University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Intellectual And Cognitive Factors In The Production Of Psychological Stress Reactions

(USC Thesis Other)

Intellectual And Cognitive Factors In The Production Of Psychological Stress Reactions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received
69-4546
SUTKUS, Bruce Joseph, 1933-
INTELLECTUAL AND COGNITIVE FACTORS IN
THE PRODUCTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS
REACTIONS.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1968
Psychology, clinical
U niversity Microfilms, Inc., A nn Arbor, M ichigan
INTELLECTUAL AND COGNITIVE FACTORS IN THE PRODUCTION
OF PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS REACTIONS
by
Bruce Joseph Sutkus
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
June 1968
UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
T H E G R A D U A T E SC H O O L.
U N IV E R S IT Y PA R K
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
...........© . T . V i S ; ® . . J .9.?.®J?h„Sutkus_...........
under the direction of hi$.....Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Dean
Date... June ,..1.9.68...................................
MMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I should like to express my gratitude to Dr. Herman
Harvey of the psychology department in this undertaking. I
am most particularly indebted to him for his continued
encouragement and support at those times when the obstacles
seemed virtually insurmountable. His unflagging enthusiasm
for this project and continued efforts on my behalf most
certainly went far beyond the call of duty.
My deepest thanks are extended to the Navy personnel
who in any way participated in the execution of this proj
ect. It was amazing how many discouraging predictions made
about the military simply had no basis in fact. I was
treated cordially in all my transactions. This cordiality
and cooperation began with the NROTC department at the
University and continued through to the completion of the
study.
I am especially thankful to Captain R. H. Lockwood#
the commander of the Recruit Training Command in San Diego.
He rendered a potentially confusing situation manageable and
quite pleasant.
I would also like to extend my sincerest gratitude
to Lieutenant Commander William Buck. This fine gentleman
provided time, effort and assistance far beyond that which
could be decently requested. His enthusiasm could not have
been greater if this project had been his own. I am truly
grateful.
I would like to express my gratitude to my wife,
Phyllis. Her participation in this project started with my
entrance into graduate school up through final orals. Her
contribution cannot be truly estimated, nor would I wish to.
Much of her aid, support, and tolerance occurred in realms
much too personal for detailing here. I can only simply say
thank you.
I also would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Norman
Cliff of the Psychology Department and Dr. J. Wesley Robb of
the Department of Religion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES....................................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . I
Stress and Intelligence
Psychological Differentiation
Reinforcement Expectancies
Basic Training as a Stress Situation
Summary of Hypotheses
II. POPULATION...................................... 42
Setting for the Study and Subjects
Recruit Training
Groups in the Study
III. METHODOLOGY ........................... 59
Procedure
Instruments
Statistical Operations
IV. RESULTS ............. 76
Stress
Differentiation
Reinforcement Expectancies
Intelligence Measures
Regression Analyses
Biographical Variables
iv
Chapter
V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Page
115
Stress in Basic Training
Stress and Differentiation
Stress and Intelligence
Summary
APPENDIXES -
A. Tables-...........................................139
B. Test Materials.................................. 143
C. Data Processing ................................158
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................. 165
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Basic Training Groups Used in the Study .... 55
2. Composition of Groups by Age in Years........ 57
3. Composition of Groups by Education in Years . . 58
4. Slightly Revised Version of the Subjective
Stress Scale ................................. 64
5. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scores ...................... 78
6. Comparisons of Mean Differences, t-Values, and
Significance Levels for Taylor Manifest
Anxiety Scores across Groups ............... 79
7. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Subjective
Stress Scores at This point in Training . . . 81
8. Comparisons of Mean Differences, t-Values, and
Significance Levels for Subjective Stress
Scores at This Point in Training........... 82
9. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Subjective
Stress Scores at the Beginning of Forming . . 84
10. Comparisons of Mean Differences, t-Values, and
Significance Levels for Subjective Stress
Scores at the Beginning of Forming......... 85
vi
Table
Page
11. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Subjective
Stress Scores at Time of Leaving Home .... 86
12. Comparisons of Mean Differences, t-Values, and
Significance Levels for Subjective Stress
Scores at Time of Leaving H o m e ............. 87
13. One-Way Analysis of variance for Hidden Figures
Test Scores................... 89
14. Comparisons of Mean Differences, t-Values, and
Significance Levels for Hidden Figures Test
S c o r e s ....................................... 90
15. One-Way Analysis of Variance for i-E Scale
S c o r e s ....................................... 92
16. Summary of intercorrelations among General
Classification Test (GCT), Navy Arithmetic
Test (ARI), Navy Mechanical Test (Mech), and
Navy Foreign Language Aptitude Test
S c o r e s ....................................... 93
17. One-Way Analysis of Variance for General
Classification Test Scores ................. 94
18. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Navy Arithmetic
Test ................................. 95
19. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Navy Foreign
Language Aptitude Test Scores ............... 96
20. One-Way Analysis of Variance for the Navy |
Mechanical Test............................... 97
21. Comparisons of Mean Differences, t- Values, and
Significance Levels for Navy Mechanical Test
Scores across Groups ........................ 98
vii
Table
Page
22. Matrix of Relationships among Taylor Manifest
Anxiety Scale (MAS), Subjective Stress at
Time of Leaving Home (SSA), Subjective Stress
at Beginning of Forming (SSB), Subjective
Stress at This Point in Training (SSC),
Hidden Figures Test (HFT), Internal-External
Scale (IES), and General Classification Test
(GCT) S c o r e s ....................................100
23. Stepwise Regression with MAS as the Dependent
Variable........................................103
24. Stepwise Regression with SSA as the Dependent
Variable........................................104
25. Stepwise Regression with SSB as the Dependent
Variable........................................105
26. Stepwise Regression with SSC as the Dependent
Variable........................................106
27. Stepwise Regression with I-E Scale Score as
the Dependent variable ...................... 107
28. interrelationships between Biographical and
Test variables................................. 110
29. Summary of interrelationships among Test
Variables and Experience items ....... Ill
30. Means and Standard Deviations for the Total
_ Sample on the Test Variables..................139
31. Means and Standard Deviations for the Total
Sample on the Descriptive Variables ......... 140
32. correlation Matrix for all Variables ......... 141
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Stress as a construct has provided students of
behavior with an exceedingly productive tool for research.
It encompasses many diverse fields and this very diversity
has created a need for theory and a language in order to
sharpen the focus of research efforts. Lazarus (1966) is
one of a number of theorists who emphasize this problem. He
states:
It seems wise to use "stress" as a generic term for
the whole area of problems that includes the stimuli
producing stress reactions, the reactions themselves,
and the various intervening processes. Thus, we can
speak of the field of stress and mean the physiologi
cal, sociological and psychological phenomena and
their respective concepts [p. 27].
Horvath (1959) has noted that the concept has been
used with so many meanings that there seems to be no one
thing called stress. This point is continually made by
theorists in their attempts to define it. Weitz (1966),
for example, in presenting his definition, pointed out that
1
2
in various presentations, stress is considered as stimulus,
response, both stimulus and response, and as an intervening
variable.
While no commitment is made herein, regarding the
above distinctions, it would appear that stress is a
response-oriented problem. It must be examined with respect
to some organism, be it human or infrahuman, in the case
of the former, there are certain classes of response which
are considered normal, i.e., they do not represent anything
pathological or untoward. When presented with a stimulus
which results in the "normal" response range being exceeded
in some negative fashion, the human is considered to be
experiencing stress. The intent here is not to offer a
definition, but simply a focus for the concept. This focus
was also utilized by Arnold (1967).
We could say, then, that stress should be called any
condition of disturbed normal functioning. Conse
quently, the organismic reaction in stress is the
extra-ordinary, intensified activity that is required
to counteract the disturbance and restore normal
functioning. Such extraordinary activity often in
cludes a goal-directed action— pain arouses an urge
to escape, anger, an urge to fight. Thus emotion is
aroused together with the organic changes that are
implied when we speak of the "stress syndrome,"
whenever we experience psychological stress. Such a
definition of stress as disturbance of normal func
tioning, an extra load to be handled, is in agreement
with common usage and also with Selye's original use
of the term [p. 124].
3
She goes on to add further:
This psychological stress, however, is accompanied
by emotions (the most obvious of which are grief,
fear, anger) while physiological stress of any kind
is merely accompanied by feelings, varying from dis
comfort to pain, depending on the organismic state.
Consequently, some emotions are invariably connected
with stress, but that does not mean that psychologi
cal stress can be equated with emotion [p. 125].
Arnold's emphasis upon certain emotions in stress is
accompanied by a concern for cognitive factors and subjec
tive evaluations on the part of the individual. What may be
stressful for one person may not be so for another. This is
of major concern for every theorist. While there are situa
tions which may easily be described as stressful like major
surgery, extreme physical pain, disasters and combat, the
response to them or any stimulus situation can vary quite
markedly.
Lazarus (1966) for example is quite concerned with
"threat appraisal." He considers "threat" to be the key
intervening variable in psychological stress. It is appar
ent that threat and its appraisal is a major source of
inter-individual variation in stress reactions and it has
received emphasis in most theoretical considerations. For
Howard and Scott (1965) stress may be viewed as problem
solving behavior, and important to this is the manner in
4
which problems are formulated. Wherry and Curran (1965)
have dealt with threat in a very comprehensive manner. They
generated a model chiefly concerned with the delineation of
anticipatory threat stress. Horvath's (1959) definition,
too, places the concept of threat in a central position:
Psychological stress is a state which occurs when an
individual is subjected to conditions which disturb
or threaten to disturb crucial psychological vari
ables from within their normal limits. These vari
ables are of two general types: (1) those variables
whose displacement from normal constitute a threat
to the continued existence of the individual, thereby
arousing high levels of fear, (2) those variables
whose displacement from normal constitute a threat
to some aspect of his personality structure or ego,
thereby arousing anxiety, failure, frustration
[p. 208].
And Janis (1959) also deals with threat, indicating that it
is the first phase of stress.
In stress research, it has been important to examine
the range and variation of response to various stimuli.
Consequently, investigators have utilized a variety of stim
ulus situations and examined the responses to them. Orr
(1964, 1967) for example has been interested in stimulus
situations which produce extreme stress reactions. He exam
ined sleep deprivation and a laboratory task designed to
introduce stress associated with physical threat, in the
latter case, employing a complex task combined with electric
shock, he obtained reactions which were quite marked, in
this regard, the work of Lazarus and his associates is an
excellent case in point. They obtained a film depicting a
ceremonial rite in which an operation is performed on the
penis and scrotum of adolescent boys in a primitive
Australian tribe (Lazarus, Speisman, Mordkoff, & Davidson,
1962) . it was felt that such a film would have extreme
impact upon the viewers. Their findings supported this.
Later findings (Alfert, 1966) showed that the responses to
the film although not as intense, were quite similar to real
life situations. It was also shown using the film that the
reactions to it could be altered by manipulating the cogni
tive appraisals (Lazarus & Alfert, 1964). This was accom
plished by means of special narrative sound tracks
(Speisman, Lazarus, Mordkoff, & Davidson, 1964). Speisman
et al. state:
3 sound tracks were created for the film and com
pared in impact with the silent version. 1, called
the trauma track, pointed up the threatening aspect
of the film. The other 2, based upon the theory of
ego defense, were designed to encourage defensive
interpretations of the film's contents so as to
reduce threat. One consisted of denial and reaction
formation statements about the film, the other was
based upon intellectualization [p. 367].
The "trauma" track was found to increase the stress
response. The "defensive" sound tracks did not, and their
effectiveness varied with the subject groups, executives and
students. The findings were clearer for the students where
it was found that intellectualization was most effective in
reducing the stress reaction. Denial was less effective.
The film has been useful and productive in the
examination of stress reactions. Its use was later extended
to examine possible cross-cultural differences in this area
by using a Japanese subject population (Lazarus, Opton,
Tomita, & Kodama, 1966). The reactions, although similar to
the responses of Americans, did contain some important dif
ferences. The "trauma" track reactions were not signifi
cantly different from reactions to the film without any
sound track, and on some measures, even reduced stress.
The advantages of a stressor which may be held con
stant would appear to be obvious. The manipulation of other
significant dimensions is then possible— dimensions of both
the subject and even of the stressor itself as was demon
strated with the "subincision" film.
Such an approach to stress nonetheless carries with
it an obvious difficulty. The subjects are required to be
essentially immobile viewing the film. While the stress
reactions may be observed in relation to other characteris
tics of the subjects, it does not easily permit an approach
in terms of performance variables. The stress states are
quite transitory and evaluations of performance in interac
tion with those states may be difficult.
The use of performance criteria in the study of
stress is quite common.— It is this fact that has resulted
in the military establishment being quite interested in this
field. Weitz (1966), in his formulation, emphasizes mili
tary idioms and applications, and points specifically to
performance decrement as one of the categories of response
to the stress situation. Horvath (1959) considers "decre
ment in goal oriented behavior" as the single best criterion
of psychological stress.
Ruff (1963) postulates the organism as a system both
receiving and generating energy and information. Within the
system, homeostatic mechanisms maintain steady states of a
number of crucial variables. If either inputs or outputs of
energy or information exceed the "normal" range which is
required for continued existence of the organism, stress
exists. For Ruff, stress is defined by inputs, outputs or
both which indicate that some "compensatory" mechanism has
been utilized. Within the context of this formulation,
performance decrement is only one of a number of indicators
which can signal the presence of stress.
8
This is true also of Lazarus (1966) who considers
performance decrement, but for whom it does not occupy a
central position. He emphasizes the coping process in deal
ing with threat, and decrement in performance is a means by
which inferences may be made regarding those processes. The
point should be emphasized here that, apart from those stim
ulus configurations which are unequivocally stressors, per
formance decrement is usually the means by which the pres
ence of psychological stress is inferred. This most often
is the case in those experimental paradigms where the stim
ulus is assumed to be a stressor, if the group subjected to
the assumed stressor exhibits some impairment in perfor
mance, the stress response is assumed to have been activat
ed. Such was the case in a number of studies where mild
levels of stress were generated by a variety of means (Combs
& Taylor, 1952; Cowen, 1952a, 1952b; Ray, 1965). In all
these studies, impaired performance was taken as evidence
that stress had been induced. The same reasoning was
employed in a study of sexual deviancy in men with pregnant
wives (Hartman & Nicolay, 1966). in this study which was
more directly focused upon pathological behavior than stress
per se, they concluded that pregnancy was a stressor for
fathers. This conclusion was drawn from the finding that
there was a statistically higher incidence of sexual devi-
ancy among arrested men with pregnant wives as compared with
men arrested whose wives were not pregnant.
Performance decrement is not an absolute finding in
stress reactions however. There is evidence that it can
improve performance and this fact has been a consideration
in the theoretical analyses of psychological stress. It was
previously mentioned that, for Lazarus, decrement was only
one of the means by which the coping reactions could be
inferred. He feels that stress is indicated by four classes
of response: (1) negatively toned affect, (2) motor-
beTTavioral reactions, (3) alterations of adaptive function
ing and (4) physiological indicators. It is under (3) that
he notes the fact that alterations can occur in the positive
direction, although he does state:
In the main, while threat conditions can facilitate
performance, the preponderance of data emphasizes
impairment [p. 350].
He also underscores the complexity of the antece
dents to any particular set of responses to threat.
It is oversimple to imagine that the whole story of
task impairment or facilitation can be understood
solely in terms of the psychological process itself
without regard to the task operations that are
required [p. 363].
10
Performance is, of course, tied to many variables
irrelevant to threat— for example, capacities,
fatigue, distraction and interference, learning
processes, and individual response styles. Although
the matter of predicting performance effects pro
duced by conditions of threat is complicated, under
standing of these effects will, nonetheless, be
greatly enhanced by giving attention to the processes
of coping with threat as a key factor [p. 363].
Howard and Scott (1965) deal with this issue somewhat dif
ferently. They consider problem-solving as a major signifi
cant dimension of human functioning. The human is continu
ally engaged in an effort to master problems. Failure at
mastery
requires the organism to use an excess of energy and
resources in maintenance activities over what would
have been required had mastery been achieved. To the
extent that maintenance tension exists, the organism
can be said to be experiencing stress [p. 150].
Their position tends to deemphasize performance
criteria somewhat and focus upon internal criteria, it is
possible, however, within their system, to conceive of an
individual performing beyond his usual limits under stress
but at great cost. Possibly illustrative of this phenomenon
are those many stories in which one hears of individuals
performing great feats of strength and endurance when con
fronted with great danger to themselves or others. Less
dramatic but also illustrative of this point is a study by
V
11
Dabbs arid Leventhal (1966) . They found that activating a
fear of tetanus resulted in an increase in subjects taking
preventative shots. The number of individuals taking the
shots within a specified time period was linearly associated
with fear of tetanus. Fear level was manipulated by differ
ing presentations of the danger of tetanus.
A further example of performance increments as a
consequence of stress is implosive therapy. Hogan and
Kirchner (1967) state:
Operating on the premise that the fear has been
learned while the organism experiences intense anxi
ety and that it can only be unlearned under similar
conditions, the implosive therapist attempts to
reproduce through imagery, cues which existed in the
original situation, and to have the patient experi
ence the extreme anxiety associated with those cues
[p. 106] .
They state further:
The therapist scrutinizes S's reactions; he perceives
which cues threaten S; he tries to maintain a high
anxiety level in the patient: and he draws from his
clinical background to determine which cues to pursue
[p. 106, italics mine].
Using this method on a group of college coeds with
a fear of rats, implosive therapy was demonstrated by Hogan
and Kirchner to have a very significant effect in extin
guishing the fear. It is quite clear that the stress state
is pursued and intensified in this form of therapy and that
12
it does result in improvement in behavior. Another instance
of performance increment under stress is suggested in a
study by Katahn (1966). in a complex serial learning task,
he found that high anxiety improved performance in individ
uals of high ability. It was not true of subjects of low
ability, however.
This study is an example of a whole field of
endeavor that can be considered as performance increment
under stress. In the field of learning, anxiety has been
considered as a drive or motive state. In fact, the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale (described later in the instruments
section), utilized in this study, was first developed as a
measure of drive state without any interest in the clinical
state of anxiety.
That stress can improve behavior is a commonly held
belief with a quite venerable history, really. It is the
focus of most parents' attempts to discipline their chil
dren. "Good" behavior is elicited or "bad" bahvior correct
ed by means of punishment or the fear of it. The idea has
persisted even in the face of ultra-Freudian positions which
caution against "traumatizing" the child. Moreover, this
notion is quite important in our penal system and the mili
tary, and in certain religious groups.
Along with decrements and increments in performance
psychological stress has been known to produce qualitative
shifts in functioning. These may be considered adaptations
adequate coping or mastery. Howard and Scott (1965) state:
When genuine mastery has been achieved, the state of
the organism will be superior to its state prior to
the time it was confronted with the problem, and
should the same problem arise again, (after the orga
nism has had an opportunity to replenish its re
sources) it will be dealt with more efficiently than
before [p. 149].
Lazarus (1966) deals very extensively with the
coping process. Within his system, one can easily conceive
of a stressor being effectively handled by an individual
without focusing upon either increment or decrement in per
formance. This was previously discussed. Examination of
the categories he subsumes under the title "behavioral indi
cators of threat," reveals that qualitative changes in per
formance may be sufficient to indicate the presence of
threat.
Weitz (1966) draws from Lazarus in developing his
position. His view is not as broad as he considers stress
as "copelessness" in the face of threatening situations.
Increments or changes that are not reflective of a negative
process of some sort are excluded from his system, by
definition.
14
A number of important questions,, crucial to the
study of psychological stress, may derive from the issue of
adequate coping. If a series of subjects are confronted
with a stimulus which is quite clearly a stressor and, while
resulting in obvious stress reactions for a large majority
of the cases, produces no observable stress response in the
remainder, knowledge about psychological stress will gain
more by investigating that minority. It would be of vital
significance to isolate those factors which resulted in
adequate coping.
An illustration of no apparent stress in a situation
where one would expect to find it is provided by Ruff and
Korchin (1967). They studied the Mercury astronauts and
found no evidence of psychological stress prior to, during,
or after the flights. Possibly the closest state akin to
stress was a feeling described by the authors as an "edgi
ness" at certain points in training and a "let-down" of
sorts after the flight. There was speculation as to whether
the astronauts were experiencing stress at any point and why
this was so. They offered explanations in terms of personal
background and preparations for the role of astronaut. The
men all apparently came from similar backgrounds which were
remarkably crisis-free. It was also felt that their
15
training as test pilots provided them with a variety of
experiences which was extremely helpful to them as astro
nauts .
Whatever the reason, these men experienced no
psychological stress as conceived in the usual sense in
situations where the person unfamiliar with space technology
and procedures would expect to find it. The astronauts'
background, training, intelligence or other factors served
to obviate stress.
Similar factors may have been operative in a study
by Chu (1966). He aroused fear of roundworms in school
children. As in similar studies, the change in behavior
(desire to take shots in this case) was a function of the
level of fear that had been activated, i.e., the greatest
change was observed in the group with the highest fear
level. At the lower levels of fear, however, behavior
change was more pronounced in combination with the presenta
tion of efficacious solutions to handle the threat. With
less fear, it is possible that the subjects used their own
idiosyncratic methods for handling it, e.g., denial, ration
alization, etc. When they were offered a good solution,
they accepted it. This process is conceivably that which
was operative in the astronauts. Ruff and Korchin pointed
16
out that for every possible contingency, these men had a
number of alternative solutions. They were not required to
fall back upon their own psychological defense systems.
Darley (1966) provides an instance of behavior
shifts under stress. He found that fear increased conformi
ty behavior in college coeds, and was greatest where the
conformity pressures came from persons toward whom the sub
ject felt affiliative. Leventhal and Singer (1966) found
that high fear produced intentions to modify dental prac
tices in much the same fashion as change was produced in the
Chu study. Recommendations reduced fear but it was also
i
found that acceptance of these recommendations had no effect
on fear reduction. It must be noted that acceptance was
simply defined in terms of the subjects' intention to follow
the recommendations. There was no follow-up to note if
there were indeed a change.
Follow-up was undertaken in a later study by Leven
thal, Watts, and Pagano (1967) intended to deal with the
same issues. The behavior in that case was smoking and it
was found that while high fear increased the desire to stop
smoking, it had no effect upon actual smoking behavior. The
most significant factor in effecting change was instructions
and it was most effective in combination with high fear.
17
These studies appear to indicate that when a person
is provided with some means to cope with stress, he tends to
utilize it. The subjects availed themselves of the solu
tions provided by the experimenters. A study by DeWolfe
(1967) seems to provide additional evidence bearing on this
issue. Student nurses' fear of tuberculosis decreased if
they identified with a model who showed no fear. Here the
solution was inferred rather than explicit. The explanation
offered by the author involved a "snowball effect." Initial
identification resulted in fear decrease which reinforced
the identification. It was pointed out that some of the
models had been on the tuberculosis ward for five years or
more. in this period of time any anxiety about this type of
nursing duty had been handled by any number or combination
of coping mechanisms. It would be expected that information
regarding these would, as a matter of routine, be trans
mitted to the nursing students. Over a period of time, this
information in and of itself could result in fear decrease,
and identification with staff models would be expected to
increase in student nurses.
Geer and Turteltaub (1967) found that, as in the
case of the student nurses, fear decrease accompanied
observation of a model who showed no fear. They found that
18
a reduction in fear of snakes occurred in coeds having
opportunity to observe models who did not exhibit the fear.
Throughout the foregoing discussion * reference has
been made to subject variables which mediate the stress
response. Howard and Scott (1965) point out that mastery
over problems requires resources, both general and specific.
And, as has been pointed out, variation in response to stim
uli has been of major concern in research. in terms of sub
ject variables which mediate the stress response, Lazarus'
(1966) analysis appears to be the most complete. He views
threat appraisal as occurring in two stages, in the first,
the individual asks in how much danger is he, and in the
second, he asks himself what he can do about it. The stim
ulus configuration is appraised as threat if (1) the
counterharm resources are less than the harm producing stim
ulus, (2) the confrontation with harm appears to be close in
time, and (3) if the cues are sufficiently ambiguous so that
threat is appraised. Certain personality factors also func
tion at this stage which is called primary threat appraisal.
These are: (1) the pattern and strength of motivation,
(2) belief systems about the environment and one's ability
to deal with it, and (3) intellectual resources such as
education and sophistication.
19
After primary appraisal, there is secondary apprais
al. At this stage where the individual is asking what he
can do about it, there again are factors in relation to the
stimulus configuration. (1) The person must locate the
agent of harm. (2) He chooses the action he conceives as
having the best chance of overcoming danger. (3) He deter
mines what constraints, if any, are on him in the particular
situation with respect to making his choice under (2). As
in primary appraisal, there are personality factors to be
considered here also. (1) The pattern of motivation; this
can determine behavior that could pose additional threats in
the attempts to cope. (2} Ego resources. An example would
be the capacity for impulse control. (3) Defensive disposi
tions, i.e., traits of the individual. (4) General beliefs
about the environment and one's resources for coping with
it, e.g. what is right or wrong.
Lazarus' analysis serves to point up the depth and
variety of possible subject variables that can serve to
function in the stress response. Utilizing his reasoning, a
potential stressor can cease to be a threat by virtue of one
or more of these subject variables.
In the second stage of threat, for example, a poten
tially threatening stimulus would no longer be such if a
20
particular defensive position were effective. Janis (1958)
gave examples of this, citing patients facing major surgery
who were experiencing no anxiety. Persons who normally
utilize denial as a means of defense would also do the same
facing surgery. They coped with the situation by simply
taking the position that there was no threat.
At both stages of threat, Lazarus notes personality
factors as important considerations, and of these, motiva
tion plays a central role. Basing a model on Lazarus' work,
Hermann (1966) found that individuals motivated to achieve
a goal perceive it as threatened when a potentially threat
ening stimulus is directed toward it. In an earlier treat
ment of stress, Lazarus et al. (1952) conceived of it as a
secondary concept, an intervening variable occurring between
motivation and the situation in which it occurs.
Vogel, Baker, and Lazarus (1958) found that the role
of motivation is a complex one. They came to this conclu
sion as a result of finding that the relationship between
performance and physiological measures of stress was posi
tive under strong motivation but negative under weak motiva
tion .
In the studies with the "subincision film" Speisman
et al. (1964) and Lazarus and Alfert (1964) examined the
21
personality variables of denial and intellectualization by
means of appropriate sound tracks. The evidence appeared to
indicate that the sound tracks which appealed to a particu
lar defensive mode had greater effects in reducing threat in
persons who utilized that mode.
Additional evidence of the interaction of personali
ty with stress is provided by Piorkowski (1967). She found
that there were differences between repressors and sensitiz
ers in the manner in which the stress reaction was manifest
ed. Repressors manifested less anxiety on verbal measures,
but more on physiological measures of stress. A similar
finding had been noted by Lazarus and Alfert (1964). in
their study, the deniers admitted to less anxiety while
demonstrating more on physiological measures.
The interaction of subject variables and stress may
also be examined through study of psychopathological func
tioning and behavior. Studies have shown that anticipation
of a stressful event is stressful. Jones, Bentler, and
Petry (1966) and Lanzetta and Driscoll (1966) have presented
findings that clearly indicate subjects prefer information
about an impending threat (shock). The explanation of these
findings was in terms of anxiety reduction— the uncertainty
regarding the anticipated shock produced anxiety which was
22
reduced when the subjects received information about it.
Hare (1966) reported findings which indicate that the
psychopath does not experience anticipatory anxifety to as
great an extent as do normals.
The previously cited study of Hartman and Nicolay
(1966) in which they pointed out that the anticipated birth
of a child is stressful for the father in marriage is anoth
er example. Also Menaker (1967) has demonstrated that alco
holics anticipating a drink are more anxious than alcoholics
who are not.
Sheehan, Hadley, and Gould (1967) have shown that
authority figures constitute a stressor for stutterers,
although it was not clear if they meant to generalize this
finding to the general population. It would not seem unrea
sonable to do so. Seiden (1966) in a demographic analysis
of student suicide has indicated that life on the college
campus is stressful, producing a significantly higher
suicide rate than that which is found in the general popula
tion.
Stress and intelligence
Among the many subject variables which appear to be
important in stress reactions is intelligence. in both
23
Appley and Trumbull's (1967) and Lazarus' (1966) treatments
of psychological stress, little attention was paid to the
role of intellectual factors. This was also true of the
earlier reviews by Horvath (1959) and Howard and Scott
(1965) as well as an extensive bibliography by Thomas
(1963).
Lazarus (1966) is of the opinion that higher
intelligence is a resource for coping with stress. He
states:
There is some evidence that limitations of intellect
and lack of sophistication make the individual more
vulnerable to threats. They will lead him to appraise
threat where this is not warranted [p. 147].
He also adds, citing Janis (1958):
Greater sophistication could work to increase threat
as well as to reduce it, depending on the. relevance
of the knowledge to the threat cues [p. 147].
There is, apart from any direct test, some indirect
evidence of the interplay of stress and intelligence.
Lazarus (1966), in a discussion of behavioral indicators of
threat, deals with findings regarding the interaction of
anxiety and task complexity. A frequently reported finding
has been that, in simple tasks, it produces decrements in
performance. This finding has been interpreted within the
framework of Hullian theory (Deese, 1958; Hilgard, 1956).
24
Lazarus cites a study by Denny (1962) in which it was found
that level of intelligence was an extremely important con
sideration with respect to anxiety and performance. Denny
found that for high levels of anxiety* performance was
clearly superior in his high I.Q. group, while the differ
ence between the I.Q. groups was not as marked at low anxi
ety levels. For the low I.Q. group, the performance was
superior at the low anxiety level.
Here is a finding which suggests that anxiety-
performance results may be confounded if intelligence is not
considered. it underscores quite emphatically the impor
tance of considering intellectual factors. A similar find
ing has been reported by Katahn (1966) . Using college stu
dents he found that mathematical aptitude was significantly
correlated with performance in a verbal maze. At high
levels of anxiety the group above the median in mathematical
aptitude demonstrated better performance than the low anxi
ety group.
Lazarus has pointed out that the relevance of the
knowledge or skill to the task is important with regard to
its value as a coping mechanism in a threat situation. The
Katahn study appears to support this. There is a question,
however, as to the role of general intelligence in stress.
25
It is important to examine whether, apart from the specific
situation, it can serve to attenuate the stress reaction it
self. Evidence has been presented indicating that it plays
an important role with regard to indicators of stress in the
performance realm. These studies had preselected high and
low anxiety groups. They demonstrated that high anxiety
would not necessarily interfere with performance of a diffi
cult task. They nonetheless do not provide information
which would demonstrate the role of intelligence as a gener
alized means of coping with stress. If a group is confront
ed with a stressor and some do not experience threat or
stress, it is not known whether intelligence can function as
a means to adequately cope with the stressor. There have
been suggestions that this is so. A purpose of this study
is to examine the role of intelligence in the production of
psychological stress reactions. It is hypothesized that the
higher level of intelligence is a means with which to cope
with stress.
Psychological Differentiation
Beginning with a series of experiments that date
back to 1949, Witkin (1949) and his associates have been
studying a phenomenon called field dependence-independence.
26
It is defined by two tests, basically. The first is the rod
and frame test. This consists of a luminous rod, mounted on
a pivot, surrounded by a luminous frame which is also mount
ed on a pivot. Each can be moved independently of the
other. In a darkened room with no external frame of refer
ence, both the rod and frame are moved varying amounts from
the vertical. The subject is required to bring the rod to a
vertical position with respect to gravity. At times, varia
tions are introduced by tilting the subject's chair.
Another task frequently used is the room adjustment
test. in this task, the subject is in a room which can also
be tilted. Both chair and room are moved varying amounts
from the vertical and the subject is required to adjust the
room or himself to true vertical.
It was found that there were consistent stable dif
ferences between subjects in their ability to perform these
tasks (Witkin, 1949; Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman, Machover, &
Meissner, 1954; Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp,
1962) . This led Witkin into an examination of these indi
viduals and the delineation of other characteristics which
appeared to be conceptually related to field dependence,
since the above two tasks were highly correlated. His con
clusion was that if individuals demonstrated consistency
27
over a wide range of tasks in the perceptual realm, this
would extend to other realms as well.
He studied children and found that there was consis
tency within age levels as well as a consistent trend toward
becoming field independent with increase in age. He also
found sex differences, i.e., women tend to be more field
dependent than men. . By field dependent he meant those indi
viduals who were influenced by the frame or the room rather
than making their judgments independently of them.
His group also searched for paper and pencil mea
sures that would reflect degree of field dependence. Chief
among these is the embedded figures test (Witkin et al.,
1954; Witkin et al., 1962; Gardner, Jackson, & Messich,
1960; Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, & Spence, 1959; Karp,
1963; Konstat & Foreman, 1965). Another paper and pencil
measure found to be useful was figure drawings. Witkin and
his associates developed a scoring system for the drawings
and related them to the independence dimension. He called
this the articulation-of-body concept (Witkin et al., 1954).
He also investigated mother-child relationships and found
that they also were related to the dimension (Witkin et al.,
1954; Witkin et al., 1962).
28
Witkin began using the title "psychological differ
entiation" to describe the dimension. He called it a cogni
tive style, a continuum which had at one end a global
passive style, while at the other, individuals were de
scribed as having an active analytical cognitive style of
functioning. Witkin et al. (1962) state:
Specifically, the differentiation hypothesis pro
poses an association among the characteristics of
greater or more limited differentiation, identified
in the comparison of early and later functioning in
each of several psychological areas: degree of
articulation of experience of the world; degree of
articulation of experience of the self, reflected
particularly in nature of the body concept and extent
of development of a sense of separate identity; and
extent of development of specialized, structured
controls and defenses, implicit in this hypothesis
is the view that greater inner differentiation is
associated with greater articulation of experience
of the world [p. 16].
Witkin has also reported relationships between forms
of psychopathology and degree of differentiation. He states
that degree of differentiation is not related to the pres
ence of pathology per se, but to the symptomatology, in
this fashion it does not conform to the traditional nosolo
gies. For example, he reported that differentiated schizo
phrenics tended to exhibit paranoid symptoms, while global
schizophrenics were more primitive and tend to hallucinate
more. This also has received support from Silverman (1964)
29
who related schizophrenic functioning to two of Gardner
et al.'s (1959, 1960) cognitive controls, scanning and
articulation (differentiation). Regarding psychopathology,
Witkin et al. (1962) state:
The global-analytical dimension of cognitive func
tioning appears not to relate to presence or absence
of pathology, adequacy of adjustment, or some of the
conventional psychiatric nosological categories.
However, the kinds of problems, symptoms, and mal-
adaptations found in children and adults with con
trasting modes of field approach appear to be differ
ent. Among persons with a global field approach we
find severe identity problems, with little struggle
for maintenance of identity; symptoms often consid
ered suggestive of deep-seated unresolved problems
of dependence, as alcoholism, obesity, ulcers, and
asthma; and inadequately developed controls, result
ing in chaotic functioning and passivity and help
lessness. When such persons develop severe pathology,
they are more likely to show hallucinations as part
of their symptom picture. In contrast, disturbances
in persons with an analytical field approach are apt
to involve overcontrol, overideation, and isolation,
in severe pathological states, such persons are like
ly to develop delusions, to have expansive and euphor
ic ideas of grandeur, and to engage in attempts at
maintenance of identity, however unrealistic.
Persons with a relatively global or relatively
analytical approach in a pathological state may
apparently be distinguished according to most of the
postulated indicators of differentiation. The dif
ferentiation concept may be useful in understanding
the differences in disturbances and pathology found
among adults and children with contrasting modes of
field approach [p. 213].
While this concept has received considerable
support, it has also been criticized in certain quarters.
Gruen (1957) took issue with Witkin et al.'s methodology.
30
He felt that they had contaminated their data in a study
designed to investigate the relationship of child rearing
practices to mode of field approach, in order to obtain
information about child rearing practices, the parents were
interviewed. Gruen and also Zigler (1963) felt that the
interviewer would, by virtue of the information obtained in
the interview, be able to tell if the child was field-
dependent or not. This would make the interviewer ratings
on other variables questionable.
Since the differentiation concept requires drawing
inferences about broader areas of functioning from the per
ceptual realm, Gruen felt that it would be important to make
judgments about those areas using measures other than those
reflecting the independence dimension. Gruen hypothesized
that dancers, whose livelihood depends upon good body orien
tation and perception, would make a good test, since Witkin
et al. had made a point of relating body orientation and
perception. He found no differences between them and a con
trol group.
Gruen also questioned the stability of the dimen
sion, and this issue still appears to be somewhat in doubt.
Jacobson (1966) found that, after a brief period of sensory
deprivation, there was a significant shift in performance
31
toward the independent end of the dimension. Hill and
Feigenbaum (1966) noted a shift in the other direction after
a threat to self-esteem. Karp, Witkin, and Goodenough
(1965) found no significant shifts in performance on the
rod-and-frame and body adjustment tests between sober and
intoxicated conditions in alcoholics. Also using alcohol-
ics, Goldstein and Chotlos (1966) noted significant shifts
toward the independent end of the dimension after a period
of psychotherapy. Elliot and McMichael (1963) attempted to
train subjects to become more field independent. They did
obtain a significant change with feedback and discussion but
the improvement disappeared upon later retesting. This led
them to conclude that the dimension is a relatively stable
one. in this regard, Witkin (1965) cites an impressive
amount of evidence attesting to its stability.
Another issue has been the relationship of the di
mension to intelligence. Witkin et al. (1954) and Witkin
et al. (1962) have reported high correlations of mode of
field approach with I.Q., with the independent subjects
demonstrating higher scores. He explains the relationship
in terms of certain subtests of the WISC with which the di
mension correlates so highly. Gardner et al. (1960) agree
with him. They feel that to hold intelligence constant in
32
studies of the dimension is to create a pseudo-problem.
They cite the proponents against the Spearman "G" position
on intelligence as support for their own. They feel that
it is quite legitimate to relate the independence dimension
to subtests of the WISC rather than overall I.Q.,. since
those subtests tap different intellectual functions.
In his review of Witkin et al. (1962) , Zigler
(1963a) again raised the issue as well as several others.
He appeared to be a proponent of the Spearman "G" position,
and his extremely— even overly— critical review raised con
siderable protest and resulted in a number of rebuttals
(Korchin, 1963; Proshansky, 1963; Witkin et al., 1963).
Witkin et al. (1963) addressing the intelligence issue,
again reiterated their position with respect to the rela
tionship being carried mainly by certain subtests of the
WISC. Zigler (1963a, 1963b) citing Cohen (1957, 1959) (also
cited by the Witkin group), pointed out that the subtests in
question loaded very heavily on the second order factor
noted by Cohen. It was here that he invoked Spearman's "G”.
Witkin et al. (1962) had leaned heavily on the
findings of Cohen (1957, 1959) and Goodenough and Karp
(1961) in their presentation. In the latter study, the
authors utilized a variety of tests, among them several
indices of the independence dimension, and twelve subtests
of the WISC. They were more cautious in interpreting their
results than Witkin et al.'s citation of them would seem to
indicate:
The hypothesis that there is a factor, common to
intellectual and perceptual tests and involving the
capacity to overcome an imbedding context, receives
some support from these studies [p. 245].
They extracted eight factors in one group and nine
in the second. At least one of the measures of the indepen
dence dimension appeared to load significantly on seven of
the eight in the first and eight of nine in the second
group. In addition to the factor identified as supporting
their hypothesis, there were other factors which had sub
stantial loadings in the embeddedness subtests. It should
also be noted that there were cases of significant loadings
in verbal measures.
Another point to consider is that the factors iso
lated by Cohen (1957, 1959) and also Osborne (1966) fluc
tuated across age groups. Indeed, in the manuals of the
WAIS and WISC there is a feature that allows the user to
compare the performance of the individual with reference to
his own age group on the subtests. it would seem that the
independence dimension is related to subtests which
34
fluctuate to some degree, suggesting again that the intelli
gence issue is not so clear-cut as the proponents of the
differentiation hypothesis suggest.
Central to this issue was Wallach's (1962) analysis
of Witkin et al. (1962) and Kagan, m o s s , and Sigel (1963).
This latter group described an analytical style of function
ing in children in terms much like those utilized by Witkin
et al. (1962). They found substantial correlations of tests
reflecting this dimension with the vocabulary and informa
tion subtests of the WISC and felt that it was consistent
with their thinking. Wallach indicated that since the
approaches were perceptual on the one hand (Witkin et al.)
and conceptual on the other (Kagan et al.), this was the
source of the difficulty. Elkind, Koegler, and Go (1963)
found that field independence is related to perceptual con
cept formation and is not an asset on tests that require
verbal concept formation.
Despite the apparent controversy and issues sur
rounding this concept, it has generated a great deal of
research. Witkin et al. (1962) cite a number of studies
which indicate that mode of field approach is related to
anxiety. Field dependence or lack of differentiation was
found related to disorganization and lack of adaptation
under stress, anxiety during a clinical interview, uncertain
behavior while blindfolded, verbally expressed fears and
anxiety and, under sensory deprivation, field dependent sub
jects reacted with manifest anxiety. Cohen (1967) states
that in using the dimension in relation to sensory depriva
tion, he finds that the undifferentiated subjects react with
greater manifestations of stress on performance and physio
logical indicators. He attributes these differences in
response for the different perceptual modes to CNS differ
ences .
On the basis of the studies reported by Witkin and
Cohen, it was hypothesized that stress would be associated
with lack of differentiation. And due to the fact that the
dimension has been related to subtests of the Wechsler deal
ing with performance abilities, it was hypothesized that the
degree of differentiation would not be related to verbal
measures of intelligence.
Reinforcement Expectancies
Rotter (1964) has reported on a scale which upon
examination was felt to be related to the psychological
stress dimension and possibly to differentiation. It is a
measure based upon Rotter's Social Learning Theory. It had
36
been found through the use of the scale that persons differ
in the manner in which they perceive how events are deter
mined. in their lives, some individuals see events or
rewards as coming from the self while others perceive them
as originating outside the self. In Rotter's words:
The role of reinforcement, reward, or gratification
is universally recognized by students of human nature
as a crucial one in the acquisition and performance
of skills and knowledge. However, an event regarded
by some persons as a reward or reinforcement may be
differentially perceived and reacted to by others.
One of the determinants of this reaction is the
degree to which the individual perceives that the
reward follows from, or is contingent upon, his own
behavior or attributes versus the degree to which he
feels the reward is controlled by forces outside him
self and may occur independently of his own actions.
The effect of a reinforcement following some behavior
on the part of a human subject, in other words, is
not a simple stamping-in process but depends upon
whether or not the person perceives a causal rela
tionship between his own behavior and the reward. A
perception of causal relationship need not be all or
none but can vary in degree. When a reinforcement is
perceived by the subject as following some action of
his own but not being entirely contingent upon his
action, then, in our culture, it is typically per
ceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under
the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable
because of the great complexity of forces surrounding
him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an
individual, we have labeled this a belief in external
control. If the person perceives that the event is
contingent upon his own behavior or his own relative
ly permanent characteristics, we have termed this a
belief in internal control [p. 2].
Using a long version of the scale, James, Woodruff,
and Werner (1965) found that there were differences between
smokers and non-smokers. The non-smokers were more external
in orientation. They also found that those who stopped
smoking were more internal than those who continued.
Leventhal et al. (1967) found that the primary factor in
effecting a behavior change (stop smoking) was instructions
accompanied by at least a moderate fear level. in the James
et al. report, they had subjects read the Surgeon General's
report on smoking which conceivably could have induced a
moderate degree of anxiety. They received no instructions,
however, and no results were given by means of which com
parisons could be made with the Leventhal et al. study.
One may speculate nonetheless that internals, given
alternatives to deal with stress, would do so recognizing
that coping with the threat was a personal matter and not a
matter of chance or fate. This is much the same state of
affairs as with the Mercury Astronauts previously discussed.
They had courses of action to take in the event of some
contingency.
Rotter reports a number of studies relating the
internal-external dimension to a variety of conceptual
realms, e.g., learning, motivation, need systems, competence
and passivity, to name a few. Witkin, as already discussed,
has also done so with the differentiation dimension.
38
Certain of his statements appear to be quite applicable to
the internal-external continuum. He says (Witkin, 1965):
Persons with an articulated cognitive style give
evidence of a developed sense of separate identity—
that is to say, they have an awareness of needs,
feelings, attributes which they identify as distinct
from those of others. Sense of separate identity
implies experience of the self as structured; inter
nal frames of reference have been formed and are
available as guides for definition of the self. The
less developed sense of separate identity of persons
with a global cognitive style manifests itself in
reliance on external sources for definitions of their
attitudes, judgements, sentiments, and of their views
of themselves [p. 320].
He goes on to say further that the field dependent person
. . . strongly influenced by the immediate social
context in his experience of himself [p. 321].
Rotter has stated that he found no relationship
with the independence dimension, yet the strength of
Witkin's statements, also buttressed by the citation of much
empirical evidence, would demand a direct test.
It was hypothesized that: (1) the internal orienta
tion would be associated with less stress while the external
orientation would be associated with more intense stress
reactions, (2) the differentiation and internal-external
dimensions would be related.
39
Basic Training as a Stress Situation
To provide a test of the hypotheses, groups in basic
training were selected, since this experience has been con
sidered to be psychologically stressful. Janowitz (1965)
has noted the philosophy of "shocking" the new recruit had
been a tradition in the military for quite some time, it
was felt by the military that the break with civilian life
had to be sudden and decisive. This tradition, he notes,
has softened somewhat and the current trend is toward assim
ilation. Nevertheless there still is a substantial degree
of shock. Recruits react to the experience with stress that
can even precipitate psychiatric problems. Kiev and Giffen
(1965) describe it in the following manner:
. . . basic training is one of the few planned expe
riences in our society that exposes late adolescents
to such a rapid series of changes in orientation,
values, and physical as well as psychological stresses
[p. 184].
These authors reflect their experience with, and
observations of, Air Force recruits. This is a service arm
which does not have a reputation for difficult or stressful
training procedures. They felt that the rapid scheduling
early in training and the inability to measure up to the
standards create the stress for the recruit. In order to
40
adapt, he must shift his value orientation to that of the
military.
Also examining recruits, Datel, Gieseking, Engle,
and Dougher (1966) agree that basic training is stressful.
They obtained day-to-day, as well as weekly fluctuations in
mood of Army recruits, using an adjective check list. They
also noted that the stress points as delineated by their
measures corresponded very well to the observations of the
training personnel. If they described a point as stressful,
the findings tended to bear this out.
The experiences of basic trainees tend to be uni
form. Within limits, they all experience the same environ
mental stressors as well as the same learning experiences.
They train, eat and sleep together, and even share many of
their leisure time (what there is of it) activities. This
type of group is a wonderful well-controlled population for
research purposes.
Summary of Hypotheses
On the basis of the review of the literature, the
following hypotheses were developed;
1. intelligence is a means with which to cope with
stress, so that higher levels of intelligence
would be found to be associated with less
stress.
Stress would be associated with degree of
differentiation, with high stress associated
with lack of differentiation.
Degree of differentiation would not be related
to verbal measures of intelligence.
Internal orientation would be associated with
low stressj while the external orientation would
be associated with more intense stress reac
tions .
The differentiation and internal-external
dimensions would be related.
CHAPTER II
POPULATION
Setting for the Study and Subjects
The subjects in this study were recruits in Navy
basic training at the Recruit Training Command, Naval Train
ing Center, San Diego, California. This is one of two major
centers in the United States maintained by the Navy to pro
vide basic training. The other is the Great Lakes Training
Center in Illinois.
The San Diego center obtains its recruits from the
Western United States, including some Pacific united States
territory. In addition, there are significant numbers of
Philippine recruits. This center is able to handle extreme
ly large numbers of recruits and the population in training
has, at times, been close to 20,000 men. At the time of
this study it was handling approximately that number because
of the Viet Nam conflict.
42
43
With such large numbers of young men from all walks
of life and divergent backgrounds, it is more than reason
able to expect that the recruits represent an excellent
sample of the general population of males in their age
range. In the sample for this study, the mean age was
19.45 years, with a standard deviation of 1.44 and a range
of 17 to 28 years.
Were it not for the current Viet Nam crisis, there
might be some question raised as to the representativeness
of this sample, since the Navy fills all its manpower
requirements through volunteers. Men who join the service
could possibly differ importantly from a group of draftees.
It was found, however, that a significant number of
recruits had joined the Navy in order to avoid being drafted
into the Army. They freely offered this information upon
questioning and also reported it in the Biographical inven
tory form (to be described later). The sudden heavy influx
of Navy enlistments occurring close in time to an increased
Army draft call cannot be totally ascribed to patriotic
motives either. More realistically, it is probably due to
the low probability of an enlisted Navy man being required
to serve where he would be under actual enemy fire. The
only exception to this is the medical corpsmen. They also
44
serve as corpsmen for the Marine Corps and, as such, have to
face the same hazardous conditions.
Consequently, the Navy functions as a means to
escape being drafted into the Army and its attendant high in
probability of serving in actual combat. Since the Navy re
quires a four-year commitment, these men are willing to
serve an additional two years in uniform for the relative
security of knowing they will not be in combat.
There is other evidence that the sample in this
study is reflective of the general population of males in
their age range. For this group, the mean educational level
was 12.32 years, with a standard deviation of 1.37 years and
a range of 7 to 17 years. There were recruits in this
sample who had completed college, and even some who had
taken graduate work.
Navy personnel (personal communication) also
reported that since the increase of the United States
involvement in Viet Nam, the calibre of the recruits had
risen significantly. This is reflected in the scores
obtained on the Navy General Classification Test (to be
described later). Although this test was designed to have
a mean score of 50.00, the obtained mean for this sample was
45
56.59. The obtained standard deviation of 10.22 was quite
close to the expected value of 10.
As well as the higher calibre recruit, this group
still contained individuals with intellectual capacities
quite below the average Navy recruit. The range of scores
was from 25 to 75. There are numbers of recruits who are
unable even to read. There is a sufficiently large number
of young men in this category for the Recruit Training
Command to maintain an ongoing program to teach reading.
Recruit Training
That period of time which starts when the new
recruit sets foot on the training station until he graduates
from basic training, consists of essentially two significant
periods.
Upon arrival, the individual is assigned to a
company. This assignment is simply based upon order of
arrival. This is the only means of classification, and
applies even for the Philippine recruits who often speak
little or no English. As soon as 60 men arrive, a company
is formed and the men are greeted by their company command
er. The "forming" period then begins.
46
This time period from arrival to beginning of form
ing most often is simply a matter of minutes but in some
cases a late Friday arrival will have to wait until Monday
for assignment to a company. Very often arrivals will occur
in the late night or early morning hours and the recruit
will begin forming with little or no sleep.
The forming period is also designated as Receiving
and Outfitting (R&O). The chief function of this period is
to deal with general processing and administrative matters.
Shots and general medical and dental examinations are given,
and any necessary treatment is scheduled at this time but
may be performed later.
Uniforms and certain equipment are issued during
this period and the classification tests are also given.
This group of tests is also known as the basic battery. The
purpose of them is to assess general intelligence and apti
tudes by means of which the men qualify for certain occupa
tional specialties.
At this time, the atmosphere is quite hectic and
rushed. The men are hurried from place to place in order to
meet a rather tight schedule. Even after the hurrying they
may have to stand and wait for long periods of time. They
feel strange and frequently are anxious and disoriented.
47
The pre-training period seems to be universally described by
recruits as the most thoroughly disliked of any point in
their recruit training experience.
The length of this phase of their training can vary
quite markedly. According to a schedule * officially, it is
five days in length. However, a sudden heavy influx of
recruits can result in it lasting only a day or two in order
to push them on into their training and to avoid overtaxing
facilities and men that already are straining to meet the
demands placed upon them. Later with the training facili
ties proper being crowded, new recruits may be required to
stay in forming for weeks until some groups graduate.
After forming, the actual basic training begins.
The purpose of this training, as with all the service
branches, is to effect the transformation of the civilian
into a military man. In the Navy, this training takes nine
weeks. The recruit is instructed in such topics as military
discipline, seamanship, ordnance, gunnery and fire and
damage control. Also contained within the training is an
extensive physical training program, a significant segment
of which is swimming. All naval personnel are required to
know how to swim. Those who do not, are taught.
48
in addition to the above, the recruit is required to
adjust to "barracks life." He must become accustomed to
living in a communal setting with little or no privacy.
Those facilities which are shared by all must be maintained
by all, i.e., cleaning, polishing, etc. The recruit even
learns how to wash his own clothing by hand and to do it
well enough to satisfy rather stringent inspections.
Many of the demands in the barracks setting are
artificial and unique to recruit training. Lockers must be
maintained in a certain fashion, weapons placed a certain
way, clothes hung a certain way on the clothesline, etc.
All of these fall under the rubric of discipline and may
never again be required of the recruit for the rest of his
career in the Navy.
A major emphasis throughout this segment of the
recruit's experience is upon participation in a group
process. While he must personally adhere to certain stan
dards and criteria, falling below them penalizes not only
the recruit himself, but his whole company. On the other
hand, outstanding performance of the individual and the
group are also rewarded. The groups training concurrently
compete with each other and spirit runs quite high. The
company commanders do everything they can to encourage it.
49
Even they are not immune to it. They become quite invested
in their company's performance. This author saw one company
commander become quite upset at a mistake made by one of the
men in his group at a drill inspection. He was not angry,
but quite anxious and distressed. He turned away and stated
that he couldn't bear to look.
Throughout the entire training period, as mentioned,
certain subject matter is emphasized and concentrated upon.
By far the greatest proportion of the recruits' time is
spent with the company commander. This is not just casual
time, but specifically allotted periods. This man shoulders
the chief responsibility for effecting the transfer of the
recruit from civilian to military life. He spends the
entire day with his company, accompanying them to classes as
well as lecturing to them on an informal as well as formal
basis, it is not uncommon for a company commander to spend
unscheduled time on weekends with his group.
In addition, there is concentration throughout the
course of training on other specific areas. Quite natural
ly, seamanship is one of them. The recruits are introduced
to and trained with equipment and procedures they will
encounter on board ship. Also, much time is spent learning
and perfecting skills on the drill field. Mornings, before
50
breakfast, that are not spent on the "grinder" are the
exception. Most of the efforts on the drill field point
toward the graduation exercises. The recruits are taught a
complicated drill routine upon which they are tested, and
which they perform at graduation.
There are other activities which occur at specific
points during the training cycle which are of significance.
The first two weeks are spent chiefly with the company com
mander obtaining rudimentary information and skills. in the
second week, in addition to this, the trainee receives his
classification interview. Depending upon his basic battery
test scores, he is offered a choice of schools or assign
ments for which he has qualified. From these he makes a
series of choices in order of preference.
The first major competitive inspection occurs in the
third week of training. Also in this week there is "abandon
ship" training. The recruits must demonstrate an ability to
swim and those who do not must learn.
Somewhat different from the rest of training is ser
vice week, the fourth week of training. instead of periodi
cally being required to miss classes in order to perform
some duties, this week is reserved for that purpose. The
men serve on K.P., messenger duty, guard duty and the like.
51
Small boat training is given in the fifth week, as
well as damage control training which includes exposure to
tear gas. Ordnance training is also given this week to
begin preparation for firing small bore weapons in the fol
lowing week.
In the sixth week, along with firing weapons on the
ranges, there is introduction to fire-fighting which can be
a frightening experience for the recruit. Actual fires are
set to simulate the various types of fire that would be
encountered on board ship in combat in order to teach the
men how to deal with them. Also in this week there is a
major brigade inspection.
A concentration upon physical fitness training
occurs in the seventh and eighth weeks of training. This
culminates in a physical fitness test in the eighth week.
The training cycle is finished in the ninth week
with the final achievement test, a major inspection and
final processing. The recruit then transfers to his next
assignment and usually is given a leave if he desires it.
Throughout this entire nine-week period, basic
skills and information are presented and constantly empha
sized. Methods of presentation vary from the informal lec
tures by the company commander already mentioned to quite
52
formal presentations by highly trained specialists in their
fields. There is also extensive utilization of closed
circuit television, enabling groups as large as 2,000 men to
obtain uniform presentations of a wide variety of informa
tion .
Recruits are presented with realistic conditions as
often as possible. Training aids very often are extensive
equipment complexes. There is, for example, a full-scale
mock-up of a ship upon which they learn their basic skills
of seamanship. To teach the basic principles of damage con
trol and fire-fighting, a rather elaborate special facility
was constructed.
This training, it can be seen, subjects the recruit
to a wide variety of experiences in a nine-week period. The
aim of the Navy is to make the experience of each recruit as
much like that of his fellows as is possible. important to
this goal is the necessity of presenting the men with the
same experiences and information in the same sequence. Con
sequently the job of scheduling the activities of close to
20,000 recruits at a time can be a mammoth one. This is the
function of the scheduling officer in the Administrative
Command. It was he who arranged for the groups to be tested
in this study.
53
Groups in the Study
Selection of the groups for the study was made
entirely by the scheduling officer. Since a military popu
lation was selected primarily because of the uniformity of
their experiences, effort was made to have the groups as
homogeneous as possible in terms of their Navy experiences.
The possibility of variation in length of forming period has
already been discussed. In the companies selected, all but
one had been processed in the standard five-day schedule for
this phase of their training. One company had just arrived
three days prior to the testing.
The companies were chosen so as to have groups which
were at different points in their training. In order to
relate their experiences in training to stress, selection
was made of companies containing only those individuals
whose Naval experiences in basic training were equivalent.
Recruits who, for any reason, had been transferred to a com
pany which entered training later than their original group
were excluded. Also excluded were Philippine recruits
because of the possibility of problems with the English
language.
There was a total of five groups in the study,
54
consisting of a total of nine companies. The groups, with
their number of recruits and point in training, are present
ed in Table 1 on the following page.
It will be noted that Group 1 contained a much
smaller number than the other four groups. it consisted of
only one company while the remaining four were comprised of
two each. This was due to exigencies in scheduling and
testing.
Although a full company contains 60 men, Groups 2
through 5 contained considerably less than 120 men which
would be the total if each company had kept its full comple
ment. This is the consequence of attrition which routinely
occurs in each group as it passes through its basic training
cycle. There frequently are medical and dental holds on
individuals. Recruits occasionally become ill in training
which requires recycling back to other companies. Extensive
dental work can also require a considerable amount of time.
There also are situations sufficiently serious to warrant
discharge from the service. These include clear-cut psychi
atric problems, enuretics, slow learners and those individ
uals whose overall intellectual capacity fails to meet mini
mum standards. For the year 1967, discharges for these
reasons from the Recruit Training Command were only 256
55
TABLE 1
BASIC TRAINING GROUPS USED IN THE STUDY
Week Number
Group of
Day of
WppV
of
Training
MW W Ai
Subjects
1 [3 days on station] 60
2 5 4 98
3 7 5 95
4 8 4 98
5 9 4 89
Total 440
56
recruits out of a total of 44,580 men. Losses from the Navy
in basic training average 3 percent overall. Included are
hardship discharges, medical disabilities and the like.
There are a number of losses to individual companies
which do not mean discharge from the service. In addition
to the recycles, recruits are removed from their training
companies to participate in the honor guard, recruit band
and the chorus.
Follow-up on the groups in the study revealed that
"psychiatric" losses were none for Group 1, and one each for
Groups 2 through 5.
Shown in Tables 2 and 3 on the following pages are
listings of the groups by age and by education. It can be
seen that they are quite uniform on both characteristics.
57
TABLE 2
COMPOSITION OF GROUPS BY AGE IN YEARS
Group Mean Age S .D.
Min imum
Age
Maximum
Age
1 19.27 1. 22 18 24
2 19.77 1.89 18 28
3 19.16 1.23 17 24
4 19.52 1.19 18 24
5 19.45 1.40 17 24
Total
Sample 19.45 1.44 17 28
58
TABLE 3
COMPOSITION OF GROUPS BY EDUCATION IN YEARS
Group
Mean Educational
Level
S .D.
Min imum
Educ.
Maximum
Educ.
1 12.27 1. 31 9 16
2 12.38 1.56 9 16
3 12.17 1.14 9 16
4 12.26 1.47 7 16
5 12.51 1.32 9 17
Total
Sample 12. 32 1.37 7 17
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Procedure
All instruments were administered to the combined
groups in one sitting lasting approximately two hours. The
testing occurred on a Saturday in order to avoid any con
flict with the training schedule. Company commanders were
informed,, by an official memorandum from the scheduling
officer, of a special testing session. They were unaware of
its nature or purpose.
At the designated time, all the companies were
marched to the testing hall in which they had filled out
forms and had taken their classification tests. The routine
tasks of passing out materials and pencils was handled by a
Chief Petty Officer who functioned in this same capacity for
his regular duty assignment. The general tone, discipline
and routines for the testing were essentially the same as
other testing sessions in which the recruits had previously
59
60
participated in the same testing hall. The building in
which the testing occurred is a large one and over 500 men
can be accommodated in one sitting.
After the testing, the instruments were scored by
hand. This information in addition to the biographical data
was then transformed into a number code to be placed on the
data processing cards.
Group 1 was the exception to the above. Having been
on the station only three days, they had not yet had the
experience of participating in any mass testing or screening
procedures.
All the instruments (to be described below) used
exclusively for this study were administered in the session.
Standard Navy procedures were utilized as much as possible.
On each form the subjects were instructed to place their
last name first, followed by their first two initials in the
upper left-hand corner of each page of every instrument. in
the upper right-hand corner of each page, they were in
structed to place their Navy identification number, as well
as their company number. Also in accordance with previously
established practice, the untimed measures were read aloud
in order to pace the slower individuals. Naval personnel
indicated that this procedure would serve to shorten
61
the time required for the testing. The author alternated
with a Naval officer from the Recruit Evaluation Unit in
reading the items.
instruments' * '
Since the subjects were available for only a limited
period of time, instruments were selected to provide a maxi
mum amount of information in the shortest possible span of
time. This also obviated usage of performance criteria.
For stress,, therefore, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale
(Taylor, 1953), Subjective Stress Scale (Berkun, Bialek,
Kern, & Yagi, 1962), and Dempsey D30 Scale (Dempsey, 1964)
were selected. The first two measures have been utilized in
prior stress research.
The differentiation measure was the ^Hidden Figures
2
Test, a highly speeded measure which could be administered
to a group, and all the intelligence scores were obtained
from the Navy Basic Battery.
Examples of all instruments other than the
Navy tests and Hidden Figures Test are contained in the
Appendixes.
2
Developed by the Aptitudes project at the
University of Southern California.
Measures of stress
Dempsey P30 Scale.— This instrument utilizes 30 of
the 60 items of the original MMPI depression scale. Dempsey
(1964) felt that it expressed the dimensionality of the
original but that it eliminated the error variance. It was
utilized in the study to assess the affect state of the
recruits. Being a scale designed to assess clinical depres
sion, the scores were not expected to be extreme.
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale.— This well-researched
and highly useful measure has frequently been utilized as an
index of psychological stress (Lazarus, 1966) . The scale
has enjoyed wide usage ever since it first appeared.
Taylor's intent was to use the instrument as a measure of
drive in the Hullian sense. She made no brief for usage of
the measure as an indicator of clinical anxiety.
It consists of 50 items extracted from the MMPI.
Taylor used it within a context of 225 non-anxiety items.
As used in this study, it was simply the original items com
bined with those of the Dempsey scale. This combined list
of items was called "Biographical inventory II" after
Taylor's original title.
63
Subjective Stress Scale.— This is the modification
of the measure developed by Kerle and Bialek (1958). It is
an equal-appearing-interval Thurstone scale of 15 words.
Berkun et al. (1962) called their modification the "Slightly
Revised Version of the Subjective Stress Scale" (or SRVSSS).
The items and their scale values are presented in Table 4.
\ The scale was scrambled 3 ways, to provide 3 differ
ent lists. This was done to insure, as much as possible,
that for the 3 judgments required, the subjects would not
simply circle the same word across the lists. By scrambling
it was hoped that each list would be independently read for
the judgment required. Subjects were requested to make a
judgment regarding their feelings at the time they left home
(SSA), at the beginning of the forming period (SSB), and at
the point in training that they were tested (SSC).
The forming period has been discussed previously.
Since it is so generally regarded as the most disliked phase
of training, it was felt important to get a more accurate
rating of this period both concurrently and retrospectively.
It was also expected that there would have been some subjec
tive stress at the time the recruits left home and this
would be related to the feelings at the beginning of the
64
TABLE 4
SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSION OF THE SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCALE
Item Score
Wonderful 00
Fine 09
Comfortable 17
Steady 27
Didn't bother me 40
Indifferent 48
Timid 57
Unsteady 64
Nervous 69
Worried 74
Unsafe 76
Frightened 83
Panicky 88
Scared stiff 94
65
forming period. And it was important to obtain a global
rating of the recruits' feelings about their respective
points in training to compare this with the less direct
indices of their feelings.
Differentiation
Hidden Figures Test.— This is a test developed by
the Aptitudes project at the University of Southern
California. It consists of 30 complex figures in which 1 of
5 sample figures have been embedded. The instrument was
designed to be administered in 2 6-minute sections. This
procedure was not followed in the study however. Both sec
tions were completed in 1 12-minute time period. This pro
cedure was followed on the recommendation of the Navy per
sonnel. In their experience with large groups, they found
that the recruits would tend to go on even if instructed
not to. The test was printed with both sections in the same
booklet, so that if administered in 2 separate timed seg
ments the possibility of compromising the second half was
quite high. It was considered preferable to simplify
matters by means of the single continuous administration.
66
Expectancies for reinforcement
3
The Internal-External Scale.— This is a 29-item
scale designed to tap a person's expectancies for reinforce
ment which are couched in terms of "external" or "internal."
The internal individual believes that reward is the conse
quence of his own efforts while the external person believes
that it is the consequence of forces outside himself which
can occur independently of his own efforts. The scoring was
in the external direction in the study.
Measures of intelligence
Navy General Classification Test.— This is a power
test of word knowledge and verbal reasoning with the items
arranged in order of difficulty. it contains 40 verbal
analogy items, the intent of which is to tap the reasoning
abilities of the testee (Rimland, 1957) . There are also
60 sentence completion items.
Rimland (1957) reports median item test correlations
of .67 for the analogy items, .72 for the' sentence comple
tion items, and split half (corrected) reliability of .97.
The scores reported herein are Navy standard scores, based
3
Discussed more fully under "Reinforcement
Expectancies" in Chapter I.
67
on a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. This holds
true for all the Navy tests.
Navy Arithmetic Test.— This instrument contains 30
arithmetic items of the form: "If a dozen eggs cost 50
cents* how much would it cost to give two eggs a day to each
of three boys for 4 days." Rimland (1958) pointed out that
the mathematics and arithmetic are not at all difficult but
that the emphasis is upon the reasoning. He reported a
Kuder Richardson reliability of .93 and median item-test
correlation of .60.
Choice of this test was predicated upon the
advice of personnel at a unit whose purpose is to screen
out the disturbed recruits. This group had been using
the measure along with the General Classification Test
and Navy Mechanical Test (described below) as "predictors"
of pathology. In addition* the test correlated highly
with the General Classification Test. Rimland reported
correlations of .70 with a prior form using a sample of
370 recruits.
68
Navy Mechanical Test.— No formal report on this test
was available,, however Rimland (personal communication)
stated:
The Navy Mechanical Test has 50 tool knowledge items
(information about saws, cars, etc. in pictorial
form) and 50 pictorial mechanical comprehension
items. ("If lever A moves in direction X, point P
will 1. move toward Y; 2. move toward Z; 3. not
move.)
The test has an overall reliability of .86
(alternate form). Each subtest had a Kuder-Richardson
reliability of .93. Raw score mean and SD were 57.30
and 16.29.
The use of this test was also predicated upon the
above-mentioned recommendation. In addition, Jackson,
Messick, and Meyers (1962) reported that embeddedness is
related to spatial orientation skills. If so, some correla
tion of this measure with the Hidden Figures Test would be
expected.
•
Navy Foreign Language Aptitude Test.--This is the
Modern Language Aptitude Test (Carrol and Sapon, 1959)
published by the psychological corporation. Its purpose is
to assess the aptitude for learning a foreign language. The
military version consists of 3 parts: (1) Spelling Clues,
in which success is dependent upon the size of the subject's
vocabulary. (2) Words in Sentences, which is intended to
measure sensitivity to grammatical structure. (3) paired
69
Associates, in which subjects are given a specified time to
study an artificial vocabulary and then are tested upon it.
There is good evidence that this test is tapping
verbal skills apart from aptitude for learning a foreign
language. Carrol (1959) in a factor analytic study, felt
that Spelling Clues was a "pure" measure of a verbal compre
hension factor, and Paired Associates, a "pure" measure of
an associative memory factor, variants of these 3 subtests
are being utilized by project Talent (Flanagan, Dailey,
Shaycoft, Gorham, Orr, and Godberg, 1962) as measures of
verbal skills. In addition, Bordin (1965) in his review of
the test criticized it using essentially the same reasoning.
He questioned whether it was superior to an individual's
grades in English courses as a predictor of foreign language
ability. In his opinion, it would be a better predictor of
those grades than proficiency in a foreign language.
There is good support, then, for the use of this
test as a measure of verbal skills with which to compare
differentiation along with the General Classification Test.
Biographical Inventory I
This form was specifically designed for the study.
It was divided into 2 sections. Section A contained the
70
background variables that were required in order to describe
the groups. included were age, education and income as well
as information regarding family structure.
Some explanation is necessary regarding the income
variables. It was found that a number of the subjects had
not answered these items. Because there was a problem in
column space on the IBM cards used in the data processing,
the figures for income were compressed by coding them as
follows: 1 = $25,000 and over, 2 = $15,000, 3 = $10,000,
4 = $7,500, 5 = $5,000, 6 = $4,000, and 7 = below $3,999.
It was felt that little would be lost by such a procedure
since those answers given would, in all likelihood, be
approximations in any event. Consequently, any conclusions
drawn from them were highly tentative.
For that question in the form requesting a listing
of the age and sex of brothers and sisters, subjects were
instructed to give them in the order of their birth. Within
the context of that listing, the subject was to include him
self. The total number of children in the sibling complex,
including the subject himself, is the figure used for the
"siblings" item in all the analyses.
Section B required information dealing with specific
experiences as well as certain orientations of the
71
individual. All the items were constructed on an a priori
basis. They are listed below along with their rationale.
1. Was your education interrupted by military
service?
This was chosen assuming that the perceptions,
values and orientations of a college student would not ade
quately prepare him for military experiences. There is even
the possibility that they may have rendered him more vulner
able .
At the other end of the continuum, the young man
without anything pressing at the time might even welcome the
opportunity to fulfill his obligation and, as a consequence,
be more comfortable in basic training.
2. Did your entry into the military cause you to
lose any employment opportunity?
This question is simply another aspect of the pre
ceding one. The individual who experienced a loss of a
career opportunity, such as a raise, promotion, or even the
offer of a good position might feel "put upon," angry or
depressed at having to fulfill his military obligation at
that time. The rationale was in terms of predisposing the
individual to appraise the basic training experience as a
threatening one.
72
3. Was there any set of circumstances in your life
situation that forced your entry into the mili
tary at this time?
It was felt that answering in the scored direction
could result in less threat being appraised. Since the sub
jects were Navy recruits, the circumstance forcing them into
the military could have been the possibility of being draft
ed into the Army or Marine Corps. Other situations could be
postulated where the entry into service was an escape from
other, more threatening experiences. Thus the individuals
in question would be less likely to be threatened.
4. Did you have any military experience prior to
this time?
5. Has any relative or friend with whom you have
had close contact discussed his military experi
ences with you?
7. Do you personally know anyone who is a career
person in any branch of the armed forces?
These 3 items reflect the assumption that the prior
exposure to military experience or simply information would
serve to reduce the number of unknowns and ambiguities in
basic training. This reduction in unknowns could result in
basic training being viewed as a less threatening experi
ence .
73
6. Have you any plans for a military career beyond
your obligation?
The fact that a person was choosing a particular
field for his career would predispose him to be more accept
ing and tolerant of the negative aspects of his experience
with it. His frame of reference would not be very different
from that of the individuals who were forced by circumstance
to enter the service.
8. What do you hope to be doing ten years from now?
9. Do you have any specific career plans?
The presence of plans that reach off into the future
could predispose a subject to stress, particularly if mili
tary service was thwarting the implementation of those
plans.
10. Do your parents expect you to follow any
specific career?
Even if the subject did not expect to comply, the
fact that he had not informed his parents of this fact would
seem to have implications regarding his relationship with
them, i.e., dependency. If he simply were complying, this
too would seem to imply a dependent relationship with them.
This dependency would lead to the expectation of greater
threat appraisal in a new and strange situation.
74
It is recognized that individuals do actively choose
the career of a parent's choice and that this choice can be
a healthy one.
11. How far is this base from your home?
12. Have you ever lived away from home before?
The need to make new adjustments, being on one's own
living away from home might be a stressor for some persons.
There was the possibility that an increase in distance from
home would also increase the discomfort. On the other hand,
the prior experience of having lived away would serve to
reduce threat.
Statistical Operations
With the exception of t-tests, which were calculated
by hand, all other statistical operations were carried out
by means of an IBM model 360/75 computer, at the Western
Data processing Center, university of California at Los
Angeles. The following programs were utilized (Dixon,
1965).
OlD-Data Description.— This program computes means,
standard deviations, standard error of the mean and ranges
of variables.
75
03p-Correlation.— Pearson product-moment correla
tions are provided by this program. in addition, it has a
feature whereby missing cases are excluded from the calcula
tions, and it gives the number of cases which were utilized
in the operations.
OlV-Analysis of Variance.— This computes analysis of
variance for one variable of classification. It provides
for unequal group sample sizes.
02R-Stepwise Regression.— The Biomedical Computer
program Manual (Dixon, 1965) states:
This program computes a sequence of multiple linear
regression equatxons in a stepwise manner. At each
step one variable is added to the regression equa
tion. The variable added is the one which makes the
greatest reduction in the error sum of squares.
Equivalently it is the variable which has highest
partial correlation with the dependent variable par-
tialed on the variables which have already been added;
and equivalently it is the variable which, if it were
added, would have the highest F value. In addition,
variables can be forced into the regression equation.
Non-forced variables are automatically removed when
their F values become too low. Regression equations
with or without the regression intercept may be
selected [p. 23].
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Using computer program 03D (Dixon, 1965), a correla
tion matrix was computed for all the major variables in the
study. These included biographical as well as all the test
variables. There was a total of 19 variables in this
matrix. preliminary findings by means of the Data Descrip
tion program (OlD) revealed that a number of the items had
been answered by only a small proportion of the subjects.
Consequently only 19 variables were utilized. These includ
ed 8 biographical and 7 test variables, and 4 Navy test
scores. The complete table was not included in this sec
tion. instead it is examined by sections, although all the
variables are included, with exception of the D30 scores.
The complete set of data is presented in the correlation
matrix in Table 32 in Appendix A.
The one exception was the Dempsey scale scores.
They were not included in the results because of the high
76
77
correlation with the Taylor MAS scores. The obtained r was
.80. it was felt that the addition of such a small propor
tion of variance would add little if anything to the re
sults. They both appeared to be measuring the same thing
and inclusion of both would simply result in unwarranted
repetition.
The Dempsey scale was excluded for two reasons.
First, it is not as familiar an instrument as the Taylor
scale. In addition, the range of scores was smaller as was
the standard deviation.
Stress
One-way analysis of variance results are presented
for the stress measures in Table 5. For all the one-way
analyses, program Olv was utilized.
Since a very significant F value was obtained,
t tests utilizing Edwards' (1964) formula 7.19 were cal
culated. To facilitate comparisons, the t values are pre
sented below (Table 6) along with the relevant significance
levels.
It was quite clear that Group 1, which had been on
the station for only three days at the time of the testing,
was experiencing a measurably higher level of anxiety than
78
TABLE 5
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR
TAYLOR MANIFEST ANXIETY SCORES
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 16.52 13.21 11.03 14.04 11.82
S.D. 8. 30 7.56 6.72 8.63 6.97
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups 4 335.1611 5.7497**
Within groups 435 58.2923
Total 439
Note: In this and the following tables, any value followed
by a single asterisk (*) indicates significance at
less than .05; a double asterisk (**) indicates
significance at less than the .01 level of confidence
79
TABLE 6
COMPARISONS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES, t-VALUES, AND
SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR TAYLOR MANIFEST ANXIETY SCORES
ACROSS GROUPS
Comparison
Difference
Between
Means
t-Value
Significance
Level
1 vs. 2 3.302 2.511 .05
1 vs. 3 5.485 4. 319 .01
1 vs. 4 2.476 1.791 NS
1 vs. 5 4.697 3. 612 .01
2 vs. 3 2.183 2.059 . 05
2 vs. 4 .826 .714 NS
2 vs. 5 1. 394 1. 311 NS
3 vs. 4 3.009 2.713 .01
3 vs. 5 .789 .781 NS
4 vs. 5 2.183 2. 221 .05
80
all of the other groups in the study. The difference
between Group 1 and Groups 3 and 5 attained significance at
the .01 level of confidence or less. The distinction
between Group 1 and Groups 2 and 4 was not as marked, having
reached the .05 level of confidence.
These latter two groups, 2 and 4, also appeared to
be at stress points in their training. Examination of the
t-tests revealed that these two groups were not significant
ly different from each other. Both were more anxious than
Group 3 but not Group 5. The difference between Groups 2
and 5 fell short of significance at the .05 level, although
it did attain the .10 level of confidence.
For the subjective report of how the recruits felt
at the time of the testing (Tables 7 and 8), it was found
that there were two extreme groups, 1 and 5. These had
spent the least and the most amount of time on the station,
respectively. The obtained t-value between their mean
scores was extremely large, far exceeding the .01 level of
confidence.
Since the means of Groups 2, 3 and 4 were quite
close in value, only the t-value for the 2 most disparate
among them, 2 and 3, was calculated. It was quite low, as
indicated in the table, and consequently the remaining
81
TABLE 7
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCORES
AT THIS POINT IN TRAINING
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 49. 28 23.76 21.78 21.89 10.71
S .D. 29.52 20. 91 20. 92 21.87 14. 99
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
13691.1875
462.7710 29.5852**
82
TABLE 8
COMPARISONS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES, t-VALUES AND
SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCORES AT
THIS POINT IN TRAINING
Comparison
Difference
Between
Means
t-Value
Significance
Level
1 vs. 2 25.528 5.855 .01
1 vs. 3 27.504 4. 984 .01
1 vs. 4 27.396 8.767 .01
1 vs. 5 38.575 24.418 .01
2 vs, 3 1.976 .211 NS
2 vs. 4 1.867 NS
2 vs. 5 13.047 4.942 .01
3 vs. 4 .1088 NS
3 vs. 5 11.071 4.146 .01
4 vs. 5 11.179 4.110 .01
83
values among the 3 were not calculated since it was obvious
that they too were far below the .05 level of confidence.
It can be seen that Group 1 reported by far the
highest degree of subjective stress. The difference between
this group and all of the other groups in the study attained
the .01 level of confidence or less. The converse was true
for Group 5. The mean stress level was less for this group
than all of the other groups in the study, it was so low,
in fact, that it may be more proper to describe their mean
score in terms of comfort rather than discomfort.
The recruits' reports of their feelings at the be
ginning of forming (Tables 9 and 10) demonstrated a signifi
cant difference across the groups. Groups 4 and 5 did not
differ significantly from each other but did obtain signifi
cantly higher scores than both 2 and 3. The difference
exceeded the .01 level of confidence. Group 1 did not dif
fer significantly from any other group in the study on this
measure. That group was exactly at the point toward which
all of the other groups were making their judgments.
Across the 5 groups, a significant variation was
obtained in the mean levels of stress reported for the point
at which the recruits left home (Tables 11 and 12). The
differences for this report of feelings were not marked,
84
TABLE 9
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCORES
AT THE BEGINNING OF FORMING
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 59.10 53. 36 52.59 62.44 62.53
S .D. 23.48 22. 36 23.09 22.15 21.75
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
2178.05
506.51
4.30**
TABLE 10
COMPARISONS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES, t-VALUES AND
SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCORES AT
THE BEGINNING OF FORMING
Comparison
Difference
Between
Means
t-value
Significance
Level
1 vs. 2 5.74 1.519 NS
1 vs. 3 5.51 1.698 NS
1 vs. 4 3. 34 .889 NS
1 vs. 5 3.43 .900 NS
2 vs. 3 .77 .235 NS
2 vs. 4 9.08 2.857 .01
2 vs. 5 9.17 2.844 .01
3 vs. 4 9.85 3.025 .01
3 vs. 5 9.94 3 .010 .01
4 vs. 5 .09 NS
86
TABLE 11
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCORES
AT TIME OF LEAVING HOME
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 48.80 41.48 38.55 41.62 47. 92
S .D. 27.05 26.18 25.24 26. 57 24.36
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
1613.93
667.24 2.42*
87
TABLE 12
COMPARISONS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES} t-VALUES AND
SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCORES AT
TIME OF LEAVING HOME
Comparison
Difference
Between
Means
t-Value
Significance
Level
1 vs. 2 7.32 1. 671 NS
1 vs. 3 10. 25 2. 386 .05
1 vs. 4 6.18 1. 629 NS
1 vs. 5 .88 .202 NS
2 vs. 3 2. 93 .792 NS
2 vs. 4 .14 NS
2 vs. 5 6.44 1. 741 NS
3 vs. 4 3.07 .825 NS
3 vs . 5 9. 37 2. 562 .05
4 vs. 5 6. 30 1. 691 NS
88
however. Only 2 comparisons reached significance and this
was at the .05 level of confidence. The mean score for
Group 3 was found to be significantly lower than Groups 1
and 5.
The t-value for the difference between Groups 2 and
4 was not calculated. It was obviously not significant with
a difference of only .14 score points between the 2 means.
Differentiation
The variation of the mean Hidden Figures Test score
was found to be significant among the 5 groups (Tables 13
and 14). The overall significant F value appears to have
been due entirely to the contribution of Group 1. Calcula
tion of the t-values revealed that this group was signifi
cantly lower in mean score than all of the others. Groups 2
through 5 did not differ significantly from each other, how
ever. Among these 4 groups, the t-value between the 2 most
disparate means, 2 and 4, was calculated and found to be
within chance levels. Since this was so, the remaining
comparisons were not calculated.
89
TABLE 13
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR HIDDEN FIGURES TEST SCORES
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 17.27 20.49 20.48 19.54 19.71
S .D. 5. 99 6.05 5. 87 6.11 6.11
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
119.28
36.35 3.28*
90
TABLE 14
COMPARISONS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES, t-VALUES AND
SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR HIDDEN FIGURES TEST SCORES
Comparison
Difference
Between
Means
t-Value
Significance
Level
1 vs. 2 3.22 3.267 .01
1 vs. 3 3.21 3.282 .01
1 vs. 4 2.27 2.297 .05
1 vs. 5 2.44 2.417 .05
2 vs. 3 .01 NS
2 vs. 4 .95 1.088 NS
2 vs. 5 .78 NS
3 vs. 4 .94 NS
3 vs. 5 .77 NS
4 vs. 5 .17 NS
91
Reinforcement Expectancies
The F ratio across the 5 groups for the i-E Scale
score was found to be nonsignificant (Table 15). In terms
of reinforcement expectancies, the variation obtained is
what would be expected by chance.
Intelligence Measures
The analyses of variance are presented for the
intelligence measures utilized in the study. They are all
classified under the rubric of intelligence because of
their strong intercorrelations with each other in the over
all correlation matrix (Table 16).
For a total population of 440 subjects, it is quite
apparent that the relationships were all extremely strong.
Even the weakest correlation, that between the Foreign
Language Aptitude and the Mechanical tests, attained signif
icance at less than the .01 level of confidence.
Of all the intelligence measures, the Navy Mechani
cal Test was the only one in which there was a significant
variation across groups (Tables 17-21). it would appear
that Group 3 was significantly more mechanically inclined
than either Group 2 (.05 level) or Group 5 (.01 level).
92
TABLE 15
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR I-E SCALE SCORES
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 8.72 7.86 7.09 7.83 7.71
S.D. 3.99 3.84 4.04 3.74 4.02
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
24. 62
15.35 1.60 NS
93
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG
GENERAL CLASSIFICATION TEST (GCT),NAVY ARITHMETIC TEST (ARl),
NAVY MECHANICAL TEST (MECH), AND NAVY FOREIGN LANGUAGE
APTITUDE TEST SCORES
ARI Mech Lang
GCT .747** .455** .650**
ARI .329** .597**
Mech .184**
94
TABLE 17
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
GENERAL CLASSIFICATION TEST SCORES
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 56. 30 55. 95 57. 95 56.66 55.97
S .D. 9.33 10.45 9.35 10.81 10.83
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
121.37
118.68 1.02 NS
95
TABLE 18
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR NAVY ARITHMETIC TEST
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 55.27 55. 96 57.20 55.96 56.93
S.D. 7.71 8.41 8.58 9.08 8. 61
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups 4 49.75
Within groups 435 73.13 .68 NS
96
TABLE 19
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR
NAVY FOREIGN LANGUAGE APTITUDE TEST SCORES
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 9.93 12.77 13.46 14.07 12.57
S.D. 7.84 9.83 8.56 10.45 8. 52
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
174.46
84.76 2.06 NS
97
TABLE 20
ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE NAVY MECHANICAL TEST
1
Treatment Group
2 3 4 5
Sample size 60 98 95 98 89
Mean 52.60 52. 27 54.87 52. 60 50.44
S.D. 8.40 8.72 8.27 8. 30 7.13
df Mean Square F Ratio
Between groups
Within groups
4
435
229.46
66. 96 3.43**
98
TABLE 21
COMPARISONS OP MEAN DIFFERENCES, t-VALUES AND
SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR NAVY MECHANICAL TEST SCORES — -
ACROSS GROUPS
Comparison
Difference
Between
Means
t-Value
Significance
Level
1 vs. 2 . 33 . 235 NS
1 vs. 3 2.27 1.642 NS
1 vs. 4 .00 .00 NS
1 vs. 5 2.16 1.737 NS
2 vs. 3 2. 60 2.131 .05
2 vs. 4 . 33 NS
2 vs. 5 1.83 1.577 NS
3 vs. 4 2.27 1. 908 NS
3 vs. 5 4.43 3.877 .01
4 vs. 5 2.16 1.912 NS
99
Regression Analyses
Certain relationships were noted in the correlation
matrix that led to calculation of the stepwise regressions.
They are presented in Table 22 on the following page.
There was a very strong relationship between the
General Classification Test and Hidden Figures Test Scores.
The level of confidence exceeded the .01 level. The direc
tion of the relationship was such that individuals who
obtained high scores on the General Classification Test also
tended to score in the differentiated direction on the
Hidden Figures Test. It appeared that both measures were
tapping common skills.
The Hidden Figures Test and Taylor MAS scores were
found to be related. In this case, the direction of the
relationship was such that the less differentiated recruit
tended to obtain a higher anxiety score. This pointed to a
relationship between stress and degree of differentiation.
Yet it can also be seen that the Hidden Figures score did
not relate to any of the subjective stress measures, al
though all three were significantly correlated with the
Taylor score at the .01 level of confidence or less.
Examining the relationships further, it was also
noted that the same situation obtained for the General
100
TABLE 22
MATRIX OP RELATIONSHIPS AMONG
TAYLOR MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (MAS), SUBJECTIVE STRESS AT
TIME OF LEAVING HOME (SSA), SUBJECTIVE STRESS AT BEGINNING OF
FORMING (SSB), SUBJECTIVE STRESS AT THIS POINT IN TRAINING
(SSC), HIDDEN FIGURES TEST (HFT), INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE
(IES), AND GENERAL CLASSIFICATION TEST (GCT) SCORES
HFT IES SSA SSB SSC GCT
MAS -.18** .40** .20** .19** .33** -.27**
HFT -.13** -.01 -.04 -.03 .55**
IES .11* .10* .21** -.17**
SSA .34** .13** .00
SSB .19** .03
SSC .02
101
Classification Test score. It was very significantly relat
ed to the Taylor MAS but demonstrated no relationship at all
with any of the three subjective stress scores. This sug
gested that the relationship of the Hidden Figures score
with anxiety was a consequence of variance shared with
intelligence.
The one measure that demonstrated a significant
relationship with all of the stress measures was the I-E
Scale. it correlated most strongly with the Taylor scale
but less so with the three subjective stress scales. Of
these, the relationship with SSC (feelings now) was the
strongest at less than the .01 level of confidence. In all
cases, the direction of the relationship indicated that the
recruit who perceived reward as being under the control of
others tended to experience more stress than the recruit who
perceived reward as being contingent upon his own efforts.
It seemed evident that there were variables which
were related to each other carrying common relationships.
This shared variance tended to obscure just which were the
significant factors. It became necessary to obtain multiple
correlations in which the common contributions were removed.
It was for this reason that the stepwise regressions were
performed.
102
The Hidden Figures Test score did not contribute at
all significantly to the variance of the anxiety score. It
can be seen from Table 23 that the major contributor was the
I-E Scale. From this it would seem that the relationship
of the Hidden Figures Test with the Taylor Scale was indeed
the result of its shared variance with the General Classifi
cation Test.
The regression analyses of the three subjective
stress ratings (Tables 24-26) revealed relationships with
each other as well as with anxiety. The two retrospective
reports, SSA and SSB, demonstrated no relationship with
intelligence, but the "feelings now" report did. It con
tained the GCT score as a significant contributor to the
variance as well as I-E Scale score.
As can be seen in Table 27, the correlation between
MAS and IES is repeated in step 1. The other significant
contributors to the I-E Scale are mechanical aptitude, sub
jective stress at point in training and language aptitude.
In this measure also, intellectual factors played a
significant role. it is interesting to note that a measure
which taps a personal orientation was so significantly
related to mechanical aptitude.
103
STEPWISE
TABLE
REGRESSION WITH MAS
23
AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Variable Multiple R
2
R F Value
1 . IES . 3961 . 1569 81.4859
2. SSC .4709 . 2218 36.4382
3. GCT . 5206 . 2710 29.4559
4. SSA .5365 . 2878 10.2617
5. SSB .5426 . 2945 4.0930
Note: in all the stepwise regressions only those variables
which contributed significant F values are listed.
104
STEPWISE
TABLE
REGRESSION WITH SSA
24
AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Variable Multiple R
2
R F Value
1. SSB . 3445 .1187 58.9941
2. MAS . 3593 . 1364 8.9307
105
TABLE 25
STEPWISE REGRESSION WITH SSB AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
2
Variable Multiple R R P Value
1. SSA .3445 .1187 58.9940
2. SSC .3727 .1389 10.2718
3. MAS .3822 .1461 3.6366
106
STEPWISE
TABLE
REGRESSION WITH SSC
26
AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Variable Multiple R
2
R F Value
1. MAS . 3319 .1102 54.2350
2. SSB . 3549 . 1259 7.8783
3. GCT . 3699 . 1368 5.4913
4. IES . 3806 . 1449 4.0907
107
TABLE 27
STEPWISE REGRESSION WITH
AS THE DEPENDENT
I-E SCALE
VARIABLE
SCORE
Variable Multiple R
2
R F Value
1. MAS . 3961 . 1569 81.4858
2. Mech .4114 . 1693 6.5345
3. SSC .4214 . 1775 4.3796
4. Lang . 4275 . 1828 2.7819
108
All of the regressions performed served to make
three significant points:
1. The I-E Scale proved to be the best single
measure related to anxiety.
2. Intellectual factors played a major role in the
stress reactions of the groups in the study as
defined by the measures utilized.
3. The relationship of the Hidden Figures Test with
anxiety appeared to be chiefly a result of the
variance it shares with intelligence. It has no
unique variance sensitive to stress factors.
Biographical Variables
In such a large correlation matrix as the one
obtained, the detailing of each and every significant
correlation can be tedious and somewhat confusing, since,
with so many subjects, very low coefficients can attain
significance.
In addition, in a number of the correlations, the
total number of subjects utilized in certain of the calcula
tions varied, resulting in different correlations being
required for significance. This was the result of some
subjects not having given answers for some items.
109
In the group of intercorrelations shown in Table 28
it can be noted that, in those test variables where rela
tionships obtain with background variables, the pattern was
a remarkably consistent one. The subject's education,
father's education and number of siblings all related in
very similar ways to the Hidden Figures Test and the Navy
battery scores. And, as noted before, the Hidden Figures
Test and the Navy test scores related to variables quite
similarly. in addition there was a consistent inverse rela
tionship with anxiety.
For this group of test variables, there were no
significant relationships with subject's income level or
mother's educational level observed, in addition, no rela
tionships with any of the biographical variables were noted
for any of the three subjective stress scales.
In Table 29 the items in the columns correspond to
the numbering of the items listed below. in every case,
except for number seven, an affirmative answer is the scored
direction. in the case of number seven, simply a specific
answer given received a scoring.
1. Was your education interrupted by military
service?
TABLE 28
INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BIOGRAPHICAL AND TEST VARIABLES
NAS HPT IES GCT ARI Mech Lang SSA SSB SSC
1. Age -.015
(440)
.107
(440)
-.064
(440)
.062
(440)
.069
(440)
.059
(440)
.120
(440)
-.04
(440)
-.08
(440)
-.02
(440)
2. Education -.188**
(440)
.351**
(440)
-.152**
(440)
.551**
(440)
.477**
(440)
.291**
(440)
.413**
(440)
.01
(440)
-.03
(440)
-.03
(440)
3. income .101
(143)
.035
(143)
.055
(143)
-.093
(143)
-.072
(143)
-.113
(143)
.063
(143)
-.04
(143)
-.02
(143)
-.08
(143)
4. Father's education -.157*
(372)
.213**
(372)
-.057
(372)
.390**
(372)
.258**
(372)
.211**
(372)
.228**
(372)
-.02
(372)
-.04
(372)
-.00
(372)
5. Father's income .108
(177)
-.036
(177)
-.021
(177)
-.163
(177)
-.108
(177)
-.022
(177)
-.124
(177)
-.11
(177)
.05
(177)
.02
(177)
6. Mother's education -.039
(381)
-.027
(381)
.038
(381)
.072
(381)
-.001
(381)
.062
(381)
.039
(381)
.02
(381)
-.02
(381)
.001
(381)
7. Mother's income .193
(62)
.004
(62)
.048
(62)
-.130
(62)
.022
(62)
-.012
(62)
-.043
(62)
-.21
(62)
-.01
(62)
-.12
(62)
8. Siblings . Ill*
(440)
-.143
(440)
.080
(440)
-.285
(440)
-.229**
(440)
-.154**
(440)
-.130**
(440)
-.01
(440)
.04
(440)
-.01
(440)
Note: The numbers in parentheses in all the correlation matrices are the total number of subjects
utilized to calculate that value, since on a number of items some subjects provided no
answer.
110
TABLE 29
SUMMARY OF INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG TEST VARIABLES AND EXPERIENCE ITEMS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
MAS -.084 .044 .059 -.065 -.060 .080 -.045 .024 -.131** .060 .101*
(440) (439) (435) (440) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
HFT .229** -.057 .137** .147** .064 .077 .010 .186** .099 .107*
(440) (439) (435) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
IES -.045 .032 -.036 .014 -.119* -.047 .040 -.100* .055 -.042
(440) (439) (435) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
SSA -.006 .000 .078 -.058 -.038 -.092 -.145** .100 -.020 .037 -.066
(440) (439) (435) (440) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
SSB .001 .041 .074 -.110* -.008 -.174** -.000 -.012 -.063 .034 -.099*
(440) (439) (435) (440) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
SSC .069 .053 .190** .028 -.009 -.077 -.032 -.073 -.024 .029 .006
(440) (439) (435) (440) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
GCT .318** .016 .186** .309** .063 .120* -.019 .191** .054 .177**
(440) (439) (435) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
ARI .272** .042 .108* .230** .037 .045 .023 .162** .060 .108*
(440) (439) (435) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
Mech .142** .075 .132** .164** .057 .037 .077 .108* .082 .129**
(440) (439) (435) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
Lang .301** -.014 .193** .150** .001 .068 .025 .213** .052 .174**
(440) (439) (435) (439) (409) (433) (373) (436) (438) (439)
112
2. Did your entry into the military cause you to
lose any employment opportunity?
3. Was there any set of circumstances in your life
situation that forced your entry into military
service at this time?
4. Did you have any military experience prior to
this time?
5. Has any relative or friend with whom you have
close contact discussed his military experiences
with you?
6. Have you any plans for a military career beyond
your obligation?
7. Do you personally know anyone who is a career
person in any branch of the armed forces?
8. What do you hope to be doing ten years from now?
9. do you have any specific career plans?
10. Have your parents expected you to follow any
specific career?
11. Have you ever lived away from home before?
Here, as in other relationships, a very similar
pattern is noted among the Navy test scores along with the
Hidden Figures Test scores (Table 29). From the pattern
113
noted, for the brighter individuals, entry into the military
disrupted educational plans and this entry into the Navy was
forced by circumstances. Those whose entry into the Navy
was forced tended to report being stressed at the point in
training when they were being tested.
The brighter individuals also had discussed with a
friend that friend's military experiences. Apparently
those who did, did not report being uncomfortable at the
time of the testing.
In addition, for item 2 (loss of employment opportu
nity) there were no significant relationships noted with any
of the test variables.
As in so many other instances, there also appears to
be a pattern among the last six items for the brighter indi
viduals (Table 29). They tended to have specific career
plans and this was inversely related to anxiety. In addi
tion, they had lived away from home before, and this also
was associated with anxiety in an inverse direction.
The Hidden Figures Test scores, as in so many prior
instances, tended to relate to variables in much the same
fashion as the intelligence measures. There was one in
stance where this was not so, however. The Hidden Figures
Test score significantly correlated with parents expecting
114
them to follow specific career plans. The direction of the
relationship was such that independence was associated with
the parents' expectations.
Plans for a military career correlated with the
memory of less distress at the beginning of the forming
period. in addition, those plans also correlated with a
belief that reward is contingent upon one's own efforts.
Personal acquaintance with a career person in the
military was associated with less discomfort at the time
the individual left home as well as with GCT score. The
latter relationship was not as strong, not having been
carried by the other intelligence measures as well.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION OP RESULTS
Stress in Basic Training
It is apparent from the results that groups in basic
training do experience psychological stress. The results
demonstrate quite clearly that the earliest period in Navy
basic training, the forming period, is the most stressful.
The group with the least amount of time on station demon
strated higher stress levels both in terms of anxiety and
subjective stress ratings, in addition, this early period
was viewed retrospectively with more feeling than is report
ed for the point in training at which the recruits were
examined. And there also was a tendency for the recruits to
view this early period with greater intensity the further
removed in time they were from the event.
There was the possibility that the elevation in
stress score for Group 1 was due to the fact that they still
contained "disturbed" recruits who had been removed from the
115
116
other groups; that the attrition process had resulted in
these later groups being rendered "healthier." it was noted
previously that the chief causes of attrition are the
processing holds. The emotionally disturbed individuals *
forming a very small proportion of those lost in the early
stages of training, would not significantly affect the
results.
This appears more than reasonable since Group 1 did
not lose any recruits for psychiatric reasons, and the other
four groups lost one man each.
Comparison of the mean stress levels obtained by
means of the subjective rating with those obtained by Berkun
et al. (1962) indicated that the mean stress levels of the
recruits in this study were mild (51 for Berkun et al. con
trols vs. 49.28 for Group 1 in this study). Their subjects
were all green army recruits, not yet into their basic
training cycle. The subjective stress scores of their ex
perimental groups also had much tighter standard deviations
than were obtained herein. It was interesting to note that
their control group scores were quite close to the scores of
Group 1 in this study, the group which had been on the sta
tion for only three days. This would seem to indicate that
their control subjects were also experiencing some degree
117
of stress, and moreover that Group 1 was not atypically
high in stress level.
There is also evidence that there was the experience
of some degree of stress in the recruits at the time they
left home. With the exception of Group 3, all of the groups
tended to feel similarly about it.
There was some disagreement between two of the
stress measures regarding the recruits' feelings in their
training. The subjective stress scores for the feelings at
the time of the testing level off in the three middle groups
after an initial high, then drop off to a very significantly
lower level in Group 5. This demonstrates good correspon
dence with what would be expected. There was a moderate
amount of subjective stress at first, then this lessened to
a plateau and then dropped to an even lower level. The
three middle groups were immersed in their training. The
first, Group 1, had not yet started and was anticipating
it with some discomfort, while Group 5 knew that they had
but a few days until graduation. They would be expected to
experience relief, satisfaction or even mild euphoria. They
were looking forward to school and fleet assignments, and
in most cases, a return home on a short leave.
118
The results on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale
did not indicate as clear-cut a pattern as did the subjec
tive stress scale. There was the same initial high for
Group 1 significantly above all the others, but there also
appeared to be secondary peaks for Groups 2 and 4. These
correspond to certain possibly stressful events within the
context of their training.
According to the master schedule, Group 2 was facing
a number of activities in the next few training days that
posed the threat of physical harm. They were shortly to be
subjected to tear gas training, fire fighting, and the use
of small bore weapons. All of these activities contained
the possibility of physical harm. The recruits apparently
didn't feel as intensely about these activities as they did
about the forming period though. By this time they probably
had learned that their superiors made every effort to reduce
the dangers. Simultaneously, however, those authorities
invoke the real possibility of physical harm as a means of
stressing the safety precautions to be taken.
Group 4 also demonstrated a peak. This group was
facing their final achievement test. Failure on this test
means recycling back to another company. Navy training
personnel reported that this test is anticipated with a
119
great deal of anxiety by the recruits and they can become
quite worked up about it. This test was only three training
days away for Group 4, and it is possible that their feel
ings were reflected in their anxiety scores. The consider
able variance in the subjective stress scores could have
obscured these variations.
Two possible classes of variables could have been
the sources of the recruits' stress reactions, upon
arrival, they still carry with them the values,, standards,
and orientations in a variety of directions that are con
gruent with civilian life. The military life to them at
this point is one gross matrix of unknowns and ambiguities.
This is most apparent in the forming period where they are
rushed from place to place, required to conform to a strin
gent time schedule. They became uncomfortable under these
conditions because they were unable to develop sets and
expectancies with which to handle the spectrum of new expe
riences presented to them in such rapid-fire fashion.
After basic training has begun, the ambiguities and
unknowns are lessened. After all, the purpose of basic
training is to learn certain skills relevant to their
careers. The stimulus situations become more clearly
defined and consequently a new set of criteria develop with
120
which threat will or will not be appraised. Stress would
then develop within the context of the demands of the mili
tary. The problem is not lack of recognition of the demands
or disorientation, but one of mobilizing the personal
resources to meet the demands which are recognized. The
recruit is no longer required to draw upon a set of experi
ences and memories adequate to deal with contingencies in
civilian life* but inadequate for the military situation.
Stress and Differentiation
probably the most interesting finding was that with
respect to differentiation. In good agreement with the
hypothesis, stress was found to be correlated with this con
tinuum. And also in good agreement with prior research,
the direction of the relationship was such that greater
stress was associated with the undifferentiated end of the
dimension. When the contribution of intelligence was
removed, however, these relationships did not hold. The
stepwise regressions quite clearly indicated that the
Hidden Figures Test score did not contribute any significant
amount of variance to the stress score.
Use of the Hidden Figures Test as the criterion of
a special dimension sensitive to stress factors does not
121
seem warranted if one is interested in relating, theoreti
cally, the stress reaction to the dimension of psychological
differentiation as proposed. In addition, these findings
imply that relating this dimension to so many diverse
realms is not warranted. Guilford (1967) is of the opinion
that the differentiation dimension is factorially complex.
With the sources of variance undetermined, the value of
relating it to even more complex functioning would appear to
be doubtful.
It is felt that this is the problem encountered in
relating differentiation to the internal-external dimension.
It was expected that the two would be found to be related,
but this was not supported by the results. Witkin's
description of frames of reference (see page 38 above)
seemed accurately to describe the internal-external dimen
sion of Rotter, as well as effectively describing the types
of individuals who could and could not deal with threat.
Although not related to the differentiation continuum, the
fact that persons with an internal frame of reference expe
rience less stress in basic training was a significant
finding.
If Rotter's description is valid, one can see how
the Internal-External dimension relates to stress. The
122
setting of basic training is one of strong limit setting and
firm discipline. persons who have utilized external frames
of reference tend to react with stress to such a regimen.
One could conceive of the "internal" person reacting with
less stress or even comfort under such conditions. "Right"
and "wrong" are quite clearly delineated. Such a person,
with his own internal standards, would utilize them to sup
port himself. For him, events are not chance-determined,
but determined by himself. He merely discovers what is
required of him for success in the situation and sets about
implementing it. On the other hand, the "external" would
probably deal with the same situation wondering what was
going to happen to him next.
Stress and intelligence
In support of the hypothesis, it was found that
stress and intelligence are related. In the face of threat
ening or potentially threatening situations, it appears that
being brighter is an asset.
This was noted both with the Taylor scale and the
subjective stress rating at the point in training that the
subjects were tested. It is recognized that the validity
of the Taylor scale might be questioned. The faetthat
123
intellectual factors contributed to the variance of the SSC
score provides sufficient additional support to warrant its
use.
In all probability, his intellectual capabilities
aid the recruit in resolving the unknowns and ambiguities
that he would have to face in a new and strange situation.
And because a significant source of stress for individuals
in basic training is meeting standards, intelligence becomes
a powerful asset. Rules, regulations, a special vocabulary,
etc. all must be learned in basic training. The brighter
person with greater capcity to learn most probably realizes
this and sets about dealing with stress by dint of effort.
On the other hand, the less able individuals cannot
so easily resolve the ambiguities. In addition, their
capacity to learn is not as great and they experience more
pressure from the cadre to meet the necessary standards.
One could also presume that there was additional pressure
applied by their peers, since in Navy basic training there
is a heavy emphasis upon competition between training compa
nies. A single "gig" or demerit could lose an award for the
whole company. The duller individual's chances of forget
ting something crucial would be substantially greater with
a concomitant increase in subjective stress.
124
Intellectual factors also appeared to be responsible
for the relationship of many of the items on the "Biographi
cal inventory I" form with stress. For example, interrup
tion of education was not associated with stress level. One
would obviously expect that the brighter individuals were
those who had their education interrupted, since at the age
level of the recruits, it is unlikely that military service
would have forced the interruption of high school. In addi
tion, these were the persons who would be more likely to
have both specific, more immediate plans, and more distant
ones. They too would be the group which had had the experi
ence of living away from home, since it would have been
obtained in the college setting. Consequently, instead of
finding the interruption of education associated with more
stress, no relationship was observed, having been attenuated
by the relationship with intelligence.
The results obtained for the items dealing with
plans for the future may also be explained by the same
reasoning. Any stress associated with the interruption of
those plans was most probably attenuated by intelligence.
Consequently, no relationship was observed with stress in
the case of distant plans, while it was observed to be in
125
the opposite direction from what was expected in the case of
specific plans.
In certain of the items it is probable that a time
factor was operative which affected the results. perhaps an
individual in a job with a bright future, or simply an im
pending promotion, experieneed considerable distress at the
time he received his 1-A classification. Subsequently, he
preferred giving up whatever opportunities that existed
there to join the Navy rather than continue as long as pos
sible and face being drafted by the Army. By the time he
was tested for this study, or even leaving home, the job
loss was a fait accompli and its attendant stress had
dissipated.
This could also have obtained in the case of the
college student whose grades were below par. The felt
stress would have been experienced when he received his
final grades and dissipated prior to leaving home. All the
discomfort that would attend fantasies about loss of
career, disruption of plans, etc. would have run its course.
In both the case of job loss and interruption of
college, there most probably are personality differences
between the men willing to wait for the draft and those who
prefer to join some service arm of their choice, in terms
126
of internality-externality, it is likely that they would
demonstrate differences. Those who wait most probably,
willing to gamble, would be found to be more external in
orientation while those who chose to take an active part in
what happened to them would be more internal.
Time factors may also be invoked regarding those
items which reflected specialized knowledge or skills that
would possibly serve to reduce the stress reactions. The
findings that the recruits' prior contact with persons who
had military experience as well as the recruits' own prior
experience was associated with less stress at the time they
left home or early in training may be explained by this rea
soning. One could presume that they felt "prepared" for the
experiences that awaited them. As a result, they were less
discomfited by the knowledge that they had to fulfill their
military obligation.
This temporary effect of the military knowledge,
however obtained, serving to mitigate the early stress reac
tions suggests another explanation. in their analysis of
stress, Howard and Scott (1959) postulated "resources" of an
individual as means by which he copes with stress. These
resources may be both general and specific. This prior
military information functioned as a specific resource which
127
resulted in stress reduction. Knowing persons who have
shared their experiences in the military, as well as having
had some previous training gave certain subjects an edge
just prior to, or early in training. One can see that the
advantages produced by this prior knowledge could only be
but temporary. in comparison with their relatively more
naive peers, this information could be quite significant.
With more training, this discrepancy would disappear as
those peers obtained training. in all probability, the only
specific resource that would be effective throughout the
whole course of the basic training period would be the prior
experience in its entirety.
Another way of stating this process is that this
specific information functioned as a temporary prop, ulti
mately, the individual fell back upon those mechanisms which
served him in the past. This could also serve to explain
the finding of stress not to be associated with the parents'
career expectations. Apart from any implications for depen
dency, those individuals still had other, more prepotent
resources with which to handle stress. Thus, no relation
ship was observed.
Another finding contrary to expectations was the
presence of higher stress levels in those recruits who had
128
been forced by circumstances to enter service. In those
cases where this was so, it was expected that a reduction in
stress would be observed. Harvey's (1965) modification of
the "butterfly hypothesis" may provide an explanation. The
unmodified hypothesis stated that the further some event is
from what it is expected to be, the more negative will be
the affect associated with it. Harvey added a directional
consideration to this. He pointed out that predictions on
the basis of this hypothesis would result in predictions of
a positive affect for some event that was only slightly
worse than expected and negative affect for some event that
was extremely better than expected.
In this regard, persons whose expectations and fan
tasies about the Navy may have been unrealistically couched
in quite positive terms, may have had "high hopes" for their
Naval careers, in quite negative contrast to these hopes,
they received a "rude awakening" instead. It was not the
comfortable refuge they expected it to be. And these high
hopes were sufficient to counter any stress at the time of
leaving home. Indeed they may have been relieved to do so.
in addition, these high hopes initially rendered them toler
ant in the early period in training to comfortably deal with
the initial shock of training. Subsequently they began to
129
realize that it wasn't going to get much better and what
they were experiencing was the real thing. At that point
they began to feel discomfort and stress.
At the theoretical level, the role of intellectual
factors in stress may fruitfully be examined within the con
text of Lazarus' outline of threat. It will be remembered
that he postulated two stages of threat, primary and secon
dary. in the stage of primary threat, the individual is
required to make judgments and decisions that most certainly
require the use of intelligence. For example, the judgment
about counterharm resources vs. the harm producing stimulus
requires an immediate assessment of a situation. So also
does the assessment regarding how close in time the threat
appears to be. The third factor, ambiguity of cues, appears
to reinforce the above argument. One could easily presume
that with less intellectual resources there would be an
increased probability of a stimulus situation being ambig
uous and threatening. And in the second stage of threat
appraisal, it would seem that locating the agent of harm,
choice of course of action and determination of constraints
all require the use of intellectual factors. Even the
belief systems most probably entail some facets of intellec
tual level.
130
Lazarus' and the other conceptualizations of psycho
logical stress appear to be varieties of cognitive models.
In particular, they are models which focus upon a particular
cognition which results in the activation of emotion as
Arnold (1967) has stated. Generally cognitive theorists
tend not to concern themselves with emotion, as a rule.
Lazarus' position in particular weds cognition and emotion
rather elegantly.
Some time ago Bruner (1957) developed an analysis of
perception which appears to be applicable here. Since the
perception of threat is so crucial, the process of percep
tion itself would also seem to be important to examine— most
particularly with respect to its bearing on the intellectual
issue.
Bruner concentrated upon the process of categoriza
tion. Organisms receive inputs which they assign to some
class of things or events, in psychological stress, stim
ulus events are considered with reference to a threat cate
gory. The basis of the assignment is on the basis of cer
tain cues, and some categories are more accessible than
others. They are such because they require less input,
accept a wider range of inputs, can supercede equally good
or better other categories, and they are used more
131
frequently. The process of categorization, according to
Bruner, is a sequence of decisions.
If one can consider one aspect of intelligence as
the possession of a wider range of categories which are
accessible, it can be seen how such a situation could be an
asset in potentially threatening situations. To use the
Mercury astronauts again, if some emergency were to present
itself, these men had ready categories with courses of
action available. For those situations which had not been
anticipated, they had a backlog of experience as test pilots
on which to rely.
in this study, this is reflected in the temporary
relationship of anxiety to certain experiences that would
provide knowledge of the military situation. And other than
these specifics, the brighter individuals might come with a
greater number of ready categories.
Similar reasoning may be applied to the differentia
tion hypothesis of Witkin. In the study, the global, undif
ferentiated end of the continuum is associated with less
intelligence with the converse being true for the differen
tiated end. The global person maintains fewer, grosser
categories, while the differentiated person maintains a
greater number of more discrete ones, it is recognized that
132
the use of "intelligence" here implies a general ability
like the Spearman "G" position. There is a large body of
opinion which maintains that intelligence is not a global
ability but involves many different skills and abilities
(e.g., Guilford).
Some suggestion that particular intellectual abil
ities are involved in stress was obtained herein, where it
was noted that mechanical aptitude was a very significant
contributor to the variance of the i-E Scale score. it
would be very valuable to further investigate the other
sources of variance to that instrument and, in addition,
relate a variety of intellectual factors to psychological
stress.
The source of anxiety in the study appeared to be
the consequence of the strain induced by the demand upon the
recruits to assimilate a new and strange body of information
in a relatively short period of time. It is possible that
because of this emphasis upon learning, it would be natural
to observe a relationship with intelligence. In the context
in which psychological stress was examined, it may be that
the findings simply reflect that coping mechanism which was
most useful, namely, intelligence. intellectual factors
obviously would be the most effective means of dealing with
133
"intellectual stress/' if you will. What is necessary for
future studies is to examine intellectual factors with
respect to stress originating in realms other than the
intellectual, such as physical threat as in the Berkun et
al. (1962) studies. It is predicted, however, that they
will play a significant role.
Due to the role of learning in the production of
the stress in the study, it is possible that this may have
been a factor in the lack of any relationship of the Hidden
Figures Test score with the stress measures. it would seem
valuable to reexamine the relationship of differentiation in
stress reactions. The type of measure utilized in the study
has not had a perfect correlation with the rod-and-frame
test. This measure has been reported to be a stress sensi
tive measure and it may well be that the portion of the
variance relating to stress is not shared with the embedded
figures type of differentiation measure. It is felt, how
ever, that this will not be the case, since a relationship
with stress was observed herein but was due to intellectual
factors.
This study can also raise some questions for the
military. One wonders what would happen if groups in basic
training were organized by virtue of i.Q. It should be
I34
added parenthetically that some answer may be forthcoming.
Navy personnel communicated to this author that the Defense
Department of the government is interested in utilizing the
large numbers of young men who are turned down for military
service because of failure to meet the minimum intellectual
requirements. Based upon the findings here* the most obvi
ous prediction about those men is that they would experience
much more anxiety than the average recruit.
While the role of intellectual factors in psycho
logical stress enjoys some importance in current theoretical
analyses, it would appear that it must be given a more prom
inent role. in a complex theoretical analysis such as
Lazarus', the interaction of intellectual factors with other
postulated determinants of stress must be examined.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of
certain intellectual-cognitive functions in psychological
stress reactions. It was hypothesized that greater intelli
gence would be associated with less stress. In addition,
the differentiation construct was examined. It was hypoth
esized that it too would be related to stress with greater
stress being associated with the global end of the
135
continuum. in addition, it was hypothesized that differen
tiation would not be associated with verbal intelligence.
Also investigated was Rotter's dimension of
internality-externality. With respect to this dimension, it
was hypothesized that higher stress levels would be asso
ciated with an external orientation. And because of appar
ent conceptual similarities, it was hypothesized that both
the differentiation and internal-external dimensions would
be related.
The hypotheses were tested by examining Navy
recruits in basic training. There were five groups in the
study comprising a total of 440 subjects. The subjects all
were tested in one sitting. in this session they were given
a personal information questionnaire designed for the study,
the Dempsey D3Q Scale, Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale,
Subjective Stress Scale, Hidden Figures Test and the
Internal-External Scale. Also utilized were the scores from
four Navy tests: The General Classification Test, Navy
Arithmetic Test, Navy Mechanical Test, and Navy Foreign
Language Aptitude Test.
The results, excepting the t-tests, were obtained by
data processing. In support of the hypotheses, stress and
intelligence were found to be related. The hypothesis
136
regarding stress and differentiation was not supported, as
the measure was found not to contribute to the variance of
the stress scores. Differentiation, in addition, was found
to be very significantly related to verbal intelligence in
contradiction to the hypothesized lack of any relationship.
The internal-external dimension was found to be sig
nificantly related to stress, in support of the hypothesis,
but the hypothesized relationship with mode of field
approach was not observed.
There also were findings with respect to background
variables; these, however, all appeared to be a result of
the relationship with intelligence. In addition, it was
found that a significant contributor to the variance of the
I-E Scale score was an intellectual measure, specifically
mechanical aptitude.
The results were discussed with reference to the
basic training situation and to certain theoretical posi
tions on psychological stress. Certain possible limitations
of the findings as well as implications for future research
were also discussed.
A P P E N D I X E S
137
APPENDIX A
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE ON THE
TEST VARIABLES AND DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES
138
139
TABLE 30
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE
ON THE TEST VARIABLES
Variable Mean S.D.
1 . Depression 5.96 4.23
2. Manifest Anxiety 13.10 7 .80
3. Hidden Figures 19.68 6.09
4. I-E Scale 7.77 3. 93
5. Subjective Stress A 43.18 26.00
6 . Subjective Stress B 57.85 22.84
7. Subjective Stress C 23.75 24.15
8. GCT 56.59 10. 22
9. ARI 56.31 8. 56
10. Mech 52.58 8. 27
11. Language 12.75 9. 27
140
TABLE 31
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE
ON THE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES
Variable Mean S .D. N
, . a
1. Subject age 19.45 1.44 440
g
2. Subject education 12.32 1.37 440
a
3. Father's education 10.97 3.19 372
a
4. Mother's education 11.59 4.77 381
5. Number of siblings 3.74 1.97 440
Approximate income Levels for ! Subject and Parents
Average Maximum Minimum N
Subject 4100 10,000+ 4000- 143
Father 5300 25,000+ 4000- 177
Mother 4200 10,000+ 4000- 62
a
Years
TABLE 32
CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ALL VARIABLES
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Educa- „ F' s F' s
income
tion Educ. income
M's
Educ.
M * s
Income
Sib
lings
Depres
sion
MAS HFT IES SSA SSB SSC GOT ARI Mech. Lang.
.48** -.09 .003 -.13 .13* .007 -.04 -.07 -.01 .11* -.06 -.04 -.08 -.02 .06 .07 .06 .12* Age
(440) (143) (372) (177) (381) (62) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (4401 (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
-.07 .31** -.21** .12* .003 -.23** -.24** -.19** .35** -.15** .01 -.03 -.03 .55** .48** .29** .41** Education
(143) (372) (177) (381) (62) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
-.08 .49** -.05 .19 .11 .15 .10 .03 .05 .04 .02 .08 -.09 -.07 -.11 .06 Income
(120) (64) (129) (28) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143) (143)
-.38** .46** -.19 -.16** -.13* -.16** .21** -.06 -.02 -.04 -.005 .39** . 26** .21** .23** F ' s Educ.
(171) (347) (56) (372) (372) (372) (372) <372) (372) (372) (372) (372) (372) (372) (372)
-.30** -.34* -.28** .09 .11 -.04 -.02 -.11 -.05 -.02 -. 16* -.11 -.02 -.12 F's income
(167) (50) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177) (177)
-.34** -.08 -.06 -.04 -.03 .04 .02 -.02 .001 .07 -.001 .06 .04 M's Educ.
(58) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381) (381)
.21 .25* .19 .004 .05 .21 .01 .12 -.13 .02 -.01 -.04 M1 s Income
(62) (62) (62) (62) (62) (62) (62) (62) (62) (62) (62) (62)
.11* .11* -.14** .08 -.01 ,04 -.01 -.29** -.23** -.15** -.13** Siblings
(440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
.80** -.18** .40** .20** .20** . 38** -.28** -.20** -.16** -.20** Depression
(440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
-.18** .40** .20** .19** .33** -.27** -.20** -.11* -.22** MAS
(440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
-.13** -.01 -.04 -.03 .55** .45** .42** .50** HFT
(440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) ..(4401.. . (440)
.11* .10* .21** -.17** -.17** -.16** -.17** IES
(440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
.34** .13** .004 -.04 .03 .003 SSA
(440) (440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
.19** .03 .02 .03 .04 SSB
(440) (440) (440) (440) (440)
.02 -.03 .03 -.02 SSC
(440) (440) (440) (440)
.75** .45** .65** GCT
(440) (440) (440)
.33** .60** ARI
(440) (440)
.18** Mech
(440)
NOTE: The n u m b ers i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e num ber o f s u b j e c t s u t i l i z e d t o co m p u te t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t .
141
APPENDIX B
TEST MATERIALS
142
BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY II
Identification Date ______________
Answer all statements on the answer sheet provided. Decide whether
the statement is true or false apd then answer it by blackening the
space in the proper column. Do not make any marks in the booklet.
1. My hands and feet are usually warm enorgh.
2. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested.
3. I am about as able to work as I ever was.
4. I work under a great deal of tension.
5. I have diarrhea once a month or more.
6. I blush no more often than others do.
7. I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting.
8. I have nightmares every few nights.
9. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or a job.
10. At times I feel like smashing things.
11. I have had periods of days, weeks, or months when I couldn't
take care of things because I couldn't "get going”.
12. My sleep is fitful and disturbed.
13. I prefer to pass by school friends, or people I know but have
not seen for a long time, unless they speak to me first.
14. I am a good mixer.
15. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be.
16. I am certainly lacking in self confidence.
17. I usually feel that life is worth while.
18. I don't seem to care what happens to me.
19. I am happy most of the time.
20. I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me.
21. I have a great deal of stomach trouble.
22. I do not worry about catching diseases.
23. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly.
24. I certainly feel useless at times.
25. Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me.
26. During the past few years I have been well most of the time.
143
Identification Date
27. I cry easily.
28. I cannot understand what I read as well as I used to.
29. I have never felt better in my life than I do now.
30. I do not tire quickly.
31. My memory seems to be all right.
32. I am afraid of losing my mind.
33. I frequently notice that my hand shakes when I try to do something.
34. I feel weak all over much of the time.
35. I have very few headaches.
36. Sometimes, when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys
me greatly.
37. I enjoy many different kinds of play and recreation.
38. I frequently find myself worrying about something.
39. I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am very seldom out
of breath.
40. I brood a great deal.
41. I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long
in a chair.
42. I dream frequently of things that are best kept to myself.
43. I believe I am no more nervous than most others.
44. I have difficulty in starting things.
45. I sweat very easily even on cool days.
46. I am often afraid that I am going to blush.
47. I have very few fears compared to my friends.
48. Life is a strain for me much of the time.
49. I am easily embarrassed.
50. I worry over money and business.
51. I cannot keep my mind on one thing.
52. I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all of the time.
53. Sometimes I become so excited that I find it hard to get to sleep.
54. I get anxious and upset when I have to make a short trip away
from home.
55. I have been afraid of things or people that I knew could not
hurt me.
56. I am more sensitive than most other people.
57. I am usually self-conscious.
Identificati on Date
58. I have sometimes felt that difficulties were piling up so high
that I could not overcome them.
59. I am usually calm and not easily upset.
60. At times I think I am no good at all.
61. I feel hungry almost all of the time.
62. I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes.
63. It makes me nervous to have to wait.
64. I have had periods in which I have lost sleep over worry.
65. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason
over something that really did not matter.
66. I am a high-strung person.
67. I practically never blush.
68. I am very seldom troubled by constipation.
69. I am entirely self-confident.
70. I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty.
71. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces.
BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY II
Answer Sheet
Identification Date
TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
1.
II II
11.
II II
21.
II II
2.
II II
12. | |
II
22.
II II
3. | |
II
13.
II II
23.
II II
4. | |
II
14.
II II
24.
II II
5.
II II
15.
II II
25.
II II
6.
II II
16.
II II
26.
II II
7. | | | | 17.
II II
27.
II II
8.
II II
18.
II II
28.
II II
9.
II
| | 19.
II II
29.
II II
10.
II II
20.
II II
30.
II II
TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
31.
II II
41.
II II
51. | |
II
32.
II II
42.
II II
52.
II II
33.
II II
43.
II II
53.
II II
34.
II II
44.
II
| | 54.
II II
35.
II II
45.
II II
55.
II II
36.
II II
46.
II II
56.
II II
37.
II II
47.
II II
57.
II II
38.
II II
48.
II II
58.
II II
39.
II II
49.
II II
59.
II II
40.
II II
50.
II II
60.
II II
TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
61.
II II
71.
II II
SUBJECTIVE STRESS SCALES
Co. Number
Name_______________________________________
Using the list below, circle the one word that best describes:
A. How you felt the
day you left home
for boot camp.
fine
unsafe
steady
worried
indifferent
wonderful
scared stiff
comfortable
frightened
didn't bother me
nervous
panicky
timid
unsteady
B. How you felt at
the beginning of
R. & O.
fine
scared stiff
timid
steady
frightened
worried
unsteady
indifferent
didn't bother me
nervous
unsafe
panicky
comfortable
wonderful
C. How you feel now,
at this point in
your training.
nervous
indifferent
steady
comfortable
unsteady
scared stiff
fine
wonderful
timid
worried
didn't bother me
frightened
unsafe
panicky
147
HIDDEN FIGURES TEST ANSWER SHEET
Identification Date
A B C D E
1. III
2. II I
3. II I
4.11 I
5. II I
A B
11. I I I
12. || |
13. || I
14. || |
15. || |
A B
2 1 .
22 .
23.
24.
25.
A B
31.
32.
II I I I I
C D E
II II I I
I I I I I I
C D E
e D E
A B C D E
. 6. || || || M II
7. II I! II II II
8. II II II II II
9. II II II II II
10. || || || || ||
A B C D E
16. || || || II ||
17. || || II II II
18. || || || II II
19. || || || II ||
20. || || || || ||
A B C D E
26. | | | | | | | | ||
27. | | | | | | | | ||
28. | | | | || | | M
29. | | | | | | | | ||
30. || II II II II
A B C D E
33. || || || || ||
34. || || || || ||
35. || M II II II
148
INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE
SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY
This is a questionaire to find out the way in which certain important
events in our society affect different people. Each item consists of a pair
of alternatives lettered jt or b. P lease select the one statem ent of each
pair (and only one) which you more strongly believe to be the case as far
as you're concerned. Be sure to select the one you actually believe to be
m ore true rather than the one you think you should choose or the one you
would like to be true. This is a m easure of personal belief: obviously
there are no right or wrong answers.
Your answers to the item s on this inventory are to be recorded on a
separate answer sheet which is loosely inserted in the booklet. Remove
this ANSWER SHEET NOW. Print your name and any other information
requested by the exam iner on the answer sheet, then finish reading these
directions. Do not open the booklet until you are told to do so.
P lease answer these item s carefully but do not spend too much time on
any one item . Be sure to find an answer for every choice. Find the number
of the item on the answer sheet and black-in the space under the number 1
or 2 which you choose as the statement m ost true.
In som e instances you may discover that you believe both statements
or neither one. In such cases, be sure to select the one you more strongly
believe to be the case as far as you're concerned. Also try to respond to
each item independently when making you choice; do not be influenced by
your previous choices.
REMEMBER
Select that alternative which you personally believe to be m ore true.
149
I more strongly believe that: 1.
1. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with m ost children nowadays is that their parents are too
easy with them.
2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck,
b. People's m isfortunes result from the m istakes they make.
3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't
take enough interest in politics.
b. There w ill always be w ars, no matter how hard people try toiprevent
them.
4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world,
b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often p asses unrecognized no
matter how hard he tries.
5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are in
fluenced by accidental happenings.
6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage
of their opportunities.
7. a. No matter how hard you try som e people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them, don't understand how to
get along with others.
8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality.
I b. It is one's experiences in life which determ ine what he is like.
9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen w ill happen,
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as w ell for me as making a decision
to take a definite course of action.
10. a. In the case of the w ell prepared student there is rarely, if ever, such
a thing as an unfair test.
b. Many tim es exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that
studying is really u seless.
150
m ore strongly believe that: 2
i
a. Becom ing a su ccess is a m atter of hard work; luck has little or
nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the
right time.
a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
I
b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much
the little guy can do about it.
a. When I make plans, I am alm ost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always w ise to plan too far ahead because many things turn
out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.
a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is som e good in everybody.
a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many tim es we might just as w ell decide what to do by flipping a
coin.
a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to
be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has
little or nothing to do with it.
a. As far as world affairs are concerned, m ost of us are the victim s
of forces we can neither understand, nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people
can control world events.
a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are con
trolled by accidental happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck".
a. One should always be willing to admit his m istakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's m istakes.
a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.
I m ore strongly believe that: . 3.
21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the
good ones.
b. Most m isfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, lazin ess,
or all three.
22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicans
do in office.
23. a. Som etim es I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they
give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades
I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for them selves what they
should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.
25. a. Many tim es I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen
to me.
b. It is im possible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an im
portant role in my life.
26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people; if they like
you, they like you.
27. a. There is too much em phasis on athletics in high school,
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
28. a. What happens to m e is my own doing.
b. Som etim es I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction
my life is taking.
29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way
they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a
national as w ell as on a local level.
152
Code No. Date Score
SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY
Answer Sheet
1)
aD bD 16) aD bD
2) . □
bD 17) aD bD
3) a □ bD 18) aD bD
4) aD bD 19) aD bD
5) aO
bD 20) a D bD
6) aD bD 21) a D bD
7) aD bD 22) aD bD
8) aD bD 23) aD bD
9) aD bD 24) aD bD
10) aD bD 25) aD bD
11) aD bD 26) aD bD
12) aD bD 27) aD bD
13) a D bD 28) aD bD
14) aD bD 29) a D bD
15)
aD bD
153
BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTORY I
Identification ______________ Date
SECTION A
Date of birth _____ Age___
Place of birth ____________
Education (yrs)____________
Occupation _______________
Father's birthplace_________
Mother's birthplace_________
Is a foreign language commonly
If yes, what language? _____
Father's education (years)___
Father's income (annually)___
Mother's occupation_________
Brothers and sisters (give sex
Marital Status: S M D Sp MM W
(Circle)
How long in the U.S. _______
Degrees __________________
Income (annual) __________
How long in the U.S. ____
How long in the U.S. _______
spoken in your home? yes no_
Father's Occupation ___
Mother's education (yrs)
Mother's income ______
and age of each) _________
Identification Date
SECTION B
Was your education interrupted by military service? yes no____
If yes, explain _____________________________________
Did your entry into military service cause you to lose any employment
opportunity? yes no . If yes, explain ______________ _
Was there an^ set of circumstances in your life situation that forced
your entry into military service at this time? yes no____
If yes, explain ___________________________________________
Did you have any military experience prior to this time? (Check as
many that are applicable)
Reserves National Guard Prior term of service _________
Military school Military college R.O.T.C. Other ___
Explain other ___________________________________________
Has any relative or friend with whom you have had close contact
discussed his military experiences with you? yes no____
If yes, explain _______________________________________
Have you any plans for a military career beyond your obligation?
yes no Why? __________________________________
Do you personally know anyone who is a career person in any branch
of the armed forces? yes no . If so, who and what is their
relationship with you? ______________________________________
What do you hope to be doing ten years from now?
155
Identification Date
Do you have any specific career plans? yes no . If so,
describe them
Have your parents expected you to follow any specific career?
yes_ no . If yes, describe it __________________________
How far is the base from your home (milesj? 0-100__ 100-500__ over 500
Have you ever lived away from home before? yes no . If yes,
explain _______________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
DATA PROCESSING
157
DATA PROCESSING
Each card contains 80 columns and 10 rows. Data are
arranged on the cards so that information groupings are by
column and the information itself is contained in the row
designation. For example, if it is desired to record an age
of 19 years in columns 6 and 7, then row 1 in column 6 and
row 9 in column 7 would be punched. The coding for the data
obtained in the study was as follows:
Column Item
1,2,3 Company number of the recruit
4,5 Subject number. This was simply a consecutive
numbering assigned to the subject in alphabetical
order.
6,7 Exact age in years
8 Marital status
0 = No answer, 1 = Single, 2 = Married,
3 = Divorced, 4 = Separated, 5 = Multiple
marriages, 6 = Widower
158
Place of birth
0 = No answer, 1 = United states, 2 = Foreign
How long in the U.S. in years
01 = 1 year and under, 99 = Native born
Education in years
Academic degree
0 = No answer, 1 = A.A., 2 = B.A., 3 = B.S.,
4 = M.A., 5 = M.S., 6 = Ph.D. and other profes
sional
Occupation. The code here is a qualitative one
according to the categories of the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles.
0 = No answer and student, 1 = professional,
technical, and managerial, 2 = Clerical and sales,
3 = Service, 4 = Farming, fishery, and forestry,
5 = processing, 6 = Machine trades, 7 = Bench
work, 8 = Structural, and 9 = Miscellaneous.
Income
0 = No answer, and none, 1 = $25,000 and above,
2 = $15,000 to $24,999, 3 = $10,000 to $14,999,
4 = $7,500 to $9,999, 5 = $5,000 to $7,499,
6 = $4,000 to $4,999, 7 = below $3,999
Father's birthplace
Same as column 9
Father how long in the U.S. in years
Also, 00 = Not here, 98 = Don't know,
99 = Native born
Mother's birthplace
Same as column 9
Mother how long in the U.S. in years
Same as columns 18 and 19
Foreign language spoken in the home
0 = No answer, 1 = None, 2 = Spanish, 3 = Italian,
4 = German, 5 = Other European, 6 = Oriental,
7 = U.S. indigenous, 8 = More than one
The indigenous category was intended to pick up
those languages such as American Indian dialects,
Eskimo, and included French Cajun if there were
any.
Father's education in years
Also, 99 = Don't know and no answer
Father's occupation
Same as column 15
Father's income
Same as column 16
161
28,29 Mother's education in years
Same as columns 24 and 25
30 Mother 1s occupation
Same as column 15
31 Mother's income
Same as column 16
32 Number of siblings in family complex
33 Birth order of subject
34 Education interrupted by military service’
0 = No answer, 1 = Yes with an explanation
provided, 2 = Yes without giving an explanation,
3 = No with an explanation, 4 = No without an
explanation, 5 = Explanatory statement given but
without a definite yes or no-
35 Entry into military cause of loss of employment
opportunity?
Same as column 34
36 Any circumstance force entry into military
service?
Same as column 34
Any prior military experience?
0 = n o answer, 1 = Reserves, 2 = National Guard,
3 = prior service, 4 = Military school,
5 = Military college, 6 = ROTC, 7 = Other,
8 = More than one
Relative or friend discussed his military
experiences?
Same as column 34
plans for a military career?
Same as column 34
Know career military person?
Same as column 34
plans ten years from now?
0 = No answer, 1 = Gives an answer
Specific career plans?
Same as column 34
Parents expect you to follow specific career?
Same as column 34
Base how far from home?
0 = No answer, 1 = 0 to 100 miles, 2 = 100 to
5oo miles, 3 = Over 500.
Lived away from home before?
Same as column 34
163
46,47 D3q score
48,49 Taylor MAS score
50,51 Hidden Figures Test score
52,53 I-E Scale score
54,55 Subjective Stress Scale A score
56,57 Subjective Stress Scale B score
58,59 Subjective Stress Scale C score
60,61 Navy General Classification Test score
62,63 Navy Arithmetic Test score
64,65 Navy Mechanical Test score
66,67 Navy Foreign Language Aptitude Test score
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
164
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfert, E. Comparison of responses to a vicarious and a
direct threat. Journal of Experimental Research in
Personality, 1966, JL, 179-186.
Appley, M. H., & Trumbull, R. (Eds.) Psychological stress.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Arnold, M. Stress and emotion. In M. H. Appley &
R. Trumbull (Eds.), psychological stress. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Berkun, M. M. , Bialek, H. M., Kern, R. P., & Yagi, K.
Experimental studies of psychological stress in man.
Psychological Monographs; General and Applied, 1962,
76 (15, Whole No. 534).
Bordin, E. S. Review of the Modern Language Test, in
0. K. Buros (Ed.), Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook.
Highland park, N. J.: Gryphon press, 1965.
Bruner, J. S. Perceptual readiness. Psychological Review,
1957, _64, 123-152.
Carrol, J. B. A factor analysis of two foreign language
aptitude batteries. Journal of General Psychology,
1958, 59, 3-19.
Carrol, J. B., & Sapon, S. Modern Language Aptitude Test.
Psychological Corporation, 1959.
Chu, G. C. Fear arousal, efficacy and imminency. journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4_, 517-524.
166
Cohen, J. The factorial structure of the WAIS between early
adulthood and old age. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1957, 21^ 283-290.
Cohen, J. The factorial structure of the WISC at ages 7-6,
10-6, and 13-6. journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959,
23, 285-299.
Cohen, S. I. Central nervous system functioning in altered
sensory environments. In M. H. Appley & R. Trumbull
(Eds.), Psychological stress. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1967.
Combs, A. W., & Taylor, C. The effect of the perception of
mild degrees of threat on performance. Journal of
Abnormal and Social psychology, 1952, 47, 420-424.
Cowen, E. L. The influence of varying degrees of psycho
logical stress on problem-solving rigidity, journal of
Abnormal and Social psychology, 1952, 4J7, 512-519. (a)
Cowen, E. L. Stress reduction and problem-solving rigidity.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, _16, 425-428.
(b)
Culver, C., Cohen, S. I., Silverman, A. J., & Shmavonian,
B. M. Cognitive restructuring, field-dependence-
independence and the psychophysiological response to
perceptual isolation. Recent Advances in Biological
Psychiatry, 1964, 6, 119-128.
Dabbs, J. M., & Leventhal, H. Effects of varying the
recommendations in a fear-arousing communication.
journal of personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4,
525-531.
Darley, J. M. Fear and social comparison as determinants of
conformity behavior. journal of Personality and social
Psychology, 1966, 4, 73-78.
167
Datel, W. E., Gieseking, C. F ., Engle, E. O., & Dougher,
M. J. Affect levels in a platoon of basic trainees.
Psychological Reports, 1966, 18^ 271-285.
Deese, J. The psychology of learning. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1958.
Dempsey, P. A unidimensional depression scale for the MMPI.
Journal of Consulting psychology, 1964, 364-370.
Denny, J. P. The effects of anxiety and intelligence on
concept formation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Duke university, 1962.
DeWolfe, A. S. Identification and fear decrease, journal
of Consulting psychology, 1967, 259-263.
Dixon, W. J. (Ed.) BMP: Biomedical computer programs.
Los Angeles: Health Sciences Computing Facility,
Department of preventive Medicine and Public Health,
School of Medicine, University of California, 1965.
Edwards, A. Statistical methods for the behavioral
sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.
Elkind, D., Koegler, R., & Go, Elsie. Field independence
and concept formation. perceptual and Motor Skills,
1963, 17, 383-386.
Elliott, R., & McMichael, R. E. Effects of specific
training on frame dependence. Perceptual and Motor
Skills. 1963, 17, 365-367.
Flanagan, J. C., Dailey, J. T., Shaycroft, M. F., Gorham,
W. A., Orr, D. B., & Godberg, I. Design for a study of
American youth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.
Gardner, R. W., Holzman, P. S., Klein, G. S., Linton, H.,
& Spence, D. P. Cognitive control: A study of
individual consistencies in cognitive behavior.
Psychological issues, 1959, 1 . (Whole No. 4) .
168
Gardner, R. W., Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. J.
Personality organization in cognitive controls and
intellectual abilities. Psychological issues, 1960, 2
(Whole no. 4).
Geer, J. H., & Turteltaub, A. Fear reduction following
observations of a model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1967, 327-331.
Goldstein, G., & Chotlos, j. W. Stability of field
dependence in chronic alcoholic patients. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 7JL, 420.
Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. Field dependence and
intellectual functioning, journal of Abnormal and
Social psychology, 1961, 63_, 241-246.
Gruen, A. A critique and re-evaluation of witkin's
perception and perception-personality work. journal of
General psychology, 1957, 56^, 73-93.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and
education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Guilford, j. p. The nature of human intelligence. New
York; McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Hare, R. D. Psychopathy and choice of immediate vs. delayed
punishment. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 1966, 71,
25-59.
Hartman, A. A., & Nicolay, R. C. Sexually deviant behavior
in expectant fathers. journal of Abnormal psychology,
1966, 71, 232-234.
Harvey, 0. J. Cognitive aspects of cognitive arousal.
In S. S. Tomkins & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition
and personality. New York: Springer, 1965.
Hermann, Margaret G. Testing a model of psychological
stress. Journal of Personality, 1966, 34_, 381-396.
169
Hilgard, E. R. Theories of learning. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1956.
Hill, E., & Peigenbaum, K. Altering field dependence
through stress. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23,
1200.
Hogan, R. A., & Kirchner, J. H. Preliminary report of the
extinction of learned fears via short-term implosive
therapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 72,
106-109.
Holtzman, W. H., Calvin, A. D., & Bitterman, M. E. New
evidence for the validity of Taylor's Manifest Anxiety
Scale. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1952, 47_, 853-854.
Horvath, F. E. "Psychological stress": A review of defini
tions and experimental research. General Systems
Yearbook, 1959, 4_, 203.
Howard, A., & Scott, R. A. A proposed framework for the
analysis of stress in the human organism. Behavioral
Science, 1965, 10, 141-160.
Hurley, J. R. Parental malevolence and children's intelli
gence. Journal of Consul ting- Psycho logy, 1967, 31,
199-204.
IBM Application Program. System/360 Scientific Subroutine
Package (360A-CM-03X) Version II, Programmer's Manual.
International Business Machines Corporation, 1967.
Jackson, D. N. Intellectual ability and mode of perception.
Journal of Consulting- Psychology, 1957, 21, 458.
Jackson, D. N., Messick, S., & Myers, C. T. The role of
memory and color in group and individual embedded-
figures measures of field independence. Research
Bulletin RB-62-34, Educational Testing Service,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1962.
170
Jacobson, G. R. Effect of brief sensory deprivation on
field dependence. journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1966,
71, 115-118.
James, W. H., Woodruff, A. B., & Werner, W. Effect of
internal and external control upon changes in smoking
behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29,
184-186.
Janis, I. L. Psychological stress. New York: Wiley, 1958.
Janowitz, M., & Little, R. Sociology and the military
establishment. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1965.
Jones, A., Bentler, P. M., & Petry, G. The reduction of
uncertainty concerning future pain. journal of Abnormal
psychology, 1966, 71, 87-94.
Kagan, J., Moss, H. A., & Sigel, I. F. Psychological
significance of styles of conceptualization. in
J. C. Wright and J. Kogan (Eds.), Basic cognitive
processes in children, Monograph Society for Research
in Child Development, 1963, J2l8 (Monogr. 86) .
Karp, S. A. Field dependence and overcoming embeddedness.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 2]_, 294-302.
Karp, S. A., Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. Alcoholism
and psychological differentiation: Effect of alcohol on
field dependence. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 1965,
70, 262-265.
Katahn, M. interaction of anxiety and ability in complex
learning situations, journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1966, 3^, 475-479.
Kerle, R. H., & Bialek, H. M. The construction, validation,
and application of a Subjective Stress Scale. Staff
Memorandum, United States Army Leadership Human
Resources Unit, Presidio of Monterey, California,
February, 1958.
171
Kiev* A., and Giffen, M. B. Some observations on airmen who
break down during basic training. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 1965, 122, 184-188.
Konstadt, N., & Foreman, E. Field dependence and external
directedness. journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1965, _1, 490-493.
Korchin, S. More on Zigler on Witkin. Contemporary
psychology, 1963, 8^, 365-366.
Lanzetta, J. T., & Driscoll, J. M. preference for informa
tion about an uncertain but unavoidable outcome.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3^,
96-102.
Lazarus, R. S. psychological stress and the coping process.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Lazarus, R. S., & Alfert, E. Short-circuiting of threat by
experimentally altering cognitive appraisal, journal of
Abnormal and Social psychology, 1964, 6S), 195-205.
Lazarus, R. S., Deese, j., & Osier, S. F. The effects of
psychological stress upon performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 1952, 49, 293-317.
Lazarus, R. S., Opton, E., Tomita, M., & Kodama, M. A
cross-cultural study of stress reaction patterns in
Japan. Journal of Personality and Social psychology,
1966, 4, 622-633.
Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, J. C., Mordkoff, A. M., &
Davidson, L. A. A laboratory study of psychological
stress produced by a motion picture film. psychological
Monographs, 1962, (34, whole No. 553).
Leventhal, H., & Singer, R. P. Affect arousal and position
ing of recommendations in persuasive communications.
Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 1966, j4,
137-146.
172
Leventhal, H., Watts, J. C., & Pagano. F. Effects of fear
and instructions on how to cope with danger. journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, _6, 313-321.
Menaker, T. Anxiety about drinking in alcoholics, journal
of Abnormal psychology, 1967, 72^ 43-49.
Messick, S., & Fritzky, F. I. Dimensions of analytic
attitude in cognition and personality. journal of
Personality, 1963, 31^ 346-370.
Opton, E. M., Jr., & Lazarus, R. S. Personality determi
nants of psychophysiological response to stress.
Journal of personality and Social psychology, 1967, 6 _ ,
291-303.
Orr, D. B. Research on behavior impairment due to stress:
An experiment in long-term performance. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1964, €>8, 94-102.
Orr, D. B. The development and tryout of a laboratory
procedure for inducing physical threat stress.
Journal of psychology, 1967, 65 (2), 183-194.
Osborne, R. T. Stability of factor structure of the WISC
for normal negro children from the pre-school level to
first grade. Psychological Reports, 1966, lj3, 655-664.
Piorkowski, G. K. Anxiety-reducing efficacy of distraction,
catharsis, and rationalization in two personality types.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31^, 279-285.
proshansky, H. proshansky on Zigler on Witkin. Contempo
rary psychology, 1963, 362-363.
Ray, W. S. Mild stress and problem-solving. American
Journal of Psychology, 1965, 7J3, 227-234.
Rimland, B. The development and standardization of Form 6
of the U. S. Navy General Classification Test (GCT).
Bureau of Naval Personnel Technical Report No. 118,
Naval Personnel Research Field Activity, San Diego,
California, September, 1957.
173
Rimland, B. The development and standardization of Form 6
of the U. S. Navy Arithmetic Test. Bureau of Naval
Personnel Technical Report No. 127, Naval personnel
Research Field Activity, San Diego, California,
May, 1958.
Rotter, j. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. psychological
Monographs, 1966.
Ruff, G. E. Psychological and psychophysiological indices
of stress. In N. M. Burns, R. H. Chambers, & E. Hendler
(Eds.), Unusual environments and human behavior. New
York: Macmillan, The Free press of Glencoe, 1963.
Ruff, G. E., & Korchin, S. J. Adaptive stress behavior.
In M. H. Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Psychological
stress. New York: Appleton-Century-crofts, 1967.
Seiden, R. H. Campus tragedy: A study of student suicide.
journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 7JL, 389-399.
Sheehan, J., Hadley, R., S c Gould, E. Impact of authority
on stuttering. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 1967,
72, 290-293.
Silverman, J. The problems of attention research and
theory in schizophrenia. Psychological Review, 1964,
71. 352-379.
Speisman, J. C., Lazarus, R. S., Mordkoff, A., S c
Davidson, L. Experimental reduction of stress based on
ego-defense theory, journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1964, 68, 367-380.
Taylor, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48,
285-290.
174
Thomas, J. L. A bibliography of reports issued by the
behavioral sciences laboratory: engineering psychology,
training psychology, environmental stress, simulation
techniques and physical anthropology (1946-1962).
Behavioral Sciences Laboratory, 6570th Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratories, Aerospace Medical
Division, Airforce Systems Command, wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio, 1963.
Vogel, W., Baker, R. W. , & Lazarus, R. S. The role of
motivation in psychological stress. Journal of
Abnormal and Social psychology, 1958, J56, 105-112.
Wallach, M. A. Commentary: Active-analytical vs. passive-
global cognitive functioning, in S. Messick & j. Ross
(Eds.), Measurement in personality and cognition.
New York: Wiley, 1962.
Weitz, J. Stress. Research paper P-251, Institute for
Defense Analyses, Research and Engineering Support
Division, April, 1966.
Wherry, R. J., & Curran, P. M. A study of some determiners
of psychological stress. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
project MF022.03.02-5013, Subtask 14, Report No. 2,
1965.
Witkin, H. A. Perception of body position and of the posi
tion of the visual field. Psychological Monographs,
1949, 63 (7, Whole No. 302).
Witkin, H. A. Psychological differentiation and forms of
pathology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1965, 70, 317-336.
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough,
D. R., & Karp, S. A. Psychological differentiation.
New York: Wiley, 1962.
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough,
D. R., & Karp, S. A. Witkin et al. on Zigler on
Witkin et al. Contemporary Psychology, 1963, 8_,
363-365.
175
Witkinj H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K.,
Meissner, p. B., & Wapner, S. personality through
perception. New York: Harper, 1954.
Zigler, E. A measure in search of a theory? Contemporary
Psychology, 1963, £3, 133-135. (a)
Zigler, e . Zigler stands firm. Contemporary psychology,
1963, 8, 459-461. (b)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Effect Of Motor Ability Loss On Cognition And Emotion

PDF

A Rotational Approach To Psychological Invariance

PDF

The Concept Of Sexual Identity In Normals And Transvestites: Its Relationship To The Body-Image, Self-Concept And Parental Identification

PDF

The Effects Of Group Experiences On The Aged

PDF

Intellect After Lobotomy In Schizophrenia: A Factor-Analytic Study

PDF

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

PDF

Personality Variables And Intellectual Abilities As Determinants Of Concept Learning

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Defense Choice And Identification

PDF

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

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Symbolic-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

A Cross-Cultural Study Of The Use Of Art Forms

PDF

The Influence Of Communality And N On The Sampling Distributions Of Factor Loadings

PDF

The Subjective Utility Function As An Estimator Of Optimal Test Weights For Personnel Selection

PDF

Age Differences In Serial Reaction Time As A Function Of Stimulus Complexity Under Conditions Of Noise And Muscular Tension

PDF

The Development Of Attitude Scales To Predict Accident Repeater And Moving Violator Drivers

PDF

The Effects Of Self Vs. Ideological Advocacy On The Self-Esteem And Endorsement Of Black Power Ideology Of Black College Students

PDF

The Psycho-Social World Of The Leprosy (Hansen'S Disease) Patient: Assessment Of Community Reaction To The Disease And Patient Psychologicalfunctioning

PDF

The Effects Of Ether And Electroconvulsive Shock On One Trial Appetitive And Adversive Learning

Asset Metadata

Creator Sutkus, Bruce Joseph (author)

Core Title Intellectual And Cognitive Factors In The Production Of Psychological Stress Reactions

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Harvey, Herman (committee chair), Cliff, Norman (committee member), Robb, J. Wesley (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-647117

Unique identifier UC11361386

Identifier 6904546.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-647117 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6904546.pdf

Dmrecord 647117

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Sutkus, Bruce Joseph

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