Upload
vuminh
View
217
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF DISCREPANCY TO PERCEIVED PROBLEMS
OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
APPROVED!
/I
< A ^ j /
Major Professor / /
fS
Mi nor Professor
l i v IS/ <v > • , Dean of the School of Education
Deanv of the Graduate School"
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF DISCREPANCY TO PERCEIVED PROBLEMS
OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
Jon Karl Wierenga, i. A.
Denton, Texas
June, 1965
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vil
Chapter
I . INTRODUCTION . I
Theoretical Background Belated Studies Statement of the Problem Hypotheses
Chapter Bibliography
II. METHOD 19
Subjects
Materials Procedure Statistical Treatment Chapter Bibliography
III. RESULTS 23
Analysis of Results Discussion of Data
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 48
Summary Conclusions Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY 54
iii
LIST OF TABLES
T a b l e
I .
I I .
I I I .
IV .
V.
¥ 1 .
VII
V I I I
IX.
X.
XI .
Page
Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r Al l Groups 23
Mean D i s c r e p a n c y S c o r e s f o r A l l Groups . . . . . . 24
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups and T h e i r T o t a l Problem S c o r e s 25
Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on the HPD S c a l e 26
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e HPD S e a l e 26
Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e FLE S c a l e 27
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e FLE S c a l e . . . 28
Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SBA S c a l e . . 29
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SRA S c a l e 29
Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SPR S c a l e 31
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e SPR S c a l e 32
iv
T a b l e Page
XII, Mean P rob lem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on t h e PPB S c a l e 33
XIII. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on the PPR S c a l e 33
XIV. Mean P rob l em S c o r e s f o r Discrepancy, G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e CSM S c a l e 34
XV. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e CSM S c a l e 35
XVI. Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e HF S c a l e 36
XVII. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the HF S c a l e 36
XVIII. Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e US S c a l e 3T
XIX. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e MS S c a l e 38
XX. Mean Prob lem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the ACW Scale 39
XXI. A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , G r a d u a t e and U n d e r g r a d u a t e Groups on t h e ACW S e a l e 39
XXII. Mean Problem S c o r e s f o r D i s c r e p a n c y , Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on t h e FVE S c a l e 40
Table Page
XXIII. Analysis of Variance for Discrepancy, Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the FVE Scale 41
XXIV. Mean Problem Scores for Discrepancy, Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the CTP Scale. 42
XXV. Analysis of Variance for Discrepancy, Graduate and Undergraduate Groups on the CTP Scale . 42
vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
I. I l l u s t r a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n the cells 30
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
T h e o r e t i c a l Background
Within the pas t few y e a r s , t h e r e has been an i n c r e a s e
of a t t e n t i o n turned to t h e o r i e s of s e l f and the s e l f - e o n c e p t
such as seen in the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s of phenomenologi s t s
Kurt Lewin and Carl Rogers. In Lewi n ' s system, the term
employed i s the l i f e space , f o r Rogers* i t i s t h e phenomenal
f i e l d . Fhenomenological theory i s concerned p r i m a r i l y with
organisraic and i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s which lead to behavior
response in c o n t r a s t to t r a i t or type theory which i s response
cen te red or a s s o c i a t i v e theory which i s s t imu lus - r e sponse
c e n t e r e d .
The c e n t r a l c o n s t r u c t in Sogers ' t h e o r e t i c a l system i s the
concept of s e l f as a perce ived o b j e c t in the phenomenal f i e l d
of the i n d i v i d u a l . Rogers (15, p . 136) d e f i n e s s e l f - c o n c e p t
as . . an organized c o n f i g u r a t i o n of p e r c e p t i o n s of the
se l f which are admiss ib le to awareness ." The s e l f - c o n c e p t ,
according to Rogers, i s composed of p e r c e p t i o n s of o n e ' s
a b i l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The s e l f - c o n c e p t a lso inc ludes
pe rcep t s and ideas of the se l f in r e l a t i o n to o t h e r s and the
2
environment along with value qualities of both positive and
negative valence which are associated with experience and
obj ects.
Symonds employs the terms ego and self to explain his
theoretical position. The ego is d e f i n e d as the active
process which works to satisfy inner drives. The term self,
on the other hand, refers to bodily and m e n t a l processes as
they are observed and reacted to by the individual. The
self develops from childhood when we b e g i n . . to feel
ourselves separate and d i s t i n c t from others" (18, p. 62).
"The self structure is a term wh i c h may be used to designate
the pattern of I n t e r e s t s and values buiIt up around the self"
(18, p. 86). "As the ego enlarges it's power of perceiving,
thinking and acting, so the self, which is the awareness of
this g r o w i n g capacity for control and a d j u s t m e n t , has more
of which to become aware and hence develops concurrentlyM
(18, p. 87).
Snygg and Combs <16, pp. 10-15) take a position similar
to that of Rogers. They state that it is the phenomenal
field of the individual which is both the cause and the
d e t e r m i n a n t of behavior. The phenomenal field of the i n d i -
vidual is reality as he perceives it, however different than
the reality as perceived by others.
Coleman (5, p. 63) also m a i n t a i n s a position s i m i l a r to
Rogers. Coleman states that as the i n d i v i d u a l develops a
concept of his own identity, h e tends to v i e w each s i t u a t i o n
3
i n t h e l i g h t of f e e l i n g s and m o t i v e s . I n t h i s w a y , t h e
e f f e c t s of a p a r t i c u l a r environment become i n c r e a s i n g l y
d e p e n d e n t upon t h e i n t e r n a l f r a m e w o r k of t h e i n d i v i d u a l
p e r c e i v i n g i t . The s e l f t h e n i s a c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e
r a t h e r t h a n a p h y s i c a l o n e . Coleman h o l d s two c o n c e p t s of
self s imilar to Symonds. The self a s ob ject ( s i m i l a r to
the concept of self presented by Symonds) refers to the
i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception and evaluation of himself as some-
thing distinct from other persons or t h i n g s . "The self as
obj ect provides the individual with a sense of identity,
self-evaluation, and self ideal-aspirations for growth and
a c c o m p l i s h m e n t " ( 5 , p . 6 5 ) .
The self as process, s i m i l a r to Symond*s ego, refers
to ". . . the individual*s perception of himself as a
knower, s t r i v e r , and doer w i t h facilities for p e r c e i v i n g ,
e v a l u a t i n g , c h o o s i n g , and planning i n reference to himself"
( 5 , p . 6 3 ). "The self as process interprets new e x p e r i e n c e ,
maintains s e l f consi stency and continuity and degree of
self d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n " ( 5 , p p . 6 8 - 7 0 ) .
I n the p a s t few years, many theorists have taken the
position that self consistency or congruence i s the primary
dictum f o r adjustment. As l o n g as s e l f a s p r o c e s s c a n mee t
the demands of self as obj ect, psychological adj ustment i s
s a i d to exist. However, when the self a s process fails to
meet the demands of self as obj ect, maladj ustment may become
evident. According to Rogers, ". . . the extent to which he
4
[the individual] dimly perceives these incongruences and
discrepancies is a measure of his internal tension, and
determines the amount of defensive behavior" (15, p. 191).
Symonds maintains a position like that of Rogers* If
our self esteem becomes subjected to self evaluation
reflecting that we are not quite what we normally think of
our self as being, the self becomes threatened.
In general, i n c o n s i s t e n t concepts may not both be conscious at the same time. Ordinarily we maintain our Integrity by holding only one picture of our-selves before us and repressing all other pictures. I f , by chance, the concept of our self w h i c h we ordinarily hold becomes threatened, it arouses anxiety and produces discomfort (18, p. 104).
Lecky, in addition to Rogers and Symonds, supports a
theory of self consistency. A c c o r d i n g to Lecky (9, p. 1 1 9 ) ,
". . . the mind is a unit, an organized system of ideas,
all the ideas w h i c h belong to the system must seem to be
consistent with one another."
Snygg and Combs (16, p. 136) define the a d e q u a t e
phenomenal self as followsi "A phenomenal self is adequate
in the degree to which it is capable of accepting into its
organization any and all aspects of reality." F a i l u r e of
the individual to accept important differentiations into
his personal organization may result in persistent tension
states characteristic of maladjustment.
In general, phenomenological theory m a i n t a i n s the
central idea that consistency between the v a r i o u s aspects
of the self is e s s e n t i a l for a sound psychological state.
5
F a i l u r e of the se l f to main ta in s e l f cons i s t ency r e s u l t s in
a n x i e t y , ma lad jus tment , and d e f e n s i v e behav io r . A b i l i t y of
the se l f to achieve the goals demanded by the s e l f i d e a l , to
become congruent with the s e l f i d e a l , i s cons idered to be an
impor tant f a c t o r , p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to psycho log ica l a d j u s t -
ment .
Helated S tud ies
There has been a vas t amount of r e sea rch done in a reas
concerning the s e l f - c o n c e p t , s p e c i f i c a l l y those areas dea l i ng
with the r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between s e l f , i d e a l - s e l f
congruence and o the r p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s . Hanlon,
H o f s t a e l t e r and O'Connor (7) using the Cal i f forni a Test of
P e r s o n a l i t y and a modif ied Q-sor t t e chn ique , i n v e s t i g a t e d
the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between measures of adjus tment and s e l f ,
i d e a l - s e l f congruence in a sample of 78 high school s t u d e n t s .
The r e s u l t s of t h e i r study i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e l f and i d e a l -
se l f concepts tend to be g e n e r a l l y congruent and to be a
normally d i s t r i b u t e d t r a i t which i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to
t o t a l ad jus tmen t . Their f i n d i n g s f a i l e d to uncover any
s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f , i d e a l - s e l f congruence
and age or i n t e l l i g e n c e . Nei ther was t h e r e any s i g n i f i c a n t
c o r r e l a t i o n found between I .Q. and t o t a l ad ju s tmen t , se l f
ad jus tmen t , or s o c i a l adj us tment .
Turner and Vanderl ippe (19) r e l a t e d ( s e l f - i d e a l ) d i s -
c repanc ies in a Q-sort technique to the GuiIford-Zimmerman
6
Temperament Survey. They found that those subjects high in
self-ideal congruence tended generally to have higher scores
in general activity, ascendence, sociability, emotional
stability, and thoughtfulness. In each instance, the scores
for those higher in self, ideal-self congruence were indi-
cative of better adjustment than the scores for subjects low
in self-ideal congruence.
Bi1Is (3) found discrepancies in self-ideal congruence
to be related to depression. On the basis of his findings
it was concluded that people with high discrepancies between
self and ideal-self differ from those with low discrepancy
in that high scores gave more signs of depression on the
Borschach. Bills hypothesized that their depressed feelings
resulted from an examination of the self in relation to the
ideal-self with the conclusion by the person that the gap was
so large as to never be resolved.
Bills (2) also investigated the relationships between
the Rorschach characteristics of both high and low scores in
self acceptance. The Borschach records of those persons
high in self acceptance were more frequently lower in F+%,
experience balance of greater C than ra—color being mainly
CF and C than FC. The records of persons low in self
acceptance had in general, greater F+%, experience balanee
of more M than C, color being mainly FC with no pure C.
Bills concluded from the results of his study that persons
who were low in self acceptance were of an intratensive type
7
having a w e l l c o n t r o l l e d a f f e c t . Persons s c o r i n g h i g h in
self acceptance were, in contrast, more extratensive with
less affect control.
Persons scoring low on self-ideal congruence, in addi-
tion to being usually more depressed, are also less capable
of directing aggression against instigators of frustration.
Worchel (20) investigated the relationship between self,
ideal-self discrepancy scores and the ability of the subjects
who scored low to express direct aggression. The results of
his experiment indicate that subjects with low self-ideal
discrepancies expressed significantly greater direct aggres-
sion against instigators of frustration than did subjects
with high discrepancies. These results were interpreted to
mean that persons with high discrepancies in self concept
were continually frustrated in their attempts to attain
their ego-ideals and consequently suffered from strong
feelings of self-devolution, helplessness, and insecurity.
Individuals with high discrepancies were also more likely
to blame themselves for not achieving their ideals than
persons with low discrepancy scores.
Lepine and Choroloskoff (10) related discrepancy scores
in a Q-sorl technique to expressed feelings of adequacy in
goal setting behavior. They found that the more an indi-
vidual tended to express feelings of adequacy the greater
was the congruence between his perceived and ideal-self and
8
the less dependent was the individual upon environmental or
social evaluation of his past performance in goal setting
behavior.
A study conducted by Swinn and Hill (19) related three
tests of anxiety to the Phillvis Self-Other Questionnaire.
The three tests of anxiety were the Taylor Manifest Anxiety
Scale. The Sarason General Anxiety Questionnaire. and The
Sarason Test Anxiety Questionnaire. The results of their
study indicate that anxiety, either general or specific,
appears to be related to lower self-acceptance and also, a
correspondingly lower acceptance of others.
Murphy (12) in a study of a group of college freshmen
found that actual and ideal-self discrepancies are associated
with manifest anxiety with respect to self-concept in stu-
dent role. In all cases, high discrepancy groups had higher
anxiety than low discrepancy groups. It may be concluded
from this and Swinn and Hill's study that anxiety is related
directly to self, ideal-self discrepancy and inversely
related to self acceptance and acceptance of others.
Bills (1) attempted, in his study, to determine if
there were differences in emotionality which accompanied
differences on ratings of traits during test-retest on the
Index of Ad i ustment and ¥ alues inventory. The degree of
emotionality was determined by length of time taken by sub-
jects to respond to free association of trait descriptive
terms. Bills concluded that " . . . when ratings are lowered
9
from test to retest, they are accompanied by decreases in
free association reaction time which are significantly
greater than the decrease associated with ratings which are
raised from test-retest" (18, p. 136).
In her study involving 113 college students, Omwake (13)
applied the Index of Adiustment and Values. Attitudes Towards
The Self and Others. and Self-Acceptance and Acceptance of
Others. The results of that study indicate that those stu-
dents who accept themselves also tend to be more accepting
of others and to perceive others as being more self
accepting. In contrast, those who are self rejecting tend
to hold a correspondingly low opinion of others and to
perceive others as being self-rejecting.
Hillson and Worchel (8) studied groups of normal,
neurotic, and schisophrenic subjects who were equated
"fairly'* well on sex, age, and educational level, and were
comparable, to an unspecified degree, with respect to socio-
economic class. The test used was the Self-Activity
Inventory. They found that neurotic subjects rated them-
selves significantly more unfavorably than did normal or
schizophrenic subjects while the latter two groups were
relatively similar in their scores.
In a similar study constructed by Friedman (6) it was
concluded that normals have more positive attitudes toward
the self which are founded on a more realistic basis. The
paranoid schizophrenic group also revealed positive self
10
attitudes? however, these attitudes were indicative of self-
enhancing defenses based on unrealistic self-appraisal. The
neurotic group, in contrast, maintained self attitudes of a
negative nature which were based upon a realistic perception
of maladj ustment in the self. Since the paranoid subjects
based their self conceptions on unrealistic bases, and
neurotics gave evidence of a lack of self acceptance, only
the normal group revealed any genuine self accepting atti-
tudes .
Calvin and Holtzraan's (4) study investigated the rela-
tionship between the self-concept and the inferred self.
The tests used in their research were the MMPI, and a list
of trait descriptive terras. The groups studied were the
members of four fraternities. Each subject was given the
MMPI and then asked to rank himself and all his associates
on seven personality traits. Those who the subject felt
were highest in each trait were placed on the top of the
list, others were ranked in succession below according to
the degree each was felt to possess each trait. Self
concept was determi ned by the rank order the person described
himself on each trait. Inferred self was determined by how
others ranked him. Self-depreciative scores were determined
by subj ects ranking themselves lower on the trait descrip-
tions than the rank given them by their associates. Self-
enhancing scores were determined by self ranked scores which
were higher than the rank given them by the group. The
11
results of the study indicate that the tendency to enhance
the self is inversely related to maladjustraentj the more
poorly adjusted the individual, the more self-depreciatory
he appeared to be.
Ottrochi, Parsons, and Dickoff (14) selected two groups
of subjects on the basis of several sub-tests of the MMPI.
One group was classified as Repressors, the other as
Sensitizers, Repressors were defined as . . those who
tend to use avoidance, denial, and repression of potential
threat and conflict as a primary mode of adaptation" (14,
p. 67). Those subjects who scored highest on scales selected
to determine Sensitizers were considered to be ". . . those
who are alerted to and perhaps overinterpret potential
threat and conflict and who use intellectual and obsessive
defenses as a primary mode of adaptation" (14, p. 67). Each
of these two groups was then given the Interpersonal Check
List which assessed self, ideal-self discrepancy. It was
found that repressors manifested smaller self-ideal dis-
crepancies than sensitizers. This difference was attributed
to the sensitizers tendency to attribute more negative
qualities to themselves.
Miyamoto and Dornbush (11) using a five point rating
scale assessing characteristics of intelligence, self-
confidence, physical attractiveness, and likeableness, came
to the conclusion that self-conception is based largely upon
the attitudes which others have towards each other. A
12
person who r a t e d h i m s e l f h igh on one or more t r a i t s was
u s u a l l y r a t e d h i g h e r by h i s a s s o c i a t e s , and a l s o e x p e c t e d
o t h e r s , i n d i v i d u a l l y or c o l l e c t i v e l y , to have r a t e d him h i g h e r
on t h o s e t r a i t s . A p e r s o n who r a t e d h i m s e l f low was u s u a l l y
r a t e d l o w e r , and p e r c e i v e d o t h e r s to have r a t e d him lower
a l s o . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h s t u d y lend e v i d e n c e
s u p p o r t i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i s t view of s e l f - c o n c e p t i o n .
I n summary, most r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t
p e r s o n s who are h i g h l y s e l f - c r i t i c a l , who show d i s s o n a n c e
or i ncongrui ty between t h e i r two c o n c e p t s of s e l f , how they
a c t u a l l y s e e t h e m s e l v e s and the way they would l i k e to b e ,
a r e l e s s w e l l a d j u s t e d than t h o s e whose s e l f i s c o n g r u e n t .
E v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e r s o n s w i t h d i s c r e p a n c y between
p e r c e i v e d s e l f and i d e a l c o n c e p t i o n s of s e l f are more
a n x i o u s , i n s e c u r e , and p o s s i b l y more d e p r e s s e d t h a n s e l f
a c c e p t i n g p e o p l e .
S t a t e m e n t of the Problem
I t h a s been h y p o t h e s i z e d ( 1 6 , p . 104; 18 , p . 95) t h a t
p e r s o n s who have a t t a i n e d a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h or low p o s i t i o n
i n a group , b a s e t h e i r f u t u r e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s or
f a i l u r e on t h e i r p r e v i o u s s t a n d i n g i n t h a t group. Those who
have been a b l e to a c h i e v e a r e l a t i v e l y good s t a n d i n g e x p e c t
to c o n t i n u e to e x c e l . Those who f a i 1 f r e q u e n t l y t h i n k of
t h e m s e l v e s as f a i l u r e s and e x p e c t t o f a i l . A change i n
group s t a n d i n g may i n turn cause a change be tween t h e
13
p e r c e i v e d self i n respect to expectations and a discrepancy
may a r i s e . T h i s i s frequently e x p e r i e n c e d by g r a d u a t e
students, most of whom have stood relatively high in their
undergraduate c l a s s e s . Now, as members of a highly selected
group, they must compete with others of equal and superior
a b i l i t y . Some, by force, w i l l occupy a middle position.
T h o s e who a r e l o w e r e d i r . their s t a n d i n g may r e b e l a g a i n s t
t h i n k i n g of themselves as average and become tortured i n
t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o a d j u s t t o t h e situation.
Persons, i n whom discrepancies e x i s t , s u f f e r from
v a r i o u s f e e l i n g s of unworthiness, s e l f - d e p r e c i a t o r y a t t i -
t u d e s , anxiety, and frequent depression. The problem i s to
determine if there are d i s c r e p a n c i e s between self-ideal
concept which come about through c h a n g e s i n position with
respect to group standing, and to what problems specifically
that change i s related to. To measure t h e s e relationships,
t h e Dilis' Index of Adi u s t m e n t and V a l u e s and t h e Moonev
Problem Check Li s t will be used.
The graduate and undergraduate groups wi11 be divided
i n t o high and low d i s c r e p a n c y groups on the basis of their
di screpancy scores. Those subj ects which score i n the
upper 50 per cent of discrepancy scores wi11 be placed i n
the high d i s c r e p a n c y group. Those subj ects which score i n
the lower 50 per cent of d i s c r e p a n c y scores will be placed
i n the low d i s c r e p a n c y group. Any differences which may be
noted between t h e g r a d u a t e and undergraduate group a s t o
14
problem s c o r e s on the Moonev P rob lem Check Lis t may be
r e l a t e d t o a change i n group standing. Any d i f f e r e n c e s
n o t e d be tween h i g h and low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s as to p rob l em
s c o r e s may be r e l a t e d t o p e r c e i v e d s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y .
In t h i s s t u d y s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y w i l l be o p e r a t i o n a l l y
d e f i n e d as t h e s c o r e o b t a i n e d on t h e B i l l s * I n d e x of
Ad i u s t m e n t and V a l u e s . P r o b l e m s which one p e r c e i v e s h im-
s e l f t o p o s s e s s w i l l be o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as t h o s e
s c o r e s o b t a i n e d on t h e Moonev Prob lem Cheek Li s t .
H y p o t h e s e s
C o n c e r n i n g t h i s study, the following hypotheses w i l l
be i n v e s t i g a t e d :
1 . The h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p w i l l h a v e a s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y h i g h e r p r o b l e m s c o r e on t h e Moonev Problem Check
L i s t (MPCL) t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
2 . The high d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a signifi-
cantly h i g h e r p r o b l e m s c o r e on t h e " H e a l t h and P h y s i c a l
Development" scale of the MPCL than wi11 the low d i s c r e p a n c y
group.
3 . The h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e " F i n a n c e s - L i v i n g
C o n d i t i o n s - Employment" s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e
low discrepancy group.
4 . The high discrepancy group wi11 h a v e a s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y higher problem score on the " S o c i a l and Recreational
15
A c t i v i t i e s " s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y
g r o u p .
5 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e " S o c i a l — P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e l a t i o n s "
s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n will t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
6 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e " P e r s o n a l — P s y c h o l o g i c a l
R e l a t i o n s " s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y
g r o u p .
7 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
higher problem score on the "Courtship - Sex - M a r r i a g e "
s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e lots d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
8 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group wi11 have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e "Home and Fami ly" s c a l e of t h e
MPCL t h a n w i l l the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p ,
9 . The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y g roup w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r problem s c o r e on t h e "Mora l s and R e l i g i o n " s c a l e of
t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
10. The h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r p rob lem s c o r e on t h e "Adj us t raent to School Work"
s c a l e of t h e MPCL t h a n w i l l t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
11. The graduate group wi11 have a significantly higher
problem score on the " A d j u s t m e n t to School Work" scale of
the MPCL than will the undergraduate group.
1 2 . The high d i s c r e p a n c y group w i l l have a significantly
higher problem s c o r e on the "Future—Vocational and
16
Educational" scale of the MPCt than will the low discrepancy
group.
13. Th© high discrepancy group will have a significantly
higher problem score on the "Curriculum and Teaching
Procedures" scale of the MPCL than wi11 the low discrepancy
group.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bills, R. E., "A Validation of Changes in Scores on the Index of Adjustment and Values as Measures of Changes in Emotionality/' Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 135-138.
2. Bills, R, E., "Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High and Low in Acceptance of Self," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVII (1953), 36-38.
3. Bills, R. E., "Self Concept and Rorschach Signs of Depression," Journal of Consultino Psvchology. XVIII (1954), 135-137,
4. Calvin, A. D. and H. Holtzman, "Adjustment and the v Discrepancy Between Self Concept and Inferred Self,"
Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 39-44.
5. Coleman, James C., Personality Dynamics and Effective Behavior. Chicago, Scott, Foresraan and Co., 1960.
6. Friedman, I., "Phenomenal, Ideal, and Projected Concepts of Self," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LI (1955) , 611-615.
7. Hanlon, T. E., P. R. Hofstaetter, and J. P. O'Connor, L.y "Congruence of Self and Ideal Self in Relation to
Personality AdJ ustment," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 215-217.
4. Hillson, J. S. and P. Worchel, "Self Concept and Defen-; sive Behavior in the Maladjusted," Journal of Consulting
Psychology. XXI (1957), 83.
9. Lecky, Prescott, Self Consistency—A Theory of Personality. New York, Island Press, 1951.
10. Lepine, L. T. and B. Choroloskoff, "Goal Setting Behavior, Expressed Feelings of Adequacy, and the Correspondence Between the Perceived and Ideal Self," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XI (1955), 135-137.
17
18
11. Miyamoto, S, F, and S. M. Dornbush, "A Test of Interactionist Hypotheses of Self-Conception," American Journal of Sociology. LXI (1959), 399-403.
12. Murphy, V. M., "The Relationship Between Self-Concept and Manifest Anxiety in College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts. XXIII (1963), 3499.
13. Orawake, K. F., "The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Personality Inventories," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 443-446.
14. Ottrochi, Parsons and Dickoff, "Changes in Self-Ideal Discrepancy in Repressors and Sensitizers," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LXI (1960), 67-72.
15. Rogers, Carl R., Client-Centered Therapy. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951.
16. Snygg, Donald and Arthur Combs, Individual Behavior. New York, Harper and Bros., 1949.
17. Swinn, R. M. and H. Hill, "Influence of Anxiety on the Relationship Between Self-Acceptance and Acceptance of Others," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XXVIII (1964), 116-119.
18. Symonds, Perclval M., The Ego and the Self. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1951.
19. Turner, R. H. and E. H. Vanderlippe, "Self-Ideal Congruence as an Index of Adjustment," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LVII (1958), 202-206.
20. Worchel, P., "Personality Factors in the Readiness to Express Aggression," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XIV (1958), 355-359.
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subj ects
Sixty subjects were selected from graduate and under-
graduate classes in the School of Education at North Texas
State University. Twenty-six of the subjects were graduate
students, the remaining thirty-four undergraduates were
taken from junior and senior classes. Only those under-
graduate subjects who intended to go on towards a master's
degree participated in the study.
Materials
Each of the graduate and undergraduate groups were
administered the Moonev Problem Check List (MPCL) and Bills'
Index of Ad 1ustment and Values (IAV).
Index of Adiustment and Values was developed in
an attempt to objectively measure personality variables
associated with perceptual theory, more specifically, theory
related to client centered therapy.
The IAV is composed of 49 trait words taken from
Miports' list of 17,953 traits (1). Originally, 124 words
were selected on the basis of their frequency of occurrence
19
20
in client-centered interviews (6) and because they seem to
represent clear examples of self concept definitions. Out
of the original 124, 49 were selected on the basis of test-
retest reliability studies. To arrive at the discrepancy
score, the s u b j e c t rates himself on each of the 49 trait
words numerically on a five point scale as to how the trait
word applies to him. The s u b j e c t next rates himself as to
how he would like the trait word to apply to h i m . The
discrepancy score is the sum total of the discrepancies
between each rating of each of the 49 traits. Self discre-
p a n c y is therefore operationally defined as the total
discrepancy score on the IAV.
The MPCL college f arm, 1950 revision, is an instruraent
composed of 330 short phrases which cover eleven problem
areas coraoon to most students (4, 5). The student uses the
list by m a r k i n g the problems whi ch are of particular concern
to him and by w r i t i n g a short summary of his problems in his
own words (5). The subj ects were asked to omit the summary
in this study. Each subject was instructed to underline
those problems which he felt applied to himself, and to
circle the underlined problems with which he is particularly
concerned or which trouble him the most. In this study,
each underli ned problem was given a value of one point.
Problems w h i c h were both underli ned and ci rcled were counted
two points.
21
Procedure
All t h e t e s t s were adminis te red by the i n v e s t i g a t o r
dur ing r e g u l a r classroom pe r iods wi th in a one week p e r i o d .
There was no s p e c i f i c order as to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the
t e s t s . The s u b j e c t s were asked to fo l low the i n s t r u c t i o n s
p r i n t e d on the t e s t i n s t r u c t i o n s h e e t .
S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment
Each s u b j e c t ' s performance y ie lded 13 scores—one XAV
discrepancy s c o r e , eleven MPCL problem area s c o r e s , and the
t o t a l MPCL s c o r e .
Both the g radua te and undergraduate groups were d iv ided
i n t o high and low di screpancy groups by s p l i t t i n g each of
t he se two groups at the median d i sc repancy s c o r e . Thus t h e r e
were 18 s u b j e c t s in the high undergraduate di sere pancy group
and 18 s u b j e c t s in the low undergraduate d iscrepancy group.
There were 12 s u b j e c t s in the high gradua te d i sc repancy group,
and 12 subj e c t s in the low gradua te d i sc repancy group.
Eleven 2x2 f a c t o r i a l des igns were used to compare high
and low d i sc repancy scores to the problem scores in each
area of the MPCL fo r both g radua te and undergraduate s u b j e c t s .
A t w e l f t h 2x2 f a c t o r i a l design was used to compare the high
and low d i sc repancy group to the t o t a l number of problems
checked on the MPCL fo r both gradua te and undergraduate
s u b j e c t s . The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r a l l hypotheses was
se t at .05 .
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Allport, G. W. and H. S. Olbert, "Trait-Namesj A Psychological Study," Psychological Monographs. 1936, No. 211.
2. Bills, B. E., "A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adlastnent and Values with Behavior on Level of Aspiration Tasks," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 206-212.
3. Fick, B. L., "The Problem Check Listi A Valuable Approach in Counseling," Occupations. XXX (1952), 410-412.
4. Mclntyre, C. J., "The Validation of the Moonev Problem Check List Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXVII (1953), 270-272.
5. Mooney, R. L., "Exploratory Research on Student Problems," Journal of Educational Research. XXXVII (1943), 218-224.
6. Rogers, C. R ., Client-Centered Therapy. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1951.
7. Snygg, D. and A. W. Combs, Individual Behavior. New York, Harper, 1949.
22
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Analysis of Results
Thirteen hypotheses were presented in the first chapter
Each hypothesis was taken one at a time and the results of
each are presented. A 2x2 factorial design and F test were
utilized to test the interaction of the cells and the level
of significance.
Table I presents the mean problem scores for the dis-
crepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups.
TABLE I
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR ALL GROUPS
Groups High Discrepancy
Group Problem Score
Low Discrepancy Group
Problem Score Total Mean
Problem Score
Graduate 33.92 20.83 27.37
Undergraduate 60.00 27.16 43.58
Total Mean Problem Score 49.57 24.63 —
Table II presents the mean discrepancy scores for the
discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups.
23
24
TABLE II
MEAN DISCREPANCY SCORES FOE ALL GBOUPS
Groups
High Discrepancy Group
Di screpancy Score
Low Discrepancy Group
Discrepancy Score
Total Mean Discrepancy
Score
Graduate 49.50 21.16 34.87
Undergraduate 59.38 29.32 44.36
Total Mean Discrepancy 55.43 25.70 «««•
An analysis of Tables I and II reveals that the mean
problem scores and the mean discrepancy scores of the
undergraduate groups are higher than the mean problem scores
and mean discrepancy scores of the graduate groups. Also,
the total mean problem score of the high discrepancy group
is higher than the total mean problem score of the low
discrepancy groups.
Table III presents an analysis of variance for discrep-
ancy* graduate, and undergraduate groups on the MPCL.
It may be concluded from the results presented in
Table III that the high discrepancy group had a significantly
greater problem score on the MPCL than did the low discrepancy
group. Therefore, the hypothesis that the high discrepancy
group would check more problems th an the low d i s c r e p a n c y
group was confirmed at the .01 level of confidence. It is
25
also evident that the undergraduate group had a higher mean
problem score on the MPCL than did the graduate group. The
difference between the two groups was significant at the
.05 level of confidence.
TABLE III
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS AND THEIR
TOTAL PROBLEM SCORES
Source Sum of Squares d/f V ari ance F P
Bows COis.) 9,325.07 1 9,325.07 5.44 .01
Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 3,783.03 1 3,783.03 4.05 .05
Within 702.31 56 12.54 —
Interaction 15.62 1 5.62 1.25 —
Total 785.73 59 — — —
Table IV presents the mean average problem scores on
the "Health and Physical Development" (HPD) scale of the
MPCL for both graduate and undergraduate discrepancy
groups.
26
TABLE IV
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOE DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE HPD SCALE
Groups Graduate Under-graduate Marginal*
High Discrepancy 3,00 4.76 4.07
Low Di$crepancy 2.25 1.93 2.07
Marginal 2.63 3.36 —
^Marginal scores are the m e a n scores for the contained cells of each c o l u m n and row in which they appear.
Table V presents the analysis of variance for graduate
and undergraduate discrepancy groups on the HPD scale of
the HPCL.
TABLE V
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE HPD SCALE
Source Sum of Squares
d/f Vari ance F P
Rows (Dl8.) 60.00 1 60.00 4.78 .05
Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 7.80 1 7.80 .62
Within 702.31 56 12.54 — —
Interaction 15.62 1 15.62 1.25
Total 785.73 59 — —
27
An a n a l y s i s of Table V r e v e a l s t h a t t h e high d i s -
c repancy group had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r problem s c o r e
on t h e HPD s c a l e than did t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y groupj t hu s
con f i rming h y p o t h e s i s two at t h e ,05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .
There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t he HPD s c a l e between
t h e g r a d u a t e and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roups .
Table VI presents the mean problem scores on the
" F i n a n c e s — L i v i n g Conditions—Employment" (FLE) scale of
t he MPCL for g r a d u a t e , u n d e r g r a d u a t e , and d i s c r e p a n c y
g roups .
TABLE VI
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE FLE SCALE
Groups Graduate Under-g r a d u a t e Margina l
High D isc repancy 2.67 5 .27 4.23
Low Discrepancy 2.25 2.55 2.43
Marginal 2.46 3 .92 —
Table VII p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r
d i s c r e p a n c y , graduate and undergraduate groups on the FLE
s c a l e of t he MPCL.
TABLE VII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOE D I S C R E P A N C Y , G R A D U A T E AND U N D E R G R A D U A T E GROUPS ON THE FLE SCALE
28
Source Sum of d/f Vari ance F P Source Squares
d/f Vari ance
Bows (Dis.) 48.60 1 48.60 3.60 —
Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 30.63 1 30.63 2.27 —
Within 754.97 56 13.48 « —
Interaction 19.14 1 19.14 1.42 —
Total 853.33 59 — — —
An analysis of Table VII reveals no significant dif-
ference to exist between discrepancy groups nor between
graduate and undergraduate groups as to their problem
scores on the FLE scale of the MPCL. In view of the above
results hypothesis three m u s t be rejected.
Table VIII presents the mean scores on the "Social
and Recreational Activities" (SSA) scale of the MPCL for
discrepancy, graduate and undergraduate groups.
29
TABLE ¥111
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SRA SCALE
Groups Graduate Under-
graduate Marginal
High Discrepancy 3 , 5 0 7 . 2 8 5 . 7 7
Low Discrepancy 4 . 8 3 3 . 5 0 4.03
Marginal 4 . 2 1 5 . 3 9 —
Table IX presents the analysis of variance for graduate,
undergraduate, and discrepancy groups on the SRA scale of
the MPCL.
TABLE IX
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SRA SCALE
Source Sum of Squares
d / f Vari ance F P
Rows (Di s.) 45.07 1 45.07 2.31 —
Columns (Grad. and Ondergrad.) 21.51 1 21.51 1 .10 **»«*»
Withi n 1,094.78 56 19.55 m **» mm
Interaction 9 4 . 0 4 1 9 4 . 0 4 4 . 8 1 .05
Total 1 , 2 5 5 . 4 0 59 — — —
30
It may be concluded, from the results presented in
Table IX, that there is on interaction present between the
cells. Figure 1 illustrates the interaction between the
mean discrepancy, graduate and undergraduate group scores
on the SRA scale of the MPCL.
Me a si Bit. Scores
80
70
60
§0
40
30
20
10
0
Undergraduate
Graduate
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ?
Mean SIA Scores
. 1—'Illustration of interaction between the cells.
It is apparent, from the illustration of interaction
presented in Figure 1, that undergraduates with high discrep-
ancy scores have scored high on the SEA scale while under-
graduates with low discrepancies scored low. However, this
31
trend was reversed for the graduate group. The high
discrepancy graduate group scored low on the SRA while the
low discrepancy graduate group scored high. The interaction
between the groups on the SRA scale was significant at the
.05 level of confidence.
Table X presents the mean problem scores on the "Social-
Psychological Relations" (SPR) scale of the MPCL for
discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups.
TABLE X
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SPR SCALE
Groups Graduate Under-
graduate Margi nal
High Discrepancy 3.17 5.44 4.53
Low Discrepancy .50 2.56 1.73
Margi nal 1.83 4.00
Table XI presents an analysis of variance for
discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the SPR
scale of the MPCL.
32
TABLE XI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE SPR SCALE
S o u r c e Sua of S q u a r e s i / f V a r i a n c e F P
Rows ( D i s . ) 1 1 7 . 6 0 1 1 1 7 . 6 0 7 .57 . 0 1
Columns (Grad. and
Undergrad . ) 6 7 . 6 0 1 6 7 . 6 0 4 . 5 3 . 05
W i t h i n 6 6 9 . 5 6 56 1 5 . 5 3 — watte
I n t e r a c t l o n . 18 1 . 1 6 . 0 1 mm m*
T o t a l 1 , 0 5 4 . 9 3 59 — — —
I t i s e v i d e n t , upon a n a l y s i s of T a b l e XI t h a t t h e h i g h
d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r mean s c o r e on
t h e SPR t h a n d i d the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e
be tween t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e
. 0 1 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e , t h e r e b y c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s f i v e .
T h e r e was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r mean s c o r e on t h e SPR
s c a l e f o r t h e u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p than f o r t h e g r a d u a t e
g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e two g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t
a t t h e . 05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .
Table XII p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,
g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s on t h e " P e r s o n a l - P s y c h o -
l o g i c a l R e l a t i o n s " (PPR) s c a l e of t h e MPCL.
33
TABLE XII
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE PPR SCALE
Groups Graduate Under-
graduate Marginal
High Discrepancy 4.75 6.33 6.70
Low Discrepancy 1.92 2.44 2.23
Marginal 3,33 4.39 —
Table XIII presents an analysis of variance for
discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the PPR
scale of the MPCL.
TABLE XIII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE PPR SCALE
Source Sum of Squares
d/f Variance F P
Rows (Dis.) 176.82 1 176.82 10.01 .01
Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 16.90 1 16.90 .96 *****
Within 989.67 56 17.67 — —
Interaction 3.60 1 3.60 .20 —
Total 1,186.98 59 — —
34
An a n a l y s i s of T a b l e XIII r e v e a l s t h a t t h e h igh
discrepancy group had a higher wean score on the PPR scale
t h a n d id the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e between
t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l
of c o n f i d e n c e , t h u s c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s s i x . The re was ,
however , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e g r a d u a t e
and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s on t h e PPR s c a l e
T a b l e XIV p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r g r a d u a t e ,
undergraduate and d i s c r e p a n c y groups on the "Courtship—
S e x — M a r r i a g e " (CSM) s c a l e of t h e MPCL.
TABLE XIV
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CSM SCALE
Groups G r a d u a t e Under -g r a d u a t e
M a r g i n a l
High D i s c r e p a n c y 1 .42 3 . 7 2 2 , 8 0
Low D i s c r e p a n c y , 9 2 1 .67 1 .37
Margi na l 1 .17 2 . 6 9 —
T a b l e XV p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r
d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e , and undergraduate groups on t h e
CSM s c a l e of the MPCL.
35
TABLE XV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB D I S C R E P A N C Y , GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CSM SCALE
S o u r c e Sum of S q u a r e s
d / f V a r i ance F P
Rows (Di s . ) 3 0 . 8 7 1 3 0 . 8 2 4 . 9 1 . 0 5
Columns ( G r a d . and
U n d e r g r a d . ) 3 3 . 6 1 1 3 3 . 6 1 5 . 3 6 . 0 5
W i t h i n 3 5 1 . 4 4 56 6 . 2 8 — *m mm
I n t e r a c t i o n 8 . 7 1 1 8 . 7 1 1 . 3 9 —
T o t a l 4 2 4 . 5 8 59 — mm mm
The r e s u l t s , as p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e XV, i n d i c a t e t h a t
t h e h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p had a g r e a t e r mean s c o r e on t h e
CSM s c a l e t h a n d i d t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p . The d i f f e r -
ence be tween t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t
t h e . 05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s s e v e n .
In a d d i t i o n , t h e u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p had a h i g h e r mean s c o r e
t h a n d i d t h e g r a d u a t e g r o u p . The d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e s e
two g r o u p s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .
T a b l e XVI p r e s e n t s t h e mean number of p r o b l e m s c h e c k e d
on t h e "Home and Fami ly ' 1 ( H F ) s c a l e f o r d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e ,
and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s .
36
TABLE XVI
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE HF SCALE
Groups Graduate Under-
graduate Marginal
High Discrepancy 2.17 2,78 2.53
Low Discrepancy .92 .78 .83
Margi nal 1,54 1.78 — .
Table XVII presents an analysis of variance for
discrepancy, graduate and undergraduate groups on the HF
scale of the MPCL.
TABLE XVII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOE DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THB HF SCALE
Source Sum of Squares
d/£ Vari ance F P
Rows (Dis.) 43.35 1 43.35 6.69 .05
Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) .80 1 .80 .12 ***»»
Within 366.81 56 6.55 — —
Interaction 2.02 1 2.02 .31 —
Total 412.98 59 — — —
37
An a n a l y s i s of t h e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e XVII
r e v e a l t h a t t h e h i g h d i s c r e p a n c y g roup had a h i g h e r mean
s c o r e on t h e BF s c a l e t h a n d i d t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
The d i f f e r e n c e be tween t h e two d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s was
s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e c o n f i r m i n g
h y p o t h e s i s e i g h t . T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ,
h o w e v e r , b e t w e e n t h e g r a d u a t e and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s .
Table XVIII p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,
g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s on t h e " M o r a l s and
R e l i g i o n " (MR) s c a l e of t h e MPCL.
TABLE XVIII
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE MR SCALE
Groups G r a d u a t e U n d e r -g r a d u a t e
M a r g i n a l
High D i s c r e p a n c y 2 . 0 8 4 . 8 9 3 . 7 6
Low D i s c r e p a n c y 2 . 0 0 2 . 6 1 2 . 3 6
M a r g i n a l 2 . 0 4 3 . 7 5 —
T a b l e XIX p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r
d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e , and undergraduate g r o u p s on t h e MR
s c a l e of t h e MPCL.
TABLE XIX
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE MR SCALE
36
Source Sua of Squares
d/f Variance F V
Sows ( D i s . ) 2 9 . 4 0 1 2 9 . 4 0 2 . 0 6 —
Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 4 2 . 0 3 1 4 2 . 0 3 2 . 9 4 mm mm
Within 8 0 0 . 9 7 56 1 4 . 0 3 am «*
Interaction 1 7 . 3 4 1 1 7 . 3 4 1 . 2 1 mm m.
Total 8 8 9 . 7 3 59 — —
An examination of Table XIX reveals that no significant
difference exists between high and low discrepancy groups
on the MR scale. In view of the above results, hypothesis
nine roust be rejected. There was also no significant
difference between graduate and undergraduate groups on
this scale.
Table XX presents the mean scores for discrepancy,
graduate, and undergraduate groups on the "Adjustment to
School Work* (ACW) scale of the MPCL.
39
TABLE XX
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE AC! SCALE
Group Graduate Under-graduate
Margi nal
High Discrepancy 5.17 9.56 7.80
Low Discrepancy 2.33 4.78 3.80
Margi nal 3.58 7.17 —
Table XXI presents the analysis of variance for
discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the ACW
scale of the MPCL.
TABLE XXI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE ACW SCALE
Source Sum of Squares
d/f Variance F P
Rows (Dig.) 240.00 1 240.00 9.60 .01
Colurans (Grad. and Undergrad.) 168.10 1 168.10 6.72 .05
Within 1,399.89 56 24.10 — —
Interaction 13.61 1 13.61 .54 —
Total 1,821.60 59 — —
40
A n a l y s i s of T a b l e XXI r e v e a l s t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r mean s c o r e was a t t a i n e d on t h e ACW s c a l e by t h e
h igh d i s c r e p a n c y group t h a n by t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two g roups was s i g n i f i c a n t a t
t h e . 01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e , c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s t e n .
T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , a t t h e .05 l e v e l of
c o n f i d e n c e , be tween g r a d u a t e and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s , The
u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roup had a h i g h e r mean s c o r e on t h e ACW
s c a l e t h a n d id t h e g r a d u a t e g r o u p . In view of t h e s e r e s u l t s ,
h y p o t h e s i s e l e v e n must be r e j e c t e d .
T a b l e XXII p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s on "The F u t u r e -
V o c a t i o n a l and E d u c a t i o n a l " ( F V E ) s c a l e f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,
g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g r o u p s .
TABLE XXII
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND U N D E R G R A D U A T E GROUPS ON THE FVE SCALE
Group G r a d u a t e Under -g r a d u a t e
M a r g i n a l
High D i s c r e p a n c y 2 . 2 5 5 . 2 8 4 .07
Low D i s c r e p a n c y 1 .42 1 .94 1 . 7 3
M a r g i n a l 1 . 8 3 3 . 6 1 « « WW
T a b l e XXIII p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r
d i s c r e p a n c y , g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roups on t h e FVE
s c a l e of t h e MPCL.
41
TABLE XXIII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR D I S C R E P A N C Y , GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE FVE SCALE
Source Sum of S q u a r e s
d / f V a r i ance F P
Rows (Di®.) 81 .67 1 8 1 . 6 7 10 .64 . 01
Columns (Grad . and
U n d e r g r a d . ) 4 5 . 5 1 1 4 5 . 5 1 5 . 9 3 . 05
Wi th in 4 2 9 . 7 2 56 7 . 6 7 — —
I n t e r a c t i o n 22 .50 1 2 2 . 5 0 2 . 9 3 <m mm
T o t a l 579 .40 59 — —
An a n a l y s i s of T a b l e XXIII r e v e a l s t h a t t h e high
d i s c r e p a n c y group had a higher m e a n s c o r e on t h e FVE s c a l e
t han d i d t h e low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p , c o n f i r m i n g h y p o t h e s i s
twelve a t t h e . 01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . T h e r e was a l s o a
s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r mean s c o r e f o r u n d e r g r a d u a t e s on t h e
FVE s c a l e t h a n f o r g r a d u a t e s .
T a b l e XXIV p r e s e n t s t h e mean s c o r e s f o r d i s c r e p a n c y ,
g r a d u a t e , and u n d e r g r a d u a t e g roups on t h e " C u r r i c u l u m and
T e a c h i n g P r o c e d u r e " ( C T P ) s c a l e of t h e M P C L .
42
TABLE XXIV
MEAN PROBLEM SCORES FOR DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CTP SCALE
Group Graduate Under-graduate
Margi nal
High Discrepancy 1.25 4.78 3.37
Low Discrepancy 1.50 2.39 2.00
Margi nal 1.38 3.56 —
Table XXV presents an analysis of variance for
discrepancy, graduate, and undergraduate groups on the
CTP scale of the MPCL.
TABLE XXV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB DISCREPANCY, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE GROUPS ON THE CTP SCALE
Source Sura of Squares
d/f V ari ance F P
Rows (Di 8.) 28.02 1 28.02 2.42 —
Columns (Grad. and Undergrad.) 68.47 1 68.47 5.91 .05
Within 648.36 56 11.58 — —
Interaction 26.14 1 26.14 2.26 *****
Total 770.98 59 — — —
43
One can s e e , from an examination of Table XXV, that
t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e high and low
d i s c r e p a n c y groups on s c a l e CTP. In view of t h e above
r e s u l t s , h y p o t h e s i s t h i r t e e n must be r e j e c t e d . However,
t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between g r a d u a t e and
undergraduate g r o u p s . The g r a d u a t e group s ca r ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y
lower on the CTP s c a l e than did the undergraduate group. The
d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups was s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e
.05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .
D i s c u s s i o n of Data
The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d in t h i s study g ive ev idence
s u p p o r t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s that s e l f - i d e a l d i s c r e p a n c y does
have a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e number of problems
which one p e r c e i v e s h imsel f to p o s s e s s . One may say t h a t
the more the i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s incongruencies and con-
f l i c t s w i t h i n the phenomenological framework of the s e l f ,
so a l so w i l l t h e ind iv idua l p e r c e i v e d i s c r e p a n c i e s and
c o n f l i c t s w i t h i n the phenomenal f i e l d . The c o n f l i c t s
perceived to be p r e s e n t in the f i e l d may be , to some e x t e n t ,
the r e s u l t of i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t s brought about by d i s t o r t e d
symbolisms e x i s t i n g in t he conscious mind of t h e p e r c e i v e r
i f one were to f o l l o w t h e p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y of Ca r l Rogers .
The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s , which s ta ted the high d i s c r e p a n c y
group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem s core on the
44
MPCL than the low discrepancy group, was supported at the
.01 level of confidence.
The second hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-
ancy group would have a significantly higher problem score
on the "Health and Physical Development" scale of the MPCL
than the low discrepancy group, was supported at the .05
level of confidence.
The third hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-
ancy group would have a significantly higher problem score
on the "Finances - Living Conditions - Employment" scale of
the MFCL than the low discrepancy group,was not confirmed.
The fourth hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-
ancy group would have a significantly higher problem score
on the "Social and Recreational Activities" scale of the
MPCL than the low discrepancy group, was not supported. The
results of this subscale was an interaction. The under-
graduate group with high discrepancy scores scored high on
the SRA while undergraduates with low discrepancies scored
low. This trend was reversed for the graduate group. The
high discrepancy graduate group scored low on the SRA while
the low discrepancy graduate group scored high. The inter-
action between the groups on the SRA scale was significant
at the .OS level of confidence.
The fifth hypothesis, which stated the high discrepancy
group would have a significantly higher problem score on the
45
" S o c i a l - P s y c h o l o g i c a l Re la t ions" s c a l e than the low
discrepancy group, was supported at the .01 l eve l of
con f idence .
The s i x t h h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i sc repancy
group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h igher problem score on
the "Pe r sona l -Psycho log i ca l Ge la t ions" s c a l e than the low
d iscrepancy group, was supported at the .01 l eve l of
con f idence .
The seventh h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i s c r e p -
ancy group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem score
on the "Cour t sh ip—Sex--Marr iage" s c a l e than the low
d isc repancy group, was supported at the .05 l eve l of
con f idence .
The e ighty h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i s c r e p -
ancy group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem score
on the "Home and Family" s c a l e than the low d isc repancy
group, was supported at the .05 l eve l of c o n f i d e n c e .
The ninth h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d the high d i sc repancy
group wouId have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h igher problem score on the
"Morals and Re l ig ion" s ca l e than the low d i sc repancy group,
was not suppor ted .
The t en th h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d t ha t the high
d i sc repancy group would have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher problem
score on the "Adjustment to School Work" s c a l e than the low
46
discrepancy group, was supported at the .01 level of
confidence,
The eleventh hypothesis, which stated the graduate group
would have a significantly higher problem score on the
"Adjustment to School Work" scale than the undergraduate
group, was not supported. The results of this scale were,
in fact, the opposite of the hypothesized results. It was
found that the graduate group had a significantly lower
problem score on this scale than did the undergraduate group.
The difference between these two groups was significant at
the .05 level of confidence.
The twelfth hypothesis, which stated the high discrep-
ancy group would have a significantly higher problem score
on the " F u t u r e — V o c a t i o n a l and Educational" scale than the
low discrepancy group, was supported at the .01 leve1 of
confidence.
The thirteenth hypothesis, which stated the high
discrepancy group would have a significantly higher problem
score on the "Curriculum and Teaching Procedures" scale than
the low discrepancy group, was not supported.
There were several additional differences noted between
the graduate and undergraduate group as to the number of
problems checked on the MPCL. The undergraduate group, as a
whole, had a significantly higher problem score than did the
graduate group. The difference between these two groups was
47
s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . There were f i v e
s c a l e s s p e c i f i c a l l y on which t he u n d e r g r a d u a t e s scored
h i g h e r . These s c a l e s were the " S o c i a l - P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e l a -
t i o n s " s c a l e , the " C o u r t s h i p - S e x - M a r r i a g e " s c a l e , t h e
"Adjus tment t o School Work" s c a l e , t h e " F u t u r e — V o c a t i o n a l
and Educational" s c a l e , and the "Cur r icu lum and Teaching
P r o c e d u r e s " s c a l e . The d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e two groups
on each of t h e f i v e s c a l e s were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e ,05
l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .
In summary i t may be sa id t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t he p e r c e i v e d
s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y , t he g r e a t e r the problem one p e r c e i v e s
himself to have. In add i t i on , the undergraduate group
p e r c e i v e d themse lves to have more problems than the graduate
group.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is
a relationship between one's perceived self, ideal-self
discrepancy and perceived problems which one possesses.
Also, this study sought to determine if there were any
significant differences between graduate and undergraduate
subjects as to th® problems which each perceived himself to
possess. The Moonev Problem Check List (BFCL) was used to
measure the amount of problems each subject had. The Bills'
I M m of Ad i ustment and Values was used to measure the
discrepancy between self and ideal-self concept.
The investigation consisted of two groups? one group
composed of 24 graduate students, the other composed of 36
undergraduate students. Each of the two groups was divided
into high and low discrepancy groups. This was done by
assigning the students who scored in the upper 50 per cent
of discrepancy scores into the high discrepancy group and
the lower 50 per cent of discrepancy scores into the low
discrepancy group. Each individual's total problem score
and his subscores on each problem scale were then matched
48
49
with the subject's discrepancy score. The mean problem and
discrepancy scores for each group were obtained.
The statistical analysis consisted of eleven two-way
factorial designs. The factorial design was used to compare
high and low d i s c r e p a n c y scores to the problem scores on
each subscale of the MPCL for both graduate end undergradu-
ate groups. A twelfth two-way factorial design was used to
c o m p a r e t h e high end l o w discrepancy group to t h e t o t a l
problem scores on the MPCL for both graduate and under-
graduate groups. An F test was raade on each d e s i g n to
determine the level of significance.
It was f o u n d that t h e r e was a significant difference
in t h e p r o b l e m scores of t h e h i g h discrepancy g r o u p w h e n
compared to the low discrepancy g r o u p . This difference was
s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e t h u s confirming
hypothesis one. The high discrepancy group also had a
significantly higher score on the HPD, SPB, PPB, CSM , HF,
ACW, AND FVE s u b s c a l e s of the MPCL than did the low discrep-
ancy group. On the basis of these subscale scores, hypoth-
eses two, five, six, seven, eight, ten, and twelve were
accepted. No significant difference was found between
discrepancy groups on the FLE, SRA, MR, and CTP scales of
t h e MPCL. On the basis of these results, hyptheses three,
four, nine, and thirteen were rejected. In view of these
r e s u l t s f o u n d in this s t u d y , it c a n b e s a i d t h a t t h e
50
p e r c e i v e d d i s c r e p a n c y between self and ideal-self concept
would be a f a c t o r to consider as an i n d i c a t o r of a d j u s t m e n t .
The e l e v e n t h h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d t h a t t h e g r a d u a t e
group would have a significantly higher problem score on the
" A d j u s t m e n t t o School Work" s c a l e of t h e MFCL t h a n t h e u n d e r -
g r a d u a t e g r o u p , was r e j e c t e d . In i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e e l e v e n t h
h y p o t h e s i s i t was found t h a t u n d e r g r a d u a t e s p e r c e i v e them-
s e l v e s as h a v i n g more p rob lems on t h i s s c a l e t h a n d i d t h e
g r a d u a t e g r o u p . I t a p p e a r s as i f a change i n g roup s t a n d i n g ,
from u n d e r g r a d u a t e t o g r a d u a t e , i s a l s o accompanied by a
change i n t h e amount of p rob lems which one p o s s e s s e s . In
g e n e r a l , t h e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r p r o b -
lem s c o r e t h a n d i d t h e g r a d u a t e g r o u p . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was
s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e .
Conclusions
Thi s s t u d y a g r e e s , i n g e n e r a l , w i th o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
which have been made i n t h e a r e a d e a l i n g wi th s e l f c o n c e p t .
I t has been found t h a t d i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e s can be c o n s i d e r e d
as an indicator of general a d j u s t m e n t . Consequently, i t
would mean t h a t d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t h e p e r c e i v e d s e l f and
t h e s e l f - i d e a l cou ld be a g e n e r a l d i s i n t e g r a t i n g f o r c e man i -
f e s t i n g i t s e l f i n other a r e a s of l i f e ' s e x p e r i e n c e s . The
d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h i n t h e structure of s e l f cou ld r e d u c e t h e
f u n c t i o n a l l e v e l of t h e o rgan i sm in a l l p h a s e s of b e h a v i o r .
s i
It should also be noted that t h i s type of approach to
i n v e s t i g a t i n g s e l f c o n c e p t cou ld be u t i l i z e d i n e v a l u a t i n g
progress made d u r i n g psychotherapy or i n s t u d y i n g a d j u s t m e n t
or m a l a d j u s t m e n t of college students suffering from academic
a n d / o r p e r s o n a l problems.
The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s which s t a t e d t h a t t h e high d i s -
c r e p a n c y group would have a significantly higher problem
score than the low d i s c r e p a n c y group was confirmed at the
. 0 1 l e v e l of confidence.
The high d i s c r e p a n c y group a l s o had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
higher score on the HPD, SPR, PPP«, CSM, HF, ACW, and FVE
subscales of the MPCL than did the low d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p .
On the basis of these subscale scores, h y p o t h e s e s two, five,
s i x , s e v e n , e i g h t , t e n , and t w e l v e were a c c e p t e d . No
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between d i s c r e p a n c y g r o u p s could be
found on t h e FLi, SRA, MR, and CTP s c a l e s of t h e MPCL. On
the b a s i s of t h e s e results, h y p o t h e s e s t h r e e , four, nine
and thirteen we re r e j e c t e d .
The e l e v e n t h h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d that t h e g r a d u a t e
group would score s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the MAdj ustraent
to School Work" scale than the undergraduate group, was not
confirmed. The fact i s t h a t t h e undergraduate group s c o r e d
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e g r a d u a t e group on this s c a l e .
The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two groups on t h i s s c a l e was
significant a t t h e . 0 5 l e v e l of confidence—the o p p o s i t e of
t h a t which was p r e d i c t e d .
52
Recommendations
The r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y have shown p e r c e i v e d d i s c r e p -
ancy be tween t h e s e l f and s e l f - i d e a l t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e
number of p rob lems one p e r c e i v e s h i m s e l f as h a v i n g . T h e r e
i s a d i f f i c u l t y , however , i n u s i n g t h e MPCL as a measurement
of o n e ' s p r o b l e m s . The MPCL was o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n e d to be
used as a p r e l i m i n a r y s t e p to c o u n s e l i n g or g u i d a n c e . I t s
function i s to s e r v e as an a id in p i n p o i n t i n g a c l i e n t ' s
s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s , not as a measurement of a d j u s t m e n t .
Another d i f f i c u l t y i n u s i n g t h e MPCL i s t h a t t h e l i s t
i n c l u d e s many i t e m s which may not be r e l a t e d t o s e l f d i s -
c r e p a n c y . One s c a l e composed of such i t e m s i s t h e " H e a l t h
and P h y s i c a l Development" s c a l e which l i s t s many p rob lems
such as a l l e r g i e s , poor c o m p l e x i o n , g l a n d u l a r d i s o r d e r s ,
e t c . , which are frequently not the result of m a l a d j u s t m e n t .
I t ems such as t h e s e cou ld c o n c e i v a b l y i n c r e a s e a p e r s o n ' s
s c o r e on t h e MPCL w i t h o u t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e on t h e
d i s c r e p a n c y s c o r e .
P e r h a p s w i th an i n c r e a s e i n i n t e r e s t t a k e n i n t h i s a r e a
of p s y c h o l o g y i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to d e v e l o p b e t t e r t o o l s
f o r m e a s u r i n g t h e s e phenomena. Hence, some of t h e i n a d e -
q u a c i e s which p r e s e n t l y e x i s t i n p e n c i l and p a p e r t e s t s , of
t h e t y p e used i n t h i s s t u d y , w i l l d i m i n i s h .
S i n c e t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e t h a t a r e l a -
t i o n s h i p does e x i s t be tween o n e ' s s e l f d i s c r e p a n c y and o n e ' s
53
perceived problems, it is necessary to run further studies
investigating the relationship of self discrepancy to other
personality or behavioral traits.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Coleman, James C., Personality Dynamics and Behavior. Chicago, Scott, Foresaan and Co., 1960.
Lecky, Preseott, Self Consistencv~~A Theory of Personality. New York, Island Press, 1951.
Rogers, Carl B., Client-Centered Therapy. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951.
Snygg, Donald and Arthur Combs, Individual Behavior. New York, Harper and Bros., 1949.
Syraonds, Percival M., The Ego ^nd the Self. New York, Apple ton-Century-Crofts Inc., 1951.
Articles
Allport, G. W. and H. S. Olbert, "Trait-Namesj A Psychological Study," Psychological Monographs. 1936, No. 211.
Bills, R. E., "A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adi ust-rnent and Values with Behavior on Level of Aspiration Tasks,'1 Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953) , 206-212.
,, "A Validation of Changes in Scores on the Index of Adiustment and Values as Measures of Changes in Emotionality," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 135-138.
rt "Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High and Low in Acceptance of Self," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVII (1953), 36-38.
., "Self Concept and Rorschach Signs of Depres-sion," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 135-137.
54
55
Calvin, A. D. and H. Holtzraan, "Adjustment and the Discrepancy Between Self Coneept and Inferred Self," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVII (1953), 39-44.
Fick, R. L.# "The Problem Check Lists A Valuable Approach in Counseling/* Occupations. XXX (1952), 410-412.
Friedman, I., "Phenomenal, Ideal, and Projected Concepts of Self," 9l Aft,iw,r,m,q,a, jnd S^ejal, Psychology* LI (1955), 611-615.
Han1on, T. E., P. R. Hofstaetter, and J. P. O'Connor, "Congruence of Self and Ideal Self in fielation to Personality Adjustment," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 215-217.
Hi 1lson, J. S. and P. Worchel, "Self Concept and Defensive Behavior in the Maladjusted," Journal of Consult!no Psychology. XXI €1957), 83.
Lepine, L. T. and B. Charoloskoff, "Goal Setting Behavior, Repressed Feelings of Adequacy, and the Correspondence Between the Perceived and Ideal Self," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XI (1955), 135-137.
Mclntyre, C. J., "The Validation of the Moonev Problem CJieck LjUl," Joijrn^i, £l Applied Psychology. XXXVII (1953), 270-272.
Miyamoto, S. F. and S. M, Oornbush, "A Test of Interactionist Hypotheses of Self-Conception," American Journal of Sociology. LX1 (1959), 399-403.
Mooney, E. L., "Exploratory Research on Student Problems," Journal of Educational Research. XXXVII (1943), 218-224.
Murphy, V. ti., "The fielationship Between Self-Concept and Manifest Anxiety in College Freshmen," Dissertation Abstracts. XXIII (1963), 3499.
Omwake, K. F., "The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Personality Inventories," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XVIII (1954), 443-446.
Ottrochi , Parsons and Diskoff, "Changes in Self-Ideal Discrepancy in Repressors and Sensitizers," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LXI (I960), 67-72.
56
Swinn, R. M. and H. H i l l , " I n f l u e n c e of Anxiety on the i e l a t l o n s h i p Between S e l f - A c c e p t a n c e and A c c e p t a n c e of O t h e r s / ' J o u r n a l &f C o n s i s t i " q XXVIII ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 116-119 .
T u r n e r , R. H. and B. H. V a n d e r l i p p e , " S e l f - I d e a l Congruence as an Index of Adj u s t m e n t J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . LVII ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 2 0 2 - 2 0 6 .
Worchel , P . , " P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r s i n t h e R e a d i n e s s t o E x p r e s s A g g r e s s i o n , " J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . XIV ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 355-359 .