mizn

soeiAimncm. um ?mmw&,m vmsums AS mmmwmi Qomtmo^B in tm tmrntun Am MOWREHIAX mwamm

by John JoMph O'CoiWior

Thesis presented t© the Faculty of Patyctelogy &t ike ®»i v a r s i t y of Ottawa as p a r t i a l fUifliXaaft&t of the r« |u l r4Mmts for i&® d*gr«* of Doctor

©f Flsil®«0j>tey

Gttave, C*W$&4&f X^6S

< 'Jill) ^

In Ottawa

^ ¥ » r s t t o £ - v

f»U0tt*C

UMI Number: DC53405

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations

and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

®

UMI UMI Microform DC53405

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

&cm*nmmmB

T&l* th#*i« was pr*p%sw& tiater feh* mpitHaim of

Pr»f««*er Lawrence f* &*/&**4 P&,8«, of t3m W&mltr of

P refaei gT *f *&* fltel/wwrtitjr of Otfcuva*

fit* *rlt«r l« also 4a4#fet«d to 0. totoart »W#J**.

Pfc*0«y E*f>eaff«la »F#f#ss®r i» fayabolofy' at tfco valvar alty

of ttJLU*»l*t for fcie aoOlcatoti iat$r«st unci oaooayafiac

as si stance j to Donald H. P«torsoa, Ph*$*v Biroator of

Cllaloml fraiiiing In Psychology at tha Univftraity of

Illinois» t&v Ma valuable suggestions; and to Gordon

Hfiolay, Pli.D-r, aiid M* wif© for txi«lr oasHfoalal support

over tha years.

COSUtlCOLUII JSTUDI0BUM

JoJm Joaopfe O'Connor vaa feora my %%f 192? f in

Toronto, Ontario, go received tha Bachelor of Arts

tfOfroo l a f £300X0$? fros S t . Augustlna's Col lege, Toronto,

l a Xf52. l a raeaivao8 tea Maator of P*yeti©la$y 4ag3?«a

frea t&» UxUversity #f Ottawa* GVtawat Cataxic, In 1964,

Ha received a nine aauoth Lilly FollowaM* to do raaaajrah

wlti* Br* 0. Hefeart ^owrer a t tha t2M¥araitgr ©f lllino&at

1965-1966,

fAj&s or coixsms

Chaptar

1 . Fjfatsa'a Thaorx on tha Origin of Seurotlcism

a« Xreatssont ami Sosie of Psychoanalysis 3 , MGwreri&n 1'heory i n fcalatla* to

i*. Reietod Studies %M hftsearcn 5 . General Hypotasses

* * 4 # » «

* » » « * * • I I . - EAPHUMOT&I

2. Tha fools 3* ^ Measure ©f Character an<2 Peraoaallty

* * • « » •

i*. Testing Procedures

f. gpaalfla Bxoarlaa&tal Hypotheses • Statistical Procedures

I I I * * PaiSOfAflSK «JB D2SCQB8X0X OF B1SHLTS* * * * 1* The Female Sa^pls: fyaiiffiiaary

Conai^ar&fciQ&s 2 . Xstarra la t lo i ta of tha Famala conduct ami

Persona l i ty ProMaa Groups 3 . Compartaoa of ftaaii $oola l laa t lo& Fascia

Scores **. Tha ifelo ss«piat ProliKliiarjr Coaatd 51 I n t a r r e l a t i o n s of ih« tela Conduct ana

pa raoo t l i t y ProWLaa STOUTS 6. Ccaiparifion of Maaft Soc ia l iaa t io i i Mai©

$c©r#a 7. Comparison of Maan Socialisation acores

fo* tha $sl® and Fasaaia Bm&lm 0\ Further 3«saareh Suggestions

BwmAm km COBC&WSIOJSS • , • * BIBLIOyRAFiiy* » * • • * * » • • • * * * » * •

f t

I

2 I I

21 21 as

33 35

hi

52

* *

Appendix

1,

f m M : « + # • # • *

LIST Of TABLi&ti

Table

X»- corralatiam Coofftolaiita fcatwaau the Scoras an tha So Scala of tha C*ff*I. aad tha EffrtffpUftarfP} Pftftgfo^y, 17^®$ ay?***-** for the Caivfuot ahd Personality Prohlaat Female Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \%

XI.- leans, ataadartg DavlatloAaf t t a a t s , asad Palat~Blaarial Corralatioaa for tha Sacialii iatioa Scala of tha p.f rX. for Faaalaa* **5

I I I * - ca r ra la t i ea Coaffieiaate feataaaa tha seoras ©a tha So S«al© of tha Cf i - I . and tha

for tha conduct and Paraoaality Problem Male Gi*o\*p6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5$

IV.- Means, Standard Deviations, t Tests, and Polnt-Bi aer ia l Corralations for tha Social isat ion aeala of tha C«,P.|. for J4al©s* » ^3

¥*- the t Taata and Foiat-Blsarial Correlations for tha Faaale aad Hal a Seoras ©a tee Socialisat ion Seal* of tha p . p . I . • . . . » • 56

twmobwmm

Fraudiao paychoth«r*py aiwl psyeiioanalysla arts

widaiy rafardad aa potaot therapeutic instruiaents. Tnese

two fialda hava gained a poatt loa of aooatdarabla praatiga

and eminence l a our society.

However, various leaders in Psychology and rsychla-

t ry feel t ha t , in spit© of Freud's outatasiiiag genius &n&

consid«rabl4 posit ive contributiona, aora sc ien t i f ic ra*

aaaroh la required l a t a hi« theoret ical position* fhay

believe that Fraud h ia ta l* has aat tha axampla by his ouii

b r i l l i a n t c r i t i c a l observations as wall as his fraquant

requests for taora raaaaroh.

Co&atn&oiifO a r l t l a t a * does not imply destruct ive-

ass a nor Hos t i l i ty , hut rathar in te l l ec tua l ft&miaaat

in aaa*a search for liaowiadg® and t ry th .

Soaa recognised aa^arta in Pay etiology aao. Psychia­

try hava takao issue with Freud rafarSiag hla conception

of tha natur© of neurosis .

0. Booart Memrar i t ®m of thoaa who haa disagreed

a i t h Fraud on tha origin and nature of AauroUalat* FrauH

maiotatjiad that t ax l t t y a r i ses when tha ago a$praha**slt a

dangar* Tha c r i t i c a l darker in %m oaaa of j&auroilo

amtatyr l a that r«$raa#©4 l a p d a a s wi l l #at out of aoairot*

Tha aanroUo** %ma£m®f to raprasa lajmlaa dar iwt i¥a# i f

ofar~ta*iaraliaad &a$ oawHfctvara*

iwmmmtm t i t

Nearer hat observed tha t anxiety cosies not from

aata which tha individual would coasait hut aara not, but

frott aata ahiah ha hat aoaalttaa hat wlshas ha had not,

Tha aaparago I t diaragaraod or m$*m&**&, not tha Snst incts .

Neurotics hava a true i p i l t haoauaa of their bahariowr*

Froffl tnia fraaaworii, tha following double implica­

t ion l a aat up In ap&ratio&al form and pot to asspariaa&tal

t o s t :

a) I f the theoret ical raaaonliig of Freud l a valid,

than three Judged groups would ha aligned on a

Socialization (So.) iseasure froa Ion to high in

t h i s &r4mt f i r s t , tha Conduct ProhXaa group ( € • ? . } ,

second, tha He Problem group ( f l . f . ) , and tnircU

tha ParsooaUty f^obies grm® {?•?*)•

b) On tha other hand, i f tha theoretical reasoning

ef Howrar l a eorraot, tha ordar froa low to ht$h

oa a so* »aaatara ?*#oId bai f i r s t* tha C.P« gro^p,

second, tha P»F. l?o«p aad« t h l r s , tha H.P. &w$*p,

Tha taraa C.F. group, P*P* growp* i M **P. #roup aro

dafload ©paratioaaallj by tha soor#s ofetalnad on tha

Faraaaa^lty, and. paMrtotyar .ftroftlaa CtyMftliat« SoQlalttattoa

l a dafiaad ©paraUooallj i n t a r a t of sooraa otetal»aa <m

tha Soeiallaatiaii Mala of tha W f r f t f l t . f y o ^ t f W

iwmmmzim ftti

At usual for studios vftmm taaavlaa ara ajtparlaaatally

taatad through thai r tapl ieat tooa, tha question say ha

raise** whether these iapl loat ioaa ara logically valid

deduction© fraa a i thar Fraud1a or Howror's thaorat laal

positions* I t i t aaaaaaa tha a r t t a r hallafta thay ara

valid tha t ha f aa l t jus t i f ied in test ing tftam. He feels

l i t U o nafc i t ta&aa since no aisigla taa t iag of a siagi«

Thia study aay hafa greet significance in re la t ion

t o tha treatment a&d prevontion of bonavlour d laordt ra .

Tha f i r s t portion of th ia report l a ooaearaad

v i th a review of tha l i t e r a t u r e . Tha thaorat ioal fraao-

work of tha origins of anxiaty a t t a t for th by Fr«ud i t

praaam&ad* Thia la followod by Hot*rar*« thaorat ioal

approaoh to tha origins of neurotic anxiety. A vavtav

of research l a thata araaa i t outl ined.

Tha a^ar iaaat&l teal** la then t a t forth with

emphasis 0a tha tools m& th# aaapla me&*

Tha resu l t s oataiaad from tha s t a t i s t i c a l analy­

s i s are taarauaon proaamtad end diacussed.

F taa l iy t tha thaoratioal rofaraat t ara poti ta$

and tha i r possible interpret&tiona ara discussed.

CMPffiE I

a&VlA* OF THE LXTiiHATUHa

This century hat beaa cal l ad "tha ago of aasdaty.**

Jtaatal i l l ness incapacitates igore paopla then a l l other

haalth problems eossfcts*a&. ?«nettal patianta ooo«py alaoat

one-half of tha hospital hadi l a tha Ualtad Btataa* I t

i t attimatad tha t approxi^ tely ona parson out of tan

oo¥ l iving i n tha Unltod States wil l a t soma t l a t ha

hoapitallaad for aasstal i l l ne s s i f present trends continue,

Tha t rad i t iona l aa&aa of helping tha jsaafcally

111 haira baaa graatly influenced by Freudian reasoning,

l a fac t , Freud hat so pionaarod tha davalapaaat of con-

taaporar? psychoanelytical theory that i t would appear

d i f f i cu l t to angaga l a a &t®&y of t h i s thaory" without f i r s t

baaoaiag awara of tha paaatr&tiag aad ias ightful ©ontrifcsa-

t ioaa of t h i s rassarkshiis &&$. courageous ©risiaal ththJsar*

fata f i r s t ehaptar Mill raviaw Frau&'a thaory

of tha origin of neurotic!a^ f ana tha thaorat ical i a p l l -

oatioat ragardlag traataaat* Then lowror's analysis of

Fraod i t t a t forth ami Haw***'a ova thaory i s dtfalooad

wM ralavmat rotoarah l a daltaaatad* Finally, tha

hgrpothasat for th is present a tad? ara s ta ted .

M&, cJt srA saLiyBiei g y •*mm

warm m m UHRAXSHS t

1. Fraud*a f hoary m tha Orlfla of laa*ftttala»«

Fraud dividad taa total human partoaalitjr into

thraa partt. Tha id i s tha ratarvoir of tha fetolocitalljr

given driva* or taattaatt^ Fro*td lookad apoa tha auaarafo

at tha iataraallsad aeloa of taa ooam»itj# Frattd d#»

acrihad tha tasarafo ta ihaaa words s

m h a w alto hoard how tha severity of tha aoparafo. tha rigour of «oaaciaa«a» it to ha a*piataae. It tiaply oarriat oa tha savwlty of axtaraal authority which it hat suoceotlad sad to ao&a antaat r«al*«ad,3

Finally, tha a<ga it tat forth at normally playing

ta executive or regulatory rola la tha sense of aviating

between tha id, tha superego, aad tha axtaraal world.

•Taa ego represents what \m tail reason tad sanity, In

oo&traat to t*ia id whieh «antaia» tha patttent*"^

Fraud aaiatataod that aaxtaty ariwa ateaa tha #g©

apprehends a daagari and tha critical daafor, in tha oaso

af aaarotio aa«i*?tjf» la that i?«prmm& laaalaaa* oavlaf

Fern, tha ldt will gat out of aoatrol* *Thua, aaxtaty

thaa £«.. j it aa affaettaa tiata*, which o»a® frav

Z mwmM Fraud, a,f,U^tfff fffffJU J&*mfcWfa% LOJ8do»# ffo^arth Prate, 193c, p. 111.

J * r " — ~ r * lHW&K,lWH,lttltM» tondon* Hogarifc Pratts 1935* p» 40*

«artoa» lf3d» a* 90*

mnm m im hiiim&iwm 3

•all *iaa*a> froa acta ahioh tha ladlvidml would aot*lt

i f ha darad. Tha affaotlva ttatat ara incorporate*! at

praaipltataa of priaal trauuaatle taaarlaaeaa and thay

ara avo&ad la tiailar situations, acting « iw»»ry

ayahels. Anxioty orls#t at a raspatias to a situation of

danger.

Fraud aalatstnad that taa adult naurotio has

aaraasoaaaly high aoval standards*

In otsr investigations and w ifeorsjiy of tha aaurosasy va cannot avoid finding fault vita the aaaar»ago of tha individual oa tao aoaatat ia ooatsaadiag and prohibiting with such safarity i t tjroaalaa too l t t t la ahout taa happln«# of tha a#o sad i t fal ls to taka lato account sufficiently tea diffimati^s in tha way of ohaylng it~~taa ftraafih of taattaotuaa araflags im tha id and tha harda&lpa of axtaraal asfirowwat* Coosa-^uaatly ia owe tharapy *a oftaa flad oavaalYaa ©feltgad t© do hattla with tha sttpar*»ado aad worM to aodarata i t s d&aaads. F«x*«tly taa wa# oteiao** lions can ha mada against tl» ethical ttaadards of tha oultaral *upar-t£0» 5

fhsis, aoaordiag to Fraud, tha adult n«roi le i t

ovar-aooiallisad. W& hat laaratd to mpmm and inhibit

socially unaeoaataala *srg©» and Idaat to a cvaatar

axtaat than normal individualt. l«urotic® hava li&r&ad

society* s lassoas too wall. Thalr jaoral crltari* or©

uaraaltttletlly laflaxlala. Thaw uoral criteria ara

lapoaad hjr taa aultural Idaait of taa aoclaty.

5 Frt**d» qyftMfllUPflnJfnfl, I M .ftfiJWifafflrf t »* 139-

mnm or THE txTiaataws k

I t was foind that aaa haeaaa aattrotia h#oaut@ thay "eaaaot tolarata tha dt*T«a of privation that tooiaty Imposes on toast in ftrtaa of I t s eultarai idaat.o

This taadoaoy to rapraat iMpals* dartfativaa i t

ofar-caaaraXltad and ofar-aafara, lastaad of taa normal

inhibition of tha iap*As#s mad nsprassion of fantasies

shout tha urgoa* aauratlelssi occurs,

Frayd adatttad that o«pla ©an faal &ist*irh»d

aftar thay hava altoahavtd, feat ha attached l t t t l a isrpor-

tance to it ia his taaory of neurosis, Hovsfar, h# did

stress tha futl t that cm&& from awn a aara intention

of mlshahaving*

A litre intention to ooaait an set of vi©X«ia<« aaald than afoka a «oa« of |tsllt~~to psyeho-analFsis has f«ttad~»*s aall as ona ¥hieh has actually haaa aoa*ittad<—at a l l tha world Vaovs.?

I t vat taa psyoholotloal raalitgr of tha gatl t

froa a aora lataattaa that was taa hallmark of psycho-

analysis* I t %*as this guilt that Frawd traaad oat In

aawrotic symptoms* Tha s@»s# of guilt was tha aontaouaaea

of uacotaUttad aggrtssloat. Fr«K?*si <*nnolyslon was "that

parhapt 9tmty neurosis wtks a oertala wouai of tineoa-

aoloat saAta of guilt.**

iiiimiiiinii tin m m n n u imwii ' 11 r

ISITXEW OF THB LXTHUfORK

Fraod^ spoka at great laagth of tha aourtts of

uahappinatt, and eoaoludad that sublimation it tha only

remaining toareo of happiaass. Fraud aatiraly mglm%®&

eaascianca in this regard.

2, Traatsamt and &oal« of Pfsyaho&oslysts*

Fraud3,0 has atatad that psychoanalysis hat taa

sajor purposas. Oaa of thatt is to str#agth#n tha @go so

that it is "iaor# lodapeadaat of th® tttptraga**^ In th®

aaurotlc, tha suporogo is ®or«« highly daaalopad and

stringant, Tha swpa?«&g© oftrpovara tha ®fo* aad thus

aoaaala tha ago to r®l#ct &n$ repress tha id* By

atvaagthtatag taa ago in psychoanalysis, its ajtacutlfa«

aadtatiag role Is restored.

Th® sa^oai mjor pyrpos© of ptyaaoaaalytia is

iassad oa a ftaoas Freudian axiom, "-a&ara id w*af ta#ra

shaH ago h®**12 Fraud dawXo^ad this thought wh©a ha

atatadt

9 W^»» P. 7-lWf.

It- $t|^wad Fraud, | g ^ W f t f t « ^ frfflffiff ffi

PytifcaaaalyaAa* lav tork

11 yaftl

** MM

mvim OF fBtt tXfaaafURS 4

We htfa foraulataa' our tharapautic task ®s oao of hrlagiag to the kaauladga of tha patient tha unconscious, raprttaad laspulsa* exist ing to h i s atnd tad to th i s and, of uaoofartag tha ratiatane®s that oppost t h i a t a l f t t to t h i s axtaatloft of his *aavl«dga shout aiaaalf .13

At a l a ta r data Freud** dev«£iap€d tMa eoaeapt s l ight ly

aaan h® oaaaraud that psychoanalytic work i t aora *t£*&»

t l v t ahaa unconscious thought* ara transformed Into

eoascloua thoughts, f a i t has thraa affaata. Th® f i r s t

i t i a a t tha repressions are r&ta&d$ aaooadlF, tha con­

di t ions of sy^tos&~for«itton ara aaoliahad; f inal ly ,

taa pataagaale conflict i s exchanged for & normal on#.

This goal was so Important to freud that ha rsaarkad, wwhar« thar© i s no raprataioa or mantal procass analogous

to i t to ha uadon® thare i s nothing for our therapy

to d©,*1^

I t would app#ar t f tdaat that mm of taa thtrapaa-

i t a a las of ptyftaoftaalyslt i t a lessening of taa t t r t a v -

nets ©f tha sup^rago or , as Fraud has raphast*«*d * «taa

gradual demolition of taa hos t i le sui*«8r*t£o»*,li>

11 ft^auad Franc, p ^ c y ^ , i : , W f ff» Vol. a, toadoa*

\5 lht,d.

l«r%f $orto% If**#

MVim OF THE LXT&MTuM ?

Movrar Ms plaoad Fraud*t uypothassa on e

sooialls&tion dimaaslon. Ha has plaoad tha normal par-

son, i n tha centra-, tha sociopath a t tha lo f t , that I s

l a the posit ion of l e a s t tootal isat loaf wad taa n®urotio

a t tha r igh t , that i s , a t tha axiriwa of high soeialis*~

t ioa or suparag© sever i ty*^ Mewrar has dapiotad th®

dis t r ibut ion as roughly aoraal* Th® diraotlon of ^sy^ho-

aa&lytic taarapy i s froa neurotic to normal. This

tharapy a t t asp t s to undo ©oss# of tha affaat t of tha

Fraudian postulated over-socialisation milch has cccurrod

in tha aaurotic individual. By tnus datcriblag Freudian

neurotic tfeaory, ttovrar has opanad taa way for raaaarah

devalopaaat l a t h i s area.

Freudian psychoanalysis, af tar ofaraoa&ag; d ls*

ballaf and oppoaition, rost to &is»at universal attaptaaaa*

Fraud*a Insights into human natur© pavod tha wsy for saa

to aluttb tha inward and parh&ps in f in i te dtp tits of huaaa

eaataleuaaasa as davalopad hy Piarre Tallaard Da Catrdla*

In raaaat yaars , r&pid t c i aa t t f l c growth hat providad tha

tools to teriag Fraudisa taaory uadar aara rigorous sciaa-

i t f i e scrutiny. Th® rasu l t s of th i s torutlay hasa not

I$jy$&ia» Frtaeatoa, law Jarsay, Vaa ffi>strandf 1 ^ 1 , p » 236.

|Illtef |fc| .C. l , l .yfl |^iaSt rfaa»oatV*w'JarstJ; FauUal;

mxat or im i&mMsm %

htsa a t olaar*aut a t originally aatioipatad. mat® la*

faatlgatioat hava instigated a saar«*h for hattor thara*

p«utic theory tad aathoda to allafiata thota aaffarlag

froa aaatal i l lness .

I t i t tha parposo of this study to stole further

evidence to support aitaar tha Fraudiaa or Howrarita

thaory. faa conclusions ara important not only for

3. *wrartaa Theory la Halation to Freudian fhaory*

mwa-mr has aada various ooatrihutioas to psychol­

ogical theory particularly through Ms primary foous oa

learaad sahsfior la a toaial aoataxt. This imn givaa ai»

a solid aalaattfia vamttatiaa l a orthodox ara&s of lavas*

tigatloa, sad ooasafuaatly fe# has greatly laflaaaaad auoh

of psychology for tha past two daeadas* a i t wm& wsritlaga

hava gaiaad hia msmm a t OR aapirieal rastarohar and

prolifia thaoratloiaa.

Eagardiag taa laportaaiea of tha Mouparlaa hypotha-

s i t l a tha prataat study, i t hat 'Imm tmaaariaad by London

l a taaaa words, «th* theory of tha origin tad traataaftt af

aauroala pi t forth hy O* I* Wmtwar aay &mm?m aara

mnm w THE xj*aa*fiJBS $

tarioua attaatlon thaa mm «u«a thaovy si mat Sipatad frmv&*&

payahoaaaly at a» ***

During tha past twenty yaart» mmmr has questioned

Fraud an tha origin and nature of asurotiolta* dooordiag

to antrarlaa taaorF th© haai« dtffttttltjr of tha wuratlo

hat not arisen froa am mmmlmlf safari tad hatttla

superego at Wtmt& postulated, hut rataar9 **that tha sm®?**

ago itself has haaa rapudtatad tad raprassad**1^

At pravioatly ohaarfod. Fraud la mmmm hald taat

aaurotio anxiety hat ratultad froa afil wiaties, ttot is,

froa aata whioh tha individual ¥ould aamlt if l*a darad.

Hawrar hat ojoposad his altaraativa flaw that aaasiaty has

rasultad at a atttaaaaaaaa of tots which tha individual hat

ooaaittad, but wiahed im had aot.^1 2a other words,

mwrer has atfvaaaad a guilt theory of anxiety as opposad

to aa tmptXaa tn&ory*

faata two visvt aay ha saalysad froa a dlffareat

approach. To clarify tha tssua* it has haaa found necessary

19 Farry toadoa, mm MM®, • mfUm^S, • $1 ft f#araffir* mm TTora, Holt* Etaahart tad Vtaataa*

mmim OF tm tfrauras to

to raatata Freud hriafiy. Fraudta hald that aasOaty

arisat froa raprasslon that has hmn tarnad toward tha id*

For tha aaarotio* tha anaavag* has ofareeat tha ago valeti

la turn has raprataad tha id* Tha ago ma lost its

forces of taa id htfa ooattaaad to do hattla vita tha ago

tad tha suparago* Thus, «a*t had been raprasssd la tha

id thraataaad to return and it Is this daagar that has

brought about depression, aaniaty or panic. Sine© this

hat takan place la tha unconscious, the neurotic parson

does not Umm «hy ha It anxious*

mwen* hat aotad that anxiety arises froa rapraa-

sion that hat heaa turaca, not toward tha ldf hut toward

taa suparago or aa&aalaaaa* Ha hat ahaar-fad"^ that

neurotic paopla ara characterised &j a univcraal trait,

aawsawwipfetiF a -™asw-ja w a »s fpttHaaw'* "^waawwa* w W*A> ^#ianiaa wrw ^t a* TJF**S ^J*^* * s • •ws' i t T * ™ w<w

otaar paopla* Tha diffaraaoa l a tha aaouat of withdrawal

l a oat of dagraa* If tha suparago was of#rtayor#, taa

neurotic would ha awteaaa&F wail soclali««d tad not

exhibit ititMrml symptomatology, such i t not th© oaaa*

Social a i iaaat ioa* not integrat ion, hat oaaa the d i s t in ­

guishing aark of paychopatholo^y.

analys is , p . 20$

MUM, aLrsMKa J^tet fe^^ 2

REVIM* m m UTMI&TlffiK 11

Far mwt*r) tha suparago Is not ragardad at a

aoastarfhut r&thtr a ramadi&l and euratlva agant in tha

aaurotle* faa ohjaot of tharapy la not to attach and

uad© tha suparago hut to support It and try to gat taa

ago to raoo^iiaa that tha si&p««§o is a aatantlal aHy.

Taa ssuroti® doas aot haw a guilt foaling Imx

rathar a trua guilt whteh has arista bmmum of his mis*

hahavior. Xapilaaa arosa froa* taa id tad tha aaurotlo

did aot inhibit thasu fait Alsaaaavtar hat haaa con-

fauadad ty ooaaaalmaat. finm tha telaae for tha neurotic's

pradiaaaaat dots aot oaatra around hit paraats or sootaty

or tha ohuroh, hat on M s aim aishah&vior* th* haoaftcial

raaultt &f partoaal guilt should not ha raae-fod by tran­

quilizers, ssdativas, tad alaatro shook tharapy* Rathar

personal guilt mist ha taJiaa seriously by using it as am

occasion far ct*ngc-. Ham** hat ehoisoa an adytostton&l

aodai lattaad of a aadiatl modal to affaat this change.

mm* haa d®pletad his eharaotar typology

aohaaati sally* tha hasallaa represents a coatiauua of

socialisation «lth tha Xm tad to tha loft tm& tha high

tad to tha right* fha sociopath has oaan placed at tha

lm end of tha socialisation scale. fha toolopath

.11 u p . I I I I I I I I»WI I I» I I I< . I I I In i l i linn

gP» »w#r f Sfajftftaaa, ftft mM$m.,M MMi to f p* m*

figvxuv m tm hiwiwm iz

has aetad i a an aati-soolal jsaaaar and his suparago hat

siiovn l i t t l e oogjpuastlaa*

Xha aaurotlo i s not s©«m as feaiag ofar^aocialisad

hut rathar as Naing la &*twaaa taa ertaiattl ptyoaopata

or sooiopath and taa mows&l. mm?®s> hat placed tha

asurotio i a tha ©antra hastate, aaaosrdlag to his thaoryf

tha asurotte has rapudlatad tad rtprasted his suparogo.

taa aaurotic «hat an attoatially aorml, bastsally

adaauata tuparago hut taat i t has haaa autod* disragardad,

dittocittad.1 '2^ fai t ©owtition has coat about batauaa of

tha aaur©tie*s aisbahavior and sooroey*

man discussion hat ts>*»a plaoa at to aaaUiar

f^md or «ovrar i s »ora prohahly corraat l a th#ir theoroti-

oal raatoaiag* Oatortuaataly, faw ossptrioal studies aaaa

haaa doaa. Sossa thaorati«iams have nalataia#d that assy

seiaatiflo iaaaattgatloa i a taa area of payohotharapy

hat aoral implications # » a i t i s a&ploysd pragmatically*

London hat axpraasad h i t flow in this fuaa&ort

£«*•] that aayatetaavtay i s a aeral lat le as w l l as a setamtifl© uadartaklag to su«?h aa a*toat that i t oaaaot ha proparly understood as tha la t te r ualaas i t i t taorou|»y avmluatod as th© formar. ftetrtpiatg use thai* ta«haloal akll ls aad seltt t t l-flo opialoat as tha basis for studying tad tr tat lag thair pattaafea, hut i t i t i a tarsia of moral con­cerns that thay doolda tha ultimate goals tad ohjaotifat of thair t*aataa*t«?6

•I ii.iin.i.n.Mnriim minimi i n..iir«iiim ri I..I

^ MS* 7h ioado% ft^flti** »• ¥*

BKYXaW OF Xiia LVl^xAZUm 13

Otuar v r i t t r t vao ara concerned w*th tn l t urofel«,

such as Lowa f^ Saith,*** J t aao r , 2 9 Bu&lar,^0 and jfovrar,^

havn adopted & si isi lsr posi t ion. Fraudita payaaoaaalyata

have haon s t r i c t c r i t i c s of social is ing agaaoias tueh as

tha oourta, churches, schools, hoisos, a t e . Thaaa agaaolas

have h®aa frsa^antly raaooaalala for producing a f a r t t r i t t

eonseiancas with th© consequent n&o#ssity of psycho­

analysis . If ifswrar I s correct thair c r i t l e l s t t t ara

haraful and injurious to toclaty* /hat ter Fraud or

Mswrar i s oorroct i s tharafora not only an important

profelaat hut a t r l t l e a l one.

**. Ittlatad ^iudlas and Basaareh.

1 eoapraaaaslft ravi ta o* tha r saa t r th ralatad to

the Fraudian and Movrariaa hypothaaas has shown that so®a

• • i n in «IIMIIIMII «n i . i i m

2? Marshall Lowa, »Valua Crlaatatlaati 4a Ethical ptiaaaw,«mmUm.Xmsmfeilfe vol* i**, $©. u , nov«har 1959, P- w-of3»

a§ K* Braaatar Smith, "Haatal Haalth Eaoonsidorad? A Spatial C&»* of tha proalaas of Tslues in Psychology .*' $mf%m^ fW^lmUh Vol. 16, fto, o, juaa 1 # 1 , p . 290.300.

29 ^ . Ja t sor , "aoalal Valuat in Psyehothsrapy,** lmm& O O ^ M A H U M f<yfl*ftw» vol. a , MO. **, August

30 Charlotta Bualar, *'$©»# Uteplrtcal Approaohss t o the Study of U f a ' s Baala taadafttlm t

H JoagMdjaX %Wtft»$|o ,frfr,a*yM«Et Vol* 8» Fall 1962, pTlf - f fT*

3 | 0 . » h a r t mmw, ( « 4 * p M j O S y s i ^ C^ieago* I l l i n o i s , E&nd Maially aad eo»pany» I9d7*

B&VI&W OF TJgg ilTIsMOTM Ik

of tha ratal ta ara inconclusive tad %im vm&i t«nd ia

support %w@r. Oafortuaataly, in tpita of a i l taa words

vr l t taa ahout this prohlaa, aot enough raa#»rch hat feoan

dona.

Faak^2 aad iiualiejr wro coBeamad with tha

Fraudlaa aad r^owrarlaa naurotio taaoriat* Thair flndiagt

do aot aappert Fraud*s theory nor do they gift alsar

tfidaaoa ia favour of *%frar*s taaary*

An iavattlgatioa into taa Wowariaa position was

oarriod out hy svsasoni1* m laftattgatad taa ayaotaaala

that patiaata who mmk psychotherapy with ih# purpose of

allaviatisg psychological syaptoat would amfa violated

soaa wall kaowa a#ral acraplas aora of ton thaa a attaaad

group of normal individuals* m obtal&ad taa « s # his-

toriaa of tha l as t twta>ty*flaa aoaaa ttodaatt who had eo»

to tha ^ty^ologioal d l a l a of tha IM. varsity of Jmsm®m®

for tastr-apy aad <i&&$m?Q& taaa a l ta taa oas® histories of

t*fisaty»fiir# ssatohad «so»trols* Tha high pott Ufa

W l i I — M l • . • • ! • • < • I. • . i M I l l m i l H I I .

paailshal dootoral taaalt praaaatad to taa watfaratty of I l l inois , ftraaaa, 111., 1961, 72 p*

BKYXEM OF » LITERATURE 15

oorralatlons at obtained aaaifest^d a elaar and apparently

rallahla eaaaactloa battraaa i l l i c i t sexual hi-imvior and

neurosis. His raaultt tups>ortad tha th t i i s thai such a

atata i s taa result of actual adaaaaafior rathar than

naya wishsa. 3* alt© found a high oagatlva correlation

aatwaaa neurotic traada m$ l®$i§#a of aotial aff i l iat ion.

Ssf^atoa atncludad that taa group aaadiag paysaotaarapy had

aagagtd i a signlfioaatly less sooiai aeUflty* feut a** &&&

aoro axttaslfa taxual siepariaaea taaa the control group.

IMs rasaaroh has fcaaa criilcisad baeaaaa of tha aaall

mmh@F of tMtatyflfa usad.

Mecord and Macord35 }»?« rapoytad on a tost of

sapaoity to ahoa guilt aftar aishahtfiag* Tha rasults

saaiFtds psyohopathSf No$i aaurotios and psyut»tles, $/f$\

aaadalia^oaat aonsal sohool ohtxara% M%»

O'Caalalr* la a soeiaUaation a « y aada vi ta

«tg$ity~#igfii high sahool aanlort, ooaoludad that tha aomails

aara atgiiasi, *ad sociopaths wra lanssatf with tha aturotlfis

mmim i a hatwaaa* Tha difftraaea b#tw$€n th© naaratls sad

nonatl vaa aot t igalfioaat. fata may hava h#«® duo to a

35 ^* $ocoyd tad yoaa noCord* .^»yf^ga|l»lo^y aii l tiQllnau^ucy% Stir fork., Gruaa tad S t r a w a i I | W t i* 1^?*

MMim or tm UTWUTURE i s

teathodologioai arrer as talrty»aight ttadaatt wesrt oat Had

i a tha fiaal amOytls,

Gough ? has sehoisatisad a wtda rang® of aoraals

sad soaiopaihs using tha Socialisation tmla of th*s

Wtfff«*r\ r m w W M , jwmtom i o r ;"£iit *^ ***io taaples. $o oaurotict war© uasd in tha samples* A

tigaifioaat dlfraraaaa m& found oatwt«a tooiopatns and

normals at tha »C01 iaval.

Pttarsoir* earritd out a r^saaroh with Junior

high sahool sfcudo&ts and grada sonool studasts, i a ordtr

to dataraiaa if thosa Kith par tonality prohlaat wtr<& ovtr*

or uadar-sooiali^ai* I t waa fouad taat thosa with por*

tonality prohl«s apptarad to ha poorly so*sialt&ad i a

^^pari ton with that* f&o had m apaaraat ?rohi«s* ^im

rosslting dtstrlhutioa was aagattfaly a&twod a t i$ow#r

had pp«6tct«d» fata aay h# iadl«j&ti¥a of tha gaaartl

iaworiag of moral standards ia our tooioty. This yasaaraa

hat haaa oritielaad baotua* of tha laok of t#t t*ratat t

ra l l sa iUt?*

Pataraoa mmmriz^ his findings ia thasa wrds*

37 f§a»t«o» $» l3ou§hf "faaory tad jjaaturaMaat of

3f M*M ft. mutmm* XMJmf,«.jWf|,,, ,<mffirr 4aad or a ^ r ^ ^ i a j , ^ ! * Tftitfariltir of XlliaolaV ff" "111 * t" 19S7""(to' W 'fsialiaasS) $ «7 J»»

®miM OF THR LlTgttATBHa

Baoausa Urn socialisation seal© hat eata. m i l -da tad with unusual cart, i t was attployad fear« as a oasis for iaferrlag that tha porsoaal iatagrity aad sror&l raaUtuda of ehildron with paraoaalSty prohlaas wart ralativaly l ioi tad, that aanaaiaaaa *aa vaakar, or at l aa t t lass sffaofcivo In eontralllag coaduot, thaa for ohlMraa with ao apparent prohloaa* Ssis i s elaariy ia support of fynar*r** aata proposi­tion ahout payohopataaxogy ia aaut*0ala*3?

tomtar4*^ aaa tataraatad ia fraud *s typology tad

attasptad to vaXid&t® i t aatpirioaUy* This study did

aot ftad a aigaifleant di*faraaoa h®t%»an aaurotlca &nd

aoa-aaurotios. Taa rssulta ttadad to support tttnfrtr^a

typology* Ust&edoiogioaliy, this study assy ho to&r-

aldarad mmk h*>@aussa aaurotioisia i s poorly dafiaad*

A rt۩at study was earriod out as a aaatorai pro-

3aot a t taa ctaifaratty of Hawaii hy faiita* a* wrota n&

f@lI#WHi

Hao@aUy ttcarrar &a« prapaaad a dramntte atv orientation In taa paytaottearapaaUo process*. £*».] If taa aaur©Ue*s baata difficulty i s aot that his auparaga i s aacasaivaly savors tatt that tha »par~ aga has i tsalf &o#a rapadlatadl aad *ropr#saad* a vary diffara&t saaraetsp typology ratal t s , la whioh tha ordar runts psyehopath, aaurotlc, and aoraai* fa i t ooaaaptualltatioa loads to a paydiothara^aati® oriaatatioa that i s diaattrioally opposod to tha Fraudlaa oat tad has Important praotioal implications

3» &&M*$ »* ^* k@> U* ®a?«tar, "Xfcpulaa Raprastloa tad Faotieaal iati

St* 2 t Apr! A hw«M»ttt|n ffigpift ^^^Inm^SMsmismif **>i* a s

*>1 Oaorga I* pajlta, <ao UUa) * t^aliaaad teotoral thaalt prataatad to iho tmtftralty of ifewaii, auMSllf 19*31 »* 1* as at tad i a s* jftfear-t towar* *Stv Salaaawa mmmm&®$ tha aaturt of Pay siwpa thai ogy»lf

ths!******* of Il l inois* Oriwaa, i u » , I##* (to a* p*fcligfe*t} t f# 33*

RtttaW OF tHS LXT»ATO» m

Fujltafa population was taa fraahaaa ml» aad

faaala atadaata at tha imi vanity. Ustag tha Sffiaaaaatt, •jyw3S6|B|J8B8j wpaWw «a ISPju 4K *a a^a-*ai|K w^a w

orltarta aat up hy jaatissiuata, ha difiiad a i t papal**

tiaa lata two groups aallad AAjuatad tad naladjuafead.

t© thoaa frassasaa «ho iftra aiaaalfiad at adjuatad tad

aaiadlustad*

Wiion tha **§® j y y ^ J * profliat «*n amtejaotad to

ma daoltioa arltaria, xa# wara Juigad at adjuatad, 3$*

as staladjuatad, aad 3^ vara uaolaatlflad* fho iiaoXatat**

fiad auhjaots *?ar® aot »a#d la tha atutiy* mam tha tm

criterion groups %raro atatMVSd with tha Sottailaatiom

toala* Fujita fouad that tha ssala studaats Judgad at

adjusted aataiaad a wmm soora of y/*ki tad the ;sai-

adjaatad* a %®m aaora of 3fc»13« Tha faaala atuda&ts **iw

%rart aatagortaad at ad$uat#d had a mm®. %mm of %9*2o

aad aaAadJuatad, a aaaa toora of 37*30* Fujita con­

cluded that tm hath soma, tha raaalts %*ara highly

algalfleant and straagth&aad tha mmw&m hypothesis.

^ i f w W t(fepi,,*a'' w*r^i*«B-ttfH(i ^py* a'tW'shaP a« asPw^wsajRw *PM*S w a * ^ t 'Wiirwst w stwwait* TW1:^ awiswais »i* iffaffwswa

«* *ha M ' iootaUasatloii toala tad thosa oa taa J A W U

mnm m THB LXTHATMS if

«ara tha aama, to thara was a possibility of ooaimiaatioa*

aw***?, the author hat coataadod that tula eaataalaatlaji

wot ralatifoly aialaal*

Moat of that* studios si&mitoaad aaoaw hmm

straatad tha aaoaastty of farta*? *****?«* to «*t*alita

tha gaaarality of thair fiadtaga* Oa tala laaua, mwtmt hat tori ttan;

Fr* yoha y* s'coaaor aad Fr* Lao y* l o l l s , of th* BWLftnlty of Ottawa, Caaaia* haw r*« eaatly uadartakaa rassareh apaalflaaliy dasigaaa' to hoar upoa tha i t tua t disouttad ia this papof ai th largo toala saapia groups; feat fiadtaga Mm aot yat haam aamouaoad* Xf thair fladtags ara ooagruaat vita, th* various othar tmmrm out* oonaa aara diseussad, oaa can conclude vita aoar finality that ttaa Fraudiaa ooaoaptloa of payoao-pathology ia ttttalld tad that th* a l t a r a t l i m % hypotifeaal* ^arraatt our aoafidaat aeatptsfi**/*)

Ta* prasaat tapirtaaX laf**tigatloa studios tha

raiat ioa aad ordar hataaaa a grojstp olataifiad a t aavtsg

Coaduot Fnai*g*9 * ^oup 3itdgad a t aaflag Faraoaallty

Prol&ss®* and a group oatagorisad as having Ito Fnal*s* t

©a a coadaat and Paraaaslltar., Prajbfraig.. ^ j j f t aad oa a

so^lalitatloa toala* I t i*as pyiaayliy a*g*d oa tha r@-

saareii ®t gougfe, Fttjlta, a^aatom and Patar»a. Ta*ly ro-

saaroh mm aaphasiaad haoauta of i t s applicability s.nd

experimental oampotltloa*

<immiiniiH»iiiiii..i'«iniMliirliii«iii.n/i mi

k% $m mtm*t mmwtf *cuaul«ttv* m&Amm Coaoarm* lag tha * t n r # of Fsyohopatholoiy^ &alv*r»i«y of I l l ino is &•««*-» 211* # 19*6» (to ha paalt*a*4)fr p* $$#

txras* OF rm tiTSJUTuas m

Taa taras coaduet PrMm group, paraofiallty

Frahlaw group 9 tad Uo Frofelaa group ara daflaad opart**

tioaaliy hy tha scorss ©htaiaad oa tha ^fltfffil,,^,,,,^^

BW^ffi, mwm -®mmim* ^ialts&tioa i t dafiaad oparatioaaily l a tarsus of angoras ®m tha Soalaltssttoa

soal* *f th* fis^offiflft. Pa/*ftpAjftfowft jm^tory*

5. CMMttral aypot&a****

1* I'aere i t no ralatioa aattttaa socialization aad

conduct prohlaat &ad personality adjaatoaamt*

•?« Froa pjoyrtjr's theory, i t was raasoaad that a

conduct Frohlaa group, a Partonality rrobie^

group, tad a So prohlam group* 41fimw t l t a

raapaofc to aaoh othar l a thair afetllty to sooial*

i«* at stamsurad toy a ***i*ll«*ti*ft m l * * Tha

m ?roi&aa group leould •**» to ^a s»r# a#eiiil4aad

tfeaa tne- Fartoaality Frohlam group, tad tha

Ptrtoasilty prohlaa group aora aooiallsod tham

tha coodaot Prohlaa group*

Tha follo¥iag ohaptar u t i l pras#at ty*t«aatl«»lly

that* aiewoata and prooadurat whioh will ha ut*4 to tost

t&**« Hs&m^®®®**

tttiras xx

K f W W W A t SM&SXGff

tha oaatral prahlaa m t a whieh t h i s y****r«a l a

oaaoaraad, a t t ta tad l a ahaptar «o* t i t tha ra la t loa aad

ordar hataaaa a group judged as having coaduot VrQhiw&B,

a group |udgad a t havlag Personality Problems, tad a

group ludgad a t having So P ros ie r * on a ^©js$Bot. tad ,.Par*

f W W V , 0 W , m . a f f i f f W f l aad oa a t oe ia l i t a t l oa toa la .

Xt I s tha purpoaa o f t h i s ehaptar to put f o r t h tha

sastariala and t&iihai&u&s U.&&3 to conduct tha #3es>#rijs®nt®.l

iavtsetlgaUon.

This ei&aptar mmmrn® wi th a dator lp t ioa of tha

aaaplo utod l a tbm atudF* fh«& t&* tools utad ara d**»

* * * ! * « * • Af tar that* tha pv****** * * a**d i a tha toaitag

o f taa stapla a r t m% f o r t h * f i n a l l y , t a * apaoifi©

experiMcntal hypotiitsas ara daliaaatad tad tha s t * t t s t l « a l

prooadseras uaad to t *« t ta«* t**naiaat* taa ahaptar*

1* t h * Saaal**

At dlaaaaioaal ©oatiruoit* paraoaaUty proulaats

i a l a t a sSa l * * * * * * * mm, o laar ly analogous to aaurotio

tendencies $mm adult** l a ta toktlmwmm ?**** • to t t e

oo i ia fa pepu la t l * * aaployad l a t a t * r*t**r#&# taa aoa**

EXFaUXMESTAL 018X0*

aad adult psychopathy saaas a*u*lly *pp*y*at* la auy

case, aaithar Fraud aor Mowrar hat r*ttrt*t*d hit forma*

iat ioa to adults howavar auah adult aaaifattatloat of

ditordar aay hava feaaa l a ta* aiad of aaeh t&**ri*t a t

h* i#rot** Tha prasaat rosaar^h i s bated oaly oa ta*

aaauaptioa that tha olassas of suaj**t* «^loy*4 raaaaMa

aaurotioa, ptyehopaths aad aortitis a t dl**a***d fey mmm

aad Fraud* eartaialy ta*y appear to do to*

Ta* feawl* saapXa for this r**t*rca vat «aog«n

from a aidvattarm liharal ar ts ooll#ga for girls* sin**

tha aatire oollag*, that i t , ta* fr*gha*tt, tofisoaiore,

Junior tad taaior years wra **(ploy«dft no aatoatag * ®

raoa!***1*- Baeausa of stekaaas aad afesaa« froa alas*,

tatrtaaa gi*l* of ta* total taapla of Uc*i wora aot ia*

alidad* fai t la f t a total of %$l i a tha ***fl*. Thair

ago* raagad froa atgataaa to t**aty~aigitt yaars* Thair

tooiaa^aoaio haa&grouad vas mostly atddXa-oXats. Fart-

t la* students ***>* aot usad ia this study ha«ausa tha

profaatort fa i t that thay did not hmw than swffiolaatly

vail*

A mala sasgpi* vat also <&aa»an b*o**is* or mil

mmm mx diffaroaoaa ia pmWlm **pn**l*tt^ aad

. a m m m . imn«i>«iiiiinwi*»«iiinjmi>ni»iiiwiiii>ii i niftum

l Donald E* Fatartoa* "B*a*vi«tj» f*eal*at of

ElfEIXHEJITAi M510I 23

saaisllMLUofi*2 This a*l* ttispla was **l*«t«4 fro* a sad*

watara l ibaral art* *all«g* for feoys* Ta* total oolloga

papulation, am* •aplaytd* &ua to alokaaw aad shsaaoa

fro» e la ts , tvaaty-oaa bay* of ta* total a***!* of 573

twr* aot laoXudad* ta t* loft a total of 55$ i a ta*

asj^i** as t i r agts raagad froa oightaaa to tM*nty-ttta*

yaart* AS i a tha famala tampia, tha aal* a#oioaooaosiia

bftckgrounci vat mostly aiddia-ol&ss* LikaMsoi parVtlaa

studaata mxe aot iaoludad l a this study ******* tha

profeaaar* aalataiaad teat mm? did aofe a*>v« auffiotaat

isaoaladga of ta*** atud«ats to ao»piato tcowataly tha

r&tiag taa**

2* fa* Tools*

FolloMlag a goaaral iatroduotioa to tha g&l^f^y^a

P^*a*^**>**j^ ^avQ^^rif l ^ P ^ ) * *aph**l* lias fesos fiaoad

aa tha Soolalitatioa (So) toala hoo&tts* i t hat haoa «*•»

plays* i a this &%&&&* fa* aaaaura of *a*ra«t*r sad par*

mmli%w ®&$m$mmt la tfe*a dia«u***4*

pfurpo»*3 of tha faff,»fr» aooordiag to t t* *Mta*rf ms

*1F£BXHS«TAL OESXQS *

twofold. Tha f i r s t goal ^as to d*v*iop dascr l f t ivs con*

c*pt* of a hroad parsoaal tad sooial raiov&aca. ?a* socoad

goal was to davisa feriaf, aeourata, aad dapaadahl* *aa*

soala* f&it tha idaa t i f i catioa aad mmmtmmnx of tha

•tgfet*** variables eao**a for l a d u s i o a In ta* iavoatory*

The variaMos saloot#d rapras^nt&d dia*a*ioat of pe*«aa»»

a l l t y Mhioii a r i sa orgaal^ally out of toola l l iving and haaoa I*

to ha fouad ^wmtr^®r^ i a a l l sooiatios t3sd calt*¥**»

Ta* tos t hooklat eoKtala* k%f) l t * tn sad yialda

elg&taaa ttaadard scales , flit eighteen staadard sealas

provid* a osaprafeaatlva aurvay of *a iadivtdual froa a

soeial ijataraotioa poiai of view*

Tha aaaitt manor of scalo eoastruotloa was tha

tup t r i aa i t*ohai<|i»* l a t h i s mathod tha arl twrloa dt«*»*

sioa vhiah on* ***k* to fsatsura I s f i r s t dofiaad* xav*a>*

tory statsiisata **hiah saaa to hmr a payeaaloflotl r«Xa~

vaaos to tha e r i t a r t an dlauuMilott ara asas»hi*d i a a pro*

Ur inary scale . Thata *tte*tl<H** ara than glvaa to

individuals who mm ha *a*«a % soma taohaioua ent irely

independent of tha l a s t to ha strongly oJb***et<*ri**d by

this t r a i t or dictation*

h f t r r i toa €* Hough, **A Croas*culti*ral Stady of

kAFSaXMaSTAI. M X CM 2$

Ihra* t**t««*t**t re l iabi l i ty studies^ on &&%tmm

of tha aightaaa scales varied h«twaaa *57 to .$7.

Eagardiag tha validity of tha c..f.l.« «teasiv#

avidaace dra*m fro® eross»v«iidatian studies has iadisated

that ta* valid!&y of th® Individual ®m,lm i s quit* Mgb*

Sally, aftar * r*fl*v of the c*_£Vi* l a t**« #,<%%a

,t has st&tedu

All in a l l , however, tha foM- In this fieuar1® opiaioa i s oaa of th*'b«*t, if ant tha heat avalXahle instruments or i t s iiiad* £.**] 13ba &m^rm of professional aooaptaaoe of the

' E* iapaot 00 personality r^s«ar«ai tha large auahar of rafaraaooa ant

JiaiUl* tad i t s iapaot 00 personality mmwpqh ia reflected ia tha large auahar of rafaraaooa wSitah have appeared sines tha las t edition of th* 3<MY«*

h) Socialisation Seal® of the foFttjE«* Ia this

n***r*af s o c i a l i s t I oa was si#asurad tsy the roault^ oh*

taiaad froa tha m toala of th* &JUJU *** «13. 391 female

tad 552 sale tuhjaots i a tha sample* laeaus® tha final

analysis only oat tiialflaaaoa to the extent that the So

scale i s a good «®aswo of the fmeters i t was dosigaad to

measure, a&usaly, isoral r©ctit^de$ soolal aaturity, aad

personal integrity, the w r i t s and faults of tha toala

isust ha «*n*Ud*?*d l a soaa detail*

mmnwi

5 ta*h, ^nua l . p. aa.

EXFKKXKB2ITAL DBSXOff 2 6

The So scale' was originally ooa**iv*d on the

ooaoepfcual basis of role theory* The l#ss~soolait&©d

person was hypothesised to fea less skillful in twitting

aad interpreting «uotl* aad covert cu@s in soolal inter**

notion and, hence, l^ss li^*ly to #v€?lve d*n«&d*nl* aad

varidieal internalised systems of eontroi.

As originally developed, ta* So toala ©oasistad

of t ixty-fow ^uattloaaair© it*** watch differentiated

reliably hetwaaa delinquents aad aoadelia^u#ats#& I t vas

tu&toauanily crott*v*lid*t«d by cosaptrla^ Air For»

stockade prisoners with a saapio of recruit*, and i t s

ditorimiaatory effect!venass was aaintalnad*

aiaoe than i t hat seen given to at least f if ty-

eight different groups, veil ovar twaaty^ftva thousand

p*@pi*s of hoth ***•*, in various ©e«mpatioatf froa vari*

out httekgreuads, aad in tan different aoaatrl** around

tha world*9

7 iiarrison G. Oough, MCoao*pfc&*l AanXysts of Ptyeholoiioal las t Scores and ether Diagnostic fartahles,** flBPrth tO^g#i l l l gffr , < ^0^iy» *»*• 70, *a* h% August

S I*i* Qough and D,ft, Pa tar son, **** X6*nUfl«*~ t l t t t and Maaturaaent of p**dl*posltlaasl Factors i a Crin* and Xk&inouanny**" Jaupni Vol, IS, $©* **, June 1952,'"PY

sarauHEitm mmm a

Crots»eultural validation has boon high* For a

sample of » 3 ia*tl tuUeaallstd d«iiaou*nts In X^ia,

tatted in Mndl and H&»Jahl» tha go scale correlated * , 7 |

vi ta eourt-asslgnod «la**ifie*tloa» of tha cavort ty of

the off*nc«*iC'

Data froa Austria, votta Kica, Kraae*, Sermany,

Xtaiy, Japan, mart© at**, south Afrioa, and Bm.U®rlm&

nave shown that tha m s«al# has di iforantiatad tlgnifi*

eaatly between delinquents sad aoad*liaau*nt* both. «al*

aad faaasla.11

The non-test fcaais for laferring the degrte of

socialisation hat bean available for aost of tha resaaroh

oa tha So teal a* la a rather tspresaivaly dependable

aaaner, go scores have «aargad &s titty should if ta* ***1*

i* a valid maasuro of integrity and anral reotttude* l a

a recant •?•*«**•& haaad on forty*oa* n***xe& sab le s

totalling 1,395 s»ie d*liao.u«att an.4 ov*r ntn* &au**ad

noadtxin^uaats, as wall ** 7#* fsnal* delinquents and

ever nine thousand female aoanallaqueat*, iough^2 «»do

lO i t r r l soa 0* Qeugh aad B&px a* Sanaa*, *?alt~ datioa of ta* m jSoolalissattoa Seal® in India,** Journal | | ^ ^ f « M ^ A ^ M ,IWJW<W» vsi. tft, it. C * T

• a w ^ "Vw*™ *ajfl|ip ,a a Twr^wwas^^ew^ ^" '™™e M I wa^wff'-'Wtyip w * B^ ^BF/** # " T * *f^*™wi' wtiswwpflw flawaicn

feat aooras and ©their Blagaoatia ¥*riabl*» f** p* 3*ftY t wTa**ry and $feasur«»9at of SaalAlla**

'",1?A«,i,f:«,#sA?M» vol . 2fc» no* l , *

kx$ suaiMm D>aiGtf £b

& socialisation eontiuua* Taa taatples oovared a wide

range, going froa that* nominated ••best etua*n*' through

various oc<*tp«tlon*l and professional groups, through

disciplinary tempi©®, to known dellaqucatt and prison

tansaios. Ta* rmm ordering of tcaplat by the &r scale

accorded exactly with what would oocur if taay w«r*

rwnk@& sooioioglcaliy for socialisation.

Tin* Mt^ again, taa scale §m$ appropriately dis­

tinguished b*tw*«n subjects who war© in trouble with tha

law and WHO were not. i t functions as w*i:s for nigh

tscioeooaoisic groups m for Jow on«a* I t do#s such u&»*

axpeetad and reassuring tilings as differentiating between

un^ed mothers who hav® had on® ii l*glt la*t* ahlld froa

thoaa wa* have lad two or «ora. I t dltt iagaitnat boy*

whose f i r s t eatarttasat to a nferantory oeearred at *g*

fifteen or before and those whose f i r s t eos*Bit*tt*at asa*

at age sixteen or over*

EellabiliUes are varj high, validity a® des»»~

strated oould aot be tola high with an unreliable instrm*

{seat* taatHretett re l iabi l i ty i s *^0. (tough in a recent

study of tha seal® lias no tad s

The scale tt**lf, oao say eoaelude, has a *afftot«at degrao of validity so mat i t say bo mmmm&®& as a g«a*r*lly useful tool far study of any problem falling within tha do» ia of t#oialiJsatton*13

13 mmtmm s* ta^fe* %ro**Mao.feur*l validation of a da tu ra of aeaelsl Bohavlor,** PratiM!**!**! iwrf».« fai* 17* i s . Hf 0*4*a«r 19S5# »* ' i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ 1 ^ 1 ™

Xn auiw&ry taon, the t;o seal® has uc*n *ppli*d

aatensivaiy In studios of delinquency and asocial be-1**

navior. I t Is cats^d oa an lotaraetlonal or role~t*uvias

thaor/ of delinquent behavior. Xt hat ,^rov#d to b* valid

for foreaaeting asocial behavior aaong cbildren, iaold#no#

of delinquency aaong wiiitar,/ >«.rsc:cA | r^tx of delin­

quency *aoag military peraoaa*!, severity of asocial

behavior, d«liaquancy l a other culturas and wan *u*a

specific c r i t a r i a &M ohattlag on couraa *x*adaatioas in

college, i<o cause of thste f ac t s , th is seal»s has been

enosea i a tha present study*

3 . & ttasaur* of character m& Fartonality

The measure of character and personality adjustment

UB&& la t h i s study was ******** by Peterson.** B& tabu-*

la tad the re fer ra l probless a%ong k%? representatively

ehosea ehtXdren attending a guidanoe c l i n i c . jfe*3u*n*i*a

ware g&&Qv&6& for a l l problems SHHitlaa** more thas once.

The f i f ty-eight a**t coaaoa proal eat ware seleetad for

general investigation*

Ik Harrison a* Gough, Ernest A* tank, uM v t t a l i v. Bosya&e, "Parol* Onto*** as Predicted froa tha cpx, tha .WX, and s Base Ispeotanoy Table.« | # » a f l of jL^mimXJMtfMm*

' 1905, p« *32-WY Vol* 70, So* d, ttcambar

15 Peterson, *'Behaviour / rohieat of t:Xddl* chlldaood,* p . ao$~W*

I»F«X$«TAL ossxs* 30

these fifty-eight variables war* ordered riaadoaXy

and than aaseabled in a format requiring ratings of

D <no proalaa)) 1 <aild pro-blest), or 2 (severe problaa).

Ih i t was than tubaltt** for completion to twaaty-alght

teaohart of §31 students in aijs different trade »*$»oia

in Illinois*

Per taalysi t , Fatarton t$M^ tha mm&&* into

four group* aad perfonsad four separata faotaritatioas*

Two factor* emerged with striking invarlanee i a a l l four

amlytea* fh* f i r s t factor vat identified as a Conduct

Probl#a. Xa this ease impulses ara asprateed and toalaty

mit£«F** lb* highest loadings ware on tha following vari­

able a: dltob«dianoa¥ dltruptivanass, boi $%$mmmm*9

fighting, atteatiea^teeietag, ra t t la t taas t f negativta**,

iapartiaaaaa, dattruotlvanats, i r r i t ab i l i t y , taapar tan­

trum*, hyperactivitys profanity t Jealousy and unooopara-

tivanaaa, proa th*s*f tha obvious phaaotypia pattern i s

of flagrant slsbahavier l a open dafiaaoe of authority*

Fatarton postulated aggression aad limited control at tha

JBt^w** a* '•basKKsaB' *• T R * * - * * *tr cap aj ap Rwfc *& s*'ai*^*^fp' WF A weav w w w i aa* ava* ei'tcj^'i^et* w e t w * w a"™ w *T*W ^w**»sa *

The second factor was identified at a ^ertoaality

Probies. Xa tats mm lapultat ara inhibited aad tha

parson suffers, this disiantioa was 4Mxm by the fallowing

variablatt faallaga of inferiority, laofe «f »alf-e«l1doa«f,

social withdrawal, proaemass to Moon* fluabarad,

KXFERIMEMTAX. DESIGI 31

self-consciousness, shyness, anxiety, lethargy, inability

to have fun, depression, reticence, hypersensitivity,

drowsiness, aloofness, and preoccupation. The emotional

nucleus of this factor appeared to be a feeling of

iasecurity.

An later^udge r of .77 was found for the coaduet

Problem dimension, and .75 for the Personality Problem

dimension. The correlation betweea factors was .18. This

is low enough to meet requirements for independence. A

sizeable share of students are said to display problems

along both distensions, and these may contribute partially

to the low positive correlation betweea the factors.

The generality of these two factors appears to be

outstanding. Blot only do they emerge with clear uniform­

ity in this study, but they have appeared In similar

studies with the recorded problems of treatment cases

despite wide differences in subjects, variables, and

analytic procdure,.^-" * . ,*.. factors bare a p p « M 4

on the questionnaire behavior of delinquent boys.1^

16 L*EY Hewitt and E*L, Jenkins, Fundamental Patterns of ^ala4^at*en^if fh*lyaaal.es of Thai* pri^ln, Springfield, Illinois, CSreen, 19**o, p. 3**~57»

17 Hilde T, Blaaaelwelt, **A Factorial Study of Children1 s Behavior Probleas," as cited in H.J. iysenek, ?&e structure of Huaan Personality* London, Methuen, 1953,

Id ©*B. Peterson, B.C. Quay, and <MU Caaeron, "Personality aad Background Factors in Juvenile Delinquency as Inferred from Questionnaire Responses,* journal of^Con* suiting Psychology. Vol. &3» Mo» 5, October 1959, p*395-399*

Considering a l l stud l e t , age has varied froa early child*

hood to lata adolaaeanoa* Problem statu* hat varied from

none, through cllaioaX attendance, to &*&&$. jailed for

delinquency, cat* sources have varied froa ease history

records, to standard ratings, to f|uattloanalre response**

Methods to asrtraet factors have alto varied froa dus te r

inspection to centre-id analysis* notation*! Methods have

varied froa mm* through visual shift*, to both ortho­

gonal and oblique solution*, to analytic techniques,

through a l l of t h i t , tha factor* have stayed the state*

Peterson^ has found that that* two verbally dafiaad par-

tonality factor* remain tha taa* throughout life* Other

studios by Bjr**n*JS| sl*c&, and Howrer^2 have confirmed

tha dominant position of these two factors* INitartoa^

%9 &*&« Fatarsoa* *Bi* Scope and Oenaraltty of Verbally defined Fartoastllty Factor*,** pjHraholagtfal |ftflj*w> Vol. 72, *»• 1, January 19*5, p . *&~$9»

SO i*J* Byaaaok and S«D*0* %s*acJi, **4 Factorial study of an Interview tosttloanalre,** Journal. of Clinical tmUkUOC* *»!• * i *»• 3* **** 1902, prSK*SC

21 K»S« *!***•« ^ha ..paval^Miant, of Parsoaail,ly

thesis presented to the university of I l l ino i s , Urban*, HI* , 196**, p . k7«

%2 0« ISohari Maw***, ^Cumuiatlvo evidence Concern­ing tha lature of Psychapathology,* UMvarsity of I l l ino i s , "Irian*, 111*, 19*** (to bo published), 29 p*

4%

.gsmmtBtmrtmnmii^mflWTM«Mwn«ri&» ** #**

MPEIIXMSHTAL mmm 33

used the tana aeasure of character and personality adjust­

ment at aaployad in the present research, with high school

students* Peterson recommended its use in tha present

study.2** This ae&sure of Character and Personality

adjustment has bean inserted ia Appendix 1.

V. fasting Procedures.

th* actual tasting with the So scale of the C.P.I.

toafc place towards the and of April. It was believed

i&at the profettors would know their students better ta*

w*rd the ead of the scadeato year and coaaeej&anily nor©

accuracy would be obtained on tha Measure of Character

and Personality adjustment.

For both tha aala a.nd feasnle student populations,

Identical tatting procedures ware followed* the frathaan

class of student*, the sophomore, tha Junior and scalar

yewtm ware tatted separately* Test administrators and

proctors ware made up of psychologists, along with aeabers

of the guidanca and tatting offices* Administrators ware

told how to handle any questions which might m asked by

tha students, taa tine allotted was enough for everyone

to flnlah taa iwm*

Author. April 27, 1900*

&XPmM**YAl* fiESXGX fr

An innocuous announcement was aad«j that wc were

trying to measure aoste tendencies assong college students.

ta* subjects were told about the s»ea*nlo* ol in* opera*

t ioa. they were assured that thair perforata** would not

affect their grades§ tha teachers would aot know how toay

answered} tha tcores would have no bearing an their futures*

Taa professors ware requested ta rate a l l of taa

ttudents oa tha measure of ffaa^i*,!, mjmm»Ut$ fWVi&m

Checklist.

Pro® the female staple, a randoa seiettlon of one

aundrad students was aade froa the entire college, and

two professors rated these students separately, fare*

***** later another rating wms obtained on th* ninety-

eight freshman students by tha saae professors Ac md pre­

viously rated the** the students were not ***** of the

professors* rat ings. Separate rating sheets **** given

to each faculty ****** who would rate the student

independently*

For tha male population, a r&adoa selection of

eighty students wa* node froa the whole college, and two

professor* rated that* students separately, thraa weeks

aftar tha rattaga had hmm completed, another rating was

procured oa a randoa staple of *lxty*fif* frethaan students

by ta* mm® professors who had previously rmtad then* A*

with tha female population, the aal* ttuaant* ware unaware

of the professors' ratings. Bach faculty a***** received

a separate rating sheet, so that an Independent rating

would be given to each student.

Score® for Conduct ppobl** (C.rY) and Personality

Problem (P.P.) were obtained by assigning oae point £®t

each relevant problem indicated, aad three groups of sub­

jects ware selected, mm group consisted of pupils for

whoa no problems at all were checked, this is referred

to &s the no Problem group (I.P.). 4 group of Conduct

Probleas was chosen by Including those for who® the ratio

of c.F. scores to I*.P. scores was at least five to one*

Analogous criteria were applied to desigaatiag Personality

probieas.

5. Specific g*p**iaua*tal 4ypothasa«*

Sow that tha s»pie, tools and testing procedures

nave been described, th® specific experiaaataX hypotheses

are stated in tha null for*.

1. there are no significant relations betweea scores on tha Socialisation scale of th® £*L§1* ma scores obtained on a ffoadwe^ aqft >*****a>i'jtty

a* there is no aigalfleant difference between tha a**a scores of ta* Conduct 'rroal«* $mup and the it Praaleji group oa the soatallcatloa seal* of th* P A ! *

JUF*£IIN*VATAL aadXOil

3* there Is no significant difference between ta* Keen scores of the Conduct Problem group and taa l*ar»onalIty prohlea group on tha goctalisatioa scale of tha .C»ff|.

%. there i s no significant difference between the mean scores of ta* Fwrtonality j-roaX*tt group *ad the M Problaa group on tha Socialisation *oal« of the C.Lffl.

5* Ims* ia no significant difference between tha aata scores of males *ad feaalat for the Conduct rroblea group, the rcrtonality Problea group, and the m Problem group oa tha Socialisation scaler of tha fitf *!»

6. s t a t i s t i c a l Frecaduree*

aal laat l l ty was determined twte* for the rating

scale oi character und Personality adjustment using tha

sale and feaale staples. Iat*r»judge re l iabi l i ty was

found fran a randoa selection of one kmi.^ f©sale

student* and linewis® for eighty nolo stMeats* T**t~

retast r*3JL*hiiity va* found for tha f i r s t year frostoan

feaala students whose mmtem totalled ninety-eight* I t

was also calculated froa a random staple of sixty-five

f i r s t year frashaan ami* student*.

Inter»judga rel iabi l i ty was found by computing &

Pearson *** correlation coefficient between two groups

of raw scares representing tha ratings of two distinct

n J*?. **tlf«**« Pgri^gil! if»,

MJPW3MBW. &hSmM 37

judgat on conduct arable*** tm Identical procedure was

employed to obtain a r***toa r correlation coefficient

for t&ose judged as having personality probiew*.

Teat-retatt raiiabtXAty was than datamiaed for

the rating tenia lay computing a Pe*rsoa r correlation

coefficient between tha raw ®mrm as judged by the s*»e

Judges on tha f i r s t and aecond administration*

Scores for ta* Sooiaiiaatioii scale of the C ^ . I .

wax* cossputed for the tubjecit with no problems, for those

with conduct prohXeaa, and iiaaJUy £0^ those with per*

s&a&lity preolaaa. *>l*t*lbutloa* of that* scores war* then

fonsed. the s«e*aa aad standard, deviation* for e&On of the

t&rea subgroups, that i t , the m proaltti group, tm conduct

problem group, and tha Personality frmhlm group w&r® than

oaleulatad for both taa nolo and feaale populations*

Individual t teat*2** wars applied to tha means of

tha Socialisation scores b*tw*«n the i t i'roal*** group and

the Personality P*onl*a group} bebwaaa the So Problem group

and tha conduct rrobi«» groups and finally between th*

personality jTo*l*a group and the conduct rroal** group*

thMm individual t tests war® calouiat** to *ct**alna

whether the dlff«**ae«* between ta* groups w*** s ta t is t ical ly

». 3S&-3S9.

wmimwa. taasnon 3a

aifnifictnt. ¥h*a the t tests have demonstrated that

taa** art tlgaificant differences betwaan the aeons of th*

three eubgroups, th* aaouai of these dlf ftrances is still

unknown* the poiat-bit*ri*l r was than employed to datar-

aiae th* extent of the statistical significance. Cohan

recently recoaatanded that tha t test be carried one step

further to raweal how great in correlation terms th®

differences indicated hf tha t tests nay be. m has

stated his racoaaandatlon in this manner*

the principle being advocated bare i s that routinely, whenever I T value 1® reported, the p value should also be reported. this restores syssaetry In the deaaads of good practice in raportlag psychological research, since this ha* always diotatad that every p value b* s.ee®«p*Biod fey the ralavaat r value aad i t * s ta t i s t ica l signifi­cance. rr«*«ttt pr&etle® is inft*i*»ly to report -r values, p value* being reported amy wkan ta* _ design impp^m to yl*ld « correlation coefficient*^

k re&rson * correlation coefficient w«s obt*iM*

for ta* 3VI gir ls l a th© total a*apl* b*tw**a each Individu­

a l fs rated Conduct : Table* scor© and the corresponding

Soeialisatloa score. &n identical procedure was carried

out Xw tha 0 2 male students in tha total swap!**

Life**!** & /carton r correlation coefficient was

determined for the 391 gir ls in the total staple between

Zf Jacob cohaa, "Son* s ta t i s t ica l Xttaat In Psychological Eataarcn.^ as cited in Benjamin B, mimm* (•?>» Qfflftwsft.,f{,&mm,rmwR)&a:-t *** *w*t Near*** IPULl, i # ? » p* 9JKUII*

IXFMXMTAL nmim 3f

each individual*® rated persoimlity score and ta* corra-

tpaadlng iaeiaXiaaiioa score* tha t*a* calculation ware

also computed for the r>z male students*

Fi*h*r*s t faraula vas then applied to each of

these las t two correlations to investigate whether tha

correlations were s ta t is t ical ly significant.

the next chapter will present aad discuss ta*

finding* ©f these %-m&®^®& in relation to th* specific

2u U*y4**v ,%.firL ,.;t*« p* 3^7*

CHA'TEa I I I

FfihSEJITAnOS ASD D1SC8S3XQS OF BESJ&tS

the results otetasn&d from tha s ta t is t ical calcu­

lations ere presented and discussed in tha present chapter.

^ae f*a*l* **npl* i s p***«at«d f i r s t followed by the male

sample, tad finally a comparison b*tv**n the results com­

puted for the f*aalt and ami* saapias is set forth*

Further rese&rch suggestions are delineated*

The preliainary considerations for both the female

aad naie staples *r$ concerned with the te t t - re tas t r e l i ­

abi l i ty , and th® inter-judge re l iabi l i ty of th* ?****a*lltjp

m$ m$^WMmm^mU%* «M» *&* relations betwaan tcores calculated on the Socialisation (So) scale of th*

9tf4fyft* Plfffr^f M<*fA ,, JMMftory (£•£»!•) and scores

acquire on tha . j^SQaa^y, *a#„ r ^ t ^ J r o j ^ , RwMtt

are sat forth and examined* this teas boon done for th*

three groups, ca^aly, the St Problem <!*?«) group, the

p**tonality problem <F*P») group, and the Conduct Problem

(C.F.) group. Following th is , the differences between the

imm* scores of the three typological groups oa the So

scale of ta* JaUJwJU a3p® described »M evaluated* the

fraudian and mttttttwtk hypotheses, relevant to this study,

**• **«**iii*d in relation to the s ta t i s t ica l conclusions*

msiSffAtta* A * oxscossiox OF m$mm ki

fimlly th* stale and female staples are cowparad and th*

chapter i s terminated with various *ee***t*&d*tloa* for

further research*

1. the ?«**1* &**pl** ?r*ii*la*ry Considerations*

Xa order to o*t*r«la* ta* stabi l i ty of tha gr**«»

WffPA&fr ,ft# *^W, l f f ?ffi^.W ffMWWkafflrt * tast-rataat

re l iabi l i ty was calculated* this had b&m ********* by

Peterson* ta* tin* betwaan test* was three ****** fa*

college professors were not aware that they would b*

asked to f i l l out the Ca***li*t a second tint* Only the

fratnaaa claaa wa* used to establish the tast-rabast

reliabil i ty* fhit class consisted of ninety-eight student®,

thai* ages varied froa eighteen to twenty-three* for tha

Conduct Praties group tha t**t-**t*st re l iabi l i ty was *B§*

For taa Personality pr*bl*ii group i t was *91«

lata*-judge re l iabi l i ty was also computed, A

randoa saispl* of on* tmmkm& students wat selected froa

tha aatlre collage population* two judge* ware atked to

rata that* students independently. the student age rang*

in this staple varied **** eighteen to tweaty***lgat* Tha

ia&**-jadg* raiiabiiiissy for tha Conduct Problaa group was

.yd. For th* Parana*!!ty Problem group i t wa* *?2.

1 i*M. r«te«o% iMMmlMUMM&BMmm^kM Author* April 2? t 19*eY

nammAIZOI AJ© OXSCCSSIOS OF ti*m?s ^

2. Interrelations of tm l en*!* conduct and Personality P*Qbl«* Groups*

the s ta t i s t ica l a*tao* of correlation i s a cess-

praheasive analysis. I t sets fo*th a relationship between

deviations of score points about a line*2 ta* Pearson

correlation coefficients h«tw**n tha »enf«* obtained oa tfe*

3® scale of the i ^ £ « *jtf that* on ta* »^»J .^ ,M,„»#

» ^ m , M l ffftffifr^MJr « • *w***nt** la 'labia 1* For

those judged as having a conduct ?robl«a*f & Pearson ****«•>

I t t loa coefficient of -*¥»• was found between thai* secret

on tha #© scale of ta* £*£*!- and ta*ir scores on th©

PofrfpqiM flr ano flj^ry^i** fiffHrfJWk mmm* *hla was

s ta t i s t ica l ly significant at p » .001 level of confidence*

A Pearson correlation coefficient of ***j# wa* * * 1 -

cuiated froa tha score* on the So scale and tha Peraoaffc^ty

and; fifta*,*****, j ^a f^m .OmffW,f,1- *** «»*o judged as having

Personality Problems* this was found to be significant

at the p * *CCi level of confidence. Both relationships

are low. However, th* null hypothesis, namely, there a**

a* significant relations between scores ©a the So scale of

*ha £*£*£* «w» scores obtained on a JtSimmUM^m^

Character ProMaa Cfoe*>lJL*.t in ta* &r«*s of Character and

fwtoaallty problems tjuat be **j**t*d*

Mtu^'^ygrg^/i^gTma!*^*'"**

WMiStAxxoi A ® viBcmum or mmtLta *»i

table I*-Corralatlon Coefficients betwaan tha Sooras on tha So Scale

®f the &JU1. and the mm^jfif,and, Mfiajfr+T Prgjafeqi chacalltt for tha Conduct &m

Personality P*oal*s faaala Oroups* mm0mmmmmil0mmtmmmm<fmMmi'mmmm~m0M»immMmmmm»mmmmmiiQtmmiii*mm**^^ » • i' .iiniiiiiiin iiim ,tm«'uim*m****mm*mmmm*tmm wtm*imn< m mnm, ,*****mm~**mitrtm*mmm*tmmm<mmm**~~mmmmm»m*imi~mm-mm~mmi mm wnujwimii* 'iwinn.wi.j nn>i nmnniu rnimwu.—w»

t*carton r t Test tffffOM f$?mW £ Coefficient* , *|; flt§, "y* MWWMW

Conduct Problem 391 -*V* o*

Par tonality Problem 391 -*a| 5*07^

a Significant *t Um ,coi laval of confidence*

PKSSSSSatlOS A » PXSC&8SX0* W ABSuXtS M*

tha ndaua signs of t*<* correlation of -.*•*•• for

the conduct Problem group and of ~*25 for the Personality

f-wbiim group indicate a tendency for both groups to be

a*S"Sws^^*w a*™*' *p^*»*w»** * t t * ' t ^ * i t *

Ki* fear son correlation coefficients of -•%% and

-*25 were computed frost ta* entire population of 391

g i r l s . According to Freudian hypo the i leal reasoning,

measures of soctalt&ttioa should correlate positively with

indices of Fortonality r*©bleat, but negatively with

measures of conduct l^cbles&s*

If £*v**ri*A theory i s supported, both, tha corre*

lotions should have the mm® ad&at signs. ^owrerfs pro­

position has h®m substantiated by the present f i l i ngs*

fhosa with p*r*ootllty Problems would mp&ms? to bo under*

socialised ms 'iawrar, aot ?**»*, tod postulated*

3* Comparison of Moan ^Socialisation Faaala Bmtm*

tm a**n*, standard dnvl*tl#a$9 t test* and potst-

bisarial correlations obtained on the So scale of the

citiPlPl. for ta* So Problem group, the Personality Probloa

$x®&$>f and ta* Conduct p**bl*ti group are presented in

fable II* tta* means calculated for th* thro* groups ware

%!#**$ for tha se Problem group, 37*be for tha Personality

Proaltai group and 3a.$6 for ta* conduct Proalcai group*

the difference batwoan tha mmm» of tha So problem anil

•iwriiiwiyorw^«miMT8\^^

tab le I I . -

-naaas, Standard Deviations, t f a s t s , and Point-Blserlal £ Correlations* for the Social! suction Scale of taa c T F.I . £f

for Females. g

***iat» © Standard &rospi§ t Bl se r ia l *?

! L . ^..,.,,1.,.,,.,,-JfM, ,.„ .fievtaj^fm,,, ,, Co^earejt, , ^ajft g f r r . f l a ^n , £ HO Probiasi (S.P.) 190 WuHp* 3.d** s*P» vs J - .K 3*Jfr* .21 §

*-«

Personality ^ a* Problem <P.f.) SI 3 7 * ^ ^*7^ S.rY vs c . i . «*32 ***9

Conduct proal** CC.F*} a6 3a*&a $.#*• K P . vs c.:>. %*c^fe .^3 Sst

* Slgatfleant a t ta* .CI level of confidence. _ f c _ - _ « _ ^ b Significant a t tha ,CC1 level af confidence, / tT '%' § * Cohan's poiat-bi ser ia l correlation formula r$te s / y.v .m ,

•» d f

M I

PBSSSStAtXOi AMD DXSO/SSXOS OF WSSCLTS k6

Far tonality Problas* groups was found to ba significant at

tha p « *01 level of confidence. The difference between

ta* scans of the Ho Problem and th* Conduct Problem group®,

as w*U as th* Personality problem and conduct Problem

groups «as found to b® significant s i the p * ,001 leva!

of caafidence.

the ®mtt®r of those judged as having & conduct

Problem was twenty-six. There war® fifty-one students

Judged as having a Personality Problem* in ^4%r to fee

classified ia either of these two groups, a rat io of five

to on* was needed* ta* number in the Wa p*oal«*i group was

19C« these war® selected froast those students rated hy th®

judge* as aafiag no conduct Problems or personality Problems.

Taarcfora, the second, tnir*, and fourth null

hypotheses aust be rejected, aejiaiy, ta*** are a© signifi­

cant differences in mmm scores betwaan those judged as

having conduct problems and those judged as having io

probl*®*, betwaan those judged as having Conduct P*oal«*«

aad tao** judged as havta** personality p*oai*a*, and betwaan

tnose $w&%@& as imping Personality Problems and those judged

a* having i s Problems, on the So scale of th© c»fM*

jkm mmm. scores and standard deflation* computed

i® this rataarch conform with the findings of other

PEMEfXAtlOf AS£ CXSC0SS1OS 0?" iSSt&TS h?

studies.** ** That* with Coaduct Probleme showed slightly

aore variance than the oth*r two group*, the l*»*t deviation

from th© acta was eettputed for th* lo P**bl«* $mu®*

ta* point -bi serial oor**l*tiont were computed £****

the i scores, the si as® of t* a *ff*ct of tt,« drffor*ac*

between the se&ns is Influenced by the degree of difference

between th* sccS©iist&ti®£t variable and the c*lt**ioa vari­

able. Tiic pel at-bl serial correlation was c*lcult ted to set

fortfe, cs ®w?y correlation deat, th* extant or strength

to wblah * relation exists , if i t exists, as shown by tha

t t es t .

The tJaouat of **X«tlonthip w*t the gremieat in &

comparison of the So ?*ofcia* group with th* Conduct P**al**t

group* fins resulted la * point-biaerial correlation of

rpfc * * ^ . Tale relationship indicatet the cts&nces •**

greater that those belonging to Uim $c Problcia group would

obtain a higher too** on ta* s©eiali»tio& a******* than those

in the Coquet Probi« group.

m«mmmmmi**imme*mmmmmmmmm*mmm*mmi

% &«®, Oou h and &.*• i'*t*rton, *ta* x**atiflcation tad 4**ja*re*j*at of P*adl*potit*on*l Factors In Crlno and m* 3* **** war* >• so?-*!?.

PSSSaaTATXOS A3© DXSC9BSSXOS OF SSSOLtS Ml

whan the Ho Problem group was coiaparad with taa

Personality problem grouse a point-blsarlal correlation of

rpb « *21 w*s computed. Tha i*er tonality Problem **eup

versus tha conduct problem gmup resulted ia a *pb - .**3*

there is * possibility that the differences in the na&as,

found &®oag the three groups, «ty be due to tha fact that

they are differentially rale tod to socialisation* this

differential relationship la seen in ta* three point-

biter ial correlations mentioned.

the location of the Par tonality Problem group ia

Ottwean th* Ho Preble© tad conduct Problem groups has

supported rnvxw?1® aypothetit* According to Freudian

reasoning, the Personality P**al«a group would have beta

s&ore socialite* than tha acraal group, and t&us would have

obtained higher scores on ta* socialisation *#&aure.

Mowrar#s thaoratioal position that the personality Froblaa

group would ** under-socialiEtd n*t b*en supported by th*

present findings*

k. ta* 'ale Wmplm P**ltala«ry considerstloa**

A tast-retest reliability of the Paytoaallty and

pa***et**..rTobl*a Ch*fi*at*t..wat obtained again in order to

establish it* stability, three *«•** elapsed betwaan ta*

t**tt* xa* collage professors ware not informed that they

would &e rogues tod to complete Urn Cft*«fe34*t a second tla**

maaumaim ASD siscossxos or WUNLIB k$

A randoa s**pl* of tixty-flvo frathasaa students wot used

to determine tha t*tt«**t**t reliability, their ages

v**i*d froa aightaan to twenty-nine year** For tha conduct

Prohtea group the taat-ratatt reliability was .&?* for

tha parsoaality froblaa group i t was .15*

later-judge reliability was also calculated* 4

raadoa taapia of eighty student* was chotan froa the entire

call*** population* that* student* ware rated ladapandantly

by two judges, in this sample, tha age range of tha student*

varied froa eighteen to twaatr^alght years* ta* later-jndg*

reliability for th* Conduct Problem group was *?t* For

the Personality Problem group i t wa* *?$*

% Interrelation* of tha ml* Conduct and Personality froblea Sronpa.

Sa# pftartoa correlation coefficients b#tw**a the

aale tear** obt&laad on tha So scale of tha cff.?tl. and those

v&wm w**W* ,jL|j6BteiBi^^ *w*" W Jf ** *•*

•anted in table 1X1* For that* judged a* having a Conduct

Problem, a Poor ton correlation coaffi cleat of -*3# was

calculated betwaan thai* scores on tha m scale of tha

Sii^* and thai* tcorea on tha mMMMtit* iM4 .^W^ttlf

prsbl^^i Qiccklist. fat* wa* statistically stsstxtaaat at

th* p * *601 level of confidence.

table XXX*-

Correlation, Coefficients batwean tha Scores on the So Seal-of the &u* &fid- ^ w^miwjm ^ IJJ£**V and the garfan*!l^y and jptm

ProM aa LICto*hjLt«.t for th* Conduct and Personality' Probiea Hal* Qroupt*

:«pi«:wi8iiaaiWiaai4iii,.iWiaa8s:

Pearson r t fast Significance

Conduct Probiea 552 -*3o

Personality Problem 55* -*I?

9*<

awawinti

a St sa l ' leant at the .001 level of eoafideaea,

FRMWAtXOJI AM) TOCUSSXOS* OF ftttg%XS $1

For those judged a t having Personality Problems,

a Fearson correlation coefficient of -*17 was obtained

betwaan thair scores on tha 50 scale and the Personality

•M ^ A o t o f i fra^HS # # » » Shis was found to be

significant also a t tha p « .001 level of confidence*

Although these relationships are low, tha null hypothesis,

namely, t&ere are no significant relations between &mm*

on the So scale of the jm**!. and scores obtained on a

rfEftoMiUfcr 4h4 mamlm umm gie#iw «»** &e rejected* the aiaus signs of tha correlation of -#3* for tha

Conduct Problea group and -*!7 for in* Personality Problem

group indicate a tendency for aoth groups to be uader-

soclali sad*

to* entire population of $$% aaies was employed to

calculate that* Pearson correlation coefficients* Fraud

had thaoriaad that sse^&ures of socialisation should

eorreiat* posltivaly with indicaa of Personality Problems,

hat negatively with measure* of Conduct Problems*

©a tha other hand, wtowrer hat hypotaattaaa that

both correlations thould have the taa* stinus sign©, this

proposition hat been supported fey tha present finding*.

those with Personality PfobXei&a would appear to bo under-

aocialitad a t itowr*** not Fraud, had thaoriaad* Both fraud

and &a«r** had postulated that th* Conduct Problem group

would have a aagattv* corralaUon with * «odali«atlon mmmum*

mmm&nm A » DXSCOSSXOS OF PJSSULTS ?2

0* Comparison of ^aan Socialisation Male Scores*

Xn fable If mm presented the mm&* standard

deviation*, t teat*, and point-biatrial correlations for

the So Problta $?®u$s tha Personality Frobla® group, and

the Conduct Problem group* the «•*» coasted for the S*

proal** $?®\xp was 3**09* for the Paranatal ty Problem group

31,95» and for the Conduct Problem group ^*23* A signifi­

cant difference at ta* p * •001 level @f oonfldanoa was

found between the Man* ©f the so Froblea and Personality

Frofelea group* at wall as the $© pyoele* and Conduct

Frealaa groups* the difference between th* means of th®

Personality Problem and conduct froblea group* was tigni*

f leant a t tha a * *01 level of confidence*

th* number in the Ho problem group was afo* th is

group was chosen froa those student* rated by the judge*

at having no conduct P*obl*ja* mr Personality Problems*

l a txifAm to be placed in tha Personality Problaa or Coadwt

Proalaa groups, a rat io of five to one was required* the

mmtew of students fudged at having Personality p**alc*ts

was *ia*y~fiva* the*® ware thirty^alae judged at having

* Conduct p**bl*a«

Sine* the *tfftrances between tha three groups w®r#

s ta t i s t ica l ly significant, tha second, third, and fourth

anil hypothatat must be rejected, aaaoly, there ara no

significant differences in new scores between thosa judged

fable IV •-

Means, itaadard inflations, t fatta, and Point-81 serial m Correlations* for th* Socialisation Scale of the $*??** m

for Males* U . , K

<*«-*«ffi*MeMe**Ma»ti*««M^^ ^J|

Foist" g Male & tender* Qroups t Btserial ^

W Hoan Bavlatlon Coapara* Test Correlation m %3

a -*s y i t Problaa <S.P.) 2$S 3*.09 *»*91 S*P* vs P.?. 5*

Problea CfY?*> 65 31.95 $*m i . p . v* e*!Y d a c * »**3 §

Content Problaai <€.?.} 3 J ^7.ai *«.<& P*r\ v* c*F* a.73 *2o 0 4*5#

a Mgaif leant *t tb*d601 level of confidence* 8 b significant a t ta* .01 level of confidtaea* / ''"'+% ' r" * £ * Cohan's point-bisarlai correlation fcrania rpb *

3

PBMEStAtXOU ABD ttXSCOSSXOff OF SSSULTS $*

at having Conduct prohXe&a and those judged as having 3fo

Problems, between thote judged as having Conduct Problems

and those judged as Having Personality Problems, and between

these judged as atviag Personality Frobleas tad those judged

at having So Problems, on the So scale of the £*£»!#

the So problaa group had the least deviation f*o*

the aeon, while the Personality and Conduct Problem groups

manifested considerably more deviation*

taa point-biserial correlation was computed to set

forth tha extant or strength to which a relation exists,

If It exists, a* shown by the t tost.

ta* poiat-biaerlal correlation of rp^ * *%3

Indicated that th* aaount of reiationtMp was tha greatest

when the So Problem group was compared with the conduct

Problaa group.

the So problem group versus the personality

problea group resulted in a rpb * *2b» and a rpb « *ab was

calculated for the fersenelity Froblam group versus the

Conduct Problaa group*

in conclusion, taare 1* a possibility that tha

differences in the meant* found among tha tare* groups,

aay be due to the fact that they are differentially related

to socialisation* tat* differential relationship Is teen

in th* three point-blaerial correlations stationed*

rmgssatAtxos Am oiscuasxos OF SESULTB 55

?* Comparison of He&n Socialisation Scores for taa mx% and Female sasiplos*

Tha weans, standard deviations, t tes ts , and

point-bitarial correlations, calculated froa * oowp&rlaon

of tha three aai* and faaal® groups according to their

nana tcores on tha So scale of th* C.F.l* mm presented

ia fahl* ¥*

ta* ra tu l t s obtained in the present study ara

la conformity with studies hy dougn^ and yujlta«? the

mmn. feasle tocial i tat ioa scores ware higher for a l l three

groups whoa compared with tha mean MKI* scores* ta*

difference betwaan the acans of tha sale and female m

problem groups and Fertoaality Frohlem grotjps was found

to be tlgaificant a t th* p * .001 level of eaaftdaao**

Ssa difference betwaan tha mmnz of ta* a*l* and f«amL*

Conduct Probies group* was algalfleant at tha p * *C1

level of confidence* therafora, the fifth null hypothesis

arntt be rejected, aaa&ely, there i s no significant differ*

T B T * * ' W ^ S ? "fl&m * *wf ^*~nSS) W W W WWa*SR** S J U P M U S * Tw^W IM*** ,8Sl*H|<av<—?,<W 1^w**t((li S* HH'MHUW**ti^** *bSHr*^ *(WS^—s

So Problem groups, ta* Personality Problasa groups, and tha

Conduct Problaa groups on the so scale of the JGUJUI* . i i . i IIIIIIIIiMi.iimniiiii'H •« ii iniwii •II.IIIIIIII .111

7 0***** T. fujlta, (no t i t l e ) , wfrablistwl doc­toral thaaia pm*m%#& to tha university of gswati, s**ali9 19*31 $>* £* *® at ta* in 0« itobari Hower, *S*ir Evidence, o^aoarmni ta* fctera of Ptycbopatholaiyy* tAtlfaffatty of I l l ino i s , Wham, 111., 19*6* (to bo publlaiad)* P*l3*

fmmmmtm &m Bisct&sxo* of mm&m so

? . -

the t fasts tad Pol at~Bi serial Correlations* for ta* Fmml® end Male Scores on tha Socialtsttton Scale of the .C P*I«

»Mta»ia^ni-«iw-Me»w*->*-

Point* Standard I Blserial .l*ft*tt*a, | e s t Correlation

H.P. Females 190 M.V5 3.0V

S.P. i s l e * 2<j* 3*.cp k^l

P.P. females 51 3?.5c t**7I*

P.P. Males »5 31*95 '<*C,C

C.P* Pestles 34 32»oi£ f*0%

C.P. *»les 39 37Y*3 d.co

d.i?m . 3 *

V.J«7m #3v

3*4-Cto .3 r i

s s t s a t f t o t a t a t iss© .0C1 level of eoBfideace* b Significant At ta* .01 level ot confidence* * Cohen's po ia t -a i ser ia l correlation forattlaj

mmmf&iim AS© OXSCUSAXGS OF a s m ? * f?

the deviation froa in* mean was less for th* Umm

festal* group* than for the thraa tsaai* groups, fne highest

deviation f*oa tha aata wsa caloulatad for th* aale Person­

a l i ty Problaa group, the m Problem feaale group isaai-

fasted the least deviation froa the ***n,

A potat-aisarlai correlation of rpo * .34 was

computed whan the Ho Problem feaale group was coaparad to

the So Problem a*l* group. For ta* Personality Problem

faaalat versus tha Personality p*a*l*a «eiea ana the Conduct

Problem feaales versus Urn Conduct Probies* sales, the SOB*

point-bi aerial correlation of itph * . » was obtalnad* there

i t a possibility teat ta* oilfaaeaeee in the ©etna, £wm&

aaong the thraa groups, aay b* due to taa fact that they ara

dlff*r*nti*lly relateo to socialisation* this differential

ralatioasnip i s saaa in th® three poiat-bt**alal corral*-

tioas mentioned.

in conclusion, ta* So scale u** employed in this

study because i t has famm validated with unusual care*

two objections have bi»®u raised against personality

inventories, these objects h*v* been called "aaqul*

••eano**'** tm& * soci&l dogtrtoility.** Acquiescence ha*

o A* Couch and K« fceniston, *X****y*** and tay-tayerai Agreeing Sa***a»* $ei as a personality Variable,M

9 A*I, Edwards, pw.sptttii tm^mmmjpsmii | | W * 0 ^ Haw ura , S^ydan,

FMMItAtXCI A® DXSCUSalOS OF aSSSLtS $a

ragard to the taste* anaw*riag •'yes*' to personality iawaa*

tory ttatenants in spite of th* content of tha Items*

Social desirability has regard to th* giving of socially

dostrabi® responses irrespective of whether the socially

desirable response i s true or false . Block10 has answered

that* objections in a thorough investigation and has

*ppli*d hi t conclusions to a l l personality lavaatorias.

the &o scale was used as * ummrm for deducing

that th* partonal integrity and Moral uprightness of those

having pertoaality problems were relatively restricted

ia scop** this would tend to indicate that their superego

was la te effective as a conduct **a**j*«, than for those

having no evident problems* Haw***** aala contention

regarding paychop*thology in neurosis i t plainly supported

toy ta* pretaat findings*

** further aataarch Suggestions,

th* pmmnt sUaty aa* led to some s ta t is t ical ly

tlgaificant evidence la, support of Mcwrwr*s hypothetical

raaaoning* Since &m on* study only gives some probability,

* stal l** research to tha present one, using various

orltarion measures of socialisation, My yield tlgaificant

results* in spit* of tha tway difficulties involved,

*** ,%g.i*s^w^i»rgi*if saws.™*'

PHlMsSSXAtlOS A**- WJiCiSiSlOS 0*? iuwublJ 59

an i apor t t a t dimension would be contributed by the use of

clear-cut. o i la lca l neurotica anii psychopaths*

Ǥov**r has developed a new type of tiacrapy based

on h is theore t ics ! posi t ion. An outcome ©sudy, in irhich

a easptxisoa would be m&@ of the r e su l t s obtained £ro&

iaowreriaa aad Freudian %mmm$ would perhaps offer s o »

evidence pe^talata* to ih«* theoret ical issues Involved

i n the present study*

A further research *ugg**tioa could b* a*4* i a

tne area of process s tudies , taas* nilgai take e i ther of

two foras* one form could consist i n psychometric evalu­

at ions of pvvmm lm£®m sad af ter fr®w&tmn and Mowreriaa

therapy. Anoint* form of process study could involve taa

actual steady of both therapeutic processes fey i&eaas of

tape racordings, interviews, e t c .

Very Xl t t l* clearly acceptable evidence has bean

se t forth oa ei ther "side of the Freudian tad !*ow*«*i*a

theoret ical positions* th* Importance of the issues

involved can a* seen l a tha Implications for th® t***ta*nt

and prevention of behavior disorders. If th® resu l t s of

other studies again support Sovr**y important social and

*j»**l implications would e* Invo lve ,

sur#uOT km cosausioss

0©wn through the centuries, asani&X health hat *1*

ways beta treasured as a precious jewel, th* problem of

helping tha aentally i l l back to a**a*l functioning hat

frequently l td into a suit* of olio* alley* *nd twttttag

freeways. :iatsy le*j*«r* ia the fielet of p^ycciiatry *a*

ptyenelogy are ****eatag for «f«n » r a *ff*attv* t**o*l*s

and taprofad as®des of therapy* tbcre Is a growing mwmm

with tha existential ata, Ms goals, his f«lu«t, ids ^w*'it"^*^ipfs* ^p* *p^»' •i*swiFsnww,j*wK jH —P' fl*-e« f^** ^•?**efliF**"*i *L jp* * a *

during the f i r s t three $&m&®$ of this century,

Fraud s»de bi t ***»*kaui* contributions to ta* advance-

a©ni of cental health, for the p**t twenty years, there

has bean an Increasing reappraisal of Fraud*» position

regarding the nature end origin of a*mrotl*i**t* According

to the fraudisn theory, anxiety arises when the ego

apprehends • danger* The crucial danger ia the case of

neurotic anxiety i s that inhibit** l»g»uis«» will gat out

of control* The neurotic's %®n&mQ$ to repress tatpuXa*

derivatives i s ov*r»gen#ralltad &nd of**-**v**** This

baa **ffult** in a useless expandliura of pay eat« ®mr&.

Fraud an* ta*o*t*** that the. aaurotla* Mm learned the

latsont of society too wall*

?**leu* theoreticians h*f* sflsa$r«»d with Freud

on tha origin of necrotic anxiety* Oa* of ta**« hat been

»u;4MA&_ ASD CuSCtU&lOilS 61

C. i toa*t Mower* H* has obaarvad that anxiety co»«s not

fro® acts which the person would ooatilt but dares not,

but from act* which he ha* coanitt** but wishes hm tm4

not* the superego i s repudiated not th© Inst incts*

i tu ro t t c* have a rea l gu i l t baoauaa of their misbehavior*

t h i s study lit* investigated the basic eoatoA-

t ioas of the Freudian aad ;iowmriaa theories* In the

present invest igat ion, a socia l isa t ion measure was

administered to three sale tad three feasle groups, judged

a t htving So Problems, Personality Problems, and Conduct

Froblemt* A s ignificant negative correlation betweea th*

socia l i sa t ion setsur® and th® indices of Personality

problems was found* t a t * finding ms supported the

:*wrerian hypothesis that taa neurotic w*s uiidar~>so©lalI#od.

According to tea *r«u*lUui postal at*, ih#re should M #

a**n a poalttv* corrals t loa beiwwa tha two a**eu**« b#»

onus* taa neurotic was hypoth*sis** as being of**-

social ised. ta* ,<ovr«*iaa th«ory isas contended that the**

with Personality problaa* w**a under-socialised, and the

correlat ion should have b*«a negatlv®. th* minus stm of

th i s correlat ion ha* added probability to th® ,,iowr«iriaa

theory*

the mmm. difference® between the three aa l* and

thraa f**j*l* groups on taa Social isat ion tea l* of the

Cftiyj. ware found to b* significant* tfoe potation of tn*

aummt mo ^mwm,m t>2

sseta of the ra* tonality Proal** group w*s centered b«tw**ji

the sscant of the So Problaa group and the Conduct P**al**

group* the retul ta of this &%udy wltft large saapl® groups

haw produced further evidence to Increase the probability

©f the Mowrerlan position.

In conclusion, modern medicine has conquered

aany of tha aajor physical illnesses which have ravaged

aankind for countless thousands of fm?&. through the

patient tad dedicated research of untold thousands of

scientist* th* present high l«f*l of physical health has

boon reached* Bu® to th* wort, of ®en Hfc* frmd and

Howrer and iamwarable oth*r rm®m,T®h workers, i t 1* hoped

that th* aajse high lava! of mental health will be attained*

BIHI0«APi3f

Block, Jac&, York, Appleton-Cco

th* reapoat* ta t* of

Saw

desirability* oa th* i n and a l l personality Inventor!** a*a **jaotad aftar e*f*fm **i*mtific research, m i s teoo& should ha **** by anyone malm* personality tawaatorla**

Col< Ufa* CMcago,

tM* * book give* a ale** view of ta* ©ntir© f t a l i of psychology, xt'waa m*#fssl l a tha present ataiy %mm»m of i t s accurate portrayal of mental ilia*** ' "

t a t s boo& i t an ajsoallaat raviaw of Freud's evolving theory on psycnosnaiysis. i t to a pria* sourc* for the undarstandtag of F#ma&*

Sew s o * * . ®s*toaf lf*t#, t * - i w F*

t0^^^MLtir' ^ w eir ^e> wwe *j™t~v4a *^ ~~ ~^W^^IP ~p in *h ww«e~ff *|K ^a vo^w^^'feffffff'w * r ^e^p ™H#C*P**F

analytical approach, i t 1* al to a pria* source for the understanding of freudiaa taou^it t a this study.

g^P?SJ^IIIJyillM^.M ,11*. m*mtm$%* london, the author lot* forth h i t analysis of the affects ego formation in society* th* tooialiaatioa of

l*t *** roundly tats study.

Strongly for

b* id, and a*

ago. and

*ui clearly outline. fla^Sw'atig *f~sft^w ••a*(*,s****» as aw*Biwa

th* nature

d superego raadiaa* ara

relationships and ^ f w a w a * < "*r wa^eiiBusftsp^^t** a w e *

k-*—M..MMUM , L* London* Ssanrth p****, xsjy, ss ** • •

MQ._h of tli* ;*u_»o_>*a. coatrl halloa to »a*jaafl_iilt# thaory la sat forth la «l*«* and concise style, For the present rcscorci,, this 1* sotaaary reading*

BXO.10OHAOT $k

Fraud, Sigana*, mm Problem, *f, Aaitsty* law To**,

tha author sets forth a s wspiete trcatls® on the nature, sources, and development of *axl«ty« S*^*s***y raadlag for this retaaroh*

lithad doctoral * thesispraaaata* to ' the' S i vers! ty of Illinois* u>b*aa, H I . * 19*1, 7* p.

Tat* investigation into tha ?**u6iaa and ttov***l*~ hypotheses wa* inconclusive* Fair reading*

Sough, asrrisoa *•* *€*«*• cult***! Valid*ttaa of a mmwrmot Asocial B*^J*or£ i n j y ^ g ^ | | i f | l j m m M * , Vol* 1?, SO. §, istu* of October 19*>, >•37f~W*

for aayoaa using tha Socialisation scale of tha ^MW^JmmM^m fmmn* this is mm*mzy raaaing* I t* validity would mpp&v? to t**j»*o*a* national boundariat*

—-*-.*. f «fls*ory and Meaturaaant of fociaXi*** Una*® in th* l o u y ^ o f , CooplUnj^r ty^^ofy, vol* * , SO* 1, i t tua of Pehruary 1WC, p* 23*30*

®mgk outlines his concepts underlying soel&liiia-tion* locassary reading in %m prosont context*

MeCord, ¥* aad Joan McCord, r» few _•*•<-» < un® and Si

*_Xs booK contain* a large iwount'of ***«**eji into th* nature of aooiopathy and i t s affects on social life* Pair roadlag*

L^*3gff*8*yg£ft. a large iwount of research iai<

Dynamics. Saw l«rk. Ronald 'Wm%lx§%fmiW^^^pl th is ooa* i s ragarded by «**V a t a classic in i t s

field* tha valid coaoiuaiona of laaraiaa theory are applied to th* is*©baala»a of personality* those parts of tha boo& dealing with the aoral and social iaplication* of nourott* and psychotit ara extremely relevant to the present study*

__.-.—-(edj A^l l fy , , ffin#„ H*ftvfi,,JWIlflt» Chicago, iaad ttaSaUy* 1 W , ¥ 4 b f p*

Th* author hat collected « auah** of writings froa journals and ota** sources which treat of th* ia#orl»nc# of aoraltty and values l a psychotherapy* Son* of that* ara of iat**e>*t regarding ta* praaaat thesis.

BIBUQGBAPaTT

:4cwrer sets forth Ms ideas **g***tng Freudian ptychoanaiytis* Mowrer e r l t l a lca* ptyeni*t*y tad %hnm religions that h*¥© adopted * Freudian appro**!*, Heoaasary reading*

******** br i l l iant mind has d#wi«ped a mm approach for the cur* of those aha are atstal iy slofc* this boofe should b* *«** hj all*

thesis p*«a«at«* to th* Dalv***ity of Louisville* Louis-f t l i*t Eentucky, 19*5, 3$ pm

th is socialisation study was done wlta eighty-eight aiga school students to Investigate the Freudian aad Mowrarlan theories. Me to th* entail number a**** as wall as the fact that thirty«»*lcat atudeats were oaiticd ia the final analysis, this study aay be considered poor tad not worth reading.

f*«ters©n, toaaid 1*, *Tae Insecure Cbil4f Cver-goctallsed or 0nder-SocialI«od?,» University of I l l inois , Orbana, 111. , 19*2, a? p, (to be publtth**)

Fatarton administered th* socialisation scale of th* ^l l foraia , Psycbo^^cal, | m M i to &S0 junior high school s t u d e n t s * U s results favored Mow**** p*t***oa*t study was on* of thoso which laid the groundwork for tha present study*

»_--,---- *ja* scop* and caner&lity of verbally mflm& Personality Factors,*5 in ta* P^ejaloyleal Review* Vol* ?Zf ^o* 1, issue of January 19*5","?*",*Si'5%

?*t***oa*t excellent s ta t is t ical g*niu* ha* la* to tMs interesting *x»lo**Uoa into tha tvo~f**to* v#raus the stay*factor controversy. Peterson bri l l iantly defends tha tw#*factor theory and concludes that the** two factor® ex* »ore general and continuous terotighout ilf* taan forweriy believed*

aPPnSDX* 1

ArTttSEU 1

For ta* purpose of securing inforjsation which will prove benaflcial to both the taaemai profattion and psychological research la undorstandini tha emotional problems of students, please oaaofe tMt student fa* tha characteristics wMofc you honestly believe apply to bis or her. If an item doe* .not constitute * problem, tacircl® seeref i f an item constitutes * 4#M problem, encircle tha onoj if an Item constitutes a severe probl«w» encircle ilia two* Please coapl^ie e¥*ry lt*m«

ft&HS OF StQEBSa? * • * * * * . . * . . . . CGMJSOS tEM* * . SAME oy pmmamB.* * . . * * . . . . * . * BAxB< * * . « * * * *

0 1 2 1. Restlessness, inability to s i t s t i l l*

0 1 2 2. Atteatioa*s*eklatf ***ew-ofr* behavior*

0 1 2 3* Boaaa't know how to have fun? behave* XA&a a l i t t l e adult*

0 1 2 **•* ii*lf*»oomadoustJ«®s$ easily •**»***•***•

0 1 2 £• pl**ttjattf*a***i tendency to &mm^ and feothor others*

t 1 2 6* Reeling* of inferiority.

0 1 2 7. Boitiarousaest, rowdinass*

0 1 £ 0. Preoccupation? "in a vo*l* of his own**.

C 1 2 9 Shyness, bashfulness.

0 1 2 10. Social vltislrawai, preference to$ solitary ac t iv i t ies .

0 1 2 11* Jealousy over attention paid other student*.

0 1 Si 11* tack of »*lf*c*mfi**ac«*

c 1 2 13» lastly fluttered and confused*

APPSSDXX 1

0 1 2 i*». Fighting*

0 1 2 15* Temp*? tantrums*

0 1 2 10* n e t ! canoe, tacr a t i sanes s*

0 1 2 17* ijypertaasltivltys feelings aatl ly hurt*

0 1 2 xa. Anxiety, chronic geaaral faarfulnats*

0 1 2 19* Disobedience, difficulty i a disciplinary control*

0 1 2 20* repression, chronic sadness*

C 1 2 21* unoooparativanatt in group situations.

€ 1 2 22* Aloofnets, social reserve*

C 1 2 23* Hyperactivity, "always on tha go".

C 1 2 2^. Dettrutttveaett in regard to his own and/or other ** property*

0 1 2 2?. Sagatlvlsjty tendency to do tha oppotita of

what I t r*o,n*ab*d*

0 1 2 26. Impertinence* sawclaeas.

0 1 2 27* Sluggishness, lethargy.

0 1 2 2b. Browtinsts*

0 1 2 2f. Profanity, swearing, cursing. 0 1 2 3£* Irritability, hot-teaperad, easily aroused

to anger*

k??mmi& z

ASSTRACT OF

l igation, tad Personality Problems as ti^i&eXMMxmM&M

APPSSDXA 2

ABSTRACT OF

Fraud im& maintained in his theory of neurosis that

th* neurotic parson is of*r*»a**JLalia«** threatening ia*

pulsaa are inhibited and repressed In a severe and excessive

aaaaor* ?<fewr*r has advanced the proposition that neurotica

are under-toclalltad* For the neurotic individual, there

has been only a partial Integration between his behavior

and socialisation, ^owrcr hat l^rpothesisad that the mm"

tional disturbances of the neurotic have their basis In a

rati guilt due to actual isitbehavior.

Tha present study has investigated these aati-

that iced viewpoint*.

A measure of aoctallaatioa was obtained for three

large sample groups of femal* and mlm university students*

One group was judged ^ tha professors to b® free of

problems, another group was judged as having Personality

Probleatf and th* third group Mas judged as having conduct

problem** The dosinant oharaoteristicsof those judged

at having conduct problems ware nanifest disobedience,

1 Joim ^rotoph ©• Connor, doctoral thesis p**s«*jt** to tha faculty of PayoaoXoiy of tha University of Ottawa, GataffiOt areii ifoi, vlll*of p.

aPPKSCXX 2 69

defiance towards authori ty, and aggression. For those

judged a t having personality problem*, ta* dotnlaant

charac ter is t ics were wmiety and Insecuri ty.

•few***'* hypothesis was supported W the r e su l t s

of th ie study* those with personality problems would

appear to have a tendency to be poorly socialised w%*»

compared with those who haw no apparent problems * Ta*

soc ia l i sa t ion scores of taos* judged as having personality

problems differed significantly fro© those judged a t

having conduct problems and thos* judged as having no

problem*.

If the resu l t s of t h i s study are substantiated

fey further s tudies , than tha lapl tcat toa* for th® t r ea t ­

ment aad prevention of mental tlXaas* amy be considered

of a taos t importance.

. T . i i

; ^.^ik:A

^ ^ " ' W e ,