Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The Influence Of The Achievement Motive, The Affiliation Motive, And Incentive Conditions On Roleplaying Ability In Children
(USC Thesis Other)
The Influence Of The Achievement Motive, The Affiliation Motive, And Incentive Conditions On Roleplaying Ability In Children
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
70- 19,124 SPECTOR, Donald Elliot, 1925- THE INFLUENCE OF THE ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVE, THE AFFILIATION MOTIVE, AND INCENTIVE CONDITIONS ON ROLEPLAYING ABILITY IN CHILDREN. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970 Psychology, clinical University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © COPYRIGHT BY DONALD ELLIOT SPECTOR 1970 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE INFLUENCE OF THE ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVE, THE AFFILIATION MOTIVE, AND INCENTIVE CONDITIONS ON ROLEPLAYING ABILITY IN CHILDREN by Donald Elliot Spector A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Psychology) January 1970 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CA LIFO RN IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, 'written by ............... under the direction of hXs... 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 IL O S O P H Y H Dean ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is indebted to the members of his committee, Drs. Perry London (Chairman), Henry Slucki, and John Gould for valuable assistance in the preparation of this dissertation as well as their propitious interventions during his academic career at the University of Southern California, To Dr. James Robinson for his invaluable counseling and encouragement and Dr. Ralph Lanz, Area Superintendent, Los Angeles City School District, whose gracious cooperation enabled me to become involved with a group of dedicated, stimulating principals and their teachers, my special appreciation. Thanks are also due to Mrs, Irene Frieze for her services as statistical consultant to this study, to Mrs. Louise Kessler and Mrs. Judy Supkoff for their assistance in gathering data, and to Miss Paula Miller and Miss Bonnie Shattun who patiently mastered and utilized the modified scoring system for the verbal role- playing test. Words alone cannot acknowledge the debt due my wife, Ruth, without whose support, forbearance, and inspiration this project could not have been achieved, and Laurie, Robert, and Andrea, for whom this enterprise was ii both an exercise in patience and a morality tale on the virtues of acquiring an early education. This investigation was supported in part by a Public Health Service Research Scientist Development Award Number K3-MH-31, 209 from the National Institute of Mental Health, and by NIMH Grant Number MH-12853, Cognitive Control of Learning and Performance, Perry London principal investi gator . nx TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Page ii LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS . . Roleplaying Ability III. PROBLEMS OF THIS INQUIRY 3 6 Relationship Between Roleplaying Ability and Social Motives The Factor of Modality The Factor of Role Content The Factor of Differences Between Subjects The Factor of an Incentive The Factor of Intelligence Subjects Instruments Procedure Scoring Reliability VI. RESULTS . ................. 35 Hypothesis 1 Standardization of Scores and IV. HYPOTHESES 16 V. METHOD 17 Analysis of Variance iv Chapter Page Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 6 VII. DISCUSSION.................................... 57 VIII. SUMMARY...................................... 65 Subjects, Instruments, and Procedures Results and Conclusions REFERENCES.......... 68 APPENDICES.......................................... 73 A. Tables........................................ 74 B. Raw Data and Test Materials................... 77 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Percentages of Affiliation and Achievement Imagery Expressed in Responses to TAT Pictures.................................... 32 2. Interjudge Reliabilities for the Verbal and Pantomime Roleplaying Tests................. 33 3. Means, Standard Deviations and Significance Tests for Order Effects of Control Data . . . 36 4. Intercorrelations Among Nine Pantomime Roles . 38 5. Intercorrelations Among Nine Verbal Roles . . . 39 6. Intereorrelations of Grouped Roleplaying Scores for Pantomime and Verbal Modalities......... 40 7. Correlations Between Nine Verbal and Nine Pantomime Roles.............................. 42 8. Rotated Varimax Orthogonal Matrix of Factor Loadings for All Roleplaying Variables . . . 43 9. Sum of Responses Elicited by Nine Pantomime and Nine Verbal Roles....................... 45 10. Combined Standardized Means for Subject Categories and Conditions ................... 47 11. Analysis of Variance of Combined Roleplaying Test Means for Incentive Conditions, Subject Motive Categories, Intelligence, Types of Roles, and Modalities....................... 48 12. Pantomime Standardized Means for Subject Categories and Conditions ................... 50 13. Verbal Standardized Means for Subject Categories and Conditions ............ 51 vi Table Page 14. Subject Intelligence Standardized Means for Modalities and Conditions ................ 54 15. Combined Standardized Means for Subject Conditions and Intelligence................ 56 16. Pantomime Raw Score Means for Subject Categories and Conditions .................. 75 17. Verbal Raw Score Means for Subject Categories and Conditions............................. 76 / vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For over 70 years social scientists have been con cerned with a class of behavior called roleplaying (James, 1890; Cooley, 1922; Mead, 1934). In a general sense, the term refers to the actions of one person behaving as if he were another. The development of that ability is consid ered to be an essential part of the socialization process (Cameron, 1947). However, Mann (1961) has described role theory as "... a loose conglomeration of ideas contained under a single rubric, rather than a consistent theoretical system" (p. 217). Until recently, the considerable body of theoretical work was almost devoid of support from empir ical research so that little was known about the character istics of roleplaying ability. One area that has been largely unexplored is the relationship between roleplaying ability, that is, the degree of skill with which an individual fulfills the requirements of a given role, and social motives, that is, those personality characteristics which incite and direct the activity of an individual in an interpersonal situation. It is possible that an 1 2 individual's social motives affect his overall roleplaying performance. They may also be related to different quali ties of responses in different roleplaying situations. The purpose of the present study is to explore the effects of two social motives— need for achievement and need for affiliation— on both specific and general roleplaying performance. CHAPTER XI DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Roleplaying There are many definitions of roleplaying in the literature of social science. Banton (1965) states that "a role may be understood as a set of norms and expecta tions applied to the incumbent of a particular position" (p. 29). Thus, a roleplayer can be viewed as the incumbent and his ability, the skill with which he is able to fulfill the norms. A man enlisting in the U.S. Navy, for example, will occupy the position of a seaman and the degree to which he conforms to Naval Regulations and the dictates of his superior officers reflects his ability at playing that role. This kind of real-life incumbency is the type of roleplaying usually referred to in both the popular and theoretical literature (Coutu, 1951). In some cases (e.g., as when classifying the various roles in an island economy) it can be carefully documented through naturalistic observation (Goffman, 1959). In contrast to those role player s, the subjects in the present study played at a variety of roles such that they were pretending or "acting- 3 4 as-if" they were the actual incumbents. There is only limited evidence, however, that a relationship between laboratory and real-life roleplaying exists (Mann, 1956; Bass, 1960; Bandura, Ross, &Ross, 1961). Obviously, it is not practical to place a subject in a variety of real-life situations. Laboratory demonstrations of roleplaying are reliable (Mann & Mann, 1959) and appear to be the best means of assessing roleplaying ability under controlled conditions. When a subject is asked to portray a familiar, but improbable, role his proficiency in doing so may be taken as a measure of his ability to adapt to similar role demands in real life. In the present study, roleplaying refers to the exercise of responses by an individual as if he were the incumbent of a familiar position for which there is a generally accepted set of norms and expecta tions, i.e., a common social stereotype. Ability Ability can be conceptualized in several ways. In one sense it can be seen as a measure of an individual's knowledge of the number of components involved in a given role. In this case roleplaying ability is regarded as quantitative in that its "goodness" is based on the number of responses emitted in a given roleplaying situation. Thus, it is categorized as a "knowledge sense" of role playing . 5 Another sense in which roleplaying ability may be viewed is that of appropriateness. Here, ability is seen as the skill with which an individual emits relevant responses in a socially accepted manner at proper times and places. In this sense, roleplaying ability is regarded as qualitative and good roleplaying demonstrated by the accurate replication of appropriate behavior. This is not to say that a given role has only one appropriate set of responses, but it is possible to narrow the range of possible responses by careful specification of role compo nents. In any case, appropriateness remains a matter of probability, i.e., what most people tend to do in a given situation as determined by competent judges of human behavior. The two senses in which roleplaying ability is construed in this study are knowledge of the components and appropriateness of the responses relevant to a given role. Both the contents of the roles and the scoring systems were designed with those criteria in mind. Thus, roleplaying ability is defined operationally in the present study by the number of responses which an individual emits in ways congruent with predetermined, common social stereotypes as specified by the experimenter (cf., London & Bowers, 1965). CHAPTER III PROBLEMS OF THIS INQUIRY Relationship Between Roleplaying Ability and Social Motives Very little is known about the characteristics of roleplaying ability. Despite a large body of literature dealing with the uses of roleplaying in education (Chesler & Fox, 1966; Pancrazio & Cody, 1967), personality change (Moreno, 1946; Clarke, 1965), and industry (Bavelas, 1947; Corsini, Shaw, & Blake, 1961), the efforts to determine the composition of the ability itself have been meager (Biddle & Thomas, 1967). If, in fact, social motives are important concomitants of roleplaying ability, the relationship has implications for both the users of roleplaying techniques and investigators of the socialization process. In the former case, it would account for a portion of the varia bility in performance, and in the latter, tend to support the theoretical position that motives underly behavior. The relationship between roleplaying ability and social motives has been explicated in theory (Sarbin, 1954; Proshansky & Seidenberg, 1965), but there appears to have 6 7 been only the one effort of Mann and Borgatta (1959) to establish it empirically. That landmark study was an attempt to determine personality changes correlated with roleplaying experiences; it included measures of both variables. The assessment of social motives, however, was made with the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, which generates 16 different motive scores. In contrast, the present study was restricted to the investigation of two important social motives, need for achievement and need for affiliation. These motives have not only been studied widely and validated (Atkinson, 1958; Cofer & Appley, 1964; Brown, 1965) but have been shown to have contrasting effects, as well (French, 1956; Wyer, 1967). For example, achievers prefer experts and affiliators prefer friends as work partners. An assumption underlying the present study is that social motives influence the manner in which individuals perform roles. Thus, any familiar roleplaying performance is largely a function of the strength of the subject's motives and the degree to which they are aroused by a particular role. The screening procedures and role situa tions in the study were designed to permit the investiga tion of this interaction as well as other possible sources of variability in roleplaying performance. 8 The Factor of Modality A factor that obviously influences roleplaying performances is that of the modality of the responses. In past roleplaying research, subjects have been required to respond: (a) verbally (Bowers & London, 1965), (b) both verbally and motorically in combination (Mann & Borgatta, 1959) , or (c) in separate verbal and pantomime performances (Thompson, 1968). While most roleplaying in real life occurs in a combination of modalities, there does not appear to be a reliable scoring system developed for judg ing combined performances. Since people use both verbal and motor modalities as they fill social roles, both should be studied and the relationship between them better under stood. In a pilot study, the present experimenter found that roleplaying performances in verbal and pantomime roles were unrelated. No systematic effort had been made to control for role content, thus raising doubts that differ ences were solely due to the modalities. In the present study, roles are matched on the basis of established criteria so as to control for that factor. It was antici pated that matching would strengthen the relationship between pantomime and verbal performances to a level that would permit standardization and, hence, consolidation of scores for both modalities. 9 The Factor of Role Content The situation a person is asked to enact is called the role content. Obviously, skill at roleplaying is a partial function of the role content. A person will show more skill in roles that are common to his culture than in roles that are alien. However, if attention is restricted to roles which all subjects have had equal opportunity to learn, the question of roleplaying differ ences as a function of content is no longer trivial. It is obvious that as children develop they are exposed to a multitude of roles. One question which arises is whether a person's motives influence his identification with (and hence his ability to perform) roles of differing arousal qualities. It is hypothesized that roleplaying performance does vary as a function of role content and, more specif ically, that it varies as a function of the strength of the social motive to which the role situation is relevant. This view is derived from McClelland's (1965) conceptuali zation of motives as "affectively toned associative networks arranged in a hierarchy of strength or importance within a given individual." He believes that these are expressed in the fantasy stories subjects write in response to experimental stimuli and their intensity measured by the scores so obtained. In the present study, subjects were selected on the basis that they scored relatively high on 10 either the achievement or affiliation motive, relatively low on the other. Role situations were developed which were relevant to those two social motives. A role situa tion is considered to be relevant to a particular motive when (a) the situation is one that typically evokes the motive and (b) the protagonist in the situation (the character whose role the subject is to play) is said to be experiencing the motive, i.e., is so motivated. Following McClelland's "cluster’1 view of motives, it was predicted that subjects would perform at approximately the same level of competence in those roles that evoked the same motive. The Factor of Differences Between Subjects In the present study, subjects were used who were respectively high in either the achievement or the affilia tion motive. It is possible that subjects high in diverse motives are affected differently by the circumstances of a roleplaying test and it was hypothesized that subjects high in the achievement motive perform better in all roles. The reason for such a view is that an experimental setting, in a school, with two adults sitting in judgment, may be laden with demand characteristics to perform to some implicit standard of excellence. The effects of demand characteris tics have been documented (London & Rosenhan, 1964, pp. 457-458). Such a condition, aside from the content of the 11 tasks Involved, should have a greater effect on the achievement motive than on the affiliation motive since the former is defined as ". . . . concern with success in compe tition with some standard of excellence" (Atkinson, 1958, p. 181). In a neutral test condition it is expected that subjects high in the achievement motive demonstrate greater roleplaying ability than subjects high in the affiliation motive because they tend to view it as a competitive situa tion. However, when the experimental demands are altered and made explicit through the introduction of an incentive, the difference in performances between the two classes of subjects diminishes or disappears, though not changing the overall superiority of the achievers. The basis for this assumption is discussed below but briefly stated is: the situational motivation is determined by the incentive rather than by the weaker social motives. If it is assumed that subjects behave as predicted above, with what skill might they perform in roles that are relevant to different motives? Each individual is more responsive to some motives than to others and McClelland (1965) has suggested that the higher a motive is in an individual's hierarchy, the greater the probability that it will be aroused. The stronger the aroused motive, the greater the likelihood that it will evoke a vigorous response (Mann, 1967). Finally, it is possible that, despite equal knowledge of several social roles, individuals 12 will have given more thought (or imaginary practice) to situations associated with stronger motives. In the present study, subjects were respectively high in either the achievement or affiliation motive and they performed in roles, some of which had been specifically designed to arouse one, some the other, of those two motives. Because of the considerations expressed above, an interaction was hypothesized between individuals' motives and the types of roles in which they perform, such that they do better in those roles that arouse the stronger of the two motives on their motive hierarchies. The Factor of an Incentive In roleplaying studies performances may be a func tion of such variables as the subject's social motives, the motive content of the role situations, or the interaction of his social motives with the role contents. It is unlikely that those variables would much influence his performance if he were aboard a sinking ship at the time: his primary concern would be with escape. The concept of demand characteristics in an experimental situation was previously alluded to with regard to the immediate test setting. It is also possible that subjects react to characteristics in the overall test environment that are unrelated to social motives resulting in performances unlike those he would emit in vivo. A school setting is 13 one in which children usually endeavor to perform to the best of their ability when publicly called upon to do so. Obviously, many children do not demonstrate their best efforts prior to being called upon in the classroom (i.e., in preparation), but when the characteristics of the situa tion even imply rewards for superior effort (e.g., good grades) , they will tend to respond accordingly. When two adults ask a child to perform, while they act as judges, it is possible that measurements of roleplaying ability under those circumstances will be unrelated to the abilities demonstrated in everyday life. He will be responding to a need to please two authority figures rather than to needs which might be aroused by the content of the roles. In order to control for the possibility that subjects in a roleplaying test are exerting their best efforts solely because of the situation itself, an incentive condition was included in the present study. The assumption underlying that decision is that subjects are certain to try their best under inducement of praise, encouragement, and a possible reward. If there is no difference between scores made in the incentive condition and those of the neutral condition, then it may be presumed that a ceiling effect has resulted from factors in the test environment. In that case, factors relating to common social motives are obviously not free to exert their influences. If, on the other hand, scores are lower in the neutral condition, then 14 it may be concluded that performances of those subjects are probably a function of the social motives operating in the test situation. In the present study, it was hypothesized that individuals perform better in an incentive condition than in a neutral condition. As previously stated, a significant interaction between incentive-neutral condi tions and subject affiliation-achievement motive categories was also hypothesized. The Factor of Intelligence It is logical that verbal roleplaying skill be a function of verbal intelligence. Studies by Feffer and Gourevitch, 1960; Wolfe, 1963; Bowers and London, 1965; and Thompson, 1968, all concluded that verbal roleplaying skill is mediated by verbal intelligence. In Thompson's (1968) study, however, motoric roleplaying ability was also assessed and the relationship did not emerge for that modality. The finding is somewhat surprising since the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children (WISC) Vocabulary subtest (Wechsler, 1949), used in that study, correlates with overall intelligence at .83. A possibly confounding variable in the Thompson (1968) study could have been the disturbed nature of the populations from which two of the three treatment groups were drawn, resulting in distorted assessments of intelligence. In the present study, all subjects were drawn from a normal population and were 15 administered the WISC Vocabulary subtest. It was hypothe sized that subjects with high intelligence perform better than subjects with low intelligence. CHAPTER IV HYPOTHESES Six experimental hypotheses were formulated from the foregoing considerations: 1. Individuals perform roles that arouse a common motive at relatively uniform levels of skill. 2. Individuals high in the achievement motive perform better than individuals high in the affiliation motive. 3. There is an interaction between individuals' motives and the types of roles in which they perform well or poorly. They do better in roles that arouse motives higher on their motive hierarchies. 4. Individuals perform better in an incentive condition than in a neutral condition. 5. Under incentive conditions, differences related to motives diminish or disappear, such that all individuals tend to perform at comparable levels of skill. 6. Individuals with high intelligence perform better than do individuals with low intelligence.. 16 CHAPTER V METHOD The present study examined the effects of two social motives, two roleplaying modalities, an incentive condition, intelligence, and various role contents on the roleplaying behavior of elementary school boys. Subjects The subjects were 64 sixth-grade boys between the ages of 10 and 13 with a mean age of 11. The majority were Caucasian, from middle-class families, and attending one of eight participating elementary schools in northern Los Angeles. Boys were used here because most studies utiliz ing the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to measure the achievement and affiliation motives, as in the present study, have been done with males (Klinger, 1966), Sixth- grade children were used since they are at about the ages of optimal differences in demonstrating roleplaying skills (Bowers & London, 1965; Madsen & London, 1966; Thompson, 1968; London & Madsen, 1969). Subjects were drawn from a pool of 149 pupils who had been volunteered by their 17 18 parents. Criterion for their inclusion in the study was that they he among the top 32 scorers in either the achievement or affiliation motive on a screening test. Instruments Initial screening was completed on 149 subjects. It consisted of the administration of a six-picture form of the TAT to which they wrote stories which were scored for achievement- and affiliation-related content. Sixty-four of these subjects were selected for the roleplaying phase of the study on the basis of their scores. TAT testing was done in groups, usually in the school library or cafeteria. A 35mm slide was shown on a screen for 20 seconds, followed by a period of four minutes during which the subjects were to write stories on 8-1/2 by 14 inch sheets spaced off with four sets of questions designed to aid in the composition of the story. These were: (1) What is happening? Who are the persons? (2) What has led up to this situation? That is, what has happened in the past? (3) What is being thought? What is wanted? By whom? (4) What will happen? What will be done? The slides used were selected from those recom mended by Atkinson (1958, pp. 832-834). The achievement- oriented slides were: #5— two men talking in a well furnished office; #26--a foreman and worker standing near a machine; and #33— a boy, smiling, at a desk at home. Those 19 of the affiliation type were: #81--a figure tinder a street lamp at night; #88— a group of young men seated, with one man standing outside of and away from the group; and #91— a young woman's head against a man's shoulder. All subjects were shown the slides in the same order, predeter mined randomly, and alternating between the two motive types. Roleplaying ability was measured by two instru ments, a motoric acting test (pantomime) and a verbal acting test (verbal). The pantomime acting tasks were adapted from Thompson's (1968) Social Charades Test and consisted of nine situations which were described to the subject, and which he then acted out silently. Independent judging was carried out by the experimenter and his assistant while performances were in progress. Of the nine roles, the three adopted from Thompson (1968) were: (a) a motorcycle policeman stopping a speeder; (b) a boy who eats too much candy and vomits; and * (c) an irate mother whose child has just scribbled on the wall with a crayon. The Thompson roles were utilized as a means of maintaining continuity and comparability between studies and were slightly modified by the addition of affective instructions to allow more qualitative judgments to be made. 20 The six new pantomime roles were designed by the present experimenter on the basis of McClelland's criteria for the affiliation and achievement motives. The premise underlying the six new roles was that individual need systems would respond most strongly to those needs most regnant, e.g., an achievement-related role will elicit more responses in an individual high in the achievement motive r than in one who is not. Three of the new roles to arouse the affiliation motive were: (a) a girl whose boyfriend jilts her; (b) a soldier in combat whose best friend is wounded; and (c) a boy who finds a dollar bill and has a chance to share it with someone whose friendship he desires very much. The achievement-related roles were; (a) a housewife who wants to win a housekeeping contest; (b) a college student selling magazine subscriptions; and (c) a boy who has just received the best report card of his life. The process of developing the new roles consisted of winnowing them from among at least 12 possible roles in each motive category, having them evaluated as appropriate by three independent judges (one clinical psychologist and two clinical psychology interns), and then using them with sixth-grade pilot subjects (N=7). During the course of the pilot work slight modifications were made in the role specifications, and scoring sheets were developed into final form. 21 The test of verbal roleplaying skill was modified from the London and Bowers Dramatic Acting Test (1965). In it, the experimenter describes a series of situations and attitudes to the subject, assigns himself and the subject specific roles, then presents standardized lines to which the subject responds with lines of his own invention. That test is, in effect, a type of Comedia del Arte theatre in which the subject assumes a series of familiar roles based on cultural stereotypes. As with the pantomime tasks, the verbal test used here contained original roles based on affiliation and achievement motive criteria as defined in Atkinson (1958). The affiliation roles were: (a) a boy whose supposed best friend failed to invite him to a birthday party; (b) a girl whose boyfriend wants to attend college in the East; and (c) a soldier whose buddy has volunteered for a dangerous mission. The achievement roles were: (a) a boy applying for a job; (b) a man who has been passed up for a raise and promotion; and (c) a mother whose son is faced with a choice of careers. Three roles were also carried over from the original Dramatic Acting Test. They were judged to be relatively free of either affiliation or achievement values. They were: (a) a sheriff in an old West town; (b) a mother whose son has broken a lamp while playing in the house with a friend; and (c) a teacher who must deal with a conflict between two pupils. The modification consisted simply of adding 22 appropriate affect instructions to the role specifications. Six of the verbal acting roles were new and were designed to arouse relevant motives. Their suitability for that task was first evaluated by three independent judges (one clinical psychologist and two clinical psychology interns) who agreed on their final selections from an original choice of 25 playlets. Pilot work (N=7) with sixth-graders allowed for slight modifications, clarifica tion of language, and the rudimentary development of scoring criteria based on the general rules of London and Bowers (1965). The scoring system was refined further following the completion of testing and then employed by the experimenter and two independent raters for scoring the performances from taped recordings. Procedure The first phase of the experiment consisted of screening all eligible subjects by administering the McClelland TAT slides to groups of 8-20 students at each of eight schools. Instructions were given so as to establish a neutral condition (Appendix B). They included directions on how to write good stories, the use of the protocol sheets, and assurances that the work would remain confiden tial. The experimenter gave the instructions, operated the slide projector, and informed the subjects of the appro priate time intervals, Following testing (about 30 23 minutes), subjects were informed that not all of them could be included in the next phase of the study and that selec tions would be made on a random basis. The 149 six-story protocols were scored by the experimenter during the following four weeks, first for affiliation imagery, then for achievement imagery. For the roleplaying phase of the study, the 32 subjects highest in the affiliation category and the 32 subjects highest in the achievement category were selected. Three subjects were disqualified and replaced for having placed in the top 32 of both categories. Following the screening procedure, the experimental phase was initiated by assigning subjects, randomly, to either an incentive or a neutral condition': These two groups each had 32 subjects, 16 of them affiliation- oriented and 16 achievement-oriented. Subjects in the incentive condition received the same preliminary instruc tions as in the neutral condition but were also told that the task was a contest in which they could win a prize of five dollars (Appendix B). In addition, they were reinforced verbally after every other playlet with praise, encouragement, or reminders of the possible reward. Subjects in the neutral condition were only mildly reassured at the conclusion of their first playlet and, of course, heard no mention of a prize for superior perform ance. At the end of each subject's test session (about 30 minutes), he was told that he was participating in a 24 contest and asked to maintain secrecy, a tactic of the experimenter to avoid contamination of the study. That effort was supplemented by scheduling subjects throughout the whole school day and striving (with success in all but two cases) to run all subjects in a single day at each school. On the basis of questions asked of subjects, teachers, and parents, all indications are that no subject came to a session with any more knowledge than that he would participate in some "playacting." Within the four subject groups further randomiza tion took place so as to maximize control for order effects. First, subjects were assigned randomly to posi tion 1 through 16. Each of those positions had been assigned randomly a verbal or pantomime priority such that eight subjects in each group began with one modality, eight with the other, but with all roles in each modality to be run consecutively before beginning the other. Within modalities all roles had been ordered randomly for each of the 16 positions, with the condition that there not be more than two roles of any motive-type adjacent to one another (Appendix B). Thus, while order was completely randomized within the four subject groups, it was matched across groups, so that for each randomized arrangement of play lets, half beginning with verbal roles and half with pantomime, every subject shared an arrangement of roles with another subject in each of the other three groups. 25 Each subject was tested with only the experimenter and his assistant present in a convenient room at the particular school. The setting included a table and chairs for the experimenter, his assistant, and the subject. Another chair was placed six to eight feet away which was used as the starting position for the pantomime perform ances. A tape recorder, with microphone in position, and clipboards containing instructions and scoring sheets were in place on the table when the subject entered the room. All subjects were greeted identically with a general introduction, followed by a specific introduction to either the verbal or pantomime tasks (Appendix B). As part of the introduction to the pantomime roles, the experimenter gave a demonstration of a man who stops at a pay phone, places a call, then proceeds on his way. Subjects in the incentive condition then received brief, additional instructions and encouragement and the appropriate roleplaying tasks were initiated. In the verbal portion of the session, the experimenter and subject interacted while the female assistant operated the tape recorder. In the pantomime portion, the assistant served as a second, independent scorer and had her only opportunity to interact with the subject as either she or the experimenter was free to ask open-ended questions regarding discreet movements of the subject at the end of each playlet. For the subjects in the incentive condition, the experimenter was the sole 26 reinforcer. At the conclusion of both verbal and pantomime portions, the subject was thanked, asked to maintain confi dentiality, then usually given the name of the next subject to be sent in (Appendix B). As previously noted, during that final interaction, the word "contest" was mentioned twice to all subjects both as a deterrent to contamination of untested subjects and as a safeguard against feelings of discrimination when information was eventually exchanged among subjects. Approximately 10 to 15 days after completion of the roleplaying tests, another assistant administered the WISC Vocabulary test (Wechsler, 1949). While subjects were informed that the test was part of the overall study, they were told specifically that the vocabulary questions were completely independent of the roleplaying contest as a tactic to reduce test anxiety. Only one subject was unavailable at that time and excellent measures of his IQ were available from school records. Within 7 to 10 days of completion of the vocabulary tests, the experimenter came to each school and met with those boys who had participated in the roleplaying portion of the study. He showed them a crisp, new five dollar bill and informed them that he had been told by school officials that pupils could not be rewarded directly for participation in studies done under school sponsorship. While there were a few initial expres sions of disappointment, most boys joined enthusiastically 27 into discussions of how to utilize the prize money of five dollars per school. Choices ranged from such diverse things as a book for the school library (with their names recorded in it as donors) to a mulberry bush for a school that had been experiencing difficulty feeding its silkworms during the preceding semester. When questioned by the experimenter, the consensus of feelings expressed by the subjects toward the study was that it had been fun to participate at the expense of normal classroom routine. One final operation was to hold a meeting for interested parents at which the general aims of the study were revealed and discussed and the methods demonstrated. Invitations to that effect were mailed to the homes of all 149 original participants. Twenty-one adults attended the meeting, several of whom were not parents of participants but were seeking psychological counseling. Wo feedback was given on the performance of any specific subject as had been promised to the participating subjects. Scoring The six-story TAT protocols used for initial screening of subjects were scored in accordance with the manuals for the achievement and affiliation motives (Atkinson, 1958, pp. 179-218). They were first scored for affiliation-related content. Stories of Doubtful or Unrelated Imagery were scored 0. A score of +1 was given 28 to each of the following categories: Affiliation Imagery, Need, Successful Instrumental Activity, Positive Anticipa tory Goal State, Positive Affective State, Negative Affective State, Environmental Obstacle, and Affiliation Thema. They were next scored for achievement-related content. Stories of Doubtful Imagery were scored 0 and those categorized as Unrelated Imagery, -1. A score of +1 was assigned to the content categories of Achievement Imagery, Need, Positive Instrumental Activity, Negative Instrumental Activity, Positive Anticipatory Goal State, Negative Anticipatory Goal State, Obstacle or Block, Nurturant Press, Positive Affective State, Negative Affec tive State, and Achievement Thema. Both manuals require that appropriate Imagery be found before any other cate gories can be assigned a score. However, it is noteworthy that the two systems differ in several other aspects of their scoring possibilities. Performances on the pantomime acting test were evaluated with the aid of scoring sheets pre-marked with the most common responses and with room for additional responses to be entered. Judgments were made on the number of discrete appropriate (+1) and inappropriate (-1) responses. Categories were included to account for varying degrees of affect and alacrity so that both quantity and some degree of quality of responses were considered. Scoring for each playlet consisted of the algebraic sum of 29 responses checked off on the appropriate sheet. For the verbal roles, three judges worked independ ently from tape recordings of the roleplaying sessions. Scoring was based on the assignment of lines emitted by the subject to categories ranging from 1 (no role adoption) through 4 (good role adoption) with the category number corresponding to a score and the subject's overall score consisting of the sum of scores obtained for the three lines to which he could respond in each playlet. Thus, a minimum score possible for any playlet was three, a maximum 12, and specific criteria were enumerated in the scoring manual to assist judges in placing values on a performance continuum (Appendix B). Category numbers for different degrees of response appropriateness were determined by agreement among the three independent judges. The judges were the experimenter, a graduate student in education, and one in psychology. The need for both verbal and motoric measures of roleplaying ability is discussed elsewhere in this paper. As indicated, previous attempts to judge roleplaying ability on the basis of total performance have resulted in inadequate reliabilities among scorers (Mann & Mann, 1959; Mann & Borgatta, 1959). In the present study, separate scoring systems for the two modalities of communication were used, each with demonstrable reliability. This pro cedure was viewed as an improvement over the consolidated 30 scoring or confinement to the verbal modality of previous roleplaying studies. Reliability Scoring of the TAT protocols was done by the exper imenter after he had achieved reliabilities of better than .80 on practice materials. Sets were disassembled and all stories written to a particular slide were scored, in random order, before going on to the next class of stories. Following the procedure of Alper (1957), samples (N=30) were drawn about two weeks after original scoring, rescored for appropriate imagery, and tested for scoring reliability by rank-order correlations. Results were .99 for achieve ment and .95 for affiliation. A further sample (N=121) was drawn, rescored for appropriate motive imagery, and tested for scoring reliability by computing percentages of agree ment (Atkinson, 1958, p. 688). These were .88 for achieve ment and .83 for affiliation. Of the 149 subjects participating in the screening phase of the study, nine produced protocols that were so illegible or incomplete as to be unscorable and they were eliminated from the subject pool. The mean scores for the 140 scored protocols were 3.66 for affiliation-related stories and .086 for achievement-related. The low mean for achievement is not surprising. Veroff (Atkinson, 1958, p. 836) has pointed out that mean achievement scores drop 31 considerably in sets of pictures containing cues for other motives because -1 is scored for unrelated imagery while this practice is not followed when scoring other motives. These scores for sixth-graders compare favorably with Veroff*s college students (N-49) who had means of 4.67 (affiliation) and .43 (achievement) on a six-picture test. Percentages of affiliation and achievement imagery elicited by the various pictures are found in Table 1. Product-moment correlations were computed in order to assess the scoring reliability of both the verbal and pantomime acting tests. The results (Table 2) indicate interjudge reliabilities ranging from .83 to .99. For the verbal roleplaying test three independent judges rated each subject's responses: (a) Experimenter-^, who had observed each subject in the test situation; (b) a graduate student in education; and (c) a group trainer for a center for human development. Interjudge reliabilities for judges a and b were .89; for a and c, .91; and for b and c, .88. Interjudge reliabilities for clusters of roles based on a common motive were slightly lower. For the pantomime roleplaying test all subjects were rated by the team of Experimenter^ and Experimented in vivo. Both judges were permitted to ask open-ended ques tions of the subject, as well as to hear the responses to his colleagues' questions. This factor helps to account 32 TABLE 1 PERCENTAGES OF AFFILIATION AND ACHIEVEMENT IMAGERY EXPRESSED IN RESPONSE TO TAT PICTURES (N=64) Pictures* (in order of presentation) Imagery Expressed No. 5 No. 91 No. 26 No. 88 No. No. 33 81 Total Affiliation .09 .52 .09 .41 .17 .09 .23 Achievement .16 .03 .29 .05 .44 .13 .18 ^Numbers correspond to those in Atkinson (1958), pages 832-834. 33 TABLE 2 INTER JUDGE RELIABILITIES* FOR THE VERBAL AND PANTOMIME ROLEPLAYING TESTS Test by Judges Types of Roles Achievement Affiliation General Total Pantomime (N=64) r12 .97 .98 .98 .99 Verbal (N=64) rab .83 .89 .88 .89 rac .85 .86 .90 .91 rbc .89 .84 .84 .88 *Interjudge reliabilities were computed as Pearson Product- Moment correlations. 34 for the extremely high interjudge reliability of .99. Reliabilities for role clusters were also slightly lower. For purposes of statistical analysis, only the scores of Experimenter^ were used in both verbal and pantomime tests. CHAPTER VI RESULTS Of the six hypotheses in the present study, one was tested by correlational methods and the other five by analysis of variance. Those operations are described in the appropriate sections below. The first treatment of the data involved a test for order effects. Within each treat ment group, half the subjects had received pantomime roles first, the other half verbal roles first. As shown on Table 3, tests of significance between pantomime roles first and verbal roles first in both modalities indicated that there is no effect from the order in which subjects are assigned to the two modalities. As a consequence, the scores of subjects given the two different orders were combined for all subsequent analyses. Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis states that individuals perform roles that arouse a common motive at relatively uniform levels of skill. The hypothesis involves relation ships among the 18 role scores made by each of the 64 35 36 TABLE 3 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR ORDER EFFECTS OF CONTROL DATA (N=64) Modality Pantomime Verbal Order Pan. 1st Ver. 1st Pan. 1st Ver. 1st N 32 32 32 32 Mean 65.91 66.56 77.84 74.06 Std. Dev. 23.20 22.08 8.75 8.65 d.f. 62 62 t .11 1.71 37 subjects (Appendix B) and was tested by means of Pearson Product-Moment correlations. It was expected that the scores for (a) the six affiliation roles would intercorre late, (b) the six achievement roles would intercorrelate, and (c) that relations between those roles or with other (general) roles would not be significant. Table 4 consists of intercorrelations of the nine pantomime roles and Table 5 of the nine verbal roles and their data clearly fail to support the above expectations. While individual affiliation and achievement roles correlate strongly within their categories in the pantomime modality, they also do so with all other roles in that modality (Table 4). Among verbal roles a weaker, but similar, trend is evident; the affiliation roles cluster but they also account for many other significant relationships in that modality (Table 5). Obviously, the primary basis for relationships among roles within each modality is that modality itself. The degree to which types of roles within modalities lack independence can be seen on Table 6. The three scores for each type of role (affiliation, achievement, and general) have been grouped within the two modalities and then the grouped scores intercorrelated. Within modalities, all types of roles intercorrelated with values ranging from .36 (p. < .01) to .78 (p. < .001). Since results failed to meet the expectations above, the hypothesis is rejected. TABLE 4 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG NINE PANTOMIME ROLES (N=64) 38 Roles Affiliation Achievement General 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 .55** 3 .52** .56** 4 .49** .57** .50** - 5 .65** .68** .61** .71** - 6 .56** .59** .59** .60** .70** 7 .41** .69** .62** .56** .58** .61** 8 .46** .53** .50** .50** .54** .60** .53** 9 .46** .63** .60** .55** .53** .58** .63** .49** - **p. < .01 39 TABLE 5 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG NINE VERBAL ROLES (N=64) Roles Affiliation Achievement General 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 .46** 3 .42** .36** - 4 .40** .33** .13 - 5 .25* .12 .13 .23 6 .17 .16 .12 .24 .39** - 7 .47** .36** .23 .39** .13 .12 8 .20 .27* .11 .43** .11 .13 .28* 9 .06 .26* -.08 .10 .14 .29* .19 .21 - **p. < ,01 *p. < ,05 40 TABLE 6 INTERCORRELATIONS OF GROUPED ROLEPLAYING SCORES FOR PANTOMIME AND VERBAL MODALITIES Roles 2 3 4 5 6 Affiliation(1) .78** .78** .42** .26* .10 Pantomime Achievement (2 ) .76** .30* .25* .04 General(3) .30* .20 .16 Affiliation(4) .36** .36** Verbal Achievement (5 ) .38** General (6) **p. < .01 *p. < .05 41 There is, however, a point of interest to this issue in the data. Among the nine cross-modal relation ships shown on Table 6, the strongest is that of pantomime affiliation roles with verbal affiliation roles. It may be noted that among cross-modal relationships the effects of modality are at a minimum. As clearly shown on Table 7, the relationships among the motive-based scores are much higher than among the general roles, without a single correlation of a general role with a general role even approaching significance. This may indicate that individ uals tend to perform with greater consistency in motive- based roles than in general roles, although the effect is much weaker than is that of the modality in which roles are performed. To investigate the matter further, a factor analysis of the data was performed using the Varimax method with orthogonal rotations (Table 8). While the effects of modality are obvious (Factors 1 and 2), it also indicates some commonality among the affiliative roles across modali ties, as shown by Factor 7. The affiliation roles, at least, appear to offer some partial support to the notion that a common motive contributes to uniformity in roleplay ing performance. 42 TABLE 7 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NINE VERBAL AND NINE PANTOMIME ROLES (N=64) P a n t o m i m e Roles Affiliation Achievement General 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 .37** .27* .33** .37** .23 .25* .25* .26* .22 2 .37** .02 .20 -.03 .13 .12 .03 .12 .13 3 .29* .11 .31* .39** .29* .17 .22 ,17 .25* -H 4 c t f .19 .14 .15 .12 .26* .23 .15 .34** .05 ,0 t . 5 .12 .02 .31* .15 .14 .15 .15 .12 .16 Q J > 6 .22 .02 .28* .02 .21 .24 .14 .13 .02 7 .10 .03 .35**-.02 .10 .14 .13 .12 .10 8 .06 .05 .09 -.05 .17 .09 .07 .17 .14 9 -.07 -.08 .08 -.14 .02 .07 .05 .05 .15 **p. *p. < .01 < .05 TABLE 8 ROTATED VARIMAX ORTHOGONAL MATRIX OF FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ALL ROLEPLAYING VARIABLES Scale Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Order .72 Motive .69 Motive score .61 Incentive .33 XQ .88 IQ rank .79 Pantomime roles Aff (1) .64 .46 Aff (2) .82 Aff (3) .68 .33 .42 Ach (4) .72 -.44 Ach (5) .81 Ach (6) .80 Gen (7) .78 Gen (8) .70 Gen (9) .72 -.39 Verbal roles Aff (10) .31 .47 .31 Aff (11) .31 .68 Aff (12) -.40 Ach (13) .64 .54 Ach (14) .62 Ach (15) Gen (16) .37 .58 Gen (17) .63 Gen (18) .49 ■ p - OJ 44 Standardization of Scores and Analysis of Variance One purpose of the present study was to compare the performances of subjects in different kinds of roles. The assumption underlying such comparisons is that all roles are comparable. Table 9 shows the sum of responses for each of the 18 roles in both verbal and pantomime modali ties. It is evident that roles vary widely in the numbers of responses which they elicit. Since roles are not readily standardized, the data were standardized for purposes of statistical comparisons among means. After a significant relationship between scores in both modalities was indicated (r = .33, p. < .01), all 18 sets of role scores were converted to normal scores. The effect of this transformation was to eliminate the main effects of both modality and types of roles in the subsequent analysis but did not, of course, affect their interactions with other variables. For the analysis of variance, the normalized role scores were grouped on the basis of their types. An additional variable, intelligence, was added to the analysis by dividing the IQ's for each treatment group at the median. Thus, Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were tested by comparisons of standardized mean scores among various treatment groups using a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last two variables. The variables were incentive condition (incentive not 45 TABLE 9 SUM OF RESPONSES ELICITED BY NINE PANTOMIME AND NINE VERBAL ROLES (N=64) Modality R ° 1 e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pantomime 373 542 635 461 472 529 496 449 432 Verbal 561 552 570 553 601 555 507 539 414 46 offered, incentive offered), subject motive category (affiliation-oriented, achievement-oriented), intelligence (below median, above median), modality (pantomime, verbal), and types of role content (affiliation related, achievement related, general). All values derived from the analysis were further converted to the special form of normalized standard scores called T scores, for descriptive purposes. This was done by simply multiplying each normal score by 10 and adding 50 to the product (Edwards, 1964, pp. 111-113). The effect is to set the mean at 50 and the standard deviation at 10 for any such distribution of scores. Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis states that individuals high in the achievement motive perform better than do individ uals high in the affiliation motive. Examination of the combined, standardized group means on Table 10 indicate that affiliators scored higher than achievers and the hypothesis is rejected. The difference between those means was tested by analysis of variance and found to be nonsignificant (Table 11). It is concluded that affiliation- and achievement-oriented categories of sub jects are equally skilled in general roleplaying ability. A related finding, however, is significant. As shown on Tables 12 and 13, affiliators are better perform- ers than achievers on pantomime roles, while the opposite 47 TABLE 10 COMBINED STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR CATEGORIES AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT Subjects and Conditions t y p e s o f R o 1 e s N Affil Achiev General All Subjects Affiliation Ss 32 50.83 50.05 50.17 50.35 Achievement Ss 32 49.18 49.95 49.83 49.65 All Ss 64 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Neutral Condition Affiliation Ss 16 48.96 49.07 48.96 49.00 Achievement Ss 16 46.22 47.52 45.94 46.56 All Ss 32 47.59 48.29 47.45 47.78 Incentive Condition Affiliation Ss 16 52.69 51.03 51.39 51.70 Achievement Ss 16 52.14 52.39 53.72 52.75 All Ss 32 52.41 51.71 52.55 52.22 Note: All values shown are T scores (M = 50, SD = 10). 48 TABLE 11 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COMBINED ROLEPLAYING TEST MEANS FOR INCENTIVE CONDITIONS, SUBJECT MOTIVE CATEGORIES, INTELLIGENCE, TYPES OF ROLES, AND MODALITIES (N=64) Source df MS F Mean 1 .45 o o • Incentive (I) 1 56.91 15.26**** Subject Motive (M) 1 1.40 .37 Intelligence (Q) 1 50.57 13.56**** I x M 1 8.75 2.35 I x Q 1 .25 .07 M x Q 1 18.92 5.07* I x M x Q 1 2.74 .73 Error - S(IMQ) 56 3.73 Modality (G) 1 .27 .00 I x G 1 1.84 .70 M x G 1 18.50 7.06*** Q x G 1 . VO to .04 I x M x G 1 .73 .28 I x Q x G 1 .18 .07 M x Q x G 1 9.17 3.50 I x M x Q x G 1 2.68 1.02 Error - SG(IMQ) 56 2.62 #***p # < .001 ***p. < .01 **p. < .025 *p. < .05 TABLE 11 (continued) 49 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF COMBINED ROLEPLAYING TEST MEANS FOR INCENTIVE CONDITIONS, SUBJECT MOTIVE CATEGORIES, INTELLIGENCE, TYPES OF ROLES, AND MODALITIES (N=64) Source df MS F Type of Role (T) 2 .13 .00 I x T 2 1.57 .93 M x T 2 .67 .79 Q x T 2 3.59 4.24** I x M x T 2 .66 .77 I x Q x T 2 1.48 1.75 M x Q x T 2 .13 ■ .15 I x M x Q x T 2 .14 .16 Error - ST(IMQ) 112 .85 G x T 2 .13 .00 I x G x T 2 .22 .35 M x G x T 2 .60 .95 Q x G x T 2 1.48 2.35 I x M x G x T 2 .44 .69 I x Q x G x T 2 .21 .03 M x Q x G x T 2 .57 .90 I x M x Q x G x T 2 .21 .32 Error - SGT(IMQ) 112 .63 Roles Within Groups (R)(GT) 12 .72 .00 I x R(GT) 12 .56 1.01 M x R(GT) 12 .91 1.65 Q x R(GT) 12 .39 .70 I x M x R(GT) 12 .63 1.14 I x Q x R(GT) 12 .70 1.27 M x Q x R(GT) 12 .33 .60 I x M x Q x R(GT) 12 .46 .84 Error - SR(IMQGT) 672 .55 TABLE 12 PANTOMIME STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR CATEGORIES AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT 50 Subjects and T y p e s cif R o 1 e s Conditions N Affil Achiev General All Subjects Affiliation Ss 32 51.65 51.64 51.56 51.62 Achievement Ss 32 48.35 48.36 48.44 48.38 All Ss 64 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Neutral Condition Affiliation Ss 16 49.78 49.24 49.81 50.12 Achievement Ss 16 45.15 44.76 44.01 44.64 All Ss 32 47.46 47.76 46.91 47.38 Incentive Condition Affiliation Ss 16 53.52 52.51 53.32 53.12 Achievement Ss 16 51.55 51.97 52.87 52.13 All Ss 32 52.53 52.24 53.09 52.62 Note: All values shown are T scores (M = 50, SD = 10). 51 TABLE 13 VERBAL STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND CONDITIONS Subjects and Conditions T y p e s o f R o 1 e s N Affil Achiev General All Subjects Affiliation Ss 32 50.00 48.46 48.78 49.08 Achievement Ss 32 50.00 51.54 51.22 50.92 All Ss 64 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Neutral Condition Affiliation Ss 16 48.14 47.39 48.11 47.88 Achievement Ss 16 47.28 50.27 47.88 48.48 All Ss 32 47.71 48.83 47.99 48.18 Incentive Condition Affiliation Ss 16 51.86 49.54 49.45 50.28 Achievement Ss 16 52.73 52.80 54.56 53.36 All Ss 32 52.29 51.17 52.01 51.82 Note: All values shown are T scores (M = 50, SD = 10). 52 is true for the verbal roles. This effect is identifiable on the analysis of variance as the interaction of modality by subject motive (Table 11). Hypothesis 3 The third hypothesis states that there is an inter action between an. individual1 s motives and the types of roles in which he performs well or poorly. They do better in roles that arouse motives higher in their motive hier archies. An examination of the means for this interaction is of interest since they all go in the predicted direction (Table 10), i.e., affiliators do their best on affiliation roles and achievers their best on achievement roles. The differences between them, however, when tested by analysis of variance (Table 11), prove nonsignificant and the hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 4 The fourth hypothesis states that individuals perform better in an incentive condition than in a neutral condition. The superiority of performances by all subjects in the incentive condition shown on Table 10 is clearly supported by the large mean difference. When tested by analysis of variance, the main effect of incentives is found to be significant at a very high level of confidence (Table 11). 53 Hypothesis 5 The fifth hypothesis states that under incentive conditions, differences related to motives diminish or disappear, such that all individuals tend to perform at comparable levels of skill. While the means on Table 10 indicate such a trend (with a much larger difference between the two subject categories in the neutral condition than in the incentive condition), when tested by analysis of variance (Table 11), the difference between means proved nonsignificant and the hypothesis is rejected. It may be noted that the difference for this interaction approaches significance but with the higher neutral condition scores attributable to affiliators, not achievers, as would be predicted by Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 6 Intelligence has frequently been shown to be a mediator of verbal roleplaying ability and is broadened to include pantomime skill, as well, by the results of the present study. The sixth hypothesis states that more intelligent subjects perform better than less intelligent subjects and the data of Table 14 strongly support the hypothesis. The difference between the means for all subjects in all roles is large and, when tested by analysis of variance, significant at a high level of confidence (Table 11). Table 14 also shows the means for the effects 54 TABLE 14 SUBJECT INTELLIGENCE STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR MODALITIES AND CONDITIONS Subject Intelligence, Conditions and Modalities T y p e s of R o 1 e s N Affil Achiev General All Low Intelligence Affiliation Ss 16 46.60 46.66 47.66 46.97 Achievement Ss 16 47.14 49.48 49.90 48.84 All Ss 32 46.87 48.07 48.78 47.90 Pantomime Roles 32 47.60 48.12 48.27 47.99 Verbal Roles 32 46.14 48.02 49.29 47.82 Neutral Condition 16 44.61 46.61 45.37 45 .54 Incentive Condition 16 49.12 49.51 52.19 50.27 High Intelligence Affiliation Ss 16 55.05 53.44 52.68 53.73 Achievement Ss 16 51.21 50.42 50.24 50.47 All Ss 32 53.13 51.93 51.22 52.10 Pantomime Roles 32 52.40 51.88 51.74 52.01 Verbal Roles 32 53.86 51.98 50.71 52.19 Neutral Condition 16 50.56 50.04 49.53 50.02 Incentive Condition 16 55.71 53.90 52.91 54.17 Note: All values shown are T scores (M = 50 i i & rv 10). 55 of intelligence on pantomime and verbal performances and it can be seen that they scarcely differ between the two modalities. There are several other findings and points of interest relating to intelligence. Since the effects of incentives are also powerful, the interaction of that variable with intelligence is examined on Table 15. The difference in the amount of improvement in scores going from the neutral to the incentive condition is slightly greater for the low intelligence subjects but that differ ence is nonsignificant when tested by analysis of variance (Table 11). Table 14, on the other hand, shows large differences in the effects of intelligence on the two cate gories of subjects. The mean difference for low and high intelligence affiliators is much larger than for low and high intelligence achievers and that difference is signifi cant when tested by analysis of variance (Table 11). Thus, the effects of intelligence are much greater on the role- playing ability of affiliators than of achievers. On Table 14 are the means for all low and high intelligence subjects by types of roles. It is apparent there are differences in the effects of intelligence on affiliation and general roles with high intelligence subjects doing better on the affiliation roles while low intelligence sub jects excel at the general roles. When tested by analysis of variance, those differences are significant (Table 11). 56 TABLE 15 COMBINED STANDARDIZED MEANS FOR SUBJECT CONDITIONS AND INTELLIGENCE Subjects and T y p e s o f R o 1 e s Conditions N Affil Achiev General All Neutral Condition Low Intelligence Affiliation Ss 8 45.26 46.65 45.98 45.96 Achievement Ss 8 43.98 46.60 44.76 45.11 All Ss 16 44.62 46.62 45.37 45.54 High Intelligence Affiliation Ss 8 52.66 51.50 51.94 52.03 Achievement Ss 8 48.46 48.43 47.13 48.01 All Ss 16 50.56 49.96 49.53 50.02 Incentive Condition Low Intelligence Affiliation Ss 8 47.94 46.66 49.35 47.98 Achievement Ss 8 50.30 52.36 55.04 52.57 All Ss 16 49.12 49.51 52.19 50.27 High Intelligence Affiliation Ss 8 57.44 55.39 53.42 55.42 Achievement Ss 8 53.98 52.41 52.99 52.93 All Ss 16 55.71 53.90 52.91 54.17 Note: All values shown are T scores (M = 50, SD = 10). CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION The main purpose of the present study was to deter mine the relationship between roleplaying ability and the affiliation and achievement motives. In order to do so, subjects were selected and roles varied on the basis of those two motives. Neither the effects of the motives of subjects or roles, nor their interaction, proved signifi cant. There were, however, several significant interac tions of those variables with others. The possibility that common motives result in common performance levels was also investigated and rejected. The effects of intelligence and incentives were both found to be significant at high levels of confidence. Those findings not only increase the body of knowledge pertinent to the characteristics of roleplaying ability, but also support the view that roleplaying ability is a substantive variable. While common sense might predict that subjects perform better under incentive conditions than not, such is not always the case, Murstein (1963), for example, offered 57 58 monetary rewards with varying probabilities of success and found no significant differences in performance. Klinger (1966) notes that one-third of the studies involving the achievement motive and performance failed to show signifi cant differences between neutral and incentive conditions. The most important conclusion derived from the incentive data is, of course, that performance ceilings are not reached in a roleplaying study conducted under neutral conditions in a school setting, so that performances are free to vary. That roleplaying ability is a variable within individuals had not been demonstrated prior to the present study. Mann and Mann (1959), Mann and Borgatta (1959), Bowers and London (1965), Madsen and London (1966), Thompson (1968), London and Madsen (1969), and Efran and Korn (1969) all used roleplaying performance as a dependent variable but none undertook to determine systematically the effects of incentives on roleplaying. Thompson (1968) offered a large candy bar to 7-12-year-old boys as an incentive to perform well but a neutral control group was lacking, making its effects indeterminable. The conclusion of that study that there are no differences between poorly and well socialized groups can only be applied to an incentive condition. The effects of an incentive are obviously powerful and it is not known how all classes of individuals respond to them. It is possible that less socialized subjects display more antisocial behavior with a 59 reward absent than when one is present. In the latter case, they may try to please the experimenter with the expectation of a payoff, so they adhere to the common social stereotypes that he obviously seeks and of which they have knowledge. One effect of incentives in Thompson's (1968) study may have been to normalize her originally abnormal subjects. In any case, it is logical to conclude that performances in a neutral condition are more indica tive of typical real-life responses than are those given under incentives. It is possible that all skills may not be amenable to improvement by the offer of an incentive at the time of performance, e.g., arithmetic, golf, spelling. The finding that roleplaying ability does respond to incentives can be of value to educators, therapists, and other roleplaying practitioners. If roleplaying ability is a primary tool in the socialization of the individual, then it seems clear that it is one that is amenable to honing by the applica tion of incentives. That fact may be of special interest to the group of social scientists who are interested in the use of roleplaying as an alternative to deception in exper imental research (Kelman, 1967; Greenberg, 1967; Freedman, 1969). The finding that intelligence mediates roleplaying ability in both pantomime and verbal modalities is clarify ing. In addition to the considerations discussed earlier 60 relevant to Thompson's (1968) failure to find a total (verbal and pantomime) relationship, there is another possibility; the pantomime roles may have been too simple for her brighter subjects. In the present study, roles were more complex. Even those roles carried over from the Social Charades Test had an instructional variable, affect, added. It is logical that high levels of intelligence cannot be demonstrated readily in low-level tasks. Intelligence was involved in two significant inter actions: with types of roles and with subject categories. The interaction with types of roles might also be explained by the concept of complexity expressed above. The mean number of words of instruction in the affiliation, achieve ment, and general types of roles in both verbal and pantomime modalities combined is 55.5, 53.8, and 31.7, respectively. Those figures fit loosely into the notion that high intelligence subjects perform better on more complex roles while low intelligence subjects score their highest on the simpler roles. Another possibility, how ever, is that brighter youngsters are more sophisticated in the kinds of interpersonal relations exemplified by the affiliation roles as a result of watching adult TV fare, while the duller boys tend to switch to cartoons and Westerns. That is, of course, purely a speculation, but it might also account for the signs of stratification of scores on affiliation roles found in the data pertinent to 61 Hypothesis 1. While scores may not cluster on the basis of common motives, they certainly do so on the basis of intelligence. The data that performances by affiliators are more a function of intelligence than by achievers are difficult to explain. One speculation is that achievers are con cerned only with the task variables and payoff contingen cies while affiliators also attend to the reactions of the experimenter toward them. Thus, affiliators are responding to more cues in situations and the ability to do so is a function of intelligence. The data in Table 10 tend to support such a view, but it remains speculative since they are not significant. There appears to be no basis in the literature of the achievement and affiliation motives to explain the finding that achievers excel at verbal roles while affilia tors are superior pantomimists (Atkinson, 1958; Heckhausen, 1967). One possible explanation is that verbal roles require continuing exchange with the experimenter by the subject with assertive responses generally needed for high scores. Under those circumstances, achievers are aroused while affiliators tend to become obsequious and compliant. Since the pantomime roles do not require interaction with the experimenter after initial instructions, it can be speculated that achievers do not find them challenging while affiliators are enabled to respond more freely as a 62 result. The discussion above, relevant to performances in the verbal and pantomime modalities, raises the issue of modal differences. Clearly, roleplaying encompasses both verbal and motor responses, but the lack of a reliable single measure of both forms of expression introduces a Pandora's box of potential problems into an experiment. First, the tests themselves differ, not only in form of expression, but in structure, as well. As already noted, the verbal test involves a continuing interaction between subject and experimenter. That makes the subject relatively stimulus bound since he is responding, in part, to another's lines rather than being free to portray the line just as he conceptualizes it. The pantomime roles, in contrast, are free of interventions once the initial instructions have been given. The scoring is also differ ent. A greater variation of pantomime scores results from the larger number of scoring categories in that modality than in the verbal. Verbal role scoring has a ceiling such that a subject may emit a response that qualifies for placement in Category 4 (the maximum possible for a line) , then continue to elaborate or expand his responses without receiving additional credit. It is possible that some of the difference between the two tests could be reduced by making their structures more congruent. 63 There are problems resulting from experiential differences in the two modalities that are less easily approached than those arising from the different test designs. While most people listen to radio with some frequency, few make it a practice to watch television with the sound off. Judges are undoubtedly more sophisticated at picking up nuances of meaning in speech than in noting the subtle motor responses, facial expressions, and timing that convey shades of meaning in a pantomime performance. There are also large differences between children when performing motorically because of their relative inexperi ence in expressing themselves that way. Some children have played charades, others have not. In addition, most youngsters in the American culture have been punished for 'Wking faces," gesturing, and other uses of nonverbal communication so that they tend to inhibit those kinds of responses. Differences in the ease with which pilot study subjects entered into the two types of activity were so apparent that a demonstration pantomime playlet was included in the present study. It appears that the two forms of expression are developed differently in terms of separate performance. When combined, however, it is possible that there is an interaction effect which results in a smooth flow of communication. Finally, even the mechanical processes for record ing the two types of expression differ, with verbal 64 recordings more readily obtained, of higher fidelity, and more easily replayed than typical laboratory videotape or film reproductions. Thus, it is unlikely that performances judged from recordings in the two modalities can be scored with equal reliability and validity. In view of the issues discussed above, it is obvious that future roleplaying research would benefit from the development of techniques for the reliable scoring of total (verbal and pantomime combined) roleplaying perform ance. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY Roleplaying ability is considered an essential element in the process of socialization, yet few of its characteristics are known, especially those relating to common social motives. The present study investigated the relationship between roleplaying ability and the achieve ment and affiliation motives. The effects of those two important social motives as subject variables and as role- content s were observed under neutral and incentive condi tions in both verbal and pantomime performances. Another essential variable, intelligence, was also assessed for inclusion in the analysis of results. Subjects, Instruments, and Procedures Sixty-four sixth-grade, middle-class boys were selected from a pool of 149 potential subjects after screening on a form of the TAT. They were the top 32 scorers in each of the affiliation and achievement motive categories. Roleplaying ability was measured with two standard ized instruments: (a) a verbal roleplaying test, and (b) a pantomime roleplaying test. 65 66 Initial screening with the TAT was done in groups at each of eight participating schools. Selected subjects were assigned to one of four matched groups, each comprised of either achievers or affiliators in either an incentive or neutral condition. They were tested individually on the verbal and pantomime tests with both roles and modalities randomized. Subjects in the incentive condition were offered a prize of five dollars and were verbally rein forced, as well. Later, intelligence was measured by administration of the WISC Vocabulary subtest. TAT protocols were scored by the experimenter using criteria in Atkinson (1958) with test-retest reliabilities of .95 for affiliation and .99 for achievement content. Pantomime performances were evaluated in vivo by two judges, using premarked scoring sheets, with the high interscorer reliability of .99. Verbal tests were scored from tape recordings by three independent judges using London and Bower's (1965) criteria and reliabilities of .88, .89, and .91 were achieved. Results and Conclusions The hypothesis that individuals perform at uniform levels in roles arousing a common motive was not upheld. Neither the separate effects of motives as subject variables or role-contents, nor their interaction, was significant. Affiliators performed best in pantomime roles 67 and were more influenced by intelligence while achievers were superior verbal performers and were less influenced by intelligence, the differences between subjects being significant in both cases. The overall effects of both intelligence and incentives were significant, as predicted. Intelligence interacted significantly with the three types of roles, but that was possibly due to the differing complexities of the roles rather than to their motive contents. The present study confirmed the mediating effect of intelligence on verbal roleplaying ability and expanded it to the pantomime modality, as well. It also indicated that typical test conditions in a school setting, with adult experimenters, do not elicit optimum performances. Incentives have a strong effect which raises the possibil ity that roleplaying ability can be enhanced through rewarded practice. It also has implications about the results of a previous study in which incentives were used without controls. Although there were several significant interactions and some interesting (nonsignificant) trends in the data, it is concluded that common social motives have no general effect on roleplaying ability. A major problem of roleplaying studies is the need for a reliable measure of total performance, in contrast to separate measures of verbal and pantomime behavior. REFERENCES Alper, T. G. Predicting the direction of selective recall: Its relation to Ego-strength and n Achievement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1957, 55, 149-165. Atkinson, J. W . (Ed.). Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Vicarious reinforce ment and imitative learning. In A. W. Staats (Ed.), Human learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Pp. 45-51. Banton, M. Roles: An introduction to the study of social relations. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Bass, B. M. Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper, 1960. Bavelas, A. Role-playing and management training. Sociatry. 1947, 3., 183-191. Biddle, B. J. & Thomas, E. J. Role theory: Concepts and research. New York: Wiley, 1966. Bowers, P. & London, P. Developmental correlates of role playing ability. Child Development. 1965, 30, 499- 508. Brown, R. Social psychology. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Cameron, N. A, The psychology of behavior disorders. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947. Chesler, M. & Fox, R. Role-playing methods in the class room. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1966. Clarke, C. T. Change in self-concept as a function of dissonant roleplaying. Unpublished doctoral disserta tion, University of Florida, 1965. 69 70 Cofer, C. N. & Appley, M. H. Motivation: Theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1964. Cooley, C. H. Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner'rs', 1902. (Rev. ed., 1922.) Corsini, R. J., Shaw, M. E., & Blake, R. E. Role-playing in business and industry. Glencoe: The Free Press, Coutu, W. Role-playing vs. role-taking: An appeal for clarification. American Sociological Review. 1951, 16, 180-187. Edwards, A . L. Statistical methods for the behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964. Efran, J. S. & Korn, P. R. Measurement of social caution: Self-appraisal, role-playing, and discussion behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1969, 33, 78-83. Feffer, M. H. & Gourevitch, V. Cognitive aspects of role- taking in children. Journal of Personality. 1960, 28. 383-396. Freedman, J. L. Role playing: Psychology by consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1969, 13, 107-114. French, E. G. Motivation as a variable in work-partner selection. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 96-99. Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959. Greenberg, M. S. Role playing: An alternative to decep tion? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 152-157. 1 Heckhausen, H. The anatomy of achievement motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1967. James, W. The principles of psychology. New York: Holt, 1890. Kelman, H. C. The human use of human subjects: The prob lem of deception in social-psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin. 1967, 67, 1-11. 71 Klinger, E. Fantasy need achievement as a motivational construct. Psychological Bulletin. 1966, 61, 291-308. London, P. & Bowers, P. The Dramatic Acting Test: A role playing test for children. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1964. (Mimeo.) London, P. & Madsen, C. H. Role playing and hypnotic susceptibility in children: II. An extension and partial replication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis" 1969, .1, 37-49. London, P. & Rosenhan, D. Personality dynamics. Annual Review of Psychology. 1964, 15, 447-492. Madsen, C. H. & London, P. Role playing and hypnotic susceptibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966, 3., 13-19. Mann, L. The effects of emotional role playing on desire to modify smoking habits. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1967, 3,, 334-348. Mann, J. H. Experimental evaluations of role playing. Psychological Bulletin. 1956, 53,, 227-234. Mann, J. H. Studies of role performance. Genetic Psycho logical Monographs, 1961, 64, 213-307. Mann, J. H. & Borgatta, E. F. Personality and behavior correlates of changes produced by role-playing experience. Psychological Reports. 1959, 5., 505-526. Mann, J. H. & Mann, C. H. The effect of role-playing experience on role-playing ability. Sociometry. 1959, 22, 64-74. McClelland, D. C. Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist. 1965, 2(), 321-333. Mead, G. H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Moreno, J. L. Psychodrama. New York: Beacon House, 1946, Murstein, B. I. The relationship of expectancy of reward to achievement performance on an arithmetic and thematic test. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1963, 27, 394-399. 72 Pancrazio, J. J. & Cody, J. J. A comparison of role play ing and lecture-discussion instructional methods in a beginning course in counseling theory. Counselor *5 Education and Supervision. 1967, 7_, 60-65. Prohansky, H. & Seideriberg, B. (Eds.). Basic studies in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Sarbin, T. R. Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge: Addis on-Wes ley, T95T. Pp. 223-258. Thompson, L. A. Role playing ability and social adjustment in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1968. Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence scale for children. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1949. Weyer, R. S. Behavioral correlates of academic achieve ment: Conformity under achievement- and affiliation- incentive conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. . 1967, f>, 255-263. Wolfe, R. N. The role of conceptual systems in cognitive functioning at varying levels of age and intelligence. Journal of Personality. 1963, 31, 108-123. APPENDIX A TABLES 74 TABLE 16 PANTOMIME RAW SCORE MEANS FOR SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND CONDITIONS Subjects and Conditions T y p e s o f R o 1 e s Affiliation Achievement General Total M SD M SD M SD M SD Subjects Aff Ss (N=32) 23.3 7.8 24.6 8.9 23.0 7.5 70.9 22.0 Ach Ss (N=32) 20.1 7.9 21.3 8.0 20.1 8.1 61.6 22.3 All Ss (N=64) 21.7 8.0 23.0 8.6 21.5 8.0 66.2 22.6 Neutral Condition Aff Ss (N=16) 21.4 6.3 23.8 7.6 21.4 6.5 66.6 18.9 Ach Ss (N=16) 17.1 8.5 17.8 8.2 15.9 7.4 50.8 22.4 All Ss <N=32) 19.3 7.8 20.8 8.5 18,6 7.5 58.7 22.2 Incentive Condition Aff Ss (N=16) 25.2 8.6 25.5 9.9 24.6 8.1 75.3 23.9 Ach Ss (N=16) 23.2 5.8 24.9 6.1 24.3 6.4 72.3 16.3 All Ss (N=32) 24.2 7.4 25.2 8.2 24.4 7.3 73.8 20.5 ■ v j VERBAL RAW SCORE MEANS TABLE 17 FOR SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND CONDITIONS Subjects and T y p e s o f R o 1 e s Affiliation Achievement General Total Conditions M SD M SD M SD M SD Subjects Aff Ss (N=32) 22.1 3.7 26.3 3.2 26.2 4.0 74.6 7.7 Ach Ss (N=32) 23.5 4.0 27.5 3.3 26.3 4.7 77.3 9.7 All Ss (N=64) 22.8 3.9 26.9 3.3 26.3 4.3 76.0 9.0 Neutral Condition Aff Ss (NKL6) 21.9 3.9 26.0 3.4 25.1 4.3 72.9 8.9 Ach Ss (N=16) 21.6 3.5 26.9 3.8 24.8 4.7 73.4 8.9 All Ss (N=32) 21.8 3.7 26.4 3.6 24.9 4.5 73.2 8.9 Incentive Condition Aff Ss (N=16) 22.5 3.7 26.5 3.0 27.4 3.3 76.3 6.0 Ach Ss (N=16) 25.4 3.7 28.1 2.7 27.8 4.2 81.3 8.9 All Ss (N=32) 23.8 3.9 27.3 2.9 27.6 3.8 78.8 8.0 •vj ©V APPENDIX B RAW DATA AND TEST MATERIALS 77 78 PANTOMIME ROLEPLAYING TEST SCORES* Roles Affiliation Achievement General Sub j. : . d .# 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 Total 01 4 4 6 3 3 4 4 4 4 36 02 10 6 10 10 6 9 6 8 9 74 03 6 6 9 10 10 7 8 8 5 69 04 9 6 11 8 9 8 9 7 7 74 05 5 11 4 11 8 7 9 4 6 65 06 4 9 11 16 10 11 13 7 7 88 07 6 7 8 6 6 8 7 5 9 62 08 3 3 8 9 8 3 8 4 4 50 09 4 7 15 3 6 3 6 6 7 57 10 2 5 12 9 7 8 9 6 6 64 11 2 3 2 3 6 3 3 3 1 26 12 4 4 7 5 7 9 5 5 6 52 13 7 9 7 11 10 10 8 9 12 83 14 5 7 13 6 9 9 11 7 9 76 15 10 4 16 11 10 13 11 13 10 98 16 10 7 15 11 10 11 13 4 10 91 17 5 8 12 4 10 9 2 5 3 58 18 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 5 4 31 19 6 7 9 7 8 7 7 8 6 65 20 4 3 11 5 4 6 5 4 4 46 21 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 33 22 3 4 3 5 7 9 5 4 5 45 23 11 12 14 11 13 12 10 9 8 100 24 4 2 12 6 5 8 5 4 2 48 25 6 3 7 2 4 8 3 6 4 43 26 1 4 8 8 3 4 3 9 6 46 27 5 4 6 8 4 9 6 8 5 55 28 3 4 5 3 2 5 5 5 3 35 29 7 5 11 5 6 5 12 7 7 65 30 8 7 16 9 11 15 15 7 8 96 31 2 3 5 4 3 6 8 4 4 39 32 1 -1 3 2 3 1 -1 -1 1 8 79 PANTOMIME ROLEPLAYING TEST SCORES* (continued) Roles Affiliation Achievement General :. d .# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 £ Total 33 6 8 7 7 5 9 10 5 8 65 34 3 4 10 5 3 7 4 5 8 49 35 4 3 13 10 8 11 9 8 8 74 36 6 6 7 4 4 5 7 6 7 52 37 3 3 10 7 6 7 3 4 5 48 38 4 6 8 4 4 9 8 4 8 55 39 6 6 8 5 6 6 8 7 5 57 40 12 9 13 17 16 19 10 15 10 121 41 16 10 12 13 14 11 7 7 10 100 42 2 7 12 10 7 8 9 6 14 75 43 7 6 9 6 7 9 5 8 5 62 44 13 11 20 10 10 12 8 6 10 100 45 5 7 14 5 5 12 9 9 8 74 46 5 11 15 10 10 14 16 8 14 103 47 4 4 10 4 5 9 6 6 6 54 48 8 12 18 14 11 8 17 15 12 115 49 6 4 8 7 5 7 9 6 6 58 50 9 6 11 11 10 8 10 6 7 78 51 8 7 14 8 10 10 10 10 5 82 52 7 3 6 4 8 8 7 7 6 56 53 5 3 6 8 4 7 7 7 2 49 54 6 6 6 4 6 11 5 10 8 62 55 6 7 9 4 9 7 8 9 5 64 56 10 8 13 6 10 14 10 11 12 94 57 4 4 12 9 12 10 5 5 7 68 58 3 8 8 9 8 12 10 10 5 73 59 9 5 11 8 6 7 5 7 4 62 60 7 5 9 6 9 7 6 9 8 66 61 7 10 13 13 12 14 14 14 9 106 62 5 9 13 6 10 9 8 12 6 78 63 5 4 11 5 4 6 5 10 8 58 64 8 11 16 6 12 12 19 9 10 103 *These scores were assigned to responses by Experimenter 1 80 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST SCORES* Roles Affiliation Achievement General Subj. I.D.# 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 Total 01 5 9 8 8 7 10 6 9 4 64 02 11 8 9 7 9 11 7 7 7 76 03 8 7 9 8 11 11 7 8 4 73 04 11 8 8 9 11 7 9 8 7 78 05 9 7 9 7 7 6 3 10 3 61 06 12 7 9 10 8 7 8 7 3 71 07 8 8 10 6 8 6 6 8 5 65 08 8 9 7 11 9 8 6 10 8 76 09 10 11 9 11 11 12 10 10 9 93 10 3 5 8 6 9 9 4 7 6 57 11 6 9 8 9 7 10 6 8 9 72 12 3 7 5 7 10 8 9 8 8 65 13 8 9 10 8 9 6 10 9 9 78 14 9 10 10 7 11 11 8 10 10 86 15 9 10 11 9 9 8 7 8 5 76 16 8 8 11 7 10 10 9 8 4 75 17 4 6 7 6 6 7 5 6 5 52 18 6 5 7 8 8 7 5 8 7 61 19 9 6 8 9 12 9 6 10 7 76 20 9 9 12 8 11 11 8 7 4 79 21 11 10 11 9 7 4 9 11 4 76 22 3 7 6 9 11 11 4 7 4 62 23 10 6 8 10 9 10 9 7 4 73 24 11 10 10 10 10 10 11 8 5 85 25 11 11 7 9 10 11 8 11 8 86 26 9 9 9 10 10 7 8 9 9 80 27 9 9 11 9 10 9 6 6 6 75 28 9 8 5 9 11 9 9 8 6 74 29 7 10 7 6 9 9 7 8 7 70 30 10 8 7 9 11 12 7 8 10 82 31 9 8 10 7 9 9 9 7 9 77 32 8 8 8 7 10 7 8 6 5 67 81 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST SCORES* (continued) Roles Affiliation Achievement General Sub j. :.d J i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total 33 8 9 9 8 10 6 5 7 3 65 34 10 9 9 8 8 7 10 7 6 74 35 8 9 9 9 10 7 8 12 7 79 36 9 9 8 8 10 5 6 7 5 67 37 9 9 7 8 10 7 7 8 5 70 38 8 9 6 8 7 6 9 8 9 70 39 11 9 8 10 10 12 8 8 4 80 40 12 12 12 10 10 10 7 8 5 86 41 10 11 11 9 9 11 6 9 4 80 42 10 7 9 8 11 11 7 9 12 84 43 9 8 5 11 9 8 10 11 5 76 44 11 11 10 8 11 9 11 7 6 84 45 9 7 10 7 8 11 9 8 6 75 46 9 8 10 9 11 9 9 7 8 80 47 8 9 10 8 9 8 11 10 3 78 48 11 9 9 8 9 8 8 7 5 74 49 8 7 10 9 10 10 8 8 6 76 50 11 11 12 9 10 7 8 7 9 84 51 11 9 10 9 10 10 10 8 8 85 52 9 9 10 9 7 12 9 9 9 83 53 8 8 11 10 10 10 8 8 6 79 54 10 11 6 9 8 9 7 7 9 76 55 10 11 10 8 10 9 10 9 5 82 56 10 10 10 12 11 11 9 12 7 92 57 12 11 12 10 11 12 11 12 12 103 58 8 7 7 9 7 8 10 7 7 70 59 12 10 10 9 9 10 10 9 10 89 60 3 9 8 9 8 7 7 9 10 70 61 11 6 9 9 10 9 9 11 4 78 62 8 8 10 10 11 8 8 9 5 77 63 6 7 9 8 9 8 7 8 5 67 64 9 11 10 12 8 9 11 11 8 89 *These scores were assigned to responses by Experimenter 1. 82 TOTAL PANTOMIME TEST SCORES FOR JUDGE B Subj. I.D.# Score Subj. I.D.# Score Subj. I.D .# Score Subj. I.D .# Score 01 37 17 61 33 58 49 54 02 73 18 31 34 49 50 76 03 69 19 62 35 71 51 82 04 72 20 48 36 50 52 55 05 58 21 31 37 44 53 51 06 87 22 44 38 50 54 61 07 66 23 109 39 53 55 68 08 51 24 50 40 116 56 99 09 59 25 44 41 92 57 69 10 63 26 44 42 75 58 76 11 26 27 56 43 63 59 57 12 55 28 35 44 102 60 60 13 87 29 64 45 74 61 106 14 80 30 97 46 97 62 79 15 98 31 40 47 49 63 56 16 97 32 9 48 121 64 104 TOTAL VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST SCORES FOR JUDGES 2 83 AND 3 Subject I.D.# Judge #2 Judge M Subject I.D .# Judge #2 Judge #3 01 64 62 33 72 63 02 75 77 34 72 80 03 72 78 35 83 87 04 77 78 36 64 66 05 64 65 37 78 69 06 76 71 38 74 70 07 64 56 39 77 77 08 68 68 40 88 86 09 89 91 41 75 77 10 53 57 42 83 87 11 64 68 43 76 75 12 69 67 44 88 86 13 83 80 45 80 76 14 85 88 46 85 83 15 83 80 47 78 77 16 74 72 48 72 70 17 58 55 49 73 78 18 68 63 50 84 80 19 79 77 51 90 86 20 81 81 52 80 84 21 78 77 53 74 79 22 66 58 54 73 75 23 67 67 55 78 76 24 81 76 56 96 86 25 80 76 57 103 99 26 83 74 58 73 71 27 79 77 59 91 88 28 71 77 60 72 73 29 73 74 61 89 75 30 82 80 62 83 79 31 72 78 63 68 73 32 63 66 64 91 96 TAT TEST SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS 84 I.D.# Achieve Affil. I.D.# Achieve. Affil. 01 -5 7 33 -2 8 02 -2 15 34 -6 4 03 0 5 35 -5 4 04 -5 4 36 -6 12 05 -4 6 37 -6 8 06 2 14 38 -4 5 07 1 10 39 -4 12 08 0 6 40 1 7 09 -4 8 41 -5 6 10 -4 6 42 -1 5 11 0 6 43 -1 11 12 -4 7 44 1 7 13 -3 6 45 0 5 14 0 9 46 -1 6 15 -5 6 47 -4 9 16 -4 5 48 0 6 17 8 0 49 6 3 18 5 0 50 3 4 19 6 4 51 4 0 20 2 2 52 4 3 21 10 3 53 4 5 22 5 2 54 2 0 23 16 3 55 13 4 24 19 0 56 4 3 25 8 4 57 4 3 26 4 3 58 13 0 27 10 4 59 9 0 28 3 4 60 6 2 29 8 5 61 7 5 30 5 4 62 7 5 31 12 2 63 4 2 32 4 1 64 15 0 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OJ Department of Psychology Dear Parent: This letter is being sent home to request your help in a research project which is studying some of the ways that social scientists believe children acquire adult social skills. The research procedure involves having children participate in two kinds of exercise. In one, they write stories based on pictures that are shown to them and in the other, they perform in a series of little play-acting situations. Both activities take about 30 minutes each and are usually experienced as fun games. Not as many children will be needed for the play-acting so some will be randomly passed over. The information obtained is completely confi dential and is in no way related to, or has any effect on, your child's schoolwork. The Department of Psychology at the University of Southern California has done studies at several elementary schools in Los Angeles and the reactions of both children and parents has been gratifyingiy favorable. We are confi dent that your child will find participation in this effort an interesting, enjoyable, and informative experience. While it is often difficult to see the practical applica tion of a specific research effort because of its narrow focus, we believe that this project will yield results that can be of immediate aid in counseling, therapy, and the planning of school curricula. If you have any questions, Mr. Spector, the doctoral candidate who will be conducting the research effort, will be glad to meet with you. There will also be a meeting for parents later. We hope that you will be interested in having your child take part. Cordially yours, Perry London, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology YES. My child may participate in the research outlined above. NO. I prefer that my child not participate in the research. * * Signature of parent or guardian________________________ If you wish to meet with Mr. Spector before the study or the orientation session for parents in June, please indi cate your preferred time here: Day of week______Hour______ 86 Instructions: A form of the McClelland TAT This is a test of your creative imagination. We want to see what good storytellers you are. A number of pictures will be shown on that screen and you will have 20 seconds to look at each picture and then 4 minutes to make up a story about it. Notice that there is one page for each picture. The same 4 questions are asked on each page. They will guide your thinking and help you to cover all the parts of a story in the necessary time. Plan to spend about one minute on each question. I will keep time and tell you when it is about time to go on to the next ques tion for each story. You will have a little time to finish your story before the next picture is shown. There are no right or wrong answers, so you are free to make up any kind of a story about the pictures that you choose. Try to make them real and dramatic, for this is a test of creative imagination. Do not just describe the picture you see; tell a story about it. Work as fast as you can in order to finish in time. Make them interest ing. Do not worry about spelling, punctuation, or things like that. These stories are for us; your parents or teachers will never see them. Are there any questions? If you need more space for any story just use the other side of the page. 87 SUBJECTS MOTIVE CATEGORIES. INCENTIVE CONDITIONS. AMD IQ'S* I .D .# Motive I.Q. Incent I .D .# Motive I.Q. Incent 01 Aff 75 0 33 Aff 94 + 02 Aff 144 0 34 Aff 131 + 03 Aff 125 0 35 Aff 94 + 04 Aff 94 0 36 Aff 113 + 05 Aff 106 0 37 Aff 106 + 06 Aff 138 0 38 Aff 113 + 07 Aff 125 0 39 Aff 131 + 08 Aff 113 0 40 Aff 138 + 09 Aff 119 0 41 Aff 113 + 10 Aff 94 0 42 Aff 131 + 11 Aff 100 0 43 Aff 106 + 12 Aff 100 0 44 Aff 119 + 13 Aff 113 0 45 Aff 103 + 14 Aff 150 0 46 Aff 144 + 15 Aff 113 0 47 Aff 106 + 16 Aff 100 0 48 Aff 119 + 17 Ach 62 0 49 Ach 125 + 18 Ach 106 0 50 Ach 125 + 19 Ach 106 0 51 Ach 119 + 20 Ach 125 0 52 Ach 113 . + 21 Ach 138 0 53 Ach 119 + 22 Ach 125 0 54 Ach 131 + 23 Ach 125 0 55 Ach 119 + 24 Ach 119 0 56 Ach 113 + 25 Ach 106 0 57 Ach 125 + 26 Ach 144 0 58 Ach 113 + 27 Ach 106 0 59 Ach 125 + 28 Ach 106 0 60 Ach 106 + 29 Ach 125 0 61 Ach 113 + 30 Ach 106 0 62 Ach 131 + 31 Ach 100 0 63 Ach 94 + 32 Ach 94 0 64 Ach 69 + m O' HI . i * were extrapolated from wise Vocabulary scores, Note: I.D. numbers shown were not assigned to subjects until after all data had been gathered. Original numbers were three-digit, randomly assigned, and unidentified as to motive category. SETS OF ROLE SEQUENCES Seq.# Modality Numbers Modality Numbers 01 Verb. 915786342 Pan. 154398627 02 Pan. 643158279 Verb. 812637495 03 Pan. 319487526 Verb. 479362185 04 Verb. 921483675 Pan. 759243618 05 Verb. 753186249 Pan. 239175486 06 Verb. 475936218 Pan. 193754826 07 Verb. 367824591 Pan. 758314692 08 Pan. 631824795 Verb. 184295637 09 Verb. 473256981 Pan. 354917826 10 Verb. 741985263 Pan. 124357968 11 Pan. 479135862 Verb. 269487135 12 Pan. 159287463 Verb. 172639845 13 Pan. 261548739 Verb. 324685971 14 Verb. 724935168 Pan. 216837954 15 Pan. 861593247 Verb. 692147583 16 Pan. 596743281 Verb. 369182547 Note: Sets were randomly assigned to the 16 subjects in each of the four experimental groups so that the same set was shared by one subject in each of the groups. 89 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: All Subjects You are probably wondering what this is all about so i'll tell you; What we are going to do today is see how good an actor you can be. Do you know what an actor is? Good. Well, you know that actors do two things; they talk, and they also move around. What we are going to do here today is both of those things, talking and moving around, but we're going to do them separately. I'll explain that in a moment. Now, the first acting game that you will perform in will be this one. . . . INSTRUCTIONS: Subjects in the Incentive Condition (To be given just prior to the first role assignment) One more thing . . . you should know that we are giving a prize of $5.00 for the best boys in this play acting contest. We want you to try real hard to do your very best in making your plays as interesting and as good as you possibly can. If you are one of the better actors you may win $5.00. Would you like that? Good. Be sure to try real hard. (To be given as appropriate and on a reinforcement schedule of about 1 exhortative comment for every 2 verbal or pantomime role assignment) 1) That was good, but try to do even better on the next one. 2) Have you ever won a contest? Well, try to win this one. 3) You're doing fine . . . keep it up. 4) Remember, you can win $5.00 if you try real hard. 5) This is a contest so be sure to do your best. 6) Keep trying hard if you want to win that prize. 7) If you win the money, you'll sure be popular. 8) Do your best . . . it'll store be worth it. 9) Good . . . that was great. THE PANTOMIME ROLEPLAYING TEST 91 92 INSTRUCTIONS : Pantomime Roleplaying Test Do you know what charades or pantomimes are? (If "Yes" then response is -good!- If "No" then response is-- then I111 explain it to you and I also give a little demonstration later.) It's a make-believe game in which you only move around using all sorts of body motions, walk around if you wish, and even pretend to talk by moving your lips, but you never make a sound. It's silent acting in which you try to tell a story with your motions, or body movements, but without ever saying a word. Now, you start out sitting in that chair there. Then, I'll tell you who you are supposed to be and what is happening, then you just go ahead and act the things that I've told you. You'll have about two minutes and when you finish you can tell us so, then sit down. Now remember, it's your play and you can act out these stories any way that you want to; start wherever you wish, and stop wherever you wish in the story. Just be stare that you don't make any actual sounds and that you let us see what it is that you are doing because we are your audience. O.K.? Now watch me and see if you can tell what it is that I'm doing. (The experimenter then does a demonstration of panto mime roleplaying. First, he rises from his chair, moves "onstage" to sit in the subject's chair, then pauses for a moment of silence to set the mood. He then rises from the 93 chair, walks along, stops as if struck by a sudden thought, enters an imaginary phone booth, fishes a coin from his pocket, inserts it in the phone, dials, pretends to talk to a friend, then hangs up, turns sharply to exit the booth, and resumes walking.) Did you understand what it was that I did? Good. Now, let's get started. (The experimenter returns to his chair, the subject to his, and the first role assignment is read to the subject.) 94 THE PANTOMIME ROLEPLAYING TEST: A MOTORIC TEST OF SOCIAL ACTING FOR CHILDREN Role 1: Lucky You find a dollar bill lying on the sidewalk and are just about to go into a candy store when you see one of the kids from school riding by on his bicycle. He is a popular boy and you would like very much to have him for a good friend. Role 2 : War Buddy You are a soldier in Viet Nam, on patrol behind enemy lines with your very best friend when, suddenly, he is wounded and falls down. You are very concerned about him because you are behind their lines and there is no one around to help you. Role 3: Jilted You are a high school girl and have been going steady with the same boyfriend for a long time. He has just come to your front door to tell you that he likes some other girl and will start going with her now. You love him and are upset by what he is saying to you. Role 4: Spic N* Span You are a housewife and a prize is being given for the neatest, cleanest home in your neighborhood. The judge is just coming to your house and you want very much to win that prize and be the champion housekeeper in your neigh borhood . 95 Role 5 : Magazine Salesman You are a college student selling magazine subscrip tions and you need just one more subscription to win a big prize. You go to the door of a house where a lady doesn't seem to be interested but you want very much to sell her a subscription and win that price. Role 6: Good Student Your teacher hands you the best report card that you have ever had. You walk home from school with your friends, then bring it in to your parents to show it to them. You are very proud of your accomplishment and want everyone to appreciate what a good report card it is. Role 7: Motorcycle Policeman You are a motorcycle policeman and have just stopped a car that was going too fast on the freeway. It's a hot day and you are not too happy with this driver who made you leave a shady spot where you were relaxing. Role 8: Sick Child You have eaten too much candy and feel sick to your stomach. It gets worse and you throw up. You feel awful I Role 9: Angry Mother You are a mother and have just caught your three-year- old child scribbling on the wall with a crayon. You are very upset about this. 96 SOCIAL PANTOMIME-'SCORING SHEET NAME____________________________ AGE____ GROUP_____________ Role 1: “LUCKY" APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Walking along ( ) Sees money ( ) Look of surprise or delight ( ) Picks up money ( ) Examines money ( ) Looks around, spots candy store ( ) Sees friend ( ) Looks pleased ( ) Waves or motions friend over ( ) Obvious invitation to friend to join in visit to candy store ( ) Shows money ( ) Enters store ( ) Arm around friend ( ) Selects candy ( ) Discusses selection with friend ( ) Purchases candy ( ) Shares candy with friend ( ) Departs candy store ( ) Holds door open for friend ( ) Waves goodbye to friend ( ) Walks away with friend ( ) Other responses (specify)________________________________( ) ( ) ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Holds money behind back while waving ( ) Conceals money during conversation with friend ( ) Displeasure at sight of friend ( ) Ignores friend ( ) Other responses (specify) ( ) 97 SOCIAL PANTOMIME— SCORING SHEET NAME SCHOOL ROOM NO. Role 2: "WAR BUDDY" APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Holds weapon ( ) Uses weapon ( ) Reloads, modified use, etc. ( ) Crouches, ducks, or hides ( ) Other (specify) Interacts with friend ( ) Reacts to friend's injury at time of hit ( ) Responds to enemy ( ) Strong affect to enemy ( ) Pulls friend to cover ( ) Protects friend with own body ( ) ( ) Treats wounds ( ) ( ) C ) - ( ) Other (specify) ( ) Comforts friend ( ) Strong affective concern for friend ( ) Helps friend to rise or crawl ( ) Looks out for mutual safety ( ) Tries to summon help ( ) Helps friend escape ( ) With great physical exertion ( ) Other (sDecifv) ( ) Is rescued with friend ( ) Gets killed helping friend ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Ignores or deserts friend ( ) Treats wounded friend with indifference ( ) Other (soecifv) ( ) SOCIAL PANTOMIME— SCORING SHEET 98 NAME___________________ SCHOOL________ ROOM_______ DATE____ Role 3: "JILTED" APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Female behavior (e.g., polishing nails, etc.) ( ) Responds to knock or ring ( ) With strong affect ( ) Opens door ( ) Pleased greeting ( ) Look of surprise( ) Converses with boyfriend ( ) Strong expressive reaction to decision ( ) Other (specify)_______________________________ ( ) Argues ( ) Expresses anger ( ) Cries ( ) Wipes tearful eyes ( ) Waves arms ( ) Shakes fist at boy friend ( ) Threatens ( ) Strikes boyfriend with fist ( ) with foot ( ) with physical object ( ) Other (specify)__ ( ) Orders boyfriend to leave ( ) with physical indication ( ) Pleads with boyfriend to change mind ( ) Hands in prayer position ( ) Gets down on knees ( ) Clutches boyfriend( ) Covers face with arm ( ) Affective reaction to departure ( ) Slams door ( ) Closes door sadly ( ) Collapses with grief ( ) Weeps sadly after departure ( ) Writes farewell note ( ) Commits suicide ( ) ( ) Other (specify) ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Indifferent interaction with boyfriend ( ) Inappropriate affect ( ) Follows rejection with immediate lack of concern ( ) Other (specify) ( ) SOCIAL PANTOMIME- - SCORING SHEET 99 NAME SCHOOL ROOM Role 4: , ! SPIC N 1 SPAN" APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Relaxing behavior (drinking coffee, phone conversation, etc.) ( ) Sweeps floor ( ) Vacuums ( ) Straightens up ( ) Fluff pillows ( ) Other cleaning-up responses ( ) Appears nervous or concerned ( ) Response to knock or ring ( ) Grooms self ( ) Opens door ( ) Verbal greeting ( ) Invites judge to enter ( ) Shows off Affective concern for judge ( ) Argues with judge ( ) Receives prize ( ) Affective response to judge's decision ( ) Indicates possession of prize (e.g., places it on shelf, hugs it) ( ) Anger or sorrow at failure to win ( ) Affective response to judge ( ) Slams door upon departure ( ) Farewell to judge ( ) Walks judge to door ( ) Closes door ( ) Affective response to entire visit ( ) Other (specify)______________________________ ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Indifferent preparation for visit ( ) Indifferent hostessing ( ) Rudeness to judge ( ) Other (specify)__________________________________________ ( ) ( ) house ( ) Indicates items to judge ( ) ( ) ( ) Other (specify) ( ) SOCIAL PANTOMIME— SCORING SHEET 100 NAME_______________________ SCHOOL______________ ROOM______ Role 5: "MAGAZINE SALESMAN1* APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Dismounts from vehicle ( ) Walks to door ( ) Carries briefcase, etc. ( ) Knocks or rings ( ) Repeats knock or ring ( ) Other (specify)________________________________________ ( ) Greets lady ( ) With flourish ( ) With extreme affect ( ) Makes sales pitch ( ) With enthusiasm ( ) Presents product for lady to examine ( ) Turns pages ( ) Other (specify)________________________________________ ( ) Offers sign-up form ( ) Offers pen ( ) Accepts payment( ) Offers product (where seen as a magazine sale) ( ) Responds to acceptance or rejection with affect ( ) Extreme affect ( ) Thanks lady ( ) With a flourish ( ) Departs from door ( ) With affect (e.g., whistling) ( ) Other (specify)________________________________________ ( ) _______________________________________________________________ ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Lady fails to respond to knock or bell ( ) Attacks lady physically ( ) Verbally ( ) With facial expression ( ) Responds to rejection with obvious indifference ( ) Other (specify)_________________________________________ ( ) 101 SOCIAL PANTOMIME— SCORING SHEET NAME SCHOOL ROOM DATE Role 6: "GOOD STUDENT" APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Accepting card from teacher ( ) Affective response ( ) Carrying card home ( ) Affective response when looking at card ( ) Showing card to friends ( ) Affective response to their approval/disapproval ( ) Other (specify) ( ) Entering home ( ) Greeting parents ( ) Putting down books ( ) Showing card to parents ( ) Affective response to parents1 reaction ( ) Discussing card with parents ( ) Extreme affective response to parents ( ) Indicates items on card ( ) Points with great pride ( ) Affective response to parental approval (e.g., modesty) ( ) Requests reward (e.g., outstretched hand) ( ) Receives reward ( ) Affective response to reward ( ) to lack of reward ( ) Leaves parents, card is obviously a valued object (e.g., placed on mantle) ( ) Other (specify)_________________ ( ) ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Indifferent receipt or display of card ( ) Indifferent reaction to parents or friends ( ) Casual disposition of card ( ) Other (specify)________________________________ ( ) 102 SOCIAL PANTOMIME--SCORING SHEET NAME______________ SCHOOL______________ ROOM______ DATE_ Role 7: ’’ MOTORCYCLE POLICEMAN1* APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Rides motorcycle ( ) Gets off cycle ( ) Uses kickstand ( ) Motions driver to pull over ( ) Looks around before pull ing over ( ) Walks to car ( ) Talks to driver ( ) Examines driver1s license ( ) Other (specify)_________________________________________ ( ) Removes pad from pocket or motorcycle ( ) Calls in to report to headquarters ( ) Writes ticket ( ) Examines car license plate ( ) Has driver sign ticket ( ) Gives ticket to driver ( ) Scolds or lectures driver ( ) with gestures to indicate nature of offense ( ) Gets on cycle ( ) Uses kickstand ( ) Drives away ( ) Other (specify)_________________________________________ ( ) ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Yells at driver excessively ( ) Threatens driver physically ( ) Attacks driver physically ( ) Arrests driver with provocation ( ) Kicks vehicle ( ) Other (specify)__________________________________________ ( ) SOCIAL PANTOMIME--SCORING SHEET NAME SCHOOL ROOM DATE 103 Role 8: ’'BARF TEST" APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Eating candy ( ) With positive affect ( ) Moves sluggishly ( ) Sick expression on face ( Discards candy ( ) Seeks out parent ( ) Other (specify) ) ( ) Holds stomach ( ) Wipes brow ( ) Goes to toilet ( ) Crouches or bends over ( ) Opens mouth ( ) Vomits (with retching motions) Other ( snec ifv) ( ) ( ) Flushes toilet ( ) Cleans up mess on floor ( ) Interacts with parent ( ) Lies down to recuperate ( Other (snecifv) ) ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Smiles or laughs while ill ( ) Returns to candy after vomiting ( ) Other (snecifv) ( ) 104 SOCIAL PANTOMIME— SCORING SHEET NAME_________________ SCHOOL__________ ROOM___ DATE________ Role 9: "ANGRY MOTHER" APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Sees child ( ) Affective response to child's behavior ( ) Talks to child as if explaining ( ) Yells or scolds ( ) Wags finger ( ) Seizes child to stop behavior ( ) Takes away crayon ( ) Other (specify) ( ) Overt physical response to child (e.g., hand to head) ( ) Hits child once or twice ( ) Additional scolding ( ) Sends child out of room ( ) Takes child out of room ( ) Additional scolding ( ) Other___(specify)________________________________________ ( ) Goes for cleaning aids ( ) Wrings out cloth or sponge ( ) Runs water ( ) Cleans wall ( ) Admires or inspects handiwork ( ) Returns cleaning supplies ( ) Rinses out cloth or sponge ( ) Runs water ( ) Other___(specify)________________________________________ ( ) ( ) INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR: Hits or beats child excessively ( ) Ignores bad behavior ( ) Responds to it with reward or affection ( ) Other (specify)__________________________________________ ( ) THE VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST 105 106 INSTRUCTIONS: Verbal Roleplaying Test Have you ever heard, or do you know, what a radio play is? It's one where you can only hear the actors, not see them--like a TV play when the picture tube is out but the sound is on. Well, in this acting game you and I are going to act in a group of very short plays. You're going to pretend that you are really someone else and act just like that person would. You understand, don't you? The only difference between our play and the ones on radio or tele vision is that you're going to make up your own lines as we go along. Actually, it's more fun this way because you just say the first thing that comes into your mind and I'll be helping you by saying lines just before you do so that you'll have a good idea of what to say. There are going to be nine plays and for each play I'll tell you who you are supposed to be (the part that you will play), who I'm supposed to be (the part that I'll play), and then I'll start each play by saying the first line. Then, you'll make up a line, I'll say a line, you'll say another line, and we'll keep it up like that for about one minute. Do you understand? Good. Let's get started. 107 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 1— Friend General Instructions to S: You and I are pals, both in school and out of it. We have always gone places together and shared a lot of good times. Today, you just found out that I, your best pal, had a big birthday party last Saturday over at my house and didn't invite you to come to it. You are very upset because I ignored you. General Orientation of E: Defensive indifference. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: I couldn't invite everybody, you know. E line 2: I guess I must have just forgot about you, E line 3: Well, maybe i'll remember to invite you next year. VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST 108 Role 2— Lovers General Instructions to S: You're my girlfriend, I'm your boyfriend, and we've gone steady together all through high school. We're graduating from high school and you, my girlfriend, are going to go to college here in Los Angeles but I've decided to go away to college in the East, thousands of miles from here. You like me very much and want me to stay here in Los Angeles where we can be together. General Orientation of E: Lukewarm lover, somewhat blase, perhaps naive. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: I'm kind of looking forward to going away to college in the East: I've never been there before. E line 2: I do like you, but I don't think that being apart is such a bad idea. E line 3: Oh well, I suppose I'll miss you, but we'll probably make a lot of new friends at college and forget all about each other. 109 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 3— Dangerous Mission General Instructions to S: You and I are soldiers out on the front lines in Viet Nam. I have just volunteered to go all alone on a danger ous mission from which I may never return. You are my best pal and are very worried about me. You don't want me to go on that dangerous mission. General Orientation of E: Competent soldier; businesslike and fatalistic. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: Well, I guess that I'd better get my stuff ready; it's about time to get started. E line 2: This is an important as s ignment; somebody has to do it. E line 3: I feel that I have to do this on my own. If I don't make it back, just try to forget about me and make some new friends. 110 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 4--Ambitious < « General Instructions to S: I'm a store owner and I put an advertisement in the paper for a boy to help out in my store by running errands, sweeping up, and doing little jobs. You saw the advertise ment and have come to talk to me about it. You want me to hire you very much. General Orientation of E: Gruff, officious boss. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: So you think that you'll be able to handle this job I E line 2: How do I know that you won't get lazy and careless? E line 3: Why should I hire you instead of some other boy? Ill VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 5— Promotion General Instructions to S: You’re a grownup and I'm your boss. Somebody else just got a promotion and a raise in pay. You have worked hard and think that you deserve it more than he does. You have just come into my office to tell me how you feel about that other man getting the raise and promotion that you deserved. General Orientation of E: Authoritarian, short-tempered, sarcastic businessman. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: Well, what do If reply is "Oh, nothing," you want? or something similar, then ask gruffly, "Then why are you just standing there?" E line 2: I don't see why I should let you tell me how to If S fails to mention rival or pay raise, ask,"Why aren't you working?" run this busi ness E line 3: So you really think that you're as good ___________ as him?____________ 112 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 6--Careers General Instructions to S: You're a mother and I'm your son who has just come home from serving in the Army. I can't decide whether to take a good job with the Fire Department or go on to college and study to become a doctor. You, my mother, want me to go on with my education and become a doctor even if it does mean going without a lot of things while I'm in college. General Orientation of E: Ambivalent youth; wants to make a good choice, but anxious to enjoy the independence and material benefits of autonomous adulthood. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: Golly Mom, if I go to work I'll be able to buy a car in just a few months and I'll never be able to afford one in college. E line 2: Being a fireman is If S resPonds wlth a great. You're serving question, then begin your community and Une 2 with „But _ „ it's exciting besides. E line 3: Gee, seven years of going to college and studying hard sure seems like a long time. 113 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 7— Sheriff General Instructions to S: You're a sheriff in a town far out west about 100 years ago. I'm an outlaw who has just ridden into town with my gang; like a cowboy story on TV. You aren't very pleased to see me and my outlaw gang, Sheriff. General Orientation of E: Bold, swaggering braggart. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: Hey you! Are you the sheriff around here? Well, we won't be need ing you any more; we're taking over this town. E line 2: Don't try to stop me. My men are nearby and you'd better surrender before someone gets hurt. E line 3: I dare you to do any thing to me! 114 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 8— Mother General Instructions to S: You're my mother. Itrs during the afternoon and I've been playing with my friend Jim in the living room. You, my mother, don't like what's been happening. General Orientation of E: Half-scared, defensive, somewhat whiny. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: Gee Mom, we were just playing and the lamp broke. E line 2: It wasn't our fault I We were throwing the ball to each other and something happened to make it go wrong and it accidentally hit the lamp. E. line 3: It never happened when we played here before. 115 VERBAL ROLEPLAYING TEST Role 9— Teacher General Instructions to S: You're my teacher. We're in class, I'm a name is Sally. You are teaching an arithmetic are not very pleased when I interrupt you. girl and my lesson and General Orientation of E: Persistent, whining, tattle-tale. Experimenter Script: Possible Modifications E line 1: Teacher, Joe just took my pencilI E line 2; Teacher, Joe pulled my hair and it hurts! E line 3: Joe's laughing now, Teacher. He * s hiding his face behind his book, but he's laughing! 116 DIRECTIONS FOR SCORING: The Verbal Roleplaying Test* The general principle guiding the assignment of scores on the verbal roleplaying test is that there exists a sufficiency of cultural stereotypes associated with the roles demanded in this test such that roleplaying ability may be treated as the accurate representation of the con tents and response sequence most commonly associated with those stereotypes. The plausibility of this principle permits the a priori assignment of line sequences to the experimenter even though he cannot know precisely what responses the subject will make to the first line of the script. The same reasoning makes it possible to classify responses into a small number of categories and to assign weighted values to responses falling within particular categories. The considerable agreement among independent judges as to the scores to be assigned and the tendency for performance to be positively related to age respectively testify to the reliability and validity of these proce dures . Four categories of response have been used to score the verbal roleplaying test, each representing a different degree of efficiency at roleplaying in terms either of the adoption of effective stereotypy or the maintenance of a *Adopted from the Dramatic Acting Test: A role playing test for children. London and Bowers (1965). 117 plausible response sequence. Each "line" in the child's performance receives a numerical score corresponding to one or another category, and the total score for a single play let is the sum of the scores for the three lines emitted. The total test score is the sum of the playlet scores. A "line" is defined as the unit of response behavior which the child performs between any two experimenter lines or subsequent to the final experimenter line in each playlet, as indicated in the experimenter script. The length of such responses is quite variable, of course, and scores must consequently be assigned on the basis of the scorer's best judgment as to the overall adequacy of the "line" with respect to the available scoring categories. The general characteristics of scoring categories are: Category 1. No role adoption, i.e., behavior does not correspond at all to the expected cultural stereotype. Receives score of 1. Category 2. Response sequence is illogical and/or role adoption is inadequate approxi mation of stereotype. Receives score of 2. Category 3. Moderately logical response sequence and/or moderately good adoption of role. Receives score of 3. Category 4. Satisfactory response sequence and/or good role adoption. Receives score of 4. 118 The material which follows presents a Scoring Manual, indicating the expected stereotype for each role, the categories applicable to different lines, and examples of response lines which would receive particular scores. 119 SCORING MANUAL Role 1--Friend Stereotype: Betrayed friend; one whose ostensibly closest friend has behaved as if their relationship was of little value. Probably expresses feel ings of anger, revenge, grief, betrayal, etc. Line -1- . . . "I. couldnft invite everybody ..." Category 1. No role adoption. No response. Agree ment with statement, e.g., "I guess not." Scorekeep ing, e.g., "Who else did you invite?" Category 2. Inadequate approximation of role. , , Extreme obsequiousness. Acceptance of behavior though obviously disliking it. Intellectualization, e.g., "Couldn't you have arranged for one more person to attend?" Category 3. Moderately good role adoption. Moderate disapproval, e.g., '*ThatYs not very nice of you." Distortion of introduction such that party is to be held at some future time. Logical questioning or expression of disapproval with moderate resentment, hurt, or other appropriate affect. Vague threats of reprisal. Concern for relationship, e.g., "Don't you, like me anymore?" Category 4. Good role adoption. Reacts with anger or hurt, scolds friend for his behavior. Reminds him of long friendship. May make appropriate threats of reprisal but basis should be clear from either tone or explanatory statements. Combination of two or more may be counted if delivered convincingly, though without affect. Line -2- . . , "I, guess I must have just forgot ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, accepts premise. Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, illogical response sequence. Unrealistic request, e.g., "Couldn't you of kicked out Johnny and invited me instead?" Naive, nonaffective response without elaboration, e.g., "Gee, how come you forgot?" Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, moderately good response sequence. Protests, but with mild affect. Continuing reminders of friendship, reciprocity. 120 Role 1--Friend (continued) Category 4. Same as Line 1. Also, logical response sequence. Expressions of anger, resentment, dis appointment, etc. Real evidence of hurt for having been passed over. Line -3- . . . 'Veil, maybe I'll remember ..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, acceptance of party-giver's promise but with reluctance or faint hope. Parroting. Intellectualization. Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, rejection or ridicule of offer, but with little affect. Questioning of possibility based on factors unrelated to hurt feelings, e.g., "I may not be living around here then." Logical reaction, e.g., "I hope you do." Category 4 . Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, hurt dis missal of idea, e.g., 'bon't bother." Anger or grief reaction delivered strongly. 121 SCORING MANUAL Role 2--Lovers Stereotype: Girl left behind; one who is concerned about the possible loss of a love relationship and resists it. Separation anxiety is main theme of an adolescent girl whose boyfriend is rather blasely leaving her. Would like him to change his mind and should be hurt or angered by his attitude. Line -1- ..."I'm kind of looking forward to going away..." Category 1. No role adoption. No response or lack of concern for his statement, e.g., "O.K." Category 2. Poor role adoption. Curiosity, illog ical argument or intellectual concern with little affect, e.g., "Thatfs interesting" or ’Will you be gone long? Similar questioning of motivation, e.g., "Why do you want to do that?" Category 3. Moderately good role adoption. Argu ments to have him remain in Los Angeles, but without expressions of concern. Simple appeals to remain but without implied strong affective reaction if he does not, e.g., "Please don't go." Category 4. Good role adoption. Concerned question ing or strong pleas to remain indicative of deep concern at loss of a close relationship. Request to go with him. Questions or pleas accompanied by declarations of caring, length of relationship, etc. Should clearly state or imply fear of important personal loss. Line -2- . . . "I do like you but X don't think ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, agrees with statement. Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, quizzical or reluctant disagreement without qualifiers, e.g., "I don't know about that." Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, moderately log ical response sequence. Disagreement with statement but with little affect. Good arguments for staying in Los Angeles but unconnected to stated desire to maintain friendship. Jealousy, e.g., "you 122 Role 2— Lovers (continued) might meet another girl.” Suggestion of logical alternative, but with feelings of enthusiasm obviously lacking, e.g., "Well, we can keep in touch by writing each other letters. Category 4. Same as Line 1. Also, good response sequence. Denial of statement, e.g., "I think it's a terrible idea." Arguments designed to sway boyfriend delivered with strong negative affect. If an attempt to "sell" him on remaining in Los Angeles, it must be delivered with a feeling of desperation about it . . . solid conviction. Line -3- . . . "Oh well. I suppose I will miss you ..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, sarcastic surrender, e.g., "If you want to go, just go on ahead and do it." Intellectual argumentation without feel ing that loss of relationship is the primary concern, e.g., "I think you'll find that Cal Tech is really just as good as Harvard." Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, simple declaration of feeling, e.g., "I won't forget about you." Reluctant agreement but with added statement of regret, e.g., 'Tes, I suppose I will, but I still wish that I didn't have to. ' Mild disagreement or arguments to remain suggesting caring relationship but not specifying it, e.g., Please don't go." Category 4. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, grief reactions, declarations of love, pleas to remain, but delivered very expressively or in combination. Obvious strong concern over loss of relationship and strong desire that boyfriend change his mind. If an outburst of anger, should be a sensible message, not a temper-tantrum. In this role, affect should weigh more heavily than logic, however. 123 SCORING MANUAL Role 3— Dangerous Mission Stereotype: Worried, anxious friend; one who is concerned about the possible loss or injury to his ’ ’ buddy" . . . termination of a caring rela tionship . Line -1- ..."Well. X guess that I’d better get my stuff..." Category 1. No role adoption. Pleased farewell. Rejection of reality, e.g., "Forget it man." No response. Category 2. Illogical role adoption, e.g., "Let's send the Sarge" or "What a silly mission; I'm surprised at them." Intellectualization, e.g., "How long will you be gone?" Category 3. Moderately good role adoption. Primary emphasis is on the nature of the mission, not concern for the pal, e.g., "It's really dangerous out there." Exhorts pal to stay, but without explaining feelings, e.g., "Don't go." Category 4. Good role adoption. Protests; doesn't want pal to go and states it in ways, or with appro priate affect, that reason is clearly fear of losing him. Questions need for mission, but from point of view of friend's role in it, e.g., "Is it really necessary? Why you? Why not someone else?" Offers to substitute for him or accompany him on mission, but clearly out of concern for his safety, not from a desire to be a hero. Line -2- . . . "This is an important assignment ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1, Also, casual accept ance. Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, intellectual questioning or reasoning. No expressed concern for pal. Continuing illogical defiance of authority. Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, agreement with statement but with negative affect or qualifier, e.g., "I suppose so, but does it have to be you?" Moderately logical sequence. Somewhat naive argumen tation, but not illogical and with concern for pal 124 Role 3--Dangerous Mission (continued) suggested, e.g., "Please don't go. There must be some other guy who we wouldn't miss as much as we will you." Category 4. Same as Line 1. Also, obvious strong concern for pal's welfare expressed with affect and statements re withdrawing from the mission or feel ings of possible impending loss. Logical arguments count, but transmitted concern is primary. Line -3- ..."'1 feel that I have to do this on my own..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, casual acceptance of statement; no resemblance to stereotype "best pal." Continuing, illogical proposals to get out of mission or meaningless attacks on authority. Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, childish anger, e.g., "Go ahead and get yourself killed . . . see if 1 care." Agreement with statement but with obvious reluctance or lack of sincerity, e.g., "Well, if you really feel that way, O.K." Mild concern with loss, intellectualization, usually with little affect, e.g., "I suppose that I will miss you." Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, continuing naive efforts to get pal out of mission. Simple expressions of concern without accompanying pleas or arguments. Continuation of a logical argument, but with little affect. Category 4. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, powerful expressions of concern, strongly stated pleas to remain, genuine offer to substitute or accompany, or persuasive combination of any of these elements. 125 SCORING MANUAL Role 4--Ambitious Stereotype: An ambitious, achievement-oriented boy; one who personifies the Protestant ethic of diligence, hard work, thrift, etc. Line -1- . . . "S£ you think you111 be able ..." Category 1. No role adoption. No response or obviously illogical one for a job-seeker, e.g., "I don't know." Category 2. Poor role adoption. Affirmative answer but with reservation, e.g., "I guess so." Silly affirmatives. Category 3. Moderately good role adoption. Simple, affirmative answer with some affect or brief explana tion. Possible doubtful answer but with affirmative qualifier, e.g., "I'm not sure, but I'll sure try." Somewhat unrealistically exaggerated affirmatives. Category 4. Good role adoption. Obviously certain acceptance delivered with feeling of determination to succeed. If only a simple "Yes, sir" it should be delivered with purposefulness and clearly convey the feeling that "I'm the one that you should hire." Businesslike acceptance with explanation of awareness of responsibilities; references to past work experi ence. To be in this category, responses should either be complex or with powerful affect. Line -2- . . . "How do I know that you won't ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, illogical request, e.g., "Put a guard on me." Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, illogical response sequence. Provocative response, argumenta tion, challenges which avoid answering with a statement of the applicant's qualifications, e.g., "How do you know that somebody else won't do the same thing?" Unsubstantiated claims, delivered with little affect and without added qualifiers, e.g., "I'm not that kind of a person." Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, moderately log ical response sequence. Denial of insinuation with claims substantiated by references generally unrelated to work situations, e.g., "My Mom can tell you what a 126 Role 4--Ambitious (continued) good boy I am.1 1 Request for a trial but without a promise to excel, e.g., "Try me out." Category 4. Same as Line 1. Also, appropriate use of references to past performances, e.g., "I deliv ered papers and always did a good job. If home situations are referred to, they must specify the job so as to demonstrate relevance to a work situation, e.g., "I mow our lawn every week, take out the trash, and keep my room in order without ever having to be reminded." Request for a trial delivered with conviction and promises, e.g., "Just give me a chance to show you and I'm sure that you'll like my work." Line -3- . . . "Why should I hire you ..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, hostile response, e.g., "You better hire me or else." Scorekeeping, e.g., "is there someone else." Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, lukewarm, inadequate, or grossly, personal reason, e.g., "Because I got here first," or "Well, I really need the money," without any explanation or elaboration indicating knowledge that hiring is based on merit. Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, statements indicating awareness that hiring is based on reasons of merit but either exaggerated so as to be of ques tionable credibility or delivered with hesitancy or little affect. A statement like "Because I'm best" could fall Into either class depending on how it is delivered. In fact, it could even qualify for Category 4 if convincing enough. Category 4. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, clear suggestion that he is the best qualified or most willing to work hard if given the opportunity. Statements of excellence or merit are usually confirmed with references to past work performance or are delivered with emphatic, businesslike conviction. Boy we're looking for is Horatib Alger or Jack Armstrong. 127 SCORING MANUAL Role 5--Promotion Stereotype: Ambitious young man; one who has been steeped in the Protestant ethic and concerned that he receive full credit and reward for what.he has earned. Tone of righteous indignation. Line -1- . . . ' Veil, what do you want ...11 Category 1. No role adoption. No response or extreme timidity or withdrawal. Flippancy, wise cracking, arrogance, or hostility that would undoubt edly "turn off employer. Category 2. Inadequate role adoption. Poor response or intellectualization, e.g., "You should listen to me." Uhelaborated demand, e.g., "I want a raise." Extreme obsequiousness. Attacks on rival without explanation. Category 3. Moderately good role adoption. Request for audience with reasons or basic presentation of grievance with little affect. Downgrades rival, but with explanation or expression of own worth. Claims for justice without substantiation, e.g., "I think that I deserve that raise and promotion more than he does.1 1 Category 4. Good role adoption. Presents argument or grievance with appropriate affect, good logical reasoning, and substantiation, e.g., "I've been work ing here longer than he has and besides, all he does is spend his time flirting with the girls or hanging around the drinking fountain." Righteous indignation. Line -2- . . . '[I don't see why I should let you ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, absurd threats which guarantee loss of job. Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, illogical sequence. Overly apologetic or hostile. Challenges boss. Demands for raise or pay without explanation. No statement of wishes, only arguments against rival; unbusinesslike downgrading, e.g., "He's a slob." 128 Role 5--Promotion (continued) Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, moderately log ical sequence. Demand for rectification without explanation but with affect. Strong affect but with emphasis on personal needs without regard to needs of business, e.g., MI need the money, so give me the raise." Logical denial of statement, but intellec tually. Category 4. Same as Line 1. Also, logical response sequence with feelings of desire that a wrong be righted. Denial of statement but with explanation or argument. Delivery is with conviction; may include threats of quitting job as logical alternative. Angry tone is O.K., but not overt hostility or dis respectful assaults on authority. Line -3- . . . "So you really think ..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, noncom- mital response, e.g., "I don't know" or "I guess so." Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, simple affirmative without explanation, e.g., "Yes." Unreasonable request, e.g., "Fire that other guy." Intellectualization or questioning, e.g., "In what way do you mean?" Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, very posi tive response to statement, but without great enthu siasm or amplification, e.g., "I'm better." "Yes" response acceptable here if delivered with strong and appropriately affective conviction or elaboration, e.g., "Yes, sir!" Category 4. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, enthusias tic agreement with or elaboration of statement so as to increase its affirmative character, e.g., "I'm better than him and I'll prove it to you if you give me a chance." May agree with statement, but then continue to downgrade rival in logical manner so as to imply that he is really better. If simple state ment of superiority, then it must be delivered with power and conviction, e.g., "I'm better!" 129 SCORING MANUAL Role 6--Careers Stereotype: Achievement-oriented mother; one who is concerned that her son make the best use of his future through adequate preparation and delay of gratification. Usually tries to motivate with logic. Line -1- . . . "Golly. Mom, if I go to work ..." Category 1. No role adoption. No response. Agrees with son. Category 2. Inadequate role adoption. Agrees with son but with negative or quizzical affect, e.g., "I suppose so." "Mother knows bestJ'type of statements without explanations. Category 3. Moderately good role adoption. Argues with son but with moderate affect or conviction. Little explanation or rationale but some effort to convince son on logical basis. Category 4. Good role adoption. May agree with statement but follows with arguments for delaying gratification for sake of later benefits, usefulness of education, benefits of being a doctor, etc. A persuasive message, clearly implies that it is the best course of action for son's ultimate good. Line -2- . , . "Being a fireman is great ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, scolds son for arguing with her. Category 2. Same as Line 1, Also, illogical response sequence. Irrational fear of fireman's job, i.e., the only argument used to convince him to go on to college. Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, moderately log ical response sequence. Moderately scolds or argues with son against fireman's job primarily on the basis of the negative aspects of that job, not just on the benefits of college. Usually argues for benefits of college, but ignores stating goal of doctor. Emotional, self-centered appeals, e.g., "Please do it for your mother's sake." 130 Role 6— Careers (continued) Category 4. Same as Line 1. Argument that doctors also serve their community. May agree with state ment, but always point to further advantages of college, usually including reference or implication re role of doctor. If doctor is not mentioned, then inference must be clear that reward for college is great, more than just a different job than that of fireman. Line -3- . . . "Gee, seven years of college . . ." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, nonsensi cal response, e.g., "It's better than being dead." Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, agreement with son in deference to his autonomy. Illogical agreement, often in a facetious vein. Lack of serious appreciation of rigors and sacrifices that preparation for medical career involves, e.g., "Oh, it's really fun." Assurance without explanation, e.g., "It's not bad." Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, dismissal of statement with some elaboration, e.g., "It's not so bad after you get used to it." Statement of value, but without explanation, e.g., "It's worth it." "Mother knows best" type of statement but followed by statement of why. Category 4. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, acceptance of statement but followed by affirmation of value of education. Good, logical reasons to endure schooling for seven years. Promise of future gratification. Doctor role firmly reinforced. 131 SCORING MANUAL Role 7— Sheriff Stereotype: A fearless upholder of law and order; one with a sense of civic responsibility such that he is in a class well above that of the outlaw elements with whom he deals. Line -1- . . , "Hey you! Are you the sheriff ..." Category 1. No role adoption. Questions neutrally or intellectualizes, e.g., "Why do you want to do that?" Scared or hesitant reaction, e.g., "Please don't." No response. Category 2. Inadequate role adoption. Simple defensive denial with little affect, e.g., You can't do that" or "Over my dead body" without elaboration or explanation. May be hostile response, but tells little, e.g., "Oh yeah." Category 3. Moderately logical role adoption. Challenges outlaw, but with little explanation, e.g., "You try anything and you'll be sorry." States credentials as a law enforcer, e.g., "I'm the fastest draw in this part of the country. Warnings are rather simple and unelaborated. Category 4. Good role adoption. Acts like a respon sible law officer. Gives appropriate warning or command to leave town in businesslike manner, usually with stated consequences for failure to comply, explanations of sheriff's power, support of populace. Arrests outlaw, appropriately, and with explanations. Line -2- . . . "Don't try to stop me . . ." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, yields or acts frightened. Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, intellectualizes. Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, strong denial delivered with appropriate affect, e.g., "That's what you think; try it and we'll take care of you." Agrees with statement but makes it clear that person to be hurt will be the outlaw. Factual challenge, e.g., "My men are nearby, too." 132 Role 7-"Sheriff (continued) Category 4 . Same as Line 1. Also, strong denial of statement with own statement of consequences of resistance or warnings to desist. Tough, but respon sible behavior . . . cool . . . on top of the situa tion. Line -3- . . . ",1 dare you to do anything ..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, silly, illogical statement. Threats to abdicate responsi bility. Childlike challenge, e.g., "O.K., you just wait." Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, childlike rebuttal, answering the outlaw on his own level, e.g., "I double dare you." Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, continues to warn or threaten outlaw, but no specific action is taken or clearly stated. Category 4 . Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, physical action (arrest, shooting) is taken. Orders to, leave town or desist are given with clear limitations" and stated consequences for failure to comply. 133 SCORING MANUAL Line 8— Mother Stereotype: Angry or upset mother; one who has to deal with child s behavior as the cause of a lamp being broken. Reference to youngster's mis behavior from the point of view of an adult authority, rather than that of a sympathetic peer. Line -1- . . . "Gee. Mom, we were just playing ..." Category 1. No role adoption. No response. Senseless answer or quiet acceptance of child's behavior. Category 2. Inadequate role adoption. Concern with the lamp only, not followed by concern with the behavior and with little negative affect. Intellec- tualization, neutral questioning, e.g., "What's been going on?" without feeling of alarm such that it sounds more like information gathering (unlike typical mother’ s response) , often with nonspecific questions. Category 3. Moderately good role adoption. Ques tions or comments about behavior with noticeable affective concern. Mild scolding, bland punishment delivered with little affect. Logical responses, but not sounding as if they came from a harassed mother. Category 4. Good role adoption. Angry, questioning to establish culpability, or startle response indicat ing irritation with the child and stated or implied knowledge of cause and effect. Line -2- . . . "It wasn't our fault ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, reassures child, e.g.7 "Oh, that's all right." Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, illogical or extreme punishment without appropriate explanation. Intellectualization, e.g., "I suppose it's more fun to play in the house." Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, mild punishment or no punishment given or implied. Vague threats. Continuing scolding, but with mild affect. 134 Role 8--Mother (continued) Category 4. Same as Line 1. Also, meaningful lectur ing, scolding, or punishment with affect or explana tion. Banishment, with threats of having father deal with child, having to pay for lamp, etc. Line -3- . . . "It never happened when we ..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, illogical reversal to forgiveness. Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, accepts explanation as if it were true accident, twist of fate, e.g., "You were lucky," or "Sooner or later, accidents will happen." Intellectualization, e.g., "X didn't know that you had played in the house before." Response tends to be philosophical, rather than affective. Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, accepts explanation but with negative affect, sarcasm, or warnings that it had better not happen again with unstated, but implied, consequences if it does. Category 4. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, decisive handling. Clear rejection of explanation and/or strong reaction to statement of prior offenses. Punishment given, threatened, or clearly promised at stated future time. 135 SCORING MANUAL Role 9— Teacher Stereotype: The individual clearly in charge of the class room; one who has authority and is determined to enforce rules of order, discipline, and fair play. May be annoyed by whining nature of complaints but deals with them justly and purposefully. Line -1- . . . "Teacher, Joe just took my pencil ..." Category 1. No role adoption. No response. No reaction to Joe at all, but illogical order to Sally, e.g., "Take it back." Responds to Sally with annoy ance, scolds her without placing any credibility in what she reports, e.g., "Be quiet, Sally." Invita tion to further trouble, e.g., "Just ignore him and he*11 stop it, Sally." Category 2. Poor role adoption. Reacts to Joe but without orders to rectify the situation. Reacts only to Sally, but with skepticism ("Here we go again" feeling). Reaction to Joe, but through Sally, e.g., "Tell him to cut it out." Category 3. Moderately logical role adoption. Reacts to Joe with orders to rectify situation, but without elaboration. May react to Sally as a nui sance, but handles her with reason, e.g., "Raise your hand, Sally" without acting on her complaint. Category 4. Good role adoption. Firm handling of the situation with some credence placed on Sally1s complaint. Usually a direct reaction to Joe with elaboration, e.g., "Joe, give Sally back her pencil and turn around or I’ll change your seat." May be skeptical or corrective response to Sally, but must also include attending to Joe, if only to question him. Orders to desist with consequences stated for failure to comply. Line -2- . . . '^Teacher, Joe pulled my hair ..." Category 1. Same as Line 1. Also, continuing scold ing of Sally, in harsh manner, and without stated justification. Category 2. Same as Line 1. Also, continues to scold Sally without dealing with Joe, but justifies 136 Role 9— Teacher (continued) it by labeling her as a perennial nuisance. May continue to question Joe without rectifying the situation or indicating concern over the escalation of offenses. Deals with Joe through Sally, does not address him directly. Category 3. Same as Line 1. Also, demands rectifi cation without explanation or elaboration. Acknowl edges that acts are piling up by increasing intensity of responses. May question Sally's involvement, but only after having dealt with Joe in Line 1. Category 4. Same as Line 1. Also, may continue to scold or correct Sally, but Joe is also being dealt with. Orders to comply are accompanied by appropri ate punishment or threats of punishment with stated consequences. Line -3- . . . "Teacher, Joe's laughing now ..." Category 1. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, ignores Sally' s pleas, continues to scold her (or punish) without having attended to Joe. Category 2. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, continues to react only to Sally, but on some previously stated logical basis. Repetition of previous lines, even if Category 3, without any indication of an awareness of the increasing severity of the offenses. Joe is reprimanded but not ordered to desist. Annoyance without exercise of control. Illogical punishment for Joe or Sally or both. Category 3. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, commands rectification of behavior by Joe, but with clear indication of awareness that events have escalated, e.g., "Joe, I'm not going to tell you again . . . stop it J" Category 4. Same as Lines 1 and 2. Also, firm resolution of the problem. Corrective actions ordered with appropriate alternatives for noncompliance. Punishments administered in logical, appropriate manner, e.g., "Joe, go out and stand in the hallway; Sally, come sit up in the front row." Sally alone may be punished if teacher acknowledges that Joe has been investigated and found innocent. Scolding alone may qualify for this category if it is logical, detailed, and carries with it some threat if behavior ______is not altered.________________________________________ 137 FINAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL SUBJECTS This is a contest and other boys from your school will be in it so be sure to not tell anyone what you did in here because if you do, they'll have a chance to practice and do better at it than you did. Do you understand? You didn't get to practice, or even know what to expect, so do you think that it would be fair if the other boys had a chance to do that? Good. Keep it a secret for about two weeks because we may come back here then to test some more boys in this contest. After that, you can talk about it as much as you want. Thanks again for taking part . . . I hope that you enjoyed it. By the way, there will be one more thing to do which will take you out of class for about 15 or 20 minutes. A lady will be by to ask you some questions. Is that O.K.? Good. I hope that we can meet again. 138 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Department of Psychology June 15, 1969 Dear Parents: I want to convey my sincere appreciation to you for encouraging your child to participate in the psychological research which we recently conducted at his school. It was very gratifying to have had the opportunity to work with such an enthusiastic school administration, cooperative staff, and one hundred fifty bright, well- behaved youngsters. While the results of this study cannot be discussed at this time as we are in the process of scoring and evaluating performances, we have received a number of inquiries and would be pleased to meet with the parents of participating youngsters to demonstrate the methods that we used and answer any questions that you may have. We are scheduling a meeting at Ramona school for that purpose and Mr. Don Spector, the Doctoral Candidate who worked with your boy will explain the purposes and methods of the study. I regret that I will be unable to attend. Ramona school is located between Normandie and Mariposa Avenues at Santa Monica Blvd. The school entrance is at 1133 North Mariposa Avenue and the meeting will be held in the auditorium at 1:00 p.m., June 18. I hope that you can attend this meeting because I believe that you will find it interesting. In any case, I want to thank you again for your contribution to the better understanding of human behavior. Yours sincerely Perry London, Ph.D. Professor
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Effect Of Conditions Of Risk, Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement, And Sex On Binary Choice Probability Learning
PDF
The Effects Of Two Types Of Experimenter Intervention And Schedules Of Reinforcement On Verbal Operant Conditioning Of Affective Self-References
PDF
Role Playing Ability And Social Adjustment In Children
PDF
Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties
PDF
The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure
PDF
Stress Response Modification And Autohypnotic Techniques
PDF
Hypnotic Susceptibility, Achievement Motivation, And The Treatment Of Obesity
PDF
The Effect Of Discriminability On The Partial Reinforcement Effect In Human Gsr Conditioning
PDF
Verbal Conditioning Of Dependence-Independence In Domiciled Veterans
PDF
Human Performance As A Function Of The Joint Effects Of Drive And Incentive Motivation
PDF
Effects Of Group Behavior Therapy Imagery On Basketball Performance
PDF
Experimenter Expectancy Effect Examined As A Function Of Task Ambiguity And Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement
PDF
Relationship Of Personality And Task Demands To Self-Disclosing Behavior And Psychological Health
PDF
Relationship Of Achievement Motivation To Perception Of Degree Of Task Difficulty And Estimate Of Performance
PDF
The Enhancement Of Eeg - Alpha Production And Its Effects On Hypnotic Susceptibility
PDF
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
PDF
Use Of College Students In A Social Therapy Program With Chronic Schizophrenics To Produce Changes In Mood And Social Responsiveness
PDF
Confirmation Of Expectancy And Changes In Teachers' Evaluations Of Student Behaviors
PDF
Human Gsr Classical Conditioning And Awareness Of The Cs-Ucs Relation
PDF
The Effect Of Motor Ability Loss On Cognition And Emotion
Asset Metadata
Creator
Spector, Donald Elliot
(author)
Core Title
The Influence Of The Achievement Motive, The Affiliation Motive, And Incentive Conditions On Roleplaying Ability In Children
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
London, Perry (
committee chair
), Gould, John W. (
committee member
), Slucki, Henry (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-413300
Unique identifier
UC11361177
Identifier
7019124.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-413300 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7019124.pdf
Dmrecord
413300
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Spector, Donald Elliot
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