OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS/67531/metadc130604/m2/1/high... · Snygg and Combs

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF DISCREPANCY TO PERCEIVED PROBLEMS

OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

APPROVED!

/I

< A ^ j /

Major Professor / /

fS

Mi nor Professor

l i v IS/ <v > • , Dean of the School of Education

Deanv of the Graduate School"

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF DISCREPANCY TO PERCEIVED PROBLEMS

OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Jon Karl Wierenga, i. A.

Denton, Texas

June, 1965

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vil

Chapter

I . INTRODUCTION . I

Theoretical Background Belated Studies Statement of the Problem Hypotheses

Chapter Bibliography

II. METHOD 19

Subjects

Materials Procedure Statistical Treatment Chapter Bibliography

III. RESULTS 23

Analysis of Results Discussion of Data

IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 48

Summary Conclusions Recommendations

BIBLIOGRAPHY 54

iii

LIST OF TABLES

T a b l e

I .

I I .

I I I .

IV .

V.

¥ 1 .

VII

V I I I

IX.

X.

XI .

Page

Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r Al l Groups 23

Mean D i s c r e p a n c y S c o r e s f o r A l l Groups . . . . . . 24

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups and T h e i r T o t a l Problem S c o r e s 25

Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on the HPD S c a l e 26

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e HPD S e a l e 26

Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e FLE S c a l e 27

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e FLE S c a l e . . . 28

Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SBA S c a l e . . 29

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SRA S c a l e 29

Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SPR S c a l e 31

A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SPR S c a l e 32

iv

T a b l e Page

XII, Mean P rob lem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on t h e PPB S c a l e 33

XIII. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on the PPR S c a l e 33

XIV. Mean P rob l em S c o r e s f o r Discrepancy, G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e CSM S c a l e 34

XV. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e CSM S c a l e 35

XVI. Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e HF S c a l e 36

XVII. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the HF S c a l e 36

XVIII. Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e US S c a l e 3T

XIX. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e MS S c a l e 38

XX. Mean Prob lem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the ACW Scale 39

XXI. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e ACW S e a l e 39

XXII. Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on t h e FVE S c a l e 40

Table Page

XXIII. Analysis of Variance for Discrepancy, Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the FVE Scale 41

XXIV. Mean Problem Scores for Discrepancy, Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the CTP Scale. 42

XXV. Analysis of Variance for Discrepancy, Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the CTP Scale . 42

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

I. I l l u s t r a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n the cells 30

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

T h e o r e t i c a l Background

Within the pas t few y e a r s , t h e r e has been an i n c r e a s e

of a t t e n t i o n turned to t h e o r i e s of s e l f and the s e l f - e o n c e p t

such as seen in the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s of phenomenologi s t s

Kurt Lewin and Carl Rogers. In Lewi n ' s system, the term

employed i s the l i f e space , f o r Rogers* i t i s t h e phenomenal

f i e l d . Fhenomenological theory i s concerned p r i m a r i l y with

organisraic and i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s which lead to behavior

response in c o n t r a s t to t r a i t or type theory which i s response

cen te red or a s s o c i a t i v e theory which i s s t imu lus - r e sponse

c e n t e r e d .

The c e n t r a l c o n s t r u c t in Sogers ' t h e o r e t i c a l system i s the

concept of s e l f as a perce ived o b j e c t in the phenomenal f i e l d

of the i n d i v i d u a l . Rogers (15, p . 136) d e f i n e s s e l f - c o n c e p t

as . . an organized c o n f i g u r a t i o n of p e r c e p t i o n s of the

se l f which are admiss ib le to awareness ." The s e l f - c o n c e p t ,

according to Rogers, i s composed of p e r c e p t i o n s of o n e ' s

a b i l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The s e l f - c o n c e p t a lso inc ludes

pe rcep t s and ideas of the se l f in r e l a t i o n to o t h e r s and the

2

environment along with value qualities of both positive and

negative valence which are associated with experience and

obj ects.

Symonds employs the terms ego and self to explain his

theoretical position. The ego is d e f i n e d as the active

process which works to satisfy inner drives. The term self,

on the other hand, refers to bodily and m e n t a l processes as

they are observed and reacted to by the individual. The

self develops from childhood when we b e g i n . . to feel

ourselves separate and d i s t i n c t from others" (18, p. 62).

"The self structure is a term wh i c h may be used to designate

the pattern of I n t e r e s t s and values buiIt up around the self"

(18, p. 86). "As the ego enlarges it's power of perceiving,

thinking and acting, so the self, which is the awareness of

this g r o w i n g capacity for control and a d j u s t m e n t , has more

of which to become aware and hence develops concurrentlyM

(18, p. 87).

Snygg and Combs <16, pp. 10-15) take a position similar

to that of Rogers. They state that it is the phenomenal

field of the individual which is both the cause and the

d e t e r m i n a n t of behavior. The phenomenal field of the i n d i -

vidual is reality as he perceives it, however different than

the reality as perceived by others.

Coleman (5, p. 63) also m a i n t a i n s a position s i m i l a r to

Rogers. Coleman states that as the i n d i v i d u a l develops a

concept of his own identity, h e tends to v i e w each s i t u a t i o n

3

i n t h e l i g h t of f e e l i n g s and m o t i v e s . I n t h i s w a y , t h e

e f f e c t s of a p a r t i c u l a r environment become i n c r e a s i n g l y

d e p e n d e n t upon t h e i n t e r n a l f r a m e w o r k of t h e i n d i v i d u a l

p e r c e i v i n g i t . The s e l f t h e n i s a c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e

r a t h e r t h a n a p h y s i c a l o n e . Coleman h o l d s two c o n c e p t s of

self s imilar to Symonds. The self a s ob ject ( s i m i l a r to

the concept of self presented by Symonds) refers to the

i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception and evaluation of himself as some-

thing distinct from other persons or t h i n g s . "The self as

obj ect provides the individual with a sense of identity,

self-evaluation, and self ideal-aspirations for growth and

a c c o m p l i s h m e n t " ( 5 , p . 6 5 ) .

The self as process, s i m i l a r to Symond*s ego, refers

to ". . . the individual*s perception of himself as a

knower, s t r i v e r , and doer w i t h facilities for p e r c e i v i n g ,

e v a l u a t i n g , c h o o s i n g , and planning i n reference to himself"

( 5 , p . 6 3 ). "The self as process interprets new e x p e r i e n c e ,

maintains s e l f consi stency and continuity and degree of

self d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n " ( 5 , p p . 6 8 - 7 0 ) .

I n the p a s t few years, many theorists have taken the

position that self consistency or congruence i s the primary

dictum f o r adjustment. As l o n g as s e l f a s p r o c e s s c a n mee t

the demands of self as obj ect, psychological adj ustment i s

s a i d to exist. However, when the self a s process fails to

meet the demands of self as obj ect, maladj ustment may become

evident. According to Rogers, ". . . the extent to which he

4

[the individual] dimly perceives these incongruences and

discrepancies is a measure of his internal tension, and

determines the amount of defensive behavior" (15, p. 191).

Symonds maintains a position like that of Rogers* If

our self esteem becomes subjected to self evaluation

reflecting that we are not quite what we normally think of

our self as being, the self becomes threatened.

In general, i n c o n s i s t e n t concepts may not both be conscious at the same time. Ordinarily we maintain our Integrity by holding only one picture of our-selves before us and repressing all other pictures. I f , by chance, the concept of our self w h i c h we ordinarily hold becomes threatened, it arouses anxiety and produces discomfort (18, p. 104).

Lecky, in addition to Rogers and Symonds, supports a

theory of self consistency. A c c o r d i n g to Lecky (9, p. 1 1 9 ) ,

". . . the mind is a unit, an organized system of ideas,

all the ideas w h i c h belong to the system must seem to be

consistent with one another."

Snygg and Combs (16, p. 136) define the a d e q u a t e

phenomenal self as followsi "A phenomenal self is adequate

in the degree to which it is capable of accepting into its

organization any and all aspects of reality." F a i l u r e of

the individual to accept important differentiations into

his personal organization may result in persistent tension

states characteristic of maladjustment.

In general, phenomenological theory m a i n t a i n s the

central idea that consistency between the v a r i o u s aspects

of the self is e s s e n t i a l for a sound psychological state.

5

F a i l u r e of the se l f to main ta in s e l f cons i s t ency r e s u l t s in

a n x i e t y , ma lad jus tment , and d e f e n s i v e behav io r . A b i l i t y of

the se l f to achieve the goals demanded by the s e l f i d e a l , to

become congruent with the s e l f i d e a l , i s cons idered to be an

impor tant f a c t o r , p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to psycho log ica l a d j u s t -

ment .

Helated S tud ies

There has been a vas t amount of r e sea rch done in a reas

concerning the s e l f - c o n c e p t , s p e c i f i c a l l y those areas dea l i ng

with the r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between s e l f , i d e a l - s e l f

congruence and o the r p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s . Hanlon,

H o f s t a e l t e r and O'Connor (7) using the Cal i f forni a Test of

P e r s o n a l i t y and a modif ied Q-sor t t e chn ique , i n v e s t i g a t e d

the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between measures of adjus tment and s e l f ,

i d e a l - s e l f congruence in a sample of 78 high school s t u d e n t s .

The r e s u l t s of t h e i r study i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e l f and i d e a l -

se l f concepts tend to be g e n e r a l l y congruent and to be a

normally d i s t r i b u t e d t r a i t which i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to

t o t a l ad jus tmen t . Their f i n d i n g s f a i l e d to uncover any

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f , i d e a l - s e l f congruence

and age or i n t e l l i g e n c e . Nei ther was t h e r e any s i g n i f i c a n t

c o r r e l a t i o n found between I .Q. and t o t a l ad ju s tmen t , se l f

ad jus tmen t , or s o c i a l adj us tment .

Turner and Vanderl ippe (19) r e l a t e d ( s e l f - i d e a l ) d i s -

c repanc ies in a Q-sort technique to the GuiIford-Zimmerman

6

Temperament Survey. They found that those subjects high in

self-ideal congruence tended generally to have higher scores

in general activity, ascendence, sociability, emotional

stability, and thoughtfulness. In each instance, the scores

for those higher in self, ideal-self congruence were indi-

cative of better adjustment than the scores for subjects low

in self-ideal congruence.

Bi1Is (3) found discrepancies in self-ideal congruence

to be related to depression. On the basis of his findings

it was concluded that people with high discrepancies between

self and ideal-self differ from those with low discrepancy

in that high scores gave more signs of depression on the

Borschach. Bills hypothesized that their depressed feelings

resulted from an examination of the self in relation to the

ideal-self with the conclusion by the person that the gap was

so large as to never be resolved.

Bills (2) also investigated the relationships between

the Rorschach characteristics of both high and low scores in

self acceptance. The Borschach records of those persons

high in self acceptance were more frequently lower in F+%,

experience balance of greater C than ra—color being mainly

CF and C than FC. The records of persons low in self

acceptance had in general, greater F+%, experience balanee

of more M than C, color being mainly FC with no pure C.

Bills concluded from the results of his study that persons

who were low in self acceptance were of an intratensive type

7

having a w e l l c o n t r o l l e d a f f e c t . Persons s c o r i n g h i g h in

self acceptance were, in contrast, more extratensive with

less affect control.

Persons scoring low on self-ideal congruence, in addi-

tion to being usually more depressed, are also less capable

of directing aggression against instigators of frustration.

Worchel (20) investigated the relationship between self,

ideal-self discrepancy scores and the ability of the subjects

who scored low to express direct aggression. The results of

his experiment indicate that subjects with low self-ideal

discrepancies expressed significantly greater direct aggres-

sion against instigators of frustration than did subjects

with high discrepancies. These results were interpreted to

mean that persons with high discrepancies in self concept

were continually frustrated in their attempts to attain

their ego-ideals and consequently suffered from strong

feelings of self-devolution, helplessness, and insecurity.

Individuals with high discrepancies were also more likely

to blame themselves for not achieving their ideals than

persons with low discrepancy scores.

Lepine and Choroloskoff (10) related discrepancy scores

in a Q-sorl technique to expressed feelings of adequacy in

goal setting behavior. They found that the more an indi-

vidual tended to express feelings of adequacy the greater

was the congruence between his perceived and ideal-self and

8

the less dependent was the individual upon environmental or

social evaluation of his past performance in goal setting

behavior.

A study conducted by Swinn and Hill (19) related three

tests of anxiety to the Phillvis Self-Other Questionnaire.

The three tests of anxiety were the Taylor Manifest Anxiety

Scale. The Sarason General Anxiety Questionnaire. and The

Sarason Test Anxiety Questionnaire. The results of their

study indicate that anxiety, either general or specific,

appears to be related to lower self-acceptance and also, a

correspondingly lower acceptance of others.

Murphy (12) in a study of a group of college freshmen

found that actual and ideal-self discrepancies are associated

with manifest anxiety with respect to self-concept in stu-

dent role. In all cases, high discrepancy groups had higher

anxiety than low discrepancy groups. It may be concluded

from this and Swinn and Hill's study that anxiety is related

directly to self, ideal-self discrepancy and inversely

related to self acceptance and acceptance of others.

Bills (1) attempted, in his study, to determine if

there were differences in emotionality which accompanied

differences on ratings of traits during test-retest on the

Index of Ad i ustment and ¥ alues inventory. The degree of

emotionality was determined by length of time taken by sub-

jects to respond to free association of trait descriptive

terms. Bills concluded that " . . . when ratings are lowered

9

from test to retest, they are accompanied by decreases in

free association reaction time which are significantly

greater than the decrease associated with ratings which are

raised from test-retest" (18, p. 136).

In her study involving 113 college students, Omwake (13)

applied the Index of Adiustment and Values. Attitudes Towards

The Self and Others. and Self-Acceptance and Acceptance of

Others. The results of that study indicate that those stu-

dents who accept themselves also tend to be more accepting

of others and to perceive others as being more self

accepting. In contrast, those who are self rejecting tend

to hold a correspondingly low opinion of others and to

perceive others as being self-rejecting.

Hillson and Worchel (8) studied groups of normal,

neurotic, and schisophrenic subjects who were equated

"fairly'* well on sex, age, and educational level, and were

comparable, to an unspecified degree, with respect to socio-

economic class. The test used was the Self-Activity

Inventory. They found that neurotic subjects rated them-

selves significantly more unfavorably than did normal or

schizophrenic subjects while the latter two groups were

relatively similar in their scores.

In a similar study constructed by Friedman (6) it was

concluded that normals have more positive attitudes toward

the self which are founded on a more realistic basis. The

paranoid schizophrenic group also revealed positive self

10

attitudes? however, these attitudes were indicative of self-

enhancing defenses based on unrealistic self-appraisal. The

neurotic group, in contrast, maintained self attitudes of a

negative nature which were based upon a realistic perception

of maladj ustment in the self. Since the paranoid subjects

based their self conceptions on unrealistic bases, and

neurotics gave evidence of a lack of self acceptance, only

the normal group revealed any genuine self accepting atti-

tudes .

Calvin and Holtzraan's (4) study investigated the rela-

tionship between the self-concept and the inferred self.

The tests used in their research were the MMPI, and a list

of trait descriptive terras. The groups studied were the

members of four fraternities. Each subject was given the

MMPI and then asked to rank himself and all his associates

on seven personality traits. Those who the subject felt

were highest in each trait were placed on the top of the

list, others were ranked in succession below according to

the degree each was felt to possess each trait. Self

concept was determi ned by the rank order the person described

himself on each trait. Inferred self was determined by how

others ranked him. Self-depreciative scores were determined

by subj ects ranking themselves lower on the trait descrip-

tions than the rank given them by their associates. Self-

enhancing scores were determined by self ranked scores which

were higher than the rank given them by the group. The

11

results of the study indicate that the tendency to enhance

the self is inversely related to maladjustraentj the more

poorly adjusted the individual, the more self-depreciatory

he appeared to be.

Ottrochi, Parsons, and Dickoff (14) selected two groups

of subjects on the basis of several sub-tests of the MMPI.

One group was classified as Repressors, the other as

Sensitizers, Repressors were defined as . . those who

tend to use avoidance, denial, and repression of potential

threat and conflict as a primary mode of adaptation" (14,

p. 67). Those subjects who scored highest on scales selected

to determine Sensitizers were considered to be ". . . those

who are alerted to and perhaps overinterpret potential

threat and conflict and who use intellectual and obsessive

defenses as a primary mode of adaptation" (14, p. 67). Each

of these two groups was then given the Interpersonal Check

List which assessed self, ideal-self discrepancy. It was

found that repressors manifested smaller self-ideal dis-

crepancies than sensitizers. This difference was attributed

to the sensitizers tendency to attribute more negative

qualities to themselves.

Miyamoto and Dornbush (11) using a five point rating

scale assessing characteristics of intelligence, self-

confidence, physical attractiveness, and likeableness, came

to the conclusion that self-conception is based largely upon

the attitudes which others have towards each other. A

12

person who r a t e d h i m s e l f h igh on one or more t r a i t s was

u s u a l l y r a t e d h i g h e r by h i s a s s o c i a t e s , and a l s o e x p e c t e d

o t h e r s , i n d i v i d u a l l y or c o l l e c t i v e l y , to have r a t e d him h i g h e r

on t h o s e t r a i t s . A p e r s o n who r a t e d h i m s e l f low was u s u a l l y

r a t e d l o w e r , and p e r c e i v e d o t h e r s to have r a t e d him lower

a l s o . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h s t u d y lend e v i d e n c e

s u p p o r t i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i s t view of s e l f - c o n c e p t i o n .

I n summary, most r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t

p e r s o n s who are h i g h l y s e l f - c r i t i c a l , who show d i s s o n a n c e

or i ncongrui ty between t h e i r two c o n c e p t s of s e l f , how they

a c t u a l l y s e e t h e m s e l v e s and the way they would l i k e to b e ,

a r e l e s s w e l l a d j u s t e d than t h o s e whose s e l f i s c o n g r u e n t .

E v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e r s o n s w i t h d i s c r e p a n c y between

p e r c e i v e d s e l f and i d e a l c o n c e p t i o n s of s e l f are more

a n x i o u s , i n s e c u r e , and p o s s i b l y more d e p r e s s e d t h a n s e l f

a c c e p t i n g p e o p l e .

S t a t e m e n t of the Problem

I t h a s been h y p o t h e s i z e d ( 1 6 , p . 104; 18 , p . 95) t h a t

p e r s o n s who have a t t a i n e d a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h or low p o s i t i o n

i n a group , b a s e t h e i r f u t u r e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s or

f a i l u r e on t h e i r p r e v i o u s s t a n d i n g i n t h a t group. Those who

have been a b l e to a c h i e v e a r e l a t i v e l y good s t a n d i n g e x p e c t

to c o n t i n u e to e x c e l . Those who f a i 1 f r e q u e n t l y t h i n k of

t h e m s e l v e s as f a i l u r e s and e x p e c t t o f a i l . A change i n

group s t a n d i n g may i n turn cause a change be tween t h e

13

p e r c e i v e d self i n respect to expectations and a discrepancy

may a r i s e . T h i s i s frequently e x p e r i e n c e d by g r a d u a t e

students, most of whom have stood relatively high in their

undergraduate c l a s s e s . Now, as members of a highly selected

group, they must compete with others of equal and superior

a b i l i t y . Some, by force, w i l l occupy a middle position.

T h o s e who a r e l o w e r e d i r . their s t a n d i n g may r e b e l a g a i n s t

t h i n k i n g of themselves as average and become tortured i n

t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o a d j u s t t o t h e situation.

Persons, i n whom discrepancies e x i s t , s u f f e r from

v a r i o u s f e e l i n g s of unworthiness, s e l f - d e p r e c i a t o r y a t t i -

t u d e s , anxiety, and frequent depression. The problem i s to

determine if there are d i s c r e p a n c i e s between self-ideal

concept which come about through c h a n g e s i n position with

respect to group standing, and to what problems specifically

that change i s related to. To measure t h e s e relationships,

t h e Dilis' Index of Adi u s t m e n t and V a l u e s and t h e Moonev

Problem Check Li s t will be used.

The graduate and undergraduate groups wi11 be divided

i n t o high and low d i s c r e p a n c y groups on the basis of their

di screpancy scores. Those subj ects which score i n the

upper 50 per cent of discrepancy scores wi11 be placed i n

the high d i s c r e p a n c y group. Those subj ects which score i n

the lower 50 per cent of d i s c r e p a n c y scores will be placed

i n the low d i s c r e p a n c y group. Any differences which may be

noted between t h e g r a d u a t e and undergraduate group a s t o

14

problem s c o r e s on the Moonev P rob lem Check Lis t may be

r e l a t e d t o a change i n group standing. Any d i f f e r e n c e s

n o t e d be tween h i g h and low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s as to p rob l em

s c o r e s may be r e l a t e d t o p e r c e i v e d s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y .

In t h i s s t u d y s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y w i l l be o p e r a t i o n a l l y

d e f i n e d as t h e s c o r e o b t a i n e d on t h e B i l l s * I n d e x of

Ad i u s t m e n t and V a l u e s . P r o b l e m s which one p e r c e i v e s h im-

s e l f t o p o s s e s s w i l l be o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as t h o s e

s c o r e s o b t a i n e d on t h e Moonev Prob lem Cheek Li s t .

H y p o t h e s e s

C o n c e r n i n g t h i s study, the following hypotheses w i l l

be i n v e s t i g a t e d :

1 . The h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p w i l l h a v e a s i g n i f i -

c a n t l y h i g h e r p r o b l e m s c o r e on t h e Moonev Problem Check

L i s t (MPCL) t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .

2 . The high d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a signifi-

cantly h i g h e r p r o b l e m s c o r e on t h e " H e a l t h and P h y s i c a l

Development" scale of the MPCL than wi11 the low d i s c r e p a n c y

group.

3 . The h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i -

c a n t l y h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e " F i n a n c e s - L i v i n g

C o n d i t i o n s - Employment" s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e

low discrepancy group.

4 . The high discrepancy group wi11 h a v e a s i g n i f i -

c a n t l y higher problem score on the " S o c i a l and Recreational

15

A c t i v i t i e s " s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y

g r o u p .

5 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e " S o c i a l — P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e l a t i o n s "

s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n will t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .


h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e " P e r s o n a l — P s y c h o l o g i c a l

R e l a t i o n s " s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y

g r o u p .


higher problem score on the "Courtship - Sex - M a r r i a g e "

s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e lots d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .

8 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group wi11 have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e "Home and Fami ly" s c a l e of t h e

MPCL t h a n w i l l the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p ,

9 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y g roup w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e "Mora l s and R e l i g i o n " s c a l e of

t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .

10. The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h i g h e r p rob lem s c o r e on t h e "Adj us t raent to School Work"

s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .

11. The graduate group wi11 have a significantly higher

problem score on the " A d j u s t m e n t to School Work" scale of

the MPCL than will the undergraduate group.

1 2 . The high d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a significantly

higher problem s c o r e on the "Future—Vocational and

16

Educational" scale of the MPCt than will the low discrepancy

group.

13. Th© high discrepancy group will have a significantly

higher problem score on the "Curriculum and Teaching

Procedures" scale of the MPCL than wi11 the low discrepancy

group.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bills, R. E., "A Validation of Changes in Scores on the Index of Adjustment and Values as Measures of Changes in Emotionality/' Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 135-138.

2. Bills, R, E., "Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High and Low in Acceptance of Self," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVII (1953), 36-38.

3. Bills, R. E., "Self Concept and Rorschach Signs of Depression," Journal of Consultino Psvchology. XVIII (1954), 135-137,

4. Calvin, A. D. and H. Holtzman, "Adjustment and the v Discrepancy Between Self Concept and Inferred Self,"

Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 39-44.

5. Coleman, James C., Personality Dynamics and Effective Behavior. Chicago, Scott, Foresraan and Co., 1960.

6. Friedman, I., "Phenomenal, Ideal, and Projected Concepts of Self," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LI (1955) , 611-615.

7. Hanlon, T. E., P. R. Hofstaetter, and J. P. O'Connor, L.y "Congruence of Self and Ideal Self in Relation to

Personality AdJ ustment," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 215-217.

4. Hillson, J. S. and P. Worchel, "Self Concept and Defen-; sive Behavior in the Maladjusted," Journal of Consulting

Psychology. XXI (1957), 83.

9. Lecky, Prescott, Self Consistency—A Theory of Personality. New York, Island Press, 1951.

10. Lepine, L. T. and B. Choroloskoff, "Goal Setting Behavior, Expressed Feelings of Adequacy, and the Correspondence Between the Perceived and Ideal Self," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XI (1955), 135-137.

17

18

11. Miyamoto, S, F, and S. M. Dornbush, "A Test of Interactionist Hypotheses of Self-Conception," American Journal of Sociology. LXI (1959), 399-403.

12. Murphy, V. M., "The Relationship Between Self-Concept and Manifest Anxiety in College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts. XXIII (1963), 3499.

13. Orawake, K. F., "The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Personality Inventories," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 443-446.

14. Ottrochi, Parsons and Dickoff, "Changes in Self-Ideal Discrepancy in Repressors and Sensitizers," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LXI (1960), 67-72.

15. Rogers, Carl R., Client-Centered Therapy. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951.

16. Snygg, Donald and Arthur Combs, Individual Behavior. New York, Harper and Bros., 1949.

17. Swinn, R. M. and H. Hill, "Influence of Anxiety on the Relationship Between Self-Acceptance and Acceptance of Others," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XXVIII (1964), 116-119.

18. Symonds, Perclval M., The Ego and the Self. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1951.

19. Turner, R. H. and E. H. Vanderlippe, "Self-Ideal Congruence as an Index of Adjustment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LVII (1958), 202-206.

20. Worchel, P., "Personality Factors in the Readiness to Express Aggression," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XIV (1958), 355-359.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subj ects

Sixty subjects were selected from graduate and under-

graduate classes in the School of Education at North Texas

State University. Twenty-six of the subjects were graduate

students, the remaining thirty-four undergraduates were

taken from junior and senior classes. Only those under-

graduate subjects who intended to go on towards a master's

degree participated in the study.

Materials

Each of the graduate and undergraduate groups were

administered the Moonev Problem Check List (MPCL) and Bills'

Index of Ad 1ustment and Values (IAV).

Index of Adiustment and Values was developed in

an attempt to objectively measure personality variables

associated with perceptual theory, more specifically, theory

related to client centered therapy.

The IAV is composed of 49 trait words taken from

Miports' list of 17,953 traits (1). Originally, 124 words

were selected on the basis of their frequency of occurrence

19

20

in client-centered interviews (6) and because they seem to

represent clear examples of self concept definitions. Out

of the original 124, 49 were selected on the basis of test-

retest reliability studies. To arrive at the discrepancy

score, the s u b j e c t rates himself on each of the 49 trait

words numerically on a five point scale as to how the trait

word applies to him. The s u b j e c t next rates himself as to

how he would like the trait word to apply to h i m . The

discrepancy score is the sum total of the discrepancies

between each rating of each of the 49 traits. Self discre-

p a n c y is therefore operationally defined as the total

discrepancy score on the IAV.

The MPCL college f arm, 1950 revision, is an instruraent

composed of 330 short phrases which cover eleven problem

areas coraoon to most students (4, 5). The student uses the

list by m a r k i n g the problems whi ch are of particular concern

to him and by w r i t i n g a short summary of his problems in his

own words (5). The subj ects were asked to omit the summary

in this study. Each subject was instructed to underline

those problems which he felt applied to himself, and to

circle the underlined problems with which he is particularly

concerned or which trouble him the most. In this study,

each underli ned problem was given a value of one point.

Problems w h i c h were both underli ned and ci rcled were counted

two points.

21

Procedure

All t h e t e s t s were adminis te red by the i n v e s t i g a t o r

dur ing r e g u l a r classroom pe r iods wi th in a one week p e r i o d .

There was no s p e c i f i c order as to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the

t e s t s . The s u b j e c t s were asked to fo l low the i n s t r u c t i o n s

p r i n t e d on the t e s t i n s t r u c t i o n s h e e t .

S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment

Each s u b j e c t ' s performance y ie lded 13 scores—one XAV

discrepancy s c o r e , eleven MPCL problem area s c o r e s , and the

t o t a l MPCL s c o r e .

Both the g radua te and undergraduate groups were d iv ided

i n t o high and low di screpancy groups by s p l i t t i n g each of

t he se two groups at the median d i sc repancy s c o r e . Thus t h e r e

were 18 s u b j e c t s in the high undergraduate di sere pancy group

and 18 s u b j e c t s in the low undergraduate d iscrepancy group.

There were 12 s u b j e c t s in the high gradua te d i sc repancy group,

and 12 subj e c t s in the low gradua te d i sc repancy group.

Eleven 2x2 f a c t o r i a l des igns were used to compare high

and low d i sc repancy scores to the problem scores in each

area of the MPCL fo r both g radua te and undergraduate s u b j e c t s .

A t w e l f t h 2x2 f a c t o r i a l design was used to compare the high

and low d i sc repancy group to the t o t a l number of problems

checked on the MPCL fo r both gradua te and undergraduate

s u b j e c t s . The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r a l l hypotheses was

se t at .05 .

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Allport, G. W. and H. S. Olbert, "Trait-Namesj A Psychological Study," Psychological Monographs. 1936, No. 211.

2. Bills, B. E., "A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adlastnent and Values with Behavior on Level of Aspiration Tasks," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 206-212.

3. Fick, B. L., "The Problem Check Listi A Valuable Approach in Counseling," Occupations. XXX (1952), 410-412.

4. Mclntyre, C. J., "The Validation of the Moonev Problem Check List Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXVII (1953), 270-272.

5. Mooney, R. L., "Exploratory Research on Student Problems," Journal of Educational Research. XXXVII (1943), 218-224.

6. Rogers, C. R ., Client-Centered Therapy. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1951.

7. Snygg, D. and A. W. Combs, Individual Behavior. New York, Harper, 1949.

22

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Analysis of Results

Thirteen hypotheses were presented in the first chapter

Each hypothesis was taken one at a time and the results of

each are presented. A 2x2 factorial design and F test were

utilized to test the interaction of the cells and the level

of significance.

Table I presents the mean problem scores for the dis-

crepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups.

TABLE I

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR ALL GROUPS

Groups High Discrepancy

Group Problem Score

Low Discrepancy Group

Problem Score Total Mean

Problem Score

Graduate 33.92 20.83 27.37

Undergraduate 60.00 27.16 43.58

Total Mean Problem Score 49.57 24.63 —

Table II presents the mean discrepancy scores for the

discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups.

23

24

TABLE II

MEAN DISCREPANCY SCORES FOE ALL GBOUPS

Groups

High Discrepancy Group

Di screpancy Score

Low Discrepancy Group

Discrepancy Score

Total Mean Discrepancy

Score

Graduate 49.50 21.16 34.87

Undergraduate 59.38 29.32 44.36

Total Mean Discrepancy 55.43 25.70 «««•

An analysis of Tables I and II reveals that the mean

problem scores and the mean discrepancy scores of the

undergraduate groups are higher than the mean problem scores

and mean discrepancy scores of the graduate groups. Also,

the total mean problem score of the high discrepancy group

is higher than the total mean problem score of the low

discrepancy groups.

Table III presents an analysis of variance for discrep-

ancy* graduate, and undergraduate groups on the MPCL.

It may be concluded from the results presented in

Table III that the high discrepancy group had a significantly

greater problem score on the MPCL than did the low discrepancy

group. Therefore, the hypothesis that the high discrepancy

group would check more problems th an the low d i s c r e p a n c y

group was confirmed at the .01 level of confidence. It is

25

also evident that the undergraduate group had a higher mean

problem score on the MPCL than did the graduate group. The

difference between the two groups was significant at the

.05 level of confidence.

TABLE III

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS AND THEIR

TOTAL PROBLEM SCORES

Source Sum of Squares d/f V ari ance F P

Bows COis.) 9,325.07 1 9,325.07 5.44 .01

Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 3,783.03 1 3,783.03 4.05 .05

Within 702.31 56 12.54 —

Interaction 15.62 1 5.62 1.25 —

Total 785.73 59 — — —

Table IV presents the mean average problem scores on

the "Health and Physical Development" (HPD) scale of the

MPCL for both graduate and undergraduate discrepancy

groups.

26

TABLE IV

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOE DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE HPD SCALE

Groups Graduate Under-graduate Marginal*

High Discrepancy 3,00 4.76 4.07

Low Di$crepancy 2.25 1.93 2.07

Marginal 2.63 3.36 —

^Marginal scores are the m e a n scores for the contained cells of each c o l u m n and row in which they appear.

Table V presents the analysis of variance for graduate

and undergraduate discrepancy groups on the HPD scale of

the HPCL.

TABLE V

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE HPD SCALE

Source Sum of Squares

d/f Vari ance F P

Rows (Dl8.) 60.00 1 60.00 4.78 .05

Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 7.80 1 7.80 .62

Within 702.31 56 12.54 — —

Interaction 15.62 1 15.62 1.25

Total 785.73 59 — —

27

An a n a l y s i s of Table V r e v e a l s t h a t t h e high d i s -

c repancy group had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r problem s c o r e

on t h e HPD s c a l e than did t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y groupj t hu s

con f i rming h y p o t h e s i s two at t h e ,05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .

There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t he HPD s c a l e between

t h e g r a d u a t e and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roups .

Table VI presents the mean problem scores on the

" F i n a n c e s — L i v i n g Conditions—Employment" (FLE) scale of

t he MPCL for g r a d u a t e , u n d e r g r a d u a t e , and d i s c r e p a n c y

g roups .

TABLE VI

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE FLE SCALE

Groups Graduate Under-g r a d u a t e Margina l

High D isc repancy 2.67 5 .27 4.23

Low Discrepancy 2.25 2.55 2.43

Marginal 2.46 3 .92 —

Table VII p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r

d i s c r e p a n c y , graduate and undergraduate groups on the FLE

s c a l e of t he MPCL.

TABLE VII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOE D I S C R E P A N C Y , G R A D U A T E AND U N D E R G R A D U A T E GROUPS ON THE FLE SCALE

28

Source Sum of d/f Vari ance F P Source Squares

d/f Vari ance

Bows (Dis.) 48.60 1 48.60 3.60 —

Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 30.63 1 30.63 2.27 —

Within 754.97 56 13.48 « —

Interaction 19.14 1 19.14 1.42 —

Total 853.33 59 — — —

An analysis of Table VII reveals no significant dif-

ference to exist between discrepancy groups nor between

graduate and undergraduate groups as to their problem

scores on the FLE scale of the MPCL. In view of the above

results hypothesis three m u s t be rejected.

Table VIII presents the mean scores on the "Social

and Recreational Activities" (SSA) scale of the MPCL for

discrepancy, graduate and undergraduate groups.

29

TABLE ¥111

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SRA SCALE

Groups Graduate Under-

graduate Marginal

High Discrepancy 3 , 5 0 7 . 2 8 5 . 7 7

Low Discrepancy 4 . 8 3 3 . 5 0 4.03

Marginal 4 . 2 1 5 . 3 9 —

Table IX presents the analysis of variance for graduate,

undergraduate, and discrepancy groups on the SRA scale of

the MPCL.

TABLE IX

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SRA SCALE


d / f Vari ance F P

Rows (Di s.) 45.07 1 45.07 2.31 —

Columns (Grad. and Ondergrad.) 21.51 1 21.51 1 .10 **»«*»

Withi n 1,094.78 56 19.55 m **» mm

Interaction 9 4 . 0 4 1 9 4 . 0 4 4 . 8 1 .05

Total 1 , 2 5 5 . 4 0 59 — — —

30

It may be concluded, from the results presented in

Table IX, that there is on interaction present between the

cells. Figure 1 illustrates the interaction between the

mean discrepancy, graduate and undergraduate group scores

on the SRA scale of the MPCL.

Me a si Bit. Scores

80

70

60

§0

40

30

20

10

0

Undergraduate

Graduate

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ?

Mean SIA Scores

. 1—'Illustration of interaction between the cells.

It is apparent, from the illustration of interaction

presented in Figure 1, that undergraduates with high discrep-

ancy scores have scored high on the SEA scale while under-

graduates with low discrepancies scored low. However, this

31

trend was reversed for the graduate group. The high

discrepancy graduate group scored low on the SRA while the

low discrepancy graduate group scored high. The interaction

between the groups on the SRA scale was significant at the


Table X presents the mean problem scores on the "Social-

Psychological Relations" (SPR) scale of the MPCL for

discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups.

TABLE X

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SPR SCALE


graduate Margi nal

High Discrepancy 3.17 5.44 4.53

Low Discrepancy .50 2.56 1.73

Margi nal 1.83 4.00

Table XI presents an analysis of variance for

discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the SPR

scale of the MPCL.

32

TABLE XI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SPR SCALE

S o u r c e Sua of S q u a r e s i / f V a r i a n c e F P

Rows ( D i s . ) 1 1 7 . 6 0 1 1 1 7 . 6 0 7 .57 . 0 1

Columns (Grad. and

Undergrad . ) 6 7 . 6 0 1 6 7 . 6 0 4 . 5 3 . 05

W i t h i n 6 6 9 . 5 6 56 1 5 . 5 3 — watte

I n t e r a c t l o n . 18 1 . 1 6 . 0 1 mm m*

T o t a l 1 , 0 5 4 . 9 3 59 — — —

I t i s e v i d e n t , upon a n a l y s i s of T a b l e XI t h a t t h e h i g h

d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r mean s c o r e on

t h e SPR t h a n d i d the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e

be tween t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e

. 0 1 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e , t h e r e b y c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s f i v e .

T h e r e was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r mean s c o r e on t h e SPR

s c a l e f o r t h e u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p than f o r t h e g r a d u a t e

g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e two g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t

a t t h e . 05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .

Table XII p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,

g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s on t h e " P e r s o n a l - P s y c h o -

l o g i c a l R e l a t i o n s " (PPR) s c a l e of t h e MPCL.

33

TABLE XII

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE PPR SCALE


graduate Marginal



Marginal 3,33 4.39 —

Table XIII presents an analysis of variance for

discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the PPR

scale of the MPCL.

TABLE XIII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE PPR SCALE


d/f Variance F P

Rows (Dis.) 176.82 1 176.82 10.01 .01

Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 16.90 1 16.90 .96 *****

Within 989.67 56 17.67 — —

Interaction 3.60 1 3.60 .20 —

Total 1,186.98 59 — —

34

An a n a l y s i s of T a b l e XIII r e v e a l s t h a t t h e h igh

discrepancy group had a higher wean score on the PPR scale

t h a n d id the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e between

t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l

of c o n f i d e n c e , t h u s c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s s i x . The re was ,

however , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e g r a d u a t e

and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s on t h e PPR s c a l e

T a b l e XIV p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r g r a d u a t e ,

undergraduate and d i s c r e p a n c y groups on the "Courtship—

S e x — M a r r i a g e " (CSM) s c a l e of t h e MPCL.

TABLE XIV

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CSM SCALE

Groups G r a d u a t e Under -g r a d u a t e

M a r g i n a l

High D i s c r e p a n c y 1 .42 3 . 7 2 2 , 8 0

Low D i s c r e p a n c y , 9 2 1 .67 1 .37

Margi na l 1 .17 2 . 6 9 —

T a b l e XV p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r

d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e , and undergraduate groups on t h e

CSM s c a l e of the MPCL.

35

TABLE XV

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB D I S C R E P A N C Y , GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CSM SCALE

S o u r c e Sum of S q u a r e s

d / f V a r i ance F P

Rows (Di s . ) 3 0 . 8 7 1 3 0 . 8 2 4 . 9 1 . 0 5

Columns ( G r a d . and

U n d e r g r a d . ) 3 3 . 6 1 1 3 3 . 6 1 5 . 3 6 . 0 5

W i t h i n 3 5 1 . 4 4 56 6 . 2 8 — *m mm

I n t e r a c t i o n 8 . 7 1 1 8 . 7 1 1 . 3 9 —

T o t a l 4 2 4 . 5 8 59 — mm mm

The r e s u l t s , as p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e XV, i n d i c a t e t h a t

t h e h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p had a g r e a t e r mean s c o r e on t h e

CSM s c a l e t h a n d i d t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p . The d i f f e r -

ence be tween t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t

t h e . 05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s s e v e n .

In a d d i t i o n , t h e u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p had a h i g h e r mean s c o r e

t h a n d i d t h e g r a d u a t e g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e s e

two g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .

T a b l e XVI p r e s e n t s t h e mean number of p r o b l e m s c h e c k e d

on t h e "Home and Fami ly ' 1 ( H F ) s c a l e f o r d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e ,

and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s .

36

TABLE XVI

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE HF SCALE


graduate Marginal

High Discrepancy 2.17 2,78 2.53

Low Discrepancy .92 .78 .83

Margi nal 1,54 1.78 — .

Table XVII presents an analysis of variance for

discrepancy, graduate and undergraduate groups on the HF

scale of the MPCL.

TABLE XVII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOE DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THB HF SCALE


d/£ Vari ance F P

Rows (Dis.) 43.35 1 43.35 6.69 .05

Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) .80 1 .80 .12 ***»»

Within 366.81 56 6.55 — —

Interaction 2.02 1 2.02 .31 —

Total 412.98 59 — — —

37

An a n a l y s i s of t h e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e XVII

r e v e a l t h a t t h e h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y g roup had a h i g h e r mean

s c o r e on t h e BF s c a l e t h a n d i d t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .

The d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e c o n f i r m i n g

h y p o t h e s i s e i g h t . T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ,

h o w e v e r , b e t w e e n t h e g r a d u a t e and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s .

Table XVIII p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,

g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s on t h e " M o r a l s and

R e l i g i o n " (MR) s c a l e of t h e MPCL.

TABLE XVIII

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE MR SCALE

Groups G r a d u a t e U n d e r -g r a d u a t e

M a r g i n a l

High D i s c r e p a n c y 2 . 0 8 4 . 8 9 3 . 7 6

Low D i s c r e p a n c y 2 . 0 0 2 . 6 1 2 . 3 6

M a r g i n a l 2 . 0 4 3 . 7 5 —

T a b l e XIX p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r

d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e , and undergraduate g r o u p s on t h e MR

s c a l e of t h e MPCL.

TABLE XIX

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE MR SCALE

36

Source Sua of Squares

d/f Variance F V

Sows ( D i s . ) 2 9 . 4 0 1 2 9 . 4 0 2 . 0 6 —

Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 4 2 . 0 3 1 4 2 . 0 3 2 . 9 4 mm mm

Within 8 0 0 . 9 7 56 1 4 . 0 3 am «*

Interaction 1 7 . 3 4 1 1 7 . 3 4 1 . 2 1 mm m.

Total 8 8 9 . 7 3 59 — —

An examination of Table XIX reveals that no significant

difference exists between high and low discrepancy groups

on the MR scale. In view of the above results, hypothesis

nine roust be rejected. There was also no significant

difference between graduate and undergraduate groups on

this scale.

Table XX presents the mean scores for discrepancy,

graduate, and undergraduate groups on the "Adjustment to

School Work* (ACW) scale of the MPCL.

39

TABLE XX

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE AC! SCALE

Group Graduate Under-graduate

Margi nal



Margi nal 3.58 7.17 —

Table XXI presents the analysis of variance for

discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the ACW

scale of the MPCL.

TABLE XXI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE ACW SCALE


d/f Variance F P

Rows (Dig.) 240.00 1 240.00 9.60 .01

Colurans (Grad. and Undergrad.) 168.10 1 168.10 6.72 .05

Within 1,399.89 56 24.10 — —

Interaction 13.61 1 13.61 .54 —

Total 1,821.60 59 — —

40

A n a l y s i s of T a b l e XXI r e v e a l s t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

g r e a t e r mean s c o r e was a t t a i n e d on t h e ACW s c a l e by t h e

h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group t h a n by t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .

The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two g roups was s i g n i f i c a n t a t

t h e . 01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e , c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s t e n .

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , a t t h e .05 l e v e l of

c o n f i d e n c e , be tween g r a d u a t e and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s , The

u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roup had a h i g h e r mean s c o r e on t h e ACW

s c a l e t h a n d id t h e g r a d u a t e g r o u p . In view of t h e s e r e s u l t s ,

h y p o t h e s i s e l e v e n must be r e j e c t e d .

T a b l e XXII p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s on "The F u t u r e -

V o c a t i o n a l and E d u c a t i o n a l " ( F V E ) s c a l e f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,

g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s .

TABLE XXII

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND U N D E R G R A D U A T E GROUPS ON THE FVE SCALE

Group G r a d u a t e Under -g r a d u a t e

M a r g i n a l

High D i s c r e p a n c y 2 . 2 5 5 . 2 8 4 .07

Low D i s c r e p a n c y 1 .42 1 .94 1 . 7 3

M a r g i n a l 1 . 8 3 3 . 6 1 « « WW

T a b l e XXIII p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r

d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roups on t h e FVE

s c a l e of t h e MPCL.

41

TABLE XXIII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR D I S C R E P A N C Y , GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE FVE SCALE

Source Sum of S q u a r e s

d / f V a r i ance F P

Rows (Di®.) 81 .67 1 8 1 . 6 7 10 .64 . 01

Columns (Grad . and

U n d e r g r a d . ) 4 5 . 5 1 1 4 5 . 5 1 5 . 9 3 . 05

Wi th in 4 2 9 . 7 2 56 7 . 6 7 — —

I n t e r a c t i o n 22 .50 1 2 2 . 5 0 2 . 9 3 <m mm

T o t a l 579 .40 59 — —

An a n a l y s i s of T a b l e XXIII r e v e a l s t h a t t h e high

d i s c r e p a n c y group had a higher m e a n s c o r e on t h e FVE s c a l e

t han d i d t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p , c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s

twelve a t t h e . 01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . T h e r e was a l s o a

s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r mean s c o r e f o r u n d e r g r a d u a t e s on t h e

FVE s c a l e t h a n f o r g r a d u a t e s .

T a b l e XXIV p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,

g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roups on t h e " C u r r i c u l u m and

T e a c h i n g P r o c e d u r e " ( C T P ) s c a l e of t h e M P C L .

42

TABLE XXIV

MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CTP SCALE

Group Graduate Under-graduate

Margi nal



Margi nal 1.38 3.56 —

Table XXV presents an analysis of variance for

discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the

CTP scale of the MPCL.

TABLE XXV

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CTP SCALE

Source Sura of Squares

d/f V ari ance F P

Rows (Di 8.) 28.02 1 28.02 2.42 —

Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 68.47 1 68.47 5.91 .05

Within 648.36 56 11.58 — —

Interaction 26.14 1 26.14 2.26 *****

Total 770.98 59 — — —

43

One can s e e , from an examination of Table XXV, that

t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e high and low

d i s c r e p a n c y groups on s c a l e CTP. In view of t h e above

r e s u l t s , h y p o t h e s i s t h i r t e e n must be r e j e c t e d . However,

t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between g r a d u a t e and

undergraduate g r o u p s . The g r a d u a t e group s ca r ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y

lower on the CTP s c a l e than did the undergraduate group. The

d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups was s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e

.05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .

D i s c u s s i o n of Data

The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d in t h i s study g ive ev idence

s u p p o r t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s that s e l f - i d e a l d i s c r e p a n c y does

have a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e number of problems

which one p e r c e i v e s h imsel f to p o s s e s s . One may say t h a t

the more the i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s incongruencies and con-

f l i c t s w i t h i n the phenomenological framework of the s e l f ,

so a l so w i l l t h e ind iv idua l p e r c e i v e d i s c r e p a n c i e s and

c o n f l i c t s w i t h i n the phenomenal f i e l d . The c o n f l i c t s

perceived to be p r e s e n t in the f i e l d may be , to some e x t e n t ,

the r e s u l t of i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t s brought about by d i s t o r t e d

symbolisms e x i s t i n g in t he conscious mind of t h e p e r c e i v e r

i f one were to f o l l o w t h e p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y of Ca r l Rogers .

The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s , which s ta ted the high d i s c r e p a n c y

group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem s core on the

44

MPCL than the low discrepancy group, was supported at the


The second hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-

ancy group would have a significantly higher problem score

on the "Health and Physical Development" scale of the MPCL

than the low discrepancy group, was supported at the .05

level of confidence.

The third hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-


on the "Finances - Living Conditions - Employment" scale of

the MFCL than the low discrepancy group,was not confirmed.

The fourth hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-


on the "Social and Recreational Activities" scale of the

MPCL than the low discrepancy group, was not supported. The

results of this subscale was an interaction. The under-

graduate group with high discrepancy scores scored high on

the SRA while undergraduates with low discrepancies scored

low. This trend was reversed for the graduate group. The

high discrepancy graduate group scored low on the SRA while

the low discrepancy graduate group scored high. The inter-

action between the groups on the SRA scale was significant

at the .OS level of confidence.

The fifth hypothesis, which stated the high discrepancy

group would have a significantly higher problem score on the

45

" S o c i a l - P s y c h o l o g i c a l Re la t ions" s c a l e than the low

discrepancy group, was supported at the .01 l eve l of

con f idence .

The s i x t h h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i sc repancy

group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h igher problem score on

the "Pe r sona l -Psycho log i ca l Ge la t ions" s c a l e than the low

d iscrepancy group, was supported at the .01 l eve l of

con f idence .

The seventh h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i s c r e p -

ancy group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem score

on the "Cour t sh ip—Sex--Marr iage" s c a l e than the low

d isc repancy group, was supported at the .05 l eve l of

con f idence .

The e ighty h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i s c r e p -

ancy group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem score

on the "Home and Family" s c a l e than the low d isc repancy

group, was supported at the .05 l eve l of c o n f i d e n c e .

The ninth h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i sc repancy

group wouId have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h igher problem score on the

"Morals and Re l ig ion" s ca l e than the low d i sc repancy group,

was not suppor ted .

The t en th h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d t ha t the high

d i sc repancy group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem

score on the "Adjustment to School Work" s c a l e than the low

46

discrepancy group, was supported at the .01 level of

confidence,

The eleventh hypothesis, which stated the graduate group

would have a significantly higher problem score on the

"Adjustment to School Work" scale than the undergraduate

group, was not supported. The results of this scale were,

in fact, the opposite of the hypothesized results. It was

found that the graduate group had a significantly lower

problem score on this scale than did the undergraduate group.

The difference between these two groups was significant at

the .05 level of confidence.

The twelfth hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-


on the " F u t u r e — V o c a t i o n a l and Educational" scale than the

low discrepancy group, was supported at the .01 leve1 of

confidence.

The thirteenth hypothesis, which stated the high

discrepancy group would have a significantly higher problem

score on the "Curriculum and Teaching Procedures" scale than

the low discrepancy group, was not supported.

There were several additional differences noted between

the graduate and undergraduate group as to the number of

problems checked on the MPCL. The undergraduate group, as a

whole, had a significantly higher problem score than did the

graduate group. The difference between these two groups was

47

s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . There were f i v e

s c a l e s s p e c i f i c a l l y on which t he u n d e r g r a d u a t e s scored

h i g h e r . These s c a l e s were the " S o c i a l - P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e l a -

t i o n s " s c a l e , the " C o u r t s h i p - S e x - M a r r i a g e " s c a l e , t h e

"Adjus tment t o School Work" s c a l e , t h e " F u t u r e — V o c a t i o n a l

and Educational" s c a l e , and the "Cur r icu lum and Teaching

P r o c e d u r e s " s c a l e . The d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e two groups

on each of t h e f i v e s c a l e s were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e ,05

l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .

In summary i t may be sa id t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t he p e r c e i v e d

s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y , t he g r e a t e r the problem one p e r c e i v e s

himself to have. In add i t i on , the undergraduate group

p e r c e i v e d themse lves to have more problems than the graduate

group.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is

a relationship between one's perceived self, ideal-self

discrepancy and perceived problems which one possesses.

Also, this study sought to determine if there were any

significant differences between graduate and undergraduate

subjects as to th® problems which each perceived himself to

possess. The Moonev Problem Check List (BFCL) was used to

measure the amount of problems each subject had. The Bills'

I M m of Ad i ustment and Values was used to measure the

discrepancy between self and ideal-self concept.

The investigation consisted of two groups? one group

composed of 24 graduate students, the other composed of 36

undergraduate students. Each of the two groups was divided

into high and low discrepancy groups. This was done by

assigning the students who scored in the upper 50 per cent

of discrepancy scores into the high discrepancy group and

the lower 50 per cent of discrepancy scores into the low

discrepancy group. Each individual's total problem score

and his subscores on each problem scale were then matched

48

49

with the subject's discrepancy score. The mean problem and

discrepancy scores for each group were obtained.

The statistical analysis consisted of eleven two-way

factorial designs. The factorial design was used to compare

high and low d i s c r e p a n c y scores to the problem scores on

each subscale of the MPCL for both graduate end undergradu-

ate groups. A twelfth two-way factorial design was used to

c o m p a r e t h e high end l o w discrepancy group to t h e t o t a l

problem scores on the MPCL for both graduate and under-

graduate groups. An F test was raade on each d e s i g n to

determine the level of significance.

It was f o u n d that t h e r e was a significant difference

in t h e p r o b l e m scores of t h e h i g h discrepancy g r o u p w h e n

compared to the low discrepancy g r o u p . This difference was

s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e t h u s confirming

hypothesis one. The high discrepancy group also had a

significantly higher score on the HPD, SPB, PPB, CSM , HF,

ACW, AND FVE s u b s c a l e s of the MPCL than did the low discrep-

ancy group. On the basis of these subscale scores, hypoth-

eses two, five, six, seven, eight, ten, and twelve were

accepted. No significant difference was found between

discrepancy groups on the FLE, SRA, MR, and CTP scales of

t h e MPCL. On the basis of these results, hyptheses three,

four, nine, and thirteen were rejected. In view of these

r e s u l t s f o u n d in this s t u d y , it c a n b e s a i d t h a t t h e

50

p e r c e i v e d d i s c r e p a n c y between self and ideal-self concept

would be a f a c t o r to consider as an i n d i c a t o r of a d j u s t m e n t .

The e l e v e n t h h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d t h a t t h e g r a d u a t e

group would have a significantly higher problem score on the

" A d j u s t m e n t t o School Work" s c a l e of t h e MFCL t h a n t h e u n d e r -

g r a d u a t e g r o u p , was r e j e c t e d . In i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e e l e v e n t h

h y p o t h e s i s i t was found t h a t u n d e r g r a d u a t e s p e r c e i v e them-

s e l v e s as h a v i n g more p rob lems on t h i s s c a l e t h a n d i d t h e

g r a d u a t e g r o u p . I t a p p e a r s as i f a change i n g roup s t a n d i n g ,

from u n d e r g r a d u a t e t o g r a d u a t e , i s a l s o accompanied by a

change i n t h e amount of p rob lems which one p o s s e s s e s . In

g e n e r a l , t h e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r p r o b -

lem s c o r e t h a n d i d t h e g r a d u a t e g r o u p . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .

Conclusions

Thi s s t u d y a g r e e s , i n g e n e r a l , w i th o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s

which have been made i n t h e a r e a d e a l i n g wi th s e l f c o n c e p t .

I t has been found t h a t d i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e s can be c o n s i d e r e d

as an indicator of general a d j u s t m e n t . Consequently, i t

would mean t h a t d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t h e p e r c e i v e d s e l f and

t h e s e l f - i d e a l cou ld be a g e n e r a l d i s i n t e g r a t i n g f o r c e man i -

f e s t i n g i t s e l f i n other a r e a s of l i f e ' s e x p e r i e n c e s . The

d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h i n t h e structure of s e l f cou ld r e d u c e t h e

f u n c t i o n a l l e v e l of t h e o rgan i sm in a l l p h a s e s of b e h a v i o r .

s i

It should also be noted that t h i s type of approach to

i n v e s t i g a t i n g s e l f c o n c e p t cou ld be u t i l i z e d i n e v a l u a t i n g

progress made d u r i n g psychotherapy or i n s t u d y i n g a d j u s t m e n t

or m a l a d j u s t m e n t of college students suffering from academic

a n d / o r p e r s o n a l problems.

The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s which s t a t e d t h a t t h e high d i s -

c r e p a n c y group would have a significantly higher problem

score than the low d i s c r e p a n c y group was confirmed at the

. 0 1 l e v e l of confidence.

The high d i s c r e p a n c y group a l s o had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

higher score on the HPD, SPR, PPP«, CSM, HF, ACW, and FVE

subscales of the MPCL than did the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .

On the basis of these subscale scores, h y p o t h e s e s two, five,

s i x , s e v e n , e i g h t , t e n , and t w e l v e were a c c e p t e d . No

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s could be

found on t h e FLi, SRA, MR, and CTP s c a l e s of t h e MPCL. On

the b a s i s of t h e s e results, h y p o t h e s e s t h r e e , four, nine

and thirteen we re r e j e c t e d .

The e l e v e n t h h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d that t h e g r a d u a t e

group would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the MAdj ustraent

to School Work" scale than the undergraduate group, was not

confirmed. The fact i s t h a t t h e undergraduate group s c o r e d

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e g r a d u a t e group on this s c a l e .

The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two groups on t h i s s c a l e was

significant a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l of confidence—the o p p o s i t e of

t h a t which was p r e d i c t e d .

52

Recommendations

The r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y have shown p e r c e i v e d d i s c r e p -

ancy be tween t h e s e l f and s e l f - i d e a l t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e

number of p rob lems one p e r c e i v e s h i m s e l f as h a v i n g . T h e r e

i s a d i f f i c u l t y , however , i n u s i n g t h e MPCL as a measurement

of o n e ' s p r o b l e m s . The MPCL was o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n e d to be

used as a p r e l i m i n a r y s t e p to c o u n s e l i n g or g u i d a n c e . I t s

function i s to s e r v e as an a id in p i n p o i n t i n g a c l i e n t ' s

s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s , not as a measurement of a d j u s t m e n t .

Another d i f f i c u l t y i n u s i n g t h e MPCL i s t h a t t h e l i s t

i n c l u d e s many i t e m s which may not be r e l a t e d t o s e l f d i s -

c r e p a n c y . One s c a l e composed of such i t e m s i s t h e " H e a l t h

and P h y s i c a l Development" s c a l e which l i s t s many p rob lems

such as a l l e r g i e s , poor c o m p l e x i o n , g l a n d u l a r d i s o r d e r s ,

e t c . , which are frequently not the result of m a l a d j u s t m e n t .

I t ems such as t h e s e cou ld c o n c e i v a b l y i n c r e a s e a p e r s o n ' s

s c o r e on t h e MPCL w i t h o u t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e on t h e

d i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e .

P e r h a p s w i th an i n c r e a s e i n i n t e r e s t t a k e n i n t h i s a r e a

of p s y c h o l o g y i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to d e v e l o p b e t t e r t o o l s

f o r m e a s u r i n g t h e s e phenomena. Hence, some of t h e i n a d e -

q u a c i e s which p r e s e n t l y e x i s t i n p e n c i l and p a p e r t e s t s , of

t h e t y p e used i n t h i s s t u d y , w i l l d i m i n i s h .

S i n c e t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e t h a t a r e l a -

t i o n s h i p does e x i s t be tween o n e ' s s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y and o n e ' s

53

perceived problems, it is necessary to run further studies

investigating the relationship of self discrepancy to other

personality or behavioral traits.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Coleman, James C., Personality Dynamics and Behavior. Chicago, Scott, Foresaan and Co., 1960.

Lecky, Preseott, Self Consistencv~~A Theory of Personality. New York, Island Press, 1951.

Rogers, Carl B., Client-Centered Therapy. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951.

Snygg, Donald and Arthur Combs, Individual Behavior. New York, Harper and Bros., 1949.

Syraonds, Percival M., The Ego ^nd the Self. New York, Apple ton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1951.

Articles

Allport, G. W. and H. S. Olbert, "Trait-Namesj A Psychological Study," Psychological Monographs. 1936, No. 211.

Bills, R. E., "A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adi ust-rnent and Values with Behavior on Level of Aspiration Tasks,'1 Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953) , 206-212.

,, "A Validation of Changes in Scores on the Index of Adiustment and Values as Measures of Changes in Emotionality," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 135-138.

rt "Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High and Low in Acceptance of Self," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 36-38.

., "Self Concept and Rorschach Signs of Depres-sion," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 135-137.

54

55

Calvin, A. D. and H. Holtzraan, "Adjustment and the Discrepancy Between Self Coneept and Inferred Self," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVII (1953), 39-44.

Fick, R. L.# "The Problem Check Lists A Valuable Approach in Counseling/* Occupations. XXX (1952), 410-412.

Friedman, I., "Phenomenal, Ideal, and Projected Concepts of Self," 9l Aft,iw,r,m,q,a, jnd S^ejal, Psychology* LI (1955), 611-615.

Han1on, T. E., P. R. Hofstaetter, and J. P. O'Connor, "Congruence of Self and Ideal Self in fielation to Personality Adjustment," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 215-217.

Hi 1lson, J. S. and P. Worchel, "Self Concept and Defensive Behavior in the Maladjusted," Journal of Consult!no Psychology. XXI €1957), 83.

Lepine, L. T. and B. Charoloskoff, "Goal Setting Behavior, Repressed Feelings of Adequacy, and the Correspondence Between the Perceived and Ideal Self," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XI (1955), 135-137.

Mclntyre, C. J., "The Validation of the Moonev Problem CJieck LjUl," Joijrn^i, £l Applied Psychology. XXXVII (1953), 270-272.

Miyamoto, S. F. and S. M, Oornbush, "A Test of Interactionist Hypotheses of Self-Conception," American Journal of Sociology. LX1 (1959), 399-403.

Mooney, E. L., "Exploratory Research on Student Problems," Journal of Educational Research. XXXVII (1943), 218-224.

Murphy, V. ti., "The fielationship Between Self-Concept and Manifest Anxiety in College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts. XXIII (1963), 3499.

Omwake, K. F., "The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Personality Inventories," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 443-446.

Ottrochi , Parsons and Diskoff, "Changes in Self-Ideal Discrepancy in Repressors and Sensitizers," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LXI (I960), 67-72.

56

Swinn, R. M. and H. H i l l , " I n f l u e n c e of Anxiety on the i e l a t l o n s h i p Between S e l f - A c c e p t a n c e and A c c e p t a n c e of O t h e r s / ' J o u r n a l &f C o n s i s t i " q XXVIII ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 116-119 .

T u r n e r , R. H. and B. H. V a n d e r l i p p e , " S e l f - I d e a l Congruence as an Index of Adj u s t m e n t J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . LVII ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 2 0 2 - 2 0 6 .

Worchel , P . , " P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r s i n t h e R e a d i n e s s t o E x p r e s s A g g r e s s i o n , " J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . XIV ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 355-359 .

OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS/67531/metadc130604/m2/1/high... · Snygg and Combs

Documents

Transcript of OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS/67531/metadc130604/m2/1/high... · Snygg and Combs