Differences between true introverts, socialintroverts, and ambiverts on Rorschach's E-B ratios

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Solomon, Richard Henry, 1946-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 18/06/2018 16:30:22

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/554613

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRUE INTROVERTS, SOCIAL INTROVERTS, AND AMBIVERTS ON RORSCHACH’S E-B RATIOS

byRichard Henry Solomon

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of theDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY *

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree ofMASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate CollegeTHE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

19 7 3

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowl­edgement of source is made. Requests for permission for ex­tended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgement the proposed use of the material is in the inter­est of scholarship. In all other instances, however, per­mission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED;

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

Marvin V. Kalin DateProfessor of Psychology

ACKHOWXEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr„ Marvin ¥ 0 Kahn, his thesis director, for his generous assistance and helpful direction in the planning and execu­tion of the research reported herein» He also wishes to thank Drs0 John 1= Delk and Lewis Hertz for their help in the refinement of the experimental design and for other useful suggestions in the completion of this thesis0 Finally, he wishes to thank his wife, Chihoko, for her Under­standing, encouragement, and support which have helped him to reach this level of achievement in his professional and academic career0

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageLIST OF TABLES 0 © o © © © © © © o o © © © © © o o © ‘W*

ABSTRACT © © © © © © © © © © © © © © e © © © © © © ©INTRODUC T ION © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 1

Historical Background © © © © © © o . © © © © 1Present Study* © © © © © © © © © o © © © © © 3

METHOD o o @ e © o © o e o e © © e o © o e o o o o o ^SulDjects © 0 o o © . © © © © © © © © o o o o © SProcedure © ' © © © © © © © © © © © o © © © © 6Specific Hypotheses © © © o o o o © © © © © 9

Hypothesxs 1 © © © © o © © ® © © © © 10Hypothesxs 2 © e © © © © © © © © © © 11Hypothesis 3 ©© © © © ©© © © © © © 11

Statistical Analysis a * * , * © * , © © © © 12RESULTS © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © o o o o o o 13

MMPI Results■ O O O O & O O & Q O O O O O O O 13Rruskall-=*¥allis Analysis © © © © © © © © © © 14

Hypothesxs 1 © o © © © © © © © © © © 15Hypothesxs 2 © © © © © © o © © © © © 16Hypothesis 3 © © © © © © © © o © © © 1 7

Additional Results © © ® © © © © © © © © © © 19DISCUSSION © © © © © © © © o - © o © © o Q © © © © o © 22

MMPI Results o o e o © © © © © ® © © © © © © 22Kruskall«Wallis Analysis ® © © © ® © © © © © 23Add it xonal Results © © © © o © © © © © © © © 26

SUMMARY o © © 0 o © 0 © © o © © © © © © © © © © o 0 © 51APPENDIX A: F,E:,AND Si SCALE MMPI ITEMS © © © © © © 33APPENDIX Bs GROUP RORSCHACH INSTRUCTIONS © © © © © 41REFERENCES © a © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® ® 44

It

LIST OF TABLES

Table PageXo Mean T Scores and Mean F-K Raw

Score Differences for the Ti, Si,and Am OrouLps © o o o © o o © o o o ® o e o 0 © 1^

20 Ti, Si, m d Am Group Means and Pro=Labilities of the E-=B Measures . ® e e e © » e 15

3© Overall and Intergroup Analysisof 3)5 s Sum 0 Ratio © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 16

4© Overall and Intergroup Analysisof FM-tou Fc+c+C5 Ratio © © © © © © © © © © © © 17

5© Overall and Intergroup Analysis of $R © © © © © 186© Group Placement of 18 Subjects According

to Their Si Scale T Scores and $R © © © © © © © 197© Ti, Si, and Am Group Mean $ of m and

O’ Responses and College Age Norms © © © © © © 208© Overall and Intergroup Analysis

of m$ and C © © © © © © © © * © @ © © © © © © 209© Introverted, Ambivert Group Means of

Ms Sum C, Comparable Components of the E-B Measures, Their Probabilities, and Mean Si T Scores for the Present Study and the Allen, Richer, Plotnick Study © © © © © 24

10© Mean Percentage of FC, CF, C and cResponses, Mean Fc+c+C8 s FC+CF+C, and Their Probabilities for the Ti and Si Groups, and College Age Norms forthese Response Categories © © © © © © © © © © © 29

ABSTRACT

The present study investigated the ability of the Group Rorschach to distinguish between behavioral and atti- tudinal aspects of introversion and between introversion and ambiversiono Three groups of nine subjects each out of the original pool of 102 subjects were formed on the basis of their answers to items from the Fs E, and Si scales of the MMPTo The groups were: l) subjects whose self reports indicated both introverted behavior and attitudes, 2) sub­jects whose self reports indicated introverted behavior with extroverted attitudes, and 3) subjects whose self reports indicated ambiverted behavior and attitudes <> After an ad­ministration of the Group Rorschach.to the 27 subjects, a Kruskall-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks was performed on the Experience Balance measureso The lack of significant differences between groups 1 and 2 and groups 2 and 3 on all three of the measures suggested they are unable to distinguish between behavioral and attitudinal.aspects of introversion and ambiversiono The fact that one measure produced statistically significant differences between

vi

group 1 and 3 and one other had a trend toward significance suggested that the measures are capable of distinguishing between introverts and ambivertSo A difference in the mo= tivation between the subjects in groups 1 and 2 was also suggested by additional results»

INTRODUCTION

In the theoretical and empirical work done on the personality dimension of int reversion- ext rove r s ion some investigators have been struck by the lack of correspondence between what an individualas test scores or observations of him indicate what his behavior is likely to be and what it actually is (Jung 1920g Rorschach 1964)e Although an indi­vidual may be honest in his self reports about his behavior on a test as indicated by the validity scales on the test or the observer's intuition may be validated by consensual agreement with other observers, his behavior outside that specific testing or observational setting may not be in accord with what is expectedo One way investigators have attempted to account for this apparent contradiction between their expectations of, an individual' s behavior and what it is in other situations with the. dimension of introversion- extroversion has been to make a distinction between whether an attitudinal or a behavioral aspect of the dimension is being tested .or observed (AllenRicher, and Plotnick 19641 Evans and McConnell 1941, Guilford and Guilford 1939? Rorschach 1964)»

Historical Background By calling this dimension of personality the Brleb-

nistypus, experience type, Rorschach (1964) felt that his

2test measures the attitudinal aspect of this personalitydimensione He stated that an individual’s experience typeis not acquired by experience as the ability for logicalthought is but rather is an inherent9 primary quality thatis constitutional in nature and can come under the controland regulation of an individual’s disciplined thinking« Anindividual’a Experience Balance ratios computed from hisRorschach protocol indicate how he experiences and notnecessarily how he lives or toward what he is striving*

An individual with very predominant introversive features may be. decidedly. extratensive in his be­havior p though the extratensive features are less in evidence in the test than the introversiveo»*These discrepancies between the experience type and actual living can only be explained by the fact that the ’active energy’, the effective energy at the moment, the will, the libido, or whatever else it may be named, is so oriented as to allow only a part of the faculties for experiencing to be in oper-'. ation* * * The apparatus with which the individual is endowed for assimilating experiences is a much broader, more extensive instrument than that which he uses in living (Rorschach 1964, p„ 87=88)*

In describing this dimension of personality theoreti­cally, Rorschach (1964) states the intratensive type of person is one who is stable in his affect, subjective and personal in his orientation in his relationships to the world around him, awkward and of limited motility in physical ac­tivities, insufficient in his ability to adapt to reality, and insufficient in achieving rapport with large numbers of people (extensive rapport) but capable of quite intensive rapport once he is able to make contacts with people* The

extratensive type of individual is sometimes unstable in his affective reactions, more capable of normal extensive rap­port, more skillful at adapting to reality, has the urge to live more in the world outside himself, and engages in re­productive, practical thought rather than independent, cre­ative thought as the intratensive person does (Rorschach 1964, Po 76)o Finally, the individual who combines some intro- versive features with some extratensive features are called ambiequal by Rorschach (1964, p* 92) =, "The normal ambiequal subject appears to fall more to the introversive side of , schemes, while the hypomanic (and manic) seems to fall more on the extratensive side»" In other words, the normal ambi­equal, or ambivert as others call him, has a strong intra­tensive foundation with some extratensive attitudes <>

In a more empirical vein, Guilford and Guilford (1939) performed a factor analysis on an introversion-extro- version questionnaire and discovered nine different inde­pendent factors which Evans and McConnell (1941) summarised as followsg Thinking Introversion-Extroversion, Social Introversion-Extroversion, Emotional Introversion-Extro­version, Masculinity-Femininity, and Freedom from Care*Evans and McConnell then proceeded to construct a test to measure three of these factors, which they called the Minnesota Thinking-Social-Emotional Inventory® They defined the Thinking Introvert as a person showing a liking for re­flective thought, particularly of a more abstract nature®

His thinking tends not to he so dominated or oriented to objective conditions and generally accepted ideas as the thinking of the extrovert« The Thinking Extrovert shows a liking for overt action,. His ideas tend to deal with overt action® The Social Introvert withdraws from social contacts and responsibilities and shows little interest in people®The Social Extrovert on the other hand seeks social contacts and responsibilities and depends on them for his satis­faction because his primary interest is in people„ The Emotional Introvert tends to repress and inhibit the ex­pression of his emotions outwardly® He tends not to make a typical response to simple$, direct emotional appeals® The Emotional Extrovert readily expresses his emotions and tends to make the expected response to simple 9 direct emotional appeals (Evans and McConnell 1941» p® 114)®

This test, however, was never used very much by psy­chologists possibly due to the fact that, as French (1949) observed, its criterion groups were established on the basis of the then commonly held stereotypes that for example English majors were introverted and Physical Education ma­jors were extroverted® Drake (1946) also constructed a Social Introversion-Extroversion scale to be used with the MMPI that was designed to measure the social aspect of this personality dimension® This scale has been incorporated into the MMPI and is usually scored when the MMPI is ad- . ministered® Although Drake stated that he intended to

derive Thinking and Emotional scales in a similar way, he never reported such attempts in the literaturee

Present StudyThuSg numerouse investigators have made a distinction

between ideational» emotionalp exponentialP and behavioral aspects of introyersion-extroversion in the realization that a person's behavior may not be in accord with his attitudesp thoughtsp feelings, etc* The present study was an attempt to test a hypothesis regarding these different aspects of introversion-extroversiono Specificallyp are the Experience Balance measures of the Rorschach capable of distinguishing between groups of individuals who are defined as being introverted or extroverted in both their attitudes and self reported behavior versus individuals whose reported behavior and attitudes are contradictory to each otherP e»gop. reported introverted behavior with extroverted attitudes or vice versa? Additionallyp it was desired to know if the Ex­perience Balance measures are capable of distinguishing between attitudinal and self reported behavioral introverts and attidudinal and self reported behavioral extroverts.

METHOD

SubjectsThe subjects for the study were 48 male and 54 female

students enrolled in Psychology courses la? lbs 105» and 125 during the first summer session of the 1971-72 school year at The University of Arizona» Participation in the study was voluntaryo Subjects were offered individual feedback on their test results in order to encourage participation.

ProcedureThe subjects were given an abridged form of the MMPI

consisting of the items of the F, and Si scales» The items were presented to them in the order in which they normally appear on the standard full form R of the MMPI.See Appendix A for a copy of the item list and answer sheet which was presented to each subject. The tests were scored by a fellow graduate student of the investigator in order to insure that the latter would not be biased by a knowledge of the scores of those subjects asked to volunteer for later testing. It was planned to have four groups of 10 subjects

'i ■ .each from the original pool of subjects0The rationale behind the group membership criterion

was as follows s Si scale T scores would be indicators

of the behavioral aspect of this personality dimension while the F==K raw score difference would he used as an indicator of the attitudinal aspect«, Subjects who score 60 and above on the Si scale would be considered introverted while those who score 40 or below would be considered, extroverted in their behavior0 Those subjects whose F-K raw score difference was =11 or more would be considered as people who in reporting their behavior to be introverted or extroverted had been try= ing to make themselves look goodQ Those whose F=K was from =5 to +§ would be considered to have been fairly honest in their self report about their behavior» This conclusion was based on the work done by Gough (1950) and Maclean, Tait, and Catterall (1953) with the K scale and F=K raw score dif= ference 0 It was hypothesized by the investigator that those people who had tried to "fake good," i0eo, F=K of =11 or more, were people whose behavior may be what they report it is, but whose attitudes, thinking, or emotions are probably the oppositeo In other words, people6s attitudes may be introverted, but for some reason, perhaps fear of the un­conscious as Kindness suggests, he presents himself as act­ing as an extrovert» Likewise a person whose attitudes are extroverted may report his behavior as being introverted be= cause of a fear of people rejecting him or a fear of compe­tition said struggleo It was hypothesized that those individuals who had been fairly honest in their self reports, in other words an F=K of from =5 to +5* were

people whose behavior is probably consistent with their thinking, attitudes, etc. In other words, such introverted individuals report intorverted behavior because of what Mindness (1955 s, p= 248) calls a ’"desire for the stimulation of fantasy” while such extroverted individuals report extro­verted behavior because of a "’desire for the stimulation of interaction with otherso” Thus, it was planned that the four groups of subjects would be as followss

lo Group 1-- S’s with a T score on the Si scale of 60 or more and an raw score difference of from -5 to +5 (Called True Introverts or Ti)<,

2d Group 2— S’s with an Si T score of 60 or more and an F-K raw score difference of =11 or more (Called Social Introverts or Si)oGroup 5— S’s with an Si T score of 40 or less and an F-K ra^ score difference of from =5 to ,+5 (Called True Extroverts or Te)»

4o Group 4— S ’s with an Si T score of.40 or less and an F-K raw score difference of -11 or more (Called Social Extroverts or Se)0The investigator then planned to administer a group

Rorschach to those subjects who fit the above described criteria« The investigator would be given a list of 40 students who fit these criteria without any knowledge as to which group each subject belonged to and attempt to enlist their further cooperation by offering them more feedback regarding their personalities0 The 40 subjects would be told that they had been chosen merely at random in the effort by the investigator to learn some more about the personalities of college studentso

- . • ■ 9The group Rorschach was to be given according to the

instructions developed by Earrower and Steiner (1951)* which are presented in Appendix B0 The protocols would be scored according to KLopfer”s system in terms of Rorschach’s three basic measures of introversion-extroversion„ These measures are called the Experience Balance Ratios (hereafter called E-B) and are defined by Klopfer and Davidson (1962) as:

lo M: Sum C ...20 EM+ms Fc+c+C’5o io Responses to cards viii, ix, & x (hereafter

called foR)Rorschach (1964) felt that the production of movement re­sponses Mg FMP and m require more imagination and fantasy life on the part of the subject than the production of color responses CP FcP cp FC$, CFP and C T h u s , he hypothesized that introverts'will have higher M: Sum C and FM+m: Fc+c+C1ratios and a lower percentage of responses to the last three cards which are chromatic in color than extroverts will.

Specific Hypotheses As stated before, Rorschach (1964) felt his E-B

ratios measured a person’s experience type or attitude.Thus, it was hypothesized that those subjects with intro­verted attitudes (Groups Ti & Se) would have scores on their E-B. measures significantly more in an introverted direction than those subjects with extroverted attitudes (Groups Te & Si). As Rorschach believed, this was hypothesized to be so

.. 10 regardless of what their self reports of their behavior on the Si scale indicatede

Since it was found that none of the 102 subjects had a T score of lower than 48 on the Si scale9 it was necessary to modify the originally intended specific hypotheses to those seen below0 The two groups reporting extroverted be­havior $, the Te and Se groups 9 were droppedp and a group of subjects whose attitudes and behavior were average or ambi- verted was formed to be used for comparison purposes with the two groups of introverted subjects, groups Ti & Si0 See the results section below for a further discussion of this ambivert group® The specific hypotheses to be tested were once again concerned with differences in the attitudes of the different groups of subjects» The hypotheses are de­scribed belowe

Hypothesis 1Subjects with introverted attitudes will score

significantly higher than subjects with extroverted and ambiverted attitudes on the Ms Sum C E-B measure0 Subjects with extroverted attitudes will score significantly lower on this measure than tho.se with, ambiverted attitudes.

Sub-hypothesis A. Ti Ms Sum C will be significantly higher than Si Ms Sum C„ ,

Sub-hypothesis B„ Ti Ms Sum C will be significantly higher than Am Ms Sum C.

11Sub-hypothesis Co Si Ms Sum C will be significantly

lower than Am Ms Sum Ce

Hypothesis 2Subjects with introverted attitudes will score

significantly higher than subjects with extroverted and ambiverted attitudes on the FM+ms Fc-f-c+C® E-B measure 0 Subjects with extroverted attitudes will score significantly lower on this measure than those with ambiverted attitudese

Sub-hypothesis A0 Ti FM-ms Fc+c+C1 will be signi­ficantly higher than Si FM+ms Fc+c+CS

Sub-hypothesis Bo Hi FM+ms Fc+c+C1 will be signi­ficantly higher than Am FM+ms Fc+c+C'*

Sub-hypothesis Co Si FM+m: Fc+c+C1 will be signi­ficantly lower than Am FM+ms Fc+c+C ®»

Hypothesis 3Subjects with introverted attitudes will score

significantly lower than subjects with extroverted and. ambiverted attitudes on the 7&R E-B measure. Subjects with extroverted attitudes will score significantly higher on this measure than those with ambiverted attitudes.

Sub-hypothesis A, Hi $R will be significantly lower than Si 9&R,

Sub-hypothesis B, Ti $R will be significantly lower than Am %R0

12

Sub-hypothesis C0 Si f&R will be significantly higher than Am $Re

Statistical Analysis

Each of the three main hypotheses and their sub­hypotheses were to be subjected to a Kruskall-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks (Hays 19639 pp0 637-639)o

BESUITS

The results will be discussed in three sectionsg the MEBI results and the formation of the comparison groups the Kruskall-Wallis Analysis of the group Rorschach results and additional results0

MMPX Results As noted above it was found that there were not

enough subjects whose scores on the abridged MMPI fit the criteria for the Te and Se groups0 In fact none of the 102 subjects who initially volunteered scored lower than a T score of 48 on the Si scale0 Thus* the following three groups were used for comparison purposesg

lo Group 1— 10 subjects whose T score on the Siscale was 60 or more with an F-K raw scoredifference of from =5 to +5 (Hereafter called True Introverts or Ti)o

20 Group 2— 10 subjects whose T score on the Siscale was 60 or more with an F~K raw scoredifference of =11 or more (Hereafter called Social Introverts or Si)0

J0 Group 3— 10 subjects whose T score on the Siscale was from 45 to 55 with an F-K raw scoredifference of from -5 to +5 (Hereafter called Ambiverts or Am)„

The Mean T scores for each of the three groups along withtheir mean F-K raw score differences are presented inTable I*

14Table 1, Mean T Scores and Mean F-K Haw Score Differences

for the Ti9 Sip and Am Groupse ($i=27)

. Group Mean T Score Mean F-K

Ti ' 64o77 .• =lo22Si 61»67 "13o44Am 52o89 «=2o33

It should be noted that the H for each group was nine in­stead of ten* This was because only nine of the 11 subjects from each group who agreed to come for the group Rorschach actually came to be tested<> Of the 27 subjects who partici­pated 17 were females and 10 were males» ,

Eruskall-Wallis Analysis The results of the Kruskall-Wallis analysis are

presented in Table 2 along with the group means of each of the three E-B measures for each of the three groupso

\

Table 2e Tip Sip and Am Group Means and Probabilities of the E-B Measures«

Ms Sum C EM+msFc+c+Ct

TiMeans Si

Am

H*P <

6098 60 03 5o033o712.25

2o063o303.10

.419

.90

31.8335.2339.23

7.820.025

Hypothesis 1BPcm6c»of the sub-hypotheses regarding the Ms Sum C

measure of the B-B measure was confirmed. See Table 3.Sub-hypothesis A. Ti Ms Sum C was not significantly

higher than Si Ms Sum C.Sub-hypothesis B. Ti Ms Sum C was not significantly

higher than Am MsbSum C.Sub-hypothesis C. Si Ms Sum C was not significantly

lower than Am Ms Sum 0.

16Table 3o Overall and Intergroup Analysis of Ms Sum C

Ratio

GroupsTi-Si-Am Ti<=Si Ti-Am Si=Am

H* 3*712 *973 2*972 *892p< .25 o50 *10 *50

Hypothesis 2Hone of the sub-hypotheses regarding the

FM+ms Fc+c+C! measure of the B-B was confirmed* See Table 4.Sub-hypothesis A* Ti FM+ms Fe+c+C8 was not signi­

ficantly higher than Si FM+ms Fc+c+C’*Sub-hypothesis B* Ti FM+ms Fc+c+C’ was not signi­

ficantly higher than Am FM+ms Fc+c+C8 *Sub-hypothesis C* Si FM+ms Fc+c+C6 was not signi­

ficantly lower than Am FM+ms Fc+c+C9 *

Table 4* Overall and Intergroup Analysis of PM+ms Pc+c+C’ Ratio .

Ti-Si-AmGroups

Ti-Si Ti-Am Si-Am

H* «419 ®051 -o020 ,051P < o \o o o90 ,95 o90

Hypothesis 3One of the sub-hypotheses was confirmed«, See

Table 5°Sub-hypothesis A0 Ti $R was not significantly

lower than Si foR0Sub-hypothesis B0 Ti was significantly lower

than Am $R0Sub-hypothesis Co Si $R was not significantly

higher than Am $R0

Sable 5o Overall and Intergroup Analysis of

GroupsSi=S’i-=Am Ti-Si Ti-Si Si-Am

H ” 7o829 lo076 7*118 2.675o025 o50 oOl *25

On the basis of the foR to cards viiiP and x the Si and Am subjects were placed into two groupss Introverts and Ambiverts. She criteria used for group placement was as follows: Introverts had a %R of less than 35*5$ whileAmbiverts had a foR of more than 35 <>5$® She Chi-square per­formed is shown in Sable 6.

19Table 6e Group Placement of 18 Subjects According to Their

Si Scale T Scores and $R

Grouping Ti Am

T Ti (5)a8fc (4)1 9Grouping Am ^ 2 ^ 7 9_

10 8 18

Rotes a= fg, b=fQ9 x^= 7o2p p C O01

The Chi-square is a significant 7o2 with a probability of less than o01o

Additional Results In looking at the different responses that go into

the E-B measures9 e0go 9 M 9 FM9 C % CP9 c9 etc9 it appeared to this investigator that.there might be a significant difference in the percentages of m and C 9 responses given by the three comparison groupso The mean percentage of these two response categories for the three groups and Harrower and Steiner8 s norms for college age subjects (1951, p„ 81) are shown in Table 7<. The results of the Kruskall-Wallis tests of these response categories are shown in Table 8*

20Table 7« Ti, 81, and Am Group Mean $ of m and C ? Responses

and College Age Norms

Mean #Groups m O'

Ti Xo02 ,51Si 80 57 3,47

Am 4o56 1,79Norms 1,30 1,80

Table 80 Overall and Intergroup Analysis of and C'$

Ti*=>Si”AmGroups

Ti-Si Ti-Am Si-Am

H" 9,195 8,029 3,401 1,871

P< ,025 ,005 ,10 ,25

H* 5,430 5,277 ,480 ,376

P < ,10 ,025 ,50 ,75

21Thusp it appears that there is a significant difference be= tween all three groups in the percentage of m responses with the Ti group giving a significantly lower percentage of such responses than the Si groupe The Ti group also gave a sig­nificantly lower percentage of C responses that the Si group dide

i-

DISCUSSION

The results just presented lack perspective when viewed apart from existing research in this area0 Therefore* these data will discussed in relation to prior research done»

MMPI Results ’■It was somewhat surprising to this investigator that

the lowest T score on the Si scale was only a 48 by two of the over 100 subjects who volunteered to take the abridged form of the MMPIe This was even more surprising in light of the fact that Drake (1946) originally standardized the scale on a population of college studentsti One possible expla­nation for this result could be that the students attending summer sessions are somehow different from those who attend school during the regular year. Perhaps these summer school students are more serious about their education than the average student is and more interested in the stimulation offered them by studying rather than the stimulation availa­ble from a summer job or vacation travels. In other words* it is possible that most extroverted students would rather not spend their summer in school* thus biasing the sample of subjects available at the time this study was run.

22

. . 23

In support of this hypothesis is the comparison pre­sented in Table 9 "between the E-B measures and their com­ponents of this study in contrast to those of a similar study performed by Allen 9 Richer$, and Plotnick (1964)« The subjects in this study were somehow more introverted in all of those E-B measures and their response category components . that are comparable 9 except for FC% and C$0 This is true in spite of the fact that the average Si T score of the intro­verted groups is higher in the Allen9 Richer,, and' Plotnick study than in the present study» i

Kruskall-Wallis Analysis In summarizing the results of the analysis done on

the differences between t he E-B measures of the three com­parison groupsr it would seem most accurate to say that the measures completely failed to distinguish between subjects, with introverted attitudes (Ti group) and. those with hy­pothesized extroverted attitudes (Si group)o The three E-B measures also failed to distinguish between subjects with hypothesized extroverted attitudes (Si group) and those with ambiverted attitudes (Am group)« Perhaps this lack of sig­nificant results may be due to the nature of this study’s s subject So Or perhaps it maybe due to the fact that as Allen9 Richer, and Plotnick (1964) note about Royal’s lack of significant results, a group Rorschach rather than an individual Rorschach was administered0 This might be so

-Table.9o Introvertedp Ambivert G-roup Means of Ms Sum G9 Comparable Components of the E=B Measuresg Their Probabilitiesp and Mean Si T Scores for the Present Study and the Allenp Richer9 Plotnick Study (1964) ,

,b

Allen A Study H

P

Ms Sum Ca

lo961»44,50o 7 0

Sum C

3.0 2o9 © 60 c50

MeanM-i-FM+m$

38o323o9lo40o30

15,912,7

,80,50

7,23,4.34.70

CF%

3.55.1.20.70

056

0,40.01,80.20

Si T Score

67

Ti 6.98This Am 5.03Study H $ 2.97

P - .10

1.56 49.69 28.25 7.79 .331.72 50.31 26.29 10.89 1.82,05 -.12 .19 .05 1.39.90 .95 .75 .90 .25

.511.12=.21.95

64.7752.89

a. Sum Csb. 1= introvertc. A= ambivertd® These scores are approximate because AllenP Richerg and Plotnick report average

raw scores on the Si scale rather than average T scores.

.... 25because of the tester’s Inability to conduct as complete an inquiry with a group Rorschach as with an individual Rorschacho At any rate, it would appear the lack of signifi«= cant differences between the Ti and Si groups on the E-B measures lends support to the conclusion reached by Alien, Richer, and Plotnick (1964)? namely, the E-B measures tap both the behavioral and attitudinal aspects of introversion- extroversion,, Thus, it seems that the distinction made by this investigator between a behavioral and attitudinal intro­version versus a behavioral introversion with an extroverted attitude based upon the F-K raw score difference is not a, tenable one with the group Rorschach E-B measures „ As Allen, Richer, and Plotnick (1964, p* 512) states ’’The individual’s Weltanschauung, as he sees and reacts to his social, sur­roundings, is the core of the E-B ratio and from this may be inferred the nature of his adjustment in both ideational.and behavoral terms o18 . . . . .

This . conclusion received some support with the sig­nificant difference that did occur between the subjects with introverted attitudes (Ti group) and those with ambiverted attitudes (Am group) on the i<> Responses to cards viii, ix, and x E-B measure 0 It is interesting to note that Klopfer et al.(1954) do not consider this the most important E-B measure 0 It is usually used as a validation for the im­pressions gleaned from the direction of the individual’s Ms Sum C measure 6 If $R is in the same direction as the two

other E-B ratios» it is an indication that the direction of the individual’s E-B is 18of such long standing that it might he termed ’natural8 (Klopfer and Davidson 1962, p0 144),Thus, it might seem at first glance that those of Rorschach's E-B measures which employ a scoring system dependent upon the investigator8 s judgement and a quantification of such judgements are not very adequate in distinguishing between introversion and ambiversiono This conclusion has support in the literature with the work of Berts (1935K Royal (1950), and Allen, Richer, and Plotniek (1964)» See Table 9 for asummary of the results of the latter study0 However, itmight also he noted that the trends toward a significant difference between the Ti and Am groups on the Ms Sum C E-B measure (p< o10) and between the Si and Am groups on the foR E-B measure ( p < 025) show that Rorschach's E-B measures do have the potential to distinguish between introverts and and ambivertSo This could especially be true if individual rather than group Rorschachs had been administered and if an H of greater than nine for each comparison group had been employedo

Additional Results The significant differences obtained between the Ti

and the Si groups on m# and C w o u l d seem to offer somesupport to the previously cited observations of Kindness (1955) on the importance of an individual's motivation for

27

being an introvert» Klopfer et alo (1954) not® that m re­sponses in numbers of over 1 or 2 is a reflection of an awareness of forces outside the control of the subject which threaten the integrity of his personality organization0 These uncontrolled forces may be impulses that are threaten­ing to the individual's value system or self-concept0 In this e a s e m is seen as an indication of the conflict an individual is experiencing between his long range goals and his impulse life and tension resulting from his efforts to inhibit these impulsese On the other hand? these uncon­trolled forces may be environmental forces outside the con­trol of the individual which are seen as threatening by the person who feels helplessc "Well adjusted people tend to produce few m responses, presumably having integrated their impulse life with their self-picture and value system and having come to terms with outside threats (Klopfer et al6 1954, Oo 267)o'1 narrower and S t e m ’s norms (1951,' p» 81) showing that college students give an average of 1<>3$ of m responses per protocol confirm that the Si group average of 8o57$ of m responses is much higher than one would expecte Thus, it may be quite possible that the Si subjects are ex­periencing some tension or conflict and feelings of being threatened in their relationship to the world0 These subjects may not be extroverted in their attitudes as first hypothesized, but they may report introverted behavior

28because of what Mindness (1955) calls a fear of the outer world9 competition, and struggle«

Concerning the significant difference between the Si and the Ti groups in their it is interesting to notethat the Si group mean of 3°470 is quite a bit higher than the college age norms of 1<>8$ C responses (Harrower and Steiner 1951? p°8l)o KLopfer et alo (1954) hypothesize that an abundance of C 6 responses in records that are full of color responses to chromatic areas, ioe0, PC, CP, and 0, is to be interpreted as an extension of the individual’s general responsiveness to color "implying a rich and varie® gated reaction to all kinds of stimuli presented in the blot material (pc 257)," and not an indicator of depression or a toned down, hesitant responsiveness to stimuli® This would appear to be the case with the Si subjects since their ’mean PC and C percentage of responses is definitely within the range of norms for college age subjects (Harrower and Steiner 1951, p® 81)o One must also note, that the ratio.of achromatic to chromatic color responses for both the Ti and Si subjects is less than 2» Thus, according to KLopfer et alo (1954), it is not possible to postulate a "burnt child" reaction hypothesis to some traumatic experience i n . the past which led the Ti or Si subjects to withdraw0 See Table 10 for this data®

29Table 10» Mean Percentage of FCj, CPp Cp and e ResponsesP

Mean Fc-5-c+C "g FC+CF+C 9 and Their Probabilities for the Ti and Si Groups P and College Age Norms for these Response Categories

MeanFC# of#: C# e# ■ Fc+c+CFC+CF+C

Ti 1*79 *53 ,51 *61 1.85■Si ' 1*15 lo!6 ,66 0,00 1.21

H ” . *05 .19 -,21 3*05

oo

P < o90 *15 ,95 ,10 .90College

Age 1*2 7o4 *5 4,8Norms

It is interesting to note that both the Ti and Si groups have a percentage of CF responses that is much lower\than the college age norms and a trend toward a significant difference in the percentage of c responses they gave. One could interpret the low CF# as an indication that both groups lack what Klopfer et alt (1954$. po 282) call a spontaneity to their environment„ The Si group's trend toward a signifi­cantly lower c# might indicate that they tend to deny an awareness of what is hypothesized as an infantile p crude

■ 30need for affection, and physical contact (Klopfer et al,1954p p» 27l)<. ThuSp it might he hypothesized that the Si indi­viduals are experiencing some depression in comparison to the $i individuals over their lack of emotional spontaneity to their environment and their denial of needs for physical contact o

SUMMARY/

This study has given rise to some important conclu­sions regarding the personality dimension of introversion and the ability of Rorschach's Experience Balance ratios to distinguish between introverts and ambiverts» Firstp the hypothesized distinction between a behavioral report aspect and an attitudinal aspect of introversion was not supported by the results„ The group Rorschach data did point to a possible difference in the motivation self-reporting indi­viduals have for introverted behavior, howevero The re­sponses of one group of introverts who tried to present* themselves in a favorable light suggested that they were more tense than another group of introverts who were more honest in their self reports» Thus, the former group of introverts may report introverted behavior because of a fear of rejection by others or a fear of competition and struggle while the latter may report introverted behavior because of a liking for fantasy* This issue of the motivation behind introversion is one which future research efforts might profitably direct its attention to0

Second, although the group Rorschach data failed to<clearly and significantly distinguish between introverts and

31

.............. 52

amMverts on ^hose Experience Balance measures that require an attempt hy the investigator to use his 61 clinical judgement18 ip. computing them9 there were some trends sug­gesting the expected differences "between these individuals on one of these Experience Balance measures (Ms Sum C e)e There was also a clearly significant difference between the "honest” introverts and the ambiverts and a trend toward a significant difference between the "fake good" introverts and ambiverts on that Experience Balance measure whose calcu­lation is a straight arithmetic procedure of calculating what percentage of responses is given to three of the ten cardso It was noted that this is in contrast to the litera­ture and that the use of an individual rather than a group Rorschach and a larger H may have resulted in these trends becoming significant differenceso

APIEEDIX A

FP Ep AlTD Si SCALE MMPX ITEMS

1) 14. I have diarrhea once a month ©r more02) 17. My father was a good man*3) 20 a My sex life is satisfactory=4) 23 o I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting®5) 25. I would like to be a singer06) 27 o Evil spirits possess me at times.7) o

• o ■

K\ At times I feel like swearing.8) 31 o I have nightmares every few nights.9) 32 = I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or a job.

10) 33 o I have had very peculiar and strange experiences.11) 34 o I have a cough most of the time.12) 35 = If people had not had it in for me I would have

been much more successful.13) 39 = At times I feel like smashing things.14) 40 o Most any time I would rather sit and daydream than

do anything else.15) 42 = My family does not like the work I have chosen (or

the work I intend to choose for my life work).16) 48= When I am with people I am bothered by hearing

very queer things.

93

. 34

17) 49e It would be better if almost all laws were thrownawajo

18) 50o My soul sometimes leaves my body*19) 53o A minister can cure disease by praying and putting

his hand on your headG20) 54o I am liked by most people who know meG21) 560 As a youngster I was suspended from school one or

r more times for cutting up022) 57e I am a good mixer»23) 65o I loved my father»24) 66® I see things or animals or people around me that

others do not see®25) 67o I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be®26) 71® I think a great many people exaggerate their mis­

fortunes in order to gain the sympathy and help of others®

27) 75® I get angry sometimes®28) 82® I am easily downed in an argument ®29) 83® Any man who is able and willing to work hard has a

good chance of succeeding® "30) 85® Sometimes I am strongly attracted by the personal

articles of others such as shoes, gloves, etc®, so that I want to handle them or steal them though I have no use for them®

31) 89® It takes a lot of argument to convince most peopleof the truth®

32) 91® I do not mind being made fun of®33) 96® I have very few quarrels with members of my family®34) 99® I like to go to parties and other affairs where

there is lots of loud fun®35) 111® I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill

of it®

56) 112o: I frequently find it necessary to stand up forwhat I think is righto

57) 115 o I believe in law enforcement„58) 115o I believe in a life hereafter«59) 117o Most people are honest chiefly through fear of

being caughto40) 119o My speech is the same as always (not faster or

slowerp or slurring? no hoarseness)=41) 121o I believe I am- being plotted against 042) 125» I believe I am being followed045) 124o Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain

profit or an advantage rather than to lose it»44) 126o I like dramatics»45) 129o Often I can’t understand why I have been so cross

and grouchyo46) 154« At times my thoughts have raced ahead faster than

I could speak them*47) 158» Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly*48) 159o Sometimes I feel as if I must injure either myself

or someone else»49) 142o I certainly feel useless at timeso50) 145o When I was a child, I belonged to a crowd or gang

that tried to stick together through thick and thin0

51) 146o I have the wanderlust and am never happy unless Iam roaming or traveling about =

52) 147o I have often lost out on things because I couldn’tmake up my mind soon enough0

55).148o It makes me impatient to have people ask my advice or otherwise interrupt me when I am working on something important»

54) 151e Someone has been trying to poison me0

55) 156. I have had periods in which I carried on activi­ties without knowing later what I had been, doing.

56) 160. I have never felt better in my life than I do now57) 164. i like to study and read about things that I am

working at.58) 168. There is something wrong with my mind.59) 169. I am not afraid to handle money.60) 170. What others think of me does not bother me.61) 171. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a

party when others are doing the same sort of things. ,

62) 172. I frequently have to fight against showing that Iam bashful.

65) 177. My mother was a good woman.64) 180. I find it hard to talk when I meet new people.65) 185. I am against giving money to beggars.66) 184. I commonly hear voices without knowing where they

come from.67) 185. My hearing is apparently as good as that of most

people o68) 195. I do not have spells of hay fever or asthma.69) 196. I like to visit places where I have never been

before.70) 197. Someone has been trying to rob me.71) 199. Children should be taught all the main facts of

sex.72) 200. There are persons who are trying to steal my

thoughts and ideas.75) 201. I wish I were not so shy.74) 202. I believe I am a condemned person.

3775) 205o At times it has been impossible for me to keep

from stealing or shoplifting something,,76) 206o I am very religious (more than most people)077) 208o I like to flirt„78) 209o I believe my sins are unpardonable079) 210e Everything tastes the same080) 211o I can sleep during the day but not at night081) 215o I have used alcohol excessively082) 217o I frequently find myself worrying about somethings83) 218o It does not bother me particularly to see animals

suffero ,84) 220o I loved my mothere85) 227o I have been told that I walk during my sleepe86) 229o I should like tobelong to several clubs or lodges087) 231o I like to talk about sex088) 234o I get mad easily and then soon get over ito -89) 2360 I brood a great dealo90) 245o My parents and family find more fault with me than

they shoulde91) 2460 My neck spots with red often092) 247o I have reason for feeling jealous of one or more

members of my family093) 252* Ho one cares much what happens to you094) 254o X like to be with a crowd who plays jokes on one

anothero95) 256* The only interesting part of newspapers is the

"funnies"*96) 257e I usually expect to succeed in things I do*97) 2580 X believe'there is .a God*

3898) 262 o It does not bother me that I am not better

looking. . , .99) 267. When in a group of people I have trouble thinking

of the right things to talk about.100) 269. I can easily make other people afraid of me, and

sometimes do it for the fun of it.101) 272, At times I am full of energy.102) 275. Someone has control over my mind.103) 276. I enjoy children.104) 278. I have often f elt that strangers were looking at

me critically.105) 281. I do not often notice my ears ringing or buzzing.106) 286. I am never happier than, when alone.107) 291. At one or more times in my life I felt that some­

one was making me do things by hypnotizing me.108) 292. I am likely not to speak to people until they

speak to me.109) 293. Someone has been trying to influence my mind.110) 296. I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful

without any special reason.111) 304. In school I found it very hard to talk before the

class.112) 309. I seem to make friends about as quickly as others

do.113) 316. I think nearly anyone would tell a lie to keep

out of trouble. .114) 321. I am easily embarrassed.115) 322. I worry over money and business.116) CXiK\K\ Sometimes my voice leaves me or changes even

though I have no cold.117) 336. I easily become impatient with people.

.......... ,59

118) 342 e I forget right away what people say to sneo119) 353o I have no dread of going into a room by myself

where other people have already gathered and are

120) 357. I have several times given up doing a thing be-eause I thought too little of my ability.

121) 359. Sometimes some unimportant thought will runthrough my mind and bother me for days.

122) 371® I love to go to dances. :123) 374® If given the chance I could do some things that

would be of great benefit to the world□124) 377® If given the chance I would make a good leader of

people®125) 383o I enjoy the excitement of a crowd.126) 391e I can r emenber "playing sick" to get out of

something.127) 397. I like parties and socials.128) 398. I shrink from facing a crisis or difficulty.129) 400® I am not afraid of fire® ,130) 406® I have sometimes stayed away from another person

because I feared doing or saying something that I might regret afterwards®

131) 411. Religion gives me no worry.132) 415® I hate to have to rush when working.133) 427® I tend to be interested in several different

hobbies rather than stick to one of them for a long time®

134) 436. I feel sure that there is only one true religion®135) 440® When I am. feeling very happy and active9 someone

who is blue or low will spoil it all.136) 446® Policemen are usually honest®

. . . . 40137) 449o I do not like to see women smoke 0138) 450® I very seldom have spells of the bines ®139) 451® When someone says silly or ignorant things about

something I know about9 I try to set him right e140) 455® I am often said to be hotheaded®141) 461® I wish I could get over worrying about things I

have said that may have injured other people *s feelingso

142) 462o I feel unable to tell anyone all about myself®143) 469® lightning is one of my fears®144) 473® I like to keep people guessing what I'm going to

do next®145) 479® The only miracles I know of are simply tricks

that people play on one another®146) 481® I am afraid to be alone in the dark®147) 482® My plans have frequently seemed so full of dif­

ficulties that I have had to give them up®148) 487® I have often felt badly over being misunderstood

when trying to keep someone from making a mistake®.

149) 502® A windstorm terrifies me®150) 505® Horses that don’t pull should be beaten or kicked®151) 521® I frequently ask people for advice®152) 547® The future is too uncertain for a person to make

serious plans ® -153) 549® Often* even though everything is going fine for

me* I feel that I don’t care about anything®154) 564® I am not easily angered®

APPENDIX B

GROUP RORSCHACH INSTRUCTIONS

Following are the instructions used by this investi­gator in giving the group Rorschach:

You will see on the screen ten inkblot pictures»Your task is to write down what these inkblots„ or any parts of them, resemble or look like to you0 You will see each inkblot for three minutes» Always write your answers on the right hand side of the open double page, and do not concern yourself with the left hand side until instructed to do so„ Turn the page each time the slide is changedc Do not be disturbed if the light is not very bright while you are looking at the inkblots and writing your answers because handwriting is not important» When the first slide is on the screen, open this blank and record your answers where it says, 'Write your answers to inkblot I here0' Number your answers for each inkbloto

The subjects were given the following instructions after writing their answers to the 10 slides to assist the investigator in scoring their responses for location and determinantsg

Well, this is the first part of the experiment„Now we shall go on to the second» I'm sure you will . have seen a lot of different things in the various inkblots, but one of the most important aspects of this test is the fact that I must know as accurately as possible just what it is you have seen and where it is you have seen itc In order that you can do this, you will find on each page a little diagram representing the slide„

How perhaps some of you saw on this particular slide (Slide I is on the screen) a butterflyp and then perhaps you also saw the legs of some person in the center here, and perhaps a boxing glove in the little protuberance here, or a dog’s head here on the side 0 Your next task is to number your own answers if you forgot to do so before, and then with your pencil draw a line around the area where you saw that particular object and attach to that area the number of the answer you are describing,, For example, let us suppose you have seen just those four things which I mentioned» You would have put a number 1 by a butterfly, draw a line all the way around the miniature blot and put a number 1 by this line,, If somebody’s legs was your second answer, you would number that 2, draw a line around the area of the diagram and attach a number 2 to it„ In other words, you will do for your own answers what has been done for these hypothetical answers on the screen,, ,

Before you begin to mark off your answers, there is something else you have to do for me0 You have to help me reconstruct as accurately as pos­sible the kind of experiences you have been having or some of the characteristics of the things you saw,. You might, for instance, have seen two bears or animals here on the side (pointing to slide VIII on the screen)o You might have seen two "flags here in the center, or you might have seen two cushions here in this same part. This part here (pink and orange) might have reminded you of some kind of flowere

Some of you may have said, for example, that the bears looked as if they were climbing up, but it is very possible that you did not put that last bit of information in. How is your chance to do so if you want to. If you want to explain to me that the ani­mals you saw looked to you as if they were stepping from one rock to another, you may add that infor­mation now. But perhaps you did not see them as if they were stepping. Fine! That is just as impor­tant 0 Perhaps they looked as if they were some kind of animal on a heraldic design and you may have al­ready said so. In that case you need not write any­more.

Let us suppose that you not only saw cushions here, but saw blue satin cushions. In this case you would again amplify your answer because it is impor­tant for me to know whether you got the impression of the satiny or silky feel of the cushion, and whe­ther you were impressed by its blueness. Again this area might have reminded you of a flower because it was the same color of some flower near your house.If it was the color that attracted your attention and made you think of that flower, then add this in­formation by writing the word ‘color’ ( narrower and Steiner, 1951? pp® 31-33)®

KBFEKBNCES

Allen9 Ro Mo 9 Richerp Ho M 0, Plotnickp Ro Jo The Bernrenter Personality Inventory B3~X Scale and the Minnesota Mnltiphasic Personality Inventory SIB Scale Com­pared .with the Rorschach Test Experience Balance Ratio0 Genetic Psychology Monographs„ 1964«69(2), 297“322"o --

Drakep Lewis E 0 A Social IE Scale for the Minnesota Multi- phasic Personality Inventory« Journal of Applied

19469 3 0r 51=54o

Evansp Co 9 and McConnell, T0 Ro A Hew Measure of Introver- sion-Extreversiono The Journal of Psychology0 1941,12, 111-124o

French, John ¥, The Minnesota T-S-Eo Third Mental Measure­ments Yearbooko edo by Oscar K» Buros, Rutgers University Press, 1949» 62-63»

Gough, Ho Go The F Minus K Dissimulation Index for the Min­nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1950, 14, 408-413*

Guilford, Jo P., and Guilford, R0. B. Personality Factors D, T, R, and A. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology9 1939, 34, 21-56,

Harrower, M 0.rRo> and Steiner, M« E. Large Scale Rorschach Techniques s A Manual for the Group Rorschach and Multiple Choice Tests0 Springfield, Illinois? Bannerstone House, 1951*

Hays, New Yorks Holt, Rinehart, and

Hertz, Mo R.maryc

The Rorschach Ink-Blot Test? Historical Sum- Bulletino 1935, 32, 33=66,

Jung, Co G, A Contribution to the Study of Psychological Typeso Collected Papers of Analytical Psychology, Londons Bailliere, Tindall, 1920, Pp, 287-298,

45Klopferp Bo $ Ainsworths, M op E3.opferp ¥.os> and Holt, R0

Developments in the Rorschach Techniqueg Volume I Technique and Theory0 Hew York: World BookCompany, 1954=

ELopfer, B0, and Davidson, Ho H c The Rorschach Technique:An Introductory Manualo Hew York: Harcourt, Brace,and World, Inc0, 19620

Maclean, Ac Go, Tait, A0 Tc, and Catterall, Co Do The F Minus K Index on the MMPIo Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 37, 315-316»

Kindness, Ho Analytical.Psychology and the Rorschach Test® Journal of Projective Techniques0 1955, 19,243-256o *

Rorschach, Ho Psychodiagnostics0 (6th edition, translated "by Po Lemaku and B« Kronenberg) Berne, Switzerlandi Hans Huber, 1964®

Royal, R» Bo An Experimental Investigation of the Relation­ship between Questionaire and Rorschach Measures of Introversion® Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, 1950o