University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Rigidity Factors And Value Choices

(USC Thesis Other)

Rigidity Factors And Value Choices

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dlseertetlor, Fas been
microfilmed e x a c t l y as r e c e l T e d 66-8786
FELLOWS, Jr., Lloyd Welker, 1928-
RIGIDITY FACTORS AND VALUE CHOICES.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1966
Education, psychology
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
RIGIDITY FACTORS AND VALUE CHOICES
by
Lloyd Welker Fellows, Jr.
A Dissertation Presented to
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Educational Psychology)
January 1966
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANOBLES, CALIFORNIA S 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
under the direction of hlM..JDissertation 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 CTO R OF P H IL O SO P H Y
......
Dtmn
Date i T « B U f l O T . . . l S 4 ! ! > .......
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The Setting
Objectives of this Study
Importance of the Study
Scope and Limitations of this Study
Hypotheses
Method
Definitions of Terms
Organization of the Remainder of
the Dissertation
Plan of the Review
Existing Reviews
Early History* Perseveration
Concepts of Rigidity
Theories of Rigidity
The Generality Issue
Factors of Rigidity
Rigidity and Value Judgments
Rigidity, Intelligence, Sex, and Age
Personality Concomitants of Value
Orientation
The Semantic Differential and Values
Measurement of Value
Rigidity Behavior
Summary
Conclusions
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 23
ii
Chapter
III. TEST BATTERY AMD PROCEDURE
Page
93
The Measurement of Values
The Measurement of Rigidity
Subjects and Sample
Analysis of Data
IV. RESULTS 109
Rigidity of Thinking
Rigidity of Personality
Rigidity of Motor Disposition
The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment
The Correlate: College Grade Point Average
The Correlate: College Entrance Examinations
Interactions Among Sub-Test Scores
Interactions Among Independent Variables
Statistical Predictability of the Study
V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.......................... 133
Rigidity of Thinking
Rigidity of Personality
Rigidity of Motor Disposition
The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment
The Correlate: College Grade Point Average
The Correlate: College Entrance Examinations
Interactions Among Sub-Test Scores
Interactions Among Independent Variables
Supplementary Findings
Statistical Predictability of the Study
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 165
APPENDIX A. INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES . . . 184
APPENDIX B. INTERACTIONS AMONG INDEPENDENT
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
VARIABLES AND SUB-TESTS OF
RIGIDITY ................. 190
iii
Page
APPENDIX C. WAYS OF LIFE AND RATING FORM............ 197
APPENDIX D. RIGIDITY MEASURE BOOKLET.................203
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 227
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. A Sample of Human V a l u e s ...................... 60
2. Identifying Letters and Contents of the 16
Personality Factor Test (Morris, 1956) . . . 63
3. Relations Between High and Low Mean Scores on
the Cattell Factors and Liking of the Ways
(Morris, 1956) 65
4. Correlations Between Ratings of the Ways and
Corrected Scores on Thurstone Temperament
Variables (N-115 men.) ...................... 66
5. Correlations Between Thurstone Temperament
Factor Scores and Value Factor Scores
(N-115 men.) ................................. 69
6. Value Dimensions and Allport-Vernon
Value Categories............................ 70
7. Quartimax Rotations of the First Four Factors
for Semantic Scale Relations: Analysis
Based on Means (m) Versus Individual
Data (i). (Osgood, Ware and Morris,
1961) .'....................................... 95
8. A Sample of Human Values (Revised) ........... 99
9. Adjective Included Under Each of the Three
Factors of Connotative Meaning ............. 100
10. Experimental Sample According to Group .... 107
11. List of Independent Variables.....................110
v
Table Page
12. List of Sub-Tests of Independent
Variables............. Ill
13. List of Dependent Variables................... 112
14. Significant Intercorrelations ................. 113
15. Significance Level of Indicated Dependent
Variables When Independent Variables are
Rigidity of Thinking Factors: Spontaneous
Flexibility and Adaptive Flexibility
(N*=125)....................................... 115
16. Significance Level of Indicated Dependent
Variables When Independent Variables are
Rigidity of Personality Factors ............. 116
17. Significance Level of Indicated Dependent
Variables When the Independent Variable
is Extremity of Judgment.................... 117
18. Significance Level of Indicated Dependent
Variables When the Independent Variable
is College Grade Point Average ............. 118
19. Significance Level of Indicated Dependent
Variables When the Independent Variable
is College Entrance Examination Scores . . . 119
20. Significance Level of Indicated Inter
actions of Sub-Tests of Spontaneous
Flexibility, Disposition Rigidity I
and I I ....................................... 120
21. Significance Level of Indicated Inter
actions Among Independent Variables ..... 121
22. Intercorrelations Among Variables
(Ways A and B) ............................... 184
vi
Table Page
23. Intercorrelations Among Variables
(Ways C and D ) ................................ 185
24. Intercorrelations Among Variables
(Ways E and F) ................................. 186
25. Intercorrelations Among Variables
(Ways G and H ) ................................ 187
26. Intercorrelations Among Variables
(Ways I and J) ............................... 188
27. Interactions Among Independent Variables
and Sub-Tests of Rigidity..................... 190
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Dynamism....................................... 96
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Setting
The__Studv of Human Values
"To a lesser degree than the physical sciences, the
social sciences at any point in time are characterized not
by what they have been, but by what they are becoming" (Uhl-
mer, 1961, p. 1). During the past half century, social
scientists have made increasingly searching inquiries into
the role of ideas, ideologies and ethical and philosophical
beliefs in social action. They have inquired particularly
into social determinations (Mering, 1961, p. 5). According
to the Cornell Value Study Group, the aoncept of "value"
supplies a point of convergence for the various specialized
social sciences.
It is potentially a bridging concept which can link to
gether many diverse specialized studies, from the ex
perimental psychology of perception to the analysis of
political ideologies from budgeted studies in economics
to aesthetic theory and philosophy of language, from
literature to race riots. (Morris, 1956, p. 389)
2
The work of Charles Morris on values is of impor
tance to the present study. The philosophical background of
Morris'8 (1956) belief "that a scientific study of values
might . . . advance the enterprise of the humanities" was in
part related to the tradition of American pragmatism.
Pierce, James, Dewey, Mead, and Lewis were major in
fluences on my thinking, and they had all believed that
evaluations were much like scientific judgments and
(with some variations) that a scientific study of values
and evaluations not only was possible but would be of
service to man in his characteristic activity as valuer.
It seemed desirable to put this philosophic position to
a serious empirical test. (1956, p. vii)
Morris undertook a number of cross cultural studies
concerning value differences. From these studies there
emerged a limited number of statements of "Ways to Live."
Factor analytic studies indicated the dimensional structure
of these Ways. Some further study was directed to the re
lation of temperament to the choice of values. The present
investigation focuses upon differences in expressed value
choice in relation to a specific aspect of temperament.
Rigidity and Value Choices
The enormity of individual human differences is ex
pressed in the variety of conceptions of what constitutes
"the good life." Although a person may not realize at a
cognitive level any systematic formulation of his own value
3
system, he lives by it. He should be expected to respond
to value choices as "signs" of his "dispositional view."
"The latter being a pervasively influential determiner of
both great and small behavioral choices" (Morris, 1964).
While some persons parsimoniously seek "sensual comforts"
and "pleasures,1 1 others strive persistently to “overcome
obstacles" limiting man in the social order and in the order
of nature. Some persons stress the "joys of active intel
lectual pursuit." Other persons emphasize the deeper joy
inherent in a "prayerful, passive contemplation and reflec
tion." The more "social" values have greater appeal to
some, such as participation with others toward group goals,
and still others value most highly "individual independence
and responsibility." The variety of human value choices are
represented by a number of societal institutions, repre
sented by religious, political and social organizations.
These values are deeply ingrained, influential determiners
of behavioral choices.
Frenkel-Brunswik (1950) suggests a relationship be
tween authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, and rigid
ity. She sees a coherent personality characteristic includ
ing cognitive distortion, rigidity, inability to perceive
variation in stimulus configurations, and a clinging to the
familiar aspects of the stimulus situation. Rokeach (1960)
presented evidence with regard to individual differences in
the openness and closedness of belief systems. Consistent
differences were found between open (undogmatic) and closed
(dogmatic) persons in coping with new conceptual systems
contradictory to those of everyday life and on a dogmatism
scale. Also, Lasswell (1961) and others have viewed the in
fluence of personality on political behavior and the role of
personality in political life.
There seems to be general research agreement of the
relationship between conceptual systems and personality
characteristics, but the nature of this connection seems to
be far from understood. Although some solid contributions
have been made to the understanding of the relationship,
some areas remain largely uncharted territory.
The Study of Rigidity
To Chown (1959) the latitude of its definitions
makes rigidity a rather flexible concept. Despite the
"flexibility" of its definition, Briksen in the 1957 Annual
. A
Review, remarked that "while empathy may be said to be the
personality psychologist's current love, rigidity is most
certainly her rival." According to Chown:
Few major topics in contemporary psychology appear to
offer more promise than rigidity, and the amount of
work reported on this subject has been increasing year
by year. Unfortunately, it is also the case that few
areas present such a quagmire to the unwary investiga
tor; rigidity is not a simple concept, and the sub
divisions within it are far from clear. (1959, p. 195)
Major difficulties in the study of value systems in
relation to the particular personality characteristic of
rigidity are (1) that the term has been quite variously de
fined, (2) that there are some conflicting hypotheses about
the nature of rigidity, and (3) that fundamental issues re
main unsolved. One hypothesis suggests that rigidity is
merely the result of momentary conditions, such as an anx
iety provoking situation, affecting the person. This is
based upon the failure of several investigators (Ericksen
and Einsenstein, 1953; Goodstein, 1953; Taylor and McNemar,
1955; and Wolpert, 1955), to observe significant correla
tions between supposed measures of rigidity. Another hy
pothesis is that rigidity is a generalized personality fac
tor. The majority of researchers (Cattell and Winder, 1949;
Chown, 1959; Fisher, 1949; Levine, 1955; Luchins and Luchins,
1959; and others) support this contention. There is con-
tinued controversy over whether rigidity is a unidimensional
or multidimensional phenomenon, and whether it is structural
or functional. This is to be considered later.
6 *
When the literature concerning "rigidity" is stud
ied, the need for clarification of the term becomes apparent.
Rigidity has been variously explained as: (1) due to repe
tition compulsion, regressive tendencies, and related to
destructiveness (Freud)y (2) regressive tendencies and habit
formation due to parsimonious adaptation (Alexander); (3)
immobilized or fixated libidinal energy (Jung)y (4) a pro-
tection against inferiority feelings (Adler)y (5) a means
of coping with a hostile world (Horney)y (6) the result of
automation conformity in a complex world (Fromm)y (7) an
anxiety avoidance self-system dynamism resulting in para-
taxic distortion (Sullivan)y (8) an abnormality in the Ein-
stellung mechanism (Goldstein)y (9) lack of ontological and
phylogenetic development resulting in a lack of maturity,
adaptivity or differentiation (Werner)y (10) topological
rigidity due to lack of differentiation because of age and
intelligence (Lewin)y (11) personality syndrome character
ized by authoritarianism (Frenkel-Brunswik)y (12) the iner
tia factor of mental energy, the "p" factor (Spearman).
Research on rigidity has been subsumed under a num
ber of titles such as: (1) rigidity and Einstellung (Luch—
ins)y (2) closed mindedness (Rokeach)y (3) field-dependence
(Witkins)y (4) perseveration, consolidation theory, or iner
7
tia of thinking (Spearman); (5) authoritarianism, ethnocent-
rism, and intolerance of ambiguity (Frenkel-Brunswik); (6)
disposition-rigidity (Cattell)y (7) convergent thought and
spontaneous flexibility (Guilford).
It is apparent that a widely acceptable definition
has yet to be established. Use of an operational subscript
following the term's use, might be helpful, according to
Brown (1953). Fisher (1949) indicates that although the
connotations of the variety of terms employed for the rigid
ity variable have been generally quite varied:
They have all tended to refer to the idea that the be
havior of people in different situations varies along
a continuum marked at one extreme by cautious guarded—
ness or limitation of reaction, and at the other ex
treme by freedom of reaction or lack of defensive cau
tion. (p. 342)
According to Graziano (1961), rigidity has many dimensions,
that is, it appears to vary with behavioral disorders, anx
iety, social attitude, and other variables. As Cattell and
Tiner (1949) point out:
Rigidity has been investigated for thirty years by a
long line of experimenters in the fairly definite sense
of "perseveration" and that it is only in the last half
dozen years that confusion has been introduced by new
comers employing the term without ordinary scientific
and operational checks in the relation of their usage
to this classical usage. (p. 321)
Gestalt oriented psychologists (including among
others, Wertheimer, Duncker, Lewin, and Luchins) gave a
meaning different from that originally assigned to the term
perseveration. They used such terms as "rigidity," "ges-
talt-bindung," "heterogeneous functional fixedness,” "mech
anization, " etc. The general assumption underlying their
work was that
the existence of an organized pattern, organized on
the basis of prior experience, interferes with and
inhibits in some way forms of activity which demand
some reorganization of the original behavior pattern.
Individuals are thought to differ markedly in this
ability for behavioral reorganization. In so far as
they differ, they may be spoken of as more or less
"rigid," more or less "flexible," and the like.
(Oliver and Ferguson, 1951, p. 50)
The qualities commonly attributed to rigid behavior are
summarized by Rehfish (1958). He lists these as: con
striction and inhibition, conservatism, intolerance of dis
order and ambiguity, obsessive and perseverative tendencies,
social introversion, and anxiety and guilt. English and
English (1958) define rigidity as follows:
. . . relative inability to change one's action or
attitude when the objective conditions demand it;
clinging to a no-longer-appropriate way of acting or
feeling. Rigidity may be cognitive, . . . percep-
tual~i.e., it may be an inability to perceive things
differently even when the object conditions have changed.
Rigidity may also be affective, or it may show itself
in overt action . . . perseveration . . . is the con
tinuation of a response actually going on, whereas
rigidity is resistance to undertaking a new kind of
response. The existence of a generalized trait of
rigidity is questioned.
Objectives of this Study
The present investigation focuses upon differences
in expressed values or choice of values in relation to
various forms of rigidity. The study will concentrate upon
certain questions.
1. What is the relationship between rigidity of think
ing and value choice?
2. What is the relationship between rigidity of per
sonality and value choice?
3. What is the relationship between rigidity of motor
disposition and value choice?
4. What relationship has value choice to various
correlates of rigidity, (a) extremity of judgment,
(b) college grade point average, (c) college en
trance examination scores?
5. What interaction is there among the various factors
of rigidity?
Importance of the Study
This correlational study seems to have importance
in several ways, primarily concerning theoretical and meth-
4
10
odological considerations, which are listed as follows:
1. Within the "domain of rigidity-flexibility certain
forms (factor dimensions) may produce or contribute
to some styles of life, or some aspects of value
choices more than others.
2. Also, it is possible that there are causal rela
tions going in another direction. Some character
istics of culture (seen as choices in a "world of
values") may contribute or produce more rigid or
more flexible people than otherwise. That is, the
values held lead to more or less rigidity or flex
ibility.
3. Assuming that these relationships exist, then these
possibilities must be reckoned with. If there are
no correlations, then it is also of interest that
anything such as a way of life, or anything as
significant as a culture, is unrelated to various
aspects of behavior such as the forms of rigidity.
Putting it another way, it would be interesting if
there is no relationship between these micro-molec
ular levels of psychological phenomena called
rigidity-flexibility, and the more molar one of a
way of life, which is a very different unit of
analysis. It is significant if it is established
either way, that there is some relation between
these different levels of analysis, or that there
is no relationship between them.
In addition to considerations of the relationship
between psychology and the culture, here the in
dividuals are in a particular time-frame situation,
with the set they are given, the direction they
have, the problems they see themselves as facing.
The ways of life may be thought of as the value
systems of functioning individuals, and the in
dividual value may be thought of as the unit of
analysis rather than the unit being the culture.
The question then may be considered as to whether
there is in individuals a relationship between a
way of life or choice of values and a personality
trait, such as some aspect of rigidity. Is there
going to be some indication of a functional rela
tionship within the individual, between a micro or
molecular trait (such as arise in the domain of
rigidity-flexibility) and the much more molar con
sideration of ways of life?
One important thing about the study, as far as
methodological aspects are concerned, is putting
both molecular and molar considerations in the same
context. If it turns out 4:hat there are relation
ships, then it is of methodological conceptual sig
nificance to have this empirically verified.
Of additional value is the possibility of a contri
bution to the construct validity of each of the
•
factors under consideration. There are a number
of different correlations involved, a nomothetic
network. In it, there will be coherence or lack
of it, to the extent that there is meaningful in
ter-relationship between various aspects of the
study. If the different correlations "hang to
gether" meaningfully, then this is a contribution
to construct validity (in the terms of the Cronbach
and Meehl, 1955, discussion). To the extent that
some of them do not fit, or where there is a lack
of certain relationships (for example, motor per
formance) , then the notion of construct validity is
enhanced for some of these different concepts and
dimensions. This also makes a contribution to re
lated constructs such as creativity, authoritari
anism, and intolerance of ambiguity.
7. The nature of rigidity has been thought by some to
'be a general personality factor as opposed to /the
view that it is the result of momentary conditions
affecting the person. Some treat rigidity as a
4
single generalized attribute rather than being com- '
posed of a number of factors. The operational na
ture of rigidity in relation to temperament, such
as extremity of judgment o'r choice of values needs
further study. Also the semantic differential meth
od is of interest methodologically as a means of
studying ways of life by using complex statements
as concepts to be related to semantic judgments.
According to T. W. Milburn:
This sort of study is appropriate for the science of
psychology at this point. What is involved here is
akin to early steps in the game of "twenty questions."
Psychology has often suffered from the fact that people
do very closely defined work prematurely. This is a
global look which can suggest a lot of things which
should be done, other researches, depending upon how
it works out. (Personal communication)
Scope and Limitations of This Study
This study is addressed specifically to the rela
tionship of certain key factors of rigidity to a limited
number of statements of philosophical values, or systems of
value. Related aspects of intellectual performance and
14
extremity of judgment are also considered. Its aim is to
demonstrate that particular value choices are attributable
to specific aspects of rigidity.
The study is limited (1) as to subjects i.e., to a
sample of under-graduate students in a local state college;
4
(2) as to" factors of rigidity, to those described by Chown
(1961); and.(3) as to value choices, to the work and further
suggestions of Osgood, Ware, and Morris (1961).
Hypotheses
Eight major hypotheses are presented below according
to the following rationale: A major category is represented
by the hypothesis number followed by a zero, e.g., 1.0, 2.0,
etc.. A subhypothesis is represented by its major hypoth
esis number followed by its own number, e.g., 1.1, 1.2,
etc.. These code numbers are also used when findings re
lating to a specific hypothesis are discussed in later chap
ters of this dissertation.
1.0 Rigidity of Thinking
H01.1 There is no significant relationship between de
gree of Perseveration/Spontaneous Flexibility and
scores on any of the three dimensions of the ten
statements of value.
15
Hq1.2 There is no significant relationship between de
gree of Persistence/Adaptive Flexibility and
scores on any of the three dimensions of the ten
statements of value.
2.0 Rigidity of Personality
Hq2.1 There is no significant relationship between the
degree of Personality Rigidity I (degree of
methodical persistence) and scores on any of the
three dimensions of the ten statements of value.
Hq2.2 There is no significant relationship between the
degree of Personality Rigidity II (liking for
slow steady methods) and scores on any of the
three dimensions of the ten statements of value.
Hq2.3 There is no significant relationship between the
degree of Personality Rigidity III (liking for
established routine) and scores on any of the
three dimensions of the ten statements of value.
3.0 Rigidity of Motor Disposition
Hq3.1 There is no significant relationship between the
degree of Disposition Rigidity I and scores on
any of the three dimensions of the ten state
ments of value.
16
Hq3.2 There is no significant relationship between the
degree of Disposition Rigidity II and scores on
any of the three dimensions of the ten state
ments of value.
4.0 The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment
H04.1 There is no significant relationship between
extremity of judgment and scores on any of the
three dimensions of the ten statements of value.
5.0 The Correlate; Grade Point Average in College
Hq5.1 There is no significant relationship between
grade point average in college and any of the
three dimensions of the ten statements of value.
6.0 The Correlate: College Entrance Examination Scores
Hq6.1 There is no significant relationship between
college entrance examination, verbal scores,
and any of the three dimensions of the ten state
ments of value.
Hq6.2 There is no significant relationship between
college entrance examination, quantitative scores,
and any of three dimensions of the ten state
ments of value.
17
7.0 Interactions Among Sub-Test Scores
H^7.1 There is a significant relationship between the
seven sub-test scores of the Spontaneous Flex
ibility factor.
1^7.2 There is a significant relationship between the
two sub-test scores of Disposition Rigidity I
and of II.
8.0 Interactions Among Independent Variables
Hq8.1 There are no significant interactions among the
independent variables:
a) rigidity of thinking
b) rigidity of personality
c) rigidity of motor disposition
d) extremity of judgment
e) grade point average in college
f) college entrance examination scores
Method
Measures of various aspects of rigidity were given
to 125 undergraduate college students, along with a semantic
differential rating of philosophical value choices. The
factors of rigidity include: two aspects of rigidity of
thinking (Perseveration/Spontaneous Flexibility and Per-
18
sistence/Adaptive Flexibility); three factors of rigidity
of personality (degree of methodical persistence, liking
for steady methods, and liking for established routine);
and two factors of rigidity of disposition. These seven
factors of rigidity were thought to be fairly inclusive of
the various kinds of rigidity.
The measurement of value choices on the semantic
differential used ten complex verbal statements, each about
100 words long, to sample what might be considered as a
"world" of values. Each of these ten complex statements was
rated by the subjects on 26 paired opposite adjectives.
The "semantic space" was conceived of in the three dimen
sional terms: (1) "evaluation," (2) "predictability," and
(3) "kindness."
In addition to the scores of the seven factors of
rigidity and rating of statements of values, other informa
tion was also obtained: (1) extremity of judgment on the
semantic differential; (2) college grade point average;
and (3) verbal and quantitative scores on college entrance
examinations.
These data were then punched into IBM cards and
intercorrelated using a "Simple" correlation computer pro
gram. The various scores and sub-scores yielded a 60 by 60
19
*
intercorrelation matrix. On all tests of statistical sig
nificance a confidence level of p^.05 or better was re
quired to reject a null hypothesis.
Definitions of Terms
Adaptive Flexibility.— The ability to restructure
problems, i.e. apart from problem solving. The ability to
solve a problem or respond to a stimulus in several differ
ent ways, where the requirements are rather closely defined
(Guilford, 1957). For the purposes of this study it is
considered to be the opposite of "Persistence."
Disposition Rigidity.— The resistance to change of
neural discharge paths, somewhat similar to habit inter
ference or retroactive inhibition. It might also be termed
"structural rigidity" as it relates to motor functions
(Cattell and Tiner, 1961).
Perseveration.--The tendency to continue in any
activity once it is begun, until it is finished; or relative
difficulty in shifting from one task to another, or in
changing methods to suit a change in conditions (English
and English, 1958). For the purposes of this study it is
considered to be the opposite of Spontaneous Flexibility.
20
Persistence.--The insistence with continuing motiva
tion upon persuing one line of approach to a problem in the
face of altered conditions (Guilford, 1957). For the pur
poses of this study it is considered to be the opposite of
Adaptive Flexibility.
Personality Rigidity.— For the purposes of this
study, it is that which is measured by the Wesley Rigidity
Inventory, thought to describe the "rigid" person along the
lines of too great a persistence, a liking for slow steady
methods, and a liking for established routine.
Rigidity.— For the purposes of this study, it has
the meaning implied within the factoral dimensions described
by Chown (1961): including a lack of Spontaneous Flexi
bility and Adaptive Flexibility; having qualities of Per
sonality Rigidity and Disposition Rigidity.
Spontaneous Flexibility.— The ability or disposition
to produce a diversity of ideas, with freedom from inertia
and restraints (Guilford, 1957). For the purposes of this
study, it is considered to be the opposite of Perseveration.
Value.— An abstract concept, often merely implicit,
that defines for an individual or for a social unit what
21
ends or means to an end are desirable (English and English,
1958).
Value System.— The more or less coherent set of
values that regulate a person's conduct, often without his
awareness that they do so (English and English, 1958).
Organization of the Remainder
of the Dissertation
Chapter II presents a review of the literature on
rigidity and describes the nature of rigidity under con
sideration in this study. In a final section, the measure
ment of philosophical value choices in relationship to
rigidity is considered.
Chapter III outlines the procedure or research de
sign of the present investigation. Included are a review
of the test battery, subjects tested and procedure for
analysis of data.
Chapter IV presents the results of the present in
vestigation under nine headings: (1) Rigidity of Thinking;
(2) Rigidity of Personality; (3) Rigidity of Motor Disposi
tion; (4) the Correlate: Extremity of Judgment; (5) the
correlate: College Grade Point Average; (6) the Correlate:
College Entrance Examination Scores; (7) Interactions Among
Sub-Test Scores; (8) Interactions Among Independent
ables, and (9) the Predictability of the Study.
Chapter V is devoted to a discussion of the
findings according to the same nine categories, but
also some additional findings.
Chapter VI presents a summary, conclusions,
recommendations for further research.
22
Vari-
above
includes
and
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Plan of the Reviev;
In this chapter is presented a review of selected
literature dealing with rigidity and value choices. This
is not to be an exhaustive survey of history and research
in these areas of concern, but rather an attempt to focus
attention upon the background of the concept of rigidity;
the breadth of possible interpretations concerning the
nature of rigidity; problems involved in the choice of a
particular definition of rigidity; the development of the
concept of values; and description of a method of measuring
value choices. With this objective in view, the chapter
has been divided into thirteen major sections arranged as
follows: (1) Existing Reviews, (2) Early History: Perse
veration, (3) Concepts of Rigidity, (4) Theories of Rigidity,
(5) The Generality Issue, (6) Factors of Rigidity, (7) Rig
idity and Value Judgments, (8) Rigidity: Intelligence, Sex,
and Age, (9) The Development of Value Concepts, (10) Per-
23
24
sonality Concomitants of Value Orientations, (11) The Seman
tic Differential and Values, (12) Summary, and (13) Conclu
sions.
Existing Reviews
Several texts on rigidity which cover various as
pects of the literature and past research are available.
Most notable among these is Luchins and Luchins (1959), and
Rubenowitz (1963). There are some good reviews also in un
published doctoral dissertations such as Diamond (1958) and
Graziano (1961). A background to the study of rigidity of
thinking is cited in Guilford (1957) and Taylor (1964).
Rigidity of Personality is covered by Chown (1960) and
Zelen (1954). Related aspects are discussed by Adorno, et
al. (1950), Fisher (1949), and Rokeach (1960). Rigidity of
Disposition is studied by Cattell (1949), and Cattell and
Winder (1952). The study of values is described by Mering
(1961) and Morris (1956). Work related to the measurement
of meaning is analyzed by Osgood, et al. (1957), and Morris
(1964).
Earlv History; Perseveration
The study of rigidity stems historically from early
investigations of perseveration and set. In 1891, Herbart
25
*
in his metaphysical psychology, maintained that ideas pos
sess an attribute or power to make themselves known in the
consciousness, although the original experience by which
they were produced was not repeated. This power is "a
tendency of the ideas toward self-preservation. . . . an
effort to conserve itself as it enters into relationship
with (other ideas) " (Boring, 1950, p. 253) .
Neisser in 1894 first introduced the term perse
veration at a psychiatric symposium discussing repetitive
acts occurring in "apraxia" and "agraphia." He defined it
as an abnormally persistent repetition or continuation of
an activity after the activity has once begun or has re
cently been completed (Luchins, 1959, p. 76).
The concept of perseyeration was introduced into
experimental psychology by Miller and Pilzecker (1900) .
They learned material and proposed their consolidation
theory to account for the phenomena. When a subject learned
item "A" in association with item "B," then learned "A" in
association with "C," "B" made a spontaneous recurrence, in
terfering with the latter connection.
consolidation of the learned associations takes place
if the "perseveration tendency" is not interrupted, but
consolidation is interfered with if additional material
is interpolated. This process of interference is now
26
termed retroactive inhibition (Graziano, 1961, p. 4).
Personality Syndromes
Although the experimental work on perseveration
emphasized motor and sensory processes, it was also identi
fied with personality syndromes. Muller cited two of his
subjects, a man and wife who were representative of strong
and weak perseverators. This held true In word association
tests and also in their daily lives. The man found it dif
ficult to change from one activity to another, but became
involved in tasks to the extent that it was difficult to
disturb him. His wife, however, could accommodate herself
easily to a variety of situations, but did not concentrate
as deeply. Muller explained the differences on the basis
of genetic factors. He felt that guidance in pedagogy and
vocation might be aided by considering individual level of
perseveration.
Muller's intimations of a relationship between
perseveration and personality types was further developed
by Otto Gross (1902). He expalined it in terms of two
distinct processes in the nervous system. The primary
process was responsible for the occurrence of a stimulus in
the consciousness. The secondary process was responsible
27
for its unconscious after-function. His two-type person
ality theory explained that persons with a high primary
function were more practical and societal, while those with
high secondary function were more apt to be creative think
ers, or have cultural genius.
Motor Functions
About 1903, members of the Wurzburg school, Marbe,
Ach, and Watt, found that the conscious purpose, or some
event, preceding or simultaneous with a task initiates an
Einstelluna or set (Graziano, 1961, p. 4).
The Dutch psychologist, Wiersma (1906), confirmed
Gross' secondary function hypothesis in reporting his "sen
sory lag" perseveration studies. His are believed to be
the earliest tests of perseveration of the type which Cat
tell and Tiner (1949) refer to as "process-momentum rigid
ity." Using flicker fusion,.time of adaptation to a liminal
threshold, and adaptation time following different intensi
ties of electric shock, he found that maniacs had lower
average perseverative scores than normals while melancho
liacs had higher average scores than normals (Luchins, 1959,
pi 76) .
The first motor tests of perseveration are credited
to Heymans and Brugmans (1913), two other Dutch psycholo
gists. Following Gross' concept of a secondary function,
they studied interference effects of preceding mental pro
cesses upon present processes by having subjects write let
ters of the alphabet forward then backwards, and the pro
nunciation of difficult words. They are, thus, credited
with introducing the first motor tests of perseveration
(Graziano, 1961, p. 5) .
The "p" Factor
One of the earliest English investigators of per
severation was Lahkes (1915), a student of Spearman. In a
large group study using a battery of eight tests, Lankes
concluded that he had found a general factor other than
Spearman's "g" factor of intelligence. Spearman attempted
to find the underlying factor of perseveration in the study
of Heymans and Brugmans (1913), but was unable to do so,
"probably because of the statistical inaccuracy of the
study" (Cattell and Tiner, 1949, p. 326).
Spearman (1927) found evidence that perseveration
normally constitutes a group factor of functional unity by
applying his factor analysis technique to experimental data
supplied by Wynn Jones, in which 77 children were given
29
four motor tests. He concluded from this analysis, and
from studies of perseveration by Bernstein (1924) and by
Hargreaves, that perseveration is a genuine group factor,
possessed in various degrees by all individuals' behavior
processes (Luchins, 1959, p. 79). He announced the dis
covery of the "p" factor or mental inertia as "one of the
latest and perhaps greatest conquests of experimental psy
chology" (Spearman, 1927, p. 30). In describing persevera
tion in his general law of inertia, he felt that "cognitive
processes always both begin and cease more gradually than
their apparent causes." (1927, p. 291). This description
was in accord with the physiological definition, which
maintained that there is a tendency for an action, such as
nerve action, to continue beyond the period of direct stim
ulation, giving a smoothness of operation.
Perseveration for Spearman was distinct from dis
position, which he defined in the following terms: "Cog
nitive events by occurring establish dispositions which
facilitate their recurrence” (1927, p. 271). Disposition
was understood as being a "steadfastness of purpose" while
perseveration is the lag of activity (1927, p. 306). This
distinction later became important to Cattell (Cattell and
Tiner, 1949).
30
To Spearman (1927, p. 291) "g" represented the total
amount of energy of a person while "p" represented the
inertia of this energy. A variety of investigators (Pinard,
Stephenson, and Cattell) worked out batteries of simple
perceptual and motor tasks that demanded shifts in activity
that apparently measured a perseveration relatively indepen
dent of intelligence.
Several psychologists (Kelley, Burri, Jasper and
Shevach) criticized "p" as a universal factor, as its in
terpretation as a functional unity rested upon various
studies of perseveration whose intercorrelations, though
positive, could be explained on the basis of chance.
Shevach criticized the lack of standardization, validity,
and reliability of perseveration. He also criticized most
of the studies for being based upon small populations, in
adequate samples, and insufficient numbers of tests (Luch
ins, 1959, p. 81).
Wynn Jones, an associate of Spearman's, in reviewing
the various criticisms, maintained that, while individual
tests may suffer from unreliability, the pool of tests did
give significant results. He felt that the criticisms did
not contradict the essential finding that "p" was a single
broad factor (Spearman and Jones, 1951, p. 160-163).
31
The studies of Hargreaves, Bernstein, Shevach and
Burri, suggest more than one common factor running through
all the tests of perseveration. According to Luchins (1959):
There seem to be well-founded doubts as to the feasi
bility of regarding mental inertia or perseveration
either as a factor common to all tests of perseveration
or as a general characteristic of the human mind which
is possessed in various degrees by all individuals and
which operates as functional unity pervading all be
havior processes. The simple formulation of mental
inertia originally set forth by Spearman thus seems
rather inadequate (p. 84) .
Concepts of Rigidity
Cattell: Structural Rigidity
During the mid-1930's there was shift from the con
cept of perseveration to rigidity. On the basis of his
factor analytic studies, Cattell (1946) redefined Spearman's
"p" as disposition rigidity. He interpreted perseveration
as an inertia of mental structures based upon a genetic
complex or syndrome, rather than an inertia of mental pro
cesses. He, thus, differentiated between process rigidity
and structural rigidity.
Process rigidity is defined as:
. . . the tendency of a percept or an emotion or a
motor activity to persist, when once activated, totally
or partially, despite substitution of a new stimuli for
the original one that produced the process (Cattell and
Tiner, 1949, p. 322).
32
This is similar to the definition by Spearman in that it
connotes an inertia or momentum of mental processes rising
and declining more slowly than their causes.
According to Cattell and Tiner (1949), pursuit of
factors in process rigidity led to the better explanation
of structural rigidity. It is defined as "the resistance
of a habit or a personality trait to forces which might be
expected to change it, i.e. to cause learning" (1949, p.
322). Structural rigidity may arise from three general
classes of causes: (1) rigidity through failure of new be
havior to appear (this may be attributed to either defect
in general mental capacity or failure of random solutions to
appear in consciousness. The latter seems largely related
to fluency of association or Spontaneous Flexibility), (2)
rigidity through internal dynamic conflict and equilibrium
(this is broadly due to internal checks and balances, such
as taboos and fears which deny adaptation or satisfaction
of some other trait or of the total dynamic economy of the
organism. Cattell and Tiner (1949) equate this with a
variety of factors of personality rigidity), (3) rigidity
as a basic attribute of all dispositions (Disposition Rigid
ity, resistance to change of neural discharge paths, oper
ates against the formation of new neural connections and
33
against extinction of unrewarded responses). Speed of learn
ing, cited by some investigators as a factor of rigidity,
is to Cattell a positive function of disposition rigidity.
In his opinion, all research on rigidity should control the
three main causes of structual rigidity.
Freud: Hysterias
At the time that Neisser presented his definition of
perseveration, Freud (1894) was seeking an explanation of
the symptomatology of the hysterias. Classical hysteria,
based upon Charcot's theory, provided a concrete picture of
rigid behavior, where seeing, feeling, or movement may be
paralyzed. He noted various neurotic trends of behavior
where persons demonstrated unusual frugality, obstinacy,
and orderliness and where there was great importance placed
upon accumulating money, extreme over-compliance and stub-
borness in relations with others, and exaggerated concern
over orderliness, tidiness, punctuality and propriety.
There was a need to conform to safe, constricted channels
of conduct. These traits, he felt, were representations of
reaction formations and sublimations which were, uncon
sciously, defenses against conflict-producing anal-erotic
impulses. Following World War I, because of his observa
tions of shell-shocked soldiers who relived disturbing trau
matic experiences in their dreams, Freud was forced to re
vise his ideas of the strength of the pleasure principle.
He became convinced that a tendency to repeat could be
stronger than the drive to avoid pain or dissatisfactions
and to seek pleasure (Freud, 1953, Vol. 4, p. 391). In
fluenced by physical science principles, he saw this repe
tition as a special case of Fechner's principle of the ten
dency toward stability, ". . * an attempt on the part of the
psychotic apparatus to keep the quantity of excitations
present as low as possible, or at least constant" (1922,
p. 4). With the distructiveness of the war and other con
siderations, he postulated a "Thanos" (death) instinct.
"The final aim of the destructive instinct is to reduce
living things to an inorganic state" (1949, p. 20). This
instinct is in polar opposition to another basic instinct,
"Eros," the life, love or sex instinct, which urge preserves
the organic substance. Repetition compulsion is an aspect
of Thanos, not Eros. During the same years he formulated
the personality model of Id, Ego, and Superego. The Super
ego seeks to determine rigid adherence to the past tradi
tion. If this is not done, guilt and tension arise. Energy
utilized by the Superego derives from the Thanos instinct,
35
which directs aggressive impulses to the person rather than
against the society.
The writing of Jung, Adler, Alexander, Reich, Homey,
Fromm and Sullivan do not necessarily agree with Freud's
explanation of rigid repetitive behavior. They do corrob
orate his observations, but raise doubts as to whether
rigid, repetitive behavior is (1) due to repetition compul
sion; (2) related to destructiveness, and (3) attributable
to a death instinct. They generally agree that personality
structure is itself a kind of defense system involving
habitual attitudes. These may become rigidified in the
neurotic. They agree that the major task of therapy is to
release the individual from his rigidity (Luchins, 1959,
p. 472).
Jung; Fixation
The concern of Carl Jung with rigidity has to do
with development of the person through the life phases of
"presexual," "prepubertal," and "maturity." "Progression"
is the forwrd flow of the libido through the various stages,
while "regression" is the rigid fixation of the libido to a
particular stage of development. This is characterized by
outward rigidity, sterotypy of conduct, irritability, and a
36
feeling that life is meaningless. An important function of
therapy is the freeing of the libido from its rigidity.
Jung (1923) felt that the psychological types of
Gross (1902) coincided substantially with his own. "Even
my terms, extraversion and introversion, are justified from
the standpoint of Gross' conception" (Jung, 1923, p. 353).
Jung posited four primary mental processes: thinking, feel
ing, sensation and intuition. The energies of these may be
directed inward or outward; for instance, a person may be
a thinking extravert or a feeling extravert, etc. The
occurrence of these characteristics is a matter of inborn
disposition and reinforcement of experiences which habituate
the predominant mode of responding.
The process of differentation of the personality
from the collective unconscious is difficult and painful.
Because of this, persons to varying degrees rely on
the inherited, fixed patterns of thought and action
(archetypes), and are bound by traditions and conven
tions. Theirs is a life run by automatic habits and
rigid customs and rules, rather than by personal con
scious choice (Luchins, 1959, p. 17) .
Because of immersion in the collective psyche, the person
develops a mask, a "Persona," a personality role in life.
In the well-adjusted person, the persona is elastic, allow
ing ready contact with the environment. It is, however, in
37
danger of becoming stiff, automatic or a habitual mode of
adjustment. The rigid persona having lost much of its
elasticity and permeability, becomes a troublesome impedi
ment and possibly fatal barrier to fulfillment of the poten
tialities of individuality.
Adlers Inferiority
The basic drive to Alfred Adler is a feeling of in
feriority which begets a compensatory striving to overcome
it. The strength of striving for life goals (known or un
known to the person) depends upon the strength of the in
feriority feeling. There is a consistent pattern (life
style) of orientation which guides the principles or fic
tions the person employs in overt action. Where the person
has exaggerated feelings of inferiority and anxiety, he may
rigidly cling to his guiding fictions despite their conflict
with reality. Such persons are referred to as "nervous"
characters. Murphy and Jensen (1932) describe it as fol
lows: ". . . always narrow, limited, rigid, self-conscious
and anxious, schematic. . . . inelastic, unbending, enmeshed
by his fictions which blind him to reality" (p. 218-219).
Rorschach: Imaqinal Types
In his Psychodiagnostics, Rorschach (1942) presented
38
a synthesis of two theories of personality structure, the
dynamic approach of the psychoanalysts and the formal ap
proach of typologists. He evolved from the formal tradition
of Otto Gross and later Carl Jung, in that he distinguished
between two processes which result in two classical charac
ter types. They are the "deep-narrow," introversive or
imaginal type, and the "wide-shallow," extratensive or
affective type. Rorschach also associated the introversive
experience type with culture and the extratensive with
civilization (Diamond, 1958, p. 26).
Alexander: Pars imonv
Franz Alexander (1951) characterized individual de
velopment as proceeding on the principle of parsimony. The
necessities of life are secured with the minimum expenditure
of energy.
This economy (inertia, energy-saving) principle is said
to underlie (1) the trend toward habit formation: the
tendency to replace flexible adjustments by automatisms;
(2) resistance to change; unwillingness of the organism
to make new adjustments; and (3) regressive tendencies;
attempts to revert to earlier forms of behavior and
emotional attitudes when a new adjustment is difficult
(Luchins, 1959, p. 12).
Alexander defines learning as experimentation and
repetition leading to automatic (habituated) behavior. Its
advantages are swiftness and effortlessness, which conserve
39
energy. Its disadvantage is its rigidity. This drive to
parsimony operates on a personal level as well as on the
cultural scene. To change requires effort, and the organism
seeks to resist change, and save its energy. "Man vainly
tries to evade new, necessary adaptations by adhering or
regressing to older behavior patterns that do not fit pres
ent conditions" (Luchins, 1959, p. 12) . He feels that the
person aims not at the Freudian Thanos, but rather at life
with a minimum of exertion (1951, p. 168).
Reich: Armoring
William Reich (1949) approached personality from the
typological and psychoanalytic frames of reference. In a
series of papers between 1927 and 1933, in seeking to pre
sent a "systematic psychoanalytic characterology," Reich
introduced the term "armoring" to describe the process of
ego-defense. It is an armor of the ego against both the
outer world and the inner libidinal strivings "the greater
the mobility of the armor, the healthier and less rigid the
personality" (1949, p. 145).
The character (i.e. personality) consists in a chronic
alteration of the ego which one might describe as a
rigidity. . . . As a protection mechanism which has be
come chronic, it can rightly be called armor. This
armor inevitably means a reduction of the total psychic
mobility (p. 145).
40
The goal of mental hygiene for Reich is not to prevent the
ability to form an armor, but to aim at the formation of an
armor which is flexible, mobile,— to reduce rigidity.
Theories of Riaiditv
Goldie in; NemralQ2V
Kurt Goldstein (1943), working primarily with brain
damaged patients, characterized rigidity as adherence to a
performance that is inadequate for the present task. The
rigid individual does not shift from one performance to
another as required by the task to be fulfilled. Rigidity
plays a great role in normal behavior but is especially pro
nounced in pathological states (p. 209).
Rigidity is a consequence of neurological defect,
the isolation of part of the central nervous system from the
rest of the system. Also, rigidity occurs if isolation
takes place between one mental performance and other per
formances .
Goldstein distinguishes two types of rigidity, which
he terms primary and secondary. Primary rigidity is the
inability to change from one set or Einstelluna to another.
It is manifested primarily by patients with lesions of the
sub-cortical ganglia. If a new set is demanded, the patient
41
may persist abnormally in repeating the present inadequate
activity or if the new stimulus is very strong, his activity
may be brusquely interrupted (1943, p. 210). The result may
be the inability to respond to any stimulus, then gradually
the acquisition of a new set for a new task will take place.
Secondary rigidity is thought to be due to a defect in the
higher mental processes, is characterized as demanding that
the individual seek to avoid difficult situations, as a new
problem poses a potential catastrophic situation. To avoid
this situation, the individual persists in tasks or methods
of solutions which have proved successful in the past. This
occurs because of cortical damage and malformation.
According to Goldstein, it becomes increasingly
evident that for all acquired cortical damage, for schizo
phrenia, and for the mental changes due to malformation of
the brain cortex, such as in feeble-mindedness, "the de
fect . . . consists mainly of an impairment of the ab
stract attitude" (1943, p. 213). The abstract and concrete
attitude are not acquired mental sets or habits of an in
dividual, or special isolable aptitudes, such as memory,
attention, etc. They are, rather, capacity levels of the
total personality.
In primary rigidity there appears to be the lack of
42
ability to perceive the necessity to shift. In secondary
rigidity the change in the stimulus condition is perceived,
but due to the defect in abstracting ability, the person is
unable to cope with it and seeks to avoid it, often by
perseveration of a former successful response.
Werner: Differentiation
To Heinz Werner, "... increasing development is
marked by increasing differentiation of parts, progressive
hierarchization of parts, and increasing differentiation
between the organism and the outer world" (Luchins, 1959,
p. 35) . This holds for both ontogenetic development, refer
ring to the development of a race type or species.
Werner defines rigidity as a lack of variability in
response, or a lack of adaptability in behavior. Young
children exhibit more rigid behavior than older persons and
primitive man more than modern man. Brain under-develop-
ment, injury, or disease is also associated with rigidity
by Werner. It is a behavioral trait caused by various or-
ganismic conditions primarily immaturity (subnormality) and
abnormality.
Higher activity, such as abstract thinking, involves
a plasticity or flexibility of outer form and inner content.
43
Werner divides plasticity of inner content into plasticity
of acting subject (motive) and plasticity of the object
acted upon (goal). "Primitive behavior is comparatively
lacking in plasticity so far as outer form is concerned.
. . . Both plasticity of motive and of goal are comparative
ly limited in primitive behavior" (Werner, 1940, p. 210) .
Primitive behavior is regarded by Werner as instable since
". . . stability of behavior requires a flexibility of re
sponse in order to preserve the functional equilibrium of
the organism in the face of mutable situations" (p. 55).
Lewin; Topology
Kurt Lewin (1935) in postulating his "typological"
psychology, regarded rigidity in terms of the strength of
boundaries between mental functions of the psychical system.
Dynamic differences among persons were visualized as varia
tions in the type and degree of differentiation in the
structure of psychical regions and systems. Kounin (1941),
using topological terms defines it as '. . . that property
of a functional boundary which prevents communication be
tween neighboring regions" (p. 254). It is the relative
impermeability or lack of communication between the bound
aries of neighboring psychological regions. The greater the
44
impermeability or lack of communication between the bound
aries of neighboring psychological regions, the greater the
rigidity. This is termed topological rigidity, and is not
equivalent to behavioral rigidity. Though not clearly de
fined, behavioral rigidity seems to include stereotype and
pedantry, inflexibility in clinging to a fixed goal, rigid
ity of the wills and needs, and the inability to restruc
ture the field necessary for intellectual insights.
Lewin and Kounin recognized that factors other than
topological rigidity may lead to behavioral (phenomenologi
cal) rigidity. However, a higher degree of differentiation
in the psychic structure makes possible a greater variety
and richness in modes of behavior and facilitates restruc
turing the field required for intellectual insights, while
a smaller degree of differentiation (behavioral rigidity)
tends to be associated with lower external mobility. Lewin
assumes that topological rigidity tends to increase with
age; that there is a gradual stiffening of the psychical
system's material properties. He assumes also that be
havioral rigidity tends to decrease with age.
The Generality Issue
The generality of rigidity or set is a controversy
45
which has attracted some attention. According to Graziano
I
(1961), it seems to have developed for at least two rea
sons: (1) the assumption by Spearman, that perseveration
operates as a functional unity influencing all of an in
dividual's behavior, became applied to the concept of rigid
ity; (2) as rigidity became an explanatory concept within a
framework of personality dynamics, researchers sought an
underlying basic personality rigidity manifest in various
kinds of behavior (p. 23).
Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) concluded from her research
that some lack of personality strength or ego integration
is characteristic of ethnocentric individuals; and that
some basic psychological process, such as rigidity or in
tolerance of ambivalence underlies the various phenomena
associated with ethnocentrism. Frenkel-Brunswik felt that
". . . one of the most pervasive formal aspects of the per
sonality is his rigidity" (Frenkel-Brunswik, 1950, p. 479).
Rigidity was assumed to be a generalized personality char
acteristic manifest in a variety of behavior. Intolerance
of ambiguity was seen as a unifying descriptive concept for
generalized functional rigidity. After a series of related
experiments, she concluded that denial of emotional ambi
valence and intolerance of cognitive ambiguity are different
46
aspects of a fairly coherent characteristic.
It is an underlying emotional conflict arising out of
the ambivalence between glorification and hostility in
attitude toward parents, sex, and one's own social
identity. It is therefore related to a premature re
duction of ambiguous cognitive patterns in order to
gain certainty. This is revealed by a clinging to the
familiar, or by a superimposition of one or many dis
torting cliches upon stimuli which are not manageable
in a more simple stereotyped fashion (Frenkel-Brunswik,
1949, p. 140) .
The individual was seen to be most receptive to the various
ideologies which afforded his over-all personality structure
its fullest expression.
A variety of researchers of intolerance of ambigu-
ity, following the model of Frenkel-Brunswik, such as Smock
(1955), Davids (1956), Davids and Ericksen (1957), and Block
and Block (1951), either challenged or supported her con
tentions. Kenny and Ginsberg (1957), studying the specif
icity of intolerance of ambiguity measures, found only
seven of 66 intercorrelations, which used nine different
measures, to be significant. Two of these had a relation
ship opposite to that predicted. The authors found little
support for a general construct of intolerance of ambiguity,
nor the inference that a person who is intolerant in one
situation will be intolerant in all different situations.
They felt that "... future research may discover a number
47
of distinct or relatively independent dimensions of intol
erance of ambiguity rather than just one unique generalized
factor" (p. 304).
Luchins (1959) has reported extensive studies of
Einstellung phenomena in problem solving. Einstellung or
"E" effect is the continuation of previously learned be
havior, even when some newer, easier or simpler mode of be
havior is more appropriate.
He suggests the possibility that rigidity is perhaps
not of such diverse varieties as Cattell and Tinner, and
other factorial studies indicate or, at least, "... that
the particular varieties of rigidity described in factorial
studies may not all have counterparts in actual varieties
of rigidity of behavior manifested in daily life" (p. 300).
Factors of Rigidity
According to Cattell and Tiner (1949):
Confusion . . .will persist so long as some psycholo
gists fail to recognize that in using the same term
"rigidity" they are assuming a single characteristic or
process where, in fact, there are several (p. 321).
As previously cited, they differentiate between process
rigidity and structural rigidity. On the basis of their
analysis of 17 tests, they concluded that there are possibly
three rigidity factors in addition to low fluency and lew
48
intelligence. According to Taylor and McNemar (1955), only
process rigidity, or the classical perseveration factor is
adequately defined. Cattell and Winder (1952), hypothesize
the nature of the classical perseveration factor based upon
clinical and experimental evidence.
Oliver and Ferguson (1951) considered rigidity in
terms of the interfering effects of culturally induced be
havior patterns. Ten tests involving these considerations
were given to 98 subjects. Three factors emerged from a
factorial analysis, one of which can be identified unambigu
ously as a rigidity or habit-interference factor. They con
clude that considerable work is required following the gen
eral pattern of their study "on the relation between the
interfering effects of culturally and experimentally in
duced behavior patterns" (p. 58). According to Luchins
(1959) "more careful analysis reveals that in this study the
distinction between experimentally induced and culturally
induced rigidity is not a clear cut one" (p. 297) nor does
the available evidence support the thesis that distinct fac
tors or dimensions have been isolated.
Graziano (1961) administered six measures of rigid
ity to 66 first and second grade public school children, in
order to study the generality or uniformity of rigidity.
49
In a principal component analysis, seven factors emerged:
Stimulus-binding, Intelligence and Alternate Responses,
Decision-time, Set, Developmental, Coordination, and Produc
tion. He concluded that rigidity is a multiform phenomena,
with several different "kinds" of rigidity. It operates in
a specific rather than a generalized manner, and it is mul
tidimensional, in that some kinds of rigidity vary with age
and intelligence. He suggests the need for a unifying con
cept of rigidity, such as ". . . the relative availability
of alternative responses" (p. 89).
In a factor analytic study of 16 perceptual and 6
personality tests, using 100 male college students, Baer
(1961) identified 11 factors: Anxiety-Rigidity, Spatial
Orientation Flexibility, Figural Spontaneous Flexibility,
Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Perseveration, Social
Flexibility, Speed of Symbol Discrimination, Acquiescent
Response Set, Mathematics Background, Set Rigidity, and
Speed of Closure. Baer concluded:
Rigidity or flexibility are not general factors in per
sonality organization and functioning in that people
who may respond to one set of stimuli in a "rigid" or
"flexible" manner do not necessarily respond to other
stimuli in a similar manner (p. 81).
Chown (1961) gave 16 tests of rigidity and 2 of in
telligence to 200 men, ranging in age from 20 to 82 years.
Results of the factor analytic study suggested five distinct
kinds of rigidity. Guilford's factor of Spontaneous Flexi
bility was supported, but only in older subjects did any
thing like a factor of Adaptive Flexibility emerge, as it
involves a liking for detailed work. Personality Rigidity,
as measured by the Wesley Rigidity Inventory, measures a
willingness to change and liking for change as distinct
from abilities when faced with changes. Disposition Rigid
ity as defined by Cattell and Tiner (1949) was found to load
highly on two distinct factors.
Spontaneous Flexibility/Perseveration
In an extensive factor-analytic study of flexibility
in thinking, using American Air Force Cadets, Guilford, et
al. (1957), found two clear factors of intellectual adapta
bility. They are Spontaneous Flexibility and Adaptive Flex
ibility. Spontaneous Flexibility is defined as:
. . . the ability or disposition to produce a diversity
of ideas, with freedom from inertia and restraints.
The term "disposition" is inserted because there is
some suspicion that this factor may turn out to be a
trait of temperament or motivation rather than an
ability (1957, p. 27) .
Typical tests of Spontaneous Flexibility might include
"Brick Uses" where the person is asked to "think of as many
uses as you can for a brick." This was seen by Guilford to
51
be the opposite of "perseveration."
Adaptive Flexibility/Persistence
Adaptive Flexibility is defined as:
. . . is an ability to restructure problems, i.e. apart
from problem solving. The ability to solve a problem
or respond to a stimulus in several different ways,
where the requirements are rather closely defined
(1957, p. 27).
Adaptive Flexibility does not involve the ability or dispo
sition to drop old associations, meanings, or methods that
are found maladaptive.
The concept of restructuring should be an important
part of it and . . . the trait goes beyond the activi
ties of problem solving. A new hypothesis was suggested
to the effect that this flexibility factor is actually
a figural-structural originality trait (or a confounding
of two originality traits) (p. 27).
A measure of this might be "Insight Problems" requiring
comprehension or insight rather than careful evaluation or
computation for their solution. Adaptive Flexibility was
seen by Guilford to be the opposite of "persistence."
Personality Rigidity
"There are but few tests in published literature
which attempt to measure willingness to change and liking
for change, as distinct from abilities when faced with
changes" (Chcwn, 1961, p. 354).
52
Elizabeth Wesley (1950) developed a 50 item ques
tionnaire which was designed to measure "Personality Rigid
ity." Ninety items were chosen according to her definition
of rigidity; these were submitted to five psychologists who
rated them as representing high, moderate, or low "rigid
ity." In a study testing 72 college students, using 50
items rated highest, Wesley (1953) found that subjects
scoring high on the rigidity scale took longer to shift
their set on a concept formation test. The scale also dis
tinguished significantly between high and low scores on the
Water Jar Test, taken by 93 student nurses (Schmide, Fonda,
and Wesley, 1954). Zelen and Levitt (1954) found a split-
half reliability coefficient of .68 for a 41 item revised
Wesley scale, in a study using 284 college students. The
scale correlated .26 with the California E Scale, according
to Katz, 1952, and a significant correlation is also re
ported by Jones (1955).
A principal component analysis by Chown (1960)
yielded three clear factors: persistence, liking for slow,
steady methods, and liking for established routine. A fac
tor of speed and one of alphabet rigidity also emerged.
Disposition Rigidity
As previously mentioned, Cattell and Tiner (1961)
53
described two types of interference which made it difficult
for people to change from one task to another. Mental in
ertia was defined as interference occurring at the moment
of switching from one task to another, even when the person
knows what response he should make. Structural rigidity,
which might be termed “Disposition Rigidity,“ is the other
type. It was held to be a resistance to change of neural
discharge paths. This is somewhat similar to habit inter
ference or retroactive inhibition. Tests leading most high
ly on Disposition Rigidity involved motor effort, and con
sisted of conventional alternation tasks or such tasks as
speed of writing the word "ready” or the figures "237“
backward, compared with normal speed of writing. In a fac
tor analytic study by Chcwn (1961), mentioned earlier, two
distinct factors of Disposition Rigidity emerged.
The motor speed tasks are scored using ratio scores
(the ratio of the number of letters written forward to the
number written backward).
Rigidity and Value Judgments
Luchins (1959) points out that psychologists' dis
cussions of rigidity often involve value judgments. It is
often defined as lack of shift in behavior when shift is
54
needed, or as adherence to behavior that is inadequate in
the present situation. It is perhaps necessary to define
rigidity in this way, however, it should be pointed out that
»
investigator value judgments occur in the determination of
the inadequacy of behavior, when a shift is needed, etc.
What one individual may consider as rigidity (adherence to
inadequate behavior) may seem to another as admirable con
centration on one task, steadfast, reliable behavior, un-
distractibility,. freedom from being at the mercy of the en
vironmental stimulation, etc. This is especially true out
side the research laboratory.
Time and historical considerations also arise. In
the light of history, that amount of time, devoted to that
particular task, was adequate behavior. Evaluation of the
adequacy of behavior needs to be considered in terms of the
performer's goals, the reason he is responding as he is.
As an example, one might consider that rigi'd behavior plays
a positive role, as in the neurotic person seeking to achieve
and maintain a stable equilibrium. Too great flexibility
might also be termed neurotic behavior. It might be mani
fest in the inability to make decisions, to solve complex
problems, to complete activities, etc.
The ethnocentric, prejudiced, authoritarian individ-
ual is said to be rigid, while the democratic, tolerant per
sonality is described as less rigid or non-rigid (Frenkel-
Brunswik, 1949). Rigidity has been associated with neurotic
behavior, lew intelligence, and high anxiety. In referring
to research on the authoritarian personality, Masling (1953)
condemns the social scientists' "... slip from a rigorous,
scientific, 'show me' frame of reference, to one which has
been influenced by the researcher's concern about world
conditions" (p. 318) . He feels that the concept of the
authoritarian personality may be a valuable, heuristic tool,
but only if it can be divorced as much as possible from
value judgments.
Luchins suggests that we take a clue from physi
cists' treatment of elasticity, seeking to develop methods
of defining, studying, and measuring rigidity that are
relatively divorced from value judgments. The investigator
might study degree of change under a variety of conditions.
"In view of the negative connotations of the term "rigid
ity, " perhaps it would be best to characterize such re
search, not as the study of 'rigidity,' but as the study of
'differential processes of change'" (p. 589).
56
Rigidity. Intelligence, Sex, and Aae
The effect of intelligence upon various aspects of
rigidity has been demonstrated by a number of investigators.
Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) found lower intelligence signifi
cantly related to authoritarianism; Rokeach (I960), to
closed mindedness; and Luchins (1959), to Einstellung ef
fect. Davids (1956) and also Davids and Eriksen (1957)
confirmed the work of Frenkel-Brunswik by demonstrating a
significant negative correlation between "F" Scale scores
and intelligence.
Some of the studies of sex differences have not
yielded any consistent or significant differences. However,
other studies have shown some tendency for female subjects
to manifest more Einstellung effect than males. This may
be explained in terms of cultural differences. Feminine
traits such as dependency and submissiveness may enhance
behavioral rigidity (Luchins, 1959, p. 247).
Kounin (1941), investigating rigidity in children,
concluded that it increased with age. Werner (1946) sep
arately investigating similar problems concluded that it
decreased. Kounin held the Lewinian view of rigidity being
topological rather than behavioral. Chown (1959) raised
some methodological questions about Kounin*8 study in which
he contrasted normal children with feeble-minded adults of
the same I. Q. Bromley (1953), dealing with aged adults,
found that they gave more global ideas, more simplified and
concrete answers, and that they were unable to shift or
hold two aspects of the same pattern simultaneously. Thus,
they may be defined as being more rigid. The complexity of
the problems used has been found to affect subjects differ
entially according to their age. Chown (1961) found that
older persons made higher scores on Adaptive Flexibility
measures. Clay (1954), using groups under 25 and over 55
years, showed that the performance of both groups was simi
lar on the simple tasks but older subjects took more time
and were less accurate and less active in correcting errors
on more complex tasks than younger subjects. This finding
was corroborated in a study by Kay (1951).
A recent study by Chown (1961) substantiated a pre
vious factor analytic study of rigidity in relation to age
by Schaie (1958).
His tasks consist of two habit interference tests, from
which speed measures are also obtained, and two short
questionnaires about attitudes and persistence of be
havior . He also included the Thurstone Primary Mental
Abilities battery. Factor analysis showed three dis
tinct rigidity factors— Motor-Cognitive Rigidity (al
most certainly similar to Disposition Rigidity), Per
sonality-Perceptual Rigidity, and Psychomotor Speed.
Scores on all of these decline markedly with age and
58
seem to interact with intelligence measures at each
age (Chown, 1961, p. 354) .
In Chown's study, she used speed tasks of writing
"ready" and "the sky is blue" in regular forward manner.
Letters also were to be printed, capital letters alternated
with small letters, etc. The sharpness of the individual
factors varied from age group to age group. The effects
of speed became more diffuse with increasing age. Also,
although the factor of Adaptive Flexibility did not emerge
clearly, she found that older persons made higher scores on
Adaptive Flexibility measures.
Development of Value Concepts
In Paths of Life (1942), Morris postulated three
basic dimensions of value based upon interpretations of
religious attitudes and ethical systems, past and present.
These were presumed to combine in various ways to produce
three basic tendencies or value orientations, such as: (1)
"Dionysian" (tendency to release and indulge existing de
sires) ? (2) "Promethean" (tendency to manipulate and remake
the world); and (3) "Buddhistic" (tendency to regulate the
self by holding in check its desireed. Morris found that:
. . . individuals differed in the relative strength of
the components and that the differences expressed them
selves culturally in various religions, ethical systems.
types of art, and philosophies (1956, p. 2).
Seven statements of the possible "Ways to Live" or value
profile patterns, of about 100 words each, containing the
three value orientations in various degrees, were analyzed
in terms of those dimensions. The first six of these al
ternative conceptions differed widely in their content and
included values advocated and defended in the several ethi
cal and religious systems of mankind. The seventh of the
"Ways to Live" joined the three tendencies to provide a
combination in which they were equally strong. These were
described and explored in Paths of Life (1942) and are
epitomized in brief by the first seven items given in Table
1.
The seven ways were placed in a questionnaire and
appeared as single unnamed paragraphs expressing the essen
tials of alternative modes of life. Several hundred college
students were asked to indicate their preferences, by rating
and ranking them. "Because a considerable number of stu
dents found none of the seven alternatives much to their
liking, the document was enlarged" (Morris, 1959, p. 3).
Respondents were asked to specify any other way of life
they would prefer to the seven ways listed. This informa
tion together with other considerations of historically
60
TABLE 1
A SAMPLE OF HUMAN VALUES
Way 1 preserve the best in society
Way 2 self-sufficiency, reflection, and meditation
Way 3 altruistic affection and concern for others
Way 4 abandonment to sensuous enjoyment
Way 5 group action toward common goals
Way 6 progress through realistic solution of problems
Way 7 integration of diversity
Way 8 wholesome enjoyment of simple comforts
Way 9 quiet receptivity to experience
Way 10 dignified self-control
Way 11 contemplation of the rich inner life
Way 12 dynamic physical interaction with the environment
Way 13 humble obedience to cosmic purposes
61
significant ethical and religious orientations suggested
ways 8, 9, and 10. This was somewhat later revised to the
thirteen-alternative form shown in Table 1. It served as
the basic instrument in a number of studies in this country
and abroad (Jones and Morris, 1956; and Morris and Jones,
1955). A summary of this and other research appears in
Varieties of Human Value (Morris, 1956).
Personality Concomitants of
Value Orientations
The preferential judgments of the thirteen ways were
obtained of nearly three thousand college men and women, at
twenty-two colleges and universities throughout this coun
try and including India, China, and to a lesser extent,
Japan, Italy and Norway. Using a seven step scale from
"like very much" to "dislike very much," subjects were
asked to indicate hew much they liked or disliked each of
them. The preferential judgment scores were subjected to
factor analysis. There was evidence for considerable agree
ment in factor structure across different cultures, despite
differing preferences for various "ways to live" in these
cultures. Interviews, each over thirty minutes, were held
with approximately 100 students from China, India, and the
United States, to determine their main interests, career
62
that was expected to be followed, and important events
which had occurred in their lives. A somatotype rating
was also given according to Dr. W. H. Sheldon's criteria.
Temperament data included a brief description of the way
the subject had reacted during the interview, and the Thurs-
tone Temperament Schedule. A variety of other information
was also obtained. The relationship between various in
dividual differences, such as: religious affiliations,
social caste and class, temperament, personality, body size
and build were determined (Morris, 1956) .
According to Osgood, Ware, and Morris (1961):
. . . the fact that such relationships do exist both
testifies to the validity of the value dimensions and
serves to illumine some of the ways in which values
relate to other aspects of human existence (p. 63).
The thirteen ways were also compared by Jones
(Morris, 1956, p. 101) on the sixteen Personality Factor
Test devised by Raymond B. Cattell. The Cattell test meas
ures both temperament and character traits. The identifying
letters and contents of the factors are shown in Table 2.
On each of the personality factors, the highest and
lowest sixteen subjects were compared in terms of their
scores on the "Ways” and on each of the value factors. Des
pite the small sample employed, the study may be most usefull
63
TABLE 2
IDENTIFYING LETTERS AND CONTENTS OF THE
16 PERSONALITY FACTOR TEST (Morris, 1956)
A. Cyclothymia vs. schizothymia
B. General intelligence vs. mental defect
C. Emotional stability (ego strength) vs. dissatisfied
emotiona1ify.
E. Dominance (ascendance) vs. submission
F. Surgency vs. desurgency (depressive anxiety)
G. Character (super-ego strength) vs. lack of internal
standards
H. Adventurous autonomic resilience vs. inherent with
drawn schizothymia
I. Emotional sensitivity vs. phlegmatic
L. Paranoid schizothymia vs. trustful altruism
M. Hysteric unconcern vs. practical concernedness
N. Sophistication vs. rough simplicity
0. Anxious insecurity vs. placid self-confidence
Ql. Radicalism vs. conservatism
Q2. Independent self-sufficiency vs. lack of resolution
Q3. Hill control and character stability
Q4. Nervous tension
64
in suggesting patterns of relationship between values and
personality factors. The relationship between the Cattell
factors and the liking of the "Ways" is shown in Table 3.
Using a sample of 115 men, Jones and Morris (1957)
correlated the seven factors of the Thubstone Temperament
Schedule (active, vigorous, impulsive, dominant, stable,
sociable, and reflective) and the thirteen ways to live.
Table 4 shows the significant correlations of the tempera
ment factors and the value factors.
In a factor analytic study, Jones (Morris, 1956,
p. 32) using 250 male college students, drawn radomly
through the United States, between the ages of 21-22, found
five independent factors of dimensions present. They are
as follows:
Factor A: Social Restraint and Self-Control— high
positive factor loadings on Ways 1 and 10, high negative
loadings on Way 4. Way 3 has a positive secondary loading.
The stress is upon responsible, conscientious, intelli
gent participation in human affairs. The orientation
is primarily moral. There is awareness of the larger
human and cosmic setting in which the individual lives
and an acceptance of the restraints which responsibility
to this larger whole requires. The accent is upon the
appreciation and conservation of what man has attained
rather than upon the initiation of change. The anti
thesis of the trait is unrestrained and socially irre
sponsible enjoyment (Morris, 1956, p. 32).
65
TABLE 3
RELATIONS BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW MEAN SCORES ON
THE CATTELL FACTORS AND LIKING OF THE WAYS
(Morris, 1956)*
Cattell
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A - - + +
C + - -
+
E - - + +
F + + - -
G
-
-
+ +
H - -
+ +
I
- + + -
L + - + -
M + + - -
N + - - +
0 + - + -
Q1
- + - -
Q2 +
-
+
Q3 + - + -
Q4 — • f - -
* A single "+" or indicates a positive or negative
correlation of the P> .05 level of confidence.
66
TABLE 4
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RATINGS OF THE WAYS
AND CORRECTED SCORES ON THURSTONE
TEMPERAMENT VARIABLES (N=115 men.)*
Way Active
Vigor
ous
Impul
sive
Domi
nant
Socia-
Stable ble
Reflec
tive
1 — - — ++
2
3
4
5 ++ ++ ++ ++ —
6 + ++
7 — -
- +
8
+ ++ +
9
10
11 —— —— — ++
12
13
++ ++ + +
—
* A single ”+" or indicates a positive or negative
correlation, significant at the .05 level of con
fidence; a double entry indicates significance at the
p >.01 level.
67
Factor B: Enjoyment and Progress in Action— Ways
12 and 5 give the positive content, and Way 2 gives its
negative characteristics.
The stress is upon delight in vigorous action for the
overcoming of obstacles. The emphasis is upon the
initiation of change rather than upon the preservation
of what has already been attained. The temper is one
of confidence in man's powers rather than one of cau
tion and restraint. The orientation is outward to
society and to nature. The antithesis of the trait is
a life focused upon the development of the inner-self
(1956, p. 32).
Factor C: Withdrawal and Self-Sufficiency— Ways 11
and 2 showed high positive loadings and Way 5 high negative.
There is a small secondary negative loading on Way 9.
The stress is upon a rich inner life of heightened self-
awareness. The self rather than society is the focus
of attention. The emphasis is not one of self-indul
gence, however, but is rather upon the simplification
and purification of the self in order to attain a high
level of insight and awareness. Control over persons
and things. The antithesis of the trait is mergence of
the self with the social group for group achievement
and enjoyment (1956, p. 32).
Factor Ds Receptivity and Sympathetic Concern— the
contents of Ways 13 and 9, determine this factor, with a
secondary loading on Way 3. The stress is upon receptivity
to persons and to nature.
The source of inspiration comes from outside the self,
and the person lives and develops in devoted respon
siveness to this source— a stress upon responsive and
devoted receptivity is clearly a mode of orientation
different from that represented by any other factor
(1956, p. 32).
68
Factor E: Self-Indulgence (or Sensuous Enjoyment)
— Ways 8 and 4 positively identify this factor and Ways 10
and 13 negatively.
The stress is upon sensuous enjoyment, whether this en
joyment be found in the simple pleasures of life or in
abandonment to the moment. This emphasis upon social
restraint and self control characteristic of Factor A
is rejected. The antithesis of the trait is responsible
submission of one's self to social and cosmic purposes
(1956, p. 32).
Two salient studies showing correlations between
these factors, the Thurstone Temperament Variables (Morris,
1956, p. 98) and the Allport-Vernon Value Categories are
listed in Tables 5 and 6.
The Semantic Differential and Values Method
For a number of years Osgood and his associates at
the Institute of Communications Research at the University
of Illinois have been working on a psychological theory of
meaning, and the objective measurement of certain (connota-
tive) aspects of meaning. The use of factor analytic tech
niques with a large number of descriptive dimensions, de
fined by polar adjectives has provided evidence of the ex
istence of a limited number of connotative semantic factors.
Evaluation, potency, and activity are the most clearly de
fined, and stability and receptivity are less well-defined.
69
TABLE 5
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TKURSTONE TEMPERAMENT
FACTOR SCORES AND VALUE FACTOR SCORES
(N=115 men.)
Value
Factor*
Vigor-
Active ous
Impul- Domi-
sive nant
Socia-
Stable ble
Reflec
tive
A(l,3,10)
B(5,6,12)
-H- ++ +4 ++
C(2,11)
D{9,13)
E(4,8)
- -
++
* A single "+" or indicates a positive or negative
correlation, significant at the p >.05 level of con
fidence; a double entry indicates significance at the
p>.01 level.
The five factors of value are characterized as follows:
A. Social Restraint and Self-Control
B. Enjoyment and Progress in Action
C. Withdrawal and Self-Sufficiency
D. Receptivity and Sympathetic Concern
E. Self-Indulgence
70
TABLE 6
VALUE DIMENSIONS AND ALLPORT-VERNON
VALUE CATEGORIES
Theoret- Eco- Politi- Reli-
Factor* ical nomic Aesthetic Social cal gious
A + +
B +
C - + - - +
D - - - + - +
E + +
* A single or "+" indicates a positive or negative
correlation, significant at the p>.05 level of con
fidence; a double entry indicates significance at the
P> .01 level.
The five factors of value are characterized as follows:
A. Social Restraint and Self-Control
B. Enjoyment and Progress in Action
C. Withdrawal and Self-Sufficiency
D. Receptivity and Sympathetic Concern
E. Self-Indulgence
71
The logic of this type of measurement, the factoral studies,
and the application of the technique have been described in
The Measurement of Meaning, by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum
(1957).
According to Moss (1960), the adoption of it as a
tool of broad usefulness "... may be viewed as premature,
preceding the full development of the semantic differential
as a measuring instrument. Many methodological problems
remain." Some investigators have raised questions concern
ing the measure's usefulness and validity. Block (1958)
views the semantic differential as a complicated way of de
veloping a measure more readily secured by other means.
Kentler (1959) feels that it does not permit precise con
clusions cerning the dimensional structure of the concepts
and their place in apperception, and Carroll (1960) feels
that the meaning of "meaning" has not been resolved to
everyone's (anyone's) satisfaction.
The validity of the factor dimensions of evaluation,
potency, and activity, originally identified by Osgood,
have been confirmed by Staats, Staats, and Crawford (1962),
Grigg (1959), and also by Michon (1960). However, accord
ing to Moss (1957) it is yet unknown how well the semantic
space has been sampled. He feels that further meaning
judgments might be identified using appropriate concepts
and an increased number of adjectival scales (p. 53) . Nor
man (1959) demonstrated high stability characteristics on
the semantic differential over a month's time. Murray
(1961), studying the influence of instruction modification
upon test-retest reliability, suggests caution in inter
preting reliabilities for the overall test, because of the
strong concept effect. Different concepts had different
reliabilities. The work of Wells (1960) clarifies some of
the problems associated with choice of format and construc
tion of the semantic differential, as does the "Atlas of
Semantic Differential Profiles for 360 Words" by Jenkins,
Russell, and Suci (1958). Their justification and use of
mean rather than median measures may ease laborious compu
tation in further studies.
Despite the variety of criticism leveled at the
semantic differential method, according to Moss (1957), the
results of various studies do ". . . testify to the fact
that the semantic differential is measuring, 'something'
consistently, and in meaningful fashion, and that, in this
respect it is already a useful instrument."
Measurement of Value
In an "Analysis of the Connotative Meanings of a
73
Variety of Human Values as Expressed by American College
Students," Osgood, Ware, and Morris (1961) sought to bring
together the measurement of Values, using Morris's Thirteen
Ways to Live (Morris, 1956), and the measurement of connota
tive meanings using the semantic differential formulated by
Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, pp. 176-188). It also
provided evidence for concept-scale interaction of the
measure.
Factor analyses of single concepts have indicated that
both interscale correlations and even factor structure,
to a lesser extent, can vary as a function of the par
ticular concepts being judged, and we wished to see if
the same phenomenon would hold for a restricted class
of concepts— here a set of value statements. Another
methodological interest lay in the complexity of the
"concept" being differentiated. Most studies with the
semantic differential have required the subjects to
react to single words (e.g. hospital, tornado) or at
most short phrases (my doctor, use of the atomic bomb),
although complex visual stimuli such as modern paintings
have been used, here subjects reacted to very complex
verbal statements, averaging 100 or more words, as if
to unitary concepts (Osgood, Ward, and Morris, 1961,
p. 63) .
Morris's thirteen paragraphs, relating various Ways to Live,
were used as the concepts to be rated on 26 scales which
represented the general factors derived from a previous
study (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957, pp. 47-66)s
Evaluation, Potency, Activity, Stability, Receptivity, Novel
ty and Tautness. Fifty-five male college students at Stan
74
ford University, all 20 or 21 years of age, rated the vari
ous scales against the twelve concepts, and in addition
ranked the concepts according to their preferences of how
much they liked or disliked it.
The average ranking of preferences for the Stanford
group was found to be almost identical with that for other
American college student sample studies by Morris and his
associates (1956). ‘ Factor analyses of the connotative mean
ings, shown by the semantic differential of the "Ways to
Live" concepts, yielded a reasonably clear four factor
system.
The semantic space of connotative meanings generated
when these value statements (the Ways) are judged is
clearly not the same as that obtained when more varied
samples of concepts are used. Although factor 1 is
clearly "evaluative" (timely, successful, true, good,
positive, and wise, versus untimely, unsuccessful,
false, bad, negative, and foolish, it also includes
what are usually independent dimensions--"potency"
(strong-weak and powerful-powerless), "activity"
(active-passive, quick-slow) , and "receptivity'! (sa
vory-tasteless, interesting-uninteresting, colorful-
colorless) (Osgood, Ware, and Morris, 1961, p. 68-69).
This clearly demonstrated value scale interaction.
When the restricted sample of concepts, such as the thirteen
Ways, was rated by American college students, the formerly
separate dimensions of good, strong, active, and stimulating
(as opposed to bad, weak, passive, and dull) formed a single
"overwhelmingly" dominant factor in discriminating such
value-orientations. This prime factor is probably best de
fined by the single scale of "successful-unsuccessful." In
the case of value statements being judged as concepts, Eval-
*
uation. Potency, Activity, and Receptivity, fuse together
}
as a single Successfulness factor.
Two other factors clearly emerged, although their
weights were somewhat weaker. Factor 2 was identified as
Predictability (stable, calm, colorless, slow, old, straight,
and wise— versus unpredictability, changeable, excitable,
colorful, quick, new, curved, and foolish). Factor 3 ap
peared to be a Kindness dimension (kind, soft, warm, rounded,
beautiful, and feminine, versus cruel, hard, cold, angular,
ugly, and masculine). Factor 4 was not readily interpreta
ble and accounted for very little of the variance, only 3
per cent.
Since this was an orthogonal analysis, and since the
first three factors together account for 92 per cent
(mean data) or 61 per cent (individual data) of the
total variance, we may conclude that the semantic space
used to characterize the connotations of these thirteen
"Ways of Life" is structured along three independent
dimensions by American college students»"successful-
ness," "predictability," and "kindness" (1961, p. 69).
The scale factors of Successfulness, Predictability,
and Kindness, are similar in their meaningful content to the
76
first three factors derived from the thirteen Ways. They
are Dynamism, Control, and Socialization.
Factor 1 most clearly divides Ways 9, 11, and 13 (quiet
receptivity to experience, contemplation of the rich
inner life, obedience to cosmic purposes) from Ways 5,
6, 7, and 12 (group action toward common goals, progress
through solution of problems, integration of diversity,
dynamic physical interaction) (1961, p. 69).
The semantic scales of uninteresting-interesting, passive-
active, colorless-colorful, and negative-positive, order
the Ways much like this factor. This factor is identified
as "dynamism" (the negative pole being dynamic and the posi
tive pole, passive).
Factor 2 has Ways 2 and 4 toward the positive end (self-
sufficiency, reflection, and meditation; abandonment to
sensuous enjoyment) and Ways 1, 3, and 8 toward the
negative end (preserve the best in society, altruistic
affection and concern, wholesome enjoyment of simple
comforts); the most nearly parallel scales are cruel-
kind, hard-soft and angular-rounded (1961, p. 69).
This factor is identified as "socialization" (again revers
ing the polarity, so that the negative pole is highly so
cialized and the positive pole, highly egocentric).
Factor 3 segregates Ways 1, 2, and 10 (preserve the
best in society; self-sufficiency, reflection, and
meditation; dignified self-control) from Ways 4, 8,
and 13 (abandonment to sensuous enjoyment, wholesome
enjoyment of simple comforts, humble obedience to cos
mic purposes); the related descriptive scales are hard-
soft and cool-warm (1961, p. 69).
This is identified as a control factor (the positive pole
77
being highly controlled and the negative, uncontrolled or
"abandoned").
Factor 4 shews Ways 4, 5, 7, and 12 as considerably
positive (abandonment to sensuous enjoyment, group
action toward common goals, integration of diversity,
dynamic physical interaction) and Ways 2, 8, and 10
as relatively negative (self-sufficiency, wholesome
enjoyment of simple comforts, dignified self-control);
parallel scales are active-passive, fast-slow, color
ful-colorless, and excitable-c^lm (1961, p. 69).
This factor was tentatively identified as "venturousness1 1
(the positive pole being the more adventuresome, and the
negative pole, the more cautious and colorless). It is the
most ambiguous of the factors and differs in some respects
in terms of means and individual data.
According to Osgood, Ware and Morris (1961), three
matters of methodological interest emerged from the study:
(1) Concept/scale interaction holds for groups of related
concepts as well as for single concepts.
. . . this may mean that we must devise different seman
tic differentials for different classes of concepts—
value concepts, political concepts, personality con
cepts, aesthetic concepts, and so on (1961, p. 73).
(2) Analyses based on correlations over means and analyses
based on correlations over individual subjects yield almost
identically the same factors. (3) This method is fruitful
in studying complex verbal statements.
. . . the fact that we have obtained clear-cut factor
78
structure in both Ways and scale analyses, despite the
length and complexity of the "concepts" being judged,
clearly indicates that complex verbal statements of
this sort can be studied effectively with the semantic
differential (1961, p. 73).
Rigidity Behavior
The application of the semantic differential method
to the study of personality has been increasing in the past
few years. Attempts are being made to use it as a simple
measure of describing the individual personality, and to
clarify personality factor structure. According to Osgood,
Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957):
One of the most basic ways in which individuals or
groups could differ cognitively would be in terms of
the underlying dimensions of judgment they use in dif
ferentiating among concepts. They could differ (1)
in the number of factors required to account for their
judgments, (2) in the relative weights given to the
same set of factors (e.g., one group giving much more
weight to the evaluative factor), or (3) in the nature
of the factors used. . . . It also seems likely that
groups selected (a) in terms of extremeness as per
sonality types, or (b) in terms of normalcy versus
diagnosed schizophrenia should show differences in
factorial structure, and here we do have some experi
mental data (p. 222).
Little has been done relating the semantic differ
ential method directly to the study of behavioral rigidity.
However, research on related aspects of rigidity indicates
the possible outcome of such a study. Research with the
semantic differential most closely relating to rigidity has
been with the California "P" Scale. There is some justifi
cation in assuming a relationship between authoritarianism
and rigidity according to Frenkel-Brunswik (1950), although
assuming a relationship is not entirely substantiated as
some research finds no correlation. Rokeach (1960) endeav
ored to find a factor of rigidity in ethnocentric persons
by comparing scores on the California "E1 1 Scale and Luchin's
water jar experiments. The high prejudice group was found
to be more rigid and more liable to think concretely. Suci
(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957), comparing the factor
structures of high and low ethnocentrics (California "F"
Scale compared to semantic differential) failed to confirm
the hypothesis, based upon the work of Adorno, et al. (1950)
that the two groups should differ markedly in their use of
the evaluative factor. The research, however, did suggest
the possibility of a difference in the nature of the fac
tors employed by high and lew ethnocentrics. There was
some fusing of the second and third factors into a single
dynamism factor. Mogar (1960) demonstrated that high "F"
Scale scores were positively related to the tendency to
make extreme judgments on the semantic differential, and
Plutchik (1961) demonstrated an increase of extreme judg
ments on the scale with increased emotion.
80
Summary
In this chapter selected literature dealing with
rigidity and value choices has been reviewed. It was not
meant to be an exhaustive survey of history and research,
but rather an attempt to focus attention upon a number of
areas of concern related to this dissertation.
Earlv History: Perseveration
The study of rigidity stems historically from early
investigations of perseveration and set by Herbart, Neisser,
and Miller and Pilzecker. The relationship between perse-
veration and personality types was intimated by Miller and
Cross. Heymans and Brugmans are credited as introducing the
first motor tests of perseveration.
Spearman proposed the "p" or perseveration factor
as a group factor of functional unity. The "g" factor of
intelligence was thought to represent the total amount of
energy of a person while "p" represented the inertia of
this energy. "P" as a universal factor was criticized by
several psychologists as its interpretation as a functional
unity rested upon various studies whose intercorrelations
could be explained on the basis of chance.
81
Concepts of Rigidity
On the basis of factor analytic studies, Cattell
redefined Spearman's "p" as disposition rigidity. He in
terpreted perseveration as an inertia of mental structures
based upon a genetic complex or syndrome, rather than an
inertia of mental processes. He, thus, differentiated be
tween process rigidity and structural rigidity.
Freud noted various neurotic trends of behavior re
lated to rigidity. These traits were representations of
defenses against conflict-producing anal-erotic impulses.
He saw the tendency to repeat as a special case of Fechner's
principle of the tendency toward stability. He felt various
ly that repetitive behavior is (1) due to repetition com
pulsion; (2) related to destructiveness, and (3) attribu
table to a death instinct.
To Jung, in the process of differentiation of the
personality from the collective unconscious some persons
become bound by traditions and conventions to the extent
their life is run by automatic habits, rigid customs, and
rules rather than by personal conscious choice.
To Adler the person with exaggerated feelings of
inferiority and anxiety may rigidly cling to his guiding
fictions despite their conflict with reality. Their per-
82
sonality characteristics are narrow, limited, rigid, self-
conscious, etc.
Rorschach differentiated between two classical
character types in describing rigidity or lack of it. The
"deep-narrow" introversive or imaginal type, and the "wide-
shallow" entratensive or affective type.
Alexander defines learning as experimentation and
repetition leading to automatic (habituated) behavior. Its
advantages are swiftness and effortlessness, which conserve
energy. Its disadvantage is its rigidity.
Rigidity, to Reich, is a personality protection
mechanism which he calls "armor." The goal of mental hy
giene is the formation of an armor which is flexible and
mobile. This means the reduction of rigidity.
Theories of Rigidity
Goldstein, who was primarily concerned with neurol-
ogically damaged patients, characterized rigidity as ad
herence to a performance that is inadequate for the present
task. He distinguished between primary rigidity (a conse-
quency of neurological defect, the isolation of part of the
central nervous system from the rest of the system or isola
tion between one mental performance and other performances)
83
and secondary rigidity (a defect in the higher mental proc
esses causing.the individual to seek to avoid difficult
situations). In primary rigidity there is the lack of
ability to perceive the necessity to shift while in second
ary rigidity, though the need to shift is perceived, the
person is unable to cope with it and seeks to avoid it,
often by perseveration of a former successful response.
Werner defines rigidity as a lack of adaptability in
behavior. It is a behavioral trait caused by various organ-
ismic conditions primarily immaturity (subnormality) and al>-
normality. Higher activity, such as abstract thinking, in
volves a plasticity or flexibility of outer form and inner
content.
Lewis regarded rigidity in terms of the strength
of boundaries between mental functions of the psychical
system. Topological rigidity is the impermeability or lack
of communication between the boundaries of neighboring psy
chological regions. Topological rigidity is not equivalent
with behavioral rigidity.
The Generality Issue
The assumption by Spearman that perseveration oper
ates as a functional unity influencing all of an individ
ual's behavior became applied to the concept of rigidity.
Rigidity, thus, became viewed as an underlying generalized
personality characteristic manifest in a variety of be
havior. Rigidity became an explanatory concept within the
framework of personality dynamics for the qualities of
ethnocentrism and authoritarianism. The concept of intoler
ance of ambiguity, seen as a unifying descriptive concept
for generalized functional rigidity, was criticized and sug
gestion was made that it may include a number of relatively
independent dimensions. Luchins suggested that rigidity is,
perhaps, not of such diverse varieties as some factoral
studies indicate; or at least that they do not have counter
parts in actual varieties of rigidity manifested in daily
life.
Factors of Rigidity
A number of factorial studies of rigidity by a
variety of researchers is discussed. Taylor and McNemar
suggest that of the number of factors of rigidity proposed
by various authors, only process rigidity or the classical
perseveration factor is adequately defined. Luchins criti
cized some studies for lack of evidence that distinct fac
tors or dimensions have been isolated.
Chcwn'8 factor analytic study of rigidity demon-
85
strates five clear factors: Spontaneous Flexibility, Adap
tive Flexibility, Personality Rigidity (involving three
distinct factors), and two factors of Disposition Rigidity.
A factor of speed and alphabet rigidity also emerged.
Guilford found Spontaneous Flexibility and Adaptive
Flexibility to be two clear factors of intellectual adapta
bility. Spontaneous Flexibility is defined as the ability
to produce a diversity of ideas with freedom from inertia
and restraints. It was thought to be the opposite of perse
veration. Adaptive Flexibility'is defined as the ability to
restructure problems, to solve a problem or respond to a
stimulus in several different ways.
Personality Rigidity as measured by the Wesley Per
sonality Inventory measures a willingness to change and
liking for change as distinct from abilities when faced with
changes. A factor analysis by Chown yielded three clear
factors: a liking for persistence and methodical behavior,
liking slow steady methods and one's own ways, and enjoying
established routine.
Tests loading most highly on disposition rigidity
involved motor effort, and consisted of conventional alter
nation tasks and writing forward and backward. It might
also be termed structural rigidity, a resistance to change
86
of neural discharge paths. This is somewhat similar to
habit interference or retroactive inhibition.
Rigidity and Value Judgments
What one individual may consider as rigidity (ad
herence to inadequate behavior) may seem to another as ad
mirable concentration on one task, steadfast reliable be
havior, etc. Both too little and too much flexibility might
be termed neurotic behavior. When applied to the study of
prejudice and neurotic behavior, etc., the unwary researcher
can "slip" from a rigorous frame of reference.
Rigidity. Intelligence. Sex, and Acre
The effect of intelligence upon various aspects of
rigidity has been demonstrated by a number of investigators.
Lower intelligence has also been related to authoritarian
ism, closed-mindedness, and to Einstellung effect. Sex
differences have not yielded any consistent or significant
differences. However, some studies have shown some tendency
for female subjects to manifest more Einstellung effect than
males, which may be explained in terms of cultural differ
ences. According to the definition of rigidity, there seems
to be a varying relationship with age. Older persons seemed
to have greater motor rigidity and higher scores on Adaptive
87
Flexibility.
Development of Value Concepts
Morris postulated three basic dimensions of value
orientation related to interpretations of religious atti
tudes and ethical systems past and present: the tendency
to release and indulge existing desires, the tendency to
manipulate and remake the world, and the tendency to regu
late the self by holding in check its desires. A thirteen-
alternative form was devised to combine various aspects of
these dimensions. It served as the basic instrument for a
number of studies in this country and abroad. Studies in
dicated trends of the thirteen Ways in relationship to per
sonality and character traits. A factor analytic study in
dicated five factors or dimensions: social restraint and
self- control, enjoyment and progress in action, withdrawal
and self-sufficiency, receptivity and sympathetic concern,
and self-indulgence or sensuous enjoyment.
The Semantic Differential and Values
The use of factor analytic techniques with a large
number of descriptive dimensions, defined by polar adjec
tives has provided evidence of the existence of a limited
number of connotative factors. Some criticism of the method
involves its usefulness, validity, and lack of precise con
clusions concerning the dimensional structure of concepts.
The concepts chosen seem to effect the emergence of the
factor dimensions of evaluation, potency, and activity.
A factor analysis of Morris' thirteen Ways to Live
(each a 100 word statement of a value orientation) was
accomplished using a semantic differential rating of twenty-
six paired adjective scales. A reasonably clear, four-fac
tor system emerged: successfulness, predictability, kind
ness, and a fourth uninterpretable residual factor. The
study clearly demonstrated concept/scale interaction, prob
ably meaning that different semantic differentials should
be devised for different classes of concepts.
Though the semantic differential has been applied
to the study of some aspects of personality, such as auth
oritarianism, little has been done using the method for the
study of behavioral rigidity. Various studies cited suggest
the usefulness and outcomes of using the method.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based upon the fore
going review of literature and studies cited. It is an
attempt to devise and rationalize a feasible and parsimon—
89
ious method for the study of rigidity in relation to value
choices.
1. There seems to be general research agreement
that rigidity should be considered as multidimensional
rather than as a functional unity.
2. The concept of rigidity seems to be a useful,
descriptive concept for explaining some aspects of human
behavior. When seen as a functional unity rather than mul
tidimensional, the research involved becomes of less value
in relation to social application and subsequent research.
3. The concept of rigidity has suffered through its
history by an unfortunate lack of standardization. The term
has been used differently by succeeding researchers making
many of the research findings useless in comparison with
one another. Specific sub-categories of rigidity such as
perseveration and structural rigidity have also been vari
ously defined by different researchers.
4. The formulation of some definitions and theories
of rigidity have been based upon research studies, using
specific samples of subjects limited in age, normalcy, sex,
number, etc. The practice of generalizing these findings
to other quite different populations further complicates
the definition of rigidity.
90
5. The factorial dimensions of the "domain of
rigidity" are far from clear. Succeeding factor analyses
seemingly emerge with divergent aspects. This might also
be attributed to the sample utilized, and the operational
definition of rigidity due to tests used. A clear under
standing of the factorial dimensions generally suffers from
the limitations of factor analysis as a method of analysis.
6. Some strong patterns of the factorial dimensions
within the "domain of rigidity" are suggested by various
research and clearly "emerged" in a single study by Chown,
so that a taxonomy of rigidity is suggested for the purposes
of this study: (a) The area of rigidity of intellectual
functioning is suggested by the work of Guilford and fol
lowers. It includes factors of Spontaneous Flexibility and
Adaptive Flexibility. The rigidity antithesis of these fac
tors are Perseveration and Persistence. These terms seem
to relate to earlier definitions and research. For purposes
of identification, these factors are included in the study
as "rigidity of thinking" (b) Another aspect of rigidity,
the "willingness to change and liking for methodical be
havior, " has background in the work of Frenkel-Brunswik and
Rokeach though that was related specifically to authoritari
anism and openness of personality. A three—factor inventory
91
of personality rigidity, the Wesley Inventory, affords a
parsimonious sample of this dimension of rigidity; the
"rigidity of personality." Finally, (c) structural rigidity,
that involving motor effort, is suggested by the work of
Cattell and Tiner and relates to habit interference or retro
active inhibition. For the purposes of this study, it is
termed "rigidity of motor disposition."
7. Discussion of rigidity in relationship to sub
ject's value judgments should be done with caution, as sub
jective interpretation of evidence has limited some previous
research by use of emotionally loaded labels.
8. Morris has demonstrated the possibility of de
fining a "world of values" by using a limited number of
statements of ways of life. The effectiveness of measuring
values so defined has been demonstrated by a world-wide
series of studies.
9. The effectiveness of the semantic differential
method has been shown in many studies. Its particular use
fulness in measuring value choices has been demonstrated by
Osgood, Ware, and Morris.
10. It is concluded that it is feasible to undertake
a study of rigidity (using a limited, closely defined num-
92
ber of factors, which sample the "domain of rigidity") in
relationship to value choices (by differentially rating a
limited number of statements of value which sample a
"world" of values in three dimensions).
CHAPTER III
TEST BATTERY AND PROCEDURE
The present problem was investigated by use of a
battery of tests selected from the literature and adapted
for present use. The nature and background of the various
tests are discussed briefly in the following section. Other
sections of this chapter include a discussion of the subject
population, procedure in administration of the tests, and
analysis of data.
The Measurement of Values
The work of Osgood, Ware, and Morris (1961), which
was discussed previously, demonstrated a method to measure
the connotative meaning of various "Ways to Live" or philo
sophical value choices. The authors were able to measure
complex verbal statements effectively using the semantic
differential method. Their factor-analytic study of Mor
ris's thirteen Ways, used as concepts, yielded three clear
cut factors, and a fourth which is less clear: (1) Dynamism;
(2) Socialization; (3) Control; and (4) possibly Venturous-
93
94
ness.
Factor analysis of the twenty-six scales (see Table
7) clearly indicated concept-scale interaction when results
were compared with previous studies using more varied sam
ples of concepts.
Factor 1 was clearly Evaluative, and included what
are usually independent dimensions— Potency, Activity, and
Receptivity. Factor 2 was identified as Predictability,
Factor 3 as Kindness. Factor 4 accounted for little of the
total variance and was not readily interpretable.
The factoring of the Ways in terms of their conno-
tative meaning to college students made it possible for the
authors to construct a three dimensional model, as is shown
in Figure 1. It distributes the thirteen Ways in "semantic
space" according to their loadings on the three factors.
The three dimensions are seen to be dynamism-passivity,
control-abandonment, and sociability-egocentrism.
It is evident that Ways 5, 6, and 12 on one hand,
and Ways 9, 11, and 13 on the other, cluster near the dyna
mism-passivity poles. Also, it is apparent that the conno-
tative meaning space is not uniformly populated by the Ways,
as it lacks conceptualizations of the extremes of Egocen
trism and non-control or Abandonment. These two things are
95
TABLE 7
QUARTIMAX ROTATIONS OF THE FIRST FOUR
FACTORS FOR SEMANTIC SCALE RELATIONS:
Analysis Based on Means (m) versus
Individual Data (i)
(Osgood, Ware and Morris, 1961)
Factor 1
(Success
fulness)
Factor 2
(Predict
ability)
Factor 3
(Kind
ness)
Factor 4
(?)
interesting-
uninteresting -.96 -.15 -.08 .11
untimely-timely .97 -.02 .10 -.18
new-old -.81 -.43 .13 .11
kind-cruel .06 .34 -.92 -.10
hard-soft -.54 -.02 .82 -.11
unsuccessful-
successful .98 -.08 .00 -.14
active-passive -.91 -.32 .18 .00
true-false -.96 .20 -.14 .07
tasteless-savory .92 .30 .18 -.06
good-bad -.79 .33 -.49 -.10
f eminine-mas cu1ine .76 .25 -.56 .07
slew-quick .84 .45 -.26 .09
stable-changeable .40 .84 -.30 .19
angular-rounded -.02 -.30 .83 -.40
cool-warm .18 .31 .85 .14
curved-straight -.43 -.70 -.35 .27
colorful-colorless -.80 -.56 -.09 -.04
negative-pos itive .95 -.02 .27 .10
unusual-usual .66 .03 .36 -.56
ugly-beautiful .46 -.09 .85 .08
strong-weak -.93 .08 .31 -.14
important-unimportant -.93 .25 .01 -.17
exc itable-calm -.71 -.64 .23 -.08
foolish-wise .85 -.44 .21 -.06
unpredictable-
predictable -.20 -.89 .29 -.20
powerless-pcwerful .96 -.11 -.18 .10
Percentage of Total
Variance 56.8 15.8 19.7 3.3
DYNAMISM
96
INTROL
Figure 1. Three dimensional representation of the Ways
(Osgood, Ware, and Suci, 1961)
Ways to Live
1. preserve the best
8. simple comforts
2. self-sufficiency 9. quiet receptivity
3. altruism 10. self-control
4. sensuous abandonment
11. contemplat ion
5. group action
12. physical interaction
6. progress through realism
13. humble obedience
7. integration
97
viewed by the authors as the major inadequacies suggested
by the model.
For use in the present study, an effort was made to
avoid the connotative redundancy, or lack of differentiation
suggested by the clustering of Ways 5, 6, and 12; and of 9,
11, and 13; also, to reduce the size of the test battery,
Ways 6 and 12, and Ways 11 and 13 were not used. Dynamism
then was suggested only by Way 5, and its polar opposite of
Passivity, only by Way 9. Also an attempt was made to fill
the empty meaning space in the direction of the extremes of
Egocentrism and Abandonment by using the concept statement
"Glorify Oneself."
The statement of "Glorify Oneself" reads as follows:
The only way to live, which is both rational and
maximally gratifying, is to live entirely for oneself.
The good life comes from appreciating and glorifying
the self, since ego is the only true reality. Since
there are no absolute values one may determine what is
right or wrong for oneself. The goal of life should
be complete social, emotional, and intellectual freedom.
Each individual is an isolated island in fact and should
be in spirit, always resisting social conformity, emo
tional dependence and intellectual tyranny.
Ways 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (see Table 1)
were used in the present study, as formulated by Morris
(1956). Way "J” (glorify oneself) was added, based upon
suggestions by Osgood, Ware, and Morris (1961). Letters
98
were used to identify the Ways instead of numbers to reduce
confusion (see Table 8).
The semantic differential measure of value used in
the present study, then, uses ten paragraphs, involving
verbal statements to interpret possible conceptions of the
"good life" (describing the various dimensions of value
space), as concepts (each approximately 100 words in length)
to be rated against twenty-six scales (see Appendix C).
The scales are thought to include three factors of connota-
tive meaning: successfulness, predictability and kindness.
The adjectives included under each of the factors are listed
in Table 9.
Scoring is accomplished by determining the algebraic
sum of the subject's responses. Extremity of judgment was
determined by simple addition of scores regardless of sign.
The Measurement of Rigidity
Following the work of Chcwn (1959), Guilford (1957),
Cattell (1949) and Wesley (1959) as cited previously, a
battery of tests was used to measure the major factors of
rigidity. This includes rigidity of thinking (Spontaneous
Flexibility and Adaptive Flexibility), three factors of
rigidity of personality, and two factors of rigidity of
99
TABLE 8
A SAMPLE OF HUMAN VALUES (REVISED)
Way A. Preserve the best in society
Way B. Self-sufficiency, reflection and meditation
Way C. Altruistic affection and concern for others
Way D. Abandonment to sensuous enjoyment
Way E. Group action toward common goals
Way F. Integration of diversity
Way G. Wholesome enjoyment of simple comforts
Way H. Quiet receptivity to experience
Way I. Dignified self-control
Way J. Glorify oneself
100
i
TABLE 9
ADJECTIVES INCLUDED UNDER EACH OF THE
THREE FACTORS OF CONNOTATIVE MEANING
Successfulness
(Evaluation)
(Potency)
(Activity)
(Receptivity)
(Successfulness)
"timely, successful, true, good,
positive, wise," versus "untimely,
unsuccessful, false, bad, nega
tive, and foolish.”
"strong-weak, and powerful-power
less"
"active-passive, quick-slcw"
"savory-tasteless, interesting-
uninteresting , colorful-colorless”
"good, strong, active, stimula
ting" versus "bad, weak, passive,
dull"
2. Predictability
"predictable, stable, calm, colorless, slow, old,
straight, wise" versus "unpredictable, changeable,
excitable, colorful, quick, new, curved, and
foolish."
3. Kindness
"kind, soft, warm, rounded, beautiful, feminine"
versus "cruel, hard, cold, angular, ugly, and
masculine."
101
motor disposition.
Rigidity At .Thinking
Spontaneous Flexibility was defined as "the ability
or disposition to produce a diversity of ideas, with free
dom from inertia and restraints" (Guilford, p. 27). The
following tests were selected to measure Perseveration/Spon
taneous Flexibility on the basis of their loadings on the
factor and applicability to the study:
(1) Brick Uses: factor loading .69. Subjects are instruc
ted to list as many uses as possible for a common brick
in 10 minutes. Two scores consist of the number of
responses, and the number of times the class of use is
changed.
(2) Object Naming: factor loading .59. Given two classes
of objects, subjects are to write down as many differ
ent types of objects within those classes as possible
within four minutes. Score is the number of different
types of objects listed.
Sample Item:
You are given a class defined as MINERAL.
You might write down:
1. iron
2. uranium
3. granite
4. copper
(3) Unusual Uses: factor loading .52. Subjects are to
list uses for six common objects. The score is the
number of different unusual uses given in 10 minutes.
Sample Item:
Given: a newspaper (used for reading); you might
think of the following other uses for a
newspaper:
1. to start a fire
102
2. to wrap garbage in
3. to swat flies
4. stuffing to pack boxes
5. to make up a kidnap note
(4) Impossibilities: factor score .37. Subjects are in
structed to "list all of the complete and utter im
possibilities you can think of in four minutes." The
score is the number of acceptable responses given.
(5) Object Synthesis: factor loading .37. The subjects
are to combine two common objects so as to make a new
object or device. Twenty-four items are to be com
pleted in 10 minutes. The score is the number of
acceptable responses.
Sample Item:
Given: a Nail and a Cane _____ ?______
You could make a paper picker or a spear as the
result of one way of combining the objects. You
could make a hook, if the objects were combined
in another way. (Guilford, 1957, pp. ff.)
Adaptive Flexibility is defined as the ability to
solve a problem or respond to a stimulus in several differ
ent ways where the requirements are rather closely defined.
The kind of mental operation required by tests of
adaptive flexibility could be described as the produc
tion of ideas that are either unusual, clever, or re
motely connected. The problems involved require in
sights and steps that are out of the ordinary; they
require ingenuity. (Guilford, 1957, p. 23).
The insight problems test was used to measure the factors
of Persistence/Adaptive Flexibility. It is described as
follows:
Insight problems, factor leading .47. Subjects are
asked to solve a series of problems requiring compre
hension or insight rather than careful evaluation or
103
computation for their solution. There are twelve items,
working time is 22 minutes. Score is the number of
acceptable answers.
Sample Item: A man went out to hunt a bear one
day. He left his camp and hiked due south for ten miles,
and then due west for ten miles. At this point he
killed a bear. He then dragged the bear back to his
camp, a distance of exactly ten miles. Problem: What
was the color of the bear he killed? Why?
Answer: (scored one point) White, or polar bear. Only
at the North pole could these distances have been possi
ble.
Rigidity of Personality
Personality Rigidity was measured by using the
twenty-seven item revision of the Wesley Rigidity Inventory
devised by Chown (1960), based upon her factor analysis of
the forty-one item form by Zelen and Levitt (1953).
Wesley's original fifty item form, described pre
viously has been found to correlate to a significant extent
with other tests said to measure rigidity.
The twenty-seven item inventory by Chcwn (1960) was
based upon a principle component analysis in which three
clear factors emerged. Of them, Factor 2 was the easiest
to identify. It has high negative loading on non-verbal
intelligence and vocabulary. The eleven items included in
it involved "liking for slew steady methods," "dealing with
one thing at a time," "sticking tro own ways or beliefs,"
and statements about "people-in-general." It includes items
104
such as, "I prefer doing one thing at a time." According to
Chcwn, "it is not surprising to find that this type of
rigidity is associated with low intelligence" (I960, p.
492). Only six items loaded highly on Factor 3. They pre
sent a consistent picture of established routine. It loads
quite highly with age. A representative item is, "I dis
like having to learn new ways of doing things." Factor 1
is not associated with either intelligence or age. It is
made up of items involving persistence, methodical behavior,
and liking for detail. It includes such items as "I am a
methodical person in whatever I do," or "I believe that
promptness is a very important personality characteristic."
Rigidity of Motor Disposition
Disposition Rigidity was discussed by Cattell (1949)
in terms of Structural Rigidity, and is held to be a re
sistance to change of neural discharge paths, or similar to
habit interference or retroactive inhibition. Tests loading
most highly on it seem to involve motor effort.
Tests used were Cattell's (1946) backward writing
tasks: three straight forward tests of writing epeed are
interspersed with backward writing tests of the same mate
rial. Subjects are to write "ready" forward, then backward
105
as many times as possible in the time limit: "The sky is
deep blue," forward as many times as possible, then print
it, then alternate block capital letters and small written
letters, then doubling every letter in the word, such as:
"TThhee sskkyy iiss ddeeeepp bblluuee." On a third test,
subjects are to write "237" as often as they are able, with
in the time limit, then write it backward as many times as
possible.
Four ratio scores are obtained, two apply to each
of two factors of Disposition Rigidity, described by Chown
(1961). The first Disposition Rigidity includes "ready"
ratio backward divided by "ready" forward, and "237" ratio
backward divided by "237" forward. The second Disposition
Rigidity includes "double" ratio (double writing) divided
by "forward writing," and also the "alternate" ratio (al
ternate capital letters and small letters) divided by the
corrected mean score of the written capital letters subtest
and small letters subtest.
Scoring is in terms of the number of letters cor
rectly written; there is no subtraction for simple mistakes
or most unintelligible writing. The use of ratio scores may
raise some questions, but according to Chown (1961):
. . . many people have preferred to avoid ratio scores
106
because a small chance difference in the raw scores ob
tained can make a large difference to the ratio. On
short tests, this danger is particularly great, and
strict instructions have to be given to subjects about
starting and stopping. Disposition Rigidity as dis
cussed by Cattell was measured by ratio. . . . In fact,
it is easier to criticize than to find a completely
satisfactory alternative form of score. Backward and
forward performances are themselves highly correlated;
using ratio scores lowers the correlation between the
normal and unusual aspects of the task since it helps
to control the effects of speed (p. 355).
Subjects and Sample
The sample consisted of a total of 125 subjects,
83 boys and 42 girls, drawn from classes in psychology at
California State Polytechnic College. Tests were adminis
tered by the students' own instructors during class periods.
The nature of the groups tested is shown in Table 10.
The original sample included 200 subjects, but data
collected on 75 subjects was not included for the following
reasons: (1) failure to follcw test instructions, making
their responses meaningless for scoring procedures; (2)
foreign background (this assumes that measures of philosoph
ical value choices and various factors of rigidity are cul
turally specific— information on those tests is of interest
for further study).
Information was obtained from the instructors as to
subjects' age, college major, grade point average, and both
107
TABLE 10
EXPERIMENTAL SAMPLE ACCORDING TO GROUP
Class Title Instructor Sample Size Av. Age
Intro. Psych. 202 Gantz 33 20.67
Intro. Psych. 202 Philbrick 35 20.94
Intro. Psych. 202 Philbrick 25 20.44
Educ. Psych. 304 Philbrick 32 19.90
108
verbal and quantitative college entrance examination scores.
Analysis of Data
Scores of the Wesley Scale and the value scores on
the semantic differential were linearly transformed so as
to eliminate the negative numbers corresponding to some
subjects' raw scores.
The collected data of the total group of 125 sub
jects were punched on IBM cards. A correlational analysis
of the relationship between rigidity and value choice fac
tors was made of the data using a "Simple" correlation com
puter program on a digital computer (University of Southern
California Computer Center, Honeywell 800). The various
scores and sub-scores yielded a 60 by 60 intercorrelation
matrix as follows: (1) 30 cells for ratings of the three
dimensions of the ten statements of values; (2) 17 cells for
total scores and sub-scores on rigidity tests; (3) ten cells
for extremity of judgment scores; (4) one cell for college
grade point average (see Appendix A and B). On all tests
of statistical significance a confidence level of p .05 or
better was required to reject a null hypothesis.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
In this chapter are presented the findings of the
investigation outlined in Chapter III. These findings are
set forth in sections as they relate to the following vari
ables: (1) Rigidity of Thinking (2) Rigidity of Person
ality (3) Rigidity of Motor Disposition (4) The Correlate
of Extremity of Judgment (5) The Correlate of College
Grade Point Average (6) The Correlate of College Entrance
Examination Scores (7) Interactions Among Sub-test Scores
(8) Interactions Among Independent Variables, and (9)
Predictability of the Study.
All variables and their symbols as used in this
dissertation are presented in Tables 11 through 13. Spe
cific findings regarding relationships among these vari
ables, are set forth in Tables 14 through 21. For easier
reference the hypothesis code in parentheses follows each
subsection title.
109
110
TABLE 11
LIST OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Symbol Name of Variable
S. F. Spontaneous Flexibility
A. F. Adaptive Flexibility
P. R. I Personality Rigidity I
P. R. II Personality Rigidity II
P. R. III Personality Rigidity III
D. R. I Disposition Motor Rigidity I
D. R. II Disposition Motor Rigidity II
Extr. Extremity of Judgment
6. P. A. College Grade Point Average
C. E. V. College Entrance Examination Verbal Scores
c. E.
Q. College Entrance Examination Quantitative Scores
Ill
TABLE 12
LIST OF SUB-TESTS OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Symbol Name of Sub-Test
Spontaneous Flexibilitv Sub-Test
imp. impossibilities
U. U. unusual uses
B. U. I Brick Uses I
B. U. II Brick Uses II
0. N. I Object Naming I
0. N. II Object Naming II
0. S. Object Synthesis
Disposition Rigidity I Sub-test
W. R. Writing Ready
237 Writing 237
Disposition Rigidity II Sub-test
A. L. Alternate Letters
D. L. Double Letters
112
TABLE 13
LIST OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Symbols Name of Variable
Ways to Live
Way A Preserve the Best of Society
Way B Self sufficiency, Reflection, and Meditation
Way C Altruistic Affection and Concern for Others
Way D Abandonment to Sensuous Enjoyment
Way E Group Action to Common Goals
Way F Integration of Diversity
Way G Wholesome Enjoyment of Comforts
Way H Quiet Receptivity to Experience
Way I Dignified Self Control
Way J Glorify Oneself
Dimensions of Value
Eval. Evaluation
Pred. Predictability
Kind. Kindness
Extr. Extremity
o o
8 9
o
3
w D
50
a
VO
•0
50
U
50
* 0
50
+
+
+ +
+
+
t
I
+
01
*0
o <
0
0.h
( D
•
Eval.
Pred.
s
Kind.
*<
Extr.
>
Eval.
Pred.
Kind.
*<
Extr.
09
Eval.
Pred.
Kind.
Extr.
n
Eval.
Pred.
0 1
Kind.
•<
Extr.
a
Eval.
Pred.
§
Kind.
*<
Extr.
a
0)
H
O
ss
H
*0
H
o
a
v o
o
§
w
S
H
0
52
0 1
113
a
8
O o
3
M O
5 0
O
5 0
+
PRIII
PRI
CO
Eval.
\
Var.
Code
Pred. 0 1
Kind.
Extr.
Eval.
Pred.
0 1
Kind.
•<
Extr.
Q
1
Eval.
1
Pred.
0 1
Kind.
M
Extr.
Eval.
Pred. W
Kind.
*<
Extr.
H
Eval.
Pred.
1 Kind.
*<
Extr.
n
*
i
i
o
0
3
f t - .
H-
3
c
a
o.
114
115
TABLE 15
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF INDICATED DEPENDENT
VARIABLES WHEN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ARE
RIGIDITY OF THINKING FACTORS:
SPONTANEOUS FLEXIBILITY AND
ADAPTIVE FLEXIBILITY (N=125)*
Hypothesis
Code
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Signifi
cance p
Correla
tion r
1.1 S.F. Way "C", Eval. -.05 - . 2 2 0
1.1 S.F. Way "H'\ Eval. -.05 -.176
1.1 S.F. Way "H", Pred. -.05 -.219
1.1 S.F. Way " J”, Kind. -.05 - . 2 2 2
1 . 2 A.F. Way "A", Pred. -.05 -.197
1 . 2 A.F. Way "B", Pred. -.05 -.216
1 . 2 A.F. Way
II T II
* 9
Pred. -.05
•
-.219
* Hypothesis Code: see pp. 14 through 17.
Variable symbols: see Tables 11 and 13.
p> .05 - r .175
p> .01 = r .227
116
TABLE 16
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF INDICATED DEPENDENT
VARIABLES WHEN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
ARE RIGIDITY OF PERSONALITY FACTORS
Hypothesis Independent Dependent Signifi- Correla-
Code Variable Variable cance p tion r
2.1 P.R. I Way "E", Kind. -.05 -.175
2.1 P.R. I Way "G” , Kind. -.05 -.201
2.2 P.R. II Way "E", Extr. .05 .212
2.2 P.R. II Way MH" , Extr. .01 .252
( M
•
C M
P.R. II Way " J”, Kind. -.05 -.181
2.2 P.R. II Way "J", Extr. .05 .256
2.1 P.R. III Way "A", Kind. .05 .178
Hypothesis Code: see pp. 14 through 17.
Variable symbols: see Tables 11 and 13.
p> .05 = r .175
p> .01 * r .227
117
TABLE 17
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF INDICATED DEPENDENT
VARIABLES WHEN THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
IS EXTREMITY OF JUDGMENT*
Hypothesis
Code
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Signifi
cance p
Correla
tion r
4.1 Extr. Way "C", Pred. -.01 -.245
4.1 Extr. Way "C", Kind. .01 .334
4.1 Extr. Way "D", Eval. .05 .202
4.1 Extr. Way "G'\ Kind. .01 .223 •
4.1 Extr. Way "H", Eval. -.05 -.206
4.1 Extr. Way "H", Pred. -.01 -.246
4.1 Extr. Way "I", Pred. -.01 -.251
4.1 Extr. Way "I", Kind. -.05 -.218
4.1 Extr. Way ••J*'. Kind. -.01 -.253
* Hypothesis Code: see pp. 4 through 17
Variable symbols: see Table 11 and 13
p> .05 * r . 175
p> .01 * r .227
118
TABLE 18
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF INDICATED DEPENDENT
VARIABLES WHEN THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
IS COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGE*
Hypothesis
Code
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Signifi
cance p
Correla
tion r
5.1 G.P.A. Way "A", Kind. .05 .174
5.1 G.P.A. Way "C", Kind. .01 .277
5.1 G.P.A. Way "G", Pred. -.05 -.221
5.1 G.P.A. Way MF'\ Pred. -.05 -.195
5.1 G.P.A. Way "F", Kind. -.05 -.206
5.1 G.P.A. Way "J", Kind. -.05 -.204
* Hypothesis Code: see pp. 14 through 17
Variable symbols: see Tables 11 and 13
p> .05 - r .175
p>.01 * = r .227
119
TABLE 19
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF INDICATED DEPENDENT
VARIABLES WHEN THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
IS COLLEGE ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION SCORES*
Hypothesis
Code
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Signifi
cance p
Correla
tion r
6.1
C.E.V. Way "A", Pred.
in
0
.
1
-.200
6.1 C.E.V. Way "B", Pred. -.05 -.192
6.1 C.E.V. Way "B", Extr. .05 .174
6.1 C.E.V. Way "G", Pred. -.05 -.195
6.1 C.E.V. Way "H", Pred. -.05 -.214
6.1 C.E.V. Way "I", Pred. -.01 -.241
6.1 C.E.V. Way " J”, Extr. .05 .223
6.2 C•E.Q. Way "A", Eval. -.05 -.190
6.2 C.E.Q. Way "A", Pred. -.05 -.199
6.2 C.E.Q. Way "F", Pred. .05 .189
6.2 C.E.Q. Way "G", Eval. -.05 -.205
* Hypothesis Code: see pp. 14 through 17
Variable symbols: see Tables 11 and 13
p>.05 * r .175
p>.01 = r .227
120
TABLE 20
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF INDICATED INTERACTIONS
OF SUB-TESTS OF SPONTANEOUS FLEXIBILITY,
DISPOSITION RIGIDITY I AND II*
Hypothesis Independent Signifi Correla
Code Variable Sub-Test cance p tion r
7.1 S.F. Imp. .01 .449
7.1 S.F. U.U. .01 .701
7.1 S.F. B.U. I .01 .738
7.1 S.F. B.U. II .01 .662
7.1 S.F. O.N. I .01 .668
7.1 S.F. O.N. II .01 .627
7.1 S.F. O.S. .01 .587
7.2 D.R. I W.R. .01 .260
7.2 D.R. I A.L. .05 .190
7.2 D.R. I 237 .01 .260
7.2 D.R. II A.L. .01 .308
7.2 D.R. II D.L. .01 .308
7.2 D.R. II 237 .05 .210
* Hypothesis Code: see pp. 14 through 17
Variable symbols: see Tables 11 and 13
p> .05 = r .175
p^ .01 * r .227
121
TABLE 21
SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF INDICATED
INTERACTIONS AMONG INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
Hypothesis
Code
Independent
Variable
Independent
Variable
Signifi
cance p
Correla
tion r
8.1a A.F. C.E.Q. .01 .384
8.1b P.R. II P.R. Ill .05 .175
8.1b P.R. II Extr. .05 .195
8. Id Extr. C.E.V. .05 .197
8. Id Extr. P.R. II .05 .195
8. le G.P.A. C.E.V. .01 .324
8. le G.P.A. P.R. I .05 .180
8.If C.E.V. C.E.Q. .01 .441
Hypothesis Code: see pp. 14 through 17
Variable symbols: see Tables 11 and 13
p> .05 = r .175
p> .01 = r .227
Rigidity of Thinking
Spontaneous Flexibility/Perseveration (1.1)
Spontaneous Flexibility and its opposite dimension,
Perseveration, correlated significantly with a number of
attributes of value choices. The more flexible the person
in this regard, the more he saw Way "C" (altruistic affec
tion and concern for others) as an "unsuccessful" way of
life, as being untimely, foolish, weak, passive, uninterest
ing, and colorless.
The greater the Spontaneous Flexibility the more
the person saw Way "H" (quiet receptivity to experience)
as being "unsuccessful" as a way of life (untimely, foolish,
powerless, passive, uninteresting) and as being "predict
able" (stable, old, calm, colorless, slow, straight, and
wise). Way "JM (glorifying oneself, and living entirely
for oneself) was seen as being "unkind" (cruel, hard, cold,
angular, ugly, and masculine).
Adaptive Flexibility/Persistence (1.2)
The concern in all cases of significant correla
tions of Adaptive Flexibility and its opposite dimension,
Persistence, was with "predictability." Persons high in
Persistence saw Way "A" (preserve the best in society),
123
Way "B" (self-sufficiency, reflection and meditation), and
Way "I" (dignified self-control) as being predictable.
Persons high in Adaptive Flexibility felt that to preserve
the best in society; to live self-sufficiently, with medi
tation and reflection; and to promote dignified self-control
are "unpredictable” (dynamic, exciting, colorful, quick,
new, curved, and foolish) ways to live. The person high
in Persistence tended to feel, on the other hand, that they
are more "predictable" (stable, calm, colorless, slow, old,
straight, and wise).
Rigidity of Personality
Personality Rigidity I (2.1)
The personality traits of disliking detail, method
ical behavior and lacking persistence correlated signifi
cantly with seeing Way "E" (group action toward common
goals) and Way "G" (wholesome enjoyment of simple comforts)
as being "kind" (soft, warm, rounded, beautiful, and femi
nine) . Conversely the liking of detail, methodical be
havior and being persistent was related to feeling that
Way "E" (group action toward common goals) and Way "G"
(wholesome enjoyment of simple comforts) was ugly, hard,
cold, cruel, angular, and masculine.
124
Personality Rigidity 11 (2.2)
The tendency of persons high in Personality Rigid
ity II, (the liking of slow steady methods) was to make
extreme judgments in relation to three statements of value:
Way "E" (group action to common goals), Way "H" (quiet
receptivity to experience, p>.01), and Way "J" (glorify
oneself). There seemed to be little significant unanimity
concerning the direction of their judgments as might be
suggested by high correlations with "predictability" for
instance. There was one significant indication of an
agreed upon extremity of value judgment, in that the phi
losophy of living entirely for oneself, Way "J", was seen
as being "unkind" (cruel, hard, cold, angular, ugly, mascu
line) .
Personality Rigidity III (2.3)
The only value statement associated with Personal
ity Rigidity III (liking established routine) was that of
Way "A" (preserve the best of society). It was identified
as "kind" (soft, warm, rounded, beautiful, feminine).
Rigidity of Motor Disposition
Disposition Rigidity I (3.1)
There were no significant correlations between Dis
125
position Rigidity I and value choices.
Disposition Rigidity II (3.2)
Only one value choice was significantly correlated
with Disposition Rigidity II. Persons low on this factor
to a significantly greater degree than persons high on it
(p>.01, r = .266), felt that Way "B" (self-sufficiency,
reflection and meditation) was an "unpredictable" (change
able, exciting, colorful, quick, new, curved, foolish) way
to live. Persons high on this rigidity saw the way of life
as being "predictable" (stable, calm, colorless, slow, old,
straight, and wise).
Ths, relate; Extremity of Judgment (4.1)
The total mean score of all the value judgments on
the semantic differential measure of values was added dis
regarding their algebraic signs to make up an extremity of
judgment score. - It is a measure of how strongly the sub
jects responded to the various beliefs. For each of the
ten "Ways to Live" there was a strong (p^.01) correlation
between the extremity of judgment sub-scores.
Among the "Ways to Live," extremity of judgment
correlated negatively (p^ -.01) with Way "C" (altruistic
affection and concern for others) in regard to "predict
126
ability." Persons making extreme judgments saw it as
being changeable, exciting, colorful, quick, new, curved,
and foolish in the semantic differential. However, it
correlated positively (p>.01) with "kindness," in that
Way "C" (altruistic affection and concern for others) was
thought to be soft, warm, rounded, beautiful, and feminine.
Way "D" (abandonment to sensuous enjoyment) was
thought to be "predictable." Way "G" (wholesome enjoyment
of simple comforts) was thought to be "kind." Way "H"
(quiet receptivity to experience) was thought to be "un
successful” and "unpredictable" (p>.01). Way "I" (digni
fied self-control) was seen as "unpredictable" (p^ .01) and
also "unkind." The egocentric way to live, Way "J", was
seen as being "unkind" (cruel, hard, cold, angular, ugly,
and masculine (p^ .01).
The Correlate: College Grade
Point Average (5.1)
On the "Ways to Live," persons with high grade
point averages seemed preoccupied with "kindness," and also
with "unpredictability.” The concern over "kindness" was
with Way "A" (preserve the best in society), and Way "C"
(altruistic affection and concern for others). There was
a significant correlation between "unkindness" of Way I
127
(dignified self-control) and also to Way "J" (glorify one
self) . The unpredictability of Way "G" (wholesome enjoy
ment of simple comforts) and of Way I (dignified self-con
trol) correlated significantly with college grade point
average.
The Correlate: College Entrance Examinations
Verbal Scores (6.1)
On the "Ways to Live" persons with highly verbal
skills seemed preoccupied with "predictability" (changeable,
excitable, colorful, quick, new, curved, and foolish).
Persons with high verbal skills correlated significantly
with the "unpredictability" of Way "A" (preserve the best
of society), Way "B" (self-sufficiency, reflection and
meditation) Way "G" (wholesome enjoyment of simple com
forts) , Way "H" (quiet receptivity to experience and Way
"I" (dignified self-control p> -.01). Persons with high
verbal skills also made more extreme judgments concerning
Way "B" (self-sufficiency, reflection and meditation) and
Way "J" (glorify oneself).
Quantitative Scores (6.2)
Persons high on quantitative scores on college
entrance examinations thought Way "A" (preserve the best in
128
society) to be "unsuccessful" and “unpredictable.” They
though Way "F" (integration of diversity ) to be "predict
able,” and Way ”G" (wholesome enjoyment of simple comforts)
to be "unsuccessful."
Interactions Among Sub-Test Scores
Spontaneous Flexibilitv/Perseveration (7.1)
The various sub-tests of Spontaneous Flexibility
all correlate greater than the p > .01 level with the mean
of all scores of tests of that factor. These results fol
low roughly the loadings given by Guilford concerning these
sub-tests (1957, p. 21). All of the sub-tests intercorrel
ated significantly (p^ .01) with each other excepting the
"Impossibilities" sub-test. It correlated at the p ^ .01
level only with "Brick Uses I," and at the p> .05 level
with "Unusual Uses," and "Object Naming I" and "II". It
did not correlate significantly with "Brick Uses II” and
"Object Synthesis."
Disposition Rigidity (7.2)
Two factors of Disposition Rigidity were suggested
by Chown (1961). Each of the factors was measured by two
sub-tests. Scores on each of the sub-tests correlated
P> .01 with the other sub-test of the factor, and also with
129
the total mean score o£ the factor.
Interactions Among Independent Variables
Rigidity of Thinking (8.1a)
Neither Spontaneous Flexibility/Perseveration nor
Adaptive Flexibility/Persistence correlated significantly
with any other factors of rigidity.
Quantitative intelligence as measured by college
entrance examination quantitative scores was found to be
significantly related (p .01) to Adaptive Flexibility.
Rigidity of Personality (8.1b)
The study of Chown defines the factor of Personality
Rigidity I as not associated with either intelligence or
age. It is made up of items dealing with persistence,
methodical behavior, and liking for detail. Personality
Rigidity I did not correlate significantly with either of
the other two factors of personality (liking of slow steady
methods and liking for established routine). It did cor
relate significantly with "Unusual Uses" sub-test of Spon
taneous Flexibility and with Disposition Rigidity I.
Personality Rigidity II (the liking for slew steady
methods, dealing with one thing at a time, sticking to own
ways or beliefs, and belief in the necessity of being quite
130
frank) correlated significantly with Personality Rigidity
III (liking for established routine). It also correlated
significantly with the tendency to make more extreme judg
ments about philosophical value statements.
Personality Rigidity III included the fewest items
and was the least powerful of the three factors. It is
associated with the liking for established routine, order
and established ways of doing things. It correlated sig
nificantly with Personality Rigidity II (slow steady
methods). There was a negative correlation with a sub-test
of Disposition Rigidity I (writing "ready” backwards, di
vided by writing "ready" forwards). However, correlations
with the total scores comprising Disposition Rigidity I,
did not quite reach significance.
Rigidity of Motor Disposition (8.1c)
There were no significant intercorrelations between
the two factors of Disposition Rigidity and other factors
of rigidity. There was a correlation, approaching signifi
cance, between Disposition Rigidity II and the "Object
Synthesis" sub-test of Spontaneous Flexibility.
There was intercorrelation between the two alter
nation tasks and the two backward writing tests except for
131
that of the "alternate Letters" sub-test, which showed
little correlation with the others.
Disposition Rigidity II was derived in a similar
manner as was Disposition Rigidity I, but involved ratio
scores from the alternation tasks of writing double letters
and alternate letters. Sub-tests of Disposition Rigidity
II intercorrelated at the p> .01 level, and p^.05 with
the "237" sub-test of Disposition Rigidity I.
The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment (8.Id)
The extremity of judgment score correlated signifi
cantly with the verbal scale of the college entrance exami
nation. It also correlated significantly with Personality
Rigidity II, the "liking for slow steady methods."
The Correlate; College Grade Point Average (8.1e)
Persons scoring high on the college entrance exami
nations, verbal scale, had significantly higher grade point
average (p> .01), and also higher scores on the quantitative
scale of the college entrance examinations (p>.01). They
also tended to make more extreme value judgments.'
The Correlate; College Entrance Examination
Scores (8.If)
Persons scoring high on the college entrance exami
132
nation, verbal scales, had significantly higher grade point
average (p>.01). They also tended to make more extreme
<
value judgments.
Verbal college entrance scores correlated highly
(p> .01) with quantitative scores. High quantitative scores
also correlated (p^> .01) with Adaptive Flexibility.
Statistical Predictability of the Study
The seven factors of rigidity when correlated with
three dimensions of value for each of the ten "Ways to Live"
yielded a 30 by 7 matrix. Of the 210 intercorrelations one
would expect by chance about two significant correlations at
the p ^ .01 level and about ten of at least p>.05. The re
sults yield one correlation at the p .01 level and ten of
at least p> .05.
When the various factors and correlates are viewed
individually the matrix would be one cell by thirty value
choices. In this 0.3 correlations of p>.01, and 1.5 cor
relations of p> .05 would be expected by chance. The re
sults of rigidity factors were as follows: Spontaneous
Flexibility had four, where p ^ .05; Adaptive Flexibility had
three of p^.05; Personality Rigidity I had two of p^ .05;
Personality Rigidity II had one of p> .05; Personality
Rigidity III also had one of p y .05; Disposition Rigidity I
had none? and Disposition Rigidity II had one at the p> .01
level. Among the correlates: extremity of judgment had
five of p^ .01 and four of p J .05; grade point average had
six at P> .05 and one of p?.01; verbal scores on college
entrance examinations had four at P> .05 and one at p>.01;
and quantitative scores had four at pj>.01.
When including only the sub-scale of extremity of
judgment, on each of the ten value statements for each of
the rigidity factors and the correlates, the matrix is one
cell by ten. Of the ten intercorrelations one would expect
by chance about 0.1 at the p> .01 level and about 0.5 at
the p^ .05 level. The results yielded for Personality
Rigidity II were two at the p> .01 level and one at the p>
.05 level. For verbal scores on college entrance examina
tions in relation to extremity of judgment there were two
at p> .05.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results reported in Chapter IV are discussed in
this chapter as they related to each other, to the findings
of previous investigations, and to theoretical considera
tions. The organization of the chapter is according to the
same general classes of results and their sub-sections, as
reported in the preceding chapter, with the addition of a
discussion of some supplementary findings.
Rigidity of Thinking
Spontaneous Flexibility (1.1)
Way "C" (altruistic affection and concern for others)
is roughly a Christian philosophy involving sympathy, con
cern for others, and restraint of one's self-assertiveness.
The person with a diversity of ideas and freedom
from inertia and restraints seems to find this, to a great
extent, to be an unsuccessful way of life. To make affec
tion and self-restraint a central concern, may seem to limit
ideas which ti\ey have found to be interesting and colorful.
133
134
Bull and Signori (1965) found a significant correlation be
tween the choice of Way "C” and superego strength, as
measured by Cattell's sixteen Personality Factors Test.
Here it is suggested that persons with greater Spontaneous
Flexibility may have less repression and less rigid internal
standards, with a drive not to become involved in restric
tive, self-limiting ideation.
The population sampled were undergraduate college
students and any findings here should be related to the
sample. The "unsuccessfulness" of Way "C" (altruistic
affection and concern for others) may be a function of the
late adolescent "identity crisis," as Eric Erickson would
put it.
Way "H" (quiet receptivity to experience), the
^ yielding quietly to nature in order to nourish the rich
self, seemed to the person with a diversity of ideas—
spontaneously flexible— to be "unsuccessful" and "unpredict
able," powerless, foolish and passive. There is, perhaps,
less need for a dynamism of repression or withdrawal, a
more active approach to life both in emotional and motor
activity. Jones and Morris (1956) found the rejection of
this philosophy related to the Thurstone Temperament Vari
ables: Vigorous, Impulsive, Dominant, and Sociable.
135
Some substantiation for the notion of a relation
ship between cognitive and motor vigor may be found in the
significant correlation between lack of Disposition Rigidi
ty II (alternation tasks) and Spontaneous Flexibility. The
interplay between cognitive and motor behavior suggests
work done by Reich and Wolpe. One explanation is that this
significant correlation is a function of the subject's
motivation in the testing situation. The spontaneously
flexible person seems to be a more active person than the
perseverator, who would tend to do less well on such things
as "alternation tasks."
Rejection of the egoistic philosophy of glorifying
oneself as being "unkind," seems to suggest people who have
strong needs to affiliate with others. Being self-cen
tered and selfish separates one from others, and therefore
is unkind. There seems to be some contradiction between
rejecting Way "C" (altruistic affection and concern for
others) as "unsuccessful" and rejecting Way "J" (glorifying
oneself) as being "unkind." Here it is suggested that cul
turally we have societal "rules of the game" in a pragmatic
industrial society. If one is to be "successful" one can
not be too altruistic in a competitive society, but he
should not seem to be egoistic. This also may be related
136
to differential understanding of the meaning and conse
quences of this particular philosophy or to an adolescent
identity crisis, as previously mentioned.
Adaptive Flexibility (1.2)
The person high in Adaptive Flexibility, according
to Anderson (1959), uses unusual solutions to problems which
may appear soluble by means of more familiar or conven
tional methods, but which will not work. This view of
Adaptive Flexibility seems to relate to the findings.
The negative correlation with the "predictability"
of three value statements: Way "A" (preserve the best of
society), Way "B" (self-sufficiency and reflection), and
Way "I" (dignified self control), might be understood in
terms of the adjectives implied by "unpredictability." The
terms, dynamic, exciting, colorful, quick, new, curved, and
foolish, might be seen as being descriptive of unconven
tionality or divergence of thought. They may be saying
about Way "A" that to actively participate in the social
life of the community is exciting, but their participation
might be unconventional or divergent from some normative
viewpoint. They may be saying that the best in society is
dynamic and changing. Persons high in Adaptive Flexibility,
137
according to Guilford, seem comfortable at restructuring
things. They seem to have a "let's look at the world up
side down" attitude. This manner of thinking may involve
an enjoyment of change, that being the best part of life
and the culture.
This same excitement over divergence also applies
to Way "B" (self-sufficiency and reflection). This may re
late particularly to the sample involved. It may be that
young adults who are high on Adaptive Flexibility feel ex
citement over their newly discovered mental capabilities.
They enjoy finding themselves as self-sufficient and able
to reflect in their mind various thoughts about the excite
ment of life. The same may hold true about dignified self
control. As young adults they have emerged somewhat vic-
torously, after a siege of adolescent socialization, so
that control of themselves is exciting.
The factor of "unpredictability," besides dynamic
and exciting qualities, includes also foolish judgments.
This may relate to a happy sort of childish regression in
service of the ego, an ability to act divergently from
societally accepted patterns, regardless of the conse
quences .
Here the middle-class values of "successfulness" do
138
not seem to be important. This is a different finding than
suggested in the study by Osgood, Ware and Morris (1961),
where "successfulness" of a "Way of Life" seemed to be the
primary value. Rather, the concern here is with "novelty."
On the part of the adaptively flexible person, there is
different perception of the world, a looking for change,
both conceptually and in other ways. The emphasis here is
primarily upon conceptual rather than upon actual physical
manipulation of the environment. The person high in Adapt'
ive Flexibility seems to seek to create conceptual modifi
cation.
It would seem that each person reads into these
value statements his own definition, because they are in
herently ambiguous. The statements have contradictory
aspects, as they involve complex philosophical systems,
rather than discrete concepts. Subjects would be apt to
read and respond to the part that most fit themselves, both
on the statements of value as well as on the semantic dif
ferential scales. Persons high in Spontaneous Flexibility
were concerned with "unpredictability," which seems to mean
dynamism. They see Way "A" (preserve the best of society),
Way ”B" (self sufficiency, reflection, and meditation), and
Way "I" (dignified self-control) as being quite dynamic and
exciting. In the study by Osgood, Ware and Morris, (1961)
these "Ways to Live" were not dynamic. "Preserve the best"
was not in a "dynamic" dimension, but rather "sociable"
(see Figure 1). The same holds true for "self sufficiency,"
which was in a "sociable-passivity" and "control” dimension.
Also "quiet receptivity" was not "dynamic," but rather "pas
sive." There seems to be here a divergent manner of viewing
the concepts of value. What the persistent person sees as
being "passive," the adaptively flexible person sees as
being "dynamic." There is the suggestion here that the
adaptively flexible person views life in terms of change or
"unpredictability." It may be that the person is able to
be divergent because he is psychodynamically involved in
less inner conflict, or the conflict is of a different
order. There is less of a battle to repress aggression,
the presence of which makes him anxious. To preserve the
best of society, to feel self-sufficiency, perhaps are easy
to him. Those values seem relatively effervescent. This
suggests the hypothesis that people who can tolerate the
most fluidity outside themselves have the best structure in
ternally. The formation of internal structure is one of
the things psychotherapy tries to accomplish. Internal
structure makes for better toleration of involvement in,
140
and perhaps excitement about the world outside the person.
Thus self-control for these persons is not only easy, but
dynamic. This is not simply change, but organized and
directed change. It is under control. This person may see
himself as one who is able to control, to change, and to
adapt to change. He does not need to reject change, he
participates in it. He is not only comfortable with it, he
enjoys it. It may be that Guilford's concept of divergent
thought processes could be referred to as dynamically di
vergent . as activity here seems more than simple divergence.
On the other hand, the person who has much inner
conflict and no clear structure is unable to be divergent
in a dynamic sense. He is busy preserving himslef. In a
Lewinian view, the boundaries of the compartments are too
impermeable. To Jung, the "persona" mask is inelastic. We
might also speak about this in information theory terms.
There is in the dynamically divergent person, a movement
toward unpredictability, and at the same time development
of a strongly differentiated theory. Here the person is
willing to pick up information and deal with it in system
formation. This involves asking questions, the answers to
which he did not knew. In contrast, the more rigid person
presumably only asks questions, the answers to which he
141
already knows. It would follow that the adaptively flexi
ble person should be more experimentally inclined than the
persistent person.
Rigidity of Personality
Personality Rigidity (2.1)
This first factor of Personality Rigidity is made
up of items dealing with persistence, methodical behavior,
and liking for detail. The Wesley Rigidity Inventory is a
measure of self-appraisal, and findings may not bear much
relationship to behavior. The self-appraisal aspect of the
inventory may relate to the finding that Way "E" (group
action to common goals) and Way "G" (wholesome enjoyment of
simple comforts) were thought to be "unkind" (cruel, hard,
cold, angular, ugly, and masculine) by those persons scoring
high on this factor. One may wonder why "kindness" rather
than "predictability" or "successfulness" was the signifi
cantly differentiating statement about the philosophies by
persons high and lew on this factor of rigidity. It is
suspected that this may be related to kindness for oneself,
that to subject oneself to group action and simple comforts
is unkind. Here one gets the feeling of the rigid super-ego
ridden person, avoiding uncomfortable situations.
142
One might picture an executive or reformer who is
the leader of the group and not a peer-participant. He
does not allow himself the enjoyment of simple comforts.
In a Calvinistic sense he does not accept enjoyment as the
"keynote of life." He has high need achievement, is striv
ing to achieve inner goals, is stress-ridden and seeks to
control his "world" by reducing social "noise" and "threat"
by simplifying. This sort of person would like social
change to come slowly; would dislike any hectic situation,
and would treat as a threat any group activities or social
ization. There may be some relationship here to the
authoritarian personality suggested by Adorno (1950).
It may be that much of the strength of the correla
tion comes at the other end of the continuum, that the
people who are least rigid view Way "E", (group action to
common goals)and Way "G" (wholesome enjoyment of simple
comforts) positively. People who dislike detail may see
group action and simple comforts as being kind. They may
be more inner directed and able to go ahead on the basis of
inner structure.
In a study by Jones and Morris (1957) persons rating
high on "wholesome enjoyment of simple comforts" were seen
to be vigorous, quite impulsive, and sociable. This seems
143
similar to the findings here, in that persons low on Per
sonality Rigidity I, see Way "C" and Way "E" as being
"kind."
When viewed within the Freudian model one finds the
need to conform to orderly, safe, constricted channels of
conduct as in Fechner's principal of the "tendency toward
stability." "Group action" and "wholesome enjoyment" might
be seen as "excitation" which the rigid person would seek
to reduce by rejecting it. If related to "destructiveness,"
"kindness" would be a reaction formation dynamism of hos
tility. Alexander's definition of "parsimony" might suggest
the idea that "avoiding new adaptation" is seen as being
"kind" to the "stress economy" seeking person.
In the study of Osgood, Ware and Morris (1961)
"group action" was related to a "dynamic" dimension while
"simple comforts" was related to a "passive” and "social"
dimension (see Figure 1). Here in the present study, they
are in another sphere, that of kindness. Perhaps the least
that we can say is that people have different value worlds,
or at least various aspects of their value systems cluster
differently.
The level of capacity, the level of concrete or ab
stract ability, as suggested by Kurt Goldstein, may be
144
relevant here. What meaning does the statement of "simple
comforts" have? What is its opposite? It may be multi
dimensional, or multi-directional, to any particular "type"
of person. The thought of Werner on the lack of flexibility
of (primitive) concrete thinking also applies. The more
primitive or rigid the understanding of the value state
ments, the more they seem to relate to a defensive reaction
against that which they have not found emotionally comfort
able or "kind." The more flexible the person the greater
the possible complexity of the value statement, for it is
seen as being non-threatening and "kind."
Personality Rigidity II (2.2)
This factor was the easiest for Chown (1960) to
identify. Personality Rigidity II is the "liking for slow,
steady methods." It has high negative loadings on both non
verbal intelligence and vocabulary.
The liking of slow, steady methods relates strongly
to the tendency to make extreme judgments. This indicates
that those persons feel strongly one way or another about
statements of philosophy. There is some indication as to
what they feel strongly about, but little to indicate a con
sistent trend as to the direction of belief system. They
145
held strong beliefs about Way "E" (group action to common
goals), Way ”H" (quiet receptivity to experience), and Way
"J" (glorify oneself). They did express some rejection of
the egoistic philosophy of Way "J" (glorify oneself), feel
ing that it is "unkind."
The work of Rokeach applies here, in that "it is
not so much what you believe that counts, but how you be
lieve" (I960, p. 6).
It might be suggested that the association of this
type of rigidity with low intelligence could explain the
lack of consistent direction. The subjects may not have
understood differences in the value statements sufficiently
to have established a significant rigidity correlation with
the values. The finding of Osgood (1957) may apply here:
that making more extreme judgments is associated with lower
intelligence.
Personality Rigidity III (2.3)
This factor of rigidity, Personality Rigidity III
(the liking for established routine) was the weakest of the
three factors suggested by Chown (1960). It correlated
with only one value choice. It is to be expected that there
will be a great deal of error variance associated with a
146
weak factor. Because of the inconsistency of Personality
Rigidity III, it would not be expected to correlate with
many aspects of value choice.
Persons who liked established routine felt that
Way "A" (preserve the best of society) is the "kindest,"
(soft, warm, rounded, beautiful, feminine) way to live. It
would seem to follow that the person who needs a traditional
routine would choose values along that dimension. Their
concern with "kindness" does not necessarily mean that they
are "kind," but simply that they are concerned about it in
relation to that value. They may see not preserving the
best, not holding to the status quo as being "unkind." It
could be said that persons who like established routine
would feel that^being in revolution is "unkind" to their
parsimonious life adjustment.
Rigidity of Motor Disposition
Disposition Rigidity I (3.1)
Although there seemed to be some significant cor
relations of values with sub-scales of disposition Rigidity
I, the total factor shewed no significant correlation. It
may be that there are weak trends of association between
this rigidity and tendencies toward particular value
choices.
Disposition Rigidity II (3.2)
There is a strong correlation (p^.01) between Dis
position Rigidity II and seeing Way "B" (self-sufficiency,
reflection and meditation) as being predictable, slow, and
stable. Though perhaps necessary, it is difficult to assume
that such a strong correlation is a chance occurrence, or
an artifact of the testing situation. The correlation be
comes more understandable when viewed in terms of the def
inition of Way "B." It suggests that the direction of in
terest in life should be away from the physical manipulation
of objects or attempts at control of the physical environ
ment. "Not much can be done or is to be gained by living
outwardly" (Morris, 1956). It might be suggested that the
person high in motor dispostion rigidity has value attitudes
consistent with his motor ability, or that there is a com
plex interrelationship between value choices and motor
skills. As previously noted, Adaptive Flexibility corre
lates significantly with seeing Way "B*" as being "unpre
dictable," dynamic or unstable. Verbal scores on college
entrance examinations also correlate significantly in the
same way. Another way of saying this might be that to the
person high in motor rigidity, the turning away from physi
cal manipulation is emotionally stabilizing behavior, while
148
to the person high in Adaptive Flexibility, turning away
from manipulation of the environment is unstable behavior.
This suggests a complex interplay between cognitive skills,
motor skills and value choices. It might be attributable
to differences in motivation on the various tests. However,
the differences in motivation might functionally involve
various aspects of value choices.
The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment (4.1)
Persons making extreme judgments of value, or rather
those responding to philosophical statements with more polar
judgments, at one extreme or another, showed some relation
ship to particular aspects of value.
The feeling that Way "C" (altruistic affection and
concern for others) is "unpredictable,1 1 meaning changeable,
exciting, curved, and foolish, may relate to some of the
kinds of emotions involved in falling in love. It may be
the ability to "go out on a limb" for another person re
gardless of the consequences. The person making less ex
treme judgments, remain safe would see altruistic affection
and concern as being stable, calm, and wise.
Other Value statements reinforce a picture of a
personality unconcerned with remaining safe in relationship
149
with others or various aspects of life and reality, as
opposed to the person who tends to disregard emotional and
physical safety. For instance, the person making extreme
judgments felt that Way "D" (abandonment to sensuous enjoy
ment) was good, successful, active, and strong, as opposed
to the more cautious person who felt it to be bad, foolish,
weak, tasteless, etc. Way "G" (enjoyment of simple com
forts) was thought to be "kind," or soft, warm, beautiful,
and feminine. This seems to support the notion that the
persons in this sample making the more extreme judgments
are less repressed emotionally, more able to be good to
themselves. Way "I" (dignified self-control) was seen to
be "unpredictable," new, changeable, colorful, and exciting.
It was also thought to be "unkind/1 meaning masculine, cruel,
hard, cold, etc., which appears to relate to a late-adoles
cent view of masculinity. Way "J" (glorification of one
self) was seen as being "unkind." There is some question
whether this might be considered as being cold and cruel,
or a particular view of masculinity.
The personality making extreme judgments in this
sample of subjects seems to fit what might be expected of
some late adolescents or young adults. They seem to react
strongly to small stimuli, there is a question as to whether
150
they over-react, they might be thought to be extroverts,
somewhat manic. Some are perhaps neurotic or sociopathic,
but this is not necessarily so. They tend to be less re-
t
pressed or more active in their relationships with persons
and things; they tend to be less reflective and more re
jecting of self-control that persons making less extreme
scores. There may be some concern in males over the ade
quacy of their masculinity. They seem to be concerned over
being properly "kind" to other persons rather than being
self-centered.
The Correlate; College Grade
Point Average (5.1)
The concern of persons with a high grade point
average was with "kindness" (soft, warm, rounded, beautiful,
and feminine) and "predictability" (stable, calm, colorless,
slow, old, straight, and wise). They see Way "A" (preserve
the best of society) and Way "C" (altruistic affection and
concern for others) as being "kind." They feel that the
best of society is more soft and beautiful than those with
lower grade point averages; altruistic affection is seen
similarly. This could be associated with higher intelli
gence or knowledge of the nature of the society and an in
tellectual understanding of the need for affective inter-
151
relationship with others.
The "unpredictability" of Way "G” and "I" may re
late to feelings that those ways to live are seen as being
exciting and dynamic. It appears that there is suggested
here something different than was found by Osgood, Ware,
and Suci (1961), in that they picture "wholesome enjoyment
of simple comforts" as relating to a "passive” dimension
and "dignified self-control" as relating to a "control"
dimension. In the present study both seem related to a
dimension of dynamism (unpredictable, new, quick, change
able, curved, colorful, excitable, and foolish). This find
ing may have some of the same sorts of implications as those
discussed under Adaptive Flexibility. The rejection of Way
"J" as being unkind may relate, as with the Spontaneous
Flexibility factor, to greater understanding of the impli
cations of the particular "Way of Life." There may be
questions as to the effect of intelligence and background
upon responding to the various statements of value.
The Correlate: College Entrance
Examination Scores
Verbal Scores (6.1)
The person scoring low in verbal skills seemed to
be concerned with predictability. There may be some vali-
152
dation here of the stereotype of the average middle-class,
the "solid" citizens who are less exuberant and lively,
especially when concerned with philosophical values. Ver
bal liveliness seems to relate to philosophical value live
liness.
Study of the values chosen differently by the high
\
and low verbal persons could give some insight into the
"world" of the two groups. That, however, goes beyond the
concern of this study. There may be a number of reasons as
to why the "predictability," the dynamic or stability quali
ties of Way "A" (preserve the best of society) Way "B"
(self-sufficiency, reflection, and meditation), Way "G"
(wholesome enjoyment of simple comforts), Way "H" (quiet
receptivity to experience), and Way "I" (dignified self-
control) , should be seen differently by the two groups.
Quantitative Scores (6.2)
v
Persons with high quantitative scores on college
entrance examinations saw Way "G" (wholesome enjoyment of
simple comforts) as being "unsuccessful." This might sug
gest an austere or Spartan way of life, were it not for the
strong corrleation between these quantitative scores and
Adaptive Flexibility, which could add a note of divergence
153
in a desired way of life. Way “A” (preserving the best of
society) seemed "unsuccessful** but "exciting." One might
view this as suggesting the same orientation as some current
"right-wing" groups, but this could as easily mean that the
persons high in quantitative intelligence view some kinds
of political philosophical activity as not successful for
them, but exciting to contemplate. The strong correlation
p ^ .01 with Adaptive Flexibility indicates an ability to
restructure their "universe" with facility. This ability
may relate to their choice of Way "F" as a sort of philo
sophical counterpart "the integration of diversity." It
would seem that to integrate diverse elements is to restruc
ture.
Interactions Among Sub-Test Scores
Spontaneous Flexibility/Perseveration (7.1)
The high intercorrelation (p>.01) of the various
sub-tests of Spontaneous Flexibility would seem to indicate
that there is a consistent factor operating here. The pre
dictive power of these sub-tests seemed to follow roughly
the factoral loadings on Spontaneous Flexibility found by
Guilford (1957, p. 21). The lack of significant intercor-
relation of the "Impossibilities" sub-test with "Brick Uses
154
%
II" and "Object Synthesis" is not assumed here to be an
artifact of the testing situation. The "Impossibilities"
test (with a factor score of .37 in Guilford's study) was
a weak measure of the Spontaneous Flexibility factor. Even
despite this, the intercorrelation'of the "Impossibilities”-
sub-test approached significance with "Brick Uses II" and
> * ■
"Object Santhesis" sub-tests, and correlated significantly
with the other sub-tests.
Disposition Rigidity (7.2)
Two sub-tests were given for each of the two fac
tors of Disposition Rigidity. Each sub-test correlates
quite significantly (p^.01) with the other sub-test of the
factor, and also with the total mean score of the factor.
Interactions Among Independent Variables
Rigidity of Thinking (8.1a)
The high intercorrelation (p^> .01) of the various
sub-tests of Spontaneous Flexibility, and a lack of cor
relation with other factors of rigidity would seem to in
dicate that there is a single, rather consistent, factor of
rigidity operating here. As seen by Guilford, it is the
"ability or disposition to produce a diversity of ideas,
with freedom from inertia and restraints" (1957, p. 27).
155
As with Spontaneous Flexibility, Adaptive Flexibili-
ty did not correlate with any other /afctors of rigidity.
*
f
This would seem to Indicate that each is a clear £a&tor of
- « +
j
rigidity. There was a strong correlation (p>.01) between
Adaptive Flexibility and quantitative scores on college
entrance examinations. As might be expected, the talent of
restructuring and that of divergent thought seems to be in
volved in both measures.
Rigidity of Personality (8.1b)
Chown (1961), in her analysis of the structure of
rigidities, included three factors of Personality Rigidity.
Personality Rigidity I (liking for methodical persistence
and detail) was not thought by Chown to be associated with
either intelligence or age. There was no indication in
this study of such a relationship. There was, however, a
relationship between grade point average and Personality
Rigidity I. This might be explained on the basis that in
order to achieve high grade point average in the particular
college from which the subjects were drawn, the qualities
of being methodical, persistent, and liking detail would
most probably result in a fairly high grade point average.
Personality Rigidity I correlated with scores on the
156
"Unusual Uses" sub-test of Spontaneous Flexibility as well
as on the "237" backward writing sub-test of Disposition
Rigidity. This can be explained as being an artifact of
« * *
the measures employed, in that methodical persistent per
sons, not minding detail, would most likely do well on these
tasks. The "237" task was the last of a series of such
tasks, so it might be assumed that persistent persons would
score higher because of their unflagging effort.
Personality Rigidity II (the liking for slow steady
methods) correlated significantly with Personality Rigidity
III (liking for established routine). This will be dis
cussed in the section on additional findings of the study.
There was significant relationship between Person
ality Rigidity III (liking for established routine) and the
"Ready" sub-test of Disposition Rigidity I. This may be an
artifact of the testing situation, or may demonstrate the
kinds of things that persons who like routine are motivated
to do. For them, writing "Ready" may be a more routine and
familiar task.
Rigidity of Motor Disposition (8.1c)
Disposition Rigidity was defined by Cattell (1949),
and Cattell and Tiner (1961), as being a resistance to
157
change of neural discharge paths, similar to habit inter
ference or retroactive inhibition, and involving motor
effort. It was suggested as two factors by Chown (1961).
Disposition rigidity was computed by finding the mean
Fisher's "Z" of the ratio scores of sub-tests involving
writing "ready” and ”237” forward and baclcward. She suggests
that the Disposition Rigidity tests do not follow the same
pattern with respect to age. The use of ratio scores enable
the person slow at the normal forward-half of the task to
be slow at the backward-half of the task without incurring
*
any penalty. The relative lack of variation of the scores,
perhaps due to the uniform young age of the population
present, may account for the high correlations between sub
tests of Disposition Rigidity I and II.
The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment (8.Id)
One rather unexplainable correlation is between
extremity of judgment and verbal scores on the college
entrance examination. According to the work of Osgood,
et al. (1957), the brightest students should make less ex
treme judgments except under stress. The less intelligent
students should make more extreme judgments under stress.
The testing situation gave no indication of being stressful
to the subjects. This may be an artifact of the testing
procedure. However, it could be explained on the following
basis: (1) the concern of the high verbal subjects was with
"unpredictability," meaning changeable, excitable, colorful,
quick, new, curved, and foolish. Within this domain it may
be said that their view of life was concerned with excite
ment and movement. This might relate to less repression
and the ability of the subjects to be open and excited,
therefore, polar about life; also (2), it may be that the
highly verbal subjects understand complex statements to a
greater degree than do those with less ability. Because
they understand more, they are able to feel safe in making
judgments, while these more unsure of the concept's meaning
would tend to reserve judgment.
The Correlate: College Grade
Point Average (8.1e)
Numerous previous studies have demonstrated the
strong relationship between intelligence and college grade
point average. The tendency for persons with high grade
point average to make extreme value judgments may relate to
strong differences in how the concepts were understood by
the subjects. Greater understanding of the values would
allow the subject to be more bold in expressing his opinion
159
while lack of understanding might influence the subject
toward cautious judgments.
The Correlate: College Entrance
Examination Scores (8.If)
As might be expected, according to the work of
McNemar, (1942), with verbal and quantitative intelligence,
there was a strong relationship between the verbal and
quantitative scores on college entrance examinations. Per
sons high on verbal intelligence would tend to have high
scores on quantitative intelligence.
The similarity of the tasks involved in measuring
Adaptive Flexibility and those on the quantitative college
entrance examination would explain that intercorrelation.
Supplementary Findings
Although not included as a regular part of this
dissertation, attention was directed briefly to differences
between male and female subjects as far as value choices
are concerned. The discussion here will include only a
brief overview of what appear to be distinct sex differences
in some of the factors of rigidity in relationship to value
choice.
Perseveration/Spontaneous Flexibility
In the male sample there was a significant correla
tion between Spontaneous Flexibility and the feelings of
the "unsuccessfulness" of Way ”C" (altruistic affection and
concern for others) and Way "H” (wholesome enjoyment of
simple comforts). There was a (p>.007) strong relationship
for males compared to a (p>.16) weak relationship for fe
males. This might be explained on the basis that tradi
tionally the female is more apt to be inward and reflective
in relation to society. They learn to be less assertive
than the male. In the terms of David Riesman, this relates
to their role in society. It might also be explained in
psychoanalytic terms as a late-adolescent conflict syndrome
of the male, fearing the passive, i.e. female, aspects of
his own nature.
Persistence/Adaptive Flexibility
It should be noted that involved in the Adaptive
Flexibility value choices were no aspects of "kindness" or
consequences, besides no concern with "successfulness." It
seems that the consequences, the results of behavior, are
not thought of as being as important as immediate reactions.
A study by Sweeney, under the direction of Taylor at Utah,
161
found this sort of person good at restructuring tasks. This
was found to be a male characteristic and not one of fe
males.
In the female sample the only aspect which correlated
significantly with Adaptive Flexibility was the extremity
of judgment concerning "Integration of Diversity." However
women feel about integration of diversity, they tend to
feel more strongly about it. This correlation may relate
to the role of the subject sampled. Adaptive Flexibility
has a different meaning perhaps to the male, than to the
female who is said to be more affective, asthetic and artis
tic. To the male, Adaptive Flexibility is more exciting,
a "quick gut feeling," than to the female, who seems more
reflective. Much has been written concerning the woman's
need to feel secure in relation to raising children. They
seem to be more active in peacemaking and conflict resolu
tion than males.
Personality Rigidity
Personality Rigidity II correlated significantly
with Personality Rigidity III. This correlation did not
occur in the male sample, but only in the females. This
suggests that sex influences value choices on these factors
162
o£ rigidity. Factor analysis of the Wesley Inventory used
only males in the sample. The three factors which emerged
may be distinctly male factors. Other factoral dimensions
might emerge, were females used as subjects.
Disposition Rigidity
The strongly significant correlation between Dis
position Rigidity II and Way "B" (self-sufficiency reflec
tion and meditation) occurred only in the male sample.
Wechsler's work with intelligence found no sex difference
on motor tasks. This correlation may be a chance result.
As suggested earlier it may relate to the relatively more
active and outward approach to life on the part of the male
as opposed to a more inward passive approach to life by the
female.
The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment
Persons making extreme judgments of value, those
responding to philosophical statements with more polar
judgments, at one extreme or another, showed some sex dif
ferences in relationship to particular aspects of value.
Females thought Way "C" (altruistic concern and affection
for others) to be extremely "kind" (p> .01). While males
thought it also as "kind" (p> .01), they thought it to be
163
"unpredictable," changing, and exciting. The females did
not think it to be "unpredictable." This finding appears
to fit what may be a normative adolescent cultural value
orientation.
Statistical Predictability of the Study
When the seven factors of rigidity are combined in
determining the frequency of intercorrelations with value
choices on the three dimensions of the ten "Ways to Live"
the predictive pcwer of the study is slightly less than
would be expected by chance. Previous studies, however,
have indicated the multi-dimensionality of rigidity. Some
factors of rigidity, such as those involving motor ability,
would not be expected to correlate highly with many value
choices. To determine the extent to which one might predict
various aspects of value choice from rigidity, one would
need to be concerned with specific aspects of rigidity.
Taken separately, the seven factors of rigidity
demonstrate a different predictive power. Both of Guil
ford's factors. Spontaneous Flexibility and Adaptive Flexi
bility had a predictability two or three times that of
chance. Personality Rigidity I, the strongest of Chown's
three factors of Personality Rigidity, predicted beyond a
chance number of correlations with the values, but the other
two factors of Personality Rigidity correlated less than
chance. It should be noted that these factors correlated
significantly with each other, perhaps indicating that for
this sample they were not clear factors. Disposition Rig
idity II, with one strong correlation, predicted at a level
three times that of a chance occurrence. Beyond the factors
of rigidity being predictors of value choice, some of the
correlates included in this study were powerful predictors
also. Those are (1) extremity of judgment, (2) grade point
average, and (3) verbal and quantitative college entrance
examinations.
1
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The Problem
, 1
The role of ideas and ideologies, of ethical and
philosophical beliefs, which influence behavior are becom
ing of central concern to social scientists in this decade.
The concept of value supplies a point of convergence or a
bridging concept for the various specialized studies of
current social problems.
There is general research agreement that there is
a relationship between conceptual systems and personality
characteristics, but the nature of this connection seems to
be far from understood. Although some solid contributions
have been made to the understanding of the relationship,
some areas remain largely uncharted territory. The reason
for this is that powerful means or approaches to such study
have in the past been fairly lacking. Three somewhat re
cent developments suggest a methodology by which a scien-
165
166
tific study of values in relation to particular aspects of
personality might be approached: (1) the work of Charles
Osgood with the semantic differential method of measuring
"n" dimensional space, (2) the representation of a limited
number of dimensions in a "world" of values by Charles
Morris, termed "Ways to Live," and (3) the advent of the
high-speed computer, and the development of the factor
analytic method.
Major difficulties in the study of value systems in
relation to the particular personality characteristic of
"rigidity" are that the term has been variously defined,
there are some conflicting hypotheses about the nature of
rigidity, and fundamental issues remain unsolved. Rigidity
has been quite broadly defined by some and by others, rather
specifically. Rigidity has been seen as being unidimension
al and also multidimensional. The factor analytic work of
Sheila Chown (1961) was thought to afford a broad represen
tation of most aspects of what might be termed the "domain"
of rigidity. For the purposes of the study, rigidity was
specifically defined in terms of her model.
Although a person may not realize at a cognitive
level any systematic formulation of his own value system, he
lives by it. He should be expected to respond to value
167
choices as "signs" of his "dispositional view," the latter
being a pervasively influential determiner of both great
and small behavioral choices. Morris (1956) suggested a
limited number of "Ways to Live" as factors of value orien
tation. Osgood, Ware, and Morris (1961) described the di
mensions of the "Ways” in a factor analysis of a semantic
differential rating of them. This dissertation uses an
adaptation of this method in relation to the "domain" of
rigidity. It is an exploratory investigation, looking
along various dimensions for relationships between rigidity
and value choices. It includes also the study of some cor
relates of intelligence and of extremity of judgment.
A number of hypotheses were proposed, terms defined,
and an investigation designed, the purpose of which was to
answer questions as to the relationship between rigidity
and various dimensions of value choices in regard to: (1)
rigidity of thinking, (2) rigidity of personality, and (3)
rigidity of motor disposition. The relationship between
the correlates of extremity of judgment, grade point aver
age, college entrance examination scores, and the dimensions
of value choice was also studied. An additional question
involved interactions among the factors of rigidity and
correlates.
flqtnpd
The procedure employed was as follows:
Measures of seven factors of rigidity were admin
istered to 125 undergraduate college students, along with a
semantic differential rating form of ten statements of
philosophical value. The factors of rigidity included two
aspects of rigidity of thinking (Perseveration/Spontaneous
Flexibility and Persistence/Adaptive Flexibility), three
factors of rigidity of personality (degree of methodical
persistence, liking for slow, steady methods, and liking
for established routine), and two factors of rigidity of
motor disposition (backward writing and alternate double
writing). These seven factors of rigidity were thought to
be representative of the "domain" of rigidity.
The measurement of value choices was accomplished
by using a semantic differential rating of ten complex ver
bal statements, each about 100 words long, to sample what
might be considered as being a "world" of values. Each of
these ten complex statements was rated by the subjects on
twenty-six paired opposite adjectives. The "semantic space"
was conceived of in the three dimensional terms: (1) "eval
uation," (2) "predictability," and (3) "kindness."
In addition to the scores of the seven factors of
169
rigidity and ratings of the statement of values/ some addi
tional information also was obtained: (1) extremity of
judgment on the semantic differential, (2) college grade
point average, and (3) verbal and quantitative scores on
college entrance examinations.
These data were then punched into IBM cards and
intercorrelated using a "Simple" correlation computer pro
gram. The various scores and sub-scores yielded a 60 by 60
intercorrelation matrix, which was analyzed for trends among
significant correlations.
Results
The findings of this investigation are summarized
below (listed by hypothesis code):
1.0 Rigidity of Thinking
1.1 There was a significant correlation between the
degree of Perseveration/Spontaneous Flexibility
and scores on three dimensions of three statements
of value.
1.2 There was a significant correlation between the
degree of Persistence/Adaptive Flexibility and
scores on one dimension of three statements of
value.
170
2.0 Rigidity of Personality
2.1 There was a significant correlation between the
degree of Personality Rigidity 1 (degree of
methodical persistence) and scores on one dimen
sion of two statements of value.
2.2 There was a significant correlation between the
degree of Personality Rigidity II (liking for
slow steady methods) and the scores on one dimen
sion of one statement of value.
2.3 There is a significant relationship between the
degree of Personality Rigidity III (liking for
established routine) and scores on one dimension
of one statement of value.
3.0 Rigidity of Motor Disposition
3.1 There is no significant relationship between the
degree of Disposition Rigidity I and scores on
any of the three dimensions of the ten statements
of value.
3.2 There is a strongly significant relationship be
tween the degree of Disposition Rigidity II, and
scores on one dimension of one statement of value.
4.0 The Correlate: Extremity of Judgment
4.1 There is a significant relationship between ex-
tremity of judgment and scores on three dimensions
of six statements of value.
The Correlate: Grade Point Average in College
5.1 There was a significant relationship between grade
point average in college and two dimensions of
six statements of value.
The Correlate: College Entrance Examination Scores
6.1 There is a significant relationship between col
lege entrance examination, verbal scores, and one
dimension of five statements of value.
6.2 There is a significant relationship between col
lege entrance examination, quantitative scores,
and two dimensions of three statements of value.
Interactions Among Sub-Test Scores
7.1 A significant positive relationship was found
between the seven sub-test scores of the Spon
taneous Flexibility factor.
7.2 A significant positive relationship was found
between the two sub-test scores of Disposition
Rigidity I and of II.
Interactions Among Independent Variables
8.1a A strongly significant positive relationship was
found between Adaptive Flexibility and quantita-
172
tive college entrance examination scores.
8.1b A significant relationship was found between Per
sonality Rigidity I and college grade point aver
age. There is a significant relationship between
Personality Rigidity II and Personality Rigidity
III, and also between it and extremity of value
judgments.
8.1c No significant relationship was found between
Disposition Rigidity and other independent vari
ables .
8.Id A significant relationship was found between ex
tremity of judgment and verbal scores on college
entrance examinations.
8.1e A significant relationship was found between col
lege grade point average and verbal scores on
college entrance examinations.
8.If A strongly significant relationship was found
between verbal and quantitative scores on college
entrance examinations. A strongly significant
relationship was found between quantitative scores
on college entrance examinations and Adaptive
Flexibility.
S vip p lg m en fcacr
In addition to those findings hypothesized, certain
other interesting relationships were observed in regard to
differences between males and females in dimensions of value
choices. It is beyond the limits of this study to present
an analysis of these differences, but the following items
are suggested:
1. Significant male-female differences were ob
served in relation to Perseveration/Spontaneous Flexibility
and value choices. The highly flexible males to a signifi
cant degree felt that Way "C” (altruistic affection and
concern for others) and Way "G" (wholesome enjoyment of
simple comforts) were unsuccessful ways to live. The highly
perseverating male saw them as being successful. The female
subjects demonstrated no strong concern over the successful
ness of these philosophies. This may be explained in terms
of male-female cultural and emotional differences.
2. There were significant male-female differences
in relation to Persistence/Adaptive Flexibility value
choices. Adaptively flexible males seemed concerned with
dynamic or exciting aspects of value judgments, not those
of the consequences of behavior. The females seemed more
reflective and inward in relation to those values chosen.
174
3. There were significant male-female differences
in relation to extremity of judgment. Females thought Way
"C" (altruistic affection and concern for others) as being
extremely kind (p>.01). Males thought it to be kind also
(p>.05), but also "unpredictable" (dynamic, changing, and
exciting). This seems to fit adolescent cultural values.
Conclusions
The present method, employed to study the relations
between a particular aspect of personality and philosophical
value choices, seems to be a sound method of determining
the meaning and dimensions of those relationships. The
following conclusions were drawn:
1. Persons having qualities of high Spontaneous
Flexibility seem to reject, as being unsuccessful, value
statements which concern restraint, passivity, and altruism.
Persons having qualities of Perseveration see those concepts
as being successful. There seems to be a rejection of self-
limiting, convergent ideas on the part of the flexible per-
sons. This suggests more openness in responding and less
need for repression and rigid internal standards. Persons
high in Spontaneous Flexibility feel that quiet receptivity
to experience is an unsuccessful and powerless way of life.
175
The perseverator feels it to be more powerful. The spon
taneously flexible person seems to feel that the egoistic
philosophy of glorifying oneself is more unkind than does
the perseverator. The evidence seems to point to the gen
eral conclusion that persons high in Perseveration differ
significantly from persons high in Spontaneous Flexibility
in the meaning they attach to certain statements of philo
sophical values.
2. Persons high in Persistence seem to differ sig
nificantly in the dimensions of meaning they attach to cer
tain statements of value, when compared with persons high
in Adaptive Flexibility. The concern of the persistent per
son seems to be with predictability or stability, while
that of the adaptively flexible person is in relation to
change. The person high in Adaptive Flexibility seems to
exhibit excitement over divergence. The meaning of value
statements is seen on what may be a different level than
that of the Persistent person. It may involve a different
order of understanding and stimulate different behavior.
The values "preserve the best of society," "self-sufficien
cy, reflection and meditation," and "dignified self-control"
are seen as being dynamic, novel, or effervescent ways to
live. What one sees as being stable and passive, the other
176
sees as dynamic and active. Neither seems to have concern
over the succwssfulness of the various ways to live, but
rather the concern is over the stable or dynamic character
istics. The persistent person seeks to avoid change and to
reject it. The flexible person seems to seek and create
change, in what might be termed "dynamic divergence."
3. Persons high in various aspects of rigidity of
personality seem to differ significantly in the dimensions
of meaning they attach to certain philosophical statements
of values, in comparison to persons with greater flexibility
of personality. Persons who are persistent, methodical,
and who like detail, seem concerned about the unkindness of
certain values. This concern seems to be related to kind
ness for oneself. To subject oneself to "group action" and
"simple comforts1 1 may be emotionally uncomfortable, and
therefore to be rejected. What may be involved here are
different levels in the capacity for concrete or abstract
interpretation of the statements of value, or differing
interpretations of their meaning to persons high or low on
this rigidity.
Persons who like slow, steady methods seem more apt
to make extreme judgments on philosophical value choices,
than persons who do not like slow, steady methods. The
177
content of the belief systems of the persons who like slow,
steady methods shows no consistent trend. Whatever they
believe, they tend to believe strongly. Low intelligence is
associated with this rigidity, so that the lack of a con
sistent direction of value choice may be associated with
poor understanding of the complex concepts.
Persons who like established routine seem to asso
ciate preserving the best of society with kindness more
than do persons who dislike established outine. The more
rigid person in this regard would seem to feel that violent
change is "unkind" to his parsimonious life adjustment.
4. There seems to be some evidence for a strong
relationship between rigidity of motor disposition and a
particular value choice. The relationship, however, is
far from clear. The findings suggest an interplay between
Disposition Rigidity and the need to see "self-sufficiency,
reflection, and meditation" as being stable and predictable.
This value statement involves the concept of turning away
from physical manipulation of objects and attempts to con
trol the physical environment. Adaptive Flexibility and
high verbal skills is oppositely associated with that value
choice. It is seen as being dynamic or unstable. There is
the possibility here of a complex relationship between
178
0
rigidity of thinking, rigidity of motor disposition and
value choices. It might be summarized, that to the person
high in motor rigidity, the turning away from physical
manipulation is emotionally stabilizing behavior, while to
the adaptively flexibile person, turning away is unstable
behavior.
5. Persons who make extreme judgments, those who
respond to philosophical value statements with polar judg
ments, seem to be less repressed emotionally or rejecting
of self-control, in that they are able to respond strongly
to value statements of human affect and pleasure more than
are persons who make less extreme judgments.
6. The concern of persons with high grade point
average is with kindness and predictability more than are
persons with low grade point averages. A high grade point
average is associated with feelings that to "preserve the
best of society" and "altruistic affection and concern for
others" is "kind." This may be associated with intellec
tual differences which result in differing levels of under
standing of the value judgments. It may relate to emotional
needs for affective interrelationships with others. Persons
with high grade point averages seem more involved in dynamic
or exciting dimensions of judging values than are persons
with lower grade point average.
7. Persons lew on verbal skills seem more concerned
with the predictability of particular values than are per
sons high in verbal skills. The latter persons seem to view
particular values as being quite dynamic and changeable.
This may relate to intellectual differences resulting in
understanding the complex statements of value at different
levels of meaning.
8. The lack of intercorrelation among independent
variables would seem to indicate that the various factors
included in the study to measure rigidity and various cor
relates are separate dimensions in the "domain" of rigidity
and its concomitants. There are the possible exceptions of
the factors of Personality Rigidity II and III and also
Disposition Rigidity I and II.
9. There seems to be a strong indication of male-
female differences in regard to the dimensions of choice
in regard to statements of ways to live.
Recommendat ions
It is strongly suggested that the connotative mean
ing of the various "Ways to Live" be given further study in
relation to various personality and intellectual character
180
istics. The findings of this dissertation suggest the need
for further research into the nature of differing spacial
relationships in the "world of values, " when the subject
sample is varied along the lines of personality, intellectu
al, and other characteristics.
#
A further factor analysis of the "Ways to Live"
should be undertaken using a variety of subject character
istics. The factoral dimensions of the "Ways" from a sample
of persons high in Adaptive Flexibility, for instance, shouM
be compared with those high in Persistence. Other factors
should also be compared.
The methodology of this dissertation might be used
to advantage in the study of changes in value choices and
variations in patters of rigidity/flexibility over time.
For instance, it might be interesting to study persons in
volved in complex value learning situations, such as pro
longed discussions with a Buddhist monk or involved in a
guided around the world cruise. Changes in value orienta
tion, such as attitude toward the contemplative or less
need—achievement oriented philosophies of life, could be
determined. The effect of various rigidities upon the
learning process could be analyzed and methods to promote
change might be found.
181
Only to a small degree has the present investiga
tion touched upon the wealth of possible information which
was suggested by the data concerning human behavior in the
interrelations between values and rigidity. The subject
sample, however, was too limited and particular to general
ize a great deal beyond statement of the relationships which
occurred. It is therefore strongly advised that this in
vestigation be replicated, perhaps more powerfully concen
trating upon each of the factors of rigidity and various
correlates in relation to value choice. A variety of
measures of each factor of rigidity should be employed to
insure the discrimination of each factor. Ambiguity con
cerning the definition of rigidity or its factors is to be
avoided. Perhaps operational sub-scripts should be used
when referring to rigidity.
Most important, perhaps, this study should be repli
cated using subject samples from a variety of sub-cultures
such as those differing in socio-economic level, racial
background, nationality, political orientation, religious
beliefs, etc. In each of these, such variables as age, sex,
personality type, level of intelligence (including various
dimensions of intelligence) should be studied. There seem
to be multi-dimensional interrelationships between a variety
of contributing factors. Only in such a complex nomothetic
net will an adequate understanding of human valuing be
possible.
APPENDIX A
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES
TABLE 22
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES
Var.
Code Eval.
WAY A
Pred. Kind. Extr. Eval. Pred.
WAY B
Kind. Extr.
SF -.129 .023 .092 -.119 -.019 .044 -.125 -.066
AF
-.150 -.197* -.072 .014 -.047 -.216* -.028 .093
PRI
.069 -.098 .094 .018 -.084 -.098 .007 .094
PRII
-.080 -.008 -.006 -.018 -.134 -.036 -.082 .109
PRI 11 .110 -.017 .178* .035 -.016 -.154 -.036
4
.005 ,
DRI .044 -.004 .000 .058 -.029 -.053 .075 -.073
DRII .043 -.083 .025 -.094 -.103 .266** -.105 -.032
EXT -.019 -.042 .077 .659** .021 -.147 -.150 .734**
GPA .058 -.160 .174* .018 -.013 -.168 -.142 -.035
CEV -.158 -.200 -.008 .168 -.061 -.192 -.040 .174*
CEQ -.190*
-.199* -.023 -.030 -.062 -.172 -.037 . H3 £
00
*
184
TABLE 23
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES
Var.
Code Eval.
WAY C
Pred. Kind. Extr. Eval. Pred.
WAY D
Kind. Extr.
SF -.220* .005 -.070 .011 -.076 .137 -.076 .069
AF -.072 -.090 .081 .121 .114 .158 -.048 .110
PRI .053 .143 .082 -.068 .011 .028 .059 .049
PRI I . 126 -.047 .077 .125 .079 .000 .007 .094
PRIII .043 -.027 -.027 -.068 -.093 -.035 .094 -.112
DRI .091 -.077 .032 .064 -.097 -.148 -.057 -.071
DRII .083 .034 .000 -.131 -.004 -.070 -.039 -.070
EXT .098 -.245** .334** .799** .159 .202* .062 .803**
GPA .067 -.143 .277** .016 .019 .186* -.149 .049
CEV .049 -.166 .145 .152 .021 .097 -.010 .149
CEQ .089 .016 .139 .073 -.101 .022 .013 .036
TABLE 24
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES
Var.
Code Eval.
WAY E
Pred. Kind. Extr. Eval. Pred.
WAY F
Kind. Extr.
SF .010 .010 .110 .002 .127 .035 .065 .072
AF -.025 .079 -.154 .149 -.015 .079 -.019 .133
PRI -.073 .007 -.175* .054 -.021 .010 .049 -.066
PRI I .097 -.028 -.042 .212* -.151 -.062 -.108 .073
PRIII .024 .006 -.049 -.007 -.102 -.090 -.001 -.098
DRI -.079 -.027 -.121 -.070 .015 -.073 .074 -.013
DRII -.023 -.034 -.131 -.052 .010 -.035 -.024 .092
EXT .027 -.035 .018 .749** .158 -.031 .148 .695**
GPA -.031 -.087 .016 -.005 .122 .034 .031 .046
CEV -.121 -.064 -.104 .115 -.029 .031 -.079 .125
CEQ .040 .088 -.091 .013 -.081 .189* -.090 .005 !
TABLE 25
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES
Var.
Code Eval.
WAY G
Pred. Kind. Extr. Eval. Pred.
WAY H
Kind. Extr.
SF
-.080 -.126 -.023 .022 -.176* -.219* -.033 .076
AF -.056 -.026 .084 .138 -.152 -.102 .051 .116
PRI -.035 .095 -201* .051 -.032 .036 -.139 .073
PRII .053 .016 .019 . 1 1 1 -.139 -.097 .053 .252**
PRI 11 -.087 .037 -.097 -.021 -.084 -.035 -.136 .001
DRI -.082 -.050 -.096 -.039 -.073 -.029 -.113 -.062
DRII -.045 .069 -.021 -.033 .055 .038 -.019 .039
EXT -.037 -.151 .223* .746** -206* -.246** .048 .775**
GPA .154 -.221* -.031 .035 -.035 -.105 .013 .088
CEV -.136 -.195* .092 .161 -.170 -.214* .013 .163
CEQ -.205* -.054 -.062 .093 -.113 -.014 .013 .051
I-*
GO
TABLE 26
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES
Var.
Code Eval.
WAY I
Pred. Kind. Extr. Eval. Pred,
WAY J
Kind. Extr.
SF
-.067 -.095 -.119 .026 -.135 .108 -.222* .099
AF
-.039 -.219* -.044 .017 -.103 -.106 -.163 .000
PRI .022 .065 .091 -.003 -.131 .122 -.127 .014
PRII .142 .009 .017 .153 -.069 .036 -.181* .256**
PRI 11 .079 .108 .023 -.007 .047 .062 .019 -.014
DRI .004 -.024 -.034 .040 .030 -.002 .045 -.049
DRII .124 .055 .024 -.001 .012 -.050 .119 -.060
EXT -.096 -.251** -.218* .811** .059 -.048 -.253** .737**
GPA .054 -.195* -.206 .014 -.030 .029 -.204* .064
CEV .102 -.241** -.152 .143 .087 .116 -.117 .223*
CEQ -.061 -.136 -.112 .025 .026 .009 -.059
188
m
H
O
•
1
v/
APPENDI X B
INTERACTIONS AMONG INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES AND SUB-TESTS
OP RIGIDITY
TABLE 27
INTERACTIONS AMONG INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
AND SUB-TESTS OF RIGIDITY
Var.
Code GPA CEV CEQ IMP UU BUI BUII ONI
GPA 1.000 .324** .092 .064 .166 .010 .046 -.150
CEV .324** 1.000 .441** .076 .065 -.044 -.042 .140
CEQ .092 .441** 1.000 -.086 .005 -.186 .041 -.041
IMP .064 .076 -.086 1.000 .174* .278** .156 .201*
UU .166 .065 .005 .174* 1.000 .561** .436** .515**
BUI .010 -.044 -.186* .278** .561** 1.000 .563** .439**
BUI I .046 -.042 .041 .156 .436** .563** 1.000 .388**
ONI .150 .140 -.041 .201* .515** .439** .388** 1.000
ONI I .190* .131 .088 .212* .468** .354** .355** .583**
OS .040 -.013 -.065 .162 .457** .484** .314** .254** H
V O
o
190
TABLE 27 (Continued)
Var.
Code CPA CEV CEQ IMP UU BUI BUI I ONI
SF .091 .022 -.072 .449** .701** .738** .622** .668**
PRI .180* -.033 .074 .047 .174* .128 .087 .022
PRII .084 .073 -.060 -.030 -.006 .029 .065 -.113
PRI 11 .056 .089 .102 .043 .015 -.002 -.019 -.073
AF .116 .151 .384** .009 -.006 -.117 .120 -.069
EXT .048 .197* .032 .034 .082 .039 .051 -.035
DRIA -.024 .073 .049 -.154 -.018 .052 .121 -.116
DRIIA -.100 -.055 .029 -.104 -.169 -.167 -.029 -.154
DRUB -.127 -.047 -.150 .013 -.014 .063 .119 .003
DRIB -.113 -.045 .027 .020 -.148 -.135 .026 .035
DRI -.069 .014 -.038 .067 -.083 -.042 .074 -.081
DRII -.114 -.051 -.061 -.046 -.092 -.052 .045 -.076
M
VO
H*
TABLE 27 (Continued)
Var.
Code ONI I OS SP PRI PRI I PRIII AF EXT
GPA .190* .040 .091 .180* .084 .056 .116 .048
CEV .131 -.013 .022 -.033 .073 .089 .151 .197*
CEQ .088 -.065 -.072 .074 -.060 .102 .384** .032
IMP .212* .162 .449** .047 -.030 .043 .009 .034
UU .468** .457** .701** .174 -.006 .015 -.006 .082
BUI .354** .487** .738** .128 .029 -.002 -.117 .039
BUI I .355** .314** .622** .087 .065 -.019 .120 .051
ONI .583** .254** .668** .022 -.113 -.073 -.069 -.035
ONI I 1.000 .244** .627** -.060 .065 -.102 .093 .084
OS .244** 1.000 .589** .140 -.049 -.077 .057 .013
SP .627** .589** 1.000 .119 -.010 -.064 .006 .016
TABLE 27 (Continued)
Var.
Code ONI I OS SF PRI PRI I PRIII AF EXT
PRI -.060 .140 .119 1.000 .109 .122 .165 .041
PRI I .065 -.049 - .0 1 0 .109 1.000 .175* -.003 .195*
PRIII - .1 0 2 -.077 -.064 .122 .175* 1.000 -.127 -.034
AF .093 .057 .006 .165 -.003 -.127 1.000 .104
EXT .084 .013 .016 .041 .195* -.034 .104 1.000
DRIA -.043 .071 -.028 -.042 .061 .216* -.026 .020
DRIIA -.168 -.322** -.214* -.016 .124 .045 -.016 .074
DRUB -.027 - .0 1 2 .017 -.062 .100 .066 -.129 -.114
DRIB -.109 -.185* - .1 0 2 -.180* -.027 .110 .006 -.053
DRI -.076 -.057 -.065 - .1 1 1 .017 .163 .016 -.017
DRII -.088 -.157 -.099 -.039 - .1 1 2 -.056 -.073 - .0 2 0
VO
w
TABLE 27 (Continued)
Var.
Code DRIA DRIIA DRUB DRIB DRI DRI I
GPA .024 .100 .127 .113 .069 .114
CEV -.073 .055 .047 .045 .014 .051
CEQ -.049 -.029 .150 -.027 .038 .061
IMP .154 .104 -.013 - .0 2 0 -.067 .046
UU .018 .169 .014 .148 .083 .092
BUI -.052 .167 -.063 .135 .042 .052
BUI I - .1 2 1 .029 -.119 -.026 -.074 -.045
ONI .116 .154 -.003 -.035 .081 .076
ONI I .043 .168 .027 .109 .076 .088
OS -.071 .322** .012 .185* .057 .157**
SF .028 .214* -.017 .102 .065 .099
194
TABLE 27 (Continued)
Var.
Code DRIA DRIIA DRUB DRIB DRI DRI I
PRI .042 .016 .062 .180* .111 .039
PRI I -.061 -.124 - .1 0 0 .027 -.017 .112
PRIII -.216 -.045 -.066 - .1 1 0 -.163 .056
AF .026 .016 .129 -.006 -.016 .073
EXT - .0 2 0 -.074 .114 .053 .017 .020
DRIA 1.000 -.062 .200* .260** .630** .019
DRIIA -.062 1.000 .308** .241** .090 .654**
DRUB .200* .308** 1.000 .179* .190* .654**
DRIB .260** .241** .179* 1.000 .630** .210*
DRI .630** .090 .190* .630**
DRI I .019 .654** .654** .210*
H*
V©
U1
APPENDIX C
WAYS OF LIFE AND RATING FORM
APPENDIX C
WAY OF LIFE RATING FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: (To be read silently while the examiner reads
aloud.)
The following pages describe ten "Ways of Life"
which different persons have advocated and followed. These
various ways mean different things to different people.
You are to mark each of the descriptive terms on what it
means to you, not what you think it ought to mean, but
rather what vou think about it.
WAY A. PRESERVE THE BEST IN SOCIETY, ETC.
In this "design for living" the individual actively
participates in the social life of his community, not
to change it primarily, but to understand, appreciate,
and preserve the best that man has attained. Excessive
desires should be avoided and moderation sought. One
wants the good things of life but in an orderly way.
Life is to have clarity, balance, refinement, control.
Vulgarity, great enthusiasm, irrational behavior, im
patience, indulgence are to be avoided. Friendship is
to be esteemed but not easy intimacy with many people.
Life is to have discipline, intelligibility, good man
ners, predictability. Social changes are to be made
slowly and carefully, so that what has been achieved
in human culture is not lost. The individual should
be active physically and socially, but not in a hectic
or radical way. Restraint and intelligence should give
order to an active life.
197
198
WAY B. SELF-SUFFICIENCY, REFLECTION, AND MEDITATION
The individual should for the most part "go it
alone/ 1 assuring himself of privacy in living quarters,
having much time to himself, attempting to control his
own life. One should stress self sufficiency, reflec
tion and meditation, knowledge of himself. The direc
tion of interest should be away from the physical manip
ulation of objects or attempts at control of the physi
cal environment. One should aim to simplify one's
external life, to moderate those desires whose satis
faction is dependent upon physical and social forces
outside of oneself, and to concentrate attention upon
the refinement, clarification, and self-direction of
one's self. Not much can be done or is to be gained
by "living outwardly." One must avoid dependence upon
persons or things; the center of life should be found
within oneself.
WAY C. ALTRUISTIC AFFECTION AND CONCERN FOR OTHERS
This way of life makes central the sympathetic con
cern for other persons. Affection should be the main
thing in life, affection that is free from all traces
of the imposition of oneself upon others or of using
others for one's own purposes. Greed in possessions,
emphasis on sexual passion, the search for power over
persons and things, excessive emphasis upon intellect
and undue concern for oneself are to be avoided. For
these things hinder the sympathetic love among persons
which alone gives significance to life. If we are
aggressive we block our receptivity to the personal
forces upon which we are dependent for genuine percep
tive growth. One should accordingly purify oneself,
restrain one's self-assertiveness, and become receptive,
appreciative, and helpful with respect to other persons.
WAY D. ABANDONMENT TO SENSUOUS ENJOYMENT
Life is something to be enjoyed— sensuously enjoyed,
enjoyed with relish and abandonment. The aim in life
should not be to control the course of the world or
society or the lives of others, but to be open and re
ceptive to things and persons, and to delight in them.
199
Life is more a festival than a workshop or a school for
moral discipline. To let oneself go, to let things and
persons affect oneself, is more important than to do—
or do good. Such enjoyment requires that one be self-
centered enough to be keenly aware of what is happening
and free for new happenings. So one should avoid en
tanglements, should not become dependent on particular
people or things, should not be self-sacrificing; one
should be alone a lot, should have time for meditation
and awareness of oneself. Solitude and sociality to
gether are both necessary in the good life.
WAY E. GROUP ACTION TOWARD COMMON GOALS
A person should not hold on to himself, withdraw
from people, keep aloof and self-centered. Rather merge
oneself with a social group, enjoy cooperation and
companionship, join with others in resolute activity
for the realization of common goals. Persons are social
and persons are active; life should merge energetic
group activity and cooperation group enjoyment. Medi
tation, restraint, concern for one's self-sufficiency
abstract intellectuality, solitude, stress on one's
possessions, all cut the roots which bind persons to
gether. One should live outwardly with gusto, enjoying
the good things of life, working with others to secure
the things which make possible a pleasant and energetic
social life. Those who oppose this ideal are not to
be dealt with too tenderly. Life can't be too fasti
dious.
WAY F. INTEGRATION OF DIVERSITY
We should at various times and in various ways
accept something from all other paths of life but give
no one our exclusive allegiance. At one moment one of
them is the more appropriate; at another moment another
is the most appropriate. Life should contain enjoyment
and action and contemplation in about equal amounts.
When either is carried to extremes we lose something
important for our life. So we must cultivate flexi
bility, admit diversity in ourselves, accept the ten
sion which this diversity produces, find a place for
200
detachment in the midst of enjoyment and activity. The
goal of life is found in the dynamic integration of
enjoyment, action, and contemplation, and is in the
dynamic interaction of the various paths of life. One
should use all of them in building a life, and no one
alone.
WAY G. WHOLESOME ENJOYMENT OF SIMPLE COMFORTS
Enjoyment should be the keynote of life. Not the
hectic search for intense and exciting pleasures, but
the enjoyment of the simple and easily obtainable
pleasures; the pleasures of just existing, of savory
food, of comfortable surroundings, of talking with
friends, of rest and relaxation. A home that is warm
and comfortable, chairs and a bed that are soft, a
kitchen well-stocked with food, a door open to the
entrance of friends— this is the place to live. Body
at ease, relaxed, calm in its movements, not hurried,
breath slow, willing to nod and to rest, grateful to
the world that is its food— so should the body be.
Driving ambition and the fanaticism of ascetic ideals
are the signs of discontented people who have lost the
capacity to float in the stream of simple, carefree,
wholesome enjoyment.
WAY H. QUIET RECEPTIVITY TO EXPERIENCE
Receptivity should be the keynote of life. The
good things of life come of their own accord, and come
unsought. They cannot be found by resolute action.
They cannot be found in the indulgence of the sensuous
desires of the body. They cannot be gathered by par
ticipation in the turmoil of social life. They cannot
be given to others by attempts to be helpful. They
cannot be garnered by hard thinking. Rather do they
come unsought when the bars of the self are down. When
the self has ceased to make demands and waits in quiet
receptivity, it becomes open to the powers which
nourish it and work through it7 and sustained by these
powers it knows joy and peace. To sit alone under the
trees and the sky, open to nature's voices, calm and
201
receptive, then can the wisdom from without come with
in.
WAY 1. DIGNIFIED SELF-CONTROL
Self-control should be the keynote of life. Not
the easy self-control which retreats from the world,
but the vigilant, stern, manly control of a self which
lives in the world, and knows the strength of the world
and the limits of human power. The good life is ra
tionally directed and holds firm to high ideals. It
is not bent by the seductive voices of comfort and
desire. It does not expect social utopias. It is
distrustful of final victories. Too much cannot be
expected. Yet one can with vigilance hold firm the
reins to his self, control his unruly impulses, under
stand his place in the world, guide his actions by
reason, maintain his self-reliant independence. And
in this way, though he finally perish, man can keep his
human dignity and respect, and die with cosmic good
manners.
WAY J. GLORIFY ONESELF
The only way to live which is both rational and
maximally gratifying is to live entirely for oneself.
The good life comes from appreciating and glorifying
the self, since ego is the only true reality. Since
there are no absolute values one may determine what is
right or wrong for oneself. The goal of life should
be complete social emotional and intellectual freedom.
Each individual is an isolated island in fact and should
be in spirit, always resisting social conformity, emo
tional dependence and intellectual tyranny.
202
DESCRIPTIVE SCALE FOR RATING EACH OF
THE TEN “WAYS OF LIFE"
interesting 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
uninteresting
untimely 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 timely
new 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 old
kind 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
cruel
hard 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
soft
unsuccessful 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 successful
active 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 passive
true 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
false
tasteless 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
savory
good 3 2 1 0 S 1 2 3
bad
feminine 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 masculine
slow 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
fast
stable 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
changeable
angular 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
rounded
cool 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
warm
curved 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
straight
colorful 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
colorless
negative 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
positive
unusual 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
usual
ugly 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
beautiful
strong 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
weak
important 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
unimportant
excitable 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
calm
foolish 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 wise
unpred ictable 3 2 1 0 1 2
3
predictable
powerless 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
powerful
APPENDIX D
RIGIDITY MEASURE BOOKLET
NAfE OATE GROUP
C R I C K U S E S
In this test you are to list as aany usss as you can think of
for a brick, for example, ons of ths usss ahich you could list is
"build a houss.”
Writs as rapidly as you can. Give all ths usss you can think
of. Your ansaers do not havs to bs complete ssntancss. You say uss
short phrasas.
Thsrs aill bs numbsrsd lines to arits on. Uss ons line' for sach
an seer. Whan the signal is given (not yet), turn the J>ags and begin
Hating all the uses of a brick ahich you can think of.
You aill have 10 minutes for this test.
j
I
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
204
There will be numbered lines to erlte on. Use one line' for each
answer. When the signal is given (not yet), turn the j>age and begin
lieting all the uses of a brick ahich you can think of.
You will have 10 minutes for this test.
i
I
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
Reproduced wiih permission from tests developed by the Aptitudes
Project at the University of Southern California, U. S. Government
contract N6onr-23810. Not to be further reproduced without permis
sion from the same source.
I
204
List as many uses as you can think of for a brick. Writs each
use on a separate line.
5.
32.
6.. . _____________________ 33.__________
7._ ______________________ 34.__________
3.__________________________ 35.__________
9. _____________________ 36.__________
10.__________________________ 37.__________
11..__________________________ 3 6.__________
12 .__________________________ 39.
13 .__________________________ 4 0.__________
14 .__________________________ 41.__________
15. 42._________
16 . ________
17 .__________________________ 44.__________
18 .__________________________ 45.__________
19 .__________________________ 46.__________
20 ._________________________ 4 7.__________
21 .__________________________ 48.__________
22 . 49.__________
2 3. 50. _ _ _ _ _
2*-_________________... 5 1.__________
25 ._________________, ________ 52.__________
26 .____________________ _ _ 53.__________
27 ._________________________ 54._________
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
205
OBJECT NAMING
In this test you will/be given the name of a class of objects.
Your teak is to write down/ in the time allowed, the names of as
many objects in the class tis you can.
EXAMPLE: You are gifeen a class defined as MINERAL.
Write as quickly as yob can, but be sure that the names you
write belong in the class Of objects or things given. Make your
letters as legible as possible.
There are two parts to this test. You will have 2 minutes
for each part.
You might write down: .
Are there any questions?
206
*
/LtobpLtQ
W rite a e q u ick ly as y o b c an , b u t b e su re that the n a m e s y o u
w rite b e lo n g in the class O f objects o r things g iv en , m a k e y o u r
letters as legible as possible.
T h e re are tw o parts to this test. Y o u w ill h a v e 2 m in u te s
for e a c h part.
A r e there a n y questions?
i —
S T O P H E R E . W A I T F O R F U R T H E R I N S T R U C T I O N S .
206
*>m i
F L U I D S (all m atter that la n o t living o r solid)
10
o
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
P A R T II
P L A N T S (all living things that ara n o t anlaals).
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
208
OBJECT SYNTHESIS
In each of the following items you aill be given two
objects* Your task is to think of something you could make
by combining the two objects, for example!
The objects given should be suffic ent in themselves to
make the new object. You should not usj objects other than thosa
stated. Be sure to use both of the original objects in making
the new object.
The test is divided into two parts of 12 items each. You
will be allowed 5 minutes for each part. Only one answer is
required for each item. Work rapidly. If you have trouble with
any item, go on to the next one. You may come back to those not
answered if time permits, but do not return to Part I after
starting on Part II.
Givent Nail and a cane ?
You could make a paper picker or a spear as the result
of one way of combining the objects. You could make
a hook, if the objects were combined in enother way.
One answer that migh . . ctv« has bear written in the
answer space abovn.
Given: Volley ball steel spring
Are there any questions?
209
Given: tfollay ball ataal aprlnq /v.'-r.Si.rjy Vt»g-
One answer that nigh. . crv? has bet' written in the
answer space above.
The objects given should be suffic ent in themselves to
make the new object. You should not ucj objects other than those
stated. Be sure to use both of the original objects in making
the new object.
The test is divided into two parts of 12 items each. You
will be allowed 5 minutes for each part. Only one answer is
required for each item. Work rapidly. If you have trouble with
any item, go on to the next one. You may come back to those not
answered if time permits, but do not return to Part I after
starting on Part II.
Are there any questions?
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
209
PART I
1. sheet of papor glue
2. push broom coat
3. clamshells shoelace
4. paper clip playing card
5. mire coathanger nemapaper
6. rubber band oak leaf
7. manhole cover chain
8. wire powderpuff
9. needle clothes pin
10. wire coathanger rock
11. brick dish towel
4. paper clip playing card
5. eire coathanger neaspaper
6. rubber band
7. manhole cover
0. Mire
9. needle
oak leaf
chain
poMderpuff
clothes pin
10. mire coathanger rock
11. brick dish towel
12. rubber sponge screw
STOP HERE. WAIT TOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
210
PART II
13. acraodrivar rag
14. pliara ahoaatring
15. callophana eartdla
16. hairpin button
17* golf elub nadictia
16. aafaty pin atring
IP. innar tuba bitral
20. kay chain •tick
21. cork spring
22. cotton scisaors
23. aindoa pana
tinfoil
24. thraad spool nail
211
1 8 . safaty p in atring
1 9 . innar tu b a batral
2 0 . k a y ch ain •tick
2 1 . c o rk sp rin g
2 2 . cotton sclaaors
2 3 . ain d o a p a n a tinfoil
2 4 . thraad a p o o l nail
S T O P H E R E . H A I t T O R F U R T H E R I N S T R U C T I O N S .
211
BACKWARD WRITING
Subteot 1.
l) Whan you hoar tha algnal to start* bogin ariting tha aord
•ready' aftar tha tao aaaplas that hava alraady baan arittan
in. Koop your ariting clear and controlled* but arito aa
faat aa you can. Stop ai once ahan you haar tha aigngl to
j : V
- ■
2) Noa write the same word backwards as fast and aa oftan aa
you can rn ths time limit* by starting at the tail of tha
latter 'y* and working back to the letter *r*. The arroaa
on the large word in brackets will show you how your pencil
is to move.
2) Now write the same word backwards as fast and aa often as
you can In the time limit, by starting at the tail of the
letter 'y' and working back to the letter rr*. The errowe
on the large word in brackets will show you how your pencil
is to move.
Start at the right-hand side of the first line when
you hear the signal to begin. Write backwards and aa feet
as you can. Begin at the right-hand side of each line.
Stop at once when the signal to stop is given.
Write backwardsi
start here
Subtest
- ssT t
Wrltei
2)
Writes
Khan you haar tha signal to start, arite tha santanca "Tha
sky la daap blue" aa often and aa fast aa you can until tifti
ia called* Kaap your ariting claar and oontrollad.
a & t f i n s jd a fy L v M i l l , ^ ...... ...
Noa print tha sentence, "The aky is deep blue", in capital
letters as often and as fast as you can. Write clearly,
bufc arite asTast as you csn.
me /5 n /rtP BLUE
3) This time write tha same sent
2 ) N o * print the sentence, " T h e sk y is d e e p blue"f in capital
letters as often a n d as fast as y o u can . W rite clearly,
b u t w rite as fast as y o u can .
Urit.i 7 u e W /S M t P f i W E _________________
3 ) T his tim e w rite the s a m e sentence as fast as y o u c a n at tha
g o signal alternating b lo ck capital letters a n d sm all
w ritten loiters as in the e x a m p le . C orrect a n y errors
before g o in g o n .
writ. I nf iKy Ts Ditv
4)
Writes
Subtest
TT
Writ#!
Norn write tha aantanca again aith avary letter doublad in
avary aord aa in tha axaapla. Writ# tha aantanca aa oftan
and aa faat aa you can at tha go aignal and continua until
tlaa ia callad.
9
Whan you hear the signal to start write the number '237' aa
oftan and as fast as you can until time is called. Begin
right after the two examples and keep your writing clear
and controlled.
m ___________________________________________________________
2) NOW write t h e n u m b e r * 2 5 7 * «i f f « n >■
Subtft 3.
1J W h in y o u hear the signal to start w rite the n u m b e r * 2 3 7 ' a a
oftan a n d as fast as y o u c a n until tim e is called. B e g in
right after th e tw o e x a m p le s a n d k e e p y o u r w riting clear
a n d controlled.
» « • * i v ;-37___________________________________________________________
2 ) N o w w rite the n u m b e r * 2 3 7 * b a c k w a rd s as often a n d aa faat aa
y o u c a n w ithin the tim e lim it. T hearrow s s h o w y o u h o w to
start w ith '7' a n d e n d u p w ith ,2 * . Start o n the right aide
o f the first line at the signal to g o .
W rite b a c k w a rd s:
3 ^
B e g in here
Start hare
214
IMPOSSIBILITIES
. On the lines bsloa, list all tha Inpossibllltlss you can
think of. Write aach one on a separate line.
You aill have four minutes.
1. __
2. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. .
4. .
5. :
6 .
i ■■*<■ i- ■ ■ ■ — ■■■■ ■ ■»■■■ ■ ■ ■■ . n
7. , ____________
8. __________^ _
9* , ________
10. __________________________________________________
11. ___________________________________________________
12. ___________________________________________________
13._____________ ____ _______________
15*
16.
17.
18.
\
215
S T O P H E R E . W A I T F O R F U R T H E R I N S T R U C T I O N S .
UNUSUAL USES
In this test, you sill bo asked to consider sons common objects. 1
Each object has a common use mhich will be given to you. You are
to list six other uses for which the object or parts of the object
could serve.
For example*
Given* a newsparar (used for ie Jing), you might
think or the following c .her uses for a
newspaper.
1. to start a fire........... ....
to wrao oarbaoe in
to swat flies
stuffino to oack boxes
to make ud a kidnad note
.Notice that all of the uses listed are different from each
other and different from the primary use of a newspaper which is for
reading.
There are two parts to this test and there are three objects
in each part. You will have 5 minutes for each part. When the signal
is given (not yet) turn the page and begin.
Remember* each use must be different from the others and
different from the most common use which is given to you. In addition
do not use the same unusual use as a response for more than one object
In other words* none of your responses should occur more than once
in the entire test.
Are there anv Q u e s t i o n s ?
2 . to w ra p o arb ao e in
3 . to sw a t flies
4 . stuffino to p a c k b o x e s
5 . to m a k e u p a k id n ad n o te
.N o tice that all o f the uses listed are different fro m e a c h
other a n d different fro m the p rim ary u se o f a n e w sp a p e r w h ic h is for
reading.
T h e re are tw o parts to this test a n d there are three objects
in e a c h part. Y o u w ill h a v e 5 m in u tes for e a c h part. W h e n the signal
is g iv en (not yet) turn the p a g e a n d b eg in .
R e m e m b e r * e a c h u se m u st b e different fro m the others a n d
different fro m the m o st c o m m o n u se w h ic h is g iv en to y o u . In addition*
d o n o t u se the s a m e u n u su al u se as a resp o n se for m o re th an o n e object.
In other w o rd s * n o n e o f y o u r responses sh o u ld o ccu r m o re th an o n c e
in the entire test.
A re there a n y questions?
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
Llat 6 possible uses for each of the following objects,
1. An automobile tire (used on the wheel of in automobile)
2. A key (used to open a lock)
3. A safety pin (used for fastening)
217
2. A key (used to open a lock)
3. A safety pin (used for fastening)
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR F'J ?THER INSTRUCTIONS.
217
List 6 possible uses for each of the folloMlno objects.
4. A watch (uaad for telling time)
5. A button (used to fast''-.
+
6. Eyeglasses (used to improve vision)
5. A button (used to fast'-
+
6. Eyeglasses (used to Improve vision)
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
219
NAME_____________________DATE_______________ GROUP_______
COLLEGE MAJOR_______________ APPROX. GRADE POINT AVERAGE
INSIGHT PROBLEMS
In this test you will be given a series of problems
for which you are to find a solution.
In each problem you will be given a certain situa
tion. Your task is to examine each situation, and then
either to answer the questions concerning it, or to change
it in some way that will conform to the requirements of a
new situation.
Here is an example:
A board is 8 feet long and 3 feet wide. It is to
be cut into only TWO pieces which will exactly cover a hole
12 feet long and 2 feet wide. The board is shown in the
diagram below:
Problem: Show by drawing on the diagram how you
would cut the board.
The dotted line shows how you would cut the board.
No elaborate mathematical computations are required
to solve any of these problems. The solutions depend on
your ability to comprehend the problem.
There are two parts to this test. You will have 11
minutes for each part.
Are there any questions?
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
PART I
A Russian had three sons. The first, named Ymra, be
came a soldier. The second, named Arepo, became a
singer. The third became a sailor. His name is given
below.
BORIS YASMA DMITRI YVAN ALEXIS GEORGI YEMOV
Problem: Circle the name of the son who became a sailor.
Sixteen matches are arranged as shown in the diagram.
They form four complete squares, with two matches left
over. j j j j
□zcn
Problem: Show by drawing an arrow how you would move
any ONE of the matches so that there will
still be four squares the same size as the
ones in the diagram, but there will be NO
matches left over.
The backs of three playing cards are shown in the
diagram. There is at least one three just to the
right of a two. There is at least one three just to
the left of a three. There is at least one club just
to the left of a diamond, and there is at least one
club just to the right of a club.
Problem: Write the value and suit of each of the
three cards on the backs.
GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE.
221
PART I (Cont'd)
4. Four posts are set into the ground to form a square,
as shown in the diagram.
Problem: Show by drawing on the diagram how you can
make a square TWICE AS LARGE in area as the
one shown, by moving only TWO posts.
5. There is a cylindrical glass containing some water,
as shown in the diagram. You have no other container,
nor any measuring device of any kind. Show by a rough
diagram how you can tell whether or not the glass is
exactly half full of water.
6. Given a circle with an inscribed rectangle, ABCD, as
shown in the diagram:
The radius, BX, is equal to 2 inches.
Problem: What is the length of AC? ______
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
7. A man went out to hunt a bear one day. He left his
camp and hiked ten miles due south, then ten miles due
west. At this point he killed a bear. He then dragged
the bear back to his camp, a distance of exactly ten
miles.
PART II
222
Problem: What color was the bear he killed? Why?
8. There was once an archeologist who achieved great fame
by his discoveries, including a bronze coin marked
649 B.C., which he said he dug up in Mesopotamia. Soon
after this announcement, he lost his university post
and was scorned by other members of the profession as
a faker. Why?
9. Ten pennies are arranged in a triangle, as shown in
Problem: Show by arrows how you would move only THREE
pennies so that the triangle is turned up
side down.
the diagram:
O O O O
O O O
O O
O
GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE
10. Complete the following equations:
6 + 4 = 7 +
7x6 =
43 =
4
Problem: Make a simple equation using all of the fol
lowing elements below once only, and no
others.
223
2
2
2
2
+
11. Eight cans of milk are numbered as shown in the dia
gram. They are divided into two groups.
7 8
Problem: Show by an arrow what change you would make
in the position of ONE can so that the total
sum of the numbers for both groups will be
the same.
12. A man had a window that was two feet square, as shown
in the diagram. He boarded up one-half of the window.
When this was done, he found he still had a square
window that measured two feet across and two feet from
top to bottom.
2
I
Problem: Show by drawing on the diagram how this
could happen.
rrr.i-
STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS
name: DATE GROUP
WESLEY INVENTORY
Answer the following questions either true or false by
waking a circle around either the MTN or the MF".
I am often the last one to give up trying to do a thing.
There is usually only one best way to solve most
problems.
I prefer work that requires a great deal of attention
to detail.
I often become so wrapped up in something I am doing
that I find it difficult to turn my attention to other
matters.
I prefer doing one thing at a time to keeping several
projects going.
I dislike to change my plans in the midst of an' under
taking.
I would like a position which requires frequent changes
from one task to another.
I usually maintain my own opinions even though many
other people may have a different point of view.
I find it easy to stick to a certain schedule once I
224
I am often the last one to give up trying to do a thing.
There is usually only one best way to solve most
problems.
I prefer work that requires a great deal of attention
to detail.
I often become so wrapped up in something 1 am doing
that I find it difficult to turn my attention to other
matters.
I prefer doing one thing at a time to keeping several
projects going.
I dislike to change my plans in the midst of an' under
taking.
£ would like a position which requires frequent changes
from one task to another.
I usually maintain my own opinions even though many
other people may have a different point of view.
I find it easy to stick to a certain schedule once I
have started on it.
I would not like the kind of work which involves a
large number of different activities.
Ply interests tend to change quickly.
I usually find that my own way of attacking a problem
is best, even though it does not always seem to work
in the beginning.
I dislike having to learn new ways of doing things.
I like a great deal of variety in my work,
I am a methodical person in whatever I do.
I am usually able to keep at a job longer than most
people.
224
I always finish tasks I start, even if thay are not
vary important.
People who go about their work methodically are almost
always the most successful.
I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill
of it.
It is always a good thing to be frank.
I have taken a good many courses on the spur of the
moment.
I believe that promptness is a very important person*
ality characteristic.
It is the slow steady worker who usually accomplishes
the most in the end.
I usually dislike to set aside a task that I have
undertaken until it is finished.
I am inclined to go from one activity to another with
out continuing with any one for too long a time.
I prefer to do things according to a routine which I
plan myself.
I always put on and take off my clothes in the same
order.
225
2 -2-6
%
BIBLIOGRAPHY
{
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D. J., and
Stanford, R. N. The Authoritarian Personality.
New York: Harper, 1950.
Alexander, P. Our Aae of Unreason, revised ed. Philadel
phia: J. P. Lippincott, 1951.
Bernstein, E. "Quickness and Intelligence," Brit J.
Psvchol. monogr. suppl. 3, No. 7.
Block, J. "Our Unprofitable Application of the Semantic
Differential," J. Consult. Psvchol. 1958, 22,
235-236.
Block, J. and Block, J. "An Investigation of the Relation
ship Between Intolerance of Ambiguity and Ethno-
centrism," J. Pers., 19. 303-311.
Boring, E. G A History of Experimental Psychology. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1950.
Bromley, D. B. "Primitive Forms of Response to the Matrices
Test," J. Mental Sci. 1953, 99, 374-393.
Brown, R. W. "A Determinant of the Relationship Between
Rigidity and Authoritarianism," J. Abn. Soc.
Psvchol. 1953, 48, 469-476.
Butt, S. D. and Signeri, E. I. "Relationship of Person
ality Factors to Conceived Values in Male Univer
sity Students," Psvch. Reports. 1965, 16, 609-617.
Cattell, R. B. Description of Measurement of Personality.
New York: World Book Co., 1946.
________ . The Riddle of Perseveration: I. Creative Ef-
227
228
fort and Disposition Rigidity, J. Persl. 1946, 14,
229-238; II. Solution in Terms of Personality
Structure, J. Pers. 1946, 14, 239-267.
Cattell, R. B. and Tiner, L. "The Varieties of Structural
Rigidity," J. Pers. 1949, 12* 321-341.
Cattell, R. B. and Winder, A. E. "Structural Rigidity in
Relations to Learning Theory and Clinical Psychol
ogy, " Psvchol. Rev. 1952, 59, 23-39.
Carroll, J. B. "Some Cautionary Notes on the Semantic
Differential," A. P. A. Symposium: Cincinnati in
Moss Psvchol. Record. 1960, jLO, 47-54.
Chown, Sheila M. "Rigidity-Flexibility Concept," Psvchol.
Bull. 1959 (May) 56, 195-223.
. "A Factor Analysis of the Wesley Rigidity In
ventory: Its Relationship to Age and Non-Verbal
Intelligence," J. of Abnom. Soc. Psvchol. 1960,
61. 491-494.
. "Age and the Rigidities, 1 1 J. Gerontol. 1961, 16.
353-362.
Clay, Hilary M. "Change of Performance with Age on Similar
Tasks of Varying Complexity," Brit. J. Psvchol.
1954, 4£, 7-13.
Davids, A. "The Influence of Ego Involvement on Relations
Between Authoritarianism and Intolerance of Am
biguity, " J. Consult. Psvchol. 1956, 20, 179-184.
Diamond, F. "Style and Content in Personality Rigidity."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont
Graduate School, 1958.
Eriksen, C. W. and Eisenstein, D. "Personality Rigidity
and the Rorschach," J. Pers. 1952, .21, 386-391.
Eysenck, H. J. "Types of Personality--A Factorial Study
of 700 Neurotics," J. Mental Sci. 1944, .90, 851-
861.
229
Fisher, S. "An Overview of Trends in Research Dealing
with Personality Rigidity," J. Pers. 1949, 17,
342-351.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. "Intolerance of Ambiguity as an Emo
tional and Perceptual Variable," J. Pers. 1949,
1&, 108, 43.
_________. "Personality as Revealed Through Clinical In
terviews, in Adorno, T. W., et al. The Authori-
tavian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950.
Freud, S. Beyond the Pleasure Principle. London: Ho
garth, 1922.
. An Outline of Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton,
1949.
. "The Defense Neuro-psychosis: An Endeavor to
Provide a Psychological Theory of Acquired Hysteria,"
(1894) p. 59-75 in E. Jones (ed.) Sigmund Freud.
Collected Papers. London: Hogarth Press, 1950.
_________. Collected Papers (J. Strachey, ed.) Vol. 2, 3,
4. London: Hogarth Press, 1953.
Goldstein, K. "Concerning Rigidity," Character and Person
ality. 11. 209-226.
Goodstein, L. D. "Intellectual Rigidity and Social Atti
tudes," J. Abnom. and Social Attitudes ? J. Abnom.
Soc. Psvchol. 1953, 48, 345-353.
Graziana, A. M. "A Factor Analytic Investigation of the
Concept of Personality Rigidity." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, June,
1961.
Grigg, A. E. "A Validity Study of the Semantic Differential
Technique," J. Clin. Psvchol. 1959, 15, 179-181.
Gross, 0. Die Cerebrale Sekundar-Function. Leipzig:
Vogel, 1902.
230
Guilford, J. P., Frick, J. W., Christensen, P. R. and Mer-
rifield, P. R. "A Factor-Analytic Study of Flexi
bility in Thinking: Studies of Aptitudes of High-
Level Personnel." Unpublished monograph: Reports
from the Psychological Laboratory, University of
Southern California, 18, April, 1957.
Heymons, G. and Brugmans, H. J. T. "Intelligenzprufungen
mit Studierenden," Psvchol. 1913, J7, 317-331.
Humphreys, L. "Acquisition and Extinction of Verbal Ex
pectations in a Situation Analogous to Condition
ing, " J. Exper. Psvchol. 1939, .27, 71-75.
Jenkins, James J., Russell, Wallace, A., and Suci, George,
J. "An Atlas of Semantic Differential Profiles
for 360 Words," American J. Psvchol. 1958, 688-
899.
Jones, L. V. and Morris, C. W. "Relations of Temperament
to the Choice of Values," J. Abn. Soc. Psvchol.
1957, __, 345-349.
Jones, M. B. "Authoritarianism and Intolerance of Fluctua
tion," J. Abnorm. Soc. Psvchol. 1955, .56, 125-126.
Jung, C. G. Psychological Types. New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1923.
Katz, A. "A Study of the Relationships Among Several
Measures of Rigidity." Unpublished doctoral dis
sertation, University of Iowa, 1952.
Kay, H. "Learning of a Serial Task by Different Age
Groups," Quart. J. Exper. Psvchol. 1950, .3, 223-
230.
Kenny, Douglas T. and Ginsberg, Rose. "The Specificity of
Intolerance of Ambiguity Measures," J. Abnorm. and
Soc. Psvchol. 1957, 300-304.
Kentier, Helmet. "Zur Problematre der Profelmethode
(Concerning the problems of profile analysis),"
Diagnostria. 1959, (5), 5-18.
231
Kluckholn, C. et al. "Values and Value-Orientations in the
Theory of Action," in T. Parsons and E. A. Shils
(eds.) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cam
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1951.
Kounin, J. S. "Experimental Studies of Rigidity: 1. The
Measurement of Rigidity in Normal and Feebleminded
Persons," Charact. and Pers. j), 251-272.
Krechevsky, I. "A Study of the Continuity of the Problem-
Solving Process," Psvchol. Review. 1938, 45, 107-
133.
Lankes, W. "Perseveration," Brit. J. of Psvchol. 1915, 7,,
387-419.
Lasswell, H. "Psychology Looks at Morals and Politics,"
Introductory Readings in Political Behavior. S. S.
Ulmer (ed.) Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1961.
Levine, E. "Problem Solving Rigidity and Decision Time,"
J. Abnorm. Soc. Psvchol. 1955, 50, 343-344.
Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1935.
Luchins, A. S. and Luchins, E. H. Rigidity of Behavior.
Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Books, 1959.
Maier, N. R. F. "Reasoning in Human: I On Direction,"
J. Comp. Psvchol. 1930, .10, 115-143? "II The
Solution of a Problem and its Appearance in Con
sciousness, " J. Comp. Psvchol. 1931, J,2, 181-194;
"III The Mechanisms of Equivalent Stimuli and of
Reasoning," J. Experimental Psvchol. 1945, 35.
349-360.
Maslow, A. H. (ed.) New Knowledge in Human Values. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.
Mering, Otto von. A Grammar of Human Values. Pittsburg:
University of Pittsburg Press, 1961.
Michon, J. A. "An Application of Osgood's Semantic Dif-
232
Mogar,
Morris
Morris
Morris
Moss, I
Muller
Murphy
Murray
Norman
Oliver
ferential Technique," Acta Psvchol. AMST, 1960,
12, 377-391.
Robert E. "Three Versions of the F Scale and Per
formance on Semantic Differential," J. Abnorm. Soc.
and Psvchol. 1960, 60, 262-265.
C. W. Signification and Significance. Cambridge:
Mass. Instit. Tech. Press, 1964.
_. Varieties of Human Value. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1956.
Charles. Paths of Life. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1942. 2nd edition New York: George
Braziller, Inc., 1956.
C. W. and Jones, L. V. "Value Scales and Dimen
sions," J. Abn. Soc. Psvchol. 1955, __, 523-535.
. Scott. "Current and Projected Status of Semantic
Differential Research," Psvchol. Rec. 1960, 10.
47-54.
G. E. and Pilzecker, A. "Experimentelie Beitrage
Zur Lehre von Gedachtniss," Z. Psvchol. Phvsiol.
Erg. Bd. 1903, I, 58-78.
G. and Jensen, F. Approaches to Personality. New
York: Howard McCann, 1932.
M. S. "The Influence of Instructor Modification
Upon Test-Retest Rehabilitis r,f the Semantic Dif
ferential, " Educ. Psvchol. Meas. 1961, 21, 883-
893.
Warren. "Characteristics of the Semantic Differen
tial, " Amer. J. Psvchol. 1959, Dec., 72, 581-584.
John A., and Ferguson, George A. "A Factorial
Study of Tests of Rigidity," Canad. J. Psvchol.
1951, 5, 49-59.
Osgood, Charles, Suci, George and Tannenbaum, Percy. The
233
Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1957.
Osgood, C. E., Ware, E. E. and Morris, C. "Analysis of the
Connotative Meaning of Variety of Human Values as
Expressed by American College Students," J. Abnorm.
Soc. Psvchol. 1961, . 6 2 . , 62-73.
Plutchik, Robert. "Studies of Emotion in the Light of a
New Theory," Psvchol. Rep. 1961, .8, 170.
Reich, W. Character Analysis. (3rd ed.) New York: Orgone
Institute Press, 1949.
Rehfish, John M. "Some Scales Test Correlates of Person
ality Rigidity Scale," Consult. Psvchol. 1958,
22, 372-374.
Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York:
Basic Books, 1960.
Rorschach, H. Psychodiagnostics: A Diagnostic Test Based
on Perception. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1942.
Rubenowitz, Siguard. Emotional Flexibilitv-Rigiditv as a
Comprehensive Dimension of Mind: An Empirical
Study of a Construct and its Psychological and
Social Implications. Stockholm: Almquist and
Wiksell, 1963.
Schaie, K. W. "Rigidity, Flexibility and Intelligence.
A Cross-Sectional Study of the Adult Life-Span
from 20 to 70 Years," Psvchol. Monoar. 72, 9
(whole na 462) 1958.
Schmidt, H. 0., Fonda, C. P. and Westley, Elizabeth. "A
Note on Constancy of Rigidity as a Personality
Variable," J. Consult. Psvchol. 1954, .18, 450.
Smock, Charles, D. "The Influence of Stress on the In
tolerance of Ambiguity," J. Soc. and Abnorm.
Psvchol. 1955, 50, 177-182.
4 »
234
Spearman, C. and Jones, L. Wt Human Ability. A Continua
tion of the Abilities of Man. London: Macmillan,
1951.
Staats, W., Staats, C. K. and Crawford, H. L. "First Order
Conditioning of Meaning and the Parallel Condition
ing of GSR," J. Gen. Psvchol. 1962, 67, 159-167.
Taylor, D. W. Creativity: Progress and Potential. New
York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1964.
Taylor, D. W. and Barron F. Scientific Creativity. New
York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1963.
Taylor, D. W. and McNemar, Olga. "Problem Solving and
Thinking," Annual Rev, of Psvchol. Palo Alto:
Stanford University Press, 1955, 6, 455-482.
Ulmer, S. Sidney. Introductory Readings in Political Be
havior. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1961.
Wells, William O. and Smith, Seagranna. "Construction of
Semantic Differential— What Format Works Best?
What Influence on Each?" J. AppI. Psvchol. 1960,
44, 393-397.
Werner, H. Comparative Psychology of Mental Development.
New York: Harper, 1940.
. "Subnormal and Abnormal Forms of Rigidity,"
J. Abnorm. Soc. Psvchol. 1946, 4.1, 15-24.
Wesley, Elizabeth. "Perseverative Behavior in a Concept
Formation Task as a Function of Manifest Anxiety
and Rigidity and Punishment." Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Iowa, 1950.
. "Perseverative Behavior in a Concept-Formation
Task as a Function of Manifest Anxiety and Rigid
ity." J Abnorm. Soc. Psvchol. 1953, ,48, 129-134.
Wiersma, H. "Die Sckundarfunktion Gei Psychisen," Z.
Psvchol. Neurol. (Leipzig), 1906, ,8, 1-24.
235
Wolput,
\ *
Zelen,
Edward A. "A New View of Rigidity," J. Abnorm.
Soc. Psychol. 1955, .51, 589-594.
S. L. and Levitt. "Notes on the Wesley Rigidity
Scale Development of Short Form," J. Abnorm. Soc.
Psvchol. 1954, 49, 472-473.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Cross-Cultural Study Of The Use Of Art Forms

PDF

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

PDF

Investigation Of A Self-Report Method In The Study Of Underachievement Among Elementary School Children

PDF

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

PDF

Ethnic Group Differences In Certain Personal, Intellectual, Achievement, And Motivational Characteristics

PDF

Reversal And Nonreversal Shift Performance Of Retardates Under Various Motivational And Stimulus Conditions

PDF

Performance Of Retardates On Piagetian Tasks As A Function Of Ethnicity

PDF

Variables Differentiating Mexican-American College And High School Graduates

PDF

Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance

PDF

An Individual Testing Approach To Assess Creative Abilities

PDF

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

PDF

The Relationship Of Personal Data Items To Vocational Rehabilitation

PDF

Educational Group Counseling Within A Remedial Reading Program

PDF

The influence of social intelligence and social teaching methods upon academic achievement

PDF

Frustration Versus Secondary Reinforcement In Children Under Continuous And Partial Primary Reinforcement

PDF

The Relationship Between Parent-Child Reciprocity And The Child'S Mental Level

PDF

An Experimental Analysis Of The Relationship Between The Reliability Of Amultiple-Choice Examination And Various Test-Scoring Procedures

PDF

An Investigation Of The Forms And Defenses Of Teleological Ethical Theories, With Emphasis On The Ethical Theory Of Brand Blanshard

PDF

Attitudinal Variables Among Teachers Of Exceptional And Non- Exceptional Children

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effects Of Selective Frequency Filtering Of Sidetones On The Comprehension Of Rate-Controlled, Recorded Speech By College Students

Asset Metadata

Creator Fellows, Lloyd Welker, Jr. (author)

Core Title Rigidity Factors And Value Choices

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

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Meyers, Charles Edward (committee member), Robb, J. Wesley (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-204442

Unique identifier UC11359936

Identifier 6608786.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-204442 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6608786.pdf

Dmrecord 204442

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Fellows, Lloyd Welker, Jr.

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