University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Effects Of Making Social Desirability Judgments On Personality Inventory Scores Of Schizophrenics

(USC Thesis Other)

The Effects Of Making Social Desirability Judgments On Personality Inventory Scores Of Schizophrenics

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 7 -2 1 1 5 NEWMAN, P hyllis Macy, 1918- THE EFFECTS OF MAKING SOCIAL DESIRABILITY JUDGMENTS ON PERSONALITY INVENTORY SCORES OF SCHIZOPHRENICS. U niversity of Southern California, Fh.D., 1966 Psychology, clinical University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan © Copyright by Phyllis Macy Newman 1967 THE EFFECTS OF MAZING SOCIAL DESIRABILITY JUDGMENTS ON PERSONALITY INVENTORY SCORES OF SCHIZOPHRENICS *7 Phyllis Macy Newman A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Psychology) August 1 966 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SC H O O L U N IV ER SITY PARK L O S A N G E LE S. C A L IFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by .......... under the direction of h.ftS...Dissertation Com- been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y mittee, and approved by all its members, has Dean Date, DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My gratitude is extended most of all to my three daughters who have grown into fine young women in spite of receiving far less of my time as mother and housewife than they have deserved over the period of years that I have been occupied in earning my degree* My limitless thanks go particularly to my husband whose patience and encouragement have supported me when I have needed it most* I sincerely appreciate the high standards of psychological research that I have learned from my chairman, Dr* Alfred Jacobs. I am indebted to him and to Drs. Norman Cliff and William Werkmeister for their constructive advice and the time they have given. My thanks must also be extended to the administra tive staff at Camarillo State Hospital for making it pos sible for this research to be conducted and for permitting me time from my duties to work upon it. The extensive clerical help received from student and patient assistants was invaluable in the detailed work of data analysis. Last but not least, I am indebted to the many patients who bent their efforts, sometimes with great difficulty, to follow the experimental procedures involved in this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.....................................v LIST OF FIGURES.................................. vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ............................. 1 Review of the Problem of Response Tendencies 2 Social Desirability and Schizophrenia. ... 22 Theoretical Considerations ............... 23 II. THE PRESENT STUDY..........................25 Experimental Hypotheses. ......... .... 25 Subjects • ........... 27 Development of Instruments Used.......... . 30 Procedure. .............................38 Predictions......... 43 III. RESULTS....................................45 Derivation of Scores .................... 45 Outcome of Predictions .................. 47 Other Findings......... 61 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . ...............71 REFERENCES........................................82 APPENDIXES Appendix A: Summaries of Pilot Studies I and II................ 90 Appendix B: Social Desirability Values of ACL Items ........... 95 iii Table of Contents (continued) Appendixes (continued) Page Appendix C: Modification of the ACL Items , .110 Appendix D: Modification of the MMPI Items. . 124 Appendix E: Forms Used in the Training Procedure ............ • ... 138 Appendix F: Subject Scores by Group ..... 162 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 * Description of Groups and Procedures. ..... 42 2. Mean Pretest, Posttest, and Difference Scores . 48 5. Mean Percent Correct, First Half of Training, Second Half of Training, and Mean Change. . . 49 4. Total Training Scores with Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores • . ............... ....50 5. Rank Order of Groups According to Mean Difference between Pretest and Posttest Scores. ..........................51 6. Rank Order of Groups According to Mean Change in Percent Correct between First Half and Second Half of Training....................52 7. Rank Order of Groups According to Mean Total Training Score.............................55 8. Summary of Analysis of Variance, Training Procedure, Second Half Minus First Half Difference Scores ........................ 55 9. Summary of Analysis of Variance, Posttest Minus Pretest Difference Scores .. ....... 57 10. Probabilities of Observed Frequencies of Subjects Increasing in Score between Pretest and Posttest. .............. 58 11. Mean Percent Correct, Pretest, First Half of Training, Second Half of Training and Posttest................................65 12. Trend Scores and Mean Pre- and Post-Test Differences for 12 Experimental and Control Groups. ..... ................. 69 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Relationship of 12 Experimental and Control Groups to Variables Controlled. . .........41 2. Graphic Relationship of Mean Pretest, Mean Total Training, and Mean Posttest Scores. . . 63 3. Graphic Relationship of Mean Percent SD Scores in Successive Procedures for 4 Feedback Groups*............ ,.66 4* Frequency Distribution of Mean Social Desirability Ratings on 300 Adjective Check List Traits ............... *.....*.109 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study is concerned specifically with whether poor functioning, in the form of personality inventory statements subscribed to by patients, can be modified in the direction of social norms. The proposed modifying agent is an instruction to think about the Social Desirability of behaviors and traits listed in the personality inventory* The expectation that such a treatment procedure can be effective arises from the increasingly widespread impression that the tendency to respond in a socially de sirable manner on personality inventories is representa tive of a personality trait in itself, (Damarin & Messick, 1965). As McGee (1962) points out, the behavioral concomi tants of SD responding as a personality variable have not been sufficiently documented for all psychologists to be convinced of its status as a trait (Spilka, 1961; Block, 1965; Rorer, 1965)* Most agree, however, as to the gener ality of SD responding among different groups (Edwards, 1957? Klett, 1957a; Klett, 1957b) and to the stability of response tendencies with individual subjects at successive times, (Cronbach, 1950; Jackson & Messick, 1961; Edwards, Diers, & Walker, 1962; Siller & Chipman, 1965). 1 2 The assumption is made in this study that schiz ophrenics represent a group whose functionxng is less conforming than is typical of normal groups. Social Desirability, as a measurable variable, is seen as reflect ing socially accepted norms, and to this extent representii^j normal behavior. The attempt made here is to train a set to respond in a socially desirable manner in the limited sample of behavior represented by a personality inventory. Increase in Social Desirability scores on the personality Inventory will be taken as an indication that a schizo phrenic subject is able to apply the set to respond in a socially desirable manner to his test-taking behavior. The degree to which the set to respond in a socially desir able manner appears on a personality inventory on which the subject did not receive specific training will be accepted as evidence of generalization of the response. Review of the Problem of Response Tendencies Social Desirability responding as a personality trait is a notion that psychologists have not accepted generally, partly because it was not defined explicitly in personality research, but seemed rather to appear repeated ly when not expected. It has been slow to be recognized also because it has been overshadowed by other, more conspicuous, response tendencies, Acquiescence in partic ular. 3 Acquiescence as a reapon.se set Attention to response tendencies as behavioral phenomena arose first as difficulties in the matter of psychological assessment. Subjects frequently described themselves on assessment instruments in a manner which was inconsistent with other data available about them. The first tendency to be noted was that of marking every state ment in an inventory "True." Cody (1923) attempted to revise Woodworth's (1918) Personal Data Sheet by introduc ing reverse wording of the items to break up this tendency. Lentz (1938) first labeled the tendency "Acquiescence,” and suggested that it was a source of error in measurement. Cronbach, in a series of articles (1941, 1942, 1946, 1950) contributed an extensive clarification of the effects of response sets upon test results. In the second of these articles (1942) he suggested a scale of response tendencies reflecting different degrees of inappropriate test behavior: (1) acquiescent responding, (2) unbiased guessing, and (3) overcritical responding, (i.e. choosing the false alternative on the basis of minor exceptions). He concluded that false-keyed items were more discriminat ing of real ability than true-keyed items, and he suggested that test users alert subjects to their acquiescent tenden cies as a measure of control. In his third article (Cronbach, 1946) he used the term "response set" and noted that it tended to appear when instructions were unclear* He advised greater "structura tion" of tests to control for this source of error* In his 1950 article Cronbach listed nine types of response sets (SD was not one of them), noted that sets were stable and demonstrated that multiple-choice type items were less subject to sets than other test formats. He concluded that "response sets might be mere incidental sources of error in measurement, or they might reflect deeper person ality traits." (p.15) Cronbach*s thorough exposition of response ten dencies brought the phenomenon more fully to the attention of psychologists. A new dimension of thought about tests was stimulated when Bass (1955) questioned the assumptions associated with a popular assessment instrument in person ality research — The California F scale (Adorno, Frenkel- Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), which purported to measure authoritarian attitudes. Bass pointed out that most of the pathology-indicating items on the F scale were keyed "True" and that a score for Authoritarianism may be nothing more than a score for Acquiescence. He demonstrated his point by introducing a "G" scale, reversing the state ments of the F scale, and showed that subjects tended to agree with both sets of statements. Social Desirability as a response set With this development the stage was set for the 5 appearance of Edwards1 (1957) suggestion that a second, more confounding variable was the tendency to make the so cially desirable response rather than the accurate one on inventories. Previously psychologists had attempted to deal with the 3D response tendency by including such scales as the L (lie), the F (falsification) and K (test-taking attitude) scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1945) to control what was thought to be "faking'' or "dissimulating." The term "Social Desirability" had been used in lieu of "faking" prior to Edwards' (1957) statement, for example by Fordyce (1956), Hanley (1956), and by Edwards himself (1955)* In his 1957 publication, however, Edwards went as far as Bass (1955) had gone in suggesting that the principal variable being assessed by the inventory scales was the response set itself. Edwards also introduced at that time a scale for SD based on MMPI items which became the basis for much subsequent research, and which is in cluded in the present study. In the following year Jackson and Messick (1958) suggested that a shift be made from the term "response set," as originally proposed by Cronbach (1950) to "response style," implying a personality variable rather than a source of error to be avoided or controlled. Not all authorities concur with this proposal. As stated by Damarin and Mes sick (1965), 6 The challenge of Edwards* work lies in the conclusions that can he drawn, once the Social Desirability (SD) scale is interpreted as a mea sure of misrepresentation, of the tendency to present oneself in a favorable light, for these conclusions conflict with other ideas which many psychologists hold dear* (p.14) Evidence for Social Desirability responding The application of factor analytic techniques to inventory responses and test batteries has sought to clari fy the problem of response styles. In the case of the MMPI the factoring appears to have raised more questions than it has solved* Welsh (1956) describes the "A" or Alpha factor of the MMPI which appears to permeate all of the scales of the test. He names the factor "Anxiety,” and a second factor is labeled "R" for "Repression." Debate has centered around the Alpha, or first, factor in particular. Kasse- baum, Oouch, and Slater (1959) propose that the factor is a measure of "ego-strength." Fordyce (1956) interprets it as a Social Desirability scale. Edwards and Heather (1962) cite both of these articles, present additional statistical findings on scores and suggest that Alpha could be interpreted either as ego- strength or SD. Block (1962) makes a case for a real dif ference between SD and adjustment (ego-strength) and says that these cannot be assumed to be the same. Much of the research published by Edwards and his co-workers (Edwards, Heathers & Fordyce, 1960; Edwards, 1962; Edwards & Diers, 1962a; Edwards & Diers, 1962b; Edwards & Diers, 1962c; Edwards, 1965; Edwards & Walsh, 1965a# Edwards & Walsh, 1965b) seeks to demonstrate the ramifications of the SD response tendency, making use of factor analytic evidence* Publishing with one writer Edwards & Walker, 1961a) he goes so far as to suggest that his SD scale (Edwards, 1957) might be used as a short form of the MMPI. As evidence he presents high correlation coefficienis between predicted and actual MMPI scores, the predictions being based on previously obtained SD scores of the subjects. Elvekrog and Vestre (1965) contested this claim, as their replication of Edwards and Walker’s method failed to produce the same finding. Some dimensions of Social Desirability Other researchers have attempted to determine the generality of SD perceptions. Klett (1957a), using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, had high school students rate the items on this inventory and found substan tial agreement between these subjects' ratings and those made by Edwards' (1957) college students. Klett attempted to control for social class, finding that this variable did not differentiate ratings made by high school subjects. Research by Lovaas (1958) and Fujita (1957) Indicated that Norwegian students in Oslo and Nisei students in Seattle 8 rated the Social Desirability of EPPS items similarly to Klett*s and Edwards* subjects* Klett (1957b) extended the investigation of SD perceptions to a group of "manifestly disturbed" mental patients. Results revealed that SD rating3 of EPPS items did not differ according to diagnostic group, and when pooled, the mean ratings agreed with Edwards* and Klett*s subjects described above* When ratings were analyzed in terms of EPPS need-scale values, however, it was found that patient and student groups differed in degree of value placed on certain needs. An article by Klett and Yaukey (1959) included Arabian students in Beirut in this group of studies, again finding similarity in perceptions of SD value of EPPS items. This group*s perception of the value of certain needs differed from other cultural groups* Some studies have questioned the assumptions as sociated with the SD values used. Rosen (1956) asked whether SD responding might be related to an internal norm of what was seen as "personally desirable" as opposed to an external norm of what others were believed to value. He found that item endorsement correlated higher with ratings of the per sonal desirability of the item than either did with ratings of Social Desirability (external norm). Taylor (1959) ap proached the same problem with the criticism that SD scale values represent an average of ratings which may obscure individual variability and raise the probability of an in dividual endorsement coinciding with the norm, thus artifi- cially increasing the correlation between rated SD value and item endorsement, (Edwards, 1953)* Using instructions to rate items according to "how others see them" and also "attractiveness to me," Taylor found the probability of item endorsement correlated highly (.79) with "imputed" SD scale and insignificantly with personal attraction to the items* This appears to contradict Rosen*s finding. Boe and Kogan (1963) replicated Taylor’s method, correcting what was felt to be a shortcoming, and reported results which corroborated Rosen’s. Messick (1960) was also disturbed by the averaging of ratings to achieve SD values of items. He criticized Edwards (1957) and Klett (1957a, 1957b) for their use of the method of successive intervals in determining similarity among groups. He recommended Q correlations of ratings re ceived by each item to determine if groups of subjects varied noticeably in their perceptions of the Social Desira bility of the trait. He re-analyzed Klett*s data on "mani festly disturbed" mental patients, obtaining Q correlations and factor analyzing them. Messick concluded that a general factor of SD did not seem indicated with these subjects. Mehlman and Warehime (1962) studied the relation ship of SD ratings and social class. They noted two oppos ing views: (1) the overwhelming influence of social class on personality development (Lynd & lynd, 1937; Warner, Meeker, & Eells, 1949; Mills, 1953; Mills 1956; Hollingshead 10 & Redlich, 1958) and (2) the increasing "homogenization" of personality in our culture where the individual's accept ability is contingent on his conforming, (Fromm, 1947; Reisman, Glazer, & Denny, 1957; Whyte, 1957). Using Hol- lingshead and Redlich's (1958) criteria for class differ ences with students, Mehlman and Warehime found no differ ences in SD ratings. They see their findings as further evidence of the pervasiveness of Social Desirability values, but doubt that their group adequately represented a diver sity of social class* Counter-evidence New approaches inevitably have their detractors* DeSoto, Kuethe and Bosley (1959) redefine the item cluster previously subsumed under the category of Social Desira bility as "desirability for well-being," contending that most individuals do not really know what is socially desir able. The conclusion is based on the high degree of simi larity (confidence level beyond p=.001) among ratings by college students of Edwards1 (1957) SD items under (1) stan dard instructions, (2) social approval judgments (items stated in the third person) and (3) opinions as to the "well being" of persons described in the items, Spilka (1961) concluded after attempts to correlate SD scores with other measures that SD as a concept is "operationally unclear." Siller and Chipman (1963) speak of a "response set paralysis" 11 and demonstrate through factor analysis of a large number of measures that response sets are, for the most part, spe cific to the measure used. The objection that 3D might be primarily a re flection of a large amount of pathological content found in the MMPI scales is expressed in a succinct fashion in a recent article by Heilbrun (1964). Earlier Crowne and Mar lowe (i960) met this difficulty by introducing a "new scale of Social Desirability independent of pathology," which is apparently a well-developed instrument with reliability, validity and internal consistency thoroughly documented* Subsequent research with this pathology-free scale (Marlowe & Crowne, 1961; Marlowe, 1962) bears out the existence of the SD variable among "normal" (usually student) subjects* Edwards, Diers, and Walker (1962), on the basis of additional factor analytic findings, say that the Marlowe-Crowne scale (1960) represents a lie scale because it requires agreement with perfection. Block (1965) in a lengthy monograph explores the pervasive Alpha factor of the MMPI and the implications of Social Desirability and Acquiescence response sets. He pro poses MMPI scales composed of equal numbers of items keyed "True" and "False" to minimize the effect of the Acquies cence set. He argues for an ego-strength interpretation of Alpha and, to refute the SD hypothesis, he presents what he calls an "Ego-Resiliency" scale on items of the MMPI 12 and demonstrates that it correlates highly with Alpha load ings and low with Edwards’ (1957) SD items, Sperber and Spanner (1962) found a high correla tion between SD ratings and self-report (item endorsement) by university students applying for psychiatric help, but noted that the difference between their coefficient of ,75 and Edwards’ (1953) coefficient of .83 for college students, using the same method, is statistically significant. Sper ber and Spanner interpret their results as evidence against Edwards' (1957) hypothesis that subjects endorse items be cause they perceive them as socially desirable. Scott (1963), concerned with differences between individual and group norms, had students check traits ad mired in others, traits that are "Right” and "Wrong," and traits that "others ought to admire." Results indicated that his subjects did not distinguish between what they personally admired and what they viewed as objectively right. The lower, but significant, correlation between personally admired traits and "prescriptions for other" is explained in terms of "externalization of subjective stan dards" (Sherif, 1936). Scott makes an important distinction in regard to SD responding. According to him, Edwards' (1957) thesis states essentially: If a subject would check an item as desirable, he would also tend to check it as descriptive of himself. Scott on the other hand would state: 13 If a subject would check an item as describing himself, he would also tend to check it as desir able* He concludes that if an individual's conception of the de sirable is a function of, rather than a cause of, his self description, there is no need to control for it* This view, in effect, supports the content of the items as valid, be cause they reflect primarily what the individual would say about himself and not a dissimulation determined by his perceptions of the socially desirable* One could make a case for whether ratings of what ‘ 'others ought to admire" are truly representative of per ceptions of Social Desirability as other researchers have used the concept* Such a criticism, however, does not bear on Scott's statement of the basic issue, which resembles a "chicken or the egg" kind of problem that defies resolution* Whereas the "ideas that psychologists hold dear" may have been considerably shaken, as Damarin and Messick (1965) suggest, by Edwards' (1957) proposition, the proponents of a strictly SD interpretation of subjects' responses have not yet demonstrated to the satisfaction of the critics that this has significant meaning* Sperber and Spanner (1962) state the position of the doubters rather clearly when they say: What we are objecting to is the assumption that since it is probably a fact that nearly all, if not all, aspects of human personality and social- interpersonal functioning are viewed from an evalu ative point of view by self and others, that a self- 14 descriptive statement must necessarily convey a systematically distorted picture of the person’s actual behavior, feelings or self-concept, (p* 111) Response tendencies as personality variables The suggestion that stereotyped responding may be related to personality has persistently reappeared, begin ning with Lorge in 1937, He suggested that the tendency to respond by "yeses" and "noes" and "?" may be symptomatic of a special aspect of personality. Cronbach (1950) also, after extensive exploration of response tendencies, pro posed this possibility, A number of efforts have been made to discover what other characteristics response styles may be related to. Gage, Leavitt, and Stone (1957) interpreted the high rela tionships between Acquiescence and Authoritarianism on the California F scale as an indication of over-conformity, low ego-strength pnd low intelligence. Cohn (1951)* publishing prior to Bass’s (1955) article, noted a relationship between F scale score and tendency to agree with statements and suggested that more Intelligent persons were able to pene trate the meaning of the items and thereby respond in the "proper" manner. A particularly provocative approach to the per sonality aspects of response tendencies was put forward by Berg (1957) when he suggested that systematic patterns of responding were not as revealing as deviations from the 15 pattern, Berg formulated a "deviation hypothesis," which includes two parts: 1, General pervasiveness of the deviant res ponse pattern — Those response patterns which are considered behaviorally atypical (abnormal) in the critical areas of func tioning tend to be associated with atypical responding in less critical areas (such as test behavior), 2, Tinimportance of specific content for eli citing deviant responses — Stimulus patterns of any type and of any sense modality may be used to elicit deviant response patterns, Berg noted that it is the applicability of these two facets of deviation that underlie the usefulness of such tests as the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (the pervasiveness of response tendency) and the Rorschach (the irrelevance of the stimulus content). Using a set of abstract designs and a scale for "Like" and "Dislike," (Perceptual Reaction Test) Berg es tablished typical patterns of response. He demonstrated correlations of a deviant response scale with the schizo phrenia (Sc) and the psychasthenia (Pt) scales of the MMPI of ,95 and ,87 respectively. He noted that schizophrenic subjects tended to "Like" the designs to a greater degree than average and that neurotic subjects tended to "Dislike" designs more often than normals* Comparing these tendencies with MMPI results, Berg concluded that "atypical ’True1 answers without regard to item content on the MMPI should be essentially the psychotic factor, and atypical ’False* 16 answers should essentially he the neurotic factor." Putting Berg's hypothesis to the test, Asch (1958) used draftees and veterans on a Speed of Response^Test de signed to measure response style. Seven psychologists rated the subjects separately on the basis of Rorschach, MMPI and Draw-a-Person test results for degree of adjust ment. Atypical response patterns were found to be signifi cantly related to judges1 ratings of poor adjustment. Asch's results also confirmed Berg’s finding that neurotics tend to respond negatively and psychotics tend to respond posi tively. An article by Couch and Keniston (1960) stimu lated much reaction by introducing the terms "yeasayers" and "naysayers" and suggesting that these types had signi ficance in relation to the Freudian personality theory con cept of "anality." Positive and negative responding, ac cording to these researchers, are marked by tendencies toward stimulus acceptance and stimulus rejection respec tively, which are characteristics strongly resembling Berg's (1957) "Like" and "Dislike" patterns. It is worth noting that overcriticalness. which perhaps is similar to "stimulus rejection," was also observed by Cronbach (1942) to be associated with responding "False" to an inappropriate degree. Frederiksen and Messick (1959) examined "criticalness" in relation to response set, using a battery of essay, ability and personality tests with a 17 group of naval cadets. These authors found that uncriti calness was correlated with Acquiescence responding, Jackson (1958) found a tendency to yield to stimulus field forces to be related to acquiescing on personality inventories, and tendency to resist change in perceptual orientation was related to social conformity. The above data constitute an increasing body of evidence that Acquiescence responding may be a behavioral manifestation of a personality type characterized by a pervasive inability to resist the impact of environmental influences or to deal appropriately with stimuli. Negative responding is repeatedly found associated with resistance, rejection, rigidity, constriction and other neurotic char acteristics. Those interested in the SD variable have taken exception to some of the Acquiescence findings, Edwards and Walker (1961) analyzed Couch and Keniston's data upon which the "yeasaying" hypothesis was based and concluded that agreement response set and SD responding were "hope lessly confounded," Taylor (1961 ) also examined the Couch and Keniston data and interpreted the results as indicating a Social Desirability set* Jackson and Messick (1961 ) sought to determine whether SD and Acquiescence were indeed confounded. They developed five scales, using MMPI items, equal to each other in SD value of items. Subjects' (prisoners) responses 18 were scored for item content and also for Acquiescence and SD responding. The scores were inter-correlated and factor analyzed, with the finding that two large orthogonal factois, accounting for 75$ of the common variances were clearly identifiable as Acquiescence and Social Desirability. Al though some researchers have been unable to replicate Jackson and Messick*s results (Solomon & Klein, 1963), many factor analytic studies have confirmed the separate identity of the Acquiescence and the SD factors (Edwards, Diers, & Walker, 1962; Siller & Chipman, 1963)* The behavioral concomitants of SD responding called for by McGee (1962), as mentioned on Page 1 of this paper, have been slow to appear. In his article he points to the inadequacy of attempts to determine personality characteristics associated with response styles in terms of items and scales on alternate tests, which are also sub ject to stylistic responding. He believes that the mean ings of response styles will be better clarified through studies involving situational performances. One such study published by Marlowe and Crowne (1961) revealed that subjects with high scores on the authors* pathology-free Social Desirability scale tended to express more favorable attitudes toward a boring pro cedure than did lower scorers. The authors speculated that need for approval, and not conformity, was the underlying personality variable. 19 In another study Crowne, Stephens, and Eelly (1961) found low correlations between measures of self acceptance and dependency, but a strikingly consistent re lationship between measures of self-acceptance and SD* Goldstein (1960) exploring SD in attitude research, also concluded that the relationship between SD and conformity was not upheld* Oouch and Keniston (1961) extrapolated their hy pothesis in regard to the relationship between response styles and Freudian theory* Presenting additional factor analytic evidence to support their thesis, they stated that SD represents denial of anxiety — apparently the first appearance of an attempt to interpret SD in terms of a theoretical construct. Jackson and Messick*s numerous publications, sometimes together, sometimes alone or with others, (Jack son & Messick, 1958; Frederiksen & Messick, 1959; Messlck, 1960; Jackson & Messick, 1961; Messick & Jackson, 1961; Damarin & Messick, 1965) probably represent the most experi mentally and statistically sophisticated work on response styles to be found in the literature. Whereas Edwards1 extensive work has sought mainly to demonstrate the pre sence of 3D, Messick and Jackson's studies have pointed out repeatedly that response styles not only account for a very large proportion of the variance in personality scales, but also may represent personality variables themselves* 20 These authors suggest that research be done on response styles directly as personality variables, but they avoid speculating on what the nature of the personality traits might be or what form the research should take* Damarin and Messick (1965) devote a monograph to summarizing the research on response styles, evaluating in particular the factor analytic and correlational methods used in the various studies. They believe that differences among the findings on response styles are explainable on the basis of adequacy of subjects, scales and statistical methods. In regard to the significance of response styles Damarin and Messick state: According to one point of view response style determinants are relatively superficial: They are defensive strategies that shield the all-important central sources of motivation from shattering con frontations with the outer world, but the experi mental data often lead us in another direction. We are often obliged to assume that response styles depend upon intelligence or upon attitudes toward the self or upon stimulus acceptance, and traits such as these may well play important roles in the psychic economy. Perhaps response styles are after all determined by attributes so central and so powerful that they drown out the person’s lesser and more peripheral traits, (p. 80) The successive findings and positions taken re flect the steady increase in the general impression that 3D may be a meaningful concept* Hathaway (1965), writing on all the important aspects of personality inventories in an up-to-date source book (Wolman, 1965), concludes that response sets are, after all, not such detractors that they 21 must be eliminated from personality measures, but rather that they may in themselves be relevant to personality. The comments about response styles which reach the most sophisticated level of theoretical orientation to appear so far are made by Loevinger (1965). In discussing clinical research Loevinger refers to polar functions, which she defines as pervasive abilities — measures which are likely to increase with age — and milestone sequences, such as interests and attitudes which are likely to increase with age up to a point, then decrease. These two types of functions, Loevinger points out, tend to manifest themselves in research results as linear and curvilinear functions re spectively. In a discussion of her "theory of a test response" Loevinger states that personality tests appear to measure response bias more than anything else. She feels' that true psychological assessment consists of discovering the perva sive traits and ways of measuring them, an accomplishment which must be done before sources of lesser variance can be appraised. "Intelligence," she says, "is the most pervasive determinant of manifest behavior and the first to be meas ured. There are reasons to think that the second trait in the hierarchy is ego-development. . . . Acquiescence and Social Desirability response tendencies are traits which can be expected to manifest in other behaviors than that of test-taking. Stereotypy appears to be a polar, constantly 22 decreasing, function of ego-developmentResponse styles, according to Loevinger, are manifestations of stereotypy, and should be regarded as milestone variables which increase and then decrease at certain stages of ego-development* Social Desirability and Schizophrenia Studies with schizophrenic subjects have primari ly been directed at whether this group perceives the Social Desirability of inventory items similarly to non-patient groups. Klett (1957b) found no difference between psychotic and non-ps^chotic groups in ratings of SD. Oowan, Staiman and Wolitzky (1961) compared data from schizophrenics, ’ ’intact" medical patients, and college students on their ratings of adjective trait descriptions. All three groups correlated with each other, with coefficients in the high •90s. Behavioral ratings on the schizophrenics by profes sional staff were found to differ in SD value from the sub jects’ judgments of the SD value of the same traits. The suggestion is made that the schizophrenics' functioning is not in agreement with their ability to perceive social norms. Berg’s (1957) and Asch's (1958) studies are two that focus upon stylistic responding rather than value perceptions, and typical styles of psychotics are included. Prom their findings it would be predicted that the response style most likely to appear with schizophrenics would be 23 Acquiescence (see Pages 15-16). None of the studies reviewed here dealt with SD responding as either typical or atypical of schizophrenics* Theoretical Considerations Turning to theoretical guidelines, a hypothesis might be formulated in regard to the relationship of SD responding and schizophrenic functioning, loevinger (1965) theorizes that response styles are milestone manifestations of a trait of ego-development which is polar in its distri bution in the general population. As milestones, they would be expected to increase and then decrease for an individual as he moves upward in the scale of ego-functioning. On the basis of what is known of schizophrenics and the research to date one might speculate (1) that schizophrenic function ing would fall at the lower pole of the continuum of ego- functioning and (2) that the response style typical of schizophrenics would represent the milestone trait at that point of the continuum. Prom this it would be expected that Acquiescence responding, rather than SD, would be the milestone variable associated with schizophrenia. In terms of the actual operations involved, Ac quiescence and SD, as response styles, form a contrast which is relevant to this speculation about placement on an ego- functioning continuum. With the Acquiescence response item content is irrelevant (Bass, 1955; Berg, 1957). The subject 24 must take note of the item oontent in order to make a so cially desirable response. On the basis of its being re lated to actual stimulus characteristics, SD responding would be seen as falling higher on the ego-functioning scale than would Acquiescence. Two assumptions may'be made, arising out of these arguments, which are the premises of this study: 1. Social Desirability responding is a behav ioral manifestation which is not neces sarily characteristic of schizophrenics. 2. Increase in SD responding by schizophrenic subjects may be associated with improve ment in functioning reflecting greater awareness of social norms. It is the purpose of this investigation to deter mine whether (a) schizophrenic subjects can be induced to increase their SD responding as a result of a training procedure, and whether (b) such increase will generalize to other responding. CHAPTER II THE PRESENT STUDY The goal of this study is to explore Social De sirability responding by schizophrenic subjects, specifi cally, the effects of training in SD responding. Increase in SD responding will be accepted as the criterion for the effectiveness of training. Two aspects of the effects of training will be examined: (1) the degree to which increase in SD responding is related directly to the items on which training is received (set training) and (2) the degree to which training in SD responding may appear in association with another list of items on which training was not received (generalization of training). The training procedure will consist of making value judgments in regard to (a) behav ioral items or (b) adjective traits, both from personality inventories. The same sets of items will be used in pre test and posttest procedures to assess increase in SD responding. Experimental Hypotheses The procedures carried out in this study are in tended to test the following hypotheses: 25 26 Hypothesis No. 1 A set to respond in a socially desirable manner to personality inventory items can be induced in schizophrenic subjects by means of a training procedure consisting of an instruction to make value judgments regarding the items. Hypothesis Ho. 2 A set to make socially desirable responses induced in this manner will manifest in an increase in the Social Desirability of self-description responses to personality inventory items. Hypothesis No. 3 Schizophrenic subjects given feedback information as to the accuracy of their value judgments in the training procedure will have a greater tendency to increase their Social Desirability responding than will subjects not given feedback. Hypothesis No. 4 A set to make socially desirable responses induced in the manner described will appear in the greater increase in SD score where inventory items are the same as those on which value judgments were made in the training procedure than where inventory items are not the same. Hypothesis No. 5 A set to make socially desirable responses induced in the manner described will be found to generalize to another list of personality inventory items on which training was not received. The propositions covered by the above hypotheses assume that schizophrenic subjects can learn a Social Desirability set (Hypothesis No. 1), that the SD set will 27 generalize to a self-description task (Hypothesis No. 2), that the formation of such a set is facilitated by a feed back procedure (Hypothesis No. 3)» that the 8D set, having been practiced in the training procedure will appear not only in responses to the same items on which training was received (Hypothesis No. 4)» but will also be strong enough to transfer to items on which training was not provided (Hypothesis No. 5). Subjects A total of 278 subjects were used in the study, including 139 males and 139 females. Analysis of much of the data is based on results from 238 subjects, 119 each of males and females, excluding two control groups which did not conform strictly to a factorial design. Selection of subjects The admission policy at Camarillo State Hospital provides for adult patients to be assigned rotationally to four divisions as they enter the hospital, and again rota tionally to wards within each division, the only restric tion being the individual’s sex. Thus except for influ ences within the wards themselves, a group of patients selected from any ward has a chance of being roughly equivalent to a group selected from any other ward. Patients from 5 female and 6 male wards were used for the study. Subjects were drawn, a group at a time from a single 28 ward, for each of the procedures. Since the results were not to be analyzed in terms of age, length of hospitalization or any detailed subject variables, these data were not obtained. Groups of 10 males and 10 females were sought for each procedure, and subjects were drawn in sets of 12 of each sex to allow for a 10$ loss. When more than 10 successfully finished the procedures, an individual not associated with the study was asked to draw one of more forms blindly out of those for the group to re duce the N to 10. When less than 10 persons completed, additional subjects were sought until the required number was reached. Two groups include 19 subjects each instead of 20, as one case had to be dropped in these instances after data collection was completed, because their forms were found to be too incomplete for meaningful scoring. Restrictions in selection of subjects Some subjects had to be excluded because they proved unsuitable. It was initially intended to determine the relationship of experimental results to a measure of intelligence and to classifications of patients as to "good" and "poor” premorbid status, according to the Phillips- Zigler scale (Zigler & Phillips, 1963)* The first pilot study, however, made it clear that the requirements of the procedures of the study tended to eliminate the "poor" premorbid group, who were found to be unable to understand 29 instructions, remember facts about themselves for the Phillips-Zigler form, grasp the first sample task on the intelligence test, or sit through the first session of the procedure. Selection of subjects, therefore, was based on "ability to read English" and "ability to follow instruc tions •" These tended to be primarily the "good" premorbid patients. As permission was obtained to draw patients from each ward, a member of the ward staff was asked to go through the list of patients and name all of those who filled these two qualifications. The names were then sepa rated into groups of 12, as described above, and called for at an appointed time to be taken for the experimental pro cedure , Elimination of subjects after selection Some patients were eliminated after selection of groups was made. No additional subjects were drawn to fill their places when this occurred. Reasons for elimination were: (1) refusal to participate, (2) non-availability after the first session because of interference of other hospital procedures such as medical appointments and work assignments, (3) unexplained absence when time arrived for procedures subsequent to the first session, and (4) evi dence in responses on the forms that the patient was too much out of contact with his surroundings to be aware of what he was doing. One indication of poor contact was a tendency to circle all of the item numbers on the paper form instead of the "True" or "False" response blanks. Another was the Acquiescence response pattern, in which subjects were ob served not to read the items at all, and were judged to be in such borderline contact as to be engaged in meaningless behavior. On the grounds that attention to the stimulus items was basic to the hypotheses under investigation, sub jects who at no time in the successive procedures showed signs of reading and responding to the items in some way were eliminated from the data. This exclusion was not ex tended to those who used the Acquiescence response or other inappropriate pattern in only part of the procedures. Development of Instruments Used The Adjective Oheck List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1965) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1945) were selected for use in this study because of their suitability for Social Desirability ratings and commonality of use in research and assessment. Wide use was believed to indicate a high degree of applicability to subjects and ease of administering. Certain modifications were found to be necessary in order to make these instruments (1) comparable to each other, (2) more understandable to the subjects, and (5) more compatible with specific experi- 51 mental procedures* Adjective Check List Social Desirability ratings on the 300 items of the ACL were obtained from 8 employees at Camarillo State Hospital as a basis for comparison in scoring patient res ponses. Kitchen and laundry workers were made available upon request by the hospital personnel officer in accordance with whether they could be spared from their duties* Persons in the "blue collar," or lower socio-economic group, were expected to express values which would constitute a "normal" frame of reference for a patient group. This expectation is based on the finding that schizophrenia is more often associated with lower class groups than any other (Hollings- head and Redlich, 1958). The employee raters consisted of 3 males and 5 females, ranging in age from 23 to 57* The judges were instructed to rate each adjective on a 7-point Semantic Differential type scale (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) with the following values designated: 1 - Extremely undesirable 2 - Quite undesirable 3 - Slightly undesirable 4 - Neither desirable nor -undesirable 5 - Slightly desirable 6 - Quite desirable 7 - Extremely desirable The average rating for each adjective was ascer tained for each sex separately. A difference between mean ratings by males and by females of 0.10 was non-significant 32 according to the t , test. The ratings of males and females were therefore combined to arrive at the SD value for each adjective. The distribution of values for 300 adjectives has a median of 3*6, a mean of 3*8, and a standard deviation of 1.6. (Appendix B contains the list of 300 adjectives with the obtained mean Social Desirability value for each, the "Favorable'1 and "Unfavorable" classifications provided by the test authors, and a graph, Figure 4, representing the distribution of mean values.) The mean SD ratings were used to determine socially desirable, undesirable and neutral classifications for the 300 adjectives. Using arbitrary cutoff points at scale values of 3*5 and 4*5 for the neutral category, the resulting frequencies successfully conformed to the bi-modal distri bution (Figure 4, Appendix B) as follows: Desirable - 4.6 and above 121 items Neutral - 3*5 to 4.5 57 items Undesirable - 3*4 and below 142 items Subjects were provided with 3-point rating scales for each adjective, with the categories labeled "Good," "Neutral," and "Bad." The SD scoring key for the personality inventory was based on self-descriptions endorsing the "Good," or "Desirable" adjectives, and omitting or denying the "Bad," or "Undesirable" traits. Items falling in the "Neutral" classification did not receive a score. The two pilot studies (described in Appendix A) revealed the following problems in regard to the Adjective 33 Check List instrument: 1* Patients appeared to become fatigued or bored by the list of 300 items, particularly when it was submitted to them up to three times, as the design of the study re quired in some of the procedures* 2. Many patients did not know the meaning of some of the adjectives. Giving definitions spontaneously as the subjects asked for them, revealed that the experimenter did not always use the same words, thus inadvertently varying the stimulus. Defining words orally also raised the ques tion of whether inflection and other cues would convey a "good" or a "bad" value on the word being defined* 3. Many patients had poor vision or reading dis abilities. For the experimenter to read the items to them again raised the possibility of bias* 4. The test, as it was designed by Gough, calls for the subject to place a check mark before the adjectives he believes describe him. Some subjects checked a very large number, and others as few as one or two. There was no way to ascertain whether subjects permitted themselves equal opportunity to respond to all items* It was also difficult to score such varied responsiveness in a meaningful way. To meet these problems the instrument was revised by (1) shortening it, (2) providing definitions with each adjective, and (3) presenting a ’ ’ True"-"False" response cue 34 with each item to force subjects to attend to the full list. The remaining problem cited above was met in the study procedure by having the items read to the non-readers by another patient, who presumably would be more indifferent as to the outcome of the study and also a more neutral stimulus than the experimenter. (The step-by-step procedure by which these alterations were made is described in Appen dix C L ) The resulting list contained 218 items. Instruc tions given orally to subjects were to circle the "T" for "True" before each adjective which did describe them and the "F" for "False" before each adjective which did not describe them. On the shortened form 88 items were keyed "True," and 105 keyed "False," while 25 items fell into the neutral range. The total possible 3D score was 193. (Appendix 0 contains the final list with their definitions and keyed responses for the Social Desirability scale.) The effect of curtailing the list of adjectives on the Social Desirability scores was assessed after the second pilot study. Twenty-two subjects had responded to the full 300 items of the ACL, A second count was made on their scores, based on 218 items, and the two scores were correlated. The resulting Pearson product-moment coefficient was .99, indicating that there was virtually no loss of scale value in reducing the number of items. 35 Minnesota Multinhasic Personality Inventory It was originally intended to draw 300 items from the total of 566 on the MMPI in order to make this instrument comparable to the ACL in length. Considerations of score were the initial criteria for selection. Edwards' (1957) Social Desirability (SD) scale of 59 items, plus the schizophrenia (Sc) scale of the MMPI with 78 items keyed in the opposite direction were the first selected. Items from the critical items (Cl) scale (59 items) were added, since this scale contains the kinds of pathology that are often associated with hospitalization. Elimination of all duplications and overlapping produced 127 items. Prom these ratings 3 lists of neutral items were drawn based on number of "Neutral" ratings each item on the list received. The total was 157. Other scales of path ology of the MMPI were entered for 16 additional items to make up a total of 500, with a maximum possible SD score of 143* The order of these items on the instrument was determined by cutting separate strips from a typed list, tumbling them in a box, and drawing them one at a time. The entire set of 566 MMPI items was submitted to the 8 employee judges (described under development of the ACL instrument). They were given a 5-point scale for each item and asked to judge whether each statement would be a "Good” or a "Neutral" or a "Bad" thing to be true about a person. The objective was to derive a set of items which 35 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory It was originally intended to draw 300 items from the total of 566 on the MMPI in order to make this instrument comparable to the ACL in length* Considerations of score were the initial criteria for selection, Edwards' (1957) Social Desirability (SD) scale of 39 items, plus the schizophrenia (Sc) scale of the MMPI with 78 items keyed in the opposite direction were the first selected. Items from the critical items (Cl) scale (39 items) were added, since this scale contains the kinds of pathology that are often associated with hospitalization. Elimination of all duplications and overlapping produced 127 items* From these ratings 3 lists of neutral items were drawn based on number of "Neutral” ratings each item on the list received. The total was 157* Other scales of path ology of the MMPI were entered for 16 additional items to make up a total of 300, with a maximum possible 3D score of 143. The order of these items on the instrument was determined by cutting separate strips from a typed list, tumbling them in a box, and drawing them one at a time. The entire set of 566 MMPI items was submitted to the 8 employee judges (described under development of the ACL instrument). They were given a 3-point scale for each item and asked to judge whether each statement would be a "Good" or a "Neutral" or a "Bad" thing to be true about a person. The objective was to derive a set of items which 36 could be considered neutral. The "Good” and "Bad" judgments were included to provide anchor points between which "Neu tral" could occur. With the finding in the first two pilot studies that patients reacted negatively to the length of the in struments, it was decided to shorten the MMPI list. The list was reduced to those items meeting only the initial criteria for inclusion. Thus the instrument used in the study proper consisted on Edwards' (1957) 3D scale, the Sc scale for schizophrenia, the critical items (GI) scale and the first list only of the neutral items (4 to 6 "Neutral" ratings out of 8 by the employee judges). This constituted a set of 162 items. Sixty-three items were keyed "True," and 64 items were keyed "False," with a total possible score for Social Desirability of 127. Neutral items were not scored. To meet some of the other difficulties incurred with MMPI items in the pilot studies, modifications in the wording of some statements were made in order to make them clearer to subjects. (These steps are described in Appen dix D.) To establish the equivalence of the scoring of the altered items a separate group of 28 hospitalized subjects was administered both the original and the altered sets of MMPI items, and their SD scores were correlated. The Pear son product-moment coefficient for the subjects' scores on the two sets was .92. The situation was considered compar- 36 could be considered neutral. The "Good" and ''Bad" judgments were included to provide anchor points between which "Neu tral" could occur. With the finding in the first two pilot studies that patients reacted negatively to the length of the in struments, it was decided to shorten the MMPI list. The list was reduced to those items meeting only the initial criteria for inclusion. Thus the instrument used in the study proper consisted on Edwards' (1957) SD scale, the Sc scale for schizophrenia, the critical items (Cl) scale and the first list only of the neutral items (4 to 6 "Neutral" ratings out of 8 by the employee judges). This constituted a set of 162 items. Sixty-three items were keyed "True," and 64 items were keyed "False," with a total possible score for Social Desirability of 127. Neutral items were not scored. To meet some of the other difficulties incurred with MMPI items in the pilot studies, modifications in the wording of some statements were made in order to make them clearer to subjects. (These steps are described in Appen dix D.) To establish the equivalence of the scoring of the altered items a separate group of 28 hospitalized subjects was administered both the original and the altered sets of MMPI items, and their SD scores were correlated. The Pear son product-moment coefficient for the subjects' scores on the two sets was .92. The situation was considered compar— 57 able to parallel form reliability coefficients, which are expected to be of the order of .90 (Super & Crites, 1962). [ Appendix D contains the final set of items, including also (1) the number of the original MMPI item on which each item was based, (2) the scale from which it was drawn, and (5) the "True1 1 or "False" key for SD.] Instructions to subjects tested with the MMPI were to circle the "T" for "True" before each statement they be lieved to be accurate about them, and the "F" for "False" before each statement they believed to be inaccurate. Forms used in training procedures The same items used in the testing procedures were submitted to subjects in the training situation with blanks provided for the judging task. Three things became apparent in the pilot studies: (1) Rating scales for a greater refinement than a 3-point judgment ("Good," "Neutral}' or "Bad") introduced more complexity than most schizophrenic subjects seemed able to handle. (2) The statement form of the MMPI items with the inclusion of the personal pronoun induces a "True"-"False" response set instead of a tendency to make a judgment. (3) Attempts to correct this by changing the personal pronouns "I" and "my" to "one" and "one's" on the training form introduced further difficulties by giving items a stilted quality remote from familiar usage. 38 Therefore the MMPI training form was constructed (l) with the 3-point scale for each item, (2) with items presented as participial phrases, and (3) with the use of the colloquial, impersonal "you" and "your" wherever a pronoun was necessary. Thus Item #149, Once in a while I nut off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. became in the training form, Putting off until tomorrow what you ought to do today. The MMPI training form as used with the experimental groups may he found in Appendix E* Constructing the ACL training form did not present a problem. With adjective-trait items, it is an easily made shift in set from a "True, , -"False" self-description task to a judgment rating procedure simply with the presen tation of a different blank for the responses. The ACL training form used with the experimental groups may be found in Appendix E. Instructions for both ACL and MMPI lists were, "For each item put a mark under the heading according to whether you believe it is a good or a neutral or a bad way for a person to be." Procedure Subjects were escorted in groups of 24 to the testing area. They were told that the experimenter was a psychologist, that the ensuing procedure was for research purposes, and that the answers they gave would be confiden- 39 tial and would have no bearing on what was done with them at the hospital. Cigarettes were offered throughout the testing sessions as the only tangible reward. Each of the procedures described below was admin istered in a separate session on successive occasions. Pretesting All groups responded "True” or "False" to person ality items on either the MMPI or the ACL. This procedure constituted the first experimental session. Training 1. Experimental subjects receiving feedback were given the following procedures: a. The first half of the items on either the MMPI or the ACL were administered with a 3-point rating scale for judgments of "Good," "Neutral," or "Bad." This procedure constituted the second session for these subjects. b. At the beginning of the third session, subjects in feedback groups had their papers from the second session returned to them. The items with "correct" responses based on SD keying were read back to them. They were allowed to mark or alter their previous responses as they wished. Following the feedback in the same session the second half of the items on the same instrument were administered for ratings on the 3-point scale. No feedback 40 was administered for the second half of the items* 2. Experimental subjects not receiving feedback were administered all of the items of either the MMPI or the ACL with a 3-point rating scale for judgments of "Good," "Neutral,” or "Bad*" This procedure constituted the second session for these subjects* 3. Control sub.iects responded "True" or "False" in self-description on either the MMPI or the ACL as in the pretest procedure* This measure was expected to control for exposure to the items, and constituted the second session for these subjects. 4. An additional two groups of control subjects (not included in some data analyses) received no treatment between pre- and post-testing. Posttesting All groups responded "True" or "False" to person ality inventory items on either the MMPI or the ACL. In each case the instrument used in the posttesting was the same as was used for that group in the pretesting. This procedure constituted the fourth session for the feedback groups (No* 1 described above), the third session for the non-feedback groups (No. 2 described above) and for the self-description control groups (No. 3 described above), and the second session for the non-treatment control groups (No. 4 described above). VARIABLE 41 J N H C F A SET TftMH’S (rSN'LZTH OF TRAIN'S 3*M C a l t e r n a t e i n s t r u m e n t E F F E C T S flf TEA1HI Nft VARIABLE N«1 I Figure 1. Relationship of 12 experimental and control groups to variables controlled in the design of the study. (Under Variable No. 1t "same" and "alternate" refer to the relationship of the training instrument to the instrument used in pre- and post-test.) Table 1 - DESCRIPTION OP GROUPS AND PROCEDURES * N Subjects Training* Treatment* Training* Group M F Tot Pretest Instr'mt Posttest Condition Effect Experimental groups A 9 10 19 ACL MMPI ACL Feedback Generalization B 10 10 20 MMPI MMPI MMPI Feedback Set C 10 10 20 ACL MMPI ACL Non-Feedback Generalizat ion D 10 10 20 MMPI MMPI MMPI Non-Feedback Set F 10 10 20 ACL ACL ACL Feedback Set G 10 10 20 MMPI ACL MMPI Feedback Generalizat ion H 10 9 19 ACL ACL ACL Non-Feedback Set I 10 10 20 MMPI ACL MMPI Non-Feedback Generalization Control groups J 10 10 20 ACL ACL ACL Self-Description Set K 10 10 20 MMPI ACL MMPI Self-Description Generalization L 10 10 20 ACL ACL No Treatment None M 10 10 20 MMPI --- MMPI No Treatment None N 10 10 20 ACL MMPI ACL Self-Description Generalization 0 10 10 20 MMPI MMPI MMPI Self-Description Set * * * * *Variable No.1, Variable No. 2, Variable No. 3 See text and Figure 2 for explanation * 43 ****** A graphic representation of the relationship of these procedures may he seen in Figure 1 , and Tahle 1 lists the groups and procedures. Variables 1 , 2, and referred to in the figure and the table, are the relevant dimensions on which the design of the study permits comparisons, and are defined as follows: Variable No. 1 — Effects of training refers to whether results are related only to items on which training was given (set training) or whether results appear also on items on which training was not given (generalization of train ing) . Variable No. 2 — Treatment condition refers to the training procedures admin istered to the several groups (feedback, non-feedback, or self-description control). Variable No. 3 — Instrument used in training refers to whether ACL or MMPI items were used in the judging procedure. Predictions In regard to the hypotheses formulated earlier in this chapter, the following predictions are made concern ing specific results: 1. Percent of items judged correctly in the socially desirable direction will be higher in the second half of the list of items used in training than in the first half for subjects receiving training, i.e. all experimental groups (Hypothesis No.1). 2. Subjects receiving training in SD judging, i.e. 44 all experimental groups, will show greater in crease in SD responding in the posttest scores than will subjects who do not receive training, i.e. all control groups (Hypothesis No* 2). 3. Subjects receiving feedback information in the training procedure will show a greater increase in SD score in the posttest than will subjects who do not receive feedback (Hypothesis No* 3)* 4. Subjects receiving training in SD judging on the same items as those used in pre- and post-testing will show a larger increase in SD responding in their posttest scores than will subjects receiving training on dissimilar items (Hypothesis No. 4). 5. Subjects receiving training on an alternate set of items from those used in pre- and post-testing will show a greater increase in SD score in the posttest than will subjects receiving no train ing, i.e. control groups, but less of an increase than subjects receiving training on the same items as are used in pre- and post-testing (Hypothesis No, 5)* CHAPTER III RESULTS Subjects* scores throughout were based on the agreement of their responses with the scale for Social Desirability, determined as described in Chapter II under "Development of Instruments Used," (pp* 30-27)* Derivation of Scores The critical results of this study focused upon change in each subject's SD score between pretest and post test, according to treatment condition. Pretest and posttest scores 1 • Adjective Check List pretest and posttest scores consisted of the simple count of correct responses, with a total possible of 193* 2* Minnesota Multiphasio Personality Inventory pretest and posttest raw scores reached a total possible count of 127. To make these comparable to the ACL's range of 193» each score was multiplied by a factor (1.52) equal to the ratio of 193 to 127* Difference scores Difference scores were determined for each subject 45 46 by subtracting his pretest score from his posttest score. Scores on training procedures In order to evaluate the effects of feedback upon the training procedure itself, the number of items rated correctly (according to the SD scale) was converted to percent correct in the first half of the training pro cedure (before feedback), and the percent correct in the second half (after feedback). For groups which did not receive feedback, the percent rated correctly was deter mined for the first half and second half separately for comparison with scores in the feedback groups. Control groups which received a self-description procedure in lieu of training were also scored for percent of socially desir able responses in the first half and second half separately. Thus for each subject the following scores were derived from his training protocol: 1, Percent correct, first half of training, 2, Percent correct, second half of training. 3. Difference score (percent correct second half of training minus percent correct first half). 4. Total training score, based on scale-keyed count, for comparison with pre- and post test scores. tWhere the MMPI was used, each score was multiplied by the ratio factor 1.52.) 47 Scores used in the analyses are listed for each subject, by group, in Appendix P. Mean values for pre- and post-test scores and mean difference scores are listed in Table 2, Table 3 includes mean percent correct in the first half of training (before the feedback procedure in feedback groups and comparable items for other groups), mean percent correct in second half of training and mean change* In Table 4 are total training scores, listed with mean pretest and posttest values for each group* Table 5 shows a rank order of groups by amount of mean change between pre- and post-test scores and Table 6 shows a similar rank ordering for mean change in percent correct between first half and second half of training. Table 7 lists groups in rank or der according to mean total training score, with mean pre test and posttest scores included for comparison. Outcome of Predictions Results were analyzed first in relation to the predictions listed at the end of Chapter 11. Prediction No* 1 The analysis of variance procedure, as outlined by Lindquist (1953> PP* 220-230) for 3-dimensional factor ial designs, was applied to the training scores, using dif ferences in percent correct between first half and second Table 2 MEAN PRETEST, POSTTEST, AND DIFFERENCE SCORES Testing Group N Instr'mt Experimental groups Training Instr'mt Tr'tmt Cond'tn Training Effect Mean Pretest Score Mean Posttest Score Difference Between Means ___ A 19 ACL MMPI F'dbk Gen'lztn 151.00 159.00 8.00 B 20 MMPI MMPI F'dbk Set 14-9.49 154.58 5.09 C 20 ACL MMPI Non-F1dbk Gen’lztn 144.30 149.45 5.15 D 20 MMPI MMPI Non-F1dbk Set 143.18 146.68 3.50 F 20 ACL ACL F'dbk Set 143.35 146.55 3.20 G 20 MMPI ACL F'dbk Gen'lztn 151.47 156.46 4.99 H 19 ACL ACL Non-F'dbk Set 140.57 144.47 4.10 I 20 MMPI ACL Non-F'dbk Gen'lztn 150.86 156.03 5.17 Control groups N 20 ACL MMPI Self-Desc. Gen'lztn 148.00 153.20 5.20 0 20 MMPI MMPI Self-Desc. Set 157.02 155.57 -1.45 J 20 ACL ACL Self-Desc. Set 159.85 160.25 .40 K 20 MMPI ACL Self-Desc. Gen'lztn 143.18 147.29 4.11 L 20 ACL —-. . No Tr'tmt None 145.45 150.30 4.85 M 20 MMPI — ---- No Tr'tmt None 138.93 142.80 3.87 00 Table 3 MEAN PERCENT CORRECT FIRST HALF OF TRAINING, SECOND HALF OF TRAINING, AND MEAN CHANGE Group N Testing InstrTmt Experimental groups Training Instr'mt Tr'tmt Cond'tn Training Effect Mean # R 1st Half of Tr'ng Mean R 2nd Half of Tr'ng Mean Tr'ng Difference Score____ A 19 ACL MMPI Feedback Gen'lztn 64.08 77.68 13.60 B 20 MMPI MMPI Feedback Set 76.68 81 .10 4.42 C 20 ACL MMPI Non-F'dbk Gen1lztn 71.12 74.18 3.06 D 20 MMPI MMPI Non-F * dbk Set 68.15 68.81 .66 F 20 ACL ACL Feedback Set 70.95 76.48 5.53 G 20 MMPI ACL Feedback Gen'lztn 79.66 78.16 -1.50 H 19 ACL ACL Non-f’dbk Set 66.24 63.60 -2.64 I 20 MMPI ACL Non-F'dbk Gen'lztn 68.16 65.35 -2.81 Control groups J 20 ACL ACL Self-Desc. Set 81.83 83.91 2.08 K 20 MMPI ACL Self-Desc. Gen'lztn 76.05 75.00 -1.05 N 20 ACL MMPI Self-Desc. Gen'lztn 75.20 76.05 .85 0 20 MMPI MMPI Self-Desc. Set 78.53 81.05 2.52 Table 4 TOTAL TRAINING SCORES WITH MEAN PRETEST AND POSTTEST SCORES Mean Mean Mean Testing Training Tr’tmt Training Pretest Training Posttest Group N Instr’mt Instr’mt Cond’tn Effect Score Score Score Experimental groups A 19 ACL MMPI Feedback B 20 MMPI MMPI Feedback C 20 ACL MMPI Non-F’dbk D 20 MMPI MMPI Non-F»dbk E 20 ACL ACL Feedback G 20 MMPI ACL Feedback H 19 ACL ACL Non-F'dbk I 20 MMPI ACL Non-F'dbk Control groups N 20 ACL MMPI Self-Desc, 0 20 MMPI MMPI Self-Desc. J 20 ACL ACL Self-Desc. K 20 MMPI ACL Self-Desc. Gen’lztn Set Gen’lztn Set 151.00 149.49 144.50 145.18 155.92 152.00 159.58 152.16 159.00 154.58 149.45 146.68 Set Gen’lztn Set Gen’lztn 145.55 151.47 140.57 150.86 142.15 152.21 125.42 128.95 146.55 156.46 144.47 156.05 Gen’lztn Set 148.00 157.02 146.07 155.59 155.20 155.57 Set Gen'lztn 159.85 145.18 159.85 145.80 160.25 147.29 V J l o Table 5 RANK ORDER OF GROUPS ACCORDING TO MEAN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRETEST AND POSTTEST SCORES Mean Mean Difference Group Testing Instr’mt Training Instr’ mt Tr1tment Cond*tn Training Effect Pretest Score Posttest Score Betwei Means A ACL MMPI Feedback Gen’lztn 151.00 159.00 8.00 N ACL MMPI Self-Desc* Gen'lztn 148.00 153.20 5.20 I MMPI ACL Non-F’dbk Gen’lztn 150.86 156.03 5.17 C ACL MMPI Non-F’dbk Gen’lztn 144.30 149.45 5.15 B MMPI MMPI G’dbk Set 149.49 154.58 5.09 G MMPI ACL F’dbk Gen’lztn 151.47 156.46 4.99 L ACL --- No Tr’tmt None 145.45 150.30 4.85 K MMPI ACL Self-Desc* Gen’lztn 143.18 147.29 4.11 H ACL ACL Non-F*dbk Set 140.37 144.47 4.10 M MMPI --- No Tr’tmt None 138.93 142.80 3.87 D MMPI MMPI Non-F’dbk Set 143.18 146.68 3.50 F ACL ACL F’dbk Set 143.35 146.55 3.20 J ACL ACL Self-Desc. Set 159.85 160.25 .40 0 MMPI MMPI Self-Desc. Set 157.02 155.57 -1 .45 Table 6 RANK ORDER OF GROUPS ACCORDING TO MEAN BETWEEN FIRST HALF AND SECOND CHANGE IN PERCENT CORRECT HALF OF TRAINING Mean % R Mean % R Group Testing Instr'mt Training Instr'mt Tr'tmt Cond*tn Training Effect 1st Half of Tr'ng 2nd Hal of Tr*i A ACL MMPI Feedback Gen'lztn 64.08 77.68 F ACL ACL Feedback Set 70.95 76.48 B MMPI MMPI Feedback Set 76.68 81 .10 C ACL MMPI Non-F'dbk Gen'lztn 71.12 74.18 0 MMPI MMPI Self-Desc. Set 78.53 81.05 J ACL ACL Self-Desc. Set 81.83 83.91 N ACL MMPI Self-Desc. Gen'lztn 75.20 76.05 D MMPI MMPI Non-F*dbk Set 68.15 68.81 K MMPI ACL Self-Desc. Gen'lztn 76.05 75.00 G MMPI ACL Feedback Gen'lztn 79.66 78.16 H ACL ACL Non-F'dbk Set 66.24 63.60 I MMPI ACL Non-F*dbk Gen’lztn 68.16 65.35 Mean Tr'ng Difference Score____ 13.60 5.53 4.42 3.06 2.52 2.08 .85 .66 -1 .05 -1.50 -2.64 -2.81 Table 7 RAM! ORDER OP GROUPS ACCORDING TO MEAN Group Testing Instr*mt Training Inst^mt Tr1 tment Cond1tn Training Effect J ACL ACL Self-Desc, Set 0 MMPI MMPI Self-Desc. Set G MMPI ACL Feedback Genflztn B MMPI MMPI Feedback Set N ACL MMPI Self-Desc. Gen^ztn K MMPI ACL Self-Desc. Gen^ztn P ACL ACL Feedback Set C ACL MMPI Non-F1dbk Gen^ztn A ACL MMPI Feedback Gen^ztn D MMPI MMPI Non-F1dbk Set I MMPI ACL Non-F1dbk Gen!lztn H ACL ACL Non-F1dbk Set TOTAL TRAINING SCORE Mean Mean Mean Pretest Training Posttest Score Score Score 159.85 159.85 160.25 157.02 153.59 155.57 151.47 152.21 156.46 149.49 152.00 154.58 148.00 146.07 153.20 145.18 145.80 147.19 143.55 142.15 146.55 144.30 139.38 149.45 o o . L T \ 135.92 159.00 143.18 132.16 146.68 150.86 128.95 156.03 140.37 ~ 125.42 144.47 V J 1 54 half of training. The summary of this analysis may be seen in Table 8. As can be seen, the treatment-conditions vari able (feedback, non-feedback, and self-description control) accounted for a significant amount of the variance, as did also the instrument-used-in-training variable. These two factors combined produced the most significant interaction variance, suggesting that each contains elements which markedly affected the learning process under investigation. A _ t test of significance for correlated pairs of means (Guilford, 1965, p. 184) was applied to the mean differences in percent correct, first half and second half of training, separately for feedback, non-feedback and self-description groups. A difference of 5.49 for feedback groups was found to be significant beyond p=.01. Differ ences of -0.4 for non-feedback groups and 1.1 for self description control groups were not significant. A t test was applied similarly to mean differences in percent correct between first half and second half of training according to instrument used in training. A mean difference of 4.1 for groups receiving the MMPI in the training procedure was significant beyond the p=.01 level. A mean difference of -0.034 for groups receiving the AOL in training was not significant. These results are interpreted as a partial con firmation of Prediction No. 1 that percent of items judged correctly in the second half of the list of items used in Table 8 SUMMARY OP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TRAINING PROCEDURE, SECOND HALF MINUS FIRST HALF DIFFERENCE SCORES Between sets Effects of training Treatment condition Sum of Squares 1.87 1,475.47 Instrument used in trTng 1,014.16 Degrees of Freedom 1 2 1 Mean Square 1.87 737.74 1 ,014.16 .0217 8.5486 11.7516 n.s. .01 .01 Interaction Effects of training with Treatment condition 160.00 Effects of training with Instrument used in tr’ng 662.31 Treatment condition with Instrument used in tr’ng 328.56 Effects of training with Treatment condition with Instrument used in tr’ng 664.17 2 1 2 80.00 662.31 164.28 332.08 .9270 7.6745 1.9036 3.8480 n.s. .01 n.s, .05 Within variance 19.504.46 Total 23,811.00 226 237 86.30 \ _ n VJl 56 training will be higher than in the first half for subjects receiving training. This prediction was borne out where the training included feedback information, and where MMPI items were used, but not with other training procedures* Prediction No* 2 The analysis of variance technique for a 3-dimensional factorial design (Lindquist, 1955) was applied to the difference scores between pre- and post-tests for the 12 groups forming the 5 variables. The summary appears in Table 9. As can be seen, none of the variables on which comparisons were made accounted for a significant amount of the variance. According to this finding Prediction No. 2 is not confirmed, as these results indicate that training did not influence 3D responding in the posttest more than control procedures. However, examination of individual difference scores (Appendix P) and mean changes between pretest and posttest scores (Table 2), suggests that more subjects in creased their 3D responding than decreased. The frequencies for increasing or decreasing in each group may be seen in Table 10, along with the probabilities for each binomial split. It can be seen that the number increasing in score was significantly greater than chance at the p=.05 level in all but 5 groups, the highest significance occurring in feedback groups tested for effects of generalization. Table 9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE POSTTEST MINUS PRETEST DIFFERENCE SCORES Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F P Between Sets i Effects of training 113.93 1 113.93 .8729 n.s* Treatment condition 70.75 2 35.37 .2710 n.s. Instrument used in training 19.04 1 19.04 .1459 n.s. Interaction Effects of training with Treatment condition 52.27 2 26.13 .2002 n.s. Effects of training with Instrument used in training 1.24 1 1.24 .0095 n.s. Treatment condition with Instrument used in training 30.81 2 15.41 .1181 n.s. Effects of training with Treatment condition with Instrument used in training 97.08 2 48.54 .3719 n.s. Within Variance 29.496,76 226 130.52 Total 29, 0 0 0 0 • ^ — 0 0 0 0 237 V J1 Table 10 PROBABILITIES OP OBSERVED FREQUENCIES OP SUBJECTS INCREASING IN SCORE BETWEEN PRETEST AND POSTTEST roup N Testing Instr’mt Training Instr’mt Tr’tment Cond’tn Training Effect Number Increased Number Decreased P* cperimental groups A 19 ACL MMPI Feedback Gen’lztn 18 1 .00004 B 20 MMPI MMPI Feedback Set 14 6 .057 C 20 ACL MMPI Non-F’dbk Gen1lztn 16 4 .006 D 20 MMPI MMPI Non-F’dbk Set 12 8 .251 F 20 ACL ACL Feedback Set 16 4 .006 G 20 MMPI ACL Feedback Gen’lztn 18 2 .0002 H 19 ACL ACL Non-F'dbk Set 14 5 .032 I 20 MMPI ACL Non-F’dbk Gen’lztn 14 6 .057 Control groups J 20 ACL ACL Self-Desc. Set 15 5 .021 K 20 MMPI ACL Self-Desc. Gen’lztn 15 5 .021 L 20 ACL —— « No Tr’tmt None 13 7 .131 M 20 MMPI --- No Tr’tmt None 12 8 .251 N 20 ACL MMPI Self-Desc. Gen’lztn 14 6 .057 0 20 MMPI MMPI Self-Desc. Set 15 5 .021 ♦Probabilities from Binomial Expansion Table No. 1, Statistical Research Group, Princeton University (1945)* 59 The overall amount of increase in score in the posttests for all groups was submitted to a t test for cor related pairs of means (Guilford, 1965), and the obtained value of 4*96 was found to be significant at the p=.05 level* The obtained frequencies for increasing or decreas ing in score were submitted to a Ohi Square test (Guilford, 1965, p. 251) to determine if the effects-of-training vari able (set-training or generalization of training) was related to these results. A value of 1.87 was significant at p=.20, which places it within the range of chance variation. Simi larly a Chi Square test was applied to the increase and decrease frequencies in relation to the treatment-condition variable (feedback, non-feedback, and self-description control). The resulting figure of 3.8448 was again signi ficant at p=.20* These results are interpreted as indicating that Prediction No. 2 is not supported, in that increased SD responding in the posttests was not related to training procedures. The significant increase appearing in all groups is seen as having other implications* Prediction No. 5 According to the analysis of variance results appearing in the summary (Table 9) the prediction that feed back groups would show a greater tendency to increase their SD responding in the posttests than groups who did not 60 receive feedback in the training procedure was not con firmed* Prediction No* 4 This prediction, involving the expectation that subjects receiving training in making SD judgments on the same list of items as those used in the pre- and post testing would increase their SD responding in the posttests more than would subjects receiving training on dissimilar (alternate instrument) items, was not borne out, according to the analysis of variance results presented in Table 9* Prediction No* 5 This prediction, referring to a tighter break down of the elements in Prediction No. 4, was based on the expectation that training in SD judging of personality in ventory items would manifest in increased posttest SD res ponding, (a) to the greatest degree with groups where items were the same throughout the procedures, (b) to a lesser degree with groups receiving dissimilar items in training, and (c) unnoticeably with control groups receiving self description procedure or no training. The prediction was not confirmed, according to Table 8, The most interesting finding in regard to this prediction is the apparent reversal of the expected ordinal relationship. The evidence indicates a greater change in 3D responding in posttests for groups tested for generali zation of training (alternate items in training) than for groups tested for set learning (same items in training). This trend is apparent particularly in Tahle No. 5> which shows a clustering of generalization groups at the top of the rank order of mean pre- and post-test change. In view of the fact that the analysis of variance technique included control groups as well as experimental groups in assessing the effects-of-training variable, it was considered appropriate to apply a t _ test separately to experimental groups only, contrasting use of same or alter nate items in training. Contrasted in this fashion, the difference between the mean of 6.29 for groups trained on alternate items and the mean of 3*97 for groups receiving the same items was non-significant. Other Findings The tables presented above (pp* 48-53) give rise to further possibilities beyond those contained in the predictions. Rank order of training results The step of ranking groups according to mean total training score (Table 7 ) reveals that the higher ranking groups changed little between pretest score, training score, and posttest score, while low ranking groups 62 show a considerable drop in total training score below the level of their pre- and post-tests. These relationships become clear in Figure 2 where the steepness of the slope of the lines for each group emphasizes the degree of change between pretest and training score, and between training score and posttest. The most important facts revealed by the material in Table 7 and Figure 2 are the tendencies for control groups to rank at the top of the list and for non-feedback groups to fall at the bottom, while feedback groups tend toward the middle of the range. The suggestion is that schizophrenic subjects make lower Social Desirability scores in a judging procedure than they do in a self-description task. This possibility was put to the test in a closer analysis of the data in the feedback groups. If their position in the middle of the rank order by total training score came about as a result of the averaging of their lower scores (like those of the non-feedback groups) in the first half of training and their higher scores (like those of the control groups) in the second half of training, after receiving specific instruction in SD values, then the indications might be that schizophrenics do not judge the SD value of items as correctly as their SD responding scores would suggest. Accordingly the pretest scores were converted to 65 150 10 HO M i M tA H HCAN MOAN RRCTC»T TOTAL R©*TTt*T SCORC TRAIMlNC- 5 C 0 A F • coRr ________ feedback groups ________ Hon-feediack groups _________ delf-uescription control groups Figure 2. Mean Jocial Desirability scores for If groups, sn >wing comparative changes in group score in successive procedures. Droups may be identified by letter. This graph should be read in conjunction with Table 8. 64 percent correct to make them comparable to the first-half- of-training scores. The means of these values for each group are presented in Table 11, along with mean percent correct in the second half of training and posttest. Figure 3 represents this data for the feedback groups. As can be seen, there is a tendency for scores in the first half of training to be lower and for performance to rise in the second half of training, after feedback, to a level comparable with pre- and post-test scores. The figures for percent correct in pretest and percent correct in first half of training were then analyzed separately for groups according to treatment condition, using the t test. The obtained mean difference of 4*32 for feedback groups was almost significant at the p=.05 level, the t value being 1.8222. A difference of 6.32 for non-feedback groups between the same sets of scores was significant beyond the p=.05 level. With self-description control groups the mean percent correct in the first half of training was found to be higher than in the pretest by 1.33. This difference was hon-significant, according to the j t test. These findings are summarized as follows: Table 11 MEAN PERCENT CORRECT PRETEST, EIRST HALE OE TRAINING, SECOND HALE OP TRAINING AND POSTTEST Mean f o R Mean$ R Testing Training Training Mean i < > R 1st Half 2nd Half Mean %R Group Instr’mt InstrTmt Effect Pretest of Tr’ng of Tr'ns Posttest Feedback groups A ACL MMPI Gen'lztn 78.23 64.08 77.68 82.36 B MMPI MMPI Set 77.46 76.68 81.10 80.12 E ACL ACL Set 74.95 70.95 76.48 75.95 G MMPI ACL Gen’lztn 78.34 79.66 78.16 82.21 Non-feedback groups C ACL MMPI Gen’lztn 74.77 71.12 74.18 73.74 D MMPI MMPI Set 74.21 68.15 68.61 75.97 H ACL ACL Set 72.64 66.24 63.60 74.82 I MMPI ACL Gen’lztn 78.16 68,16 65.35 80.85 Self-description control J ACL ACL Set 77.32 81.83 83.91 K MMPI ACL Gen'lztn 74.16 76.05 75.00 80.28 N MMPI MMPI Set 76.62 75.20 76.05 79.37 0 MMPI MMPI Set 78.41 78.53 81.05 68.51 [ \ c r > 66 9 0 -o c MfAN- 77.04 I - e 0 Group A, ACL -MMPI-ACL 0 0 Group B, MMPI-MMPI-MMPI ^____ * Group G, MMPI-AGL -MMPI ^____ A Group F, ACL -ACL -ACL Figure 3 - Mean percent SD score in successive procedures for 4 feedback groups. Circles in dicate MMPI used in the training procedure, xfs indicate training on the ACL. Solid lines re present measurement for generalization of training, dashed lines represent set training. 67 Mean Differences in Percent Correct Pretest and First Half of Training _E_ Feedback groups 4.32 n.s. Non-feedbaok groups 6.32 .05 Self-description control-1.33 n.s. The question of difference in score between pre test, self-description responding, and value judging was approached from a different direction with the application of t , tests to differences between pretest and total train ing scores for groups under the three treatment conditions. The results were as follows: Mean Differences Between Pretest and Total Training Score _EL. Feedback groups 3.13 n.s. Non-feedback groups 11.83 .05 Self-description control 2.15 n.s. Rank order of pre- and post-test results The ordering of groups according to mean differ ence between pretest and posttest score (Table 5) reveals a strong tendency for generalization groups to cluster at the top. The suggestion is that groups receiving the al ternate instrument in training from the one used in the pre- and post-test situation tended to increase their SD responding in the post-test more than did groups receiving the same items in training as in testing. Despite this separation on the effects-of-training variable when the 68 groups are placed in ordinal relationship, the results of the analysis of variance summary (Table 9) and the t test applied to experimental groups only (see results of Pre diction No. 5) indicate that the trend lacks significance. It will be noticed in Table 5 that use of the MMPI in the training procedure also tends to place higher in the rank order of mean change than training on the ACL, but this trend seems less marked than the effect of the al ternate instrument in training. The impression persists that another variable not directly controlled in the experimental design may be af fecting the results. An attempt to estimate what this variable might be was sought by combining the trends ap parent in Table 5 with the factors found to be significant in the total results. The important findings are as fol lows : 1. The much greater significance of the difference in number increasing their scores over number decreasing in the two generalization-feedback groups (Groups A and G, Table 10). 2. The tendency for generalization groups to cluster at the top of the ranking of groups according to mean difference between pre- and post-test (Table 5). 3. The lesser tendency for groups tested with the MMPI to place near the top of the rank order list (Table 5)* 4. The tendency among set training groups for those receiving the alternate task 69 in the training procedure (judging) to rank higher than groups receiving the same self-description task in the training procedure (Table 5)# Accordingly the group procedures for 12 groups (excluding the no-treatment control G-roups L and M) were assigned scores of from 0 to 4 based on 1 point each for the following categories: 1* Alternate instrument used in training (generalization). 2. Use of the MMPI in the training procedure. 3. Judging task in the training procedure. 4. Feedback in the training procedure. For the sake of designation, the obtained values are called trend scores, and results are given in Table 12 along with the mean difference scores for each group. The Table 12 TREND SCORES AND MEAN PRE- AND POST-TEST DIFFERENCES FOR 12 EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS Group Dif¥§?$nce Trend Score A 8.00 4 N 5.20 2 I 5.17 2 C 5.15 3 B 5.09 3 G 4.99 3 K 4.11 1 H 4.10 1 D 3.50 2 F 3.20 2 J .40 0 0 -1.45 1 groups are listed, as in Table 5, in the order of their mean difference scores. It can be seen at a glance how closely the list of trend scores parallels this rank order* A Pearson product-moment correlation was computed for the 12 pairs of scores. The resulting coefficient of .779 is significant beyond the p=.01 level. This finding is seen as a post hoc result which is primarily descriptive and is not interpreted specifically as a significant result. CHAPTER IY DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The propositions stated in the hypotheses pre sented in Chapter II seem to have been partially confirmed by the findings. Hypothesis No. 1, The question of whether a set to respond in a socially desirable manner to personality inventory items may be induced in schizophrenic subjects appears to be confirmed so far as SD Judging is concerned. The finding that differences in percent correct between first half and second half of training were significant for feedback groups indicates that the instruction was effec tive. Hypothesis No. 2. Results of the tests of sig nificance of the differences in 3D responding between pre test and posttest scores indicates that the set induced in the training procedure did not extend to the self-description task. The contrast in the findings regarding judging and self-description responding will be discussed in conjunc tion with the outcome of Hypothesis No. 3* Hypothesis No. 3 The indications are that the feedback treatment was effective to a significant degree in the judging task. Subjects who received instruction in the correct 3D values of items on which judgments had been made 71 72 were able to improve the accuracy of their Judging in the second half of training, whereas subjects in the non-feedback groups showed no evident change* Again the feedback instruc tion appears to have affected only the judging procedure and did not influence significantly the 3D responding of these subjects in the posttests. * * * * * Underlying the hypotheses of this study are the assumptions that (1) if schizophrenics represented them selves accurately in a personality inventory, their scores on an 3D scale would be low, (2) schizophrenics are not sufficiently aware of what is socially desirable and what is not, and (3) being made aware of what is socially de sirable will lead to a greater tendency to represent them selves — and hopefully also to conduct themselves — in a more socially desirable manner. The first of these assumptions is made without data for comparison with non-hospitalized groups. With respect to a total possible score of 193 on the inventory instruments used in this study, however, it is evident that the responses of schizophrenic subjects tend to cluster in the top third of the range of Social Desirability scales (see Table 2). Prom this it cannot be accepted that schizo phrenic subjects necessarily score low on a scale of Social Desirability. The second assumption seems to be borne out — 75 that schizophrenics are not extremely aware of the 3D value of some of the items they subscribe to* This is apparent in lower SD scores for judging than for self-description in the non-feedback and first half of training for feedback groups. The third assumption has reference to matters deeply rooted in the response style controversy, described in Chapter I. Whether or not subjects tend to endorse items because they perceive them as socially desirable, as Edwards (1955, 1957) says, or whether they perceive items as socially desirable because they endorse them, as Scott (1965) would have it, is not determined in this data. In sofar as both hypotheses are based on the equivalence of SD ratings and SD scale scores in self-description, the trend in the present data suggests that with these subjects this may not be the case. The significantly lower SD scores in the judging procedure without feedback indicates that sub jects may be more ready to endorse items in a socially desirable direction than they are to perceive the Social Desirability of the item per se. It is well to consider these results more thor- roughly in relation to the views of Edwards and Scott. (1) If the judging scores of these subjects had been com parable throughout with their pretest scores, and if instruc tion in the SD value of items in the feedback procedure had led not only to increased accuracy in SD judging, but also 74 to increased SD endorsing in the posttest, then Edwards' hypothesis would have heen supported* Actually the judging scores fell significantly below the pretest SD scores, and instruction in SD did not lead to increased SD endorsement in the posttest. (2) If instruction in SD leads to im provement in accuracy of SD judging, but in addition if such improvement does not exceed the SD value of endorsement, then Scott’s hypothesis would tend to be supported. Stated differently, if subjects can improve their SD judging, but do not rate items as socially desirable to greater degree than they would endorse them, then Scott's contention that perceptions of SD are tied to self-perception would be in agreement with the finding in this study. Actually this seems to be the case insofar as the mean percent correct in the second half of training, after feedback, is highly comparable with these subjects’ mean percent correct in their posttest scores. Scott’s hypothesis is not supported, however, where SD judging scores are lower than endorsement scores in the pretest. Such a result would be less likely if tendency to perceive items as socially desirable were related to readiness to endorse them. These interpretations in regard to Edwards' and Scott's statements should not be regarded as conclusive. The results are seen, however, as raising doubts regarding both Edwards' and Scott's hypotheses. The lower SD scores in the judging procedures are inconsistent with the idea 75 that perception of 3D and endorsement are equated, which ever variable may be the function of the other. On the basis of these indications, the suggestion is made that with schizophrenic subjects the SD judging process and the self description process may be independent of each other* Support for this interpretation is found in the evidence that whatever learning took place was limited to the training procedure. The construct of Social Desira- - * ' 4 bility is learnable in relation to a specific task (judging), but it may not be transferable to an alternate task of self description. In this case the Social Desirability variable, as learned, appears to be independent of the content of the items. This view is corroborated in the failure of the set-training groups to show increase in their posttest scopes. * * * * * Hypotheses Nos. 4 and 5. These propositions were based on the expectation that instruction in the SD value of personality inventory items would be learned in relation to the content of the items and that the effects of training would appear particularly where responses were made to the same item content. The finding that subjects tended to increase their SD responding to a greater degree when item content was dissimilar leads to new speculations. The only systematic, if non-significant, variation appearing in the posttest results is found in the trend associated with rank order of mean differences (Table 5)* The trend, identified in terms of the experimental variables themselves, includes generalization, feedback, judging task (as opposed to self-description control in the training procedure) and training on the MMPI, The one element that these variables appear to have in common is that they intro duce variety for the subject. Generalization offered an alternate instrument from the pretest. Judging provided an alternate task to the self-description one* Feedback introduced participation of the experimenter and an oppor tunity to check or change his own responses. The MMPI, consisting of 162 statements, some of them strong ones, is probably less monotonous than a list of 218 adjectives, as in the ACL. The suggestion is that the greater attention-getting quality of variety in the procedures may have had an effect upon the subjects' involvement in the purposes of the study. Lack of involvement, of course, is a frequent finding with schizophrenics. The implications are that it may have been the failure of some subjects to become "involved" in the procedures, leading to variability of attention which mani fested in a high variability of responsiveness, that viti ated the larger experimental effects. * * * * * Reference to the theoretical assumptions stated at the close of Chapter I led to considerations of the 77 Social Desirability response style in relation to schizo phrenia* It was assumed that Acquiescence was a more in adequate response than Social Desirability, because it was not related to the content of the item, while SD of neces sity took into account the item content. Subjects who exhibited only the Acquiescence response were eliminated from the study, as they seemed to be too much out of con tact for meaningful participation. They seemed capable of but one rigid response and were indifferent to both the content of the item and the experimenter's instructions. The subjects who remained in the study seemed remarkable for the high mean level of SD scores they achieved, and for the low (non-significant) degree of modifiability of their SD responding. It was stated above that to the degree that SD learning took place, it was specific to the task and not to the content of the items. On the other hand it has been stated that SD responding must take into account the content of the item in order for the subject to respond in a socially desirable direction. This apparent contradiction stands as a problem for another study. The guess is that content becomes bound up in the nature of the response and tends to have little relation to other functioning on the part of the subject. It is something that is done with little awareness or reflection, and as such represents a true stereotypy that is repetitive and unvarying. 78 If 3D responding is a milestone variable (Loevinger, 1965) representing better functioning than is typical of schizophrenics, and if increase in SD responding should be seen as improvement, as suggested in Chapter I, then it cannot be concluded that the procedures used in this study have achieved the objective of inducing increased 3D responding with these subjects. The overall significant increase in SD responding by these subjects in all groups is attributed to other variables not controlled. It is possible that an extension of the method used might success fully be applied to severely withdrawn subjects whose res ponse repertoire is extremely limited and who could gain by learning more adequate ways of coping with all stimuli. This, however, is a problem for another study. SUMMARY Schizophrenic subjects were trained to make more socially desirable responses to inventory-type personality items. It was assumed that the trait of SD responding represented more adequate functioning than might be typical of schizophrenia, and that increase in such responding would be associated with improved functioning, particularly if the tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner were found to generalize to other responding. Two-hundred and seventy-eight hospitalized persons, 139 males and 139 females, were administered selected items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the Gough Adjective Check List with 3-point rating scales dis tinguishing "Good," "Neutral," and "Bad." Experimental conditions included feedback, non-feedback, self-description (control for exposure to the items), and no treatment. Subjects received self-description testing before and after training on either the same set of items as those used in training or the alternate set. Effects of training were expected to (a) increase accuracy of SD judging after feed back, (b) increase SD responding in the posttest where test items were the same as those used in training and (c) gener alize to other responding where test items were not those used in training. 79 80 The findings were that a set to respond in a socially desirable manner to personality inventory items can successfully be established with schizophrenic subjects in relation to a judging task. Increase in accuracy of 3D judgments were found related to the feedback condition and to use of the MMPI in the training situation. The set to make the socially desirable response was not found to trans fer to a self-description task. Subjects tended to make significantly lower 3D scores in the judging procedure than they did in the testing procedure, except where feedback instruction brought about significantly higher judging scores. There was a significant tendency for all subjects to increase their 3D responding in the posttests, regardless of the training procedure they received, and a non-signifi cant tendency for groups receiving a different set of items in the training procedure to increase SD responding more than groups receiving the same items in training. The additive influence of different aspects of the procedures was interpreted as attributable to the a11ent ion-ge11ing value of variation, having the effect of greater involvement, hence greater susceptibility of the subjects to the objectives of the study. The finding that training scores increased significantly while self-description scores did not was interpreted to suggest that the judging process may be independent of the self-description process, and that whatever learning took place may be specific to the task rather than to the content of the items. It was concluded that the procedures used were not successful in inducing increased socially desirable res ponding to personality inventories with these subjects. The significant increase in SD responding in all groups was attributed to other variables not controlled. REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson,, & Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality» New York: Harper, 1950. Asch, M. J. Negative response bias and personality adjust ment. J. couns. Psychol.. 1958, 206-210. Bass, B. M. Authoritarianism or acquiescence? J. abnorm. soc. Ps.vchol.. 1955, ^i, 616-623. Berg, X. A. Deviant responses and deviant peoples the formulation of a deviation hypothesis. J. couns. Psychol.. 1957, 4, 154-160. Block, J. Some differences between the concepts of social desirability and adjustment. J. consult. Psychol.. 1962, 26, 527-550. Block, J. The challenge of response sets: unconfounding meaning, acquiescence and social desirability in the MMPI. Unpublished monograph, 1965. Boe, E. E., & Kogan, V. S. Social desirability response set in the individual. J. consult. Psychol.. 1963, 22, 369. Ohapman, L. J., & Campbell, D. T. Response set in the F scale. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1957, .54, 129-152. Cody, V. M. The estimation of juvenile incorrigibility. Juv. Deling. Monogr.. 1925, 2 , . Cohn, T. S. Is the F scale indirect? J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1952, £1, 752. Couch, A., & Keniston, K* Yeasayers and naysayerss agree ment response set as a personality variable. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1960, 60, 151-174. Couch, A., & Keniston, K. Agreeing response set and social desirability. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1961, 62, 175-179. Cowan, E. L., Staiman, M. G-., & Wolitzky, D. The social desirability of trait descriptive terms: application to a schizophrenic sample* J. soc. Psychol.. 1961, £4, 57-45. 82 83 Oronbach, L. J, An experimental comparison of multiple multiple-choice tests. J. educ. Psychol.. 1941* 52. 533-545* Oronbach, 1. J. Studies of acquiescence as a factor in the true-false test. J. educ. Psychol.. 1942, 22» 401-415* Oronbach, L. J* Response sets and test validity. Educ* Psychol. Measmt*. 1946, 6, 475-494. Oronbach, L. J. Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educ. Psychol. Measmt., 1950, J_0, 3-21* Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A new scale of social desira bility independent of pathology. J. consult. Psychol.. 1960. 24. 340-354. Orowne, D. P., Stephens, M* W., & Kelly, R. The validity and equivalence of tests of self-acceptance* J. Psychol. 1961, 21, 101-112. Damarin, F,, & Messick, S* Response styles as personality variables: a theoretical integration of multivariate research. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1965. DeSoto, C. B., Kuethe, J. L., & Bosley, J. J* A redifini- tion of social desirability. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1959, 273-275. Elvekrog, M. 0., & Vestre, N* D* The Edwards social de sirability scale as a short form of the MMPI. J. consult. Psychol.. 1963, 27, 503-507. Edwards, A. L. The relationship between the judged desira bility of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. J. appl. Psychol.. 1953, 2X> 90-93* Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in per sonality assessment and research. New York: Dryden, 1957. Edwards, A. L. Social desirability and expected means on MMPI scales. Educ. Psychol. Measmt.. 1962, 22(1). 71-76. Edwards, A. L. A factor analysis of experimental social desirability and response set scales. J. appl. Psychol. 1963. 41, 308-316. 84 Edwards, A* L., & Diers, Carol J, Social desirability and the factorial interpretation of the MMPI* Educ* Psychol* Measmt*. 1962, 22(3), 501-509 (a)* Edwards, A* L,, A Diers, Carol J* Social desirability and conflict* J* soc* Psychol*. 1962, ^8(2), 349-356 (b)* Edwards, A* L*, Diers, Carol J., & Walker, J* N. Response sets and factor loadings on sixty-one personality scales. J. appl* Psychol*. 1962, 4iL» 220-225* Edwards, A. L., & Heathers, Louise B. The first factor of the MMPI: social desirability or ego-strength* J. consult. Psychol*. 1962, 26, 99-100. Edwards, A* L*, Heathers, Louise B., & Fordyce, W* E* Correlation of new MMPI scales with Edwards’ SD scale* J. clin* Psychol*. 1960, J _ 6, 26-29* Edwards, A* & Walker, J* N* Social desirability and agreement response set* J* abnorm* soc* Psychol*. 1961, 62, 180-183 (a). Edwards, A* L., & Walker, J . * N* A short form of the MMPI: the SD scale* Psychol* Rep* 1961, 8, 485-486, (b). Edwards, A* L., & Walker, J* N* Relationship between pro bability of item endorsement and social desirability scale value for high and low groups on Edwards SD scale. J* abnorm* soc* Psychol*. 1962. 64, ( 6), 458-460. Edwards, A* L*, & Walsh, J* A* The relationship between the intensity of the social desirability keying of a scale and the correlation of the scale with Edwards’ SD scale and the first factor loading of the scale* J. clin. Psychol*. 1963, J _ 2 . , 200-203* Edwards, A. L*, Walsh, J. A., & Diers, Carol J. The re lationship between social desirability and internal consistency of personality scales. J. appl. Psychol*. 1963, 41(4), 255-259. Fordyce, W. E. Social desirability in the MMPI. J. consult. Psychol.. 1956, 20, 171-175. Frederiksen, N., & Messick, S* Response set as a measure of personality. Educ* Psychol* Measmt*. 1959, 19. 137-157. 85 Fromm, E. Man for himself* New York: Rinehart, 1947. Fujita, B. Applicability of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule to Nisei. Psvchol.. Rep.. 1957, 2t 518-519. Gage, N. L., & Ohatterjee, B. B. The psychological meaning of acquiescence set: further evidence. J. abnornu soc. Psychol.. 1960, 60, 280-283* Gage, N. L., Leavitt, G, S., & Stone, G. C. The psycho logical meaning of acquiescence set for authoritarian ism. J. abnorm. soc. Psvchol.. 1957, 98-103. Goldstein, M. J. The social desirability variable in atti tude research. J. soc. Psvchol.. 1960, ^2, 103-108. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists* Press, 1965. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Hanley, C. Social desirability and responses to items from three MMPI scales: D, Sc, and K. J. appl. Psychol.. 1956, 40, 324-328. Hanley, C. Responses to the wording of personality test items. J. consult. Psychol.. 1959, .2^, 261-265. Hathaway, S. R. Personality inventories. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965, Ch. 18. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. D. Booklet for the Minne sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York: The Psychological Corp., 1943. Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. Social learning theory, social desira bility, and the MMPI. Psvchol. Bull.. 1964, 6J_, 377- 387'. Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley, 1958. Jackson, D. N. Independence and resistance to perceptual field forces. J. abnorm. soc. Psvchol.. 1958, 56. 279-281. Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. Content and style in per sonality assessment. Psychol. Bull.. 1958, 243-252. 86 Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. Acquiescence and desirability as response determinants on the MMPI, Educ, Psychol.» Measmt.. 1961, 21., 771-790. Kassebaum, G. G., Couch, A. S., & Slater, P. E. The fac torial dimensions of the MMPI. J. consult* Psychol., 1959, 22, 226-236. Klett, C. J. The stability of social desirability scale values in the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. J. consult. Psychol.. 1957, 2J., 183-185 (a). Klett, C. J. The social desirability stereotype in a hos pital population. J. consult. Psychol.. 1957, 21 . 419-421 (b). Klett, C. J., & Yaukey, D. W. A cross-cultural comparison of judgments of social desirability. J. soc. Psychol., 1959, 42, 19-26. Lentz, T* P. Acquiescence as a factor in the measurement of personality. Psychol. Bull.. 1958, 2^» 659* Lindquist, E. P. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955. Loevinger, Jane. Objective tests as instruments of psycho logical theory. Psychol. Rep., 1957, 2> 635-694. Loevinger, Jane. Measurement in clinical research. In B. B* Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Lorge, I. Gen-like: halo or reality? Psychol. Bull.. 1937, 24» 545-546. Lovaas, Q. I. Social desirability ratings of personality variables by Norwegian and American college students. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1958, 2X# 124-1-25* Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. Middletown in transition. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1937. Marlowe, D., & Orowne, D. P. Social desirability and res ponse to perceived situational demands, J. consult. Psychol.. 1961, 22, 109-115. Marlowe, D. Need for social approval and the operant con ditioning of meaningful verbal behavior. J. consult. Psychol.. 1962, 26, 79-83. 87 McGee, R. K. Response style as a personality variable* by what criterion? Psvchol. Bull., 1962, 59* 284-295* Mehlman, B* & Warehime, R. G. Social class and social desirability* J. soc. Psvchol** 1962, $8, 167-170* Messick, S* Dimensions of social desirability. J. consult. Psvchol*. 1960, 2£, 279-287. Messick, S., & Jackson, D. N. Acquiescence and the facto rial interpretation of the MMPI. Psvchol. Bull*. 1961. 2§, 299-504. Mills, C* ¥. White collar — the American middle classes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955* Mills, 0. W. The power elite* New York: Oxford University Press, 19557 Osgood, 0. E., Suci, 0. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The mea surement of meaning. Urban, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Reisman, D*, Glazer, N., & Denny, R. The lonely crowd. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1957. Rorer, L. G. The great response-style mvth. Psvchol. Bull*. 1965, 62, 129-156. Rosen, E. Self-appraisal, personal desirability and per ceived social desirability of personality traits. J. abnorm. soc. Psvchol.. 1956, £2, 151-159. Scott, W. A. Social desirability and individual conceptions of the desirable. J. abnorm, soc. Psvchol.. 1965. 67. 547-585. ---- Siller, J*, & Chipman, A. Response set paralysis: impli cations for measurement and control. J. consult. Psychol.. 1963, 22, 452-458. Solomon, L., & Klein, E* The relationship between agreeing response set and social desirability. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1963, 66, 176-178. Sperber, Z., & Spanner, M. Social desirability, psycho pathology and item endorsement. J. gen. Psvchol.. 1962, 62, 105-112.----------------- ----- ---- Spilka, B. Social desirability: a problem of operational definition. Psychol. Ren.. 1961, 8, 149-150. 88 Statistical Research Group, Princeton University* Applied Mathematics Panel. Princeton, I T * J.: National Re search Commission, February, 1945* Super, D* E*, & Crites, J* 0* Appraising vocational fitness. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Taylor, J* B, Social desirability and MMPI performance: the individual case. J. consult. Psychol.. 1959, 25. 514-517. Taylor, J. B. The yeasayers and social desirability: a comment on Couch and Keniston1s paper. J* abnorm. soc. Psvchol.. 1961 , 6,2, 172. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. The teachers1 word book of 50.000 words. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers1 College, Columbia University, 1944* Warner, W. L., Meeker, M*, & Eells, K. Social class in America. Chicago: Science Research Association, Inc., 1949. Welsh, G. W. Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh & W. D, Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine* Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Press, 1 956. Wolman, B. B. Handbook of clinical psychology. New York: Me Graw-Hill, 1965* Whyte, W. H* The organization man. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1957* Woodworth, R* S, Woodworth^ personal data sheet. Chicago: C. H. Stoelting., 1918. Zigler, E., & Phillips, L. Case history data and psychia tric diagnosis. J. consult* Psychol*. 1961, 2£, 458. APPENDIXES 89 APPENDIX A SUMMARIES OF PILOT STUDIES I AND II I. The first pilot study was undertaken as a trial run with the procedures as outlined in the proposal. Thirty-four subjects completed all steps and sessions. The experimental conditions were: 1. Same instrument used in training as in pre- and post-testing. 2. Alternate instrument used in training from that used in pre- and post-testing. 3. Feedback given to half of each (1) and (2) during training, 4. No feedback given to other half of subjects. The method was as follows: A. Pretest session. Instruments administered: 1. Phillips-Zigler Background Information Sheet. 2. Shipley Hartford C. Q. Scale. 3. Pretest with MMPI (300 items, original wording), or 4. Pretest with ACL (published form, check-list format). B. Training sessions. 1 . Training session No. 1: a. First 60 items of the 300-item MMPI, ori ginal wording, including first person pro nouns, plus 3-point rating scale with headings: "Good," "Neutral," and "Bad." b. First 60 items of AOL, no definitions, plus 3-point rating scale with headings: "Good," "Neutral," and "Bad." 90 91 2. Training session No* 2: a. Correct responses to first 60 items of MMPI and ACL submitted for inspection to subjects in feedback condition. b. Second 60 items of MMPI, as above, or c. Second 60 items of ACL, as above. 3. Training session No. 3: a. Correct responses to second 60 items of MMPI or ACL, as above. b. Third 60 items of MMPI, as above, or c. Third 60 items of ACL, as above. 4. Training session No. 4: a. Correct responses to third 60 items of MMPI or ACL, as above. b. Fourth 60 items of MMPI, as above, or c. Fourth 60 items of ACL, as above. 5. Training session No. 5: a. Correct responses to fourth 60 items of MMPI or ACL, as above. b. Fifth 60 items of MMPI, as above. c. Fifth 60 items of ACL, as above. C. Posttest session. Instruments administered: 1. MMEI, as in pretest session, or 2. ACI* as in pretest session. Findings 1. Subjects quickly became bored, distracted and resistant to the length and complexity of the procedures. 92 Only the better functioning subjects (good premorbids) seemed to have the patience to continue through the entire procedure. Some of these also became exasperated at being called to so many sessions* No pregressive changes in res ponses to the items were noted over the five training ses sions* 2. Many subjects could not read as a result of either educational or visual deficit. Reading to them tended to increase considerably the attention of the sub jects to the items and the responses they gave. This raised the question of whether reading to them introduced a bias, 3* Many subjects did not know the meanings of the words on the ACL, Definitions were needed, 4, The wording of the MMPI items seemed to in duce a true-false response set. This tended to interfere with responding with ratings in the training procedure. It was decided to convert the statements to participial phrases representing states, conditions, feelings, beliefs, or attitudes which could be more readily judged in the abstract, 5, Many MMPI items seemed too complex. Negatives in particular seemed to be overlooked. This difficulty appeared especially when items were read to the non-readers. It was thought necessary to remove negatives from the items, 6, Results were not analyzed. 93 II, The purpose of the second pilot study was to assess the alterations made in the wording of the MMPI items on the pre- and post-test instrument and in the train ing instrument* The purpose also was to test the effect of including definitions with the ACL items* Only one experimental condition was used: feedback* Procedure for only one type of training effect was used: generalization of training, i*e* training with alternate instrument from that used in the pre- and post-testing* Pica type was used throughout in re typing the forms to increase readability* The method was as follows: A* Pretest session* Instruments administered: 1* Pretest with MMPI, 300 items, the word "not' 1 removed where possible, or 2* Pretest with ACL, 300 items, definitions added*, true-false format* B. Training sessions, 1, Training session No, 1 a. First 120 items of the MMPI, with 3-point rating scale, as before, wording altered as follows: (1) Statements change to participial phrases, (2) First person pronouns changed to "one" or "one’s," b* First 120 items of the ACL, with 3-point scale, definitions included, *See Appendix 0 for description of the development of ACL definitions. 94 2* Training session No* 2 a* Feedback on first 120 items given orally to subjects to induce attention to their own rating responses* b* Last 180 items of MMPI, altered as above, or c. Last 180 items of ACL, as above* C# Posttest sessions* Instruments administered: 1* MMPI, as in pretest session, or 2. ACL, as in pretest session. Findings 1 * Dropping the negatives from the MMPI items added little to their understandability* More marked changes seemed necessary* 2* Understanding of the ACL words seemed to be improved by the presence of the definitions* 3* Subjects still seemed fatigued with the length of the procedure* It was decided to shorten both instruments. 4* A Chi Square analysis of the results indicated that the number of subjects whose scores increased rather than decreased between pre- and post-tests was significant at the .05 level, but that other variables available in the data, such as sex or instrument used, were not differen tial in their relationship to this result* APPENDIX B SOCIAL DESIRABILITY VALUES OF ACL ITEMS Ratings of Social Desirability for the ACL instru ment used in this study were obtained from employees at Ca marillo State Hospital, as described in the text. A 7-point scale was submitted to 8 judges, and the values are the averages of their ratings for each adjective. The first column, headed Cam. Emp. N=8. contains these scores. Unfavorable (-) classification for certain adjectives pro vided by Gough and Heilbrun (1965). Their scale is based on selections by 97 undergraduate psychology students at the University of California at Berkeley. The 75 words receiving the highest percentage of votes for favorable ness and the 75 receiving the greatest percentage of votes for unfavorableness are the basis for the categories* The column is headed G-H Psy. Stu. N=97* The second column contains the Favorable (+) or 3D Values on ACL Cam. Emp. N=8 G-H Psy. Stu* g = f9 7___ absent minded 1. 6 2. active 5.6 + 3. adaptable 6.0 + 4. adventurous 5.0 95 96 G-H Cam. Emp* Psy, Stu, N=8 N=97 5. affected 3.7 — 6. affectionate 5.4 + 7. aggressive 4.8 8. alert 6.4 + 9. aloof 2.3 - 10, ambitious 6.7 + 11. anxious 5.1 12. apathetic 3.0 - 13. appreciative 6.0 + 14. argumentative 2.7 - 15. arrogant 2.2 - 16. artistic 4.5 + 17. assertive 5.2 18. attractive 5.6 + 19. autocratic 3.4 20. awkward 2.2 21. hitter 1.6 - 22. blustery 1.5 23. boastful 2.1 — 24. bossy 2.7 — 25. calm 4.8 + 26. capable 6.3 ■ I - 27. careless 2.1 — . CO CM cautious 5.6 97 Cam. Bmp. Psy. Stu. N=8 N=97 29. changeable 5.2 50. charming 5.2 + 51. cheerful 5.6 + 52. civilized 6.5 55. clear-thinking 6.1 + 54. clever 5.4 + 55. coarse 5.1 - 56. cold 2.0 — 57. commonplace 5.6 58. complaining 1.9 — 59. complicated 2.5 40. conceited 2.4 — 41. confident 5.4 + 42. confused 2.0 45. conscientious 5.4 + 44. conservative 5.4 45. considerate 6.1 + 46. contented 6.5 47. conventional 5.1 48. cool 4.5 49. cooperative 6.2 + 50. courageous 6.1 + 51. cowardly 2.7 — 52. cruel 1.5 _ 98 G-H Gam* Emp. Psy. Stu, N=8 N=97 55. curious 4.5 + 54. cynical 2.6 — 55. daring 5.7 56. deceitful 2.4 - 57. defensive 5.7 — 58. deliberate 5.4 59. demanding 2.4 60. dependable 5.9 + 61. dependent 5.4 62. despondent 2.2 65. determined 4.7 64. dignified 4.2 65. discreet 4.4 66. disorderly 2.7 — 67. dissatisfied 2.1 68. distractible 2.0 69. distrustful 1.5 - 70. dominant 2.6 71. dreamy 2.7 72. dull 2.1 — 75. easy-going 5.1 74. effeminate 5.4 75. efficient 6.1 + 76. egotistical 2.7 — 99 G-H Cam. Emp. Pay. Stu. N=8 N=97 77. emotional 2.5 78. energetic 5.6 + 79. enterprising 5.6 + 80. enthusiastic 6.1 + 81 . evasive 2.7 - « CM CD excitable 3.0 83. fair-minded 5.6 + CO 4* * fault-finding 3.1 - 00 MT1 • fearful 2.4 86. feminine 3.5 87. fickle 2.4 — 88. flirtatious 3.1 89. foolish 2.6 - 90. forceful 2.2 91. foresighted 5.1 + 92. forgetful 2.5 93. forgiving 5.6 + 94. formal 4.4 95. frank 6.0 + 96. friendly 6.4 + 97. frivolous 2.4 — CD 00 . fussy 2.7 - 99. generous 6.0 + 100. gentle 5.4 101 . 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 1 1 1 . 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121 . 122. 123. 124. 100 G-H Cam. Bmp. Pay. Stu. N=8 N-97 gloomy 2.5 — good-looking 4.9 + good-natured 6.1 + greedy 1.9 — handsome 4.7 hard-headed 2.1 hard-hearted 2.6 - haaty 2.9 headstrong 2.4 healthy 6.1 + helpful 6.4 + high-strung 1.9 honest 6.4 + hostile 2.1 — humorous 5.5 + hurried 3.3 idealistic 5.5 imaginat ive 4.5 + immature 1 .6 - impatient IV) . o — impulsive 4.7 independent 4.7 + indifferent 2.6 — individualistic 4.2 125. industrious 126. infant ile 127. informal 128. ingenious 129. inhibited 150. initiative 151. insightful . CM intelligent 155. interests narrow 154. interests wide 155. intolerant 156. invent ive 157. irresponsible 158. irritable 159. jolly 140. kind 141 . lazy 142. leisurely 145. logical 144. loud 145. loyal 146. mannerly 147. masculine 148. mature 101 0am. Emp. N=8 5.6 2.0 5.5 4.9 4.5 6.0 4.6 5.7 2.6 6.1 5.6 5.0 1 .5 1.5 5.7 6.0 1.9 5.6 5.8 1.9 5.5 5.1 5.7 6.0 G-H Psy. Stu. N=97____ + + + + 102 G-H Gam* Emp* Psy* Stu* N=8 N-97 149. meek 3.1 150* methodical 5.6 151. mild 4.4 152. mischievous 5.5 155. moderate 5.1 154. modest 5.2 155. moody o » CM — 156. nagging 1 .5 - 157. natural 5.5 + 158. nervous 2.1 159. noisy 2.2 160. obliging 5.4 161 . obnoxious 1.7 — 162. opinionated 5.6 - 163. opportunistic 4.5 164. optimistic 5.1 + 165. organized 5.7 + 166. original 5.2 + 167. outgoing 4.2 168. outspoken 3.7 169. painstaking 4.2 170. patient 5.6 + 171 . peaceable 6.0 172. peculiar 2.7 103 G-H Gam. Emp. Pay. Stu. N=8 N=97 173* persevering 5.9 174. persistent 4.6 175. pessimistic 2.5 176. planful 5.0 177. pleasant 6.0 + 178. pleasure-seeking 4.9 179. poised 4.7 + 180. polished 5.5 181 . practical 5.9 182. praising 5.1 0 0 V j J . precise 5.1 184. prejudiced 1.7 - 185. preoccupied 2.5 186. progressive 5.4 187. prudish 2.6 - 188. quarrelsome 1.9 - 189. queer 1.4 190. quick 5.1 191. quiet 1.7 192. quitting 2.5 193. rational 5.5 + 194. rattlebrained 2.3 — 195. realistic 5.8 + 196. reasonable 6.0 + 197. rebellious 198. reckless 199. reflective 200. relaxed 201 . reliable 202. resentful 203. reserved 204. resourceful 205. responsible 206. restless 207. retiring 208. rigid 209. robust 210. rude 211 . sarcastic 21 2. self-centered 213. self-confident 214. self-controlled 215. self-denying 216. self-pitying 217. self-punishing 218. self-seeking 219. selfish 220. sensitive 104 Cam, Emp* N=8 2.4 2.2 3.6 5.6 5.7 1.7 5.4 5.5 6.4 2.5 3.6 2.6 3.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 5.9 6.1 3.2 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.0 4.4 G-H Psy. Stu, N=97 105 G-H Oanu Emp. Psy. Stu. N=8 N=97 221 . sentimental 4.0 222. serious 5.4 223. severe 3.2 224. sexy 3.0 225. shallow 1.7 - 226. sharp-witted 4.6 227. shiftless 2.0 — 228. show-off 2.1 - 229. shrewd 4.7 230. shy 3.4 231 . silent 3.4 232. simple 3.4 233. sincere 6.4 + 234. slipshod 2.4 — 235. slow 2.6 236. sly 2.7 237. smug 2.7 238. snobbish 1.6 — 239. sociable 5.2 + 240. soft-hearted 5.5 241 . sophisticated 4.3 242. spendthrift 2.7 243. spineless 1.9 — 244. spontaneous 4.1 245. spunky 246. stable 247. steady 248. stern 249. stingy 250. stolid 251. strong 252. stubborn 255. submissive 254. suggestible 255. sulky 256. superstitious 257. suspicious 258. sympathetic 259. tactful 260. tactless 261 . talkative 262. t emperamental 263. tense 264. thankless 265. thorough 266. thoughtful 267. thrifty 268. timid 106 Cam, Emp. N=8 4.6 6.2 6.1 5.2 2.1 5.7 6.0 2.4 4.0 5.2 1.6 1.4 2.2 5.5 5.9 1.7 5.0 5.1 2.2 1.7 5.6 6.1 6.0 2.2 G-H Psy. Stu, N=97____ + + 269. tolerant 270. touchy 271 . tough 272. trusting 275. unaffected 274. unambitious 275. unassuming 276. unconventional 277. undependable 278. understanding 279. unemotional 280. unexcitable 281 . unfriendly 282. uninhibited . to CO CM unintelligent 284. unkind 285. unrealistic 286. unscrupulous 287. unselfish 288. unstable 289. vindictive 290. versatile 291 . warm 292. wary 1 Gam, Emp. N=8 5.6 1.9 2.2 5.7 4.0 1.5 2.7 5.0 1 . 1 5.2 4.4 4.5 1.6 2.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1 .7 4.6 2.1 2.4 5.1 5.5 5.2 G-H Psy. Stu, N=97 + + + 108 G-H Cam* Emp. Psy. Stu. N=8 N=97 293. weak 1.9 — 294. whiny 2.0 - 295. wholesome 5.7 296. wise 6.0 + 297. withdrawn CM • CM 298. witty 4.9 299. worrying 2.4 300. zany 3.6 u Figure 4. Frequency distribution of mean Social Desirability ratings on 300 Adjective Check List traits by 8 kitchen and laundry employees at Camarillo State Hospital. o VO APPENDIX 0 MODIFICATION OF THE ACL ITEMS The steps taken to rivise the Adjective Check List for use in this study were to (1) shorten it, (2) provide definitions with each adjective, and (3) present the items with a true-false blank to force attention to each* The definition problem was met first* Three part- time research assistants (a hospitalized patient, a college student, and a high school student) worked with the experi menter to find definitions that would be understandable to the relatively low educational level of patients* The resulting definitions were ones that each of the team agreed were as simple and straightforward as could be achieved* Verification of the definitions was sought by sub mitting the entire list of 300 adjectives to a group of judges for matching with the definitions* This form was arranged with 25 words to a page and the definitions for each set of 25 listed in random order on the same page* The judges who performed the matching task consisted of a high school student, a college student, a psychiatric technician, a secretary, and a social service trainee* Since the sole object of this step was to arrive at adequate definitions, the results of the judging were scrutinized for the kinds of errors that were made rather than running a statistical 110 111 analysis* The few real errors that were made were traceable to ignorance of the meaning of a word. Other difficulties were transpositions between words of similar meanings. Some comments about ambiguity and inadequacy of definitions were heeded. These findings provided a basis for shortening the list of items. The words eliminated from the list werei (l) synonyms of other words on the list, or words having highly similar meanings, (e.g., fel*e*eapy - boastful; daa?4»g, — courageous), (2) words whose meanings were fairly well covered by a combination of other words on the list, (e.g., a?a: fe%leteffai»ed — shallow, frivolous, talkative), (3) words whose meaning was the negative or obverse of an other already on the list, (e.g., emotional — uneaetiesai} %ae%4eee — tactful), (4) words which had been difficult to define or had ambiguous or abstract meanings which had been found in the first pilot study to be difficult to convey to the subjects, (e.g., eiviiised). Many words which had op posite meanings from each other were retained because a false response to one did not necessarily indicate that the other would have to be answered true, (e.g., silent — talkat ive)• A check with the Thorndike-lorge word list (1944) indicated that for each of the words retained on the ACL instrument the identical word or a word with the same stem occurs in the T-L General Count (occurring one or more times 112 per million). It was believed that little more could be done to bring this instrument within the grasp of the sub jects. Following is the final form as it was submitted to the subjects in this study. Oral instructions were given as described in the text (p. 37). Check marks indicate key for Social Desirability. Items not checked fall in the "Neutral" range. ACL T ¥ 1. ¥ F 2. ¥ F 3. ¥ F 4. ¥ F 5. ¥ F 6. T ¥ 7. ¥ F 8. ¥ F 9. T ¥ 10. T ¥ 11. ¥ F 12. T ¥ 13. one's business) active (always doing something, not sitting still) adaptable (being able to change one’s ways wheiL necessary) / adventurous (liking to do unusual or dangerous things) agree) others enjoy looking at) without regard for their feelings) 113 T F 14. artistic (showing skill in art) T ¥ 15. awkward (clumsy in speech and manner) T ¥ 16. bitter (having a sharp, resentful feeling about things that have happened) T 17. boastful (bragging) T -g/ 18. bossy (inclined to order other people around) P 19. calm (never getting riled up. peaceful) F • o CM capable (able to do things well) T / 21 . careless (not thinking about what one is doing, doing a sloppy job) / F 22. cautious (very careful and watchful, not trusting) T 23. changeable (inclined to change one's mind fre quently) P 24. cheerful (happy, in a good mood) T 25. coarse (crude, vulgar, lacking sensitivity) T . CM cold (not caring how others feel, inclined not to show love or friendliness) T P . [ — CM commonplace (ordinary, not special in any way) T 28. complaining (always finding something wrong) T 29. complicated (not simple, hard to know well) T 30. conceited (thinking oneself better than others) P 31. confident (being sure of one's ability to do something) T 32. confused (mixed up about things) X l f P 33. conscientious (thinking a lot about one's work in order to do it well) P 34. conservative (not wanting things to change, wanting to hang on to what one has found to be safe) 4 P 35. 4 P 36. 4 P 37. T F 38. 4 P 39. 4 P 40. T 4 41. T 4 42. T F 43. T 4 44. T p 45. T p 46. T 4 47. 4 F CD • T V 49. T 50. x / p 51. T p 52. T p 53. T 4 54. 114 considerate (showing thoughtful kindness to others! contented (satisfied) conventional (not wanting to do things dif ferently from how they are supposed to be done) cool (reserved, a little unfriendly) cooperative (helpful in what others are trying to do) courageous (brave) cowardly (failing to do something one should do because of fear) cruel (causing pain to others willingly) curious (always wanting to learn or to find out about new things) deceitful (being dishonest and cheating to get one's way) defensive (feeling that one has to protect oneself against what others will say or think) deliberate (acting with thoughtful purpose) demanding (strongly requesting what one wants) dependable (can be counted on) dependent (not able to do things alone, need ing help or guidance) despondent (discouraged) determined (decided, knowing what one wants to do) dignified (acting in a manner to command res pect) discreet (showing good judgment in one's actions and speech) disorderly (confused, unmanageable behavior or looks) 115 T 55. dissatisfied (unhappy, discontented) T 56. distractible (letting one’s attention be drawn to new things constantly, not able to stay with anything long) T ✓ 57. dreamy (often having one's mind somewhere else on pleasant things) T 58. dull (not interesting to others) >/ F 59. easy-going (relaxed, not disturbed greatly by what others do) T >/ 60. effeminate (having mannerisms like a woman — refers to men and boys) v f F 61. efficient (able to do a good ,1ob quickly) T l/ 62. emotional (inclined to give way to one's feelings readily) / F 63. energetic (full of energy) F 64. enterprising (liking to start pro.iects that require energy or courage) F 65. enthusiastic (excited about doing things) T y 66. evasive (not straightforward, preferring to avoid answering questions) T 67. excitable (easily excited) F 68. fair-minded (honest and .lust, always thinking in terms of the rights of others) T >l/ 69. fault-finding (always finding things wrong with people) T * 70. fearful (afraid in general) T F 71. feminine (like a woman — refers to women and girls) T y 72. fickle (always changing, never keeping the same likes and dislikes). T 73. foolish (unwise and very silly) 116 T 74. forceful (acting from a position of strength, able to impress others) \/ p 75. foresighted (inclined to plan for the future) T \ / 76. forgetful (often forgetting things) 4 p 77. forgiving (willing to forgive others, not holding anything against someone) T F -3 CO . formal (having verv good manners, always doing things according to established rules. P 79. frank (always saying honestly .lust what one thinks) 4 P 80. friendly (usually pleasant to others) T j ? - ' 81 . frivolous (always talking about unimportant things, never being serious) T v/ 82. fussy (insisting that little things be .lust right) P 00 . generous (inclined to give of what one has to others) P CD » gentle (dealing softly with people so as not to hurt) T 85. gloomy (usually in a depressed mood, feeling that things will come out badly) P 86. good-natured (friendly, never taking offense at others) T 87. greedy (wanting more than one deserves) T 88. hard-headed (not easily swayed in one’s way of thinking, practical in one’s viewpoint) T </ 89. hard-hearted (cruel, having no pitv for others) T 90. headstrong (wilful, insisting on having one’s way) T / 91 . high-strung (always nervous and tense) 4 P 92. honest (truthful) T 4 4 F T 4 4 F T F T 4 T 4 4 F T 4 T F 4 F T 4 4 F 4 F 4 F T T 4 4 F 4 F T 4 117 93» hostile (unfriendly, inclined to have ill will toward others) 94. humorous (funny, amusing to others) 95. hurried (doing everything in a rush) 96. idealistic (thinking in terms of ideals, always seeking perfection) 97. imaginative (inclined to think of new and dif ferent things) 98. immature (grown up but still acting like a child or teenager) 99. impulsive (inclined to act without thinking.) 00. independent (usually taking care of oneself, needing no assistance) 01. indifferent (not interested or concerned about things around one) 02. individualistic (liking to do things for one's own reasons rather than wanting to be like others) 03. industrious (always busy with useful things) 04. infantile (acting like a small child) 05. informal (easy-going and relaxed about manners and clothes) 06. initiative (usually getting started on things on one’s own) 07. intelligent (bright, able to figure things o u t } ) 08. irresponsible (undependable, not likely to follow through on a responsibility) 09. irritable (easily angered) 10. . 1 oily (merry, full of joy) 11. kind (being good to others, being careful not to hurt others) 12. lazy (slow, unwilling to work) 118 T F 113* leisurely (taking onets time to do things) ^ F 114. logical (usually making sense) T 115. loud (noisy, showy) ^ F 116. loyal (faithful to friends) T F 117. masculine (being like a man) ^ F 118. mature (acting and thinking like a grown up) i / F 119. methodical (having a regular and orderly way of doing things) T F 120. mild (gentle in behavior and attitude) T ^ 121. mischievous (inclined to get into mild trouble, liking to play jokes on others) F 122. moderate (not going to extremes on things) v a T F 123. modest (not wanting to show off) T 124. moody (inclined to change quickly from happy to sad) T v f 125. nagging (pestering for something one wants) T 126. nervous (restless, easily upset, on edge about things) ^ F 127* obliging (helpful, willing) T 128. obnoxious (doing things that bother or offend others) T F 129. opinionated (inclined to have strong and out spoken opinions and beliefs) T F 130. opportunistic (getting ahead by taking advan tage of opportunities rather than by careful planning) ^ F 131. optimistic (always looking on the good side of things, thinking that things will be better) y£ F 132. patient (willing to wait for things to work out) T 133. peculiar (strange, odd) 119 i f F 134* persevering (inclined not to give up on some thing until it is finished) i f F 155. persistent (continuing to attempt something until one gets what one wants) T 156* pessimistic (always looking on the bad side of things) o f F 157. planful (full of plans for the future) o f F 158. pleasant (agreeable, not offensive) o f F 159. poised (unruffled, able to keep control of oneself, even in upsetting situations) * \f F 140. practical (inclined to take action which is useful) o i F 141. praising (liking to tell others when they do something well) F 142. precise (usually saying exactly what one means) T \ / 145* prejudiced (holding opinions of dislike against something or someone that are not based on fact) T ^ 144. preoccupied (lost in thought, inattentive because of deep thought) ^ F 145. progressive (being in favor of changes for the better) T 146. quarrelsome (easily getting into arguments and disagreements with people) T 147. quiet (not saying much) f F 148. rational (making sense in what one says or does) F 149. realistic (acting and thinking about things as they are, not as one imagines or desires them to be) ^ F 150. reasonable (fair and just in dealing with others) T 151. rebellious (wanting to go against authority) 1 20 F 152. reckless (doing things without thinking of the consequences) T F 153. refledtive (inclined to think about things that have happened) t/ F 154. reliable (can be depended upon, consistent in what one does) T 155. resentful (feeling angry and displeased against someone because of an injury or insult) P 156. reserved (careful in showing one's thoughts and feelings) df P 157. resourceful (being able to find a way to do things with little outside help) P 158. responsible (trustworthy, usually carrying through on assignments) T 159. restless (not liking to wait, impatient) T F 160. robust (strong and full of energy) T */ 161. rude (impolite, rough) T 162. sarcastic (inclined to make cutting remarks that express disbelief or contempt) T 165. self-denying (inclined to deprive oneself of desirable things) T 164. self-pitying (inclined to feel sorry for oneself) T 165. self-punishing (finding fault and being angry with oneself) T »/ 166. selfish (caring only for oneself) T P 167. sensitive (easily hurt) T F 168. sentimental (easily feeling sadness or ten derness about things) P 169. serious (not taking things lightly, recog nizing the importance of things) T ✓ 170. severe (strict and sometimes harsh in one's expectations of oneself and others) 121 T 171. sexy (sexually stimulating, having an appea rance and manner of liking sex) T 172. shallow (never thinking deeply or seriously about anything) T F 173. sharp-witted (auick-thinking, very intelligent) T \ 4 174. shiftless (lazy, inclined to live an unplanned existence) T l/ 175. show-off (liking to attract attention to oneself) F 176. shrewd (sharp in one's judgment of people and situations) T 177. shy (disliking to be the center of attention) T \4 178. silent (very quiet, seldom speaking) T 179. simple (not complicated, wanting few things in life) F 180. sincere (honest, genuine, being in reality what one appears to be) T 181 . slipshod (sloppy in what one does). T 182. slow (not acting auicklv. sluggish) T 183. sly (foxy, inclined to try to get around people) T l/ 184. snobbish (disliking to associate with those who are not well off) l/ F 185. sociable (liking to be with people) wf F 186. soft-hearted (inclined to give in easily to the wants of others) T v / 187. smug (very self-satisfied) T v t 188. spendthrift (inclined to spend more monev than one can afford) T F 189. spontaneous (acting genuinely as one really feels and without restraint) F 190. sjounkj (plucky, having a lot of spirit) 122 4 F 191. stable (dependable, not likely to have ma.lor upsets) T 192. stingy (not willing to give to others or to share what one has) T 4 195. stubborn (unwilling to change one's mind or to give in) / f 194. suggestible (easily influenced by suggestions from others) T V 195. sulky (peevish, inclined to pout) T 4 196. superstitious (inclined to believe in unna tural causes for things) T 4 197. suspicious (believing that people are out to take advantage of others) 4 f 1 98. sympathetic (inclined to feel sorry for the suffering and difficulties of others) 4 F 199. tactful (able to say things without offending others) T / 200. talkative (always ready to make use of a listener) T 201. temperamental (easily excited, inclined to quick changes of feeling, highly emotional) T 'Z 202. thankless (ungrateful) 4 F 205. thrifty (economical, wise in spending money and using things) T y 204. timid (easily frightened) T F 205. tolerant (willing to let others have the same rights and privileges as oneself) T 4 206. touchy (easily offended) 4 F 207. trusting (believing that people are trust worthy) T 208. unassuming (unpretending, modest) 4 F 209. ■understanding (recognizing how others feel) T 210. T 211 . mf F 212. F 213. i S f F 214. Wf F 215. T (P" 216. F 217. T 218. 123 unscrupulous (acting dishonestly, taking un fair advantage of others) vindictive (wanting to get even for some harm done) versatile (capable of doing many different kinds of things) warm (showing friendly feeling toward others) wholesome (likely to say and do things that are healthy) wise (using good judgment, having learned from experience) withdrawn (inclined to keep away from people and to avoid expressing oneself) witty (always thinking of clever things to say) worrying (being very concerned about things that might go wrong) APPENDIX D MODIFICATION OF THE MMPI ITEMS Attempts were made to meet some of the difficul ties the subjects had in understanding the items in the two pilot studies# Where items had to be read to non-readers, it was noted that any complexity in a statement led to mis interpretation rather readily. Negatives particularly were a problem because subjects tended to overlook them and react solely to the principal idea expressed in the item# Some would, for example, respond "False" to the pathology of an item when "True" would have indicated a real absence of pathology# That they meant to indicate an absence of patho logy was evident from the form of their negative responses. The first step taken was to eliminate all nega tives from the items. It was immediately obvious from this that a large number of pathology indicators would be "False" for Social Desirability. It was expected that an instrument whose format consisted of a simple list of abnormal sounding items would induce a response set to answer "False" to an inappropriate degree# Furthermore, removing a negative in some cases had the effect of changing the character of some statements. It often ceased to be a natural kind of expres sion, even though the principal thought had not been changed. The next effort to meet the difficulties was to 124 125 re-introduce negatives in the form of "never’ 1 and "seldom," with the expectation that these were more noticeable than a "not." They also had the effect of making the statements read more like natural speech. In other cases positive statements were reworded to sound less like a checklist of abnormality. Still others were simplified, [e*g., Item #74 in the original inventory reads, "I have often wished I were a girl, (or if you are a girl) I have never been sorry that I am a girl," and was changedto, "I have often wished I were of the opposite sex," (Item #109 in the present set).] Considerable literature exists on the difficulties found in reversing the negative or positive statement of inventory items or otherwise altering them, (Chapman & Campbell, 1957; Loevinger, 1957? Hanley, 1959; Gage & Chat ter jee, 1960; Block, 1965; Hathaway, 1965; Loevinger, 1965). These articles are critical of any alteration in accepted items and are directed primarily at Bass’s (1955) demonstra tion of his point about Acquiescence on the California F scale (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950) by introducing a "G" scale using reversed F scale items, to which subjects responded "True" just as consistently as they did to the original scale. The trend of these articles seems to be that reversed items are not essentially equivalent in meaning to the opposite of the original items and that Bass may not have been justified in assuming that the "True" responding was a response style that was indeed 126 equivalent on both the P scale and his "G-" scale. The ob jection appears to refer to the same difficulty noted in this study in which the altering of a negative created an awkward statement. (The impression derived from experience with subjects in this study, however, is that while the items may not be equivalent when reversed, the tendency to respond "true” is likely to be the same with both sets of items, because Acquiescing subjects were observed to omit reading the items at all.) Since the altered items in this study were to be used in all procedures, they would in effect be compared only with themselves, and equivalence with the original MMPI items was therefore considered not to be critical* Social Desirability scores on the altered items were found to be reliably related to those based on the original word ing, as described in the text* The list of items below represents the set used in this study. The Social Desirability key is indicated at the left by the check marks on the correct answers. The first column on the right indicates the MMPI scale from which the item was drawn: Edwards1 (1957) Social Desira bility scale (Ed.SD), the Schizophrenia (Sc) scale, the Critical Items scale (Cl) or the first list of the neutral items as rated by the employee judges (N1). The second column on the right indicates the item number in the ori ginal MMPI on which the accompanying item was based. 127 Ori < mmp: No. 431 311 146 439 252 168 7 69 424 303 115 293 536 291 MMPI Prom Scale I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes. Ed.SD I never stole anything when I was a youngster. Sc I have the wanderlust and am never happy unless I am roaming or tra veling about. 01 I do not mind having to wait for something or someone. Ed.SD No one cares much what happens to you. Ed.SD There is something wrong with my mind. Sc My hands and feet are usually warm enough* Ed.SD I am strongly attracted by members of my own sex* Cl I feel hungry almost all the time* Ed.SD There are no subjects so unpleasant that I can’t talk about them if someone brings them ups. Sc I believe in a life hereafter. N1 Someone has been trying to in fluence my mind. Cl It makes me angry to have people hurry me. N1 I have never felt myself being made to do things because someone was hypnotizing me. Sc Z p T F T F T F T ^ T F Z F T F Z F T F T Z T Z Z F T F From So ale 15. I have never doubted the reality of things around me. Sc 16. Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would. N1 17. I have often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did. N1 18. I used to keep a diary. N1 19. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. Ed.SD 20. There never was a time in my life when I liked to play with dolls. Hi 21. I have no trouble keeping my mind Ed.SD on one thing. & Sc 22. I drink an unusually large amount of water every day. W1 25. Things at home get rough sometimes, but I have never had a feeling that I wanted to leave. Sc 24. I am afraid when I look down from a high place. N1 25. I have numbness in one or more re gions of my skin. Sc 26. If people had not had it in for me, I would have been much more successful. Sc 27. My parents and family don’t find any more fault with me than most families do. Ed.SD 28. I usually work things out for my self rather than get someone to show me how. N1 128 Orig. MMPI No. 345 58 59 149 32 300 335 279 508 166 273 331 245 501 Orig. Prom MMPI Scale No, 4 P 29. Sex matters worry me very little. Sc 179 T 4 30. Everything tastes the same. Sc 210 T 4 31. There are persons who are trying to steal my thoughts and ideas. Cl 200 T 4 32. Someone has been trying to poison me. Cl 1 51 4 p 33. I usually can keep my balance in walking. Sc 192 '4 p 34. I believe I will be forgiven for my sins. Cl 209 4 F 35. I have never heard voices with out knowing where they come from. Cl 184 T 4 36. I am afraid of losing my mind. Sc 182 4 p 37. I have usually been able to "get going" at least enough to take care of necessary things. Sc 41 4 p 38. I sleep well most nights. Ed.SD 43 4 p 39. My ability to concentrate is about the same as everyone else’s. Sc 356 T 4 40. Much of the time my head seems to hurt all over. Cl 44 T 4 41. I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex. Sc 297 4 F 42. I usually have all the Bnergy I need. Ed.SD 165 4 P 43. There has been no change recently in my ability to understand what I read. Sc 159 4 P 44. It bothers me to see animals suffer. Ed.SD 218 130 Orig. From MMPI Scale Not 4 F 45. I have never been afraid of things or people that I knew could not hurt me. Sc & Ed.SD 352 T 4 46. At times it has been impossible for me to keep from stealing or shoplifting something. Cl 205 T 4 47. Once in a while I feel hate toward members of my family whom I usually love. Sc 282 T F 48. I like movie love scenes. N1 566 4 F 49. I am happy most of the time. Ed.SD 107 T F 50. If I were an artist I would like to draw flowers. N1 261 ✓ F 51. I have no difficulty with my hear ing such as my ears ringing or buzzing. Sc 281 T F 52. I dream frequently. N1 425 T ✓ 53. I refuse to play some games be cause I am not good at them. Sc 307 I F 54. I am embarrassed by dirty stories. N1 427 T F 55. I have strong political opinions. N1 432 T 4 56. Even when I am with people, I feel lonely most of the time. Sc 366 T F 57. I hate to have to rush when working, N1 370 T F 58. Sometimes when I am not feeling well, I am cross. N1 105 T 4 59. I have never been in love with anyone. Sc 324 4 F 60. I have never had periods in which I carried on activities without knowing what I was doing. Ed.SD & Sc 1 56 From Scale T 4 61* My people treat me more like a child than a grown up* Sc T F 62* Usually I would prefer to work with women* N1 4 F 63* I have never felt so restless that I could not sit long in a chair. Sc T 4 64* I have had attacks in which I could not control my movements or speech but in which I knew what was going on around me* Sc 4 F 65* I have no trouble in starting to do things* Sc 4 F 66* I loved my mother* Sc T 4 67* I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself* Sc T 4 68* I have strange and peculiar thoughts. Sc 4 F 69* I have never noticed odors that could not be traced to something nearby* Sc 4 F 70* I usually am able to think of something all right to talk about when I am in a group of people, Ed*SD T 4 71 * I am easily embarrassed, Ed.SD T 4 72* Sometimes my voice leaves me or changes even though I have no cold* Sc T F 7% I almost never dream, Ni T F 74* The one to whom I was most at tached as a child was a woman, N1 4 F 75* Life is not really unbearable for Sc & me most of the time* Ed.SD 131 Orig* MMPI No* 212 435 238 194 259 220 241 349 334 267 321 332 329 562 301 152 Orig, Prom MMPI Scale No. T 76. I prefer to pass by old friends I run into unless they speak to me first. Sc 52 T 77. I feel anxiety about s omething or someone almost all the time* Cl & Ed.SD 557 V P 78. I seldom shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty. Ed.SD 549 T V 79* Most of the time I feel blue. Sc 76 V F 80. When I dream, it is often about other things besides sex* Sc 520 P 81. I seem to make friends about as quickly as others do* Sc 509 P 82. I usually expect to succeed in things I do. Ed.SD 257 T V CO . I have used alcohol excessively* Cl 215 V F 84. I am not afraid to handle money. Ed.SD 169 T l/ 85. Sometimes I am strongly attracted by the personal articles of others such as shoes, gloves, etc., so that I want to handle or steal them. Cl 85 ✓ P 86. My mother was a good woman. Sc 177 T V 87. Sometimes I enjoy hurting persons I love* Sc 555 T p 88. My conduct depends on what those around me usually do* N1 141 p 89. I have never been paralyzed or had unusual weakness of my muscles. Sc 550 T 90. I believe I am a condemned person. Sc 202 T 91. Most of the time I wish I were dead. Sc 559 T 92. At times I have enjoyed being hurt by someone I loved. Sc 565 Prom Scale 4 F 93. I am usually able to be patient with people who interrupt me when I am working on something im portant • Ed. SD T 4 94. My muscles frequently twitch and jump. Sc T P 95. I have a daydream life about which I do not tell other people. N1 4 P 96. I care a lot what happens to me. Sc 4 P 97. I blush no more often than other people do. Ed.SD T 4 98. At times I have a strong urge to do something harmful or shocking. Sc T 4 99. Once a week or oftener I feel suddenly hot all over without ap parent cause. Sc T P 100. I would like to wear expensive clothes. FI T F 101. I am made nervous by certain ani mals • N1 T 4 102. I feel that I have often been punished without cause. Sc 4 P 103. My memory seems to be all right. Sc T F 104. I go to church almost every week, N1 T F 105. I like to talk about sex. H T 1 4 P 106, I have never felt fear of using a knife or anything sharp. Sc T 4 107. I can easily make other people afraid of me and sometimes do for the fun of it. Ed.SD T P 108. My way of doing things is some times misunderstood by others. N1 1 53 Orig. MMPI No. 148 103 511 104 528 97 47 529 164 157 178 95 231 354 269 244 T T F V F T */ F T ^ </ F ^ F T 4 T 4 T F V F T 4 f >/ f T F T ^ 09# I have often wished I were of the opposite sex* 0. I am easily awakened by noise. 1. My family is happy about the work I have chosen. 2* Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about* 3* I don't often perspire unless the weather is hot* 4. When I am with people, I am bo thered by hearing very queer things. 5. My father was a good man. 6. My sex life is satisfactory. 7. Often I feel as if there were a tight band about my head. 8. I believe I am being followed. 9. I would like to hunt lions in Africa. 20. I laugh or cry sometimes, but it never gets out of control, 21. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of things* 22. I have never been in trouble be cause of my sex behavior. 23. I enjoy children. 24. I think I would like the work of a building contractor. 25. Someone has control over my mind. From Scale Cl ni Ed.SD Sc Ed.SD Cl Sc Cl Cl Cl N1 Sc Ed.SD Sc Sc N1 Cl 134 Orig. MMPI No. 74 5 42 15 263 48 17 20 114 1 23 537 22 171 302 276 219 275 From Soale 4 F 126. I have never indulged in any un usual sex practices. Cl T 4 127. Sometimes I feel as if I must in jure either myself or someone else. Cl 4 F 128. I am happier when I am with people. Ed.SD T 4 129. Almost every day something hap pens to frighten me. So T 4 130. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces. Ed.SD 4 F 131. I seldom get over-excited* Sc 4 F 132. I loved my father. Sc T F 133. I have been disappointed in love. N1 T 4 134. I have had very peculiar and strange experiences. Sc T F 135. I think I would like the kind of work a forest ranger does. N1 4 F 136. I am liked by most people who know me. Ed.SD T 4 137. The things that some of my fa mily have done have frightened me. Sc 4 T F 138. I am seldom troubled by self- consciousness. Ed.SD 4 139. Evil spirits possess me at times. Cl T 4 140. People say insulting and vulgar things about me. Sc 4 F 141. I don’t mind having people about me. Sc T 4 142. I cry easily. Ed.SD 135 Orig. MMPI No. 133 139 286 360 555 266 65 239 323 81 54 325 371 27 364 312 158 From Scale T V 1 43. I hear strange things when I am alone 3c T V 144. I have had blank spells in which my activities were interrupted and I did not know what was going on around me. Sc F 145. I have had no difficulties with my speech recently. Sc T F 146. If I were a reporter I would like to report news of the theater* N1 T F 147. I like repairing a door latch. N1 T F 148. I liked "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Oarroll. N1 T F 149. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do to day. N1 V F 150. I have never felt jealous of any member of my family. Ed.SD ^ F 151. I get all the sympathy I should Sc ^ F 152. I like to visit places where I have never been before. Sc T 1 / 153. Most any time I would rather sit and daydream than to do anything else. Ed.SD T ^ 154. At times I hear so well it bothers me Sc V F 155. I have had no difficulty in using my hands lately. Sc F 156. I usually can take criticism or scolding without getting too upset. Ed.SD T s f 157. I believe I am being plotted against. Sc 136 Orig. MMPI No. 350 251 119 203 550 295 90 247 306 196 40 341 187 138 121 / P 158. T V 159. T ^ 160. T y 161. 4 P 162. Prom Scale My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. Sc I see things or animals or people around me that others do not see. Sc I frequently notice that my hand shakes when I try to do some things . Ed. SD People often disappoint me. Ed.SD I am very seldom troubled by con stipation. Ed.SD 1 37 Orig. MMPI No. 518 66 186 383 18 1 APPENDIX E FORMS USED IN THE TRAINING PROCEDURES I. The form as submitted to subjects for Social Desira bility judgments on 218 Adjective Check List items is given below, A C L GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ______ ____ ____ 1, absent-minded (not able to keep one’s mind on one's business) 2. active (always doing something, not sitting still) 5, adaptable (being able to change one's ways when necessary) ____ _____ 4* adventurous (liking to do unusual and dangerous things) 5* affectionate (showing love and tenderness) 6, alert (watchful, ready, quick to understand) 7# aloof (keeping away from other people) 8* ambitious (wanting to get ahead) 9# appreciative (thankful) 10, argumentative (always ready to argue or to disagree) ____ _____ 11, arrogant (overbearing and inso lent]) ________ 12, attractive (charming, having an appearance that others enjoy) 158 139 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ___ 13. ____ 14. ____ 15. 16. ____ 17. 18. ____ 19. 20. 21. 22. ______ 23, ____ 24. ____ 25. 26. ____ 27. 28. ___ 29. autocratic (inclined to make de mands of others without regard for their feelings) artistic (showing skill in art) awkward (clumsy in speech and manner) hitter (having a sharp, resentful feeling about things that have happened) boastful (bragging) bossy (inclined to order other people around) calm (never getting riled up, peaceful) capable (able to do things well) careless (not thinking about what one is doing, doing a sloppy job) cautious (very careful and watch ful, not trusting) changeable (inclined to change one's mind frequently) cheerful (happy, in a good mood) coarse (crude, vulgar, lacking sensitivity) cold (not caring how others feel, inclined not to show love or friendliness) commonplace (ordinary, not spe cial in any way) complaining (always finding some thing wrong) complicated (not simple, hard to know well) 140 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 30. ____ 31. ____ 32. ____ 33. ____ 34. ____ 35. ____ 36. ____ 37. ____ 38. ____ 39. ____ 40. ____ 41. 42. ____ 43. ____ 44. ____ 45. conceited (thinking oneself "better than others) confident (being sure of one's ability to do something) confused (mixed up about things) conscientious (thinking a lot about one's work in order to do it well) conservative (not wanting things to change, wanting to hang on to what one has found to be safe) considerate (showing thoughtful kindness to others) contented (satisfied) conventional (not wanting to do things differently from how they are supposed to be done) cool (reserved, a little un friendly) cooperative (helpful in what others are trying to do) courageous (brave) cowardly (failing to do something one should do because of fear) cruel (causing pain to others willingly) curious (always wanting to learn or to find out about new things) deceitful (being dishonest and cheating to get one's way) defensive (feeling that one has to protect oneself against what others will say or think) 141 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 46, deliberate (acting with thought ful purpose) 47* demanding (strongly requesting what one wants) 48, dependable (can be counted on) _____ 49* dependent (not able to do things alone, needing help or guidance) 50* despondent (discouraged) ____ ____ 51• determined (decided, knowing what one wants to do; 52* dignified (acting in a manner to command respect) ____ 53* discreet (showing good judgment in onefs actions and speech) 54* disorderly (confused, unmanage able behavior or looks) 55* dissatisfied (unhappy, discon tented) ____ ____ 56* distractible (letting one’s at tention be drawn to new things constantly, not able to stay with anything long) ____ _____ 57* dreamy (often having one’s mind somewhere else on pleasant things) 58* dull (not interesting to others) 59* easy-going (relaxed, not dis turbed greatly by what others do) ____ ____ 60* effeminate (having mannerisms like a woman — refers to males) ____ ____ 61 * efficient (able to do a good job quickly) ■ I ' V ____ ____ 62* emotional (inclined to give way to one’s feelings readily) 142 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 63* energetic (full of energy) ____ ____ 64• enterprising (liking to start projects that require energy) _______ _____ ______ 65* enthusiastic (excited about doing things) 66* evasive (not straightforward, preferring to avoid answering questions) 67* excitable (easily excited) 68* fair-minded (honest and just, always thinking in terms of the rights of others) 69* fault-finding (always finding things wrong with people) 70* fearful (afraid in general) ____ 71* feminine (like a woman — refers to women and girls) 72* fickle (always changing, never keeping the same likes and dis likes) ________ ________ 73* foolish (unwise and very silly) 74* forceful (acting from a position of strength, able to impress others) ______ _____ 75* fore sighted (inclined to plan for the future) 76* forgetful (often forgetting things) 77* forgiving (willing to forgive others, not holding anything against someone) ____ V8. formal (paving very good manners, always doing things according to established rules) 143 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 79. 80. 81 . 82. ____ 83. ____ 84. ____ 85. 86. ____ 87. 88. ____ 89. ____ 90. ____ 91. 92. ____ 93. ____ ____ 94. frank (always saying honestly just what one thinks) friendly (usually pleasant to others) frivolous (always talking about unimportant things, never being serious) fussy (insisting that little things be just right) generous (inclined to give of what one has to others) gentle (dealing softly with people so as not to hurt) gloomy (usually in a depressed mood, feeling that things will come out badly) good-natured (friendly, never taking offense at others) greedy (wanting more than one deserves) hard-headed (not easily swayed in one’s way of thinking, practical in one’s viewpoint) hard-hearted (cruel, having no pity for others) headstrong (wilful, insisting on having one’s way) high-strung (always nervous and tense) honest (truthful) hostile (unfriendly, inclined to have ill will toward others) humorous (funny, amusing to others) 144 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ______ 95* ____ 96. ____ 97. ____ 98. ____ 99* 100. 101. 102. -____ 105. ____ 104. ____ 105. 106. ____ 107. 108. ____ 109. 110. 111. hurried (doing everything in a rush) idealistic (thinking in terms of ideals, seeking perfection) imaginative (inclined to think of new and different things) 1mmature (grown up but still acting like a child or teenager) Impulsive (inclined to act without thinking) independent (usually taking care of oneself, needing no assistance) indifferent (not interested or concerned about things around one) individualistic (liking to do things for one's own reasons ra ther than being like others) industrious (always busy with useful things) infantile (acting like a small ^hildl---- informal (easy-going and relaxed about manners and clothes) initiative (usually getting started on things on one’s own) Intelligent (bright, able to figure things out) irresponsible (undependable, not likely to follow through on a responsibility) irritable (easily angered) . 1 oily (merry, full of joy) kind (being good to others, careful not to hurt others) 145 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 112. ____ 113. ____ 114. ____ 115. 116. ____ 117. 118. ____ 119. 120. 121. 122. ____ 123. ____ 124. ____ 125. 126. ____ 127. 128. ______ 129. lazy (alow, unwilling to work) leisurely (taking one's time to do things) logical (usually making sense) loud (noisy, showy) loyal (faithful to friends) masculine (being like a man) mature (acting and thinking like a grown-up) methodical (having a regular and orderly way of doing things) mild (gentle in behavior and attitude) mischievous (inclined to get into mild trouble, liking to play jokes on others) moderate (not going to extremes on things) modest (not wanting to show off) moody (inclined to change quickly from happy to sad) nagging (pestering for something one wants) nervous (restless, easily upset, on edge about things) obliging (helpful, willing) obnoxious (doing things that bother or offend others) opinionated (inclined to have strong and outspoken opinions and beliefs) 146 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 150. opportunistic (getting ahead by- taking advantage of opportunities rather than by careful planning) ____ 131* optimistic (always looking on the good side of things, think ing that things will be better) ____ ____ 132* patient (willing to wait for things to work out) 153* peculiar (strange, odd) 134* persevering (inclined not to give up on something until it is finished) 135. persistent (continuing to at tempt something until one gets what one wants) ____ 136* pessimistic (always looking on the bad side of things) 137. planful (full of plans for the future) ____ 138. pleasant (agreeable, not of- fensive) 139* poised (unruffled, able to keep control of oneself, even in up setting situations' _______ _____ 140* practical (inclined to take action which is useful) 141* praising (liking to tell others when they do something well) 142* precise (usually saying exactly what one means) 143* prejudiced (holding opinions of dislike against something or someone that are not based on fact) ______ ____ _____ 144* preoccupied (lost in thought, inattentive because one is busy) 147 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 145. ____ 146. ____ 147. 148. _____________149. 150. ____ 151. 152. ____ 155. ____ 154. ____ 155. 156. ____ 157. 158. ____ 159. progressive (being in favor of changes for the better) quarrelsome (easily getting into arguments and disagreements with people) quiet (not saying much) rational (making sense in what one says or does; realistic (acting and thinking about things as they are, not as one imagines or desires them to be) reasonable (fair and just in dealing with others) rebellious (wanting to go against authority) reckless (doing things without thinking of the consequences) reflective (inclined to think about things that have happened) reliable (can be depended upon, consistent in what one does) resentful (feeling angry and displeased against someone be cause of an injury or insult) reserved (careful in showing one*s thoughts and feelings) resourceful (being able to find a way to do things with little outside help) responsible (trustworthy, usually carrying through on assignments) restless (not liking to wait, impatient) 148 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 160. 161. 162. ____ 163. ____ 164. ____ 165. 166. ____ 167. 168. ____ 169. 170. ____ 171. 172. ____ 173. ____ 174. ____ 175. 176. robust (strong and full of eneig^ rude (impolite, rough) sarcastic (inclined to make cut ting remarks that express dis belief or contempt) self-denying (inclined to deprive oneself of desirable things) self-pitying (inclined to feel sorry for oneself) self-punishing (finding fault and being angry with oneself) selfish (caring only for oneself) sensitive (easily hurt) sentimental (easily feeling sad ness or tenderness about things) serious (not taking things lightly, recognizing the impor tance of things) severe (strict and sometimes harsh in one’s expectations of oneself and others) sexy (sexually stimulating, having an appearance and manner of liking sex) shallow (never thinking deeply or seriously about anything) sharp-witted (quick-thinking, very intelligent) shiftless (lazy, inclined to live an unplanned existence) show-off (liking to attract attention to oneself) shrewd (sharp in one’s judgment or people and situations; 149 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 177. shy (disliking to he the center of attention) ____ 178. silent (yery quiet, seldom speaking) ____ 179. simple (not complicated, wanting few things in life) ____ 180. sincere (honest, genuine, being in reality what one appears to be) ____ 181. slipshod (sloppy in what one doe^ ____ 182. slow (not acting quickly, sluggish) 185. sly (foxy, inclined to try to get around people) ________ _____ 184. snobbish (disliking to associate with those who are not well off) ____ 185* sociable (liking to be with people) 186. soft-hearted (inclined to give in easily to the wants of others) 187. smug (yery self-satisfied) ____ 188. spendthrift (inclined to spend more money than one can afford) ____ 189. spontaneous (acting genuinely as one really feels and without re straint ) ____ 190. spunky (plucky, haying a lot of spirit) ____ 191. stable (dependable, not likely to have major upsets) ____ 192. stingy (not willing to giye to others or to share what one has) 195. stubborn (unwilling to change one*s mind or to giye in) 1 50 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 194. suggestible (easily influenced by suggestions from others) 195* sulky (peevish, inclined to pout; ____ 196. superstitious (inclined to be lieve in unnatural causes for things) 197. suspicious (believing that people are out to take advan tage of others) 198* sympathetic (inclined to feel sorry for the suffering and difficulties of others] _____ 199* tactful (able to say things without offending others) 200. talkative (always ready to make use of a listener) _____ _____ 201. temperamental (easily excited, inclined to quick changes of feeling, highly emotional) _____ _____ 202. thankless (ungrateful) ____ 205* thrifty (economical, wise in spending money and using things) ____ ____ 204. timid (easily frightened) 205* tolerant (willing to let others have the same rights and privi leges as oneself; ____ 206. touchy (easily offended) 207* trusting (believing that people are trustworthy) ____ 208. unassuming (unpretending, modest) 209* understanding (recognizing how others feel) 151 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 210* unscrupulous (acting dishonest ly, taking unfair advantage of others) ____ _ _ _ 211 ♦ vindictive (wanting to get even for some harm done) 212. versatile (capable of doing many different kinds of things) 213* warm (showing friendly feeling toward others) ____ ____ 214* wholesome (likely to say and do things that are healthy) _____ ______ _____ 215* wise (using good judgment, having learned from experience) 216. withdrawn (inclined to keep away from people and to avoid expressing oneself) ____ 217* witty (always thinking of clever things to say) 218. worrying (being very concerned about things that might go wrong) 152 II. Following is the form for the training (judging) pro cedure for the 162 items of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Items have been restated as participial phrases and personal pronouns changed to the colloquial, impersonal "you" and "your." M M P I GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 1. Worrying a lot over possible mis fortunes. 2. Having stolen things as a young ster. 3. Having the wanderlust and roaming or traveling about, 4. Being nervous at having to wait for something or someone. 5. Feeling that others do not care what happens to you. 6. Feeling that something is wrong with your mind. 7. Hands and feet being warm enough, 8. Being very strongly attracted by members of your own sex. 9. Feeling hungry almost all the time. 10. Feeling that some subjects are too unpleasant to talk about. 11. Believing in a life hereafter. 12. Feeling that someone is trying to influence your mind. 13. Feeling angry at being hurried by others. 153 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 14. Feeling that someone is making you do things by hypnotizing you. 15. Doubting the reality of things around you. 16. Believing that everything is turn ing out just like the prophets in the Bible said it would. 17. Having to take orders from someone who does not know as much as you do. _____ _ _ 1®* Keeping a diary. ____ _____ 19. Finding it hard to keep your mind on a task or job. 20. Having liked to play with dolls at one time in your life. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ 21. Being able to keep your mind on one thing. ______ _____ 22. Drinking an unusually large amount of water every day. 25. Feeling that you want to leave home when things get rough. 24. Feeling afraid when looking down from a high place. _____ _____ ____ 25. Having numbness in one or more regions of your skin. 26. Feeling that you would have been more successful if people had not had it in for you* 27. Feeling that your parents and fa mily find more fault than most families do. _____ _____ _____ 28. Working things out for yourself rather than getting someone else to show you how. 154 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 29. 50. ____ 51. 52. ____ 55. ____ 54. ____ 55. ____ 56. ____ 57. 58. ____ 59. ____ 40. ____ 41. 42. ____ 45. ____ 44. ______ 45. Worrying about sex matters. Feeling that everything tastes the same. Feeling that there are persons who are trying to steal your thoughts and ideas. Feeling that someone is trying to poison you. Being able to keep your balance in walking. Believing that your sins are for givable • Hearing voices without knowing where they come from. Being afraid of losing your mind. Being able to "get going" at least enough to take care of necessary things. Sleeping well most nights. Being able to concentrate about the same as everyone else. Having your head hurt all over much of the time. Being bothered by thoughts about sex. Having all the e n e r g y you need. Feeling that you can understand what you read. Being bothered by seeing animals suffer. Being afraid of things or people that you know cannot hurt you. 155 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 55. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. Reeling that it ia impossible to keep from stealing or shoplifting things. Peeling hate towards members of your own family. Liking movie love scenes. Feeling happy most of the time. Liking to draw flowers. Having difficulty with your hear ing, such as your ears ringing or buzzing. Dreaming frequently. Refusing to play some games be cause you are not good at them. Being embarrassed by dirty stories. Having strong political opinions. Feeling lonely much of the time even with people around. Hating to have to rush when work ing. Being cross when you are not feeling well. Never having been in love with anyone. Having spells during which you carry on activities without know ing what you are doing. Being treated more like a child than a grown-up by your family. Preferring to work with women. Feeling so restless that you can not sit long in a chair. 1.56 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 64. ____ 65. 66. ____ 67. _______ 68* ____ 69. ____ 70. ____ ____ 71. 72. ____ 73. ____ 74. ____ 75. ____ 76. ____ 77. ____ 78. ____ 79. Having attacks in which you cannot control your movements or speech, hut in which you know what is going on around you. Having trouble in starting to do things• Loving your mother. Dreaming frequently about things that are best kept to yourself. Having strange and peculiar thoughts* Noticing peculiar odors that can't be traced to something nearby. Usually being able to think of something all right to talk about in a group of people. Being easily embarrassed. Having your voice leave you or change even though you don't have a cold. Never dreaming* Admiring or feeling attached to a woman when you were a child* Peeling that life is unbearable most of the time. Preferring to pass by old firends unless they speak first. Feeling anxiety about something or someone almost all the time. Shrinking from facing a crisis or difficulty. Peeling blue most of the time. 157 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 80. 81. 82. ____ 83. ____ 84. ____ 85. 86. ____ 87. 88. ____ 89. ____ 90. ____ 91. ____ 92. ____ 95. ____ 94. ____ 95. ____ 96. Usually dreaming about other thing3 besides sex. Being able to make friends about as quickly as others do. Expecting to succeed in things you do. Using alcohol excessively. Reeling afraid to handle money. Wanting to handle or steal be longing of others although you have no use for them. Feeling that your mother was a good woman. Enjoying hurting persons you love. Allowing your conduct to depend on what those around you do. Feeling paralyzed or unusual weak ness in your muscles. Believing you are a condemned person. Wishing you were dead most of the time. Enjoying being hurt by someone you love. Being patient with people who interrupt when you are working on something important. Having trouble with your muscles twitching or jumping. Having a daydream life about which you do not tell other people. Oaring a lot what happens to you. 158 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 97. Blushing often, _____ ____ ____ 98. Having a strong urge to do some thing harmful or shocking. ____ 99. Peeling suddenly hot all over, without apparent cause. 100. Liking to wear expensive clothes. ________ 101. Being made nervous by certain animals• _________ 102. Peeling that you have been pun ished without cause. ________ 105. Peeling that your memory is all right. ____ 104. Going to church almost every week. ____ 105. Liking to talk about sex. ____ 106. Being afraid of using a knife or anything sharp. 107. Liking to make other people afraid and doing it for the fun of it. 108. Peeling that your way of doing things is easily misunderstood by others. 109. Wishing to have been born of the opposite sex. ____ 110. Being easily awakened by noise. 111. Peeling that your family likes the work you have chosen. ____ 112. Thinking once in a while of things too bad to talk about. ____ 113* Seldom perspiring unless the weather is hot. 159 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 114. ____ 115. 116. ____ 117. 118. ____ 119. 120. 121. 122. ____ 123. ____ 124. ____ 125. 126. ____ 127. 128. ____ 129. Being bothered by hearing very queer things when you are with other people. Feeling that your father was a good man. Feeling that your sex life is satisfactory. Feeling as if there were a tight band about your head. Believing that you are being followed. Liking to hunt lions in Africa. Laughing or crying sometimes but keeping it under control. Feeling uncomfortable about put ting on a stunt at a party even when others are doing the same sort of things. Getting in trouble because of your sex behavior. Enjoying children. Liking the work of a building contractor. Feeling that someone has control over your mind. Indulging in unusual sex prac tices. Feeling as if you must injure either yourself or someone else. Feeling happier when with other people. Feeling that almost every day something happens to frighten you. 160 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD 130. ____ 131. 132. ____ 133. ____ 134. ____ 135. 136. ____ 137. 138. ____ 139. 140. ____ 141. 142. ____ 143. ____ 144. ____ 145. 146. Feeling that you are about to go to pieces. Getting over-excited. Having loved your father. Having been disappointed in love. Having had very peculiar and strange experiences. Liking the kind of work a forest ranger does. Feeling liked by most people who know you. Feeling frightened by the things that some of your family have done. Being troubled by self-conscious ness. Feeling that you are possessed by evil spirits at times. Feeling that people are saying insulting and vulgar things about you. Liking to have people about you. Tending to cry easily. Hearing strange things when alone. Having blank spells in which your activities are interrupted and you do not know what is going on around you. Having difficulties with your speech. As a reporter, liking to report news of the theater. 161 GOOD NEUTRAL BAD ____ 147. 148. ____ 149. 150. ____ 151. 152. ____ 153. ____ 154. ____ 155. 156. ____ 157. 158. ____ 159. 160. 161. 162. Liking to repair door latches. Liking ’ ’ Alice in Wonderland" by- Lewis Carroll. Putting off until tomorrow what you ought to do today. Peeling jealous of members of your family. Peeling that you get all the sym pathy you should. Liking to visit places where you have never been before. Preferring to sit and daydream rather than do anything else. Feeling that you hear so well it bothers you. Feeling that you have difficulty in using your hands. Being able to take criticism or scolding without getting too upset. Believing that you are being plotted against. Feeling that your daily life is full of interesting things. Seeing things or animals or peopLe around you that others do not sea. Having your hand shake when you try to do something. Feeling disappointed in people. Being troubled by constipation. APPENDIX F SUBJECT SCORES BY GROUP 162 GROUP A Pretest : ACL Training: Rate first half of MMPI items, feedback, rate second half of MMPI Posttest: ACL Subject AF-1 AF-2 AF-3 AF-4 AF-5 AF-6 AF-7 AF-8 AF-9 AF-10 Pretest Score 137 147 162 139 165 90 157 151 172 142 Posttest Score 146 157 164 156 179 101 155 153 180 163 Difffce Score 9 10 2 17 14 11 - 2 2 8 21 Training Scores--- First Half Second Half % Right # Right 66.2 79*4 60*3 63*2 80*9 41.2 17.6 85*3 79.4 60*3 84*7 86.4 76*3 84.7 89.8 39.0 64.4 98.3 86.4 84*4 Tr’ng Diff*ce Score 18.5 7.0 16.0 21.5 8.9 - 2.2 46.8 13.0 7.0 24.1 Total Tr*ng Score 144.40 159.60 130.72 141.36 164.16 77.52 76.00 176*32 159.60 139.84 AM-1 AM-2 AM-3 AM-4 AM-5 AM-6 AM-7 AM-8 AM-9 173 164 161 130 111 172 154 172 170 175 168 165 135 125 181 162 177 179 2 4 4 5 14 9 8 5 9 72.0 45.6 82.3 80.9 80.9 69.1 5.9 82.3 64.7 79.7 78.0 84.7 89.8 89.8 88.1 10.2 66.1 93.2 7.7 32.4 2.4 8.9 8.9 19.0 4.3 -16.2 28.5 145.92 117.04 161.12 164.16 164.16 150.48 15.20 144.40 150.48 GROUP B Pretest : MMPI Training: Rate first half of MMPI items, : feedback, rate second half of MM1 Posttest: MMPI ---Training Scores--- Tr*ng Total Pretest Posttest Diff*ce First Half Second Half Diff*ce Tr*ng Subject Score Score Score $ > Rifiht io Right Scores Score BF-1 186.96 186.96 0 86.8 93.2 6.4 173.28 BP-2 182.40 180.88 - 1.52 88.2 88.1 - .1 170.24 BP-3 138.32 162.64 24.32 95*6 78.0 -17.6 168.72 BP-4 121.60 103.36 -18.24 73.5 71.2 - 2.3 139.84 BP-5 104.88 110.96 6.08 39.7 30.5 - 9.2 68.40 BP-6 162.64 190.00 27.36 69.1 93.2 24*1 155*04 BF-7 145*92 156.56 10.64 79.4 96.6 17.2 168*72 BF-8 167.20 171.76 4.56 94.1 91.5 - 2.6 179.36 BF-9 121.60 139.84 18.24 75.0 94.9 19.9 162.64 BP-10 124.64 118.56 - 6.08 58.8 66.1 7.3 120.08 BM-1 150.48 158.08 7.60 82.3 91.5 9.2 167.20 BM-2 77.52 76.00 - 1.52 77.9 83.1 5.2 155.04 BM-3 177.84 182.41 4.56 88.2 93.2 5.0 174.80 BM-4 130.72 136.80 6.08 67.6 64.4 - 3.2 127.68 BM-5 141.36 136.80 - 4.56 77.9 79.7 1.8 152.00 BM-6 176.32 186.96 10.64 41.2 57.6 16.4 94.24 BM-7 174.80 183.92 9.12 91.2 91.5 .3 176.32 BM-8 188.48 186.96 - 1.52 86.8 93.2 6.4 173.28 BM-9 153.52 158.08 4.56 80.9 84.7 3.8 159.60 BM-10 162.64 164.16 1.52 79.4 79.7 .3 153.52 164 GROUP C Pretest : ACL Training: Rate MMPI items Posttest: ACL Subject CP-1 CP-2 CP-3 CP-4 CP-5 CF-6 CP-7 CP-8 CP-9 CP-10 Pretest Score 152 125 165 159 173 137 148 151 118 1 65 Posttest Score 159 123 166 166 174 142 155 149 121 171 Diff* ce Score 7 - 2 1 7 1 5 7 - 2 5 6 CM-1 CM-2 CM-3 CM-4 CM-5 CM-6 CM-7 CM-8 CM-9 CM-10 155 145 173 147 106 88 142 88 165 184 162 1 50 177 150 104 119 141 101 175 186 7 5 4 3 - 2 31 - 1 13 8 2 Training Scores Tr#ng Total Pirst Half Second Half Diff*ce Tr*ng # Right % Right Scores Score 76.5 83*8 73*5 94.1 89.7 13.2 95.6 80.9 30.9 89.7 79.5 93.2 72.9 94.9 89.9 15.2 96.6 78.0 39.0 93*2 85.3 83.9 70.6 76.5 22.0 82.3 61 .8 45*9 80.9 85.3 88.1 86.4 84.7 92.0 5.1 79*7 57*6 66.1 83*1 88.1 3*2 9.4 .6 .8 .2 2.0 1 .0 2.9 8.1 3.5 150.48 170.24 141.36 182.40 173*28 27.36 185.44 153.52 66.88 176.32 2.8 2.5 14.1 15.5 -16.9 - 2.6 * 4.2 20.2 2.2 2.8 167.20 164.16 148.96 148.96 27.36 156.56 115*52 106.40 158.08 167.20 C T i VJ1 \ GROUP D Pretest : MMPI Training: Rate MMPI items Posttest: MMPI Pretest Posttest Diff *c< Subject Score Score Score DP-1 186,96 190.00 3.04 DP-2 135*28 132.24 - 3.04 DP-3 150,48 161 .12 10.64 DP-4 126.16 155.04 28.88 DP-5 161.12 159.60 - 1.52 DP-6 148.96 158.08 9.12 DF-7 136.80 132.24 - 4.56 DP-8 126.16 141.36 15.20 DP-9 176,32 164.16 -12.16 DP-10 171.76 174.80 3.04 DM—1 139.84 156.56 16.72 DM-2 124.64 114.00 -10.64 DM-3 173.28 170.24 - 3.04 DM-4 76.00 79.04 3.04 DM-5 179.36 182.40 3.04 DM-6 185.44 180.88 - 4.56 DM-7 171.76 173.28 1.52 DM-8 54.72 51.68 - 3.04 DM-9 91.20 97.28 6.08 DM-10 147.44 159.60 12.16 ---Training Scores--- First Half Second Half % Right # Right Tr*ng Diff*ce Scores Total Trfng Score 92.6 98.3 5.7 183.92 73.5 72.9 - .6 141.36 70.6 84.7 14.1 148.96 51.5 61 .0 9.5 107.92 79.4 62.7 -16.7 138.32 88.2 91.5 3.3 173.28 7.4 15.3 7.9 21 .28 0 0 0 0 89.7 96.6 6.9 179.36 67.6 67.8 0.2 130.72 77.9 86.4 8.5 158,08 67.6 69.5 1.9 132.24 83.8 91.5 7.7 168.72 69.1 66.1 - 3.0 130.72 98.5 93.2 - 5.3 185.44 20.6 22.0 1.4 41.04 80.9 83.1 2.2 158.08 89.7 93.2 3.5 176.32 79.4 59.3 -20.1 135.28 75.0 61 .0 -14.0 132.24 166 GROUP F Pretest : ACL Trainings Rate first half of Posttest: ACL Pretest Posttest Difftce Subject Score Score Score FF-1 160 176 16 FF-2 134 131 - 3 FF-3 170 178 8 FF-4 184 183 - 1 FF-5 101 107 6 FF-6 95 99 4 FF-7 176 179 3 FF-8 175 180 5 FF-9 160 163 3 FF-10 161 116 -45 FM-1 102 98 - 4 FM-2 149 144 - 5 FM-3 145 166 21 FM-4 131 181 50 FM-5 102 111 9 FM-6 151 164 13 FM-7 173 175 2 FM-8 139 181 42 FM-9 109 93 -16 FM-1 0 150 106 -44 ACL items, feedback, rate second half of ACL -Training Scores- First Half # Right 53.5 54*5 86.9 90.9 39*4 25*3 71.7 82.8 83.8 32.3 Second Half 83.0 63.8 87.2 84.0 43.6 38.3 88.3 90.4 77.6 61.7 Tr*ng Diff’ce Scores 29.5 9.3 .3 - 6.9 4.2 13.0 16.6 7.6 - 6.2 29.4 Total Tr*ng Score 131 114 168 169 80 61 154 167 156 90 85.8 42.4 82.8 61.6 82.8 78.8 80.0 94.9 90.9 98.0 87.2 43.6 86.2 75.5 85.1 75.5 88.3 93.6 79.8 96.8 1.4 1.2 3.4 13.9 2.3 - 3.3 8.3 - 1.3 - 11.1 - 1.2 167 83 163 132 162 149 162 182 165 188 CTi -0 GROUP G Pretest : MMPI Training: Rate first half of ACL items, feedback, rate second half of A01 Posttest: MMPI Jub.iect Pretest Score Posttest Score Diff'ce Score ---Training First Half % Right Scores--- Second Half % Right Tr*ng Diff*ce Scores Total Tr fn^ Scor< GF-1 155*28 155.04 19.76 90.9 87.2 - 3.7 172 GF-2 88.16 92.72 4.56 73.7 80.8 7.1 149 GF-3 174.80 173.28 - 1.52 85.8 85.1 - .7 165 GP-4 164.16 186.96 22.80 87.9 87.2 - .7 169 GF-5 133.76 142.88 9.12 71.7 72.3 .6 139 GF-6 177.84 180.88 3.04 83.8 89.4 5.6 167 GF-7 167.20 171.76 4.56 84.8 84.0 - .8 163 GF-8 179.36 185.44 6.08 94.9 91.5 - 3.4 180 GF-9 132.24 136.80 4.56 88.9 78.7 -10.2 162 GF-10 148.96 150.48 1.52 77.8 68.0 - 9.8 141 GM-1 145.92 148.96 3.04 90.9 91.5 .6 176 GM-2 152.00 155.04 3.04 43.4 57.4 14.0 97 GM-3 167.20 171.76 4.56 54.5 75.5 21.0 125 GM-4 138.32 152.00 13.68 76.7 84.0 7.3 155 GM-5 147.44 170.24 22.80 79.80 69.5 -10.5 141 GM—6 180.88 185.44 4.56 92.9 78.7 -14.2 166 GM-7 152.00 152.00 0 94.9 76.6 -18.3 166 GM—8 156.56 155.04 - 1.52 161 GM-9 167.20 177.84 10.64 85.8 80.8 - 5.0 GM—10 120.08 124.64 4.56 54.5 46.8 - 7.7 98 0 3 GROUP H Pretest : ACL Training: Rate ACL items Posttest: ACL Pretest Posttest Liff^ce Subject Score Score Score HP-1 108 127 19 HP-2 164 169 5 HP-5 125 156 11 HP-4 155 153 18 HP-5 159 165 4 HP-6 175 180 5 HP-7 137 117 -20 HP-8 177 178 1 HP-9 127 138 11 HM-1 81 77 - 4 HM-2 156 158 2 HM-3 45 38 - 7 HM-4 157 178 21 HM-5 160 141 -19 HM-6 157 169 12 HM-7 154 171 17 HM-8 106 101 - 5 HM-9 176 178 2 HM-10 168 173 5 Training First Half % Right 68*9 78.8 64*6 64*6 31.3 85.8 36.4 87.9 80*8 61.6 88.9 21 .2 86*9 53.5 61.6 92*9 14.1 89.9 88.9 Scores TrTng Total Second Half Diff1ce Tr’ng ■ Right Scores Score 62.8 - 6.1 127 56.4 -22*4 131 57.4 -7.2 118 65.9 1.3 126 58.5 27.2 86 83*0 - 2*8 163 20.2 -16*2 55 92*5 4.6 174 76.6 - 4.2 152 70.2 8.6 127 78.7 -10.2 163 18.1 - 3.1 38 85.1 - 1 . 8 166 40.4 -13.1 91 61.7 .1 119 88.3 - 4.6 175 14.9 .8 28 91.5 1.6 175 86.2 - 2.7 169 o% GROUP I Pretest : MMPI Training: Rate ACL items Posttest: MMPI Siib.lect Pretest Score Posttest Score Diff’ce Score --- Training Pirst Half # Right Scores--- Second Half % Right Tr*ng Diff>ce Scores Total Tr1ng Score IP-1 147.44 158.08 10.64 72.7 75.5 2.8 143 IP-2 179.36 177.84 - 1.52 86.7 89.4 2.7 170 IP-3 162.64 173.28 10*64 74.7 70.2 - 4.5 140 IP-4 180.88 180.88 0 84.8 70.2 -14.6 150 IP-5 150.48 158.08 7.60 86.9 87.2 .3 168 IP-6 180.88 183.92 3.04 29.3 30.8 1.5 58 IP-7 168.72 173.28 4.56 86.9 92.5 5.6 173 IP-8 117.04 136.80 19.76 45.4 52.1 6.7 94 IP-9 165.68 147.44 -18.24 59.6 54.2 - 5.4 110 IP-10 158.08 174.80 16.72 74.7 72.3 - 2.4 142 IM-1 153.52 144.40 - 9.12 74.7 72.3 - 2.4 142 IM-2 165.68 173.28 7.60 84.8 81.9 - 2.9 161 IM-3 164.16 168.72 4.56 81 .8 84.0 2.2 160 IM-4 162.64 171.76 9.12 61.6 69.1 7.5 126 IM-5 136.80 124.64 -12.16 39.4 27.6 -11 .8 65 IM-6 174.80 182.40 7.60 87.9 87.2 - .7 169 IM-7 86.64 126.16 39.52 65.6 76.6 11 .0 137 IM-8 106.40 136.80 30.40 68.7 71.3 2.6 135 IM-9 100.32 89.68 -10.64 38.4 29.8 - 8.6 66 IM-10 155.04 138.32 -16.72 58.6 12.8 -45.8 70 170 GROUP J Pretest : ACL Trainingi Self-description ACL items Posttest: ACL ---Training Scores--- Tr’ng Total Pretest Posttest Diff'ce First Half Second Half Diff’ce Tr’ng Subject Score Score Score % Right % Right Scores Score JF-1 183 186 3 97.0 95.7 - 1.3 186 JF-2 181 182 1 98.0 92.4 - 5.6 184 JF-3 169 175 6 90.1 89.1 - 1.0 173 JF-4 171 183 12 92.1 92.4 .3 178 JF-5 158 172 14 90.1 9U3 1.2 175 JF-6 136 148 12 76.2 75.0 - 1.2 146 JF-7 103 98 - 5 48.5 53.3 4.8 98 JF-8 170 177 7 93.1 90.2 - 2.9 177 JF-9 158 165 7 86.1 79.3 - 6.8 160 JF-10 136 161 25 81.2 81.5 .3 157 JM-1 165 161 - 4 83.2 87.0 3.8 164 JM-2 123 129 6 62.4 71.7 9.3 129 JM-3 173 173 0 86.1 94.6 8.5 174 JM-4 164 157 - 7 82.2 83.7 1.5 160 JM-5 165 175 10 87.1 93.5 6.4 174 JM-6 143 150 7 76.2 78.3 2.1 149 JM-7 167 175 8 88.1 94.6 6.5 176 JM-8 175 182 7 93.1 97.8 4.7 184 JM-9 82 75 - 7 34.7 40.2 5.5 72 JM-10 182 181 - 1 91.1 96.7 5.6 181 G-ROUP K Subject Pretest : Training; Posttest: MMPI Self-description ACL items MMPI Pretest Score Posttest Score Diff’ce Score -Training Scores- First Half # Right KF-1 156.56 167.20 10.64 73*7 KF-2 136.80 144.40 7.60 67.7 KF-3 167.20 148.96 -18.24 67.7 KF-4 153.52 158.08 4.56 86.9 KF-5 165.68 168.72 3.04 85.8 KF-6 153.52 142.88 -10.64 81.8 KF-7 147.44 161.12 13.68 82.8 KF—8 177.84 176.32 - 1.52 78.8 EF-9 121.60 123.12 1.52 80.8 KF-1 0 120.08 124.64 4.56 62.6 KM-1 139.84 142.88 3.04 85.8 KM-2 159.60 179.36 19.76 86.9 KM—3 130.72 126.16 - 4.56 65.6 KM-4 139.84 148.96 9.12 53.5 KM-5 121.60 141.36 19.76 76.8 KM-6 168.72 164.16 - 4.56 89.9 KM-7 86.64 92*72 6.08 59.6 KM-8 141.36 145.92 4.56 73.7 KM-9 153.52 159.60 6.08 88.9 KM-1 0 121 .60 129.20 7.60 71.7 Second Half * Right 86,2 64.9 63.8 80.9 89.4 86.2 84.0 81.9 71.3 75.5 92.6 75.4 70.2 50.0 67.0 93.6 48.9 61.7 84.0 74.5 Tr’ng Diff’ce Score 12.5 - 2.8 - 3.9 - 6.0 3.6 4.4 1.2 3.1 - 9.5 12.9 6.8 -13.5 4.6 - 3.5 - 9.8 3.7 -10.7 - 12 .0 - 4.9 2.8 Total Tr’ng Score 154 128 127 162 169 162 161 155 147 133 172 155 131 100 139 177 105 131 167 141 172 GROUP L Subject LF-1 LF-2 LF-3 LF-4 LF-5 LF-6 LF-7 LF-8 LF-9 LF-10 LM-1 LM-2 LM-3 LM-4 LM-5 LM-6 LM-7 LM-8 LM-9 LM-1 0 Pretest s AGL Training: Rone Posttest: ACL Pretest Posttest Diff’ce Score Score Score 156 165 7 149 146 - 5 161 160 - 1 165 174 9 158 169 11 134 143 9 175 148 -27 138 146 8 112 140 28 163 156 - 7 171 165 - 6 125 140 15 63 62 - 1 173 177 4 110 108 - 2 152 165 13 134 144 10 162 170 8 161 167 6 147 163 16 Training Scores Tr*ng Total First Half Second Half Liff,ce Tr*ng % Right # Right Score Score GROUP M Pretest : MMPI Training: Rone Posttest: MMPI Pretest Posttest Diff,ce Subject Score Score Score MF-1 135*28 156.56 21 .28 MF-2 159.84 156.80 - 5.04 MF-5 156.56 171.76 15.20 MF-4 141.56 141.56 0 MF-5 101.84 126.16 24.52 MF-6 159.84 152.24 - 7.60 MF-7 112.48 107.92 - 4.56 MF-8 95.76 101.84 6.08 MF-9 144.40 144.40 0 MF-10 170.24 180.88 10.64 MM-1 156.80 158.08 21 .28 MM-2 118.56 120.08 1.52 MM-5 186.96 185.44 - 1.52 MM-4 161 .12 182.40 21 .28 MM-5 164.16 155.52 -10.64 MM—6 114.00 112.48 - 1.52 MM-7 185.44 186.96 1.52 MM-8 155.76 155.28 1.52 MM-9 82.08 69.92 -12.16 MM-1 0 158.08 152.00 - 6.08 Training Scores Trrng Total First Half Second Half Difftce Tr*ng # Right Right Score Score GROUP H Pretest : AG1 Training: Self-description MMPI items Posttest: AC1 Subject Pretest Score Posttest Score Diff’ce Score ---Training First Half # Right Scores--- Second Half % Right Tr*ng Diff1ce Score Total Trfng Score HF-1 157 152 - 5 77*3 78.8 1.5 150.48 NF-2 155 156 3 78.7 71.1 - 7.6 145.92 KF-3 168 168 0 76.0 76.9 ♦9 147.44 NF-4 161 167 6 82.7 86.5 3.8 162*64 NF-5 137 143 6 86.7 88.5 1.8 168.72 NF-6 157 168 11 86.7 90.4 3.7 170.24 NF-7 116 109 - 7 45.3 34.6 -10.7 79.04 NP-8 110 159 49 66.7 59.6 - 7.1 123.12 NF-9 131 141 10 62.7 55.8 - 6.9 115.52 NF-10 136 143 7 57.3 55.8 - 1.5 109.44 NM-1 139 158 19 65.3 78.8 13.5 136.80 NM-2 174 176 2 97.3 94.2 - 3.1 185.44 NM-3 145 153 8 80.0 92.3 12.3 164.16 NM-4 183 182 - 1 93.3 100.0 6.7 190.00 NM-5 119 108 -11 66.7 67.3 .6 129.20 NM-6 117 128 11 54.7 57.7 3.0 107.92 NM-7 172 166 - 6 78.7 90.4 11.7 161.12 UM-8 135 134 - 1 74.7 69.2 - 5.5 139.84 NM-9 180 180 0 82.7 82.7 0 159.60 NM-10 170 173 3 90.7 90.4 - .3 174.80 175 GROUP 0 Pretest : Training: Posttest: MMPI Self-description MMPI items MMPI Subject Pretest Score Posttest Score Diff*ce Score Training First Half % Right OF-1 161.12 156.56 - 4.56 77.5 OF-2 175.28 174.80 1.52 90.7 OF-5 112.48 129.20 16.72 61.5 OF-4 159.84 155.52 15.68 72.0 OF-5 168.72 179.56 10.64 95.5 OF-6 162.64 155.52 - 9.12 72.0 OF-7 167.20 174.80 7.60 88.0 OF-8 179.56 180.88 1.52 94.7 OF-9 150.72 142.88 12.16 77.5 OF-10 142.88 156.56 15.68 78.7 OM-1 152.24 159.84 7.60 72.0 OM-2 126.16 152.24 6.08 68.0 OM-5 158.52 155.04 16.72 76.0 OM-4 175.28 176.52 3.04 86.7 OM-5 164.16 159.60 - 4.56 84.0 OM-6 159.60 155.04 - 4.56 81.3 OM-7 150.48 156.56 6.08 80.0 OM-8 159.84 138.52 - 1.52 72.0 OM-9 156.80 141.36 4.56 72.0 OM-10 147.44 155.04 7.60 73.3 Scores---- Second Half # Right 84*6 88.5 71.1 75.0 96.1 67.5 92.5 92.5 71.1 75.0 76.9 69.2 80.8 98.1 84.6 78.4 86.5 75.7 75.0 84.6 Tr*ng Diff’ce Score 7.5 - 2.2 9.8 5.0 2.8 - 4.7 4.5 - 2.4 - 6.2 - 5.7 4.9 1.2 4.8 11.4 .6 - 2.9 6.5 1.7 5.0 11.5 Total Trfng Score 155.04 175.28 126.16 141.56 182.40 155.28 175.28 180.88 144.40 148.96 142.88 152.24 150.48 176.52 162.64 155.04 159.60 159.84 141.56 150.48 _ o\

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Study Of The Effects Of Generalized Expectancies Upon Accuracy Of Interpersonal Perception

PDF

Use Of College Students In A Social Therapy Program With Chronic Schizophrenics To Produce Changes In Mood And Social Responsiveness

PDF

Measuring Thought Process As An Ego Function In Schizophrenic, Mentally Retarded And Normal Adolescents By Means Of The Rorschach

PDF

The Effects Of A Self Shock Procedure On Hallucinatory Activity In Hospitalized Schizophrenics

PDF

Defense Choice And Identification

PDF

Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys

PDF

The Relationship Of Multidimensional Scaling Spaces Of Trait Adjectives For Different Reference Persons

PDF

The Effect Of Discriminability On The Partial Reinforcement Effect In Human Gsr Conditioning

PDF

Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties

PDF

A Temporal Approach-Avoidance Conflict In An Academic Test Situation

PDF

The Effects Of Group Experiences On The Aged

PDF

Tension And Anxiety In Deconditioning

PDF

On The Relationship Between Anxiety And Aggression In Nine-Year-Old Boys

PDF

The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns

PDF

Non-Specific Treatment Factors And Deconditioning In Fear Reduction

PDF

The Effects Of Feedback On The Communication Of Medical Prescription To Diabetic Patients

PDF

A Study Of The Relationship Of Temperament Variables To The Ability To Make Certain Judgments Of Emotional Behavior

PDF

Intellectual And Cognitive Factors In The Production Of Psychological Stress Reactions

PDF

Prediction Of Therapeutic And Intellectual Potential In Mentally Retardedchildren

PDF

The Effects Of Prior Part-Experiences On Visual Form Perception In The Albino Rat

Asset Metadata

Creator Newman, Phyllis Macy (author)

Core Title The Effects Of Making Social Desirability Judgments On Personality Inventory Scores Of Schizophrenics

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Jacobs, Alfred (committee chair), Cliff, Norman (committee member), Werkmeister, William H. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-109146

Unique identifier UC11360203

Identifier 6702115.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-109146 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6702115.pdf

Dmrecord 109146

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Newman, Phyllis Macy

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