe— that would be merely compliance. I do not mean that i ! he merely wants evidence that he has an effect on j his environment, or that he is competent— these i things are relevant, but not enough. What he wants [ is clear evidence that he is doing things, function- ! ing, in ways that he himself believes to be excel- ! lent. While he may admire quality in others, he is i egocentric enough in this motivation of his to be ! left unsatisfied by anything but evidence of his i own quality. It is this motive that leads to per sistence in the development and expression of talents and skills. And this persistence is one of the most salient factors in the lives of people who have consistently produced creative acts. . . . (163) 88 Actually, man is not purely creative, according to ; Lynch, but must work his creation "... within an already given situation and circumstance" (162) . Thus, the creative person does not enhance his ability by ignoring the past. As Komadina aptly put it, "There must be a norm j from which to deviate" (154). On the other hand, some authors hold that creativ ity has much to offer in the realm of values. Reichart j ! wrote: | We need to grow to the point where we take our learned values and create upon them, take the values ‘ we see about and construct with them to the ultimate ! pinnacle where we find belief built upon critical analysis of alternatives. (188) t f A values gain through creativity is also suggested j by Wolf (221) who reported that a survey among teachers I which examined their expectancy of results from creative j j learning experiences showed that one-third of them i | expected improved personal and social adjustment of the : ! child. | In reality, in modern society creative effort is | almost always subjected to some form of judgment, which | j inevitably brings up the subject of values. Cooper raised i i j the question, "In this connection is it enough to assist 89 students to develop skills and knowledge or do we as educators have the further obligation of helping youth use their powers in approved ways for sanctioned purposes?" (121) It is probable that most educators would answer i affirmatively. Sorokin was most positive in this regard, I - as evidenced by his statement, "Of all the numerous activi ties of an individual or of a group only the activities which add something new and constructive to the highest values of Truth, Goodness, Beauty and to other positive i values can be called creative" (90:1). ; ■ i | An opinion similar to that of Sorokin was also I I expressed by Virtue: I Value is not merely what satisfies desire, j though it does satisfy desire; in a deeper sense, ! it justifies desire; value is that quality of a process which makes it right aesthetically or morally that it be desired. The ethically good | is not merely what I desire or approve, or have | learned to respect; it is the good that the right | kind of desire will desire, it is that which de- | serves to be approved. My desires must be good, I if I am a basically good person. The aesthetic ■ good (I want to say, the aesthetically beautiful, | but I don* t want to prejudge the problem of aesthet- j ic quality) is the quality of a process which de lights, and delights most profoundly when it arouses the deepest and most harmonious feelings. The self-directive feeling-complex— or, if you will, the mind— does actually select within its own patterns and also among the structured 90 events of its environing field. In selecting what it will respond to, it determines the limits within which its creativity can operate; and in determining what it will do with what it has selected, it recreates itself, as well as effect ing a re-arrangement in its environment. (107:60, 68) ! It is noted that considerable similarity exists between conditions necessary to the formulation of a positive and responsible values system and those conducive ! I to creative activity. One of the three characteristics of the creative | persons as listed by Rogers is what he referred to as "an I internal locus of evaluation" (87:75-76). Autonomy was also shown to be important by Piaget in the achievement j of an adult values system (81:194). Getzels and Jackson I asserted that the moral person "chooses the ethical rather j than the expedient alternative when faced with an inter- j i j ; personal dilemma" and will "stand against public sentiment when such sentiment threatens to compromise his values" | (31:135). I ; Lockhart stated that critical thinking is essential j to both creativity and values: Development of critical thinking is essential to the achievement of the two purposes of higher education discussed in Chapter I: to transmit the 91 culture from one generation to the next so that we can profit from all man has learned and to aid | in the neverceasing search for and discovery of | previously unknown truths. Critical thinking is necessary to the first of these objectives in order to enable us to distinguish, from the mass of that accumulated, that which culturally is the best mankind has achieved. The requirement of critical thinking in the latter, search and dis covery, is self-evident. (57:51) I In a similar vein, Lang saw valuing as an "overt i ! process of examining, acquiring, reflecting, and acting | . . ." (156). i t ) Andrews defined creativity as "a process of : individual experience, of self-actualization, an expres- ! sion of being" (9:vi). Thus, it is claimed that the | encouragement of creative powers is equal to the encour- I i I agement of the development of the full man for his happi ness and health. On the other hand, the Educational ; Policies Commission saw as the predominant American value I the fostering of "that development of individual capaci- i i ties which will enable each human being to become the best ! person he is capable of becoming" (254) . i I I It is claimed that creativity is born and thrives j in a setting of conflict. Nygreen reported, It has been suggested that creativity is culti vated and enhanced by an atmosphere of conflict. The Saturday Review offered this explanation of the emergence on certain campuses of the hind of writing it wished to honor with annual awards in 1963. Teachers of very young children observe that the most creative youngsters come not from j placid and successful homes but from those in S which there is conflict. (177) I j Barron spoke of the openness and accessibleness of ! ! j experience which makes the creative person able to break j out of old ruts (13:4), while Wiles stressed the importance of openness in values growth (217). His term, "commitment without closure" is expressive of this quality. Rogers i J effects a synthesis of creativity and values in terms of j i openness: "It has been found that when the individual is j j ‘open’ to all of his experience. . . then his behavior will i ! be creative, and his creativity may be trusted to be ; essentially constructive" (87:73). I Research indicates that the creative person often I i craves recognition and appreciation by others of his | product. Rogers is "doubtful whether a human being can | ! create, without wishing to share his creation" (87:18). It is the only way he can assuage the anxiety of separate ness and assure himself that he belongs to the group. This sense of community is further specified by Andrews: j A creative person is an individual who can | feel reasonably comfortable about himself when ! he recognizes the demands of life, and continues j to maintain his individuality. He is capable of | living happily and productively with other people | without being a nuisance. (9:vi) i In the process of developing a values system, | this sense of community must also be present (193). Since creativity and values are not in opposition | by nature, and since a proper approach to each has so much in common, it would seem essential that the school encour age both. Lowenfeld insisted that the interdependence of i • creativity and values is so great that it would be useless to teach creativity without values (58:129). Marksberry ] ; believed values could best be communicated to the creative i | person through proper models and constant experimentation ( 60:16) . Values of the creative individual | This writer has been able to find very little in ; the way of research regarding the values of the creative. I I His committee chairman referred to this as almost a "no I man's land." However, a few research projects were dis covered and are here reviewed. Herr (141) tested sixty high school juniors who j 94 i j | had been selected to study at the University of New York at Buffalo at the Summer Science Institute of the National Science Foundation. His purpose was to examine the possi ble relationships between creativity, intelligence, and | values. In testing for interest and values he used the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale of Values, the Kuder Prefer ence Record, the Test of Understanding Science, Terman Concept Mastery, and the Lorge-Thorndike. He found the highest correlations were among the Kuder scales assessing | theoretical, economic, and aesthetic values. He found j significant negative correlations between the findings of the AVLSV social and political values and the values indi- ! ; cated by the Test of Understanding Science, Terman Concept j ; Mastery, and the Lorge-Thorndike. His conclusion was that ; "scientifically oriented (bright students) do not give I i i high priority to social values as described by Allport." j He also found low correlation between teacher ratings and | j the various tests, showing again that teacher ratings "are ! ! I not adequate criteria of success and performance" (141). j i A similar finding concerning teachers' ratings was pre sented by Gardner (235). Perrone (243) reported a study undertaken in I j 95 Dutchess County, New York, in which he investigated crea tivity, goal orientation, adherence to conventional values, intelligence, and occupational choice of high school seniors. His sample included 192 senior boys and 236 senior girls in three schools. The California F-Scale was the measuring instrument. Perrone reported that the high creative students scored on the average lower on conven tional values than did the low creative students. Gumeson (238), in a Colorado study, investigated 'the needs, values, cognitive abilities, and other person- i Iality characteristics of high and low creative junior j |college students. Sixty-eight subjects cooperated in the ’study, seventeen high creative males, seventeen low crea- j ;tive males, seventeen high creative females, and seventeen !low creative females. Instruments used included (1) Guil- j iford Tests of Creativity, (2) Otis Quick Scoring Mental j JAbility Test, (3) School and College Ability Test, (4) ;Edward Personal Preference Schedule, (5) Allport-Vernon- j Lindzey Scale of Values, and (6) Torrance Personal Social ! |Motivation Inventory. Gumeson reported significant differ ences in favor of the high creative students. In values, i i j the high creative males showed higher power attitudes and 96 theoretical values than did the high creative females. The high creative females showed higher exhibition needs and high social and religious values. Low creative males ! | showed more autonomous, affiliative, succorant, abasing, | aggressive characteristics, were higher in quantitative i i abilities, and valued economic and theoretical pursuits more than did the low creative females. The low creative females were higher than the low creative males on religious and social values and on heterosexual motiva- : tions. I Summary i j In the foregoing pages, a comprehensive review of i I literature touching upon the area of values has been pre- i ; sented. This portion of the review of literature covered | those areas which seemed important to an overview of this j subject. Included was discussion of the definition of j | values, the importance of values in the school setting, | values education in the public school, and an examination ; of values as they pertain to cultural level, sex differ ences, and creativity. 97 Testing for Values The principal ways in which values may be tested have been listed by Barton as follows: 1. Real-life behavior which may be obtained through questioning (either orally or through a written form) or through observation and cross-checking through whatever means may be necessary. 2. Realistic behavior in contrived testing situa tions. This approach involves the observation of the individual in a carefully structured setting. 3. Verbal statements of how the person would be have if confronted by various real situations. This involves the presentation of a possible i i real-life situation, with the subject then asked to describe how he would most probably behave. 4. The stating of likes or dislikes regarding activities and objects within the experience of the subject. ! 98 | 5. The acquiring of information concerning I | "behavior norms" by giving the individual an i i opportunity to state how he feels a person j | should behave in a given situation. I i j 6. Social-policy attitudes, involving statements by the subject of approval or disapproval in regard to government policies and the conduct of social groups, such as businesses, unions, and so on. 7. Arriving at insight concerning the criteria of choice underlying behavior by acquiring general statements of goals, ideals, and principles. 8. Projective questions, such as in the Thematic Apperception Test, in which verbal behavior is j i acquired which is indirectly expressive of j values (14:41). Descriptions of various techniques Short descriptive statements on the most commonly used values tests are given in the following sections: Study of Values.— The Study of Values by Gordon W. Allport, Philip E. Vernon, and Gardner Lindzey (5) is 99 probably the most widely used values test. This test is composed (in the revised edition of 1951) of forty-five items, thirty of which deal with dichotomous answers, i i ! while fifteen are multiple-choice items. Answers, when ! combined, give six scores measuring the relative prominence j of six basic interests or motives in personality: the i i theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and i I j religious. Barton stated that the items fall into the | ! following categories: s 12 realistic personal-behavior decisions (of which 11 deal with choice of topics for reading, listening, discussing, etc.; one with whether the respondent would emphasize athletics or religion in his children's training). ; 2 norms of behavior questions (whether you i approve of great artists having acted selfishly, j and what a businessman should do on weekends). 8 social-policy attitudes (what policies shculd be pursued by various institutions, includ ing government). j 11 ratings of abstract value-principles (8 dealing with personal activities either in general I or of specific types such as choosing a friend, ! 3 dealing with social policies). | 11 projective or expressive indicators (9 of them unrealistic personal "decisions" such as what you would do if you had a lot of money, or the ability to do any job you wanted, two of them | ratings of the "importance" of historical figures). | (14:79) The Inventory of Beliefs.— The Inventory of Beliefs published by the American Council on Education ! loo i purports to measure a personality syndrome relating to "stereopathic thinking." It consists of 100 statements to which the subject may agree strongly, agree, disagree, or disagree strongly. About half of the items are statements I of factual beliefs rather than of evaluative judgments (14:80). The F-Scale.— The F-Scale, much as the Inventory of jBeliefs, is not a pure value measure but undertakes to t |measure a personality syndrome combining a "variety of j |needs, beliefs, values and psychological mechanisms." The i !F-Scale is the work of T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick i |Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. The third re- i !vision of the scale is found in The Authoritarian Person- i I ality and consists of thirty statements (1:255-57). The |subject answers these items in terms of strong, moderate, i ; ■ or slight agreement or disagreement. It includes sixteen factual belief items and fourteen evaluative items. The test is best understood in terms of those variables which i 3 t the authors use to define the authoritarian personality i i J syndrome: a. Conventionalism. Rigid adherence to con ventional, middle-class values. b. Authoritarian submission. Submissive, I 101 I i uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authori- i ties of the ingroup. I c. Authoritarian aggression. Tendency to be on the lookout for and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values. d. Anti-intraception. Opposition to the sub jective, the imaginative, the tender-minded, j e. Superstition and stereotypy. The belief i in mystical determinates of the individual's fate; i the disposition to think in rigid categories. f. Power and "toughness." Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader- follower dimension; identification with power - figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. g. Destructiveness and cynicism. Generalized j hostility, vilification of the human. 1 h. Projectivity. The disposition to believe ; that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses. i. Sex. Exaggerated concern with sexual "goings-on." (14:87) i The Cornell Values Survey.— This survey makes the attempt to obtain direct ratings and rank orderings in- ! volving general statements of values in important fields j such as occupational choice, religion and ethics, and I i | education. It deals with military-service problems and | has, in addition, about sixty belief items and ninety-four | evaluative items. The evaluative items may be divided as t ! follows: 2 reports on actual behavior (Do you ever get worked up over politics, and did you ever use crib- notes on exams?) | 102 I 2 realistic decisions questions (Would you I break engagement if person you were engaged to had had previous sex relations; would you join a fraternity?) 8 like-dislike questions (e.g., liking to give or take orders, what kind of employer would you like to work for, dislike or criticism) 8 behavior norm questions (e.g., we should eat, | drink and be merry; a soldier should obey all ! rules without questioning; bring up children to | obey orders without question) | 12 statements of general goals or criteria of ! choice (relating to life-goals, job choice, what j you want out of education, essential characteristics i of religious or ethical system, importance of reli- j gion to me, main sources of satisfaction expect i in life) | 62 social-policy items (economic, military, ! international policies of government; policies of j ; educational institutions) (14:88) j ! . ! I Gaier's lament that most efforts at personality j ! testing lack empirical research grounded in theory (132); i | appears especially true of tests purporting to measure ; | values. Wubben also spoke of the failure of investigators ’ ; to use scientific means in the measuring of values (224). ! | Raths (184; 186; 83:315-17), whose main effort has 1 jbeen in the area of promotion of valuing, i.e., getting i | the students to be free in the learning situation through i | the process of valuing, mentioned several problems involved I in testing for values (187). It is his contention that the main problem is that of measurement. He stated that the AVLSV has been the basic tool but has questionable validity. (See also Barton, 14:79-80.) In Raths’ opinion, | this is also true of all values tests for two reasons: (1) There is no established respected reference point | against which to evaluate and (2) There are no hypothetical | constructs giving some direction to the establishment of j construct validity. Sampling as well has been a problem, ! | according to Raths, since most studies have used convenient I samples rather than random samples from some well-defined ! i | population. This is, of course, crucial to external i ; validity (187). I It would, therefore, appear that existent values j tests have not been entirely successful at gaining favor j i as to their validity and reliability. This may be the j | reason why some researchers in the areas of attitudes and ; values are turning to a new instrument which shall be j | ; I discussed next. I i i | ! The Semantic Differential I 1 1 | The Semantic Differential, as developed by Osgood ] | and Suci at the University of Illinois, is a rating proce- i j dure for the measurement of meaning. It affords a multi dimensional measurement of meaning in keeping with the underlying theory which sees meanings varying in many 104 directions. This instrument involves the rating of con cepts in terms of a seven-point scale terminating in adjectives which are opposite in meaning (such as good-bad, sweet-sour). Concepts and bipolar adjectives chosen are to be as . . representative as possible of all the ways in which meaningful judgments can vary, and yet be small enough in size to be efficient in practice" (79:20). Subjects are then asked to rate each concept on the seven- point scale according to the adjectives selected. The resulting rating profile, according to Osgood, et al., indicates the meaning of the concept. Development of the instrument.— Meaning and change in meaning are of great value in understanding the actions of an individual in a given situation, since his behavior will inevitably grow from his interpretation of the situa tion. However, it is surprising to note that little atten-j tion has been given to the study of meaning by social scientists (79:1). It should also be noted that the > definitions of meaning are as varied as are the disciplines from which these definitions come (79:2-10). Although some attempts had been made to measure meaning (79:10-17), Osgood concluded these were inadequate i 105 and thus proceeded to the development of the Semantic I Differential. The theory of meaning which undergirds the Seman- I tic Differential is what Osgood, et al. (79:5) called the i | ! "representational mediation process." This process has | | to do with the psychological significance of meaning and ! is related to the work of Morris (65). Morris, who was | influenced by his contact with Tolman and Hull, saw mean ing in terms of the relationship of a sign to its signifi- ! cate. This, Morris called 1 1 semantical meaning." The | essence of Morris' definition is given as follows: j Any pattern of stimulation which is not the I significate becomes the sign of the significate j if it produces in the organism a "disposition" ! to make any of the responses previously elicited by the significate. (79:5) However, Osgood, et al., thought the term "dispo- ! i i sition" was ambiguous and proceeded to give what they be- ! lieved to be a more comprehensive definition: j Whenever some stimulus other than the signifi cate is contiguous with the significate it will acquire an increment of association with some por tion of the total behavior elicited by the signifi cate as a representational mediation process. (79:6) Osgood, et al., gave the following symbolic account of the development of a sign (79:7) : X s According to Osgood, et al., m -------- m is the I representational mediation process— "representational" because it is part of the same total behavior (R^) pro duced by the significate (S), and " mediational" because the self stimulation "can now become associated with a variety l I of instrumental acts (R ) which take account of the sig- i 5C * nificate. . . (79:6) Thus, in the case of a buzzer I i j ! which accompanies an electric shock, eventually the buzzer i i alone, the sign | S | of the significate (i.e., the electric | shock) S, now stimulates a variety of instrumental acts I (R ) ordinarily related to the electric shock (jumping, | | j i running, et cetera), even though the significate (the | ; j i electric shock) has not occurred. j | The authors further stated that the majority of j i i signs are actually assigned, with meanings assigned to | them through association with other signs rather than I through direct association with the significate (79:8) . The process of reading has to do with assigns, the words recalling signs of significates. The following diagram 107 illustrates symbolically the development of an assign (79:7) : r -^m l / > m_ R -> X1 / / / r s L— >/m2 -------------> m2 / n /s/- R ->X2 s m R " , x ■v a | By way of illustration, it is pointed out that few | six-year-olds have seen a zebra, but through the use of | signs known to the child (stripes, horse, wild), the child has no difficulty visualizing the assign (/S/), zebra. i 1 It should be obvious that most of the signs with i ! which the Semantic Differential deals are actually l assigns. It should also be noted that because assigns are | dependent upon one's past experience, there may be great i ! variation in the meaning given a sign from individual to | individual. (The old story of three blind men describing j the elephant is a good case in point.) Here is the key to the theory underlying the Semantic Differential. Its authors have attempted to devise an instrument capable of indicating the differences in the intensity and direction i of the meaning given to signs toy individuals. I ! j In order to understand more thoroughly exactly how the Semantic Differential can, in the view of its authors, designate differences in the meaning given to i signs, it is deemed worthwhile to return for a moment to I .... ' j reconsider the definition given toy them to the representa- i I | tional mediation process. Rosenthal, in a very insightful f statement, enlarged upon Osgood's definition and showed how it is involved in the operation of the Semantic Differ- ; ential: i It is toased upon Hullian theory and divides the | usual S-R into the two stages of decoding and en coding. When a sutoject decodes a given sign we | assume that a complex mediating reaction occurs, having a pattern of alternative toipolar reactions | with varying intensities. When a sutoject encodes | this semantic state against the differential, it is assumed that his selection of directions in I | semantic space is coordinate with what reactions ! are elicited toy the sign and that the degree of polarization, extremeness in space, is coordinate I with how intensely these reactions are made. ! (244:68) i I ! Osgood, et al., divided the representational | mediation process into sets of bipolar adjectives, with each pole toeing separated toy a space divided into several parts. The individual is stimulated by a sign, the representational mediation process (decoding) sets in, and i I 109 then the individual choses a space (encoding) representa tive of his feeling. The following diagram will illustrate I the method: Sign (Concept) jNegative Positive jpolar Adjective X 1.2_3_4_5_^ZY Polar Adjective i I The spaces from 3 to 1 increase in negative inten sity , while the spaces from 5 to 7 increase in positive intensity. Space number 4 may be interpreted as neither X nor Y or as equally related to X and Y. The Semantic |Differential actually offers two measures of meaning— .direction (i.e., positive or negative) and intensity (i.e., jthe degree to which the feeling is positive or negative). i i ! Of utmost importance to the work of Osgood, et al., i ; ;is their postulation of a semantic space, Euclidian in |character, and of some unknown dimensionality (79:25). It i i is further assumed that each semantic scale, defined by a l pair of bipolar adjectives, represents a straight line ifunction, passing through the origin of this space, with a i isample of such scales representing a multidimensional I space. As the sample size becomes either larger or more representative, the semantic space becomes better defined. Osgood, et al., hold that a complete definition of the !semantic space is possible only as the minimum number of | i |orthogonal dimensions or axes necessary to exhaust the !dimensionality of the space are found. In order to ! jaccomplish this goal, Osgood, et al., turned to factor |analysis. | Three separate factor analyses were undertaken in I an attempt to provide a multidimensional measure of mean ing (79:33-75). First, Thurstone's Centroid Factor method i |was appropriated to analyze twenty well-known concepts irated by 100 college students. Fifty sets of familiar ibipolar adjectives were used in the ratings, with the ! space between each set of adjectives divided into seven parts. The D-method of factoring, which Osgood, et al., ! describe in detail in the appendix of their book (79:332- 35), was then employed as a check on the first analysis. I [Finally, a third analysis was undertaken again using the l Thurstone Centroid Factor method and involving 289 adjec- jtive pairs taken from Roget's Thesaurus. All three ! |approaches furnished the same results. ! Osgood found that three factors were dominant and composed the majority of the total variance. The first and most significant of these was the evaluative factor, com posing about double the variance of the next two most pro nounced factors. The other two— potency and activity— each accounted for about double the remaining factors. Evaluation (E) is an attitudinal factor, while potency (P) i relates to power and toughness. The activity factor (A) ■relates to quickness, excitement, warmth, agitation, and j | so forth. While there were various other factors identi- i fied, they accounted for very little of the total variance ! i ! and lacked the stability of the three that have been | ■mentioned. Therefore, Osgood, et al., designed their ; instrument to measure the semantic space in terms of E, P, land A factors. Smith (196), Webb (215), and others sub- i sequently confirmed these findings. j i The Semantic Differential has been subjected to ■ i ■ j j considerable examination in an effort to evaluate its j ! i efficiency as a measuring instrument of meaning. Osgood, et al., devoted a chapter to research involving the valida- i tion of their instrument. Moss presented a thorough review | of studies undertaken in a variety of fields and concluded i that the Semantic Differential is objective, reliable, and valid (174) . Objectivity of the Semantic Differential.— It is | 112 I the claim of Osgood, et al., that the Semantic Differential is objective "to the extent that the operation of measure- I I i ment and means of arriving at conclusions can be made i i |explicit and hence reproducible" (79:125-26). In other I words, the means of framing the test, of scoring it, and iof summing the scores are objective and can be duplicated by any person willing to follow simple instructions. Of !course, the interpretation of the results is subjective, but the authors hold that this is not a criticism of the ^method. 'They stated, "Objectivity concerns the role of |the observer, not the observed" (79:125). j Reliability of the Semantic Differential.— Relia- I 1bility refers to the degree to which the same scores are ! ireproduced when the same objects are measured repeatedly, iCronbach said, "Reliability always refers to consistency ithroughout a series of measurements" (22:126). j Osgood, et al., conducted an experiment on the j reliability of the Semantic Differential utilizing eight |groups with approximately twenty-five subjects in each I jgroup (79:132-38). A test-retest procedure was used in volving various time intervals (three, six, twelve, twenty, and thirty minutes? one day, one week, and three weeks) for 113 the groups. There were eight concepts used, including: my mood today, Eisenhower, McCarthy, Communism, French government, mother, me, sex, paper clip, and rabbit. ] An earlier study of the Semantic Differential con- i |ducted by Bopp had shown the reliability of the test tended i ! • |to decrease as the time interval between test and re-test increased (231). Two possible conclusions were suggested by Osgood, et al.: (1) Assume there are stable meanings over time but an increasingly unreliable instrument, (2) | |Assume meanings of concepts do change with time and the |instrument reliably and sensitively reflects these changes j j (79:133). I It was their conclusion that the instrument was j ! ’reliable and that meanings of concepts do vary over time. 'Change in meaning between test and re-test was on an 'ascending slope with almost no change being evidenced at | j |the shorter time interval. It was also found that some i I |concepts, such as in the case of "my mood today," tended to show more variation than others, such as "mother." Jenhins, Russell, and Suci prepared an Atlas of Semantic Profiles for 360 concepts to facilitate studies on meaning with the Semantic Differential (147). A set of twenty bipolar adjectives was selected which seemed to ex haust the semantic space. The words used were chosen from the Ken-Rosanoff Word Association Test, Noble’s Scale for I Meaningfulness, previous studies conducted at the Univer- I !sity of Illinois, and miscellaneous sources. Five hundred | |forty college sophomore volunteers from an introductory psychology course were used, equally divided between men and women. These were broken down into groups of thirty | |(fifteen men and fifteen women), and they were asked to !score on the Semantic Differential eighteen randomized I ;groups of concepts consisting of twenty words each. The | jfactors used included eight evaluative scales, three i i !potency scales, three activity scales, two tautness scales, i i ;two novelty scales, and two receptivity scales. For the i ;reliability portion of the study, thirty subjects were ! i I ;selected and asked to rate a set of twenty concepts taken I f !at random from the 360 concepts mentioned above. They were j ^ ■retested on the same set four weeks later. A Pearson r of i .97 was obtained for test-retest reliability of mean scale values. i Norman, using a percentage index as the index of stability, undertook a study (176) involving essentially 115 the same approach as that of Jenkins, Russell, and Suci. Twenty concepts were chosen at random from the original 360 words, and a group of thirty comparable subjects drawn from the same population rated these concepts. Four weeks later, they rated the same concepts again. Norman found that about 40 per cent of the ratings remained the same, 35 per cent shifted one unit, and 25 per cent changed by ■ two or more units. No sex differences were found. How ever, group mean ratings were found to be very stable over time. This led Norman to say, "... Experiments aimed at ] ;restructuring 'semantic space' are feasible if a large i I enough number of S's is employed" (176). i i ! In a more recent study, Miron found that the speed ! factor influences test-retest reliability on the Semantic | Differential and recommended that subjects be instructed ;to work rapidly (172). Validity of the Semantic Differential.— Thorndike 1 j and Haven stated that the most important question about { any testing is, "How valid is it?" Does the test really measure what we want to measure, all that we want to meas ure, and nothing but what we want to measure? (102:160) Rowan undertook to determine the validity of the | 116 Semantic Differential by making a direct comparison between the Semantic Differential and the method of triads (245). One hundred sixty subjects were presented with ten concepts l I to be rated on twenty differential scales and compared on j I the basis of meaningful similarity without the use of |scales. The subjects were presented with the 120 possible triadic combinations of the ten concepts and were asked each time to choose the two most similar concepts of the three given. Rowan's factoring of the similarity and ■ I semantic space produced three reliable factors in each i lease. The first of these was evaluative, the second was i ieither potency or activity, and the third was specific to t !methodology. Rowan concluded that the Semantic Differen- j itial for this set of concepts furnishes at least two ■dimensions— evaluative and either potency or activity, or j ja combination of both are used naturally by subjects in their judgments. ! Husek, in a study comparing anxiety subjects with jcontrol subjects at the University of Illinois (143), tested the anxiety subjects on the anxiety differential just a few minutes before they were to take an examination which would count heavily toward their final grade. The 117 control subjects took the anxiety differential during a jregular class period. Husek found the Semantic Differen- !tial differentiated significantly between the two groups, I |with the high anxiety group exceeding in the expected S !direction. i i Grigg, in a validity study of the Semantic Differ ential involving forty-two university students (137), had them rate under varying experimental conditions the con cepts "self-neurotic" and "ideal self-neurotic." Grigg reported that the differential scores on paired concepts ishifted in the direction he had predicted. | Studies by Manis (164), Mitsos (173), and Messick i I i (170) have also given support to the belief that the j iSemantic Differential is a valid measuring instrument for |assessing meaning. i Opinions regarding the Semantic Differential.— The reviews that have come to this writer's attention have been almost overwhelmingly friendly toward the Semantic Differential. | Husek and Wittrock stated the Semantic Differential is a "flexible and easy-to-score technique developed for assessing 1connotative meaning'. . . particularly appropri- I i 118 I I I I ate and increasingly popular . . . for the measurement of \ |attitudes" (143). Smith saw the Semantic Differential as "one of the | most promising developments of recent years for the inves- i |tigation of meaning. ..." (196) Endler, who considered the Semantic Differential relatively free of response bias, stated, "... Meaning, as measured by the Semantic Differential is an important | personality construct, and one which can serve as an index | of adjustment, maladjustment, and therapeutic improvement" , (130). Anastasi, in her evaluation of the Semantic Differ- | j ential, stated that it ". . . represents a standardized i and quantified procedure for measuring the connotations of any given concept for the individual” (6:626-27). Eklund said, "The Semantic Differential seems to be among the best of the current procedures which attempt to measure factors such as meaning, values, attitudes, and other facets of personality" (234:24). While the Semantic Differential is not entirely without its critics, its flexibility, simplicity, and ease of scoring, together with the evidence which at least ! 119 i initially indicates that it is valid and reliable, all build confidence in this instrument. It is probable that iit will receive increased attention and use. i i I | !Summary | This second part of the review of literature has i jdiscussed values testing. Various techniques that are i !currently used have been noted. Special emphasis was i i j directed to the development and progress of the Semantic Differential. An effort was made to give a qualitative | ianalysis of this important instrument which, in the think- | ling of many, offers great promise. F i Creativity j. Definition of creativity ! Definitions of creativity are almost as varied as ;the number of authors who attempt to define it. Should i j fthe primary emphasis be placed on the product, the process, jor the personal characteristics of the creative person? | I iOr should the emphasis be placed on the environment? Wolf, in a survey of 212 teachers in six eastern states, found that in answer to the question, "How do classroom teachers view the concept of creativity?" a little less than one- 120 half saw it as a personal characteristic, one-fourth viewed it in terms of the product or end, while one-fifth emphasized the process (221) . Golann gave a good review of the ways in which creativity has been viewed: Creativity has been viewed as a normally dis tributed trait, an aptitude trait, an intrapsychic process, and as a style of life. It has been described as that which is seen in all children, but few adults. It has been described as that which leads to innovation in science, performance in fine arts, or new thoughts. Creativity has been described as related to, or equatable with intelligence, productivity, positive mental health, and originality. It has been described as being caused by self- actualization and by sublimation and restitution of destructive impulses. (134) However, there seems to be growing concensus that |creativity must be seen as a total process involving all its component parts. Anderson wrote: | The product and process are both important. Without the process there would not be the product, j Without the product or evidence of action or j achievement there might not be more than fantasy. | That creativity is to be regarded as both process and product, including intangible productions such ! as discussions and decisions of committee meetings, | is consistent with the views expressed or implied by each of the authors in this booh. (8:243) Some authors define creativity as the life— the total life process— of the fully functioning person as he interacts with his environment in the production of some- 121 thing novel. For instance, Rogers stated: "My definition, then, of the creative process is that it is the emergence in action of a novel relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual on the one hand, and the mate rials, events, peoples, or circumstances of life on the other" (87:71). Rogers is also quoted as saying, "Creativ ity is the production and disclosure of a new fact, law relationship device or product, process, or system based ! generally on available knowledge but not following direct- I |ly, easily, simply, or even by usual logical processes from j j j the guiding information at hand. ..." (9:108) i j ! Tead stressed that creativity is both a means and ) 4 j an end in the living of life. Life is seen as a perennial | ! challenge to participate positively in society in a crea tive and unique manner. "In this sense creativity becomes j one of the major channels and goals of life itself. It is intrinsic to the life process fully lived" (99:108). Marksberry believed creativity should not be measured by the product, but by the way an individual deals with life's problems and incidents (60:6). In agreement with Dewey, Marksberry believed a person is being creative every time he makes a discovery that is new to him, even if 122 it has been discovered by others long before. Maslow uses the term creativity in an even broader i ! |connotation: | . . . I soon discovered that I had, like most | other people, been thinking of creativeness in I terms of products, and secondly, I had unconsciously j confined creativeness to certain conventional areas | only of human endeavor . . . as if creativeness were j the sole prerogative of certain professions. . . . i I learned to apply the word "creative" . . . not | only to products but also to people in a character- | ological way, and to activities, processes, and | attitudes. And furthermore, I had come to apply j the word "creative" to many products other than the j standard and conventionally accepted poems, theories, novels, experiments, or paintings to which I had ! hitherto restricted the word. (61:84-85) i ! Andrews was impressed with creativity as a self- !actualization process— the process of individual experience J | jwhich constitutes an expression of being (9:vi). He also stressed that self-enhancement is involved in creativity, I in the sense that one's uniqueness is involved. He con cluded, "To be creative is to be oneself" (9:100). j Moustakas, on the other hand, seemed to hold that i {individual autonomy is central in the creative experience. To be creative means to experience life in one's own way, to perceive from one's own person, to draw upon one's own resources, capacities, roots. It means searching, discovering, becoming aware through one's own courage, grief, joy, suffering, pain, through one's own deliberation, struggle, ; 123 i conflict, and inner solitude. (67:77-78) I May is convinced that creativity is best explained i jas a unique encounter between the person and his world. ! ! In analyzing the creative act we arrive finally at the question: What is this intense encounter with? An encounter is always a meeting between two poles; what is the objective pole of this dia lectical relationship? I shall use a term which will sound too simple: It is the artist's or scientist's encounter with his world. I do not mean the usual connotations of "world"; certainly not environment, not the "sum total" of things around, nor do I refer at all to objects about a thought. All of our English connotations of "world" are emaciated from the cancer of Western thought, | the subject-object split. I use world in the i German sense of Welt. World is the pattern of I meaningful relations in which the person exists and in the design of which he participates. It ! has objective reality, to be sure, but it is not j simply that; world is interrelated to the existing i person at every moment. A continual dialectical | process goes on between world and self, and self and world; one implies the other, and neither can be defined if we omit the other. This is why you can never localize creativity as a subjectiv4 phenomenon; you can never study it in terms simply of what goes on within the person. The pole of j world is an inseparable part of the creativity of the given individual. (62:65) ! It appears then that a general consensus would have l it that creativity must be seen as a total situation involving the individual, his encounter with the environ ment, and the novel products that are forthcoming. How ever, as it shall be seen later, for the purpose of test 124 ing, it seems essential that a value judgment be made on the basis of the product. The importance of creativity I Creativity is one of the most precious national products. The high standard of living achieved in this nation is a result of the creative efforts of many of its own citizens plus those of the world. However, Dewey has warned of the danger of becoming so enmeshed in the !services offered by the creative products of the past that 1 |we lose the faculty of being creative (233). \ ! Marksberry saw the development of creative powers Ion the part of the people as the means of survival; | Now, more than ever before in our history, 1 creativity and its ramifications are occupying our attention. The incredible advance in knowl edge, both constructive and destructive, by the sciences of the Eastern and Western hemispheres ! has placed us in a position where creative approaches to physical realities as well as to the problems of complex human relations can mean the difference between survival or annihilation. Individuals, groups, and nations are faced with the choice of | creating new ways of meeting these changes or of facing disaster. (60;3) Guilford listed several reasons why he considered creativity especially important at this time. These in clude; a struggle for survival in an age when the power of I 125 ] i world destruction lies within the power of man; the avoid ance of boredom through the direction of leisure-time activities into creative effort; and challenges of the space age in a world that has suddenly grown small (34: I 1142-43). He concluded, "From any aspect from which we may |view the scene, the needs for creativity are enormous" (34:143). In the context of this study, creativity and values are seen as complementing each other. Creativity comes to |be positive and desirable as a part of the total develop- | |ment of the individual, a development in which values guide ! :the creative talents into channels of personal and social j !usefulness. Creativity then becomes increasingly important I in terms of this total development. Gray emphasized the |thought that a society cannot afford to lose such potential; : . I |when he wrote: | A society which permits a significant portion of | its members to work at levels below their capabili- | ties is failing to achieve its full potential j strength. The ability of a society to progress, | the ability to better the goals for which it strives, I and the skill and wisdom with which it meets its challenges are likely to be the decisive factors in determining its fate. . . . The wisdom of the society is the wisdom of its members. Thus a society can attain its full potential only when each of its mem bers is enabled to contribute as fully as his individual abilities permit. (236:3) | 126 i Thoughts similar to those presented by Gray were expressed by Wolfle (109:137) and by the 1956 publication of the Educational Policies Commission on manpower and education (252:7). ! The nature of creativity Guilford has apparently given the key to under standing the nature of creativity with his announcement regarding divergent as opposed to convergent thinking (138). In a later explanation, Guilford showed the con- itrast between these two types of thought patterns: | Another factor was identified as an interest in or liking for convergent thinking. Convergent thinking . . . involves thinking toward one right i answer, or toward a relatively uniquely determined | answer. A companion factor was defined as an ' interest in or liking for divergent thinking, a type of thinking in which considerable searching about is done and a number of answers will do. (34:151) | The great interest in the gifted child has perhaps j < |opened the way to an appreciation and study of creativity, ] j but in some ways it also appears to have obscured creativ ity, at least to the extent that creativity is not related to high IQ. The IQ test has been limited to that narrow band of intellectual tasks known as convergent thinking (31:2), while as noted above, creativity has to do with 127 divergent thinking. The work of Terman (100), reviewed by Strang (200), was based on the high IQ, and while some of the individuals studied by Terman were highly creative, ! some of them were not. It is since the time of Guilford's i i | monumental work that a search for creativity in other than j |the high IQ individual has taken place. It is important then to note that while there is a positive correlation between IQ and creativity, it is a low correlation (76:26; 31:20). Miller stated: | While there is considerable profusion in the i variety of definitions and perspectives given to the creative person, it is generally agreed that ! the capacity to create is no special prerogative of the highly gifted or of the academically talented ! person, and that the abilities involved can be I developed, at least to some degree, in seemingly j very diverse fields. (64:61-62) ; ! ;Marksberry, however, noted that extremely creative people ! : jusually are in the upper half of the intelligence distribu-j tion (60:6) . | The unique concept that has grown out of research i on creativity is that it appears to be a quality (at least potentially) of all persons (58:130). Getzels and Jackson | (31:13-14) spoke of cognition in terms of two modes— that i of retaining and conserving that which is and that of exploring, constructing, and revising. The latter, of | 128 ' course, is pertinent to creativity. It was their observa tion that the two processes are found in all persons in varying proportions. Fliegler was also of this opinion. He wrote, "All individuals are creative in diverse ways and to different degrees. . . . Essentially, creativity is not some mystical process which occurs only with the few, but exists within each individual" (26:14). Andrews stated categorically, "We all are capable of creative thinking of more or less merit" (8:100). This "in- j commonness" of creative potential has tremendous implica- !tions for education. Fromm1s forceful statement is noted: ! Let me say again that creativity in this sense j does not refer to a quality which particularly gifted persons or artists could achieve, but to an | attitude which every human being should and can achieve. Education for creativity is nothing short of education for living. (28:54) i I j I The question seems naturally to follow: If crea- j ! | j tivity is a common trait, why do not all persons appear i i i to be creative? Lowenfeld gave the following answer in j which he distinguished between potential and functional | i creativeness. I would like to clarify an often misunderstood concept about who is creative and who is not. I believe that one of the outstanding differences between man and animal is that man intentionally 129 creates and the animal does not. That implies that every individual is a potential creator. Unfortun ately, not everybody's creativeness has been developed so that it can properly function. We can, therefore, distinguish between the potential creativeness of an individual and his functional creativeness. The potential creativeness is the creativeness which an individual has but not necessarily can use. The individual may not even I be aware of it. In the process of "learning" or | "maturation" this part of his personality may have | become neglected, inhibited or buried. Potentially, ! he may be a creator but his creativeness cannot | function. The functional creativeness is that part | of an individual's creativeness, which he uses, or | which expresses itself in his work or actions, j (58:130) I ! Historically, there has been considerable question ! |as to whether or not there are different kinds of creativ- i i ity. The prevailing opinion seems to be more and more that |creativity differs only in degree along a continuum (60:7). i i [Stoddard saw creativity as existing along a continuum of !personal and social growth (94:187). Fliegler asserted that "the nature of creativity remains the same whether i j jone is producing a new game or a symphony" (26:14). Rogers } i ; was also of this conviction, as noted in his following i | statement: j Creativity is not, in my judgment, restricted to some particular content. I am assuming that there is no fundamental difference in the creative process as it is evidenced in painting a picture, composing a symphony, devising new instruments of i 130 killing, developing a scientific theory, discovering new procedures in human relationships, or creating new formings of one1s own personality as in psycho therapy. (87:71) I Barron clarifies the interrelation between the i ! | |divergent and the convergent involved in creativity as follows: Discovery in science requires divergent think ing; the careful validating of discovery demands a second kind of mental process, convergent thinking. | It is convergent thinking which brings the pieces together and works out orderly, logical progressions. Both ways of thinking are important, but originality occurs only when divergent thinking is taking place. (13:4) | While it seems true that there is a sameness in j |creativity, there still appears to be a variety of ways in j I which it may manifest itself. Eisner believed there are i i i at least four ways in which this may occur (128). He j t ’mentioned: boundary pushing, inventing, boundary breaking, j I :and aesthetic reorganizing. Taylor mentioned five levels; 1 sheer spontaneity, or expressive creativity; productive jcreativity, or that which involves number and usefulness; j |inventive creativity involving new relationships and uses; I innovative creativity which has to do with the altering of concepts; and finally, emergentive creativity or the expression of radically different concepts. Taylor be- | 131 lieved these to be progressively of higher order (98:69). j The manner in which creativity occurs has also been I |carefully studied, with a considerable unity of conclusion, |although the "labeling" may differ. Pliegler offered a i |comprehensive ordering of what is involved as indicated in I |the following eight steps: (1) Man begins by absorbing the symbols of his environment, a process followed by analysis and interpretation, after which he evolves a be havior response to stimulate an act or thought. This IPliegler calls the developmental preparatory stage. (2) !He then enters the development of a need stage. This is related to the motivational impetus for the creative act. iNeed comes from the necessity of solving a perplexing ! ;situation, or from the interest in pushing the frontiers ; ' I ■of the unknown to the unknowable. (3) Next comes the I | ' i :selection of the problem phase, with the individual choos- j I jing the kinds of ideas or problems which he desires to I I explore in an attempt to reduce his needs and elevate his !ego. (4) The fourth phase is the well-known incubation period, followed by (5) illumination, (6) evaluation, (7) reformulation, and (8) re-evaluation. Fliegler holds that the last two may or may not be present (26:21-23). | 132 ] Characteristics of the creative individual | There appears to he a fairly well-defined set of i i characteristics which are particular to the creative I person. ! Kneller spoke of the creative person as intelli gent, possessed of awareness, fluent, flexible, original, able to elaborate, skeptical, persistent, intellectually playful, nonconforming, self-confident, and having a sense iof humor (52:62-68). | Torrance (104:31-47) and Rubin (192) observed that i ;the creative student is often a discipline problem in the jclassroom because he tends to diverge from the value stand- iard of the teacher. Taylor saw the creative individual as possessing ! i j ;both intellectual and motivational-interest characteristics! j (95:3-21). The intellectual characteristics include j adaptive flexibility and the ability to sense problems | l i (valid indicators of creative talent). Motivational- | I |interest characteristics include tolerance of ambiguity, freedom to be a nonconformist, and eagerness to try the difficult (factors aiding in the expression of creative ability). __ _______ ! 133 i j | Guilford found the creative subject to be impulsive, i I 1 ascendent, tolerant of ambiguity, and less in need of discipline and orderliness (258). Impulsivity and ascend- ence, he believed, were related to ideational fluency, while tolerance of ambiguity and less need of discipline land orderliness were related to originality. i j ! Marksberry stated that while various researchers have nomenclatures which differ, the qualities they depict generally include i . . . curiosity about the environment, open- mindedness, wondering or inquiring about things, | objectivity, flexibility, intellectual playfulness and humor, indifference toward conformity to many cultural stereotypes, willingness and eagerness to | try new ideas, willingness to work long hours over I long periods of time, willingness to be alone : physically and figuratively, confidence in one's own ability, sensitivity to various sensory stimuli in the environment, and strong interests. (60:7) [ ; Miller made reference to both intellectual and non-I jintellectual factors possessed by the creative subject: | I Creative persons are distinguished in several ' modalities of personality. They are more independent j than conforming, more complex than placid? they are { highly perceptive and possess broad ranges of curi- | osity, self-confidence, maturity, drive, and energy. S They are unusually fluent and flexible. Openness to new experiences, coupled with far-reaching genuine interests, lack of repression, and high motivation make them authentically independent per sons. With distinctly developed abilities of obser vation and retention, they thereby automatically 134 possess a wide source of raw material. They are to transform and recombine in innumerable unique I ways to solve problems or to suggest novel approaches j and untried relationships. ! Personal attributes such as self-confidence, impulsiveness, attitude, alertness, and strong motivation are important to creative production. | Creative persons are interested and, consequently, ! interesting persons. They combine tenacity with | enthusiasm and great curiosity. Creative persons are able to see oblique rela tionships and to draw diverse implications; they are not troubled by unimportant details. Since they j avoid obvious and customary approaches to problems, j we label them as "ingenious." (64:63-64) McKinnon, who has studied extensively into the * characteristics which seem to be possessed by the highly |creative individual, stressed qualities such as the follow- ; ing: : . . . openness to experience, . . . freedom from ! crippling restraints and impoverishing inhibitions, . . . esthetic sensitivity, . . . cognitive flexibility, . . . independence in thought and action, . . . high level of creative energy, . . . | unquestioning commitment to creative endeavor, and . . . unceasing striving for solution to the ever more difficult problems that he constantly sets for himself. (169) j Sorokin pointed out that a creative person is not j always equally creative but tends to fluctuate in intensity and fruitfulness, running the course from extremely novel \ expressions to zero creativity (90:2-9). He spoke of the "flashlike unexpectedness" and the "impulsiveness" of 135 creativeness. It was his contention that a creative per son is always limited in the expression of his creativity to one or a few fields of culture. Barron held that the more original person has more i i |energy and drive, more striving for mastery, and more | effectiveness in his performance than does his less original counterpart (13:8). He is also more impulsive in his re- |sponse to emotions, more flexible, able to tolerate ambi guity, and is personally dominant and self-assertive. Virtue believed there is comparability between the view of freedom pertinent to the philosophies of creativity land existentionalism: We recognize ourselves as organized, and constantly re-organized, centers of self-directed activity. We are conscious of being acted upon by all sorts of forces and agents in our environ ment, but we are most conscious of ourselves as selves when we are aware of our own self-direction; and we are aware of losing our deepest self- identity when we are no longer in control of our selves, but are simply responding to, and in terms of, the pressures of environment. (107:61) Numerous studies have shown women to be more crea tive than men. A study by Abdel-Razik (228) comparing freshmen with seniors on a number of creativity tests found women to be more creative than men. Klausmeier and Wiersma (153) administered tests of divergent and convergent_______ 136 thinking to 320 fifth and sixth graders. They stated that girls generally scored higher on divergent thinking tests, while hoys tended to score higher on the convergent think ing tests. Trembly also reported that his research showed ifemales at all age levels scoring higher than males on j creative thinking potential (247). Wonderly found that girls tended to score higher than boys on the Minnesota Tests of Creative Ability (223). McElvain's work indicated at least one conflicting voice. Creativity tests scores of !209 teachers showed no significant sex difference (168). | As has already been noted above, persons do not | i tend to be consistently creative. In addition, there are i jtimes when noticeable slumps appear to occur. One such | !decrease in creativity was reported by Torrance to be at ; ] |age five (248), while a second slump area seems to be at I I the fourth grade (155, 209, 239). Also, studies of crea tive persons indicate peaks of creative activity. Trembly | (247) reported a peak in the mid-twenties, while Andrews ! (9:100) reported that the best creative work is most likely to be produced between thirty and forty years of age. Teachers and creativity A number of studies have indicated that the 137 creative student may cause some degree of discomfort to the teacher. Eisner charged that "teachers do not seem to j prefer the highly creative adolescent in their classrooms" i i | (128). Getzels and Jackson concluded from their study |that teachers prefer the high IQ to the high creative (31: |30). Torrance replicated this finding (210). It would i seem reasonable that the spirit of independence and unre- |lenting curiosity possessed by the creative youth, as com- I i ! Spared to others, would tend to make him somewhat more of j |a problem than other students (126). However, opinion is !not unanimous on this point. Richards, in a study of 119 males and females in a Salt Lake City public high school ! (189), did not confirm Getzels' and Jackson's conclusions, ireporting no discrimination against the creative students in favor of the high IQ students. Whatever one may conclude on the above point, it S does seem that teacher and creative student values do I :differ, and this to the detriment of the creative student. i |Torrance undertook to answer the question, "What kinds of i ! persons do secondary teachers want students to become?" He concluded after his survey that secondary teachers prefer courtesy over courageousness in one's convictions, 138 getting work done over being curious, and being obedient and sincere over being self-confident, self-sufficient, and versatile (213). He stated that these were all values likely to inhibit the creativity of the student. Margolin found that teachers value neatness, orderliness, and quiet- i i ness, all of which she believed could interfere with crea tivity (165). An additional study by Torrance (104) and one by Rubin (192) also confirmed the fundamental value orientations of the creative student and the teacher, i |which may lead to discipline problems. Gardner's study of i !the creative ability of seventh grade students employed, i ! jamong other measures, teachers' ratings (235). He reported ! |a "halo effect" on the socially desirable attributes in i jthe ratings of the teachers. I | I There appear to be other aspects of the classroom |climate which tend to discourage creative expression. Torrance lamented the "evaluation proneness" of the typical classroom and pushed for "unevaluated" learning (208). He i told of a kindergarten teacher who failed a student when he added cowboy boots and a hat to the teacher's dittoed drawing. He stated: 139 Most children by the time they reach fourth grade are apparently so accustomed to having every thing they do evaluated and counted against them that it may take several experiences before they really mike use of time given them for unevaluated practice and experimentation. (208) i i | Biber bemoaned the fact that in the school there i is a tradition of imposing a structure of subject domi- j nated, logical-objective over the intuitive-subjective feelings of the child and that this begins so early in the I school experience, except for unusual individuals any j inclination toward creativity is either inhibited or diminished (112). Hilgard spoke of the single direction iof the problem-solving characteristic of the school, which ; is traditionally emphasized, until it interferes with any |possibility of new learning (39:167). One study of college students indicated that the wrong methods of instruction | |may destroy the inquiring attitude and quench the spark of ;creativity (256). Meuller asked the question, "Can the public school foster creativity?" (171) He expressed | strong doubts that the conformist tendencies in the public i j school will allow the encouragement of creativity. In a most pessimistic statement, Anderson presented the picture of what may happenin the school: | 140 ! ! A modern term for the deprivation of sensory, | emotional, and cognitive experience, for the arbi- | trary selectivity by one person of what another S may see, do, feel, or think is brainwashing.% One j might think that brainwashing is a psychological j technique of recent Chinese origin; that is not so. j Brainwashing of children has been a technique of ! child training in the Western culture for centuries, j As growth is made up of small activities, increments, I experiences, so the cultural deprivation of experi- | ence, the so-called socializing, the polite cultural | brainwashing of children is made up of small inci dents, small obstructions, small deflections. Like lead poisoning in the blood stream, cultural brain washing of children at home and at school is not sudden, dramatic, or easily detected. But after months and years, if the child has not revolted, I the spirit becomes heavy, the motivation is slug gish, and activity lacks direction, meaning, and pur- | pose. The spark of creativity becomes stifled, i Out of such deprivations of spontaneous experience, I do children become uncreative, unimaginative, self- conscious, self-protecting conformists? (8:139) i j j As indicated, the student who has a creative spark i imay resist the effort to dominate his mind. A study by |Brewer concluded that the more dominating teachers have a i higher incidence of nonconforming behavior in the child, supporting the hypothesis that domination incites resist ance (117). When the student begins to resist, he may not ! ! have the wisdom to channel his resistance correctly and \ consequently may involve himself in patterns of action that bring about permanent injury. For instance, Carpenter found that children may become dishonest when they sense \ r 141 they are being maneuvered by the teacher (120). They may adopt whatever answer or action necessary to please the teacher, but their action is deceptive and insincere. Ojemann indicated that mental ill health may occur when |the creative child is not appreciated and encouraged in his creativity (76:34). His whole feeling of adequacy and security may be undermined when he sees his best efforts repulsed and discouraged. Encouraging creativity i | Increasing attention is given in the public school i I to the importance of encouraging creative development. jHowever, it appears that much more could be done. Guilford ! I J recommended that the whole emphasis of the school on learn ing needs to undergo a change. He stated, ; Realization that the more conspicuously creative I abilities appear to be concentrated in the divergent- ; thinking category, and also to some extent in the j transformation category, we may now ask whether we j have been giving these skills appropriate exercise. It is probably true that we need a better balance j of training in the divergent-thinking area as com- | pared with training in convergent thinking and in j critical thinking or evaluation. (139) Taylor and Barron underscored the importance of understanding the fundamental nature of creative talent, in order to be able to identify it and to prepare an 142 |environment in the classroom that is hospitable to it (97). ! (This is in line with Marksberry's recommendation that creativity be a "definite aim carefully cultivated rather than left a by-product of social conditions" (60:5). i I One of the most important aspects of encouraging ! creativity seems to be a general spirit of permissiveness, or uncensoredness, toward those who are in the classroom f I (121). In order for this to be true, the teacher must permit the students to run the risk involved in creative ! effort without causing them to suffer unduely if they are i I mistaken in their conclusion (177) . | ; Freedom is perhaps even a stronger concept than I | permissiveness, although there is considerable overlap. | | Starkweather used the concept of freedom in the sense of ■ unstructuredness. He wrote, j . . . The individual will become or achieve his | potentialities by using his own means rather than | those forced upon him. To do this, the individual | must be relatively free from inhibition, free to make novel combinations of ideas, free to express his curiosity and imagination. . . . (92:1-2) However, as Marksberry stressed, this does not mean the j atmosphere should be laissez faire (60:21). While it should be informal and permissive, it must also be suppor tive . ; 143 j i Thorndike's statements on problem-solving are also very pertinent to the encouragement of creative expression. i | I He recommended an atmosphere friendly to questions, one | !which treats all questions positively, even though they may i |be inconvenient or embarrassing. This he contrasts with |the very rigid approach which will not permit questions which are not within the context of the "book” (101:211). i i Sutcliffe pointed out the importance of proper models for the developing student (246:44). He believed the teacher has an important function in this instance. i I Lockhart also stated that the teacher must be a good ;example, one who manifests the qualities that will allow | the expression of creative ability. She also indicated the importance of a proper atmosphere (freedom from the commonplace, from the methodized, and from the dogmatized) land the opportunity to exercise creative talent (57:58-59). | Schachtel stated that in the very process of | 1 ;teaching, in transmitting the current sociocultural views I of the world, there must of necessity be an opening and a |closing of the world so far as the learner is involved I ! (88:187). The point seems to be that of keeping the closed portion as small as possible. 144 In a reasonably comprehensive statement, Marks berry gave five principles involved in the creative cli mate: (1) The type behavior implied by the objective must be available to the student, (2) The type behavior jdesired within the problem situation must be within the ability range of the student, (3) The student should be able to achieve some degree of satisfaction in the satis fying of the implied objective, (4) The teacher must remember that many different experiences may be used to i | arrive at a common educational goal, and (5) Several j different outcomes may come from the same learning experi- j i . ence (60:13-14). i Linderman mentioned a number of attributes which he believed should be encouraged and developed in the | child (159). His indication was to parents, but would be j equally applicable to teachers. He said that creativity j in a child grows as he is encouraged to be an originator, an idea-tracker (able to cast out many ideas and possible solutions until the best is found), an imagination stormer (giving full vent to curiosity and questioning), indepen dent, expressive, flexible, and perceptually alert. Taylor suggested the importance of maintaining a 145 balance between the transmission of knowledge and creative thinking which will keep the student out on the edge of discovery (202, 203, 204). He also stressed the value of learning to listen creatively, so that every experience is examined for inconsistencies or for novelty. The teacher too, according to Taylor, must learn to be a careful listener, in order to pick up and feed back to the student any creative production he might evoke. I f j Torrance, who perhaps more than any other has given i \ | consideration to the problem of teaching for creativity, j i ilisted the following suggestions for the teacher: (1) Be | I respectful of unusual questions and ideas of gifted | children, (2) Show children their ideas have value, (3) i ! : Provide opportunities for self-initiated learnings, (4) • Provide for periods of nonevaluated practice for learning, ; I i < ; | (5) Provide materials which develop imagination, (6) Pro- ! vide materials which enrich imagery, (7) Permit time for J thinking and day-dreaming, (8) Give student's writing j | some concrete comment, (9) Accept the student's true t | individuality, (10) Prize, do not punish, true individ uality, (11) Be cautious about editing student's writings, (12) Encourage students to play with words, (13) Love 146 |them and let them know it, (14) Make students sensitive |to environmental stimuli, (15) Develop tolerance of new |ideas, (16) Beware of forcing a set pattern, (17) Teach I !skills for avoiding peer sanctions, (18) Give information i J |about the creative process, (19) Make available resources | for working out ideas, and (20) Encourage acquisition of knowledge in a wide variety of fields (211, 212, 104). The problem of conformity While there are many problems that deter the jdevelopment of creativity, the one most frequently dis- 1 1 i icussed is that of conformity. However, various authors ;would warn against the development of an either/or situa- |tion so far as conformity-nonconformity are concerned. ;Lowenfeld has declared, "It should . . . be stressed that |originality for originality's sake is just as harmful as |conformity for conformity's sake" (58:141). The point seems to be that a balance must be found between the two. j Fertig emphasized what appears to be a proper measure of j conformity in the following statement: It must promptly be stated that there can be no creative individual or social group or society without at least a measure of conformity. The individual needs to confine and control 147 (discipline) his actions, the community must have its traditions and laws, while the classroom re quires rules of study, and of conduct. Progressive education at its extreme sought to do without rules of conformity or standards for the sake of releas ing pupil creativity . . . to the detriment of both pupils and creative endeavor. (131) i | Yamamoto, in a study of 358 fifth graders, investi- |gated the correlation between creativity and norm conform- j |ity and concluded: | Weight of evidence was against a clear, negative relationship between creativity and group conformity, although there was a slight indication of differen- ! tial conforming behaviors among the children of ! different creativity levels. i . . . So far as ordinary people are concerned, j creative thinking as currently measured is not so , close a correlate of social conformity as generally | believed. (225) Gardner believed the overstressing of conformity i as a negative factor in the developing of creative ability !is unjustified. He stated, j The argument usually presented is that con- | formity to group values impels restriction of j freedom in thinking as well as of freedom in social j behavior, an argument that is based more on the j emotional reaction of theorists toward authority ! and conformity than on logic. Children who are 1 able to conform to the demands of a benign author ity should develop into adults who have internal ized values and need not devote their energies to a constant battle against external value systems. (235:52) Maddi also thought the case against conformity has ibeen overplayed (163). He referred to it as an "old I j |wive's tale." His conclusion was that if there is a proper balance between the stress for conformity and freedom within the personality of the individual, creativity can |still result. ! ' S Then, in speaking of conformity as a hindrance to creative expression, an unbalanced state in the direction |of conformity must be considered. | The overconformist, according to Hilgard, will end I |up a traditionalist rather than an innovator (39:180). He i !will also lose his freedom, according to Nathan. He wrote, j i"Gentlemen, let me assure you we lose our freedom when men i i !begin to talk and step like their neighbors, even before | 'the guns begin" (74:12). Dewey was concerned that the growing emphasis on j j iconformity would eventually destroy man's ability to think jfor himself. He said, "This similarity is the outward ■ counterpart and symbol of the forces that make for mental I i juniformity and that tend to stifle mental independence" i | (233). i i I In the following strongly worded statement, Mous- takas held that the conformist fails to achieve life: 149 In conformity, life has no meaning. There is no true basis of existence. Cut off from his own real wishes, for his own capacities, the individual experiences no fulfillment, no self-realizing satis faction, no sense of authentic relatedness. He strives to achieve safety and status. He strives to overcome his natural desires and to gain a vic tory over his natural surroundings. His goals are acquisition and control. Separated from nature and others yet appearing to be in harmony, he tabes his cues from the designated authority figures. The conforming person does not use his own re sources, his own experiences, but takes his direction from experts, authority figures and traditional guides. Somewhere along the way he has given up his actual identity and submerged himself into acceptable group modes. He has been rejected by others as a unique, independent self and he has come to reject himself. He is cut off from vital self-resources which would enable him to grow in accordance with his talents and to find his place in the world. He has lost touch with himself. Failure to grow as a self results from a failure to maintain a unique identity in significant or crucial situations, and an inability to meet others directly and honestly, with expressions of living love. Following traditional patterns and external guides, basing one's life on competitive striving and the rewards of the market place, modeling one self after people in authority or with high status, the individual no longer knows who he is. He does not mean what he says and^does not do what he be lieves and feels. He learns to respond with surface or approved thoughts. He learns to use devious and indirect ways, and to base his behavior on the standards and expectations of others. He moves toward falsehood, fakery, pretense, and being on guard, often without being aware that this is not a truthful existence. His values and convictions do not emerge from real esqperience but from a feel ing of danger and anxiety, from a fear of not keep ing pace, a fear of being minimized, and a desire 150 to be protected from rejection and attack. Cut off from his own self, he is unable to-have honest j experiences with others. . He is unable to commune j with nature. His life is predicated on appearance, | deceptions, and controlling behavior. Without any ! deep and growing roots, he moves in accordance with | external signals. He does not know his place in j the world, his position, where he is or who he is. I He has lost touch with his own nature, his own I spontaneity. He is unable to be a direct, genuine, j loving human being. (67:87-88, 92-93) i 1Moustakas also quoted an interesting insight into conform- | |ity written by a girl in the seventh grade: | In this day and age, I think people are trying ! to stress conformity too much. These people think j that in our schools everyone should develop the | same habits and skills, be given the same amount | of learning, all on the same subject. This kind ! of conformity can keep people from using their | creativeness and ability to the fullest extent. | Conformity can cause other troubles. It gives ! you misconceptions of people. You judge a person I by his group while the person might be entirely | different from the group. I do not believe in ; doing what the guy before you did. I think every- | one can think and create for himself. Our schools I and churches and homes are stressing conformity today. If we could gather up enough courage to I be ourselves instead of copying our neighbors, | the world would be a lot happier place to live. | (67:90-91) | Maslow saw individual development in terms of I defense and growth. He said there is a basic contrast | within the human personality in terms of defense (which would be characterized by conformity) and growth (which would be characterized by questioning and creativeness) 151 (168) . Ideally, man should be able to strike a healthy balance between these two basic needs, but many may not. If man is overextended toward safety (conformity), he may then sacrifice much of the joy of true life. | In terms of frequency of conforming, two groups j |have been differentiated. Torrance has found that those of lower status tend to acquiese to those of higher status, even as one might expect (106:482-92). Crutchfield, in i . his study of college women (123), and Torrance, in his study of children (248), found females to be more conform- j ing on the average than males. I Many studies have been conducted to try to ascer- | tain why persons tend to become overconformists. The I iresults have been most interesting. ; Eisner found that students may not express novel I t : ] views or ideas if they bring criticism or nonacceptance | ^ ! from peers (128). Lombardi found conformity to be signifi- j cant in terms of group acceptance (160). In other words, an individual might inhibit creative esqpression in the interest of group acceptance, or in order to be allowed to continue as a qualified member of the group. London and Lim found conformity to be related to uncertainty as to 152 the correct task solution (161). If the person is not quite sure of his own judgment or solution, he tends to cleave to that of the group. Berenda concluded that the pressure to conformity increases as the task difficulty increases (15). Schachter showed that the group tends to i punish the nonconformer (194). Jackson and Saltzstein found, in their study at the University of Michigan, that rejection tends to increase conformity (145). Murray and Kluckhohn (72) and Allport (3:83-88) spoke of the negative | |quality of "oversocialization." It may be that many of i j society's basic institutions are so involved in leading I I ithe young into the paths of proper socialization that they forget man has the opportunity of not only inheriting the ipast, but also of building upon the past. j The brotherhood of man is illustrated in a study j I j 1 iat Swarthmore College undertaken by Asch (11). He found i |that support decreases conformity. In the development of ; the experiment, it was shown that if one other person in j the group appeared to be in agreement with the individual, conformity dropped at once. It would seem that people do not need much support, but they often may need some before they will express a contrary opinion. This finding has 153 jtremendous implication for both teachers and parents. I I j Barron gave a rather complete summary of research i !findings in the area of creativity and conformity: | | . . . (5) Group pressures inhibit originality; ! groups discourage deviate opinions; they exert j pressures on members to conform. These pressures ■ are at work in all organizations; they reduce the I amount of originality available .... (6) | Original people do conform to group pressures, but I they conform less than unoriginal people. (7) I There are different kinds of conformity behavior. | The kind which occurs depends upon the personality of the individual and on the situation in which he finds himself. Support for a deviate opinion, however small, reduces the amount of conformity. I (9) Expert opinion supporting a position tends to increase the amount of conformity with it. (10) 1 People conform more when their actions affect ! other people than they do when they themselves are the only ones affected. (11) People conform more | when they consider that the task of the group is important and relevant to the group's goals. (12) | Status differences within a group increase con formity, discourage deviate opinions, and reduce the effectiveness of group work. (13) People who feel rejected from the group conform more than I people who feel accepted. (14) Participation in decision-making can change the direction of group | goals in conformity pressures. (15) There are steps | management can take to increase originality and to | counteract the negative aspects of conformity pres- | sures. (13:1-2) Summary This portion of the review of literature has brought together information on the subject of creativity from varied sources, particularly that relating to the j 154 school setting. Following some general statements regard- j ing a definition of creativity, its nature and importance, J attention was focused on the characteristics of the crea tive student. Some of the principal problems encountered j in attempting to teach for creativity were presented. | Testing for Creativity Problems involved in creativity testing i One of the thorniest issues in creativity testing | jis that of definitions. Exactly what does the term "crea- j tivity" mean? Thomas suggested several questions which I jperhaps at this point cannot be completely answered (206). | Is it a power or thing waiting to be defined? Does it have ■ a true nature independent of the beliefs about it? Is it a i j |process in which both product and producer must be studied j I in interaction? Is the locus in the situation? The dis cussion among Barron, Fielder, Hyman, McPherson, Westcott, Parnes, Mullins, Leary, Guilford, Levine, Sprecher, Holland, Taylor, Mednick, Harmon, and Biettel on the pro cess versus product issue at the 1962 Utah Conference showed how open this question still is (96:112-21). How ever, Thomas indicated that creativity is usually considered as a global process, which may be differentiated into functional parts and phases (206). It should be added that so far as creativity testing is concerned, for obvious reasons, interest has come to rest on the product. May creativity be spoken of as basically one type, j varying in intensity along a continuum, or are there kinds of creativity? As already suggested, the former concept seems to hold vogue at the present (60:7). The quantity-quality question is also vital. Some | have held that the quantitative aspect was the more impor- 'tant (150). Others have tended to give weight to the I I Squalitative (58:129). i i From the standpoint of testing, the quantitative j nature of creativity does not pose such a severe problem, | but what about the qualitative nature? Here, a value i I i I judgment is involved. On what basis is something creative to be valued? Is it possible that the very nature of cre- I | ative activity removes it from the area of value judgments? How different or novel must something be to be designated creative? Is it necessary that it never have been discovered before? Or is it enough that it be new 156 for the discoverer? In addition to problems which come from difficul ties involved with definitions of creativity, there have been great barriers raised by unfortunate assumptions. |A principal one of these has been the assumption that the very popular intelligence test adequately identifies the j "gifted" student. As a matter of fact, many studious in j this area believe that the IQ test is a very inadequate individuator of creativity. Getzels and Jackson lamented i I what they considered a prime factor in the creativity lag: I First, it (i.e., the concept that the gifted ' student is adequately defined by the IQ test) sug- ; gests that the common intelligence test samples all, | or at least a sufficiently broad range, of known ; cognitive abilities. It thus discourages the obser- | vation of other types of cognitive functioning. On ; the contrary, the items on the typical intelligence test seemed to us to represent a rather narrow band ! ; of intellectual tasks, relying chiefly on those j | requiring in Guilford's terms "convergent thinking" and neglecting those requiring "divergent thinking." To do well on the typical intelligence test, the i subject must be able to recall and to recognize, | perhaps even to solve; he need not necessarily be j able to invent or innovate. (30:2) j It is the contention of Getzels and Jackson that 1 | the concept of giftedness must be enlarged to include the student who is possessed of the ability to be divergent in this thinking (30:3). They noted that there appears to be jno significant correlation between creativity and intelli- |gence. | Thorndike also pointed out that investigators have united in saying creativity is different and distinct from abstract intelligence as measured by standard intelligence tests (207). He stated that correlations from zero to .40 have been found between tests of creativity and IQ tests. However, he says that nothing is generally mentioned about the equally low correlation that exists between creativity I tests. It is his suggestion that "creativity" and "crea- ; itive" be used with caution until tests provide more infor- i jmation on validity and reliability. i i | Creativity tests Within recent years, a number of creativity tests j . j have been produced by important research centers dedicated jto the study of creativity. These centers shall here be |identified and their tests briefly reviewed. j The Institute of Personality Assessment and 1 jResearch is located at Berkeley, California. Barron, as i l the chief investigator, has produced a battery of eight tests for the assessment of creativity. He described them as follows: 158 Unusual Uses Test: The subject is asked to list six uses to which a common object can be put. Such object might be a newspaper. The answers are scored for infrequency. The less often the answer is given, the higher the score. One answer to the newspaper question might be, "cut up for a kidnap note." This answer is given infrequently and re ceives a high score. Consequences Test: The sub ject is asked to write down all the things he can think of which might happen if a stated change took place. Such a change might be this: "What would happen if suddenly everyone could read minds?" Again, the least obvious, most infrequent answers receive the highest score. Plot Titles Test: The subject is given two short stories and he is asked to make up as many titles as he can. This test is scored by experts on a scale of cleverness. Ror schach Ink Blot Test: The subject is asked to give responses to the ink blots. The answers given are scored for infrequency of response but they must make some sense. Bizarre answers which don't seem to be based on reality are not counted. Anagrams Test; The subject is given a test word like generation and asked to make up as many words as possible, using those letters. The test is scored for infrequency. Thematic Apperception Test; The sub ject is given pictures and asked to make up stories about them. These tests are scored by two raters working independently. They score the answers on a nine point scale of originality. Word Rearrangement Test; The subject is given a random list of words and asked to compose a story using as many of the words as possible. Again, the test is scored on a nine point scale of originality. Achromatic Ink Blot Test; This is similar to the Rorschach test and it, too, is scored for infrequency of response. . . . These are all free response tests. The answers must be summoned from within. Furthermore, the tests require different kinds of originality. The two ink blot tests call for visual originality. The Thematic Apperception Test, and the Word Re arrangement Test call for verbal originality. Con sequences and Unusual Uses bring out the bright idea 159 j kind of originality. Plot Titles requires adept- | ness at slogans, and Anagrams requires word fluency. | Statistically, the scores on the individual tests j do not correlate highly with each other or with the composite score. People usually are better at one i kind of test than another. The visually original | are not necessarily verbally original as well. How ever, people who do very well on one usually have ! higher than average scores on most of the others. (13:5-6) The Bureau of Educational Research of the Univer sity of Minnesota has been conducting studies of creativity i i |since 1958. It has been the stated purpose of this re- | I search center to assess creativity from childhood through i i I the graduate school. Torrance (105), who has been the |guiding force at the University of Minnesota in the area of I creativity research, listed the following tests designed i |to measure divergent thinking: (1) The Ask and Guess Test presents a picture and then asks questions which can- ! ! 1 i I !not be answered by looking at the picture. Next, the sub- j j 1 !ject is asked to make guesses about the causes of the I i lsituation and to imagine consequences. Responses are ? jevaluated in terms of Guilford's factors. (2) The Product Improvement Test requires that the subject be presented a i small stuffed dog and a small stuffed monkey. He is then asked to imagine ways of changing the toy animals to make them more attractive for children to play with. Answers 160 are scored for ideational fluency, flexibility, inventive level, and originality. (3) The Unusual Uses Test also involves the same toy animals mentioned above and asks the j |subject to think of the most clever and unusual uses jpossible (other than as play things) to which they may be I put. The answers are scored in terms of fluency, flexi bility, inventive level, and originality. (4) A second Unusual Uses Test allows the subject to view tin cans and j books. He is then asked to mention the most clever, ! !interesting and unusual uses possible for the cans and E !books. Scoring is based on fluency, flexibility, and ' ;originality. (5) The Mother Hubbard Problem asks the I subject to mention all the possible things Mother Hubbard i 1 f i could have done when she finds no bone in the cupboard, i The answers are scored for fluency and quality. (6) The i ; I ! ’ i | Cow Jumping Problem asks the testee to mention all the ! | possible things that could have happened when the cow | jumped over the moon. Scoring is for fluency, and quality. | (7) The Imaginative Stories Test entails the writing of a story in terms of a title which the subject picks from titles that are furnished. Scoring is for fluency, flexi bility, and originality. (8) The Impossibilities Test asks that the subject list as many impossibilities as he can think of. He is scored for fluency, flexibility, and | ; originality. (9) The Consequences Test deals with "what would happen if" situations, with three situations being ipresented. Scoring is for fluency, flexibility, and i i | originality. (10) The Just Suppose Test presents six improbable situations and asks the subject to suppose all the things that might happen if they were to come to pass. j | Scoring is for fluency, flexibility, and originality. | ! (11) The Situations Test requires the subject to offer a i solution to certain situations that hypothetically occur. |Scoring is for fluency, flexibility, and originality. ! (12) The Common Problems Test challenges the subject to |think of as many problems as he can in some situations : ! ithat are presented to him. Scoring is for fluency, flexi- i | bility, and originality. (13) The Improvements Test asks i i |the subject to think of as many ways as possible to improve !certain common items. Scoring is for fluency, flexibility, j and originality. (14) The Auditory Stimuli Test permits !the subject to hear four unusual sound effects on the basis i of which creative writing or drawing is to be undertaken. (15) The Creative Design Test furnishes the subject with circles and stripes of various sizes and colors, a four- page booklet, and scissors and glue. He is to construct pictures or designs from them. He may also add other symbols with crayon or pencil. The scoring is not as yet developed. (16) The Incomplete Figures Test furnishes i jthe subject with six figures, which may be completed in i any way he desires. He is then to label each design. I [Scoring is for originality, complexity, closure, and productivity. (17) The Picture Construction Task involves j the use of a blank sheet of paper and a piece of glued i I colored paper. The subject is asked to glue the colored paper on the blank sheet, and then build a picture or de- I sign around it. He is to give it a label or title when he j j i [has completed his work. Scoring is for originality, |elaboration, sensitivity, communication, and activity. i | (18) The Circles and Squares Test presents the subject ! I I with a sheet filled with squares. He is to use a circle 1 1 as a main part of his drawing and then with the circle and squares plus whatever other lines he may draw, he is to make as many objects as he can. They are to be labeled. Scoring is for fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. As elsewhere mentioned, it has been largely through | 163 ! i the efforts of Guilford and his staff at the University of Southern California that great national and worldwide interest has been directed to the study of creativity. Much of the contributions of others in this area has been i ion the basis of or a rethinking of Guilford's work. ! It has been Guilford's theory that creativity is i \ j |best expressed in terms of those abilities most character- |istic of creative people (138). Through factor analysis, Guilford individuated the following distinct abilities i I which he holds are involved in creative production: (1) |Sensitivity to Problems, (2) Fluency of Thinking, (3) I ! iFlexibility of Thinking, (4) Originality, (5) Propensity j :for Elaboration, and (6) Redefinition. These form the ! basis of Guilford's Group Test of Creativity (GTOC), and ;each shall be noted briefly. ; i (1) Sensitivity to Problems is based on Guilford's | belief that one cannot work on a problem until he recog- Inizes that it exists. The tests devised by Guilford in i i j this area ask the subject to note deficiencies m some i I ! | common device or social institution. (2) Fluency of Thinking suggests Guilford's theory that holding constant the quality of ideas, the persons who experience a rapid 164 i |flow of ideas would have the advantage so far as creativity ! | is concerned. Pour kinds of fluency have been identified in his studies: word fluency (the ability to think of words rapidly), ideational fluency (the ability to think of ideas i |rapidly), associational fluency (the ability to think of I associations rapidly), and expressional fluency (the i | ability to express words in an organized way rapidly). (3) Flexibility of Thinking is based on Guilford1s con cept that creative people tend to reject conventional and ipreviously successful ways. Flexibility has been further | broken down into two types: spontaneous flexibility (the i i itendency to jump from one category to another) and adaptive I ■ flexibility (the ability to use various approaches in I I ! problem solving). (4) Originality deals with the theory [ ; : that the creative person is an original thinker who does I not tend to merely repeat others' thinking. (5) Propen- t sity for Elaboration (or planning ability) involves the | necessity of filling in the details of a skeleton plan or [ i j project of some kind. (6) Redefinition suggests a change | in Guilford's original theory that creativity dealt exclu sively with divergent productions and transformations. Subsequent research led him to realize the value including 165 convergent productions. He has reported three redefinition factors: gestalt redefinition (involving the ability to give new meanings to the use of an object), symbolic re definition (involving the ability to regroup letters of ! familiar words to make new ones), and figural redefinition | (the ability to discover hidden figures in a complex line drawing). ! | Getzel and Jackson (31:17-19), under the auspices | of the University of Chicago, devised a battery of !creativity tests largely adapted from or related to Guil- ■ ford's tests. The tests used in their now famous work, |Creativity and Intelligence, dealt in general with the j i 1 ability of the subject to handle inventively verbal and j 'numerical systems and object-space relations. The five ;creativity measures described in their work are as follows:! : I ! I | (1) Word Associations in which subjects are asked to give i j as many definitions as possible to some common stimulus ! ! words; (2) Uses for Things involves the presentation of |objects with stereotyped functions with the request that ] as many uses as possible be given; (3) Hidden Shapes required the subject to find given geometric form hidden in more complex patterns; (4) Fables has to do with four 166 fables for each of which the subject is to write a moral istic, a humorous, and a sad ending; (5) Make-up Problems presents the subject with four complex paragraphs, each of which contains various numerical statements. He is then to present as many mathematical problems as possible which i i can be solved with the information given. Witty1s statement, "It should be recognized that the present tests of creativity are not suitable for class- ! room use," (220) may be somewhat of an overstatement, but i | nonetheless much more work must be done on both the theo- |retical basis of creativity and the validity and reliabil- i i ity of the measuring instruments before tests of creativity can produce their potential promise. One possible impor- ! I tant breakthrough may be the new test of creativity by ! Risser and Metfessel, developed at the university of i i j Southern California. It appears to be a more simple objec tive approach to the measuring of creativity and may ap- I | proach the long-desired "culture fair" test. This instru ment includes tests of Redefinition, Fluency of Thinking, Flexibility of Thinking, Originality, Propensity for Elaboration, and Sensitivity to Problems. The development of this series of tests will be followed with interest. 167 For a fuller discussion of creativity tests, the reader is referred to Taylor and Holland (205), who pre sented the condition of present-day research in creativity and discussed the traditional measures of creativity, the concepts of multidimensions of the mind, and the single test studies of creativity. The works of Guilford, Stein, Cattell, Getzels and Jackson, Torrance, and Taylor are discussed by Taylor and Holland (205). Opinions regarding tests |of creativity j I Statements already quoted by Thorndike (207) and I ! jWitty (220) indicate that researchers are still very much | aware of problems involved in attempting to test creativ- i 1 i ity. The following general statements appear to be true |and worthy of consideration by those interested in crea- i i tivity research: I j 1. The studious researchers and writers in the j j area of creativity measurement are far from | unanimous as to any one definition of creativ ity and its component parts. 2. No existing test has been shown to test successfully the whole of creativity, although 168 the theoretical framework of Guilford certainly is an important guideline. 3. ^Since whether or not a person is creative at any given moment appears to be affected by so many variables, it seems most difficult to i compare results of various individuals on a creativity test, or even of the same individual on different tests. I 4. Creativity tests to date have proved extremely | difficult to score objectively. 5. It is difficult to achieve reliability and | validity due to the above reasons. | j Summary I Part four concludes the review of literature and j |has dealt with creativity testing. Attention was directed I to the great problems involved in attempting to design an adequate test of creativity. Various popular tests of creativity were described, including the Group Test of Creativity by Guilford, et al. Summary of the Chapter Chapter II has presented a comprehensive coverage jof the literature in the areas of values and creativity. |The discussion of values included a definition of the concept and a thorough study of values in the school set ting. A survey of current values tests was presented, with special attention directed to the Semantic Differen- !tial. The portion of the chapter directed to the consid eration of the literature regarding creativity discussed i I the difficulty involved in attempting to define this term I I !In addition, attention was given to the importance of j | creativity, the nature of creativity, characteristics of the creative individual, teaching creativity, and the j |problem of conformity. A review of creativity testing i i j concluded the chapter. CHAPTER III ! THE RESEARCH DESIGN i l i I j This chapter presents-a description of the research | !design treated in this report. There is first a descrip tion of the population which served as the basis of the study, followed by a discussion of the instruments used, land the statistical approach that was chosen. i I The research population The experimental population was drawn from five |junior high schools in the Los Angeles school district: | |Belvedere, Dana, Hollenbeck, Nightingale, and San Fernando. !The staff of Project Potential, under the direction of Dr. I Newton Metfessel, chief investigator, gathered data during i the school year of 1964-65 on 1,631 students at the seventh grade level. This represented the total population of that | j grade, with the exception of those who were absent at I I various times during the period of testing and thus did not have complete records. The data obtained from the above 170 171 mentioned students involved an IQ score, sex classification socioeconomic level, and values and creativity scores. For the purpose of this research, and in order that IQ not be a contaminant, only the students falling within the average IQ range (90 to 110) were used. This limited the population to 569. Since the force of this study was directed to an examination of the differences between the lvalues of the high and low creative seventh grade students, l i j |the decision was made to compare the first and fourth I quartiles according to the creativity scores. This further limitation resulted in a group of 139 high creative sub- i I i |jects and 141 low creative subjects. Thus, the total experimental population was reduced to 280. This population was also broken down in terms of sex and socioeconomic status. The resultant group sizes were as follows: Classification Classification Combinations Combinations (High Creative) (Low Creative) HC 139 LC 141 HCB 75 LCB 77 HCG 64 LCG 64 HCCD 67 LCCD 68 HCNCD 72 LCNCD 73 HCCDB 33 LCCDB 36 HCCDG 34 LCCDG 31 HCNCDB 42 LCNCDB 41 HCNCDG 30 LCNCDG 33 The purpose of this study was to eixplore the differ ences between the values of the high and low creative stu- I ? |dents. Therefore, no account was taken of the main effects ]of sex and socioeconomic status. Only the main effect of creativity and the interactions of creativity X sex, creativity X socioeconomic status, and creativity X sex X socioeconomic status were considered. I i I instruments | The California Test of Mental Maturity (CTMM), Short Form, Junior High Level, 1957 edition, served to i |designate the intelligence level of the research population. ; The instrument used by the staff of Project i i i Potential as a measurer of values was the Meaning of Words j J jInventory (Metfessel, 1958) commonly referred to as MOWI. j ' I The MOWI is an adaptation of Osgood's Semantic Differential t 'which is more fully described in the review of literature. i The MOWI involves ten key values areas which are broken down into thirty value concepts. These concepts were selected by Metfessel on the basis of research findings over the period 1958-1961. This research specifically 173 involved the problem of the achievement motive. The MOWI areas and concepts are as follows: Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 5. My best friends 6. Older kids Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups 8. Ideal parents 9. Most people Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 11. Homework 12. Arithmetic 13. Taking tests 14. School 15. Reading 16. Studying Success Patterns 17. First grade 18. My grades 19. Rich people 20. Poor people Authority Relationships 174 21. Rules 22. Discipline Goal Direction 23. College 24. Success 25. My future Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me 27. Me 28. My school ability i 29. Person I would like to be i Spontaneous Interest ! 30. Clubs and organizations j The basic approach of the MOWI does not differ from | I the usual form of the Semantic Differential. There is a | I seven-unit scale separating nine sets of bipolar adjectives | I chosen from a table of rotated factor loadings obtained | by Thurstone's Centroid method of factorization, which 1 has three sets of adjectives measuring the evaluative, three measuring the potency, and three measuring the i j activity content of each value concept. The adjectives according to the factor measured were: evaluative— fair- unfair, pleasant-unpleasant, and sweet-sour; potency— strong-weak, large-small, and heavy-light; and the activity— active-passive, sharp-dull, and fast-slow. 175 During the administration of the MOWI, each subject in the experimental population is asked to rate the value concepts in terms of the nine above mentioned sets of adjectives. This yields a total of 270 scores (thirty concepts X nine scales). In this manner, it is possible to discern and compare the feelings of the subjects in terms of the values of the MOWI. Guilford* s Group Test of Creativity, commonly re ferred to as GTOC, was the instrument employed by the staff |of Project Potential to measure the creativity level of the I subjects of this study. The GTOC furnishes six subtest i | !scores and a total creativity score. The six areas meas- i lured resulted from Guilford's study of the characteristics I j jof highly creative people. The areas are as follows: |Sensitivity to Problems, Fluency of Thinking, Flexibility iof Thinking, Originality, Propensity for Elaboration, and ! |Redefinition. A description of the GTOC as prepared by the |staff of Project Potential may be found in Appendix A. i Statistical approach The Z or t tests (depending upon sample size) were used to test the difference between group means on the E, Pf and A factors of the MOWI. The twenty-five group 176 comparisons involved in this study were drawn from the following categories: 1. High creative (HC) 2. Low creative (LC) 3. High creative boys (HCB) 4. Low creative boys (LCB) 5. High creative girls (HCG) 6. Low creative girls (LCG) 7. High creative, nonculturally deprived (HCNCD) 8. Low creative, nonculturally deprived (LCNCD) 9. High creative, culturally deprived (HCCD) 10. Low creative, culturally deprived (LCCD) 11. High creative, nonculturally deprived boys (HCNCDB) 12. Low creative, nonculturally deprived boys (LCNCDB) 13. High creative, nonculturally deprived girls (HCNCDG) 14. Low creative, nonculturally deprived girls (LCNCDG) 15. High creative, culturally deprived boys (HCCDB) 177 16. Low creative, culturally deprived boys (LCCDB) • 17. High creative, culturally deprived girls (HCCDG) 18. Low creative, culturally deprived girls (LCCDG) The data obtained from the MOWI on each subject | were placed on five IBM cards. A program which had been prepared by the Project Potential staff was employed for the treatment of the data. All calculations were under- |taken on the Honeywell 800 computer at the Computer i i ;Sciences Laboratory at the University of Southern Califor- jnia. This program provided means, standard deviations, and standard error of the means on each subject. It was necessary to complete the Z and t calculations by hand. The total number of calculations thus obtained was 2,250 (twenty-five group comparisons X thirty concepts X three factors). Tables were prepared which included the 2,250 comparisons and the significance levels. In order to facilitate visually the comparison of the groups, graphs were prepared and are included in chart form as Appendix B of this study. 178 Summary of the Chapter This chapter has presented an account of the sampling procedures by which the research population was obtained. A description of the instruments used in the process of the Project Potential study was also given. In addition, a brief explanation of the statistical approach was included. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of the Z and t tests comparisons of the means of the various groups of the perceived meaning of thirty MOWI value concepts of high and low creative seventh grade boys and girls (Guilford's GTOC) of average intelligence (90 to |110 IQ on the CTMM). The analysis is based upon a compari- I .son of the evaluation (E), potency (P), and activity (A) i factors of the concepts of the MOWI and is graphically J |displayed in terms of the creativity, sex, and socio- 1 economic groupings. i j Z and t tests for differences (between means I------------------------------ ! The statistical model for the study involved a comparison of means of the following groups on the E, P, and A factors for the thirty MOWI concepts, either in terms of the Z or the t test, depending upon sample size: 179 180 1. HC VS LC 2. HCB vs LCB 3. LCB VS HCG 4. HCG VS LCG 5. LCG vs HCB 6. HCNCD VS LCNCD 7. LCNCD VS HCCD 8. HCCD VS HCNCD 9. LCCD vs HCNCD 10. HCCDB vs LCCDB 11. LCCDB vs HCCDG 12. HCCDG VS LCCDG 13. LCCDG vs HCCDB 14. HCNCDB VS LCNCDB 15. LCNCDB vs HCNCDG 16. HCNCDG VS LCNCDG 17. LCNCDG VS HCNCDB 18. HCNCDB VS LCCDB 19. LCCDB vs HCNCDG 20. HCNCDG vs LCCDG 21. LCCDG vs HCNCDB 22. HCCDB VS LCNCDB 181 23. LCNCDB vs HCCDG 24. HCCDG vs LCNCDG 25. LCNCDG vs HCCDB MOWI concepts I The concepts of the MOWI are divided into the following ten areas: Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades ' Social Relations j ' — — - i i ! | 5. My best friends ; 6. Older kids i j Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups i 8. Ideal parents ; 9. Most people | Moral and Social Values i i i 10. People who work very hard I I Perceiving Utility of School Experiences i 11. Homework 12. Arithmetic 13. Taking tests 14. School 15. Reading 16. Studying 182 Success Patterns 17. First grade 18. My grades 19. Rich people 20. Poor people Authority Relationships 21. Rules 22. Discipline Goal Direction 23. College 24. Success 25. My future Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me 27. Me | 28. My school ability ! 29. Person I would like to be | Spontaneous Interest 30. Clubs and organizations f ; Charts and tables Tables 1 through 7, placed at the end of this j chapter, present the means and standard deviations of the twenty-five group comparisons, while Charts 1 through 25, lA through 25A, and IB through 25B (Appendix B) present line graph descriptions of the means to facilitate comparisons. Since this study represents a probing into an area where very little scientific research has been done, it was decided to accept as significant all results reaching the 5 per cent level of confidence. Therefore, all differ ences significant at both the 5 per cent and the 1 per cent ! i jlevel are indicated on the tables in terms of the Z or t i j test calculations, and those values which did not reach this level are labeled nonsignificant (NS). In the course of the interpretation of the data, this writer observed i |closely to see if Osgood's contention that "... differ- j !ences in measured meaning as small as one-half a scale unit I ;are significant at the 5 per cent level" (79:328) would j !hold true. In the writer's experience, this statement is i I |true only with large groups. When the groups become small i (combined totals of less than 100), the standard error of j j | i | !the mean increases markedly, making much larger differences! 1 I !than one-half a scale unit necessary for significance at i | I the 5 per cent level. However, all differences which did j |achieve at least one-half a scale unit are indicated with 3 I an asterisk on the tables, although these are not consid-- ered significant for the purposes of this research (unless shown so by the normal statistical formulas). It will be I 184 I noted in the interpretation of the data that where definite I j -trends exist in favor of a particular group, attention has been called to these even though the differences are not significant. The findings are discussed in terras of I ! j j creativity group comparisons m the ten forementioned ! major areas. The abbreviations presented under the defini tions of terms and used in the table and chart presenta tions will be used in the narrative that follows to effect I jan economy of reading time. I ] Area one: Associations 1 Concept 1. Teachers.— A comparison of the various j group means on the E factor for this concept showed that jHCG differed from LCB, significant at the .01 level i (Table 2); LCG differed from HCB, significant at the .05 I I jlevel (Table 2); HCCDG differed from LCCDB, significant at | jthe .05 level (Table 4); LCCDG differed from HCCDB, sig nificant at the .05 level (Table 4); HCNCDG differed from ILCNCDB, significant at the .05 level (Table 5); and HCNCDG ! differed from LCCDB, significant at the .05 level (Table 5). In each instance the girls indicated a more positive attitude toward teachers than did the boys. None of the remaining nineteen comparisons showed significa n t _____ differences on this factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P factor for this concept showed no significant differences between the means. | ! A comparison of the various group means on the A factor for this concept showed no significant differences between the means. | Charts 1 through 25 reveal that girls in almost all cases tended to score teachers more positively than did |boys on all the factors, even though only the above men- |tioned differences reached significance. Concept 2. Ideal teachers.— A comparison of the 'various group means on the E factor for this concept i i ! |revealed that LCG differed from HCB, significant at the ! .05 level (Table 2); LCNCDG differed from HCNCDB, signifi- I cant at the .05 level (Table 5); and LCNCDG differed from HCCD^ significant at the .05 level (Table 7). In each case, the girls saw ideal teachers as having a more posi- i } tive value than did the boys. None of the remaining i twenty-two comparisons showed significant differences on this factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P 186 factor for this concept showed no significant differences jbetween the groups. A comparison of the various group means on the A factor for this concept showed no significant differences ibetween the groups. I ! Charts 1 through 25 indicate that while the differ ences are not significant in cases other than those men tioned, there was a trend for the girls to see the ideal I iteacher as more valuable, more potent, and more actxve j I than did the boys. i I Concept 3. Students who get good grades.— A com- | ;parison of the various group means on the E factor for this i I |concept revealed that LCCDG scored more positively than |did HCCDG, significant at the .01 level (Table 4); and j LCNCDG indicated a higher value on this concept than did i i ' J |HCCDG, significant at the .01 level (Table 7). None of the l i j remaining twenty-three comparisons showed significant |differences on this factor. | A comparison of the various group means on the P factor for this concept showed no significant differences between the means. A comparison of the various group means on the A 187 factor for this concept revealed that HCCDB judged students who get good grades as more active than did LCCDB, signifi cant at the .05 level (Table 4). None of the remaining twenty-four comparisons was significant on this factor. Charts 1A through 25A reveal no constant pattern of |differences between the groups. Concept 4. Students who get poor grades.— A com parison of the various group means on the E factor for this concept showed HCG giving a higher value to this concept !than did LCG (Table 2), and HCNCDG exceeded LCCDG (Table 6) |both at the .05 level. None of the remaining twenty-three i comparisons showed significant differences on this factor. | ! A comparison of the various group means on the P |factor for this concept revealed no significant differ- ;ences. f | A comparison of the various group means on the A | factor for this concept revealed that HCB judged students [who get poor grades as more active than did LCG, signifi- ! I |cant at the .05 level (Table 2). None of the remaining i twenty-four comparisons showed significant differences on this concept. Charts 1A through 25A indicate that, while the I 188 j differences were not significant other than in the cases listed above, the HC groups were consistently more positive i i on all the factors for this concept than were the LC groups. ! Summary.— No general pattbrn was discerned in favor of either the HC or LC students in the MOWI area. Associa tions. A sex-determined characteristic unassociated with either creativity or socioeconomic status appeared for the ! I concept, Teachers. Six of the ten girl-boy comparisons | |reached significance on the E factor, with the girls j j excelling. In addition, there was a general positive trend ) : in favor of the girls on all factors for this concept. For I | 'the concept, Ideal teachers, a difference in favor of LCG j i over HCB was found on the E factor. Three of the five | group comparisons reached significance, while the remaining ! ! two comparisons were definitely in favor of LCG. For the j concept. Students who get good grades, the significant ! j differences were all in favor of the LC groups. While not j jeverywhere consistent, the LC groups did appear to value i this concept more highly than did the HC groups. Con versely, for the concept. Students who get poor grades, the two comparisons which reached significance favored the 189 HC groups, and there was a readily discernible trend on all i the factors in favor of the HC groups. ! Area two; Social Relations ' Concept 5. My best friends.— A comparison of the various group means on the E factor for this concept showed no significant differences among the groups. A comparison of the various group means on the P 1 factor for this concept showed no significant differences among the groups. j A comparison of the various group means on the A i I * factor revealed that LCNCDB judged this concept more active j I ithan did HCNCDG, significant at the .05 level (Table 5). j None of the remaining twenty-four comparisons showed : significant differences on this concept. | Charts 1A through 25A indicate a general trend, I | although not significant except m the one case indicated, i j in favor of the LC groups who rated their best friends as more valuable, more powerful, and more active than did the HC groups. Concept 6. Older kids.— A comparison of the vari ous group means on the E factor for this concept revealed that HCG gave a higher value to this concept than did LCG,_ 190 significant at the .05 level (Table 2). None of the re maining twenty-four comparisons showed significant differ ences on this factor. | j A comparison of the various group means on the P i | factor for this concept showed no significant differences between the groups. A comparison of the various group means on the A factor for this concept revealed that HCCD differed from I iliCCD, significant at the .05 level (Table 3), and HCCDG !differed from LCCDG, significant at the .05 level (Table | 4). In both instances the HC groups saw older kids as more i | active than did the LC groups. None of the remaining I 'twenty-three comparisons showed significant differences on I I |this concept. Charts IB through 25B indicate that while the HC i ! i groups tended to view older kids as more valuable and more active than did the LC groups, the LC groups tended to view j |older kids as more powerful. However, these were only jtrends, since the differences were not significant except I in the cases mentioned. Summary.— There were few significant differences I in the various group mean comparisons for the concepts, 191 My best friends and Older kids. However, a trend involving group differences did appear to be present. While the LC groups tended to view their best friends more positively on all factors, the HC groups tended to view older kids as i ! jmore valuable and more active but less powerful than did ithe LC groups. t I jArea three: Adult Approval | | Concept 7. Grown-ups.— A comparison of the various |group means on the E factor for this concept indicated that ! !LCCDG held a more favorable attitude toward grown-ups than i Idid HCCDB, significant at the .05 level (Table 4). Also, i HCNCDG were found to be more positive toward grown-ups than i i !were LCCDG, significant at the .05 level (Table 6). None of the remaining twenty-three comparisons showed signifi cant differences on this factor. | A comparison of the various group means on the P i j factor for this concept showed no significant differences ! between the groups. A comparison of the various group means on the A I factor for this concept revealed no significant differences between the groups. ______Charts IB through 25B indicate a trend, not | 192 ] significant except in the cases mentioned, for the girls to value grown-ups more highly than the boys. Concept 8. Ideal parents.— A comparison of the 'various group means on the E, P, and A factors for this i ! |concept indicated no significant differences between the | groups. Charts IB through 25B show that the HC groups tended to see ideal parents as more potent than did the LC groups. While none of these differences reached sig nificance, they were without exception in favor of the HC i |groups. Concept 9. Most people.— A comparison of the 'various group means on the E, P, and A factors for this l [ l |concept indicated no significant differences between the I groups. I | j Charts 1 through 25 show no particular trend among I ! i ; i |the groups. j i Summary.— In addition to the groups which reached j ; i ;significance (both of which were girls), the girls through out indicated a more positive value for grown-ups than did the boys. Since none of the other variables were constant, this indicates the presence of a sex characteristic unre- 193 lated to creativity or socioeconomic status. While there were no significant differences between the group means on any of the factors for the concept, Ideal parents, the HC groups consistently indicated that they considered ideal I I parents to be more powerful than did the LC groups. Area four; Moral and Social Values Concept 10. People who work very hard.— A compari- |son of the various group means on the E factor for this j |concept showed no significant differences between the j I groups. i A comparison of the various group means on the P 1 i factor for this concept revealed that LCB rated the concept I more powerful than did HCG, significant at the .05 level ; (Table 2). None of the remaining twenty-four comparisons |showed significant differences on this factor. | A comparison of the various group means on the A i I j |factor for this concept showed no significant differences i |between the groups. | Charts IB through 25B reveal that while the differ- I I I jences were not significant, in all cases the HC group gave a more positive value to people who work very hard than I did the LC . . groups. ____ : _______________ _________________ 194 Summary.— The only significant difference on the concept, People who work very hard, favored LCB over HCG on the P factor. It should be observed that all groups scored consistently high on this concept, even though the i I |HC groups tended to evaluate it more positively than did the LC groups. Area five: Perceiving Utility of School Experiences Concept 11. Homework.— A comparison of the various i i ;group means on the E, P, and A factors for this concept i i jrevealed no significant differences between the groups. { i Charts 1A through 25A reveal that all the group ! means were less than 4, indicating a general negativeness j i ' toward homework. While the differences were not signifi- i cant, the LC groups tended to score this concept lower thanj 5 i |did the HC groups. ( j Concept 12. Arithmetic.— A comparison of the I ivarious group means on the E, P, and A factors for this I concept showed no significant differences between the groups. Charts 1A through 25A reveal that while the differ- ences do not reach significance, with few exceptions the i 195 HC groups tended to value arithmetic more highly than did the LC groups. Concept 13. Taking tests.— A comparison of the various group means on the E factor for this concept | showed that HCNCDG judged taking tests more positively than j did LCCDG, significant at the .05 level (Table 6). None of the remaining twenty-four comparisons showed significant !differences on this factor. | A comparison of the various group means on the P |factor for this concept revealed no significant differences ;between the groups. | | A comparison of the various group means on the A | I factor for this concept showed no significant differences i jbetween the groups. Charts 1A through 25A show an almost total tendency jfor the HC groups to score higher than the LC groups on all i the factors for the concept, Taking tests, although only the one comparison mentioned above reached significance. j | Concept 14. School.— A comparison of the various group means on the E, P, and A factors for this concept showed no significant differences between the groups. Charts 1A through 25A indicate a sex difference. 196 While the differences did not reach significance, the girls did tend to have a more favorable attitude toward school than did the boys. | Concept 15.' Reading.— A comparison of the various i i I group means on the E factor for this concept revealed that iLCG valued reading more highly than did HOB, significant [ I |at the .05 level (Table 2); HCNCDG exceeded LCNCDB, i E | significant at the .05 level (Table 5); HCNCDG exceeded I ILCCDB, significant at the .01 level (Table 6); and LCNCDG I ; exceeded HCCDB, significant at the .05 level (Table 7). [ | None of the remaining twenty-one comparisons showed sig- ; nificant differences on this factor. E i I A comparison of the various group means on the P I i : factor for this concept revealed no significant differences between the groups. A comparison of the various group means on the A factor for this concept revealed no significant differences | between the groups. Charts 1A through 25A show both sex and socio economic characteristics. It will be noted that all the above mentioned differences are on the E factor, and in each case the girls valued reading more than did the boys. I | 197 The girls in all the boy-girl comparisons consistently indicated a higher value for reading than did the hoys, although only those mentioned achieved significance. Two of the above significant differences showed the NCD groups had more positive attitudes toward reading than did the CD jgroups. Further investigation revealed that in all the | NCD-CD comparisons, the NCD valued reading more highly !although only the differences indicated were significant. i ^ i ! Concept 16. Studying.— A comparison of the various i | group means on the E factor for this concept showed that | HCNCDG valued studying more highly than did LCNCDG, signif icant at the .05 level (Table 5). None of the remaining j | twenty-four comparisons showed significant differences on t f this factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P i factor for this concept showed no significant differences i between the groups. A comparison of the various group means for the A ! factor for this concept revealed no significant differences | between the groups. Charts 1A through 25A indicate no trend or pattern of differences between the groups. ' 198 r i i ! Summary.— It is not possible from this study to ! ! :designate a general trend among the groups for the MOWI | larea, Perceiving the Utility of School Experiences. The i LC groups appeared to value homework more highly than did i , , i ! I the HC groups. The HC groups tended to value arithmetic I more highly than did the LCJ groups. For the concept, Taking tests, the HC groups tended to score higher than !did the LC groups on all three factors (E, P, and A). jGirls tended to value school more highly than did boys, i |while girls and NCD groups tended to value reading more !highly than did boys and CD groups. There appear to be no |particular trends among the groups for the concept, Study- | ing. Area six: Success Patterns ; i i ;■ ! Concept 17. First grade.— A comparison of the ! i various group means on the E factor for this concept I j revealed that LCNCDG valued the first grade more highly than did both HCCDG and HCCDB, significant at the .05 level i (Table 7). None of the remaining twenty-three comparisons reached significance on this factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P factor for this concept showed no significant differences | 199 | jbetween the groups. | i A comparison of the various group means on the A i i factor for this concept revealed that HC groups differed from LC groups (Table 1); HCNCD differed from LCCD (Table i ! I 13); HCCDG differed from LCCDG (Table 4); HCNCDG differed |from LCCDG (Table 6); and HCNCDB differed from LCCDG !(Table 6), all significant at the .05 level. In each i i jinstance, the HC group judged the first grade more active i i than did the LC group. None of the remaining twenty i jcomparisons showed significant differences on this factor. | Charts IB through 25B show that LC groups tended to i :value the first grade more highly than did the HC groups | iby two to one. In the eight instances where the HC groups !indicated a higher value than did the LC groups for this ' i ■concept, seven of these involved the NCD groups. The |eighth case was HCG. On the P factor, the HC groups with- |out exception scored higher than did the LC groups. While | I the above mentioned significant differences on the A factor i j jail involved the HC groups, LC groups exceeded the HC | groups on the A factor as often as they were exceeded by them. Concept 18. My grades.— A comparison of the 200 i |various group means on the E factor for this concept showed | |HCG differed from LCB (Table 2), and HCNCDG differed from LCNCDB (Table 5), both significant at the .05 level. In each instance the HC group indicated a more positive value ■ for their grades than did the LC group. None of the re- i maining twenty-three comparisons showed significant differ ences on this factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P factor for this concept revealed no significant differences ■ between the groups. j A comparison of the various group means on the A j | factor for this concept showed no significant differences i I between the groups. | Charts IB through 25B indicate that in all but two I of the twenty-five comparisons, the HC groups valued their j ! i | grades (on the E factor) more highly than did the LC groups. ! j Concept 19. Rich people.— A comparison of the i j various group means on the E factor for this concept i I revealed that HCCDG valued rich people more highly than I did LCCDB, significant at the .05 level (Table 4). None of the remaining twenty-four comparisons showed significant differences on this factor. 201 A comparison of the various group means on the P factor for this concept showed no significant differences between the groups. A comparison of the various group means for the A factor for this concept revealed no significant differ- I I ences between the groups. Charts IB through 25B indicate a trend among the LC groups to consider rich people more potent than do the HC groups. In only one of the twenty-five comparisons did | the HC group exceed the LC group. i j Concept 20. Poor people.— A comparison of the j !various group mean differences on the E, P, and A factors !for this concept revealed no significant differences i | |between the groups. I Charts IB through 25B reveal no particular trends 1 | i among the groups for the concept, Poor people. Summary.— No clear pattern is discernible for the !MOWI area, Success Patterns. As noted above, two of the i j LC groups exceeded the HC groups significantly on the E factor for the concept, First grade, but when differences of any magnitude are taken into consideration, two-thirds of the HC groups exceeded the LC groups. When the P factor 202 was considered for this concept, the HC groups were found to exceed the LC groups in every case, although the differ ences were not significant. An examination of the A factor for the concept, First grade, reveals that while four of the HC groups differed significantly from the LC groups, in almost half of the group comparisons for this factor, the LC groups exceeded the HC groups, although the differ ences were not significant. For the concept, My grades, in all but one of the group comparisons the HC groups j ivalued this concept on the P factor more highly than did i ! |the LC groups. Three of these comparisons reached signifi cance. The concept, Rich people, had only one comparison I preaching significance, with the HC group indicating a ^higher value for this concept than the LC group. However, I ;in twenty-three of the twenty-five comparisons on the P } |factor, the LC groups indicated rich people were more powerful than did the HC groups. For the concept, Poor people, only chance differences appeared to be present. i i j Area seven; Authority Relationships j Concept 21. Rules.— A comparison of the various group means on the E, P, and A factors for this concept indicated no significant differences between the groups. 203 Charts IB through 25B reveal that all of the re search population scored rules low on the* E factor, with only one of the twenty-five groups scoring as high as 4. While the differences between the groups were not signif icant, in all cases HCB showed the least positive attitude j |toward this concept. In eight out of ten boy-girl compari- I jsons, the girls indicated a higher value for rules. For I the P factor, in twenty-one of the twenty-five comparisons ! |the HC groups judged rules more potent. I Concept 22. Discipline.— A comparison of the !various group means on the E, P, and A factors for this concept revealed no significant differences between the t groups. Charts IB through 25B reveal that this population jhad a generally negative view of discipline, with only four I ! | jof the twenty-five group means reaching 4. There appeared j to be no particular distinction between the groups on the E factor, but in twenty-four of the twenty-five comparisons | on the P factor the HC groups exceeded the LC groups. Summary.— All groups tended to consider the con cepts, Rules and Discipline, of low value. HCB were par ticularly negative in their evaluation of rules. However, 204 the HC groups generally considered both rules and discipline more powerful than did the LC groups. i Area eight: Goal Direction Concept 23. College.— A comparison of the various i ! I group means on the E factor for this concept revealed that HCCDB valued college more highly than did LCNCDG, signifi cant at the .05 level (Table 7). None of the remaining j twenty-four comparisons showed significant differences on this factor. I A comparison of the various group means on the P j !factor for this concept revealed no significant differences j between the groups. j A comparison of the various group means on the A i i factor for this concept revealed that HCB judged college i I i |more active than did LCG, significant at the .05 level (Table 2). None of the remaining twenty-four comparisons showed significant differences on this factor. ! Charts IB through 25B reveal that in addition to I |the significant difference between HCCDB and LCNCDG on the i j E factor, as mentioned above, there was a general trend for the HC groups to give the concept. College, a more positive value than did the LC groups. This was true in twenty-__ j 205 i three of the twenty-five comparisons. The P factor did not differentiate between the HC and LC groups on the con cept, College. Although HGB judged this concept more active than did LCG, there was no particular trend in favor |of either HC or LC groups on the A factor. i ! Concept 24. Success.— A comparison of the various group means for the E, P, and A factors on this concept revealed no significant differences between the groups. j | Charts IB through 25B reveal that while the differ- iences were not significant, the HC groups tended to judge j |success more valuable and more powerful than did the LC groups. In each instance the ratio was twenty-two to i i three. I Concept 25. My future.--A comparison of the vari- ; ous group means for E, P, and A factors for this concept I revealed no significant differences between the means. I i | charts IB through 25B reveal that in twenty-three | of the twenty-five comparisons, the HC groups judged the I concept, My future, more powerful than did the LC groups, although the differences were not significant. Summary.--Perusal of the group means on the various concepts for the MOWI area, Goal Direction, shows signifi 206 cant differences only for the concept, College, with HCCDG valuing this concept more highly than did LCNCDG; and HCB judging this concept more active than did LCG. However, there was a trend for the HC groups to value the concepts, ;College and Success, more highly than did the LC groups. |The HC groups also considered success and my future more 1 ! I powerful than did the LC groups. ! | i Area nine; Self-Concept Concept 26. How my class sees me.— A comparison jof the various group means for the E, P, and A factors i i ! for this concept revealed no significant differences be- i !tween the groups. j j Charts 1 through 25 reveal that while there were no significant differences between the group means for I i this concept, in twenty-one of the twenty-five comparisons I the HC groups indicated a higher value for the concept on i i ! the E factor than did the LC groups. i j Concept 27. Me.— A comparison of the various group i i ! means on the E factor for this concept revealed that HCCDG ! I valued the concept more highly than did LCCDB, significant at the .05 level (Table 4). None of the remaining twenty- four _comparisons showed significant differences on this 207 factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P |factor for this concept revealed no significant differences | jbetween the groups. A comparison of the various group means on the A i |factor for this concept revealed LCB considered the con cept, Me, to be more active than did HCG, significant at the .05 level (Table 2). None of the remaining twenty- j |four comparisons showed significant differences on this i ] i 'factor. i | Charts 1 through 25 reveal that in addition to the ( 'significant differences indicated above, the HC groups | considered the concept. Me, more powerful than did the LC j ;groups. While the differences were not significant, the iHC group exceeded the LC groups in all twenty-five compari- I sons. i Concept 28. My school ability.— A comparison of i i the various group means on the E, P, and A factors for this concept revealed no significant differences between the I j groups. Charts 1 through 25 indicate no specific trend among the groups in favor of either the HC or LC groups. I 208 i Concept 29. Person I would like to be.— A compari son of the various group means on the E factor for this concept revealed that LCB valued the concept more highly than did HCG, significant at the .05 level (Table 2). None I | of the remaining twenty-four comparisons showed significant j ! |differences on this factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P | |factor for this concept revealed no significant differences j Jbetween the groups. ! A comparison of the various group means on the A factor for this concept revealed no significant differences jbetween the groups. I I Charts 1 through 25 indicate no specific trend i ! among the group means in favor of either the HC or the LC ! i groups. ; i i | ! Summary.— The only significant differences between j the HC and LC groups on the concepts for MOWI area, Self- : Concept, were on the E and A factors for the concept. Me, I i j and on the E factor for the concept, Person I would like to be. HCCDG considered the concept. Me, of more value than did LCCDB, while LCB considered this concept more active than did HCG. LCB valued the concept, Person I | 209 j |would like to be, more highly than did HCG. There was a I i |trend for the HC groups to consider the concept, How my j class sees me, more valuable than did the LC groups. The HC groups also judged the concept, Me, consistently more |powerful than did the LC groups. In all other comparisons random differences obtained. Area ten; Spontaneous Interest Concept 30. Clubs and organizations.— A comparison of the various group means on the E factor for this concept I I j revealed that HCG valued clubs and organizations more jhighly than did LCB, significant at the .05 level (Table 2). None of the remaining twenty-four comparisons showed !significant differences on this factor. A comparison of the various group means on the P ; |factor for this concept revealed no significant differencesj | between the groups. j j A comparison of the various group means on the A factor for this concept revealed no significant differences between the groups. Charts IB through 25B indicate no specific trend in favor of either the HC or the LC groups. Summary.— With the exception of the one significant 210 comparison mentioned above, there were neither significant differences nor trends among the groups on this concept. Only random differences appeared to be present. Creativity group comparisons In order to give a more adequate overview of the results of the Z and t test comparisons of the various group means considered in this study, the following summary of comparisons is presented. Unless otherwise stated, the differences indicated are all at the .05 level of signifi cance . Associations 1. Teachers E HCG > LCB (.01) LCG > HCB HCCDG > LCCDB LCCDG > HCCDB HCNCDG > LCNCDB HCNCDG > LCCDB 2. Ideal teachers E LCG > HCB LCNCDG > HCNCDB LCNCDG > HCCDB 3. Students who get good grades E 4. Students who get poor grades LCCDG > HCCDG (.01) LCNCDB = > HCCDG (.01) A HCCDB > LCCDB E HCG > LCG HCNCDG > LCCDG A HCB > LCG Social Relations 5. My best friends A 6. Older kids E A Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups E Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard P Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 15. Reading E 16. Studying E Success Patterns 17. First grade E P 18. My grades E 19. Rich people E LCNCDB > HCNCDG HCG > LCG HCCD > LCCD HCCDG > LCCDG LCCDG > HCCDB HCNCDG > LCCDG LCB > HCG LCG > HCB HCNCDG > LCNCDB HCNCDG > LCCDB ( LCNCDG > HCCDB HCNCDG > LCNCDG LCNCDG > HCCDG LCNCDG > HCCDB HC > LC HCNCD > LCCD HCCDG > LCCDG HCNCDG > LCCDG HCNCDB > LCCDG HCG > LCB HCNCDG > LCNCDB HCCDG > LCCDB 212 Goal Direction 23. College Self-Concept 27. Me 29. Person I would like to be Spontaneous Interest 30. Clubs and organizations E P E P E HCCDG > LCNCDG HCB > LCG HCNCDB > LCNCDG HCCDG > LCCDB HCG > LCB HCG > LCG HCG > LCB Some notable observations may be made on the basis i Sof the above significant differences between the groups. i I In the twenty-nine boy-girl comparisons, the girls exceeded (the boys twenty-three times. In the thirteen comparisons involving NCD-CD, the NCD exceeded the CD twelve times. In | i i i |the eleven HC-LC comparisons where sex was not a factor, j ;the HC exceeded the LC nine times. While it was not every- I | |where true, there was a general trend in these same direc- I Itions throughout all of the comparisons. i I i Summary of the Chapter This chapter discussed the results of the various group mean comparisons on the Z or t test in terms of 213 evaluative, potency, and activity factors for the thirty MOWI concepts. The MOWI concepts were categorized into the following major areas: Associations, Social Relations, Adult Approval, Moral and Social Values, Perceiving Utility in School Experiences, Success Patterns, Authority Rela tionships, Goal Direction, Self-Concept, and Spontaneous Interest. The comparison groups were composed according to creativity, sex, and socioeconomic status. | j While significant findings were indicated on either j the E, P, or A factors for all of the major areas except i |Authority Relationships, the number of significant differ ences was few in relation to the total number possible. ! Thirty of the significant differences were on the E factor; i ! nine on the P factor; and five on the A factor. Of the forty-four significant differences reported, thirty favored; ! I ! . 1 I the HC groups over the LC groups. Of the thirteen signifi- I cant differences involving NCD-CD, twelve favored the NCD ; groups over the CD groups. Twenty-nine of the significant j differences between groups involved boy-girl comparisons. Of this number, the girls exceeded the boys twenty-three times. It may then be said, on the basis of the limited 214 number of significant mean differences among the groups, that the HC groups tended to exceed the LC groups; the girls tended to exceed the boys; and the NCD groups tended to exceed the CD groups. In this study attention has been drawn not only to the significant differences but also to the trends discern ible from a study of the data. The following trends were found to be present: Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations Girls > Boys Girls > Boys No pattern HC > LC 5. My best friends LC > HC 6. Older kids HC > LC Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups 8. Ideal parents 9. Most people Girls > Boys HC > LC No pattern E, P, A E, P, A E, P, A E , P, A E, A E P 215 Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of HC > LC E School Experiences 11. Homework LC > HC E, HC > LC P 12. Arithmetic HC > LC E 13. Taking tests HC > LC E, 14. School Girls > Boys E 15. Reading Girls > Boys E NCD > CD E 15 . Studying No pattern Success Patterns 17. First grade LC > HC E NCD > CD E HC > LC P 18. My grades HC > LC E 19. Rich people LC > HC P 20. Poor people No pattern Authority Relationships 21. Rules Girls > Boys E HC > LC P 22. Discipline HC > LC P Goal Direction 23. College HC > LC E 216 ' 24. Success HC > LC E, P i t ! 25. My future HC > LC P Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me HC > LC E 27. Me HC > LC P 28. My school ability No pattern 29. Person I would like to be No pattern Spontaneous Interest 30. Clubs and organizations No pattern It should again be noted that the above indicated |only trends and not significant differences. Tables 1 through 7 which contain the data discussed in this chapter are presented on pages 217 and following. TABIiE 1 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEANS, AND Z RI MOWI CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO Cl Evaluation High Low Hi MOWI Concepts Creative Creative Z Cree Mean SD Mean SD Ratio Mean Associations (N=.139) (N=,141) 1. Teachers 5.56 1.62 5.52 1.76 NS 4.61 2. Ideal teachers 4.31 2.23 4.74 2.11 NS 4.63 3. Students who get good grades 5.65 1.58 5.59 1.64 NS 4.76 4. Students who get poor grades 5.28 1.81 4.87 1.92 NS 4.66 Social Relations 5. My best friends 5.33 1.67 5.43 1.65 NS 4.35 6. Older kids 5.23 2.10 4.80 2.19 NS 4.88 Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups 5.12 1.94 5.12 1.95 NS 3.99 8. Ideal parents 5.01 2.14 4.87 2.03 NS 5.13 9. Most people 5.44 1.58 5.55 1.62 NS 4.62 Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard 6.08 1.48 5.84 1.67 NS 4.95 Perceivinq Utility of School Esqperiences 11. Homework 3.35 2.03 3.57 2.08 NS 5.02 12. Arithmetic 4.36 2.14 4.16 2.25 NS 4.89 13. Taking tests 5.24 1.80 5.00 2.06 NS 5.19 14. School 4.95 1.85 5.07 1.79 NS 4.71 15. Reading 4.24 2.12 4.32 2.13 NS 4.88 16. Studying 5.22 1.86 4.97 1.98 NS 4.57 217 TABLE 1 iNS, AND Z RATIOS FOR E, P, A FACTOR SCORES FOR THE WORDING TO CREATIVITY GROUPINGS Potency Activity z tatio High Creative Low Creative Z Ratio High Creative Low Creative Z Rat.io Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD NS 4.61 1.75 4.82 1.77 NS 5.34 1.62 5.34 1.75 NS NS 4.63 1.78 4.46 1.86 NS 4.35 2.14 4.56 1.99 NS NS 4.76 1.83 4.87 1.79 NS 5.35 1.78 5.13 1.79 NS NS 4.66 1.89 4.58 1.84 NS 4.77 1.95 4.41 1.98 NS NS 4.35 1.80 4.68 1.74 NS 5.03 1.79 5.18 1.68 NS NS 4.88 1.88 4.68 1.86 NS 5.29 1.86 4.90 1.92 NS NS 3.99 1.98 4.09 1.97 NS 4.18 1.95 4.15 1.92 NS NS 5.13 1.78 4.74 1.73 NS 4.94 1.97 4.93 1.67 NS NS 4.62 1.64 4.76 1.73 NS 5.18 1.80 5.29 1.72 NS NS 4.95 2.04 5.03 1.87 NS 5.94 1.59 5.81 1.58 NS NS 5.02 1.73 4.71 1.77 NS 4.00 1.91 4.05 1.95 NS NS 4.89 1.76 4.91 1.87 NS 4.64 2.05 4.49 2.10 NS NS 5.19 1.72 4.91 1.87 NS 5.00 1.91 4.75 2.03 NS NS 4.71 1.86 4.70 1.73 NS 5.02 1.86 4.90 1.82 NS NS 4.88 1.71 4.59 1.91 NS 4.54 1.95 4.49 2.04 NS NS 4.57 1.89 4.64 1.79 NS 5.00 1.87 4.92 1.87 NS TABLE l--Contin MOWI Concepts Evaluation High Creative Low Creative Z Ratio Hi Crea Mean SD Mean SD Mean Success Patterns 17. First grade 4.31 2.23 4.52 2.09 NS 4.63 18. My grades 5.62 1.59 5.34 1.74 NS 4.81 19. Rich people 4.71 2.24 4.57 2.27 NS 4.37 20. Poor people 5.07 1.84 4.87 2.02 NS 4.18 Authority Relationships 21. Rules 3.63 2.06 3.66 2.20 NS 4.97 22. Discipline 3.87 2.18 3.91 2.20 NS 4.94 Goal Direction 23. College 5.52 1.65 5.12 2.00 NS 5.06 24. Success 5.62 1.43 5.50 1.64 NS 4.78 25. My future 4.82 1.99 4.90 2.05 NS 4.98 Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me 5.33 1.70 5.10 1.83 NS 4.65 27. Me 5.02 1.94 4.71 2.09 NS 4.72 28. My school ability 4.40 1.94 4.45 1.96 NS 4.15 29. Person I would lihe to be 5.52 1.81 5.30 1.96 NS 4.77 Spontaneous Interest 30. Clubs and organizations 5.07 1.93 5.02 2.01 NS 4.21 az=2.11 218 BLE 1--Continued Potency Activity z High Creative Low Creative Z High Creative Low Creative Z Ratio Mean SD Mean SD Ratio Mean SD Mean SD Ratio NS 4.63 1.89 4.15 1.88 .05 4.48 2.10 4.47 1.95 NS NS 4.81 1.85 4.65 1.89 NS 5.38 1.58 5.16 1.75 NS NS 4.37 2.06 4.53 1.91 NS 4.71 2.08 4.70 1.98 NS NS 4.18 1.80 4.22 1.82 NS 4.51 1.80 4.46 1.80 NS NS 4.97 1.73 4.78 1.79 NS 4.09 1.96 3.97 1.92 NS NS 4.94 1.69 4.58 1.85 NS 4.32 2.02 4.26 1.96 NS NS 5.06 1.78 5.16 1.76 NS 5.08 1.78 4.74 1.97 NS NS 4.78 1.57 4.65 1.71 NS 5.18 1.58 5.05 1.69 NS NS 4.98 1.72 4.81 1.81 NS 4.76 2.04 4.66 1.96 NS NS 4.65 1.84 4.50 1.86 NS 5.14 1.75 5.03 1.82 NS NS 4.72 1.76 4.31 1.88 NS 4.93 1.99 4.61 2.07 NS NS 4.15 1.76 4.11 1.84 NS 4.19 1.96 4.34 1.99 NS NS 4.77 1.84 4.63 1.86 NS 5.41 1.75 5.30 1.83 NS NS 4.21 1.98 4.27 1.94 NS 4.78 1.98 4.78 2.00 NS TABLE 2 I MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEANS, AND Z RATIOS FOR E, P, A FACTOR SCORES FOR THE ! MOWI CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO CREATIVITY X SEX GROUPINGS Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR j HCB Associations 1. Teachers (N=75) 5.21 1.81 NS 4.60 1.83 NS 5.13 1.74 i I NS i vs 2. Ideal teachers *4.02 2.20 NS 4.60 1.78 NS 4.21 2.11 NS j LCB 3. Students who get good grades 5.62 1.48 NS 4.62 1.84 NS 5.44 1.67 NS ! 4. Students who get poor grades 5.11 1.82 NS 4.63 1.93 NS 4.80 1.88 NS LCB 1. Teachers (N=77) 5.28 1.85 . o i a 4.78 1.78 NS 5.21 1.86 1 j NS 1 V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.56 2.10 NS 4.44 1.84 NS 4.56 1.95 NS | HCG 3. Students who get good grades 5.51 1.55 NS 4.87 1.73 NS 5.11 1.66 NS j 4. Students who get poor grades 5.04 1.77 NS 4.66 1.79 NS 4.64 1.89 NS | HCG 1. Teachers (N=64) 6.00 1.23 NS 4.60 1.65 NS 5.57 1.44 i ! NS | V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.69 2.20 NS 4.69 1.77 NS 4.25 2.15 NS LCG 3. Students who get good grades 5.61 1.70 NSb 4.93 1.81 NS 5.25 1.90 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 5.47 1.78 .05 4.69 1.85 NS *4.73 2.05 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. az=2.701 bZ=2.375 to I - 1 vo TABLE 2— Continued Group MOWI Concepts Evaluation Potency Activity Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR (N=64) LCG 1. Teachers 5.82 1.61 •05b 4.86 1.77 NS 5.49 1.59 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 4.95 2.12 .05 4.48 1.89 NS 4.56 2.03 NS HCB 3. Students who get good grades 5.69 1.73 NS 4.88 1.87 NS 5.14 1.94 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 4.66 2.07 NS 4.48 1.91 NS 4.13 2.06 , .05C Social Relations HCB V S 5. My best friends 5.29 1.63 NS 4.44 1.81 NS 5.24 1.62 NS LCB 6. Older kids 5.04 2.16 NS 5.01 1.83 NS 5.16 1.94 NS LCB vs 5. My best friends 5.37 1.60 NS 4.70 1.72 NS 5.17 1.66 NS HCG 6. Older kids *4.90 2.10 NS 4.57 1.89 NS 4.90 1.87 NS HCG vs 5. My best friends 5.36 1.71 NS 4.25 1.77 NS 4.79 1.95 NS LCG 6. Older kids 5.45 2.02 . 05 4.72 1.94 NS *5.43 1.75 NS LCG vs 5. My best friends 5.51 1.71 NS 4.65 1.76 NS 5.19 1.71 NS HCB 6. Older kids 4.67 2.30 NS 4.82 1.82 NS 4.91 1.98 NS Adult Approval HCB 7. Grown-ups 4.81 2.08 NS 4.04 2.04 NS 4.02 1.95 .NS V S 8. Ideal parents 5.06 2.07 NS 5.13 1.81 NS 5.03 1.90 NS LCB 9. Most people 5.37 1.46 NS 4.49 1.62 NS 5.07 1.84 NS ♦Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. az=2.103 bZ=2.463 CZ=1.97 dZ=2.036 to to o TABLE 2 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR LCB vs HCG 7. 8. 9. Grown-ups Ideal parents Most people *4.87 4.74 5.37 2.02 2.04 1.65 NS NS NS 3.97 4.75 4.60 1.89 1.71 1.65 NS NS NS 4.06 4.94 5.12 1.87 1.67 1.70 NS NS NS HCG vs LCG 7. 8. 9. Grown-ups Ideal parents Most people 5.48 4.95 5.53 1.71 2.22 1.71 NS NS NS 3.93 5.13 4.78 1.91 1.76 1.66 NS NS NS 4.36 4.85 5.32 1.93 2.05 1.78 NS NS NS LCG vs HCB 7. 8. 9. Grown-ups Ideal parents Most people- *5.41 5.04 5.77 1.83 2.02 1.56 NS NS NS 4.23 4.73 4.96 2.06 1.76 1.80 NS NS NS 4.25 4.93 5.49 1.98 1.67 1.72 NS NS NS Moral and Social Values HCB vs LCB 10. People who work very hard 6.06 1.46 NS 5.32 1.92 NS 6.01 1.47 NS LCB vs HCG 10. People who work very hard 5.89 1.48 NS 5.19 1.79 .05a 5.93 1.45 NS HCG V S LCG 10. People who work very hard 6.04 1.55 NS 4.52 2.08 NS 5.81 1.75 NS LCG vs HCB 10. People who work very hard 5.78 1.87 NS 4.83 1.94 NS 5.66 1.72 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. az=2.042 TABLE 2— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR HCB Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 11. Homework 3.29 1.98 NS 5.07 1.70 NS 3.92 1.89 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.20 2.11 NS 5.00 1.74 NS 4.44 2.05 NS LCB 13. Taking tests 5.01 1.91 NS 5.22 1.73 NS 4.84 1.97 NS 14. School 4.69 1.93 NS 4.84 1.87 NS 4.91 1.92 NS 15. Reading 3.87 1.94 NS 4.97 1.71 NS 4.40 1.90 NS 16. Studying 5.01 1.94 NS 4.75 1.89 NS 4.90 1.89 NS LCB 11. Homework 3.59 1.94 NS 4.61 1.69 NS 4.01 1.83 NS vs 12. Arithmetic *3.96 2.26 NS 5.02 1.85 NS 4.48 2.09 NS HCG 13. Taking tests 5.06 2.03 NS 4.99 1.85 NS 4.98 1.89 NS 14. School 4.94 1.77 NS 4.58 1.73 NS 4.84 1.78 NS 15. Reading *4. 04 2.03 NS 4.57 1.81 NS 4.36 2.03 NS 16. Studying 5.13 1.78 NS 4.82 1.71 NS 5.06 1.77 NS HCG 11. Homework 3.43 2.08 NS 4.97 1.77 NS 4.10 1.92 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.51 2.20 NS 4.74 1.81 NS 4.82 2.05 NS LCG 13. Taking tests *5.52 1.61 NS 5.12 1.75 NS *5.15 1.84 NS 14. School 5.31 1.70 NS 4.50 1.83 NS 5.17 1.79 NS 15. Reading 4.67 2.24 NS 4.77 1.71 NS 4.71 2.00 NS 16. Studying *5.40 1.76 NS 4.41 1.86 NS 5.09 1.83 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to to TABLE 2 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR LCG 11. Homework 3.55 2.24 NS 4.82 1.86 NS 4.09 2.09 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.41 2.24 NS 4.77 1.90 NS 4.51 2.12 NS HCB 13. Taking tests 4.93 2.10 NS 4.81 1.90 NS 4.46 2.16 NS . 14. School *5.22 1.81 NS 4.84 1.72 NS 4.97 1.86 NS 15. Reading 4.66 2.21 .05a 4.61 2.02 NS 4.62 2.08 NS 16. Studying Success Patterns 4.78 2.18 NS 4.43 1.87 NS 4.76 1.97 NS HCB 17. First grade 4.17 2.13 NS 4.58 1.98 NS 4.37 2.09 NS vs 18. My grades 5.40 1.62 NS 4.90 1.86 NS 5.22 1.60 NS LCB 19. Rich people 4.43 2.28 NS 4.50 2.04 NS 4.62 2.11 NS 20. Poor people 4.93 1.79 NS 4.08 1.77 NS 4.42 1.74 NS LCB 17. First grade 4.24 2.03 NS 4.27 1.74 NS 4.32 1.88 NS vs 18. My grades 5.25 1.66 . 05 4.89 1.69 NS 5.10 1.68 NS HCG 19. Rich people *4.45 2.25 NS 4.54 1.96 NS 4.77 1.95 NS 20. Poor people 4.83 1.87 NS 4.05 1.72 NS 4.38 1.66 NS HCG 17. First grade 4.47 2.34 NS *4.68 1.78 NS 4.60 2.11 NS vs 18. My grades 5.88 1.51 NS 4.71 1.83 NS 5.58 1.53 NS LCG 19. Rich people 5.05 2.15 NS 4.21 2.07 NS 4.83 2.05 NS 20. Poor people 5.23 1.88 NS 4.30 1.84 NS 4.62 1.86 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to _ T _ tO Z=2.179 Z=2.342 w TABLE 2— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR LCG 17. First grade *4.87 2.12 NS *4.01 2.04 NS 4.64 2.01 NS j vs 18. My grades 5.45 1.83 NS *4.36 2.07 NS 5.23 1.83 NS I HCB 19. Rich people 4.71 2.28 NS 4.53 1.86 NS 4.60 2.02 NS | 20. Poor people 4.92 2.18 NS 4.42 1.92 NS 4.56 1.97 NS Authority Relationships HCB vs 21. Rules 3.47 2.03 NS 4.96 1.79 NS 4.03 1.98 NS LCB t 22. Discipline 3.92 2.14 NS 4.92 1.73 NS 4.37 2.06 NS LCB vs 21. Rules 3.65 2.14 NS 4.66 1.80 NS 4.07 1.86 NS HCB 22. Discipline 3.98 2.06 NS 4.54 1.73 NS 4.31 1.88 NS i jHCG vs 21. Rules 3.81 2.08 NS 4.97 1.66 NS 4.16 1.95 NS ! LCG I 22. Discipline 3.81 2.23 NS 4.95 1.65 NS 4.27 1.99 NS LCG V S 21. Rules 3.69 2.27 NS 4.92 1.77 NS 3.82 2.01 NS HCB 22. Discipline 3.82 2.36 NS 4.64 1.98 NS 4.20 2.05 NS Goal Direction HCB 23. College 5.52 1.66 NS 5.27 1.71 NS 5.31 1.64 NS V S 24. Success 5.51 1.46 NS 4.82 1.58 NS 5.08 1.61 NS LCB 25. My future 4.70 2.02 NS 4.87 1.83 NS 4.62 2.13 NS LCB 23. College 5.29 1.83 NS 5.20 1.58 NS 4.95 1.78 NS vs 24. Success 5.35 1.61 NS 4.72 1.64 NS 5.08 1.62 NS HCG 25. My future 4.66 2.00 NS 4.81 1.75 NS 4.63 1.79 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. TABLE 2— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR HCG 23. College *5.51 1.64 NS 4.83 1.86 NS 4.83 1.89 NS vs 24. Success 5.74 1.40 NS 4 D 73 1.57 NS 5.31 1.54 NS LCG 25. My future 5.03 1.95 NS 5.12 1.59 NS 4.97 1.91 NS LCG 23. College *4.91 2.18 NS 5.11 1.96 NS 4.49 2.15 .05 vs 24. Success 5.67 1.67 NS 4.57 1.79 NS 5.02 1.79 NS ■ HCB 25. My future Self-Concept 5.19 2.08 NS 4.81 1.89 NS 4.70 2.16 NS HCB 26. How my class sees me 5.47 1.47 NS 4.92 1.72 NS 5.43 1.53 NS vs 27. Me 4.73 1.91 NS 4.61 1.84 NS 4.70 2.06 NS LCB 28. My school ability 4.28 1.84 NS 4.06 1.74 NS 4.09 1.84 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.29 1.89 NS 4.96 1.87 NS 5.34 1.80 NS LCB 26. How my class sees me 5.06 1.80 NS 4.56 1.79 NS 5.11 1.74 NS, «r-b .05 vs 27. Me *4.70 2.04 NS *4.29 1.85 NS 4.57 2.04 HCG 28. My school ability 4.37 1.91 NS 4.07 1.84 NS 4.31 1.87 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.10 2.00 .05C 4.61 1.84 NS 5.10 1.90 NS HCG 26. How my class sees me 5.20 1.93 NS 4.35 1.92 NS 4.76 1.94 NS vs 27. Me *5.33 1.92 NS *4.84 1.66 NS *5.23 1.87 NS LCG 28. My school ability 4.55 2.04 NS 4.26 1.79 NS 4.31 2.09 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.80 1.69 NS 4.59 1.75 NS 5.53 1.65 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. az = 2 .4 8 4 bZ = 1 .9 8 2 °Z = 2 .2 4 6 TABLE 2— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concept Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR LCG vs HCB 26. 27. 28. 29. How my class sees me Me My school ability Person I would like to be 5.16 4.73 4.55 5.55 1.87 2.16 2.03 1.90 NS NS NS NS *4.42 4.33 4.16 4.65 1.95 1.92 1.84 1.90 NS NS NS NS *4.92 4.65 4.37 5.55 1.91 2.10 2.13 1.71 NS NS NS NS Spontaneous Interest HCB LCB vs 30. Clubs and organizations 4.79 1.98 NS 4.14 1.96 NS 4.70 2.00 NS LCB HCG vs 30. Clubs and organizations 4.75 2.05 .05a 4.12 1.84 NS 4.72 1.95 NS HCG LCG vs 30. Clubs and organizations 5.40 1.81 NS 4.30 2.01 NS 4.87 1.96 NS LCG HCB vs 30. Clubs and organizations *5.34 1.91 NS 4.46 2.04 NS 4.85 2.07 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. az = 2 .0 8 3 i i to to <n | TABLE 3 I | MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEANS, AND Z RATIOS FOR E, P, A FACTOR SCORES FOR THE j ! MOWI CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO CREATIVITY X SES GROUPINGS Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR HCNCD Associations 1. Teachers (N=72) 5.65 1.50 NS 4.67 1.69 NS 5.24 1.60 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 4.34 2.23 NS 4.62 1.82 NS 4.40 2.11 NS LCNCD 3. Students who get good grades 5.56 1.64 NS 4.65 1.92 NS 5.15 1.96 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 5.29 1.76 NS 4.62 1.86 NS 4.80 1.93 NS LCNCD 1. Teachers (N=73) 5.47 1.72 NS 4.74 1.74 NS 5.32 1.67 NS V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.74 2.07 NS 4.66 1.77 NS 4.60 2 . 0 0 NS HCCD 3. Students who get good grades 5.57 1.64 NS 4.83 1.77 NS 5.09 1.72 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 4.97 1.85 NS 4.63 1.76 NS 4.51 1.96 NS HCCD 1. Teachers (N=67) 5.49 1.74 NS 4.53 1.81 NS 5.43 1.64 NS V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.32 2.22 NS 4.65 1.72 NS 4.34 2.16 NS IiCCD 3. Students who get good grades 5.75 1.52 NS 4.89 1.73 NS 5.56 1.54 NS 4. Students who get poor grades*5.26 1.86 NS 4.70 1.93 NS 4.74 1.98 NS ♦Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to to •o TABLE 3 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR (N=68) LCCD 1.Teachers 5.59 1.82 NS 4.91 1.80 NS 5.36 1.83 NS V S 2 . Ideal teachers 4.73 2.16 NS 4.25 1.92 NS 4.52 1.98 NS HCNCD 3. Students who get good grades 5.62 1.63 NS 4.92 1.81 NS 5.16 1.86 NS 4. Students who get poor Social Relations grades *4.75 1.99 NS 4.53 1.93 NS *4.30 2.01 NS HCNCD 5. My best friends 5.21 1.78 NS 4.32 1.89 NS 4.92 1.88 NS vs LCNCD 6.Older kids 5.26 2.07 NS 4.87 1.88 NS 5.10 1.94 NS LCNCD 5. My best friends 5.37 1.70 NS 4.70 1.74 NS 5.21 1.69 NS V S HCCD 6. Older kids 4.91 2.13 NS 4.56 1.84 NS *4.98 1.84 NS HCCD 5. My best friends 5.45 1.53 NS 4.39 1.69 NS 5.17 1.69 NS vs LCCD 6. Older kids *5.20 2.14 NS 4.89 1.90 NS 5.49 1.76 .05a LCCD 5. My best friends 5.50 1.60 NS 4.65 1.74 NS 5.14 1.68 NS vs HCNCD 6. Older kids *4.68 2.26 NS 4.82 1.88 NS 4.82 1.99 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. I N J a to Z=2.055 oo TABLE 3— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Adult Approval !HCNCD 7. Grown-ups 5.21 i vs 8. Ideal parents 4.98 LCNCD 9. Most people 5.52 LCNCD 7. Grown-ups 5.14 vs 8. Ideal parents 4.86 HCCD 9. Most people 5.55 HCCD 7. Grown-ups 5.02 V S 8. Ideal parents 5.04 LCCD 9. Most people 5.36 LCCD 7. Grown-ups 5.09 vs 8. Ideal parents 4.89 HCNCD 9. Most people 5.54 Moral and Social Values HCNCD 10. People who work very hard 6.09 vs LCNCD LCNCD 1 0 . People who work very hard 5.81 vs HCCD 1.86 NS 4.15 2.03 NS 4.37 1.92 NS 2.14 NS 5.06 1.86 NS 4.91 2.02 NS 1.50 NS 4.64 1.60 NS 5.24 1.71 NS 1.95 NS 4.10 1.97 NS 4.14 1.96 NS 1.90 NS *4.66 1.68 NS 4.80 1.65 NS 1.54 NS 4.76 1.72 NS 5.37 1.69 NS 2.03 NS 3.82 1.91 NS 3.98 1.96 NS 2.14 NS 5.21 1.70 NS 4.98 1.93 NS 1.66 NS 4.61 1.69 NS 5.13 1.90 NS 1.97 NS 4.08 1.98 NS 4.16 1.88 NS 2.17 NS 4.83 1.79 NS 5.07 1.68 NS 1.71 NS 4.77 1.75 NS 5.20 1.74 NS 1.48 NS 5.09 2.02 NS 5.85 1.67 NS 1.68 NS 5.07 1.86 NS 5.73 1.69 NS to to *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. ^ TABLE 3— Continued ■ Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR HCCD vs LCCD 10. People who work very hard 6.01 1.53 NS 4.80 2.05 NS 6.00 1.54 NS LCCD vs HCNCD 10. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 5.87 1.66 NS 4.98 1.87 NS 5.89 1.46 NS HCNCD 11. Homework 3.61 2.03 NS 5.05 1.71 NS 4.15 1.93 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.31 2.13 NS 4.85 1.76 NS 4.73 2.01 NS LCNCD 13. Taking tests 5.17 1.85 NS 5.10 1.85 NS 4.88 1.96 NS 14. School 4.85 1.94 NS 4.62 1.85 NS 4.90 1.92 NS 15. Reading 4.60 2.04 NS 4.79 1.71 NS 4.77 1.81 NS 16. Studying 5.15 1.84 NS 4.70 1.80 NS 4.88 1.82 NS LCNCD 11. Homework 3.74 2.08 NS 4.61 1.77 NS 4.07 2.00 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.33 2.18 NS 5.02 1.81 NS 4.74 1.98 NS HCCD 13. Taking tests 5.08 2.00 NS 5.01 1.87 NS 4.98 1.98 NS 14. School 5.02 1.81 NS 4.61 1.73 NS 4.95 1.79 NS 15. Reading *4.45 2.12 NS 4.75 1.81 NS 4.58 2.00 NS 16. Studying 4.94 2.02 NS 4.52 1.83 NS 4.85 1.88 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. N3 U) o TABLE 3 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR 1 HCCD 11. Homework 3.07 1.99 NS 5.00 1.76 NS 3.85 1.87 NS ■vs 12. Arithmetic 4.38 2.18 NS 4.91 1.80 NS 4.50 2.11 NS 1 LCCD 13. Taking tests 5.32 1.74 NS 5.26 1.61 NS *5.09 1.86 NS I 14. School 5.11 1.74 NS 4.76 1.88 NS 5.17 1.78 NS 1 15. Reading 3.85 2.14 NS *4.98 1.71 NS 4.30 2.06 NS i i 16. Studying 5.23 1.90 NS 4.47 1.96 NS 5.10 1.91 NS Ilccd 11. Homework 3.39 2.07 NS 4.81 1.77 NS 4.02 1.90 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 3.99 2.33 NS 4.78 1.93 NS *4.23 2.20 NS HCNCD 13. Taking tests 4.91 2.13 NS 4.80 1.87 NS 4.50 2.06 NS 14. School 5.11 1.77 NS 4.80 1.73 NS 4.84 1.85 NS 15. Reading 4.19 2.14 NS 4.42 1.99 NS 4.37 2.10 NS 16. Studying Success Patterns 5.01 1.94 NS 4.78 1.74 NS 5.00 1.85 NS HCNCD 17. First grade 4.67 2 .14 NS 4.68 1.90 NS 4.64 2.10 NS vs 18. My grades 5.69 1.54 NS 4.68 1.92 NS 5.47 1.54 NS LCNCD 19. Rich people 4.76 2.12 NS 4.44 2.06 NS 4.57 2.08 NS 20. Poor people 5.10 1.71 NS 4.15 1.74 NS 4.61 1.73 NS LCNCD 17. First grade *4.55 2.07 NS 4.30 1.87 NS 4.60 1.88 NS V S 18. My grades 5.40 1.62 NS 4.58 1.87 NS 5.12 1.70 NS HCCD 19. Rich people 4.67 2.21 NS 4.56 1.83 NS 4.58 1.96 NS 20. Poor people 5.07 1.94 NS 4.31 1.85 NS 4.53 1.84 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to to t —1 TABLE 3— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR HCCD 17. First grade *3.93 2.26 NS *4.57 1.88 NS 4.30 2.09 NS vs 18. My grades 5.55 1.65 NS 4.95 1.76 NS 5.29 1.61 NS LCCD 19. Rich people 4.66 2.36 NS 4.28 2.06 NS 4.87 2.08 NS 20. Poor people 5.04 1.97 NS 4.22 1.87 NS 4.41 1.87 NS LCCD 17. First grade 4.50 2.12 NS 3.99 1.88 .05a 4.32 2.01 NS vs 18. My grades 5.28 1.86 NS 4.73 1.91 NS 5.21 1.81 NS HCNCD 19. Rich people 4.47 2.33 NS 4.50 1.99 NS 4.83 2.00 NS 2 0. Poor people Authority Relationships 4.66 2.08 NS 4.13 1.78 NS 4.39 1.77 NS HCNCD 21. Rules 3.46 2.01 NS 4.99 1.72 NS 3.92 1.97 NS V S LCNCD 22. Discipline 3.81 2.17 NS 5.10 1.71 NS 4.31 2.03 NS LCNCD 21. Rules 3.64 2.20 NS 4.84 1.79 NS 3.97 1.87 NS vs HCCD 22. Discipline 4.06 2.20 NS 4.65 1.84 NS 4.40 1.92 NS HCCD 21. Rules 3.81 2.10 NS 4.95 1.74 NS 4.27 1.95 NS V S LCCD 22. Discipline 3.94 2.20 NS 4.76 1.66 NS 4.34 2.02 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to u> TABLE 3 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR LCCD 21. Rules 3.69 2.20 NS 4.71 1.79 NS 3.97 1.97 NS vs HCNCD 22. Discipline Goal Direction 3.74 2.19 NS *4.51 1 . 8 6 NS 4.11 1.99 NS HCNCD 23. College 5.43 1.63 NS 4.96 1.84 NS 5.01 1.78 NS V S 24. Success 5.56 1.46 NS 4.78 1.56 NS 5.21 1.54 NS LCNCD 25. My future 4.84 1.99 NS 4.99 1.78 NS 4.95 2.02 NS LCNCD 23. College 5.14 2.04 NS 5.01 1 . 8 6 NS 4.80 1.97 NS V S 24. Success 5.50 1.62 NS 4.68 1.71 NS 5.09 1.77 NS HCCD 25. My future 4.89 1.99 NS 4.75 1.83 NS 4.73 1.97 NS HCCD 23. College *5.60 1.67 NS 5.18 1.72 NS *5.18 1.77 NS vs 24. Success 5.68 1.40 NS 4.78 1.59 NS 5.15 1.63 NS LCCD 25. My future 4.86 2.00 NS 4.98 1.67 NS 4.60 2.04 NS LCCD 23. College 5.10 1.97 NS 5.32 1.63 NS 4.68 1.97 NS V S 24. Success 5.50 1.67 NS 4.62 1.71 NS 5.00 1.61 NS HCNCD 25. My future 4.91 2.11 NS 4.88 1.80 NS 4.59 1.95 NS ! *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. TABLE 3-^Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR HCNCD Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me 5.28 1.68 NS 4.64 1.89 NS 5.21 1.72 NS vs 27. Me 4.95 1.85 NS 4.79 1.79 NS 5.03 1.93 NS LCNCD 28. My school ability 4.56 '1.83 NS 4.35 1.76 NS 4.44 1.88 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.54 1.72 NS 4.74 1.77 NS 5.47 1.65 NS LCNCD 26. How my class sees me 5.11 1.76 NS 4.40 1.85 NS 5.00 1.79 NS V S 27. Me 4.82 2.07 NS 4.33 1.93 NS 4.63 2.11 NS HCCD 28. My school ability 4.45 1.91 NS 4.00 1.82 NS 4.21 1.99 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.32 1.95 NS 4.55 1.91 NS 5.43 1.75 NS HCCD 26. How my class sees me 5.41 1.72 NS 4.68 1.77 NS 5.02 1.79 NS vs 27. Me 5.06 2.03 NS 4.65 1.73 NS 4.86 2.05 NS LCCD 28. My school ability 4.23 2.03 NS 3.95 1.75 NS *3.93 2.01 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.51 1.91 NS 4.84 1.88 NS 5.38 1.82 NS LCCD 26. How my class sees me 5.10 1.91 NS 4.60 1.87 NS 5.05 1.85 NS V S 27. Me 4.60 2.12 NS *4.29 1.83 NS 4.58 2.02 NS HCNCD 28. My school ability 4.46 2.03 NS 4.23 1.86 NS 4.48 1.98 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.28 1.99 NS 4.71 1.81 NS 5.16 1.90 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to 00 TABLE 3 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity i Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Mean SD ZR Spontaneous Interest HCNCD vs LCNCD 30. Clubs and organizations 4.97 1.95 NS 4.25 2.02 NS 4.66 1.97 NS LCNCD vs HCCD 30. Clubs and organizations 5.00 2.04 NS 4.39 1.93 NS 4.78 2.07 NS HCCD vs LCCD 30. Clubs and organizations 5.17 1.89 NS 4.17 1.95 NS 4.91 1.98 NS LCCD vs HCNCD 30. Clubs and organizations 5.05 1.98 NS 4.14 1.94 NS 4.78 1.93 NS i j t ! N) U) U i TABLE 4 ] ! j MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEANS, AND t RATIOS FOR E, P, A FACTOR SCORES FOR THE j ! MOWI CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO CREATIVITY X SES X SEX GROUPINGS j Evaluation Potency- Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDB Associations 1. Teachers (N=33) 5.04 1.97 NS 4 * 48 1.96 NS 5.16 1.78 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers *4.01 2.32 NS *4.63 1.78 NS 4.15 2.16 NS LCCDB 3. Students who get good grades 5.68 1.56 NS 4.86 1.81 NS 5.64 1.42 ,05Q 4. Students who get poor grades 5.10 1.84 NS 4.57 1.93 NS 4.86 1.91 NS LCCDB 1.Teachers (N=36) 5.22 2.00 __b . 05 4.84 1.87 NS 5.22 1.98 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 4.78 2.11 NS *4.13 1.96 NS 4.60 1.95 NS HCCDG 3. Students who get good grades 5.26 1.76 NS 4.81 1.81 NS *4.97 1.88 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 4.94 1.83 NS 4.69 1.89 NS 4.52 1.93 NS HCCDG 1.Teachers (N=34) 5.92 1.36 NS 4.58 1.66 NS 5.70 1.44 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 4.62 2.09 NS 4.68 1.67 NS 4.52 2.16 NS LCCDG 3. Students who get good grades 4.82 1.48 .oic 4.91 1.65 NS 5.49 1.65 NS 4. Students who get poor grades *5.42 1.88 NS 4.83 1.92 NS *4.62 2.05 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.279 \=2.33 Ct=3.296 K> LO < J \ TABLE 4— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean I SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR (N=31) a LCCDG 1 . Teachers 5.99 1.51 .05 4.97 1.77 NS 5.51 1.67 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers *4.63 2.24 NS 4.40 1.91 NS 4.41 2.05 NS HCCDB 3. Students who get good grades 6.01 1.39 NS 5.02 1.84 NS 5.40 1.82 NS 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations *4.49 2.16 NS 4.34 1.99 NS *3.96 2.04 NS HCCDB 5. My best friends 5.24 1.59 NS 4.38 1.69 NS 5.13 1.58 NS V S LCCDB 6. Older kids 5.01 2.19 NS 5 .11 1.80 NS 5.27 1.85 NS LCCDB 5. My best friends 5.31 1.68 NS 4.65 1.74 NS 4.95 1.77 NS vs HCCDG 6 . Older kids *4.85 2.12 NS 4.86 1.88 NS 4.85 1.88 NS HCCDG 5. My best friends 5.65 1.45 NS 4.39 1.70 NS 5.21 1.80 NSb V S LCCDG 6. Older kids *5.39 2.08 NS 4.67 1.97 NS 5.70 1.64 , .05 LCCDG 5. My best friends 5.71 1.50 NS 4.62 1.76 NS 5.32 1.56 NS vs HCCDB 6. Older kids *4.40 2.40 NS 4.72 1.90 NS *4.73 2.13 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to a h w t=2.121 t=2.000 -J TABLE 4— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDB Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups 4.65 2.24 NS 3.93 2.09 NS 3.89 2.03 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 5.00 2.07 NS 5.27 1.68 NS 4.91 1.86 NS LCCDB 9. Most people 5.44 1.51 NS 4.51 1.74 NS 5.18 1.99 NS LCCDB 7. Grown-ups *4.50 2.08 NS 3.81 1.87 NS 3.83 1.86 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 4.67 2.21 NS 4.89 1.76 NS 4.97 1.72 NS HCCDG 9. Most people 5.30 1.83 NS 4.60 1.71 NS 5.11 1.76 NS HCCDG 7. Grown-ups 5.38 1.74 NS *3.72 1.73 NS 4.06 1.89 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 5.08 2.22 NS 5.16 1.72 NS 5.05 2.00 NS LCCDG 9. Most people 5.27 1.79 NS 4.71 1.64 NS 5.08 1.83 NS LCCDG 7. Grown-ups 5.72 1.61 . 05 4.41 2.09 NS *4.48 1.85 NS V S 8. Ideal parents 5.26 2.02 NS *4.73 1.85 NS 5.17 1.65 NS HCCDB 9. Most people 5.82 1.54 NS 5.00 1.79 NS 5.31 1.75. NS HCCDB Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard 5.81 1.66 NS 5.21 1.89 NS 6.08 1.38 NS vs LCCDB LCCDB 10. People who work very hard 5.89 1.47 NS *5.19 1.93 NS 5.99 1.44 NS V S HCCDG ♦Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.166 TABLE 4— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDG vs LCCDG 10. People who work very hard 6.21 1.37 NS 4.40 2.12 NS 5.92 1.69 NS LCCDG V S HCCDB 10. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 5.81 1.87 NS 4.73 1.80 NS 5.75 1.49 NS HCCDB 11. Homework 3.07 2.05 NS 5.12 1.79 NS 3.86 1.87 NS vs 12. Ar i thme tic 4.22 2.18 NS 4.89 1.86 NS 4.32 2.11 NS LCCDB 13. Taking tests 5.06 1.85 NS 5.35 1.61 NS 4.97 1.93 NS 14. School 4.68 1.92 NS 5.05 1.85 NS 4.95 1.87 NS 15. Reading 3.62 2.02 NS *5.06 1.72 NS 4.29 2.01 NS 16. Studying 5.28 1.85 NS 4.72 1.95 NS 5.13 1.88 NS LCCDB 11. Homework 3.53 1.98 NS 4.81 1.69 NS 4.06 1.80 NS vs 12. Arithmetic *3.76 2.25 NS 5.01 1.84 NS 4.19 2.17 NS HCCDG 13. Taking tests 5.11 2.03 NS 4.90 1.81 NS 4.73 1.94 NS 14. School *4.99 1.79 NS 4.73 1.75 NS *4.81 1.86 NS 15. Reading 3.95 1.99 NS *4.38 2.02 NS 4.24 2.14 NS 16. Studying 5.07 1.75 NS *4.98 1.66 NS 5.02 1.85 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to CO C D TABLE 4— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDG 11. Homework 3.08 1.94 NS 4.87 1.72 NS 3.84 1.88 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.53 2.19 NS 4.93 1.75 NS 4.67 2.10 NS LCCDG 13. Taking tests *5.57 1.60 NS *5.17 1.62 NS *5.21 1.79 NS 14. School 5.54 1.44 NS 4.48 1.87 NS *5.39 1.68 NS 15. Reading 4.08 2.24 NS 4.89 1.71 NS 4.31 2.12 NS 16. Studying 5.18 1.97 NS 4.23 1.95 NS 5.08 1.94 NS LCCDG 11. Homework 3.26 2.19 NS 4.83 1.88 NS 4.00 2.03 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.19 2.42 NS 4.49 2.03 NS 4.25 2.25 NS HCCDB 13. Taking tests 4.63 2.24 NS *4.67 1.92 NS *4.22 2.14 NS 14. School *5.24 1.78 NS 4.90 1.71 NS 4.85 1.87 NS 15. Reading *4.42 2.31 NS *4.42 1.99 NS 4.46 2.08 NS 16. Studying Success Patterns 4.88 2.14 NS 4.55 1.83 NS 4.91 1.86 NS HCCDB 17. First grade 3.95 2.20 NS 4.44 2.03 NS 4.32 2.07 NS V S 18. My grades 5.35 1.82 NS 5.14 1.82 NS 5.11 1.68 NS LCCDB 19. Rich people 4.14 2.45 NS 4.51 2.02 NS 4.51 2.15 NS 20. Poor people 4.98 1.98 NS 4.31 2.00 NS 4.37 1.90 NS LCCDB 17. First grade 4.35 2.01 NS 4.28 1.68 NS 4.22 1.86 NS vs 18. My grades 5.28 1.79 NS 5.00 1.73 NS 5.23 1.76 NS HCCDG 19. Rich people 3.97 2.40 _ _ a . .05 4.56 2.08 NS *4.69 2.13 NS 20. Poor people 4.63 1.99 NS 3.94 1.80 NS 4.19 1.72 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.146 TABLE 4— Continued Group MOWI Concepts Evaluation Potency Activity Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDG 17. First grade *3.90 2.32 NS 4.69 1.72 .05 4.27 2.12 NS vs 18. My grades *5 .74 1.44 NS 4.76 1.69 NS 5.46 1.54 NS LCCDG 19. Rich people 5.17 2.17 NS 4.07 2.08 NS 5.22 1.96 NS 20. Poor people 5.11 1.96 NS 4.13 1.74 NS 4.44 1.85 NS LCCDG 17. First grade *4.72 2.25 NS *3.67 2.08 NS 4.48 2.18 NS V S 18. My grades 5.24 1.96 NS *4.40 2.08 NS 5.14 1.87 NS HCCDB 19. Rich people *4.96 2.14 NS 4.43 1.86 NS 4.91 1.83 NS 20. Poor people 4.62 2.18 NS 4.32 1.78 NS 4.57 1.81 NS Authority Relationships HCCDB 21. Rules 3.60 2.16 NS 4.76 1.90 NS 4.33 1.96 NS V S 22. Discipline 3.86 ,2.20 NS 4.69 1.78 NS 4.19 2.19 NS LCCDB I LCCDB 21. Rules 3.65 2.18 NS 4.81 1.83 NS 4.16 1.98 NS V S 22. Discipline 3.93 2.02 NS 4.52 1.73 NS 4.14 1.93 NS HCCDG HCCDG 21. Rules 4.01 2.04 NS *5.13 1.57 NS 4.21 1.94 NS vs 22. Discipline *4.01 2.20 NS 4.83 1.54 NS 4.48 1.84 NS LCCDG *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.107 h TABLE 4— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR LCCDG 21. Rules 3.76 2.25 NS 4.61 1.76 NS *3.73 1.98 NS V S HCCDB 22. Discipline Goal Direction 3.44 2.35 NS 4.49 2.00 NS 4.02 2.07 NS HCCDB 23. College 5.39 1.85 NS 5.21 1.78 NS *5.25 1.82 NS V S 24. Success 5.62 1.50 NS 4.82 1.58 NS 5.14 1.64 NS LCCDB 25. My future 4.62 2.07 NS 4.88 1.90 NS 4.57 2.13 NS LCCDB 23. College *5.17 1.84 NS 5.30 1.54 NS 4.65 1.82 NS V S 24. Success 5.45 1.63 NS 4.78 1.68 NS 5.15 1.54 NS HCCDG 25. My future 4.72 1.96 NS 4.91 1.69 NS 4.59 1.76 NS HCCDG 23. College *5.80 1.46 NS 5.16 1.68 NS 5.11 1.73 NS V S 24. Success 5.75 1.31 NS 4.75 1.61 NS 5.16 1.63 NS LCCDG 25. My future 5.10 1.91 NS 5.08 1.42 NS 4.64 1.97 NS LCCDG 23. College 4.97 2.13 NS 5.33 1.77 NS *4.68 2.17 NS V S 24. Success 5.54 1.74 NS 4.46 1.77 NS 4.83 1.70 NS HCCDB 25. My future 5.11 2.30 NS 4.85 1.94 NS 4.58 2.18 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to to TABLE 4— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDB Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me 5.39 1.65 NS 4.89 1.76 NS 5.34 1.59 NS vs 27. Me 4.52 2.13 NS 4.51 1.91 NS 4.59 2.10 NS LCCDB 28. My school ability 4.09 1.96 NS 3.87 1.84 NS 3.89 1.96 NS . 29. Person I would like to be 5.10 2.06 NS 4.93 2.02 NS 5.09 1.92 NS LCCDB 26. How my class sees me 5.02 1.86 NS 4.51 1.82 NS 5.10 1.79 NS vs 27. Me 4.45 2.03 .05a 4.29 1.81 NS *4.50 2.03 NS HCCDG 28. My school ability 4.32 2.02 NS 4.06 1.97 NS 4.27 1.93 NS 29. Person I would like to be *5.05 1.^7 NS 4.68 1.73 NS *4.81 2.02 NS HCCDG 26. How my class sees me 5.42 1.80 NS 4.47 1.77 NS 4.72 1.93 NS vs 27. Me *5.60 1.79 NS *4.78 1.53 NS *5.13 1.98 NS LCCDG 28. My school ability 4.36 2.10 NS 4.02 1.66 NS *3.96 2.07 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.90 1.67 NS 4.75 1.75 NS 5.67 1.68 NS LCCDG 26. How my class sees me 5.13 1.97 NS 4.67 1.95 NS 4;94 1.93 NS vs 27. Me 4.69 2.21 NS 4.27 1.85 NS 4.66 2.00 NS HCCDB 28. My school ability *4.65 2.05 NS 4.44 1.75 NS *4.70 2.05 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.51 2.00 NS 4.74 1.90 NS 5.54 1.70 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. a _ .. _ I TABLE 4— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Spontaneous Interest HCCDB V S LCCDB 30. Clubs and organizations 4.81 1.96 NS 4.14 1.94 NS 4.81 1.93 NS LCCDB V S HCCDG 30. Clubs and organizations *4.78 2.04 NS 4.15 1.86 NS 4.73 1.95 NS HCCDG vs LCCDG 30. Clubs and organizations 5.53 1.76 NS 4.20 1.97 NS 5.01 2.03 NS LCCDG vs HCCDB 30. Clubs and organizations *5.35 1.90 NS 4.12 2.04 NS 4.78 1.92 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. TABLE 5 | MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEANS, AND t RATIOS FOR E, P, A FACTOR SCORES FOR THE j I MOWI CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO CREATIVITY X SES X SEX GROUPINGS I Group MOWI Concepts Evaluation Potency Activity Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Associations (N=42) HCNCDB 1. Teachers 5.34 1.68 NS 4.69 1.72 NS 5.10 1.71 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 4.02 2.11 NS 4.57 1.78 NS 4.26 2.08 NS LCNCDB 3. Students who get good grades 5.70 1.42 NS 4.43 1.84 NS 5.28 1.84 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 5.12 1.82 NS 4.67 1.93 NS 4.76 1.86 NS (N=41) ra LCNCDB 1. Teachers 5.33 1.72 .05 4.72 1.71 NS 5.20 1.76 NS V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.37 2.08 NS 4.72 1.68 NS 4.51 1.97 NS HCNCDG 3. Students who get good grades 5.73 1.31 NS 4.92 1.66 NS 5.24 1.44 NS 4. Students who get good grades 5.13 1.72 NS 4.63 1.70 NS 4.74 1.85 NS (N=30) HCNCDG 1. Teachers 6.09 1.07 NS 4.63 1.66 NS 5.42 1.44 NS V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.78 2.33 NS 4.70 1.88 NS 4.59 2.15 NS LCNCDG 3. Students who get good grades 5.38 1.89 NS 4.96 1.99 NS 4.98 2.11 NS 4. Students who get poor grades *5.52 1.66 NS 4.53 1.77 NS 4.86 2.04 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. NJ a ^ t=2.262 w TABLE 5— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR (N=3 3) LCNCDG 1. Teachers 5.66 1.69 NS — 1 4.77 1.77 NS 5.47 1.52 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 5.24 1.95 .05 4.56 1.87 NS 4.71 2.01 NS HCNCDB 3. Students who get good grades 5.38 1.96 NS 4.75 1.90 NS 4.90 2.02 NS 4. Students who get poor Social Relations grades 4.82 1.98 NS 4.62 1.83 NS 4.29 2.07 NS HCNCDB 5. My best friends 5.33 lo67 NS 4.48 1.91 NS 5.33 1.65 NS vs LCNCDB 6. Older kids 5.07 2.14 NS *4.93 1.86 NS 5.08 2.01 NS LCNCDB 5. My best friends 5.43 1.53 NS *4.75 1.72 NS 5.36 1.54 , __b . 05 vs HCNCDG 6. Older kids *4.94 2.09 NS 4.31 1.88 NS 4.94 1.86 NS HCNCDG 5. My best friends 5.04 1.92 NS *4.09 1.85 NS *4.31 2.02 NS vs LCNCDG 6. Older kids *5.52 1.96 NS 4.78 1.91 NS 5.13 1.84 NS LCNCDG 5. My best friends 5.31 1.88 NS 4.67 1.77 NS 5.06 1.83 NS vs HCNCDB 6. Older kids 4.93 2.18 NS 4.92 1.75 NS 5.07 1.83 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.536 bt=2.333 to Ct TABLE 5— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDB Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups 4.94 1.94 NS 4.13 2.01 NS 4.13 1.88 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 5.10 2.09 NS 5.02 1.90 NS 5.12 1.94 NS LCNCDB 9. Most people 5.32 1.42 NS 4.48 1.53 NS 4.98 1.69 NS LCNCDB 7. Grown-ups 5.20 1.91 NS 4.11 1.91 NS 4.27 1.86 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 4.80 1.89 NS 4.63 1.67 NS 4.91 1.64 NS HCNCDG 9. Most people 5.43 1.48 NS 4.59 1.60 NS 5.12 1.66 NS HCNCDG 7. Grown-ups 5.59 1.68 NS 4.18 2.09 NS 4.17 1.94 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 4.80 2.21 NS 5.10 1.81 NS 4.62 2.10 NS LCNCDG 9. Most people 5.81 1.58 NS 4.86 1.69 NS 5.60 1.68 NS LCNCDG 7. Grown-ups 5.12 1.99 NS 4.07 2.03 NS 4.03 2.07 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 4.83 2.00 NS 4.74 1.69 NS 4.70 1.67 NS HCNCDB 9. Most people 5.72 1.59 NS 4.93 1.83 NS *5.66 1.67 NS HCNCDB Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard 6.26 1.25 NS 5.41 1.95 NS 5.96 1.55 NS vs LCNCDB LCNCDB 10. People who work very hard 5.89 1.49 NS *5.20 1.65 NS 5.87 1.47 NS vs HCNCDG NJ *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. TABLE 5— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDG vs LCNCDG 10. People who work very hard 5.86 1.73 NS 4.64 2.05 NS 5.69 1.83 NS LCNCDG vs HCNCDB 10. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences *5.75 1.89 NS 4.92 2.07 NS 5.58 1.91 NS HCNCDB 11. Homework 3.46 1.92 NS *5.02 1.63 NS 3.98 1.92 NS VS 12. Arithmetic 4.18 2.06 NS 5.08 1.64 NS 4.53 2.00 NS LCNCDB 13. Taking tests 4.97 1.97 NS 5.12 1.82 NS 4.75 2.00 NS 14. School 4.71 1.95 NS 4.68 1.88 NS 4.88 1.96 NS 15. Reading 4.07 1.87 NS 4.90 1.70 NS 4.49 1.81 NS 16. Studying 4.79 1.99 NS 4.77 1.85 NS 4.72 1.88 NS LCNCDB 11. Homework 3.64 1.90 NS *4.44 1.68 NS 3.97 1.86 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.14 2.26 NS 5.02 1.87 NS 4.72 1.98 NS HCNCDG 13. Taking tests 5.01 2.04 NS 5.07 1.89 NS 5.20 1.82 NS 14. School 4.89 1.77 NS 4.46 1.70 NS 4.86 1.71 NS 15. Reading 4.11 2.07 .05a 4.74 1.601 NS *4.46 1.93 NS 16. Studying 5.19 1.80 NS 4.67 1.74 NS 5.09 1.71 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.618 to CO TABLE 5— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDG 11. Homework 3.82 2.18 NS 5.09 1.83 NS 4.39 1.93 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.49 2.22 NS *4.53 1.87 NS 5.00 1.99 NS LCNCDG 13. Taking tests 5.46 1.64 NS 5.07 1.89 NS 5.08 1.92 NS 14. School 5.06 1.92 NS 4.52 1.80 NS 4.92 1.88 NS 15. Reading 5.33 2.06 NS 4.63 1.72 NS 5.16 1.76 NS 16. Studying 5.66 1.46 .05a 4.61 1.74 NS 5.10 1.71 NS LCNCDG 11. Homework 3.82 2.27 NS 4.82 1.84 NS 4.18 2.15 NS VS 12. Arithmetic 4.61 2.04 NS 5.03 1.73 NS 4.76 1.97 NS HCNCDB 13. Taking tests 5.20 1.94 NS 4.95 1.87 NS 4.70 2.16 NS 14. School 5.20 1.84 NS 4.78 1.73 NS 5.09 1.86 NS 15. Reading *4.89 2.09 NS 4.80 2.04 NS 4.78 2.07 NS 16. Studying Success Patterns 4.69 2.23 NS 4.32 1.92 NS 4.61 2.06 NS HCNCDB 17. First grade 4.35 2.06 NS 4.65 1.94 NS 4.40 2.11 NS vs 18. My grades 5.44 1.46 NS 4.71 1.88 NS 5.30 1.55 NS LCNCDB 19. Rich people 4.65 2.11 NS 4.49 2.07 NS 4.71 2.07 NS 20. Poor people 4.90 1.63 NS 3.90 1.55 NS 4.45 1.61 NS LCNCDB 17. First grade *4.14 2.05 NSb 4.27 1.79 NS *4.41 1.90 NS vs 18. My grades 5.23 1.55 .05 4.79 1.66 NS 4.98 1.60 NS HCNCDG 19. Rich people 4.87 2.03 NS 4.52 1.85 NS 4.85 1.77 NS 20. Poor people 5.01 1.76 NS 4.15 1.65 NS 4.54 1.59 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.141 bt=2.115 to I TABLE 5 — Continued i Group MOWI Concepts Evaluation Potency Activity 1 Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR | HCNCDG 17. First grade 5.11 2.19 NS 4.67 1.85 NS 4.98 2.06 NS vs 18. My grades 6.04 1.59 NS 4.64 1.99 NS *4.71 1.52 NS LCNCDG 19. Rich people 4.92 2.14 NS 4.38 2.05 NS 4.39 2.08 NS 20. Poor people 5.38 1.78 NS 4.50 1.93 NS 4.82 1.87 NS LCNCDG 17. First grade *5.01 2.00 NS 4.32 1.95 NS 4.78 1.84 NS V S 18. My grades 5.66 1.69 NS 4.33 2.07 NS 5.32 1.79 NS HCNCDB 19. Rich people 4.48 2.40 NS 4.63 1.87 NS 4.31 2.15 NS 20. Poor people 5.20 2.16 NS *4.52 2.04 NS 4.56 2.11 NS | Authority Relationships i I ; HCNCDB 21. Rules 3.37 1.93 NS *5.13 1.70 NS 3.79 1.96 NS V S 22. Discipline 3.98 2.09 NS *5.11 1.68 NS 4.51 1.94 NS ! LCNCDB ! LCNCDB 21. Rules 3.64 2.10 NS 4.52 1.77 NS 4.03 1.71 NS V S 22. Discipline 4.02 2.10 NS *4.55 1.74 NS 4.46 1.83 NS HCNCDG HCNCDG 21. Rules 3.59 2.12 NS 4.79 1.74 NS 4.10 1.98 NS V S 22. Discipline *3.58 2.26 NS 5.08 1.77 NS 4.02 2.13 NS LCNCDG *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. rO Ui O TABLE 5 — Cont i nue d Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR LCNCDG 21. Rules 3.62 2.30 NS 5.21 1.74 NS 3.90 2.04 NS vs 22. Discipline Goal Direction 4.17 2.33 NS 4.77 1.97 NS 4.36 2.03 NS HCNCDB 23. College 5.61 1.50 NS 5.31 1.65 NS 5.36 1.49 NS vs 24. Success 5.43 1.43 NS 4.83 1.58 NS 5.02 1.59 NS LCNCDB 25. My future 4.77 1.98 NS 4.87 1.78 NS 4.67 2.14 NS LCNCDB 23. College 5.41 1.83 NS *5.11 1.62 NS 5.22 1.72 NS vs 24. Success 5.27 1.59 NS 4.67 1.62 NS 5.02 1.69 NS HCNCDG 25. My future 4.60 2.04 NS 4.72 1.81 NS *4.67 1.81 NS HCNCDG 23. College 5.18 1.78 NS 4.47 1.99 NS 4.52 2.02 NS vs 24. Success 5.73 1.51 NS 4.71 1.54 NS 5.48 1.42 NS LCNCDG 25. My future 4.94 2.01 NS 5.17 1.77 NS *5.36 1.78 NS LCNCDG 23. College *4.85 2.23 NS 4.90 2.11 NS 4.31 2.13 „_a .05 vs 24. Success 5.80 1.60 NS 4.68 1.82 NS 5.19 1.86 NS HCNCDB 25. My future *5.27 1.87 NS 4.78 1.84 NS 4.81 2.14 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.367 to Ln TABLE 5— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDB Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me 5.52 1.31 NS 4.94 1.69 NS 5.49 1.48 NS vs 27. Me 4.90 1.71 NS 4.70 1.79 NS 4.79 2.03 NS LCNCDB 28. My school ability 4.42 1.73 NS 4.21 1.65 NS 4.25 1.72 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.44 1.74 NS 4.98 1.76 NS 5.54 1.68 NS LCNCDB 26. How my class sees me 5.10 1.74 NS 4.61 1.76 NS 5.12 1.70 NS V S 27. Me 4.92 2.03 NS 4.30 1.89 NS *4.63 2.06 NS HCNCDG 28. My school ability 4.41 1.81- NS 4.08 1.73 NS 4.34 1.83 NS 29. Person I would like to be *5.14 2.02 NS 4.54 1.93 NS 5.34 1.76 NS HCNCDG 26. How my class sees me 4.94 2.05 NS 4.22 2.08 NS 4.81 1.96 NS V S 27. Me 5.02 2.03 NS *4.91 1.79 NS *5.36 1.74 NS LCNCDG 28. My school ability 4.76 1.96 NS *4.53 1.89 NS *4.70 2.05 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.68 1.71 NS 4.40 1.75 NS 5.37 1.61 NS LCNCDG 26. How my class sees me 5.18 1.79 NS *4.19 1.94 NS 4.91 1.90 NS V S 27. Me 4.77 2.12 NS 4.38 1.99 NS 4.65 2.20 NS HCNCDB 28. My school ability 4.46 2.01 NS 3.89 1.90 NS 4.07 2.16 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.59 1.82 NS 4.57 1.90 NS 5.57 1.73 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to to TABLE 5 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Spontaneous Interest HCNCDB vs LCNCDB 30. Clubs and organizations 4.77 2.00 NS 4.14 1.98 NS 4.61 2.05 NS LCNCDB vs HCNCDG 30. Clubs and organizations *4.73 2.07 NS 4.09 1.82 NS 4.71 1.95 NS HCNCDG vs LCNCDG 30. Clubs and organizations 5.24 1.87 NS 4.41 2.06 NS 4.72 1.87 NS LCNCDG vs HCNCDB 30. Clubs and organizations *5.33 1.93 NS *4.78 1.99 NS 4.91 2.23 NS ♦Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to Ol u> ] TABLE 6 I | MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEANS, AND t RATIOS FOR E, P, A FACTOR SCORES FOR THE j | MOWI CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO CREATIVITY X SES X SEX GROUPINGS j Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDB Associations 1. Teachers (N=42) 5.34 1.68 NS 4.69 1.72 NS 5.10 1.71 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers *4.02 2.11 NS 4.57 1.78 NS 4.26 2.08 NS LCCDB 3. Students who get good grades 5.70 1.42 NS 4.43 1.84 NS 5.28 1.84 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 5.12 1.82 NS 4.67 1.93 NS 4.76 1.86 NS LCCDB 1. Teachers (N=36) 5.22 2.00 .05a 4.84 1.87 NS 5.22 1.98 NS V S 2 . Ideal teachers 4.78 2.11 NS *4.13 1.96 NS 4.60 1.95 NS HCNCDG 3. Students who get good grades 5.26 1.76 NS 4.81 1.81 NS 4.97 1.88 NS 4. Students who get poor grades *4.94 1.83 NS 4.69 1.89 NS 4.52 1.93 NS HCNCDG 1. Teachers (N=30) 6.09 1.07 NS 4.63 1.66 NS 5.42 1.44 NS V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.78 2.33 NS 4.70 1.88 NS 4.59 2.15 NS LCCDG 3. Students who get good grades *5.38 1.89 NS 4.96 1.99 NS 4.98 2.11 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 5.52 1.66 .05 4.53 1.77 NS *4.86 2.04 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.203 bt=2.273 fo VI TABLE 6— Continued -------------- Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR (N=31) LCCDG 1. Teachers 5.99 1.51 NS 4.97 1.77 NS 5.51 1.67 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers *4.63 2.24 NS 4.40 1.91 NS 4.41 2.05 NS HCNCDB 3. Students who get good grades 6.01 1.39 NS *5.02 1.84 NS 5.40 1.83 NS 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations *4.49 2.16 NS 4.34 1.99 NS *3.96 2.04 NS HCNCDB 5. My hest friends 5.33 1.67 NS 4.48 1.91 NS 5.33 1.65 NS V S LCCDB 6. Older kids 5.07 2.14 NS 4.93 1.86 NS 5.08 2.01 NS LCCDB 5. My best friends 5.31 1.68 NS *4.65 1.74 NS *4.95 1.77 NS V S HCNCDG 6. Older kids *4.85 2.12 NS 4.86 1.88 NS 4.85 1.88 NS HCNCDG 5. My best friends *5.04 1.92 NS 4.09 1.85 NS *4.31 2.02 NS V S LCCDG 6. Older kids 5.52 1.96 NS 4.78 1.91 NS *5.13 1.84 NS LCCDG 5. My best friends 5 .65 1.45 NS 4.39 1.70 NS 5.21 1.80 NS V S HCNCDB 6. Older kids 5.39 2.08 NS 4.67 1.97 NS *5.70 1.64 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. ^ (_n C J I TABIiE 6— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDB Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups 4.94 1.94 NS 4.13 2.01 NS 4.13 1.88 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 5.10 2.09 NS 5.02 1.90 NS 5.12 1.94 NS LCCDB 9. Most people 5.32 1.42 NS 4.48 1.53 NS 4.98 1.69 NS LCCDB 7. Grown-ups 4.50 2.08 .05a 3.81 1.87 NS 3.83 1.86 NS V S 8. Ideal parents 4.67 2.21 NS 4.89 1.76 NS 4.97 1.72 NS HCNCDG 9. Most people *5.30 1.83 NS 4.60 1.71 NS 5.11 1.76 NS HCNCDG 7. Grown-ups 5.59 1.68 NS 4.18 2.09 NS 4.17 1.94 NS V S 8. Ideal parents 4.80 2.21 NS 5.10 1.81 NS *4.62 2.10 NS LCCDG 9. Most people 5.81 1.58 NS 4.86 1.69 NS 5.60 1.68 NS LCCDG 7. Grown-ups *5.72 1.61 NS 4.41 2.09 NS 4.48 1.85 NS V S 8. Ideal parents 5.26 2.02 NS 4.73 1.85 NS 5.17 1.65 NS HCNCDB 9. Most people 5.82 1.54 NS *5.00 1.79 NS 5.31 1.75 NS HCNCDB Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard 6.26 1.25 NS 5.41 1.95 NS 5.96 1.55 NS vs LCCDB LCCDB 10. People who work very hard 5.89 1.47 NS *5.19 1.93 NS 5.99 1.44 NS vs HCNCDG *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. TABLE 6— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDG V S LCCDG 10. People who work very hard 5.86 1.73 NS 4.64 2.05 NS 5.69 1.83 NS LCCDG 10. People who work very hard 5.81 1.87 NS *4.73 1.80 NS 5.75 1.49 NS HCNCDB Perceiving Utility of School Experiences HCNCDB 11. Homework 3.46 1.92 NS 5.02 1.63 NS 3.98 1.92 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.18 2.06 NS 5.08 1.64 NS 4.53 2.00 NS LCCDB 13. Taking tests 4.97 1.97 NS 5.12 1.82 NS 4.75 2.00 NS 14. School 4.71 1.95 NS 4.68 1.88 NS 4.88 1.96 NS 15. Reading 4.07 1.87 NS *4.90 1.70 NS 4.49 1.81 NS 16. Studying 4.79 1.99 NS 4.77 1.85 NS 4.72 1.88 NS LCCDB 11. Homework 3.53 1.98 NS 4.81 1.69 NS 4.06 1.80 NS V S 12. Arithmetic *3.76 2.25 NS 5.01 1.84 NS *4.19 2.17 NS HCNCDG 13. Taking tests 5.11 2.03 NS 4.90 1.81 NS 4.73 1.94 NS 14. School 4.99 1.79 NS 4.73 1.75 NS 4.81 1.86 NS 15. Reading 3.95 1.99 . o i a 4.38 2.02 NS *4.24 2.14 NS 16. Studying *5.07 1.75 NS 4.98 1.66 NS 5.02 1.85 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to at=2.706 ^ TABLE 6 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDG 11. Homework *3.82 2.18 NS 5.09 1.83 NS 4.39 1.93 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.49 2.22 NS 4.53 1.87 NS *5.00 1.99 NS LCCDG 13. Taking tests *5.46 1.64 NS 5.07 1.89 NS *5.08 1.92 NS 14. School 5.06 1.92 NS 4.52 1.80 NS 4.92 1.88 NS 15. Reading *5.33 2.06 NS 4.63 1.72 NS *5.16 1.76 NS 16. Studying *5.66 1.46 NS 4.61 1.74 NS 5.10 1.71 NS LCCDG 11. Homework 3.26 2.19 NS 4.83 1.88 NS 4.00 2.03 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.19 2.42 NS. *4.49 2.03 NS 4.25 2.25 NS HCNCDB 13. Taking tests 4.63 2.24 NS 4.67 1.92 NS *4.22 2.14 NS 14. School *5.24 1.78 NS 4.90 1.71 NS 4.85 1.87 NS 15. Reading 4.42 2.31 NS *4.42 1.99 NS 4.46 2.08 NS 16. Studying Success Patterns 4.88 2.14 NS 4.55 1.83 NS 4.91 1.86 NS HCNCDB 17.. First grade 4.35 2.06 NS 4.65 1.94 NS 4.40 2.11 NS vs 18. My grades 5.44 1.46 NS 4.71 1.88 NS 5.30 1.55 NS LCCDB 19. Rich people *4.65 2.11 NS 4.49 2.07 NS 4.71 2.07 NS 20. Poor people 4.90 1.63 NS 3.90 1.55 NS 4.45 1.61 NS LCCDB 17. First grade *4.35 2.01 NS 4.28 1.68 NS 4.22 1.86 NS vs 18. My grades *5.28 1.79 NS 5.00 1.73 NS *5.23 1.76 NS HCNCDG 19. Rich people *3.97 2.40 NS 4.56 2.08 NS 4.69 2.13 NS 20. Poor people *4.63 1.99 NS 3.94 1.80 NS *4.19 1.72 NS to *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. £ TABLE 6— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDG 17. First grade 5.11 2.19 NS 4.67 1.85 .05a *4.98 2.06 NS vs 18. My grades *6.04 1.59 NS 4.64 1.99 NS 4.71 1.52 NS LCCDG 19. Rich people 4.92 2.14 NS 4.38 2.05 NS 4.39 2.08 NS 20. Poor people *5.38 1.78 NS 4.50 1.93 NS 4.82 1.87 NS LCCDG 17. First grade 4.72 2.25 NS 3.67 2.08 .05 4.48 2.18 NS vs 18. My grades 5.24 1.96 NS 4.40 2.08 NS 5.14 1.87 NS HCNCDB 19. Rich people 4.96 2.14 NS 4.43 1.86 NS 4.91 1.83 NS 20. Poor people Authority Relationships 4.62 2.18 NS 4.32 1.78 NS 4.57 1.81 NS HCNCDB 21. Rules 3.37 1.93 NS 5.13 1.70 NS 3.79 1.96 NS VS LCCDB 22. Discipline 3.98 2.09 NS *5.11 1.68 NS 4.51 1.94 NS LCCDB 21. Rules 3.65 2.18 NS 4.81 1.83 NS 4.16 1.98 NS vs HCNCDG 22. Discipline 3.93 2.02 NS *4.52 1.73 NS 4.14 1.93 NS HCNCDG 21. Rules 3.59 2.12 NS 4.79 1.74 NS 4.10 1.98 NS vs LCCDG 22. Discipline 3.58 2.26 NS *5.08 1.77 NS 4.02 2.13 NS ^Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.273 \=2.163 N3 tn TABLE 6— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR LCCDG 21. Rules 3.76 2.25 NS *4.61 1.76 NS 3.73 1.98 NS vs HCNCDB 22. Discipline Goal Direction *3.44 2.35 NS *4.49 2.00 NS 4.02 2.07 NS HCNCDB 23. College 5.61 1.50 NS 5.31 1.65 NS *5.36 1.49 NS VS 24. Success 5.43 1.43 NS 4.83 1.58 NS 5.02 1.59 NS LCCDB 25. My future 4.77 1.98 NS 4.87 1.78 NS 4.67 2.14 NS LCCDB 23. College 5.17 1.84 NS *5.30 1.54 NS 4.65 1.82 NS vs 24. Success 5.45 1.63 NS 4.78 1.68 NS 5.15 1.54 NS HCNCDG 25. My future 4.72 1.96 NS 4.91 1.69 NS *4.59 1.76 NS HCNCDG 23. College 5.18 1.78 NS *4.47 1.99 NS 4.52 2.02 NS V S 24. Success 5.73 1.51 NS 4.71 1.54 NS *5.48 1.42 NS LCCDG 25. My future 4.94 2.01 NS 5.17 1.77 NS *5.36 1.78 NS LCCDG 23. College *4.97 2.13 NS 5.33 1.77 NS *4.68 2.17 NS V S 24. Success 5.54 1.74 NS 4.46 1.77 NS 4.83 1.70 NS HCNCDB 25. My future 5.11 2.30 NS 4.85 1.94 NS 4.58 2.18 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. l\J < T > O TABIiE 6 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCNCDB Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me *5.52 1.31 NS 4.94 1.69 NS 5.49 1.48 NS vs 27. Me 4.90 1.71 NS 4.70 1.79 NS 4.79 2.03 NS LCCDB 28. My school ability 4.42 1.73 NS 4.21 1.65 NS 4.45 1.72 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.54 1.74 NS 4.98 1.76 NS *5.54 1.68 NS LCCDB 26. How my class sees me 5.02 1.86 NS 4.51 1.82 NS 5.10 1.79 NS V S 27. Me *4.45 2.03 NS *4.29 1.81 NS *4.50 2.03 NS HCNCDG 28. My school ability 4.32 2.02 NS 4.06 1.97 NS 4.27 1.93 NS 29. Person I would like to be *5.05 1.97 NS 4.68 1.73 NS *4.81 2.02 NS HCNCDG 26. How my class sees me 4.94 2.05 NS 4.22 2.08 NS 4.81 1.96 NS vs 27. Me 5.02 2.03 NS *4.91 1.79 NS *5.36 1.74 NS LCCDG 28. My school ability 4.76 1.96 NS 4.53 1.89 NS 4.70 2.05 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.68 1.71 NS 4.40 1.75 NS 5.37 1.61 NS LCCDG 26. How my class sees me 5.13 1.97 NS 4.67 1.95 NS *4.94 1.93 NS V S 27. Me 4.69 2.21 NS 4.27 1.85 NS 4.66 2.00 NS HCNCDB 28. My school ability 4.65 2.05 NS 4.44 1.75 NS 4.70 2.05 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.51 2.00 NS 4.74 1.90 NS 5.54 1.70 NS ♦Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to c r . l - 1 TABLE 6— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Spontaneous Interest HCNCDB V S LCCDB 30. Clubs and organizations 4.77 2.00 NS 4.14 1.98 NS 4.61 2.05 NS LCCDB vs HCNCDG 30. Clubs and organizations 4.78 2.04 NS 4.15 1.86 NS 4.73 1.95 NS HCNCDG V S LCCDG 30. Clubs and organizations 5.24 1.87 NS 4.41 2.06 NS 4.72 1.87 NS LCCDG vs HCNCDB 30. Clubs and organizations *5.35 1.90 NS 4.12 2.04 NS 4.78 1.92 NS ♦Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to C T i to TABLE 7 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE MEANS, AND t RATIOS FOR E, P, A FACTOR SCORES FOR THE MOWI CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO CREATIVITY X SES X SEX GROUPINGS Evaluation Potency Activity | Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Associations HCCDB ASSOCldtlOnB 1. Teachers (N=33) 5.04 1.97 NS 4.48 1.96 NS 5.16 1.78 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 4.01 2.32 NS 4.63 1.78 NS 4.15 2.16 NS LCNCDB 3. Students who get good grades 5.68 1.56 NS 4.86 1.81 NS 5.64 1.42 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 5.10 1.84 NS 4.57 1.93 NS 4.86 1.91 NS LCNCDB 1. Teachers (N=41) *5.33 1.72 NS 4.72 1.71 NS *5.20 1.76 NS V S 2. Ideal teachers 4.37 2.08 NS 4.72 1.68 NS 4.51 1.97 NS HCCDG 3. Students who get good grades 5.73 1.31 . o i a 4.92 1.66 NS 5.24 1.44 NS 4. Students who get poor grades 5.13 1.72 NS 4.63 1.70 NS 4.74 1.85 NS HCCDG 1. Teachers (N=34) 5.92 1.36 NS 4.58 1.66 NS 5.70 1.44 NS V S 2. Ideal teachers *4.62 2.09 NS 4.68 1.67 NS 4.52 2.16 NS LCNCDG 3. Students who get good grades *4.82 1.48 NS 4.91 1.65 NS *5.49 1.65 NS 4. Students who get poor grades *5.42 1.88 NS 4.83 1.92 NS 4.62 2.05 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. t=2.724 S TABUS 7— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR (N=33) LCNCDG 1. Teachers *5.66 1.69 NS 4.77 1.77 NS 5.47 1.52 NS vs 2. Ideal teachers 5.24 1.95 .05a ' 4.56 1.87 NS *4.71 2.01 NS HCCDB 3. Students who get good grades 5.38 1.96 NS 4.75 1.90 NS *4.90 2.02 NS 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 4.82 1.98 NS 4.62 1.83 NS 4.29 2.07 NS HCCDB 5. My best friends 5.24 1.59 NS 4.38 1.69 NS 5.13 1.58 NS V S LCNCDB 6. Older kids 5.01 2.19 NS *5.11 1.80 NS 5.27 1.85 NS LCNCDB 5. My best friends 5.43 1.53 NS 4.75 1.72 NS 5.36 1.54 NS V S HCCDG 6. Older kids 4.94 2.09 NS 4.31 1.88 NS *4.94 1.86 NS HCCDG 5. My best friends 5.65 1.45 NS 4.39 1.70 NS 5.21 1.80 NS vs LCNCDG 6 . Older kids 5.39 2.08 NS 4.67 1.97 NS *5.70 1.64 NS LCNCDG 5. My best friends 5.31 1.88 NS 4.67 1.77 NS 5.06 1.83 NS V S HCCDB 6. Older kids 4.93 2.18 NS 4.92 1.75 NS 5.07 1.83 NS ♦Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.282 to C T i TABIiE 7— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDB Adult Approval 7. Grown-ups *4.65 2.24 NS 3.93 2.09 NS 3.89 2.03 NS V S 8. Ideal parents 5.00 2.07 NS *5.27 .1.68 NS 4.91 1.86 NS LCNCDB 9. Most people 5.44 1.51 NS 4.51 1.74 NS 5.18 1.99 NS LCNCDB 7. Grown-ups 5.20 1.91 NS 4.11 1.91 NS 4.27 1.86 NS V S 8. Ideal parents 4.80 1.89 NS *4.63 1.67 NS 4.91 1.64 NS HCCDG 9. Most people 5.43 1.48 NS 4.59 1.60 NS 5.12 1.66 NS HCCDG 7. Grown-ups 5.38 1.74 NS 3.72 1.73 NS 4.06 1.89 NS vs 8. Ideal parents 5.08 2.22 NS 5.16 1.72 NS 5.05 2.00 NS LCNCDG 9. Most people 5.27 1.79 NS 4.71 1.64 NS *5.08 1.83 NS LCNCDG 7. Grown-ups 5.12 1.99 NS 4.07 2.03 NS 4.03 2.07 NS V S 8. Ideal parents 4.83 2.00 NS *4.74 1.69 NS 4.70 1.67 NS HCCDB 9. Most people 5.72 1.59 NS 4.93 1.83 NS 5.66 1.67 NS HCCDB Moral and Social Values 10. People who work very hard 5.81 1.66 NS 5.21 1.89 NS 6.08 1.38 NS V S LCNCDB LCNCDB 10. People who work very hard 5.89 1.49 NS *5.20 1.65 NS 5.87 1.47 NS V S HCCDG *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. - ■ -... —-- . ____ : ___ J L a . TABLE 7— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDG vs LCNCDG 10. People who work very hard 6.21 1.37 NS *4.40 2.12 NS 5.92 1.69 NS LCNCDG vs HCCDB 10. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experience 5.75 1.89 NS 4.92 2.07 NS *5.58 1.91 NS HCCDB 11. Homework *3.07 2.05 NS *5.12 1.79 NS 3.86 1.87 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.22 2.18 NS 4.89 1.86 NS 4.32 2.11 NS LCNCDB 13. Taking tests 5.06 1.85 NS 5.35 1.61 NS 4.97 1.93 NS 14. School 4.68 1.92 NS *5.05 1.85 NS 4.95 1.87 NS 15. Reading 3.62 2.02 NS 5.06 1.72 NS 4.29 2.01 NS 16. Studying 5.28 1.85 NS 4.72 1.95 NS 5.13 1.88 NS LCNCDB 11. Homework *3.64 1.90 NS 4.44 1.68 NS 3.97 1.86 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.14 2.26 NS 5.02 1.87 NS 4.72 1.98 NS HCCDG 13. Taking tests *5.01 2.04 NS 5.07 1.89 NS 5.20 1.82 NS 14. School *4.89 1.77 NS 4.46 1.70 NS *4.86 1.71 NS 15. Reading 4.11 2.07 NS 4.74 1.60 NS 4.46 1.93 NS 16. Studying 5.19 1.80 NS 4.67 1.74 NS 5.09 1.71 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to C T i TABLE 7— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDG 11. Homework *3.08 1.94 NS 4.87 1.72 NS 3.84 1.88 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.53 2.19 NS 4.93 1.75 NS 4.67 2.10 NS LCNCDG 13. Taking tests 5.57 1.60 NS 5.17 1.62 NS *5.21 1.79 NS 14. School 5.54 1.44 NS 4.48 1.87 NS 5.39 1.68 NS 15. Reading *4.08 2.24 NS 4.89 1.71 NS 4.31 2.12 NS 16. Studying 5.18 1.97 NS 4.23 1.95 NS 5.08 1.94 NS LCNCDG 11. Homework *3.82 2.27 NS 4.82 1.84 NS 4.18 2.15 NS vs 12. Arithmetic 4.61 2.04 NS 5.03 1.73 NS 4.76 1.97 NS HCCDB 13. Taking tests 5.20 1.94 NS 4.95 1.87 NS 4.70 2.16 NS 14. School *5.20 1.84 NS 4.78 1.73 NS 5.09 1.86 NS 15. Reading *4.89 2.09 .05a 4.80 2.04 NS 4.78 2.07 NS 16. Studying *4.69 2.23 NS 4.32 1.92 NS 4.61 2.06 NS Success Patterns HCCDB 17. First grade 3.95 2.20 NS 4.44 2.03 NS 4.32 2.07 NS vs 18. My grades 5.35 1.82 NS 5.14 1.82 NS 5.11 1.68 NS LCNCDB 19. Rich people *4.14 2.45 NS 4.51 2.02 NS 4.51 2.15 NS 20. Poor people 4.98 1.98 NS 4.31 2.00 NS 4.37 1.90 NS LCNCDB 17. First grade 4.14 2.05 NS 4.27 1.79 NS 4.41 1.90 NS vs 18. My grades *5.23 1.55 NS 4.79 1.66 NS 4.98 1.60 NS HCCDG 19. Rich people 4.87 2.03 NS 4.52 1.85 NS 4.85 1.77 NS 20. Poor people 5.01 1.76 NS 4.15 1.65 NS 4.54 1.59 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to at=2.461 <7\ TABUS 7— Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDG 17. First grade 3.90 2.32 .05 4.69 1.72 NS *4.27 2.12 NS vs 18. My grades 5.74 1.44 NS 4.76 1.69 NS 5.46 1.54 NS LCNCDG 19. Rich people *5.17 2.17 NS *4.07 2.08 NS *5.22 1.96 NS 20. Poor people 5.11 1.96 NS 4.13 1.74 NS 4.44 1.85 NS LCNCDG 17. First grade 5.01 2.00 .05b 4.32 1.95 NS 4.78 1.84 NS vs 18. My grades 5.66 1.69 NS *4.33 2.07 NS 5.32 1.79 NS HCCDB 19. Rich people 4.48 2.40 NS 4.63 1.87 NS 4.31 2.15 NS 20. Poor people Authority Relationships 5.20 2.16 NS 4.52 2.04 NS 4.56 2.11 NS HCCDB 21. Rules 3.60 2.16 NS 4.76 1.90 NS 4.33 1.96 NS vs LCNCDB 22. Discipline 3.86 2.20 NS 4.69 1.78 NS 4.19 2.19 NS LCNCDB 21. Rules 3.64 2.10 NS *4.52 1.77 NS 4.03 1.71 NS V S HCCDG 22. Discipline 4.02 2.10 NS 4.55 1.74 NS 4.46 1.83 NS HCCDG 21. Rules 4.01 2.04 NS 5.13 1.57 NS 4.21 1.94 NS vs LCNCDG 22. Discipline 4.01 2.20 NS 4.83 1.54 NS 4.48 1.84 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.086 bt=2.023 K> cn oo TABLE 7— Continued Group MOWI Concepts Evaluation Potency Activity Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR LCNCDG 21. Rules 3.62 2.30 NS 5.21 1.74 NS 3.90 2.04 NS vs 22. Discipline 4.17 2.33 NS 4.77 1.97 NS 4.36 2.03 NS HCCDB . Goal Direction HCCDB 23. College 5.39 1.85 NS 5.21 1.78 NS 5.25 1.82 NS V S 24. Success 5.62 1.50 NS 4.82 1.58 NS 5.14 1.64 NS LCNCDB 25. My future 4.62 2.07 NS 4.88 1.90 NS 4.57 2.13 NS LCNCDB 23. College 5.41 1.83 NS 5.11 1.62 NS 5.22 1.72 NS vs 24. Success 5.27 1.59 NS 4.67 1.62 NS 5.02 1.69 NS HCCDG 25. My future *4.60 2.04 NS 4.72 1.81 NS 4.67 1.81 NS HCCDG 23. College 5.80 1.46 .05a 5.16 1.68 NS *5.11 1.73 NS vs 24. Success 5.75 1.31 NS 4.75 1.61 NS 5.16 1.63 NS LCNCDG 25. My future 5.10 1.91 NS 5.08 1.42 NS 4.64 1.97 NS LCNCDG 23. College *4.85 2.23 NS 4.90 2.11 NS *4.31 2.13 NS vs 24. Success 5.80 1.60 NS 4.68 1.82 NS 5.19 1.86 NS HCCDB 25. My future *5.27 1.87 NS 4.78 1.84 NS 4.81 2.14 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. at=2.065 ^ vo TABLE 7 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR HCCDB Self-Concept 26. How my class sees me 5.39 1.65 NS 4.89 1.76 NS 5.34 1.59 NS vs 27. Me 4.52 2.13 NS 4.51 1.91 NS 4.59 2.10 NS LCNCDB 28. My school ability 4.09 1.96 NS 3.87 1.84 NS 3.89 1.96 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.10 2.06 NS 4.93 2.02 NS 5.09 1.92 NS LCNCDB 26. How my class sees me 5.10 1.74 NS 4.61 1.76 NS 5.12 1.70 NS vs 27. Me *4.92 2.03 NS 4.30 1.89 NS *4.63 2.06 NS HCCDG 28. My school ability 4.41 1.81 NS 4.08 1.73 NS 4.34 1.83 NS 29. Person I would like to be *5.14 2.02 NS 4.54 1.93 NS 5.34 1.76 NS HCCDG 26. How my class sees me 5.42 1.80 NS 4.47 1.77 NS 4.72 1.93 NS vs 27. Me *5.60 1.79 NS 4.78 1.53 NS 5.13 1.98 NS LCNCDG 28. My school ability 4.36 2.10 NS 4.02 1.66 NS 3.96 2.07 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.90 1.67 NS 4.75 1.75 NS 5.67 1.68 NS LCNCDG 26. How my class sees me 5.18 1.79 NS *4.19 1.94 NS 4.91 1.90 NS V S 27. Me 4.77 2.12 NS 4.38 1.99 NS 4.65 2.20 NS HCCDB 28. My school ability 4.46 2.01 NS 3.89 1.90 NS 4.07 2.16 NS 29. Person I would like to be 5.59 1.82 NS 4.57 1.90 NS 5.57 1.73 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. to -o o TABLE 7 — Continued Evaluation Potency Activity Group MOWI Concepts Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Mean SD tR Spontaneous Interest HCCDB vs LCNCDB 30. Clubs and organizations 4.81 1.96 NS 4.14 1.94 NS 4.81 1.93 NS LCNCDB V S HCCDG 30. Clubs and organizations *4.73 2.07 NS 4.09 1.82 NS 4.71 1.95 NS HCCDG vs LCNCDG 30. Clubs and organizations 5.53 1.76 NS *4.20 1.97 NS 5.01 2.03 NS LCNCDG V S HCCDB 30. Clubs and organizations *5.33 1.93 NS *4.78 1.99 NS 4.91 2.23 NS *Difference achieved of at least one-half a scale unit. NJ <1 H* | CHAPTER V ! SUMMARY, SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS I i Summary The problem In the press, in learned journals, and from various I other sources there has been increasing attention given to i j I :the problem of values among youth. In addition, recent I newspaper publicity has been given to cases involving 'highly creative youth involved in activities openly at odds I |with what has been considered the traditional and accepted mode of conduct in America. These facts, coupled with the ! i |well-known scepticism concerning the conventional which is |characteristic of the highly creative person, have suggested | the importance of asking and trying to ascertain to what i extent the highly creative students accept the common | lvalues system of the nation. Realizing that this is almost a completely new field of investigation, it was decided to begin with what appeared to be logically the first step— a 272 273 comparison of the high creative with the low creative students. Dr. Newton Metfessel, principal investigator of Project Potential, extended to this writer the most welcomed | !opportunity of accepting a small part in that study. Data i involving seventh grade students in the Los Angeles area were made available for the present report. The data had been obtained in connection with the above mentioned special research program which was designed to discover, if possible, ways of recuperating the potential of the )culturally deprived youth. The data included both creativ- 1 ;ity and values scores on 1,631 seventh grade students who, i i iwith the exception of absentees, represented the total i ! 1 ■population of this grade level in the following schools: jBelvedere, Dana, Hollenbeck, Nightingale, and San Fernando. I The purpose then of this writer's'research project was to investigate as to whether or not significant differ ences in values orientation existed between high and low creative seventh grade students in selected junior high schools in the Los Angeles school district. Methodology The instruments employed by Project Potential in 274 obtaining the data examined in this research involved a measurer of creativity and a test of values. The values test used was the Meaning of Words Inventory (MOWI) designed and validated from the literature | jby Metfessel at the University of Southern California in i 11958. This test is an adaptation of Osgood's Semantic Differential and is designed to explore the psychological aspects of meaning given by the subject to certain words. The words chosen for the MOWI are representative of key j jvalues areas. Each of these words, through a system of I t jbipolar adjectives, is measured for meaning as to its value, |power, and activity in the viewpoint of the subject. i } J The creativity test used was the Group Test of i i icreativity (GTOC) devised by Guilford, et al.t at the jUniversity of Southern California. This test affords six j ;subtest scores and a total creativity score. i I l I | jReview of literature i j The review of literature was presented under four headings. The first division presented a comprehensive study of values, undertaking to establish through the literature the nature of values, the position of the public schools so far as values are concerned, and the means of ; 275 establishing and transmitting worthy values to the students. The second portion of the review of literature surveyed various approaches to values testing. In the third divi sion, a general discussion of current knowledge and i |research in creativity was presented. Finally, the actual i i status of creativity testing was reviewed. Since so little work has been done in the area of values of the creative person, an attempt was made to give a broad background i i | from the literature. i 1 I The population sample i i ; The initial sample consisted of 1,631 seventh ! grade students from five junior high schools in the Los i J I Angeles school district. This number, with the exception of absentees and the few students for whom records were > . f j not complete, represented the seventh grade population in j j the following five schools: Belvedere, Dana, Hollenbeck, | | Nightingale, and San Fernando. In order that IQ not be a j contaminant, those students in the average IQ range (90 to ! 110) were chosen for the present study. The resultant I number of subjects (569) was further broken down in terms of high and low creativity scores on the GTOC, with the first and fourth quartiles being chosen. This selection j 276 i ! i jreduced the sample to 280, including 139 high creative students and 141 low creative students. These groups were then broken down in terms of sex and socioeconomic status. ;Since this study was concerned only with the comparisons of high and low creative students, other possible group i !comparisons on the basis of the data were omitted. The resultant group sizes were as follows: HC 139 LC 141 HCB 75 LCB 77 HCG 64 LCG 64 HCCD 67 LCCD 68 HCNCD 72 LCNCD 73 HCCDB 33 LCCDB 36 HCCDG 34 LCCDG 31 HCNCDB 42 LCNCDB 41 HCNCDG 30 LCNCDG 33 l 5 r !Statistical method For each subject, the results of the 270 items on i the MOWI were placed on five IBM cards by the Project ;Potential staff. The cards were then sorted in terms of . ! |IQ, creativity, sex, and SES. The statistical tools used I were the Z and t tests for differences between means. The i t i i |computer program designed by the staff of Project Potential presented means, standard deviations, standard error of the means, and Z scores for the concepts and the scales. Z scores for the factors were not tallied by this program 277 and were thus done by hand. The t test was used for the combined samples totaling less than 100 subjects and was also hand computed. The Honeywell 800 computer was used at the University of Southern California Sciences Labora tory center. Six runs were necessary to acquire Z scores i ! or t scores on the 2,250 comparisons involved (twenty-five group comparisons X ninety factors). Tables were prepared giving the means and standard deviations of all the com parisons. The forty-four significant differences between means were listed, showing the appropriate significance i i | level with either the Z or t score according to sample i j | sise. All comparisons not reaching significance were simply marked NS for nonsignificant. Charts were prepared (see Appendix B) to illustrate the mean values of the i | various groups. In addition, on the basis of the tables and charts, nonsignificant trends in favor of a particular group were noted. Due to the exploratory nature of this i j ■ study, it was believed that consistent differences of any amount and direction would be of interest to the readers and other researchers. 278 Summary of Findings Chapter I presented four questions for which answers were to be sought in this study. These questions were as follows: 1. Do high and low creative students of this population manifest significant differences in their rating of the meanings of concepts related to the following major values clusters? Associations Social Relationships Adult Approval Moral and Social Values Perceived Utility of School Experiences Success Patterns Authority Relationships Goal Direction Self-Concept Spontaneous Interest 2. To what degree do sex differences appear to influence high and low creative students of this population in their rating of the mean ings of value concepts related to the above major values clusters? 3. To what degree does socioeconomic status appear to influence high and low creative students of this population in their rating of the meanings 279 of value concepts related to the above major values clusters? 4. To what degree do sex differences and socio economic status appear to influence high and low creative students of this population in their rating of the meanings of value concepts related to the above major values clusters? In the following paragraphs an attempt will be made to answer questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the findings of the present research. The concepts composing the major lvalues clusters will be considered in reference to each of i ! I the above stated questions. |Associations Concept 1. Teachers: ! I | Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC ' I jand LC groups revealed no significant differences between |the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, f i i Teachers. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed a sex characteristic unrelated to creativity. Girls appeared to value the concept, Teachers, more highly than I ! 280 1 jdid boys. The differences between the means were signifi cant on the E factor with HCG exceeding LCB (.01) and LCG exceeding HCB (.05). There was also a consistent nonsig nificant trend for the girls to exceed the boys on the P and A factors for this concept. i Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups for the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Teachers. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where j creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered re- |vealed that HCCDG exceeded LCCDB; LCCDG exceeded HCCDB? 1 !HCNCDG exceeded LCNCDB? and HCNCDG exceeded LCCDB. All of i I the differences were on the E factor for the concept, jTeachers, and were significant at the .05 level. None of i I | the group differences was significant on the P or A factor.! | \ A sex characteristic in favor of the girls, unrelated to jeither creativity or SES, was again noted. I I Concept 2. Ideal teachers: ! Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, 281 Ideal teachers. j Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed that LCG exceeded HCB on the E factor for the concept, i |Ideal teachers, significant at the .05 level. A sex deter- I i |mined characteristic unrelated to creativity was also |noted for this concept. There was a consistent trend in | |favor of the girls on all of the factors. f I Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where |creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no :significant differences between the groups on the E, P, |and A factors for the concept, Ideal teachers. I Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where \ the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed that LCNCDG exceeded both HCNCDB and HCCDB on the | E factor for the concept, Ideal teachers, significant at the .05 level. None of the group comparisons on the P and | A factors were significant for this concept. Concept 3. Students who get good grades; Question 1.--A comparison of the means for the HC and LC groups revealed no significant differences between the groups for the E, P, and A factors for the concept. 282 Students who get good grades. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Students who get good grades. ! Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Students who get good grades, I Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where j i |creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered re- i j ; vealed that LCCDG exceeded HCCDG, and LCNCDB exceeded i | HCCDG on the E factor for this concept. Both differences ! ■were significant at the .01 level. In addition, HCCDB I jexceeded LCCDB on the A factor for the concept. Students ! i i I who get good grades, significant at the .05 level. Concept 4. Students who get poor grades; Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for this concept. However, there was a nonsignificant trend in favor of the HC groups over the LC groups on all factors for the concept, Students who get poor grades. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed jthat HCG exceeded LCG on the E factor for this concept, i 1 significant at the .05 level. Also, HCB exceeded LCG on ] I the A factor for this concept, significant at the .05 level. None of the differences were significant on the P factor. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where !creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no i |significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and |A factors for the concept, Students who get poor grades. i j Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where i icreativity X sex X SES interactions were considered re- i j vealed that HCNCDG exceeded LCCDG on the E factor for the |concept. Students who get poor grades, significant at the !.05 level. None of the group comparisons on the P and A i !factors were significant for this concept. i Social Relations I Concept 5. My best friends; Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC and LC groups revealed no significant differences on the ; 284 i E, P, and A factors for the concept, My hest friends. How ever, a nonsignificant trend was noted for the LC groups to exceed the HC groups on all factors for this concept. This would seem to indicate a greater attachment to peers I among the LC groups. i | j Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where | the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed jno significant differences between the groups on the E, P, i i |and A factors for the concept, My best friends. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where I the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed ! no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, ! 'and A factors for the concept, My best friends. | I Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where ithe creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered re- i l : vealed that LCNCDB exceeded HCNCDG on the A factor for the concept, My best friends, significant at the .05 level. ;There were no significant differences between the groups J I Jon the E and P factors for this concept. I j Concept 6 . Older kids: j 1 Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups revealed no significant differences between | 285 the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, |Older kids. However, a nonsignificant trend favoring the HC groups over the LC groups was discernible on the E and A factors for this concept. I i | Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed that HCG exceeded LCG on the E factor for the concept, Older kids, significant at the .05 level. The group differences on the P and A factors were not significant for I this concept. I Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where ;the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed I 1 that HCCD exceeded LCCD on the A factor for the concept, ! :Older kids, significant at the .05 level. There were no | significant differences between the groups on the E and P I factors for this concept. i 1 | Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where j the creativity X SES X sex interactions were considered revealed that HCCDG exceeded LCCDG on the A factor for the concept. Older kids, significant at the .05 level. None of the differences between the groups on the E and P factors were significant for this concept. 286 Adult Approval | | Concept 7. Grown-ups; i ! Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC I i |and LC groups revealed no significant differences between I |the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Grown-ups. Question 2,— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed no jsignificant differences between the groups on the E, Pt | i |and A factors for the concept. Grown-ups. However, a non- !significant trend was observed for the girls to evaluate i |this concept more highly than did the boys. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where j icreativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no 'significant differences between the groups on the E, P, i land A factors for the concept, Grown-ups. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where I ithe creativity X SES X sex interactions were considered revealed that LCCDG exceeded HCCDB and HCNCDG exceeded i j LCCDB on the E factor for this concept. Both differences were significant at the .05 level. The group differences on the P and A factors were not significant for this con- 287 | cept. ! Concept 8. Ideal parents; Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC and LC groups revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, t Ideal parents. However, a nonsignificant trend was dis cerned on the P factor for the HC groups to exceed the LC | !groups on this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where |creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed no I !significant differences between the groups on the E, P, i I and A factors for the concept, Ideal parents. j ! Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where i i :the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed ino significant differences between the groups on the E, P, j i | and A factors for the concept, Ideal parents. i Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered i ! I |revealed no significant differences between the groups on * I the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Ideal parents. Concept 9. Most people; Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC i 288 I 1 and LC groups revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Most people. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed | no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Most people. | Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where j j the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed I f j no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, i |and A factors for the concept, Most people. i Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where i the creativity X SES X sex interactions were considered :revealed no significant differences between the groups for i jthe E, P, and A factors for the concept, Most people. I I j Moral and Social Values ! I | Concept 10. People who work very hard; [ ; Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC i | and LC groups revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, People who work very hard. However, there was a non significant trend for the HC groups to evaluate this 289 concept more highly than did the LC groups. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed that LCB exceeded HCG on the P factor for the concept, People who work very hard, significant at the .05 level. The differences between the groups on the E and A factors for this concept were not significant. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, j |and A factors for the concept, People who work very hard. i j Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where i 1 the creativity X SES X sex interactions were considered i ! jrevealed no significant differences between the groups on |the E, P, and A factors for the concept, People who work very hard. Perceiving Utility of School Experiences Concept 11. Homework; Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Homework, revealed no significant differences between the 290 groups. However, there were some nonsignificant trends observed. The LC groups tended to exceed the HC groups on j i !the E and A factors. The HC groups tended to exceed the LC groups on the P factor for this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, |and A factors for the concept, Homework. i | Question 3.--A comparison of the group means where j |creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no |significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Homework. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where i !creativity X SES X sex interactions were considered re vealed no significant differences between the groups on |the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Homework. ! i ! Concept 12. Arithmetic: Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC I ! land LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Arithmetic, revealed no significant differences between the groups. However, there was a nonsignificant trend which indicated the HC groups exceeded the LC groups on the E factor for this concept. | Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where J creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed no ! jsignificant differences between the groups on the E, P, j land A factors for the concept, Arithmetic. I Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Arithmetic. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where |creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered re- j !vealed no significant differences between the groups on l j the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Arithmetic. Concept 13. Taking tests: Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC i ! |and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, | 'Taking tests, revealed no significant differences between |the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed I { in which the HC groups exceeded the LC groups on all the i r i factors for this concept. I Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed no 292 significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Taking tests. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no i i ]significant differences between the groups on the Ef P, i jand A factors for the concept, Taking tests. I ! Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where j creativity X SES X sex interactions were considered revealec |no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, i i jand A factors for the concept, Taking tests. ] I Concept 14. School: | I Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC i i 1 and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, School, revealed no significant differences between the ; i jgroups. j Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. School. However, a non significant trend favoring the girls over the boys on the E factor for this concept was observed. Question 3.--A comparison of the group means where 293 creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, School. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered re vealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. School. Concept 15. Reading: Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC |and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, jReading, revealed no significant differences between the | ;groups. I | I Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where I the creativity X sex interactions were observed revealed |that LCG exceeded HCB on the E factor for the concept, i i ;Reading, significant at the .05 level. There were no |significant differences between the groups on the P and A | !factors for this concept. However, a nonsignificant trend i j Jwas observed in which the girls tended to exceed the boys on the E factor. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were observed revealed j 294 i no significant differences between the groups for the con cept, Reading. However, a nonsignificant trend was ob- :served for the NCD groups to evaluate this concept more highly than did the CD groups. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were observed revealed that HCNCDG exceeded LCCDB (.01); HCNCDB exceeded LCNCDB (.05); and LCNCDG exceeded HCCDB (.05) on the E factor for the concept, Reading. There were no significant ‘differences between the groups on the P and A factors for |this concept. j Concept 16. Studying; j Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC 'and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, !Studying, revealed no significant differences between the i i j groups. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where T I the creativity X sex interactions were observed revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Studying. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed 295 no significant differences between the groups on the E, P/ and A factors for the concept, Studying. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were observed re- i vealed that HCNCDG exceeded LCNCDG on the E factor, signif icant at the .05 level. There were no significant differ ences between the groups on the P and A factors. Success Patterns Concept 17. First grade: i ! Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC j I and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, I First grade, revealed that the HC groups exceeded the LC jgroups on the P factor for this concept, significant at i | the .05 .-level. There were no significant differences on j ithe E and A factors for this concept. However, it was i iobserved that the LC groups tended to exceed the HC groups i on the E factor for this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were observed revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for this concept. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where 296 the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed that HCNCD exceeded LCCD on the E factor for the concept. First grade, significant at the .05 level. There were no significant differences between the groups on the P and A factors for this concept. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed for the NCD groups to exceed the CD groups on the E factor for the concept, First grade. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed that LCNCDG exceeded both HCCDB and HCCDG on the |E factor for the concept. First grade, significant at the j |.05 level. HCCDG exceeded both HCNCDG and HCNCDB on the P i factor for this concept, significant at the .05 level. IThere were no significant differences between the groups ; on the A factor. ! ! Concept 18. My grades; | Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC | jand LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, i My grades, revealed no significant differences between the j groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups on the E factor for this concept. 297 Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed that HCG exceeded LCB on the E factor for the concept, My grades, significant at the .05 level. There were no significant differences between the groups on the P and A I factors for this concept. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, My grades. I Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where 'the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered !revealed that HCNCDG exceeded LCNCDB on the E factor for j 'the concept. My grades. There were no significant differ- :ences between the groups on the P and A factors for this ! i concept. Concept 19. Rich people: i i i i Mini i i ii ■ i i 1 1 ■ i i i r~im i iii ii i Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC j j |and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, |Rich people, revealed no significant differences between the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed for the LC groups to exceed the HC groups on the P factor 298 for this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Rich people. i Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Rich people. j Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered |revealed that HCCDG exceeded LCCDB on the E factor for the i |concept, Rich people. There were no significant differ- i !ences between the groups on the P and A factors for this ;concept. j ! Concept 20. Poor people: i Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC ; and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Poor people, revealed no significant differences between the groups. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed 299 there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Poor people. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Poor people. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Poor I people. Authority Relationships Concept 21. Rules: Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, i Rules, revealed there were no significant differences be tween the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups on the P factor for this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups 300 on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Rules. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Rules. However, a non significant trend was observed for the girls to exceed the boys on the E factor for this concept. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed no significant differences between the groups on i the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Rules, j Concept 22. Discipline; Question 1.— A comparison of the means for the HC | jand LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, |Discipline, revealed no significant differences between ! I the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups on the P factor for this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Discipline. 301 Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Discipline. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Discipline. Goal Direction Concept 23. College: Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, College, revealed there were no significant differences i j |between the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was I observed for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups on the E factor for this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed that HCB exceeded LCG on the P factor for the concept, College, significant at the .05 level. There were no significant differences between the groups on the E and A 302 factors for this concept. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, College. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed that HCCDG exceeded LCNCDG on the E factor for the concept, College, significant at the .05 level. Also, jHCNCDB exceeded LCNCDG on the P factor for this concept. I i i I There were no significant differences between the groups |on the A factor. Concept 24. Success: Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Success, revealed no significant differences between the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups on both the E and P factors for this concept. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups 303 on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Success. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Success. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Success. Concept 25. My future: Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, My future, revealed there were no significant differences between the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was observed for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups on the E and P factors for this concept. Question 2 .— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, My future. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed 304 there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, My future. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, My future. Self-Concept Concept 26. How my class sees me: Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, How my class sees me, revealed no significant differences between the groups. However, a nonsignificant trend was jobserved for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups on the t |E factor for this concept. i Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, p, and A factors for the concept, How my class sees me. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed 305 there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, How my class sees me. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for this concept. Concept 27. Me; Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. Me, revealed no significant differences between the groups. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed that HCB exceeded LCG on the P factor for the concept, Me. There were no significant differences between the groups on the E and A factors for this concept. However, a non significant trend was observed for the HC groups to exceed | the LC groups on the P factor for the concept, Me. i Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Me. 306 Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed that HCCDG exceeded LCCDB on the E factor for the concept. Me, significant at the .05 level. There were no significant differences between the groups on the P and A factors for this concept. Concept 28. My school ability; Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. My school ability, revealed there were no significant i I differences between the groups. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, My school ability. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where jthe creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept. My school ability. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where 307 the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, My school ability. Concept 29. Person I would like to be; Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Person I would like to be, revealed there were no signifi cant differences between the groups. Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where i i |the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed I | that HCG exceeded LCG on the E factor for the concept, Person I would like to be, significant at the .05 level. J There were no significant differences between the groups on the P and A factors for this concept. ; Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the Ef P, and A factors for the concept. Person I would « I like to be. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered 308 revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Person I would like to be. Spontaneous Interest Concept 30. Clubs and organizations: Question 1.— A comparison of the means of the HC and LC groups on the E, P, and A factors for this concept revealed there were no significant differences between the groups. [ I Question 2.— A comparison of the group means where i i the creativity X sex interactions were considered revealed j that HCG exceeded LCB on the E factor for this concept, (significant at the .05 level. There were no significant i i r differences between the groups on the P and A factors for ; this concept. Question 3.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X SES interactions were considered revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Clubs and organizations. Question 4.— A comparison of the group means where the creativity X sex X SES interactions were considered 309 revealed there were no significant differences between the groups on the E, P, and A factors for the concept, Clubs and organizations. Null hypotheses regarding MOW! mean factor scores < The exploratory nature of this study and the almost total absence of research in the area made it impossible to forecast directional differences between the group means; therefore, null hypotheses were formulated. The .05 |level of significance was chosen as the basis for the | | rejection of the hypotheses. | | Hypothesis 1.— There are no significant differences I j between the high and low creative students of this popula- i \ j tion in their rating of the meanings of the value concepts j of the MOWI on the evaluation, potency, and activity fac- 1 | tors of the following ten major areas of value concepts: Associations Social Relationships | Adult Approval j Moral and Social Values | Perceived Utility of School Experiences Success Patterns Authority Relationships Goal Direction Self-Concept Spontaneous Interest 310 This portion of the study afforded thirty compari sons for each of the three factors, or a total of ninety. At the .05 level, at least one significant difference on each factor would be expected by chance. A study of the research findings indicates that only one significant difference was found in the ninety comparisons. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted for all the concepts of the ten major areas for the HC-LC comparisons. i Hypothesis 2.— There are no significant differences between high and low creative students of this population i I j in their rating of the meanings of the value concepts of i ;the MOWI on the evaluation, potency, and activity factors i jof the ten major areas of value concepts with respect to | isex differences. I ! This portion of the study afforded 120 comparisons f |for each of the three factors, or a total of 360. At the .05 level, at least six significant differences could be expected by chance in each of the factors. A study of the research findings indicates that for the P and A factors i only four and three significant differences, respectively, were found. Since this number could have easily occurred by chance, the null hypothesis was accepted for the P and 311 A factors. However, the nine significant differences on the E factor exceeds the chance expectancy. Attention is, therefore, given to the ten areas in-terms of the E factor: Associations: The hypothesis of no differences between the group ratings on the E factor of the value concepts under this heading was rejected for the concepts. Teachers, Ideal teachers, and Students who get poor grades, for the following groups: HCG exceeded LCB and LOG ex ceeded HCB in their evaluation of the concept, Teacher. LCG gave a higher value to ideal teachers than did HCB. Students who get poor grades was given a higher value by }HCG than by LCG. There appeared to be a sex-related i i j difference on the E factors of the values terms related to |the area, Associations, which favored the girls over the jboys. This was especially true for the concepts, Teachers land Ideal teachers. This may indicate a stronger identifi cation between girls and teachers, possibly due to the predominance of women teachers at the lower levels. Social Relations: The hypothesis of no differences * between the group ratings on the E factor of the value concepts under this heading was rejected for the concept, Older bids. HCG gave a higher value to older kids than 312 that given by LCG. This could be indicative of a greater maturity on the part of the HC groups, or it could indicate that the HC groups saw older kids as more free. Adult Approval: The hypothesis of no differences between the group ratings on the E factor of value concepts under this heading was accepted. Moral and Social Values: The hypothesis of no differences between the group ratings on the E factor of value concepts under this heading was accepted. | Perceiving Utility of School Experiences: The i i |hypothesis of no differences between the group ratings on I i the E factor of value concepts under this heading was rejected for the concept, Reading. LCG exceeded HCB in ;the value they placed upon reading. i j ! Success Patterns: The hypothesis of no differences! | ! between the group ratings on the E factor of value concepts J under this heading was rejected for the concept, My grades. I I HCG exceeded LCB in the value given the concept. Authority Relationships: The hypothesis of no differences between the group ratings on the E factor of value concepts under this heading was accepted. It should be noted that all groups scored very low on the concepts 313 in the area, Authority Relationships. This would seem to indicate that students either are in disagreement with the rules and discipline to which they are subjected, or they do not understand them. Goal Direction: The hypothesis of no differences between the group ratings on the E factor of value con cepts under this heading was accepted. Self-Concept: The hypothesis of no differences between the group ratings on the E factor of value concepts under this heading was rejected for the concept, Person I would like to be. HCG gave a higher value to this concept than did LCG. This could be interpreted to indicate a greater drive, more personal ambition, and less satisfac- |tion with the status quo on the part of the HC group. Spontaneous Interest: The hypothesis of no differ ences between the group ratings on the E factor of the value concept, Clubs and organizations, under this heading was rejected. Clubs and organizations were considered more valuable by HCG than they were by LCB. Hypothesis 3.— -There are no significant differences between high and low creative students of this population in their rating of the meanings of the value concepts of 314 the MOWI on the evaluation, potency, and activity factors of the ten major areas of value concepts with respect to socioeconomic status. This portion of the study afforded 120 comparisons for each of the three factors, or a total of 360. At the i i .05 level, chance would produce six significant differ ences on each factor. A study of the research findings indicates that only two significant differences were found in the 360 comparisons. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted for all the concepts of the ten major areas for i the creativity X SES comparisons. Hypothesis 4.— There are no significant inter actions between creativity, socioeconomic, and sex group- [ (ings in this population in their rating of the meanings of |the value concepts of the MOWI on the evaluation, potency, I and activity factors of the ten major areas of value con cepts . I | This portion of the study afforded 480 comparisons J for each of the three factors, or a total of 1,440. At the .05 level, chance would produce at least twenty-four significant differences on each factor. A study of the research findings indicates that only twenty-eight 315 significant differences were found in the 1,440 comparisons. Of this number of significant differences, twenty-one were on the E factor, four on the P factor, and three on the A factor. Since these differences could easily be due to chance factors, the null hypothesis was accepted for all the concepts of the ten major areas for the creativity X socioeconomic X sex comparisons. Summary of major findings Significant differences (.01 or .05 level) were found for only forty-four of the 2,250 mean comparisons. Only in the case of the boy-girl comparisons did it appear that other than chance factors were working. Consequently, null hypotheses 1, 3, and 4 were accepted. While null i hypothesis 2 was rejected for a portion of the concepts, ■ i ! !it is probable that a sex-related characteristic was being evidenced, unrelated to creativity. It appeared that girls had a generally more positive regard for some of the values included in the MOWI than did the boys, particularly those having to do with adult authority figures and with the school experiences. In terms of over-all tendencies, there appeared a slight trend for the HC groups to exceed the LC groups and 316 for the NCD groups to exceed the CD groups. However, it should be stressed that these were slight and not every where consistent. Conclusions The following conclusions have been drawn from the foregoing investigation. These conclusions are at best tentative and necessarily apply primarily to the sample that has served as a basis for this study. The extent to which these conclusions may be true of other populations must await further research. On this premise, it is con cluded that 1. There is actually very little difference be tween the values systems of low and high creative students. 2. There is a sex-determined characteristic, apparently unrelated to creativity or socio economic status, for the girls to value teachers, ideal teachers, grown-ups, and some areas of school experience more highly than do boys. 3. Where socioeconomic status is taken into 317 consideration, nonculturally deprived students have a slightly more positive attitude than do the culturally deprived students toward some of the value concepts in the areas: Associa tions, Perceiving Utility of School Experiences and Success Patterns. 4. High creative students hold a more positive regard for: Moral and Social Values, Perceiv ing the Utility of School Experiences, Goal Direction, and Self-Concept than do low crea tive students. 5. High creative and low creative students have only a lukewarm regard for most of the values concepts presented in the MOWI. Recommendations On the basis of this investigation, a number of suggestions seem in order. It is readily recognized that the problem of values is perennial and has no easy solu tion. On the other hand, only as goals are constantly adjusted to fit with the growing body of information being obtained through research can progress be expected. In 318 view of the findings and conclusions presented in this study, it is recommended that 1. More planned values training be built into the school program. The curriculum should be care fully surveyed by both administrators and teachers to capitalize upon every opportunity to introduce the problem of values in a wide area of disciplines. It seems important that the student be able to see that values do not have to do with only some sectors of life, such as church or the law, but that they apply and have importance in the whole spectrum of life. Time should be spent in clarifying and discussing values so that they begin to have meaning in terms of intrinsic worth and not be considered as a foreign imposition of a society anxious to dictate to the young. Opportunity should also be afforded for the students to experience the values taught, through real life situations where such values have practical applicability. 2. More energy be directed to the areas of rules 319 and discipline, since society is based upon law and order which express the consent of the majority and are for the benefit of all. Care should be taken to explain and discuss the importance of these great values to an orderly society. 3. More effort be exerted to aid the culturally deprived in gaining a more positive identity with the middle-class values that permeate society. This will probably necessitate a closer working relationship between the school and the home, since it is probable that the school will have to accept the responsibility of upgrading the cultural level of the hime if it wishes to achieve significant results with the children within the home. 4. Special attention be directed to boys in their relationships to adult authority figures and some of the more structured aspects of school life, since boys have a somewhat more negative view of these kinds of values than do girls. 5. Values training be included as a basic part of 320 all the experiences of the high creative stu dent. Since the schools and the nation expect more from the high creative students, since more time and expense are invested in this rich sector of the national resource, and since they will no doubt continue to be those who set the trend, who lead the way so to speak, it is especially important that they have a values system that will protect and enhance the great I freedoms and accomplishments of the American ! | society. ! i i i Recommendations for future research 1. The trends that have been noticed in this study I i ' indicate that perhaps with more selective i grouping the trends would have become signifi cant differences. It would seem well for future research in this area to limit the groups to plus and minus one standard deviation or even to the first and the tenth decile. 2. It has frequently been noted that only a small positive correlation exists between creativity and intelligence. However, it would be helpful to include in a study such as this various intelligence groups to see if intelligence does have a significant interaction with values and creativity. A longitudinal study of high and low creative students would he important to determine whether, with the passing of the years, signif icant shifts in values differences between them occur. Due to the difficulty involved in keeping track of students over a long period of time, and since many students would change their environments, cohort studies could profitably be undertaken to test several different age groups (elementary, secondary, and college) j at the same time, to observe and compare values that might be held by the high and low creative students at these various levels. APPENDICES 1 APPENDIX A A DESCRIPTION OF THE GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY project' Potential; interpretive guide FOR THE TESTS OF CREATIVITY Scientific Research during the past 15 years has given us new insight into the nature of intelligence. This new knowledge has important implications for the content and the essential character of intelli gence tests. If these new discoveries are given the attention they merit, we have the promise of discovering intellectual potential that has been previously overlooked. A major contribution of this research is the realisation that our traditional intelligence tests sample only a relatively small portion of the factors which are involved in intellectual potential. These tests emphasise abstract thinking and reasoning ability. They have placed a premium on verbal comprehension and speed of response. They have insisted on the one right answer to the complete neglect of original, creative thinking. If we wish to recognize all intellectual potential, we must re-examine our measuring instruments with a view to revision and modification. Research by J. P. Guilford & Associates at the University of Southern California has been especially impressive. A dramatic advance was the development of his brilliant three dimensional theoretical model of structure of intellect. This model hypothesizes 120 unique and distinct intellectual abilities. During the past several years, extensive research involving factor analysis has already verified more than 6 * t - of these separate abilities. Special attention has been given to intellectual factors involved in creativity. At least nine universities have established centers for creativity research. One of the exciting new discoveries is that tests of creativity seem to be as effective as intelligence tests in predicting academic success (grades in school). For the "culturally disadvantaged", certain ethnic groups, and those with less verbal facility, there are indications that tests of creativity may be preferred to the traditional intelligence tests to identify intellectual potential and to predict academic success. Traditional intelligence tests emphasize convergent thinking or the ability to come up with the one right answer. Convergent production pertains to answers that are invariably determined by the given in formation. Creativity tests, on the other hand, emphasize divergent thinking or the ability to create, to come up with new or original answers. When there is freedom for this kind of thinking we have a variety of outcomes or divergent production. 1 - 2 - Project Potential has chosen to include tests of creativity for many reasons. First, because traditional I.Q. tests sample such a narrow range, relatively, of cognitive abilities, a sizeable proportion of able students will be overlooked if intellectual potential is to be identified solely on the basis of I.Q. tests. Of equal importance is our belief that tests of creativity may be more fair than traditional I.Q. tests to identify intellectual potential in those students who come from family cultures that differ from the Anglo-American. Tests of creativity may be more sensitive to recognize potential in families that value quiet, passive, child ren, reticent to express themselves. Our first step was to examine the many tests which have been developed to measure creativity. Our criteria for selection were the degree to which the tests conformed to our theoretical model, the degree to which previous research had shown the tests to correlate highly with school achievement but low with other tests of creativity abilities, and last but most important, the degree to which the tests appeared to be "culturally fair." In the following section we shall present a broad classification of creative abilities, discuss briefly the tests chosen to measure those abilities, present examples of test items and indicate method of scoring. The theoretical model upon which the tests are based postulates that creativity has six major components: sensitivity to problems, fluency of thinking, flexibility in thinking, originality in think ing, elaboration ability, and redefinition. SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS TEST IV - SEEING PROBLEMS Persons who are able to recognize problems are the most apt to work on them, and if they do, they are the most apt to discover solutions. The tests we have chosen to measure sensitivity to problems are, (1) The Apparatus Test, and (2) Seeing Problems. In the Apparatus Test the subject is given the name of a familiar object, such as a telephone, and is asked to suggest two improvements for it. The items chosen for this teat were selected from two previous Aptitudes Project Apparatus tests. The items were chosen on the basis of being well known to moat high school students and equally familiar to both sexes. The basic scoring is accomplished by giving one point for each stated improvement. 324 - 2 - Project Potential has chosen to include tests of creativity for many reasons. First, because traditional I.Q. tests sample such a narrow range, relatively, of cognitive abilities, a sizeable proportion of able students will be overlooked if intellectual potential is to be identified solely on the basis of I.Q. tests. Of equal importance is our belief that tests of creativity may be more fair than traditional I.Q. tests to identify intellectual potential in those students who come from family cultures that differ from the Anglo-American. Tests of creativity may be more sensitive to recognize potential in families that value quiet, passive, child ren, reticent to express themselves. Our first step was to examine the many tests which have been developed to measure creativity. Our criteria for selection were the degree to which the tests conformed to our theoretical model,(the degree to i/hich previous research had shown the tests to correlate highly with school achievement but low with other tests of creativity abilities, and last but most important, the degree to which the tests appeared to be "culturally fair." In the following section we shall present a broad classification of creative abilities, discuss briefly the tests chosen to measure those abilities, present examples of test items and indicate method of scoring. The theoretical model upon which the tests are based postulates that creativity has six major components: sensitivity to problems, fluency of thinking, flexibility in thinking, originality in think ing, elaboration ability, and redefinition. SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS TEST IV - SEEING PROBLEMS Persons who are able to recognize problems are the most apt to work on them, and if they do, they are the most apt to discover solutions. The tests we have chosen to measure sensitivity to problems are, (1) The Apparatus Test, and (2) Seeing Problems. In the Apparatus Test the subject is given the name of a familiar object, such as a telephone, and is asked to suggest two improvements for it. The items chosen for this test were selected from two previous Aptitudes Project Apparatus tests. The items were chosen on the basis of being well known to most high school students and equally familiar to both sexes. The basic scoring is accomplished by giving one point for each stated improvement. 324 - 3 - i i In the Seeing Problems Test the subject Is given the name of a common object, such as a "candle", and is asked to think of problems that might occur in the use of the object, its shape, or what it is made of. For each object, the subject is to try to think of five problems. This test is divided into four parts of three items each. He is given one point for each acceptable answer to a total of five for each problem, or 15 points for each part. For the word "candle", the sub ject might see problems such as how to light it, how to keep it from falling over, etc. In terms of the "structure of intellect" model, the sensitivity to problems factor has been found to be actually an "evaluation of semantic implications", and discussion of tests in this area may be found in the literature under that classification. A person who produces ideas rapidly should have an advantage in creativity or intelligent production over the person who produces them more slowly, providing the level of quality of the ideas is equal. To measure fluency of thinking, the "Making Objects" and "Utility Test" were chosen. In the Making Objects test, the student is given five or six simple figures, and is asked to combine some of these figures to make certain objects. For example, given the figures he might be asked to make a "face" or a "lamp" or a "clown." In the Utility Test, the subject is asked to list as many uses as he can for a common object, such as a broom handle. For the Making Objects test one point is given for each time a figure is used in an object in a different way. Scoring the Utility Test for fluency, one point Is given for each acceptable response. THINKING FLUENCY TEST I - MAKING OBJECTS Guilford's factor analysis has identified four kinds of fluency: word fluency, ideational fluency, associational fluency, and expres- sional fluency. Culture fairness has a major consideration in the choice of tests in this area. THINKING FLEXIBILITY TEST II - UTILITY TEST Actually two factors have been discovered to be involved in flexibility of thinking: spontaneous flexibility and adaptive flexibility. Spon taneous flexibility has been defined as the tendency to jump from one category to another even when there is no need to do so. Adaptive flexibility is the ability to use a variety of approaches to solve problems when this is necessary to the solution. The tests chosen in this area are the Alternate Uses test and the Utility Test. In the Alternate Uses test the subject is given a use for an object, such as a magazine, and is asked to list as many as six other uses for the object. Each use must be different from the other uses and different from the most common use given. For the item "shoe (used as footwear)" for example, acceptable responses would include "Crush bugs," "Drink champagne out of," "Hit someone with," "Stamp out cigarettes." Unac ceptable responses would be "To walk on," "To polish." There are three parts to the Alternate Uses test, with six items in each part. One point is given for each acceptable response, to a total of six each. Our other measure of thinking flexibility is obtained by using a different method of scoring for the Utility Test which was described above under "Thinking Fluency." For "Flexibility," the test is scored for shifts in thinking;. Every response is scored in relation to the responses before it. Each shift is given one point. For magazine, we might have "Swat a fly," "Make a scrapbook," "Cut out pictures," "Press a butterfly," "Tear it up for insulation." This answer should receive 3 points for shifts. ORIGINALITY TEST V - SYMBOL PRODUCTION The creative person is an original thinker who does more than repeat the thinking of others around him. This ability can be measured by tasks which require an original response. Examples of tests in this area are to list titles to short stories, invent simple line symbols - 5 - to stand for meaningful ideas, or to write a punch line for a cartoon. The tests chosen were ' ’ Symbol Production" and "Plot Titles.'! In the Symbol Production test, the student is given statements of activities and is asked to devise a set of symbols to represent the situation. The instructions suggest the person may wish to symbolize the word "ring" by marks like • ' > ) ; } j J J because they may portray sound waves for him. The student is not to use letters, numbers or figures per forming actions, but rather is to try to symbolize the actions them selves. Examples given in the instructions are: Ring the bell 1 2 . Look into the room and. — 1 .. 1 1* z* / / " A a 3. >1 %' k. The key words are underlined, and the symbols drawn in the numbered squares are supposed to correspond to them. A response is judged acceptable if it bears even a remote relation to the object or action to be symbolized. In Plot Titles, the subject is given a short story and is asked to list titles for it. In one test, there is a story about a missionary who was captured by cannibals in Africa. The cannibals put him in the pot and were about to boil him when the princess of the tribe offered to release him if he would become her mate. He refused and was boiled to death. The responses are scored for "low quality" or "high quality." Low quality titles involve a mere understanding of the plot, or are vague, irrelevant, or confined to one aspect of the plot. Examples of non-clever titles for this story are: "African Death," "Eaten by Savages," "The Princess." High quality responses refocus, restructure, or transform the informa tion. Examples of clever titles are "Goil or Boil," "A Mate Worse than Death," "He Left a Dish For a Pot," "A Hot Price for Freedom," and "Chased but Chaste." TJSC: NSM In the Consequences Test, the subject is asked to think of a number of items in connection with a new and unusual situation. In the sample item the sub jects are asked, "What would be the results if people no longer needed or wanted sleep?" Sample results listed are "Get more work done," "Alarm clocks not necessary*" "No need for lullaby song books," and "Sleeping pills no longer used." Responses are scored as "obvious" or "remote." This test probably will not be used in Project Potential???. If it is, arrangements must be made with the publishers. (This test is published by Sheridan Supply Company, Beverly Hills, California, copyright 1958.) ELABORATION TEST III - FIGURE PRODUCTION Figure Production is the test selected to measure elaboration. In this test the student is given a mark, such as , and is asked to draw more lines to make "something most people could recognize From the mark above, the subject might draw or . A score of 1 to 5 is given for each drawing baseJ"bn the amount of rele vant detail in the production. Artistic talent is not considered. REDEFINITION TEST VI - OBJECT SYNTHESIS Although most of the creative abilities are in the divergent thinking category, an exception is "redefinition." This factor is in the con vergent production classification. Much creativity involves the transformation of something known into something else not previously known. The Aptitudes Project has found at least three redefinition factors: gestalt redefinition, symbolic redefinition, and figural redefinition. Gestalt redefinition is the ability to give new mean ings to the use of an object. Symbolic redefinition has been found as the ability to"regroup letters of familiar words to make new words, and figural redefinition has been defined as the ability to look at a complex line drawing and discover hidden figures. All the redefinition factors involve lability or flexibility. ~ ." - " ■ ’- ■ " ' -T i i | j j The redefinition test chosen for Project Potential was "Object Synthesis." | In the Object Synthesis test the subject is given two objects and is _ | asked to think of something he could make by combining the two objects* nj | For example, given a nail and a cane, he could make a paper picker, a 01 spear, a hook* Given a volleyball and a steel spring, he might make a punching bag. This test is divided into two parts of 12 items each. The subject is given credit if both objects given are necessary and used in making the new object, and if objects other than those given are not necessary or used. CO USOsNSM APPENDIX B CHARTS ILLUSTRATING THE MEAN DIFFERENCES FOUND THE GROUP COMPARISONS i Chart 1.— Plotting of j and nine according to MOWI concepts for areas one, two, creativity. 327 MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HC LC Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers I 3. Students who | get good i grades j ! 4. Students who ! : get poor grades : Social Relations I 1. My best friends 2. Older kids : Self-Concept | 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be E' v E“ P~ A- E“ P- A" E~ P- A“ E- P- A- E- P- A" E- P- A- 2 X 5.56 5.52 4.61 4.82 5.34 5.34 4.31 4.74 4.63 4.46 4.35 4.56 5.65 5.59 4.76 4.87 5.35 5.13 5.28 4.87 4.66 4.58 4.77 4.41 5.33 5.43 4.35 4.68 5.03 5.18 5.23 4.80 4.88 4.68 5.29 4.90 5.33 5.10 4.65 4.50 5.14 5.03 5.02 4.71 4.72 4.31 4.93 4.61 4.40 4.45 4.15 4.11 4.19 4.34 5.52 5.30 4.77 4.63 5.41 5.30 HC = LC = Chart 2.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for 328 areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCB LCB Associations 1. Teachers ; 2. Ideal teachers j 3. Students who I get good | grades | 4. Students who | . . . get poor ! grades Social Relations ! 1. My best friends | 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be E- E- P- A- P- A- E- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- X E- <- 5.21 4.60 5.13 5.28 4.78 5.21 4.02 4.60 4.21 4.56 4.44 4.56 5.62 4.62 5.44 5.51 4.87 5.11 5.11 4.63 4.80 5.04 4.66 4.64 5.29 4.44 5.24 5.37 4.70 5.17 5.04 5.01 5.16 4.90 4.57 4.90 | 5.47 4.92 5.43 5.06 4.56 5.11 4.73 4.61 4.70 4.70 4.29 4.57 4.28 4.06 4.09 4.37 | 4.07 | 4.31 5.29 4.96 5.34 5.10 1 4.61 | 5.10 ! HCB = LCB = ! 329 I Chart 3.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, 1 and nine according to creativity X sex compared.-- MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCG LCB Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be E- T E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- E' 6.00 5.28 4.60 4.78 5.87 5.21 4.69 4.56 4.69 4.44 4.25 4.56 5.61 5.51 4.93 4.87 5.25 5.11 5.47 5.04 4.69 4.66 4.73 4.64 5.. 36 4.25 4.79 5.37 4.70 5.17 5.45 4.72 5.43 4.90 4.57 4.90 5.20 4.35 4.76 5.06 4.56 5.11 5.33 4.84 5.23 4.70 4.29 4.57 4.55 4.26 4.31 4.37 4.07 4.31 5.80/ 4.59 5.53 5.10 4.61 5.10 330 Chart 4.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCG LCG Associations 1._ Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who j get good ! grades 14. Students who | get poor | grades Social Relations I !1. My best 1 friends i 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me ! 2. Me I 3. My school ! ability 4. Person I would like to be E' E- P- A- E' E E- 6.00 5.82 4.60 4.86 5.57 5.49 4.69 4.95 4.69 4.48 4.25 4.56 5.61 5.69 4.93 4.88 5.25 5.14 5.47 4.66 4.69 4.48 4.73 4.13 5.36 5.51 4.25 4.65 4.79 5.19 5.45 4.67 4.72 4.82 5.43 4.91 5.20 5.16 4.35 4.42 4.76 4.92 5.33 4.73 4.84 4.33 5.23 4.65 4.55 4.55 4.26 4.16 4.31 4.37 5.80 5.55 4.59 4.65 5.53 5.55 HCG = LCG = 331 Chart 5.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCB LCG Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades j ;Social Relations ! 1. My hest ! friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be 4.60 5.13 E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- 4.02 4.60 4.21 5.62 4.62 5.44 5.11 4.63 4.80 5.29 4.44 5.24 5.04 5.01 5.16 E- 5.82 4.86 5.49 4.95 4.48 4.56 5.69 4.88 5.14 4.66 4.48 4.13 5.51 4.65 5.19 4.67 4.82 4.91 5.47 5.16 4.92 4.42 5.43 4.92 4.73 4.73 4.61 4.33 4.70 4.65 4.28 4.55 4.06 4.16 4.09 4.37 5.29 5.55 4.96 4.65 5.34 5.55 HCB = LCG = 332 Chart 6.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCD LCNCD Associations 1. Teachers |2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I . would like to be HCNCD = E E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- LCNCD 5.65 4.67 5.24 5.47 4.74 5.32 4.34 4.62 4.40 4.74 4.66 4.60 5.56 4.65 5.15 5.57 4.83 5.09 5.29 4.62 4.80 4.97 4.63 4.51 5.21 4.32 4.92 5.37 4.70 5.21 5.26 4.87 5.10 4.91 4.56 4.98 5.28 4.64 5.21 5. I l l 4.40! 5.00! 4.95 4.79 5.03 4.82 4.33| 4.63 4.56 4.35 4.44 4.45 4.00 4.21 5.54 4.74 5.47 5.32 4.55 5.43 333 Chart 7.— Plotting of and nine according to MOWI concepts for areas one, two, creativity X SES compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCD LCNCD Associations 1. Teachers Ideal teachers Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me My school ability Person I would like to be HCCD E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P_ A- E 5.49 5.47 4.53 4.74 5.43 5.32 4.32 4.74 4.65 4.66 4.34 4.60 5.75 5.57 4.89 4.83 5.56 5.09 5.26 4.97 4.70 4.63 4.74 4.51 5.45 5.37 4.39 4.70 5.17 5.21 5.20 4.91 4.89 4.56 5.49 4.98 - 5.41 5.11 - 4.68 4.40 - 5.02 5.00 - 5.06 4.82 - 4.65 4.33 - 4.86 4.63 - 4.23 4.45 - 3.95 4.00 - 3.93 4.21 - 5.51 5.32 - 4.84 4.55 - 5.38 5.23 LCNCD = ! 334 jChart 8.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, I and nine according to creativity X SES. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCD LCCD Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades |Social Relations ;1. My best I friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept j1. How my class sees me l 2. Me 3. My school Person I would like to be HCCD = E. E 5.49 4.53 5.43 4.32 4.65 4.34 5.75 4.89 5.56 5.26 4.70 4.74 E. E. E. LCCD 5.59 4.91 5.36 4.73 4.25 4.52j 5.62 4.92 5.16 j 4.75 4.53 4.30 5.45 5.50 4.39 4.65 5.17 5.14 5.20 4.68 4.89 4.82 5.49 4.82 5.41 5.10 4.68 4.60 5.02 5.05 5.06 4.60 4.65 4.29 4.86 4.58 4.23 4.46 3.95 4.23 3.93 4.48 5.51 5.28 4.84 4.71 5.38 5.16 335 Chart 9.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCNCD LCCD Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers | 3. Students who | get good | grades I 4. Students who i get poor grades Social Relations ! 1. My hest friends !2. Older kids I : Self-Concept : 1. How my class sees me I 2. Me | 3. My school j ability i 4. Person I would like to be E E E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- 5.65 5.59 4.67 4.91 5.24 5.36 4.34 4.73 4.62 4.25 4.40 4.52 5.56 5.62 4.65 4.92 5.15 5.16 5.29 4.75 4.62 4.53 4.80 4.30 E. E' HCNCD LCCD 5.21 4 = 32 4.92 5.50 4.65 5.14 5.26 4.87 5.10 4.68 4.82 4.82 5.28 4.64 5.21 5.10 4.60 5.05 4.95 4.79 5.03 4.60 4.29 4.58 4.56 4.35 4.44 4.46 4.23 4.48 5.54 4.74 5.47 5.28 4.71 5.16 i 336 | Chart 10.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, ; and nine according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCCDB Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades f | 4. Students who | get poor grades Social Relations I 1. My best 1 friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be HCCDB = E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E' E' E- + 5.04 4.48 5.16 5.22 4.84 5.22 4.01 4.63 4.15 4.78 4.13 4.60 5.68 4.86 5.64 5.26 4.81 4.52 5.10 4.57 4.86 4.94 4.69 4.52 5.24 4.38 5.13 5.31 4.65 4.95 5.01 5.11 5.27 4.85 4.86 4.85 E- 5.39 5.02 4.89 4.51 5.34 5.10 4.52 4.45 4.51 4.29 4.59 4.50 4.09 4.32 3.87 4.06 3.89 4.27 5.10 5.05 4.93 4.68 5.09 4.81 LCCDB = 337 Chart 11.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCCDG LCCDB Associations i1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school 4. Person I would like to be HCCDG = E E- P- A- E- P- A - E. E LCCDB = 5.92 4.58 5.70 5.22 4.84 5.22 4.62 4.68 4.52 4.78 4.13 4.60 4.82 4.91 5.49 5.26 4.81 4.97 5.42 4.83 4.62 4.94 4.69 4.52 5.65 4.39 5.21 5.31 4.65 4.95 5.39 4.67 5.70 4.85 4.86 4.85 5.42 4.47 4.72 5.02 4.51| 5.10 5.60 4.78 5.13 4.45 4.29 4.50 4.36 4.02 3.96 4.32 4.06! 4.27 5.90 4.75 5.67 5.05 4.68 4.81 1 338 Chart 12.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCCDG i Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good ! grades j4. Students who get poor grades iSocial Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E. E. E. 5.92 4.58 5.70 5.99 4.97 5.51 4.62 4.68 4.52 4.63 4.40 4.41 4.82 4.91 5.49 6.01 5.02 5.40 5.42 4.83 4.62 4.49 4.34 3.96 5.65 4.39 5.21 5.71 4.62 5.32 5.39 4.67 5.70 4.40 4.72 4.73 5.42 5.13 4.47 4.67 4.72 4.94 5.60 4.69 4.78 4.27 5.13 4.66 4.36 4.65 4.02 4.44 3.96 4.70 5.90 5.51 4.75 4.74 5.67 5.54 HCCDG = LCCDG = 339 |Chart 13.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, ! and nine according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCCDG Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers | 3. Students who j get good grades i 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me |3. My school ! ability 4. Person I would like to be HCCDB = E- P- A- E- P_ A_ E- P- A- 5.04 4.48 5.16 E- E- E. E. 5.99 4.97 5.51 4.01 4.63 4.15 4.63 4.40 4.41 5.68 4.86 5.64 6.01 5.02 5.40 5.10 4.57 4.86 4.49 4.34 3.96 5.24 4.38 5.13 5.71 4.62 5.32 5.01 5.11 5.27 4.40 4.72 4.73 5.39 4.89 5.34 5.13 4.67 4.94 4.52 4.51 4.59 4.69 4.27 4.66 4.09 3.87 3.89 4.65 4.44 4.70 5.10 4.93 5.09 i 5.51 4.74 5.54 LCCDG = 340 Chart 14.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, |and nine according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCNCDB Associations 1. Teachers E- Me A- E- P- A- ■ 2. Ideal teachers i 13. Students who | get good i grades |4. Students who E- ! get poor P- grades A- Social Relations i I 1. My best ' friends ;2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me E- P- A- E- P- A- i 3. My school ability 4. Person I i would like P- ! to be A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- HCNCDB = LCNCDB = 5.34 4.69 5.10 5.33 4.72 5.20 4.02 4.57 4.26 4.37 4.72 4.51 5.70 4.43 5.28 5.73 4.92 5.24 5.12 4.67 4.76 5.13 4.63 4.74 5.33 4.48 5.33 5.43 4.75 5.36 5.07 4.93 5.08 4.94 4.31 4.94 5.52 4.94 5.49 5.10 4.61 5.12 4.90 4.70 4.79 4.92 4.30 4.63 4.42 4.21 4.25 4.41 4.08 4.34 ■ 5.44 4.98 5.54 5.14 4.54 5.34 | 341 !Chart 15.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, !and nine according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCNCDB Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me Me My school ability !4. Person I S would like I to be E- P- E- P- A- A- E- E' 6.09 4.63 5.42 5.33 4.72 5.20 4.78 4.70 4.59 4.37 4.72 4.51 5.38 4.96 4.98 5.73 4.92 5.24 5.52 4.53 4.86 5.13 4.63 4.74 5.04 4.09 4.31 5.43 4.75 5.36 5.52 4.78 5.13 4.94 4.31 4.94 4.94 4.22 4.81 5.10 4.61 5.12 5.02 4.91 5.36 4.92 4.30 4.63 4.76 4.53 4.70 4.41 4.08 4.34 5.68 4.40 5.37 5.14 4.54 5.34 i HCNCDG = LCNCDB = 342 Chart 16.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCNCDG S Associations I jl. Teachers 12. Ideal teachers . Students who get good grades . Students who | get poor j grades I Social Relations jl. My best 1 friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept i 'l. How ray class sees me \2. Me ;3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be HCNCDG = E- P- A. E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E. E. LCNCDG = 6.09 4.63 5.42 5.66 4.77 5.47 4.78 4.70 4.59 5.24 4.56 4.71 5.38 4.96 4.98 5.38 4.75 4.90 5.52 4.53 4.86 4.82 4.62 4.29 5.04 4.09 4.31 5.31 4.67 5.06 5.52 4.78 5.13 4.93 4.92 5.07 4.94 4.22 4.81 5.18 4.19 4.91 5.02 4.91 5.36 4.77 4.38 4.65 4.76 4.53 4.70 4.46 3.89 4.07 5.68 4.40 5.37 5.59 4.57 5.57 343 iChart 17.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, ! and nine according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 6 HCNCDB LCNCDG j Associations \ 1. Teachers ! 2 , Ideal teachers |3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades i :Social Relations i1. My best friends (2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be E- E- E. E- P- A- E- P- A- 5.34 4.69 5.10 5.66 4.77 5.47 4.02 4.57 4.26 5.24 4.56 4.71 5.70 4.43 5.28 5.38 4.75 4.90 5.12 4.67 4.76 4.82 4.62 4.29 5.33 4.48 5.33 5.31 4.67 5.06 5.07 4.93 5.08 4.93 4.92 5.07 5.52 4.94 5.49 5.18 4.19 4.91 4.90 4.70 4.79 4.77 4.38 4.65 4.42 4.21 4.25 4.46 3.89 4.07 5.44 4.98 5.54 5.59 4.57 5.57 i i. HCNCDB = LCNCDG = ----- ! 344 jChart 18.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, I and nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCCDB j Associations i 1. Teachers |2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades |4. Students who ! get poor grades j I Social Relations j1. My hest 1 friends !2. Older kids ;Self-Concept j1. How my class sees me I j ! 2. Me |3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be E. E E- P- A- E E- P- A- E- P- A- \ HCNCDB = LCCDB = 5.34 4.69 5.10 5.22 4.84 5.22 4.02 4.57 4.26 4.78 4.13 4.60 5.70 4.43 5.28 5.26 4.81 4.97 5.12 4.67 4.76 4.94 4.69 4.52 5.33 4.48 5.33 5,04 4.09 4.31 5.07 4.93 5.08 4.85 4.86 4.85 5.52 4.94 5.49 5.02 4.51 5.10 4.90 4.70 4.79 4.45 4.29 4.50 4.42. 4.21 4.45 4.32 4.06 4.27 5.54 4.98 5.54 5.05 4.68 4.81 345 ; Chart 19.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, !and nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex j compared. __________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCCDB 6.09 4.63 5.42 5.22 4.84 5.22 4.78 4.70 4.59 4.78 4.13 4.60 5.38 4.96 4.98 5.26 4.81 4.97 5.52 4.53 4.86 4.94 4.69 4.52 5.04 4.09 4.31 5.31 4.65 4.95 5.52 4.78 5.13 4.85 4.86 4.85 4.94 4.22 4.81 5.02 4.51 5.10 5.02 4.91 5.36 4.45 4.29 4.50 4.76 4.53 4.70 4.32 4.06 4.27 Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends '2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me Me j 3. My school I ability E- P- A- E- P- A- 4. Person I would like to be HCNCDG = E- E. E. t ■^7 5.68 4.40 5.37 5.05 4.68 4.81 LCCDB = I 346 j Chart 20.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCCDG j Associations !1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good | grades |4. Students who S get poor grades ;Social Relations |1. My best friends 2. Older kids ,Self-Concept I 1. How my class sees me <2. Me 3. My school ability E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A~ j4. Person I ! would like to be HCNCDG = A E- 6.09 4.63 5.42 5.99 4.97 5.51 4.78 4.70 4.59 4.63 4.40 4.41 5.38 4.96 4.98 6.01 5.02 5.40 5.52 4.53 4.86 4.49 4.34 3.96 5.04 4.09 4.31 5.65 4.39 5.21 5.52 4.78 5.13 5.39 4.67 5.70 4.94 4.22 4.81 5.13 4.67 4.94 5.02 4.91 5.36 4.69 4.27 4.66 4.76 4.53 4.70 4.65 4.44 4.70 5.68 4.40 5.37 5.51 4.74 5.54 LCCDG = '347 ! Chart 21.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, I and nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex ! compared. __________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCCDG I Associations I 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who i | get good ; grades j j 4. Students who j get poor ! grades ■ Social Relations | 1. My best friends !2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E. E. HCNCDB = LCCDG = 5.34 4.69 5.10 5.99 4.97 5.51 4.02 4.57 4.26 4.63 4.40 4.41 5.70 4.43 5.28 6.01 5.02 5.40 5.12 4.67 4.76 4.49 4.34 3.96 5.33 4.48 5.33 5.65 4.39 5.21 5.07 4.93 5.08 5.39 4.67 5.70 5.52 4.94 5.49 5.13 4.67 4.94 4.90 4.70 4.79 4.69 4.27 4.66 4.42 4.21 4.45 4.65 4.44 4.70 5.54 4.98 5.54 5.51 4.74 5.54 348 jChart 22.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, jand nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCNCDB Associations 1. Teachers :2. Ideal ; teachers j 3. Students who | get good grades I 4. Students who | get poor i grades :Social Relations |1. My best ! friends !2 . Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be HCCDB = E- P_ A- E_ P~ A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- LCNCDB = 5.04 4.48 5.16 5.33 4.72 5.20 4.01 4.63 4.15 4.37 4.72 4.51 5.68 4.86 5.64 5.73 4.92 5.24 5.10 4.57 4.86 5.13 4.63 4.74 5.24 4.38 5.13 5.43 4.75 5.36 5.01 5.11 5.27 4.94 4.31 4.94 5.39 4.89 5.34 5.10 4.61 5.12 4.52 4.51 4.59 4.92 4.30 4.63 4.09 4.87 3.89 4.41 4.08 4.34 5.10 4.93 5.09 5 w 14 4.54 5.34 349 Chart 23.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex compared._________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 6 HCCDG LCNCDB Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good | grades i 4. Students who | get poor grades :Social Relations l 1. My best friends i 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be HCCDG 4.58 5.70 E- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- I E. LCNCDB = 4.62 4.68 4.52 4.37 4.72 4.51 4.82 4.91 5.49 5.73 4.92 5.24 5.42 4.83 4.62 5.13 4.63 4.74 5.65 4.39 5.21 5.43 4.75 5.36 5.39 4.67 5.70 4.94 4.31 4.94 5.42 4.47 4.72 5.10 4.61 5.12 5.60 4.78 5.13 4.92 4.30 4.63 ! 4.36 4.02 3.96 4.41 i 4.08 4.34 5.90 4.75 5.67 5.14 4.54 5.34 ______ 350 Chart 24.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, and nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCNCDG Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older kids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be HCCDG = E. E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- A E. E. 5.92 4.58 5.70 4.62 4.68 4.52 4.82 4.91 5.49 5.42 4.83 4.62 5.65 4.39 5.21 5.39 4.67 5.70 5.42 4.47 4.72 5.60 4.78 5.13 4.36 4.02 3.96 5.66 4.77 5.47 5.24 4.56 4.71 5.38 4.75 4.90 4.82 4.62 4.29 5.31 4.67 5.06 4.93 4.92 5.07 5.18 4.19 4.91 4.77 4.38 4.65 4.46 3.89 4.07 5.90 4.75 5.67 LCNCDG = 351 iChart 25.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas one, two, | and nine according to creativity X SES compared X sex | compared._________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCNCDG Associations 1. Teachers 2. Ideal teachers 3. Students who get good grades 4. Students who get poor grades Social Relations 1. My best friends 2. Older bids Self-Concept 1. How my class sees me 2. Me 3. My school ability 4. Person I would like to be HCCDB = E- P- A. E- P- A- E~ P- A- E- P- A- 5.04 4.48 5.16 E' E- .01 .63 .15 .68 .86 .64 .10 .57 .86 .24 .38 .13 .01 .11 .27 E 5 4, 5. 4. 4, 4. 4 3 3 .39 .89 .34 52 51 59 .09 .87 .89 5.10 4.93 5.09 5 .66 4.77 5.47 5.24 4.56 4.71 5.38 4.75 4.90 4.82 4.62 4.29 5.31 4.67 5.06 4.93 4.92 5.07 5.18 4.19 4.91 4.77 4.38 4.65 4.46 3.89 4.07 5.59 4.57 5.57 LCNCDG = Chart 1A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, and three according to creativity. 352 j five, MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HC LC E. Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents 3. Most people E- P- 6.08 4.95 5.94 E- E- E- ■ t 5.12 3.99 4.18 5.01 5.13 4.94 5.44 4.62 5.18 5.84 5.03 5.81 3.35 5.02 4.00 3.57 4.71 4.05 4.36 4.89 4.64 4.16 4.91 4.49 5.24 5.19 5.00 5.10 4.91 4.75 4.95 4.71 5.02 5.07 4.70 4.90 4.24 4.88 4.54 4.32 4.59 4.49 5.22 4.57 5.00 4.97 4.64 4.92 5.12 4.09 4.15 4.87 4.74 4.93 5.55 4.76 5.29 HC = LC = i 353 i iChart 2A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, |and three according to creativity X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCB LCB Moral and Social Values 1. People who E---- work very P---- hard A---- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups E- P- A- E- P- A- 2. Ideal parents E~ 3. Most people P- A- E- P- A- 6.06 5.32 6.01 E. E 5.89 5.19 5.93 3.29 5.07 3.92 3.59 4.61 4.01 4.20 5.00 4.44 3.96 5.02 4.48 5.01 5.22 4.84 5.06 4.99 4.98 4.69 4.84 4.91 4.94 4.58 4.84 3.87 4.97 4.40 4.04 4.57 4.36 5.01 4.75 4.90 5.13 4.82 5.06 4.81 4.87 4.04 3.97 4.02 4.06 5.06 4.74 5.13 4.75 5.03 4.94 5.37 5.37 4.49 4.60 5.07 5.12 HCB = LCB = |Chart 3A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four/ iand three according to creativity X sex compared. 354 five, MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCG LCB I Moral and Social Values i - - ■ - - j1. People who j work very | hard 'Perceiving Utility of School Experiences i 11. Homework !2. Arithmetic E- P- A- 3. Taking tests E- P- A- i4. School i 5. Reading i 6. Studying I I Adult Approval |1. Grown-ups !2. Ideal parents E- I P- i A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- I 3. Most people E- P- A- 6.04 4.52 5.81 5.89 5.19 5.93 3 .43 4.93 4.10 3.59 4.61 4 „ 01 5.51 4.74 4.82 4.96 5.02 4.48 5.52 5.12 5.15 5.06 4.99 4.98 5.31 4.50 5.17 4.94 4.58 4.84 4.67 4.77 4.71 4.04 4.57 4.36 5.40 4.41 5.09 5.13 4.82 5.06 . 5.48 3.93 4.36 4.87 3.97 4.06 4.95 5.13 4.85 4.74 4.75 4.94 5.53 4.78 5.32 5.37 4.60 5.12 HCG = LCB = Chart 4A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, and three according to creativity X sex. 355 five, MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCG LCG Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences i 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 6.04 4.52 5.81 E- E- r E. 2. Ideal parents E 3. Most people E 5.78 4.83 5.66 3.43 4.97 4.10 3.55 4.82 4.09 4.51 4.74 4.82 4.41 4.77 4.51 5.52 5.12 5.15 4.93 4.81 4.46 5.31 4.50 5.17 5.22 4.84 4.97 4.67 4.77 4.71 4.66 4.61 4.62 , 5.40 4.41 5.09 4.78 4.43 | 4.76 ! 5.48 3.93 4.36 5.41 4.23 4.25 4.95 5.13 4.85 5.04 4.73 4.93 5.53 4.78 5.32 5.77 4.96 5.49 356 Chart 5A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCB LCG Moral and Social Values 1. People who E----- work very P----- hard A----- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents 3. Most people E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- 6.06 5.32 6.01 E. E E. 5.78 4.83 5.66 3.29 5.07 3.92 3.55 4.82 4.09 4.20 5.00 4.44 4.41 4.77 4.51 5.01 5.22 4.84 4.93 4.81 4.46 4.69 4.84 4.91 5.22 4.84 4.97 3.87 4.97 4.40 4.66 4.61 4.62 5.01 4.75 4.90 4.78 4.43 4.76 4.81 5.41 4.04 4.23 4.02 4.25 5.06 5.04 5.13 4.73 5.03 4.93 5.37 5.77 4.49 4.96 | 357 !Chart 6A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, ;and three according to creativity X SES. i MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCD LCNCD Moral and Social Values j1. People who ! work very ! hard E- A- j Perceiving Utility of School Experiences I j1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 3. Most people E- P- E- P- A- E- P- A- j 2. Ideal parents E- I P- A- E- P- A- E- 6.09 5.09 5.85 5.81 5.07 5.73 3.61 5.05 4.15 3.74 4.61 4.07 4.31 4.85 4.73 4.33 5.02 4.74 5.17 5.10 4.88 5.08 5.01 4.98 4.85 4.62 4.90 5.02 4.61 4.95 4.60 4.79 4.77 4.45 4.75 4.58 5.15 4.70 4.88 4.94! 4.52 4.85| i ! 5.21 4.15 4.37 5.14 4.10 4.14 4.98 5.06 4.91 4.86 4.66 4.80 5.52 4.64 5.24 5.55 4.76 5.37 HCNCD = LCNCD = ----- 358 Chart 7A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCCD LCNCD E- P- E- P- A- E- P- A- 3. Most people E- P- A- Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents E- P- A- E- 6.01 5.81 4.80 5.07 6.00 5.73! 3.07 5.00 3.85 4.38 4.91 4.50 5.32 5.26 5.09 5.11 4.76 5.17 3.85 4.95 4.30 5.23 4.47 5.10 3.74 4.61 4.07 4.33 5.02 4.74 5.08 5.01 4.98 5.02 4.61 4.95 4, 4. 4. 4, 4, 4, .45 .75 .58 ,94 | .52 .85 5 .02 5.14 3.82 4.10 3.98 4.14 5.04 4.86 5.21 4.66 4.98 4.80 5.36 5.55] 4.61 4.76| 5.13 5.37' HCCD = LCNCD = 359 Chart 8A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCD LCCD Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents 3. Most people E- P- A- 6.01 4.80 6.00 E' f E. E. E 5.87 4.98 5.89 3.07 5.00 3.85 3.39 4.81 4.02 4.38 4.91 4.50 3.99 4.78 4.23 5.32 5.26 5.09 4.91 4.80 4.50 1 5.11 4.76 5.17 5.11 4.80 4.84 3.85 4.98 4 o 30 4.19 4.42 4.37 5.23 4.47 5.10 5.01 4.781 5.001 1 1 5.02 3.82 3.98 j 5.09 4.08 4.16 5.04 5.21 4.98 4.89 4.83 5.07 5.36 4.61 5.13 5.54 4.77 5.20 HCCD = Chart 9A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCNCD LCCD Moral and Social Values 1. People who, E- work very P- hard A- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents 3. Most people HCNCD = E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- / 6.09 5.09 5.85 E. E. LCCD 5.87 4.98 5.89 3.61 5.05 4.15 3.39 4.81 4.02 4.31 4.85 4.73 3.99 4.78 4.23 5.17 5.10 4.88 4.91 4,80 4.50 4.85 4.62 4.90 5.11 4.80 4.84 4.60 4.79 4.77 4.19 4.42 4.37 5.15 4.70 4.88 5.01: 4.78! 5.00 5.21 4.15 4.37 5.09 4.08 4.16! 4.98 5.06 4.91 4.89 4.83 5.07 5.52 4.64 5.24 5.54 4.77 5.20 361 Chart 10A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCCDB I Moral and Social Values i !1. People who E----- | work very P----- I hard A---- |Perceiving Utility of School Experiences Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests School 5. Reading 6. Studying I Adult Approval i i1. Grown-ups I 2. Ideal parents 3. Most people E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- 5.81 5.21 6.08 E- E. 5.89 5.19 5.99 HCCDB = LCCDB = 3.07 5.12 3.86 3 .53 4.81 4.06 4.22 4.89 4.32 3.76 5.01 4.19 5.06 5.35 4.97 5.11 4.90 4.73 4.68 5.05 4.95 4.99 4.73 4.81 3.62 5.06 4.29 3.95 4.38 4.24 5.28 4.72 5.13 5.07 4.98 5.02 4.65 3.93 3.89 4.50 3.81 3.83 5.00 5.27 4.91 4.67 4.89 4.97 5.44 4.51 5.18 5.30 4.60 5.11 ; 362 I Chart 11A.--Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, I and three according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCCDB j Moral and Social Values i1. People who ; work very I hard i I Perceiving Utility of School Experiences !1. Homework 6.21 5.92 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents 3. Most people E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- E' E. E. IK 5.89 5.19 5.99 3.08 4.87 3.84 3.53 4.81 4.06 4.53 4.93 4.67 3.76 5.01 4.19 5.57 5.17 5.21 5.11 4.90 4.73 5.54 4.48 5.39 4.99 4.73 4.81 4.08 4.89 4.31 3.95 4.38 4.24 5.18 4.23 5.08 5.07 4.98 5.02 5.38 3.72 4.06 4.50 3.81 3.83 5.08 5.16 5.05 4.67 4.89 4.97 5.27 4.71 5.08 5.30 4.60 5.11 HCCDG = LCCDB = |Chart 12A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for |and three according to creativity X SES X areas four, sex. 363 five, MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCCDG Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard E- P_ A- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic i ! i i |3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading i i i 6. Studying j Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 3. Most people E- P_ A- E- P- A- i 2. Ideal parents. E- P_ A- 6.21 4.40 5.92 A A 5.81 4.73 5.75 3.08 4.87 3.84 3.26 4.83 4.00 4.53 4.93 4.67 4.19 4.49 4.25 5.57 5.17 5.21 4.63 4.67 4.22 5.54 4.48 5.39 5.24 4.90 4.85 4.08 4.89 4.31 4.42 4.42 4.46 5.18 4.23 5.08 j 4.88| 4.55 i 4.91 5.38 3.72 4.06 5.72 4.41 4.48 5.08 5.16 5.05 5.26 4.73 5.17 5.27 4.71 5.08 5.82 5.00 5.31 HCCDG = LCCDG = 364 Chart 13A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCCDG Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard E- A- E- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- 2. Ideal parents I 3. Most people -z>- \ Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 11. Homework 2. Arithmetic I 1 J I 3. Taking tests t i 4. School i i 5. Reading i i ‘6. Studying i Adult Approval |1. Grown-ups HCCDB = E. LCCDG 5.81 5.21 6.08 5.81 4.73 5.75 3.07 5.12 3.86 3.26 4.83 4.00 4.22 4.89 4.32 4.19 4.49 4.25 5.06 5.35 4.97 4.63 4.67 4.22 4.68 5.05 4.95 5.24 4.90 4.85 3.62 5.06 4.29 4.42 4.42 4.46 5.28 4.72 5.13 4.88 4.55 4.91 4.65 3.93 3.89 5.72 4.41 4.48 5.00 5.27 4.91 5.26 4.73 5.17 5.44 4.51 5.18 5.82 5.00 5.31 365 |Chart 14A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, I and three according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCNCDB Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard A- 6.26 5.41 5.96 Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying ! Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents 3. Most people HCNCDB E- P- E- P- A- E- P- E. E. E. 5.89 5.20 5.87 LCNCDB - 3.46 5.02 3.98 3.64 4.44 3.97 4.18 5.08 4.53 4.14 5.02 4.72 4.97 5.12 4.75 5.01 5.07 5.20 4.71 4.68 4.88 4.89 4.46 4.86 4.07 4.90 4.49 4.11 4.74 4.46 4.79 4.77 4.72 5.19 4.67 5.09 4.94 4.13 4.13 5.20 4.11 4.27 5.10 5.02 5.12 4.80 4.63 4.91 5.32 4.48 4.98 5.43 4.59 5.12 366 Chart 15A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCNCDB Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 3. Most people E- A E- P- A- 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests i 4. School i i 5. Reading I ;6. Studying i 1 |Adult Approval i I 1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents E- P- A- E. E- 5.86 4.64 5.69 5.89 5.20 5.87 HCNCDG = LCNCDB = 3.82 5.09 4.39 3.64 4.44 - 3.97 4.49 4.53 5.00 4.14 5.02 4.72 5.46 5.07 5.08 5.01 5.07 5.20 5.06 4.52 4.92 4.89 4.46 4.86 5.33 4.63 5.16 4.11 4.74 4.46 5.66 4.61 5.10 5.19 4.67 5.09 5.59 4.18 4.17 5.20 4.11 4.27 4.80 5.10 4.62 4.80 4.63 4.91 5.81 4.86 5.60 5.43 4.59 5.12 jChart 16A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for I and three according to creativity X SES X 367 areas four, five, sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 4 HCNCDG LCNCDG Moral and Social Values |1. People who E- j work very P- hard A- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic i ( i ! i j |3. Taking tests |4. School j5. Reading I 6. Studying |Adult Approval 1. Grown-ups 3. Most people HCNCDG E- A- E- P- A- 2. Ideal parents E- P~ A- E- P- A- 5.86 4.64 5.69 E. E- E- 5.75 4.92 5.58 3.82 5.09 4.39 3.82 4.82 4.18 4.49 4.53 5.00 4.61 5.03 4.76 5.46 5.07 5.08 5.20 4.95 4.70 5.06 4.52 4.92 5.20 4.78 5.09 5.33 4.63 5.16 4.89 4.80 4.78 5.66 4.61 5.10 4.69 4.32 4.61 5.59 4.18 4.17 5.12 4.07 4.03 4.80 5.10 4.62 4.83 4.74 4.70 5.81 4.86 5.60 5.72 4.93 5.66 LCNCDG = 368 !Chart 17A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, |and three according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCNCDG Moral and Social Values I 1. People who E---- ! work very P---- l hard-----------A---- !Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic |3. Taking tests E- j P~ A- E- P- A- !4. School j5. Reading i 6. Studying i I iAdult Approval |1. Grown-ups 12. Ideal parents E- P- A- 3. Most people E. 6.26 5.41 5.96 5.02 5.08 4.97 5.12 4.75 4.71 4.68 4.88 4.07 4.90 4.49 4.79 4.77 4.72 4.94 4.13 4.13 5.10 5.02 5.12 5.32 4.48 4.98 5.75 4.92 5.58 3.82 4.82 4.18 4.61 5.03 4.76 5.20 4.95 4.70 5.20 4.78 5.09 4.89 4.80 4.78 4.69 4.32 4.61 5.12 4.07 4.03 4.83 4.74 4.70 5.72 4.93 5.66 HCNCDB = LCNCDG = 369 I I Chart 18A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four/ five, |and three according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCCDB Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard E- P- !Perceiving Utility of School Experiences j 1. Homework E- P- A- 2. Arithmetic j j i | i3. Taking tests |4. School. 5. Reading I i6. Studying j Adult Approval 11. Grown-ups i |2. Ideal parents E- A- E- P_ A- E- P- A- E- P- A- 6 5 5 ,26 ,41 ,96 E. 3. Most people HCNCDB LCCDB 5.89 5.19 5.99 3.46 5.02 3.98 3.53 4.81 4.06 4.18 5.08 4.53 3.76 5.01 4.19 4.97 5.12 4.75 5.11 4.90 4.73 4.71 4.68 4.88 4.99 4.73 4.81 4.07 4.90 4.49 3.95 4.38 4.24 4.79 4.77 4.72 5.07 4.98 5.02 4.94 4.13 4.13 4.50 3.81 3.83 5.10 5.02 5.12 4.67 4.89 4.97 5.32 4.48 4.98 5.30 4.60 5.11 ! ! 370 jChart 19A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, ! and three according to creativity X SES compared X sex | compared. ____________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 4 HCNCDG LCCDB Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic ~~~~ T* E. 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying I Adult Approval ! 1. Grown-ups E- P- A- 2. Ideal parents E- P- A- 3. Most people E. HCNCDG = E. 5.89 5.19 5.99 LCCDB = ----- 3.82 5.09 4.39 3.53 4.81 4.06 4.49 4.43 5.00 3.76 5.01 4.19 5.46 5.07 5.08 5.11 4.90 4.73 5.06 4.52 4.92 4.99 4.73 4.81 5.33 4.63 5.16 3.95 4.38 4.24 5.66 4.61 5.10 5.07; 4.98: 5.02 5.59 4.18 4.17 4.50 3.81 3.83 4.80 5.10 4.62 4.67 4.89 4.97 5.81 4.86 5.60 5.30 4.60 5.11 371 I I Chart 20A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, I and three according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 6 HCNCDG LCCDG Moral and Social Values 1. People who ! work very hard E- A- E. E- P- A- E- P- A- I Perceiving Utility of School Experiences i1. Homework 2. Arithmetic i i i ;3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying ] |Adult Approval !1. Grown-ups L '2. Ideal parents i I i i |3. Most people 5, 4, 5, 86 64 69 5.81 4.73 5.75 HCNCDG = LCCDG 3.82 5.09 4.39 3.26 4.83 4.00 4.49 4.53 5.00 4.19 4.49 4.25 5.46 5.07 5.08 4.63 4.67 4.22 5.06 4.52 4.92 5.24 4.90 4.85 5.33 4.63 5.16 4.42 4.42 4.46 5.66 4.61 5.10 4.88 4.55 4.91 5.59 4.18 4.17 5.72 4.41 4.48 4.80 5.10 4.62 5.26 4.73 5.17 5.81 4.86 5.60 5.82 5.00 5.31 372 Chart 21A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES compared X sex compared. ____________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCCDG Moral and Social Values People who work very hard E- P- A- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic |3. Taking tests |4. School i |5. Reading I ;6. Studying jAdult Approval I !1. Grown-ups I i ] \2. Ideal parents 3. Most people E- P- A- E~ P- A^ rr- E- P- A- E- P- A- .26 .41 .96 E. 5.81 4.73 5.75 3.46 5.02 3.98 3.26 4.83 4.00 4.18 5.08 4.53 4.19 4.49 4.25 4.97 5.12 4.75 4.63 4.67 4.22 4.71 4.68 4.88 5.24 4.90 4.85 4.07 4.90 4.49 4.42 4.42 4.46 4.79 4.77 4.72 4.88 4.55 4.91 4.94 4.13 4.13 5.72 4.41 4.48 5.10 5.02 . 5.12 5.26 4.73 5.17 5.32 4.48 4.98 5.82 5.00 5.31 HCNCDB i 373 jChart 22A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, | and three according to creativity X SE'S compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCNCDB Moral and Social Values |1. People who | work very hard E- P- A- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 3. Taking tests 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying iAdult Approval ! il. Grown-ups E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- 2. Ideal parents E- P- A~ 3. Most people E- P- A- HCCDB = — 5.81 5.21 6.08 A 5.89 5.20 5.87 LCNCDB = 3.07 5.12 3.86 3.64 4.44 3.97 4.22 4.89 4.32 4.14 5.02 4.72 5.06 5.35 4.97 5.01 5.07 5.20 4.68 5.05 4.95 4.98 4.46 4.86 3.62 5.06 4.29 4.11 4.74 4.46 5.28 4.72 5.13 5.19 4.67 5.09 : 4.65 3.93 3.89 5.20 4.11 4.27 5.00 5.27 4.91 4.80 4.63 4.91 5.44 4.51 5.18 5.43 4.59 5.12 i i 1 i 374 i jChart 23A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, land three according to creativity X SES compared X sex j compared. _____________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCNCDB 4*40 j Moral and Social Values !1. People who | work very hard S I Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic 4. School 5. Reading 6. Studying ; Adult Approval il. Grown-ups E- P- A- E- P- A- 2. Ideal parents E- P- 3. Most people E~ P- A- E. 5.89 5.20 5.87 HCCDG = LCNCDB = 3.08 4.87 3.84 3.64 4.44 3.97 4.53 4.93 4.67 4.14 5.02 4.72 5.57 5.17 5.21 5.01 5.07 5.20 5.54 4.48 5.39 4.89 4.46 4.86 4.08 4.89 4.31 4.11 4.74 4.46 5.18 4.23 5.08 5.19 4.67 i 5.09 5.38 3.72 4.06 5.20 4.11 4.27 5.08 5.16 5.05 4.80 4.63 4.91 5.27 4.71 5.08 5.43 4.59 5.12 375 Chart 24A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES compared X sex. mowt pnnrnnt" Mean Factor Scores 1 V 1L/W± ^UilCC^->T-.o ' " ■ i — — . . . ■ ■ 3 4 5 6 HCCDG LCNCDG Moral and Social Values 1 Peonle who E.. -■ 6 5 76 wnfV P . . . • 4 40 4 P2 hard A--------------- — ---- 5.92 5.58 Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic E- P- A- E- P- A- '3. Taking tests i ;4. School j ;5. Reading i 6. Studying Adult Approval |1. Grown-ups 2. Ideal parents E- P- I 3. Most people E- P- A- -3L E. E. HCCDG = LCNCDG = 3.08 4.87 3.84 3.82 4.82 4.18 4.53 4.93 4.67 4.61 5.03 4.76 5.57 5.17 5.21 5.20 4.95 4.70 5.54 4.48 5.39 5.20 4.78 5.09 4.08 4.89 4.31 4.89 4.80 4.78 5.18 4.23 5.08 4.69 4.32 4.61 5.38 3.72 4.06 5.12 4.07 4.03 5.08 5.16 5.05 4.83 4.74 4.70 5.27 4.71 5.08 5.72 4.93 5.66 376 Chart 25A.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas four, five, and three according to creativity X SES compared X sex compared. _____________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 4 HCCDB LCNCDG Moral and Social Values 1. People who work very hard E- P- Perceiving Utility of School Experiences 1. Homework 2. Arithmetic | ; 3. Taking tests j j 14. School I 15. Reading \ j 6. Studying i i f i l j Adult Approval ! 1. Grown-ups i j |2. Ideal parents 3. Most people E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P~ A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- I I 5 5 6 81 ,21 08 5.75 4.92 5.58 3.07 5.12 3.86 3.82 4.82 4.18 4.22 4.89 4.32 4.61 5.03 4.76 5.06 5.35 4.97 5.20 4.95 4.70 4.68 5.05 4.95 5.20 4.78 5.09 3.62 5.06 4.29 4.89 4.80 4.78 5.28 4.72 5.13 4.69 4.32 4.61 4.65 5.12 3.93 4.07 3.89 4.03 5.00 4.83 5.27 4.74 4.91 4.70 5.44 5.72 4.51 4.93 5.18 5.66 HCCDB = LCNCDG = 377 Chart IB.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HC LC Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- P- A- E— P— A- E~ E- P- Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A~ E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— 4.31 4.52 4.63 4.15 4.48 4.47 5.62 5.34 4.81 4.65 5.38 5.16 4.71 4.57 4.37 4.53 4.71 4.70 5.07 4.87 4.18 4.22 4.51 4.26 3.63 4.97 4.09 3.87 4.94 4.32 5.07 4.21 4.78 5.02 4.27 4.78 3.66 4.78 3.97 3.91 4.58 4.26 5.52 5.12 5.06 5.16 5.08 5.74 5.62 5.50 4.78 4.65 5.18 5.05 4.82 4.90 4.98 4.81 4.76 4.66 j 378 |Chart 2B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, |eight, and ten according to creativity X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCB LCB |Success Patterns I 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- A- E” A- Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— 4.17 4.58 4.37 5.40 4.90 5.22 4.43 4.50 4.62 4.93 4.08 4.42 5.52 5.27 5.31 5.51 4.82 5.08 4.70 4.87 4.62 4.79 4.14 4.70 4.24 4.27 4.32 5.25 4.89 5.10 4.45 4.54 4.77 4.83 4.05 4.38 3.65 4.66 4.07 4.03 3.92 4.92 4.54 4.31 5.29 5.20 4.95 5.35 4.72 5.08 4.66 4.81 4.63 4.75 4.12 4.72 HCB = LCB = 379 Chart 3B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven; eight, and ten according to creativity X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCG LCB E- P- E- A- Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E organizations P A- 4.47 4.68 4.60 4.24 4.27 4.32 5.88 4.71 5.58 5.25 4.89 5.10 5.02 4.21 4.83 4.45 4.54 4.77 5.23 4.30 4.62 4.83 4.05 4.38 i i 3.81 4.97 4.16 3.65 4.66 4.07 3.81 4.95 4.27 3.98 4.54 4.31 5.51 4.83 4.83 5.29 j 5.20 | 4.95 5.74 4.73 5.31 5.35 4.72 5.08 5.03 5.12 4.97 4.66 4.81 4.63 5.40 4.30 4.87 1 4.75 4.12 4.72 Chart 4B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for eight, and ten according to creativity X areas six, sex. 380 seven. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 3 4 5 6 HCG LCG Success Patterns 1. First grade E- "A-"" ----- 4.47 4.87 p--------- ---------------- — 4.68 4.01 A----------— ^-------- ----- 4.60 4.64 2. My grades e--------------- —--- 5.88 5.45 p------------ 4.71 4.36 A- 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- A- E- P- A- ;Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- |Spontaneous Interest !1. Clubs and E organizations P HCG = 5.05 4.21 4.83 5.23 4.30 4.62 5.58 5.23 4.71 4.53 4.60 4.92 4.42 4.56 3.81 4.97 4.16 3.69 4.92 3.82 3.81 4.95 4.27 3.82 4.64 4.20 5.51 4.83 4.83 4.91 5.11 4.49 1 j 5.74 4.73 5.31 5.67 4.57 5.02 5.03 5.12 4.97 5.19 | 4.81 j 4.70 5.40 4.30 4.87 5.34 4.46 4.85 LOG = 381 i ;Chart 5B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores H C B L C G E- P- A- E- P- A- Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 14. Poor people I Authority Relationships i1. Rules E- P- A- E- P- A- ;2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College |2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— HCB = LCG = 4.17 4.58 4.37 4.87 4.01 4.64 5.40 4.90 5.22 5.45 4.36 5.23 4.43 4.50 4.62 4.71 4.53 4.60 4.93 4.08 4.42 4.92 4.42 4.56 3.47 4.96 4.03 3.69 4.92 3.82 3.92 4.92 4.37 3.82 4.64 4.20 5.52 5.27 5.31 4.91 5.11 4.49 5.51 4.82 5.08 5.67 4.57 5.02 4.70 4.87 4.62 5.19 4.81 | 4.70 | | i 4.79 4.14 4.70 j 5.34 | 4.46 4.85 382 Chart 6B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 4 HCNCD LCNCD Success Patterns 1. First grade j 2. My grades 3. Rich people i4. Poor people E- P- A- Authority Relationships 1. Rules ;2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College Success ;3. My future E_ P- A- Spontaneous interest 1. Cluhs and E— organizations P— A— E. E. E. HCNCD = LCNCD = 4.67 4.68 4.64 4.55 4.30 4.60 5.69 4.68 5.47 5.40 4.58 5.12 4.76 4.44 4.57 4.67 4.56 4.58 5.10 4.15 4.61 5.07 4.31 4.53 3.46 4.99 3.92 3.64 4.84 3.97 3.81 5.10 4.31 4.06 4.65 4.40 5.43 4.96 5.01 5.14 5.01 4.80 5.56 4.78 5.21 5.50 4.68 5.09 4.84 4.99 4.95 4.89 4.75 4.73 4.97 4.25 4 .66 5.00 4.39 4.78 | 383 iChart 7B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCD LCNCD Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- 1 Authority Relationships !1. Rules 2. Discipline ; Goal Direction .1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— E E 3.93 4.57 4.30 5.17 4.17 4.91 4.55 4.30 4.60 5.54 4.95 5.29 5.40 4.58 5.12 4.66 4.28 4.87 4.67 4.56 4.58 5.04 4.22 4.41 5.07 4.31 4.53 3.81 4.95 4.27 3.64 4.84 3.97 3.94 4.76 4.34 4.06 4.65 4.40 5.60 5.18 5.18 5.14 5.01 4.80 5.68 4.78 5.15 5.50 4.68 5.09 4.86 4.98 4.60 4.89 4.75 4.73 5.00 4.39 4.78 HCCD = LCNCD 384 Chart 8B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCD IiCCD Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- P- A- E- P- A- Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E organizations P A. E. E. 3.93 4.57 4.30 4.50 3.89 4.32 5.55 4.95 5.29 5.28 4.73 5.21 4.66 4.28 4.87 4.47 4.50 4.83 5.04 4.22 4.41 4.66 4.13 4.39 3.81 4.95 4.27 3.69 4.71 3.97 3.94 4.76 4.34 3.74 4.51 4.11 5.60 5.18 5.18 5.10 5.32 4.68 5.68 4.78 5.15 5.50 4.62 5.00 4.86 4.98 4.60 4.91 4.88 4.59 5.17 4.17 4.98 5.05 4.14 4.78 LCCD = 385 Chart 9B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCD LCCD Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people |4. Poor people E- Authority Relationships :1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College Success ;3. My future A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— Er E- 3 4.67 4.50 4.68 3.99 4.64 4.32 5.69 5.28 4.68 4.73 5.47 5.21 4.76 ' 4.47 4.44 4.50 4.57 4.83 5.10 4.66 4.15 4.13 4.61 4.39 HCNCD = LCCD = 3.46 4.99 3.92 3.69 4.71 3.97 3.81 5.10 4.31 3.74 4.51 4.11 5.43 4.96 5.01 5.10 5.32 4.68 5.56 4.78 5.21 5.50 4.62 5.00 4.84 4.99 4.95 4.91 4.88 4.59 4.97 4.25 4.66 5.05 4.14 4.78 386 Chart 10B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCCDB 3.95 4.44 4.32 4.35 4.28 4.22 5.35 5.14 5.11 5.28 5.00 5.23 4.14 4.51 4.51 3.97 4.56 4.69 4.98 4.31 4.37 4.63 3.94 4.19 3.60 4.76 4.33 3.65 4.81 4.16 3.86 4.69 4.19 3.93 4.52 4.14 Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E. E- P- A- E- P- A- iAuthority Relationships 1. Rules E- P- A- 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A_ ! Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— HCCDB = LCCDB = 5.39 5.17 5.21 5.30 5.25 4.65 5.62 5.45 4.82 4.78 5.14 5.15 4.62 4.72 4.88 4.91 4.57 4.59 4.81 4.78 4.14 4.15 4.81 4.73 ---~ ■ i j 387 jChart llB.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, !eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCCDB Success Patterns 1. First grade |2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- P- A- E- P- A- Authority Relationships 1. Rules :2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College Success |3. My future Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E organizations P A IS E E 3.90 4.69 4.27 4.35 4.28 4.22 5.74 4.76 5.46 5.28 5.00 5.23 5.17 4.07 5.22 3.97 4.56 4.69 5.11 4.13 4.44 4.63 3.94 4.19 4.01 5.13 4.21 3.65 4.81 4.16 4.01 4.83 4.48 3.93 4.52 4.14 5.80 5.16 5.11 5.17 5.30 4.65 5.75 4.75 5.16 5.45 4.78 5.15 5.10 5.08 4.64 4.72 4.91 4.59 5.53 4.20 5.01 4.78 4.15 4.73 HCCDG = LCCDB = - 388 Chart 12B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex. i MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCCDG Success Patterns 1. First grade 12. My grades 3. Rich people i 4. Poor people E Authority Relationships 1. Rules | 2. Discipline E- P- A- Goal Direction 1. College I 2. Success 3. My future E E Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E organizations P A HCCDG = LCCDG = 3.90 4.69 4.27 4.72 3.67 4.48 5.74 4.76 5.46 5.24 4.40 5.14 5.17 4.07 5.22 4.96 4.43 4.91 5.11 4.13 4.44 4.62 4.32 4.57 4.01 5.13 4.21 i i 3.76 4.61 3.73 4.01 4.83 4.48 3.44 4.49 4.02 5.80 5.16 5.11 4.97 5.33 4.68 5.75 4.75 5.16 5.54 4.46 4.83 5.10 5.08 4.64 5.11 4.85 4.58 5.53 4.20 5.01 5.35 4.12 4.78 f 389 Chart 13B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 4 HCCDB LCCDG Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E. E- P- A- E- P- A- :Authority Relationships 11. Rules 2. Discipline I Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A_ E- P_ A- E. Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— HCCDB = LCCDG = 3.95 4.44 4.32 4.72 3.67 4.48 5.35 5.14 5.11 5.24 4.40 5.14 4.14 4.51 4.51 4.96 4.43 4.91 4.98 4.31 4.37 4.62 4.32 4.57 3.60 4.76 4.33 3.76 4.61 3.73 3.86 4.69 4.19 3.44 4.49 4.02 5.39 5.21 5.25 4.97 5.33 4.68 5.62 4.82 5.14 5.54 4.46 4.83 4.62 4.88 4.57 5.11 4.85 4.58 4.81 4.14 4.81 5.35 4.12 4.78 |Chart 14B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, :eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex. 390 seven, MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCNCDB Success Patterns 1. First grade |2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E E- Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— / 4.35 4.65 4.40 4.14 4.27 4.41 5.44 4.71 5.30 5.23 4.79 4.98 4.65 4.49 4.71 4.87 4.52 4.85 4.90 3.90 4.45 5.01 4.15 4.54 3.37 5.13 3.79 3.64 4.52 4.03 3.98 5.11 4.51 4.02 4.55 4.46 5.61 5.31 5.36 5.41 5.11 5.22 5.43 4.83 5.02 5.27 4.67 5.02 4.77 4.87 4.67 4.60 4.72 4.67 4.77 4.14 4.61 4.73 4.09 4.71 HCNCDB = LCNCDB = 391 j Chart 15B.--Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex compared. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 6 HCNCDG LCNCDB E- A- Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— 5.11 4.67 4.98 6.04 4.64 4.71 4.92 4.38 4.39 5.38 4.50 4.82 3.59 4.79 4.10 3.58 5.08 4.02 5.18 4.47 4.52 4.71 5.48 4.94 5.17 5.36 5.24 4.41 4.72 4.14 4.27 4.41 5.23 4.79 4.98 4.89 4.52 4.85 5.01 4.15 4.54 3.64 4.52 4.03 4.02 4.55 4.46 5.41 5.11 5.22 5.27 4.67 5.02 4.60 4.72 4.67 4.73 4.09 4.71 HCNCDG = LCNCDB 392 I Chart 16B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, !eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCNCDG E- A- E- A- E- A- Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people .Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College i 2. Success 3. My future E- 'P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— £ 5 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 .11 .67 .98 .04 .64 .71 .92 .38 ,39 A- 5, 4 4 , 5, 4. 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, .18 .47 .52 .73 .71 .48 .94 .17 .36 .24 .41 .72 5.01 4.32 4.78 5.66 4.33 5.32 4.48 4.63 4.31 5.20 4.52 4.56 3.62 5.21 3.90 4.17 4.77 4.36 4.85 4.90 4.31 5.80 4.68 5.19 5.27 4.78 4.81 5.33 4.78 4.91 HCNCDG = LCNCDG = i 393 j |Chart 17B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, j eight, and ten according to creativity X SES X sex compared, MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCNCDG I Success Patterns !1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people A- E- P- A- Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline I E- P- A- Goal Direction 1. College E- P- A- Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— z 4.35 4.65 4.40 5.01 4.32 4.78 HCNCDB = LCNCDG = 5.44 4.71 5.30 5.66 4.33 5.32 4.65 4.49 4.71 4.48 4.63 4.31 4.90 3.90 4.45 5.20 4.52 4.56 3.37 5.13 3.79 3.62 5.21 3.90 4.98 5.11 4.51 4.17 4.77 4.36 5.61 5.31 5.36 4.85 4.90 4.31 5.43 4.83 5.02 5.80 4.68 5.19 4.77 4.87 4.67 5.27 4.78 4.81 4.77 4.14 4.61 5.33 4.78 4.91 1 _______ I 394 Chart 18B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDB LCCDB Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people Authority Relationships E E 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— 4.35 4.65 4.40 E. 4.35 4.28 4.22 HCNCDB = LCCDB = 5.44 4.71 5.30 5.28 5.00 5.23 4.65 4.49 4.71 3.97 4.56 4.69 4.90 3.90 4.45 4.63 3.94 4.19 3.37 5.13 3.79 3.65 4.81 4.16 3.98 5.11 4.51 3.93 4.52 4.14 5.61 5.31 5.36 5.17 5.30 4.65 5.43 4.83 5.02 5.45 4.78 5.15 4.77 4.87 4.67 4.72 4.91 4.59 4.77 4.14 4.61 4.78 4.15 4.73 i 395 jChart 19B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, | eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X | sex compared.________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCCDB Success Patterns 1. First grade !2. My grades |3. Rich people 4. Poor people Authority Relationships 1. Rules E. E- P- A- |2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success : 3. My future E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— E. E. HCNCDG = LCCDB = 5-11 4.67 4-98 4.35 4.28 4.22 6.04 4.64 4.71 5.28 5.00 5.23 4.92 4.38 4.39 3.97 4.56 4.69 5.38 4.50 4.82 4.63 3.94 4.19 3.59 4.79 4.10 3.65 4.81 4.16 3.58 5.08 4.02 3.93 4.52 4.14 5.18 4.47 4.52 5.17 5.30 4.65 5.73 4.71 5.48 5.45 4.78 5.15 4.94 5.17 5.36 4.72 4.91 4.59 5.24 4.41 4.72 4.78 4.15 4.73 I 396 :Chart 20B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, I eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X j sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCNCDG LCCDG Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- E' Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College Success 3. My future E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— HCNCDG = LCCDG = 5.11 4.67 4.98 4.72 3.67 4.48 6.04 4.64 4.71 5.24 4.40 5.14 4.92 4.38 4.39 4.96 4.43 4.91 5.38 4.52 4.82 4.62 4.32 4.57 3.59 4.79 4.10 3.76 4.61 3.73 3.58 5.08 4.02 3.44 4.49 4.02 5.18 4.47 4.52 4.97 5.33 4.68 5.73 4.71 5.48 5.54 4.46 4.83 4.94 5.11 5.36 5.11 4.85 4.58 5.24 4.41 4.72 5.35 4.12 4.78 I 397 | Chart 2IB.--Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, j eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X | sex compared.________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 4 HCNCDB LCCDG Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people Authority Relationships 1. Rules E-- A. E' E- | 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College Success 3. My future Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— 4.35 4.72 4.65 3.67 4.40 4.48 5.44 5.24 4.71 4.40 5.30 5.14 4.65 4.96 4.49 4.43 4.71 4.91 4.90 4.62 3.90 4.32 4.45 4.57 E- E HCNCDB = LCCDG = 3.37 5.13 3.79 3.76 4.61 3.73 3.98 5.11 4.51 3 .44 4.49 4.02 5.61 5.31 5.36 4.97 5.33 4.68 5.43 4.83 5.02 5.54 4«46 4.83 4.77 4.87 4.67 5.11 4.85 4.58 4.77 4.14 4.61 5.35 4.12 4.78 398 Chart 22B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCNCDB Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- P- A- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- Authority Relationships 1. Rules 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— y HCCDB LCNCDB = 3.95 4.44 4.32 4.14 4.27 4.41 5.35 5.14 5.11 5.23 4.79 4.98 4.14 4.51 4.51 4.87 4.52 4.85 4.98 4.31 4.37 5.01 4.15 4.54 3.60 4.76 4.33 3.64 4.52 4.03 3.86 4.69 4.19 4.02 4.55 4.46 5.39 5.21 5.25 5.41 ! 5.11 5.22 5.62 4.82 5.14 5 o27 4.67 5.02 4.62 4.88 4.57 4.60 4.72 4.67 4.81 4.14 4.81 4.73 4.09 4.71 399 Chart 23B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X sex compared.________________________________________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores 4 HCCDG LCNCDB Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people E- A- E- P- A- Authority Relationships 1. Rules i2. Discipline Goal Direction College Success 3. My future E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A— A E E' E' HCCDG = LCNCDB = 3.90 4.69 4.27 4.14 4.27 4.41 5.74 4.76 5.46 5.23 4.79 4.98 5.17 4.07 5.22 4.87 4.52 4.85 5.11 4.13 4.44 5.01 4.15 4.54 4.01 5.13 4.21 3.64 4.52 4.03 4.01 4.83 4.48 4.02 4.55 4.46 5.80 5.16 5.11 5.41 5.11 5.22 5.75 4.75 5.16 5.27 4.67 5.02 5.10 5.08 4.64 4.60 4.72 4.67 5.53 4.20 5.01 4.73 4.09 4.71 1 400 Chart 24B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X sex. MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDG LCNCDG Success Patterns 1. First grade 2. My grades 3. Rich people 4. Poor people ; Authority Relationships 1. Rules | 2. Discipline Goal Direction 1. College I 2. Success | 3. My future E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E organizations P A. HCCDG = E. E. E. E. T 3.90 5.01 4.69 4.32 4.27 4.78 5.74 5 .66 4.76 4.33 5.46 5.32 5.17 4.48 4.07 4.63 5.22 4.31 5.11 5.20 4.13 4.52 4.44 4.56 V 4.01 3.62 5.13 5.21 4.21 3.90 4.01 4.17 4.83 4.77 4.48 4.36 LCNCDG = 5.80 4.85 5.16 4.90 5.11 4.31 5.75 5.80 4.75 4.68 5.16 5.19 5.10 5.27 5.08 . 4.78 4.64 4.81 5.53 5.33 4.20 4.78 5.01 4.91 401 Chart 25B.— Plotting of MOWI concepts for areas six, seven, eight, and ten according to creativity X SES compared X I sex compared._____________________________ __________________ MOWI Concepts Mean Factor Scores HCCDB LCNCDG Success Patterns 1. First grade I 2. My grades 3. Rich people !4. Poor people E- ' ' ' E- P- A- E- P- A- ! Authority Relationships 1. Rules \2. Discipline ;Goal Direction i1. College 2. Success 3. My future E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- E- P- A- Spontaneous Interest 1. Clubs and E— organizations P— A- —r~ \ T 3.95 4.44 4.32 5.35 5.14 5.11 4.14 4.51 4.51 4.98 4.31 4.37 3.60 4.76 4.33 5.01 4.32 4.78 5.66 4.33 5.32 4.48 4.63 4.31 5.20 4.52 4.56 3.62 5.21 3.90 4.17 4.77 4.69 4.36 HCCDB = LCNCDG = 5.39 4.85 5.21 4.90 5.25 4.31 5.62 5.80 4.82 4.68 5.14 5.19 4.62 5.27 4.88 4.78 4.57 4.81 4.81 5.33 4.14 4.78 4.81 4.91 BIBLI OG RA PH Y \ BIBLIOGRAPHY Books 1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. 2. Aleck, Adolph W. "The Psychology of Character," in Educational Psychology, Pintner, Rudolf, et al. College Outline Series, Fifth Edition. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961. 3. Allport, Gordon W. Becoming: Basic Considerations for a Psychology of Personality. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. 4. ________. Patterns and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. 5. Allport, Gordon W., Vernon, P. E., and Lindzey, G. Study of Values: Manual of Directions. Revised Edition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1951. 6. Anastasi, Anne. Differential Psychology. Third Edition. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1958. 7. ________. Psychological Testing. Second Edition. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1961. 8. Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. 9. Andrews, Michael F. (ed.). Creativity and Psycho logical Health: A Symposium. Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. ______ 403_________________ ___________ 404 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Andrews, Michael F. "The Dialectics of Creativity and Mental Health," in Creativity and Psychological Health; A Symposium, Andrews, Michael F. (ed.). Orange, New Jersey; Syracuse University Press, 1961. Asch, S. E. Social Psychology. New York: Prentice- Hall, 1952. Bagley, William C. The Education Process. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914. Barron, Frank, et al. Creativity and Conformity. Ann Arbor, Michigan; Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1958. Barton, Allen H. Studying the Effects of College Education. New Haven; The Edward H. Hazen Foundation, 1959. Berenda, R. W. The Influence of the Group on the Judgment of Children. Kings Crown Press, 1950. Brameld, Theodore, and Elam, Stanley (eds.). Values in American Education; Phi Delta Kappa Symposium. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1964. Brubacher, John S. (ed.). The Public School and j Spiritual Values. Seventh Yearbook of the John i Dewey Society. New York: Harper and Brothers, I 1944. Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Educa tion in Transition. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Childs, John L. Education and Morals. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1950. Clifton, Marguerite. "Developing Value Judgments," in Toward Excellence in College Teaching, Pullias, E. V., and Lockhart, A. (eds.). Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1963. J 405 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1961. Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Test ing. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Dewey, John. "Ethical Principles Underlying Educa tion," in The Third Yearbook of National Herbart Society, 1897. Second Impression. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1907. Dow, Alden B. "An Architect's View on creativity," in Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. English, Horace B., and English, Ava C. A Compre hensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psycho analytic Terms. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1958. Fliegler, Louis A. "Dimensions of the Creative Process,” in Creativity and Psychological Health: A Symposium, Andrews, Michael F. (ed.)„ Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. Friedenberg, Edgar Z. The Vanishing Adolescent. New York: Dell Book Company, 1962. Fromm, Erich. "The Creative Attitude," in Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Gardner, John W. Self Renewal. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964. Getzels, Jacob W. "The Acquisition of Values in School and Society," in The High School in a New Era, Chase, Francis S., and Anderson, Harold H. (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. 406 31. Getzels, Jacob W., and Jackson, Philip W. Creativity and Intelligence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. 32. Golovin, N. E. "The Creative Person in Science,1 1 in Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development, Taylor, C. W., and Barron, F. (eds.). New York: John H. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. 33. Guilford, J. P. "creativity, Its Measurement and Development" (Adapted from an address presented to Educators of Sacramento County, Sacramento, California, January 20, 1959), in A Source Book for Creative Thinking, Parnes, Sidney J., and Harding, Harold E. (eds.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962. 34. ________. "Traits of Creativity," in creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. 35. Hall, G. Stanley. Adolescence, Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education. New York; D. Appleton and Company, 1904. 36. ________. Morale, The Supreme Standard of Life and Conduct. New York: Appleton and Company, 1920. 37. Hartshorne, Hugh, and May, Mark A. Studies in | Deceit. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1928. 38. Havighurst, R. J., "What Are the Cultural Differences Which May Affect Performance on Intelligence Tests?" in Intelligence and Cultural Differences, Eells, Kenneth, et al. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 39. Hilgard, Ernest R. "Creativity and Problem Solving," in Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. 407 40. Hofstadter, R., and Hardy, C. D. The Development and Scope of Higher Education in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. 41. Hollingshead, August B. Elmtown1s Youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949. 42. Hook, Sidney. Education for Modern Man. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963. 43. Horne, Herman H. The Philosophy of Education. Revised Edition. New York: The MacMillan Company, 192 7. 44. Hughes, Thomas. Tom Brown’s School Days. (n.d.) 45. Jacob, P. E. Changing Values in College. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1957. 46. Kennedy, Gail. "Education and the Three Cultures," in Values in American Education: Phi Delta Kappa Symposium, Brameld, Theodore, and Elam, Stanley (eds.). Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1964. 47. Kilpatrick, William H. Foundations of Method. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1926. 48. ________. Modern Education: Its Proper Work. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1949. 49. ________ . Philosophy of Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1951. 50. Kluckhohn, Clyde. Mirror for Man. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1949. 51.__________ . "Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action," in Toward a General Theory of Action, Parsons, Talcott, and Shils, Edward A. (eds.). Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1951, 408 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Kneller, George F. The Art and Science of Creativity. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1965. Lasswell, Harold D. "The Social Setting of Creativ ity," in Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Sym posium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Lawson, Douglas. Wisdom and Education. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University press, 1961. Lehman, Irvin J., and Dressel, Paul L. Changes in Critical Thinking Ability Attitudes, and Values Associated with College Attendance. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1963. Lippitt, Ronald. "Value Issues for a Classroom Change Agent," in Values in American Education: Phi Delta Kappa Symposium, Brameld, Theodore, and Elam, Stanley (eds.). Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1964. Lockhart, Aileene. "Toward Critical Thinking," in Toward Excellence in College Teaching, Pullias, E. V., and Lockhart, A. (eds.). Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1963. Lowenfeld, Viktor. "Basic Aspects of Creative Think- | ing," in Creativity and Psychological Health: A I Symposium, Andrews, Michael F. (ed.). Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. ________. "What Is Creative Thinking?" in Creativity: Second Minnesota Conference on Gifted Children, j Torrance, E. P. (ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Center for Continuation Study, 1959. 60. Marksberry, Mary Lee. Foundation of Creativity. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1963. 409 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. Maslow, Abraham. "Creativity in Self-Actualizing People," in Creativity and Its Cultivation; A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. May, Rollo. "The Nature of Creativity," in Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Mead, Margaret. "Creativity in Cross-Cultural Per spective ,1 1 in Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Miller, Donna Mae. "Toward Creative Thinking," in Toward Excellence in College Teaching, Pullias, E. V., and Lockhart, A. (eds.). Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1963. Morris, Charles M. Signs, Language, and Behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946. Morris, Van Cleve. Philosophy and The American School. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1961. Moustakas, Clark. "Creativity, Conformity and the Self," in Creativity and Psychological Health: A Symposium, Andrews, Michael F. (ed.). Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. Mowrer, 0. Hobart. The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1961. Muller, Hermann J. "The Role of Science Education in Value Formation," in Values in American Education; Phi Delta Kappa Symposium, Brameld, Theodore, and Elam, Stanley (eds.). Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1964. Murphy, G., Murphy, L. B., Newcomb, T. M. Experi mental Social Psychology. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1937. 410 71. Murray, Edward J. Motivation and Emotion. Founda tions of Modern Psychology Series. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. 72. Murray, H. A., and Kluckhohn, C. "Outline of a Con ception of Personality,” in Personality in Nature, Society and Culture, Murray, H. A., and Kluckhohn, C. (eds.). New York: Knopf, 1948. 73. Mussen, Paul H. The Psychological Development of the Child. Foundations of Modern Psychology Series. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1963. 74. Nathan, Robert. "A Note to Politicians," in The Green Leaf. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1950. 75. National Education Association. "Fostering Mental Health in Our Schools," in 1950 Yearbook of the | Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1950. 76. Ojemann, Ralph H. "Are Creativity and Mental Health Compatible?" in Creativity and Psychological Health: A Symposium, Andrews, Michael F. (ed.). Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. 77. Opler, Morris E. "Values and Education in Cultural Perspective," in Values in American Education: Phi Delta Kappa Symposium, Brameld, Theodore, and Elam, Stanley (eds.). Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1964. 78. OrtegayGassett, Jose. Mission of the University. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1944. 79. Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J., and Tannenbaum, Percy H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, Illinois: The University of Illinois Press, 1957. 411 80. Parker, Francis Wayland. Talks on Teaching. Reported by Patridge, Lelia E. New York: E. L. Kellogg and Company, 1903. 81. Piaget, Jean. The Moral Judgment of the Child. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1932. 82. Plant, W. T. Personality Changes Associated with College Education. Grant 348, SAE 7666, U. S. Office of Education. San Jose State College, 1962. 83. Raths, James. "Clarifying Values," in Curriculum for Today's Boys and Girls, Fleming, Robert (ed.). Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1963. 84. Remmers, H. H., and Radler, D. H. The American Teenager. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1957. 85. Riesman, David. Constraint and Variety in American Education. Lincoln, Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press, 1956. 86. Rogers, Carl, quoted in Goldsmith, Alfred. How to Increase Your Creative Output. New York: Industrial Relations News, Deutch and Shea, Inc., 1959. 87. Rogers, Carl. "Toward A Theory of Creativity, Etc.," in Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. 88. Schachtel, E. G. Metamorphosis: On the Development of Affect, Perception, Attention, and Memory. New York: Basic Books, 1959. 89. Smith, Huston. "Values: Academic and Human," in The Larger Learning, Carpenter, Marjorie (ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1960. 412 90. Sorokin/ Pitirim. "General Theory of Creativity/1 in creativity and Psychological Health; A Symposium Andrews, Michael f . (ed.). Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. 91. Spindler, George. Education and Culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1963. 92. Starkweather, Elizabeth K. "Conformity and Non- Conformity as Indicators of Creativity in Preschool Children," in Cooperative Research Project No. 1967. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University, 1964. 93. Stein, M. I. "Creativity and the Scientist," in The Direction of Research Establishments, Part 3, The National Physical Laboratories. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1957. I 94. Stoddard, George D. "Creativity in Education," in ; Creativity and Its Cultivation: A Symposium, j Anderson, Harold H. (ed.). New York: Harper and j Brothers, 1959. i — j 95. Taylor, C. W. "Identifying the creative Individual," | in Creativity: Second Minnesota Conference on | Gifted Children, Torrance, E. P. (ed.). Minneapo lis: Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, 1959. 96.__________ . Widening Horizons in Creativity. Pro ceedings of 1962 Utah Conference. New York: j John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. | 97. Taylor, C. W., and Barron, F. Scientific Creativity: | Its Recognition and Development. New York: John I Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. j 98. Taylor, Irving A. "Creativity Research for Future Creativity," in Implications of Creativity Research. Proceedings of a Conference on "The Future Implications of Creativity Research," Co sponsored by Los Angeles State College and Choui- nard Art Institute, Los Angeles, March 10, 1962. 413 99. j 100. 101. 102. j I i 103. ! i l 104. | 105. i 106. I 107. Tead, Ordway. "The Healthy Person's Creative Out lets," in Creativity and Psychological Health: A Symposium, Andrews, Michael F. (ed.). Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. Terman, Lewis M., and Owen, Meltia A. The Gifted Child Grows Up— Genetic Studies of Genius. Volume Four. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1947. Thorndike, Robert L. "How Children Learn the j Principles and Techniques of Problem Solving," in i Learning and Instruction. Forty-Ninth yearbook, Part I. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1950. Thorndike, Robert L., and Haven, Elizabeth. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961. Thorpe, Louis P. The Psychology of Mental Health. Second Edition. New York: The Ronald Press Com pany, 1960. Torrance, E. P. "Developing Creative Thinking through School Experiences," in A Source Book for Creative Thinking, Parnes, S. J., and Harding, H. F. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962. i _. Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood j Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. _. "Some Consequences of Power Difference on Decision Making Permanent and Temporary Three Man Groups," in Small Groups, Hare, P., Borgatta, E. F., and Bales, R. F. (eds.). New York: Knopf, 1955. Virtue, Charles F. "Creativity and Symbolism," in Creativity and Mental Health: A Symposium, Andrews, Michael F. (ed.). Orange, New Jersey: Syracuse University Press, 1961. 414 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. Wiebe, Gerhart D. "Values: Education’s Most Neg lected Problem," in Values in American Education: Phi Delta Kappa Symposium, Brameld, Theodore, and Elam, Stanley (eds.). Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1964. Wolfle, Dael. America1s Resources of Specialized Talent. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self-Concept: A Critical Survey of Pertinent Research. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Periodicals Arsenian, S. "Changes in Evaluative Attitudes during Four Years of College," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXVII (1943), 338-349. Biber, B. "Premature Structuring as a Deterrent to Creativity," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, XXIX (1959), 280-290. Black, Algernon D. "A Secular Approach to Moral Education," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 505-508, 553-554. i Block, J. "An Unprofitable Application of the Semantic Differential," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXII (June, 1958), 235-236. Brackenbury, Robert L. "The Development of Values," The National Elementary Principal, XLIII (February, 1964), 6-12. Brazziel, William F. "Needs, Values, and Academic Achievement,1 1 Improving College and University Teaching, XII (Summer, 1964), 159-163. Brewer, J. E. "The Measurement of the Behavior of Second Grade Children in Relation to the Teacher's 415 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. Dominative and Socially Integrative Contacts," Applied Psychology Monograph, VIII (1946), 33-122. Brown, D. R. "Non-Intellectual Qualities and the Perception of the Ideal Student by College Faculty," The Journal of Educational Sociology, XXX (1960), 269-278. Buhler, Charlotte. "The Problem of Values and Be liefs in Our Times," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 520-522, 541. Carpenter, Ethelouise. "Who's Kidding," Childhood Education, XLI (May, 1965), 452-456. Cooper, John E. "Developing Creativity," Michigan Education Journal, XLII (December, 1964), 31-32, 41. Crescimbeni, Joseph. "Values in Motivation- Extrinsic or Intrinsic," Education, LXXXIV (Novem ber, 1963), 160-162. Crutchfield, R. S. "Conformity and Character," The American Psychologist, X (1955), 191-198. Dauw, Dean C., and Pugh, Richard C. "Creativity and Religious Preference," Religious Education, LXI (January-February, 1966), 30-35. ' j Dawson, Eugene E. "Do Schools Teach Values?" International Journal of Religious Education, XLII (September, 1965), 20-21. Drews, Elizabeth J., and Montgomery, Suzan. "Crea- ; tive and Academic Performance in Gifted Adoles cence," The High School Journal, XLVIII (November, 1964), 94-101. Duncan, Guy. "What Do Americans Value?" Educational j Leadership, XX (May, 1963), 503-506, 567. j I Eisner, Elliot W. "Creativity and Psychological i Health," The High School Journal, XLVIII____________ j 416 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. (May, 1965), 465-473. Ekstein, Rudolph. "Origins of Values in Children," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 523-526. Endler, 51. S. "Changes in Meaning During Psycho therapy as Measured by the Semantic Differential," Journal of Counseling Psychology, VIII (1961), 105-111. Fertig, Fred. "The Basic Authority on Creativity," CTA Journal, LX (January, 1964), 17, 39-43. Gaier, Eugene L., and White, William F. "Trends in the Measurement of Personality," Review of Educational Research, XXXV, 63-81. Ginsburg, Sol W. "Values and the Psychiatrist," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, XX (July, i 1950), 466. Golann, Stuart E. "Psychological Study of Crea tivity," Psychological Bulletin, LX (November, 1963), 548-565. Goldman, Samuel. "The Real and Ideal Image of the High School Graduate,M Journal of Educational Research, LVII (May-June, 1964), 498-499. i 1 Griffen, William L. "A Needed Dialogue: School and j Values," The Clearing House, XXXIX (October, 1964),! 67-71. Grigg, A. E. "A Validity Study of the Semantic Differential Technique," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XV (1959), 179-81. Guilford, J. P. "Creativity," American Psychologist, V (1950), 444-454. i ________ . "Three Faces of Intellect," American Psychologist, XIV (August, 1959), 469^79. 417 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. Harris, William T. “The Early Withdrawal of Pupils from School: Its Causes and Its Remedies," Journal of Proceedings and Addresses, Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1872, p. 262. Herr, E. L., et al. "Creativity, intelligence and Values: A Study of Relationships," Exceptional Children, XXXII (October, 1965), 114-115. Hummel, Raymond, and Sprinthall, Norman. "Under achievement Related to Interests, Attitudes, and Values," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV (December, 1965), 388-395. Husek, T. R., and Wittrock, M. C. "T! e Dimensions of Attitudes Toward Teachers As Measured by the Seman tic Differential," Journal of Educational Psychol ogy, LIII (1962), 209-213. ________ . "The Effectiveness of the Anxiety Differ ential in Examination Stress Situations," Educa tional and Psychological Measurement, XXIII (1963), 309-318. Jackson, J. M., and Saltzstein, H. D. "The Effect of Person-Group Relationships on Conformity Process," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, LVII (1958), 17-24.| Jackson, Philip W., and Messick, Samuel. "The Person, the Product, and the Response: Conceptual ! Problems in the Assessment of Creativity," Journal I of Personality, XXXIII (September, 1965), 309-329. Jenkins, James J., Russell, Wallace A., and Suci, George J. "An Atlas of Semantic Profiles for 360 Words," The American Journal of Psychology, LXXI (1958), 688-699. Jersild, A. T. "Characteristics of Teachers Who Are Liked Best and Disliked Most," Journal of Experi mental Education, IX (1940), 139-151. 418 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. Jewett, Mary McCall. "Values and Children/1 New York State Education, LII (November, 1964), 12-13. Jones, Ernest. "How To Tell Your Friends from Geniuses," Saturday Review, IV (August 10, 1957), 9-11, 39-40. Kilpatrick, William H. "The Social Philosophy of Progressive Education," Progressive Education, XII (1935), 293. Kirk, Grayson. "John Fitzgerald Kennedy," Columbia University Forum, 1963, quoted in Oberteuffer, Delbert. "Developing Values Through the Physical Education Experience," Theory Into Practice, III (July, 1964), 6, 55-56. Klausmeier, H. J., and Wiersma, W. "Relationship of Sex, Grade Level, and Locale to Performance of High IQ Students on Divergent Thinking Tests," Journal of Educational Psychology, LV (April, 1964), 114-119. Komadina, Ann. "Commitment: A Threat to Autonomy?" Educational Leadership, XXII (October, 1964), 24-27. Lagemann, J. K. "How We Discourage Creative Children," Redbook (March, 1963), 44, 123-125. Lang, Melvin. "Value Development in the Classroom,” Childhood Education, XLI (November, 1964), 123-126. Lawhead, Victor B. "Values Through Identification," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 515-519. Lehmann, Irvin J. "Changes in Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values from Freshman to Senior Years," Journal of Educational Psychology, LIV (December, 1963), 305-315. Linderman, Earl W. "What Can We Say To Parents?" Arts and Activities, LV (June, 1964), 37-39. 419 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. Lombardi, Donald N. "Peer Group Influence on Attitude," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXVI (March 19, 1963), 307-309. London, Perry, and Lim, Howard, "yielding Reason to Social Pressure: Task Complexity and Expectation in Conformity,” Journal of Personality, XXXII (March, 1964), 75-89. Lynch, Jane E., and Kluback, William. "The Signifi cance of Values in Existential Counseling," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV (March, 1966), 753-754. Maddi, Salvatore R. "Motivational Aspects of j Creativity,” Journal of Personality, XXXIII (September, 1965), 330-347. Manis, Melvin. "Assessing Communication with the Semantic Differential," American Journal of Psychology, LXXII (1959), 111-113. Margolin, Edythe. "Do We Really Prize Creativity?" The Elementary School Journal, LXIV (December, 1963), 117-121. Maslow, A. H. "Defense and Growth," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, III (1956), 37-38. i Mattaliano, Anthony P. "Materialism and Youth: How j Can Schools Induce Better Values?" The Clearing House, XXXVIII (January, 1964), 292-293. McElvain, J., et al. "Relationships between crea tivity and Teacher Variability," Psychological Reports, XIII (1963), 186. McKinnon, Donald W. "What Makes A Person Creative?" Saturday Review (February 10, 1962), 15-17, 69. Messick, Samuel J. "Metric Properties of the Semantic Differential," Educational Psychology Monographs, XVII, No. 2 (1957), 200-206. 420 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. Meuller, R. J. "Can the Public School Foster Crea tivity?" Saturday Review (December 19, 1964), 48-50. Miron, Murray S. "Influence of Instruction Modifica tion upon Test-Retest Reliabilities of Semantic Differential," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXI (1961), 888-893. Mitsos, B. "Personal Construct and the Semantic Differential," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXII (1961), 433-444. Moss, C. Scott. "Current and Projected Status of Semantic Differential Research," Psychological Record, X (1960), 47-54. Newman, David, and Benton, Robert. "The New Senti mentality," Esquire (July, 1964), 25. Norman, Warren T. "Stability Characteristics of the Semantic Differential," American Journal of Psychology, LXXII (1959), 58l-5840 Nygreen, Glen T. "Academic Round Table: Is Creativ ity within the Academic Community Compatible with Operational Efficiency?" Journal of Higher Education, XXXV (April, 1964), 224-226. Oberteuffer, Delbert. "Developing Values Through the Physical Education Experience," Theory Into Practice, III (July, 1964), 105-107. Parker, Francis W. "Child Study," Journal of Pro ceedings and Addresses. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1885, p. 428. Parsons, Theodore. "Attitudes and Values: Tools or Chains?" Educational Leadership, XXI (March, 1964), 343-346, 415. Peters, Frank R. "The Two Curricula," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 527-531. 421 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. Plant, W. T. 1 1 Sex, Intelligence, and Sorority or Fraternity Membership and Changes in Ethnocentrism Over a Two-Year Period," Journal of Genetic Psy chology, XCIII (1958), 53-57. Powell, Thomas F. "Teaching American Values," Social Education, XXIX (May, 1965), 272-274. Raths, James. "A Strategy for Developing Values," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 509-514, 554. ________ . "Underachievement and A Search for Values," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXXIV (May, 1961), 422-224. . _____ . "Values and Teachers," Educational Synop sis, II (Spring, 1957), 4-5. ________ . "Values and Valuing," Educational Leader ship, XXI (May, 1964), 543-546. Reichart, Sanford. "Youth and the Onward Search," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 487-490, 546. Richards, J. M., Jr., et al. "Creative Tests and Teacher and Self-Judgments of Originality," Journal of Experimental Education, XXXII (Spring, 1964), 281-285. Riesman, David. "The Jacob Report," American Sociological Review, XXIII (1958), 732-738. Robb, J. Wesley. "Education Persons: The Dimension of Human Value," Journal of Higher Education, XXXV (December, 1964), 497-502. Rubin, Louis J. "Creativeness in the Classroom," The Educational Digest, XXIX (September, 1963), 49-50. 422 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. Samler, Joseph. "The School and Self-Understanding," Harvard Educational Review, XXXV (1965), 55-70. Schachter, S. "Deviation, Rejection and Communica tion," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLVI (1951), 190-207. Schiavone, James. "Implanting Moral and Spiritual Values," Education, LXXXV (October, 1964), 89-90. Smith, Raymond G. "A Semantic Differential for Theatre Concepts," Speech Monographs, XXVIII (1963), 22-28. Smith, Robert R. "Personal and Social Values," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 483-486. Spellman, C. L. "Psycho-Social Retardation in Education," School and Society, XCIV (February, 1966), 101-102. Spielberger, C., and Katzenmeyer, W. "Manifest Anxiety, Intelligence, and College Grades," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXIII (June, 1959), 278. Strang, Ruth. "The Gifted Child," Journal of Teacher Education, V (1954), 210-232. Symonds, P. M. "Changes in Sex Differences in Problems and Interests of Adolescents with In creasing Age," Journal of Genetic Psychology, L (1937), 83-89. , Taylor, C. W. "Clues to Creative Teaching— Knowledge and Creativity," The Instructor, LXXIII (December, 1963), 5. ________ . "clues to Creative Thinking— Evoking Crea tivity," The Instructor, LXXIII (June, 1964), 5. ________ . "Clues to Creative Teaching— Listening Creativity," The Instructor, LXXIII (February, 1964), 5 . _____________ __________________ 423 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. Taylor, C. W., and Holland, John L. "Development and Application of Tests of Creativity," Review of Educational Research, CXXXII (1962), 91-102. Thomas, Lawrence G. "Defining Creativity," The Education Digest, XXXI (November, 1965) , 18-21. Thorndike, Robert L. "The Measurement of Creativity," Teachers College Record, LXIV (February, 1963), 422-424. Torrance, E. Paul. "Creativity in the Classroom," The Instructor, LXXIV (January, 1965), 27, 105. ________ . "Cultural Discontinuities and the Develop ment of Originality Thinking," Exceptional Children, XXIX (1962), 2-13. ________ . "Educational Achievement of the Highly Intelligent and of the High Creative: Eight Partial Replications of the Getzels and Jackson Study," Research Memorandum BER 60-18, University of Minnesota, Bureau of Educational Research, September, 1960. ________. "Give the Devil His Dues . . . p" Gifted Child Quarterly, V (Winter, 1961), 115-118. ________. "Ten Ways of Helping Young Children Gifted in Creative Writing and Speech," Gifted Child Quarterly, VI (Winter, 1962), 121-127. ________ . "What Kind of Persons Do We Want Gifted Children To Become," The High School Journal, XLVIII (November, 1964), 88-93. UPI Release. "Young Geniuses Set Up LSD Lab," Telegram-Trfbune, San Luis Obispo County (May, 1966), 1. Webb, Allen P., and Harris, John T. "A Semantic Differential Study of Counselors in a NDEA Institute," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLII (1963), 206-263._______________ ___________ 424 216. j 217. | 218. ! | 219. i i i 220. i j 221. j 222. j 223. i j j 224. | 225. I I j i j ! 226. 227. Whithey, Stephen B. "Influence of Peer Group on Values of Youth/’ Religious Education, Research Supplement, LVII (July, 1962), 534-544. Wiles, Kimball. "Commitment: To What and Why?” Educational Leadership, XXII (October, 1964), 3-5. ________ . "Values and Our Destiny," Educational Leadership, XXI (May, 1964), 501-504, 554-555. Winter, William D. "Student Values and Grades in General Psychology," The Journal of Educational Research, LV (April, 1962). Witty, Paul A. "Recent Publications Concerning the Gifted and the Creative Student," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI (January, 1965), 221-224. Wolf, William C., Jr. "A Survey of Beliefs and Practices Relative to Creativity," The Journal of Educational Research, LVII (March, 1964), 384-385. Wolfson, Bernice J. "Values and Teaching," Elemen tary English, XLI (May, 1964), 558-559. Wonderly, D. M. "A Study of Creative Females," Gifted Child Quarterly, VIII (Spring, 1964), 38-39. Wubben, John. "Teaching Values in the Secondary School," The Journal of Teacher Education, XVI (March, 1965), 357-358. Yamamoto, Kaoru, and Genovese, Caroline T. "Crea tivity and Norm Conformity in Fifth Grade Chil dren," Exceptional Children, XXXII (December, 1965), 257-258. Yamamoto, Kaoru. "Mental Health, Creative Thinking, and Values," The Elementary School Journal, LXVI (April, 1966), 361-367. Yutang, Lin. My Country and My People. New York: Random House, 1938, quoted in Improving College and University Teaching, XII (Summer, 1964), 163. 425 Unpublished Sources Abdel-Razik, T. M. "An Investigation of Creative Thinking Among College Students." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963. Anderson, Philip. "Ministering to Troubled People." Speech Presented to the Convocation of the Chicago Theological Seminary, October 5, 1964. (Mimeo graphed .) Berry, Cleo C. "Public Schools and Religion: The Opinions of Nine Eminent Educators." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1961. Bopp, Joan. "A Qualitative Semantic Analysis of Word Association in Schizophrenia." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, 1955. Charlop-Hyman, Arthur. "Self-Concept and Social Class Correlates of Contrating Behavioral Sub- Cultures Among Ninth Grade Boys." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964. Dewey, John. "Construction and Criticism." The First Davies Memorial Lecture, Delivered February 25, 1930, for the Institute of Arts and Sciences and Reproduced by the Columbia University Press. Eklund, L. "Personality Variables Associated with Academic Achievement of the Mentally Retarded." Unpublished Critique Prepared for Dr. Charles E. Meyers, October 30, 1963, University of Southern California. Gardner, Sheldon F. "Creativity in Children: A Study of the Relationship Between Temperament Factors and Aptitude Factors Involved in the Creative Ability of Seventh Grade Children with Suggestions for a Theory of Creativity." Unpub- 426 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. lished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1963. Gray, Benjamin G. 1 1 Characteristics of High and Low Achieving High School Seniors of High Academic Aptitude." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1960. Gray, Wanda R. "The Development of Selected Values in a Child Development Curriculum." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1962. Gumeson, George G. "A Comparative Analysis of the Needs, Values, Cognitive Abilities, and Other Personality Characteristics of High and Low Creative Junior College Students." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Denver, 1963. I Johnson, R. T. "The Growth of Creative Thinking Abilities in Western Samoa." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1963. Jonas, Arthur. "A Study of the Relationship of Certain Behaviors of Children to Emotional Needs, Values, and Thinking." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of New York, 1960. Kievan, Albert. "An Investigation of a Methodology j for Value Clarification: Its Relationship to Con- j sistency of Thinking, Purposefulness, and Human Relations." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of New York, 1958. Metfessel, Newton. "Project Potential." Unpublished Reports of Research Involving the Potential of the Culturally Deprived, University of Southern Cali fornia, 1965. Perrone, Philip A. "The Relationship of Creativity, Goal Orientation, Adherence to Conventional Values, Intelligence, and the Occupational Choice of High School Seniors." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Syracuse University, 1962.________________ _______ 427 244. Rosenthal, Oscar A. "A Semantic Differential Investigation of Critical Factors Related to Achievement and Underachievement of High School Students." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1965. 245. Rowan, T. C. "Some Developments of Multi-Dimensional Scaling Applied to Semantic Relationships." Un published doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, 1954. 246. Sutcliffe, Charles E.. "Factors Related to Low Achievement by High School Pupils of High Mental Ability." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1958. 247. Trembly, D. "Age and Sex Differences in Creative Thinking Potential." Paper Presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Conven tion, Division 5, Los Angeles, California, 1964. 248. Torrance, E. Paul. "Cultural Discontinuities and the Development of Originality in Thinking." Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Meeting of the National Association of Educators of Gifted Children, Columbus, Ohio, April 26, 1962. Mimeo graphed by the Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minnesota, 1962. Miscellaneous Reports and Official Documents 249. Bernard, Henry. "Normal Schools and Other Institu tions, Agencies, and Means Designed for the Pro fessional Education of Teachers." Reprint by Colorado State Teachers College, Education Series No. 6. Greely, Colorado, 1929. (Originally pub lished by Case, Tiffany, and Company, Hartford, 1851.) 428 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. Butler, William D. "St. Louis, Fourteenth Annual Report of the Board of Directors of the St. Louis Public Schools for the Year Ending August 1, 1868." Printed in St. Louis by George Knapp and Company, 1869. Commonwealth of Kentucky Educational Bulletin. "Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Schools," Frankfort, Kentucky, Department of Education, Vol. 19, No. 12, February, 1952. Educational Policies Commission. "Manpower and Education." Washington, D. C.: National Education Association of the United States, 1956. Educational Policies Commission. "Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Schools." Washing ton, D. C.: National Education Association, 1951. Educational Policies Commission. "The Central Pur pose of American Education." Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1961. Frankel, Charles. "Needed Research on Social Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values in the Teaching of Social Studies," in Price, Ray A. (ed.). "Needed Research in the Teaching of the Social Studies." Research Bulletin No. 1. Washington, D. C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1964. Fund for the Advancement of Education. "They Went to College Early; Evaluation Report No. 2." New York, 1957. Guilford, J. P., et al. "A Factor-Analytic Study of Creative Thinking II: Administration of Tests and Analysis of Results." Report No. 8 from the Psychological Laboratory of the University of Southern California, 1952. ________ . "The Relations of Creative-Thinking Aptitudes to Non-Aptitude Personality Traits." Report No. 20 from the Psychological Laboratory of the University of Southern California, 1957. 429 259. 260. 261. 262. Jones, Vernon. "character and Citizenship Educa tion." Washington, D. C.: National Education Association of the United States, 1950. Mann, Horace. "Massachusetts: First Annual Report of the Board of Education Together with the First Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board.” Washington, D. C.: Hugh Birch-Horace Mann Fund of the National Education Association, 1947. (Facsimile Copy.) ________ . "Massachusetts: Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Education." Washington, D. C.: Hugh Birch-Horace Mann Fund of the National Education Association, 1951. (Facsimile Copy.) ________ . "Massachusetts: Twelfth Annual Report of the Board of Education." Washington, D. C.: Hugh Birch-Horace Mann Fund of the National Education Association, 1952. (Facsimile Copy.) 263. Witty, Paul A. "The Teacher Who Helped Me Most." Chicago: Pamphlet Published by Elementary English, 211 West Sixty-Eighth Street.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Relation Of Sense Of Humor To Creativity, Intelligence, And Achievement

PDF

An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

A Paradigm For The Implementation Of Accountability Measures In Bilingualeducation

PDF

A Critical Analysis Of Issues Confronting School Psychologists

PDF

Rigidity Factors And Value Choices

PDF

A Study Of Relationships Between Grades And Measures Of Scholastic Aptitude, Creativity, And Attitudes In Junior College Students

PDF

Selected Characteristics Of A Children'S Individual Test Of Creativity

PDF

School Music Services In State Departments Of Education With Implicationsfor California

PDF

A Factor Analytic Study Of Tests Designed To Measure Reading Ability

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Significant Attitudinal Factors Related To Three Levels Of Academic Achievement Of Seventh Grade Students

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Critical Factors Related To Achievement And Underachievement Of High School Students

PDF

Teacher Assessment Of Creative Potential In Fifth-Grade Students

PDF

Semantic-Memory And Creative (Divergent-Production) Abilities Of Senior-High-School Students

PDF

Julian And Athanasius--A Study In The Implications Of The Doctrine Of Creation

PDF

A Comparison Of Two Instructional Programs For Severely Retarded Readers At The Junior High School Level

PDF

Predicting and assessing academic achievement of disadvantaged high school students utilizing a test of study habits and skills

PDF

The Effect Of Dissonance In Self-Esteem On Susceptibility To Social Influence

PDF

Variables Differentiating Mexican-American College And High School Graduates

PDF

Development Of A Mid Primary Screening Battery For Schools Of A High Socioeconomic Community

PDF

A Measure Of Cultural Deprivation

Asset Metadata

Creator Mitchell, Carl Gene (author)

Core Title A Comparison Of The Values Of High And Low Creative Seventh Grade Students In Selected Junior High Schools In The Los Angeles District

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Educational Psychology

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Cannon, Wendell E.. (committee member), Epp, Eldon J. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-135716

Unique identifier UC11359833

Identifier 6710770.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-135716 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6710770.pdf

Dmrecord 135716

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mitchell, Carl Gene

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