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
/
Personality Variables And Intellectual Abilities As Determinants Of Concept Learning
(USC Thesis Other)
Personality Variables And Intellectual Abilities As Determinants Of Concept Learning
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
70-11,373 KUMAR, Santosh, 1932- PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES AS DETERMINANTS OF CONCEPT LEARNING. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970 Psychology, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED PERSONALITY VARIABLES AND INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES AS DETERMINANTS OF CONCEPT LEARNING by Santosh Kumar 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 19 70 UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by SANTOSH KUMAR under the direction of A..jk§. 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 '7nx^,o Dean D«^....January__19_7q_ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE . 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express gratitude for the guidance during his graduate studies, and the valuable suggestions he received in the preparation of this disserta-' tion from Professor Norman Cliff. The encouraging attitude of Dr. Constance Lovell, and the reference materials pro vided by Dr. F. H. Fox are greatly appreciated. The author is indebted to Dr. Andrew L. Comrey for supplying test materials of personality scales, and the Aptitudes Research Project, University of Southern Cali fornia, for the permission to use the ability tests and the concept learning tasks. Computing assistance was obtained from the Health Sciences Computing Facility, University of California, Los Angeles, sponsored by NIH Grant FR-3, and the Computer Sciences Laboratory, University of Southern California. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................... ii LIST OF TABLES......................................... iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.....................................viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.................................... 1 II. HYPOTHESES...................................... 20 III. METHOD........................................... 3 3 IV. DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS.................... <+7 V. DISCUSSION...................................... 92 VI. SUMMARY......................................... 105 APPENDIX A ............................................. 107 APPENDIX B ............................................. 113 APPENDIX C ............................................. 116 REFERENCES............................................. 129 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Means of Block Scores for the Concept Learning Tasks..................................4-9 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Estimates of Comrey Personality Scales . . . 52 3. Correlation Matrix (Pearson r) for Comrey Personality Scales ............................ 53 4. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Skewness in Distributions of Scores of Ability Tests....................................55 5. Intercorrelation (Pearson r) Matrix of SI Ability Factors..................................57 6. Matrix of Coefficients of Correlations Between Comrey Personality Scales and Figural Concept Learning Task..........................60 7. 3-Weights for Comrey Personality Scales at Successive Blocks of Trials of Learning Figural Concepts............................... 61 8. Matrix of Coefficients of Correlations Between Comrey Personality Scales and Symbolic Concept Learning Task..........................63 9. 3-Weights for Comrey Personality Scales at Successive Blocks of Trials of Learning Symbolic Concepts............................... 65 iv Table Page 10. Matrix of Coefficients of Correlations Between Comrey Personality Scales and Semantic Concept Learning Task.................. 66 11. 3-Weights for Comrey Personality Scales at Successive Blocks of Trials of Learning Semantic Concepts............................... 68 12. Matrix of Coefficients of Correlations Between SI Ability Factors and Figural Concept Learning Task....................................69 13. 3-Weights for SI Ability Factors at Successive Blocks of Trials of Learning Figural Concepts........................................ 71 14. Matrix of Coefficients of Correlations Between SI Ability Factors and Symbolic Concept Learning Task....................................73 15. 3-Weights for SI Ability Factors at Successive Blocks of Trials of Learning Symbolic Concepts........................................ 74 16. Matrix of Coefficients of Correlations Between SI Ability Factors and Semantic Concept Learning Task..................................7 6 17. 3-Weights for SI Ability Factors at Successive Blocks of Trials of Learning Semantic Concepts........................................ 77 v Table Page 18. Number of Significant Correlations Between Abilities and Concept Learning Tasks .... 78 19. Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Figural Concept Learning Task and Personality Scales ....................... 81 20. Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Symbolic Concept Learning Task and Personality Scales ....................... 8 2 21. Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Semantic Concept Learning Task and Personality Scales ....................... 8 3 22. Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Figural Concept Learning Task and SI Abilities............................. 84 23. Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Symbolic Concept Learning Task and SI Abilities............................. 84 24. Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Semantic Concept Learning Task and SI Abilities..............................85 25. Correlations (Pearson r) Between Block of Trial Number and Performance on Concept Learning as Correlated with CPS and SI Abilities. . . 87 vi Table 26. Page Matrix of Intercorrelation Between SI Ability Factors and Comrey Personality Scales .... 91 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Differential Performance Function for the Three Concept Learning Tasks ................. 50 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The basic S-O-R experimental paradigm presented by Woodworth (1938) to explain psychological phenomena in general was used by Kendler (1961) to distinguish studies in concept learning which emphasized stimulus conditions or situational factors from those emphasizing organismic con ditions or factors concerned with mediating processes within the subject. Such a division is rather arbitrary and a matter of emphasis, since S-R studies do not preclude the existence of O-factors and 0-R studies do not preclude S-factors from the total experimental situation. According to Vinacke (19 52), Bruner, Goodnow and Austin (1956), Bourne (1966), and Glaser (1968), studies of the former kind are primarily concerned with effects of stimulus variables like positive and negative instances, proportions of relevant and irrelevant cues, stimulus patterns, and other situational factors such as order and sequence of the presentation of instances, frequency and interval of reinforcement (feedback information). Studies of the latter kind deal mainly with S-R bonds mediating between the stimulus and the response (Kendler £ D’Amato, 1955), and strategies which subjects 1 2 employ (Bruner, et. al., 19 56; Manis, 19 66), in solving the problem. Before publication of Kendler*s survey (19 61) of studies in concept formation, investigators, in general, ignored the importance of subjective characteristics, traits, and intellectual abilities and the role of indivi dual differences in determining the nature and strength of S-R bonds or the strategies employed (Torcivia and Laughlin. 19 68). Hunt (1962) does not believe that all humans can perform with equal efficiency all the logical operations involved in solving a concept. He, thus, recognizes the importance of individual differences in concept learning. The subjective factors responsible for individual differences in concept learning may further be subdivided into personality traits and intellectual abilities. A series of studies of the research laboratory at the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, and an investigation in the Aptitudes Research Laboratory at the University of Southern California have tried in the present decade to determine the role of intellectual abilities in concept learning. However, there has been no systematic probe into the problem of concept learning as a function of the per sonality dynamism involving both intellectual abilities and personality traits. 3 The thesis of the present investigation is that the study of human problem-solving behavior, including concept learning, is more meaningful when personality traits, as well as intellectual abilities, are taken into account. Productive thinking and functioning intelligence emerge from an open and curious mind (Fromm and Hartman, 19 55), and in turn, an open or closed mind very much depends on certain personality traits, which may cause rigidity or flexibility in behavior. Intellect and personality, thus, are interdependent and interrelated. Investigations of Relationships Between Personality Traits and Concept Learning In his survey of literature on the rigidity-flexi- bility concept, Chown (19 59) listed the concept-formation task as a criterion of intellectual rigidity. Forster, Vinacke, and Digman (1955) attempted to correlate a concept formation test--Sorting Test— with several criteria of rigidity, which they defined as inability to shift from one mode of attack to another. The correlations between the sorting test and the criteria of flexbility-rigidity were found to be low and non-significant. Romanow (1958) investigated the effect of anxiety and ego-involvement on concept formation. In one of his 4 experiments, he divided his subjects into three different groups differing in levels of manifest anxiety. In another he gave differential instructions in order to induce three different degrees of ego-involvement. His results indicated that the high drive (high anxiety) groups were inferior to the low drive (low anxiety) groups when the correct response was weak relative to the incorrect response. He concluded that drive operates on mediating responses in the same way as overt responses. Dienes (1959) conducted an extensive research to establish the functional relation between personality vari ables and concept formation. He used Raven’s Controlled Projection technique (1951) to assess personality traits of his subjects. Included were conformity (extent to which a subject conforms to the pattern of the most common responses), anxiety as projected on the hero in a TAT story, good-bad (a measure of the values that have been inter nalized in the superego), punishment (a measure of the avenging authority from without that helps to keep the ego on the right track), cohesion (a measure of connectedness of the stories), extraversion-introversion (a measure of extraverted and introverted tendencies), and projectivity (a measure of awareness of identification, that is, ti^e number of ways in which the subject considers himself different from the hero). The two tasks in this study were 5 based on the mathematical theory of groups and on the con cept of inequality of integers. The conceptual structure of the first task was such that the subject would first learn the concepts of elements of a group and product of elements; then the concept of identical and different elements; and, finally, the transformation of one combina tion of elements into another equivalent combination. In the second conceptual task, in which the binary choice of the right or left turn was involved to climb to the top of the tree represented by a diagram, the subject was to learn which of the pairs of combinations would lead to a better prize. Dienes believed that in these types of concept attainment tasks, the Gestalt concept of open and closed continuum was applicable. According to this view, each sub-whole was a measure of unity of its own, although it is joined to other similar sub-wholes by some stronger or weaker links. The rigidity of the boundary of such sub wholes has a bearing on the type of picture the subject has of the concept material. People vary according to their tendencies towards closing or opening. In other words, different people may experience different degrees of dif ficulty in adopting an open attitude once they have made a closure. People may also vary with respect to (1) speed with which successive closures tend to be made, (2) the intensity of the closure, that is, the extent to which they 6 are emotionally charged, and (3) the number of separate closures, or the existence of, or the lack of connectedness between different closed sub-wholes. Dienes (1959) also used (1) the shortened form of Terman-Merill revision of Binet's intelligence test, and (2) the Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1938). Dienes was interested in sex differences in this study. His results show a relationship between the composite scores of the intelligence tests and the con ceptual tasks on one side and the personality variables on the other, if the sexes are considered separately. An uncertain relationship came out as a result of mixed data. He felt boys had a tendency toward breaking up into smaller units in their thinking process. This corresponds with the connectivity aspect of personality. He also observed that the tasks that call for the constructive or creative aspect of thinking more than the judgment aspect had negative cor relation with the tendency of breaking up into smaller units. Hence the creative aspect of thinking had negative correlation with the number aspect of the open-closed dimension. The speed of successive closure was found to correlate either positively or insignificantly with the concept learning tasks and the intelligence tests for both sexes. The correlation between the first concept-learning task and projectivity was negative. This negative correla tion implied that the subjects were unable to identify with 7 the concept learning tasks in the first problem. The corre lations between the personality variables and the concept learning tasks were low and insignificant for both boys and girls. Dienes (19 59) believed that lack of valid measures of personality variables is the main cause of weak relation ship between personality aspect on the one side and ability or the concept-learning aspect on the other. Rao (19 66) correlated three kinds of concept-attain- ment tasks--selection concept learning, inference concept learning and object sorting--to dispositional variables such as intelligence, attitude toward problem solving, and ego strength. A significant correlation was obtained between the degree of abstractness and sorting behavior and the level of intelligence. He concluded that when the task variable is held constant, the kind of strategy adopted is a function of dispositional variables, like ego strength. The experiment of Torcivia and Laughlin (19 68) shows a remarkable similarity of the closure principle of Gestalt psychology (Dienes, 1959) to the concept of open and closed mindedness presented by Rokeach (1960). Torcivia and Laughlin (1968) were interested in determining the differ ence in the scores of conservative focusing and focus gambling in concept attainment, as a function of high dogmatism (HD) characterized by closed-mindedness and low 8 dogmatism (LD) characterized by open-mindedness, respec tively. No difference was found between HD and LD in their use of the conservative focusing strategy. However, it was observed that LD had more use of the focus gambling strategy than HD. This supports the propo sition of Rokeach (1960) that the high dogmatic individual is less able to organize new beliefs and integrate them into his already existing belief system. The dogmatic individual’s inability to cope with a new conceptual system is attributable to his resistance to change, rigidity and utilizing conservative focusing (Vacchiano, Strauss, and Hochman, 1969). During the 1950's, efforts were made by Eysenck (1953), Cattell (1957), and Guilford (1959) to develop per sonality scales using the factor analytic methods with trait scores obtained on the basis of self-reporting inven tories. Eysenck's researches (Eysenck, 194-7, and Eysenck and Eysenck, 1963) resulted in two dimensions of person ality, namely, Neuroticism, and Extraversion-Introversion. Cattell (1957) presented a simple structure of sixteen oblique temperament dimensions. Guilford tried to systema tize dimensions of temperament, and obtained orthogonal factors of personality structure. He classified tempera ments in terms of three areas of behavior, viz., general, emotional, and social dispositions. Within the three 9 categories of temperament, the following five dimensions were identified: positive vs. negative, responsive vs. non-responsive, active vs. passive, controlled vs. uncontrolled, and objective vs. egocentric. Guilford sub classified general disposition into: confidence vs. inferiority feeling, alertness vs. inattentiveness, impul siveness vs. deliberateness, restraint vs. rhathymia, and objectivity vs. hypersensitivity. Emotional disposition was sub-divided into: cheerfulness vs. depression, emo tional immaturity vs. maturity, nervousness vs. composure, stability vs. cycloid disposition, and poise vs. self- consciousness. Social disposition was split into: ascen dance vs. timidity, socialization vs. self-sufficiency, social initiative vs. passivity, friendliness vs. hostility, and tolerance vs. criticalness. Guilford's theoretical analysis of temperaments was based on his investigation with the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (Guilford and Zimmerman, 19 49). Comrey (19 64) made the item-factor analysis as the base of his personality researches, and obtained the factors of compulsion, dependence, hostility, and neuroticism. In his further factor analysis, he isolated the eight personality dimensions that are des cribed in Chapters 1 and 2. 10 Investigations of Relationships Between Abilities and Concept Learning Ferguson (1954, 1956) believes that abilities acquire an invariant character in the adult through the process of learning. In turn, abilities affect learning process differentially at different stages of task perfor mance. Guilford (1967) emphasized the importance of abilities as an explanatory construct in learning theories. He also pointed out the role of different abilities in dif ferent kinds of learning. To quote Cronbach (1967): ...A truly general aptitude would correlate with per formance no matter what the instructional method. The attainment score under any of the treatments should show an uptrend with increase in aptitude; while there may be some difference in slope, from treatment to treatment the differential effect will be small, [p. 31] Before psychologists became actively interested in the differential function of abilities at different stages of conceptual growth, Fleishman and Hempel (19 55), and Fleishman (19 60) applied the factor analytic method to test the hypothesis that specific abilities are differentially involved in different stages of practice in a psychomotor task. Bechtoldt (1962), on the other hand, employed the multiple-regression analysis to investigate the involvement of abilities as practice on the Rotary Pursuit Task continues. 11 Stake (19 61) attempted to relate the rote and rela tional task to scholastic achievement and various mental abilities. A factor analysis was performed on learning scores along with the achievement and ability scores. Twelve factors were identified, eight of which were common to learning tasks and the reference variables, and four of which were specific to the learning task. Although results indicated that there was relationship between concept learning and the ability and the achievement measures, the concept learning task had no appreciable factor loadings on any factor and did not enter into any factor. Duncanson (19 6M-) used three tasks of concept forma tion employing verbal, numerical and figural material, along with learning tasks of paired-associates, rote memory, and a battery of ability tests. Seven factors were extracted, of which one was found to be restricted to the ability measures. Three factors were common to the ability and learning measures: verbal ability, rote memory ability, and reasoning ability. Three factors were specific to the learning measures: verbal learning, non-verbal learning, and concept formation. The three concept formation tasks loaded on one factor and no other, and no other variable loaded on that factor. In his attempt to relate conceptual and motor learn ing to ability and achievement measures, Allison (19 60) 12 isolated seven learning factors and five ability factors, four of which were common to both domains. The three learning factors were interpreted as rote learning, spatial rote learning, and early versus late learning. Allison used two verbal and two figural materials for the concept formation tasks. The concept learning tasks loaded pre dominantly on one factor which was interpreted as conceptual learning. Bunderson's (1965) study on the differential performance function of abilities on concept learning shows that perceptual abilities assist the subject in orienting himself to a new problem in the beginning stage. Bunderson calls it problem analysis, in which the problem is reduced by the S to a set of smaller sub-problems. The search processes or abilities such as induction and flexibility assist the S in structuring the rules to solve the sub problems. Finally, the general reasoning abilities assist the S in integrating and organizing the rules, the per ceptual, motor and cognitive abilities to deal with the problem. His findings show the differential performance function of abilities at different stages of practice, and supports his hypothesis of the existence of three higher order processes involved in problem solving. Manley (1965) used a set of mental ability measures such as flexibility of closure, induction, associative memory, number facility, general reasoning, stylistic 13 reasoning, and verbal comprehension, along with twelve con cept tasks representing three kinds of concepts: non-verbal concepts restricted by the attribute of stimuli, non-verbal concepts not restricted by attribute of stimuli, and verbal concepts. Correlations and factor loadings on reference test scores were obtained. Five factors were clearly defined and were interpreted as numerical ability, reason ing, verbal ability, and memory and selective attention. Two factors were not clearly defined by either the concept attainment tasks or the reference tests. The rest of the factors were defined by the concept attainment tasks. It was found that each factor was characterized by one type of concept attainment task. Mulgrave (19 65) used cognitive tests such as induc tion, associative memory, perceptual speed and spatial scanning to investigate if they can account for complex cognitive performances like concept attainment tasks. Both conjunctive and disjunctive tasks were employed for concept attainment. Associative memory accounted for a portion of the variance of the factor of one test (learning design), but no consistent factor structure was obtained for the other tests of cognitive style. The ability tests were unable to predict, reliably, performance on either concept attainment task. Mulgrave attributes this failure to unreliability of concept attainment task. 14 The studies referred to so far have presented con tradictory and, therefore, inconclusive results. Duncanson (19 64) believes that the arbitrary selection of ability tests is responsible for the failure to establish a precise relationship between concept attainment tasks and intellec tual abilities. Dunham, Guilford, and Hoepfner (1968) made use of the Structure-of-Intellect (SI) Model of Guilford (19 59, 1967) in order to relate three concept learning tasks of figural, symbolic and semantic contents to the class abilities, as hypothesized by the said model. Guilford (1967) believes that the concept learned is a class, and hence, class abilities in conjunction with a particular kind of opera tion category and a content category should account for concept learning. Dunham, Guilford, and Hoepfner (1968) used eleven class abilities belonging to the cognitive, memory, diver gent production, and convergent production categories. Each of the operation categories, in turn, had task materia], belonging to the figural, symbolic or semantic category of the content-dimension. The three concept learning tasks employed in this study used material which was either figural, symbolic, or semantic. As a result of the factor analysis of the ability tests and the concept learning tasks, it was found that Divergent Production of Symbolic 15 Classes (DSC) and Memory for Semantic Classes (MMC) factors had significant relationship with the task consistent with their content. However, this phenomenon was not evident in the figural and symbolic tasks in the case of NFC and NSC. Dunham, et. al. (19 68) has found the role of memory as uncertain with respect to figural and symbolic contents. For example, they observed that the MMC was relevant to symbolic, and MSC was relevant to figural content. So they interpret this phenomenon as the "translation" between different languages. The effect of divergent-production abilities was found to be small and uncertain. Two memory factors had positively increasing influences on different stages of learning concepts. Dunham, et. al. (1968) pointed out the role of a CMS in concept learning, especially at the later stages of learning. This suggests that other abilities than class are likely to play an important role in concept learning. Jones (1967) made use of six SI abilities in her investigation of relationships between concept learning and abilities. The results of the factor analysis of the 16 ability tests and six Task Sorts on 102 subjects revealed that a factor, called by Jones "within-task factor emerged with loadings on six sorts and two CMS tests. The memory factor, and the reasoning factor, did not load on the "within-task factor.’" However, the EMR factor loaded 16 on early sorts. Thus results were, uncertain and inconclu sive. The factor analyses based on the data dichotomized for achievers and nonachievers did not produce any per ceptible change in the factor structure. Dienes (195 9) has demonstrated the importance of transformation in learning a concept. In concept learning, the S tries to redefine the stimulus condition if he finds that his answer is wrong. Thus transformation ability should play a positive role in arriving at a correct solu tion to the problem. Extrapolatory tendencies (implication abilities) become more active in such situations. The conjunction of cognitive and transformation abilities would have greater influence on learning a concept than when they are separate. Moreover, in learning a concept, the S makes a judgment concerning the correctness of the information. Thus evaluation abilities assist in achieving a satisfactory solution. Investigations of Relationships Between Personality Factors and Intellectual Abilities Paucity of literature on theoretical issues and empirical investigations regarding the relationship between personality factors and intellectual abilities may be attri buted to the general attitude of psychologists that they are separate domains. From a theoretical point of view, 17 however, intelligence has been considered by Fromm and Hartman (19 55) as part of the total personality dynamism. They have also discussed interdependence and interrelation of personality factors and the abilities. Gumeson (19 63) empirically tested the effect of high and low creativity on measures of cognition, motivation, values, and personality of males and females. High creative males showed greater power motives, lower economic values, higher power attitudes and theoretical values. Low creative males were more autonomous, affiliative, succorant, and abasing and aggressive. They also valued economic and theoretical pursuits. High creative females were more autonomous, higher in exhibition needs, and in social and religious values. Low creative females had higher religious and social values. In his effort to establish the relationship between personality variables and intelligence, Johnston (1965) found a non-linearity in relationship between verbal ability and the measures of personality. The social desirability variable had a non-linear relationship with intelligence, but linear relationship with anxiety and neuroticism. Summary It is difficult to reach a conclusion on the basis of results of the above studies. Different investigators 18 employed different measures of personality and intellectual abilities, and different concept learning tasks. Notice ably, some relationships have been reported between person ality measures and concept learning tasks (Rao, 19 66; Torcivia 6 Laughlin, 19 68) by those investigators who used objective personality tests. The use of projective techniques in Dienes' study (19 59) is responsible for an uncertain and inconclusive result. An arbitrary selection of personality tests in the studies referred to in this chapter (Forster, Vinacke, S Digman, 19 55; Romanow, 1958; Dienes, 1959) also restricts the scope of authenticity and valid judgment. Most of the personality scales suffer from "confoundings" or are contaminated by several hitherto uncontrollable factors. The need of systematic selection and use of "uncontaminated" and "unconfounded" scales of personality is obvious. With respect to the relationship between intellectual abilities and concept learning, the results of the studies reviewed here are contradictory. However, the results of the experiments of Allison (1960), Manley (1965), Bunderson (19 65) and Dunham, et. ali (1968) present evidences of relationships between intellectual abilities and concept learning. The design of Dunham, et. al. (19 68) was repli cated by Jones (1967), but with a different kind of concept learning task. She obtained a relationship between the 19 early phase of concept learning and evaluation ability in conjunction with relation category of the product dimension of Guilford’s Si-model. The effort to relate concept learning to the intellectual abilities other than class abilities in the current investigation is, in a way, an extension of the design used by Dunham, et. al. (1968). CHAPTER II HYPOTHESES Before presenting the hypotheses in this chapter, a brief description of the measures of psychological vari ables employed in this study is in order. Concept Learning Task The earlier studies (Manley, 1965; Jones, 1967; Dunham, et. al. 1968) that attempted to relate concept learning to the tests developed by Guilford’s Aptitudes Research Laboratory, obviously according to the classifi- catory scheme of the Si-model, did not all use the same concept learning tasks. In the present study, three con cept learning tasks devised by Dunham, et. al. (1968) have been used, so that the role of new SI factors may be com pared with those employed by Dunham, et. al. (1968). On the basis of content material, three kinds of concepts--figural, symbolic, and semantic— were involved in the concept learning task. Within each content material, four different concepts were to be learned. The subject took 9 6 trials to learn the four concepts within each task. The 9 6 trials were equally distributed among the four con- 20 21 cepts, each concept presented randomly by 24 exemplars (stimuli). The task requires the subject to use the method of anticipation and guesswork. The subject is reinforced by way of his being given information as to whether the response made by him was right or wrong. The details of the tasks, the concepts used, and the method of responding to the stimuli have been described in Chapter III. Factor-Pure Personality Scales Comrey (1968) has developed eight factor-pure per sonality scales. The Comrey Personality Scales, hereafter referred to as CPS or Comrey Inventory, consisted of 216 items and have been designed to measure eight personality factors: Shyness, Dependence, Empathy, Neuroticism, Compul sion, Hostility, Activity, and Social Desirability (Comrey, 1968). Using the factor-analytic method of item-grouping (Horst, 1968), Comrey (1964) constructed 59 factored homo geneous item dimensions (FHIDs) each composed of 4 to 6 items (half of the items were worded positively and half worded negatively). Each item could have been answered on a nine-point scale. Comrey and Schlesiger (1962) employed the criteria of simple structure factor loading (Horst, 1968), as well as the conceptualization (Comrey and Duffy, 22 19 68) for the purpose of homogeneous item grouping. The factor analysis of the 59 FHIDs extracted eight non-over lapping factor-pure personality scales mentioned above. Each FHID was, thus, a reference variable for one scale or the other. The Comrey Personality Scales have been further inte grated with Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey by Comrey, Jamison, and King (1968), and with Cattell and Eysenck Per sonality Scales by Comrey and Duffy (1968), to determine how CPS relate to the personality variables measured by Guilford and Zimmerman (194-9), Cattell (Cattell, Saunders, and Stice, 1957) and Eysenck (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1969). The low and non-significant intercorrelations among the personality scales shown by Comrey, Jamison and King (1968) further proves that the likelihood of■overlapping has been minimized in the Comrey Personality Scales. Ability Measures The tri-dimensional Si-model as conceived by Guilford (19 67) accounts for any ability in terms of three aspects involved in human behavior, namely, operations, contents on which operation is performed, and the products as a result of operations. Guilford (1960) defines information as "that which the organism discriminates." The operational aspect 23 deals with processing the information material in its raw form in the following way. Operations Cognition: Discovery, awareness, rediscovery, or recogni tion of information in various forms; comprehension, or understanding. Memory: Retention of information materials. Divergent Production: Generation of information from given information, where emphasis is upon variety of out put from the same source. Convergent Production: Generation of information from given information, where emphasis is upon achieving unique or conventionally accepted or best outcomes. Evaluation: Reaching decisions or making judgments concern ing the goodness, that is, correctness, suitability, adequacy or desirability of information in terms of criteria of identity, consistency, and goal satis faction. Contents The four kinds of contents of material on which the operations are performed are the following: Figural Content: Concrete form of information, perceived or recalled in the form of images. There is implica- 24 tion of some degree of organization or structuring in the term 'figural'. Symbolic Content: Information in the form of signs, having no significance in and of themselves, such as letters, numbers, musical notations, etc. Semantic Content: Information in the form of meanings to which words commonly become attached, hence most notable in verbal thinking. Behavioral Content: Information, essentially non-verbal, involved in human interactions, where awareness of the attitudes, needs, desires, intentions, thoughts, etc. of other persons and of ourselves is important. Products The processing of information by the organism results in six kinds of products. Units: Relatively segregated or circumscribed items of information having "thing" character. Classes: Aggregates of items of information grouped because of their common properties. Relations: Recognized connections between units of informa tion based upon variables that apply to them. Systems: Organized or structured aggregates of items of information; complexes of interrelated or interacting parts. 25 Transformations: Changes in, or redefinition of existing or . known information or its use, as in production. Implications: Extrapolations of information, in the form of expectancies, predictions, antecedents, and conse quences . The Si-model makes provision for the prediction of 12 0 unique abilities. Dunham, et. al. (1968) believe that the concept learned has class properties, and therefore, should have a relationship with the class-category of the product dimension of the Si-model. They further believe that cognitive abilities should be involved in learning concepts in the beginning, whereas evaluation abilities would be more useful at the later phase of concept learning. Jones (1967) included classes, relations, transformations, systems, and units abilities of the Guilford’s Si-model, in her study. In this section of the present chapter, the hypothe ses are presented in terms of the strategy a subject adopts in solving the problem in a concept learning task. Whereas the mode of strategy changes at different phases or blocks of trials of learning as a function of the ability factors, personality factors also influence the mode of strategy employed by the subject. The theory of open and closed mindedness proposed by Rokeach (1960) and the Gestalt 26 principle of closure (Dienes, 19 59) have striking similarity Each of the eight personality factors identified by Comrey (1968) may be classified as being, more or less, influenced by the open-minded or closed-minded attitude. The person ality factors, in turn, influence the general attitude of an individual toward his information-seeking,-analyzing, and -reorganizing or -utilizing behavior in a problem solving situation. On the basis of FHIDs that constitute the Personality scales, the traits of Empathy, Compulsion and Activity may be classified as positive and open-minded (OM) ones. The traits of Neuroticism and Hostility may be classified as negative and closed-minded (CM). The traits of Shyness and Dependence hold the intermediary position and the degree of positive and negative traits that an individual possesses would determine the relative influence of these two traits on the use of strategy that a subject employs in a concept learning task. The kinds of exemplar presented to the S, and the presentation of stimulus and feedback information at each of the learning trials, are such, that he can generate several hypotheses regarding the concepts on the basis of elements in the exemplar, their characteristics, and their relationship with each other. Thus, the beginning trials require the S to seek the general nature of the elements and their specific characteristics in each exemplar. A 27 vigilant and open-minded S would take fewer trials to cognize the required information. The reverse would be the case with a non-vigilant and closed-minded S. In the information-analyzing phase of concept learn ing, the S would be required to analyze and redefine his hypotheses in order to achieve closure by arriving at the correct solution, open the achieved closure, if the answer were wrong, and repeat the procedure in the successive trials. Thus, if the open-minded attitude were helpful in learning concepts, the closed minded attitude would prove detrimental. Evaluation is an integral process of informa- tion-analysis. The S is required to use evaluation abili ties in order to arrive at the best, correct, or most suitable answer in the beginning phase of learning concept to some extent, but mainly in the analyzing phase. Over trials, the S redefines the existing information not at random, but in the light of feedback information regarding the correctness of his answer. Transformation abilities thus play their role in the information-analyzing phase. Finally, in the information-reorganizing or -utilizing phase, once again, the open-minded attitude facilitates the process of reinterpreting, revising, and making use of the available information to generate better hypotheses, and extrapolate the given information. 28 Conversely, the closed-minded attitude plays -a detrimental role in this phase. Based on the above discussion, therefore, the hypo theses have been formulated with respect to the relation ship between the concept learning tasks, and the personality and ability factors, included in the present investigation, It is expected that the generalized influence of the eight personality scales will have a similar effect on the performance of the S in the figural, symbolic, and semantic tasks. In the discussion, therefore, a generalized rela tionship for all the three tasks has been attempted. However, the relationship between the semantic concept learning task and the personality scales have been specifi cally hypothesized. Concept Learning and the Personality Scales The factor of Shyness has been defined by FHIDs such as reverse, seclusion, avoiding social contact, and loss of tfords_. The individual possessing these characteristics is expected to have less of the semantic abilities, since the development of these abilities depends, more or less, on social contact and interaction, and the resulting communi cation and comprehension. The individual will have the closed-minded attitude, and less interest in seeking, analyzing, and reorganizing information in the semantic 29 concept learning task. Therefore, a negative correlation between the semantic concept learning task and the Shyness scale is expected. The generalized influence of the Shyness scale will result in a negative correlation between this scale and the figural and symbolic concept learning tasks, at all phases of the trials. The factor of Dependence, characterized by the closed-minded attitude, and defined by FHIDs such as lack of self-sufficiency, affiliation, need for protection, need for approval, and succorance will, more or less, have the same relationship as Shyness, with the three concept learning tasks, and at different phases of trials. The factor of Empathy has been defined by the FHIDs such as interest in people, service, unselfishness, and lack of psychopathy, and as such is characterized by the open-minded attitude. Thus, the factor of Empathy would facilitate learning semantic concepts at all the three phases of trials. A positive correlation is expected between the factor of Empathy and all the three concept learning tasks. The factor of Neuroticism has been composed of the FHIDs, as for example, inferiority feeling, agitation, depression, pessimism, inadequacy, and lack of self-control. These characteristics would develop a closed-minded - attitude in the individual. Moreover, the individual will also lack 30 social contact, opportunities of communication, and exposure to the situation where language and verbal comprehension plays an. important role. The individual possessing these traits would not generate hypotheses, and would have a conservative attitude toward his using hypothesis testing behavior. Thus, the correlation between the concept learn ing tasks and the personality scale of Neuroticism is expected to be negative at all phases of learning trials. The factor of Compulsion has been composed of FHIDs such as cautiousness, meticulousness, order, compliance, respect for law, and intolerance of non-conformity. It is expected that over trials, the S would generate and test hypotheses with more and more open-minded attitude; positive correlation is expected between the scale of Compulsion and the three concept learning tasks. The factor of Hostility, characterized by the closed- minded attitude, and defined by the FHIDs such as distrust of human nature, paranoia, cynicism, and vengeance will have the same relationship with the concept learning tasks as the factor of Neuroticism. The factor of Activity has been composed of the FHIDs as for example, liking to work, on the go, stamina, produc tion, drive to finish, and need to excel, and as such is characterized by the open-minded attitude. Over trials, the S possessing these characteristics, would develop an atti 31 tude to gamble with several hypotheses and accomplish the tasks. A pattern of increasing coefficients of correlation is expected between the scale of Activity and the three con cept learning tasks. The factor of Social Desirability is characterized by the closed minded attitude, because the S is more con cerned with the social pressure rather than the facts. The generalized influence of this factor would be responsible for a negative correlation between this factor and the three concept learning tasks, at all phases of learning trials. Concept Learning and Abilities Based on the detailed discussion in the earlier sec tion of this chapter, it is expected that the CFT, CST, and CMT abilities would have greater correlations with the figural, symbolic, and semantic concept learning tasks, respectively, at the information-seeking phase. The EFT, EST, EMT, CFI, CSI, and CMI would correlate more at the information-analyzing phase of learning trials. EFI, ESI, and EMI would correlate more with the figural, symbolic, and semantic concept learning task, respectively, at the information-reorganizing phase of learning trials. 32 Personality Factors and Abilities The open- and closed-minded attitudes have once again been adopted as the criterion for the relationship between the Comrey Personality Scales and the SI abilities. The personality scales belonging to the open-minded attitude, as for example, Empathy, Compulsion, and Activity are expected to correlate positively with the cognitive abili ties in conjunction with the implication abilities, whereas, the personality scales belonging to the closed-minded atti tude will correlate negatively with the semantic abilities. It is also expected that the Social Desirability factor will correlate negatively with evaluation abilities. An individual dominated by the Social Desirability factor will pay less attention to the facts and more to the social pressure. The individual possessing the evaluation abili ties on the other hand will be more analytical and critical in his judgment. The semantic abilities will also correlate negatively with the personality scale of Neuroticism. The S dominated by the factor of Neuroticism will be more prone to semantic confusions. CHAPTER III METHOD The Sample The subjects were 16 7 male and female students of the introductory psychology class (152 at the University of Southern California, and 15 at the University of California at Los Angeles). They volunteered to satisfy the course requirement that they serve in psychology experiments as subjects, and they participated in all three sessions of the present study. Both mean age and modal age were determined in view of the fact that 7 5 percent of the subjects were 18 or 19 years of age. The modal age was calculated by the formula: f 2 Mode = Z + •e— , ■ * ■ x h rl 2 where i = lower limit of the modal class interval; f^ and f2 = frequencies in the class intervals preceding and fol lowing the modal class interval; and h = size of class interval (Kapur and Saxena, 1961). The two estimates are given below: Mean age = 18.88 years Modal age = 18.6 3 years 33 34 Instruments The tasks to determine the progress in concept learn ing, and the tests to measure the personality and ability factors are described below. Concept Learning Tasks The three kinds of tasks for learning concepts per tained to figural, symbolic, and semantic contents, respec tively. In each task, subjects were to learn four concepts, labeled A, B, C, and D. A total of 96 trials constituted a task. Each trial was a unique exemplar (stimulus) repre senting one of the four concepts. Each concept was pre sented to the subject by 24 exemplars randomly arranged. The tasks were group administered in the form of a printed booklet. The subjects were instructed to guess and indicate which concept was represented by a particular exemplar by encircling one of the four letter labels on the right hand page of the booklet. The feedback information of right or wrong response was given on the left hand side of the next right hand page along with the stimuli for the next trial on the right hand side. No exemplar was used more than once. The subjects were instructed to turn the page every 5 seconds. The kind of stimuli used in each of the three tasks and the instructions to S in each of the tasks appear in Appendix A.____________________________________________________ 35 The figural task was based on geometric types of figures. The four concepts were: (1) intersecting lines; (2) a right angle; (3) a dotted line? and (4) parallel lines. The four concepts involved in the symbolic task were: (1) a repeated letter; (2) the letter S; (3) an initial vowelj and (4) the first three letters in alphabetical order Each stimulus in the symbolic task was in the form of a collection of four English capital letters not making a word. A set of four English words constituted a stimulus in the semantic task. One of the four words in each stimulus pertained to the concept. The concepts involved were: (1) leaders; (2) edible things; (3) animal sounds; and (4) parts of wholes. Personality Scales The personality scales, the component variables (FHIDs) thereof, and the sample items representing the FHIDs are described. The negatively worded items have been indi cated by a negative sign in parentheses at the end of such items. The first page of the CPS describing the instruc tions to the S is attached to Appendix B. 36 Scale I: SHYNESS 1. Reserve [21] In a group of people, I keep quiet. 2. Seclusions [57] I try to avoid contacts with new people. 3. Shyness [93] I find it difficult to talk with a person I have just met. 4. Stage Fright [3] It would be easy for me to make a speech. (-) 5. Avoiding Social Contact [12 9] I try to avoid having to carry on a conversation with someone I don't know personally. 6. Loss of Words [16 5] After being introduced to someone, I have difficulty thinking of something to say. 7. Self-Consciousness [90] I feel self-conscious when I am around important people. 8. Follower Role [126] I try to avoid positions of leadership. Scale II: DEPENDENCE 9. Consciousness [22] I would like to work by myself in some isolated place. (-) 10. Lack of Self-Sufficiency [40] I could enjoy spending an evening alone once or twice a week. (-) 11. Affiliation [4] I am a joiner. 37 12. Need for Friend [7 6] My need for personal friendship is low. 13. Need for Love [18] I have a strong need for love and affection. 14. Social Activities [94] I dislike parties. (-) 15. Need for Protection [162] I try to avoid being in groups where the people say unkind things. 16. Need for Approval [130] I ignore what my neighbors might think of me. (-) 17. Conformity [166] I am a non-conformist. (-) 18. Succorance [202] I depend on people to help me with my problems. Scale III: EMPATHY 19. Interest in People [23] I find that people are fascinating. 20. Generosity [59] I am generous with the poor. 21. Sympathy [5] I am very kind-hearted. 22. Service [113] I would like to devote my life to the service of others. 23. Helpfulness [149] I enjoy helping people even if I don't know them very well. 24. Unselfishness [12] I take care of myself before I think about other people's needs. (-) 38 25. Lack of Psychopathy [38] My conscience would punish me if I try to exploit somebody else. Scale IV: NEUROTICISM 26. Inferiority Feeling [2*4] I am free of inferiority feelings. (-) 27. Agitation [42] I relax without difficulty. (-) 28. Depression [60] Things have worked out well for me.(-) 29. Pessimism [36] When I want something to happen I have the feeling that it won't. 30. Inadequacy [6] I seem to make a mess out of anything I undertake. 31. Lack of Ego-Strength [121] The problems I face seem to be too big for me. 32. Fluctuations of Spirit [139] I shift a great deal between high spirits and low spirits. 33. Sex-Concern [157] Sex problems cause me trouble. 34. Lack of Self-Control [16 8] No matter how angry I am, I control my temper. (-) 35. Sensitivity [146] I am too tough to be hurt much by insults or slights. (-) Scale V: COMPULSION 36. Cautiousness [7] I am a cautious person. 37. 38 . 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 39 Grooming [43] I am very careful about my personal appearance. Meticulousness [79] I will go to great lengths to correct mistakes in my work which other people would not even notice. Routine [97] I like to maintain a regular schedule of activities. Order [133] I keep everything in its proper place, so I know just where to find it. Compliance [56] I do things which other people dis approve of. (-) Acceptance of Social Order [9 2] I am critical of the way our present society is organized. (-) Respect for Law [169] If a law is bad, you should obey it and try to get it changed, rather than to disobey it. Intolerance of Non-Conformity [127] High school boys should be allowed to wear their hair long and shaggy if they want to. (-) Scale VI: HOSTILITY Distrust of Human Nature [26] Most people try hard to be unselfish. (-) Paranoia [1] Some people will deliberately say or do things to annoy you. 40 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Defensiveness [8] Most people lean over backwards to avoid hurting somebody else. (-) Disbelief in Human Worth [8 0] Most people are valuable human beings. (-) Cynicism [15] Most public officials would accept bribes if they were large enough. Hedonism [170] With me, duty comes before pleasure.(-) Vengeance [18 8] I hate to see anybody have bad luck, even if he is an enemy of mine. (-) Scale VII: ACTIVITY Liking for Work [2] It gives me a feeling of real satisfaction to know I am working hard. On the Go [27] I maintain a heavy schedule of activities. Stamina [63] I can work a long time without feeling tired. Production [9] Other people find it difficult to get as much done as I do. Energy [13 5] Other people think I am an energetic person. Drive to Finish [171] When I start a job, I finish it. Need to Excel [182] Being a big success in life requires more effort than I am willing to make. (-) m Scale VIII: SOCIAL DESIRABILITY 59. Two sample items of the single FHID that constitutes the Social Desirability scale. [35] My table manners at home are just as good as when I eat out. [125] I have done things of a sexual nature that society does not approve of. (-) Ability Measures The selection of a single reference test for each of the 12 SI factors included in the present study was based on the list of tests provided by Guilford and Hoepfner (1966), the factor analytic study of the figural evaluation abilities by Ingebretsen (1969), and some transformation ability tests constructed by Guilford and his associates in the Aptitudes Research Laboratory at the University of Southern California. After historical examination of all reference tests, the following criteria were employed for final approval and acceptance of the tests. 1. The reference test to be finally accepted should have the highest of all factor loadings of all reference tests. 42 2. The reference test to be finally accepted should have no, or the least, confoundings with any other factors. A test was considered ' ’confounded if it had a factor loading of .3 or more in an unhypothesized factor. 3. The reference test to be finally selected should have high reliability. A reference test that had the highest factor loading in the hypothesized factor in a study, but also high factor loading in some other unhypothesized factors in the same or different study, was treated as a ' ’confounded test” and therefore not approved. In its place, an unconfounded reference test with the next highest factor loading in the lypothesized factor under consideration was supposed to be a worthy candidate for inclusion. The SI factors, and the specific abilities they measure (Guilford and Hoepfner, L966 ; Guilford, 1967; and Ingebretsen, 1969), are given along with the reference tests finally selected for the present investigation. L. Cognition of Figural Transformations (CFT): The ability to visualize how a figure or object undergoes changes. Reference Test: Block Rotation H 43 2. Cognition of Symbolic Transformations (CST): The ability to recognize the specific transformation of symbolic information that took place. Reference Test: Finding Letter Transformations 3. Cognition of Semantic Transformations (CMT): The ability to see potential changes of interpreta tions of objects and situations. Reference Test: Similarities 4. Cognition of Figural Implications (CFI): The ability to foresee the consequences involved in figural problems. Reference Test: Circle Continuation 5. Cognition of Symbolic Implications (CSI): The ability to extrapolate with symbolic information. Reference Test: Word Patterns 6. Cognition of Semantic Implications (CMI): The ability to be sensitive to the needs of or the consequences of a given situation in semantic terms (conceptual foresight). Reference Test: Pertinent Questions 7. Evaluation of Figural Transformations (EFT): The ability to judge as to which alternative repre sents the amount of transformation or change desired in a two or three dimensional figure. Reference Test: Least Movement 8. Evaluation of Symbolic Transformations (EST): The ability to judge adequacies of symbolic substi tutions and reorderings. Reference Test: Jumbled Words 9. Evaluation of Semantic Transformations (EMT): The ability to judge which objects or ideas could best be transformed or redefined in order to meet some new requirements. Reference Test: Judging Object Adaptations 10. Evaluation of Figural Implications (EFI): The ability to compare, on certain specified aspects of figural nature, various implications to a standard or desired implication, judging whether or not they meet the criterion of identity or consistency. • Reference' Test: Most Effective Path 11. Evaluation of Symbolic Implications (ESI): The ability to judge consistency or probability of inferences from symbolic information. Reference Test: Letter Problems 12. Evaluation of Semantic Implications (EMI): The ability to judge adequacy of a meaningful deduction. Reference Test: Complete Thoughts The front page of each SI ability reference test included in the current study describing instructions and isample items, is given in Appendix C.__________________________ 45 Administration of Personality and Ability Tests and Learning Tasks The time required for administering the personality scales, ability tests and concept learning tasks was approx imately three hours. Hence, testing was split into three sessions, each of one hour duration. Several groups were formed so that a student could choose a group according to the convenience of his schedule. Each group was admini stered the tests at the same time on three consecutive days. The sequence of ability tests was arranged in such a manner that the two adjoining reference tests differ with each other with respect to any two of the three dimensions, viz., operations, contents, and products. However, some relaxation was allowed in the case of the last test in the second session. The following schedule was set up for all groups: Test Order and Testing Schedule Day I CFT EST EFI Symbolic Concept Learning Task CMT ESI CST Day II CFI EFT EMI Figural Concept Learning Task EMT CSI CMI Day III Semantic Concept Learning Task Personality Scales 46 Scoring All ability tests were hand scored. The completion tests were check-scored by two independent scorers. Scores on multiple choice tests were corrected for guessing. A FORTRAN program was used to score the correct responses of each subject in concept learning tasks. The program computes scores for each of the 12 stages, and the total score of all 96 trials. Each stage was composed of 8 trials. The scores in personality scales were also computed by a FORTRAN Program. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS Measures of Concept Learning The data-analyses began with the scoring of concept learning for the three kinds of tasks -- figural, symbolic, and semantic. Since there were 9 6 trials in each task, thej were split into 12 non-overlapping blocks, which Dunham, et. al. (19 68) named the stages of learning. Each block of learning consisted of eight consecutive trials. Thus, the first block of learning consisted of the first eight trials, the second block consisted of the next eight trials, and so on. Each correct response was assigned one point. Thus, the minimum and the maximum possible scores for a single block were 0 and 8, respectively. The raw data were fed to the electronic high speed computer to determine the block scores and the total scores. Dunham, et. al. (19 68) defined the Mastery score as the number of the trial, out of 24-, at which it could be inferred that the S had learned each concept. The same authors further reported difficulty in determining the number of the correct trial for the Mastery score, because 47 48 of the fact that errors were found at the end of the series of trials. Hence they followed the scoring principle arbitrarily. In the present report, the total learning score is employed to determine how much concept learning is corre lated to personality and ability factors. The mean block scores for the three learning tasks have been shown along with the total scores in Table 1. The increase in the conceptual growth can be seen in the figural and semantic tasks (See Figure 1). When the irregularities in the curves have been smoothed out, the learning curves for the figural and seman tic tasks rise monotonically, whereas the upward trend of the curve for the symbolic task has been somewhat arrested after the 6th block, and the fall of the curve at the final block leaves an indeterminate and unpredictable situation. 49 TABLE 1 MEANS OF BLOCK SCORES FOR THE CONCEPT LEARNING TASKS : -------------- Block Trials MEAN Figural Task Symbolic Task Semantic Task 1 3.62 3.38 3 . 67 2 3. 36 3 .11 3.60 3 4. 04 3.30 4.10 4 4. 51 4.17 4. 04 5 5.04 4.23 4.46 6 5.25 4.29 4. 54 7 4.83 4.07 4.54 8 5.53 4.39 5.30 9 5.36 4.93 5.16 10 5.95 4.67 5 . 36 11 6.25 4.92 5 . 59 12 5.80 4.41 5 .46 Total Score 59. 53 50 . 28 55.50 Mean Number of Correct Responses 6.0 — Figural 5.5 Semantic 5,0 3 Symbolic • Figural (F) O Symbolic (S) + Semantic (M) 3.5 O 3.0 1 b! 5 6 . 7 9 9 ocks of Learning Trials 1 o 11 1 2 01 O Figure 1. Differential Performance Function for the Three Concept Learning Tasks 51 Personality Scales The means and standard deviations of the eight per sonality scales have been depicted in Table 2. Kuder- Richardson estimates of reliability (Kuder and Richardson, 19 37) were computed for the 59 FHIDs. The lowest and the highest reliability estimate of the component FHIDs within a particular scale have been shown in the same table. The next column indicates the range of variation in the reli ability estimates. It is noticeable that the scales of Shyness and Empathy have the highest and the lowest range and, therefore, the greatest and the smallest variations, respectively. The next step in the direction of reliability estimate was the determination of reliability of the per sonality scales. The average reliability estimates of the component FHIDs within a scale was ascertained as the reliability index of each scale, and has been entered under the column heading, Mean of r^.^ in Table 2. Table 3 is the Intercorrelation Matrix for the Per sonality scales. It is noticeable that the Shyness scale has significant positive correlation coefficients with Neuroticism and Hostility scales, whereas it has signifi cant negative correlations with Empathy and Activity scales. Curiously enough, Dependence scale has significant coefficient of correlation with Compulsion scale at .Ola TABLE 2 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND RELIABILITY ESTIMATES OF COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES Reliability3, No. Personality Scale Mean Standard Deviation Lowest in the Scale Highest in the Scale Range Mean of rtt 1 Shyness 87 .50 24.19 . 20 .87 . 66 . 76 2 Dependence 110.94 18. 29 .48 . 83 . 34 . 74 3 Empathy 124.38 19 . 57 .65 . 81 .15 .72 4 Neuroticism 76.28 19.63 .41 .84 .42 . 74 5 Compulsion 120.34 19. 35 . 53 .85 . 31 .75 6 Hostility 82.23 15.78 .40 .82 .41 . 66 7 Activity 124.68 18 . 55 .49 . 84 . 34 .73 8 Social Desirability 52.81 11.00 - - - .70 Over-all --- --- . 20 . 87 . 66 .73 cn Reliability estimates were based on Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. TABLE 3 CORRELATION MATRIX (PEARSON R) FOR COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Shyness Depen dence Empathy Neuro- .ticism Compul sion Hostility Activity Social Desir ability 1 Shyne s s 2 Dependence -*19* 3 Empathy -.40** .05 4 Neuroticism .3 8 * . , . • o CO -•21** 5 Compulsion .01 •31** •19* -.23** 6 Hostility o CO • -.09 -.6 0** .42** -.27** 7 Activity 1 CO 00 00 o • .37** -.55** .50* * -.33** 8 Social Desirability 1 • o • * ■ 0 .01 .59* * -.18 .3 5** -.47** .30** c n * Significant at 5% level 00 ** Significant at 1% level 54 level. It does not have any significant correlation with other scales, however. Empathy scale demonstrates significant correlations with all other scales at ,01a level except Dependence. The negative coefficient of correlation of Empathy with Shyness. Neuroticism and Hostility is meaningful. The scale of Social Desirability Trait has significant correlation with Empathy and Compulsion scales whereas its correlation with Hostility scale is negative, all significant at ,01a level. It was considered appropriate to determine the mean coefficient of correlation among the eight scales. It was -.003. Intellectual Ability Factors The descriptive statistics computed for the reference; tests of intellectual ability factors have been recorded in Table 4. Of the 12 ability tests, the distributions of eight are nearly symmetric indicated by 0 in the skewness column of Table 4. Only 5 tests (CFT, CST, EST, EMT and EFI) have a tendency towards mesokurtic distribution. CMT and EFT abilities have strong leptokurtic distribution. Because of a wide range of distribution, there was no shape in the case of the CSI-reference test, Word Patterns. The scores were, therefore, grouped into class 55 TABLE 4 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITIES, AND SKEWNESS IN DISTRIBUTIONS OF SCORES OF ABILITY TESTS SI Factor Test Name 6 Code3 Mean Standard Deviation Reliability*3 Skewness3 CFT Block Rotation CFT06A 8.75 4.41 .76 - CST Finding Letter Transfor mations CST01A 27.63 5.86 .81 0 CMT Similarities CMT02B 12.54 3.32 .44 0 CFI Circle Continuations CFI04A 9.52 4.01 .48 0 CSI Word Patterns CSI03C 40. 55 16.66 .69k 0d CMI Pertinent Questions CMI02C 11.26 2.65 . 39k 0 EFT Least Movement EFT04A 13.86 3.93 .40 0 EST Jumbled Words EST0 3A 40.57 10.31 .76 __j EMT Judging Object Adapta tions EMT06A 11.04 5.76 .59 0 EFI Most Effective Path EFI04A 10.07 5.33 .67 0 ESI Letter Problems ESI02A 17.59 8.81 .98 — EMI Complete Thoughts EMI01A 38.89 8.72 .73 — a. Aptitudes Research Laboratory, University of Southern California developed these tests, and used the codes. b. Except when noted, all reliability estimates are based on Spearman- Brown estimate of whole test reliability from the separately timed halves. c. Skewness of distribution code: ++, strong positive; +, positive; 0, essentially symmetric with tendency to normalcy; -, negative; strong negative. d. When distribution was plotted with a class interval of 5, it approximated a normal distribution. j. It is strong negatively skewed J shaped curve. k. Reliability estimate was based on Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. 56 intervals of 5. This resulted in a symmetric but platy- kurtic form of distribution. A strong negative skewness was found in the following three abilities: EST, ESI, and EMI. The score distribution of EST was J-shaped. Skewness and kurtosis have been roughly determined by way of visual observation of the graphic representation of the distribution of the curves. In the present study, the reference tests have been used as tools to measure intellectual ability factors. In further discussion of the results and the interpretation, therefore, the ability measures will be referred to by the name of the SI ability factors rather than the name of the tests. The next statistical treatment of the ability data was the computation of intercorrelations (Pearson r) among the SI ability factors, depicted in the intercorrelation matrix in Table 5. While the correlations are relatively low, the CFT factor is significantly correlated, at ,01a level, with CFI, CSI, EFT, EFI, and ESI. CST is significantly correlated, at .Ola level with CMT, CSI, CMI, EST, ESI, and EMT. CMT, in turn, has significant correlation at .Ola level, with CMI, EMT, and EMI, all of which have the same content dimension. TABLE 5 57 INTERCORRELATION (PEARSON R) MATRIX OF SI ABILITY FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CFT CST CMT CFI CSI CMI EFT EST EMT EFI ESI EMI 1 CFT 2 CST 08 3 CMT 17* 32 4 CFI 22 07 05 5 CSI 32 38 15 08 6 CMI -09 36 27 -05 07 7 EFT 27 19 A « » 12 10 07 10 8 EST 15 33 14 17 A 27 09 13 9 EMT 19 18 24 < C 5 * 15 15 01 05 18 10 EFI 34 09 17 08 23 12 17 17 13 11 ESI 32 25 15 s V 08 27 A A -02 15 34 19 s ' : 29 12 EMI 07 * CO 21 A A 05 15 03 05 28 A A 27 S S « » 01 33 A A Decimal points omitted * 5% level of significance s ’ :* i% level of significance 58 It is noticeable that the CFI is significantly cor related with only two ability factors, CFT at .Ola level and EST at ,05a level. CMI is correlated at .Ola level of significance, with CST and CMT, which have the same opera tion category-cognition. EFT is correlated at .Ola level of significance with CFT which has the same content and the product dimension. However, EFT is also correlated, at .05a level of signifi cance, with EFI, ESI, and CST. On the other hand, EST and EMT factors are showing significant coefficients of correlation with several ability factors, which differ from these two factors with respect to operations, contents and product. Reliability estimates of the tests measuring abilities, namely, CFT, CST, CSI, EST, ESI, and EMI, are high. However, their correlations with other tests are significant. Thus, a generalized pattern of relationship is rather hard to formulate. The mean coefficient of correlation among the twelve SI ability factors was .17. Relations Between Concept Learning and Personality Scales The Figural Task The Pearson Coefficients of correlation between the block scores of learning the figural concepts and the 59 Comrey Personality Scales have been computed and shown in Table 6. Out of a total of 104- coefficients of correla tions, 7 are significant at ,05a level, and one at .Ola level. The scale of Neuroticism had negative significant correlations with the figural task at the 2nd and 3rd blocks and the total score, at .0 5a level. It is nega tively significant, at ,01a level, at the 5th block of trials. Social Desirability had two negatively significant correlations with the figural task, at ,0 5a level, at the 8th and 10th blocks. Multiple-Regression Analyses The BMD0 2R program (Dixon, 1965) was used for the purpose of stepwise multiple regression analyses to deter mine the 8-weight for each of the CPS, and the multiple R at different blocks of learning trials. The results have been summarized in Table 7. The significant B-weights and, where none are sig nificant, the highest one, are given in Table 7. The (3-weights that contribute predictive variance significant at or beyond ,05a level are marked with asterisks in the table. The level of significance for the 3-weights was determined by the F-test with df^ = 1 and. df2 = N-n, where n is the number of the variables entered into the multiple regression equation. Noticeably, only in the,,8th block two 60 TABLE 6 MATRIX OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES AND FIGURAL CONCEPT LEARNING TASK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 \Personality \Scales Block of N. Trials Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism Compulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability Check on Block 1 -11 02 04 -08 05 02 -14 -03 1 2 -09 04 05 -16 05 01 -17 01 2 3 -09 03 05 -17 -05 01 08 -01 3 4 01 -08 -05 -10 -07 03 04 -06 4 5 -08 00 -00 ' “-2 2 00 -03 14 -05 5 6 -04 -06 -04 -04 -16 09 -01 -09 6 7 -00 -04 -04 -04 02 07 11 -14 7 8 -03 03 -06 -10 -06 11 06 -15 8 9 -01 03 -03 -10 -03 06 10 -20 9 10 -05 04 -04 -10 -03 -00 07 A -18 10 11 04 02 -06 -09 -01 01 10 -13 11 12 -08 -03 03 -11 -08 -06 04 -11 12 Total -06 -00 -02 -16 -04 03 12 -13 Decimal points omitted * Significant at .05a level ** Significant at .Ola level 61 TABLE 7 3-WEIGHTS FOR COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES AT SUCCESSIVE BLOCKS OF TRIALS OF LEARNING FIGURAL CONCEPTS PERSONALITY SCALES R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 J Block of Trials in Concept Learning Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism Compulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability 1 Only Significant Predictors With all 8 Predictors 1 .14 .14 .18 2 .16* .17* .23 3 -.17* .17* .25 4 -.10 .10 .18 5 -.22* .22** .25 6 -.16* .16* .21 7 -.22* .2 2** .23 8 -.17* .18* . 19* .26 9 -.23* .2 8** . 30 10 -.23* . 24** .25 11 .19* .16** .24 12 -.11 .11 .22 Total -.15* .15* .27 * Significant at ,05a level ** Significant at ,01a level 62 predictors are in the multiple regression equation', all other blocks of trials have only one predictor. The 3-weights for the Neuroticism scale have all negative values running from the 3rd block to the 8th with a gap at the 6th and 7th blocks.' The Social Desirability scale similarly, has three significant negative 3-weights at the 7th, 9th and 10th blocks of trials in the figural tasks. The levels of significance for the multiple R ’s were deter mined on the basis of the n variables including the pre dictors and the criterion, and the N-n degree of freedom (Baggaley, 1964). There is a good deal of correspondence between the significant 3-weights and the significant correlations. The multiple R's, while low, are significant on a majority of the trials. The Symbolic Task Table 8 presents the correlation coefficients between the Comrey Personality Scales and the symbolic con cept learning at different blocks of trials. Only 16 out of 104 coefficients are significant at the .05a level or beyond it. The scale of Dependence has a significant cor relation with the symbolic task at the later half of the blocks of trials. Compulsion and Activity scales have significant r-values with the symbolic task at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th blocks of learning trials. 63 TABLE 8 MATRIX OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES AND SYMBOLIC CONCEPT LEARNING TASK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 \Personality Scales 31ock 'v of Trials \. Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism Compulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability Check on Block 1 02 -03 -09 -02 03 -04 04 -09 1 . - . A 2 OJ o 1 04 06 -20 23 -00 24 12 2 3 01 ‘ 16 00 -08 *"l5 14 17 01 3 4 -12 07 -04 -14 06 04 * 17 -01 4 5 -13 08 -05 -06 10 03 14 02 5 6 01 08 -11 ’ -04 02 06 01 -01 6 7 -10 “18 -08 -17 10 -04 07 -02 7 8 01 ” 15 -15 -00 04 03 -02 -07 8 9 - 04 '"""24 03 -01 05 -11 01 07 9 10 -03 18 -08 -07 12 -04 -01 00 10 11 -01 15 -16 1 o CO -03 06 -07 -12 11 12 -08 A A 4 * 4 * 23 CO o I -11 06 -0'3 09 -04 12 Total -06 19 -08 -11 11 01 10 -02 Decimal points omitted i t Significant at .05a level « t < t Significant at .01a level 64 Multiple-Regression Analysis The multiple R-values and 3-weights have been pre sented in Table 9. The multiple R-values are significant at the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th and 12th blocks at .Ola level. The R-values are significant at the 4th and 10th blocks, and also, with the total learning score, at .0 5a level. The Dependence scale has 3-weights significant at .05a level or beyond at the later half of the blocks of learning trials; for symbolic task. Activity scale, on the other hand, has significant 3-weights at the early blocks. The Semantic Task Table 10 shows that the coefficients of correlation between the Neuroticism scale and the semantic task is negatively significant, at .Ola level, at the 3rd and 4th blocks of trials, whereas the Compulsion scale has posi tively significant correlation with the semantic task, at .05a level, at the 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 10th blocks, and at .01a level at the 2nd and 4th blocks of learning trials. Also, the Activity scale has significant positive correla tion with the semantic task, at .01a level, at the first two blocks of trials and, at .01a level, at the 4th trial. In all, there are only 10 significant coefficients involv ing the semantic task. 65 TABLE 9 B-WEIGHTS FOR COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES AT SUCCESSIVE BLOCKS OF TRIALS OF LEARNING SYMBOLIC CONCEPTS PERSONALITY SCALES R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Block of Trials in Concept Learning Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism ComDulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability Only Significant Predictors With all 8 Predictors 1 -.0 5* . 04 .20 2 .2 3* .2 3** .33* 3 .22* .24* .2 7** . 35** 4 .17* .17* .25 5 .14 .14 .25 6 . 08 .08 .18 7 .19* -.18* .2 5** .29 8 .14 .15 .23 9 . 24* . 24** .28 10 .18* .18* .25 11 .15 .15 .25 12 .23* .2 3** . 27 Total .18* .19* .26 * Significant at .0 5a level ** Significant at . 01a level 66 TABLE 10 MATRIX OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES AND SEMANTIC CONCEPT LEARNING. TASK ersonality V Scales •H •H •H •H •H •H •H rH fd 31ock of Trials •H • rH (U H £1 CQ O -02 -02 16 -12 -06 -07 24 -05 -13 01 -06 14 15 -07 -06 19 11 -12 21 04 -09 06 -01 12 10 04 -11 -04 -04 -04 04 -09 -04 -00 -04 -0 -09 01 -07 14 -09 02 -03 -02 17 -06 -07 -10 10 -03 13 15 -05 -12 04 -07 10 -09 11 -04 07 -07 -02 -05 -02 11 12 -07 11 13 -03 -03 01 04 12 14 -00 -05 17 -13 -01 -00 Total Decimal points omitted * Significant at .05a level ** Significant at .01a level 67 Multiple Regression Analysis Table 11 presents the multiple R's between the per sonality scales and the semantic tasks. The R-values are significant at .Ola level at the first 4 blocks of learning trials with single personality scale of Activity as predic tor at the 1st two blocks, and Neuroticism as predictor at the 3rd trial with negative 3-weight. At the 4-th trial, Neuroticism and Compulsion are in the multiple regression equation with negative and positive 3-weights, respectively It is noticeable that in the semantic task, no per sonality scale has a significant predictive variance from block 5 through 12 with the exception of block 9. However, the Compulsion scale has a significant 3-weight when the total score of learning was taken into account. Relations Between Concept Learning and SI Ability Factors The Figural Task The Pearson coefficients of correlation between the block score and total score of learning the figural con cepts on one side and the SI abilities on the other, have been presented in Table 12. The CMT factor has three significant correlations, at .05a level, with the score of the 8th and 10th blocks, and at .Ola level with the 12th block. 68 TABLE 11 6-WEIGHTS FOR COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES AT SUCCESSIVE BLOCKS OF TRIALS OF LEARNING SEMANTIC CONCEPTS PERSONALITY SCALES R Block of Trials in Concept Learning Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism Compulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability Only Significant Predictors With all 8 Predictors 1 .22* .2 2** .27 2 . 24* .25* * . 34* 3 -.2 3* .2 3** . 31* i f -.15* . 18* .2 6** .28 5 .12 .12 .22 6 .09 .09 .15 7 -.09 .09 .16 8 .14 .14 .19 9 .17* .17* .25 10 .14 .15 .23 11 . 06 .07 .18 12 .13 .13 .16 Total .16* .16* .23 * S ** s igr igr lifican lif ican t at . 0 t at . 0 5a la level level MATRIX OF COE SI A FFIC BILI CONC 69 TABLE 12 IENTS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TY FACTORS AND FIGURAL EPT LEARNING TASK Block of Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | 9 10 11 12 CFT CST CMT CFI CSI CMI EFT EST EMT EFI ESI EMI 1 -18 ■ -01 -12 -07 -01 09 01 -08 -01 -10 -07 -02 2 -05 03 10 05 -05 -00 -09 09 -05 05 02 3 03 -04 04 08 -01 03 09 08 01 02 -02 -04 4 07 01 06 10 07 07 15 05 05 00 10 02 5 07 02 04 3.9 A 01 1£ 14 06 01 •02 06 01 6 12 14 07 13 06 07 14 2.5 02 06 21 09 7 10 07 10 13 12 19 A A 2.8 13 06 06 17 i t 11 8 12 2.5 S C 3.5 16 09 12 21? i t i t 13 05 10 15 A 06 9 11 05 11 12 05 09 2 2* 01 09 11 13 03 10 10 12 13 03 22 s ’ c i ’ { 13 1§ 10 14 09 11 06 09 07 04 07 13 14 08 05 04 02 12 18* 1£ 19 23 16 16 A 29 t 22 A A 20 A A t f t J t 2.5 3.8 S C 12 13 09 09 10 17 07 16 i t 21 A A 08 09 06 13 16 Decimal points omitted * Significant at ,05a level ** Significant at .Ola level 70 CFI is correlated significantly, at .Ola level, with the 5th, 11th, and 12th blocks of trials. CMI is signifi cantly correlated with every third block of trials at ,0 5a level. EFT, on the other hand, is significantly correlated with later half of the block trials, and the total score of learning at ,01a level. It is worth pointing out that all SI factors except EMI are correlated significantly with the 12th and final block of learning trials, at .05a level or beyond. Multiple Regression Analysis The Multiple R’s, and the 3-weights for the SI abilities have been presented in Table 13. All multiple R-values are significant except the two between the Ability factors and the 3rd and 4th blocks of trials. The R-values between the Ability factors on one side and the 5th through 10th trials, 12th trial, and the total learning score, are all significant at .01a level. CMI has significant 5-weights at the 2nd, 5th, and 7th blocks and the total learning score. EFT has significant 3-weights at the later blocks and the total scores. ESI has 2 significant 3-weights at the 6th and 7th blocks of learning trials. It may be noted that there are three predictors— CFI, EFT, and EMT in the multiple regression equation for the 12th and 71 TABLE 13 0-WEIGHTS FOR SI ABILITY FACTORS AT SUCCESSIVE BLOCKS OF TRIALS OF LEARNING FIGURAL CONCEPTS Block of Trials in Concept Learning SI Ability Factors R Only significant predictors predictors entered multi, regression eq. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CFT CST CMT CFI CSI CMI EFT : st EMT EFI ESI EMI 1 -. 18> X .18* .27 2 .16* X .16* .28 3 .09 X X X .10 .18 4 .15 X .15 .26 5 X .19* .17* X . 26** .31 6 .21* .21** .29 7 X .19* X .17* ^ 2 7 * f t.35* 8 .21* X . 21** .31 9 .20* . 21** .29 10 X .22* X .22** .33* 11 .18* X .18* .25 12 X. . 18* .27* .16* X X . 39** .45** Total .16* .15* .18* X .30** .33 * Significant at .05a level ** Significant at .Ola level k These predictors never entered the multiple regression equation. 72 final block of trials and also, three predictors— CFI, CMI, and EFT for the total learning scores. The Symbolic Task The correlations between the SI abilities and the block scores of learning trials in symbolic task have been shown in Table 14-. The coefficients of correlation (Pearson r) between the CFT, CST, CFI, EFT and ESI on one side and the symbolic task are significant at .05a level and beyond at the later blocks of trials. The total score of learning is correlated significantly, with CST, and EFI at .0 5a level, and with CFT, CFI, CMI, EFT, and ESI at .Ola level. Multiple Regression Analysis Table 15 presents the multiple R's between the block scores in concept learning and the SI abilities. Except for the first two R’s, all multiple R's are significant at .Ola level, including one for the total score. CMI has significant g-weights in the first of the blocks of trials, whereas the CFI has significant g-weights in the middle of the trials. The other SI predictor is EFT which has sig nificant g-weights at the last 3 blocks of learning trials. 73 TABLE 14 MATRIX OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SI ABILITY FACTORS AND SYMBOLIC CONCEPT LEARNING TASK Block of Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CFT CST CMT CFI CSI CMI EFT EST EMT EFI ESI EMI 1 -01 -3.5 -01 05 -05 07 05 -05 -13 -08 04 -04 2 05 02 01 -06 04 08 06 01 -02 04 04 -01. 3 10 03 07 03 12 3.7 11 01 11 3.8 10 -04 4 08 04 09 06 05 2 L 14 05 02 08 08 -07 5 07 01 03 10 00 21 i’f i’l 08 08 09 15 15 A -07 6 14 08 07 23t SC SC 07 3.8 16 A 08 09 19 A A «» 20 02 7 31 s'c i» 20 s’c s’c 3.6 29? 03 2 9 , 20 ? 08 23 21 21 08 8 22 A A 4* 4* 10 08 29 A A 4* 4* 22 08 3.6 07 14 12 21 A A «» 4» 09 9 11 211 07 3.6 09 14 3.5 10 16 08 15 -02 10 1 . 9 " 25 A 09 22 44 17 10 2 2 t iS 5» 13 18 if : 17 26 10 11 24 A A 4* 2 3 t SC SC 11 3.6 3.8 13 21'' 3.5 12 3.5 30 SC SC 15 SC 12 19 s’c f t 14 01 3.7 08 3.7 21 % 02 13 14 18 SC -08 Total 2k 15 10 2h: 13 2h 2L 06 14 I1 2 3 01 Decimal points omitted * Significant at .0 5a level ** Significant at ,01a level TABLE 15 B-WEIGHTS FOR SI ABILITY FACTORS AT SUCCESSIVE BLOCKS OF TRIALS OF LEARNING SYMBOLIC CONCEPTS Block of Trials in Concept Learning SI Ability Factors R only significant predictors predictors entered multi, regression eq. CFT CST CMT CFI CSI CMI EFT EST EMT EFI ESI EMI 1 X ' -.14* .15 .31 2 .08 K . 08 .16 3 X .15* .16* . 23** .31 4 .2 3* .2 3** .32 5 X .13* . 24* -.19’ .21* .3 3** .38** 5 .23* .19* .18* . 36** . 39** 7 .26* .22* .24* .14* .47** . 50** 8 .27* .19* .3 5** 2 * * 9 .20* .15* X . 26** .35* 10 .16* .18* .14* .18* . 40** .42** 11 .17* X X .28* . 34** , 4 2** 12 X .21* . 21** • 4 2 ft* Total X .20* .23* .22* .38** .4 3** * Significant at .05 level ** Significant at .01 level ** These predictors never entered the multiple regression equation. 75 The Semantic Task Only 44 of 156 coefficients of correlation between the SI ability factors and the block scores in semantic learning task are significant. CSI is the factor which has significant correlation, mostly at .Ola level, from the third trial to the last and also the total score. EMT is significantly correlated with the learning score of the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th blocks, and the total scores, at .05a level, and with the 12th trial, at .Ola level. EMI is correlated significantly, mostly at .Ola level, with the later half of the block trials. ESI has significant corre lation, all at .Ola level, with block score in the middle of the trials and the total score. Multiple Regression Analysis The multiple R’s are all significant between the SI abilities and the block scores, except the 2nd block. Except for the 1st, 4th and 12th trial and the total score, the multiple R's are all significant at ,01a level. The noteworthy 3-weights are for CST at the 3rd and 4th blocks, and for CSI at the later half of the blocks of trials. CSI and EMI are the two predictors in the multiple regression equation for the total score of learning semantic concepts. 76 TABLE 16 MATRIX OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SI ABILITY FACTORS AND SEMANTIC CONCEPT LEARNING TASK Block of Trials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CFT CST CMT CFI CSI CMI EFT EST EMT EFI ESI EMI 1 07 03 -07 3.8 03 04 01 01 -08 04 -04 -09 2 -04 11 08 10 07 04 -01 -02 04 01 06 06 3 03 21t s i S i 09 08 21 14 i o H 06 19 11 10 13 4 02 19 t s i s i -00 08 16 04 06 -00 12 01 14, 09 5 10 10 -05 16 S i 18 A 08 o o 1 05 13 15 A 23 A A 13 6 17 07 01 16 18 08 05 07 16 A 12 21 A A 4» 5 * 07 7 12 14 04 07 22 s ’ i s ' i 01 12 09 15 A 11 21 A A 18 8 12 15 08 10 25 01 08 02 14 10 13 20 A A A 4 * 9 15 A A 22 s ’ i s ’ : 22 07 24 s ’ i s ’ i 09 03 09 16 is 21 s ’ i s ' i 23 s ’ i s ' i 20 10 09 14 10 06 25 S i S i 05 03 01 18 06 19 14 11 11 3.6 09 09 22 01 08 12 15 09 11 15 S C 12 10 19 is is 07 06 19 00 04 04 19 is is 14 13 20 Total 11 19 t S i S i 08 13 24 S i S i 02 05 06 17 A 4 * 13 19 A A 4 * 4» 16 Decimal points omitted * Significant at ,0 5a level ** Significant at .Ola level 77 TABLE 17 8-WEIGHTS FOR SI ABILITY FACTORS AT SUCCESSIVE BLOCKS OF TRIALS OF LEARNING SEMANTIC CONCEPTS Block of Trials in Concept Learning SI Ability Factors R p e < d o •H U-i M < n C U b0 O •H +J predictors entered multi, regression eq. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 W 0 •rl CFT CST CMT CFI CSI CMI EFT EST EMT EFI ESI EMI rH Q) c u 0 0 4 1 . 11* X .18* .26 2 .11 X X ** X .11 .20 3 .18* .15* .26** . 33 it .19* X .19* .30 5 .23* .23** .36* 6 X ' .21* .21** .32 7 .21* . 22** .32 8 X >t .24* .2 5** .36* 9 .18* o CM . 30** .38* 10 LTO <N .2 5** .3 5* 11 M .20* .22** ro 03 12 X .20* .33 Total .23* X .24* . 34* * Significant at .05a level ** Significant at .Ola level * These predictors never entered the multiple regression equation. 78 The Number of Significant Correlations Between Abilities and Concept Learning Tasks In Table 18 are the number of significant correla tion coefficients between the figural, symbolic and semantic abilities (column-wise) and the figural, symbolic and seman tic concept learning tasks (row-wise). Noticeably, the figural concept learning task has eight significant corre lations with the figural abilities as compared to its cor relations with the symbolic and semantic abilities. The symbolic concept learning task has 11 significant correla tions with the figural abilities as compared to 9 and 6 correlations with the symbolic and semantic abilities. On the other hand, the semantic concept learning task has only 2 significant correlations with the semantic abilities, whereas it has 10 significant correlations with the symbolic abilities. TABLE 18 Number of Significant Correlations Between Abilities and Concept Learning Tasks Learning Tasks Figural Abilities Symbolic Abilities Semantic Abilities Figural 8 2 4 Symbolic 11 9 6 Semantic 1 10 2 79 Relations Among Personality Scales And SI Abilities as they are Correlated With Concept Learning The Figural Task Table 19 presents the Pearson r among different sets of coefficients of correlations obtained by correlating the personality scales with the block scores of the figural learning task. This kind of correlation indicates the amount of similarity of one personality scale to the other, in their relationship with the concept learning task; that is, if correlation is positively high between two sets of r-values, then increase or decrease of r-values in one set will follow the pattern in the other. Shyness has negative correlation, significant at .05a and .Ola levels, with Social Desirability and Empathy scales, respectively. Social Desirability scale has a posi tive correlation with Empathy at .Ola level. Activity and Compulsion are positively correlated above .Ola level of significance. In Table 22 the same kind of correlations are shown with respect to SI abilities. All r-values are significant above .Ola level. The levels of significance tfere determined on the basis of n blocks of learning trials. 8 0 The Symbolic Task In Table 20 significant correlations above .Ola level have been obtained between Empathy and Compulsion (.73), Activity (.75), and Social Desirability (.86). Com pulsion is also correlated significantly at .Ola level with Activity (.78), Social Desirability (.80). Activity and Social Desirability are also correlated significantly at .Ola level. All r-values are significant above .Ola level with respect to SI abilities in Table 23. The Semantic Task Table 21 shows the negative correlations, at..05a level, between the following: Empathy and Shyness; Empathy and Hostility; Activity and Neuroticism; and Compulsion ^nd Hostility. Only two positive correlations were obtained above .Ola level: between Social Desirability and Empathy, and between Activity and Compulsion. Only one correlation between EMT and EMI is signifi cant above .Ola level in Table 24. 81 TABLE 19 Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Figural Concept Learning_Task and Personality Scales Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism Compulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability Shyness Dependence -27 Empathy 1 00 28 Neuroticism 44 -41 -50 Compulsion -20 50 35 -25 Hostility 43 -11 -54 55 -23 Activity -29 55 44 -46 -25 Social "59* -08 7Q, -49 22 -31 37 Desirability 3 * Decimal points omitted A Significant at . 05a level s ' ; s ' ; Significant at . Ola level 82 TABLE 2 0 Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Symbolic Concept Learning Task and Personality Scales e -p < D co G •H O •H O >> rH G O •H -p •H co O >> •H co •H P P CO Td rG -P i —1 i —1 •H i —i id < U G •P O G •H > id G G < U id G ft •P •H •H *H >> ft ft G e CO •P O CO ,G 0) e ( L ) o O O o a ) cn Q w . . o X < C O p Shyness Dependence -17 Empathy -24 09 Neuroticism 47 08 -52 Compulsion -14 -09 7 3 .,. ** «» " 6 S * Hostility 19 -22 -20 -02 04 Activity -40 -31 7 § - 7 J U 44 44 7 8 * 23 Social Desirability -21 07 8 § * 4* 4* -49 “8* -17 65, 5 * Decimal points omitted ** Significant at .Ola level 83 TABLE 21 Intercorrelations Among Sets of r-Values Between Semantic Concept Learning Task_and Personality Scales Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism Compulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability Shyness Dependence 23 Empathy -64* -23 Neuroticism 41 18 -49 Compulsion -43 23 43 -58.,. Hostility 51 -03 -64* 34 -58* Activity -51 -21 55 -64.,. 68 A -28 Social Desirability 11 22 67t -33 43 -56 42 Decimal points omitted * Significant at .05a level ** Significant at .Ola level 84 TABLE 22 Intercorrelations_Among Sets of r-Values Between Figural Concept Learning Task and SI Abilities CFT CFI EFT CFI .9 0** EFT .89** .7 8** EFI .89** .76** .9 2** TARLE 2 3 Intercorrelations Among Sets of f-Values Between Symbolic Concept Learning Task and SI Abilities CST CSI EST CSI .76** EST .84* * .6 5* ESI . 81** .74* * . 86** * Significant at .05a level ** Significant at ,01a level 85 TABLE 24 Intercorrelations Among Sets of revalues Between Semantic Concegt Learning Task Jtnd SI Abilities CMI .11 EMT .51 .16 EMI .63 -.12 .86** * Significant at .0 5a level ** Significant at .Ola level 86 Relation Between Block of Trial Numbers And Performance on Concept Learning as Correlated With CPS and SI Abilities In Table 25, correlations between block number and the correlation of personality variables and SI ability factors with concept learning scores on the block, have been shown. Positive correlations in the table indicate con sistent tendencies for the relation between the tests and concept learning performance to become higher over blocks, that is} performance on later trials is more highly corre lated than on earlier, if the correlation in Table 2 5 is positive. The Figural Task The performance on figural concept learning task as correlated with Social Desirability Scale is negatively cor related with the block of trial numbers at .Ola level. All the SI ability factors as correlated with the figural concept learning task, are correlated above ,01a level, with the block of trial number, except ESI which is corre lated at .05a level and CMI which is correlated below chance. TABLE 25 Correlations (Pearson r) Between Block of Trial Number and Performance on Concept Learning as Correlated with CPS and SI Abilities 87 PERSONALITY SCALES CONCEPT LEARNING TASKS Figural Symbolic Semantic Shyness . 05 -.13 .35 Dependence .03 .80** .26 Empathy -.52 -.32 .26 Neuroticism . 26 . 26 . 69** Compulsion -.34 -.44 . 38 Hostility -.11 -.27 .12 Activity -.44 -.63* .71** Social Desirability -.82** -.29 . 22 SI ABILITIES CFT . 77** .77** .59* CST .77** . 85** .45 CMT .73** .37 .53 CFI . 80** . 6 6 * * -.53 CSI .70** .64* .74** CMI .20 .05 . 39 EFT . 84** . 89** .50 EST .76** .7 2** .49 EMT .74* * .7 3** . 69* EFI . 89** .51 .49 ESI .62* .8 3** .49 EMI .6 7** .46 .7 5** * Significant at ,05a level ** Significant at .01a level 88 The Symbolic Task The performance on symbolic concept learning task as correlated with the Activity scale of personality and the CSI ability factor has negative and positive correlations, respectively, with the block of trial numbers significant above ,05a level. Such coefficients of Pearson r for Dependence, CFT, CST, CMT, CFI, EFT, EST, EMT, and ESI are significant at ,01a level, all positive. The Semantic Task Such correlations between the block of trial numbers and the performance on semantic blocks of trials corre lated with the Neuroticism, and EMI are positive above .Ola level of significance. The number of block trials are correlated at .Ola level of significance with semantic task as correlated with the CFT and EMT. 89 Intercorrelation Between Personality Scales And SI Ability Factors The matrix in Table 26 shows the intercorrelations between the personality scales and the SI ability factors. Shyness is significantly correlated with CFT, CMI, and ESI at .Ola level. Dependence has positive correlations with CST, CFI, and EFT and negative correlations with EST and EMI, all sig nificant at .Ola level. Empathy is negatively correlated with CFT, EFI and ESI at .Ola level. It has positive correlations with CST, and CFI at .Ola level. Neuroticism has significant positive correlations with CST, CFI, and EFT, and negative ones with CMT, CMI, EST, EMT, and EMI. Compulsion is negatively correlated with CFI at .0 5a level and with EFT at .Ola level. Hostility has positive correlations with CST, CFI, and EFT, at ,01a level, and negative correlations with CMT, CMI, and EMI at .Ola level, and with EST at .0 5a level. Activity is positively correlated with CMT and CMI and negatively with CFI all at .Ola level. It is also correlated negatively with CST, EFT, and ESI at .0 5a level. 90 Social Desirability is positively correlated with CST, CMT, CFI, EFT, and negatively with CFT and CSI at .Ola level. It is also correlated with EFI negatively at .05a level. 91 TABLE 26 MATRIX OF INTERCORRELATION BETWEEN SI ABILITY FACTORS AND COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 \Personality Scales S I \ Ability Factor Shyness Dependence Empathy Neuroticism Compulsion Hostility Activity Social Desirability 1 CFT • 2 Q 5 * < * CD O 1 :Xn -.14 0 0 o 1 -.06 -.10 - 2 8 2 CST i — I O t • n .22 . 56 o 1 —1 1 . 5 3 T . 14 « k * k 3 . CMT -.14 -.15 -.07 -.29 .01 -.26 .15 •22 4 CFI . 06 « * 5 ? .30 f t f t .74 1 • 0 0 .73 -.22 .64 5 CSI .02 -.02 -.05 -.10 .07 -.12 .02 -.13 6 CMI - • . 2 . 7 . -.06 .05 -.22 A « k « k .08 -.21 A A .26 A A -.12 7 EFT LO o I .27 ft i ’ f -.02 .38 -.24 .45 A A -.15 A .22 ft ft 8 EST CD O • -.23 1 • H O -.22 ft is .05 -.18 A -.06 -.29 ft ft 9 EMT o 1 -.04 . 00 -.20 ft ft o • 1 - I s .12 -.11 10 EFI .04 -.09 -.2 2 5 > -.13 .02 .-.03 .07 i sM—J era 11 ESI .23 CD O • 1 -.26 5 k -.11 .03 i O i — 1 1 * | 1 -.16 -.17 12 EMI .04 -.23 -.08 -.24 A A .09 -.30 5 k 5 k -.01 -.25 A sV i * Signif Signif icant icant at .05 at . 01 a leve a leve ;1 i l CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Concept Learning and Contents of Conceptualization Conceptual growth very much depends upon the kind of material or content used in the learning tasks. The figural content is the most concrete, and possesses the form characteristic. It is, therefore, the easiest to learn. The semantic content, in the form of the combina tion of four words, is more complicated because of the several meanings and shades of meanings of the same word. It assumes an abstract character. In order of hierarchy, the symbolic content is the most difficult and abstract of all three. Especially, in the present investigation, the symbolic content was the English alphabet, and the S had to figure out the concepts represented by each combination of four letters in the successive trials of learning. This is probably the reason why the symbolic concept learning was arrested after the sixth block of trials. In this kind of content the S has less opportunity to formulate several hypotheses and test them. From a theoretical point of view the cognitive char acteristics, the belief and disbelief systems, expectancies 92 93 and the method of hypothesis testing of open-minded and closed-minded individuals are distinguishable. The princi ple of closure should be more operative with the individuals characterized by personality traits like Compulsion and Activity. These traits assist in developing focus-gambling strategy (Torcivia and Laughlin, 19 68). The rigidity in the cognitive behavior is broken down by the tendency to establish new links with the concept material, and make use of evaluation abilities in order to extrapolate better solu tions and make judgment regarding the best of all available information. The reverse is true with respect to the per sonality traits, such as Neuroticism, Hostility, and Social Desirability. The interaction of Empathy, Compulsion, and Activity on one side, and Neuroticism, Hostility, and Social Desirability on the other, is expected to determine the relative effectiveness of the personality traits like Shyness, and Dependence on the learning conceptual task. Learning in the figural task was found to be nega tively correlated with the Neuroticism scale of personality, especially in the early blocks of trials, and also with the Social Desirability scale at the later trials. This fact indicates that the factor of Neuroticism had detrimental effect on learning figural concepts. It was expected that the Neuroticism factor would play a negative role in the concept learning in general, and also in the figural task. 9<+ The non-significant negative correlations at all the blocks of trials, further suggest that the Neuroticism factor had no or negative role in learning figural concepts. It was also hypothesized that the Social Desirability variable would have no role in learning figural concepts, because of the fact that the analytical and critical pro cesses are more important in learning than the influence of social pressure. Since the S does not employ the analytical procedure in his search for a correct concept, this variable also becomes detrimental or irrelevant in learning figural concepts. All other personality traits have failed to show any relationships with the figural concept learning task. It is very likely that the figural concept learning had not been influenced by the personality traits as measured by the Comrey Personality Scales. All positive and significant correlations at the last block of learning trials in the figural task suggest that, at least, there is some relationship between the figural concept learning and all the SI abilities at the later phase of learning. It is rather difficult to give an explanation for it. However, what Dunham, et. al. (196 8) call the phenomenon of translation into different language seems to have operated here, and resulted in significant correlations between the figural concept learning task and 95 the symbolic and semantic abilities also. The expected role of EFT, and very mildly of CFI has been demonstrated in the information analyzing and reorganizing phase of con cept learning. Symbolic Concept Learning Task And Personality and Ability Factors There was some indication of the factor of Neuroti cism showing a negative influence in the beginning and the analyzing phase of learning symbolic concepts. The FHIDs like Agitation, Pessimism and Inadequacy that compose this factor may be responsible for the negative or detrimental influence on the symbolic concept learning. The two factors of Compulsion and Activity had shown some positive influence on the symbolic concept learning. As was expected, the FHIDs like Cautiousness, Order, that constitute the scale of Compulsion may be responsible for this influence in the early trials. With respect to the scale of Activity, the FHIDs such as Liking for Work, Pro duction, Drive to Finish, and Need to Excel, that constitute this scale, influenced the learning at the early trials. It is intriguing that the scale of Dependence had positive significant correlations whereas the scales of Compulsion and Activity dropped out at the later phase of learning trials. It remains a matter of curiosity as to 96 why the scale of Dependence comprising FHIDs such as Acti vities, Conformity, etc. had a positive relationship with the symbolic concept learning task at the later half of the trials. The curiosity is intensified by the fact that the correlation between the total learning score and the scale of Dependence is non-significant. Within the task pertinent to the symbolic abilities, the role of CSI and ESI was very much expected, that is the positive influence at the later trials. The phenomenon called the translation into different language is observable at the later trials of learning with regard to the CFI and EFI. Although it was hypothesized that the cognitive and transformation abilities would be more effective at the beginning trials of learning, their influence at the later trials cannot be ruled out. Cognitive processes were active at all the phases of learning. The transformation abilities are especially more active in conjunction with the evalua tion abilities at the later phase of learning trials. The abilities of CFT, and CST are the example in the present investigation. Semantic Concept Learning Task And Personality and Ability Factors The semantic concept learning has a peculiar situa tion. Neuroticism once again plays a negative and detrimen- 97 tal role in the concept learning. Neurotic personality lacks social contact and, therefore, the deficiency in communicability and comprehensibility might be responsible for it. Once again the FHIDs like Agitation, Depression, Pessimism, and Inadequacy, that constitute this scale, might be responsible for this negative influence. On the other hand, the factor of Compulsion plays a positive role in the early phase. The component FHIDs of this scale, that is, Cautiousness, Meticulousness, Order and Intolerance of Non-conformity probably had their influ ence in the positive direction. These FHIDs operate at the later phase of learning trials also. Their influence in reorganizing the information at the later phase of learning results in more correct responses by those who are domi nated by the factor of Compulsion. The FHIDs such as Liking for Work and Drive to Finisl that constitute the scale of Activity, influenced the semantic concept learning positively, in the beginning trials. It is intriguing why this factor did not influence the semantic learning at the later trials. Moreover, no other factor influenced the semantic concept learning at any phase of trials. It is presumed that the present semantic concept learning task is not a good criterion for testing the predictability of Comrey Personality Scales. The success of the S in the concept learning task depends 98 on the use of strategy in solving the problem. Probably the Comrey Personality Scales and the component FHIDs are not sensitive to measure the characteristics that are respon sible for the specific use of focus gambling or the conser vative focusing in the concept learning task. The hypothesis that the evaluation abilities in con junction with the implication abilities play a positive role at the later trials of learning has been proved in the case of SI abilities -- ESI and EMI. In the semantic learning task the transformation ability is more operative in con junction with the evaluation ability at the later trials, proving that the redefinition of the information can take place at any phase of learning trials. The situation in the semantic concept learning task creates some doubts regarding the phenomenon called trans lation into different language. It can be noticed that no correlations are significant between the semantic concept learning and the CMI ability factor. On the other hand, almost all the correlations between the semantic concept learning and the CSI are significant and positive. Unless it could be proved that there is some kind of involvement of symbolic learning in the semantic task, this situation remains inexplicable. The analysis presented in Table 18 further suggests that the symbolic task had only two significant correlations 99 with the symbolic abilities as against ten with the symbolic abilities. Only the figural concept learning task had a greater number of significant correlations with the figural abilities than symbolic or semantic. It seems that the semantic concept learning task involves some kind of symbolic concepts and the symbolic concept learning task involves some kind of figural concepts. The study of Dunham, et. al. (19 68) is the only one that has the same concept learning task as the present study. Hence, a comparison with other studies is rather difficult. As was indicated in the introduction, no rela tion was found by Allison (1960) between the mental abilities and concept learning. However, in his study, the conceptual learning factor was defined by tests such as a vocabulary test, a sentence-completion test, and a test comprised of both verbal analogies and sentence completion. In terms of Guilford’s SI model, this is similar to CMU factor. In the study of Dunham, et. al. (19 68), the role of CMU remained indeterminate. Allison’s (1960) study indicated the existence of a factor that can be defined in terms of whether the S learnec the task faster in the first half or the second half. Only rote memory, which is not the memory abilities identified by Guilford (19 67) had the highest correlation with this factor. In her study, Jones (1967) reported the effective 100 ness of CMS factor at the early trials of learning. In the current investigation, the relative importance of transfor mation and implication abilities have been felt in conjunc tion with the cognitive and evaluation abilities. Dunham, et. al. (1968) mainly emphasized the role of class abilities in learning concepts. However, they interpreted the role of CMS in the symbolic task by saying that the S tended to verbalize the four-letter exemplars in terms of meaningful systems, in his attempt to find useful attributes. In the present investigation, as also in the study of Jones (1967), the abilities other than classes have been explored. Low correlations in the current investigation, however, indicate that there is need of further investigation with respect to the role of these abilities in concept learning. Similarity of Relationships Among Personality And Ability Factors in Their Relationships With the Concept Learning Tasks In the figural and semantic concept learning tasks, the negative significant correlations between the scales of Empathy and Shyness in their relationship with the concept learning task at different blocks of trials, indicate that the pattern of relationship was opposed to each other because of the fact that Empathy factor belonged to the 101 open-minded attitude and the factor of Shyness belonged to the closed-minded attitude. Neuroticism and Activity had this kind of relation ship in the symbolic and semantic tasks, but not the figuraO task. The reason is that the figural concept learning task was not influenced by the factor of Activity at all, whereas the symbolic and semantic concept learning tasks were influenced by the factor of Activity just opposite to the Neuroticism. The factor of Neuroticism belonged to the closed-minded attitude and that of Activity belonged to the open-minded attitude. The figural task seems to be non sensitive to this kind of opposed influences. A similar explanation can be offered for the scales of Neuroticism and Compulsion in the symbolic and semantic concept learning tasks. While the former scale belongs to the closed-minded attitude, the latter belongs to the open- minded attitude. Noticeably, the two factors belonging to the same attitude--open- or closed-mindedness showed significant positive correlations, viz., Compulsion and Activity in all the three tasks, Empathy and Activity in the symbolic task. Curiously enough, the Social Desirability variable showed positive significant correlations with Empathy in all of the three tasks, and with Compulsion in the symbolic task. Such similarities in relationship are more prominent in the 102 case of SI abilities, in the figural and symbolic tasks, but not at all in the semantic task. Semantic abilities seem to have differential influence at different blocks of learn ing trials because of the involvement of the language in the task material. Relation Between Blocks and Performance on Concept Learning as Related to CPS and SI Abilities While most of the coefficients of correlations are non-significant with regard to the number of block trials and the performance as influenced by the CPS and the SI abilities, the Social Desirability factor seems to influence the performance of the figural concept learning negatively. Although no explanation can be offered with respect to the Activity scale in the symbolic and semantic concept learning tasks, and the positive correlation with respect to the Dependence scale in the symbolic task, there is some expla nation for the significant negative correlation with respect to the Neuroticism in the semantic task. This positive coefficient of correlation should not be taken as an indi cation of positive relationship between the block scores and the scale of Neuroticism. All correlations between the block scores and the Neuroticism scale are negative. 103 However, over trials the negative values were approaching the zero value. The CMI ability had no detrimental influence on the performance in all three concept learning tasks over trials. Whereas the figural and the symbolic task had the general influence of the abilities pertinent to the task, the semantic ability facilitates the semantic task only when evaluation abilities are called for. In fact, no generali zation is possible in the case of semantic concept learning task. Personality Factors and SI Abilities The correlations between the personality scales and the SI abilities prove the hypotheses presented in the present research that Shyness, Dependence, Neuroticism and Hostility factors correlate negatively with semantic abili ties. The possible reason is that the personality factors characterized by closed-mindedness are opposed to the seman tic abilities which are sharpened by social contacts. On the other hand, Activity factor has positive correlation with semantic abilities. The Social Desirability factor has an uncertain position, since it has several positive and negative correlations with the same operation category in conjunction with other contents or products. The results of the study of Johnston (1965) also showed a non-linear 104 relation between the Social Desirability and the intelli gence. Further investigation is needed to specify its relation with SI abilities. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY Following initial researches which emphasized the stimulus factors, the present decade has shown empirical evidences of the importance of the subjective factor of abilities in concept learning. The current investigation went a step further to determine the role of personality factors such as Shyness, Dependence, Empathy, Neuroticism, Compulsion, Hostility, Activity, and Social Desirability, as well as the SI ability factors including CFT, CST, CMT, CFI, CSI, CMI, EFT, EST, EMT, EFr, ESI, and EMI in learning figural, symbolic, and semantic concepts. Comrey Personality Scales were used to measure the personality factors, whereas, the reference tests from the Aptitude Research Laboratory were employed to measure the abilities identified by the Si-model. The concept learning tasks of figural, symbolic and semantic contents developed by the Aptitude Research Labora tory were used. The sample was 16 7 students of the intro ductory psychology course. The correlation and multiple regression analyses were; the main statistical tools to determine the role of person ality and ability factors in learning three kinds of con cepts . 105 106 The results show that the personality factors char acterized by the closed-minded attitude had a negative rela tionship with concept learning, whereas the personality factors characterized by the open-minded attitude had a positive relationship, although, in general, the correlatior. coefficients were low. The semantic concept learning scores had negative correlations with personality scales — for example, Neuroticism which is representative of the closed- minded attitude. A weak but positive role of evaluation and implica tion abilities was established in learning figural, symbolic and semantic concepts. The results did not show the involvement of semantic abilities in learning semantic tasks. The factor of Activity correlated positively with semantic abilities. The Social Desirability factor held an uncertain position because of its positive and negative relationships with same category of operations in conjunction with dif ferent content or product dimensions of the SI abilities. The results indicate that abilities other than class, might also facilitate concept learning. APPENDIX A Instructions and Sample Stimuli For Concept Learning Tasks 107 I n s tr u c tio n s fo r p r o b le m 100 In th is p r o b le m y o u w ill b e p r e s e n te d w ith 96 d iffe r e n t n o n s e n s e w o r d s . T h e s e n o n s e n s e w o r d s fo r m fo u r d is tin c t c l a s s e s r e p r e s e n te d b y th e c a p ita l le t t e r s A , B , C , an d D . A ll o f th e n o n s e n s e w o r d s a s s o c ia te d w ith a p a r tic u la r le tt e r h a v e so m e th in g in c o m m o n . T h e r e a r e 24 w o r d s a s s o c ia t e d w ith th e c a p ita l le tt e r A , 24 w ith B , 24 w ith C , and 24 w ith D. Y our ta s k is to le a r n to a s s ig n th e c o r r e c t le tt e r to th e n o n s e n s e w o r d s , b y fig u r in g out w h at c o m m o n p r o p e r ty is a s s o c ia t e d w ith e a c h le t t e r . F o r e x a m p le , an y n o n s e n s e w o r d w ith tw o v o w e ls m ig h t a lw a y s b e a s s o c ia t e d w ith A , an d any n o n s e n s e w o r d w ith th e f i r s t an d la s t le t t e r s th e s a m e m ig h t a lw a y s b e a s s o c ia te d w ith B . T h e c l a s s e s a r e d is tin c t; th a t i s , no w o r d w ill b e a s s o c ia t e d w ith m o r e th an on e le tt e r . The c l a s s e s you a r e to id e n tify in th e p r o b le m a r e d iffe r e n t fr o m th o s e ju s t m e n tio n e d . On th e f ir s t p a g e o f th e p r o b le m b o o k le t y o u w ill b e p r e s e n te d w ith a n o n s e n s e w o r d fo llo w e d b y th e le t t e r s A , B , C, and D . C h o o se o r g u e s s th e le tt e r you th in k i s a s s o c ia t e d w ith th is p a r tic u la r n o n s e n s e w o r d . A fte r you h a v e c i r c le d y o u r c h o ic e , tu r n th e p a g e and th e n o n s e n s e w o r d w ill b e p r e s e n te d a g a in , b u t fo llo w e d th is tim e b y th e c o r r e c t le tt e r . On th e s a m e p a g e a n ew n o n s e n s e w o rd w ill b e p r e s e n te d , and a g a in y o u a r e to c h o o s e A , B , C , o r D . T h e n e x t p a g e w i l l h a v e th e le t t e r c o r r e c t ly a s s o c ia t e d w ith th is w o rd . T h is p r o c e s s w ill b e r e p e a te d u n til a ll 96 n o n s e n s e w o r d s h a v e b e e n p r e s e n te d . D u rin g th e f i r s t few t r ia l s y o u p r o b a b ly w i l l h a v e to r e ly on g u e s s in g . H o w e v e r , on la te r t r ia l s y ou sh o u ld b e a b le to m a k e a c c u r a te p r e d ic tio n s s in c e a l l o f th e n o n s e n s e w o r d s a s s o c ia t e d w ith a p a r tic u la r le tt e r h a v e so m e th in g in c o m m o n . You w ill b e in s t r u c t e d w h e n to tu r n e a c h p a g e , w h e n to e x a m in e th e a n s w e r , an d w h e n to lo o k a t th e n ew n o n s e n s e w o r d . It i s v e r y im p o r ta n t th at y o u fo llo w t h e s e in s t r u c t io n s . D o n ot le a v e an y p a g e b la n k . A lw a y s c i r c le on e o f th e fo u r l e t t e r s . If you do n ot know th e c o r r e c t a n sw e r m a k e y o u r b e s t g u e s s . ST O P H E R E . W AIT F O R F U R T H E R IN ST R U C T IO N S. H o 00 I n s tr u c tio n s fo r p r o b le m 200 In th is p r o b le m y o u w ill b e p r e s e n te d w ith 96 d iffe r e n t f ig u r e s . T h e s e fig u r e s fo r m fo u r d is tin c t c l a s s e s r e p r e s e n te d b y th e c a p ita l le t t e r s A , B , C , and D . A ll o f th e f ig u r e s a s s o c ia t e d w ith a p a r tic u la r le tt e r h a v e so m e th in g in c o m m o n . T h e r e a r e 24 f ig u r e s a s s o c ia t e d w ith th e c a p ita l le tt e r A , 24 w ith B , 24 w ith C, an d 24 w ith D . Y our t a s k is to le a r n to a s s ig n th e c o r r e c t le tt e r to th e f ig u r e s , b y fig u r in g out w h at c o m m o n p r o p e r ty is a s s o c ia t e d w ith e a c h le t t e r . F o r e x a m p le , f ig u r e s w ith c u r v e d lin e s m ig h t b e a s s o c ia t e d w ith A , and fig u r e s w ith th r e e p a r ts m ig h t b e a s s o c ia t e d w ith B . The c l a s s e s a r e d istin c t; th a t i s , no fig u r e w ill b e a s s o c ia t e d w ith m o r e th a n on e le t t e r . T he c l a s s e s y o u a r e to id e n tify in th e p r o b le m a r e d iffe r e n t fr o m th o s e ju s t m e n tio n e d . On th e f ir s t p a g e o f th e p r o b le m b o o k le t y o u w ill b e p r e s e n te d w ith a fig u r e fo llo w e d b y th e le t t e r s A , B , C , an d D. C h o o se or g u e s s th e le t t e r y o u th in k i s a s s o c ia t e d w ith th is p a r tic u la r fig u r e . A fter you h a v e c i r c le d y o u r c h o ic e , tu r n th e p a g e and th e fig u r e w ill b e p r e s e n te d a g a in , but fo llo w e d th is tim e b y th e c o r r e c t le t t e r . On th e sa m e p a g e a n ew fig u r e w ill b e p r e s e n te d , and a g a in y ou a r e to c h o o s e A , B , C , o r D . T he n e x t p a g e w ill h a v e th e le t t e r c o r r e c t ly a s s o c ia t e d w ith th is fig u r e . T h is p r o c e s s w ill b e r e p e a te d u n til a ll 96 f ig u r e s h a v e b e e n p r e s e n te d . D u rin g th e f i r s t fe w t r ia ls y ou p r o b a b ly w ill h a v e to r e l y o n g u e s s in g . H o w e v e r , on la t e r t r ia l s y o u sh o u ld b e a b le to m a k e a c c u r a te p r e d ic tio n s s in c e a ll o f th e fig u r e s a s s o c ia t e d w ith a p a r tic u la r le t t e r h a v e so m e th in g in co m m o n . You w ill b e in s tr u c te d w h e n to tu r n e a c h p a g e , w h e n to e x a m in e th e a n s w e r , and w h en to lo o k a t th e n ew f ig u r e . It is v e r y im p o r ta n t th at y o u fo llo w t h e s e in s t r u c t io n s . D o n ot le a v e any p a g e b la n k . A lw a y s c i r c le on e o f th e fou r l e t t e r s . If y o u do n o t know th e c o r r e c t a n sw e r m a k e y o u r b e s t g u e s s . ST O P H E R E . W AIT FO R F U R T H E R IN ST R U C T IO N S. H o co 110 In str u c tio n s fo r p ro b le m 300 In th is p ro b le m you w ill be p r e s e n te d w ith 96 g ro u p s of fou r w o rd s each . T h e se w ord g ro u p s fo rm four se p a r a te and d is tin c t c l a s s e s . The fou r c l a s s e s a re la b e le d A, B, C, and D. A ll o f the w ord g ro u p s a s s o c ia te d w ith a p a r t i c u la r le tte r h ave so m eth in g in co m m o n . You a r e to le a r n w h ich grou p b e lo n g s w ith ea c h le tt e r . F o r e x a m p le , look at the fo llo w in g w ord g ro u p s: 1. flo w er joy think funny b ook s t e e l m ilk h ate 3. y e llo w w in dow th row ca m p B 4. sh e e t b lu e g lu e stop B sh ip a n g er 5. b r ! f ht A (B ) 6. tunn, e l ® B r e d sm o k e h o r se cou gh G roups 1 and 2 a r e fo llo w e d by A, T h is m e a n s that g ro u p s 1 and 2 have so m eth in g in c o m m o n . G roups 3 and 4 h ave so m e th in g d iffe r e n t in co m m o n , an d , a r e fo llo w e d by B. Now look at g ro u p s 5 and 6. D o e s group 5 b elo n g w ith the g ro u p s r e p r e s e n te d b y A or w ith th o se r e p r e s e n te d by B ? F o r grou p 5, B h as b een c ir c le d b e c a u se grou p 5 c o n ta in s th e n am e o f a c o lo r , re d , a s do the o th er g ro u p s r e p r e s e n te d by B (y ello w in grou p 3 and b lu e in .group 4). A is c ir c le d fo r grou p 6. The g ro u p s of w o rd s r e p r e s e n te d by A co n ta in a w o rd w h ich in d ic a te s an e m o tio n (joy in grou p 1, h ate in grou p 2, and an g er in grou p 6). In the p r o b le m , a s in th e ab ove e x a m p le , each w ord grou p is a s s o c ia t e d w ith one le tt e r on the b a s is of the s im ila r it y o f one o f th e w o rd s in the grou p . T h ere w ill b e 96 d iffe r e n t w o rd g ro u p s - 24 go w ith the le tt e r A , 24 w ith B , 24 w ith C ,4 and 24 w ith D. Your ta sk is to le a r n to a s s ig n the c o r r e c t le tte r to ea c h w o rd grou p . On th e f ir s t p age of th e p r o b le m b o o k le t you w ill b e p r e s e n te d w ith a grou p of w o rd s fo llo w e d by A, B , C , and D . C h o o se o r g u e s s the le tte r y ou thin k g o e s w ith th is grou p , and c ir c le it. W hen in str u c te d , tu rn th e p a g e. The sa m e w o rd grou p w ill b e p r e s e n te d a g a in , fo llo w e d by the le tte r w ith w h ich it is c o r r e c t ly a s s o c ia t e d . On th e sa m e p age a n ew grou p o f fou r w o rd s w ill be p r e s e n te d , and a g a in you a r e to c h o o s e A , B , C , or D . The n ex t p age w ill h ave th e c o r r e c t le tte r a s s o c ia te d w ith th is grou p . T h is p r o c e s s w ill be r e p e a te d fo r a ll 96 w o rd g r o u p s. A lthough on the f ir s t few p a g e s you w ill h ave to r e ly on g u e s s in g , on the la te r p a g e s you sh ou ld h ave enough in fo r m a tio n to c h o o s e the c o r r e c t le tte r . You w ill be in s tr u c te d w h en to tu rn ea c h p a g e, w hen to e x a m in e the a n sw e r , and w h en to lo o k at th e n ex t w o rd grou p . It is v e ry im p o r ta n t that you fo llo w th e s e in s tr u c tio n s . ST O P H E R E . WAIT FO R F U R T H E R IN STRUCTIO NS. Sample Pages f PROBLEM 100 rom the ConceDt-Learnine Booklet 101 LLAM A B C D PROBLEM 200 y 201 A A B C D _ / \ PROBLEM 300 fence 301 qUlet A B C D sour director H H H Sample Pages from the Concept-Learning Booklet 101 LLAM Answer A 102 SOZF A B C D 201 J L ‘ J Answer C 202 k A B C D 301 fence quiet sour director Answer A 302 part extreme repeat garden A B C D APPENDIX B Instructions to Subjects In Comrey Personality Scales, And Sample Answer Sheet 113 114 THE COMREY PERSONALITY SCALES by Andrew L. Comrey The University of California, Los Angeles The statements in this booklet have been designed to show where you should be placed on several personality traits. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to these statements. It is impossible, therefore, to get a "good" or a "bad" score on this personality inventory. It is possible only to get scores which will describe your personality either more or less accurately. Directions: For each numbered statement in the booklet, please follow these steps: 1. Read the statement. 2. Note if the statement number is followed by the letter X or Y. From the answer sheet, select the answer scale which is designated by the same letter, Scale X or Scale Y. All X questions use Scale X and all Y questions use Scale Y. 3. Select one answer which is best for you from the nine possible answers in the Scale selected. Note the number to the left of the answer which you select (9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, orl). This is the answer number. 4. Find the place on the SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET which has the same number as the statement you have just read in the booklet. 5. Indicate your answer on the SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET by putting the answer number you have chosen in the correct blank. For example, since statement 1 on the next page is followed by an X, your answer number will be selected from the group of answers named Scale X. If after reading the statement and the possible answers in Scale X, you decided that the best answer for you was "5. Fairly often," you would indicate this on the SEPARATE ANSWER SHEET as follows: 1. 5 If some other answer had been selected rather than 5, you would have put its answer number in the blank instead. If the other answer scale seems more appropriate for you than the one indicated for the given question, you may use it instead. If you should find it impossible to select an answer that is even approximately correct for you, leave the answer space blank for that statement. Please turn to the next page and begin. Copyright, 1968, by Andrew L. Comrey. All rights reserved. 9. Always 8. Almost Always 7. Usually 6. Frequently Scale X; 5 . Fairly Often 4 . Occasionally 3. Rarely 2. Almost Never 1. Never 9. Absolutely 8. Very Definitely 7. Definitely 6. Probably Scale Y: 5. Possibly ~ 4. Probably Not 3. Definitely Not 2. Very Definitely Not 1. Absolutely Not Name Address City__ Age___ Sex Occupation Highest School Grade 1_ 1 9 ___ 3 7 ___ 5 5 ___ 7 3 ___ 9 1 ___ 1 0 9 ___ 127___ 1 4 5___ 1 6 3 ___ 1 8 1 ___ 1 9 9___ 2 ___ 2 0 ___ 3 8 ___ 5 6 ___ 7 4 ___ 9 2 ___ 110___ 128 ___ 1 4 6___ 1 6 4___ 182___ 200 ___ 3_ 2 1 ___ 3 9 ___ 5 7 ___ 7 5 ___ 9 3 ___ 111___ 129 ___ 147___ 1 6 5___ 1 8 3 ___ 201 ___ 4_ 22 ___ 4 0 ___ 5 8 ___ 7 6 ___ 9 4 ___ 112 ___ 130 ___ 1 4 8_ _ 166 ___ 1 8 4 ___ 202 5 _ 2 3 ___ 1»1_ 5 9 ___ 7 7 ___ 9 5 ___ 113 ___ 131 ___ 149___ 167___ 1 8 5___ 203 ___ 6_ 21*___ i a_ 6 o ___ 7 8 ___ 9 6 ___ 114 ___ 132___ 150___ 168___ 1 8 6___ 204 ___ 7 ___ 2 5 ___ 4 3 ___ 6 1 ___ 7 9 ___ 9 7 ___ 115___ 133___ 1 5 1___ 1 6 9 ___ 1 8 7___ 205 ___ 8 ___ 2 6 ___ 4 4 ___ 6 2 ___ 8 0 ___ 9 8 ___ 1 1 6 ___ 134 ___ 1 5 2___ 1 7 0 ___ i e 8 ___ 206 ___ 9 ___ 2 7 ___ 45 _ 6 3 ___ 8 1 ___ 99 _ 1 1 7 ___ 135 ___ 1 5 3___ 1 7 1 ___ 1 8 9 ___ 207 ___ 1 0 ___ 28 ___ 46 _ 6 4 ___ 82 ___ 1 0 0___ 1 1 6 ___ 136 ___ 1 5 4 ___ 1 7 2___ 1 9 0 ___ 208 ___ 1 1 ___ 2 9 ___ 4 7 ___ 6 5 ___ 83 _ 101___ 1 1 9 ___ 137 ___ 1 5 5 ___ 1 7 3 ___ 191___ 209 ___ 1 2 ___ 3 0 ___ 4 8 ___ 6 6 ___ 8 4 ___ 102 ___ 120 ___ 1 3 8___ 1 5 6 ___ 1 7 4 ___ 1 9 2 ___ 2 1 0 ___ 1 3 ___ 3 1 ___ 4 9 ___ 6 7 ___ 8 5 ___ 103___ 121 ___ 139___ 1 5 7 ___ 1 7 5 ___ 1 9 3 ___ 211 ___ lie_ 3 2 ___ 5 0 ___ 6 8 ___ 8 6 ___ 104___ 122 ___ 140___ 1 5 8 ___ 1 7 6 ___ 1 9 4 ___ 212 ___ 1 5_ 3 3 ___ 5 1 ___ 6 9 ___ 6 7 ___ 1 0 5 ___ 123___ 141___ 1 5 9 ___ 1 7 7 ___ 195 _ 213 ___ 1 6 ___ 3 4 ___ 5 2 ___ 7 0 ___ 8 8 ___ 1 0 6 ___ 124___ 1 4 2 ___ 1 6 0 ___ 178___ 1 9 6 ___ 214 ___ 1 7 ___ 3 5 ___ 5 3 ___ 7 1 ___ 8 9 ___ 1 0 7___ 125 ___ 1 4 3 ___ 1 6 1 ___ 1 7 9 ___ 1 9 7 ___ 215 ___ 1 8 __ 3 6 ___ 5 4 ___ 72 ___ 9 0 ___ 1 0 8___ 126___ 14 4___ 1 6 2 ___ 1 8 0___ 1 9 8 ___ 216 ___ O CO O CD 3 3 4 W CD H ^ CD T) > CD 3 4 CO c o s ; O CD 3 4 CD H CO H- r+ CD *< CD r+ CO O 41 CD O H 4 CD CO H cm Return to Professor Andrew L. Comrey, Department of Psychology, UCIA, Los Angeles, California, 9002L. APPENDIX C Front Page of Ability Tests Showing Instructions and Sample Items 116 B L O C K R O T A T IO N T h is is a te s t of y o u r ab ility to v isu a liz e what a b lo ck w ill look like when it is r o ta te d an d se e n f r o m a d iffere n t point of view . Look at the s a m p le ite m below a b c o c I In sid e the s q u a r e at the left is a block in its o r ig in a l p o sitio n . F iv e r o ta te d b lo ck s a r e given at the rig h t. W hich block is the s a m e a s the u n r o ta te d one, but s e e n f r o m a d iffe re n t point of v iew ? A lte rn a tiv e E is the c o r r e c t a n s w e r fo r th is sa m p le ite m . None of the o th e r a lte rn a tiv e b lo ck s could be the o rig in a l block ro ta te d ; the little s q u a r e p a r t a t the top is a lw a y s lo c a te d in c o r r e c t l y . So, "E " is m a r k e d on the a n s w e r sh e e t. L ook at a m o r e d ifficu lt ite m . a a c o c ' • M The c o r r e c t a n s w e r fo r th is ite m is C . O nly a lte rn a tiv e C is a ro ta tio n of the o r ig in a l b lock. In a lte rn a tiv e " C " , the g iv en blo ck is tu r n e d o v e r. W o rk ra p id ly an d a c c u r a te ly . A void w ild g u e ssin g a s t h e r e is a p en alty fo r w ro n g a n s w e r s . If you find an ite m is too h a r d , skip it and go on to the n ex t ite m . T h is te s t h a s 2 p a g es of 8 ite m s e ac h . You w ill have 5 m in u te s to w o rk on e a c h page. If you have q u e s tio n s , a s k th e m now. S T O P H E R E . WAIT F O R F U R T H E R IN STRU CTIO NS Prepared by the Aptitudes Research Project, University of Southern California, under U. S. Government Contract Nonr-228(20), Not to be reproduced without permission. CFT06A 1/3 1 1 8 FIN D IN G L E T T E R T R A N SF O R M A T IO N S In e a c h it e m o f th is t e s t you w ill b e g iv e n th e s a m e w o rd s p e lle d c o r r e c t ly and in c o r r e c t ly , an d y o u a r e to w r ite th e ch a n g e th a t h as o c c u r r e d . L ook at th e sa m p le it e m s : I. m a n e u v e r - m a n u e v e r II. c it iz e n - c ite z in III. c a lc u lu s - c a lo lu s In sa m p le I th e le t t e r s "e" an d "u" w e r e in te r c h a n g e d a s in d ic a te d b y the r e s p o n s e s . In the s e c o n d sa m p le th e tw o le t t e r s "i" an d "e" w e r e in te r c h a n g e d o r s w itc h e d , s o th e c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e i s "i an d e s w it c h e d ." T h e th ir d sa m p le d ro p s th e le t t e r s "cu" and adds th e le tt e r "o. " T h e r e f o r e , th e c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e is "cu d ro p p ed o ad d ed . " Or you c o u ld s a y th a t o w a s s u b s titu te d fo r cu . M ake y o u r r e s p o n s e s c o m p le te but a s b r ie f a s p o s s ib le . T h is t e s t h a s 2 p a g e s w ith 20 it e m s on e a c h p a g e . Y ou w ill h a v e 4 m in u te s to w o rk on e a c h p a g e. If you h a v e q u e s tio n s , a sk th e m n ow . LL Atdir L am Jj h /UA>ih.hL_____ Cw & cuLAjA; S T O P H E R E WAIT FO R F U R T H E R IN ST R U C T IO N S P rep ared by the Aptitudes R esea rch P roject, U n iversity of Southern C alifornia, under U. S. Government Grant O. E. 1791. Not to be reproduced without p erm issio n . CST01A 1/3 119 SIMILARITIES In this test you are to think of ways in which different objects are alike. Each item names two objects. You are to write as many as six ways in which the two objects are alike. Look at the sample item: Both apple and orange c- -da D* _ E. —' / l - A XC i > - - ■ F- f y y . t - u t - ' JjrJ i ___ Notice that the similarities listed concern real character istics of the objects such as their structure, use, or operation. Such statements as "bought in stores," "cost money," and "liked by children," which do not describe the objects, are not acceptable as answers. Also note that in each answer "both" is assumed and need not be written. You are to write as many as six similarities for each pair of objects. If you cannot think of six similarities quickly, write as many as you can and go on to the next item. This test has 2 pages with 3 items per page. You will have 2 minutes to work on each page. If you have questions, ask them now. STOP HERE WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS Reproduced with permission from the Aptitudes Research Project, University of Southern California. CMT0 2B 1/3 120 C IR C L E C O N T IN U A T IO N S T h is is a t e s t o f y o u r a b ility to c o m p le te a c i r c le v is u a lly . In e a c h it e m you a r e g iv e n a p o r tio n o f a c i r c le and fiv e d o ts. You a r e to s e l e c t the on e dot that w o u ld be d ir e c t ly on th e c i r c le i f it w e r e c o m p le te d . L ook at the sa m p le ite m : A* B« c* D E In th e s a m p le it e m , a lt e r n a t iv e B is the on e dot that w o u ld lie d ir e c t ly on the' c o m p le te d c i r c l e , and so B i s m a r k e d on the a n s w e r s p a c e . F o r illu s tr a tio n p u r p o s e s , the c o m p le te d c i r c le i s sh ow n to the r ig h t o f the sa m p le it e m . In the t e s t you n e e d n ot sk e tc h in the c o m p le te d c i r c l e . D oin g s o w ill tak e aw ay fr o m the tim e you w ill n e e d to c o m p le te the t e s t . T h is t e s t h a s 2 p a r ts w ith 2 p a g e s p e r p a r t. You w ill h a v e 3 m in u te s to w o rk on e a c h p a r t. W hen you f in is h the f ir s t p a g e o f a p a r t, g o r ig h t on to the s e c o n d p a g e o f that p a r t. A v o id w ild g u e s s in g a s th e r e i s a p en a lty fo r w ro n g a n s w e r s . If you h a v e q u e s tio n s , a s k th e m now . ST O P H E R E W AIT FO R F U R T H E R IN ST R U C T IO N S P r e p a r e d by the A ptitudes R e s e a r c h P r o je c t , U n iv ersity of Southern C alifornia, u n d e r U. S. G o v e rn m e n t C o n tra c t Nonr-228(20). Not to be r e p r o d u c e d without p e r m i s sion. CFI04A 1/5 121 WORD PATTERNS CSI03C This Is a test of your ab ility to m ake efficien t arran gem en ts of given w ords. F o r exam p le, given the w ords "tot" and "boy, " you m ight arrange them as indicated: b tot y t boy t In eith er ca se you gain in efficien cy by w riting the "o" only once. In this te st you w ill be given a se t o f w ords that have som e le tte r s in com m on. You are to arrange them accord in g to the follow ing rules: 1. A ll of the words m ust be w ritten en tirely within the la r g e square w ith only one le tter in each sm all square. 2. In the b e st solution som e of the w ords w ill read from le ft to right and som e from top to bottom . W ords m ay not read from right to le ft or bottom to top. 3. Do not leave blank sp aces betw een neighboring le tte r s of a word. Look at the sam ple item below G iven w ords Sam ple Solution A Sam ple Solution B bats ea sy hot tea the Solution B is the b etter solution sin ce it uBes few er sq u ares. The few er sq u ares used to w rite a ll the w ord s, the higher your sco re. There m ay be extra le tte r s in the sam e row or colum n a s a given word. In solution A , le tte r "b" is not part of the word "the. " A lso , not a ll row s and colum ns need contain words; in solution B , the second colum n, eoa is not a word. H ow ever, a ll of the given w ords m u st be Included in your solution. This test has one page w ith 6 item s. You are to find one solution for each item . You w ill have 12 m inu tes for this te st, and w ill be told when each 3 m inutes have p a ssed . If you have q u estion s, ask them now. STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. Prepared by the Aptitudes Project, University of Southern California, under U. S. Government Contracts N6onr-23810, Nonr-228(20), and O. E. Project 1342. Not to be reproduced without permission. CSI03C 1/2 122 P E R T IN E N T QUESTIONS In th is t e s t situ a tio n s w ill b e d e s c r ib e d , in w h ich d e c is io n s m u st be m a d e . You a r e to w r ite a s m a n y a s fou r q u e stio n s that sh o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d in m a k in g the d e c is io n . L ook at th e e x a m p le : S om e t e e n - a g e r s w ant to b u ild a clu b h o u se. T w o v a ca n t lo ts a r e a v a ila b le . W hat q u e stio n s m u st be c o n s id e r e d in m ak in g a c h o ic e b e tw e e n the two lo t s ? c- (Ahiui U JUa^^(Ls i u u s a / j ^---- d- I a)^aAJ JU& A ll four of the q u e stio n s w r itte n ab ove sh ou ld be c o n s id e r e d in m ak in g the c h o ic e . T h e r e fo r e , a ll the q u e stio n s a r e good q u e s tio n s . Q u e stio n s lik e "H ow old a r e the t e e n - a g e r s ? " or "Is th e re any o th e r lo t? " a r e n ot good q u e stio n s b e c a u s e th ey n eed n o t be c o n s id e r e d in c h o o sin g b etw e en the tw o a v a ila b le lo t s . S uch q u e stio n s w ould r e c e iv e no c r e d it. D o n ot m ake you r q u e stio n s e la b o r a te . A sim p le se n te n c e o r p h r a se w ill do. The sa m e q u e stio n sh ou ld n o t be r e p e a te d , m e r e ly sta tin g it in so m e o th e r w ay. T ry to c o v e r four d iffe r e n t a s p e c ts o f the p r o b le m . T h is t e s t h a s 1 p age w ith 4 s itu a tio n s . You w ill h a v e 6 m in u te s to w ork on th is t e s t . If you have q u e s tio n s , a s k th em now . S T O P H ERE. W AIT FO R F U R T H E R IN ST R UC T IO N S. A d ap ted b y the A p titu d es R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t, U n iv e r s ity o f S ou th ern C a lifo r n ia , u n d er U. S. G o v ern m en t G rant O. E . 1791, w ith th e p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t h o ld e r , S h erid a n Supply C o. ,. B e v e r ly H ills , C a lifo r n ia . N ot to be fu r th e r r e p r o d u c e d . CMI02C 1/2 123 LEAST MOVEMENT In each item of this test you are given a picture of an iron and three a lte r native p ictures. In the alternative p ictures, the iron has been rotated in some m anner. You are to se lec t the alternative in which the iron has been rotated the least from its given position. Look at the sam ple item : GIVEN A B C I N I I Note the position of the iron in the given picture. Now look at the alternative p ictu res. The iron m ay be rotated.in three distinct ways or in any com bination of these three ways: 1) around a vertical axis 2) around a horizontal axis and 3) directly away from or towards you. In alternative A, the iron has been m oved about 90 d egrees to a horizontal position. In alternative B, it has m oved somewhat m ore than 90 d egrees around its vertical axis. In alternative C, the iron has been tilted down about 40 degrees in a direction away from you and also m oved very slightly to the right around its v ertica l a x is. The alternative, then, that rep resen ts the lea st amount of m ovem ent from the position of the iron in the given picture is C, and so C is marked on the answer space. R em em ber: for each item mark the alternative picture in which the iron has been rotated the least from its given position. Avoid wild guessing as there is a penalty for wrong answ ers. This test has 2 parts with 2 pages per part. You w ill have 4 m inutes to work oh each part. When you finish the first page of a part, go right on to the second page of that part. If you have questions, ask them now. STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS Prepared by the Aptitudes R esearch P roject, U niversity of Southern C alifornia, under U. S. Government Contract Nonr-228(20). Not to be reproduced without perm ission. EFT04A 1/5 124 JU M B L E D W ORDS In th is t e s t you w ill be g iv e n a w o rd and s e v e r a l a lt e r n a t iv e w o r d s. Y ou a r e to ju d g e w h e th e r o r n o t e a c h a lt e r n a t iv e w o r d c o u ld be m a d e ju s t by m ix in g th e le t t e r s o f the g iv e n w o rd . L ook at th e s a m p le it e m s : S a m p le I t e m s : s t a r t (g iv e n w o rd ) I. s t a r e I, Y .? s Ij° Yes No U . s t a r t s II, | Yes No III. t a r ts III, I I j A lte r n a tiv e I, s t a r e , h a s b e e n m a r k e d "No" b e c a u s e it h a s o n e d if fe r e n t le tt e r . A lte r n a tiv e II, s t a r s , h a s th e s a m e le t t e r s a s s t a r t , but h a s a d iffe r e n t n u m b e r o f s ' s an d t 's . T h e r e fo r e , it h a s b e e n m a r k e d "N o". A lte r n a tiv e III, t a r t s , h a s th e sa m e le t t e r s a s s t a r t , e a c h u s e d the r ig h t n u m b e r o f t im e s . T h e r e f o r e , it h a s b e e n m a r k e d "Y es". In th is t e s t th e r e w ill be f iv e ju m b le d -w o r d a lt e r n a t iv e s fo r e a c h g iv e n w o rd . M ark " Y es" if the a lt e r n a t iv e h a s e x a c tly the sa m e le t t e r s a s th e g iv e n w o rd . M ark "N o" if th e a lt e r n a t iv e h a s d iffe r e n t le t t e r s or a d iffe r e n t n u m b e r o f s o m e le t t e r . A v o id w ild g u e s s in g , a s t h e r e is a p e n a lty fo r w ron g a n s w e r s . T h is t e s t h a s 2 p a g e s w ith 25 it e m s o n e a c h p a g e . Y ou w ill h a v e 2 m in u te s to w o rk on e a c h p a g e . If you h a v e q u e s tio n s , a s k th e m n ow . S T O P H E R E W AIT FO R F U R T H E R IN ST R U C T IO N S P r e p a r e d by the A ptitudes R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t , U n iv e rs ity of S outhern C a lifo rn ia, u n d e r U. S. G o v e rn m e n t G ra n t O. E. 1791. Not to be r e p r o d u c e d w ithout p e r m i s s io n . EST03A 1/3 125 JUDGING O B JE C T A D A PT A T IO N S In th is tost you a r e to so lo c t a c t iv it ie s that illu s t r a t e the m o st u n u su a l, in g e n io u s, or c le v e r u s e s of g iv e n o b je c ts . S om e o f the a c t iv it ie s a r e a c tu a lly im p o s s ib le to p e r fo r m w ith the g iv e n o b je c t, th e r e fo r e you m ust be su re that the a c t iv it ie s you c h o o s e a r e both p o s s ib le and in g e n io u s. Look at the sa m p le ite m : T E L E P H O N E A . get h elp in an e m e r g e n c y a b c B. pound a n a il | C . k eep a dog n ea r a tr e e A lte r n a tiv e A r e f e r s to c a llin g so m e o n e for h elp , w h ich is a co m m o n u se and not in g e n io u s. A lte r n a tiv e B r e f e r s to u sin g the r e c e iv e r a s a h a m m er . T he u se of the phone is n ew but not in g e n io u s. A lte r n a tiv e C r e f e r s to u sin g the te le p h o n e c o r d a s a ro p e. U sin g a c o r d for a rop e is in g e n io u s and p o s s ib le to p e r fo r m , and the u se o f the phone has b een ch a n g ed . T h e r e fo r e C is the c o r r e c t a lte r n a tiv e . A lth ou gh a lt e r n a t iv e s A and B a r e p o s s ib le a lt e r n a t iv e s , c h o ic e C is m o st in g e n io u s . It in v o lv e s the c le v e r u se of the g iv e n o b je c t. R e m e m b e r to p ick the a lte r n a tiv e that is both p o s s ib le and m ost in g e n io u s. T h is t e s t h as 2 p a g e s w ith 15 ite m s on e a c h p a g e. You w ill h ave 4 m in u te s to w ork on e a c h p a g e. If you h ave q u e s tio n s , a sk th em now. ST O P H ERE WAIT FOR F U R T H E R IN ST R U C T IO N S P r e p a r e d by the A ptitudes R e s e a r c h P ro je c t, U niversity of Southern C alifornia, under U. S. G o vernm ent Grant O. E. 1791. Not to be rep ro d u ce d without p e rm issio n . E M T 06A 1/3 126 M OST E F F E C T I V E P A T H In a n ew TV g a m e , liv e c o n te s ta n ts a r e put in to five ro u n d b o o th s. S om e d is ta n c e f r o m the b o o th s is a r o o m w ith two d o o r s . E a c h c o n te s t a n t m u s t leav e h is booth a n d follow one of two lin e s p a in te d on the flo o r , so th a t h e m a y e n te r the r o o m th ro u g h one d o o r, tak e a p r i z e th at is th e r e , th e n lea v e th r o u g h the o th e r d o o r a n d r e t u r n to h is b o o th w ith o u t r e t r a c i n g an y lin e. T he c o n te s ta n t who is a b le to r e t u r n to h is b o o th is the w in n e r. M any of the lin e s p a in te d on the flo o r c r o s s , so t h e r e a r e r u l e s e a c h c o n t e s t a n t m u s t o b ey w h e n he is follow ing, one lin e : 1. If the line tu r n s (— | ), the c o n te s ta n t m u s t r e m a i n on the lin e a n d tu rn . 2. If a n o th e r lin e i n t e r s e c t s (— |—), he m u s t r e m a i n on the lin e h e is fo llow ing; he m a y n o t tu r n . 3. If a n o th e r lin e i n t e r s e c t s a t a dot {-|— ), he m a y tu r n in e i t h e r d ir e c tio n if h e w is h e s , o r he m a y co n tin u e on the lin e h e is fo llo w in g . 4. If the line le a d s to a n o th e r lin e , but th e r e is no dot w h e r e th ey m e e t (— | ), the c o n te s ta n t is a t a d e a d end an d lo s e s . The g a m e h a s m a n y d if f e r e n t a r r a n g e m e n t s of lin e s f r o m the b o o th s to the r o o m , so th at d if f e r e n t c o n te s ta n ts m a y w in the p r i z e s . G iv en a d i a g r a m of the b o o th s, lin e s , a n d r o o m , you a r e to q u ic k ly d e te r m in e w ho w ill w in the p r i z e . F o r e a c h d i a g r a m , on ly one c o n te s ta n t c a n w in. Look a t th e s a m p le ite m : N o tice th a t c o n te s ta n t A c a n n o t go to a n d f r o m the r o o m w ith o u t r e t r a c i n g the s a m e lin e fo r m o s t of thp. w ay. B c a n r e a c h the r o o m , but c a n n o t g e t b a c k w ith o u t r e t r a c i n g . C c a n g e t to the r o o m a n d r e t u r n w ith o u t an y r e t r a c i n g , so C is the w in n e r a n d C is m a r k e d on the a n s w e r s h e e t. O nce you h a v e d e t e r m in e d w ho the w in n e r is fo r a d i a g r a m , t h e r e is no n e e d to w o rk f u r t h e r on th a t d i a g r a m , you sh o u ld go on to the n e x t one a n d d e te r m i n e i t s w in n e r. 1 T h is t e s t h a s 2 p a g e s w ith 12 d i a g r a m s on e a c h p a g e. You w ill h a v e 5 m in u te s to w o rk on e a c h p a g e , so w o r k ra p id ly . If you have q u e s tio n s , a s k th e m now. S T O P H E R E W AIT F O R F U R T H E R IN S T R U C T IO N S A d a p ted w ith p e r m i s s i o n f r o m the A ir F o r c e T e s t C I401, by the A p titu d e s R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t , U n iv e r s ity of S o u th e rn C a lif o r n ia , u n d e r U. S. G o v e r n m e n t C o n tr a c t N o n r- 228(20), N ot to be r e p r o d u c e d w ith o u t p e r m i s s io n . EFI04A 1/3 127 L E T T E R P R O B L E M S E S I 02A T Z = U Y Y ■ - W Y X = T Z Y = V T V = Z Y W = Y X X = Z z u = w U U = T In the table ab ove, a T and a Z a re equal to a U; a Z and a Y a r e equal to a V, and so on. T his table can be u sed to so lv e the p ro b lem s in this te st. A p rob lem like: Y Z = could be so lv ed b eca u se th ere is a ru le that says: The o rd er of any le tte r s to the le ft of the = sign can be r e v e r s e d , and they w ill s t ill be equal to the sa m e a n sw er. T h er efo re , the p rob lem Y Z = can be so lv ed by r e v e r sin g the o rd er of the le tte r s to give Z Y = and by finding the a n sw er in the table. The an sw er to th is p rob lem is V. Now look at a b igger p rob lem . T Z U = ___ F r o m the tab le, the le tte r equal to T Z is U. The p rob lem can be rew ritten : U U = ___ , and so lv ed . The a n sw er is T. T h er efo re , the a n sw er to the w hole p rob lem is T, or we could say: T Z U = T. We could a ls o try to so lv e the p rob lem above by finding the le tte r equal to Z U, w hich is W, and m aking the sim p le r p rob lem T W = __. B ut no an sw er can be found this w ay, even by r e v e r sin g ord er. T h is m ean s that you m ay have to try s e v e r a l so lu tio n s to so m e p ro b lem s. Now look at an oth er p rob lem . U V Z = ___ We can try to find the a n sw er to U V, but the table g iv e s no a n sw e r. We could then try to find the an sw er to V Z, but the table d o esn 't give this an sw er eith er . R em em b er the rule that the o rd er of the le tte r s can be changed and they w ill s t ill equal the sam e a n sw er. If the o rd er is changed to g iv e Z U V = , Z U is equal to W, and the sim p le r p rob lem is now W V = ____ . Changing the o rd er again , W V is equal to V W, w hich is equal to Y. S in ce changing the o rd er d oesn 't change the a n sw er, U V Z = Y . The p rob lem X Z X could n ev er be so lv ed b eca u se th ere is no a n sw er for X Z = or Z X = ___ . If the o rd er is changed to give X X Z , we can find that X X = Z , but then Z Z = ____ has no a n sw e r, and the p rob lem can't be so lv ed . T h er efo re , you can se e that the p ro b lem s in th is te st can be of three kinds: A . P ro b le m s that can be solved with no changing of ord er. B . P ro b le m s that can be so lv ed only by changing ord er. C. P ro b le m s that cannot be so lv ed . The fir s t p rob lem in th ese in stru ctio n s is an A problem ; the secon d is a B problem ; and the third is a C p rob lem . In th is te s t you w ill be given p rob lem s and a re to judge w hich type of p rob lem each one is; then m ark your a n sw er sh e e t A , B , or C to in dicate your judgm ent. A void w ild g u e ssin g , a s there is a p en alty Tor wrong a n sw e rs. T his te st has 3 p ages with 10 item s on each p age. You w ill have 4 m in u tes to work on each page and w ill be told when 2 m inu tes rem ain for ea ch p age. If you have q u e stio n s, ask them now. STOP HERE. WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. P rep a red by the A ptitudes P ro jec t, U n iv ersity of Southern C aliforn ia, under U. S. G overn m ent C ontract N on r-228(20) and O. E . P r o je c t 1342. ESI02A N ot to be reprodu ced w ithout p e r m issio n . 1 /4 128 COMPLETE THOUGHTS In this test you are to decide whether a group of words expresses a complete thought. You are to judge each group of words, exactly as given. You are not to add or subtract any word or punctuation. If the expressed thought is complete, blacken the space under A on your answer sheet-, if the thought is incomplete, blacken the space under B. Now look at example I. Example I: A B The parrot with his bright feathers. I. || Q Example I has been marked B, for incomplete, because it does not express a complete thought. It only mentions the parrot and his feathers. Now look at example II. Example II: A B In the dawn as I was going. II. || | Example II has been marked B, for incomplete, because it does not tell what happened "as I was going." Sometimes, a part of an item expresses a complete thought. For example, Example II contains the complete thought "I was going." As a whole, however, the example expresses an incomplete thought. Judge each item exactly as given. Now look at example III. Example III: A B Light breaks in secret pieces. III. | || Although example III is an unfamiliar statement, it does express a complete thought, and so has been marked A, for complete. Each item in this test should be judged on whether it expresses a complete thought. It doesn't matter if the complete thought seems unfamiliar to you. This test has 2 pages with 2 5 items on each page, You will have 3 minutes to work on each page and will be told when each minute has passed. Work rapidly. Do not spend too much time on any one item. If you have questions, ask them now. STOP HERE WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS Reproduced with permission from the Aptitudes Research Project, University of Southern California. EMI01A 1/3 REFERENCES 1. Allison, R. B. Learning parameters and human abili ties. ONR Technical Report. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1960. 2. Baggaley, A. R. Intermediate correlational methods. New York: John Wiley 6 Sons, Inc., 1964. 3. Bechtoldt, H. P. Factor analysis and the investigation of hypotheses. Perceptual 6 Motor Skills, 1962, 14, 319-342. 4. Bourne, L. E., Jr. Human conceptual behavior. Boston: Allyn 6 Bacon, Inc., 1966. 5. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., and Austin, G. A. A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley 6 Sons, Inc., 1956. 6. Bunderson, V. C. Transfer of mental abilities at different stages of practice in solution of concept problems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J., 1965. 7. Cattell, R. B. Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Yonkers, N. Y.: Word, Inc., 1957. 8. Cattell, R. B., Saunders, D. R., and Stice, G. Hand book for sixteen personality factors questionnaire. Champaign, 111.: IPAT, 19 57. 9. Chown, S. M. Rigidity— A flexible concept. Psycho logical Bulletin, 1959, 3, 195-223. 129 130 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Comrey, A. L. A study of thirty-five personality dimensions. Educational S Psychological Measurement, 1962, 22, 543-552. Comrey, A. L. Personality factors--compulsion, depen dence, hostility, and neuroticism. Educational 6 Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24, 75-84. Comrey, A. L. The Comrey personality scales. Los Angeles: The University of California, 19 68. Comrey, A. L. and Duffy, K. Cattell and Eysenck factor scores related to Comrey personality factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 379-392. Comrey, A. L., Jamison, K., and King, N. Integration of two personality factor systems. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 147-160. Comrey, A. L. and Schlesinger, B. Verification and extension of a system of personality dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 46, 257-262. Cronbach, L. J. How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Learning and Individual Differences. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Book Co., 1967. Dienes, Z. P. Concept formation and personality. Bath, England: Leicester University Press, 19 59. 18. Dixon, W. J. Biomedical computer programs. Los Angeles: Health Science Computing Facility, University of California, 196 5. 131 19. Duncanson, J. P. Intelligence and the ability to learn. Research Bulletin (RB-64-29) Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 19 64. 20. Dunham, J. L., Guilford, J. P. and Hoepfner, R. Multivariate approaches to discovering the intellec tual components of concept learning. Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 206-221. 21. Eysenck, H. J. Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge, 1947. 22. Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. Manual for the Eysenck personality inventory. San Diego: Educa tional 6 Industrial Testing Service, 19 63. 23. Ferguson, G. A. On learning and human ability. Cana dian Journal of Psychology, 1954, 8, 95-114. 24. Ferguson, G. A. On transfer and the abilities of man. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1956, 10, 121-131. 25. Fleishman, E. A. Abilities at different stages of practice in rotary pursuit performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 60, 162-171. 26. Fleishman, E. A. and Hempel, W. E., Jr. The relation between abilities and improvement with practice in a visual discrimination reaction task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 40, 301-312. 132 27. Forster, N. C., Vinacke, W. E. and Digman, J. M. Flexibility and rigidity in a variety of problem situations. Journal of Abnormal 8 Social Psychology, 1955, 50, 211-216. 28. Fromm, E. and Hartman, L. D. Intelligence: A dynamic approach. New York: Doubleday S Co., 19 55. 29. Glaser, R. Concept learning and concept teaching. Reprint of a chapter to appear in R. Gagne (Ed.) Research approaches to school-subject learning. Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1968. 30. Guilford, J. P. Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 1959, 14, 469-479. 31. Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 32. Guilford, J. P. and Hoepfner, R. Structure-of-intel- lect factors and their tests. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 36, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1966. 33. Guilford, J. P. and Merrifield, P. R. The structure- of-intellect model: Its uses and implications. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 24. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1960. 34. Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S. The Guilford- Zimmerman temperament survey: Manual of instructions and interpretations. Beverly Hills: Sheriday Supply, Co., 1949. 133 35. Gumeson, G. G. A comparative analysis of the needs, values, cognitive abilities, and other personality characteristics of high and low creative junior college students. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Denver, 1963. 36. Horst, P. Personality: Measurement of Dimensions; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968, 37. Hunt, E. B. Concept learning. New York: John Wiley S Sons, Inc., 1962. 38. Ingebretsen, K. E. A factor analysis of the figural- evaluation abilities. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion. University of Southern California, 19 69. 39. Johnston, J. C. Relationship between intelligence and personality variables. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion. Oklahoma State University, 1965. 40. Jones, D. L. Relationship between concept learning and selected ability test variables for an adult population. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin, 1967. 41. Kapur, J. N. and Saxena, H. C. Mathematical Statis- tics. Delhi: S. Chand £ Co., 1961. 42. Kendler, T. S. Concept formation. In P. R. Farnsworth, 0. McNemar and Q. McNemar (Eds.) Annual Review of Psychology, 1961, 12, 447-472. 134 43. Kendler, H. H. and D'Amato, M. F. A comparison of reversal shifts and non-reversal shifts in human concept formation behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955, 49, 165-174. 44. Kuder, G. E. and Richardson, M. W. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 151-160. 45. Manis, M. Cognitive Processes. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 19 66. 46. Manley, M. B. A factor analytic study of three types of concept attainment tasks. Research Bulletin (RB-64-31) Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1965. 47. Mulgrave, M. B. A factor analytic study of three types of concept attainment tasks. Research Bulletin (RB-65-31) Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1965. 48. Rao, S. N. C. Strategy in concept attainment as a function of certain personality and cognitive vari ables. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo, 1966. 49. Raven, J. C. Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis, 1938. “ 50. Raven, J. C. Controlled Projection. London: H. K. Lewis, 1951. 135 51. Reed, S. C. Some relationships between conceptual complexity and mental abilities. Research Bulletin (RB-66-33) Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1966. 52. Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960. 53. Romanow, C. V. Anxiety level and ego-involvement as a factor in concept formation. Journal of Experimen tal Psychology, 1958, 66, 116-172. 54. Stake, R. E. Learning parameters, aptitudes, and achievements. Psychometric Monograph, 19 61, No. 9. 55. Torcivia, J. M. and Laughlin, P. R. Dogmatism and concept-attainment strategies. Journal of Person ality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 397-400. 56. Vacchino, R. B., Strauss, P. S. and Hochman, L. The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 261-273. 57. Vinacke, W. E. The psychology of thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 52. 58. Woodworth, R. S. Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt, 1938.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Role Of Intellectual Abilities In Concept Learning
PDF
The Relationship Of Multidimensional Scaling Spaces Of Trait Adjectives For Different Reference Persons
PDF
A Monte Carlo Evaluation Of Interactive Multidimensional Scaling
PDF
A Rotational Approach To Psychological Invariance
PDF
Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties
PDF
An Empirical Analysis Of The Relationship Between Risk Taking And Personal Probability Responding On Multiple-Choice Examinations
PDF
Prediction Of Therapeutic And Intellectual Potential In Mentally Retardedchildren
PDF
A Factor Analysis Of The Symbolic-Evaluation Abilities
PDF
The Psycho-Social World Of The Leprosy (Hansen'S Disease) Patient: Assessment Of Community Reaction To The Disease And Patient Psychologicalfunctioning
PDF
Personality Variables Associated With Narcotic Addiction As Measured By The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
PDF
Vacuum-Ultraviolet Plasma Spectroscopy On A Double-Arc With Measurements On Line-Strengths And Lineshapes; And On The Lowering Of Ionization Potentials
PDF
Factorial Stability As A Function Of Analytical Rotational Method, Type Of Simple Structure, And Size Of Sample
PDF
An Exploration Of Interpersonal Behavioral Possibilities And Probabilities
PDF
Differences Between Cues In Effectiveness As Retrieval Aids
PDF
The Subjective Utility Function As An Estimator Of Optimal Test Weights For Personnel Selection
PDF
A Validation Study For The Feshbach And Roe (1968) Test For Empathic Ability
PDF
Intellectual And Cognitive Factors In The Production Of Psychological Stress Reactions
PDF
The effects of an RNA polymerase in the improvement of verbal learning and memory
PDF
Delinquency As A Function Of Intrafamily Relationships
PDF
The Systematic Isolation And Validation Of Personality Determiners In The Handwriting Of School Children
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kumar, Santosh
(author)
Core Title
Personality Variables And Intellectual Abilities As Determinants Of Concept Learning
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, general
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Cliff, Norman (
committee chair
), Fox, Frank H. (
committee member
), Lovell, Constance (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-392817
Unique identifier
UC11361927
Identifier
7011373.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-392817 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7011373.pdf
Dmrecord
392817
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Kumar, Santosh
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
Tags
psychology, general