University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

(USC Thesis Other)

The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content T h is d is s e r ta tio n h a s b e e n 64— 13,497 m ic r o film e d e x a c tly a s r e c e iv e d FA IR C H IL D , R ich a rd E d w ard , 1926— TH E ST A B IL IT Y O F THE S E L F C O N C E P T IN JUN IO R C O LLEG E ST U D E N T S. U n iv e r s ity of S ou th ern C a lifo r n ia , E d .D ., 1964 E d u ca tio n , p sy c h o lo g y University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE STABILITY OF THE SELF CONCEPT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS by Richard Edward Fairchild A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education June 196^- This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date....JUNE*.X36Ji Dean Guidance Committee Chair nan TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION .............................. 1 The Purpose of the Study The General Plan of the Study Organization of the Remaining Chapters II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................. 8 General Background Developing the Self Studies Involving the Self Concept Summary III. SOURCES OF DATA AND PROCEDURE........... 29 Description of Subjects Selection of the Self Concept Measuring Instrument The Index of Adjustment and Values The California Psychological Inventory School and College Ability Tests Procedures Statistical Tools IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS.................... - 6b Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................... 103 Summary Conclusions Discussion Recommendations APPENDIX A ............................................ 113 APPENDIX B ............................................ 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . l*+8 ii LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Hours of Work for Men and Women 1961 .... 32 II. College Majors of Men Students in 1961 . . . 3*+ III. College Majors of Women Students in 1961 . . 35 IV. Self-Acceptance Subscale Scores for Most Self-Accepting and Least Self-Accepting Boys..................................... 57 V. Self-Acceptance Subscale Scores for Most Self-Accepting and Least Self-Accepting G i r l s................................... 58 VI. Analysis of Attrition 1961 - 1963 65 VII. The Stability of the Self Concepts of the Retained Group ........................... 67 VIII. The Stability of the Self Concepts of the Attrition Group ......................... 68 IX. t Values Obtained by Comparing Scores Earned by the Retained Group and the Attrition Group on all Measures in 1 9 6 1 .......... 69 X. t Values Obtained by Comparing Scores Earned by the Retained Group and the Attrition Group on all Measures in 1963 ...... 70 XI. Comparison of Self Concept Stability Between High and Low Groups, I96I - 1 9 6 3........ 77 XII. Comparison of Sex Differences in the Stability of the Self Concept, 1961 - 1963 79 XIII. Comparison of Sex Differences in the Stability of the Ideal Self, 1961 - 1963 . 80 XIV. Comparison of Sex Differences in the Stability of the Discrepancy Scores, 1961 - 1963 81 iii Table Page XV. Academic Ability and the Stability of the Self Concept Over Two Years......... 82 XVI. Intercorrelations of Grade Point Average, SCAT V Scores, and Self Concept Differences for Men....... .... 8^- XVII. Intercorrelations of Grade Point Average, SCAT V Scores, and Self Concept Differences for Women.................. 85 XVIII. Number of Retained Students in Positive and Negative Self Concept Shifting Groups................................. 88 XIX. Relationship of Positive and Negative Self Concept Shift to College Major ......... 89 XX. Chi-Square Analysis of the Number of Men Who Changed and Did Not Change College Majors................................. 90 XXI. Chi-Square Analysis of the Number of Women Who Changed and Did Not Change College Majors............................ 91 XXII. Comparison of Self Concept Stability of Students With Undeclared and Declared Majors................................. 93 XXIII. Members of Attrition Group in Positive and Negative Self Concept Shifting Groups . . 9^ XXIV. Relationship of Positive and Negative Self Concept Shift to Vocational Plans-- Attrition Group ........................ 95 XXV. Comparison of Self Concept Scores Earned By the Nursing Group Over the Two Year Period 1961 - 1 9 6 3 .................... 97 XXVI. Comparison of Scores on the Self-Acceptance Subscale and the Self Concept Scale in 1 9 6 1..................................... 99 iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Distribution of Self Concept Scores in 1961 and 1963 ............................ 71 2. Distribution of Ideal Self Concept Scores in 1961 and 1 9 6 3 ................. . 72 *+. Distribution of Discrepancy Scores in 1961 and 1963 73 v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the newest developments in psychology within the last fifteen years has been the great interest shown by researchers in the self concept. Many psychologists have felt that the understanding of behavior is incomplete without a knowledge of how the person feels about himself (53*62). Asking a person to examine his own behavior is a radical departure from the objectivity demanded by the behaviorists. The self theorists have been under constant fire for the use of introspection in their research, but the rejoinder of these psychologists has been that objec tive methods of measurement have been inadequate in under standing such aspects of psychology as motivation and personality. Even the most objective of psychologists have resorted to the term ego-involvement to indicate the personal aspect of behavior (68). To the present time self concept theory has greatly outstripped the research to support it. The necessity for the use of introspection has produced a plethora of measuring instruments with little attempt made to validate or standardize them. The research evidence that exists has all too often been ill-designed and fragmentary in nature. Carl Rogers and his co-workers are almost alone in going beyond theory and carefully designing a measuring instrument for testing whether or not change takes place in the self concept during therapy. After examining the research on the self concept up to 1961, Wylie called for the development of lower order hypotheses which would "begin to deal with the issues in a more restricted, manageable way." (75) In the haste to relate the self concept to other behavior variables, a great deal of the recent research has been of a short-term nature. Many of the changes that purportedly have been brought about through the manipu lation of the environment have not been followed up to determine the permanence of those changes. The studies that have been longitudinal in nature have dealt primarily with the relative permanence of the effects of therapy on clinical patients. Of paramount significance to an understanding of the self concept is the process of its development through out an individual*s life. At the present time, according to Wylie, "there are no longitudinal data upon which to base a description of the development of the self concept. (75s119) It is understandable why such data do not exist. Longitudinal studies are, by necessity, of long duration and beset by many complicating factors- Merely keeping track of the subjects who make up the study can be a major task. On the other hand, without an understanding of the developmental process our knowledge is incomplete. Many changes in the self concept that are reported to have been brought about by changes in the environment may have been the result, at least in part, of a natural process of development. The present study attempted to shed additional light on the problem of the development of the self concept. A sample of six hundred junior college students was selected in 1961 and administered a self concept measuring instrument. The same sample was administered to the instrument again in 1963 in order to determine the stability of the self concept over a two year period. The two years following high school graduation are crucial years in the lives of young people. This period of late adolescence is the time when major decisions regarding the future of one’s life are made. It is a time of culmination for educational, vocational, and personal planning. It seemed appropriate to ask if, at this important time in the life of a person, changes in feelings about the self could be determined. The Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate the stability of the self concepts of junior college students over a two year period. In addition, an effort was made to evaluate the effect of a specialized training program on the self concept. In the investigation of the problem, an attempt was made to answer the following questions: 1. Are the self concepts of junior college students stable over a two year period? 2. Are there sex differences in the stability of the self concept? 3. Are the self concepts of students who drop out of college different from those who do not? b. Is stability of the self concept related to vocational choice or the choice of a college major? 5. Will a specific educational experience within the junior college affect the self concept? Statement of the hypotheses: 1. The self concepts of junior college students are relatively stable over a two year period. a. No change in the self concepts of junior college students will take place over a two year period. b. Students with high self concept scores will be more stable over the two year period than students with low scores. High and low scores were defined as those departing from the average by more than twenty points. c. There will be no difference in the sta- 5 bility of self concepts between men and women. 2. There will be no relationship between an estimate of academic ability and the stability of the self concept. 3. Intelligence held constant, there will be no relationship between scholastic adjustment as measured by grades and self concept stability. b. In the event of a significant change in the self concept along the positive-negative continuum, in any one subject, over the two year period a change in major or vocational certainty will be made. A positive change in self concept will be related to greater certainty of vocational choice and a negative change in self concept will be related to greater uncertainty of vocational choice. 5. As a student progresses through a specific educational experience, his self concept scores will increase. The rationale behind this was that as a student proceeds through a training program he will become more confident in his abilities and this confidence will be reflected in increased self feelings. This is, in general, the theory outlined by the vocational guidance self theorists. To psychologists Super (67) and Ginzberg (26) the choice of a vocation is essentially the implementation of a self concept. The General Plan of the Study The principal hypothesis involved the stability of the self concept over a period of two years. The self concept was defined as a group of traits, with their accompanying positive and negative values, about the person himself. A sample of freshmen students at Long Beach City College was administered a self concept measuring instrument and a questionnaire in 1961 and again in 1963. Differences between means of the two adminis trations of the self concept instrument were calculated and the t test was used as the test of significance. Change in self concept was related to sex, grade point average, level of academic ability, retention and non retention in college, and certainty of vocational choice. In addition, a group of students who had registered in a two year nursing program was tested separately in order to measure the stability of the self concepts of students in a specific college training program. The principal measuring instrument used for the study was the Bills* Index of Adjustment and Values. The Self-acceptance subscale of the California Psychological Inventory was selected as the validating instrument. The verbal subscale of the School and College Ability Tests was used as the index of academic ability. Two question naires were designed by the investigator to determine the 7 sex, age, marital status, hours of work, college major, and vocational plans of each of the participants in 1961 and 1963. Organization of the Remaining Chapters The remaining chapters are organized in the manner indicated. Chapter II contains the review of the litera ture pertaining to the self concept including both theoret ical and empirical aspects. Chapter III contains the sources of the data and the procedures used in the study. Chapter IV contains the analysis of the findings. Chapter V includes a summary of the problem, the investigation and the findings, along with the conclusions and the recommendations for additional research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE General Background Early in the history of American psychology there was considerable interest in the concept of the self. Both William James and Titchener accorded the self, or ego, a central place in their writings. James described the self or *'me as an empirical aggregate of things objectively known. The (Ego or) I which knows them . . . is a Thought, at each moment different from that of the last moment.*1 (3*+:287) Titchener declared that the "self is the sum total of conscious processes which run their course under conditions laid down by bodily tendencies." (7 2: 1 1 0) McDougall made an early attempt to establish the importance of self-consciousness as an influence on behavior. As a social psychologist he felt that the complex life of highly organized societies could only be understood if there was an understanding of the personas conception of his self and his self in relation to other people. He proposed the idea of a self-regarding sentiment composed primarily of self-feelings engendered by the adults of the society. He felt that this sentiment had profound effect upon the behavior of individuals in the society (*+0). 9 These early writers agreed that the concept of self was necessary to psychology but they differed as to its nature and function in human behavior. Later in the present century, with the rise of behaviorism and its emphasis on the exclusively objective approach to behavior, the concept of the self all but disappeared from psychological literature. For a number of years the only major effort to keep the idea alive was the slim volume of Prescott Lecky denoting his theory of self consistency (37). Lecky rebelled against the mechanical Stimulus-Response approach to behavior and theorized that behavior depends upon an evaluation, by the person, of the stimulus. He felt that responses made by a person to stimuli would be made so as to be consistent with the person's self concept. The person behaves in such a way as to maintain his own integrity or personality organization. Behavior that is inconsistent with the person's self concept will be rejected. This theory embodied the idea of the maintenance of stability of the personality much in the same fashion as Cannon's idea of homeostasis in biological functioning (!*+). More recently Stagner has suggested the same approach to a theory of personality. To him personality is characterized by a state of equilibrium or “ego constancy" and much of the energy of the personality is 10 used to preserve a constant state for the self-image ( 6 3). Revival of interest in the self began with Allport's book of personality (1). Not only did he suggest an all inclusive theory of the development of the ego or self but he vigorously defended the value of the examination of immediate experience in the scientific study of behavior. Allport felt that the nomothetic approach of the behaviorists had eliminated a most important field for study, that of the individual. He felt that the very keystone of the personality was the self and without an understanding of it the understanding of behavior was incomplete. In defense of his acceptance of the self, or ego, Allport quoted the Vectors of Mind by Thurstone as follows: The criterion by which a new ideal construct in science is accepted or rejected is the degree to which it facilitates the comprehension of a class of phenomena which can be thought of as examples of a single construct rather than as individualized events. (71) This defense of a person's verbal report of his own behavior was the opening gun in a battle over the validity of self-analysis that continues unabated to the present day. Since the publication of this book many psychologists have been concerned with the self in behavior. The attitude of the self-theorists is perhaps best exemplified by Carl Rogers. In his early writings Rogers emphasized the role of perception in behavior. He stated 11 that behavior is not so much Influenced by organic or cultural factors as it Is by the behaver's perception of these elements. In a speech before the American Psycho logical Association he suggested that psychologists could well afford to view the client1s world from the client*s viewpoint (52). Later Rogers expanded his early, remarks into a theory of personality set forth by a group of propositions. He took the position in these propositions that a person's behavior is determined by his perception of reality at the time of action. The behaver's world is not an objective world but a world of personal perceptions that Eogers called the phenomenal field of the perceiver. The perception of the self develops in much the same way as perceptions of objects in the environment, that is, at first vague and ill-defined and gradually assuming unique characteristics. As self perceptions develop, the growing organism acquires values attached to these perceptions. Parents and others closely associated with the young child are sources of these values. The organism*s behavior becomes that which will enhance his self value system. Rather than viewing man as a reacting creature as would the behaviorists, Rogers views man as an emerging creature--constantly responding in ways that will increase his self regard (53). This theory went beyond the self-consistency theory of Lecky 12 and the homeostatic theory of Stagner and expanded these theories to include the concept of a growing, expanding self. From his theory it follows that Roger's method of psychotherapy is a permissive method: requiring that the person solve his own problems with little direction or stimulation from an outside source. Snygg and Combs also proposed to study the behavior of the person from his viewpoint (62s6). Like Rogers they believed that a person behaves in terms of reality as he perceives it and that a person behaves in the manner that will enhance his self-perceptions. They called their approach to the study of the self the phenomenological or personal approach to behavior. They stated that since our day to day dealings are with individuals, normative prediction, the traditional frame of reference for psycho logists, is inadequate. The phenomenal field was defined by Snygg and Combs as "the entire universe, including himself as it is experienced by the individual at the instant of action." (62:35) This is not an exclusive or private world as it may seem. There is a considerable amount of overlap of individual phenomenal fields in any given culture. This makes communication between "selves" possible. It is in this way that the self-theorists can justify the use of introspection by their subjects. That is, the explanation of a subject's self to the researcher 13 meets understanding because of a common phenomenal field. Hilgard used the same approach as Rogers, at another American Psychological Association convention, when he stated that the use of defense mechanisms can only be understood when a concept of self is accepted. He was unwilling to accept the data obtained from introspection but believed that the self could be inferred by an external qualified observer. Hilgard*s paper exemplified the difficulty that the early writers on the self had in attempting to objectify the study of the self (3 2). Raimy believed that a person’s perceptions of him self form the guide to most, if not all, of his behavior. To Raimy, the self concept is a precious thing to be maintained or enhanced at all costs. An individual behaves in a manner consistent with his concept of himself. He felt that a systematic theory of personality organi zation could be devised that depended upon the data of immediate experience without neglecting historical or physiological events (*+9)* Self-theorists Combs described the self as being composed of a group of perceptions about the person him self. It is not a mere group, or conglomeration of traits, but a patterned interrelationship of “gestalt." The behavior of a person is determined by the phenomenal field at the time of action. The self concept acting as a guide to our everyday behavior gives a consistency to behavior. As we face the problems of life, our behavior is, to a large extent, determined by self-percaptions at the time of action. In the attack upon the obstacles of life we use behavior that will add to or enhance our self concept ( 16) . Benjamins stated that instead of behavior being self-enhancing or as adding to the person's self-esteem, he felt that behavior is a constant striving to make perceptions compatible. The self concept becomes just one aspect of the person’s total conceptual system. Behavior involves striving for meaning or a striving to maintain a consistent self rather than an enhancing self (3). Both Benjamins and Rogers agree that behavior is in terms of reality as perceived but they differ in that Rogers envisages behavior as growth toward an ideal self whereas Benjamins conceives behavior as striving for consistency. Both theorists account for the use of defense mechanisms as means of protecting the self concept: Rogers believes that they are used to protect the self esteem and Benjamins believes they are used to defend what the person feels is his perception of self-consistency. Developing of the Self . Most of the self-theorists hold that the child perceives his self in much the same way as he perceives 15 any object— that is, It is at first vague and ill-defined and only gradually assumes unique characteristics. Gardner Murphy stated that the self is born as the individual leans where his. own existence stops and the rest of the world begins (M+). Attitudes develop toward the self just as they develop toward all objects in the person’s environment. This self is a source of many satisfactions and gradually acquires values because of this. Murphy felt that the characteristics of the self are not only perceived as such by the child but also are valued in terms of the degree to which the child’s immediate parents and other adults value them. Thus, the child develops not only a picture of himself but also a picture with values. The child constantly strives to defend this picture against criticism and injury and also strives to enhance this picture. Murphy emphasized the fact that this striving for a valued self picture depends upon need gratification. A child that is unloved by his parents not only has a basic need unfilled but also develops an inadequate self concept as a result of these unfilled needs. In striving to enhance the self, Murphy stated that the person only dimly perceives a part of his self that is yet to be realized. Not only does the person strive to maintain consistency in his behavior, he also aspires to a higher standard of behavior. Murphy 16 identified the two selves as those associated with "ego level" and "aspiration level." Rogers agreed with Murphy*s concept of gradual differentiation of the self from the total environment (53s502). He continued this by saying that not all charac teristics of the self are of equal strength in awareness. Some are more dominant and assume the figure on a more indistinct ground of less important characteristics. The infant appears to value those experiences which he perceives as enhancing himself and places a negative value on those experiences which seem to threaten himself or which do not maintain or enhance himself. The growing child develops a self-structure that is "an organized configuration of perceptions of the self which are admissible to awareness." (53s501) These perceptions are accompanied by positive and negative values that have resulted from the feedback the person has received from his parents and social group. Rogers defined the self as "a constellation of traits with their accompanying positive and negative values." (53s501) Most of the ways of behaving which are adopted by the person are those which are consistent with the concept of self. Mead felt that the self is different from the physiological organism proper. It is a rather distinct constellation of social and personal values that arises in 17 the process of social experience and activity. The social group to which the person belongs and in particular the family group shapes the traits and their accompanying values into a structure of the self. This self structure reflects the general behavior patterns of the person's social group. Because individuals are not capable of reflecting all aspects of their social group, uniqueness develops in this reflection (*+1). Snygg and Combs agreed with Mead that the self is not an exclusive, private world. Since, in any culture, the phenomenal fields of individuals overlap, common experiences are shared and consequently common behavior patterns develop. Variations in behavior develop because of the inability of each person to reflect the total culture. Snygg and Combs also suggested that the goals we select are related to the concepts we hold of ourselves. He who values himself highly will strive for high goals and he who has a low opinion of himself will be content with mediocre attainments (62:7). Symonds also stressed the influence of the social group on the developing self concept (68). He felt that our concept of ourselves is built up gradually as we perceive the reactions and attitudes toward us expressed by others. A child can only learn to know himself in terms of the treatment he receives from others around him. 18 Changes in the self depend upon the ability of the person to perceive discrepancies between his self concept and the demands of the immediate environment, particularly the demands of the people in that environment. As the child progresses through the school, parents and teachers point out the direction of possible growth and emphasize the goals to be striven for. All of these writers share a belief in a self concept made up of two parts— a present self concept composed of a mosaic of valued traits and an aspired-to or ideal self concept made up of traits the person would like to have. Behavior involves essentially a striving to close the gap between our present selves and our ideal selves. To some writers this is a striving for consist ency (37), to others a striving to enhance the present self (53)- Both consistency and enhancement have yet to be defined more explicitly by their respective champions. Perhaps as the thinking progresses, the two concepts will assume many similar characteristics. Studies Involving the Self Concept The self concept has been studied in relation to a great many factors. Wylie made an exhaustive study of the research conducted on the self concept and cited over four hundred different studies, seldom replicated, that measure some aspect of the self concept at one instant in time or 19 over a short period of time (75) • Most of the studies attempted to relate the self concept to some other behavioral variable such as learning, stuttering, adjust ment, level of aspiration, authoritarianism, peer rela tions, etc. Many of the articles reported in the litera ture would have added little to an understanding of the development of the self concept. It was felt that the studies pertaining to adjustment and self concept stability would have the greatest significance for the present study. Self concept as related to adjustment.— Several attempts have been made to correlate various self concept measures and adjustment. The chief criticism of the studies has been the lack of an operational definition of adjustment. Poor adjustment has been defined as a lack of self regard but good adjustment has not been clearly defined. Two of Roger's co-workers at the University of Chicago, Butler and Haigh, devised a Q-sort instrument to measure changes that took place in the self during client- centered therapy (13). Several clinicians at Chicago used this instrument and the results of their studies indicated that significant changes in the self take place during therapy. Self-ideal correlations increased and client*s self sorts became progressively more like the self sorts 20 of a well adjusted person as therapy progressed. Many other investigators have used Q-sort instru ments or self-rating check lists in order to determine changes in the self during therapy. Ewing administered a one hundred item self-rating scale to a group of thirty- nine clients before and after therapy and found that self and ideal figures become more congruent: this change correlated significantly with the counselor's estimate of the degree of improvement (2*+). Sheerer (60) and Stock (6 6) found that as individuals grew more accepting and respectful of themselves during psychotherapy, they also grew more accepting and respectful of others. Rosenman also found a significant positive increase in self- evaluation as therapy progressed, using twenty-two non directive protocols from the University of Chicago counseling center (56). Cartright found a significant change in self-ratings for successful therapy cases. He also found that post-therapy self ratings were much like the self ratings of a control group ( 1 5). Taylor hypothesized that there was a close rela tionship between self acceptance and the acceptance of threat (6 9). He administered the California Test of Personality to a group of children and on the basis of this test separated them into upper and lower fifty percentile groups. He then administered a list of twenty self-damaging statements to the two groups and asked the 21 students to mark those statements that were true of them. He found a close relationship between self acceptance and the acceptance of self-damaging statements. Sarbin administered Gough*s Adjective Check List to psychology students and neurotic clinic patients and found significantly different self pictures. The neurotic patients pictured themselves as confused, anxious, and insecure while the students did not (58). Performance of subjects with high self-ideal dis crepancy scores in a stressful situation was tested by Miller and Worchel using the Worchel Self Activity Inventory. They found that these subjects performed less efficiently under stress than subjects who had low dis crepancy scores. The stressful situation was a pencil and paper reporting test in which the subjects were inter rupted every thirty minutes and told that they were failing to meet a standard (*f2). Berger correlated scores on his Self-Acceptance Scale with various scales of the MMPI (*+) ; Block and Thomas correlated the results of a Q-sort instrument with various MMPI scales (11) ; Rosen correlated the discrepancy between self and ideal ratings and MMPI scales (55); and Engel compared shifts in Q-sorts and MMPI ratings over a two-year period (23). All of these studies indicated that reported self-regard and certain clinical scales of the 22 MMPI (D, pd, Pa, Pt, and Sc) correlated negatively with self-regard and K correlated positively. Bills reported a significant negative association between self-acceptance as measured by the Index of Adjustment and Values and the number of psychosomatic symptoms reported (10). The relationship of intelligence and self concept was investigated by Holt. He found that there was a significant relationship between intelligence and the similarity of self and expert ratings of the self. He concluded that the most Intelligent subjects knew them selves best (33). Some investigators have attempted to correlate self-ratings on various types of self concept instruments. Hanlon, Hofstaedter, and O’Conner found high significant linear correlations between self-ideal congruence as measured on a modified Q-sort and specific areas and items of the California Test of Personality (30). Fiedler found significant correlations between self-esteem and self-satisfaction scores and Taylor Anxiety scale scores (25). Fiedler examined many of the correlation studies between various adjustment measures and noted the general lack of significant correlations. He suggested that perhaps adjustment should not be considered a unitary trait (25s351). 23 Several investigators have sought to measure the relationship between acceptance of self and acceptance of others. Wylie noted that twenty-one studies had been conducted on this aspect of the self concept and most of them showed a positive correlation (75:2b0). However, the investigators, in most cases, had conducted both studies in one sitting of the subjects. Because of this response set may well have brought about similar attitudes. Stability of the eelf concent over time.--Very few studies have been conducted on the stability of the self concept over a period of time. In her review of the self concept, its measuring instruments and research studies, Wylie cited only six studies that had to do with the stability of the self concept over a period of time greater than a few weeks (75:120). The studies that she cited of a few weeks or less were concerned with establishment of the reliability of specific measuring instruments. Wylie discussed six developmentally oriented investigations, all of which were developed under different conditions (75: 120). The following is a summary of the results: 1. Perkins studied the influence of group centered versus teacher centered classes on fourth and fifth grade students* self concepts over a period of one school year. He used a Q-sort instrument of fifty self-referent state ments derived from a Jersild study of fourth and fifth 2b grade students. Perkins found no significant difference in the two groups but he did find that all the children showed significant changes toward greater congruency of self and ideal concepts through time (V7). 2. Havighurst, Robinson, and Doerr sought to study the development of the ideal self by indexing compositions written to describe ’ ’ The Person I Would Like To Be Like.*' They found that childrens’ ideal choices tended to move from parents to glamorous persons, then to attractive visible adults and finally to composite, imaginary persons from age six to sixteen (3 1). 3. Engle studied the stability of the self concepts of one hundred and seventy-two eighth and tenth grade students over a two year period. She used a Q-sort instrument devised for the study and found that the average self-self correlation over the two year period was .53 and concluded that ’ ’crystallization of the self concept is achieved earlier in development.” (2 3) b. Smith and Lebo studied the change in self concept during the period of the development of pubic hair in twelve to fifteen year old males. They developed a five alternative multiple choice test and found a .56 correlation between measured self concepts and social maturity (61). 5. Mussen and Jones found greater negativity of 25 the self concept for adolescent boys who were retarded in physical development than for those boys who were accel erated in development (*+5) • The effect of repeated self-introspection by non- clinical subjects was investigated by Taylor. He adminis tered a Q-sort instrument to a group of college students and a group of adults several times over a period of one year and found that repeated self-introspection produced the same, but smaller changes in the self concept as that reported by Butler and Haigh of clients undergoing therapy (7 0). Borwnfain developed a self concept measuring instrument and then sought to test the stability of the positive self concept, negative self concept, realistic private self concept, and social self concept. Stability involved correlating discrepancy scores among the four self concept measures and was used to determine stable or unstable adjustment rather than stability over a period of time (12). Steiner compared stability of the self concept, again defined in terms of adjustment, and performance on a Level of Aspiration task and found a relationship but not a significant association (6*f). These few studies indicate that the whole aspect of self concept development or stability over time is 26 largely unexplored. Changes that have purportedly taken place in many investigations may have occurred as the result of a developmental pattern associated with age. In any event, very few of the studies have been repeated or the subjects followed up to determine the permanence of the reported changes. Summary Within the last fifteen years, theories of personality that emphasize the self as a principal agent in the direction of human behavior have become increasingly important in American psychology. Self-theorists have rejected both the strict objectivity of the behaviorists and the nomothetic approach of the statistical psycho logists. Instead, these theorists have openly defended the use of.introspection as their principal scientific tool and have also strongly supported the individual approach to an understanding of behavior. These psychologists have stated that since our day to day dealings are with indi viduals and not mythical averages, the method of self- examination will give increased understanding to such theoretical constructs as defense mechanisms and moti vation that, heretofore, have been difficult to explain. Most of the research of the self psychologists to date has been of a theoretical nature. Behavior, to these psychologists, is either a striving to maintain the self in a state of equilibrium or a striving to enhance the self. The self theorists are generally agreed that the characteristics of the self are acquired as the result of contact with a particular culture. Each culture has its own array of prized traits of the self and the adults in that culture inculcate these into the younger generation. No single individual is able to reflect all of the desired traits of a culture and thus individuality develops. At the same time most people within the same culture have been exposed to the same desired traits, thus communication between selves is possible. The individual self concept can.be defined as a constellation of traits, in a hierarchy of values, that has been established by the culture in which an individual lives. To the present time the empirical evidence relating to the self concept has been bewildering in its variety of measuring instruments and research designs. Self concept has been studied in relation to such variables as adjust ment, peer relations, sex, learning, and lobotomies. Problems have been hastily defined, measuring instruments designed and administered to specific groups and wide generalizations made about various effects of environmental manipulation on the self concept. Construct validity and test reliability have been rarely explored to any extent. The only carefully designed long-range studies have involved treatment of clinical patients in a therapy situation. Rogers and his co-workers are almost the only researchers who have integrated theory and empirical evidence to any degree. A great need exists for a longitudinal approach to self concept development. Before purported changes in the self concept are related to specific environmental changes it would be well to study the development of the self concept over a period of years. The purpose of the present study was to shed some light on the developing self concept over a two year period. CHAPTER III SOURCES OF DATA AND PROCEDURE Description of Subjects The subjects selected for the present study were freshmen students at the Liberal Arts Division of Long Beach City College. The measuring instruments were admin istered to a sample of these students in the fall of I96I and again in the spring of 1 9 6 3. In order to administer the measuring instruments to as many students as possible in a short length of time, it was decided to make use of the large lecture sessions of the Introductory Psychology classes. Two days a week all Psychology 1A students met in the college auditorium for group lectures and on the third day in small quiz sections. Two large groups of students comprising about three hundred students each were administered the measuring instruments and questionnaire on October 5, 1961. By means of the permanent student numbers it was possible to identify the entering freshmen— those whose student numbers began with 61. Psychology is not required or reserved for freshmen so it was necessary to discard seventy-four of the tests taken by students who were not freshmen. In order to 29 30 minimize the influence of age it was decided to accept no student over the age of twenty-three. Twenty-two tests were discarded for this reason. Only full time students were used in the study. A full time student was considered to be one who carried at least twelve units. Forty-six tests were discarded for this reason. As the freshmen took the battery of entrance tests during the summer of 1961, an alphabetical list was kept along with the School and College Ability Verbal subscale scores for all students. The total number of freshmen students who took the entrance tests was 2,328. SCAT V scores* for the students in the psychology classes were secured and a frequency distribution was made. A frequency distribution was also made of the total fresh man class. The two distributions were very similar. The median percentile score of the freshman class was 5 2 .5 and the median percentile score of the psychology classes was 53.0. Because of the high attrition rate during the first two years of college, the following procedure was used to enlarge the sample and also to make the frequency distri bution of the freshman class and sample alike in academic ability. From the original list of freshman students with *SCAT V will be used throughout the rest of the paper to indicate the School and College Ability Test (Form la) Verbal subscale. 31 their accompanying SCAT V scores, decile lists were made of alphabetized students. From these decile lists, with the tested group removed, a random sample was taken at each decile level to make the frequency distribution of sample and class alike in academic ability. One hundred and eight students were selected to make a total sample of six hundred students, or about one-fourth of the total freshman class. The sex distribution of the two groups was approximately equal. There were 1,223 men and 1,105 women in the class, and 332 men and 268 women in the sample. A questionnaire was used to ascertain the students* age, sex, major, marital status, number of units carried, number of hours worked, and vocational plans. The questionnaire is included in the Appendix. The following is a summary of the characteristics of the students comprising the sample; 1. Eighty per cent of the men and ninety-one per cent of the women were seventeen or eighteen years of age. 2. Ninety-seven per cent of the men and ninety- eight per cent of the women were single. 3. Table I shows the number of hours worked by the men and women in the sample. Thirty-eight per cent of the men and sixty-seven per cent of the women were not working TABLE I HOURS OF WORK FOR MEN AND WOMEN 1961 Not Working 1-10 Hours 11 - 20 Hours More Than 20 Hours Group Total N N Per cent Per N cent Per N cent Per N cent Men 332 126 38 53 16 80 21+ 73 22 Women 268 179 67 67 25 12 k 10 k Lu ro 33 outside the school hours. Sixteen per cent of the men and twenty-five per cent of the women were working from one to ten hours per week while forty-six per cent of the men and eight per cent of the women were working more than eleven hours per week. b. Table II shows the college major of the men who were in the sample. Fifty-four per cent of the men were majoring in one of the following fields: Business, Social Science, Engineering, Secondary Education, Law, Medicine, and Dentistry. Twenty per cent of the men had undeclared majors. The remaining twenty-six per cent were majoring in subjects ranging from Art to Zoology. 5. Table III shows the college major of the women who were in the sample. Fifty-five per cent of the women were majoring in one of the following fields: Elementary Education, Social Science, Business, Secondary Education, and Dental Hygiene. Twenty-seven per cent of the women had undeclared majors. The remaining eighteen per cent were majoring in subjects ranging from Art to Pharmacy. Table A in the Appendix shows the sex and major subject of each student included in the study along with the test results and SCAT V score. The grade point average at the end of the two year period is included for the students who remained in college for two years. In order to measure the stability of the self TABLE II COLLEGE MAJORS OF MEN STUDENTS IN 1961 (Total N = 332) Major N Per cent Business 69 21 Social Sciences 30 9 Engineering 18 5 Secondary Education 20 6 Law 21 6 Medicine & Dentistry 23 7 Undecided 65 20 Miscellaneous 86 26 35 TABLE III COLLEGE MAJORS OF WOMEN STUDENTS IN 1961 (Total N = 268) Major N Per cent Elementary Education 56 21 Social Sciences 33 13 Secondary Education 19 7 Business 20 7 Dental Hygiene 20 7 Undecided 72 27 Miscellaneous k - 8 18 36 concepts of students in a specific educational program, an intact group of nursing students was administered the measuring instruments in 1961 and 1963. In 1958, Long Beach City College instituted a two year registered nursing program with a college-hospital orientation rather than the traditional hospital oriented program. The purposes of the program were twofold; first, to meet a great need for nurses in the City of Long Beach, and second, to upgrade the registered nursing training program. Nine hundred hospital beds had been added to the hospital facilities in Long Beach in the five year period preceding the inauguration of the program. At that time there was no hospital in the city that had a registered nursing program. Applicants for this program are carefully screened by the head of the department and they must meet certain academic standards before acceptance is granted. In the fall of 1961, the Index of Adjustment and Values and the personal questionnaire were administered to thirty-seven members of the class beginning the training program. In August, 1 9 6 3, at the end of the two year program, the thirty-three remaining students were again administered the same instruments. Selection of the Self Concept Measuring Instrument Self theorists hold that the behavior of a person cannot be understood unless we understand his perceptions of himself (62). These psychologists propose to accept verbal self-reports as incidents of behavior and maintain that the validity of these self-reports should be judged in the light of the studies dealing with such material. An individual's self-percaptions are, by their very nature, only observable to him and consequently cannot be verified by an external observer. Since objectivity is lacking, and consequently an operational definition of the self concept, the problem of measurement thus becomes a problem of establishing "construct validity" as explained by Gronbach and Meehl. The value of the self concept construct, and also its measurement, depend upon the rigor with which the construct is integrated into a theory of personality and the degree to which it is relevant to behavior (20). With the possible exception of Rogers, very few investigators to the present time have complied with these conditions. The development of measuring instruments that would measure the constellation of characteristics which make up the self concept grew out of an analysis of counseling interviews conducted by Raimy. He was concerned about the lack of reliable evidence to support changes that were purportedly brought about during psychotherapy. His study consisted of an analysis of verbatim statements of the degree of self-approval that occurred during a series of 38 counseling interviews. The analysis of expressed feelings toward the self of those clients who were classed as successful cases indicated that there was a great change from statements of disapproval to a preponderance of self- approval statements, and the clients who were classed as unsuccessful cases showed a continuation of self-disap proval and ambivalent statements. Raimy concluded that it was possible to obtain quantitative measures of changes in the personality from a self-report technique (*+9). In his book, Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Carl Rogers discussed the development of an objective instrument to measure changes in the self that took place during client-centered therapy (5*+). His co-workers, Butler and Haigh at the University of Chicago, developed a measuring instrument consisting of one hundred self referent statements that occurred during client-centered therapy (13). Using Stephenson’s Q-sort technique, clients were asked to sort these statements into nine piles along a like-unlike me continuum (65). The clients could sort the statements for Hreal self,*1 "ideal self," "self as seen by others," etc. An index of "self-dissatisfaction" could also be calculated by correlating the real self concept and ideal self concept. Butler and Haigh used this instrument on a group of clients before and after therapy and found that significant changes took place in feelings about the self during therapy. They found that 39 self-ideal discrepancies were reduced during therapy and that these reduced discrepancies persisted during a six months to one year follow-up period (13*7*0 • Grummon used the same instrument to study whether motivation for psychotherapy alone would bring about changes in the self concept. He administered the instru ment to a group of clients who had applied for therapy and then he had them wait for sixty days. He then administered the Q-sort again and found no change in the self concept. He concluded that motivation for therapy alone does not bring about constructive personality change (2 9). Rudikoff used the Butler and Haigh instrument to measure changes in self concept of a group of eight clients and found that there was a significant increase in self-ideal congruity during therapy and that this increase was maintained during the follow-up period (57). Dymond developed an adjustment score for the Butler and Haigh instrument which measured the degree to which a client*s self picture differed from the composite self picture of a well-adjusted person (22). The Q-sort item placement for a well-adjusted person was done by two clinical psychologists. Dymond compared the adjustment scores of pre- and post-therapy clients and found a significant improvement in adjustment indicated by closer congruency of item placement to those of the psychologists. ho She also found that the post-therapy adjustment scores did differ significantly from the scores of a control group and that the improvement was maintained over a six month to one year follow-up period (22s83). The Butler and Haigh instrument has become very popular with researchers investigating the self concept. Despite its widespread use, Wylie goes to some length in a criticism of it (75*^-59). The following is a summary of her criticismss 1. The universe of test items has not been specified clearly--"available therapeutic protocols" is too general. 2. No attempt has been made to establish equiva lent halves or alternate forms of the Butler and Haigh set of items. Since reliability has been entirely of the test-retest variety utilizing the total score, Wylie suggested that individual item inconsistencies may produce a spurious reliability coefficient not really indicative of the test's consistency. 3. Butler and Haigh have stated that their instru ment is well suited for indicating patterns of personality integration and yet the test is scored for a global index of the self concept. Since a self concept test depends to a great extent for its validity upon the careful develop ment of measurable constructs, Wylie questioned the generalizations of pattern measurement by global score. ^■1 Dymond has shown that twenty-six of the one hundred Butler and Haigh items have been judged by clinical psychologists to be irrelevant to adjustment, yet this is not taken into account in the scoring. 5. Studies by Dymond and Wiener gave conflicting evidence regarding the consistency of item placement in the calculation of the Adjustment Score. Wiener concluded that because of this inconsistency, the present method of calculation of the Adjustment Score is open to question (73). Wylie reviewed twenty Q-sort instruments and concluded that, with rare exception, most of the instru ments were designed for a single test situation often with inadequate or unstated construct validity or information regarding their reliability (75*61). Soon after the clinicians indicated that it was possible to measure not only the degree of self-acceptance of a client, but also the discrepancy between his own self feelings and various other self dimensions (ideal self, self as seen by others, etc.), several attempts were made to extend this work beyond the therapy situation. At first, the Q-sort was extended into various behavioral studies, and next, various other types of measuring instruments were developed. Several investigators developed questionnaires for assessing the characteristics of the self. 1*2 Phillips took the self-referent statements that Sheerer had selected from her client interviews and designed a questionnaire for the degree of self and other acceptance and found a significant correlation between the two (*+8). Wylie criticized this instrument on the basis of inadequate construct validity and control of response set (75s67). Berger also designed a self-other questionnaire from the Sheerer study and used it to compare self acceptance of stutterers, prisoners, and college students. He found that the two former groups scored lower on self acceptance than the latter (5). Worchel developed a fifty-four item Self-Activity Inventory for the purpose of screening maladjusted military personnel. Subjects rated their Real Selves, Ideal Selves, and the Average Person on a graduated one to five, never to very often, scale. He found that neurotic subjects rated themselves significantly more unfavorably than normal and schizophrenic subjects, and that the normal and schizophrenic subjects made very similar scores. He attempted to validate the SAI by correlating it with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and the Sarason Anxiety Test and found very significant correlations (7*0. A theory of personality called the Inter-personal Personality System was developed by Laforge and Suczek. ^3 These two psychologists then proceeded to devise a meas uring instrument, the Interpersonal Check List, to measure its five levels of personality. The Check List was developed on an a priori basis; it has been revised several times as the psychologists examined the way in which patients actually used the words in the Check List. It has been used primarily as a part of the evaluation procedure for incoming patients to a psychiatric clinic. Its most frequent administration has called for a descrip tion of self, and less frequently descriptions of mothers, fathers, spouses, and ideal selves. No normative data for subjects other than clinical patients are available to date (36). Brownfain developed a Self-Rating Inventory for measuring the discrepancy between positive and negative self ratings. This discrepancy he called a stability score. He compared the self-ratings of college students on the SRI to their scores on the GAMIN Inventory and found that students with low discrepancy scores had healthier scores on all factors but G on the GAMIN Inven tory. The students with low discrepancy scores also received higher mean ratings from fraternity peers on nine out of ten variables in a rating scale than did students with high discrepancy scores (12:605). Bills selected forty-nine words that occurred frequently in client-centered interviews from an original ¥f list of 17,953 traits published by Allport (2) and developed a self-rating scale, the Index of Adjustment and Values. Measures of self, ideal self, and acceptance of self are derived from a five-point scale besides a Discrep ancy Score that purports to measure the degree of personal maladjustment (Ideal Score minus Self Score). This instru ment has been more or less extensively explored in terms of reliability and construct validity. Norms have been established for adults, college students, and high school students (10). Wylie carefully reviewed eighty-one questionnaires, adjective check lists, and rating scales that purported to measure some aspect of self regard and concluded that, with the exception of the Index of Adjustment and Values by Bills, two thirds of them had no published reliability information, and eighty per cent of them had no information pertaining to construct validity for inferring the phenom enal self (75*98) It seems that investigators of the self concept have isolated a problem pertaining to the self, designed an instrument, often with inadequate construct validity or reliability studies, administered the instrument to a small group of subjects over a very short period of time or a few times and have come to conclusions regarding the self that at best are tenuous. This is not necessarily M-5 a significant criticism of the measuring instruments. Indeed, it shows very well the status of both theory and instrumentation, for the measuring instruments can develop only after a logical theoretical framework has been established. Until self theory becomes more specific, measuring instruments will continue to be inadequate. However, this has been the history of all psychological measurement. All of the measuring instruments that purport to measure the self concept are, at the present time, tenuous. However, the Index of Adjustment and Values by Robert Bills has been carefully designed in terms of reliability and construct validity (75*98). Norms have been established for high school students, college students, and adults. This Index was chosen for the present study of self concept stability because of the care with which the validity and reliability have been established and because of its applicability to college students. Details of the instrument will be reported in the next section. The Index of Adjustment and Values The principal instrument that was used in the study of self concept stability was the Bills’ Index of Adjust ment and Values. This device seemed to be one of the few instruments at the present stage of test development that b6 had been validated to any extent, that had been used in a variety of measurement situations, and that was designed for use with college students. For these three reasons it was selected as the principal instrument. The Index is made up of forty-nine self-referent words that were selected from Allport*s list of 17*953 traits. The forty-nine words selected for the Index were, in the words of the author, "clear-cut examples of self- concept definitions which occurred frequently in client- centered interviews." (10) In a typical testing session, the subject is given a sheet of directions and a scoring sheet with the forty- nine words. The directions and scoring sheet are included in the Appendix. He is asked to rate himself as he is in Column I, how he feels about himself in Column II, and how he would like to be in Column III. The rating is on a scale of one to five, least to most. There is no time limit. Scores are obtained by summing the three columns and also by finding the difference between the sums of Columns I and III. The latter is called the Discrepancy Score and indicates the degree of self ideal congruence. Bills felt that this score measured the degree of personal maladjustment for the subject (10sl3). Before Columns I, II, and III can be summed, ratings for the nine negative *+7 traits have to be reversed, in order to make them comparable to the forty positive traits. For example, a rating of one on the negative trait "cruel*' means that seldom is the person cruel. This rating must be changed to a five (the highest possible rating), a two is changed to a four, a three remains a three, a four becomes a two, and a five becomes a one (10:12). After the nine self and ideal negative traits are reversed, Columns I, II, and III are summed, and the results is a self concept score (total of Column I, acceptance of self score (total of Column II), and an ideal self score (total of Column III). High school and college student norm groups were established by Bills for interpreting the results. The college norm group included 1,728 subjects at the University of Florida, University of Louisville, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Kentucky (10:1*+). The manual includes the distribution of all test scores with means and standard deviations. Trial administrations of the complete Index of Adjustment and Values, validating instrument and question naire were conducted the semester prior to beginning the study. It was found that time did not permit the use of all of the instruments in one class period. It was decided to shorten the Index by eliminating Column II, * + 8 acceptance of self, from the test. Three aspects of the self concept remained for measurement and it was then possible to administer all instruments in a fifty minute class period. Validity of the Index of Adjustment and Values.— In a test of the concurrent validity of the Index with other self concept instruments, Bills correlated it with the Phillips Attitudes toward Self and Others Question naire, the California Test of Personality, and the Washburne S-A Inventory and found small but significant correlations between the Index and all three other instru ments (10 S 6U-) . Omwake studied the relation between the Index, Berger scales, and Phillips scale and found small but significant correlations (^+ 6). Wylie criticized this type of validation for not taking into account response set since these instruments are much alike in content (75*67). In Omwake's study, this criticism is particularly valid since all three instruments were given at the same sitting (*+ 6 :M+3). Bills attempted to relate scores on the Index to other forms of behavior and in one study found that to a small degree the scores were associated with level of aspiration, and that acceptance of self was significantly related to attitudes toward performance, estimate of *+9 performance, and recall of performance (7). In another study he found that distinct Rorschach characteristics were associated with subjects who were high in acceptance of self and those who were low in self acceptance (6). In a second study with the Index and Rorschach, Bills found that high discrepancy scores on the Index were signifi cantly related to six Rorschach signs associated with depression. Apparently signs of depression appear when the real and ideal self concepts are too far apart ( 10: 76) . Bills also found that when judges scored open- ended interviews for acceptance of self, and these ratings were correlated with acceptance of self on the Index, a rho correlation of .8*+ resulted (8). Cowen selected extreme high and low scorers on the Brownfain negative self-concept measure and compared their scores to the three measures of the Index. He found that these high and low groups differed signifi cantly on the self concept, acceptance of self, and ideal self measures (1 7). In an attempt to establish construct validity for the Index, Bills found that there was a significant difference in reported psychosomatic symptoms between subjects who had high and low acceptance of self (1 0: 7^). In a unique attempt at construct validation, Roberts found that the reaction time, as measured by a chronoscope for high self-ideal discrepancy items, was greater in a free association session than for low self ideal discrepancy items (51). Cowen, Heilzer, and Axelrod selected six neutral words and six conflict words from the Index that had been administered to ninety-four college freshmen. They found when the words were associated with nonsense syllables that those associated with the conflict words took longer to learn (1 9). In a student-centered mental hygiene class, Bills found that significant changes took place in the concept of self and acceptance of self, and that significant decreases in the discrepancy between self and ideal self occurred during the class (9). Renzaglia attempted to assess many relations between scores oh the Index and college students* attitudes and found low but significant correlations between scores on the Index and, as he stated: Factors such as estimate of future success in college, the period of life rated as most pleasant, anxiety, and internalization as measured by the MMPI, frequency of punishment, attitude toward punishment, and attitudes toward parents. (50) Kenny has criticized both the Index of Adjustment and Values and the Butler and Haigh Q-sort instrument for not taking into account the fact that subjects would probably rate themselves both on their real self and ideal self in the most socially desirable way. He had a group of college students rate the items on a self-concept rating scale on a continuum of social desirability, then a different group rated themselves, both real and ideal selves, on the same items. Rank order correlation between the social desirability continuum and self ratings was .82. Kenny concluded that rigorous control over the social desirability variable would be needed before stating that a high discrepancy score means maladjustment (35). Cowen and Tongas reveiwed the validity studies of the Index and, like Kenny, questioned the validity because of the tendency of subjects to respond in a socially desirable way. The authors administered the Index to one hundred college students and correlated the mean discrep ancy scores for each of the forty-nine traits with the Edwards Social Desirability Scale. They found a corre lation of .906 between self concept and social desirability and .598 between ideal self and social desirability. They concluded that the Index is so heavily saturated with social desirability that differences between self concept and ideal self concept reflect different socially desirable stereotypes rather than to self-conceptual variations (1 8). Wylie questioned the conclusion of Cowen and Tongas as inadequate evidence that the social desirability variable distorts individual self-reports away from validity. She stated: Even if we could say how extensively Social Desirability invalidates self-reports as indices of the phenomenal self, we could not specify in the light of present knowledge what the nature of the Invalidating influence is. (75*28) In the present study, it was felt that since the problem is whether or not the self concept is stable over a period of time; that the question of the instrument’s relationship to social desirability is not called for inasmuch as it should be equal at both administration. No association with degree of adjustment or maladjustment is being measured, only stability over time. Reliability of the Index of Adjustment and Values.— Bills attempted to establish the reliability of the Index by both the test-retest and split-halves method. The test-retest reliability coefficient for two hundred and thirty-seven college students, after six weeks, varied from .83 for acceptance of self scores to .92 for the ideal self scores. The same method, after sixteen weeks with three hundred students, varied from .52 for the self-ideal discrepancy score to .86 for the self score (10:53). Split-half reliability coefficients for one hundred students varied from .53 for self rating scores to .9 1 for acceptance of self scores (10*53)• Test-retest reliability after three weeks was measured in two college psychology classes of thirty- four and thirty-eight students prior to the present study by the investigator. The reliability coefficient varied from .78 for ideal self score to .6^ for self-ideal discrepancy score, significant at the one per cent level of confidence. The California Psychological Inventory The validating instrument used in the study was the Self-acceptance subscale of the California Psycho logical Inventory. The Inventory was designed by Harrison Gough and published by Consulting Psychologists Press, Incorporated, in 1956 (28). The Inventory was designed to be used with normal (non psychiatrically disturbed) subjects for the purpose of Identifying and measuring various personality characteristics "important for social living and social interaction." (28*7) It is composed of eighteen scales, divided into the following classes or psychometric clusterings: Class I. Poise, Ascendancy, and Self-Assurance includes measures of Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, Self-acceptance, and Sense of Well-being. Class II. Socialization, Maturity, and Respon- 5 * t sibility includes measures of Responsibility, Sociali zation, Self-control, Tolerance, Good Impression, and Communality. Class III. Achievement, Potential and Intellec tual Efficiency includes measures of Achievement via conformance, Achievement via independence, and Intellec tual efficiency. Class IV. Intellectual and Interest modes includes measures of Psychological-mindedness, Flexi bility, and femininity (28sl2-13). Goodstein, Crites, Heilbrun, and Rempel used the Inventory in a university counseling service with six groups of male and female clients. They found significant differences in profile elevation, shape, individual scales, and pairs of scales between groups with special problems (2 7). Dunnette, Kirchner, and DeGIdio administered the Inventory and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule to one hundred and two employees of the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and found significant correla tions among the subscales (21). Many of the scales measure other aspects of personality than the self concept. For this reason only one of the scales, Self-acceptance, was selected as the validating instrument for the Index of Adjustment and 55 Values. The Self-acceptance scale is composed of thirty- four items that assess factors such as "sense of personal worth, self-acceptance, and capacity for independent thinking and action." (2 8:1 2) Mitchell and Pierce-Jones carried out a centroid factor analysis of the eighteen scales of the Inventory and found four factors with different composition from those of Gough. They did find that Self-acceptance was almost a pure factor for social poise and concluded that, If Gough's four classes of scales are viewed as hypotheses concerning factor structure, his first class appears to be a reasonable one, except that we would be forced to exclude the Well-Being scale from the class. (*+3) Gough developed the Well-Being scale to detect faking (28:2*+). Marked deviation from the average on this scale casts doubt on the validity of an individual profile. Three validating studies on the Self-acceptance scale are reported in the manual: 1. In an assessment sample of seventy medical school applicants at the University of California, Self-acceptance correlated plus .3 2 with staff's rating of * self-acceptance.* 2. In an assessment sample of forty graduating seniors in engineering, Self-acceptance correlated minus .57 with the staff's Q-sorting of the phrase, 'Has a readiness to feel guilty.' 3. In five high schools where the Inventory was given, principals were asked to nominate students ranking 'highest* and 'lowest* on self-acceptance. (28:2i +) Self-acceptance was not defined in the manual. Self- acceptance scale results are reported in Tables IV and V, The data indicate that both boys and girls who were seen as most self-accepting by their principals made signifi cantly higher scores on the Self-acceptance subscale of the Inventory than those students who were seen as least self-accepting by their principals. Test-retest reliability of the Self-acceptance subscale of the Inventory was .71 for one hundred and twenty-five high school females and .67 for one hundred and one high school males with a lapse of from seven to twenty-one days between testings (28:22). Separate male and female norms have been estab lished on six thousand men and seven thousand women (28:2^-35). School and College Ability Tests The School and College Ability Tests were developed by the Educational Testing Service and first published in 1955 (59). The principal purpose of the test, from the manual, was 1 1 to help teachers and counselors estimate the capacity of each individual student to undertake the academic work of the next higher level of schooling." (59s3) Validity in the form of predicting school grades and achievement test performance was first published in 1958. The SCAT is part of the battery of entrance tests 57 TABLE IV SELF-ACCEPTANCE SUB SCALE SCORES FOR MOST SELF-ACCEPTING AND LEAST SELF- ACCEPTING BOYS Subsample N Mean SD Diff. Most "self-accepting'* boys 52 20.3*95 Least "self-accepting" boys 52 17.50 3.58 2.9^* *Significant beyond the .01 level. 58 TABLE V SELF-ACCEPTANCE SUBSCALE SCORES FOR MOST SELF-ACCEPTING AND LEAST SELF- ACCEPTING GIRLS Subsample N Mean SD Diff. Most "self-accepting" girls 53 20.57 3.99 2.7*+* Least "self-accepting" girls k9 17.8*+ *+.51 *Significant beyond the .01 level. 59 administered to all entering freshmen at Long Beach City College. This is the only academic aptitude test that all entering students have taken in common. Various other ability tests had been taken by the students prior to entrance, however, because of the great variety of tests and forms they were too diverse for the purpose of this study. Since the SCAT is a measure of academic ability, it was used as the instrument of choice. Most of the validity studies for the SCAT have been conducted on elementary and secondary school students. Average correlations of SCAT scores with school grades are in the .50s and .60s. Intercorrelations among SCAT scores and Stanford Achievement Test scores at grade seven are in the .70s and .80s. SCAT Verbal scores correlated .86 with College Entrance Board Scholastic Aptitude Verbal subscale scores at grade twelve (59*6-7). Reliability of the SCAT sub-tests was tested by the Kuder Richardson Formula 20 and coefficients of internal consistency varied from .82 to .88 (59*10). Norms at first publication were based on the performance of approximately twelve thousand students in thirty-five high schools and fifteen colleges drawn from every major region of the United States. College norms have been established for both freshmen and sophomore students (59*16-18). 60 Since the predictive validity of the Verbal sub scale of the SCAT is generally higher than the quanti tative subscale in predicting students* grades, it was used as the measure of academic ability. Five validity studies have been conducted at present between SCAT Verbal scores and college grades. Correlations between SCAT Verbal scores and end of year grades are in the .30s and .bOs (59*13). Procedures On October 5* 1961, arrangements were made with the teachers of the two Introductory Psychology classes to administer the measuring instruments to the students in these classes. The investigator, who was a counselor at the college, told the students that he was conducting a study of various personality tests and would appreciate their cooperation in this study. He also stated that he would hold the results in his office for two weeks and encouraged those who were interested to come in and discuss them. At the end of two weeks, the names of the students would be cut from the test papers and the only record would be by number. Under no conditions would the results be reported to any person at the college other than the investigator. The Index of Adjustment and Values and the questionnaire were then passed out to all students. The 61 Self-acceptance subscale of the California Psychological Inventory was passed out to one-fourth of the students previously selected at random. The remainder of the class period was used for the tests and all materials were collected at the end of the period. The following week, the remaining students who had been selected from the decile tables previously explained, were called by the investigator and asked to meet in a large classroom during the activity period. The same remarks were made by the investigator concerning the study. The students were then administered the Index of Adjustment and Values and questionnaire. One-fourth of these students were also administered the Self-acceptance subscale of the California Personality Inventory. The test papers were arranged in alphabetical order and a master list of students names and numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers was compiled. The Index of Adjustment and Values and the Self-acceptance subscale of the California Personality Inventory were then scored by the investigator and held for the follow- up study of May, 1963. During the first week in May, 1963, the students who were still attending the college were contacted by the investigator and asked to meet during the activity period on May 15 to participate in the follow-up study. All but six students of the original group appeared at this time. The investigator thanked the students for appearing and then told them that he was continuing his study of personality tests and that he wanted them to participate in a follow-up study. He told them that this study consisted of the same test and questionnaire that they had taken in 1961. He further explained this by saying that in order to develop a good test it was often necessary to administer it many times before it could be perfected. During both administrations of the tests, the students seemed to approach the task with enthusiasm and a good deal of interest. Of the two hundred and forty-two students who had dropped out of college before May 1963, we were able to contact one hundred and fifty by telephone and asked them to participate by mail. Copies of the Index of Adjustment and Values and the questionnaire were mailed to all subjects for whom there was a mailing address along with a stamped envelope for return of the materials to the investigator. The questionnaire that was developed for the attrition group differed from that of the retained group in that the former included a question pertaining to reasons for dropping out of college. The second questionnaire is included in the Appendix. On June 10 and June 25, follow-up letters were sent to the subjects who had not returned the materials. 63 When the analysis of the findings was begun in July, forty-four subjects had not returned the materials. By July, 1963, there were two sets of materials for five hundred and fifty of the original six hundred students. change in the self concept would take place over the two year period. The hypothesis called for a calculation of the mean in 1961, and again in 1963» and the use of the t test for the significance of the difference between means. were calculated for the relationship between change in self concept scores and SCAT V scores, between grades and change in self concept scores, and between grades and SCAT V scores. Hypothesis three involved the relationship between college grades and the change in self concept scores with academic ability held constant. The method used was that of partial correlation using the formula: Statistical Tools The principal hypothesis to be tested was that no Pearson product moment correlation coefficients r13.2 = r13 " r12r23 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS The basic problem under investigation involved the stability of the self concepts of junior college students over a two year period. The Bills® Index of Adjustment and Values was administered to a sample of entering freshmen at Long Beach City College in 1961 and again in 1963. Differences between means of self concept scores were calculated and the t test was used to deter mine the degree of significance of the findings. It is well known that the attrition rate for the first two years of college is very high. Table VI confirms this fact. Of the six hundred students who parti cipated in the original study in 1961, two hundred and forty-two dropped out. Forty-one per cent of the men and forty per cent of the women dropped out before the end of the two year period. This rate of dropout was somewhat higher than that indicated by a follow-up study at the college in 1952. Results of that study showed that sixty- five per cent of the entering students persisted for two years (39). The activities of the members of the attrition group at the time of the follow-up study are also shown in Table VI. Most of the men were working full or part time, 6k TABLE VI ANALYSIS OF ATTRITION I96I - 1963 N Looking for job Working BTD Transfer college Military service Housewife No Response Men 136 8 57 15 20 12 0 2k Women 106 12 27 23 6 0 18 20 O N vn 66 attending a transfer college, or the Business and Tech nical division cf Long Beach City College. This division of the college is located on a different campus from the Liberal Arts division and is primarily concerned with the business and trade programs of a terminal nature. Most of the women who dropped out were working full or part time, attending the Business and Technical division or were housewives. Fifty-four members of the original sample were disqualified at some time during the two year period for failure to maintain a 1.5 grade point average. In presenting the findings, each hypothesis will be stated again along with a brief description of the method of analysis. The first group of hypotheses concerns the stability of the self concept over the two year period. Hypothesis I. The self concepts of junior college students are relatively stable over a two year period. Hypothesis la. No change in the self concepts of junior college students will take place over a two year period. Relevant data for Hypothesis la are presented in Tables VII, VIII, IX, and X and Figures 1, 2, and 3. Tables VII and VIII indicate that significant changes have taken place in the self concept scores and discrep ancy scores of both retained and attrition groups. The ideal self scores did not change significantly. This TABLE VII THE STABILITY OF THE SELF CONCEPTS OF THE RETAINED GROUP 1961 - 1963 Self Concept Measures N 1961 Mean SD 1963 Mean SD Diff. t Self Concept 352 177.0 18.0 182.7 15.1 5.7 ^.59* Ideal Self Concept 352 225.k 9.5 225.9 9.6 .5 Not Sig. Discrepancy Score 352 53.3 16.5 *+6.0 12.6 -7.3 tf.72* ♦Significant beyond the jOI level. O ' • v i TABLE VIII THE STABILITY OF THE SELF CONCEPTS OF THE ATTRITION GROUP 1961 - 1963 Self Concept 1961 1963 Measures N Mean SD Mean SD Diff. t Self Concept 198 177.1 18.1 186.6 15.3 9.5 if. 82* Ideal Self Concept 198 227.0 9.6 228.1 9.6 1.1 Not Sig. Discrepancy Score 198 50.5 3A Mt.5 lk.1 -6.0 *+.29* ♦Significant beyond the .01 level. ON 00 TABLE IX t VALUES OBTAINED BY COMPARING SCORES EARNED BY THE RETAINED GROUP AND THE ATTRITION GROUP ON ALL MEASURES IN 1961 Measures Combined N Retained Mean SCAT V Score (Converted) 600 298.8 Self Concept 600 177.0 Ideal Self Concept 600 225.^ Discrepancy Score 600 53.3 ------------- --------------------------------------- ♦Significant beyond the .05 level Group Attrition Group SD Mean SD Diff. t 16.9 29^.9 16.6 -3.9 2.79* 18.0 177.1 18.1 .1 Not Sig. 9.5 227.0 9.6 1.6 l.l^f 16.5 50.5 13 A -2.8 1.87 ON \D TABLE X t VALDES OBTAINED BY COMPARING SCORES EARNED BY THE RETAINED GROUP AND THE ATTRITION GROUP ON ALL MEASURES IN 1963 Measures Combined N Retained Group Mean SD Attrition Group Mean SD Diff. t Self Concept 550 182.7 15.1 186.6 15.3 3.9 *+.71* Ideal Self Concept 550 225.9 9.6 228.1 9.6 2.2 3.00* Discrepancy Score 550 *+6.0 12.6 Mf.5 1^.1 1.5 1.90 ♦Significant beyond the .01 level. ■ nD o FIGURE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF SELF CONCEPT SCORES 1961 AND 1963 80- 70- 60- 50- Wo- 30- 20- 10- 1961 Scores 1963 Scores 1^1- 1^6- 151- 156- 161- 166- 171- 176- 181- 186- 191- 196- 201- 206- 211- 216- 221- l h5 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 SELF CONCEPT SCORES FREQUENCY 72 FIGURE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF IDEAL SELF CONCEPT SCORES 1961 AND 1963 l M - O - 4 1961 Scores 1963 Scores 130- 120- 110- 100- 90- 80- 70- 60- 30- 20- 10- 196- 201- 206- 211- 216- 221- 226- 231- 236- 2bl- 200 205 210 215 220 22 5 230 235 2^-0 2b 5 IDEAL SELF CONCEPT SCORES FREQUENCY FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF DISCREPANCY SCORES IN 1961 AND 1963 100H 90- 80- 70- 60- 30- 20- 10- 11- 16- 21- 26 81 61- 66 DISCREPANCY SCORES change in self ratings occurred irrespective of college attendance or withdrawal. Since change was reported for both the retained and attrition groups, a tentative explanation could be that this change is the result of a developmental process associated with age. Apparently junior college-age adolescents do change in their feelings about themselves over a two year period of time. Self concept scores increased significantly and the discrep ancy between self and ideal self decreased significantly. The lowered discrepancy scores, along with an insignifi cant change in the ideal self concepts, indicate that the gap between the real and ideal self concepts is beginning to close during this time of life. A possible explanation for the stability of the ideal self is that it is a social stereotype and not likely to change. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are frequency distributions of the three test scores for both administrations. It will be noted that the distributions are somewhat skewed. Engel (23) and Taylor (70) have both noted the tendency for self concept scores to present a skewed distribution. One of the assumptions underlying the use of the t test for evidence of significance is that the sample comes from a normal population. Lindquist believes that the t test is valid even though the form of the distribution 75 for the population sampled differs from that of the normal curve (3 8)• Table IX shows that on all measures except academic ability, there was no significant difference between the retained and attrition groups at the beginning of the study in 1961. It is evident from Table X that by 1963 the two groups rated themselves differently on two of the self concept measures. The self concept scores of the retained group increased by 5-7 points, and the same scores of the attrition group increased by 9-5 points. The ideal self scores of the retained group increased by .5 points, and the same scores of the attrition group increased by 1.1 points. The difference between the two groups in 1963 on both of these measures was significant beyond the .01 level. The students who dropped out tended to rate themselves slightly higher in 1963 on both of the measures than those remaining in college. At the present time, no explanation can be offered for this difference between the retained and attrition groups. Hypothesis lb. High self concept scores will be more stable over the two year period than low scores. High and low scores were defined in terms of self concept scores that fell more than twenty points above and below the mean of the distribution of self concept scores in 1961. In this way a self concept score above 197 was considered to be a high score, and a self concept score below 157 was considered to be a low score. There were one hundred and seven students with high self concept scores, and eighty-one students with low self concept scores in 1961. Data for five students with high self concept scores and three students with low self concept scores were not available for the follow-up study in 1963. These eight students were among the forty-four students who did not return the materials. Table XI presents the results of these comparisons. High self concept scores tended to remain more stable than low self concept scores, therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Students with high self concepts in 1961 lowered their scores by three points, from 20*+. 1 to 200.2, over the two year period while the students with low self concepts increased their scores by about twenty-four points, from 11+9.2 to 173.h. The effect of regression was tested by use of the f ormula s x = r -§J- (I - V + The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between self concept scores in 1961 and 1963 was .58. For a self concept score of 20^.1 in 1961, the predicted score TABLE XI COMPARISON OF SELF CONCEPT STABILITY BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW GROUPS, 1961 - 1963 Per cent Self Concept Self Concept 1961 of Score 1961 Score 1963 Group N Total Mean SD Mean SD Change High Self Concept 102 16.2 204-.1 5.5 200.2 5.*+ -3.9 Low Self Concept 78 13.5 1^9.1 6.2 173.^ 8.k 2*f.2 Total Sample 550 91.7 177.0 18.0 18*+. 8 15.1 7.8 >3 1 78 in 1963 was 199.0. The standard error of estimate was 1 +.1 +3« Thus, the 1963 score of 200.2 for the high group easily fell within the probability of regression. For a 1961 self concept score of 1^9.2, the predicted score in 1963 was 162.^f. The standard error of estimate was 7.1. Thus, the probability of a score as much as 1 7 3•*+ for the low group in 1963 was less than one in six. We may tentatively conclude that there has been a significant increase in self ratings for students with low concept scores. The relationship between this change in self concept will be related to vocational plans in Hypothesis *+. Hypothesis Ic. There will be no difference in the stability of self concepts between men and women. Relevant data for Hypothesis Ic are presented in Tables XII, XIII, and XIV. Both sex groups changed significantly and approximately equally in their self concepts and self-ideal discrepancies over the two year period. The hypothesis was, therefore, supported. Hypothesis 2. There will be no relationship between an estimate of academic ability and the stability of the self concept. Pearson product moment correlations were calculated between converted V scores of the SCAT and differences in self concept scores between 1961 and 1963 for men and women. Table XV shows the resulting correlations. No significant relationship was found TABLE XII COMPARISON OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE STABILITY OF THE SELF CONCEPT, 1961 - 1963 Group N 1961 Mean SD Self Concent Scores 1963 Mean SD Diff. . t Men 30*t 176.5 16.8 I8*f.l 16.7 7.6 5M* Women 2k6 178.1 16.^ 185.3 16.5 7.2 5.1^* ♦Significant beyond the .01 level. ■ S 3 \o TABLE XIII COMPARISON OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE STABILITY OF THE IDEAL SELF, 1961 - 1963 Group N 1961 Mean SD Ideal Self Mean Scores 1963 SD Diff. t Men 30k 225.9 9.5 227.2 9.6 1.3 1.57 Women 2ke 225.^ 9.5 226.8 9.6 l.k 1 .6 1 00 o TABLE XIV COMPARISON OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE STABILITY OF THE DISCREPANCY SCORES, 1961 - 1963 Group N Mean Discrepancy Scores 1961 . “1963“ SD Mean SD Diff. Men Women 30^ 2kS 52.3 50.8 15.1 l*f.9 Mf.8 13.2 13.8 6.9 6.0 k.59* 3.11* ♦Significant beyond the .01 level. 00 H 82 TABLE XV ACADEMIC ABILITY AND THE STABILITY OF THE SELF CONCEPT OVER TWO YEARS Group N Self Concept Change Mean SD Self V Converted Mean SD r Men 30*+ 7.6 13-9 295.9^ 16.9 -.09 Women 2b6 6.7 13.1 2 9 7 .8 6 16.7 -.0*+ between changes in self concept and academic ability for men and women. The hypothesis was, therefore, supported. Hypothesis 3* Academic ability held constant; there will be no relationship between scholastic adjust ment as measured by grades and self concept stability. At the end of the two year period, the grade point average was calculated for all students who remained in college. The median grade point average for the men was 2.18 and for the women was 2.32. Tables XVI and XVII show the intercorrelations among grade point average, SCAT V scores, and self concept score differences for the two sex groups. The hypothesis was tested for each group by the method of partial correlation using the formula: r13*2 = r13 - r12r23 VC1 - r12) C1 - r23) where r12 = self concept change and academic ability r 23 = academic ability and grades r 13 = self concept change and grades After solving the equation, the partial correla tion coefficient for men was found to be: r13.2 = -275 and for women: TABLE XVI INTERCORRELATIONS OF GRADE POINT AVERAGE, SCAT V SCORES, AND SELF CONCEPT DIFFERENCES FOR MEN Variable GPA V Score S. C. Difference GPA .b2 •21 V Score .*+2 -.09 S. C. Difference .21 -.09 85 TABLE XVII INTERCORRELATIONS OF GRADE POINT AVERAGE, SCAT V SCORES, AND SELF CONCEPT DIFFERENCES FOR WOMEN Variable GPA V Score S. C. Difference GPA .^8 .28 V Score • -r 00 -.0*+ S.C. Difference .2 8 i • o -r 86 r13*2 = *3l+0 Both of these coefficients were significant beyond the .01 level of conficence. A significant positive relationship was shown to exist between change in self concept scores over the two year period, and grades when academic ability was held constant. A tentative expla nation for these results could be that the academic needs of students with high grades are being met, that this fulfilled need is reflected in increased self feelings. Conversely, students with low grades may have accompanying low self concept scores because of unfulfilled academic needs. Hypothesis *+. In the event of a significant change in the self concept along the positive-negative continuum, in any one subject, over the two year period, a change in major or vocational certainty will be made. A positive change in self concept will be related to greater certainty of vocational choice, and a negative change in self concept will be related to greater uncertainty of vocational choice. A significant change in the self concept was defined in the following manner: The mean change in the self concept scores for all subjects over the two year period was +7.8 points, and the standard deviation was 13.5 points. A self concept score change of fourteen points or more above or below 87 the mean was considered to be a significant change. Relevant data for the retained students are presented in Tables XVIII and XIX. Positive shifting students tended to retain their majors more often than negative shifting students. In the positive shifting group, one out of three students changed his major, while in the negative shifting group, two out of three of the students tended to change their majors. The numbers in each sub-group are too small, however, to justify any conclusions regarding the relationship between self concept change and change of college major. A Chi-square analysis was made of the number of men and women who shifted positively and negatively and either changed or did not change their majors. Results of this analysis are presented in Tables XX and XXI. Chi-squares for both men and women were significant beyond the .02 level of confidence. This evidence lends statistical support to the previous statement regarding ^ the association of negative self feelings and change of major. A corollary to this hypothesis was also tested. It was hypothesized that if a student shifted positively, and tended to retain his major as has been indicated, then a student with an undeclared major should increase his self concept when he chose a major, and conversely, 88 TABLE XVIII NUMBER OF RETAINED STUDENTS IN POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SELF CONCEPT SHIFTING GROUPS Per Cent Positive Negative of Shifters Shifters Sex Group N Total N (+1*+ pts) (-11 * pts) Men 56 29.1 38 18 Women 56 29.1 k2 Ik TABLE XIX RELATIONSHIP OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SELF CONCEPT SHIFT TO COLLEGE MAJOR Sex Group N Positive Major Change Shifters No Change Negative Major Change Shifters No Change Men 56 12 26 12 6 Women 56 11 31 9 5 oo SO TABLE XX CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF MEN WHO CHANGED AND DID NOT CHANGE COLLEGE MAJORS Actual ExDected Positive Shifters Negative Shifters Total Positive Negative Shifters Shifters Major Change 12 12 2k 16.3 7.7 No Change 26 6 32 21.7 10.3 Total 38 18 56 38.0 18.0 Chi- With square = 5.^15. one degree of freedom, 5A12 is at the .02 per cent level of confidence. vO O TABLE XXI CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF WOMEN WHO CHANGED AND DID NOT CHANGE COLLEGE MAJORS _______ Actual________ Expected_______ Positive Negative Positive Negative Shifters Shifters Total Shifters Shifters Major Change 11 9 20 15 5 No Change 31 5 36 27 9 Total k2 lk 56 k2 l*f Chi-square = 6.6^. With one degree of freedom, 6.635 is at the .01 per cent level of confidence. \o H if a student who had chosen a major changed to an undeclared status, his self concept should decrease. Eighty-one of the retained students, or about twenty- three per cent, had undeclared majors in 1961. All but nine of these students had selected a major within the two year period. Two hundred and seventy-one of the retained students had declared a major upon entrance to the college in 1961. By 1963, thirty of these students had changed to an undeclared status. Relevant data are presented in Table XXII. The corollary was partially supported and partially rejected. There was no signifi cant change in self concept when a student changed from an undeclared status to a choice of major. However, there was a significant decrease in self concept when a student with a declared major changed to an undeclared status. There seems to be a significant relationship between vocational indecision and decreased feelings about the self. Fifty-six members of the attrition group were classified as positive and negative shifters. Relevant data pertaining to their change in vocational plans are presented in Tables XXIII and XXIV. The data presents contradictory evidence concerning Hypothesis *+. Because of the reduced number of subjects, no conclusion is warranted. TABLE XXII COMPARISON OF SELF CONCEPT STABILITY OF STUDENTS WITH UNDECLARED AND DECLARED MAJORS Self Concept Self Concept Status of Major N 1961 Mean SD 1963 Mean SD Diff. t Unde c ide d — Ma j o r 72 176.3 1 6.9 176.8 16.8 .5 Not Sig. Major— Undecided 30 179.2 16.7 169.5 16.8 9.7 2.3* ♦Significant beyond the .05 level. vO u> 9V TABLE XXIII MEMBERS OF ATTRITION GROUP IN POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SELF CONCEPT SHIFTING GROUPS Per cent Positive Negative of Shifters Shifters Sex Group N Total N (+1*+ pts) (-1*+ pts) Men 31 2 7 .6 20 11 Women 26 3 0 .2 19 7 TABLE XXIV RELATIONSHIP OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SELF CONCEPT SHIFT TO VOCATIONAL FLANS— ATTRITION GROUP Positive Shifters Negative Shifters Sex Group N Vocational Change No Change Vocational Change No Change Men 31 15 5 8 3 Women 26 5 Ik k 3 vO 96 Hypothesis 5- As a student progresses through a specific educational experience, his self concept score will increase. The students selected to test this hypothesis were the members of the two-year nursing group previously described. The measuring instrument was administered in October of 1961 and again in August of 1 9 6 3* The nursing program was about twenty-two months in length and included two required summer sessions. Four students dropped out before the end of the program resulting in a final number of subjects of thirty-three. Table XXV presents the data relevant to this hypothesis. Complete test results of all of the nurses are included in Table C in the Appendix. The data indicates that the self concepts and self-ideal discrepancy scores changed significantly over the two year period. There was a significant increase in self-ratings and a significant decrease in self-ideal discrepancies. The hypothesis was, therefore, supported. However, the change was not significantly greater than for other college students with or without majors, and whether or not they stayed in college. These results lend tentative support to the vocational guidance self theorists who maintain that vocational choice is essentially the implementation of a person*s self concept. Super (6 7) and Ginzberg (26) are two of the many vocational guidance specialists who TABLE XXV COMPARISON OF SELF CONCEPT SCORES EARNED BY THE NURSING GROUP OVER THE TWO YEAR PERIOD 1961 - 1963 Scores Earned t Self Concept Measures N 1961 Mean SD 1963 Mean SD Diff. Needed t For Sig. Self Concept 33 183.7 18.1 193A 18 A 9.7 2.29* 2.0^ Ideal Self Concept 33 227.7 9.8 227.8 9.9 Not Significant Discrepancy Score 33 k6.k 16.6 37 .*+ 16.0 9.0 2.19 2.0^ Significant beyond the .05 level. vO >3 subscribe to this view 98 Validation of the Index of Adjustment and Values,--The Self-acceptance subscale of the California Psychological Inventory was used as the validating instru ment for the Index of Adjustment and Values. Both instru ments purport to measure self regard. As has been stated previously, the Self-acceptance subscale was administered to one-fourth of the students in 1961. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated between raw scores on the two instruments for both sexes. The resulting correlation was .27 for the women and .26 for the men. These data are presented in Table XXVI. Both correlation coefficients were significant beyond the .05 level of confidence indicating that both instruments measured similar variables. The two instruments are different in form, nevertheless, response set could have produced a spuriously high correlation since both instru ments were administered at one sitting. Summary This chapter included the statistical analysis of the basic data obtained on the sample of freshmen students attending Long Beach City College in 1961 and a follow-up group in 1 9 6 3. It Included an analysis of the students who remained in the college for the two year period, and TABLE XXVI COMPARISON OF SCORES ON THE SELF-ACCEPTANCE SOBSCALE AND THE SELF CONCEPT SCALE IN 1961 IAV CPI r S.C. Score Sa Score Needed Sex Group N Mean SD Mean SD r For Sig. Men 86 176.3 16.6 20.0 k.l .26 .21* Women 68 178.2 16.1 21.1 l*.2 .27 ,2k* ♦Significant beyond the .05 level. \o \o 100 also an analysis of the attrition group. A separate analysis was conducted of a group of students partici pating in a two year nursing program at the college. The findings were: 1. Small but significant changes took place in the self concepts of junior college students over the two year period. The self concepts increased significantly and the discrepancies between self and ideal self decreased significantly. This change occurred regardless of whether or not the student remained in the college. Significant changes occurred in both the retained and attrition groups. By 1963, significant differences appeared between the measured self concepts of the retained and attrition groups. These differences could not be accounted for in the present study. 2. Students with high self concept scores in 1961 tended to maintain those high scores at the end of the two year period. Students with low self concept scores in 1961 tended to increase their self concept scores significantly over the two year period. 3. No difference was found in the stability of self concepts between men and women. Both sexes tended to increase their self concept scores and decrease their self-ideal self discrepancies equally. k. No statistically significant relationship 101 between an estimate of academic ability and the stability of the self concept was found. 5. A significant positive relationship was found between scholastic adjustment as measured by grades and the stability of the self concept, when academic ability was held constant. Partial correlations of .275 for the men and .3^0 for the women were significant beyond the .01 level of confidence. 6. Students who changed their self concepts the most over the two year period in a negative manner tended to increase their uncertainty regarding the choice of a college major. Students who increased their self concepts significantly over the two year period tended to retain their choice of major. This did not hold true for the attrition group. Significant changes in the self concept produced contradictory results as far as certainty of vocational choice. The data also indicated that when a student became undecided about his college major over the two year period, this indecision was reflected in his self concept. There was a significant decrease in self concept ratings for these students. 7. Students who remained in the nursing program for the two year period tended to increase their self concept scores and decrease their self-ideal discrepancies significantly. The measured changes that took place in 102 these students were much like those that took place in the larger retained and attrition groups. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to measure the stability of the self concepts of Junior college students over a two year period. An attempt was also made to identify any relationship between this stability and sex, grade point average, and vocational plans. It was also the purpose of the study to determine if there were any significant changes brought about in the self concepts of students who participated in a college-level training program. The basic data.— A sample of six hundred students was selected from the students at Long Beach City College who were attending the college for the first time. The principal instrument used to measure the stability of the self concept was the Bills* Index of Adjustment and Values. The Self-acceptance subscale of the California Psychological Inventory was used as the validating instru ment. Two questionnaires were designed to elicit informa tion regarding sex, age, hours of work, college major, number of units carried, and vocational plans. 103 10^- The procedures.--On October 5, 1961, the three instruments were administered to two large Introductory Psychology classes at the college. Test papers for the freshmen students were removed from the group of papers and the self concept measuring instruments scored. The next week, a third group of students was administered the three measuring instruments. This was necessary in order to enlarge the sample and to equate the sample and fresh man class in academic ability. The Verbal Subscale of the School and College Ability Tests was used as the index of academic ability. During the first week in May 1963, the students who had remained in the college for the two year period were contacted by the investigator and consented to take the same test again. Members of the attrition group were identified and copies of the instrument and follow-up questionnaire were mailed to all members of this group. An analysis of the data was made by means of the t test of significance for the difference between means of groups. The statistical analysis also involved calculating Pearson product moment correlation coefficients to deter mine the relationship between stability of the self concept and academic ability. With academic ability held constant, a partial correlation coefficient was calculated between self concept stability and grades. 105 The findings.--Small but significant changes took place in the self concepts of the junior college students over the two year period. Increased self concept scores and decreased self-ideal discrepancy scores occurred for both the retained and attrition groups. Students with high self concept scores in 1961 tended to maintain those high scores, and students who had low self concept scores in 1961 tended to increase their self concept scores over the two year period. No signifi cant difference was found in the stability of the self concepts between men and women, and no significant relationship was found between self concept stability and academic ability. However, when academic ability was held constant, a significant positive partial correlation was found between self concept stability and grade point average. Significant self concept change over the two year period was associated with certainty of choice of college major. Students who changed their self concepts in a positive manner tended to retain their college majors, and students who changed their self concepts in a negative manner tended to change their majors. A similar relation ship between self concept change and vocational certainty or vocational change was not found for the attrition group. 106 Students who remained in the two year nursing program tended to change their self concepts in much the same fanner as students in the larger freshman group. Self concept scores increased significantly and discrep ancies between self and ideal self decreased as they did for the larger retained and attrition groups. Conclusions The two year study of the stability of the self concepts of junior college students seemed to justify three major conclusions: The null hypothesis.— Hypothesis 1, which is essentially a null hypothesis, must be rejected. The self concepts of the adolescent subjects in the study changed significantly over the two year period. The change was small but in the direction of increased or more positive self feelings. Presumably the young person of this age is learning a great deal about his capabilities and limitations. He is learning more, perhaps, than he has in previous years because he is becoming more inde pendent and consequently must know himself better. This change in self concept did not seem to be related to sex or academic ability. Neither did it seem to be related to attendance or non-attendance in an institution of higher education. This suggests that the growth in 107 positiveness of self concept, with its attendant reduction in the self-ideal discrepancy, is a developmental process which is associated with increased independence. Concomitants of self concent change.— Some tenta tive concomitants of self concept change were identified in the study. When academic ability was held constant, a significant positive relationship between self concept change and grade point average was shown to exist. This suggests the possibility that students with high grade point averages might see themselves as more adequate selves than students with low grade point averages, academic ability being equal. A relationship appeared to exist between quality of the self concept and certainty of vocational plans, particularly among students who remained in college. Indecision in vocational planning seemed to result in reduced self feelings. As has happened so often in previous research on the self concept, we were able to associate negative self feelings with another negative variable, In this case vocational indecision, but we could not associate positive self feelings with any corresponding certainty of vocational decision* Self concent stability and a specific educational experience.— The results of the study indicated that 108 growth in positiveness of the self concept was associated with retention in a specific educational experience, in this case a two year nursing program. The limited number of subjects in the sample makes any specific conclusion tenuous at best. The results seem to suggest, that with the increased knowledge and skill acquired in the training program, an accompanying increase in self feelings occurs. It would be logical to assume that the training has increased the self confidence of the participants, and this self confidence has reflected itself in increased self feelings. The generality of this conclusion necessarily awaits the study of additional training programs, for example, trade and technical programs of an apprenticeship nature. Discussion The present study attempted to assess the develop mental nature of the self concept at a crucial time in the life of late adolescent students. Possible causes of some of the results of the investigation are worthy of specula tion. It was discovered that the self concepts of junior college students increased in quality over a two year period. This is a time of testing of the self in a variety of new situations. For most young people of this age it is apparently a time of increased self confidence. 109 The increase in self concept scores did not manifest itself in any definite behavioral concomitants in this study, however, increased social poise and certainty of academic and vocational objectives may well have occurred. The most striking result of the study was the vocational indecision that accompanied a decrease in the self concept scores. This would tend to support Murphy's position that adequacy of the self concept is related to fulfillment of a person's needs. The students whose vocational or academic needs were unfulfilled had accompanying negative feelings about themselves. These students were in need of guidance by adults skilled in dealing with the problems of late adolescence. Counselors could well be alert to the needs of students who change their majors or manifest continued vocational or academic indecision. A second outcome of the study supported this general idea. When academic ability was held constant, the students with higher grades tended to make higher self concept scores. These students seemed to be having their academic needs met and consequently this fulfilled need was reflected in high self concept scores. Super and Ginzberg have taken the position that vocational choice is a developmental process rather than a specific decision one makes when he becomes independent from his parents. These vocational guidance theorists 110 hold that the choice of a vocation involves testing the self concept over a period of years in a variety of learning situations, and the choice of onefs life work is actually the implementation of the self concept. Three results of this study tentatively support this theory: 1. Those students who increased their self concept scores the most tended to retain the college majors which they had selected upon entrance to college. 2. The students who decreased their self concept scores the most tended to reflect these reduced self feelings in indecision regarding a college major. 3. Students who remained in the nursing program for the full two years increased their self concept scores significantly over this period. These results raise some interesting questions. For example: Is the quality of the self concept associated with definiteness of vocational choice? We were able to show the negative side of the picture but not any positive relationship. What is the relationship between aspiration level and the quality of the self concept? Perhaps students with high self concept scores also have high aspiration levels and consequently make higher grades. This relationship has been suggested by Murphy and is worthy of exploration. Recommendations The following recommendations are made as a result of questions suggested by this study* 1. An investigation similar in nature to the present one needs to be conducted on a group of students who transfer to a four year collegiate institution from a junior college in order to determine if the changes in self concept indicated in this study are continued in upper division. 2. Along with the previous recommendation, it is suggested that a study similar to the present one be conducted in a four year college or university in order to determine if similar changes take place. 3. It is recommended that a series of studies, similar to the present one, be conducted with students in trade and technical apprenticeship programs in order to determine if parallel changes in the self concept take place to those reported for the nursing students. b. It is recommended that other measures of the self concept be used to attempt to identify the self characteristics associated with certainty of vocational choice. There seems to be a positive relationship between certainty of vocational choice and positiveness of self feelings. 5. The nature of the relationship between level 112 of aspiration and the self concept needs to be explored. This would involve the whole concept of motivation and its relation to the self concept. 6. A more practical recommendation involves the finding that vocational indecision and lowered self feelings are associated. This finding suggests that when indecision or vacillation pertaining to the choice of a college major occurs, that a reduced self concept is involved. Counselors and faculty advisors should be alert to evidence of this indecisiveness on the part of students and be ready with professional assistance. APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS FOR IAV There is a need for each of us to know more about ourselves, but seldom do we have an opportunity to look at ourselves as we are or as we would like to be. On the following page is a list of terms that to a certain extent describe people. Take each term separately and apply it to yourself by completing the following sentence: I AM A (AN)____________________PERSON. The first word in the list is academic, so you would sub stitute this term in the above sentence. It would read— I an an academic person. Then decide HOW MUCH OF THE TIME this statement is like you, i.e., is typical or characteristic of you as an individual, and rate yourself on a scale from one to five according to the following key: 1. Seldom, is this like me. 2. Occasionally, this is like me. 3- About half of the time, this is like me. b. A good deal of the time, this is like me. 5. Most of the time, this is like me. Select the number beside the phrase that tells how much of the time the statement is like you and insert it in Column I on the next page. EXAMPLE: Beside the term ACADEMIC, number two is inserted to indicate that--occasionally, I am an academic person. Now, go to Column II; using the same term, complete the following sentence: I WOULD LIKE TO BE A (AN)____________PERSON. Then decide HOW MUCH OF THE TIME you would like this trait to be characteristic of you and rate yourself on the following five point scale: Seldom, would I like this to be me. 2. Occasionally. I would like this to be me. 3. About half of the time. I would like this to be me. *+• A good deal of the time. I would like this to be me. ll^f 115 5. Most of the time. I would like this to be me. You will select the number beside the phrase that tells how much of the time you would like to be this kind of person and insert the number in Column II. EXAMPLE: In Column II beside the term, ACADEMIC. number five is inserted to indicate that most of the timeT I would like to be this kind of person. Start with the word ACCEPTABLE and fill in Column I and II before going on to the next word. There is no time limit. Be honest with yourself so that your description will be a true measure of how you look at yourself. NAME NUMBER а. academic 1. acceptable 2. accurate 3. alert ambitious 5. annoying б. busy 7. calm 8. charming 9. clever 10. competent 11. confident 12. considerate 13. cruel 1*+. democratic 15. dependable 16. economical 17. efficient 18. fearful 1 9. friendly 20. fashionable 21. helpful 1 2 II 25- 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3^. 3?. 36. 37. 38. 39. > + 0. hi. U-2. ^3. Mf. **5 . >+6. meddle some merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded 22. 23- 2b. I II intellectual **7. businesslike kind ___ ___ b8. competitive logical *+9, fault-finding 117 I II NAME NUMBER THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY* Scale Sa 118 1. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. 2. I sometimes pretend to know more than I really do. 3. I looked up to my father as an ideal man. *+. When in a group of people I usually do what the others want rather than make suggestions. 5. I must admit that I often do as little work as I can get by with. 6. I would like to see a bullfight in Spain. 7. I doubt whether I would make a good leader. 8. It is hard for me to start a conversa tion with strangers. 9. Women should not be allowed to drink in cocktail bars. 10. I seldom or never have dizzy spells. 11. I would like to wear expensive clothes I — 1- ♦Reproduced by special permission from The California Psychological Inventory by Harrison G. Gough, Copyright, 1956, Published by Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California. 12. 13. lb. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2b. 25. I would disapprove of anyone*s drinking to the point of intoxication at a party. When with a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. Before I do something I try to consider how my friends will react to it. I was a slow learner in school. I never make judgments about people until I am sure of the facts. When I work on a committee I like to take charge of things. I have frequently found myself, when alone, pondering such abstract problems as freewill, evil, etc. In school I found it very hard to talk before the class. I think I would like to belong to a motorcycle club. I am certainly lacking in self- confidence. At times I have worn myself out by undertaking too much. When a man is with a woman he is usually thinking about things related to her sex. Sometimes I rather enjoy going against the rules and doing things I*m not supposed to. 26. I would rather go without something than ask for a favor. 2 7. I often do whatever makes me feel cheerful here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal. 28. I would like to be an actor on the stage or in the movies. 2 9. I set a high standard for myself and I feel others should do the same. 30. It is hard for me to find anything to talk about when I meet a new person. 31. A person does not need to worry about other people if only he looks after him self. 32. Police cars should be especially marked so that you can always see them coming. 33- Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle. 3^. It is hard for me to act naturally when I am with new people. 121 NAME __ NUMBER PERSONAL DATA SHEET I Please answer the following questions by placing an X in the appropriate space. 1. AGE: 17 , 18____, 19 , 2 0 ____ , 21 , 22____ 23+ ___ 2. SEX: Male____________Female_________ 3. MARITAL STATUS: Single , Married ___, Divorced Widowed , Remarried____ *+. How many units are you carrying this semester? ___ 5. Hours employed each week: Not employed ___ , 1-10 ___, 11-20____, 21-30 ___, 31-l +0 ~P+Q+___ 6. College major: Art_ , Business , Engineer ing ___ , Nursing , Elementary teaching , Undecided ___ , Other (please name ___________________ 7. Vocational plans: Have you decided upon a vocational goal? Yes No ___ If 1 1 Ye s'*--What is it? --How certain are you of this goal? Very certain ___, Fairly ceetain ___ , Somewhat uncertain ___ 122 NAME __ NUMBER PERSONAL DATA SHEET II Please answer the following questions by placing an X in the appropriate space. 1. AGE: 17 , 18 , 19 _ ,20 , 21 , 22 , 23+ ___ 2. SEX: Male________ Female__________ 3. MARITAL STATUS: Single , Married , Divorced __, Widowed , Remarried____ What are you doing at the present time? Working full time ___, Working part time ___ , Housewife ___, Military Service , Trade or apprenticeship program (carpenter, barber, beautician, etc.) ___, Other (please name) ____________________ 5. Have you decided upon a vocational goal? Yes ___, No ___ If "Yes'1— What is it? _____ __________________________ --How certain are you of this goal? Very certain ___, Fairly certain , Somewhat uncertain APPENDIX B TABLE A SEX, COLLEGE MAJOR, SCAT V SCORES, GRADE POINT AVERAGES, AND TEST SCORES FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE RETAINED GROUP Index of Adjustment and Values Student 6123267 612187b 6101876 6103937 6103031 6120229 6122373 6121278 6120^67 6102^31 6120557 610370*+ 6120613 6120805 6120810 6102089 6123067 6123290 6l20*fl8 6123772 6123855 6123320 6120290 6103170 College Score Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CP] Sex Major (Conv.) GPA 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa F Nursing 293 2.*+5 211 222 23*+ 232 25 1*+ 29 F Social Sc. 280 1.88 190 182 228 220 *+6 38 F English 289 1 .8 9 173 180 217 218 * + * + 38 M Pre-Med. 297 1 .8 9 211 206 2*+0 23*+ 32 i 3? 22 F Nursing 289 2.39 167 179 220 218 53 *+5 2*+ M English 300 2.22 206 20*+ 225 229 21 25 M Sec. Ed. 289 2.07 166 163 215 216 61 63 M Sec. Ed. 303 2.10 159 16*+ 212 22 7 65 65 10 F Social Sc. 293 2.26 168 176 218 212 50 *+6 26 F Elem. Ed. 31^ 3.2*+ 198 196 231 219 33 26 F Elem. Ed. 296 1.87 A3 169 20 7 202 6*+ 33 F Dental Hyg. 309 3.38 156 200 226 238 76 *+6 F P. E. 305 2 A3 16*+ 17b 228 229 6*+ 55 F Elem. Ed. 301 2.*+6 178 193 237 2*+l 63 *+8 F Elem. Ed. 300 1.78 190 176 228 215 *+6 58 22 M Business 300 l.*+l 186 190 223 229 37 F Undecided 296 2.18 163 167 222 . 215 59 1 + 8 2k F Business 310 2.37 171 181 23*+ 225 63 * + * + F Business 296 2.28 200 190 208 2*+0 33 50 M P. E. 281 1.86 l*+2 157 231 208 101 57 M Elem. Ed. 301 2.17 183 179 232 219 55 * + 1 M Pre-Dent. 285 2.2 7 195 19*+ 223 2*+0 A0 *+9 F Elem. Ed. 293 1.75 183 182 22 7 235 kk 53 F Dental Hyg. 289 2.30 167 177 211 22 7 *+6 52 +i2T TABLE A (continued) Student College Number Sex Major 612027*+ 6120955 6120968 6113*+77 6123526 610078*+ 6ll*+832 6102586 6111526 61037*+2 6l212*+6 6III983 610*+26*+ 6110286 6123*+5*+ 6112 5*+l 6111762 6102*+6l 6115130 610*+013 6lll*+62 6ll22*+3 61126*+1 6102321 6l231*+6 6123765 611378*+ 61239**-! SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values______ Score Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI (Conv.) GPA 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa F Dental Asst. 295 2 .0 8 159 191 219 231 83 * + 2 F Journalism 311 2 .8 1 173 177 2*+0 2*+0 69 61 F Undecided 303 1,78 173 18* + 222 22 7 50 *+3 M Soc. Sc. 296 2.51 l* + 2 157 231 208 51 F P. E. 309 3.23 16* + 17*+ 228 229 6* + 55 F Dental Hyg. 305 2. 8* + 166 179 220 218 5*+ * + 1 M Engr. 301 1.93 17*+ 181 23*+ 228 60 *+7 F Sec. Ed. 300 2.15 151 157 215 216 6* + 59 M Pre-Med. 296 2.3*+ 180 212 233 231 53 19 F Soc. Sc. 310 3.31 159 16* + 212 22 7 53 63 M Biology 296 2.51 190 182 228 220 38 38 M Police Sc. 293 2.13 168 176 218 212 50 * + 6 F Elem. Ed. 289 1 .8 2 183 182 226 23*+ *+3 52 M Sec. Ed. 295 2.33 173 180 217 218 * + * + 38 F Speech 311 3.61 l*+7 162 230 20 7 83 *+5 M Law 303 1.98 167 179 220 218 5*+ * + 1 F Elem. Ed. 311 2.98 163 167 222 215 59 * + 8 M Physics 305 3.21 211 222 23*+ 232 22 10 M Business 297 2.13 178 193 237 2*+l 59 * + 8 F Elem. Ed. 303 3.11 158 165 211 226 55 61 M Undecided 285 2 .1 1 16* + 17*+ 228 229 6* + 55 M Business 291 2. 2* + 178 185 236 230 58 *+5 M Pharmacy 301 2.*+3 l*+7 162 230 207 83 *+5 M Police Sc. 281 1.65 171 181 23*+ 225 » 6? * + * + F Elem. Ed. 288 2.03 167 177 211 22 7 * + * + 50 F Theater 291 1 .8 7 190 176 228 215 38 39 F Soc. Sc. 298 2 .2 1 181 162 201 200 20 38 M Soc. Sc. 299 2 .0 1 156 200 226 238 70 38 27 20 8 18 10 2*+ 11 8 2*+ 22 125 TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) GPA 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 611l f931 + M Undecided 289 1.96 211 6123^89 F Elem. Ed. 300 2. 1 + 1 163 6123775 M Law 297 2.23 178 61152^3 F Dental Hyg. 303 2.65 168 610^285 M Zoology 310 3.11 180 6106135 M Undecided 280 1.87 173 61121*31 F Elem. Ed. 286 2 .1 0 l*+3 61057^3 F Undecided 301 2 .2 2 175 61008^8 M Undecided 300 1.96 166 6123058 F Undecided 310 2 .7 0 180 6123^62 F Elem. Ed. 311 2. 1 + 0 171+ 6123^23 M Undecided 301 2 .2 7 181 611021+6 F Dental Hyg. 300 1.89 201 61000^8 M P. E. 302 2 .2 2 183 6101983 M Math. 300 1.78 190 61123^7 M Undecided 281 2.23 190 610281+6 F Soc. Sc. 285 2 .2 1 195 61232^0 F Sec. Ed. 297 1.90 170 61111*78 F Undecided 305 2.51 201 6123^21 M Police Sc. 301 2. 1 + 1 175 61103^2 F Elem. Ed. 293 1 .8 1 181 6111871 * M Business 289 2.31 168 612361*7 M Undecided 289 1.96 175 6103939 M P. E. 293 2 .1 0 170 6105276 F Undecided 288 1 .8 0 165 6111326 F Pre-Med. 31i* 3.10 178 6110963 F Soc. Sc. 293 2 .2 1 163 6121+055 F Elem. Ed. 297 3.10 190 206 2*+0 231 * 29 28 175 229 231 66 56 193 237 2*+l 59 > + 8 163 215 216 k7 53 200 232 230 52 30 177 2^ +0 2*+0 67 63 I69 207 202 63 33 186 22* + 229 k < y **3 163 215 216 k9 53 212 233 231 55 23 8 181 231 * 228 60 }+9 162 201 200 36 M+ 200 22* + 228 23 28 179 231 219 * + 8 ko 201 221 223 31 22 22 181 22 7 222 37 1 + 6 26 196 222 239 27 f*3 2k 182 231 * 226 6*+ 192 233 229 , 32 37 186 22k 229 1 + 9 1 + 3 180 225 233 1 + 1+ 53 165 217 218 ^*9 53 182 219 221 M* ,39 178 220 216 50 1 + 8 26 175 211 229 56 51 * 8 185 236 230 58 1*5 167 222 215 59 1 + 8 182 22 7 219 37 37 126 TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student Number Sex College Major Score (Conv.) GPA Self 1961 Cone. 1963 Ideal 1961 Self 1963 Disc. 1961 Score 1963 CPI Sa 6101201 M Business 296 2 .0 1 167 179 220 218 5*+ * + 1 611096* + M Chemistry 303 2 .2 1 159 16* + 212 22 7 53 63 11 612*+131 M Engr. 297 1.89 180 200 233 231 53 31 612*+152 M Business 286 1.91 198 196 231 219 33 23 6101228 F Sec. Ed. 296 2.31 173 18* + 222 22 7 *+9 * + * + 61012*4-1 F Business 280 1.71 186 190 223 229 37 39 6111031 F Undecided 293 2.23 151 157 215 216 6* + 59 22 612*4-133 M Undecided 289 2 .0 2 183 179 232 219 *+9 * + 0 612*4-085 M Business 297 2.23 167 177 211 22 7 * + * + 50 2* + 6101233 F. Dental - Hyg. 302 2.*4-1 175 182 219 221 * + * + 39 6111033 F Elem. Ed. 287 2 .2 6 163 167 222 215 59 * + 8 61110*4-3 M Spanish 305 2.57 178 190 237 2*+l ^9 51 6101238 F Undecided 295 2.31 168 176 218 212 50 *+6 61110*4-7 M Undecided 293 2.02 178 185 236 231 58 * 4 - 6 11 612*4-121 M Art 300 2.01 1* 4 -7 162 230 207 83 *+5 6101273 F Library Sc. 305 3.12 171 191 228 230 57 39 6123851 M Astronomy 303 2.61 167 177 211 22 7 ft 50 6100883 M Soc. Sc. 292 2.0*+ 16*+ 17*+ 228 229 6*+ 55 6110836 M Business 289 2.19 180 200 233 231 53 31 6110813 M Undecided 297 2.21 190 182 228 220 38 38 2*+ 6100881 F Dental Asst. 28*+ 2.31 159 191 219 231 60 * + 0 27 6123832 F Elem. Ed. 296 2.0*4- 17*+ 181 23*+ 228 60 *+7 6100877 F P. E. 295 2.35 167 179 220 218 5*+ *+1 22 6100856 F Sec. Ed. 297 2.13 190 176 228 215 38 39 6100990 F Soc. Sc. 291 2.8*+ 178 185 236 230 58 *+5 9 6101013 F Undecided 289 2.05 168 176 218 212 50 *+6 26 6123902 M Law 303 3.21 170 178 220 216 50 38 1 1 TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student Number Sex College Major Score (Conv.) GPA Self 1961 Cone. 1963 Ideal 1961 Self 1963 Disc. 1961 Score 1963 6100897 F Undecided 291 2.15 159 16* + 211 226 52 62 6110881 M Undecided 300 2 .2 1 163 167 222 215 59 * + 8 6100865 F Elem. Ed. 296 2.*+8 178 190 237 2*+0 59 50 6110863 M Police Sc. 295 2 .0 6 166 163 215 216 *+9 53 6123881 M Undecided 281 1.91 183 182 22 7 235 * + 0 52 6100893 M P. E. 290 2.15 151 157 215 216 6123920 M English 302 2.89 1*+1 156 230 207 89 51 6119782 M Undecided 298 2 .2 1 157 16* + 211 225 5*+ 61 6ll88*+3 M Business 292 2.09 177 191 236 2*+0 59 *+9 6108721 M Soc. Sc. 300 2.23 210 221 23*+ 232 2* + 11 6127983 F Elem. Ed. 301 2.51 163 166 221 21* + * + 2 * + 8 61198^1 F Soc. Sc. 296 2.31 168 175 219 217 51 - 1 + 2 6128982 F Business 289 1.87 l* + 8 163 229 207 19 * + * + 612888* + M Pre-Dent. 30*+ 3.0*+. 17*+ 179 217 219 ^3 * + 0 6107983 M Undecided 29*+ 2 .2 1 183 182 226 23*+ *+3 52 612998*+ F Dental Hyg. 302 2.67 167 176 218 212 51 * + 6 6109312 F Undecided 297 2.31 189 181 228 219 39 38 6H 8963 M Undecided 296 2.*+3 159 163 211 226 52 63 6108732 M Speech 293 2.07 180 210 232 230 52 20 6129136 M Business 289 2 .1 0 150 156 215 21* + 35 * + 8 6ll8*+89 F Undecided 300 1.97 17*+ 180 233 229 59 ^9 6127998 M Physics 316 2 .9 8 166 179 220 218 5^ 38 6108973 F Art 291 2.21 16*+ 173 228 230 62 57 6l291*+6 M Engr. 303 1.98 1*+*+ 161 231 208 87 *f7 6l098*+3 F Elem. Ed. 291 2.22 180 196 231 229 51 33 6110513 F Elem. Ed. 293 2.2*+ 156 199 226 238 70 39 6110520 F Undecided 280 1.91 178 185 236 230 58 1+ 5 CPI Sa 10 21 19 11 128 SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) GPA 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 129 as ,H O C\J O J - OO C M C M C M C M C M C M C O C ^ O C O r O H O' m o o 000 tTNj-"LXA o ^ O xro^T N tH CtaU-noOOO O n j - P O P O P O ^ -T N J- U > r r ) j - j - m 'U N J - J - jf J - J - r o rO ^C N O O O O ffv fO P O O O OnC O J - J - r o j - O i - 0 \ J - IS O ^ r n J -C O C J D 0 0 0 + C M \ 0 ITNvO ^ r o j - l r \ 3 ’ 3 " 0 0 vO M ~wo J " v j O r O J " OO O O O O te\CM rH CfNvO O 0 - 0 0 O -v O O O O n O 'O n O ' 0 - 0 0 H O O O O N O C M J - H O f ' O H H J - C M H O C M o O C M H C M C M C M O H n n O r O C M C M CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM rH J - OO C M tOoOOO'LTW O H I N O J - O O O CMOO r O J - O O O O v O OOO H O ooO CM O oO CM rH oO iH iHoO oO rO C M oO CM CM CM oO CM rO PO C M CM iH CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM C M H O t S O \ O v O f in C M IN O C M C M \O J - O N J - O vO C M QNvO ^ O C M I N vO O O O O vO vO O I S v O on C —OO VO OO ONC^-CN-CN- ONOO v£ > 0-00 OO O O O O - i— I ( —I iH i — I i —I C M i — I i— I H i— I i — I i— I i — I c — I i— I i— I i — I i — I i — I i — I i — I i— I i— ICM ■ — I i— I H J - O n r O O O ^ O C O l N m i N O O J - OOJ-M D ^ N C ^ I > - 0 0 0 VO O C n- o o I N O v O J - C O ON SO D -s O O -J " 0 - 0 0 vO OO vO OO 0 _ ± VO O C n-UN OnvO i— I I —I C M I — I |—I r— I rH I — I i —I i— 1 i — I i— I r — I r — I i— I i —I r-1 i— I i—I i — I rH C M i— I rH i—I i —I J - rH 1 - T N J - r O H H J - H v O r O H ^ N I N v O U n p o o i s h O J * H H C M O M D J - C M O O J- r O H ' C l O ^ O nJ - W O J - On H r O r l C M O n * • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • mCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMoOCMCMiHCMCMCMCMHCMCMCMCMCMCM MNOO o o M n O - v O On O rH On OnJ - ON iH On ,—| c^ v O rH O O nvO J - vO O ' O O O N O N O ON ONOO O O ONOO rHCO O 0-0 C N C N O C O C O ONCJNOnoO O rOCMCMrOCMCMCMoorOCMCMrOCMPOCMrOCMCMnOCMCMCMCMCMCMrO C O +5 • • f-t O W) X} C O r d !>> • T) O • C O • • a) w Q) Q) C O 0) jx) • C O TO C O . (A o) C Q 0) O C O Td tO J h Td C O pq TO ^ >» C O >»Td O C O (xJCOOCOTdCO H C Q ( ] } ( D p i q < D H ( D *H*H C xO C D F h H H CO 0) O) CO Q ) H d d 2 H J o d j o o o d c d o a J a • • • a d o c • • *H I • C f l < D * H S < U < D r H ,r i P - t Q ) - P • tH p |z] fi H • *H Q) *H T ) O W ( D O ( D ' d W I D ,d ' d O W rQ ,d C j O W M 4) C O O C O Td C O C D O o h C D J d d Cl d ' H d r l d 0 ) 0 0 a T | 3 o 3 c | 3 S c Q p q a , c O E H t o p q W t = > t D p q p q H q t 3 « W p q p i q a i | x 4 p q c Q p q d > p q rH H O O I c n p o o o j - P O I S C M r O H I N O v O O I N H m i S H H ' f v H t N C N CM [>-0O UN O n CMOO C n-CM C M n O J - J - O O ONOO oOCM O OnvO 0 - 0 0 OO 0 0 0 CO IN- 0 - CN- C^OO O - 0 - 0 0 I r v o o OO OO [>_ [> . O OO M ~v m j - t>- C M On O n C M O n O r O r o O c M O o n r O O O O O O i M f M N H H J - H H J - H H J - H O CM rH O CM O CM rH O rH O O O CM rH <H O O CM rH O CM O rH CM O I H i—li—l<—li—li—li—li—li—li—I ■ —li—li—I H i —! i—I H i—I H H i—li—IrHrHi—l<—I I \£> vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO vO TABLE A (continued) Student College Number Sex Major 612»+319 6102009 6111509 6102106 6121+295 6101855 6121+329 6111567 6121+053 6110963 6101130 6101061 6121+007 6123987 6IIO925 6101077 6111121 6110918 6111223 6123985 610113*+ 6123961 6110991 61011*+1 612^051 SCAT V Score (Conv.) GPA Index of Adjustment and Values_____ Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa F Dental Hyg. 303 3.1*+ 171 181 23*+ 225 63 * + * + M Pharmacy 312 2.9*+ l* + 6 163 231 209 85 * + 6 M Undecided 291 1 .8 6 175 181 219 221 kk * + 0 F Elem. Ed. 297 2.3*+ 163 167 222 215 59 * + 8 F Theater Arts 296 2. 2* + 178 190 237 2*+l 59 51 M Business 29*+ 2.13 l* + 2 157 231 208 89 51 M Engr. 301 2.1+3 168 176 218 212 50 k 6 M Undecided 285 2.0*+ 183 182 22 7 235 * + * + 53 M Chemistry 317 3.10 173 177 237 2*+l 6*+ 6k M Sec. Ed. 301 2.7*+ 178 185 235 231 57 *+6 F Soc. Sc. 298 2.53 l*+7 162 230 207 83 *+5 F Elem. Ed. 29*+ 2.15 190 176 228 215 38 39 F Sec. Ed. 299 2. *+8 211 222 23*+ 232 23 10 F Soc. Sc. 293 2.17 167 177 211 22 7 ¥+ 50 F Elem. Ed. 303 2.18 211 206 2*+0 23*+ 29 28 M Business 297 2.23 156 199 226 239 70 *+0 M Soc. Sc. 300 26*+ 181 161 200 202 19 *+1 M Undecided 291 1.85 163 167 222 215 P *+8 M Pre-Med. 307 3.1*+ 166 163 215 216 *+9 53 M Fire Sc. 289 2.11 180 210 233 232 53 22 M Soc. Sc. 281 1.87 l*+7 162 230 207 83 *+5 F Speech 295 2.27 170 178 220 216 50 > 38 F P. E. 301 2.36 173 18*+ 222 225 *+9 *+1 F Dental Hyg. 305 3.1*+ 167 179 220 218 5*+ *+1 M Undecided 283 1.97 17*+ 181 23*+ 228 60 k7 21 2k 8 23 22 2k Student College Number Sex Major SCAT V Score (Conv.) 61011*+*+ M Biology 309 612397*+ M Soc. Sc. 29* + 6101121 F Elem. Ed. 293 6110931 M Law 300 6110973 F Undecided 282 6IOIO87 M Business 298 61239^5 F Elem. Ed. 298 6101161 M Spanish 305 61109*+1 M Business 300 6110910 M Pre-Dent. 297 6123971 F Soc. Sc. 299 6101037 F Elem. Ed. 29*+ 610108* + F Pre-Med. 317 6123953 F Business 298 6101119 M P. E. 293 6110920 M Engr. 302 6123991 M Undecided 295 6110975 M Business 299 6l2*+032 M Sec. Ed. 300 610125*+ F Elem. Ed. 300 6101193 F Soc. Sc. 296 612*+113 F Undecided 289 61110*+1 F Elem. Ed. 303 6l2*+ 07* + F Undecided 291 6101252 F Dental Hyg. 306 6110915 M Business 286 £ A (continued) Index of Adjustment and Values_____ Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI GPA 1961 1963 1961 3.1^ 159 191 219 2.09 l*+7 162 230 2 .3 2 180 212 233 2. 8* + 173 180 217 1.87 159 16*+ 212 2.19 198 196 231 2. 1* + 171 191 228 2.89 168 176 218 2 .3 2 186 190 223 1. 8* + 181 161 201 2.*+5 156 199 225 2. 1* + 178 190 237 3.57 171 181 23*+ 2.07 183 179 232 2.19 16* + 17*+ 228 2.*H 178 193 237 2.19 173 177 2*+0 2. 2* + 166 163 215 1.99 l*+7 162 230 2. 1 + 1 190 182 22 7 2.36 178 18* + 236 2.13 151 157 215 2 .3 6 16* + 17*+ 228 1.96 183 182 227 2.87 159 3.91 219 1.77 173 18* + 222 1963 1961 1963 Sa 231 60 38 26 207 83 *+5 21 231 53 19 218 * + * f 38 22 7 53 63 10 219 33 23 230 57 39 212 50 * + 6 229 37 39 199 20 38 237 69 38 2*+l 59 51 225 63 * + * + 2k 219 * + 9 * + 0 229 6* + 55 2*+l 59 * + 8 239 67 62 216 * + 9 53 207 83 *+5 22 219 37 37 25 230 58 * + 6 216 6* + 59 19 229 6* + 55 235 * + * + 53 231 60 38 27 227 50 *+3 TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) GPA 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 6101208 M Sec. Ed. 297 2.23 171 * 181 231* 228 60 1 * 7 8 6111013 M Engr. 306 2.7** 166 163 215 216 1* 9 53 6121+061+ M Elem. Ed. 291 2.31 200 180 208 2l*0 8 50 61012^+5 M Undecided 285 1.78 158 165 213 228 55 63 12 6110991 F . Elem. Ed. 290 1.96 180 212 233 231 53 19 6101612 F Sec. Ed. 301 2.28 190 176 228 215 21 6121*125 F Soc. Sc. 296 2.31 170 182 231* 226 &* 1* 1+ 21+ 6111037 M Business 299 2.2** 167 179 220 218 5 1* i+l 6101259 F Undecided 291 2.13 150 158 216 217 61+ 59 612^137 M P. E.. 296 2.18 178 193 237 2l*l 59 1 + 8 6101261+ F Undecided 291 2.3^ 163 167 222 215 59 1 + 8 6101205 M Soc. Sc. 299 2.29 202 193 235 229 33 36 21+ 612^069 M Law 303 2.81* 156 201 225 236 69 35 6110911 M Police Sc. 299 2.09 183 179 232 219 1*9 1 + 0 6101190 M Business 293 2.03 180 212 233 231 53 19 6111016 F Soc. Sc. 298 2.31 175 182 219 221 kk ■ 612^-061 F Elem. Ed. 295 2.2l* 163 167 222 215 59 1 *8 6101215 F Art 289 2.0l* 211 222 231* 232 23 10 612^091 M Pharmacy 317 3.13 159 191 219 231 60 1*0 26 612^072 M Business 290 2.16 168 176 218 212 50 1 * 6 21 6110981 F Dental Hyg. 307 3.18 186 190 223 229 37 39 6101218 F Business 297 2.51* 177 181* 232 331 55 1 *8 610121+3 M Biology 30*+ 2.86 161* 171* 228 229 61* 55 6111039 M Business 293 2,09 171 191 228 230 57 39 6101257 F Elem. Ed. 283 2.01 181 162 201 200 20 38 132 TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) GPA 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 6124110 M Engr. 305 2.24 151 157 215 216 64 59 21 6111058 M Undecided 297 2.13 178 185 236 230 58 45 6124123 F Undecided 300 2.40 186 190 220 225 34 35 6124143 M Business 296 2.19 168 175 217 211 49 36 24 6120713 M Business 296 2.19 190 171 228 221 38 40 6100622 M Undecided 293 2.03 167 177 211 22 7 44 50 6100121 F Elem. Ed. 297 2.31 200 116 238 231 38 55 6120636 F English 303 2.84 180 200 233 231 53 31 6120841 F Undecided 293 2 .0 1 151 157 215 216 64 59 6100061 F Sec. Ed. 289 2 .1 0 183 179 232 218 49 39 6100533 M Pre-Dent 311 2 .8 1 211 221 233 231 22 10 6110250 M Undecided 300 1.78 174 181 234 228 60 47 11 6120836 M Business 297 1.89 211 206 240 234 29 28 6100283 F Elem. Ed. 293 1.75 175 186 224 229 49 43 6100301 M Law 303 2.74 170 182 234 225 64 43 24 6100530 M Undecided 289 2 .0 6 163 167 222 215 59 48 6110420 M Sec. Ed. 299 2.31 190 171 228 215 38 39 6110408 M P. E. 295 2.41 166 175 210 225 44 50 24 6100069 F Undecided 294 2 .2 6 183 182 22 7 234 54 52 6100303 F Soc. Sc. 297 2.41 178 193 237 241 59 48 6100410 M Pharmacy 321 3 .0 8 159 189 219 230 60 41 28 6100637 M Soc. Sc. 301 1 .8 1 191 174 229 218 38 43 6111477 M Undecided 296 2.14 198 196 231 219 33 23 6124261 M Business 293 2.24 181 162 199 200 18 38 133 TABLE A (continued) SCAT V St udent Number Sex College Major Score (Conv.) GPA 610178*4 M Undecided 297 1.97 6111537 M Business 281 1.8*4 612*4307 F Sec. Ed. 276 1.73 6101839 F Undecided 293 2.31 6111570 F Elem. Ed. 299 2.3*4 612*4273 F Soc. Sc. 297 1.96 612*4-308 M Law 297 2 .0 1 61018*41 F Soc. Sc. 301 2.*48 6111521 M Undecided 287 1.78 612*4321 M Spanish 300 2.23 61018*45 F Undecided 293 2 .2 6 612*4275 F Elem. Ed. 297 1 .8 8 61115*43 M Undecided 291 1 .8 6 61115*47 M Police Sc. 295 2.23 6101850 M Biology- 311 2 .0 6 6111569 M Undecided 296 2 .1 0 6101053 M Soc. Sc. 273 1 .8 1 6101151 M P. E. 296 2 .2 6 6101118 M Undecided 289 2.13 612*40*41 F Elem. Ed. 299 1.99 6110922 F Undecided 289 2 .2 1 6101128 F Soc. Sc. 296 1.98 6110915 M Chemistry- 321 3.58 6101153 M Undecided 285 2.03 6123983 F Elem. Ed. 297 2 .3 1 6110961 F Dental Hyg. 303 2 .6 1 6123957 M Art 28*4 1.98 Index of Adjustment and Values_____ Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score CPI 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 159 16*4 212 227 53 63 200 180 208 2*40 8 50 16*4 175 228 230 6 * 4 55 202 193 235 229 33 36 175 186 22*4 229 *49 **3 178 193 237 2*41 , 59 *4 8 156 198 226 238 70 *40 200 186 238 230 38 * 4 * 4 166 163 215 216 *49 53 178 185 236 230 58 *45 170 178 220 216 50 38 16 7 179 220 218 5*4 *41 175 182 219 221 *4 * 4 39 186 191 22*4 228 37 37 16*4 17*4 228 229 6 * 4 55 183 182 22 7 235 *4 * 4 53 159 191 219 231 60 38 178 185 235 229 57 ^3 183 178 231 216 *48 38 166 161 210 21*4 *4 * 4 53 170 178 220 216 5 0 38 181 162 201 200 20 38 190 172 228 220 38 38 163 167 222 215 59 *48 173 180 217 218 *4 * 4 38 180 210 230 229 50 19 211 222 23*4 232 23 10 10 26 28 u> -r TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student College Scores Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score cp: Number Sex Major (Conv.) GPA 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 6101157 F Soc. Sc. 299 1.78 166 163 215 216 *+9 53 612396*+ M Speech 300 2.29 180 211 233 230 53 19 6110983 M Undecided 298 2.26 183 179 232 218 **9 39 6101173 F Art 303 2.*+l 17** 181 23** 228 60 k7 9 6101187 M Business 297 3.10 171 181 23** 225 63 * + * f 2*+ 611126*+ F P. E. 299 2.3** 178 193 237 2*+l 59 *+8 612^009 M Business 296 2.18 l*+7 162 230 207 83 *+5 612376** M Business 300 223 211 206 2*+0 23** 29 28 6123313 M Undecided 279 1.83 206 20*+ 225 229 19 25 6100099 M Sec. Ed. 289 2.17 159 190 218 220 ft **0 27 612082*+ F Undecided 293 2.25 173 180 217 218 * + * + 38 6100133 M Business 299 1.96 198 196 231 219 33 23 6110281 F Elem. Ed. 293 2.23 200 190 208 2*+0 8 50 6110321 F Sec. Ed. 297 2.31 178 193 237 2*+l 59 *+8 6110298 M Engr. 309 3.0*+ 202 193 235 229 33 36 6100093 F Soc. Sc. 299 2.31 168 176 218 212 50 k 6 22 6120631 M Law 302 2.08 190 176 228 215 I 8 ft 6100125 M Fire Sc. 289 2.13 167 179 220 218 5** kl 6110303 F Sec. Ed. 276 1.7** 183 181 226 23** **3 53 6100172 M Undecided 297 2.13 173 177 239 2*+0 66 63 6120706 M Undecided 29** 2.*+3 157 161 211 228 5** 67 12 61206*+1 M Soc. Sc. 286 2.03 178 185 236 230 58 *+5 8 6l00*+03 F Elem. Ed. 281 1.96 171 181 23** 225 63 * + * + 8 6110322 M Undecided 303 2.75 178 185 236 230 58 *+5 61001*+1 M Pre-Med. 320 3.13 16*+ 17*+ 228 229 6k 55 6100873 M Soc. Sc. 297 1.99 200 186 238 231 38 **5 6100852 M Business 293 2.21 163 167 222 215 59 *+8 135 TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student Number Sex College Major Score (Conv.) GPA Self 1961 Cone. 1963 Ideal 1961 Self 1963 Disc. 1961 Score 1963 612385*+ F Elem. Ed. 296 2.31 178 190 236 238 58 * + 8 612388* * M Sec. Ed. 300 2. 2* + 156 199 22 7 236 71 37 6123830 M Lav 309 3 .2 2 180 212 233 231 53 19 6110810 F Undecided 296 2.13 173 177 238 2*+0 65 63 6110892 F Elem. Ed. 293 1.78 180 160 198 202 18 * + 2 6123869 F Undecided 279 1.91 166 163 215 216 1 + 9 53 6100875 M Engr. 297 1 .8 8 211 222 23*+ 232 23 10 6110891 M Pre-Dent. 303 2 .2 1 171 191 228 230 57 39 61238W1 F Sec. Ed. 296 2. 1* + 158 190 219 231 61 *+ 1 6123867 M P. E. 295 2 .1 8 178 193 237 2*+l 59 * + 8 610086* + M Undecided 285 1.9^ 186 190 223 229 37 39 6110833 M Undecided 297 1.99 163 169 220 217 57 * + 8 6110883 M Soc. Sc. 305 3.12 181 162 201 200 20 38 6IOO891 M Business 299 2 .1 0 183 182 22 7 23*+ * + * + 52 6123906 F Elem. Ed. 301 2.6* + 173 18* + 222 227 k9 *+3 611086* + M Undecided 296 2.23 167 177 211 22 7 * + * + 50 6110291 M Business 289 1 .8 6 190 172 228 220 38 38 6120820 F Soc. Sc. 297 1.99 l*+7 162 230 20 7 83 *f5 6100051 F Elem. Ed. 300 2.23 211 206 2*+0 23*+ 29 28 6110293 M Business 273 1.76 206 20*+ 225 229 19 25 6100162 F Soc. Sc. 305 2.6*+ 167 177 211 22 7 * + * + 50 6100167 F Sec. Ed. 300 2.31 178 185 230 230 58 *+5 6120623 M Pre-Dent. 311 3.13 182 178 231 216 *+9 38 6100091 M Undecided 299 2.03 16*+ 17*+ 228 229 6*+ 55 6120710 F Elem. Ed. 293 2.*+l 198 196 231 219 33 23 6110285 F Business 293 1.98 171 191 228 230 57 39 6100291 M Law 303 2.09 190 176 228 215 38 39 CPI Sa 26 2*+ 9 H OJ ON TABLE A (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student Number Sex College Major Score (Conv.) GPA Self 1961 Cone. 1963 Ideal 1961 Self 1963 Disc. 1961 Score 1963 CPI Sa 6110295 F Elem. Ed. 299 2.21 167 179 220 218 5*+ *fl 6100516 M Pre-Med. 321 3.23 200 180 208 2*+0 8 50 6120825 F Undecided 301 2.10 180 201 233 231 53 30 6100721 F Undecided 293 1.78 159 16*+ 212 22 7 PI 63 11 6110308 M P. E. 297 2.20 183 178 231 217 *+8 39 6120627 F Undecided 293 2.19 178 185 236 230 58 *+5 6100519 F Elem. Ed. 289 1*9*+ 17*+ 181 23*+ 228 60 *+7 9 61101+21 M Business 305 3.10 211 222 23*+ 232 23 10 6113780 F Undecided 301 1.96 178 193 237 2*+l 59 *+8 6100731 F Elem. Ed. 297 2.13 198 196 231 219 33 23 6123808 M Chemistry 319 3.12 200 190 208 2*+0 8 50 6100763 F Business 293 2.01 1% 201 22 7 23*+ 71 33 6113799 F Business ,29 7 2.6*+ 186 190 223 229 ?? 39 6123773 F Undecided 293 1.99 183 182 22 7 23*+ * + * + 52 6110 5*H M Law 305 3.*+l 170 182 23*+ 226 6*+ * + * + 21 61007*+5 F Undecided 297 2.21 178 185 236 230 58 *+5 9 6113766 F Art 289 1.89 166 163 215 216 *+9 53 6110628 F Business 291 2.26 159 191 219 231 60 38 6110526 M Undecided 297 2.03 163 167 222 215 59 *+8 U J ' sj TABLE B SEX, COLLEGE MAJOR, SCAT V SCORES, AND TEST SCORES FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE ATTRITION GROUP SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Cone. Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 6101008 F Pharmacy 316 17k 181 23k 228 60 1*7 8 6123921 M Business 300 180 212 233 231 53 19 61108*+1 F Elem. Ed. 287 195 191 * 223 2^0 28 1 + 6 6123863 F Sec. Ed. 310 190 182 228 220 38 38 21 612391^ F Undecided 291 159 191 218 230 59 11 6100995 M Undecided 271 178 185 236 230 1? *+5 6101010 F Business 290 1^3 169 207 202 6*+ 33 8 6110821 F Art 303 178 185 236 231 58 1*6 6110853 M Law 287 173 180 217 218 38 6101019 F Dent. Hyg. 293 I6*f 171 * 228 229 61* 55 6123861 F Elem. Ed. 302 190 176 228 215 38 > 39 6110828 M Business 281* 167 179 220 218 5 1* 1*1 6123876 M Soc. Sc. 270 178 1 9 J 237 2^1 , 59 1 + 8 6101035 M Engr. 286 173 18k 222 22 7 1*9 1° 6110871 F English 290 195 19k 223 2b 0 28 1 + 6 6110855 F Sec. Ed. 301 151 157 215 216 61* 59 20 6IOO891+ M Pre-Med. 292 179 200 233 231 51 * 31 6123911 M Zoology 315 167 177 211 22 7 i * i + 50 6123801 F Sec. Ed. 310 211 222 23*+ 232 23 10 6100819 M Sec. Ed. 270 178 185 236 230 58 !+5 9 6110^26 M Business 309 211 206 2lf0 231 * 29 28 61007^1 M Undecided 286 159 161+ 212 22 7 63 11 6100816 F Elem. Ed. 302 179 201 233 231 5^ 30 \ 1 6123781 F Undecided 291 16*+ 175 229 228 65 53 < TABLE B (continued) ■■■■ ■ -- ■ ■ ■ ■ -f) '-r-= SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values_____ Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Cone. Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 6113782 M Engr. 289 171 6110783 F Soc. Sc. 301 180 6100753 M Art 275 195 6123816 F Dent. Asst. 311 156 61106^+3 F Speech 300 186 6100802 M Undecided 291 163 6110631 M Business 287 178 6100813 F Undecided 291 167 6123799 M Drafting 297 180 6100801 F Business 303 l*+7 6110651 M Math. 301 195 6123795 M Business 278 166 6l01>+09 M Undecided 285 195 612^233 M Soc. Sc. 292 178 6121+173 F Law 300 206 6101281 M Pre-Dent. 2 77 151 6111330 M Chemistry 308 167 612^158 F Soc. Sc. 296 195 6121+260 F Business 290 178 6101297 M Undecided 285 161+ 6101319 F Anthro. 301 198 61013^ M Business 293 180 6121+190 F Business 287 156 611131+1 F Elem. Ed. 308 173 61011+01 M Business 278 168 6111352 M Law 291 190 6101363 F Theater 298 195 6111357 M P. E. 301 178 181 231+ 225 63 1 + 1+ 2 1+ 200 233 231 53 31 196 222 239 27 i*3 200 226 238 70 38 190 223 229 37 39 167 222 215 59 1 + 8 190 237 2l+0 58 , 5° 179 220 218 5*+ i+l 2i+ 211 230 232 50 21 162 230 207 83 1+ 5 195 220 21+0 25 i+5 163 215 216 i*9 53 191+ 223 2*+0 28 1 + 6 185 236 230 58 i+5 9 20i+ 225 229 25 157 215 216 6>+ 59 21 171+ 216 213 1 + 9 > 39 25 193 221 239 26 1 + 6 193 237 2*+l 5? 1 + 8 171+ 228 229 61+ 55 196 231 219 33 23 200 233 231 53 31 200 226 238 70 38 177 2l+0 21+0 67 63 176 218 212 50 1 + 0 21+ 176 228 215 38 39 22 196 222 239 28 i+3 185 236 230 58 i+5 10 139 TABLE B (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values_____ Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Cone. Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 612^238 M Soc. Sc. 296 l* + 2 612^251 F Dent. Hyg. 28*+ 161 6121+182 M Soc. Sc. 291 200 610129*+ M Physics 300 178 6101307 M Business 293 l*+7 61113*+6 M Business 28*+ 173 6101283 F Soc. Sc. 289 195 612*+157 F Elem. Ed. 293 165 6111328 M P. E. 2 77 180 6101277 M Undecided 301 195 6101323 F Sec, Ed. 286 159 612*+171 M Sec. Ed. 279 177 6111336 M Engr. 291 186 6101308 F Dental Asst. 299 167 6111367 M Law 300 177 6l2*+l83 F Undecided 28 7 150 6101325 M Undecided 28* + 195 6111360 M Art 276 171 6l2*+227 F Library Sc. 293 178 6lll*+6l M Business 290 163 6110301 M Engr. 301 190 6ioo*+i5 F Soc. Sc. 292 202 6100169 M Business 286 159 6110276 F Undecided 295 195 6100076 M Soc. Sc. 292 181 6100625 F Business 288 166 6l206*+2 M Undecided 276 200 157 231 208 89 51 169 221 216 60 *+7 190 208 2*+0 8 50 191 236 2*+0 58 *+9 162 230 207 83 * * • 5 18*+ 222 22 7 **9 **3 19*+ 223 239 28 *+5 176 210 228 *+5 52 212 233 231 53 19 196 222 239 27 !*3 190 219 230 60 * + 0 27 18* + 235 230 57 *+6 10 190 223 229 ?? 39 177 211 22 7 * + * + 50 190 237 2*+0 50 158 21*+ 217 6*+ 59 19 195 221 237 26 *+2 181 23*+ 225 63 * + * + 23 193 237 2*+l 59 *+8 167 222 215 59 *+8 182 228 220 38 38 193 235 229 33 36 191 219 231 60 38 26 19*+ 223 2*+0 28 ke 200 233 231 52 31 9 163 215 216 M-9 53 186 238 231 38 * + * + IbO SCAT V Student College Score Number Sex Major (Conv.) 6100077 F Journalism 301 6120829 M Sec. Ed. 292 6100306 F Dent. Asst. 289 6100634- F Art 299 6120633 M Pre-Med. 301 610014-9 M Business 278 6110283 F Soc. Sc. 293 610014-8 M Soc. Sc. 288 6120831 M Spanish 291 6100^08 M Business 290 6120723 F Undecided 288 6111019 M Undecided 293 6101197 F Soc. Sc. 288 6101227 F Elem. Ed. 291 6124-081 M Business 285 6101211 F English 300 6124-117 M Soc. Sc. 289 6110961 F Business 278 6101224- H P. E. 283 612^+067 M Sec. Ed. 291 6101221 F Undecided 297 6111051 F Dent. Hyg. 284- 6121+1M+ M Sec. Ed. 289 6101263 M Engr. 300 6124-087 M Business 297 6111035 F Business 2 77 6101270 F Art 289 612^156 M Soc. Sc. 29k (continued) Index of Adjustment and Values____ Self Cone. Ideal Cone. Disc. Score CPI 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 174- 181 234- 228 60 4-7 9 164- 175 22 7 231 63 56 178 185 236 230 58 4-5 11 194- 19^ 222 24-1 28 4-7 151 157 215 216 64- 59 21 171 191 228 230 57 39 195 196 221 24-0 26 V* 167 179 220 218 54- 4-1 24- 178 193 237 24-1 58 kQ 211 222 234- 232 23 10 159 163 211 226 52 63 10 211 206 24-0 23^ 29 28 168 176 218 212 50 1+6 26 178 184- 235 229 56 4-5 9 195 19k 223 24-0 28 4-6 17k 181 23^ 228 60 4-7 9 156 200 225 236 69 36 206 204- 225 229 19 25 178 185 236 230 58 4-5 8 195 196 222 239 27 4-3 162 166 223 216 61 50 180 195 233 230 53 35 164- 174- 228 229 6k 55 190 176 228 215 38 39 170 182 23^ 226 6k 4 - 4 - 23 159 190 219 229 60 39 27 1 178 184- 232 231 54- 4-7 8i 180 191 230 231 50 ^0 1T+lT SCAT V Student College Score Number Sex Major (Conv.) 6101275 F Elem. Ed. 297 6ll08l+2 M Soc. Sc. 29! + 6100885 F Sec. Ed. 287 6100860 F Elem. Ed. 291 6123871 M Art 281+ 612381+5 F Business 296 6100992 F Elem. Ed. 295 6110866 M Drafting 288 6110819 M Police Sc. 293 6100871 M Business 288 612381+3 M Sec. Ed. 281+ 6101031 M Undecided 276 6101017 F Speech 293 6123877 F Soc. Sc. 288 6110872 M Law 291+ 6123903 F P. E. 296 612387^ M P. E. 288 6101015 M Business 271+ 6110861 F Dental Hyg. 301 6110621 F Soc. Sc. 296 6100761 F Business 287 6llOi +25 F Elem. Ed. 299 610073^ M Fire Sc. 288 612381*+ M Business 287 6100783 M Soc. Sc. 283 6110530 F Business 292 6110799 M French 290 6113771 M Sec. Ed. 283 (continued) Index of Adjustment and Values_____ Self Cone. Ideal Cone. Disc. Score CPI 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 166 163 198 196 16*+ 17*+ 178 190 200 190 180 196 195 19*+ l*+3 169 202 193 167 177 186 190 159 16*+ 211 228 52 6k 12 178 192 175 186 168 176 1V7 162 178 185 236 230 58 k$ 9 170 181 233 225 63 kk 23 163 168 181 201 178 191 .. . 190 182 228 220 38 38 2*+ 16*+ 167 156 201 167 177 195 196 175 186 166 163 215 216 !+9 53 231 219 33 23 228 229 61+ 55 237 21+1 58 51 208 2l+0 8 50 233 231 53 35 223 239 28 1+ 5 20 7 202 6i+ 33 235 229 33 36 211 22 7 1+ 1+ 50 223 229 37 3? 211 228 52 61+ 237 21+1 59 1 + 9 221+ 229 1+9 *+3 218 212 50 1 + 6 230 207 83 i+5 236 230 58 i+5 233 225 63 1 + 1+ 221 216 58 1 + 8 232 231 51 30 237 21+1 59 50 228 220 38 38 221 216 57 i+9 226 237 70 36 211 22 7 1 + 1+ 50 222 239 27 i+3 221+ 229 1+ 5 1+3 215 216 1 + 9 53 TABLE B (continued) SCAT V Index of Ad-iustment and Values Student Number Sex College Major Score (Conv.) Self 1961 Cone. 1963 Ideal 1961 Cone. 1963 Disc. 1961 Score 1963 6100750 F P. E. 297 178 185 236 231 58 *+6 6100773 F Dent. Asst. 29*+ 152 160 21*+ 217 62 57 6123828 M Business 286 163 167 222 215 59 *+8 6100781 M Undecided 288 190 176 228 215 38 39 612382*+ M Sec. Ed. 293 177 190 236 2*+0 59 50 6113792 F Undecided 289 175 182 219 221 * + * + 39 6100775 M Business 275 180 200 230 231 50 31 6100765 M Pharmacy 28*+ 159 191 217 230 58 39 6123820 M Soc. Sc. 2 77 195 19k 222 2*+l 27 k7 612^163 M Business 293 211 222 23k 232 23 10 6101280 M Soc. Sc. 286 17k 181 23k 228 60 *+7 61113^8 F Undecided 283 195 196 222 2*+0 27 * + * + 6101316 F Elem. Ed. 293 175 182 219 221 * + * + 39 6111370 F Business 289 152 159 21*+ 217 62 ?8 612^231 F Elem. Ed. 299 163 175 22 7 230 6*+ 55 6121 +188 M Business 283 178 185 236 230 58 k5 612^255 M Drafting 285 198 196 231 219 33 23 61013H F Undecided 291 186 190 223 229 37 39 6lll3*+0 M Police Sc. 28* + 16 7 179 220 218 5V *+l 6l013*+2 M Sec. Ed. 276 178 193 236 2*+0 58 k7 612^185 M Engr. 302 159 191 219 230 60 39 61013^0 F Sec. Ed. 289 173 180 217 218 *+3 38 6101357 M Business 286 195 19k 223 2*+l 28 k7 6101331 F Soc. Sc. 281 170 178 220 216 50 38 6l2*+230 M Undecided 276 195 196 222 2*+0 27 * + * + 6111375 F Soc. Sc. 281* 180 188 233 231 53 *+3 6101360 M Business 278 1*4-2 157 231 208 89 51 CPI Sa 19 26 8 20 10 2k 26 2k H -r OJ TABLE B (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student College Score Self Cone. Ideal Cone. Disc. Score CPI Number Sex Major (Conv.) 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 Sa 6101833 M Business 288 170 178 219 215 1+9 37 25 6101981 M Soc. Sc. 290 200 190 208 2l+0 8 50 6lll1 *91 + M Police Sc. 281+ 159 161+ 212 22 7 53 63 10 610173^ M Business 276 178 180 236 231 58 51 9 6IOI878 F Undecided 283 166 163 215 216 1 + 9 53 8 612^267 F Business 281+ 178 185 235 231 57 1 + 6 6101821 F Elem. Ed. 289 178 190 237 21+1 59 51 6111550 F Undecided 291 195 196 222 238 27 1+2 6102001 M Business 281+ 11+7 162 230 207 83 1+ 5 6lll1 +83 M Pre-Med. 293 180 189 233 231 53 1 + 2 6101529 F Undecided 302 190 182 228 220 38 38 2i+ 6IOI871+ F Soc. Sc. 296 171 181 23I + 225 63 1+ 1+ 612^290 M Spanish 299 200 186 238 231 38 1+ 5 6111505 M Art 282 195 191+ 223 2l+0 28 1 + 6 61020^3 F Soc. Sc. 276 178 181+ 236 231 58 1 + 8 12 6102081 F Undecided 281+ 190 176 228 215 38 39 6111562 F English 293 180 192 233 229 53 37 612^293 M Law 286 163 167 222 215 5Q 1+8 612^037 M Law 296 211 206 21+0 231+ 29 28 61010^1 M Undecided 281+ 198 196 231 219 33 23 612^003 F Elem. Ed. 293 l*+3 169 202 202 61+ 33 6123981 F Business 273 181 200 233 231 52 31 611091^ M Pre-Med. 301 178 193 237 21+1 59 1 + 8 6101113 M P. E. 29^ 200 190 208 21+0 8 50 6111121+ F Speech 296 202 193 235 229 33 36 6101121+ M Undecided 281+ 195 196 222 239 27 i+3 6123951 F Soc. Sc. 301+ 161+ 17^ 228 229 61+ 55 6101091 F Sec. Ed. 283 186 190 223 229 37 39 W TABLE B (continued) Student Number Sex College Major SCAT V Score (Conv.) Self 1961 Index of Adjustment and Values Cone. Ideal Cone. Disc. 1963 1961 1963 1961 Score 1963 CPI Sa 6111322 F Elem. Ed. 276 177 190 237 2*fl 59 51 6123996 p Undecided 281 173 177 2^0 239 67 62 6101171 M Undecided 273 151 157 215 216 6^f 59 19 61109^5 M Soc. St. 281 178 191 236 2^0 58 ^9 6123993 M Undecided 278 190 182 22 7 221 37 39 23 6101181 M Biology 289 168 176 218 212 50 *+6 25 6111281 M Undecided 291 178 185 236 230 58 *+5 9 6120981 M Police Sc. 28^ 156 200 226 238 70 38 H -r VJl TABLE C SCAT V SCORES AND INDEX OF ADJUSTMENT AND VALUES TEST SCORES FOR MEMBERS OF THE NURSING GROUP SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values__________ Student Score Self Cone. Ideal Self Disc. Score Number Sex (Conv.) 1961 1963 1961 1963 1961 1963 6103008 F 326 61013*+8 F 301 56*+2*+33 F 329 6053356 F 329 6100512 F 301 6103009 F 326 61200**0 F 313 615*+13*+ F 292 6120002 F 315 60 561 5^ F 315 61203^3 ' F 308 6120300 - F 325 6103022 F 303 6105011 M 308 6103026 F 301 6103012 F 307 611002** F 310 615*+126 F 310 6103017 F 296 6120007 F 301 6110319 F 309 610302*+ F 211 211 220 23** 200 208 237 198 212 2*+3 17** 190 220 209 20*+ 231 l*+6 205 216 203 217 23** 198 190 216 176 151 229 l*+9 185 225 193 197 220 180 20** 218 195 206 2***+ 185 169 219 196 196 228 180 190 218 16** 176 239 182 171 239 172 186 222 183 200 219 229 216 237 166 157 229 237 25 19 236 *+1 36 237 **5 27 225 **6 35 221 2** 21 219 **0 13 238 35 11 217 30 35 22*+ 53 73 226 * + * + **7 23** *+1 37 231 *+l 31 2*+l 1 + 9 37 213 3** **6 222 3** 26 222 **0 3*t 230 77 60 2*+3 61 71 225 **9 39 220 38 30 23** 1*+ 18 225 6** 70 TABLE C (continued) SCAT V Index of Adjustment and Values Student Number Sex Score (Conv.) Self 1961 Cone. 1963 Ideal 1961 Self 1963 Disc. 1961 Score 1963 59^55 F 320 163 17k 201 222 67 51 * 5822^+8 F 309 179 189 237 235 60 1 + 8 5820510 M 305 197 191 * 222 236 27 1 + 2 5102255 F 299 159 191+ 219 221 60 26 6011703 F 28 7 191+ 195 223 206 31 15 611+ 1181* F 316 187 188 238 232 61 5 0 6103027 F 297 162 179 225 23i 65 52 6000716 F 297 199 207 2 1+5 2l+5 1 + 6 37 58229^8 F 30l+ 205 193 221+ 2ll+ 21 23 60121+53 F 307 173 202 238 236 65 27 6103028 F 307 170 190 221 220 5 1* 3^ BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 2. 3. k. 5 . 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G. W. Personality: A Psychological Inter pretation. New York: Holt and Co., 1937. Allport, G. W., and Odbert, H. S. Trait-Names: a Psycho-Lexical Study. Psychological Mono graphs , 1936.211. Benjamins, James. Changes in Performance in Rela tion to Influences Upon Self-Conceptualization. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych., 1952, h ' S , Berger, E. M. Relationship Among Acceptance of Self, Acceptance of Others, and MMPI Scores. J. Couns. Psych., 1955, 2. ________. The Relation Between Expressed Acceptance of Self and Expressed Acceptance of Others. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych.. 1963, i+Z- Bills, Robert E. Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High and Low in Acceptance of Self. J. of Consult. Psvch.. 1953, 17. ________. A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adjustment and Values with Behavior in Level-of- Aspiration Tasks. J. of Consult. Psych.. 1953, iZ- ________. Acceptance of Self as Measured by Inter views and the Index of Adjustment and Values. J. of Consult. Psvch.. 199 + , 18. ________ . Personality Changes During Student- Centered Teaching. J. of Educ. Research. In Press. ________ . Index of Adjustment and Values. Manual. Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Mimeo graphed. Undated. Block, J., and Thomas, H. Is Satisfaction With Self a Measure of Adjustment? J. of Ab. and Soc. Psvch.. 1955, 51. Brownfain, J. J. Stability of the Self-Concept as 1^9 150 13. l*t. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. a Dimension of Personality. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych.. 1952, |+Z. Butler, J. M., and Haigh, G. V. Changes in the Relation Between Self-Concepts and Ideal Concepts Consequent Upon Client-Centered Counseling. Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Edited by C. R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond. Chicago* Univ. of Chicago Press, 1951 *. Cannon W. G. The Wisdom of the Body. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1932 Cartwright, Rosalind D. Effects of Psychotherapy on Self-Consistency. J. of Couns. Psych., 1957? b. Combs, A. W., and Soper, D. W. The Self, Its Derivative Terms, and Research. J. Indlv. Psych.. 1957? 13. Cowen, E. L. The "Negative Self Concept’ 1 as a Personality Measure. J. of Consult. Psych.. 195*+, 1 8. Cowen, E. L., and Tongas, P. N. The Social Desirability of Trait Descriptive Terms: Appli cations to a Self-Concept Inventory. J. of Consult. Psych.. 1959? 23- Cowen, E. L., Heilizer, F., and Axelrod, H. S. Self-Concept Conflict Indicators and Learning. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych.. 1955? 51. Cronbach, Lee J., and Meehl, P. E. Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psvchol. Bull.. 1955, 52. Dunnette, M. D., Kirchner, W. K., and DeGidio, Joanne. Relations Among Scores on Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, California Psycho logical Inventory, and Strong Vocational Interest Blank for an Industrial Sample. J. of Appl. Psvch.. 1958, b2. Dymond, Rosalind F. Adjustment Changes Over Therapy From Self-Sorts. Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Edited by C. R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 195*+, z*>« 151 23. Engel, Mary. The Stability of the Self-Concept in Adolescence. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych.. 1959, 58. 2b. Ewing, T. N. Changes in Attitudes During Counseling, J. of Consult. Psych.. 195*+, 1. 25. Fiedler, F. E., Dodge, Joan S., Jones, R. E., and Hutchins, E. B. Interrelations Among Measures of Personality Adjustment in Nonclinical Popula tions. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych.. 1958, 56. 26. Ginzberg, Eli. Occupational Choice on Approach to a General Theory. New York* Columbia Univ. Press, 1951. 27. Goodstein, L. J., Crites, J. V., Heilbrun, A. B., and Rempel, F. F. The Use of the California Psychological Inventory in a Unibersity Counseling Service. Amer. Psychol.. I960, 15. (Abstr.) 28. Gough, Harrison G. California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, Calif.* Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 29. Grummon, D. L. Personality Changes as a Function of Time in Persons Motivated for Therapy. Psycho therapy and Personality Change. Edited by C. R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond. Chicago* Univ. of Chicago Press, 195*+. 30. Hanlon, T. E., Hofstetter, P., and 0*Conner, J. Congruence of Self and Ideal Self in Relation to Personality Adjustment. J. of Consult. Psych.. 195*+, 18. 31. Havighurst, R. J., Robinson, M. Z., and Dorr, M. The Development of the Ideal Self in Childhood and Adolescence. J. of Educ. Res.. 19^-6, ^0. 32. Hilgard, E. R. Human Motives and the Concept of the Self. Amer. Psychol.« 19*+9, b. 33. Holt, R. R. The Accuracy of Self-Evaluation* in Measurement and Some of its Personological Correlates. J. of Consult. Psvch., 1951, If. 3*+. James, William. Princlples of Psychology. New Yorks Holt, l£907 152 35. Kenny, D. T. The Influence of Social Desirability on Discrepancy Measures Between Real Self and Ideal Self. J. of Consult* Psych.. 1956. 20. 36. LaForge, R., and Suczek, R. The Interpersonal Dimension of Personality: III. An Interpersonal Check List. J. of Personality. 1955> 2|+. 37. Lecky, Prescott. Self-Consistency. A Theory of Personality. New York: Island Press, 19*+5 • 38. Lindquiest, E. F. Statistical Analysis in Educa tional Research. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 19*?0. 39* Long Beach City College. They Went tg City College. Follow-up Study Final Report. iLong Beach, Calif.: Long Beach City College, 1952). (mimeographed) *+0. McDougall, William. Social Psychology. London: Methuen and Co., Lts., 19087 *+1. Mead, G. H. Mind. Self and Society. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 193*+7 b2. Miller, K. S., and Worchel, P. The Effects of Need- Achievement and Self-Ideal Discrepancy on Performance Under Stress. J. of Personality. 1956, 25. V 3. Mitchell, J. V., and Pierce-Jones, J. A Factor Analysis of Gough*s California Psychological Inventory. J. of Consult. Psvch.. i9 6 0, 2*+. Mt. Murphy, Gardner. Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure. New York: Harper and Bros., 19^7. M-5. Mussen, P. H., and Jones, Mary C. Self-Conceptions, Motivations, and Interpersonal Attitudes of Late- and Early-Maturing Boys. Child Develop ment . 1957, 2 8. ^■6. Omwake, Katherine. The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Personality Inventories. J. of Consult. Psvch.. 195l f) 1 8. 5 153 b?. Perkins, H. V. Teachers* and Peers* Perceptions of Children’s Self-Concepts. Child Development. 1958, 22. M-8. Phillips, E. L. Attitudes Toward Self and Others: A Brief Questionnaire Report. J. of Consult. Psych.. 1951, 15. *+9. Raimy, V. C. Self-Reference in Counseling Inter views. J. of Consult. Psych.. 1958, 12. 50. Renzaglia, G. A. Some Correlates of the Self Structure as Measured by an Index of Adjustment and Values. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Minnesota, 1952. 51. Roberts, G. E. A Study of the Validity of the Index of Adjustment and Values. J. of Consult. Psych.. 1952, 16. 52. Rogers, Carl. The Organization of Personality. Amer. Psychologist. 19^7, 2. 53__________. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 19^1. 5*+. Rogers, Carl, and Dymond, Rosalind F. Psycho therapy and Personality Change. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 195*+• 55. Rosen, E. Self-Appraisal, Personal Desirability and Perceived Social Desirability of Personality Traits. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych.. 1958, 56. Rosenman, S. Changes in the Representation of Self, Other, and Interrelationship in Client- Centered Therapy. J. of Couns. Psvch.. 1955, 2. 57. Rudikoff, E. C. A Comparative Study of the Changes in the Concept of the Self, the Ordinary Person and the Ideal in Eight Cases. Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Edited by C. R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 195*+. 58. Sarbin, T. R. A Preface to a Psychological Analysis of the Self. Psych. Review. 1952, 52 • 59. School and College Ability Tests. Cooperative Test Division, Educational Testing Service, Los 60. 61. 62. 63. 6b. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 15*+ Angeles 27, Calif. Sheerer, E. An Analysis of the Relationship Between Acceptance of and Respect for Self and Accept ance of and Respect for Others in Ten Counseling Cases. J. of Consult. Psvch.. 191 +9» 13.. Smith, W. D., and Lebo, D. Some Changing Aspects of the Self-Concept of Pubescent Males. J. of Genet. Psych.. 1956, 8 8. Snygg, D., and Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior s A Mew Frame of Reference for Psychology. New Yorks Harper, 19*+9. Stagner, Ross. Homeostasis as a Unifying Concept in Personality Theory. Psych. Review. 1951s 58. Steiner, I. D. Self-Perception and Goal-Setting Behavior. J. of Personality. 1957? 2.5. Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953- Stock, D. An Investigation into the Interrela tionships Between Self Concept and Feelings Directed Toward Other Persons and Groups. J. of Consult. Psvch.. 19*+9? 13• Super, Donald. The Psychology of Careerss An Introduction to Vocational Development. New Yorks Harper, 1957. Symonds, P. M. The Ego and the Self. New Yorks Appleton, 1951. Taylor, C., and Combs, A. W. Self-Acceptance and Adjustment. J. of Consult. Psych.. 1952, 16. Taylor, D. M. Changes in the Self Concept Without Psychotherapy. J. of Consult. Psych.. 1955. 12. Thurstone, Louis. The Vectors of the Mind. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1935. Titchener, E. B. An Outline of Psychology. New Yorks MacMillan, 1 8 9 6. 155 73. Wiener, M., Blujmberg, A., Segman, Sarah, and Cooper, A. Judgment of Adjustment by Psycho logists, Psychiatric Social Workers, and College Students, and its Relationship to Social Desirability. J. of Ab. and Soc. Psych.. 1959» 52- 7^+. Worchel, P. Adaptability Screening of Flying Personnel, Development of a Self-Concept Inventory for Predicting Maladjustment. School of Aviation Medicine, U.S.A.F., Report No. 56-62, 1957. 75. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln, Nebraska: The Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1961.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An Evaluation Of Orientation Programs In Seven Selected Small Liberal Arts Colleges, Using Student Satisfaction Criteria

PDF

Development And Analysis Of Some Tactual Measures Of Intelligence For Adolescent And Adult Blind

PDF

Non-Cognitive Factors Related To Achievement Which Can Be Ascertained From Freshman Autobiographies

PDF

The Impact Of The College Experience On Students' Ability To Identify Certain Concepts Of Freedom

PDF

Predicting Students' Success In A Comprehensive Junior College

PDF

Criteria For Curriculum Development In The Public Universities And Colleges In California With Special Concern For The Religious Aspects Of The Cultural Heritage Of Man

PDF

The Effects Of Delay In Knowledge Of Results On The Amount Learned In Teaching Machine Programs Of Differing Cue Content

PDF

'Cost' And 'Utility' In The Prediction Of The Successful Junior College Student

PDF

Programed And Teacher Oriented Instruction In A Computer Programming Course

PDF

Programs Initiated By Institutions Of Higher Learning For Gifted High School Students Of California

PDF

Prediction Of Success In Training Among Electronics Technicians

PDF

A Comparative Guidance Study: Group Counseling Methods With Selected Underachieving Ninth Grade Students

PDF

To Attend Or Not To Attend College: Some Factors In The Decision Of Qualified High School Graduates

PDF

Utilization Of The Earliest Childhood Recollection In Detecting Maladjustment Among Junior College Students

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

PDF

A Comparison Of Students' Evaluation Of Guidance Services Under Varying Plans Of Organization

PDF

Upperclassmen As Academic Advisers To Freshmen In An Undergraduate College: An Experiment

PDF

The Relationship Of Creative Thinking Abilities To School Achievement

PDF

The Organization Of District-Level Personnel Functions In Selected California School Districts

PDF

Librarians' Perceptions Of Librarianship

Asset Metadata

Creator Fairchild, Richard Edward (author)

Core Title The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Lefever, David Welty (committee chair), Carnes, Earl F. (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-344349

Unique identifier UC11359027

Identifier 6413497.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-344349 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6413497.pdf

Dmrecord 344349

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fairchild, Richard Edward

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