N 9

No, ~741

A STUDY OF FACILITATING AND INHIBITING

PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS IN OCCUPATIONAL

IDENT IFICATION

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

By

Warren H. Chaney, M. B. A.

Denton, Texas

May, 1974

1974

WARREN H. CHANEY

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chaney, Warren H., A Study of Facilitating and Inhibit-

ing Personality Dimensions in Occupational Identification.

Doctor of Philosophy (Management), May, 1974, 104 pages, 21

tables, bibliography, 100 titles.

The problem with which this investigation is concerned

is that of examining the association between personality as

measured by a standard scale and the extent of projection in

a social perception role projection task. The investigation

assumes that perceptions regarding environment are systemat-

ically related to choice behavior. In this regard, the

research examines those specific dimensions of personality

that facilitate or inhibit social perception.

Chapter I presents an introduction to the problem.

Additionally, the background of the problem, purpose of the

study, the hypotheses, the limits of the study, and the as-

sumptions are given.

Chapter II is the methodology. The nature of the sub-

jects, the procedure, the research instrument and the method-

ological steps used for analysis of data are explained.

Results of the investigation are given in Chapter III,

while Chapter IV presents a discussion of the results, includ-

ing the conclusions, implications of the study, and suggestions

for further research.

The subjects were administered the 16 PF inventory

(Form A), purported to measure all the main dimensions of

2

personality revealed by factor analysis, on two occasions.

On the first administration base measures were obtained. On

the second administration (given two months after the first),

three of the groups (Groups A, B, and C) performed a role-

playing task. Group D was used as a control group.

In the study of personality, a trait-for-trait dominance

is not the only important consideration in establishing close

identification with the subjects and the preferred role. A

matching of personality and role-playing profile patterns is

equally important. The study found a consistent paralleling

of Group A's personality and role-playing line patterns which

doesn't exist in the other groups tested. The same consis-

tent paralleling of Group A's role-playing and normative data

line patterns is found to exist. Thus, there is a strong

indication that there is a positive association between an

individual's personality traits and his ability to role-

play a preferred role as opposed to a less-preferred or non-

preferred role.

This study finds that subjects in Groups B and C are

unable to identify with their assigned role-playing positions

because of the absence of facilitating and supportively fa-

cilitating factors. However, one fact which must be noted

is that facilitating factors for one role become inhibiting

factors for another.

3

The conclusions suggest that pivotal role of the self-

concept or personality interacting with an individual's per-

ceived environment. It is clear that the process of percep-

tion and choice behaviors deal with the same problem--the

conditions affecting the valence of a stimulus person or

stimulus object to a person.

Specifically, the study suggests that students in choos-

ing a social role such as an occupational choice, and the

rejecting of others rests upon the characteristics attributed

to various organizational roles (which are the facilitating

factors).

Suggestions for further research include the recommen-

dations that a longitudinal study be undertaken in order to

determine the effects of an individual's early personality

formation upon his occupational choice, and that additional

research be conducted in the area of job satisfaction, using

the techniques presented in this investigation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivChapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . .

Background of the ProblemPurpose of the StudyHypothesesThe Limits of the StudyAssumptions

II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . .

SubjectsProcedureThe Research InstrumentMethodological Steps Used

Analysis of Data

III. RESULTS . . . .

IV. DISCUSSION. .

ConclusionsImplications ofSuggestions for

APPENDIX..-........

REFERENCES . . . . . . . .

.r11

for

. .w . . . . " . . . ". 19

.. w. .41

the StudyFurther Research

.. . . . . . 56

.. . . . . . . . . . . . 97

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. 16 PF Inventory Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Mean 16 PF Group Base Scores . . . . . . . . . . 20

3. F Distribution Analysis of VarianceAbbreviated....................21

4. Control Group D Variations Between 16 PFInventory Tests I and II . . . . . . . . . 22

5. A Summary of Differences Between 16 PF MeanBase and Role-Playing Scores for Each16 PF Factor.. . .-.-.. . . . . . . . . 25

6. A Summary of the Mean of the Sum of the MeanDifferences Between Base and Role-Playing Scores by Quartile . . . . . . 27

7. Differences Between Mean 16 PF Role-Playingand Normative Data Scores . . . . . . . . . 28

8. A Summary of the Mean of the Sum of the MeanDifferences Between Role-Playing andNormative Data Scores by Quartile . . . . . 30

9. A Summary of the Factors Which Deviate LessBetween Mean Base and Role-PlayingScores..-.-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

10. Quartile I--Interquartile Comparison ofDifferences Between the Mean Base andRole-Playing Scores . . ............. 34

11. Quartile II--Interquartile Comparison ofDifferences Between the Mean Base andRole-Playing Scores............ . 35

12. Quartile III--Interquartile Comparison ofDifferences Between the Mean Base andRole-Playing Scores...-... . . . . . . . 36

iv

Table Page

13. Quartile IV--Lntercuartile Comparison ofDifferences Between the Mean Base andRole-Playing Scores .. . . . . . . . . . . 37

14. A Summary of the Factors Which DeviateLess Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores..-.-........ ...... 38

15. Summary of Facilitating, Inhibiting andNeutral Personality Factors . . . . . . . . 40

16. Base and Role-Playing Comparisons(Group A---Executive)........... 43

17. Base and Role-Playing Comparisons(Group B---White Collar) . . . . . . . . . . 44

18. Base and Role-Playing Comparisons(Group C---Blue Collar) ...... .... 45

19. Role-Playing and Normative Data Comparisons(Group A---Executive) . . . . . . . . . . . 46

20. Role-Playing and Normative Data Comparisons(Group B---White Collar) . . . . . . . . . . 47

21. Role-Playing and Normative Data Comparisons(Group C---Blue Collar) .................. 48

V

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

In an early study, Haire (1955) examined the effect of

stereotypes upon members of management and labor groups.

He presented a photograph to members of management along

with an explanation that the photograph was that of a union

leader. He called for the members of management to assess

that individual based upon their "feelings" toward him. The

same photograph was presented to union members with the

request that they do likewise. However, they were told the

photograph was of a member of management. The results of

this study indicate that an individual's perceptual process

is markedly influenced by his already pre-existing percep-

tions. It is Haire's study that prompted this investigation.

The role of individual differences and the perceptual

process is paramount in the current view of choice behaviors.

Examples of choice behaviors include but are not limited to

the following: (1) occupational preference, (2) occupational

choice, (3) occupational attainment, (4) organizational

choice, (5) job attendance, and (6) job productivity. An

individual in channeling his energies into any of the above

six choice behaviors will weigh the perceived attractiveness

2

of an outcome with the perceived instrumentality of that

outcome for fulfilling his important needs or values.

An individual's perceptual process, according to Boring

(1946), ". . . picks out and established what is permanent

and therefore important to the organism for its survival and

welfare." Others (Bruner, 1947; Bruner, 1948; Bruner and

Goodman, 1947; Bruner and Postman, 1947; Hanfmann, Stein,

and Bruner, 1947; Postman, Bruner, and McGinnies, 1948; Tol-

man, 1959; and Wanous, 1972) maintain that perception, like

choice behaviors, is goal-directed behavior. Postman and

Bruner (1948) conclude that

The goal of perception . . . is the constructionof a meaningful behavioral environment--an envir-onment congruent with 'reality' on the one handand the needs and dispositions of the organism onthe other (p. 314) .

Research with various populations using both laboratory

and field methods shows that there is a positive association

between an individual's positive or negative attitude toward

another and his perception of the other as like or unlike

himself (Davitz, 1955; Farber, 1957; Fielder, 1952; Fielder,

1954; Preston, Pelz, Mudd, Froscher, 1952; Stone and Leavitt,

1954; Raven, 1959; and Wallin and Clark, 1958). Lundy (1955,

1956) classifies individuals' attributes as acceptable or

unacceptable and states that subjects tended to project

acceptable attributes (those which function to maintain an

adjusted and adaptive self-concept) onto liked others and

3

to negate these attributes in disliked others. Conversely,

individuals tend to negate their unacceptable attributes

in similar others and to project these attributes onto dis-

similar others.

Several studies (Bender, Hostorf, 1950; Crow and Hammond,

1957; Cowden, 1955; Halper, 1955) conclude that people have

a tendency to project characteristics of their self-concept

to others. Other investigators demonstrate that individuals

indentify with others if the former maintain a positive atti-

tude toward the latter (Davitz, 1955; Farber, 1957; Fiedler,

1954; Fiedler, Warrington, Blaisdall, 1952; Halpern, 1955;

Preston, Peltz, Mudd, Froscher, 1952; Seiss and Jackson,

1970; Smith, 1958; and Wallin and Clark, 1958). Newcomb

(1956) offers an explanation of the above positive associa-

tion in his idea of a "strain toward symmetry" which depends

upon the relevance of the characteristic to the role rela-

tionship between two persons.

In the vernacular of perception theory, a perceiver,

whatever the nature of the stimulus, favors a pre-solution

hypothesis which reflects his needs, attitudes, or value

orientation. Bruner (1957) defines this perceptual hypothe-

sis as ". . . a selective readiness based on past experience

to perceive certain objects and characteristics in the envir-

onment." Therefore, it follows that individuals will per-

ceive more readily those stimulus-persons more closely

4

associated with their preferred pre-solution hypothesis.

Bruner refers to this mechanism as value resonance.

Bruner and his co-workers elaborate and explain the

above phenomena more clearly than others. Bruner (1948),

Bruner and Postment (1947), and Postman, Bruner, McGinnies

(1948) argue that sensitization, defense, vigilance and

primitivation function in perceptual selection and accen-

tuation of valued stimulus objects (or persons).

More than a decade later, Bruner and Tajfel (1961)

explored the possible explicit explanations of identifying

with valued stimuli and negating or distorting inimical

stimuli. They present a concept of "equivalence range" or

"breadth of category" as follows:

the range of stimuli that are placed in thesame class or category and share a common lable(p. 231), in part involves the search for rela-tionships between various emotional and personal-ity factors and the individual's general prefer-ence for broad or narrow classification, and theexploration of relationships between breadth ofcategorizing and various forms of abnormal mentalfunctioning (p. 231).

The conclusions thus drawn point to the pivotal role of

the self-concept or personality interacting with an individ-

ual's perceived environment. Employee choice behaviors

involve a complex network of relations among different mea-

sures of behavior and between both past and present situa-

tional conditions and behavior. Although most studies are

correlational, there emerges a logical consistency between

5

occupational preferences or occupational choices and people's

self-concept (Allport, Bernon, and Lindsey, 1951; Cantril and

Allport, 1933; Conrad and Jaffe, 1960; Duffy and Crissey,

1940; Hull, 1951; Irvin, 1968; Burnstein, Stotland, and Zan-

der, 1961; Kuder, 1946; Marzolf, 1946; Pintner, 1933; Rosen-

berg, 1957; Seashore, 1947; Vernon and Allport, 1931; and

Yum, 1942).

It is clear that the processes of perception and choice

behaviors deal with the same problem--the conditions affect-

ing the valence of a stimulus person or stimulus object to

a person. Many of the studies noted in this section describe

the dissonance that may result when people transact with a

stimulus person or object, foregoing available alternatives.

The perceptual process suggests that people will view the

choice act alternative more positively than before and the

unchosen alternative in a more negative sense than before.

Lundy (1972) argues for the logic of subgrouping or

clustering occupations on the "basis of perception of job

incumbents rather than on the basis of role demands of job

descriptions. . ." (pp. 116-117). Through a multivariate

clustering procecure called V-analysis, Lundy found that

people in different occupational categories have ". . . quite

different perceptions of their job" (p. 115).

Perceptions like those discussed by Lundy depend in

massive degree on the categorization process. Implicit here

6

is an assumption that social perception must precede identi-

fication and that identification must precede categorization.

In the words of Bruner and Perlmutter (1957),

We place a person or thing in a category onthe basis of a few minimal cues--like a statementof his nationality or occuption--and then proceedto 'run off ' along the line of the higher proba-bility attributes associated with people or eventsincluded in the category [p. 260].

This statement is reflected in the social identification

studies conducted by researchers mentioned earlier (Fitts,

1965; Fitts and Hammer, 1969; Atkinson, 1958; Richard, Mason,

Padgett, 1972; Richard, Mates, and Whitten, 1967; Rubin, 1967;

Sheerer, 1949; and Wrightsman, Richard, and Noble, 1966).

These investigations along with earlier research investiga-

tions largely deal with two conditions--a global statement

of the self-concept, motives, needs, personality of one per-

son, and the perception of others. For instance, Fitts (1965)

contends that people with low self-esteem maintain certain

affective orientations toward themselves and others and

demonstrate certain behaviors rooted in their self-concept.

One area of inquiry omitted in social identification

studies is the analysis of the facilitating and inhibitory

personality dimensions associated with projection--a basis

for measurement of identification. No studies could be

located which isolated or referred to personality factors

which facilitated or inhibited the process of social identi-

fication with specific occupational stereotypes. Although

7

studies involving interpersonal similarity are common--par-

ticularly those employing the self-concept as an explanatory

concept--there are no explanations which are potentially

verifiable concerning the effects of personality dimensions

on different measures of behavior.

Purpose of the Study

This investigation examines the association between

personality as measured by a standard scale and the extent

of projection in a social perception role projection task.

The investigation assumes that perceptions regarding envir-

onment are systematically related to choice behavior. In

this regard, the research examines those specific dimensions

of personality that facilitate or inhibit social perception.

The specific purpose of the research is to formally

and systematically describe those personality dimensions

which function to facilitate or inhibit identification with

predetermined preferred and non-preferred generalized ster-

eotypes. Multiple measures of personality, including a base

measure, have not been explored in social identification

studies. The significance of personality dimensions as they

function to facilitate or inhibit social or occupational

identification is another unexplored area to be examined.

Hypotheses

Vocational choice theories (Holland, 1963; Siegelman

and Peck, 1960; and Super, 1953) state that occupational

8

choice should be viewed within the context of the general

personality development of the individual as he develops a

self-concept and interacts with the world around him. Spe-

cifically, one would postulate that choosing a social role,

such as an occupational choice, and the rejecting of others

rests upon those characteristics one attributes to himself

either consciously or unconsciously, and the characteristics

attributed to various organizational roles. Considerable

attention has been devoted to this area of inquiry (Bordin,

Nochman, and Segal, 1963; Holland, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1966;

Hollander, 1968; Osipow, Ashby, and Wall, 1966; Lewin, 1938;

Peak, 1955; Segal, 1961).

The following hypotheses are tested in the study:

Hypothesis 1. Since the 16PF inventory offers a quanti-

tative standardized measure of occupational preference, it

is hypothesized that those who exhibit characteristics com-

patible with a given occupational role are more able to con-

sistently identify with a preferred role (in a role projection

task) than with a less-preferred or non-preferred role.

Hypothesis 2. Base measures of personality dimensions

demonstrate that more dominant personality factors (measured

in terms of deviation from the mean) facilitate identification

with preferred roles and inhibit identification with less

preferred roles.

9

Limits of Study

The personality factors examined in this study include

sixteen primary dimensions measured by Cattell's Sixteen

Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF). These factors do

not encompass all measurable personality traits. Cattell

and Warburton (1964) report that the number of psychological,

insightful, experimental measurements totalled approximately

five hundred. However, a review of this instrument concluded

that the 16 PF is the best available factor-analyzed assess-

ment tool to date to measure the normal adult personality

in a research context (Buros, 1965).

Assumptions

Assumptions underlying the analysis of variance function

are limitations with which one must deal. The following

assumptions must be made: (1) the variance within each dis-

tribution sample and the accompanying experimental error

variance are homogenous,and (2) each sample reflects a multi-

normal distribution of vector scores.

In the repeated measures design discussed in the Method-

ology section, the assumption of equality of homogeneity of

covariance matrices is an assumption which need not be met

because only two measures were made on each subject, hence

only one covariance matrix.

Since the subjects of this investigation are students

engaging in a field of study which may lead to a position

10

in business management, it is assumed that the executive

position is the more preferred role and that the white- and

blue-collar positions are the less- or non-preferred roles.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

The subjects of this study are two hundred (200) ran-

domly selected students of a college of business administra-

tion. For the purposes of this investigation the subjects

were divided into four groups, Group A, Group B, Group C

and Group D. The N for each group equaled fifty (50).

Procedure

The subjects were administered the 16 PF inventory

(Form A), purported to measure ". . . all the main dimensions

of personality revealed by factor analysis" (Buros, 1965),

on two occasions. On the first administration base measures

were obtained. On the second administration (given two

months after the first) three of the groups (Group A, Group

B, Group C) performed a role-playing task. Group D was used

as a control group.

The following instructions were given to each of the

groups participating in the role playing task:

GROUP A: "Pretend that you are a business executive

and state your interests and preferences as if you were this

person."

11

12

GROUP B: "Pretend that you are a white-collar worker

and state your interests and preferences as if you were this

person."

GROUP C: "Pretend that you are a blue-collar worker

and state your interests and preferences as if you were this

person."

As a part of the setting for the role-playing task, a

neutral photograph (the same for all groups) was presented

to the groups (Appendix A).

Group D was asked to retake the 16 PF, ". . . stating

your own interests and preferences as called for by the

questionnaire."

The Research Instrument

The 16 PF inventory (Appendix B) is documented in num-

erous books and journals (Cattell and Warburton, 1964; Car-

rell, Eber, and Tatsuoha, 1970; Cline, 1955; Gocka, Edwards,

Marks, 1961; Karson, 1961; and Shipman, Danowski, and Moses,

1961). It is based on twenty-five years of published re-

search in which every item has been subjected to factor-

analytic investigation (Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoha, 1970).

The test is used clinically for initial screening and

diagnosis and as a tool for investigative research (Cattell,

Eber, and Tatsuoha, 1970). The instrument's wide range of

use stems from its comprehensive coverage of personality

at various ages and educational levels. It is designed to

13

measure sixteen dimensions on which a full profile may be

based. Normative data are available for a wide range of

occupational specialities, including executive, white-collar,

and blue-collar positions (Buros, 1965). This published

data was compiled by the control center (The Institute for

Personality and Ability Testing) for the 16PF by adminis-

tering the instrument to a wide number of individuals occu-

pying executive, white-collar, and blue-collar positions.

Lorr (1970), in an extensive critique of the 16 PF

states:

The development of the 16 PF represents and indeed,reflects a high order of technical skill. Althoughat present it appears to be the best factor-basedpersonality inventory available, it is the review-er's view that the 16 PF is still primarily aresearch instrument.

Table 1 is an explanation of each of the sixteen factors.

Appendix C provides a more detailed explanation of the instru-

ment.

Methodological Steps Used for Analysis of Data

The following steps explain the procedures used for

analysis and interpretation of the research data:

Step One.--Step one determines the homogeneity of

Groups A, B, C, and D and tests for statistically signifi-

cant differences in the base scores. Analysis of variance

abbreviated (Stockton and Clark, 1971) is used and yields a

ninety-five per cent level of confidence.

14

TABLE 1

16 PF Inventory Dimensions

Factor Low Score Description High Score Description

Sizothymia (Reserved, DetachedCritical, Aloof)

Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity(Less Intelligent, ConcreteThinking)

Lower Ego Strength (Affected byFeelings, Emotionally Less StableEasily Upset)

Submissiveness (Humble, Mild,Accommodating, Conforming)

Desurgency (Sober, Prudent,Serious, Taciturn)

Weaker Superego Strength(Expedient, Disregards Rules,Feels Few Obligations)

Threctia (Shy, Restrained,Timid, Threat-Sensitive)

Harria (Toughr-Minded, Self-Reliant, Realistic, No-Nonsense)

Alaxia (Trusting, Adaptable,Free of Jealousy, Easy toGet Along With)

Affectothymia (Outgoing,Warmhearted, Easy-GoingParticipating)

Higher Scholastic Mental(More Intelligent, Abstract-Thinking, Bright)

Higher Ego Strength (Emotion-

ally Stable, Faces Reality,Calm, Mature)

Dominance (Assertive, Aggres-sive, Stubborn, Competitive)

Surgency (Happy-Go-Lucky,Impulsive, Lively, Enthusi-astic)

Stronger Superego Strength(Conscientious, Preservering,Staid, Moralistic, Straight-Laced)

Parmia (Venturesome, SociallyBold, Uninhibited, Spontane-ous)

Premsia (Tender-Minded, Cling-ing, Over-Protected, Sensitive)

Protension (Suspicious, Self-Opinionated, Hard.to Vool)

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

L

15

TABLE 1 (cont.)

Factor Low Score Description High Score Description

M Praxernia (Practical, Careful,Conventional, Regulated byExternal Realities, Proper)

N Artlessness (Forthright,Natural, Artlessness,Unpretentious)

0 Untroubled Adequacy (Self-Assured, Confident, Serene)

Q Conservatism (Conservative1 Respecting Established Ideas,

Tolerant of TraditionalDifficulties)

Group Adherence (Group-2 Dependent, A Joiner, Sound

Follower)

Low Integration (Undisciplined3 Self-Conflict, Careless of

Protocol)

Low Ergic Tension (Relaxed,4 Tranquil, Unfrustrated)

Q

Autia (Imaginative, WrappedUp In Inner Urgencies, Care-less of Practical Matters,Bohemian)

Shrewdness (Shrewd, Calculat-ing, Worldly, Penetrating)

Guilt Proneness (ApprehensiveSelf-Reproaching, Worrying,Troubled)

Radicalism (Experimenting,Liberal, Analytical, Free-Thinking)

Self-Sufficiency (Self-Sufficient, Prefers OwnDecisions, Resourceful)

High Self-Concept ControlControlled, Socially Pre-cise, Following Self-Image)

High Ergic Tension (Tense,Frustrated, Driven, Over-wrought)

i

c

16

Step Two.--Step two analyzes the control group (Group

D) data for retest reliability of the 16 PF inventory. The

Z-Test (Stockton and Clark, 1971) is used and yields a

ninety-five per cent level of confidence.

Step Three.--Step three analyzes the extent to which

the subjects' base scores identify with the preferred or non-

preferred scores.

Mean base scores are compared with mean role-playing

scores for each factor of the 16 PF inventory. Deviations

between the base and role-playing scores are determined.

The group (A, B, or C) with the least amount of deviation

between its respective base and role-playing scores is the

group considered to have the closest association between

the two scores.

Chi-square (Pearson, 1904; Kazmier, 1967) is also used

to test the first hypothesis. The formula used is:

Chi-square 2) _ (fo - fe)2sqa fe

where fo = observed frequencies (mean base score)fe = expected frequencies (mean role playing

score)

Thus the larger the value of chi-square, the larger the dif-

ferences between observed and expected frequencies may be

expected to be.

Inter-quartile analysis (Guilford, 1954; Freeman, 1962;

Ghiselli, 1964; Tyler, 1963; and Helmstadter, 1964) is used

to analyze the extremes in each group. The quartiles are

17

developed from a rank order (low to high) sequencing of the

deviations between base and role-playing scores. The N is

thirteen for quartiles one and four and twelve for quartiles

two and three. Next, inter-quartile comparisons of mean

and role-playing scores are made. The group (A, B, or C)

with the least amount of deviation between its respective

base and role-playing score is the group considered to have

the closest association between the two scores.

Step Four.--The analysis of step four is similar to

that of step three except that this step's methodology seeks

to determine which group's role-playing score is more closely

identified with its respective role normative data.

Mean role-playing scores are compared with normative

data scores for each factor of the 16 PF inventory. Devia-

tions between the role-playing and normative data scores are

determined. The group (A, B, or C) with the least amount of

deviation between its respective base and role-playing scores

is the group considered to have the closest association

between the two scores. This association is next tested (as

in step three), using chi-square and inter-quartile analysis.

Quartile divisions are based upon a rank order (low to high)

sequencing of the deviations between role-playing and norma-

tive data scores.

Step Five.--Factors which facilitate or inhibit identi-

fication with a preferred role are obtained by comparing the

18

deviations between the (mean) base and role-playing scores.

Factors of less than average (mean) deviation (between base

and role-playing scores) are those which facilitate identi-

fication. Conversely, inhibiting factors are those which

exhibit greater than average (mean) deviation. Factors of

average (mean) deviation are considered to be neutral in

that they neither facilitate nor inhibit identification

with a preferred or non-preferred role.

Step Six.--Step six uses inter-quartile analysis (Guil-

ford, 1954) to further analyze and determine facilitating

and inhibiting factors within each group. The quartiles

are developed from a rank order (low to high) sequencing of

deviations between base and role playing scores. The N is

thirteen for quartiles one and four, and is twelve for quar-

tiles two and three.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Step One: (Test for Homogeneity)

The mean 16 PF base scores for each group are shown in

Table 2. The variance between the highest score and the low-

est score for each of the sixteen personality factors is

also shown. The differences between the highest and lowest

scores for each factor range from a low of .36 for factor

Q3 to a high of .90 for factors 0 and Q4 . Deviations between

the groups are quite minimal. The analysis of variance tech-

nique of F distribution substantiates this finding.

Table 3 is the result of group analysis through analy-

sis of variance abbreviated (Stockton and Clark, 1971). The

F calculated is .2683651. The theoretical F obtained from

F distribution tables (Stockton and Clark, pp. 348, 1971)

is 3.34. Therefore the null hypothesis that the mean of

Group A is equal to the mean of Group B is equal to the

mean of Group C is equal to the mean of Group D is accepted

within a ninety-five per cent level of confidence.

Step Two: (Determining Retest Reliability)

The initial base and retest scores for control Group D

are in Table 4. The differences between the highest and

19

ONO cNNo o o o oeseo'O r co o e o o o0a0o. . .........0

0)0

4)CON U)

N Q

rO

U't

(d 4ct1 U)

Sr-I C

NO0

Q4C

N O0 U

U r-i

r-I

s4 0UH

400NO

H

HfQH

04 U

0 -

-"rQ4 )

000 0NON

L7

oPr 4-

r-{w~O

co0

H

O d'' M0 M t9o 0 N d'o co t9 00L.O Ri 6'1 M N 00 6l (}1 0 O d'' NCO t9 M LO 2 ' e t9 N m o m

r-1 r-) r-)r- r-t Hr-I

' coN r-!

(N

2 coO N

. H911 r-Ir-(- r-1-

0 O NdMNo 01 cm0 O O Nco0t) ( cf m cN - o(Nr-H o o

N U U 00 .0 0 00Q r-d''OD d'' o 2 ,....

0- r -- I d'N r- i Nr- I Ir-I M- N - r-

r- +0 l9 ' t!? M l4 6l N N 00 00 4 41 M -

o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -N- M %Vo - -iri e

H HHHHH H HHor-N r-oc-or-oc- oc- o0-Q ,..c,..i ,..

0H~(NH,...(Nep(N cHc MoN(N co H c- O OH frO

20

N

rIW

U)

a c40

U)O

fr UN O

tt

00ON

4 O

wr40P4t LO

tl- IIH0 1

e a O N N OOO ocONot 'O N O N H & 0 oe00 0or-Ito <r

r-HI 00 LO d Oo LO dl-No HCOO O Or-I r-Ir-r-{r- r-{ H-1

21

TABLE 3

F Distribution Analysis ofVariance Abbreviated

Variations Degrees of Freedom Variance(df)

Variations Among .9421872 3 .140 624

Variations Within 31.440150 60 .5240025

F Calculated = StandardDeviation of Variations Among SquaredStandard Deviation of Variations Within Squared

F Calculated = .2683651

Theoretical F* = 3.34

*F Distribution tables for 95% confidence interval(Stockton and Clark, p. 348).

22

TABLE 4

Control Group D Variations Between

16 PF Inventory Tests I and II(N = 50)

(Mean Scores)Test Administration I

11.36

8.58

16.26

14.06

16.22

13.62

16.70

9.98

7.60

11.84

8.80

9.80

9.02

9.40

13.26

12.18

(Mean Scores)Test Administration II Deviations

10.62 .74

8.84 .26

16.04 .22

14.00 .06

16.42 .20

13.46 .16

16.78 .08

9.90 .08

7.30 .30

11.46 .38

8.88 .08

9.14 .66

9.50 .48

10.12 .62

13.46 .20

12.01 ,17

(16)Factors

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

Q2

Q3

Q4

r

23

lowest scores for each factor are minimal. The greatest

variance is .74 in factor A and .08 in factor E.

The Z-Test (Stockton and Clark, 1971) further substan-

tiates the retest reliability of the 16 PF Inventory. The

null-hypothesis states that the mean of test administration I

will equal the mean of test administration II with a ninety-

five per cent level of confidence:

Z calculated = 1 X2

x 1 x2

Mean of test administration X = 11.793

Mean of test administration X = 11.746(N = 16) 2

2 + 2

Ox 2- X 2 + 2

yN-l N - 1

Sl (X - X) S2=(X X-N -1= 7- l

Sl= 2.874 S --= 2.877

Therefore: . X - X -1 2

x1 x2

X -XConsequently: 1 2

ox 1 2

Since the

deviation

(2.874) + (2.877)215 15

1.050

.0471.050

So that F calculated = .045

F calculated (.045) falls within the standard

of plus or minus 1.96 for a ninety-five per cent

)2

24

level of confidence, the null-hypothesis is accepted. This

is in line with other published data (Cattell, 1971) and

confirm the retest accuracy of the 16 PF inventory.

Step Three: (Determining the Nearness of Base and Role-

Playing Scores)

Table 5 is a summary of the differences between the

mean base and role-playing scores for Groups A, B, and C.

The data are taken from Appendix D (16 PF Mean Base and

Role-Playing Score Comparisons).

Executive Group A has fewer deviations between base

and role-playing scores in factors A, B, E, F, H, M, N, 0,

Ql, and Q2 than either Group B or C. Group B has fewer

deviations than the other groups in four factors (G, I, L,

and Q3 ) while Group C has fewer in only two factors (C and

Q4 ).

The mean of the mean of executive Group A's variations

between base and role-playing scores (1.76875) is less than

white-collar Group B's (3.42375) or blue-collar Group C's

(3.48376). Since the differences between the base and

role-playing scores for Group A are less than Group B or C,

the base personality scores are more closely aligned with

the executive role-playing score. This finding is further

substantiated by use of the chi-square test (Pearson, 1904;

Kazmier, 1967).

25

TABLE 5

A Summary of Differences Between 16 PFMean Base and Role-Playing Scores

For Each 16 PF Factor

(16) Group A Group B Group CFactors (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

A 2.18 2.44 4.34

B 0.70 0.84 1.06

C 1.78 3.00 0.64

E 0.16 6.58 6.96

F 3.42 8.36 7.62

G 1.86 0.18 2.30

H 2.14 9.22 9.50

I 3.88 3.36 3.54

L 0.38 0.12 0.94

N 1.24 4.60 3.60

N 0.98 4.24 3.60

0 1.90 3.96 4.02

Qi 1.78 4.34 4.76

Q2 1.28 2.72 1.60

Q3 2.54 0.02 1.24

Q4 2.08 0.80 0.02

26

Chi-square for executive Group A is smaller than chi-

square for either Group B or C:

2Chi-square ((2) = (fo - f e)

fe

where fo = observed frequencies (mean base scores)

fe = expected frequencies (mean role-playingscores)

X2Therefore: 2 for Group A= 5.63

for Group B = 23.437

2 for Group C = 23.006

Consequently, Group A's base scores are closer to its respec-

tive executive projected role than either of the other

groups' base and role-playing scores. This conclusion is

supported by Table 6,which is a summary of the mean of the

sum of the mean differences between base and role-playing

scores by quartile. These data are obtained from Appendix

E (Mean Differences Between Base and Role-Playing Scores By

Quartile). The mean of the sum of the mean differences is

consistently less in Group A for each quartile; however it

is noted that there is a gradual increasing of the differ-

ences for each of the groups between the bottom quartile

(Quartile I) and the top (Quartile IV).

Step Four: (Determining Nearness of Role-Playing and Norma-

tive Data Scores)

Table 7 is a summary of the differences between mean

16 PF role-playing and normative data scores. It is compiled

27

TABLE 6

A Summary of the Mean of the Sum of the Mean DifferencesBetween Base and Role-Playing Scores By Quartile

Group A(Executive)

Group B(White Collar)

Group C(Blue Collar)

II

III

2.173

3.401

4.115

IV 5.479

Quartile

3.812

5.401

6.437

7.770

4.168

5.000

5.813

7.250

28

TABLE 7

Differences Between Mean 16 PF Role-Playingand Normative Data Scores(N a 50 for Each Group)

(16) Group A Group B Group CFactors (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

A 0.70 2.60 4.38

B 0.35 1.12 1.49

C 1.27 2.22 0.35

E 0.96 4.50 6.85

F 1.40 5.21 4.30

G 2.17 1.69 0.33

H 0.79 8.00 7.94

1 3.87 2.74 2.90

L 0.27 0.87 2.03

M 2.49 6.17 3.63

N 0.92 4.26 3.53

0 3.05 5.89 3.46

Q1 2.18 3.32 1.36

22 0.25 2.34 1.61

Q3 2.41 0.55 2.37

24 0.99 1.59 1.73

29

from Appendix F (16 PF Mean Role-Playing and Normative Data

Comparisons). The mean of the mean differences between role-

playing and normative data scores for Group A (1.504375) is

significantly less than that for Group B (3.316875) or Group

C (3.01625). The chi-square test supports this conclusion

(that Group A's role--playing and normative data scores are

closer than the other groups):

Chi-square (x2 )4 (fo - fe) 2

fe

where fo = observed frequencies (mean role-playingscores

fe = expected frequencies (normative datascores)

2Therefore: 2 for Group A = 4.875

for Group B = 21.199

-2 for Group C = 17.213

Consequently Group A's role-playing and executive scores are

more closely aligned than the other groups since the small-

er the value of chi-square, the less is the difference

between observed and expected frequencies. This finding

is clearly supported by Table 8 (A Summary of the Mean of

the Sum of the Mean Differences Between Role-Playing and

Normative Data Scores by Quartile). Table 8 data are

obtained from Appendix G (Mean Deviations Between Role-

Playing and Normative Data Scores by Quartile). Group A

consistently has less differences between its role-playing

30

TABLE 8

A Summary of the Mean of the Sum of the Mean DifferencesBetween Role-Playing and Normative Data

Scores by Quartile

Group A Group B Group CQuartile (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

I 2.630 3.316 3.238

II 3.254 3.789 3.983

III 3.539 4.389 4.412

IV 4.207 5.489 5.286

31

and normative data scores from the bottom (Quartile I) to

the top (Quartile IV) quartile.

Since the subjects of this investigation are students

engaging in a field of study which may lead to a position

in business management, it is assumed that the executive

position is the more preferred role and that the white-

collar and blue-collar positions are the less-or non-pre-

ferred roles. Inasmuch as the 16 PF inventory offers a

quantitative standardized measure of occupational prefer-

ence, it is hypothesized that those who exhibit character-

istics compatible with a given occupational role are more

able to consistently identify with a preferred role (in a

role projection task) than with a less or non-preferred

role. Since Group A's base and role-playing scores are

more similar than Group B's or C's and since Group A's

role-playing and normative data scores are also more sim-

ilar, the stated hypothesis is accepted.

Step Five: (Determination of Facilitating and Inhibiting

Factors

Table 9 lists factors that differ least between mean

base and role-playing scores. These data are compiled

from Appendix D (16 PF Mean Base and Role-Playing Score

Comparison). The facilitating factors assisting in the

preferred executive role identification process are fac-

tors A (reserved versus outgoing), B (lower versus higher

32

TABLE 9

A Summary of the Factors Which Deviate LessBetween Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores

(N = 50 for Each Group)

Group A Group B Group CFactor (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

2.18

0.70

0.64

0.16

3.42

0.18

2.14

3.36

0.12L

M

N

0

1.24

0.98

1.90

1.78

1.28Q2

93

Q4

0.02

0.02

33

scholastic mental capacity, E (submissiveness. versus domi-

nance), F (desurgency versus surgency), H (shy versus

venturesome), M (practical versus imaginative), N (art-

lessness versus shrewdness), 0 (untroubled adequacy versus

guilt proneness), Q1 (conservatism versus radicalism), and

Q2 (group adherence versus self-sufficiency). Factors C

(lower versus higher ego strength), G (weaker versus stronger

superego strength), I (tough-minded versus tender-minded),

L (trusting versus suspicious), Q3 (low integration versus

high self-concept control), and Q4 (low versus high ergic

tension), on the other hand, inhibit such identification.

Step Six: (Determination of the Degree of Facilitation and

Inhibition Through Inter-Quartile Analysis

Tables 10, 11, 12, and 13 are the inter-quartile com-

parisons of differences between the mean base and role-

playing scores. These data are compiled from Appendix G

(Mean Deviations Between Role-Playing and Normative Data

Scores by Quartile). Table 14 is a summary of the factors

which differ less between mean base and role-playing scores.

These tables (10, 11, 12, and 13) more accurately determine

the facilitating, inhibiting, and neutral personality fac-

tors, because group extremes are analyzed.

Facilitating factors are of two types, fully facili-

tating and supportively facilitating. Fully facilitating

factors (B, E, H, N, Q1 ) are those which consistently

34

TABLE 10

Interquartile Comparison of Differences Betweenthe Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores

Quartile One

Group A Group B Group CFactor (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

A 1.154 .077 2.002

B .262 3.308 1.154

C 1.539 .154 2.693

E 1.384 2.231 3.923

F 1.538 5.538 2.565

G 5.769 1.539 1.077

H 1.461 1.769 2.847

I 2.462 2.770 1.616

L .462 1.462 1.616

M .077 4.307 .615

N .615 2.231 1.615

0 .923 1,538 .077

Ql .231 .923 2.077

223.308 2.846 1.308

Q3 2.154 1.618 .997

4 1.077 2.846 1.384

_,

35

TABLE 11

Interquartile Comparison of Differences Betweenthe Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores

Quartile Two

Group A Group B Group CFactor (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

A 4.417 .037 1.500

B .433 .597 1.417

C .333 3.917 2.000

E .667 7.170 3.333

F .250 7.917 4.500

G 1.000 .250 .583

H .834 10.083 3.750

I 2.583 4.250 2.917

L 1.500 .833 1.916

M 1.750 4.000 3.583

N 2.084 5.083 3.667

0 1.166 4.538 2.000

1 3.000 9.000 4.333

Q2 .250 .250 2.000

Q3 3.083 3.500 .667

Q4 1.000 .667 1.916

36

TABLE 12

Interquartile Comparison of Differences Betweenthe Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores

Quartile Three

Group A Group B Group CFactor (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

A 1.000 2.503. 4.583

B .417 .584 1.083

C 3.000 3.584 .250

E 0.000 8.667 6.084

F 5.333 3.830 8.917

G 1.416 .330 .666

H 2.417 13.583 14.083

I 3.417 7.000 14.083

L .667 .437 .417

M .084 6.666 4.437

N 1.417 4.250 2.250

0 2.583 2.667 7.500

Q1 .666 4.667 6.788

Q2 2.750 3.417 3.000

Q3 3.833 .083 2.584

Q4 3.975 3.084 2.166

37

TABLE 13

Interquartile Comparison of Differences Betweenthe Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores

Quartile Four

Group A Group B Group CFactor (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

A 2.539 6.769 6.538

B .308 1.615 1.218

C 1.615 4.923 5.077

E 8.154 10.154 9.232

F 6.000 11.538 14.756

G 1.308 .692 2.072

H 4.615 13.450 13.615

I 4.769 1.154 3.769

L .846 .923 3.615

M 1.307 .308 5.692

N .308 6.226 6.461

0 2.308 8.230 7.539

Q1 1.923 7.461 4.692

Q2 .231 4.384 4.385

3 2.077 3.385 2.154

4 3.923 3.154 4.000

NH-

0

I

H

HHH

HH

H

HV

0

p

l.N

~r

004U

o H)

C)-E-

rL;

i

Go0M?

H

N

ND

54 U W W 0r H 0 a 0 Cat H z

rN

0 000ornM MC?

M?

0U)(N

Uf)H

H

m?M?00

co0

0? M )H

MY)(M

0LO(N

N

'0

NM?0 U

0 H

54 PQ ~r 0 w 4 H a ~ HN

W

U)

Q)

ai)

W -)

.lW ---

U)O

S4.

- )

orV

ci rd4-r

f4

U)H

H

Uf)

'o

0

0

MCM)C)

GoVC?)

0s.

0U)(N

GoMU)

H

Go0m?

H

NrH

(N

Q.0

Go

NH-

M?

(N

H9

Go0

Go0C?)

N~H-

O0

(N

O M)'.0

NOH

HCI rH

(NN

NN0

(N

co 0 Lr)LO Q0 r*

CN N

0L)

D N

M?

(NJNU) HLLODNHr--1dr' D Q4 N

N~0

ma 0 H C

38

NN0

H

0

H

HHH'

HH

HE-I

O0

H

0)C?UC)

C']

0

H4~

O0

04r)

V

H

H

H

H

H

-H

-PN

wI

(N'0(N

H

H

NN0

39

facilitate identification with the preferred executive role

in all quartiles. Supportively facilitating factors (F, M,

0, Q2 ) facilitate identification with the executive pre-

ferred role in at least three quartiles. Thus, of the ten

facilitating factors described in step five (A, B, E, F,

H, M, N, 0, Q and Q2) all but one (factor A) are either

fully facilitating or supportively facilitating in this

step's inter-quartile analysis. Factor A (the exception)

is a neutral factor.

The neutral factors (factors A, C, I, and L) do not

cluster within any one group in any of the quartiles. Thus,

they neither facilitate nor inhibit identification with

preferred or non-preferred roles. On the other hand, the

inhibiting factors (G, Q3 and Q4 ) cluster in the non-pre-

ferred roles in at least three of the quartiles so as to

inhibit identification with the preferred executive role.

Table 15 is a summary of the inhibiting, facilitating,

and neutral factors.

Steps five and six demonstrate that those who exhibit

characteristics compatible with a given occupational role

are more able to consistently identify with a preferred

role (in a role projection task) than with a less or non-

preferred role,and that base measures of personality dimen-

sions demonstrate that more dominant personality factors

facilitate identification with preferred roles and inhibit

identification with less preferred roles.

- -

40

k4) 40 0)

H'i- - H W 0.>,*40vi A- q q a 4-)4-) LP 41 (1

S(2 )j . N O {

*3 $ * 8.* 9 *'H* J()o r) H j H H

*r4 ) 0 1~

SCU(.E 0 ".4

w) w)4)4)

04 > 4J 10

44

N a Q -4 f40 4J (0

1o -4.4 W - 4 4.H.- N0w-

14

a- 4).,o

4J~14-a 4"a.4U 0s

- oaa e a uH >a

H

Lt) .4 N

LO cd

4a ')tU

0 rr- >

rd 0-o 1)

0' Q N.40).UP)4N 44 HU)44

ItH4N )O 0r ae t 1a > 0 4 *a t )N *.N4

r- q t> -" (34 p to >~'t/

E)0- M ' 41 a 1. 41 O. 4t

-4. -) .Hg 4 HoV 44 o .a O,.-i o 0 01aON 44 4.r 4 0

OH 41 0 04)rS ea 0 4) 4) 4) ..

>4 - a z

cd wo

-)H NOM 4) . 4Flt r ,4 fl "0)4"R7

-4 a m >uHH pe E4 Q) N 0.

14 oA -o D0*.,0Z b WE.4H 41 OO.4)J "v

HO 0 14 14 rd 4 (1)N

* 0.)«p,04C)4 40 ))00 '.0 (0 *U4-) a U"UE0 . 4 (04)4)) 4)U) C4 U U> H

W NO NDl N W WN40 W

ww

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Conclusions

This investigation's first hypothesis states that

individuals who exhibit characteristics compatible with a

given occupational role are more able to consistently

identify with a preferred role (in a role projection task)

than with a less- or non-preferred role. The differences

between executive Group A's base and role-playing scores

are less than those between blue-collar Group B or white-

collar Group C. Additionally, the differences between

Group A's role-playing and normative data scores are less

than Group B or C. Therefore, the subjects' personality

characteristics as measured by the 16 PF inventory are

more compatible with the preferred executive role. As a

result, Group A is able to identify with the executive

more than Group B or C with its white- and blue-collar

positions. This finding supports other investigations

(Bruner, 1947; 1948; Bruner and Goodman, 1947; and Postman,

Bruner, and McGinnies, 1948).

Tables 16, 17, and 18 are graphic comparisons of base

and role-playing scores for Groups A, B, and C. Tables 19,

41

42

20, and 21 are comparisons of role-playing and normative

data scores for the same groups. These profiles clearly

indicate the subjects' close identification with the pre-

ferred role and the lack of it with the less or non-pre-

ferred roles.

Group A's executive role-playing scores dramatically

parallel, its own personality traits score. The scores

for factor A range between eleven and fourteen points. In

other words the executive and the subjects tend to be out-

going. The executive role-playing and normative data

scores are even closer (thirteen to fourteen points). The

same trait in Group C is much different in its blue-collar

projection task. Group C's scores for factor A are between

six and nine (a four-point spread, as in Group A), but dif-

ferences between Group C's role-playing and normative data

comparisons are between six and eleven points (a six point

spread). Group B's differences in the same factor are

greater than Group A's though not as dramatic as Group C's.

Group B's base and role-playing scores are between eight

and eleven points and its role-playing and normative data

scores are between eight and twelve. In other words, Group

A definately displays a higher degree of identification

with the preferred executive role in factor A. The same

is true for many of the other factor traits in Tables 16-

21 (factors A, B, E, F, H, M, N, 0,Q and Q2).

43

4J 0J U) CHU)U U 0 )004 'H rU &4U)r-1M L0 0 0 1 0-" 0

(a 0 4 w 0 0 u > N 0UU ) U) ' U) , 0 'H 0 > 0 U C U - i

0 ) w U0 U)C 4i .)U)N .e 0 J (U 'Hr- 44 r -i -eHe - 0 " r1 U -U)(U H H U) 04 '

" ! U) -) 0 0 -4 Ua 0 '0 U) 20 a)4a1 0 0 Q ' x J U) - H -H - 4 ) 4, 00 -H C .0 0 41 '0 04 (U d - 410 ,0.3 la 5 5 4 1 Ju0 0 U) U) d - ' H 0- -) J A U W N 9 U+() H U) ( O

oo a C do

< H . , .H.. , . . . . . . , ,

"c".-'s .-. @ r n

N "

NN

H r3 . .. H .. . " . @ . . . /.

E .n Y Y a . f o /

f.4.1, ,' 1c,)

c " . H , Z C 0 a04 0

'H 4'

SU U ). . . . . . . . a.H0 Q"". 0 U) U). 9

U ) (U 1 > C . '0 .) H a .0 -,H00 ."N> C> H: (,.H

0'4)H * O . 04U) OW . H U) ) W U (

44

U .

N "r1 Si N U S))

s6U U t C & a ia caH a 2)) r 0 Cd U)Q) U) v GU tU 0) q1 -- H ,. 7 ,

W U Q S. 4J 0 a )a(1) H a) H (v 9 04)rH 44a)

0 0 4 10 0) r .14 4

S. . . , \

N .. .

r. .0

" " .

r' ,"d

E4 " " - .- .. \.-

'4-4\

H04U\4 \k

0 o-0

ro " t tom iCi2" U >. .

'* U

N C1

ro U) H

H9:IW a 4) Ii

0 : H 43 4Wr-4 d OHy ryq My~)). . U I - 0

kwWaam"gam-

45

> >a0444) yU) U C

0 tv 9 dc7 > HUU ' Q U)U) . .

H U( (" C 0 i 4v -0(H S)~ tI) HU

0 v 40 .\ .() U . . .

. Ov C T >) t40$ 'C ( UN -0 U 2CU .> 1 : 3 4U -. 0 4 U) . 'H -4 H 4 t4 4 (4 U) 0 +0a z40 0)00 0)0

.o .. 0 ' - g) H ' -

P P4> 0 U ( ) HH

14 0 u (415 ) ) . ) U '

4 k)) P

C. 1 J 4 H(NT

0 ,. 'cn.a r.4. A. -44

44.t

o UU)4.)4U .y U)

r- 4 ,.4 -

Eo.0 - a U)HU)U C ' 0 U) a e k0 03} -H U' 4 0U) > 0 - - )

A a . e U, > U) aOr' U) v U) AC .H . J4 U) .') U ^) C) U) W4 U & 0 4. ,) U0 H19 0 't "04 U 4) 04

o 0 4JU-U) UH U) A2 U

N 4 4

444

.0n3 ) U

U i .a44 4- rH

H U) 03U) (f .tC) 4.)

.H . ,UU'U H9 U)U) U) H

-H "4.)

* u O 4 -Hu (

4 m -r,4 0 4J-41 . * - U * U

¬+0 00 ;-

'U) H *U)-H s

46

H O>

QQ x0E- 00S piv

0I)

04r

Cd'p

Cd

0

rd

CdH

ai)H0

(NI

(N

N'

(N

(N

(N

-4

(N

0

N

(NH-

H ! ...A

V

r-

ai)

a-)

aU

i

4)

00

e " s " "

..

0 1:- 4 .) M

H,0~

U) A 4 -). e U) e U03 4 0" U) -d - U) t U

U U) >TU) 4) Q) 0

,G (d 0 4) W E 9 o , a p 0 0 1 0) w 1U , ' U) U) 0Q ",.H "-! U) 0 U) )4~4 49 02 0U r{ 4 4.Ja) ~0 4.J U) U4 * 4-4 HH

Hr"1 1.4)U)'.4)(H U ! b0 .4 H4 U 0UV) U .}4) 4N U 0-) 0 0 U0 ) - 0 -4 . 0 H A a 4 H 44S4 4 0 0 . . . U y 4 A ' . H

A W U) 9 H U) tit u) C)) A4 U) HU)

5 MN a a e . He (N e,

AV 1 C 14 iii V "M H M CL "G A 01 W 01

4" oil I. . o . . . s

C 0 >.. W . , x F+ C 7?.

ON 4 "

s a

"

e

U) 0> 4

0 U, t W ( I 0 u Rs 9 04

04 u tHA.U :U 4 U

47

0 H

E-1 P-1,.0

0U)

Cd

0

CdCdi

ap

r4i

0

(N

(N

(N

(N

(N

H

N

L

AH

NH

Hi

f1.

. , \. . I .

I I . ....

S\ /'

r-

O N

"'C-H

0

0

4-J tiJ 0)

0 0 - W EU)G >"

U 0HO ')U0 , .,0 ' " -E U 0 0 i0044JH O 0*) W ) HOQ3 )"i"'U) ,C:0 *H4) *H U",Q4J L) 41. a 4 -0 41 ' .) 0 4) ) H 4" C . .H 0 . -H 0 r4

U *c&C C: -t 0.-H W*HQ 'Cp HCt0 0 C:- -O 0 0 04-HU*) C: 41 E U) H ) ( e o U) U

H o r')

U)

0U)

04

0U

-3

0z

.r4

cd

0

48

0A

(N

(N

(N(N

0

(-14

co

H

(N UOH-

W 010

t4)H- :

co " 1 " " ' " ao " *

HJ -H" U

" " " " . "

H y + /qH "tI0/o 9 - U (

f. 4 1y4 41 1 0. * w\ li d

.14.r.. .\.14

------------

49

A trait-for-trait role dominance is not the only

important consideration in establishing close identifica-

tion with the subjects and the preferred role. A matching

of personality and role-playing profile patterns is equally

important. Tables 16-18 display a consistent paralleling

of Group A's personality and role-playing line patterns

(from factor A to factor Q4 ) which doesn't exist in the

other groups (B or C). For example, the movements of the

base and role-playing score lines closely parallel each

other (in Group A) from a high propensity for ego strength

to a high propensity for tough-mindedness. Little devi-

ance exists between the traits. On the other hand, Group

B dispalys wide differences between its base and role-

playing traits for submissiveness vs. dominance, serious

vs. enthusiasm and so on. Group C has even wider pattern

swings. Thus certain personality factors which may be

complementary when base and role-playing scores are simi-

lar disappear when two profiles are not in parallel.

This study indicates, then, that there is a positive

association between an individual's personality traits and

his ability to role-play a preferred role as opposed to a

less- or non-preferred role.

The second hypothesis of this investigation states

that base measures of personality dimensions demonstrate

that more dominant personality factors (measured in terms

50

of deviation from the mean) facilitate identification with

preferred roles and inhibit identification with less-pre-

ferred roles. This study has indicated that there are

certain factors which do facilitate or inhibit role-play

ing or which remain neutral and neither facilitate nor

inhibit the task.

The facilitating factors are either fully or suppor-

tively facilitating. The fully facilitating factors (B, E,

H, N, and Q1 ) are important in that they inter-react with

each other in facilitating preferred role identification.

For example, factor B (lower versus higher scholastic men-

tal capacity) may reflect intrusive anxiety on low scores.

This directly affects Factors E (submissiveness versus dom-

inance), H (shy versus venturesome), N (practical versus

imaginative), and Q (conservatism versus radicalism).

Thus an individual displaying high intrusive anxiety tends

to be submissive and withdrawn. A preferred role for such

a person (based on available normative data) would not be

that of an executive. On the other hand,a stronger score

for Factor B results in a stronger measure of dominance

(factor E) and a more dominant propensity for the venture-

some extremes of factor H. This combination of personality

traits is more compitable for executive identification.

Thus the fully facilitating factors act in concert to sup-

port identification with a preferred role.

51

The supportively facilitating factors (F, M, 0, and Q2 )

assist in preferred role identification but to a slightly

lesser extent than fully facilitating factors. They tend

to have less integration with each other than fully facil-

itating factors, yet they remain important in the identi-

fication process. For example, factor B acts in concert

with factor F (seriousness versus enthusiasm) or factor H

(shy versus venturesome) in concert with factor 0 (guilt)

to assist identification with preferred roles. Thus the

absense or presence of facilitating (fully or supportively)

factors in an individual's personality profile directly

influences his choice of occupational position. For in-

stance,a low factor H reflects a more withdrawn, restrained

approach to life, interpersonally and affectively. Such an

individual will tend to avoid positions demanding close

relationships because of his inability to handle the inten-

sity of such relationships. This consideration alone would

limit an individual's occupational choice. Other, almost

endless comparisons are possible using various combinations

of facilitating and supportively facilitating factors.

Inhibiting factors (G, Q3 , and Q4 ) are definate re-

strainers when they are not compatable with a perceived

chosen role in a role-projection task.

Factor G (weak versus strong ego strength) suggests a

high measure of conscience and tends to inhibit identifica-

tion with a role not perceived to require high conscience.

52

A very high score suggests a demanding,rigid conscience, or

on a more positive side may indicate a highly conscienti-

ous, attentive, dependable approach to life. Such a high-

scoring individual may have difficulty (even with other

factors compitable) identifying with a professional gambler.

Factor Q3 (self-control measures) reflects a high or

low degree of will power and regard for social demands. A

low-scoring person may be inconsiderate and careless in his

behavior. On the other hand, a high-scoring individual

tends to have strong control over his emotions and behav-

ior. Such individuals are usually very socially precise

and careful. Persons without self-control will find this

factor inhibiting in identification with an executive

(according to available normative data).

The last inhibiting factor Q (low versus high ergic

tension) reflects (on low scores) laziness and low per-

formance or (on high scores) internal tensions related to

urges and desires in excess of what the person is able to

meet. A high scoring factor Q4 is likely to feel tense,

frustrated,and dissatisfied, but may not be able to verbal-

ize the reasons. Such tension, or the lack of it, tends

to inhibit preferred role identification where the base

and role-playing scores are dissimilar.

The remaining factors (A, C, I, and L) are neutral and

neither facilitate nor inhibit identification with a pre-

ferred role. For instance, individuals tending to be

53

tough-minded and trusting (factors I and L) can just as

easily identify with the role-playing positions as those

who are tender-minded and suspicious.

Identification of the fully facilitating, supportively

facilitating, inhibiting, and neutral factors is made through

analysis of data using inter-quartile analysis. A gradual

increasing in scores is evident from the bottom to the top

quartiles, but this is attributed to the ranking procedure

(low scores to high) used for establishing the quartiles.

In summary, this study finds that subjects in Groups B

and C are unable to identify with their assigned role-play-

ing positions because of the absence of facilitating and

supprotively facilitating factors. In Group A the inhibit-

ing factors prevented complete identification success. In

Groups A, B, and C, the neutral factors (A [reserved versus

outgoing], C [lower versus higher ego strength], I [tough-

minded versus tender-minded], and L [trusting versus sus-

picious]) neither helped nor hindered. However, one fact

which must be noted is that facilitating factors for one

role become inhibiting factors for another.

Implications of the Study

It is obvious that interpersonal similarity is found

to be a salient determinant of how person A identifies

with person or position A2 . It follows that occupational

preferences are basically a rational model of how individ-

uals develop preferences and make choices.

54

The conclusions suggest the pivotal role of the self-

concept or personality interacting with an individual's

perceived environment. It is clear that the processes of

perception and choice behaviors deal with the same problem--

the conditions affecting the valence of a stimulus person

or stimulus object to a person. This study suggests that

people will view the choice act alternative more positively

than before and the unchosen alternative more negatively

than before (which facilitates or inhibits identification

in a role-playing task).

Specifically, the study suggests that students, in

choosing or rejecting a social role such as an occupation,

do so based upon the characteristics attributed to various

organizational roles. These characteristics are the facil-

itating factors.

Suggestions for Further Research

1. The study should be replicated in geographical

areas other than North Texas. This will provide for cross-

sectional analysis of differing geographical cultures and

for comparison of the facilitating, inhibiting, and neutral

factors among the various regions.

2. A longitudinal study should be undertaken in order

to determine the effects of an individual's early person-

ality formation upon his occupational choice.

55

3. Additional research should be conducted in the

area of job satisfaction using the techniques presented in

this investigation, particularly the use of base measures

prior to exposure to external stimuli.

APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPH USED AS EXTRA STIMULUS

FOR STUDY

56

APPENDIX B

16 PF TEST INSTRUMENT

copyrighted material

51 - 6D

APPENDIX C

EXPLANATION OF 16 PF

PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS

62

FACTOR A--Sizothymia versus Cyclothymia.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score

is twenty (20). As the subject scores closer to 0, Sizo-

thymia or a measure of aloofness, detachment, critical

outlook is reflected. A low score generally indicates a

pattern of reserve, lack of spontaneity and a tendency

toward secretiveness. A low score would suggest that the

subject finds interpersonal closeness aversive. He may

feel threatened by closeness, or have difficulty handling

closeness because of fears that his own subdued feelings

may get the best of him. A low score does not mean that

the person likes being aloof and reserved. He may actually

be uncomfortable and dissatisfied with this characteristic

but remaining aloof is preferable to being overexposed and

possibly hurt.

Generally the associations with a higher score on

Factor A are more positive. It reflects an easy going,

adaptable interpersonal style. Behaviorally, one might

expect this person to be generous, kind and affectionate.

He will probably find it relatively easy to share his

feelings and fantasies with others. This person will

likely be a good group member. In extreme cases, the

subject may be very dependent or may be compensating for

feelings of inferiority so that his outgoing nature has

a driven or compulsive quality to it. An extremely high

63

scorer on Factor A may not be too attentive to details

and regulations. He may be somewhat undependable.

FACTOR B--Lower Scholastic Mental Capacity versus Higher

Scholastic Mental Capacity.

The minimum raw score is zero (0) and the maximum raw

score is thirteen (13). This factor is regarded as a good

measure of general intelligence (Cattell, Raymond, and

Scheier, 1959). There exists a possibility that a low

factor score reflects instrusive anxiety or disturbed

thinking rather than simply intellectual deficiency.

FACTOR C--Lower Ego Strength versus Higher Ego Strength.

The minimum raw score is zero (0) and the .maximum raw

score is twenty-six (26). This factor corresponds broadly

to the notion of ego strength. As a result, one may expect

that a low score will be associated with low stress toler-

ance, frequent complaints, easy annoyance, sleep disturb-

ance, phobias, etc.

A high score reflects a more mature, calm, relaxed

adaptable approach to life (i.e., higher ego strength).

Usually, this is a sign of a more mature approach to human

relations and the surrounding environment.

FACTOR E--Submissiveness versus Dominance.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty-six (26). A low score of Factor E may indicate that

64

the subject is mild, accomodating, and conforming. An

extremely low score will tend to reflect a high degree

of submissiveness.

A high score shows the tendency for an individual to

be assertive and aggressive. This high score combined

with a high Factor A score may be an indication of lea-

dership potential. However, a very high Factor E score

may show that an individual is stubborn and highly domi-

nant.

FACTOR F--Desurgency versus Surgency.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score

is twenty-six (26). A low score is regarded as a measure

of desurgency in a subject's personality. The low score

represents seriousness, soberiety, or prudency. On the

other hand, a high score is illustrative of enthusiasm and

liveliness. A very high Factor F score may suggest that

an individual is compulsive and may not tend to detail.

FACTOR G--Weaker Superego Strength versus Stronger Ego

Strength.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score

is twenty (20). A low score suggests a more carefree

approach to life. The person may appear happier and more

relaxed but may be unreliable and frustrating because of

a lack of adherence to rules and regulations.

65

A high score generally reflects superego strength. A

very high score suggests a demanding rigid conscience. On

the positive side this indicates a conscientious, attentive,

dependable approach to life. In a more negative manner, a

very high score may suggest that a person is conscientious

because of guilt, but feels inwardly hostile because he is

so bound by his sense of duty and responsibility.

FACTOR H--Threctia versus Parmia.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty-six (26). A low Factor H reflects a more withdrawn,

restrained approach interpersonally and affectively. This

individual may avoid demanding close relationships because

of his inability to handle the intensity of such relation-

ships.

A high score reflects a more active, impulsive unre-

strained approach. The high scorer in this factor will

more likely be interested in other people. Cattell (1970)

has stated that in a general sense, Factor H may reflect

the way a person handles his feelings.

FACTOR I--Harria versus Premsia.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty (20). Low Factor I scores represent a realistic,

practical, factually oriented style. This type of subject

may be cynical, self-sufficient and unresponsive to aesthe-

tics.

66

A high score represents a more subjective, aesthetic

orientation. It may indicate sensitivity and artfulness.

It tends to reflect a higher degree of empathetic skill

and sensitivity to other people. The individual scoring

high in Premsia (tender-mindedness) is more able to under-

stand others.

FACTOR L--Alaxia versus Protension.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty (20). A low Factor L score representa a non-competi-

tive, accomodating style, free of jealously, etc. This

person may tend to be dependent and "clinging." He is

probably a good team worker.. The presence or absence of

leadership ability may be reflected in Factors E and Q2 .

A high score reflects a more suspicious, cautious

approach. This person may be opinionated and hard to fool.

FACTOR M--Praxernia versus Autia.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score

is twenty-six (26). A low Factor M reflects a conventional,

conservative conscience-ridden approach. The person may

be anxious to please and sensitive to the expectations of

others.

A high score represents a more unconventional approach.

This person may be immature and impulsive and lacking judg-

ment. This factor should be considered in light of Factors

67

A, C, F, G, and Q1 . This person may be absent-minded and

careless of protocol and convention.

FACTOR N--Artlessness versus Shrewdness.

The minimum score possible is zero (0) and the maximum

score is twenty (20). A low score may reflect an uninsight-

ful, sentimental, unanalytic approach. The person may be

very trusting of traditional ideas and uninterested in deter-

mining his own motives and underlying motives of others.

He may find himself being characterized as socially inept

and gullible.

A high score may reflect an analytical, sophisticated,

socially perceptive approach. This person may be a shrewd

manipulator. He will probably possess an ability to under-

stand other people. This insightful quality may be used

in a conning, manipulative manner.

FACTOR 0--Untroubled Adequacy versus Guilt Proneness.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty-six (26). Ordinarily, this factor reflects a degree

of subjective discomfort or the extent to which the person

is troubled and worried. It is broadly related to personal

security and insecurity.

A low score generally reflects a confident self-assured

approach. It reflects feelings of adequacy. However, if a

low Factor 0 is associated with low Factors B and N, one

68

might have a subject whose self-assured manner reflects

naivete or lack of understanding of situations.

High scores reflect a worried, anxious and often frus-

trated and depressed orientation. The person may be hypo-

chondrical and phobic. Overall, a high scored Factor 0

suggests feelings of insecurity. This factor should be

examined in conjunction with Factors C, E, F, and Q4 .

FACTOR Q2--Conservatism versus Radicalism.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty (20). A low score is related to a traditional, rigid

approach which resists change without consideration for pos-

sible improvements involved in change. Here the person

tends to be conservative economically, religously and polit-

ically. He will probably not be interested in analytical

"intellectual" thought. The subject scoring low in the Q

Factor may be too cautious and obstructionistic in groups

that require constant modification and innovation.

The high scoring Factor Q is likely to be more toler-

ant of change, more radical and intellectual in his thought.

He is likely to be more informed and skeptical about tradi-

tional conventions.

FACTOR Q2 --Group Adherence versus Self Sufficiency.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty (20). A low Factor Q2 score reflects the extent to

69

which a person relies on the support and confirmation of

others. A high score, on the other hand, suggests that

the person is resourceful and relies more on his own deci-

sions rather than on the opinions and ideas of others.

The high score doesn't mean that the person doesn't like

other people, just that he doesn't need their agreement

or support.

FACTOR Q3 --Low Integration versus High Self Concept Control.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score is

twenty (20). Low scores reflect a lack of will power and

regard for social demands. This person may be inconsider-

ate and careless in his behavior. Also, this individual

often feels maladjusted because he doesn't control himself

as he feels he should.

High scoring individuals are more likely to have strong

control over their emotions and behavior. They will prob-

ably be very socially precise and careful. There may also

be paranoid and/or obstinate tendencies.

FACTOR Q4 --Low Ergic Tension versus High Ergic Tension.

The minimum score is zero (0) and the maximum score

is twenty-six (26). A low score reflects a sedate, relaxed,

composed orientation. In extreme cases, it may lead to

laziness and low performance.

A high score reflects internal tension related to urges

and desires in excess of what the person has been able to

70

meet. The high scoring Factor Q4 person is likely to feel

tense, frustrated and dissatisfied but may not be able to

verbalize the reasons.

Scores for each of the Factors a through Q4 are obtained

by administering the 16 PF test which contains one hundred

eighty-seven (187) items. The test requires from thirty-

five to fifty-five minutes to administer. Following the

scoring of the tests, the data can then be compared against

the examiner's own normative data or with the normative data

available from the developers of the 16 PF, the Institute

for Personality and Ability Testing.

APPENDIX D

16 PF MEAN BASE AND ROLE-

PLAYING SCORE COMPARISONS

71

Group A(Executive)*

16 PF Mean Base and Role-PlayingScore Comparisons

(N = 50)

Base Score(16) Executive Deviation From

Factors Mean Base Score Role Playing Score Role Playing Score

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

Q1

Q2

Q3

24

13.20

8.86

18.24

14.44

12.36

15.52

18.42

5.30

7.48

10.92

9.32

6.38

8.66

10.54

:16.24

9.24

11.02

8.16

16.46

14.28

15.78

13.66

16.28

9.18

7.10

12.16

8.34

8.28

10.44

9.26

13.70

11.32

2.18

0.70

1.78

0.16

3.42

1.86

2.14

3.88

0.38

1.24

0.98

1.90

1.78

1.28

2.54

2.08

. .. |

72

Group B(White Collar)

16 PF Mean Base and RolerPlayingScore Comparisons

(N = 50)

Base Score(16) White Collar Deviation From

Factors Mean Base Score Role-Playing Score Role-Playing Score

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

Qi

Q2

Q3

94

8.42

7.22

13.72

7.82

7.10

14.52

7.04

6.60

7.24

7.24

12.48

13.12

5.56

12.80

14.04

12.52

10.86

8.06'

16.72

14.40

15.46

14.34

16.26

9.96

7.36

11.84

8.24

9.16

9.90

10.08

14.06

11.72

2.44

0.84

3.00

6,58

8.36

0.18

9.22

3.36

0.12

4.60

4.24

3.96

4.34

2.72

0.02

0.80

73

Group C

(Blue Collar)

16 PF Mean Base and Role-PlayingScore Comparisons

(N 50)

Base Score

(16) White Collar Deviation FromFactors Mean Base Score Role-Playing Score Role-Playing Score

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

Q2

Q3

Q 4

6.64

7.44

15.80

7.02

7.76

11.96

7.36

6.44

5.98

9.04

11.90

13.10

5.70

11.38

12.80

11.30

10.98

8.50

16.44.

13.98

15.38

14.26

16.86

9.98

6.92

12.64

8.30

9.80

10.46

9.78

14.04

11.28

4.34

1.06

0.64

6.96

7.62

2.30

9.50

3.54

0.94

3.60

3.60

4.02

4.76

1.60

1.24

0.02

APPENDIX E

MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BASE

AND ROLE-PLAYING SCORE BY

QUARTILE

74

Quartile I

Mean Differences Between Base andRole-Playing Scores by Quartile

(N = 13)

Group A Group B Group CSubject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

..188

1.438

1.688

2.125

2.125

2.313

2.375

2.437

2.563

2.625

2.625

:2.750

:3.000

2.563

2.750

2.812

3.188

3.687

3.938

4.125

4.187

4.25-

4.375

4.437

4.437

4.812

3.437

3.68-

3.937

3.937

4.062

4.125

4.188

4.250

4.313

4.500

4.500

4.563

4.686

75

Quartile II

Mean Differences Between Base andRole Playing Scores by Quartile

(N = 12)

Group A Group B Group CSubject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1. 3.000 4.937 4.686

2. 3.063 5.062 4.686

3. 3.125 5.125 4.875

4. 3.187 5.187 4.938

5. 3.313 5.250 4.938

6. 3.500 5.313 4.938

7. 3.562 5.500 4.938

8. 3.562 5.563 5.125

9. 3.625 5.625 5.125

10. 3.625 5.625 5.187

11. 3.625 5.812 5.250

12. 3.625 5.812 5.313

76

Quartile III

Mean Differences Between Base andRole-Playing Scores by Quartile

(N =^12)

Group A Group B Group CSubject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1. 3.625 5.812 5.313

2. 3.812 5.875 5.438

3. 3.813 5.937 5.438

4. 3.813 5.937 5.625

5. 4.000 5.937 5.750

6. 4.000 5.937 5.823

7. 4.125 6.250 5.875

8. 4.313 6.375 5.875

9. 4.438 6.500 6.062

10. 4.438 6.500 6.125

11. 4.500 6.563 6.187

12. 4.500 6.625 6.250

77

Quaxtile IV

Mean Differences Between Base and

Role-Playing Scores by Quartile

(N = 13)

Group A Group B Group C

Subject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

4.625

4.625

4.687

4.750

4.812

5.000

5.438

5.500

5.750

6.500

6.750

6.813

7.000

6.812

6.938

6.938

6.938

7.063

7.250

7.250

7.812

7.875

6.94

8.312

9.000

10.188

6.250

6.375

6.500

6.563

7.000

7.062

7.313

6.375

6.438

7.812

7.875

7.938

8.750

APPENDIX F

16 PF MEAN ROLE-PLAYING AND

NORMATIVE DATA SCORE COMPARISONS

11"A,

78

Group A(Executive)

16 PF Mean Role-Playing and NormativeData Score Comparisons

(N =50)

Difference Between(16)i16 PF Executive

Factors RePlayng Scorese t Base and NormativeFatrsrNormative Dataes

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

L

M

N

0

Qi

2

23

94

13.20

8.86

18.24

:14.44

:12.36

15.52

18.42

5.30

7.48

10.92

9.32

6.38

8.66

10,54

16.24

9.24

13.90

9.21.

16.97

13.48

13.76

13.35

17.63

9.17

7.21

13.41

10.24

9.43

10.84

10.29

13.83

10.23

0.70

0.35

1.27

0.96

1.40

2.17

0.79

3.87

0.27

2.49

0.92

3.05

2.18

0,25

2.41

0.99

79

Group B(White Collar)

16 PF Mean Role-Playing and NormativeData Score Comparisons

(N = 50)

( 16) 16 PF White Collar Difference BetweenFactors Role-Playing Scores Base and NormativeNormative Data Scores

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

2

24

8.42

7.22

13.72

7.82

7.10

14.52

7.04

6.60

7.24

7.24

12.48

13.12

5.56

12.80

14,04

12.52

11.02

8.34

15.94

12.32

12.31

12.83

15.04

9.34

6.37

13.41

8.22

9.01

8.88

10.46

13.49

13.03

2.60

1.12

2.22

4.50

5.21

1.69

8.00

2.74

0.87

6.17

4.26

5.89

3.32

2.34

0.55

1,59

80

Group C(Blue Collar)

16 PF Mean Role-Playing and NormativeData Score Comparisons

(N = 50)

(16) 16 PF Blue Collar Difference BetweenRole-Playing Scores Base and Normative

Normative DataScores

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

Q2

93

Q4

6.64

7.44

15.80

7.02

7.76

11.96

7.36

6.44

5.98

9.04

11.90

13.10

5.70

11.38

12.80

11,30

11.02

5.95

16.15

13.87

12.10

11.63

15.30

9.34

8.01

12.67

8.37

9.64

7.06

9.77

15.17

13.03

4.38

1.49

0.35

6.85

4.30

0.33

7.94

2.90

2.03

3.63

3.53

3.46

1.36

1.61

2.37

1.73

.

.. ,

APPENDIX G

MEAN DEVIATIONS BETWEEN ROLE-

PLAYING AND NORMATIVE DATA SCORES

BY QUARTILE

81

Quartile I

Mean Deviations Between Role-Playing andNormative Data Scores by Quartile

(N 13)

Group A Group B Group CSubject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1. 2.116 2.604 2.823

2. 2.292 2.726 3.062

3. 2.417 3.064 3.071

4. 2.543 3.321 3.071

5. 2.567 3.321 3.114

6. 2.633 3.374 3.161

7. 2.702 3.422 3.224

8. 2.702 3.471 3.289

9. 2.721 3.486 3.289

10. 2.748 3.488 3.426

11. 2.843 3.568 3.429

12. 2.943 3.608 3.554

13. 2.971 3.653 3.584

82

Quartile II

Mean Deviations Between Role-Playing andNormative Data Scores by Quartile

(N 12)

Group A Group B Group CSubject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1. 3.008 3.657 3.679

2. 3.053 3.657 3.763

3. 3.066 3.658 3.796

4. 3.116 3.672 3.838

5. 3.232 3.701 3.855

6. 3.276 3.716 4.023

7. 3.349 3.727 4.026

8. 3.354 3.795 4.051

9. 3.369 3.841 4.054

10. 3.398 3.909 4.176

11. 3.412 4.065 4.203

12. 3.416 4.073 4.334

83

Quartile III

Mean Deviations Between Role-Playing andNormative Data Scores by Quartile

(N 12)

Group A Group B Group C

Subject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1. 3.427 4.112 4.240

2. 3.436 4.164 4.265

3. 3.438 4.171 4.275

4. 3.444 4.186 4.332

5. 3.469 4.219 4.335

6. 3.479 4.314 4.379

7. 3.579 4.355 4.441

8. 3.588 4.600 4.509

9. 3.617 4.618 4.520

10. 3.623 4.618 4.530

11. 3.661 4.621 4.559

12. 3.706 4.694 4.559

84

Quartile IV

Mean Deviations Between Role-Playing andNormative Data Scores by Quartile

(N 13)

Group A Group B Group C

Subject (Executive) (White Collar) (Blue Collar)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

3.709

3.731

3.872

3.874

3.921

3.958

4.041

4.101

4.125

4.453

4.492

4.530

5.888

4.727

4.814

4.918

5.173

5.316

5.394

5.430

5.537

5.807

5.907

5.931

5.973

6.471

4.652

4.711

4.711

4.889

5.515

5.215

5.404

5.758

5.870

5.899

5.900

6.076

6.121

,...

APPENDIX H

DEVIATIONS BETWEEN BASE

AND ROLE-PLAYING SCORES BY

QUARTILE

84.,hA

85

Quartile IGroup A

(Executive)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 13)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 13.231 14.385 1.154

B 8.308 8.046 .262

C 17.000 18.538 1.539

E 16.846 15.462 1.384

F 15.615 14.077 1.538

G 10.0 15.769 5.769

H 18.231 19.692 1.461

I 9.077 6.615 2.462

L 6.846 7.308 .462

M 11.077 11.154 .077

N 9,615 9.000 .615

0 6.923 6.000 .923

Q1 9.846 9.615 .231

Q2 6.615 9.923 3.308

Q3 13.538 15.692 2.154

Q4 9.846 8.769 1.077

Deviations Between

Quartile IIGroup A

(Executive)

Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 12)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A

B

C

10.583

8.417

17.750

15.000

14.083

14.250

18.833

8.833

6.417

13.167

7.083

6.583

11.333

10.833

13.917

9.25

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

Qi

Q2

Q3

Q4

15.000

8.500

18.'083

14.333

14.333

15.25

19.667

6.25

7.917

11.417

9.167

5.417

8.333

10.583

17.000

7.250

4.417

.433

.333

.667

.250

1.000

.834

2.583

1.500

1.750

2.084

1.166

3.000

.250

3.083

1.000

86

87

Quartile IIIGroup A

(Executive)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores

(N = 12)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 11.750 10.750 1.000

B 8.167 7.750 .417

C 16.417 19.417 3.000

E 14.250 14.250 0.000

F 15.333 10.000 5.333

G 13.917 15.333 1.416

H 15.500 17.917 2.417

I 9.000 5.583 3.417

L 6.083 6.750 .667

M 11.667 11.583 .084

N 9.750 11.167 1.417

0 8.750 6.167 2.583

10.083 9.417 .666

Q2 9.333 12.083 2.750

Q3 12.917 16.750 3.833

411.75 7.775 3.975

Deviations Between

Quartile IVGroup A

(Executive)

Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 13)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role Playing Score Deviation

A

B

C

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

0

Qi

Q2

Q3

Q4

9 .846

9.308

14.923

11.615

16.769

13.923

14.000

8.154

8.769

11.538

6.846

10.385

10.308

9.769

13.769

13.769

12.385

9.000

16.538

19.769

10.769

15.231

18.615

3.385

7.923

10.231

8.154

8.077

8.385

9.538

15.846

9.846

2.539

.308

1.615

8.154

6.000

1.308

4.615

4.769

.846

1.307

.308

2.308

1.923

.231

2.077

3.923

88

. ,. _ -

89

Quartile IGroup B

(White Collar)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 13)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role Playing Score Deviation

A 9.538 9.615 .077

B 10.846 7.538 3.308

C 16.308 16.154 .154

E 12.154 9.923 2.231

F 13.769 8.231 5.538

G 14.461 16.000 1.539

H 13.231 11.462 1.769

I 9.385 6.615 2.770

L 5.923 7.385 1.462

M 11.615 7.308 4.307

N 9.308 11.538 2.231

0 8.154 9.692 1.538

Q1 7.923 7.000 .923

Q2 10.462 13.308 2.846

Q3 14.385 15.923 1.618

94 13.308 10.462 2.846

90

Quartile IIGroup B

(White Collar)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role Playing Scores(N 12)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role Playing Score Deviation

A 9.000 8.583 .037

B 7.500 6.903 .597

C 18.167 14.250 3.917

E 15.167 8.000 7.170

F 14.250 6.833 7.917

G 13.750 14.000 .250

H 16.000 5.917 10.083

I 11.750 7.500 4.25

L 6.833 6.000 .833

M 11.917 7.917 4.000

N 7.75 12.833 5.083

0 8.462 13.000 4.538

Ql 14.25 5.250 9.000

Q2 11.167 11.417 .250

Q3 11.750 15.250 3.500

Q4 12.250 11.583 .667

91

Quartile III

Group B

(White Collar)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N 12)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 11.167 8.667 2.503

B 8.417 7.833 .584

C 16.667 14.083 3.584

E 17,750 9.083 8.667

F 11.333 7.583 3.83

G 13.250 13.583 .333

H 18.583 5.000 13.583

I 11.500 4.500 7.000

L 8.500 8.083 .437

M 12.083 5.417 6.666

N 7.917 12.167 4.250

0 10.500 13.167 2.667

Q1 10.417 5.75 4.667

Q2 10.000 13.417 3.417

Q3 12.417 12.500 .083

Q4 11.583 14.667 3.084

92

Quarttile IVGroup B

(White Collar)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 13)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 13.615 6.846 6.769

B 8.692 7.077 1.615

C 17.154 12.231 4.923

E 15.769 5.615 10.154

F 17.692 6.154 11.538

G 14.615 13.923 .692

H 18.538 5.385 13.450

I 8.692 7.538 1.154

L 8.077 7.154 .923

M 8.077 8.385 .308

N 7.692 13.846 6.226

0 7.462 15.692 8.230

Q1 11.923 4.462 7.461

Q2 8.385 12.769 4.384

15.462 12.077 3.385

Q4 8.846 12,000 3.154

93

Quartile IGroup C

(Blue Collar)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N 13)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 9.079 7.077 2.002

B 8.385 7.231 1.154

C 16.231 13.538 2.693

E 12.077 8.154 3.923

F 12.923 10.358 2.565

G 13.385 12.308 1.077

H 12.462 9.615 2.847

I 7.231 5.615 1.616

L 8.308 6.692 1.616

M 10.154 10.769 .615

N 10.231 11.846 1.615

0 11.846 11.796 .077

Q1 9.077 7.000 2.077

Q2 12.385 11.077 1.308

Q3 12.234 13.231 .997

94 11.846 10.462 1.384

94

Quartile IIGroup C

(Blue Collar)

Deviations Between 'Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 12)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 10.000 8.500 1.500

B 9.500 7.083 1.417

C 15.750 16.750 2.000

E 13.750 10.417 3.333

F 13.500 9.000 4.500

G 14.083 13.500 .583

H 15.750 12.000 3.750

I 9.917 7.000 2.917

L 3.917 5.833 1.916

M 13.333 9.750 3.583

N 7.333 11.000 3.667

0 7.750 9.750 2.000

Q1 10.083 5.750 4.333

Q2 12.083 10.083 2.000

93 14.167 13.500 .667

24 12.083 10.167 1.916

95

Quartile IIIGroup C

(Blue Collar)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 12)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 12.25 7.667 4.583

B 8.333 7.250 1.083

C 15.333 15.583 .250

E 12.917 6.833 6.084

F 17.500 8.583 8.917

G 12.083 11.417 .666

H 18.833 4.750 14.083

I 18.833 7.500 14.083

L 6.917 6.500 .417

M 11.500 7.063 4.437

N 9.583 11.833 2.250

0 6.917 14.417 7.500

Q1 11.583 4.750 6.788

Q2 8.333 11.333 3.000

Q3 15.667 13.083 2.584

Q4 9.417 11.583 2.166

96

Quartile .IVGroup C

(Blue Collar)

Deviations Between Mean Base and Role-Playing Scores(N = 13)

Factor Mean Base Score Mean Role-Playing Score Deviation

A 13.000 6.462 6.538

B 7.91 6.692 1.218

C 18.000 12.932 5.077

E 15.540 6.308 9.232

F 19.910 5.154 14.756

G 13.610 11.538 2.072

H 20.000 6.385 13.615

I 10.538 6.769 3.769

L 7.692 4.077 3.615

M 13.769 8.077 5.692

N 6.077 12.538 6.461

0 7.769 15.308 7.539

Q1 11.538 6.846 4.692

Q2 8.077 12.462 4.385

Q3 14,154 12.000 2.154

Q4 10.692 14.692 4.000

, _

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., and Lindsey, G. Study ofvalues (rev. ed). Boston: Houghton Miff lin, 1951.

Atkinson, J. W. Motives in fantasy, action, and society.Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958.

Atkinson, J. W. Towards experimental analysis of humanmotivation in terms of motives, expectancies, and incen-tives. In Atkinson, J. W. (ed.) Motives in fantasy,action, and society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958,288-305.

Atkinson, J. W. An introduction to motivation. Princeton:Van Nostrand, 1964.

Bender, J. E., and Hastorf, A. H. On measuring generalizedempathic ability. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho-logy, 1959, 54, 556-561.

Boring, F. Self esteem and perception. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1946, 44-47.

Bruner, J. S., and Goodman, C. Value and need as organiz-ing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 1947, 42, 33-44.

Bruner, J. S. Emotional selectivity in perception and reac-tion. Journal of Personality, 1947, 16, 69-77.

Bruner, J. S., and Postman, L. Tension and tension releaseas organizing factors in perception. Journal of Person-ality, 1947, 15, 300-308.

Bruner, J. S., and Goodman, C. C. Value and need as organ-izing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1947, 42, 33-44.

Bruner, J. S. Perception under stress. PsychologicalReview, 1948, 6, 314-323.

Bruner, J. S. Symbolic value as an organizing factor inperception. Journal of Social Psychology, 1948, 27_,203-212.

97

V-

98

Bruner, J. S. On perceptual readiness. PsychologicalReview, 1957, 64, 114-125.

Bruner, J. S.,and Perlmutter, H.. V. Compatriot and for-eigner: a study of impression formation in three coun-tries. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957,55, 253-260.

Bruner, J. S., and Tajfel, H. Cognitive risk and environ-mental change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1961, 62, 231-241.

Bordin, E. S., Nachmann, B., and Segal, S. J. An articu-lated framework for vocational development. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 1963, 10, 107-117.

Burnstein, E., Stotland, E., and Zander, A. Similarity toa model and self-evaluation. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1961, 62, 257-264.

Buros, 0. K. The sixth mental measurements yearbook. High-land Park, N. J.: Gryphon Press, 1965.

Cantril, H., and Allport, G. W. Recent applications of thestudy of values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho-logy, 1933, 28, 259-273.

Cattell, R. B., and Warburton, F. W. Objective personalityand motivation tests: A theoretical introduction andpractical compendium. Champaign: University of IllinoisPress, 1964.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., and Tatsuoha, M. M. Handbookfor the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF).Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cline, V. B. Ability to judge personality assessed with astress interview and sound-film technique. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 50, 183-187 (b).

Cline, V. B. An analysis of the performance of 100 airforce officers on the social acuity test. USAF Pers.Train, Res. Cent. Tech. Memo., 1955; Proj. No. 7730,No. AF 18(600)-8, Maxwell AFB, (a).

Cline, V. B., and Richards, J. M. Accuracy of interper-sonal perception--a general trait. Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 1960, 60,

99

Conrad, R., and Jaffe, H. Occupational choice and valuesin a mass society. Paper read at meeting of the AmericanSociological Association, New York, August 28-31, 1960.

Cottle, W. C. A factorial study of Multiphasic, Strong,Kuder, and Bell inventories using a population of adultmales. Psychometrika, 1950 , 15, 25-47.

Cowden, R. C. Empathy or projection. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 1955, 11, 188-190.

Crow, W. J., and Hammond, K. R. The generality of accuracyand response sets in interpersonal perception. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 384-390.

Davitz, J. R. Social perception and sociometric choice ofchildren. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1955, 30, 173-176.

Duffy, E., and Crissy, W. J. E. Evaluative attitudes asrelated to vocational interests and academic achievement.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 226-245.

Farber, B. An index of marital integration. Sociometry,1957, 20, 117-134.

Fiedler, F. E., Warrington, W. G., and Blaisdell, F. J.Unconscious attitudes as correlates of sociometric choicein a social group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, 1952, 47, 790-796.

Fiedler, F. E. Assumed similarity measures as predictorsof team effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 1954, 49, 381-387.

Fitts, W. H. Manual for the Tennessee Self-concept Scale.Nashville: Nashville Recordings and Tests, 1965.

Fitts, W., and Hammer, W. The self-concept and delinquency.Nashville: Nashville Mental Health Center, 1969.

Freeman, L. C. Applied statistics for students in behavioralscience. New York: Wiley Publishing Co., 1965.

Gage, N. L., and Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and methodolog-ical problems in interpersonal perception. PsychologicalReview, 1955, 62, 411-422.

100

Ghiselli, R. Psychological statistics. Englewood Cliffs,N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology andeducation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1942.

Haire, M. Role perceptions in labor-management relations.Industrial Labor Relations Review, 1955, 204-216.

Halpern, H. M. Empathy, similarity and self-satisfaction.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, 19, 449-452.

Hanfmann, E., Stein, M. I., and Bruner, J. S. Personalityfactors in the temporal development of perceptual organ-ization. American Psychologist, 1947, 2, 284-285.

Helastadter, R. Statistical approaches to psychology.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. 0., and Capwell,D. F. Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion.Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957.

Holland, J. L. A theory of vocational choice. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 1959, 6, 35-44.

Holland, J. L. Some explorations of a theory of vocationalchoice: I. One-and-two year longitudinal studies.Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76, No. 26 (Whole No. 545).

Holland, J. L. Exploration of a theory of vocational choiceand achievement: II. A four-year prediction study.Psychological Monographs, 1963, 12, 547-594.

Holland, J. L. The psychology of vocational choice: Theoryof personality types and environmental models. New York:Ginn, 1966.

Hollander, E. P. Leaders, groups, and influence. New York:Oxford University Press, 1964.

Hollander, M. A. The relationships among occupational ster-eotypes, certain personality dimensions, and vocationalpreferences of adolescents. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, University of Oklahoma, 1968.

Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century, 1943.

ftm

101

Hull, C. L. Essentials of behavior. New Haven: Yale,1951.

Hull, C. L. A behavior system. New Haven: Yale, 1952.

Irvin, F. S. Personality characteristics and vocationalidentification. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968,15, 329-333.

Ka:zmier, L. J. Statistical analysis for business and eco-nomics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Kuder, G. F. Revised manual for the Kuder Preference Record.Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1946.

Lawler, E. E. Pay and organizational effectiveness: Apsychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Lawler, E. E., and Porter, L. W. The effect of performanceon job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 1967, 7, 20-38.

Lawler, E. E., and Porter, L. W. Antecedent attitudes ofeffective managerial performance. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, 122-142.

Lewin, K. The conceptual representation and the measure-ment of psychological forces. Durham, N.C.: Duke Uni-versity Press, 1938.

Lewin, K. Group decision and social change. In Newcomb,T. M. and Hartley, E. L. (Eds.) Readings in socialpsychology. New York: Holt, 1947, 330-334.

Loor, D. Self perception and occupational choice. Psyah1-logical Bulletin, 1970, 32-41.

Lundy, R. M., Katovsky, W., Cromwell, R. L., and Shoemaker,D. J. Self-acceptability and descriptions of sociometricchoices. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1955, 51, 260-262.

Lundy, R. Self-perception and description of opposite sexsociometric choices. Sociometry, 1956, 19, 272-277.

Marzolf, S. S. Interests and choice of teaching field.Illinois Academy of Science Transactions, 1946, 39,107-113.

102

Newcomb, T. M. The prediction of interpersonal attraction.American Psychologist, 1956, 11,, 572-586.

Osipow, S. H., Ashby, J. D., and Wall, H. W. Personalitytypes and vocational choice: Test of Holland's theory.Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 45, 37-42.

Peak, H. Attitude and motivation. In Jones, J. R. (Ed.)Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska Press, 1955, 149-188.

Pearson, E. S. Biometrika tables for statisticians. Cam-bridge: University Press, 1904.

Pinter, R. A comparison of interests, abilities, and atti-tudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1933,27, 351-357.

Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. What job attitudes tellus about motivation. Harvard Business Review, 1968, 46,118-126.

Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. Managerial attitudes andperformance. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1968.

Postman, L., Bruner, J. S., and McGinnies, E. Personalvalues as selective factors in perception. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 1948, 43, 142-154.

Preston, M. G., Peltz, W. L., Mudd, E. H., and Froscher,H. B. Impressions of personality as a function of mari-tal conflict. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1952, 47, 326-336.

Raven, B. H. Sound influence on opinions and the communi-cations of related content. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1959, 58, 119-128.

Rosenberg, M. Occupations and values. Glencoe, Ill.:The Free Press, 1957.

Rubin, I. Increased self-acceptance: A means of reducingprejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1967, 5, 233-238.

Seashore, H. G. Validation of the study of values for twovocational groups at the college level. EducationalPsychological Measurement, 1947, 7, 757-763.

103

Segal, S. J. A psychoanalytic analysis of personality fac-tors in vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psycho-logy, 1961, ,8, 202-210.

Sheerer, E. The relation of self-acceptance and self-respect to acceptance of the respect for others. Jour-nal of Consulting Psychology, 1949, 1(3), 169-175.

Siegelman, M., and Peck, R. F. Personality patterns relatedto occupation rates. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1960,61, 291-349.

Siess, T. F., and Jackson, N. N. Vocational interests andpersonality: An empirical integration. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 27-35.

Smith, A. J. Perceived similarity and the projection ofsimilarity: The influence of valence. Journal of Abnor-mal and Social Psychology, 1958, 57, 376-379.

Smith, May. The temperamental factor in industry. HumanFactor, 1936, 10, 301-314.

Stockton, J. R., and Clark, C. T. Business and economicstatistics. Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing Com-pany, 1971.

Stone, G. C., and Leavitt, G. S. Generality of accuracyin perceiving standard persons. Bureau of EducationalResearch, College of Education, University of Illinois,1954 (Mimeo).

Super, D. E. A theory of vocational development. Ameri-can Psychologist, 1953, 8, 185-190.

Super, D. E., and Crites, J. D. Appraising vocationalfitness. New York: Harpers, 1962.

Tolman, E. C. Purpose and cognition: The determiners ofanimal learning. Psychological Review, 1952, 32, 285-297.

Tolman, E. C. Principles of purposive behavior. In Koch,S. (Ed.) Psychology: A study of a science. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1959, 2, 92-157.

Tyler, L. E. Tests and measurements. Englewood Cliffs,N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1963.

104

Vernon, P, E., and Allport, G. W. A test for personalvalues. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1931, 26, 231-248.

Vroom, V. H. The effects of attitudes on perception oforganizational goals. Human Relations, 1960, 13, 229-240.

Vroom, V. H. Some personality determinants of the effectsof participation. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.~ Prentice-Hall, 1960.

Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. (3rd Ed.). New York:Wiley, 1967.

Wallin, R., and Clark, A. Marital satisfaction and hus-bands' and wives' perception of similarity in theirpreferred frequency of coitus. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1958, 370-373.

Wanous, J. P. Occupational preferences: Perceptions ofvalence and instrumentality, and objective data. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56,

Wrightsman, L., Richard, W., and Noble, F. Attitude changesof guidance institute participants. Counselor Educationand Supervision, 1966, 5(4), 212-220.

Yun, K. S. Student preferences in divisional studies andtheir preferential activities. Journal of Psychology,1942, 13, 193-200.

"%9w