INT. REV. APP. PSYMOL( 1973), VOL. 22, NO. 2

SOME PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN UNDER- AND OVER-ACHIEVERS

HENRY H. REITER C. W. Post Cnllege, Greenvale, NY, USA

The purpose of the present investigation was to ascertain measurable differences in certain personality scores between bright students who achieve as expected or achieve below the level of expectancy. Wolfe (1960) spells out the dramatic number of bright students who achieve below the level expected of them,

Horrall (1 957) reported differences in deep-seated personality problems, as measured by the TAT and Rorschach, between high and low achieving college students. Morgan (1 952) found several MMPI scale differences between achievers and non-achievers in college. In terms of their attitudes, Alves (1960) and Nason (1958) found that under-achievers showed significantly more negative self-concepts and evaluations of others than normal achievers. Further, Ohlsen and Proff (1960) and Shaw and Grubb (1958) reported that under-achievers were more hostile than normal achievers.

The present study contrasted under- and over-achievers in terms of personality measures such as : fantasized achievement, hostility, dependency, anxiety, and the like. I t was expected that under-achievers would show greater anxiety and hostility and less fantasized achievement than over-achievers.

METHOD

From a total of 150 college males and females enrolled in several Introductory Psychology sections, 32 were selected for under- or over-achievement based on several criteria. Under-achievement was represented by 14 students with above median SAT-Verbal score (508) and below median grade average (GPA = 79.14). Such authors as Demos and Spolyar (1961) and Todd, et d. (1962) sup- port the use of the SAT-Verbal score as a measure of general intelligence and low college grade average as a measure of actual achievement. Fifteen over- achievers were selected based on below median SAT-Verbal scores and above median college grade averages. To assure that Ss were chronic under- or over-achievers, discrepancies were checked using high school averages with the result that all but three students remained as previously defined.

5's were given in random order the following personality tests: Page Fantasy Scale (Page, 1960); Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS); Cattell 16 PF Questionnaire and the Iowa Picture Interpretation Test (IPIT), a multiple- choice variation of the TAT (Hurley, 1955).

182 PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN UNDER- AND OVER-ACHIEVERS

RESULTS

Discrepancy scores were calculated to represent the difference (in terms of stan- dard scores} between fantasized achievement and overt academic achievement. The fantasized achievement scales of the Page Fantasy Scale (DI), the IPIT (Ot), and the EPPS (Ds) were contrasted with college grade averages.

Table 1 presents significant differences obtained between under- and over- achievers, based on Mann-Whitney tests.

TABLE 1 SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES (MANN-WHITNEY) IN MEASURES BETWEEN

UNDER-ACHIEVERS (N = 14) AND OVER-ACHIEVERS (N = 15)

Personality variable Page hostility Page defence EPPS n-Ach 16 PF Anxiety D1 (Page A-GPA)

0 3 (EPPS n-Ach-GPA) D2 (IPIT: AI-GPA)

Means Under-achievers Over-achievers

31 -9 35.1 26.1 28.1 13.8 15.8 49.1 57.2 62.6 48.1 65.4 53.5 48.9 42 -4

Mann- Whitnej U 15I* 150* 156* 151* 154+ 157* 150*

* p < 0-05.

From Table 1 it was noted that over-achievers (OA) were significantly higher than under-achievers (UA) in hostility (35.1 to 3 1.9) and defensiveness (28.1 to 26.1). This was interpreted to mean that OA Ss have greater hostile and defensive fantasy themes than UA Ss. In addition, OA Ss were significantly higher in EPPS n-Ach scores (15.8 to 13.8). The implication here is that fantasized achievement (EPPS) is an important variable in discriminating be- tween over- and under-achievers.

The OA Ss were lower in all three discrepancy scores than the UA Ss ( p < 0.05). Thus, the discrepancy between fantasized achievement and academic achievement is relatively higher for a student who is comparatively intelligent but it is not achieving successfully at college, than for a student who is not relatively intelligent but is achieving better-than-average academically.

OA Ss were more generally anxious (Cattell 16 PF) than UA Ss ( p < 0.05) but also showed significantly higher fantasized achievement scores (EPPS). Thus, OA Ss, although more anxious, demonstrate a higher need to achieve (at the fantasy level) than do UA Ss.

D I S C U S S I O N

The present findings tended to corroborate those reported by Gebhart and Hoyt (1958), Burgess (1956), and Morgan (1952). These authors found OA Ss to be significantly higher than UA Ss in the Edwards n-Ach score. Only one study, however (Demos and Spolyar, 1961) reversed the trend in that no essential

HENRY H. REITER 183

difference between the contrasting achievement groups in terms of the EPPS n-Ach was obtained.

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N

Fifteen over-achievers (OA) and fourteen under-achievers (UA) were selected based on criteria associated with high and low SAT-Verbal scores and college grade averages. Ss were given the following personality tests: Page Fantasy Scale, EPPS, Cattell 16 PF, and IPIT. Results showed that OA Ss were signi- ficantly higher than UA Ss in anxiety and fantasized achievement.

R E F E R E N C E S

ALVES, G. (1962). ‘Self-concept of bright underachieving high school students’, in Guidance for the underachiever with superior ability. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

BURGESS, E. (1956) ‘Personality factors of over- and underachievers in engineer- ing’, J . Educational Psychol. 42, 89-99.

DEMOS, G., and SPOLYAR, L. (1961). ‘Academic achievement of college fresh- man in relation to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule’, Educ. and Psychol. Measurement, 16, 640-7.

GEBHART, c., and HOYT, D. (1958). ‘Personality needs of under- and over- achieving freshman’, 1. Appl. Psychol. 42, 125-8.

HORRALL, B. (1957). ‘Academic performance and personality adjustments of highly intelligent college students’, Genet. Psychol. Monogr. 55, 3-83.

HURLEY, J. (1955). ‘The Iowa Picture Interpretation Test : a multiple choice variation of the TAT’, J . Consult. Psychol. 18, 372-6.

MORGAN, H. (1 952). ‘A psychometric comparison of achieving and non-achieving college students of high ability’, ibid. 16, 292-8.

NASON, L. (1958). Academic underachievement of gifted high school students. Los Angeles : USC Press.

OHLSEN, N., and PROF, F. (1960). ‘The extent to which group counseling im- proves the academic and personal adjustment of underachieving gifted adolescents’, Report of Cooperative Research Project.

PAGE, H. (1960). ‘A scale for the assessment of daydreaming behavior’, Percept. Mot . Skills, 10, 110.

SHAW, M., and GRUBB, J. (1962). ‘Hostility and able high school under-achievers of superior ability’, J . Appl . Psychol. 46, 183-90.

WOLFE, D. (1960). ‘Diversity of talent’, Am. Psychol. 15, 536.