University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Cross-Sectional Study Of The Personality Factors Of Girls And Women In Competitive Lacrosse

(USC Thesis Other)

A Cross-Sectional Study Of The Personality Factors Of Girls And Women In Competitive Lacrosse

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 70-13,664 MUSHIER, Carole Lucille, 1937- A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY OF THE PERSONALITY FACTORS OF GIRLS AND WOMEN IN COMPETITIVE LACROSSE. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970 Education, physical University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY OF THE PERSONALITY FACTORS OF GIRLS AND WOMEN IN COMPETITIVE LACROSSE by Carole Lucille Mushier 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 (Physical Education) January 1970 UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Carole L. Mushier under the direction of h..JSX. Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y Date January,... 1.270 'ISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman PLEASE NOTE: Some pagr;s have small and indistinct type. Filmed as received. University Microfilms ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In addition to Dr. Kenneth Lersten, chairman of the dissertation committee, and the professors who served on the committee, the author is indebted to Dr. Bruce Ogilvie, Department of Psychology, San Jose State College; Miss Caroline Haussermann, President of the United States Women's Lacrosse Association; the presidents of the local associa tions of the U.S.W.L.A.; the coaches and subjects in each of the sample schools and colleges; the association players at the 1969 U.S.W.L.A. National Tournament; Dr. Robert Smith, Educational Psychology Department, University of Southern California; Mr. Walter Roeder, Director of the Computer Science Laboratory, University of Southern California; and the Computer Science Laboratory at the University of Southern California for the use of its facilities. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................... ii LIST OF TAB L E S ....................................... v LIST OF FIGURES....................................... vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1 Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Limitations and Assumptions Definitions of Terms II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................... 7 Personality Measuring Instruments Personality and the Male Athlete Personality and the Woman Athlete III. PROCEDURE..................................... 26 Identification of the Population Identification of the Sample Test Administration Analysis of Data IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................ 33 The Analysis of Each Sample vs. the Appropriate Norm The Analysis of Inter Sample Comparisons Descriptive Analysis of Selected Individual Profiles iii Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 74 Summary Findings Conelusions Rec ommend at i on s BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 78 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Junior High School Sample (N=56) vs. Junior High School N o r m ............................ 34 2. Senior High School Sample (N=133) vs. Senior High School N o r m ............................ 37 3. College Sample (N=62) vs. College Norm .... 40 4. Association Bottom Four Team Sample (N=24) vs. General Population Norm ..................... 41 5. Association Top Four Team Sample (N=12) vs. General Population Norm ..................... 43 6. National Team Sample (N=2l) vs. General Population Norm . .......................... 45 7. Summary of All Significant Sample Differences from Their N o r m s ............................ 47 8. Analysis of Variance Between Six Sample Groups on 12 Factors................................ 53 9. Analysis of Variance Between Five Sample Groups on Four Factors.............................. 54 10. Adjusted Means of Significant Factors ......... 54 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Profile of Junior High School Subject 03 . . . 56 2. Profile of Junior High School Subject 04 . . . 57 3. Profile of Junior High School Subject 15 . . . 58 4. Profile of Junior High School Subject 18 . . . 59 5. Profile of Junior High School Subject 19 . . . 60 6. Profile of Senior High School Subject 09 . . . 61 7. Profile of Senior High School Subject 49 . . . 62 8. Profile of Senior High School Subject 73 . . . 63 9. Profile of College Subject 2 5 .............. 64 10. Profile of College Subject 2 8 .............. 65 11. Profile of College Subject 5 1 .............. 66 12. Profile of College Subject 5 7 .............. 67 13. Profile of Association Bottom Team Subject 04 . 68 14. Profile of Association Bottom Team Subject 14 . 69 15. Profile of National Team Subject R 0 2 ..... 70 16. Profile of National Team Subject R 0 9 ..... 71 17. Profile of National Team Subject US12..... 72 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Only in recent years has interest been evidenced in the study of personality factors of women athletes. The need to understand these factors in women, as well as men athletes, is important to teachers and coaches of motor skills. This is particularly important in light of the expansion in size and scope of interscholastic, intercol legiate, and sports organization competition for girls and women. Many claims have been made for the psychological benefits resulting in positive personality development through athletic participation; however, few studies have attempted to substantiate these claims. Perhaps competitive sports do not influence an individual's personality, but rather the individual who already possesses certain characteristics is attracted to certain competitive activities (self selection concept). Such an assumption will not be defensible even at the completion of many studies; however, a cross-sectional study dealing with one competitive activity may provide a beginning step toward the solution of the larger research question. A few studies have attempted to determine the personality profiles of top women athletes in selected sports areas and activities (27,39,40,42,46,47,48,61). Only one investigator has attempted to study one competi tive sport on a cross-sectional basis of age and corres ponding experience (46,47,48). To date, there have been no longitudinal studies. While it is important to determine what "is," there is a great need to study the developmental process of personality factors of competitive women athletes. The next logical steps, prior to an extensive longitudinal study, however, are cross-sectional investiga tions in numerous sports areas. Statement of the Problem This study investigated the differences in person ality factors of girls and women involved in competitive lacrosse at the junior high school, senior high school, college, adult, and national levels on the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire and High School Personality Question naire . Hypotheses The 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire and the High School Personality Questionnaire have established national norms at the junior high school, senior high school, college, and adult levels. Each sample was compared with its appropriate norm on each personality factor and samples were compared on each personality factor to test the following hypotheses : 1. There will be significant differences on one or more personality factors between each sample and its appropriate norm. 2. The lower the age level of the sample, and the less their experience in the competitive aspects of the sport, the less the number of significant differences that will be found between the sample and its norm. 3. Each sample group will tend to differ from its norm on the same factors as the other sample groups. 4. There will be significant differences between sample groups on those factors where samples have common differences from the norm. Limitations and Assumptions The study was limited to subjects participating in one competitive sport. The subjects may or may not have participated in other competitive sports as well. The High School Personality Questionnaire and 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire were the only measures of personality admin istered to the subjects. 4 It was assumed that: 1. Local United States Women's Lacrosse Associa tion presidents would have personal knowledge or access to records to determine which schools and colleges conducted competitive programs in lacrosse in their local area and would convey accurate information to the investigator. 2. The High School Personality Questionnaire and the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire were accurate and valid tests of personality. 3. Subjects would respond honestly to the person ality questionnaire. Definitions of Terms Personality. "That which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. . . . concerned with all the behavior of the individual both overt and under the skin" (5:2, 3). HSPQ. High School Personality Questionnaire. 16 PF. Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. MMPI. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. CPI. California Psychological Inventory. EPPS. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. EPI. Eysenck Personality Inventory. 5 USWLA. United States Women s Lacrosse Association. HSPQ and 16 PF. Personality Factor Score Definitions (6,7): Factor Low Score High Score A RESERVED, detached, crit ical, cool, aloof, stiff. B LESS INTELLIGENT, concrete thinking, dull. C AFFECTED BY FEELINGS, emotionally less stable, easily upset. D UNDEMONSTRATIVE, deliber ate, inactive, stodgy. E HUMBLE, mild, obedient, conforming, accommodating. F SOBER, prudent, serious, taciturn. G EXPEDIENT, disregards rules, by-passes obligations. H SHY, restrained, diffi dent, timid, threat sensitive. I TOUGH-MINDED, self- reliant, realistic, no-nonsense. J ZESTFUL, likes group action. OUTGOING, warmhearted, easy-going, participating. MORE INTELLIGENT, abstract thinking, bright. EMOTIONALLY STABLE, faces reality, calm, mature. EXCITABLE, impat ient, demanding, overactive, unrestrained. AS S ERTIVE, independent, aggressive, stubborn, competitive. HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, heedless, gay, enthusiastic, impulsively lively. CONSCIENTIOUS, persever ing, staid, rule bound, moralistic. VENTURESOME, socially bold, uninhibited, spontaneous. TENDER-MINDED, dependent, over-protected, sensitive, clinging. CIRCUMSPECT INDIVIDUAL, reflective, internally restraining. 6 Factor Low Score L TRUSTING, adaptable, free of jealousy, easy to get along with. M PRACTICAL, careful, con- ventional, regulated by external realities, proper. N FORTHRIGHT, natural, artless, sentimental. 0 SELF-ASSURED, placid, confident, serene. Q-, CONSERVATIVE, respecting established ideas, tolerant of traditional difficulties. Q2 GROUP-DEPENDENT, a "joiner," good follower. Qo UNDISCIPLINED SELF CON FLICT, casual, careless of protocol, untidy, follows own urges. Q/ RELAXED, tranquil, torpid, unfrustrated. High Score SUSPICIOUS, self- opinionated, hard to fool. IMAGINATIVE, wrapped up in inner urgencies, careless of practical matters, bohemian. SHREWD, calculating, worldly, penetrating. APPREHENSIVE, worrying, depressive, troubled, self reproaching. EXPERIMENTING, critical, liberal, analytical, free- thinking . SELF-SUFFICIENT, prefers own decisions, resource ful. CONTROLLED, socially precise, self-disciplined, compulsive. TENSE, driven, over wrought , fretful. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There was little literature found which dealt directly with the subject of this study. As a result, all research that dealt with personality factors of male and female athletes or high skilled performers, performers differing in skill levels, and participant's self selection of activities was included in this chapter although the application to this study might only be indirect. The literature has been divided into three sec tions: literature related to personality measuring instruments, literature related to the personality of the male athlete, and literature related to the personality of the female athlete. Personality Measuring Instruments High School Personality Questionnaire and Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire--Age range 12 to adult. The Cattell HSPQ and 16 PF were not available before 1962. They purport to give the fullest information in the short est amount of time about most personality factors 7 8 identifiable at this time. They are not concerned with one or two factors or some special ability as some tests are, but claim to cover all the main dimensions of personality that have been found through modern factor analytic research (7:1). The tests deal with common traits rather than unique traits of individuals. The uniqueness of the individual is represented by the unique combination of scores on common traits (22:5). There is also a differen tiation between "states" and traits; a "distinction of anxiety, stress, and elation-depression as states from anxiety, ego strength, etc., as characterological traits" (22:5). It is admitted that shaping of traits by "state" variation does occur. However, as pointed out by Hundleby, . . . since it is a part of our conception of a trait that its form is to be determined both by its individual difference variation and its develop mental or functional change relations, the separa tion of this modicum of functional change variation is not vital at the present stage. (22:5) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--Age range 16 to adult. Although there is no other instrument of its kind that has been so thoroughly researched as a general test of personality, the MMPI has a number of weaknesses, not the least of which is its saturation with pathological items to the exclu sion or de-emphasis of some variables considered important in present day personality theories. . . . For assessing personality within the normal range of adjustment it will be found wanting. (4:145) It was designed to diagnose pathological con ditions , not for discriminating individuals from 9 a normal population, yet it is amazing how often it is employed in the latter case in published research. (57:301) California Psychological Inventory--Age range elementary to college levels. The CPI is a "forced choice" test that has not received a great amount of national attention or validation. Forced choice tests demand that one of two extreme answers be chosen, with no allowance for a neutral position. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule— Age range college to adult. The EPPS is a "forced choice" test that has achieved both acceptance and dismissal in the field. The likelihood of obtaining meaningful measures of personality variables within the normal range would be better if, instead of the EPPS, any of several personality inventories whose construction focused primarily on the validity of their scales was employed. (4:88) Eysenck Personality Inventory"-Age range high school to adult. As a revision of the Maudsley Personality Inventory the EPI is not a comprehensive personality test. It measures two factors: extroversion and neuroticism. Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey— Age range grade 12 to adult. As a revision of the Guilford-Martin test, the Guilford-Zimmerman test reflects the factor analytic approach and is considered one of the better tests of personality. 10 As evidenced by the preceding review of the primary personality measuring instruments, the HSPQ and 16 PF are the only tests that meet the age range requirements of this study. They are comprehensive tests of personality and are accepted by many experts as the most reliable, refined, and valid instruments yet developed (4,33,46,61). Personality and the Male Athlete A review of the literature dealing with the rela tionship of personality and athletic participation and/or achievement revealed that the majority of work has been concerned with the college male athlete. Few studies deal ing with age groups below the college level have been done. High School Level and Below. Schendel (55), using the CPI with ninth grade, twelfth grade, college athletes and non-participants, found the ninth and twelfth grade athletes and college non-athletes scored significantly higher on the more "desirable'' traits of leadership, less self doubt, social initiative, status, social maturity, sense of personal worth, and conventional responses to social situations. This value judgment was based on multiple t tests of dependent data. Slusher (58) found high school athletes to be less feminine and intellectual and more hypochrondriacal (except swimmers) than non athletes . Basketball players were the most deviant on the 11 MMPI scale while football players and wrestlers had neurotic tendencies. Biddulph (1), using the CPI, studied sophomore and junior high school boys and found that the high-level athletic group had greater self adjustment than the lower-level athletic group. Using a devised projective method, Derian (11) found high school football players to be more extroverted, more ascendant, less self conscious, and had less feelings of inferiority than non-athletes. The only cross-sectional study (49) used the HSPQ and was limited to 10-14-year-old swimmers with means plotted against Olympic gold medalists from a previous study. Significant changes in personality were found in the population that remained in the competitive swimming program. The 10-year-olds were cool, reserved, and intro verted, while the 14-year-olds were outgoing and extro verted, the latter to the same degree as the Olympic group. One cannot presume that high-level competition brought about the observed changes. . . . It is equally possible that many of these differences are simply the reflection of the type of personal ity structure that are essential in order that a youngster remain within the competitive program. Thus, whether this is survival of the fittest or basic positive changes in personality . . . must await the conclusion of longitudinal study. (49:5) A study by Newman (44) used the Thurstone Tempera ment Schedule on high school varsity swimmers and showed significant negative rank difference correlations of -.44 between the 100-yard breaststroke and sociability and -.47 between the 200-yard freestyle and the reflective trait. 12 A positive rank difference correlation of .50 was found between the 100-yard freestyle and dominance. College and Adult Levels. Keough (32) used the CPI to compare the personality of college males divided as to level of athletic participation and motor ability. No significant differences were found. Booth (2), using the MMPI, found 22 items that distinguished between the "good" and "poor" competitor. Non-athletes had a higher level of anxiety and social responsibility than varsity athletes and varsity athletes had a lower level of anxiety than freshmen athletes. These results were based on multiple t tests of dependent data. Kane (28), using the 16 PF, and assuming that male physical education major students represented the college athlete, found that male college athletes were more extroverted, happy-go-lucky, toughminded, outgoing, venturesome, and self controlled and less anxious than other college students. Sperling (59), using the EPPS, found no differences between college varsity athletes and intramural participants, although the athletes were higher in ascendance, extroversion, and motivation for power and lower in social needs, less aesthetic and less theoretical than the non-participant. Werner and Gottheil (62), in a four-year longitudinal study of U.S. Military Academy cadets, tested 340 entering cadet athletes and 116 entering cadet non-participants. The first testing showed the cadet 13 athletes to be significantly different from the cadet non-participants on seven factors of the 16 PF. The athletes were more outgoing, happy-go-lucky, venturesome, conservative, self sufficient, controlled, and tense. If participation in athletics in college has an effect on personality structure, the effect would be expected to be greater on individuals with little previous athletic participation than on accomplished athletes. With this assumption, a shift of scores on factors toward greater similarity of the two groups would substantiate this. Despite four years of regular athletic participation, the non-participant group was not found to change in personality (1) to a greater extent than the athletes, (2) in a different pattern than did the athletes, (3) so as to become more like the athletes (62:130). By age 17, boys seem to have already self selected themselves into athletics or non-participation on the basis of personality motivated preference and in the case of the cadets, this speculation seems to be attractive. Lakie (37), using an omnibus personality inventory on 230 college athletes, found no significant differences between five different sports groups (basketball, football, tennis-golf, track, wrestling) within each college. In a study concerned with the extroversion and neuroticism of athletes, Morgan (41), using the EPI, found that wrestlers, basketball players, weight trainers, cross country runners, swimmers, and a required physical education class sample were not significantly different from the norms. However, wrestlers, basketball players, and weight trainers were more extroverted than cross country runners and the required class sample and wrestlers and swimmers were more neurotic than basketball players and weight trainers. Ibraham (24), using the Guilford-Martin Test, compared collegiate athletes and physical education majors. Baseball players were more ascendant and submissive than basketball players, football players, and physical education major students; more gener ally active than football players; more masculine than basketball players and physical education majors; and more nervous than basketball players and physical education majors. The basketball players and physical education majors were more nervous than the football players. Flanagan (15), studying male college students and their free choice of activity, concluded that persons who select one activity course in preference to another are influenced by their personality make-up in making that choice. Using a combined test of four factors of personality and five activity groups, it was found that: fencers were more ascendant than basketball players, volleyball players, and boxers; badminton players were more extroverted than volleyball players; and volleyball players were more emotionally unstable than basketball players. 15 Consensus was found in three studies devoted to the relationship of personality and football players. Kroll and Peterson (36) used the 16 PF to study winning and losing teams. It was found that the winning team members were more intelligent, venturesome, confident, and possessed greater self control than the members of losing teams. No compari sons were made with a normative sample. Diamond (12) found football players to be more self confident and assured when compared to other activity groups of junior college stu dents. Nelson and Langer (43) compared football players to a normative sample on the 16 PF. The varsity football players had greater emotional stability; were more venture some, self assured, and self disciplined; and had the ability to control anxiety. The major psychological variable relevant to performance was anxiety, and it produces differen tial performance effects. . . . Poorer players showed either higher anxiety in both stress and non stress test situations and/or allowed anxiety to get out of control. (43:24) Combative sports, in particular, wrestling, have been the subject of several personality studies. Rasch and Hunt (53) used the Berdie Test of Masculinity-Femininity to compare 14 1960 Olympic wrestlers with college freshmen and male homosexuals. The wrestlers closely resembled college freshmen and were considered straightforward, mature, modest, and masculine. Kroll (35) used the 16 PF to study 94 amateur and collegiate wrestlers at three levels of 16 achievement. Discriminant function analysis failed to establish any profile differences between groups. When compared to the norm, wrestlers were more toughminded, self reliant, and masculine. Kroll suggests several ways that personality may be linked to athletics: 1. Some set of personality factors exists which motivate individuals who possess the greatest combination of these factors to continue on and become successful. Thus neophytes and successful veterans possess similar personal ity patterns differing only in intensity. 2. There is no pattern which enhances entry initially into a sport, but that either by modification of existing personality or attrition of inappropriate patterns only those possessing a suitable pattern persist and become successful. Thus neophytes possess dissimilar patterns but successful veterans possess similar patterns. 3. Both neophytes and successful veterans possess dissimilar patterns. 4. A similar pattern motivating entry but partic ipation or attrition results in a dissimilar pattern for the successful athlete. (35:55, 56) Johnson and Hutton (25) studied eight college wrestlers using the House-Tree-Person Test of Personality. These competitors showed the greatest aggressive and neurotic signs during the pre-match period as opposed to the post- match period or out-of-season period. The pre-match signs returned to normal directly following the match. This suggests that a competitor "gets ready" for competition but does not carry the "competitive set" to the non-competitive situation. Husman (23) compared boxers, wrestlers, cross 17 country runners, and a control group on several projective measures. It was found that the boxers were less aggressive and expressed less aggression outwardly than any of the other three groups. Heusner (21) compared 41 British and American Olympic champions in various sports with the norm of the 16 PF. It was found that the champions were more emotion ally stable, assertive, venturesome, confident, and assured than the norm. Kane and Callaghan (31) found similar results using the 16 PF with international class tennis players. This group was more sociable, adventuresome, bold, self sufficient, shy, and anxious than the norm. Johnson et al. (26), using two projective tests, found that 12 champion athletes showed extreme aggression, less emotional control, more anxiety, greater self assurance, and greater intellectual aspiration than the norm. Ogilvie ejt al. (51) found no significant differences between Olympic medalist swimmers and Olympic non-medalist swimmers on a series of personality tests. Gold (16) compared professional and collegiate tennis players and golfers on the Guilford-Martin Person ality Inventory. It was found that the professional golfers have a greater masculine emotional and temperamental make-up than the professional and collegiate tennis players and were greater social extroverts than the collegiate golfers. The collegiate tennis players were more nervous than the 18 professional tennis players. LaPlace (38) studied the relationship of personality to success in professional baseball using the MMPI. In the comparison of major league players and minor league players, both showed a very strong drive with the major league players having a high level of self discipline and the minor league players having a lack of self discipline. Two studies concerned with the personality of weight lifters showed similar results. Harlow (18) found weight lifters to have greater feelings of masculine inadequacy, to have more homosexual tendencies, to have an inability to cope with their environment, to be more narcissistic, and to be more dependent than non-weight lifters. Thune (60) found weight lifters to be shy, lacking in confidence, and concerned with their appearance when compared to non-weight lifters. Both used projective type personality tests. Thune concluded that different sports appealed to individ uals differing in needs and having personalities different from others. Several research papers have dealt with an overall look at the relationship of athletic participation and/or achievement and personality structure. Kane found six areas directly related to the subject: I. High positive relationship between motor ability and emotional stability in 13-16 year old males. 19 II. Extroversion related positively to athletic skill and motor achievement. III. Athletes tend to be toughminded, reserved, and cool. IV. Athletes tend toward free thinking and experimentation. V. Athletes tend to have abstract rather than concrete intellectual abilities. VI. Athletes are characterized by ruthlessness, shrewdness, and persistence. Cofer and Johnson (8) concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the generalization that the exceptional athlete could be described as a "special breed." Kane (27) discussed that there was little doubt that at least a "footballer type" exists and found high trait consistencies among extremely talented athletes. Cratty, in a review of personality and performance, stated: The personalities of most superior athletes are often marked by hostility and aggression, usually kept well under control and channeled into perform ance specialties. . . . Athletes usually have an acute awareness of the social implications of their success and/or failure; they are socially sensitive while they may or may not be socially outgoing. (10:195) Ogilvie summed up the research completed by 1967 on the male athlete: The male competitor is basically an emotionally healthy person who tends toward extroversion. He is toughminded, self-assertive, self-confident with a high capacity to endure the stress of high level competition. . . . When the male competitor moves up the success ladder from amateur to professional, most of these traits intensify. (47:8) 20 Personality and the Woman Athlete Very little research has been conducted on the woman athlete. Only in recent years has the woman athlete been of interest to the personality researcher, often only as being incidental to a main study. High School Level and Below. Three studies have been concerned with the girl athlete of high school age or younger. Niblock (45) studied athletes and non-athletes in a selected high school using the Guilford-Zimmerman Test. The athletes showed more general activity, ascendancy, sociability, emotional stability, and intelligence. Ogilvie (47) completed the only cross-sectional study using the Santa Clara Club age group swimmers. The age group from 10 to 14 years was examined using the 16 PF. The girls were found to be very similar to the boys in the same age group sample of swimmers. The following summarizes the findings and conclusions of the study: 1. There seems to be a tendency for competitive girl swimmers to become less reserved as they move up the competitive ladder - or - less outgoing are eliminated. 2. Competition increases emotional stability - or - less emotionally stable are driven out of competition. 3. Highly assertive become slightly less under the discipline of coaching - or - more assertive girls are weeded out. 4. Seems to be a dramatic change in conscience development as they move up - or - a process of elimination occurs. 21 5. Become more toughminded and no nonsense or they must get tough or drop out. 6. More shrewd, calculating and worldly wise - does survival depend on these characteristics? 7. Shift from extreme apprehension and worry to self assurance and self confidence. Weeding out or building character? 8. Shift toward self control and self discipline. 9. Reduction of tension and anxiety or child of highly anxious type cannot stand the pressure. (47:8, 9) Rushall (54) did a similar study using the 16 PF with Indiana age group swimmers. This sample was found to be more outgoing, individualistic, and self sufficient than the Santa Clara group. College and Adult Levels. Hendry (20), while examining the coach-swimmer relationship, found the male and female swimmers to be homogeneous on the 16 PF. The younger female swimmer was more introverted than the older female swimmer. Black (2), studying female college students in general on the MMPI, found the "most athletic" college females to be more masculine, confident, to have more energy, to be free from fears about health, and to be less self conscious. College women athletes, dancers, and physical education major students were subjects of a study by Ibrahim (24) using the Guilford-Martin Test. The four personality factors studied were: general activity, femininity, inferiority, and nervousness. The dancers showed greater activity than the athletes and major 22 students, the major students showing the least. The dancers were more feminine than the major students and the athletes, the athletes being the least feminine. The athletes showed more feelings of inferiority than the dancers or major students, the major students having the least feelings of inferiority. The athletes were more nervous than the dancers or the major students. Malumphy (39) studied the personality differences of the individual sports participant, team sports participant, team and individual sports participant, participant of sports scored by subjective judgment, and non-participants on the 16 PF. Although all of the sports participation samples were involved in intercollegiate competition, the number of truly highly skilled performers was low. The individual and subjectively judged participants were most alike and more similar to the non-participants than the other groups. The team and team-individual participants tended to be alike. Since multiple t tests of dependent data were used as the primary analysis of specific factor differences, the differences found in the study are not reported in this review. In another study, Malumphy (40) administered the 16 PF to women participating in regional and national collegiate tournaments in tennis, aquatic arts, and golf. The subjects were volunteers and many levels of skill were actually represented. Overall, there were more similarities than differences between groups when compared to the norm. The aquatic artists were more expedient than the regional tennis players and national golfers and more self sufficient, self assured, and shy than national golf ers. The regional tennis players were more conscientious than aquatic artists and the norm and more emotionally stable than the norm. The national golfers were more venturesome than aquatic artists and national tennis play ers ; more apprehensive, controlled and group-dependent than aquatic artists; and more assertive and toughminded than the norm. The national tennis players were more shy than national golfers; more controlled than aquatic artists; and more intelligent and toughminded than the norm. Peterson et al. (52) studied 156 AAU and U.S. Olympic women on the 16 PF. The comparison of individual sports participants and team sports participants showed the individual sports participants to be more dominant, venture some, self sufficient, experimental, and introverted; the team sports participants to be more toughminded and shrewd. Neal (42) measured the personality traits of selected U.S. women in the 1959 Pan American Games on the EPPS. The athletes had greater needs for achievement, autonomy, affiliation, and nurturance than the norm. Kane and Callaghan (31), in their study of top class women tennis players using the 16 PF, found there were significant differences between national and international players. Greater emotional stability, self confidence, and low frustration were much more characteristic of the world class players. Kane (27) found British Olympic women to be similar, independent of the sport in which they partici pated. They were more outgoing, emotionally stable, happy- go-lucky, expedient, extroverted, and anxious than the norm on the 16 PF. A positive correlation of .82 was found between British Olympic women and women physical education major students and a positive correlation of .87 was found between Olympic swimmers and track and field participants on the 16 PF. Kane concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support a "feminine athletic type" but no evidence to support a negative contribution to personality by athletic competition. There were numerous similarities of personality structure when outstanding female competitors were compared with championship males. Ogilvie (47) studied selected college women varsity swimmers on the 16 PF and found them to be more reserved, toughminded, emotionally stable, assertive, and self controlled than the norm. These results had a close correlation with findings on Olympic male swimmers. There was . . . a remarkable overlap of personality structure except for those traits which are rewarded differ ently for each sex by the culture . . . the same traits which have predictable sex differences in terms of reinforcement. . . . A degree of profile similarity for both samples that would lead one to conclude that there is one basic competitive swimmer personality rather than one for males and one for females. (48:3, 5) 25 In general, the women were more reserved, toughminded, emotionally stable, conscientious, and venturesome. It seems reasonable, therefore, that parental and educational emphasis be placed upon the follow ing traits if our concern is with the development of physical excellence; emotional stability, toughmindedness, conscientiousness, controlled self discipline, self assurance, relaxed low ten sion level, trusting free of jealousy, and for males, increased outgoing personality. (46:12) CHAPTER III PROCEDURE In a cross-sectional study, sampling procedures are very important. It is most desirable to randomly select samples from a total population. In this study, the total population was identifiable and the samples randomly selected from the total population. Identification of the Population The total population of girls and women engaged in competitive lacrosse was identified with the aid of the United States Women's Lacrosse Association and its officers. A list of all allied schools and colleges was obtained from the President of the U.S.W.L.A. It is known that very few schools and colleges conducting competitive programs are not registered with the Association. Women's lacrosse is unique in that it is conducted solely within educational institu tions at the junior and senior high school levels, except for occasional camp programs. Higher-level competition is conducted by college and adult groups under the jurisdiction of the U.S.W.L.A. 26 27 Letters were sent to all local association presi dents with a listing of all schools and colleges in their area that were registered with the U.S.W.L.A. These lists were returned to the investigator with any additions of non-registered schools and colleges. Those schools or colleges identified by association presidents as not con ducting competitive programs were deleted from the list. For the purposes of this study, a competitive program was defined as one in which the school or college played a regular schedule of matches and held regularly scheduled practices of a predetermined squad or team. A school or college that participated only in incidental games and/or sportsdays was not considered as having a competitive program. Identification of the Sample A stratified random sample was drawn from the total population of competitive schools and colleges at each of the following levels: junior high school, senior high school, and college. As very few junior high schools were identified as having competitive programs, only one school was randomly drawn from the group. Junior high school age level was defined as subjects attending a junior or senior high school who were less than 15 years 6 months of age. It was expected that there would be a number of junior high school age students represented on senior high school teams 28 drawn for that sample. The number of public and private senior high schools in the competitive population were approximately equal. Three private senior high schools and three public senior high schools were randomly drawn from the two competitive populations. Three colleges were randomly drawn from the college competitive population. The association sample was drawn from the 1969 U.S.W.L.A. Tournament program. Based on U.S.W.L.A. ranking of teams, a random sample of approximately 20 players was drawn from the bottom four teams and approximately 20 were drawn from the top four teams. All members of the 1968 United States team and Reserve team were deleted from the association sample. The national team sample consisted of all 1968 United States and Reserve team members still actively play ing lacrosse at the 1969 national tournament. Breakdown of the Sample Sample Junior High School - East Woods School Subjects under 15 years 6 months in senior high school sample Total 56 21 N 35 Senior High School - Dana Hall Great Neck High School Kimberly School Upper Merion High School Baldwin School Milford Mill High School Total 133 29 Breakdown of the Sample (continued) Sample N College - Pennsylvania State University East Stroudsburg State College Goucher College Total 62 Association - Bottom Four Teams Central Penn, Philadelphia V, Washington, West Jersey Total 24 Top Four Teams Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Philadelphia II Total 12 National - Reserve Team 12 United States Team _9_ Total 21 GRAND TOTAL 308 Test Administration School and College Samples. After the samples were drawn, a tentative master schedule for testing was devised by the investigator based on the geographical location of the schools and colleges. Letters were sent to the person responsible for the lacrosse program in each school and college asking for their cooperation in the study and suggesting two alternate dates for testing. Each school and college was free to select the hour of testing. Every school and college that was initially selected agreed to 30 participate in the study. The appropriate test (HSPQ or 16 PF) was administered by the investigator in each school and college. Standardized testing instructions were read by the investigator at each testing session. Association and National Samples. Subjects in the association and national sample were given the choice of three testing hours during the National tournament. Because of conflicts with the playing schedule, several subjects were given the test individually at other times during the tournament. Standardized procedures were again followed. Analysis of Data The random process of selection of the samples from a total population assured that each sample was representa tive of the level involved so no comparisons within sample groups were necessary. 1. Means and standard deviations of all groups were computed for descriptive purposes, 2. A Z ratio for the differences between means was used to compare each group with its appropriate norm. These tests were appropriate since independent data were involved in each comparison, the means and standard devia tions for the norms appeared in the tables of norms, the norms were considered as population parameters, and the distribution of scores in the norm population on each factor 31 was a normal distribution. This analysis yielded the following information: A. How each sample differed from the norm at that age level on each factor. B. How samples differed from their norms on the same factors. C. How samples differed from their norms on different factors. Omega squared was computed to aid in the interpretation of any significant differences. This procedure gave the percentage of variance due to between groups variation. 3. One-way analysis of variance was computed to determine any differences between the sample groups on each factor. Raw scores were adjusted where the norm means were different at different age levels. This analysis yielded the following information: A. How sample groups differed from each other on each factor. B. How sample groups, which had been shown to have common differences from the norms, differed in intensity on these factors. Multiple comparisons (Scheffe) determined where significant differences were and intraclass correlations (R) were computed to aid in the interpretation of any significant differences. The intraclass correlation gave the percentage of variance due to between groups variation. 4. Descriptive analysis of selected individual profiles. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter has been divided into three sections: (1) the analysis of each sample vs. the appropriate norm, (2) the analysis of inter-sample comparisons, and (3) descriptive analysis of selected individual profiles. A discussion of each analysis directly follows the report of results of the statistical procedures. The Analysis of Each Sample vs. the Appropriate Norm Junior High School Sample (N=56) vs. Junior High School Norm. All junior high school subjects were adminis tered Form A of the 14-factor HSPQ. The results of the Z 2 ratio analyses and omega , with significant Z ratios, are shown in Table 1. The junior high school sample was significantly different from the junior high school norm on four factors. The sample was more intelligent, assertive, happy-go-lucky, and circumspect than the norm. The results of the analyses of the proportion of variance due to between 2 groups variation (omega ) show that only Factor F, happy-go- 33 34 TABLE 1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SAMPLE (N=56) VS. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL NORM Factor Sample Mean Sample SD Norm Mean Norm SD Z Ratio 2 Omega A 11.18 4.13 11.51 3.30 - .73 --- B 8.05 1.11 7.60 1.50 2.27* .07 C 9.00 3.60 8.40 3.20 1.40 --- D 9.80 3.68 9.90 3.30 - .22 --- E 8.63 2.83 7.80 3.00 2.06* .06 F 12.05 3.48 10.00 3.30 4.66** .27 G 12.04 2.67 11.40 2.80 1.70 --- H 9.68 4.76 9.20 3.60 1.00 --- I 13.64 3.58 13.50 2.80 .38 --- J 8.16 2.72 7.20 2.90 2.48* .08 0 11.34 3.36 11.10 3.10 .58 --- q2 8.75 2.38 8.40 2.70 .94 --- q3 11.48 2.96 11.00 3.10 1.16 --- ^4 9.75 3.27 9.50 3.10 .60 --- *P < .05 **P < .01 35 lucky, may be of practical significance. At this age level, persons scoring high on Factor B (intelligence) are characterized by a high general mental capacity. They are insightful, fast learners, and intellec tually adaptable. There is a tendency for the more intelligent child to show better morals, more persistence, and greater school interest. They tend to be popular with peers as a work partner, well adjusted to school, and leaders (6:28). Persons above the mean on Factor E (asser tive) tend to be self assured, headstrong, disobedient, and creative of mind, but the more direct expressions are often controlled and the trait is not always considered desir able. "For example, good sports performance and independ ence and creativity in arts and sciences are associated with dominance" (6:29). High Factor F (happy-go-lucky) children are typically talkative, cheerful, quick, and alert. This factor is one of the most important components in extrover sion. These children have generally had an easier, less punishing, more optimism-creating environment, or have acquired a happy-go-lucky attitude through less exacting aspirations and indulgent, secure family atmosphere (6:30). High Factor J (circumspect) children tend to act individual- istically, be physically and intellectually fastidious, to think over mistakes and how to avoid them, and have fewer friends (6:31). 36 Senior High School Sample (N=133) vs. Senior High School Norm. All senior high school subjects were adminis tered Form A of the 16 PF. The results of the Z ratio 2 analyses and omega , with significant Z ratios, are shown in Table 2. The senior high school sample was significantly different from the senior high school norm on 11 factors. The sample was more reserved, intelligent, assertive, happy- go-lucky, expedient, toughminded, suspicious, forthright, experimenting, undisciplined, and tense than the norm. The results of the analyses of the proportion of variance due to 2 between groups variation (omega ) showed that only Factor B (intelligence), Factor E (assertiveness), and Factor (experimenting) may be of practical significance. Low Factor A (reserved) persons are characterized as being cool, aloof, hard, and precise. The A~person likes working alone, intellectual companionship, and avoidance of compromise (7:11). High Factor B (intelligent) scores indicate individuals who are conscientious, persevering, and cultural (7:11). High Factor E (assertive) appears to be different in women than in men. In women the dominance traits of hypochrondia, social poise, prominence, and attention getting are more highly loaded than in men. Dominance tends to be positively correlated with social status and is higher in established leaders than in follow ers (7:12). Persons scoring high on Factor F (happy-go- lucky) tend to be enthusiastic, frank, expressive, serene, 37 TABLE 2 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL SAMPLE (N=133) VS. SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL NORM Factor Sample Mean Sample SD Norm Mean Norm SD Z Ratio Omega^ A 10.41 3.08 11.91 3.35 -5 .18** .16 B 8.20 1.78 5.92 2.06 12.78** .55 C 14.48 3.04 14.21 3.84 .81 -- E 13.26 4.44 10.87 4.06 6.78** .25 F 18.40 4.00 16.41 4.36 5.26** .17 G 11.59 3.94 12.76 3.40 -3.98** .10 H 13.14 4.72 12.32 5.10 1.84 -- I 10.42 2.90 11.69 2.88 -5.08** .16 L 9.25 3.33 8.40 3.10 3.16** .06 M 12.97 3.46 12.71 3.29 .91 -- N 9.60 2.97 10.49 2.58 -3.97** .10 0 11.27 3.44 11.55 3.90 -.83 -- <*i 10.14 2.91 8.73 2.82 5.78** .20 q2 9.61 3.27 9.69 3.39 -.28 -- Q3 9.44 2.90 10.62 2.98 -4.58** .13 ^4 15.29 4.35 13.81 5.05 3.39** .07 *P < .05 **P < .01 and cheerful. F+ is one of the most important components in extroversion (7:13). Low Factor G (expedient) persons tend to be casual, impatient, frivolous, and demanding. This factor best depicts the level of regard for moral standards (7:13). Low Factor I (toughminded) persons represent a tough, masculine, practical, mature, realistic, no nonsense personality. "I- individuals have a history of fewer illnesses and operations, more aggressiveness, and signifi cantly greater participation in athletics and sports" (7:15). High Factor L (suspicious) persons tend to be jealous, self sufficient, withdrawn, and hard. They are contemptuous of the average, annoyed by people putting on superior airs, and skeptical of alleged idealistic motives in others. The L+ person shows a high inner tension and feeling of social insecurity (7:16). Low Factor N (forth right) persons are described as unpretentious, socially clumsy, and natural. The N- person tends to tolerate people and their failings and shows natural warmth and liking toward others (7:17). The high (experimenting) persons are well informed, inclined to experiment with problem solutions, and not inclined to moralize. They express interest in science and analytical thought (7:18). Low (undisciplined) persons tend not to show socially approved character responses, self control, persistence, and con scientiousness. They have not developed a clear, consist ent, admired pattern of socially approved behavior to which 39 they strive to conform (7:19). High Factor (tense) persons tend to be irrationally worried, irritable, and anxious. This factor is one of the main components of anxiety (7:19). College Sample (N=62) vs. College Norm. All college subjects were administered Form A of the 16 PF. The results 2 of the Z ratio analyses and omega , with significant Z ratios, are shown in Table 3. The college sample was significantly different from the college norm on eight factors. The sample was more intelligent, assertive, happy- go-lucky, expedient, toughminded, suspicious, forthright, and experimenting than the norm. The results of the analyses of the proportion of variance due to between groups 2 variation (omega ) showed that only Factor B (intelligence), Factor E (assertiveness), Factor F (happy-go-lucky), and Factor N (forthrightness) may be of practical significance. This sample was not different from its norm on any factors not already described in preceding analyses. Association Bottom Four Team Sample (N=24) vs. General Population Norm. All subjects were administered Form A of the 16 PF. The results of the Z ratio analyses 2 and omega , with significant Z ratios, are shown in Table 4. The Association Bottom Four Team Sample was significantly different from the general population norm on nine factors. The sample was more reserved, intelligent, assertive, 40 TABLE 3 COLLEGE SAMPLE (N=62) VS. COLLEGE NORM Factor Sample Mean Sample SD Norm Mean Norm SD Z Rat io Omega^ A 11.00 3.69 11.76 3.56 -1.68 --- B 8.92 1.78 7.72 1.80 5.25** .30 C 15.63 3.59 14.77 3.94 1.66 --- E 13.42 4.30 10.69 3.90 5.51** .32 F 17.85 5.07 15.36 4.43 4.43** .23 G 11.53 4.13 12.88 3.45 -3.03** .12 H 12.71 5.52 12.31 5 .12 .61 --- I 10.44 2.78 11.76 2.99 -3.49** .15 L 8.68 3.43 7.59 3.07 2.79** .10 M 13.21 2.99 12.46 3.46 1.71 --- N 8.85 2.24 10.43 2.76 -4.49** .24 0 10.00 3.29 10.61 3.77 -1.27 --- Qi 9.97 3.27 8.64 2.86 3.66** .17 Q2 9.66 4.02 9.69 3.48 -.07 --- q3 9.95 3.02 10.63 2.95 -1.81 --- ^4 12.95 4.48 12.80 4.91 .24 --- *P < .05 **P < .01 41 TABLE 4 ASSOCIATION BOTTOM FOUR TEAM SAMPLE (N=24) VS. GENERAL POPULATION NORM Factor Sample Mean Sample SD Norm Mean Norm SD Z Ratio 2 Omega A 9.29 4.36 11.88 3.27 -3.88** .37 B 9.00 1.55 5.92 2.06 7.32** .69 C 16.00 3.72 16.03 4.17 -.04 --- E 11.83 3.94 9.90 4.13 2.29* .15 F 15.58 4.85 13.35 4.33 2.53* .18 G 14.33 2.84 13.64 3.27 1.04 -- H 12.42 4.87 12.31 5.03 .10 --- I 10.33 2.59 11.84 2.89 -2.55* .19 L 7.88 3.43 7.41 3.07 .74 --- M 11.21 3.52 12.74 3.29 -2.28* .14 N 10.33 2.49 10.64 2.55 -.59 — 0 8.92 4.10 10.70 3.84 -2.28* .14 Q1 10.58 2.61 8.77 2.76 3.22** .28 q2 8.50 2.86 10.02 3.42 -2.18* .13 10.88 2.55 11.52 2.95 -1.07 --- ^4 11.00 4.60 12.92 4.96 -1.90 --- *P < .05 **P < .01 42 happy-go-lucky, toughminded, practical, self assured, experimenting, and group dependent than the norm. The results of the analyses of the proportion of variance due 2 to between groups variation (omega ) showed that only Factor A (reserved), Factor B (intelligence), and Factor (experimenting) may be of practical significance. This sample showed differences from its norm on three factors that have not been previously described. Low Factor M (practical) persons are characterized as conven tional, alert to practical needs, not spontaneous, sound, earnest, and steady. M- persons are interested in activi ties requiring mechanical sense, realism, and alertness (7:16). Low Factor 0 (self assured) scores indicate a self confident, cheerful, tough, vigorous personality. High Factor 0 is a primary component of anxiety. Low scores are typical of professional athletes (7:17). Low Q 2 (group dependent) persons tend to go with the group, value social approval, and are conventional. Low Q 2 scores are related to extroversion (7:18). Association Top Four Team Sample (N=12) vs. General Population Norm. All subjects were administered Form A of 2 the 16 PF. The results of the Z ratio analyses and omega , with significant Z ratios, are shown in Table 5. The Association Top Four Team sample was significantly -different from the general population norm on three factors. The 43 TABLE 5 ASSOCIATION TOP FOUR TEAM SAMPLE (N=12) VS. GENERAL POPULATION NORM Factor Sample Mean Sample SD Norm Mean Norm SD Z Ratio Omega^ A 8.67 2.46 11.88 3.27 -3.40** .47 B 8.92 1.66 5.92 2.06 5.04** .67 C 15.67 3.37 16.03 4.17 -.30 --- E 11.50 5.24 9.90 4.13 1.34 --- F 14.67 5.65 13.35 4.33 1.05 --- G 10.58 4.17 13.64 3.27 -3.24** .44 H 11.75 5.08 12.31 5.03 -.39 --- I 10.75 3.44 11.84 2.89 -1.31 --- L 8.42 2.43 7.41 3.07 1.14 --- M 14.08 3.64 12.74 3.29 1.41 --- N 9.58 2.36 10.64 2.55 -1.44 --- 0 10.50 3.01 10.70 3.84 -.18 --- Qi 9.75 2.38 8.77 2.76 1.23 --- q2 10.17 2.51 10.02 3.42 .15 --- 10.33 2.72 11.52 2.95 -1.39 --- ^4 12.08 2.96 12.92 4.96 -.58 --- *P < .05 **P < .01 44 sample was more reserved, intelligent, and expedient than the norm. The results of the analyses of the proportion of 2 variance due to between groups variation (omega ) showed that all three factors may be of practical significance. This sample was not different from its norm on any factors not already described in preceding analyses. National Team Sample (N=21) vs. General Population Norm. All subjects were administered Form A of the 16 PF. 2 The results of the Z ratio analyses and omega , with significant Z ratios, are shown in Table 6. The National team sample was significantly different from the general population norm on six factors. The sample was more reserved, intelligent, happy-go-lucky, shy, toughminded, and experimenting than the norm. The results of the analyses of the proportion of variance due to between groups variation showed that Factor B (intelligence) and Factor I (toughmindedness) may be of practical significance. This sample showed a difference from their norm on one factor that has not been previously described. Low Factor H (shy) persons tend to be withdrawn, aloof, self contained, conscientious, and careful. They tend to retire in the face of the opposite sex and are generally inhibited (7:14). 45 TABLE 6 NATIONAL TEAM SAMPLE (N=21) VS. GENERAL POPULATION NORM Factor Sample Mean Sample SD Norm Mean l i Norm SD Z Ratio 2 Omega A 10.14 2.96 11.88 3.27 -2.43* .19 B 9.19 1.47 5.92 2.06 7.28** .71 C 17.19 3.45 16.03 4.17 1.28 --- E 11.48 4.33 9.90 4.13 1.75 --- F 15.52 5.24 13.35 4.33 2.30* .17 G 13.33 3.73 13.64 3.27 -.43 --- H 10.10 5.60 12.31 5.03 -2.02* .13 I 9.43 3.79 11.84 2.89 -3.82** .39 L 8.24 2.83 7.41 3.07 1.24 --- M 12.67 3.44 12.74 3.29 -.10 --- N 10.62 1.73 10.64 2.55 -.04 --- 0 10.29 4.04 10.70 3.84 -.49 --- Q1 10.05 2.42 8.77 2.76 2.12* .14 q2 9.90 2.64 10.02 3.42 -.15 — q3 12.43 2.63 11.52 2.95 1.41 — ^4 11.52 5.03 12.92 4.96 -1.29 — *P < .05 **P < .01 46 Summary of All Sample Differences from Norms. Table 7 shows a summary of the significant differences of all samples from their norms on all factors. While there was not complete agreement among the samples, there were many similarities. In each case, the direction of the deviation was the same, regardless of the number of samples having the common factor deviation. This analysis could not determine if there were different intensities of sample differences on common factors. This was explored in analysis II. An exploration of the notion that the number of significant differences from the norm would increase as a function of age and experience yielded a mixed pattern. The junior high school sample differed from its norm on four factors, the senior high school sample on 11 factors, the college sample on eight factors, the association bottom team sample on nine factors, the association top team sample on three factors, and the national team sample on six factors. It would seem likely that only self selection by persons into the activity was operating at the junior high school level, or that the activity itself would have had little time to exert its effect on personality. A high level of skill is rarely expected or necessary at this level and it would not be expected that many persons would have been selected out of the activity on the basis of level of achievement. This would indicate that the junior 47 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF ALL SIGNIFICANT SAMPLE DIFFERENCES FROM THEIR NORMS Assoc. Assoc. Nat. Fac- JHS SHS Col. Bottom Top Team tor Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Total A - - - 4 B + + + + + + 6 C 0 D (Junior High School Only) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0 E + + + + 4 F + + + + + 5 G - - - 3 H - 1 I - - - - 4 J + (Junior High School Only) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1 L xxxxx + + 2 M xxxxx - 1 N xxxxx - - 2 0 - 1 Qi xxxxx + + + + 4 ^2 - 1 Q3 - 1 ^4 + 1 Total 4 11 8 9 3 6 high school sample would not be expected to differ greatly from its norm. The jump to 11 factors for the senior high school sample may represent the beginning of activity achievement selection as well as increased self selection into the activity or that the activity itself has had sufficient time to exert its influence. The large number and type of deviations from the norm are greater than would be expected at this level due to activity and self selec tion. It is possible that this age level may have been most receptive to and reflect social and attitudinal change of the past few years that are not reflected in norms estab lished in 1962. However, further research would be neces sary to validate this possibility. The college sample differed from its norm on less factors than the senior high school sample. This broke any continuing upward pattern of number of sample deviations. If it is accepted that the senior high school norms may not reflect the norms of today then it would be reasonable to expect the same of the college norms. This may tend to substantiate the lack of a continuing upward trend. The Association samples and National team sample did not show an increasing trend of number of deviations. The Association Bottom Four Team sample was the most deviant of the adult samples and the Association Top Four Team sample was the least deviant of all samples. The Association Bottom Four Team sample was comprised of adult subjects who are well aware of their 49 lower caliber of play and play more for their own enjoyment than for recognition. The Association Top Four Team sample represents the "almosts but not quites" as far as selection to the National teams is concerned. Perhaps their lack of differences from the norm reflects why they have not been selected to the National level. Four of the samples out of six were more reserved than their norms. This is a trait that seems to character ize women athletes. The remaining two groups were below the mean on Factor A, but not significantly so. All six samples were shown to be more intelligent than their norms. While Factor B is not as representative of intelligence as a true intelligence test, it is indicative of a capacity for abstract thought. It should be noted that the general population norm for this factor was far lower than the college norm but the three adult sample means compare very favorably with that of the college sample mean. A very large majority of the subjects in the three adult samples were college graduates. Four of the samples out of six were more assertive than their norms. The remaining two groups were above their norm mean on Factor E but not significantly so. Five of the samples out of six were more happy-go-lucky than their norms. The remaining group was above the mean on Factor F, but not significantly so. This trait was prevalent in other studies of women athletes. Three of the samples out of six were more expedient than their norms. The remaining three groups were not consistent in their nonsignificant deviations. It is interesting that this factor reflects conscience development and that the senior high school, college, and association top team samples were found somewhat lacking in this development. Four samples out of six were significantly more toughminded than their norms. Of the remaining two groups, the junior high school sample was more tenderminded and the association top team sample was more toughminded, neither being signif icant. Toughmindedness may not be necessary for athletic success at the junior high school level but it may be a prime factor in the difference between national level achievement and a lower level of achievement. Toughminded ness has been shown to be characteristic of both male and female successful athletes. Four samples out of five were more experimenting than their norms. The remaining sample was higher than the mean on Factor but not significantly so. The nonsignificant sample was the association top team sample. This would seem to be another factor contributing to their difficulty in reaching national ranking. Overall, the women lacrosse players were character ized as more reserved, intelligent, assertive, happy-go- lucky, toughminded, and experimenting than their norms. This generalization held over most age and experience levels. The exceptions were the junior high school sample and the association top four team sample. The former would 51 not necessarily be expected to be reserved and toughminded ness at their age level and the latter represents those who are not selected to the national level because of skill level, team play, or intangibles such as competitive drive. Comparison of National Team Sample with Comparable Highly Skilled Women Athletes in Previous Studies Using the 16 PF. This comparison was attempted because the national team sample was the only sample in the study that had a known skill level. All of the other samples represented cross sections of skill levels. The United States and Reserve teams have demonstrated international class ability in matches with England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and combined British teams. This comparison is very limited as few studies have investigated women athletes of known national and/or inter national ability. It is further limited in that some of the studies on highly skilled women athletes did not com pare their sample with established norms but against some other sample of women athletes. In one study (27), British Olympic women were more outgoing, emotionally stable, happy-go-lucky, and expedient than the norm. In another study (47), college varsity swimmers of high caliber were more reserved, toughminded, emotionally stable, assertive, and self controlled than the norm. Although there were similarities, it would be presumptive to draw any conclusions from these few studies 52 as to a personality type of highly skilled women athletes. Some patterns seem to be emerging, but further study is necessary before any definitive statements can be made. The Analysis of Inter Sample Comparisons The results of one-way analysis of variance with adjusted scores, intraclass correlations (R), and Scheffe comparisons are shown in Tables 8 and 9. Table 8 includes the 12 factors that could be compared across all six samples. Table 9 includes the four factors that could only be compared across five samples. In general, the sample groups were more similar than different after raw scores were adjusted to correct for age differences. Only Factor B (intelligence) was not corrected for the three adult samples. This was because the very large majority of subjects in these samples were college graduates. The samples were significantly different on six factors: intelligence, conscientiousness, self assuredness, control, tenseness, and forthrightness. Only one of these factors was one of the common factors for competitive women lacrosse players. Except for Factor B (intelligence) the proportion of variance due to between groups variation was negligible. It was not surprising, therefore, that no Scheffe comparisons were significant since the differences between the means were hardly different from zero. Table 10 shows the adjusted means for the significant factors. 53 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON 12 BETWEEN SIX FACTORS SAMPLE GROUPS Factor F Ratio R Scheffe Comparisons A 1.93 --- --- B 15.23** .30 NS C .62 --- --- E 1.55 --- --- F .27 --- --- G 3.02* .04 NS H 1.33 --- --- I 1.60 --- --- 0 4.66** .08 NS q2 1.89 --- --- 5.00** .09 NS Q4 4.00** .06 NS *P < .05 **P < .01 NS = None Significant 54 TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN FIVE SAMPLE GROUPS ON FOUR FACTORS Factor F Ratio R Scheffe Comparisons L .31 --- --- M 2.02 --- --- N 2.41* .03 NS .26 --- --- *P < .05 NS = None Significant TABLE 10 ADJUSTED MEANS OF SIGNIFICANT FACTORS Factor JHS Sample SHS Sample College Sample Assoc. Bottom Sample Assoc. Top Sample National Team Sample B 8.05 10.20 8.92 9.00 8.92 9.19 G 14.04 12.59 12.53 14.33 10.58 13.33 N --- 9.60 8.85 10.33 9.58 10.62 0 12.34 11.27 10.00 8.92 10.50 10.29 Q3 12.48 10.44 10.94 10.88 10.33 12.43 ^4 12.75 14.29 12.95 11.00 12.08 11.52 Note: A comparison between the highest and lowest mean on each factor was not significant. 55 No patterns are established and the samples appear to be very similar. Rather than seeing an increase of deviations or differences on factors as might be expected if the sports participation had a real effect on the participants, the samples in this study seem quite similar regardless of age or experience level. This suggests that self selection into sports competition on the basis of existing personality factors may be the prime reason for the personality struc ture of competitors and not the effect of the experience of sports competition. Descriptive Analysis of Selected Individual Profiles The purpose of this descriptive analysis of selected individual profiles was to establish a case for the individ ual, particularly the ones who did not fit the generaliza tion. The two previous analyses dealt with the means of samples and the means of norms. While a mean represents the central tendency of a group, it says nothing about the range of scores or the extremes of scores. A study of only the means of samples is misleading in that it often leads to the assumption that all individuals in a sample or popu lation are truly represented by the means. Figures 1 through 17 show individual profiles from different samples that are examples of how different individuals can be from their own sample and their norm. 56 FIGURE 1 PROFILE OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 03 IOW SCORE DESCRIPTION R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L . A t. O O F , S T IF F (SU oihym lrj) O U L L . C O N C R E T E .T H IN K IN G (Lnw«*f in ln ll lijor>c«) A F F E C T E D BY F E E L IN G S , EM OTIO NAL.” L Y LES S S T A B L E , E A S IL Y U P 5 E T . C H A N G E A B L E ( L ow**' **fJo *tr»nqth) U N D E M O N S T R A T IV E , D E L IB E R A T E , IN A C T IV E , STO D G Y (Phl»QfTujtlc O B E D IE N T . M IL D , E A S IL Y L E D , D O C IL E . A C C O M M O D A TIN G (SulM nKM vwnwn) SO BER, T A C IT U R N , SERIO U S ( 0 ' . . j r ^ « r v > D ISR EG A R D S R U L E S , E X P E D IE N T S H r, T IM ID . T H P E A T .S E N S IT IV E (n .r.-c M n ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , R E J E C T S IL L U S IO N S (M n rrlo) Z E S T F U L , L IK E S G R O U P A C TIO N (Z«ppin) S E L F-A S S U R E D , C O M P L A C E N T , S E C U R E , P L A C ID . S E R E N E _________________________ {Untro»il»l«»ii y) SO C IA B LY G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T , A '•J O IN E R " A N D SO UN D FO L L O W E R (Gfrcup d>-j>fodi»n<;y) U N C O N T R O L L E D , L A X . FO LLO W S OWN UR G ES, C A R E L E S S OF SO C IA L R U LE S (L o w *«»|Ks«-ntlmf.nl IntoqfoMnn) R E L A X E D , 1 R A N O U U ., T O R P ID . U N F R U S T R A T E D , C O M PO SED ( l . O W r r q i r S TAN D AR D T IN SC O R t (S T IN ) •*+ A*»r»g«4— 3 4 5 6 7 A s te n o f 1 3 b y a b o u t 2.3% 4.4% 3 4 5 * 7 4 t.3 % 15.0% 1 *.t% l» .l% 15.0% f.2 % HIGH SCORE DESCRIPTION W A R M H E A R T E D . O U T G O IN G , EA S Y . G O ING . P A P J M U P A U N O (AH i>r*o*h*m i'j, Inrrno-I > ' yr lqt|iyrn| a) B R IG H T , A B S TP A C T .tH lN K IN G it .lp |lia..n r„) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , M A T U R E . FA C E S R I'A I. I T Y, C At M ( H . q b w t , . - ; o - E X C IT A B L E . IM P A T IE N T , D E M A N D IN G , O V E R A C H V r . U N R E S T R A IN E D T E . c H y b i l H y J A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , C O M P E T IT IV E . S TU B B O R N <{>. E N T H U S IA S T IC , H C E D L FS S . M A P P V -G O -L U O V C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S IS T E N T , m o r a l i s t i c . S T A iD A D V E N T U R O U S , " T H IC K -S K IN N E D .” o c m l l y b o l d T E N D E R -M IN D E D . S E N S IT IV E , C llG G 'N G . O V E R -P R O T F C T E D C IR C U M S P E C T IN D IV ID U A L IS M , R E F L E C T IV E . IN T E R N A L L Y R E S T R A IN E D ( C o r lh r n ln ) A P P R E H E N S IV E . S C L F -R E P R O A C H IN G . IN S E C U R E . W O R R Y IN G . T R O U B L CD S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T . P R E F E R S O w n d e c i s i o n s , R r s u u R c r r u t . C - i ‘ .> ) C O N T R O L L E D , E Y AC T IN G W ILL PO W ER , S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E . C O M P U L S IV E , (Mtfj1 ' -.tfpngtli nl ,nlf.r.i'nM fr#>nt) T E N S E . r R 'jS T R A T f D D R IV E N . O V E R W R O U G H T , F R E T F U L >0 is o b ta in e d 3.3% o f T e e n a g e rs KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 57 FIGURE 2 PROFILE OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 04 S T A N O A R O T I N S C O K t ( S U N ) lo w SCORE DESCRIPTION 1 2 3 A t«r»g« 1 3 6 7 a 9 10 H IG H SCORE DESCRIPTION R E S E R V E D , D E TACHED, C R IT IC A L . "♦ " T " t 1 . 1 \ A • t t t f w a r m h e a r t e d , o j ’ g o in g , e a s y - (S* jothy mlo] A l l - - . - . . * , - . , 1 . , C,i lo ‘l.yt.,,0) D U L L , C O N C R E T E .T H IN K IN G ; JK • B R IG H T , A hS T VA C T* 1H IN K IN G " I '! 1 " .' AFFE C TE D BY FEELINGS, E M O T IO N A L L Y LESS S T A B L E . E A S IL Y U P S E T . C H A N G E A B L E ( L o * « f <*oo s*"jn,,.h) I r 'c f • E M O T IO N A L L Y s t a b l e , M A T U R E , f a c e s • 5 . AL ' : - . C A LM UNDEMONSTRATIVE. D E L IB E R A T E, IN A C T IV E , STOD GY i • D \ • • E X C IT A B L E , IM P A T IE N T , D E M A N D IN G . O v L P A C T i.'C . U N R E S T R A IN E D O B E D IE N T , M IL D , E A S IL Y L E D . D O C IL E , A C C O M M O D A TIN G (S 'il.'til-,i v>*n».4«) I •eV \ • • A S S E R T IV E . A G g P L S S IV E . : . c v f r i v i . s t u b b o r n SO B E R . T A C IT U R N , SE RIO U S ID -M i.-l-n r.,) > • E N T H U S IA S T IC . m F E D l ESS. , A P i ' i . l ; ; . L ; ; C '. v D ISR EG A R D S R U LE S , E X P E D IE N T (W»»ol»**f SVIH'H'iJO -.tf*tu)th| •G < • C O N S C IE N T IO U S . P E R S IS T F N T , SH Y ,T IM ID . THRF.A T-SENSI tIV E ( U .r'T lln l • • A D V E N T U R O U S . " T H iC K -S K IN N C D ," . :.;-C IA l . Y d G L D TO U G H M IN D E D , P E JEC T S IL l U SIO NS (H a m a ) • [ y • T E N D E R -M IN D E D . C tN M T lV E , • C v iN G N .% . ') V tR .P R Q T E C • ED Z E S T F U L , L IK E S Q P O U P A C T IO N < 0 • • C IR C U M S P E C T IN D IV ID U A L IS M . PC - , h ; . ’ r , v r . . - n t e p n a l l v r e s t r a i n e d (C r| ■ J -*1 MOltj) S E L F.A S S U R E D . C O M P L A C E N T . S E C U R E , P L A C ID , S E R E N E ............ . .T .W .O '-W < Q . - • • A P P R E H E N S IV E . ;,GL F - R f PPDACMJNC-, • I'. v r C u " ! : . A U R R Y iljC ,, T R O U B L E D S O C IA B LY G R O U P D E P E N D E N T , A " J O IN E R " AMO SO UND F O L L O W E R (CfO'jp d.'fi^'tdfwicy) • • S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T , P R f F * Pf. Ov.N D iC O - L M .. RL ' 1 V f .'r F . i' J i U N C O N T R O L L E D , L A X , FO LLO W S OWN U R G ES, C A R E L E S S OF S O C IA L R U LE S {Low ^ n ll-'.o n ll^ c p t Ihl«-(|f0t*o'>| • C O N T R O L L E D , h x A C M N G VULL P O A fR , • : c . u a l l y p r e c i s e . c o m p u ls iv e . ..........;t*> ol i-lL R E L A X E D . T P A N ijlM l. T O R P ID . U N F R U S T R A T tD , C O M PO S ED (1 ..... . -i J - iJ - i * r ♦ i J T E N S E . ‘ ‘ ? D ; i-'iVF.N. .'-V; ‘- 'A r o u g h : f r c i f u l + . . . . . . . . . . A s ftn o f 1 2 3 4 9 4 7 I ♦ 10 / j o b t a i n e d b y a b o u t 2 .3 % 4 .4 % 9.2% is .o % 19.1% 19.1% is .o % 9.2% 4.4% 2.3% o f t e e n o g e t s KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 58 FIGURE 3 PROFILE OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 15 t o w SCOW DCSCKIPNON R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L , A L O O r, S T IF F D U L L , C O N C P F T E -T H IN K IN G ( L O W - a f f I c t e d b y f e e l i n g s , e m o t i o n a l ” L Y LES S S T A B L E . E A S IL Y U P S E T . C H A N G E A B L E (L o * - > -go U N D E M O N S T R A T IV E . D E L lH h R A IE . IN A C T IV E , STO D G Y (P hliuim otic in -ip -fo -U 'n f) O B E D IE N T , W IL D , E A S IL Y L E D . D O C IL E , A C C O M M O D A TIN G ___________ ( S „ L ' T < i s M v P n . . ^ . ) SO BER. T A C IT U R N . SE RIO U S f [ W , D ISR EG A R D S R U L E S , E X P E D IE N T v .i|n *r-i,0 S H Y , T IM ID , T H R L A T -S E N S IT IV E ( l E f - . i l . , ) TO U G H -M IN D E D , RE JEC T S IL L U S IO N S (H«»ff lo) Z E S T F U L . L IK E S G R O U P A C T IO N (Z-i>plo) S E L F-A S S U R E D . C O M P L A C E N T . S E C U R E , P L A C ID , SE RE N E _________________________ ( U - ,.t- b l - | . , - l - . i . . ^ , ) S O C IA B L Y C R O U P -D E P E N D E N T . A “ J O IN E R ” AfJD SO UND F O L L O W E R (G»fmp <l.'p— il— i*c y) U N C O N T R O L L E D , L A X . FO LLO W S OWN U R G ES. C A R E L E S S OF SO CIAL R U LE S ( t . '.n |l.'. - n | ( n i« > n t int.-.jr.jtlon) R E L A X E D , JR A N O U H .. In A P ID . U N I R U S TR A T E D . C O M PO S ED STANDARO T IN SCORE (S T |N ) 4 9 4 7 0 JL-i HIOH SCORE DESCRIPTION W A R M H E A R T E D . O U T G O IN G , EA S Y . G O ING , 11A I iC lP A T INC. I A ll,.' it- I, t y< »ri1 O } B R IG H T , A B S fP A C 1 -7 M IN K IMG in u .it, E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , V A f U R E . FA C E S E X C IT A B L E . IM P A T IE N T . D E M A N D IN G , 0 V i. PA G ’ i v r UN S . C ST P A IN E D A S S E R T IV E . A G G R E S S IV E . OOVPL t : ' IVF., STijPL’ GRN E N T H U S IA S T IC , ME [• D LFSS. C O N S C IE N T IO U S . f ’ FRSlST F.N T, V - P .V .I.'.T lC , S T A ID A D V E N T U R O U S , ” I m C < - S K IN N E D ,” SGC!A:, L.Y riO LD T E N D E R -M IN D E D , N'..i 1 iV f., C. i r . , o V l R-PROT LC TE D C IR C U M S P E C T IN D IV ID U A L IS M , RE- I- i. L C ' l V E IN T I -.N A L L *' R E S T R A IN E D ( r n . ) V N . r „ o ) ____________ A P P R E H E N S IV E . " C L F -R E P R O A C h IN G , P .S L C U k F. A O R R Y if.G , T RQ ij P i .E D S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T . C O N T R O L L E D , F • A TJTJG VUI.L PO AL'R , S O C IA i.I.Y P R f'C lS F C D V 'U t.S IV F .. A S fc n o f 1 3 3 4 9 4 7 S 9 b y a b o u t 3.3% 4.4% 9.3% 15.0% 19.1% 19.1% 15.0% 9.3% 4.4»,J T E N S E , '‘ V j M v a : I :> i>H-KT N gvlrarui' C - ht. FwriruL is o b ta in e d > of fcenogprj KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 59 FIGURE 4 PROFILE OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 18 l o w SCOXI DESCRIPTION 1 3 S T A N D A R D T E N S C O R E (S T E M ) 3 4 5 4 7 1 9 10 H IG H SCORE DESCRIPTION R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L . AlOOr, S T IF F (SlroiK ym io] " t ! t t t . t t * — T t f W A R M H E A R T E D . O U T G O IN G , E A S Y . ♦ G O IN G . P A P ’ ir i P .\T IN G •• ,C lo ’ Hy ft It)} D U L L , C O N C R E T E -T H IN K IN G ln»p||l<|»»nc*) • • 1 3 s ) B R IG H T , A 'iS T R A C T -T h IN K IN G ( H , . n , o i l , , A P F E C T E O BY F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L - L Y LESS S T A B L E . E A S IL Y U P S E T . C H A N G E A B L E ( L o * r r *9 0 M r.n g tl.) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E . M A T U R E . FA C E S U N D E M O N S T R A T IV E , O E L fB E R A T E . IN A C T IV E , STOD GY fPhJpgmntic • ~ _ _ 1 • D E X C IT A B L E , IM P A T IE N T , D E M A N D IN G , O V E R A C I iV f", U N R E S T R A IN E D ( E - c lto tA l.u ) O B E D IE N T , M IL D . E A S IL Y L E D , D O C IL E , A C C O M M O D A TIN G (S u b m l'.-.tvrn p ^ ; • • A S S E R T IV E , AGGRESSl V E . :O M P i: 7 1 T IV E . S TU B B O R N S O B E R , T A C IT U R N , SE RIO U S ( 0 '-M>rrjc»<V . • F • > / G ^ E N T H U S IA S T IC , H E E D L E S S , • H A P P Y -i',C -L U C K Y r. .......... . D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S , E X P E D IE N T (WooL«r Mrpf-mtjo '.tfencjtb] • C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S IS T E N T , M CRAi_ 1S7 1C, S T A ID S H Y ,T IM ID , T H R E A T -S C N S IT IV E (T *.f..n |.i) _ . . . H | . A D V E N T U R O U S , " T M IC K .S K IN N E D ," • S O C IA L L Y B O LD T O U G H -M IN D E D , R E J E C T S IL L U S IO N S (M otrin) • T E N D E R -M IN D E D , S fN S lT lV E , C L IN G IN G . O V fc R -P R O T E C T E D Z E S T F U L , L IK E S G R O U P A C TIO N (Zt'ppio) • • • • • C IR C U M S P E C T IN D IV ID U A L IS M , RE- ' i # F L r C T IV E , IN T E R N A L L Y R E S T R A IN E D (C c'i-,il'e'\io ) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O M P L A C E N T . S E C U R E . P L A C IO , S E R E N E (U ” t ,o .,M M o r i- ju o r ,) • • K 0 • • • ■ A P P R E H E N S IV E . S E L F -R L P R O A C H IN G . IN S c C u R C . A O R R y i n G. T R O U B L E D ---------- - S O C IA B L Y G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T , A " J O IN E R ” A N D SO UN D F O L L O W E R (G f v i p d c p rrr)f> n cy} • S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T . P R E F E R S 0 AN D 1 ’ C P'tC NS . K E S D jK C r r u . ( ' - ' I . .................. .) U N C O N T R O L L E D , L A X , FO LLO W S OWN U R G E S , C A R E L E S S O f SO C IA L R U LE S ( L o * -.f-ll-'.i-ntlm rnt Int'vjrotlon] • ■ ■ \ Q , • • C O N T R O L L E D , E < AC T IN G W ILL PO W ER , S O C IA L L Y P R L C ir.E , C O M P U L S IV E , (M.r-t. ol »-|l.-.Mr»tifT...ni) R E L A X E D . T R A N O U IL . TORPIC). U N F R U S T R A T E D , C O M PO S ED (l.'.-w -r .,,, J — L ■ • - c v > - • i f . . O i J T E N S E , > R U S T R A T H '. D R IV E N . O V t R A K fju G H T , F R E T F U L - 4 ......................................... . . A s ten o f I 3 J 4 3 * 7 • ? 10 / j o b ta in e d by a b o u t 3 4 % 4.4% 9.3% 15.0% 19.1% 19.1% 15.0% 9.3% 4.4% 3 4 % o f teenagers KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 60 FIGURE 5 PROFILE OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 19 lo w SCORE DESCRIPTION R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L . A L O O F . S T IF F O U L L , C O N C R E T E -T H IN K IN G (Lo*<*r A F F E C T E D BY F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L - L Y LES S S T A B L E . E A S IL Y U P S E T , C H A N G E A B L E (Low nr «»go ji» *n tjlh ) U H D E M O M S T R A T IV E .D E L IB E R A T C . IN A C T IV E . STODGY (Ptrlwomoilc tf* » n p e r< n T ’rm) O B E D IE N T , M IL D . E A S IL Y L E D . D O C IL E . A C C O M M O D A TIN G (Sub'rlsslvrtn^s*) S O B E R . T A C IT U R N . SERIOUS (D**MJff)'*ncy) D ISR EG A R D S R U LE S . E X P E D IE N T (Wt-oWr-r M )p*rego strenqth) S H Y, T IM ID , T H R E A T -S E N S IT IV E (Tl.rnrM r,) T O U G H -M IN D E D , R E J E C T S IL L U S IO N S (Horrlo) Z E S T F U L , L IK E S G R O U P A C T IO N (Z rp o lo ) S E L F-A S S U R E D , C O M P L A C E N T . S E C U R E , P L A C ID . S E R E N E (IJ'trinuldfwl m!r*i|"Or>) S O C IA B L Y G R O U P -D E P E N D E N t T a " J O IN E R " A N D SO UN D FO L L O W E R (Grorro Jrpr-odcncy) U N C O N T R O L L E D , L A X . FO LLO W S OWN U R G E S , C A R E L E S S O F S O C IA L R U LE S (L o a ••.pH.sdollrrrnt ln!«-jrn»lon) R ELAXED. T R A N Q U IL . I0 R P ID . U N F R U S T R A T E D . C O M PO S ED . S TAN D AR D T IN SCORE (S T IN ) 14 5 * 7 $ I i -f- f 4— i HIOH SCORE DESCRIPTION W A R M H E A R T E D . O U T G O IN G . E A S Y G O IN G . P A R T IC IP A T IN G (A llp r ro tl-iy 'n n , lyf»i» -rly ry c lo 'h y m ia ) B R IG H T , A B S TR A C T- T H IN K IN G { M lInlolliqr-ncr-) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , M A T U R E . F A C E S R E A L IT Y . CALM. (MiqK«r c-qo -,t»«»r,qtti) _____ ________ ________ E X C IT A B L E . IM P A T IE N T , D E M A N D IN G . O V C R A C T IV C , U N R E S T R A IN E D (E » c H o b llH y ) A S S E R T IV E . A G G R E S S IV E , C O M P E T IT IV E . STU B B O R N ID ^.noro)_______________________ E N T H U S IA S T IC . H E E O L E S S , H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y (Sutqpn, v) C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S IS T E N T , M O R A L IS T IC . S T A ID iS*»nnqi-r ',.jpr*rr*gc A D V E N T U R O U S , " T H IC K -S K IN N E D ." S O C IA L L Y B O L D ( P d .^ d )______________ T E N D E R -M IN D E D , S E N S IT IV E . C L IN G IN G , O V E R -P R O T E C T E D (Pr*»—«,ral C IR C U M S P E C T IN D IV ID U A L IS M , R E F L E C T IV E , IN T E R N A L L Y R E S T R A IN E D (Coos*Lpn|o) APPREHENSIVE. SC L F -R E P R O A C H IN O , IN S E C U R E , W O R R Y IN G . T R O U B L E D (G u ilt S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S O w n D E C IS IO N S . R ESO UR C E F U! C O N T R O L L E D , L X A C T IN G W ILL PO W FR . S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E . C O M P U L S IV E , (HlqH ol T E N S E . F W U S T P A T U ) P P I.T N O V E R W R O U G H T , F RE T F U L (Hrqt. - r r ..n ..,^ l A * fe n o f l 2 b y o b o u t 2.3% 4.4% 1 4 S I 7 I t 9.2% 15.0% 19.1% 19.1% 15.0% 9.2% 4.4% 10 is o b fo /n e c / 2 J % o f te e n a g e rs KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 61 FIGURE 6 PROFILE OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 09 L O W SCO RE D E S C R IP T IO N 1 2 1 | S TA N D A R D T E N SCORE (S T E N ) Aver«0« ? J I f 1 V H IG H SCO RE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D , C R IT IC A L , A L O O F (S l/o th y m la ) 7 T T T L a ! T T T T O U T G O IN G . W A R M H E A R T E D . E A S Y - G O IN G , P A R T IC IP A T IN G (A llp r •c ’hym .q, form erly cy clo th y m ia) LES S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E T H IN K IN G (L o w e * sc h o la s tic m ental ca p ac ity) • • B • ~ *-» . , , M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T R A C T . T H IN K IN G , B R IG H T (H iq tp r «.-.hn1q-,»le rreniql c a p t-jlty ) A F F E C T E D BY F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L L Y LE S S S T A B L E , E A S IL Y U P S E T (L o w e r ego strength) • \ E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , F A C E S R E A L IT Y . C A L M , M A T U R E (H igher eqn -*r«-nq*h) H U M B L E . M IL D . A C C O M M O D A T IN G , C O N F O R M IN G (S u b m U s iv e n e **) • • E • * > / A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E (Dom inance) S O B E R , P R U D E N T . S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (De*urq»n<-y) ' F/ H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L IV E L Y G A Y E N T H U S IA S T IC ( S u n d e r ) E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U LE S , F E E L S FEW O B L IG A T IO N S (Wftnhnr ^uperng-j ’.Irenqth) • < 0 • C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G . s t a i d , m o r a l i s t i c 1 $t*o-i 1**» MipofnoT strength) S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D , T IM ID , T H R E A T -S E N S IT 1 V E (T h re c tlo ) * ~ r K > . V E N T U R E S O M E . S O C IA L L Y B O L D . U N lN H IfM T E D . S P O N T A N E O U S (P a .m .a ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F -R E L IA N 1. R E A L IS T IC . N O -N O N S E N S E (H qrrlo) * I • T E N D E R -M IN D E D , C L IN G IN G , O V F R P R O T E C T E D , S E N S IT IV E (P ro - T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E , F R E E O r J E A L O U S Y , EA SY T O G E T A L O N G W IT H (A lo -lo ) * 1 . SU SPJC fO U S, S E L F O P IN IO N A T E D , H A R D TO FO O L (P rt-tenM pn) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U L . C O N V E N T IO N - A L ,R E G U L A T E D BY E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S , P R O P E R (P ro -e rn io ) • • M } / IM A G IN A T IV E , W R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R U R G E N C IE S , C A R E L E S S O F P R A C T IC A L (A ,.-m l M A T T E R S , B O H E M IA N F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A L , A R T L E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S ( A r tle - n n * * * ) ' 1 . S H R EW D . C A L C U L A T IN G . W O R L D L Y . P C N E TR A TIN C - (S h re w d -e ,-.) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F IO E N T , S E R E N E (U n tro u b led adequacy) * < o • A P P R E H E N S IV E . S E L F .R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G , T R O U B L E D (G u ilt proneness) C O N S E R V A T IV E , R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B L IS H E D ID E A S . T O L E R A N T O F TR AD J- T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (Conservoii-.m ) • Q , • > * * / E X P E R IM E N T IN G . L IB E R A L , A N A L Y T IC A L . F R E E -T H IN K IN G (Rridicnlrsf'O G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T , A " J O IN E R " A N D S O U N D F O L L O W E R (G roup adherence) • • > Q > y s ' . S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S , R E S O U R C E F U L (S n N .'.-N K ie n ry J U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T , F O L LOW S OWN U R G E S . C A R E L E S S O F P R O T O C O L (L o w (nfeqrqrfon) • Q , • . C O N T R O L L E D , S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E . F O L L O W IN G S E L F -IM A G E (H i.jh '.c ll ^ n f r - r i control) R E L A X E D , T R A N Q U IL . U N F R U S T R A T E D (L o w erqic tension) • • • L J i** * T E N S E . F R U S T R A T E D , D R IV E N . O V ER W R O U G H T (M .qh m n d o -t) A if « n o f 1 2 2 4 5 4 7 I 9 10 / • © b fo /n * d b y a b o o t 2 4 % 4 .4 % 9 .2 % 15 .0 % 19.1% 19.1% 15 .0 % 9 .2 % 4 4 % 2 .3 % o f o d u f'f KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 62 FIGURE 7 PROFILE OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 49 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L , A L O O F (S lro tb ym lo) LES S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E T H IN K IN G (L ow er s c h o las tic m entol ca p ac ity) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S . E M O T IO N A L - L Y LE S S S T A B L E , E A S IL Y U P S E T (L o w e r ego strength) H U M B L E , M IL D . A C C O M M O D A TIN G . C O N F O R M IN G (Subm lsslveness) S O B E R , P R U D E N T . S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (Desurgency) E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S , F E E L S FEW O B L IG A T IO N S (W eaker superego strength) S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D , T IM ID , T H R E A T .S E N S IT IV E (T b ro c llo ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F -R E L IA N T , R E A L IS T IC , N O -N O N S E N S E (H arr la) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E , F R E E O F J E A L O U S Y , E A SY T O G E T A L O N G W IT H (A la .lo ) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U L , C O N V E N T IO N . A L , R E G U L A T E D BY E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S , P R O P E R (P ro .e rn io ) F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A L . A R T L E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S (A rtle ss n es s) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F ID E N T , S E R E N E (U ntroubled adequacy) C O N S E R V A T IV E , R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B L IS H E D ID E A S . T O L E R A N T Or T R A D I T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (C onservatism ) G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T , A " J O IN E R " A N D S O U N D F O L L O W E R (Group adherence) U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T , F O L LOW S OWN U R G E S , C A R E L E S S O F P R O T O C O L (L o w Integ ra tion ) R E L A X E D , T R A N Q U IL . U N F R U S T R A T E D (L o w erqic tension) S TA N D A R D T E N SC O R E (S T E N ) A v w tg * H IG H SCO RE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G . W A R M H E A R T E D , E A SY - G O IN G , P A R T IC IP A T IN G (AM i-cn.rhyiruo, lorrt.erly cy clo th y m ia) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T R A C T - T H IN K IN G . B R IG H T (H ig t'e r sc h o la s tic m ental cap o clty ) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E . F A C E S P F A L iT r , c a l m ., M A T U R E (H igher ego strength) A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E (D om inance) H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L IV E L Y , f.A Y , E N T H U S IA S T IC iS .irgency) C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G . S T A ID . M O R A L IS T IC (j-rg n g e r superego strength) V E N T U R E S O M E , S O C IA L L Y B O L D , U N IN H IB IT E D . S P O N T A N E O U S (P are.io) T E N D E R -M IN D E D , C L IN G IN G , O V E R .P R O T E C T E D . S E N S IT IV E ( P r e m ia ) S U S P IC IO U S , S E L F -O P IN IO N A T E D . H A R D T T OOL (P -O .e eM o n) IM A G IN A T IV E , W R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R U R G E N C IE S . C A R E L E S S O F P R A C T IC A L (A „ i,a l M A T T E R S . B O H E M IA N SH R EW D . C A L C U L A T IN G . W O R L D L Y , P E N E T R A T IN G (Shrew dness) A P P R E H E N S IV E , S E L F -R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G , T R O U B L E D (G u ilt proneness) E X P E R IM E N T IN G , L IB E R A L . A N A L Y T IC A L , F R E E -T H IN K IN G (R a d ica lis m ) S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S , R E S O U R C E F U L (S ell- ienc ») C O N T R O L L E D , S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E . F O L L O W IN G S E L T .IM A G E (H ig h selt-concr-p* control) T E N S E , F R U S T R A T E D . D R IV E N , O V ER W R O U G H T (H ig h r-rgic tension) A if a n o f 1 2 b y a b e v l 3 .2 % 4 ,4 % 3 4 9 .3 % IS .0 % S 4 7 • 9 19,1% 19 .1 % 15.0% 9 .3 % 4.4 % 10 l i o b ta in e d 3.3 % o I e d u lf i KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 63 FIGURE 8 PROFILE OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT 73 L O W SCO RE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D , C R IT IC A L , A L O O F ($1 JOlbyr-ilo) LES S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E T H IN K IN G (L o w « r sc h o lo stlc m *n ia l e o p a c l'y ) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L L Y l e s s S T A B L E . E A S IL Y u p s e t (Lowr»r H U M B L E , M IL D . A C C O M M O D A TIN G , C O N F O R M IN G (Subr-'K siven^s-.) S O B E R , P R U D E N T . S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (D»»MjrQ#ncy) E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S . F E E L S F F W O B L IG A T IO N S {'W nnlft' strength) S H r , R E S T R A IN E D . T IM ID , T H R E A T .S E N S IT IV E (T hrpc H o ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F R E L IA N T , R E A L IS T IC , N O -N O N S E N S E (H orrlo) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E . F R E E OF J E A L O U S Y , E A SY T O G E T A L O N G W IT H ( A la .la ) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U L , C O N V E N T IO N A L , R E G U L A T E D BY E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S . P R O P E R (P ro -a m io ) F O R T H R IG H T . N A T U R A L . A R T L E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S (A rtlp s ^ a p '.*) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F ID E N T . S E R E N E (UnMoi»blp<l a d P T 'O fy ) C O N S E R V A T IV E , R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B L IS H E D ID E A S , T O L E R A N T O F T R A D I T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (C o n « ^ rv o *lifp ) G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T . A " J O IN E R ” A N D S O U N D F O L L O W E R (C-roup nHb#>feac»») U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T . F Q L LOW S OWN U R GF.S, C A R E L E S S O F P R O T O C O L (L o w In rp q ro tlo ") R E L A X E D , T R A N Q U IL , U N F R U S T R A T E D (L o w e rq lc fp n s lo a ) 1 2 - I — f- S TA N D A R D T E N SCO RE (S T E N ) A verts* • + > 3 4 5 H IG H SCO RE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G . W A R M H E A R T E D , E A SY - G O IN G P A R T IC IP A T IN G ( A to " T ~ 'ly c y 'lo fb y a iio ) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T R A C T T H IN K IN G , B R IO " T (H iy '-fu f lu -1 —f-'-'al c a p a r it.) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E . F A C E S R E A L IT Y . C A L M , M A T U R E (H iqlifU A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E (Doa>inaac«») H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y . IM P U L S IV E L Y L IV E L Y . O A V . E N T H U S IA S T IC (Sura — cv) C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G . S T A ID . M O R A L IS T IC (S»»or-qr*f V E N T U R E S O M E . S O C IA L L Y B O L D , U N IN H IB IT E D . S P O N T A N E O U S (I'a r-^ ia ) T E N O E R -M IN O E O , C L IN G IN G , O V I.R P R O T E C T E D . S E N S IT IV E S U S P IC IO U S , S E L F -O P IN IO N A T E D . H A R D TO F O O I ( P ,0 ...n ,,o n ) IM A G IN A T IV E . .‘.R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R U R G E N C IE S , C A R E L E S S O F P R A C T IC A L (A. tM ) M A T T E R S , B O H E M IA N SH R EW D . C A L C U L A T IN G , W O R L D L Y . P C N E T R A T IN G A P P R E H E N S IV E , S E L F .R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G . T R O U B L E D (G u ilt pforif-ncs*) E X P E R IM E N T IN G , L IB E R A L . A N A L Y T IC A L . F R E E -T H IN K IN G ( R j .|.r o l .* r ,) S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S . R E S O U R C E F U L { S<*l I- m iH i c i »■*'f >) C O N T R O L L E D . S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E . F O L L O W IN G S E L F -IM A G E (Mi rjS f ( Ill'o l) T E N S E , F R U S T R A T E D . D R IV E N . O V E R W R O U G H T (H .g li p.vjir fpn-.ion) A t f t n o f 1 3 1 4 5 6 7 | * 10 f t o b fa ln t d b y a b o v f 3 .3 % 4 .4 % 9 .3 % 15 .0 % 19.1% 19 .1 % 15.0% 9.3 % 4.4 % 3 .3 % o f o rfu lft KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 64 FIGURE 9 PROFILE OF COLLEGE SUBJECT 25 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D . D E T A C H E D , C R IT IC A L . A L O O F (Si rothym lq) L ES S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E - T H IN K IN G (L o w e r s c h o las tic m ental ca p ac ity) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L - L Y l e s s S T A B L E , E A S IL Y U P S E T ( L o w * ' eqn Strength) H U M B L E , M IL D , A C C O M M O D A T IN G . C O N F O R M IN G (S 'jb m ls slve n ^s s) S O B E R , P R U D E N T . S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (Dosurqency) E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S , F E E L S F F W O B L IG A T IO N S (W eaker M jpm eqo strength) S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D , T IM ID . IH R E A T .5 E N S IT IV E (Thrwctlcj) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F -R E L IA N T . R E A L IS T IC , N O -N O N S E N S E (M otrin) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E , F R E E O F J E A L O U S Y . E A S Y 7 0 G E T A L O N G W IT H (A la - lo ) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U L , C O N V E N T IO N - A L . R E G U L A T E D B Y E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S , P R O P E R (P rrj.e rn in ) F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A L , A R T L E S S . U N P R E T E N T IO U S (A ttlo ss n rv.s ) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F ID E N T , S E R E N E (U ntrryjbleiJ n H -quacy) C O N S E R V A T IV E , R E S P E C T IN G E S T A 13. L IS H E D ID E A S , T O L E R A N T O F T R A D I T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (C o n -.rfv o ti'.m ) G R O U P -O E P E N D E N T , A • ’ J O IN E R " A N D S O U N D F O L l O'AER (G roup rH h „ f..n r„ ) U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T , F Q L LOW S OWN U R G E S , C A R E L E S S O F P R O T O C O L (L o w int«vi»ation| R E L A X E D , T R A N Q U IL , U N F R U S T R A T E D ( L n * erqic tension) S T A N D A R D T E N SCO RE (S T E N ) - ► A v e r a g e - * . 3 4 0 6 7 8 9 — |\ H IG H SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G . W A R M H E A R T E D . E A S Y - G O IN G , P A R T IC IP A T IN G (A ll,.- » c tli ,-rniij, | y c y C lu 'h y ml o) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T R A C T - T H IN K IN G . B R IG H T «.ct)ol.astir me-ntgi to p o c ity ) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , F A C E S R E A L IT Y , c a l m , M A T U R E (H igher r>io Sltenqth) A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E . S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E ( D o m i n a n c e ) H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L IV E L Y . GAY. E N T H U S IA S T IC ( S - r .j.- n .,) C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G , S T A ID . M O R A L IS T IC (Stfrm qi.r -....pr-rngn strength) V E N T U R E S O M E . S O C IA L L Y B O L D . U N IN H K M T E D , S P O N T A N E O U S T E N D E R -M IN D E D , C L IN G IN G , O V E R P R O T E C T E D , S E N S IT IV E ( P f .- ,M > ) S U S P IC IO U S , S E L F -O P IN IO N A T E D , H A R D TO FQ O l. (P tg te n s .e n ) IM A G IN A T IV E . W R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R U R G E N C IE S . C A R E L E S S O F P R A C T IC A L t>n) M A T T E R S B O H E M IA N SH R EW D , C A L C U L A T IN G . W O R L D L Y , P E N E T R A T IN G ........•••In,---.) A P P R E H E N S IV E , S E L F -R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G , T R O U B L E D (G u ilt proneness) E X P E R IM E N T IN G , L IB E R A L , a n a l y t i c a l , f p e e - T h i n k i n g (P t"rtl i sm) S E L F - S U F F IC IE N T . P P C F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S , R E S O U R C E F U L (S e ll v j f - c m - u y) C O N T R O L L E D . S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E , F O I.L O W IN G S E L F -IM A G E (H .q h -.,.11 rr.ncr.pt con 'tn l) T E N S E , F R U S T P A T F D D R IV E N , O V E R W R O U G H T ,'High c.o -c tension) A i t * n o f 1 3 b y a b o u t 3 ,3 % 4 .4 % 3 4 3 4 7 1 * 9 .3 % 15 ,0 % 1 * .l% ! * . ! % 13 .0 % * 3 % 4 .4 % 10 l i o b ta in e d 3.3 % o f a d u tln KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 65 FIGURE 10 PROFILE OF COLLEGE SUBJECT 28 LOW SCORE DESCRIPTION R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D , C R IT IC A L . A L O O F (S lro lL y m lo ) LES S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E T H IN K IN G (Lov>fl» s c h o las tic m ental co p a city ) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L L Y LE S S S T A B L E , E A S IL Y U P S E T ( L o - v f ego strength) H U M B L E . M IL D , A C C O M M O D A T IN G . C O N F O R M IN G ( S u b m is s lv e n rjs s ) S O B E R , P R U D E N T , S E R IO U S . T A C IT U R N (D e s u ro e n c y ) E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S , F E E L S F F W O B L IG A T IO N S (Woql>*r superego strength) S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D , T IM ID , V H R E A T -S E N S IT IV E (T h re c tta ) T O U G H M IN D E D , S E L F -R E L IA N T , R E A L IS T IC , N O -N O N S E N S E (M orrla) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E , F R E E O F J E A L O U S Y , E A S Y T O G E T A L O N G W IT H (Altjw io) P R A C T IC A L . C A R E F U L . C O N V E N T IO N - A L , R E G U L A T E D BY E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S . P R O P E R (P ro -e m ia ) F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A L . A R T L E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S (A rtle s s n o s s ) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F ID E N T , S E R E N E (U n tro u b led adequacy) C O N S E R V A T IV E , R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B - L IS H E O ID E A S , T O L E R A N T O F T R A D I T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (C o n s erv atis m ) G R O U P -O E P E N O E N T , A *• J O IN E R ” A N D S O U N D F O L L O W E R (G roup adherence) U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F - C O N F L IC T , F O L LOW S OWN U R G E S , C A R E L E S S O F P R O T O C O L (L o w Integ ra tion ) R E L A X E D , T R A N Q U IL , u n f r u s t r a t e d (L o w erqic tension) STANDARD TEN SCORE (STEN) A veng* 3 4 9 8 7 8 9 -1— 1-4- H IG H SCORE DESCRIPTION O U T G O IN G , W A R M H E A R T E D . E A jY . G O IN G , P A R T IC IP A T IN G (Alter tathymin Inr-^f.rly cy C lolhymia) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T R A C T - TH IN KIN G . BRIG HT (HiqO >r h c ln O K •ni.ntgl ca p ac ity) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , F A C E S R E A L IT Y , C ALM . M ATU RE (Higher r-jp -.trenq'b) A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E (O n m m o n c .) H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L IV E L Y , GAY, E N T H U S IA S T IC C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G . S T A ID , M O R A L IS T IC IS t’ r - r ]o r Sypereqn -,treng>t>) V E N T U R E S O M E , S O C IA L L Y B O L D . U M IN H IH IT F D . S P O N T A N E O U S (P o rm .a ) T E N D E R -M IN D E D , C L IN G IN G , n v [ P P R O T E C T E D , SE NS ITIV E ( P r .- - .n > S U S P IC IO U S , S E L F .O P IN IO N A T E D . RD TO F O O L --tension) IM A G IN A T IV E , W R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R U R G E N C IE S C A R E L E S S O F P R A C T IC A L (A .tt.n ) M A T T E R S , B O H E M IA N SH R E W D , C A L C U L A T IN G , W O R L D L Y . P f N C T R A T lN G IS hrr-w dnr-,.,) A P P R E H E N S IV E , S E L F .R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G , T R O U B L E D (G u ilt p fon e n es s) E X P E R fM E N T IN G , L IB E R A L . a n a l y t i c a l . F R E E -T H IN K IN G < R a d .ra l.-.n ) S E L F - S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S , R E S O U R C E F U L ( S'*I I • Ml U i C I CHf y ) C O N T R O L L E D , S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E . F O L L O W IN G S E L F .IM A G E (H ig h -,elf.c«-ncept control) T E N S E , F R U S T R A T E D . D R IV E N , OV ER W R OU GH T (H tq h r-f j.r tr-n tip n ) A tlmn of t 2 b y a b o u t 2 3% 4.4% 3 4 5 4 7 • t f.2% rs.0% !».!% ?».!% IJ.0% 9.2% 4.4% 10 li oblolnid 2.3% o f a d u l t t KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 66 FIGURE 11 PROFILE OF COLLEGE SUBJECT 51 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N RESERVED, D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L . A L O O F (S lfn th y m ia ) LESS IN T E L L IG E N T , CONCRETE THINKING (L o w e r sc h o las tic m ental ca p ac ity) A F F E C T E D BY FE E LIN G S, E M O T IO N A L L Y L E S S S T A B L E , E A S IL Y U P S E T (L o w flf ego strength) H U M BLE, M IL D . A C C O M M O D A T IN G , C O N F O R M IN G ( S u b m i s s i v e * ! * * * * ) SOBER, P R U D E N T . S E R IO U S . T A C IT U R N (D e su rg e ac y) E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S . F E E L S F F W O B L IG A T IO N S (W ooLer superego strength) SHY, R E S T R A IN E D . T IM IO . T H R E A T -S E N S IT IV E (T h r e c tla ) TOUGH-MINDED, S E L F -R E L IA N T . R E A L IS T IC , N O -N O N S E N S E (H a rrla ) TRUSTING, A D A P T A B L E , F R E E O F J E A L O U S Y , E A SY T O G E T A L O N G W IT H ( A la - la ) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U L , C O N V E N T IO N - A L . R E G U L A T E D B Y E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S . P R O P E R (P ro -e rn io ) FO R TH R IG H T, N A T U R A L , A R T L E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S (A rlle s s n e s s ) SELF-ASSURED, C O N F ID E N T . S E R E N E (U n tro u b led odeguacy) C O N SER VATIVE, R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B L IS H E D ID E A S . T O L E R A N T O F T R A D I T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (C o n s erv atis m ) G R O U P-DEPENDENT, A “ J O IN E R *' A N D SO U N D F O L L O W E R (G roup odhprence) U N D IS C IP LIN E D S E LF -C O N F LIC T , F O L LOW S OWN U R G E S , C A R E L E S S O F P R O T O C O L (L o w in teg ra tion ) R E LA X E D , T R A N Q U IL . U N F R U S T R A T E D (L o w erqic tension) S T A N D A R D T E N SC O R E (S T E N ) A v w iq * 3 4 5 it 7 0 9 1 0 i— t— i— t- H IG H SCO RE D E S C R IP T IO N OUTGOING, WARMHEARTED. EASY. GOING. PARTICIPATING (AH,*--to'h,rrio. l-jrmerly eye lothynno) MORE IN T E L L IG E N T , ABSTPACT- THINKING. BRIGHT (H ig he r «.rholostic m ental ca p ac ity) EM O TIO N A LLY S T A B LE . FACES REALITY. CALM. MATURE (Higher ego -.trength) A S S ER TIVE, A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E (D om inance) H A P P Y -G O -LU C K Y , IMPULSIVELY LIVELY. GAY. ENTHUSIASTIC (S u rg e n c ,) CONSCIENTIOUS, PERSEVERING. STAID, MORALISTIC (Stronger -.uperegn strength) VENTURESOME, SOCIALLY BOLD. UNINHIBITED. SPONTANEOUS (P o tm io ) TENDER -M IN D ED , CLINGING. OVER PROTECTED, SENSITIVE (Prem-.io) SUSPICIOUS, SELF-OPINIONATED, H A R D TO F O O L (Pr0ten«*on) IM A G IN A TIV E . WRAPPED UP IN INNER URGENCIES. CARELESS OF PRACTICAL (Aijtio) MATTERS. BOHEMIAN SHREWD, CALCULATING. WORLDLY, PENE TRATING (Shrewrfne-.-.) APP R E H E N S IV E , S E L F .R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G , T R O U B L E D (G u ilt proneness) EX P ER IM EN TIN G , L IB E R A L . A N A L Y T IC A L . F R E E -T H IN K IN G (R a d ic a lis m ) S E LF -S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S . R E S O U R C E F U L (S e ll.-.u lltc ie n c y ) C O N TR O LLE D , SOCIALLY PRECISE, FOLl .Y A 'IN G SELF-IMAGE (High -.ell.concept Control) TENSE, FRUSTRATED. DRIVEN, OVERAROL'GHT (High etgic tenr-ion) A i l t n o f 1 2 b y a b o u t m 4 .4 % 3 4 5 6 7 1 * * .2 % 1 5 .0 % l* . 1 % 1 * .1 % 15.0% * .2 % 4 .4 % f t o b ta in e d 1.3 % o f a d u lt t KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 67 FIGURE 12 PROFILE OF COLLEGE SUBJECT 57 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D , C R IT IC A L , A L O O F (S i LES S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E - T H IN K IN G (L o w e r s c h o las tic m ental ca p ac ity) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L L Y LE S S S T A B L E , E A S IL Y U P S E T (L o w e r ego strength) H U M B L E , M ILD , ACCOM MODATIN G, CONFORMING (Sub'T’ lsslvi»n*»ss) S O B E R , P R U D E N T , S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (D*»surn*»ncy) E X P E O IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S , F E E L S F F W O B L IG A T IO N S (W eaker superego strength) S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D , T IM ID . T H R E A T -S E N S IT IV E (T h re c tlo ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F -R E L IA N T . R E A L IS T IC , N O -N O N S E N S E (H a ffla ) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E , F R E E O F J E A L O U S Y , E A SY T O G E T A L O N G W IT H (A lrjelo ) P R A C T IC A L , C A P E F U L , C O N V E N T IO N A L , R F .G U L A T E O B Y E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S , P R O P E R (P rn .e m ta ) F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A L , A R T L E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S (A rtU s s n e n s ) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F ID E N T . S E R E N E (U n tro u b led oHeguor.y) C O N S E R V A T IV E . R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B L IS H E D ID E A S , T O L E R A N T O F 1 R A D I T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (C o n s erv atis m ) G R O U P -O E P E N D E N T , A " j o i r j r p " AND SOUND I n j LOWER (Group adherence) U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T , F O L LOW S OW N U R G E S , C A R E L E S S O F P R O T O C O L (L o w in tegration) R E L A X E D . T R A N Q U IL . U N F R U S T R A T E D (L o w erqic tension) S TA N D A R D T E N SCO RE (S T E N ) Average 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 f f~ ■+— I--T \ T t H IG H SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G , W AR M H EA R TE D . EASY. GOING. P A R T IC IP A T IN G ( A lt,-t-.,* h , -run. I < _ ,! r Cy C lolhym lo) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T P A C T - T MINK IMG, BRIG HT I H i -)l «-r m enlol CQpOCIty) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , F A C E S R E A L I T Y . C A L M . M A T U R E (Higher -.»*#•*»-Jtl,) A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E (Dom lnoncn) H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L IV E L Y , GAY. E N TH U SIAS TIC C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G . S T A ID . M O R A L IS T IC (Stronger Superego -,tr enrjrt.) V E N T U R E S O M E , S O C IA L L Y B O L D . U N ltju iH 'T E D . S P O N T A N E O U S iP nrrn.o) T E N D E R -M IN D E D , C L IN G IN G , O V L P P R O T E C T E D . S E N S IT IV E (Pre-i-s.o) S U S P IC IO U S , S E L F -O P IN IO N A T E D . A R D T(> fQ O L (r» „ t..n .,n n < IM A G IN A T IV E , /.R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R U R G E N C IE S . C A R E L E S S O F P R A C T IC A L (A itin l MA I T E P S . B O H E M IA N SH R EW D , C A L C U L A T IN G W O R L D L Y , P E N E T R A T IN O (f,W A-<ne--.) A P P R E H E N S IV E , 5 E L F .R E P R O A C H IN C , W O R R Y IN G . T R O U B L E D (G u ilt proneness) E X P E R IM E N T IN G . L IB E R A L . A N A L Y T IC A L . F R E E -T H IN K IN G (R a d ic a lis m ) S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S . R E S O U R C E F U L | . W I . - , ( M rc ,rn c r) C O N T R O L L E D . S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E , F O L L O A IM G S E L T IM A G E (H ig h ' . n l l . r - ' . - T ' tn n .rn l) T E N S E , f r u s t r a t e d . D R IV E N , OVERWROUGHT IHi-jL ..f.j.r te-wton) A t f n o f 1 3 3 4 5 4 7 S 9 10 1$ o b fo in .c # b y a b o u t 3 .3 % 4 .4 % 9 .3 % 15.0% 19.1% 19 .1 % 15 .0 % 9 .3 % 4 .4 % 3 .3 % o f o d u H i KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 68 FIGURE 13 PROFILE OF ASSOCIATION BOTTOM TEAM SUBJECT 04 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D , C R IT IC A L . a l o o f LE S S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E TE T H IN K IN G (Loo-fl* * r l'o lo * H c m ental c o p n c ii*) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L L Y LE S S S T A B L E , E A S IL Y u p s e t ( L ownr ngo -,ln-ngth) H U M B L E , M IL D , A C C O M M O D A TIN G , C O N F O R M IN G ( S u b m l s ^ i v t * " • » * * . ) S O B E R . P R U D E N T , S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (D**su*'V,,'r y l E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E S , F E E L S F F W O B L IG A T IO N S (W e o t# r superngo <t»pnqt*0 S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D , T IM tD , T H R E A T .S 6 N S IT IV E (T h r.-c tlo ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F -R E L IA N T . R E A L IS T IC . N O -N O N S E N S E (H n rrln l T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E , F R F E Q F J E A L O U S Y , E A SY T O G E T A L O N G W ITH ( A lg .in ) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U L . C O N V E N T IO N A L , R E G U L A T E D B Y E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S . P R O P E R F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A L . A R T L E S S . U N P R E T E N T IO U S (A f ild - .w m s ) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F ID E N T . SE R E N E (U n lrp u b lf'l pdn-i'-acy) C O N S E R V A T IV E . R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B - L IS H C D ID E A S , T O L E R A N T O F T R A D I T IO N A L D IF F lC U L T IE S (C o n '-n rvo tK m l G R O U P .D E P E N D E N T , A " j n u i r r ' * A N D S O U N D ' 'T i l O W ER (GfO'.’P r)rjl»nn-nr*») U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T , F O L LOWS OWN U R G E S . C A R EL CSS OF P R O T O C O L ( L n * inf-groM on) R E L A X E D . T R A N Q U IL , U N T R U S T R A T E D ( L o a fwn^inn) STA N D A R D T E N SC O R E (S T E N ) A v e r a g e ^ * 9 10 H IG H SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G , W A R M H E A R T E D . EA SY - G O I N G . PARTICIPATING 'A *'.-- tr,i*i,<*-in. lo » '- - f l/ e y c lothy ruio) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T . A B S T R A C T - T m IN -'IN C . B R IG H T E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E . F A C E S R E A L IT Y . C A L M , m a t u r e A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , c o - y n e r - ' r i v e (D< •-’ Inane*-} H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L - V E L Y . G A Y , E N T H U S IA S T IC C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G , S T A ID . M O R A L IS T IC (S u n -~ ..r ->«r-*n<vh) V E N T U R E S O M E , S O C IA L L Y B O L D . U M N H if jlT E D . S P O N T A N E O U S T E N D E R -M IN D E D , C L IN G IN G , O U e P R O : L C T E D . S E N S IT IV E S U S P IC IO U S , S E L F .O P IN IO N AT E D . ' =0 1 1 ’ pool IM A G IN A T IV E , -' R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R r-C N C if. S. c a r :L E S S o f p r a c t i c a l , A «, 1) V A ; T f P S . B O H E M IA N SH R EW D , C A L C U L A T IN G W O R L D L Y . PC NT, T RA 'IN C - A P P R E H E N S IV E , S E L F -R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G . T R O U B L E D (G u ilt pfonnno^s) E X P E R IM E N T IN G , L IB E R A L . A N A l V T IC A L . F R E E -T H IN K IN G ( - . , j , r r - S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T . P R E F E R S OWN D E C IS IO N S . R E S O U R C E F U L IS.-H- , l . l ( , . r ' f , l C O N T R O L L E D . S O C IA L L Y P R E C IS E , F C L l. O .U N G S E L F -IM A G E T E N S E . F R U S T R A T E D . D R IV E N , O V ER W R O U G H T ,-r }*/ A $ to n o f I 1 3 4 5 4 7 I 9 10 I* o b ta in e d b y a b o u t 2 .3 % 4.4 % 9 .2 % 15.0% 19.1% 19.1% 15.0% 9 .2 % 4.4 % 2 .3 % o f a d v l t t KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual FIGURE 14 PROFILE OF ASSOCIATION BOTTOM TEAM SUBJECT 14 L O W SCO RE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L , A L O O r (S i/O .h y o il,) LES S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T F . T H IN K IN G fL o *» » / * r lio lo * M c ir o n t fjl c n p a rM y ) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L - l y l e s s s t a b l e , e a s i l y i j r s r t |L o *« < »fK> H U M B L E , M IL O . A C C O M M O D A T IN G , C O N F O R M IN G S O B E R , P R U D E N T , S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N ( 0 «**ura*” ,r:y I E X P E D IE N T , DISREGARDS RULES, T E E LS FFW o n ilG A TION5 (WVfjViyf »,op»«r*»«jo M ro n /jtM S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D . T IM ID , T H R E A T -S E N S IT 1 V 6 (T lir f«ctlo) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S C I.T .R E L IA N T . R E A L IS T IC , N O -N O N S E N S E (H .u f la) T R U S T IN G . A D A P T A P L E . F R E E 0 T J E A L O U S Y , E A SY T O G E T A L O N G W IT H fA fo -lo J P R A C T IC A L . C A R E F U L , C O N V E N T IO N . A L , p e c u l a t e d p y e x t e r n a l R E A L IT IE S . P R O P E R fP ».i.« M ".nT F O R T H R IG H T . N A T U R A L , A P T L r V , . U N P R E T E N T IO U S ( A . lln n in * * ,) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F lO E N T , S F R F U E C O N S E R V A T IV E , R E S P E C T IN G E S I A p L IS P E D ID EAS T o i T R A N T n r t r a o i . TIO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T , A * ' i o i n r i . - ' a n d SOUND ' O LL0V.ER (G»c>"P l-|l'»-ronrn) U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F - C O N F L IC T . F O L LOW S OWN U P G E S . C A R E L E S S o r P R O T O C O L (L o w in ln r n 'i- m ) R E L A X E D , T R A N O U H .. IJ N F Ri IS T PA f ED ( l r . * r.„ » f t-^ M o n ) S TA N D A R D T E N SCO RE (S T E N ) Average - * • 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 frHn^ ~ +— +- | H IG H SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G , A A CM M E A R I E D . EA SY - > . .'-jIM . .. iV - R T ir iP A T IN O / A **/»> •' ..-H , '.yrUjthymtn) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T R A C T T h .n ^ IN G n u ir .H T E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , F A C E S i?s A'. ; ' > . •' Ai V , MA IU R T . A S S E R T IV E . A G G R E S S IV E . S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E ( D 'v - ln 'l'v *•) H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L I V L I . y . ‘.A Y L N T MUSI AST 1C C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G . S T .M p , M O R A L IS T IC V E N T U R E S O M E , S O C IA L L Y B O L D . UNPJtHJM 1 c f.»’O N * A N F H ijS T E N D E R -M IN O E D . C L IN G IN G , (V, f • ( T f;D . S E N S IT IV E S U S P IC IO U S , Sr L I' t 'P IN IO N A T F D . IM A G IN A T IV E . R A P P E D U P IN !N N £ R ;t: r , r _ ,r •. r A R " i_ f V j O r P R A C T IC A L ' A i f ' MA I T L P S . B O H E M IA N SH R EW D . C A , C U t. A TIN<'- W O R L D L Y , T I- A * IN <'• A P P R E H E N S IV E . 5 F L F . RE P R O A C H IN G , A O P R Y IN G , T R O U B L E D IG 'iil* E X P E R IM E N T IN G . U P E R a l , .\ r , a i. 'I ’ i r a i r ^ E F T h i n k i n g S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T . P R E F E R S O'AN 0 iJ Ci Si .-NS. R F .'S 'J 'jR C rF U l C O N T R O L L E D . SO CIALLY PRECIS E, F O l I D . M N f . SE L T I M A G E (Hi )► - •.<;! • r .< 1 1 . «-f- * T E N S E . T R u S T R A ir .O . D P I V r N . U V i R A R L’t'O H T .It - n . , 0->} A (fa n o f I 5 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 TO It o b ta in e d b y a b o u t 3.3% 4 4 % 9.3% 13.0% 19.1% 19.1% 13 0% 9.3% 4 4 % 3.3% o f a d v ltt KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 70 FIGURE 15 PROFILE OF NATIONAL TEAM SUBJECT R02 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D , C R IT IC A L , A L O O r (S i/o tH y m ia ) LE S S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E T H IN K IN G (Low «» sc h o la s tic m pnial co p o c iiv ) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L IN G S , E M O T IO N A L L Y LE S S S T A P L E , E A S IL Y IJ P S E T ( L o * * » *» < J O H U M B L E , M IL D , A C C O M M O D A T IN C , C O N F O R M IN G (S o b m U liv n .-S s ) S O B E R , P R U D E N T , S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (D«*sijrq«»ncrl E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U LE S , F E E L S F F W O B L IG A T IO N S (W**ol>or Mip«*r»»qo ii'r x q il') S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D , T IM ID . T H R E A T -S E N S IT IV E (T h fo c rlo ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F -R E L IA N T . R E A L IS T IC . N O -N O N S E N S E (H a rriq ) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E . F R E E o r J E A L O U S Y , E A S Y T O G E T A L O N G W IT H (A in -In ) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U L , C O N V E N T IO N - A L , R E G U L A T E D B Y E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S , P R O P E R (P r n ^ m in ) F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A L , A R T L E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N F ID E N T , S E R E N E C O N S E R V A T IV E , R E S P E C T IN G E S T A B L I5 H E D ID E A S , T O L E R A N T O F TR A D I T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (C on'."tva»i*.m ) G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T , A " .J O IN T R " A N D :n n ? 4 U F O L L O W E R (GfO'tp O'lln-f'-nr»*J U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T , FOL LOW S OWN U R O r.S . C A R E L E S S OF P R O T O C O L (L o w |ntorjfrjt|on) R E L A X E D , T R A N Q U IL , U N F R U S T R A T E D (L ow f f'J If t**ns i0 n) S TA N O A R O T E N SCO RE (S T E N ) A v G r a g # -*- 3 4 5 6 7 H IG H SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G . W A R M H E A R T E D . *A S Y - C,( n ' t ' . } P A R T IC IP A T IN G (A h .., tr ..v r-u rj, < . , CI C.»b, m Ml) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A B S T R A C T E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , F A C E S R f-A L I T V . C A L M . M A T U R E A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N , C O M P E T IT IV E (DiV»ilno*ic**J H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IM P U L S IV E L Y L IV E L Y . C»A>. E N T H U S IA S T IC C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G , S T A ID , m o r a l i s t i c (Sl.fjr,.]*.- i V ro n q th ) V E N T U R E S O M E , S O C IA L L Y B O L D . U N lN Hi-j; TED S P O N T A N E O U S T E N D E R -M IN D E D . C L IN G IN G , O v l R P R O T E C T E D . SE NS ITIV E S U S P IC IO U S , S E L F O P IN IO N A T E D , iA R r. TO TO O L (P rr....... IM A G IN A T IV E , A R A P P E D U P IN IN N E R U R AJ’ N C IL ' c a r e l e s s o f P R A C T IC A L • .,*> MAT T E R S . B O H E M IA N SH R EW D . C A L C U L A T IN G . W O R L D L Y . P f N f T RA T IN G A P P R E H E N S IV E , S E L F -R E P R O A C H IN G , W O R R Y IN G . T R O U B L E D (Gi»*J» r r o n 'n e - ,* ) E X P E R IM E N T IN G . L IB E R A L , A N A i.Y TiC A L , F R E E -T H IN K IN G S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T , P R E F E R S OWN C C C L M C ' * . " . . RESOURCEFUL v) C O N T R O L L E D , S O C IA L L Y PRFCISE, FOLt.OW IN G SELT IMAGE (Hi'jn I *. r ; r • co1'»nl) T E N S E , F R U S T R A T E D . D R IV E N , OVER AROUGHT A flan of I 1 b y obour 1.3% 4.4% 9.1% 13,0% 19.1% 19.1% 13.0% 9.1% 9 10 if obfolnad 4.4% 1.3% of a d u l l t KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 71 FIGURE 16 PROFILE OF NATIONAL TEAM SUBJECT R09 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , D E T A C H E D . C R IT IC A L . ALOOr (Si LE S S IN T E L L IG E N T , COUCPC IF TH IN KIN G (L ov iC ' '■.cl'otfT-ll't mr-r'l')! fcipT'tit-,) A F F E C T E D BY F E E L IN G S , F M O T lO fiA L L Y LESS S T A B L E . E A SIL Y iJ P S l T |L o /.» i *"jo H U M B L E . M ILD . ACCOM MODATIN G. CON FOR MING S O B E R , P R U D E N T . SERIOUS. T A C ITU R N (P*»*i)KJ«»nry| E X P E D IE N T . OISREC.APDS PU LES, T E E L S FFW O B L IG A T IO N S '.M i-ng'*') 5 H Y , R E S TR A IN E D . TIMID. T H R E A T . SENSITIV E ( Tl'f»*ctl(i) T O U G H -M IN D E D . Sf L F .RE t I AN I . PE A l . I M I C . NO-NONSTNSI (M -iftl'i) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E . F R EE QT JE A LO U S Y , EASY TO GE T A L O N G WITH ( A ln .to) P R A C T IC A L , C A P E F U L . C O N V E N T IO N A L , RE GUI A T E O BY f : » T f‘ PNA(. R E A LIT IE S . P R O P E R (P» i. F O R T H R IG H T , N A T U R A I . ARTLESS. U N PRETENTIO US (Ar»li> S E L F -A S S U R E D . C O N F ID E N T . S ERENE C O N S E R V A T IV E . PFSPF.C TIN G E M A B I.I5MF.D IDEAS, l(>L I. PANT (IF IR A N I. TICJNAL O IT F IC U L TIES G R O U P -D E P E N D E N T , A •• irM urw /.on SO U N I ‘ T')\ | fiM P o - l l - f . - r ) U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F -C O N F L IC T . r o i LOWS OWN URGES. C A P f.l E S'. n r P R O TO C O L <L->w .f't,- R E L A X E D , TRANUUII.. IJNE PUf-TRAlCn (Low » ■ » lie l««l S T A N D A R D T E N SCO RE (S T E N ) «►* A v e r a g e -^ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —I— I— ^ 9 10 A ii« n o f 1 b y a b o u t 3.3% H IG H SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G . AAOVHLARTED. E A S Y ‘ ii )l N' > PARTICIPATING (AM*-- (■•**,,>»■('}, I , r r r y ' | c , t t i , m i i l ) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T . ABSTRACT f M t N r IN C . f t , ]* - f .. *01 M , r fn |.*11 -jl C O p'IC jly) E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , r ACES P t A L i r * l a l v . m a t u r e '• 1. -Mr-'-jit') A S S E R T IV E , AGGRESSIVE, STUBBORN, C O M P E T IT IV E rL V ’-l'vjMC-?) H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , IMPULSIVELY I ivL: (. G A * ENTHUSIASTIC C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P E R S E V E R IN G . S T A iD M O R A L IS T IC V E N T U R E S O M E , .SOCIALLY BO LD, r K > .-.PON T ANEOUS T E N D E R -M IN O E D . C L IN G IN G , r.Vi vuc'l E C ’ ED, SENSITIVE s u s p ic i o u s , :r.s > o p i n i o n a t e d , 1A I-C T • * 0 0 1 . IM A G IN A T IV E . ARAPPE.D 'JP IN INNER • * . Ni. t t lC A'O'Lir.S O F PRACTICAL M A T rr.RS. BOHEMIAN SH R EW D . CALCULATING. W O R L D L Y . '.t' tdatino A P P R E H E N S IV E . S fc 'L E -R E P R O A C H IN G . •W ORRYifTG, T D O U B L E D (O ')tlt pr < ) E X P E R IM E N T IN G . L IB E R A L . .* .( I T if, AL, F F ? l F I HlNK ING S E L F -S U F F IC IE N T . P R E F E R S OWN (>( C '.'I -'NS RE •-O 'JR C EFN l T’ — 11. , H ,- ...... ,| C O N T R O L L E D , T -O d A l l.Y P R E C IS E . .( r ; . t u r ' SC I r IM AGC T E N S E , F Pli'.TDatfP. driven. ■ V i L'A r-’GUi.H T 4.4 % 9 ,3 % 1 5 0 % 19.1% 19.1% 15.0% 9 .3 % 9 10 I* o b ta in e d 4 4 % 3 .3 % o f o d u lli KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 72 FIGURE 17 PROFILE OF NATIONAL TEAM SUBJECT US12 L O W SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N R E S E R V E D , OF. T A C M F D , C R IT IC A L . a l o o f (S i/o 'I'y '” '')) LE S S IN T E L L IG E N T , C O N C R E T E . TH IN KING (Low **' NrjI> 1 % rIr m '-M ol c u p o ''•**) A F F E C T E D BY F E E L IN G S . E M O T IO N A L L Y L E S 5 S T A P L E . E A S IL Y IJ P S f 1 ( L i' a « i ** K* H U M B L E . M IL O , A C C O M M O D A TIN G , C O N F O R M IN G S O B E R , P R U D E N T . S E R IO U S , T A C IT U R N (Dp*.l*fqP*1 ' ») E X P E D IE N T , D IS R E G A R D S R U L E '), F E E L S F E W O B L IG A T IO N S -.tip.i'f'Jr. -.unnfjlli) S H Y , R E S T R A IN E D . T IM ID , T H R E A T -S E N S IT IV E (T lin *c tln ) T O U G H -M IN D E D , S E L F . R E L IA N I, R E A L IS T IC . N O -N O N S E N S E ( H o ifi'i) T R U S T IN G , A D A P T A B L E , F R E E OF J E A L O U S Y , E A SY TO G E T A L O N G W IT H (A ln -io ) P R A C T IC A L , C A R E F U l , C O N V E N T IO N - A t , R E G U L A T E D BY E X T E R N A L R E A L IT IE S . P R O P E R (P ,o ..-" > .o ) F O R T H R IG H T , N A IU R A I . A R TL E S S , U N P R E T E N T IO U S ( A 1 11 « n «-i« ,) S E L F -A S S U R E D , C O N n D T N T . SE R E N E (U n t'f'-.h l'-'i -l-J'-'IM 'K .I C O N S E R V A T IV E . R E S P E C T IN G ESTAFL L IS H F O ID E A S . T O L E R A N T o r TRADI T IO N A L D IF F IC U L T IE S (Cr>',-.,.rvoir'.m ) G R O U P -O E P E N D E N T , A ••J O IN T R ' A N D :HJNP F n i l OW ER (G ro -i* o il-' .n -.-p ) U N D IS C IP L IN E D S E L F •C O N F L IC T F O L - LOW S OWN U R G = C A R E l f SS OF P R O T O C O L ( L -w R E L A X E D . T P A N O U H ., U N F P U S T R A T E D (L o w **•*>•,I'm ) S T A N D A R D T E N SCO RE (S T E N ) Averngs A i l m o f b y 0 b o u t : 9 .7 % IS O H IG H SCORE D E S C R IP T IO N O U T G O IN G , AAR V h f AR TED. EASY •, 'I N '. F / . R T i r (H A TIN G (AH... r „ I, I til ,f'i 1 1) M O R E IN T E L L IG E N T , A T T R A C T E M O T IO N A L L Y S T A B L E , F A C E S A S S E R T IV E , A G G R E S S IV E , S T U B B O R N . G '.'V r i-.T i l i v e . H A P P Y -G O -L U C K Y , iM PU I.S IVF l.Y *.; . . f N IH U SIA 3 TIC C O N S C IE N T IO U S , P t ‘'.S E V E R IN G . v f . M ’ V V O P A L IS T IC V E N T U R E S O M E . SO C IA L L Y BOl.D, '..r;!’ :*< H -1 : r 11 . ..P O M A N E O U S T E N D E R -M IN D E D . C L IN G IN G , , . ; f. i | f r T f: 0 . r-E N S lT lV E OPIN ION A TED. IM A G IN A T IV E , .'.R A P P E D U p IN IN N E R •' ■ i• • 1 ■ v ; , m i. r o r p r a c i i c a l V.\ T t r n n n f.v iA N U L A T IN G . AOPl OLY A P P R E H E N S IV E , '.E l F -R E P R O A C H IN G , RRYir.r., TR O U B LE D ( ‘ • ' * B » .- > E X P E R IM E N T IN G . LH M 'R A L a n a , r • " AL. ‘’ R TF THIN KING S E L F - S U F F IC IE N T , PRE r (. PS CAN i f .'.'N :., * ’U ‘ O i j R C r r u i . C O N T R O L L E D , '• i'.*I A l 1.Y P R E C IS E . : i i r. f l F IVAOC ‘ - U D . D R IV E N , 10 / • o b ta in e d 7 .3 * ; o f a d u lt * KEY: Mean of the Sample Scores of the Individual 73 Figures 1 through 17 suggest that, while there were definite tendencies toward certain personality characteris tics, there were a number of individuals who did not fit the generalization of their sample or the total competitive lacrosse group. Therefore, scores obtained on a personality questionnaire cannot be used as diagnostic for an individual to participate or not participate in competitive sport. Certainly, the trends as established in this study are most representative of the group taken as a whole, but individ uals will always be individual and their own motivations and interests contribute to their own selections and success. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study investigated the personality factors of girls and women involved in competitive lacrosse. A strati fied random sample was drawn from the total competitive population at the junior high school, senior high school, college, association, and national levels. The appropriate personality questionnaire, HSPQ or 16 PF, Form A, was administered to all subjects. Each of the six samples was compared with its norm on each factor and sample groups were compared on all factors. A descriptive analysis was made on selected individual profiles. Findings 1. The junior high school sample was more intelli gent, assertive, happy-go-lucky, and circumspect than its norm. 2. The senior high school sample was more reserved, intelligent, assertive, happy-go-lucky, expedient, 74 75 toughminded, suspicious, forthright, experimenting, undis ciplined, and tense than its norm. 3. The college sample was more intelligent, asser tive, happy-go-lucky, expedient, toughminded, suspicious, forthright, and experimenting than its norm. 4. The association bottom four team sample was more reserved, intelligent, assertive, happy-go-lucky, toughminded, practical, self assured, experimenting, and group dependent than the norm. 5. The association top four team sample was more reserved, intelligent, and expedient than the norm. 6. The national team sample was more reserved, intelligent, happy-go-lucky, shy, toughminded, and experi menting than the norm. 7. The samples were different from each other on six factors: intelligence, conscientiousness, self assur ance, control, tenseness, and forthrightness. No patterns of difference were found between pairs or selected groups of samples. 8. Although the means of sample groups represented the total sample, individual scores varied greatly. Conclusions 76 1. The hypothesis that there would be significant differences on one or more personality factors between each sample and its norm was supported by the analysis of data. Each sample was significantly different from the norm on more than one factor. 2. The hypothesis that the lower the age level of the sample, and the less their experience in the competi tive aspects of the sport, the less the number of signifi cant differences between the sample and the norm was not supported by the analysis of data. No regular pattern of number of differences from norms was established. 3. The hypothesis that each sample would tend to differ from its norm on the same factors as the other sample groups was supported by the analysis of data. The total competitive lacrosse group was characterized as more reserved, intelligent, assertive, happy-go-lucky, tough minded, and experimenting than the norm. 4. The hypothesis that there would be significant differences between samples on those factors where samples had common differences from the norms was not supported by the analysis of data. There were differences between sample groups on six factors, only one of which was a common factor of difference from the norm for most samples. No pattern of differences was found on the significant factors. 77 5. This study also suggests that personality devel opment may be independent of competitive sports competition; that self selection of the individual into competitive sports may be determined by personality factors that the individual already possesses. Recommendations Although the findings of this study indicate a competitive girls' and women's personality "type" for lacrosse, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to girls and women in competitive athletics in general. This type of study must be replicated in many sport activities before an "athletic personality" can be determined for girls and women. It is quite possible that there are differences in personality in different types of activities. Several longitudinal studies must be done before anj’ ’ cause and effect relationship can be accepted or rejected between personality and sports competition. B I B L I O G R A P H Y 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY Biddulph, Lowell G. "Athletic Achievement vs. the Personal and Social Adjustment of High School Boys," Research Quarterly, March 1954. Black, J. D. "Results of Female College Students: Basic Reading on the MMPI," Health and Fitness in the Modern World, Athletic Institute, 1961. Booth, E. G. "Personality Traits of Athletes as Measured by the MMPI," Research Quarterly, May 1958. Buros, Oscar Krisen. The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1965. Cattell, Raymond B. Personality: A Systematic, Theoretical and Factual Study. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950. _______ , and Cattell, Mary D. L. Handbook for the Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire. Champaign: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1969. ______ , and Ebner, Herbert W. Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1964. Cofer, Charles N., and Johnson, Warren R. "Personality Dynamics in Relation to Exercise and Sports," Science and Medicine of Exercise and Sport. Ed. Warren B. Johnson. New York: Harperand Brothers, 1960. Cowell, Charles C. "The Contribution of Physical Activity to Social Development," Research Quarterly, Part 2, May 1960. 80 10. Cratty, Bryant J. "Personality and Performance," "The Superior Athlete," Psychology and Physical Activity. Englewood Cliffs, N.jT: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1968. 11. Derian, A. S. "Some Personality Characteristics of Athletes Studied by the Projective Method." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1947. 12. Diamond, A. G. "Personality Traits in Relation to Physical Activity of Junior College Students." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1950. 13. Dixon, W. J. Biomedical Computer Programs. University of California Publications in Automatic Computa tion No. 2. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. 14. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. 15. Flanagan, Lance. "A Study of Some Personality Traits of Different Physical Activity Groups," Research Quarterly, October 1951. 16. Gold, Marvin. "A Comparison of Personality Character istics of Professional and College Varsity Tennis and Golf Players as Measured by the Guilford- Martin Personality Inventory." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Maryland, 1955. 17. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education! New York: McGraw-Hill Book CoT, T 95F!--------- 18. Harlow, R. G. "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique," Journal of Personality, Vol. 19, 1951. 19. Hays, William. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963. 20. Hendry, F. M. "Assessment of Personality Traits in the Coach-Swimmer Relationship," Research Quarterly, October 1968. 81 21. Heusner, L. "Personality Traits of Champions and Former Champion Athletes." Unpublished Research Paper, University of Illinois, 1952. 22. Hundleby, John D., Pawlik, Kurt, and Cattell, Raymond B. Personality Factors in Objective Test Devices. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, Publisher, 1965. 23. Husman, Burris F. "Aggression in Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques," Research Quarterly, December 1955. 24. Ibrahim, Hilmi. "Comparison of Temperament Traits among Intercollegiate Athletes and Physical Education Majors," Research Quarterly, December 1967. 25. Johnson, Warren R., and Hutton, Daniel C. "Effects of a Combative Sport upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Projective Test," Research Quarterly, March 1955. 26. _______ , and Johnson, Granville B., Jr. "Personality Traits of Some Champion Athletes as Measured by Two Projective Tests," Research Quarterly, December 1954. 27. Kane, John E. "The Description of Sports Ability by Use of the 16 PF." Paper read at the British Psychological Society Conference, Swansea, England, 1966. 28. . "Personality Profiles of Physical Education Students Compared with Others," Proceedings of International Congress of Psychology of Sport, Rome, 1965 . 29. . "Personality and Physical Ability," Proceed- Ihgs of International Congress of Sports Sciences, 1954. 30. . "Personality and Physique of Athletes," Physical Recreation, Vol. 34, 1960. 31. , and Callaghan, John. "Personality Traits in Tennis Players," British Lawn Tennis, July 1965. 32. Keough, Jack. "Relationship of Motor Ability and Athletic Participation in Certain Standardized Personality Measures," Research Quarterly, December 1959. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 82 Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Knapp, Barbara. "The Personality of Lawn Tennis Players," British Psychological Society, 1965. Kroll, Walter. "16 PF Profiles of Collegiate Wrestlers," Research Quarterly, March 1967. _______ , and Peterson, Kay H. "Personality and Factor Profiles of Collegiate Football Teams," Research Quarterly, December 1965. Lakie, William L. "Personality Characteristics of Certain Groups of Intercollegiate Athletes," Research Quarterly, December 1962. LaPlace, J. P. "Personality and Its Relationship to Success in Professional Baseball," Research Quarterly, December 1954. Malumphy, Theresa. "Personality of Women Athletes in Intercollegiate Competition," Research Quarterly, October 1968. _______ . "The Assessment of Personality and General Background of Women Participating in Regional and National Intercollegiate Competition." Unpub lished Research Study, University of Oregon, 1968. Morgan, William P. "Extraversion-Neurotic ism and Athletic Performance." Paper Presented at American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting, University Park, May 1968. Neal, Patsy. "Personality Traits of U.S. Women Who Participated in the 1959 Pan American Games as Measured by EPPS." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Utah, 1963. Nelson, D. 0., and Langer, P. "Some Psychological Implications of Varsity Football Performance," Coach and Athlete, September 1966. Newman, Earl N. "Personality Traits of Faster and Slower Competitive Swimmers," Research Quarterly, December 1968. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 83 Nibblock, A. G. "Personality Traits and Intelligence Level of Female Athletes and Non Participants from McNally High School." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Washington, 1967. Ogilvie, Bruce C. "Psychological Consistencies with Personality of High Level Competitors," Journal of American Medical Association, September-October 1968. _______ . "What is an Athlete?" Address to AAHPER National Convention, Las Vegas, 1967. _______ . "The Unanswered Question--Competition, Its Effect upon Femininity." Address to Olympic Development Committee, Santa Barbara, 1967. _______ , and Johnsgard, Keith W. "The Personality of " * the Male Athlete." Address to American Academy of Physical Education, Las Vegas, 1967. _______ , and Tutko, T. A. Problem Athletes and How to Handle Them. London: Pelham Books, Ltd., 1966. _______ , Tutko, T. A., and Young, I. "Comparison of Medalist and Non-Medalist Olympic Swimmers," American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1966. Peterson, S. L., Ukler, J. C., and Tousdale, W. W. "Personality Traits of Women in Team vs. Women in Individual Sports," Research Quarterly, December 1967. Rasch, Philip J., and Hunt, M. Briggs. "Some Person ality Attributes of Champion Amateur Wrestlers," Journal of the Association for Physical and Mental Rehabilitation, November-December i960. Rushall, B. S. "Personality Profiles and a Theory of Behavior Modification for Swimmers," Swimming Technique, October 1967. Schendel, Jack. "Psychological Differences Between Athletes and Non Participants in Athletics at Three Educational Levels," Research Quarterly, March 1965. Scott, M. Gladys. "The Contributions of Physical Activity to Psychological Development, Research Quarterly, May 1960. 84 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. Singer, Robert N. Motor Learning and Human Perform ance. New York": The Macmillan Co., 1968. Slusher, Howard. "Personality and Intelligence Characteristics of Selected High School Athletes and Non Athletes," Research Quarterly, December 1964. ------- Sperling, A. P. "The Relationships Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement in Physical Education Activities," Research Quarterly, October 1942. Thune, John B. "Personality of Weightlifters," Research Quarterly, October 1949. Warburton, Frank, and Kane, John. "Personality Related to Sport and Physical Activity," Readings in Physical Education, Physical Education Association of Great Britain, 1966. Werner, Alfred C., and Gottheil, Edward. "Personality Development and Participation in College Athletics," Research Quarterly, March 1966.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Concepts Derived From Observed Movement Patterns Represented By Visual Forms

PDF

Economy Of Learning At Beginning Levels Of Gross Motor Performance

PDF

The Effect Of Selected Conceptualizing Techniques Upon The Early Learningof A Gross Movement

PDF

Heart Rate Response To Stress: A Mathematical Model

PDF

Sex Differences In Learning A Complex Motor Task

PDF

The Effect Of Fatigue On Motor Learning

PDF

Visual Perception Of Static And Dynamic Two-Dimensional Objects: A Cross-Sectional Study

PDF

Effect Of Training With Ankle Weights On Running Skill

PDF

The Effect Of Number Of Practice Trials In Initial Learning On Retention And Relearning Of Motor Skills

PDF

Factors Related To Career Choice By Women Physical Education Majors And Implications For Early Recruitment

PDF

Grade Placement Of Games In The Elementary School Curriculum Of Physical Education

PDF

Patterns Of Error In Learning Balance Tasks

PDF

Ontological Truth In Sport: A Phenomenological Analysis

PDF

The Differential Effects Of Viewing Selected Moving Visual Figure Patterns On The Performance Of A Dynamic Balance Task

PDF

Flexibility Changes As A Result Of Isometric And Isotonic Exercise Over Limited Ranges Of Motion

PDF

The Quantification Of Selected Aspects Of Kinesthesis

PDF

Factors Related To Concepts Of Sportsmanship

PDF

Concepts Related To The Development Of Creativity In Modern Dance

PDF

The Effect Of Body Position On The Development Of Isometric And Isotonic Strength

PDF

Conceptions Of Physical Education In Twentieth Century America : Rosalindcassidy

Asset Metadata

Creator Mushier, Carole Lucille (author)

Core Title A Cross-Sectional Study Of The Personality Factors Of Girls And Women In Competitive Lacrosse

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Physical Education

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

Tag Education, Physical,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Lersten, Kenneth C. (committee chair), Lockhart, Aileene (committee member), Metheny, Eleanor (committee member), Michael, William B. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-398769

Unique identifier UC11361084

Identifier 7013664.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-398769 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7013664.pdf

Dmrecord 398769

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mushier, Carole Lucille

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