McClelland Personality

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Personality.
McCeand, Davd C. (Davd Carence)
New York, Soane, |1951|
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015002393646
Public Domain, Google-digitized
http://w w w .hathi tr u s t.o r g /ac c es s _ u s e# pd- g o o g le
Ths work s n the Pubc Doman, meanng
that t s not sub|ect to copyrght. Users are
free to copy, use, and redstrbute the work
n part or n whoe. It s possbe that hers
or the estate of the authors of ndvdua portons
of the work, such as ustratons, assert copyrghts
over these portons. Dependng on the nature
of subsequent use that s made, addtona
rghts may need to be obtaned ndependenty
of anythng we can address. The dgta mages
and 0CP of ths work were produced by Googe,
Inc. (ndcated by a watermark on each page
n the PageTurner). Googe requests that
the mages and 0CP not be re-hosted, redstrbuted
or used commercay. The mages are provded
for educatona, schoary, non-commerca
purposes.
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P PS0N ITY
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P PS0N ITY
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Copyrght, 1951, by
D ID C. MC C ND
rst Prntng
Typography and format desgned by
0N PD . I PD
Manufactured n the Unted States of merca
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Contents
Page
Preface
Chapter
Part 0ne. M T 0D0 0GY: 0 P PS0N ITY
IS STUDI D
1 The scentfc approach to personaty: the hstory of a
beef 3
2 0btanng the facts 19
3 Interpretng the facts 50
4 Peatng the facts to one another 77
Part Two. TP IT S P PS0N ITY
PI
5 pressve trats 117
6 Performance trats 162
7 Trat theory o1
Part Three. SC M S P PS0N ITY
PI
Ideas and vaues 239
9 Poes and roe modes 2 9
10 Socazaton: the sources of schemata and motves 333
Port our. M0TI S P PS0N ITY
PI
11 Motvaton: cnca approach 3 3
12 Motvaton: e permenta approach 431
13 The effects of motvaton on behavor 47
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NT NTS
Chapter Page
Part ve. SUMM PY ND INT GP TI0N
14 Conceptons of the sef . 529
15 Interreaton among the basc personaty varabes:
predctng the concrete act 579
Peferences and author nde 621
Sub|ect nde 639
I
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Tabes
Tabe Page
.1 Iustraton of dfferent knds of contro e ercsed by
the e permenter over eements n an observaton 3
3.1 schematc dagram showng how a scentfc con-
ceptua scheme s derved from a person s responses 57
3.2 schematc dagram showng how an evauatve con-
ceptua scheme s apped to a person s responses 62
5.1 Types of physque 11
5.2 Shortened scae for temperament fed out for ar 122-123
5.3 perments n e pressve movement conducted by
port and ernon (1933) 132
5.4 verage ntercorreaton of severa area measures
wth the sum of the other eght measures 133
5.5 Sampe handwrtng and personaty reatonshps
found by Pasca (1943 to be sgnfcant at the .01 eve 135
5.6 The meanng of some common Porschach scorng
categores and the frequency wth whch they appear
n ar s record 141
5-7 Pesuts of matchng dfferent aspects of personaty 149
5. Test reports on Say 150
5.9 requences of varous grammatca categores n the
frst 400 words of ar s theme 154
6.1 ppro mate menta functons measured by echser-
eevue sub-tests accordng to echser 165-166
6.2 ar s Iowa Sent Peadng Test scores 169
6.3 Tetrachorc correaton coeffcents among varous
cosure tests 174
6.4 ar s anagrams scores 1 4
6.5 ar s performance trats 1 5
6.6 Patng scae defntons 1 7-191
7-1 actor saturatons on dfferent behavora eements for
ndvdua boys and for the group of chdren as a
whoe 211
v
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T S
Tabe Page
7.2 cassfcaton of common trats 231
.1 Schematc dagram showng the reatons between cu-
tura patterns and persona schemata as they w be ds-
cussed n the ne t three chapters 241
.2 Percentage of reward, punshment, and no conse-
quence for each category of behavor 253
.3 Scheme for representng profes of cutura orentaton 255
.4 Content anayss of the port- ernon Study of aues
Test 25
.5 Some typca mercan cutura orentatons toward
emprca phenomena and ther assocated representa-
tons n ar s schemata 261
.6 Summary of ar s answers to a regon questonnare 276
9.1 Poe ad|ustments made by ar s father 299-300
9.2 ar s ratngs of hs parents 306
9.3 Poe ad|ustments made by ar as an adoescent mae 310-311
10.1 vdence for ana character trats among the Navaho 337
10.2 Cassfcaton of earnng probems for the chd wth a
sampng of crcumstances and parent behavors of m-
portance n determnng the nature of the probems for
the chd 34 -349
10.3 Parent behavor dmensons and syndromes wth the
number of fames n each 353
10.4 Parent behavor profes for two types of homes 354
10.5 Inteectua and soca deveopment of schoo-age
chdren as a functon of parent behavor patterns 364
10.6 Peatonshps between chd-rearng practces and
theores of dsease n 50-76 cutures 367
10.7 ehavor patterns of ar s parents as |udged by hm-
sef and a psychatrst 374
10. Peconstructon of a schematc thema based on ar s
chd-tranng e perences 376
11.1 Cassfcaton of Murray s needs n terms of appro -
mate status ams 40
11.2 n Domnance (n Dom) as descrbed n Murray s -
poratons n Personaty 409
v
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T S
Tabe Page
11.3 Man sources and nterreatons of ar s motvatona
structure 425
12.1 Dagram of the way n whch reducton of a fear
response (Pf) renforces bar-pressng 437
13.1 Cassfcaton of verba reactons (P s) to e permen-
tay nduced faure 510-511
14.1 ar s answers to Part III of the Strong ocatona
Interest Test . 532-534
14.2 Comparson of the e tent to whch ar perceves hs
trats as we have conceptuazed them 536
14.3 Comparson of the sef-|udgments wth the |udgments
of others 54
14 ar s Sentence Competon Test resuts for acheve-
ment-reated statements 554-555
14.5 ar s Sentence Competon Test resuts for securty-
reated statements 556
14.6 ar s sef-descrpton scored for mpct vaues 56
14.7 tttude, conduct and confct wth respect to varous
ssues of the mora code 571
15. 1 The chef determnants and measures of the basc hypo-
thetca constructs used n our conceptuazaton of per-
sonaty 5 0
15. st of ar s mportant trats, schemata, and motves
accordng to pror anayses 5 9
15.3 ttempted synthess of ar s personaty structure 591
15.4 Interacton of personaty and envronment on a
partcuar occason showng how behavor may be
predcted 595
15.5 Predcton questonnare (Part I) for ar 603-606
I
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
gures
gure Page
4.1 n ndvdua dfference anayss compared wth an S-P
type of aw 79
5.1 Two sampes of ar s handwrtng compared wth two
sampes of another person s handwrtng 137
5.2 ar s responses to two sampe Porschach bots 140
6.1 Schematc dagram to ustrate dfferent types of per-
formance 1 1
7.1 Schematc representaton of port s defnton of a trat ao
7.2 Percentages of chdren who took advantage of varyng
numbers of opportuntes to cheat 206
7.3 Covaraton of two behavor eements dspayed by one
chd on successve days 209
.1 Dagram showng ar s ma|or deas, ther sources and
nterconnectons 279
9.1 op aggresson e pressed n voence 320
9.2 Percentage sayng that a specfc acton as proctor woud
be approved by authortes and by feow students re-
spectvey 323
12.1 Gradents of approach and avodance 462
12.2 The peasantness-unpeasantness of taste sensatons as
a functon of stmuus ntensty 469
13.1 ypothetca e panaton of the nfuence of ncreasng
dynamometer tenson on performance 4 4
13.2 The hypothetca effect of ncreased motve ntensty on
thought processes 495
13.3 The effect of dfferent nstructona orentatons on re-
ca of nterrupted tasks for two knds of achevement
motves 49
14.1 Peatve favorabeness of sef-|udgments made wthout
recognton (men aone) and wth recognton (men and
women) 547
14.2 Typca sequence of events n a eve of aspraton
e perment 564

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Preface
hat I have set out to do n ths book s smpe enough. I have
wanted to produce a theoretcay orented te t n the psychoogy
of personaty. The need for such a te t ceary e sts today. e
have, on the one hand, a number of e ceent ntroductory te ts on
personaty, menta hygene, persona ad|ustment, and the ke and
on the other, a number of more advanced technca books about
personaty wrtten from some speca vewpont such as psycho-
anayss or the Porschach Technque. Ths book s amed at a eve
somewhere between these two approaches, a eve whch w requre
the knowedge of basc ntroductory matera and make use of spe-
cazed contrbutons wthn the cnca fed. The treatment
throughout s theoretca rather than practca and apped. The
|ustfcaton for ths, f |ustfcaton s needed, s that theory must
aways precede appcaton. Today the soca pressure for the app-
caton of psychoogca knowedge to probems of persona ad|ust-
ment s enormous, yet as ngya so rghty says, psychatry, and one
mght add cnca psychoogy, s the appcaton of a scence of
personaty whch does not as yet e st. Ths book s ntended as a
contrbuton to the theory of personaty. s such t may be usefu
n some way to cnca psychoogy, but that s not ts prmary
purpose.
he the purpose of the book s smpe enough, ts e ecuton s
not. To do the |ob we requres a knowedge of practcay a of
present-day psychoogy, snce a that psychoogsts know s needed
to conceptuaze adequatey the snge personaty. Ths presents
some dffcutes. In the frst pace, how can I or any one person
know that much In the second, what about the prospectve student
hat must he know before he tackes such a compe sub|ect
The frst dffcuty poses some rea probems. Consder for a mo-
ment what a psychoogst ought to know before he ventures to speak
wth any authorty about personaty. To begn wth, he must be
thoroughy grounded n the basc prncpes of psychoogy, n earn-
ng theory, for nstance, where he shoud be abe to deduce a
theorem from u s postuates, draw one of Toman s baoons
propery, master the facts on condtonng and earnng, and so

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP C
forth. e shoud know the tremendous terature on psychoogca
paper-and-penc tests from the ernreuter Personaty Inventory to
the Mnnesota Mutphasc Test. Utmatey ths shoud ead hm
nto the ntrcaces of factor anayss so that he can understand the
contrbutons of men ke Catte and Guford. fter he has spent a
year or so on ths he ought to take up anthropoogy, and trave,
mentay at east, through the South Seas wth Margaret Mead and
Manowsk, to or wth Du os, to the Southwest wth uck-
hohn and eghton. fter studyng cuture and personaty n books,
he shoud of course spend a year or two n the fed, after whch he
w be ready for psychoanayss. or who can understand the 0d
Masters ke reud wthout three to seven years of ddactc ther-
apy Perhaps by choosng one s anayst carefuy, some of the vews
of the neo- reudans ke orney, romm, and e ander can be
earned n the process. To save a tte tme, our hypothetca we-
educated student of personaty coud take a summer off to attend
a Porschach Insttute so that he can make a stab at understandng
the some eght hundred studes of personaty made wth ths n-
strument. ut even ths s ony a begnnng. hat about the The-
matc ppercepton Test and ts ntrcate nterpretatons ow
about some of the ancent technques, ke hypnoss, or some more
modern ones ke nondrectve ntervewng Surey he shoud know
these. nd f he s to be reay educated he shoud have read the
great books and shoud be famar wth the hstory of cuture of
estern cvzaton. ow ese w he be abe to understand the
depth and compe tes, the rchness and varety of human person-
aty
The st seems a tte ong, and certany I do not quafy as an
e pert n any of the feds mentoned. I have never been psycho-
anayzed, never been to a Porschach Insttute, cannot propery n-
terpret a Thematc ppercepton Test, space mhms correcty n a
nondrectve ntervew, deduce a theorem from u s postuates,
or ask a Navaho nformant about hs se fe. ut perhaps a ths
s what quafes me to wrte ths book.
The psychoogy of personaty has unfortunatey tended n re-
cent years to become spt up nto a number of specazed feds
presded over by hgh prests who are |eaous of ther speca sks
and who contrbute tte to efforts at ntegraton of ther knowedge
nto a genera scence of personaty. Peope nowadays have a horror
of the word ecectcsm, but ecectc s precsey what ths book n-
tends to be. In the very eementary state of our knowedge of per-

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP C
sonaty t has seemed unwse to me to e cude from consderaton
any source of nformaton about the sub|ect, |ust as t has seemed
unwse to fa nto the trap of assumng that ths partcuar source
of nformaton s the key whch w open a the mysteres of per-
sonaty. The specazed peadng of any partcuar schoo or ap-
proach to the sub|ect w be dsregarded, and ts contrbuton eva-
uated so far as possbe n terms of the new nformaton t provdes
about personaty.
The demma of the unprepared student s more easy soved than
that of the unprepared author. Ths s ntended to be an advanced
te t and probaby shoud not be used wth students who have not
had consderabe pror work n psychoogy. In tryng t out I have
found that students shoud have taken as prerequstes a good
course n earnng, one n abnorma or dynamc psychoogy, and one
n statstcs. Desrabe, athough by no means necessary, are courses
n soca anthropoogy and n e permenta psychoogy. In attempt-
ng to keep the te t from becomng too theoretca, abstract, and
advanced, I have adopted two devces whch have proven of hep to
my students. 0ne s to ask a number of questons at the end of each
chapter whch are ntended to chaenge the student s magnaton,
and to hep hm to read the chapter crtcay. They are questons
whch often admt of no easy answers and shoud therefore gve the
student a sense of partcpaton n the quest for knowedge about
personaty whch s one of the most vauabe thngs he can get from
studyng the sub|ect. The other devce s to test any abstract formu-
atons arrved at aganst the concrete behavor of a snge human
beng.
It s my mpresson that theores of personaty are rather easy
constructed. The mnd of man beng as ngenous as t s, we can
ready nvent symbo systems and pe one set of eaborate theores
on another wthout reay makng much progress. hat does ead to
progress n scence s the deveopment of specfc methods of meas-
urng our theores and abstractons. So the emphass throughout
ths book s aways on measurement. Many famous theores of per-
sonaty w not be fuy represented for the smpe reason that they
have not ent themseves ready to measurement. Specfcay there
are few e permenta artces n the |ournas deang wth them.
To make ths emphass even more e pct, I have chosen a snge
ndvdua, ar, whose behavor w be studed each tme a new
theoretca construct s ntroduced. fter a, the proof of the pud-
dng s n the eatng. very personaty theorst shoud aways ask

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP C
hmsef, how w ths new construct, how w ths new dstncton
contrbute to my understandng of ths partcuar person whose be-
havor s here before me It s for ths reason aso that I have made
a practce of havng each student anayze hs own case as we have
proceeded from one theoretca construct and method of measure-
ment to another. Ideay, of course, the student shoud coect for
hmsef, on hs case, a the dfferent types of behavor that we have
had avaabe on ar, but often ths s mpractca. I have found
that a good autobography, so ong as t contans many concrete fac-
tua epsodes and not too much conceptuazaton by the author,
w serve as a fary adequate substtute for many of the measures
used, athough t normay gves more nformaton about schemata
and motves than about trats. The case materas on ar were org-
nay coected by a student, |ohn Perkns, to whom I am much
ndebted for permttng me to use them. 0ther students have worked
successfuy from pubshed autobographes ke ack oy, by
Pchard rght, or Seven Storey Mountan, by Thomas Merton,
from case documents ke arod ozer (cf. kn, 1943) or Sun
Chef (Smmons, 1942), or from fe hstores specay wrtten by
feow students or frends.
orkng wth concrete ves ke ths, as they proceed through
the theoretca dscussons n ths book, shoud prevent students or
anyone ese from ganng the mpresson that I am tryng to pre-
sent a system or a theory of personaty. No one knows enough
at present to bud a theory. Pather what s needed and what I have
tred to do s to fnd a number of constructs n terms of whch we
can coect data about personaty, perhaps wth the utmate hope
of budng a theory. nyone who thnks through the questons at
the ends of the chapters, or who faces the probem of attemptng to
treat the bewderng varety of ar s or anyone ese s behavor n
terms of the theoretca constructs used cannot fa to be mpressed
by how much there s to earn. ut ths s as t shoud be. The scence
of personaty s ony at ts begnnng and the student shoud know
ths above a other thngs.
0ne practca probem has arsen n presentng the matera on
ar. To understand hm adequatey, the reader shoud have ava-
abe a the documents on whch the conceptuazaton of hm s
based. Ths has proved mpractca for two reasons: frst, ncuson
of a the data on hm n a ther deta woud serousy nterfere
wth contnuty of e poston, and second, one of the ma|or ddactc
methods of the book s to form a conceptuazaton of ar based
v
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP C
on part of the data whch s to be used by the student to predct how
ar woud react to a varety of stuatons to whch hs reactons
are recorded n the rest of the data. The method oses ts vaue
the student knows the answers to the predcton questons or cant
fnd them out by ookng n the back of the book. ecause of these
dffcutes a compromse has been made. Most of the data on whch
the conceptuazaton s based are presented at varous paces
throughout the book. These facts and everythng ese known about
ar are pubshed separatey n a manua for the nstructor,
aong wth the predcton questonnares and ther answer keys.
Thus the teacher can wthhod nformaton on ar as ong as he
wants to, gve the predcton questonnare (Part I) as often as he
wants to, reproduce sectons of the case matera (e. g., Part II of
the autobography for Chapter 15), or modfy any of the nterpreta-
tons of test data gven n the te t, snce he w have a compete and
separate case fe on ar. he ths arrangement s made prmary
for teachng purposes, t shoud st be possbe for the genera
reader to move unnterruptedy through the te t wthout reference
to the manua, e cept for readng the second part of ar s autobog-
raphy before turnng to the ast secton of Chapter 15. .
In a very rea sense ths book s a communty enterprse: neary
every dea n t has been dscussed a number of tmes wth dfferent
peope over the past severa years. ke a squrre who has coected
a bag of nuts, I cannot propery trace the orgn of many of my deas,
athough I am certan, n many cases, that they came from conver-
satons wth others. I can ony acknowedge, then, n a genera way,
my deep ndebtedness to a number of peope, many of whom have
contrbuted more than they know to the warp and woof of ths book.
rst of a, I shoud ke to acknowedge a deep ndebtedness to
|ohn e ander McGeoch, who frst ntroduced me to the mysteres
of psychoogy and to whose nspraton I owe the convcton that a
scence of psychoogy and personaty s possbe. Snce ths book
draws heavy on earnng theory, cuture and personaty theory,
and psychoanayss, I shoud ke to acknowedge aso nteectua
debts n each of these feds n earnng to rthur . Meton, who
convnced me of the mportance of methodoogy and to Cark .
u who taught me somethng about the nature of theory n cu-
ture and personaty to bram ardner, Cyde uckhohn, and
Paph nton and n psychoanayss to Sgmund reud and enry
. Murray.
If these men are responsbe for my basc orentatons n the fed

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
I
PP C
of personaty, there are a host of others to whom I am personay
ndebted for the eaboraton n dscusson of these orentatons. I
owe much to my coeagues at eseyan, to vn M. berman,
Gordon T. Gwnn, Davd P. Mc ester, |ohn . htfed, |uan
Poura and partcuary to Pobert . napp whose breadth of n-
formaton and magnaton saved me often from sterty and despar.
I aso owe a very speca debt to Dr. en|amn Smon and to Dr. |ues
ozberg, both then of the Connectcut State ospta at Md-
detown, who often gave generousy of ther tme and advce
when I was attemptng to gan a better understandng of the psy-
chatrc and cnca approaches to personaty. Ths book coud
never have been competed, certany n ts present form, wthout
the generous support provded by the Pesearch Commttee of es-
eyan Unversty and by the Department and aboratory of Soca
Peatons at arvard Unversty whch made t possbe for me to
spend a year away from my norma teachng dutes. Durng ths
year at arvard I have receved much n the way of stmuaton and
mora support from |erome S. runer, dward C. Toman, |ohn
. M. htng, Pobert P. Sears, orence uckhohn, Gordon -
port, and many others. I am partcuary gratefu for nstructon
receved n semnars run by Tacott Parsons, by enry . Murray,
and by Davd bere.
ut most of a I am ndebted to my students who have forced me
agan and agan to revse or carfy the deas whch have gone nto
ths book. nowng how much these deas have changed snce my
frst semnar n personaty at ryn Mawr n 1944-45, I fee sure they
w contnue to evove whch s as t shoud be. To a my students
then at ryn Mawr, at eseyan, and at arvard who made me
wrte ths book, who made me change t, and who w go on wrtng
t, I hope, I dedcate ths book.
Mddetown, Conn. D. C. M.
March, 1951
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Part 0ne
M T 0D0 0GY: 0 P PS0N ITY
IS STUDI D
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The Scent fc pproach to
Personaty: The story of a eef
cqurng a scentfc atttude toward human personaty s not
easy. There are a sorts of emotona and theoretca probems n-
voved, a sorts of mpct assumptons that tend to coor thnkng
and dstort |udgment uness they are made e pct to begn wth.
fter a, to take a detached, scentfc atttude toward a human
beng s to do a somewhat pecuar, unnatura thng. It nvoves
treatng another human beng as f he were a thng a tree or a stone
-to be anayzed and conceptuazed, rather than oved, hated,
|udged snfu or successfu, apprecated or derogated. It nvoves the
assumpton that human nature can be understood n the same way
that a tree or a stone can be understood. Ths darng assumpton s
by no means shared by everyone. In fact there are mportant reasons
why peope shoud emotonay resst such an dea. It w therefore
be usefu to try to dscover how t has come about hstorcay that
many today assume that they can understand human nature by the
scentfc method. Tracng the hstorca deveopment of an dea
ke ths s ntrnscay nterestng, but for us t w have st an-
other purpose. It w show what dffcutes arse n connecton wth
adoptng such an atttude so that we may aow for them before
startng on our quest for the scentfc understandng of human
personaty.
0rgns of Interest n Understandng Personaty. Peope are un-
doubtedy deepy nterested n human personaty today. 0n every
sde the cry s the same: Man has deveoped hs technca sks, hs
knowedge and contro over nature, to the pont where he s about
to destroy hmsef what we must do s deveop our knowedge of
human nature to the pont where we can understand and contro t
and perhaps prevent man from utmate destructon. Presdent
Conant of arvard put the matter as foows n stressng the m-
portance of psychoogy, anthropoogy and socoogy to the mercan
ssocaton for the dvancement of Scence n 1947:
concerned wth medca scence, however ob|ectve and neutra they
may cam to be, are urged forward wth a desre to mprove the pubc
3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
M T 0D0 0GY: 0 P PS0N ITY IS STUDI D
heath and a frm convcton that they w do so. kewse, the scentst
concerned wth human reatons and the structure of socety must have con-
vcton as to the practca ob|ectves of the practtoners n hs fed and a
beef n the possbty of accompshng at east some of the ob|ectves they
have n mnd.
These types of work seem fu of promse. The pont of vew of the
younger men n these feds ndcates that the tme s now at hand when
rapd advances w be forthcomng, and from these advances fow practca
consequences of great vaue to ths naton. ( uoted n the mercan Psy-
choogst, 3, p. 67.)
It s not ony the educatona eaders who fee ths way. brares
report that crcuaton of books on psychoogy and personaty s
hgher than t has ever been. Coeges report that enroment n
psychoogy courses ncreased sharpy after ord ar II. Current
best-seer sts are headed by such ttes as The Mature Mnd by
0verstreet, Peace of Mnd by ebman, or Peace of Sou by Sheen,
a books whch attempt to te man how he shoud ad|ust to an n-
creasngy threatenng word. Socety s turnng to the scences of
human reatons, to psychoogy, and partcuary to the psychoogy
of personaty. hy
e ander (1942) has suggested an answer. 0n the bass of hs
e perence as a psychoanayst he argues that peope become con-
cerned wth ther own nner workngs n tmes of pan and troube,
when thngs are not gong rght n the outsde word. e attrbutes
our present concern wth psychoogy to the dsasters whch threaten
to overwhem us from wthout from word wars and the great ad-
vances n technques of mass destructon of human fe. port puts
t ths way: henever one s unabe to acheve, or contnue n, a
condton of frendy reatons wth the envronment, he must per-
force pay attenton to hs own shortcomngs, and thereby become
acutey aware of the ncompatbty between hmsef and the phys-
ca and soca word outsde, and of hs soaton. In peasure, when
everythng s gong we, hs separaton s not fet but pan s a-
ways referred to the sef. (1937, p. 164.) Ths s |ust as true of na-
tons as t s of ndvduas, argues e ander. hen an empre
begns to crumbe, when a state s unsuccessfu n war or turns from
prosperty to depresson, ts ctzens often turn to sef-e amnaton,
to try to fnd out what the troube s. e ander ustrates hs pont
from hstory, ctng, for nstance, the changes n the nteectua c-
mate of thens durng the ong and costy wars wth Sparta. Durng
the Goden ge of Perces thens had been prosperous and proud,
. 4 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P PS0N ITY: T IST0PY 0 I
a great center of earnng and cuture. Phosophers ke Thaes and
Democrtus at ths tme were chefy nterested n understandng the
physca word. Then came the ong and costy Peoponnesan ar.
thenan phosophers ke Socrates and Pato n ths tme of great
strfe and matera reverses turned ther attenton from the e terna
word to sef-e amnaton, from probems of cosmoogy and physcs
to probems of ethcs and psychoogy. In the words of Socrates
motto, taken supposedy from the Dephc orace, the great ob|ect
of d1ought was to know thysef. Socrates turned away from spec-
uatons about the outsde word, and devoted hmsef to an attempt
to appy the scentfc method to conduct as thoroughy as t was ap-
ped every day to technca processes of manufacture. e repudated
as a useess abor a attempts to know the word wthout. Its changes
are n the hands of the gods, who have hdden knowedge of them
from men. Conduct, on the other hand, s our affar. ( ndsay,
1935, p. .) Socrates dffered from many of the other skeptcs of
hs tme n beevng that man coud know hmsef. e had fath
n man s abty to arrve at utmate truth, at east so far as human
conduct was concerned. Sef-knowedge was the path to sef-contro
whch n turn was the path to the savaton of the state n a co-
apsng matera word. Ths fath was a knd of heroc ast stand
n the face of destructon from wthout. It s poetcay refected n
eschyus great drama Prometheus n whch the hero utmatey
wns out by a supreme act of sef-asserton, by hodng fast to hs
secret knowedge despte a the tortures to whch fate and the gods
sub|ect hm. ut the fath was not destned to ast. ready n
Sophoces great drama 0edpus Pe there are ntmatons of ev
forces at work wthn man whch w brng hs downfa. St ater
n Greek hstory we come across a pay ke urpdes Medea n
whch the hatred and |eaousy of a woman refect fuy the uncon-
troabe forces at work n the human personaty. ere there s
none of Socrates optmsm about knowedge and contro of human
nature nstead there s ncreasng fear of unknowabe ev forces
wthn man as we as wthout.
terna dsaster therefore may ead to nterest n personaty but
t does not necessary produce the fath that one can understand and
contro t. The ebrews stand as a sharp contrast to the Greeks n
ths respect. They, too, after a bref perod of gory under Davd,
were a dspossessed, unsuccessfu naton buffeted about on a geo-
graphca brdge between three great empres. They, too, turned n-
ward n ther attempt to dscover why thngs were gong so bady.
5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The nward search s most vvdy descrbed n the book of |ob.
|ob sts at hs campfre wth hs three counseors n great matera
dstress and sufferng and wants to know why why shoud a ths
have happened to hm hat has he done wrong asn t he obeyed
God s aws ow can he reguate hs fe so as to avod dsaster
fter much sou searchng, he receves an answer whch s qute
dfferent from the one that Socrates found at Deph. The voce n
the whrwnd appears and tes |ob that he s wrong even to ask
such questons. To try to know God s w s tsef snfu, a sgn that
man has set hmsef up aganst God n wantng to know so much.
|ob must reaze and accept hs nabty to know such thngs, hs
poweressness: Canst thou draw evathan wth a fshhook hat
s man that thou art mndfu of hm These are the atttudes to-
ward man found n eary ebrew thought, and they are very dffer-
ent from those e pressed by Pato and Socrates, who had such great
fath n man s power to know hmsef and fnd hs own savaton.
In eary 0d Testament thought there s a profound pessmsm, a
convcton that even the wsh to know s tsef bad, as t presumes
too much. The story of dam and ve has the same mora: now-
edge beongs to God the mpuse to know s dangerous and snfu,
a symptom of man s dsobedence and sef-w.
estern cvzaton nherted from these two great tradtons
two qute dfferent beefs about whether human nature coud or
shoud be known or not. oth the ebrews and the Greeks had been
stmuated by matera dstress nto thnkng about man s nature,
but they had come to dfferent concusons. The ebrews fet that
there were dark nscrutabe forces wthn human nature |ust as there
were n the outsde word and that even the wsh to understand them
was n tsef bad, n fact a symptom of those ev forces themseves
at work. The Greeks, on the other hand, at east n the tme of Pato
and Socrates, fet that man by reasonng coud arrve at understand-
ng and contro of hmsef. They dd not whoy overook the rra-
tona eements n human nature. In fact ook I of Pato s
Pepubc contans a remarkabe account of the acton of the un-
necessary peasures and desres.
0f the unnecessary peasures and desres, some seem to me to be unaw-
fu. They are probaby nnate n everyone, but f dscpned by aw and by
the better desres, and wth the assstance of reason, they may n some men
be entrey eradcated, or at east eft few and weak, whe n other men
they are stronger and more numerous.
nd what are those desres he asked.
6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P PS0N ITY: T IST0PY 0b I
Those that are actve durng seep, I answered. hen the rest of sou,
the reasonng, gente, and rung part of t s aseep, the besta and savage
part, when t has had ts fu of food or wne, begns to eap about, pushes
seep asde, and tres to go and gratfy ts nstncts. You know how n such
a state t w dare anythng as though t were freed and reeased from a
shame or dscernment. It does not shrnk from attemptng ncestua nter-
course, n ts dream, wth a mother, or wth any man or god or beast. It s
ready for any deed of bood, and there s no unhaowed food t w not
eat. In a word, t fas short of no e treme of foy or shameessness. ( nd-
say s transaton, 1935, p. 6g.)
Ths passage s unusua n two respects: It descrbes wth startng
accuracy the dream matera whch centures ater was to provde
the bass for the reudan revouton n psychoogy and t refects
Pato s deep convcton that the unawfu, nstnctua sde of human
nature coud be sub|ected to ratona contro, a convcton that was
aso shared by reud.
The story of a eef. th such an nhertance from opposng
Greek and ebrew tradtons t can hardy be wondered that beefs
about the feasbty of a scentfc approach to personaty swung
from one e treme to another at dfferent perods n the hstory of
estern cvzaton. In tmes of matera crss, psychoogy, as usua,
came to the fore, but sometmes wth hope and sometmes wth de-
spar. The gradua breakup of the Poman mpre found men ke
Marcus ureus greaty concerned wth nner peace and argung
that no matter what happened n the outsde word, one coud a-
ways reman untouched by ev and tragedy n the nmost ctade of
hs mnd. ater ugustne was aso concerned over the source of ev
and fnay ocated t n man hmsef, n hs wfu attempt to ds-
obey God by tryng to understand thngs by hmsef. ugustne
brought somethng new nto the pcture by managng to combne
both the Greek and ebrew tradtons n a curous way. ke the
ebrews he fet that man by hmsef was hepess, but f he sur-
rendered competey to God and attempted to do God s w, he
mght then accompsh a thngs. Thus a knd of compromse was
arrved at over the feasbty of understandng human nature, a
compromse whch permtted and even requred such knowedge but
accordng to a set of estabshed doctrna rues. Thus the great
medeva schoastc synthess was made possbe. 0ne of ts ma|or
tenets was that athough man mght not know hmsef, snce even to
attempt to do so was a sgn of dsobedence and sn, he mght wth
God s hep work out a system of sef-contro and obedence whch
7
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ed to savaton. Thus the great schoastcs ke Thomas qunas
spent ther energes n a somewhat contradctory enterprse: the
attempt to work out by reason what reason utmatey coud not
understand. hat made the enterprse possbe was the fath that
God was reveang hmsef to man n hs efforts, but any tte ev-
dence that man mght be wantng to know these thngs on hs own
accord, out of hs own desres, had to be rgorousy suppressed as a
agn of dsobedence. ugustne reates how he had to check hmsef
when he found he was dy watchng a spder spn her web and won-
derng how she dd t. ven such a tny mpuse of curosty (and
hence sef-w) had to be suppressed.
Such an atttude had mportant consequences as to the theory of
human nature whch dd deveop. In the frst pace, the unverse be-
came anthropocentrc. geography, the entre physca word, even
the stars above, were arranged n accordance wth a mora aw whch
apped not ony to human conduct but to the unverse wthout as
we. In Dante s Dvne Comedy, whch eptomzes ths trend, though
perhaps wth some poetc cense, the earth s conceved as specay
desgned wth a deep pt to hande dfferent types of human snners,
and the panetary orbts n the heavens as created to receve dffer-
ent knds of sants. In short, the unverse was conceved as but
accordng to the demands of the psychoogca mode of the tmes.
Psychoogy,, n the regous sense, rued supreme over a the
branches of knowedge. In the second pace, as present-day psychoo-
gsts mght have tod the schoastcs, a psychoogca theory whch
demanded such rgorous contro and suppresson of antsoca, n-
stnctua desres utmatey ed to the pro|ecton of these mpuses
nto the outsde unverse, and men n the Mdde ges became ob-
sessed by the greatest fear of wtchcraft n the hstory of estern
cvzaton. The attempt at ratona mastery and contro of ev
mpuses accordng to the demands of Chrstan aw ony forced men
to dsown those mpuses and utmatey to attrbute them to devs,
wtches, and sorcerers. The pro|ecton was made easy by the beef
that the unverse was organzed entrey around man. t ths pont
man was perhaps farthest from reay understandng hmsef and
from beevng that he ever coud understand hmsef, athough at
the conscous eve schoastc psychoogy of the tme ntended |ust
such an understandng.
The Penassance broke up ths pattern of beefs. Technca n-
ventons (gunpowder, prntng), voyages of dscovery to the New
ord, regous revot, the revva of Greek earnng, a combned

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
to produce ma|or upheavas n every sphere of fe, but psychoog-
cay ther mpact was the same: Man began to regan fath n hm-
sef and n hs own powers. Pabeas e presses ths new fath and
vgor perhaps more vvdy than any other fgure of hs tme. s
hero Pantagrue s a usty nfant from brth, demonstratng hs great
powers n a matters, from se to athetcs or the Greek casscs. e
typfes man s renewed fath n hmsef, a fath whch was soon to
|ustfy tsef n man s great and argey successfu scentfc conquest
of the physca unverse. htehead (1925) cas the perod 1550-
1660 the Century of Genus, a century whch saw pubshed the
great dscoveres of eper, Gaeo, Descartes, Pasca, Newton, etc.
0nce agan the pattern of ancent Greece seemed to be repeatng t-
sef. Man s great matera success n makng new nventons and
conquerng new contnents had turned scentf1c nterest to the
physca unverse and ths tme wth sgna success. There were at-
tempts to e tend the new methods of anayss to human nature
Cabans and aMettre fet that man coud be pretty we under-
stood as a machne whch operated accordng to the same prncpes
as other machnes about whch so much was beng earned. ocke
and hs sprtua descendants n the rtsh assocatonst schoo fet
that snce man was essentay a bank tabet at brth, socety had
the power to make of hm what t woud by the knd of educaton t
gave hm.
Thus the Greek fath n man s abty to know and contro hmsef
-the fath of Socrates and Pato had revved even stronger than
ever. Perhaps the most fascnatng e ampe of ts appcaton n prac-
tce s the story of how |ames M attempted to make of hs son,
|ohn Stuart M, a knd of paragon of reason. s a young boy he
was forced to read, understand, and dscuss crtcay books whch
ordnary woud be read n coege. e began to earn Greek at
three. efore he was eght hs father
. . used, as opportunty offered, to gve me e panatons and deas
respectng cvzaton, government, moraty, menta cvzaton, whch he
requred me afterwards to restate to hm n my own words. ... I was con-
tnuay ncurrng hs dspeasure by my nabty to sove dffcut probems
or whch he dd not see that I had not the necessary prevous knowedge.
(M, 1 73, pp. , 12.)
No father woud have dared attempt such an enterprse who dd not
frmy beeve that he understood human personaty and coud
therefore make of t whatever he wshed. The story of |ohn Stuart
9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
M s fe as he tes t n hs autobography s the more nterestng
because hs father s fath n hs methods proved not to be whoy
|ustfed. s the son eventuay reazes, hs father had eft out some-
thng very mportant: there was no understandng or educaton of hs
emotona fe and eventuay he fe nto a ft of proonged depres-
son. ow he recovered from ths depresson s nterestng. e de-
scrbes t thus:
I dd not thnk I coud possby bear t beyond a year. hen, however,
not more than haf that duraton of tme had eapsed, a sma ray of ght
broke n upon my goom. I was readng accdentay, Marmonte s Mem-
ores, and came to the passage whch reates hs father s death, the ds-
tressed poston of the famy, and the sudden nspraton by whch he then
a mere boy, fet and made them fee that he woud be everythng to them
woud suppy the pace of a that they had ost. vvd concepton of the
scene and ts feengs came over me, and I was moved to tears. rom ths
moment my burden grew ghter. ... I was no onger hopeess . . . thus
the coud graduay drew off, and I agan en|oyed fe. (M, 1 73, pp.
140-141.)
Nowadays a cnca psychoogst coud hardy fa to see the ds-
gused hostty whch he s abreactng here toward hs father, a
hostty whch he certany must have fet accordng to frustraton-
aggresson prncpes after beng forced to cram hs head wth deas
a day ong for years on end, amost from the moment of brth. To
a modern psychoogst the catharss and reef he fees at the thought
of hs father s death s obvous. Yet to M hmsef ths epsode obv-
ousy had no meanng. To hm t remans the mysterous occason
on whch he overcame hs meanchoy. The fath of the rtsh
ssocatonsts and others ke them who fet that man coud be
understood by reason, was unmted but ther psychoogca know-
edge dd not whoy |ustfy t.
There were, as usua, throughout a ths perod n hstory those
who had ooked at the other sde of the con and who had argued
that man, far from beng a ratona anma, was n reaty an emo-
tona, ustfu, power-mad creature. Some of them, ke Machave,
thought that man shoud smpy accept the fact that power was hs
man concern n fe and make hs arrangements accordngy, thus
revvng an dea whch had been advanced by Thrasymachus and
refuted by Socrates n Pato s Pepubc some two thousand years
earer. s usua there were many who shared ths vew: Netzsche,
Mar , Pareto, even ter and Stan, who accordng to e ander
(1942) have tended to operate n our tme as f they dd not reay
10
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
beeve n man s capacty for sef-knowedge and sef-contro. To
Mar , for nstance, the proft motve was essentay nstnctua.
There was nothng to understand and contro. Pather t had smpy
to be accepted and potca and soca arrangements made to curb
t. or ths group of men the unreasonng, nstnctua, prmtve
urges of manknd had the center of the stage, and they shaped ther
phosophes accordngy.
The reudan Pevouton. 0n to ths scene stepped reud, wth a
new dea, an dea whch was to ater once agan the beef that man
had n the feasbty of scentfc knowedge of human personaty.
In e ander s terms, reud took the frst step toward convertng
the dea of the Greeks and of ocke, the rue of reason, nto a scen-
tfc reaty. (1942, p. 112.) ven though t s obvousy unfar to
attrbute a of ths change n atttude to one man, especay when
there were many other psychoogsts who contrbuted equay to the
change n atttude, nevertheess we can dramatze the change most
easy by usng reud as an e ampe because he deat head-on wth
the ssue that had been causng confct over so many centures. s
dea was smpy ths: Man, n order to nsure the trumph of reason,
must e tend ts doman to those very unconscous, rratona ee-
ments whch had so ong shaken man s beef n the power of reason.
In hs own words, Psychoanayss s the nstrument destned for the
progressve conquest of the Id. (The go and The Id, p. 5.) e
spent hs ong fe n a reconnassance n the underword of the
aggressve, se ua, antsoca mpuses, the e stence of whch had
so ong baffed man n hs efforts for sef-contro. 0ut of hs e pora-
tons reud fashoned the ratona nstrument, psychoanayss, whch
he fet was to gve man mastery over these mpuses.
Interestngy enough, reud combned n hs own thnkng the
two great contradctory beefs about human nature that we have
traced throughout the hstory of estern cvzaton. 0n the one
hand, he had the passonate fath of the Greeks n the power of
reason and man s abty to understand hmsef. 0n the other, he
had the fascnaton wth and senstvty to the aggressve, antsoca
urges, the mportance of whch was stressed by those whom we have
d1aracterzed as beng n the ebrew tradton and as beng ut-
matey pessmstc about man. The mportant fact s that for hm
these two vews were not contradctory: he attempted at east to
e tend the rue of reason to what had been repressed and not studed
because t was so obvousy unreasonabe. ow dd he get that way
11
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
It w be worth our whe to ook nto hs fe a tte n our search
for the orgns of the beef that the scentfc study of a of persona-
ty s possbe. he t s out of the queston to attempt any serous
personaty study of reud, we can nevertheess note certan ma|or
trends n hs thnkng whch suggest what the ngredents of a stu-
dent of personaty are. s cutura envronment contaned m-
portant eements of both the Greek and ebrew tradtons. Comng
from a |ewsh famy n centra urope, he became senstzed eary
n fe to what t was ke to be socay soated and despsed as a
member of an undesrabe mnorty group. In hs fe then we fnd
repeated the panfu condtons n the outsde word whch, as we
have suggested, so often creates an nterest n the processes of human
nature. ke |ob, he mght have had reason to ask why he deserved
such treatment. More than ths, as a |ew, he was thoroughy famar
wth the ong |ewsh tradton of nterest n sufferng and n the
rratona, repressed eements of human nature. Unke |ob he re-
|ected the vew that the utmate desgn of fe was nscrutabe to
man and must be accepted as God s w. e refused to put hs trust
n God and to beeve that he coud not draw evathan wth a fsh-
hook. Sachs (1944) n typca psychoanaytca fashon argues that
reud s antauthortaran atttude derved from hs rebeon aganst
hs father, who apparenty fet that hs son was never gong to
amount to much. hatever the reason, reud dentfed hmsef
thoroughy wth the rsng tde of fath n scence whch character-
zed the ate nneteenth century. Many of the eaders n ths scentfc
movement had nherted the confdence of men ke |ames M n
the power of reason, and the great accompshments of men ke
Darwn and Spencer seemed to |ustfy ther fath. reud hmsef
started out as a boogst and woud, accordng to Sachs, have been a
great research worker n ths fed, had hs nterest not turned to
psychoogy. 0ut of these two great nfuences on hs fe, one essen-
tay |ewsh and the other Greek, came reud s synthess: Man, even
n hs most rratona, fantastc moods, can be understood by the
methods of reason and scentfc anayss. Sgnfcanty reud began
hs work wth the meanderngs of dreams and free assocatons whch
had seemed to a but the soothsayers to be ether the merest chance
happenngs or the sgns of the Dev at work. To reud nothng was
to be eft to chance, et aone to the Dev. e was to spread man s
wdest fances on the tabe and sub|ect them to scentfc dssecton
and anayss. The purpose of hs anayss was the same as t had a-
12
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ways been mastery and contro of human nature. Psychoanayss
s the nstrument for the progressve conquest of the Id.
There s one other aspect of reud s personaty whch s of nter-
est n ths connecton. e kept hs dstance from peope. More pre-
csey, there s throughout much of hs wrtng cear evdence of
pessmsm about human nature whch verges at tmes on anger and
hostty toward peope. e often fet that he was beng persecuted,
t1at peope were aganst hm (whch was often the case), and the
record of the eary days of psychoanayss s fu of quarres, |ea-
ouses, and petty hatreds, over whch reud presded n a now de-
tached, now openy hoste, but never a ovng, manner. ven to
those who knew hm best and remaned oya to hm aways, ke
Sachs, he appeared aoof, cod, and dstant, the father fgure to be
admred and respected, but hardy one for whom respect woud be
mnged wth warmth and ove. reud s angry attempts to unmask
man s regous sef-deceptons are we known. 0ne need ony run
through the ttes of some of hs books to be remnded of them: The
uture of an Iuson, Cvzaton and Its Dscontents, etc. Through
a the dsagreeabe, ordnary hdden aspects of human nature he
seemed to pck hs way carefuy, ke a man who does hs duty be-
cause he must. ke eontus n Pato s Pepubc he appears to be
forcng hmsef to ook at dead bodes because t w be good for
hm and for the word. Unmaskng man woud be a nasty |ob for
anyone, and t may have been possbe for reud ony because he
was abe to e press hs anger at man by e posng the seamy sde
of human nature.
Yet detachment n scence s an absoute necessty, however t may
be acheved. e have mentoned ths sde of reud s personaty to
ustrate ths pont. Curousy enough, Poe (1949) n her study of
emnent research scentsts n boogy and physcs has dscovered
that they too have often acheved scentfc detachment as a resut of
persona and soca maad|ustment. She fnds, for nstance, that the
typca scentst of word renown was soated n eary fe. e dd
not pay wth other chdren, was often awkward and embarrassed
1n soca reatonshps, had dffcuty fang n ove and often ap-
peared to retreat to the vory tower n order to avod the embar-
rassment of emotona contact wth others. Ths seems to be a case
where persona maad|ustment serves a usefu soca end, snce, as
Parsons ponts out (1949), affectve neutraty or detachment s
neof the prerequstes of a professona scentst. Scence n fact has
ra1sed ob|ectvty and detachment to the eve of a crcda dogma to
13
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
whch each of ts devotees must subscrbe. 0ny recenty, when ad-
vancement n the physca scences seems so threatenng, has there
been a movement to escape ths soaton and to take a mora att-
tude toward the consequences of scentfc dscovery.
Psychoogy, ke the other scences, has made a strong effort after
affectve neutraty. ut the task s harder, snce the sub|ect matter
of the scence s so very cose to the affectve fe. Detachment may
have been easy n M s tme, or even n Ttchener s, when psycho-
ogy deat wth assocatons or sensatons that seemed far removed
from the |oys and sorrows of everyday vng. ut what about a
psychoogy that attempts to dea wth the nnermost core of man s
secrets wth hs hopes, hs fears, hs hates, and |oys and sorrows
ow can we acheve the necessary ob|ectvty wth such matera,
whch s the very center of the psychoogy of personaty
Dske, anger, and pessmsm w accompsh ths end after a
fashon as they probaby dd for reud. e can keep our dstance
and reman detached f we do not ke peope. ut unfortunatey
ths atttude may aso dstort the pcture, and gve the darker sde of
man s nature an undue emphass. e need affectve neutraty, not
affectve hostty, even though the atter may correct some of the
fauts of too cose a reatonshp wth peope. second approach to
the probem s to avod the ssue atogether by skppng ghty
over the centra areas of personaty, usuay on the grounds that one
does not have the toos to dea wth them yet. storcay ths s the
poston taken by psychoogy n the Unted States. The chef reac-
ton of most sod, scentfc psychoogsts n merca to reud n
the twentes was dstaste, f not dsgust. Pavov and hs condtoned
refe es were consdered much more mportant. Much of the dstaste
for reud grew out of the ack of scentfc sophstcaton of many of
hs foowers, from ther face and dogmatc overgenerazatons
from nadequate data, and to ths e tent t was whoy |ustfed. ut
some of t seems to go beyond ths pont to a re|ecton of the very
matera wth whch psychoanaysts were attemptng to dea, how-
ever mperfecty. 0ne s remnded of the ueen s remark to her
husband n amet: Methnks he doth protest too much, my ord.
Psychoogy s earer re|ecton of psychoanayss had much that was
defensve about t. Neutraty must not be purchased at the prce of
avodng the very ssues whch mght chaenge t. mercan psycho-
ogsts are begnnng to reaze that they can no onger afford to
e pend a ther energes on depersonazed e perments wth seg-
1nenta aspects of personaty or n attempts to show that psycho-
. 14 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
anayss s unscentfc, rreevant, and sghty dsgustng (cf.
Sherf and Cantr, 1947).
thrd path to detachment s the aesthetc, apprecatve atttude
toward peope, whch port has recommended (1937) as beng the
best atttude for a good |udge of peope to assume. Many cnca
psychoogsts n partcuar have found t adaptve. Perhaps the great-
est e ampe s ans Sachs, reud s pup, whose poetc approach to
psychoanayss (cf. 194 ) s a deghtfu contrast to reud s dogged,
hard pessmsm. Sachs was one who coud see a, know a, even the
darkest regons of man s nature, and yet ove and apprecate what he
saw. Ths gves a certan baance to the pcture. It s perhaps the
best approach for poetry, for terature, for art, and perhaps even for
psychotherapy. ut t s not the way of scence. It may gve a knd of
ob|ectvty, but t does not ead to system, or to rgor, as any reader
of ans Sachs w testfy. e was not the scentst that reud was
nor dd he cam to be. The artst often fees that we murde.r to
dssect and that we must dssect to be scentsts. e do not want to
murder, even unconscousy, when we are beng scentfc.
hat then s the souton to ths demma Probaby there s none,
but the ancent one recommended by Socrates and reud, namey,
to make the probem known. avng seen the emotona probems
assocated wth the scentfc study of personaty ceary, we can, ke
one of Pogers nondrectve cents, beware of fase or nadequate
soutons ke reud s, and perhaps recognze that the neutra
atttude of scence toward peope s one we need assume ony for cer-
tan purposes. fter a, the scentfc mode of apprehendng reaty
s ony one possbe mode. person may put t on or take t off
accordng to the demands of the occason. chemst can en|oy a
steak he can aso anayze t nto ts organc compounds f he wants
o. e need not do both at once. physoogst can en|oy a cockta
wthout mentay tracng the deeterous nfuence of acoho on the
varous functons of hs body. physcst can en|oy a sunset wthout
gvng a thought to the prncpes of optcs and refracton. psycho-
ogst can ove hs wfe wthout percevng that she s reay a
mother fgure for hm. So n the foowng pages when we take a
scentfc, anaytc atttude toward personaty we w not do so wth
the mperastc noton that ths s the ony atttude whch counts.
It s merey one atttude, one whch s usefu for purposes whch we
w assume to be ours at the moment throughout the rest of the
book.
Pecognzng ths shoud not ony hep us gan an ob|ectve att-
15
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tude toward the scentfc approach to personaty t shoud aso
hep us avod some of the e cessve fath that men have at tmes had
n psychoogy and soca scence. In matera crses, as we have seen,
the demand for knowedge of human nature s so great that peope
tend to e pect too much of scence, as f t coud sove a the prob-
ems that face men. Many of these probems can be soved ony n
terms of other modes of apprehendng reaty, n terms of aesthetc
or regous modes, for nstance. The scentfc approach s merey
one among severa. There shoud be no surprse and no dsappont-
ment f t cannot answer questons whch shoud not have been put
to t n the frst pace. Scence may gve us a fuer understandng of
human personaty and ths n turn may utmatey gve us greater
contro over behavor, but decsons as to how ths knowedge s to
be used must often be made n terms of nonemprca assumptons.
0ny confuson resuts when scence assumes a for hersef. e have
seen how fath n the scentfc approach to personaty has deveoped
throughout the hstory of estern cvzaton. The e tent to whch
that fath s |ustfed can be tested n the foowng chapters, but t
shoud be |udged n terms of the mted goas whch scence has. et
us not e pect too much of scence.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. Ths chapter contans a number of generazatons for whch
adequate proof does not e st at the present tme, athough they are
commony accepted among e perts. Thnk about how evdence
mght be coected whch woud prove or dsprove them. Take, for
e ampe, the asserton that when men get nto matera dffcutes n
the outsde word, they become concerned wth ther own menta
processes. Desgn an e perment whch woud test ths hypothess
among a group of ndvduas. If you get nto dffcutes, consut
Sears (1942).
2. Suppose you found that ths hypothess was confrmed at the
ndvdua eve, woud ths |ustfy you n assumng that t hed true
for socetes aso ow woud you go about testng the hypothess as
far as socetes are concerned oud comparsons among dfferent
cutures hep ow
3. though t s commony beeved that the noton that man
s the measure of a thngs s typca at east of a certan perod n
Greek nteectua hstory, t s aso true that the Greeks often empha-
szed the power of fate or necessty as beng essentay outsde man s
contro. oud t be possbe to correate the ncdence of one or
16
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the other of these deas wth the decne of thenan matera pros-
perty hat are some of the factors other than matera progress
whch shoud contrbute to beef n man s strength or hepessness
hat about geography or cmate ow coud they support one be-
ef or the other Desgn a cross-cutura test for any hypothess you
advance. eefs about man s reaton to nature w be dscussed
agan n Chapter .
4. In what way s the beef n uncontroabe forces n human
nature strengthened by attempts at ratona sef-contro hy aren t
attempts at sef-contro aways sef-defeatng
5. Granted that there s as much an ety over and fear of se ua
and antsoca mpuses n some crces today as there was n the
Mdde ges, why s beef n wtchcraft ess key to occur today
or dscussons of wtchcraft n the Mdde ges see boorg (1941)
for a hstorca account Mann s Dr. austus (194 ) for an magna-
tve reconstructon and Seabrook (1940) for a dscusson of con-
temporary beefs n wtchcraft. Show how wtchcraft s reated to
reud s noton of omnpotence of thought (cf. Totem and Taboo,
191 ).
6. e have suggested that the quates of senstvty and detach-
ment are necessary for a good personaty psychoogst. hat e acty
s meant by detachment hy s t necessary hy shoud there be
resstances aganst assumng such an atttude hat woud be the
consequences of mantanng such an atttude consstenty n a
one s reatonshps to peope re there other quates whch are
necessary for the scentfc student of personaty
7. hy was reud s attempt to unmask man dangerous hat s
the technca name for the defense mechansm we have argued he
adopted to cope wth ths danger
. hat are the ams of cnca psychoogy ow do they dffer
from those of scentfc personaty study Can a scentst show
warmth as a cncan shoud hat vaue assumptons does the
operatng cnca psychoogst make Can they be proved or ds-
proved
9. hat are some of the assumptons that the scentfc approach
to personaty makes Coud the nu hypothess that man s no
dfferent from a tree or a stone and can be understood by an e ten-
son of the same technques ever be dsproved Is t n the ream of
proof or dsproof
10. hat vaue for scence do certan nonemprca assumptons
have Consder an e ampe from soca psychoogy: hat woud be
17
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the dsadvantages (f any) for scence of makng the beef that
Negroes, or some other mnorty group, shoud not be dscrmnated
aganst contngent on the emprca fndng that ther ntegence
was the same on the average as for other groups 0ne smpe way of
testng whether or not a beef s based on emprca or nonemprca
grounds s to try to thnk of condtons whch woud dsprove t. If
you can thnk of no way of dsprovng a beef or of fndng evdence
that woud ead you to abandon t, then the beef may be sad to
be hed on nonemprca grounds. Scence usuay tres to reduce
such beefs to a mnmum, but a certan number may actuay fa-
ctate the coecton of evdence. Show how ths woud work for
mnorty groups. Show how the assumpton that every ndvdua s
worthy of respect as an artce of fath (based on nonemprca
grounds) mght factate the coecton of evdence on a partcuar
ndvdua as compared wth the beef that an ndvdua s worthy
of respect ony f the evdence warrants t. The essenta dfference
between the two beefs s that the former s presumaby not changed
by whatever facts are coected about the person, ether postve or
negatve, whereas the atter s. re there other ways of keepng ev-
dence and |udgment about peope separate than by makng certan
nonemprca, nonscentfc assumptons to start wth Show how the
consderatons dscussed here mght make the scentfc study of
ter s or Goerng s personaty e ceedngy dffcut (cf. eey,
1947). Ths queston w be dscussed agan n Chapter 3.
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0btan ng the acts
ath has grown n the appcabty of the scentfc method to
the study of personaty. ut s that fath |ustfed rea answer to
such a queston requres consderaton n concrete deta of the way
n whch scentfc method can be used to study personaty. It may
hep by way of contrast to begn wth an unscentfc approach to
personaty that s, wth a frst mpresson such as anyone mght
form on observng another person. avng started wth a competey
natura and scentfcay unsophstcated portrat of an ndvdua,
we can then see how varous methodoogca mprovements mght be
ntroduced to make the portrat nto a scentfcay satsfactory one.
Students n a personaty cass were asked to wrte a frst mpres-
son of another person they had observed brefy. Two of them hap-
pened to observe the same person and wrote reports as foows:
rst Student s Impresson of Mr. P.
Pecenty whe attendng a basketba game n artford wth severa
frends, I had an opportunty to make a snap |udgment of an ndvdua s
personaty and a chance to check ths |udgment through an e tended con-
versaton wth the sub|ect. The sub|ect sat n front of us and my frst m-
presson was ganed from gazng at hs back and profe, and overhearng
severa remarks that he made concernng the contest and reated affars.
Mr. P. mpressed me as beng about forty-eght years od, husky but,
wthout the fabbness that usuay typfes men of hs age, we dressed n
the atest vogue. In hs dress he appeared to be tryng to gve both the m-
presson of conservatsm and the fashness of youth. Ths same contradc-
ton appeared n hs manner n other ways. Most of the tme he sat back
wth the reserved, detached ar of a casua observer but often he seemed
to fee that he must show hs youth and vtaty by enterng verbay and
physcay nto the sprt of the game.
Mr. P. was undoubtedy e ceptonay we acquanted wth the game and
ts termnoogy, aso wth the payers and the schoos whch they repre-
sented more so than woud be e pected from a casua spectator. e gave
the mpresson, often seemngy ntentonay, that he was n some way
attached to the game, the schoos, or the payers. (It ater turned out that
he s a coach at one of the pubc hgh schoos.)
|udgng from the tone of hs voce and tenor of remarks, Mr. P. appeared
to be defntey domnatng, e troverted, confdent, and sef-centered. These
19 -
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
are ony snap |udgments whch accounts for the confct between a coupe
of the trats. s s so often true, I was attracted by the man because I ds-
ked hm from the mnute he voced hs frst opnon. or ths reason my
whoe mpresson was undoubtedy tanted, but on takng wth the sub|ect
and wth other peope who knew hm we, I found that most of the above
|udgments were correct.
Second Student s Impresson of Mr. P.
Mr. P. s a mdde-aged, pyknc type of ndvdua, who seems to have
found hs staton n fe and seems content wth t. s outward appearance
ndcated a mdde-cass man who ves comfortaby but moderatey. e s
frendy, takatve, and gregarous, as evdenced by hs contnuous conversa-
ton wth a group of us students at a basketba game. th the e cepton
of hs eyebrows and hs augh, he remnded me of a certan person on the
facuty. Teng anecdotes, beng one of the boys, en|oyng and de-
srng the center of attracton woud probaby be some promnent charac-
terstcs of hs. eneath hs easy-gong, |ocuar smoke there s probaby
a smmerng temper whch ready steams f suffcenty stmuated. e s
not one to be contradcted or provoked e tensvey. s curosty about the
coachng staff and about who the rea footba coach s, fe n wth
my genera pcture of hm when I earned that he was a coach hmsef.
urther mpressons about hs kng for boys, or sportsmanshp, and
athetcs are merey mentoned n the ght of ths secondary nformaton.
The over-a recoecton of hm was favorabe.
s we ook at these two |udgments of the same person, based on
observatons made at the same tme, we are struck by both the sm-
artes and the dfferences n the opnons of the |udges. 0n one stu-
dent Mr. P. made a favorabe mpresson. 0n the other he dd not.
0n more obvous trats, such as hs takatveness and hs knowedge
of the game, both |udges agreed, athough t s worth notng that
whereas one of them referred to hm as gregarous, the other caed
what was probaby the same behavor e troverson. hen one
puts such dverse |udgments and mpressons as these sde by sde, t
does appear that the task before the psychoogy of personaty s a
dffcut one ndeed. ow are these dfferng pctures to be recon-
ced hat s the man s true personaty ow are we to go about
fndng out what hs true personaty s
ven n such uncontroed observatons as these, however, the ee-
ments for begnnng a systematc study of personaty are present. In
the frst pace both |udges made some actua observatons of be-
havor. They noted hs bue sut, hs |ocuar, easygong manner, hs
takatveness, the fact that he knew a ot about the game they
20
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
notced hs physque, hs tone of voce, the number of tmes that he
spoke wth the peope around hm. These are the actua facts on
whch an mpresson of personaty s but. Secondy, both |udges
used some sort of genera concepts to descrbe the behavor they had
notced. These concepts ncuded such terms as mdde-cass, a coach,
e troverted. 0ne |udge sad that he had a smmerng temper. In
ths case the |udge borrowed a term from another knd of e perence
(wth bong water) to descrbe a partcuar aspect of Mr. P. s be-
havor. nay both |udges had an over-a pcture of the person.
They ntegrated ther observatons nto an over-a mpresson whch
they ether ked or dsked.
Thus we can see that even the most na1ve mpresson of a person
nvoves three eements: observaton, conceptuazaton, and ntegra-
ton. e can begn understandng the scentfc approach to per-
sonaty by studyng the mprovements whch scence has ntroduced
n each of these three parts of the process of constructng an adequate
personaty portrat. Pefnements n the methods of makng observa-
tons w be dscussed n ths chapter, and mprovements n concep-
tuazaton and ntegraton w be dscussed n the succeedng two
chapters.
0 S P TI0N
Scence generay has progressed when man has nvented new tech-
nques for makng hs observatons precse. 0rgnay man had to
ook at the stars wth hs naked eye. s knowedge of astronomy has
ncreased amost n e act proporton to the senstvty of the nstru-
ments that he has been abe to nvent to ad hs naked eye. Psycho-
ogy s no e cepton n ths respect. Makng an observaton such as
the students reported above s no easy task for t nvoves attendng
to a number of dfferent thngs at once. s Murray (193 ) has ponted
out, there are severe mtatons set by nature on perceptua abty.
man can ony take n so much at a gance and he can ony ook
from one pace to another |ust so fast. he the observer s stenng
to what Mr. P. says, he may not notce that Mr. P. s scratchng hm-
sef wth hs eft hand, shovng hs knee nto the back of the spectator
beow, and avdy foowng every pay of the game. There are aso
the mtatons arsng from the observer s set. e sees to some e tent
what he e pects to see, what he s ookng for. nay he must trans-
ate what he sees nto some knd of |udgment and, f eft to hs own
devces, he w doubtess pck some method of e pressng hs |udg-
ment whch s unke that whch woud be used by any other |udge.
0ne of the most strkng thngs about the two mpressons of Mr. P.
21
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
s that the very dfference n the termnoogy the observers used
woud make t qute dffcut to obtan a reconcaton of ther vews.
fforts to mprove observaton have been drected both toward re-
fnng and agreeng on terms n whch the |udgments w be made
and toward mprovng the technques of actuay percevng the be-
havor of the sub|ects studed.
Improvng the ay n hch |udgments re Made. storcay
the earest attempts to mprove observaton centered around refn-
ng the |udgng process. The goa was to get observer agreement on
what had actuay taken pace, a goa whch arose from the convc-
ton that t woud certany be mpossbe to deveop a scence of
personaty uness observers coud agree on the stubborn rreduc-
be facts to start wth. th attenton focused so eary on ths goa,
much has been earned about how |udgments may be mproved, the
ordnary crteron for mprovement beng whether the |udgments are
reabe. Peabty n ths conte t refers to whether |udges agree on
what the facts are. It s ordnary measured quanttatvey by cor-
reatng ratngs made under dentca condtons by two or more
|udges or by correatng successve ratngs by the same |udge. Syrn-
onds (1931) and more recenty rech and Crutchfed (Chapter 7,
194 ) have covered very thoroughy most of the advances n ths
fed. e need ony touch on some of the man ponts very brefy
as foows:
1. greement on the terms to be used. The very frst and most ee-
mentary probem n |udgment s to decde what categores or what
dmensons of behavor are gong to be observed. These categores
or dmensons must then be defned as carefuy as possbe so that
a peope usng them w understand them n the same way. 0ne
of the smpest forms n whch such a set of categores can occur s
the check st. In the check st severa behavor categores are de-
fned, such as takng, aughng, wakng, or standng st,
and the |udge smpy checks whether or not the behavora tem n
queston occurs durng a gven tme perod. though such categores
as those |ust mentoned are usuay reaby |udged (wth observer
agreement correatons of .90 or better), they may have mted
psychoogca sgnfcance. Consequenty e permenters have repeat-
edy tred to get |udges to make decsons about more compe char-
acterstcs such as eadershp, adaptabty, frendness, honesty, and
ntegrty. Pepeated e permentaton has shown that as one moves
from smpe overt behavor to more compe personaty varabes,
22
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
such as ntegrty, the reabty of the |udgments decreases (Sym-
onds, 1931). |udges fnd t more and more dffcut to agree as the
varabe becomes more compe .
In recent years, rather good observer agreement has been obtaned
for fary compe |udgments provded the behavor n queston can
be observed over and over agan as n a wrtten record ke the
Thematc ppercepton Test. ere the |udge may have to de-
cde whether the person s dspayng a compe characterstc
such as need for ff1aton or ggresson. Yet McCeand, Cark,
Poby, and tknson (1949) and Tomkns (1947) report observer
agreement correatons up to .96 for |udgments of ths sort, even
though they requre the |udge to categorze the meanng of the be-
havor n the protocos rather than |ust the words or acts them-
seves. The advantage of workng wth a wrtten record es n the
fact that the |udge may revew the behavor as often as he wants be-
fore he makes a decson, whch s not the case when he s checkng
behavor as t occurs or when he s asked to rate a person s frend-
ness on the bass of hs recoecton of an ndefnte number of pror
ncdents. It s not therefore so surprsng that |udgments of ncreas-
ngy compe characterstcs can be reaby made as the behavor on
whch they are based s avaabe for repeated observaton.
2. uantfcaton: scang and rankng. fter t has been decded
what categores are to be used, a common ne t step has been to ask
the |udge to scae hs |udgment n some quanttatve way. The check
st smpy asks the |udge to record presence or absence of an tem,
whereas a ratng scae may be gven the |udge so that he can ndcate
the degree to whch the sub|ect shows the characterstc n queston.
0bserver agreement n ratng has been found to be a functon of
such varabes as the number of steps n the scae and the carefuness
wth whch each step s defned. s an ustraton of a typca ratng
scae et us consder the foowng tem deang wth the e tent to
whch a person dspays eadershp.
Does he
get others
to do as
he wshes
Probaby
ets
Sometmes
Sometmes
Dspays marked
unabe to
others
eads n
eads n
abty to ead
ead hs
take
mnor
mportant
hs feows
feows
ead
affars
affars
makes thngs go
( fter Symonds, 1931, p. 70.)
23 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Note that the steps defne appro mate ncreases n the frequency
wth whch the sub|ect takes the ead n varous stuatons. Note aso
that the |udge may make fve ma|or dscrmnatons or as many fner
ones as he wshes, snce ths s a graphc ratng scae. In genera t has
been found that fve to seven dscrmnatons or steps on the scae
yed the hghest observer reabty (Symonds, 1931). 0ften many
dscrmnatons are permtted the |udge but the e permenter then
categorzes the |udgments n reatvey few casses to obtan ths
hgher reabty. 0ne of the probems wth ratng scaes of ths sort
s that |udges tend to use dfferent portons of the scae, whch makes
|udgments not comparabe. Ths dffcuty can be met to some e tent
by convertng each |udge s ratngs nto standard scores n terms of
the mean and dstrbuton of hs own |udgments. Usuay some at-
tempt to nform |udges about dstrbutng ther decsons w aso
hep normaze the dstrbuton of ther |udgments. Graphc ads and
speca nstructons have been devsed for ths purpose. Most e perts
n ths fed cauton e permenters aganst forcng the |udges to make
quanttatve decsons of ths sort when they do not fee abe to do
so. treme ratngs and ones of whch the |udges are confdent are
apt to be most reabe. In some cases therefore a ratng scae, though
easy devsed, s no mprovement over a smpe check st.
Indvduas may aso be ranked wth respect to a partcuar charac-
terstc, snce |udges often fnd t easer to compare ndvduas than
to estmate how much of a characterstc each one has. Pankng may
be very carefuy done by the method of pared comparsons n whch
each person s compared wth every other one. It too has ts prob-
ems, however. 0n the practca sde, f there are too many peope
to rank, the task may become too dffcut for the |udges. 0n the
theoretca sde t s sometmes hard to know how to treat the data
obtaned, as for nstance when nconsstent crces arse ( ,
C, C ). Pecent deveopments n the statstcs of rankng
( enda, 194 ) promse to ncrease the usefuness of ths technque.
3. The number of |udgments. s Symonds states (1931, p. 5), Pe-
abe evdence must be mutped evdence. Under most condtons
the greater the number of tmes a gven |udgment can be made, the
more confdence can be paced n the reabty of the |udgment. ven
the cncan workng wth a pro|ectve technque recognzes the m-
portance of ths when he shows more than one nkbot to hs sub|ect.
The snge occurrence of a form response to a snge nkbot s not
consdered a dependabe nde of the tendency of the sub|ect to use
form responses n hs approach to unstructured matera. 0f course
. 24
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
there are tmes when ony one |udgment s possbe (a cose pay at
frst base) or when ncreasng the number of |udgments w destroy
the vadty of the |udgment tsef. or e ampe, f the |udgments are
spread over too ong a tme, the resutng average may obscure a
genune trend.
4. The number of |udges. Increasng the number of |udges n-
creases the stabty of ther decsons. Symonds (1931, p. 96) presents
a tabe showng how many ndependent |udgments are needed to
acheve a hgh reabty coeffcent. To get a coeffcent of .90 the
number of |udgments vares from four for a ratng on schoarshp to
eghteen for a ratng on mpusveness. The vrtue of havng more
than one |udge has mpressed some psychoogsts so much that they
have concuded that the opnon of a arge number of |udges s the
most :/ , (/ |udgment of a trat that can be obtaned. u (192 ), for
e ampe, averaged the ratngs of a whoe fraternty on each of the
members of the fraternty. he ths w gve a very reabe |udg-
ment, n the sense that the average ratng on a gven group of sub|ects
by twenty |udges w be very cose to that gven by twenty other
|udges, t s, of course, no guarantee that the |udgment s accurate.
The |udgment of any one fraternty member may actuay be more
vad or correct than the combned group |udgment, no matter how
reabe t s.
5. Patng errors. Much attenton has been gven to correctng for
systematc errors whch may creep nto |udgments. The hao error
resuts from a |udge aowng a genera mpresson to nfuence hs
ratng on specfc trats. The generosty error resuts from the
tendency of |udges to overestmate the good quates of sub|ects they
ke. Such errors may often be corrected by convertng a |udge s
ratngs to standard scores around hs own average |udgment, by
speca nstructons to the |udge, by reversng the ends of a ratng
scae so that they run from hgh to ow and then from ow to hgh,
or by other such technques.
Improvng the Condtons of 0bservaton. ookng back at the
work of our two student |udges, we note that they not ony gave
ther reports n an unsystematc manner, but they aso observed
under very uncontroed condtons. ach one probaby observed
Mr. P. at dfferent tmes durng the evenng and under varous ds-
tractng nfuences from watchng the game and takng wth frends.
Scentsts workng n ths fed soon reaze that no matter how care-
fuy they defne the categores of |udgment or how many |udges
25 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
they use to observe an event, f the condtons of observaton are not
controed, agreement s mpossbe to obtan. or e ampe, Pay
(1947) has shown a fm of a smpe hod-up scene to a cass of stu-
dents. ven though the students are warned as to the genera nature
of the scene, and though the scene tsef s ony one mnute n dura-
ton, he found that the students made many errors n answers to the
specfc questons asked afterward as to what took pace. Many of
these errors of observaton were made even though the sub|ects were
asked to say whether they woud swear to the |udgment or not n a
court of aw. To take an e treme e ampe, n answer to the queston
as to whether the woman n the pcture was ta, short, or medum
n heght, more peope gave ncorrect |udgments than correct |udg-
ments. Ths and many other smar e perments demonstrate the
great mportance of mprovng the condtons under whch the
|udge s asked to report what he sees. Consderabe progress has been
made n ths drecton. The resuts of t may be summarzed as bref
advces to those pannng observaton.
1. Tran the |udges n observng the matera n queston. There
seems tte doubt that the more e perence an observer has wth the
behavor on whch he s gong to be asked for a |udgment, the better
and more accurate hs |udgments w be. Many wrters have stressed
ths (cf. Symonds, 1931)- 0ne needs ony to st by a coach at a basket-
ba game to be convnced of the mportance of ths fact. The coach
sees teray hundreds of thngs: movements, pays, fous, etc., whch
are nvsbe to the average spectator. The psychoogca process
nvoved seems to be the redntegraton of compe events from sma
cues based on past e perence. n anaogy s the dfference between
the way a chd ooks at a book when he s readng t and the way an
adut ooks at the same book. The begnner at readng has to see
neary every word, as eye-movement records w demonstrate,
whereas the e perenced reader can |ump from one porton of the
page to the ne t and redntegrate or antcpate the ntervenng por-
tons of the matera. The sked |udge works n the same way. e
has earned what comes ne t and can short-cut parts of the observng
process.
2. Smpfy what s to be observed. Great advances have been made
n ths fed through the deveopment of a technque whch has come
to be caed tme sampng. Typca of some of the better uses of ths
technque s research by Thomas, ooms, and rrngton (1933) on
chdren s behavor n a nursery-schoo stuaton, by 0son (1929)
on nervous movements, and by Sears (1942) on the motty of
26
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
adoescent boys eft aone n a room after faure. Ths work s of
such very great methodoogca mportance that t s worth whe
consderng a representatve e ampe of such a study n some deta.
report by Merr on mother-chd nteracton (1946) s an e -
ceent case n pont. She was nterested n observng accuratey the
stmuus propertes of a mother s behavor toward her chd. Ths
genera probem s of very great theoretca mportance n the fed
of personaty because of the contemporary emphass on the m-
portance of chd-rearng technques n formng basc personaty
structure. Merr, workng under Sears drecton, was faced wth the
probem of choosng categores of mother behavor whch woud be
defnabe, recognzabe, and reevant to the theoretca probem. She
decded that she woud attempt to defne varabes whch reated to
the contact between mother and chd, to the specfcty of contro
by the mother, and to factaton or nhbton of the chd s be-
havor. She deveoped some thrty-two behavor categores, of whch
the foowng are typca:
a. Mother s carryng on ndependent actvty at the adut eve any act
dvorced from the e permenta setup, or the chd, such as readng maga-
znes, ookng out the wndow, busyng sef wth contents of pocketbook.
d. Mother specfcay drects chd s actons by command or statement.
. . . ampe: Put that bock on top of the other ones . . . then make a
door rght there.
1. Mother nterferes by structurzng, nterferng, cautonng, stoppng,
etc. ampe: Don t drnk that water the cup s not cean. 0r 0h dear,
now you ve gotten your sut wet and there s qute a draft n ths room.
(Merr, 1946, pp. 40-41.)
fter memorzng the st of categores, the observer sat behnd a
one-way vson screen and watched the chd payng n the presence
of hs mother. The observer s task was to wrte down a symbo for
one of the behavor categores every fve seconds for thrty mnutes.
ght sgna marked the end of every fve-second perod. Thus t
was possbe not ony to dscover whether or not the behavor had
occurred but actuay to measure ts duraton or reatve mportance
by countng the number of checks for a gven category out of the
360 possbe checks for a haf-hour sesson. th these data t was
then possbe to measure the agreement between two observers work-
1g smutaneousy, or to measure the consstency of a mother s be-
havor from one sesson to the ne t. Merr found that her observer
agreement correatons ranged from . 6 to .92 for dfferent cate-
gores. The mothers were aso fary consstent n the amount of a
27
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
partcuar knd of behavor they showed on dfferent occasons. The
correatons for reatve amount of a certan type of response shown
on two occasons vared from .33 to .92 (medan around .65) depend-
ng on the response.
Snce Merr now knew that the observatons she was makng
were reabe and consstent under norma condtons, she was abe
to ntroduce an e permenta varabe to see what effect t had on
materna behavor. The varaton she ntroduced n ths partcuar
case was to motvate the mothers to have ther chdren do we by
teng them that she fet ther chdren coud pay better than they
had n the prevous sesson. She found a sgnfcant ncrease n the
amount of drectng and nterferng behavor on the part of the
mothers. The great methodoogca mportance of ths e permenta
fndng s that Merr was not |ust reyng on over-a mpressons or
ratngs on the part of observers as to whether the mother nterfered
more on the second occason. She was not smpy mutpyng |udges
to get perhaps stabe but naccurate |udgments. Instead, she had
actua quanttatve records whch showed that the mother s behavor
had changed n the drecton ndcated and by such and such an
amount.
The vaue of ths approach can scarcey be overemphaszed. It
shoud be apped wth ncreasng frequency to observatons of ths
sort, even n fed studes done by anthropoogsts and others. The
reason for ths can be made cearer by an e ampe. et us take an
tem n the 0utne of Cutura Materas (formery the Cross-Cu-
tura Survey) kept at Yae Unversty whch deas wth severty of
ceanness tranng n varous cutures (tem 63). 0ne anthropoo-
gst ntervews a number of nformants n a gven cuture or makes
certan observatons whch are the bass for a descrpton of methods
of teachng chdren to wash, bathe, and groom themseves ncuca-
ton of standards of ceanness, neatness, etc. nother anthropoo-
gst gets matera on the same ssues (whch s one great methodoog-
ca mprovement of the 0utne) n another cuture. ut comparson
of ther reports s st dffcut wthout more standardzaton of the
condtons of observaton. If both of them coud make the same ob-
servatons and f they coud make them under tme-sampng cond-
tons, such as those |ust descrbed, t woud be much easer to decde
whch cuture n fact has more severe ceanness tranng.
3. Pemove the observer from the mmedate stuaton. 0ne of the
common dffcutes n observng s that the observer s often takng
2
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
part n the e perence whch he s tryng to record. Ths may rad-
cay change the behavor of the person beng watched or t may
make the observaton naccurate because of the necessty of respond-
ng to the stuaton as we as recordng t. 0bservaton of ths sort
s much ke tryng to turn up the gas to get a better ook at the dark,
to use am |ames neat ustraton.
The probem can be met n a varety of ways. The recordng can
be done by another nonpartcpatng observer or by an nstrument
or t can be done by provdng a one-way vson screen through whch
an observer can record the behavor wthout nterferng at a wth
t or the roe of the partcpant observer can be fary ceary defned
so that even though he s present, hs effect to some e tent can be
aowed for ahead of tme. n e ampe of the ast approach s Do-
ard s descrpton of hs roe as a fed worker n hs book Caste and
Cass n a Southern Town (1937). In hs ntroducton Doard states
very carefuy who he s and what hs presence n a southern town as
an ntervewer on raca probems woud mean to the person beng
ntervewed. In other words, the observer can attempt to defne hs
own stmuus vaue to the peope beng observed before he begns hs
work. Ths shoud serve to ncrease the accuracy of hs observatons or,
what s more mportant, of the nterpretaton whch he or others put
on hs observatons.
4. Pecord the data for future content anayss. No matter how
carefuy the e permenter defnes hs categores, t st w be dff-
cut for an observer to get very accurate |udgments of some compe
scenes, partcuary as they occur n the fed. It was one of the ad-
vantages of Merr s study that the mother and chd were somewhat
crcumscrbed n what they coud do snce she paced them n a
rather sma payroom wth a mted number of pay ob|ects and
asked them to stay there for a gven perod of tme. These condtons
cannot aways be fufed. Consequenty, great efforts have been
made to record an event accuratey whe t s takng pace and
then to make observatona |udgments ater. The advantages of re-
cordng are that the observer can make hs |udgments under optma
vewng or percevng condtons, that he can make them as many
tmes as he wants to, f the record s such that he can ook at t agan
and agan, and that as many dfferent observers as necessary can vew
the event. Methods for recordng behavor have mproved greaty n
the past ten years. They may be grouped under the foowng head-
ngs.
29
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
( ) PITT N P PS0N D0CUM NTS. G. . port has summa-
rzed aby the uses to whch persona documents can be put n psy-
choogca scence (1942). They have aways been of great nterest,
but not unt recenty have psychoogsts recognzed ther methodo-
ogca vaue. y and arge they have been consdered by aboratory
psychoogsts as good cnca toos but of tte use to quanttatve
scence. Pecent advances have shown ths s not necessary the
case. It s possbe to defne a set of behavor or content categores,
much ke those chosen by Merr (1946), whch can be apped
to wrtten behavor contaned n persona documents. McCeand,
tknson, Cark, and Poby (1949) have apped |ust such a set of
categores to Thematc ppercepton Test stores and have found
that observers can agree n assgnng certan wrtten statements to
these categores wth a coeffcent of correaton varyng from .91
to .96. Doard and Mowrer (1947) report smary hgh agreement
correatons for categorzaton of wrtten matera n a case work-
er s record. Ths approach s so reatvey recent that perhaps a
concrete e ampe s desrabe. Theoretcay any wrtten record s
a pece of frozen behavor and can be sub|ected to content
anayss. ctuay, dfferent ways of obtanng the record have sug-
gested dfferent methods of categorzaton, but for the sake of sm-
pcty and easy comparson, we w appy severa dfferent
methods to the same record. Suppose we take a typca Thematc
ppercepton Test story wrtten down as t s tod:
1. Ths boy s father was a famous concert vonst before he was born.
a. Unfortunatey,
3. he ost hs fe n a tragc accdent.
4. e was drowned.
. 5. s wfe was pregnant
6. and had ths chap.
7. Mght add that hs father was at the peak of fame.
. Ded on the nght before the concert.
9. 0f course he eft hs fdde
10. whch was od and vauabe to hs son.
11. e aways had hopes that he woud teach hs son
12. and hs son woud pay the fdde better than hs father.
13. t the age of one year hs mother ded
14. and the boy was eft wth an aunt and unce
15. who were not too favoraby ncned toward fdders.
16. Nevertheess they gave hm hs chance
17. and started hm on von essons.
1 . e ddn t show unusua taent,
30
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
19. but a far amount.
o. Now as he sts here,
1. he has |ust been tod about hs parents and ther wshes.
. . e reazes he sn t overtaented,
3. but he s consderng whether he w ke t enough for hs mother
sake.
4- s he grows oder, he w put the fdde asde
15. and go to somethng ese.
6. e s debatng other possbtes.
Ths story has been broken up nto numbered thought unts or
acts to make cross references easer n the subsequent anayses.
Now et us consder some representatve methods o cassfyng
and studyng such a behavor sampe.
. Dscomfort-reef quotent (DP ). 0ne of the smpest meth-
ods of anayss s to obtan a tenson nde by countng the
number of thought unts whch ndcate peasure, reef, or happ-
ness and those whch ndcate dspeasure, tenson, unhappness,
dscomfort, etc. (Doard and Mowrer, 1947). The unts whch
ndcate nether are smpy scored 0 and omtted from the nde ,
whch s computed by dvdng the number of dscomfort unts
by the number of dscomfort-pus reef unts. In the present story,
statements 2, 3, 4, 5 mght be cassfed as dscomfort, statements
6 and 12 as nether, and statements 1 and 7 as reef. rough count
of ths sort yeds nne D unts out of fourteen unts whch can be
cassfed one way or the other, yedng a tenson nde of .63 (63
per cent Dscomfort unts) whch s fary hgh. n nde based on
so few unts woud probaby not be stabe, but Doard and Mowrer
have demonstrated that stabe nde es can be obtaned wth arger
sampes of wrtten behavor and can be used to determne the
drve or tenson eve of an ndvdua as t s refected n succes-
sve ntervews recorded by a soca case worker. auffman and
Pamy (1949) have shown that the DP s aso a good nde of
progress n a nondrectve ntervewng stuaton and correates
hghy wth the PN v , whch s another method of cassfyng
content matera based prmary on the number of postve, nega-
tve, and ambvaent sef-references. gh observer agreement for
computng these nde es s reported n both bases. Doard and
Mowrer fee that utmatey the DP can be used to measure the
strength of a person s motves (taken perhaps as a whoe) snce they
adopt a tensona defnton of motvaton.
31
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
. Interacton process anayss. aes (1950) has deveoped a
method of cassfyng behavor n sma groups whch has been ap-
ped by Ms (1950) to wrtten documents wth some modfyng as-
sumptons. Greaty smpfed, the system nvoves cassfyng acts
(or thought unts) as havng postve or negatve vaence n the
soca-emotona area or as gvng or recevng nformaton n
the task area. Ths makes t possbe to compute a postve-
negatve quotent whch s very much ke the DP , athough
ndvdua unts may be cassfed dfferenty. Thus, for nstance,
unt 2 ( Unfortunatey ) s cassfed as a postve emotona act
(shows sympathy on the part of the wrter), though for the DP
t was cassfed as ndcatve of tenson. Despte these dfferences a
quotent of 70 per cent negatve emotona reactons s obtaned
by ths method, whch s cose to the 63 per cent tenson nde ob-
taned by the DP method. It s aso possbe to compute a task
vs. emotona orentaton quotent. Thus n the present nstance
the sub|ect makes ten statements out of twenty-four, or 42 per
cent, whch can be cassfed as emotona whereas the remander
are task-orented (nformaton-gvng). nay, ths method aso
permts an anayss of the sub|ect s roe perceptons snce the per-
son gvng and the person recevng an act (the who-to-whom
dmenson) can be dentfed. Thus n unt 23 the son s scored
as showng sodarty wth the mother. the son-mother acts can
be summated and a pcture obtaned of how the sub|ect perceves
the son-mother roe reatonshp (whether mutuay antagonstc
or sodary, nonrecproca ove, etc.). 0bserver agreement co-
effcents for such cassfcatons are hgh.
. Semantc anayss. though the probem w be touched on
more fuy ater, t shoud be mentoned here for the sake of com-
peteness that verba matera may aso be broken down nto
grammatca categores (nouns, verbs, ad|ectves, adverbs, etc., or
causes, tenses, and the ke). Sanford (1942a) has revewed the
e tensve work that has been done n ths fed. The nde es whch
have usuay been consdered mportant are such thngs as the
type-token and verb-ad|ectve ratos. In the former the number of
dfferent words (types) s dvded by the tota number of words
(tokens) n a gven sampe. or e ampe, n the frst one hundred
words n our story the sub|ect uses twenty-four nouns of whch
seventeen or 71 per cent are dfferent words. The sze of ths rato
s apparenty a functon of ntegence, at east when t s potted
. 32
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
over successve sampes of words. In a sub|ects the rato tends to
get smaer n successve word sampes as the actve vocabuary s
used up, but the rate of decne s sower wth more ntegent
peope ( atzks, 1949). Smary the verb-ad|ectve rato n ths
nstance s 23/1 or 1.27 ndcatng for ths sub|ect a much smaer
rato than s usuay obtaned. Ths s normay taken to mean
that he s reatvey more nterested n passve descrpton, n
quatatve dstnctons, n the e terna word, than n acton and
the nterna word. Such counts as these are easy to make wth
great reabty but they are hard to nterpret.
v. aue anayss. P. . hte (1947) has attempted to cassfy
content accordng to what vaue s referred to n a thought unt
or statement. somewhat smpfed scheme has been worked out
by Pecken and McCeand (1950) n whch many of the vaues
have the same names as Murray (193 ) has gven to needs or mo-
tves. or e ampe, the descrpton n unt 1 ( famous concert
vonst ) s ceary made wth an chevement vaue as a frame
of reference. The same s true of unts 7, 10, 14, 16, 20. Smary
the |udgment n unt 2 ( Unfortunatey ) nvoves an ffaton
vaue. nd so on. |udgments or evauatve descrptons can be
cassfed n terms of the vaue they mpy.
v. Need-sequence anayss. McCeand, Cark, Paby, and tkn-
son (1949) have pubshed a descrpton of a method for scorng
the changes whch occur n bref magnatve stores under the
nfuence of varous nduced need states. The scorng foows the
probem-sovng sequence whch nvoves the foowng eements:
(1) Need (2) Instrumenta ctvty (3) 0bstaces and (4) Goa
satsfactons or dssatsfactons, ether actua or antcpated. or
e ampe, our sampe story may be scored for achevement motva-
ton snce there s a good dea of achevement magery n t. Unt 1
s achevement gratfcaton (G- -). Unts n and 12 are antcpated
achevement gratfcaton (Ga- -). Unts 16 and 17 nvove nur-
turant press or hep gven the boy n hs efforts after achevement,
etc. Ths method s usefu n teng how ntense a person s acheve-
ment motves are, snce, generay speakng, the more such charac-
terstcs he shows, the greater the ntensty of hs achevement
motvaton. It s aso usefu n showng e acty how the person
perceves hs achevement probems. Thus, as n ths story, there
maybe practcay no nstrumenta actvty amed at achevement.
Most of the matera deas wth achevement satsfactons or ds-
33
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
satsfactons. Such a person may have dffcuty n gettng down to
ne t steps n carryng out hs achevement ambtons, etc. The
nterpretaton may become dffcut, but the method s a suff-
centy precse one for coectng dependabe facts about percep-
tons of motvatona probems.
v. Symboc anayss. Probaby the most controversa method of
anayzng content derves from reud s orgna attempts to fnd
the atent meanng behnd the manfest content. In our
sampe story, for nstance, the od and vauabe fdde becomes
the son s pens whch he nherts from hs father (unts 9 and 10).
The noton of payng the fdde better (unt 12) dsguses the
noton of se ua ntercourse whch suggests n turn the mother, a
suggeston whch s so an ety-arousng that the mother must de
n the story to be out of harm s way (unt 13). t ths pont the son
s taken wth remorse and wonders f he shoudn t gve up fd-
dng (e.g., se uaty) atogether (unts 23-26). Is ths the true
or atent meanng of ths story No one knows. The average cn-
can, f he were psychoanaytcay orented, woud doubtess start
wth ths as a hypothess anyway. e cannot worry at ths pont
about the vadty of such an nterpretaton. e can ony assert
that ths type of symboc nterpretaton has become so standard-
zed among cncans wth a psychoanaytc orentaton that t
woud probaby be easy to demonstrate a fary hgh observer-
agreement for ths method of anayss, athough nstances n the
terature of such agreement correatons are few and far between.
v. 0ther methods of content anayss. Ths by no means e -
hausts the possbtes. adwn (1942) has counted the frequency
wth whch deas are assocated n a seres of etters. Murray (193 )
has deveoped eaborate scorng schemes for cassfyng the matera
n magna productons. Content or sequence anayss on the
Porschach Test has become common practce. Thematc pper-
cepton Test scorng schemes whch enabe one to make quantta-
tve estmates have aso been deveoped by severa others (cf. e,
194 ). Ths shoud be suffcent to suggest the e treme range of
technques whch are now becomng avaabe for anayzng spon-
taneous behavor when t s frozen n a wrtten document.
of these methods permt hgh observer-reabty whch s the
sne qua non for scentfc usefuness. They have been samped
brefy here because they seem pecuary approprate to persona-
34
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
ty study and because t has ony recenty been reazed that wth
proper observer tranng they can be made to yed facts (casses
of behavor) whch are |ust as dependabe as responses n a reac-
ton-tme e perment. 0f course the nterpretaton of the facts s
not cear n many cases, but ths s not a probem pecuar to ths
cass of facts aone. It e sts for a casses of facts.
Such deveopments as these throw some doubt on the supposed
dvson between a cnca psychoogy based on e perence and a
scentfc psychoogy of personaty based on behavor. Sears
(1943) has descrbed the dvson thus: The knd of personaty
scence that s more wdey used n such work s behavora rather
than e perenta, and snce the behavora way of thnkng about
personaty s of even more recent orgn than psychoanayss,
there seems good reason for concudng that a behavora scence
of personaty has been found more usefu n the past and may be
e pected to be so n the future. (p. 141.) The gap between these
two approaches to personaty can be cosed f the same or smar
concepts are apped to the data obtaned from the two approaches.
or e ampe, the dream s one of the chef sources of nformaton
used by the psychoanayst. ut the dream may be recorded or
wrtten down, at whch pont t becomes a pece of behavor and
can be cassfed nto varous unts whch may be manpuated
statstcay or theoretcay ke any other unts of behavor. -
perence as recorded n words s far more varous than the knd of
overt movements categorzed by Merr (1946) or Sears (1942). It
shoud therefore provde a much better bass n some nstances
than grosser movement responses for approachng the compe tes
of personaty. ut the pont s, that the method apped to t
can be precsey the same as that apped by Merr, Sears, and
others, to overt movements. Ths s the great methodoogca
change whch has made persona documents of renewed nterest
and mportance.
( ) P 0N0GP P IC P C0PDING. The vaue of phonographc re-
cordng has ong been recognzed and has been used for some tme,
partcuary by anthropoogsts n brngng back data from fed
trps. ut t s ony reatvey recenty that the mprovement n
recordng technques has been such as to permt detaed recordng
of great amounts of spoken matera. Great methodoogca ad-
vances were made n the eary 1940 s at 0ho State Unversty
under the eadershp of Car Pogers, who was nterested n the
recordng of counseng ntervews. Ths work has been sum-
35
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
marzed best to date by Curran (1945). It reveas, among other
thngs, that the notes taken by a counseor on an ntervew n the
usua way cover at the most ony about one-thrd of the tems
actuay occurrng n the ntervew stuaton as determned from
verbatm recordngs. Covner, Porter, Curran, and others found
that when a check st was devsed whch a |udge coud use n
scorng the typescrpt from phonographcay recorded nter-
vews, the agreement among the |udges as to the cassfcaton of
tems was very hgh, rangng from . 5 to .95. They found that they
coud use observer agreement to decde whch tems to ncude,
dscard, or redefne so that they coud be cassfed more reaby.
urthermore, as n Merr s work cted above, they found t poss-
be to count the number of tmes a gven category of response
occurred and thus to get a quanttatve measure of the mportance
of that response n the ntervew stuaton. Ths enabed them to
study very carefuy the changes n the responses gven by -the
cent n the ntervewng stuaton and to tran a counseor
to observe the approprateness wth whch he had responded.
ntrey apart from the vaue of ths research for ts specfc pur-
pose, the chef pont to notce here s that, ke Merr s study, t
provdes a great methodoogca advance over the oder method of
smpy takng notes on an ntervew. It opens up, as wrtten per-
sona documents do, the whoe area of verba behavor to e act
theoretca anayss.
(C) M0TI0N PICTUP P C0PDING. Pesearch workers have ong rec-
ognzed the vaue of recordng through moton pctures the compe
behavor of peope as t occurs. The e permenta group whch
has made most use of the technque to date has been the one at the
Chd Gudance Cnc at Yae Unversty under the eadershp
of Dr. rnod Gese. They have demonstrated the vaue of moton
pctures for dentfyng certan patterns of motor behavor, a-
though they have not been much concerned wth the quanttatve
measurement of changes n behavor as a resut of e permentay
ntroduced varabes. owever, there s no reason why the data
obtaned by moton pctures coud not be used for ths purpose,
|ust as phonographcay recorded data have been. Stone (1950),
for nstance, has made detaed anayses of acts of aggresson n a
footba game from moton pctures taken for the coachng staff.
Sound moton pctures combne a record of what the observer
woud both see and hear but have been tte used because of the
e pense nvoved. Ths technque has been used to fuest advan-
36
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
tage probaby ony once or twce, notaby n connecton wth the
makng of the documentary fm et There e ght durng ord
ar II at Mason Genera ospta under the psychatrc super-
vson of Dr. en|amn Smon and the drecton of |ohn uston.
Ths fm was made for the rmy wth a the advantages of the
atest oywood equpment. Thousands of feet of fm were shot
of such mportant events as the behavor of a patent actuay
undergong narcosynthess. Snce the fm was obtaned under
natura condtons, as the events actuay occurred, t obvousy
provdes a record whch s unparaeed n vaue n the recordng
of compe personaty changes for future and repeated study.
though the fu record has not yet been made avaabe by the
ar Department for scentfc study, t ustrates what coud be
done n ths fed f the money were avaabe.
though some of the matters whch we have been dscussng
woud seem to be of purey technca mportance, they have a sg-
nfcance for the e permenta study of personaty whch s far
greater than woud appear on the surface. Many peope, ncudng
psychoogsts, have fet that the study of compe personaty proc-
esses woud be forever dened to the e permenta psychoogst. G.
. port s merey e pressng the opnon of many others when
he states: 0ne cannot approach e permentay such e perences
as embarrassment, remorse, fang n ove, or regous ecstasy.
(1937, P- 21-) though there w of course be some argument as to
what e acty s meant by e permentaton, t s certany obvous by
now that t woud be possbe through advances n recordng tech-
nques to get a compete record of |ust such e perences as he sts,
whch coud then be studed systematcay and n deta accordng
to the methods of anayss descrbed above. Thus, for e ampe, re-
gous ecstases coud be recorded n a sound moton pcture and
anayzed quanttatvey for the varous types of behavor shown after-
ward. If ths were done enough tmes under enough dfferent cond-
tons, t mght be possbe to make some observatons as to what the
condtons are whch produce dfferent varetes of regous e per-
ence. urthermore, much of the terature of confesson and mystca
e perence coud be anayzed n ths way from persona documents.
The fact that one cannot produce some of these phenomena n the
aboratory does not mean that they cannot be observed and studed
scentfcay as they are found n nature. The boogst woud be
qute serousy mted f he had to confne hs study of vng organ-
37
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
sms to those he coud produce n the aboratory. Yet no one decares
hm ess of a scentst because he cannot. hat the psychoogst work-
ng n the fed of personaty has needed s the mprovement of
technques for studyng the compe processes of human nature as
they occur naturay. nd much progress aong these nes has been
made n the past few decades.
P PIM NT TI0N
It s aso possbe to approach probems of observaton n a dffer-
ent way. Ths nvoves controng rgorousy the behavor the sub-
|ect s aowed to make or mtng the responses the observer pays
attenton to. Ths approach usuay fas more neary under the
headng of e permentaton proper. In ths case the e permenter
has some degree of contro over the stmuus stuaton or over the
response whch the sub|ect makes. The mode here s the standard
aboratory e perment, such as the one on reacton tme. The sub|ect
s mted to the response of pressng a key and hs response tme s
potted as a functon of, for e ampe, the ntensty of a ght stmuus
whch can be carefuy controed by the e permenter. The stua-
ton s represented dagramatcay n Tabe 2.1 n whch S stands
for envronmenta stmuus condtons, P for the organsm s re-
sponse, Pec for the record kept by the observer, and for the con-
tro whch the observer has over that aspect of the stuaton. Three
types of scentfc observaton are ustrated: e permentaton n
T 2.1
Iustraton of Dfferent nds of Contro ercsed by the permenter
over ements n an 0bservaton
. permentaton fs |P|
z. Nave observaton S P
3. Pro|ectve technque | P
whch everythng s controed, even the response whch s permtted
nave observaton n whch anythng can happen and the observer
makes any knd of comments he wshes (e.g., the traveer s etters
home) and the pro|ectve technques n whch there s a far degree
of contro on the stmuus sde (represented by a | |) as n an nk-
bot, very tte contro over what the sub|ect says, and very precse
recordng and anayss of what he says. sorts of other permuta-
tons of contro are possbe. The student shoud make them for hm-
sef and try to fnd the tradtona abe apped to each.
3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
Is there any reay controed e permentaton n the fed of per-
sonaty (ne 1, Tabe 2.1) hat are the vaues of e permentaton
as compared, for e ampe, wth content anayss (whch mght
cassfy under ne 3, Tabe 2.1) To answer these and reated
questons t s necessary to consder systematcay the way n
whch e permenta contros can be ntroduced nto the study of be-
havor. ar too often t has been assumed, n deang wth ths prob-
em, that the e act contro of the reacton-tme type of e perment s
the ony respectabe approach, and the concuson usuay has
been qucky drawn by cnca psychoogsts that the e permenta
approach to personaty s of very tte vaue. ut, as we sha see,
there s actuay a contnuum of contro whch can be ntroduced
ether on the stmuus sde or on the response sde n scentfc
observaton.
Contro of the Stuaton. In ts smpest form e permentaton s
usuay thought of as nvovng the ntroducton of a known vara-
ton n stmuus condtons and the observaton of ts effects on some
response. Ths suggests, on the stmuus sde, that the e permenter
has a contro over the condton whch he s ntroducng. It further
mpes that snce he can contro t he understands the nature of the
d1ange he s makng. It s not essenta, of course, that contro and
understandng go together. Usuay they do. or e ampe, n a sm-
pe aboratory e perment such as the one descrbed above, the e -
permenter can contro ght ntensty, and n order to do so he must
understand the nature of what he s varyng, at east to some e tent.
owever, t s possbe to ntroduce somethng to a sub|ect whose
nature cannot be very precsey defned. case n pont s a Por-
schach nkbot n the standard Porschach Test n whch the nature
of a the bots s aways controed, athough as Pust (194 ) has
ponted out, t woud be very dffcut to defne precsey the nature
of any gven nkbot n terms of ts stmuus dmensons. The under-
standng of the stuatona varaton ntroduced seems to be a more
basc necessty than ts contro, but hstorcay contro has often been
consdered equvaent to understandng. The chef attempts to date
whch have been made to contro the stmuus varabe to whch a
person s sub|ected may be summarzed brefy under severa head-
ngs.
1. Symboc contro. ary workers n the fed of personaty found
1t very dffcut to produce e permentay or to dscover n any other
way many of the most mportant personaty characterstcs. They
39
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
met ths probem by producng vta stuatons symbocay, specf-
cay n the form of verba representatons of stuatons n queston-
nares. or e ampe, t was dffcut actuay to frustrate peope and
observe ther responses, but e permenters coud very easy ask sub-
|ects a queston such as the foowng:
hat do you do when you are frustrated
(a) ame yoursef
(b) ame whatever frustrated you
(c) Nothng, etc.
0f course ths queston coud be asked n a varety of ways. or
e ampe,
Descrbe how you reacted to the frus-
traton stuaton descrbed on the eft.
or
Check the reactons whch you showed when
frustrated n the ways descrbed on the eft.
No matter how the queston s phrased, the e permenter s at-
temptng to ntroduce a stuatona varabe symbocay through a
verba descrpton and s askng the sub|ect to react to ths symboc
representaton.
The apparent advantage of the procedure s that a great dea of
ork can be done very qucky. The number of questons whch a
person can answer n a reatvey short perod of tme s very great
ndeed. urthermore, t s very easy to score the sub|ect s answers.
Consequenty, eary work n personaty deat argey wth the resuts
of such questonnare studes. owever, psychoogsts began to won-
der about the rea vaue of ths procedure. The basc doubt arose
over the presumed connecton between the queston and what t was
supposed to represent. Many wondered whether reacton to a ques-
ton about frustraton was the same thng as reacton to the frustra-
ton tsef. ery few attempts were made to check ths rather obvous
assumpton, but the convcton grew anyway that what queston-
nares got at was a response to verba stereotypes, rather than to the
rea psychoogca stuatons that the verba stereotypes were sup
posed to represent. The reacton to such stereotypes s, of course, an
mportant part of psychoogy, but the fundamenta research on the
other varabes nvoved has to be done at a dfferent eve.
2. Natura contro. It was aso obvous from the begnnng of per-
sonaty research that certan condtons coud not be reproduced
40
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
n the aboratory at a. or e ampe, t s hghy unkey that psy-
choogsts w ever have a chance to try out the varous methods of
chd rearng that they mght wsh to e perment wth to test varous
hypotheses. owever, many varatons n chd rearng occur natu-
ray n dfferent cutures and t s ony necessary to go and fnd them.
Thus, whe t woud be mpossbe to ntroduce water as a dscp-
nary agent n young chdren, t s perfecty feasbe to go to the Crow
Indan trbe, where they have poured water down chdren s noses
to dscpne them, to observe the effect ths has had on personaty
(d. Mc ester, 1941). Chd-rearng technques are cear nstances
of natura varaton n whch one does not have contro over the
varabe n queston but can measure ts effects, f t s carefuy de-
fned. adwn, ahorn, and reese (1945), Merr (1946), and
htng and Chd (1950) have succeeded n defnng ob|ectvey
some of the mportant dmensons of parent behavor so that they
may be rated or checked as they occur n nature. Ths, n effect,
makes a controed e perment possbe, athough nature s respon-
sbe for the dfferences n parent behavor beng studed. th ths
technque t woud be possbe, for e ampe, to f1nd two sets of
parents who vary ony wth respect to the amount of acceptance they
show for ther chdren and to determne the effects of ths dfference
on the chdren s behavor and personaty.
Such naturay occurrng dfferences are not, of course, restrcted
to chd-rearng technques. or a ong tme t has been the habt of
psychoogsts to compare groups of peope that are naturay df-
ferent. It has been standard procedure to deveop questonnares and
tests by comparng the responses of peope who dffer as to se , age,
occupaton, or socoeconomc status. 0ne e ampe of ths s the
Strong ocatona Interest Test, scorng keys for whch were deve-
oped by comparng the responses of a gven occupatona group,
e.g., artsts, wth the responses of men n genera to the test. he
ths approach has much practca utty for the purpose of voca-
tona gudance, t does not quafy as a good e permenta procedure
because the stmuus condtons of beng a member of the artst cass
are not very we understood. That s, f one coud fnd some mean-
ngfu psychoogca dmensons on whch artsts as an occupatona
group dffered from other peope, then the responses of artsts coud
be meanngfuy reated to the dmensons so defned. The dffer-
ences n the behavor of artsts coud then be assocated wth some-
thng more than an occupatona name and the case woud be
parae to the dfferences n chd rearng mentoned above. ut so
41
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
far ths more theoretca approach has not been adopted wth such
data athough there s no reason why t coud not be.
3. permenta contro. To foow up the e ampe of the effects
of parent behavor, we coud now turn to an e perment ke Mer-
r s, descrbed above. In ths nstance she not ony took materna
behavor as she found t but she e permentay modfed t by her
nstructons to the mother deang wth the supposed nferorty of
the chd s prevous pay behavor. If she had gone on and measured
the effects of the change n the mother s behavor on the chd, ths
woud then quafy as an e ampe of an e permentay nduced
varabe supposedy nfuencng personaty. In recent years psy-
choogsts have succeeded more and more n fndng ways for ntro-
ducng e permentay varabes whch are sgnfcant for personaty
study. It w be necessary ony to menton a few of these for ustra-
tve purposes.
great dea of work has been done n the fed of nduced frustra-
ton. Psychoogsts have become very skfu n annoyng human
bengs. or e ampe, Dembo (1931), workng under ewn n one of
the earest studes n ths fed, measured the effects of frustraton
and anger on genera behavor n a probem stuaton. Sears meas-
ured the effect of faure on performance n a earnng stuaton
(1937) and aso on genera motty (1942). McCeand and pcea
(1945) measured the effects of faure-frustraton on verba com-
ments-of the sub|ects. These are |ust sampes of a very arge group
of e perments n whch frustraton has been successfuy ntroduced.
parae seres of e perments on satsfacton or gratfcaton has
yet to be done, athough Masow (194 ) has ponted to the need for
such a seres. There have been studes of the effect of success on be-
havor (|ucknat, 1937) but n genera we know ess about ths than
about the effects of faure. There has aso been a number of studes
deang wth what s usuay caed ego-nvovement (cf. port,
1943) n whch the basc operaton seems to be the nstructon to the
sub|ect that the task he s performng s a measure of hs genera
nteectua abty or some other such quaty of presumed mpor-
tance to hm. McCeand and assocates (1949) have worked e ten-
svey n ths fed on the assumpton that such nstructons nvove
the arousa of achevement motvaton. The effects of e permentay
aroused motvaton of ths sort woud appear to be a very promsng
addton to the number of personaty varabes whch the e per-
menter can contro. It s st true that we cannot arouse n the ab-
oratory such compe feengs as fang n ove or regous ecstasy,
42
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
as G. . port has suggested, but we are makng progress aong
these nes. nd n the meantme we can aways fnd many of these
thngs as they occur n nature.
4. Parta contro. Some of the most successfu work n the fed of
personaty has nvoved the ntroducton of stuatons whch are
not very precsey defned for the sub|ect. That s, the stmuus stua-
ton s purposey eft vague and nondrectve n the hope that the
responses of the sub|ect w consequenty be ess a functon of the
stuaton and more a functon of hs own persona characterstcs.
ampes of ths sort of approach are the pay behavor of ch-
dren to reatvey unstructured stuatons, the Porschach Test, the
Thematc ppercepton Test, and other such tests of magnaton
(rf. hte, 1944). In these nstances the mportance of the e terna
varabe s deberatey decreased and the knd of nference drawn
from the resuts s somewhat dfferent, as w be ndcated beow.
ere the e permenter contros the stuaton by reducng the num-
ber of hnts, as t were, n the envronment, as to what the sub|ect
shoud do.
Contro of the Pesponse. In any of the above stuatons the sub-
|ect s response may be reatvey free and spontaneous or rgdy
mted to a partcuar one chosen by the e permenter. storcay
the psychoogst smpfed hs observatona probems typcay by
drectng hs attenton to ony one aspect of the behavor of the
sub|ect. or e ampe, n the cassca condtonng stuaton the dog
actuay makes many other responses besdes savatng but the e -
permenter usuay pays no attenton to them. et us consder sys-
tematcay, the knds of responses to whch the e permenter has
pad attenton n the fed of personaty study.
1. Choce responses. The easest and most controed thng to do
s to permt the sub|ect to choose one of a number of responses gven
to hm by the e permenter. The prototype of ths approach s found
n the questonnare where the sub|ect s asked to respond yes, no,
or doubtfu, or ke, Dske, or Indfferent. The practca advan-
tages of ths approach are tremendous and efforts are st beng made
to reduce a e perments to stuatons n whch the sub|ect can
choose one or more responses. The appea of ths approach to prac-
tca mercans s suggested by the enormous deveopment of ma-
chne methods of scorng mutpe-choce tests.
The dsadvantages of ths approach have ony recenty begun to
be apparent. Some have appeared on practca grounds, and some
43
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
on theoretca grounds. 0n the practca sde t has been found df-
fcut, f not mpossbe, to deveop a vad mutpe-choce form of
such mportant magnatve tests as the Porschach (cf. e, 194 ,
p. 150). 0n the theoretca sde much progress has been made toward
understandng some of the nonpersonaty varabes whch determne
choce behavor. or e ampe, t has been ponted out that the
human concepton of probabty s qute dfferent from the mathe-
matca concepton, as t s based on the assumpton of a fnte rather
than an nfnte unverse. Practcay ths means that a person w
guess n a dfferent way from what woud be e pected by mathe-
matca chance. e w tend to avod a ong seres of smar answers
(Yeses or Noes) as any teacher who has made up True- ase e amna-
tons knows, and to avod reguar patterns of choce such as smpe
aternaton ( htfed, 1949a). Ths means that on a rea queston-
nare he w be nfuenced by such patterns of random behavor as
we as by the meanng of the questons to whch he s supposed to be
respondng. 0f course, as more s known about the ways n whch
human probabty dffers from mathematca probabty, t w be
possbe to contro for ths effect to some e tent.
Yet there s an even more serous ob|ecton. Ths revoves around
the fact that the sub|ect, when he s gven a choce, apparenty has
tme to consder what an answer woud mean. or e ampe, he mght
have tme to thnk whether or not he woud be |udged neurotc or
successfu or what not f he answered yes to the queston: Do you
daydream frequenty Such consderatons as these are usuay not
reevant to the varabe whch the e permenter s tryng to measure,
and ths may e pan why such tests as the ernreuter Personaty
Inventory may yed resuts whch have been found to be ms-
eadng n ndvdua cases. pparenty the method of producton
rather than recognton and choce s not as open to the same crt-
csm because the sub|ect, f he has to produce a response n a gven
perod of tme, fnds t more dffcut to evauate the sgnfcance of
that response at the same tme. Ths may e pan some of the ad-
vantages of pro|ectve tests, n whch the response s not so rgorousy
mted, over comparabe mutpe-choce tests (Getzes, 1950).
2. ffcent responses. Some of the earest and most successfu
work n psychoogy was done wth varous motor and menta tests,
and wth the speed wth whch sub|ects coud earn to perform we
on them. So t was qute natura to measure the effects of varous
personaty varabes on these tests of performance. The resuts, by
and arge, have been dsappontng. or e ampe, some of the eary
44
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
work deat wth the effects of fatgue or frustraton on tests of co-
ordnaton or earnng. It has been repeatedy found that these
varabes have tte or no effect on effcency. permenters have
been convnced that fatgue does affect a person but they have not
been abe to measure t wth such tests. or nstance, one of the most
e tensve efforts to measure the effects of proonged fatgue has been
made at Tufts Coege under Carmchae, ennedy, and Mead (cf.
1949). They found that sub|ects who contnued ong and arduous
physca and menta work for two or three days wthout seep st
showed very tte or no fang-off n performance on very compe
and nvoved menta tasks. Yet t was obvous to the e permenters
that the sub|ects were n very bad shape. They coud hardy force
themseves to perform the tasks, but once they dd, effcency turned
out to be mpared hardy at a. 0bvousy effcency measures were
not senstve ndcators of the profound changes whch had taken
pace n the sub|ects. Ths s |ust the cumnaton of a ong seres of
smar e perments. Psychoogsts are graduay becomng con-
vnced that, athough performance measures can be very accuratey
made, they are not gong to refect very senstvey under norma con-
dtons e permentay-ntroduced personaty varabes, snce the
organsm apparenty s abe to compensate n such a varety of ways
that t can aways manage to produce neary the same performance
output.
3. permentay mted responses. The e permenter may mt
what the sub|ect can do (|udge, move, etc.) by the nature of the
e permenta task and yet not be nterested n how we the sub|ect
performs, as n the case |ust dscussed. ere the emphass s not on
the amount of work accompshed per unt tme or the amount of
tme per unt work, as n the case of effcency, but on the actua
behavor of the sub|ect n response to the task. To make the contrast
s sharp as possbe, we can turn to some work by anger (n Murray,
193 ) n a earnng setup where the nterest s normay n measures
of effcency. e used the standard earnng measures (namey, num-
ber of errors, tota tme taken, and number of repettons needed)
but he combned them nto an over-a earnng nde . Ths, n
turn, gave hm a measure of what he caed motor mpuson. In
other words, he assumed that the comparatve number of errors
made n reaton to the other factors |n the earnng nde | woud
be an ndcaton of the tendency to act wthout thnkng. (p.
5 5-) Such a measure as ths s not an effcency measure at a,
strcty speakng, but a measure of the reatve contrbuton of a
45
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Nf T 0D0 0 Y: 0 P PS0N ITY IS STUDI D
gven factor (here, errors) n the tota performance pcture. Thus, for
e ampe, t mght be found that a gven e permenta condton,
such as fatgue, mght not change the over-a output but t mght
change the reatve mportance of errors n the earnng nde .
There are many other behavora measures whch have been found
usefu n personaty measurement outsde of those that arse n
earnng e perments. Measures of e pectaton, partcuary as repre-
sented n the eve of aspraton technque, have been found to be
reated to a sgnfcant number of personaty varabes, even under
rgorousy controed condtons. runer and Goodman (1947) and
others (Postman, runer, and McGnnes, 194 ) have shown that
such perceptua responses as are nvoved n sze |udgments or
recognton threshods for brefy presented words are senstve to
personaty dfferences. nay, certan memory effects, such as the
reatve proporton of uncompeted to competed tasks remem-
bered, have aso been found to refect personaty dfferences sen-
stvey ( tknson, 1g ob). In short, n the ast few decades the
number of such e permentay controed behavora responses
whch have been found to be usefu n personaty measurement
has ncreased markedy, and we may e pect more progress aong
these nes n the future.
4. Spontaneous responses. Ths ncudes a the remanng types of
responses n whch very tte contro s e ercsed by the e permenter
over what the sub|ect does. Usuay there s some knd of mt, such
as that paced by havng the sub|ect n a specfc pace or by havng
hm mt hs responses to verba ones. The dfference between ths
type of e perment and the three prevous ones es bascay n the
fact that the e permenter decdes what responses he s gong to
score quanttatvey after the sub|ect has produced them and not be-
fore. There s no a pror |udgment as to what s an mportant
response and what s not, what response the sub|ect w be aowed
to make and what one he w not be aowed to make. It woud be
a mstake to assume, however, that the resuts coud not be |ust as
e act and quanttatve as n the other methods, as the earer secton
n ths chapter on methods of content anayss has shown.
nge (Gottschak, uckhohn, and nge, 1945) has carfed the
ssue of pre|udgment very ncey n hs dscusson of Stouffer s work
on atttudes toward prohbton. Stouffer frst asked hs sub|ects to f
out a standard atttude scae reatng to prohbton and then to wrte
fu persona accounts of ther e perences and feengs snce chd-
hood toward prohbton aws and toward the drnkng of quor.
46
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
Severa |udges read the persona accounts and rated the sub|ects as
to ther atttude toward prohbton and toward drnkng. Stouffer
found that the ratngs by the |udges correated very hghy wth the
sub|ects e pressed atttudes on the standardzed scae. Snce the att-
tude-scae approach was obvousy much smper and more eco-
nomca, and yet arrved at the same resuts as were obtaned by the
nvoved persona-document procedure, the former woud seem to
have the obvous advantage. ut the pont nge makes s that the
atttude scae has an advantage ony wth respect to the partcuar
ssue whch t measures. If ths s the ony ssue n whch the e per-
menter s nterested, a s we and good, but t shoud be noted that
he has decded ahead of tme that atttude toward prohbton meas-
ured n a partcuar way s the ony thng n whch he s nterested.
n aternatve approach, as nge suggests, s to gather good
documentary or observatona data and then to e perment wth var-
ous key hypotheses unt he fnds one that seems to brng the data
nto some knd of order. In other words, the data determne the
order, and not the order the data. The order s ntroduced after the
data have been coected nstead of before. There are cases, of course,
when t s approprate, because of a theoretca orentaton or pre-
vous research, to ntroduce a mtaton of response ahead of tme.
The pont beng made here s that the freer procedure has been far
too often negected by psychoogsts n the fed of personaty who
have reay no adequate bass for mposng a mtaton on the re-
sponse of the sub|ect beforehand.
0ur survey of methodoogca mprovements has not been com-
pete. e have obvousy tred merey to sampe areas n whch
sgnfcant changes have occurred n the past decade. Nor has our
survey come to any defnte concuson as to whch partcuar method
s best for studyng personaty. 0bvousy there are many possbe
combnatons of mtaton of the stuaton and mtaton of the
sub|ect s response. The one certan fact on whch a psychoogsts
woud agree s that contro on the observatona or recordng sde s
absoutey essenta. 0ur am has reay been to gve the student some
dea of the varety of ways n whch scentfcay sound observatona
methods may be ntroduced nto personaty study.
ook at contemporary ponts of vew n the fed of personaty
w |ustfy such an am. s Murray has ponted out so we, there
has tended to grow up a spt between the aboratory and cnc n
the fed of personaty. In the aboratory we fnd what Murray cas
perpherasts, who, chefy nterested n what s measurabe, . . .
47
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
are forced to mt themseves to reatvey unmportant fragments of
the personaty or to the testng of specfc sks. The am s to get
fgures that may be worked statstcay. (193 , p. 9.) In the cnc
we fnd, on the other hand, centrasts who are nterested n man s
ambtons, frustratons, apprehensons, rages, |oys, and mseres.
. . . These have no stomach for e perments conducted n an art-
fca aboratory atmosphere. It s to be hoped that one of the thngs
earned from ths chapter s that such a dvson s not at a neces-
sary and has arsen, n fact, from a msunderstandng of the nature
of scentfc method, or rather from the tact assumpton on both
sdes that scentfc method s mted to the knd of e perment n
whch one has a rgd contro of the envronmenta stmuus and of
the sub|ect s response as we as of the record of the e perment tsef.
If such a narrow nterpretaton of scentfc method had been ac-
cepted by boogsts and astronomers, they woud have been ser-
ousy hampered n ther e permenta work. e may confdenty
e pect that, as some of the mprovements n the scentfc method for
studyng personaty brefy outned here get more and more wdey
used, the gap between the aboratory and the cnc, between the
perpherasts and the centrasts, w cose.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. Make a tme-sampng study of the behavor of some person
you are observng. Nervous movements are reatvey easy to observe,
and a good observaton post s the brary readng-room. rst make
a rough mpressonstc report of your observaton of the person wth
respect to the behavor under consderaton, e.g., nervous move-
ments. Then make up a ratng scae wth severa tems on t and rate
the person on the varous tems on the scae after a fve-mnute
perod of observaton. nay, make up a check st n whch you
st a seres of categores at the eft whch you are gong to observe
and then draw nes at the rght representng fve- or ten-second n-
tervas. Then, foowng Merr s procedure, you can check one of
the behavor categores every fve or ten seconds, keepng track of
tme wth a wrst watch. Make your observatons for at east two fve-
mnute perods, separated by at east three mnutes. Then correate
the resuts you obtaned n the two perods to see whether the be-
havor n queston s consstent or whether your observatons are
reabe. Does such a correaton coeffcent voate any of the assump-
tons necessary for computng t Then compare your check-st
resuts wth your ratng-scae resuts and wth your frst mpresson.
4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0 T INING T CTS
hat does the check st add to your knowedge of the person Ds-
cuss your resuts.
2. In Tabe 2.1 three of the varous combnatons of contro of the
stmuus, response, and recordng aspects of scentfc observaton
were sted. hat other combnatons are n common use hat are
the advantages and dsadvantages of each Try to thnk of a concrete
e perment n each case whch woud ustrate the combnaton n
queston.
3. ow coud the condtons for observng materna behavor
under fed condtons be mproved so as to get better observatons,
usng the crtera ad down n ths chapter Consder the advan-
tages and dsadvantages of ntroducng a standardzed stuaton n
whch the behavor of mothers coud be compared. Make out a check
st for materna behavor whch you thnk coud be observed n a
fed stuaton.
4. In hs Use of Persona Documents n Psychoogca Scence -
port wrtes: The wrters concude that t s possbe, though not
economca, to treat fe hstory materas quanttatvey n practce.
uestonnares yed essentay the same resuts and are ordnary
more convenent to use. a had reached the same concuson at
the turn of the century. (1942, p. 25.) vauate ths concuson.
hy, f t s so, have personaty psychoogsts turned ncreasngy
often n recent years to content anayses of varous sorts
5. Desgn a study whch woud attack scentfcay the e perence
of fang n ove. hat methods of observaton and measurement
woud you use hat woud be the man methodoogca dffcutes
you woud meet and how woud you overcome them
6. Cassfy each unt n the sampe Thematc ppercepton Test
story gven n the te t accordng to severa dfferent methods of con-
tent anayss descrbed. Consut the orgna sources wherever neces-
sary to get adequate defntons of the scorng categores.
49
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
3
Interpretng the acts
0nce t has been setted how we are to observe another person,
there s st the probem of how we are gong to nterpret what we
perceve. s port puts t so we, n observng another person we
may st back and en|oy hm, perhaps dentfyng wth hm or sym-
pathzng wth hs predcaments or free-assocatng from one n-
cdent to smar ncdents n our own ves (1942, p. 164), or we
may make very e act ob|ectve descrptons of what he does. ut
nether of these s enough. s psychoogsts, we have the task of
makng theoretca sense out of hs fe. Ths s the |ob of the
scentfc psychoogst, |ust as t s the |ob of the physcst to make
theoretca sense out of hs observaton of the physca word.
The dffcutes of makng theoretca sense or choosng the rght
concepts to nterpret what we observe s ncey ustrated by a story
tod by Gottschak (1945, p. 52) about two rtsh soders servng n
the campagn aganst ed Marsha Pomme n North frca.
Tred and thrsty after some hard fghtng on the desert, |they| re-
turn to ther barracks and fnd haf a botte of water. God be
prased says one, t s haf fu. Dev be damned says the other,
t s haf empty. s Gottschak goes on to say, It s obvous that
both were accuratey descrbng a stuaton wth regard to whch
each was a reabe eyewtness. ut whch nterpretaton of the
event s the correct one No amount of precson n observaton w
hep sove ths probem. It w not mprove matters any to know
that there are two and one-haf nches of water n the botte or to
know the e act number of cubc centmeters t contans. e must
nterpret our observatons, however accurate they may be. 0ur two
student |udges n Chapter 2, n descrbng the coach at the basket-
ba game, dd, n fact, empoy a arge number of concepts to de-
scrbe the man. They used such terms as takatve, a coach, a
smmerng temper, etc.
hch of these s a good concept hch ones sha we, as scen-
tsts, choose Can we ever get psychoogsts to agree on what concepts
they shoud use If we can t get them to agree, s there any hope of
ever producng a unfed pcture of a gven personaty Certany, as
we ook around among psychoogsts, we fnd no agreement as to
what conceptua frame of reference shoud be adopted. s port
50
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
puts t (1942, p. 167), f he (the psychoogst) s a Mar st, he sees
sgnfcance n the cass membershp of the sub|ect f he s a retsch-
meran, he bears heavy upon the mpcatons of consttutona
types f he s a reudan, t s the toet tranng or the 0edpus
stuaton that captures hs attenton. More subte, but |ust as effec-
tve, are other favorte theores: condtonng, frustraton-aggres-
son, cutura-determnsm, compensaton, functona autonomy.
Dffcutes such as these press for answers before we try to con-
ceptuaze personaty.
Perhaps we may begn our souton to some of these probems by
askng what the purpose of a concept s. Poughy, a concept may be
defned as a shorthand representaton of a varety of facts. Its pur-
pose s to smpfy thnkng by subsumng a number of events under
one genera headng. s the wrters n genera semantcs have made
cear, a concept s usuay a hgher-order generazaton or abstrac-
ton coverng a number of specfc and detaed events. or e ampe,
any word or concept s a Smpfcaton of the thng for whch t
stands. The word cow does not refer to any partcuar cow wth
brown spots, no horns, and eatng grass n a partcuar pasture at a
partcuar moment n tme. ut the word cow s a fary satsfactory
shorthand descrpton of any partcuar cow. It s suffcent to ca
up a reasonaby good mage of the chef features of any gven cow.
concept n the fed of personaty has e acty the same functon.
If we say that a man s a coach, for e ampe, ths carres wth t a
number of mpcatons as to hs habts, atttudes, sks, appearance,
and so forth. These mpcatons may not be entrey accurate n
deta n fact, they amost certany w not be but the use of the
term coach certany has great shorthand vaue n descrbng the
man n queston.
th ths genera background as to the nature and functon of
concepts, perhaps we can now turn our attenton to the sources of
concepts whch have come nto common use n the fed of per-
sonaty.
0bservaton s a Source of Concepts. Many of the concepts n
common use n personaty study derve drecty from the way n
whch the person s observed. Two e ampes w serve to ustrate
how ths comes about. rst, et us return to Merr s study of
materna behavor (1946). It w be remembered that snce she was
usng a drect observatona technque she adopted such behavor
categores as mother drects, nterferes, or carres on ndependent
51
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
actvty at the adut eve. These were the aspects of behavor whch
she coud observe reaby. t the same tme they suggested to her
the knds of concepts that she coud use n nterpretaton. If the
mother showed a ot of the drectve type of behavor, Merr char-
acterzed her as compusve. 0r f she sometmes drected and
sometmes dd not, Merr used such terms as uncertanty and
nconsstency. The foowng s a typca e ampe of the knd of
nterpretaton Merr gves whch s obvousy based on the be-
havora categores that she observed: Ths partcuar mother-chd
reatonshp was composed of a re|ectng chd and a mother whose
basc nsecurty n her deangs wth the chd resuted n vacatng
handng of hm. (1946, p. 4 .) It s easy to see how ths statement
grew out of the knd of behavor she observed, |ust as t s easy to
see that from that behavor she coud have made no statements, for
e ampe, about the mother s antcpatons of her chd s successes
or faures.
second and even better e ampe s to be found n the nterpreta-
ton of the scorng categores n the Porschach Test. The number of
stmuus dmensons of an nkbot whch can determne a sub|ect s
response s mted. Thus the sub|ect may respond to dfferent oca-
tons, to the form of the bot, to the coor, to supposed movement,
or to shadng. It s a perfecty straghtforward ob|ectve task for a
|udge to determne to what e tent a gven response nvoves move-
ment, coor, or form. It s qute another thng to nterpret n psy-
choogca terms what a movement response means. The concepts
used by Porschach testers have apparenty been drecty suggested
n many cases by scorng categores derved drecty from the nature
of the sub|ect s task. et us take a partcuar case, the good form
( ) response, and foow t through from a smpe ob|ectve-scorng
category to ts utmate nterpretaton as the Porschach worker
understands t.
eck (1944, p. 20) starts out wth the statement that a good form
response ( - -) s an nde of accurate percepton. Ths, then, n
turn suggests respect for reaty or st ater, crtca effort, unt
fnay he concudes that - - s an nde of ego strength. The
stronger the ego, the more assocatons. e are not rasng
questons here about the possbe vadty of ths nterpretaton of
the form response. e are smpy pontng out the process whereby
the response observed may drecty suggest, often by anaogy, the
nterpretatve concepts fnay used.
To take |ust one further e ampe, ths tme from opfer and
52
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
Peey, we fnd the statement that m on the Porschach (mpersona
forces, whrwnds, etc.) means the sub|ect e perences hs prompt-
ngs from wthn as hoste and uncontroabe forces workng upon
hm, rather than as sources of energy at hs dsposa. (1942, p. 279.)
gan the psychoogca meanng s suggested by the scorng cate-
gory. e are therefore not surprsed to dscover that the Porschach
tester makes very tte use of such concepts as the 0edpus compe
or the ana character. s data are not such as to permt hm to use
these concepts. To a very consderabe e tent, the dsagreement
among theoretca psychoogsts n the fed of personaty arses
from the fact that they are deang wth dfferent data to start wth
and cannot use each other s concepts.
Smartes s a Source of Concepts. 0ther concepts arse from
perceved smartes among the observed responses or between a
response and some other, usuay more famar, e perence of the
observer. or e ampe, the observer may be remnded by what he
sees of some other common, often sensory, e perence he has had,
whch he then uses to nterpret what he sees. Thus we fnd such
terms as a smmerng temper or mercura temperament. In such
cases knowedge of the characterstcs of the e perence wth whch
the response or trat s compared gves a better understandng of the
nature of the trat. e can thnk of a temper whch may bow off or
bow up at any moment, |ust as a smmerng teakette mght, or we
may thnk of a changeabe temperament whch s as fcke and
changeabe as a drop of mercury. Somewhat smar anaoges are
nvoved n some of the Porschach categores. or e ampe, to see
movement n a statc bot s nterpreted to mean a knd of nner
psychc movement, e.g., a promptng from wthn. port and
0dbert n ther study of trat names (cf. port, 1937, p. 309) st a
sampng of other terms whch mght cassfy here, for e ampe:
afutter, ashen, anma sprts.
s port and 0dbert further pont out, these anaoges do not
necessary nvove other sensory e perences but may nvove a com-
parson wth a we-known hstorca character. Such terms as
Machavean, Pckwckan, or Pabeasan have come nto fary
common use. t a smper eve we may smpy say that |ohn remnds
us of Mr. . In makng such statements we are hepng to nterpret
or understand |ohn s behavor by comparng t wth the presumaby
better-known or more dstnctve behavor of Mr. .
somewhat more sophstcated technque s to search for smar-
53
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tes among a person s responses. Ths s essentay the method of
trat psychoogy, whch groups together under one headng or trat-
name a varety of responses whch have somethng n common. Thus
we may say that a person s e pansve, a term whch covers e pan-
sveness n gat, gesture, takng, mode of gvng a dnner party, etc.
Catte has argued that ths s the fundamenta way n whch we
shoud arrve at concepts. e proposes specfcay that we do not use
the scentst s |udgment of what goes together but use nstead the
actua emprca co-varaton of behavor eements or responses. e
states (1946a, p. 71) that the unty of a set of parts s estabshed by
ther movng .e., appearng, changng, dsappearng together, by
ther e ercsng an effect together, and by an nfuence on one beng
an nfuence on a. Ths he cas co-varaton or gong-togetherness,
the usua concrete measure of whch s the correaton coeffcent. In
other words, he s proposng that we adopt concepts that are derved
from what emprcay functons together n the behavor fed and
not from any theoretca preconceptons. Ths nvoves factor anayss
and s n effect a statstca method of arrvng at a defnton of
smarty. 0thers ke port woud argue that smartes can be
dscovered n a more theoretca way, through the understandng of
the scentst.
Soca Groups s a Source of Concepts. Many of the concepts n
common use n the psychoogy of personaty derve from names
gven to the groups or casses to whch a person beongs. The vaue
of such concepts es n the fact that certan more or ess we-defned
trats, nterests, habts, and atttudes beong to members of that cass.
Some of the casses are smpy boogca n nature. or e ampe,
when we say, e s a man, that carres wth t the tact assumpton
that he shares, aong wth other men, certan nterests, se ua and
otherwse, certan physca characterstcs, and certan knds of
knowedge and sk. If we go further and say, e s a man of forty-
fve, that carres even wder connotatons wth t as to hs nterests,
abtes, and probabe functons n socety.
Such concepts have great shorthand vaue and are consequenty
very often used not ony by scentsts but by the man n the street.
It s not sheer human cussedness or |ust accdent that peope so often
use such descrptve terms as Naz, |ew, dour Scot, or warm.
eng abe to pace a man n one of these groups of peope carres
wth t the suggeston of a great many trats wthout the necessty of
enumeratng each ndvdua one (cf. sch, 1946). The fact that a
. 54 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
person may not have many of the mped trats has often been
emphaszed by psychoogsts, but t has not so often been ponted out
that these terms have great shorthand vaue.
Terms such as these are aso used to refer to the cutura groups to
whch the person beongs. Most common are roe and status terms
referrng to famy or assocaton groups. Thus we may say, e s a
father, a coach, and a Mason. ach of these terms heps descrbe
what behavor we may e pect of hm f we know the behavor whch
s typca of members of each of these groups. Such terms may aso
appy to a group of trats a person has because of hs partcuar rea-
tonshp wth some cass of physca ob|ects. Thus ve may refer to a
person as a bcycst or a farmer and derve from the reference some
mpresson of the actvtes he w engage n as a resut of hs rea-
ton to certan partcuar envronmenta ob|ects. These terms have
been caed envronmenta mod untes or concepts by Catte
(1946a, p. 64).
Cause and ffect s a Source of Concepts. 0ther concepts arse
from the presumed common orgn or common end of a varety of
behavor eements. Many of these concepts derve from reudan
deveopmenta psychoogy. Thus we may speak of a man as repre-
sentng the ana character. In dong so we mpy that he shoud
show three such dssmar trats as obstnacy, stngness, and order-
ness because he was presumaby f ated at the ana eve n hs
bdna deveopment. That s, these trats occur together n a per-
sonaty because they presumaby have a common orgn. The con-
cept ana character refers to that orgn and carres wth t the
mpcaton that the person w have the trats n queston. Such
concepts as these, many of them derved from abnorma psychoogy,
psychoanayss, and psychatry, have become common n descrbng
personaty. e use the orgn or presumed e panaton of the per-
son s behavor to descrbe and nterpret t. Thus, for e ampe, we
may say that a man has an nferorty compe or an 0edpus com-
pe .
There s a whoe group of reated terms whch refer to the goa
of a varety of responses. These are argey motvatona concepts.
Thus we may speak of the need for achevement, the need for ove,
the need for securty. hen we say that |ones has a hgh need for
achevement, ths may serve to summarze a ot of hs behavor, whch
may ncude: studyng hard for e amnatons, workng ong hours,
beng senstve to the crtcsm of others, and a whoe varety of
55
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
other responses whch woud n no way appear smar, at east on
the surface. The bass for groupng the responses under a common
headng s not ther smarty, but ther |udged reatonshp to a
common end.
aue s a Source of Concepts. nay there s a whoe seres of
concepts whch nterpret the behavor of a person n terms of some
norms or standards. port and 0dbert found n ther anayss of
trat names that ths was by far the most common type of concept
that they ran across. Yet they fee that so far as possbe such terms
shoud not be used n the scentfc study of personaty. The psy-
choogy of personaty must be kept free from confuson wth the
probems of evauaton (character). ( port, 1937, p. 30 .) That s,
they fee that such terms as honest, unsefsh, and aw-abdng have
no pace n the scentfc study of personaty. Most psychoogsts
woud agree wth them. Somehow evauatve characteroogca
sketches must be kept dstnct from scentfc personaty studes. ut
wheren es the dfference hen s t a rght to use a term ke
honest, and when not acty what makes the use of the term honest
mproper anyway Such mportant questons demand carefu scru-
tny, f we are reay to understand the nature of conceptua schemes
n personaty study.
The Conceptuazaton Process. To unrave some of these com-
pcated ssues, et us start as smpy as possbe and see how and at
what pont concepts are ntroduced nto the process of understand-
ng another person. ortunatey our quest begns wth an ob|ect that
has a smpe operatona defnton: a person s somethng that can
be ponted to. e can formuate a fancer defnton f we want to,
e.g., a person s a vng, human organsm. ut ths s not absoutey
necessary. Snce we can pont to a person, everyone knows what we
mean when we say that the psychoogy of personaty has a person
as ts egtmate sub|ect. e can go further and say that the person be-
comes a egtmate ob|ect for scentfc study ony when the person
s known to someone ese. That s, the person, ke any ob|ect of
scentfc knowedge, must be perceved by other human bengs,
ether drecty or through recordng or measurng nstruments of
some knd. (Mowrer and uckhohn, 1944, p. 77.) oowng these
authors further we may anayze the dfferent ways n whch a person
becomes known to someone ese, here the nqurng scentst. Tabe
3.1 outnes the varous ways n whch a person s behavor may affect
the word around hm.
56
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
T 3.1
Schematc Dagram Showng ow a Scentfc Conceptua Scheme Is
Derved from a Person s Pesponses.
Penon
Pecordng nstrument
Interpretat on
I. Scentst
Scentfc con
ceptua rat on
(persona ty
verba
scentst
report
( fter Mowrer and uckhohn, 1944.)
It shows how the behavor of a person becomes known to the
scentst and can consequenty be used by hm to form a conceptua
scheme. e may abe ths conceptua scheme the person s person-
aty, recognzng that t aways nvoves an nterpretaton of the
person s responses. ut to understand some of the confusons whch
have arsen as dscussed above, we sha need to consder system-
atcay the varous ways n whch the scentst arrves at hs
knowedge.
rst of a, the scentst may record drecty, accordng to the
technques covered n Chapter 2, the motor or verba behavor of the
person. Ths s the method the scentst s usng when he adopts a
check st to record movements n a tme-sampng technque or when
he studes the wrtten response of a sub|ect n a Thematc ppercep-
ton Test. t east n the begnnng ths observaton has as tte
nterpretaton n t as possbe. The scentst must have accurate raw
data from whch to bud a conceptuazaton.
second, somewhat more ndrect approach nvoves the scen-
tst s observaton of the effects of a man on hs mpersona envron-
ment. Ths mght nvove studyng carvngs on an ancent gyptan
bas-reef and tryng to nfer from them what knd of a worker the
57
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
artst was. s anthropoogsts have ponted out, man eaves about
hm many art ob|ects, beongngs, and other more or ess permanent
artfacts, whch psychoogsts coud use to nterpret personaty, |ust
as they use observaton of actua behavor. Psychoogsts have not
adopted ths approach to personaty very often. In fact, the best
e ampe of ts possbe usefuness s provded by Sherock omes,
who coud make amazng deductons from a cgar ash or from
the way n whch the soe of a shoe s worn. n ustraton of how
ths approach coud be used n reaty s provded by the beongngs
test used n the assessment of men by the 0ffce of Strategc Servces
(0.S.S.) durng ord ar II. The nstructons for the test were as
foows:
Ths room was occuped severa months ago by a man who was a guest
here for severa days. 0n hs departure he eft a number of hs thngs, a
number of beongngs behnd hm n the room, pannng at the tme to
return. e have coected these and ad them out so that they are a n
pan sght. Your task s to e amne them and try to sze up the man, to
earn a you can about hm, what he was ke, n any respect. (0.S.S., 194 ,
P- 92-)
Such data as these coud be far more usefu to the student of per-
sonaty than they have been to date.
The thrd effect of the person s st more ndrect and s open to
a varety of changes before t gets to the scentst. Ths s the effect
of the person on hmsef. It ncudes on the one hand drect observa-
tons, such as I fee unhappy and on the other, hs nterpretaton
of such feengs. That s, drect observatons are often coored by the
sub|ect s own deas as to what they mean. or e ampe, he may say,
I fee unhappy because I have an nferorty compe . The state-
ment about an nferorty compe s an attempt at nterpretaton
whch the student of hs personaty may utze n hs conceptuaza-
ton, but t certany shoud not be accepted at ts face vaue. ny-
thng whch the person says about hmsef, whether t be smpe
reportng of sub|ectve facts or compe nterpretatons of those facts,
s grst for the scentst s m, so ong as the scentst s carefu not to
accept the person s conceptuazaton as hs own. If a person says,
I am abnorma, the psychatrst s defntey nterested n that
statement even though he may not regard the person as abnorma
at a by hs standards.
The ast effect of a person may be on another person who then
transmts hs observatons to the scentst. 0bvousy ths effect s
5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
very much ke the frst one, where the scentst s the drect observer,,
but a dstncton has to be made because the scentst s nformaton
has often gone through a transformng process when he gets t from
an ntervenng reporter. The fact s that the ordnary observer of
another person usuay m es a great dea of nterpretaton nto hs
report to the scentst. The matera as the scentst gets t s defntey
secondhand and has been seected, hgh-ghted, and nterpreted n a
way whch makes t very dffcut for the scentst to get at the actua
responses on whch the observatons were based. In fact, such reports
may te the scentst more about the person makng the report than
about the person beng observed.
It s precsey n ths way that a egend may grow up whch n tme
may appear to consttute a man s personaty. Take the case of |esus.
Schoars are apt nowadays to dstngush between the |esus of the
Church and the |esus of hstory, each of whom has a somewhat df-
ferent personaty. The orgna mpressons of what |esus sad
and dd were recorded from memory by a few peope. These mem-
ores were undoubtedy seectve, and nvoved a good dea of
mpct conceptuazaton. They were then n turn sub|ect to nter-
pretaton by church wrters, who began to react to each other s
nterpretatons and conceptuazatons t the very compe pcture
of s personaty deveoped whch s characterstc of present-day
theoogy. The stuaton s comparabe to artett s reproducton e -
perments (1932) n whch a story s tod to one person, who passes t
on to another, who passes t on to another, unt fnay the story may
have tte connecton wth the orgna. The changes t undergoes
are of very great mportance for the study of soca psychoogy and
perhaps of the personates of the men through whose mnds t has
passed, but the fna verson s of tte vaue for the study of the
personaty of the person about whom the story orgnated. hat we
are dscussng here mght be caed reputaton, whch s defned as
the concepton of a man hed by hs assocates or by men n genera.
ut reputaton must be dstngushed from a scentfc conceptuaza-
ton of personaty.
Inductve and Deductve Conceptua Schemes (Personaty vs
Character). Ths brngs us back to where we started, snce reputa-
ton s very smar to what we mean by character. The dfference
s that now we can see how the opnons of others may be mstaken
for a man s personaty and yet how they may be utzed by the
scentst n hs over-a scheme. It remans to show how the opnon
59
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of others dffers from the opnon of the scentst. It dffers n two
man respects. rst, t s usuay not as systematcay based on ob-
servaton and e permentaton. Secondy, t often proceeds deduc-
tvey from a frame of reference rather than nductvey from
behavora fact. To take an e treme case, a mnster may be nter-
ested n knowng whether Chare s a snner. e arrves at hs
defnton of snnng deductvey from theoogca assumptons.
Then he attempts to ft Chare nto ths conceptua category. rom
the scentst s vew the snnng concept may not be appcabe to
Chare s behavor, one way or another, but ths does not matter
to the mnster, who s not nterested n accountng for Chare s
behavor as smpy as possbe but n seeng how he fts nto an
evauatve scheme. e s nterested n Chare s character more than
n hs personaty.
The pont s that the purpose of a scentfc portrat and a regous
portrat dffer. 0ne proceeds prmary nductvey, the other deduc-
tvey. The purpose of a scentfc conceptuazaton of a person s
to account for hs responses as competey and as economcay as
possbe. Ths s the am of any scentfc concept or aw. The
.scentst wants to make sense out of hs data, he wants to deveop
generazatons whch w account for the varety of thngs whch he
has observed. nd he wants to use the mnmum number of genera-
zatons whch w do the |ob adequatey. Ths s e acty the task of
the scentst workng wth a person s behavor. e wants to adopt the
mnmum number of concepts whch w account for a of the be-
havor of a gven person.
Ths mmedatey suggests what makes a concept vad or vauabe
for scentfc use. concept s vad n personaty study to the e tent
that t has mpcatons whch can be defned (.e., measured) and
whch have actuay been tested and confrmed. Suppose, for e am-
pe, on the bass of the fact that Mr. . returns a purse whch a ady
has dropped on the street, we decde to abe the man honest. Is the
concept honest vauabe scentfcay The answer to ths queston
es n another queston. Does the concept honest carry wth t a
number of mpcatons as to other parts of hs behavor y what
other operatons are we as scentsts gong to defne the word honest
e mght decde, for e ampe, that honesty aso meant teng the
truth, not ookng up answers n the back of the book, or returnng
the rght change n a busness transacton (cf. artshorne and May,
192 ). If everyone n the scentfc word agreed on what the other
operatons were that measured honesty n ths way, we coud then
60
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
go out and see whether n fact Mr. . s honest n genera. That s,
we coud then decde whether the term honest was a usefu concept
to descrbe hs behavor. If he showed very nconsstent behavor n
the stuatons mentoned, we mght very we have to search for
another concept whch woud summarze hs behavor better. 0r we
mght want to redefne the meanng of the word honest to cover hs
behavor. The basc pont here s that for scentfc purposes a term
must have an agreed-upon set of operatons before ts usefuness
can be tested n a partcuar case. If the operatons cannot be defned
because the term s too vague, or f they are defned and are not
confrmed, then we can say that the term s no good as a scentfc
concept, the purpose of whch s to summarze behavor econom-
cay. The most genera statement we can make s that a concept s
vad f t has a set of operatons whch can be precsey defned and
whch have been tested and conf1rmed n the ndvdua case.
Now obvousy there are other purposes for whch concepts may
be used and ths s where much of the confuson has arsen. The
terms honesty or snfuness, for e ampe, have qute dfferent uses for
a mnster, who w doubtess contnue to empoy them regardess
of whether or not the scentst fnds them economca n descrbng
personaty. In anaogous fashon a teacher may be asked by a pros-
pectve empoyer whether a certan student s honest or not. It w
not satsfy the empoyer f the teacher answers that he cannot appy
the term honesty to ths student s behavor The teacher s beng
asked to make a vaue |udgment, not a |udgment as to whether the
term s scentfcay usefu or not. 0ne and the same term can be
used for scentfc purposes or for qute dfferent purposes. To make
ths absoutey cear, et us modfy Tabe 3.1 as shown on page 62.
Tabe 3.2 has been drawn up n such a way as to show how a
teacher mght arrve at a recommendaton, usng the same methods
of gettng nformaton as woud be avaabe to the scentst, but
startng wth an evauatve framework and workng back to the per-
son s responses rather than the other way around. or nstance, the
teacher mght observe (Method 1) that Chare s e amnatons showed
consderabe rreguarty, that he answered some questons we and
some poory, that sometmes hs papers were on tme and sometmes
ate. The teacher mght aso notce (Method 2) that he sometmes
eft hs books yng around and often ost them. hen confronted
wth some of these thngs Chare woud nevertheess say (Method
3), I am deepy nterested n ths course and I don t know why my
performance s so rreguar. The teacher mght then go to the
61
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 3.2
- Schematc Dagram Showng ow an vauatve Conceptua Scheme s
pped to a Person s Pesponses.
Person
Pecordng nstrument
vauat ve framework
person s
responses
. Teacher
t. Impersona ,
- teacher
env1ronment
3. Sef
4. S , , mm
verba
report
verba
report
teacher
teacher
Is he abe to do
graduate work
Does he get aong
we wth othen
Does he work consc1en-
tousy, etc.
(Pecommendaton)
cnca psychoogst for a scentf1c conceptuazaton of the man s
personaty (Method 4). Ths the cnca psychoogst mght gve
hm n some such terms as the foowng: Chare s sufferng from
ambvaence about achevement. e has dentfed hmsef strongy
-wth hs father whom he kes and admres very much, but hs father
has been a faure. s a resut the boy s confused n hs achevement
ambtons. Takng a these observatons together (Methods 1, 2,
3, 4), the teacher sts down and tres to wrte a recommendaton for
the student n terms of the questons he must answer, whch mght
run somewhat as foows:
Chare s a student whose work s best characterzed as beng
of very uneven quaty. t tmes he shows a rea grasp of the sub|ect matter
and approaches brance at other tmes he doesn t seem to try at a. e
s careess n hs work habts and not competey dependabe. Though I
-woud ke to see hm have a chance at graduate work, I am not very op-
tmstc about hs eventua success. If he coud sette down and straghten
out some of hs goas n fe, I thnk he mght make a very abe student.
ut he has not done ths as yet. Personay I fnd hm very kabe.
62
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
The thng to notce about such a recommendaton s that t uses
some of the very same concepts that mght be used by a scentst
tryng to gve a pcture of the boy s personaty. ut the concepts are
used for a dfferent purpose. They are used to gve an over-a evaua-
ton of the boy as a student so that the graduate schoo can decde
whether to admt hm or not. It s true that the teacher uses concepts
that summarze the boy s behavor fary adequatey, but he aso
chooses hs concepts prmary wth an eye to ther usefuness for the
purpose of recommendaton. It s ths other purpose whch dstn-
gushes the portrat of a person drawn by the nonscentst. Such a
recommendaton may be caed a character sketch as dstnct from a
personaty sketch. The term character may be used to refer to an
evauaton of a person n terms of some standards, whereas the term
personaty shoud be restrcted to the scentfc conceptuazaton
under consderaton here.
n anaogy may be drawn wth the portrat whch an artst makes
of a st fe. e rearranges hs mperfect sensory mpressons nto
somethng whch makes artstc sense to hm. e s creatng, con-
trbutng much to what he sees n terms of hs artstc vaues concern-
ng ne, coor, and form. e has a purpose whch goes beyond ac-
countng as smpy as possbe for what he sees, |ust as the teacher
has a purpose whch requres hm to arrange what he observes nto
the categores of |udgment requred n a recommendaton. Smary
the novest, n descrbng a character, w seect and emphasze the
quates whch ft hs artstc pans. The scentst, on the other hand,
has as hs |ob the adequate accountng for a a person s actvtes
and e perences as economcay as possbe. s concepts are mted
to those whch are usefu to ths partcuar purpose. Such a mta-
ton may make the scentst at tmes seem unnspred and pedestran.
port quotes Stefan weg as sayng, In psychoogy the fed of
personaty s worked by esser men, mere fes, who have the safe
anchorage of a frame of scence n whch to pace ther petty pat-
tudes or mnor hereses. (1937, p. 60.) ut as port aso says (1937,
p. 63), If psychoogy today s dscoverng ony what terature has
aways sad t s nevertheess gvng precson and genera appca-
ton to the ancent truths. ess en|oyabe, t s more dscpned
ess subte, t s more verfabe ess artfu, t s more e act.
Two Contrastng Personaty Portrats. The mportance of the
ssue we have been dscussng w become obvous f we compare two-
conceptuazatons of the same ndvdua wrtten and pubshed by
63
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
two dfferent teams of psychoogsts who had access to substantay
the same nformaton. 0ne report s by hte, Tomkns, and per
(1945) on a arvard student they named emer, and the other by
Murray and Morgan (1945) on the same man, whom they named
awk. ccordng to the hte team emer was a very successfu
coege man who had made a reastc synthess. t the age of twenty
he has acheved a workng synthess whch ncudes the demands of
hs cuture, the pressure of hs own needs, and the condtons m-
posed by e terna reaty. . . . 0ur nvestgaton shows that he has
known consderabe an ety, that he has been paced n stuatons of
great confct, and that hs adaptaton has been won and re-won n
the face of successve obstaces. They report hm as gvng the
mpresson of maturty . . . party from hs habtua pose and
deberate, we-consdered speech. 0n the campus he s a eader
partcpatng n neary every knd of coege actvty. . . . e . . .
has made an e ceent academc record consstng many of s and
s ths s the more to hs credt because he s earnng most of hs
way through coege by rather tme-consumng offce work. (1945,
p. 229.) n a they see hm as a person who has great ego strength
and who has acheved a remarkabe reasm, athough at consder-
abe cost snce hs sef-forwardng career entas the sacrfce of
frendness and warmth whch he wants (1945, p. 247).
Murray and Morgan vew the same man qute dfferenty. They
fnd hm prmary egocentrc and unabe to ad|ust to ord ar
II. e do not beeve that hs prmary motvaton n avodng batte
s crude physca fear as such, fear of n|ury and pan, but rather
dread est a buet put an end to a magnfcent career, the certanty
of whch rests upon an undenabe presentment of hs own poten-
tates. e s overcome by pty of a vson cut short by voence.
ut the vson s not the offsprng of word oyaty t s the out-
growth of a prmtve desre for power and gory. (1945, p. 107.)
In the present crss, there was not a trace of eadershp abty n
awk s behavor. Dsusoned, confused, and unabe to brng hs
own mnd nto ne, he coud be of no hep to others. (1945, p. 109.)
Smary they fnd hm hoste to regon because t tends to nar-
row the mnd. . . . hs capacty for dedcaton and sefessness s
defcent. e has no thought of fndng hs fe by osng t. Persona
power s what he wants, conscous governance of hmsef and others
ths above a. (1945, p. 165.) 0n atttudes toward se he fares
hardy better. e s n favor of romance but so far has not been abe
to deveop much romance hmsef. The truth s that awk s so
64
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
narcssstcay preoccuped wth hs own persona ambton that he
s ncapabe at present of gvng hmsef whoeheartedy to anythng
but ths. (1945, p. 274.) 0ny toward hs parents are hs atttudes
postve. . . . hs affecton and devoton are undevatng. Perhaps,
as they suggest, avng nothng to fear from hs parents he can
ove them wthout quafcaton. (1945, p. 23 .)
hat a contrast ths s to the pcture of a reastc synthess It
hardy seems possbe that the same person s beng descrbed by
these two teams of psychoogsts. Yet he s. hat e pans the dffer-
ence ow can he appear mature and reastc to one group and
confused and narcssstcay preoccuped to another The fact
s that the |udges were hodng hm up to dfferent standards. s
fe had a dfferent meanng dependng on whch set of norms they
referred t to. Murray and Morgan were obvousy consderng hm
from the vewpont of the e tent to whch he measured up to soc-
ety s requrements, partcuary n tme of war. They found hm
wantng. e dd not have the sefessness that country, church, or
ove woud requre of hm. Ther conceptua categores were deter-
mned n part by the requrements of the evauatve framework to
whch they referred hm. The hte group, on the other hand, had
adopted an ndvduastc rather than a soca evauatve framework.
They asked themseves whether he woud succeed, not whether hs
country woud fnd hm an e ceent ctzen and soder, or hs wfe
a sefess over. They |udged he was reastc from the vaue frame-
work of ndvdua success. In ths respect they were probaby |ust
as correct as Murray and Morgan were to fnd hm egocentrc rather
than sococentrc. ach group was hodng hm to a dfferent stand-
ard. ach was wrtng a dfferent knd of recommendaton, as t were.
ut whch s the correct one Nether, accordng to the vew adopted
here. conceptua scheme shoud be orented toward accountng for
the behavora facts and not toward any |udgmenta framework, hard
though that may be when vaue |udgments so permeate our reaton-
shps wth peope. Ths n no way essens the mportance of evaua-
tons. There s no reason why someone shoud not ask how good a
soder or how good a busnessman awk w be and no reason why
teams of psychoogsts shoud not attempt to answer such questons.
hen they do so, however, they shoud recognze that they have eft
the fed of personaty, of pure scence, and have entered the fed
of character, of apped scence. oth are mportant feds of study
but n the nterest of carty they shoud be kept separate and
dstnct.
65
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Systematc vauatve ramework. Two German schoars, D-
they-(1 94) and Spranger (192 ), have argued strongy for a scentfc,
systematc approach to character evauaton. They fee that the
approach recommended here, namey, that of workng nductvey
from a person s behavor, has ed psychoogsts to be e cusvey n-
terested n causaton and deveopment. It s easy to see how ths
mght resut. If the scentst s response-orented, hs ma|or probem
becomes that of determnng the reatonshp between two or more
responses, or of e panng why response s assocated wth re-
sponse , etc. Dthey argued that psychoogy shoud concern tsef
not ony wth e panaton or wth cause, but aso wth meanng
(1 94). y meanng he had n mnd the connecton of an act wth
some arger whoe or frame of reference that had vaue or mpor-
tance. e dfferentated, consequenty, e panatory psychoogy from
a descrptve or comparatve psychoogy. e even nvented a new
term to descrbe the method used n descrptve psychoogy. In Ger-
man the term s verstehen, whch may be transated understandng.
Ths has been taken by port (1937) to mean any ntutve ap-
proach to psychoogy, athough t s doubtfu f Dthey and hs
pup, Spranger, meant to mpy that the understandng approach
was any ess anaytca, comparatve, or rgorous than the e pana-
tory approach to psychoogy. The ma|or contrast they meant to draw
was between the ams of the two knds of psychoogy, not between
the methods of study.
Ths dfference of ams can best be ustrated by a concrete e -
ampe. Suppose a person goes to New York. Dthey and Spranger
argue that there are two knds of questons whch may be asked
about ths act. rst s the queston, hy does he go n answer
to ths queston mght nvove a study of hs motves, hs nner states,
or the argument he had wth hs father the day before. Ths s the
approach the reudans woud presumaby use. ut we may aso ask
the queston, So what hat s the meanng of hs act, what s ts
sgnf1cance nswers to these questons mght nvove consderng
the economc or soca sgnfcance of the act. e mght be gong to
New York to earn a vng, to meet a frend, or to go to the opera.
In other words, hs act has economc or perhaps soca or aesthetc
sgnfcance or vaue.
hat dfference does ths make n the conceptuazaton of a gven
personaty The answer to ths s best found n the studes of per-
sonaty made by men beongng to ths schoo. Thus Dthey wrote
a fe of Goethe (1910) whch was concerned chefy wth Goethe s
66
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
sgnfcance as a wrter and not wth Goethe s nner feengs or
motves or hs reatonshp to hs mother. In other words, Dthey
wanted to |udge Goethe from the vewpont of varous standards,
vaues, or frames of reference. s a cuture hstoran he wanted to
pace Goethe n hs soco-cutura conte t.
Spranger (192 ) went a step further and argued that there are s
frames of reference ( ebensformen) n terms of whch a personaty
shoud be systematcay consdered. It s from the vewpont of these
s abstract standards or vaues that a partcuar fe takes on mean-
1ng, |ust as an act takes on meanng when t s |udged n terms of ts
economc or soca sgnfcance or consequences. Ths normatve
framework shoud not be confused wth a mora framework for
prasng or condemnng a person. It s smpy an abstract system of
reference ponts n terms of whch a partcuar fe hstory may be
wrtten or evauated. These reference ponts (aesthetc, soca, pot-
ca, economc, theoretca, regous) derve from soca structure
anayss rather than from deveopmenta stages of the organsm as
n the reudan scheme. The dfference can be hgh-ghted by con-
trastng the two dfferent ves whch mght be wrtten of someone
ke Sant Theresa, one of whch woud dea wth ts aesthetc and
regous sgnfcance, the other wth the emotona causes of her be-
havor, wth, perhaps, her powerfu, submated se ua urges.1
hat are we to make of ths proposa hat t seems to nvove
s an attempt to treat the soca stmuus vaue of a person sys-
tematcay, to consder the pace of a person s fe wthn a number
of dfferent normatve frameworks. Spranger woud ncude the
evauatons of the novest, the prest, or the teacher, but n a more
ob|ectve systematc manner. e mght ca ths approach crtcsm.
Carefu and ob|ectve crtcsm of a man s fe n terms of standard-
zed frames of reference or vaues s ceary a task whch needs to be
done. Someone must concern hmsef wth the meanng of a man s
fe. To seek an anaogy n the ream of physca scence, we may aso
say that someone must concern hmsef wth the meanng of water-
ts economc utty, ts artstc quates, ts destructve power, etc.
Yet the chemst normay contents hmsef wth the structure of
water and eaves ts soca stmuus vaue to someone ese. e
mght say that the psychoogst shoud do kewse, wth one mpor-
tant dfference to be noted beow. Normay the process of evauat-
11 am deepy ndebted to Professor |uan Poura for hs patent e panaton of
the vews of Dthey and Spranger. See aso hs book, Mundo storco Soca,
M .
67
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ng a person s eft to those who e ce n the partcuar standards n
terms of whch he s beng |udged e.g., the prest, the artst, or the
teacher. e have no name for Dthey and Spranger s normatve
scence of evauatng these evauatons, uness t be characteroogy,
crtcsm, or phosophy. t any rate, the task of the psychoogy of
personaty s more crcumscrbed to repeat, t s merey to get the
most adequate and economca conceptuazaton possbe of a snge
person s responses.
There s one aspect of crtcsm whch s a egtmate sub|ect for
soca psychoogca study. That s the process of arrvng at the
crtca vaue |udgment. The soca psychoogst s defntey nter-
ested n the way evauatons of other peope grow up. In ther e -
treme form such |udgments may take the form of a egend, such as
the egend about George ashngton, braham ncon, or some
none stent hstorca fgure. Partcuary usefu for the study of
cutura atttudes have been the purey mythca fgures, the cuture
heroes, gods, or demgods. or e ampe, rown has shown (1947)
how ermes, the thef n ancent Greek mythoogy, reay came to
have a personaty whch was a pro|ecton of the desres of the rsng
Greek mdde cass. These mythca personates are very usefu
to the soca psychoogst and the anthropoogst because they refect
fundamenta soca atttudes, but they are not part of the psychoogy
of personaty proper.
The Usefuness of Sorts of Concepts. Nevertheess we may
we want to borrow concepts from the fed of soca psychoogy or
even from the fed of crtcsm and adapt them to our own scentfc
purposes. or e ampe, we sha fnd t very usefu n ths book to
borrow the soca roe concept as an ad n descrbng and summarz-
ng a man s personaty. Ths s necessary because most of a man s
acts are soca n nature and are determned by hs nterorzaton of
soca norms. It s here that the parae wth water s not e act. The
chemst does not fnd the soca stmuus vaue of water of any use n
hs scentfc understandng of water. ut ths s not true of the
psychoogst. To know the soca stmuus vaue of a man, to know
that he s a coach, provdes us wth a concept whch not ony gves
hs functon n hs socety but whch aso may be used to summarze
or e pan hs behavor, snce the atttudes and actvtes e pected
of a coach are fary we defned n our socety. Nevertheess, we sha
fnd t necessary to dstngush between the term coach, as used n the
6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
frst sense when t. s a unt of soca structure anayss, and n the
second sense when t summarzes Mr. P. s behavor. The nterorza-
ton of the behavora norms that go wth beng a coach s never
perfect so we sha need a somewhat dfferent term to refer to ths
nterorzed norm ( roe percepton ), but t w depend for ts
meanng very much on the soca meanng of the term coach.
kewse we sha borrow concepts for scentfc purposes from the
other sources sted earer. e sha use the concept of trat, whch
s based on smartes of behavor, and the concept of motve, whch
s based on cause-and-effect reatonshps. e sha aso be nfuenced
by methodoogca consderatons, snce, f a concept has a set of
operatons whch cannot be compared wth any other set of opera-
tons used by scentsts, t s of mted genera usefuness. or
e ampe, the term promptngs from wthn has an operatona
defnton. Poughy t s the M response on the Porschach Test.
ut f the concept can be reated to no other operatons, 1t w de
a natura death. nay we sha be nfuenced n our choce of con-
cepts by the reaton of the concepts to other concepts whch have
been deveoped. aong we have been takng as f a concept
e sted n soaton. ctuay, of course, t not ony has a reatonshp
to the operatons whch defne t but t has a supraordnate or co-
ordnate reatonshp to other concepts n the genera theory of
personaty beng deveoped. Ths aspect of our theoretca probem
w be treated more fuy n the ne t chapter.
Defnton of Personaty. e have fnay competed our defn-
ton of personaty. Startng wth a smpe operatona defnton of
a person as somethng one can pont to, we have concuded wth a
defnton of personaty as the most adequate conceptuazaton of
a person s behavor n a ts deta that the scentst can gve at a
moment n tme. Ths defnton of personaty requres some further
eaboraton. rst, t s obvous that a person s not hs personaty
any more than a partcuar coor bue corresponds to a wave ength
of a certan frequency wth a ts connotatons n theoretca physcs.
Personaty s a theoretca nterpretaton derved from a a person s
behavor. Ths shoud reassure those who prefer drect apprehenson
of another to the scentfc method of understandng. It goes wthout
sayng that even the psychoogst w go on ovng hs wfe n pref-
erence to budng up a scentfc conceptuazaton of her. e cer-
tany have not meant to |udge the theoretca approach to the
person as superor to the artstc, the crtca, or the ntutve. e
69
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
have smpy tred to dstngush t as sharpy as possbe from these
other approaches.
Second, a person s personaty n ths sense may change as he
changes or as the scentst s nsghts mprove. In fact, snce person-
aty s a theoretca construct, t s very apt to change as the
scentst s other theoretca convctons are modfed or mproved.
Nowhere s ths more obvous than n current defntons of per-
sonaty gven by other workers n the fed. Thus Guthre defnes
personaty as those habts and habt systems of soca mportance
that are stabe and resstant to change (1944, p. 5 ). ere t s cear
that the author has defned personaty n terms of hs theoretca
orentaton toward assocatve earnng as the bass of a behavor.
somewhat more comprehensve defnton s gven by port, who
defnes personaty as the dynamc organzaton wthn the nd-
vdua of those psychophysca systems that determne hs unque
ad|ustments to hs envronment. (1937, p. 4 .) The eements n ths
defnton, f taken separatey, refect a or neary a of the ma|or
theoretca vewponts n psychoogy today. The fna phrase unque
ad|ustments to hs envronment ceary refects the contemporary
Darwnan emphass on functonasm, or adaptaton for survva.
The phrase dynamc organzaton, on the other hand, neaty com-
bnes two schoos, the reudan emphass on strvng and the Gestat
emphass on patternng. The word psychophysca emphaszes the
boogca bass of personaty or the reaton between mnd and
body, etc.
Ths s, of course, as t shoud be. n nterpretaton w aways
refect the theoretca vewponts of the tme. ut t shoud be cear
that each formuaton of personaty, ke any scentfc formuaton,
s ony appro mate a more or ess happy hypothess whch s sub-
|ect to change as nsghts mprove. There s no absoute and fna
truth, at east so far as a concepton of a gven person s concerned.
Truth w aways be ony appro mate.1
The defnton of personaty we have gven aso requres some
further specfcaton of what s meant by an adequate conceptuaza-
ton. e may begn by sayng that an adequate conceptuazaton s
one whch eads to the ma mum understandng of the person. ut
unfortunatey the word understandng has so many sub|ectve mean-
ngs, we must specfy even further than ths. oowng the Soca
Scence Pesearch Counc as reported by port (1942, pp. 170-171).
we can set up varous crtera for determnng the adequacy of the
conceptuazaton n producng understandng of the person.
70
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
1. Competeness. The prmary consderaton woud appear to be
that the conceptuazaton conforms wth as many facts about the
person as possbe. It must account for a hs behavor.
2. conomy. The formuaton must not ony be compete, t must
be made wth as few prncpes and concepts as possbe. 0bvousy
a conceptuazaton whch s as vared and detaed as the raw data
on whch t s based has very tte scentfc usefuness. It s one of
the prmary prncpes of scence to get aong wth as few abstractons
as w st gve compete understandng.
3. Consstency. The nterpretaton must be nternay consstent.
Parts of an nterpretaton can be made to confront one another.
ogca contradctons rase a suspcon of nvadty. ( port, 1942,
p. 171.) In other words, the eementary rues of ogca thnkng must
be apped to the nterpretaton. It has often been sad rather un-
kndy of some psychoanaysts that they aways start out wth two
opposte prncpes and are thus abe to e pan anythng whch a
person does by usng ether one or the other.
4. Predctve power. Predcton has a speca pace n scence be-
cause t woud seem to be the fna test of understandng. If our n-
terpretaton s correct we ought to be abe to predct what the person
w do n a specfed stuaton. Unfortunatey the dffcuty es as
often n specfcaton of a stuaton as t does n the adequacy of a
conceptuazaton. s the authors of ssessment of Men have so apty
put t, It s easy to predct precsey the outcome of the meetng of
one known chemca wth another known chemca n an mmacuate
test tube. ut where s the chemst who can predct what w hap-
pen to a known chemca f t meets an unknown chemca n an un-
known vesse . . . ow, then, can a psychoogst forete wth any
degree of accuracy the outcomes of future meetngs of one barey
known personaty wth hundreds of other undesgnated persona-
tes n dstant, undesgnated ctes, vages, feds, and |unges that
are seethng wth one knows not what potenta harms and benefts
ortune ca the od hag or beauty what you w can never be
emnated from the unverse of human nteractons. nd ths beng
forever true, prophetc nfabty s beyond the reach of soca
scentsts. (194 , p. .) Nevertheess, for the stuatons whch can be
specfed by the psychoogst and there are an ncreasng number of
these at east so far as aboratory e perments are concerned pre-
dctons shoud be made and tested. There s no more convncng
proof of the adequacy of a theoretca formuaton. It s ths con-
71
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
sderaton whch has ed Catte to defne personaty as that whch
predcts behavor gven the stuaton (1g46a, p. 566).
5. Peaton to other theoretca concepts. Scence s a communty
enterprse. It woud be concevabe for a psychoogst to deveop a
conceptuazaton of a gven person whch was competey adequate
and fufed the other crtera sted above, but whch had no rea-
tonshp to any conceptuazaton whch mght be deveoped for
any other person. That s, he mght arrve at an absoutey unque
formuaton. s such t woud have dstncty mted utty. The
scentst n the fed of personaty must be guded to some e tent
by concepts whch not ony are n use n other dscpnes but are n
use by other scentsts workng n the same fed. nd especay he
must be guded by the appcabty of the concepts he uses to more
than one person.
e sha try to appy these crtera to a case whch w be fuy
deveoped n ths book so that the dscusson does not reman on too
abstract a eve. y ths tme t shoud be obvous that the task of the
scentst n the fed of personaty s not easy. Nevertheess t w
become easer as t s sharpy dstngushed from the tasks of others
who have egtmate nterests n the human ndvdua. It s ony by
carefuy defnng our purpose that we can keep from gettng hope-
essy nvoved n arguments over what personaty reay s and how
t shoud be descrbed.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. 0ne of the best pubshed e ampes of the conceptuazaton of
a norma personaty based on a great varety of carefu observatons
s that gven n the book ssessment of Men, wrtten by the staff of
the 0.S.S. tranng schoo durng ord ar II. Pead the formua-
ton of the sergeant s personaty reproduced n fu beow, pck out
haf-a-dozen concepts used, and cassfy them as to ther source
accordng to the scheme n the te t. re there any evauatve terms
used hy woud they be used
Ths competent, energetc, sef-confdent Sergeant s very we quafed
for hs assgnment by hs abty, personaty, and background. e s a de-
termned, cear-thnkng person who has we-defned vaues and goas
whch he pursues wth unswervng persstence, fuy utzng hs capacty
for hard work. In spte of hs pronounced tendency toward sef-reance and
ndependence whch, combned wth hs re|ecton of ndscrmnate gregar-
ousness, often eads to buntness n soca reatons, he s essentay a person
of good w, s frank, sympathetc, sncere, and a good m er. he hs
72
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
brusqueness and ndependence may aenate peope upon frst contact, over
a onger perod of tme the student s key to wn and hod both the re-
spect and the affecton of hs coeagues. These trats, together wth hs
readness to take responsbtes for others, to sove probems, and to make
decsons, quafy the canddate for a poston of eadershp hgher than
one that woud be compatbe wth hs rank.
Son of a successfu attorney-at-aw, the canddate grew up n 0regon
and sconsn and from an eary age deveoped a great ove for outdoor
fe, becomng profcent n mountan cmbng, skng, rdng, and swm-
mng. e was aways a good student n schoo, socabe and actve n a
varety of e tracurrcuar pursuts. ery cose to both parents, and admrng
hs father s character and achevements, he decded to foow hm n the
ega professon, and obtaned hs degree from the Unversty of Mssour n
1 41. pectng to be drafted, he postponed gong nto practce, and took a
|ob w1th the U.S. Department of |ustce. e en|oyed ths work greaty, and
n the course of t has acqured some e perence n questonng Chnese and
|apanese. Inducted nto the rmy n 1943, he went through basc tranng
and a rado schoo and has worked as a rado nstructor for the ast two years.
In spte of sow promoton, he has ad|usted we to ths stuaton, has en-
|oyed teachng, for whch he obtaned the hghest ratngs, and has utzed
hs free tme for e tensve readng n the fed of aw and soca scence. e
wants an overseas assgnment because he fees that he shoud do more for
the war effort and fees capabe of handng a strenuous and responsbe
msson. though the canddate s strong desre to do we makes hm
nervous and tense n test stuatons, or n begnnng a new type of work,
ncreasng famarty wth the stuaton qucky dssoves these tensons
the student s we ntegrated emotonay and has no dsturbng confcts
or fears whe he does not seek danger he s wng to take any rsks that
the assgnment mght nvove.
Ths canddate was very hghy motvated for a of the stuatons at S.
e entered nto the assgnments enthusastcay and e erted hmsef to
the utmost n order to acheve a successfu souton of hs group s probems.
Possessng a good measure of forcefuness and sef-assertveness, he was
usuay the frst to make any bd for eadershp. 0ny the ack of suffcent
ngenuty n fed probems prevented hm from carryng out ths roe wth
dstncton. e s adaptabe and fe be attrbutes whch shoud stand
hm n good stead n acqurng the eadershp technques and fundamenta
knowedge necessary to hande hs pro|ected assgnment effectvey.
e has a strong desre to pan and carry out tasks on the bass of hs own
deas. s a resut, he tends to be somewhat abrupt wth others who have
dfferent deas and he s very key to overook ther pont of vew n favor
of hs own. owever, he has suffcent nsght nto hmsef so that ths
characterstc rarey becomes so domnant as to nterfere markedy wth hs
soca reatons. urthermore, hs good w, warmth, and sympathetc
understandng of others become more obvous as tme goes on. e shoud
73
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
therefore wear we wth any group wth whch he s assocated over a ong
perod of tme.
In stuatons whch he regarded as crtca tests of hs abtes, hs ten-
sons e pressed themseves n profuse sweatng and quverng mbs. e was
aware of hs uneasness and dscomfture but controed hmsef so we that
he never became upset and never permtted hs emotonaty to nterfere
wth the work at hand.
e s hghy recommended for hs proposed assgnment overseas.
(Peprnted wth permsson from the ssessment of men. Copyrght 194 ,
Pnehart and Co.)
2. In contrast to ths pcture we have a portrat such as the foow-
ng, wrtten by a terary characteroogst and quoted n port.
Contrast ths portrat wth the one gven beow. hat are the sm-
artes and what are the dfferences In what sense s the former
more scentfc
Gton has a fresh compe on, a fu face and bugng cheeks, a f ed and
assured gaze, broad shouders, a pro|ectng stomach, a frm and deberate
tread. e speaks wth confdence he makes those who converse wth hm
repeat what they have sad and he ony moderatey en|oys what s sad.
e unfods an ampe handkerchef and bows hs nose nosy he spts to a
great dstance and sneezes very oudy. e seeps by day, he seeps by nght
he snores n company. t tabe and n wakng he occupes more room than
anyone ese. e takes the center and waks wth hs equas he stops and
they stop he waks on and they wak on a reguate themseves by hm
he s not nterrupted, he s stened to as ong as he kes to tak hs opnon
s accepted, the rumors he spreads are beeved. If he sts down you w
see hm sette nto an armchar, cross hs egs, frown, pu hs hat over hs
eyes and see no one, or ft t up agan and show hs brow from prde and
audacty. e s cheerfu, a hearty augher, mpatent, presumptuous, quck
to anger, rregous, potc, mysterous about current affars he beeves
he has taents and wt. e s rch. ( port, 1937, p. 59.)
3. Identfy the ma|or theoretca vewponts n the foowng
defntons of personaty. ow do they dffer from the defnton
suggested earer n ths chapter
Personaty s the system of habts whch ... s argey made up of
non-adaptve ways of ad|ustng to confct stuatons. (Stagner, 1937, p. 9.)
Personaty s the organzed aggregate of psychoogca processes and
states pertanng to the ndvdua. Ths defnton ncudes the common
eement n most of the defntons now current. t the same tme t e cudes
many orders of phenomena whch have been ncuded n one or another
of these defntons. Thus t rues out the overt behavor resutng from the
74
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
INT PPP TING T CTS
operaton of these processes and states, athough t s ony from such be-
havor that ther nature and even e stence can be deduced. It aso e cudes
from consderaton the effects of ths behavor upon the ndvdua s env-
ronment, even that part of t whch conssts of other ndvduas. asty, t
e cudes from the personaty concept the physca structure of the n-
dvdua and hs physoogca processes. ( nton, 1945, p. 4.)
Ths e presson |ntegrate n acton| s here used to ncude (1) the
meanng or functon, whch an ndvdua s actons have for hm, (2) the
confcts whch e st between hs varous habt systems, (3) the envronment
or fed to whch he s accustomed, and (4) the more or ess unque way n
whch he s hed together, or ntegrated. These four crtera derved from
the four basc assumptons of dynamc theory, thus provde a comprehensve
scheme for defnng personaty n genera and for dentfyng any per-
sonaty n partcuar. (Mowrer and uckhohn, 1944, p. 77.)
4. G. . port (1937, p. 62) quotes a famous professor of
terature as descrbng a character as foows: The nose, amost
nvaraby the nde of menta power, was perfect n funess,
straghtness, and strength. port says further, No psychoogst
coud wrte such a passage wthout beng torn mb from mb by
hs professona coeagues hat personaty concepts are ntro-
duced here and on what bass hat precsey s wrong wth them
5. Try out the beongngs test foowng the nstructons repro-
duced n the te t. Go nto someone s room (when he s out) and
try to draw as many nferences about hs personaty as you can from
observng hs artfacts. Does the nature of your data set any mts
on the concepts you can use hy has the effect of a person on hs
mpersona envronment sedom been used as a way of fndng out
more about hm
6. port n argung aganst the soca stmuus vaue theory
of personaty makes the foowng statement: sotary dweer
on a desert sand, unknown to any other morta, has a fu-fedged
(and ntensey nterestng) personaty. (1937, p. 41.) In what sense
s ths correct In what sense ncorrect
7. Mowrer and uckhohn (1944, p. 77) state that when an n-
dvdua des, personaty n the frst sense comes to an end, but
n the second sense t may contnue or even grow for centures.
ccordng to our treatment of the sub|ect, n what sense may a per-
sonaty de or contnue to grow hch of the effects of a person
dsappears at death
. There s a sense n whch the Spranger scheme marks off re-
gons n a man s sococutura envronment ( uturgebete) n terms
75
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
M T 0D0 0GY. 0 P PS0N ITY IS STUDI D
of whch he shoud be systematcay descrbed, n order to gve a
cross-sectona vew of hs personaty as opposed to a deveop-
menta one. Does ths nterpretaton make Spranger s approach
scentfc n the sense n whch the term s used here oud, t
satsfy Spranger 0r s there a dfference between such statements
as he pays the von and he pays the von beautfuy, a
dfference so fundamenta that we must assgn the frst statement
to hs personaty and the second to hs character or reputaton
Can we get around ths demma by sayng that f a man knows or
thnks he knows that he pays the von beautfuy, ths tem can
become part of a scentfc portrat of hm hy s t that non-
evauatve descrptons of peope seem so feess, so meanngess
76
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
4
Peatng the acts to 0ne nother
Peferrng back to the eements n the offhand descrpton of
another person wth whch we began our study of personaty, we
can see that we have covered the mprovements made by scence n
observaton and n conceptuazaton. Ths eaves the most dffcut
part of a, namey, the ntegraton of the concepts derved from
our observatons nto an over-a personaty pcture. e must not
ony formuate concepts to represent segments of behavor, we must
aso reate these concepts to each other n some meanngfu way.
Ths takes us nevtaby nto the fed of psychoogca theory. Un-
fortunatey psychoogca theory s not n a very satsfactory cond-
ton and to try to state n any defntve way how t pperates n the
fed of personaty s out of the queston. Nevertheess, there are
certan outstandng probems n connecton wth the appcaton of
standard nferenta or anaytca thnkng to the ndvdua fe
that we sha have to face at the very begnnng. 0ur chef concern
n ths chapter w be to state those probems as precsey as pos-
sbe and to try to ndcate the drectons n whch soutons to them
may e. t ths stage n psychoogca theory we are dong we f we
can formuate the probems correcty and ndcate a mode of attack.
na soutons w have to be eft to future generatons.
nds of Psychoogca aws. oowng the ead of ergmann
and Spence (1944), we may begn wth the two knds of emprca
reatonshps or aws found n psychoogy. The f1rst of these reates
a response varabe (P) to an e permentay manpuated stmuus
varabe (S). Ths may be wrtten symbocay n the foowng
form:
1. P f (S)
Ths formua ustrates the tradtona type of emprca reaton-
shp or aw studed n e permenta psychoogy begnnng wth the
earest work n undt s aboratory. response (e.g., reacton tme)
s potted as a functon of some stmuus (ght ntensty, ength of
the fore perod, set, etc.). Ths s the prototype of neary a abora-
tory e perments n psychoogy, even n the fed of personaty. or
e ampe, we may measure the nfuence of success- and faure-
77
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
stmuaton on eve of aspraton. 0r we may count the number of
food ob|ects magned as a functon of number of hours of food
deprvaton. Such reatonshps have typcay been stated n the If
, then form f the human beng s deprved of food for n-
creasng engths of tme, he w magne he sees an ncreasng num-
ber of food-reated ob|ects (McCeand and tknson, 194 ) under
certan condtons. 0r the number of food ob|ects a man w see
ncreases accordng to a functon whch may be mathematcay
descrbed. of u s aws n hs Prncpes of ehavor Theory
are of ths nature. That s, a response of the organsm s utmatey
ted (va ntervenng constructs, to be sure) to some change n the
envronment. or convenence we may refer to ths type of aw as
an S-P aw.
nother type of emprca reatonshp n psychoogy takes the
foowng form:
ere one response of the organsm s reated to another response of
the organsm. To take but one of the e ampes gven above, we may
now reate the number of food ob|ects magned to the sub|ect s
ratng of hs degree of hunger. ere hs magnaton (P,) s reated
to hs |udgment of hs hunger (P ). s ergmann and Spence put
t, s a matter of fact, any correaton between the scores on two
dfferent tests s of ths type and so s much of the knowedge n the
fed of personaty (correaton of trats). (1944, p. 20.) e may we
ask why most of the aws n personaty take ths form. The answer
es n the fact that very often n personaty we are not nterested
n changes n the person s responses as a functon of some momentary
stmuus condton. Pather we are nterested n stabe personaty
characterstcs whch are the resut of ong-tme summatons of
stmuus condtons. That s, Chare s behavor s not determned
whoy by changes n hs mmedate e terna envronment, but by
hs past hstory as we, by the cumuatve effects of hs past e per-
ence wth ths and smar stuatons. ,
To foow our e ampe st further, Chare may have a hstory
wth regard to hunger e perences, and we may be more nterested
n that than we are n the effect of temporary food deprvaton. In
fact, to get at ths past-hstory varabe, we very often hod e terna
condtons constant and note what we ca ndvdua dfferences n
the number of food ob|ects magned n our stuaton. Indvdua
7 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P TING T CTS T0 0N N0T P
dfferences n ths sense very often means unreated to the dffer-
ences n the e terna e permenta condtons, or, the varaton n
behavor eft over after that due to the e permenta condtons has
been anayzed out or subtracted. These ndvdua dfferences may
of course be reated to dfferences n pror e perences that each
sub|ect has had. or e ampe, Chare may have grown up n an area
of penty, where there was a the food he coud eat, whereas |oe
may have grown up under condtons n whch food was ony
perodcay present n suffcent quanttes. These two peope may
be e pected to react qute dfferenty to hours of deprvaton as
aduts. To get at ths past-hstory varabe, we shoud hod hours of
deprvaton constant and obtan some food-reated response of the
sub|ect, such as sef-ratngs or number of food ob|ects magned.
gure 4.1 has been drawn to ustrate ths approach and ts rea-
ton to a typca S P functon. The sod ne shows the smpe
S P type of reatonshp n whch mean sef-ratngs of hunger are
potted aganst hours of food deprvaton. The bar graph shows how
ndvdua sub|ects rate themseves on hunger when food deprva-
ton has been hed constant at one hour. Snce there are wde vara-
tons n these sef-ratngs when we hod the e permenta varabe
(hours of food deprvaton) constant, we must concude that un-
known (as yet) factors n the past hstores of the ndvduas are
determnng ther sef-ratngs on hunger.
IGUP 4.1
Comparson of an S P Type of aw wth the Indvdua Dfferences
pproach to Personaty
Number of p
ersons n df
|res n -nou
rent setf-
group
(Strong)
(rat ng categ
4
S
t
f
11
--C
|S-6
1
( eak)
0
ours of food deprvaton
79
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Snce we often cannot determne or are not nterested n determn-
ng what the past-hstory stmuus condtons were, we are unabe
to formuate a aw of the S P type. Instead, we must reate one
response to another. e may then attempt to see f we can e -
pan the dfferences on rated hunger for the one-hour group by
reatng the ratngs to some other measure (whether they ked the
food they had |ust eaten, ther pro|ected need for securty, score
on an ad|ustment nventory, etc.).
The P P type of aw has two mportant consequences for theo-
retca thnkng. In the frst pace, t does not permt the tradtona
ndependent-dependent breakdown n pottng the reatonshp be-
tween two varabes. In partcuar we can no onger thnk n terms
of S (the stmuus condton) causng P (the sub|ect s response). s
a the eementary te ts n psychoogy pont out, a correaton cannot
be nterpreted n terms of causaton. e may fnd that cgarette
smokng s correated wth ow grades n hgh schoo, but we shoud
be ncorrect to concude that therefore cgarette smokng causes ow
grades. Techncay t woud be |ust as correct to say that ow
grades cause cgarette smokng. In fact, wth ths type of aw we
have to stop thnkng about causa reatonshps atogether. Ths
may actuay be an advantage as far as theory constructon s con-
cerned, athough ergmann and Spence seem to fee (1944, p. 21)
that the P P type of aw s actuay nferor.
The reason for ths possbe advantage s to be found n the sec-
ond consequence of the P P type of aw. Ths s that we are forced
to thnk much more carefuy about what t s that reates the two
responses. e are forced to nvent a mdde term whch e pans
the correaton between the two responses. Ths mdde term ca
t a concept, or a hypothetca construct, or an ntervenng varabe,
or what you w s the essense of psychoogca theory. Techncay
a mdde term s |ust as necessary n the S P type of aw, but prac-
tcay the e permenter s not forced to thnk as carefuy about t.
The reason for ths s that the mdde term between an S and an P
s often |ust a cass name for the type of condtons whch have
been found to produce the response. cassc e ampe can be found
n the fed of memory. reatonshp whch hods fary wdey for
retenton s that forgettng (P) s a functon of the actvty (S) n-
terpoated between orgna earnng and reearnng. The theoretca
construct or mdde term nvoved n ths aw s nterpoated
actvty but actuay t s so cose to the varety of e permenta
stmuus condtons whch t descrbes that many peope do not
0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
recognze that t s a mdde term. That t s such a term s us-
trated by the fact that t can be used to medate deductons about
new knds of nterpoatons whch can be tested e permentay.
The P P reatonshp s usuay much more dffcut to hande
than ths. or e ampe, suppose one fnds a correaton between a
certan type of score on a Thematc ppercepton Test and the
number of words obtaned n the mdde secton of a tweve-mnute
anagrams test (cf. Cark and McCeand, 1950). hat mdde term
are we gong to nvent to e pan ths reatonshp e cannot stop
wth the emprca correaton because as such t s reatvey mean-
ngess. ut n our search for meanng we are forced to thnk much
more carefuy about what knds of constructs we can egtmatey
ntroduce to e pan the reatonshp emprcay obtaned between
two such responses.
Concrete ampe: n chevement. Snce ths s a very dffcut
probem to understand at the theoretca eve, et us take a con-
crete e ampe and foow t through from a smpe emprca S P
reatonshp to a more compe theoretca nterpretaton of the
reatonshp. e can thus see n actua practce what the advantages
and dsadvantages are of the varous types of mdde terms and of
how they are used n psychoogca theory. e w take an actua
e ampe from the e permenta terature and w use throughout
an adaptaton of Spence s (194 ) scheme for representng dfferent
types of aws. The e perment n queston s from a seres by McCe-
and and assocates (1949) on the effect of ego-nvovng nstructons
on the characterstcs of wrtten magnatve stores. These stores
are comparabe to those obtaned on the Thematc ppercepton
Test (abbrevated T T). McCeand et a. dscovered that f the
sub|ects were ego-nvoved by certan nstructons and then caused
to fa, the stores they wrote after ths e perence woud dffer sg-
nfcanty n a number of ways from the stores wrtten by a com-
parabe group of sub|ects wthout such pror e perence. Ths s a
smpe S P reatonshp whch may be represented as foows:
3. P r f (S1) T T score f ( ego-nvovng nstructons)
The rght-hand porton of quaton 3 states that the T T score,
derved by summng the story characterctcs whch changed under
the new condtons, s a functon of those new condtons (ego-n-
vovng nstructons, nduced faure). Ths s a smpe emprca
aw and presumaby some other e permenters, f they wanted to,
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
coud obtan, by reproducng the e permenta stuaton, the same
changes n stores wrtten by comparabe sub|ects. ne t step wth
such a aw mght be to refne the nature of the reatonshp. That s,
one coud systematcay vary the type of ego-nvovng e perence
and record the changes n the stores. 0r one coud try to vary the
ntensty of the ego-nvovng e perence and then try to pot the
sze of the shft n the T T score. Ths mght ead to a more precse
statement as to the nature of the aw .e., as to whether t s near,
postvey or negatvey acceerated, etc. ut the nterpretaton of
the reatonshp s another and a much more compcated matter.
Probaby the most that coud be sad from the emprca aw tsef
s that a sub|ect who has a hgh T T score under norma condtons
s behavng as f he had |ust had an ego-nvovng e perence ke
the one e permentay nduced. ut McCeand et a. (1949) were
nterested n gong further than ths. They nvented a construct
whch woud hep nterpret the emprca reatonshp, as foows:
4. C f (St _ 0) Temporary n chevement
f ( ego-nvovng nstructons)
In the eft-hand porton of the equaton, the etter C stands for
concept or construct, and s used nstead of the etter I (for nter-
venng varabe) n Spence (194 ) for reasons to be gven beow.
hat ths equaton means s that a construct has been nvented
whch s sad to be a functon of stmuus condtons at the tme
(t o stands for tme at the present). The rght-hand porton of the
functona equaton shows that the construct chosen was what mght
be caed temporary need for achevement (or foowng Murray
(193 ), n chevement). Ths s strcty a guessed-at or nvented rea-
tonshp. To put t n everyday anguage, what t says s that the
ego-nvovng nstructons have aroused n the sub|ect a state whch
the authors choose to abe temporary n chevement. ut even ths
does not go very far toward addng meanng to the emprca rea-
tonshp. s we have seen above, n personaty we are much more
often nterested n the stabe characterstcs of a person than we are
n hs temporary states. So another reatonshp of the foowng
form s guessed at:
5. C f(St_n) n chevement f (2 past ego-
nvovng stuatons)
ere the formua suggests that the construct s a functon of
smar ego-nvovng e perences n the past (t n). In other words,
2
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
quaton 5 assumes the person carres around wth hm a charac-
terstc amount of n chevement as a resut of hs past earnng n
connecton wth smar e perences of ego-nvovement, faure, suc-
cess, etc. To put t n another way, a person, as a resut of earnng,
deveops n chevement n proporton to the number and nature
of ego-nvovng e perences ke the one e permentay nduced.
Now t s obvousy mpossbe n any gven person at any gven
moment to specfy what those past e perences have been. The gen-
era truth of such a reatonshp can be checked to some e tent by a
study of ndvdua cases as they deveop, perhaps n dfferent cu-
tures, and aso by our genera knowedge of earnng prncpes, but
nevertheess for the most part ths, too, must reman a purey hypo-
thetca reatonshp. If we grant that t s, we can take one further
step, as foows:
6. P1 f (C) T T score f (n chevement)
e have now arrved at a reatonshp whch s of consderaby
greater theoretca vaue than the purey emprca one wth whch
we started. quaton 6 states that we can use the T T score derved
as ndcated above as a measure of a person s characterstc eve of
n chevement. Such a statement sounds much better than the one
wth whch we started n quaton 3, but wheren does ts e tra
vaue e Ths s the cru of the theoretca probem.
ctuay, as MacCorquodae and Meeh have ponted out (194 ),
such a term as n chevement, whch was nvented to nterpret the
data, may have two qute dfferent meanngs. e may use t frst
as an ntervenng varabe whch has no more meanng than the
operatons whch gave rse to t. That s, n chevement s smpy a
T T score derved n ths partcuar way, no more and no ess. If
we want to reate some other response to n chevement, we smpy
reate t to the T T score, whch s what defnes n chevement.
Perhaps some other e ampes w serve to ustrate ths possbe
use of a construct more fuy. The term ntegence s often used n
much ths sense by some peope. hen someone says, Integence s
what the ntegence tests measure, the term ntegence s beng
used as an ntervenng varabe. hat ths statement means s that
ntegence has no meanng other than that gven by ntegence-
test scores. 0r, to put t n another way, the common-sense meanngs
attached to the word ntegence are rued out. To take one other
e ampe, a Porschach worker mght say that creatvty s M (the
movement response) on the Porschach Test. That s, M s the defn-
3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ng operaton for the term creatvty when used techncay. The
vrtue of such ntervenng varabes s that they may serve to sum-
marze a varety of stuatons and abstract them under one snge
headng. ut t shoud be ponted out that the abe , Y, or , or
some obscure Greek word, mght |ust as we be apped to such an
abstracton when the concept s mted n ths way whoy to the
operatons whch defne t.
ctuay, of course, when psychoogsts use such terms there s
amost aways surpus meanng attached to them. MacCorquodae
and Meeh propery nsst (194 ) that when a term s used n ths way
t be caed somethng ese. They suggest the term hypothetca con-
struct. The concept creatvty, for e ampe, ceary mpes or sug-
gests other operatons than seeng movements n statc nkbots.
Ths s ustrated by Pust s study (194 ), n whch he attempted to
dscover f creatvty as measured by ratngs of coor and penc
drawngs by art supervsors (194 , p. 397) was correated wth the
M response on the Porschach. 0bvousy he was ed to do ths re-
search by the surpus meanng nherent n the term creatvty. Snce
he found no reatonshp, the Porschach testers have the choce of
choosng another term to descrbe M on the Porschach or of argu-
ng that they were usng the term n ts strct operatona sense and
dd not mean to mpy the knd of creatvty whch Pust tested. Ths
partcuar argument over the M response does not concern us here
e cept as t ndcates that the meanng of such terms as creatvty
shoud be ceary stated wherever possbe by the peope who use
them. storcay the most rapd advance n theory woud seem to
occur when someone hts on a ucky hypothetca construct whch
has a number of mpcatons whch can be tested. MacCorquodae
and Meeh ustrate how ths happened n physcs: Thus begn-
nng wth the hypothess that gases are made up of sma partces
whch obey the aws of mechancs, pus certan appro mate assump-
tons about the reaton of ther szes to ther dstances, ther perfect
eastcty, and ther ack of mutua attracton, one can appy mathe-
matca rues and eventuay, by drect substtuton and equaton,
ead wthout arbtrarness to the emprca equaton P .
(194 , p. 97.) 0nce agan, the utmate vaue of ths physca mode
or hypothetca constructon s not our concern here. ut we can
see how an assumpton about the e stence of sma partces and
ther varous propertes ed to some usefu (at east, for the moment)
e panatons of emprca reatonshps actuay found n e per-
ments.
4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ow woud ths same procedure work wth the hypothetca con-
struct n chevement |ust deveoped ute obvousy ths term was
chosen rather than abracadabra, for nstance, because t has surpus
meanng. hat are some of these mped meanngs of n cheve-
ment or purposes of e poston we can state two mped assump-
tons about the nature of n chevement whch w then be used
to deduce, n a very ncompete way, certan sddtona emprca
reatonshps.
. n chevement s a earned resut of e perences of success and
faure.
1. Younger chdren shoud show ess consstent T T shfts n
response to ego-nvovng nstructons than oder ones.
2. Dfferent patterns of parent behavor especay n regard to
ndependence tranng shoud produce dscernbe dfferences n
T T n chevement scores n aduthood.
. n chevement s a centra e ctory state whch s more easy
aroused by some cues than others.
3. n chevement shoud ower recognton threshods to
achevement-reated words. Ths foows from a knowedge of
the nature of centra e ctatory states (cf. Morgan, 1943) and
suggests that there shoud be a reatonshp between T T n
chevement score and recognton threshods for achevement-
reated words. Such a reatonshp has been found to e st
(McCeand and berman, 1949).
4. n chevement shoud produce changes n magnaton or
performance whch are smar to those produced by other,
smary aroused centra e ctatory states. ecause earnng has
been smar, we may nfer that other centra e ctatory states
correspondng to dfferent motves, ke hunger and nsecurty,
may produce some of the same effects on magnaton as n
chevement does (cf. McCeand, Cark, Poby, and tknson,
949)-
Such consequences of the use of the construct n chevement
and ts surpus meanngs shoud be taken as merey ustratve of the
way n whch theory can deveop. 0bvousy no attempt has been
made to deduce the theorems rgorousy from the premses. The
whoe deveopment of theory n the eary stages s so tentatve that
t s a waste of tme, at east n the begnnng, to become more
rgorous than the state of knowedge warrants. The theorzng must
be kept fe be enough to make such changes as new e perments
5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
requre. ut, on the other hand, t must not be kept so fe be that
any e permenta resut can be e paned smpy by addng an ad hoc
property to the concept. Crtcsm of many psychoanaytc nterpreta-
tons s drected precsey at ths pont. No one shoud ob|ect to the
surpus meanngs mpct n such concepts as super-ego or bdo,
but one can ob|ect to the ease wth whch these surpus meanngs
are added or subtracted to ft any troubesome fact. Ths does not
ead to ncreasng precson n the determnaton of psychoogca
aws. or e ampe, the surpus meanng nvoved n the term bdo
has often been of a hydrauc character that s, the bdo may be
spoken of as beng dammed up, dverted, fndng subterranean chan-
nes for e presson, etc. There can be no ob|ecton to statng these
propertes of the bdo e pcty f the theorst stcks to them
rgorousy and dscards or refnes them as the data requre.
0ne of the most dffcut probems n psychoogca theory arses
from the egtmate persona meanngs whch attach themseves
so easy to ts constructs. or e ampe, someone mght easy add the
foowng meanng to n chevement:
C. n chevement eve s what a sked cnca psychoogst
|udges t to be after proonged study.
The dffcuty wth such a proposton s that t s not open to any
knd of testng unt the operatons on whch the cncan bases
hs |udgments are known. 0ften the cncan may ob|ect to specfy-
ng any partcuar operatons snce they may do voence to hs over-
a mpresson, but so ong as he does not, the construct n cheve-
ment has no utty n psychoogca theory, no matter how usefu t
may contnue to be n cnca practce. Sub|ectve or phenomenoog-
ca meanngs ke ths attach themseves ready to psychoogca
concepts. They do have some vaue n cang up some of the nta
areas for study (cf. Mac eod, 1947) but usuay t s very dffcut to
make them stay put, that s, to state ther propertes n such a way
as to be abe to draw consstent deductons from them. In the present
nstance, the deducton whch mght be drawn from assumpton C
s that cnca ratngs of n chevement shoud be drecty reated
to the T T measure of n chevement. Ths s unfortunatey not
true (Cark and McCeand, 1950). It then becomes dffcut to know
what to do ne t f the bass for the cnca |udgment s not known.
ortunatey n ths case some other data n the Cark and McCeand
study suggest what behavor the |udges were usng n makng ther
ratngs and so theory coud contnue to deveop. Nevertheess many
6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
psychoogsts, cnca and noncnca, w contnue to fee that
some peope who rank hgh on the T T measure of n chevement
are not reay hgh on n chevement. hat es behnd that word
reay are some mpct operatons for measurng n chevement
whch must be made e pct before progress can be made. 0ften
when they are made e pct t appears that they beong to some
other construct whch s nteractng wth n chevement.
Concepts eadng Peady to the ormuaton of Genera aws.
In Chapter 3 we dscussed whch concepts were adequate and whch
ones were not, and the crtera by whch we coud decde whether
or not a concept was vauabe. ave we added anythng to ths ds-
cusson 0ur attenton has turned from the adequacy of a concept
wthn a gven fed of data to what mght be caed ts theoretca
ntegratng power. Then we spoke of such crtera as competeness,
economy, and consstency. Now we are takng about the ease wth
whch prmary prncpes or postuates can be added to a concept
whch has been |udged adequate accordng to the former crtera. It
s these prmary prncpes or postuates ke and n our n
chevement e ampe whch are used to medate deductons about
emprca reatons between responses. To return to our e ampe
from physcs, the partce concept may fuf a the crtera of com-
peteness, economy, etc., but t becomes usefu theoretcay when we
can add to t the guessed-at assumpton that t obeys the aws of
mechancs. So we must choose our concepts not ony wth regard
to the adequacy wth whch they represent specfc data but aso
wth regard to the ease wth whch they suggest postuates or prn-
cpes whch can be used to medate further deducton.
The queston naturay arses as to where we are gong to get
these wonderfu constructs and the prncpes that go wth them.
Psychoogy, ke any other scence, w probaby have to wat for
ts Gaeo, Newton, nsten, or Gbbs, but n the meantme there
are a few cues whch shoud be of hep n seectng constructs.
1. rst of a, a construct shoud be chosen whch functons accord-
ng to the prncpes of earnng. The hstory of psychoogy to date
has certany ndcated that concepts whch have had the propertes
of nnate dspostons, drves, nstncts, or what not have tte
theoretca fertty. The reason appears to be that a heredtary
gven does not suggest addtona prncpes, but stas thnkng
nstead wth a knd of frst cause whch cannot be ooked nto
further. 0n the other hand, we now know a great dea about the
7
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
way n whch a person earns, and to say that a construct ke n
chevement has been acqured accordng to the prncpes of earn-
ng s n fact to suggest a great many propertes whch may be ap-
pcabe to n chevement.
2. In the second pace, a construct shoud not have propertes
whch are nconsstent wth the known characterstcs of neura
mechansms. Neurophysoogy may not aways te us what the sur-
pus meanngs of our varabes shoud be but t can emnate
certan propertes as mpossbe, and t may suggest some usefu
addtona ones. Psychoogsts have argued much about the usefu-
ness of neuroogy to ther scence, but the fact remans that any
hypothetca state attrbuted to the organsm must operate wthn
the mtatons of the nervous system. ookng back at our e ampe
of n chevement, we can ready see that the frst prncpe stated
was based on earnng and the second on neurophysoogy. 0ne of
the dffcutes wth a concept ke bdo s precsey that t dd not
operate accordng to the prncpes of earnng (e cept n such re-
formuatons as have been gven t recenty by romm, orney, and
others) nor dd t operate accordng to known prncpes of neuro-
physoogy.
3. theoretca construct shoud not ony ft nto the two basc
feds of psychoogca knowedge, t shoud aso, wherever possbe,
take nto consderaton the fndngs of phenomenoogy, abnorma
psychoogy, and cutura anthropoogy. Psychoogsts have argued
much about the vaue of ntrospectve, phenomenoogca data. In
recent years they have tended to dscard them e cept for some recent
protests such as that by Mac eod (1947). Despte ths, t s reasonaby
certan that no psychoogy of personaty w be compete that does
not adequatey theorze about the nature of persona e perence.
nd as we have seen n Chapter 2, t s qute possbe to study ths
persona e perence ob|ectvey through persona documents,
Thematc ppercepton Test records, etc. urthermore, so many
facts have been coected by psychatrsts and psychoanaysts workng
n the fed of abnorma psychoogy that t woud seem prodga for
personaty theory not to make use of ther many fndngs. nay,
recent advances n cutura anthropoogy and socoogy have ceary
deneated many of the nterreatonshps between man and hs
soca nsttutons. fter a, neary a soca facts are aso persona
facts. Poes, customs, the nature of soca obgatons and rea-
tonshps must e st n the n1nds of the men makng up the so-
cety. It woud therefore seem essenta that any compete theory

G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of personaty take account of such soca facts and fndngs. To
return once agan to our e ampe, t s certan that n chevement
w be a more usefu theoretca construct when postuates can be
added to t whch reate t to the phenomenoogy of strvng, to
abnorma nstances of overrdng ambton, such as e ander de-
scrbes (1942), and to cutura norms as to what consttutes acheve-
ment. The fact that such postuates cannot be formuated very we
at ths stage s an ustraton of the nadequacy of our knowedge
n these areas.
ppcaton of Genera aws to the Indvdua Case. 0ne of the
knottest probems n the psychoogy of personaty s the reaton-
shp between genera aws such as we have been dscussng, aws
whch are estabshed for groups of ndvduas, and ther appcaton
to the ndvdua person. port (1942) has dramatzed ths dffcuty
by pontng out that there woud seem to be two knds of aws: aws
deang wth reguartes n the behavor of groups of peope whch
he cas nomothetc after ndeband, and aws deang wth
reguartes wthn the ndvdua case whch he refers to as do-
graphc.
Most aws n psychoogy woud seem to be nomothetc. or e am-
pe, we dscover that under certan condtons a ma|orty of the
sub|ects remember ncompeted tasks better than competed tasks.
0r we dscover that sub|ects who score hgh on T T n chevement
aso tend to score hgh on the mdde secton of an anagrams test.
ut there are aways some sub|ects, sometmes a substanta mnorty,
who do not show the e pected reatonshp. hat are we to make of
George, who remembers more competed than ncompeted tasks
0f what use s the genera prncpe n e panng hs behavor -
port puts t ths way (1937, p. 4): The png of aw upon aw does
not n the sghtest degree account for the pattern of ndvduaty
whch each human beng enfods. The person who s a unque and
never-repeated phenomenon evades the tradtona scentfc ap-
proach at every step. In fact, the more scence advances, the ess do ts
dscoveres resembe the ndvdua fe wth ts patent contnutes,
mobty, and recproca penetraton of functons.
though port despars of usng such nomothetc aws for the
study of the ndvdua personaty, he does suggest that aws are
possbe wthn a gven person. These dographc aws are not based
on frequency of occurrence n a popuaton and may or may not be
reated to such nomothetc aws. et us ook at ths mportant theo-
9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
retca probem more cosey. Is there any connecton between these
two knds of aws re nomothetc aws of any use whatsoever n
studyng the ndvdua case
port certany doubts t at tmes. hat for the nomothetst s
hard to contempate s the very rea possbty that no two ves are
ake n ther motvatona processes. (1942, p. 57.) hat he appears
to suggest n ths quotaton and esewhere s that the very concept
whch we use to descrbe one person may not be appcabe or usefu
n descrbng another person. e argues that t s a mstake to
assume there are a few motves common to a men. Specfcay
ths mght mean that whereas n chevement s a usefu concept for
handng the responses of groups of peope, and whe t mght be
usefu n descrbng one person, t may not be appcabe at a to
another person. or the other person we shoud have to deveop
some new construct. If ths vewpont s pushed to the e treme we
get nto a very perous stuaton for a scence of personaty. If we
must ndeed use entrey dfferent constructs to conceptuaze df-
ferent peope, then we woud soon be ost n a maze of partcuarty
and no scence of personaty woud reay be possbe.
Ths s not to deny the possbty that a psychoogst coud spend
hs entre career studyng one ndvdua person. e coud deveop
a theoretca system whch woud account adequatey for that per-
son s behavor n a ts respects, a theoretca system whch woud
meet a the crtera whch we have set up for a good one. Such an
effort woud be nterestng, t mght be scentfc, but t woud be of
tte vaue. Scence s a pubc enterprse and woud appear to be
usefu to the e tent that t can deveop theoretca systems whch are
appcabe to more than one ndvdua.
Yet we are st faced wth the dffcuty about genera aws appy-
ng to the ndvdua case. ortunatey there s another approach to
the probem. e need not concude that we must have two dfferent
knds of aws. e may need ony to make an dographc appcaton
of a nomothetc aw or aws. physcst does not argue that the aw
of gravty s of no utty n understandng the ndvdua case be-
cause a snge feather dropped from the eanng Tower of Psa does
not fa as t ought to accordng to ths aw. Instead, he accepts the
genera nomothetc aw and makes speca measurements to appy
t to the ndvdua feather. naogousy the specfcatons of a par-
tcuar brdge, say the Goden Gate rdge, are a unque and never-
repeated phenomenon but they are a appcatons of the same
genera nomothetc aws of physcs.
90
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ut such anaoges as these may be mseadng. et us take, n-
stead, a concrete nstance of a genera aw and try to appy t to an
ndvdua case, and see what happens. e may take the P P aw
mentoned above, namey, that sub|ects wth hgh T T n cheve-
ment scores tend to score hgh n the mdde porton of an anagrams
test, a reatonshp whch we have e paned by reference to a hypo-
thetca construct n chevement wth certan propertes. Now ths
reatonshp s actuay statstcay represented by a correaton of
the order of -f-4 - Ths s sgnfcant and coud not have occurred
by chance, but t qute obvousy means that there w be many
ndvduas who do not obey ths aw. e may we ask, why not
nd f not, what good s the aw t east, what good s t as far
as ths partcuar person s concerned who does not obey t
Peasons hy very Person Does Not ehave n Conformty wth
a Genera Psychoogca aw.
1. The frst and most mportant reason s that we may not have
tested the aw n queston, at east so far as George s concerned.
That s, we may not be measurng, n George s case, the responses to
whch the aw refers. In any psychoogca aw there are mpct
assumptons as to the condtons under whch t w hod true. 0ne
of the most mportant of these assumptons, for e ampe, s that the
sub|ect be nave, at east wth respect to the reatonshp under con-
sderaton here. It may be that George has read a book on psychoogy
and knows what the T T s supposed to be measurng. 0r he has
somehow msunderstood the nstructons on the anagrams test and s
tryng to make ony four-etter words. 0bvousy ether of these
stuatons represents a radca departure from the condtons under
whch the aw s supposed to hod.
In fact, t s possbe to get group aws ony on the assumpton that
the mpact of the condtons of the e perment or test are appro -
matey the same for the whoe group of sub|ects. hen we ego-
nvove some students by certan nstructons and fnd certan
changes n ther T T stores, we sha aways fnd some ndvduas
who do not show these changes. 0ne ogca possbty aways s that
we have not succeeded n producng the ego-nvoved stuaton for
those sub|ects. ut the assumpton s st egtmate that, had those
sub|ects been ego-nvoved, they woud have shown the same T T
story characterstcs as the other sub|ects dd. Ths s e acty
anaogous to sayng that the feather woud have acted accordng to
the aw of gravty f t had been n a vacuum, whch s the condton
91
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
under whch the aw hods. In other words, t s st proper to assume
that the reatonshp woud hod n every ndvdua case f t were
possbe to reproduce n every case the condtons, under whch the
aw s supposed to hod. e mght have to go to some e traordnary
means to ego-nvove a gven ndvdua n order to test the aw,
especay f he were nformed of the trcks of psychoogsts, but we
shoud not prematurey concude that the aw does not appy to hs
case wthout makng such an ndvduazed attempt to test the aw s
appcabty.
The rea gap between nomothetc and dographc aws has often
arsen from the fact that psychoogsts have not taken the troube to
make an ndvdua determnaton of a genera aw. If one s nter-
ested n the ndvdua person, or the ndvdua brdge, he must
make ndvdua determnatons of the genera aws of personaty or
physcs. It s qute true that the ndvdua combnaton of measure-
ments of dfferent varabes may be absoutey unque for a partcu-
ar person, but t s not necessary to concude that therefore we
actuay need dfferent varabes or dfferent concepts to e pan or
account theoretcay for dfferent ves. The psychoogst nterested
n estabshng genera prncpes or nomothetc aws n personaty
cannot take the tme usuay to determne the meanng of every nd-
vdua test stuaton for every person takng the test, but ths s
e acty what the student of any one person must do f he s to
make use of genera aws n the ndvdua case. Concretey a cnca
psychoogst, knowng the nomothetc reatonshp estabshed be-
tween n chevement and the tendency to perform we n the md-
de of the task, and knowng that ths person has msunderstood the
anagrams test, can nevertheess easy thnk up another test to whch
the genera prncpe shoud appy. The genera theory may have
been deveoped from groups of peope for reasons of economy, but
ts utmate appcaton s aways to the ndvdua case.
2. In the second pace a aw may not hod for a gven ndvdua
response because there s more than one aw determnng the re-
sponse n queston. or e ampe, aggresson s not ony a functon of
the strength of the nstgaton frustrated but aso of the fear of
punshment (cf. Doard et a., 1939). Thus, f a group of peope
were frustrated at a gven strength of nstgaton and ony 70 per
cent of them showed aggresson, we woud not concude that the
reatonshp between strength of nstgaton and frequency of aggres-
son does not hod for some peope. e woud correcty concude
that n order to e pan the occurrence or nonoccurrence of aggres-
92
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
son n an ndvdua case, we shoud need to know both the strength
of the nstgaton frustrated and the fear of punshment. The 30
per cent who dd not obey the aw were those presumaby n whom
the fear of punshment was suffcenty hgh to nhbt aggresson.
t east ths s a hypothess to be tested. Correspondngy, even
though the condtons under whch the T T and anagrams scores
were obtaned were fautess, t mght st be true that a person wth
a hgh T T n chevement score mght not show a hgh md-
anagrams score f there are other factors determnng score on
anagrams, such as abty, for nstance. ar too much despar over
the nappcabty of genera aws to ndvdua cases has arsen
n psychoogy because the aws n queston are snge-varabe aws,
whereas t s reasonaby certan that any partcuar response n any
gven person s actuay a functon of a number of varabes n severa
dfferent aws.
3. There s st another reason why a genera aw may not hod
n an ndvdua case: the genera aw may reay be ncorrecty
stated. or e ampe, for a ong tme there was a genera emprca
aw n medcne whch stated that there was a correaton between
nght ar and maara. It was dscovered that peope who cosed ther
wndows at nght dd not get maara as often as peope who eft
them open. Ths aw dd not hod perfecty n ndvdua cases. In
fact Mr. Smth mght be qute |ustfed n concudng that t was no
aw at a f he woke up wth maara one mornng after havng kept
hs wndows cosed tght every nght for the precedng year. The
reason for the nappcabty of the aw n ths case s obvous. Nght
ar s assocated wth mosqutoes to some e tent, and so the genera
emprca aw had a certan appro mate vadty, but t was not
unt tre aw was correcty stated by dentfyng the mosquto that
t coud be sad to have anywhere near perfect appcaton to the
ndvdua case. Thus we may fnd that n chevement s not the
best e panaton of the correaton between T T n chevement
scores and anagrams scores, and when we do fnd the rea connec-
ton we may be abe to make a much better predcton of an nd-
vdua s score on the two tests.
In short, we fnd that the stuaton s not neary so bad as t mght
appear at frst gance. There are many ways n whch genera aws
may be apped to ndvdua peope. Underneath a ths es the
scentst s fath that he can arrve at a genera conceptua theoretca
system whch w enabe hm to account for the behavor of one
ndvdua person. e recognzes that the combnaton of determna-
93
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tons for each ndvdua may be unque, but he reserves the rght
to use a common theoretca framework for a.
Dervaton of Genera aws rom Indvdua Cases. The reaton-
shp between the genera and the partcuar s not a one-way street.
It s |ust as key that a genera aw may be suggested by a reaton-
shp dscovered n an ndvdua case, as t s the other way around.
In fact, one coud make a very good case, as port does (1942), for
the study of ndvdua cases as a source of suggestons for genera
aws. Ths technque has been foowed to a very great advantage
by reud and hs psychoanaytc foowers. Neary aways reud s
mportant theoretca concepts were suggested by the study of one
ndvdua. or e ampe, he apparenty arrved at hs concepts of
resstance and represson from the attempt to cure Dora ( reuer
and reud, 1 95), and n s theory of the 0edpus compe from hs
study of tte ans (1909). The vaue of such an approach s per-
haps ustrated by the fact that athough nomothetc psychoogsts
worked ntensvey at one tme wth questonnare studes of kes
and dskes among arge groups of peope (cf. Pressey, 1921), they
dd not arrve at any genera theory of the nature of ambvaence.
Yet reud and hs foowers very eary arrved at the concuson that
ove and hate of the same ob|ect produced feengs of gut. In fact,
t s rather hard to magne how ths genera prncpe coud have
been arrved at from a nomothetc study of a arge number of peo-
pe s responses, but on the other hand t s easy to see how t coud
be arrved at from the study of one or two ndvduas.
To take one further e ampe, students of personaty have often
tred to dscover whether there are any dfferences n the trats of
frst- as compared wth second-born chdren. The usua concuson s
that brth order has no sgnfcant reatonshp to personaty char-
acterstcs. Yet the foowers of der, studyng ndvdua cases,
came to the concuson that second-born chdren tended to deveop
trats that were consstenty dfferent from those of the frst-born
chd. Such a concuson mght have been arrved at by correatng
varous trat scores of frst- and second-born chdren usng the
nomothetc approach, but the pont s that ths, n fact, was not
done, and the hypothess was arrved at more qucky by the study
of ndvdua cases.
e are not here concerned wth the vadty of such hypothetca
reatonshps. In fact, one of the great weaknesses of the psycho-
anaytc approach has been to generaze far too wdey on the bass
94
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of a reatonshp found wthn a snge ndvdua. s Sears ponts
out (1943), the 0edpus compe n ts pure form probaby e sts
ony n a mnorty of mae chdren n estern cvzaton, to say
nothng of mae chdren n other cutures. Yet t was common prac-
tce for reud and hs foowers to assume t was unversa. The
pont s that hypotheses arrved at from the study of ndvdua cases
are not necessary more vad than those arrved at through studes
of groups of peope, but they may be suggested more ready that
way and then be tested for ther generaty. It woud be possbe, but
not very feasbe, to test the hypothess at the nomothetc eve that
ove and hate toward the same person ead to feengs of gut. Thus
one mght secrety arrange wth the mothers of twenty coege boys
to wrte ther sons on the same day that Dad had run off wth another
woman. If ths were done, one mght reasonaby suppose that f
these boys were gven a Thematc ppercepton Test the assumed
correaton between ove, hate, and gut mght be dscovered. ut
the fact s, the group approach to the genera prncpe woud be
cumbersome, to say the east, and a much qucker and probaby
more vad approach woud be through the study of ndvduas who
had reason to ove and hate the same person.
Note on Determnsm. So far we have gone body ahead wth
the assumpton that we coud account for a person s behavor by
erectng a theoretca superstructure aong the nes suggested n
ths chapter. Someone s sure to wonder whether ths means that
the scentst studyng personaty beeves that he can account for
everythng. Does he serousy beeve that he can ever, even f he
knows everythng, e pan a person n hs entrety Is there to be no
mystery eft fter a, doesn t a person seem to have free w, and
f he can arbtrary choose what he s to do ne t, what chance has
the scentst, wth a hs theoretca superstructure, to account for
ths spontaneous behavor Such questons as these arse very n-
sstenty for the scentst who s nterested n studyng the ndvdua
person.
There are reay two separate ssues nvoved n such questons
as these. rst, s man free or s he determned Such a queston of
course has a sorts of mora and phosophca mpcatons, but
what precsey does t mean n terms of the theoretca framework
we have |ust deveoped s we ook back over the chapter, we may
we ask where the concept of cause has entered nto our theorzng.
hen we postuated n chevement to account for an emprca cor-
95
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
reaton between two responses, dd we mean to mpy that n
chevement caused those two responses hen phrased n ths way,
t becomes evdent that the queston s somewhat rreevant. In fact,
t s the vew of some contemporary phosophers ( htehead, 1925)
that the whoe noton of causaty s traceabe to what has come to be
regarded as a msconcepton of nneteenth-century physcs. reud
woud probaby trace t to a knd of prmtve anmsm, to a desre
to attrbute power or force to our hypothetca constructs (cf. Totem
and Taboo, 191 ). Somehow the whoe concept of causaty seems
qute rreevant when apped to a construct ke n chevement
whch was nvented for theoretca purposes. e can say that n
chevement accounts for the observed phenomenon or correaton,
but t seems ncorrect to say that n chevement causes the correa-
ton, at east n any forcefu sense. Part of ths msconcepton un-
doubtedy arses from the fact that eary emprca aws n psychoogy
were S P aws, n whch t seems possbe to refer to the reatonshp
as a causa one n the true nneteenth-century manner. If the e -
permenter does somethng to the person, the person reacts n a
specfabe way. It s as f the contro of the e permenter over the
sub|ect s response gves a speca meanng to the word cause. s our
anayss has shown, however, even ths type of aw, |ust ke the
P P aw, contans an mpct hypothetca construct whch has
certan propertes or operates accordng to certan prncpes or
postuates. theoretca system made up of hypothetca constructs
seems to eave out the noton of causaty atogether, at east n the
sense n whch the term s commony used n dscussons of ths sort.
system ke ours w enabe someone to predct wth ncreasng
success what a person w do on the bass of other thngs he has
done, but t seems ncorrect to say that the system therefore caused
hm to behave that way. There are phosophers who argue that
ncreasng precson of predctons s the ony vad meanng that
causaton has, but they are not usuay the ones who worry about
whether behavor s determned or not. Consequenty we can ony
say wth respect to the free w vs. determnsm controversy that the
ssue s based party on a msconcepton of the nature of causaton n
theory constructon. The reason for ths msconcepton s, how-
ever, deepy rooted n the concepton of the sef (cf. Chapter 14).
The second and reated ssue s whether or not we can predct a
man s behavor wth any degree of certanty from our theoretca
formuaton of hs personaty. e can assert that f our theoretca
system s fnay perfect, we shoud be abe to account for every-
96
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
thng that the person does, but does ths mean that we can aways
predct what he w do s far as predctng for everyday fe s
concerned, the answer must of course be a quafed no. e cannot
predct what a person w do for an unspecfed stuaton, any more
than a chemst can predct what a known chemca w do when t
meets wth an unknown chemca under unknown condtons (ne t
Thursday at 3 P.M.). owever, to the e tent that we can ascertan
ahead of tme what the stuaton w be to whch a chemca or a
person s respondng, our predctons shoud become progressvey
more accurate. s we have aready noted, a aw cannot be e pected
to hod n the ndvdua case uness the condtons whch the aw
presupposes obtan. // we know those condtons, we shoud be abe
to predct accuratey. Thus we can predct wth amost 100 per cent
certanty that Mr. P. w shave tomorrow mornng. Ths s because
we know wth reasonabe certanty the condtons whch w obtan
for hm tomorrow mornng. 0f course f he knows we have made the
predcton, he s very key not to shave to prove hs free w,
but ths consttutes a change n the e pected condtons.
Smary, t s reatvey easy to make predctons about controed
aboratory stuatons. rom our knowedge of George we may predct
wth very reasonabe certanty that he w show a better memory for
competed than for ncompeted tasks n the standard stuaton used
for testng the egarnk effect (1927). In fact, t s one of the best
tests of the adequacy of our theoretca concepton of a man s per-
sonaty to predct n a controed stuaton ke ths what he w do.
hat ths adds up to s that snce many stuatons can be specfed
wth reasonabe accuracy n advance, we can make a ot of rather
good predctons about an ndvdua s behavor, but to the e tent
that we cannot antcpate the future, there w aways be an eement
of uncertanty n the predcton of an ndvdua s behavor. Ths
s a practca mtaton, rather than a theoretca one. If a psy-
choogst were to be gven, aong wth hs supposed knowedge of
George, the gft of compete foresght as to e acty what w happen
to George at a gven moment n the future, he shoud be abe to
predct what George woud do. ut snce ths gft of foresght w ..
probaby not be granted, at east unt the Duke e permenters earn
a whoe ot more about precognton, predcton for everyday 1fe
s bound to have a consderabe eement of uncertanty n t.
The fact remans, however, that the scentst workng n the fed
of personaty fees that he shoud be abe to account, wth hs
theoretca system, for everythng that the person has done. 0nce
97
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the event has occurred and the sub|ect has responded to t, the
theoretca pcture shoud account for t. Such compete theoretca
pctures as ths do not, of course, e st at the present tme. ut they
are the goa of the scentst workng n the fed of personaty.
The Personaty s a hoe. The goa of the psychoogy of per-
sonaty s a competey adequate theoretca pcture of the snge
person. e w therefore need genera aws ke the aws of physcs,
but genera aws that are tested for vadty by ther appcaton to
the ndvdua case |ust as the aws of physcs are. Theoretcay
there seems to be no quatatve dfference between appyng a gen-
era aw to a partcuar phenomenon n any of the scences. ut,
whe ths mght hod true for appyng one snge aw to an nd-
vdua, can we ever hope to appy enough aws to hm to get an
over-a pcture of hs personaty whch s of any vaue whatsoever
Granted that we sha never by ths method gve a pcture wth the
knd of fe and vaue dscussed n Chapter 3, we shoud con-
sder the possbty serousy advanced by some psychoogsts that
such an anaytc procedure s of no vaue at a, not even for pre-
dcton purposes.
port, as usua, has hgh-ghted the probem by provdng us
wth a dramatc contrast between anaytca and ntutve approaches
to personaty. Pepresentatve of the anaytca approach s what he
cas dfferenta psychoogy. In ths approach the person s repre-
sented by a seres of scores whch show hs standng on a number of
tests reatve to a group of ndvduas who have taken the tests. Such
a procedure s qute common n educatona and vocatona gud-
ance. Sometmes the scores may be connected by a ne gvng an
over-a profe or psychograph. nyone who has tred to get a
theoretca pcture of a person from such a psychograph can we
agree wth port that the task s dffcut, f not mpossbe. port
sums ths approach up as foows (1937, p. 9): Dfferenta psy-
choogy has not at a treated the ndvdua as a speca combna-
ton of capactes, accompshments and tendences. It has done
nothng more than to mpy that a person s a smpe sum-tota of
hs departures from the average. In contrast to ths e treme, there
are the more ntutve approaches based on drect percepton,
empathy, or understandng of the tota personaty.
The dvantages of Intuton. It s not dffcut to show that ess
anaytca approaches are, superfcay at east, more successfu.
0ne of port s students, Poansky (1941), wrote up the same case
9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
hstory n s dfferent modes, ncudng the dfferenta psychoogy
mode and a structura mode. e found that the |udges much pre-
ferred the structura mode and were abe to use t more successfuy
n predctng subsequent behavor of the ndvdua n queston.
|. G. Mer (1942) tes an nterestng anecdote whch hgh-ghts
the advantages of ntuton over anayss. young awyer was ad-
vsed aways to make hs decsons n terms of hs own best |udg-
ment and not anaytcay n terms of hs knowedge of the prn-
cpes of aw. e foowed ths advce and became very successfu as
a |udge, handng down decsons whch were famous a over the
ega word. ventuay he became so mpressed wth hs success that
he thought he ought to try to gve the reasons for some of hs dec-
sons for the beneft of future generatons of |ursts. owever, when
he dd, n fact, wrte out the bases for hs decsons, ther absurdty
was obvous to everyone and he ony appeared rdcuous n the eyes
of the whoe ega professon. Smary the theoretca psychoogst,
wth hs toos of anayss and nference, must often appear rdcuous
n the eyes of reay good cnca |udges of personaty who are not
forced to gve the reasons for ther |udgments.
t tmes psychoogsts have ptted the opnon of a good ntutve
|udge aganst the best predcton that coud be made on the bass
of theoretca knowedge. or e ampe, t s common practce for
coeges and unverstes to deveop mutpe regresson equatons
based on apttude scores and hgh-schoo grades whch w predct
the success of an appcant as far as grades n coege are concerned.
These equatons are deveoped at the cost of a tremendous amount
of cerca and statstca abor, but usuay the correaton between
predcted grades and actua grades does not run over - -.6o. t
eseyan Unversty t was common practce for the Drector of
dmssons to make an estmate at entrance of what each freshman s
average woud be. Naturay he based hs predcton on hs know-
edge of hgh-schoo grades, apttude-test scores, and many ndvd-
ua persona factors. It turned out n ths nstance that the |udge s
predctons correated about - -. o wth the actua grades of the
freshman cass. ere the human |udge was consderaby superor to
a mutpe regresson equaton based on anaytca knowedge used
at the same coege. Sarbn (1944) has reported nstances n whch
the reverse s true. ut ths s to be e pected because |udges dffer
wdey n ther capactes for makng ntutve predctons. rom
the practca vewpont one concuson mght be that t s consder-
aby cheaper to seect a good |udge than to go to a the troube of
99
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
workng out a mutpe regresson equaton whch n the end may
not do as good a |ob.
Such a concuson s scarcey satsfactory from a theoretca vew-
pont. re we forced to concude from a ths that the systematc
anayss of personaty that we have proposed throughout ths chap
-
ter s n fact nferor to the smpe, drect ntutve approach If so,
scentsts n ths fed coud be accused of payng an esoterc game
of anayss, of possbe amusement to themseves, but of tte vaue
as far as advancement of knowedge s concerned. Certany the ques-
ton demands serous consderaton.
hat Unts of nayss Sha e Use To begn wth, we need to
ook more cosey at the method of anayss. nayss requres a
breakdown of some totaty nto smaer unts. ver snce Descartes
tme, scentsts have attempted to foow hs advce of choosng the
smpest unts possbe. In descrbng hs anaytc method, he states
that two of hs goas were to dvde each of the dffcutes under
e amnaton nto as many parts as possbe, and as mght be neces-
sary for ts adequate souton ... to conduct my thoughts n such
order that, by commencng wth ob|ects the smpest and easest to
know, I mght ascend by tte and tte, and, as t were, step by
step, to the knowedge of the more compe (1637, p. 19). Much of
the confuson and argument n psychoogy has been over how many
parts the sub|ect matter shoud be dvded nto and over what the
smpest unts of dvson are. Descartes merey says that he wants
to dvde hs probem nto as many parts as mght be necessary for
an adequate souton. The crtcsm of the ntutonsts woud seem
to be that the anaytc psychoogsts have, n fact, dvded per-
sonaty nto so many parts that an adequate synthess s no onger
possbe. The argument s reay not over whether or not unts of
anayss shoud be used but over what those unts of anayss shoud
be.
port draws an e ceent anaogy from the psychoogy of per-
cepton. e ponts out (1937, p. 544) that pror to the deveopment
of Gestat psychoogy t was common practce n the structurast
schoo of Ttche 1er to vew percepton as the smpe summaton of
dscrete sensatons. The Gestat psychoogsts caed attenton to the
prmacy of form and organzaton, and argued that these coud not
be derved from smper components any more than the property of
wetness coud be derved from a knowedge of the hydrogen and
100
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
o ygen components of water. The batte cry of ths schoo has been
the whoe s more than the sum of the parts.
port appes ths same approach to personaty. . . . |ust as
geometrca desgns are perceved as one unt rather than as an
assembage of dscrete nes, so too there s a compusve tendency
for the mnd to form pattern |udgments concernng peope. e
cannot hep vew a personaty as one snge f many-sded struc-
ture. (1937, p. 544-) e can agree wth port that certan ana-
ytca unts n the psychoogy of personaty may be poor ones to
work wth, |ust as everyone woud appear to agree nowadays that
the od-fashoned sensaton eements of the structurast schoo are
of tte vaue n understandng percepton. e can agree further
that the unts n terms of whch a personaty s descrbed accord-
ng to dfferenta psychoogy seem to have tte theoretca vaue.
In fact, test scores as such do not consttute a theoretca approach
at a, at east n the sense n whch the term theory s used n ths
chapter. In terms of our symboc equatons used earer a test score
may be represented as foows:
7- P f(St_n)
Ths equaton has no hypothetca constructs n t. It s a pure
emprca reaton between an unknown set of antecedent cond-
tons (S,_n) and a response. In ths respect t s nferor even to
the smpe S P type of aw n whch the antecedent condton can
be specfed. 0ny as one adds hypothetca constructs to ths em-
prca reatonshp does one begn to bud a theory.
Ths suggests a souton to the controversy whch has raged over
the choce of unts n the anayss of personaty. The rea argument
woud seem to be over whether the unts of anayss, or hypothetca
constructs, as we have caed them, have been adequate. The ntu-
tonsts woud seem to have a egtmate bass for crtcsm on ths
score, |ust as the Gestat psychoogsts had a egtmate bass for
ob|ectng to earer theores of percepton. ut t shoud be noted
that even the Gestat psychoogsts had to tak about percepton n
terms of some unts. They chose new descrptve terms such as the
aws of good Gestat cosure, good contnuaton, smarty, etc.
These were the hypothetca constructs they deveoped to dea wth
perceptua facts. The Gestat psychoogsts certany dd not argue
that percepton was an untouchabe whoe n whch a scentst
coud not dstngush dfferent features. If so, they coud scarcey
have been scentsts at a and coud certany not have theorzed
101 -
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
about percepton, but coud ony have perceved. They were smpy
foowng the Cartesan prncpe of dvdng ther probem nto the
parts whch they consdered necessary for an adequate souton.
e can agree wth port that the orgna senstvty to form
s certany an a pror possesson of each ndvdua (1937, p. 547),
but we want to know more. e want to know what form, n par-
tcuar what aspects of form ntutve |udges use n syntheszng per-
sonaty. s ngya states (1941, p. 13): The dvson of the whoe
nto smaer unts can be made, therefore, n such a way that the ne
of dvson concdes wth the structura artcuaton of the whoe
tsef. The probem s ceary not one of avodng a hypothetca
constructs, but one of fndng the rght ones. Such a phrase as struc-
tura artcuaton s not much hep to us n fndng these constructs,
but t does suggest that the dscovery of such parts of a whoe s pos-
sbe. It may very we be that we shoud be guded n our choce of
constructs to some e tent by anaogous ones deveoped to hande the
somewhat smar probem of percepton. ut the man pont s that
the contrast between the anaytc and ntutve approaches s not
one of a sharp quatatve dfference. Pather the rea argument ds-
soves tsef nto a probem on whch both sdes can make a con-
trbuton.
The naytc Unts Used by a Good Intutve |udge. Imbedded
n ths whoe controversy s a concrete emprca suggeston for fnd-
ng unts of descrpton or hypothetca constructs whch may be
vauabe n a deveopng theory of personaty. e have seen that
|udges dffer markedy n ther sk n |udgng personaty. hy not
study the methods that a good |udge uses It may be that he has
happened to ght upon the most frutfu concepts n terms of whch
personaty can be formuated. 0f course, f he tres to anayze the
bass of hs |udgments, as Mer s |urst dd, he may not be abe
to gve the rght reasons for hs success. Nevertheess the psychoogst,
comparng hs magnatve processes wth those of a poor |udge, may
be abe to draw nferences as to what the rea bass for hs e ce-
ence s. . . port and rederksen (1941) have outned a prac-
tcabe way of approachng ths probem. They asked eghteen
predctors to wrte out the response that they thought each of fve
acquantances woud gve to a wrtten demma. Then the acquant-
ances, n turn, were asked to wrte out ther responses to the d-
emma. It was then possbe to compare the predctons wth the
actua responses. They found that there were wde varatons n the
102
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
number of successfu predctons made by dfferent |udges and they
were abe to compare the approach of the best |udges wth that of
the poorest |udges. They suggest that the good |udges were aware of
goa-drected or teeonomc trends n the person they were |udg-
ng. If ths fndng s confrmed one mght concude that a hypo-
thetca construct of great vaue n personaty theory mght very
we be some knd of a dynamc or motvatona construct (tee-
onomc trend). 0n the other hand, f they had found that poor
|udges made ther predctons prmary n terms of trats or qua-
tes of the person, rather than on the bass of what the ndvdua
was tryng to do, there mght be some bass for argung that the
concept of trats was not as usefu n conceptuazng personaty for
predctve purposes. Ther study s ony suggestve and s cted here
for ts methodoogca vaue prmary.
nowedge and Guesswork. So far we have outned how a theory
of personaty conssts of emprca reatons dscovered n groups
of peope or n one ndvdua emprca reatons whch are based
on accurate observatons accuratey recorded, and whch ead to the
deveopment of hypothetca constructs to e pan the reatons wth
the ad of some basc postuates or prmary prncpes. nowedge
arrved at n ths way can ony be arrved at sowy and tedousy.
Certany we have no reason to thnk that the psychoogy of per-
sonaty has proceeded very far aong ths road as of today. In the
meantme, what are we to do Psychoogsts are requred to gve
theoretca nterpretatons of personaty a the tme. The educa-
tona or vocatona counseor, the cnca psychoogst, the psycha-
trst, and many others are requred to make tentatve formuatons
of personaty wthout the knd of knowedge we have been recom-
mendng. s ngya has so apty put t, Psychatry s the appca-
ton of a basc scence whch does not as yet e st. (1941, p. 5.)
There s, then, a sense n whch ntuton w be necessary for a
ong tme to come. e sha have to guess where we do not know.
Understandng a personaty today nvoves a tte knowedge, con-
sderabe nference, and a whoe ot more ntuton, or guessng.
dstncton shoud be made of course between sheer guessng and
educated guessng. In the present state of knowedge, much attenton
shoud be gven to tranng good |udges who can go successfuy
beyond ther knowedge. 0ne can use an approach ke the one -
port and rederksen used, whch requres |udges to check ther pre-
dctons aganst actua behavor. 0r one can use an approach ke the
103
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
one Pogers s usng n tranng nondrectve counseors, n whch
the student counseor can hear and |udge the wsdom of hs actua
responses n a phonographc recordng. In fact, the need for good
cnca |udges w aways e st, no matter how much knowedge
the scentst may acqure about personaty. There w aways be
room for the skfu practtoner, the person who can take scen-
tfc knowedge and appy t magnatvey to the ndvdua case.
|ust as no physcst wthout practca e perence woud dream of
tryng to bud a brdge, so we can e pect that the theoretca student
of personaty w not necessary be a good |udge of personaty or
a good cnca psychoogst. Theory must precede good practce, but
t can never take the pace of practce.
Psychoogca scence has not actuay progressed very far beyond
the frst mpressons gven by the two students n Chapter 2. Never-
theess t has been the am of these three chapters to show the drec-
ton n whch mprovements have been or coud be made. nowedge
of what to do ne t s a great advance, even though t has not yet been
apped. In the remander of ths book we w attempt to appy some
of these methodoogca prncpes to the -actua content of the
psychoogy of personaty as t e sts today. Much of our knowedge,
and most of our constructs, fa far short of the crtera set up above,
but the purpose of these chapters w have been satsfed, f the
student can now see the way n whch we can usefuy add to the
present content of our knowedge of personaty.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. In a summary of hs fndngs ysenck (1947, p. 245) makes the
foowng statement. The terms used n the tabe (suggestbty,
persstence, ntegence, rgdty) are not used n a popuar sense
they are operatonay defned, and have reference to e act, quantta-
tve varabes. It s ony n ths precse sense that they ought to be
understood there s no ntenton to enarge our fndngs beyond ths
mtaton. hen we ook up the precse operatona meanng of
the term persstence as an e ampe, we fnd (1947, p. 159) that t
represents the ength of tme that a sub|ect can hod hs eg up about
one nch from the seat of a char whe sttng on another char. If
ysenck has no ntenton of enargng hs fndngs beyond the mta-
tons of ths partcuar test, why does he use the term persstence to
refer to the test resuts hy shoudn t he use some term ke eg
contro nstead
104
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
2. Take a concept ke persstence, make some assumptons about
t, and suggest some testabe deductons whch foow from the as-
sumptons. Can you make an assumpton whch reates persstence
to n chevement
3. Consder the foowng statement: The more Chare tres to
succeed, the more antcpatons of faure arse and nterfere wth hs
performance. Is ths an emprca aw Is t the S P type or the
P-P type of reatonshp Is t nomothetc or dographc ow
woud you go about measurng the varabes contaned n t
4. vauate n the ght of the prncpes dscussed n ths chapter
the foowng statement made by undberg (1926, p. 61):
(1) The case method s not n tsef a scentfc method at a, but merey
the frst step n scentfc method (2) Indvdua cases become of scentfc
sgnfcance ony when cassfed and summarzed n such form as to revea
unformtes, types, and patterns of behavor (3) The statstca method s the
best, f not the ony, scentfc method of cassfyng and summarzng arge
numbers of cases.
s port states (1942, p. 55), undberg eaborates ths ater by
savng that ndvdua cases are, for a arger scentfc purposes,
qute useess, uness they can be combned and generazed nto types
and patterns of behavor. Do you agree Coud undberg s argu-
ment hod for the ndvdua response and not for the ndvdua
ease (Cf. Sarbn, 1944 . . port, 1937 Catte, 1946a.)
5. vauate n the ght of prncpes dscussed n ths chapter the
foowng statement made by port (1942, p. 59). In partcuar
what s meant by the phrase entrey pecuar
No nomothetst can te what hs wfe woud ke for a Chrstmas present
by appyng the genera aws of psychoogy. e can make ths predcton
correcty ony by knowng hs wfe s partcuar patterns of nterest and
affecton. If the repy s made that such knowedge s tsef generazaton
from the wfe s past behavor, we and good, but be t noted t s the snge
/e that s generazed n other words, t s purey dographc knowedge
that s empoyed. wfe s deght w obey certan aws n her nature, but
the aws may be entrey pecuar to hersef.
6. Do you see any connecton between our dscusson n Chapter
3 of others who have a egtmate nterest n peope and our treat-
ment of the probem of free w and determnsm
7- Make seven predctons about the behavor of a frend n the
ne t twenty-four hours and report how many of them come true.
Dscuss.
105
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
. Is there any partcuar ob|ect of scentfc knowedge whch s
not a unque and never-recurrng phenomenon Consder a par-
tcuar tree, a partcuar rock, a partcuar badger, a partcuar atom,
a at a partcuar moment n tme. hat are the mportant dffer-
ences between these partcuar ob|ects of scentfc knowedge and
the partcuar, unque ndvdua person
9. Peproduced n the secton mmedatey foowng s a fragment
of an autobography wrtten by a coege student whom we w ca
ar. Pead t through carefuy and try to get an over-a ntutve
pcture of what he s ke. Then go on to the ne t secton and try
to f out the Predcton uestonnare whch deas wth a test
and a secton of hs autobography not ncuded n the fragment of
hs case hstory. Ths shoud gve you some dea of how adequate an
ntutve formuaton s for predctve purposes. It w aso provde
a basene aganst whch we can cacuate any mprovements n con-
ceptuazaton of ar resutng from the many subsequent anayses
of hs personaty that we w make throughout the book. hen
we have competed our anayss of hm n Chapter 15, you can f
out the predcton questonnare agan and see whether you are
better abe to predct hs behavor than you are now.
UT0 I0GP P Y 0 P
(Coverng perod up to coege entrance)
orn: pr 7, 1922 Present age: 24 Pegon: Protestant
vangeca Unted rethren
Grandparents
1 Grandmother 1
S 1SS Grandfather (German)
unt Unce Unce Mother ather Unce Unce Unce unt
(2nd-generaton Swss) (2nd-generaton German)
Sbngs:
rother, age 27, marred, one chd
rother, age 22
Sster ded at age of 6 months
Note. The foowng autobography was wrtten whe n coege for a
feow student by the sub|ect hmsef by foowng an outne provded hm.
The parenthetca notes were added where they seemed approprate. They
were obtaned from drect questonng of the sub|ect foowng an outne
taken from Pchards Modern Cnca Psychoogy (1946). Dates, names, and
106
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
other such data have been changed throughout to prevent reveaton of
ar s true dentty.
My parents are ordnary hard-workng peope. Nether went to hgh
schoo. My grandparents came over from Germany, on my father s sde
and from Swtzerand on my mother s sde. My father s a sked mechanc,
ppeftter, and has aways made a vng for hs famy even durng the de-
presson. My father worked at everythng, brewery, butcher, n a bo fac-
tory, refrgeratng engneer, and s n far fnanca condton. My mother
s an ndustrous, but worrsome woman, aways concerned about detas.
(Durng the depresson mother took n washng.) My father s very thorough
n a that he does, but s e ctabe and constanty worred by everyone s
troubes. e s rather suspcous of the motves of others and berates the
country, word, and offcas of a sorts. Money matters seem to gve hm a
great dea of concern. Nether of my parents are n good heath. My mother
suffers from deafness, (My mother has been deaf for the past fve or s years.
e obtaned a hearng ad for her, but she refuses to wear t.) arthrts, and
anusts, whe my father has had a back n|ury whch has nduced arthrts.
My father s chef dverson s gardenng. e dskes hs present |ob to the
pont where he woud ke to qut and rase chckens or farm. t any rate,
he seems to be qute dssatsfed wth fe. Nether parent goes to church.
My mother reads the be and argues t, but my dad says very tte
though he cams Chrstanty as hs fath. Nevertheess both parents are
knd, rather generous, and have done qute a bt of communty work n
the past.
The genera atmosphere of the home s comparatve harmony, athough
detas are argued about and a ot of worryng s done for nothng. (I have
ved a my fe wth my parents and been cared for by them.) My parents
ove a ther chdren that ove s recproca. My oder brother seemed to
be my father s favorte. e bears hs name. My younger brother seems to be
my mother s favorte. e were never gven aowances and had to work
after schoo and on Saturdays around the house. hen we were younger,
my parents aways took tme to read us the funnes and pay games wth us.
e were not negected, nether were we ob|ects of over-soctaton.
My favorte parent, athough my affecton for both s neary equa, was
at frst my mother. ut after hgh schoo, my father seemed to come to the
fore n my affectons.
My attachment to the famy was aways a cose one, athough now I am
ndfferent. I aways resented the fact when sma that I never had the
spendng money other boys and grs had, but I reaze that n so dong I
earned the vaue of a doar.
I do not resembe ether parent n temperament partcuary, athough
I have the tendency to worry about detas.
0ur dscpne at home was fary strct. The rod was not spared but aso
not used too frequenty. (Punshment was by a yardstck whppng.)
107 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e grew up to acqure a name n town as beng we-rased, we-
mannered boys. The punshments receved had no detrmenta effect,
ether mentay or otherwse. They seemed to do us good.
I have two brothers, one oder and one younger. There are about two
and a haf years between our ages. My oder brother s cam, coo, and
coected . . . now marred, one chd. e can turn hs hand to anythng
and make a success of t. ery accompshed n musc, eectrcty, fyng,
woodworkng, to st a few of hs achevements. My younger brother s a
quet, easygong gent who mnds hs own busness and s many concerned
wth havng a good tme. Nevertheess, he saves hs money and s preparng
for the future. oth are at coege studyng aeronautca engneerng and
both served n the Navy r Corps durng the war.
I fee nferor to my oder brother, but superor to my younger, many
due to my mted abtes n other feds. (I get aong a rght wth my
brothers. e fought when we were kds. Pecas havng tod brother to
drnk nk at age of four or fve, and that mother was angry wth hm. The
war tghtened the bonds. e end each other money.)
0ur famy crce, taken as a whoe, s very oose. grandparents are
dead and I haven t seen some of my cousns and unces for years athough
they ve ony three mes away. Two unces, one aunt on mother s sde
three unces, one aunt on father s sde.
I was born and rased n the country. 0ur home was comfortabe, but
not eaborate. The town I ve n has a popuaton of 600 peope. e
aways had penty to eat and good whoesome fare.
I was born on pr 7, 1922. It was a natura brth. I was breast-fed. I
don t reca the weanng tme. I remember when I was three years od
sttng before our cookstove to keep warm one btter wnter. My mother
woud open the oven door so that we coud warm our feet.
I depended very much on my parents and fet secure wth them. In fact,
I was a rather tmd sou and fet ncned to cry easy. ence, my parents
were a great source of refuge to me.
My deveopment was norma. I can t reca when I waked and taked
but I beeve t was at the average tme. (Sphncter and bowe contro, nor-
ma. nuress, norma.) I had chcken po at fve, scaret fever at seven, and
meases at dfferent tmes. (No temper tantrums recaed. u n hgh schoo.
Meases on the 4th of |uy, so that my brother shot off the freworks as I
coudn t.)
gr took care of both my brother and me when I was about three or
four years od. I ked her. She used to make fudge for us and read to us.
I never had any habts such as na btng, bed wettng, etc., but dd have
a temper whch fared up occasonay. I aways ate my food and st do.
e had to eat what was on our pate and were taught never to waste any
food.
10
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
I payed cops and robbers, cowboys and Indans, and the norma
games of youth. ways had frends to pay wth. In fact the others ved
wth each other for my frendshp, as I was easygong and frendy to a.
Two feows, however, had t n for me, pcked on me constanty because
I was rather tmd, unt one day my temper fared up and I beat them
both up, separatey. Ths gave me some confdence whch I needed bady.
e aways had rabbts, gunea pgs, dogs, and cats for pets, and I aways
ked carng for them.
My favorte heroes were the rench oregn egon and knghts of od.
Poand was my favorte knght. I used to magne mysef as vng n those
days and beng the hero that the knghts were.
I was aways cooperatve and obedent, a good student, but nfuenced
by others whch sometmes ed me nto troube. I was aways senstve and
my feengs were and st are easy hurt.
ent to schoo, grammar schoo, at fve, graduated at thrteen years of
age. ery good marks, head of the cass, of eghteen. I aways ked geogra-
phy and hstory. Got the best marks n those courses. ked math, east of
a, athough I receved good marks n t. I had many frendshps, (Got
aong a rght wth the teachers.) and was regarded favoraby by other boys
and grs. I was aways bashfu around grs and was kdded a ot about t.
I was very gregarous. In the younger days, thrd and fourth grades, I was
occasonay pcked on, but after a coupe of fst fghts, whch I was goaded
nto, 1 was eft aone.
In hgh schoo my marks were e ceent. I was at the head of the cass,
n many actvtes, Pres. of the cass for four years, on the footba team,
-state guard, edtor of the schoo paper. I worked we wth a groups.
My hgh schoo days were very happy and gratfyng ones. I was very am-
btous, wshed to become a chemca engneer. I aways dd my work con-
scentousy and thoroughy and never wasted a mnute. I aways went to
Sunday schoo, kept mysef pure, and ed a fary mode fe. I graduated
when seventeen years of age. I was very confdent workng n groups when
1 knew the peope, receved cooperaton, and was usuay charman or a
whee. I was very an ous to get ahead n the word and was ever zeaous
toward gong to coege. (Durng freshman year, I was pnched for steang
corn durng dayght on a aoween day. I was scared. There was a whoe
crowd of us. Parents sore. Stoe watermeons, but ddn t get caught. very-
one does t down there.)
or amusement I payed sports, went to the move shows, etc., but not
as much as the average. I was sometmes more content to st at home and
read. I dd a great dea of readng durng my youth.
obbes: coected stamps and souvenrs. Sports. Photography at present.
ked to read when a kd. Ddn t have the patence to bud mode ar-
panes. Payed a tte musc on the gutar and harmonca. Took pano
essons (5) and qut or the teacher never came back. I was azy about prac-
tcng.
109 -
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
I had no partcuar heroes. I aways ked the cowboy heroes of the
esterns, Tarzan, and others n the Saturday seras. I ooked up to my
footba coach to an e tent but not too greaty.
ddtona e cerpts referred to n subsequent nterpretatons:
1. I have dreamed ntensey of vng a fe wth an dea mate. Nothng
s so satsfyng as to cast onesef nto a dream word, wheren you and the
woman you ove are together hgh on a wndy h, ookng out upon the
word. |ust to hod the woman of your choce n your arms and avsh your
ove upon her seems to be the source of greatest deght. I partcuary care
for a gr typed as rugged ndvduasm one who s athetc as we as re-
tanng her ntrnsc femnnty.
I beeve one hundred percent n marrage as a nobe nsttuton. I be-
eve that a coupe can ony make the most of ther ves, vng n harmony
and satsfacton of a happy unon owever, I beeve n marrages where
the partcpants are of tender years 25 to 30 years, n my estmaton s the
dea tme for a man to take the step and for a woman, a coupe of years
younger.

2. I woud ke to see the word remodeed on the Chrstan ethca
standard, the Sermon on the Mount, wth the aw of ove pervadng the
hearts of men. I beeve ths s the answer to our soca economc, potca
and a probems of socety. I shoud ke to take my pace n such a word
as a ctzen of t, not necessary as a eader, because n such a socety,
eaders can be dspensed wth. It s an dea socety. Perfecton perhaps, but
t s the essence of the ngdom of God prncpes. My genera estmate of
the soca word s that t conssts of a ot of sefsh graspng ndvduas,
perhaps so because of the compettve sprt or aw of survva whch seems
to pervade our socety. Nevertheess, I beeve that gven a chance, man
w regard hs feow man wth equty and be generousy dsposed to-
ward hm.

3. I have heard voces every once n a whe startng about 5 or 6 yean
ago. They reoccur occasonay. I don t reca what they say. They are
dfferent peope who tak ordnary tak, usuay when aone. No thoughts
of anyone pannng to do away wth me. No enemes recaed.
P
Predcton uestonnare (Part I)
hen he entered coege, ar took the Strong ocatona Interest Test
so that we have hs reactons to a good many specfc questons. Crce
ke ( ), Indfferent (I), or Dske (D) as you thnk he dd. second part
of the questonnare asks you to predct certan genera aspects of hs be-
havor and performance n coege. Your answers w be compared wth
hs actua behavor.
110
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
. cerpts from the Strong ocatona Interest ank (Strong tem
numbers are gven n the second coumn from the eft begnnng 191,
etc.)
1. 191 andng horses ID
s. 192 Gvng frst ad assstance ID
3. 193 Pasng fowers and vegetabes ID
4. 194 Decoratng a room wth fowers ID
5. 195 rguments ID
6. 196 Intervewng men for a |ob ID
7. 197 Intervewng prospects n seng ID
. 19 Intervewng cents ID
9. 199 Makng a speech ID
10. 200 0rganzng a pay ID
11. 211 Pursung bandts n sherff s posse ID
12. 212 Dong research work ID
13. 213 ctng as ye eader ID
14. 214 rtng persona etters ID
15. 215 rtng reports ID
16. 216 ntertanng others ID
17. 217 arganng ( swappng ) ID
1 . 21 ookng at shop wndows ID
19. 219 uyng merchandse for a store ID
o. 220 Dspayng merchandse n a store ID
1. 221 pressng |udgments pubcy regardess
of crtcsm ID
22. 222 eng ptted aganst another as n a po-
tca or athetc race ID
23. 223 Methodca work ID
24. 224 Peguar hours of work ID
25. 225 Contnuay changng actvtes ID
26. 226 Deveopng busness systems ID
27. 227 Savng money ID
2 . 22 Contrbutng to chartes ID
29. 229 Pasng money for a charty ID
30. 230 vng n the cty ID
31. 231 Cmbng aong edge of precpce ID
32. 232 ookng at a coecton of rare aces ID
33. 233 ookng at a coecton of antque furn-
ture ID
Comparson of nterest between two tems. Indcate hs choce of the
foowng pars by checkng ( /) n the frst space f he preferred the tem
to the eft, n the second space f he ked both equay we, and n the
thrd space f he preferred the tem to the rght. ssume other thngs are
equa e cept the two tems to be compared.
111
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
34. 321 Streetcar motor- Streetcar conductor
man
35. 322 Poceman reman (fghts fre)
36. 323 Chauffeur Chef
37. 324 ead water ghthouse tender
3 . 325 ouse-to-house
canvassng Peta seng
39. 326 ouse-to-house
canvassng Gardenng
40. 327 Pepar auto Drve auto
41. 32 Deveop pans ecute pans
42. 329 Do a |ob yoursef Deegate |ob to another
43- 33 Persuade others 0rder others
44. 331 Dea wth thngs Dea wth peope
45- 33 Pan f r nuned- Pan for fve years ahead
ate future
46. 333 ctvty whch ctvty whch s en|oyed for
produces tangbe ts own sake
returns
47- 334 Takng a chance Payng safe
4 . 335 Defnte saary Commsson on what s done
Peprnted from . . Strong, |r. ocatona Interest ank for Men (Pe-
vsed) wth the permsson of the author and the pubshers, Stanford Un-
versty Press.
. Predctons about coege ad|ustment.
ar took thcs, German, Mathematcs, ngsh, and Chemstry dur-
ng reshman year.
49. ar s average grade for the year was:
(Check onors, verage, or eow average)
- - C C C- D
.. ( onors) .. ( verage) .. ( eow average)
T 50. e got an n hs reshman year.
T 51. e got an n hs reshman year (funked a course).
T 52. e dd hs best work n Mathematcs.
T 53. e was eected an offcer of the reshman cass.
T 54. e payed footba n hs reshman year.
Poughy 75 per cent of the students receve a bd to a fraternty at the
men s coege whch ar attended.
T 55. ar |oned a fraternty.
T 56. ar |oned one of the hgh prestge fraterntes.
T 57. e tred out for the edtora staff of the coege paper
durng hs reshman year.
112
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
5 . Check how many frends you thnk he made.
. . ew
. . verage number
. . Many
59. Check how deep and astng these frendshps were.
. .Deep and astng
. . verage depth and duraton
. .Superfca and short-ved
The foowng tems refer to hs Sophomore year. e eected German,
Mathematcs, Physcs, Spansh, and Chemstry.
60. ar s average grade for hs Sophomore year was:
(Check onors, verage, or eow average)
- - C C C- D
.. ( onors) .. ( verage) .. ( eow average)
T 61. e got an n hs Sophomore year.
T 62. e got an n hs Sophomore year (funked a course).
T 63. e was eected an offcer n the Sophomore cass.
64. Check the amount of drnkng you thnk he nduged n.
. . ery tte or none
. . verage amount
.. ot
65. Check the amount of student roughhousng or fghtng he was
nvoved n.
. . ery tte or none
. . verage amount
. . ot
66. Check the amount of heterose ua actvty he was nvoved n.
. . ery tte or none
. . verage amount
.. ot
67. Check the amount of tme you thnk he spent n bu sessons
sttng around and takng wth other students.
.. ess than average
. . verage
.. More than average
T 6 . e changed hs vocatona ambton durng ths perod.
T 69. e gave up payng footba to study harder.
T 70. e took on a ot of outsde work.
113
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Part Two
TP IT S P PS0N ITY PI
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
pressve Trats
Trat psychoogy represents one of the earest attempts to ntro-
duce some knd of order nto the mutpcty of human responses.
Its approach s smpe. It conssts of ookng for consstences n
behavor. The scentfc evdence for the e stence of a trat aways
comes from demonstraton by some acceptabe method of consstency
n behavor (the consstency beng not a matter of stereotyped habts,
but of equvaent responses). ( port, 1937.) Ths approach to per-
sonaty has been greaty favored by psychoogsts, probaby because
a trat can ready be conceved as a set of earned responses or a
habt, a concepton whch fts t nto a arge framework of earnng
facts and theores. e sha not at ths tme nqure further nto trat
theory, but nstead sha turn our attenton to the knds of data
whch have been handed most ready n terms of trats. avng frst
obtaned some genera noton of the emprca fndngs n ths fed,
we sha be n a better poston to dscuss the theory of trats and to
evauate ts contrbuton to the psychoogy of personaty.
P YSI U TP ITS
0ne of the probems whch has fascnated observers of human
nature amost from the begnnng of hstory s whether or not there
s any reatonshp between physque and personaty. Ths probem
fts nto our dscusson here because physque s often conceved of
as a determnant of consstent behavor and therefore of trats. rom
the tme of ppocrates, physcans, poets, and phosophers have
noted an apparent correaton between physque and temperament.
Ths vew s st rather wdey accepted n our cuture today. e
can say wth Shakespeare, Yon Cassus has a ean and hungry ook,
or thnk of Santa Gaus as fat and |oy. It s nevtabe that such
a wdey hed vew shoud have been sub|ected to carefu scentfc
study. s a matter of fact, the study has not been as carefu or as
scentfc as t ought to have been, and many psychoogsts, by and
arge, have not been mpressed wth the correatons found between
physque and personaty varabes. It s not our purpose to revew
ths terature here because t has been very aby done n a number of
other paces (cf. Paterson, 1930, Shedon, 1944, ysenck, 194 ). In-
117
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
stead, we sha snge out for coser scrutny one of the most carefu
and e tensve studes done n ths fed, pubshed n two voumes,
entted The aretes of uman Physque by Shedon, Stevens, and
Tucker (1940), and The aretes of Temperament by Shedon and
Stevens (1942).
Physque Typng. Shedon and hs assocates dffered from earer
workers n the fed by attemptng to get some quanttatve measure-
ments of dfferent physque types. Neary everyone who has studed
human physque e tensvey has come to the concuson that there
are three ma|or types of physque the heavy-broad, the ta-narrow,
and those n-between. ysenck (194 , p. 75) has brought together n
one tabe reproduced beow some of the names gven these three
basc body types. The tabe aso suggests how e tensve the work n
the fed has been.
T 5.1
Types of Physque
uthor
eptomorph
Mesomorph
urymorph
ppocrates
abt. Phthcus

abt. popectcus
Pos tan (1 2 )
Pespratory-Cerebra
Muscuar
Dgestve
Carus(1 5s)
sthenc
thetc
Phegmatc
Ms (1917)
sthenc
Sthenc
ypersthenc
rugsch(1g1 )
Narrow-chested
Norma
de-chested
ean (19 3)
yperontomorph

Mesontomorph
Stockard (1923)
near
_
atera
Davenport (1923)
Sender
Medum
eshy
schner (1924)
Sender
Norma
road
Pende (1924)
ypovegetatve

ypcrvegetatve
auer (1924)
sthenc

rthrtc
retschmer (1925)
sthenc
thetc
Pyknc
uter(1g2 )
mpfndungstypus
rafttypus
rna hrungstypus
oa (1933)
Mcrospanchnc
Normospanchnc
Megaospanchnc
Shedon (1940)
ctomorph
Mesomorph
ndomorph
Peprnted wth permsson from . |. ysenck, Dmensons of Personaty.
Copyrght 1947 by Poutedge and egan Pau.
Shedon, as the tabe shows, s no e cepton n arrvng at the same
three basc components, but he does dffer n the way he arrved at
them. e deveoped a technque for photographng the naked mae
fgure from three dfferent anges under standard condtons whch
permtted hm to study smutaneousy a great number of human
physques. 0n the bass of hs observaton of some four thousand
photographs of mae coege students he was abe to seect three
morphoogca e tremes. The frst of these, endomorphy, means rea-
11
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
ve predomnance of soft roundness throughout the varous regons
of the body . . . the dgestve vscera are massve and tend reatvey
to domnate the body economy. The second, mesomorphy, means
reatve predomnance of musce, bone, and connectve tssue. The
mesomorphc physque s normay heavy, hard, and rectanguar n
outne. The thrd, ectomorphy, means reatve predomnance of
nearty and fragty. In proporton to hs mass, the ectomorph has
the greatest surface area and hence reatvey the greatest sensory
e posure to the outsde word. Peatve to hs mass he aso has the
argest bran and centra nervous system. (1940, p. 5.)
avng dentfed the e tremes n ths way, Shedon and others
ne t assumed that each of them was a component of every human
physque. They therefore assgned ratngs from one to seven for each
of the three components for any gven physque. Thus, for e ampe,
a physque ratng of 171 represents a person who s very ow n
endomorphy, very hgh n mesomorphy, and very ow n ectomorphy,
whereas a 444 s a person who s average n a three components.
To provde a quanttatve bass for hs ratngs n the three compo-
nents, Shedon worked out an anthropometrc technque whch n-
voved a number of measurements for seven dfferent regons of the
body, whch coud be made on hs standardzed photographs. These
measurements are taken accordng to a carefuy specf1ed procedure
and cover such thngs as faca breadth, trunk thckness and breadth
at severa dfferent ponts, etc. The fgures from dfferent regons of
the body are then combned nto one over-a nde of physque (IP),
whch s aso referred to as a person s somatotype.
Case: ar. Throughout ths book we sha refer agan and
agan to our case, ar, who, e cept for hs fcttous name and some
other changes to prevent dentfcaton, s a rea person. 0ur pro-
cedure w be to report data on ar whch ustrates the approach
to personaty under dscusson. In ths way we sha hope to dscover
on the concrete eve what contrbuton ths approach can make to
our understandng of an ndvdua person. e can begn wth hs
physque. It s descrbed as foows by three observers:
fraternty frend: e s bond, sghty bad, wth a sturdy
bud.
teacher: e s bond, bg and muscuar (square) and ooks as
f he round out wth the years.
psychatrst: The sub|ect s a pethorc, ebuent, pyknc young
man of obvous Teutonc orgn.
119
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
There seems tte doubt from these observatons that ar beongs
to the heavy-broad cassf1caton of physques, athough the dfferent
observers used dfferent terms to descrbe hm. Shedon woud re-
qure a more precse cassfcaton than ths. Unfortunatey, as we do
not have the standard photographs necessary for a carefu somato-
type, t w be necessary to use some short cuts suggested by Shedon,
Stevens, and Tucker (1940). s an appro maton we may start wth
hs heght, whch s 5 , and hs weght, whch vares somewhere
between 160 and 165 pounds. rom ths we derve a hegh t-over-the-
cube-root-of-weght nde from a tabe gven by Shedon (1940, p.
2 7). In another tabe he gves the somatotype most frequenty asso-
cated wth varous nde es derved n ths way. e fnd that ar s
nde s 12.4, whch s assocated wth two somatotypes, 361 and 542.
The frst ndcates a domnance of the second or muscuar compo-
nent, whereas the second ndcates a domnance of the frst or endo-
morphc component. Snce ar was a wrester n the 165-pound
cass at coege and was captan of hs footba team n hgh schoo,
and snce the observers descrbe hm as muscuar, we can concude
that t s much more key that he beongs to the 361 somatotype.
0f course ths s ony an appro maton and, as Shedon ponts out,
t s possbe that somatotypes assocated wth the nearby rato
nde es may be the true ones. ut n ths case t seems fary accurate,
especay when compared wth Shedon s descrpton of the 361,
whch runs as foows (1940, p. 209):
The 361 s a massve and e tremey powerfu physque . . . cosey sm-
ar to the 61, but . . . heaver and rounder wthout beng weaker. The
head s arge, and some of the cubca characterstcs of e treme meso-
morphsm have been ost n the roundng and fng out whch accompanes
an ncrement of the fu degree of endomorphy. ut the face s st strongy
mesomorphc, wth a massve bony skeeton and great muscuar strength
ceary predomnant. The mouth s strong, straght, and frm. The |aw s
square and wde. It s a face whch appears as though a we-devered bow
woud gance off wthout dong any partcuar damage. The trunk s ong,
the shouders are broad, the thoracc grde s powerfu and erect, and the
chest s deep and mobe. . . . The 361 s strongy ncned to professona
athetcs, but once out of hs teens, he has a hard tme keepng down hs
weght. These great musces whch are dffused wth an endomorphc 3,
seem as thrsty for fat as a sponge for water, and the 361 passes over to a
heavy, stod, barre-boded mdde age.
Ths descrpton not ony gves us a fary accurate pcture of ar s
physque as t woud be descrbed by hs frends f they were as fuent
120
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
25 Shedon t aso provdes us wth a good sampe of the physque
descrptons contaned n Shedon s book. Naturay questons have
arsen as to the vadty and partcuary the permanence of a somato-
type. hat happens f a person gans weght ute certany ar
w gan weght n fact, hs face has aready fed out, as a gancq
at hs reshman pcture taken some ten years ago ready shows.
Ths n turn w change the rato nde and the assocated somato-
types. though Shedon fees that the easest tme to make a vad
somatotype s n the young adut mae, he aso s strongy of the
opnon that nothng, not even the most drastc changes n metabo-
sm, w change the basc somatotype. 444 s not changed by
nutrtona dsturbances to a 443, or to anythng ese. e ony bev
comes a fat or a ean 444, or perhaps an e tremey fat or an emac-
ated and wasted 444. ... It can be sad that the case has yet to
occur n whch a nutrtona dsturbance has caused a physque ether
to become unrecognzabe or to smuate another somatotype strongy
enough to cause any |ustfabe confuson. (1940, p. 221.) Pecenty
serous doubt has been thrown on ths opnon of Shedon s by some
work of asker and others (1947) who studed accordng to Shedon s
technque the somatotypes of a number of men who underwent pro-
onged starvaton at the aboratory of Physoogca ygene at the
Unversty of Mnnesota. Ths research ceary showed that emaca-
ton changed neary every measurement on whch the somatotype
was based and produced a marked shft n a ndvduas toward
ectomorphy. or the tme beng, however, we w assume that the
somatotype derved n ths way s a good way of representng the
human physque under norma nutrtona condtons.
Temperament Typng. The ne t step was to derve an nde of
temperament whch woud presumaby be assocated wth dfferences
n physque. Shedon and Stevens (1942) went about ths probem
aso n an emprca fashon. They coected some 650 trat descrp-
tons whch they refned through nspecton and use to some 50 trats,
on whch they then proceeded to rate some thrty-three mae coege
students, after a ong seres of anaytc ntervews e tendng over an
academc year. They then ntercorreated the trat ratngs and tred
to dscover custers of trats whch correated hghy wth each other
and negatvey wth trats n other custers. They found that f they
requred ntra-custer correatons of at east - -.6o and nter-custer
correatons of at east .30, they were abe to dentfy three custers
of trats. They then proceeded to add trats to these three prmary
121
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
custers unt they had 20 representng each. rom an nspecton of
these custers they decded to name them vscerotona, somatotona,
and cerebrotona. scerotona, the frst component, s so named
because the compe of trats to whch t refers s cosey assocated
wth a functona (and anatomca, we now know) predomnance of
the dgestve vscera. . . . Somatotona, the second component, s
so named because the compe of trats to whch t refers s assocated
wth functona and anatomca predomnance of the somatc struc-
tures the movng parts of the body frame . . . the vountary
musces. The somatotonc ndvdua . . . desres more than any-
thng to do somethng wth hs musces, to move about assertvey, to
conquer, to e perence physca adventure n combat. The thrd
component |cerebrotona| was not so easy to name, . . . the pre-
potent actvty seems to be that of conscous attenton whch nvoved
an nhbton or crushng of other actvtes of the body. (1942,
p. 20.) more compete understandng of each of the three compo-
nents may be gathered from Tabe 5.2, reproduced from ther book,
showng the short form of the temperament ratng scae whch con-
tans the 10 (out of 20) trats under each component whch are most
easy rated on the bass of short acquantance wth a sub|ect.
T 5.2
Shortened Scae for Temperament
ed 0ut for ar
(1 s e treme antthess, 7 e treme manfestaton of trat)
scerotona Somatotona Cerebrotona
(4)
1. Pea aton n
Posture and
Movement
(4) a. ove of Physca
Comfort
(a) 3. Sow Peacton
(6)
(6)
1. ssertveness
of Posture and
Movement
(7) 3
(6) 4
2. ove of Phys-
ca dventure
The nergetc
Characterstc
Need and n-
|oyment of
ercse
(4) 1. Pestrant n
Posture and
Movement,
Tghtness
(4) 3. 0very fast
Peactons
(5) 4. ove of
Prvacy
(4) 5. Menta 0vern-
tensty, yper-
attentonaty,
pprehensve-
ness
122
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
T 5.2 (Contnued)
scerotona Somatotona
(5) 6. ove of Psk . (3)
and Chance
(3) 7. ove of Pote
Ceremony
(6) . ove of Socety
Socopha
() 1 . venness of
motona ow
(5) 13. Toerance
(4) 14. Compacency
(6) 7. od Drect- (1)
ness of Manner
(7) . Physca Cour- (1)
age for Combat
(7) 9. Compettve (2)
ggressveness
Cerebrotona
6. Secretveness
of eeng,
motona
Pestrant
7. Sef-conscous
Motty, of the
yes and ace
. ear of Socety
Socophoba
9. Inhbted So-
ca ddress
(6) 13. The Unre- (3) 13. oca Pestrant,
straned oce and Genera
Pestrant of
Nose
(4) 16. The Untempered (5) 16. 0vermaturty
Characterstc of ppearance
(4) 17. Smooth, asy Com-
muncaton of
eeng, tra-
verson of s-
cerotona
(2) 16. Youthfu In-
tentncss of
Manner and
ppearance
(3. ) Mean
(6.1) Mean
(2.9) Mean
(Peprnted wth permsson from . . Shedon and S. S. Stevens, The
aretes of Temperament. Copyrght 1942 by arper and rothers.)
Meanng fabby, etc.
ccordng to Shedon ths scae for temperament shoud be used
ony by a person who s we versed n consttutona psychoogy and
who has ntervewed and studed hs sub|ects for at east a year.
Tranng s necessary, as n the case of a ratng scaes, to famarze
the |udge wth the varabes to be rated. To get a better dea of the
nature of these varabes we may choose one n partcuar, - , S- ,
and C- , and study Shedon s descrptons more n deta. - , soco-
pha, s descrbed as ove of company. ppette for peope . . ..
123
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
convvaty, and emotona deght upon beng surrounded and sup-
ported by others. There s a deep, persstent cravng to have peope
about, a rch satsfacton n beng one among many, and a strong
sense of oneness and weakness when cut off from the fufment of
ths cravng. The vscerotonc ndvdua warms up and e pands n
company. (1942, p. 37.) In drect opposton to ths we fnd C- ,
socophoba, whch s assocated wth cerebrotona. It means dske
of beng socay nvoved. ntthess to convvaty. The ndvdua
avods and deepy dstrusts soca gatherngs. e s straned, ds-
tressed and uncomfortabe n the face of any soca reatonshp,
especay those of a temporary or superfca nature. (1942, p. 7 .)
S- , physca courage for combat, s descrbed as Courage for actua
or potenta combat. n essenta and unquestonabe physca fear-
essness. Confdent dependence upon the sturdness, sk, and muscu-
ar strength of the body. The ndvdua depends upon hs soma as
the vscerotonc depends upon soca good-w, and as the cerebro-
tonc depends upon the e ercse of e teroceptve acuty and war-
ness. (1942, p. 55.) Ths ustrates concretey how a gven trat may
have two poar oppostes, athough the antthess to S- s conceved
to be cowardce, whch nvoves an eement of both - and C- .
fter becomng thoroughy famar wth the trat varabes and
wth the sub|ects after a year s cose study, one can rate them on each
of the s ty trats, usng a 7-pont scae. The average ratng on each
of the three scaes represents the ratng on that component of tem-
perament and the resutng three numbers gve the nde of tempera-
ment (IT) correspondng to the nde of physque (IP) deveoped as
descrbed above.
The procedure foowed here s the standard one for deveopng
ratng scaes of ths sort. ke a such scaes, t rases two questons:
1. re the ndvdua trats under a gven component reay nde-
pendent measures of that component There s a parado nvoved
here. 0bvousy n settng up ths temperament scae, the authors
wanted to produce a compe of trats whch reated hghy wth one
another, so that they woud be measurng a untary over-a trat
functon. owever, n choosng trats whch correated hghy wth
each other, what they may have been dong s seectng trats whch
were so smar that for a practca purposes the |udges coud not
dscrmnate among them n assgnng ratngs. ook at the trat
descrptons gven above, or at any two trats n a gven scae n
Tabe 5.2, suggests how ths overappng may occur. Take, for e -
124
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
ampe, the frst two trats under vscerotona, rea aton n posture
and movement and ove of physca comfort. oth the trat
names and the trat descrptons gven suggest that t woud be a
very dffcut thng for a |udge to dscrmnate between these two
varabes. oud t reay be possbe to rate someone hgh n ove of
physca comfort who dd not aso show rea aton n posture and
movement The fact that ths dd not occur, as s shown by the hgh
postve correaton between the ratngs on these two trats, does not
necessary ndcate that the trats are assocated n the personates
nvestgated. It may smpy mean that the |udge coud not make two
ndependent |udgments. In other words, ths procedure at tmes
comes dangerousy cose to askng a |udge to rate the same varabe
twce. Ths crtcsm s not pecuar to the partcuar temperament
ratng scae deveoped here, athough t seems partcuary appca-
be. so t s not necessary a dsadvantage to ask a |udge to make
repeated estmates on the same varabe. Ths may be the most re-
abe method of gettng a vad |udgment. The ony danger arses
when someone nterprets the resuts as meanng the trats under
consderaton are reay dfferent and are correated n the person
beng |udged, whereas they may be smpy ndscrmnabe n the
|udge s mnd.
2. The second queston arses over the reabty of the trat rat-
ngs made for ths scae. Shedon reports that they are fary hgh. In
eghty-three cases whch he re-rated after re-ntervewng them, the
correaton between hs frst and second temperament typngs was
96. Snce he mght have been nfuenced by knowedge of hs
earer ratngs, he aso reports a correaton wth an ndependent
observer whch vared from - -. 1 for the frst component to . 9
for the second, and . 7 for the thrd. Ths ndcates satsfactory re-
abty of |udgment made by peope we traned n the technque.
e aso reports that peope who are not very we traned do not gve
|udgments whch agree wth those of a traned observer ke hm-
sef (1942, p. 417).
ar s Temperament. In Tabe 5.2 we have paced n front of each
of the ten trats under each component the ratng assgned to ar by
a fraternty brother who had known hm we over a two-year perod,
and who was aso famar wth Shedon s trat descrptons. 0nce
agan we must be content wth an appro maton because the student
|udge was obvousy not hghy traned nor dd he have the requste
anaytca knowedge of the person, athough he had made a carefu
125
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
study of ar for a personaty term paper. so he used the short
form of the temperament ratng scae whch Shedon reports cor-
reates wth the ong form somewhere between - --61 and .73 (1942,
p. 419). Pecognzng a ts mtatons, we arrve at an nde of
temperament for ar of 463, whch represents the rounded mean
ratng on the ten trats for each of the three scaes.
Physque and Temperament. 0f course the prmary motvaton
behnd a of ths anayss of physque and temperament has been
to attempt to show the reatonshp between the two. s Shedon and
Stevens so apty put t, the fascnatng queston s, Can we predct
a man s kes and dskes by measurng hs body (1942, p. 1.)
parta answer to ths queston s to be found n the correatons ob-
taned between the physque and temperament components of the
two nde es. They found that the correatons between morphoogy
and temperament are -79 f r tne ft1 s1 component, - -. 2 for the
second component, and . 3 for the thrd. (1942, p. 401.) Ths n-
dcates a very hgh degree of reatonshp between the ratngs of the
physque component and the ratngs of the temperament component.
Smary the temperament components are negatvey reated to
each other because of the way the scaes were devsed and conse-
quenty are aso negatvey reated to the other physque components.
Shedon s tabe comparng the physque and temperament nde es
for a group of two hundred cases shows that the two are hghy con-
gruent athough sedom e acty the same.
In ar s case we note that the correspondence s fary cose. s
IP was estmated at 361, hs IT at 463. The frst thng we note s
that our |udge has supped us wth an mpossbe temperament
type. The components usuay add up to 10 or 11, but never to more
than 12. e can ay ths to ack of e perence wth the dstrbuton
of trat eements and concude that ar s probaby a 362 (whch
keeps the rank order of the three components) wth a strong sugges-
ton of what Shedon cas overoadng. y ths he means that when
a person begns to get hgh ratngs on a three components there s
apt to be sharp confct of nterests and atttudes. In dscussng a
case of 363 temperament, for nstance, he descrbes hm as foows:
Ths youth has shown academc as we as genera abty n numer-
ous tte fase starts that he has made. ut aways an acute somato-
tonc restessness seems to get the better of hm, and then he s soon
off on a new tangent. ... In spte of havng twce eft coege n the
mdst of semesters he made a respectaby passng record. t present
126
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
he s studyng chemstry, but unsuccessfuy and unhappy. e wants
to be more actve. . . . Ths case probaby represents a remarkaby
persstent effort to harness ncompatbe mpuses. . . . (1942, p.
337-)
Unfortunatey none of the 361 physques reported by Shedon had
IT s ke ar s but, from Shedon s genera descrpton and case
studes of domnant somatotona, we can get some dea of what ar
shoud be ke. The second component s the motona eement
n fe . . . the cravng for vgorous acton . . . the resouton to
subdue the envronment to one s own w. (1942, p. 25 .) fter
descrbng a number of more or ess physca characterstcs of the
somatotonc personaty, such as eatng too much, seepng deepy,
and feeng good n the mornng, Shedon goes on to say that he s
abe to regous conversons, nosy, ackng n ntrospectve nsght,
fond of acoho and stmuated by t, and susceptbe to routne
(1942, pp. 259-265). th these addtona notes as we as the ratng
scae, we now have a portrat of ar based on hs physque whch
we can check aganst other nformaton as we come to t.
The Meanng of Correatons etween Physque and Tempera-
ment Trats. The nterpretaton of such reatonshps between
physque and temperament s, however, fraught wth dffcutes.
In the frst pace there s the probem of bas, as the authors of the
book we recognze. That s, the peope makng the temperament
ratngs were aso we aware of the physca type of the person they
were ratng. To what e tent woud they therefore be nfuenced n
ther ratngs by a knowedge of physque It s mpossbe atogether
to e cude ths danger n the assgnment of temperamenta ratng,
for the nvestgator cannot make the ratngs wthout seeng the sub-
|ect, and f the nvestgator s we traned n consttutona methods
of anayss he cannot ook at a sub|ect wthout somatotypng hm,
appro matey at east. (1942, p. 392.) though Shedon s aware
of what he cas the hao error, he fees that hs knowedge of
what to e pect from a gven somatotype may actuay make t easer
for hm to dscrmnate devatons from ths e pectaton. ssentay
hs defense s that the nvestgator woud not conscousy ntroduce
a correaton where there was none. In ths we can beeve hm. ow-
ever, before psychoogsts w be wng to draw any concusons
about physque causng temperament trats, t w be necessary to
dsentange the two varabes n the |udge s mnd. They have had
too much e perence wth honest nvestgators whose unconscous
127
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e pectatons have trcked them. The procedure suggested by Shedon
of makng the temperament ratngs wthout seeng the sub|ect on the
bass of fu case-hstory nformaton woud appear to recommend
tsef for ths purpose.
ut ths mmedatey suggests another dffcuty, or at east another
way of concevng the assocaton between physque and tempera-
ment. ow, n fact, coud the ratngs be made wthout seeng the
sub|ect Most of the trat defntons ncude terms whch refer to
the sub|ect s body. or e ampe, S- , physca courage for combat, s
descrbed as confdent dependence upon the sturdness, sk, and
muscuar strength of the body (1942, p. 55) or C-1, restrant n
posture and movement, tghtness, means the body as a whoe s
carred stffy (1942, p. 69) or we have varabes such as youthfu
ntentness of manner and appearance, fast or sow reacton, etc.
oud t be possbe to rate such varabes wthout seeng a person
Some of them, yes but many of them, no. In other words, even n
makng the ratng of a gven trat, the |udge must take nto consdera-
ton the physque varabes so that the ratngs are contamnated by
body characterstcs from the very begnnng. It s no wonder, then,
that we fnd a hgh correaton between physque and temperament
ratngs. Such contamnatons are e tremey common n studes n
whch such characterstcs as voce, gestures, gat, handwrtng, etc.,
are matched aganst personaty sketches. requenty the sketches
contan ad|ectves whch characterze the e pressve feature n ques-
ton. or e ampe, t s not so surprsng that a |udge w match a
statement ke e s quck and restess wth a handwrtng spec-
men whch s obvousy a hasty scraw. hat ths proves s not so
much that e pressve features can be used to dagnose personaty
but that |udges often use ad|ectves descrbng e pressve features n
wrtng personaty sketches.
Ths suggests a re-evauaton of Shedon s work n somewhat dffer-
ent terms. e was nterested n dscoverng whether certan physques
were assocated wth certan temperamenta dfferences. e have
suggested that the assocaton he dscovered was put there to begn
wth. ut ths s not necessary a dsadvantage uness the assocaton
s msnterpreted as a cause-and-effect reatonshp. Instead we may
smpy concude that t s usefu to summarze certan behavora
characterstcs by organzng them around physca characterstcs.
hat we are sayng s that t s usefu to defne certan trats argey
n physca terms. or e ampe, -1, S-1, and C-1, referrng respec-
tvey to rea aton, assertveness, or restrant n posture and move-
12 -
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
f1ent, woud seem to defne a usefu dmenson for characterzng the
behavor of dfferent peope. That s, we have brought together
under one headng a number of gestures, postures, atttudes of the
body, eye movements, etc., and caed them restrant n posture and
movement. e have found, a consstency n behavor and thus
satsfed port s defnton of a trat. To ths consstency we gve a
trat name whch has an obvous physque reference. Thus t woud
seem to be usefu to refer to ar as assertve n posture and move-
ment, snce t certany heps to descrbe one aspect of hs personaty.
owever, t s probabe that Shedon and hs assocates had a
much grander desgn n mnd than ths. They wanted to provde a
bass for the conceptuazaton of the whoe personaty sphere. They
appear to argue that the s ty trats on the temperament scae are a
far representaton of the dfferent aspects of personaty as a whoe.
0ther psychoogsts woud of course dsagree wth ths. They woud
ask, where s the trat of suggestbty here s the concept of
motvaton here s n chevement or n Securty here s ntro-
puntveness 0r creatvty The authors of The aretes of Tem-
perament mght we answer that some of these varabes are n fact
covered by ther temperament scae or at east referred to tangen-
tay. They mght argue that socopha meant a need for soca
approva, socophoba a deep-seated n Securty, or that a somatotonc
mght be e pected to have hgh n chevement. ut ths does not
reay answer the queston at ssue. The pont s that t may not be
usefu or convenent to force a the many aspects of a personaty
nto physque-reated varabes. Some aspects of personaty ft ready
nto ths scheme and some do not. Some may be much more easy
conceptuazed n other terms.
In concuson, we shoud not fee that such a scheme as they have
deveoped s of no use for descrbng personaty. 0n the contrary,
t woud seem qute usefu for the mted purpose of summarzng
behavor whch s ceary reated to physque. 0n the other hand we
must not assume too much for t. 0ne of the weaknesses of psy-
choogsts has been that whenever they deveop a new measurng
nstrument they tend to try to generaze t to cover the whoe of
personaty. e sha meet ths tendency agan and agan n subse-
quent dscussons of other approaches to personaty. The term
somatotona s at once too broad and too narrow. It s too broad n
ncudng areas of personaty whch may be better conceptuazed
n other terms, and t s too narrow n assumng that wde areas of
personaty can best be descrbed n physque-reated terms.
129
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
In what sense does physque cause temperament In much the
same sense that a bcyce causes the trat of bcyce rdng. In both
cases a behavora trat or group of trats s assocated wth some
physca ob|ect n the envronment, n one case the body, and n the
other the bcyce. e name the group of trats n terms of the physca
ob|ect whch heps defne them. Thus t s not surprsng to earn
that wth hs reatvey massve physque ar has been a successfu
footba payer and wrester, |ust as t s not surprsng to dscover
that a person nteracts wth a bcyce n a certan way, by pushng
the pedas, hodng on to the handebars, etc. e coud refer to the
atter as bcyce trats. Physque undoubtedy nfuences senstvty,
reacton tme, and movement and aso to a consderabe e tent de-
termnes the reacton of socety to the person. Thus bg, fat, heavy
bodes move sowy and are of tte use for fencng. 0n the other
hand, bodes ke ar s are usefu n footba payng. It s there-
fore no surprse to earn, knowng as we do the pressure put on
hgh-schoo boys to pay footba, that ar has, n fact, become a
footba payer. The determnants of such compe trats as courage
for combat or footba payng are therefore very compe . They
nvove soca as we as physca factors. e need to know much
more how these physca and soca nfuences nteract accordng to
the prncpes of earnng to produce some of the compe tempera-
ment trats we have dscussed here. or the moment then we can
come to two tentatve concusons, (1) Physque and temperament
are reated to the e tent that the temperament trats are oaded wth
physque or movement termnoogy. (2) To the e tent that the tem-
perament trats ncude behavor not drecty assocated wth phy-
sque and movement, other varabes enter nto ther determnaton
and have to be taken nto account n e panng the trats. s soon
as ths s done t no onger becomes convenent, and n fact t may
be mseadng, to assocate these trats too cosey wth a snge de-
termnant namey, physque.
t any rate, we now know somethng about ar whch s m-
portant n the genera pcture of hs personaty and whch we coud
not have obtaned n any other way. hat we know mght have been
a tte more precse f Shedon and assocates had stuck to posture
and movement varabes and not tred to drag n so much ese, but
even wth ths mtaton, they have made an mportant contrbuton
to our knowedge n ths fed.
130
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
M0 M NT TP ITS
Psychoogsts have been nterested for a ong tme n a person s
e pressve movements n the convcton that a the mobe features
of the body are avenues for the e presson of personaty. ( port
and ernon, 1933, p. 173-) Consequenty psychoogsts have searched
for consstences, or congruences, among such features as posture,
pose, movements wth the hands or egs, gat, handwrtng, etc. Un-
fortunatey n the eary stages of research n ths fed a tendency
grew up for workers to dvde nto two competey opposed camps,
one of whch argued that e pressve movement was the roya road to
understandng personaty, the other of whch, ed by u and
Montgomery (1919) and others, camed that the facts . . . shoud
go a ong way toward counteractng the vew that there s a func-
tona unty between mnd and body. (Paterson, 1930, p. 15 .) The
former group unfortunatey dd much of ts research wthout
the beneft of modern scentfc methods, ncudng statstcs, and the
atter was often handcapped by a too rgd nterpretaton of those
same methods. It s ony recenty that a mdde group of scentsts
has begun to deveop that has nvestgated the probem wth both
an adequate theoretca orentaton and a carefu appcaton of
scentfc methods.
Movement, as we have seen, s cosey reated to physque. In fact
some of the eary work n the fed was drected at showng that men
wth dfferent physques showed dfferent e pressve movements. e
have noted above that perhaps the most vad, physque-reated trats
are those whch refer to e pressve postures and movements. Thus,
for e ampe, the trat descrbed by Shedon under C-1, restrant n
posture and movement, tghtness, has been noted by nke (1930)
n hs study of psychomotor types assocated wth varous retschmer-
an physque types. nke s eptosome, who corresponds to Shedon s
ectomorph, tends to e press hmsef n movement that s hestant,
cautous, crtca, tense, stereotyped. ... It does not matter, for e -
ampe, whether the typca eptosome s wrtng wth a pen, carryng
a gass of water, or reactng to musc he s found to be unformy
tense and cautous. ( port and ernon, 1933, p. 9.) nke s study,
as port and ernon pont out, was done wth the usua care of
the German anaytc schoo but wthout the beneft of modern sta-
tstca anayss. Nevertheess hs fndng s congruent wth that of
Shedon s. urthermore, a much more recent study, done by Pasca,
performed wth adequate e permenta technques, woud aso sup-
131
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
port the convcton that there s some reatonshp between physque
and e pressve movement. e found (1943a, p. 243) that men hgh n
mesomorphy who woud be assertve n posture and movement ac-
cordng to Shedon tended to wrte wth greater average pressure and
wder pressure range than men ow n mesomorphy and than women.
ut what are some of the estabshed e pressve movement trats
0ne of the most e tensve nvestgatons n ths fed was performed
by port and ernon, and summarzed n ther book entted
Studes n pressve Movement (1933). They mted themseves n
the frst nstance to an attempt to dscover whether there were any
ndvdua consstences n overt movements, puttng asde for the
moment the queston of whether these consstences were representa-
tve of a wder personaty confguraton. Tabe 5.3 adapted from
e (194 ) ustrates some of the tests and measures they used.
T 5.3
perments n pressve Movement Conducted by
port and ernon (1933)
perment Measures 0btaned
Countng oud Speed
akng, out of doors wakng, n- Speed ength of strdes
doors
Strong, ndoors Speed ength of strdes
stmaton of anges wth rotatng 0verestmaton of anges
arm
stmaton of handshake Strength of norma grp
Crces drawn on paper, wth rght Speed average area proporton of
hand unoccuped space
Squares drawn on paper, wth eft Speed average area proporton of
hand unoccuped space
ength of sef-ratng checks on rat- ength
ng sheet
rtng sentence and sgnature on Speed area pont and grp pressure
pressure board
rtng eee s n sand wth ponter rea
attached to feet
Peproduced wth permsson from |. e, Protectve Technques, p. 277.
Copyrght 194 ongmans, Green, and Co.
They ended wth some thrty-fve such measures drawn from every
type of movement n dfferent parts of the body whch they coud
magne. The frst queston they attempted to answer was whether
132
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
or not sub|ects were consstent from one tme to the ne t n the way
they moved n a gven test stuaton. They found that the average of
ther uncorrected repeat reabty coeffcents was - -.6 4 whch
|ustfed ther concuson that snge habts of gesture as we have
measured them, are stabe characterstcs of the ndvduas n our
e permenta group. (1933, p. 9 .) Ths fndng, whch was based
upon twenty-fve sub|ects, has been suffcenty confrmed by other
nvestgators, some of whom have been crtca of port and
ernon s other resuts (cf. e, 194 ), for t to be accepted as a fact.
more nterestng queston s whether dfferent movements from
dfferent parts of the body, performng dfferent functons, correate
hghy. To answer ths queston they ntercorreated a ther meas-
ures and found that athough there were about twce as many sg-
nfcant correatons as one woud e pect by chance, the average
ntercorreaton was qute sma. Consequenty they were ed to the
concuson that there was no genera over-a movement factor.
owever, an anayss of the correaton tabe ed them to concude
that there were three group factors, the frst of whch appeared to be
an area or e pansve factor. Tabe 5.4 reproduced from ther book
(1933) shows the measures whch ed them to arrve at ths genera
factor.
T 5.4
verage Intercorreaton of Severa rea Measures
wth the Sum of the 0ther ght Measures
rea of Tota rtng .69
Tota tent of gures .67
rea of ackboard gures -64
Sowness of Drawng -f--5
rea of oot Squares -4
0verestmaton of nges -45
Patngs on Movement durng Ideness 39
ength of Sef-Patng Checks .3
ength of akng Strdes .37
Peproduced wth permsson from G. . port and P. . ernon, Studes
n pressve Movement, p. no. Copyrght 1933 The Macman Co.
The average ntercorreaton of the varabes taken two at a tme
s - -.333 for ths factor, whch s |ust about at the 5 per cent eve of
sgnfcance. They named ths genera trat e pansveness n terms of
the sze or area factor whch seemed to be nvoved n a of ts meas-
ures. They aso found a factor whch they caed the centrfuga
group factor (1933, p. 112) whch saturated such measures as the
133
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
overestmaton of dstance from the body wth the hands or wth the
egs, and a thrd group factor, caed emphass, whch was asso-
cated wth voce ntensty, ratngs on movement durng speech,
wrtng pressure, etc. (1933, p. 114). The average ntercorreaton of
the components of these ast two factors s somewhat ess and n fact
senberg (1940) has questoned whether there reay s very good
evdence for such group factors. owever, common sense, as we as
other e permenta evdence (cf. e, 194 ), woud seem to support
at east the frst and thrd of these group factors as trat names de-
scrptve of two dmensons of e pressve movement. That s, t makes
sense to speak of the area characterstcs of e presson (that s, ts
genera e pansveness), and aso the ntensty characterstcs of e -
presson (that s, ts emphass or nsstence).
Psychodagnostcs. Most of the argument n ths fed has not been
over what descrptve trat terms shoud be adopted to descrbe e -
pressve movements. Instead, most of the cams and countercams
have deat wth the vadty of measures of e pressve movement for
dagnosng more compe personaty characterstcs. Ths |s pre-
csey the same probem whch we met n connecton wth physque,
where Shedon and others rased the queston as to whether measure-
ments of the body woud enabe us to predct what a person s kes
and dskes woud be. ere the queston s whether measurements
of the body s movements w enabe us to te somethng about a
person s kes and dskes. The argument has wa ed partcuary hot
over what can be determned about personaty from handwrtng,
athough off (1947) has made e tensve cams for the dagnostc
sgnfcance of a e pressve movements. t the one e treme are the
eaborate psychodagnostc systems of ages and Saudek descrbed
n fu n e (194 ) whch attempt to derve a compete personaty
pcture from handwrtng. t the other e treme s to be found the
wdey quoted study by u and Montgomery (1919) n whch they
found that the average correaton between ratngs on a seres of
personaty trats and varous handwrtng measures was .016. It
s not our purpose to revew ths controversy here because such an
attempt woud go far beyond the scope of ths book. Carefu revew
of the status of graphoogy can be found n port and ernon
(1933) and e (194 ). Instead we sha take a snge study by Pasca
whch appears to be a sgnfcant contrbuton to methodoogy n the
fed, snce t was carred out n accordance wth carefu e permenta
procedures.
134
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
Pasca (19435) began wth twenty-two mae undergraduate ar-
vard students who had been e tensvey anayzed n the arvard
Psychoogca Cnc as part of a arger study under Murray s drec-
ton (193 ). These students had been rated on thrty-s carefuy
defned personaty varabes after very e tensve cnca and e per-
menta anayss. Pasca made thrty-nne handwrtng measurements
from specmens supped by these sub|ects, who were asked to wrte
wth ther favorte fountan pen as naturay as possbe an account
of tf1er e perences snce eavng coege. Measurements were read
to .2 of a mmeter, and e pct drectons are gven n hs artce
for makng the measurements used. Tabe 5.5 summarzes fve of
the nne reatonshps between handwrtng varabes and personaty
characterstcs whch were sgnfcant at or beyond the 1 per cent
eve of confdence. In each case enough of the defnton of the hand-
wrtng measurement and the personaty characterstc s gven so
that some dea of the nature of the reatonshp can be obtaned.
T 5.5
Sampe andwrtng and Personaty Peatonshps ound by Pasca
(1943b) to e Sgnfcant at the .01 eve
1. Upper pro|ecton (mean vertca heght of the etters b, h, k, I, taken con-
secutvey about one thrd down the page) s postvey correated wth
payfu atttude (meanng to rea , amuse onesef, seek dverson
and entertanment . . . avod serous tenson ).
I. Md-zone rato (wdth of the etters m, n, u, dvded by the heght of the
same or smar etters) s postvey correated wth pro|ectvty ( the
dsposton to pro|ect unconscousy one s wsh-engendered or an ety-
evoked beefs ).
|. Dstance between words s postvey correated wth payfu atttude.
4. Dstance between pont of the etter and ts dot dvded by the wdth
of m, n, u, s postvey correated wth nfavodance (meanng to avod
faure, shame, humaton, rdcue ).
5. Upper pro|ecton (the heght of the etters b, h, h, I) mnus ower pro-
|ecton (the ength of the etters g, |, q, y, and z, e cudng captas) s
negatvey correated wth abasement, and postvey wth domnance
and defendance.
Pasca s rghty unwng to draw any very e tensve concusons
from such fndngs as these, especay snce he s deang wth such
a very sma and seected group of sub|ects and wth such a arge
number of correatons that a few of them coud be e pected to be
sgnfcant by chance. The fact remans that hs study s one of the
135
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
few carefuy controed ones n whch sgnfcant reatonshps have
been found. It dffers from earer attempts to dsprove reatonshps
n ths fed chefy n the carefuness wth whch the personaty
measurements were made.
ut supposng, for the sake of argument, that hs fndngs are gen-
eray appcabe, what sense can we make of them 0f the reaton-
shps sted n Tabe 5.5 we note frst of a that 1 and 3 woud appear
to be reated to the dmenson defned by port and ernon as the
e pansve or area factor. Dstance between words and a tendency to
use hgh upper pro|ectons both ndcate the usng up of greater
space. Smary the ffth reatonshp appears reated to the factor
of emphass that s, f pressed we coud make a case for the tendency
to push upward aganst gravty as ndcatng an over-a assertve or
domnant atttude (cf. off, 1947), provded the genera area factor
s subtracted out as t s n the formua. nay t shoud be noted
that the reatonshps under 2 and 4 both dea wth ratos of vertca
to horzonta dstances. If we reverse the rato n 4 so that both
represent wdth over heght, we come out wth a strkng confrma-
ton of the genera fact that handwrtng whch s wde reatve to ts
heght s assocated wth ow shame avodance and hgh pro|ectvty.
To put ths n another way, a person who does not hde hs an etes
but pro|ects them, tends to e press hmsef n horzonta, rather than
vertca, movements.
To show how wdey appcabe such a fndng may be, we note
that Mra, n hs Myoknetc dagnoss, reports resuts whch woud
tend to confrm ths resut. e uses a technque n whch the sub|ect
s asked to draw vertca and horzonta nes wth ether hs rght
or hs eft hand, begnnng at the eft or at the rght or the top or
bottom. e reports that depressed patents tend to draw nes whch
are about twce as ong n the horzonta drecton as norma peope,
whereas the same depressed patents tend to draw vertca nes whch
are shorter than for norma peope. s fgures, whch can be found
n a tabe reprnted n e (194 , pp. 334-336), do not agree e acty
wth Pasca s and furthermore the suggeston that they correspond
wth Pasca s nvoves the assumpton that depressed patents have a
ot of the same sort of an etes as ed to hgh ratngs on pro|ectvty
and ow ratngs on nfavodance for Pasca s sub|ects. Nevertheess
the correspondence s strkng and s ponted out smpy because t
ustrates the need for the ntegraton of varous dverse research
fndngs n ths genera fed. It seems suffcenty cear that handwrt-
ng trats, ke physque trats, are not gong to provde the key
136
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
whch unocks a the mysteres of personaty, but on the other hand
t s tme psychoogsts stopped tryng to prove ths obvous pont
and got to work to attempt to show how ths mportant aspect of
personaty can be usefuy measured, descrbed, and ntegrated nto
the tota over-a pcture.
ar s andwrtng. et us return to our ndvdua case and see
what hs handwrtng ooks ke. It s reproduced n gure 5.1 aong
wth some handwrtng sampes from another person. Two of the
sampes are ar s and two were wrtten by another mae coege
student. Can you pck the two sampes wrtten by the same person
Can you decde whch par beongs to ar
IGUP 5.1
our andwrtng Sampes, Two of hch are ar s.
|t d|r C s
ff | It - - n n
137
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
These are the two tradtona questons asked by e permenters
who have used the matchng technque to measure the consstency
of e presson and the agreement of e presson wth over-a person-
aty characterstcs. 0f course you have no over-a pcture of ar
as yet but at east you have some mpressons of hm from the physque
and temperament data.
andwrtng sampes and D were wrtten by ar. Can we draw
any concusons about hs personaty by ookng at the reatonshps
found by Pasca Unfortunatey Pasca dd not provde norms snce
he worked wth ranks nstead of actua scores, but we can make a
few nferences by way of ustraton. Thus we mght argue that hs
upper pro|ecton and dstance between words s above average and
concude that therefore he has a tendency to be more payfu than
the average person. It s e tremey dffcut to draw any concusons
about wdth reatve to heght n hs case wthout norms, but a
comparson of upper pro|ecton wth ower pro|ecton woud strongy
suggest that hs ower pro|ecton s consderaby greater, ndcatng
that he s not hgh n defendance or domnance, but tends to compy
and accept punshment (abasement). e w check these concu-
sons by other measures taken of hm from entrey dfferent vew-
ponts ater on. So far we may note some congruence between ths
fndng and the temperament ratngs. Poughy speakng a somato-
tonc s one who s orented toward the envronment rather than
toward hmsef. e responds to promptngs from wthout n hs
motona energetc commerce wth the word. e does not consut
hmsef but acts n accordance wth the demands of the stuaton.
Such a person mght be e pected to compy and accept punsh-
ment. In short, the handwrtng anayss confrms a genera trend
n ar toward outer rather than nner orentaton, athough
at frst bush compant may seem far removed from energetc.
In fact we are forced to assume rather awkwardy that these opposed
trats are surface manfestatons of the same underyng wsh for
commerce wth the envronment, ether n the form of actng upon
t or beng acted upon by t.
P PC PTU TP ITS
Some psychoogsts have aso been nterested n consstent modes
of percevng characterstcs of dfferent ndvduas. These cassfy
as trats accordng to our premnary defnton. Most of the research
n ths area has centered around one partcuar test the Porschach
13
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
Test athough there have been some efforts to work wth other
materas, such as coud pctures, reproducton of vsua, Gestat pat-
terns, mumbed speech, etc. (cf. e, 194 ). The basc dea has been
to cassfy the ways n whch the sub|ect perceves the word about
hm. In an nkbot test ke the Porschach he s gven a seres of
ten bots (some n coor) and s asked what he sees, what he can make
of them. The way n whch he goes about respondng to ths unstruc-
tured matera s then carefuy anayzed by the psychoogst n the
hope that t w provde sgnfcant cues to hs menta approach
to the word n genera. or e ampe, the argument mght run that
f the sub|ect consstenty sees detas n the bots, he w tend to pay
attenton to detas n a fe s actvtes. The parae between ths
approach and that of e pressve movements s fary obvous. In the
one case the psychoogst s nterested n the consstency of motor
responses here he s nterested n the consstency of perceptua re-
sponses. In both cases he ends wth a trat descrpton whch serves to
summarze the way n whch the person reacts n that modaty, and
whch aso supposedy has genera dagnostc sgnfcance.
Consstent modes of vsua percepton have been the sub|ect of
proonged and very e tensve research n the Porschach Test, and
the resuts of ths research have proved so usefu for cnca psycho-
ogy that ths test has wthout e cepton become the most wdey used
psychoogca nstrument n the study of personaty. or ths very
reason the terature on the sub|ect s enormous. e (194 ), for
e ampe, n a recent survey of the Porschach terature sts 79
references. They refect not ony the wde use of the test, but the
care wth whch the detas of admnstraton and scorng have been
worked out. In fact the test has become so specazed that t s df-
fcut to work wth t wthout consderabe tranng whch speca
Porschach Insttutes have been set up to gve. Detaed case studes
appear n the terature aong wth numerous research fndngs,
partcuary n the fed of cnca dagnoss of varous types of per-
sonaty dsorder.
e cannot therefore begn to go nto ths test as a workng cnca
too. we can hope to do s to gan a knowedge suffcent to earn
somethng of ts contrbuton to the tota personaty pcture and
somethng of ts theoretca meanng n our conceptuazaton of
personaty n genera. Perhaps the smpest approach s to begn
wth a concrete case, our sub|ect ar, and see how he responded to
the standard nkbots when the test was admnstered to hm by a
cnca psychoogst we-traned n the Porschach technque. Shown
139
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
The frst response to Card III, whch contans a good dea of
coor, has been ncuded to ustrate some of the other types of poss-
be responses. Tabe 5.6 sts some of the commonest scorng symbos,
the frequency wth whch they appeared n ar s record, the scorng
defntons (cf. e, 194 ), and the appro mate psychoogca mean-
ng for each.
T 5.6
The Meanng of Some Common Porschach Scorng Categores and the
requency wth hch They ppear n ar s Pecord
ot
Characterstc
. ocaton
Sampe
Scorng
Symbos
|. Movement
4. Coor
5. Shadng
6. Content
requency
n s. Scorng
Pecord Defntons
ppro mate
Psychoogca
Meanng
42 Tota number of responses
12 hoe bot used
Inteectua
26 norma deta
4 rare deta
hte space used
o Deta made nto whoe
pproach
Negatvsm
Confabuaton
26 orm response
17 Good or poor form
Contro
9 responses
3 Movement response
Creatvty
9 Pure coor response
6 Coor domnates form
moton
4 orm domnates coor
2 sta responses, thrd
dmenson
n ety
17 nma
| uman
7 natomca
5 rt
Determned by
assocatona
sequences and
nferences of
w
D
Dd
S
D

M
c
C
C

t
rt
|udge
Conformty wth
soca thnkng
n tem has meanng ony n terms of the tota conte t of other responses.
nous ratos of responses such as the reaton of to M are gven partcuar
meanngs.
The matera n ths tabe s merey ustratve. ctuay there s
consderabe varaton n the use of such symbos among the dfferent
Porschach workers. e (194 ) sts some thrteen pages of dfferent
scorng symbos and the sghty dfferent nterpretatons gven by
dfferent Porschach e perts. fter a record has been scored n ths
manner, the ne t step s usuay to sum up the dfferent scorng cate-
gores for the tota record and to prepare an over-a pcture, some-
Popuar response
141
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
0

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tmes n the form of a psychogram, whch the Porschacher can use
as the bass for hs personaty dagnoss. The dagnoss-nvoves, as
has aready been suggested n Chapter 3, the use of personaty con-
cepts whch are based on the perceptua categores actuay used n
the scorng. It s mportant to make a dstncton at ths pont. The
process of appyng the correct scorng symbo to a sub|ect s response
s an ob|ectve one whch can be earned fary easy to the pont of
hgh nter-scorer reabty after the usua tranng. s n the case of
e pressve movements, such modes of percevng as seeng whoes ( )
or movements (M) seem to be unob|ectonabe as purey descrptve
categores for an aspect of behavor. ut the second process, that of
drawng nferences from the scorng categores to wder areas of per-
sonaty, s not ony more dffcut, nvovng a thorough knowedge
of personaty, but aso rests on a seres of rather nvoved theoretca
assumptons.
The ntermngng of perceptua categores and personaty con-
structs can ony be ustrated by a concrete e ampe. et us foow
the process of anayzng ar s record one step further. ere s the
frst secton of the cnca psychoogst s nterpretaton of hs record:
Porschach Pecord of ar
nayss by Dr. |ues D. ozberg
The sub|ect produced an adequate Porschach record quanttatvey (42 P).
There does not appear to be any dsturbance n the manner n whch he
nteectuay approaches a probem. though he tends to be a practca
person and deas wth the commonpace (63 D), he s nevertheess capabe
of some abstractua thnkng and generazaton (2 ) whe not gnor-
ng the ess sgnfcant n hs envronment (9 Dd). e does not engage n
aogca thnkng (no D ). though there s no undue stereotypy n
thnkng, he does not however permt much fe bty n deaton (50 )
athough potentay capabe of hgh average nteectua functonng and
possby hgher (42 P, 12 , content).
e may pause here to notce what has happened. The psychoogst
has taken the fact that 63 per cent of hs ocaton responses are to
detas and generazed to the statement that therefore he tends to
dea wth the commonpace and s a practca person. 0n the other
hand, hs whoe responses suggest abstractua thnkng, and the fact
that 50 per cent of hs content responses are anma responses sug-
gests deatona nfe bty because he does not depart much from
the anma fgures normay suggested to peope takng the test.
Ths ustrates how the anayst s pcture of ar s deatona or n-
142
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
teectua processes, of hs nteectua approach to the word, s based
on hs perceptua modes of respondng.
et us take a further secton of the cnca nterpretaton, to see
how ths works out for other areas of personaty:
t present, hs achevement strvngs are beyond hs functonng capacty
(1 : 3 M). though hs eve of aspraton s not abnormay hgh, he s
nevertheess ncapabe of achevng ths eve because of hs emotona prob-
ems. 0ne s deang here wth a probem of emotons rather than deaton.
In ths e cerpt perceptua characterstcs are nterpreted frst n
motvatona terms ( achevement strvngs ) and then n emotona
terms.
asc to hs personaty probems s marked negatvsm and contrarness
( S), and a push to mod hs envronment to hs own needs.
Note here how the use of the background whte space rather than
the norma fgura back part of the card s taken to mean that the
sub|ect s contrary-mnded that s, he tends to mod hs envronment
rather than to accept the fgura responses strongy suggested by the
bot. The anayst agan generazes from a perceptua contrarness
to a genera contrarness (negatvsm). It s worth notng that ths
push to mod hs envronment s amost e acty the descrpton
used by Shedon for somatotoncs when he speaks of ther resouton
to subdue the envronment to one s own w. Such paraes as these
are what gve cnca psychoogsts fath n the Porschach and theo-
retca psychoogsts fath n the consstency of personaty as ds-
payed by dfferent measures.
e s therefore a narcssst and hs emotona reactons woud tend to con-
frm ths (6 C ). motonay, he s very abe (9 C) and easy aroused by
emotonay-charged stuatons (50 P Cards III- ).
The sgnfcance of ths ast comment s that 50 per cent of hs
forty-two responses occurred n connecton wth Cards III- , whch
are bots contanng a great varety of coor of dfferent hues and
shadngs. Coor s roughy equvaent to emoton to the Porschacher,
|ust as form s equvaent to contro.
hen so aroused, he may react wth narcssstc and e posve dspays of
emotona behavor (6 C ) and t s cear he s ncapabe of copng wth hs
feengs. though there s an attempt to e press mature, warm emotons n
nterpersona reatonshps (6 C), he s unabe to sustan ths and eventu-
ay hs emotona reactons become napproprate and poory controed
( C-). ny senstvty for the probems of others s ackng (no c), agan
a refecton of hs narcsssm. e appears to accept humans n hs attempt
to estabsh rapport (3 out of 42 P).
143
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
porton of hs unstabe emotonaty s absorbed through phantasy
(3 M), but much of hs phantasy s tsef nfante and regressve (2 M) and
may therefore not be suffcenty capabe of absorbng hs affects.
ascay, he s an e tratensve personaty (3 M: 9 C) who seeks satsfac-
tons n and works out hs probems on the envronment.
The rato of M to C s one of the most mportant reatonshps n
the Porschach Test. To Porschach t meant the person s e perence
baance that s, the e tent to whch he was e tratensve or ntro-
versve. Generay speakng, a person who shows more movement re-
sponses woud seem to be more creatve, that s, addng more of hs
own atttudes to the response, than a person who s determned n hs
responses by strkng features of the envronment. 0n the common-
sense eve one can see that coor, especay n a seres of back bots,
s an mpressve e perence whch woud appear to suggest a re-
sponse, whereas moton s somethng whch the sub|ect has to ntro-
duce on hs own nto the statc bot. The person who responds pr-
mary n terms of coor, ke ar, s regarded as e tratensve, that
s, as drected toward hs envronment rather than toward hmsef.
e responds to promptngs from wthout (C) more than to
promptngs from wthn (M). 0nce more we fnd confrmaton of a
characterstc found both n the temperament ratngs and n the
handwrtng anayss.
owever, hs unstabe emotonaty and hs hostty ( S) may nterfere
wth adequate reatonshps wth others. Ths w produce confct and
therefore an ety (a ). In vew of the possbty that the drecton of hs
strvngs s not functonng satsfactory, he may resove an ety by turnng
n upon hmsef wth the possbty of depressve mood reactons (7 t.
1 C ) whch appear to have ther roots n nfante fears of overwhemng
parent fgures, partcuary the mother ( massve representaton appearng
wth the depressve percept and wth the percept femae genta organs ).
ven here, however, ths possbty of nternazed aggresson s mted,
snce he s key to resort to hoste reactons ( cut open human beng ).
e s constanty e perencng strugge wth hs envronment (peope tug-
gng aganst each other ).
ere and n the ast paragraph the anayst makes use of the actua
content of the sub|ect s responses rather than ther perceptua char-
acterstcs aone. Ths part of a Porschach nterpretaton reay does
not beong under the headng of e pressve trats at a, but t s
ncuded here so that the unty of the over-a Porschach approach
w not be voated.
. 144 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
0ne defense he attempts n copng wth unstabe affects s represson and
nteectuazaton (65 , 5 rt). That ths mechansm does not serve to
aay an ety s ceary demonstrated by the unstabe emotona reactvty
and the ow eve of accuracy at whch he perceves and nterprets hs en-
vronment (65 ). Ths atter factor further ndcates that the ego and
the abty to moderate between d strvngs and the demands of soca
reaty s poory ntegrated and weak. go strength partcuary weakens
under the gut and an ety for hoste wshes and feengs.
Se ua preoccupatons pay a ma|or roe n hs phantases ( shapey
anges, etc.). th the e cepton of one nstance ( femae genta organs )
a reference to se ua matera s submated. owever, nvaraby se uay-
tnged percepts gve rse to debtatng an ety and cause ego-dsrupton
( -). vcous cyce s demonstrated n that hostty gves rse to an ety,
whch further renforces and ntensfes hoste reactons. s ony defense
s nteectuazng and represson ( ) but these are ncapabe of copng wth
the emotons that run rampant. It s here that t becomes apparent that n-
terest n art, present n ths record, s one manfestaton of the use of nte-
ectuazaton as a defense aganst an ety and the fact that some of hs art
percepts have se ua symboc sgnfcance woud suggest that ths nterest
of the sub|ect aso serves as submaton for hs se ua preoccupatons.
Note that n ths secton of the nterpretaton attenton has shfted
somewhat from ar s trats to some attempt at anayzng the reasons
for some of these trats. In other words, the content of the Porschach
responses often suggests the reason for some of the responses ob-
taned. It s here that the fu subtety of the Porschach anayst must
be brought nto pay. Note how, n ths case, some rather mnor cues
are worked up nto a pausbe hypothess (fear of the mother, se ua
an ety) whch woud appear to e pan ar s perceptua behavor
and therefore possby hs genera behavor. or e ampe, n gure 5.2
we note the deteroraton n form resutng from se uay tnged
responses. Pesponse 3 ( femae genta organs ) to Pate I s fo-
owed by an - response, whereas the centaur reference n response to
Pate II s aso foowed by an - response. It s as f the se ua asso-
catons aroused have dsconcerted the sub|ect and aroused enough
an ety so that hs ne t response s not as good. Ths dsruptng effect
of an ety s we known n the e permenta terature (cf. Sears,
1937), anc the concuson that ths partcuar sequence means an ety
s therefore not pure con|ecture.
The cnca nterpretaton ends wth an over-a summary of
ar s strengths and weaknesses.
In summary, ths Porschach record reveas an emotonay unstabe per-
sonaty who s struggng wth unacceptabe affects. ascay narcssstc
145
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
and hoste, he s unabe to estabsh and mantan warm human contacts n
spte of hs e tratensve personaty structure. th a reatvey ow eve of
toerance for an ety, ego strength s weak and under suffcent stress may
be unabe to serve ts moderatng roe. Mechansms of defense e n n-
teectuazaton and represson, both of whch are presenty fang to pro-
tect hm from hs an ety. The essenta core of hs phantasy s se ua and
nfante fear of overpowerng parent fgures s suggested. 0f postve
strength n ths personaty pcture s the absence of devant thnkng, some
absorptve phantasy, a desre for human contact, and a far eve of nteect.
Ths concrete e ampe has gven us a good dea of the two ma|or
functons of the Porschach Test. In the frst pace t gves a pcture
of the perceptua mode of approach of the sub|ect. hether or not
the pcture obtaned from a snge Porschach Test s a reabe nde
of the way n whch the sub|ect perceves hs word s unfortunatey
st a somewhat debatabe queston. ttempts have been made to
measure the reabty of ths nstrument, but an over-a evauaton
s st ackng. The reason for ths s that no one has yet deveoped
an e acty equvaent form of the test so that the resuts on one occa-
son can be correated wth the resuts on another. ven ths method
of testng reabty woud not be wthout crtcsm, snce takng one
of the tests woud doubtess nfuence responses on the ne t. The
usua methods of measurng reabty have been apped, however,
to the response obtaned to the standard ten bots. That s, retests
over varyng ntervas of tme have been shown by osberg (1941) to
yed hghy comparabe psychograms. ertz (1934) has reported
odd-even correatons for ndvdua types of responses varyng from
.70 to .90 and averagng - -. 29. nay, attempts to dscover
whether two Porschach anaysts scorng the same record come out
wth the same resut have been hampered to some e tent by the fact
that there are mnor dfferences n scorng technque whch make
comparsons dffcut. owever, the data show, by and arge, that
there s a very hgh degree of agreement between two ndependent
anayses of the same record (cf. e, 194 ).
The second functon of the Porschach Test s what makes t so
mportant cncay. It s not ony supposed to gve a pcture of
consstent perceptua trats t s supposed to suggest the person s
mode of approach n genera to a of fe s probems. Not ony ths,
t often gves hnts as to some of the person s basc confcts. ere the
technque verges on the knd of psychodagnoss for whch hand-
wrtng and physque have aso been used. ssentay we are deang
here wth the probem of whether or not the perceptua trats and
146
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
content responses found on the Porschach are representatve of
broader personaty trends. ere agan research has proved dffcut
for the smpe reason that n many cases we have no more adequate
measures of these genera personaty trends than the Porschach
tsef gves. Ths s partcuary true when the characterstcs n
queston are defned n such a way that they can be measured ony
by the Porschach. or e ampe, M on the Porschach s supposed to
mean nner creatvty. If we attempt to check the vadty of ths
noton, we fnd some other measures whch defne creatvty as we
or better than M on the Porschach, such as artstc creatvty (Pust,
194 ) or scentfc creatvty (Poe, 1949), and test the e tent to
whch the Porschach agrees wth these measures. If t does not agree,
as n Pust s and Poe s anayses, then the Porschacher can aways
argue that ths s not the knd of creatvty he had n mnd. e
can state the defnton of creatvty n such a way that ony the
Porschach can measure t the same s true of e trotensveness whch
s smar to but dfferent from e troverson and coud not therefore
be checked aganst measures of e troverson. The dffcuty wth ths
approach s that t prevents contact between dfferent ways of meas-
urng personaty and mts the predctve power of the Porschach
utmatey to perceptua behavor.
here there are ndependent estmates of personaty trends or
confcts, partcuary n psychatrc dagnoses, the record of the test
has been good. That s, Porschach workers have been abe to arrve
at an nterpretaton based soey on ther test resuts whch agrees
very cosey wth proonged case studes (cf. e, 194 ). In one n-
stance en|amn and baugh (193 ) found that n thrty-nne out of
forty-s cases the dagnoss arrved at by the Porschach agreed en-
trey wth that arrved at by psychatrsts, and n the remanng
seven cases the dfference was not great. Gueck and Gueck (1950)
report that Porschach anaysts were abe to separate denquent
from matched nondenquent boys on the bass of Porschach records
aone n we over 90 per cent of the cases. rather strkng and
somewhat unusua confrmaton of the test s vadty has come from
a study by Du os and 0berhozer on the orese (1944). ere
0berhozer, workng ndependenty from Porschach records aone,
arrved at a pcture of the basc personaty structure of the orese
whch was hghy congruent n most mportant respects wth the one
arrved at by an anthropoogst (Du os) and a psychatrst ( ar-
dner) workng wth anthropoogca data.
147
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The abty to match Porschach nterpretatons wth psychatrc
nterpretatons shows the cnca usefuness of the test, but unfortu-
natey t does not gve us much nsght as to what s nvoved
theoretcay. Nevertheess t shoud ead us to concude that the
Porschach s an e tremey promsng approach to personaty whch
theoretcay orented scentsts shoud make use of n tryng to re-
fne ther concepts for handng personaty structure. or e ampe,
what ceary needs to be done s to foow the procedure outned
n Chapter 4. e need to take a gven Porschach concept ke
negatvsm or hostty whch s based on the perceptua use of whte
space and anayze carefuy ts surpus meanngs. 0bvousy the
word negatvsm s used precsey because t does have surpus mean-
ngs for other areas of personaty. No one s partcuary nterested
n perceptua negatvsm per se. ut so far no one has attempted to
defne precsey what the surpus |neanng of negatvsm s and how
ts manfestatons n other areas of personaty coud be tested. Does
t mean, for e ampe, that a person wth hgh S shoud aso choose
atypca responses n a personaty questonnare, or on the Strong
ocatona Interest Test efore we make such deductons as these
we shoud probaby have to make some assumptons (postuates)
about the nature of negatvsm and then try to understand how t
woud manfest tsef, not ony n percepton but n other types of
behavor as we. It s ony when ths knd of panstakng anayss
s competed that we sha have added a concept to the fed of per-
sonaty study whch s more than merey suggestve. Most of the
Porschach concepts, unfortunatey, are |ust suggestve at ths stage
of the game, whch makes them very usefu for cnca work, but
not so usefu for a rgorous theoretca system. 0n the other hand, t
does not mean, as some students of personaty have assumed, that
the Porschach concepts are of no use. 0n the contrary, they are
some of the best and most suggestve that we have, and what we
need to do s to attempt to appy them more rgorousy to other
types of personaty data.
STY
Psychoogsts have aso nterested themseves n the e tent to
whch ndvduas show a consstent stye n the many dfferent ways
n whch they e press themseves. off has conducted a seres of
e tensve and ngenous researches on ths sub|ect (1943). e has
worked wth such e pressve aspects of personaty as photographs
of shouetted profes and hands, mrrored handwrtng, phono-
14
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
graphc records of voces, stye n teng a story, moves of gat, etc.
Generay he reports that |udges can match sampes from such
wdey dfferent areas of the same person better than woud be e -
pected by chance. e argues, as does port, that stye s the over-
a consstent way n whch a person e presses hmsef. port
regards stye as the e terna aspect of a marked nterna consstency
or organzaton of personaty. hen psychoogsts show that they
can successfuy match dfferent e pressve aspects of personaty
they are merey confrmng the wdey-hed crtca and common-
sense vew that a man s stye of fe can be recognzed n whatever
he does. It s on ths assumpton that terary, musca, and artstc
crtcsm s based. rom stye aone we may recognze compostons
by Chopn, pantngs by an Gogh, and pastry by unt Say. ( -
port, 1937, p. 490.)
Tabe 5.7 abbrevated from port (1937, p. 479) shows some of
the typca resuts from matchng dfferent aspects of personaty. It
w be noted from ths tabe that even such dverse aspects as hand-
wrtng and phonographc recordng of voces can be matched wth
better than chance accuracy, as s shown by the contngency coeff-
cents (C s) whch are severa tmes ther probabe errors (P. . s).
T 5.7
Pesuts of Matchng Dfferent spects of Personaty
our photographs of bodes (wth heads removed) matched wth p- -
fve photographs of heads (the atter were taken at a dfferent 0.42
tme, when dfferent cothes were worn). ( ernon) .046
Pars of drawngs of a house and a man by 490 chdren (10-13
years), arranged n 70 sets. ach set of seven matched wth a 0.59
tme mt of 30 seconds by educated aduts. ( ernon) .06
andwrtngs matched wth phonograph records of the voces of 0.39
the wrters. ( off) .042
Photographs of hands matched wth shouettes of profes. 0.14
( off) .052
andwrtng specmens matched wth portrats of the wrters. 0.25
( rnhem) .055
ght themes wrtten by 70 students matched wth one or more
other themes by the same authors. Two |udges matched groups
of fve authors at a tme. The resut s the average of 112 e - 0.60
perments. ( port, aker, and athers) 1.42
Peproduced wth permsson from G. . port, Personaty, p. 479. Copy-
rght 1937 by enry ot and Co.
149
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
sght varant of ths approach s to have |udges match person-
aty descrptons derved from a study of dfferent e pressve aspects
of personaty. Peproduced n Tabe 5. are bref sampes from n-
terpretve reports on a snge gr, Say, based respectvey on the
Porschach, on graphoogy, and on an art technque, as reported n
a study by Munroe (1945).
T 5.
Porschach (1940)
Ths student seems to be
a we-ad|usted pedant. She
s ntegent . . . and am-
btous. She s methodca,
accurate, acute. She works
hard, geans masses of facts
whch she can use wth a cer-
tan aptness. hat she acks
s any sort of broad sweep,
any emotona warmth and
creatve mpuse. or a her
systematc methods of work-
ng, she seems to be bascay
pretty scattered. There s
no nner organzaton and
focus.
Test Peports on Say
Graphoogy (1941)
She s by no means br-
ant, but she has a good
average ntegence. She s a
dgent and conscentous
worker who s good n
routne performances. er
mechansm of earnng s
based more on absorpton
and dentfcaton than on
assmaton. She possesses
tte phantasy and magna-
ton, and has a rather sober
and pan approach to gven.
matera.
rt Technque (1942)
hghy constrcted
person . . .
Is ntegent and
reabe . . .
Suppresson of emo-
ton . . . hampered
n beng creatve.
( rom Munroe, 1945.)
Ths tabe ustrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the
matchng technque. The reader can |udge for hmsef the degree of
congruence n these reports. 0n the one hand t s easy to see how,
on the bass of such descrptons as these, a |udge mght be abe to
put together three descrptons that beong to Say as opposed to
three other descrptons beongng to some other gr. 0n the other
hand the queston arses as to what vaue such a correct matchng
has. The stuaton recas one of Dr. Samue |ohnson s famous re-
marks: Sr, a woman preachng s ke a dog wakng on hs hnd
egs. It s not done we but you are surprsed to fnd t done at a.
Psychoogsts have fet the need of provng by matchng e per-
ments that there s consstency n personaty, but havng done so
and marveed at the resut, they have not been abe to thnk of
much more to do about t. The matchng technque s e ceent
150
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
for showng that a phenomenon e sts, but not for showng what
the phenomenon s. Certany the descrptons of Say wrtten by
the three dfferent anaysts are so dfferent that t woud be dff-
cut to state precsey on what bass a correct match mght be made.
Many wrters have argued that the bass for the matchng s not e -
terna characterstcs but an nterpretaton of those characterstcs
based on an over-a conceptuazaton of a personaty. If ths s so,
then what we need to do s to go beyond matchng e perments nto
more carefu conceptuazatons whch are standardzed enough to
permt a more precse understandng of the consstences noted.
Speech and Personaty. 0ne attempt to break stye down nto
smper components has been to concentrate on ngustc stye
whch can be anayzed quanttatvey. anguage has been consd-
ered one of the most representatve aspects of a man s stye. To
quote en |onson, anguage most showeth a man speak that I
may see thee. ortunatey speech may be broken down nto unts
and ratos of unts whch can be handed quanttatvey wth ease.
Under the eadershp of men ke usemann and rache n Ger-
many, and orzybsk, ende |ohnson, and Sanford n merca,
some very accurate and panstakng anayses of word usage have
been made. The typca approach s to take a word sampe of gven
ength say a thousand words and to count the number of gram-
matca forms of dfferent sorts n t, e.g., nouns, pronouns, ad|ec-
tves, adverbs, verbs, prepostons, and artces. dstncton s made
between the number of dfferent words used (types) and the tota
number of words used (tokens). Chotos (1944) and others have
shown that such speech characterstcs as the over-a type-token
rato are hghy consstent from one word sampe to another of the
same person f each of the sampes conssts of a thousand words or
more. The correatons run over -f-.go for sampes of ths sze. Start-
ng wth ths dscovery of ntra-ndvdua consstency, Sanford
, - ) has anayzed for two sub|ects such speech characterstcs as
the type-token rato, hestatng sounds, sentence engths, verb tense,
concrete-abstract nouns, grammatca types of ad|ectves, verb-ad-
|ectve ratos, sub|ect-ob|ect ratos, pontng words, etc. e cacu-
ated n a some 7,4 separate scores. Nevertheess on the bass of
these mnute speech segments he was abe to bud up a synthetc
pcture of the styes of these two ndvduas. or e ampe, he was
abe to defne a trat of cautousness of response as foows:
151
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
a. Many noun causes
b. Many cause causes
c. Many concesson causes
d. requent concept of cause
e. Many statc copua causes ( It seems that )
f. ow certanty-uncertanty rato ( s, seems )
g. Many moda au ares ( coud, woud, mght )
h. Many quotaton marks n utobography
(1942b, p. 1 9.)
avng but up a number of trats n ths manner, he was abe
to summarze one of the person s styes as foows:
Thus Merrtt s speech s compe , perseveratve, thorough, uncoordnated,
cautous, statc, hghy defntve, and stmuus-bound. If we go one step
further toward syn1hess and generazaton, we mgh1 conceve of hs whoe
stye as defensve, and deferent. Most of hs verba behavor seems to refect
a desre to avod bame or dsapprova. e s cautous and ndrect, rarey
makng a smpe or bad statement. 0nce he makes a |udgment he e pans
t and presents a aspects of t, eavng tte to the audtor s magnaton
and 1te for the audtor to queston. . . . (Sanford, 1942b, p. 190.)
Ths speech characterzaton has been presented n some deta
because t represents the e tent to whch a psychoogst can pace
on a quanttatve bass characterstcs of terary stye whch crtcs
have usuay arrved at ntutvey. fter havng read Sanford s
anayss, we can scarcey doubt that hs characterzaton s e ceent
so far as Merrtt s speech s concerned. ut here, as n a prevous
cases of studes of e pressve behavor, psychoogsts have wanted
to use speech characterstcs as dagnostc of other personaty trats.
hen Sanford concudes that Merrtt s cautous, ths does not nec-
essary mean that he s cautous n a that he does. It does mean
that hs speech may be characterzed as cautous, but nevtaby we
want to add the surpus meanng that he s cautous n other feds
of actvty as we.
Thus psychoogsts, as we as others, have not been sow to draw
very far-reachng concusons from a study of speech habts. ed by
orzybsk (1941), a whoe semantc movement has grown up whch
cams to be abe to dagnose very compcated personaty processes
from speech characterstcs (cf. Sanford, 1942a). orzybsk, n fact,
has deveoped a whoe theory of psychoneuross based on poor speech
habts. The hypothess, stated broady, mantans that the nd-
vdua who appes rgd rstotean cass-words to a worc whch s
152
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
not rgd and not rstotean w sooner or ater run afou of the
nevtabe msft between hs words and the word. (Sanford, 1942a,
p. 24.) ere there s assumed a correaton between persona ad|ust-
ment and speech habts, athough as Sanford aso ponts out, t s not
cear whether a paranod personaty w produce poor speech habts,
or the poor speech habts a paranod personaty. 0thers have at-
tempted to correate such nde es as the type-token rato wth nte-
gence test scores and generay have found a sgnfcant reatonshp
(Chotos, 1944). 0nce agan t woud be mpossbe to summarze a
the work whch has been done n ths fed. Perhaps the best over-a
summary has been made by Sanford (1g42a), who concudes as foows:
aong the ne there are data, reasonabe arguments, nsghts,
and hunches, addng up to the convcton that by hs words a man
may be known. e can accept t as a fact that speech and personaty
are reated. ut before we can get to the bottom of ths reatonshp
there are many brdges to cross. (p. 40.)
ar s Speech. To ustrate how speech anayses are made, we
can turn to a sampe of ar s wrtten anguage and anayze t ac-
cordng to some of the standard technques used by psychoogsts
workng n ths fed. ere s a sampe of what ar wrote n an ee-
mentary psychoogy cass one day n response to the topc: hat I
woud ke deay to get out of a course n Psychoogy. It s repro-
duced wth hs speng and punctuaton, and wth one word ( t )
added to make the sense cear.
I had severa reasons n mnd when I sgned up for the psych course. e-
evng n the true bera arts tradton t seemed necessary to me to round
out my more or ess heterogeneous study program wth a coupe of semesters
of psych. To me the ndvdua represents such a predomnant segment n
socety and the state, that |t| s mperatve that we know as much as poss-
be, n the words of a popuar book tte, hat Makes Sammy Pun.
veryone s nterested, t seems n what makes hmsef and hs feow asso-
cates tck. I do beeve that the puzzng and sometmes baffng behavor
of ourseves and our acquantances, can be greaty carfed and eucdated
through a study of psych. Psych, and ts attendant knowedge can be of
tremendous practca vaue n our understandng and apprecaton of our
feow man. e must ve n socety, hence t seems necessary that we know
as much as possbe concernng the behavour, attrbutes and character of
those we contact. In other words to use a vernacuar e presson, we must
be abe to fgure out peope n order to ead a more successfu fe. ong
wth ths trend of thought, I mght add that psychoogy woud seem to
suppy many of the mssng nks n the probems of phosophy and other
153
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
scences. specay n ths day and age n whch rapd technoogca ad-
vances force us to decson, must we muster a our nteectua resources to
face the ever ncreasng probems of fe and ts functons. e need a we-
rounded store of knowedge, especay about ourseves and human be-
havour n order to ve a rcher, fuer and happer fe. I beeve the
probems of regon can have a great dea of ght shed upon them through
an ntegent study of psychoogy. Ths s one of my chef reasons for takng
psych. e are a nterested n regon more or ess and key to the whoe
busness seems to rest n human behavor.
I thnk that one can more ready understand and apprecate hs capa-
btes, taents and potentates f he s fuy aware of them. n ntrospec-
ton nto ones character and personaty, a consderaton of these facts
through sef-anayss, such as a serous study of psych provdes, can gve to
the ndvdua a new concept of purpose and vaue and enabe hm to ead
a more usefu fe for hmsef and for socety.
I beeve ....
atzks (1949) took the sampe of four hundred words reproduced
above from the tota theme and broke them down nto the usua
grammatca categores, not ony for ar but for nneteen other
smar sub|ects. Some of hs resuts are reproduced n Tabe 5.9,
whch has been prepared for ustratve purposes. It shows ar s
word counts for some of the most mportant parts of speech and gves
the type-token ratos (TTP) n each case whch are supposed to be
reated to ntegence. The absoute sze of the TTP s obvousy a
functon of the number of words n the sampe. The over-a TTP
s sma, because t ncudes many repeated artces and pronouns.
T 5.9
requences of arous Grammatca Categores n the rst 400 ords of
ar s Theme and Pank 0rder Comparsons of Those requences wth the
Pesuts from Nneteen 0ther Sub|ects
Tokens Pank Types TTP Pank
Nouns 2.5 60 .6 12.5
erbs , 64 19 39 .61 2
d|ectves 54 5 43 . 0 9
dverbs 24 19 13 .54 19
erb
--_p -. rat1o 1.1 17
d|ect1ve
Tota type-token
rato (TTP) -39
154
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
0f mportance here are the persstent tendences to use one type
of speech rather than another. or e ampe, one characterstc whch
has fgured n speech anayses s the reatve number of verbs and
ad|ectves. oder (1940), usemann (1925), and others have argued
that many verb responses ndcate, ke the M response on the
Porschach, a tendency toward ntroverson, wth tte adaptaton to
reaty, whereas many quatatve responses, ke the coor responses
on the Porschach, ndcate e troverson wth coser adaptaton to
reaty. s Sanford says, It mght be e pected that the ndvdua
who n|ects acton nto an nkbot w make a smar n|ecton nto
the scenes and stuatons whch he verbay depcts. (19 | ,a, p. 2 .)
ar s reatvey very ow n the use of verbs and adverbs, whereas
he s qute hgh n quatatve e pressons, such as nouns and ad|ec-
tves, ndcatng a statc approach to fe. Does ths ft wth the re-
suts obtaned on the Porschach Peferrng back to an earer secton,
we fnd that he used ony three M (movement) responses as compared
wth nne C (coor) responses, whch confrms the predcted tendency.
In both cases we fnd that ar shows a statc, quatatve rather than
an actve, movng approach to hs matera. or the fourth tme we
fnd confrmaton of hs orentaton toward the word (descrpton)
rather than toward hmsef (n|ecton of acton). e s an actve per-
son behavoray but s respondng to promptngs from wthout, act-
ng n and on the envronment whch s more mportant to hm
than hs own nner states whch woud ead hm to add to hs percep-
ton of the word. Thus we are begnnng to dst out of our anayss
of ths ndvdua case a hypothetca construct whch mght be a-
beed somethng ke suggestbty or envronment orentaton
and whch has aready four dfferent sets of operatons. e mght go
further and predct on the bass of the surpus meanngs suggested by
the construct that ar woud be very much dsorented n tkn s
tted room (1949), snce he shoud be nfuenced more by vsua cues
(promptngs from wthout) than by proproceptve ones (promptngs
from wthn), athough such an e tenson of the meanngs of our
construct mght turn out to be unwarranted. It s ony by the gradua
budng up and refnng of such constructs that we can begn to e -
tend the meanng of an e pressve trat found n one area of be-
havor to other areas of behavor. Unfortunatey we are ony n a
poston to ustrate such reatonshps at the present tme.
Theoretca Note. Ths chapter has samped some representa-
tve approaches to e pressve trats wthout attemptng to do com-
155 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
pete |ustce to any one of them. Throughout a of the dscusson
two questons have nsstenty arsen: (1) hat s an e pressve trat
nd (2) when s t a vad ndcator of some other personaty charac-.
terstc The answer to the frst queston cannot be gven n fu unt
the chapter on trat theory, but we can gve a tentatve answer now.
n e pressve trat s the characterstc way n whch a person earns
to adapt to certan recurrent probems. Consder the probem of
wakng, for e ampe. very person has to wak. Yet there are a va-
rety of possbe ways n whch a chd can earn to wak. e can
wak qucky, eanng forward, or sowy and deberatey, or rapdy
wth sma steps. hch of these partcuar responses he happens
upon s determned by a arge number of factors whch n any nd-
vdua case woud be hard to anayze. They woud certany ncude
physca varabes, soca conventons, and probaby some deeper un-
deryng motvatons. It s nstructve to observe how these adaptve
responses arc earned n a competey new stuaton. person can be
gven a new task, such as wavng a baton or usng a cane for the frst
tme, and the observer w notce that after some premnary tra
and error hs responses often sette down to a consstent pattern. It s
ths pattern whch forms the bass of our concuson that he has de-
veoped an e pressve trat. hat we mean by a trat n ths nstance
s a recurrent smar response pattern to a gven stuaton. The econ-
omy of adoptng a reguar habtua motor response to recurrent
probems s obvous from the adaptve vewpont. It fts n wth a
we know about the prncpes of earnng.
The second queston as to when we can use an e pressve trat ke
ths as an nde of another and usuay more mportant personaty
characterstc s much more dffcut to answer. Yet, as we have re-
peatedy seen, ths s what has chefy nterested psychoogsts. To get
from one cass of responses to another n ths way requres some knd
of common anguage, some common set of symbos or hypothetca
constructs, whch have operatons n dfferent areas of behavo r_(per-
cepton, movement, speech, etc.). nd t s |ust here that psycho-
ogsts deang wth dfferent knds of e pressve behavor are weakest.
ach has a anguage of hs own. ach tres, as off ponts out
(1947), to nterpret the herogyphs of dfferent forms of e presson,
but there s no Posetta stone to transate one set of constructs nto
another. Thus the Porschacher or the semantcst cannot speak to
the graphoogst, or the graphoogst to the somatyper.
or e ampe, when off speaks of e pressveness n punchng a
baoon (1947, p. 203), what s the reatonshp of ths e pressveness
156
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
to the movement response on the Porschach, e pansveness n hand-
wrtng, or the energetc characterstc rated by Shedon and others
hen off states: Narrow movements connected wth ow pres-
sure seem to ndcate dscouragement (1947, p. 211), what s the rea-
ton between the dscouragement measured n ths way to the vsta
response on the Porschach or the reatvey hgh number of verbs
used by an ety hystercs
The probem here s not what some psychoogsts have frequenty
assumed that t s. Many of them have argued that such statements as
off s are smpy nvad. y vadty they mean whether or not the
response n queston measures what t s supposed to measure, but
who knows what t s supposed to measure hat s the basc de-
f1nng operaton for dscouragement The noton of vadty assumes
that there s one way of measurng (defnng) a construct whch s
better than (or truer than) any other measure. other measures
can then be tested for vadty aganst ths standard measure. Such
a noton has a great dea of use n apped psychoogy where such
true measures e st (as when, for e ampe, a psychoogst s tryng
to predct on the bass of a test score whether a person w pass or
fa a crteron). ut n personaty theory there s often no bass for
argung that any one measure s any better than any other. Conse-
quenty the noton of vadty s not very usefu and ought not to be
nvoked as often as t s n the fed. In ts pace we may use the cr-
tera of nductve rgor and deductve fertty. That s, a concept s
usefu theoretcay (1) to the e tent that the person usng t makes
e pct ts operatona meanngs and (2) to the e tent that those
operatons cut across and are confrmed n dfferent areas of behavor.
So our queston shoud be: hat are the dfferent ways of measurng
dscouragement or any such smar construct Can we test them
Is there agreement or a ratona reatonshp among these dfferent
measures of dscouragement If not, hadn t we better consder gvng
up dscouragement n favor of a construct that w have dfferent
behavora measures whch do reate to one another n a ratona way
e shoud make a sharp dstncton at ths pont between unverfed
and unverfabe constructs. In the former nstance we have a
hypothetca construct that has mpcatons whch can be e pcty
stated but whch have not as yet been checked. In the atter we may
have a term whose meanng s so vague that no rgorous deductons
can be made from t whch can be checked. Most of the thnkng n
psychodagnostcs s not so unverfabe as many psychoogsts woud
have us beeve. 0n the other hand, most of t s unverfed. hat
157
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
we woud appear to need to do s to take such statements as off s
or the statements that the Porschach workers make and sub|ect them
to the theoretca anayss whch has been repeatedy suggested n the
precedng dscusson. e need to make surpus meanngs e pct so
that they can be e pcty checked. hen we fnd that an mpca-
ton s not confrmed, we need not throw out the concept but may
nstead refne the surpus meanngs that we have ntutvey gven t.
The probabe reason for faure to deveop a scence of personaty
n ths drecton s that most of the psychoogsts workng n the fed
have been practca men who have had a cnca functon, to e| _
form. That s, they have been concerned wth makng as shrewd
guesses as they possby coud from the data they have used, for pur-
poses of curng somebody or makng a recommendaton about schoo
or vocatona pacement. hen the emphass s taken off of such-m-
medate practca ob|ectves, we can e pect eventuay to deveop a
scence of personaty n whch the constructs have a theoretca, as
we as a purey practca sgnfcance. It s ony when such a scence
deveops that there w be a common anguage for a to understand
and use.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. In a very nterestng dscusson of whether or not the consttu-
tona approach s fatastc at the end of ther book, The aretes of
Temperament, Shedon and Stevens make the foowng statement:
It may be n one sense fatastc to suppose that Chrstopher (an e -
treme ectomorph) cannot become a heavyweght champon, or that
ors (an e treme mesomorph) w never read cuneform. Yet to try
to ft Chrstopher and ors to an ndscrmnate behavora or men-
ta mod woud seem a crue msanthrophy. Ths woud be to pre-
tend psychoogca achemy. (1942, pp. 437-43 .) Make a carefu
anayss of ths statement n the ght of the dscusson n the te t on
cause and effect. Is there any crtca dfference between the state-
ments made about Chrstopher and ors
2. There are severa ways n whch knowng a person s physque
w hep predct hs behavor. hat are they Is there any dfference
theoretcay between predctng behavor from a knowedge of
physque and predctng behavor from a knowedge of socoeco-
nomc status or nstance, we mght predct that because a per-
son s poor, he w have a trat of shootng craps. In what sense does
beng poor cause crap shootng Ths antcpates a tte the ds-
cusson of the theoretca nature of a trat n Chapter 7, but ths s a
15
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
natura conte t for tryng to fgure out the reaton between stua-
tons and consstent behavor.
3. Pate someone on Shedon s temperament scae. Then assgn
hm tentatve ratngs on each of the three physque components.
Check these ratngs, f possbe, through the tabes gvng the heght-
dvded-by-cube-root-of-weght nde n The aretes of uman
Physque (1940, pp. 2 7 and 267). Do you fnd much agreement be-
tween your physque and temperament nde es To what e tent dd
physque nfuence or enter nto your orgna temperament ratngs
4. Make a st of factors whch nfuence handwrtng other than
what we have been cang persona e pressve trats. In other words,
what besdes persona dspostons may nfuence handwrtng
5. udwg ages stands n the same reatonshp to handwrtng
anayss as Porschach does to percepton anayss. e makes a dstnc-
ton between bond and reease whch s qute smar to the ds-
tncton Porschach makes between promptngs from wthout (bond)
and promptngs from wthn (reease). If nner mpuses are
stronger than requrements of e terna word, there w be ndca-
tons of reease f conscous w for adaptaton to e terna resstance
prevas there w be greater ndcatons of bond. ( e, 194 , p. 302.)
e sts the handwrtng characterstcs of each n parts as foows:
Peease ond
argeness smaness
ack of pressure pressure
wdth narrowness
sant to rght vertca wrtng
upper engths onger than under- under engths onger than upper
engths engths
ascendng nes descendng nes
rreguarty reguarty
ncreasng eft margns decreasng eft margns
Peproduced wth permsson from |. . e, Protectve Technques. Copy-
rght 194 ongmans, Green, and Co.
rom these measures can you reate the constructs of bond and re-
ease to the constructs used by Pasca n Tabe 5.5, who empoyed
some of the same measures or nstance, how s bond reated to
tubmssveness or reease to payfuness nayze the handwrtng
specmens reproduced n gure 5.1 for these characterstcs. Try to
decde whether ar shows more bond or reease and then see f your
159
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
fndng confrms the nferences drawn about hs orentaton toward
the envronment.
6. hy do you suppose that ages work s practcay unknown
and unused by psychoogsts n merca as compared wth Por-
schach s work, whch s wdey known and used Is there any nherent
advantage for dagnostc purposes that perceptua modes of respond-
ng have over motor modes of respondng
7. eow are sted four sampes of ora speech whch were phono-
graphcay recorded and typed up. The sub|ects were teng stores
n response to pctures for the Thematc ppercepton Test. Try to
match the two stores n each case whch were spoken by the same
person, and choose the par spoken by ar. Then anayze as we as
you can the bass on whch you made your match. oud quantta-
tve anayses of the speech characterstcs hep make your match re
there any eements n the verba stye whch coud apparenty not be
covered by such quanttatve anayses
. Ths boy s father was a famous concert vonst before he was born.
Unfortunatey, he ost hs fe n a tragc accdent. e was drowned. s
wfe was pregnant and had ths chap. Mght add that hs father was at the
peak of fame. Ded on the nght before the concert. 0f course he eft hs
fdde, whch was od and vauabe, to hs son. e aways had hopes that he
woud teach hs son and hs son woud pay the fdde better than hs
father. t the age of one year hs mother ded and the boy was eft wth an
aunt and unce who were not too favoraby ncned toward fdders.
. ooks ke a mother and her son. pparenty somethng has hap-
pened I m gong to use my magnaton and say somethng partcuar
happened. e, I d say he |ust came n and tod hs mother some bad news
I don t know what t s yet. ut he s certany taken her by surprse she
doesn t know what to say or what to thnk about t. Nether does he I guess
he had a hard tme e panng what happened, by the ook on hs face.
C. 0h boy ook at the background. hat s t, a poster n the back-
ground (Make t whatever you want.) 0h, I see. Ths chap has recenty
come home from overseas where he was wth combat troops. he he was
over there e s a penty wd character. e payed havoc wth the natve
women. e was favoraby dsposed toward them. e s qute a ustfu feow
... a ggoo . . . Pomeo ... he kes to get around ....
D. Ths s a young feow who thought he coud get away wth some
petty crme and he has |ust been apprehended by a coupe of pocemen.
You can see by the e presson on hs face he was not a bad boy at heart,
etc., he |ust took ths to make a mea on hs own how foosh t was and t
wasn t the dea that crme doesn t pay so much as he ddn t reaze the sense
of vaues, etc. e knows now and he was convnced a aong that t was
160
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP SSI TP ITS
wrong but t |ust took ths one act to the poce got ahod of hm caught
hm wth the goods so to speak that brought hm to ....
. gure out type-token ratos for two sampes of your own verba
behavor on two dfferent but comparabe occasons. ow cosey do
they agree Take a thrd sampe from a noncomparabe stuaton
(e.g., e amnatons vs. themes or etters). Does the nature of the stua-
ton change your speech habts much hy
9. Take any Porschach concept and ustrate how you woud go
about makng t nto a theoretcay usefu one. Defne ts surpus
meanngs n such a way that they coud be tested n other ways than
through percepton.
10. Summarze the trat characterstcs that run through a of
ar s e pressve behavor begnnng wth hs posture and move-
ment, hs handwrtng, hs modes of percevng, and hs wrtten
speech. re there any characterstcs common to a these modes of
e presson rte a bref summary of your knowedge of hm to date,
coverng the e pressve aspect of hs personaty and omttng any
references to other aspects whch appeared n the Porschach anayss
and esewhere.
11. Try to demonstrate how the ad|ectves used n a personaty
sketch may nfuence the success of matchng. rte sketches of three
peope you know very we, obtan a handwrtng sampe from each,
and fnd a number of |udges who are wng to match the handwrt-
ng wth the sketches. Now prepare each sketch n two sghty df-
ferent aternatve forms so that one form contans ad|ectves whch
obvousy refer to energy or movement characterstcs (such as quck,
aert, suggsh, etc.) and one form does not. Make sure that both forms
descrbe the person equay we, however. Then ask one set of |udges
to match orm wth the handwrtng sampes, and another set
orm . Dscuss the meanng of your resuts.
161
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Performance Trats
vast fund of nformaton about personaty whch we have not
as yet tapped s to be found n educatona tests and measurements
coverng achevement, specazed abtes, and genera ntegence.
ooked at from the vewpont of trat psychoogy, these tests may
revea how peope respond consstenty to a varety of dfferent work
stuatons wth respect to such behavor characterzatons as the
amount of dfferent types of matera mastered n a gven perod
of tme, the abty to mantan a steady output, the abty to adapt
qucky to a new stuaton, etc. Some peope do consstenty we-
that s, cover a ot of ground n certan types of tests, but not n other
types of tests. Some peope consstenty start sowy but catch on
qucky. Some peope can never fnsh ther work on tme and others
are aways punctua. hat we seem to be deang wth here are a
number of trats whch custer around workng, or performng, stand-
ardzed aboratory tests. et us con the term performance trat to
cover a varety of dfferent consstent modes of respondng to prob-
em stuatons. Certan ways n whch peope perform cannot ready
be reproduced n aboratory test stuatons. or such cases measures
of the trats nvoved have had to be obtaned by ratngs or check
sts based on the technques of controed observaton dscussed n
Chapter 2. or ths reason we w dea frst wth performance trats
derved from standardzed tests and second wth performance trats
based on ratngs of behavor under fed condtons.
Serous theoretca probems arse when we try to ntegrate the re-
suts of educatona measurement nto personaty theory. The raw
matera wth whch we work s no onger behavor but the outcome
of behavor. The queston no onger s, does ths person consstenty
approach a perceptua stuaton whostcay ( on the Porschach),
but, how many probems can ths person sove n whch s pre-
sumaby needed for souton Trat nformaton s derved from the
second type of queston by a more devous route whch nvoves (1)
nferences about the reatve strength of the trat n queston from
comparson wth the number of smar probems soved by other
peope under smar crcumstances and (a) nferences about what
behavor s requred for the souton of a partcuar probem or cass
162
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS,
of probems. Ths ast procedure may be partcuary hazardous,
snce, as cncans are fond of pontng out, a partcuar probem
may be soved n a varety of dfferent ways. Two persons may get
e acty the same score on a bock-desgn test but one may proceed
cautousy and systematcay, the other spasmodcay, reyng on
quck perceptua reorganzatons.
further probem arses because the testng movement has been
orented many toward evauatng performance rather than toward
characterzng adequatey the behavor of ndvduas. Such an or-
entaton s an nstance of the evauatve approach dscussed n Chap-
ter 3 as typca of the theorsts who are nterested n character rather
than personaty. e were crtca of Murray and Morgan (1945) for
|udgng awk n terms of whether or not he woud make a good so-
der, on the grounds that whe ths was an mportant queston, t
was not the busness of personaty theory proper. Smary state-
ments of how ntegent a person s are evauatons n terms of a
|udgmenta framework. In fact Stoddard (1943) has defned nte-
gence to ncude .such standards as adaptveness to a goa, soca
vaue, the emergence of .orgnas and resstance to emotona
forces aong wth the more conventona standards of dffcuty and
abstractness of probems performed, etc. In so dong he makes cearer
than ever that ntegence |udgments nvove varous vaue stand-
ards that are reevant to estmatng soca effectveness but not to de-
scrbng personaty accordng to the scentfc standards we ad
down n Chapter 3.
ut ths does not mean that we cannot use for our purposes the
data whch Murray and Morgan or the ntegence testers coect to
make ther evauatons. It s |ust that the task w prove more dff-
cut than f the data had been coected for our purposes to begn
wth. Concretey we w be nterested n the percente standng of
ar on a partcuar test for the nsght t w gve us on how he be-
haves n a certan standardzed work stuaton. rom ths we shoud
be abe to predct what hs behavor w be under smar work stu-
atons, but we w not be nterested n askng whether he s up to
scratch. or meets certan standards of brghtness or ntegence n
those stuatons. The dstncton s trcky and hard to keep cear be-
cause e acty the same datum (test score) can be used to draw nfer-
ences about ar or, as s much more common, to make a |udgment
as to how smart he s, how we he w do n coege, etc.
163
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T STS
ny consderaton of effcency or of methods of workng eads n-
evtaby nto the fed of ntegence and ntegence testng. e
may have to pause a moment to |ustfy the ncuson of ntegence
n a book on personaty. Strange as t may seem, t has become cus-
tomary to consder ntegence and personaty as separate. s Cat-
te says (1946a, p. 396): In some psychoogca wrtngs t has be-
come amost customary to omt abtes when studyng personaty.
Yet certany as the term personaty has been used and defned n
ths book, nteectua functonng s |ust as egtmate a part of t
as s any other knd of behavor. urthermore, as any cnca psy-
choogst knows, ntegence and personaty cannot n fact be sepa-
rated when the ndvdua person s the ob|ect of study. Some of the
reasons for ths spt between ntegence and personaty w be-
come apparent n the dscusson whch foows. Probaby the most
mportant reason s the evauatve orentaton aready mentoned,
combned wth the ack of any determned effort to ntegrate the
theory of ntegence nto a more genera theory 6f personaty.
Integence Measurement. Probaby the most wdey pubczed
achevement of psychoogy has been the abty to test ntegence.
ven though t s not as true now as t once was, many peope st
thnk of a psychoogst as someone who gves tests even, as some
of the most cynca among them mght add, f he cannot nterpret
them. Ths, strangey enough, s the nub of the probem. The psy-
choogst has never been sure e acty what hs tests measure. e has
been we aware of ths fact and has often pubcy admtted t. In
dong so he may n quet desperaton smpy say that ntegence or
musca abty or what not s smpy what an ntegence or musca-
abty test measures, whch s scarcey satsfyng to the ayman, or
to the theoretca psychoogst ether, for that matter. 0r he may
make a bod attempt to defne ntegence broady as the goba
capacty of the ndvdua to act purposefuy, to thnk ratonay,
and to dea effectvey wth hs envronment ( echser, 1944, p. 3)
and then go on to cam that hs test measures whatever such a state-
ment mpes.
ut the fact remans that our theoretca understandng of nte-
gence s not satsfactory. It has agged far behnd our technca
competence n deveopng scaes for dscrmnatng the more from
the ess ntegent. Psychoogsts have worked ong and hard n
164
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
standardzng ther tests, puttng out nstructons for ther use, tran-
ng test e amners, and refnng ther data statstcay to make sure
the tests dscrmnate equay we over a sectons of the scae. ut
no comparabe advances have been made n understandng what the
tests measure. e have advanced a very ong way snce net s tme
n our knowedge of what tems are good to use n ntegence scaes,
at what dfferent age eves, and n other such tems of practca m-
portance, but we have not advanced neary as far n understandng
the theoretca nature of that part of personaty whch has come to
be caed ntegence. Psychoogsts agree that certan tests are not
tests of ntegence (e.g., hgh |umpng) and that test probems
shoud somehow nvove the hgher menta functons. ut, athough
the area of hgher menta functons s pretty we agreed upon, to
|udge by the knd of tests that are used, st t s hard to defne pre-
csey what nteectua functons are nvoved n the tests. To us-
trate ths pont, et us take a ook at one of the most popuar adut
ntegence tests, the echser- eevue Integence Scae.
The echser- eevue has ten sub-tests and one aternate vocabu-
ary test. Tabe 6.1 names the tests and gves a bref descrpton of
the menta functons supposed to be measured by the tests accord-
ng to echser, at east so far as he coud te from a rough anayss
of what s requred to do we on them.
T 6.1
ppro mate Menta unctons Measured by echser- eevue Sub-Tests
ccordng to echser (1944, pp. 77-101)
Test Name
1. Informaton
g. Comprehenson
3. rthmetca
reasonng
4. Memory span for
dgts
Task
nswerng wde varety
of questons e.g., ho
s Presdent of the U.S.
nswerng hat woud
you do f questons
Sovng arthmetc prob-
ems
The number of dgts
whch can be retaned
after one presentaton re-
peated forwards or back-
wards
Menta uncton
Pange of nformaton
Common sense
Menta aertness
Pote memory and atten-
ton
165
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 6.1 (Contnued)
Test Name
5. Smartes test
6. Pcture compe-
ton
7. Pcture arrange-
ment
. 0b|ect assemby
g. ock desgn
10. Dgt symbo
11. ocabuary
Task
or e ampe, In what
way are an orange and a
banana the same
Name mssng part n a
pcture on a card
rrange pctures to make
a sensbe story
Put peces together, to
make a form (e.g., hand)
Make a desgn wth co-
ored bocks ke the one
on a card
Pacng dgts under
symbos accordng to a
key
or e ampe, hat
does appe mean
Menta uncton
ogca or abstractve
character of the S s
thnkng
bty to dfferentate
essenta from unessen-
ta detas
bty to comprehend
and sze up a whoe stu-
aton
hoe-part modes of ap-
proach
Synthetc-anaytc abty
Speed of earnng
earnng abty range
of nformaton
The Menta unctons sted n ths tabe are hypothetca con-
structs wth surpus meanngs n the sense n whch the term was
defned n Chapter 4. Snce they refer to the outcome of behavor
(success or faure on a varety of tasks), they are usuay caed ab-
tes rather than trats. Trats, as we have used the term, refer more
to the consstent modes of behavor that produce success and faure.
They seem better adapted to personaty theory than abty con-
structs, snce the purpose of such a theory s to predct behavor
rather than the resuts of behavor. Nevertheess the two knds of
constructs overap. Speed of earnng, for nstance, s an abty
construct whch predcts that f a person scores hgh on the dgt sym-
bo substtuton test he ought to do we n other types of earnng
stuatons. The outcome of hs behavor n one test stuaton s used
to predct the outcome of hs behavor n other smar test stuatons.
ut as soon as the generaty of ths abty construct s checked, t
w appear that predctons are good for some types of test stuatons
and not for others. person wth hgh speed of earnng on dgt
symbo substtuton w probaby aso get a hgh score on a anguage-
166
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
earnng test, but not on a mechanca assemby earnng test. These
dfferences ead the theorst to suppose that what es behnd the
speed of earnng outcomes are a varety of behavora trats that
make success probabe n one stuaton and not n another. The
theorst may then go on to descrbe two hypothetca trat constructs:
symbo orentaton and spata orentaton. 0ne person may thnk
characterstcay n terms of symbos whch makes hm quck n
earnng a dgt symbo task another may thnk n terms of vsua
mages whch w make hm adept at earnng a mechanca assemby
task. actor anayss, as we sha see ater, may provde a more sys-
tematc means of gong from abty constructs to trat constructs n
ths way.
n obvous feature of Tabe 6.1 as t stands s the msceaneous
nature of the menta functons or hypothetca constructs sted on
the rght-hand sde. They have been drawn as accuratey as possbe
from echser s own descrptons of hs tests and what they pre-
sumaby measure. though he recognzes the mportance of defnng
what hs tests measure, he does not specfcay state anywhere how
each of these partcuar menta functons s reated to the task n
queston. Nevertheess the tabe s hepfu, f not systematc, n sug-
gestng what some of the ma|or nteectua trats are: abstractve
thnkng, anaytc-synthetc approach, attentveness, dfferentaton
of cues, etc. It does not cover the whoe fed of nteectua trats be-
cause the ntegence tester w emnate those tests whch do not
dscrmnate among hs crtera groups. No matter how usefu a
test mght be consdered for descrbng some aspect of a person s be-
havor n performance stuatons, t w be dscarded f t does not
dscrmnate the more from the ess ntegent. or nstance, f t
were found that a certan test evoked an anaytc mode of approach
n most peope, t woud not appear n ntegence tests because t
woud not hep spread peope aong an ntegence dmenson. Yet
t mght be an e ceent stuaton for checkng how consstenty
anaytc a person was n hs approach to probems. ecause of ther
emphass on dscrmnatng power, ntegence tests probaby do
not sampe the entre range of performance trats.
nother rch source of nformaton about possbe nteectua
trats s to be found n the case reports wrtten by cnca psychoo-
gsts who have been more nterested n behavor than n the outcome
of behavor. good e ampe s Case anut by anfmann, Pckers-
0vsankna, and Godsten (1944). Not a snge test score s reported
n ths study athough the patent was gven many tests. The reason s
167
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
that the authors were nterested n hs behavor on the tests and not n
how we he dd on them. They were nterested n characterzng hs
performance trats, as we are. or nstance they wrte: The ony ade-
quate mode of behavor for anut s that of concrete mmedate
acton. (1944, p. 23.) e coud not recognze a key uness he used
t n a door, a penc unt he wrote wth t, etc. ny task that re-
qures detachment from the momentary stuat1on, thnkng n cate-
gores, spontanety, ntaton of acton at w, shftng vountary,
s outsde the scope of the patent. (1944, p. 70.) They were abe to
arrve at ths characterzaton of the patent s behavor after ob-
servng hs response to many dfferent test stuatons. The pont s
that hs test performance was used to characterze hm rather than
to evauate hm. echser makes smar comments from tme to
tme: The 0b|ect ssemby, ke the ock Desgn Test, seems to
get at some sort of creatve abty, especay f the performance s
done rapdy. Successfu reproducton of the 0b|ect ssemby tems
depends upon the sub|ects famarty wth fgures and ther abty
to dea wth the part-whoe reatonshp. It sometmes reveas the
abty to work for an unknown goa. (1944, p. 9 .)
Such ndvduastc anayses are ost sght of and may be mpossbe
n arge-scae group testng, the purpose of whch s evauaton. 0ften
a partcuar test s processed by machne scorng and yeds ony a
coecton of standard scores whch are not of very much assstance
n tryng to characterze an ndvdua s behavor. Nether the prob-
ems wth whch the person was faced nor the partcuar knds of
successes or faures he made are evdent to the observer: a he has
s the outcome of a compe , unanayzed behavora process. It f
sma wonder that those who have been many nterested n charac-
terzng the ndvdua the psychoanaysts, for e ampe have found
tte use for standardzed test scores n ther case studes.
ar s Test Pesuts. To ustrate concretey what we have been
dscussng n a genera way, et us see what we can earn about ar
from hs test resuts. e obtaned the foowng scores on the Coege
ntrance amnaton oard tests.
Test Name Standard Score
erba 535
Soca Studes 619
anguage 461
Mathematcs 59
Scence 677
16
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
Snce the mean of each of these tests has been set at 500 wth a
standard devaton of 100 we can te from ths tabe how we he dd
n comparson wth others and we can compare hs score on one test
drecty wth that on another. or e ampe, we note that he dd qute
we on the soca studes test above the 5th percente, n fact and
that he was beow average on the anguage test. In genera these
scores te us that he s a pretty good bet for coege and shoud be
abe to get fary hgh marks. They mght even suggest to us that he
shoud avod anguages and shoud concentrate n soca studes or
scences. ut beyond ths we are not gven very much to go on to
fgure out how he operates nteectuay. e do not know what types
of tems he attempted and whch ones he faed. e dd not watch
hm at work. There s a great dea of nformaton about hs be-
havor that we woud ke to have.
To ustrate how some of ths nformaton may be recaptured by
a more carefu nterpretaton of tests, et us turn to the scores he
obtaned on the Iowa Sent Peadng Test, whch provdes a varety
of scores on a number of ngenous sub-tests. Tabe 6.2 tes the story.
T 6.2
ar s Iowa Sent Peadng Test Scores
Paw Standard Percente Standng
Test Name Score Score n reshman Cass
1. Pate-comprehenson 95 57
Pate 36
Comprehenson 27 101
. Drected readng 10 9 50
3. Poetry comprehenson 0
4. ord meanng 47 99 5
5. Sentence meanng 39 99 0
6. Paragraph comprehenson 100 71
Centra dea 10 94
Deveopment 22 105
7. ocaton of nformaton 77 15
Use of nde 0
Seecton of key words 74
Medan score 95 63
ar s over-a medan score s n the 63rd percente of a group
of comparabe enterng reshmen but there are some rather wde
dfferences n hs abty to perform on dfferent parts of the test
169
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e s above average on most of the test but fas down sharpy on
ocaton of Informaton and Poetry Comprehenson, whe he
s very good at Sentence Meanng. Studyng the nature of these sub-
tests may gve us some further cues as to hs methods of thnkng.
In the Poetry Comprehenson Test, the task s to read through a
rather compe aegorca poem entted sdom and then to
answer ponted questons about the meanng of the poem. The spe-
cfc task s for the sub|ect to fnd the number of the cause n the
poem whch contans the answer to a queston ke hat feeng
nspred the poet to wrte ven though the sub|ect may understand
the poem qute we, he may have dffcuty ocatng the e act phrase
wth ts correspondng number that answers the queston. Much the
same sort of task s nvoved n the other test on whch he dd poory,
the one whch requres the ocaton of nformaton through the use
of an nde . sampe queston s, Does the nde te where to fnd
nformaton about the ndustra uses of cork The sub|ect must
then decde under what topc to ook n the nde n order to answer
yes or no to ths queston. s n the case of poetry comprehenson,
the process nvoved here of breakng a whoe meanng down nto a
saent feature s very dffcut for ar, athough he s obvousy e -
ceent n fact, much better than the average at comprehendng
whoe sentences and paragraphs.
ut wth sentence and paragraph comprehenson the task s dffer-
ent. hat he has to do s to answer yes or no as fast as he can to a
seres of questons ke, Is an undesrabe reputaton often based on
a record of msbehavor Ths task does not appear to requre the
same detaed anayss and searchng that the other two do. In short,
we appear to have soated two of ar s consstent nteectua
trats. 0n the one hand he seems very good at graspng genera
meanngs, and on the other he seems consstenty poor at breakng
those genera meanngs down nto detas. e s goba rather than
anaytc n hs thnkng. Somewhat smar trats were dscovered
n hs Porschach anayss, where t was reported that he gave a fary
arge number of whoe responses ( ) ndcatng the same tendency
toward abstractua thnkng as we have noted here. The evdence
of the Porschach on whether he can break down whoe responses
(e.g., genera deas) nto saent detas s not cear-cut athough hs
dstrbuton of 1a , 26D, and 4Dd ndcates a dsproportonate
emphass on whoe responses ( ) whch n eck s words s the sgn
of an overa thnker. (1944, p. 14.) There s aso no evdence for
the ordery sequence of , D and Dd whch one woud e pect from
170
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
the dehumanzed professor who ought to be very good wth
nde es.
actor nayss. 0ur anayss so far has ustrated how nforma-
ton about performance trats may be suggested by or teased out of
varous test resuts, but the probem remans of systematcay de-
veopng a comprehensve set of trats for descrbng ths aspect of
personaty. Case anayses ke anut s or ar s are a step n the
rght drecton, but they do not sove the theoretca probem of
decdng what nteectua trats we need n our systematc descrp-
ton of personaty. actor anaysts have been nterested n ths
probem. They have tred to get behnd the actua test scores to the
factors wthn the person whch account for the scores. Ther
method has been to work wth correaton coeffcents, whch means
that they have attempted to base ther theoretca nterpretatons on
co-varatons of test scores. s Catte puts t: The unty of a set of
parts s estabshed by ther movng .e., appearng, changng, ds-
appearng together, by ther e ercsng an effect together, and by an
nfuence on one beng an nfuence on a. (1946a, p. 71.) Ths s
both a defnton of a factor arrved at by factor anayss and of a
psychoogca trat. So Catte and others have argued that factor
anayss s the roya road to dscoverng the fundamenta psycho-
ogca trats not ony n the nteectua sphere but n a other
spheres of personaty as we. Thurstone (193 ) woud ca these
factors abtes rather than trats, but hs purpose s the same as
Catte s. It s to dscover the fundamenta theoretca unts n terms
of whch the varety of test behavor may be e paned or descrbed.
actor anayss s a very arge and compcated sub|ect, but we
w approach t, as we have equay dffcut matters, through a con-
crete e ampe. The e ampe has been chosen for ts smpcty rather
than for ts contrbuton to knowedge n ths fed. It s a study by
P. . Cark on the probem of cosure n menta organzaton
(1947). Cark was smpy nterested n determnng whether there
was any snge factor, trat, or abty whch produced hgh nter-
correatons among a varety of tests purportng to measure cosure
as the term s generay understood n Gestat psychoogy. Put n
another way, hs probem was to fnd perceptua, motor, and cogn-
tve tests whch coud be scored for the sub|ect s tendency to draw
dsparate eements together nto an over-a coherent structure. av-
ng assembed such tasks, he coud then correate the cosure scores
on a of them to see f the trat n queston was suffcenty genera
171
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
to characterze dfferent knds of behavor. In seectng hs tests he
foowed Guford s advce (1940) of tryng to pck ones whch coud
be soved ony by the behavora approach under study. If the tasks
are compe , the resutng factora structure s key to be compe
too, and the nterpretaton n terms of any partcuar one or two
trats becomes e ceedngy dffcut.
The best way to understand ths approach s to descrbe the tests
used, payng partcuar attenton to the knd of behavor needed for
ther souton.
Cark chose some twenty tests n a, s teen of whch were used n
hs fna factor anayss and nne of whch are descrbed here.
1. Street Gestat. Ths test was adapted from one nvented by
Street and used by Thurstone (193 ), and conssts of a number of
pctures, arge sectons of whch are mssng. The fgures are prnted
n Inda nk on whte cardboard and were presented tachstoscop-
cay for three seconds on a screen. The sub|ect s task was to try to
dentfy the fgure, whch was of some common ob|ect, such as a
von, a rabbt, a stove, or a cock. The sub|ect s score was the num-
ber of correct dentfcatons or cosures n the tme aotted for
each pcture.
2. Mutated words. The matera n ths test s very smar to
that n the frst. It conssts of a number of words prnted n Inda nk
on whte cards, parts of whch have been erased, and the sub|ect s
task s to dentfy the words. oth ths test and the Street Gestat
requre the sub|ect to synthesze dscrete perceptua eements.
3. Peversbe fgures. The matera for ths test conssted of four
fgures, whch coud be seen n two entrey dfferent ways. 0ne was
the we-known pcture whch coud be seen ether as an attractve
young woman or as an ugy od hag. The score was the number of
seconds t took the sub|ect to see the second fgure after he had seen
the frst. The task s more compcated than the frst two but nvoves
the same eements. Now the sub|ect must synthesze nto a fgure
eements whch are, however, not |ust dscrete but part of another
fgure.
4. Mrror tracng. Ths was the standard aboratory test n whch
the sub|ect has to trace a star seen n a mrror. It was ncuded n
ths test battery foowng a suggeston made by Peters (1946) that t
measured fe bty whch, as n test 3, shoud ndcate the abty
of the sub|ect to combne cues n a new synthess.
5. Motor fe bty. Ths test s better known under the name of
motor perseveraton. It conssted of s sub-tests adopted from P. .
172
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
Catte, who has done e tensve research and theorzng n ths fed
(1946b). ach test requres the sub|ect to perform an ordnary task
as many tmes as possbe wthn s ty seconds and then to perform
the same task n an unaccustomed or reversed manner as many tmes
as possbe n s ty seconds. The s specfc tasks were (1) to wrte
the word ready forward and then backward, (2) to wrte the sentence
|ohn has gone to the store for meat normay and then aternatng
ower-case etters and prnted bock captas, (3) wrtng the same
sentence normay or wrtng t wth each etter doubed, (4) readng
a passage normay, foowed by readng t wth both words and nes
backward, (5) wrtng one s own name normay, foowed by wrtng
t backward begnnng at the rght-hand end, (6) wrtng the number
653 normay, foowed by wrtng t wth backward strokes. In each
case the number of tmes that the sub|ect was abe to perform the
unusua task n s ty seconds was dvded by the number of tmes
the sub|ect was abe to do the same task normay n s ty seconds.
Ths gave a fe bty rather than a perseveraton score snce the
hgher the rato, the better the sub|ect was abe to perform the un-
accustomed task, or make a new synthess.
6. nagrams. Ths s a test adapted from Thurstone (193 ) n
whch the sub|ect has to make as many words as possbe n four
mnutes from the key word generaton.
7. Scrambed words I. ere the task was to rearrange a |umbed
seres of etters to make a word wth a speca knd of meanng, e.g.,
to rearrange the etters tgre to spe the name of an anma.
. Scrambed words II. The task here was to rearrange the etters
of a word to make a new word wth a speca meanng, e.g., to re-
arrange the word meon to spe the name of a frut. Tests 6, 7, and
a seemed to nvove a knd of conceptua as opposed to perceptua
synthess or cosure.
9. Memory fgures. The sub|ects were presented wth fve smpe
geometrc fgures, each of whch was presented for s seconds. ach
of the fgures contaned some sght defect (for e ampe, a crce wth
a gap n the top of t) and the sub|ects were nstructed to observe
the fgures as carefuy as possbe n order to be abe to reca them
ater n the sesson. fter about forty-fve mnutes the sub|ects were
shown s sdes n each of whch was ncuded the orgna fgure
aong wth eght others very smar n sze, shape, etc. The sub|ects
task was to seect the fgure whch they consdered to be the orgna
one and the answer they gave was scored for ts appro maton to
good-Gestat, as the term s understood n Gestat psychoogy. or
173
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e ampe, sub|ects who chose fgures n whch the gap was smaer
were scored for cosure or good-Gestat. ere memory cosure s be-
ng measured as contrasted wth perceptua cosure n tests 1 and 2.
Most of these tests have been used often before by other nvestga-
tors, ether n ths form or n a sghty modfed one. Incdentay,
many of them coud be consdered tests of ntegence n the broad-
est sense (cf. Thurstone, 193 ). Cark then gave these tests, aong
wth the seven others n the battery, to thrty sub|ects and nter-
correated ther scores on the s teen tests. The ntercorreatons for
the nne tests |ust descrbed are shown n Tabe 6.3.
T 6.3
Tetrachorc Correaton Coeffcents among arous Cosure Tests
(N go, rt .4 at 1 eve of sgnfcance)
1. Street Gestat
a. Mutated words
3. Peversbe fgures
4. Mrror tracng
Str. Mut. Pev. Mr. Mot.
Gest. ds. g.
- . .75
- -3
Scr. Scr.
na. ds.I ds.II
Custer I
Custer II
5. Motor fe bty .52
6. nagrams .06 .06 .09 .4
7. Scrambed words I .20 .03 .46 .21 I
(nonsense) f
. Scrambed words II .30 .10 .31 .o6|
(sense)
9. Memory fgures 40 .o .00 .10 .04
.7
94
- 9
-9
.17 .10 .30
Snce these correatons are tetrachorcs and based on very few
sub|ects, they are to be taken as suggestve. The correatons do not
gve a very good estmate of the e tent of a reatonshp, but do
ndcate whether t s sgnfcant or not. tetrachorc correaton of
around .4 s sgnfcant at the 1 per cent eve wth ths number of
sub|ects. The correaton tabe has been arranged n such a way as
to show the fact that there are two dstnct custers of hgh nter-
correatons, one ncudng tests 1-5 and another ncudng tests 5- .
It w be noted that n the frst custer there are eght out of ten
correatons sgnfcant at or beyond the 1 per cent eve, whereas n
the second custer there are fve out of s correatons sgnfcant at
the 1 per cent eve. urthermore, as the ower eft-hand custer of
correatons n the tabe shows, the two custers do not ntercorreate
174
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
sgnfcanty. 0ut of the tweve ntercuster correatons there s ony
one whch approaches the 1 per cent eve of sgnfcance. Note aso
that Motor e bty s contaned n both custers and that Memory
gures s contaned n nether. These resuts suggest mmedatey
that cosure s not an over-a untary trat or abty. t east tests
purportng to measure cosure n percepton do not correate hghy
wth tests nvovng verba cosure. Instead there seem to be two
cosure factors and the two motor tests, especay Motor e bty,
nvove both factors. 0ne suggests perceptua synthess, the other
cogntve synthess.
The whoe correaton matr , ncudng a 16 varabes, was
sub|ected to a factor anayss foowng Thurstone s centrod method.
s anyone woud ready guess who s famar wth ths procedure,
the factor anayss provded a very good smpe structure, eadng
to a two-factor souton centerng n the two custers aready noted,
but wth an mportant e cepton whch can be observed n the factor
saturatons gven beow:
actor I
Street Gestat .90
Mutated words . 2
Peversbe fgures .74
Mrror tracng .60
(Motor fe bty .25)
actor II
nagrams .97
Scrambed words I .91
Motor fe bty . 0
Scrambed words II .67
Notce what happens to Motor e bty. though t was
contaned n the custer whch ncuded Street Gestat, Mutated
ords, etc., t turns out to have a very ow saturaton on the factor
whch ncudes these same tests. 0n the other hand t turns up wth
a very hgh saturaton on actor II, correspondng to the second
custer. The e panaton for ths es n the fact that the Motor
e bty tests must have behaved ke the tests n actor II wth
regard to the seven other varabes n the matr and unke the tests
n actor I wth regard to those same seven varabes. Ths shows
175
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
how factor anayss can often add nformaton to that whch resuts
from a smpe custer anayss. 0f course not many correaton tabes
can be so ready broken down nto custers as ths partcuar one,
whch was chosen as an e ampe argey because ts structure s so
smpe. Note aso that the Memory for gures Test, whch s a good
cosure test, as far as the prncpes of Gestat psychoogy are con-
cerned, st does not ft n wth the other tests. pparenty the
tendency toward cosure n percepton and n memory are not the
same thng. The person who syntheszes perceptua cues does not
necessary synthesze memory traces n the same way, at east so far
as these fabe measurng nstruments are concerned. Probaby
other factors enter nto the memory process.
ut the centra theoretca probem s to try to anayze the nature
of the two factors whch have been obtaned by ths eaborate sta-
tstca anayss. It s here that the factor anayst s ngenuty s ta ed
to the utmost. 0ften many of them seem at a oss by the tme they
arrve at ther factors and they end up wth names whch are about as
msceaneous as the names whch echser used to descrbe hs
varous tests. actor I n ths nstance s easy dentfed wth a factor
caed speed of percepton found by Thurstone (1944), whch
saturated hghy the frst two tests sted here (as we as speed of
dark-adaptaton and span of vsua perphera vson ) but dd not
saturate Peversbe gures or Mrror Tracng because these
tests were not ncuded n Thurstone s battery. Unfortunatey speed
of percepton s not too nformatve a trat or abty tte. hat
does quck dark-adaptaton have n common wth mrror tracng
0r span of perphera vson wth the abty to fuse dscrete vsua
cues nto a Gestat Perhaps a these tests nvove the sub|ect n per-
ceptuay unfamar stuatons and the scores on a of them refect
hs abty to get nformaton or organzed percepts from strange
cues. Unfortunatey, as the st of tests whch saturate the factor n-
creases, t becomes harder and harder to nfer what psychoogca
process or processes are nvoved n gettng a hgh score on a of
them.
The dffcuty s even greater wth actor II. It too appears at frst
gance to be smar to one of Thurstone s factors whch he abes
for word fuency n hs book Prmary Menta btes (193 ). s
factor saturates anagrams and what he cas dsarranged words very
hghy, aso speng and grammar tests (193 , p. 4). The |oker s
that Cark s actor II ncudes the motor fe bty test. Ths test
(much more commony known as motor perseveraton) has pagued
176
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
psychoogsts for a ong tme. In an attempt to resove the rdde
of perseveraton, as he cas t, Catte ctes (19460) some thrty
dfferent studes of perseveraton of one knd or another. Certany
the presence of ths test n actor II s puzzng and means that we
cannot abe the factor word fuency, snce words are not nvoved
n motor perseveraton n any very obvous way.
t ths pont there are two atttudes that one can take toward the
namng probem. 0ne can regard a factor as an ntervenng varabe
(cf. Chapter 4), n whch case a name s chosen for the factor whch
has as ts operatona meanng the tests whch go to make up the
factor. In ths case we mght turn to some Greek word and perhaps
refer to actor II as the catoptrc or mrror-mage factor or some-
thng of the sort. If anyone asks what ths factor means, the ony
approprate answer s to te hm to ook at the tests, because they
are what the factor means operatonay. Ths s the answer some-
tmes preferred by Thurstone and by those who have dffcuty n
fndng a theoretca defnton of ntegence.
The other approach nvoves the use of hypothetca constructs,
based on an attempt at further anayss of the menta processes re-
qured for sovng the probems n the tests themseves. In the present
case, for nstance, we mght argue that a the tasks n actor II may
be soved by hard, conscentous effort, suppresson of dstractons,
and systematc budng up of sma unts. In contrast, the tests n
actor I requre perceptua reorganzaton whch does not necessary
resut from hard, conscentous effort. The ne t step woud be to
create a hypothetca construct for each factor persstence ( actor
II) and fe bty of perceptua organzaton ( actor I) for nstance
-and to e pore more fuy the surpus meanngs of each by con-
structng purfed tests that ma mze the necessty of these trats for
souton (cf. ove, 1944). In ths way a number of performance
trat varabes mght be soated from factor anayses.
The eakness of Present-Day actor nayss. actor anaysts are
sedom abe to proceed n as smpe and straghtforward a way as
ths. Instead they usuay start off wth so many tests of compe
structure that t s neary mpossbe to dentfy any smpe trat
constructs of the sort |ust proposed. To ustrate the dffcutes, et
us take a ook at some of the evdence n Cark s study whch has so
far been suppressed. In the frst pace, factors n Catte s com-
pendum of factor anaytc studes (1g4f a) whch, ke Cark s actor
II, saturate hghy such tests as anagrams, generay saturate motor
177
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
fe bty not at a or negatvey Yet these two tests were assocated
n Cark s resuts. Ths rases the queston of whether the factora
composton of a gven test s nvarant or dependent on the other
tests n the battery (cf. Thurstone, 1947), a queston of consderabe
theoretca mportance whch s too compe to treat here. In the
second pace, Cark threw some other test scores nto hs correaton
matr whch have so far not been mentoned. In addton to the
nne tests descrbed, he used the port- ernon Study of aues Test
because he was nterested n determnng whether cosure had any
personaty correates. It turned out that actor I (fe bty of per-
ceptua organzaton) saturated .49 on the conomc scae and .52
on the Soca scae of ths test. urthermore, the Pegous scae
saturated .72 on actor II (persstence). hat are we to do about
namng our hypothetca constructs now Can we somehow reformu-
ate perceptua fe bty as a descrptve tte so that t ncudes an
nterest n and kng for economc vaues and a dske for soca
vaues Must we concude that peope wth hgh regous vaues are
ow n persstence 0bvousy not. hat appears to have happened
now s that reatonshps are beng found whch may have some
deeper motvatona connecton. The pcture s obscured rather than
carfed by the addton of such measures from a totay dfferent
area of personaty. If we ncude a wde msceany of tests n a
battery, we sha get out msceaneous factors factors whch saturate
such a varety of tests that we cannot make much rea theoretca
sense out of them. If we put n purfed tests, and understand thor-
oughy the nature of performance on them, we are key to get out
factors whose meanng we can aso understand.
The rea dffcuty has been that some factor theorsts assume that
bnd factor anayss s the roya road to psychoogca theory. Its
advantage seems to them to be that, startng wth a msceaneous
assortment of tests, the rea nature of whch s unknown, one can
by ntercorreatng them arrve at the fundamenta dmensons of
the mnd. nd furthermore, they sometmes assume that order s
out there n nature and a the factor anayst does s dscover t by
a purey emprca method wthout any theoretca preconceptons.
Thurstone has demonstrated that by ntercorreatng msceaneous
measures of physca ob|ects one can arrve by factor anayss at the
three theoretcay mportant dmensons of space (ength, wdth and
heght). Ths woud appear to |ustfy the use of a bndy emprca
approach to theory. ut why ddn t he dscover the space-tme dmen-
17
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
sons of modern physcs 0bvousy here as esewhere what was
obtaned from the factor anayss was argey determned by the
mpct theoretca preconceptons that were nvoved n the choce
of measurements made n settng up the correaton matr n the
frst pace. Sometmes factor anayss s usefu n makng e pct a
theorst s unconscous assumptons.
study reported by ysenck (1947) ustrates the pont. e factor
anayzed the answers to an tem sheet fed out by psychatrsts for
about seven hundred patents sufferng from the many reactve
types of menta ness. (1947, p. 33.) Some of the tems on the sheet
caed for ob|ectve data about the patent s famy or work hstory,
and some caed for a |udgment on the part of the e amnng psycha-
trst. or nstance, the psychatrst checked whether n hs |udgment
the patent was: bady organzed, dependent, an ous, rrtabe, nar-
row n hs nterests, of tte energy, etc. hen these ratngs were
ncuded n a factor anayss aong wth some fary ob|ectve crtera
ke: boarded out of the army, dyspepsa, tremor, unempoyed, etc.,
ysenck dscovered a factor whch he abeed neurotcsm because t
saturated hghy on: bady organzed personaty, dependent, ab-
nonqa before ness, boarded out |of the army|, narrow nterests,
tte energy, abnormaty n parents, schzod, dyspepsa . . .
(1947, p. 36). ut psychatrsts, f they are we-traned n ther pro-
fesson, undoubtedy have genera conceptons of what they mean
by neurotcsm, hystera, dysthyma, and hypochondrass
(other factors found by ysenck). These genera conceptons w
cause ther ratngs on ndvdua tems to be assocated, whch n
turn w produce factors correspondng to ther preconceved no-
tons. To put the matter smpy, the factor anayss dscovered that
psychatrsts have earned as part of ther tranng that certan
symptoms beong together n syndromes that unempoyed are apt
to have bady organzed personates, that bady organzed per-
sonates have tte energy and are apt to be unempoyed, etc. Ths
s nterestng. It may show that psychatrsts group symptoms to-
gether n ways dfferent from what they had supposed they dd. It
may be used to change ther conceptons of dsease patterns. ut the
pont s that the theoretca dmensons of personaty supposedy
dscovered by the bndy emprca factor anayss were n part
aready conscousy or unconscousy n the mnds of the psych-
atrsts fng out the tem sheet on whch the statstca anayss was
based. napp (Goodrch and napp, 1950) has actuay captazed
on ths fact and factor anayzed a seres of hs own |udgments of
179
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
successfu teachers personates to get a sounder bass for dscover-
ng what hs genera mpressons were.
Greene has summarzed the reaton of factor anayss to psycho-
ogca theory as foows: hen the tests are constructed so that the
same scores may represent very dfferent sorts of abty, then no
cear e panaton of factors can be made. hen tests are constructed
to aow ony one method for success, however, then factor anayses
w yed resuts that can be ceary recognzed by psychoogsts.
(1941, p. 341.) In other words, Greene s argung that theory must
enter to some e tent nto the choce of measurements and that factor
anayss s essentay a methodoogca too ke any statstc and
must serve theory rather than create t. Cark fortunatey had fary
defnte hypotheses as to what t took to succeed on hs tests and con-
sequenty he came out wth two factors whch are more meanngfu
(e cusve of the port- ernon test resuts) than many of the fac-
tors reported n the terature.
Does ths mean that we can make no use of the resuts of factor
anayss to date ortunatey thngs are far from that bad. In spte
of the mtatons of factor anayss, Catte (1946a) has attempted
wth consderabe success to match factors obtaned n a wde varety
of dfferent nvestgatons. |ust n the area of the knd of test we have
been dscussng, he sts (1946a, pp. 399-407) appro matey 1 0 fac-
tors y some ngenous cross-matchng he manages to reduce these
nto fve basc types of factors deang wth (1) abty (genera, me-
chanca, spata, etc.) (2) persstence (w-character, poddng app-
caton, nhbton) (3) varabty (oscaton or fuctuaton) (4)
speed (fuency or tempo) and (5) perseveraton (dsposton rgdty
or fe bty). Perhaps the meanng of a these s suffcenty cear
e cept for the ast, whch refers to the motor fe bty tests de-
scrbed above, n whch the sub|ect has to make a creatve effort
to perform a task n some unaccustomed manner. s noted above,
effort and suppresson of dstractons seem to dstngush the be-
havor nvoved here from the fe bty of perceptua organza-
ton factor found n Cark s study.
Summary of Test Performance Trats. eepng n mnd Catte s
fndngs and those of the testng movement, et us try to st the basc
performance trats of personaty. Snce a tests are probems whch
have to be soved, we can begn our nqury by notng the dfferent
ways n whch a person can go about workng on or sovng a prob-
em. gure 6. 1 has been prepared to hep soate performance trats
1 0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
from a schematc anayss of the dfferent ways n whch peope can
behave n probem stuatons.
IGUP 6.1
Schematc Dagram to Iustrate Dfferent Types of Performance
Pesponse
output
Indvdua
Ind1vdua Y
Task
T1 me
Task
1. Mode of pproach. 0n Task n gure 6.1 ndvdua
shows a hgher response output than ndvdua Y. The meanng of
ths dfference n trat terms s determned, as we have seen, from
an anayss of the requrements of the task. If, for nstance, the task
requres a whostc approach, we concude that ndvdua ap-
proaches probems whostcay. It was n |ust ths fashon that we
concuded that ar was an over-a thnker who had dffcuty wth
tasks that requred a breakdown of goba unts nto smaer ones.
hat are the ma|or modes of approach that have been soated by
ths method ny fna answer to such a queston s mpossbe at
ths stage of our knowedge, but the foowng trats are strongy
suggested by the evdence to date.
a. hoe-Part pproach. 0ne of the smpest ways to character-
ze probem-sovng behavor s n terms of whether the person thnks
or tres to thnk n terms of the whoe pattern or whether he works
wth sma parts of t. The smpest ustraton of ths trat s the
1 1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
response on the Porschach whch appeared more frequenty than
norma n ar s record. e aso found evdence of ths trat n
ar n the way he approached dfferent sectons of the Iowa Sent
Peadng Test. 0ther evdence for t coud be found n notng the
way a person attempted to sove such echser- eevue tests as
Pcture Competon, ock Desgn, and Smartes. None of these
tests s pure, however. Now that we have a hunch such a trat s m-
portant, the ne t step s to defne t more carefuy and attempt to
desgn tests whch can be soved ony by a whoe or a part approach.
Then we coud get purer measures of the strength of the trat for a
gven person, ts generaty, etc.
b. Domnant Symbo Type. vdence that peope characterstcay
use certan types of magery or symbos n thnkng s wdespread.
tkn (1949), for nstance, has demonstrated that some peope use
proproceptve cues and others vsua cues n spata orentaton. The
tradtona cassfcaton of abtes as vsua or spata, numerca,
mechanca, and verba may smpy represent a way to break down
the characterstc mages or symbos used by a person n sovng a
set of probems. person who, for nstance, consstenty reacts to a
probem stuaton by a stream of vsua-spata mages w probaby
be abe to sove easy the probems that requre such symbos. ke-
wse a person who thnks predomnanty n verba terms may do we
on a vocabuary test but w have dffcuty n some of Thurstone s
tests nvovng arrangement of bocks n three-dmensona space.
hat we are proposng here s a sghty dfferent nterpretaton of
the resuts of the testng movement rather than anythng competey
new. In -short, we are argung that the many so-caed abtes
may represent habtua modes or styes of thnkng n probem stua-
tons, modes whch are smar theoretcay to the modes of e pres-
son n speech, gesture, etc., as dscussed n the ast chapter. It s even
concevabe that, n bran-n|ured patents ke anut, behavor may
seem to become e cessvey concrete because the n|ury has made
mpossbe the use of hgher order symboc approaches and forced
the use of tacte-knaesthetc magery, whch s not as adequate for
sovng certan types of abstract probems. Ths suggests further that
a modes of symboc approach are possbe for any person, |ust as
a types of e pressve movement are possbe. Some smpy become
preferred over others through earnng for a partcuar person. That
s, as a resut of ong practce and probaby renforcement, the varous
symboc approaches become organzed nto a habt herarchy. Per-
1 2
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
formance or thnkng tests shoud, f purfed over ther present
compe form, permt the dscovery of what the herarchy s for any
ndvdua (cf. the gotzky Test for e ampe, anfmann and asa-
nn, 1937).
z. Persstence. further dfference n the performance of nd-
vduas and Y on Task n gure 6.1 s the fact that s abe to
mantan hs output whe Y s not. hat s apparenty nvoved
here s a capacty to resst dstractons, boredom, dscomfort, or
fatgue. The trat seems fary we represented n Cark s actor II
snce we concuded there that a person had to work hard and per-
sstenty, n the face of dstractons, to do we on the tasks nvoved.
Catte (1946a, p. 415) has dscussed ths trat at ength and suggests
that t may even cover such performances as the average strength of
mantaned grp, the tme a sub|ect w endure a panfu shock or
hod hs breath, or the ength of tme a person w spend on a task
before gvng up.
3. arabty. Indvdua Y n gure 6.1 shows much greater ups
and downs n hs output curve than ndvdua . Some peope work
steady, wth tte fuctuaton n score others show wde varatons.
The usua measure of ths trat s some nde of varabty (e.g., the
standard devaton) of sub-test scores. Some peope are consstenty
varabe, parado ca as that may sound. Catte (1946a, p. 41 ) has
dscussed at ength the evdence for the e stence of such a trat of
oscaton.
4. e bty. In gure 6.1 ndvdua has dffcuty n per-
formng Task after Task whereas ndvdua Y does not. In
short, he shows negatve transfer. e cannot shft ready from one
task to another. good many of the tasks n Cark s actor I seemed
to requre a dffcut shft from one mode of souton to another.
renke- runswk (1949) and many others have dscussed ths trat
under the tte of rgdty, whch appears to be the poar opposte
of fe bty. Catte (1946a) aso has mustered evdence for the e -
stence of such a trat from performance n a wde varety of tasks.
5. uency. Indvdua shows greater output of responses per
unt tme on both Task and Task than ndvdua Y. he hs
poorer performance on may gve ndcatons as to what hs dom-
nant mode of approach s, hs over-a hgh output suggests that he
s fuent n producng whatever responses are requred on the tasks.
1 3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Catte (11).|) 1. p. 421) reports that ths trat s represented by such
measures as assocatve fuency (number of responses to an nkbot
or to a stmuus word), verba fuency (anagrams test), or perceptua
fuency. The ast measure may aso ndcate fe bty, snce a person
who shows a hgh number of perceptua reorganzatons of the fed
s probaby aso a person wth hgh fe bty, partcuary f he pro-
duces them when one type of organzaton s domnant n the stu-
aton (as n the reversbe fgures test). In ts most genera sense ths
trat mght be caed energy n the sense of sheer output of responses
wthout regard to ther approprateness.
Ths st s far from e haustve. It attempts merey to summarze
the possbe performance trats from two ponts of vew: (1) a sys-
tematc anayss n gure 6.1 of the ways n whch performance can
vary, and (2) a st of the trats whch have repeatedy been found
n prevous testng, the evdence for each of whch s best summarzed
n Catte (1946a).
ar s Performance Trats. et us try to appy ths st of trats to
ar and see what nformaton we have on ths area of hs person-
aty. s performance on a typca task w be hepfu n ths anay-
ss. Tabe 6.4 shows the number of words he was abe to make out of
the key word generaton n successve two-mnute ntervas of an
anagrams test.
T 6.4
ar s nagrams Scores
Number of Pank out
Mnutes words obtaned of 30 students
1-2 25 I
3-4 9 1S-5
5-6 11 2.5
7- 14 1
9-10 10 2.5
11-12 4 21.5
Tota score 73 1
The effcency of hs performance on varous parts of the test as
shown by hs rank poston n comparson wth a group of thrty
students gves us some nformaton about hs performance trats, at
east for ths task. e may summarze our concusons about hm n
Tabe 6.5 based on these and prevousy reported data.
1 4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
T 6.5
ar s Performance Trats
Trat Name Measures
1. a) 0ver-a non-anaytc thnker Porschach Test
of
/o
and quaty of
sequence of and D
Iowa Sent Peadng Test
b) Domnant magery (no evdence)
. Moderate persstence ( ) na anagrams score
3. gh varabty nagrams sub-test scores
4. gh fe bty Inta anagrams score
5. ary hgh fuency Porschach response tota
nagrams response tota
The evdence for most of these trats s rather skmpy, wth the
possbe e cepton of the frst one. The fna anagrams score s not
a good measure of persstence because t s dependent n part on how
many words the person has e tracted by the tme he gets to ths pont
n the test. ar s certany varabe as far as ths test goes, athough
agan we reay need unavaabe evdence as to how varabe he s
n comparson wth others. s fe bty s merey suggested by hs
good nta ad|ustment to anagrams. It s confrmed ndrecty, how-
ever, by the varabty of the anagrams scores, snce ths s the knd
of test n whch one can succeed ether by systematc rearrangement
of the etters, whch shoud yed a steady output, or by quck per-
ceptua shfts whch yed the knd of varabe output characterstc
of ar s record. It s especay unfortunate that ar was not gven
a seres of abty tests whch woud have made nferences about hs
mode of symboc approach possbe. The Coege ntrance Tests are
nowhere near as pure as Thurstone s Prmary Menta btes
Tests and ony suggest that nether the verba nor numerca ap-
proach has cear predomnance n hs thnkng. Thus n concuson
we can ony say that the pcture of ar s performance trats s e -
tremey sketchy and serves ony to ndcate n a genera way how an
anayss of ths sort coud propery be made.
0ther Tests. e have not covered n ths dscusson a good many
other tests whch yed resuts normay ncuded under trat psy-
choogy. n outstandng e ampe of such an omsson s the whoe
seres of personaty questonnares, whose scores are usuay nter-
preted n terms of trats. or e ampe, the ernreuter Personaty
Inventory purports to measure some s dfferent trats, ncudng
1 5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
neurotcsm, sef-suffcency, and domnance. It s |ust one of dozens
of such nventores. The reason the resuts from these tests are not
dscussed here s that they are dffcut to anayze n terms of any
meanngfu theoretca unts. Sometmes they revea deas or att-
tudes (cf. Chapter ), sometmes sef-conceptons (cf. Chapter 14).
ut often they nvove a msceany of correated responses out of
whch t s neary mpossbe to make any theoretca sense. In -
port s words, s the statstcs grow better and better, the nteg-
bty grows ess and ess. . . . ( rom one hghy sophstcated
emprca scae comes ths e treme nstance: Chdren who gve the
response word green to a stmuus word grass receve a score of
- -6 for oyaty to the gang an e ampe of emprcsm gone wd.)
(1937, p. 329.) mprca correatons may be usefu for practca
purposes: the ength of the bg toe may predct Menta ge, the as-
socaton green may predct who w be a good gang member,
open wndows at nght may predct who w get maara, number
of dgts forward may predct who w pass n schoo. ut n a
these cases some knd of ntervenng varabes or hypothetca con-
structs must be dscovered before the emprca correatons con-
trbute anythng to theory. nd some of the reatons are so compe
or contamnated that the nventon of adequate theoretca varabes
to e pan them seems out of the queston. (Cf. Maer, 1944.)
P TINGS 0 P P 0PM NC TP ITS
Psychoogsts have recognzed from the very begnnng that there
are a number of trats whch peope dspay whch cannot ready be
observed n standardzed test stuatons. hen faced wth ths prob-
em they have resorted to ratngs. The great advantage of ratngs s
that the |udge can arrve at a score after havng observed the sub|ect
under a much wder varety of condtons than can be reproduced
n a aboratory test of any sort. ut to the e tent that ratngs can
cover such a wde varety of behavor, they aso have the theoretca
dsadvantage that the number of varabes whch can be rated s
practcay nfnte, mted ony by the magnaton of the |udge.
Patng scaes can be made up amost at w, and n fact they have
been. Catte agan (1946a, p. 295) has made a heroc attempt to re-
duce the over-a number of trat varabes whch have been rated to
a mnmum number through factor anayss. e started wth thrty-
fve estabshed trat custers based on a survey of the terature.
In each custer there were at east two or three sub-trats, so that ac-
1 6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
tuay he used about one hundred trat descrptons, stated n terms,
of poar oppostes. The foowng are typca of the names gven hs-
trat custers:
Sef-assertve -v- Sef-submssve
fu, egotstc, predatory -v- Md, sef-effacng, toerant
Sury, hard -v- Good natured, easygong
Insecure, nfante, hoste -v- Mature, knd, tactfu
Cheerfu, enthusastc, wtty -v- Unhappy, frustrated, dour
dventurous, usty -v- Generay nhbted, tmd
Imagnatve, ntrospectve, constructve -v- Set, smug, thrfty
Socabe, hearty -v- Secusve, shy
( fter Catte, 1946a, pp. 295-299.)
Catte reduces these by cross-matchng to tweve trats, but snce
the names for these tweve get ther meanng from the trats under
them, there s tte pont to stng ther ttes here. better demon-
straton of the possbe utty of ths approach s provded n a study
by ske (1949), who made use of Catte s fndngs. ske wanted to-
get a seres of trats whch woud be usefu n evauatng graduate
students n a cnca psychoogy program. e chose the trats pre-
sented n Tabe 6.6 from Catte s st. s you read through them
try to f them out for ar.
T 6.6
Patng Scae Defnt1ons
( fter ske, 1949 and Catte, 1946a.)
( or ratngs on ths scae, 1 s e treme on eft sde, on rght sde)
Note: These attrbutes refer to behavor whch can be drecty observed on-
the surface. In usng ths scae, dsregard any nferences about underyng
dynamcs.
_ 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Peadness to cooperate -v- 0bstructveness
Generay tends to say yes when n- Incned to rase ob|ectons to a
vted to cooperate. Peady to meet pro|ect. Cannot be done. Not
peope more than haf way. nds ncned to |on n. Incned to
ways of cooperatng despte df- be dffcut.
cutes.
1_ a_| T_ 5 6 7
. Predctabe -v- Unpredctabe
Consstent n day-to-day atttudes requent shfts n atttudes and1
and behavor behavor. Shows changng, un-
predctabe moods and mpuses.
1 7
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 6.6 (Contnued)
3. ssertve -v- Submssve
Tends to domnate or nfuence hs Tends to et peope have ther
assocates wthout beng nvted. own way. Tends to back down
Tends to be assertve or boastfu. n a confct. umbe, retrng.
4. Depressed -v- Cheerfu
Tends to be depressed. Not easy Generay bubbng over w|th
moved to smes or aughter. good cheer. 0ptmstc. nthus-
astc. Prone to cheerfu, wtty
remarks.
T_ 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. rvoous -v- Serous
Not ncned to take responsbtes ccepts approprate respons-
serousy. Thoughtess. Unaware of btes toward others. Shows
responsbtes of hs age. (Do not serousness of purpose.
confuse wth No. 17: Conscentous
vs. Not Conscentous.)
T_ 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. ttentve to peope -v- Coo, oof
Interested n peope, ther troubes, Tends to be ndfferent to, and
ther personates. Makes frends to gnore, peope.
wth peope and remembers ther
persona nterests.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S
7. asy upset -v- Unshakabe Pose
asy embarrassed or put off ba- Sef-possessed. Does not ose rom-
ance. Gets confused n emergency. posure under emotona provo
ushes, shows e ctabty, becomes caton.
ncoherent. Momentary nervous-
ness not genera emotonaty.
T_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 __1
. Narrow Interests -v- road Interests
Unnformed n many areas. Nar- as wde nterests. e-n
row, smpe nterests. Provnca formed on a wde varety of
outook. sub|ects.
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
T 6.6 (Contnued)
2 | 4 5 6 7
Suspcous -v- Trustfu
eeves rather too qucky that he ccessbe. ree from suspcon,
s beng unfary treated. Imagnes
on nsuffcent grounds that peope
strongy dske hm. Interprets
thngs as havng reference to hm-
sef when none s ntended. ees
persecuted.
but not to the e tent of gu-
bty.
2 3 4
1o. Good-natured, asy-gong
Generous wth hs property, tme
or energy. Gves peope the beneft
of the doubt, when ther motves
are n queston.
5 6 7
-v- Sef-centered, Sefsh
Gets rrtabe or resentfu f

property or rghts are trespassed
on. Incned to be cose and
egotstca.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
n. Sent, Introspectve -v- Takatve
Says very tte gves the mpresson Taks a ot, to everybody,
of beng ntrospectve and occu- Takes the ntatve n conversa-
ped wth thoughts. tons. hen addressed, responds.
qucky.
3 4 5 6
1 . Cautous -v- dventurous
vods the strange and new. ooks Peady to enter nto new e per-
at a aspects of a stuaton over-
cautousy. eeps cear of dffcu-
tes. vods new thngs. Does the
safe thng.
ences and stuatons. Peady to
face emergences.
3
3 Socay posed
Pote, posed and tactfu n soca
stuatons. Deas wth peope grace-
fuy and skfuy. Pefned speech,
manner, etc. amar wth good
etquette.
5 6 7
-v- Cumsy, wkward n Soca
Stuatons
Tactess n soca stuatons.
Crude n speech and manners.
0mts proper formates. Does
not meet peope gracefuy.
(Note: appes to reatonshps
wth one or more peope.)
1 9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 6.6 (Contnued)
1 2 3 4
14. Pgd
ways does thngs n one partcu-
ar way. fe crcumscrbed by rou-
tne. Stcks to hs own deas and
does not adapt to ways of dong
thngs dfferent from hs own. Does
not change and broaden wth e -
perences.
5 6 7 I
-v- daptabe
ppropratey modfes hs be-
havor to stuatons. ccepts
compromses where needed. Is
not upset, surprsed, baffed, or
rrtabe f thngs are dfferent
from what he e pected.
1 2 3 4
15. Dependent
pects a ot from other peope.
Seeks constant attenton, rrespec-
tve of the needs of others.
5 6 7
- Sef-suffcent
Capabe of meetng frustratons
and of renuncatons wthout
eanng on others..
123
16. Pacd
Cam, peacefu, serene.
5 6 7 S
-v- orryng, n ous
orres constanty, senstve,
harred seems to suffer from an -
etes wthout adequate cause.
Sght suppressed agtaton much
of the tme.
1234
17. Conscentous
Carefu about prncpes of con-
duct. Motvated by deas of
truthfuness, honesty, unsefshness.
Scrupuousy uprght where per-
sona desres confct wth prncpe.
5 6 7
-v- Not Conscentous
Not too carefu about rght and
wrong where own wshes are
concerned. Not partcuary |ust,
honest, or unsefsh. Incned to
somewhat shady transactons.
t 2 3 4
11 . Imagnatve -v
as a rch and vvd magnaton.
Thnks of unusua anges and as-
pects of a queston. Senstve to a
muttude of emotona and other
possbtes not reazed by the
average person.
567
- Unmagnatve
ack of magnaton. p-
proaches probems n a tera
matter-of-fact fashon. Unre-
sponsve to the subtetes n a
stuaton.
190
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
T 6.6 (Contnued)
a3 _f 7_ 6_ 7 _
19. Marked 0vert Interest n 0p- -v- Sght 0vert Interest n 0p-
poste Se poste Se -
Dates a good dea and/or taks a ot Taks very tte about women,
about opposte se . tremey aware Does not use opportuntes for
of women as women. (Dsregard n- contacts wth women.
| erred needs or drves.)
3 |_ 6 7
o. rank, pressve -v- Secretve, Peserved
Comes out ready wth hs rea eeps hs thoughts and feengs
feengs on varous questons. - to hmsef.
presses hs feengs, sad or gay,
easy and constanty.
- _ _ __ _ __ _ __
n. Dependent-Mnded -v- Independent-Mnded
Inteectuay dependent on others. Thnks thngs out for hmsef
Generay accepts the opnon of and adopts a cear and defnte
the group or of authorty wthout ndependent poston. amnes
much thought. Unsure of own every queston persstenty and
opnon. ndvduastcay. Makes up hs
own mnd about t.
/ |_ _s6 T
tt. mted 0vert motona - -v- Marked 0vert motona -
presson presson
Is apathetc and suggsh. Shows hyperknetc, agtated be-
havora responses s overy e -
ctabe and overdemonstratve.
(Peproduced by permsson from D. . ske (1949). Copyrght by the
mercan Psychoogca ssocaton.)
In ske s study a group of graduate students n cnca psychoogy
were rated accordng to ths scae by members of the teachng staff,
by feow graduate-students and by themseves. e then ntercorre-
ated the ratngs obtaned n each of these ways and sub|ected the
resutng three correaton matrces to Thurstone s centrod method
of factor anayss. e came out wth severa factors n each matr
191
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
whch coud be matched wth factors obtaned n the other two
matrces. In other words, he found that the trats tended to custer n
the same way no matter who dd the ratng. In severa cases partc-
uar trats were added to the factor pattern by dfferent sets of ob-
servers, but the observers agreed pretty generay about the core
trats defnng a factor. ske soated fve genera trats n a, each
of whch deserves some ndvdua dscusson.
1. Soca adaptabty.
Cheerfu -v- Depressed
Takatve -v- Sent, Introspectve
dventurous -v- Cautous
daptabe -v- Pgd
Pacd v- orryng, n ous
s ske says, These trats suggest a pattern of behavor wth
hgh soca vaue. person possessng these trats s good company.
. . . 0thers ke to be wth hm. . . . e s spontaneous, responsve,
and Socay daptabe. (1949, p. 335-) If our precedng anayss
has been correct, ar shoud rate hgh on at east the frst four out
of these fve varabes. e s certany spontaneous and responsve,
though ths w make hm good company ony n terms of the
standards for good company set up by the partcuar group whch s
evauatng hm. ctuay here, as n many of the trat ratngs, ske
has not made the cear dstncton that we requre between person-
aty descrpton and character evauaton.
2. motona contro.
Unshakabe -v- asy upset
Sef-suffcent -v- Dependent
Pacd -v- orryng
mted -v- Marked 0vert motona presson
ske descrbes ths factor as foows: rom ths nspecton we can
desgnate ths recurrent factor as motona Contro or emotona
sef-possesson, keepng ceary n mnd that ths s probaby mature
gudance of emotona e presson, not an nhbtory, constrcted
pattern. urther e poratons may we dentfy t more defntey
as emotona maturty. (1949, p. 335.) 0nce agan t woud seem
preferabe to eave any |udgments as to the wsdom of emotona
contro out of a trat descrpton. If we thnk of the word contro
n the sense of whether or not a person dspays hs emotons, we
192
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
can reserve |udgments as to whether ths trat means constrcton
or maturty for occasons on whch such |udgments are caed for.
ar probaby rates fary ow on ths trat. Certany by hs own
account, whch shoud yed the same resuts, accordng to ske s
fndngs, he worres a good dea and has many emotona ups and
downs.
3. Conformty.
Peadness to cooperate -v- 0bstructveness
Serous -v- rvoous
Trustfu -v- Suspcous
Good-natured, asygong -v- Sef-centered, Sefsh
Conscentous -v- Not Conscentous
These characterstcs descrbe the person who does the rght
thng,1 who obeys the soca mores. e s the good chd n our so-
cety, grown oder. Probaby the cncans see a strong superego
n hm, whe he sees hmsef as we-behaved, dependabe, and con-
formng. ( ske, 1949, p. 337-) gan ths trat appears to ft ar s
behavor, so far as we know t, very cosey. e s a good man n
the sense that he does what s e pected of hm he foows the soca
norms of good behavor cosey. Ths trat seems amost mpossbe
to untange from the normatve frame of reference n terms of whch
the behavor s cassfed.
4. The Inqurng Inteect.
road nterests -v- Narrow Interests
Independent Mnded -v- Dependent Mnded
Imagnatve -v- Unmagnatve.
It s harder to defne ths trat snce so few ratngs were common
to a three factor anayses. ccordng to ske, It seems . . . appro-
prate to emphasze the aspect of nteectua curosty, for here are
the attrbutes of the actve e porng mnd. (1949, p. 337-) In say-
1ng ths he s attemptng to fnd a common source for these surface
trats and manages to soate a common core whch woud probaby
be caed a Need for Cognzance or Understandng by Murray
(193 ). e mght avod such nterpretatons and ca ths trat sm-
py nteectua actvty, meanng the e tent to whch a person s
actve n nteectua pursuts. rom what we know of ar t s
dffcut to form any frm opnon as to how he stands wth respect
to ths trat, though he s probaby not conspcuousy hgh n t.
193
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
5. Confdent Sef- presson.
ssertve -v- Submssve
Takatve -v- Sent, Introspectve
Marked Interest -v- Sght 0vert Interest n omen
rank, pressve -v- Secretve, Peserved
There was agreement on ths trat compe n ske s study ony
for teammate and sef-ratngs. Snce no staff ratng factor matched
ths one very cosey, there s more uncertanty about t than the
others. It s especay nterestng that the teammates added some
unfavorabe characterstcs to ths core namey Sef-Centered and
Marked 0vert motona presson whch suggests that to them
the trat was a knd of Spontaneous gotsm accordng to ske
(1949). The sef-ratngs, however, added ttentve to Peope and
Socay Posed, whch suggested that to them ths trat appeared to
be a knd of Soca Intatve. Part of the dffcuty wth defnng
ths factor arses from the fact that severa of the terms ke Sef-
Centered have such strong vaue connotatons that agreement be-
tween sef and others woud be unkey. hatever ths factor reay
s, ar appears to be fary hgh n t, snce he s the knd of person
who e presses hmsef fary freey. hether ths free e presson s
|udged as gotstc by hs frends or as Soca Intatve by hm-
sef s a tte besde the pont, and brngs n vaue |udgments that
are rreevant to the task of descrbng hs personaty.
ske s work s one of the best e ampes as to how a practca prob-
em n ratng others may contrbute to our knowedge of a partc-
uar ndvdua. Snce the ratng, as n ths case, s neary aways done
wth some vaue standards n mnd, the varabes chosen w not be
as pure as they shoud be for descrptve purposes, but we can never-
theess earn a good dea about the person from them f we strp off
the vaue termnoogy wherever possbe. In dong ths we are fo-
owng the same ne of attack as we dd n dscardng |udgments of
how ntegent a person was and payng attenton to what the test
score tod us about the way the person behaved. rom ths ratng
scae we have systematzed a number of our msceaneous mpres-
sons about ar and concuded that n soca stuatons he s spon-
taneous, responsve, and e pressve n emotona stuatons he s
varabe and n ethca stuatons he s conformng.
Patngs ased on Controed 0bservaton. Patngs such as those
|ust descrbed are based on behavor n a wde varety of stuatons.
The basc assumptons are that the opportuntes to observe any par-
194
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
tcuar person w be a representatve sampe of the stuatons n
whch the behavor n queston may occur. Presumaby a person w
be abe to observe hmsef n the wdest range of stuatons cang
for cheerfuness, hs teammates the ne t wdest, and the staff the
narrowest. The fact that ske found agreement suggests that the
sampng by each of the three sets of |udges had somethng n com-
mon. 0bvousy f the staff, for nstance, had seen each student on
ony one occason et us say |ust pror to a uafyng amnaton
the ratngs on Cheerfuness woud probaby not have agreed n
any way wth those made by the Sef or by Teammates.
The ack of contro of the condtons under whch observatons
and ratngs are made has bothered psychoogsts and attempts have
been made to e pose ndvduas to a standard set of rea fe st-
uatons so that the bases for |udgment w be more comparabe. The
outstandng e ampe of ths approach s the assessment of men car-
red out by the 0ffce of Strategc Servces (0.S.S.) durng ord
ar II under Murray s eadershp (cf. ssessment of men, 194 ).
Murray and hs assocates approached the probem by controng
the e perences to whch canddates were e posed durng a mted
tme perod and havng numerous |udges around to observe how
they reacted. To accompsh ths end the 0.S.S. seecton staff took
over a arge country cub to whch canddates for the servce were
sent for an ntensve perod of testng. or three days the men were
competey at the mercy of the psychoogsts, who made use not ony
of standard aboratory tests, but aso of actua feke stuatons
whch were standardzed but reastc n that they caed for the tota
actvty of the person n a natura settng.
typca stuatona test was the constructon probem. ere the
canddate was assgned the |ob of drectng two assocates or hepers
to bud a frame structure out of wooden poes and sockets (19-( , p.
102). The functonng of the two assstants s perhaps best descrbed
n the words of the 0.S.S. staff:
These two members of the |unor staff tradtonay assumed the pseudo-
nyms of ppy and uster. hoever payed the part of ppy acted n a
passve, suggsh manner. e dd nothng at a uness specfcay ordered
to, but stood around, often gettng n the way, ether dng wth hs hands
n hs pockets, or concerned wth some nsgnfcant pro|ect of hs own,
such as the mnute e amnaton of the sma-scae mode. uster, on the
other hand, payed a dfferent roe. e was aggressve, forward n offerng
mpractca suggestons, ready to e press dssatsfacton, and quck to crt-
cze what he suspected were the canddate s weakest ponts.
. 195 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The two assstants were not permtted by ther secret nstructons to ds-
obey orders, and they were supposed to carry out whatever drectons were
gven them e pcty. thn the bounds of ths rung, though, t was ther
functon to present the canddate wth as many obstructons and annoyances
as possbe n ten mnutes. s t turned out, they succeeded n frustratng
the canddates so thoroughy that the constructon was never, n the hstory
of S, competed n the aotted tme. (0.S.S., 194 , p. 103.)
The behavor of the canddate under these frustratng condtons
was noted carefuy by staff observers and formed part of the bass
for ther ratngs on emotona stabty, eadershp, and energy and
ntatve. The advantage of ths approach s that t permts the
|udge to observe the reactons of the person under standardzed but
feke condtons. It represents therefore a decded mprovement
over ratngs based on uncontroed observatons made on a seres of
ndvduas as they encounter entrey dfferent stuatons n the nor-
ma course of vng. The 0.S.S. tranng staff deveoped a varety of
stuatona tests ke ths one, on the bass of whch they made ther
ratngs.
The varabes whch they fnay chose for ratng were: (1) mot-
vaton ncudng energy, (2) effectve ntegence, (3) emotona sta-
bty, (4) soca reatons, (5) eadershp, (6) physca abty, (7)
observng and reportng, and two other varabes more specfcay
reated to the |ob for whch the canddates were appyng. The choce
of these seven trats was dctated to some e tent of course by the
specfc task for whch the canddates were beng evauated. Never-
theess they are comparabe n many ways to the varabes used by
ske (1949) to evauate cnca students, whch suggests that the
consensus as to what trats shoud be rated s greater at the practca
than at the theoretca eve.
Inteectua Trats n fe Stuatons. In order to get an dea of
how stuatona tests modfy the ratng process, et us take one of
ther trats and study more cosey how they defned and |udged t.
ffectve ntegence s perhaps best for ths purpose, snce we
have aready dscussed nteectua trats rather e tensvey n con-
necton wth the testng movement. They chose the term effectve
ntegence so as to make t cear they meant more than paper-and-
penc test resuts, and then decded on theoretca grounds to dvde
t nto afferent and efferent functons. 0n the afferent sde they fet
that ntegence nvoved coecton of data (percepton, memory,
note-takng, watchng, stenng, etc.) and dagnoss of the stuaton
196
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
(nterpretaton, nference, antcpaton of possbe contngences,
etc.). (194 , p. 267.) 0n the efferent sde t ncuded concepton of
pan (seecton of the most strategc goa, schedung of pro|ects,
communcatng pans to others) and e ecuton of acton (managng,
admnsterng or eadershp actvtes and strvng wth persever-
ance unt the goa s attaned ). (194 , p. 267.) They detached many
of the afferent functons and rated them under the separate varabe
of observng and reportng, ratngs on whch, however, saturated
neary as hghy on a fna ntegence factor as the effectve nte-
gence ratng tsef. The mportant pont n a ths s that they tred
to anayze what behavor they were gong to rate and n so dong got
some trat measures whch coud subsequenty be hed up to varous
standards of evauaton, dependng on what trats were demanded n
a partcuar stuaton.
or measurng effectve ntegence on the efferent sde they used
the Constructon probem aready mentoned, a rook probem
(transferrng some matera across a. deep ravne wth the hep of
others), a persona Intervew, Dscusson, and Debate. In observng
ndvduas performng n these natura stuatons they found t very
dffcut to decde what was ntegent behavor and what was not.
In dscussng the rook test they state:
0ne member of the group woud be the frst to notce the worn stump
of a branch on a tree across the water (suggestng the possbty of throw-
ng over t the noose of a rope), another canddate woud propose a prac-
tca overa pan for the dvson of functon. . . . Shoud a sgnfcant
observaton be rated as hgh as an outne of strategy Shoud a verba
know-how be rated hgher than an unartcuated can-do nd then
how much shoud be subtracted from a man s score because of hs havng
made ths or that mpractca or stupd suggeston (194 , p. 274.)
Ths dffcuty ustrates ncey the pont we have been tryng to
make throughout ths chapter: namey, what w be |udged as n-
tegent depends on the standards you adopt and on what the
stuaton cas for. Therefore t s better to descrbe behavor as eco-
nomcay as possbe wthout reference to any partcuar standard.
ehavor shoud frst be descrbed and then evauated for whatever
purpose s reevant.
In spte of the confuson of standards, the 0.S.S. staff was abe to
resove ther ratng probems n the same way, snce two |udges ob-
servng the same peope under the same stuatons produced ratngs
whch correated hghy wth each other. or the rook Test, for
197
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e ampe, the agreement correaton rato was .71 for ffectve
Integence, whereas t went as hgh as - -. 6 for the Dscusson st-
uaton. In other words, they were abe to |udge reaby the effectve
ntegence shown by an ndvdua n a gven stuatona test. ur-
thermore, there was a far degree of agreement between the ratngs
n one stuaton and those n another, ndcatng consderabe gen-
eraty for ths trat. or e ampe, the ratng n a stuaton n whch
the person was assgned a eadershp roe correated .59 wth hs
ratng when he was assgned a subordnate roe. 0r agan, the abty
to seect mportant nformaton from four purported enemy docu-
ments (SI -2 Test) correated - -.29 wth rated effectve nte-
gence n a Debatng stuaton. 0f course some of the ntercorreatons
were nsgnfcant, but the medan ntercorreaton among tweve
ratngs of effectve ntegence based on dfferent stuatons was
- -.29, whch was beyond the 1 per cent eve of sgnfcance. urther-
more, an nspecton of ther tabe of ntercorreatons ed them to
concude that there were at east four types of effectve ntegence:
1) Physca-Soca (0utdoor-Practca) bty as measured by the rook
and the two ssgned eadershp tests. . . . The medan ntercorreaton
of these three tests was .41. ... 2) erba-Soca (Speakng) bty, as
measured by Dscusson, Debate, |udgment of 0thers, and ocabuary. . . .
The medan ntercorreaton of these four tests was .52. ... 3) erba-
bstract ( rtng) bty, as measured by the 0ts ocabuary and SI 2.
The medan ntercorreaton of the three tests s .43. ... 4) Non- erba
bstract bty, as measured by Mechanca Comprehenson, Non- erba,
and 0ts. . . . (194 , p. 279.)
Ths breakdown of nteectua. trats may be compared wth the
one arrved at from our anayss of the resuts of paper-and-penc
tests at the end of the precedng secton of ths chapter. The trat
names used here are based party on an attempt to name the
stuatons (Soca, Practca, rtng, etc.) n whch they were m-
portant, and party on an attempt to cassfy the magery types
nvoved ( erba, Mechanca, etc.) n workng successfuy n
these stuatons. It woud be smper theoretcay to stck to the
atter approach, at east so far as trat psychoogy s concerned.
hat s needed here, as n the case of paper-and-penc testng, s
a more thorough knowedge of what trats are needed or used n
successfu performance n stuatona tests. Ths w requre that
the observers pay more attenton to the actua behavor of the sub-
|ects n the stuatons (and here the 0.S.S. breakdown of effectve
19
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P 0PM NC TP ITS
ntegence nto a varety of functons shoud be a usefu gude)
rather than to the effects of the behavor (work accompshed, suc-
cess, faure, etc.).
N0T S ND U PI S
1. Make a st of the domnant symboc approaches ( magery
types ) that on ogca or emprca grounds you fee woud quafy
as nteectua trats to be measured for a person. Consut Thurs-
tone s Prmary Menta btes (193 ) and other factor anaytc
studes (cf. Catte for revew of the terature, n| |t 0- Compare
your fna st wth the st arrved at by the 0.S.S. Staff from a
totay dfferent approach to the probem. Is there any hope of
reconcng the two sts Try to defne at east one of your trats
very carefuy. State ts surpus meanngs n the form of hypotheses
as to what knds of tests and stuatons a person shoud do we n.
t. hat s the reatonshp between the fve basc trats dscov-
ered by ske and the seven rated by the 0.S.S. ssessment Staff
Is there enough smarty for you to attempt a resouton of the sts
nto a common, more accuratey defned st
3. ow does the decson to treat ntegence as showng tsef
through a number of nteectua trats reate to the probem of
whether ntegence s nherted or acqured Trats are
earned responses, as we sha see n the ne t chapter. Grantng
ths, can you see how ntegence tests mght dscrmnate un-
fary aganst ower socoeconomc groups as Davs and avghurst
(194 ) cam that they do hat condtons woud favor the acqu-
ston of certan symboc approaches over others
4. Davs and avghurst (194 ) argue that the academcke
probems n standard tests of ntegence do not permt the pups
n the owest socoeconomc group to show, n the fna test, any of
the actvtes at whch they are superor or equa. They then
propose that tests shoud be devsed that w permt far est-
mates of ntegence. Is ths possbe Is there any one standard for
|udgng the mert of one symboc approach over another
Stoddard s crtera of compe ty and dffcuty work Pedefne the
noton of vadty n the ght of ths dscusson, referrng back to
our defnton of t n connecton wth e pressve trats, f necessary.
5. Can you foresee a ratona resouton of the number of trats
n the personaty sphere or do you thnk the best approach s em-
prca, .e., to coect, as Catte has, a the trats that have ever
199
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
been rated and then try to reduce them by ntercorreaton and
matchng In what sense are most trat ratngs or tests mpure
from the ratona vewpont ow woud one go about measurng
trats that had been soated on ratona or theoretca grounds The
pursutmeter whch s a common aboratory performance task was
deveoped out of the desre of some psychoogsts to fgure out the
dfferent ways n whch a phonograph motor coud be used n a
psychoogca aboratory. Does ths suggest why t has been dffcut
to soate performance trats
6. oud you e pect any of the cosure tests to be reated to
Porschach trats
7. hat handwrtng trats mght be reated to the rgdty-fe -
bty trat e.g., the resstance to wed change of od estabshed
habts . . . manfested . . . most ceary n motor performances
(Catte, 1g46a, p. 437.)
. It s at east a tenabe hypothess that schzophrencs become
concrete or ncapabe of abstract thnkng because they, ke
anut, have gven up the types of symboc thnkng whch enabe
a person to sove abstract probems. hy shoud vsua magery, for
nstance, be gven up In what sense s t gven up (presumaby
the person s vsua acuty s |ust as good as ever) Coud an ety over
a certan type of e perence change the herarchy of symboc ap-
proaches oud t be possbe to nhbt atogether a partcuar
approach through an ety hch modes of approach woud be most
key to be affected by an ety Can you see any connecton between
hysterca bndness and oss of capacty for abstract thnkng
200
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
7
Trat Theory
That man whom you saw so adventurous yesterday, do
not thnk t strange to fnd hm such a coward the day
after: ether anger or necessty, or company or wne, or
the sound of a trumpet had put hs heart n hs bey. Ths
was not a courage shaped by reason these crcumstances
have made t frm t s no wonder f he has now been made
dfferent by other contrary crcumstances.
contradctons may be found n me by some twst
and n some fashon. ashfu, nsoent chaste, ascvous
takatve, tacturn tough, decate cever, stupd sury,
affabe yng, truthfu earned, gnorant and bera and
msery and prodga.
M0NT IGN
The theory of personaty trats has deveoped from the knd of
data we have been revewng n the past two chapters. The observa-
ton that peope tend to react n smar ways on smar occasons
has necesstated the nventon of a construct whch woud account
for such consstences. avng revewed some of the consstences
as they have been found under more or ess controed condtons,
we are n a better poston to study and evauate the theory of trats
whch has been deveoped to e pan these consstences. There have
been two serous attempts to study the nature of trats and to base a
psychoogy of personaty on them. 0ne such attempt was made by
G. . port (1937) and one by P. . Catte (1946). oth of these
men agree that the trat construct shoud be used to e pan the con-
sstences n personaty. In port s words: Trats are not drecty
observabe they are nferred (as any knd of determnng tendency
s nferred). thout such an nference the stabty and consstency
of persona behavor coud not possby be e paned. (1937, p.
340.) To Catte trat s the name gven to a pattern of covaryng
behavor eements. e fnds the concept essenta n e panng the
untes we observe n personaty. trat, whether unque or com-
mon, s a coecton of reactons or responses bound by some knd of
unty whch permts the responses to be gathered under one term
and treated n the same fashon for most purposes. (1946, p. 61.)
urthermore, for hm covaraton s the ndcator of unty.
unty can be detected from the fact that the consttuent behavor
eements n a trat covary. (1946, p. 72.) In other words, for both
201
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
theorsts t s the smarty, consstency, or covaraton of behavor
eements whch eads them to the trat concept.
ut |ust e acty what s a trat In choosng emprca e ampes of
trats we have been guded by the crteron of behavora consstency,
but we need a more precse defnton than ths. It eaves many
theoretca questons as yet unanswered. or e ampe, how do we
know a trat e sts ow genera are trats Do they cover snge
habts or groups of habts 0r are they broad determnants of person-
aty Is the trat concept suffcent to account for a of a person s
behavor 0r are other concepts necessary s an approach to some
of these probems we may begn wth the forma defnton of a trat
gven by port. e are eft wth a concept of trat as a generazed
and focazed neuropsychc system (pecuar to the ndvdua), wth
the capacty to render many stmu functonay equvaent, and to
ntate and gude consstent (equvaent) forms of adaptve and
e pressve behavor. (1937, p. 295.) though ths defnton s very
genera and ncusve, t ready breaks down nto two parts. hat
port appears to be sayng s that a trat, on the one hand, renders
stmu equvaent and, on the other, ntates equvaent responses.
These two functons of a trat can be ustrated by the smpe da-
gram n gure 7.1.
IGUP 7.1
Schematc Pepresentaton of port s Defnton of a Trat
Stuatons
trat
(hypothetca
construct)
P2 Pesponses
P,
Ths fgure shows how a trat for port s a knd of ntervenng
hypothetca state whch serves to unte or knt together what mght
otherwse be dssmar stmu and responses. e apparenty fees
that a trat s both an nference the observer fnds necessary to e -
pan equvaences (on the S or P sde) and a vng reaty or force
whch acts wthn the 1ndvdua to produce the equvaences.
To make ths defnton more understandabe, we need a concrete
e ampe. e coud choose any one of the trats dscussed n the pre-
cedng two chapters. Suppose we take the fndng, based on the M:C
202
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
rato on the Porschach, that ar s e tratensve, that s, that he
tends to respond to promptngs from wthout rather than from
wthn. hat ths means operatonay n terms of the Porschach
test s that when asked to gve perceptua responses to statc nkbots,
he does not tend to n|ect much movement nto them. e observed
a somewhat smar tendency n hs wrtten speech behavor: he used
reatvey few verbs as compared wth ad|ectves. Now we can see
how port s trat defnton works. e coud say that ar has a
trat whch we sha ca, for convenence, e tratensveness, whch
has rendered two stuatons equvaent: that s, we can postuate the
e stence of somethng wthn ar whch has served to make the
stuaton of tryng to fnd words to wrte a theme smar to a stua-
ton n whch he was tryng to fnd words to descrbe an nkbot.
urthermore, ths somethng wthn ar served to produce equv-
aent responses: few movement responses n the one case, and few
verbs and adverbs n the other.
ut such an e ampe serves ony to rase more questons. In par-
tcuar t rases the queston as to how we decde when stuatons and
responses can be consdered equvaent. 0n coser anayss the defn-
ton appears somewhat crcuar. In ths partcuar nstance we
probaby decded the stuatons were equvaent because ar gave
equvaent (smar) responses to them. ut how do we know the
responses are smar Must we answer that they are smar because
they are gven to equvaent stuatons To escape ths crcuarty
we need some ratona, ndependent bass for defnng smarty or
equvaence.
If we accept ths vewpont, the probem then becomes one of
fndng bases on whch stuatons and/or responses can be grouped
together as smar. The probem s not a new one. e met t before
n Chapter 3, when we were tryng to ocate the sources from whch
concepts have been drawn to descrbe personaty economcay. 0ur
task s here, as t was there, to fnd some bass on whch dfferent
responses can be grouped together and treated as a unty. Catte
(1946a) sts some s dfferent methods whch have tradtonay been
used for groupng responses together and cang them trats, but
we sha mt ourseves to three genera methods whch ncude and
cut across hs s .
Soca Norm Trats. s we ponted out n Chapter 3, personaty
has been repeatedy conceptuazed for purposes of evauaton n
terms of some theoretca, regous, or aesthetc system. In the proc-
203
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ess of fttng the person nto one or another of these vaue systems,
certan concepts have been used to descrbe the person, often because
they ft nto the system rather than because they ft the person s be-
havor partcuary we. e may take punctuaty as an e ampe.
Dudycha (1936) studed when coege students arrved for a varety
of campus events: eght-o cock casses, coege commons, appont-
ments, e tracurrcuar actvtes, vesper servces, and entertanments.
e found that for each type of event there was a norma dstrbuton
of tmes of arrva wth the peak frequency of arrva beng a few
mnutes before the start of the event. hat he was nterested n was
whether or not peope were consstenty ate or eary n dfferent
stuatons. e found sgnfcant, athough not hgh, postve correa-
tons among tmes of arrva for dfferent events.
0ur concern here s not so much wth hs fndngs as t s wth the
queston of why he chose punctuaty as a trat to measure. The
answer es party n the fact that beng-on-tme for thngs s an
accepted soca norm n our socety (athough t s not n some
others). e e pect some consstency n arrva behavor because
socety decrees that ths knd of behavor shoud be consstent. That
s, socety defnes, at east to some e tent, what beng-on-tme means
and what stuatons t appes to.
Perhaps an even better e ampe of a soca norm trat s honesty,
whch was e tensvey nvestgated by artshorne and May n the
Character ducaton Inqury (192 ). They devsed a number of tests
to measure three basc types of dshonesty namey, cheatng, stea-
ng, and yng. They gave schoo chdren opportuntes to cheat
under a varety of condtons. It w ad our theoretca anayss of
trats to take a coser ook at some of the tests they used to measure
dshonesty.
1. The dupcatng technque. 0ne of the common forms of
cassroom cheatng s for the pup to make an egtmate use of
answers n the back of the book. To measure ths they gave the
chdren a test, coected the papers, recorded the answers, and
then returned the papers for the chdren to grade themseves wth
the use of an answer sheet. The dfference between the answers
recorded the frst tme and those after sef-scorng was the measure
of the decepton whch the chd had practced n gradng hs own
paper.
2. The mprobabe achevement technque. ere, as the tte
suggests, the chd was gven a chance to say whether or not he
204
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
had done somethng successfuy whch t was actuay mpossbe
to do n the tme aotted. or e ampe, they used a puzze peg
test, n whch the task s to remove a the pegs from the board by
|umpng and removng ad|acent ones. If any chd reported that
he had correcty soved the probem n the tme aotted, t was
concuded he must have cheated by pung the pegs out because
no one tested under norma condtons coud perform the task n
ths amount of tme.
3. The doube testng technque. The method here was to have
the chdren take two equvaent forms of a test, such as arthmetc,
once wth an answer key avaabe and once when t was not ava-
abe. The dfference n score on the two occasons, f t s above
that to be normay e pected from practce, s regarded as a meas-
ure of decepton.
4. Cheatng n athetc contests. The chdren were ntroduced
to an athetc contest n whch they competed aganst each other
on such tests as measurng the strength of one s handgrp, chnnng
onesef, or makng a standng broad |ump. The method for meas-
urng decepton was to nstruct the chd n the test by gvng hm
three practce tras, the best of whch was mentay noted by the
e amner. The chd was then tod to make hs actua compettve
tras by hmsef whe the e amner e paned the test to the ne t
chd. If the chd reported a score whch was better than that
noted by the e amner n practce, t was concuded that he had
cheated, snce on physca tests of ths sort t s neary mpossbe,
because of fatgue effects, to get a better score on ater than on
earer tras.
Ths sampe of the tests used shoud be enough to gve an dea
of how they went about measurng dshonesty. They measured yng
by askng the chdren whether or not they had cheated on any of
the tests. Snce they knew whether or not the chdren had cheated,
t was possbe to determne whether the chdren ed n answerng
ths queston. 0ne of ther prmary theoretca nterests was to ds-
cover whether chdren consstenty cheated on the varous tests.
They aso wanted to know whether the chdren who cheated aso
ed and stoe. In genera they found ow postve correatons among
ther varous tests of decepton (192 , p. 212). Ths was nterpreted
by them as meanng, not that there was a genera trat of honesty of
the sort port has proposed, but that the varous tests had ee-
ments n common whch produced the correatons. If they have
205
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
nothng n common, the correatons w be zero. (192 , p. 215.) In
other words, the transfer of earned responses of honesty from one
stuaton to another on the bass of smarty accounted for what
consstency they found, and they fet t unnecessary to attrbute to a
chd a trat of honesty as a psychoogca entty wth any rea e -
stence. (192 , p. 379.) ut ther resuts have aso been nterpreted
by others as meanng precsey the opposte, namey, that there s
some genera tendency for chdren to be honest ( port, 1937). Per-
haps the best summary of the stuaton s gven n gure 7.2.
IGUP 7.2
Percentages of chdren who took advantage of varyng numbers of
opportuntes to cheat.
1
16
_
16
w

3
_
_
512

-
I -5
fo
_
-,
,0
S
_
-
t5
c
, 1
6

b S
4
-
-
4g
2
-
-
2
0
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 90 100
Per cent of the tme a chd cheated
(Peproduced wth permsson from . artshorne and M. . May, Studet
n Decet. o. 1, p. 3 6. Copyrght 192 by The Macman Co.)
Ths fgure shows the argest-snge group of chdren cheated three
tmes n ten opportuntes, whe ony 7 per cent never cheated (that
s, were consstenty honest). 0n the other hand, ony 3.2 per cent
cheated at every opportunty. The other 90 cheated a the way
from once to nne tmes n every ten opportuntes. (192 , o. II., p.
221.) 0nce agan the actua resuts do not concern us so much as
the bass on whch artshorne and May decded to nvestgate a
trat caed honesty. ute obvousy they chose to study honesty
because socety says there s or shoud be such a trat. There s a
soca norm or code of honesty, |ust as there s one of punctuaty.
onesty s a vrtue whch s supposed to ncude certan knds of
206
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
behavor. artshorne and May had tte dffcuty n fndng test
stuatons whch woud yed responses whch socety woud ready
abe honest or dshonest.
ut athough honesty s a vrtue whch has ceary understood be-
havora referents, t s not necessary a good trat term to use for
descrbng a gven ndvdua s behavor. fter a, wdey dverse
forms of behavor have been ncuded by artshorne and May under
the genera headng of dshonesty. hat response eements do ook-
ng up answers n the back of the book and surrepttousy pung
pegs out of a board have n common In what sense are addng nches
to a broad |ump and changng an answer to an arthmetc probem
equvaent responses They are equvaent because moraty (socety)
says they are. They both nvove passng somethng off as somethng
ese and a such responses socety has decreed shoud be grouped
together and abeed dshonest. though, as we have seen, t w
contnue to be necessary to descrbe a person s behavor n terms of
such vaue systems as these, t does not foow that honesty s a very
usefu concept for descrbng and summarzng the consstences n a
gven person s behavor, partcuary n vew of the data n gure
7.2. port summarzes ths argument very neaty, as foows: The
error of probng for consstency n the wrong pace (and fang to
fnd t, pronouncng n favor of specfcty) has been kened by G. .
atson to the absurdty of askng whether a person usng the pubc
brary has a trat causng hm to take out ony books wth red or
wth bue covers. 0f course he hasn t. If ony the bndngs were
studed, no consstency shoud be e pected. ut f the sub|ect-matter
of the chosen books was nvestgated, we organzed trats of nterest
woud appear. (1937, p. 256.)
Indvdua vs. Common Trats. Ths dscusson rases a serous
theoretca probem whch must be faced sooner or ater. Pepeatedy
we have mentoned the possbty that terms ke honesty, whch
socety uses to evauate the behavor of peope n genera, may not
be very usefu for descrbng the consstences of any gven nd-
vdua s behavor. y a smpe e tenson of the argument we mght
and n the predcament of dscoverng that any trat term whatso-
ever that the scentst mght decde to use coud not be perfecty
appcabe to more than one person. Mght not the attempt to use
any trat term to descrbe the behavor of a number of peope ac-
tuay force nto one mod behavor eements whch may beong
207
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
together for one person but not for any other Upect-|as rased
ths queston most nsstenty, and has argued vgorousy that we
shoud recognze that there are ndvdua trats and common trats.
Common trats may be consdered as dstrbuted n the genera popu-
aton, but ndvdua trats appy to ony one person (1937, p. 341).
Common trats refer to nter-ndvdua consstences (e.g., ths per-
son s the most aggressve n hs group n a stuatons) ndvdua
trats refer to ntra-ndvdua consstences (e.g., ths person s con-
sstenty aggressve n a that he does). urthermore, the trat names
usabe for groups of ndvduas are ony appro matey accurate n
descrbng ntra-ndvdua consstences. Does ths mean that we
must deveop two entrey dfferent sets of trat concepts e seem
to be caught here between the too partcuar and the too genera.
ortunatey there s a tte emprca evdence whch woud suggest
that the dchotomy between ndvdua and common trats s not so
sharp as port at tmes appears to suggest.
The probem has been attacked e permentay by adwn (1946),
and theoretcay by Catte (1946a, pp. 96 ff.). adwn made use of
behavor ratngs on a number of nursery-schoo chdren for a seres
of twenty consecutve days. th these data he coud do one of two
thngs. rst he coud ntercorreate the average ratngs over the
twenty-day perod on such varabes as affectonateness and aggres-
sveness. These nter-ndvdua correatons woud show, for e -
ampe, whether hgh ratngs of aggressveness woud be assocated
wth hgh ratngs on affectonateness and perhaps wth ow ratngs
on cooperatveness. tabe of these ntercorreatons for the thrty
varabes rated coud be obtaned and a factor anayss performed
to dscover whch behavor ratngs beonged together under one gen-
era trat headng as far as the group of chdren s concerned. Ths
procedure was foowed wth adwn s data and ed to the defnton
of a common nursery schoo trat of desrabty whch saturated
hghy on such behavor eements as aggressveness, compettveness,
gregarousness, eadershp, orgnaty, and panfuness.
Secondy, adwn coud and dd make qute a dfferent use of the
same data. e ntercorreated the ratngs on the thrty varabes for
a gven ndvdua for the twenty dfferent days. hat such correa-
tons show s whether two trat eements (or behavor ratngs) for a
gven chd vared together regardess of where those same ratngs
stood wth respect to the group as a whoe. e has prepared a fgure,
reproduced as gure 7.3, whch ustrates how ths coud happen.
20 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
In gure 7.3 trat behavor eements and are hghy
correated from day to day for the partcuar ndvdua under study.
That s, when the ratng on arabe goes up, the ratng on ara-
be aso goes up. In other words, they covary. owever, the mean
ratng on arabe for a twenty days s above the genera popu-
aton mean, whe the mean ratng on arabe s beow the
genera popuaton mean. Thus as far as the group s concerned, ths
ndvdua woud contrbute to a negatve correaton between these
IGUP 7.3
Covaraton of Two ehavor ements Dspayed by 0ne Chd
on Successve Days
30
I 234567 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 11 1 19 20 21 22
Day of observaton
(Peproduced wth permsson from adwn (1946, p. 155). Copyrght by
the Duke Unversty Press.)
trat eements. That s, he s hgh as far as the group s concerned on
one, and ow on the other, whch woud ead to a negatve correaton
between the two trat eements f other ndvduas have mean rat-
ngs that stand n the same reatonshp. Ths fgure then ustrates
how t s possbe for_|wp_eerne.nts to be correated postvey from
day m ay wthn the ndvdua and yet contrbute-to a negatve cor-
reaton asfar_as the group as a whoe s concerned. If ths happened
very often, one coud easy see how the trats arrved at for groups
of ndvduas (common trats) mght be qute dfferent from those
derved from the study of ndvdua cases (ndvdua trats).
209
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
/ hen adwn (1946) had ntercorreated the behavor ratngs on
/ twenty dfferent days n ths manner for four nursery-schoo boys,
he then performed factor anayses n the usua way for the tabe of
ntercorreatons for each of the boys. In order to emnate tempora
change as a factor and to hep ocate the frst a s n rotaton, he
ntroduced tme as a thrty-frst varabe whch he ntercorreated
wth a the other thrty behavor ratngs. ocatng hs frst a s
through the tme varabe, he was abe to arrve at factor soutons
for each boy, whch yeded the resuts on actor I shown n Tabe
7. 1 reproduced from hs artce.
or three of the boys ( rnod, |ohn, and Ned) there seems to be
fary hgh agreement as to saturatons on ndvdua tems n the
set of behavor ratngs. To put ths n another way, he found that
the day-to-day pattern of varatons n the ratngs tended to be fary
smar, at east for three of the four boys. There s aso agreement
between the saturatons based on these ndvdua anayses and those
obtaned on the group factor abeed desrabty whch are gven n
the rghthand coumn of Tabe 7.1. In adwn s own words, The
varabes on whch there s the greatest agreement are (1) aggressve-
ness, (2) cheerfuness, (3) compettveness, (4) fancfuness, (5) fre-
quency of gross actvty, (6) gregarousness, (7) panfuness, ( ) vgor
of actvty. . . . These scaes ncude amost a those varabes
whch had hgh oadngs on desrabty n the group anayss. The
factor was abeed desrabty because t seemed to e press the gen-
era concept hed by nursery-schoo teachers of the good nursery-
schoo chd. In vew of the hgh correaton of these varabes wth
tme, t woud appear that the usua nursery-schoo chd goes
through an ad|ustment process durng whch tme hs behavor
tends toward the desrabe. (1946, pp. 157-159.)
adwn further ponts out that athough rnod, |ohn, and Ned
ad|ust to nursery schoo n a smar way, there are dfferences whch
can be noted by an nspecton of the tabe. or e ampe, rnod s
and |ohn s ad|ustments are characterzed by affectonateness, whereas
Ned s s not. Paph, on the other hand, s qute dfferent from the
other three boys and aso from the group. Ths, as adwn ponts
out, s because Paph started out n nursery schoo as an outcast,
who ooked unhappy and fet soca ostracsm very much. s tme
went on, he became ess nhbted and more abe to e press hs
emotons aoud, unt fnay he became accepted n the group and
was deghted wth hs newfound status. Consequenty hs behavor
ratngs woud obvousy not vary n the same way as woud those of
210
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
T 7.1
actor Saturatons on Dfferent ehavora ements for Indvdua oys
and for the Group of Chdren as a hoe
( fter adwn, 1946.)
oadngs on actor I Tempora Change
arabe
ffectonateness
ggressveness
Cheerfuness
Compettveness
Conformty
Cruety
Curosty
motona contro
motona e ctabty ...
ancfuness
requency of gross actvty.
rendness
Gregarousness
Intensty of emotona re-
sponse
|eaousy
ndness
eadershp
0bedence
0rgnaty .....
Patence
Physca apprehensveness.
Panfuness
uarresomeness
Pesstance
Sense of humor
Senstveness
Soca apprehensveness.
Suggestbty
Tenacty
gor of actvty
Tme
actor Tempora change
Cross-
sectona
actor I
rnod
90
76
59

14
56
94
49

64
90
20
2
64
2
1
90
53
63
12
6
96
4
79
42
21
74
70
9
50
|ohn
90
79
71
7
37

65
4
60
79
1
62
1
47
19
2
51
01

04
71
1
63
54
77
76
90
7
7
59
1.00
Paph
0
16
55
04
71
79
24
64
54
.03
55
79
66
6
10
00
34
4
40
5
22
76
7
64
54
2
40
7
37
73
Ned
32

63
99
0
0
95
01
79

65
13
62
04
59
3
5
22
96
22
5
92
74
33
19
49
6
59
50
66
(Desrabty)
64
35
0
23
23
6a
6
71
70
52

72
27
71
25
44
54
35
40
66
(Peproduced by permsson from adwn (1946, p. 15 ). Copyrght by the
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the norma chd n the course of ad|ustment to nursery schoo. d-
|ustment meant somethng qute dfferent to hm from what t dd
to the others.
Ths probem ust|ates the e tent to |whrh nnp._( - pecttp
fnd|ag|reement between common_gnd_ nrfvdua trats. s far as
three of the boys were concerned, the common trat of desrabty or
nursery-schoo ad|ustment meant substantay the same thng wth
respect to the behavor denoted. nd as far as they were concerned,
the trat coud neary as we be arrved at by a study of nter-nd-
vdua as ntra-ndvdua correatons. ut as far as Paph was
concerned, the ad|ustment trat was not defned by changes n the
same behavora tems. Snce he was dfferent to begn wth, the
behavor whch characterzed hs ncreasng ad|ustment or desra-
bty was qute dfferent.
, Ths study ustrates rather neaty both the promse and the m-
tatons of a psychoogy of personaty based on groups of ndvduas,
|n adwn s own words, we can concude from t that the group
anayss gave reasonaby accurate nterpretatons of the behavor of
three of the four ndvduas, but that the fourth ndvdua was not
descrbed adequatey n terms of the group factors. ven n cases
where group factors were appro matey accurate, some aspects of
the ndvdua s personaty were not reveaed. (1946, pp. 167-16 .)
e can further concude that there w be mportant dfferences
n the e tent to whch common trats w correspond wth nd-
vdua trats. In some cases the agreement may be so sght as to
force us to abandon the use of the common trat and perhaps of the
trat concept tsef. In other cases the smarty between common
trats and ndvdua trats woud appear, at east on ratona
grounds, to be so cose that we sha fee |ustfed n contnung to
use the trat concept, even though t refers to common eements n
the behavor of a number of peope. or e ampe, n takng about
consstences of e pressve movement, t woud seem safe to predct
that the trat of e pansveness woud not ony be common to a
group of peope but woud aso adequatey descrbe many ntra-
ndvdua consstences.
ut how do we know when we are |ustfed n assumng that com-
mon and ndvdua trats correspond reasonaby we hat s the
dfference n vaue between nursery-schoo ad|ustment and e -
pansveness as trat concepts e sha consder ths queston more
fuy ater n the chapter, but we can concude now that trat con-
cepts based on soca norms (such as nursery-schoo desrabty,
212 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
honesty, or punctuaty) are not apt to be as usefu for descrbng
ntra-ndvdua consstences as are some other trats based on other
consstences n behavor. Soca norms ke honesty, punctuaty,
desrabty, and neurotcsm represent groupngs of responses whch
cavary more n soca e pectaton than n ndvdua behavor. They
are therefore especay key to crop up n ratng studes where
the observer s e pectances w create hao effects (covaraton n
the |udge s mnd, not n the sub|ect s behavor). ut for ths very
reason they w tend not to be very usefu n cross-cutura studes
where the |udge s e pectances may ead hm to ook for consstences
n behavor n the wrong paces.
Common trats based on such norms w correspond somewhat
to ndvdua trats, snce the nterorzaton of soca norms nfu-
ences behavor, but we sha fnd t more convenent to speak of the
chd s concepton of honesty as a soca norm rather than to con-
sder honesty as a trat descrbng consstency n hs behavor. e
must fnd some other bass for groupng responses together than the
arbtrary one of soca custom and usage f we are to avod the prob-
em of comng out wth trats whch appy accuratey to ony a very
few hghy socazed ndvduas n the group.
Goa-Drected Trats. Pesponses may aso be consdered equva-
ent because they serve the same end. The resut s what Catte cas
a dynamc trat unty. ... In trats of ths knd the behavor
manfestatons are unted by beng a drected to a snge goa.
(1946a, p. 62.) The goa usuay gves the trat ts name. Thus we may
speak of the trats of beng socabe, keepng cean, beng pote,
or beng generous. great varety of responses may serve any one of
these ends. In order to keep cean a person may brush hs tteth,
comb hs har, have hs shrts aundered every other day, take a bath
twce a week, etc. Taken ndvduay these dfferent responses may
seem to have tte smarty, but they are grouped together because
they appear to serve the same goa.
consderaton of ths type of unty of behavor has ed port to |
dstngush between drvng and drectng trats or dynamc and e -
pressve trats. e woud refer to e pansveness n movement as an
e pressve |rat, whereas ceanness or socabty woud be consd-
ered dynamc or drvng trats. The dstncton becomes cear n hs
dscusson of the orgn of the trat of socabty. e traces the hypo-
thetca deveopment of such a trat begnnng wth the young chd s
dscovery that hs wants are satsfed n the presence of hs mother.
213
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Ths n tme eads the chd to seek the presence, not ony o hs
mother, but of other peope. trat (not an nstnct) of gregarous-
ness deveops. The chd grows eager for soca ntercourse he en|oys
beng wth peope. hen soated from them for some tme, he msses
them and becomes restess. The oder he grows the more ways he
fnds of e pressng ths gregarous nterest. e seeks to ay hmsef
wth groups of peope at the odge, at the theater, at church he
makes frends and keeps n touch wth them, often entertans them,
and corresponds wth them. These separate actvtes are not habts.
They are vared (but equvaent) aspects of a trat of socabty. . . .
Under gudance of ths trat new and effectve e pressons may be
found to satsfy the cravng for soca ntercourse. abts no onger
domnate the trat rather t s the trat that forces the formaton of
new habts, congena and servceabe to the trat. (1937, p. 292.) __/
Ths quotaton ustrates rather neaty what port had n mnd
when he devsed hs forma defnton of a trat as somethng whch
rendered stmu equvaent and guded equvaent responses. It aso
suggests that part of what he had n mnd was what many other
theorsts woud ca a motve. hen he speaks of the cravng for
soca ntercourse or of the person seekng to ay hmsef wth
groups of peope t s apparent that he ntends to broaden the con-
cept of trat to ncude what many psychoogsts refer to as motva-
ton. If we return to our orgna defnton of a trat as a concept
whch was devsed prmary to account for the consstency n be-
havor and the stabty n personaty, t appears that port has
stretched the term trat a tte too far. e s now usng t to account
for nconsstences n behavor, new responses whch seem prmary
determned by the person s wshes or goas, rather than by hs past
ad|ustment n smar stuatons.
Ttfurray_ argues (193 ) that the concept of trat s very usefu for
descrbng consstences of behavor or recurrent patterns of be-
havor. e cams that one cannot propery speak of a trat unt
one has observed a number of smar or equvaent bts of behavor.
(193 , p. 712.) That s, we arrve at the concept of trat by observng
the frequent repetton of smar or equvaent trends. (193 , p.
713.) Murray then goes on to state that he fees trat psychoogy s
overy concerned wth recurrences n behavor and does not ade-
quatey account for sudden nconsstences, creatve mpuses, rra-
tona thoughts, dreams, and neurotc behavor. e ponts out that
to the trat psychoogst a baby has no personaty because t has no
214
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
consstent habts. To hande such nconsstent behavor he fees the
concept of need or motve s absoutey necessary.
Ths argument s not entrey far to port. s we have seen from
hs treatment of the deveopment of the trat of socabty, he n-
cudes the need concept under the headng of dynamc trats. In fact,
he specfcay argues (1937, p. 241) that means and ends cannot be
separated. That s, a specfc motve ke n chevement cannot be
separated n the ndvdua fe from the actons whch serve the
achevement goa. Thus he prefers an over-a ncusve term, such as
dynamc trat, whch covers both the goa and the actons whch ead
to the goa.
t ths pont the ssue becomes cose to beng a termnoogca
dspute. Certany we need two concepts one whch w account for
the consstences and recurrences, and one whch w account for
the nconsstences and sudden, rratona changes n behavor. or
ths purpose we may choose the terms stystc and dynamc trats,
as port does or we may, foowng Murray, choose the terms
trat and motve. e sha foow Murray on the grounds that the
two knds of behavor under consderaton are suffcenty dfferent
to requre dfferent hypothetca constructs. Unke port and un-
ke Catte, we fnd t awkward to use the trat concept to cover
behavor orented around soca norms or around ndvdua goas.
Consequenty we sha emnate these two meanngs of the trat
concept and eave t to refer n a more restrcted sense to recurrences
n behavor, much as Murray defnes them above. The other mean-
ngs gven the term by port and Catte w be taken up n ater
sectons of the book n connecton wth our other varabes.
Trat s a Pecurrent Pesponse Pattern. hen we have em-
nated n ths way trat untes based on soca norms and on goas,
we are eft wth trats whch are somehow based on smartes or
recurrences n response patterns. ere we need to return to the
emprca data whch ed to the use of the trat concept n the frst
pace. In Chapters 5 and 6 we noted a number of consstences and
smartes n movng, percevng, thnkng, rememberng, takng,
etc. It s for such consstences that we need the concept of trat. e
need terms |vhch w cover the fact that a person consstenty, n a
varety of stuatons, produces a ot of words per unt tme, or the
fact that a person ntroduces a ot of empathc movement nto statc
stuatons, or the fact that a person generay performs we n a new
stuaton. These are the knds of observatons on whch the trat
215
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
concept s based. Can we formuate a defnton whch w cover
these facts
The foowng defnton appears to sum up most of our dscusson
trat s the earned tendency of an ndvdua to react as
he has reacted more or ess successfuy n the past n smar stua-
tons when smary motvated. To put ths n a sghty dfferent
f, we can say that when a man s faced wth what he perceves to
be the same stuaton wth the same varety and ntensty of motva-
ton, he tends to utze the type of response whch satsfed the de-
mands of the stuaton and the motvaton n the past. Snce e acty
the same stuaton scarcey ever recurs, neary every repeated occa-
son nvoves transfer or generazaton of the e act response ren-
forced prevousy. ence we must thnk of trats as patterns or types
of responses cassfed together (and covaryng) on the bass of some
smar eement. In short, a trat s a hypothetca construct servng
to pace a number of dfferent response eements under the same
headng on the bass of smartes among them. et us proceed by
means of a concrete e ampe to anayze n deta what the mpca-
tons of ths genera defnton of a trat are. e can start wth the
often-mentoned trat of e pansveness n movement and gesture.
In terms of our genera defnton we can say that when a person s
faced by the repeated stuaton of havng to move, he may earn to
move e pansvey. hat are the mpcatons of ths smpe state-
ment
Trat s a earned Pesponse. In the frst pace t s perfecty
cear that we have defned a trat, as a earned response or habt
woud be defned by -a earnng psychoogst 1ke u (1943) or
McGeoch (1942). Ths means concretey that a trat s a ||roup_pf
responses whch are acqured accordng to the aws of earnng, and
retaned accordng to the aws of memory or forgettng. 0ne of the
ma|or advantages of our partcuar defnton s that t permts the
appcaton to trats of the consderabe body of knowedge about
the prncpes governng earnng and retenton. or e ampe, our
defnton mpes that a trat s acqured accordng to the aw of
effect. In terms of our e ampe e pansve movements must some-
how have satsfed the motvaton nvoved n stuatons requrng
movement: pansve movements must have been renforced. Snce
we are deang wth a hypothetca e ampe, we can ony guess as to
what motvaton coud be nvoved n such a case. ut such guesses
are not dffcut to make. or nstance, for a person of reatvey
216
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
massve physque, ke ar, t mght be qute fatgung to make
sma precse movements. In other words, e pansveness mght de-
veop n order to satsfy the motve of fatgue- or pan-avodance.
It s n |ust such ways as ths that we can magne physque enterng
nto the determnaton of a trat response. ess key hypothess
mght be that e pansveness was greeted by parenta approva on
the grounds that t suggested the chd was key to become a suc-
cessfu actor. Such approva for e pansve gestures and movements
mght renforce them suffcenty so that they woud recur agan n
smar movement-requrng stuatons. thrd hypothess mght be
that e pansveness was nstrumenta to a need for domnance or for
beng notced.
The appcaton of the aw of effect to the acquston of trats s
ony one e ampe of the advantage of consderng a trat as beng
sub|ect to the aws of earnng. trat mght aso be studed n the
ght of other reasons for the earnng of a response, such as fre-
quency of renforcement, punshment, generazaton, the effect of
e tnctons nterspersed among rewards, etc. probem whch has
tradtonay been of more nterest to personaty theorsts has been
why trats seem to persst so ong. The answer to ths queston n-
voves the appcaton of our knowedge about the reasons for the
forgettng of a response once earned. port 1 37) has been so m-
pressed by the persstence of trats that he has argued that the rdnary
aws of forgettng do m _appear tq|app|y_to them. Instead he has
argued that trats become functonay autonomous. e fees that
whe t may be correct to say that the trat of e pansveness org-
nay deveoped to satsfy some such motve as soca approva, t s
ncorrect to argue from ths that the trat contnues n aduthood
because t s st satsfyng the same motve. 0n the contrary, what
started out as a mode of satsfyng motves appears to become nde-
pendent of ts orgn and to deveop a drvng power of ts own. It
was ths observaton whch ed port to concude that a trat ke
e pansveness, whch mght have started out as an e pressve, stystc
trat, woud often end up as a dynamc or drvng trat. The mecha-
nsm becomes a drve (cf. oodworth, 191 ). In port s own words:
orkmanshp s a good e ampe of functona autonomy. good
workman fees compeed to do ceancut |obs even though hs se-
curty, or the prase of others, no onger depend upon hgh standards.
In fact, n a day of |erry-budng, hs workman-ke standards may
be to hs economc dsadvantage. ven so he cannot do a spshod
|ob. orkmanshp s not an nstnct, but so frm s the hod t may
217
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
acqure on a man that t s tte wonder eben mstook t for one.
( 937. P- 96.)
Is t reay true that we sha have to suspend the aws of forgettng
n order to account for the persstence of such trats as e pansveness
or carefuness n workmanshp The ssue as port presents t s
compe because he has not restrcted the meanng of the term trat
as we have here. Consequenty when he chooses an e ampe ke the
one quoted above, he may be referrng to what we woud ca a
motve. That s, the workman may have a need for order whch s
qute dfferent from the trat of neatness n the restrcted sense of a
smar response to smar stuatons under smar motyaan. If we
restrct ourseves to ths-secotd meanng of the term trat, the prob-
em of functona autonomy s not so dffcut. It becomes one of ds-
coverng whether the condtons whch are known to produce
forgettng have actuay occurred. To return to our e ampe, what
are the condtons whch woud ead to the droppng out of the re-
sponse of e pansveness once t has been renforced to a certan eve
of habt strength
Peasons for Dsappearance of a Trat. In the frst pace, we coud
not e pect the trat smpy to de out wth the passage of tme. -
though there s st some une paned evdence to the contrary (cf.
McGeoch, 1942), the prevang opnon among earnng psycho-
ogsts s that responses are not forgotten through dsuse. Instead,
forgettng seems to be argey a functon of retroactve nhbton or
the earnng of a new response whch repaces the od one, usuay
through dfferenta renforcement.fPart of port s argument for
functona autonomy seems to rest on the assumpton that a response,
once t s no onger used, w tend to de a natura death/Snce a
number of the trat responses he observes do not de the death he
e pects them to de, he s forced to the concuson that there s some-
thng n them whch-keeps them gong. smper concuson woud
be that the condtons necessary for forgettng or unearnng have
not occurred, and consequenty the response contnues.
hat are the condtons whch woud ead one to e pect cessaton
of a trat response ke e pansveness McCeand (1942) has gone
nto the queston n some deta but hs dscusson may be summa-
rzed rather brefy here. In the frst pace, a response|nay_drop out
because the .stuaton whch gves rse to t does not recur. Ths s
what McGeoch refers to as the change of conte t bass for forgettng.
In retenton theory t s ustrated by the nabty to reca a per-
21
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
son s name n a new conte t. In our e ampe t woud be ustrated
by the dsappearance of the trat of e pansveness f the person were
suddeny strcken by parayss and never had to move agan. There
must be some recurrence of a stuaton to observe consstent responses
to t. 0f course there are a degrees of smarty of recurrng stua-
tons. person who s normay recusve n gesture may ose ths
trat f he has to perform on a patform n front of peope where the
stuaton s so dfferent from the norma ones n whch he moves that
t does not evoke the usua responses. St, for most e pressve trats,
the stuatons are sedom dfferent enough so as to fa to evoke the
we-earned norma responses. Thus we fnd that the frst cause of
forgettng at east as far as a trat ke e pansveness s concerned
woud hardy ever operate, and we coud not therefore e pect the
trat to drop out for ths reason.
In the second pace, a temporary e tncton of a response may be
brqught_abput by wthdrawa of reward. tncton, as t has been
observed n the aboratory, s a very speca knd of forgettng and s
so temporary that t coud hardy be consdered a serous reason for
the dsappearance of a trat ke e pansveness. The person has to
move for varous reasons, and f e pansve movements satsfy hs de-
sres to get from one pace to another, that partcuar stye of move-
ment s gong to be renforced. The ony apparent way of e tngush-
ng the stye of movement woud be not to renforce movement at a,
and t woud be dffcut to magne such a crcumstance.
In the thrd pace, the dsappearance of a response may be caused
by the earnng of a new response under condtons of dfferenta
renforcement. Ths s the nterference theory of forgettng and t
states n effect that a new earned response repaces the od one. In
order for a new response to be earned, t must be renforced, and the
od one usuay must be punshed or not renforced. 0nce agan t s
dffcut to see how ths stuaton coud arse wth a trat ke e -
pansveness. Undoubtedy one coud get rd of the trat of e pansve-
ness by brngng the sub|ect nto the aboratory and shockng every
e pansve movement and approvng every restrcted one. It woud
take consderabe practce for the sub|ect to earn to make smaer
constrcted movements n handwrtng and gesture, but wth proper
tranng t probaby coud be done. ut the pont s that t woud
sedom happen n rea fe. pparenty ths cause of forgettng aso
woud occur so sedom that we coud not normay e pect a trat to
de out for ths reason ether.
e have e hausted the usua reasons gven for forgettng and
219
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
found that they woud n fact sedom occur as far as a trat ke e -
pansveness s concerned. e may therefore e pect that once acqured
t woud persst as port observes t does persst, and we need not as-
sume that the aws of forgettng have been suspended and repaced
by a new prncpe of functona autonomy. Nevertheess t may
be ob|ected that we have chosen our e ampe |udcousy and that
the condtons for forgettng mght more easy arse for some of the
other trats prevousy dscussed. It s dffcut to meet such an ob|ec-
ton entrey, but a gance at the trats dscussed n Chapters 5 and 6
woud certany suggest that they do not dffer very much from e -
pansveness n ths respect. ays of dong thngs ways of percevng,
of movng, of takng, of workng, of thnkng once acqured, are
not easy ost for the smpe reason that the condtons whch cause
the forgettng of a response do not often occur for such responses.
The apparent reason for ths s that many of the stuatons occur
very frequenty and represent probems that the sub|ect must sove
repeatedy. person must wak, tak, perceve, thnk, somehow, and
once he has dscovered a way of dong these varous thngs, t tends
to be repeated because t contnues to sove these probems and the
condtons for causng t to dsappear do not occur. The boogca
economy of such trats s obvous. If we had contnuay to reearn or
redscover ways of adaptng to such common everyday probems, fe
woud be a much more compcated affar than t s. Trats are the
stabe ad|ustve mechansms by whch we adapt to recurrent prob-
ems n our envronment. s am |ames so apty put t, trats or
habts are the great fywhee of socety.
Smar Pesponses. nother part of our trat defnton states that
we must note whether a person s reactng now as he has reacted n
the past. Ths rases the od probem of smarty of responses. ow
do we know that he s reactng the way he dd before hat const-
tutes a smar response e sha have to defne smarty more nar-
rowy than port dd f we are to avod the dffcuty of cang any
two responses equvaent regardess of what they have n common.
e may be tempted to defne smarty on the bass of dentca ee-
ments n the responses, as the transfer theorsts were n the habt of
dong some years back. ut as port ponts out (1937), ths reay
begs the queston, snce no one has been abe to defne what an ee-
ment or what an dentty s. e quotes Thorndke to the effect
that a person s abty to estmate the ength of 100 mm. nes s
essentay ndependent of hs abty to estmate the ength of 50
220
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
mm. nes. Snce n e permenta nvestgatons t s found that
tranng n one of these abtes does not apprecaby affect the
other abty, they are regarded as contanng no apprecabe ee-
ments n common. 0ne wonders whether the abtes nvoved n
estmatng nes of 100 mm. and 75 mm. are st separate and how
about the abtes to estmate nes of 100 mm. and 99.999 mm.
(1937, p. 269.) port further argues that we cannot rey on den-
ttes of the muscuar contractons nvoved n the responses snce
wrtng wth a crayon hed n the rght hand, eft hand, toes, or
teeth shows transfer effects, but the musces nvoved n these cases
are entrey dfferent. (1937, p. 272.) Snce port|et that the den-
tca eement theory of response smarty was untenabe, frst be-
cause 1t ea to an nfnte varety of eements, and second because t
provded no bass for defnng denttes, he concuded that the much
broader theory of equvaence of responses was necessary. e there-
fore postuated the e stence of trats as foca dspostons whch ren-
dered responses equvaent even though they mght be as vared as
stenng to a symphony, readng a sonnet, ookng at a sunset, or
payng gof.
ortunatey we are not forced to ths e treme an e treme whch,
as we have seen, has meant that the trat concept has been broadened
beyond ts rea usefuness to ncude behavor whch mght more
easy be conceptuazed n other terms. 0n a common-sense bass at
east, there certany seem to be ways of thnkng, percevng, movng,
and workng whch appear hghy smar. In determnng what re-
sponses to group together as smar, we can be guded n the frst
nstance by theoretca convenence. That s, we may set up hy-
potheses as to response smarty, based on ratona anayses of the
ways n whch an organsm can functon. or nstance, to choose an
e ampe from Chapter 6, we may decde on theoretca or a pror
grounds that one of the ways n whch an organsm can functon n
a work stuaton s to show wde fuctuatons n output. Conse-
quenty we set up the hypothess that there may be a trat caed
varabty or oscaton, whch w show tsef n fuctuatons n per-
formance of a sorts. The ne t step s to try to dscover whether
such a trat e sts by correatng varabty scores n dfferent types
of performances. 0n the bass of such a correatona anayss we may
fnd that there s such a trat unty, but that t s restrcted to a cer-
tan group of tests. 0r of course we may fnd that there s no con-
sstency n the varabty whch sub|ects show even on the same test.
In ether case ths w necesstate a change n our hypothess that
221
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
there s such a trat as varabty or a revson n the surpus mean-
ngs attached to our trat construct. In other words, Catte s method
of covaraton may be utzed to dscover whether or not a postuated
trat consstency e sts. To hs approach shoud be added the re-
qurement that a ratona anayss of the dmensons of behavor be
made pror to factor anayss. If such a theoretca anayss s made,
t tends to nsure the dscovery of factors whch w be meanngfu
and not as msceaneous as some that have been dscovered to date.
In other words, we are argung here as we dd n Chapter 6, that fac-
tor anayss s a usefu too for testng whether or not trats e st
and for refnng our conceptons of the responses they ncude. ur-
thermore, t s a more senstve too for ths type of anayss than s
the transfer of tranng approach dscussed by port (1937). 0n
methodoogca grounds t seems safer to concude that Pesponses
and can be grouped together as smar f they covary than to as-
sume they beong together f the earnng of factates the earnng
of . Covaraton s a more drect approach to def1nng emprca
smarty than s transfer of tranng.
It s pertnent to ask on what bass we set up a hypothess that two
responses are smar or are gong to covary. compete answer to
ths queston woud requre an anayss of the whoe set of theoretca
constructs used to cover personaty, but a parta answer may be
found n the other eements of our trat defnton whch are yet to
be dscussed.
Smar Stuatons. 0ur forma trat defnton aso refers to sm-
ar stuatons. 0nce agan we are faced wth the probem of defnng
smarty. ow do we know when a stuaton has occurred agan
ow much devaton from the orgna stuaton are we gong to
aow before we ca the second stuaton dfferent from the frst e
cannot answer these questons by fang back on port s noton of
equvaence for the same reason that t was not satsfactory n defn-
ng equvaence of responses. e aso cannot fa back on covaraton,
as we dd n the case of defnng smar responses, snce we cannot
correate eements n the stuaton. Nor are we heped much by refer-
ence to dentca eements, snce we are agan faced wth the probem
of defnng what s meant by an eement and by an dentty.
The souton once more must e n theoretca convenence. e
sha have to begn by statng on ratona or phenomenoogca
grounds that certan types of stuatons are smar. If we dscover
that the stuatons are not smar n the sense that they do not ap-
222
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
pear to medate consstent responses, then we have to revse our
defnton of what stuatons beong together.
In practce the probem s not so dffcut as ths may sound. hat
defnes the smarty of stuatons n the aboratory or cnc s the
task set under whch the sub|ect s performng. The smarty n
task set s n turn estabshed by the smarty of the nstructons and
workng condtons accompanyng the task. or e ampe, when a psy-
choogst presents the sub|ect wth an nkbot and asks hm, hat
mght ths be the sub|ect s faced wth a stuaton whch may be sub-
stantay dupcated any number of tmes. In such cases we say that
the test admnstraton procedure s standardzed. Standardzed stua-
tons are smar stuatons.
owever, a standardzed stuaton need not be an dentca one.
or e ampe, askng the sub|ect to wrte eee s wth a ponter between
hs toes, n hs teeth, or n hs rght hand s a standardzed task stu-
aton, and even though the responses caed for are dfferent, t seems
far to test them for covaraton as smar responses to a smar task
set. It woud be possbe to cte a great number of such e ampes. et
us take one more. fary standardzed test nstructon to a sub|ect
s to say: Your score on the ast tra was what are you gong to
try for on the ne t tra Ths s what s commony referred to as
the eve-of-aspraton technque, whch, wth some varatons n the
way the second queston s asked, has become standardzed and s ap-
pcabe to a wde varety of test stuatons. Snce what the sub|ect s
asked to do s the same, we may regard the stuaton as smar and
ook for consstency n the responses of the sub|ect to the varous test
stuatons n whch such an nstructon s used. s a matter of fact,
there s consderabe evdence that eve-of-aspraton responses tend
to be fary consstent n dfferent stuatons and therefore consttute
a trat, as defned here ( ewn, Dembo, estnger, Sears, 1944). 0nce
more ths seems comparabe to ookng for consstences n per-
formance tests whch have been cassed as smar because they re-
qure the same knd of behavor for souton.
The defnton whch we have so far gven of smartes of stua-
tons n terms of standardzed probems whch the sub|ect must sove
s ony appro mate. e may hod the stuaton constant or et t
vary wthn a prescrbed range, yet the sub|ect s concepton of the
stuaton may be qute dfferent from what we e pected t to be. It s
possbe to perform e perments and gve tests because the sub|ects,
by and arge, conceve of the testng or e permenta stuatons as we
e pect them to conceve them. owever, we occasonay fnd that
223
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the sub|ects have gven themseves sef-nstructons that are qute
dfferent from what we ntended. There s a sense, then, n whch
smarty must utmatey be defned n terms of what offka (1935)
has caed the sub|ect s behavora envronment that s, hs n-
terna envronment, as opposed to the e terna envronment. To use
offka s e ampe, a man may be wakng across a frozen snow-covered
ake and react to t as f t were sod ground, athough we, as nde-
pendent observers, know that t s reay a frozen ake. Nevertheess,
as far as the sub|ect s concerned n hs behavora envronment, t
s sod ground. Smary n the Porschach Test stuaton f the sub-
|ect responds to the queston, hat can ths be by defnng the stu-
aton as one n whch he must be very carefu est he be sent to a
menta hospta, the stuaton s not smar to that under whch
others take the test, or under whch the same sub|ect mght take t
agan, under dfferent crcumstances. Unfortunatey for theory, some
of these ndvdua dfferences n nterpretaton of testng stuatons
go undetected and we may fasey concude that there s no trat
consstency when our correct concuson shoud be that we have not
kept the stuaton smar as far as the sub|ects are concerned.
Common and Uncommon Trats. Ths dscusson contans a cue
to the answer of the probem of common versus ndvdua trats. e
dscover common trats n common stuatons whch have the same
meanng to a great number of peope. veryone has to move. Neary
everyone has to perceve, to tak, to sove probems n one way or
another. These stuatons are so common that they are neary un-
versa for every vng human beng. Presumaby there are a mted
number of ways of reactng to these unversa stuatons to whch
everyone must ad|ust. urthermore, these stuatons are not ony
unversa they are recurrent. person has to move agan and agan
he has to perceve repeatedy he has to sove probem after probem.
The stuatons are common not ony wth respect to the fact that
they occur n everyone s fe, but wth respect to the fact that they
recur agan and agan n every person s fe. It s no wonder, then,
that we dscover common ways of sovng such smar probems.
0ne may make a case from ths ne of reasonng for mtng trats
to boogcay recurrent stuatons. or nstance, everyone has a
physque, a body. nd neary every person must earn to move t
about. urthermore, he must move t agan and agan n smar
stuatons (standng up, sttng down, eatng, etc.). It s easy to see
how trat concepts woud cover ths type of behavor very conven-
224
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
enty. 0n the other hand, there are certan common, recurrent soca
probems whch many f not a peope have to sove n one way
or another. or nstance, everyone, e cept a few hermts, has to ad-
|ust constanty to the probem of reactng to meetng another person.
Presumaby the number of ways n whch a person can respond to
ths recurrent soca stuaton s mted. 0ne mght then ook for
consstences n behavor n such face-to-face contacts, as we dd
n Chapter 6 n dscussng the trat of socabty n connecton
wth a ratng scae of soca behavor. The dffcuty wth ths type
of anayss s that the soca nterpretaton of such stuatons s of
such great mportance. 0ne behaves dfferenty to one s mother-n-
aw, one s son, or one s wfe. It therefore becomes more cruca to
know the sub|ect s nterpretaton of the face-to-face reatonshp
than to ook for consstences n hs behavor based on an apparent
smarty of the stuatons. Soca trats, as they mght be caed,
depend to a very arge e tent on soca and cutura norms and are
therefore more sub|ect to dfferent nterpretatons than are bo-
ogcay-orented trats. Ths s not to deny that soca trats e st,
but they w certany be ess unversa and determned ess by past
reactons n smar stuatons than by the sub|ect s concepton of
what the stuaton cas for. In other words, soca trats nvove
heavy the soca schemata and atttudes to be dscussed ater. o-
ogca trats aso nvove to some e tent soca norms, e.g., as to how
a person shoud wak, tak, or behave wth a footba physque.
ut the soca determnant s much ess mportant and to the e tent
that t s so, the past e perence of the person n smar stuatons
becomes decsve, and the resutng consstency n behavor fufs
more neary our defnton of a trat.
Stuatons need not be unversa n order to gve rse to comparabe
behavor. group of peope who ve n a very hgh attude may
deveop modes of ad|ustment whch an anthropoogst studyng that
group woud want to dentfy as trats (e.g., carefuness n move-
ment), even though the trat terms he used woud not be appcabe
to a group of peope vng at norma attudes. recurrent prob-
em whch must be ad|usted to may be unversa, as n the case of
movng one s body, or t may be mted to a group, as n the case
of ad|ustng to a hgh attude. 0r fnay, t may be mted to the
fe of a snge ndvdua. or nstance, a person may have a physca
anomay whch s unque, such as a cub foot, to whch he must earn
to respond. urthermore, the chances are that he w earn to re-
spond to t n a unque but consstent fashon. That s, the cub
225
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
foot may be a common eement n a varety of stuatons, to a of
whch he responds n a consstent way, by wthdrawa or quescence,
for e ampe. In the ndvdua fe, stuatons may come to be smar
through constant assocaton or earnng. Someone may come to
regard as smar two stuatons whch woud be dfferent for most
peope, or two stuatons whch we may thnk present smar prob-
ems for most peope may be nterpreted dfferenty by a gven n-
dvdua. hen deang wth ndvdua trats, we must take
ndvdua perceptons or sef-nstructons nto account rather than
assumng that the group nstructons have e acty the same meanng
for everyone n the group. To ustrate ths pont, we may return
to adwn s study of the reacton of chdren to varous nursery-
schoo stuatons. s far as most of the nursery-schoo chdren were
concerned, t was safe to assume that the ad|ustment stuaton wth
whch they were faced was substantay the same, and ther re-
sponses to t coud be compared and studed for consstency from
day to day. 0n the other hand, for one of the chdren, Paph, the
ad|ustment stuaton obvousy had a persona meanng and was
therefore not smar to the ones whch the other chdren faced.
Nevertheess Paph s day ad|ustment probems were smar to each
other and t s perfecty possbe to ook for consstency wthn hs
responses to those recurrent and (for hm) smar stuatons.
hat ths adds up to s that there s room for both common and
uncommon or ndvdua trats. The area of common trats s prob-
aby much arger than port assumed because there are a rea-
tvey arge number of stuatons to whch a or neary a peope
must ad|ust and n a mted number of ways. Most, but not neces-
sary a, of these probems are orented around the boogca
equpment of human organsms, and nvove such common stua-
tons as percevng, wakng, takng, and workng. 0n the other
hand, there are recurrent smar stuatons whch are unque to the
ndvdua fe. nd as port rghty nssts, these must be studed
especay by the cnca psychoogst. In both cases, however, the
probem of dentfyng a trat s the same. Covarant behavor s
sought n the one case n recurrent probems wthn the fe of one
ndvdua, and n the other case, n recurrent probems common
to a arge group of ndvduas.
Smar Motvaton. The ast part of our trat defnton states that
we shoud ook for trats n stuatons n whch the motvaton has
remaned substantay the same. hy do we nsst upon smarty
226
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
of motvaton The reason s smpe. hat our trat defnton says
n effect s that what a person has earned n the past w nfuence
what he does n the present provded the meanng of the stuaton
and hs motvaton stay the same. s n many physca aws the effect
of one varabe, such as temperature or pressure, can be measured
ony when the other varabes are hed constant. s we have seen n
the precedng secton, we cannot e pect consstency of responses
n stuatons whch are not smar, ether n the e permenter s or
n the sub|ect s eyes. Smary we cannot e pect consstent behavor,
even n smar stuatons, f the motvaton of the sub|ect has
changed markedy.
smpe e ampe w suffce to ustrate ths pont. In tests of
e pansveness of movement, the norma motvaton of the sub|ect
s to get where he s gong (n a free response stuaton), to do what
the e permenter asks hm to do, or to cooperate as best he can wth
the nstructons. ut suppose hs motvaton changes to one of tryng
to confuse the e permenter s resuts, or suppose he decdes to ht
the e permenter on the head. In ether case hs reactons (e.g., e -
pansve movements) w scarcey be consstent wth those he makes
under norma motvatona condtons. ny number of studes
show that test resuts are markedy modfed by what the sub|ect s
tryng to do. If he s tryng to cheat, to make a favorabe mpresson
or to fake a partcuar knd of score (cf. Strong, 1943), hs responses
w not be consstent wth what they woud be under condtons
of norma motvaton.
0n the other hand, t has been ceary shown that stuatons
whch normay dffer can be made equvaent for a group of sub-
|ects by ntroducng a common motve n both of them. or e ampe,
ntroducton of achevement motvaton through the technque of
ego-nvovement has been shown to make behavor consstent whch
was nconsstent pror to the ntroducton of the motve. Specfcay,
confdence ratngs on how we a person fet he had done on a num-
ber of tests were uncorreated under condtons of norma motvaton,
but as soon as the sub|ects were ego-nvoved, an apprecabe pos-
tve ntercorreaton among the confdence ratngs was ntroduced
( en and Schoenfed, 1941). 0r motvaton may serve to make
dfferent stmuus stuatons equvaent. McCeand and tknson
(194 ) showed, for e ampe, that hunger produced many more food-
reated responses to ambguous stmu than had appeared under
condtons of food-sataton. In other words, ambguous stmu whch
had formery been nterpreted dfferenty now tended under the n-
227
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
fuence of hunger to evoke smar perceptons of food ob|ects. In
short, motvaton s another varabe whch nfuences the consstency
of responses, and t must be hed constant f the effect of past earnng
n smar stuatons s to be measured. nd t s ths carry-over from
the past, ths consstency, that we are nterested n when we measure
trats.
Motvaton shoud be smar, not ony wth respect to knd, but
aso ntensty. s our ater dscusson of needs w show, ncreasng
the ntensty of a motve may aso markedy change the sub|ect s re-
sponse. Perhaps Posenzweg s demonstraton of the nfuence of n-
creased achevement motvaton on the egarnk effect s the smpest
ustraton of ths pont. e found (1943) that under task orenta-
ton or ow n chevement hs sub|ects tended to reca more n-
competed than competed tasks, whereas under ego-nvovement or
strong n chevement the tendency was reversed (cf. aso tknson,
195ob). Consequenty anyone ookng for a consstency n the tend-
ency to remember competed or uncompeted tasks woud have to
keep achevement motvaton at a constant ntensty.
Trat Consstency and Generaty. Two of the tradtona prob-
ems n trat psychoogy are umnated by the precedng dscusson.
0ne deas wth how consstent trats are, that s, wth the tendency
of the same stuaton oh dfferent occasons to evoke smar re-
sponses, and the other deas wth how genera trats are, that s, wth
the tendency of smar stuatons to evdre_sfmar responses. s far
as consstency s concerned the answer woud appear to be that one
can e pect t to the e tent that the responses have been strengthened
by past renforcement and that the other condtons of our forma
trat defnton are met. Changes n motvaton and n the under-
standng of the stuaton are bound to ntroduce nconsstences n
the sub|ect s responses. To a certan e tent the same answer appes
to the queston of how genera a trat s. owever, somewhere the
trat theorst has to make a decson as to how genera a gven trat
shoud be that s, as to how many stuatons t w try to cover. If
t s too broad, t w be nconsstent but on the other hand, f t
s too specfc, t w become ess usefu as a means of summarzng
the person s behavor. The ony utmate answer to ths queston s
an emprca one. e must set up hypotheses as to what stuatons
shoud be ncuded under a gven trat concept and then attempt
to dscover whether these hypotheses are, n fact, frutfu. ut when
we test for ther frutfuness (that s, for whether they ead to con-
22
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
sstent responses) we must be carefu to make certan that the other
specfcatons of the trat defnton are observed. That s, the motva-
ton of the sub|ects must be kept wthn the norma range and the
meanng of the stuaton to the sub|ect must be as constant as pos-
sbe.
oth consstency and generaty are functons of past earnng.
To go to the e treme, one coud not e pect perfect consstency or
perfect generaty after one repetton of a smar response n a
smar stuaton. 0ne repetton or severa s not enough to produce
earnng. It foows that trats shoud become more consstent and
more genera, the more often the person has reacted to a gven stua-
ton n a way whch s renforced. Ths suggests that trats w be
more consstent and probaby more genera n oder peope. 0ne of
the crtcsms that has been made of artshorne and May s study of
honesty (cf. port, 1937) s that they worked wth chdren who
were, too young for any consstent modes of respondng to have
deveoped.
To sum up, we fnd that trat generaty and trat consstency, as
we as other trat characterstcs, are a functon of the three varabes
n our defnton of a trat, to wt: (1) earnng (2) n smar stua-
tons (3) under smar motvaton. To put t n another way, we
have defned a trat as a covaraton or consstency n responses whch
s a functon of past earnng n smar stuatons under smar
motvaton. Such a defnton s much narrower than that gven by
ether port or Catte, and mpes the e stence of two other per-
sonaty varabes to whch we must soon turn our attenton.
Summary of ar s Trats. 0ur theoretca dscusson of the na-
ture of trats may be a very we, but can we appy t to our nd-
vdua case, ar In the precedng chapters we have covered a good
dea of ground and assgned hm n the process a good many trats
varyng n compe ty a the way from assertve n posture and
movement to abasve or emotonay abe. Is there any way
n whch we can bo these varous characterzatons down nto a
snge trat st of fnte ength The apparenty overwhemng com-
pe ty of the task ustrates the great weakness of personaty study
today. veryone uses hs own nstrument for measurng the dmen-
sons of personaty and dscovers aspects that are essentay un-
transatabe nto those dscovered by any other person. To cut ths
probem down to sze, et us revew the prescrptons we have made
throughout our dscusson as to how we mght smpfy trat theory:
229
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
(1) Pestrct the term trat to consstences n behavor n smar stu-
atons under smar motvaton (2) Defne a trat carefuy wth sur-
pus meanngs that reach across dfferent response eements (3)
Detach evauatons from descrptons of the trats themseves (4)
Dstngush carefuy between behavor and nferences about t
drawn from the outcomes of behavor (5) Gve up the soaton
mpct n attemptng to characterze the whoe trat sphere wth
any one snge nstrument. Now et us see f we can appy ths pous
advce to the concrete probem of tryng to st ar s trats.
Tabe 7.2 represents an attempt to fnd a cassfcaton of common
trats that w appy not ony to ar but to any other person as
we. It s based n part on a ratona anayss of common stua-
tons to whch a peope must ad|ust n one way or another and
n part on a study of the trats dscovered by e stng nstruments
as covered n the past three chapters.
0bvousy a bare st of trats ke ths can have tte meanng
apart from the operatons nvoved n measurng each one. Conse-
quenty reference s made after each trat to the studes whch have
made use of t as dscussed somewhere n the precedng three chap-
ters. Thus for nstance the frst trat nergetc-v- eak s found,
at east n part, n port and ernon s Studes n pressve Move-
ment (1933), n Shedon s characterzaton of the somatotonc (1942),
and n ske s (1949) Soca daptabty actor (cf. especay d-
venturous -v- Cautous ). The reader shoud trace back n a smar
manner the sources of a ffteen of the trats f they are to be any-
thng more than a coecton of names. The trats wth an astersk
after them we have found to characterze ar. 0n some of the
others, ether the dmenson does not appy to hm, or we don t have
nformaton, or he fas somewhere n the mdde of the two e -
tremes. ut wth a the reservatons about the adequacy of our
data n mnd, we may summarze ths aspect of hs personaty as
foows:
ar s energetc and e pansve n movement whostc and fuent, but
orented outwards n percepton varabe and dstractabe n performance:
abe and e pressve emotonay gregarous and adaptabe socay and
conscentous wth respect to foowng approved soca norms.
Is such a trat portrat satsfactory heren are ts weaknesses and
strengths (1) In the frst pace t shoud be obvous that t s ony a
frst step toward a scentfcay sound trat descrpton because we
have not adequatey specfed the operatons for measurng each of
230
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
T 7.2
Cassfcaton of Common Trats
Common Stmuus
Stuatons
Chapter 5
. Poston of the Movng
body and ts parts
ssocated Common Trat Dmensons
ehavor (Sources ndcated)
. Probems to be
soved
Chapter 6
C. ork to be
performed
D. Peasure and
pan
Movement characterstcs
(1) nergetc -v- eak ( ,S,P)
( mphass characterstc)
(2) pansve -v- Pestraned ( , )
( rea characterstc)
Percevng Symboc approach characterstcs
Thnkng (3) hostc -v- naytc (T.Po)
(Speakng) (4) sua, verba, numerca or other
symbo stye (T)
(5) uent -v- Inhbted (T,Po,P)
(Imagnatve -v- Unmagnatve)
(6) Inner -v- 0uter 0rentaton
(Po,Sp, )
Performng
motng
. 0ther peope Interactng
. Soca Norms Conformng
Performance characterstcs
(7) arabe -v- ven (T)
( ) e be -v- Pgd, Perseveratve (T)
(9) Persstent -v- Dstractabe (T)
motona characterstcs
(10) abe -v- ven (P.Po)
(11) pressve ,0pen -v- Inhbted(S,P)
(12) Cheerfu -v- Depressed (P)
Soca nteracton characterstcs
(13) Gregarous, Pesponsve -v- utono-
mous (P,S)
(14) ssertve -v- Submssve, daptabe
(P)
Conformty characterstcs
(15) Conscentous -v- Not Conscentous
(P,T)
ey to symbos: trat probaby characterzng ar
port- ernon, pressve movements (1933)
S Shedon, et a. Temperament (posture and movement) trats
ages, handwrtng characterstcs
Po Porschach, percevng characterstcs
Sp Speech characterstcs
T Test resuts (Catte 1946a, etc.)
P Patng resuts (Catte 1946a, ske 1949, 0SS. 194 , etc.)
231
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
these trats. Consequenty we can at ths pont make no meanngfu
estmates of the degree of strength of any of these trats, though our
trat dmensons assume a contnuum from one e treme to the other.
Nevertheess we have taken a frst step n ndcatng n Tabe 7.2
what cass of operatons s nvoved for each trat descrpton. The
second step of returnng to obtan purfed measures of each of these
trats s now perfecty feasbe ether for ar or any other sub|ect.
The ack of purty of our measures as they stand s ncey ustrated
by the fact that ar s schoo frend rates hm n Tabe 5.2 as as-
sertve, bod, adventurous, etc., whereas we have |udged hm to be
prmary adaptabe rather than assertve n hs soca reatons
(Trat 14). The dffcuty arses over the confuson of the nergetc
characterstc whch ar possesses to a hgh degree wth soca
assertveness whch s not the same thng.
(2) hat s the trat Conscentous dong n the st, when we
have so carefuy eschewed a evauatve trat descrptons The
answer s n part based on smpe convenence: some measure of
conformty (ntegrty, honesty, etc.) s neary aways requred n a
personaty descrpton. It s aso n part based on the fact that
Conscentous when used n the sense ntended here s not reay
an evauatve term. hat t connotes s smpy whether or not the
person s good n the sense of foowng soca norms consstenty
or not. In some peope (cf., for e ampe, the sma percentage of
artshorne and May s cases who were aways honest), conformty
becomes an outstandng characterstc. or them such a trat dmen-
son s a usefu way of cassfyng behavor. or many others t may
not be partcuary appcabe.
(3) Is there anythng sacred about ths st of ffteen trats Can
they be reduced gance at Tabe 7.2 suggests that there may be
severa nstances of overap. Is t reay possbe to dstngush use-
fuy between a person whose performance s varabe and one whose
performance s dstractabe nd are both of these manfestatons of
emotona abty In each case there s consderabe evdence that
the trats are ndependent, but subsequent research may show that
they are reated n such a way as to reduce them to a snge new trat
or to redefne each of them. In partcuar we do not know whether
trats that appear smar but whch refer to dfferent stuatons
(varabty n emotons and n performance) shoud be grouped
under a snge headng, athough what evdence there s suggests that
they shoud not be, partcuary snce the range of motves nvoved
232
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
n each s not key to be the same, as s requred n our trat defn-
t1on.
Can ths st be e panded hat has become of the thousands of
trat names sted by port and 0dbert (1936) or used by the many
other workers n the fed Can we reay get aong wth so few
There s, of course, no adequate answer to such questons. ny-
one who has ever made up a ratng scae or nvented a test ke the
Porschach s bound to e cam that th,s st s no good for hs pur-
poses, that t pany does not do |ustce to the rchness and varety
of personaty. nd he w be rght. No scentfc scheme w ever
do |ustce to the rchness of personaty, but snce the purposes of a
scentfc conceptuazaton are economy and adequacy for under-
standng and predcton (cf. Chapter 3), we sha have to be con-
tented wth some knd of a fnte set of trats. Many of those who
grant ths w st be unhappy wth the st we have chosen. They
shoud modfy t then or make up a better st of ther own, foowng
the rues for budng scentfc concepts. Ths partcuar set of trats
s obvousy ony a frst appro maton to be modfed and refned by
subsequent research. It aso does not cam to descrbe a of per-
sonaty. e have decded for reasons of convenence to use the trat
varabe to descrbe the surface or stystc manfestatons of per-
sonaty ony. Many of the ob|ectons to ths st may dsappear when
t becomes cearer how we are to conceptuaze other areas of per-
sonaty. e are deang here wth a person s stye of fe, wth
genera characterzatons of hs mode of approach. ater we w
attempt to reate hs stye to hs deas, hs conceptons of hmsef,
and hs underyng motves.
(4) any one of our nstruments provde us wth measures of
a ffteen trats ow about ratng scaes Perhaps the frst mpuse
of someone who has read ths far and who s wng to go aong wth
ths approach woud be to construct a ratng scae wth these ffteen
trat ttes on t to be checked by some astute |udge. ow smpe
ut how nadequate s we ponted out n Chapter 6, ratngs are
perhaps the most nadequate measures of a because they are based
on observatons of behavor n an unknown sampe of stuatons of
unknown characterstcs. Perhaps a seres of standardzed stuatons
for behavor observaton and ratng coud be constructed aong the
nes foowed n the 0.S.S. assessments, but ths woud be to move
n the drecton of the panstakng operatona defntons of our
trat terms whch are absoutey essenta.
ow about the Porschach he most of the nstruments ds-
233
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
cussed, from temperament typng to handwrtng, have ad cam to
beng the 0pen Sesame of trat anayss, probaby the Porschach
woud have the most serous backng for ths post by the argest
number of psychoogsts. gance at Tabe 7.2 w show why. There
s scarcey a trat n the st whch a good Porschacher coud not
make nferences about from hs test resuts. The amount of emo-
tona abty, for nstance, whch we propose to measure through
observng the person s mood changes, he fees he can estmate from
the number of coor responses, the proporton of responses to the
coored pates III- , the number of whte-space responses, etc. In
a smar fashon he mght estmate fuency from the number of
responses, fe bty from the percentage of anma responses, etc.
It woud certany be convenent and e tremey economca f we
coud get even appro mate estmates of a wde varety of trats from
a snge testng stuaton nvovng a perceptua or any other mode
of approach. There s suffcent common-sense confrmaton of
the usefuness of the Porschach for ths purpose to encourage
Porschachers to make carefu studes of the e tent to whch ther
measures w predct trat strength as measured by other, more drect
measures. ut they shoud ceary reaze what the probem s and
not redefne the trat so that t appes ony to perceptua behavor,
f what they are tryng to do s estmate /rom percepton what be-
havor n other types of stuatons w characterstcay be ke.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. nswer Montagne s statement quoted at the begnnng of the
chapter. Can t be used as an argument aganst trat consstency
2. hat s the reaton between a trat as defned n ths chapter
and an atttude trat and a habt trat and a symptom
3. vauate n the ght of the dscusson n ths chapter the fo-
owng argument for functona autonomy from port. hat knd
of a trat s nterest n a sub|ect
person kes to do what he can do we. 0ver and over agan t has
been demonstrated that the sk earned for some e terna reason, turns
nto an nterest, and s sef-propeng, even though the orgna reason for
pursung t has been ost. student who at frst undertakes a fed of study
n coege because t s prescrbed, because t peases hs parents, or because
t comes at a convenent hour, often ends by fndng hmsef absorbed, per-
haps for fe, n the sub|ect tsef. . . . The orgna motves are entrey
234
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
TP IT T 0PY
ost. hat was a means to an end had become an end n tsef. (1937,
p. o1.)
4. sk someone what one of your own outstandng trats s and
try to anayze how t got earned and under what condtons t ap-
pears. ow genera s t ow common s t hy may t be easer
to fnd one of your trats by askng someone ese than by askng
yoursef
5. st three factors whch woud promote trat generaty draw-
ng from your knowedge of the factors whch promote postve
transfer and response generazaton, as we as on our forma trat
defnton. Coud a teacher make use of them n deveopng a trat
of honesty
6. Defne honesty and then try to ft t nto our forma trat
defnton. Can you e pan why, n terms of our defnton, art-
shorne and May dd not fnd much of a untary trat of honesty
7. st a the trats ascrbed to ar n Chapters 5 and 6 (between
30 and 40) and try to fgure out how each fts under the 15 trats n
the fna st. hat s the best approach to trats that don t appear
to ft
. Show how each of the 15 trats n Tabe 7.2 coud ead to
postve or negatve evauatons dependng on the standard used.
Under what condtons s nergy vauabe and not vauabe etc.
9. hat dffcutes woud arse f an attempt were made to use
soca norm trats ke honesty or readness to cooperate n cross
cutura studes Is there any trat n Tabe 7.2 whch coud not be
used cross cuturay
10. Suppose a person s cooperatve argey because he s afrad.
Shoud we cassfy hs cooperatveness, supposng t to be a con-
sstent response pattern for hm, aong wth the trat of coopera-
tveness found n a number of other peope for whom fear was not
part of the motvatng stuaton when ther cooperaton was meas-
ured Shoud there be two trats of cooperatveness, one based on
one cass of motves and another on another cass of motves ow
can the range of motves be estabshed wthn whch we w attempt
to measure a gven person s cooperatveness 0bvousy there are
certan stuatons n whch no one w be cooperatve and certan
others n whch everyone w be. hat we need s some mdde
range of stuatons. Can you defne t for ths trat
235
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Part Three
SC M S P PS0N ITY
PI
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
Ideas and aues

So far we have been deang wth the person s stye of vng, h
manner of approach to fe. ut somehow trat psychoogy seems to
gve us ony the outward vew. e do not know what s gong on
nsde the person, what he s thnkng, feeng, or wantng. e do
not know what hs conceptons of the word are we ony know how
he reacts consstenty n some common recurrng stuatons. Psy-
choogsts have ong been hampered n ther efforts to get at what
mght be caed the nner cogntve structure of man. or one thng,
the task has seemed ncredby dffcut. e were somewhat dsmayed
when we attempted to dscover a mted number of trats n terms
of whch we coud descrbe a snge person ke ar. ut suppose
we undertake the task of assayng the contents of ar s mnd. oud
t not take a fetme to dscover everythng that he knows, remem-
bers or conceves
rech and Crutchfed (194 ) have been mpressed both by the
need for ths type of study and by ts dffcuty. To arrve at any-
thng approachng a compete account of what Negro or Com-
munsm or free enterprse means to the ndvdua by smpy
observng hs behavor or by askng hm to respond to 20 scae tems
woud be manfesty mpossbe. hat s needed s the most n-
tensve, searchng, and proonged nvestgaton of cogntve contents,
and there s no short cut to ths goa. The contents of an ndvdua s
beefs and atttudes about a snge ob|ect, dof ter, for e ampe,
mght be so detaed and compe as to requre many hours to de-
scrbe. (194 , p. 24 .) s they go on to pont out, the e pendture
of tme and energy necessary for a task of ths sort woud be tre-
mendous. urthermore, methods for anayss and synthess of cogn-
tve content have not yet been deveoped. Nevertheess they fee that
possby the ne t ma|or advance n the fed of beef and atttude
research w come aong these nes. (194 , p. 249.)
Pan of the Ne t Three Chapters. owever, f we approach the
probem systematcay, we may be abe to whtte t down to sze.
et us consder t for a moment from the vewpont of a newborn
nfant who s turned oose n a weter of stmuaton, out of whch
239
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SC M S P PS0N ITY PI
he must make sense n order to survve. Can we usefuy dstngush
dfferent aspects of ths stmuaton around whch hs deveopng
deas w custer To begn wth we may note, as uckhohn and
Mowrer have (1944), that ths matr of stmuaton s part physca
or geographca n nature, part boogca, part soca, and part cu-
tura. That s, one mportant source of stmuaton for the chd s
the physca envronment n whch he ves. If he s born n frca
he w be e posed to certan cmatoogca condtons, certan sghts
and sounds, certan fauna and fora that w be qute dfferent from
those e perenced by a chd born and brought up n New York Cty.
kewse a person born wth a strong rght arm or nto a narrow
famy group w have a dfferent range of e perences from that of
a person who s born weak or nto an e tended knshp system.
nay, even though the range of stmuaton gven from wthout
n the ob|ectve envronment s neary the same for two ndvduas,
dfferent cutures and dfferent famy unts wthn a gven cuture
w tend to emphasze dfferent aspects of ths range, so that the
moda stmuaton wthn any gven dmenson may st be dfferent
for a partcuar chd.
avng dstngushed n ths way the ma|or sources of stmua-
ton or, as they have sometmes been caed, the ma|or determnants
of behavor, we may ne t nfer that the ndvdua who receves ths
stmuaton must have the capacty to organze, ntegrate, or schema-
tze t, f he s to be abe to fnd hs way successfuy through the
boomng, buzzng confuson of ncomng mpuses. Ths organz-
ng process s not competey mysterous. s psychoogsts we know
a good dea about t, partcuary as t works at smper eves, |ust
as we know enough about how consstent.responses are acqured to
enabe us to understand somethng about the nature of trats. or-
tunatey not a of the organzng has to be done by each new nfant
startng competey from scratch. Instead, each cuture provdes a
good many ready-made soutons to the probems of organzaton
whch are of tremendous vaue, adaptvey speakng, to each person
as he earns hs way about the word of stmuaton.
Tabe . 1 may hep to show how far we have come n our anayss
and where we go from here.
Ths schematc dagram shows how we have smpfed our nta
probem. Instead of a task of seemngy overwhemng compe ty
we are now faced wth three more specfc probems, each of whch
can be attacked wth some hope of moderate success. rst of a we
can attempt to dentfy the mportant sources of stmuat1on, par-
240
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
T .1
Schematc Dagram Showng the Peatons between Cutura Patterns and
Persona Schemata s They e Dscussed n the Ne t Three Chapters
nv1ronmenta St muaton
(geographca, soca, boogca
Types of soc1at
nst tuton
amy
Schoo
Church
dau
etc
.
Indvdua organzaton
Prncpes governng
chcmata formaton
Types o
cutura pattern
1. Ideoogy (or entatons)
(Chapter )
2. Poe def n t1ons
(Chapter 9)
3. Socazaton procedures
(Chapter 10)
.. ,
Types of 1ndvdua
schemata
1. Ideas and vaues
(Chapter )
2. Poe percepton
and performance
(Chapter 9)
Mantenance and
deveopment con-
ceptons (motva-
ton)
(Chapter 10)
tcuary as they are patterned by the cuture n whch the person
ves. hat are the sources, mts, and ranges of envronmenta
stmuaton startng at the top of Tabe .1 t the ndvdua eve
ths s not so formdabe a task as t may at frst seem. Thus when
ar says, My parents are ordnary hard-workng peope ... I was
born n a sma town n New |ersey, ths aone tes us a good dea
about the ranges of stmuaton to whch he was sub|ected as a chd.
rom the geography or ecoogy of rura New |ersey, we can estmate
wth a far degree of certanty what thngs he has e perenced regu-
ary and what thngs he has e perenced sedom, f ever. Thus t s
certan that hs e perence of space s qute unke that of a nomadc
rab vng on the Sahara Desert, that he has probaby never seen a
came e cept n a zoo and that hs e perence wth pam trees s
mnma. e know further that he w probaby have been e posed
to certan types of agrcutura technques, modes of transportaton,
241
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
a partcuar knd of knshp system, etc. It s here that socoogsts
and the cutura anthropoogsts are of great assstance to the psycho-
ogst workng wth the ndvdua person because through ther
anayss of soca structure and cuture, they can make e pct pre-
dctons as to the knd of moda e perences or cutura patterns
that a gven person w be e posed to. Note n Tabe . 1 that the
ndvdua s schemata may be organzed ether drecty by hmsef
va route or ndrecty va the much more common route and
ts cutura patterns. Thus an anayss of cutura patterns may often
be a short cut to dscoverng the ndvdua schemata ocated n the
ower rght-hand corner of the tabe.
Secondy, we must turn our attenton to the schematzaton proc-
ess. ow are cuture patterns assmated and what happens to them
n the process of assmaton In order to answer these questons we
must consder n part the means of transmsson to the ndvdua
(anguage, parent s atttudes and behavor, readng, pubc-schoo
nstructon, etc.) and n- part the rues governng schema formaton
and retenton. It s as f the envronment and the cuture have a
message for the person whch s structured somewhat by the means
of transmsson to the ndvdua and somewhat more by the assma-
ton or schematzaton processes wthn the ndvdua after t s re-
ceved.
nay, we must face the probem of descrbng the end resut
of_trns process namey, the ndvdua s system of schemata. hat
are the ndvdua s beefs, frames of reference, ma|or orentatons,
roe perceptons, deas, and vaues Unfortunatey there s a term-
noogca probem nvoved here, snce psychoogsts have not agreed
on what to ca the cogntve maps (after Toman, 194 a) the person
buds up of hs word. Perhaps the term atttude has been most often
used by psychoogsts, athough for our purposes t has two serous
mtatons: t mpes conscous awareness, and t has the connota-
ton of beng for or aganst somethng or of a tendency toward an
ob|ect. Snce what we are takng about s not aways conscous and
does not necessary mpy ether an ob|ect or the for or aganst
dmenson, we w prefer some more genera term ke concepton,
schema (pura schemata), or cogntve map.
The ne t probem s to cassfy the schemata to be dscussed. rom
the cutura vewpont we may convenenty dstngush three ma|or
types of nfuence whch the cuture has on ts members namey, ts
242
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
deoogy or beef system, ts roe defntons, and ts socazaton
procedures. ach of these has been gven a counterpart n the nd-
vdua s schemata structure under a sghty dfferent name n Tabe
.1 and arrows have been drawn to ndcate that, whe a partcuar
schema type may derve chefy from ts correspondng cutura pat-
tern type, t may draw n part from a three. The frst type of cu-
tura nfuence deas wth the most genera probems of orentaton,
wth such matters as ocaton n space and tme, answers to questons
as to what fe means (regous systems), how men work, how they
can en|oy themseves, or how they shoud be governed. Ths s the
cutura deoogy, whch s party drawn drecty from the envron-
ment and party from cutura emphases on aspects of t. It s of
such fundamenta mportance n structurng a the other knds of
nfuences to whch the person s sub|ected that t w be dscussed
frst n ths chapter. Secondy, the cuture gves the ndvdua gud-
ance for behavng n many rather specfc soca stuatons. These
behavora or atttudna norms have tradtonay been subsumed
under the roe concept and w be dscussed n the ne t chapter.
nay n Chapter 10 we w turn to the mportant orentatons the
cuture gves the ndvdua through ts nsttutonazed chd-rear-
ng practces. rom the ndvdua s vewpont socazaton comes
frst n order of earnng, roes second, and deoogy thrd. e have
nverted the order to correspond to the assumed reatve order of
mportance of the three areas of cutura nfuence. urthermore, as
Tabe .1 suggests, socazaton eads naturay nto the ne t secton
of the book on motvaton, snce mantenance and deveopment con-
ceptons comes very cose to defnng motvaton.
Prncpes Governng Schemata ormaton. efore we turn to the
specfc task of ths chapter, we w need to take tme out to e pore
how cutura and envronmenta stmuaton gets organzed nto a
person s deas. avng once anayzed the prncpes of schemata
formaton carefuy, we can assume that they operate n other areas
of cuture as we and we need not refer to them over and over agan.
|ust what has psychoogy to te us about how e terna stmuaton
gets organzed nto deas, schemata or cogntve maps nsde the
person et us begn wth some very smpe cases and work up to
more compe ones.
. ed 0rganzatona actors. Perceptua schemata are organ-
zed accordng to such Gestat prncpes as fgure-ground, good con-
243
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tnuaton, cosure, smarty, pro mty, and the ke (cf. offka,
1935). The e act appcaton of these prncpes to deatona ma-
tera has not been worked out, athough erthemer (1945), port
and Postman (1947), and others have attempted t. henever they
have been most successfu n fndng Gestat processes at work n
thnkng or memory whch are anaogous to those found at the per-
ceptua eve, t often appears that the cogntve processes are oaded
wth vsua magery, whch ought to functon accordng to Gestat
aws. Ths may mean that such aws are not of much hep n deter-
mnng what happens to ncomng stmuaton of a nonvsua (e.g.,
verba) nature. The dffcuty wth much deatona matera (of a
nonvsua nature) es n tryng to specfy what consttutes smarty,
pro mty, etc., so that one can predct what organzaton the stm-
uus matera suggests to start wth.
z. Successve Stmuaton. 0ne of the smpest bases for schema
formaton n the fed of memory s successve stmuaton wthn a
snge sensory dmenson or narrow range of dmensons. Sr enry
ead (1926) was one of the frst to attack ths probem carefuy n
hs consderaton of the coordnaton of posture and movement.
ead fet that the afferent mpuses must be organzed on ther entry
nto the bran nto more or ess endurng dspostons or schemata,
n reaton to whch subsequent approprate responses coud be
made. e thought of these schemata as a mode of ourseves whch
constanty changes or that combned standard aganst whch a
subsequent changes n posture are regstered before they enter con-
scousness. Ths body mage, as t has been caed, s formed un-
conscousy, athough t may become conscous, out of sera sensory
stmuaton, whch must get organzed nto some knd of a pattern.
e conceved ths organzed postura schema both as a record of past
sensory mput and as a determnant of future responses, as 0dfed
and angw pont out (1942).
smpe emprca demonstraton of the producton of such a
schema was gven as eary as 1909 and 1910 by ongworth (1909),
who was workng wth what he caed the centra tendency effect
n |udgment. or e ampe, n one seres of |udgments he had the
sub|ects move ther pencs through grooves varyng n ength from
10 to 70 mm. They then had to draw a ne on a pece of paper equa
n e tent to the movement they had |ust made. e found that when
the sub|ects tred to reproduce nes at the short end of the scae,
244
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
that s, around 10 mm., they tended to make ther nes too ong and
f they tred to reproduce nes at the ong end of the scae they made
them too short. They reproduced most accuratey a ne near the
mdde of the seres, that s, around 35 mm. n ength. In short, there
appeared to be a norm or centra tendency somewhere near the
center of the range of nes to be drawn whch summed up prevous
sensory e perences (of ne drawng) and nfuenced subsequent
|udgments. hen he shfted n another e perment to a dfferent
range and asked the sub|ects to reproduce nes varyng n ength
from 30 mm. to 150 mm., he found that the sub|ects reproduced most
accuratey nes around 70 mm. n ength rather than around 35
mm. as n the prevous seres. urthermore, the 70 mm. ne whch
had been underestmated n reproducton n the earer seres was
now beng reproduced accuratey as t came coser to the centra
tendency of the new range of ne engths.
great dea of subsequent e permenta work has been done n
ths area whch has been ntegrated by eson (194 ) nto a snge
theoretca formuaton whch provdes a mathematca formua for
cacuatng the centra tendency, or adaptaton eve, as he cas
t, from such varabes as the frequency, ntensty, and range of pre-
vous stmuaton and ts fgure-ground characterstcs. The partc-
uar mathematca formua he has derved appears to be suffcenty
genera to appy to a number of dfferent sense modates. It may
prove of even greater mportance f t can be apped to such hgher
order functons as the formaton of a snge ndvdua s opnon as a
functon of the range, ntensty, etc., of smar opnons e pressed by
other ndvduas n a group dscusson. Certan premnary fndngs
by the Pesearch Center n Group Dynamcs at the Unversty of
Mchgan suggest that the same prncpes may appy n such a stu-
aton. owever, the chef mportance of these e permenta and
theoretca formuatons here s n demonstratng more e acty how
schemata deveop out of successve stmuatons.
3. The ate of a Snge Impresson. nother rather smpe case of
schema formaton s that of an mpresson whch occurs ony once
and then nteracts wth the tota trace system or apperceptve mass
of the person. ere the process s a tte more dffcut to anayze
meanngfuy because the other sensatons or the pre-e stng sche-
mata whch nteract wth the snge mpresson are usuay unknown.
Nevertheess the phenomenon has been rather e tensvey studed,
245
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
begnnng wth some eary work by artett (1932) on rememberng
and comng up to a more recent work by port and Postman
(1947) on the psychoogy of rumor. s an e ampe of artett s work
we may take the foowng story whch a sub|ect reads to hmsef
twce for the nta mpresson.
The ar of the Ghosts
0ne nght two young men from guac went down to the rver to hunt
seas, and whe they were there t became foggy and cam. Then they heard
war-cres, and they thought Maybe ths s a war-party. They escaped to
the shore, and hd behnd a og. Now canoes came up, and they heard the
nose of paddes, and saw one canoe comng up to them. There were fve
men n the canoe, and they sad:
hat do you thnk e wsh to take you aong. e are gong up the
rver to make war on the peope.
0ne of the young men sad: I have no arrows.
rrows are n the canoe, they sad.
I w not go aong. I mght be ked. My reatves do not know where I
have gone. ut you, he sad turnng to the other, may go wth them.
So one of the young men went, but the other returned home.
nd the warrors went on up the rver to a town on the other sde of
aomo. The peope came down to the water, and they began to fght, and
many were ked. ut presenty the young man heard one of the warrors
say: uck et us go home: that Indan has been ht. Now he thought:
0h, they are ghosts. e dd not fee sck, but they sad he had been shot.
So the canoes went back to guac, and the young man went ashore to
hs house, and made a fre. nd he tod everybody and sad: ehod I ac-
companed the ghosts, and we went to fght. Many of our feows were ked,
and many of those who attacked us were ked. They sad I was ht, and I
dd not fee sck.
e tod t a, and then he became quet. hen the sun rose he fe down.
Somethng back came out of hs mouth. s face became contorted. The
peope |umped up and cred.
e was dead.
(Peproduced wth permsson from . C. artett, Pememberng. Copy-
rght 1932 by the Cambrdge Unversty Press.)
Sub|ects were asked to reproduce the story they had read, at varous
tme ntervas after the frst mpresson. The foowng s a reproduc-
ton of the story by one sub|ect neary three years after he had frst
read t:
246
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
Some warrors went to wage war aganst a ghost. They fought a day and
one of ther number was wounded.
They returned home n the evenng bearng ther sck comrade. s the
day drew to a cose he became rapdy worse, and the vagers came round
hm. t sunset he sghed somethng back came out of hs mouth. e was
dead. ( artett, 193 , p. 75.)
artett observed the transformaton of the content of ths story
from a form much more cosey appro matng the orgna to ths
fna end-product by obtanng repeated reproductons every month
or so after the orgna mpresson. 0n the bass of hs anayss of
these changes and of the fna product, he concuded that remember-
ng s predomnanty schematc that s, t sedom nvoves very ac-
curate reproductons but nstead eads to omsson of deta, sm-
pfcaton of events and structure, and transformaton of tems nto
more famar deta (1932, p. 93.) e further fees that there s a
good dea of reconstructon and ratonazaton n memory. or e -
ampe, the sub|ect stated n connecton wth the reproducton above
there was somethng about a canoe but I can t ft t n. I suppose
t was hs sou that came out of hs mouth when he ded. (1932, p.
75.) In other words artett contended that rememberng was an or- |
ganzed constructve process dependent upon atttudes toward the
matera, and he therefore adopted the term schema to refer to the
sera thread whch runs through repeated reproductons. ctu- _|
ay what nterests us most here s the way n whch hs research us-
trates how compe e perences, such as the nta mpresson of a
story, get changed and reformuated nto some sort of generazed
concepton, because we can assume that t s n much the same way
that a of the ndvdua s conceptons of hs word deveop, becom-
ng smpfed and reorganzed wth the passage of tme.
4. Cutura Patterns. The schemata we have so far been dscussng
have deveoped out of controed or uncontroed e perences that
the sub|ect has had n an e permenta stuaton. They are the
product of persona and often unque e perences comng n a
partcuar order wth unque varety and ntensty. ut as Tabe
.1 shows, many schemata are cutura products, that s, the products
of pror organzaton by other peope, and a the ndvdua does s
to take them over more or ess ready-made. If he had to produce a
the organzaton of hs boomng buzzng e perence hmsef, hs
task woud be far more dffcut than t actuay s. Socety fortunatey
does most of hs work for hm ahead of tme. That s, many of the
247
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
common probems whch ndvduas n a gven socety must meet
have aready been tentatvey soved by ndvduas n that socety
who have met the probems before. These probem soutons we ca
cuture patterns or perceptua and behavora norms. or e ampe,
ar may deveop out of hs own persona and unque e perences a
concepton of how a father behaves (Poute n Tabe .1). 0n the
other hand he s undoubtedy e posed to ready-made conceptons of
the father roe whch hs cuture has aready devsed for hm (Poute
n Tabe .1). These soca schemata are of tremendous mportance
n shapng hs ndvdua conceptons of the word.
Sherf (1936) has provded us wth an e ceent demonstraton of
how group conceptons or norms get but up and determne ndvd-
ua schemata. e made use of the we-known autoknetc phenome-
non namey, the tendency for a pn pont of ght n a dark room to
be perceved as movng. hen sub|ects are asked to |udge how far and
n what drecton the pont of ght moves, they graduay estabsh
a frame of reference wth regard to the e tent of the movement. That
s, they bud up a generazed concepton or schema of how far the
ght s movng. hen two or three ndvduas make ther |udg-
ments together there s consderabe dsagreement at frst n ther
percepton of how far the ght moves, but graduay ther |udgments
converge and a group norm or frame of reference s estabshed. Ths
group standard contnues to determne the |udgment of the sub|ect
even f he returns to the stuaton aone. kewse, a person who has
set up an ndvdua standard w be nfuenced n hs |udgment
f he s paced n the group stuaton. nay Sherf (1936) showed
that a person s frame of reference coud be e permentay modfed
by parng hm wth a stooge who was nstructed to make |udg-
ments of the e tent of movement n a prearranged manner.
though we are deang here wth a very ambguous stuaton n
whch the sub|ect has very tte to go on, t has commony been sup-
posed that many soca stuatons are kewse ambguous and the
person s guded n hs percepton argey by the |udgments and per-
ceptons of hs soca group. or e ampe, Smmons tes the story n
hs book Sun Chef (1942) of how he and Don, a op Indan whom
he was studyng ntensvey, went to vst a rock near the vage. To
Smmons the rock was |ust another rock n the desert, possby nter-
estng on geoogca grounds but no more. owever, he descrbed
vvdy how Don woud not go near the rock because he nterpreted
t as the dweng pace of the much-feared and powerfu Spder
24
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
oman. In other words, Don s percepton of a smpe physca stm-
uus was markedy determned by the cutura nterpretaton of the
meanng of that stmuus |ust as Smmons percepton of t was ke-
wse coored by hs cutura background. artett (1932) found that
hs memory schemata were markedy sub|ect to ateraton due to cu-
tura atttudes. In fact, one coud argue that there s a soca as we
as a persona determnant n neary a schemata.
5. The Shapng Infuence of Symbo Systems. There s consder-
abe evdence that symboc representatons, partcuary verba ones,
have a very mportant effect on the shapng of mpressons as they
enter the mnd. t the smpest eve, there are e permenta demon-
stratons of nonverba stereotypes. Numerous Gestat e perments
have shown that compe ob|ects tend to be reproduced n a more
smpe form or to get assmated to a better fgure or at east to a
better known form, as n the foowng e ampe from artett.
hen ths fgure was reproduced sometme ater t came out ke
ths:
pparenty the standardzed mage of a pcture frame nfuenced
the nta mpresson markedy. In smar fashon Thouess (1931)
found that epses were often |udged by sub|ects to be crces turned
on an a s out of the fronta parae pane. The standard mage of
a crce as squarey n front of the face determned |udgment.
249
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
runer, Postman, and Podrgues (1950) n an ngenous e perment
have shown that a coor patch s perceved as more orange, as dem-
onstrated by a coor-whee match, when t has the shape of an orange
than when t does not. In other words a person has a certan stereo-
typed schema of an orange whch ncudes a certan shape and a cer-
tan coor. The adaptve utty of such standardzed or stereotyped
conceptons of pcture frames, crces n the fronta parae pane,
or oranges s obvous. thout them percepton and thought woud
be much more compcated snce organzaton woud have to start
from scratch each tme.
The phenomenon s even more mpressve when a schema s
shaped by a verba symbo. smpe ustraton from an e perment
from Carmchae, ogan, and ater (1932) w demonstrate how
ths works. They e posed the foowng fgure to two groups of sub-
|ects, namng t eyegasses for one group and a dumbbe for the
other:
00
hen t had to be reproduced aong wth a arge number of other such
ne drawngs, the group for whch t had been abeed dumbbe
tended to reproduce t as foows:
Dumbbe
nd the group for whch t had been abeed eyegasses tended to
reproduce t n ths way:
00
.
gasses
The roe of anguage n organzng our ncomng mpressons can
scarcey be overemphaszed. horf (1940) has put t ths way: e
250
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
dssect nature aong nes ad down by our natve anguages. The cate-
gores and types that we soate from the word of phenomena we do
not fnd there because they stare every observer n the face on the
contrary, the word s presented n the kaedoscopc fu of mpres-
sons whch have to be organzed by our mnds and ths means argey
by the ngustc systems n our mnds. e cut nature up, organze t
nto concepts, and descrbe sgnfcances as we do, argey because we
are partes to an agreement to organze t n ths way an agreement
that hods throughout our speech communty and s codfed n the
patterns of our anguage. (Newcomb and artey, 1947, p. 214.)
uckhohn and eghton have made a smar pont n dscussng the
Navaho anguage. They state that t s an e cessvey tera an-
guage, tte gven to abstractons and to the fudty of meanng that
s so characterstc of ngsh. (1947, p. 199-) or e ampe, for the
Navaho t woud be mpossbe to say smpy he went to town.
Instead the Navaho woud have to specfy how he went to town,
whether by wagon, arpane, boat, on horseback, at a trot, a run, or a
gaop. Navaho wth nfectons of the same verb form can say I
kck hm, I gave hm a kck on repeated occasons, I gave hm
repeated kcks on the same occason, and I gave hm repeated kcks
on repeated occasons. (1947, p. 207.) The ngsh anguage on the
other hand woud have to make such fne dstnctons wth many
words, as these transatons ndcate, or by the conte t n whch the
word occurred. The e cessve abstractness or fudty of meanng
of the ngsh anguage s perhaps best ustrated by orge s seman-
tc count of common words (1949) whch shows, for e ampe, that the
smpe word run has some eght hundred dfferent meanngs.
of ths demonstrates how a great dea of the boomng, buzzng con-
fuson of enterng mpressons s organzed nto schemata for the
person n terms of the partcuar anguage symbo system whch he
earns to use.
The use of anguage n formng a person s schemata may be us-
trated at a somewhat more concrete eve. The rench psychoogst
Paget has reported e tensvey on the questons a chd asks n tryng
to get hs pcture of the word organzed. In one case he recorded
1125 spontaneous questons asked by a boy named De between the
ages of s and seven. e wanted to know, for nstance, Is t (ths
poo) very deep or re the couds much, much hgher than our
roof ow ong s t t Chrstmas Mr. |. has eaten a ot, hasn t
he here s New York hy do you teach me to count hy
251
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
are you not sure hy do you do that to the poor tte tabe
(1926, p. 209.) The way n whch these questons are framed and the
knds of answers De got w go a ong way toward shapng hs con-
ceptons of the word of nature. Many of the questons dea wth
attrbutve dfferences ( how bg how deep ), others wth cass-
fcatons (who what ), or wth e panatons ( why ). The de-
veopng deas of causaty as ndcated by dfferent types of whys
are anayzed partcuary by Paget (1930), and yet we are tod by
ee that among the Trobrand sanders wth a dfferent anguage
system the concept of teeoogy or cause s amost totay absent (cf.
Newcomb and artey, 1947, p. 219). hat Paget dd not study and
what woud be of great mportance n the present conte t s the knd
of answers that De got to hs questons, for these woud be of great
mportance n shapng hs future emprca deas.
anguage begns to be more nfuenta than ever when the person
begns to read, because here common cutura e panatons are gven
to the chd n the most compact, symboc form. Sometmes they are
gven n the form of a concrete set of symbos ke the oy Scout oath,
and sometmes they structure the chd s e pectatons more subty
and mpcty. Chd, Potter, and evne (1946) have provded us
wth an e ceent e ampe of how these cutura norms may be trans-
mtted ndrecty to peope through ther readng. They cassfed the
contents of chdren s te tbooks used n thrd and fourth grade ac-
cordng to the Murray need-press (193 ) categores. s a typca
e ampe of ther fndngs they report that stores deang wth affa-
ton, cognzance, and nurturance were very frequent, whereas stores
deang wth nfavodance and re|ecton were qute nfrequent. Ths
and other fndngs suggested to the authors that a ma|or defect of
the readers from ths pont of vew s what mght be caed ther un-
reastc optmsm. The stores sedom deat wth chdren tryng to
ad|ust to faure but on the other hand neary aways deat wth re-
warded behavor. Yet from the pont of vew of contrbuton to the
soutons of probems of everyday fe, faures ought to receve a
arger proporton of attenton, for t s they that pose probems.
(1946, p. 45.)
Tabe .2 seects some more of ther fndngs whch are of genera
nterest. Note that seekng nformaton (cognzance) and frendshp
(affaton) are rarey punshed, whe actng ndependenty (auton-
omy) and tryng to avod bame (nfavodance) are pctured as often
punshed.
252
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
T .2
Percentage of Peward, Punshment, and No Consequence for ach Category
of ehavor (n a of the 3,409 Thema hch ere nayzed)
Per cent of
Per cent of Per cent of Thema n
Thema n Thema n whch behavor
Category of whch behavor whch behavor resuts n no
behavor s rewarded s punshed consequence
Cognzance 6 95
Succorance 4 10 6
ffaton 2 9
Domnance 74 16
cquston 64 31 3
utonomy 4 40 12
ggresson 35 52 11
Inf avodance 74 1
( fter Chd, Potter, and evne, 1946, p. 43.)
It s ony as we begn to understand such moda cutura propos-
tons that we can fuy understand the personaty of any member
of that cuture. The tabe does not show that any gven ndvdua
w have a need for cognzance or affaton, but t does ndcate
that chdren n our cuture w be made aware of the genera re-
spect for cognzance, affaton, and the ke. s any cnca psycho-
ogst knows, these mpct cutura assumptons enter very argey
nto the souton that a person works out to hs probems. or e -
ampe, a person may repress hs aggresson because of the strong cu-
tura pressure aganst dspayng aggresson whch s refected n the
fgures n ths tabe.
Summary of the Schematzng Process. Ths survey of psychoog-
ca knowedge about the schematzng process has necessary had to
be bref and hghy seectve. Important topcs such as the nfuence
of motvaton on schemata, the varabes nfuencng schema strength
(cf. runer, 1950), or the roe of schemata n formng antcpatory
sets n thnkng (cf. oodworth, 193 ) have not been touched on at
a. Nevertheess the survey w have served ts functon n ths con-
te t f t has made the process tsef ess mysterous. Psychoogsts do
not know neary enough about how stmuaton from wthout, e.g.,
cutura deoogy, s ncorporated and made over nto ndvdua
deoogy, but they do know somethng, and that somethng s enough
to provde the bass for further e permentaton n the same fed.
253
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
et us summarze what some of the man prncpes are whch derve
from ths knowedge: (1) perence tends to get organzed nto
somethng whch s smper than the orgna. Ths somethng
may be caed a schema, a hypothess, or concepton. (2) These sche-
mata have been found to be of great mportance at a eves of e pe-
rence sensaton, percepton, memory, and thnkng. (3) They are
but up graduay and often wthout the sub|ect s awareness. That
s, the sub|ect may not be abe to verbaze the frame of reference n
terms of whch he s operatng. They are constanty beng modfed
by new e perences. (4) The way n whch they are but up s not
ceary understood, athough artett s work woud suggest that they
are determned n part by the sera order n whch the e perences
occur and n part by outstandng detas. eson s formua (194 )
provdes a method for predctng how certan eve schemata
(standards) are but up n the smper psychoogca dmensons.
(5) Schemata are but up out of persona e perences but an mpor-
tant part of these persona e perences are soca schemata, or organ-
zatons of e perence whch have aready been worked out by the
cuture n whch the person ves and whch are communcated to
hm by members of that cuture. (6) 0ne of the most mportant soca
determnants of schemata s anguage, as t shapes the way the per-
son perceves the physca and soca word. (7) There have been two
man methods of measurng schemata: by nferrng ther e stence
from the |udgments the sub|ect makes, and by anayzng ntrospec-
tve phenomenoogca reports. ( ) hether or not these schemata
are formed accordng to the prncpes of earnng s not as yet def-
ntey known. It has been customary to thnk of e perences png
n on top of each other and formng a genera apperceptve mass n
a way whch dd not requre appcaton of the aws of earnng.
Gestat psychoogsts n partcuar have argued that organzaton of
the sort we have been dscussng s a capacty of the organsm |ust
as earnng s. owever, as ateson (cf. Newcomb and artey, 1947,
pp. 121-12 ) and arow (1949) have ponted out, t s possbe to
deveop earnng sets from sovng a number of smar probems.
Sub|ects appear to earn how to earn. These e perments may
eventuay throw some ght on how schemata are earned or formu-
ated. or the moment we sha smpy have to take them as they
come.
Methods of Cassfyng Cutura Content. Peturnng now to the
probem of cutura deoogy, we w fnd t convenent to break
254
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
down ths compe sub|ect nto genera topcs for the purpose of ds-
cusson n connecton wth our ndvdua case, ar. There are sev-
era methods of anayss we mght adopt. t one e treme there s the
fary specfc cassfcaton of cutura patterns to be found n a -
brary cataogue or a more systematc account ke the 0utne of Cu-
tura Materas (1950) n the uman Peatons rea es (formery
the Cross-Cutura Survey). In the atter, whch s probaby the best
system that e sts for cassfyng materas of ths sort, there are sev-
enty-nne ma|or headngs coverng such tems as regous beefs,
famy, trave and transportaton, recreaton, deas and customs regu-
atng dfferent aspects of the fe cyce, etc. ach of these n turn s
broken down nto many smaer unts. 0bvousy, f we were to
appy such a system to the cuture nto whch ar was born, we
woud be faced by a probem of bewderng compe ty, even f the
data e sted, whch, n ths partcuar case, they do not. t the other
e treme are attempts to smpfy the ma|or orentatons or deas of
a cuture under reatvey few genera headngs. Tabe .3 s a re-
producton wth sght modfcatons of a vauabe scheme of ths sort
constructed by orence uckhohn (1950).
T .3
Scheme for Pepresentng Profes
of Cutura 0rentaton
( fter . uckhohn, 1950.)
hat are the nnate
predspostons of men
hat s man s reaton
to nature (Incudes
man s own physca
nature)
hat s the sgnfcant
tme dmenson
hat type of persona-
ty s to be most vaued
hat s the domnant
modaty of the rea-
tonshp of man to
other men
v
Nether good
nor bad (or
m ed)
Good
Man sub|u-
gated to
nature
Man n nature
Man vs. na-
ture, ratona
mastery over
nature
Past
Present
uture
eng
eng n
becomng
Dong
nea
Coatera
Indvduastc
255
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The use of ths tabe can perhaps best be ustrated by the em-
phases the author fees woud be provded n the cuture of whch
ar s a member. The profe for what Dr. |urgen Puesch has
caed mercan core cuture can be drawn by an accentng of the
foowng orentatons: ndvduastc reatona orentaton the
achevng orentaton, wheren |udgment of a person s vaue s pr-
mary on the bass of hs accompshments, hs productvty the
man-aganst-nature or ratona-mastery orentaton the future-tme
orentaton and the defnton of human nature as ev but per-
fectabe. She ponts out that of course there are substtute profes
of emphass n a gven cuture, partcuary n as compe a socety
as that of the contemporary Unted States, but contends that ths
provdes a usefu set of dmensons on whch to erect such profes
so as to compare dfferent cutures, or sub-cutures. Its appcabty
to the study of an ndvdua case woud arse from the attempt to
dscover the e tent to whch these orentatons were n fact a part of
ar s cutura envronment and the e tent to whch he accepted
them as part of hs deoogy. Snce she further argues that the pos-
ton taken on these dmensons w determne to a arge e tent deas
hed on much more specfc matters, t s obvous that such a scheme
has a great dea of potenta vaue as far as smpfyng the anayss
of cutura deoogy s concerned. though we w make use of t
therefore n anayzng ar, we w fnd t necessary to ntroduce
other aspects of cutura deoogy, snce t s a tte too smpe for
our purposes.
qute dfferent attempt to smpfy and cassfy the effects of the
envronment has been made by Murray (193 ). e decded to cassfy
what happens to a person (what he cas press) not n terms of ts
cutura content, but n terms of ts effect or potenta effect on the
sub|ect. s ustratve of the way hs system works, we may take the
foowng statement whch he quotes as comng from the autobog-
raphy of one of hs sub|ects: I remember one wndy day wakng
to schoo, that I was afrad of the wnd as I started to cross |the street|
and that I cung to a amppost unt someone came and took me by
the hand.
In the anayss of an ncdent ke ths, Murray s prmary con-
cerned wth the nfuence of envronmenta events on the sub|ect.
e states, y effect here we do not mean the response that s
aroused n the sub|ect (a mode of cassfcaton that has been aban-
doned) we mean what s done to the sub|ect before he responds
256
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
(e : bettement by an nsut) or what mght be done to hm f he
dd not respond (e : a physca n|ury from a fang stone). . . .
(193 , p. 117.) The press of an ob|ect s what t can do to the sub|ect
or for the sub|ect the power that t has to affect the we-beng of the
sub|ect n one way or another. (193 , p. 121.) Thus n the above
e ampe the fact that someone comes and takes the sub|ect by the
hand Murray woud cassfy as press nurturance or p Nurturance.
Some typca e ampes of press and ther defntons foow:
p ffaton, a frendy, socabe companon
p Nurturance, a protectve ay
p Domnance, restrant, an mprsonng or prohbtng ob|ect
(193 , p. 121).
It s cear from these e ampes that Murray s attemptng to cas-
sfy the behavor of the envronment (press) n e acty the same
manner as he woud cassfy the behavor of a person n connecton
wth hs system of need anayss. Ths approach has some advantages
for certan purposes, but as compared wth a more drect study of
cutura patterns and deoogy, t seems unnecessary thn and overy
concerned wth one aspect of the pattern, namey the drectonaty
of the nteracton between the person and hs envronment. It w
not prove of much vaue to us n studyng the content of ar s deas
and vaues, athough t w prove of some use n hepng to cassfy
the knds of behavor that he w e pect from others.
Ths bref survey of some representatve attempts to cassfy the
mpact of the sococutura matr on the ndvdua suggests that
n the present state of knowedge t may be most practcabe to adopt
an approach that s ess e treme than any of those presented, but
whch w make use of the vewponts to be found n each. sort
of mdde ground s provded by the tradtona, od-fashoned ana-
yss of e perence by cuture hstorans nto reatvey few utur-
gebete or cutura areas. Spranger (192 ), a pup of the cuture /
hstoran, Dthey, has provded us wth a breakdown nto s genera
areas whch at east have the advantage of some prevous usage n
personaty psychoogy because they were the bass for the construc-
ton of the we-known port- ernon Study of aues Test. The
way n whch cuture s dvded up nto s areas and assocated
actvtes temzed for each by port and ernon s perhaps best
ustrated n composte form as n Tabe .4.
257
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T .4
Content nayss of the port- ernon
Study of aues Test
Cuture area aue nvoved
(Spranger)
ssocated actvtes, atttudes, etc.
(Items seected from port- ernon Test)
Theoretca
Truth for ts own
sake
conomc Utty
esthetc eauty, harmony
Soca
ove, nterper-
sona reatons
Potca
Power
God s unnecessary because of scence
Interest n a stranger s knowedge as shown
n hs books
Spendng Sunday by readng serous books
Teachng economcs
Peadng Pea state and Stock Market sec-
tons of Sunday Tmes
ncouragng chdren to take vocatona
tranng
Great artsts are |ustfed n beng sefsh
be shoud be regarded more from vew-
pont of beautfu mythoogy
Spendng Sunday gong to an orchestra
concert
Sef-anayss eads to nsncerty
Great genera progress through freeng
saves and the enhancement of vaue
paced on ndvdua fe
Good government shoud am many at
ad for the poor, sck, and od
ars won t be aboshed because man s
nherenty aggressve
It s |ust to have a sma proporton of rch
peope snce they got there many
through push and abty
Spend Sunday tryng to wn at gof, or
racng
Pegous
Unty of a Man s not nherenty aggressve
e perence The be s sprtua reveaton
Spend Sunday hearng a reay good ser-
mon
(Peproduced wth permsson from G. . port and P. . ernon,
Study of aues. Copyrght 1931 by oughton M n Co.)
25
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
ctuay as ths tabe suggests there s some ack of correspondence
between the three coumns. Spranger s contrbuton was the state-
ment that peope who concentrated n a gven area of actvty as
demarcated by the cutura hstoran were peope who were predom-
nanty motvated by a partcuar vaue. Thus when port and
ernon made up ther test, they had to assume that a person who
engaged n readng and other schoary pursuts n preference to
other actvtes was apt to be a person who was nterested n truth
for ts own sake. Ths s not necessary true, of course. Many of the
actvtes sted n the rght-hand coumn mght be undertaken for
any one of the vaues sted by Spranger. person who scored hgh
on the Pegous scae n the test mght n actuaty be a person
whose chef vaue was power, but who sought power through re-
gous actvtes, and who preferred them for that reason on the test.
Nevertheess the test and Spranger s cassfcaton w provde a
practcabe ntroducton to our probem of defnng a mted num-
ber of areas of e perence whch w cover appro matey the whoe
of the sococutura mpact of the envronment on the person. nd
athough we cannot assume that the vaue Spranger mentons s nec-
essary mped by preference for actvtes n a gven area, we can
argue that scores on the s scaes of the port- ernon test w gve
us some dea of the areas of actvty whch a gven person empha-
szes or de-emphaszes, for whatever reasons. To ths e tent at east,
the test provdes a key to the person s orentatons by demonstratng
what areas of cutura deoogy are of mportance or weght to hm.
nd what s mportant or has weght s one meanng of the word
vaue, even though t s not e acty the meanng whch Spranger
ntended. th ths ntroducton we can now turn our attenton to
the mmedate practca probem of summarzng the nfuence of
the cuture on ar under these s dfferent headngs.
Theoretca- mprca Ideas. e can begn wth what s perhaps
the most mportant area of knowedge for our own cuture, namey,
the area of emprca knowedge or scence. s Parsons puts t (1950),
Scence as a part of cuture may be defned as a systematcay or-
ganzed and verfed body of deas or beefs about, or knowedge
of the emprca word. It s part of the cogntve orentaton of
men whch s socay structured n the sense of beng hed n com-
mon by consderabe numbers of peope wthn the same socety,
and whch, as part of the cutura tradton, s socay nherted
from prevous generatons or dffused from other socetes, addtons
259 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
contnuay beng made to ths receved base. The dstngushng
characterstc of ths knd of knowedge s ts emprca verf ab-
ty. That s, we may ncude under ths headng anythng from a
smpe sensaton of bue a the way to nsten s Theory of Pea-
tvty because n each case operatons e st for checkng the sensa-
ton or the dea that the person has. These checkng or pontng
operatons dstngush ths knd of knowedge from that cassfed
under other headngs ( esthetc, Pegous, etc.). Thus we may ds-
tngush for practca purposes the scentfc knowedge that the psy-
choogst obtans about personaty from the poetc or apprecatve
knowedge that the novest or dramatst has of personaty (cf.
Chapter 3), or the scentfc knowedge that the physcst has of the
physca prncpes whch produce the beautfu coors of a sunset
and hs apprecatve knowedge of that same sunset. 0bvousy any
partcuar set of sensatons can be vewed n reaton to a number
of dfferent frames of reference. The pont we are makng here s
that some cutura knowedge s reguary vewed from the stand-
pont of ts emprca verfabty. Thus a chemst may get an aes-
thetc thr out of hs equatons, or be mpressed by the economc
or technoogca utty of them, but chemstry as a branch of know-
edge s normay consdered to fa wthn the emprca-theoretca
area of cuture. e cannot hope to summarze the fu e tent of
ar s emprca knowedge from bacuses to ebras, athough Pob-
erts (1950) has attempted to do somethng ke ths wth ndvduas
n preterate socetes where symboc contro of knowedge through
readng s ess hghy deveoped than n our own cuture. ut we can
assert from our knowedge of ar s educaton and achevement test
scores that he has samped rather wdey from the e stng areas of
emprca knowedge and that n the process he has formuated cer-
tan basc deas or orentatons whch serve to organze or gve mean-
ng to hs varous tems of nformaton. These deas may perhaps
best be characterzed n terms of sze, growth, and reatve m-
portance orentatons as n Tabe .5.
In ths tabe are sted on the eft-hand sde the basc orentatons
whch are supposed to characterze ths area of mercan cuture ac-
cordng to socoogsts (Cf. uckhohn and uckhohn, 1947 Sr|a-
mak, 1947 Naegee, 1949 etc.) 0n the rght-hand sde are sted
ar s deas whch are derved n part from cutura orentatons and
n part from hs own dosyncratc e perences. ach of these deas s
abeed accordng to the porton of hs records from whch t was n-
ferred. Sometmes he s fuy conscous that he has such an dea: there
260
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
T .5
Some Typca mercan Cutura 0rentatons Toward mprca
Phenomena and Ther ssocated Pepresentatons n
ar s Schemata
mercan Cutura 0rentatons ar s schemata wth source ndcated
(Cf. uckhohn and uckhohn,
947 )
. Sze
1. The more nformaton one has (1) we-rounded educaton s va-
the better. uabe snce t opens up a areas
of knowedge to the person. ( )
( )
. arger thngs are more mpor- (2) gness (ncudng my sze), s
tant, vauabe, etc. (Cf. runer vauabe,
and Goodman, 1947.)
. Growth (progress)
3. Tme dscrmnatons are m-
portant especay wth future
reference.
(3) The future s very mportant. (C)
4. nowedge s growng a the (4) The growth of knowedge pre-
tme. sents probems to men. ( )
5. Nature can be conquered, ma-
npuated for man s beneft.
(5) Nature can be conquered f we
understand human nature. ( )
6. uman nature can be under- (6) nowedge s not so mportant
stood and conquered too, n tsef but as a means to the
though the task s ess far ad- hgher vaue of happness. ( )( )
vanced.
(7) mprca e panatons are to be
preferred to non-emprca, re-
gous ones wherever possbe. (D)
C. Peatve mportance of know-
edge to other vaues.
Sources
( ) ssay on hat I woud deay ke to get out of a course n Psycho-
ogy. (Cf. Chapter 5.)
( ) utobography.
(C) Number of future tenses n essay hgh T T n chevement Score.
(D) Pegon questonnare.
( ) port- ernon Study of aues Test.
261
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
s an actua statement by hm of the dea n queston. In other cases
the dea s an nference by the observer. case n pont s hs future
orentaton. . uckhohn (1950) has argued that mercans, partcu-
ary of ower-mdde-cass background ke ar, are orented toward
the future (cf. aso Israe, 1932), but that does not mean, of course,
that ar necessary s. urthermore, he does not say n so many
words that he s chefy concerned about the future, but we can n-
fer that he s from the hgh frequency of future tenses n hs essay, as
compared wth others wrtng under smar condtons (rank 4th
out of 14), and aso from the hgh frequency of forward-ookng
achevement characterstcs n a Thematc ppercepton Test, agan
as compared wth others takng the same test (cf. Chapter 13). In
ths case an dea, orentaton, or schema s nferred from the data.
Inference may even be necessary when there s a drect conscous e -
presson of an dea, snce t may not be the refecton of a truy
representatve dea for the person but of a desre to pease, conform,
or defend hmsef.
t the present tme there are no methods avaabe for makng a
systematc deoogca census of ths sort. e can therefore ony pro-
ceed usng the hnts gven us ether by socoogca anayses of
mercan cuture or by ar s comments n hs autobography and
esewhere, n the hope that methodoogca mprovements w some-
day be made on both sdes. There are ndcatons of such mprove-
ments aready. In the frst pace, many more socoogsts and anthro-
poogsts are payng attenton to the probem of defnng domnant
cutura deas or vaues. In the second, cnca psychoogsts have for
years found t ndspensabe to dscover a patent s ma|or deas, at
east roughy, and have coected a good dea of data whch can be
used as a bass for more systematc anayses. t the crudest eve ths
nvoves such smpe orentaton questons as, ow ong have you
been here n the hospta, here are you hat tme s t or
In whch drecton s your home t a more compe eve t n-
voves nformaton questons (as n the echser- eevue test) and
concept formaton tests ke the gotzky (cf. anfmann and asann,
1937) n whch an attempt s made to fnd out how we a person can
categorze hs e perence perceptuay and to some e tent dea-
tonay. There s no reason why the gotzky test approach coud
not be e tended to dscover how a norma person cassfes more com-
pe e perences than bocks of dfferent shapes, coors, and szes. In
the thrd pace, e permenta psychoogy has made advances n
262
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
studyng ndvdua dfferences n perceptua modes whch may n
tme ad n defnng a person s ma|or deoogca orentatons. or
nstance, tkn (1949) has deveoped a way of teng whether a
person s orentaton n space s made prmary n terms of vsua
or proproceptve cues. Some day n a smar manner e permenta-
sts may be abe to show us how to determne whether the dea
nowedge s growng s a ma|or orentaton n a gven person s
fe. hat s needed s a method for determnng centra tendences
among deas comparabe to the ones we have for determnng cen-
tra tendences n |udgmenta scaes.
In the meantme we sha have to be content wth the knd of com-
mon-sense approach represented by Tabe .5. Some further com-
ment on each of the deas n the tabe s n order, partcuary to
show the evdence on whch each s based. In ths and subsequent
dscussons we w refer to a gven dea by number so as to be abe
to ntegrate them a nto an deoogca system for ar at the end
of the chapter, (1) The vaue of knowedge and educaton n mer-
ca s we attested by many facts. Perhaps t s suffcent to quote
ony one statstc from . uckhohn on ths pont: The check of
a sampe of oder brothers of the hgh schoo age boys (the sampe
ncuded the brothers of a boys n one schoo grade n each of three
towns) shows that 62 percent have acheved a hgher educatona
eve than ther fathers and ony 7 percent have had ess educaton.
(1950.) ar ceary partcpates n the trend toward upward mobty
through educaton. Nether of hs parents went to hgh schoo but
he and both hs brothers have gone beyond hgh schoo to receve
professona tranng. In hs essay on hs nterest n psychoogy he
states e need a we-rounded store of knowedge and It seemed
necessary to me to round out my more or ess heterogeneous study
program . . . To hm a we-rounded educaton s ceary a vaue.
(2) Sze and bgness are part of the mercan technoogca
growth compe accordng to socoogsts. Ctes are gettng arger,
budngs are gettng taer, more peope are beng educated, fewer
peope are dyng of dsease, the average soder n ord ar II was
heaver and taer than n ord ar I. ths s mpct n the
thnkng of most mercans whether they ke t or not. e may
assume that ar shares ths orentaton, athough there s tte
drect evdence for t e cept n connecton wth a coroary noton
about the vaue of hs own sze. e s a bg person, as our somato-
type anayss has shown, and hs bgness has nevtaby made an
mportant dfference n hs ad|ustment so far. e can beat up peope
263
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
who pck a fght wth hm, pay a hgh prestge roe n the youth
cuture by beng promnent on the footba team, etc. These are a
e perences whch shoud contrbute mportanty to a sze schema,
even though t s doubtess an mpct one whch coud be confrmed
ony by more drect methods.
(3) uture orentaton n merca goes wth the sze and growth
compe ( . uckhohn, 1950). It derves n part hstorcay from
the e pectaton of mmgrants that ther chdren woud surpass
them and eave behnd ther foregn ways (cf. Gorer, 194 ). Concern
about future tme has trcked down from ths genera orentaton
unt t permeates every part of modern urban vng. Murray de-
scrbes t thus: Personates construct schedues whch permt the
e ecuton of as many conatons as possbe, one after another. . . .
Tme w be set asde for the carryng forward df one or more sera
programs. . . . Under the condtons whch generay preva1 today,
especay n hghy ntegrated, urban communtes, a man ves by
a cock-determned schedue. The stmuus for eatng s not empt-
ness n the pt of hs stomach but the factory whste or the hands of
hs watch ndcatng that the pre-arranged moment has arrved.
( uckhohn and Murray, 194 , pp. 1 -19.) The mportance of ths
tme orentaton s ustrated by the contrastng e ampe of a stu-
dent who faed as a sub|ect n an e perment on |udgng short tme
ntervas. e was unabe to make tme dscrmnatons or reproduce
tme ntervas accuratey that were reproduced wth tte error by
the typca mercan coege student. It ater turned out that he had
been brought up on a sma sand n the Medterranean where the
stye of fe requred very tte n the way of tme |udgments. There
were no trans to catch, no stop watches for hgh-schoo athetc
events, no paces to speed n an automobe, etc. Consequenty he
had smpy not earned as yet to thnk n terms of tme or to make
as accurate tme dscrmnatons as the average mercan does.
gan ar appears to be typca. s a thrd-generaton ower-
mdde-cass mercan he shoud have been most e posed to the
stress on future success, on schedung fe s actvtes n terms o
tomorrow. hat evdence there s strongy suggests he has such
future orentaton, as the number of future tenses n hs essay and
hs hgh T T n chevement score both attest.
(4) and (5) The fath n man s abty to conquer nature through
the advancement of knowedge s supported by technoogca ad-
vance on every sde. More and more peope are comng to share ar s
vew, as we have seen n Chapter I, that ony by understandng human
264
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
nature through scence w we be abe to reap the benefts of our
conquest over nature. In hs words:
ong wth ths trend of thought, I mght add that Psychoogy woud
seem to suppy many of the mssng nks n the probems of phosophy and
the other scences. specay n ths day and age n whch rapd technoog-
ca advances force us to decson, must we muster a our nteectua re-
sources to face the ever ncreasng probems of fe and ts functons.
(6) and (7) It woud be dffcut to concude how mportant some
of these orentatons are n mercan fe reatve to some other or-
entatons to be dscussed beow. ut for the ndvdua the probem
s not so dffcut. ar s comments and three of hs tests te us where
he stands on ths ssue:
e need a we-rounded store of knowedge, especay about ourseves
and human behavor n order to ve a rcher, fuer and happer fe.
In short, truth and knowedge are for hm nstrumenta vaues. e
goes on to say that psychoogy may be the key to regon whch we
are a nterested n ... more or ess. though he does not ac-
cept any theoogca opnons (such as beef n God as a eaveny
ather ) whch appear to go aganst emprca facts (sec p. 276),
he does thnk of those emprca facts merey as means to the more
mportant vaues of happness and ad|ustment to the unverse (Pe-
gon). Ths vew s fuy confrmed by hs score on the Theoretca
Scae of the port- ernon aues Test whch paces hm n the
oth percente for coege students and whch ranks ths vaue for hm
n a te for fourth and ffth pace out of s vaue scaes. s Theoret-
ca nterest s surpassed both by hs nterest n Pegon and n Soca
affars on ths test n drect confrmaton of the above quotatons
from hs wrtngs. nay hs scores on the Strong ocatona Interest
Test for varous occupatons confrm the reatvey ow poston of
knowedge for ts own sake n ar s deoogca herarchy. 0ut
of the thrty-three occupatons on whch standard scores were ava-
abe for ar there were three (Mathematcan, ngneer, Chemst)
whch coud be cassfed as occupatons n whch theoretca-em-
prca deas coud be consdered as of beng of centra mportance
to the men engaged n them. 0n these three ar s average standard
score was ony 22.7 (a C- - ratng) whch corresponds to around the
21st percente rank n a hs occupatons. (See notes at the end of
the chapter for detas.)
265
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
These test scores ustrate severa methodoogca ponts, (1) sn-
ge fact can and probaby shoud be approached n severa dfferent
ways. ere an nference about the reatve mportance to ar of
knowedge for ts own sake s confrmed n three ways ( ssay, port-
ernon Test, Strong Interest Test). (2) Psychoogca tests are most
usefu n determnng the reatve mportance of an dea once t s
defned. Unfortunatey what s needed n ths area s a technque
for determnng what deas are mportant to a person. ut once ths
probem s soved, the reated queston of how mportant the dea s
can be determned by e stng measurement technques. Note, how-
ever, that the tests do not show why knowedge s ess mportant to
ar, though ths s ready apparent n hs essay n whch knowedge
appears as nstrumenta to other ends. (3) Peatve mportance can
be measured wthn an ndvdua as we as among ndvduas.
That s, we have compared ar s standng on varous groups of
occupatons n comparson wth hs standng on a occupatons and
have been abe to fnd meanng n the ntra-ndvdua comparson
|ust as we aso have n comparng hs standng wth others.
conomc Ideas. Under ths headng we ncude deoogca em-
phases n the cuture concernng workng and earnng a vng. Par-
sons (1950) has made a strong case for the fact that merca perhaps
even more than most uropean countres has been domnated by
what mght be caed uttaran economc theory. Ths theory
hods that the ndvdua s and shoud be bascay on hs own.
e knows what he wants and sets out to get t. In the process he en-
counters others and he and they tend to come to terms wth each other to
mutua advantage. ach perceves that ndrect ways of gettng what they
want through producng somethng that they can se to others are more
productve than tryng to do everythng for themseves. Money as a medum
of e change factates ths process. Snce most of what s wanted can be
bought for money the mmedate goa of productve effort tends to focus
on money ncome. The pursut by each of hs sef nterest n a system of
market e change reatonshps, through the sef-reguatng acton of compe-
tton, tends to ma mze producton and conduce to the wefare of a.
(Parsons, 1950, p. 31.)
Ths deoogca framework has seemed pecuary ftted to the e -
pandng economy and the openng fronter whch has characterzed
the Unted States n the past one hundred years. et us ook for ee-
ments of ths economc deoogy n ar s autobography and other
records.
266
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
rst of a we note that both hs father and hs mother worked
durng the depresson when ther means of vehood, ke that of
so many other mercan fames, seemed to be severey threatened.
e states that hs mother s ndustrous and that hs father s very
thorough n a that he does. The boys n the famy were taught
the vaues of thrft and hard work eary n fe.
I aways resented the fact when sma that I never had the spendng
money that other boys and grs had, but I reazed that even n so dong I
earned the vaue of the doar.
1 was born and rased n the country. 0ur home was comfortabe but not
eaborate. . . . e aways had penty to eat and good, whoesome fare.
... I aways ate my food and st do. e had to eat what was on our pates
and were taught never to waste food.
rom the cutura economc deoogy and from these e cerpts we
may summarze two of ar s economc vews as foows:
( ) The ndvdua s on hs own and must make a vng by hs
own efforts.
(9) The prmary goa of work s money.
s support for ths ast statement, we note further that he says n
connecton wth hs father that money matters seem to gve hm a
great dea of concern. There s aso evdence that ar came n fre-
quent contact wth another of the economc deas prevaent n hs
cuture, namey the prevaence of competton wth others n the
pursut of one s own economc wefare. e states about hs father
that he s rather suspcous of the motves of others and n out-
nng hs own phosophy, I woud ke to see the word remodeed
on the Chrstan ethca standard, the Sermon on the Mount, wth
the aw of ove pervadng the hearts of men. I beeve ths s the
answer to our soca, economc, potca and a probems of socety.
. . . My genera estmate of the soca word s that t conssts of a
ot of sefsh, graspng ndvduas, perhaps so because of the com-
pettve sprt and aw of survva whch seem to pervade our go-
cety. Ths makes cear that he accepts the vew that economc fe
nvoves a compettve strugge for survva, but re|ects the ut-
taran noton that ths w be conducve to the wefare of a. These
deas may be e pressed as foows:
(10) Competton s an nherent part of economc fe.
(1 1) Competton promotes sefshness and s not conducve to the
wefare of a.
267
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Throughout a ths we note the typca mdde-cass emphases on
effort and hard work, thrft, property and money ( uckhohn and
uckhohn, 1947), a of whch carry mpcatons as to the dscpne
and sef-contro necessary to obtan them. ow mportant are these
economc orentatons to ar 0nce agan we can turn to the -
port- ernon and Strong ocatona Interest Tests for an answer.
0n the former, economc deas receve reatvey more emphass than
the theoretca-emprca ones, but hs raw score of 27 s st ony n
the 40th percente among coege students and ranks ony thrd out
of hs s vaue scores. s far as the Strong test s concerned, the
many practca or uttaran occupatons (e.g., the offce occupa-
tons and the sked trades such as prnter, carpenter, farmer, etc.)
a tend to show very ow nterest ratngs, the mean standard score
beng 25.7, whch s n the goth percente of a hs occupatona
scores, agan somewhat hgher than for the theoretca occupatons
but st qute ow. It s of some nterest to note that hs overt voca-
tona ambton on enterng coege was to become a chemca eng-
neer. In ths t seems key that hs father s occupaton (sked
mechanc) and nterests payed some part, as we as the genera
mercan e pectaton of upward mobty, snce the occupaton s
of the same genera sort as hs father s but at a hgher eve, requrng
more educaton. That ths ambton represents the nfuence of en-
vronmenta press more than nner convcton s defntey ndcated
by the resuts of the Strong ocatona Test, whch show that hs
actua nterests n feds aed to ths one are qute ow as compared
to hs nterests n other occupatons, partcuary those deang wth
peope n a servce reatonshp, as we sha see ater.
esthetc Ideas. In ths area are ncuded a the sentent or sen-
suous aspects of fe whch may reach ther hghest and most n-
sttutonazed forms n art, musc, and poetry. There s amost no
evdence n ar s autobography of nterest on hs parents part n
ths area of e perence, or of any drect or mportant e perence on
hs part wth such actvtes. It s therefore not surprsng to dscover
that he scores n the oth percente on the esthetc vaue scae for
the port- ernon test and has a mean standard score on the four
occupatons reatng to ths area (artst, muscan, archtect, author-
|ournast) of ony 20.3, whch s n the 14th percente of a hs
occupatons. rom ths we derve:
(12) orma artstc e perence s of reatvey tte mportance
n fe.
26
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
In ths respect ar s agan rather typca of hs cuture, whch
emphaszes the dong or achevng rather than the beng or becom-
ng vrtues (cf. . uckhohn, 1950). ork eaves tte tme for sen-
suous en|oyment. Nevertheess, at the nonnsttutonazed eve,
there s a good dea of concern and uneasness about persona happ-
ness. The two themes that seem to run through ths matera are
these:
(13) chevement does not brng happness.
(14) fe s rather panfu, fu of sufferng and worry.
Thus n descrbng hs parents he states that hs father s e -
ctabe and constanty worred by everyone s troubes. . . . My
mother suffers from deafness, arthrts, and snusts whe my father
had a back n|ury whch has nduced arthrts. My father s chef
dverson s gardenng. e dskes hs present |ob to the pont where
he woud ke to qut and rase chckens for a farm. t any rate he
seems to be qute dssatsfed wth fe. In another secton he states
that ot of worryng s done for nothng. In hs own case, or-
ganzed attempts at recreaton or en|oyment seem to ncude chefy
carng for a seres of pets, payng sports, and readng a good dea.
Underyng a s the fundamenta mpct feeng that somethng s
ackng n fe, that one ought to en|oy fe more. ong wth ths
feeng of ack there are few postve notons as to how t can be fu-
fed, other than through the estabshment of the aw of ove n
the hearts of men, whch serves as a fna goa rather than as a ne t
step.
Potca Ideas. hat are the man cutura orentatons toward
probems of power, authorty, government, and war Socoogsts and
anthropoogsts n genera seem agreed that to contemporary mer-
cans authorty as such s consdered bad. In Parsons words (1950):
verythng went so we, t was mantaned, because men had be-
come sensbe enough to berate themseves from nterferng re-
strants, of whch there were two man types: Potca authorty wth
ts monopostc contros, and rratona custom. Gorer notes n
the same connecton that most of the mmgrants who came to
merca escaped at the same tme from dscrmnatory aws, rgdy
herarchca soca structures, compusory mtary servce and au-
thortaran mtatons of the opportuntes open to the enterprsng
and of the goas to whch they coud aspre. ut the re|ecton of
home and country coud not be pecemea the supports had to be
269
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
abandoned wth the restrants ndvduay the mmgrants had to
try and transform themseves nto mercans. (194 , p. 25.) In many
nstances the father became symboc of the od re|ected ways and
hence t was mpossbe for hm to mantan, accordng to Gorer, a
poston of much authorty n a famy n whch the chdren knew
more about the desred mercan ways than he dd. Thus the and
of the free meant freedom from authortaran potca and soca
systems n whch the father s the domnant symboc fgure. Ideay
of course ths shoud ead to a socety of equas n whch no man s
better than any other and n whch there are no casses. There s
evdence of ths deoogca dske of authorty and cass dstnctons
n severa dfferent paces n ar s record. or nstance, we have
seen that hs father s rather suspcous of the motves of others and
berates the country, word, and offcas of a sorts. In speakng of
the word remodeed on the Chrstan ethca standard ar states
further, I shoud ke to take my pace n such a word as a ctzen
of t, not necessary as a eader, because n such a socety, eaders
can be dspensed wth. nay we fnd that ar makes every effort
to put hs beef n the brotherhood of man nto practce snce n
fng out the ogardus Soca Dstance Scae (cf. Newcomb and
artey, 1947) he showed no raca or regous dscrmnaton, stat-
ng that he woud be wng to admt members of other races and
faths nto the cosest persona reatonshps. ar seems to have n-
terorzed the foowng two eements of the mercan creed:
(15) men are equa.
(16) Power and authorty are essentay suspect and undesrabe.
Yet he s not wthout ambvaence on ths pont, nor, n fact, s hs
cuture. or one thng t s perfecty obvous that not a men are
equa n the economc prveges they have or n the power and
authorty they en|oy. s Parsons (1950) puts t, the growth of organ-
zaton nvadates even for the man on the street the smpe paradgm
of ndvduas producng thngs and tradng wth each other to mutua
advantage. bove a the eements of authorty and dscpne, as
we as dfferentaton of weath and prvege, become conspcuous.
0n ths count t s ony a mnorty who en|oy the fu advantages of
the system. To put t n another way, f ar s to foow out
hs own economc dea of gettng ahead he must cmb the ad-
der of prvege whch aready e sts (athough t shoudn t) and
may sooner or ater fnd hmsef n a poston of eadershp or
authorty t s undesrabe for anyone to hod. Ths ambvaence s
270
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
ncey e pressed n the contrastng scores he gets on the port-
ernon aues Test, whch pace hm n the oth percente (rank
4.5 out of 6 vaues) on nterest n potca affars (or n power) and
on the Strong Interest Test, on whch he rates rather hgh n voca-
tons nvovng managera responsbty. s mean standard score
on such occupatons as Poceman, Cty Schoo Superntendent, Pro-
ducton Manager, and Presdent of a Manufacturng Concern s 3 .5,
whch paces ths group of power-orented vocatons n the 7 th
percente of a hs occupatons. ow can we reconce an apparenty
e pct dstaste for authorty reatonshps wth an mpct nterest
n the knd of occupatons whch nvove such reatonshps s
father s atttude s reveang n ths connecton. 0n the one hand hs
father s suspcous of the nterference of others and dskes the
government, yet, on the other hand, n hs own home he s appar-
enty somethng of an autocrat requrng hs chdren to obey hm
amost n the uropean pattern of the patrarcha father. Thus the
father dskes authorty n others, but sanctoa ts use by hs own
behavor. The same confct appears n ar. t the more conscous
eve he s opposed to authorty, but mpcty he apparenty dent-
fes to some e tent wth hs father and beeves dscpne s a good
thng. e grew up to acqure a name n town as beng we-rased,
we-mannered boys. The punshments receved had no detrmenta
effect, ether mentay or otherwse. They seemed to do us good.
e can therefore say that the foowng proposton s accepted m-
pcty by ar:
(17) uthorty s aso good and desrabe.
The confct between propostons 16 and 17 s fary obvous to
ar and he has made severa attempts to ratonaze t. Thus n one
pace he makes a dstncton between the rea and the dea, appar-
enty hodng that n order to meet the sefsh compettveness of
others, some knd of counteractve strvng for prestge and power
s essenta, athough t coud be done away wth n a socety run
accordng to the aw of ove. more subte ad|ustment between
these two vaues s suggested by the foowng remarks referrng to
hs hgh-schoo e perences. I was very confdent workng n groups
when I knew the peope, receved cooperaton and was usuay char-
man or a whee. ere the vew seems to be that eadershp s
permssbe f t s the w of the peope. In mercan fe gener-
ay, t s consdered undesrabe for any person to want too much
to hod an mportant poston. Instead he s supposed to be
271
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
drafted. ar apparenty hods somewhat smar vews, athough
n hs case t s qute cear that ths s not a ruse desgned to deceve
anyone. Instead, he seems genuney to mean t when he says that
eadershp for hm s possbe ony when he s secure n the approva
and cooperaton of others. e mght summarze ths vew as:
(1 ) Power shoud ony be e ercsed f subordnates wsh t and
ask for t.
It s therefore not surprsng to dscover that n a ratng of the rea-
tve serousness of varous vces (see notes at the end of the chapter),
ar paces such tems as dsrespect and rebeousness as east m-
portant on the scae. Pebeon aganst authorty s a rght, partcu-
ary f t s arbtrary authorty rather than the w of the peope.
Soca Ideas. roady speakng, ths topc ncudes the structure
and patternng of a sorts of soca reatons n a gven cuture and
the deas whch the cuture hods wth regard to these reatons. s
we have aready seen, the cuture nto whch ar was born was
prmary an ndvduastc one whch pays down or mnmzes
sodary reatons of a sorts. The phosophy of economc uttaran-
sm mpes that the ndvdua acted on hs own, not n hs capacty
as a member of a sodary group. (Parsons, 1950.) Ths phosophy
was aded n merca by the necessty of breakng wth oder author-
taran patterns and by the condtons whch e sted n a fronter
communty. s a resut of a these processes as we as the Protestant
ethc to be dscussed beow, natona, cass, regous, and famy so-
dartes a tended to be payed down. In Parsons words, The psy-
choogca and socoogca compe tes of the spheres of the famy,
se roes and the reatons of the se es were aso competey by-
passed. . . . There has n fact been an openng for another type of
ndvduastc emphass here, whch has payed a great part n the
mythoogy of romantc ove, n femnsm, n the deoogca appea
of vugar reudansm. In terms of the knds of anayss made
by orence uckhohn as to types of famy reatonshp as pre-
sented n Tabe .3, the mercan system s defntey ndvdua-
stc n emphass, as opposed to coatera or nea. The typca
famy s the soated con|uga unt, and the typca ndvdua passes
from one (the famy of orentaton) to another (the famy of procre-
aton) n the course of hs fetme. s obgatons are mted frst
to hs parents and then to hs wfe and to some e tent to hs chdren,
athough the atter often cease as soon as the chdren are of age.
272
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
of these eements appear to be present n ar s famy rea-
tons. e says, for nstance, 0ur famy crce taken as a whoe s
very oose. grandparents are dead and I haven t seen some of my
cousns and unces for years athough they ve ony three mes
away. nd further, My attachment to the famy was aways a cose
one, athough now I am ndfferent. psychatrst who ater nter-
vewed ar to round out our pcture of hm comments: The gen-
era atttude toward the famy s cod, ackng n deep attachment
eves. In reaton to hs brothers he states, I get aong a rght
wth my brothers. e fought when we were kds. The war tghtened
the bonds. e end each other money. In a of ths there s ev-
dence of the ndvduastc emphass at east at the famy eve.
amy obgatons are oose, warm affectona tes are mssng.
Yet as a part of the whoe compe , or because of t, ar greaty
deazes romantc ove as the souton to a probems. s he puts t
n hs autobography,
I have dreamed ntensey of vng a fe wth an dea mate. Nothng s
so satsfyng as to cast onesef nto a dream word wheren you and the
woman you ove are together hgh on a wndy h, ookng out on the
word. |ust to hod the woman of your choce n your arms and avsh your
ove upon her seems to me the source of greatest deght. ... I beeve one
hundred percent n marrage as a nobe nsttuton. I beeve that a coupe
can ony make the most of ther fe, vng n harmony and satsfacton of
a happy unon.
s Parsons suggests, perhaps the reason for the mportance of the
romantc-ove compe n our socety s the de-emphaszng of other
sources of sodarty the famy, the church, the naton, etc. ar
at any rate fts nto such a pattern very ceary. To hm romantc ove
s a mportant. In one of hs T T stores whch seems to be
autobographca n vew of the above quotaton, he puts t ths way
e s at a oss at tmes to descrbe hs feengs. Nobody seems to under-
stand. The one thng that w snap hm out of ths, where he w seek to
free hmsef from a shacked e stence . . . where he w assert hmsef
and conquer hs doubts and fears, the thng that w do the most toward
puttng hm on the rght road w be for hm to marry the gr he oves.
0therwse ths chap s fe s n van. e w not be accompshng anythng
worth whe. e w ead a bghted e stence, but were he as I have sad
before, to ove the rght gr and marry her, the future woud be a brght
one ndeed.
s we sha see n dscussng regon ths dea of the mportance of
ove has fused wth the Chrstan concepton of the aw of ove to
273
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
form a centra deoogca compe n ar s fe. e may summarze
t as foows:
(19) I am wthout strong sodary, affatve tes.
(20) ove, especay through marrage to a woman I ove, s the
key to e stence.
Confrmaton of ths trend s to be found n a number of paces
n ar s records. In the port- ernon test hs score on the Soca
aue scae s n the g6th percente, ony sghty beow the score on
the Pegous aue scae. In ratng hs vces he paces ntoerance
among the more serous sns, as woud be e pected from hs own ack
of ntoerance as shown by the Soca Dstance scae. urthermore,
by a odds the most serous vce to hm s ack of courage. It s proba-
be that courage as a vrtue has a pecuar pace n the mercan
ndvduastc deoogca emphass, snce f the ndvdua s on
hs own, he must be abe to stand by hmsef on hs own feet and
ward off a dangers. It s probaby no accdent that the poem In-
vctus ( I am the master of my fate, I am the captan of my sou )
has been so popuar n merca, even though n the e tent to whch
t emphaszes se//-reance t s defntey rregous n the Chrstan
sense. It woud seem amost necessary for a socety whch de-empha-
szes sodartes to stress such vrtues as courage and sef-reance.
It s probaby for ths reason, at east n part, that for ar,
(21) ack of courage s the most serous vce.
The resuts of the Strong Test are n ne wth a of ths. ar
scores hghest on those occupatons whch nvove servce to other
peope. 0n such scaes as Y.M.C. . Secretary, Soca Scence gh
Schoo Teacher, Personne Manager, Mnster, etc. hs mean stand-
ard score s 44.5, whch s we above hs average (g1st percente).
nother check shows that of thrteen occupatons whch can be
cassfed as nvovng prmary reatons wth peope, ar scores
hgh ( , - - or ) on eeven out of the thrteen, whereas of the nne-
teen occupatons deang wth thngs, he scores hgh on ony two.
The dfference s sgnfcant we beyond the .01 eve, even when
correctons are made for the ack of ndependence of the varous
scores on the dfferent occupatons. In a ths he appears to be typ-
ca of the rsng generaton of mercans who have attempted to
reconce two confctng deas, ove thy neghbor and ma mze
your money returns (Parsons, 1950), by turnng to those busness
occupatons whch are servce-orented (e.g.. Physcan, Personne
274
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
Manager, etc.). In a somewhat oversmpfed fashon we may state
ths as:
(22) 0ne s occupaton shoud nvove servce to peope.
Pegous Ideas. Pegon deas essentay wth what Parsons cas
the non-emprca reaty systems. very cuture takes some pos-
ton on such mportant, but nonemprcay-answerabe questons as:
hat s the nature of man hat s the nature of God or the super-
natura hat s the reatonshp between man and God The Prot-
estant ethc whch s part of ar s background has been repeatedy
anayzed by a number of dfferent wrters, notaby by Ma eber,
the great German socoogst. It woud be mpossbe to do |ustce to
ths compe sub|ect n a short space, but we may seect three deoog-
ca emphases of ma|or mportance for bref dscusson: (a) God s
the a-powerfu source of creaton and requres respect and obed-
ence. Impct n ths dea are many of the eements of the 0d
Testament concepton of God as a more or ess authortaran patr-
archa father, (b) Man s responsbe for hs own savaton. Ths
domnant dea, though t went through as many transformatons as
there were Protestant sects, formed the bass for the Protestant re-
vot at the tme of the Peformaton. It has two somewhat opposed
coroares. The frst s the emphass on ndvdua responsbty for
savaton ( the presthood of a beevers ) as opposed to the many
supports provded by the Mother church. The other s the noton
that savaton s ted up wth nner perfecton. Chrst as Medator
between God and man became the e ampe of the perfect Man
after whom ndvduas shoud mode themseves as much as possbe.
Yet n Chrst s fe and n s teachngs there s strong emphass on
the beng and becomng vrtues as opposed to the achevng ones.
The Sermon on the Mount stresses such vrtues as humty, servce,
sef-sacrfce, meekness, peaceabeness, and the aw of ove pervad-
ng the hearts of men. (c) Man s responsbe for the comng of the
ngdom of God. specay n Sant Pau s tme there was a strong em-
phass on actve effort to brng about the ngdom of God whch he
fet was requred n hs fetme. Ths dea has been stressed often n
Protestantsm and has contrbuted to the noton that man must
conquer nature and especay human nature f he s to brng about
the ngdom of God. There s somethng of a confct here between
evauatng man for what he s n terms of the Chrst dea and n
terms of what he does to brng about the ngdom of God on earth.
It s fary cear that a these deoogca eements were present n
275
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ar s envronment and receved ther pecuar emphass n hs own
deas. e states, Nether parent goes to church. My mother reads
the be and argues t, but my dad says very tte though he cams
Chrstanty as hs fath. Nevertheess, both parents are knd, gener-
ous, and have done qute a bt of communty work n the past. s
mother s reance on the be rather than on the authorty of the
church s typca of rptestant ndvduasm n ts earer form.
rom ths we can nfertheTSttowTng dea:
(23) The ndvdua must seek savaton (happness) on hs own.
ar hmsef was gven a rather e tensve regon questonnare
whch s reproduced n fu at the end of the chapter, to show how he
answered each tem. Tabe .6 summarzes the e tent of hs agreement
wth varous statements on ths questonnare.
T .6 |
Summary of ar s nswers to a Pegon uestonnare - ,) t
Yes gree Sometmes No
eowshp wth God n
God can forgve sns /
God a eaveny atheTy
prayer
God can perform med-
God as a-powerfu
God outsde hmsef
ca mraces /
God desres human ove
Men are God s tte
chdren
Preoccupaton wth
God can gve power to
cope wth dffcutes/
God shoud be adoredy
Pegon |requres ahsu
nence f |
Persona converson v.
. 1
death .
e shoud atone for
Persona phosoph rv
Sef-sacrfce s good S
our sns to God 7
mary regous /
God gves benefts
Man s snfu n dsobey-
be s tera truth
Confesson to God fees
ng God
God the man thng n
good
Ma|esty of Presence of.
r fe
God y /
Man ought not to need
ove of the fesh s b d
the word - ,
6
God saves by grace |f

rom the yes coumn t s reatvey easy to draw the concuson
that he conceves of God as a source of comfort, securty, benefts,
and peace of mnd. In a sense hs concepton fufs the roe of a
securty system n ardner s sepse ardner argues that a pro-
|ectve systems, ncudng regon, serve the functon of protectng
the person aganst fear and nsecurty (checked by ar as sources
of hs regon). 0n the other hand he does not conceve of God as
a Person eaveny ather) but as a vast mpersona sprtuaT prnv
276
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
cpe (not desrng ove, etc.). Ths s n ne wth the propostons
about reaty he has acqured n hs study of scence and shows that
the need for securty s not the ony determnant of hs regous con-
ceptons.
The second coumn suggests a doubtng acceptance of God s
power. It s as f he were sayng: God may be powerfu (abe to per-
form mraces, forgve sns, etc.) and an ob|ect of awe and adora-
ton. Ths s consstent wth hs ambvaent atttude toward author-
ty mentoned earer. 0n the other hand, the fna coumn argues
that to hm God s not the ony or centra ssue n fe around whch
everythng ese s organzed. e re|ects the more e treme regous
stands (abstnence, fundamentasm, etc.). e mght summarze hs
poston as foows:
(24) God may be powerfu and requre respect and obedence.
(25) God s the prncpe of ove workng to hep men who are de-
pendent on hm.
It s reatvey cear from ths that t s the ovng aspect of God
whch appeas to ar. t east n the ream of regon there s very
tte emphass for hm on the strvng or achevng dmenson. In
fact, he wants to brng about a word as we have seen n whch com-
pettve strvng and achevng w be repaced by the prncpes of
the Sermon on the Mount. though he s defntey ambvaent
about t we can perhaps e press hs atttude ths way:
(26) Man ought to be evauated for what he becomes rather than
for what he does, but the word egsates otherwse.
The reatve mportance of regous deas to ar s best nd-
cated by the fact that on the port- ernon scae of vaues he ranks
hghest of a on the regous scae and, comparatvey, n the g th
percente of a mae coege students takng the test. The score for
Mnster on the Strong test s aso hgh but not ths hgh.
The Summng Up: Integraton of ar s Ideoogy. e have sted,
n a, twenty-s deas whch seem to be centra n ar s concep-
ton of the word. Can we ntegrate them n any way Do they hang
together nto a consstent pattern here are the sources of confct
and tenson hch deas are of centra mportance and whch are
secondary Unfortunatey there s no smpe methodoogca scheme
for determnng how these deas order themseves. gure .1 repre-
sents one such ntegraton whch shows that the deas are not un-
277
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
reated to one another and n fact do form a coherent, f confctng,
pattern. The reader shoud try other ntegratons of hs own. There
s some rephrasng of ar s deas n the tabe for purposes of econo-
my, but the numbers n parentheses refer back to the fu state-
ments scattered throughout the chapter. In ths dagram some of
the sources of the deoogca structure of the mercan man are
paced on the outsde. In the center are the partcuar deas whch
are stressed by ar and the soutons whch he has apparenty
adopted when those deas confct. rrows have been drawn to
attempt to show some of the ma|or connectons among the deas and
ther sources, athough t has obvousy been mpossbe to show a
such connectons. The easest way to read the dagram s to start at
the bottom eft-hand corner and go upward, to the rght, and then
down agan. It has been dffcut to ndcate adequatey the centra
confct n ar s deoogca structure, whch s between ndvdua-
sm on the one hand and the need for sodartes on the other.
Many factors, as we have seen, have contrbuted to the stressng of
the mportance of the ndvdua: the Protestant ethc, poneer fe,
the theory of economc ndvduasm, e treme soca mobty n
an e pandng communty, potca revot aganst oder sodartes,
etc. In ar at east, and probaby n many others brought up n
the mencaTrsoca system, there s a strong need for securty and
sodartes of one sort or another, a great feeng of aoneness.
These two contradctory needs, one for achevement and one for se-
curty, have fused to produce a number of dfferent soutons, a of
whch are fary typca of the contemporary scene. rst and fore-
most to ar s the great vaue of romantc ove. ssentay ths s
an ndvduastc type of sodarty, snce t nvoves wnnng another
person s affectons and then standng unted wth the one other
person as a sma unt aganst the word. Secondy, there s the sou-
ton of contnued achevement or strvng whch may brng securty
eventuay through the accumuaton of money or perhaps authorty
and prestge. ar apparenty has no partcuar fath n ether of
these routes. t east n ths stage of hs fe money does not seem
adequate for the rea support and affecton he needs. Possby t s
devaued because t apparenty dd not brng hs father happness
and because t s somewhat at varance wth hs regous deoogy.
uthorty and prestge are more key possbtes for hm, athough
here agan they confct wth hs potca deoogy of the equaty of
a men, and he can accept the vaue of eadershp ony f t s ac-
27
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
IGUP .1
Dagram Showng ar s Ma|or Ideas (n crces), Ther Sources (n bo es)
and Interconnectons (arrows)
Growth of
knowedge
(1.2.3,4.5 )
ear of
others
(competton.
authorty)
16)
1. Pomantc ove (20)
2. Money and prestge (9)
3. Servce occupaton (22)
4. God as ove and source
of securty (25)
5. Pepace competton wth
ow of ove (11,26)
companed wth the ove of those who are beng ed. thrd ap-
proach s a knd of unrea, dea souton n whch the compettve
system woud be repaced by the aw of ove, n a knd of reazaton
of the ngdom of God on earth. Snce he reazes that ths s an
unrea souton, he s ready wth a compromse whch nvoves the
knd of occupaton whch requres servce to others rather than com-
petton wth them. e have then four soutons to the confct be-
tween e cessve ndvduasm and the need for sodarty: romantc
ove, ndvduastc strvng for money or prestge, the unrea ng-
dom of God on earth, and ndvduastc strvng for servce to
others. There s a certan rea sense n whch ths basc confct and
the aternate soutons refect the basc deoogca structure of
279
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the mercan man n much the same sense as ardner speaks of the
basc personaty structure. These themes and confcts w enter
to a greater or esser e tent nto the thought patterns of anyone born
n ar s cuture, but ony an anayss of ths sort w gve the
pecuar emphass that any ndvdua gves to them. The queston
as to why certan deas and confcts are stressed over others n ar
can be answered ony after we have anayzed motvatona struc-
ture and ts reaton to cogntve structure. or the moment we
must be content wth our deoogca census per se.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. hat s a vaue hat s the dfference between an ndvdua
vaue and a cutura vaue ow woud you measure each ow s a
vaue reated to a sentment defned by Murray and Morgan as an
acqured psychophysca dsposton to respond affectvey to a cer-
tan entty or to enttes of a certan cass. (1945, p. 2 .) ow s a
vaue reated to an mportant dea
2. Tryng to fnd the reatons among deas s not unke tryng
to fnd the reatons among ndvduas n a group from kes and
dskes of the members of the group. In other words, we may pro-
ceed to construct an deogram as we woud a socogram pro-
vded we can make smpe |udgments as to whether dea eads to
dea , or eads to , or both ead to each other. To do ths woud
requre a arge square matr whch n ar s case woud have the
twenty-s deas sted across the top and down the sde or down the
dagona. In each square the |udge woud then pace a sgn nd-
catng hs percepton of the reatonshp between the two deas. The
methods deveoped by atz (1947) and others coud be used to seect
the mportant deoogca custers and group them so that a person
coud perceve them ready. Try ths n ar s case. hatever ese
t does, t nsures the pacng of every dea n con|uncton wth every
other one and so avods errors of smpe oversght n constructng
the over-a pcture.
3. hy has there not been more dscusson of atttude scaes n
ths chapter hat atttude scaes coud be used that woud hep
round out the pcture of ar s deoogy and vaues
4. Take . uckhohn s cutura orentaton scheme presented n
Tabe .3 and attempt to derve each of the twenty-s centra deas
attrbuted to ar from the fve orentatons typca of merca. Do
2 0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
you need any addtona assumptons Is there any way to te whch
are centra and whch are dervatve orentatons
5. uckhohn and eghton (1946, pp. 223-232) st the premses
underyng the Navaho phosophy of fe as foows:
1. fe s very, very dangerous.
t. Nature s more powerfu than man.
3. The personaty s a whoe.
4. Pespect the ntegrty of the ndvdua.
5. verythng e sts n two parts, the mae and the femae, whch beong
together and compete each other.
6. uman nature s nether good nor ev.
7. ke produces ke and the part stands for the whoe.
. hat s sad s to be taken teray.
9. Ths fe s what counts.
Can you summarze n a smar fashon the basc premses of ar s
phosophy of fe ow many of them are smar to these ow
shoud the premses n a persona phosophy of fe be reated to
the premses n the phosophy of fe of the cuture of whch the
person s a member ow do you arrve at the atter
6. Is there anythng n the noton of basc deoogca structure
for a gven cutura group ow woud you go about provng or
dsprovng your answer or e ampe, uckhohn and uckhohn
(1947) st the foowng characterstcs of mercan deoogca
structure:
1. ffort and optmsm (ncudng mora purpose and ratonasm).
. Pomantc ndvduasm (ncudng the cut of the verage Man and
the tendency to personaze).
3. Change as a vaue n tsef.
4. Peasure prncpe.
5. ternasm.
6. Smpe answers.
7. umor.
. Generosty.
ow many of these are consstent wth the mercan core vaues n
Tabe .3 th the deoogca emphases n ar s record n gure
.1 Can you desgn ways of measurng each of these deas and see-
ng whether n fact ndvduas or groups of ndvduas thnk n
these terms ow many of them coud be tested smpy through n-
gustc usages
2 1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
7. The Porschach anayst has ths to say about ar n one part
of hs report:
s ony defense s nteectuazng and represson ( ) but these are
ncapabe of copng wth the emotons that run rampant. It s here that t
becomes apparent that nterest n art, present n ths record, s one manfes-
taton of the use of nteectuazaton as a defense aganst an ety and the
fact that some of hs art percepts have se ua symboc sgnfcance woud
suggest that ths nterest of the sub|ect aso serves as submaton for se ua
preoccupatons.

ow woud you reconce ths fndng wth the apparent ack of
nterest n art dspayed n ar s autobography and tests
. Dscuss the advantages and dsadvantages of descrbng a per-
son n terms of some mportant determnant of behavor ether
boogca ( he s a desert rat, pans-dweer, etc.) or cutura ( he s
a pans Indan, a un, a mnster, etc.).
9. number of ar s test resuts have been gven at varous
paces throughout the chapter. Ths procedure s naturay open to
the ob|ecton that scores are seected to prove whatever pont s at
ssue. Perhaps there are other scores whch dsprove the same pont.
In order to make the detecton of such errors possbe, the fu re-
suts are reproduced here. The reader shoud check through them
to see f there are ponts whch have been obvousy overooked or
overs tressed.
. The port- ernon Study of aues Test.
ctua ppro mate
Scores Percente
Pegous 55 9
Soca 46 96
conomc 7 40
Theoretca 33 o
Potca 21 20
esthetc 19 10
. ar s sef-ratngs on vces.
Pate yoursef regardng the foowng vces. Scae ndcates your att-
tude toward the reatve serousness of the vce. Scae ndcates how much
7ou are characterzed by the vce. Scae C s an ndcaton of how guty
you fet f you have ever e pressed that vce. (6) s hgh, (1) s ow ratng.
2 2
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
a. Dsrespect for those n authorty parents, professors, busness superors.
Serousness 1 456
Invovement 1 2 (3) 456
C-Gut 1 3456
b. Genera dshonesty, e.g., cheatng, petty thevery, msrepresentng, etc.
Serousness 1234 (5) (
Invovement 1 2 (3) 4 5 6
C-Gut 1 (3) 4 CSD 6
c ac of courage n face of danger.
Serousness 1234 (|) 6
Invovement 2 3 5 6
C Gut 2 3 f) 5 6
d. Pebeon, e.g., actng aganst some e press rue of authorty home,
schoo, church, etc.
Serousness 1 .3) (3) 456
Invovement 123 (4) 5 6
C-Gut ( ). 3 4 5 6
e. Narrow-mndedness (1ntoerance, pre|udce, etc.)
Serousness 123 (4) 5 6
Invovement 1 (z) 3456
C Gut 1 3 4 5 6
f. 0verndugence eatng or drnkng too much, azness, payng around
too much.
Serousness 1 2 4 || 6 -
Invovement 123 (4) 5 6)
C-Gut 10 3 45 6
knd of rough over-a nde of the mportance of a gven vrtue
can be derved from ar s answers to ths ratng scae. It s obtaned
by addng the serousness and gut ratngs and subtractng the
amount of nvovement. In other words, the greater the serousness
and gut, and the ess the nvovement, the more mportant the
vrtue woud appear to be. hen ths s done we dscover that cour-
age s by a odds the most mportant vaue to ar of the ones sted.
It s foowed by honesty and toerance and then at a much ower
eve by respect, obedence, and moderaton.
C. ar s Pegous Conceptons. n atttude questonnare, as
we have observed, s neary aways used to measure the amount
rather than the content of an atttude. ut ths need not be the case.
Content can be obtaned from such a scae, though not wthout
2 3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
dffcuty. y way of ustraton we have reproduced here a secton
of ar s answers to a Pegous tttude Inventory. Ths ques-
tonnare was based n part on one used by port, Gespe and
Young (194 ) and was desgned by Phodes (194 ) to gve an over-a
regosty nde and an nde of transcendent as opposed to m-
manent regosty. The scores he obtaned were utzed n the
norma manner n estabshng reatonshps n a group of sub|ects.
ere we are nterested specfcay n what one person beeves,
namey ar.
In Part I of the nventory ar checked statements ndcatng
that regon of a conservatve Protestant sort had had a marked
nfuence n hs upbrngng, but that he had reacted aganst t and
had prayed not at a n the ast s months. s beng nfuenta
n makng hm regous at tmes he sted the foowng factors:
mother (not father), persona nfuence of peope other than parents
(not conformty wth tradton), fear or nsecurty (not grattude),
studes n schoo or coege (not a mystca e perence), and church
teachngs. Most of the remanng tems n Part I and n Part II are
reproduced n fu beow. They are the bass for the content summary
of ar s regous beefs n Tabe .6.
7. The dety (check the one statement whch most neary e presses your
beef):
1. There s an nfntey wse, omnpotent Creator of the unverse
and of natura aws, whose protecton and favor may be supp-
cated through worshp and prayer. God s a persona God.
__2. There s an nfntey ntegent and frendy eng, workng
accordng to natura aws through whch he e presses s power
and goodness. There s the possbty of communcaton wth
ths Dety n the sense that prayer may at east affect our mora
atttude toward nature and toward our own pace n the scheme
of thngs.
3. There s a vast, mpersona, sprtua source or prncpe through-
out nature and workng n man, ncapabe of beng swayed or
communcated wth through prayer.
4. The ony power s natura aw. There s nether a persona creator
nor an nfnte ntegent eng. Nature s whoy ndfferent to
man. Natura aw may be spoken of as sprtua force, but ths
n no way adds to or changes ts character.
5. ecause of our necessary gnorance n ths matter, I nether be-
eve nor dsbeeve n a God.
2 4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
. The person of Chrst (check the poston best correspondng to your
own vew):
1. Chrst, as the Gospes state, shoud be regarded as dvne as the
human ncarnaton of God.
2. Chrst shoud be regarded merey as a great prophet or teacher
much as the Mohammedans accept Mahomet, or as the Chnese
accept Confucus.
3. In a probabty Chrst never ved at a, but s a purey myth-
ca fgure.
9. Immortaty (check the poston that best corresponds to your own vew):
1. I beeve n persona mmortaty, .e., the contnued e stence
of the sou as an ndvdua and separate entty.
2. I beeve n rencarnaton the contnued e stence of the sou n
another body.
_|. I beeve that a person s mmortaty resdes merey n hs nfu-
ence upon hs chdren and upon soca nsttutons.
4. I dsbeeve n mmortaty n any sense.
_5- 0ther
P PT II
The foowng cross check questons are more specfc than the foregong.
They may be answered qucky. Do not be dsturbed f your answers are
nconsstent wth each other or wth those checked n Part I.
If at tmes you agree wth the statement and at other tmes do not, pace
your check under agree sometmes.
gree
some- No opn-
Yes tmes No on
1. Do you beeve that God can hep you
a. by restranng peope who coud harm
you (for nstance, on the battefed )
b. by forgvng your sns
c by performng medca mraces
d. by havng feowshp wth you through
prayer
e. by gvng you power to cope wth fe s
dffcutes
. Do you thnk of God
a. as a eaveny ather
b. as a eng outsde yoursef
c. as a-powerfu
ed n and then erased.
2 5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
gree
some- No opn-
Yes tmes No on
d. as desrng human ove or adoraton
e. as an 0b|ect of prase and adoraton
f. as a eng to whom we must atone for
our wrongdongs
3. Do you beeve manknd s bascay snfu
n that he contnuay dsobeys God
4. Do you agree wth the concepton that
Chrstans are tte chdren n the eyes
of God |C
5. thn the ast s months have you been
preoccuped wth the dea of death
6. Do you fee t necessary to abstan from
certan peasures (se , quor, overeatng,
etc.) for regous reasons
7. Do you fee that sef-sacrfce rases the
quaty of the sprtua fe
. ave you ever had an e perence wheren
you fet overwhemed by God s pres-
ence, e.g., a regous converson
9. Is your phosophy of fe prmary con-
cerned wth regon
10. Can you accept the be as tera truth
11. Indcate your agreement wth the foow-
ng sayngs abstracted from the wrtngs of
famous regous persons:
a. Seek a convenent tme to thnk on the
benefts of God. _ _ _
b. fe s most ma|estc e perence s to
have fet the Presence of God. _
c. ery we deceve ourseves by nord-
nate ove of our fesh.
d. other thngs n the word, save
ony to ove God and serve m, are
vanty.
e. man ought to strengthen hmsef so
that he needeth not to seek any consoa-
ton from the word outsde.
. God saves man by Grace.
I2. person fees better after confessng hs
sns to God (or God s representatve). _
2 6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ID S ND U S
D. ar s Strong ocatona Interest Test (scores grouped accord-
ng to Spranger s vaue types and aso showng factora groupng).
Standard
1
. Theoretca
Score
Patng
Group II
Mathematcan
12
C
ngneer
23
C-f
. conomc
Chemst
33
-
Mean 22.7
(21 percente)
Group III
ccountant
29
c
0ffce man
34
-
Purchasng agent
21
C
anker
27
c
Group I
armer
32
-
Carpenter
10
C
5. esthetc
Prnter
27
c
Mean 25.7
(30 percente)
Group I
rtst
16
C
rchtect
11
C
Group I
Muscan
25
c
Group
uthor-|ournast
29
c
Mean 20.3
(14 percente)
4. Potca
Group III
Producton manager
40

Group I
Poceman
41

Group
Cty Schoo Sup t
40

Personne manager
46
Group I
Pres. Mfg. Concern
25
c
Mean 3 .5
(77 percente)
5. Soca
Group
YMC phys. drector
54
Personne manager
46
YMC Secretary
42

Soc. Sc. . S. Teacher
42

Cty Schoo Sup t
40

Mnster
36
Group I
Physcan
3
Mean 44.5
(91 percente)
6. Pegous
Group
Mnster
36
Score 36
(69 percente)
2 7
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Msceaneous
Group I
Group I
Group
Group I
Dentst 2
Psychoogst 25
Saes manager 31
Pea estate saesman 32
fe nsurance saesman 37
dvertsng man 26
awyer
orest servce man 34
Standard
Score Patng
Math. phys. scence teacher 42
C
c
-
-
C Mean 31.g
(54 percente)
-
0vera mean 31.o
SD 1o.1
Note: ( ) The group numbers show whch occupatons beong together accordng
to a factora anayss.
2
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
9
Poes and Poe Modes
D INITI0N 0 P0
The scene opens n a fraternty house n an astern men s coege.
0ne of the brothers s standng on the tabe n the front ha sur-
rounded by a cheerng crowd. e rases hs hand for sence. Men,
he says n hard-boed, commandng tones, we fnd hm a rght.
I take on the |ob. tta boy, Sam, somebody shouts from the
crowd. They a cheer hm on and try to ook mpressed. ho saw
hm ast demands Sam, sterny. There s a confused babbe of
shouts. Sam agan rases hs hand for sence. |oe, you take over.
sten to ther stores and ca the eutenant to te hm what you
fnd out. Ted, you ook n the dormtores. I m gong to ook for hm
down at Sa s. 0h, w you ever fnd hm, Sam quavers some-
one. oud I be dctatng ths report to you, ffe, f t weren t
comng out a rght shouts Sam as he eaps from the tabe and
amd bursts of aughter heads for Sa s, the oca tavern. Sam Spade,
Dashe ammett s rado detectve, s off on hs atest caper.
The nterestng part about ths epsode, and the part whch s so
amusng to hs fraternty brothers s that the hero of the story
s normay so hestant and sef-crtca, that, far from beng the hard-
boed Sam Spade, he appears retcent and ndecsve n everythng he
does. owever, as soon as he assumes the roe of Sam Spade, whch
he does fary often at the deghted nsstence of hs brothers, he
s transformed and gves at east a reasonaby good performance as
a sef-confdent, hard-boed prvate detectve. Is ths roe whch
he can put on or drop a rea part of hs personaty If t s, how are
we to understand t and ncude t n our systematc anayss of per-
sonaty structure
0n coser nspecton t appears that assumng the roe of Sam
Spade s ony an e treme e ampe of what a of us do frequenty
throughout our ves. e may not often be caed upon to assume
the roe of a prvate detectve, but we do have to dspay such pat-
terns of behavor as are approprate to beng a man or a woman, a
guest, a Methodst, or a saesman. Most of us n such stuatons have
a genera dea of what sort of behavor or atttudes are e pected and
2 9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
furthermore we can e hbt that behavor more or ess correcty.
The abty of peope to transform themseves at east party n ac-
cordance wth the demands of a stuaton has ong been observed by
students of human nature and has an honorabe pace among the
concepts used by soca scentsts. am |ames, for nstance, spoke
of our havng as many soca seves as there are soca stuatons n
whch we fnd ourseves. Socoogsts ke eber and eben have
emphaszed the mportance of the requrements of an occupaton
n shapng the cast of a man s mnd. In consequence such terms as
the bureaucratc personaty, the mtary mnd, or the typca
schoomarm have come nto common usage. Paywrghts made use
of such stereotypes ong before the soca scentsts began ther study
of them. In the atn pays of Pautus and Terence, for nstance,
there are typca stock characters such as the Mes or braggart
soder whose behavor coud be correcty predcted by the mem-
bers of a Poman audence as soon as they recognzed hm.
Psychoogsts as we as socoogsts have been nterested n the
concept of roe. |. . rown (1936) for e ampe speaks of member-
shp character and ts mportance for determnng atttudes and
beefs. or nstance, as a member of the Methodst church a man
woud or shoud have certan beefs about the nature of God. ut
t has remaned for an anthropoogst, Paph nton, to gve what
s perhaps the cearest current formuaton of the soca roe con-
cept. e dstngushes frst of a between status and roe. y status
he smpy means the poston of a person n the soca structure wth-
out regard to how hgh the poston s. person s status then may
ncude hs poston n a famy group, an age group, an occupa-
tona group, a regous group, etc. ssocated wth each of these
statuses are certan e pected patterns of behavor or soca norms.
confguraton of these patterns may be referred to as a status
personaty. The study of such Status Personates, as I have
chosen to ca them, can scarcey fa to produce resuts whch w be
sgnfcant for the understandng of many personaty phenomena.
Common status provdes one of the smpest and at the same tme
the most sgnfcant frames of reference wthn whch groups of
ndvduas can be observed and compared. Persons who share a
common status wthn a socety are a sub|ect to the same sort of
forma soca pressure and are e pected to earn and adhere to
smar cuturay patterned forms of overt behavor. ( nton, 1949.
p. 166.)
here does the status personaty concept ft nto our over-a pc-
290
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
ture of the reaton between personaty and cuture rom Tabe
.1 (p. 241) t woud appear that status presents the ndvdua wth
a cass of probems to whch he must ad|ust more or ess accord-
ng to the specfc soutons ad down by hs cuture. In Chapter
we dscussed the orentatons or deas provded for the ndvdua
by the cuture wth respect to the cass of probems deang wth
what mght be caed fe s basc ssues. Now we turn to the cass
of probems assocated wth the dfferent soca postons n whch a
person fnds hmsef at brth (e.g., se category) or at dfferent tmes
durng hs fe (e.g., age and occupatona categores). Generay
speakng, the soutons to such probems ad down by the cuture
are more specfc than the genera orentatons deat wth n the ast
chapter. They are therefore more dffcut to treat n any over-a
summary fashon. In ths respect our probem seems somewhat ke
the one we faced n attemptng to dea wth the mutpcty of per-
sonaty trats. There seem to be |ust as many soca roes as there
are personaty trats that a person can dspay. Ths suggests that
the souton to the probem of mutpcty of roes may be the same
as t was to the mutpcty of trats: we w have to fnd the com-
mon probems, assocated wth common soca postons, for whch
certan common behavora soutons are socay approved.
Trat and Poe. et us pursue the anaogy between trat and roe
a tte further n the hope that t w hep.us understand the roe
concept better. Suppose we take the hypothetca case of a young
woman who s about to become a schooteacher. In the course of her
deveopment we may assume that she has ad|usted to such ordnary
everyday recurrent probems as wakng, takng, and nteractng
wth other peope, n characterstc or consstent ways whch we have
abeed trats. et us further suppose that she s quet, unassumng,
dependent or submssve n soca reatonshps, restraned and con-
troed n gesture and movement, snce these are trats whch woud
perhaps be favored by her physca consttuton and by her cuture
as approprate for a person wth femnne status. Now when she
waks nto the cassroom, her task presents her wth a whoe new
set of probems. Specfcay she must (1) be seen, (2) be heard, and
(3) mantan dscpne. She may qucky fnd that her od modes of
respondng, her od trats, are no onger successfu. If she taks n
her usua voce, the chdren do not hear her. If she makes her usua
restraned gestures, they w not see what she s pontng at. nd
f she mantans her od dependent reatonshp to others, the ch-
291
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
dren w soon be runnng her. In ths confusng new stuaton, what
does she do Certan courses of acton (new responses) are suggested
to her drecty by the stuaton: She begns to tak ouder. 0ther
new responses come from her observaton of other teachers who
have aready soved these probems or from her memores of how her
own teachers behaved. rom these sources she earns to some e tent
what she cannot do. She knows, for nstance, that she cannot use a
bu whp on that boy n the back row, athough she mght ke to.
She aso earns what she can do to mantan dscpne. In tme,
reactng to the pressures of the stuaton and the gudance provded
her by others, she becomes the typca schooteacher: she speaks
ouder, gestures more e pansvey, and deveops technques for dom-
natng the cassroom stuaton and controng the chdren more or
ess we (cf. aer, 1932). ther that or she quts her |ob or s fred.
0ut of the cassroom n other soca postons she may contnue to
dspay her former habts, reservng her schooteacher status person-
aty for the cassroom, but n the end there w probaby be some
transfer to other stuatons as we and she may dspay some typca
schooteacher characterstcs: a certan nfe bty, a stff and
forma manner, a fat ddactc tone of voce, dgnty, ack of spon-
tanety, and on the whoe a ack of creatveness, and a strong desre
for securty. ( omarovsky and Sargent, 1949, p. 146.)
The pont to notce partcuary about ths ad|ustment process s
that t s common to a the women who go through t. The probems
presented by the cassroom stuaton (beng heard, beng seen, etc.)
are practcay the same everywhere, and so are the soca mtatons
on the ways n whch they can be soved. Is t any wonder then that
schooteachers the country over deveop certan characterstcs n
common hen ths happens that s, when the stuaton dctates,
as t were, the common characterstcs whch severa peope dspay
we ca the resutng trat pattern a soca roe. 0f course there are
many ndvdua varatons, partcuary n the e tent to whch the
cassroom personaty generazes to stuatons outsde t, but cer-
tany there s a common enough pattern of trats whch woud
|ustfy us n referrng to them as a roe.
The Pecproca Nature of Poes. rom the ndvdua s vewpont
the roe pattern s mportant n two ways. 0n the one hand t s a
pattern of behavor whch he dspays or attempts to dspay n a
gven soca stuaton and on the other t forms a bass for hs e -
pectatons as to how other peope w behave n such a stuaton.
292
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
In ether case roes tend to have great economc utty for the organ-
sm snce roe trats come n packages. That s, a person can put
hmsef n the pace of a schooteacher or Sam Spade and produce a
varety of e pected behavors reasonaby we. hat s perhaps more
mportant: the custer of assocated roe trats provdes a knd of
soca shorthand whch enabes a person to react more or ess prop-
ery to other peope. Thus n seeng a woman wak toward hm on
the street, an ndvdua may thnk, 0h, she s a schooteacher, and
on the bass of ths cue e pect that she w behave n certan ways
n greetng hm, and that he n turn w behave n certan ways to-
ward her. The operaton of ths process s perhaps best ustrated
by an e perment reported by eey (1949), as foows:
person unknown to the sub|ects was ntroduced n each cass as tempo-
rary repacng ther nstructor. af of the cass was gven bographca
nformaton ncudng the nformaton that the stmuus person s rather
cod. The remanng sub|ects were ndependenty gven dentca nforma-
ton e cept that t ncuded the statement that the stmuus person s very
warm. The stmuus person ed each cass n a twenty mnute dscusson,
a record beng kept of the frequency of students partcpaton. fterward,
frst mpresson ratngs of the stmuus person were obtaned from a
sub|ects.
The sub|ects gven the warm e pectaton rated the stmuus person as
more consderate than others, ess forma, more socabe, more popuar,
more humorous, more human, and better matured. They aso partcpated
n the dscusson sgnfcanty more than the sub|ects gven the cod e -
pectaton.
Ths e perment, patterned after earer work by sch (1946), us-
trates ncey how a snge abe, n ths case warm or cod rather
than schooteacher, can determne the trats perceved n a person
and can nfuence the frequency of nteracton wth hm.
Summary of Poe Characterstcs. rom ths premnary ustra-
tve dscusson we may now draw a more forma defnton of roe:
roe s a custer of trats (or pattern of behavor) whch serves as
the cuturay norma or moda souton to recurrent, usuay soca
probems pecuar to a partcuar status or poston n socety. Cer-
tan eements n ths defnton need further e panaton.
1. y custer of trats we mean (a) the tendency of the status or ts
name to evoke a certan mted number of responses wth fary
hgh frequency, or (b) the esser tendency of any one of the trats n
the custer to evoke the other trats wth a fary hgh frequency.
293
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The custer phenomenon s characterstc of a schemata as we
have seen n Chapter . In eey s (1949) and sch s (1946) e per-
ments the key eement n the trat compe , namey warm, was
enough to evoke other responses such as socabe, popuar, etc., more
frequenty than other trats. The phenomenon does not seem to be
a case of pure verba stereotypy but rather to be a genune perceptua
phenomenon. In an ngenous e perment runer, Postman, and
Podrgues (1950) have demonstrated that more red s needed n a
coor whee to match the coor of a obster caw than s needed to
match the e acty equvaent coor of another ob|ect of about the
same sze but of a dfferent shape. In other words the obster caw
appears genuney redder to the observer. The shape and the coor
are part of a perceptua custer |ust as the characterzatons
warm and socabe are n eey s e perments. Psychoogsts
have ong studed ths phenomenon n connecton wth race pre|u-
dce. atz and ray (cf. Newcomb and artey, 1947), for nstance,
asked Prnceton undergraduates to seect the trats from a prepared
st of 4 ad|ectves to characterze ten raca and natona groups.
Ths provdes a more drect test of the custer phenomenon n the
soca fed snce the probem s to dscover whether certan trats
are consstenty assocated wth natona or raca status. or certan
groups they found a fary hgh degree of stereotypy, e.g., for Negroes
and Germans. The foowng st shows the percentage of one hun-
dred Prnceton students assgnng each of varous trats to these
groups.
Negroes
supersttous 4
azy 75
happy-go-ucky 3
gnorant 3
musca 26
ostentatous 26
Germans
scentfcay-mnded 7
ndustrous 65
stod 44
ntegent 32
methodca S
e tremey natonastc 24
or certan groups the stereotypy was by no means so obvous, for nstance
the Chnese:
294
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
Chnese
supersttous 35
sy 3
conservatve 3
tradton ovng a7
oya to famy tes 23
ndustrous 19
( fter atz and ray, n Newcomb and artey, 1947, p. 207.)
Data such as these have usuay been reported as e ampes of how
fauty and ncorrect peope are n formng such stereotypes, snce
obvousy many members of these varous groups do not have the
characterstcs n queston. he ths certany s true, more empha-
ss needs to be paced on the fact that t s |ust such custerng that
makes adaptaton to the soca matr possbe. The fact that such
schemata may be ncorrect shoud not bnd us to the fact that n
many nstances they are accurate enough for the purposes at hand
and provde an ndspensabe gude for conduct n varous soca
stuatons.
s an e ampe of the mportance of status-assocated behavora
norms we may cte the case of Dors eschman ( ernays), who
has gven an amusng account of the resuts of her femnst attempt
to do away wth the Mrs. tte n her own fe. She wanted to con-
tnue to be known as Mss eschman after her marrage, and found
the hazards to be great. Snce peope were unsure of her status, they
were unsure of how to react to her. t a party I am assaed by 0h,
do you know hm 0h, you re hs wfe hat You re hs partner
hat you re Mss You re Mrs. The he wth t. et me get you
some tea. (1949, p. 165.) She tes of dffcutes n gettng a pass-
port, n regsterng at hotes n the same room wth her husband, n
dsusonng unattached maes who wanted to take her out, n e -
panng to schooteachers that her chdren dd not come from a
broken home. these dffcutes arose from the fact that the be-
havor approprate both from and toward a woman wth snge
status dffers consderaby n our socety from what t woud be for
a woman wth marred status. Nothng coud ustrate more vvdy
the soca utty of havng roe norms to gude peope through the
sococutura matr . To sum the matter up n nton s words, thus
n deangs between compete strangers, smpe recognton of the
soca poston of the two ndvduas nvoved makes t possbe for
each to predct how the other w respond to most stuatons. ( n-
ton, 1945, p. 130.)
295
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
2. It s the moda as we as the stereotyped character of most
soca roes that makes them usefu n soca ad|ustments. In other
words, f a partcuar stereotype or custer of trats were known ony
to a few peope, ts soca usefuness woud be restrcted to those
peope. It s not |ust the fact that certan acts are assocated wth
snge femae status avaabty for dates, not seepng n a hote
room wth a man, not havng chdren, etc. It s the fact that snce
snge women typcay behave n these ways everyone w know
what to e pect and can respond appropratey, at east as the cu-
ture defnes approprateness. Ths process goes on so easy under
most crcumstances that we become aware of the utty of such roe
conventons ony when they are napproprate as n the case of race
pre|udce or n a case ke Mss eschman s n whch a person who
occupes one status tres to act as. f he occupes another.
3. The roe soutons to status probems are part of an ndvdua s
knowedge and therefore part of hs personaty. Ths may seem ke
an obvous statement, but t s worth makng n vew of a somewhat
dfferent poston adopted by nton who states that any one n-
dvdua of such a group manfests ths response proves nothng
about hs personaty e cept that he has norma earnng abty.
s personaty dspostons w be reveaed not by hs cuturay
patterned responses but by hs devatons from the cuture pattern
. . . unt the psychoogst knows what the norms of behavor m-
posed by a partcuar socety are and can dscount them as ndcators
of personaty he w be unabe to penetrate behnd the facade of
soca conformty and cutura unformty to reach the authentc
ndvdua. ( nton, 1945, p. 26.) 0ur vew s that the psychoogst
must know what the norms of behavor mposed by a partcuar
socety are, not to dscount them, but to use them to gan a more
adequate theoretca formuaton of the person s behavor n a ts
aspects. The facade of soca conformty s part of the authentc
personaty n the sense n whch we have defned personaty n
Chapter 3. In short, we w need to know what a person s concep-
tons of soca norms or soca roes are n order to predct or ac-
count for many of hs responses.
4. The fact that we have cassfed a person s roe conceptons as
part of hs knowedge or the schemata he has of hs soca envron-
ment suggests that from ths knowedge aone we w be abe to
predct hs roe behavor or roe performance. Ths s not the case.
ow any person behaves as a father or as a schooteacher or as an
unmarred woman s party a functon of hs knowedge of the be-
296
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
havor e pected n ths poston, but t s aso a functon of hs
motvatona state, hs desre to perform the roe, and aso of hs past
ad|ustments or earned responses to smar status stuatons. Poe
knowedge and roe performance are two dfferent matters. e w
dscuss the atter more fuy ater on.
5. s we have defned the roe concept, t s cear that one of the
centra tasks n understandng a partcuar roe s to anayze the
nature of the probems whch the person has to face n a gven status.
e have demonstrated how t s possbe to anayze such probems n
our ustraton of the schooteacher and the ad|ustment probems
presented her by the cassroom stuaton. Ths s essentay the task
of socoogy, whch has aready made consderabe progress n de-
fnng the requrements of partcuar statuses. or e ampe, Parsons
argues (1949) that affectve neutraty s one of the requrements
of the medca professon. That s, a doctor cannot be permtted by
socety to get emotonay entanged wth hs patents f he s to
contnue to perform hs professona roe adequatey. rom the per-
sonaty psychoogst s vewpont the task n ths case s one of ob-
servng how a partcuar ndvdua doctor dscovers and defnes
probems of affectve neutraty and how he earns the approprate
moda soutons to ths probem as they are practced and approved
by other doctors and sanctoned by socety. It s at ths pont that
students of soca structure and students of the ndvdua ad|ust-
ment to the probems that soca structure presents must work very
cosey together.
TYP S 0 P0 S
avng consdered n a genera way what roes are, we must now
turn to the concrete probem of attemptng to dscuss what some of
the mportant roes are and ustrate each of them wth the concep-
tons of them whch our sub|ect, ar, has deveoped. ortunatey
nton (1945) has provded us wth a convenent cassf1caton of the
ma|or statuses and ther assocated roes, as foows: age, se , famy
poston, occupaton, and assocaton group membershp. That s,
dfferent roe behavor s e pected of peope of dfferent ages (age-
gradng), of peope of dfferent se (se -typng), from fathers, sons,
ssters, brothers, aunts, cousns (famy statuses), from awyers or from
unsked workmen (occupatona statuses), and fnay from Po-
tarans, Methodsts, D ecrats, or oy Scouts (assocaton group
statuses). gven ndvdua may occupy severa of these statuses at
the same tme or n successon, spread out over the course of hs fe.
297
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
nton has gven an e ceent account of the way a partcuar per-
son s behavor w vary accordng to the dfferent statuses he occu-
pes n the course of a hypothetca day. It s so vvd that t s worth
reproducng n fu here:
et us suppose that a man spends the day workng as a cerk n a store.
he he s behnd the counter, hs actve status s that of a cerk, estab-
shed by hs poston n our socety s system of specazed occupatons. The
roe assocated wth ths status provdes hm wth patterns for hs reatons
wth customers. These patterns w be we known both to hm and to the
customers and w enabe them to transact busness wth a mnmum of
deay or msunderstandng. hen he retres to the rest room for a smoke
and meets other empoyees there, hs cerk status becomes atent and he
assumes another actve status based upon hs poston n the assocaton
group composed of the store s empoyees as a whoe. In ths status hs rea-
ton wth other empoyees w be governed by a dfferent set of cuture
patterns from those empoyed n hs reatons wth customers. Moreover,
snce he probaby knows most of the other empoyees, hs e ercse of ths
cuture pattern w be modfed by hs persona kes and dskes of cer-
tan ndvduas and by consderatons of ther and hs own reatve pos-
tons n the prestge seres of the store assocaton s members. hen dosng
tme comes, he ays asde both hs cerk and store assocaton statuses and,
whe on the way home, operates smpy n terms of hs status wth respect
to the socety s age-se system. Thus f he s a young man he w at east
fee that he ought to get up and gve hs seat to a ady, whe f he s an od
one he w be qute comfortabe about keepng t. s soon as he arrves at
hs house, a new set of statuses w be actvated. These statuses derve from
the knshp tes whch reate hm to varous members of the famy group.
In pursuance of the roes assocated wth these famy statuses he w try
to be corda to hs mother-n-aw, affectonate to hs wfe and a stern dsc-
pnaran to |unor, whose report card marks a new ow. If t happens to
be a odge nght, a hs fama statuses w become atent at about eght
o cock. s soon as he enters the odge room and puts on hs unform as
Grand Impera zard, n the ncent 0rder of Dnosaurs he assumes a
new status, one whch has been atent snce the ast odge meetng, and
performs n terms of ts roe unt t s tme for hm to take off hs unform
and go home. (Peproduced wth permsson from P. nton, The Cutura
ackground of Personaty, copyrght 1945, by ppeton-Century.)
Turnng now to ar we w consder two peope as they smutane-
ousy occupy dfferent status postons namey, ar hmsef as an
adoescent boy, and ar s father. e have chosen to anayze hs
father for two reasons. In the frst pace, hs father s behavor n hs
varous statuses w provde ar wth e pectatons as to how
29
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
fathers n genera w behave and perhaps even genera e pectatons
as to how adut maes n superor postons w behave. Secondy,
hs father s behavor w presumaby provde an mportant source
of nformaton on how he hmsef shoud behave when he assumes
some of the statuses ater on that are now actve for hs father e.g.,
when he becomes a father, an adut mae, a member of an occupa-
ton, etc. The roe behavors whch ar hmsef dspays as an
adoescent mae w provde a contrast and at the same tme may
suggest the ease or dffcuty wth whch he w ad|ust to new status
probems when he goes to coege or assumes more adut respons-
btes.
Tabe 9.1 provdes a rough summary of the varous statuses occu-
ped by ar s father broken down accordng to nton s scheme.
Under each s sted a mted number of probems assocated wth
that partcuar status together wth a comment from ar s autobog-
raphy ndcatng how hs father characterstcay ad|usted to those
probems.
T 9.1
Poe d|ustments Made by ar s ather
Status cassfcaton ssocated probems Poe ad|ustments
I. amy or kn Probems facng a father
1. amy support My father has aways
made a vng for hs fam-
y even durng the depres-
son.
a. Nurturance of chdren My parents aways took
tme to read us the funnes
and pay games wth us ...
|they| ove a ther ch-
dren.
3. Contro of chdren 0ur dscpne at home
was fary strct.
II. ge-se Probems facng an adut
mae
1. ork habts My father s very thor-
ough n a that he does ...
2. 0utook on fe . . . but s e ctabe and
constanty worred by every-
one s troubes.
3. Pecreaton s chef dverson s
gardenng.
299
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Status cassfcaton
III. 0ccupaton
T 9.1 (Contnued)
ssocated probems
Probems facng a sked
Poe ad|ustments
I . ssocaton
tradesman
1. |ob fuctuatons
2. |ob ad|ustment
Probems facng a Chrs-
tan
1. eef
a. Church attendance
3. thca deangs wth
others
My father s a sked
mechanc. Durng the de-
presson he worked at
everythng.
. . . dskes hs present
|ob to the pont where he
woud ke to qut and rase
chckens.
My father says very
tte though he cams
Chrstanty as hs fath.
Nether parent goes to
church.
Nevertheess both par-
ents are knd, rather gener-
ous, and have done qute a
bt of communty work n
the past.
There are probems assocated wth varous statuses to whch the
father s not a gude, and whch are therefore not adequatey repre-
sented n ths tabe. rom some of these ar gets gudance from hs
mother, and for others from peope outsde the home. There are aso
probems for whch hs father s conduct s a gude that have not
been ncuded n the tabe because there s tte or no nformaton
about them n ar s autobography. or e ampe, hs father w
provde nformaton on how a husband behaves toward a wfe. In
partcuar hs father s statuses n varous assocaton groups have
not been consdered, n the e pectaton that hs membershp n d1e
church s representatve, snce there s no nformaton on other
groups. In one sense the seecton represented n Tabe 9.1 s mean-
ngfu rather than arbtrary snce t represents the seectons sponta-
neousy made by ar n hs autobography and therefore represents
hs father as beta press (cf. Murray, 193 ), or the way n whch ar
thnks of hm.
300
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
Poe Performance and Poe Percepton. There are two genera
uses to whch ar can put the nformaton contaned n Tabe 9.1.
rst of a he can use hs father s behavor as a gude to sovng hs
own smar status probems, f and when they arse. Secondy, hs
father s behavor can serve as the bass for hs deveopng deas of
what to e pect from men who occupy hs father s postons n fe.
The percepton or schema of the father, partcuary n ths ast more
generazed form, has gven rse to the concept of the father mage
01 mago whch s of very great mportance n psychoanaytc thnk-
ng. In vew of the constant contact of a chd wth hs parents and of
hs need for gudance n many probems presented by varous com-
mon soca stuatons, we can scarcey doubt the formaton of some
knd of generazed parenta mages and shoud therefore anayze
carefuy how they are acqured and what ther nfuence s. e
sha treat the probem n ts most genera form n ths chapter and
return to t n Chapter 14 when we dscuss how certan aspects of
these mages are ncorporated nto the sef to become part of the
super-ego and the ego-dea.
P0 M0D S
The Parent s a Gude n Poe Performance. Peturnng to the
frst functon of the father mage, we can see that many dffcutes
w arse f ar attempts to adopt teray hs father s behavor as
a pattern for hs own fe. e mght make a very rapd summary of
the father schema gven n Tabe 9.1 as foows:
My father s nurturant and strct wth respect to those dependent on hm,
hard-workng, adaptabe but unhappy n hs ad|ustment to fe, and essen-
tay sotary or nonpartcpant n varous assocaton groups.
s soon as we begn to thnk of ar s appyng these roe trats to
hs own probems, t s apparent that most of the statuses nvoved
are atent as far as he as an adoescent mae s concerned. That s, the
probems to whch hs father s ad|ustng are probems to whch he
w aso ad|ust someday, but need not now. Ths s the frst dffcuty
n appyng to hs own fe the nformaton ganed from hs father s
conduct. th respect to famy status, for e ampe, there are smpy
not other peope dependent on hm as there are on hs father, and
therefore what he earns about how to behave toward such peope
w have to be hed over unt he becomes a father, or unt he gets
a chance to practce some of these trats on hs younger brother or
younger paymates.
301
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
In the fed of age-se statuses, there are pecuary dffcut prob-
ems of ad|ustment, snce the boy s encouraged to copy hs father
n some ways and not n others. s uge ponts out, the tte boy
s aowed, encouraged, and en|oned to copy hs father n many
respects, n the ordnary habts of ceanness and hygene, n
courage and patence n the face of pan or dsappontment, n con-
tro over emotona e presson, n nnumerabe sma sks and
habts e hbted n day fe . . . (1945, p. 61.) 0n the other hand,
he may not mtate parenta behavor n many nstances, partcuary
accordng to the psychoanayst n the se ua sphere, and aso n
such other matters of prvege as smokng, swearng, stayng up
ate, enterng paces of acohoc refreshment, etc. (1945, p. 62.) s
a resut t may often seem to the boy that he shoud mtate hs
father wth regard to some of the more dffcut aspects of fe wth-
out beng abe to en|oy some of the prveges or peasures of adut-
hood. e may have to earn rksome tabe-manners to copy hs father
but not be aowed to speak as freey at the tabe as hs father does.
Such confct may be accentuated by the fact that parents often hod
a hgher standard of conduct for ther chdren than they do for
themseves. Many parents are put n the poston of teachng Do as
I say, not as I do, or You ought to be better than I am. Ths s
partcuary mportant n merca, as uckhohn and uckhohn
pont out (1947), because chdren are often seen as the chef means
of mprovng the famy s poston n socety. Thus from the chd s
vewpont the parents are often n the poston of preachng one
standard of behavor and practcng another.
Ths often s partcuary true n the fed of aggresson tranng.
Many fathers (ncudng ar s) are put n the poston of usng
aggresson to suppress aggresson, thereby sanctonng the behavor
whch they are tryng to nhbt. The boy may sove the resutng
confct by beng aggressve n some stuatons and not n others.
e may earn to show aggresson ony n sef-defense as Mead has
suggested (1942), or he may be aggressve not toward superors but
ony toward nferors as hs father was toward hm.
In the fed of preparaton for occupatona roes, the dffcutes
n the way of gettng much hep from the father s behavor are even
greater. In neary a urban occupatons the father works outsde the
home and the son gets tte opportunty to observe what he does or
to earn from hm how to behave under smar crcumstances.
that the son usuay does get s a genera dea of how hard hs father
works and of what he thnks of hs work, as ar s comments about
302
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
hs father s occupaton suggest. Ths s n sharp contrast to some
socetes ke the Comanche, whose patterns, as nton ponts out,
are dametrcay opposed to our own n ths respect. Comanche
chdhood s a carefu and contnuous preparaton for fu adut
status. s soon as the chd can wak, he s dressed n mnature
repca of adut costume. e s gven tasks whch are ke those of
aduts but carefuy ad|usted to hs strength. very devce s em-
poyed to make hm vgorous, ndvduastc, aggressve and com-
pettve n order that he may become a successfu warror. (1949,
p. 169.) The typca mercan father s gudance for hs son, on the
other hand, e sts chefy n recreatona areas (e.g., gardenng n
ar s case), rather than vocatona ones. 0ne of the reasons for ths
state of affars s the e pectaton on the part of many mercans,
partcuary n the cass poston of ar s parents, that ther sons
w have better occupatons than ther fathers anyway ( . uck-
hohn, 1950).
nay, a son may have dffcuty n appyng hs father s roe
behavors to hs own fe because he may regard some of hs father s
trats as desrabe and some as undesrabe. Thus t s cear that
ar admres the hard-workng thoroughness of hs father, but does
not ke the way he worres so much and hopes not to foow hm n
ths respect. Thus he states n one pace n hs autobography, I do
not resembe ether parent n temperament partcuary, athough
I have the tendency to worry about detas. Ths comment suggests
what s probaby the fact n many cases, namey, that the father w
have some drect effect on the son s behavor ( I tend to worry too ),
that the son s atttude w aso have an nfuence ( I do not want to
worry ke my father does ), and that the end resut w be a product
of both nfuences ( I do not resembe my father e acty ).
fter stng the many dffcutes n the way of a son s foowng
hs father s roe ad|ustments, we may wonder why t s that the father
mage s supposed to be of such great mportance. Must we assume
some nstnctve mechansm of mtaton 0r does the son uncon-
scousy dentfy wth the father as psychoanaysts suggest and there-
fore foow hs behavor no matter how unadaptve t may be 0ne
thng seems cear at any rate. Such mechansms as mtaton and
dentfcaton need not be consdered as automatc or mysterous as
has sometmes been assumed. fter a, chdren come n contact wth
ther parents on thousands of occasons durng the perod when
generazed parenta schemata are frst beng formed. In ma ny n-
stances where chdren do meet the same probems as ther parents
303
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
are meetng (tabe manners, genera atttude toward fe), the chd
may adopt the parents ad|ustments smpy because t s easer to
sove the probem n ths way than t s to fnd a souton through
tra and error. urthermore, such copyng behavor often gets re-
warded. 0n the other hand, n those probem stuatons whch we
have |ust been emphaszng, n whch the chd cannot mmedatey
appy what he observes, there nevertheess deveops a generazed
pcture of how other peope n such postons behave. e therefore
need to dstngush sharpy between roe percepton and roe per-
formance. ctuay much of the cnca matera on the mportance
of parent mages has referred to percepton rather than performance.
To put the contrast very smpy, Ths s the way I am gong to be-
have when I become a father or an adut mae s a ess mportant
functon of the father mage than Ths s the way fathers act.
The Parent s a Gude n Poe Percepton. Psychoanaysts have
reay had a percept n mnd n ther use of the father mage con-
cept. Specfcay they have argued that conceptons of and resutng
atttudes toward the father generaze rather wdey to other persons
or fgures occupyng the same or some of the same status postons
as the father does. The dmensons of generazaton they assume
seem to be chefy these two: to others of the same se , and to others
n smar postons of authorty or hgher prestge. or e ampe,
the concepton of the father s conceved as generazng to a oder
men or to men n genera. The foowng comment made concernng
the Navaho s perhaps typca of how the father comes to represent
a men: Men are aways a tte undependabe. The father s
affectonate to the chd, but from the very begnnng he comes and
goes the chd can never reay count on hs comfort. Man s fcke
but s never thought to be otherwse. ( uckhohn and eghton,
1947, p. 13 .)
somewhat smar anayss n the mercan famy mght run as
foows accordng to psychoanaytc prncpes. The father s a com
pettor and usuay a successfu one for the mother s ove. Ths
competton s partcuary accentuated by the sma sze of the
typca mercan famy group. Therefore men n genera come to
be regarded as dangerous compettors, partcuary n the fed of
ove. urthermore, to foow the 0edpus trange a tte further,
ths competton w breed |eaousy and hatred for the father, fo-
owed by gut arsng from ove for the father, and the fna father
mage w therefore be composed of both harsh and forbddng
304 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
aspects and ovng and forgvng ones. Ths mage s then transferred
to other men and perhaps utmatey even to God and the Dev,
who represent, accordng to rnest |ones (1944), a decomposton of
the father mage nto ts good and bad aspects.
Cams for generazaton aong the authorty dmenson have
been as sweepng as ths and usuay have gone aong wth assertons
about transfer to other mae fgures. Thus, for e ampe, the father
as a stern dscpnaran becomes the prototype of a authorty, n
partcuar the authorty of the state (cf. romm, 1941b) and the chd
deveops hs e pectatons, perhaps even hs needs, for a certan type
of government of an authortaran character out of hs orgna
reatonshp to hs father. Gorer (194 ) has foowed such an ap-
proach to the probem. e fnds a certan smarty or consstency
between potca atttudes and atttudes wthn the famy, a consst-
ency whch s ndcated by the tte of hs frst chapter: urope and
the Pe|ected ather. e states, The makng of an mercan de-
manded that the father shoud be re|ected both as a mode and
as a source of authorty. ather never knew best. nd once the
mutaton was estabshed, t was mantaned no matter how many
generatons separate an mercan from hs mmgrant ancestors, he
re|ects hs father as authorty and e empar, and e pects hs son to
re|ect hm. (194 , p. 31.) e regards ths atttude as typca of
mercan atttudes toward a sorts of authorty: uthorty s
nherenty bad and dangerous the survva and growth of the state
make t nevtabe that some ndvduas must be endowed wth
authorty but ths authorty must be as crcumscrbed and as
mted as ega ngenuty can devse and the hoders of these pos-
tons shoud be under constant scrutny, shoud be watched as
potenta enemes. (194 , p. 32.) The fundamenta mportance to
psychoanaysts of the father fgure concept s further ustrated by
the way n whch neuroses are supposed to be cured n the anaytc
stuaton by the creaton of a new father fgure n the psychoanayst
of whom new and better schemata can be deveoped.
The same type of generazaton s supposed to occur for mother
fgures. Thus to psychoanaysts ke ardner the rgn Mary be-
comes a pro|ected mage of certan portons of the mother roe n
estern socety (1945), to uckhohn and eghton Changng
oman s the mage of a Navaho mother who s ether a bad or
a good (1947, p. 13 ), and to Gorer the Statue of berty repre-
sents a most beautfu and resoundng promse of materna soc-
tude and wecome. (194 , p. 52.) Gorer goes further and argues that
305
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
snce mothers and femae schooteachers are argey responsbe for
the rght behavor of chdren, the mercan conscence ... s
predomnanty femnne. . . . eauty and rght conduct become
femnne fgures. (194 , p. 56.) ampes such as these can be mut-
ped many tmes. They a proceed from the assumpton that con-
ceptons and atttudes deveoped n connecton wth the parents
generaze wdey to a areas of fe.
ar s Parent Images. hat evdence s there that such genera-
zaton actuay does occur et us turn once agan to ar and try
to dscover some genera prncpes n the study of the e tent to
whch hs parenta mages have generazed. Tabe 9.1 has aready
gven us some evdence from hs autobography of hs conscous
pcture of hs father. s t happens, a more systematc descrpton
of hs father s avaabe n a number of ratngs of varous trats
whch ar made, and whch are reproduced n Tabe 9.2, aong
wth smar ratngs for hs mother.
T 9.2
ar s Patngs of s Parents
Pate your parents for the foowng: (1 s ow, 6 s hgh)
a. str1ct
b. hepfu
c. domneerng
d. frendy
e. sefsh
f. sef-confdent
ather
(D 4 5 6
3456
2 (3) 4 5 6
Mother
(3)4 5 6
3456
The nterestng thng to note about ths tabe s that the mother
s vewed ess favoraby than the father. She s rated as ess strct,
but aso as ess hepfu, ess frendy, and as more sefsh than the
father. Nether parent s gven very hgh marks on any of the favor-
abe quates, and both appear ow n sef-confdence, as we woud
e pect from the autobography. The foowng descrpton of hs
mother s reevant here
My mother s an ndustrous but worrsome woman, aways concerned
about detas. Durng the depresson she took n washng. She suffers from
deafness, has been deaf for the past fve or s years. e obtaned a hearng
ad for her, but she refuses to wear t. She aso suffers from arthrts and
snusts. . . .
306
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
These then are the conscous parent mages wth whch we may start.
hat evdence s there from other sources that these pctures have
generazed rst of a, wth respect to the autobography tsef ar
has tte to say about hs concepton of men n genera, athough he
does say that the soca word . . . conssts of a ot of sefsh, grasp-
ng ndvduas. The nformaton about women s more e pct. I
have dreamed ntensey about vng a fe wth an dea mate.
Nothng s so satsfyng as to cast one s sef nto a dream word,
wheren you and the woman you ove are together hgh on a wndy
h, ookng out upon the word. |ust to hod the woman of your
choce n your arms and avsh your ove upon her seems to be
a source of greatest deght.
ather and Mother gures n Imagnaton. Ths deazed pcture
of woman s found agan and agan n ar s Thematc ppercep-
ton Test (T T) stores aso. In severa of the stores a woman s por-
trayed as a smpe, ovng, nnocent, and trustng person who s aways
better than the man who tres to trck her, especay f she stays nno-
cent and trustng. In hs ast story he says agan e pcty, e w
ead a bghted e stence, but were he, as I sad before, to ove the rght
gr and marry her, the future woud be a brght one ndeed . . . the
key to the ock s the gr he oves. So far ths does not seem very con-
sstent wth the pcture of hs mother as a worrsome, not very frendy
woman. The femae mage s nconsstent.
Perhaps the dfference es n the fact that these references are to
a future ove reatonshp rather than to a mother-son roe reaton-
shp as descrbed n hs T T. n anayss of the actons of a mother
n ar s stores toward her son, accordng to the method descrbed
by aes (1950) and Ms (1950), reveas that she shows fve actons
ndcatng sodarty and ony two ndcatng antagonsm or a nega-
tve reatonshp. The son shows fve postve actons toward mother
fgures n the stores and seven negatve ones. These data, scanty as
they are, suggest a reatonshp of mutua sodarty between mother
and son. In s protocos prnted by Murray (1949), no other sub|ect
perceved the mother-son reatonshp n ths way. Most of them
showed ether a preponderance of negatve reactons from the
mother or from the son. Ths seems to be a fary accurate refecton
of ar s statement that My parents ove a ther chdren that
ove s recproca. The same recproca-ove reatonshp appears n
hs T T stores for the reatonshp between the mae heroes and
ther oved ones. If the son-mother and son-ove ob|ect reaton-
307
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
shps are pooed, s teen out of twenty or 0 per cent of the reactons
from the mother or over to the son are postve whereas ony 40
per cent of such reactons are postve n the normatve group of s
sub|ects. Smary ffteen out of thrty or 50 per cent of the actons
of the son toward ether the mother or ove ob|ect are postve as
compared wth ony 29 per cent for the normatve group. In short,
as far as the generazed pcture obtaned n magnatve stores s
concerned, ar pctures a much hgher mutua-ove reatonshp
than s norma and than we woud e pect from hs pcture of hs
mother n Tabe 9.2. e mght be tempted to argue that the
magnatve or perceved pcture s compementary to the one he had
n rea fe.
hat about the men Generay speakng, n the T T they are
bad actors, commony decevng women or fang to ve up to
ther parent s e pectatons. The nadequacy noton, whch s repre-
sented n severa dfferent stores, may refect accuratey hs father s
own feeng of nadequacy as descrbed n the autobography and
aso n the ratng of the father. urthermore, the father-son reaton-
shp whenever t appeared n the T T ndcates predomnanty a
negatve reatonshp of the son toward the father (seven out of
tweve actons between father and son are negatve acts from son to
father). So far as the normatve cases are concerned, ths rebeous
atttude appears to be the usua way n whch the son-father reaton-
shp s pctured n the T T. Perhaps the ony other pont worth
notng s that the father s usuay dead n the T T stores, possby
ndcatng ether the hostty of the son or the unmportance of the
father fgure n ar s thnkng. ths evdence, nadequate
though t s, appears to add up to the concuson that the generazed
father pcture obtaned from hs magnatve stores s fary con-
gruent wth ar s concepton of and atttude toward hs own father.
Ths somewhat mted case anayss suggests that, whe a set of
generazed e pectatons about fathers and mothers or parent-chd
reatonshps probaby do deveop, much as the psychoanaysts
cam, they amost certany do not derve n any smpe fashon from
the actua characterstcs of the parents or the chd s reatonshp to
the parents. In ths nstance the father or mae mage appears to
come drecty from ar s own e perence wth hs father whereas
the mother or femae mage does not. There are many nfuences
whch enter nto the formaton of such generazed conceptons.
Soca norms and ndvdua motvatons are amost certany of
30
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
equa mportance to drect persona e perence. Thus n the case of
ar s deazed concepton of women, he has probaby drawn
on the romantc ove noton prevaent n our cuture and aso on
a strong motvatona need for securty arsng from a fet ack of
ove and support from hs own mother. These other sources of roe
conceptons w be dscussed more fuy ater.
n mportant source of confuson has arsen from assumng that
transfer goes ony n one drecton, .e., from assumng that the
father-son reatonshp, for nstance, snce t occurs frst, s the cause
of ater perceved or magned characterstcs of authorty fgures.
It seems to be amost equay key that subsequent e perences wth
authorty fgures modfy the concepton of the father. The father
fgure dea may serve as a convenent symbo or schema not ony
for the psychoanayst but aso for the person beng anayzed n
representng and ntegratng hs deas, gathered at many dfferent
tmes n hs fe, as to what to e pect from a person n superor
status. In a sense then the term father fgure s naccurate snce t
gves a prmacy to the father-son reatonshp whch t probaby does
not have. Some term ke authorty fgure woud be more appro-
prate. Ths mght make t cearer that when someone ke Gorer
speaks of a father fgure he means a convenent symbo or schema
whch derves ts characterstcs from many sources, of whch the
actua father s ony one, and whch s abeed father, perhaps
even by the person wth the schema, ony because t makes com-
muncaton easer.
ven ths, however, eaves essentay une pored the probem of
how genera n a person s fe the nfuence of such fgures or
mages reay s. permentaton n ths fed s greaty needed. s
a smpe ustraton of the knd of study of the generaty of such
mages whch mght be made, Phodes (194 ) attempted to cor-
reate the father conceptons of a group of coege students wth
ther conceptons of God, snce a correaton of ths sort s supposed
to e st accordng to some psychoanaytc theorsts (cf. rnest |ones,
1944). Phodes found that paraes e sted but were e ceedngy df-
fcut to estabsh. 0n the whoe, psychoanaysts mght have been
checked somewhat n ther enthusastc cams for such wde gen-
erazaton f they had made use of the prncpes of transfer and
generazaton avaabe n earnng research. It seems key that
progress n the fed w be sow unt e perments are desgned
whch take nto account these prncpes.
309
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ge Mates s Poe Modes: doescent Statuses and Poes. s
another pont of reference n anayzng the varety of soca prob-
ems a person faces durng hs fetme, et us now turn from
ar s parents as roe modes to the status probems he faces as an
adoescent, to the roe ad|ustments to them sanctoned by hs age
mates, and to an anayss of the e tent to whch he foowed the
sanctoned patterns of behavor. Tabe 9.3 s parae to Tabe 9.1
and s desgned to show ar s own roe ad|ustments to the probems
facng hm n hgh schoo.
T 9.3
I. amy or kn
Poe d|ustments Made by ar s an doescent Mae
Status cassfcaton ssocated probems Poe ad|ustments
Probems facng a son
1. Parents e grew up to acqure
a name n town as beng
we rased, we mannered
boys.
. Sbngs I fee nferor to my
oder brother but superor
to my younger. ... I get
aong a rght wth my
brothers. e fought when
we were kds. The war
tghtened the bonds.
II. ge-se
Probems facng a mae
adoescent
1. ke-se assocates
2. 0pposte-se assocates
3. duts
4. Pecreaton
I payed the norma
games of youth. ways had
frends to pay wth ... I
was very gregarous.
I was aways bashfu
around grs and was
kdded a ot about t.
I was aways coopera-
tve and obedent, got
aong a rght wth the
teachers.
or amusement I payed
sports, went to the move
shows, etc., but not as much
as the average. I was some-
tmes more content to st
at home and read.
310
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
T 9.3 (Contnued)
Status cassfcaton ssocated probems
Poe ad|ustments
III. 0ccupaton
Probems of preparng
for occupatona status
1. Schoo work
I . ssocaton
2. 0dd |obs
Probems of vountary
group membershp
1. Church
I was very an ous to
get ahead n the word. My
marks were e ceent. I was
at the head of the cass. I
aways dd my work con-
scentousy and thoroughy
and never wasted a mn-
ute.
e worked on a farm
and sod magaznes.
s. Cques and schoo
organzatons
I aways went to Sun-
day Schoo, kept mysef
pure and ed a fary mode
fe.
I worked we wth a
groups.
In gh Schoo, I was
n ... many actvtes,
presdent of the cass for
four years, on the footba
team, -State guard, ed-
tor of the schoo paper.
though t s dffcut to get an accurate pcture of what norma
behavor s for ar s group, there s every ndcaton n ths tabe
that ar was argey a conformst rather than a devant n hs roe
ad|ustments. In other words he ad|usted easy and successfuy to
the adoescent sub-cuture. Parsons (1949) has made an attempt to
defne the ma|or characterstcs of norma ad|ustment to adoescence.
e argues that an adoescent mae n our cuture w be e pected to
have a good tme and be rresponsbe snce he does not have adut
status, that athetcs and a-around attractveness or beng a swe
guy w be conceved as the domnant roads to achevement, and
that rebeousness aganst authorty s aso typca. 0f these char-
acterstcs ar shows the ones whch woud defne hm as a success
n the adoescent sub-cuture. That s, he has been presdent of hs
cass, has many frends, and s an outstandng footba payer. In
311
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
hs own words, My hgh schoo days were very happy and gratfyng
ones. 0n the other hand, he does not show the rresponsbty or
rebeousness one woud normay e pect, accordng to Parsons
(1949). In fact, he repeatedy emphaszes hs cooperatveness and
obedence and mentons ony one epsode n whch he was pnched
for steang corn n dayght on a aoween day. ut even here
he mentons that, There was a whoe crowd of us and I was
scared. In short, from the adut vewpont (as represented by the
very hgh recommendaton for coege gven hm by hs hgh-schoo
prncpa) he was a mode boy, even though socoogsts mght
not regard hm as typca.
Soca Cass Poes. Socoogsts have sedom been content to foow
the moecuar type of status anayss so far made n ths chapter.
Generay speakng they have preferred to dea wth hgher order
roe custers assocated wth such arger unts of soca cassfcaton
as rura-urban, or caste and cass. That s, certan probems of soca
ad|ustment seem to come n groups or custers assocated wth some
arger category such as vng n the country, beng a Negro, or
beng mdde-cass as compared wth ower-cass. 0ne very actve
group of socoogsts n partcuar has studed the roes assocated
wth dfferent parts of the cass system. Thus Davs and Doard
(1940) emphasze the mportance of soca cass tranng n organz-
ng the chd s soca word. The tmes and paces for hs recreaton,
the chores requred of hm by hs famy, the rooms and artces n
the house whch he may use, the wearng of certan cothes at certan
tmes, the amount of studyng requred of hm, the economc con-
tros to whch he s sub|ected by hs parents, ndeed hs very concep-
tons of rght and wrong, a vary accordng to the soca cass of the
chd n queston. (Sherf and Cantr, 1947, p. 195.)
ongshead (1949) has reported n deta how adoescent be-
havor may be assocated wth cass poston. In a study of hgh-
schoo-age students n a sma mdde-western town, he has been abe
to show that such behavor as attendance at athetc events, hgh
schoo dances, pays and partes, etc., s a functon of poston n the
soca cass herarchy. Students from the upper casses (I and II)
attended more frequenty than those from the ower casses (I and
). e aso showed that chdren from fames whch were perceved
as beongng n a certan cass (as determned by the ratngs of
nformants) tended to assocate wth chdren of fames n the same
cass. They chose ther best frends and dates predomnanty wthn
312
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
the cass group. Typca other fndngs were that reguar church
attendance was more common n Cass III than n any other cass and
that the percentage of chdren partcpatng n such dverse organ-
zatons as the oy Scouts or the hgh schoo decreased markedy
from Cass I to Cass . 0n the bass of such data ongshead con-
cudes that chdren n the same cass, vng n the same neghbor-
hood, earn smar defntons of acceptabe and unacceptabe
behavor reatve to the famy, the |ob, property, money, schoo, the
government, men, women, se , recreaton. (1949, p. 442.) In short,
the famy and neghborhood sub-cutures n whch a chd s
brought up provde hm wth roes and teach hm how to pay
them, (1949, p. 445-) Ths s |ust a sampe of many smar studes
(cf. Davs and avghurst, 1947 Centers, 1947 rcson, 1947) whch
have shown that atttudes, actvtes, chd-tranng practces and
the ke are assocated wth status n the cass herarchy. rom the
systematc vewpont beng deveoped here, cass status s a hgher
order concept ntegratng under a herarchca poston n the soca
structure certan common probems from famy, occupaton, or
assocaton group status categores. In a sense one may speak of a
dass roe as referrng to an ntegrated pattern of roe behavors,
assocated wth the status probems that go to make up a partcuar
cass poston.
C UISITI0N 0 P0 S
Sources of Informaton bout Poe ehavor, (1) duts. In our
earer dscusson of the nfuence of parents on the roe ad|ustments
ther chdren make, we came to the concuson that parenta nfu-
ence has tended to be e aggerated by psychoanaysts and that there
were probaby other mportant sources of gudance for the growng
chd. Parents are mportant, partcuary n provdng nforma-
ton as to what to e pect from peope occupyng a partcuar set of
statuses, but for every chd there are other e empars outsde the
home. These may be schooteachers, other reatves, frends of the
famy, or even move stars. ar says, for nstance, I ooked up to
my footba coach to an e tent, but not too greaty. (2) ge mates.
ven more mportant s the gudance provded by the behavor of
age mates, especay for roe performances. s we have setn, many
adut roe behavors are temporary nappcabe to an adoescent s
status probems and therefore the behavor of other adoescents
assumes a much greater mportance n adng hs contemporary roe
ad|ustments. ongshead (1949) descrbes vvdy how the behavor
- 313
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of ndvduas s kept n ne by cque mates. e ctes the case of
a gr who accepted a date for a hgh schoo dance wth a Cass I
boy and subsequenty had other dates wth hm. Ths behavor was
so dsapproved that she was n the dog house wth her cque
mates and acceptabe boys. She reazed ths and commented upon t
as foows:
You see I m n the G. .G. s. but I don t run around wth the G. .G. s
a the tme. I m knd of n between the G. .G. s and the other kds.
I was out of the G. .G. s for a whe because they made me mad. They
drew the soca ne too fne. I dated a boy they ddn t ke. e went to the
dance and they |ust gnored me. I |ust coudn t stand that. It hurt me, so
I pued out of there but now I ve more or ess started to go back wth
them. (1949, p. 235.)
s a resut of many such observatons as these, ongshead con-
cudes, The effectve defnton that he foows appears to be more
cosey reated to the defntons other chdren pace upon the
stuaton, at east what he thnks others thnk, than t s to defn-
tons hs parents, teachers, mnster, poce, and other aduts pace
upon t. (1949, p. 446.) In other words, trats e hbted by adoes-
cents tend to be aong nes approved by the cque mates, who aso
tend to be members of the same cass. (1949, p. 446.)
(3) Peadng s aso an mportant source of gudance for roe be-
havor. or nstance, ar states that n grammar schoo hs heroes
were the rench oregn egon and knghts of od. Poand was my
favourte knght. I used to magne mysef as vng n those days
and beng the hero that the knghts were. ater on n hgh schoo,
he says, I aways ked the cowboy heroes of the esterns, Tarzan,
and others n the Saturday seras. The e act nfuence of ths type
of readng s not known, athough t shoud certany bear on the
knd of behavor whch a chd w attempt to dspay and whch
he w come to e pect of other peope. n umnatng study of se
typng n the readers used n pubc schoos has been made by Chd,
Potter, and evne (1946). They found that there were marked df-
ferences n the way boys and grs n the stores read by pubc-schoo
chdren were characterzed. emae characters, for e ampe, are
more frequent among those dspayng affaton, nurturance, and
harmavodance. 0n the other hand, femaes are ess frequent rea-
tvey among characters dspayng actvty, aggresson, achevement,
constructon and recognton. Grs and women are thus beng
shown as socabe, knd and tmd, but nactve, unambtous, and
uncreatve. (1946, p. 47.) It seems that the anse and Grete rea-
314
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
tonshp, the brave anse and the dependent, cryng Grete, occurs
fary frequenty n the stores read by chdren n our own cuture.
It s hard to magne how ths coud fa to have an nfuence on the
concepton grs and boys deveop of each other and of how they
shoud behave toward one another, and n probem stuatons. Such
stores have the soca functon of myths and fok taes n preterate
cutures n defnng roe patterns approved by the socety. s we
concuded n an earer connecton, ar probaby got hs deazed
concepton of women from such sources, rather than from any
reastc reatonshp that he had wth any partcuar woman.
(4) nay, e pct soca norms or codes of behavor represent
more drect attempts to nfuence roe behavor. The Ten Com-
mandments or the oy Scout code coud be taken as ustratve of
these. Snce artshorne and May demonstrated some years ago
(192 ) that mora knowedge and mora behavor were uncorreated,
t has been customary to bette the mportance of such e pct
codes. Ths s a mstake. ven though there s no one-to-one reaton-
shp between a norm for conduct (e.g., honesty), and actua conduct
(honest behavor), knowedge of how one ought to act s one of the
determnants of actua behavor or of feengs about behavor. In
recent years some evdence has accumuated to show that these e -
pct codes affect mosty what a person thnks others thnk, and
what others thnk s an mportant determnant of behavor, even
though t may not produce behavor n drect conformty wth what
others thnk. or e ampe, durng ord ar II Cresp (1945)
asked varous groups of peope to rate ther own atttude toward
conscentous ob|ectors and then to estmate what the atttude of
others toward conscentous ob|ectors was. In every group the own
atttude was more enent than the atttude attrbuted to others.
ven though ndvduas prvatey had a dfferent atttude from the
one they attrbuted to others, t seems reasonabe to concude that,
were they to react to a conscentous ob|ector n the presence of
other peope whose atttudes were unknown, they woud be nfu-
enced n what they sad and dd by ther stereotyped conceptons of
what the others were thnkng. Ths knd of mechansm s respon-
sbe for many of the statements by restaurant owners and hote men
that I personay have no ob|ecton to Negroes, but I woud ose
my centee f I et them n. In a smar fashon the presence
of an oder person w often nhbt free and easy communcatons
between adoescents not because he does dsapprove of what they are
sayng but because they thnk he woud. In a these nstances an
315
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e pectancy about the behavor or atttudes of others nfuences the
ad|ustments to soca stuatons. nd such e pectances are often de-
rved from e pct formazed codes about what behavor s correct
or dea.
Poe d|ustment. Pepeatedy throughout ths chapter we have
nssted on a dstncton between roe percepton and roe per-
formance. The dstncton s necessary because the two are not
perfecty correated. nowedge of a roe and performance of t are
two dfferent thngs. ut what are the varabes whch nfuence
whether or not a person performs a gven roe Cottre (1942) has
provded us wth an e ceent dscusson of these factors whch we
w condense and rearrange somewhat under four new headngs.
1. Carty of Cutura Defnton of the Poe. Sometmes roes are
not very we defned, ether by the cuture or by the partcuar
member of the cuture under consderaton. Coege students were
ess abe to agree on what characterstcs to e pect from a Chnese
than from a German or a Negro. hat appears to be nvoved n a
roe defnton s a seres of responses more or ess frequenty assoc-
ated wth a certan status by a group of peope. The responses con-
sttute a knd of habt famy herarchy (cf. u, 1943) n whch
some trats are agreed upon more often by the group than others.
n e ampe w probaby make ths cearer. Suppose we ask a group
of mae students to answer the Strong ocatona Interest test as they
thnk women woud. To assume a set ke ths s reatvey easy, as
Strong showed (1943) n demonstratng that a group of students
coud obtan very hgh scores on the ngneerng scae of hs test f
they pretended they were engneers n fng out the bank. In
answerng the questonnare as a woman woud, a very arge per-
centage of mae students w state that women ke to decorate
a room wth fowers (tem 194) and that they dske operatng
machnery (tem 190). These are se -typed responses, at east from
the mae vewpont, and they have no necessary connecton wth the
way women w actuay answer these two tems. Men perceve these
responses as beongng n the femnne roe. ut for another tem
such as meetng new stuatons there w be tte agreement
among the men as to what women w ke or dske. In other
words, such an tem s not ceary defned as part of the femnne
roe. hether they ke t or not most women w aso be aware of
what the se -typed responses are. That s, they w know that there
. 316
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
are certan thngs whch are e pected of them and certan others
about whch e pectatons are confused or dffer. The pont s that
adequate roe performance w be more key to occur for those
responses on whch there s agreement and ess key to occur on
those responses on whch there s dsagreement. In short, a person
cannot perform a roe uness he knows what t s. nowng what
t s w n turn depend on the agreement among the members of
socety on what responses defne t and on the e tent to whch an
ndvdua has come n contact wth the socay agreed-upon defn-
ton.
2. Confctng Poe Patterns. dequate roe performance s ess
key to occur f there are confcts as to what the approprate roe
s. Such confct may arse from many dfferent sources. or e ampe,
a person may occupy two statuses smutaneousy that requre dffer-
ent behavors. nton (1949) s fond of ctng the case of the Scotch-
man who, havng ked a man, went to the dead man s brother to
cam hs protecton as a host. The host then had a severe roe con-
fct. s a brother he had to avenge hs knsman, but as a host he
coud not do so whe the man was hs guest. e soved the confct
by eadng the murderer out of hs terrtory and then kng hm.
Such confcts are very numerous. ar descrbes a very common one
n one of hs T T stores n whch a man s caught between duty
to hs mother and duty to hs wfe. In the story a prosecutng at-
torney s faced wth the probem of prosecutng hs own brother-n-
aw. s wfe urges hm to et her brother go free, whe hs mother
wants hm to ve up to her deas and those of hs professon. e
compromses and ets hs brother-n-aw off easy but s tortured by
quams of conscence thereafter. s nton ponts out, such confcts
are not so frequent as they mght be because statuses are occuped
successvey rather than smutaneousy, but when two statuses be-
come actve at the same moment, confctng obgatons are apt to
ead to serous troube, and an nabty to perform ether roe ade-
quatey. The modes of reacton to such confcts (bockng, suppres-
son of one response pattern, compromse) are the same as n any
nstance of competton of responses (cf. ovand and Sears, 193 ).
0ther confcts arse from confctng sources of nformaton as
to how to behave. boy may have two dfferent e empars who
behave dfferenty n a certan stuaton. or nstance, ar s father
worres a good dea. Tarzan does not. boy may strve to behave
confdenty as Tarzan does, but come coser to behavng the way hs
317
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
father does. nother source of confct, aready mentoned, arses
from the pressure to copy certan aspects of an e empar s behavor
(e.g., the father) and not others. Thus a boy ke ar may earn to
behave ke hs father as far as actng decsvey and responsby s
concerned but he must not carry ths trat nto the famy councs
where hs father has the soe determnng voce. St other confcts
arse between e pct codes and mpct e pectances. Thus ar
was e pected not to stea, but a gang that he went wth, at east on
one occason, demanded and obtaned ths behavor from hm. The
do as I say and not as I do atttude of many parents often resuts
n confcts of ths sort. nay, dfferent sorts of conceptons of a
partcuar roe pattern may arse at dfferent perods n deveopment.
father mage, for nstance, may be qute dfferent n eary chd-
hood from what t s ater on and a chd s roe percepton or per-
formance may refect the confuson n the two mages. These are ony
sampes of the types of confct that can occur. There are obvousy
many others. The mportant pont s smpy that adequate roe per-
formance s possbe ony when the sources of nformaton about roe
performance do not confct.
3. Motvatona actors. The reaton of a roe to the motva-
tona structure of the ndvdua s of very great mportance n
determnng whether or not he performs the roe. s Cottre puts
t, The degree of ad|ustment to the roes of specfed age-se cate-
gores vares drecty wth the e tent to whch the roe permts the
ndvdua to reaze the domnant goas set by hs sub-cutura
group. (1942.) In short, f the roe becomes a means to satsfyng
ndvdua needs t w be performed, whereas f t eads to heght-
ened deprvaton or frustraton t w tend not to be performed
uness t eads on to some other roe whch promses the desred
gratfcatons. Some roes may ead to temporary frustratons, of
course. n embarrassed novce at psychodrama may be very much
dsturbed at havng to pay the roe of an rate authortaran father,
but presumaby hs performance of the roe w ead to subsequent
satsfactons n the form of approva from the therapst or hs frends
or from hmsef for havng gone through such an unpeasant ordea.
hat s true of a temporary artfca roe-payng stuaton ke
psychodrama s aso true of fe stuatons n whch a person s roe
performances are part of hs ma|or ad|ustments to fe. schoo-
teacher may not ke the trats whch she apparenty has to acqure
31 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
and e hbt n order to do a |ob successfuy, but to the e tent that
they are renforced by communty sanctons and success at her |ob
they tend to become part of her norma roe ad|ustment to fe.
4. Transton actors. person must perform dfferent roes at
dfferent perods n hs fe. Ths means that one set of trats or
habts must be gven up or partay gven up for a new set, a trans-
ton whch usuay takes pace graduay. of the factors whch
earnng theorsts have shown to produce negatve transfer shoud
nhbt the transton from one roe to the ne t. Typca of such
factors woud be (a) the habt strength of the orgna roe pattern
and (b) the dffcuty of dscrmnaton between the od and the new
patterns. s an e ampe of the former factor there s the case of the
coege student who has been e tremey successfu n gvng the
approved roe performance n the youth cuture by achevng on
the footba fed, beng eected to offces, beng popuar wth the
coeds, etc., but who, because of the strength of these earer habts,
has dffcuty n ad|ustng to the requrements of adut statuses. The
second dffcuty arses when the dfference between the od and
the new roes s subte. Thus a professor who has been eevated to the
presdency of a coege may contnue for awhe to mantan hs od
famar soca reatons wth hs frends, unt he earns that the
requrements of hs offce do not permt ths behavor, party because
other members of the facuty w thnk that he s payng favortes.
e may thnk that hs new stuaton does not or shoud not change
hs roe reatons wth feow facuty members, and superfcay ths
seems to be so, but n tme a gradua roe ad|ustment w take pace,
and a new type of reatonshp to hs od frends w deveop. ar
may have dffcuty n transferrng from hgh schoo to coege. e
has been so successfu n hgh schoo that one mght e pect hm to
transfer many of hs successfu roe performances to the coege
stuaton on the grounds that ts requrements are very smar. Yet
they are not dentca. Chef among the dfferences s the mportant
fact that he w be away from home, and such a dfference w n
tme promote new ad|ustments.
ery few carefu anayses e st of the way n whch roe per-
formances are e pected to change wth changes n status. Smmons
(1942), however, has attempted to show how aggresson patterns vary
wth age and prestge status n op socety. gure 9. 1 s reproduced
from hs book as an e ampe of the knd of carefu anayss that
mght be made.
319
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
IGUP 9.1
op ggresson pressed n oence
I I
ghts between maes over se ua rvares-never
ghts ntdefense of property rghts-amost never
ghts w1th paymates
Punshment of sons from atcna to owochm
I I I
Punshment of sons before atcna
Punshment of nephews frptn atcna to owochm
Punshment of nephews before atcna
efp
IrTse
Strk1ng sma chdren n sef-defense from annoyances
ghts to safe fe after recept of frst bow-theoretca
_ p 1 .
restng wth a god or sprt 1n a dream
rth aterw owochm Marrage
Speca Can chef Doctor or Senty
offcer wsemon
(Peproduced by permsson from . Smmons, Sun Chef. Copyrght 194 by
Yae Unversty Press.)
Ths chart sts the types of voence whch are prohbted and the pos-
tons n fe when they are permtted. dotted ne under an tem n the
st ndcates the tme of fe when that partcuar type of voence s theo-
retcay permssbe and occasonay occurs. or e ampe, n number 1 ,
anyone s theoretcay permtted to fght n order to save hs fe after the
frst bow has been passed, but such behavor amost never occurs. snge
heavy ne under an tem ndcates that ths form of voence does occur but
s not very common, as ustrated n number 6, fe beatng for adutery.
Two heavy nes under an tem ndcate that for that perod of fe the
form of voence whch s sted s regarded as norma. Three heavy nes
under an tem ndcate that t s more or ess e pected behavor. (Smmons,
1942, p. 406.)
To rephrase Smmons fndngs n terms of age roes t s cear that
a young adut marred man s e pected to punsh hs nephews before
atcna but never afterwards he may beat hs wfe for adutery but
320
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
never fght wth another mae over a se ua rvary, etc. or an oder
mae the permtted aggresson drops out, ncudng punshment of
nephews, unt practcay the ony knd eft s wrestng wth a god or
sprt n a dream whch s e pected at a ages from the tme the chd
s od enough to understand the behavor pattern.
The pont s that the transton from one of these patterns to
another s not an automatc affar. Thus tte boys are supposed to
gve up fghtng wth paymates after the atcna ceremony, but the
snge ne demonstrates that they do not aways do so. Not a trans-
tons nvove gvng up a formery sanctoned roe pattern. In some
cases the ndvdua has to dspay behavor formery dsapproved.
Thus the op adut s e pected to punsh hs nephews after he gets
marred and thus to dspay aggresson toward others whch up to
ths tme has been napproprate. athers n our own socety may
have some of the same dffcuty n earnng to dspay the appro-
prate forms of aggresson to contro ther chdren. efore marrage
amost no form of aggresson s approved afterward, punshment of
chdren s often requred.
Measurng the Pesuts of earnng bout Poes. Snce the soca
roe concept has been deveoped chefy by socoogsts who are n-
terested n roe from the vewpont of ts functon n the soca
system rather than n an ndvdua s conceptons of varous roes,
not too much attenton has been gven to the probems we have been
concerned wth n ths chapter. rom the standpont of personaty
theory, we need to know the answers to such questons as the foow-
ng: hat are the mportant soca roes whch we ought to ncude
n the conceptuazaton of a gven ndvdua ow are those roes
defned ow does our ndvdua perceve and perform those roes
dequate answers to these questons w probaby depend on better
measurng nstruments than have so far been wdey used.
The typca approach to the defnton of a partcuar soca roe
has been to ntervew members of a cuture about t or to nfer what
ts components shoud be from the requrements of the soca prob-
em stuaton. Thus n our e ampe, taken from aer (1932), of
the schooteacher roe, nformaton was gathered from both of these
sources, both from observatons and ntervews wth teachers, and
from nferences as to the knd of behavor they had to show n order
to meet the probems arsng n a cassroom stuaton. Most roe
defntons have been the product of shrewd observatons and anay-
ss rather than carefu measurement. Typca of ths cnca ap-
321
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
proach to soca roe anayss at ts best s a recent study of the roes of
husbands and wves n a Me can vage ( ews, 1949). The author
ponts out that the husband deay s consdered the head of the
famy and master of the househod. e s supposed to receve
obedence, respect, and servce from others and to gve n return sup-
port and contro of a soca behavor. The wfe n turn s supposed
to be ndustrous and fruga, submssve, fathfu and respectfu to
her husband as we as uncrtca, ncurous, and not |eaous of what
he does. The data for such a concuson were emprca, gathered on
the bass of very e tensve observaton and ntervewng, and one w
have confdence n the concuson n the same degree as one woud
have confdence n the personaty anayss made by a cnca psycho-
ogst on the bass of thorough emprca but non-quanttatve observa-
tons. ow can such observatons be made more quanttatve
1. Poe questonnares. The frst mprovement n technque n-
voves the use of a questonnare n whch the person s asked what
behavor s approprate for a person occupyng a partcuar status.
or e ampe, Stouffer (1949) dscovered n ths way the roe pattern
defned for a proctor on a fna e amnaton. e asked a group of
students who answered hs questonnare to magne themseves n
the foowng stuaton:
Imagne that you are proctorng an e amnaton n a mdde-group
course. bout haf-way through the e am you see a feow student openy
cheatng. The student s copyng the answer from prevousy prepared
notes. hen he sees that you have seen the notes as you wak down the ase
and stopped near hs seat, he whspers quety to you, 0. ., I m caught.
That s a there s to t. You do not know the student. hat woud you
as proctor do:
. Take away hs notes and e am book, dsmss hm, report hm for cheat-
ng.
. Take away hs notes, et hm fnsh the e am, but report hm for
cheatng.
C. If he can be ed to wthdraw from the e am on some e cuse, do not re
port hm for cheatng otherwse report hm.
D. Take away hs notes, but et hm fnsh the e am, do not report hm for
cheatng.
. ct as f nothng had happened and do not report hm for cheatng.
These are ony part of the nstructons but they ustrate the form
of the questonnare and gure 9.2 summarzes some of the man
resuts he obtaned wth t.
322
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
IGUP 9.2
Percentage Sayng that a Specfc cton s Proctor oud e pproved
by uthortes and by eow Students, Pespectvey
100
75
50
25
C S 0 0PDIN PY
STUD NT
Students
woud approve
:so-
ufhorto
woud approve
25
CD
Specf1c acton
C S 0
P00MM T - PI ND .
Students
woud approve
uthortes
woud approve
C D
Specfc acton
(Peproduced by permsson from S. . Stouffer, n nayss of Confctng
Soca Norms. mer. Soca. Pev., 1949, 14, 707-717.)
Ths fgure shows the percentage of students who thought that
dfferent specfc types of acton woud be approved by authortes
or feow students both n the case of a student they dd not know
and of a student who was a- roommate-frend. It s cear from the
two graphs that the proctor s roe was fary we defned and n-
cuded the acton n any case of not permttng the student to fnsh
the e amnaton and n most cases to report hm for cheatng.
Stouffer goes on to show that what the students actuay sad they
woud do (roe performance) s a functon of what they thought
other students woud approve of and of ther reatonshp to the
magnary cheater. In terms of our earer dscusson of what eads
to roe performance, we may note n passng that there are confct-
ng roes here: one based on the occupatona status of beng a proc-
tor, another on age-se status, and st another on an assocaton
status (frendshp).
questonnare such as ths s most appcabe to fary specfc
and we-defned roes n whch the reevant actons are known
ahead of tme and can be phrased n mutpe-choce form. In many
323
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
cases, however, the chef probem may be to determne what actons
are |udged by a cuture to be reevant to a partcuar status, or are
ncuded by the cuture n a partcuar roe defnton. modfed
approach to the questonnare may be adopted for ths purpose.
Indvduas may be asked to assume that they occupy a certan status
or are payng a partcuar type of roe and to answer a queston-
nare n terms of ths set. e have aready mentoned the as-
sumed se questonnare n whch a group of men, for e ampe,
magne that they are women fng out the Strong ocatona In-
terest Test. The resuts of such an anayss show whch tems are
se -typed and whch are not. These responses may then be used to
defne the casses of behavor whch are perceved as reevant to
beng a femae (cf. aso ernberger, 194 ). 0nce agan t shoud be
ponted out that the resuts bear no one-to-one reatonshp to the
way women actuay answer the test, snce ther roe performance,
even ther moda performance as a group, s a product of other n-
fuences actng aong wth the roe defnton. The emnnty-
Mascunty answer key for the Strong Test w show whch tems
are answered dfferenty by the se es, but w not provde a pure
measure of what s perceved as consttutng the femae roe. In a
smar manner ndvduas may be asked to assume any partcuar
roe set and respond to varous stuatons n terms of t. or nstance,
one e permenter (0rne, 1949) has regressed students under hypnoss
to s years of age and asked them to take a Porschach Test. e
found that whe there was pretty good agreement among coege
students as to what behavor s -year-ods woud dspay on a
Porschach Test (e.g., poor form responses), these agreed-upon re-
sponses were not the ones that s -year-od chdren actuay dd gve
to the test. 0nce agan roe percepton (the coege student s vew
of a chd s behavor) dffers from roe performance (the chd s
actua behavor). or the moment we are nterested n the former.
2. Poe appercepton tests. n outgrowth of the mutpe-choce
roe questonnare s the open-ended roe questonnare, n whch
the roe s suggested n the frst part of a sentence and the remander
of the sentence s eft for the sub|ect to f out. or e ampe, er
mother s . . . or er father s. . . . The spontaneous compe-
tons of such sentences as these w gve the range of behavors ap-
proprate to mother or father status, partcuary f contrasted wth
sentences begnnng e s . . . or She s . . . or She ...
more eaborate approach to the same probem nvoves the use of
the T T, whch contans a number of pctures suggestve of dffer-
324
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
ent roe reatons. or nstance, card 6 M shows an edery woman
n the background and a young man n,the foreground who are
usuay taken to be mother and son. n anayss of a number of
ttores tod about ths pcture reveas that n a mae coege student
popuaton the son s behavor toward the mother ncudes the fo-
owng: (1) a son shoud te hs mother hs troubes, (2) shoud fee
ashamed n front of her for faure, (3) shoudn t hurt her feengs,
(4) must revot sometmes, (5) shoud seek reconcaton of hs
mother wth hs wfe, (6) shoud support hs mother, etc. The mother
on her part s pctured as (1) hodng her son to hgh standards, (2)
nurturng and supportng hm, (3) e pectng and urgng hm to
acheve, (4) beng nterested n hs wfe, (5) beng patent and abe
to take amost anythng. These acts taken together ustrate the
range of behavors whch are perceved as beongng to the mother-
son roe reaton n a coege student sub-cuture. In a arge sampe
of protocos certan of these behavors w appear more commony
than others, suggestng that there s a habt famy herarchy of roe
responses assocated wth a partcuar status (mother or son). The
resuts n terms of the present T T pctures w not be adequate
snce they were not specfcay chosen to get at common, soca be-
havor patterns but rather at ndvdua dosyncrases or motves.
modfcaton of the test n the drecton of more ceary dentfed
status probems shoud provde better roe defntons.
naogous studes can be made usng a pro|ectve technque ke
do-pay. Padke and Trager (1950), for nstance, recorded the spon-
taneous comments and actons of chdren payng wth Negro and
hte dos. They found among other thngs that chdren tended
to assocate certan occupatons, certan types of cothes, and cer-
tan housng arrangements wth raca status.
3. perments on perceptua norms or schemata. Peference has
aready been made to varous e permenta technques for determn-
ng what aspects of a percept hang together. They range a the
way from form-coor assocatons ( runer, Postman, and Podrgues,
1950) and age-sze assocatons (Posenbth and hte, 1949), to re-
sstance to seeng ncongrutes ( runer and Postman, 1949) and to
eey s e perment (1949) on changes n the perceptua quates
of a person by the ntroducton of the characterzaton of cod, or
warm. of these technques may be adapted to study soca roe
e pectances by usng soca status as the stmuus matera. Thus the
degree of assocaton of some perceptua characterstc wth a status
abe (e.g., a stern faca e presson wth beng a traffc poceman)
. 325
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
coud be tested by askng a sub|ect to pck a correct match n a set
of comparson stmu, by notcng the ength of tme t took the
sub|ects to observe a perceptua ncongruty (a smng poceman),
or by notng the changes n ratng the severty of e presson whch
accompaned abeng a fgure poceman. The probem s new,
but the e permenta technques for handng t are we-deveoped.
uture research aong these nes shoud be proftabe.
4. Measurng roe performance. Interest n e act measurement of
roe performance has aso not progressed very far, but two tech-
nques deserve speca menton. The frst s roe payng, a technque
orgnay e poted by Moreno (1946) for therapeutc purposes. e
arranged spontaneous dramas n whch hs patents were assgned
roes whch they had to carry out on the spur of the moment. These
roes were often assgned n terms of the needs of the patent. Thus
a person who had dffcuty n e pressng aggresson or anger of any
knd mght be gven a roe n whch he had to pay the part of a
typca outraged ctoran father who has |ust dscovered that hs
daughter has been seduced. The technque was deveoped even
further n the assessment program of the 0ffce of Strategc Servces
n ord ar II when canddates for the servce (0.S.S. 194 ) were
made to assume cover personates durng the severa days that
they were beng tested. the canddates at the assessment center
had fase denttes and attempted durng the tme they were there
to behave n every way consstenty wth ther assumed personaty.
In ths nstance the roe-payng technque was adopted to test the
e tent to whch a person coud pay a new roe and concea hs true
personaty, snce ths was one of the sks reated to esponage work.
ut there s no reason why t coud not be used to determne accu-
ratey how we a person understands or can perform a partcuar
roe, provded such methodoogca mprovements were ntroduced as
makng observatons of behavor more precse, standardzng status
stuatons, and obtanng behavora norms for the standardzed
stuatons.
second technque s one deveoped by aes (1950) n whch
ndvduas are paced n partcuar roe stuatons and ther
behavor noted and cassfed ether drecty or from a recordng.
or e ampe, Strodtbeck (1950) has cassfed and anayzed the be-
havor of a husband and wfe tryng to sette a pont on whch they
had prevousy gven dfferent ndependent |udgments. rom these
data he has determned how many tmes the husband or wfe wns
an argument, what types of tems each wns on, the technques used
326
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
by each to gan contro, etc. In short, he can arrve at a behavora
anayss of the husband-wfe roe reatonshp. Ths technque has
very great promse for determnng a person s roe behavor n a
sorts of statuses and for comparng ths performance wth some of
the roe perceptons as ected by some of the technques dscussed
earer.
5. tent of roe conformty. he psychoogsts have not been
so nterested n the nature or content of a partcuar roe percepton
or performance, they have coected a good dea of data about the
e tent to whch a person conforms to a roe pattern rrespectve of
how t s defned. The stuaton s the same as t was n the ast
chapter, where we found psychoogsts not so much nterested n
what a person s deas or atttudes were but n measurng how much
of any od atttude he had. The Strong ocatona Interest Test s
probaby the best e ampe of measurement of how much a person
conforms to varous soca roes. There are four dfferent types of
roe scaes whch are n common use n connecton wth ths test.
The frst s the Mascunty- emnnty scae whch measures the
e tent to whch an ndvdua gves responses whch are typca of
ether maes or femaes who have taken the test. The second s the
Interest Maturty scae whch measures the e tent to whch a person
gves responses typca of hs age group the thrd s the 0ccupatona
eve scae whch measures the e tent to whch an ndvdua gves
responses typca of dfferent postons on the occupatona prestge
scae and the fourth type s represented by the occupatona scaes
themseves, whch measure the e tent to whch a person has nter-
orzed the responses whch are typca of a partcuar occupatona
status. et us see how ar makes out on these varous scaes to us-
trate what knd of roe nformaton ths test provdes us wth. Many
of hs occupatona-scae scores have aready been dscussed. 0n
the Mascunty- emnnty scae he scores n the 6th percente of
a reference popuaton of hgh schoo boys, whch means that he
gves ess than the average number of responses characterstc of men
as compared wth women. 0n Interest Maturty he s n the 5th per-
cente, ndcatng that he gves responses that are more typca of
twenty-fve-year-ods than ffteen-year-ods. nd on the 0ccupatona
eve scae he s n roughy the 35th percente for a comparabe
reference popuaton, whch s agan rather ow. In fact hs score
fas beow the mean scores of varous professona groups takng
the test but above the mean scores for sked and semsked work-
men. rom a these scores we get an dea of the e tent to whch
327
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ar dspays on ths questonnare the same knd of behavor whch
s dspayed by groups of peope cassfed accordng to se , age, and
occupatona status. ut we do not know what behavor they ds-
pay or e acty how ar devates from the normatve pattern. n
anayss of the Strong answer keys mght hep provde some of ths
nformaton but t has not as yet been carefuy made.
Nevertheess these scores te us somethng. The hgh Interest
Maturty score, for nstance, confrms the mnature adut be-
havor that ar states n hs autobography was characterstc of hs
performance n hgh schoo. kewse the 0ccupatona eve score
appears to mrror somewhat hs father s occupatona status, whe
the fact that t s somewhat hgher than hs father s confrms hs up
ward mobty, whch we have dscovered before and whch s aso
represented by hs ambton to go to coege and enter nto a pro-
fessona career. The ow dentfcaton wth mascune nterests s
somewhat surprsng n vew of hs partcpaton n sports and hs
genera success n hgh schoo, but t probaby refects hs feengs
about hs own tmdty and nsecurty and hs nterest n readng,
a of whch ead to characterstcay femnne responses on the test.
SUMM PY 0 P S P0 D|USTM NTS
It w be dffcut to gve an adequate summary of ar s roes,
party because roes, ke trats, are often fary specfc to partcuar
stuatons, and party because much of what we have had to say has
been programmatc rather than the outcome of prevous research.
ctuay the roe concept has not been apped very often to the
study of the ndvdua personaty. Nevertheess we have had con-
sderabe to say about ar s roe ad|ustments at dfferent paces
n ths chapter and some attempt shoud be made to draw them to-
gether nto an over-a pcture.
Turnng back to Tabes 9.1 and 9.3 we can take hs parents and
hmsef as ponts of reference, as foca ponts for a number of roe
defntons. s we have seen, he vews hs father as essentay author-
taran, hard-workng, but unhappy, and somewhat sotary n hs
recreatona and assocatona habts. s mother aso appears as
hard-workng and unhappy, and aso somewhat unfrendy toward
hm. ar pctures hmsef n hgh schoo as a very gregarous boy
who works very hard and who s obedent and conformng to adut
standards of behavor. These overt pctures a contan eements
32
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
whch promse dffcutes n future roe ad|ustments. The father s
roe ad|ustments, to begn wth, contan some eements whch he
w want to copy and others whch he w not. Specfcay he has
apparenty competey nterorzed the strong achevement emphass
n hs father s behavor. e admres hs father s thoroughness, hs
hard-workng quates, hs versatty, and the e tent to whch he
has aways supported hs famy. Ths admraton for mae sef-
suffcency aso comes out n descrbng hs oder brother who, he
says, can turn hs hand to anythng and make a success of t. ery
accompshed n musc, eectrcty, fyng, woodworkng, to st a few
of hs achevements. urthermore, ar descrbes hs younger
brother as more nterested n havng a good tme than n preparng
for the future, agan refectng the strong emphass on mae acheve-
ment.
The dffcutes begn wth the fact that ke any upwardy mobe
son ar cannot dentfy competey wth hs father because he
ceary e pects to surpass hm on the occupatona scae. s overt
occupatona choce at the tme he entered coege s somethng of a
compromse. e wants to be a chemca engneer, whch s an occu-
paton somewhat reated to hs father s but at a hgher eve. more
mportant dffcuty than ths, however, arses from the fact that hs
father s so unhappy and worres so much about money matters,
the motves of others, etc. ar does not want to dentfy wth hs
father n ths respect. s a psychatrst who ntervewed ar puts
t, hs father hmsef aways fet nferor, whch gave rse n ar
to a smar fear of nferorty and unhappness whch n turn proba-
by renforced hs strong counteractve achevement strvngs. s
father s an ous strvng s key to favor the same ad|ustment n
ar. urthermore, hs father s more sotary than ar woud ke
to be. Thus there are severa grounds for predctng that ar w
have dffcuty n assumng mae adut roes, partcuary toward
work, because hs chef roe mode, hs father, s so satsfactory n
some respects, and not n others. If he had a strong father mage
that he coud ether competey dentfy wth or re|ect, hs ad|ust-
ment woud be easer than t s here where dentfcaton e tends to
some areas and not to others. Nevertheess ar s fary aware of
these confcts and shoud therefore be abe to ad|ust to them even-
tuay. t the present tme he ony wshes that thngs had been
otherwse, that the word was rued by the prncpes of the Sermon
on the Mount so that there woud be no need to fear faure so
much through the compettve sefshness of other ndvduas.
329
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The nterestng thng about the mother pcture s that the fantasy
pcture of women dffers so much from t. t the reaty eve hs
descrpton of hs mother s somewhat cod and dvorced from emo-
tonaty, as f she had done her duty toward hm and no more. In
the T T the mother ether deserts or demands somethng of her
son. 0n two dfferent occasons, separated by about a year, ar tod
a story about the mother-son pcture (T T 6 M) n whch the
mother demands somethng from the son whch he cannot perform.
In one story the mother s a very sacrfca woman who has gven
her entre fe to rasng her son to manhood. She wants hm to
prosecute hs wfe s brother-n-aw but he fees he cannot and ends
up feeng very guty for beng unfathfu to hs mother s devo-
ton. The other story s reproduced n fu beow.
The young man and hs mother are havng a serous tak. She s shocked
and hurt aso dsapponted. e fees sorry for her and s tryng to |ustfy
hs decson. The young man has a |ob n a cafe e s a bartender. s
mother had hopes that he woud become a great teacher or doctor and
woud go to schoo. owever, he has |ust returned from the servce and
wants to earn a vng. s mother wants hm to go to schoo. e wshes to
keep hs |ob and he wants to gve her suffcent reasons for hs actons he
s tryng to thnk of somethng to pacfy hs mother and perhaps ease hs
conscence. e w go back to the bar |ob and be happy at t. s mother
w become reconced to t, and they w understand each other.
The endng of ths story contans the other eement whch s charac-
terstc of ar s fantases about women, namey, ther strong, ovng,
nurturant aspect. Thus at the unreaty eve the femae mage has
spt nto a demandng aspect assocated wth the mother and a
nurturant aspect usuay assocated wth a over. In ether case the
son often sees hmsef as decetfu and betrayng the trust of a
woman. Ths suggests that there w be consderabe dffcuty n
ar s ad|ustment to women, partcuary n marrage. 0n the one
hand he has the strong fantasy wsh for ther ove and support ( hgh
on a wndy h ) and on the other hand he fears they w be de-
mandng and/or desertng hm. The e tremeness of these two pc-
tures at the unreaty eve, together wth ther apparent ack of
connecton wth the conscous mother mage, suggests that the con-
fct arsng over the negatve aspect of women s not very we under-
stood by ar, whch w probaby make hs ad|ustment to women
even harder. In fact, we have evdence n hs autobography that
he has aways had dffcuty wth grs and was teased for t when he
was younger.
3 0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P0 S ND P0 M0D S
nay, whe hs ad|ustment to hgh schoo woud seem to be so
dea, we shoud note that he s st payng the roe of a good boy
who responds to stuatons as they are defned by aduts rather than
by hs age mates. s we have seen, the norma adoescent shows
more rebeousness and rresponsbty than ar has dspayed
to date, probaby because of hs strct parenta contros. ut n the
transton from hgh schoo to coege or from adoescence to adut-
hood he w be facng status stuatons, the approved ad|ustments
to whch are not defned by superors but by hs age mates or per-
haps even by nferors. hat w happen when he gets on hs own
e has so far had tte practce n makng roe ad|ustments that
are not ceary defned from above. e may therefore predct that
he w have much more dffcuty n ad|ustng to a stuaton n
whch behavora norms are not enforced by superors than a boy
woud who has shown more rebeousness and who therefore has
had more practce n fndng norms defned as correct by age mates
or nferors.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. ow do you decde whether a gven act s part of a roe per-
formance or a personaty trat
2. Suppose a person had a roe percepton whch you wanted to
change for some reason (e.g., suppose he perceves father fgures as
authortaran or Negroes as fng mena occupatona roes). ow
woud you go about changng hs concepton oud you use tech-
nques that woud dffer n any way from the ones you woud use
for (a) e tngushng any response or (b) gettng hm to gve up a
personaty trat
3. In attemptng to get a pcture of how students perceve the be
havor e pected of a proctor, Stouffer asked them to |udge whch of
the varous aternatve actons for deang wth someone caught
cheatng they thought woud be approved and dsapproved by the
authortes. In a sense ths nvoves percepton of the probabtes
of sanctons beng nvoked by the authortes, and s a tte ke
askng what behavor someone thnks w be rewarded or punshed.
In vew of ths, woud t be better to ask what they as a proctor ought
to do under the crcumstances hat s the dfference between per-
cevng what shoud be done and percevng what woud be ap-
proved or dsapproved
4. Some authortes dstngush between an dea roe performance
331
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
and a typca roe performance. Is there any dfference n percepton
between the two et us say between the way you perceve women
shoud act and the way you thnk they do act hat accounts for
the dfference
5. requenty we say that a person payng a roe s not beng hs
rea sef. In what sense s ths true, and n what sense untrue
6. Desgn a roe appercepton test whch woud gve you the n-
formaton you woud want about a person s concepton of the ma|or
roe reatons n hs fe.
7. Take an answer key to the Strong ocatona Interest Test,
study the tems whch are scored one way or the other and try to
fgure out some knd of pattern whch ntegrates and descrbes the
mae and femae roes n our socety. Consut Strong s dscusson of
the scae n hs ocatona Interests of Men and omen (1943). 0r
note the changes that occur n frequency of responses to varous
tems as a functon of changes n age status (Strong, 1931) and try to
generaze these nto changng roe patterns assocated wth dfferent
age statuses.
. ook up the prncpes n any earnng te t (cf. McGeoch,
1942) governng postve and negatve transfer and appy them (1)
to the probem of predctng to what stmuus patterns atttudes to-
ward the father w generaze, and (2) to the probem of predctng
what factors w produce ma ma nterference n the transton
from one roe pattern to the ne t.
332
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
10
Socazaton: The Sources
of Schemata and Motves
Students of personaty theory have aways stressed the tremen-
dous mportance of chd tranng n the deveopment of the person s
conceptons of hs word. The reason for ths has been n part theo-
retca, n part hstorca, and n part emprca. 0n theoretca
grounds t has seemed ogca to suppose that the best pace to
study the behavor whch a cuture e pects of ts members s at
the tme of ther ndoctrnaton n group customs. storcay,
reud and hs foowers n the psychoanaytc schoo aways empha-
szed the tremendous mportance of the eary years n ayng down
the basc personaty structure. gan and agan they found that the
cause of a neuross appeared to e n the frst years of chdhood.
nd when reud and others of hs students began to appy ther
fndngs based on ndvdua cases to the study of socety, they ad
great emphass on parent-chd reatonshps. or e ampe, reud
n hs eary study Totem and Taboo (191 ) argued that the reaton-
shp of the son to hs father and mother (the 0edpus compe ) was
responsbe for the ncest tabu, the nature of regon and many
other soca phenomena. he most psychoogsts have vewed wth
suspcon smpe anaytc formuatons of ths nature, many of them
have accepted the underyng assumpton that the eary years of fe
are of fundamenta mportance n understandng the reatonshp
between cuture and personaty.
nay, on emprca grounds a number of reatonshps have
been dscovered by anthropoogsts whch woud support the conten-
ton that eary chdhood tranng s of very great mportance n
determnng adut personaty structure. dramatc nstance of ths
sort s that noted by Mc ester (1941) who studed the effects of the
use of water as a dscpnary agent among the Crow Indans. e
reported that t was common practce for Crow parents to pour
water down the noses of ther babes to quet them when they cred.
e then found n the cutura nsttutons of the Crow many ev-
dences of the fear of water. Members of the trbe refuse to eat any-
thng that ves n the water or s assocated wth water n any way.
333
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
They aso fear water monsters and go near water as tte as possbe.
To throw water at someone s to shame hm competey. Isoated
reatonshps of ths sort have been repeatedy reported n recent
years (cf. ateson, 1944) but t has remaned for htng and Chd
(1950) to demonstrate that they are not |ust fortutous. These
authors have found sgnfcant reatonshps cross-cuturay be-
tween certan chd-tranng practces and dfferent theores of ds-
ease a a study whch w be reported more fuy ater n the
chapter.
he such fndngs underne the great mportance of chd tran-
ng n the study of personaty structure, they do not necessary
mpy that the chd tranng s smpy the cause and personaty and
cuture the resut, as some enthusastc psychoanaysts have seemed
to mpy. It s |ust as ogca to assume that the socety s genera
concepton of the nature of ness makes ther atttude toward
weanng harsh (for e ampe) as t s to assume that harsh weanng-
practces cause aduts n a socety to conceve of ness as assocated
wth ora actvty. Nevertheess the reatonshp between eary chd
tranng and ater adut conceptons has been demonstrated to e st
emprcay. Consequenty for ths and the precedng reasons t s
necessary to ook cosey nto the process of chd rearng and ts
nfuence on peope s deas of the nature of the word and of the
way to mantan one s sef n t.
ardner s Contrbuton. very stmuatng and controversa
approach to the reatonshp between chdhood e perences and
personaty formaton has been made n recent years by the com-
bned efforts of psychoanaysts and anthropoogsts, ed chefy by
ardner, who has coaborated wth Du os n an anayss of the
orese cuture (1944) and ater wth nton and others (1945). e
was traned as a psychoanayst and attempted to appy hs varaton
of the reudan system to the study of personaty formaton n or.
e may consder hs approach n some deta as ustratve of the
one adopted by a number of cuturay orented psychoanaysts. e
begns by presentng the anayss of a neurotc who came to hm
for treatment. man of thrty compans of havng great dffcuty
wth women, of a constant an ety state n addton to severa spe-
cfc phobas, the chef of whch s the fear of makng a speech, con-
stant feeng of unworthness, ncapacty to compete, and hence a
sense of faure. ( ardner, 1945, p. 17.) The man further has n-
tense ongngs for eadershp but s actuay obsessed wth a feeng
334 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
S0CI I TI0N: SC M T ND M0TI S
of hepess neffectuaty. (1945, p. 1 .) ardner concudes that the
man s dffcutes have arsen out of a pecuar reatonshp whch
deveoped n connecton wth hs mother. She had gven hm good
materna care unt he was about twenty months od, when a change
n the famy fortunes requred her to work n her husband s store
and thus prevented her from gvng her chd the attenton he had
receved heretofore. s a resut the tensons of hunger, the wsh to
be fonded, and so forth, coud no more be satsfed n the usua
way. (1945, p. 1 .) 0ut of ths deserton and some subsequent events
the patent deveoped eventuay a mstrust of hs mother together
wth an unconscous ongng for her. To hm women appear power-
fu and resourcefu whe he s weak, hepess and unabe to enforce
hs w (1945, p. 19). s a resut he fees nsgnfcant and nferor
and yet tres to compensate for ths by grandose dreams of acheve-
ment and ongngs for success.
avng anayzed ths partcuar person n ths way, ardner asks
the egtmate queston as to whether these fndngs coud be utzed
n any way n the study of socety. e fees that a socety mght e st
n whch the chdhood crcumstances whch produced ths par-
tcuar personaty structure were nsttutonazed. If ths were so,
then we woud e pect that the trend n ther personaty formaton
woud foow aong the nes ndcated by the sub|ect we have |ust
dscussed. (1945, p. 1.)
e fnds that the orese cuture fufs, to a consderabe e tent,
the prerequste condton of poor materna care. e therefore at-
tempts to use hs psychoanaytc knowedge based on the study of
hs patent to understand personaty formaton n or. Snce
orese women work n the feds to produce neary a the stape
foods consumed, chdren are cared for after brth by ther mothers
ony for a very short perod amountng to usuay not more than
two weeks. t the end of ths tme the mother returns to the feds,
eavng the chd aone from eary n the mornng unt ate n the
afternoon. Naturay the chd gets very hungry and n need of com-
fort. e may be gven premastcated food or pcked up and fonded
by anyone who happens to be around but does not deveop any
strong parenta mage as a reever of tensons from hunger or other
sources. ( ardner, 1945, p. 147.) The ntermttent appearance of
the mother n the mornng and at nght cannot reeve the stuaton.
In fact, t must n the ong run act as an addtona rrtant, because
the ony mage of the mother that can emerge as a consequence of
her ntermttent attenton s the emphass of her tantazng and
335
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
frustratng aspects to the dsparagement of the knder sde. (1945,
p. 14 .)
s a resut of ths poor materna care ardner fees that the basc
personaty n or s an ous, suspcous, mstrustfu, ackng n
confdence, wth no nterest n the outer word. There s no capacty
o deaze parenta mage or dety. The personaty s devod of
enterprse, s fed wth repressed hatred and free foatng aggresson
over whch constant vgance must be e ercsed. (1945, p. 170.) To
rephrase these concusons n the terms used n Chapter we mght
say that the average orese chd earns to act n accordance wth
certan propostons or premses whch may be stated as foows:
Premse 1. fe s very panfu.
Premse 2. Peope are not to be trusted, women especay.
Premse 3. aure of one s efforts s to be e pected.
Premse 4. nanca transactons are mportant because they n-
sure the suppy of food.
Ths ast statement s derved from the observaton that most of
the adut maes spend a arge proporton of ther tme n fnanca
transactons, whe the women work n the feds. It can ready be
seen how the frst three of these propostons, at any rate, are drecty
derved from the strugge whch the young nfant has wth the ten-
sons created by the deserton of the mother. It s aso not dffcut
to see how the nterest n fnance coud deveop from the same
an ety over food. ardner goes on to show how ths fundamenta
cutura confguraton aso eads to personaty trats such as absence
of persstence. That s, he fnds n the orese a ack of constructve
abty and systematzaton no nterest n crafts, absence of deaza-
ton, poor aesthetc deveopment easy abandonment of hope and
enterprse . . . (1945, p. 23 ). e aso fnds what we w refer to
as a need, namey, the strong need for ove or nurturance. The per-
sonaty portrat whch he draws s based on a word vew or set of
deas derved amost entrey from what happens to the chd n the
frst year or so of hs fe. In a of ths he s typca of, though more
e pct than, other psychoanaysts workng n ths area who stress
the mportance of eary tranng n determnng mpct adut deas
and vaues. They a start from the assumpton that a cuture mav
nsttutonaze certan chd-tranng practces whch they have
found ead n ndvdua cases to certan types of adut personaa
structures.
hether or not one agrees wth ardner s fna anayss, hs
336
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
method of approach to the probem set some vauabe precedents.
e not ony made e tensve use of standard ethnographc matera
coected on the orese cuture, but studed detaed autobogra-
phes obtaned by Du os to check hs genera formuatons. In
addton he had dream matera from ndvduas and Porschach
protocos whch were ndependenty anayzed by 0berhozer (cf.
Du os, 1944). The whoe pro|ect s an e ceent e ampe of the
knd of co-operatve effort between students of personaty theory
and students of cuture whch s key to produce the most prog-
ress, certany n the aspect of personaty whch we are now ds-
cussng.
The Navaho ew of fe. y way of contrast to ardner s ap-
proach we may turn to the Navaho vew of fe as t has been pre-
sented by uckhohn and egh ton (1947). s t happens, t woud
not be dffcut for a psychoanayst to see n the Navaho basc per-
sonaty structure an e ampe of the ana compe of trats whch
has been observed n ndvduas who have f ated at the ana stage
of bdna deveopment. reud and partcuary braham deve-
oped the dea of the ana character as ncudng predomnanty
the trats of orderness, obstnacy, and parsmony (cf. eay, ron-
ner, and owers, 1930, p. 31 ). Psychoanaytc theory hods that
ndvduas who for varous reasons do not progress beyond ana
cathe s to the norma genta stage w dspay these trats as aduts.
The ana character has been e tensvey studed. cassca terary
e ampe s azac s Pere Grandet n ugene Grandet whose stng-
ness s so great that t overcomes a other motves.
Tabe 10.1 shows how one coud fnd trats n the Navaho person-
aty whch seem to correspond rather cosey to the ana compe .
T 10.1
vdence for na Character Trats mong the Navaho
na compe of trats Navaho trats
1. 0rderness 1. Mantan order at a costs
2. 0bstnacy t. Do nothng n the face of danger
3. Parsmony 3. gh vaue on possessons
aste dsapproved
( uckhohn and eghton, 1947, p. 220.)
s for the trat of orderness, uckhohn and eghton re-
peatedy emphasze the e treme rtuasm of the Navaho. y seem-
ng to brng the areas of actua gnorance, error, and accdent under
337
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the contro of mnutey descrbed rtua formuas, the Peope create
a compensatory mechansm. . . . Ths s acheved by the compu-
sve force of order and reteraton n rtua words and acts. (1947,
p. 224.) Ths s typca of the rtuastc observances of the ana
erotc. s for obstnacy, to the outsde observer, at east, the Navaho
must seem stubborn and obstnate because of hs basc assumpton
that n stuatons of danger t s best to do nothng or be mpassve.
Ths refusa to act s aso typca of the ana erotc. nay, as uck-
hohn and eghton pont out, possessons are very hghy vaued by
the Navaho. y Navaho standards one s ndustrous n order to
accumuate possessons wthn certan mts and to care for the
possessons he obtans. Uncontroed gambng or drnkng are dsap-
proved prmary because they are wastefu. The good man s one
who has hard goods (turquose and |ewery many), soft goods
(cothng, etc.), fe be goods (te tes, etc.) and songs, stores and
other ntangbe property, of whch ceremona knowedge s the
most mportant. (1947, p. 220.) Ths concern wth possessons whch
e tends to great carefuness n dress and to meta modng s agan
typca of the ana character who has a strong cathe s for matera
ob|ects, pus a horror of waste.
If we ook nto Navaho chd tranng to attempt to dscover, as
ardner woud, whether or not there s any bass for assumng that
the cuture nsttutonazes a form of bowe tranng whch woud
ead to the deveopment of ths basc personaty structure, we even
fnd hnts that ths may be the case. eghton and uckhohn report
that whe bowe tranng s not severe or harsh, t s begun aong
wth weanng and after a tme, the youngster who contnues to wet
or so hmsef s unmercfuy teased by a present. (1947, p. 35.)
To the reudan the wthdrawa of ora gratfcaton couped wth
the sudden nsstence on bowe contro woud be an e ceent meth-
od for emphaszng the bdna aspect of the e cretory functon.
mong the Navaho, feces are not consdered dsgustng and there
s no e aggerated emphass on ceanness, but after a tme the chd
earns that Navaho aduts take e treme care n dsposng of ther
feces. hen the todder goes wth mother or wth oder sster to
defecate or urnate, he must notce a certan uneasness whch they
manfest by ther carefu conceament of the waste matter. The
mother s now reveaed not as omnpotent but as hersef very uneasy
and afrad, though hepfu n that she s teachng the chd one way
of protectng hmsef. ( eghton and uckhohn, 1947, p. 40.) 0nce
agan n orthodo psychoanaytc terms ths woud provde a mecha-
33 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
nsm whch woud emphasze the vaue of e crement to the chd. If
t were not mportant, there woud be no need to concea t so care-
fuy to prevent ts usage n wtchcraft aganst the person.
ut eghton and uckhohn propery do not adopt the smpe
procedure of attemptng to e pan the whoe of Navaho adut per-
sonaty n terms of ths snge chd-tranng e perence. Instead,
they argue that the chd naturay comes to fee that the mportant
thng n fe s to be safe. (1947, p- 40.) Navaho regon was summed
up by one nformant n the smpe statement, e do not beeve
we fear. (1947, p. 139.) Under the crcumstances t seems far too
smpe to attrbute a the fear of the Navaho to a snge knd of
e perence wth ceanness tranng n chdhood. Instead they de-
veop the vewpont that a Navaho s nfuenced n a that he does
by a way of fe whch s tsef a |ont product of the physca en-
vronment, the hstory of The Peope, and the personates whch go
to make up the trbe at any gven moment n tme. The Navaho
physca envronment, for e ampe, may have contrbuted argey
to the concepton mpct n ther vew of fe that nature s more
powerfu than man. They ve a fe whch s e posed to a sorts of
dangers from nature. typcay nomadc peope, they ve n rea-
tvey soated unts n a semard and where the dangers of torren-
ta rans, proonged ack of water, a oney ness or accdent must
soon be obvous to everyone. They do not have the same sodary
support from others that Indans vng n puebos have. The dea
that fe s dangerous may have been renforced by e perences n
ther cutura hstory such as ther mass mprsonment by the htes
n the 1 6o s. Under the crcumstances The Peope may have earned
to ad|ust to danger by rtuastc practces whch woud ensure
safety. ewed n ths ght the probem of bowe tranng becomes
smpy one more knd of possby dangerous stuaton whch woud
be handed n the same way as a other dangerous stuatons. s
such, t aso serves ncdentay to renforce n a chdren the gen-
era cutura approach to fe, snce a of them are faced wth the
probem of emnaton contro sooner or ater. The genera con-
cuson from ths ne of reasonng s that chd-tranng probems
tend to be handed n a way whch s consstent wth the over-a
pont of vew adopted by a cuture but are not the soe determnants
of that pont of vew though they may be used aong wth other
means to renforce t.
The pecuary mportant contrbuton of psychoanayss accord-
ng to ths nterpretaton s that reud and hs foowers dscovered
339
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
a mode of ad|ustng to a dffcut, fear-producng earnng probem
(bowe contro) whch proved to be rather generay adopted by n-
dvduas n such stuatons. In the case of neurotcs who are true
ana characters, bowe tranng doubtess has been a serous trau-
matc or fear-producng stuaton aganst whch they defend them-
seves by deveopng character trats (orderness, etc.) whch turn
out to be hghy comparabe to the modes of response that a cuture
or other ndvduas mght adopt to other, or more generazed, fears.
Shoud anyone doubt the statement that the fears were more genera
n the Navaho cuture, t shoud be ponted out that there are char-
acterstcs of the ana compe whch The Peope do not show. or
nstance, they are not especay cean (for ack of water), or overy
compant and obedent, or obstnate because possessve, a of whch
are trats whch can be traced more specfcay to toet-tranng
traumata (cf. eay, ronner, and owers, 1930, p. 322).
urthermore, t shoud aso be noted that t s possbe (f not as
key) for another person or another cuture to earn to adapt to
such fears n a dfferent way. Thus n whte merca the tradtona,
norma response to danger has been to strve hard and to gan
securty and safety through ndvdua success and achevement.
hen n troube, do somethng. ( uckhohn and uckhohn,
1947.) Ths dea was present n ar s autobography. It s constanty
beng renforced by e ampes n pubc fe n merca today. hen
Congressman oom of New York ded, for nstance, the papers
made much of the fact that he was a man who had rsen to the peak
of wordy success, respectabty, and renown despte hs orgns as
a penness mmgrant. The rags to rches or orato ger story
s a myth wth an mportant mora for our cuture: hen n
troube, do somethng you can acheve securty by effort and hard
work.
Genera Concusons. rom these mportant pot studes on the
reatonshp between ndvdua and cutura modes of ad|ustment
we may draw a number of premnary concusons, (1) The study of
an ndvdua s ad|ustment to or deas about a partcuar probem
may suggest ways n whch t has become norma for a group of
peope to ad|ust to or conceve of a common smar probem, (t)
The hypotheses as to modes of ad|ustment derved from ndvdua
study must be checked n any gven cuture to fnd the actua be-
havora norms or conceptons current n that socety. These cu-
tura patterns are an mportant part of the equpment wth whch
340
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
any ndvdua member of that cuture meets hs probems of vng.
(3) The pont at whch the ndvdua comes n contact wth these
norms s n chdhood predomnanty. very member of a cuture
must ad|ust to certan common probems such as weanng, emna-
ton contro, wakng, and takng. The cuture adopts rearng prac-
tces whch are consstent wth ts genera phosophy of fe and t
s n part through these rearng practces that the chd earns what the
way of fe s. That s, a cuturay patterned chd-tranng technque
s both a product of the cuture and a method of renforcng ts dom-
nant deas and modes of ad|ustment. (4) There are varatons wthn
any gven cuture as to the partcuar way n whch the cuturay
approved patterns of chd rearng are apped. Ths may determne
the e tent to whch the person adopts the cutura concepton of fe,
but whether he adopts t as hs own or not, he aways acts n terms
of t as a frame of reference. In other words, no ndvdua s a
passve creaton of hs cuture as Smmons ponts out (1942), he s a
creator as we as a carrer of hs cuture. ut hs creatons are a-
ways made wth the cuture as a startng pont or frame of reference.
Y S 0U D C I D 00D P PI NC S so IMP0PT NT
Psychoanaysts ke ardner have not been overy concerned wth
ths queston. They have been content for the most part to know
that n the case of some ndvduas eary traumata have had m-
portant effects on adut ad|ustments. Can we add anythng to ths
bare fact from our genera knowedge of the way schemata deveop
or are acqured re there any theoretca reasons why eary chd-
hood e perences shoud be reatvey more mportant than ater
ones hen the queston s put n ths way, t s mmedatey ap.
parent that there are a number of factors whch shoud operate tc
make eary e perences more mportant than ater ones, facton
whch derve from theores and e perments about how schemata
are acqured.
. Prmacy. s ong ago as 1 97 |ost formuated two hypotheses
about assocatve earnng whch have subsequenty come to be
known as |ost s aws: If two assocatons are of equa strength but
of dfferent age, a new repetton has a greater vaue for the oder
one, and If two assocatons are of equa strength but of dfferent
age, the oder dmnshes ess wth tme. (McGeoch, 1942, p. 140.)
These aws have been confrmed by e perments n the aboratory
341
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
over reatvey short ntervas of tme, but as McGeoch ponts out,
they do not have much e panatory vaue because of our gnorance
of the effectve varabes whch dfferenta age brngs wth t. (1942,
p. 142.) If we thnk of age of assocatons ontogenetcay, t s cear
that assocatons formed n chdhood a have the beneft of age
accordng to |ost s aws. e can further argue that the reason why
age s an advantage n ths case s that they are assmated ess to pre-
e stng trace systems. Certany as far as young chdren are con-
cerned postve and negatve transfer from prevous e perences
must be reatvey much ess than wth oder chdren or aduts.
The chd has fewer prevousy formed assocatons, ess appercep-
tve mass nto whch new e perences are assmated and modfed.
In fact, eary e perences, smpy because they occur frst, are proba-
by of greater mportance n settng up the frames of reference n
terms of whch subsequent e perences are cassfed and modfed.
In e perments ke artett s (1932) on sera reproducton of a
story or a perceptua fgure, there s consderabe evdence to nd-
cate that the frst mpresson s more mportant n determnng the
fna concepton than are any subsequent mpressons, athough
data on ths pont are hard to coect (cf. sch, 1946, anawat,
1937). Numerous e perments on regresson n anmas (cf. Mowrer,
1940) have ndcated that a response earned frst becomes prepotent
over subsequent earned responses, especay f frustraton s ntro-
duced. nay, e perments on the recognton process ( runer and
Postman, 1949) have demonstrated that the hypotheses brought to a
stuaton tend to shape subsequent percepton to a marked e tent.
rom such evdence t seems safe to nfer that part of the reatvey
greater mportance of chdhood events es n the mere fact that
they occur frst and therefore can shape rather than be shaped by
other conceptons and ater e perences.
. Undeveoped Symboc Processes. chd e perences a great
many thngs durng the frst eghteen to twenty-four months of hs
fe before he has symbo systems deveoped to the pont where they
can adequatey represent what he has e perenced. e have ds-
cussed n Chapter how mportant anguage s n shapng menta
content. hat about a those e perences whch occur before an-
guage or conscousness deveops 0ne can ether assume that they
are of reatvey tte mportance n determnng subsequent be-
havor because they have not been symbozed, or that they go on
nfuencng behavor but n a way whch s reatvey ndependent of
342
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the symbo systems deveoped n connecton wth ater e perences.
The atter assumpton, whch certany seems more reasonabe, s
essentay the one the psychoanaysts have made n argung for the
mportance of the unconscous. If we read for unconscous some
such term as unverbazed or unsymbozed, t s easy to see on
theoretca grounds why eary e perences mght contnue to e ert
a dsproportonate nfuence on subsequent behavor because they
are not under symboc contro. Not enough e permenta attenton
has been gven to ths mportant theoretca probem, but severa
e perments demonstrate the greater resstance to e tncton of un-
verbazed earnng (cf. gard and Marqus, 1940, pp. 267-26 ). In
short, eary e perences may assume such great mportance n per-
sonaty because they are not represented by the knds of symbos,
partcuary verba, whch factate subsequent dscrmnaton, as-
smaton, e tncton, and contro.
3. Pepetton. ew peope have commented on the fact, athough
t s ready apparent to young parents, that many of the mportant
probems of eary chdhood occur over and over agan, provdng a-
most une ceed opportuntes for f aton and renforcement. or
nstance, the average nfant s fed from three to s tmes a day for
the frst year at east and perhaps for the second year as we. Con-
servatvey we may estmate that the probem of feedng arses
around three thousand tmes n the frst two years of an nfant s fe.
The parent for reasons of economy acqures certan methods of
handng the feedng probem and the nfant n turn earns to e -
pect certan responses from the parent. Is t then so surprsng that
responses and e pectatons whch have been renforced thousands
of tmes shoud be of mportance n determnng the subsequent
concepton a chd deveops of the word 0r take the probem of
bowe contro. The average nfant probaby sos hmsef from s to
ten tmes a day, at east n the begnnng. In the frst year aone the
probem of changng hs dapers or ceanng hm up must arse
somewhere around two thousand tmes. 0ne does not need to assume
any e traordnary earnng capacty on the nfant s part to nfer
that many e pectatons and habtua modes of reacton w be ac-
qured durng a these repettons of a probem stuaton. D. P.
Marqus (1941) has shown that newborn nfants can earn a certan
feedng schedue n a matter of a few days (25-35 pared repettons).
ut the habts we are speakng of here woud have many thousands
of opportuntes for a partcuar assocaton to be formed and
343
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
strengthened. hen one consders how often the orese chd asso-
cates hs mother wth the pangs of frustraton and hunger, t seems
reasonabe to assume that he mght deveop the knd of antcpaton
of frustraton from women that ardner postuates (1945)- The fact
s that there are few stuatons as mportant to the organsm, outsde
eary chd tranng, that gve such e tensve opportuntes through
sheer repetton for the earnng of atttudes, e pectatons, and
modes of adaptng to probem stuatons.
4. The Condtons for orgettng. though we may accept read-
y the mportance of some of these earned e pectatons for the
chd when he s a chd, we can st queston whether they are of
any great mportance for ater on. Perhaps they are smpy unearned
or repaced by subsequent asspcatons. hy assume that what s
earned durng the frst year s of mportance n the second year, the
thrd year, or the twenty-thrd year Ths takes us drecty nto the
probem of unearnng or forgettng. hat are the condtons for
forgettng In recent years, the genera consensus among earnng
theorsts s that forgettng s not due to dsuse. McGeoch n par-
tcuar has argued that forgettng s not a matter of passve decay.
Decrements n retenton are a functon of three fundamenta cond-
tons: (a) nterference by ntervenng actvtes (b) atered stmu-
atng condtons (c) nadequate set at the tme of the measurement
of retenton. (1942, p. 457.)
ow woud each of these factors operate to produce forgettng of
eary e perences s the chd grows oder he w earn new re-
sponses but under somewhat dfferent stmuatng condtons. or
one thng, he s smpy bgger, and the word ooks dfferent to hm.
Consder for a moment how the word must ook to a chd of one
or two. It must be popuated argey wth feet and egs, wth the
underneath surfaces of chars and tabes, wth arge obstaces such
as steps to be crawed over. The conte t changes radcay as he
grows bgger. In terms of retroactve nhbton theory, ths means
that hs new responses w be attached to new stmuatng cond-
tons and oder responses w not necessary be unearned or for-
gotten as a resut of ths new or nterpoated actvty. In fact,
carefu consderaton of the condtons whch McGeoch sets down
for forgettng woud ead us to e pect that the rapd growth of the
chd woud favor the acquston of new earnng wthout corre-
spondng decrements n od earnng. In technca terms, such a
state of affars woud show up as reproductve nterference makng
344
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
t dffcut for the chd to reca earer earnng, because of new
earned responses, whe some other method of measurng retenton
such as a savngs score n reearnng woud demonstrate that earer
e perences were st retaned. ctua unearnng s apparenty most
key to occur when the same stuaton gves rse to ncompatbe
responses, one of whch may then be e tngushed by ack of ren-
forcement. ut such an opportunty for unearnng s not so key
to occur n the rapdy growng nfant (a) when stmuus stuatons
change qucky and (b) when smartes among stuatons are not
as great as they are when they can be grouped under a common
symbo.
et us take a concrete e ampe to make the pont cear. Suppose
for the sake of argument that an nfant deveops on the bass of
earer e perences wth hs mother an e pectaton that she w be
harsh and punshng. s he grows oder he earns a new e pectaton
based perhaps on the fact that she s no onger harsh and frustratng
snce he s now toet-traned, whch removes the source of most of
her rrtaton. The new e pectaton, however, s ted to somewhat
dfferent stmuus condtons (he has grown up), and there s no
reason for supposng on the bass of contemporary theores of for-
gettng that the earer e pectaton s competey wped out. It may
be dffcut to reca, e cept under condtons of free assocaton and
fantasy, as the psychoanaysts have demonstrated, but that s no
reason to assume that ts nfuence s entrey ost. s savngs scores
demonstrate, the nfuence of past earnng perssts ong beyond the
pont when reca s reduced to zero. Subsequent earnng, to be
sure, produces some unearnng (cf. Meton and on ackum, 1941),
but the pont that needs emphass here s that condtons do not
seem adequate to account for compete forgettng of eary chdhood
assocatons.
urthermore, there are other reasons why eary e perences are
not as ready forgotten as ater ones. Much eary earnng whch
occurs before the chd has deveoped the symbo systems dscussed
above, must be e ceedngy generazed and vague. tncton and
forgettng occur most ready when the eements n a stmuus-re-
sponse-reward sequence are easy dscrmnated by a rat or a human.
hen, however, such sequences are made to be vague or varabe
through aperodc renforcement (|enkns and Staney, 1950), or
random varaton of correct cues, correct responses, or tme deays
to renforcement (cf. McCeand and McGown, 1950), e tncton
or unearnng becomes much more dffcut to produce. Yet vara-
345
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
bty of the eements n a earnng sequence s probaby the rue n
eary chdhood. |ohnny earns s that sometmes somethng
panfu may happen when he has done somethng. In the begn-
nng at east such assocatons may be so genera as to be very hard to
e tngush. The soaton of cue and response and reward (cf.
Mer and Doard, 1941) s an achevement of ater chdhood or
of an e permenter who s carefu to soate these eements n a
reguar and systematc fashon for the anma or chd performng
n the typca earnng e perment. s the apperceptve mass gets
more dfferentated, as dscrmnatons become easer to make n
terms of anguage and other symboc systems, what s earned be-
comes ncreasngy specfc and therefore ncreasngy easy to forget
or unearn by atered motvaton, changed stmuus condtons, etc.
In concuson, then, t s apparent that many consderatons based
on our knowedge of the earnng and forgettng process woud end
support to the psychoanaytc poston that eary chdhood s of very
great mportance n determnng basc personaty structure. Snce
the reasons derve drecty from earnng theory, carefu reasonng
and e permentaton aong the nes suggested above ought to quet
many theoretca psychoogsts doubts about a mysterous uncon-
scous whch obeys aws of ts own. 0ften psychoanaysts have been
rght for the wrong reasons. Ther ack of tranng n forma earn-
ng psychoogy has not enabed them to gve satsfactory e pana-
tons as to why unconscous eary earnng shoud be so mportant
and the e panatons they have resorted to have seemed so anthropo-
morphc and strange to other psychoogsts that many psychoanaytc
formuatons have been dsmssed wthout the serous consderaton
they deserve (cf. Sherf and Cantr, 1947).
T IMP0PT NT PNING PP0 MS 0 C I D 00D
avng found a bass n earnng theory for the mportance at-
tached by psychoanaysts and cutura anthropoogsts to chdhood
e perences we may now turn to a more systematc treatment of the
socazaton process. 0ur task can be dvded nto three parts: (1)
hat are the mportant probems whch arse n every nfant s ad-
|ustment to hs envronment (2) hat parent behavors are par-
tcuary sgnfcant n aterng the nature of these probems (3)
hat s the effect on personaty of varatons n the nature of these
probems and the way they are handed by parents
eavng asde the ast queston unt ater, we may frst attempt a
cassfcaton of the mportant earnng probems faced n one form
346
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
or another by every human nfant. n adequate bass for such a
cassfcaton at ths stage of our knowedge s dffcut to f1nd. 0n
the one hand we may begn wth the probems of socazaton whch
psychoanaysts have tradtonay emphaszed as of great mportance
-e.g., nursng and weanng, se and aggresson tranng, ceanness
tranng, etc. There s much hstorca precedent for such an ap-
proach. It s the one most commony used n anayss of the socaza-
ton process by contemporary research workers n the fed ke Davs
and Doard (1940), Davs and avghurst (1947), eghton and
uckhohn (1947), ardner (1945), and many others. ny cassfca-
ton scheme must ncude these probems, but t shoud aso be more
systematc f possbe. That s, a carefu consderaton of the func-
tona or adaptve probems of a deveopng chd suggests that
there are certan areas of earnng whch are of consderabe mpor-
tance n the chd s deveopment, but whch for one reason or
another have not been treated e tensvey by psychoanaysts. 0ur
probem here s essentay the same as t was when we attempted n
Chapter to dstngush dfferent areas of cutura deoogy. e
must fnd some ratona scheme whch w order the probems
known to be of mportance and whch w suggest others whch may
be of mportance.
Tabe 10.2 s an attempt at such a cassfcaton. The eft-hand
coumn sts four ma|or types of probems whch the chd must face.
They cover reatvey broad areas of earnng, centerng respectvey
around probems of protecton, affecton, mastery, and contro.
Under each of these headngs s sted some, but by no means a,
of the mportant more specfc probems that fa wthn ths area.
or e ampe, under probems of protecton, every chd must some-
how be fed, nursed, and sheded from pan and danger. The way
n whch the probems appear to hm the amount and frequency
of feedng or protecton, the sequence of hunger, pan, and satsfac-
ton, etc. w presumaby be of great mportance n determnng
the chd s concepton of the word whether t s frendy or un-
frendy, supportng or nonsupportng, etc. There are two man
sources of varaton n the way such a probem as ths s defned one
arsng prmary from the requrements of the stuaton (coumn 2)
and one from the way n whch the parent defnes the probem and
heps the chd to sove t (coumn 3). In the former category fa
those epsodes, events, or accdents that have appeared to modfy
the nature of the earnng probem accordng to psychoanaysts and
others workng n chd psychoogy. or nstance, the cradeboard
347
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
provdes a knd of protecton from danger for the Navaho chd
whch shoud modfy the nature of hs e pectatons about protec-
ton and support. 0r agan, oss of the mother or proonged
heath are ma|or events whch can scarcey fa to redefne what s
to be earned n ths area. Smary the sheer presence of ots of
other peope, especay aduts, from whom the chd can get sup
port presents a very dfferent type of stuaton wth respect to earn-
ng about protecton from the stuaton whch woud arse for a
reatvey soated Navaho chd for whom the frequency of nterac-
ton wth others s consderaby ess than for a chd born n a
puebo. In the thrd coumn are sted sampe types of parent be-
havor as rated by adwn, ahorn, and reese as the bass for ther
eaborate custer anayss of patterns of parent behavor (1945). They
are meant to be suggestve of the dfferent ways n whch parents can
structure for the chd the partcuar probem under consderaton.
more detaed dscusson of how they were derved, and of other
sources of varaton n parent behavor, w be gven ater n the
chapter.
T 10.2
Cassfcaton of earnng Probems for the Chd wth a Sampng of Cr-
cumstances and Parent ehavors of Importance n Determnng the Nature
of the Probems for the Chd
earnng probems
I. Protecton and sup-
port
a. Nursng and wean-
ng t
b. Pan and danger
c. ggresson from
others (teasng, rd-
cue, decet)
aratons n chdhood
aratons n parent be-
crcumstances
/1fw orf
Indugence-Negect
4.2 Sheherng- pos-
oss of mother
ng
Cradeboard
4.1 0verheps- th-
Peastc dangers
hods hep
eath
1.91 Chd centered-
rth traumata
Chd subordnate
requency of nteracton
7.2 Devoton-Pe|ec-
wth others
ton
7.1 n ous-Noncha-
ant over chd s
we-beng
II. presson and reg- cceptance-Pe|ecton
uaton of affect
a. Motherng e pect- oss of mother 7.2 Devoton-Pe|ec-
ances (tckng, cud- rth order and nterva ton
dng, etc.) to ne t chd .4 Papport-Isoato1.
34
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 10.2 (Contnued)
aratons n chdhood aratons n parent he-
earnng probems crcumstances
b. 0b|ect choces (af- nshp system etc.
f ectona) |
c. Mode of e presson
of affect (smng,
contact tabus, etc.)
III. Mastery
a. Motor sks wak- Iness
ng, huntng, work- Natve ntegence
ng oss of father
b. Symboc sks tak- ge of parents at brth
ng, readng, etc. Cutura deoogy (My-
c. Cogntve maps or thoogy, schoong,
reaty systems, etc etc.)
Nature and number of
socazng agents
oss of father
Insttutonay approved
forms of aggresson
Traumatc f atons
I . Sef-drecton and
contro
a. Sphncter contro
(ceanness, toet
tranng) |
b. ggresson contro |
c. erarchy of contros
d. Sef w. Soca con-
tros ( utonomous
vs. eteronomous
Moraty)
Cf. uckhohn, 1946.
t fter adwn, ahorn, and recse (1945, 1949).
I 0f partcuar mportance n psychoanaytc theory.
Probems of ffecton. The decson to pace certan tradtona
socazaton probems under one headng or another s to some e -
tent arbtrary, as a consderaton of the affectona area of earnng
qucky demonstrates. The manner n whch the nfant s nursed
havor-
.3 ffectonate- os-
te
5.2 pprova-Dsap-
prova n drecton
of crtcsm
cceeraton ( Democ-
racy )-Indfference
3.3 cceeratona
attempt
6.1 Satsfes-Thwarts
curosty
3.22 0ptona-Manda-
tory suggestons
3.14 Consstency-Incon-
sstency n pocy
(Patona vs. rb-
trary pocy)
3.15 Chd shares n
formuaton of
pocy
utocratc-Permssve
3.14 rbtrarness of
pocy
5.2 pprova-Dsap-
prova n drecton
of crtcsm
3.22 0ptona-Manda-
tory suggestons
(Nurturance/
nhbton rato)
349
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
not ony eads to a defnton of the probem of support but aso to
e pectatons about ove from others. That s, the nursng reaton-
shp provdes the opportunty for earnng about protecton and
support and aso about the e presson and e pectaton of ove. It
aso defnes at one s age of deveopment the chef source of cues (the
mouth) whch are assocated wth prmary gratfcaton. Thus, ac-
cordng to the psychoanaysts, affectve earnng s frst assocated
wth the mouth, ater wth other parts of the body whch provde
gratfcaton (the anus, the gentas), and fnay wth peope n the
mmedate or dstant envronment (sef, mother, father, homose ua,
heterose ua ob|ect choces, etc.). The order of progresson of such
ob|ect choces s supposed to be controed nstnctvey accordng to
some reudans but t s certany a functon of such factors as the
ma|or source of gratfcaton at the tme (e.g., the mouth durng
nursng), the avaabty of persons (sef vs. others), and soca con-
tros, such as ncest tabus based on knshp systems. Psychoanaysts
have aso stressed the dffcut earnng probems set for the chd by
competton for ove. The chd may compete wth one parent (e.g.,
the father) for the ove of another (e.g., the mother), and he may
compete wth another chd for the ove of the parents, a probem
whch usuay arses n fu force shorty after the brth of a sbng.
The confcts resutng from competton for ove may become par-
tcuary acute because of the narrowness of the typca famy group
n estern cvzaton, and they have therefore come n for a good
dea of study by psychatrsts (cf. evy, 1937). They are mentoned
here ony as representatve of the type of probem that can arse n
the area of channeng affectona e pressons and e pectatons.
Probems of Mastery. The area of earnng whch ncudes prob-
ems of mastery has for some reason been rather e cusvey the
provnce of tradtona mercan psychoogy, |ust as probems of
affecton have been more or ess e cusvey the provnce of psycho-
anayss. Gese and hs co-workers (1940, 1943) have anayzed n
great deta wth the hep of moton pctures the deveopmenta se-
quences of motor coordnaton. ke reud, Gese argues that there
are boogcay determned orders of emergence of varous behavors.
or e ampe, the chd frst fts hs head n the prone poston, then
hs trunk ater he can st supported, then st wthout support, then
perhaps ro from prone to supne and st up, then stand wth sup-
port, then stand wthout support, and fnay take a frst step. The
nes of motor deveopment are, generay speakng, from head to
350
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
foot and from the trunk to the e tremtes. Ths type of anayss s
strkngy parae to reud s n that t assumes an nnate boogca
force whch determnes the order of emergence of these sks, |ust
as the bdo governs successve ob|ect choces. Despte ths parae-
sm there has been amost no contact between the two systems of
thnkng, the reudans beng essentay unnterested n probems
of motor deveopment and Gese and hs co-workers unnterested n
sequences of ob|ect cathe es. ctuay of course t s not necessary to
assume a strcty boogca determnsm n ether case. The fact
that the chd must st up before he can stand up and stand up
before he can wak does not seem to depend so much on boogca
growth forces as on the fact that each successve sk needs the
precedng one before t can be successfuy performed. There ap-
pears to be a true herarchy of sks n whch hgher ones requre
the pror mastery of ower ones. ere, as n the case of ob|ect choces,
t seems preferabe to attrbute the sequence found n a chdren
to the knds of stuatons n whch they are progressvey paced by
boogca and soca factors and by past earnng rather than to
resort to an nnate, nstnctua drvng force.
actors whch nfuence the rate at whch sks are acqured have
tradtonay been a part of educatona psychoogy. They ncude
varabes a the way from presence of the father n the home, to
provde nstructon and e ampe for some of the hgher-order sks,
to natve ntegence, or the e tent to whch the parents acceerate
the chd. Thus t has been demonstrated, for e ampe, that whereas
n mdde-cass merca there s an effort to get chdren to acqure
these ego-e ecutve sks earer than n ower-cass crces (Davs
and avghurst, 1946), n other cutura groups ke the orese no
effort s made to hep chdren master norma probems ke wak-
ng, takng, or workng at varous tasks (Du os, 1944).
Probems of Contro. hen we move nto the area of contro
sks t s agan obvous that the psychoanaysts have made the
rna|or contrbuton by ther emphass on the mportance of cean-
ness tranng and se and aggresson contro. Generay speakng,
the probems whch fa wthn ths area are those centered around
the gradua reguaton of the chd s behavor to ft nto the cutura
mod. e must earn to toerate a certan degree of frustraton, to
channe hs acts of aggresson, and to nhbt certan forms of ant-
soca behavor ether through the nner contros of conscence or
the outer ones of shame or fear of punshment. There must be some
351
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
knd of at east partay ntegrated contro system so that when
decsons must be made, one aternatve or the other may be chosen.
0f consderabe mportance n ths area are such varabes as who
does the socazng and how much contro s requred of the chd.
or nstance, t has been argued that cross-se punshment eads to
ambvaence toward the opposte se whch may ater ead to dffcu-
tes n marta ad|ustments. That s, f the father punshes the daugh-
ter she may n tme come to have such an unpeasant pcture of men
that she may have dffcuty n marryng one happy. The death of
the father may cause speca strans for mae chdren snce t neces-
sary eaves dscpne to the mother, etc. Some cutures attempt to
avod creatng such ambvaence toward peope by havng outsde
agents rather than the parents do the punshng (e.g., the op
atcnas).
P P NT I0P P TT PNS
In a the areas of earnng |ust dscussed, parent behavor s of
great mportance n defnng what the chd earns. Therefore t s
tme we consdered n more deta the anayss of parent behavor
as outned roughy n the thrd coumn of Tabe 10.2 on the bass
of one of the few ob|ectve studes ever made n ths fed. Tradton-
ay the method used n studyng parent behavor has been ether
to nfer what t must have been from the free assocatons of a
patent on a psychoanaytc couch or from answers to questons n
an ntervew, or to observe t under reatvey uncontroed cond-
tons on fed trps to other cutures. The observatons to be ds-
cussed here from adwn, ahorn, and reese (1945, 1949) were
made as a part of the work of the es Pesearch Insttute s ome
stng program and show many methodoogca mprovements
over prevous studes. They w therefore be presented n some de-
ta here, not so much because they provde any fna answers, but
because they ndcate the way n whch future research shoud pro-
gress n ths fed. adwn et a. obtaned repeated ratngs by a
home vstor of parent behavor on some thrty dfferent behavor
varabes, rangng from the actvty eve of the home to the tendency
of the parent to make suggestons, requests, commands, hnts and
other drectve attempts. (1945, p. 7.) The ratngs by the home vs-
tor were found to be qute reabe when correated for two vsts
separated by s months and even when compared for two vsts
made three years apart. The medan ntercorreaton between the
two ratngs made three years apart was about .62, wth many of the
352
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
correatons n the .70s. Snce the parents behavor undoubtedy
changed somewhat over ths perod of tme these correatons nd-
cate a hgh and satsfactory degree of observer reabty. The au-
thors then chose the ratngs made on the ffth vst to the home and
ntercorreated them to attempt to dscover any custers or syndromes
of parent behavor. They managed to soate three custers of parent
behavor n each of whch the defnng varabes showed a hgh cor-
reaton wth one another and a ow correaton wth varabes n
the other two custers. They abeed the three syndromes cceptance
of the chd, Indugence, and Democracy n the home, then dvded
each of these dmensons nto three ntensty eves and cassfed
each of the hundred and twenty-four famy studes nto one of the
three eves. The resuts are gven n Tabe 10.3.
urthermore, they found that the degrees of freedom n a cassf-
caton of ths sort were mted. That s, a poston on one of the three
dmensons tended to be assocated wth a mted number of postons
on the other dmenson. They were abe to fnd seven dfferent com-
mon patterns sted n the bottom porton of Tabe 10.3 whch ac-
counted for about 75 per cent of the fames studed. The way n
whch a famy s poston n one of these syndromes s determned by
ratngs on specfc behavora varabes s ustrated n Tabe 10.4.
T 10.3
Parent ehavor Dmensons and Syndromes wth the Number of ames
n ach ( fter adwn, ahorn, and reese, 1945.)
. Dmensons of parent behavor
N N N Tota N
I. Pe|ectant 31 Casua 57 cceptant 36 124
II. Nonchaant 26 M ed 52 Indugent 46 124
(Nonch.-Indug.)
III. utocratc 42 M ed 46 Democratc 36 124
( ut.-Dem.)
. Common syndromes
1. Pe|ectant-Nonchaant
t. Pe|ectant- ctve ( utocratc)
|. Casua-Indugent
4. Casua- utocratc
5. cceptant-Indugent
6. cceptant-Democratc
7- cceptant-Democratc-Indugent
353 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
dfferentated from the Casua-Indugent pattern by the greater
affectonateness ( .3) and approva (5.2) shown the chd, by the
presence of a greater number of suggestons (3.21), and by a more
successfu pocy n deang wth the chd (3.17). The two syndromes
have n common the 0ver-hepng and 0ver-sheterng tendences
assocated wth Indugence (4.1, 4.2) but dffer on the cceptance
dmenson (7.1 ff.).
These three dmensons of parenta behavor are roughy parae
wth the frst three probems the chd must adapt to as sted n
Tabe 10.2. The Indugence-Nonchaance dmenson seems ceary
to be reated to the amount of protecton provded the chd. Pro-
tectveness does not necessary mean ove, however, as the two
separate dmensons n Tabe 10.4 show (4.2, .3). ffectonate-
ness and sheterng are not necessary present n the same fames.
Ths s a famar fndng to cncans who have argued that n
some cases protectveness and genera babyng are a reacton for-
maton aganst unconscous re|ectve tendences. cceptance-Pe|ec-
ton (or the warmth dmenson) on the other hand seems most
ceary reated to probems of affectona earnng as sted n Tabe
10.2. The amount of ove and gratfcaton receved from varous
sources w determne, at east to some e tent, the nature and strength
of the chd s ob|ect choces, hs concepton of the word as frendy or
unfrendy, etc. nay, the Democratc- utocratc dmenson reates
to probems of earnng nvovng both Mastery and Contro. ther
the Democratc or utocratc home usuay requres a consderabe
degree of mastery from the chd and ether may be assocated wth
cceeratona attempt. The true opposte of ths dmenson as far
as the mastery sks are concerned woud seem to e n the m ed
group of parents who have no consstent or cear pocy, ether
Democratc or utocratc, wth regard to probems of mastery. The
dmenson of parent behavor reated to mastery probems mght
therefore be rechrstened cceeraton-Indfference. somewhat
smar ack of congruence arses n connecton wth contro prob-
ems snce here the reevant dmenson appears to be somethng ke
utocracy-Permssveness. ere the word utocratc does not refer
so much to mere arbtrarness as to the restrctveness and coercve-
ness of socazaton requrements. Some fames and some socetes
are reatvey a n the amount of contro of aggresson or other
asoca behavors requred, whereas others demand a great dea of
contro and at a reatvey eary age. It s ths hgh eve of aspra-
ton parents have for ther chdren wth respect to contro sks
355
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
that, accordng to psychoanaytc thnkng, makes the ad|ustve re-
sponses or e pectatons earned n connecton wth these probems
so mportant ater on. Thus eary and strct emphass on contro n
one area (e.g., bowe tranng) may generaze to structure the whoe
unverse as demandng compance, orderness, etc. (the ana char-
acter dscussed earer).
Such an anayss of parent behavor does not cover a the m-
portant dmensons of chd-rearng practces. owever, t does sug-
gest what some of these dmensons are and how they may be
grouped n the hgher-order syndromes sted n Tabe 10.3. It aso
suggests how some of the other varabes known to be nfuenta n
chd rearng can ft nto an over-a scheme. Snce we cannot begn
to treat a these other varabes adequatey, we w seect three for
speca treatment, about whch a consderabe amount of nforma-
ton has accumuated.
1. Parent ehavor tremes. Cnca and anthropoogca data
ceary show that e treme devatons from the norm on any of
the dmensons sted above (Indugence-Negect, ffecton-Pe|ec-
ton, cceeraton-Indfference, utocracy-Permssveness) w accen-
tuate the probems n ths area for the chd. ther overprotecton
(cf. evy, 1943) or negect, for nstance, seems to ead to fear of the
unknown and nsecurty arsng from fear of deserton by the
parents. htng and Chd have shown (see Tabe 10.6 beow) that
hgh or ow nurturance tends to be assocated wth a beef n sprts
as causes of dsease, sprts whch presumaby represent pro|ectons
of a strong need for dependence on someone. Smar dffcutes arse
from e tremes n the other dmensons. 0veraffectonateness may
ead to ob|ect f atons whch are hard to break, whereas ack of
affecton or re|ecton has been eoquenty treated by a number of
cncans and dubbed affect hunger by evy (1937). The acceera-
tona emphass on compettve mastery n our own cuture, wth ts
attendant dangers of neurotc strvng, peptc ucers and the ke,
has receved partcuar attenton from many psychatrsts (cf. e -
ander, 1942), whereas ardner warns us (1945) that the ack of con-
cern for ego e ecutve sks n or resuts n ack of constructve
abty. The st coud be e tended but the pont s smpy that any
e treme n parenta behavor s key to stress the mportance of the
probem for the chd, though n somewhat dfferent and as yet un-
ceary understood ways. th the varabes defned n ths way, t
shoud be possbe to nvestgate more systematcay what ther
356
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
effects are. htng and Chd (1950) have come nearest to ths n
makng ratngs of nta ndugence and of severty of tranng for
dfferent types of socazaton probems.
2. Sequences of Parent ehavor. So far parent behavor has been
treated as a statc, cross-sectona phenomenon, whereas actuay t
vares wth the age of the chd and often n a patterned way. or
e ampe, a chd may be ntay nduged n nursng, gettng both
hgh protecton and hgh affecton, and then be suddeny and
harshy weaned, perhaps because of the brth of a sbng. Such se-
quences are thought, on the bass of cnca data (cf. ardner s case
dscussed earer), to be of very consderabe mportance, possby
because the eary e perences ead to e pectatons of what s to come
ne t whch are then severey frustrated. Under these crcumstances,
on theoretca grounds one woud e pect a rather sow ad|ustment
to the new crcumstances because of the factors favorng the strength
of eary earnng as dscussed earer n the chapter. rather smpe
but mportant ustraton of ths pont s provded by some observa-
tons reported by Sears and se (1950) on the frequency of weanng
dsturbance among three groups of babes, one of whch was weaned
at brth (cup-fed), one of whch was weaned between two weeks and
three months, and one of whch was weaned after three months. The
frequency of weanng dsturbance was sgnfcanty greater the
onger the chd has been fed by suckng. The nterpretaton gven
s that frequent assocaton of suckng cues wth feedng ed to the
estabshment of a habt (e pectaton) whch was much stronger than
f such eary renforcement had not occurred (cup-fed group). To
put t n another way, once the e pectaton of ora gratfcaton has
been set up through nutrtona suckng, unearnng such an e pec-
taton s more dffcut and frustratng than f t had not been set up
n the frst pace.
The age at whch tranng s begun s key to determne the rea-
tve mportance of the probem to the chd and possby to the
adut, for reasons gven earer n the chapter. or e ampe, f nde-
pendence tranng s begun before the chd s reay capabe of
performng adequatey or we the sks whch are requred of hm,
hs thnkng s key to be coored thereafter by an achevement
orentaton whch takes precedence over orentatons stressed at ater
ponts n the deveopmenta sequence (cf. redman, 1950). If
achevement tranng s begun ater, after the person has deveoped
hs apperceptve mass or hs varous symbo systems, t w assume
357
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ess of an a-pervasve mportance to hm because he can dfferent-
ate more easy between achevement-reated and non-achevement-
reated stuatons. Smary, eary food deprvaton appears to have
more permanent effects on food-reated behavor than docs ate dep-
rvaton (cf. unt, 1941). Ths probem w be dscussed more fuy
n Chapter 12.
3. Motves Utzed n Socazaton. So far we have touched on
such questons as the foowng: hat are the probems a chd has
to sove n the process of socazaton ow does a parent defne or
emphasze these dfferent probems hat are the patterns of be-
havor e pected from the chd as soutons to these probems In
what order must the probems be mastered or at what age must the
chd start masterng a partcuar one Ths eaves unt ast perhaps
the most mportant queston of a: hy shoud the chd sove the
probems at a whch are presented to hm n the course of socaza-
ton hat reasons has he for dong what the cuture wants hm
to do
It has been tradtona to assume that the chd does not want to
proceed aong the road to socazaton. Snce progress seems to n-
vove sacrfce and renuncaton of earer gratfcatons, the chd s
conceved as reuctant and unwng. e ander puts t ths way:
There s a marked emotona resstance n the chd aganst ths
process of maturaton. Psychatrc observatons offer the most con-
vncng evdence for the strong resstance whch the ego puts up
aganst acceptng the graduay ncreasng ndependence whch
boogca maturaton brngs. ( uckhohn and Murray, 1949, p.
333-) htng and Mowrer (1943) desgned a D-maze as an anaogue
of the socazaton process. rat s frst traned n t to go down the
short path to the goa (nfant gratfcaton) and then a bock s put
across the throat of the D and the rat must go the ong way around
(growng up). Ths vew s oversmpfed. s Murray so apty puts
t, ndvduas do not go through fe ted to ther mother s
apron strngs wth backward gances at the |oy that has been dened
them. Chdren ceary e hbt a tendency to change, to wander, to
e pore, to test ther powers of mastery, act ke grown ups, gan
sef-reance and creatvey conceve of thngs that are hgher than
any thngs ther parents taught them. (193 , p. 725.)
The truth appears to ncorporate both of these notons. The chd
soves the probems presented hm by socazaton n part because
of hs own motves and n part because of frustratons, rewards, and
35
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
punshments admnstered to hm from the outsde. s Murray
ponts out, the nfant s own need for achevement or mastery w
ead hm to sove ncreasngy compcated probems, whose sou-
tons gve hm hs own approva more or ess rrespectve of thd
approva or dsapprova of others, once the motve (n chevement)
has been estabshed. It woud be dffcut ndeed to account for the
progress of the chd through Gese s stages of successve mastery of
compe motor sks f t were true that the chd was reuctant to
gve up one stage for another and had to be prodded by rewards
and punshments from outsde. In fact, f ths were true, one mght
suppose that wakng mght be ess unversa, that somewhere aong
the ne the rewards and punshments from the outsde woud have
faed n ther purpose and some chd woud never have gven up
beng carred around.
0n the other hand, the knd of motvatona contro used by a
parent s certany of ma|or mportance n how the chd gets so-
cazed. Specfcay the parent can vary the motve whch he appeas
to n attemptng to get the chd to do what he wants. Consder the
foowng aternatve motvatona appeas:
1. If you do that, I won t ove you.
||. If you do that, you be dsapproved, re|ected, teased.
3. If you do that, I w punsh you (or reward you).
4. If you do that, I w suffer (or be peased).
These may occur ether n the negatve or postve form: e.g., If you
do that, I w ove you. There has been a good dea of cnca
specuaton, as yet wthout too much e permenta bass, as to the
effects of these varous forms of contro. or e ampe, the frst state-
ment s the condtona ove formua so characterstc of mdde
cass whte mercans accordng to Margaret Mead (1942). She
argues that n many mercan fames, ove s condtona on
achevement or proper behavor. The second formua apparenty
underes the shame or stuatona moraty compe n whch the
person avods dong somethng n antcpaton of the dsapprova or
rdcue of others. If caught he s shamed, but f he s not caught, or
f the possbty of beng caught s not great, the contro s not effec-
tve: hence the term stuatona moraty ndcatng that moraty
s contngent upon the stuaton ( uckhohn and eghton, 1947).
The thrd formua eads n ts most e treme form to paranod tend-
ences n whch the person s controed whoy by fear of hostty
or punshment from wthout, ether rea (e.g., the poce) or unrea
359
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
(e.g., e and Damnaton). The fourth formua may gve rse to
gut f the chd has dentfed suffcenty wth the parent, snce f
he has, he knows that ths w cause the parent to be unhappy or
n e treme cases to suffer. or ths mechansm to work, the parents
must have nurtured and oved the chd suffcenty for dentfca-
ton to have taken pace (cf. Sears and htng, 1950). Some ev-
dence for the dfferenta effects of these contro mechansms s to
be found n a study by Mac nnon (cf. Murray, 193 ) whch con-
trasts psychoogca dscpne (formuas 1 and 4) wth physca pun-
shment (formuas 2 and 3). e compared a group of coege men who
had not voated a prohbton wth a group who had. e found that
7 per cent of the fathers of voators had used physca as opposed
to psychoogca dscpne whereas ony 4 per cent of the fathers
of the non-voators had used physca punshment. urthermore, 75
per cent of the non-voators reported that they often fet guty,
whereas ony 29 per cent of the voators admtted often feeng
guty (Murray, 193 , pp. 497-499). In short, psychoogca dscpne
was assocated wth more frequent gut feengs and wth non-voa-
ton of prohbtons as compared wth physca punshment, whch
was assocated ess often wth a sense of gut and more often wth
voaton of prohbtons when no one was supposed to be watchng.
Postve and Negatve Sanctons. It s not ony the knd of motve
whch s used to contro the chd s behavor: The way n whch the
contro s apped s aso thought to be of mportance. To begn
wth, a sancton can be ether postve or negatve. Ths has ed to
the concept of the reward-punshment baance used especay by
ardner (cf. Du os, 1944). That s, the parent can emphasze
ether the postve gan assocated wth a certan act ( If you do that
I w be happy, etc.) or ts negatve consequences ( If you do that,
I w be unhappy, etc.) Many specasts n socazaton have
argued n favor of the use of reward, argey on the bass of fndngs
n earnng e perments that punshment appears to be ess effectve
n weakenng or nhbtng a response than does earnng a new re-
sponse to repace the wrong one. Mowrer and uckhohn are par-
tcuary eoquent on the mportance of contnuous satsfacton
durng the frst few months of e tra-uterne fe. . . . Pesponsvey
answerng the chd s e pressons of need . . . shoud promote con-
fdence and trust n a predctabe word, for each prmtve strvng
s rewarded. It shoud encourage an aert, outgong atttude . .
soca responsveness . . . and factate the eary estabshment of
360
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
postve emotona attachment to parents. (1944, p. .) ardner,
on the other hand, has emphaszed that the average orese parent
s so predomnatey negatve n hs approach to chd rearng that
ths must have contrbuted to the orese ndvdua s suspcous,
mstrustfu vew of the word.
t the present stage of knowedge t s too eary to make recom-
mendatons as to what procedure s best or most natura, but
suffcent evdence has accumuated to argue that reward-punsh-
ment baance s one of the mportant dmensons of chd-rearng
practces. In further support of ths vew, htng and Chd have
argued (1950) party on emprca and party on theoretca grounds
that dfferent combnatons of nurturance and punshment w ead
to dfferent forms of conscence or contro over behavor. Thus, for
nstance, hgh nurturance wth frequent dena of ove as a technque
of punshment mght ead predomnanty to the contro of behavor
by gut, whereas ow nurturance and hgh punshment mght ead
to contro of behavor through e ternazed fears.
Peguarty n Parent ehavor. ppcaton of sanctons can aso
vary n the consstency wth whch they are assocated wth the re-
sponse to be controed. t the one e treme, sanctons may occur
prompty and appropratey, |ust after the response to be renforced
or nhbted. t the other e treme, whch s more characterstc of
fe stuatons outsde the aboratory, the occurrence of parenta
sanctons may be rreguar, nconsstent, aperodc, or deayed. na-
ogous rreguartes n anma e perments woud ead us to e pect
that such condtons w ead to the acquston of assocatons
whch are ess reaty-bound, ess easy modfed by changes n
the stuaton. or nstance, f the e permenter responds to the cock
rather than to the responses of a pgeon and renforces the pgeon
every two mnutes, regardess of what hs peckng actvtes have
been, the brd w deveop a stronger peckng habt than f the
renforcement schedue had been geared to hs responses (cf. |enkns
and Staney, 1950). The parae seems rather cose to the parent
who responds to the cock n feedng an nfant accordng to a tme
schedue rather than n accordance wth the nfant s hunger pangs
or cres for food. ere, too, one mght e pect that such nconsstent
(from the chd s vewpont) behavor mght ead to a heghtened
concern over food and a ack of approprateness of such concern to
the cues whch shoud evoke hunger or be assocated wth satsfac-
361
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ton. In short, one mght e pect a neurotc, not reaty bound,
need for food to deveop (cf. Mowrer and uckhohn, 1944)- Such
paraes as these are nterestng and pont the way to further re-
search on chdren, but t woud certany be premature to draw, on
the bass of such anaoges, any frm concusons about the way
chdren ought to be brought up.
T CT 0 C I D-P PING PP CTIC S 0N P PS0N ITY
avng demonstrated at the begnnng of the chapter some em-
prca correatons between chdhood e perences and personaty
formaton, we then ooked more cosey nto the reasons why these
correatons mght e st and nto the dfferent knds of socazaton
procedures whch have been consdered to be of mportance. Ths
eaves the most mportant queston n need of carefu anayss. In
e acty what way do these socazaton probems and procedures
nfuence personaty, partcuary adut personaty though psy-
choanaysts and many cutura anthropoogsts are persuaded of the
very great mportance of eary chdhood, there are st those who
fee that the mportance has not been demonstrated. 0ransky after
a carefu revew of the terature concudes that the rgdty of
character structurng durng the frst year or two of fe has been
e aggerated by many authortes and that the events of chdhood
and ater years are of great mportance n renforcng and changng
the character structure tentatvey formed durng nfancy. (19491 p-
3 .) In vew of ths confct of opnons we w have to approach
ths sub|ect carefuy and cautousy. |ust what s the evdence on
ths pont
To begn wth, we must dstngush between cnca and e per-
menta evdence. It s the former whch has argey gven rse to the
beef that eary chdhood s mportant. Psychoanaysts and cnca
psychoogsts have reported n hundreds of cases the word over d1e
mportance of some chdhood trauma n determnng the whoe
future course of a person s deveopment. The skeptc may grant that
ths s suggestve but certany far from concusve. fter a, a pa-
tent on a psychoanaytc couch may search hs memory for a chd-
hood event unt he fnds one whch fts the psychoanayst s purpose,
or he may even nvent such a memory. There s no rea way to demon-
strate that the memory he fnds bears a causa reatonshp to hs
present symptomatoogy. The e permentast woud want to ntro-
duce the varabe n chdhood or to observe t at that tme, and then
362
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
to check ts effect years ater on the same peope grown up. ven
though he may accept such a reatonshp n an ndvdua case
when the evdence from outsde sources s convncng, he may st
argue that ths s the e cepton rather than the rue, snce the per-
son beng anayzed s sck. Norma personates do not drag ther
nfante e perences around wth them but eave them behnd, or
grow out of them (cf. port, 1937).
Snce such an argument as ths s not key to be soon setted, we
must turn to the evdence whch arses from drect observaton of
eary e perences and ther effects ater on. ere agan there are two
approaches. e may ether work wth natura dfferences n parent
behavor, observng them as they occur, n whch case the dffcuty
s to soate the effects of any partcuar dfference, or we may ntro-
duce a partcuar varabe under e permenta condtons, n whch
case the dffcuty s that we must ether work wth anmas and
e trapoate to humans or wth humans, usng reatvey unmportant
varabes over short perods of tme. Despte a these dffcutes
there are mportant fndngs that contrbute to our knowedge on
ths pont. t the anma eve there are now a whoe seres of e -
perments whch ceary demonstrate that certan e perences w
have one effect f they occur eary n fe and a dfferent effect f
they occur ater. unt (1941) and others have demonstrated that n-
fant feedng frustraton w ead to adut hoardng n the whte rat,
of (1943) that sensory deprvaton n nfancy eads to nadequate
sensory functonng n aduthood f the rat s paced n competton
wth another rat, and Chrste (1950) that eary e poraton under
smuated wd condtons w enabe a rat to make better use of
hs e perence wth water bottes and food cups n aduthood.
these fndngs are suggestve but snce they are based on anmas may
be consdered nconcusve for our purpose.
t the human eve there s frst of a the evdence that parents
behavor defntey nfuences ther chdren s behavor at the tme.
Tabe 10.5, whch s reproduced from adwn, ahorn, and
reese (1945) presents behavor ratngs for chdren n nursery schoo
when cassf1ed accordng to the type of home from whch they came.
The ratngs are e pressed n standard scores and, f n tacs, devate
sgnfcanty at the 5 per cent eve from the mean for the whoe
group of chdren. The data provded n ths tabe are ony the be-
gnnng of the knd of study whch ought to be made. They do
ndcate that at east the Democratc syndrome and the ctve or
utocratc-Pe|ectant syndrome have mportant effects on chdren s
363
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 10.5
Inteectua and Soca Deveopment of Schoo- ge Chdren s a uncton
of Parent ehavor Patterns
P | CT NT
ctve
C SU
CC PT NT
Noncha-
( uto-
uto-
Indu-
Demo-
In- Democratc-
arabe
ant
cratc)
cratc
gent
cratc
dugent
Indugent
Nursery schoo
N
19
10
14
17
14
11
9
I change
9
3
1-9
4-4
7-1
5
.6
N
7
6
12
11
7
0rgnaty
5
40
49
49
57
43
46
Panfuness
53
47
49
49
5
5
46
ancfuness
46
44
49
47
60
46
47
Tenacty
5
4
49
5
51
45
47
Schoo-age nter-
vew ratngs
N
9
7
7
too
6
6
7
Socabty
50
53
5
few
60
46
53
Shyness
51
41
50
46
56
#a
uarre-
someness
5
60
46
53
46
53
ostty
to father
53
54
50
40
4
43
motona
dependence
51
43
57
56
42
56
(Peproduced wth permsson from . . adwn, |. ahorn, and . .
reese. Patterns of Parent ehavor. Psycho. Monogr., 5 , No. 3. Copyrght
1945 by the mercan Psychoogca ssocaton.)
behavor. oth types of Democratc home (whch we assocated wth
acceeraton of mastery sks) show an ncrease n I. . as measured
three years apart n the course of norma nursery-schoo testng of
a chdren. Ths growth n menta deveopment s apparent aso
n the ratngs on such nteectua varabes as 0rgnaty, Panfu-
ness, and ancfuness. It s nterestng to note that when Democracy
s combned wth Indugence (protectveness) there s an ncrease n
tested ntegence but not n the trats of 0rgnaty and ancfu-
ness. These resuts support the argument presented earer that the
Democratc syndrome s reated to cceeraton of mastery technques
364
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
and sks. In contrast to ths the ctvey Pe|ectant parents appear
to produce chdren who are sgnfcanty ow on 0rgnaty and
Tenacty, a fndng whch s entrey n agreement wth ardner s
concuson that the nsttutonazed Pe|ectant pattern among the
orese produces peope who are notaby ackng n creatvencss and
tenacty.
ut we st have not demonstrated the effects of a ths on adut
personaty. Such data as these, however, strongy suggest that there
must be such an effect even though t may be ndrect and contnu-
ous. Take the matter of I. . change aone. ere the effect of the
parent behavor varabe (Democracy or cceeratona attempts) s
so mportant (I. . ncrease) that further changes as a resut of I. .
changes can be predcted wth consderabe certanty. Thus chdren
who have acheved more and are more panfu, orgna, and fanc-
fu are amost certan to receve more reward for schoo work, to
reman achevement-orented, etc. In fact, under such crcumstances
t seems unreasonabe to assume that such a chan of events woud
stop rather than contnue on to nfuence adut personaty n m-
portant ways. In many nstances n Tabe 10.5 the ratngs affected
seem to dea wth what mght be caed motvatona trats such as
panfuness, fancfuness, or tenacty whch shoud contnue to n-
fuence what the chd decdes to do, what knds of knowedge he
accumuates, the way he thnks, etc., ong beyond the partcuar pe-
rod of nursery schoo under observaton at ths pont. urther sup-
port for ths pont can be ganed from the study of |ohnny and
|mme (McGraw, 1935), two dentca twn boys, one of whom was
gven e tensve and very eary tranng n compe motor sks ke
skatng and the other of whom was aowed to deveop normay.
McGraw, who made the study, found that athough the norma
twn caught up to hs acceerated brother as far as motor sks were
concerned, the two were markedy dfferent n the atttudes toward
fe whch they had deveoped. The acceerated twn seemed much
more confdent, for e ampe, n new stuatons n ater fe.
Ths ast e ampe s essentay the case-study method agan but
wth an mportant dfference. ere the e permenter knows e acty
what has been done to the chd and checks up on hs deveopment
at a ater tme. somewhat anaogous approach has been used by
anthropoogsts who attempt to correate a specfc chd tranng
practce whch they have observed wth certan adut personaty
characterstcs. The ndvdua case here s a cuture rather than a
person. The terature abounds n ustratons of ths sort. ard-
365
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ner s correaton between poor materna care and adut personaty
structure among the orese (1945) s one e ampe. ateson s correa-
ton (1944) between teasng n chdhood and the avodance of
cma es n aduthood n a s another. uckhohn (1947) has
kewse wondered about the sgnfcance of the cradeboard n form-
ng the character of the Navaho. e fees that the eary securty
whch the cradeboard provdes shoud, accordng to psychoanaytc
prncpes, ead to reatvey great securty among adut Navaho.
Snce ths s not the case snce the Navaho are actuay suspcous
and mstrustfu he argues that other ater e perences must have
entered n to change what shoud otherwse have come about. ven
though hs orgna assumpton s probaby ncorrect (overprotet-
ton aso eads to nsecurty), hs concuson seems reasonabe enough.
The dffcuty wth a such arguments s that they do not permt us
to soate the effects of a partcuar chdhood e perence. Ths s
aways true so ong as we dea wth a snge case (ether a snge per-
son or a snge cuture) snce there are so many causes (chdhood
events) and so many effects (personaty systems) that t s mpossbe
to connect any partcuar cause wth any partcuar effect.
much more satsfactory methodoogca approach has been
adopted by htng and Chd n ther study (1950) of the assoca-
ton n a arge sampe of cutures of a partcuar chdhood tranng
e perence wth a partcuar theory of dsease. y ncreasng the
number of cutures n whch the observatons were made, they pre-
sumaby randomzed the other events occurrng n chdhood and
any resutng reatonshp they found shoud be due to the partcuar
varabes they were studyng. Specfcay, they had three |udges rate
some 76 cutures on whch data were avaabe n the Yae
0utne of Cutura Materas on nta ndugence, age of the be-
gnnng of tranng, and severty of tranng for each of fve socaza-
ton practces: nursng and weanng, toet tranng, se tranng,
ndependence tranng, and aggresson contro. Some of ther most
mportant premnary fndngs are summarzed n Tabe 10.6.
hat ths tabe shows s that certan chd-tranng practces are
assocated more often than one woud e pect by chance wth certan
specfc magca e panatons of sckness. or nstance, f the nucear
famy s chefy responsbe for socazaton of the chd, condtons
shoud be favorabe for the chd to dentfy wth a partcuar parent
and to accept as hs own the parent s atttudes of approva and ds-
approva for a partcuar act (gut mechansm: cf. Chapter 9). ur-
366
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 10.6
Peatonshps etween Chd-Pearng Practces and Theores of Dsease
n 50-76 Cutures
Cause of the dsease ssocated chd-rearng practces
1. The patent fees hmsef Nucear famy contros socazaton
responsbe (Gut mechansm: I requent use of dena of ove as
fee sck because I have done technque of punshment
somethng I shoudn t have. )
a. roken a food tabu Severe weanng
b. roken a se tabu Severe se tranng
c. roken an aggresson tabu Severe aggresson tranng
a. Sorcerers
(Paranod mechansm: I fee Severe punshment for heterose ua
sck because some person s hos- pay
te toward me. )
3. Sprts
( I fee sck because the sprts ther hgh nurturance or negect
have deserted me, stoen my n nfancy
sou, etc.)
a. Increased mportance of an- Severe aggresson tranng
ma sprts
Note: reatonshps are sgnfcant at or beyond the 5 eve.
( rom htng and Chd, 1950.)
thermore the fndng that the use of dena of ove as a form of
punshment s assocated wth gut as the e panaton for sckness
confrms the theoretca argument, presented earer n the chapter,
that psychoogca dscpne shoud ead to hgh gut feengs. In-
terestngy enough, the nature of the voaton about whch the person
fees guty seems determned by the emphass paced on feedng, se or
aggresson contro n chdhood, agan confrmng our theoretca
hypothess that eary stressng of a partcuar socazaton probem
w tend to organze the person s concepton of the word around
that probem. urther evdence for ths poston has been obtaned
by redman (1950), who has shown that there s a sgnfcant corre-
aton between the number of achevement characterstcs n the
myths of a cuture and the amount of emphass paced on nde-
pendence tranng n chdhood.
367
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Peturnng to Tabe 10.6 we note the e panatons of dsease nvov-
ng sorcerers or sprts as agents are assocated n each case wth
chd-rearng varabes whch shoud ead to precsey such resuts
accordng to psychoanaytc theory. Thus reud has emphaszed the
connecton between homose uaty (whch shoud be correated wth
punshment for heterose ua pay) and paranoa, and a number of
psychoanaysts have stressed the frequency wth whch deserton or
re|ecton n chdhood eads to the creaton of magc hepers or
sprts whch, n the present nstance, apparenty desert or become
hoste when the person fees sck. urthermore, the fact that anma
sprts are more frequenty mportant causes of dsease when aggres-
son contro s severe strongy suggests the reudan mechansms of
pro|ecton and dspacement. That s, hgh punshment for aggres-
son shoud evoke hoste mpuses n the chd whch shoud be
unacceptabe and pro|ected out nto the envronment agan, partcu-
ary f the parents are aso hghy nurturant because hgh nurturance
shoud ead to gut over hostty toward the source of nurturance.
The fact that the pro|ected hostty s dspaced from the parents to
anmas woud then have to be e paned ether n terms of the ncon-
sstency of attrbutng hostty to hghy nurturant parents or to the
fear of attrbutng hostty to potentay re|ectng parents. hen the
connectons are traced out n ths way, t s not so dffcut to see how
certan common chdhood e perences may ead to common cu-
tura beefs partcuary f those beefs are n the nature of what
ardner (1945) cas pro|ectve or nonemprca reaty systems.
mutuay renforcng process s set up. members of the cu-
ture are presumaby e posed to a moda type of chd-rearng whch
s moded by certan theores about the nature of nonemprca
reaty (ncudng dsease). The chd-rearng practce n turn serves
to renforce that partcuar theory of dsease n the members of the
cuture when they grow up. The beef predsposes the parents to
a certan knd of socazaton practce, whch predsposes the ch-
dren to accept the beef and to foow the same practce when they
become parents, etc.
To sum up, the evdence s most cear-cut for a connecton be-
tween eary chdhood e perences and adut pro|ectve systems:
.e., genera orentatons, atttudes, or conceptons, partcuary un-
rea, magnatve, or nonemprca ones. Thus we have come back
to where reud started snce t was |ust such unrea magnatve
productons on the psychoanaytc couch whch frst ed hm to be-
36
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
eve n the mportance of chdhood e perences. 0ur concuson
s not surprsng on theoretca grounds ether, snce reaty sys-
tems shoud contnue to grow, deveop, and be modfed by sub-
sequent stmuaton much more than the pro|ectve or nonem-
prca systems whch are more the product of unconscous, or
unsymbozed, e perences, whch accordng to our earer argu-
ments are so characterstc of eary chdhood. avng reached ths
concuson, we may now attempt to appy t, as reud dd, by start-
ng wth ar s magnatve deas and tryng to draw from them
some nferences about the nature of hs chdhood e perences.
P S S0CI I TI0N s P CT D IN 1s IM GIN TI
PP0DUCTI0NS
The Thematc ppercepton Test (T T) has been wdey used by
cncans to get at some of the more unconscous, unrea con-
ceptons gudng a person s ad|ustment to fe. Murray and Morgan
(1945), who nvented t, have found t partcuary usefu n gettng
at chdhood events or e perences or ther schematc precptates
whch are not ready avaabe to conscous reca. In ths respect
they have confrmed reud s nta fndng that reatvey spon-
taneous or free assocatons are of great vaue n provdng n-
formaton about unconscous aspects of personaty. ar coop-
erated wngy n takng the T T and produced the foowng
story n response to the frst pcture, whch shows a boy ookng at
a von:
Ths boy s father was a famous concert vonst before he was born. Un-
fortunatey he ost hs fe n a tragc accdent. e was drowned. s wfe
was pregnant and had ths chap. I mght add that hs father was at the peak
of hs fame. Ded on the nght before the concert. 0f course he eft hs
fdde, whch was od and vauabe to hs son. e aways had hopes that he
woud teach hs son and hs son woud pay the fdde better than hs father.
t the age of one year hs mother ded and the boy was eft wth an aunt
and unce who were not too favoraby ncned toward fdders. Neverthe-
ess they gave hm hs chance and started hm on von essbns. e ddn t
show unusua taent, but a far amount. Now as he sts here, he has |ust
been tod about hs parents and ther wshes. e reazes that he sn t over-
taented, but he s consderng whether he w ke t enough for hs
mother s sake. s he grows oder, he w put the fdde asde and go to
somethng ese. e s debatng other possbtes.
369
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The usua method of nterpretng a story ke ths woud be to
assume that ar has dentfed wth hs hero and that the atttudes
e pressed depct hs reatonshp wth hs own famy. t the man-
fest eve, ths woud nvove the guesses that hs parents were con-
cerned wth achevement, that they e pected hm to do better than
hs father, and that he dd not fee capabe of dong as we as hs
father. t the atent eve the von woud probaby be taken as a
pens symbo, n whch case the story woud be nterpreted as the
unconscous wsh to take over the father s se ua functon, a wsh
whch s so dangerous that t eads to the death of the mother and a
consderaton of renuncaton of se uaty atogether.
ut how can any of ths be verfed Such guessng, shrewd and
ngenous as t often appears to be, has sedom ed to hypothe-
ses that can be systematcay tested by ordnary scentfc pro-
cedures. owever, there s some matera n ths story and n
subsequent stores whch does end tsef to a fary carefu quan-
ttatve anayss. Such an anayss w be attempted both as an
ustraton of how one coud go about studyng such matera and
for the nformaton t gves us about ar s socazaton.
nayss of Deaths n ar s Pecord. The matera n queston
centers around the deaths n hs stores. Ths frst story s unusua
n that both parents are mentoned and qucky ked off, and n
that the father des by drownng and the mother by an unknown
cause. Unfortunatey, adequate norms for the varous pctures n
the Murray T T do not e st (cf. Posenzweg and emng, 1949),
but n the protocos of s undergraduate sub|ects prnted by Mur-
ray (1949) there s not a snge nstance n whch a parent ded n
the stores tod for ths partcuar pcture. Ths n tsef s not con-
cusve but t does suggest that a further anayss of the deaths
throughout the whoe record woud be proftabe.
rst of a, the number of deaths n ar s record s consderaby
hgher than norma. In Murray s s protocos there are an average
of somewhat ess than four deaths for the ten pctures whch were
aso n the set of pctures gven to ar. There are eeven deaths
n ar s record, whch s consderaby more than the hghest num-
ber n any record n the Murray group. ssumng for the moment
that the norms are adequate, what can we make of the unusua
frequency of deaths n ar s stores The rather obvous nterpre-
taton s that there s a ot of aggresson n the stores snce ag-
gresson has customary been defned as n|ury to an organsm or
370
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
organsm surrogate. (Cf. Doard, et a. 1939.) ut what does
aggresson n a person s stores mean Maybe ar |ust kes to te
gory stores. It s here that most nterpretatons of magnatve
matera have faen down, but fortunatey we have evdence from
an e permenta study by McCeand, rney, and Poby (1950)
that aggresson n stores ke these s ncreased under e permentay
nduced an ety. e may therefore nfer as our frst hypothess
that the hgh frequency of aggresson n ar s stores s ndcatve
of nsecurty or a fary hgh an ety eve.
Secondy, the way n whch peope de n these stores s curous.
0ut of twenty-two deaths n the records of our s normatve sub-
|ects, seventeen or roughy 0 per cent were due to the hoste act
of another person n the story. In other words, n magnatve pro-
ductons ke these t s norma for peope to de because they are
ked by someone ese. Yet n ar s stores ony one of the eeven
peope who de does so because of the hostty of another person.
ven ths case s dubous. In teng a story about the young boy
n the pcture wth an operaton scene n the background (T T
M) ar says that the boy s father was accdentay shot by
one of hs cohorts, whch we have checked as beng ndcatve of
persona hostty, athough the hostty s mnma and he goes
on to say that the father eventuay des not so much from the
gunshot wound as from poor operatng technques. In a the other
cases the peope de from unknown causes or mpersona agents
such as water (death by drownng), wndstorms, dsease, etc. hat
can we nfer from ths, granted agan that t s an unusua fact
Tabe 10.6 provdes a cue. htng and Chd (1950) report that
severe punshment for aggresson s assocated wth beef n an-
ma sprts as causes of dsease. e suggested further that ths knd
of pro|ecton and dspacement of reactve hostty mght be fa-
ctated by hgh nurturance n chdhood. ar s case seems to ft
ths scheme wth one modfcaton: n hs stores the hostty has
been pro|ected st further from the sef so that mpersona forces
rather than anmas become the agents of death. The parae wth
the data n Tabe 10.6 seems rather cose f we assume that n
terms of ar s cogntve orentatons death s equvaent to dsease
and mpersona agents are equvaent to anma sprts. rom these
cues we can nfer (a) that ar has acute an ety over hs aggres-
sve mpuses (b) that he was severey punshed for aggresson n
chdhood and (c) that ths hgh punshment was probaby asso-
371
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
dated wth hgh nurturance. ess key hypothess mght e pan
these fndngs n terms of severe punshment for heterose ua pay
whch mght have been responsbe for the paranod nature of
hs e panatons of death n whch the aggresson s pro|ected as
far from the sef as possbe.
Thrdy, the knd of person who des n ar s stores s unusua.
It s neary aways (eght out of eeven cases) a nurturant oss, that
s, the death of a parent or reatve of the hero. In the normatve
group of sub|ects ony s of the twenty-two cases fas n ths cate-
gory, a proporton that s sgnfcanty ess than for ar at beyond
the 5 per cent eve, even takng nto account the fact that the
observatons are not competey ndependent. hat does ths mean
Two hypotheses are mmedatey suggested. rst, the death of the
parents usuay sgnfes deserton for the hero: he s an orphan as
a resut. Ths suggests agan that somethng s amss n the Nur-
turance-Negect dmenson of hs chd tranng, partcuary n
vew of the htng-Chd fndng that ether e treme eads to be-
ef n sprts (often conceved as sprt oss or deserton). Second,
ar may be e pressng hostty toward hs parents n kng them
off so frequenty.
It s nterestng to note that the Porschach anayst came to sm-
ar concusons about nfante fears of overwhemng parent fg-
ures on the bass of qute dfferent magnatve matera. ere
are the reevant portons of hs comments:
In vew of the possbty that the drecton of hs strvngs s not func-
tonng satsfactory, he may resove an ety by turnng n upon hmsef
wth the possbty of depressve mood reactons (7 t, 1 C ) whch
appear to have ther roots n nfante fears of overwhemng parent fgures,
partcuary the mother ( massve representaton appearng wth the de-
pressve percept and wth the percept femae genta organs ). ven here,
however, ths possbty of nternazed aggresson s mted, snce he s
key to resort to hoste reactons ( cut open human beng ). . . . Se ua
preoccupatons pay a ma|or roe n hs phantases ( shapey anges, etc.).
th the e cepton of one nstance ( femae genta organs ) a reference
to se ua matera s submated. owever, nvaraby se uay-tnged per-
cepts gve rse to debtatng an ety and cause ego-dsrupton ( -).
vcous cyce s demonstrated n that hostty gves rse to an ety, whch,
further renforces and ntensfes hoste reactons. . . .
So far we have worked pretty much wthn the framework of
magnatve matera. hat outsde evdence do we have whch
372
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
confrms or fas to confrm our varous hypotheses et us combne
our nferences somewhat, state them as propostons, and attempt
to fnd evdence on them esewhere n the case matera.
1. ar has many hoste mpuses (probaby toward hs parents)
whch he has pro|ected nto mpersona forces. In hs norma soca
reatonshps, ar gves the mpresson of beng very nonaggres-
sve and md. fter ntervewng hm concernng hs e perences
as a sub|ect, a research worker commented, e ceedngy agreeabe,
frendy, seemed eager to be hepfu, cooperatve, etc. ut ths s
e acty what we woud e pect f hs aggressve mpuses arouse
an ety n hm. If he feared hs hoste trends suffcenty to pro|ect
them nto mpersona forces, he woud n a kehood show hs
defense aganst hostty as a reacton formaton n the form of e -
treme mdness. urthermore, there s confrmng evdence from
everyday fe that he does pro|ect hs aggresson there as he does
n hs stores. The psychatrst ntervewng hm states that he suf-
fers from caustrophoba and pyrophoba, both of whch appea
to be nstances of fearng hostty pro|ected nto mpersona forces
(cosed paces, fre). Perhaps the snge most dramatc confrmaton
of ths mechansm es n the foowng statement from hs auto-
bography: I have heard voces every once n a whe, startng
about fve or s years ago. They reoccur occasonay. I don t re-
ca what they say. They are dfferent peope who tak ordnary
tak, usuay when aone. No thoughts of anyone dong away wth
me. No enemes recaed. hat appears to have happened here s
that when the hostty s pro|ected ess far from the sef (peope
rather than the mpersona envronment), t oses a good dea of
ts hoste character. ther that or we have strkng confrmaton
of htng and Chd s fndng that re|ecton or overprotecton
eads to concern wth sprts.
2. ar fears hs aggressve mpuses. The evdence as to why
ths s so s not cear-cut. There are two possbtes, one based on
the foowng dynamc mechansm: ear of re|ecton an ety
hostty fear of further oss of ove represson of ag-
gresson. The other derves from the known severe punshment for
aggresson shown n hs househod. oth ar and the psycha-
trst agree that hs parents were autocratc. Tabe 10.7 gves ther
ratngs on ths varabe as we as on the cceptance-Pe|ecton and
Indugence varabes found to be mportant by adwn, ahorn,
and reese (cf. Tabe 10.2).
373
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 10.7
ehavor Patterns of ar s Parents as |udged by msef and a Psychatrst
. cceptance-Pe|ecton
ar
Psychatrst
a. Democratc- utocratc
3. Indugence
ar
Psychatrst
ar
Psychatrst
(The degree of affecton, acceptance and rap-
port shown for you or the actve dske or hos-
tty e pressed n the manner and form of
crtcsm, the ntent and ntensty of crtcsm,
etc.)
cceptance Pe|ecton
1 4 5 6
1 3 3 4 6
( ere there restrctve reguatons you had to
foow wthout queston or were thngs e -
paned to you ere rues handed down n an
authortaran manner or was famy pocy de-
cded by everyone concerned as pocy
handed down wthout |ustfcaton )
Democratc utocratc
3 4 6
3 4 5
(The amount of protectveness, soc1tousness
shown by the parent toward you. The degree to
whch the parent s chd-centered as aganst
sef entered. The .amount of tme spent by the
parent wth you the amount of an ous affec-
ton, worryng about you and pannng your
wefare.)
No Indugence treme Indugence
3 4 6
3 4 5 6
ar s own comment on hs dscpne runs as foows:
0ur dscpne at home was fary strct. The rod was not spared but aso
not used too frequenty. (Punshment was by a yardstck whppng.) e
grew up to acqure a name n town as beng we-rased, we-mannered
boys. Punshments receved had no detrmenta effect, ether mentay or
otherwse. They seemed to do us good.
Ths comment provdes us wth a sghty dfferent hypothess as
to why ar fears hs aggresson and pro|ects t so far. The fact
that he fet the punshment woud be good for hm ndcates that
he had dentfed wth hs parents. e fet suffcent gut for hs
msdeeds to accept punshment, to fee that he deserved t, and
that t made a better man out of hm. In short, hs aggresson s
controed not ony because of fear of punshment, or oss of ove
374 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
from the outsde, but aso because of hs nternazed gut feengs
arsng from dentfcaton wth hs parents.
3. ar shows nsecurty or an ety probaby stemmng from re-
|ecton or fear of re|ecton n chdhood. Confrmaton for ths
proposton s a tte more ndrect, but convncng. 0n the bass
of the htng-Chd study one woud e pect the pecuar pro|ec-
ton of aggresson he shows to be assocated wth re|ecton or over-
ndugence and severe aggresson tranng. The psychatrst who
ntervewed ar rates the parents as very ow both on acceptance
and ndugence. ut ar hmsef rates hs parents qute hgh on
ndugence and fary hgh on acceptance. ho s rght s a mat-
ter of fact, we can accept the |udgment of ether one and come out
wth pretty much the same nterpretaton accordng to the htng-
Chd resuts. If we assume for the moment that ar s correct, we
coud argue that he s ratng hs parents so hgh on ndugence
because of ther e treme an ous concern over hs wefare whch
he refers to over and over agan n hs autobography. They not ony
worred about hm, but they worred, accordng to hs report, about
everythng. Ths s not the same as warm affecton, but there must
have been strong enough nurturance for ar to dentfy suffcenty
wth hs parents to dspay gut over hs own behavor and a ra-
tonazaton of ther autocratc dscpnary methods. St ther
an ous affecton was not suffcent to gve hm a feeng of securty
and frm ovng support. 0n the other hand, f we assume that the
psychatrst was rght to concude that ar reay dd not receve
much ove and support, we can then e pan ar s more favor-
abe |udgment of hs parents as an nstance of ratonazaton stem-
mng from the gut and fear of further deserton arsng from hs
hostty toward them, or we may argue that the psychatrst knew
ar s parents showed ndugent, an ous affecton for hm but n-
terpreted ths smpy as a defense aganst a fundamentay re|ectve
tendency. ny of these nterpretatons supports the basc propos-
ton that ar fet nsecure n chdhood.
No eaborate nferences are reay necessary to prove ths pont,
snce he repeatedy refers to hs nsecurty hmsef. I depended
very much on my parents and fet secure wth them. In fact I was
a rather tmd sou and fet ncned to cry easy. ence my parents
were a great source of refuge to me. e can scarcey doubt that
as a chd ar fet nsecure, athough t s not perfecty cear as to
why he fet nsecure. The evdence, however, ponts to a perceved
(not necessary a rea) deserton by the parents. There are a num-
375
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ber of possbe events or parenta atttudes whch may e at the
root of ths fear of deserton. e can st them as foows:
1. ctua parenta ack of affecton.
a. Parents preference for other brothers. s father preferred hs oder
brother, hs mother hs younger brother.
3. Parents own nsecurty, ther constant worry and ness.
4. Death of younger sster when he was between one and two years od.
0ne coud easy argue that hs |eaousy over the brth of a sbng coud
have gven rse to ntense gut and fear of deserton when the hostty
apparenty resuted n her death accordng to the omnpotence of
thought prncpe (cf. T T Story 5).
5. Strct parenta dscpne combned wth nurturance may have gven
rse to hostty toward hs parents whch coud have resuted n guty fear
of deserton by them. Ths thema may have been renforced by hs fear of
aenatng peope by hs reastcay dangerous, somatotonc aggresson (see
Chapter 11).
hatever the fna e panaton s of ar s nsecurty (and any
one of these woud probaby suffce for the average cncan), the
underyng thema whch tes a ths matera together can be re-
constructed somewhat as foows:
T 10.
Peconstructon of a Schematc Thema ased on ar s Chd-Tranng
perences
ggresson hgh
but pro|ected from
sef nto mpersona
agents
(kng parents)
vdence:
Confct
Chdhood
nsecurty
(deserton)
n ggresson 1
n ffaton |
.1. of motves

- 2. fear of fur-
ther deser-
.
ton
C
D
1.
0rphans n 5.
requent .
Gut and
10. Source of
T T
deaths n
punshment
death n
a.
0wn statement
T T
for n
T T
3-
Inference 6.
ove s a
T T
11. Phobas
from parent
thema n T T 9.
Inference
ratngs
1 and auto-
from and
4-
Inference
bography
fromD
from beef 7.
Inference
n sprts as
from
cause of deaths
(cf. D)
376
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Ths formua e pans how t s that the death of parents n the
T T can at one and the same tme be an e panaton for subse-
quent aggresson (deserton) and aso satsfy hostty toward the
parents as ong as the hostty s dsgused by pro|ecton nto m-
persona forces. There are a number of dfferent varatons on ths
centra theme n the dfferent T T stores tod by ar. Some
stores such as the one tod to Card 13 (ncest of father wth daugh-
ter because of wfe s deserton) contan neary a eements n the
thema. further consderaton of these varatons w be deferred
unt the ne t chapter on motvaton, snce we are prmary con-
cerned here wth the effects of socazaton.
|ust what s the status of the thema that we have outned hat
does t te us about ar hat t seems to be s a seres of events
whch are connected n ths partcuar way for ar. e have
dscovered the connecton party by the content of the stores he
tes, and party from our knowedge of connectons based on e -
permenta studes of fantasy. nay we must assume that these
connectons e st prmary at the unconscous, or nonconscous
eve. e found the connectons argey at the unrea eve. e
have argued that they were produced predomnanty n the un-
rea word of chdhood. So t woud be a serous mstake to as-
sume that ths thema s the ony or even the ma|or determnant
of ar s behavor. e need the deoogca system dscovered n
Chapter to e pan much of hs behavor, certany most of hs
reaty-orented behavor. hat we need ths thema and others ke
t for s to e pan the unrea, fancfu, or unreasonabe behavor
that he may dspay. It s best ftted to account for such thngs as
hs phobas, hs dreams, and some of hs mpct atttudes toward
men and women. The dffcuty has been that psychoanaysts have
often camed too much for ths type of formuaton, argey be-
cause they were mosty nterested n symptomatoogy or behavor
whch was not reaty-bound. To estabsh a baanced vewpont,
at east for norma peope ke ar, we must recognze the m-
portance of such formuatons as these but st assgn them ther
pace as ony one of severa approaches to understandng person-
aty.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. hat nferences can be drawn from the foowng statement
made by 0ransky (194 ) The best observatons we have to date
ndcate that the newborn nfant knows nether an ety nor con-
377
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
fdence, fear nor happness, but e sts n an affectess and presum-
aby conscousess state. e s argung aganst anthropomorphsm
n nfants. ecause an nfant does not know these states of mnd,
does t foow that he does not e perence them Is the probem
party semantc hat other terms are avaabe to descrbe dfferent
centra e ctatory states, whether conscous or not
2. Compare the foowng two statements made by reud and
Gese. In what respect are they smar In what respects, f any,
woud you modfy them hat s responsbe for the stages n affec-
tve and motor deveopment
The forces whch we assume to e st behnd the tensons caused by the
needs of the d are caed nstncts . . . they are the utmate cause of a
actvty. . . . e have been abe to form a pcture of the way n whch the
se ua mpuse, whch s destned to e ercse a decsve nfuence on our
fe, graduay deveops out of successve contrbutons from a number of
component nstncts, whch represent partcuar erotogenc zones. . . . e
have foowed n a strkng e ampe the way n whch these energes (and
prmary the bdo) organze themseves nto a physoogca functon
whch serves the purpose of the preservaton of the speces. ( reud, 1940.)
Now t may as we be ponted out here that no one taught the baby ths
progressve seres of eye-hand behavors. e scarcey taught hmsef. e
comes nto hs ncreasng growth powers prmary through ntrnsc growth
forces whch change the nmost archtecture of hs nervous system. . . . n-
vronmenta factors support, nfect and modfy they do not generate the
progressons of deveopment. The sequences, the progressons come from
wthn the organsm. . . . The growth of the chd mnd s not atogether
unke the growth of a pant. 0f tsef t brngs forth ts tokens t foows
nborn sequences. (Gese and Ig, 1943.)
3. bere, Cohen, Davs, evy, and Sutton (1950) have drawn up
a st of functona prerequstes of a socety e.g., provsons whch
a socety must make f t s to avod e tncton or dsperson, apathy
of ts members, war of a aganst a, or absorpton nto another
socety. In short they argue that at east the foowng thngs must
get done f a socety s to survve.
. Provson for adequate reatonshp to the envronment.
. Poe dfferentaton and roe assgnment (to avod every-
one . . . dong everythng or nothng ).
C. Communcaton.
D. Shared cogntve orentatons.
. shared, artcuated set of goas.
37
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
. The normatve reguaton of means (how the goas under are
to be reached by the peope assgned the roes under ).
G. The reguaton of affectve e presson.
. Socazaton.
I. The effectve contro of dsruptve forms of behavor.
ow many of these are aso functona prerequstes for a per-
sonaty system Many of them seem comparabe to the types of
probems we have sted n Tabe 10.2 as representatve of what the
chd must sove n order to mantan hmsef as a gong person-
aty system. Can you draw up a new and better st of probems of
ad|ustment for a personaty system on the bass of ths anayss of
a soca system The mode of attack runs as foows: If a person s-
to mantan and deveop hmsef, then he must dscover more or
ess adequate soutons to the foowng probems, etc. Ths mght
aso be a way of dscoverng what the basc motves of a ndvduas
are, on the grounds that a person needs to perform these functons,
e.g., n Securty, n Mastery, n Communcaton ( presson), n Cog-
nzance, etc. (after Murray, 193 ). oow ths ne of reasonng as
far as you can, attemptng to dscover ts advantages and dsad-
vantages.
4. Psychoogsts and anthropoogsts who study the socazaton
process are gven to makng suggestons about how chdren shoud
be handed, of whch the foowng s typca, at east at the mo-
ment. In our own chdren, t s essenta that we shoud provde
a frm basc securty n the nfant, that hs body needs be satsfed
consstenty, hs deveopng soca needs receve systematc response,
and that such soca dscpne as s requred be admnstered wth
reguarty. (Gn, n uckhohn and Murray, 194 .) hat woud
be the consequences of ths form of socazaton on the chd s
mantenance and deveopment conceptons In terms of what mer-
can vaues (Chapter ) are they desrabe
5. It s mportant to note that a of the nformaton about
ar s parents behavor or chdhood e perences comes from hm-
sef. Is ths a serous drawback Shoud we know how hs parents
actuay treated hm hat mprovements n our conceptua scheme
woud be key to resut f we dd know Pogers has argued that
how the person perceves hs past n the present s what reay
matters. Is he correct
hereas psychoogy has, n personaty study, been concerned prmary
wth the measurement of the f ed quates of the ndvdua, and hs pas
379
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
n order to e pan hs present, the hypothess here suggested woud seem
to concern tsef much more wth the persona word of the present n order
to understand the future. . . . (Pogers, 1947, p. 36 .)
6. .Take any parent behavor e treme (Indugence, cceeraton,
etc.) and try to derve what the consequences shoud be n terms of
an anayss of the way t structures probems for the chd to earn,
deveops e pectatons, etc. In partcuar, why shoud e tremes ke
0verndugence and Pe|ecton ead to the same resut or shoud
they
3 0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Part our
M0TI S P PS0N ITY
PI
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Motvaton: Cnca pproach
It s not a matter for a cam mnd to |udge us smpy by
our outward actons we must sound nsde and see what
sprngs set us n moton. ut snce ths s a hgh and
hazardous undertakng, I wsh fewer peope woud medde
wth t.
M0NT IGN
Psychoogsts have ong been fascnated by the search for the
causes of human behavor. There has probaby been more specu-
aton on motvaton than on any other aspect of personaty. Man
has aways wanted to sound nsde for the deeper determnants
of behavor whch e behnd the seemng contradctons of every-
day fe. Ths fascnaton has ed to so much specuaton that we
may fee ncned to agree wth Montagne that t woud be better
f fewer peope medded wth the probem. The ony feasbe ap-
proach n such a weter of confusng theores s to take a frm grp
on the facts whch necesstate the concept of motvaton and see how
dfferent sets of facts have ed to dfferent motvatona theores.
Probaby t s the varabty of human behavor whch has more
or ess forced scentsts to make use of the concept of motvaton.
Trat psychoogy deveoped to e pan recurrent responses and con-
sstences n behavor, n order to e pan the how of behavor.
The schema or atttude concept deveoped to hande the probem
of what the person knew, of what the symboc contents of hs
mnd were. The motve concept has deveoped n answer to the
queston why. hy do peope behave as they do 0ften we fee
that we can understand the rchness and varety of behavor ony
n terms of the goas whch t .serves. 0netme events seem par-
tcuary to requre the motvaton concept. Pesponses seem so
varabe that we can fnd no meanng n them, no repettve aw-
funess to them, uness we go behnd the surface phenomena and seek
an e panaton n terms of underyng motves, purposes, or goas.
good e ampe of the knd of data whch has necesstated the
motvatona concept s provded n a study by Dembo (1931). She
observed contnuousy for hours at a tme the behavor of a person
who was tryng to sove an nsoube probem. fter notng the sud-
den shfts n the sub|ect s behavor, Dembo comes to ths concuson:
3 3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
M0TI S P PS0N ITY PI
If one studes a number of records, one comes more and more to
the pont of vew that there e sts no awfuness n the sense that
after a certan event a certan event foows. voent emo-
tona outbreak s one tme preceded by weak emotona manfesta-
tons, another tme by an apparenty cam demeanor as a subst-
tute act there s sometmes a voent effort to get at the souton, and
sometmes a turnng away from the work an attack on the e per-
menter foows sometmes after a pause, other tmes after a faure,
and so forth. thoroughgong nvestgaton renforces the mpres-
son of rreguarty that contrbutes to the vew of emotona events
as beng wthout aw. In reaty, such a tempora presentaton of a
aw f , then s ncorrect, and ndcates a trend to quas hs-
tory. . . . Certany n our nvestgaton t was especay strkng
that the frst act was nterrupted or repaced by other types of acts.
Not nfrequenty a ater phase was connected wth an earer phase
but whether t was stronger or weaker or whether t was onger
or shorter, or somethng ese, s not adequatey determned by the
structure of the course of events tsef. (1931, p. 17.) In other words,
as a pup of ewn, Dembo s argung that we must go behnd the
sequence of surface events (phenotypes) to conceptuaze them n
terms of some underyng motvatona or goa structure (genotypes).
Murray has aso stated ths vewpont very ceary n contrastng
trat psychoogy wth motvatona psychoogy: ccordng to my
pre|udce, trat psychoogy s over-concerned wth recurrences, wth
consstency, wth what s ceary manfested (the surface of per-
sonaty), wth what s conscous, ordered and ratona. It mnmzes
the mportance of psychoogca occurrences, rratona mpuses and
beefs, nfante e perences, unconscous and nhbted drves as
we as envronmenta (socoogca) factors. ence, t does not
seem ftted to cope wth such phenomena as: dreams and fantases,
the behavor and thought of chdren or savages, neurotc symp-
toms (morbd an ety, phobas, compusons, deusons), nsanty
and creatve actvty (artstc or regous). (193 , p. 715.)
oth of these quotatons gve ustratons of the knd of data
whch motvatona concepts have been adopted to e pan. Mur-
ray n partcuar s rght n pontng to fantasy matera and neu-
rotc symptoms as the source of much dynamc theory. storcay
1 the greatest mpetus motvatona theory ever receved was from the
work of reud and hs co-workers, who began wth |ust such data.
The fu-bown, mature psychoanaytc theores of motvaton are
far too compe and n many cases far too specuatve for us to
3 4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
M0TI TI0N: C INIC PPP0 C
take the tme to summarze them adequatey here. ut we can re-
turn to the knd of emprca observatons whch frst ed reud to
formuate-hs dynamc theory. reud s book The Psychopathoogy
of veryday fe (1904) gves some of the most detaed descrptons
of how he went about hs observatons and anayses. Its vaue as a
study of assocatona processes and of the way to draw nferences
from them has been argey ost sght of n subsequent controverses
over the adequacy or nadequacy of the theores whch reud deve-
oped out of hs essentay emprca approach. It has become so fash-
onabe ether to crtcze reud or to accept hm whoe-heartedy that
t w be worthwhe to return for a moment to the data he n-
tay worked wth, to get an dea of how he handed t, and to
consder aternatve ways of treatng t.
P UD S N YSIS 0 T MP0P PY M M0PY oss
s an ustraton we may take an nstance of memory apse whch
reud anayzes n some deta (1904). 0ne day he and a traveng
companon fe nto a dscusson of the handcaps of beng a |ew
at that tme n urope. s companon was ambtous and was e -
pressng hs dsappontment over beng hed back by raca pre|u-
dce. In tryng to e press hs feengs on the sub|ect he tred to
recoect a ne from erg s ened n whch Ddo eaves vengeance
to posterty. e managed to recoect the foowng:
orar(e) e nostrs ossbus utor
(May an avenger arse from our bones )
reud s companon reazed that he had eft out a word and
reud supped hm wth t. It was the word aqus, meanng some
or someone. They then proceeded to try to fnd out why he had been
unabe to reca ths word n the quotaton. fter a somewhat e -
tended perod of free assocaton n whch the word aqus was
dvded nto a and qus, the sub|ect fnay dscovered, through
severa devous assocatona routes, that t referred n hs mnd to
a woman s monthy perod. e then confessed to reud that he
was very much worred at the moment over whether a woman he
had vsted n Itay was mssng her monthy perod and had be-
come pregnant by hm. They then concuded that he had forgotten
the word aqus because the dea of an avenger arsng from hs
bones was panfu to hm and because the partcuar word n the
3 5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
quotaton he forgot had partcuar forma assocatons wth the
event he so much feared.
If we study ths smpe epsode carefuy, we can fnd n t neary
a the characterstcs of the reudan poston on motvaton. In
the frst pace we notce that reud does not accept the possbty
that the forgettng of the word aqus s chance or accdenta.
behavor s motvated. Secondy, he accepts the fact that the causes
or motves behnd behavor are often unknown to the person hm-
sef, .e., are unconscous. Thrdy, he goes about uncoverng the
unconscous motve n an emprca fashon. e does not te hs
companon what hs motve s (presumaby because he does not
know what t s) unt the person has reveaed t through free as-
socaton. ourthy, he fnds n the free assocatons of the sub|ect
a good many somatc references. The word aqus, for nstance, s
eaborated nto the quefcaton at the tme of a woman s monthy
perod. asty, he fnds utmatey that se ua gut or an ety s
the underyng motve. The word aqus s forgotten because ts
appearance n conscousness arouses an ety over a se ua act. In
more modern termnoogy we mght say that the act of forgettng
the word was nstrumenta to the goa of an ety reducton.
s we sha see n a moment, a of these characterstcs are funda-
menta parts of the fuy deveoped reudan motvatona scheme.
The mportant pont to notce now s how cosey ths eaborate
theoretca scheme was orgnay connected wth emprca observa-
tons. Those who are dssatsfed wth the reudan motvatona
scheme shoud ask themseves how ese they woud account for the
events n ths tte epsode. e may study ths probem for a mo-
ment because t s an nterestng one n the ght of the subsequent
deveopment of reudan motvatona theory.
reud s pcture of ths epsode eaves two questons ony partay
answered/ rst, what s the precse nature of the motve whch was
responsbe for forgettng the word yrhe thng whch mpressed
reud so much about epsodes and free asoscatons ke these was
the great frequency wth whch a se ua motf was uncovered. Ths
ed hm n tme to deveop hs essentay monstc concepton of
motvaton as consstng of the bdo or se ua mpuses. In hs
story of the Psychoanaytc Movement (1910) reud tes hov
he was forced to hs concuson about the unversa mportance of
the se ua motve n a neuross by repeated observatons of ths
sort and aso by the comments of other psychatrsts who apparenty
had come to much the same concuson athough they were un-
3 6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
wng to admt t. e quotes Charcot as sayng, for nstance,
C est tou|ours a chose genta, tou|ours tou|ours tou|ours, a-
though Charcot apparenty dd not stck to ths poston pubcy
( reud, 1910). ut athough a se ua matter s ceary nvoved
n the aqus epsode the queston arses as to whether t s the .
se ua motve whch s responsbe for the forgettng of the word v
aqus. 0bvousy bdna satsfacton n the ordnary sense of
the term s not drecty ganed by forgettng the word. The psy-
choanaytc nterpretaton mght run somewhat as foows: No,
se ua gratfcaton narrowy conceved s not the motve behnd
the memory apse, but the super-ego s nvoved. ut what s the su-
per-ego Is that another motve No, but t too nvoves the bdo
because whe the bdo begns by ovng (cathectng) the sef as
one of ts ob|ects (prmary narcsssm), t ater cathects the dea
sef or ego dea (secondary narcsssm). Ths means that n order
to gratfy the porton of the bdo whch cathects the dea sef,
the person must act n such a way as to mantan ths deazed
mage. In order to do ths the ego acts defensvey and forces out of
conscousness the word whch woud nterfere wth ths concepton
and so fa to gratfy ths porton of the bdo. Such an e panaton
s ony one of severa possbtes, but t serves to ustrate how n-
voved the theoretca structure of the bdo concept has become
and how far removed n some cases t s from the orgna data on
whch ts formuaton was based. To many peope t has seemed
smper to postuate a puraty of motves and vaues and to e -
pan behavor ke the forgettng n ths epsode n terms of them
rather than n terms of an a-embracng bdo concept.
The second queston not fuy answered by reud s pcture of
ths epsode s: vhat s the precse nature of the motve whch
eads the sub|ect by free assocaton to provde a souton to the
mystery of the forgotten word /0nce agan s t the bdo n
one of ts varous forms 0r ought we to postuate the e stence of
some need such as the need for soca approva, the effort after
meanng, or the need for cognzance whch serves to motvate the
sub|ect to free assocate and eventuay come up wth an answer to
the probem If we accept reud s dctum that a behavor s
motvated, we must fnd a motve behnd the free-assocaton proc-
ess. reud does not concern hmsef wth ths queston, athough
doubtess t too coud be answered n terms of some vcsstude of
the bdo. 0ther psychoogsts, ess concerned wth seekng causes
of neuross, shoud be as much nterested n fndng out the mo-
3 7
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tves whch undere behavor such as ths as n dscoverng what
motves are responsbe for apses of memory, symptoms, etc.
C P CT PISTICS 0 T P UDI N M0TI TI0N SC M
th ths emprca ntroducton to our topc we may now turn
to a more systematc e poraton of the characterstcs attrbuted
to motvaton by reud and the psychoanaytc schoo. In dong ths
we cannot proceed from the nterna frame of reference of psy-
choanayss but must consder nstead ts mpact on the outsde
observer. In some ways ths approach may be superor to the e -
poston of psychoanaytc doctrne by a reudan because, ke
the person who gves a conceptuazaton of hmsef, he mght be
ess aware of some of the basc mpct assumptons n terms of
whch he operates. urthermore, f we stck to these basc assump-
tons, we may be abe to avod some of the ntrcaces of psycho-
anaytc doctrne and to emphasze nstead the paces where
psychoanaytc thnkng has contrbuted ether postvey or nega-
tvey to everyone s thnkng about motvaton.
1. ehavor s Motvated. reud was probaby the most per-
sstent determnst that psychoogy has ever known. e ddn t want
to eave anythng to chance. 0ther psychoogsts have been wng
to accept the fact theoretcay that a behavor s determned, but
few of them have gone to the engths that reud dd to demonstrate
that even the most casua acts had a motve. e made a specaty
of anayzng the causes of odd bts of behavor supersttons, fauty
actons, sps of the tongue, |okes, dreams, etc. 0ne of hs most strk-
ng demonstratons was tht attempt to show that he coud dscover
by free assocaton the reason why a partcuar number was chosen
when a person was asked |ust to thnk of a number at random.
1 such phenomena had been (and are) regarded by other psy-
choogsts as havng e panatons (and beng determned n that
sense) but not as beng goa-drected. Unfortunatey reud confused
motvaton wth determnaton. To hm psychc causaton s not
accdenta, mechanca, or assocatona, but dynamc and purpose-
fu, though often unconscousy so. behavor was goa-drected.
In ths sense he was an e treme functonast. ke other psychoo-
gsts and boogsts of the nneteenth century he had been much
nfuenced by the doctrne of evouton wth ts attendant noton
of adaptaton for survva. Unke them, he pushed the deas of
adaptaton and the functona sgnfcance of acts to ther ogca
3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e treme and concuded that a behavor has functona sgnfcance
and can be e paned n terms of some underyng motve or goa
reated to survva or death. ccordng to the vew adopted here,
motvaton may be nvoved n a acts but t s ony one of the
constructs needed to account for behavor (trats or habts and
schemata beng the other two). Under certan condtons, motvaton
may be of tte or no mportance n determnng a response as com-
pared wth these other two factors a poston that reud woud not
have accepted, at east not n practce.
ar s controed assocatons. s an ustraton of the way n
whch apparenty random responses may sometmes be e paned n
motvatona terms, we can turn to some assocatons gven by ar
to the word success n a word-recognton e perment. In ths test,
words were fashed for .01 second on a screen at a eve of umna-
ton whch, n the begnnng at east, was so ow that the sub|ect
coud not possby dentfy the word. The eve of umnaton was
graduay ncreased and the sub|ect was nstructed to guess what the
word mght be as soon as he had any dea of what t was and to con-
tnue guessng unt he had correcty dentfed t. ar guessed
freey n ths stuaton and to the word success made the foowng
responses on successve e posures:
ether
become
woman
mother
empre
secure
success
nowng what we do about ar we can amost reconstruct from
these words the connecton whch securty and success have for hm.
The |ustfcaton for an attempt to nterpret the meanng of ths
seres of assocatons es n the fact that the word success dd start
bran processes before t was recognzed and n the fact that assoca-
tona processes connected wth securty and achevement had a-
ready been started by earer words n the seres. th ths n mnd
our nterpretaton mght run as foows: s frst response, ether,
suggests the confct between securty and success. e wants to be-
come successfu but the way seems to be through a woman, especay
through ganng hs mother s ove, whch represents the empre of
securty v hch makes success possbe. pparenty the stmuus word
3 9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
success sets off a tran of assocatons about securty whch we can
e pan as representng hs concepton of the ony way n whch the
success motve may be gratfed. ut what, for contrast, s suggested
to hm by the submna stmuus word, securty
eavng
avenue
eavng
e ngton
revew
storage
securty
ere we are baffed. nd unfortunatey ths s a too often the
case. pparenty unreated assocatons of ths sort are actuay
much more common .than the strkng seres of assocatons ar
gave n the frst nstance, whch seem to have an underyng e pana-
ton. It s true that we can fa back on the hypothess that we coud
e pan the connecton between e ngton venue, eavng, storage,
and securty f we knew enough about ar. ut at east for the
moment we must confess our gnorance and be content wth the
concuson that whe success suggests securty, the reverse s not true.
.Securty does not suggest success. Ths may be mportant n ar s
motvatona structure. It suggests that success s secondary and de-
pendent on the more prmary satsfacton of hs securty motves.
Ths e ampe and reud s nvestgaton of chance behavor
both serve to ustrate an mportant coroary derved from reud s
assumpton that a behavor s motvated. Ths coroary s that
a motve, s a convenent construct whch serves to unfy, te to-
gether, or gve a common meanng to a varety of dssmar re-
sponses. e cannot e pan ar s assocatons n terms of the trat
concept: no one of hs responses s smar to any other. e cannot
e pan them very we n terms of the schema concept: they do not
suggest a coherent concepton of anythng. ut they do suggest a
common need for securty whch s shapng, drectng, or warp-
ng hs tran of thought. So we e pan them n terms of an
underyng motve or goa whch they are a servng or e press-
ng, each n a somewhat dfferent way. The vaue of the motve con-
cept es precsey n the fact that t abstracts out of a number of
concrete behavora phenomena an nference as to ther cause. It
seeks the reaty behnd the appearance, the e purbus unum, or n
ewn s termnoogy, the genotype behnd the phenotypc.
390 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
. Motves re Persstent. reud was repeatedy mpressed wth
the fact that certan motves appeared agan and agan behnd var-
ous symptoms n hs patents. rom ths he deveoped the theo-
retca poston that motvaton conssts of contnuous underyng
tensons whch w contnue to e press themseves no matter how
: they are bocked or dsowned by the person. e concudes hs de-
: taed anayss of chance and fauty actons wth the foowng state-
ment: ut the common character of the mdest, as we as the
severest cases to whch the fauty and chance actons contrbute, es
I n the abty to refer the phenomena to unwecome, repressed,
psychc matera, whch, though pushed away from conscousness, s
nevertheess not robbed of a capacty to e press tsef. (1904, p.
17 .) y ths doctrne he opposed the vew that motvaton s phasc
n nature, and dependent upon stuatona factors. Pather he con-
ceved of t as a contnuousy drvng force whch perssted from
brth to death despte attempts of the envronment to mod and de-
fect t.
Ths vewpont s congruent wth the prevang e permentast
vew of a motve as a persstent stmuus (cf. u, 1943). s we
sha see, the boogcay orented psychoogsts tended to absorb
ths vew of reud s as consstent wth ther researches on hunger
and other physoogca tensons. It has remaned for the neo- reud-
ans and others to emphasze the mportance of stuatona and cu-
tura factors.
3. Motves re 0ften Unconscous, Unknown to the Sub|ect.
rom the earest days of hs pubcatons, reud s doctrne of the
unconscous has been frequenty attacked and re|ected n toto by
other psychoogsts, partcuary from the e permenta schoos (cf.
Coe, 1939). In retrospect ths seems somewhat odd, because actuay
reud was more fundamentay a boogst than they were n thnk-
ng of motves as physoogca tensons of whch the sub|ect was ony
mperfecty aware. s tme has gone on, ths vew of reud s has
aso been ncorporated nto some boogcay orented theores of
motvaton (cf. Doard et a., 1939). To these theorsts the probem
s to e pan conscousness, not unconscousness. It woud seem more
: natura to suppose that motvaton ke any other boogca process
woud begn by beng unconscous (.e., unverbazed) and woud
become symbocay represented ater on and then somewhat mper-
fecty5|The vaue of the reudan approach has been that t has
shown how varous conscous phenomena coud be e paned n
391
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
terms of the assumpton of unconscous motves or determnants.
he many dske the conscous, phenomenoogca terms he uses
to descrbe unconscous determnants, there seems tte ob|ecton
today to the noton that there are such unconscous determnants.
e have aready shown n the prevous chapter how t s possbe
from ar s behavor (partcuary at the fantasy eve) to nfer the
. e stence of an ntense need for securty of whch he s ony partay
aware (cf. aso Chapter 14). It was the reudan schoo whch org-
nay demonstrated the mportance and vaue of makng ths knd
of nference.
4. Motvaton Is ssentay Tensona n Character. reud con-
ceved of fe as a fary grm busness. More than any other psychoo-
-. gst he showed up the mportance of sadstc, aggressve, and hoste
trends n human nature. In hs own words the btter truth behnd
a ths one so eagery dened s that men are not gente, frendy
creatures wshng for ove, who smpy defend themseves f they re
attacked, but that a powerfu measure of desre for aggresson has
to be reckoned as part of ther nstnctua endowment,. The resut
s that ther neghbor s to them not ony a possbe heper or se ua
ob|ect, but aso a temptaton to them to gratfy ther aggressveness
on hm, to e pot hs capacty for work wthout recompense, to use
hm se uay wthout hs consent, to seze hs possessons, to hum-
ate hm, to cause hm pan, to torture and to k hm. omo homne
upus who has the courage to dspute t n the face of a the ev-
dence n hs own fe and hstory ( reud, 1930.) fe appeared to
reud so fu of aggresson and frustraton that the ma|or task of man
seemed to be to try to fnd ways to aevate pan, avod an ety,
and reduce tenson. It s no wonder then that the ma|or gratfca-
tons n fe often appeared to be those whch brought reef from
e terna dangers or nterna pressures from the d. rom ths t was
ony one step further to the concuson that motvaton was ten-
sona n character and reward or gratfcaton resuted from the
reducton of tenson.
Ths vew has ganed very wde acceptance aso among bo-
ogcay orented psychoogsts, as we sha see n the ne t chapter.
It fts n wth the assumpton that motvaton ke hunger conssts
of a persstng stmuus, snce the stmuus can be thought of as the
tenson and a reducton n tota stmuaton as the tenson reduc-
ton necessary for gratfcaton.
s we noted n the ast chapter, the dea that growng up s a
|r
1
392
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
constant strugge for mpuse contro or tenson reducton can be
ready transated nto a rat e perment n whch the anmas are
forced to renounce easy gratfcatons for more compe and dffcut
ones ( htng and Mowrer, 1943). The comparson s nstructve n
showng how frustraton s an mportant source of motvaton but
t does not take suffcenty nto account the organsm s postve
or creatve motves to e pore, seek change, test ts powers of
mastery, etc., as Murray has ponted out (193 ).
5. There Is 0ne Motve, the bdo, hch ccount or
or_Neary Strvng. reud s thnkng on the sub|ect of motva-
ton was essentay monstc, or at the most duastc, as orney has
suggested (1939). pparenty n the begnnng he e paned a
strvng n terms of a great fundamenta confct between two ma|or
drves, the se or bdo nstnct, and the ego or sef-preservaton
nstncts. In keepng wth the evoutonary doctrnes of the nne-
_tee_tTtrrcentury to whch he had been e posed, he at tmes apparenty
thought of ths confct as between the tendency toward cooperaton
and the tendency toward competton. 0n the one hand was the
sef-preservaton drve, patterned after hunger, whch governed the
ego and ed man to compete wth hs feows for food or other forms
of gratfcaton. 0n the other hand was the se ua drve whch, snce
t requred two peope for ts fuest consummaton, forced man to
make cooperatve arrangements. In ths way hs motvatona scheme
ncorporated the prevang evoutonary doctrnes of .survva of
the fttest and cooperaton for survva.
ater on, as orney ponts out, reud reduced ths duasm to a
monsm n whch the bdo remaned the prmary nstnct and the
_c5TfTct arose between the portons of the bdo whch remaned
attached to the sef and the portons whch were drected toward
others -Prmary sef-ove or narcsssm became the equvaent of the
sef-preservatve or ego nstnct wherea the bdo n the post-genta
phases normay deveoped beyond ths to attach tsef to ob|ects
outsde the sef. In short, the confct now became one between
earer and ater ob|ect choces of the same fundamenta motve.
nay he deveoped a second duasm, ths tme between the bdo
or fe nstnct and the death nstnct. Ths ast deveopment was
probaby nfuenced by hs ncreasng convcton of the mportance
of hoste trends on the one hand and possby by hs awareness of
deveopments n physca scence whch were emphaszng the con-
cept of entropy, or the tendency for the word to run down, as t
393
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
were, or to go from order toward ncreasng dsorder and chaos. In
ths duasm the bdo became the fe nstnct whch operated to
mantan order for a short tme n the face of the pressures toward
dsntegraton (entropy or the death nstnct). Ths poston s con-
sstent wth such mocTern vewponts as ha taken by the physcst
Schrodnger n hs book, hat Is fe (1945), n whch he ponts
out that the curous fact about fe s that t mantans order and
reguarty wth many fewer atoms and moecues than woud be
necessary for smar order n the nonvng unverse. To Schrodnger
fe s characterzed by the capacty to resst entropy, whch was e -
acty reud s poston n ths ast phase of hs motvatona theory.
The sgnfcance of a ths theorzng on motvaton whch en-
gaged reud s attenton throughout hs ong fe s the emphass
he paced on the reducton of a compcated strvngs to one or two
smpe prncpes. 0nce agan, whe many psychoogsts have ds-
agreed wth the specfc concusons that reud drew about the na-
ture of these one or two prncpes, they tended to accept hs
underyng assumpton that motvaton coud be e paned n terms
of a few motves, common to a men. reud s poston may be
rephrased n terms used_by Theoogans n the Chrstan church n
ther dscussons of the nature of God. e was essentay ..mont,
but from tme to tme he tended toward the heresy of Manchean-
sm n that he had to admt the e stence of an ndependent prn-
cpe of v (the death, nstnct) outsde God (the bdo). e
was not, however, a henathest wng to admt fhat others mght
fnd equay vad snge motves. s God (the bdo) was a
|eaous God and he e communcated |ung and der when
they attempted to repace the bdo prncpe wth others. nd he_
was certany not a poythest beevng n the e stenceof a
varety of ndependent, cuturay_de rmned_|nptves.
6. Motvaton Is ascay Instnctua n Nature. reud was frst,
_ ast an a|w ys a_hc pgst, as .orngy agan makes cear (1939)- e
thought of motvaton n boogca terms. ut once agan hs bo-
ogca orentaton was so radca, so thoroughgong that other bo-
ogsts turned aganst hm. rom hs boogca orentaton deveoped
I some of hs most mportant and aso most controversa vews on
the nature of motvaton. e may summarze them as three coro-
ares derved from the basc nstnctua poston.
a. The Peguar Stages n the Pattern of bdna Deveopment.
reud thought of the bdo as deveopng or unfodng n much
394
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the same way as any other part of the body woud deveop and
grow. e beeved t was part of the equpment of a men |ust as
a eg or an arm s. e aso conceved of t as gong through varous
deveopmenta stages |ust as the foetus does or the eg or the arm.
coser anaogy, as we saw n Chapter 10, s wth the stages n motor
deveopment noted by Gese and hs co-workers as aways foowng
n an apparenty preordaned manner as a resut of boogca deter-
mnants. |ust as there are stages of creepng, crawng, sttng up,
standng and wakng, reud thought that there were stages n the
deveopment of the bdo. These stages coud be dstngushed frst
by the porton of the body whch the bdo senstzed or erotczed.
The frst zone to be so senstzed was the mouth then the anus, then
the gentas, then thebody as a whoe. nayThe bdo turned out-
ward toward ther peope Such a theory, stated n these terms,
woud probaby not have met the voent crtcsm that reud s
theory dd when he frst advanced t. Part of the reason for the nta
ob|ectons to the theory was probaby that he stated hs concusons
about the nature of the bdo n words that were so hghy psychc
n content that they tended to mask the essentay boogca nature
of the theory. Thus, for nstance, nstead of speakng of the mouth
as beng senstzed by some boogca drve, the practce was to speak
of the mouth as beng the ob|ect of |ove or .cathe s.
y hs doctrne of the deveopmenta stages of the bdo, reud
was enabed to enarge and generaze hs ntay se ua drve to
ncude a sorts of strvngs whch were manfesty not se ua n
nature, at east as the term se ua s normay understood. reud s
orgna, emprcay founded observaton that the se motve ay
behnd many otherwse ne pcabe surface phenomena was gen-
erazed by hm nto a theoretca system whch eventuay enabed
hm and hs co-workers to account for a strvngs. In order to do
ths, he had to dvest the term se uaty of much of ts orgna mean-
ng. In orney s words, Se uaty s not an nstnctua drve d-
rected toward the opposte se , amng at genta satsfacton the,
heterose ua genta drve s ony one manfestaton of a non-specfc
, se ua energy,|he_ bdp. (1939, p. 49.) reud, through hs deveop-
menta theory, was abe to e pan other motves as deveopng from
varous stages n the vcsstudes of the bdo or as resutng from
the f aton or regresson to a certan deveopmenta stage. It woud
be frutess to try to gve n any deta the e tremey eaborate de-
veopments of the bdo theory. ttempts to dscover whether some
395
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
f0TI S P PS0N ITY PI
of the consequences of such a theory can be checked by actua ob-
servaton have not ed to any strkng confrmaton of t, at east n
ts orgna form. Sears has surveyed the e permenta terature on
ths pont and come to the foowng concuson:
0ne concuson stands out above a others: emotona deveopment, as
couched n terms of successve ob|ect choces, s far more varabe than
reud supposed. Ths s not to say that none of the cassca eements ap-
pear. They do but wth too many e ceptons to be accepted as typca.
The condtons under whch ob|ect choce s made e pan why ths s.
0b|ect choce s essentay a functon of earnng and what s earned s a
functon of the envronment n whch the earnng occurs. Snce there s
no unversa cuture pattern for ntrafama reatonshps, there can be
no unversa pattern of earned ob|ect choces. (194 , p. 57.)
Ths represents as brefy as possbe the poston whch many
students of reud s theory have adopted. They are wng to accept
many of hs observatons on the stages of bc na deveopment, but
|hey nterpret them dfferenty. .They do not attrbuteTthem To bo-)
ogca nstncts, but rather to cutura condtons_Tn rue that,)
chdren show a great dea of nterest n the mouth and n the peas-
ure whch they get out of suckng at the tme that reud says they
shoud. s we noted n Chapter 10, Sears and se (1950) have
shown that t s the chdren who receve proonged gratfcaton
through suckng at the botte or breast who ater deveop an eroto-
genc nterest n the mouth whch presumaby e pans ther n-
creased dsturbance at weanng. In a smar fashon, one mght
suppose that the nterest chdren show n bowe contro, n feces.
or n ther gentaa mght aso be cuturay condtoned snce the
contro of these actvtes s a pont of ma|or concern to many cu-
tures. In short, the tendency s to accept the reudan assumpton
that one fnds the begnnngs of motvaton n nfant gratfcaton,
but to re|ect hs theoretca poston that the nature and sequence
of these gratfcatons are whoy determned accordng to some
nnate nstnctua mechansms.
(T . The Somatc Patternng of Motvated ehavor. nother
mportant dervatve of reud s underyng boogca poston s hs
convcton that a psychoogca or hgher motves tend to seek
gratfcaton n a manner whch s patterned after the way n whch
the underyng boogca drve was orgnay satsfed. Psycho-
anayss has a tendency to rey very heavy on somatc anaoges, to
396
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
beeve that a behavor s submated body anguage. or e -
ampe, ranz e ander, n dscussng the psychoogca causes of
gastrc dsturbances, states, In a of our cases we see n the un-
conscous a deep ora regresson to the parastc stuaton of the
nfant a statement whch evokes a soma|c: |mage whch he then
transates nto the psychc anguage of arT e T eme and voent
cravng for ove and the need for dependence and hep (n Tom-
kns, 1944, p. 129). hat has happened here s that the psychoana-
yst observes that the chd durng the ora stage s predomnanty a
hepess, dependent creature whose ma|or mode of e stence s
through suckng and ntakng. e then nfers that f a person for
some reason becomes f ated at ths ora receptve stage, he w
show behavor trends as an adut whch are patterned after those
whch he showed as an nfant when under the nfuence of the ora
drve./rhus he may go further than e ander does and state that
the true ora character s one who s nterested n ngestng, suck-
ng, or mouthng the word. y anaogy such a person woud be
an optmst, certany as compared wth the person whose character
s based on the ora aggressve pattern of spttng out the word.
These somatc anaoges are one of the most dstngushng features
of psychoanaytc terature.. psychc ||h|enomgna tend to be re-_.
ferred ack to the_bod||n|5ne_ ay_or another Thus stngness s
reated to tghtness of the sphncter, an ety to castraton an ety, |
envy to pens envy, achevement to urethra compettveness, an c
overcoat to a condom, etc. Ths tendency has become so wdespread
that the so-caed atent content of psychoogca magery s neary
aways the somatc anaogue of the mage. nyone who has read
psychoanaytc terature at a cannot fa to be mpressed by the
ease wth whch a somatc parae can be found for neary any mage
a patent uses.
Crtcsm of ths tendency has been voent an wdespread. oed
down, the crtcsm resoves tsef nto two-man ponts. rst., body
symbosm s far more pastc and varabe than has sometmes been
assumed. nna reud states, for nstance, Symbos are constant and
unversay vad reatons between partcuar d-contents and spe-
c1fc deas of words or thngs. (1937, p. 16.) It cannot be dened
that sometmes eaborate manfest content does dsguse body mag-
ery. arber and sher have shown that some sub|ects, who were
presumaby na1ve wth respect to reudan theory, were abe to gve
the correct somatc nterpretatons of varous symbos under hyp-
397
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
D0M S. They report the foowng nstance: Severa femae sub|ects
were gven ths dream: boy was sttng at hs desk studyng when
the waste basket caught on fre. e ran and got a ptcher of water
and put the fre out. Ther mmedate response was 0h, he wet
hs bed, or e shoud have gone to the bathroom. ( rom Tom-
kns, 1944, p. 50 .) owever, they aso found that many sub|ects
under hypnoss were not abe to gve the correct nterpretatons of
dreams. The symbosm was by no means unversay understood.
These e permenters aso asked sub|ects to dream under hypnoss
after e permentay nducng certan states. s a resut of ths work
they concude that famar dream symbo may portray a varety
of human e perences. Thus, tooth pung may represent not ony
castraton and chd brth but aso socay nsutng predcaments
the attack wth a hammer may represent not ony homose ua as-
saut but aso schoastc rvary. (Tomkns, 1944, p. 516.) In short,
I the dream work may have a somatc reference, but often t has not
but refers nstead to a psychoogca e perence of a much more
compe nature. The bass for such modfcatons of the reudan
theory s once agan that n ts orthodo form t does not aow
suffcenty for the varety of earnng e perences to whch a person
growng up n the cuture may be sub|ected. ody magery may e -
press compe motves for some peope and not for others. It s
probabe that ths crtcsm does not appy so cogenty to some of
reud s earer works snce he was aways carefu to have the person
nvoved gve by free assocaton hs own nterpretaton of a dream
symbo or a chance acton. hat appears to have happened s that
the body symbosm reoccured so frequenty that ater psycho-
anaysts tended to unversaze the reatonshps dscovered n a
way that was not orgnay envsaged.
The second)ma|or crtcsm of the somatc patternng of a be-
havor has been made especay strongy by orney (1939), who
argues that the reudan anaysts have confused cause and effect.
She fees that the fundamenta weakness of ther poston s that
they fee they have e paned somethng when they refer t to ts
somatc anaogue. In her own words, Thus the dfference n pont
of vew may be e pressed n ths way: a person does not have tght
ps because of the tenseness of hs sphncter, but both are tght
because hs character trends tend toward one goa to hod on to
what he has and never gve away anythng, be t money, ove, or any
knd of spontaneous feeng. hen n dreams an ndvdua of ths
39
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
type symbozes persons through faeces, the bdo theory e pana-
ton woud be that he despses peope because they represent faeces
to hm, whe I shoud say that representng peope n symbos of ,,
faeces s an e presson of an e stng contempt for peope. (1939, p.
62.) In other words she re|ects the boogca e panaton of adut n
character trends but fees that the character trends may e press
themseves n boogca termnoogy. In short, snce body an-
guage s merey cme way n whch a motve e presses tsef, t s a
mstake to try to understand the nature of that motve soey n
terms of ths one mode of e presson. er crtcsm s certany
vad at east n part. It does appear at tmes as f psychoanaysts
fee they have e paned compe psychoogca phenomena f they
can refer them to an anaogous somatc pattern. 0n the other hand,
t shoud be stated that sometmes the somatc anaoges appear to
have been frutfu n suggestng the ways n whch a motve may
e press tsef at psychoogca eves. moderate vewpont woud
appear to be that a boogca pattern of response may suggest ways
n whch a motve may ater fnd e presson..If such an anaogy s
regarded strcty as an anaogy, rather than as a cause-and-effect re-
atonshp, t s possbe that t may prove usefu n suggestng ob-
servatons to be made on the motve n queston at more compe f
behavora eves.|Some of e ander s work seems to be of ths
ordery t the moment t s st very debatabe as to whether these
somat1c anaoges have serousy nterfered wth progress n the
study of motvaton or whether they have contrbuted mportant
suggestons as to the ways n whch motves may e press themseves.
c. The Importance of ary Chdhood n Motvatona Deveop-
ment. further coroary of reud s genera nstnctvst poston s
that the eary manfestatons of the bdo are of greatest mportance
n character formaton. ater motvatona deveopments are derva-
tve and for the most part substtutons for am-nhbted strvngs.
That s, when the bdo cannot reach ts orgna ams because of
the frustratons of socazaton or for other reasons, t s forced to
adopt substtute ams. These secondary goas are the bass for the
compcated nonse ua strvngs of adut fe, but they aways re-
man as substtutes for the rea or prmary ends whch may be
reestabshed by traumatc ncdents, etc. Ths suggests strongy
that even n adut fe the prmary boogca ams of the bdo
(ora, ana, and genta ob|ect choces) are st very mportant. It s
399
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
for ths reason that psychoanaytc therapy emphaszes the workng
out of adut confcts n terms of the read|ustment of the prmary
boogca ams of whch ater motves are smpy refectons. The
practca sgnfcance of ths vewpont s that t eads naturay to
the renterpretaton of a adut motvatona goas n terms of those
of chdhood. e have aready seen, for nstance, how e ander
found t usefu to e pan a need for securty and support n terms
of the prmary ora drves of nfancy.
ater strvngs are, f possbe, referred to submatons, defec-
tons, f atons, or regressons of the prmary boogca nstnct
whch unfods accordng to a reguar and nevtabe pattern of
growth and deveopment. Nowhere s ths cearer than n the tend-
ency to e pan adut mae motvaton n terms of the edpus com-
pe . reud argued that one of the frst and most mportant ob|ect
choces of the bdo, after varous parts of the body, woud be the
mother. urthermore, the attachment of the bdo to the mother s
so strong that the mae chd especay wants to emnate a com-
pettors for the mother s ove, partcuary the father. The hostty
toward the father n turn arouses on the one hand fear of retaaton,
and on the other hand gut for hatng an ob|ect (the father) to
whch the bdo s aso attached. In ths stuaton a number of mo-
tves appear to be present: a prmary desre for the mother, a desre
for aggresson aganst the father, a need for the father s ove and
approva, fear of punshment, and a need for the reducton of the
an ety resutng from the confct of motves whch n turn causes
a forgettng or represson of the whoe compe . thorough anayss
of how each of these motves arses woud be dffcut to make, f
ndeed t has ever been made n any rgorous fashon by psycho-
anayss. ut whatever ther orgn, these motves become the pr-
mary ones n the e panaton of behavor whch may occur many
years after the orgna 0edpus stuaton. It s n ths way that a
contemporary motvaton tends to be referred to, and e paned
n terms of, much earer deveopment of a boogca nstnct and
ts varous ob|ect choces.
In a genera way ths vewpont of reud s has been very nfu-
enta. Many cnca psychoogsts, anthropoogsts, and personaty
psychoogsts have come to beeve that the eary years of chdhood
1 are of great mportance n deveopng the basc motvatona struc-
ture of an ndvdua. 0n the other hand, ths beef has been sub-
|ect to voent attack by men ke ewn, and port, or more re-
400
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
centy 0ransky (1949), and even by psychoanaysts who began
wthn the reudan framework. orney, who may be consdered
typca of so-caed neo- reudans, has ob|ected partcuary to what
she cas reud s nstnctvstc and genetc psychoogy (1939, p. ).
She and others n her group have emphaszed the mportance of cu-
tura, envronmenta, or socoogca factors n motvatona deveop-
ment. In other words, she beeves that motves are genune earnecft
products of e perence and do not smpy refect aways .the am
nhbted strvng of a prmary boogca nstnct. In her words,
prevangy socoogca orentaton then takes the pace of a pre-
vangy anatomca-physoogca one, and the one-sded empha-
ss on geness s renqushed (1939, p. 9). er vew comes cose to
the poston taken n Chapter 10 that there are speca reasons why
eary chdhood e perences are of greater mportance n motva-
tona deveopment than ater ones, but that they do not therefore
contnue to mod, amost snge-handed, a adut motvatona strv-
/ ngs. rom ths standpont motves are the product of a earnng
| e perences to whch the nta chdhood ones contrbute heavy,
1 but certany not e cusvey.
0T P I S 0 M0TI TI0N
In dscussng reud s contrbuton to the psychoogy of motva-
ton, we have tred to pont out where hs vews have been accepted,
re|ected, or modfed by other wrters, but many of these other
wrters have gone on to make postve contrbutons of ther own
whch they regard as substtutes for much of the reudan frame-
work. It s dffcut to do |ustce to the great varety of cnca con-
trbutons to the theory of motvaton, but we can make a very bref
survey of some of the ma|or vewponts. Neary a theorsts who
have worked wth cnca data have accepted the frst four charac-
terstcs of the reudan scheme. That s, they have agreed that
motvaton s one of the fundamenta varabes of human persona-
, ty, that motves are persstent, that they are often unconscous, and
that they are tensona n character. y and arge, these same peope
have aso vgorousy re|ected the s th characterstc of reud s
scheme, namey, the nsstence upon the basc somatc, nstnctua
I nature of motvaton. They can be dscussed therefore n terms of
what atttude they have taken toward pont fve, that s, n terms of
I whether or not they have accepted a monstc vew of motvaton
401
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
and f so, n terms of what prmary motve they have put n the
pace of the bdo. The monstc theorsts may be most easy sum-
marzed. ke reud they |1ave tend|e| .t trace a motvatqr a
sTrvngs, to a snge basc motve, but they have dsagreed as to
wfat s.
0ne of the earest aternatve theores was presented by der
/ (1917), who argued that the |bdo or se ua motvaton was reay
secondary to the drve for power T mastery. e started wth the fact
that a chdren begn fe necessary as beng smaer and more
hepess than the aduts n ther envronment. The chd as a resut
repeatedy observes that he s ess abe to get what he wants than
are the aduts n hs crce. Ths arouses n hm a strong need to
compensate for hs observed nferorty and a strvng s drecty
or ndrecty amed at overcomng the nta, boogcay-gven
hepessness. Ths s an ngenous noton, but der, ke reud, was
apparenty so concerned wth unversazng hs fndng that, n the
vew of outsde observers, he tended to warp a observatons on the
psychoogy of mot1vaton_to ft hs partcuar scheme. Ths has been
the ptfa of a monstc theores of motvaton. The tendency has
een to dscover one motve and to be so mpressed wth ts m-
portance that the whoe of e perence s nterpreted n the ght of
tha one motve.
orney (1939), who acknowedges a debt to . S. Suvan, has
doT1e kewse. s we have seen, she re|ects the bdo concept, but
puts n ts pace another prmary motve, namey, the need for se-
curty and safety n a potentay dangerous word. ke der she
starts_wth the Tact that a chd s sma and reatvey poweress.
rom ths fact, however, and from her cnca observatons, she
nfers that the hd wants not mastery, as der nferred, but |fc
curty aganst threat. She emphaszes a those adverse nfuences
whch make a chd fee hepess and defenseess and whch make
hm conceve the word as potentay menacng. ecause of hs
dread of potenta danger the chd must deveop certan neurotc
trends permttng hm to cope wth the word wth some measure
of safety. (1939, p. 10.) To her, basc an ety n a ts manfesta-
tons s suffcent, aong wth some prmary satsfactons (1939, p. 73),
to account for a man s compcated motvatona tendences. er
poston can ncorporate the atest cutura and socoogca fndngs
because the dangers whch a chd perceves may be thought of as
cuturay defned at east n part. er vew may aso be consdered
402
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
.
consstent wth the one adopted by the e permenta psychoogsts
who have thought of motvaton as prmary a matter of an ety
or tenson reducton (cf. Mer and Doard, 1941).
s a fna e ampe of a monstc theory we may turn to men ke
Godsten (1940), Pogers (194 ), and ecky (1945), who argue that
f man s prmary motve s the drve for sef-consstency, or ntegra-
| tpn. Pogers, on the bass of hs nondrectve ntervewng data, has
repeatedy noted what he frst caed a postve growth nfuence
whch seems to ead the person to make postve efforts at sef-
correcton even n the mdst of some very negatve e perences.
Ths growth nfuence has ater been dentfed wth the drve for
sef-consstency (194 ) or the desre for mantanng a pcture of
the sef whch s coherent and ntegrated. It s ths drve whch
therefore w prevent the ncorporaton nto the sef-concept of cer-
tan deas whch are aen to the tota pcture. Put n ths way t s
robvous that the drve has much n common wth the Gestat con-
cepton of forces workng for cosure n the perceptua fed. The
theory s not suffcenty deveoped to be consdered a compete
motvatona scheme as yet, but the present ndcatons are that
Pogers and hs co-workers are thnkng n terms of paraes wth
Gestat, perceptua forces. nother nterpretaton of the meanng
of the sef-consstency motve s gven beow n Chapter 14.
These are merey seectons from a number of theores that have
taken an essentay monstc vew of motvaton. There are other_
theorsts, equay |n_fh1enta__who haye|rg|prt, d the m.onstc ap-
prcTach atogether. mong these we may menton ony three -
port. ewn. and MurrayT port reacted strongy aganst the whoe
treud1an nterpretaton of motvaton. s scheme, therefore, df-
fers at amost every pont from reud s, but hs most serous ob-
(|ecton was to the tyng of adut motvatons to nfante boogca
ones. e therefore deveoped the concept of functona autonomy
whch was a knd of Decaraton of Independence for motves
C gS )- e beeves that boogca drves, or as he cas them, def-
ct stmu, mght serve to account for the behavor of nfants,
and mght even serve as the orgna bass for the deveopment of
psychogenc motves, but once formed, the psychogenc motves no
onger have any connecton whatsoever wth ther hstorca ante-
cedents. They contnue to functon autonomousy, under ther own
steam, wthout any further dependence on boogca states or
condtons. In hs theory he does not go much beyond provdng
403
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
(evdence for the fact that motves do appear to functon autono-
mousy. That s, he does not suggest what motves shoud be used
to conceptuaze the human adut personaty. s poston seems to
be rather that one shoud use whatever motves are approprate
to the ndvdua case rather than rey on a few whch are com-
mon to a men. Ths s because he does not reay conceve of the
motvatona aspect of personaty as separabe from the trat as-
pect. s we have seen n an earer chapter, hs trats drve as
we as drect. Consequenty he has what mght be descrbed as
a partcuarstc concepton of motvaton. ccurate as such a pos-
ton may be, t does not promote a scence of personaty because
one of the purposes of scence s to economze n the descrpton
of a gven personaty n ts entre rchness and varety. Ths short-
comng of hs scheme s perhaps ustrated by the faure of any
one to use t n descrbng an ndvdua case, uness one regards
as an e ampe of ts use the case descrptons made by cnca
psychoogsts who utze whatever motves may come to mnd for
summarzng an ndvdua fe hstory. he such a procedure s
convenent, t scarcey eads to the deveopment of any genera
motvatona concepts whch are consstent enough to form a scheme
whch can be used for the scentfc purpose of economca per-
sonaty descrpton.
I The same crtcsm may be made of ewn (1935). e, ke -
port, was structuray rather than hstorcay orpntpd. n hs theory.
s an e permentast he has perhaps contrbuted more tn nnr pm
, prca knowedge of the psycho gy f motvaton than amost any
other person.|but|1s a theorst hs romrhmnn has ronssted argey
.of stuatqnaP_ or fed anayses of motvated behavor. Thus n
the e ampe quoted n the begnnng of the chapter where Dembo
s descrbng the behavor of a person tryng to sove an mpos-
sbe probem, she as a student of ewn represents the stuaton
conceptuay by a vsua pot of fed forces and vaences (1931).
The vsua pot may aso be symbozed n terms of topoogca
geometry. The approach s to take an event consstng of a person
nteractng wth hs envronment and then to try and conceptu-
aze the behavor that resuts from ths nteracton n terms of the
fewest number of abstract concepts whch w account adequatey
for the behavor. Thus, n a stuaton ke Dembo s, f the person
moves toward an ob|ect and pcks t up, the person s represented
as beng pushed by a force toward the ob|ect and the ob|ect s
404
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
represented as havng postve vaence for the person. The stua-
ton may be dagrammed thus:
Person 0b|ect
Such a descrpton can then be compcated by the addton of
other fed forces unt the vsua pots become qute compcated
and even three-dmensona. __
0nce more t woud be mpractcabe to go nto ewn s whoe
conceptua system n any deta. e have presented ths much n
order to show why t s that hs system does not end tsef to the
conceptuazaton of the ndvdua fe. It does end tsef to ac-
curate cross-sectona depctons of unque person-envronment n-
teractons. ut no one yet has serousy attempted to wrte a fe
hstory of a partcuar person n ewnan terms. It certany coud
be done (cf. ewn, 1946), but the queston remans as to whether
t coud be economcay done and aso as to whether the resuts
woud be of any genera vaue n wrtng up the fe hstory of
another person. Ths s not a crtcsm of ewn s approach for
the type of stuatona anayss for whch t was orgnay ntended.
It s smpy a restatement of the mtatons of any partcuarstc
motvatona scheme as far as conceptuazng the fe hstory of
a snge person s concerned.
_ Muray f ffrf aycf (193 ) may be descrbed as purastc rather
than partcuarstc. It can best be summarzed n terms of the way
n whch t was constructed. Murray brought together a arge num-
ber of dfferent psychoogsts wth dfferent theoretca orenta-
tons and had them work together for a perod of two or three
years on the probem of constructng a conceptua scheme for per-
sonaty whch woud succeed n handng case study materas co-
ected on a group of ndvduas who were studed ntensvey
over ths perod. In other words, Murray was the frst person hs-
torcay to make a ma|or effort .to- conceptuase
concrete nor|naM|d|y1 ua||Mfc|r1| | ts r|rhnpss and var|pry (cf.
aso Poansky, 1941). The psychoanaysts who had made somewhat
smar attempts had aways been guded by the desre to fnd out
what was wrong wth the person so that they coud cure hm. Con-
sequenty the personaty pctures whch they drew were warped
to some e tent by ther purpose. Psychoanaytc case studes tend
405
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
to be one-sded and to emphasze the maad|ustments of the nd-
vdua rather than the areas of norma functonng because t s
the probem areas of personaty wth whch psychatrsts are chefy
concerned. Murray at east faced the probem as we have defned
t here namey, the probem of tryng to gve an adequate con-
ceptua pcture of the tota personaty. In order to do ths he drew
on the contrbutons of as many dfferent schoos as he coud. hat
he was tryng to do and how he went about dong t are both m-
portant n understandng the resuts whch he obtaned.
0n the motvatona sde he ended up wth a rather e tensve
st of concrete needs drawn n part from the dfferent backgrounds
of the psychoogsts cooperatng wth hm. These needs have the
advantage over the partcuarstc ones of port or ewn of beng
generay appcabe to more than one fe or one stuaton. They
are concrete, e tensvey defned, and taken together to provde
a compete motvatona system for summarzng the dynamc as-
pect of personaty. ut they have the dsadvantage of beng so
heterogeneous that t s dffcut to ft them nto a system. They
suffer from the defects of any partcuarstc scheme n appearng
|to be a coecton of need names wrch are not reated to one an-
other n any way and whch seem so e tensve |1s_to be scarcey
more economca than the orgrnaTT|e aypr, they, are supposed to
represent. _.
Murray recognzes ths probem n part and attempts to reate
hs needs to each other frst by a genera defnton and then by
statng the genera ams whch groups of them are supposed to
serve. s genera defnton s as foows: need s a construct
(convenent fcton or hypothetca concept) _whch sta.nds for a
force (the physco-chemca nature__pf_w1ch |s unknown) n the
bran regon, a force whch organzes percepton, appercepton,
nteecton conaton, and acton n such a way as to transform
1r a certan rprt|pn an pvkng, 11p tfefy|n| gtuatnn. (193 , p.
124.) e then goes on to state that the e stence of a need can be
nferred from the drecton n whch the unsatsfyng stuaton s
transformed, from the typca behavora trend or typca mode
of respondng, or from the manfestaton of satsfacton wth the
achevement of a certan effect. ut ths rases some dffcutes
that he never fuy resoves. re needs to be thought of prmary
n terms of the characterstc mode of response used to gratfy
them or n terms of the nferred goa of behavor of any sort Mur-
406
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ray states ater that an operatona defnton of a need n terms
of actones s out of the queston (193 , p. 244), but n practce
hs need defntons often ean heavy on such characterstc actones.
s Murray woud be the frst to pont out, a person may show
| abasve, affatve, or achevant behavora trends, a n an at-
f tempt to satsfy hs n chevement, conceved as the need for cer-
tan goa satsfactons (however vague). That s, an outsde observer
ookng at hs behavor coud nfer that he has abased hmsef, or
aed hmsef wth some superor person wth the goa of gettng
ahead n the word. though he has shown abasve rather than
achevant atttudes and behavora trends, t woud be a mstake
to nfer that he therefore shows n basement. It woud smpfy
matters f Murray s needs were conceved aways n terms of the
nferred goas of behavor rather than n terms of the behavora
trends usuay characterzng the means of attanng them. In ths
way they woud fuf the purpose of the motve concept n psy-
choogca theory more cosey whch, as we defned t at the be-
gnnng of the chapter, s to group together a varety of dfferent
behavora trends around a common cause or a comon goa. To
put the matter n terms of our approach to theory, Murray s need
concept shoud be purfed of ts trat (consstent behavor) con-
notatons |ust as port s trat concept shoud be ceared of ts
dynamc connotatons.
Murray has mposed on hs ndvdua needs an overarchng goa
system whch serves n part to meet the ob|ectons that hs needs
are not suffcenty reated and not suffcenty goa-orented. Tabe
11.1 cassfes some of hs twenty or more dfferent manfest needs
under the four genera status ams he says they may serve (193 ,
p. 150). Curousy enough the breakdown he makes here s very
smar to the one made n Tabe 10.2, n whch we consdered
the knds of probems the nfant s confronted wth n socazaton.
Thus to defend status defnes probems of protecton to rase
status nvoves probems of mastery to ay wth others sug-
gests probems of affecton and to re|ect or attack hoste ob|ects
s at east tangentay reated to probems of contro or earnng
about reactons to frustraton. Such an anaogy suggests the basc
ams, or strateges of the organsm can be reduced to a mted num-
ber wth consderabe agreement on a sdes. Unfortunatey the
more mportant probem of reatng these ams n a systematc way
to operatons for measurng them st remans.
407
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 11.1
Cassfcaton of Murray s Needs n Terms of ppro mate Status ms
Status ams Peated needs
1. To rase status n chevement
n Domnance
n hbton
2. To defend status n utonomy
n Counteracton
n armavodace
n Defendance
3. To ay wth others for mutua protecton n basement
n ffaton
n Nurturance
4. To re|ect or attack hoste ob|ects n ggresson
n Pe|ecton
Murray attacked ths probem wth characterstc vgor by re-
atng each of the genera ams to a seres of sub-needs as sted on
the rght-hand sde of Tabe 11.1 and by specfyng a great varety
of ways of measurng each sub-need. Two dffcutes emerged n
the process. rst, the genera cassfcaton of status ams was ost
sght of n the anayss of the need structure of an ndvdua case,
and remaned therefore a theoretca order added to a basc heter-
ogenety wthout producng any rea ntegraton. ere, as esewhere
n Murray s book, the souton to the dfferent vewponts hed by
hs contrbutors seems to have been compromse and addton rather
than smpfcaton and ntegraton. The second dffcuty ay n
the sheer mutpcty of the operatons sted for measurng a gven
need. uture research workers n the fed of personaty w doubt-
ess fnd the rchness of deta wth whch he worked at ths probem
e tremey usefu. Cncans have certany been provded by t wth
the ony motvatona vocabuary whch competes at a wth the
psychoanaytc one. ut as a practca method of measurement Mur-
ray s system fas of ts own weght. The ony way to take nto
account a the manfestatons of a need for a gven ndvdua s
to wegh and synthesze them n an essentay ntutve fashon to
arrve at a fna |udgment e pressed as a ratng. Tabe 11.2 sug-
gests the dffcuty and subtety of ths process by stng part of
the defnng operatons for a snge need n hs system. person
who has famarzed hmsef wth these need e pressons (and those
40
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 11.2
n Domnance (n Dom) s Descrbed n Murray s
poratons n Personaty
Desres and ffects: To contro one s human envronment. To nfuence or
drect the behavor of 0s by suggeston, seducton, persuason, or com-
mand. To dssuade, restran, or prohbt. To nduce an 0 to act n a
way whch accords wth one s sentments and needs. To get 0s to co-
operate. To convnce an 0 of the rghtness of one s opnon.
eengs and motons: Confdence.
Trat-names and tttudes: Domnatve, forcefu, masterfu, assertve, de-
csve, authortatve, e ecutve, dscpnary.
Press: nfraDom: Inferor 0s p Deference: Compance p basement.
supraDom: Superor 0s p Domnance p Pva.
Gratutes: Chdren, servants, dscpes, foowers.
ctons: Genera: To nfuence, sway, ead, preva upon, persuade, drect,
reguate, organze, gude, govern, supervse. To master, contro, rue,
overrde, dctate terms. To |udge, make aws, set standards, ay down
prncpes of conduct, gve a decson, sette an argument. To prohbt,
restran, oppose, dssuade, punsh, confne, mprson. To magnetze, gan
a hearng, be stened to, be mtated, be foowed, set the fashon. To be
an e empar.
Motones: To beckon, pont, push, pu, carry, confne.
erbones: Commands: Come here Stop that urry up Get out, etc.
Mesmerc nfuence: To hypnotze.
dea Domnance: To estabsh potca, aesthetc, scentfc, mora, or re-
gous prncpes. To have one s deas preva. To nfuence the cmate
of opnon. To argue for one cause aganst another.
soco Domnance: To govern a soca nsttuton.
usons: The commonest fuson s wth n gg ( utocratc power).
Coercon: To force an 0 (by threats) to do somethng, etc.
Statements n uestonnare
1. I en|oy organzng or drectng the actvtes of a group team, cub,
or commttee.
2. I argue wth zest for my pont of vew aganst others.
3. I fnd t rather easy to ead a group of boys and mantan dscpne.
4. I usuay nfuence others more than they nfuence me, etc.
(Peproduced by permsson from . . Murray, poratons n Personaty.
Copyrght, 193 , 0 ford Unversty Press.)
of the twenty to thrty other needs n the system) can doubtess
produce a ratng of the strength of varous needs and a pcture of
ther varous fusons and nterreatons whch w correate fary
409
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
hghy wth the |udgments of another person smary traned (cf.
Murray, 193 ), but the fact remans that the whoe procedure n-
voves a refnement of essentay cnca methods of anayss rather
than a contrbuton to personaty theory. s we ponted out n
our dscusson of ratngs (Chapter 6), theory s not key to ad-
vance so ong as measurements are made n terms of |udgments
based on partay unknown (or unreportabe) behavors n a var-
ety of unknown crcumstances on the bass of an unknown process
of weghng and syntheszng. The ne t step theoretcay s to
transate Murray s hghy suggestve descrptons nto a varety of
measures of motvaton whch can be systematcay studed n con-
troed stuatons and reated to each other n ceary understood
ways.
The erarchy of Motves. Masow (1943a, 194 ) has ntegrated
most of the approaches to motvaton so far dscussed nto an over-
a scheme whch s organzed accordng to a herarchca prn-
. cpe of reatve prepotency. e argues that the physoogca
/ tensons, for nstance, are prepotent unt they are satsfed, at
whch pont other motves take over:
It s qute true that man ves by bread aone when there s no bread.
ut what happens to man s desres when there s penty of bread, and when
hs bey s chroncay fed t once other (and hgher ) needs emerge
and these, rather than physoogca hungers, domnate the organsm. nd
when these n turn are satsfed new (and st hgher ) needs emerge and
soon. (1943a, p. 375.)
s st of needs n order of basc mportance to the organsm s
as foows:
1. Physoogca needs
2. Safety needs
3. ove and beongng needs
4. steem needs (needs for achevement and recognton)
5. Sef-actuazaton need
6. The desres to know and understand
Most of these needs have prevousy been emphaszed by one wrter
or another the physoogca tensons by boogsts safety by or-
ney, Suvan, et a. ove and beongng by the psychoanaysts (a-
though ove s not synonymous wth se ether for them or for
Masow) esteem by der and sef-actuazaton by Godsten,
Pogers, et a. Masow s uncertan as to where hs cogntve needs
410
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ft nto the structure, but he fees certan that they e st perhaps
as a functon of ntegence and of gratfcaton fary hgh-up
the scae of ower-order needs. hat he has done s to pace the
varous emphases of other theorsts n an order of mportance
I such that ower needs must be gratfed before hgher ones can
functon adequatey. e ustrates the pont by a fabe:
et us say that has ved severa weeks n a dangerous |unge, n whch
he has managed to stay ave by fndng occasona food and water. not
ony stays ave but aso has a rfe and a hdden cave wth a cosabe en-
trance. C has a these and has two more men wth hm as we. D has the
food, the gun, the aes, the cave, and, n addton, has wth hm hs best
oved frend. nay, , n the same |unge, has a of these, and n add-
ton s a we-respected eader of hs band. or the sake of brevty we may
ca these men respectvey the merey survvng, the safe, the beongng, the
oved, and the respected. (194 , p. 409.)
e then goes on to state: ut ths s not ony a seres of ncreas-
I ng need-gratfcatons t s as we a seres of ncreasng degrees
of psychoogca heath. _|n short, hs_herarchy s a means of de-
f1nng psychoogca ad|ustment and the rondtom nprpssary for
creatvty and happ|ness. s such t s a somewhat unque departure
from psychopathoogca theores of motvaton whch have stressed
the tensona, need characterstcs of motvaton. hatever ts short-
comngs, hs scheme certany has the vrtue of stressng the m-
portance of studes of the consequences of need-gratfcaton to
suppement our studes of need-frustraton. ke so many other of
the motvatona schemes we have dscussed, ts worth w aso f-
nay depend on the evdence whch s brought n by such e -
permenta studes.
Cnca Measures of Motvaton. ow does the cncan arrve
at hs nferences about motvaton e have seen n a genera way
how reud proceeded to anayze a memory apse by askng for free
assocatons from the sub|ect. In the ast chapter we ustrated how
ar s magnatve productons coud be used to make nferences
about certan basc affectve assocatons ad down n chdhood.
e have aso made some guesses as to the meanng of hs presou-
ton responses to the stmuus word success n a tachstoscopc
recognton test. Is there any method n a ths madness ow
does the cncan arrve at hs hypotheses, hs dynamc nterpre-
tatons, hs wd guesses or whatever you want to ca them
411
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
urthermore, how does he go about fndng out whether hs guesses
are rght
To begn wth, most cncans have found that fantastc matera
,s the best huntng ground for motvatona anayses. reud got hs
start n anayzng free assocatons and dreams he then went on
to appy smar methods of nterpretaton to other such unreastc
or odd behavor as sps of the tongue, memory osses, parapra es,
etc. Murray, who has been perhaps the most nfuenta e ponent of
motvatona anayss n merca, has had hs greatest success n
anayzng controed daydreams or magnatve productons pro-
duced for hs Thematc ppercepton Test. The reason for the ap-
parenty unque vaue of magnatve matera for dynamc anayss
probaby es n the fact that fantasy s by defnton ess nfuenced
by the autochthonous, cuture-pattern varabes that produce sche-
mata and ess nfuenced aso by the past earned responses (trats)
of the sub|ects. e w return to ths probem n Chapter 15. or
the moment we w have to accept t as a hstorca fact, at any
rate, that fantastc matera ends tsef most ready to anayss
n motvatona terms.
Not a fantasy matera s fantastc (n the sense of unrea ).
ven wthn a myth or magnatve story or dream there are rea
and unrea eements. et us take the foowng myth, whch s a
condensaton of a Navaho tae, as an e ampe.
bstract by atherne Spencer of The Strcken Twns ( . Matthews,
The Nght Chant, 1902, pp. 212-65).
poor famy, consstng of a woman, her mother, her husband and
ther son and daughter, ve n Canyon de Chey. They do not have corn
nor sheep but ve on wood rats, seeds and wd fruts. The adoescent
daughter hears a strange voce whe gatherng yucca aone her famy
pays no attenton to her tae. The hearng of voces s repeated four tmes,
and on the fourth day astse Yat appears and asks her n marrage. The
gr s shy n hs presence and does not answer hs questons unt the fourth
repetton. She fears to ask permsson of her famy because he s too fne
a man. hen he proposes marrage n secret, she s afrad of not beng
abe to keep the secret. fter the fourth repetton of hs request, she agrees.
They meet on each of four successve days and not agan. She s remorsefu
and fears to face her parents est they earn her secret and k her. hen
four months ater she fees motons wthn her, she st does not tak to
her famy twn boys are born at the end of nne months. er famy asks
whether ths happened when she heard voces. She protests that she doesn t
know who the father s, that t must have happened n her seep. er
brother takes her sde sayng that she knows no more than she tes, that
412
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
perhaps the hoy ones are responsbe and that n any case t s good to
have ther number ncreased.
s the twns grow to boyhood, they wander often from home and ther
famy has dffcuty keepng track of them. hen about nne years od,
they eave home and ther tracks end mysterousy. The possbty of ther
knshp to the hoy ones s remembered and ther mother thnks they may
have gone n search of ther father. fter fve days, the twns reappear the
eder s bnd and carres the younger who s ame. They te ther story-
how they wandered a short way and rested n a rock sheter how ts roof
cosed over and trapped them how they were fnay et out by the Squeak-
ng God ony to fnd themseves thus mamed.
The frst part of the story deang wth the famy and ts vng
arrangements s reastc and may be taken to refect the way n
whch the Navaho ve n famy unts and usuay rase corn or
sheep for a vng. ut then we are tod of a daughter who has
ntercourse wth a God or sprt n secret n a way whch sug-
gests the rgn rth story. hat are we to make of ths
hy shoud she fear teng her famy f he s too fne a man
hy shoud they k her f they earn her secret hy does she
gve brth to twns . hy are the twns n|ured n ths partcuar,
totay unrea way of a cave cosng over them these and many
other questons arse n the course of readng ths story. They arse
chefy over portons of the matera whch do not make sense,
whch are not ogca, ratona, or consstent wth what one woud
e pect on the bass of the norma, cuturay-patterned representa-
ton of the word and what happens n t.
s a frst step n motvatona anayss then, the cncan usuay
soates or dscovers certan unusua, unrea, or fantastc behav-
ora eements. avng soated them he has severa choces of
how to go about dscoverng what they mean.
1. ree assocaton. In psychoanayss, partcuary n ts eary
years, the method of choce was to ask the patent to free assocate
around the ne pcabe occurrence unt an e panaton popped
up, |ust as n the case of the man who had forgotten the word
aqus. There are two ob|ectons to ths method, one theoretca,
the other practca. 0n theoretca grounds, t s hard to know
whether or not the souton found by the patent s suggested by
the anayst. ho s to say when the patent shoud stop free as-
socatng Shoud he stop ony when he fnds an nterpretaton
that suts the anayst or hmsef hat crtera of sutabty are
there 0n practca grounds free assocaton s tme-consumng and
413
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
often not practcabe for studyng norma peope or ther magna-
tve products, especay when they are not around (as n the myth
above). he free assocaton w contnue to have suggestve vaue
n cnca stuatons, t has come to be suppemented frequenty
by other methods.
2. mpathy and recpathy. Murray has perhaps been more d-
recty concerned wth the probem of dagnoss of motvaton than
any other person. e begns by re|ectng two obvous approaches
namey, tryng to nfer what a person s tryng to do -from the trend
of hs behavor or smpy askng hm, hat are you tryng to
do (193 , p. 245.) Instead he recommends what he cas an
essentay ntutve process. y ths he does not mean_ uI r
controed, free-foatng ntuton, but crtca empa-thy and
recpathy. y empathy he means essentay feeng wth the
person whose behavor s to be nterpreted, puttng, onesef n
the pace of another (193 , p. 247). s the myth unfods (for e -
ampe) we fee somethng and we magne that the other person
|teng the myth or story| fees the same. Pecpathy s the com-
pement of empathy. The sets hmsef opposte to, rather than
fowng wth, the sub|ect s movements and words, and becomng
as open and senstve as possbe, fees how the sub|ect s affectng
hm (the ). . . . f he fees that he s beng swayed to do some-
thng, he magnes Domnance f he fees an ous or rrtated, he
nfers ggresson, and so forth. (193 , p. 24 .)
ow woud these processes be a hep wth our Navaho myth
Suppose we dentfy for a moment wth the god astse Yat n
the story. Does t make us fee that he has payed a trck on the
gr She s shy and mpressed by hm and he wns her over n
secret despte her nta fears. e has trcked her famy and as
further proof of hs potency produces twns. _ rom the gr s vew-
pont we mght fee by recpathy that here was a powerfu beng
and she s so much n hs power that she submts even though she
fears that her famy w k her f they fnd out. rom a of ths
we mght form the hypothess on the bass of empathy and rec-
pathy that the mae Navahos who te ths story are fufng n
ths porton of t a smpe desre to appear powerfu over women
and that they have doubts about ths potency ordnary or they
woud not need to e press t n so dsgused and eaborate a man-
ner. Such an nterpretaton gans added support from knowedge
that n rea fe parents woud be hghy unkey to k or even
dsapprove a gr for wantng to marry too fne a man. t the
. 414 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
M0TI TI0N: C INIC , PPP0 C
manfest eve the gr s desre to keep the affar a secret doesn t
make sense f we assume that the purpose of the secrecy s to.
gratfy the storyteer s wsh to appear powerfu, then t does make
motvatona sense.
3. Symbosm. Psychoanaysts, though they aso use empathy n
a ess e pct way than Murray suggests, are more apt to make
motvatona nferences n terms of symbos or body anguage,
as we have aready seen. Thus n the ne t porton of our Navaho
myth the twn boys are caught n a cave (caustra symbo) whch
coses down on them and mams them n a way whch obvousy
woud suggest to the psychoanayst castraton by the femae. In
fact, the n|ures of the boys are n the cassca tradton: one has a
mutated eg (pens), the other s bnded (symbozng n|ury to
the scrotum). In these terms the dynamc content of the story s
that man ( astse Yat represented by hs sons) s punshed by
woman for hs se ua conquest over her. The mtatons of ths
type of symboc nterpretaton have aready been dscussed: the
pont here s smpy to ustrate how the cncan goes about hs
|ob of formng hypotheses about the motvatona content of fan-
tasy matera from transatng events nto body anguage.
4. ogca nference. Tomkns (1947) has not been satsfed wth
these more ntutve approaches and has attempted nstead to use
more tradtona methods of drawng ogca nferences from mag-
natve matera. Specfcay he appes |ohn Stuart M s canons of
ogc to hs data. The best way to ustrate how ths approach works
s to quote one of hs own e ampes:
. Method of dfference.
Consder now the reatonshp between these stores.
1. Ths s someone who has |ust ost a person very dear to hm. e s n
the depths of despar. fe has ost a ts meanng for hm and he doesn t
want to go on vng. ut then he meets a woman who understands the
way he fees and graduay he forgets hs sorrow and he fnds agan that
there s meanng n fe.
2. Ths s the pcture of a man who s mournng someone who was very
cose to hm. Nothng seems to matter very much to hm snce her death.
e sees no more pont n vng. Death comes as a wecome reef from hs
msery.
The reatonshp between these stores ustrates M s method of dffer-
ence. If an nstance n whch the phenomenon under nvestgaton occurs,
and an nstance n whch t does not occur, have every crcumstance n com-
mon, save one, that one occurrng ony n the former, the crcumstance n
415
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
whch aone the two nstances dffer s the effect or cause or an ndspensa-
be part of the cause of the phenomenon. Thus n 1 and 2, there s the
oss of a ove ob|ect, and a consequent depresson. ut n 1 there s the
nterventon of a new ove ob|ect who understands hm and the outcome
s regeneraton. In 2, there s no new ove ob|ect, and the outcome s a
contnuaton of the depresson to ts end n death. Thus we may say that
recovery from depresson s the effect of the nterventon of another ove
ob|ect.
(Peproduced by permsson from S. S. Tomkns, The Thematc ppercep-
ton Test. Copyrght 1947, Grune and Stratton.)
In motvatona terms, we coud nfer from ths anayss that the
sub|ect has a need for a woman s ove. Tomkns ustrates M s
other canons (methods of agreement, concomtant varaton, agree-
ment and dfference, etc.) n smar fashon. s approach s un-
doubtedy used by many cncans. Thus n nterpretng ar s
T T stores we w fnd that so ong as women go on ovng men
no matter how the men transgress, they w come out a rght n
the end. ut n the one story n whch a woman (a sster) turns
aganst a man, she s sorry the rest of her fe. ere we woud be
tempted to nfer that ar has so strong a need for nurturance, ove,
and support from women that any thought of ther turnng aganst
a man must be punshed. ut there are dffcutes wth ths ap-
proach too. It s dffcut, for one thng, to fnd nstances whch
have every crcumstance n common, save one or meet other such
requrements of M s canons. or another, the average depth
psychoogst woud fee that ths approach, s too forma and super-
fca by tsef and woud not get as ready at conceaed motva-
ton as the other technques aready dscussed.
There are many psychoogsts who regard any of the approaches
outned as eadng essentay to nonsense or at the most to an
eaborate mythoogy that psychoanaysts and others have but up
unt they have become vctms of t. Such a vew s party cor-
rect. Certany there has been far too much unnhbted enthusasm
for the knd of specuatve motvatona anayss |ust ustrated.
ut a sharp dstncton must be made between formng qr enter-
tanng a motvatona hypothgss|md acceptng t as proven. The
methods descrbed dea wth how motvatona hypotheses are gen-
erated, not wth how they are proved or dsproved. Ths s an m-
portant dfference whch s far too often overooked. Many cn-
cans are so mpressed wth ther abty to make any knd of sense
416
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
| out of fantastc events that they tend to beeve whatever sense they
fnd, wthout further attempts to check t. permentasts on the
other hand are so orented around checkng hypotheses that they
often seem ncapabe of generatng any good ones. oth approaches
are needed.
ut |1ow an|notvatona hypotheses of the sort we have been de-
scrbng be checked Personaty psychoogsts have tended to be
(most mpressed by confrmaton of a hypothess by another n-
|erpreter workng ndependenty ether wth the same or a dfferent
set of facts (cf. port, 1942 a, 1947). he agreement of two
|udges workng ndependenty on the same data has some check-
ng vaue, we are apt to be more mpressed when confrmaton of
a hypothess comes from a totay new and prevousy unknown
source of nformaton. Thus, for nstance, we may fee more secure
1 n our nterpretaton of the Navaho myth when we fnd that Nav-
aho men are dsadvantaged wth respect to Navaho women accord-
ng to the way the soca structure s organzed and that they ose
more decsons to ther wves when dsagreements arse (Strodt-
beck, 1950). These (and other data too detaed to dscuss here)
support our nterpretaton of the Navaho myth that men fee a
need for ncreased power over women and that they fear the con-
sequences of such mpuses toward sef-asserton.
he agreement among dfferent nterpretatons does add to
the probabty that a hypothess s correct, t s by no means foo-
proof. fter a, a great many wse peope agreed for a ong tme
that the earth was fat. The fact of the matter s that hypotheses
about motvaton such as we have been dscussng can and shoud
be checked n e acty the same way as any other hypothess s
checked n scence. The requrements are that the hypothess and
the events to whch t s supposed to appy be stated as e pcty
and ceary as possbe and that t then be checked by an appea
to a the reevant facts. These two smpe crtera are sedom met
n dynamc anayses. 0ften the nterpretaton s so tortuous that t
s mpossbe to dscover to what events t s supposed to appy
thus any possby negatve fndng may be dsmssed on the grounds
that the fact n queston was not reay reevant to the motve pre-
vousy nferred. 0r not a the facts are e amned: t s easy to
fnd facts that w ustrate a hypothess. hat about the. ones
that are overooked or e ampe, we have not as yet e paned n
our Navaho myth why the brother took hs sster s sde when her
truancy was dscovered. To avod seectve use of facts, t s often
417
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
desrabe frst to st the facts to be e paned, so that none may be
dsregarded n the effort after an nterpretaton. 0r an nterpre-
taton may be worked out on part of the facts and used to predct
(or postdct) what woud happen n other cases. usefu ustra-
ton of the mportance of consderng a the facts s provded by
P. . hte s vaue anayss of Pchard rght s autobography,
ack oy (1947). hte frst read the document carefuy as a
cncan woud and made an ntutve motvatona anayss of ts
contents. Then he deveoped a carefu scorng system for cassfy-
ng dynamc content whch he apped to the whoe book. hen
he compared the resuts of the quanttatve approach to the ntutve
one, he found that they agreed n most respects, but that ntu-
tvey he had greaty underestmated the mportance of Physca
Safety as a vaue to Pchard rght. In short, a carefu e amna-
ton of a the facts ed hm to modfy hs anayss of rght s
motvatona structure.
ar s Motves. Iff practce the cnca psychoogst s thoroughy

dynamc. No matter what hs theoretca or methodoogca or-
entaton may be, n terms of any of the approaches |ust descrbed,
the average cncan constanty nterprets test data and patents
actons n motvatona terms. Much of the nterpretaton appears
to the average theoretcay mnded psychoogst as hghy specu-
atve, but we woud fa to touch on an mportant, f unsystematc,
body of emprca data f we were to eave the cnca approach
wthout at east attemptng to gve the favor of a dynamc nter-
pretaton of a partcuar person. In dong so we w not be abe
to appy the carefu methodoogca checks |ust suggested, but we
w be abe to show more fuy how motvatona hypotheses are
generated and may be eaborated nto an over-a pcture of a
person s motvatona structure. thout further apoogy then et
us take our case, ar, and attempt to anayze hs motves, more
or ess as a cncan woud.
To begn wth, et us turn to the knd of data whch has most
often and most easy been nterpreted n dynamc terms to hs
fantasy productons. Murray s Thematc ppercepton Test, to the
e tent that t has tended to ect fantasy or daydreams n a seres
of standardzed stuatons, has moved a step beyond reud s dream
anayss methodoogcay, but ts nterpretaton foows the same
prncpes that reud frst apped wth such success. e have a-
41
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ready seen n the prevous chapter how ar s T T strongy sug-
gested the presence of the foowng 1hema (from Tabe 10. ):
Pe|ecton n ggresson _ Confct _ frequent
(Deserton) __ n ffaton n ety pro|ected aggresson
CD
or smpcty s sake et us refer to ths as the Deserton- ggres-
son thema. It appears n story 3, n whch an orphaned gr s
taken advantage of by a predatory mae n story 10, n whch a
young man who s deserted by hs wfe commts sucde but most
vvdy of a n story 13, whch s reproduced n fu beow:
. young man wth hs head bured on hs arm, a woman yng on
a bed behnd hm.
( ere s a good one.) That s a good one. Ths man has aways been a
strong character, (pause) The gr n the pcture s hs daughter. She 1as
|ust ded. Despte the fact that ths man s a strong character, he has been
sensuay attracted to hs daughter. Nevertheess, he does ove her deary
nasmuch as she s the mage of her mother, who had deserted hm years
before. They have ved aone together for years. s oneness, perhaps,
and hs ove for hs wfe, ed hm to have ntercourse wth hs daughter.
She not beng aware of the ncestuous sprt nvoved, was nevertheess
wng and so t contnued for a tme wth the man sufferng from perods
of remorse, but nevertheess, attemptng to |ustfy hs acton, and now hs
daughter had faen sck and she had ded. e s crushed and broken, that
she s gone, because he had oved her deary. owever, because of hs burn-
ng passonate desre, he has drawn down the covers from her naked body
. . . (pause) Ths has upset hm consderaby. e reazes the shame of hs
deed, hs past performances. s fe w never be a happy one because he
w be haunted by these ghosts of the past, of hs wfe s deserton and of
hs betraya of hs daughter s purty.
the eements of the thema are here: ( ) The man s deserted
by hs wfe and n hs oneness ( ) he seduces and betrays hs
daughter (fuson of aggresson wth desre for ove) (C) he s over-
come by remorse (gut and an ety) and (D) she des because of
ness (aggresson pro|ected nto an mpersona agent). The fuson
of se and aggresson s partcuary vvd n the man s burnng
passonate desre for a dead body.
In fact, t s so vvd that t suggests we ook further for ths
partcuar type of acton by men n ar s stores. It occurs n fact
fary frequenty. oth stores 3 and 4 dea wth predatory maes
who seduce and then toss asde nnocent, ovng women. Ths gves
us more nformaton about ar s deserton-aggresson thema by
419
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
suggestng that the source of deserton s a woman (see story 13)
and that the need for ove and aggresson are consequenty amed
at her. Snce these two ams are somewhat contradctory, they are
fused here n a knd of sadstc se uaty whch permts parta
gratfcaton of both needs and, curousy enough, has no effects
for the woman, though t does for the man (n story 4). The re-
acton of the women to the bad, predatory men n these stores
(3, 4, 5, and 6) s nterestng and umnatng. In stores 3 and
4 they go on ovng, n smpe nnocence, and manage to come
out of ther e perences wser and braver for them. In story 5, how-
ever, when the woman, here a sster, turns aganst her brother for
wrongdong, he des and she s forever after tortured by remorse.
The mora seems to be that women must go on ovng, no matter
what men do. If they do, they w be rewarded f they do not,
they w be punshed. nay n ths seres comes story 6, whch
contans two women: a mother who s tryng to hod her awyer-
son to hs hgh deas and a wfe who s urgng hm to et her
bad brother off. If we assume, as s often the case wth stores of
ths sort, that the mae character has spt here nto ts bad (d)
and good (super-ego) aspects, then the story makes good sense
n terms of what has gone before. The bad sde of man w be
et off from hs crmes by the nterventon of a ovng woman
(here hs sster, cf. story 5), but the good sde whch s hs con-
scence, nherted from and supported by hs mother, w contnue
to suffer gut ong afterward. ere t s apparent that the femae
mage has spt nto a ovng, forgvng nurturant aspect repre-
sented by a over (see aso stores 14 and 1 ), and a demandng
aspect represented by the mother. Through a of ths run three
basc deas: (1) Men betray women s ove and trust through acts of
decet, se uaty, aggresson, wrongdong, etc. (2) women, especay
overs, must forgve and nurture men (3) men must suffer gut for
ther wrongdong, especay f they are forgven (or get away wth t).
hat can be concuded from a ths about ar s motves rst
of a, t s cear that he has a strong fear of re|ecton couped wth
an ntense need for affaton and nurtnrance. or reasons whch
w become cearer n the ne t chapter we w adopt the practce
of speakng of fears (avodance motves) and needs (approach mo-
tves) separatey. In the present case the two are argey compe-
mentary but ths s not aways the case. so, ether the fear or the
wsh may be very much stronger than the other, even when they
are compementary. Secondy, probaby as a resut of the re|ecton-
420
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
aff1aton confct and subsequent nsecurty, ar has a strong n
ggresson couped wth an equay strong fear of e pressng hs
own ggresson (/ ggresson), whch resuts n (a) pro|ecton of
aggresson nto mpersona agents, (b) fuson of aggresson wth
se uaty (sadsm), or (c) ntrapuntveness (gut or aggresson
turned aganst the sef). urthermore, t s cear that these two
motve confcts are ntmatey ted up wth women as the man
goa ob|ects nvoved, and that he w be e tremey ambvaent
about women, both ovng and needng them on the one hand, and
hatng them (because they demand or desert) on the other.
In addton to the deserton-aggresson thema |ust dscussed,
there s another thema n ar s T T whch centers around un-
successfu achevement. In story 1, for nstance, there s a tre-
mendous achevement bud-up for the young boy: s father des
at the peak of hs fame, eaves hs od and vauabe von to hs
son: hs mother hopes he w pay t: a depends on, hm. nd
what happens e has tte taent he cannot pay very we and
gves t up for somethng ese. Stores 7 and contnue more or
ess the same theme. In story 7 a brant young boogst gves
up the great career e pected of hm as a scentst who s to foow
n the footsteps of hs professor, n order to go off and avenge
hs reatves death by conquerng dsease. In story the young
boy goes off to frca and attempts to foow n hs father s foot-
steps by becomng a bg-game hunter, but he too doesn t fuf
hs purpose and w probaby persh . . . ke a hothouse pant
beng e posed to an cy bast. Ths story s reproduced n fu be-
ow because of ts possbe nterpretaton as a typca 0edpus thema:
M. n adoescent boy wth a dm surgca operaton scene n the
background.
The young man s a cty boy . . . the ad s ... who s away at Prep
schoo. s hobby s huntng and the gun he sees beonged to hs father.
s father was a bg game hunter, e porer, traveer, but on one of hs
e pedtons n the wds of frca he was accdentay shot by one of hs
cohorts . . . coeagues. e was far from cvzaton ... an mmedate
operaton was necessary to save hs fe. 0ny a rst d kt beng avaabe
hs frends performed the crude operaton. It was unsuccessfu. The man
ded, but he eft suffcent fortune to take care of hs son. The boy s mother
s st vng, but hopes her son w not be a bg game hunter. ut the
boy dreams of foowng n hs father s footsteps and s pannng to go on
an e pedton as soon as he s abe. s mother w try to dssuade hm,
but to no ava. e w be a successfu hunter, but probaby w persh
421
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
n the |unge from some dread dsease, much ke a hot house pant beng
e posed to an cy bast.
In tradtona psychoanaytc terms ths story woud be nter-
preted as refectng an 0edpus confct, snce t has a the eements
of the cassca stuaton. The aggresson aganst the father s rep-
resented by hs father s beng ked n a huntng e pedton. s
desre to take hs father s pace s shown by hs attempt to take over
hs father s gun (pens symbo) and foow n hs footsteps n a
huntng e pedton (ntercourse symbo). The gut arsng from
these two motves and from hs own ove for hs father s us-
trated by hs own punshment and death for what he has done.
Partcuary sgnfcant s the statement that he w de ke a
hot house pant beng e posed to an cy bast because ths ap-
parenty refers to a form of se ua nhbton whch he practced
as a boy. The foowng remarks n hs autobography are ree-
vant: My perod of masturbaton was from about 12, eghth grade,
we nto hgh schoo. ... I was afrad of gettng caught. I was
tod t woud ead to nsanty. | so oder feows tod hm when
he thought about t to put a cod pack on hs head or stck t n
cod water aso to thnk of the cod arctc.|
To foow through on the 0edpa nterpretaton of these stores
we coud renterpret the father-daughter ncest story, reproduced
above, as a pro|ecton of hs own desres for hs mother and ther
dreadfu consequences. he such an nterpretaton may seem
appeang n ts smpcty, there are certan dffcutes n the way
of ts too ready acceptance, (1) hy shoud ar ove hs mother
hat evdence we have suggests that she dd not treat hm par-
tcuary we, certany not n a manner whch woud ready set
up such a strong affectona te as ths e panaton requres. Ths
queston may seem foosh to a psychoanayst who thnks n terms
of a bdo wth rather f ed ob|ect choces whch are not nfu-
enced by crcumstances, but t s not foosh to a earnng psycho-
ogst who regards affectve choce as a functon of prncpes whch
govern the formaton and strengthenng of any assocatona bonds.
(2) hy s ar so energetc and so ambtous 0n the surface at
east, as we have seen n prevous chapters, he wants very much to
get ahead n the word. It s possbe to e pan ths ambtousness
as am-nhbted strvng. That s, snce he s frustrated n hs desre
for hs mother by gut and an ety, the motvatona energy whch
woud normay fow n ths drecton becomes dverted to gettng
422
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ahead n the word. ut even ths ob|ectvey does not seem to cover
the facts very we because hs autobographca account of hs
se ua e perences does not ndcate undue an ety or nhbton
over se ua matters. 0n the contrary, n a of hs T T stores
and n a that he says about se , there seems to be tte evdence
of represson or an ety. Techncay at east, we woud not e -
pect hm to work so hard for a substtute goa (achevement) un-
ess the orgna am had been serousy nhbted by an ety. (3)
hy does hs motvatona pattern dffer from that of any other
son n the famy ar has two brothers and, athough we have
no data on ther ad|ustment to fe, hs descrpton of them n hs
autobography ndcates that ther motvatona pattern s dffer-
ent from hs own. Ths rases the probem of whether the 0edpus
compe , as t s usuay summarzed, s suffcenty specfc to gve
the unque varatons n motvatona patternng that occur from
one son to another. The scheme has the dsadvantage of beng so
genera and so unversa that t oses some vaue for the e pana-
ton of ndvdua dfferences n motvatona deveopment. (4) hy
does ar show such an e treme need for support and s ecurty
The anayss n terms of the 0edpus compe has tte to say on
ths pont, yet t s suffcenty cear from a that we know of ar
that one of the ma|or drvng forces n hs fe s hs ack of sef-
confdence and hs desre, not so much for se ua e perence wth
women, but for the support and nurturance that they can gve
hm. ny adequate motvatona anayss must cover ths pont.
ut perhaps the most mportant reason for not acceptng the
0edpus hypothess, at east n ts smpfed form, s that there are
other more compete ways of accountng for these same story ee-
ments. To carry the unsuccessfu achevement thema one step
further, for nstance, we fnd that ar hmsef gves reasons for
hs heroes nadequaces whch ft cosey wth other thngs we know
about hm. In story he stresses the mportance of beongng by
speakng of the mgrant workers as shftess feows who have
no future, no purpose, no destnaton. They are merey nonent-
tes n the scheme of soca progress. The theme s taken up agan
n story 14, whch tes of a boy wth wd achevement dreams who
s tryng to throw off the shackes of menta oppresson, and n
story 1 , whch ponts out that the key to the ock s the gr he
oves. In short, these stores seem to be pontng the mora that
ove s necessary for achevement. The reason why the boys n the
earer stores dd not succeed s that they dd not beong they
423
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
were orphans, or went aganst ther parents wshes, or dd not have
the strong nurturant ove that w make the future a brght one
ndeed. There s throughout ths thema a strong sense of the m-
portance of achevement combned wth a deep feeng of persona
nadequacy. rom the vewpont of the 0edpus thema the nade-
quacy must be attrbuted to competton wth the oved father for
the mother, a competton whch shoud produce strong gut fee-
ngs. rom the broader vewpont, whch s supported by ar s
own statements, the nadequacy s due to the feeng of deserton
and re|ecton, and can be remeded ony by strong nurturant ove.
The 0edpus compe s fe be enough to hande ths, of course,
by argung that the deserton feeng s tsef a resut of gut from
ncestuous desres for the mother, but n a way ths s the troube
wth the 0edpus thema: t s fe be enough to account for any-
thng, and for that reason t may be better to attempt to anayze
the motvatona forces nvoved wthout reference to t. If the
second e panaton s adopted, the overt and dsgused se ua con-
tent of these stores may be seen as a workng-through of the un-
successfu achevement or nadequacy-securty thema. In these
terms the possbe se ua connotatons of the death of a boy n
frca for foowng n hs father s footsteps means smpy that
se ua matera has been used to e press hs basc nadequacy.
Smary the father-daughter ncest story may be taken more at ts
face vaue as ndcatng the pecuar fuson of se and aggresson
that deserton eads to. In short, the ncest thema becomes manfest
content e pressng the fuson of two atent needs for aggresson and
for affaton. There seems no reason to assume that the se ua ma-
tera s aways prmary and everythng ese dervatve.
hat has our consderaton of the achevement-nadequacy
thema added to our concepton of ar s motves Two thngs: (1)
an awareness that achevement s a very strong motve for hm and
(2) that he regards achevement as mpossbe wthout ove and se-
curty. The frst pont estabshes the mportance of another motve
n addton to the ggressve and ffatve needs aready dscov-
ered, and the second pont begns to estabsh the herarchy of mo-
tves or ther nterconnectons.
There s one fna thema n ar s stores whch deserves menton.
It s ustrated frst n story 6, where the young awyer fnay dsre-
gards hs mother s advce, ets hs brother-n-aw off easy, and suffers
the tortures of conscence ever after. It crops up agan n story ,
where the son goes to frca aganst hs mother s wshes and des
. 424
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
once he gets there. The same dea s e pressed n story 10, where
the son marres aganst hs mother and father s wshes and s sub-
sequenty punshed n the form of deserton by hs wfe, and fnay
by death at hs own hand. In a these stores the consequence of ds-
obedence s sufferng. e can therefore nfer that ar shows sgns
of a need for basement, or conformty or obedence. he the ev-
dence for ths need s not as strong n the T T as for the needs
prevousy dscussed, there s penty of evdence from hs autobog-
raphy and behavor n hgh schoo that he was a we-behaved,
we-mannered boy who, by and arge, conformed to adut stand-
ards of good behavor. e know that great stress was paced on
obedence n hs authortaran famy and t s therefore no surprse
to fnd that n fantasy the consequences of dsobedence are serous,
even though conscousy he may no onger regard rebeousness as
much of a vce (cf. Chapter ). Ths suggests that we may be deang
here wth an avodance motve, wth a fear of dsobedence or dsap-
prova, rather than wth a postve need for basement. The ony
dffcuty s that such a need fuses ready wth ar s domnant need
for ffaton and becomes a strong need compe supportng an
e terna trat of conformty, at east so ong as ths trat w satsfy
such a fuson of needs. It then becomes hard to dstngush n base-
ment from f Dsapprova.
Can we summarze our cnca anayss of ar s motvatona
structure n any smpe manner The probem s a dffcut one, |ust
as t was when we attempted to schematze hs deatona structure n
Chapter , argey because we have no systematc methods for sovng
t, but Tabe 1 1.3 makes an attempt.
T 11.3
Man Sources and Interreatons of ar s Motvatona Structure
Chdhood ar s
earnng Parents
area behavor
ffecton- n ous
nurturance affecton
Motvatona structure
ggresson
f Pe|ecto n f ggresson
n ffaton
Contro utocratc
Mastery cceeratona- n chevement
. n basement
f aure (wthout ove)
425
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The tabe s arranged so as to suggest how motves derve argey
(but not entrey) from certan key soc1azaton e perences as ds-
cussed n the ast chapter. Snce the fu argument for ths reaton-
shp w not be made unt the foowng chapter, t w have to be
temporary accepted on fath here unt a frmer bass for t can be
estabshed ater. t any rate, whatever ts orgn, the core of ar s
motvatona structure seems to be fear fear of re|ecton n par-
tcuar. Ths motve s somehow connected wth hs achevement
strvngs, perhaps n accordance wth the demands of the cond-
tona ove formua: If I do we (or succeed), I w be oved.
Certany the obverse of ths formua s ceary present n ar s
thnkng: If I am not oved, I can t succeed. In ether case ar
s deepy concerned about achevement ether through the drect
stress paced on t by hs parents or because he perceves t as con-
nected wth the ove he needs so ntensey.
The other ma|or consequence of hs basc nsecurty (f Pe|ecton)
s the smutaneous arousa of n ffaton and n ggresson, whch
n turn ntate a centra motvatona confct over e pressng
ggresson (f ggresson). The reason for ths confct s the fear that
e pressng aggresson w ony serve to ncrease re|ecton, a fear
whch renforces n ggresson by addng to f Pe|ecton and thus
sets up a vcous crce. s the Porschach anayst puts t, vcous
cyce s demonstrated n that hostty gves rse to an ety, whch
further renforces and ntensfes hoste reactons. . . . The conse-
quences of ths ggresson- ffaton confct are: 1) strong motva-
tona support for the knd of abasement and conformty whch sup-
presses the dangerous aggresson by reacton formaton and 2) a gen-
era ncrease n over-a an ety eve or n the sum of hs avodance
motves whch requre defensve as opposed to constructve be-
havor (cf. Chapters 12 and 13) .The psychatrst,Dr. en|amn Smon
who ntervewed ar descrbes hs motvatona structure as foows:
go dea deveopment n ths man s e tremey dffuse, and uncrysta-
zed and has been shftng a good dea. The need for achevement at a
drect e presson s ow. There s no defnte pannng or organzaton of
hs future fe but beneath ths there s an e tremey powerfu drvng
force whch forces achevement at the present tme. There s a ack of goa
whch s adequatey submatory rather than a ack of drve. . . . Need for
ove and securty s e tremey ntense and s seen throughout n uncrysta-
zed form. The super ego at the norma e pressve eve appears to be
mnmay actve but s seen to be strongy present n the phobas whch
are protectng hm aganst hs hoste trends.
426
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
In short, the psychatrst confrms our anayss at many ponts and
n partcuar the concuson that hs motvatona system s fear-
rdden and hed together by avodance forces more than by postve
goas. or ths reason t w probaby show evdences of consderabe
nterna stran and stress and w not functon smoothy n an n-
tegrated fashon. e need therefore not be surprsed to fnd the
Porschach anayst statng that emotonay he s very abe and
that athough there s an attempt to e press mature, warm emo-
tons n nterpersona reatonshps, he s unabe to sustan ths.
est the nterconnectons traced n Tabe 11.3 seem too com-
petey dynamc and ndependent of e terna press, t shoud be
remembered that at many ponts there are reaty factors whch
support the motvatona structure. n adequate dscusson of the
reaton of motves to the rest of personaty (the deoogca sys-
tem, for nstance) w have to be postponed to Chapter 15, but
perhaps an ustraton whch aso confrms our anayss w serve
to remnd us of the nterreatons. e have argued that ar feared
to e press aggresson because of hs strong n ffaton, the am
of whch s opposed to n ggresson. ut there s aso a strong
reaty factor supportng hs f ggresson: he has a tremendousy
powerfu physque and has reason to fear the consequences (for
ffaton) of becomng aggressve. study by Stone (1950) has
shown that footba payers n genera show the same knd of pro-
|ecton n ther fantased aggresson as ar does: they tend to
pcture mpersona agents as kng peope. Stone s e panaton s
that they fear the re|ecton and dsapprova that mght come from
e pressng ther potentay dangerous hostty so much that they
pro|ect hoste mpuses away from themseves nto mpersona
forces. In short, t s not |ust because ar has a strong n ffa-
ton that he fears and pro|ects hs aggresson: he pro|ects t aso
because he has earned that for anyone so powerfu as he to e press
aggresson means n reaty an ncreased kehood of re|ecton.
0ur summary nterpretaton of ar s motvatona structure s
doubtess ncompete and certany dffcut to support on the bass
of ogca nferences from e permentay estabshed facts, but ts
purpose has been to show how cnca data are customary utzed
to arrve at a pcture of a person s motvatona structure. There
s obvousy much room for mprovement n ths type of anayss,
but we must frst understand the knd of data and hypotheses t
makes use of before turnng to an e permenta approach to mo-
tvaton n the ne t two chapters.
427
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
N0T S ND U PI S
1. It s possbe to generaze reud s tendency to dchotomze
human motvaton by cassfyng a needs as centerng around se-
curty or around sef-esteem (cf. Masow and Mttemann, 1941).
Ths partcuar breakdown has attracted a good many theorsts.
Thus romm (1941a) has spoken vvdy of the wsh to swaow
up whch suggests the actve, sadstc, masterfu, sef-esteem drves
and the wsh to be swaowed up whch suggests the passve,
masochstc, affatve, dependent, securty drves. hat advantages
has such a scheme Is there any boogca bass n prmtve peasure
and pan for such a breakdown oud hunger, for nstance, ead
nto the deveopment of actve or passve drves ow about con-
tact gratfcatons (from suckng, cuddng, etc.)
2. Do you fee that ar had been brought up on the condtona
ove formua so that he was nterested n achevement n order to
gan ove or do you thnk he deveoped a condtona acheve-
ment schema to the effect that he had to be oved n order to
acheve Is there any rea dfference between these two formua-
tons ow coud you set up a cruca test to determne whch s
the correct nterpretaton or do you thnk such a test aready e sts
n the data presented
3. Turn back to the Porschach nterpretaton of ar gven n
Chapter 5 and seect a the statements n t that have to do wth
hs motvaton (ts orgns, eements, or nterreatons). Compare
the resut wth the anayss of hs motvaton made n ths chapter
argey on the bass of the T T. Do they dsagree at any pont Do
you have any partcuar dffcutes n answerng ths queston
ow coud they be met n the future
4. C. S. a (1947), n dscussng the nterpretaton of dreams,
reports the foowng e ampe (tod by a femae coege student):
I dreamed ast nght I was n a tran staton wth my sster. e were
supposed to make a certan tran, but for some reason nether of us coud
fnd the rght track. It was most confusng and a that I can remember s
the two of us racng about tryng to fnd that tran n a arge depot that
had many tracks and entrances.
hat feeng do you get f you empathze wth the dreamer hat
motves are suggested by your anayss Check your nterpretaton
wth the one gven by a, whch s supported by other dreams n
the seres. Can the content of ths dream be transated nto body
42
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
1

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
anguage Does such a transaton add anythng to the meanng
of the dream
5. ardner (1945, p. 175) gves an e ampe of how he as a psy-
choanayst woud nterpret a seres of assocatons n dynamc terms.
They were gven by Mangma, an orese mae nformant, to the
ethnographer Cora Du os n the openng ntervew about hs
fe hstory and ran as foows:
(1) hunger (2) steang (3) mother gave me bad food, unrpe cassava,
and refused me good food resentment an earthquake occurred (4) I shoot
a dog the owner breaks my bows and arrows and beats me (5) mother
wants me to cut the feds, I refuse, she tes my hands up (6) I run away
from home (7) I begn gardenng on my own ( ) I won t et mother get
my harvest (9) he boasts of hs gardenng e pots (10) fghts wth hs
frends (11) fantasy about rasng brde prce (12) pantng a garden and
the father and mother eat t (13) s fasey accused of seepng wth a gr
by peope who want to get hs money and ths starts a fnanca war wth
the famy (14) I m cheated agan, etc. . . .
Try to nterpret ths seres of assocatons n dynamc terms, as-
sumng that the choce of epsodes (and partcuary ther sequence)
s determned by motvatona factors. hat woud you nfer hs
ma|or motves to be on the bass of ths matera Compare your
anayss wth ardner s (1945, pp. 175-177)-
6. Some psychoanaysts have been senstve to the crtcsms ad-
vanced prmary by anthropoogsts aganst the unversaty of
certan dynamcay mportant confcts and compe es. e ander,
for nstance, states,
Chdren who e ercse eary se ua freedom probaby have ess an ety
n connecton wth ther genta peasure sensatons than do chdren of our
estern cvzaton. 0n the other hand Starcke and I succeeded n demon-
stratng the eary boogca precursors of the castraton fear. e showed
that t s based on the repeated e perence of the emotona sequence:
peasure foowed by pan and frustraton. The castraton threat, customary
n the se uay repressed ctoran era, ony renforces the unversa emo-
tona atttude: to e pect pan and ev after peasure and gratfcaton.
( rom uckhohn and Murray, 194 , p. 332.)
hat do you thnk of ths way of mantanng the unversaty
of the castraton compe Do you thnk there s a unversa
tendency to e pect pan and ev after peasure and gratfcaton
oud t be possbe to dsprove such an asserton ow does e -
ander s defnton hande the two nstances of castraton fear ds-
429
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
cussed n ths chapter one n the Navaho myth of womb n|ury
and one n ar s story of the boy who got cut down ke a hot
house pant beng e posed to an cy bast Does the use of the
term castraton add to the understandng of the motvatona
confcts nvoved
430
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
12
Motvaton: permenta pproach
If the anese s kept busy and happy by a nameess,
shapeess fear, not ocated n space or tme, we mght
be kept on our toes by a nameess, shapeess, unocated
hope of enormous achevement.
GP G0PY T S0N, quoted n
uckhohn (1949, p. 227)
Snce e permentasts have been nterested n workng up from
smpe boogca motves, they have usuay worked wth anmas.
The e tent to whch ths s true s ustrated by Mer s recent
summary of the terature on earnabe drves and rewards for
the revsed edton of the andbook of permenta Psychoogy
(1950). In ths very compete and up-to-date survey of the e per-
menta terature on earned motves, there s scarcey a reference
to a study n whch human bengs were used as sub|ects. bno
rats were neary aways preferred. The reason for ths es n- two
basc assumptons: frst, that a motvaton, whether of rats or hu-
mans, begns n the form of smpe boogca tensons ke hunger
or thrst and second, that a the more compe motves are earned
on the bass of ther connecton wth these prmary boogca drves.
, Snce rats have the same tensons as do human bengs and snce
they apparenty earn n the same way, t becomes economca and
much smper to study the acquston of drves n rats or other
anmas. The arge number of studes that have been amed at
tryng to dscover how secondary, nonphysoogca drves are ac-
qured s ndcatve both of the mportance of the probem and of
the ack of progress that has been made to date. Most eementary
te ts are eoquent on the sub|ect of how a tenson ke hunger
serves to motvate an organsm, but, as students often compan,
they become vague and dscursve when attemptng to dscuss the
compe motves whch are obvousy of much more centra m-
portance n determnng the behavor of human aduts. The gap n
our knowedge woud be most strkngy reveaed f any cnca
psychoogst attempted to dea wth hs case matera n terms of
the smpe boogca tensons whch f the chapters on motva-
ton n e permentay-orented psychoogy te ts today.
avng franky faced the mtatons of our knowedge n ths
431
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
fed we can turn to a consderaton of the severa serous attempts
whch have been made to sove the probem of how secondary drves
are acqured. rst of a, et us ook at some typca resuts on teach-
ng anmas secondary drves. t the very smpest eve there s an
e perment ke the one performed by ugesk (193 ), who taught
rats to press a bar n a Sknner bo to get food. hen the bar was
pressed by the rat, t made a cck n droppng a food peet nto
the tray n front of hm. fter the bar-pressng habt had been
frmy estabshed by a number of rewards (or renforcements), the
food devery mechansm was ad|usted so that when the bar was
pressed no food was devered, but the cck contnued to sound.
Pats n whom the habt was e tngushed under these condtons kept
Dressng the bar onger than rats for whom both the cck and food de-
1 very were stopped at the same tme. Ths resut has been nterpreted
I by ugesk and u (1943) to mean that the cck had acqured sec-
|ondary renforcng power. That s, by assocaton wth the food
.reward, t had acqured the power to reward the bar-pressng re-
sponse by tsef and thus deay e tncton of that response as com-
pared wth a group whch was not gven such sub-goa renforcement.
Mer (1950) has argued that the rea test of the power of an
acqured renforcng agent s whether or not t can be used to
produce new earnng. So other e permenters have attempted to
get rats to earn a new habt n order to receve the stmuaton
from a formery neutra ob|ect whch has acqured secondary re-
ward vaue from pror assocaton wth a prmary reward ke
food. typca e perment of ths sort s reported by Satzmann
(1949). In one condton he had whte rats run down an aey to
get food n a very dstnctve goa bo . fter a number of ren
forcement tras whch were to gve the dstnctve goa bo reward-
vaue by assocaton wth prmary food reward, he paced the bo
at the end of a smpe U-type maze to see whether the rats woud
earn to make the correct choce to get nto the famar goa bo
even though t dd not contan food n the maze stuaton. e
found that the goa bo showed a rapd oss of renforcng prop-
ertes after contnuous renforcement n the runway tranng un-
ess he nterpoated renforcng tras on the runway durng the
maze earnng. In both hs e perment and n ugesk s, the ac-
qured rewardng power of the cues assocated wth prmary re-
ward was sght and transtory, and far from the strength whch
acqured rewards obvousy have n human bengs.
0ne e panaton for the characterstcay rapd oss of renforc-
432
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
M0TI TI0N: P PIM NT PPP0 C
ng power of secondary rewards has been that rats are not as capabe
of symboc functonng as are human bengs. Ths suggests a study
of acqured rewards n hgher anmas. ofe (1936) and Cowes
(1937) have both reported e tensve e perments n whch chm-
panzees were taught to assocate dscs wth food rewards (oranges or
bananas). Cowes found that chmpanzees ready performed work
to obtan dscs whch were mmedatey e changeabe for food
(1937, p. 93), that wth certan tranng, they consstenty worked
for groups of ten to thrty tokens before e change and that under
these condtons the tokens were adequate ncentves for the ac-
quston and retenton by these anmas of numerous habts com-
prsng the foowng types: smpe eft- or rght-poston habts,
compe fve-choce poston habts, vsua sze- and coor-pattern
dscrmnatons, and deayed response. ntre habts requrng up
to twenty tras, as certan poston, habts, may be competey
earned n one sesson wth food-tokens as the soe dfferenta re-
nforcng agent, pror to any recepton of food reward. (1937, p.
94.) In other words, t does seem to be true that chmpanzees, who
are capabe of greater symboc functonng than rats, can earn
to respond to acqured rewards n much the same way as human
bengs respond to an acqured reward ke money. Nevertheess,
there s st a consderabe dfference between the vaue of the
food-token to the chmpanzees, and the vaue of many secondary
rewards such as money, soca approva, affecton, and the ke to
human bengs. Cowes concudes, Comparsons of ther strengths
as ncentves for the acquston and retenton of responses showed
that the food-token was sghty ess effcacous than the drecty re-
ceved food and much more effcacous than the tokens whch yeded
no food upon e change. (1937, p. 94.) e found other evdence
that the secondary rewards were ess powerfu than the prmary
and n a cases qucky ost ther reward vaue f they coud no
onger be e changed for food. ven n these e perments then,
there s not much evdence for the acquston of a motve whch
has anythng ke the persstence and strength of human psycho-
gene needs, many of whch may become so powerfu that they ead
to the frustraton of prmary boogca needs as n ascetcsm, mar-
tyrdom, tranng for athetc contests, etc.
ow can the persstence and power of acqured motves as they
appear n cnca case studes be reconced wth the reatve weak-
ness of such motves as produced n the aboratory port smpy
asserts (1937) that psychogenc motves cut themseves oose from
433
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ther boogca antecedents and contnue to functon autonomousy
under ther own steam. Sherf has postuated the e stence of
ego motves (194 ) to sove the probem. ut such soutons
merey restate the probem they do not e pan how such ego
motves arse or become functonay autonomous. nother sou-
ton, ths tme of more testabe nature, has been suggested by
Mowrer, who has emphaszed the great mportance of an ety re-
ducton n secondary drves (1939). ear and an ety are ready
produced n a rat by shockng hm. Mer, for nstance, has shown
that the compartment n whch a rat s shocked acqures secondary
drve vaue of suffcent strength to motvate a rat to earn a new
habt to escape the compartment even when shock s no onger
gven n t (194 ). Thrteen of hs twenty-fve anmas earned to turn
a tte whee whch dropped a door and enabed them to escape
from the compartment n whch they had been shocked. urther-
more, when turnng the whee was neffectve, the rats were abe
to earn a new habt of pressng a bar to escape. ven though
neary haf of hs rats faed to acqure the secondary drve n suf-
fcent strength to nduce earnng, Mer s study suggests that
an ety reducton s more potent as a secondary renforcng agent
than the so-caed postve secondary renforcng agents such as
the cck or the goa bo assocated wth food n ugesk s or Satz-
mann s e perments.
The potency of an ety reducton s shown even more ceary n
a study by arber (194 ). e traned rats to go consstenty rght
or eft n a T-maze to get food. hen the habt had been fary we
f ated, he ntroduced shock after the rat had made hs turn at the
choce pont and |ust before he entered the goa bo whch con-
taned food. In ths way the goa bo shoud have come to represent
both food reward and safety (escape from fear or an ety). fter a
consderabe amount of tranng of ths sort, arber attempted to
e tngush the habt by removng food from the preferred sde,
puttng t n the other goa bo , and omttng shock atogether.
Most of hs rats shfted ther preference eventuay from the for-
mery rewarded turn to the new one. ut the rats who had been
shocked took much onger to reverse ther choce. Most sgnfcant
of a, two rats contnued to make the wrong choce for ten tras
a day for twenty-fve days, and fnay coud be e tngushed ony
by massng the e tncton tras. In other words they had so strongy
f ated a response of turnng n a certan way that removng the
food reward and omttng the shock dd not cause them to gve up
434
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the maadaptve response over a very ong perod of tme. The
e panaton for ths persstence apparenty s that the goa bo
contnued to reduce the an ety whch had been assocated wth
shock receved n that arm of the choce of the T-maze. Ths e -
perment, together wth some smar ones by Maer and hs asso-
cates (1949), s practcay unque n havng demonstrated the
acquston of a motve whch approaches the persstence and
strength of acqured motves n adut human bengs.
Such fndngs and some theoretca consderatons have persuaded
some authors that a earned motves have a fear or an ety re-
ducton eement n them. Such a vew recommends tsef not ony
because t tends to e pan the persstence of acqured drves. It
s aso consstent (as we have seen) wth the genera reudan pos-
ton on the mportance of an ety. Thus, as Mowrer has ponted
out (1939), a great many frustratng, an ety-producng stuatons
arse n the course of human socazaton and t s not too far-
fetched to suppose that most behavor s drected at reducng these
an etes. Support for ths genera poston has been drawn from
the psychoanaytc vew of socazaton as essentay annoyng,
frustratng, or tenson-producng. nay, the whoe vewpont s
consstent wth the concepton of prmary drves as annoyng, per-
sstent tensons whch, ke hunger pangs, keep actvatng the organ-
sm unt they are removed or reduced by gratfcaton of some sort.
The Tenson Peducton ew of Motvaton. Mer and Doard
(1941) ftted many of these deas nto a systematc theory of mo-
tvaton whch has the advantage of beng smpe, economca, and
e pct and t can therefore be rather qucky summarzed. To
them a drve s a strong stmuus whch mpes acton. ny stm-
uus can become a drve f t s made strong enough. The stronger
the stmuus the more drve functon t possesses. (1941, p. 1 .)
They e pan secondary drves very smpy as foows: Drve vaue
s acqured by attachng to weak cues responses producng strong
stmu. (1941, p. 66.) In other words, a weak or ndfferent cue
s connected wth responses producng a strong stmuus and there-
by acqures the power to arouse a drve. s an e ampe they cte
the abty of the cues from beng on shpboard to arouse nausea
(strong response-produced stmuaton) after an e perence of sea-
sckness. The cues, by acqurng a connecton wth nausea, have
the capacty to ntate acton (eavng the shp, takng a p, etc.),
whch w contnue unt the nausea s somehow reduced.
435
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
To Mer and Doard, rewards are events whch produce a re-
ducton n the drve stmuus. Pewards are thought of as events
producng a reducton n the drve, that s, n strength of stmu-
us. . . . (1941, p. 2 .) s to secondary rewards, |ust as t s
possbe for prevousy neutra stmuus stuatons to acqure drve
vaue, so aso s t possbe for prevousy neutra stmuus stua-
tons to acqure reward vaue. Peef from an ety s an acqured
reward. Pecevng money, soca approva, and hgher status are
other events wth acqured reward vaue. (1941, p. 30.) Presum-
aby they have a been assocated wth reducton n prmary drves.
ny cue that acqures the capacty to nhbt or rea a response
whch produces strong stmuaton becomes abe to serve as an ac-
qured reward. (1941, p. 64.) The cck whch deayed e tncton
n ugesk s e perment cted above has acqured reward vaue.be-
cause t has been assocated wth a reducton n hunger stmuaton.
Ths theory, because of ts smpcty and wde nfuence, de-
mands carefu consderaton. In the frst pace there s an obvous
ob|ecton to the theory whch the authors have foreseen and met
n a somewhat unusua way. ow do they account for nstances of
strong sensory stmuaton whch do not act as drves but as re-
wards Se ua stmuaton, the thrs of a roer-coaster rde, or
a brght ght n a dark wood at nght may a serve as rewards a-
though on the surface at east they represent an ncrease rather than
a decrease n sensory stmuaton. Mer and Doard repy to ths
by statng that they are referrng to a reducton n tota stmua-
ton. hen we ook more cosey nto what they mean by ths, t
appears that they mean centra stmuaton rather than sensory
stmuaton defned n the conventona way as energy change
actvatng receptors (1941, p. 59). or e ampe, a frghtened per-
son ost n the dark may suddeny see a brght ght, whch has be-
come to hm a cue to the rea ed behavor characterstc of food
and safety. The ght may produce a moderate ncrease n the
amount of stmuaton reachng hm through hs eyes, but a marked
decrease n the amount of stmuaton from an ety responses.
(1941, p. 65.) In short, t appears that what the authors mean by a
reducton n stmuaton s a reducton n cortca actvty. Thus
whe they contnue to defne a drve as strong response-produced
stmuaton, they mean by a response any actvty wthn the n-
dvdua whch can become functonay connected wth an ante-
cedent event through earnng (1941, p. 59). Thus neary any
neura event n the centra nervous system, so ong as t occurs
after the frst synapse, may be thought of as a response n ther
436 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
sense of the word. Thus ther scheme has a somewhat deceptve
behavora reference because they use the terms stmuus and re-
sponse, athough they do not mean by these terms what other psy-
choogsts have conventonay meant. ecause of ths confuson n
termnoogy, t mght be better to restate the theory n other terms.
Thus one mght say that a drve s represented by a state of heght-
ened cortca actvty, and reward by a reducton n cortca actvty.
ven when restated n these terms the theory has some serous draw-
backs whch have been ponted out by varous wrters.
Sef-Contradcton n the panaton of earnng. 0ne of the
most fundamenta dffcutes wth the theory s that tenson reduc-
ton s supposed to be rewardng and consequenty s responsbe for
the f aton of a earned response. Yet at the same tme tenson
reducton cannot strengthen the connecton between the cue and
the response-produced tenson tsef. If t dd, we woud have the
parado of the reducton n an ety renforcng or strengthenng
the an ety response. Mer has recognzed ths ob|ecton (1950)
and has phrased t ths way, If a reducton n the strength of fear
can renforce the response of bar-pressng, one mght ask why doesn t
the eventua reducton n the strength of the fear stmuus ren-
force the fear response enough to prevent t from beng sub|ect to-
e permenta e tncton In short, why doesn t the reducton n
an ety renforce the an ety response The stuaton may be da-
grammed very smpy as n Tabe 12.1.
T 12.1
Dagram of the ay n hch Peducton of a ear Pesponse (Pf)
Penforces ar-Pressng
Pesponse-produced
stmuaton
1
Cue . Pf10 cqured fear response based on pror shock n the bo
resutng n strong response-produced stmuaton,
vt
-110M
Pf,0( ,) . Pb cqured bar-pressng response connected wth fear-
produced stmuaton (as cue) and renforced by reduc-
ton n fear stmuaton Pf. S) through escape (or
avodance).
Cue . Pf|0 Not renforced by reducton n fear stmuaton Pf4
437
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The reducton n fear stmuaton, Pf4 s), serves at one and the
same tme to strengthen the bar-pressng response and not to
strengthen the fear response. Ths contradcton has been resoved
by Mowrer (1947) by assumng that there are two knds of earnng,
one nvovng assocaton by smpe contguty whch s responsbe
for the orgna connecton of the stuaton wth fear, and the other
based on reducton n tenson whch s responsbe for renforcng
the nstrumenta bar-pressng response. Mer (1950) does not fee
t necessary to make such an ad hoc dvson n the earnng process.
e argues nstead that, snce fear stmuaton des out graduay,
the vscera responses most cosey assocated wth reducton n fear
nvove ess ntense fear stmuaton and w therefore be most
strongy renforced by the reducton n fear. Consequenty, pro-
gressvey weaker fear responses w be strengthened by ther own
reducton. Ths e panaton s ngenous but t endows a smpe
event wth some rather remarkabe propertes. Peducton n fear
now smutaneousy strengthens another response (bar pressng) and
weakens tsef. To be consstent, t woud appear that one mght
aso argue that the bar-pressng response has aso tended to de out
(as a stmuus trace) before t s renforced and t too mght there-
fore be e tngushed (not renforced) by the an ety reducton. In
short, so many apparent contradctons and compcatons arse
from the drve reducton hypothess as an e panaton of earnng
that many fee t cannot be an accurate descrpton of motvaton
and that t woud be better to revse t thoroughy than to shore
t up wth ad hoc assumptons.
ctvty eve. If a drves are strong stmu and a reductons
n stmuaton rewardng, why woud t not foow that nactvty
woud be so rewardng that the organsm woud utmatey be re-
duced to a state of quescence Uness yng on a bed n a dark
room has unversay been connected wth strong stmuaton, t
shoud be the state to whch we a tend to return accordng to
the tenson-reducton hypothess. Yet the facts of the matter seem
to be that the organsm, at tmes at east, seeks stmuaton. s
Murray ponts out (193 ) n the passage quoted earer, chdren
n partcuar seem to have an actvty drve or at the very east
seem to seek the stmuaton resutng from muscuar actvty. ny
theory whch appears to put quescence as the fna goa of e st-
ence fes n the face of many observatona facts. 0f course, t s
possbe to get around these stubborn facts by makng varous
43
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
assumptons about tenson and neura actvty. Thus Mer and
Doard woud doubtess argue that the actvty of chdren s re-
ducng centra stmuaton despte the obvous ncrease n perph-
era stmuaton. though ths may be neuroogcay possbe,
t does not seem key. Murray, who n a ater pubcaton has
adopted a form of the tenson-reducton hypothess ( uckhohn
and Murray, 194 ), has assumed that t s the process of reducng
tenson that s rewardng, rather than the end resut. Thus chdren
are actve because the dyng out of actvty s peasurabe. Peope
put themseves n thrng stuatons because the escape from
md fear or an ety s peasurabe. The mechansm nvoved here
seems to be ke that of httng yoursef because t fees so good
when you stop. 0nce agan attempts to shore up the tenson-re-
ducton hypothess seem more compcated than revsng t to begn
wth.
Phenomenoogca acts. The tenson-reducton hypothess not
ony runs nto probems n tryng to account for the hgh eve of
actvty whch human bengs show but aso has dffcuty account-
ng for the phenomenoogca sde of motvaton. Sub|ectvey, re-
ward sometmes nvoves an ety reducton but by no means aways.
More often t seems to nvove antcpaton of peasurabe stmua-
ton. man who s strvng to get ahead n the word s drven
phenomenay as much by the promse of success as he s by the
fear of faure. The antcpaton of beng a bg shot, a captan of
ndustry, a coege professor, etc., may nduce strong centra stm-
uaton but t s markedy dfferent from the strong vscera (or
centra) stmuaton attendng an ety (the fear of beng a dsma
faure). Phenomenoogcay at east there s cear dfference be-
tween the state of mnd whch attends hope of success and that
whch attends fear of faure or deprvaton. The tenson-reducton
hypothess attempts to subsume both of these states under a snge
prncpe, but n so dong appears to do voence to the postve
sde of strvng e perences. 0f course, t s not essenta for a psy-
choogca theory to foow the facts of phenomenoogy cosey. 0n
the contrary, t has become fashonabe to gnore such data as too
unreabe to serve as a bass for scentfc hypotheses. Nevertheess,
recent e perments by McCeand, tknson, Cark, and Poby
(1949) on the pro|ectve e presson of needs are provdng a knd
of reabe phenomenoogca data whch w have to be accounted
for by any over-a theory of motvaton. These e perments, as we
439
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
sha see ater, ceary show that motvaton ncreases magnatve
antcpatons both of success (reward) and faure (punshment).
ny theory whch s phrased whoy n terms of antcpatons of
punshment (an ety) s takng account of ony part of the phe-
nomenoogca facts.
ppette. The tenson-reducton hypothess has aso run nto con-
sderabe dffcuty n deang wth some of the facts concernng
smpe boogca drves ke hunger from whch t was orgnay
derved. Young (1949) n partcuar has performed a ong seres of
e perments on hunger n rats whch have ed hm to concude
that rats deveop drves to run to foods whch they ke (fnd
.en|oyabe) rather than to foods whch they need (requre nutr-
tonay). (1949, p. 119.) It woud be mpossbe to summarze a
the e perments he performed whch ed hm to ths concuson,
but perhaps hs most sgnfcant fndng s that rats w run or earn
a new response to get a paatabe food ke sugar, even when they
are competey satated nutrtonay wth no known boogca ten-
son. In genera ths mght be e paned as an nstance of secondary
renforcement n whch the sugar contnued to serve as a reward
even n the absence of the boogca tenson wth whch t had
been assocated. ut the dffcuty wth ths hypothess s that Young
and others have repeatedy found that there s no smpe one-to-
one reatonshp between the reward vaue of an ob|ect and ts
capacty to reduce boogca tenson, athough such a correaton
mght be e pected on the bass of the secondary renforcement
prncpe. Thus, for nstance, saccharn has no nutrtona vaue,
yet rats ceary prefer t to casen, whch does meet ther prmary
food needs. ow coud saccharn have acqured ts greater ren-
forcng power f never assocated wth reducton n hunger tenson
It coud be e pected to have some renforcng power by generaza-
ton snce t s smar to other sweet tastes whch are need-reducng,
but why so much as compared wth foods whch are aways need-
reducng nd what s perhaps more sgnfcant, why doesn t ts
renforcng power e tngush snce t s not assocated wth need-
reducton (Cf. Sheffed and Poby, 1950.) In short, Young comes 10
the concuson that there are two processes nvoved n motvaton
whch he descrbes as foows: hen the head recepters, especay
those of taste and touch and sme, come n contact wth the food
there s an affectve arousa whch we have desgnated as en|oyment.
Dfferent ntenstes or degrees of en|oyment are reveaed drecty
440
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
by the feedng behavor of rats and by tests of preference. Dstress
produced by deprvaton and the reef of dstress through food n-
geston are aso affectve processes whch are mportanty reated to
acceptance. (1949, p. 119-) In short, hs concusons are n agree-
ment wth the phenomenoogca facts cted above, a of whch
pont to the mportance of both peasure and reef from tenson as
characterstcs of motvaton.
The Probem of Motve Strength. 0ur survey of the e per-
menta bass of motvaton theory has reveaed two ma|or short-
comngs. The frst es n ts nabty to account for the obvous
persstence and strength of so-caed secondary or psychogenc mo-
tves, at east as they appear n the fe hstores of concrete human
bengs. The second es n the nabty of the tenson-reducton
hypothess specfcay to account for much of the peasure-seek-
ng actvtes of the organsm. avng defned our ma|or dff-
cutes ceary, vre are n a better poston to make suggestons as
to how a more adequate theory of motvaton may be formuated.
et us begn where most theores of motvaton have begun n
recent years: wth two smpe assumptons namey, that the m-
portant psychogenc motves are earned (not nstnctua), and that
they are somehow acqured by assocaton wth prmary boogca
peasure and pan. or the moment et us put asde the peasure-
pan probem and ask what t s that makes ths partcuar knd
of earnng so persstent and powerfu. Psychoogsts have studed
the earnng process n the aboratory n great deta. They have set
up nonsense syabe pars for human bengs to assocate, dstnctve
goa bo es for rats to assocate wth food peets, and token re-
wards for chmpanzees to assocate wth oranges or bananas. In a
of these earnng stuatons, what the organsm acqures s rather
rapdy forgotten. Certany t shows none of the persstence whch
we must assume characterzes human motvaton. Yet the stubborn
fact remans that psychoogsts beeve motves are earned n the
same way as other responses are earned. hat s the souton to
ths apparent parado
So far, the ony cue we have mentoned s that avodance earn-
ng s harder to e tngush than other knds of earnng a cue
whch, as we have |ust seen, has ed to the eaboraton of a theory
of secondary motvaton whch s based on the noton of an ety
reducton and whch we have found nadequate on other grounds.
ut suppose we take a coser ook at avodance earnng. hy s
. 441 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
t reatvey harder for the rat to unearn an avodance response
Na1vey we coud say that he keeps runnng to avod a none stent
shock smpy because he doesn t know t has been turned off. s
earned response prevents hm from f1ndng out that condtons have
changed. ut can t ths stuaton be generazed re there not
many stuatons n whch the rat or the human beng woud have
dffcuty n dscoverng that condtons are now changed from
what they were before condtons that do not necessary nvove
avodance earnng In genera we mght predct that the more
dsordery and confused the orgna condtons of acquston were,
the harder t woud be to set up condtons whch were suffcenty
dfferent from them for the organsm to perceve the dfference and
unearn a response no onger approprate.
et us foow ths cue a tte further: very few aboratory e -
perments are suffcenty messy and dsordery to make the ds-
crmnaton between earnng and e tncton dffcut for the anma.
In ther zea for e permenta contro, psychoogsts may have over-
reached themseves. They have usuay provded one cue that s
aways reevant, one response whch s aways approprate to the
reward, and one partcuar set of tme reatons between the events
n the cue-response-reward sequence. The reasons for such carefu
contro are e ceent. If psychoogsts are to be abe to determne
the reatons among ther anaytc unts (cue-response-reward) they
must contro some whe they systematcay vary others. ut t s
|ust ths contro whch may be creatng the dffcutes for e pan-
ng the persstence of certan types of rea fe earnng. or the
fact of the matter s that n fe there s sedom any such reguarty
n the condtons of earnng as we ntroduce normay nto ab-
oratory e perments. Stmuus, response, and reward do not occur
n any reguar sequence. Sometmes a response s rewarded, some-
tmes not sometmes t s punshed. Sometmes a reward s so de-
ayed that t s dffcut or mpossbe for the organsm to determne
what response was nstrumenta n producng t. In fact, earnng
n natura fe stuatons often takes pace under such rreguar,
changng, and nconsstent condtons that an e permenter who s
absorbed n hs consstent cue-reward sequences mght wonder how
anythng s ever earned under such condtons. ut th1ngs are
earned under such condtons and when they are, they shoud be
very hard to unearn because the earnng s so genera n the frst
pace, so compounded of dfferent cues, responses, rewards, and pun-
shments, that t w be hard for the person ever to dscover that
. 442
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
condtons have changed, that some genera e pectaton he has.
formed s no onger beng confrmed.
ortunatey the mature organsm has deveoped ts symboc and
antcpatory capactes to the pont where such rreguartes n
e terna condtons are usuay not so mportant. anguage s a
great hep to human bengs. Thus |ohnny has no dffcuty n earn-
ng that he s beng punshed for havng nched some cookes three
hours earer rather than for rdng hs trcyce, whch s what he
s dong when hs father dscovers hs theft. rat mght have trou-
be fgurng out what the punshment was for. ut |ohnny s father
smpy tes |ohnny that he s punshed because he stoe the cookes,
and, f |ohnny understands anguage, the act of steang cookes w
be symbocay redntegrated and drecty assocated wth the pun-
shment that foows. So t s wth many stuatons. 0ur symboc
capactes free us from too great a dependence on e terna reguar-
tes and enabe us to produce the same knd of reguartes ntern-
ay as the e permenter produces by contro of e terna condtons.
ut not aways. Sometmes assocatve connectons must be formed
under such rreguar condtons that they shoud be very dffcut
to reguarze symbocay. Ths shoud be partcuary true of eary
chdhood before symboc contro has deveoped to any very great
e tent. oowng our cue has now ed us back to the poston
taken n Chapters 10 and 11 that eary chdhood ought to be the
tme when the opportunty to form strong, generazed, and per-
sstent assocatons s greatest. s we dscovered n Chapter 10,
there are many reasons based on earnng theory why eary chd-
hood e perences shoud have the great mportance assgned to
them by the psychoanaysts dscussed n Chapter 11. Many of these
same reasons woud ead us to e pect that these e perences may
form the bass we have been seekng for the formaton of the
strong secondary motves that obvousy persst for ong perods n
a person s fe . In the frst pace, f we accept the prncpe of mass
acton or the greater over-a responsveness of the nfant to stmu-
aton, t woud be ogca to assume that many more of the nfant s
assocatons woud have an affectve component. Snce peasure and
pan (or affectve arousa) are easer to produce n an organsm
whch has not yet deveoped ts dscrmnatory or symboc capac-
tes, t shoud foow that many more stuatons n nfancy woud
get assocated wth affectve states than woud be true ater on.
In the second pace, the connecton for the nfant between a st-
uaton or response and the state of affectve arousa must be very
443
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
vague and genera at best, before symboc contro has been acheved.
hatever ese can be sad about the behavor of parents, t must
be much more rreguar than the behavor of an anma e per-
menter tryng to get a rat to acqure a strong secondary drve.
There are nevtaby deays, nconsstences, and ndetermnaces
n the assocaton of stuatons and responses to prmary peasure
and pan. or e ampe, f |ohnny gets prased occasonay for
dong a varety of thngs ke budng bocks, throwng a ba,
sayng a new word, etc., a genera connecton s set up between
dong somethng and peasure. |ohnny s probaby not qute
sure what the somethng s that eads to peasure because the
reward occurs n a ht-or-mss fashon and because he can t te
the dfference very we between one response and the ne t, but a
very genera connecton s made. ecause t s so genera, the con-
necton w aso be hard to e tngush. Perhaps he sn t rewarded
for throwng the ba on severa dfferent occasons. ut n the
frst pace, he may not perceve ths (the ack of reward may be
assocated wth some other act out of the many he s performng)
and n the second, even f he dd perceve t, that woud be no
reason to gve up, snce he was aso not rewarded durng the ac-
quston of the assocaton. urthermore, there are many other
acts n the herarchy assocated wth ths type of reward whch have
not been e tngushed.
or an oder chd, on the other hand, the specfc connecton be-
tween a partcuar response and reward woud be much more easy
formed and aso more easy e tngushed snce a new (nonre-
warded) stuaton coud be more easy dstngushed from the od,
partcuary after the use of anguage had deveoped to the pont
where the parents coud e pan the stuaton was dfferent. In
short, eary chdhood woud seem to be the dea tme to form
strong, affectve assocatons whch are so genera that they w be
hard to e tngush. So we now have a hypothess as to how per-
sstent secondary motves are acqured and why chdhood s so
mportant n ther formaton. 0ur ne t probem s to attempt to
state more precsey what condtons ead to the deveopment of
(a) strong and (b) genera assocatons of an affectve nature. ctu-
ay there w be some overap n our treatment of these two
attrbutes of motvatona assocatons for the smpe reason that
resstance to e tncton s commony used to measure both strength
of an assocaton and ts generaty. Nevertheess, each attrbute has
aso some dfferent measurng operatons: strength may aso be
. 444 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
measured by amptude, frequency of occurrence n competton
wth other responses, and atency generaty may be nferred from
the rreguarty of the pondtons of earnng. ence the two at-
trbutes w be treated separatey n the foowng dscusson, a-
though they are nseparabe n some cases.
Condtons Infuencng Prmary the Strength of ffectve s-
socatons, (1) Prmacy. In Chapter 10 we dscussed brefy why eary
assocatons shoud have some advantage over ater ones |ust be-
cause they occurred frst and woud not therefore be assmated
nto a pre-e stng apperccptve mass. ut we dd not specfcay
dscuss the probem of strength. s a matter of fact, there are a
number of anma e perments whch show that eary assocatons
are stronger. unt s nta study of feedng frustraton n young
rats (1941) s a case n pont. e found that f rats were rreguary
deprved of food n nfancy they tended to hoard more as aduts,
when deprved of food agan, than dd rats whose nta feedng
frustraton occurred after the organsm had matured. hy shoud
ths be so n e panaton apparenty requres the notons that
deprvaton cues get assocated wth an ety or affectve arousa,
that hoardng s an nstrumenta response whch reduces ths an -
ety, and that the affectve arousa s more ntense n nfancy than
ater. Consequenty, when the cues are renstated n aduthood they
arouse a greater an ety n the rats deprved n nfancy, whch n
turn motvates more nstrumenta hoardng behavor. Smar re-
suts have been obtaned by of (1943), who has reported the
reatvey greater permanent effect of eary over ate sensory deprva-
ton n rats. nmas whose eyes or ears had been temporary seaed
off durng the nursng perod consstenty performed ess we n
a compettve stuaton n aduthood whch requred the use of
these sense modates, despte the fact that tests of the senstvty
of sght or hearng under noncompettve stuatons showed no m-
parment. Pats whch had been deprved ater n fe dd not show
the same nadequacy n the face of adut frustraton. he the re-
suts of ths e perment cannot be nterpreted wth any great cer-
tanty, they can be understood n terms of a hypothess whch states
that the eary-deprved rats had formed a strong assocaton between
frustraton and dependence responses nvoved n nursng whch
was renstated when frustraton occurred n ater fe. gan the
evdence s that the eary assocaton has a stronger or more per-
manent effect.
445
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Unfortunatey t s dffcut to perform comparabe e perments
on human nfants and to observe ther effect n ater fe. Most re-
ports at the human eve have deat wth motor and nteectua
rather than motvatona phenomena. Thus Denns has reported
(193 ) that marked deprvaton of soca stmuaton n young hu-
man nfants had tte effect on ther motor deveopment. In a very
we-known study McGraw compared the deveopment of a par
of dentca twns, |ohnny and |mmy, after treatng |ohnny to
very unusua, acceeratve tranng technques. She found that the
untaught twn caught up very qucky wth hs brother and the two
showed no marked dfferences ater n motor coordnaton and
nteectua capacty. Nevertheess, she dd fnd (1935, 1939) that
the speca tranng had had rather marked effects on such person-
aty varabes as sef-confdence and ntatve. |mmy remaned
much more cautous than hs acceerated brother. Ths suggests
that generazed earnng n nfancy nvoves prmary affectve
peasure-pafn assocatons whch w nfuence the motvatona or
emotona aspects of personaty n ater fe more than the purey
nteectua or motor aspects.
(2) Invovement of the utonomc Nervous System. e have been
argung that affectve arousa (peasure and pan) s somehow at
the root of motvatona assocatons. ffectve arousa s normay
accompaned by some knd of dscharge over the autonomc nervous
system whch s characterstcay conceved as both ntense and
dffuse. rom ths we may nfer that one of the reasons why affectve
earnng s stronger or harder to e tngush s that t s more n-
tense, more dffuse, perhaps more prmtve than assocatons n-
vovng more hghy dfferentated cortca contro. Mowrer (1947)
has been so mpressed by the dfferences between earnng whch
nvoves the autonomc as compared wth the centra nervous system
that he has been ed to the concuson that dfferent knds of earnng
are medated by the two systems. e argues that earnng proceeds
accordng to the contguty prncpe n the autonomc system and
accordng to the aw of effect n the centra nervous system. The
evdence whch he accumuates for two knds of earnng s con-
sderabe but t does not ead necessary to hs concuson that the
dstncton between the two depends on whether the autonomc or
the centra nervous system s nvoved. 0n anatomca grounds one
smpy cannot make as sharp a dstncton between the two nervous
systems as Mowrer s theory requres. Nevertheess, autonomc ds-
446
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
charge can be taken as a sgn of the fact that a centra state of
consderabe ntensty and dffuseness has been aroused and one
can reason from ths that assocatons nvovng the autonomc ef-
fector system w be stronger and harder to e tngush than those
whch do not ead to such a dscharge. The e act reason why ths
s so s not known but a suggeston can be made: perhaps affectve
states are ess under cortca contro and are therefore ess easy
aroused symbocay n ther fu ntensty. If ths were so, one coud
argue that they w be harder to e tngush, |ust as t s hard to e -
tngush any response whch cannot ready be evoked symbocay.
0ne of the benef1ts of psychotherapy may be that affectve states
are suffcenty renstated to become assocated wth symboc cues,
whch can then be attached to new responses whch w take the
pace of the od, maadaptvc, affectve ones.
hatever the reason for the apparenty greater ntensty of af-
fectve states assocated wth autonomc dscharge, t agan seems
key that they are more apt to be aroused n eary chdhood (cf.
|ersd, 1942). Pror to the deveopment of cortca contro, neary
any stmuus w nvove some autonomc dscharge. s the chd
matures, the affectve component apparenty gets ess and ess and
more and more specfcay attached to certan cues or responses.
Ths suggests that motves may become progressvey harder to form
wth age athough ceary a traumatc ncdent at any age shoud
be suffcent to form the knd of strong affectve assocaton that
s requred. The ony dffcuty s that even here the assocaton s
apt to be much more specfc (e.g., a phoba) than the generazed
hedonc assocatons requred for true motvaton. sde from
ther greater susceptbty to autonomc nvovement, chdren are
aso more apt to be sub|ected to the knds of e perences whch ead
drecty to affectve arousa. They are ess abe to protect themseves
aganst reatvey ntense pans such as beng stuck by a pn, severe
coc, fang out of bed, etc. They are sub|ected to a great dea
more drect reward and punshment by parents, etc. It s n these
terms that we can best understand McGraw s fndng that genera-
zed assocatons nvovng affectve arousa from eary reward and
punshment for roer-skatng, cmbng bo es, etc., had more per-
manent effects than the rather specfc nstrumenta assocatons n-
voved n acqurng such partcuar motor sks.
(3) Tme Dscrmnaton and Intensty. The psychoanaysts have
not been sow to recognze the greater affectve ntensty of eary
. 447 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
chdhood e perences, but as mght be e pected they tend to attrb-
ute them to other, more sub|ectve factors. Chef among these has
been the suggeston that the ntensty of peasure and pan s greater
because the nfant has not as yet earned to dscrmnate tme, to
antcpate n partcuar that certan e perences w come to an end.
ffectve states for the nfant shoud have n consequence a certan
tmeess quaty whch s dffcut for aduts to comprehend and
whch psychoanaysts have tred to get them to comprehend by step-
png up the vvdness of the anguage they use to descrbe the n-
fant s phenomena word. Perhaps uge (1945) presents the most
common-sense descrpton of the nfant s nferred states of mnd,
based on much stronger statements made by chd anaysts ke Susan
Isaacs and Meane en. The very young chd, wth no more than
a mnma apprecaton of tme, s unabe to bear tenson he does
not possess the knowedge, so consong to oder human bengs, that
oss, frustraton, pan, and dscomfort are usuay but temporary
and w be foowed by reef. Consequenty a very sma change n
a stuaton (e.g., a ess comfortabe posture or pressure of hs cothes,
a ess easy grasp of a nppe or a ess ready fow of mk) w convert a
peasant satsfyng stmuus nto an unpeasant dssatsfyng one.
(1945, p. 109.) In moments of satsfacton everythng s we, and
the breast and ater the mother s an entrey good ob|ect, the
prototype perhaps of the fary godmother or gene who fufs a
wshes competey and nstantaneousy. t moments of dssatsfac-
ton the chd fees that a s ost, that he s overwhemed by ds-
tress, and that the ob|ect or parent s entrey bad, hoste, and
frustratng. (1945, p. 117-) he many e permentasts (cf. 0ran-
sky, 1949) woud doubtess ob|ect to the anthropocentrc anguage
used by uge and the psychoanaysts n an attempt to e pan the
chd s word of e perence, yet they coud certany agree that the
absence of tme dscrmnaton woud gve an a-or-nothng char-
acterstc to peasure or pan e perences whch woud probaby
serve to make them more ntense than for oder organsms that can
antcpate the cessaton of ether peasure or pan. Ths ack of ds-
crmnaton aone woud go a ong way toward e panng why t s
that assocatons formed between events and peasure and pan n
eary chdhood shoud have a persstence and affectve ntensty
that woud be hard to equa n the aboratory.
(4) The Parado ca ffects of requency of Peward. Neary a
earnng theorsts assume that the frequency of occurrence of an
44
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
assocaton has somethng to do wth ncreasng ts strength, even
though they may dsagree as to whether frequency causes or merey
carres the nfuences whch produce an ncrease n strength. They
aso commony assume that persstence or resstance to e tncton
s a measure of the strength of an assocaton. Yet there have aways
been some facts that do not ft both of these assumptons. Sometmes,
the more frequenty a response has been renforced the easer t s
to e tngush. ow can an operaton both strengthen and weaken a
response at the same tme Pavov (1927) found that condtoned
savary responses whch had been greaty overearned coud some-
tmes be e tngushed on a snge tra. Under these crcumstances,
how coud tras to e tngush be a measure of the strength of a
connecton 0bvousy, one or the other of the orgna assumptons
must be n error. The queston has come up agan and agan n
earnng theory n the controversy over whether a partay earned
dscrmnaton can be reversed wthout oss of earnng tme (cf. -
gard and Marqus, 1940). The so-caed contnuty theorsts have
accepted both of the two assumptons |ust stated and argued that
the more frequenty one response to a dscrmnaton stuaton has
been renforced, the onger t w take to e tngush that response
and shft to the opposte one. The noncontnuty theorsts have
argued that ths does not seem to be necessary so.
thout gong nto the ntrcaces of ths partcuar argument,
we can note that frequency of reward has two effects whch shoud
nfuence the e tncton process dfferenty. In the frst pace, fre-
quency probaby permts the assocaton to be strengthened as the
contnuty theorsts argue. owever, n the second pace, the more
frequent the reward has been, the easer t s for the organsm to
perceve that there has been a change n condtons when the reward
s wthdrawn n the e tncton condton. The stronger the orgna
assocaton, the more dstnctve and specfc t s and the greater
the contrast wth the new stuaton n whch the anma no onger
receves reward under the same condtons. Consequenty the an-
ma shoud fnd t easer to dscrmnate the new (e tncton) stua-
ton from the od (acquston) stuaton. Peay the anma s faced
wth a probem n successve dscrmnaton whch w be easer n
drect reaton to the dstnctveness of the dfference between con-
dtons of earnng and e tncton. The greater the frequency of
reward durng acquston, the more dstnctvey dfferent a seres
of non-rewarded tras and the easer e tncton shoud be. If orgna
earnng s pushed far enough, as n the case of Pavov s overearnng
449
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e perments, a snge nonrenforced tra may be suffcent to ds-
tngush the new stuaton from the od and to produce the appro-
prate response of not respondng. To summarze, the more fre-
quenty an assocaton s renforced, the stronger t w become, but
aso the more specfc and n consequence the more easy e tn-
gushed. vdence for these two confctng effects of the frequency
of reward has been dscovered by Gwnn (1950) workng wth
the fear response n rats. e found that when he ncreased the
frequency of strong shocks whch mature rats receved n a com-
partment, the rats ran out of the compartment faster on the frst
few e tncton tras, whch s consstent wth the frst assumpton
that frequency of an assocaton ncreases ts strength. ut he aso
found, parado cay, that the same rats e tngushed more qucky,
whch s consstent wth the second assumpton that these rats were
abe to dstngush the non-shock stuaton n e tncton from the
shock stuaton n tranng more easy than the rats who had ony
been shocked a few tmes durng tranng.
The bearng of ths pont on the formaton of motves n human
bengs s nterestng, athough somewhat con|ectura at ths stage.
earnng psychoogsts who have attempted to appy ther prncpes
to chd rearng have up to now usuay argued that the way to
strengthen a desrabe habt or atttude s to reward t consstenty.
Thus t mght be suggested that f |ohnny s father wants |ohnny to
strve for achevement, he ought to reward |ohnny for any tte
efforts toward achevement that he makes. In the ght of our present
anayss ths mght strengthen the specfc response of achevng for
daddy s approva, but f |ohnny ever found hmsef n a stuaton
where approva was not forthcomng, we mght e pect that the re-
sponse woud aso e tngush rather rapdy. It s on |ust such a bass
that we coud dstngush between a habt of achevng n response
to specfc stuatons to get a specfc reward and an achevement
motve whch s based on a generazed assocaton between varous
responses and possbe achevement rewards.
gan, age at whch stress s paced on achevement (or other forms
of ad|ustment) seems mportant. parent may be e tremey con-
sstent n stressng achevement (from hs vewpont) but may begn
hs consstent dscpnng at too eary an age for the chd to ds-
cover and symboze the consstency. If so, he w tend to deveop
what we have |ust caed an achevement motve rather than an
achevement habt. Thus redman (1950), n studyng the e tent to
whch chdren n varous cutures were requred to do thngs for
450
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
themseves, found that eary stress on ndependence ranng was sg-
nfcanty reated to the amount of achevement motvaton e -
pressed n the mythoogy of the cutures concerned. ater stress,
however, was not as cosey reated to mythoogca n chevement,
whch suggests that chdren n such cutures dd not deveop the
strong generazed affectve assocatons needed for hgh magnatve
n chevement but deveoped nstead achevement habts whch,
as n the hypothetca case of |ohnny, woud be more specfcay
ted by anguage to partcuar stuatons and rewards.
Condtons ffectng Prmary the Generaty of ffectve sso-
catons. requency of reward s a good transton from condtons
ncreasng strength to those ncreasng generaty of assocatons
snce, as we have seen, t serves smutaneousy to ncrease strength
and decrease generaty, partcuary f contnued ong enough.
hat are some of the other condtons nfuencng generaty of asso-
catons, partcuary as they may be present n chdhood, when mo-
tves are presumaby earned nton has consdered the probem
n a genera way as foows:
The more specfc a response the easer t s to e tngush t. The
reason for ths s fary obvous. aboratory e perments have shown
that habts are e tngushed ether when they fa to acheve the
desred ends or when they e pose the ndvdua to too much pun-
shment. 0wng to envronmenta or other changes, a response whch
s nked wth a snge stuaton or wth a very sma number of
stuatons, can easy become sub|ect to the condtons whch w
ead to e tncton. More generazed responses on the other hand,
are key to be rewarded n connecton wth some stuatons even
when they are unrewarded or punshed n connecton wth others.
It s a common e perence that whe specfc patterns of overt be-
havor are fary easy to e tngush, vaue-atttude systems are e -
tremey hard to e tngush. Such systems tend to survve even when
ther overt e pressons have been nhbted n many stuatons and
to reassert themseves wth amost undmnshed vgor when new
stuatons nvovng the partcuar vaue factor arse. (1945, p.
115.) If the word motve s substtuted for the phrase vaue-atttude
system n ths quotaton, t summarzes n a genera way one of the
man reasons why motves are so persstent.
urthermore, nton goes on to nk the formaton of generazed
vaue-atttudes to eary chdhood. They seem to be easy to estab-
sh n chdhood but e ceedngy dffcut to estabsh n adut fe
451
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
possby because of some nabty on the part of the sma chd
to dfferentate between reated stuatons (1945, p. 116). In short,
he has stated our genera thess that affectve assocatons ad down
n chdhood are often so e ceedngy genera beramp nt thp rhd s
undeveoped powers of dscrmnaton that they persst because t
s dffcut to produce the cond1t1ons mat woud make t possbe to
e tngush them. Ths argument assumes that assocatons do not
decay smpy through dsuse, whch seems a safe assumpton n
vew of the fary overwhemng evdence that t s what happens
n tme rather than tme tsef that causes forgettng (cf. McGeoch,
1942). hat more specfcay are some of the condtons that pro-
mote generaty of nta earnng |rrf
1. ack of Symboc Contro. e have aready dscussed a bow/
the great advantages that human bengs have n beng abe to free
themseves from envronmenta sequences by symboc manpua-
ton. The use of symbos, especay anguage, favors specfcty of
earnng argey because t enabes the chd to make the dscrmna-
ton much more easy between when t s approprate to make a
response and when t s not. e can group together what woud
otherwse be a arge number of compe e perences, often separated
by varyng tme ntervas, under a snge headng and say, for n-
stance, 0h, mummy oves me f 1 try hard. The younger chd does
not have ths advantage: a he can earn s that there s a vague
cass of actvtes whch s foowed by somethng peasant (e.g.,
mummy s ove ). Snce he cannot defne the boundares of the cass
very we or decde whether a gven act beongs to t or not, he may,
f pressure for achevement s put on hm at ths age, earn to be
kept on hs toes by a nameess, shapeess, unocated hope of enor-
mous achevement, as ateson so ncey phrases t. anguage aso
makes t easer to decde when effort s not caed for. If the chd
has named the cass of actvtes whch requre effort (e.g., schoo-
work), he can the more ready dstngush actvtes that do not
requre effort (e.g., househod chores). ut f the ndependence
tranng s tsef so genera that no such specfc earnng s possbe,
or f t occurs so eary n fe that adequate symbo/.aton s m-
possbe, then we have the condtons for the formaton of an e -
tremey genera achevement assocaton whch w be very hard
to e tngush. |
2. Generazed Threats and Promses. e have aso aready men-
toned the fact that avodance earnng may be hard to e tngush
452
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
because t eads to a response whch does not permt the person to
dscover that the stuaton s changed. Techncay ths s somewhat
dfferent from genera earnng, but t deays e tncton n the same
way. urthermore, t suggests a type of earnng stuaton whch may
prevent unearnng because the responses are nstrumenta to goas
whch are so hgh, vague, or ndetermnate that t s mpossbe for
the person to evauate how we he s dong. t one e treme, a chd
may be punshed reguary for steang candy. e knows he w be
spanked f he takes t and may earn to nhbt ths response. ater
on he may try takng t agan and f he goes unspanked w soon
e tngush the nhbtory response. t the other e treme, a chd
may be tod f he steas candy that somethng bad w happen to
hm, hs conscence w hurt hm, God w dsapprove, etc. Ths too
w n tme nhbt hs response but now f he breaks through ths
nhbton at any tme he has no way of knowng accuratey whether
he s beng punshed or not. Somethng bad may not happen m-
medatey, but t may ater sns may be stored up n heaven, etc.
In short, prohbtons estabshed on the bass of vague threats are
much harder to unearn than those estabshed by drect punsh-
ment, |ust as Macknnon dscovered (cf. Murray, 193 ). The same
argument hods for vague promses of reward. The vaguer and more
genera they are, the harder t w be for the chd to dscover
whether the achevement behavor (for nstance) he s showng does
or does not ead to the promsed gratfcatons.
3. Irreguarty of 0rgna earnng Condtons. or a number
of years earnng theorsts have known that random renforcement
durng earnng w deay e tncton over what t s for 100 per cent
renforcement (cf. umphreys, 1939). Many studes summarzed by
|enkns and Staney (1950) have shown that ths phenomenon s
very genera and occurs whether renforcement s perodc (e.g.,
every second mnute), aperodc (e.g., randomy dstrbuted around
two mnutes), or n f ed rato (e.g., for every thrd response). n e -
panaton of the deay n e tncton can ready be made n terms of
our anayss of the nfuence of frequency of renforcement on the
dstnctveness of acquston as compared to e tncton condtons.
henever renforcement occurs wth ess than 100 per cent regu-
arty, acquston condtons become more smar to e tncton
condtons and t gets harder for the anma to dscrmnate between
the two and earn to stop respondng. Stated n ts most genera
453
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
form, our proposton s that any method of ncreasng the smarty
between acquston and e tncton w deay e tncton.
ut randomzng renforcement s ony one way of makng the
dscrmnaton between earnng and e tncton dffcut. Many other
knds of rreguartes may be ntroduced. ven n these e perments
the correct response s never vared (as t often woud be n fe
stuatons), nor are the reveant cues. In other words, n a typca
e perment bar-pressng remans the response whch produces the
food, athough t may not brng food on a partcuar occason.
McCeand and McGown (1950) performed an e perment n whch
the renforcement factor was hed constant at 100 per cent but the
reevant cues and responses to recevng food were vared. They
traned two groups of whte rats to assocate a goa bo wth food,
one n the standard specfc way and the other n an rreguar, gen-
era way. The goa bo conssted of a crcuar aey. In the specfc
ay-traned group a barrer was nserted n the aey and food re-
ward on the tranng days was aways paced |ust n front of ths
barrer. Consequenty the rats n ths group earned to enter the
crcuar aey, turn eft, and run a certan f ed dstance to fnd a
food peet. They earned to assocate a partcuar eft-turnng re-
sponse, a partcuar ocaton n the aey, and a partcuar tme de-
ay wth food reward.
The group of rats whch receved generazed renforcement tran-
ng were treated qute dfferenty. They too were aways fed n the
crcuar aey but there was no barrer n t and the renforcement
was gven n such a way as to prevent the anma from assocatng
any partcuar response, or porton of the aey, or tme deay wth
food reward. Ths was done by eavng the food rewards n dfferent
sectons of the crcuar aey and by sometmes feedng the anma
ony when he stopped n a certan secton of the aey. In other
words, the occurrence of the food reward n the goa aey was so
rreguar wth respect to tme and pace and so nconsstent wth
respect to the response renforced that the rats must have formed
ony a very genera assocaton between the crcuar aey and food
reward. fter both groups of rats had receved 100 per cent ren-
forcement n the goa aey on three successve days n ths fashon,
the cruca test was made of determnng whch group woud con-
tnue to run nto the aey onger when the food reward was wth-
drawn. oth groups showed evdence of the fact that the goa aey,
by beng assocated wth food, had attaned some secondary ren-
forcng power. That s, both groups ran nto the goa aey more
454
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
often and faster on the test day than dd contro groups whch had
not receved renforcement n t. The group whch had been re-
warded for a specfc response durng tranng e tngushed rather
rapdy as n a other e perments of ths sort. ut the genera
group behaved qute dfferenty. In the frst pace, the rats n ths
group ran nto the goa aey sgnfcanty faster than the specfc
anmas dd, showng that the generazed tranng had deveoped a
more powerfu secondary reward. In the second pace, they showed
tte evdence of e tncton n the twenty-fve e tncton tras gven
them. 0n the contrary, they showed sght evdence of a tendency
to run faster at the tme when the specfc anmas had def1ntey
begun to e tngush.
So far then as ths e perment goes, t confrms the hypothess
that generazed earnng s stronger (speed-of-runnng measure) and
w persst onger than specfc earnng. It tests the hypothess how-
ever, ony n an over-a fashon. ctuay three factors assocated
wth reward were controed n the specfc group and vared n the
genera group namey, the response, the tme deay, and the pace
where the food was. ach of these shoud be studed separatey to ds-
cover whether t s the varaton n the responses rewarded or the
pace rewarded or the deay of reward whch accounts for the per-
sstence of the secondary renforcng power of the goa aey. Need-
ess to say, a these factors are vared under the norma condtons
n whch the chd s earnng somethng. Pror to the deveopment
of anguage there must be a good many assocatons whch can best
be descrbed as somethng good foowng somethng ese at
some tme or other.

pecuary mportant form of rreguarty n earnng not so
far mentoned s that n whch both reward and punshment (or
peasure and pan) get m ed up n the same assocaton. Suppose
the rats n McCeand and McGowh s e perment had aso been
shocked occasonay |ust as they were eatng the food. hat woud
have happened then oud ths have deayed e tncton st more
s a matter of fact there s some evdence on ths pont: Drew (193 )
found that eectrfyng the food a rat was eatng greaty ncreased
the rate of consumpton. hat s beng but up here s an assoca-
ton whch nvoves eements both of peasure and pan an asso-
caton whch appears to be stronger and shoud be harder to
e tngush by non-reward f arber s prevousy reported smar
e perment (194 ) may be taken as ndcatve of what woud happen.
Such assocatons have very great mportance n psychoanaytc
455
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
theory and n understandng the probems of neuross. In these areas
the term ambvaence s commony apped to them. ow such
m ed, ambvaent assocatons are supposed to be acqured n eary
chdhood s agan ceary descrbed by uge (1945)- fter pontng
out that a very sma change n the stuaton may convert a peasant
satsfyng stmuus nto an unpeasant dssatsfyng one, he states:
Thus the chd can both ove and hate the same ob|ects n rapd
successon or aternaton and hs ove and hate ake tend to work
on the a-or-nothng prncpe there are not the quafcatons and
quanttatve varatons that are found n ater fe. (1945, p. 109.)
The breast whch does not suppy the mk may be regarded as bad
or frustratng one moment and as good the ne t, when mk fows
and satsfes hunger. Thus many ob|ects must n the begnnng be
assocated wth both peasure and pan n ways that the nfant s
ncapabe of separatng. s both ewn (1935) and Mer (1944)
have ponted out, ambvaence or an approach-avodance confct s
one of the most serous and nsoube types of confct. s such t
may create a secondary dsturbance or tenson whch becomes an
mportant and persstent new motve wth tenson reducton as ts
goa. ut note n partcuar that assocatons whch contan pan and
punshment to begn wth shoud be e ceedngy dffcut to e tn-
gush by addtona punshment or non-reward ater on. Theorsts
have wondered why a chd s ove for hs mother may persst despte
a sorts of dscouragements, punshment, evdence of dske and
re|ecton, etc. 0ne of the reasons may we be that the chd ac-
qured hs orgna regard for hs mother under condtons whch
contaned a good dea of punshment to begn wth. So the new
punshng stuatons are not suffcenty dfferent from the od
earnng condtons to make the unearnng of the od response
key or even possbe. mbvaent assocatons shoud be harder to
unearn than nonambvaent ones, f ths reasonng s correct.
4. Unreproducbty of the Condtons of earnng. reated
but somewhat dfferent reason why eary earnng may be so genera
that t s hard to e tngush arses from the fact that many of the
dscrmnatons a chd subsequenty makes have not been made at
the tme the earnng n queston took pace. Chef among these s
the dstncton between sef and not-sef, between nner and outer
sensatons. In uge s words, There s no adequate dstncton be-
tween sensatons and ther accompanyng feengs and mpuses, nor
more mportant st between these feengs and mpuses and
456
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the assocated outer ob|ects. (1945, p. 11o.) In short, thngs happen
n the chd s fe peasurabe thngs and panfu thngs and the
chd has no cear noton as to whether the pan comes from wthn
(proproceptve sensatons) or wthout (sensatons from the eye or
other dstance receptors). Thus the peasure from suckng may be-
come assocated both wth nterna hunger sensatons and wth e -
terna vsua ones (the breast). e coud e pect then a knd of
generazed assocaton between eatng peasure and a set of cues
not yet dscrmnated nto nner and outer sources whch we mght
abe proto-perceptve. ater on, however, the chd dscrmnates
qute ceary between what happens nsde hm and what happens
n the outsde word. Now suppose we had the |ob of e tngushng
an assocaton nvovng proto-perceptve cues after the nner and
outer dscrmnaton had been ceary estabshed. oud t not be
dffcut ow coud we go about reestabshng the cue stuaton
whch was present when the assocaton was earned hat we woud
be most key to do s to reproduce the e terna part of the cue
compound (e.g., the mother) and e pect that new assocatons
earned to ths aspect of the compound woud repace the od ones.
ut such a procedure woud probaby not be very effcent, athough
some retroactve nhbton through parta smarty n the cue
stuatons shoud occur. In short, t may be hard to unearn some
eary affectve assocatons because they were earned under cue con- I
dtons whch cannot be renstated and attached to new responses. I
Ths pont need not ony appy to nabty to dstngush nner
from outer stmu, of course t shoud hod for any pecuar cue
condtons of nfancy that are hard to renstate. In fact, the same
argument was presented n a more genera way n Chapter 10, n
whch we ponted out that as chdren grow arger t becomes df-
fcut to renstate e acty what they perceved when they were sma
and ookng at the underneath surfaces of the word. nd f cue
patterns cannot be reproduced wth a far degree of accuracy, t
w be dffcut to unearn the assocatons nvovng them.
or a these reasons and for others whch are cosey reated, affec-
tve assocatons formed n eary chdhood are apt to be strong and
very resstant to unearnng or forgettng. rom the theoretca
vewpont there s no reason why such assocatons coud not be
formed at any tme n fe but more of the condtons we have ad
down are apt to occur n chdhood, partcuary at the preverba
eve. Thus we have made a begnnng at east toward sovng one
of the two ma|or dffcutes assocated wth contemporary theores
457
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of motvaton namey, the dffcuty of e panng ther e traord-
nary persstence and strength n the ght of our knowedge of the
transtorness of most aboratory earnng. Now et us turn to the
second ma|or dffcuty.
easure and Peef: Two- actor Theory of Motvaton. In ds-
cussng the tenson-reducton hypothess as a theory of a motva-
ton, we were ed to crtcze t on the grounds that t does not do
|ustce to mportant peasure-seekng drves by reducng them a,
superfcay at east, to pan-avodng ones. Must we have a monstc
theory of motvaton 0r can we egtmatey speak, as ateson docs
n the quotaton paced at the begnnng of ths chapter, of the
anese beng kept busy by a nameess, shapeess fear, not ocated
n space or tme whe we mercans are kept on our toes by a
nameess, shapeess, unocated hope of enormous achevement
Certany there s ampe sub|ectve evdence for a dfference between
hope and fear motves, and there s aso good evdence that
prmary peasure s not derved ony n the course of reducng bo-
ogca needs. ut s the dstncton between peasure and pan drves
that seems ndcated a usefu one hat evdence s there that these
two knds of motves nfuence behavor dfferenty Uness we can
show that they have dfferenta effects on behavor, we can be ac-
cused of argung for a dfference that doesn t make a dfference.
hat are the facts on ths pont
1. rustraton-Produced Instgaton. The authors of rustraton
and ggresson (Doard et a., 1939) were mpressed by the dffer-
ence between ordnary goa seekng (the prmary nstgaton-acton
sequence) and the aggresson whch appeared whenever ths process
was nterfered wth. They state, for nstance, The dependent defn-
ton of aggresson s, that response whch foows frustraton, reduces
ony the secondary, frustraton-produced nstgaton, and eaves the
strength of the orgna nstgaton unaffected. (1939, p. 11.) It s
mportant to note that aggresson s not conceved here as a response
whch w satsfy the orgna nstgaton. Ths strongy suggests
that the second, frustraton-nduced behavor sequence nvoves a
dfferent knd of motve from the orgna nstgaton-acton se-
quence, snce the goa response of the two sequences s conceved as
dfferent. In beng aggressve, a person may satsfy hs secondary
nstgaton but may run hs chances to obtan the gratfcaton
sought n the orgna acton sequence. ggressve behavor may be
adaptve n the sense that t satsfes the frustraton nstgaton and
45
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
nonadaptve n the sense that t may not satsfy the orgna nstga-
ton.
Maer (1949) has been so mpressed by dfferences of ths sort that
he has been ed to the concuson that not a behavor s motvated.
Some of t, he beeves, s nstgated by frustraton but has no got p
and hence s not motvated. s own research has nvoved pro-
ducng abnorma f atons n rats that were traned to |ump from a
patform to one of two wndows to get food. y makng e ceedngy
dffcut and frustratng the dscrmnaton of whch wndow was
correct, Maer eventuay succeeded n makng hs rats behave ab-
normay. Many of them deveoped |umpng responses whch were
e traordnary stereotyped, resstant to change, and nonadaptve n
the sense of beng no onger nstrumenta n obtanng food for the
anma. In fact, sometmes the responses became so strongy f ated
that even when Maer removed the cards on the wndows so that the
rats shoud have been abe to see the food, they contnued to |ump
abortvey to one sde. rom many such e perments he concudes
that frustraton produces behavor whch dffers n many mportant
respects from motvated behavor. Specfcay he reports some of hs
contrasts as foows:
1. probem stuaton produces stereotyped behavor n the frustrated
ndvdua, whereas t produces varabe behavor n the motvated nd-
vdua.
2. Pesponses produced under frustraton, n so far as they show f aton,
are rgd and stereotyped to a degree that e ceeds responses produced by
rewarded earnng. Thus the motvated ndvdua s characterzed by pas-
tcty and the frustrated ndvdua by rgdty.
6. The method of gudance s hghy effectve for aterng frustraton-
produced responses but t has no great vaue for repacng reward-earned
responses.
9. rustraton-nstgated responses are ether nonconstructve or destruc-
tve n nature whereas motvated responses are constructve.
10. The response e pressed durng frustraton s nfuenced to a great
e tent by ts avaabty to the organsm, whereas the response e pressed
n the state of motvaton s nfuenced more by antcpated consequences
than by avaabty. (Maer, 1949, pp. 159-60.)
In a of these ponts as we as hs others Maer seems to be
descrbng mportant dfferences between behavor motvated by
peasure-seekng and by pan-avodng. Yet he regards frustraton-
produced behavor as not motvated at a, statng, for nstance,
that the frustraton process produces behavor that s purey an end
459
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
n tsef and not a means to an end. (1949, p- 161.) 0ne can accept
hs descrptve dfferences between the two types of behavor wthout
beng forced to ths nterpretaton. It woud seem smper to assume
that hs frustrated rats deveoped an avodance motve n the course
of tryng to satsfy an approach motve (desre for food). hen the
probem of dscrmnatng whch card was correct grew too dffcut
for them, they mght have made the adaptve response of not |ump-
ng at a, e cept that Maer dd not permt ths response. The rats
were forced to |ump ether by an ar bast or an eectrc shock. It s
therefore not so surprsng that n tme they woud become or-
ented around escapng or avodng the |umpng stand rather than
approachng the food compartments. In one sense at east ths coud
be regarded as an adaptve response n that t brought momentary
reef from pan and tenson. So t s possbe to rephrase Maer s
fndngs n terms of a contrast between avodance and approach
behavor or behavor motvated by peasure or pan. In these terms
Maer s resuts can be very smpy restated as showng that avodar t
motves produce behavor whch, generay speakng, s more rgd
or ess varabe than behavor produced by approach motves, a fact
whch has been we attested by other research as we (cf. Sears.
1942 Patrck, 1934). Some of hs other concusons, such as the
greater destructveness of an ety-produced behavor, are congru-
ent wth the approach of the Yae group to frustraton and aggres-
son (1939) and st others, such as the mportance of gudance for
changng frustraton-produced responses, need renterpretaton n
terms of other e perments on avodance earnng (cf. gard and
Marqus, 1940). ut however hs resuts are nterpreted, they strontr
support the vew that behavor motvated by pan or an ety s df-
ferent n many mportant respects from behavor motvated by
peasure or hope.
2. The ffect of Punshment. If punshment s used to nhbt an
avodance response, t may have a very dfferent effect from what t
woud have on an approach response. Macr found that punshment
may actuay ncrease the strength of abnorma f atons n an e -
perment whch showed that punshment on 100 per cent of the
tras causes fewer anmas to abandon a response than does punsh-
ment on 50 per cent of the tras. (1949, p. 37.) The same resut has
been reported by Gwnn (1949) n an entrey dfferent stuaton.
e traned rats to run n a crcuar aey to avod a shock unt they
reached a pace where they coud |ump out. If, after he had estab-
460
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
shed ths avodance response, he attempted to nhbt t by pacng
a new shock at a spot |ust before the escape compartment, he found
that the rats tended to run out onger and faster than f no such
punshment were gven. The stuaton mght be compared to a boy
runnng down a dark street at nght because he s afrad of ghosts.
If someone shouts at hm to stop, he may actuay run faster be-
cause the supposed nhbtor may actuay add to the genera an ety
whch he s attemptng to avod by runnng. Punshment for an
approach response, on the other hand, sets up a confct between
approach and avodance motves whch shoud cause a steady de-
crease n the approach response as the avodance drve grows
stronger. In short, punshment may ncrease the strength of an
avodance response whe t shoud ony decrease the strength of
an approach response.
3. Dfferent Performance Gradents. 0ne of the most persuasve
arguments for a two-factor theory of motvaton s provded by the
studes of confct behavor summarzed aby by Mer (1944).
Mer postuates that the gradent of avodance behavor s con-
sderaby steeper than the gradent of approach behavor. Perhaps
the smpest ustraton of ths phenomenon s provded n an e -
perment by rown (194 ) n whch rats were paced n a snge
aey wth food or shock at ether end. The rats were ftted wth a
sma harness to whch was attached a recordng devce whch woud
measure the strength wth whch they pued n ether drecton. If
they were paced near the shock, they pued away from t for a short
dstance and then stopped. If, however, they were paced at the other
end of the aey from the food, they began pung toward the food
neary as strongy as they dd when near to t. The resuts are sum-
marzed smpy n gure 12.1 whch s reproduced from Mer s
artce.
Mer s abe to deduce from the dfference n the-steepness of
avodance and approach gradents a number of the known facts
about confct. 0nce agan t appears to be e tremey usefu to treat
avodance and approach drves as functonng dfferenty, athough
n the prevous Mer and Doard book (1941) both hunger and
escape from shock are treated as essentay smar nstances of ten-
son reducton.
Indrect support for the dfferenta effect of the two knds of
motves on behavor can be found n an e perment reported by
Cark and McCeand (1950), who studed the reatonshp between
461
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
IGUP 12.1
Gradents of pproach and vodance
U|

N
/ IM
ten
fe
N f vodance
c
-_ 1nn
N
0.
c
a
pproach
0)

sn
. 0U

I
n
NN
0 30 170 200
Pont Near ar
of renf. test test
Dstance (cms.) from po1nt of renforcement
The approach gradent represents the force wth whch rats under a 4 -
hour hunger drve pued aganst a restranng harness at dfferent dstances
from the pont at whch they had been fed. The avodance gradent shows
the force wth whch rats pued away from the pont at whch they had
receved a strong shock on the prevous tra. (Peproduced wth permsson
from Mer, 1944, p. 434. Copyrght by The Ponad Press.)
hgh magnatve achevement motvaton and performance output
on successve mnutes of an anagrams test. They dscovered at east
two achevement-reated motvatona factors n a factor anayss
of ther resuts. 0ne was characterzed by hgh magnatve concern
wth achevement and hgh performance n the mdde secton of
the anagrams test. The other factor was characterzed by hgh
output n the ast mnutes of the test and by a hgh ratng for
achevement drve by a psychatrst and cnca psychoogst who
had studed the sub|ects nvoved ntensvey. 0n the bass of these
fndngs Cark and McCeand argue that the sub|ects who do we
on the centra porton of the anagrams test are motvated more by
the postve hope of success, a hope whch, ke the antcpaton of
food n rown s e perment, eads them to work harder or show ev-
dence of earnng at a consderabe dstance from the pont of ren-
462
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
forcement. The other group of sub|ects, on the other hand, appear to
be motvated by the fear of faure and consequenty work hard at the
ast moment to avod faure. gan the fear gradent s steeper and
motvates avodance behavor ony as the pont of punshment grows
very near. Some sght further support for ths two-factor theory was
found by studyng the antcpatons of faure attrbuted to characters
n the stores that the sub|ects wrote for a Thematc ppercepton
Test. It was found that the sub|ects who worked hard n the ast few
mnutes of the anagrams test ntroduced such antcpatons of faure
nto ther stores sgnfcanty more often than the sub|ects who dd
not do we on the ast few mnutes of the test. In other words, t was
true that the sub|ects who dd we at the ast moment were generay
more preoccuped wth fear of faure.
4. Doube Gratfcaton. There s consderabe evdence that stu-
atons whch nvove both peasure and reef from tenson are more
rewardng than ether aone. number of wrters (cf. rght, 1937)
have ponted out how the peasure of certan actvtes ke rdng
n a roer coaster or eatng seems to be artfcay ncreased by
dangers and dffcutes. Stagner (1937,) argues, tor nsta1 ce, that
tabus and restrctons have greaty ncreased the reward vaue of
se ua actvty n estern socety. s an e ampe of a need whch s
not heghtened by scarcty he mentons the physoogca need for
o ygen. Presumaby, f o ygen were dffcut to get, ts reward vaue
woud kewse be ncreased. The ogca e panaton for ths n-
crease n reward vaue through scarcty appears to be that two mo-
tves are satsfed when the reward s obtaned one nvovng peas-
ure, the other reef from an ety or tenson. estnger has even
noted the phenomenon n rats by demonstratng that they can be
nduced to choose a nonpreferred food by ntroducng dffcutes n
the way of attanng t (1943). Prce (1949) has studed the phe-
nomenon cross-cuturay and has noted a number of nstances n
whch cutures appear to mpose bocks n the way of gratfcaton
n order to enhance that gratfcaton. It s easest to e pan these
facts n terms of both peasure and reef contrbutng to over-a
gratfcaton.
5. The ffect of pproach and vodance Motves on Dfferent
nds of uman ehavor. So far we have been deang argey wth
e permenta data from studes of rat behavor. hen we come to
the human eve there s aso ampe evdence that approach and
avodance motves have qute dfferent effects. Cncay, as we saw
463
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
n the ast chapter, t s convenent and perhaps absoutey necessary
to speak of some peope as beng motvated prmary by fear, others
by hope or promse of success. In fact, the whoe dea of defense
mechansms s based prmary on the noton that an ety produces
a knd of rgd, defensve, avodance behavor whch can be ceary
dstngushed from more fe be and constructve approach be-
havor (cf. orney, 1937), a noton whch s supported by Maer s
fndngs on abnorma f atons n rats. ut asde from ths genera
theoretca argument there s aso consderabe e permenta ev-
dence for the dfferenta effects of the two knds of motves on
dfferent types of behavor. et us sampe t a tte to get an dea
of ts e tent. Take magnaton frst. McCeand, rney, and Poby
(1950) found that e permentay-nduced an ety produced an n-
crease n the frequency of from s to ten magnatve story char-
acterstcs neary a of whch were negatve n nature, such as
aggresson, death of a frend or reatve, gref, and the ke. In con-
trast, e permentay-nduced ego-nvovement ncreased about an
equa number of postve and negatve story characterstcs (McCe-
and, Cark, Poby, and tknson, 1949). In other words, sub|ects
who were made temporary nsecure (an ous) had more thoughts
deang wth unhappness, antcpated dsaster, etc., than dd sub-
|ects whose n chevement had been temporary aroused. The most
reasonabe nterpretaton of the nsecure sub|ects state of mnd s
that they wanted reef from an ety, whe the achevement-orented
sub|ects were thnkng n terms both of possbe success and of poss-
be faure.
Smar resuts have been obtaned n studes of the eve of aspra-
ton whch s commony assumed to be a |ont product of hope of
success, fear of faure, and the desre to be accurate (cf. ewn,
Dembo, estnger, and Sears, 1944). Many research workers who
have ntervewed sub|ects after the eve of aspraton have been abe
to tease out whch ones were motvated prmary by hope or fear.
Thus P. Sears (1940, 1941), for nstance, found one group of chdren
(characterzed by hgh D or dfference scores) who set ther eves of as-
praton hgh ether as a goad to achevement or as a way of ganng
soca approva. She found another group (characterzed by ow D
scores) who seemed to be usng the eve of aspraton as a defense
mechansm, snce by pacng ther eve of aspraton ow they coud
avod the pan of faure. 0nce agan the behavora effects of these
two motves are suffcenty dfferent to warrant treatng them as
dstnct.
464
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Some data obtaned at Cambrdge Unversty n ngand on the
performance of arpane pots n the Cambrdge cockpt (Davs,
194 ) can be e paned on a smar bass. In these studes two knds
of ndvduas coud be dstngushed, one of whch tended to break
down under pressure rather suddeny and the other of whch dd
not. The performance of the ndvduas who tended to break down
was characterzed by very sma toerance for error n tryng to
keep a da ponter at a certan poston, for nstance. ceent and
e act mantenance of the ponter on the target for a consderabe
ength of tme was often foowed n these peope by a sharp break
n performance foowed by dsorganzed behavor. The other group
of sub|ects showed a much wder toerance for error but aso ess
tendency to break down. reasonabe nterpretaton of these facts
s that the frst group s motvated prmary by the desre to keep
the ponter e acty on the target whereas the second group s mo-
tvated more by the desre to avod too great a devaton from the
target. In ths partcuar nstance the second type of motvaton s
more adaptve n the ong run, though ess precse. 0ther evdence
of the dfferenta effects of the two knds of motves on work output
has been referred to above n the study by Cark and McCeand
(1950), whch showed greater output near the end of the task for
those presumaby motvated prmary by fear of faure.
nay, dfferenta effects have kewse been found n recogn-
ton and memory. McCeand and berman (1949) have reported
that sub|ects wth ower achevement motvaton tend to avod
recognzng words connotng faure whereas sub|ects wth hgher
n chevement see words connotng success sgnfcanty more
qucky. tknson (1gsob) has obtaned a smar resut n memory
for competed and ncompeted tasks. The sub|ects wth ow n
chevement tend to reca sgnfcanty more competed tasks whe
those wth hgh n chevement tend to reca more ncompeted
tasks. In both cases the sub|ects wth ow achevement motvaton
seem to be chefy concerned wth avodng faure, or wth achev-
ng a mnma eve of aspraton, whereas the group of sub|ects wth
hgh n chevement s concerned more drecty wth achevng suc-
cess or attanng a ma mum eve of aspraton. (McCeand and
berman, 1949, p. 251.) In the partcuar case of n chevement,
avodng faure seems to characterze ow motvaton and attanng
success to characterze hgh motvaton, but there s no theoretca
reason why ths shoud be so for a motves. It may be true ony
for achevement motvaton or t may be an artfact of the way n
465
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
whch eve of achevement motvaton s determned n these
studes by summng achevement characterstcs n magnatve
stores wrtten under standard condtons. The mportant pont s
that data from such wdey dfferent casses of behavor as magna-
ton, eve of aspraton, performance, recognton, and memory a
pont to the e stence of two knds of motves whch nfuence be-
havor dfferenty.
Notes for a Pevsed Theory of Motvaton. Now that we have sur-
veyed both the cnca and e permenta evdence on the nature
of motvaton, can we brng together our fndngs n bref summary
form To attempt to do so w hep to show how far we have come
and w perhaps ndcate the way n whch further thnkng about
motvaton mght proceed. Suppose, to begn wth, we try to defne
motvaton. In terms of our prevous dscusson a motve becomes
a strong affectve assocaton, characterzed by an antcpatory goa
reacton and based on past assocaton of certan cues wth peasure
or pan. Such a def1nton has a number of mportant mpcatons
whch shoud be e pored a tte.
1. motves are earned. That s, they are based on affectve
arousa, but they are not the occurrence of affectve arousa tsef.
pparenty what happens s that certan cues (ether n the affectve
state or n the e terna condtons producng t) get assocated wth
the affectve state so that they can partay redntegrate t on a ater
occason. It s ths antcpaton of change n affectve state whch s
here defned as a motve. hat, then, s the state of affectve arousa
tsef, when t occurs Sub|ectvey we woud ca t an emoton.
Thus accordng to ths vew emotons are not motves but are the
bass for motves. To make the pont cearer, suppose we consder
happness or peasure for a moment. hen the person s e per-
encng t we ca t an emoton, but f t or the condtons producng
t gve rse smutaneousy to antcpatons of a change n affectve
state (ether an ncrease or decrease n peasure, or ncrease or decrease
n pan), then a motve may be sad to be nvoved. In short, t s the
antcpatory goa response or redntegrated change n affectve state
whch s the motve and whch gves the motve ts drectng power
as compared wth an emoton whch s an affectve arousa now wth
no assocated reference to another affectve state.
Consder the other sde of the pcture for a moment. hat hap-
pens when pan fbers are stmuated t east theoretcay when
the stmuaton frst enters the bran, a motve has not been aroused
466
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
as yet, athough the pan may produce a centra e ctatory state
whch n turn resuts n dffuse body changes and perhaps aso n
some overt refe behavor. It s not unt the pan cues off through
past assocaton antcpated changes n affectve eve (ether pan
reducton or pan ncrease) that a motve can propery be sad to
have been aroused accordng to our def1nton. ands and unt s
work (1939) on the starte pattern ustrates the two phases n ths
sequence. rst, a sudden strong stmuus ke a psto shot w evoke
a pattern of refe crouchng responses of very short atency whch
they named the starte pattern. Second, some tme after ths, avod-
ance responses ke proonged bnkng of the eyes or wthdrawa
w appear. These atter we woud consder to be the product of
an avodance motve cued off by the oud stmuus a motve whch
takes onger to produce ts effects on behavor than the strong stmuus
because assocaton fbers are nvoved. The refe starte responses,
on the other hand, are not, strcty speakng, motvated but are
produced refe y by the centra state ot affectve arousa resutng
from the mpact of the strong stmuus. Thus we cannot speak of a
strong stmuus as a motve, athough for a practca purposes
strong stmu ke pan become assocated so frequenty and eary
n fe wth decreases (or even ncreases) n pan that they come to
cue off motvatona assocatons wth great dependabty. To sum-
marze once more: every motve s earned, t must nvove two
ponts on an affectve contnuum: a present state (ether postve,
negatve, or neutra) whch redntegrates through past earnng a
second state nvovng an ncrease or decrease n peasure or pan
over the present state. It s ths redntegrated change whch we are
referrng to when we speak n the genera motve defnton of an
antcpatory goa reacton.
2. hat are the condtons whch gve rse nnatey to the states
of affectve arousa, antcpaton of whch s assumed to be mo-
tvatng There are severa possbtes. smpe, but apparenty
nadequate, noton s the one adopted by Troand (192 ) to the ef-
fect that there s benecepton (sensory processes ndcatng a condton
favorabe to survva of the ndvdua or speces) and noccepton
(sensory processes ndcatng a condton detrmenta to survva).
These correspond roughy to receptor actvtes gvng rse to peasure
and pan and, n a sense, attempt to defne peasure and pan ob|ec-
tvey n terms of the reaton of sensatons to survva. (Cf. Young,
1936.) nother possbty s Mer and Doard s assumpton (1941)
that any stmuaton, f t s strong enough, w produce the affectve
467
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
arousa whch s necessary for a motvatona assocaton. e have
ob|ected to ths dea not because t s wrong but because t seems n-
compete and does not do |ustce to the peasure-seekng actvtes of
the organsm, whch suggests st a thrd possbty namey, that a
moderate ncrease n stmuus ntensty n any sense modaty may
ead to peasure and a further ncrease to pan. gure 12.2, repro-
duced from oodworth (193 , p. 49 ), ustrates the dea, usng
some data from nge on the effect of stmuus ntensty on |udg-
ments of peasantness-unpeasantness for varous tastes. though at
present such an nference woud be hghy specuatve, we mght
adopt the hypothess that these resuts coud be generazed to any
sense modaty. If so, t woud mean, for nstance, that stmuaton
of the eyes or the ears woud be peasurabe and sought by the organ-
sm up to a pont, unt at very hgh ntenstes pan woud appear
and avodance motves aroused. The actua curves woud presuma-
by dffer for varous sense modates |ust as they do for the dfferent
tastes n gure 12.2. Pan woud presumaby ook somethng ke
the btter curve showng a very narrow range of peasurabe n-
tenstes ( tcke ).
he such a noton s ntrgung and woud e pan ready cer-
tan apparenty parado ca phenomena ke the drve for actvty
(to get stmuaton from proproceptors), our case for approach and
avodance drves need not depend on ts utmate vadty. or a
we know now there may be other condtons such as hormona effects
on the centra nervous system or certan patterns of neura actvty
(cf. ebb, 1949) whch gve rse to peasure and pan. ssentay, the
probem s the od one of tryng to dscover what the condtons are
for producng emoton. hatever e panaton fnay turns out to
be correct, t shoud ncude the noton that reward, approva, etc.
(perhaps ntay derved from contact gratfcatons) eads to one
type of motvatona assocaton and punshment to another. That
s, both postve (approach) and negatve (avodance) motves shoud
be dstngushed because they have dfferent effects on behavor.
The argument for ths poston has aready been gven. It need
ony be added here that n practce we may dstngush these two
knds of motves by the symbos n for need and / for fear. Thus we
speak of n chevement when the person s prmary goa s to en|oy
the gores of success, and of f aure when a person s prmary goa
s to avod the msery and dsgrace of faure. Note that we do not
speak of n aure-reef, athough such termnoogy woud be con-
sstent wth our genera vew of motvaton. The reason for ths s
46
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
IGUP 12.2
The Peasantness-Unpeasantness of Taste Sensatons as a
uncton of Stmuus Intensty
-100
Stmuus concentraton
Preponderance of peasant or unpeasant |udgments n reaton to
the concentraton of a sapd souton. The ordnate gves percent peas-
ant mnus percent unpeasant. The abscssa s proportona to the con-
centraton, the fu ength of the basene standng for 40 cane sugar, for
1.12 tartarc acd, for 10 sat, and for .004 qunne suphate (a by
weght). The two parae nes |ust above and beow the zero eve sgna
the fact that there s typcay a neutra zone between peasant and un-
peasant.
tter, as shown by ts curve, gave at best ony a sght preponderance
of peasant over unpeasant |udgments. Sweet aways gave a preponder-
ance of peasant e cept at a very ow concentraton. Sour and sat are
ntermedate. The curve for sour has been sghty smoothed.
(Peproduced by permsson from P. S. oodworth, permenta Psycho-
ogy |data of P. nge|. Copyrght 193 The Macman Co.)
469
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
that whe approach motves are named most easy n terms of the
goa whch termnates a behavor sequence, avodance motves are
named most easy n terms of the orgns of a behavor sequence.
Peef from tenson may be obtaned n such a varety of ways that
t s easer to name the need n terms of the source of tenson rather
than n terms of the mode of reef adopted. It s probabe that
theorsts ke Mer and Doard (1941) and Mowrer (1939) have
been ed to stress the drve stmuus aspect of motvaton rather than
ts goa aspect argey because they have been deang wth avod-
ance motves where t s easer to defne the drve n terms of the cue
aspect of the affectve assocaton nvoved. It s possbe to recog-
nze the mportant dfferences between these two knds of motves
and yet to see how they both arse from affectve assocatons whch
may be named n terms of the cue aspect of the assocaton for
avodance drves and n terms of the goa aspect of the assocaton
for approach drves.
3. n aroused antcpatory goa state (motve) may be dsrupted
by the occurrence (a) of cues whch no onger gve rse to an antc-
pated change n affectve eve or (b) of cues that gve rse to nter-
ferng assocatons. Somehow motves have got to be termnated. In
the case of approach drves, the occurrence of the antcpated state
of affectve arousa s apparenty suffcent to break up the assoca-
ton. 0ne possbe reason for ths s that the sensatons whch ac-
company eatng (for e ampe) are not assocated wth further changes
n affectve eve. That s, eatng s sedom foowed after a pont by
an ncrease n peasure, possby because of some adaptaton effects
n the sense modates producng peasure. It may even be asso-
cated wth pan from overeatng, f wth anythng, so that n tme
t w set off an nterferng antcpaton of pan whch w produce
other (avodance) behavor. Ths ustrates agan why a state of af-
fectve arousa s not tsef a motve (though t may cue off one).
satated anma may be n a state of affectve arousa (peasurabe
nterna sensatons) but not be motvated because antcpated goa
states are not beng trpped off. ut how about the other sde of the
pcture hy doesn t the occurrence of antcpated pan ead to
dsrupton of the fear motve To some e tent t does: a person may
actuay e perence some reef (reducton n motvaton) when a
feared event occurs. ut the dffcuty s that the feared event, f t
s tsef panfu, w contnue to cue off antcpatons of reef from
pan by transfer from past smar stuatons n whch pan has been
repeatedy foowed by reducton n pan. Thus new motvatng
470
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
assocatons are aroused when the pan actuay occurs n a way
whch does not happen when peasure actuay occurs.
rom a ths we mght nfer that there are certan antcpated
goa states whch are so vague and generazed that t woud be m-
possbe for them to occur n such a way as to provde cues that
woud no onger arouse antcpatons of further changes n affectve
eve. It s for ths reason that motves ke n chevement may be
so nsatabe. sub-goa success may actuay cue off new assoca-
tons of further success and peasure, partcuary f the cues whch
gve rse to antcpated success were not very specfc to begn wth
(see beow). 0n the other hand, of course, n chevement may be
dsrupted not by actua achevement, but by other dstractors, e.g.,
by other motvatona assocatons or perhaps by frustraton. rus-
traton s a mechansm whch seems to act as a knd of safety vave
to prevent a need from domnatng centra processes too ong. That
s, f an antcpatory goa state s aroused for a suffcent ength of
tme wthout at east parta fufment (or dsrupton), the effect
s panfu and the pan tsef w n tme dsrupt the motve state,
prmary by ntroducng a new motvatona assocaton, namey,
the need for tenson reducton or avodance of pan (cf. Chapter 13).
Ths may aso e pan why very ntense motves may be sef-defeat-
ng and nsatabe. If they are ntense they shoud bud up to the
frustraton-dsrupton threshod sooner and the organsm becomes
mobzed around avodng pan rather than attanng the orgna
goa. Thus a vcous crce may be set up n whch a person has very
tte opportunty to dspay the nstrumenta responses whch mght
have fufed the orgna motve drecty.
4. hat has become of the tradtona noton that a psycho-
gene motves are but on prmary boogca drves Strcty speak-
ng we shoud no onger thnk n ths fashon. States of boogca
need have no unque functon n producng motves they are
merey one of the condtons whch dependaby (n a ndvduas)
gve rse to motvatona assocatons. The cruca factor n a mo-
tves s the assocaton of certan cues wth affectve arousa of var-
ous sorts. Thus sght of food becomes a means of arousng the hunger
motve through frequent assocaton wth the peasurabe sensatons
and the reef from tenson that accompany eatng. Consequenty we
can see how the cues that arse from deprvaton and from the bo-
ogca needs t produces are not quatatvey dfferent from any
cues (ke sght of food) whch may get assocated wth the goa re-
sponse of eatng. That s, the cass of cues resutng from states of
471
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tssue need s not essenta for the formaton of motves n any speca
way. ut t may ead wth greater dependabty to the formaton of
a motvatona assocaton because deprvaton cues are aways fo-
owed by eatng (uness the anma des) whereas wth a cue ke sght
of food there may not be 100 per cent renforcement, snce the
anma may have hs eyes cosed when he eats, etc. Deprvaton or
boogca need cues are aso more persstent than other cues and
may n fact contnue to bombard the organsm unt the boogca
need s removed. Ths does not operate to ncrease drve strength
drecty, as has often been assumed, but t has the same effect nd-
recty snce the affectve eatng assocatons evoked by these cues w
be aroused over and over agan unt the condton whch produces
the cues s termnated by eatng or by death. That s, the functon of
the boogca cues s to arouse eatng assocatons wth ncreasng
frequency as deprvaton ncreases unt these assocatons engage the
entre attenton of the organsm and competng assocatons are
drven out (cf. the dscusson n Chapter 13 of the way n whch a
hypothetcay ncreasng thrst condton may gan contro of the
assocatona processes). It s theoretcay |ust as possbe, athough
consderaby ess key, that cues n the e terna envronment shoud
serve to arouse a motvatona assocaton to the e cuson of a
others (as when a man s competey absorbed n wnnng the 100-
yard dash). If we put the cues arsng from food needs n the same
cass as other cues that may get assocated wth eatng, the parado
of the sated nut phenomenon dsappears. ebb puts t ths way:
Consder the sated nut phenomenon. 0rdnary, one can take
sated nuts or et them aone unt one has eaten a mouthfu, when
t becomes much harder to et them aone. unger has ncreased:
but how ack of food cannot be ncreased by eatng somethng,
and stomach contractons are stopped by chewng and swaowng.
If, however, we consder hunger to be nether a partcuar condton
of the body, nor a set of sensatons from the stomach, but an organ-
zed neura actvty that can be aroused (ke any other conceptua
process) n severa ways, the puzze dsappears. ( ebb, 1949, pp. 199-
200.) In short, sensatons from the stomach or from heat oss n a
state of food need have no speca motvatng propertes: they get
assocated ke any other set of cues, though more dependaby, wth
the peasure and reef accompanyng eatng and thus are capabe of
arousng the hunger motve ke any other set of cues. The advantage
of ths nterpretaton s that t makes compe motves ke n cheve-
ment n no way dependent on contnued satsfacton of boogca
472
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
needs ke hunger. The hunger motve and the achevement motve
have e acty the same status theoretcay: they are both earned and
both based on the formaton of assocatons between certan cues and
changes n states of affectve arousa.
5. The persstence of a motve throughout the fe hstory of an
ndvdua s a functon of a number of varabes, among whch are
the foowng: (a) the absoute frequency of occurrence of the cue-
peasure (pan) assocaton: hunger s a reabe motve because the
assocaton between certan sensatons (stomach contractons, sght
of food) and eatng occurs severa tmes a day throughout the fe-
tme (b) the generaty of the assocaton and ease wth whch t
may be e tngushed (c) the stress (ntensty of peasure-pan) n-
voved n the assocaton at the tme t s formed (d) the age at
whch the affectve assocaton s formed the earer t s formed
the keer condtons (b) and (c) are to obtan. ence the most
persstent motves are more key to be ad down eary n chd-
hood, especay at the preverba eve, athough there s no reason
why they coud not be formed at any tme n fe. These ponts are
a drawn from the prevous dscusson of the generaty of affectve
assocatons and the dffcuty of e tngushng them f ad down
eary n fe.
6. The presence of a motve may be nferred ether (a) ndrecty
based on knowedge of past cue-affectve arousa assocatons or (b)
drecty based on magna goa states. 0ur nferences under cond-
ton (a) may be based on our drect knowedge of the partcuar n-
dvdua we are studyng (as when we nfer that the rat has acqured
a hunger motve based on the assocaton durng habtuaton of be-
ng handed by the e permenter and beng fed) or by e trapoaton
from the e perence of other ndvduas (as when we nfer that ths
ndvdua has an n chevement because we have observed that he
has been e posed to the same condtons whch have ed to the de-
veopment of n chevement n other members of hs group). ork-
ng wth antecedent condtons from whch nferences about motve
states are drawn s dffcut, especay wth human bengs, and we
do better to work drecty wth ther antcpated goa states as
measured n magnaton (cf. McCeand, tknson, Cark, and
owe, 1950). That s, the smpest measure we can obtan of the
strength of the achevement motve n a human ndvdua s to
observe the frequency wth whch he thnks about achevement as
measured through magnatve productons. These measures are
purer than others ke a conscousy stated eve of aspraton
473
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
whch s usuay a |ont product of a number of motves. Thus, for
nstance, when a person e pcty sets or chooses an achevement
goa n a eve of aspraton stuaton, t s not cear whether he s
motvated prmary by n chevement, f aure, or a desre to be
accurate n hs |udgments n forecastng. or ths reason, we w
deay dscussng the eve-of-aspraton technque unt Chapter 14,
when we can put t n the conte t of the sef-pcture. 0ther tech-
nques of measurng motvaton, such as ncreased senstvty to per-
ceptuay reated words, e pct conscous estmates of motvatona
strength, answers to questons, etc., a seem reatvey ess pure than
magna goa states argey because they are reatvey more nfu-
enced by other factors n addton to the motve to be measured.
7. Motves are ndvduay acqured but certan stuatons w
produce peasure or pan wth such reguarty ether through bo-
ogca or cutura arrangements that the probabty of certan
common motves deveopng n a peope s very hgh. s we have
seen, port ob|ects (1937) to thnkng n terms of a few motves
common to a men. Snce a motves are earned, s t not key
that each person w earn a dfferent set he n genera ths s
true, the degrees of freedom are n fact consderaby reduced by cer-
tan nvarants n the process of ad|ustment. The frst nvarant s
obvousy the boogca arrangement for makng certan sensatons
nnatey peasurabe and panfu. or nstance, f we argue that cer-
tan sweet tastes are peasurabe, and certan aches and pans are
unpeasurabe, the kehood of strong affectve assocatons gettng
formed around eatng s very hgh ndeed. In short, the probabty
of certan nterna cues arousng antcpated peasure or reef from
tenson n eatng s, practcay speakng, 1.oo. e can therefore
speak of a motve common to a men. ut what about motves where
the arrangements are cutura rather than boogca The stuaton
s not essentay dfferent. Socazaton occurs n a cutures for a
ndvduas and t nvoves certan common probems n a cu-
tures. Thus the kehood of certan cues gettng assocated wth
reward or punshment s fary hgh for a men. Take the matter of
achevement, for nstance. ndvduas n a cutures must earn
to some e tent to do thngs for themseves e.g., earn to wak, tak,
eat by themseves, fsh, hunt, read, or whatever. In the course of
masterng these varous probems, t s hghy key that certan
mastery cues (effort, dffcuty, ncompeton, etc.) w get assocated
wth affectve arousa and w produce n tme centray motvatng
antcpatons of success or faure. These assocatons may be rea-
. 474 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tvey weak n cutures whch do not stress ndependence tranng
eary, or reatvey strong n other cutures where great stress s
paced on eary achevement. They may be predomnanty hopes of
enormous achevement, as n mdde-cass merca, or fears of fa-
ure and nadequacy, as n a or or. ut whatever the varatons
n the strength or knd of n chevement assocatons, the fact re-
mans that some assocatons of ths sort are ad down n a nd-
vduas n a cutures, at a tmes, smpy because wth very few
e ceptons everybody s faced at one tme or another wth acheve-
ment probems. acty the same argument can be used for the three
other genera casses of earnng probems sted n Tabe 10.2. That
s, we coud e pect generazed affectve assocatons to deveop n
connecton wth protecton and support probems (n Nurturance-
Succorance), n connecton wth probems of affecton (n ffaton,
or f Pe|ecton), and n connecton wth avodance of frustraton and
dsapprova by sef-contro (n pprova, n Pecognton, n base-
ment, etc.) as we as n connecton wth probems of mastery. The
argument of course does not requre that the partcuar breakdown
of earnng probems we made n Tabe 10.2 be the bass for decd-
ng what common motves w necessary be formed. t states s
that the bass for assumng that there are common motves s the
fact that there are common earnng probems whch every nd-
vdua must face n the process of socazaton. Ths does not of
course e cude the possbty that there are aso dosyncratc earn-
ng probems for each ndvdua whch w produce motves whch
may be dfferent from those of any other person ether n ntensty
or n ther pattern of nterreatonshps. Nevertheess even here t
may turn out to be more convenent, at east for a genera scence of
personaty, to treat these dosyncratc motves as nstances of speca
affectve assocatons wthn the genera cass of affectve assocatons
commony deveoped by a men facng smar probems.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. ccordng to the proposas for a theory of motvaton brefy
outned at the end of the chapter, s t necessary to dstngush as
sharpy as Mer and Doard have between secondary drve and
secondary reward hat woud be the dfference between these two
concepts n terms of these proposas
2. Is a behavor motvated as motvaton s defned n ths
chapter U )
475
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
3. hat e acty s meant by a prmary drve and what s the dffer-

ence between t and a motve Can a prmary drve stmuus be
defned n terms of the probabty of ts gettng assocated wth a
state of affectve arousa
4. Can reward and peasure be ndependenty measured ow
about punshment and pan
5. Can frustraton be consdered a motve If so, what s ts an-
tcpatory goa state Can aggresson be consdered a goa state
whch reduces frustraton
6. Make a st of the dependabe motves the ones you .thnk
woud be key to deveop n the course of meetng common prob-
ems of socazaton a over the word. Compare the motves we
utzed to descrbe ar s motvatona structure n Chapter 11 wth
the ones on ths st. Comment on any dscrepances between the two
st,.
7. In of s e perment on the effects of sensory deprvaton n
nfancy on the responses of adut rats to compettve stuatons, what
measure of the strength of the eary assocaton s beng used Does
the measure permt you to concude whether the eary assocaton s
t stronger or more genera Can you thnk of any way of measurng
what response was actuay acqured n nfancy to test the hypothess
advanced n the te t (Cf. p. 445.)
. Desgn a tranng stuaton whch shoud endow poker chps
for chmpanzees wth a reatvey ne tngushabe reward vaue,
accordng to the prncpes ad down n the te t.
9. ccordng to the propostons advanced to e pan the acqus-
ton of motves, e pan two ways n whch a man of forty-fve mght
acqure an ntense nterest n potcs.
10. hen s a condton of affectve arousa suffcent to form a
motvatng assocaton Suppose a man s embarrassed on a partcu-
ar occason n front of a gr. In what sense does or does not the
assocaton formed (gr-affectve arousa) become a motve
11. ccordng to the prncpes dscussed of what makes e tnc-
ton easy, why shoud Maer have found that gudance for hs ab-
normay f ated rats was a more effectve way of changng ther
behavor than punshment
12. pan how ntense sensatons coud be cues whch arouse
motvatona assocatons formed on the bass of past e perence by
a men n a cutures. Coud you desgn an e perment whch mght
show that such assocatons were acqured graduay and that there-
476
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
fore ntense sensatons coud not be consdered drves before the
assocatons were formed
13. hy shoud anma e permenters be havng dffcuty fndng
evdence for a gradent of prmary renforcement Is there reason to
e pect that there shoud be no such tng (Cf. Spence, 1947.)
14. number of authors ( ebb, 194 eeper, 194 ) have ponted
to the connecton between motvaton and emoton, argung that
under certan condtons emotons can operate as drves. Is ths vew
consstent wth the proposas for a theory of motvaton advanced
n ths chapter re there condtons n whch emotons w not
serve as motves
15. hy doesn t the sght of food arouse the hunger motve n a
satated person
16. The generay accepted ntmate connecton of motvaton
wth eary socazaton rases the queston of the theoretca rea-
tonshp between motves and the knd of schema ad down n eary
chdhood that we dscussed n the ast chapter. re these eary,
argey preverba schemata the same thng as motves
477
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
13
The ffects of Motvaton
on ehavor
The e permenta studes of motvaton we have |ust revewed
have provded us wth a theoretca framework whch shoud be
genera enough to ncude eventuay the hgher-eve cnca n-
terpretatons of motvaton dscussed earer. ut nether of these
approaches to motvaton has provded us wth much nformaton
about how motves nfuence human behavor. Does a motvated
organsm behave n dstngushaby dfferent ways from an unmo-
tvated one ortunatey, there s a consderabe body of nformaton
on ths pont whch comes nether from the cnc nor frpm the study
of rats but from e permenta studes of human motvaton. It s
ths body of data whch must cam our attenton now as we set
asde the more theoretca ssues wth whch we have been concerned
and attempt to get some dea of how motves nfuence behavor.
It s fortunate that such a body of data e sts, that psychoogsts
ke ewn outsde the cnc or the rat aboratory have been nter-
ested n human motvaton. The study of rats has gven us a good
dea of nformaton, partcuary about the acquston of motves,
but t has tod us very tte about how they functon n human
bengs. Cnca psychoogsts, on the other hand, have gven us too
much nformaton about how motves functon n human persona-
ty but often wth too tte crtca evauaton of ther nterpreta-
tons. The reason for ths s a smpe, practca one. s we concuded
earer, cnca psychoogsts turned ready to the motvatona
concept because they needed a concept whch woud be usefu n
tyng together or accountng for a varety of very dfferent responses
|ust as they needed the trat concept to account for consstent,
smar responses. Therefore, n characterzng a motve they were
drven to make nferences about ts nature from ts many partcuar
effects. They reasoned from consequents to antecedents, from specfc
and vared responses to an underyng motve. Such a procedure has
run nto a number of serous dffcutes as compared wth the e -
permenta approach of havng the motve under contro and ob-
servng ts effects on behavor. In the frst pace, t has ed to a serous
47
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T CTS 0 M0TI TI0N 0N I0P
confuson between motvaton and causaton. Cncans often make
statements whch sound as f dscoverng the motve for an act s a
that s needed to account for the act. or nstance, a man may be
sad to have become a surgeon because cuttng peope up satsfes a
basc (preferaby unconscous) motve, e.g., a sadstc urge. Such a
motve may n fact be nvoved, but obvousy much more s needed
to account for such a decson. In our terms a man decdes to be-
come a surgeon not ony because of some underyng need, but aso
because of hs conceptons of what a surgeon s fe s ke, of what s
requred of hm n the way of servce to others (schemata), and be-
cause of hs past ad|ustments to smar stuatons (trats of emo-
tona contro, etc.). e need both the trat and schema varabes
as we as the motve varabe to e pan any partcuar choce ke
ths. In short, causaton s arger than motvaton but the method
cncans use of studyng motvaton by attemptng to fnd a snge
e panaton for a varety of responses tends to overstress the m-
portance of the motvatona varabe as the causatve factor.
second dffcuty arses from the fact that so ong as there s no
ndependent measure of motvatona strength, t s possbe to
attrbute opposte effects to the same motve or the same effects to
opposte motves. or e ampe, psychoanaysts have been crtczed
for argung that dfferent effects, e.g., wakng nto a bar or across
the street around a bar, have the same cause (desre for a drnk), or
for statng that when a person waks across the street he may do t
(1) because he reay wants to or (2) because he reay wants to do
|ust the opposte and s dspayng reacton formaton aganst hs de-
sre to enter the bar. It s possbe of course to resove these apparent
contradctons by makng assumptons about motves havng dffer-
ent effects at dfferent ntenstes, about confcts of motves, etc.,
but so ong as the method of approach does not nvove e permenta
contro of the varabes n queston, t w be dffcut to prove or
dsprove such assertons.
nay, cncans must reason from such a varety of compe
behavors that t s a wonder they are ever abe to make any rgorous
nferences about underyng motves. Consder, for e ampe, the
entre range of symptoms n the neuroses and psychoses, or even the
somewhat narrower range of defense mechansms reacton forma-
ton, pro|ecton, represson, undong, etc. these are customary
e paned as beng the resut of motves of dfferent strengths and
varetes nteractng sometmes n e traordnary compe ways.
ow s t possbe to get any coherent dea of how motves functon
479
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
from anayses based on such varety and compe ty The fact s that
t has not been possbe and that cnca methods of nterpretaton
have to be suppemented by superor e permenta methods whch
w permt a more rgorous study of the effects of motvaton through
the soaton and contro of motvatona varabes.
It s easy enough to speak of the advantages of e permenta
studes of motvaton but t s dffcut to desgn ones that do not
meet equay serous, though dfferent, ob|ectons. Thus the motves
that can be e permentay controed have been tradtonay
mted to such thngs as hunger, whch s hardy of much nterest
to the student of personaty. 0r the effects of motves whch are
studed ncude such behavor as speed of earnng nonsense sya-
bes, whch agan s a far cry from the compe defense mechansms
that the cncan wants to understand n motvatona terms. or
these reasons some recent studes on the pro|ectve e presson of
needs, by McCeand and assocates (1949, 1950), seem especay
usefu n combnng some degree of e permenta contro wth an
anayss of some of the varety of compe reactons studed n the
cnc. These e perments have attempted to arouse e permentay
not ony smpe physoogca tensons ke hunger but aso some
more compe psychogenc motves such as n chevement and
n Securty. The vaue of e permenta arousa es partcuary n
the fact that t s easer to soate the effect of the motvatona vara-
be per se on behavor as dstngushed from the other varabes that
nfuence behavor. ut t has another advantage as we whch de-
rves from the fact that f a motve can be nduced, t may be nduced
at dfferent eves of ntensty and ts presumaby dfferent effects
observed. Ths may provde a way of resovng some of the ap-
parenty parado ca effects cncans have attrbuted to the same
motve. Thus an ncrease n motvaton at one eve may ncrease
effcency and at another decrease t.
These e perments aso have the advantage of measurng the
effects of motvaton on magnaton or symboc processes. Typ-
cay, sub|ects are asked to wrte bref magnatve stores n response
to varous pctures under the nfuence of hunger, n chevement,
or some other motvatona state. Content anayses of the stores
show whch characterstcs change as a resut of the nduced motva-
ton. he t may be dffcut to match n overt behavor n the
aboratory some of the defense mechansms or symptoms cncans
are nterested n, t s not so dffcut at the symboc eve. or n-
stance, one of the story characterstcs scored by McCeand e at.
4 0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
s Ga-|-, whch s defned as the antcpaton of peasure accompany-
ng the successfu outcome of a goa sequence. Induced achevement
motvaton ncreases the frequency wth whch statements appear n
sub|ects stores whch can be cassfed as Ga- -- The advantage of
usng such a behavora measure es n part n the fact that t fas
n compe ty somewhere between a smpe overt motor response
and a compe defense mechansm such as a deuson of grandeur
whch mght be of nterest to the cncan. e cannot produce de-
usons of grandeur n the aboratory very easy but we may be abe
to study the functonng of ther symboc prototype, the Ga
response.
0ther advantages from deang wth symboc processes derve
from the great varety of behavor they represent and the economy
wth whch they represent t. It was probaby for these reasons that
reud fet that hs study of symboc processes n dreams provded
such an mportant avenue to the understandng of compe be-
havora symptoms of menta dsease. e states: perence has
shown that the unconscous mechansms whch we dscovered from
our study of dream-work and whch gave us an e panaton of the
formaton of dreams aso hep us to understand the puzzng symp-
toms whch attract our nterest to neuroses and psychoses. conc-
dence of such a knd cannot fa to e cte hgh hopes n us. (1940,
p. 57.) The reason for such a concdence does not seem mysterous
or hard to fnd. snge dream or magnatve story may pack nto
a reatvey short space of tme an amount of behavor whch t
woud take hours to dspay overty and a varety of responses whch
n some of ther more bzarre forms coud never be dspayed overty
by a person under norma condtons. Symboc processes provde a
knd of behavora shorthand, a shorthand whch s both economca
ard effcent n representng a ot of a person s behavor. or the
same reasons t can provde a usefu nde of the strength of motva-
ton on the genera assumpton that the greater a person s magna-
tve or symboc concern wth a partcuar goa ( ood, chevement),
the stronger hs motvaton n that area. Thus McCeand et a.
(1949) have computed an over-a n chevement score whch s the
sum of the achevement characterstcs shftng under nduced
achevement motvaton whch appear n a gven person s record
under norma condtons. th such a score t s possbe to dvde
peope nto groups wth hgh and ow motvaton and to observe
n what ways they react dfferenty (cf. McCeand and berman,
1949). or a these reasons the studes of the pro|ectve e presson
4 1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of needs are partcuary strategc n the anayss of the effects of
motvaton on behavor and we sha draw heavy, though by no
means e cusvey, on them n what foows.
Increased Instrumenta ctvty. 0ne effect that neary a the-
orsts agree motvaton has s that of energzng the organsm or
makng t more actve. t the boogca eve ths s ready demon-
strated. arge number of observatons attest the fact that motves
ke se or hunger ead to an ncrease n restessness, n the tota
number of responses emtted by the organsm (cf. Morgan, 1943).
Probem-sovng e perments show the same resut: the motvated
organsm s more actve, produces more vcarous tra and error,
more energetc responses, etc. The same effect s found at the sym-
boc eve. Sub|ects motvated ether by hunger ( tknson and
McCeand, 194 ) or by n chevement (McCeand, Cark, Poby,
and tknson, 1949) tend to attrbute nstrumenta actvty to char-
acters n ther stores more often than unmotvated sub|ects. That
s, the peope n the stores actuay do somethng (make a decson,
try a new mode of attack, etc.) n order to reach ther food or acheve-
ment goas. Nor s ths resut confned to stuatonay-nduced needs.
owe (1950) and Cark and McCeand (1950) have shown that
peope who score hgh on n chevement n ther magnatve stores
under norma condtons sove more arthmetc probems per unt
tme, earn to rearrange scrambed words faster, and show greater rea-
tve output n the mdde of an anagrams test than do sub|ects wth
ow magnatve n chevement.
Increased motvaton eads to ncreased output under an e -
tremey wde range of condtons. In ndustry, for e ampe, many
studes have shown that added ncentves w produce a spurt n
output (cf. Moore, 1939) or that nterest n one s work as brought
about perhaps by the knowedge that one s beng studed w n-
crease output (the so-caed awthorne effect, cf. Poethsberger
and Dckson, 1939). McGeoch (1942) sts a arge number of e per-
ments whch have demonstrated that earnng ncreases n speed
and effcency under ncreased motvaton or added ncentves such
as prase or reproof, rvary, ntent to earn, etc. Meton (1942) has
concuded from a ths that one of the ma|or functons of motva-
ton s to mobze the resources of the organsm for more effcent
acton or to reease energy whch may be used to produce faster out-
put, more effcent earnng, etc. The energzng effect o motvaton
s dspayed ether through an ncrease n the number of responses
4 2
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
produced per unt tme, n the varety of responses produced, or n
the number of reevant responses.
ut sometmes such an ncrease n response output does not ead
to greater earnng or performance effcency, partcuary f t s
pushed far enough. Some work by Patrck (1934) patterned after
earer studes on anmas by amton (1916), ustrates the pont.
e paced human sub|ects n a compartment wth four e t doors
and gave them the probem of tryng to dscover and escape by the
one unocked door. Snce the escape door on successve tras vared
n a random fashon, the sub|ects coud not sove the probem, but
they coud vary n the amount of ratonaty they showed n sys-
tematcay tryng out the doors, and n the speed, therefore, wth
whch they got out. Patrck found that most human sub|ects were
hghy ratona (avodng repeated tres at the same door or the door
unocked on the prevous tra, etc.) under norma motvatng con-
dtons. ut when he stepped up ther motvaton by sprayng them
wth neede showers or shockng them through ther bare feet, the
sub|ects showed more stereotyped, rratona, and neffcent behavor.
Ther behavora output may have rsen as motvaton ncreased,
but t was ess effcent or adaptabe. The same effect has been ob-
taned by a number of anma e permenters who have shown that
as the dffcuty of a dscrmnaton ncreases the strength of stmuus
(e.g. punshment) whch w produce optmum probem sovng ef-
fcency gets ess and ess (the so-caed Yerkes-Dodson aw, cf. Young,
1936, pp. 2 0 ff.). In short, there woud appear to be a curvnear
reatonshp between motvatona ntensty and the effcency of
performance, even though the sheer output of responses may con-
tnue to rse. The decrease n effcency s probaby due to the decrease
n varabty of the responses emtted, whch n turn may be due to
a decrease n the number of succeedng responses whch w be n-
fuenced by any gven response (cf. Mer and rck, 1949). That s,
the sub|ects memory span s cut down and they tend to repeat
unsuccessfu responses more ready under very ntense motvatons.
The curvnear reaton between motvaton and effcency s -
ustrated ncey by a seres of e perments on the effects of nduced
muscuar tenson on earnng and work output. Muscuar tenson
may not be e acty the same as motvaton but t seems to accompany
changes n motvaton wth such reguarty that t may be thought
of as one of the body mechansms by whch motvaton acheves ts
energzng effects on performance. e may therefore study the effects
of dfferent ntenstes of nduced tenson wth the same nterest
4 3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
that we woud have n observng the effects on behavor of n|ectng
adrenan when our man concern was the probem of emoton. In-
duced muscuar tenson does not reproduce a motvatona state
any more than adrenan reproduces an emotona one, but n both
cases we may study the somatc accompanments of such centra
states wth proft. Courts (1942) has summarzed the resuts of a
number of musce-tenson studes by assumng the e stence of a fa-
ctatve and a dsruptve factor whch functon as shown n g-
ure 13.1.
IGUP 13.1
ypothetca panaton of the Infuence of Increasng
Dynamometer Tenson on Performance
Dynamometer tenson
(Peproduced by permsson from . . Courts, The Infuence of Practce
on the Dynamogenc ffect of Muscuar Tenson. /. p. Psycho., 30, 504-
511. Copyrght 1942 by the mercan Psychoogca ssocaton.)
s he ponts out, hs e panaton of the data |n terms of the
two factors| s, of course, hypothetca (1942, p. 509). ut the net
performance curve s one that has been obtaned for a arge number
of e perments nvovng such dverse responses as memorzaton of
nonsense syabes, the knee-|erk response, and performance on a
pursut rotor task. There seems to be cear evdence that for one
reason or another performance tends to fa off at hgh eves of n-
duced tenson. The ntensty eve necessary to produce the fang
off has aso been found to be ess wth more compe tasks whch
4 4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
requre more varabe responses, suggestng agan that t s the re-
ducton n the varabty of response whch produces the decrease
n performance.
urther support for ths shft n the effect of motvaton on per-
formance as ts ntensty ncreases can be found n other paces.
ear may frst factate and then dsrupt performance as t grows
more ntense. Cark and McCeand (1950) report that sub|ects wth
presumaby md fear of faure actuay perform better n the ast
mnutes of an anagrams test, whe Sears (1937) has ceary dem-
onstrated that more severe antcpatons of faure w nterfere
wth performance and cause a owerng of over-a score. Cncans
have, of course, neary aways emphaszed the ncapactatng effects
of strong motves. Ths s not surprsng n vew of the fact that most
peope whom they dea wth are sufferng from the effects of ntense
drves. ut to read some of ther wrtngs one mght be ed to
concude that a motvaton s dsruptve and eads the organsm to
adopt varous defenses. s we have seen n an earer chapter, ths
concuson supports the genera poston that motves are states of
tenson whch ought to be reduced f possbe to a mnmum. 0ur
present anayss suggests that ths s as one-sded a vew as the op-
posng one that motves are aways boogcay usefu n enabng
the organsm to sove probems more effcenty. The fact of the
matter seems to be that as a motve ncreases n ntensty t frst
eads_ to an ncrease n the effcency of nstrumenta actvty and
then to a decrease. Thus t woud appear that as far as ad|ustment
s concerned there s a certan optmum eve of motve n-
tensty, a eve of creatve an ety, whch eads to ma mum
probem-sovng effcency. Too tte motvaton eads to suggsh-
ness 3nd nerta, too much to dsrupton and defense aganst an ety.
The theoretca probems st unsoved are the dscovery of what
ths area of optmum ntensty s and why hgher ntenstes ead to
neffcency.
Interreatedness. 0ne of the most strkng effects of motvaton s
the way n whch t brngs together or reates dverse aspects of the
organsm s actvtes. It organzes responses, ntroduces trends nto
behavor, or, as McGeoch puts t, provdes orentaton and drec-
ton for behavor (1942). rom the outsde observer s vewpont,
as we have seen, t s ths capacty of the motve concept to make
sense out of vared responses whch dstngushes t from our other
concepts and makes t so usefu. rom the nterna frame of refer-
4 5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ence, as refected n Thematc ppercepton stores wrtten under
the nfuence of motvaton, ths characterstc of motves s aso very
evdent. In the frst pace the motve operates to produce more need-
reated magery. If a sub|ect s hungry and .s asked to dentfy a
seres of ambguous stmu, he w see more of them as food-reated
than f he s not hungry (McCeand and tknson, 194 ). Smary,
f hs n chevement s aroused, pctures presented to hm w more
often suggest stores deang wth achevement (McCeand, Cark,
Poby, and tknson, 1949). In short, the need operates to draw
more and more of the sub|ect s assocatons nto ts orbt. Thus we
mght suppose that as motve ntensty ncreases, more and more
of the organsm s percepton and behavor w be reated to t unt
under the e treme pressure of a need, as when a person s dyng of
thrst n the desert, nothng s eft whch s not reated to the need.
0ne of the strkng resuts of the e perments on the protectve
e presson of needs s the ncrease n future references n the stores
wrtten by motvated sub|ects. or e ampe, n the e perment on
n chevement, two of the story characterstcs whch ncreased most
markedy were: genera magery and antcpatory goa responses.
The genera magery category was defned as nvovng stores whch
deat wth ong-term achevement concerns, such as graduatng from
schoo, attanng a fe goa, nventng somethng of use to the word,
choosng a vocaton, etc. The category deang wth antcpaton of
goa responses was scored whenever characters n d1e stores were
antcpatng success and ts gratfcatons or faure and ts un-
peasant consequences. In both cases t s as f the need has served
to reate present achevement e perences to future ones, to promote
understandng of the present n terms of a wder conte t. In con-
trast, a group of sub|ects who were not motvated for achevement
tod stores whch deat wth specfc achevement tasks that had no
genera or ong-term mpcatons. Motves seem to be servng to
te the present to the future, the specfc to the genera and the
ong-run.
There s st another way n whch motvaton appeared to n-
crease nterreatedness n these e perments. The stores wrtten
under achevement motvaton contaned more ndvduas who were
ether hepng or actvey hnderng the person n the story who was
attemptng to carry out an achevement-reated behavora sequence.
The specfc categores nvoved were named nurfutt|ff..and hoste
press. In other words, f a pcture contaned two peope, one mght
typcay be perceved as havng an achevement concern and the
4 6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
other as actvey hnderng or hepng hm. tra peope n the pc-
tures ost ther neutra status and were seen as actvey nvoved n
the achevement stuaton. It s as f the motve n queston served
to senstze the sub|ects to the nurturant or hoste possbtes of
other peope. The stuaton seems to be comparabe to the one n
whch a chmpanzee perceves a stck as the means to the end of
pung n an orange whch s |ust beyond hs reach, or to the one
n whch a boy who s n ove wth a gr sees someone ese who
dates her as a rva amost mmedatey. Ths phenomenon n e ag-
gerated form appears n deusons of reference and persecuton.
motve may become so ntense that ob|ectvey dsnterested peope
are perceved as threatenng or concerned n some way wth the
frustraton or fufment of the motve n queston.
hat evdence s there that ths capacty of a motve to nterreate
aspects of the person s symboc processes n these e perments s a
genera characterstc of motves e shoud remember n the frst
paccTthat accordng to the theoretca assumptons proposed n the
ast chapter motves are based on strong generazed affectve asso-
catons. It foows from ths that one coud e pect motves when
aroused to nvove a varety of responses, snce they are genera to
begn wth. It s dfferentaton of sub-goas and specfcay reevant
responses that appears to be progressvey earned. Generaty or
nterreatedness of responses assocated wth peasure or pan e sts
from the begnnng. In the second pace, t has been common prac-
tce n earnng theory to assume that renforcement or reward serves
to set up a goa gradent n a maze stuaton, for nstance. It s a
fact that errors near the end of a maze are emnated more qucky
than those farther from the end. To e pan ths fact u (1943)
and others have spoken of a deay of renforcement gradent whch
s responsbe for the stronger and more rapd f aton of correct re-
sponses near the reward. Pegardess of the e act theoretca nterpre-
taton, the fact remans that a theorsts assume that somehow
reward or motvaton serves to reate events whch occur earer n a
maze to events or response whch occur ater n the maze. The goa
gradent s smpy an attempt to e press ths reatonshp more pre-
csey. The assumpton that motvaton somehow ncreases the nter-
reatedness of successve responses s essenta to any earnng theory
whch accounts for the progressve emnaton of errors n a com-
pe behavora chan, especay snce the errors may be dstant n
space and tme from the pont of renforcement.
There s other evdence for nterreatedness from other types of
4 7
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e perments. atzks (1949) has dscovered that peope wth hgh
magnatve n chevement use dfferent grammatca categores n
an achevement-reated task such as wrtng a theme. Specfcay they
use more future tenses, more generazed or abstract nouns, and
more causes ndcatng retroactve or proactve reatonshps. In
short, the motve appears to nfuence not ony the deas whch a
person has but aso the ngustc forms whch he chooses to e press
those deas. The changes n anguage, ke the changes n deas,
strongy suggest that the presence of a motve tends to ncrease
reatonshps n tme and between the partcuar and the genera.
n e perment by en and Schoenfed (1941) on the effects of ego-
nvovement s reevant here. Sub|ects were asked to perform a va-
rety of tasks and aso to rate how confdent they were that they had
done we after competng each task. n ntercorreaton of the
confdence ratngs under norma workng condtons showed a ow
and nsgnfcant reatonshp. owever, f the sub|ects were ego-
nvoved, whch s to say, f ther n chevement was aroused, the
ntercorreaton of the confdence ratngs rose to the eve of sg-
nfcance. In other words, the ntroducton of the achevement mo-
tve served to reate responses whch had formery been unreated.
the tasks were now perceved as reevant to an achevement goa.
s fna support for the hypothess that motvaton ncreases nter-
reatedness we need ony refer back to the knd of stuaton whch
orgnay gave rse to the motvatona concept n cnca stuatons.
In the aqus epsode dscussed n Chapter 11, reud successfuy
reated the forgettng of a word to an event (se ua ntercourse)
whch had occurred earer n the person s fe hstory. To te to-
gether these two events, whch were separated n tme and dfferent
n form, he suggested the e stence of an underyng motve, namey,
gut or, as some woud currenty phrase t, the need for tenson re-
ducton. Now f we turn ths stuaton around and, nstead of reason-
ng from effects to causes, ask what effects the motve produces, we
come to the concuson that the motve has dfferent but reated
effects (forgettng a word, dsgused free assocatons, etc.). Ths may
sound as f we have reasoned n a crce, but what we have added
above s the e permenta fndng that when we nduce motvaton
we do n fact get an ncrease n the nterreatonshps that the mo-
tve concept was orgnay devsed to e pan.
Senstzaton. 0rgansms whch are n a state of motvaton seem
more senstve to some knds of envronmenta cues than to others.
4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
s Morgan (1943) has put t, a drve or nstnct seems to operate n
part at east by renforcng some sensory stmuatons and not
others ( ebb, 1949, p. 191). There seems to be a owerng of per-
ceptua f not sensory threshods to specfc knds of stmuaton and
furthermore, when the drve-reated stmuaton s suprathreshod,
t appears more vvd than when the organsm s not motvated
(renforcng effect). Ths may be the mechansm whch accounts for
the ncreased nterreatonshps mentoned n the prevous secton,
but the e permenta terature on the senstzng effects of motva-
ton s suffcenty arge to warrant separate treatment. In the e per-
ments by McCeand et a. on the pro|ectve e presson of needs,
ths effect was most notceabe n the changed character of goa state-
ments n the motvated sub|ects. Increased motvaton dd not n-
crease the number of successfu outcomes of achevement-reated
stores, but t dd ncrease the number of tmes that a successfu out-
come was assocated wth a postve affectve statement. Specf1cay
ths meant that there was no ncrease n the number of statements
such as e w acheve hs goa but there was n the number of
statements whch ran, e w acheve hs goa and be happy ever
after. In other words, goa stuatons had become more vvd or
more affectvey toned, for the motvated group. The ncreased vvd-
ness of the achevement goa was aso refected by such conatve
statements as e wants to get ahead or e s strvng to compete
the task n tme, etc. Such e pct statements of need for acheve-
ment were much more frequent n the motvated groups.
Perceptua senstzaton produced by motvaton has been meas-
ured n two man ways: n terms of changes n the characterstcs of
a need-reated ob|ect or n terms of the speed of recognton of
the ob|ect. s an ustraton of the frst approach, an e perment by
runer and Goodman (1947) s typca. They asked poor and rch
chdren to ad|ust a daphragm wth a crcuar openng to the same
sze as cons of dfferent vaue hed n ther hands. They found that
the poorer chdren tended to overestmate the sze of the cons to
a greater e tent than dd the rch chdren. Yet the same dfference
was not obtaned when cardboard dscs nstead of cons were used.
In other words, the need-reated ob|ects (cons) were overest-
mated more than the unreated ob|ects (cardboard dscs). McCe-
and and tknson (194 ) have reported smar effects for hunger.
Tfey found that when they presented sub|ects wth ambguous
stmu supposedy representng food-reated and unreated ob|ects
and asked them whch was arger, the hungry sub|ects sad the food-
4 9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
reated ob|ect was arger much more often than dd the satated sub-
|ects. In a further e perment McCeand, tknson, and Cark
(1949) report that achevement-motvated sub|ects gave arger est-
mates of the amount of money supposedy represented by an am-
bguous stmuus sgnfcanty more often than a contro group of
sub|ectsC Senstzaton seems to be a very genera effec _w|1ch n-
creases the vvdness of goa ob|ects n a dmensons carty, brght-
ness, sze, hedonc tone, etc. In e treme cases t may be the bass for
haucnatons. thrsty man n the desert not ony sees everythng
n reaton to hs thrst drve, what he sees s more vvd .e., a water
mrage appears arger, brghter, cearer, more affectvey toned,
etc., the greater hs desre for water.
The second measure of senstzaton has been recognton tme.
s Postman, runer, and McGnnes pont out, That a generazed
set owers the recognton threshod for specfc stmu wthn ts
compass, has, of course, been known snce the eary work of the
urzburg Schoo. (194 , p. 153.) These authors report confrmaton
of ths reatonshp n an e perment whch tested the speed of word
recognton for sub|ects whose scores on the port- ernon Study
of aues Test were known. They found that most of the sub|ects
recognzed words whch were reated to ther hgh vaues faster than
words reated to ther ow vaues when the words were rapdy_e
posed n a tachstoscope. urthermore, n consderng the guesses
whch the sub|ects made before correcty recognzng the word beng
e posed, they found sgnfcanty more vaue-reated hypotheses for
the hgh-vaue words than for the ow-vaue words. In short, the
partcuar needs or vaues n queston seem to make ready the recog-
nton or producton of need-reated words. Ths readyng, senstz-
ng, or prmng process seems to be one of the ma|or effects of
motvaton. urther evdence for t has been obtaned by McCeand
and berman (1949) n an e perment whch shows that sub|ects
wth hgh magnatve n chevement recognze success-reated words
faster than do sub|ects wth ow magnatve n chevement. hs
s not surprsng when t s remembered that the n chevement
score s tsef derved from the reader producton of achevement-
reated magery n a storyteng stuaton. In other words, one can
thnk n terms of a centra motve state (Morgan, 1943) whch ead .
to both the reader producton of achevement-reated responses and
the reader recognton of achevement-reated stmu.
The senstzaton effect we are dscussng here s_|y_ery .smar to
what has sometmes been caed wsh fufment. There seems_to_be
490 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
a tendency for motvaton to mobze memory, percepton, and
magery n a way whch s reated to gratfcaton of the need n
queston. or e ampe, napp reports an e perment (194 ) n
whch students were asked to reca statements they had read pre-
vousy concernng the spread of Communsm n estern urope.
The matera was so arranged that there were an equa number of
statements ndcatng that Communsm was ether ganng or osng
ground. Those students who recorded themseves as moderatey op-
posed to the spread of Communsm n urope tended to reca the
ant-Communst statements better. They remembered, n accordance
wth ther wshes, that Communsm was osng ground. Many smar
e perments coud be cted. In fact some authors, notaby Sherf,
have been so mpressed wth the pervasveness of ths phenomenon
that they argue t s the chef effect of motvaton. Sherf (194 ) ctes
as evdence the great preoccupaton wth food observed among
conscentous ob|ectors who took part n a starvaton e perment at
the aboratory of Physoogca ygene at the Unversty of Mnne-
sota. In fact, the sub|ect s ntense preoccupaton wth food seems to
show a very wdespread senstzaton effect, as the foowng e cerpt
from the report on the e perment shows:
The ntensve preoccupaton wth food made t dffcut for the men to
concentrate upon the tasks they had nteectuay decded they woud work
on. If a man tred to study, he soon found hmsef daydreamng about
food. e woud thnk about foods he had eaten n the past he woud
muse about opportuntes he had mssed to eat a certan food when he
was at ths or that pace. 0ften he woud daydream by the hour about the
ne t mea, whch was not very far away: Today we have menu No. 1.
Gee, that s the smaest menu, t seems. ow sha I f the potatoes If I
use my spoon to eat them I be abe to add more water. Shoud I make
dfferent varetes of beverages tonght aven t had my toast yet today.
Maybe I shoud save some for a mdnght snack wth my buddy. hat knd
of a sandwch coud I make Maybe I d better wrte these deas down, so
I don t forget them. If I eat a tte faster the food woud stay warm onger
and I ke t warm. ut then t s gone so qucky. . . . (Sherf, 194 , pp.
0- 1.)
smar senstzaton tendency has been more or ess assumed
to operate to shft goa estmates upward n eve-of-aspraton e -
perments. Most wrters have agreed wth rank (193 ) that the
choce of a partcuar eve of aspraton s determned by three fac-
tors : the desre to do we, the desre to make an accurate |udgment,
and the desre to avod faure. The frst of these motves s supposed
491
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
to push the estmate upward the others to hod t down. Unfor-
tunatey there s no drect e permenta evdence that an ncrease
n motvaton produces an ncrease n the sze or amount of the
goa whch s desred (eve of aspraton), athough such an effect
woud be e pected on the bass of much of the evdence aready
cted. The obvous test of observng the effects on eve of aspraton
of nduced motvaton has apparenty not been made. somewhat
reevant e perment has been performed by Tayor, however (194 ).
e studed the effects on eve of aspraton of the ngeston of de e-
drne, a drug whch produces a centra e ctatory state whch s
apparenty somethng ke the motvatona one. e found that
de edrne dd produce an ncrease n the fna goa estmates for
performance and aso n the average dscrepancy scores, gvng sup-
port to the genera proposton that motvaton-ke states ncrease
goa e pectatons. Smar trends can be found n Goud s (1939) and
P. Sears (1941) case studes of ndvduas wth hgh eves of aspra-
ton. 0ften, but by no means aways, such peope were |udged hv
the e permenter as havng stronger motvaton than peope wth
ow average dscrepancy scores.
n ety. The senstzaton effect s by no means unversa. In fact,
there seems to be |ust as much evdence for a contradctory trend,
a tendency for an ncrease n motvaton to mobze magery con-
cerned wth deprvaton and oss of the goa n queston. In McCe-
and and tknson s e perment (194 ) there was an ncrease n
food-reated magery whch accompaned the ncrease n hunger, but
the ncrease was not n terms of goa ob|ects or thngs whch coud
be eaten. In ther second e perment (194 ) on the effect of hunger
on wrtten stores they aso found a marked ncrease n the number
of stores deang wth food deprvaton (e.g., back-market actv-
tes). Smar resuts were obtaned n a study of the effect of nduced
n chevement on percepton. The same sub|ects who under the n-
fuence of achevement motvaton saw more money n response
to one tem, saw ower grades n response to another tem whch
caed for four grades on a report card. 0ther sub|ects who were
smary motvated wrote many more stores wth themas that deat
wth oss of achevement. urthermore, both n the hunger and
achevement e perments one of the most sgnfcant shfts whch
occurred n story characterstcs was n the frequency wth whch
characters n the story e pressed a need for food or achevement.
It s possbe that ths marked ncrease n concern wth deprva-
492
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ton or ack of the goa n queston mght be a resut n these e per-
ments of havng nduced the needs by deprvaton or faure. Geb-
hard (1949) reports that e perences of success or faure are very
mportant n determnng the favorabeness wth whch a partcuar
task s regarded. Thus one mght argue that pror e perences of
faure, for nstance, carry over to the new task of wrtng stores
and are pro|ected nto those stores as a resut of ths partcuar e -
perence rather than as a resut of the ncrease n motvaton. ur-
ther evdence from an e perment n whch n chevement was
aroused wthout as much nduced faure (McCeand, et a., 1949)
supports ths concuson n part n that the number of deprvaton
themas decreases athough they do not drop to the eve obtaned n
a ow n chevement group. The dffcuty s that frustraton s one
of the surest ways to provde cues for arousng a strong motvatng
state. ambert (1950), for nstance, has argued from rat data that
ffuffaton adds to the ntensty of an over-a drve state for the
organsm. Consequenty, to avod usng t as a means of arousng a
motve may purfy the effects of the motve but at the same tme
prevent observaton of the motve s effects at the most ntense eves.
ortunatey there s consderabe evdence from other sources that
an ncrease n motvaton produces an ncreased concern wth depr-
vaton and faure. In napp s e perment (194 ) referred to above,
the sub|ects who rated themseves as e tremey opposed to the spread
of Communsm n urope tended to reca better the pro-Com-
munst statements n drect contradcton to ther ntense wshes n
the matter. ere t s as f the ncrease n motvaton had produced
the drect opposte of wsh fufment. The hghy motvated sub-
|ects remembered facts whch woud |ustfy ther worst fears.
smar effect was obtaned by Murray (1933) when he had some tte
grs rate pctures for macousness before and after a frghtenng
game of Murder. The nduced fear produced an ncrease n the
estmates of macousness of the faces n the pctures presented for
ratng. 0ne mght have e pected that n ne wth the senstzaton
effect dscussed above, the ncrease n the need for reef from tenson
woud have operated to make faces more frendy. Yet the opposte
was true. n ety, not wsh fufment, accompaned the ncrease n
neec _Smar effects rteve ong been noted n cnca data. The e -
stence of a strong motve s often nferred from the presence of
an ety n a dream, for nstance. boy who s mdy n ove may
spend some of hs tme daydreamng n wsh-fufng fantases of
future happness, but as hs ove grows more ntense, eements of
493
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
an ety and antcpatons of the possbe oss of hs oved one begn
to creep n. The e perments by McCeand et a. (1949) on the
pro|ectve e presson of needs show that ncreased motvaton eads
to the pro|ecton of antcpatons both of success and faure. Post-
man and Soomon (1950) report that neary as many sub|ects recog-
nzed ncompeted tasks sgnfcanty faster as recognzed competed
tasks faster n accordance wth the e pectatons of the wsh-fuf-
ment or senstzaton hypothess. htfed (1949 states n contra-
dcton to the fndngs on e permenta starvaton that n a coec-
ton of fve hundred dreams n Germany after ord ar II, when
most of the peope were starvng, ony two or three deat wth food.
ow can these apparenty contradctory trends be reconced wth
the senstzaton effects reported above
The ffects of Motvaton at Dfferent Intensty eves. 0ne way
to cear up some of ths confuson s to assume that motves of
dfferent ntenstes arouse dfferent e pectatons through past asso-
caton and renforcement and that some reguar stages can be ds-
tngushed n the person s magnatve or thought processes as a
motve ncreases n strength. gure 13.2 represents an attempt to put
together n a premnary, schematc way some of the dfferent fnd-
ngs we have |ust dscussed on senstzaton, an ety, etc., as they
may appear n response to motves of dfferent strengths.
In ths schematc fgure the frequency of goa magery and depr-
vaton magery have been separatey potted to show the presumaby
dfferent effects of motvaton at dfferent ntensty eves. In the
frst or wsh-fufng stage, motvaton s weak enough to be sats-
fed, as t were, wth goa mages. In fact, evdence from tknson
and McCeand s e perment on hunger (194 ) shows that |ust
after eatng there appears to be a somewhat greater number of refer-
ences to competed food goa sequences than ater on. It s n ths
stage that the senstzaton effect, at east as far as the producton of
goa magery s concerned, s most obvous. Under certan condtons
ths concern wth peasant goa fantases may gve the mpresson
that the sub|ect s repressng unpeasant thoughts, but actuay t s
a knd of pseudo represson, not motvated by fear as wth ven
hgh eves of motvaton but by smpe wsh-fufng desres. n
ncrease n motvaton can brng a person n ths stage out of hs
daydream back nto reaty. In the second stage of motve ntensty.
I am especay ndebted to Dr. P. . napp for hs gudance n thnkng through
ths probem.
494
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
IGUP 13.2
The ypothetca ffect of Increased Motve Intensty
on Thought Processes
Peatve
frequency of
dfferent types
of need-reated
magery
Stages: 1sh
ufment
Push toward
Peaty
Goa orented
Intensty of motvaton
Defense
Peef orented
there s a push toward reaty, an ncreasng awareness of the need,
of the obstaces to the satsfacton of the need, and of nstrumenta
ways of overcomng the obstaces. Deprvaton magery tends to re-
pace goa magery n the spontaneous productons of the sub|ect.
Ths s|he conscous an ety stage. owever, the senstzaton effect
probaby perssts over nto ths stage as far as recognton s con-
cerned: To put the matter very brefy, a sub|ect n ths stage who s
hungry w spontaneousy concern hmsef more wth means of
gettng food and wth the abserce of food, but f a food-reated
stmuus shoud be presented to hm, he w perceve t more vvdy
(as arger, brghter, wth faster recognton, etc.) than at an earer
stage of motvaton. hungry person may prefer not to thnk of a
beefsteak at a, but f he sees one t may appear arger and |ucer
than norma. (Sanford, 1937.) Ths push toward reaty has obv-
ous adaptve sgnfcance. It prepares the organsm to satsfy the
need by focusng attenton on obstaces, by ncreasng readness to
respond to goa-reated stmu f presented, by energzng actvty
(see above), etc.
ut f motvaton s pushed st hgher, a change occurs. The con-
cern w1th need and wth deprvaton grows apparenty so ntense
that t becomes panfu and the organsm s now orented n a new
drecton namey, toward a reef from an ety rather than toward
attanment of the orgna goa. The appearance of ths new motve
reverses some of the trends whch have so far appeared. Need and
495
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
an ety magery tend to drop out of awareness because ther presence
s too panfu. In ther pace arrves a knd of defensve goa magery
whch s very dfferent n ts functon from the goa magery ob-
taned wth weak motvaton. It s ths stage whch may be repre-
sented by the defensve reca of competed tasks n some of the task
nterrupton e perments (cf. Posenzweg, 1943)-
e may pcture the sequence of events descrbed abstracty here
wth a concrete magnary epsode. et us suppose that a man s
drvng through a desert when hs car breaks down mes from the
nearest water. In the begnnng he may not be partcuary thrsty
and he magnes he w be pcked up by some passng motorst. s
the hours under the hot sun go by, hs thrst ncreases and he begns
to magne decous coo drnks, thck mk shakes, or ce cubes
tnkng n a gass. s more hours pass, hs thrst becomes more acute
and the unreastc mages gve way to an ntense preoccupaton wth
how thrsty he s and the absence of any sgn of water n the desert.
e may now begn to thnk up varous schemes for gettng water
out of hs car or to search n the surroundng terrtory for a sprng,
but he no onger spends much tme n de dreams of coong drnks.
Instead, he s actve, an ous, and very conscous of hs thrst. If we
assume that many hours pass by, hs thrst ncreasng n ntensty a
the tme, hs an ety may become so acute and so panfu that the
bounds of reaty begn to break down and he may begn to have
haucnatons or see mrages of water n the dstance or thnk that
he actuay hears the tnke of ce cubes n a gass. ventuay he may,
as t were, ose conscousness of hs thrst atogether and become de-
rous, e stng n a fantasy word n whch hs needs are beng
gratfed. Such a reconstructed pcture s consstent wth cnca re-
ports of nstances of ntense motvaton, wth e perments ke Dem-
bo s on proonged frustraton (1931) and wth the facts we have |ust
been revewng. It s as f ncreasng awareness were at frst usefu
n preparng the organsm to satsfy the need n queston, and then
beyond a certan pont of ntensty t becomes so panfu that there
s a need for defense and represson.
Such a concuson s, of course, entrey n ne wth the cnca
fndngs of psychoanayss. In fact, n the cases wth whch cncans
normay dea, the motves nvoved are often n the upper, reef-
orented phase of motve ntensty as pctured n gure 13.2. The
substtute, unrea gratfcatons of dreams, the represson of mo-
tves, and the varous neurotc symptoms whch cncans fnd, a
seem characterstc of ths end of the motvaton contnuum as we
. 496
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
have anayzed t. Snce e permenta and cnca psychoogsts have
normay been deang wth dfferent ends of the motvaton con-
tnuum, t s not so surprsng that ther concusons at tmes have
seemed to be contradctory. hat the e permentasts need to do
s to push ther motve ntenstes, f possbe, to the eve obtaned
n neuroses to see whether the effects observed by cnca psychoo-
gsts can be obtaned. Ths w naturay be dffcut to do, but the
resuts to date strongy suggest that the fndngs of the two approaches
w be found to be consstent, f motvatona ntensty eve s taken
nto account.
aratons n the ffects of Motve Intensty. 0ur schematc da-
gram of the dfferent stages n the effects of motvaton on behavor
s of course much too smpe. 0ur knowedge at present s too sketchy
to f t out n much deta, but two modfcatons must be made even
now one deang wth dfferent knds of motves and one wth the
nteracton of the concrete stuaton wth motvatona ntensty.
e have been persuaded by a number of facts revewed n the pre-
cedng chapter that there are at east two knds of motves whch
shoud be dstngushed for practca purposes, namey, approach
motves and avodance motves. Does an avodance motve go through
the same stages n ts mobzaton of magery as an approach mo-
tve pparenty not. gure 13.2 was desgned prmary wth ap-
proach motves n mnd avodance motves apparenty shft more
qucky nto the defense stage of orentaton. gure 13.3, repro-
duced wth modfcatons from tknson (1950), ustrates the dffer-
enta effect of ego orentaton on the two knds of motves as far
as reca of nterrupted tasks s concerned. hat ths fgure shows s
that as the e permenter made t cearer and cearer to the sub|ects
that the tasks whch were nterrupted were reated to persona suc-
cess and faure, the sub|ects who were presumaby motvated pr-
mary by hope of success recaed sgnfcanty more nterrupted or
ncompeted tasks, whe the sub|ects who were motvated by fear
of faure recaed fewer of these tasks. If t s assumed that the
two motves are of equa strength, obvousy the sub|ects wth the
fear motve are n the defensve stage durng ego orentaton
whe the sub|ects wth the hope motv are n the reaty stage:
they are rememberng ncompeted tasks so that they can compete
them and acheve more success. ctuay tknson s separaton of
the two motvatona groups was based on the fact that the sub|ects
presumaby motvated by fear had ower T T n chevement scores
whe those presumaby motvated by hope had hgher n cheve-
497
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
IGUP 13.S
The ffect of Dfferent Instructona 0rentatons on Peca of Interrupted
Tasks for Two nds of chevement Motves
1001
90
|S 0

e
60
50
e

20
10
Pea ed
Task
go
( fter tknson,
ment scores. pparenty, as far as achevement motvaton s
concerned, there s consderabe evdence that ow motvaton s
assocated wth avodng obvous faure (cf. aso McCeand and
berman, 1949). If ths s so, t s cear that our pcture of the
stages of orentaton accompanyng an ncrease n motvatona
strength n gure 13.2 s too smpe. ower motvaton (represented
n ths case by f aure) produces more reaty-orented actvty
(reca of ncompeted tasks) under rea ed condtons and- ess
reaty-orented actvty under ego-nvoved condtons than does
hgh motvaton. It ooks as f a weak motve, f t s a fear motve
and f the stuaton s ego-nvoved, can produce a defensve reac-
ton whe a stronger approach motve s producng a reastc n-
49
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
strumenta response. In ths case the defensve stage woud be
assocated wth ower motvaton rather than hgher as schematzed
n gure 13.2. hat a ths adds up to s that whether a person
s n the wsh-fufng, reaty, or defense stages depends not
ony on eve of motvaton but aso on the nature of the motve
and the nature of the stuaton.
Nor shoud ths be surprsng. fter a, the dfferent knds of
magery supposedy assocated wth dfferent motvatona eves are
aroused presumaby because of past e perence wth what has hap-
pened or wth what has ed to reward after such motve ntenstes
have been e perenced. 0ne coud e pect that n a genera way con-
cern wth nstrumenta actvtes, for nstance, has been a response
whch woud have ed to satsfacton for a number of peope wth
motves of moderate strength. ence we mght e pect to fnd a
genera tendency n a arge number of peope for a arge number
of motves for ths type of magery to appear n connecton wth
motves of moderate strength. ut by the same argument one mght
aso assume that a arge number of peope had dscovered that the
way to hande a fear motve s to avod thnkng about the stuaton
that gves rse to the fear. Thus one mght e pect somewhat dfferent
stages n the deveopment of assocatons to avodance and approach
motves of ncreasng strength. The same reasonng appes to the
nature of the stuaton. The assocatons aroused w be determned
n part by past e perence (partcuary so when magnaton s n-
voved) but aso n part by the nature of the present stuaton. Thm
n tknson s e perment the sub|ects wth hgh n chevement dd
not reca so many nterrupted tasks under a rea ed orentaton,
nor dd they compete as many tasks ntay. though ther T T
records showed that they had hgh achevement motvaton, they
were dsnterested n ths stuaton snce t was e paned to them
that what they dd had no reevance to ther persona success. hen
the nstructons were ego-orented, however, the stuaton changed.
Now these same sub|ects produced a arge amount of nstrumenta
actvty (reca of ncompeted tasks), but.t requred a combnaton of
hgh achevement motvaton pus a stuaton whch coud ead to re-
ward to produce ths response. Intense |notvaton aone was not
enough.
further ustraton of ths same knd of reatonshp between
the nature of the stuaton and eve of motvaton can be found n
a study of n ggresson among footba payers by Stone (1950). e
obtaned T T records of aggresson among footba payers both
499
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
durng and after the season and compared them wth the T T rec-
ords of a matched contro group of sub|ects obtaned at the same
tmes. e found that the footba payers and contro sub|ects pro-
duced an amost e acty equvaent amount of magnatve aggres-
son durng the season, but that afterward the footba payers
showed sgnfcanty ess aggresson and what aggresson appeared
was more pro|ected than for the contros, .e., t was as voent but
the source of the aggresson was predomnanty mpersona rather
than persona. To e pan ths somewhat compcated fndng, he
was forced to assume that durng the season the payers had to
mobze ther aggresson to hande the probems of payng foot-
ba successfuy, but that under norma condtons they dd not
have to snce they were bgger than other peope and had very tte
fear of beng unabe to defend themseves aganst attack. So after
the season, when there was no further need to mobze ther aggres-
sve responses, ther over-a aggresson count decreased sgnfcanty.
ut t was pro|ected further from the sef and attrbuted to m-
persona agents because these same footba payers had reason to
be an ous over showng aggresson both because they now had to
nhbt a response frequenty rewarded n the mmedate past and
because they had doubtess earned through past e perence that
ther superor strength, uness carefuy controed, mght ead to
re|ecton by others. The pont of ntroducng ths anayss here s
that t ustrates n a number of ways how the nature of the stua-
ton (the footba payers e perences wth aggresson) w be nfu-
enta n determnng the knd of aggresson magery a person ds-
pays. Thus the footba payers are n the defensve stage after
the season wth respect to ther aggresson motvaton (e.g., they
pro|ect t nto mpersona agents), presumaby not because ther
eve of motvaton s hgh (n fact, t seems to be ower than for
the contros) but because the e perences that they have recenty
been through and that they have had prevousy n ther fe hs-
tores have ed them to be an ous over ther own aggressveness.
0ne mght wonder n vew of a ths varety whether t s proper
to speak of stages of orentaton assocated wth ncreasng motva-
ton at a. Perhaps not. 0ur knowedge s too mted at the present
tme to be sure. ut t seems to smpfy matters a tte to assume
that there are such stages whch are the resut of certan common
e perences for arge numbers of peope and that they may be mod-
fed by uncommon e perences or by a shft from an approach to
an avodance motve. ,
500
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0N ICTS ND T N D 0P N I TY P DUCTI0N
So far we have been takng about the effects on behavor of a
snge motve operatng aone, but normay severa motves are ac-
tve at the same tme and often n opposton to each other. Can we
say anythng about the effects on behavor of such confcts The
probem has been deat wth very e tensvey n the cnc because
abnormates of behavor are often caused by |ust such confcts.
It has aso been deat wth n the aboratory under the headng of
reactons to confct or frustraton. ewn (1935), Mer (1944), and
others have made e tensve anayses of varous types of confcts and
the modes of souton to whch they ead. t the smper eves these
soutons may best be descrbed as goa-orented. or nstance, when
a motve s bocked e.g., when |ohnny wants some ce cream and
doesn t have a ncke, he may beg hs mother for one, ook n hs
other pants pockets, etc. If such further nstrumenta actvty fas,
|ohnny may be persuaded to accept some substtute goa such as a
promse that he w get ce cream tomorrow or a story after supper
that nght. In short, n ths smpe type of bockng stuaton, the
reacton to frustraton s ether to vary the nstrumenta actvty or
to accept a substtute goa (cf. Sears, 1941 McCeand and pcea,
1945)-
hen confct s more ntense, as for nstance when two motves
are nvoved, behavor s apt to be characterzed by oscaton and
possby compromse. The person may be forced to gve up or deay
one goa response n order to obtan another or he may try to adopt
a course of acton whch partay satsfes both goas (cf. ovand
and Sears, 193 ). Many compe actons are frequenty nterpreted
by cncans n terms of the |ont operaton of confctng motves.
or e ampe, a ryn Mawr coege student on the suburban tran
to Phadepha handed her tcket to the conductor upsde down.
hy Certany we cannot e pan the behavor n terms of a con-
sstent trat of behavng n ths way n the past. e cannot concude
that ths s her concepton (schema) of the way a passenger shoud
behave toward a conductor on a tran. Nor does t seem reasonabe
to assume that ths was nstrumenta actvty representng a snge
motve such as the desre to behave aggressvey toward the con-
ductor by causng hm nconvenence. Instead, we earn on anayss
that ths pecuar response was the resut of a confct of motves.
She wanted to rde a the way to Phadepha on a tcket whch
was good ony part way. e mght e pan her acton as a smpe
501
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
method of attanng ths wsh by conceang the destnaton wrtten
on her tcket, e cept for the fact that t was the most obvous way
of cang the conductor s attenton to her partcuar tcket. The
technque most key to have been successfu woud have been for
her smpy to hand hm her tcket and hope that he woud forget
her destnaton n the confuson of the many other tckets that he
had to take. Consequenty, to e pan her acton fuy a cncan
woud be apt to assume another motve was aso actve a desre to
concea her dshonesty. er acton coud then be nterpreted as a
compromse whch partay satsfed her desre to be dshonest and
her desre to be honest, but whch n the process satsfed nether
motve competey. Many ndvdua actons can be e paned as
the |ont products of severa motves, as reud so aby demonstrated
n hs eary anayses n The Psychopathoogy of veryday fe.
Sources of n ety. ery tte of genera sgnfcance can be sad
about such compromses as we have been descrbng. ach s more
or ess unque n the ndvdua case and ts effect s kewse unque
or at most cassfabe under such genera headngs as oscaton,
compromse, vared nstrumenta actvty, and substtuton. c|w_-
ever, as the confcts become more acute, a new eement enters |he
stuaton namey, an ety. s we have suggested above, an ety pro-
duces some markedy dfferent effects on the organsm whch are
best descrbed as defensve rather than goa-orented. In other words,
as confct grows more ntense, a new|r1otve arses the.|qeed for
reef from the tenson produced by the confct. The person s_be-
havor becomes more and more orented around the reducton of
an ety rather than the attanment of the orgna goas. ctuay
ths new motve for an ety reducton may deveop not ony (1)
from confcts of motves but aso (2) from an ncrease n.he_ n-
tensty of a snge motve, and (3) from a motve whch has been
prmary a fear or avodance motve from the begnnng. The ast
two sources have aready been dscussed to some e tent n prevous
sectons. So a bref revew here s a that s necessary.
Motve ntensty as a source of the need for an ety reducton. g-
ure 13.2 shows how t s conceved that any motve, f t becomes n-
tense enough, may orent the organsm around defense and an ety re-
ducton f t contnues to be unsatsfed. nd apparenty the stronger
a motve becomes, the more dffcut t s to satsfy t and the more
panfu frustraton of t becomes. s usua, the psychoanaysts have
characterzed ths source of an ety n vvd terms. They are apt to
502
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
speak of fear of the Id or fear of the strength of nstnctua tenden-
ces. To get a coorfu word-pcture of what they mean, et us turn
to a quotaton from uge: vvd mpresson of the way n whch
the nfant can come to fee threatened and overmastered by ts own
aggressveness s conveyed for nstance by Pvere: The chd s
overwhemed by chokng and suffocatng ts eyes are bnded wth
tears, ts ears deafened, ts throat sore ts bowes grpe, ts evacua-
tons burn t. Thus the chd s autogenous aggresson, the boog-
ca purpose of whch, as manfested for nstance n cryng, s no
doubt to get others to reeve ts needs, may threaten to destroy ts
owner, and t s the mpotence of the chd n face of the mountng
tenson whch makes uncontroed and unreeved aggresson appear
as a stuaton of acute danger. ( uge, 1945, pp. 110-111.) he
ths descrpton may appear unnecessary magnatve, t does us-
trate how an ntense enough motve may actuay dsrupt tsef (cf.
Chapter 12) and create a new need for an ety reducton.
Indrect support for ths hypothess comes from the anayss of the
reaton between frustraton and aggresson made by Doard, et a.
(1939). It can be argued (see beow) that some knds of aggresson at
east are not nstrumenta to attanng a bocked goa, but hep ds-
charge or e press a person s an ety. Consequenty f we fnd a case
n whch ths type of aggresson s frequent, we can argue that an ety
eve s aso hgh. Doob and Sears (1939) report on the bass of a
questonnare study that aggressve responses were reported ncreas-
ngy often as the sub|ects rated ther frustrated motves as more
ntense. Pephrased n our terms ths woud suggest that as motve
ntensty ncreased, an ety eve ncreased, whch n turn ncreased
the kehood that an aggressve response woud appear. The ony
dffcuty wth ths and other smar evdence reported by Doard
et a. (1939) on the reaton between ntensty of frustraton and n-
creased frequency of aggresson s that they do not aways dstngush
between nstrumenta aggresson (an ncreased effort to get at the
bocked goa) and goa response aggresson (a defensve attempt to
reduce an ety eve). Thus ther fndngs do not unambguousy sup-
port the hypothess that motve ntensty, f pushed hgh enough, w
produce a new need for an ety reducton, whch s refected n an
ncrease n goa response aggresson.
ear as a source of the need for an ety reducton. Motves whch
nvove pan-avodance from the begnnng probaby deveop nto
needs for an ety reducton rather ready. In fact, one mght won-
der whether they are not actuay the same thng. The ony reason
503
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
for keepng them separate s the rather tradtona noton that fear
and an ety are dfferent, that smpe pan-avodance s dfferent
from an ety reducton. The dstncton appears to be based n part
on the fact that earnng w ncrease n effcency wth a md pan-
avodance drve (e.g., eectrc shock), and then decrease wth hgher
ntenstes of shock. Thus Dodson (1915) has shown that kttens
w earn an easy ght-dark dscrmnaton faster and faster as shock
ntensty s ncreased, but f the dscrmnaton s dffcut, they w
earn more sowy f the shock s pushed beyond a certan optma
pont. The assumpton has been that wth hgh ntenstes of shock
the anma becomes so orented around escapng pan (defensve be-
havor) that he shows ess effcent probem-sovng behavor. nother. _
reason for makng the dstncton between smpe avodance and
an ety reducton motves s provded by some e perments at a much
more compe personaty eve on rgdty of behavor under the
nfuence of an ety. ere consderabe research ndcates that an -
ous persons abandon a prevousy successfu mode of response ess
easy than peope who are not an ous (cf. dorno, et a., 1950
Chrste, 1949 arrs, 1951). n an ous person s ess fe be n hs
approach to new probems, more rgd n hs percepton of ethnc
dfferences, etc. Ths agan suggests defensve concern wth reducton
n an ety rather than nstrumenta probem-sovng behavor such
as may be obtaned wth smpe pan-avodance drves. The contrast
s perhaps hghghted most sharpy by percepton e perments, some
of whch show better recognton for shock- or pan-assocated ma-
tera (McCeary and azarus, 1949) and some of whch show poorer
recognton for an ety-assocated matera (Postman and runer,
194 ).
So far we have suggested that ths dfference s due to a smpe
ncrease n the ntensty of the fear motve, whch woud make ths
a speca case of the prncpe dscussed n the prevous secton. ctu-
ay t may not be ntensty whch s responsbe for the shft from
nstrumenta to defensve behavor, but some other characterstc
of the fear-producng stuaton. or e ampe, f a person s standng
n the street and sees a truck bearng down on hm, he w normay
fear n|ury and adapt to the stuaton by smpy steppng to one
sde. Ths we mght ca nstrumenta avodance behavor whch can
occur when the source of danger and the means of avodng t are
both fary we defned. aster recognton of shock-assocated words
coud be e paned on ths bass. owever, f the nature of the dan-
ger s unknown or unspecfabe so that no probem-sovng response
504
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
s reay possbe, then the person may have to resort to defensve
measures to reduce hs an ety (attempts at wthdrawa, aggresson,
etc. see beow). Poorer recognton after generazed nduced faure
coud be e paned on ths bass. 0r take a further e ampe. To te
a sub|ect he s maad|usted s to threaten hm n a non-specfc way:
he thnks of ths as somethng bad but he doesn t know e acty
what s wrong and therefore cannot attack the danger n a probem-
sovng way. Under these condtons hs thoughts turn sgnfcanty
more often to such defensve measures as aggressng aganst others
or ntroducng others n an affatve reatonshp (McCeand, r-
ney, and Poby, 1950). Thus the shft from nstrumenta to defensve
behavor n response to a fear-producng motve may be a functon
of the non-specf1cty of the danger (rather than ts ntensty), and/or
the unavaabty of methods of copng wth t.
Confcts of motves as a source of the need for an ety reducton.
The thrd source of an ety namey, from the confct of motves
s more drecty reevant to ths secton. s we suggested earer,
two ncompatbe motves may operate n such a way that a person
fnds t mpossbe to satsfy both, even partay. The confct s
much more acute than when a motve s smpy bocked by a barrer.
The person may be torn between two opposng wshes, between
wsh and fear for the same event (e.g., marrage), or between two
opposng fears as n Maer s e perments (1949) n whch the rat s
punshed f he doesn t |ump and punshed f he does. In a such
cases the confct of motves may produce so much oscaton, so
much an ety, that the ma|or goa response becomes smpy the
reef from tenson. smpe ustraton at the e permenta eve
of how confct may ncrease over-a tenson has been worked out
by Sears (1950) and others ( oenberg and Sperry, 1950) usng
do-pay n chdren. They started wth the assumpton that ch-
dren who were frustrated at home, as measured by data coected
from parent ntervews, woud e press more aggresson n do-pay.
In other words, they started wth the assumpton of Doard et a.
(1939) that frustraton rases the over-a nstgaton to aggresson
or, as we have been cang t, n ggresson. .They found that
whe there was a tendency for ths to be so, punshment for ag-
gresson n the home was even more key to rase the frequency
of aggresson n do-pay. They e paned ths n terms of a confct
theory as foows: the frustrated chdren deveoped a stronger n
ggresson f they were punshed for e pressng aggresson, they
deveoped a confctng f ggresson (fear of e pressng aggresson)
505
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the confct between these two opposed motves (or more specfcay
over the mode of e pressng aggresson) was tsef a further source
of frustraton whch woud ncrease the over-a n ggresson. ence
the frustrated and punshed group of chdren woud have a hgher
n ggresson than any other group. ut ths coud not be dscovered
drecty n the home stuaton snce ther overt aggresson was n-
hbted there. It coud be dscovered n the do-pay stuaton, how-
ever, presumaby because the do house wth ts parent and sbng
fgures was on a generazaton gradent wth the rea home. That s,
the smarty of the do stuaton to the home stuaton woud tend
to evoke both n ggresson and f ggresson, but snce the gen-
erazaton gradent for an avodance motve s steeper than for an
approach motve (cf. Chapter 12), t woud not evoke both e acty
as n the home stuaton, but woud evoke more of the mpuse to
aggresson than ts nhbton. Thus the tendency of the frustrated
and punshed chdren to dspay more aggresson n the do-pay
stuaton s e paned by reference to two hypotheses one that con-
fct over e pressng aggresson ncreases over-a n ggresson, whch
s of partcuar nterest to us here and the other that gradents of
generazaton for approach and avodance motves are dfferent, as
prevousy assumed. The roe of such confcts n ncreasng the need
for tenson reducton has been treated theoretcay by htng
(1950) and s supported by Masow s dstncton between deprvaton
and threat (1943 and by Gwnn s work (1949) on the factatve
effects of punshment on a runnng response n rats (cf. Chapter 12).
The cnca evdence for the mportance of such confcts of
motves n rasng over-a an ety eve s aso very wdespread.
Neary a the fndngs on gut and shame are reevant here snce
both of these states resut from confcts over what a person wants to
do (or has done) and what he fees he shoud do. Psychoanaysts are
apt to descrbe the confct n terms of the contradctory demands of
the mpuse fe (the Id) and the demands of socety (the super-ego).
s uge puts t: Undoubtedy one of the most mportant resuts
of the formaton of the super-ego s the deveopment of that pe-
cuar menta condton whch we often descrbe as gut or the
sense of sn a condton that s perhaps pecuar to the human
race. . . . (1945, p. 143-) 0f speca mportance s the knd of con-
fct n whch the sef s perceved as the source of the dffcuty whch
s usuay the case when we speak of gut or a sense of sn. In such
cases the sef may appear to be the ob|ect aganst whch nstru-
menta actvty (or perhaps aggresson) shoud be drected, whch n
506
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
turn ncreases fear and an ety. There seems no reason to beeve
that these confcts at a hgher eve w obey any dfferent prn-
cpes from the ones dscussed n connecton wth the do-pay e -
perments. They have been mentoned here to suggest that they
mght be handed n e acty the same terms.
Modes of Peducng n ety. The effects of an ety on behavor
can best be thought of n terms of the cnca terature on defense
mechansms or the ways n whch peope attempt to reduce an ety.
The terature s so e tensve that t s begnnng to be possbe to
arrve at certan generazatons. To revew a the factua evdence
on whch such generazatons are based woud be manfesty m-
possbe, however, snce t woud nvove revewng the whoe range
of symptoms n menta dsease. ven namng and descrbng the
varous defense mechansms that have been soated by dfferent
workers n the fed woud be dffcut. that we can hope to do
s cassfy these defense mechansms accordng to ther severa dffer-
ent modes, hopng thereby to ndcate the dfferent drectons n
whch an ety may be reduced.
McCeand and pcea (1945) have revewed the prevous tera-
ture on reactons to frustraton e tensvey n ther attempt to devse
a cassfcaton scheme whch woud cover a the reactons they ob-
taned n an e permenta frustraton stuaton. The scheme whch
they deveoped as a resut of ths nvestgaton s reproduced n
Tabe 13.1 to gve a fuer dea of the knd of reactons they ob-
taned and how they defned varous categores of cassfcaton. They
dstngushed between goa-orented reactons (attack and substtu-
ton) and defense-orented ones (wthdrawa and mtaton). Ths s
necessary snce n any concrete frustraton stuaton reactons occur
whch are amed both at obtanng the bocked satsfactons and at
reducton of an ety. The person may shft from one mode of ad-
|ustment to another. s they put t, no mode of ad|ustment to frus-
traton s competey satsfactory, so a varety of responses are usuay
attempted, each of whch has ts goa, but a of whch do not ft nto a
coordnated functona behavor sequence. (1945, p. 3 5.) Pecognz-
ng ths constant shftng about n the concrete frustraton stuaton
we sha nevertheess pay attenton here ony to the defensve reactons
because we are nterested for the moment n frustraton not as a snge
barrer but as a source of confct-produced tenson or motvaton,
the genera goa of whch s tenson reducton. McCeand and
p|cea (1945) were abe to dstngush two goas of defensve
507
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
t|ehavor amed at decreasng faure, one a knd of dena of the
motvaton nvoved (wthdrawa) and the other a knd of dena of
the reaty of the frustraton (mtaton). In addton they recog-
nzed that anger and aggresson appeared to have an an ety-re-
ducng functon whch dd not ft very we nto ther scheme
anywhere. e sha foow ther scheme 1n generaT aroT_aa3 anger
and aggresson as a separate method of tenson reease.
1. thdrawa. The smpest reacton to a pan-producng stua-
ton appears to be to escape from t atogether. The mechansms of
escape have been varousy named: e.g., nhbton, gong out of the
fed, represson. The prmary am of escape seems to be to reduce the
nstgaton to act, as shown n Tabe 13.1. t one eve he sub|ect_may
n effect say. I gve up or I qut. ndcatng that-he refuses to strug-
ge, whch s often a way of reducng tenson because t emnates
the feedback to drve ntensty eve from contnued confct (cf.
htng 1950). t another he may conscousy try to forget or n-
hbt the an ety-producng stuaton he may try to escape t a-
together by dong somethng ese, partcuary when he s caught
between two fears or he may attempt to reduce an ety by repress-
ng from conscousness the confct whch gves rse to t. The ast
mechansm has receved most attenton from the tme tr1a reud frst
caed attenton to t, because t occurs n cases of more severe an -
ety whch apparenty contnues to affect the person s behavor even
though out of conscousness (cf. aggard, 1943).
In the process of tryng to wthdraw from the confct-producng
stuaton, an ndvdua may adopt some rather unusua measures.
Peacton formaton s one. ere the person s so an ous to prevent
the occurrence of the panfu stuaton that he does the drect op-
poste of the thng he wshes to avod. reformed acohoc ap-
proachng a tavern may go so far as to cross the street to avod a
confct-producng stuaton. Mowrer (1940) has observed smar
behavor n rats that have been taught to press a peda to avod a
shock. hen he added a shock to the peda, he observed that some
of the rats when put nto the stuaton tended to get as far away
from the peda as possbe, as f they were actvey re|ectng ther
mpuse to press t to avod the shock that was comng. Phobas are
smar means of makng certan that the person w avod the con-
fct-producng stuaton. Thus we fnd that the psychatrst says
about ar that hs phobas are protectng hm aganst hs hoste
trends. In hs case the an ety over e pressng aggresson s appar-
50
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
enty so great that he must protect hmsef aganst symboc repre-
sentatons of t (as n hs fear of fre).
It s nterestng to specuate on the theoretca possbty that
some secondary motves produce so much an ety that the motve s
gven up or abandoned atogether. Snce we have taken the poston
that motves are earned, t s at east ogcay possbe that the
affectve assocatons on whch they are based coud be unearned or
markedy atered because of the an ety they produce. If ths hap-
pened, one woud have a person whose fe woud be governed
argey by prmary peasure and pan and perhaps by the need for
reef from an ety as the ony remanng acqured motve. The be-
havor we woud e pect from such a person corresponds to the
behavor sometmes obtaned n schzophrena, partcuary of the
smpe and hebephrenc types. In these menta dseases t does ap-
pear as f the herarchy of earned motves has coapsed due to the
pressure of an ety. It s, of course, mpossbe to say at ths stage of
the game what causes the coapse, but t s at east ogcay possbe
that the cause may e ether n a defect n the formaton of the org-
na strong affectve assocatons on whch secondary motves depend
or n the unusua pressures to whch they are sub|ected n ater fe.
2. Converson and mtaton. |ust as a person may escape an -
ety by wthdrawa or gvng up, he may aso attempt to get reef
by aterng the stuaton whch produces the an ety. Ths does not
refer to restrvng or renewed attempts at sovng the confct, but
to attempts at reducng an ety by. changng the nterpretaton of
the frustraton whch produces the confct. hat s nvoved s per-
haps best ustrated by nna reud s dscusson (1937) of the way
chdren may deny reaty when they are under confct. They may
smpy say that t s not so that they have been bad. They may
reverse the rea facts, e, or pretend that the word s dfferent
and more n ne wth ther wshes. She argues that chdren are
better abe than are aduts to reduce ther tensons by aterng rea-
ty. ut aduts use the same approach: when they do, t s caed
ratonazaton. Peope reduce the an ety connected wth a confct
stuaton by renterpretng the stuaton so that t s no onger as-
panfu. McCeand and pcea (1945) found, for nstance, that
students who faed at a partcuar card-sortng task frequenty e -
paned the faure by statng that they had been up ate the nght
before, or that the cards were too stcky to sort, or that t was too-
hot n the e permenta room to work effcenty, etc. (See Tabe 13.1.)
509
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
2
0
t-
r
w
I 1
w
T 13.1
Cassfcaton of erba Peactons (P s) to permentay Induced aure
Peated Cnca Mechansms
Performance wthout conscous
ego-nvovement, automatsms
us dem ede gehen
Persstent non-ad|ustve affectve P
Dspaced aggresson
Dspaced aggresson
Dspaced aggresson
Instrumenta act
regresson
Instrumenta act
Pepresson
Negatvsm
ncystng
aton
Sucde
phantasy
skng for hep
That s about the best I can do.
I can t get t.
ave I got to stay here t I get
45
You coudn t take me away from
ths for awhe.
Thank G , I don t take ths
(Shftng deck or sortng method)
eep your eyes on me or I
cheat.
I know 1 faed you s .
Sampe Pemarks
Come here, you b .
(Sammng cards)
C , I m good.
ny P drected at changng or
avodng nstgaton to act
P avods by detachng ego from
need to contnue
P avods by tryng not to contnue
ny P amed at overcomng ob-
stace to get achevement
P s an attempt to break through
what are perceved as obstaces
to success
stuff.
P s an attempt to sove probem
by crcumventng obstace
ny P amed at mtng panfu
np 4 u of bockng
Defnton
amed at decreasng faure
amed at ncreasng success
. Intensfed P ncudng
aggresson
t. at e permenter
t u rcTranu faure
Peacton Type
4. at psychoogy
I. IT DP
. go e trcaton
Instrumenta ct
3. at cards
|II. IMIT TI0N
Instgaton
. Pe|ecton
II. TT C
. at sef
. ared P
0bstace
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Peated Mechansms
Isoaton
Converson symptoms
Catharss, masochsm
ysterca cryng
Changes n eve of aspraton
regresson
Identfcaton
Indrect compensaton
Patonazaton
Nonchaance
Goa response
Pro|ecton
Deusons
Sness
Cyncsm
Confesson
poogy
I coud do better f I coudn t see
you. I ddn t get enough seep
ast nght. It s too hot.
rght, so I am a far-beow-av-
erage card-sorter. You won t
te anyone, w you
I hope you brought your supper.
I set a poor eve.
That s some better.
(Predctng faure accuratey)
onest, you make me fee |ust
terrbe.
I m gnorant ... a freak.
Sampe Pemarks
I m a homcda manac.
(Swearng) h, s 1
I do my damnedest.
G d .
I m sorry.
Ths s mserabe.
P mts by e panng nappca-
bty of super ego standards for
performance
P mts by referrng faure to
unmportant super ego standards
P mts by referrng faure to n-
approprate super ego standards
ny P amed at gettng some sec-
ondary satsfacton out of the
stuaton
P s a seekng for satsfacton by
reease of tenson or by drown-
ng an ety
makng socay approved P s to
faure
P s a seekng for satsfacton
through subgoa achevement n
task
askng for comfort from
Defnton
III. IMIT TI0N-Conmucd
amed at ncreasng success
. Socay approved P s
Peac.on Type
. nge, e ctement
C. Subgoa satsfacton
. Patonazaton
. Isoaton
I . SU STITUTI0N
Goa Pesponse
f D. Sympathsm
C. umor
ft
w
ft
3
C0
0
ft
0
o
z
o
s
w
ft
o
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0ther cncay defned defense mechansms whch beong under
ths headng ncude: soaton, or the attempt to repress not the
whoe confct but ts panfu affect undong, or the attempt to take
back an act as f t had never occurred pro|ecton, or the attempt
to defend onesef by attrbutng an undesrabe characterstc to
someone ese and converson symptoms, or the attempt to reduce
psychc tensons by convertng them nto somatc dsorders. In a
these mechansms the person s tryng to reduce an ety by sub-
sttutng a ess severe type of tenson, by aterng the s1tuaton n
some way or by changng the nterpretaton of the facts whch woud
normay be gven e mght oversmpfy the a1m of ths type of
defense_by_cang_t converson 6|_|act, |ust as we mghT ca t e
precedng am converson of drve.
ere, too, we coud predct that the overdeveopment of ths mode
of defense mght ead to partcuar menta dsorders. Converson hys-
tera has aready been mentoned. 0thers woud ncude paranoa
and probaby paranod and catatonc schzophrena. In a these
dsorders the person seems to be frantcay engaged n attemptng
to r sncure_hs concepton ofreaty n order to make t ess an ety-
producng. If he succeeds n restructurng t n a way whch s fary
cose to reaty, he may deveop nto a case of true paranoa. If he
succeeds ony partay and nconsstenty, hs behavor s character-
zed by the sy and absurd deusons of the paranod schzophrenc
If he does not succeed at a but smpy keeps workng at the prob-
em, he may wthdraw nto a catatonc stupor n whch he contnues
nevertheess to work at hs probem frantcay, f we are to beeve
the reports of ndvduas who have come out of such stupors (cf.
osen, 1936). If a these attempts at renterpretaton fa, one
mght e pect a regresson to the smpe wthdrawa method of dea-
ng wth an ety. It may be for ths reason that catatonc and
paranod schzophrencs tend to sp back nto the smpe and
hebephrenc forms of the same dsease.
3. ggresson and Punshment. 0ne of the most mysterous ways
of reevng tenson s by e pressng aggresson or by recevng pun-
|shment The theoretca nature of these phenomena s not at a
we understood, athough they have been the sub|ect of e tensve
study both by cnca and e permenta psychoogsts. The authors
of rustraton and ggresson smpy state the occurrence of_any
act of aggresson s assumed to reduce the nstgaton to aggresson.
1939, p. 50.) Snce they have prevousy defned the nstgaton to
512
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
aggresson as beng_produced |) frustraton, t foows that they
regard aggresson as tenson reducng. s they pont out, ths s en-
trey n ne wth the psychoanaytc doctrne of catharss whch s
based on the observaton that e presson of the emotons reduces
ntensty, at east temporary. Thus a psychoanaytcay orented
wrter ke uge can wrte: Now the nfcton of punshment, n-
asmuch as t mpes the natura reacton of aggresson, tends to reeve
the outraged feengs of those who have been hurt after ts nfcton
ther anger abates, and they tend to regard the ncdent as cosed.
(1945, p. 145.)
Yet t s st not cear why aggresson shoud be tenson-reducng.
The authors of rustraton and ggresson attempt to te up the
aggressve response wth a strong goa-orented, attack response on
the obstace to the orgna nstgaton. Thus they say the strongest
nstgaton, aroused by frustraton, s to acts of aggresson drected
aganst the agent perceved to be the source of the frustraton.
(1939, p. 39.) nd they can defne aggresson ndependenty as an
act whose goa response s n|ury to an organsm (or organsm-sur-
ogate). (1939, p. 11.) 0ne dffcuty .wth such a fornTuatpns, as
McCeand and pcea pont out, that many e posve, voent
acts do not seem aggressve n ths mted sense of beng drected
aganst some ob|ect. nger seems to precede aggresson and to have,
ke the e presspn_qf other ntense emotons, some tenson-reducng
capacty of ts own pror to the dscovery of some ob|ect aganst
whch t may be drected. It s for ths reason that these authors put
anger and aggresson n the category of substtute satsfacton (see
Tabe 13.1). 0ther theorsts do not attempt to derve the tenson-
reducng capacty of the e presson of the emotons, but smpy ac-
cept t as nstnctve. orney, for nstance, has made the suggeston
n dscussng masochsm (1935) that voent e pressons of emoton
may reeve an ety by overwhemng or drownng t. Ths s
consstent wth the dea, dscussed beow n Chapter 14, that the
ntegrty of the sef-schema s ntmatey ted up wth the percep-
ton of potency whch may be voenty asserted n such outbursts of
emoton. That s, prmtve anger may be an attempt at reducng
an ety by an act of sef-asserton whch serves to mantan the sef-
mage n face of threats from the outsde. In ths sense an ety as a
threat from wthout may be drowned by a voent outburst of sef-
w. hatever the fna e panaton s, the fact remans that the
e presson of anger and aggresson often does appear to reduce
an ety, at east temporary, n a way whch s not ceary ted up
513 -
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
wth the nstrumenta character of the aggressve response n attan-
ng the goa whch the person has been prevented from reachng.
urther evdence for ths vew es n the fact that aggresson does
not aways strke the source of frustraton. It may be dspaced, f
an ety s assocated wth e pressng t toward the rea source of
frustraton. Thus a chd may have a reatvey strong nstgaton
to e press aggresson toward a parent due to the frustratons of
socazaton but, because of fear of punshment or oss of ove, he
may not e press ths aggresson drecty but dspace t toward sub-
sttutes, as n the do-pay stuaton. In such cases t s hard to see
how the satsfacton n strkng substtutes, etc., derves from the
nstrumenta character of the aggressve response n attanng the
orgna goa. ggresson appears rather to reeve an ety n some
as yet unceary understood fashon.
The most startng drecton whch aggresson may take s aganst
the sef. It s startng because t seems hard to understand on the
surface at east, why sef-nfcted pan shoud reduce an ety. Yet
the phenomenon of sef-aggresson, masochsm, or nemessm, as t
has sometmes been caed, s we known and has been e tensvey
treated n the terature. uge descrbes a smpe e ampe thus:
The other day I was watchng a mother feed her tte gr of two.
The chd ressted the soup that was beng offered her n a spoon
and endeavored to push away the mother s hand wth consderabe
show of force and dspeasure. fter a whe, however, the mother
st persstng, the chd suddeny atered her behavor, sezed the
spoon hersef and, wthout changng n any other way her combatve
e presson, pushed t nto her own mouth wth qute unnecessary
voence and poured the contents down her throat. There occurred
ndeed a qute unmstakabe reversa n the drecton of the chd s
aggresson from beng drected aganst the mother, t was turned
aganst the chd s own sef, n a way that fufed the mother s
wshes, but wth a knd of savage energy whch was qute foregn to
the mother s atttude. (1945, pp. 7 -79.) | uge fnds the p|1enome-
non so ubqutous that he adopts the term need for punshment to
e pan t and derves the need for punshment n part from the
chd s dscovery that punshment frequenty termnates an ety-pro-
ducng occasons. Thus he supposes that the chd earns through e -
perence that when he has been bad he w be punshed and the
punshment serves to e press and end at the same tme the parents ds-
approva. In tme he may earn to try to brng tenson-producng stu-
atons to an end by punshng hmsef n some way. In these terms one
514 -
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
can see how the chd succeeded, by forcng the food down hs own
throat, n termnatng the an ety whch arose out of the confct
over eatng, even f he frustrated hs orgna wsh st more n dong
so. Ths seems to be a case n whch there s a shft from behavor
whch s nstrumenta to the wsh not to eat to behavor whch s
defensve n that t s amed at reducng the an ety arsng n the
course of frustraton of the orgna motve. In the same ven uge
goes on to e pan such parado ca phenomena as the fact that
chdren sometmes are happer after punshment (cf. evy and Mun-
roe, 193 ), the fact that some peope are happer under the e terna
pressure of dsaster or harsh treatment and worry more when thngs
go we, and the fact that some peope commt sucde. Peope n a
depressve psychotc state even go so far as to ntro|ect the fauts of
others and then bame themseves for these fauts. In short, many
peope often show a consderabe amount of hostty toward them-
seves and appear to need punshment whch, when t occurs, re-
eves ther an ety. The troube s, as uge hmsef recognzes, that
punshment and frustraton under other crcumstances ncrease
rather than aay an ety. Sef-aggresson doesn t aways produce
reef sometmes t ncreases an ety. hy The fact s that we do
not as yet ceary understand the functon of sef-aggresson nor e -
acty n what sense or under what condtons t produces reef from
an ety. e smpy know t occurs wth consderabe frequency.
The authors of rustraton and ggresson have gone a tte fur-
ther and attempted at east to state condtons under whch sef-pun-
shment s more key to occur. In the frst pace, they state that
nstgaton to sef-aggresson shoud be reatvey stronger when
the source of frustraton s perceved to be the sef than when t s
perceved to be some e terna agent. (1939, p. 4 .) Ths woud ap-
pear to be true on the surface. Thus a person who has two strong
confctng motves or who fees that he s constanty fang to ve
up to hs ego-dea standards ought to perceve hmsef as the source
of the an ety whch s so panfu to hm. Snce t has been assumed
by these authors that aggresson toward the source of frustraton s
nstnctvey reevng, t foows that the person n such a confct
woud be more apt to become aggressve toward hmsef. There are
two dffcutes wth ths poston. ne s the probem of why aggres-
son, partcuary f drected aganst the sef, shoud reeve tenson,
especay when t apparenty does not do so a the tme. The second
arses from the fact that the person s percepton of the source of
frustraton s often not very accurate. Thus a person may wrongy
515
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ntro|ect the faut of another and bame hmsef for t, or he may
pro|ect onto another the bame whch n reaty s hs own. Yet, n
the present state of our knowedge, we cannot say why he ntro|ects
or pro|ects. Consequenty t does not hep too much to say that sef-
aggresson occurs when the sef s perceved as the source of frus-
traton.
The second reason for sef-aggresson s nhbton of aggresson
by the sef rather than by an e terna agent. Pestrant by an e -
terna agent of an act of aggresson, consequenty, shoud nstgate
aggresson aganst that agent and sef-restrant of an act of aggres-
son shoud nstgate aggresson aganst the sef. (Doard et a.,
1939, p. 4 .) There seems to be evdence for ths statement n Mac-
knnon s fndng (Murray, 193 ) that ntropuntve sub|ects (those
who tend to bame themseves) were more often sub|ected to
psychoogca dscpne n ther chdhood than were e tra-
puntve sub|ects who tend to bame others when thngs go wrong.
In, other words, the ntropuntves had been restraned from aggres-
son and other unsoca acts as chdren, not by e terna force, but
by the deveopment of nterna standards of conscence. Conse-
quenty these nterna restrants woud more often be perceye _as
frustrators by them and aggresson shoud consequenty be more
often drected aganst the sef for mposng them whch was, n fact,
the case.
nay, aggresson tends to be drected aganst the sef when other
avenues of aggresson are nhbted. Ths suggests an nverse rea-
tonshp between the occurrence of dfferent forms of aggresson
(1939, p. 51), n support of whch the authors of rustraton and
ggresson cte the foowng nstance. In the seep-deprvaton
e perment, the sub|ect who made the gory drawng was rated as
e pressng the most overt aggresson. In a sef-admnstered ages-
meter test he prcked (n|ured) hmsef wth the east pressure of
any sub|ect. y contrast, another sub|ect, who seemed to be sghty
nauseated by the e perment, was rated as e pressng the east overt
aggresson and, n the agesmeter test, he nfcted more n|urous
pressure upon hmsef than dd any of the other sub|ects. (1939, p-
52.) The dea that one channe of aggresson can substtute for
another s derved orgnay from reudan theory and has re-
ceved very wde acceptance, but actuay there s very tte drect
evdence to support t. In fact, Stone s study (1950) of the effects of
rewarded overt aggresson among footba payers ndcates f any-
thng that there s a postve rather than an nverse reaton among
516
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
the varous forms of aggresson. Those payers who showed hgh
aggresson on the fed tended to show hgh covert aggresson too.
or every case of a payer who, as n the above quotaton, was ow
n overt aggresson and rated as hgh n sef-aggresson, there was
an opposte case of a man who was ether hgh on overt aggresson
and hgh on sef-aggresson or ow on overt aggresson and e trapun-
tve, etc. urthennore, the footba team as a whoe showed no ev-
dence of a decrease n magnatve aggresson after an afternoon of
e pressng overt aggresson n footba practce. of these facts
tend to throw some doubt on the dea that there s a knd of reser-
vor of aggresson whch may be owered by e presson through
varous channes whch may substtute for each other f one hap-
pens to be bocked. There s at east as much evdence for the aterna-
tve hypothess that e presson of aggresson n any form ncreases
the probabty of e presson n other ways by generazaton and
transfer.
So whe the cues suggested by Doard et a. (1939) as to when
sef-aggresson occurs represent an mportant step forward, they
eave many probems st to be soved. In addton to the dffcutes
mentoned aready, one coud argue, as some theorsts have, that
nstead of sef-punshment beng derved from dspacement nward
of aggresson toward others, t s reay prmary (n the sense of over-
rdng an ety by voent masochstc emoton) and aggresson out-
ward a secondary earned deveopment (the dscovery of an ob|ect
aganst whch the voence can be drected). or another thng, the
e panaton of the need for punshment n terms of aggresson ds-
paced nward does not appear to account very we for a the facts
dscussed by uge. or nstance, he notes that reparaton and con-
fesson often serve as substtutes for sef-punshment. Confesson n
partcuar, whch has been recognzed for centures as a means of
aayng an ety, does not seem to have as ts am the n|ury of the
sef an am whch t shoud have f t s an e ampe of aggresson
dspaced nward. The whoe queston needs further study.
The overdeveopment of the aggressve and sef-punshng meth-
ods of reducng an ety ought to ead to voent emotona dspays
or to severe sef-accusatons. oth characterze the manc-depressve
psychoss whch has been traced by uge (1945), reud, and other
psychoanaysts to the tendency to adopt aggresson and sef-punsh-
ment as defenses aganst an ety. So the partcuar cassfcaton we
have made of the three ma|or modes of defense aganst an ety has
at east the advantage of runnng parae to the tradtona psy-
517
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
chatrc cassfcaton of the ma|or psychoses. Thus we have reated
schzophrena (especay the smpe and hebephrenc types) to wth-
drawa as the domnant mode of defense, paranoa and paranod
schzophrena to converson of facts, and_manc-de.presso.o to_|ag:
gresson and sef-punshment. Ths s, however, no more than an
nterestng concdence: we ceary do not know enough about de-
fense mechansms or about these psychoses to make any rgorous
connecton between them. The vaue of the cassfcaton es soey
n suggestng that the breakdown proposed here has been found of
use esewhere. or the pont of a ths dscusson s that some cass-
fcaton, some smpfcaton among the thousand and one defense
mechansms dentfed n the cnca terature, has got to take pace
before we can proceed to the ne t step of tryng to fnd the condtons
whch ead to one defense rather than another. e are n the poston
of a boogst who must dentfy and cassfy hs speces of anma
before he can study the condtons under whch t thrves, dsappears,
etc. To the e tent that a mechansm ke aggresson n a ts forms
can be dentfed, the condtons of whch t s a functon can e
systematcay nvestgated. y the same token we need to defne other
ma|or types of defense so that they can be studed n the same way.
est ths dscusson seem too genera, consder the probem of
regresson for a moment. ere s a defense mechansm whch was
derved orgnay from psychoanaytc theory about stages n the
deveopment of the bdo, and as such has receved e tensve treat-
ment n the cnca terature. ewn has aso been nterested n t
and has demonstrated that regresson n the sense of prmtvzaton
or dcdfferentaton of behavor occurs as one resut of frustraton
( arker, Dembo, and ewn, 1940). There have aso been e tensve
anma studes on the sub|ect (cf. Sears, 1943). ut on coser anayss
t appears that there are many dfferent knds of regresson and that
progress n the fed s not key to be made unt they are dstn-
gushed from each other. Sears, for nstance, ponts out that there s
nstrumenta act regresson e.g., a return to an earer mode of at-
tanng a goa, as when a rat frustrated n one habt returns to an
earer one and there s aso goa-response regresson e.g., the
return to an earer form of gratfcaton when a ater and presum-
aby more mature one s frustrated, as when a person frustrated n
heterose ua actvty returns to autoerotcsm. ut we can push the
dstnctons st further: If our prevous anayss s correct, we woud
51
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
have to argue that nether nstrumenta or goa-response regresson
s necessary a defense mechansm. Techncay t s possbe for
ether to be part of the ad|ustment to the orgnanstgaton (vared
nstrumenta actvty or substtute goa) rather than defenses aganst
an ety whch has arsen out of confct and frustraton. Pegresson
as a defense w doubtess be found to obey dfferent aws from
regresson whch s a means to attanng n some form the orgnay
frustrated goa response. urthermore, after such a breakdown as
ths t may seem preferabe to defne regresson n such a way that
t fts under such genera modes of defense as wthdrawa or con-
verson so that the process of dscoverng genera prncpes w be
smpfed. In short, t s ony as we make our ta onomy of the de-
fense mechansms smper and more systematc that we w be abe
to earn more about the condtons under whch they occur n much
the same way as we have begun to e pore the nature of aggresson.
Condtons Infuencng the Choce of Defense Mechansm. Is
there anythng at a that can be sad about the factors whch de-
termne the appearance of one mode of reducng an ety rather
than another nna reud says qute franky that the consdera-
tons whch determne the ego s choce of mechansm reman un-
certan. (1937, p. 54.) She s undoubtedy correct and part of the
reason es n the way n whch the defense mechansms are defned:
snce they overap, have no agreed-upon operatona defntons,
and are not reated n any systematc way, t has been dffcut to do
any systematc research on them. St, some very genera and obv-
ous condtons are known to nfuence the choce of reacton, for
nstance, past e perence s known to have an effect: peope appar-
enty tend to use one type of reacton wth a far degree of con-
sytpnry. The many postve and sgnfcant correatons obtaned by
Murray and hs co-workers (193 ) among reactons of the same group
of sub|ects to dfferent test stuatons woud end support to ths
hypothess. s a specfc e ampe of ths sort Sarason and Posenzweg
(1942) report a sgnfcant correaton of .54 between nabty to
reca faures n the nterrupton-of-tasks e perment and tendency
to gve predomnanty gossng over (mpuntve) reactons to
frustraton n the Pcture- rustraton Study. Pephrased n our
terms, ths fndng means that sub|ects behaved consstenty n at
east two stuatons n the e tent to whch they used wthdrawa as
a means of handng potenta an ety.
s further evdence of the effect of earnng ester (193 ) has
519
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
shown that chdren can be taught to adopt new methods of han-
dng frustraton. ctuay her concern was to get the chdren to
show ess defensve behavor and more probem-sovng behavor.
She found that by encouragement, gradua ncrease n dffcuty of
tasks, etc., she coud get chdren to postpone the gvng up or
wthdrawa response and to work onger and harder at the task of
tryng to ft a heavy bo off a toy. Ths demonstrates that earnng
does have an effect on the type of reacton a person gves to frustra-
ton, athough t does not specfcay treat the probem .ot whch
mode of defense s key to be chosen, granted that some partcuar
one s necessary.
ntcpaton of punshment shoud at east theoretcay nfuence
the .choce, of reacton, and Doard et a. (1ggo| assume that t oes.
Specfcay, they state that the fear of punshment tends to nhbt
aggresson and therefore to.. hf pmphq||||| to othpr types of ad|ust-
ment (e.g., wthdrawa or converson). .an ustratve e ampe,
Doob and Sears (1939) have shown n a questonnare study on types
of reacton to frustraton that n genera the greater the fear of pun-
shment, the more the sub|ects reactons shfted from aggresson to
some substtute response. The ony dffcuty wth ths fndng s
that t does not dea specfcay wth the probem of whether the
person s orented around an ety reducton or around attanng
the orgna goa n some form. That s, we know from prevous ds-
cusson of Maer s (1949) and Gwnn s (1949) studes of rats and
from the do-pay studes that punshment for a response may add
to the tota nstgaton to make the response, provded the response
s amed at reducng tenson n the frst pace. In short, t s not at
a cear that punshment of an an ety-reducng response w neces-
sary nhbt t though t s cearer that punshment of a response
whch s smpy nstrumenta to attanng a partcuar goa w tend
to nhbt t.
Is there a natura herarchy of reactons wthn the defense cate-
gory Ths possbty has not been fuy e pored. 0ne coud argue,
for nstance, that the frst defense s anger-aggresson, the second
ratonazaton or reaty converson, and the thrd wthdrawa, and
that one coud e pect such a sequence of responses among
peope who were sub|ected to ncreasngy ntense an etes. Such
a possbty does not seem very key. McCeand and pcea
(1945) found no evdence for a reguar sequence of responses on the
frst, second, and thrd reactons to frustraton as an ety was pre-
sumaby gettng more ntense due to the cumuatve effects of prev-
520
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ous frustraton. hat seems more key s that there s a herarchy
of defensve reactons for a gven ndvdua whch can be dscovered
through proonged frustraton (cf. Dembo, 1931), but whch s dffer-
ent for dfferent ndvduas. The queston st remans open, as
nna reud says, as to what the factors are whch determne the
poston n the herarchy.
Conceptua Probem. Can modes of reducng an ety be con-
sdered n any sense to be needs or motves If a person adopts a
consstent mode of handng an ety by wthdrawa, coud he not
be sad to have a hgh n utonomy In smar fashon a person who
used ratonazaton, etc., as a defense mght be consdered to have
a hgh n Defendance, one who used aggresson as havng hgh n
ggresson, one who used sef-aggresson as havng a hgh n base-
ment, and the ke. hat e acty s the dfference, f any, between a
consstent mode of defense and a need To answer such a queston
we w have to go back a tte n our conceptua scheme and reca
that we have prevousy argued that avodance drves are based on
strong affectve assocatons nvovng pan or fear of pan. 0n ths
bass we were ed to speak of fear drves such as f Pe|ecton as ds-
tnct from drves such as n ffaton. th ths n mnd we can
dagram the stuaton rather smpy as foows:
f Pe|ecton
an ety
rreef from an ety
(n utonomy)
Ths dagram shows how a cue (a woman, for nstance) mght come
to arouse by past assocaton a fear of re|ecton and how a partcuar
means of reducng ths an ety mght be deveoped, such as wth-
drawa, whch we can name n utonomy wth some reservaton. The
reason for the reservaton s that n utonomy may aso be based on
strong postve affectve assocatons, as, for nstance, when a person
deveops a ove for the woods because of strong sensuous and actvty
peasures ganed there, etc. In the dagrammed stuaton t s st
the strong negatve affectve assocaton whch s reay prmary and
one mght suppose that the partcuar mode of reducng the an ety
nvoved n t (n utonomy) mght vary more snce t s presumaby
secondary and based on somewhat ater, more hghy dscrmnated
521
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
earnng than s the affectve assocaton on whch t s based. Thus
t seems sghty preferabe n ths case to tak about f Pe|ecton
and modes of handng t rather than about n utonomy, even
though we may recognze that defensve modes functon n many
respects ke motves snce they get strongy assocated wth the pos-
tve affect assocated wth reef from tenson. ctuay at the present
stage of our knowedge ths s argey a conceptua probem whch
can best be resoved when we know more about how such needs
functon as compared wth needs based on postve affectve asso-
catons.
ar s Motve Structure s Derved rom Its ffects. Throughout
ths chapter we have emphaszed the mportance of studyng the
effects of e permentay nduced motvaton on behavor. The re-
suts of such studes can aso be used to gan nsght nto the nd-
vdua case. If, for nstance, we know that motves of hgh ntensty
have such and such effects on magnaton, we woud seem |ustfed
n concudng that a person who shows those magna characterstcs
under norma condtons woud be a person wth hgh motvaton n
that area. t east ths s the assumpton n terms of whch McCeand,
tknson, Cark, and owe have operated (1950) wth some success.
More e pcty a man s score for a partcuar motve ke n cheve-
ment can be obtaned by havng hm wrte stores under standard
condtons and then countng up ony those achevement character-
stcs appearng n hs record whch, on the bass of prevous e per-
mentaton, are known to shft as the resut of nduced achevement
motvaton. In ar s case, for e ampe, hs n chevement score s
- -12, whch s the hghest n the nta sampe n whch the range was
from 4 to 12 wth a mean of 3.13 and standard devaton of 4.25.
Thus we have drect confrmaton for the hypothess based on a cn-
ca anayss of hs T T n Chapter 11 that ar has a very hgh n
chevement. The |ustfcaton for totang up the achevement char-
acterstcs n ths way s party practca: t produces a score whch
reates n a meanngfu way to a number of other behavora character-
stcs and party theoretca: t seems key that a person wth hgh n
chevement w spend more of hs tme thnkng about acheve-
ment probems and workng out new and dfferent anges on them
so that when he s asked to wrte stores, he w be more key to pro-
duce a arger number of dfferent achevement-reated responses.
hat s perhaps more nterestng s a study of the partcuar knds
522
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of magery ar used n wrtng hs stores under standard cond-
tons to the four sdes used to get a measure of hs achevement
motvaton. four of hs achevement stores contaned genera
achevement magery (ong-term concern wth success or faure) and
three of them had a pot centerng around achevement. urther-
more, three contaned an e pcty stated wsh for achevement, some
knd of nstrumenta actvty, and some antcpaton of future success
or faure. In short, there s every ndcaton that ar s record con-
tans the future references, nterreatedness, and senstzaton so
characterstc of hgh motvaton n any fed. ut what about the
deprvaton characterstcs ere hs record s nterestng. None of
hs pots deas wth what s techncay caed a deprvaton thema
a pot n whch a person s n a serous achevement dffcuty whch
he has to overcome. 0n the other hand, two of the three nstrumenta
acts are unsuccessfu, as are three of the four outcomes. nd affect
s negatve n two out of three cases. In short, ths begns to ook
ke the nadequacy thema a over agan that we found n the
fu T T and anayzed n Chapter 11. ar has ntense concern wth
and hopes of future and ong-run success, but there s no ndcaton
of reastcay successfu ne t steps. In fact, n two cases when the
hero of the stores s bocked n hs achevement efforts, he turns to
some substtute goa or actvty, whch s a rather rare characterstc
of such stores (McCeand, Cark, Poby, and tknson, 1949)- If
our argument about the three stages n thnkng assocated wth n-
creasng drve s correct, then ar woud have to be descrbed as
between the reaty-orented and defensve stages. There s some
reaty orentaton (nstrumenta actvty) but t s unsuccessfu and
there s not the usua concern wth obstaces to be overcome (depr-
vaton thema, bocks) whch s usuay assocated wth ths stage. The
defensve orentaton s ndcated by the emphass on goa affects
and antcpatons of ong-run success. s head s n the couds as he
stumbes over hs ne t steps. s motto mght be: ad astro per aspera,
wth emphass on the stars rather than the dffcutes whch are not
ceary perceved.
though such an anayss as ths s nterestng and suggestve,
t shoud be taken as no more than that, snce there s as yet no ev-
dence as to how representatve the sampe of hs achevement deas
s whch s obtaned n response to these four pctures. tknson
-(19503) has found that even the over-a achevement score obtaned
by summng characterstcs has a reabty of ony .60 to .70 at
most, whch s not adequate for nterpretaton of ndvdua scores.
523
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The stabty of sub-characterstcs such as we have been deang
wth here s not known. Thus the ony vaue of such an anayss s
that t ustrates how some of the trends dscussed earer may be
found n the ndvdua case and how, utmatey, more precse
quanttatve nde es can be found for some of the quatatve meth-
ods of T T anayss dscussed n Chapter 11.
nay, we shoud ke to know somethng about ar s reactons
to frustraton, hs modes of handng an ety. There s consderabe
nformaton on ths pont n hs case materas, some of whch has
aready been mentoned n other connectons. More specfc treat-
ment of the probem w be avoded here because we w want to
ask for predctons as to how he handes frustraton n the predcton
questonnare n Chapter 15.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. hat s the dfference between a trat and defense mechansm
Is one easer to ater or e tngush than the other hat crtera
woud you set up for determnng whether a gven pattern of re-
sponses was one or the other
2. Can you set up crtera whch w dstngush behavoray
between nstrumenta and goa-response aggresson Stone (1950) n
hs study of footba payers, for nstance, fet that he must be abe
to dstngush between aggresson whch was |ust pushng another
payer out of the way (nstrumenta aggresson) and whch was httng
someone unnecessary. e managed to get severa crtera of dffer-
ence that he coud use n moves of a game. Can you thnk of some
Is the dstncton an mportant one Shoud the two knds of aggres-
son obey dfferent aws
3. Is nstrumenta aggresson the same thng as 0bstace Dom-
nance n the Posenzweg Pcture- rustraton Study (cf. Posen-
zweg, emng, and Carke, 1947). Try to ft the other categores
used to score ths test nto the genera cassfcaton of defense mecha-
nsms adopted n ths chapter.
4. Can you thnk of ways of dstngushng between the pseudo
represson caused by smpe autstc fantases at ow eves of mo-
tvaton and rea represson caused by an ety at hgh eves of
motvaton Shoud repeated attempts to remember on dfferent
occasons have dfferent effects on the two knds of represson Shoud
an ncrease n motvaton or a threat of punshment for not remem-
berng have dfferent effects
524
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
5. It has sometmes been argued (cf. anger, 1943) that fantasy s
prmary wsh-fufng, whch s a somewhat naccurate transa-
ton of reud s contenton that a dreams are motvated. vauate
ths argument n terms of the evdence for the effects of motvaton
on magnaton. re there reasons why covert tra and error shoud
obey dfferent aws from overt tra and error
6. Introspecton as practced n the eary days of psychoogy has
argey faen nto dsuse. hy In what sense has t been taken out,
dusted off, and used agan n e perments reported n ths chapter
7. Is there a dfference between reactons to frustraton and modes
of reducng an ety Does t depend on how you defne frustra-
ton Pont out the dfference, for nstance, between reactons to
barrer and reactons to threat (cf. Masow, 1943 .
. There has been no dscusson n ths chapter of the e tensve
terature on whether motvaton factates earnng or ony per-
formance (cf. Postman, 1947, for a dscusson). In terms of our
theoretca anayss, make a case for ts nfuencng ether. Under
what crcumstances, for nstance, w one assocaton (such as the
affectve one nvoved n a motve) factate the acquston of
another assocaton 0r why shoud ncreased output of responses
resut from the arousa of an affectve assocaton as compared wth
other types of assocatons ow mght ncreased output of re-
sponses actuay factate earnng
9. hat do you thnk s the e panaton for the fact that e per-
mentay starved sub|ects n Mnnesota were constanty obsessed by
thoughts of food whe starvng peope n Germany apparenty were
not Is t a dfference n ntensty eve of motvaton or n the stua-
ton If the atter, what s the crtca dfference n the two stuatons
and how woud you go about testng any hypothess you arrve at
525
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Part ve
SUMM PY ND INT GP TI0N
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
14
Conceptons of the Sef
very book on personaty shoud have a chapter on the sef. Tra-
dtonay, as port ponts out (1943), the concept of the ego or sef
has been centra n the study of personaty, but t has been negected
n recent years argey because psychoogsts have not been abe to
fgure out operatons for performng e perments on the sef. 0ur
probem then s a dffcut one. 0n the one hand, we may accept the
convcton that the sef s mportant on the other, we must treat t
wthout the beneft of any consderabe body of e permenta data.
Snce much that has been wrtten about the sef s n the nature of
specuatons whch cannot easy be proved or dsproved, we sha
try to mt ourseves to specuatons whch ether have or coud have
operatona defntons.
In terms of our over-a scheme for anayzng personaty, the sef
ceary beongs n the category of schemata. Incuded among the
deas a person has about the word s one about the nature of hm-
sef It s one of the most mportant deas that he has and has many
characterstcs, ony a few of whch we w be abe to dscuss n
deta. In many ways, the schema a person has of hmsef s ke a
concepton that another person mght have of hm. or e ampe,
we have deveoped a rather e tensve, somewhat coherent pcture
of ar. though ar has not been guded by any such systematc
purpose as ours, he too has but up a sef-concepton out of years
of e perence wth hmsef, whch s doubtess ke ours n many re-
spects. In fact, he has many more data to bud on than we do: a
of hs e perences of hmsef are frsthand, whereas ours are
secondhand at best. e has the whoe popuaton of epsodes to
draw on we have ony a sampe. s advantage may be compensated
for to some e tent by the fact that we are presumaby more dsnter-
ested than he and shoud therefore be n a better poston to nter-
pret much of what has happened to hm. owever, anyone workng
n personaty shoud have a heathy respect for an ndvdua s own
pcture of hmsef f for no other reason than that he s speakng
out of very much more e perence than anyone ese coud ever have.
0ccasonay psychotherapsts forget ths so t has been a heathy
correctve to have Pogers (1942) emphaszng n hs wrtngs on
529
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
nondrectve therapy the great mportance whch shoud be attached
to the person s sef-pcture and sef-knowedge.
Startng wth ths therapeutc orentaton, Pogers and hs students
have coected some of the best emprca data on deas about the
sef. typca recorded ntervew contans remarks ke the foow-
ng:
S166. Soved sef-centeredsm and sefshness. Soved my worry probems
a great dea. In fact, I m not worryng about appearance so much any
more. Peope are gonna ke me whatever I wear. If they don t ke me as
I am, they won t ke me at a. nd why put on an act I used to put on
acts a the tme. They were to cover up, though. They were to cover up for
mysef. I ddn t want peope to know. I was terrby shy. I st am, but I
acted beyond them. That s, put on an actng ar of superorty to cover up
because I fet so nferor to them. I tred to make them fee nferor to me.
That s why I never had any frends. 0h, I had a few. It wasn t t I I
reay ddn t start vng unt |anuary of ths year. Then I started every-
thng. That s when I stopped buckng the teachers. That s when I stopped
tryng to antagonze peope. That s when I tred to get frends. That s
when I began to get frends. (Snyder, 1947, p. 79.)
So much of the content of these ntervews s orented around the
sef that t has become customary to summarze them wth sef-
characterzng statements ke the foowng:
I don t worry about my appearance any more and not so much about
sef-conscousness.
I m depressed about havng to go home n three weeks.
Grs are puzzng and annoyng how to behave wth them worres me.
I hate my appearance I ve aways tred to compensate for t.
I ke to pty mysef. (Snyder, 1947, p. 6.)
If we ook cosey at statements ke these, we note that they are not
unke those whch a psychoogst mght make about a student after
studyng hm. That s, the boy descrbes hmsef as havng certan
trats (socay nhbted, fussy about hs appearance), certan roe
perceptons ( Grs are puzzng and annoyng. ), etc. In other
words, he has observed hs behavor |ust as a psychoogst mght
have, and out of hs e perence wth hmsef he deveops rather un-
systematcay a sef-pcture whch s smar n many respects to the
one that the scentst mght deveop usng the same data. The m-
portant pont s, however, that the person may make mstakes n
conceptuazng hmsef (|ust as the outsde observer may ). e may
wrongy evauate somethng that happened to hm or somethng that
530
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
he dd and the resutng pcture whch he draws may be dstorted
n some very mportant way, at east n terms of the |udgment of
others workng from the same data. It s ths dscrepancy between
the sef-concept and the rea sef as the therapst sees t whch I
forms the bass for much maad|ustment, accordng to Pogers (1942,
1947)-
ar s Concepton of msef. To get an dea of the nature and
e tent of some of these dscrepances n the concepton of the sef
et us take a ook at ar s sef-pcture. e gves us a fary compete
descrpton of hmsef as an adoescent as foows:
I was aways cooperatve and obedent, a good student, but nfuenced
by others whch sometmes ed me nto troube. I was aways senstve and
my feengs were and st are easy hurt.
I went to schoo, grammar schoo, at fve, graduated at thrteen years of
age. ery good marks, head of the cass of eghteen. I aways ked geogra-
phy and hstory. Got the best marks n these courses. ked math east of
a athough I receved good marks n t. I had many frendshps (got aong
arght wth the teachers) and was regarded favoraby by other boys and
grs. I was aways bashfu around grs and was kdded a ot about t. I
was very gregarous. In the younger days, thrd and fourth grade, I was
occasonay pcked on, but after a coupe of fst fghts whch I was goaded
nto I was eft aone.
In hgh schoo my marks were e ceent. I was at the head of the cass, n
many actvtes, presdent of the cass for four years, on the footba team,
a-state guard, edtor of the schoo paper. I worked we wth a groups.
My hgh schoo days were very happy and gratfyng ones. I was very am-
btous, wshed to become a chemca engneer. I aways dd my work con-
scentousy and thoroughy and never wasted a mnute. I aways went to
Sunday schoo, kept mysef pure and ed a fary mode fe. I graduated
when seventeen years of age. I was confdent workng n groups when I
knew the peope, receved cooperaton and was usuay charman or a
whee. I was very an ous to get ahead n the word and was very zeaous
toward gong to coege.
or amusement I payed sports, went to the move shows, etc., but not
as much as the average. I was sometmes more content to st home and
read. I dd a great dea of readng durng my youth. I had no partcuar
heroes. I aways ked the cowboy heroes of the esterns, Tarzan, and others
n the Saturday seras. I ooked up to my footba coach to an e tent but
not too greaty.
In ths bref space he makes t cear what hs trats were (e.g.,
bashfu, gregarous, senstve), what hs conceptons were of what
happened to hm of mportance (presdent of the cass, on the foot-
531
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ba team, edtor of the schoo paper), what hs motves were ( I . . .
wshed to become a chemca engneer ), and aso how he evauated
hmsef ( I was very confdent workng n groups . . . ed a fary
mode fe ). These aspects of personaty are touched on n typca
sef-descrptons |ust as they are n descrptons by psychoogsts try-
ng to gve an adequate theoretca formuaton.
ar s autobography was wrtten, however, some s to eght
years after the perod whch ths secton descrbes. oud t not then
be partcuary sub|ect to errors of memory or systematc bases
hat evdence have we that ar reay had a smar pcture of
hmsef at the tme these thngs were takng pace ortunatey we
have some such evdence. day or two after he arrved at coege,
when he was seventeen, he took the Strong ocatona Interest Test,
whch contans a ong secton entted Patng of Present btes
and Characterstcs. s answers to ths secton of the test w
provde us wth nformaton on two ponts: (a) the e tent to whch
hs recoected sef-pcture agrees wth the one he had at the tme
and (b) the e tent to whch an over-a pcture agrees wth one
based on answers to a number of very specfc questons. s answers
to ths secton of the Strong Test are reproduced n fu n Tabe
14.1.
T 14.1
ar s nswers to Part III of the Strong ocatona Interest ank
hen e as Seventeen
Part III. Patng of Present btes and Characterstcs. Indcate beow
what knd of a person you are rght now and what you have done. Check
n the frst coumn ( Yes ) f the tem reay descrbes you, n the thrd
coumn ( No ) f the tem does not descrbe you, and n the second coumn
( ) f you are not sure. ( e frank n pontng out your weak ponts, for
seecton of a vocaton must be made n terms of them as we as your
strong ponts.)
Y S 7 N0
361 Usuay start actvtes of my group
362 Usuay drve mysef steady (do not work by fts and
starts)
363 n frends easy
364 Usuay get other peope to do what I want done
365 Usuay ven up the group on a du day
366 m qute sure of mysef
367 ccept |ust crtcsm wthout gettng sore
36 ave mechanca ngenuty (nventveness)
369 ave more than my share of nove deas
532
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
37
Can carry out pans assgned by other peope
S71
Can dscrmnate between more or ess mportant
matters
372
m ncned to keep sent (retcent) n confdenta
and sem-confdenta affars
373
m aways on tme wth my work
374
Pemember faces, names, and ncdents better than
the average person
375
Can correct others wthout gvng offense
376
be to meet emergences qucky and effectvey
377
Get ratted easy
37
Can wrte a concse, we-organzed report
379
ave good |udgment n apprasng vaues
3 0
Pan my work n deta
3 ,
oow up subordnates effectvey
3 2
Put drve nto the organzaton
3 3
Stmuate the ambton of my assocates
3 4
Show frmness wthout beng easy
3 5
n confdence and oyaty
3 6
Smooth out tanges and dsagreements between peope
3 7
m approachabe
3
Dscuss my deas wth others
Check n the frst, second, or thrd coumn at the rght accordng as

the
frst,
second, or thrd statement n each tem beow appes to you.
(1) (2) (3) (1st) (2nd) (3rd)
3 9
eengs easy eengs hurt eengs rarey
hurt sometmes hurt
( ) ( )
( )
390
Usuay gnore Consder them Carefuy con-
the feengs sometmes sder them
of others
( ) ( )
( )
39 1
oan money to oan ony to cer- Parey oan
acquantances tan peope money
( ) ( )
( )
39
Pebe nwardy Carry out n- nter nto stua-
at orders from structons wth ton and en-
another, obey tte or no thusastcay
when neces- feeng carry out
sary program
( ) ( )
( )
393
hen caught Sedom make Practcay never
n a mstake e cuses make e cuses-
usuay make
e cuses
( ) ( )
( )
533
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 14.1 (Contnued)
0) ( ) (3)
(1st) (and) (Srd)
394
est-ked
frends are
superor to
me n abty
qua n abty Inferor n
abty
( )
395 ande com- ecome annoyed ose my temper
pants wth- at tmes at tmes
out gettng
rrtated ( ) ( )
396
orrow fre-
quenty (for
persona use)
orrow occa-
sonay
Practcay never
borrow
( ) ( ) ( )
397
Te |okes we
Sedom te
|okes
Practcay never
te |okes
( ) ( ) ( )
39
My advce
sought by
many
Sought by few
Practcay never
asked
( ) ( ) ( )
399
requenty
make wagers
0ccasonay
make wagers
Never make
wagers
( ) ( ) ( )
400
orry consd-
eraby about
mstakes
orry very
tte
Do not worry
( ) ( ) ( )
(Peprnted from ocatona Interest ank for Men |Pevsed| by dward
. Strong, |r. wth permsson of the author and of the pubshers, Stanford
Unversty Press.)
hat knd of a sef-pcture emerges from such a mutpcty of
specfc remarks about hmsef The Strong Test scorng schemes are
of no assstance to us because they are not desgned for content
anayses of ths sort. Yet there s a great dea of nformaton con-
taned n hs sef-ratngs that we shoud be abe to use somehow.
In fact, methodoogcay such ratngs seem superor to the knd of
over-a pcture of hmsef that ar gves some years ater n hs
autobography, snce an over-a pcture can be more easy santed
than a arge number of specfc |udgments. 0ur approach to ths ma-
tera can be aong the nes we adopted n makng an nductve
anayss of hs answers to the questonnare on regous atttudes:
e can st n one coumn the characterstcs he says he has, those
whch he denes, and those whch he s doubtfu about. If ths s done,
534
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
hs statements about hmsef can be rather easy summarzed under
four man headngs:
1. I am a sef-starter, have ots of drve and ntatve and energy. I don t
hang back. (Items 361, 363, 365, 372, 376, 3 2, 3 3, 3 4, 3 5, 3 6, 39 , 399)
2. My reaton to others s very mportant to me. I need frendshp and
am senstve n soca reatons. (Items 363, 367, 375, 3 9, 391, 393, 39 )
3. I am not too sure of mysef or sef-confdent, especay n teng others
what to do. (Items 362, 364, 366, 379, 3 1, 3 9, 395, 397)
4. I am effcent n dong a |ob but don t possess unusua abtes. (Items
36 , 369, 373, 374, 37 , 3 0)
or the most part ths pcture s suppementary to the one whch he
gves n hs autobography, and agrees wth t n most essentas,
owever, t serves to organze somewhat dfferenty the percepton
of the sef. Thus n the Strong Test he makes t much cearer that hs
eadershp, as refected n the varous postons he hed n hgh
schoo, was of the stmuatng sort but that he was so senstve to
the opnons of others that he found t dffcut to be an author-
taran eader. Ths s stated somewhat ndrecty n hs autobo-
graphca sketch as foows: I was very confdent workng n groups
when I knew the peope, receved cooperaton and was usuay
charman or a whee. ere he does mpy that hs eadershp s
dependent upon the confdence of others and that ths s very m-
portant to hm. ut the answers to repeated ndvdua tems make
t cearer |ust how senstve he was and how dependent hs eader-
shp was on the cooperaton of others. urthermore, the Strong
answers emphasze more than the autobography how energetc he
conceved hmsef to be, possby because n wrtng an autobogra-
phy he dd not want to overprase hmsef. ut the two pctures are
essentay congruent and serve to support one another and ren-
force nterpretatons whch mght be drawn from ether one.
ar s Concepton Compared wth 0urs. Now how does a ths
agree wth the pcture we have formed of ar e may not have
as much data as he dd, but we have better technques for anayzng
aspects of hs behavor whch he doubtess dd not focus on, and we
may fee that we are freer from systematc bases than he was. Tabe
14.2 presents a summary st of the trats we concuded he had n
Chapter 7 and tests the e tent to whch he mentons the same or
smar trats ether n hs autobographca statement or n hs
answers to the Strong Test.
535
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 14.2
Comparson of the tent to hch ar Perceves s Trats s e ave
Conceptuazed Them
ar s trats (Chapter 7) Peevant autobographca
comments
1. nergetc
2. pansve
3. Non-anaytc
4. uent
5. 0uter orentaton
6. arabe n per-
formance
7. motonay abe
. motonay e -
pressve
9. Gregarous
10. Submssve,
adaptabe
11. Conscentous
n many actvtes
on the footba team, etc.
I dd a great dea of
readng
my feengs were and st
are easy hurt
many frendshps
very gregarous
cooperatve, obedent
nfuenced by others
I aways dd my work
conscentousy and
thoroughy
Peevant answers
to tems on the
Strong Test
361. 376- 377- 3
374 (3/ )
(369). 3 2. 3 3- 365
3 , 399
36 . 373
366. 3 9. 395
37 . 3
363. 375, 3 3- 3 5-
3 6, 3 7, 390, 391
364, 370, 3 1
(3 2), (392)
37 396
In ths tabe the tem numbers n parentheses n Coumn 3 n-
dcate responses whch do not seem consstent wth coumns 1 and 2.
0n the whoe there s consderabe agreement between our percep-
ton of ar s trats and hs own, athough t s dffcut to make any
precse estmate as to the amount of agreement. More strkng than
any dsagreements are the number of nstances n whch there s no
nformaton on a partcuar trat. Nether n the autobography nor
the sef-ratngs s there any statement whch can be ready reated
to a trat of e pansveness, for nstance. The reason for ths s
probaby that such a trat dd not appear mportant ether to ar
or to Strong n makng up hs ocatona Interest Sef-Patng Scae,
whereas gregarousness seemed of centra mportance to both.
Thus t s apparent that the amount of congruence between a sef-
pcture and a systematc trat conceptuazaton w be a functon
of the conceptua common ground of each.
. 536
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
Congruence w aso be n part a functon of the negatve tone I
of the trat n queston. ar says tte or nothng n hs autobog- I
raphy about hs varabty n performance. In fact, from such
statements as I aways dd my work conscentousy and thoroughy
and never wasted a mnute, we woud be ed to nfer that he was
a reguar, methodca worker who aways handed hs papers n on
tme, etc. Yet n the more specfc sef-ratngs he confesses that he s
rreguar much as we had concuded from hs performance on an
anagrams test as reported n Chapter 6. e sees that he has dffcuty
drvng hmsef steady (Item 362) and s not aways on tme
wth hs work (Item 373). Ths dscrepancy s mportant theoret-
cay because t ustrates how a fact about the sef may be recog-
nzed but not organzed nto a hgher-order sef-pcture. The reason
for such an omsson need not be some compe represson mecha-
nsm but may smpy be an nabty to ft such a fact nto an over-a
consstent pcture. ar knows that he was conscentous and thor-
ough and he was not deceved n ths as both hs hgh-schoo and
coege teachers woud testfy but rreguarty, unpunctuaty, etc.
do not seem to ft n partcuary we wth ths domnant trat. So
he omts them from the over-a sef-pcture. smar dscrepancy
s apparent n hs descrpton of hs drve and energy whch appears
on certan ssues to be nconsstent wth hs descrpton of hs sub-
mssveness, suggestbty, etc. Thus on the one hand he states that
he can put drve nto an organzaton, wn confdence and
oyaty, etc., and on the other that he canno foow up subord-
nates effectvey, get others to do what he wants done, etc. s
we have aready ponted out, he s more aware of ths nconsstency
and has attempted to resove t n terms of eadng when he has the
cooperaton of those workng wth hm.
greement on 0ther Personaty arabes. So far we have demon-
strated that e cept for omssons and some negatve trats ar s sef-
pcture s pretty much n agreement wth ours, at east so far as
trats are concerned. hat about our other personaty varabes-
schemata and motves s far as hs deas and roe conceptons are
concerned we reed very heavy on hs own statements n determn-
ng our anayss of what they were. So there woud be tte pont to
checkng our pcture wth hs statements agan. If we dd, we woud
fnd that he overooked certan thngs (future orentaton, for n-
stance) argey because he was not ookng for them and dd not see
ther mportance from our partcuar frame of reference. th mo-
537
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tves the stuaton s a tte more compcated. e knows that he s
very ambtous but he probaby does not |udge hs n chevement
to be as unrea as we do and as dependent on a much more basc n
Securty. gan we have evdence that whereas he s aware of soated
e perences (e.g., bashfuness wth grs) that we woud regard as re-
ated to n Securty, he s not abe to ntegrate them nto anythng
ke an adequate estmate of the strength of hs own securty needs
or of ther sources n hs past hstory. e knows that he s senstve
and easy upset emotonay, but he doesn t know why. e recog-
nzes the great mportance that frendshps have to hm, but agan
doesn t know why. In fact the sef-pcture n the fed of motvaton
seems much ess adequate than n the other two areas. It s probaby
for ths reason that dynamc psychoogsts have been abe to mpress
the genera pubc so much: they have been abe, more or ess, to
te peope thngs about themseves that they ddn t aready know.
he ths s mportant n spreadng confdence n psychotherapy t
shoud not ead systematc personaty theorsts to overstress the
mportance of dynamc formuatons. rom the theoretca vew-
pont, whether the person knows about one of the characterstcs we
assgn hm or not does not determne the mportance of that charac-
terstc n understandng and predctng hs behavor. hat the sef-
pcture eaves out may be of partcuar use n e panng rratona,
or neurotc, behavors, but that doesn t make what s ncuded n
the sef-pcture any more or ess mportant n an over-a theoretca
scheme. 0n the other hand, what s ncuded, snce t forms another
of the more or ess stereotyped schemata n terms of whch the person
functons, s of great mportance n understandng many aspects of
a person s behavor.
P|| .(r
S -P0T NCY f
th ths emprca ntroducton nto the genera nature ofsef-
schemata, we can now proceed to treat them more systematcay as
emergents wth certan genera characterstcs 0ne of_the_most
mportant of these s a sort of area characterstc or_ dmenson
whch defnes what s ncuded as part of the sef. That s, there
seem to be degrees of nearness to the sef, dfferences between me
and mne :_The essenta me stems perceptuay dfferent from
y books, my cothes, my frends the sef-schema seems to con-
tract and e pand. port has referred to ths area characterstc
as the e tenson o/ the sef and descrbed t thus:
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
nd st the process goes on. Possessons, frends, one s own ch-
dren, other chdren, cutura nterests, abstract deas, potcs, hob-
bes, recreaton, and most conspcuousy of a, one s work, a ead
to the ncorporaton of nterests once remote from the sef nto
sefhood proper. (1937, p. 217.) ut port does not make t cear
on what bass suc|1 thngs are ncorporated nto the sef. sugges-
tve hypothess s_ that_there s a dmenson of sef-potency, to use
runef te fm (1950) on whch ob|ects, events, e per1ences, and the
ke are ordered as beng near or far from the sef.1Severa peope
have suggested that the percepton 6T power or contro determnes / -
wnether o _1ot somethng s perceved. _as .part of .the__sef Thus ,-. ,
Pogers states that perhaps the bass for ncorporatng an event nto r t s |
the sef s the awareness of a feeng of contro over some aspect of . yv f,
hs word of e perence (194 , p. 17). Thus we say our foot goes -
to seep and t becomes an ob|ect to us rather than a part of sef
(194 , p. 17). s amet puts t:
as t amet wronged aertes never amet.
If amet from hmsef be ta en away,
nd when he s not hmsef does wrong aertes,
Then amet does t not, amet denes t.
The reason why ack of contro s assocated wth the not-sef
probaby es n chdhood e perences. s Paget ponts out (1930),
t s the resstance to the chd s ntentons whch forces hm org-
nay to dscrmnate between hrmsef and others, between wsh
and reaty.
In short, the assocatons run as foows:
reedom, wsh sef
Pestrant
If ths formua s correct, t s easy to see how anythng assocated
wth a sub|ectve feeng of ntent, wth an act of w, tends to be
ncorporated nto the sef, whereas anythng whch happens n a
way whch appears to be beyond sef-contro s consdered ego-aen.
Thus we may even speak of my conscence as f t were an ego-
aen force makng us do somethng. s such t s out aong the
dmenson of sef-potency and not part of the rea sef. There,seem
to be stages of contro by the sef defnng a true perceptua dmen-
s1orTof dstance from the sef whch mght be summarzed as foows:
Me My body My My Strangers,
ree w My conscence beongngs frends Physca unverse etc.
Perceptua dmenson of sef-potency
539
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Ths anayss suggests why t s that free w s such a centra
noton n thnkng about the sef t s the very core of sef-con-
scousness: destroy t and you destroy the bass for dstngushng
between the sef and the not-sef. Ths anayss aso suggests that
ob|ects, peope, etc. get reated to the sef to the e tent that they
are perceved as controed by the sef or are sub|ect to ego s motves
n the broadest sense. Thus, even a God can become my God f I
beeve that n some way he s nfuenced by what I am thnkng,
feeng, or dong. My body, snce t s usuay sub|ect to my contro,
s very ntmatey ted up wth me the same s true of my posses-
sons and my frends though to a esser e tent. The ssue of how far
ths ego-contro e tends has become especay acute n mercan
socety because, as we have seen n Chapter , our cuture stresses the
mportance of ndvdua sef-determnaton. Pecognzng that such
an emphass does ead to attempts to overe pand the boundares of
ego-contro, mercans make free use of the terms sefsh and
egocentrc as sanctons aganst a awess e tenson of ndvdua
potency.
The attrbute of sef-potency aso contrbutes to the emergent
_character of the sef-schema. pparenty there s a certan mnmum
of ego-contro necessary to mantan the ntegrty of the sef-schema.
person whf |oses the percepton of contro|competey and be-
comes a pawn of crcumstances or a creature of hs mpuses s
usuay descrbed as schzophrenc. In norma peope ths mnmum
eve of sef-potency, whch probaby dffers for dfferent ndvduas,
can be mantaned by substtutng one form of potency for another
whenever the sef s perceved as checked or frustrated. port has
summarzed ths process neaty as foows: Note especay nder-
son s statement that success n one area may more than compensate
for faure n many areas. 0ny n terms of ego-psychoogy can we
account for such fud compensaton. Menta heath and happness,
t seems, does not depend upon the satsfacton of ths drve or that
drve, t depends rather upon the person s fndng some area of suc-
cess somewhere. The ego must be satsfed, not the hunger drve, nor
the se drve, nor the materna drve, however nsstent these seg-
menta tensons may be. (1943, p. 466.)
Transated nto our terms, what port appears to be sayng s
that a certan mnmum eve of sef-potency s necessary to man-
tan the ntegrty of the sef-schema and that t s ony n terms of
such a sef-schema that such matters as ego-nvovement, threat, frus-
540
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
traton-toerance and certan knds of substtuton make much sense.
To take a smpe e ampe, et us suppose, as the authors of rustra-
ton and ggresson do (1939), that |mmy wants an ce cream cone,
but hs mother won t et hm have t. Ths s a smpe bockng or
deprvaton of a segmenta drve. owever, et us suppose that
|mmy has been sub|ected to many prevous frustratons (that, for
nstance, he fees bascay unoved and re|ected, hs securty drves
bocked) now the added frustraton of beng unabe to have an ce
cream cone may mean somethng dfferent. It may appear as a threat,
to use Masow s term (19430). The reason t appears as a threat, ac-
cordng to our argument, s that the mnmum eve of sef-potency
has been approached. person can stand a certan amount of frus-
traton and restrant wthout destroyng the sef-potency percept
whch s so basc to the sef-schema, but not an ndefnte amount.
Ths may be, n effect, an e panaton of what s meant by frustra-
ton-toerance (cf. Posenzweg, 1944). The coser the over-a frus-
traton eve gets to destroyng the percept of sef-potency, the more
the ndvdua fees threatened and the ess hs toerance for new
frustraton. In some cases, of course, the sef-schema may become ds-
organzed from the oss of the sense of sef-potency and the person
may become ether an amnesa case or a psychotc. In short, there
appears to be an over-a sense of sef-potency whch may be rased
or owered by actons or frustratons n dfferent areas of fe.
Does the fact that we have spoken of a certan mnmum neces-
sary sense of sef- otency_suggest that there s some over-a emergent
motve, perhaps a sef-actuazaton drve, as Godsten cas t
(1940) Per aps, but actuay the ad|ectves mnmum necessary
tend to cdncea the fact that there are a degrees of organzaton
and dsorganzaton of the sef-pcture. It s dffcut to pck an arb-
trary eve of organzaton of a sef-schema and speak of the person
as strvng to mantan or enhance that eve. Nevertheess, the pont
s we worth stressng for those who prefer, as we have, to speak of
severa separate motves that the over-a fufment or frustraton
of these motves contrbutes to the sense of sef-potency whch s
probaby the key attrbute of the sef-schema, a schema whch n
turn s absoutey centra to the person s tota ad|ustment to fe.
Though we may want to make dstnctons among motves for the
sake of anaytc convenence, we must recognze that what happens
to each of them contrbutes to the over-a sef-pcture and that
rport s essentay correct n sayng that events such as successes
541
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
and faures have an mpact on the person as we as on segmenta
drves.
s a coroary of ths anayss we can see how t s that psycho-
therapy makes some of ts gans. Pogers (1947) has ponted out that
the chef characterstcs of a maad|usted person are a sense of be-
wderment and of ack of contro, as ustrated n the foowng
two statements: She s perpe ed and amost unacquanted wd1
what s gong on n hersef. She fees unabe and unwng to
functon n any responsbe or soca way. (1947, p. 360.) 0ne of
the thngs that the therapst does s to gve the patent a percepton
of contro over hs feengs, deas, mpuses, etc. by dscussng, nter-
pretng, or ntegratng them nto some knd of a ratona symbo
system. To symboze s to ncrease the possbtes of contro (cf.
Chapter 10). Thus ths partcuar vaue n therapy s not especay
dependent on the knd of e panaton evoved to account for the
puzzng ego-aen aspects of behavor. ny e panaton that the pa-
tent accepts as makng sense w ncrease hs percepton of contro
and sef-potency whch are so essenta to hs sef-schema and ut-
mate ad|ustment. Such an anayss suggests why t s that neary any
knd of therapeutc system has some benefca resuts whether t be
Chrstan Scence, reudan or |ungan psychoanayss, or Pogers
technque of hepng the person to work out hs own nterpretaton.
S -C0NSIST NCY
nother genera characterstc of the sef-schema s ts nterna
organzaton n partcuar ts consstences and nconsstences. It
can be thought of as havng a certan structure wth parts whch
vary n the consstency of ther over-a ntegraton or reaton to
one another. ke any other schema t conssts essentay of a custer
__pf memores centered around a common eement. In Chapter 9 we
treated n some deta mother and father mages: the sef-mage s
smar, athough more mportant because the sef s a common ee-
ment n many more e perences than s any other ob|ect. Its struc-
ture or consstency s of course a product of a ong perod of acqus-
ton. Unfortunatey, not much s known about deveopmenta stages
n the sef-pcture. arous chd psychoogsts have concerned them-
seves wth when the chd becomes sef-conscous (as suggested by
the ncreasng use of frst-person pronouns, for nstance).
( 935) has specuated on the contents of the sef-mage, partcuary
542
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
as refected n the body mage, and has argued|hat.portons of the
body become centra to the sef-mage, not accordng to the percep-
ton of potency as we have argued, but n order of ther contrbuton
to over-a sensory gratfcaton |T1rst the mouth, then the anus, the
gentas, etc., n famar psychoanaytc fashon). ut on the whoe
not much s known about how the sef-schema s formed and the
ony concusons about ts structure that can be drawn are very
genera: (1) The sef-schema at any partcuar moment n a fe
hstory s key to be nadequate and nconsstent wth respect to
the tota range of e perences to whch the person has been sub-
|ected. To get a the events that have happened over many years to
a snge person nto one system s dffcut and not key to have
been accompshed smoothy. Psychoanaysts n partcuar have
ponted out that nconsstences may arse (a) through dfferent e -
perences at dfferent stages n the fe hstory and (b) through the
ncorporaton nto the sef-schema of feengs, actons, etc. whch do
not reay beong to t. or nstance, as uge ponts out, at a
very eary age the nfant
has not earnt the dstncton ater of such far-reachng mport between
the sef and the not-sef. e does not ceary recognze the dfference be-
tween a dsagreeabe outer stmuus and an unpeasant tenson n hmsef.
. . . There s no adequate dstncton between sensatons and ther accom-
panyng feengs and mpuses, nor more mportant st between these
feengs and mpuses and the assocated outer ob|ects. . . . Thus the sensa-
tons of hunger are not separated from the dstress and anger aroused by
these sensatons, nor s anger, wth ts accompanyng tendency to suck and
bte aggressvey, separated from the mother s breast whch s fang to
satsfy hunger. . . . (1945, 109-110.)
Much psychoanaytc wrtng of ths sort has been hghy magna-
tve, and so far rests for vadaton argey on fantases of chdren
and aduts, yet the kerne of truth n t a seems to be that strong
napproprate eements persst n the sef-schema, eements whch
are napproprate n the sense that they ncorporate mpuses nto
the sef that beong to the outer word or pro|ect nto the outer
word mpuses that beong to the sef. The process of formng the ,
sef-schema s by no means ordery, neat, and sensbe. (2) The sef-
schema attans a certan mnmum degree of stabty and con-
sstency as an organzed herarchy of response tendences of dfferent
strengths. Certan attrbutes are more frequenty assocated wth the
sef than others, |ust as certan characterstcs are ascrbed more fre-
. 543
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
quenty to one s mother, to Germans, or to schooteachers (cf. Chap-
ters and 9). The strongest assocatons, those at the top of the
herarchy, are usuay the ones whch defne dentty: e.g., one s
name, resdence, age, orgn, reatons, and the ke. 0ccasonay,
even such centra eements n the schema may be unavaabe to
conscous reca, apparenty as a defense aganst an ety. If so, we
say the person s a vctm of amnesa or s n a fugue state. In such
cases the sef-schema does not appear to be totay ost: responses
ower on the herarchy contnue to functon. Syz reports the case
(1937) of a man who coud not remember who he was but who coud
react appropratey to certan thngs beongng to hmsef, etc. The
methods for determnng _the herarchy of responses n the sef-
schema appear to be the same as we outned n Chapter 9 for gettng
at roe perceptons or parent mages. (3) ke any other schema,
the sef-pcture mantans a certan consstency and stabty_.by ts
yery shorthand, stereotyped character. Ir Cha pter we saw how
one of artett s sub|ects boed down a ong story nto a few sen-
tences. Smary a person tends to deveop an over-a concepton of
hmsef whch s greaty smpfed and necessary eaves out many
eements, partcuary nconsstent ones. e have seen, for nstance,
how ar was abe to descrbe hmsef fary brefy. person may
go even further and thnk of hmsef very economcay as a success-
fu busnessman, a skfu over, stupd but happy, not vng
up to potentates, etc. The economy of such sef-symbozatons
s obvous but t aso has ts dsadvantages: as n a stereotypng, t
s often dffcut to break down the symbos nto the eements for
whch they stand and a certan rgdty or resstance to change or to
nconsstent nformaton deveops. The very economy of organzng
one s sef-schema under the headng of stupd but happy makes
any reorganzaton of e perences more dffcut because a new sym-
bozaton woud requre a breakdown of the od one, a perod of
uncertanty and confuson, tra and error for a new schema, etc. It
seems key that the abty to break down a sef-stereotype s ted
up wth the basc securty needs of the person. The persona, as
|ung cas t, s ess ready dscarded for a new one the more nse-
cure the person s.
Unsymbozed Portons of the Sef-Schema. Impct n our anay-
ss so far has been the assumpton that the conscous or symbozed
sef-schema s ony a porton of the tota sef-schema. The push to-
544
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
ward smpfcaton of any symbozng process tends to eave out
many e perences whch are drecty reevant to the sef partcu-
ary, as we have seen, the nconsstent ones or perhaps the ones that
have been formed eary n fe and are ater repaced by others. It s
tme we took a more systematc ook at these unconscous portons
of the sef-schema and especay at how t e observer nfers they
e st. In the process we can earn more about the organzaton of the
sef-schema ts consstences and nconsstences.
To return for a moment to ar, we found that he does not con-
scousy recognze the mportance of hs basc need for securty, at
east to the e tent that we woud stress t. In short, hs concepton of
hs motves does not agree entrey wth ours. e does state that he
s senstve n hs reaton to others, partcuary when questoned n
deta on a sef-ratng scae, but nowhere s ths nformaton organ-
zed nto a conscous recognton of what we woud ca hs
drvng need for securty. Instead he emphaszes hs desre to get
ahead n the word. e argue on the bass of some of the same n-
formaton as he has that actuay ambton s secondary to the need
for securty or fear of re|ecton. The nterestng pont s ths: To
what e tent does ar functon as f securty s a-mportant to hm
0ne coud argue that the e perences he has had, both of hs own
behavor and the behavor of others toward hm, woud ead to the
deveopment of a securty schema not unke the one whch an out-
sder woud |udge he had from notng the same facts. Ths schema
woud contnue to nfuence hs behavor even though t s not con-
scousy symbozed by hm at a accuratey. s Pogers puts t, the
concept of sef s made of seected perceptons, and does not ncude
a percepton (194 , p. 20.) Some perceptons, n fact, are dened
by the conscous sef because they are nconsstent wth the concept
of sef. (194 , p. 21.) e may argue n the present case that ar
woud contnue to react n terms of an unconscous organzaton of
e perences whch we woud ca f Pe|ecton or n ffaton, a-
though these motves are not fuy or accuratey represented n con-
scousness as part of hs sef-pcture.
There are two sghty dfferent concusons whch can be drawn
from ths argument, (1) ar has a strong unrecognzed f Pe|ecton
whch s n no way a part of the sef-schema, ether conscous or
unconscous (2) ar has a strong f Pe|ecton whch s not con-
scousy ncuded n the sef-pcture but whch under certan cond-
tons can be shown to be recognzed as beongng to the sef. The
545
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
atter vew takes the poston that the sub|ect s over-a concepton
of hmsef s pretty much what an outsde observer s woud be but
s dstorted n the process of conscous verbazaton, ether because
of an nadequate conceptua scheme or because of motvatona
pressures to make the sef-pcture socay acceptabe.
No cear-cut decson between these two vewponts s possbe at
the present tme, but there s consderabe evdence to show that
characterstcs may be unconscousy assgned to the sef whch are
qute dfferent from the ones that are conscousy assgned to the sef.
Such dscrepances may be measured ether (1) through unconscous
sef-|udgments or (2) pro|ecton e perments n whch t s assumed
that the sef s reay dentfyng wth some character n the pro|ec-
ton and assgnng hm trats that beong to the sef.
Conscous and Unconscous Sef-|udgments. promsng tech-
nque for determnng the dfference between conscous and uncon-
scous sef-schemata s that of the unrecognzed sef|udgrnfnt as
devsed by off (1933, 1943) and standardzed by untey (1940).
off found that when a person s own forms of e presson were
gven hm for |udgment, he often faed to recognze them but re-
acted to them nevertheess n a way whch was qute dfferent from
the way n whch he reacted to the e pressons of others. e aso
found that these unconscous sef-|udgments were qute..dfferent
from conscous sef-|udgments. untey used offs technques
under more controed condtons. rst he obtaned, wthout the
sub|ect s knowedge, varous records of hs e pressve forms. The
forms ncuded such thngs as pctures of casped hands, handwrt-
ng, part-profes, retod stores whch had been phonographcay
recorded, etc. S months ater a number of forms, ncudng hs
own, were presented to the sub|ect for characterzaton. s n offs
e perments about two thrds of the sub|ects faed to recognze
ther own forms e.g., casped hands, handwrtng (f reversed n a
mrror), etc. untey coud therefore compare the characterzaton
of recognzed and unrecognzed sef-e pressons wth characterza-
tons of the e pressons of others. In one e perment he made up
sampes of fve characterzatons by a partcuar person, ncudng
one about hmsef, and handed the sampes to outsde |udges to be
ranked n order of favorabeness. The dstrbuton of ranks for the
unconscous sef-characterzatons (S-|udgments) was very pecuar.
It s reproduced n gure 14.1.
546
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
IGUP 14.1
Peatve avorabeness of Sef-|udgments Made thout Pecognton (Men
one) and th Pecognton (Men and omen)
avorabeness rank
The fndngs are grouped for a forms, snce the data revea no charac-
terstc dfferences. The numbers on the abscssa ndcate the poston n
whch the S-|udgment was ranked, so that a nstances n whch t was
ranked as most favorabe are grouped at 1, etc.
(Peproduced wth permsson from C. . untey, |udgments of Sef
ased Upon Pecords of pressve ehavor. /. bnorm. Soc. Psycho, 35,
39 -427. Copyrght 1940 by the mercan Psychoogca ssocaton.)
The unrecognzed sef-|udgments (sod ne) were sgnfcanty more
often ranked by outsde observers as frst n favorabeness. Interest-
ngy enough, there seems to be a b-moda tendency wth sg-
nfcanty fewer unrecognzed sef-|udgments beng ranked n the
mdde poston. The dotted ne shows the way the recognzed sef-
|udgments were dstrbuted n favorabeness by the |udges. They
were ranked sgnfcanty more often than woud be e pected by
c ance n the mdde poston, wth sgnfcanty fewer n the fourth
and ffth postons and aso n the frst poston. In short, most peope
tend to wrte conscous sef-characterzatons that are moderate n
547
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
favorabeness, whereas they wrte unconscous sef-characterzatons
that are usuay very favorabe, occasonay very unfavorabe, but
not so often moderate.
In another e perment untey used graphc ratngs of e pressve
forms rather than free characterzatons of them. Ths permtted a
somewhat smper quanttatve treatment than was possbe when
the characterzatons were ranked by outsde |udges. y ths method
he was abe to compare the average ratngs by the sub|ect of hs own
recognzed and unrecognzed e pressons wth hs average ratng of
others e pressons. Tabe 14.3 shows some of the resuts he obtaned.
T
14.3
Comparson of the Sef-|udgments
th the |udgments of 0thers
(Sum of the
resuts for a characterstcs and a forms)
C.P. of the
Mean
dfference
Stage of
(S0
Sgma of between the
Pecognton No.
|udgments)
the mean Mean and ero Sgma
I 15 0
.46
.063 7.32 2.51
II 232
.
.134 6.05 2.04
III 132
95
.13 6. 9 1.5
I 192
s5
.167 1.49 2.32
22
33
.134 2.47 2.02
(Peproduced wth permsson from C. . untey, |udgments of Sef ased
Upon Pecords of pressve ehavor. /. bnorm. Soc. Psycho., 35, 39 -4 7.
Copyrght 1940 by the mercan Psychoogca ssocaton.)
In coumn 3 of the tabe the average of the sef-|udgments (S) s
subtracted from the average |udgment of others (0). Snce for a
the stages of recognton the means are postve . . . the. S-/ude-
ments are on the average more favorabe than the |udgments of
others. (1940, p. 415.) untey dscrmnated fve stages n recog-
nton startng wth non-recognton (Stage I) and endng wth com-
pete sef-recognton (Stage ). s the tabe shows, the S-|udgments
ncreased n favorabeness as the suspcon of recognton grew (S1age
I to Stage III) but as t ncreased to compete sef-recognton thev
tended to decrease n favorabeness agan. Some of the e panaton
for ths may perhaps be found n the ast coumn of the tabe
abeed Sgma. Ths coumn gves the standard devatons of the
dstrbutons of sef-|udgments. It s sgnfcanty arger for Stage I
54
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
(non-recognton) than for Stage (recognton). s a consequence
untey concudes: There s a reabe tendency for the S-|udg-
ments to be more e treme n the nstances of non-recognton than
they are when recognton has taken pace. (1940, p. 416.) s the
standard devaton decreases from Stage I to Stage III and the favor-
abeness ncreases at the same tme, t ooks as f some of the un-
favorabe |udgments notced n the fgure reproduced above ( g.
14.1) tend to drop out as recognton ncreases. It s as f the un-
favorabe ratngs, representng the most negatve aspects of the sef-
schema, are more unconscous and gve way as recognton ncreases
to ego-enhancng characterzatons whch n turn gve way to more
conventonay favorabe sef-|udgments. e found very smar rea-
tonshps when he compared the sef-|udgments to |udgments by
others. ere too the sef-|udgments were more favorabe and more
e treme than the |udgments by others of the same e pressve forms.
These fndngs confrm the fact that unconscous sef-characterza-
tons are dfferent from conscous characterzatons. They aso tend
to confrm the hypothess that unconscous |udgments tend to be
more e treme, .e., ess reaty-bound. ut ths e perment s ony a
begnnng. It provdes us wth a technque whch coud be used to
sampe e tensvey a person s unconscous sef-schemata. The data
so far reported from untey dea ony wth such over-a character-
stcs as favorabeness and e tremeness. ctuay he had the sub|ects
rate the varous sef-e pressons on many such trats as 0rgnaty
v Unorgnaty. e coud therefore easy e tend hs approach
to ncude a of the trats n our standard st (Chapter 7), and per-
haps even a the motves and deas we have attrbuted to ar.
That s, we coud proceed to determne how ar conceves of hm-
sef n terms of a these varabes when he does not know he s char-
acterzng hmsef as compared wth how he conceves of hmsef
when he does know he s characterzng hmsef. The dscrepances
between the two sef-pctures mght te us much about how hs
vaues shape hs conscous sef-pcture (see beow) and more about
why he behaves n certan ways that are puzzng to hmsef.
Pro|ecton of Sef- ttrbutes. most frutfu noton cncay has
been Murray s assumpton (193 ) that a person w descrbe hmsef
more fuy, honesty, and adequatey, partcuary n hs more unpeas-
ant aspects, when he s teng a story about someone ese wth whom
he dentfes. The orgna reudan noton was specfcay that a
person woud tend to pro|ect hs re|ected mpuses nto another per-
549
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
son. Murray generazed ths dea n the Thematc ppercepton
Test and he and others have demonstrated that often a person n
teng an magnatve story w attrbute to the hero characterstcs
whch seem to beong to hmsef. If ths s true, we have another
method of gettng at unconscous sef-schemata.
The chef dffcuty es n tryng to determne whch parts of the
hero s character are reay a refected mage of the sef, and whch
parts are borrowed from a story |ust read, a frend s behavor, etc
.
our knowedge of magna processes (cf. the dscusson of mother
and father mages n Chapter 9) makes us aware of ther e treme
fudty. Murray hmsef s very cautous on ths pont. though
hs prmary assumpton for the Thematc ppercepton Test s that
the attrbutes of the heroes (needs, emotona states and sent-
ments) represent tendences n the sub|ect s personaty, (1943, P-
14), he states ater that the concusons that are reached by an ana-
yss of T T stores must be regarded as good eads or workng
hypotheses to be verfed by other methods, rather than as proved
facts. (1943, p. 14.) e cautons n partcuar aganst eanng too
heavy on the assumpton that what s strong n magnaton s aso
strong n the sub|ect s manfest personaty. hat s reveaed by the
T T s often the very opposte of what the sub|ect conscousy and
vountary does and says n hs day fe. (1943, p. 16.)
ow then are we to proceed In genera, three methods have been
used to determne whether or not a pro|ected mage refers n any
sense to the sef: (1) Inferences based on known part-smartes,
(2) confrmaton by other data, and (3) systematc comparson of sef-
and other-|udgments.
1. Peasonng on the bass of parta smartes runs as foows:
certan peope n the stores are more ke the sub|ect wth respect
to such varabes as age, se , stuaton n fe, etc. If these ndvduas
(usuay the heroes) consstenty have certan characterstcs whch
are not attrbuted to other ndvduas n the stores and whch are
not smpy stereotyped characterstcs of any person wth that age-
se status, then these characterstcs may be sad to be reated to the
sef-schema of the person teng the story. The nature of the rea-
tonshp, of course, s st to be determned. ar descrbes many of
hs young, mae characters (whom he woud be most key on the
bass of parta smarty to dentfy wth) as weak, vcous, and
aggressve, aways betrayng women. Snce we know that n norma
fe he s md, cooperatve, gregarous, and senstve (by hs own
sef-descrpton), we are eft wth the queston of |ust what ths nega-
. 550
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
ve, pro|ected sef-pcture means. Ths nvoves probems of T T
nterpretaton whch are too compe to go nto here, e cept to men-
ton that ther souton w depend on an anayss of the motves
whch mght produce such a dscrepancy n conscous and uncon-
scous sef-pctures. or the moment we w have to be content wth
the hypothess that unconscousy (f we accept the part-to-whoe
argument) he has a very negatve opnon of hmsef.
2. Confrmaton wth other data of hypotheses suggested by the
T T s the method preferred by most cncans. s a typca e -
ampe we may turn to one of ar s stores whch runs as foows:
These fngers ook ke the fngers of fate whch have ths nnocent young
man n ther cutches. Ths feow has ed a norma fe, and good upbrng-
ng. s he was gong out nto the word, he has been obsessed by a fear
of the unknown. These fngers of fate seem to have hm n ther cutches.
e fees he s bound to the grm whee of necessty from whch he cannot
escape. e s constanty haunted by those thngs whch he cannot grasp.
Those factors n fe whch wegh on hs mnd and whch oppress hs day
fe. Ths feow s caught n a more or ess hopeess tange. e doesn t
qute know where he s gong or what he s dong. e tres to break away.
e tres to break away from what he consders fate, but s unabe to. s
resouton and courage to ead an emancpated fe seem to fa. e fees
ke a trapped anma, as f every path he took were a bnd aey. Ths
eads to an obsesson n the form of a sense of faure. e fees he cannot
hep hmsef, yet that he can. e fees aone n the word. e s at a oss at
tmes to descrbe hs feengs. Nobody seems to understand. The one thng
that w snap hm out of ths, where he w seek to free hmsef from a
shacked e stence . . . where he w assert hmsef and conquer hs doubts
and fears, the thng that w do the most toward puttng hm on the rght
road w be for hm to marry the gr he oves. 0therwse ths chap s
fe s n van. e w not be accompshng anythng worthwhe. e w
ead a bghted e stence, but were he, as I sad before, to ove the rght
gr and marry her, the future woud be a brght one ndeed. Ths chap
has the quates nherent n hm of a good sound ctzen and member of
socety. ut the key to the ock s the gr he oves. That s a. (Does he
marry or not ) Yes, he does, ths man w break the bounds. It may take
tme, but he w be at peace and hs sprt emancpated, and hs fe w
be a happy one.
Is ar takng about hmsef n ths story strong hnt that he s
es n the fact that the young man n the story s pctured as over-
comng hs dffcutes ony f he oves and marres the rght gr.
The key to the ock s the gr he oves. e know from ar s
autobography that he too vews romantc ove as the great sou-
551
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ton to hs probems. In fact he descrbes hs fe stuaton n much
the same terms as he uses n takng about the hero of hs story. th
one of the man eements n the pot dentfed n ths way as be-
ongng to ar, the nterpreter fees safer n assumng that other
atttudes, feengs, mpuses, etc. attrbuted to the hero n ths story
aso reate to ar. Ths need not be true, of course, but the probab-
ty that they are so reated seems ncreased. 0ften the nference
need not be e tended much beyond dentfyng an dea as beongng
to the sub|ect s conscous sef-schema, snce the way n whch t s
e pressed magnatvey may gve a fuer and more honest pcture
of t than the way he descrbes t conscousy. Sometmes the magna-
tve pcture does no more than gve a fuer noton of the ntensty
of the affect assocated wth an dea whch the person conscousy
e presses a fact whch s ceary n ne wth untey s fndng that
partay recognzed sef-descrptons tend to be more e treme. In
the present nstance ths seems to be the case: ar s magnatve
descrpton of the mportance of ove to hs hero comes somewhat
coser to our concepton of the ntensty of hs f Pe|ecton and n
ffaton than does hs conscous sef-pcture (see above). Unfor-
tunatey ths method of determnng whether the person s takng
about hmsef n a T T s aso hazardous. e cannot be certan
that even when the person says that ooks ke me, he w proceed
to tak about hmsef n a freer fashon. e may prompty te a
story about someone ese: the ony guard aganst ths s to mut-
py evdence from severa dfferent sources.
3. Somewhat more precse estmates of unconscous sef-concep-
tons can be drawn from systematc comparsons of sef-|udgments
wth characterstcs attrbuted to others. In an ngenous e perment
somewhat ke untey s, Sears (1936) had a group of fraternty
brothers rate each other and themseves on such trats as obstnacy,
stngness, and bashfuness. e found that men who were consdered
stngy by others but who dd not |udge themseves to be stngy
attrbuted more stngness to others. pausbe e panaton ap-
pears to be that they conceved themseves as stngy but re|ected the
dea (hence the ack of conscous nsght), whch ed them to dstort
the scae of |udgment so they coud be pushed toward the generous
end by makng everyone ese stnger than they were. The tech-
nque s one other way of gettng at an unconscous sef-schema snce
t s hard to magne how the sub|ects coud have dstorted the scae
of pro|ected attrbutes n ths partcuar way wthout some mpct
recognton of ther own stngness.
552
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
Nevertheess the approach s by no means fooproof. It woud cer-
tany not be safe to nfer that a person who attrbutes more than
an average amount of stngness to others s hmsef stngy. or one
thng, the reatonshp Sears found was not perfect. or another, t
hods ony for those wthout nsght. nd for a thrd, t does not
hod for other trats ke bashfuness. In fact the peope who at-
trbuted most bashfuness to others were those who were |udged to
be east bashfu and knew t (as refected n sef-ratngs). In short,
under certan condtons the trat a person attrbutes to hmsef w
be attrbuted to others and under certan other condtons ts opposte
w be. nd t may be dffcut to determne whch set of condtons
s operatng n a partcuar ca_se (e.g., whether the person has nsght
or not). Nevertheess the technque does suggest a way of drawng
systematc nferences about unconscous sef-schemata from conscous
|udgments of sef and from characterstcs pro|ected nto others.
more recent deveopment aong these nes s the sentence com-
peton test whch may be desgned to evoke characterzatons of
the sef and of others. n e ampe w show best how t may be
used for ths purpose. ar was admnstered a form of ths test de-
vsed by Dr. |ues D. ozberg whch contaned ffty tems deang
wth conceptons of sef and of others on matters reatng to acheve-
ment and securty. The test was admnstered twce so that a tems
whch referred to the sef n the frst form coud be rephrased so as
to refer to another person n the second form and vce versa. Usng
the answers whch ar gave to ths test, we can arrve at a more e act
test of our hypothess that he has a conscous concepton of hmsef
as beng very ambtous and an unconscous concepton as beng
greaty n need of securty (fearng re|ecton, etc.).
In Tabe 14.4 we have seected out twenty-seven pars of state-
ments from hs sentence competons, at east one of whch reates
to achevement. The statements on top are from orm of the
test, whch he took frst, and the ones on the bottom are from orm
, whch he took second. or e ampe, he gave the top answers n
tems 23, 24, 25, 26 consecutvey on one occason and the bottom
answers to the same tems consecutvey on another occason. The
answers have been rearranged to make drect comparson easer.
e was under nstructons to answer the tems as qucky as possbe
so that he doubtess was ony haf-conscous at the most that he was
answerng the same rephrased tems on the two occasons. s an-
swers have been scored n terms of whether or not he attrbutes more
achevement competence or concern to hmsef than to others.
553
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 14.4
ar s Sentence Competon Test Pesuts for chevement-Peated
Statements
sef has greater achevement competence or concern
other has greater achevement competence or concern
0 nether has greater achevement competence or concern
ar s competons are n tacs
1. Mke s fondest ambton s to trave around the word.
-f- My fondest ambton s to earn a comfortabe fortune.
3. |oe was uneasy because he saw others succeedng.
I was uneasy because there were oo many peope around me.
4. hen he saw that the others were dong better than he was, |oe
dug n and tred hard.
0 hen I saw that the others were dong better than I was, I became
angry and tred to do better.
6. hen he faed at somethng, he sat down and thought t over.
hen I faed at somethng, I tred agan.
. ob fees proud when he has hs sweetheart wth hm.
I fee proud when I m on top.
c). I wsh for a good uck and happness.
ob wshes for happness.
12. hen uck turned aganst hm, |oe decded to turn over a new eaf.
-f- hen uck turned aganst me, I dug n to fght harder.
15. e thnks of hmsef as a great man.
0 I thnk of mysef as a superor person.
16. 0 I woud rather be rch than presdent.
arry woud rather drnk beer than study.
21. Dscouragement made hm try harder.
Dscouragement made me a tte sad.
23. I try hard sometmes.
rank tres hard but |ust can t wn.
24. The thng whch bothered arry s conscence was ony dong a haf-
way |ob.
0 The thng whch bothered my conscence was / coud do better than
I do.
25. I aways wanted to be a man of power.
ob aways wanted to be a better man than I am.
26. hen peope dsapproved of |ohn s deas, he ddn t gve a damn.
4- hen peope dsapproved of my deas, / gave them some more td-
vce.
27. In comng to a decson, he got e cted about t.
In comng to a decson, I decde n a hurry.
2 . Tom s abty to succeed depended on hs enthusasm.
0 My abty to succeed s potenta and atent.
554
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
g. 0 hen I compete aganst others, I try to do my best.
hen competes aganst others, he tres hard.
32. ud worres over nothng at a.
-f- I worry over the thngs I don t do.
33. -f- I brag about mysef and achevements.
red brags about women and drnkng.
34. 4- I am afrad when others know more than I do.
e s afrad when others threaten hs poston.
35. I am drven to great efforts to make money.
ud s drven to great efforts to reach hs fe s goa.
36. hen he attempts to reach dffcut goas, he doesn t try too hard.
hen I attempt to reach dffcut goas, I sometmes try and some-
tmes do not.
39. 4- My greatest worry s not to ve a fe worth vng.
Tom s greatest worry s hs wfe.
41. If red coud ony do hs best.
If I coud ony sette down.
45. 4- My greatest ambton s to be powerfu n nfuence.
s greatest ambton s to do good n the word.
46. ob s defeat made hm get on the ba.
0 My defeat made me knucke down and get to work.
50. e often thnks of hmsef as beng greater than he s.
4- I often thnk of mysef as a man of destny.
0f the twenty-seven statements deang wth achevement, the sef
shows more competence or concern n s teen nstances, the other
person n four, and nether n seven. Ch-square for the twenty tems
showng a preference s 7.2, P .o1.
Ths sgnfcanty greater frequency of achevement-reated sen-
tence competons as we as an nspecton of the answers themseves
defntey confrms the hypothess that he attrbutes more acheve-
ment concern or competence to hmsef than to others. The dfference
comes out most ceary n tems ke number 39 n whch he states
that hs greatest worry s not to ve a fe worth vng whe Tom s
greatest worry s hs wfe. acty the same contrast s made n tems
and 33. In a these cases ar s presentng hmsef as beng more
concerned wth achevement whe ob or |oe or red s more con-
cerned wth ove or securty. I brag about mysef and my acheve-
ments. red brags about women and drnkng, etc.
Ths suggests that a test shoud be made to check whether or not
ar sees hmsef as havng greater securty concern than he sees
others as havng. Tabe 14.5 gves the necessary data.
555
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 14.5
ar s Sentence Competon Test Pesuts for Securty-Peated Statements
sef has greater securty attanment or concern
other has greater securty attanment or concern
0 nether has greater securty attanment or concern
ar s competons are n tacs
2. -f My greatest fear s to be eft aone.
s greatest fear s of fre.
3. |oe was uneasy because he saw others succeedng.
I was uneasy because there were too many peope around me.
7. I fee sorry when / see peope as they are.
|ack fees sorry when he has no money.
. ob fees proud when he has hs sweetheart wth hm.
I fee proud when I m on top.
9. 0 I wsh for a good uck and happness.
ob wshes for happness.
13. e s most troubed by magnary evs.
0 I am most troubed by the unknown.
16. I woud rather be rch than presdent.
arry woud rather drnk beer than study.
17. I suffer most from others crtcsms.
e suffers most from beng aone.
20. I fee hurt when some nferor person tes me what to do.
e fees hurt when the others refuse to recognze hm.
31. My hero s the ndvdua.
s hero s God.
33. I brag about mysef and achevements.
red brags about women and drnkng.
34. I am afrad when others know more than I do.
e s afrad when others threaten hs poston.
37. s afrad of oo many tte thngs.
I am afrad of nether God, man, nor beast.
39. My greatest worry s not to ve a fe worth vng.
Tom s greatest worry s hs wfe.
40. I dream a great dea about mpossbe stuatons.
e dreams a great dea about wne, women, and song.
42. 0 The man thng n my fe s to have fun and be happy.
The man thng n |ohn s fe s to be happy.
44. hen the other men avoded hm, ob fet hurt but kept hs sprts
up.
-f- hen the other men avoded me, I fet hurt.
47. I usuay fee shocked when someone crosses me up.
e usuay fees shocked when he meets women.
556
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
0f the eghteen pared statements deang wth securty (affatve
reatons), the sef shows more attanment or concern n three n-
stances, the other person n tweve, and nether n three. Ch-square
for the s teen tems showng a preference s 5.4, P .o5-
0nce agan the evdence s good that ar conceves of other
peope as beng more concerned wth happness, affatve reaton-
shps, oneness, etc., than he s. To put t n another way, he con-
ceves of ob or red or |oe as beng more dependent on others
than he s. Perhaps the dfference s brought out as ceary n tem
31 as anywhere. e states that My hero s the ndvdua whe
s hero s God. Ths puts the contrast n amost cassca terms.
It s as f ar s sayng that he vaues the ndvdua because the
ndvdua s enough he can stand aone, on hs own feet. ut he
apparenty thnks of others as beng more dependent and therefore
as vaung God. Throughout hstory there has been a repeated shft
n man s emphass on the mportance of the ndvdua or the m-
portance of God dependng on whether or not man fet, ke the
Greeks, confdence n hmsef and hs achevements or, ke the
ebrews, a constant sense of faure and need for the support of an
a-powerfu God. ar certany conscousy puts hmsef on the
sde of fath n the ndvdua, but hs repeated nsstence that Tom
or |oe s nterested n securty reatonshps (from beer and women
a the way to God) makes us doubt whether or not hs conscous
pcture s entrey accurate.
0nce agan the ogca hypothess whch these data appear to sup-
port s that ar s actuay operatng n terms of a securty schema
whch s of far greater mportance to hm than he reazes. ut can
we assume that the securty needs whch he attrbutes to others reay
represent hs own unconscous sef-schemata Maybe he |ust thnks
that other peope are more nterested n securty than he s. That
mght be a these resuts mean. The argument on ths pont woud
run somewhat as foows. e coud start wth a nu hypothess that
securty s a matter of no partcuar concern to hm. If ths were so
t woud appear reasonabe to e pect an equa number of securty
statements n hs descrpton of hmsef and of others. Snce there are
not an equa number of statements n these categores, we are forced
to concude that ether he personay s nterested n securty and
pro|ects ths nterest nto others or that the peope he has met have
been more nterested n securty than woud be norma. e can at
east tentatvey re|ect the second aternatve on the ground that
there s no reason to assume that the peope he has met have some-
557
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
how been preseected to have a greater securty concern than most
peope. Ths eaves us wth consderabe ogca support for the
hypothess that t s he who s so nterested n securty but who for
some reason dsowns ths nterest and attrbutes t to others. In short,
the resuts of the Sentence Competon Test support fuy the
hypothess arrved at from the T T stores and autobographca
statements that ar s operatng conscousy n terms of a concept of
hmsef as beng ndependent and ambtous and unconscousy n
terms of a concepton whch heavy emphaszes the need for se-
curty.
go Strength. Many psychoogsts have been very much nterested
n descrbng the consequences of the knd of dscrepancy n the sef-
schema that we have been dscussng. In genera they have taken
the vew that, the ess a person s abe to ad|ust to reaty, the
greater the nconsstency between hs conscous and unconscous sef-
schemata. Pogers descrbes the matter as foows:
Psychoogca maad|ustment e sts when there s a sgnfcant number
of perceptons e perenced by the organsm whch are dened symbon-
ton, and consequenty are not organzed nto a consstent system reated to
the sef-concept. hen ths stuaton e sts, psychoogca tenson resuts.
(194 , p. a .)
Ths descrbes e acty what has happened n ar s case: there are
a number of securty-reated e perences whch he has not ntegrated
or symbozed nto hs conscous sef-pcture athough he pro|ects
them n a way whch suggests that he recognzes ther sef-reevance.
henever such dscrepances e st, the person s ess ntegrated and
we may refer to hm as ackng n ego strength. The term ego
strength has been used qute wdey to refer to the e tent to whch
a person can dea wth reaty effectvey, partcuary n the face of
dffcutes. hat we are suggestng s that an mportant bass for
ego strength s an accurate sef-pcture, e.g., one whch ncudes a
the sgnfcant sef-reated perceptons even though they may be n-
consstent or unfavorabe.
Severa knds of dscrepances n the sef-schema have been ds-
cussed by cnca psychoogsts. rst of a there s the rather smpe
case ke ar n whch the dscrepancy s not great but nvoves
argey a queston of emphass: what ar needs s a fuer reaza-
ton of the mportance of securty to hm. Then there s the case of
the paranod sef-pcture n whch the dscrepancy s aso not great
but s very carefuy worked out wth such tremendous motvatona
55
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
support that t s hard to reorganze t. Such a person s sef-schema
may be strong n the sense of rgd but t s not strong n the
sense of deang effectvey wth reaty as t s |udged by others.
nay, hte (1943) has descrbed the case of a coege student he
named |oseph dd, whose sef-pcture was scarcey but on e per-
ence reated to hmsef at a but amost whoy on what he thought
others e pected of hm. s ego strength was |udged to be ow be-
cause hs sef-pcture constanty changed n accordance wth the
demands of the stuaton and apparenty had no roots n actua
sef-percepton. In such nstances, as Pogers puts t, The concept
of sef n other words s based amost entrey upon the percepton
of others vaues and contans a mnmum of percepton of one s
own e perences. Snce the vaues hed by others have no necessary
reatonshp to one s actua organc e perencngs, the dscrepancy
graduay comes to be e perenced as a feeng of tenson and ds-
tress. (194 , p. 30.)
Does ths mean that ncorporatng nconsstent or even damagng
persona e perences nto the conscous sef-schema w contrbute
to ego strength pparenty t does. Certany psychoanayss and
neary a other psychotherapes proceed on ths assumpton. urther-
more, whenever psychatrsts happen to study a group of norma
peope, they are usuay surprsed to dscover many of the same con-
fcts whch they usuay hod responsbe for menta dsease. Ther
frst reacton may be: ow can peope appear so norma when they
carry around such a terrfc oad of confct, gut, and the ke 0ne
possbe e panaton s that wth norma peope, more of such
e perences are accuratey symbozed n the sef-pcture whch pre-
vents the knd of neffectua ad|ustment that must resut whenever
a person s tryng to respond n terms of one knd of a conscous sef-
schema and another knd of unconscous one. eren es one of the
other advantages of psychotherapy: It fs out the sef-pcture and
makes t more neary accurate, so that the person can respond n
terms of a tota pcture whch, even though fu of confct, s pre-
sumed to be better than an ncompete or ncorrect one.
S - U TI0N
The sef-schema can be descrbed not ony n terms of the dmen-
sons of potency and consstency, but aso n terms of evauaton. t
east n our cuture t s neary mpossbe for a person to descrbe
hmsef wthout addng a vaue |udgment of some sort. untey
559
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
found, for nstance, that the most strkng dstorton n sef-|udg-
ments occurred n what he caed the favorabeness dmenson.
ar n hs Sentence Competon Test seems to be takng a rather dm
vew of that securty-concerned porton of hmsef whch we argued
he pro|ected nto others: arry woud rather drnk beer than
study . . . red brags about women and drnkng . . . Tom s
greatest worry s hs wfe . . . e dreams a great dea about wne,
women and song, etc. It s as f he s dsownng and crtczng ths
aspect of hmsef. In hs autobography he uses vaue standards n
descrbng hs performance n hgh schoo: I was cooperatve and
obedent ... a good student. hen members of a psychoogy
cass were asked to wrte ten-mnute personaty sketches of them-
seves n cass, a very arge percentage hed themseves up to stand-
ards for |udgng. The foowng s a somewhat e treme e ampe:
hen I speak or thnk of my personaty, I thnk of t n terms of char-
acter trats. Perhaps the best way to dscuss the queston s to ook at what
I consder to be my bad trats and my good trats.
ad
. I have a very bad temper whch s reveaed, however, ony at certan
tmes.
. I am prone to become suky on certan occasons, whch s brought
about many because of my temper.
C. I am too crtca of certan ndvduas and stuatons.
Good
. I am abe to understand my fauts and as a resut have made a con-
scous effort to correct them (partcuary the bad temper).
. I am very metcuous on amost a counts n con|uncton wth ths I
am conscentous about any work whch I undertake.
C. I fnd t easy to ad|ust mysef to stuatons ncudng those unfamar
to me.
D. I am easy to get aong wth, e cept when my temper gets the upper
hand.
ere s another one, n a somewhat ghter ven, athough the
tendency toward evauaton s defntey present even here. The
phrases suggestng sef-|udgment have been taczed for emphass.
My personaty
It s sort of a quet one when I m sober. Not too outstandng n any
form. I can keep up a pretty good banter wth most any gr for the frst
two or three dates, but then I run out of amusng anecdotes and reay
have to thnk hard for somethng amusng to say. I m enthusastc by nature
560
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
defntey not the bored sophstcate type athough enthusasm for such
thngs as shavng s defntey wearng off.
Start takng about a sub|ect I m famar wth and you re key to be
snowed under. In other words, I ke to tak not because, as s the case
wth my kd brother, I m fascnated by the sound of my own voce, but be-
cause I can t seem to resst the urge to et other peope know nterestng
thngs. I can keep a secret, however. I have more than an average sense of
prde ca t stubbornness f you w.
Partcuary nterestng n ths sketch s the shft n the ast ne
from the use of the word prde to the word stubbornness. 0bvousy
the shft s made not because the term stubbornness s more descrp-
tve, but because t has a somewhat dfferent (ess favorabe) vaue
connotaton. rom such sef-descrptons as these and from those
gven n the recorded ntervews of Pogers and hs assocates (1942,
1947) t s ready apparent that||ersona behavor s neary aways
vewed n terms of vaues. The person sees hs behavor as beng
guded by certan vaues and usuay makes a |udgment as to whether
or not he has successfuy behaved n a way whch measures up to
those vaues.
Characterstcs of Sef- vauaton. |udgment requres at east
two ponts of reference: somethng must be compared to somethng
ese. hen the person |udges hmsef he hods the sef or some
aspect of t up aganst some standard and fnds the resut satsfyng
or unsatsfyng. Now there are two aspects of ths process of com-
parson whch are partcuary strkng: (1) the e tent to whch the
sef s |udged as a whoe and (2) the e tent to whch both the part
of the sef beng |udged and the vaue n terms of whch t s beng
|udged may be unknown to the |udge. hy shoud the sef be |udged
as a whoe e have aready dwet on the emergent, stereotyped
cnaYacter of the sef-schema. It s smpy part of the economy of the
schematzng process whch tends to reduce the sef-schema to a
TormuTa whch can therefore be more easy evauated as a whoe, as
good or bad, progressve, conservatve, snfu or what
not. Ths does not mean, of course, that parts of the sef-schema are
not dfferenty evauated. The student whose sketch was quoted
above was ceary abe to dstngush between hs bad temper and
hs good nsght nto hmsef. It does mean, however, that |udg-
ments n one area may transfer to others and that there s an over-a
sentment of sef-regard, as McDouga caed t, whch may be
rased or owered at east mnmay by every success or faure the
561
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
.
person e perences. Much more e permentaton on ths pont s
|1eeded, however.
nother even smper reason for |udgng the sef as a whoe s the
fact that the sef tends to be |udged as a whoe by other peope, par-
tcuary the parents. |ohnny, you re a good boy, and I ove you
may be the refran that one son hears over and over agan. 0r he may
hear what reud s sad to have heard from hs father: You never
amount to much. (Sachs, 1944.) hen the young Sgmund set out
to prove hs father wrong, to prove that he woud amount to some-
thng, he was acceptng the tendency of hs parents to |udge hmsef
as a whoe. Such seems often to be the case. Snce we are treated and
|udged as separate ndvdua whoes by others we tend to regard
ourseves n the same ght.
The fact that both of the ponts of reference n the |udgng process
may be unconscous has been especay emphaszed by psychoana-
yss. It s easy, enough to understand the |udgng process when the
student says, I have a temper ... that s bad. Three thngs are
nvoved: (a) the percepton that he s aggressve at tmes, (b) a vaue
of aggresson contro, and (c) a comparson of (a) wth (b) whch eads
to the |udgment my temper Is bad. ut sometmes we ony have
(c) or the affect assocated wth (c). The person may smpy fee
guty, may punsh hmsef for days and be competey unabe to
verbaze hs offense. e can nether perceve what act or thought
was wrong nor what vaue he s |udgng hmsef n terms of. that
he or we as observers have to go on s the end resut of the |udgng
process: msery, sufferng or euphora, or perhaps some strange or
symptomatc act.
Drawng nferences about the nature of a person s vaues ether
from e pct statements or from such end-products of sef-|udgment
has been a favorte e ercse of psychoanayss. It has ed on the one
hand to a tremendous terature on the structure of vaue systems
(super-ego, ego-dea) and on the other, to an ncreasng concern for
mprovng the methods by whch such nferences are made. 0n the
whoe t ooks as f specuaton about the nature of vaue structures
n the sef-schema ke the super-ego has outrun ts methodoogca
base. e w therefore spend some tme n the pedestran task of
attemptng to show how nferences about persona vaues may be
more sody based on fact and then pass on to a bref summary of
some of the better-attested characterstcs of the super-ego and ego-
dea as contaned argey n psychoanaytc wrtngs.
562
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
Methods of Measurng Sef-Peevant aues, 1. 0ne of the most
popuar methods of gettng at an ndvdua s vaue schemata has
been to use statements of preference. The port- ernon Study of
aues Test uses ths approach. typca tem on ths schedue runs
as foows:
The man ob|ect of scentfc research shoud be the dscovery of pure
truth rather than ts practca appcatons, a. Yes b. No
If the sub|ect rates yes n preference to no, he s scored as beng more
nterested n theoretca vaues than n economc ones. ctuay such
an approach does not seem to dfferentate suffcenty between gen-
era nterests whch are mportant to the sub|ect and what we have
been cang here sef-reevant vaues, e.g., vaues whch are part of
the frame of reference n terms of whch the person perceves hm-
sef. preference seems to be anaogous to what u (1943) means
by habt strength: t refers to the frequency wth whch a certan
choce or type of response w occur as compared wth certan others.
s n the case of habt strength there are a good many factors whch
w nfuence the strength of a choce, e.g., motvatona strength,
past renforcement, etc. 0ne of these factors may be some knd of a
sef-reevant vaue but snce a factors determne the choce, t s
hard to determne what the choce sgnfes wth respect to such a
vaue. though ths does not mean that ths method of approach
to dennng a person s vaues s of no use, t does mean that nterpre-
taton of the resuts w be compcated, that preference scaes gve
a more unambguous measure of what we have caed deas that have
weght for the person or nterests (cf. Chapter ), and that therefore
some of the other methods of measurng vaues are smper to use
n practce.
2. Statements of aspraton represent a somewhat more drect at-
tempt to get at a person s vaues. They may range a the way from
answers to a smpe queston ke hat do you want to be when
you grow up to nvoved eve of aspraton procedures. The df-
fcuty wth smpe straghtforward questonng about persona
vaues has been that t has seemed to be more successfu at gettng
soca norms than at gettng the actua vaues the person ves by
and |udges hmsef n terms of. Thus, for nstance, Pecken (1950)
found that answers to such questons as hat are the three most
worthy ambtons an ndvdua may have and hat are the three
thngs you woud most ke to teach your chdren were very stereo-
typed e.g., most peope seemed to be choosng from a restrcted
563
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
range of socay agreed-upon vrtues. e found further that the
answers tended to resst change n a manner whch suggested that
they were not very cosey reated to drect persona e perences, but
represented soca stereotypes.
Some of the standard eve-of-aspraton technques seem more
adaptabe to the purpose we have n mnd here, athough care must
be taken to structure the e permenta stuaton so as to get un-
ambguous nformaton. The genera approach nvoves smpy ask-
ng the sub|ect to make some knd of a |udgment of how we he
s gong to do on a partcuar task. s |udgment ordnary nvoves
hs percepton of hs own past performance as we as the vaue
whch he paces on dong we n ths partcuar stuaton. The typ-
ca sequence of events n a |udgment of ths sort s dagrammed be-
ow after ewn, Dembo, estnger, and Sears (1944).
IGUP 14.2
Typca Sequence of vents n a eve of spraton perment
:
a
st settng of n
mance eve of perfor
aspraton
:w rea
mance to
perfo1
ton
ew
mance
perfor
1 1
goa attanment
dscrepancy dscrepancy
1
feeng of success or
faure reated to
dfferences of eves
2 and 3
our man ponts are dstngushed n a typca sequence of events n a
eve of aspraton stuaton: ast performance, settng eve of aspraton
for the ne t performance, new performance, and the psychoogca reac-
ton to the new performance. The dfference between the eve of the ast
performance and the eve of the new goa s caed goa dscrepancy the
dfference between the goa eve and that of the new performance s caed
attanment dscrepancy. Ths dfference s one of the bases of the reacton
at the pont 4.
(Peproduced wth permsson from unt, |. Mc . ( dTtor), Personaty
and the ehavor Dsorders, p. 334. Copyrght 1944 by the Ponad Press
Company.)
564
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
The eve of aspraton technque has been very wdey used be-
cause t s ready adaptabe to any type of performance stuaton
and because the sub|ect s estmates can often be quantfed. Most of
the work n the fed has centered around the e permenta varabes
whch w nfuence the stated eve of aspraton or the dscrepancy
between the eve of aspraton and the ast performance (D-score).
rom the vewpont of personaty theory the nterest n the eve-
of-aspraton technque s somewhat dfferent. It centers n the ques-
ton: ow can we use such a method to get an dea of the nner goa
structure of the person or of hs conscous and unconscous sef-
reevant vaues If the technque s to be used for ths purpose there
are severa nes aong whch research can proceed.
a. Smpfcaton of the Meanng of the Goa stmate. urther
attempts must be made to carfy the meanng of the stated eve of
aspraton to the sub|ect. s Goud (1939) has ponted out on the
bass of e tensve ntervew matera, the answer to the smpe ques-
ton hat w you do ne t tme has a varety of dfferent mean-
ngs to dfferent sub|ects. To one sub|ect the score whch he gves
may be an ncentve whch he has chosen n order to mprove hs
performance to another sub|ect the score may represent what he
reastcay e pects to do to st another t may be a ow vaue he
chooses to protect hmsef aganst faure because he confdenty
e pects to surpass t. s ewn et a. (1944) state, the actua eve of
aspraton represents the acton goa whch s determned by a
muttude of factors, whereas what we are nterested n corresponds
more neary to the dea goa or the vaue whch the sub|ect at-
taches to dong we n ths partcuar task.
ow the dea sef-goa s to be measured s a dffcut probem
whch has not as yet been satsfactory soved. Investgators ke
estnger (1942) have, t s true, asked the sub|ects what they woud
ke to get ne t tme. The resutng goa choces are much ess nfu-
enced by the past performance of the sub|ect or by comparsons wth
other groups. They are unreastc as compared wth the |udg-
ments made by a group of sub|ects who are asked to state what they
e pect to do ne t tme. To ths e tent they mght seem to come
coser to statng the sub|ect s dea goa at east wth respect to
achevement on ths partcuar task. s one sub|ect put t, the est-
mate was what I thought I ought to get and I was tryng hard to
reach the estmate I set for mysef. ( estnger, 1942, p. 195.) The
ony dffcuty wth ths souton to the probem s that such estmates
565
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
sometmes become so unrea, fancfu, or payfu that they are not
reay sef-reated at a. Thus f you were to ask somebody, ow
much money woud you ke to make the chances are he mght
answer somethng ke, 0h, a mon doars. 0n the bass of such
an answer t woud probaby be ncorrect to concude that makng
a mon doars was part of the person s ego dea n any very ser-
ous sense. The trck seems to be to get the sub|ect to make a reastc
aspraton statement n a performance conte t wthout aowng t
to be too much nfuenced by actua performance n that conte t.
If t s too much nfuenced, then the eve of aspraton becomes not
a goa statement but somethng of an e pectaton statement or per-
haps an ego defense aganst faure. t the moment t ooks as f
estnger s queston s the best souton to ths probem, athough
there are others. or e ampe, askng for eves of aspraton n a
task stuaton n whch the sub|ect does not know how we he s
performng mght gve a better pcture of hs true goa eve. 0r
a pubc statement of aspraton eve wth prvate knowedge of
performance scores mght aso gve an ndcaton of how much the
sub|ect vaued achevement, at east n a soca conte t. If the prob-
em s propery seen as one of determnng the sub|ect s vauaton
of achevement (or some other goa), varous ways of accompshng
ths by modfcatons n the standard eve of aspraton technque
w suggest themseves. s t s, the theoretca meanng of many goa
estmates s not cear.
b. Study of 0ther Than chevement Goas. The eve of asora-
ton technque coud be used for vaues other than that of acheve-
ment. Neary a the research to date has deat wth achevement
goa estmates. There s no reason, however, why the technque
shoud be mted to ths type of stuaton. person may be asked
to state a goa wth respect to any knd of performance. or n-
stance, a chd mght be asked to record, ether prvatey or pubcy,
how obedent he woud ke (or e pect) to be n a seres of stua-
tona tests nvovng obedence or foowng commands. rght s
e perment on atrusm n chdren (1942) s ustratve of an ap-
proach whch mght be adopted. She used the foowng task stua-
ton: chd, confronted wth a desrabe and ess desrabe toy,
was asked to gve one away and keep the other for hmsef. In one
case the other person was hs best frend n another case a stranger.
(1942, p. 220.) Ths stuaton s comparabe to determnng the
achevement eve of aspraton by notng whch of a seres of tasks
566
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
of dfferng dffcuty a sub|ect chooses. y varyng the dfference n
the desrabty of the toys, rght coud have obtaned a measure
of the chd s eve of aspraton wth respect to generosty or atru-
sm. That s, she mght have found the pace at whch the chd
shfted from generosty to sefshness as she ncreased the dfference
n desrabty between the two toys. Ths woud yed an estmate
of the chd s aspraton wth respect to generosty or atrusm. It
s unfortunate that the term eve of aspraton has tended to be
restrcted to achevement stuatons. It coud certany be e tended
to a number of other vaue stuatons such as ths. nd f t were,
much more nformaton on an ndvdua s vaue structure coud be
obtaned by usng t.
c. Comparson of Goa Choces th 0ther Measures of Goa Im-
portance. Pesponses n eve of aspraton stuatons can be studed
to get at dfferences n e pct and mpct vaues. There has been
much dscusson among workers n the fed over the reaton be-
tween the stated eve of aspraton and the rea or true eve
of aspraton. or nstance, Goud reports (1939) the case of a student
who set a conscous eve of aspraton whch she concuded on the
bass of an ntervew was consderaby beow hs rea eve of aspra-
ton. e stated that he was satsfed wth a average n schoo a-
though practcay no mark of hs was ever beow a and hs aver-
age was . In hs own words, I fee f I set mysef too hgh a mark
I be dsapponted when I don t get t and f you set too ow a mark
I fet I mght be dscouraged. (1939, p. 52.) e apparenty set a
ow conscous eve of aspraton n order to protect hmsef aganst
possbe faure. Goud concudes, The fact that he ony e per-
enced success when hs performance was qute a bt above the est-
mate, seems concusve proof hs conscous eve of strvngs and
e pectatons s restrcted to mnmum e pectatons, and that he
s actuay motvated by a hgher repressed eve of strvng. (1939,
p. 53.) Gardner (1940) has argued aganst makng any eaborate
nferences about the true eve of aspraton on the ground that
they nvove a ot of quatatve ntervew data whch do not |ustfy
the use of the term eve of aspraton mpyng a quantfabe fgure.
In spte of ths, t has proved possbe to utze n partcuar the
sub|ect s feengs of success and faure as a measure of the mpct
eve of aspraton. |ucknat rated the reacton of her sub|ects to
ther performance a the way from very good success through a
s -pont scae to very strong faure (cf. ewn, et a., 1944, p. 33 ).
567
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
s Goud suggests, these feengs of the sub|ect may be a better nde
of the mpct vaue paced on achevement than the stated aspra-
ton eve whch s a product of so many other forces. urthermore,
knowedge of mpct as we as e pct goas w put us n a much
better poston to study the vaue structure of the ndvdua, |ust
as when we compare conscous and unconscous sef-|udgments by
the off- untey technque.
3. Statements of sef-|udgment may under certan condtons be the
easest of a to nterpret. e have aready gven a number of us-
tratons of such sef-|udgments n dscussng the off- untey
technque and n demonstratng how sef-evauaton characterzes
the sef-schema. The vaues mpct n such |udgments may be
studed more systematcay n one of two ways. The frst nvoves a
smpe frequency count of the vaues mpct n a sef-descrpton.
If we appy ths approach to ar s descrpton of hmsef n hs
adoescence quoted earer n the chapter we arrve at the resuts
gven n Tabe 14.6.
T 14.6
ar s Sef-Descrpton Scored for Impct aues
. Scored sampe
I was aways cooperatve ( ffaton) and obedent (Standards), a good
student ( chevement) but nfuenced by others ( ffaton) whch some-
tmes ed me nto troube. I was aways senstve and my feengs were
and st are easy hurt (Persona d|ustment).
. aue frequency count for entre secton
Non-aggresson 1 Peace, Passvty o
ffaton Nurturance o
chevement 13 Pespect, Toerance o
utonomy 1 Sentence o
Mora Standards 5
Persona d|ustment a
Ths tabe shows the method by whch many statements can be re-
ferred to vaues mped by the use of sef-descrptve ad|ectves (cf. -
port and 0dbert, 1936). The set of vaue categores used n ths par-
tcuar anayss are drawn n part from Murray s st of needs (193 )
and s not of course n any sense defntve. 0ne mght argue that a
free descrpton of ths sort s certan to eave out certan mportant
vaue areas because of nstructons the sub|ect gves hmsef as to
what the psychoogst woud be nterested n. he ths s a dsad-
56
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
vantage, t has ts postve sde. 0ne coud argue that t s precsey
those vaues n terms of whch a person chooses to descrbe hmsef
that are of mportance to hm. Thus we know from ar s Soca
Dstance scae and from the ces test (Chapter ) that he vaues
toerance and has great respect for others, f he s specfcay asked
about these thngs. The fact that he does not choose any epsode or
characterstc whch refects ths vaue n descrbng hmsef may
suggest that these are not sef-reevant vaues. Ths does not mean
that they are not mportant vaues to hm at the symboc eve but
t does mean that they are not ntmatey ted up wth hs sef-schema.
chevement, ffaton (whch may account for hs hgh Toer-
ance), and concern about Mora Standards, on the other hand, are
vaues of great mportance to hm personay, at east as |udged by
ths partcuar method of scorng hs vaues.
The other method of gettng at vaues through sef-|udgments
nvoves usng the off- untey technque of askng for ratngs on
unrecognzed forms of sef-e presson. y themseves, whether pos-
tve or negatve, such |udgments presumaby refect the mportance
of the characterstc beng |udged n proporton to the e tent to
whch they devate from a mdde |udgment or from the mean of
smar |udgments made of other peope s forms of e presson. Thus,
for nstance, a sub|ect mght be handed a ratng sp contanng the
foowng scae to be fed out n response to hs own mrrored (and
unrecognzed) handwrtng:
Does ths suggest a person who s
Uncooperatve Cooperatve
If he checked t as ndcated and f he checked other peope near the
mdde of the scae, we mght be |ustfed n concudng that ffa-
ton was an mportant sef-reated vaue. If we had ratngs on the
same scae of recognzed sef-e pressons we woud have even more to
go on. If, for nstance, hs conscous sef-|udgment of cooperatveness
s near the mdde of the scae, we mght nfer that he vaues modesty
and does not want to appear too sef-centered. 0ther dscrepances
between conscous and unconscous |udgments woud ead to other
knds of nferences. or e ampe, f he rated hmsef very hgh con-
scousy on cooperatveness, but ony n the mdde of smar sef-
|udgments unconscousy, we mght want to nfer that hs ffaton
orentaton was smpy for the sake of appearances (Standards) and
that ths vaue mpcty was not partcuary sef-reevant.
569
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
4. Ths knd of anayss comes cose to makng nferences about
vaue structure from the knds of defenses the person adopts, whch
s the fourth method of fndng out about sef-reevant vaues. s we
suggested earer, cncans use ths method predomnanty n draw-
ng nferences about the nature of a person s vaue system. Suppose,
for nstance, a person shows a symptomatc act e.g., n rckson s
we-known hypnotzed sub|ect (1939), suppose he says shut the
bore nstead of shut the door when he attempts to act n accord-
ance wth hs desre to shut off the bore who s takng to hm. The
fact that he does not openy te the bore to shut up s attrbuted
to some nhbtng force, to some vaue schema whch prevents
such an openy hoste act. reud gves dozens of smar e ampes n
hs Psychopathoogy of veryday fe. The compromses or sympto-
matc acts are used n each case to nfer (a) what the person wanted
to do or say and (b) what the vaue schema (super-ego) was whch
dstorted the ntenton. n e acty smar approach s used n ana-
yzng symptoms or mder defense mechansms. s e ander ponts
out (1942), a tger does not need to ratonaze hs aggresson but a
man does. hy ecause the man has a set of vaues whch causes
hm to fee ashamed or guty for hs aggressve mpuses and he con-
sequenty must defend hmsef aganst ths an ety by producng
good reasons for hs aggressve acts. Smary, any of the other de-
fense mechansms reacton formaton, dena, undong, pro|ecton,
etc. (cf. . reud, 1937) are seen as compromses worked out by the
ego n response to confcts between essentay antsoca drves and
soca vaue schemata beongng to the sef-schema and caed d1e
super-ego.
t the moment we are not so much nterested n the resuts of
ths approach as we are n consderng t as a method of drawng
nferences about sef-reevant vaues. 0bvousy as t has been used
t nvoves a great dea of specazed reasonng appcabe ony to
each partcuar defense as t occurs n a partcuar person. Can we
generaze the method nto somethng whch mght be used more
systematcay 0ne way of dong ths has aready been suggested
n our anayss of eve aspraton technques e.g., we can compare
affect (feengs of success and faure) wth conscousy set goas and
draw nferences from the resutng dscrepances about mpct
vaues. or nstance, f a person sets a very hgh eve of aspraton, con-
sstenty fas to reach t, and records no partcuar faure feengs,
we may nfer that he vaues conformty greaty but s ess concerned
ether wth accuracy (predctng what he w do) or wth acheve-
570
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
ment. 0r f he sets hs goa ow, consstenty surpasses t, and shows
tte feeng of success, we may want to nfer that he has strong pro-
hbtons aganst faure, that hs actua achevement goa s hgher
than set, etc. rachmachar (as reported n uge, 1945) has demon-
strated how ths sort of approach may be systematcay apped n
a questonnare type of study. e asked a number of questons about
conventona mora ssues on whch respondents were asked to
record ther atttude, ther conduct, and the confct they fet over
the ssue. or nstance, one of the questons was, 0ught we to do
our utmost to adhere to the conventona code of se ua moras
whch condemns a forms of drect se ua satsfacton e cept mar-
rage (e.g., e tra-marta| ntercourse, homose uaty, masturbaton)
( uge, 1945, p. 65.) The sub|ects rated ther atttude and conduct
on a scae whch ranged from 5 (dsagreement) to - -5 (compete
agreement) and any confct they fet over the dscrepancy between
atttude and conduct on a scae from o to 5. The resuts on the Con-
ventona Se Moras tem and two others are gven n Tabe 14.7.
T 14.7
tttude, Conduct, and Confct wth Pespect to arous Issues of the
Mora Code
tttude Conduct Dscrepancy Confct
1. Conventona se moras men 1.12 1-51 -39 1-3
women .02 .02 .36 .92
2. Physca courage men 1.51 1- 3 -2 1.39
women .10 0.79 .69 .91
3. vod borrowng a 3.26 .54 2.72 no
(Peproduced wth permsson after rachmachar from |. C. uge, Man,
Moras and Socety. Copyrght 1945, Internatona Unverstes Press.)
The dscrepances n varous ratngs are partcuary mportant for
gettng at atent vaues. or nstance, why shoud the men say they
behave better on the average wth regard to se moras than they
thnk they shoud More than ths, why shoud they fee so much
confct over the ssue as compared wth women when ther conduct
s n fact better than they conscousy requre, whe women fa
sghty short of ther aspratons and fee ess confct uge
argues that these nconsstences may be easy e paned n terms of
a much severer mpct prohbton aganst unconventona se ua-
ty than the men are wng to admt pubcy. hy shoudn t they
admt t To e pan ths (whch uge does not attempt) we may
571
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
have to assume some other vaue, paced perhaps on beng reason-
abe and not od-fashoned. The other two tems aso show some
nterestng dscrepances. Notce how a reatvey great dscrepancy
between atttude and conduct on borrowng s assocated wth ess
confct than s produced by a very sma dscrepancy over Physca
courage. 0ne s tempted to argue, as uge does, that to avod bor-
rowng s a nomna dea wthout any deep mora feeng behnd
t (1945, p. 67). The other two deas (se and courage) on the other
hand, may be so mportant to the person that ony sma dscrepan-
ces between atttude and conduct can be toerated wthout acute
an ety. ence the conscous eve of aspraton may be actuay
owered beow what t s for orrowng as a means of reducng the
dscrepancy. hatever concusons are fnay reached from such
arguments as these, the method of anayzng dscrepances systemat-
cay ke ths seems a much better way of drawng some of the same
knd of nferences about unconscous vaue schemata that have
customary been drawn by cncans from the anayss of defenses
and symptomatc acts.
Characterstcs of aue Schemata. ven though the methodoogy
for studyng sef-reevant vaues has been poory deveoped to date,
a great dea has been wrtten about ths aspect of the sef, argey by
psychoanaysts. Much of t must be regarded by e permentasts as
hghy specuatve n nature, but certan ponts stand out as so m-
portant that they warrant our attenton, even f we regard them ony
as hypotheses to be checked by some of the mproved methods |ust
suggested. To begn wth t has become common practce to ds-
tngush between the ego-dea and the super-ego, both of whch are
from our vewpont custers of vaues wthn the sef-schema. -
though the e act nature of the dfference between these two struc-
tures s not agreed upon, a dstncton suggested by e ander and
uge seems most convenent. They both fee that t s best to use
the super-ego for the more unconscous and rratona eements,
and the ego-dea for more conscous and adaptabe ones. ( uge,
1945, p. 77.) The advantage of ths dstncton s that t s n ne
wth our prevous dscusson about conscous and unconscous por-
tons of the sef-schema and how each deveops n the socazng
process (cf. Chapter 10).
If we foow ths suggeston, we may convenenty descrbe the
characterstcs of each by contrastng them one wth the other as n
the foowng st:
572
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
go-dea Super-ego
1. Conscous (symbozed) Unconscous (unsymbozed)
2. Sef-potent go aen
3. Source n e pct cutura Source n mpct cutura
vaues vaues
4. Peastc Irrea, rgd
5. Domnant mode of reacton s Domnant mode of reacton s
nstrumenta defensve
s they stand, these characterstcs ook somewhat more mysterous,
specuatve, and dchotomous than they reay are, for each one re-
fers to an aspect of our prevous dscusson. Thus by conscous and
unconscous s meant the degree to whch the person can verbaze
the vaue standards whch gude hs behavor. oth n our dscusson
of conscous and unconscous portons of the sef-schema and n our
dscusson of methodoogy, we have gven ustratons of how t
can be shown that mpct standards are dfferent from e pct ones.
0ur second dstncton between the ego dea and super-ego foows
from the frst. Sef-potency s normay assocated wth the ego dea
snce potency s the dstngushng characterstc of the conscous
sef-pcture. person normay thnks of hs deas as f they were
under hs contro. e may dsown hs conscence amost, at tmes,
as f t were a foregn body. e speaks of hs conscence as makng
hm do somethng, as f t were reay ego-aen. Socrates stened
to hs damon, to the voce of hs conscence, whch tod hm what
to do. In speakng of t he treated t as essentay outsde hs drect
contro. s e perence seems fary characterstc. uge reports an
ntrospectve study by renke and esskopf on the dfferences be-
tween wshes and dutes, whch supports the vew that dutes are
conceved as e terna forces actng on a person who may queston
ther power to move hm, whe wshes (and correspondng deas)
seem much coser to the sef and mpe more vgorousy to acton.
( uge, 1945, p. 1 .)
The reason for makng such a dstncton between the ego-dea
and super-ego can perhaps be made cearer by tracng the deveop-
ment of each. The ego-dea, as we are usng the term here, s derved
argey from the conscous verbazed, systematc teachngs of aduts
n the envronment of the growng chd. Its sources are argey
deas that are hed up before the chd by varous members of hs
cuture whether n the home, n schoo, n Sunday schoo, oy
Scout organzatons, or through the e ampes set by move stars,
heroes of the comc strps, and other |uvene terature, etc. The
573
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
vaues n the ego-dea are the e pct vaues of the cuture n
whch the person ves and snce he earns them e pcty, he can
reproduce them e pcty that s, he knows what they are and can
formuate them verbay f asked.
The super-ego, on the other hand, derves from the mpct
vaues of the cuture whch the chd often earns about from the
behavor toward hm of members of the cuture. ere eary chd
tranng s partcuary mportant because much of t occurs before
the chd s ngustc dscrmnatons have deveoped very hghy
(cf. Chapter 10). Normay the parent does not e pan why he
punshes |ohnny so severey for song hs pants, party because
at ths age |ohnny woud not understand what he was takng about
and party because the parent woud probaby fnd t dffcut to
verbaze the vaue whch ed hm to spank |ohnny. most from
brth the chd begns to earn what s rght and what s wrong from
the way n whch he s rewarded and punshed, but the eary vaue
schemata whch he deveops from such treatment are necessary
unverbazed. Ths does not mean that hs behavor s not guded
by such schemata. Curousy enough, some behavorsts have argued
aganst the mportance of eary chdhood dscpne on the grounds
that the chd was too young to formuate verbay the somewhat
compcated super-ego standards he s supposed to earn accordng
to the psychoanaysts. The fact s that t s |ust because he s too
young to formuate these standards verbay that they may ater
assume such overwhemng mportance n determnng hs behavor.
If he coud formuate them and verbaze them, they woud be con-
scous and sub|ect to the contro whch symbozaton brngs. It s
therefore not surprsng to fnd that much of the content of the
super-ego conssts of prohbtons or rues of conduct whch derve
from eary parenta dscpnes.
or the same reason the super-ego tends to be harsher and more
rgd than the ego-dea whch s represented symbocay n con-
scousness. The super-ego s notons of rght and wrong are more
prmtve, archac, nfante, and far ess adaptabe to subte dffer-
ences n the e terna stuaton. Thus a man may reaze on the bass of
more mature earnng that under certan crcumstances t s wser not
to te the whoe truth n order to save another person from sufferng,
yet n so dong he may suffer severe quams of conscence for
voatng the rgd mpct standard of truthfuness that admts of
no shades of gray. 0ne of the cearest ways of dstngushng between
574
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
e pct ego-dea standards and mpct super-ego ones s to ob-
serve what happens when the person fas to ve up to one or the other.
ang short of a conscous dea may ead to feengs of dsappont-
ment, to revson downward of the eve of aspraton, or to re-
newed efforts to reach t. In short, bockng eads to goa-orented
strvng (cf. Chapter 13). ut wth the super-ego, faure s a df-
ferent matter. Snce the standard s strcter and ess adequatey
understood, fang short resuts n vague uneasness or unfocazed
an ety and the person becomes organzed around defendng hm-
sef aganst ths an ety rather than toward nstrumenta means of
sovng the orgna confct. In other words, the person s most apt
to become defense-orented rather than goa-orented accordng to
the dstncton made n the ast chapter. To summarze once more:
a arge part of the human beng s success n deang wth hs en-
vronment s dependent upon hs abty to symboze portons of t
and to manpuate and contro t through these symbos (words,
numbers, mages etc.). Snce the super-ego standards are ess ade-
quatey symbozed, faure to ve up to them can be ess effec-
tvey deat wth: t tends to resut n generazed an ety whch the
person copes wth by defendng hmsef as best he can aganst t. It
s not hard to see from ths argument why we have earned most
about how the super-ego functons from the defense mechansms and
symptoms characterstc of neuross.
Peaton of Motves to Sef-Peevant aues. of ths dscusson
has drawn on many of the same knds of arguments we used to defne
the nature of motves. |ust e acty what s the dfference between
a motve and an e pct or mpct sef-reevant vaue 0ne way of
ookng at the probem s to regard the motve as what makes a
vaue sef-reevant. e have argued above that not a vaues n the
sense of deas whch are mportant to a person (e.g., future orenta-
ton) are used n evauatng the sef. Coud t be that a person s
motves determne whch mportant deas w be used n sef-
|udgments Suppose we take ar who, f our anayss s correct, has
very strong securty and achevement drves. e woud argue then
that any vaue whch was perceved as fufng ether or both of
these drves woud become sef-reevant for ar. nd n fact ths
seems to be the case: n descrbng hs characterstcs, he mpes
achevement and affatve standards most often, n ratng vces he
paces courage as the most mportant vrtue (persona achevement
of securty), etc. 0ther vaues, such as toerance, whch he accepts
575
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
as mportant n hs socety, seem ess ceary sef-reevant. They do
not fuf ether of hs man motves.
nother concuson foows from ths anayss: the most rgd
sef-reevant vaues w tend to be the mpct super-ego ones snce
they w tend to be ted up wth motves whch are aso based on
unsymbozed genera affectve assocatons (cf. Chapter 12). In ths
case we can pcture the earnng of the motve and of the goa whch
w satsfy t as gong on at the same tme. The mpct vaue s the
state whch s generay assocated wth dsruptng the motve n
much the same way that food s the goa or termna state of the
hunger motve. They are n no sense ndependent of each other and
two terms are hardy necessary to dstngush one from the other.
th e pct or ego-dea vaues, however, the stuaton s dffer-
ent. s we have ponted out, they tend to deveop after motves have
been acqured they are more reastc, more easy nfuenced by
changes n the stuaton, etc. They are therefore to some e tent nde-
pendent of motves and n tme may even take over many of the
functons of motves n determnng choces. 0ne of the strkng
thngs about renke and esskopf s study (cf. uge, 1945) was
that as peope got oder the dstncton between wshes and dutes
(mpct vaues) became ess marked. hat peope thought they
shoud do and what they wanted to do became the same thng. 0ne
e panaton of ths fndng s that as motvaton becomes more
dfferentated n terms of conscous goas and vaues, the power of
the mpct motves and vaues ad down n chdhood begns to
essen and the person no onger perceves hmsef as dvded nto
two parts wth essentay dfferent ams warrng aganst each other.
e responds more n terms of the stuaton and ess n terms of the
strong affectve assocatons ad down n chdhood, whch means
that the functon of hs motves has been taken over to some e tent
by hs cogntvey arrved-at vaues.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. In spte of our resouton at the begnnng of ths chapter,
many of the concepts ntroduced to e pan the dfferent character-
stcs of the sef-schema do not as yet have operatona defntons.
Consder sef-potency, for e ampe. ow coud you set up an e per-
ment whch woud determne whether there were any genera
stages n the percepton of ob|ects, peope, etc., as near or far from
the sef Granted you found some genera trends for groups of peo-
576 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
C0NC PTI0NS 0 T S
pe, how woud you determne the stages on ths dmenson for a
snge ndvdua ow woud you test the hypothess that the
dmenson nvoved s organzed around the percepton of potency
hat are some aternatve ways n whch t mght be organzed
ow about smarty, for nstance or methods of measurng
schemata refer back to Chapter 9. oud the sequence of reca of
eements presented n varyng orders be hepfu ow about the
sequence of free assocatons startng wth varous sef-reated words
or stages n the recognton of sef-reated words Can you thnk of
deveopmenta studes whch mght show how the sef-schema s or-
ganzed as t s acqured Desgn-at east one good e perment n ths
fed.
2. ow coud you measure whether or not the ntegrty of the
sef-schema was beng mantaned hat consttutes ntegrty
and what consttutes mantenance e have spoken of a certan
mnmum eve of sef-potency as beng necessary. ow coud
you determne what the mnmum eve was for a gven person
hat s t necessary for Coud the shft from nstrumenta
to defensve reactons to frustraton be determned wth any
accuracy ow If so, how woud the resut bear on probems of
ntegrty of the sef-schema Can you thnk of any way of nducng
changes e permentay n the percepton of sef-potency
3. Desgn an e perment whch woud test |ung s hypothess that
the persona (herarchy of sef-reated responses) s ess ready shfted
n nsecure peope. Ths nvoves fndng a measure of sef-percep-
ton, a method of nducng a change n t, and a way of measurng
securty-nsecurty. Consut renke- runswk (1949) and runer
and Postman (1949) for methods of measurng perceptua resstance
to ncomng, nconsstent nformaton. Then fgure out a way to
provde a person wth nformaton that he s dfferent from what he
thnks he s, etc.
4. The hypothess s advanced n the te t that ar has not had
e perence wth peope who are unusuay concerned wth securty
and that therefore hs attrbuton of securty concern to others s a
refecton of hs own securty probems. Is there evdence that woud
throw doubt on the frst part of ths argument Make a carefu
study of hs securty-reated sentence competons so as to be abe
to evauate how serous the ob|ecton s that ths evdence rases.
5. Make a study of the sentence competons (or other test tems)
whch nvove reactons to the rea or assumed superorty of other
577
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
persons. Comment on any dfferences you fnd between ar s state-
ments of hs own and of others reactons to such stuatons.
6. The te t argues that ego strength s argey a functon of the
competeness of the sef-pcture n ncorporatng nformaton about
the sef. Coud t be a functon of other aspects of the sef-pcture as
we hat ones ow about sef-potency or sef-consstency ow
woud you test any hypotheses you advance Is mprovement n
ad|ustment to fe a good measure of ego strength Pefer back to
the dfferent pctures of awk and emer n Chapter 3. Is t
possbe to have a strong ego under one set of condtons (e.g,
peacetme) whch s weak under others (e.g., wartme)
7. arous suggestons have been made n ths chapter and others
as to why psychotherapy s effectve. rng them together and
evauate them. Desgn e perments for testng at east one. Pefer to
the methods of content anayss practced by Pogers and hs stu-
dents f necessary (cf. Curran, 1945, for a revew of them).
. hat s the dfference between an dea (Chapter ) and an
dea n terms of whch the sef s |udged (Chapter 14) hch woud
you ca a vaue and why Is the dfference the same as between a
sef-reevant and a non-sef-reevant vaue Gve e ampes of each.
9. hat s a smpe statement of choce, such as I ke peanuts,
a measure of ow does t dffer from a measure of choce made by
observng the frequency wth whch the person buys peanuts over
a perod of tme Does one measure necesstate the concept of the
sef-schema Can a rat have a concept of the sef ow woud you
know
10. The statement s made n ths chapter that the super-ego s
more prmtve, archac, and nfante than the ego-dea.
Try to provde operatona defntons for each of these three ad|ec-
tves. Do you have better uck wth ad|ectves ke rgd or e -
treme Desgn an e perment or cte evdence from the chapter
whch shows that mpct vaues are more rgd or e treme than
e pct ones.
11. Coect evdence or desgn e perments whch woud test the
hypothess that sef-reevant vaues wth hgh cogntve support
(e.g., beef n the vaue of scence or Chrstanty) can functon ke
motves or repace them n ater fe. ow woud sef-reevant vaues
be partcuary key to ead to the acquston even ate n fe of
the strong affectve assocatons whch we have argued are the bass
of motves
57
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Interreaton mong the asc
Personaty arabes: Predctng
the Concrete ct
The |ob of anayss s done. e have pcked our way sowy but
systematcay through the mass of facts about personaty, and con-
cuded that we need at east three basc constructs and one derved
one to hande personaty n ts entrety. e have dssected ar
and studed separatey the aspects of hs behavor whch we have
cassfed under each of these constructs. Now the probem s one
of synthess. hat are the reatons among the basc constructs we
have used to descrbe personaty Can we gve an ntegrated pc-
ture of ar s personaty or are we ke a the kng s horses and
a the kng s men unabe to put umpty-Dumpty together agan
The probem of synthess s certany no easy one, and t s the one
on whch personaty theorsts have most often faed. It s rea-
tvey easy to gve a fary compete descrpton of one aspect of
personaty at a tme and to pretend t s the whoe story whch s
what the psychoanaysts have often done n deang ony wth the
motvatona or dynamc aspect of personaty. ut our |ob s more
dffcut because our eve of aspraton s hgher. e now want
a compete pcture even though we may have to sacrfce some of ts
detas to get t.
To begn wth a fresh and somewhat ess anaytc vewpont, et
us consder the organsm as a whoe, functonng n ts envronment.
s ewn (1935) has so apty phrased t, behavor ( ) s a |ont
functon of the personaty (P) and the envronment ( ), or:
f (P, ). Now for the sake of convenence et us consder ony
the P term n ths formua. In a way, that s e acty what we have
been dong throughout ths book. 0ur am has been to consder
the person apart from any partcuar envronmenta stuaton and
to try to dscover what conceptua scheme best fts a of hs behavor
n a such stuatons. That s, consderng the nature of the envron-
ment and of the person s known reactons to t, we have attempted
to bud up a bref hypothetca scheme of hm whch w enabe
579
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
us to predct hs unknown behavor n specfc stuatons. The
theoretca constructs used n our hypothetca scheme have not
been many. There are three basc varabes trat, schema, and need
and one derved varabe the sef-schema. They are sted n
Tabe 15.1 aong wth ther chef determnants (antecedent cond-
tons) and measures.
T 15.1
The Chef Determnants and Measures of the asc ypothetca Constructs
Used n 0ur Conceptuazaton of Personaty
Determnants
1. Penforcement n sm-
ar stuatons
2. Changes n stmuaton
partcuary as pat-
terned by cuture
Construct Symbo
Trat (t or )
Schema (s or S)
Undfferentated stress
paced on certan
goa responses, par-
tcuary eary n fe
Specfc acts and S, ,
D as perceved by
the sef
Need or
Motve (n or D)
Sef-
Schema (sS)
Measures
Consstency of a response
n past or smar stua-
tons
Perceptua responses
when e terna determ-
nants are ma mzed
( cognton )
Imagnatve goa re-
sponses when e terna
determnants are mn-
mzed
Comments about or
|udgments of the sef
Snce constructs such as these are usefu n proporton to the
ease wth whch they can be measured and made to vary as the func-
ton of antecedent condtons, a speca effort has been made to te
each construct down at both ends n terms of these two prerequstes.
Such tyng-down may do voence to some of the determnants, but
ncompeteness of ths sort seems preferabe to eavng the matter
vague. or e ampe, the genera argument s not changed by assum-
ng that t s contguty rather than renforcement whch accounts
for trat formaton. Two other genera ponts shoud be noted about
the tabe before we go nto t n deta. rst, the terms and D
for abt and Drve respectvey are used because of the cose
anaogy of two of our constructs to these constructs as used by u
n hs Prncpes of ehavor Theory (1943). The parae s not
e act, partcuary n the antecedent condtons needed to produce
a drve, but t has seemed worth makng n ths symboc fashon,
snce utmatey we may hope that a such theoretca superstruc-
5 0
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PP DICTING T C0NCP T CT
tures w grow together, and be consstent one wth the other. The
S construct s not fuy deveoped n u, but other behavor
theorsts, notaby Toman (194 a), have emphaszed the mportance
of ths prmary perceptua varabe. Second, the tabe represents
a speng out of the P varabe n ewn s equaton cted above,
whch may therefore be rewrtten as foows:
f ( , S, D, sS) ( )
Such an equaton s purey programmatc, of course. It says nothng
about the nature or form of the reatonshp among the varabes.
These can be worked out ony n terms of the measures of each one.
Trat Measures. et us turn therefore to these measures. Gen-
eray speakng, we w get a purer measure of any partcuar
varabe f we emnate or contro the nfuence of other varabes
when we are measurng t. Thus, for e ampe, when we are nter-
ested n a partcuar trat such as an achevement trat (t cheve-
ment) ke workng hard, we measure the consstency of a certan
cass of workng hard responses, when the person s percepton and
motvaton n varous tasks are hed constant (cf. Chapter 7). If the
person s percepton of a partcuar task changes, f for nstance he
becomes ego-nvoved, the condtons for gettng a pure measure
of t chevement have been voated and what we actuay get s
contamnated by the ntroduced varaton n the perceptua (or
motvatona) factors whch determne behavor. The fact s that
most trats have been measured wth the other two factors more or
ess we controed, whch s doubtess why we have been abe to
deveop the trat concept n the frst pace, but nevertheess more
e pct attempts to contro the other varabes woud purfy our
measures of the trat varabe. Ideay, before testng for the presence
or absence of a gven trat n a partcuar new stuaton, we ought to
have a measure of how a person perceves the stuaton, and what hs
motves are at the moment. Snce ths s mpractcabe n many
nstances, we often have to assume that he w perceve the stua-
ton n a cuturay norma fashon (as determned by consensus of
other cutura members) and brng to t cuturay norma motves
(e.g., desre to cooperate wth the e permenter, etc.). e may
summarze ths dscusson by attemptng to gve a more or ess
forma defnton of a partcuar trat such as t chevement.
t chevement s the nference that a person w respond more
or ess consstenty by workng hard (a) n a standardzed cass of
5 1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
performance stuatons, (b) under the nfuence of a cass of
motves mted n range and ntensty. thn the mts set by
(a) and (b), t chevement w vary n strength and consstency
as a drect functon of the amount of renforcement receved for
. such behavor n prevous smar stuatons.
hat ths defnton says n bref s that other thngs beng
equa (e.g., needs and schemata), t chevement w vary as a func-
ton of renforcement (reward or punshment) for the cass of re-
sponses defned as beongng under t chevement n prevous
stuatons. Ths means that we coud bud any amount of t cheve-
ment nto an ndvdua f we had contro over hs fe hstory. Snce
we do not have such contro, we must be content wth budng n
habts or trats n rats and dscoverng the prncpes of ther forma-
ton or wth dscoverng the strength or consstency of t cheve-
ment n a partcuar person by measurng the consstency of ths
response pattern n a varety of stuatons n whch schemata (per-
ceptons) and needs are appro matey the same. Unfortunatey,
to requre that the schemata and needs be the same or standardzed
n test stuatons s not to say very much. e st have to determne
under what motvatona-perceptua condtons we want to test for
t chevement. Shoud we mt our measures of t chevement to
those stuatons n whch the motve s to cooperate wth the
e permenter and the tasks are aboratory games 0r shoud
we attempt to contro these varabes at a somewhat hgher eve, say
n a study stuaton n whch the motvaton nvoved may be n
chevement and the task perceved as somethng on whch peope
n our cuture are supposed to do we hat are the reatonshps
between t chevement, measured when S and D are at one deter-
mnaton, and t chevement when they are at another These
are a questons whch cannot be answered at the present tme,
athough there s no reason why they coud not be answered b
emprca observatons wthn the theoretca framework presented
here.
Schema Measures. hen we turn to the schema construct, the
stuaton s smar. gan we want to measure the person s per-
cepton of the stuaton provdng past e perence and motvaton
are standardzed. Such standardzaton s assumed n norma e per-
ments on the attrbutes of sensaton. That s, we brng n a norma
sub|ect off the street and ask hm to |udge whether a tone he has
|ust heard s hgher or ower than the tone he heard earer. Impct
5 2
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
n the procedure are the assumptons, frst, that the sub|ect has had
a norma e perence wth sounds of dfferent ptches and has
earned to make |udgments of hgher and ower, and second, that
hs motvaton s to do what the e permenter asks hm to do rather
than, for e ampe, to show aggresson toward hm. Provded both
these assumptons are vad, we may then proceed to measure per-
ceptua responses as a functon of changes n stmuaton. If ether
of our two assumptons s not vad, that s, f ether motvaton or
past e perence does not fa wthn a norma range, then our re-
sponse measure s an mpure ndcator of percepton and normay
we dscard the resuts. 0nce agan we may attempt to summarze
ths dscusson wth a forma statement, usng achevement as our
e ampe:
s chevement s the nference as to what cass of stuatons a
person w defne as achevement-reated (a) under the nfuence
of a cass of motves mted n range and ntensty and (b) wthn
certan mts as to the specfc knds of past e perences (ren-
forcements) he has had n ths area. thn the mts set by (a)
and (b), s chevement for any person w vary as a drect func-
ton of the cutura defnton of achevement-reated stuatons
(.e., what others n hs group say s achevement-reated).
Note that n ths statement we have shfted from the reportng
of a smpe sensaton ( that s bue ) to the reportng of a compe
cutura dea ( that s achevement-reated ). ut the two cases are
on the same contnuum, athough the atter s ess we defned than
the former. That s, t s the cuture whch defnes a certan cass of
stmu as beng a sound and another cass of stuatons as beng
achevement-reated, athough we normay do not speak of a
cuture pattern as often n the frst nstance as we do n the second.
The mportant dfference between the two cases s that there s
more room for varaton n the atter n the way peope perceve
(report) the stmuus pattern. ut n both cases, f we are nterested
n how a partcuar person perceves t, we contro hs needs and
dosyncratc past e perences and measure hs response to the
stmuus pattern as compared wth the consensus among responses
gven by other peope to t. Ths s so easy done for smpe sensory
and perceptua patterns that whoe schoos of psychoogy have
deveoped whch gnore or attempt to dspose atogether wth the
past e perence and motvatona determnants of behavor. Ths
has been partcuary true of Gestat theory, whch n ts more
5 3
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e treme forms (cf. rech and Crutchfed, 194 ) has sometmes at-
tempted to absorb the other varabes used here n a somewhat
totataran manner.
0ne of the ma|or pecuartes or dffcutes wth drawng
nferences about the schema construct (or any percepton, for that
matter) s that we are often not as nterested n the ntensty or
strength dmenson as we are n the case of trats or motves. s we
dscovered n Chapter , we want to know what a person s deas are,
what pattern of eements they consst of, more than how strong
they are. Ths requres the deveopment of some knd of mathe-
matcs (e.g., matr agebra) whch s dfferent from the one we are
accustomed to use n handng smpe varatons n strength or
ntensty.
Need Measures. 0ur measure of motvaton s on shaker ground
than our measures of schemata or trats. It conssts of countng and
cassfyng goa magery of varous sorts n a test stuaton for whch
there s no specfcay reevant earned response and n whch the
present e terna stmuus determnants are mnmzed. In short,
we use the ordnary test of free assocaton or magnaton n whch
the stmuus constrants are reduced and n whch the person
ordnary woud not have acqured drecty approprate responses
on the bass of hs past e perence. Ths suggests why t s that
products of magnaton, whether n the form of dreams, free asso-
catons, or Thematc ppercepton Test productons, have gven
rse to the concept of motvaton, snce t s n magnaton that
the other two ma|or determnants of behavor (past e perence,
stmuus condtons) are greaty reduced n mportance. It aso
suggests why other measures of motvaton such as sef-ratngs or
goa choces have not proven as frutfu. In both these cases
schemata and habts enter more fuy nto the determnaton of the
response, whch consequenty becomes an mpure measure of
motvaton. In short, to get a good measure of motvaton the
nfuence of the other varabes must be controed and preferaby
mnmzed. he ths vew woud not be generay hed among
e permenta psychoogsts, we have seen n the chapters on motva-
ton how those who have worked e tensvey n the fed of human
motvaton from reud and Murray to the e permenta work of
McCeand and assocates have by and arge worked wth magna-
tve products. th ths as background we may attempt to make a
5 4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
forma statement of the nature of the motve construct, agan usng
achevement as an e ampe:
n chevement s an nference as to the e tent to whch the
person s behavor s guded by antcpated or past achevement
satsfactons or dssatsfactons (a) n a standardzed cass of
stuatons (b) wthn certan mts as to the specfc knds of past
e perences (renforcements) the person has had n those stua-
tons. thn the mts set by (a) and (b), n chevement s a d-
rect functon of the amount of undfferentated stress paced on
achevement, dfferentaton beng a postve growth functon of
the age at whch stress s apped.
Ths defnton draws heavy on the arguments n Chapter 12 and
Chapter 10 n statng that, other thngs beng equa, a need s
drecty determned by the undfferentated stress paced on certan
cue-response sequences prmary n eary chdhood. It dffers from
the tradtona e permenta approach whch has conceved of
deprvaton as the chef antecedent condton for motvaton.
0ur argument has been that whe deprvaton may be a cond-
ton for the arousa of a motve whch has aready been estabshed,
we are more concerned here wth how the motve got estabshed n
the frst pace. nd the best guess at the present tme seems to be
that eary socazaton procedures are very mportant n estabsh-
ng more or ess permanent affectve assocatons whch e at the
root of motvatona trends, at east as measured n aduthood n
magnaton. he ths guess aso has the support of years of psy-
choanaytc e perence and theorzng, nevertheess t shoud be
regarded as much ess frmfy estabshed than the antecedent cond-
tons assocated wth our other two basc personaty varabes.
0nce agan we must note n passng that those who have been
prmary nterested n needs or motves have tended aso to be
somewhat mperastc and to dsregard n consequence the other
varabes nfuencng behavor (cf. enche, 1945). Thus, to read
some psychoanaysts one woud thnk that percepton was whoy
determned by motvaton and that stmuus determnants were of
tte or no mportance. s we have noted n Chapter 13, t s a
too easy to fnd such statements as that a surgeon cuts peope up
hecause of a strong unconscous, sadstc drve. Nor s t enough to
amend ths statement as e ander has (1942) to the effect that the
surgeon may cut off someone s eg party for atrustc motves,
athough these motves may aso be nvoved. compete and more
5 5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
correct statement woud be that the concrete act (cuttng off some-
one s eg) s a |ont functon of certan motves, aggressve or
atrustc, certan schemata (deas about hs |ob) and trats (sks
or habts renforced n smar past stuatons). In ths as n a other
smar cases, we must beware of mperastc tendences on the part
of those theorsts who work e cusvey wth the data on whch ony
one of our three constructs s based.
tte has been sad about the fourth construct (Tabe 15.1)
namey, the sef-schema argey because t has been treated more
fuy n the precedng chapter and because t s a dervatve concept
rather than a basc one. That s, as we have tred to make cear,
the sef-schema s derved from the observaton of one s own be-
havor and nvoves an mpct conceptuazaton of the sef whch
s not theoretcay unke the conceptuazaton an outsde observer
mght construct, athough t may be naccurate n many paces. The
reason why ths partcuar schema s ncuded n Tabe 15.1 s that
t seems to have an emergent quaty whch dfferentates t from
other schema. hen the sef-schema s aroused (as n ego-nvove-
ment) t seems to enter ndependenty aong wth trats, schemata,
and motves nto determnng concrete acts.
Peatons mong the Personaty arabes. So far we have
treated these basc personaty varabes as f they were competey
ndependent. Such s not the case. It woud be premature to attempt
to state what the reatonshps are (partcuary snce they may vary
from ndvdua to ndvdua), n the absence of any e permenta-
ton drected at precsey ths pont. owever, t may be worth st-
ng some sampe reatonshps whch are ether ndcated by prevous
e permentaton or whch are suggested by the nature of the con-
structs themseves.
1. s n chevement ncreases n ntensty n an ndvdua, the
number of stuatons denned by the ndvdua as achevement-
reated (s chevement) w aso ncrease. Ths foows from the
evdence n Chapter 13 that motvaton ncreases the percepton
of the reatedness of events.
2. s n chevement ncreases n ntensty, t chevement, when
denned as effcency, w frst ncrease and then decrease (cf. Chap-
ter 13).
3. s s chevement ncreases n mportance (carty, cogntve
support) for the ndvdua, the more t chevement becomes ted
to e terna stmuus patterns to promptngs from wthout. In other
5 6
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
words, the more mportant the cuturay def1ned patterns of
achevement become for the ndvdua, the more hs persstence
and achevement actvtes w be ted to stuatons whch are de-
fned by the cuture as achevement-reated and the ess consstent
hs t chevement w become n a stuatons.
4. s t chevement ncreases n consstency and mportance, the
more n chevement gets attached to means rather than ends. There
are probaby some ndvduas whose goa satsfactons come from
workng hard rather than from accompshng somethng wth that
hard work (cf. port, 1937).
Such statements merey ustrate the knds of nterreatonshps
whch may e st among the basc varabes we have been dscussng.
Many more coud be sted, but there woud be no pont n dong
so snce none of them has been e pcty sub|ected to e permenta
attack. The pont n stng them at a s to show how the partcuar
hypothetca constructs we have used n deveopng our theoretca
system of personaty do suggest hypotheses as to nterreatonshps
n the personaty structure that can be tested. nd, as we argued
n Chapter 4, one of the tests of the usefuness of a hypothetca
construct s the ease wth whch t generates such hypotheses. nay,
t shoud be noted, that we have worked out our ustratons soey
n terms of achevement-reated schemata, trats, and motves, not
because there s any pecuar vrtue about ths partcuar area of
personaty, but because more s known about nterreatonshps
here than esewhere. The same approach shoud be appcabe to
other areas of personaty as we.
na Conceptuazaton of ar s Personaty. th ths theo-
retca ntroducton we may now turn our attenton to the concrete
probem of tryng to summarze a the nferences we have made
throughout the book about ar s trats, schemata, and motves.
Ths s no easy task. In the frst pace t s very compe . e have
aready summarzed n severa paces dfferent aspects of hs per-
sonaty and now we must try to summarze and reate these sum-
mares. ven more troubesome are the nterpretve probems whch
arse from not havng coected data on hm propery n the frst
pace. Now that we have deveoped a conceptua scheme whch sug-
gests what the operatons are for measurng varous trats, schemata,
and motves, we shoud be n a much better poston to go back to
our sub|ect and e pore hs personaty structure systematcay.
owever, the data came frst and gave rse to the conceptua scheme
5 7
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
and were not specfcay coected n terms of t. The demma may
be made cearer by an anaogy. It s as f we had gone out to ds-
cover the basc attrbutes of sound by coectng na ve reports from
a number of sub|ects on audtory stmuaton. fter anayzng and
correatng these reports, we mght arrve at the attrbutes of ptch,
oudness, etc., at whch pont we woud ordnary return to e per-
mentaton and study each of them separatey wth the others more
or ess under contro. e woud not attempt to use the msce-
aneous observatons we started wth to derve statements of the rea-
ton between ptch and oudness, etc. Yet ths s amost e acty
what we w now attempt to do for ar. The process, therefore,
must necessary be ntutve and ne act. If our over-a scheme
s any good at a, t shoud suggest ways of coectng data more
systematcay on a person so as to arrve at a more coherent, con-
sstent, and adequate theoretca pcture of hm. Utmatey, we
shoud be abe to deveop crtca tests whch, ke the tests n
quatatve anayss n chemstry, w enabe us to determne the
bonds and nkages among varous trats, schemata, and motves.
Yet we must do the best we can wth ar because a summary
personaty pcture of hm s necessary to compete our theoretca
anayss. rst of a we may begn wth stng the ma|or trats,
schemata, and motves whch we have dscovered n our anayss of
hm. Tabe 15.2 summarzes these data.
The trats seected are the ones whch ar shows most consstenty
accordng to our anayss n Chapter 7. There are doubtess many
others whch he shows to a moderate degree, but they do not nterest
us as much as these, party because we must smpfy the pcture,
and party because ony a far degree of consstency may mean that
the trat dmenson s rreevant to ths partcuar personaty. The
schemata n the tabe have been grouped under three headngs,
representng frst, the genera cutura orentatons dscussed n
Chapter second, the roe mode themas dscussed n Chapter 9:
and fnay, the genera themas derved prmary from fantasy refec-
tons of socazaton procedures dscussed n Chapter 10. The needs
or motves sted are stated both postvey and negatvey n ne
wth our genera theoretca poston taken n Chapters u and 1z
that approach and avodance motves may usefuy be dstngushed.
Not a the motves are of the same strength, but there s not much
we can do about representng ths fact n the absence of adequate
measures of motve strength. In genera, the smaer the sera num-
ber, the stronger the motve s estmated to be. In some cases motves
5
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 15.2
st of ar s Important Trats, Schemata, and Motves ccordng to Pror
nayses
Trats (Chapter 7)
T 1. nergetc
T 2. pansve
T 3. Goba, nonanaytc thnkng
T 4. uent
T 5. 0uter orentaton
T 6. arabe n performance
T 7. motonay abe
T . motonay e pressve
T 9. Gregarous
T 10. Submssve, adaptabe
T 11. Conscentous
Schemata (Chapter )
S 1. appness: every person shoud be happy
S 2. oneness: a man stands aone wthout strong sodary support
S 3. Indvdua achevement every man must be a success by hs own
efforts
S 4- 0ptmsm-progress: man s ncreasng hs knowedge and contro
of nature
S 5. ear of others: the word s fu of potentay dangerous compet-
tors, authortaran fgures, etc.
Poe themas (Chapter 9)
Thema 1. Men are strct, hardworkng, but nsecure and unhappy.
hema 2. omen are demandng and nsecure but deay nurturant.
Thema 3. n adoescent boy shoud conform to adut norms of good be-
havor to be a success.
Genera themas
Thema 4. The way to resove the confcts n the cutura deoogy ( 1- 5)
s through romantc ove, the ove of God, and a servce occu-
paton (Chapter ).
Thema 5. Peope e pect more of me than I can accompsh (Chapter 10).
Thema 6. Deserton (re|ecton) eads to a confct of aggressve and affa-
tve desres whch s resoved by repressng and pro|ectng
aggresson and accentuatng affaton (Chapter 10).
Needs
N 1. f Pe|ecton - -N 3. n ggresson
-
N 2. n chevement N 4. n ffaton /
N 6. f aure N 7. n basemen
basement
wthout ove
- 5 9
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
are opposed to each other and n some cases not. n ggresson and
f ggresson produce confct snce under ordnary crcumstances
ar cannot satsfy both needs by the same act. Generay speakng,
as we have seen, f ggresson wns out and he s cooperatve and
frendy to a. 0n the other hand, fear of beng re|ected can
renforce n ffaton, as seems to be the case, and a partcuar act,
notaby dreamng about a warm, a-embracng ove, may satsfy
both needs smutaneousy. owever, some confct s st nvoved
snce any cose ove-reatonshp he enters nto shoud, for a tme at
east, arouse fear of re|ecton and deserton more ntensey. nay,
n chevement and f aure may aso party renforce each other
and party nterfere wth one another. In ar s case t woud appear
that they are neary eveny baanced at a fary hgh eve of
ntensty whch woud suggest some rreguarty n actua per-
formance, partcuary snce ths motve compe seems so n-
tmatey ted up wth the securty motves and dependent on ther
satsfacton.
Granted that Tabe 15.2 represents an adequate sampe of the
trats, schemata, and motves n ar s personaty, how are we
to brng them nto reatonshp to each other ow are we to put
umpty-Dumpty together agan Ths s the same probem that we
met n part n Chapter . Matr anayss can be hepfu here as t
was there. That s, each ndvdua tem n Tabe 15.2 can be com-
pared wth every other tem and a |udgment made frst as to whether
the two tems are reated and secondy as to whether the reatonshp
s mutua or n one drecton or another. Such an approach s a
way of makng sure that a reatonshps are systematcay e -
pored. Yet n the end the fna pcture w unfortunatey st
depend a good dea on the syntheszng and ntegratng capactes
of the human mnd unt some better technques are deveoped.
Tabe 15.3 represents an attempt at a synthess of the data n
Tabe 15.2.
In ths dagram we have chosen to pace the motves at the center
n ne wth notons about depth psychoogy, trats on the outsde
as more perphera aspects of personaty, and schemata n between.
hat these ayers represent s argey convenence n pctor1a
desgn, athough some |ustfcaton for ths partcuar herarchy es
n the fact that t corresponds appro matey to the ease wth whch
the dfferent aspects of personaty can be changed. Presumaby the
motvatona structure, havng been ad down earer n fe, s
590
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
anaysts often tak as f a motve operates soey as a seectve devce
whch searches among the deas present n a cuture and pcks those
whch are most suted to ts purpose. If ths were so, we coud
smpy say that ar beeves the happness of an ndvdua to be
supremey mportant because he fears re|ecton and has such a
strong need for affaton. owever, t s |ust as feasbe to turn
ths reatonshp around the other way and to argue that the reason
why ar s chdhood feeng of re|ecton has assumed such ma|or
mportance to hm s precsey that hs cuture emphaszes the we-
fare and happness of the ndvdua so much. In our day and age
t s dffcut for us to get outsde ths cutura pattern and we tend
to beeve t s a boogcay gven fact that a peope at a tmes
n a cutures shoud wsh for the happness of the ndvdua. e
need to remnd ourseves that even n our own cuture ths emphass
on ndvdua happness n ths fe s of reatvey recent orgn. ad
ar had the same e perences as a chd n a day and age n whch
happness n ths fe was not e pected and n fact even suspect, hs
motves mght have deveoped qute dfferenty. In fact he mght
even have come to nterpret hs mother s behavor not as re|ecton
but as ovng preparaton for the eterna savaton of hs sou. It s
ony n a cuture whch stresses ndvdua wefare and happness on
every sde through every medum the press, the rado, the schoo
system, etc. that the concept of beng re|ected coud propery have
deveoped at a. The same nterdependence of motves and schemata
e sts throughout Tabe 15.3. Thus t s as true to say that ar
nhbts hs aggressve trends because of hs conscous beef n the
aw of ove as t s to say that he emphaszes the aw of ove
because of hs fear of aggresson. oth determne hs way of fe.
kewse the cutura emphass on ack of sodary reatonshps
( oneness ) ncreases hs fear of re|ecton and hs fear of re|ecton
stresses the soaton of the ndvdua n the cuture and so on.
Some reatons between motves and schemata seem to be prmary
n one drecton, as, for e ampe, the reaton between hs confcts
over achevement and the nadequacy thema. ut most of the
reatons are recproca.
It shoud aso be noted that the tabe, n stressng reatonshps
between motves and schemata, does not adequatey pcture the
reatons among the schemata themseves. Ths s compensated for
to some e tent by gure .1 whch does show some of these
reatonshps. nay, the trats are pctured as beng products
592
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
of motve-schemata compe es for the most part, athough they
are dependent on recurrent envronmenta stuatons n a way
whch s not ceary ndcated n the dagram. Ths accounts for
the trats whch are not dynamcay connected wth any partcuar
motvatona compe . That s, some trats are more dependent upon
recurrent stuatona determnants than on recurrent dynamc ones.
Thus n the case of magnatve fuency, for e ampe, we coud argue
that ths trat was deveoped n part out of an nteracton of a
strong need for achevement and a fear of re|ecton (forcng ntro-
verson) and n part out of the cutura emphass on adventure,
optmsm, and progress, but there must aso have been a contrbu-
ton made by ar s heredtary nteectua equpment. The same
woud appear to be true for hs energy. Ths coud be modfed by
hs needs and schemata, but the boogca determnant of ths
trat makes a rather arge contrbuton to t. In short, as we have
seen n the trat theory chapter, certan trats seem argey deter-
mned by and get ther names from the physca aspect of the
person-envronment nteracton (e.g., bcyce-rdng, physca mo-
tty, etc.). These trats ft ess we n the tabe than those whch
are determned and named prmary n terms of the ndvdua s
reacton to the envronment (e.g., gregarousness, submssveness,
etc.).
The many dfferent reatonshps schematcay represented n
Tabe 15.3 need not be descrbed here n fu, snce one of the
purposes of such a tabe s to condense what mght take many pages
to descrbe. The reader can work out these reatonshps for hmsef
and shoud do so n preparaton for predctng how ar w behave
n a varety of concrete stuatons n a coege envronment. ut
before turnng to ths test of the adequacy of our conceptua scheme,
we must pursue our theoretca anayss of the nteracton between
the person and hs envronment a tte further.
The Probem of Predcton. If we return for a moment to our
formua f (P, ), we note that so far we have acheved a better
understandng of the P term n the equaton. In a certan sense
ths s a satsfacton n tsef because one of the purposes of our
scentfc nqury s the understandng of personaty structure. If the
|ob of Tabe 15.3 has been we done, we shoud fee that we have a
better understandng of ar s personaty structure. Nevertheess
we want to know more. e want to be abe to predct what ar
593
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
w do on a certan occason or n certan stuatons. Ths desre
for predcton does not smpy refect our mercan concern for
soca engneerng for predctng the behavor of human bengs so
that we can contro t. Pather, predcton w test the adequacy of
our formuaton of the P term n the equaton, provded we have
a knowedge of the term. That s, f we know the nature of the
concrete envronmenta stuaton, then our knowedge of the per-
sonaty structure, f t s correct, shoud enabe us to predct the
specfc behavor whch w occur. If we attempt to predct the
behavor on the bass of knowedge of the personaty structure
aone wthout knowedge of the envronmenta stuaton, our pre-
dctons w not be an adequate test of the conceptuazaton of d1e
personaty system. 0n the other hand, the more accurate our
knowedge of the envronmenta stuaton, the better shoud be our
test of the adequacy of the personaty conceptuazaton when we
predct what the person shoud thnk or do n response to that
stuaton. ut doesn t ths make testng our conceptuazatons df-
fcut, f not mpossbe ow can we know ahead of tme e acty
what stuaton a person w meet s we have seen n Chapter 4
there w aways be some uncertanty about predctng what a per-
son w be dong tomorrow, |ust as there w aways be some uncer-
tanty about predctng what a certan chemca w be dong at
5 P.M. on the afternoon of March 2.|th. Predcton n scence does
not necessary refer to future events. Thus we may bud up a con-
ceptua scheme for a person ke ar on the bass of some be-
havora facts and then attempt to predct how he w react n other
stuatons, the nature of whch s known because they have n fact
aready occurred to hm. It s for ths reason that we have wthhed
part of our knowedge about ar, partcuary the part deang
wth hs behavor n a coege envronment. If we can descrbe
accuratey the genera character of hs envronment n coege or
the specfc character of test stuatons n coege, we can test the
adequacy of our conceptuazaton of hs personaty by predctng
on the bass of hs personaty and the stuaton what hs behavor n
a varety of concrete nstances shoud be and then checkng ths
behavor aganst what he actuay dd. If we can predct better than
chance, f we can predct better than we coud after knowng the
nature of the envronment aone, f we can predct better than on
the bass of knowng the envronment pus the ntutve knowedge
ganed by readng a porton of hs autobography earer, then and
594
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ony then can we fee |ustfed n concudng that our systematc
attempt at conceptuazng hs personaty has added anythng to
our understandng of hm.
Perhaps the stuaton s made cearer by Tabe 15.4, whch da-
grams the nterreatonshps among personaty varabes, envron-
menta varabes, and predcted behavor.
T 15.4
Interacton of Personaty and nvronment on a Partcuar 0ccason
Showng ow ehavor May e Predcted
I (Personaty-structure) ( nv1ronment)
(based on past envron- (present partcuar stuat1on)
menta nteractons)
Tra1t system Smarty of stuat1on to ones n
whch partcuar trats have been
renforced n the past
/
_ ctvated habt
famy herarchy
Predcted Schema system Meanng of the stuaton. Its pace
concrete act n common deatona cassfca-
tons made by members of the
cuture,
, /
f
ctvated percept1on
Incentve character of the stuaton.
Its pace n common ncentve cas-
sfcatons
ctvated
need pushes
Ths tabe has been desgned to show aspects of the envronment
whch are reevant to the arousa of trat systems, schema systems, or
drve systems respectvey. Not shown n the tabe s the way n
whch the envronment may determne a concrete act drecty, nde-
pendenty of what systems t arouses n the personaty. In other
595
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
words, a partcuar envronmenta stuaton permts ony a mted
number of responses. The organsm cannot do anythng at a. If
we are tryng to predct, for e ampe, what ar w do on a
Strong ocatona Interest Test we must mt our predctons to a
ke, Indfferent, or Dske response. No other response, e cept
refusng to answer, s possbe n ths stuaton or at east counted
f t occurs. nowedge of the envronmenta stuaton then narrows
the range of possbe responses wthn whch we are to predct what
the person w do. Ths mtaton s more apparent for overt
responses than t s for covert ones. Murray (193 ) has emphaszed
that we must not ony predct what a person w do but what he
thnks and fees. That s, t woud be |ust as mportant for us
to predct that ar fees ntensey hoste toward the coege
whch forces hm to take the Strong ocatona Interest Test (f
he thought ths to be so) as t woud be to predct that he chooses
a partcuar ke aternatve n answer to a certan queston.
These feengs, emotons, and the ke are harder to predct not ony
because they are ess mted by the nature of the stuaton, but aso
because they cannot mmedatey be observed. The scentst has to
rey on some ndrect measure of them such as one of the physoogca
sgns of emoton, the swearng that ar does under hs breath, or,
what s most common, hs recoecton and report of how he fet
afterward. Nevertheess Murray seems to be theoretcay correct n
nsstng that we must predct both overt and covert behavor. If
we attempt both, we shoud reaze that t s more mportant to
specfy the nature of the stuaton for overt behavor snce t paces
greater constrants on what a person can do than t does for covert
behavor.
To return to Tabe 15.4, |ust how are the varous aspects of the
envronment reated to the varous personaty systems n the eft-
hand coumn The reatonshps can probaby be e paned most
easy n terms of an e ampe. et us try to predct ar s behavor
on a partcuar occason. Suppose he s on hs way upstars to hs
room to study one evenng at coege. 0n hs way he passes by
another room and sees a boy sttng at hs desk. hat w he do
he stop and chat 0r w he contnue on hs way to hs room
In tryng to predct we can frst of a emnate, accordng to the
suggeston made above, certan responses as beng mpossbe or m-
probabe because of the nature of the stuaton. e can rue out the
possbty of hs cang hs mother on the teephone to ask her what
596
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
he shoud do, snce there s no teephone n the coege dormtory.
e can rue out hs suddeny sttng on the foor n a uddha-ke
posture, not because t s physcay mpossbe, but because t s
hghy unkey n such a stuaton n our cuture. 0n smar
grounds we can rue out the possbty of hs suddeny |umpng
over the star rang or out the wndow and dashng hmsef to bts
on the ground beow. nd so on.
Instead we may mt ourseves to the most key probabtes,
namey, hs gong on to hs room or hs stoppng to tak wth the
other boy. To hep predct whch response he w choose, we w
turn frst of a to the aspect of the stuaton whch s reated to any
reevant trat system. The queston we ask here s smpy ths: Is
ths stuaton smar to other stuatons n whch ar has shown
smar behavor If t s smar we can argue that t w actvate a
habt famy herarchy, n whch one of the responses whch has
hgh postve e ctatory potenta w be enterng the room and
takng wth the other boy. In ths partcuar nstance we know that
ths stuaton s smar to other stuatons n whch ar has ds-
payed a trat whch we have caed gregarousness. e know that
on many prevous smar occasons, ar has stopped and taked
wth others or shown reated behavor. It shoud defntey hep our
predcton to know that the stuaton s smar to other stuatons
n whch he has dspayed a consstent response of gregarousness
and w therefore tend to actvate ths cass of responses on ths
occason.
Comng on down Tabe 15.4 we arrve at the aspect of the en-
vronment whch s abeed meanng of the stuaton. Ths s none
other than our od frend, the cutura pattern defnng the nature
of the stuaton. ow does the coege cuture defne the nature
of ths stuaton If we know that n the cuture such a chance meet-
ng n the evenng s defned by other members of the group as an
occason for sttng around and bung, t w hep us predct
what ar w do, because t w hep us predct how he w per-
ceve the stuaton. 0n the other hand, f we know more, f we
know that the boy s studyng for a wrtten e amnaton he s to take
the ne t mornng, we may be abe to state that ar perceves the
stuaton dfferenty snce t s a pattern n ths cuture not to nter-
rupt somebody who s crammng for an e am. In short, knowng the
pace of a partcuar stuaton n the cutura deoogca frame-
work w hep us predct what schemata w be aroused n ar
597
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
what perceptons and deas he w have about the stuaton. These
n turn shoud hep us predct what he w do.
nay we want to know what motves the stuaton s key to
arouse n ar. ere agan we shoud know what the ncentve char-
acterstcs are of stoppng and takng wth another person. Ths s
ke askng what drve food s reated to. In short, we are askng
what potentates the stuaton has for gratfcaton of varous
drves. e cannot ask ths n the abstract, but must decde t n
cutura (or sometmes ndvdua) terms, n terms of whether mem-
bers of the cuture (or ar) commony perceve the stuaton as
offerng opportuntes for the gratfcaton of a partcuar drve. In
the present nstance we can say wth some certanty that stoppng
and takng wth a frendy feow student shoud be a suffcent n-
centve to arouse ar s strong n ffaton. e have referred to
such an actvated drve as a need-push borrowng a term from
Toman (194 , who uses t n much the same sense, need-push
s the strength of a partcuar need on a partcuar occason resut-
ng from the nteracton of the envronment and the person s need
system. It s sedom enough to know that any one need has been
aroused by a stuaton. In ths stuaton we can argue that motves
other than n ffaton w aso be aroused n ar. hat about
hs n chevement, for e ampe, when he sees the other boy study-
ng 0r perhaps the boy s not very frendy, n whch case we
mght assume that hs f Pe|ecton s hgh enough to motvate hm
to go on up to hs room. Makng a predcton under such crcum-
stances woud seem e tremey hazardous. It s partcuary so n the
present nstance because our e ampe s hypothetca. e have no
partcuar occason and no partcuar feow student n mnd.
Nevertheess, on the bass of a consderaton of a these factors
we woud seem |ustfed n predctng that on many such occasons
ar woud stop n and tak. 0ur predcton for a number of such
occasons s certan to be better than t s for any partcuar one of
them. e can even make some quanttatve predctons such as that,
out of a hundred such opportuntes, ar w enter the room n
0 or 90 per cent of the cases. The nstances n whch he does not
enter woud be attrbuted to speca factors such as those we have
mentoned: e.g., a boy studyng for a wrtten e amnaton, an un-
frendy boy, or an especay strong arousa of ar s own n cheve-
ment. hat we are sayng s that ar s trat of gregarousness, hs
percepton of the stuaton as one cang for soca nteracton, and
59
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
hs strong n ffaton are suffcent to overrde such factors and
ead hm to enter the room on most occasons. 0ur predcton s
frmy based on a knowedge of ar and on a knowedge of ths
type of stuaton wth the mtaton t paces on possbe responses
and wth the nterpretaton normay gven t by members of the
coege cuture. e must know both the person and the envron-
ment to make successfu predctons.
There are occasons n whch we are eager to predct or e pan a
partcuar response at a partcuar pont n tme rather than a num-
ber of responses to a cass of stuatons as n the e ampe |ust gven.
Ths usuay occurs when somethng strkng has happened to the
ndvdua or when he has behaved n some unusua manner. That
s, ordnary we do not care whether he entered |oe s room on the
nght of |anuary aoth at 9 P.M. s behavor on that occason s
unnterestng accordng to our usua standards and gans mportance
ony as t s umped n wth a ot of smar responses on smar
occasons. Ths does not mean that we coud not e pan what he
dd on that partcuar evenng f we wanted to. The fact s that we
are usuay not nterested n takng that much troube. owever,
suppose that he entered |oe s room on that partcuar evenng and
threw |oe out of the wndow. Ths woud make that partcuar
event nterestng and we as psychoogsts woud fee ourseves
caed upon to e pan t n deta. Yet there s no dfference between
ths behavor and any other behavor he mght have shown so far
as accountng for t theoretcay s concerned. The probem of e -
panaton and the method of fndng an e panaton are the same
n both cases. It |ust happens that socay we are more often key
to want an e panaton of strkng or abnorma behavor. In the
past t has been possbe to dstngush those theorsts who are nter-
ested prmary n abnorma personaty from those who are nter-
ested n norma personaty argey on the ground of whether they
are nterested n e panng a strkng bt of behavor (a sympto-
matc act) or a genera trend of behavor. The cnca psychoogst
or psychoanayst has been forced by the nature of hs professon to
consder chefy unusua epsodes, whereas the psychoogst deang
wth norma personaty has been most often concerned wth gen-
era trends. Ths spt n nterest has ed to some unfortunate theo-
retca dfferences whch mght not have arsen had these peope
worked wth the same data and seen the theoretca connectons be-
tween the two types of predcton and e panaton.
599
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ar s Coege nvronment. th ths theoretca ntroducton
to the nature of predcton based on a knowedge of personaty
structure and envronmenta structure, we can return to our con-
crete ustraton and take the ne t step toward predctng how ar
woud behave n coege. Ths nvoves anayzng as a socoogst or
cutura anthropoogst woud the nature of the envronment nto
whch ar was punged on hs entrance nto coege. fter we have
gven as adequate a cnca descrpton of hs coege cuture as
we can n a short space, we w then be ready to test the adequacy
of our formuaton of hs personaty structure by makng many
specfc predctons as to how he behaved n that coege envron-
ment.
The coege whch ar entered was a sma, prvate, New ngand
nsttuton for men whch we w ca owhurst. e entered before
ord ar II when enroment was around seven hundred and the
threat of war was st dstant, athough t was to begn to dsrupt the
norma coege way of fe by the end of hs sophomore year. ke
most such coeges, owhurst s soated from the New ngand town
n whch t s stuated, athough there are many more opportuntes
for spendng an evenng n town at the moves or n the oca taverns
than n a rura coege communty as descrbed by Newcomb (1943).
The students at owhurst are predomnanty from fary we-to-do,
mdde-cass fames n busness and the professons. though some
students are from a prvate-schoo, ower-upper-cass background,
there are fewer of ths type than at other New ngand coeges wth
more soca prestge. In fact, owhurst usuay gets the prze students
of the pubc hgh schoos ke ar, some very good students from
prvate schoos of esser prestge, and poorer students from the prvate
schoos that prepare prmary for arvard, Yae, Prnceton, and
Dartmouth. The predomnance of upwardy mobe pubc-schoo
boys gves the coege a serous atmosphere on the whoe as compared
wth more upper-cass New ngand coeges, but there s a suffcent
adm ture of upper-cass prvate-schoo customs to have a profound
effect on the soca fe of the coege.
ny boy enterng owhurst s faced wth two ma|or ad|ustment
probems: one to hs studes, and the other to hs soca fe. 0n
the forma educatona sde, owhurst s a bera-arts coege whch
s supposedy nonvocatona, athough a certan amount of pre-
professona tranng for medcne and other such feds s offered.
600
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
The student usuay starts out n arge casses fufng generaza-
ton requrements and then goes on to concentrate n a partcuar
fed of study where the casses w be smaer and he w get more
attenton from the nstructor. 0n the whoe, ar w have tte
contact wth the facuty outsde the cassroom. The typca student
regards hs performance n hs courses as the most mportant part
of hs fe, partcuary n hs freshman year. There s a fang-off
of hs nterest usuay n hs sophomore year, whch s refected n
ower grades and s known n admnstratve crces as the Sopho-
more Sump. Ths usuay corresponds wth the perod n whch
the student s makng ma|or read|ustments n hs soca fe from
the norms he carred over from secondary schoo. s far as the edu-
catona envronment s concerned, ar w fnd coege dfferent
from hs partcuar hgh schoo n the foowng respects: (1) he w
be more on hs own wth regard to how he performs hs work n
courses (2) there w be no grs n the casses or ready avaabe
for soca fe durng the week (3) the genera nteectua eve of
hs feow students w be hgher and there w therefore be n-
creased competton for good marks (4) hs casses w generay
be arger snce he came from a very sma hgh schoo n a sma
town and fnay, (5) there w be many more upper-cass boys who
w have the habt and abty to spend money on quor, women,
cars, and other sgns of conspcuous consumpton.
Socay the most mportant aspect of fe at owhurst s the fra-
ternty system. Three-fourths or more of the student body beong
to one of the dozen or so fraterntes. great many of the freshmen
are pedged wthn the frst week at coege. Those who are not are
unacceptabe to the rethren ether because they beong to mnor-
ty groups (Negroes, |ews), or because they are personay unattrac-
tve ( meat bas ). Some students dsbeeve so strongy n the
fraternty system, partcuary n ts race pre|udce, that they refuse
to |on when asked. The fraterntes are ordered n a rough knd of
prestge herarchy n whch contrbutng factors are tradton, scho-
astc average of the house, the mportance of ts members n campus
fe, and the weath and famy background of some of ts members.
The fraternty house s the center of soca fe on the campus. The
great ma|orty of students start eatng at the house where they are
pedged the second week they are on the campus, and from then
on t becomes more and more the center for recreaton, study, and
frendshps. Datng s nfrequent durng the week and s reatvey
601
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
rare even on week ends snce the nearest grs coege s some mes
away. ppro matey three tmes a year an attempt s made to make
up for ths defcency a at once by nvtng grs for week-end
partes centered around the fraternty houses. These house partes
are the occasons for conspcuous sowng of wd oats and for
ganng a certan amount of prestge by so dong.
The houses on the whoe are reatvey ndependent of contro
by the coege so ong as the members do not get nto serous troube.
fter freshman year most fraternty members go to ve at the houses
and from then on they reguate ther own soca fe amost entrey
through the fraternty organzaton. Ths s consstent wth the co-
ege pocy of attemptng to get the students to assume adut
responsbtes, a pocy whch s perhaps most conspcuousy
represented outsde the fraternty by the honor system, the sef-
admnstered code of honor whch governs student behavor n
preparaton for casses and durng e amnatons. 0ne of the e -
pct |ustfcatons for the fraternty system s that t gves the
students tranng n sef-government and heps them n the trans-
ton from rresponsbe adoescence to responsbe aduthood. It
does pay ths roe to some e tent. ouse offcers, at east, have re-
sponsbe functons to perform and the fraternty must often make
responsbe decsons as to dscpnng members, pannng soca
functons, gettng the pedges to study, etc. ut the dffcuty s that
the fraternty aso provdes the occason for the formng of age-mate
gangs or cques whch may smutaneousy nsttutonaze rre-
sponsbe behavor. Most of the facuty dsapprove of the fraternty
system, especay because of the race pre|udce whch many of the
fraterntes show, but aso because they regard pre|udce as merey
symptomatc of the rresponsbe behavor whch resuts from put-
tng students too much on ther own.
The fraternty has severa functons other than acceeratng or
retardng a transton to adut responsbty. pcty at east t
s supposed to promote brotherhood, oyaty, and toerance, at east
for feow members of the same fraternty. Snce the method of
seectng new members for the fraternty nvoves hasty decsons on
both sdes, most houses consst of a group of men of rather hetero-
geneous background who, accordng to the e pct fraternty code,
must earn to ke or at east toerate each other. urthermore, the
fraternty does e ercse some responsbty for tryng to get ts
members to study harder, partcuary freshmen and those who seem
602
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
n danger of funkng out. 0n the deoogca sde, most fraterntes
tend to be conservatve snce they are often domnated by the prvate
secondary-schoo boys who are most e perenced and nterested n
fraternty soca fe. There are e ceptons to ths rue, of course,
but unke ennngton as descrbed by Newcomb (1943) there s a-
most certany not at owhurst, at east wthn the fraterntes, an
atmosphere of decnng conservatsm from freshman to senor year.
0utsde the fraterntes there s tte of great soca mportance
e cept for athetcs. The fraterntes do urge ther members to go
out for e tracurrcuar actvtes n order to ncrease the prestge
of the fraternty, and some mportance s attached to student gov-
ernment, though t s generay consdered to be a too of the
more mportant, autonomous fraternty unts. s for athetcs ow-
hurst s no e cepton to the usua coege rue. 0ne can acheve con-
sderabe prestge through partcpaton on coege athetc teams,
but wth the e cepton of footba and possby basketba, the m-
portance of even ths s not too great. ceence n schoarshp aso
brngs prestge, as does partcpaton n the coege paper, dramatcs,
and other e tracurrcuar cubs, athough to a decreasng e tent.
0n the whoe the student body at owhurst seems rather apathetc
about e tracurrcuar actvtes, at east as compared wth the popu-
ar dea of a coege, and as compared wth the dea t hods up for
tsef occasonay. Ths s probaby because the autonomous fra-
ternty unt s the man center of soca fe.
Predcton uestonnare or ar. 0ur genera theoretca oren-
taton s compete. Now t remans to put t to the practca test.
th some knowedge both of ar s personaty structure and of
the coege envronment whch he entered, we can turn to an at-
tempt to predct what he w do n a number of dfferent stuatons
n that coege envronment. Tabe 15.5 reproduces agan Part I of
the predcton questonnare whch was to have been fed out on
an ntutve bass at the end of Chapter 4. Part II of the queston-
nare, whch s contaned n the nstructor s manua, shoud aso be
fed out by the student to observe the way n whch our systematc
anayses can be used n predctng concrete acts. fter ths, Part II
of ar s autobography, aso n the nstructor s manua, shoud be
read and the questonnares scored before contnung to the ne t
secton, whch presupposes a knowedge of ar s subsequent hstory
n coege.
603
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 15.5
Predcton uestonnare (Part I) for ar
hen he entered coege, ar took the Strong ocatona Interest Test
so that we have hs reactons to a good many specfc questons. Crce
ke ( ), Indfferent (I), or Dske (D) as you thnk he dd. second pan
of the questonnare asks you to predct certan genera aspects of hs be-
havor and performance n coege. Your answers w be compared wth hs
actua behavor.
. cerpts from the Strong ocatona Interest ank (Strong tem num-
bers are gven n the second coumn from the eft, begnnng 191, etc.)
andng horses
Gvng frst ad assstance
Pasng fowers and vegetabes
Decoratng a room wth fowers
rguments
Intervewng men for a |ob
Intervewng prospects n seng
Intervewng cents
Makng a speech
0rganzng a pay
Pursung bandts n sherff s posse
Dong research work
ctng as ye eader
rtng persona etters
rtng reports
ntertanng others
arganng ( swappng )
ookng at shop wndows
uyng merchandse for a store
Dspayng merchandse for a store
pressng |udgments pubcy regardess
of crtcsm
eng ptted aganst another as n a po-
tca or athetc race
Methodca work
Peguar hours of work
Contnuay changng actvtes
Deveopng busness systems
Savng money
Contrbutng to chartes
Pasng money for a charty
vng n the cty
Cmbng aong edge of a precpce
1.
191
.
192
5
193
4
194
5
6.
195
196
7-
.
97
19
9-
199
10.
200
11.
21
1
I .
212
3-
213
, .
214
15-
16.
26
217
1 .
2
19-
219
So.
220
1.
t
S .
222
3-
223
4
224
6.
225
226
7-
227
22
9-
229
50.
230
S1-
SSI
1
| D
1
I D
D
I
| D
|
D
1
| D
1
| D
1
D
1
D
|
D
|
D
1
D
1
D
1
D
|
D
1
D
|
D
604 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 15.5 (Contnued)
32. 232 ookng at a coecton of rare aces ID
33. 233 ookng at a coecton of antque furn-
ture ID
Comparson of nterest between two tems. Indcate hs choce of the
foowng pars by checkng ( /) n the frst space f he preferred the tem
to the eft, n the second space f he ked both equay we, and n the
thrd space f he preferred the tem to the rght. ssume other thngs are
equa e cept the two tems to be compared.
34. 321 Street-car motorman Street-car conductor
35. 322 Pocemen reman (fghts fre)
36. 323 Chauffeur Chef
37. 324 ead water ghthouse tender
3 . 325 ouse to house canvassng Peta seng
39. 326 ouse to house canvassng Gardenng
40. 327 Pepar auto Drve auto
41. 32 Deveop pans ecute pans
42. 329 Do a |ob yoursef Deegate |ob to other
43. 330 Persuade others 0rder others
44. 331 Dea wth thngs Dea wth peope
45- 33 Pan for mmedate future Pan for fve years
ahead .
46. 333 ctvty whch produces ctvty whch s en-
tangbe returns |oyed for ts sake
47- 334 Takng a chance Payng safe
4 . 335 Defnte saary Commsson on what
s done
(Peprnted from the ocatona Interest ank for Men (Pevsed) by dward
. Strong, |r. wth the permsson of the author and pubshers, Stanford
Unversty Press.)
. Predctons about coege ad|ustment
ar took thcs, German, Mathematcs, ngsh, and Chemstry durng
reshman year.
49. ar s average grade for the year was:
(check onors, verage, eow average)
- C - C C C- D
. . onors . . verage . . eow average
T 50. e got an n hs reshman year
T 51. e got an n hs reshman year (funked a course)
T 52. e dd hs best work n Mathematcs
T 53. e was eected an offcer of the reshman cass
T 54. e payed footba n hs reshman year
Poughy 75 of the students receve a bd for a fraternty at
the men s coege whch ar attended
605
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
T 15.5 (Contnued)
T 55. ar |oned a fraternty
T 56. ar |oned one of the hgh prestge fraterntes
T 57. e tred out for the edtora staff of the coege paper durng
hs freshman year
5 . Check how many frends you thnk he made
.. ew
. . verage number
.. Many
59. Check how deep and astng these frendshps were
. .Deep and astng
. . verage depth and duraton
. .Superfca and short-ved
The foowng tems refer to hs Sophomore year.
e eected German, Mathematcs, Physcs, Spansh, and Chemstry.
60. ar s average grade for hs Sophomore year was:
- - C C C- D
. . onors . . verage . . eow average
T 61. e got an n hs Sophomore year
T 62. e got an n hs Sophomore year (funked a course)
I 63. e was eected an offcer n the Sophomore cass
64. Check the amount of drnkng you thnk he nduged n
. . ery tte or none
. . verage amount
.. ot
65. Check the amount of student roughhousng or fghtng he was n-
voved n
. . ery tte or none
. . verage amount
.. ot
66. Check the amount of heterose ua actvty he was nvoved n
. . ery tte or none
. . verage amount
. . ot
67. Check the amount of tme you thnk he spent n bu sessons
sttng around and takng wth other students
.. ess than average
. . verage
.. More than average
T 6 . e changed hs vocatona ambton durng ths perod
T 69. e gave up payng footba to study harder
T 70. e took on a ot of outsde work
606
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ccountng or ar s ater Deveopment. nyone who has at-
tempted to f out the predcton questonnares, checked hs an-
swers aganst the answer key, and read the second porton of ar s
autobography s key to fee that the whoe procedure s not reay
|ustfed. ow s t possbe to know whether ar woud check at a
gven moment that he ked ookng at shop wndows Perhaps
he hmsef woud not choose the same response f he took the test
over agan. he t s true that the baance of factors contrbutng
to any partcuar response may be so equa that predcton must be
ndetermnate, st one shoud, wth a knowedge of ar s per-
sonaty structure, be abe to predct correcty more often than
chance. The advantage of a number of sma tems s precsey
that they do not make the predctor s knowedge stand or fa on the
predcton of any one partcuar response, nor do they permt the
|udge to predct n such genera terms that amost any response
woud serve to confrm hs guesses. urthermore, some of the par-
tcuar tems actuay tap trends of consderabe mportance n ar s
personaty. he we mght fee that ookng at shop wndows
does not, we shoud certany fa to have understood hm we f
we coud not predct that he woud ke entertanng others, or
contnuay changng actvtes.
more serous ob|ecton than ths es n the nabty to state
precsey n some of the tems what the nature of the envronmenta
stuaton was. It s true we have descrbed n a genera way what the
coege envronment was ke. In some nstances we have even been
abe to specfy qute accuratey the nature of the stmuus condtons
as, for nstance, when we asked for an estmate of ar s recognton
threshods to varous words. In st other paces we requred ony a
predcton of ar s sub|ectve reactons (e.g., to hs course faures)
whch, as we have seen, are not mted n the same way by the
nature of the envronmenta stuaton. ut n many cases the en-
vronment s bound to determne the nature of hs response to some
e tent. or nstance, when we want to know how he reacted to hs
frst se ua ntmacy wth a gr, does t not depend to some e tent
on how she reacted 0r when we are asked to predct what knd of
a |ob he took after graduatng from coege, does t not depend on
what |obs he was offered Presumaby he dd not have compete free-
dom of choce he may have wanted to go on to graduate schoo, for
nstance, but not have been abe to because of ack of money. In such
cases the predctor must take such envronmenta press nto account
as best he can, recognzng that because of such unknowns hs
607
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
predctons w not be perfect but shoud st be better than chance
because of hs knowedge of the person n the (P, ) nteracton.
St another ob|ecton to the predcton procedure arses from
qute a dfferent source. ave we not weghted the dce n favor of
correct predcton by basng our knowedge of ar s personaty
structure on a number of measures whch were taken after the re-
sponses to be predcted were made re we predctng at a n
such cases or nstance, we know from ar s regon questonnare
and port- ernon test scores dscussed n Chapter that he was
very much nterested n regon. rom ths knowedge we woud
be more key to guess correcty that he studed evangeca regon
at nght schoo durng the war. ut the tests referred to were taken
by ar severa years after he underwent a strong regous conver-
son, went to nght schoo, and returned to coege prepared to
preach the Gospe, come what may. In one sense we woud not be
predctng hs turn to regon after droppng out of coege uness
we had measures pror to that tme whch showed that he had a
strong regous nterest. Certany t woud have been better f we
had had them. ut n another sense, a theoretca personaty pc-
ture need not be so tme-bound. hat we try to do n constructng
such a pcture s to make nferences from one set of measures (taken
at one pont n tme) to some genera constructs and prncpes whch
w enabe us to estmate what the person w do at another pont
n tme, whch may be ether earer or ater. s port ponts out
(1942), we may predct or postdct. In ether case we may be abe
to confrm our hypotheses about consstent trends wthn the per-
sonaty. The advantage that predcton has arses from engneerng
consderatons: f we can predct, we can contro. ut ths s not a
decsve vaue as far as theory s concerned. Predcton s aways
more ndetermnate than postdcton anyway, snce we cannot
specfy the nature of the envronmenta press neary as we before
t occurs.
ut we cannot dspose of ths dffcuty qute so easy. carefu
consderaton of the tmng of our measures may requre a change
n some of our nterpretatons. et us take a ook at our T T
anayses n Chapters 10 and 11 n partcuar. Two of the most m-
portant themas n ar s T T dea wth deserton and nade-
quacy respectvey. Now ar s e perences n the four years pror
to hs tak ng the test appear pecuary key to have been respon-
sbe for these themas. In the frst pace, the gr wth whom he was
deepy n ove deserted hm and marred another. In the second, he
60
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
had n effect funked out o coege and faed to ve up to the very
hgh hopes both he and hs parents had hed for hm when he en-
tered. hat woud be more natura than for these two e perences
to coor hs magnatve productons hat rght had we then to
draw nferences from such matera about hs motvatona structure
and even to connect t wth hs eary chdhood e perences he
we must acknowedge the force of ths ob|ecton, there are a number
of reasons why t does not undermne the knd of concusons we
drew from hs T T. In the frst pace, we must recognze that the
traumatc e perences n queston are aready four years od. Snce
he was deserted by hs frst ove (a deserton whch ncdentay he
tends to mnmze n hs autobography), ar has had a regous
converson, has neary marred her sster, and has spent a year over-
seas. s far as funkng out s concerned, he has n the meantme
returned to coege and obtaned an or - - average n hs frst
semester. None of ths dsproves the mportance of the earer trau-
matc ncdents, but t does suggest strongy that f they are m-
portant, t s because they have become woven nto hs basc
personaty structure and not because they are smpy recent ep-
sodes that coor hs magnaton n a way whch s unrepresentatve
of hs over-a ad|ustment to fe. There has been penty of tme for
them to get assmated nto and to ater the nature of ar s prevous
apperceptve mass. urthermore, f, n fact, they had been ncdents
whch were markedy nconsstent wth ar s e pectatons about
securty and achevement as ad down eary n fe, we coud rea-
sonaby e pect them to have been reworked n a qute dfferent
fashon by ths tme. In short, the case for nterpretng the T T as
we dd rests argey on the assumpton that such specf1c epsodes
as these have tended by ths tme to get ntegrated nto the person-
aty structure to such an e tent that ther drect nfuence on mag-
naton s typca of hs basc personaty trends.
The case does not rest whoy on ths pont, however. e can
even abandon the poston that earer motvatona earnng nfu-
enced the subsequent schematzng of these epsodes and argue that
they were the determnng factors n ar s contemporaneous motva-
tona structure. or, n the end, t s hs motvatona structure now
that we are nterested n. e may specuate as to how t arose, but
such specuatons may be consdered of secondary mportance. Such
an e treme stand s nether necessary nor entrey |ustfed, however.
The fact of the matter s that the anayss of motvaton and schema
structure based on the T T and the deserton and nadequacy
609
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
themas n t s supported at many ponts ndependenty by autobo-
graphca epsodes from an earer perod (e.g., hs tmdty and
nsecurty as a chd, hs bashfuness before grs, etc.). nd, what s
perhaps most convncng of a, we can use the anayss of motvaton
made after the ar to e pan (or postdct) the behavor whch ed
up to the cruca faure n hs sophomore year before the ar. In
short, we can accept the nadequacy and deserton themas as
refectng two pror ncdents and st use the way they are woven
nto the stores to e pan why both ncdents occurred n the frst
pace.
Despte a the ob|ectons to the predcton procedure (many of
whch coud dsappear f the data had been coected wth the fna
conceptua scheme n mnd), t has one great advantage. It forces
the person who may thnk he understands the case matera to test
that knowedge n a very precse and often e asperatng fashon.
nyone who tres t s amost certan to come out convnced that he
dd not understand ar neary so we as he thought he dd whch
s a good thng. Too often we read through a case study, wrtten by
a psychoanayst perhaps, n whch we are absoutey astonshed at
the ngenuty and sk wth whch he makes everythng hang to-
gether. Yet for the scentst the naggng queston must reman: re
any of these wonderfu character sketches stated n terms of hy-
potheses that can be crtcay tested It s easy enough n wrtng a
case study to fnd ustratons that w confrm a hypothess. ut
suppose we ask the queston, how coud any of ths nterpretaton
be dsproved That s a far more dffcut queston and one that
cannot be answered as far as most cnca personaty sketches are
concerned. Most of them are wrtten n such a way that they are
capabe of ustraton but not of proof or dsproof. 0ur study of
ar s unfortunatey no rea e cepton. ut by submttng t to the
test of actua predcton of unknown behavor we have at east
drawn attenton to ts shortcomngs and demonstrated the need for
ths knd of testng of personaty sketches whch mght otherwse
seem too pat and persuasve. nyone who has tested hs knowedge
of ar n ths fashon s not very key to accept uncrtcay the
nterpretaton of some of the ater epsodes n hs fe to whch we
must now turn our attenton.
ehavor To e ccounted or. It woud be mpractcabe to at-
tempt to dea effcenty wth every one of the 120 tems n the pre-
dcton questonnare n terms of our theoretca pcture of ar.
610
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
e must therefore mt ourseves to some key behavora tems.
Generay speakng they w be ones that are partcuary strkng
or persstent such as,
hy dd he fa so bady n hs second year at coege after such a good
begnnng
hy dd he get nto fraternty fghts
hy dd he drnk so much as compared wth other students
hat e paned hs converson to evangeca regon
hy was he such a good hypnotc sub|ect
hy dd he vounteer for overseas ambuance duty
hy dd he return to coege and make such a good record after the war,
ony to return to hs earer habts n hs senor year
In tackng such ma|or ad|ustments as these, we may be ed to
emphasze the mportance of one determnant over the others. Thus
the very way n whch these questons are asked suggests that we
shoud search prmary for motvatona e panatons. Yet our
theoretca poston s that trats, schemata, and motves enter nto
the determnaton of any act. To avod undue emphass on any one
of these we can seect four representatve types of ad|ustment for
ntensve study, one n whch a three determnants enter about
equay, and three n whch ether a trat, a schema, or a motve re-
spectvey seems to be the cruca factor.
|ont Determnaton of an ct. ar engaged n a consderabe
amount of student roughhousng and fghtng and on one occason
was pcked up by the poce as a rngeader n a bg row. ow are
we to account for ths behavor 0n the motvatona sde we have
argued that he has a strong n ggresson, whch, however, s nor-
may kept so n check by hs f ggresson that he appears e tremey
md and cooperatve. 0n the schema sde, we can observe that a
certan amount of fraternty fghtng s cuturay norma and that
ar n tme woud earn about ths cuture pattern. 0n the trat
sde, we know that he has receved a good dea of rewarded tranng
n beng aggressve on the footba fed. It s therefore not so sur-
prsng that when the opportunty ( factor) presents tsef, ar
w be found n the mdst of the fray. Contrbutng factors are un-
doubtedy hs strong n ffaton and hs strong trat of Gregarous-
ness. e wants to be one of the boys and habtuay practces beng
one of them, so that when they get n a fght, the tota e ctatory
potenta attached to the response of |onng n shoud be very
hgh ndeed. The ony nhbtng factor f ggresson-e presson
611
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
woud aso tend to be weakened because, as we have seen, t s sup-
ported argey by hs fear of Pe|ecton a fear whch shoud be
essened n a soca stuaton n whch everyone s beng aggressve.
In ths case t woud be dffcut to pont to any one factor as beng
absoutey decsve n determnng hs partcpaton n fghtng. No
factor aone woud probaby have been enough. ad he not had a
strong n ggresson, hs tranng n aggresson on the footba fed
woud probaby not have been enough. ad he not had e perence
n beng aggressve, hs n ggresson woud probaby not have ed
hm so often (or so effectvey ) nto fghts. ad student fghtng not
been a cuture pattern, he amost certany woud not have started
anythng, as hs norma mdness ndcates. So, n ths case, we seem
to need a three of our hypothetca varabes to account for what
he dd.
Trats s Decsve Determnants. ar gves as one of the reasons
why he fe down n hs sophomore year the fact that he was nto
too many dfferent thngs. To us ths s a famar trat. In hgh
schoo he was actve n everythng athetcs, cubs, course work, etc.
In fact, we have noted that energy and varabty are two of hs
outstandng trats. In coege he tended to react as he had before:
he transferred hs prevousy successfu patterns of responses to the
new stuaton. e was actve n everythng hs freshman year and
was eected Presdent of the reshman Cass. The success story of
hs hgh schoo days seemed about to repeat tsef. ut n the end the
trat proved maadaptve: hs attempt to do everythng n the more
compe atmosphere of coege proved mpossbe and utmatey
contrbuted to hs faure n hs sophomore year. If we are nterested
n accountng for hs wde partcpaton n a sorts of actvtes n
hs freshman year or perhaps n hs eecton as Presdent of the
reshman Cass, then the most usefu snge factor to consder seems
to be the trat varabe. The coege stuaton (schema varabe) and
hs compe of motves were suffcenty smar at frst to what they
had been n hgh schoo for hs past ad|ustment n hgh schoo to
be the decsve factor n determnng how he responded on enterng
coege. It s e acty to account for such consstences n behavor n
smar stuatons under smar motvaton that we need the trat
varabe. To be sure, even here, the other varabes entered nto de-
termnng the form of the concrete act he had to perceve what
cubs and actvtes were avaabe n coege, and he had to have
n ffaton and n chevement as he had had before n order for
612
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
hm to react as he dd. ut the decsve factor n ths case seems to
be hs trats or consstent modes of ad|ustment to smar stuatons.
Schemata s Decsve Determnants. mong other thngs ar
|oned a fraternty when he entered coege. hy The smpest an-
swer woud be that t was the thng to do. It was, n short, a moda
response for freshmen at owhurst, a cuture pattern. ere motva-
ton and trats do not seem to be the decsve factors. Gven a student
wth motves wthn a certan range (who s not, for nstance, too
autonomous) and wth trats wthn a certan range (not so devant
as to be unacceptabe), the meanng of the stuaton as t s de-
nned by the other peope n the stuaton shoud ead hm to |on
a fraternty. It s e pected behavor. gan ar s motves doubt-
ess contrbuted: he had a strong n ffaton whch woud be
more easy gratfed n a fraternty stuaton. So dd hs trats: any-
one as gregarous as he s woud amost certany have chosen to
|on. ut none of these thngs by themseves woud have ed to ths
partcuar response, athough they may have made a certan range of
responses more key. The decsve factor appears to be the cutura
or soca norm whch ar had every opportunty to perceve both
before he came to coege and after he got there. ad t not been
the thng to do for students to |on a fraternty, t s key that hs
motves and trats woud have found other outets perhaps n
cubs and cass actvtes.
Motves s Decsve Determnants. hen we turn to motvaton,
we are punged n the mdst of what s consdered the norma way
of e panng behavor. ctuay, as we have seen earer, t s the
norma way of e panng abnorma or unusua behavor, and s not
of such decsve mportance n accountng for such everyday occur-
rences as why ar got nvoved n so many actvtes, or payed foot-
ba, or went to cass every day, or |oned a fraternty. Nevertheess,
t does pay a decsve roe n many knds of behavor. Take ar s
drnkng, for nstance. Drnkng partes are part of the cutura pat-
tern at owhurst. s ar makes cear, t was ths soca norm whch
started hm on the habt of drnkng acqured at coege. urther-
more, hs strong trat of gregarousness and hs strong n ffaton
woud predspose hm to convvaty. ut there s somethng un-
usua about hs drnkng behavor. In tme t became abnorma
for hs cuture. It nterfered wth hs work, ed hm nto fghts, and
tended to transform hm from an e tremey conscentous student
nto an undependabe and erratc one. hy dd drnkng attract hm
613
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
so ere t appears useess to search among hs trats, based on past
modes of ad|ustment n smar stuatons, or to ook to the cuture
pattern whch n fact frowns on the e cesses to whch ar went
In the words of a fraternty brother:
hen he returned n the fa of 194 , he surprsed everyone by hs re-
strant from drnkng. s the year progressed, however, he took up drnkng
agan and as a resut has become more frequenty nto cated. Ths has ed
to dsturbances n the ouse, party hs own faut and party the resut of
hs frends urgng hm on. mong the remanng frends, ths has created
some -feeng toward hm. s frends cam he woud be a good man, f
he dd not drnk. They aso fear hs aggressve tendences when nto cated
ar apparenty concurs n ths |udgment when he states at the
end of hs autobography, so I drnk too much beer whch I
shoudn t. To e pan ths we w have to ook to hs motvatona
structure. e do not have to ook far. It woud not take much m-
agnaton to arrve at the hypothess that soca drnkng mght be a
rather specfc medcne for the pecuar motvatona confcts whch
beset ar. e have stressed agan and agan the mportance of the
foowng motvatona compe n hs fe:
n ffaton--
f Pe|ecton f ggresson-e presson
n ggresson
though there s unfortunatey as yet tte e permenta evdence
on the sub|ect, cnca and ntrospectve reports seem unanmous
n agreeng that one of the effects of acoho s to decrease antcpa-
tons of faure, to reduce an ety, to remove nhbtons, or to
drown the super-ego. hatever termnoogy s used, the effect of
ths process n ar s case woud be to decrease the avodance mo-
tves at each end of ths pattern (f Pe|ecton and f ggresson) and to
aow the fuer e presson of n ffaton and n ggresson. Ths
permts not ony the drect gratfcaton of two of ar s centra
needs whch are normay frustrated but produces consderabe
secondary gan by reducng the confct between the needs and
fears. Ths s partcuary true of aggresson. If our anayss s cor-
rect, ar s strong n ggresson s ordnary nhbted by an even
stronger f ggresson-e presson but hs camness and pacdty must
be won at consderabe cost. The confct between two such strong re-
sponse tendences must be very hgh and n tsef produce a strong need
for an ety reducton (see secton on confct of motves n Chapter 13).
Drnkng, f t serves to weaken f ggresson (by weakenng antcpa-
614
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
tons of re|ecton resutng from e pressng aggresson), shoud not
ony permt e presson of n ggresson, but shoud aso reduce the
confct between the two motves and the an ety whch the confct
produces.
Unfortunatey, drnkng s good medcne ony so ong as t asts.
s hs feow student s comments show, ar s drunken aggressve-
ness reastcay ncreases the amount of re|ecton from hs feows,
whch on the day after shoud ony serve to reactvate even more
strongy hs f Pe|ecton, hs gut for havng been aggressve, and hs
genera over-a an ety eve. Ths n turn makes t more mpera-
tve that he seek a reease by drnkng. So a vcous crce tends to be
set up. he such an nterpretaton may seem competey ad hoc,
there are severa facts that support t. rst of a, ar s nsecurty
pattern s commony found n case studes of acohocs. Secondy,
he tends to drnk n ths way ony when he s n the fraternty group.
he he was away durng the war, he gave up drnkng amost en-
trey. he there may have been other reasons for ths, t st
suggests strongy that the Pe|ecton- ffaton- ggresson compe ,
strongy aroused by an ntmate group, was responsbe for hs drnk-
ng. e was not a sotary drnker. bove a, he had to have
affaton even f t was n the form of good-natured kddng whch
he sad he en|oyed. e was rresstby drawn nto contact wth
others and requred constant assurance from them that they ked
hm or were not re|ectng hm. s he puts t, he tred to keep away
from groups but he coud not.
Dynamc panatons of Peactons to rustraton. Sometmes re-
actons to frustraton may be most easy accounted for n terms of
trats. person may deveop a consstent mode of respondng to a
partcuar knd of bockng, e.g., ncreased effort or strvng to n-
creased dffcuty such as was traned nto chdren by ester (193 ).
Sometmes frustraton responses may be most easy accounted for
by an anayss of cuture patterns, as n the case of rtuazed
swearng n our own cuture. ut most often, as the psychoanaysts
have made cear, frustraton provdes an amost une ceed oppor-
tunty to study a person s motvatona structure. e have prevousy
noted how Dembo s study of frustraton (1931) strongy ndcated
the need for a dynamc nterpretaton of behavor, and how reud s
motvatona schemes orgnay deveoped out of anayzng peope
who were frustrated, an ous, and defendng themseves aganst an -
ety. It s no accdent that an nstrument for dagnosng motvatona
615
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
states ke Murray s T T contans pctures whch dea amost whoy
wth frustraton, aggresson, gref, msery, and despar. s many a
person has asked on frst seeng them, why shoudn t there be more
cheerfu scenes Does not the T T necessary force peope to gve a
goomy one-sded vew of themseves hy not a Sentence pper-
cepton Test whch w evoke thoughts of what the person en|oys
n fe
he there s some force to these ob|ectons, the ratonae for the
approach to motvaton va frustraton seems to run somethng ke
ths: frustraton acts ke a prsm to a ray of ght. It breaks up the
stream of behavor and the anayst can more easy observe what s
contrbutng to t. The practca pont apparenty s that t s not
as easy to dscover what a person s motves are, or n what herarchy
they are arranged, so ong as they are beng gratfed, so ong as the
organsm s functonng smoothy and normay. Motves seem to
nfuence behavor n more strkng and easy detectabe ways when
they are not beng gratfed. In our terms, the reason for ths woud
perhaps e n the fact that so ong as motves are not bocked, be-
havor gves a better pcture of cutura patterns and trats than of
motves. Thus the Sentence ppercepton Test mght te us a good
dea about how a person en|oys hmsef (trats) and what knds of
recreaton he accepts out of the cutura patterns governng en|oy-
ment (schemata), both of whch are mportant thngs to know about
hm, but t woud not gve us much nformaton about hs motves.
Pecreatona trats or schemata can be supported by such a varety
of motves that ony frustraton w show whch motves are opera-
tve n a partcuar case. t east ths s the argument. hether t
w prove to be true when the present-day emphass on defensve,
tenson-reducng motves s baanced by a study of peasure-seekng
motves s another queston.
et us take ar s reactons to hs schoastc faure n hs
sophomore year as an e ampe of the way n whch such reactons
shed ght on motvatona structure. bove a he was terrby
afrad of what hs parents woud thnk and was obsessed by a sense of
nadequacy and faure. In other words, he showed both hgh shame
and hgh gut. The shame we can attrbute to hs strong f Pe|ec-
ton whch we traced to hs parents authortaransm (n part) n
the frst pace: the gut has a more compe hstory. To account for
t we need to assume that he vaued achevement hghy (and there
s every evdence that t was a centra part of hs sef-pcture sup-
ported both by a ower-mdde-cass cuture pattern and by a strong
616
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
n chevement). Schoastc faure then consttuted a serous nter-
ference wth hs ambtous pans and hopes for hmsef. Peastcay
t woud have been dffcut for hm to bame anyone ese but hmsef
for fang. ut dynamcay t was aso consstent for hm to do so
party because we argued that he dentfed strongy enough wth hs
parents to adopt ther atttudes toward hmsef, and party because
hs strong n ggresson, beng nhbted n drect e presson because
of f Pe|ecton, woud be key to be dspaced to some ob|ect an
ob|ect whch woud probaby turn out to be the sef whenever there
was any reastc kehood that the sef was the frustratng agent.
In short, there are severa mportant reasons why he shoud fee
ntropuntve or guty n response to faure-frustraton, and most
of them e n hs motvatona structure rather than n hs trat
or schema structures.
ar s subsequent reactons to frustraton are aso reveang as far
as hs motves are concerned. hen he eft schoo after hs faure,
he fe deepy n ove the foowng summer wth a gr who turned
out to be a nurse and who was aso regous. If we regard hs n
chevement as n part supported by a strong desre for ove (the
condtona ove compe popuarzed by Margaret Mead, 1942),
then ths behavor makes sense. rustrated at gettng ove and
affecton and securty through academc success, he fas back on a
more drect method of gettng the strong nurturance and affaton
he needs. hat s more, the gr s especay suted to gve hm
what he wants so bady because she s oder, a nurse by professon,
and regous the perfect pcture of the strong, nurturant woman
he needs. No wonder ths ove affar meant so much to hm ut
agan he was frustrated she eft hm and marred someone ese. It
was at ths pont that he became deepy regous, started attendng
an evangeca, fundamentast be schoo at nght, and decded
to preach the Gospe come what may. gan we must turn to hs
motves to account for hs behavor. There s nothng n hs trat
structure that woud ead us to e pect t. s e posure to the be
through hs mother s nfuence and hs contact wth Sunday schoo
as a boy doubtess produced the schemata whch made such an act
possbe, but t s ony n terms of hs strong and by now repeatedy
frustrated needs for ffaton, Nurturance, or Securty that we can
make good sense out of ths converson e perence. e can further-
more account n these same terms for the ease wth whch hs new-
found regous convctons get transformed once he s back n co-
ege where hs affaton needs are more drecty met by fraternty
617
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
assocatons, by eary schoastc success, and by renewed drnkng
bouts, and where these same needs woud be apt to be frustrated, f
he shoud contnue to persevere n a knd of regous beef whch
woud be the ob|ect of rdcue among many of hs assocates.
Such a motvatona anayss of ar s reactons to frustraton
coud be carred further to e pan many other erratc aspects of hs
behavor. It s dramatc, ntrgung, and perhaps especay mpres-
sve to the everyday observer who s not aware how dffcut t s to
submt such dynamc nterpretatons to crtca tests and who s
accustomed to thnk n terms of cuturay norma behavor. ut
we must not be overmpressed by the drama of motvatona anayss.
It has ts pace, especay n e panng unusua behavor. ut after
a, ar s by and arge a norma product of our cuture. Perhaps
95 per cent or more of hs responses, whch cover the way he thnks,
taks, and reacts n everyday fe, can be best accounted for n terms
of hs nternazaton of cuture patterns (schemata) and hs con-
sstent modes of ad|ustment to recurrent probems (trats). Motves
get to be decsve ony n a sma number of cases, whch tend to get
bown up beyond ther rea mportance because they are unusua
and dramatc. They have surprse vaue and attenton focuses on
them for that reason, but ths shoud not ead us away from our
centra theoretca task, from our responsbty to gve a baanced
account of the whoe personaty. To do ths |ob adequatey, we
need to e pore systematcay the person s trats and schemata (n-
cudng hs sef-schema), as we as hs motves. If we approach the
probem from at east three anges, we w be n a better poston
to fuf our assgnment as a scentst n the fed of personaty,
whch s to create the best possbe theoretca mode (personaty
structure) whch w account n smpest terms for the most m-
portant portons of a snge ndvdua s behavor. It goes wthout
sayng that we are far from havng reached any such goa as yet.
nor are we key to reach t any tme soon. ut f we know where
we are gong and have some knowedge of how to start, we w have
taken the frst steps toward reachng t.
N0T S ND U PI S
1. hy shoud ego-nvovement (cf. en and Schoenfed, 1941)
ntroduce a correaton among a number of responses whch were
formery uncorreated ork out the souton n terms of the
schematc formua, f ( , S, D, sS) ( ). Generaze your souton.
61
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ow ese woud t be possbe to ntroduce correatons among re-
sponses by manpuatng varabes n ths equaton
2. Peconsder the queston n the ght of ths chapter as to
whether a behavor s motvated. Does ths queston have anythng
to do wth what s the decsve determnant of a response
3. pan why ar was a good hypnotc sub|ect n terms of the
conceptua scheme we have worked out for hm. Pead Murray (193 ,
pp. 453 ff.) for cues.
4. Seect any of the nterpretatons n ths chapter and try to de-
sgn a test whch woud ceary confrm or dsprove t. In a sense any
response ar makes s a test of some hypothess, but what s the
dffcuty of usng t to test any partcuar one hat s the advan-
tage of statng the hypothess before you know what the response s
5. 0ne of the dffcutes wth a mutpe-varabe, schematc equa-
ton s that snce the reatons among the varabes are not pre-
scrbed, you are eft free to manpuate them any way you ke to
account for a response. Can you see any method of meetng ths
dffcuty Is makng the settngs for the varabes before you know
the response any hep Can you thnk of any way n whch more
precse reatons between varous schemata, trats, and motves can
be worked out
6. re you worred by the thought that n the far-dstant future
we mght actuay be abe to bud a theoretca pcture of a person
whch woud account for hs behavor
7. In workng out the nature and reatons among varous trats,
schemata, and motves, what are the great advantages of workng
wth groups of peope rather than a snge person hat are the
dsadvantages
. hy dd ar vounteer for overseas ambuance duty oud
you say a trat, a schema, or a motve was chefy responsbe
9. Coud e acty the same response be produced by dfferent
combnatons of the basc varabes ork out an e ampe of a
response whch mght be produced by dfferent determnants and
show how you woud set about dscoverng what they were n each
case. Take the reasons gven for ar s partcpaton n fraternty
fghtng, for nstance, and compare them wth some dfferent hypo-
thetca reasons why another student mght partcpate and show
how the dfferent settngs of the personaty varabes n these two
cases shoud ead to dfferent behavor on certan other occasons.
10. hy dd ar en|oy beng kdded ttempt to deduce ths
619 .
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
reacton n as rgorous a fashon as possbe from the genera
theoretca pcture of hs personaty. hat makes rgor dffcut
11. Shedon states (cf. Chapter 5) that mesomorphs are apt to be
fond of acoho |ust as ar s. ttempt to show how ths generaza-
ton mght be derved from the knd of motvatona compe whch
s key n our cuture to deveop n men wth powerfu physques
(cf. dscusson of Stone s study of aggresson n footba payers n
Chapters 11 and 13 as we as the dscusson n ths chapter). Set up
an e perment to test your hypothess.
12. In what sense s heredty contrbutng to the habt of drnk-
ng n the case dscussed n queston 11 pan how heredty may
ncrease the probabty of the deveopment of a certan trat,
schema, or motve wthout actuay determnng t wth a probabty
of 1.oo. Gve a concrete e ampe. Can you thnk of a case n whch
heredty determnes a response wth a probabty of 1.oo n human
bengs In other anmas
620
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Peferences and uthor Inde
Peferences are sted aphabetcay by date of pubcaton. The numbers n
tacs after each reference gve the pages of the te t on whch the reference s
cted.
berf, D. ., Cohen, . ., Dav1s,
. ., evy, M. |., and Sutton, . .
1950. The functona prerequstes of
a socety. thcs, 60, 100-111. 57 ,
379
der, . 1917. Neurotc consttuton.
New York: Moffat, ard. 402
dorno, T. ., renke- runsw1k, .,
ev1nson, D. |., and Sanford, P. N.
1950. The authortaran personaty.
New York: arper. 504
e ander, . 1942. 0ur age of un-
reason. Phadepha: ppncott.
4, 1o, 11, 9, 356, 570, 5S5
port, . . 1937. Teeonomc de-
scrpton n the study of personaty.
Character and Pers., 5, 202-14.-/05
port, . ., and reder1ksen, N.
1941. Personaty as a pattern of so-
ca trends. /. soc. Psycho., 13, 141-
2. 102
1 port, G. . 1937. Personaty, a psy-
choogca nterpretaton. New York:
ot. -4, 75, 57, 5 , 56, 63, 66, 74,
75, 9, 9 , 100, 101, 102, 117, 149,
1 6, 201, 202, 206, 207, 20 , 214, 2/5,
2/7, 21 , 220, 221, 229, 23 , 63, 403,
433, 474- 539- 5 7
1 port, G. . 1942. The use of per-
sona documents n psychoogca
scence. New York: Soca Scence
Pesearch Counc. o, 49, o, 51, 70,
71, 9, 94, 10 , 417, 60
1 port, G. . 1943. The ego n con-
temporary psychoogy. Psycho. Pev.,
50, 451-7 .-42, 520, 540
t port, G. ., G1esp1e, |. M., and
Younc, |. 194 . The regon of the
post-war coege student. /. Psycho.,
5- 3-33- - 2 4
port, G. ., and 0dbert, . S.
1936. Trat-names: a psycho-e ca
study. Psycho. Monogr., 47, No. 211.
- 33. 56
port, G. ., and Postman, . 1947.
The psychoogy of rumor. New York:
ot. 244, 246
port, G. ., and ernon, P. .
1931. study of vaues. oston:
oughton Mffn. 257, 25S, 259
port, G. ., and ernon, P. .
1933. Studes n e pressve move-
ment. New York: Macman. 1 1,
132, I, 1 4, 2 0, 231
nce, P., see Gottschak and others
(1945)-
ncya, . 1941. oundatons for a
scence of personaty. New York:
Commonweath und. /02, 10
p1cea, . S., see McCeand and
pcea (1945).
rr1ncton, P. ., see Thomas and
others (1933).
sch, S. . 1946. ormng mpressons
of personaty. /. abnorm. soc. Psy-
cho., 41, 25 -90.-54, 293, 294, 342
tk1nson, |. . 1950a. Deveopment
of an equvaent form of the pro|ec-
tve measure of achevement motva-
ton and an e poratory study of
pcture dfferences. Unpubshed Ph.
D. thess, Unv. Mch. 525
tk1nson, |. . 1950b. pro|ectve
measure of achevement motvaton
n the nterrupton of tasks e per-
ment. Unpubshed Ph.D. thess,
Unv. Mch. 46, 22 , 46 , 497, 49
tk1nson, |. and McCeand,
D. C. 194 . The pro|ectve e presson
of needs. II. The effect of dfferent
ntenstes of the hunger drve on
thematc appercepton. /. e p. Psy-
cho., 3 , 643-5 . - 4 2, 492, 494
tk1nson, |. ., see aso McCeand
and tknson (194 ), McCeand,
tknson, and Cark (1949), McCe-
and and others (1949, 1950).
621
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P P NC S ND UT 0P IND
D IN, . . 1942. Persona struc-
ture anayss: statstca method
for nvestgatng the snge person-
aty. |. abnorm. soc. Psycho., y|,
163- 3.-
D IN, . . 1946. The study of n-
dvdua personaty by means of the
ntrandvdua correaton. /. Per-
sonaty, 14, 151-6 . 20 , 209, 210,
211, 212
D IN, . ., 0PN, |., and
P S , . . 1945. Patterns of par-
ent behavor. Psycho. Monogr., 5 ,
No. .-41, 34 , 349, 352, 353, M,
363 364
D IN, . ., 0PN, |., and
P S , . . 1949. The apprasa of
parent behavor. Psycho. Monogr.,
63, No. 4. -349, 352
S, . 1950. Interacton process
anayss. Cambrdge, Mass.: ddson-
esey Press. 32, 307, 326
P P, P., D M 0, T., and IN, .
1940. rustraton and regresson: an
e perment wth young chdren.
Unv. a. Stud. Chd efare, 1 ,
No. . 5/5
PT TT, . C. 1932. Pememberng:
a study n e permenta and soca
psychoogy. Cambrdge: Cambrdge
Unv. Press. 5o, 246, 247, 240, 342
T S0N, G. 1942. Soca pannng and
the concept of deutero-earnng.
In T. M. Newcomb and . . art-
ey ( ds.), Peadngs n soca psy-
choogy. New York: ot, 1947.
54
T S0N, G. 1944. Cutura determ-
nants of personaty. Chapter 23 n |.
Mc . unt ( d.), Personaty and
the behavor dsorders. New York:
Ponad Press, 1944. 334, 366
C , S. |. 1944. Porschach s test. New
York: Grune and Stratton. 52, yo
, |ohn. 194 . Pro|fdve technques.
New York: ongmans, Green. 34,
44, 132, 133, 134, 136, 139, 141, 146,
47. 59
N| MIN, |. D., and UG , . G.
193 . The dagnostc vadty of the
Porschach test. mer. |. Psychat.,
94, 1163-7 . -147
PGM NN, G., and SP NC , . .
1944. The ogc of psychophysca
measurement. Psycho. Pev., 51, 1-
24- - 77, 7S.
IPN Y, P. C., see McCeand, rney.
and Poby (1950).
0D P, D. P. 1940. 1 he ad|ectve verb
quotent: a contrbuton to the psy-
choogy of anguage. Psycho. Pec.,
22. 310-43. 755
or. PDUS, . S. 192 . The measurement
of soca dstance. In T. M. New-
comb and . . artey ( ds.),
Peadngs n soca psychoogy. New
York: ot, 1947. 270
0IS N, . T. 1936. The e poraton of
the nner word. New York: ett
and Cark. 512
0 PS, . M., see eay and others
( 93 ).
P Y, . ., see atz and ray
( 933 -
P S , . ., see adwn and others
( 945. 1949).
P U P, |., and P UD, S. 1 95. Studes
n hystera (trans, by . . r).
New York: Nervous and Menta Ds-
ease Pubshng Co., 1936. 94
P0NN P, . ., see eay and others
P0 N, |. . 1936. Psychoogy and the
soca order. New York: McGraw-
. - 290
P0 N, |. S. 194 . Gradents of ap-
proach and avodance responses and
ther reaton to eve of motvaton.
/. comp. physo. Psycho., 41, 450-65.
461
P0 N, N. 0. 1947. ermes the thef.
Madson, s.: Unv. s. Press.
6
PUN P, |. S. 1950. Personaty dynam-
cs and the process of percevng.
Chapter 7 n the Unversty of Te as
symposum on percepton and per-
sonaty. 253, 539
PUN P, |. S., and G00DM N, C. C
1947. aue and need as organzng
factors n percepton. /. abnorm. soc.
Psych., 42, 33-44. -46, 261, 4 9
PUN P, |. S., and P0STM N, . 1949.
0n the percepton of ncongruty:
a paradgm. / Personaty, 1 , to6-
3- - 325. 34 577
PUN P, |. S., P0STM N, ., and P0D-
622
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
r1ches, |. 1950. Stmuus approprate-
ness and ambguty as factors n
|udgment. Unpubshed paper.
350, 294, 325
runer, |. S., see aso Postman and
runer (194 ), Postman and others
( 94 ).
ucesk1, P. 193 . tncton wth and
wthout sub-goa renforcement. /.
comp. Psycho., 26, 121-34. 452
usemann, . 1925. De Sprache der
|ugend as usdruck der ntwck-
ungsrhythmc. |ena: scher. 155
Cantr1, ., see Sherf and Cantr
0947)-
Carm1chae, ., ocan, . P., and
ater, . . 1932. n e permenta
study of the effect of anguage on
the reproducton of vsuay per-
ceved form. |. e p. Psycho., 15,
73- 6. - 250
Carm1chae, ., ennedy, |. C, and
Mead, . C. 1949. Some recent ap-
proaches to the e permenta study
of human fatgue. Scence, no, 445.
45
Catte, P. . 1946a. Descrpton and
measurement of personaty. Yonkers-
on- udson, New York: ord ook
Co- 54. 55. 72, 105, 164, 171, 177,
1 0, 1 3, 1 4, 199, 200, 201, 203, 20 ,
21
Catte, P. . 1946b. The rdde of
perseveraton. /. Personaty, 14, 229-
67.-173, 177
Centers, P. 1947. The mercan cass
structure. In T. M. Newcomb and
. . artey ( ds.), Peadngs n
soca psychoogy. New York: ot,
1947- 3 3
Ch1d, I. ., Potter, . ., and ev1ne,
. M. 1946. Chdren s te tbooks and
personaty deveopment: an e po-
raton n the soca psychoogy of
educaton. Psycho. Monogr., 60, No.
279. - 252, 253, 314
Ch1d, I. ., see aso htng and
Chd (1950).
Chotos, |. . 1944. statstca and
comparatve anayss of ndvdua
wrtten anguage sampes. Psycho.
Monogr., 56, No. 2, 77-111. 151,
153
Chr1st1e, |. P. 1949. The effects of
frustraton on rgdty n probem
souton. Unpubshed Ph.D. thess,
Unv. Caf. ( erkeey). 504
Chr1st1e, |. P. 1950. The effect of some
eary e perences n the atent earn-
ng of rats. Unpubshed dttoed
paper. 363
Cark, P. . 1947. The probem of
cosure n menta organzaton. Un-
pubshed onors thess. Mdde-
town, Conn.: eseyan Unv. 171
Cark, P. ., and McCeand, D. C.
1950. factor anaytc ntegraton of
magnatve, performance, and case
study measures of the need for
achevement. Unpubshed paper.
1, 6, 461, 46 , 4 2, 4 5
Cark, P. ., see aso McCeand, t-
knson, and Cark (1949), McCeand
and others (1949, 1950).
Carke, . |., see Posenzweg and
others (1947).
Cohen, . ., see bere and others
(195 )-
Coe, . . 1939. Genera psychoogy.
New York: McGraw- . 391
Conant, |. . 1947. Presdenta ad-
dress before the mercan ssoca-
ton for the dvancement of Scence.
cerpts n mer. Psycho., 3, 67. /
Cottre, . S. 1942. The ad|ustment
of the ndvdua to hs age and se
roes. mer. soca. Pev., 7, 617-20.
- 316, 31
Courts, . . 1942. The nfuence of
practce on the dynamogenc effect
of muscuar tenson. /. e p. Psycho.,
30, 504-11.-4 4
Cowes, |. T. 1937. ood-tokens as n-
centves for earnng by chmpanzees.
Comp. Psycho. Monogr., 14, No. 71.
-433
Cresp1, . P. 1945. Pubc opnon
toward conscentous ob|ectors: III.
Intensty of soca re|ecton n stereo-
type and atttude. /. Psycho., 19,
251-76. -315
Crutchf1ed, P. S., see rech and
Crutchfed (194 ).
Curran, C. . 1945. Personaty factors
n counseng. New York: Grune and
Stratton. 36, 57
623
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
D IS, ., and D0 PD, |. 1940. Ch-
dren of bondage. ashngton: mer-
can Counc on ducaton. 3/2,
347
D IS, ., and IG UPST, P. |. 1946.
Soca cass and coor dfferences n
chd-rearng. mer. soca. Pev., 11,
69 -7 10. -|5r
D IS, ., and IG UPST, P. |. 1947.
ather of the man how your chd
gets hs personaty. oston: ough-
ton Mffn. 313, 347
D IS, ., and IG UPST, P. |. 194 .
The measurement of menta systems.
Sc. Man., N. Y., 66, 301-16. -199
D IS, . ., see bere and others
D IS, D. . 194 . Pot error. r Mn-
stry 3139 . ondon: s Ma|esty s
Statonery 0ffce. 465
D M 0, T. 1931. Der rger as dyna-
msches Probem. Psycho. orsch.,
15, 1 -144. -42, 3 3, 3 4, 404, 496,
521, 615
D .M 0, T.. see aso arker and others
(1940), evvn and others (1944).
D NNIS, . 193 . Infant deveopment
under condtons of restrcted prac-
tce and of mnmum soca stmua-
ton: a premnary report. |. genet.
Psycho., 53, 149-5 . .
D SC PT S, Pene. 1637. Dscourse on
method ( etch s trans.). aSae,
111.: 0pen Court Pubshng Co.,
1946. too
DIC S0N, . |., see Poethsberger and
Dckson (1939).
DI T .Y, . 1 94. Ideen ber ene
beschrebende und zergedernde
Psychoogc. Gesammete Schrften,
o. 5. epzg and ern: Teubner,
1924. 66
DI T , . 1910. Das rebns und
de Dchtung, essng, Goethe, No-
vas, odern. epzg: Teubner.
-66
D0DS0N, |. D. 1915. The reaton of
strength of stmuus to rapdty of
habt-formaton. /. nm. ehav., 5,
330-36. -50f
D0 PD, |. 1937. Caste and cass n a
southern town. New aven: Yae
Unv. Press. 29
D0 PD, |., D00 . . .. MI .
N. ., M0 P P, 0. .. and S PS,
P. P. 1939. rustraton and ager -
son. New aven: ae Unv. Press.
9 , 371, 391, 45 460, 503, 5o5,
512, 5/|, 5/5, 5/6, 5/7. 5 o, 540
D0 PD, |.. and M0 P P. 0. . 1917-
method of measurng tenson n
wrtten documents. /. abnorm. toe.
Psycho., 42, 3-32. 30, 31
D0 PD, |., see aso Davs and Doard
(1940), Mer and Doard (1941).
D00 , . ., and S PS, P. P. 1939.
actors determnng substtute be-
havor and the overt e presson of
aggresson. /. abnorm. soc. Psycho
34- 93-3 3--5 . 5
D00 , . ., see aso Doard and
others (1939).
DP , G. C. 193 . The functon of pun-
shment n earnng. |. genet. Psy-
cho., 52, ttf- |--455
Du o1s, C. 1944. The peope of ar.
Mnneapos: Unv. Mnn. Press.-
147, 334, |37, 35 |60
DUDYC , G. |. 1936. n ob|ectve
study of punctuaty n reaton to
personaty and achevement. rch,
of Psycho., 29, No. 204. 204
UG , . G., see en|amn and
baugh (193 ).
IS N PG, P. 1940. The motvaton of
e pressve movement. /. gen. Psy
cho., 23, 9-101. 134
IN, . 1943- arod ozer. |. ab-
norm. soc. Psycho., 3 . 4 - 6. w
N , . 1930. De Psychomotork do
onsttutonstypen. . angew. ftv
cho., 36, 237- 7. -131
PIC S0N, M. . 1939. permenta
demonstratons of the psychopatho-
ogy of everyday fe. In S. S. Tomkns
( d.), Contemporary psychopathn-
ogy. Cambrdge, Mass.: arvard
Unv. Press, 1943. 570
PICS0N, M. C. 1947. Soca status and
chd-rearng practces. In T. M.
Newcomb and . . artey ( ds
Peadngs n soca psychoogy. Nc
York: ot, 1947. 313
YS NC , . |. 1947. Dmenson of
personaty. ondon: Poutedge and
Pegan Pau. 104, 117, 11 , 179
624
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
arber, I. . 194 . Pesponse f aton
under an ety and non-an ety con-
dtons. |. e p. Psycho., 3 , 111-31.
434. 455
fn1che, 0. 1945. The psychoanaytc
theory of neuross. New York: Nor-
ton. 5#5
ernbercer, S. . 194 . Persstence of
stereotypes concernng se dffer-
ences. |. abnorm. soc. Psycho., 43,
97-101.-534
est1ncer, . 1942. sh, e pectaton,
and group standards as factors n-
fuencng eve of aspraton. / ab-
norm. soc. Psycho., 37, 1 4-200.
565
est1ncer, . 1943. Deveopment of df-
ferenta appette n the rate. /. e p.
Psycho., 32, 226-34.-465
est1ncer, ., see aso ewn and others
( 944)-
1sre, D. . 1949. Consstency of the
factora strctures of personaty rat-
ngs from dfferent sources. /. ab-
norm. soc. Psycho., 44, 329-44.
1 y, 1q1, 102, 10 , 104, 106
e1schman, D. . 1949. Notes of a re-
trng femnst. mercan Mercury,
6 , 161-6 . 295
em1nc, . ., see Posenzweg and
others (1947), Posenzweg and em-
ng (1949)-
uce, |. C. 1945. Man, Moras and
Socety. New York: Internatona
Unverstes Press. 302, 44 , 456,
457. 503. 5 , 5 3, 5 4. 5 7. 543. 57 .
57 , 573, 5/6
osberc, I. . 1941. n e permenta
study of the reabty of the Por-
schach psychodagnostc technque.
Porschach Pes. ch., 5, 72- 4. 146
rank, |. D. 193 . eve of aspraton
test. In Murray, . ., poratons
n personaty, 461-71. New York:
0 ford Unv. Press. 491
reder1ksen, N., see port and red-
erksen (1941).
renke- runsw1k, . 1949. Intoerance
of ambguty as an emotona and
perceptua personaty varabe. /.
Personaty, 1 , 10 -4 . 1 3, 577
renke- runsw1k, ., see aso dorno
and others (1950).
reud, . 1937. The ego and the mech-
ansms of defense. ondon: ogarth
Press. -597, 09, 519, 570
reud, S. 1904. The psychopathoogy
of everyday fe. In The basc wrt-
ngs of Sgmund reud. (Trans, and
ed. by . . r.) New York: Mod-
ern brary, 193 . 5S5, 59/
reud, S. 1909. nayss of a phoba n
a fve-year-od boy. Coected Papers.
o. III. ondon: ogarth Press,
1925-- 94
reud, S. 1910. story of the psycho-
anaytc movement. In The basc
wrtngs of Sgmund reud. (Trans,
and ed. by . . r.) New York:
Modern brary, 193 .-5 6, 3 y
reud, S. 191 . Totem and Taboo. In
The basc wrtngs of Sgmund
reud. (Trans, and ed. by . .
r.) New York: Modern brary,
193 . - 17, 96, 333
reud, S. 1927. The ego and the d.
ondon: ogarth Press. //
reud, S. 1930. Cvzaton and ts ds-
contents. New York: Norton. 593
reud, S. 1940. n outne of psycho-
anayss. New York: Norton, 1949.
37 .4 1
reud, S., see aso reuer and reud
(1 95)-
r1ck, . C, see Mer and rck
0949)-
r1edman, G. . 1950. cross-cutura
study of the reatonshp between n-
dependence tranng and n cheve-
ment as reveaed by mythoogy. Un-
pubshed onors thess. arvard
Unv.-357, 567, 450
romm, . 194 a. scape from freedom.
New York: arrar and Pm-hart.
42
romm, . 1941b. ter and the Naz
authortaran character structure. In
T. M. Newcomb and . . artey
( ds.), Peadngs n soca psychoogy.
New York: ot, 1947. 505
Gardner, |. . 1940. The use of the
term eve of aspraton. Psycho.
Pev., 47, 59-6 . - 567
Gebhard, M. 1949. Permanence of e -
permentay nduced changes n the
attractveness of actvtes. |. e p.
Psycho., 39, 70 -13.-493
625
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G S , ., and others. 1940. The frst
fve years of fe. New York: arper.
-36, 350
G S , ., and I G, . . 1943. Infant
and chd n the cuture of today.
New York: arper. 350, 3
G T S, |. 1950. The ectaton of spe-
cfc nformaton usng pro|ectve
technques. u, of the aboratory
of Soca Peatons, arvard Unv.,
. No. 4. - 44
GI SPI , |. M., see port and others
(194 ).
G U C , S., and G U C , . 1950. Un-
raveng |uvene denquency. os-
ton: Commonweath und. 147
G0 DST IN, . 1940. uman nature n
the ght of psychopathoogy. Cam-
brdge: arvard Unv. Press. 403,
54
G0 DST IN, ., see aso anfmann and
others (1944).
G00DM N, C. C., see runer and Good-
man (1947).
G00DPIC , . ., and N PP, P. .
1950. Unpubshed report for the
Commttee on ducaton of Scen-
tsts. Mddetown, Conn.: eseyan
Unv. 779
G0P P, G. 194 . The mercan peope.
New York: Norton. 264, 270, 3o5,
306
G0TTSC , ., UC 0 N, C., and
NG , P. 1945. The use of persona
documents n hstory, anthropoogy
and socoogy. New York: Soca Sc-
ence Pesearch Counc. 46, 47, 50
G0U D, P. 1939. n e permenta ana-
yss of eve of aspraton. Genet.
Psycho. Monogr., 1, 1-116. 492,
5 5. 5 7
GP N , . . 1941. Measurements of
human behavor. New York: 0dyssey
Press. 1 0
GUI 0PD, |. P. 1940. uman abtes.
Psycho. Pev., 47, 367-94. 772
GUT PI , . P. 1944. Personaty n
terms of assocatve earnng. Chap-
ter n |. Mc . unt ( d.), Person-
aty and the behavor dsorders.
New York: Ponad Press. 70
G INN, G. T. 1949. The effects of pun-
shment on acts motvated by fear.
|. e p. Psycho., 39, 260-69. .
5o6, 520
G INN, G. T. 1950. Pesstance to e -
tncton of earned fear-drves and
avodance behavor. Unpubshed
paper. -450
GG PD, . . 1943. Some condtons
determnng ad|ustment durng and
read|ustment foowng e permen-
tay nduced stress. Chapter 40 n
S. S. Tomkns ( d.), Contemporary
psychopathoogy. Cambrdge, Mass.:
arvard Unv. Press. 50
, C. S. 1947. Dagnosng persona-
ty by anayss of dreams. /. abnorm.
soc. Psycho., 42. 6 -79. _ 4 7- 42
MI T0N, G. . 1916. study of per-
severance reactons n prmates and
rodents. ehav. Monogr., 3, No. 13.
-
N T, N. G. 1937. Memory trace
for fgures n reca and recognton.
rch. Psycho., N. Y., 31. No. 216.-
3-t
N M NN, ., and S NIN, |. 1957.
method for studyng concept for-
maton. |. Psycho., 3, 521-40. 1S ,
262
N M NN, ., PIC PS-0 SI N IN .
M., and G0 DST IN, . 1944. Case
I 1111111. Psycho. Monogr., 57, No. 4.
- 767, 16
P 0 , . . 1949. The formaton of
earnng sets. Psycho. Pev., 56, 51-
65. - 254
PPIS, P. . 1951. The effecu of stress
on rgdty of menta set n probem
souton. Unpubshed Ph.D. thess,
arvard Unv. 504
PTS 0PN , ., and M Y, M. . 19z .
Studes n the nature of character.
(2 os.) Studes n decet. New York:
Macman. 60, 204, 205, 206, 207.
|/5
IG UPST, P. |., see Davs and av-
ghurst (1946, 1947. 194 ).
D, . 1926. phasa and kndred
dsorders of speech, ( os.) New
York: Macman. 244
. Y, ., P0NN P, . ., and 0 -
PS, . M. 1930. The structure and
meanng of psychoanayss. New
York: nopf. ||7, 340
626
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
1 bb, D. 0. 1949. The organzaton of
behavor. New York: ey. 460,
473. 4 9
eson, . 194 . daptaton-eve as
a bass for a quanttatve theory of
frames of reference. Psycho. Pev.,
55. 297313- 5. 54
ertz, M. P. 1934. The reabty of
the Porschach nk-bot test. |. app.
Psycho., 1 , 461-77. /4tf
1card, . P., and Marqu1s, D. G.
1940. Condtonng and earnng.
New York: ppeton-Century. 343,
149, 460
ocan, . P., see Carmchae and
others (1932).
oenberc, ., and Sperry, M. 1950.
Some antecedents of aggresson n
do pay. Personaty (n press).
5 5
o1ncshead, . . 1949. mtown s
youth. New York: ey. 312, 313,
314
o1 1ng 0rth, . . 1909. The n-
accuracy of movement. rch. Psy-
cho., N. Y., 2, No. 13.-244
ozberc, |. D. Porschach test nter-
pretaton for ar. 142-146
ozberc, |. D. Sentence Competon
Test.-55356
orsey, . 1935. The probem of fem-
nne masochsm. Psychoana. Pev.,
22. 241-57.-5/.|
orney, . 1937. The neurotc person-
aty of our tme. New York: Norton.
464
orney, . 1939. New ways n psycho-
anayss. New York: Norton. 303,
394- 395, 39s. 399, 4 . 4 2
ovand, C. I., and Sears, P. P. 193 .
perments on motor confct: I.
Types of confct and ther modes of
resouton. |. e p. Psycho., 23, 477-
93- -3 7. 5
u, C. . 192 . pttude testng.
Yonkers-on- udson: ord ook
Co. as
u, C. . 1943. Prncpes of be-
havor. New York: ppeton-Cen-
tury. 216, 316, 391, 432, 4 7, 563,
5 0
u, C. ., and Montcomery, P. P.
1919. permenta nvestgaton of
certan aeged reatons between
character and handwrtng. Psycho.
Pev., 26, 63-74. 131, 134
umphreys, . G. 1939. The effect of
random aternaton of renforcement
on the acquston and e tncton of
condtoned eyed reactons. /. e p.
Psycho., 25, 141-5 .-453
unt, |. Mc . 1941. The effects of n-
fant feedng-frustraton upon adut
hoardng n the abno rat. /. ab-
norm. soc. Psycho., 36, 33 -60.
3 , 363, 445
unt, |. Mc . ( d.). 1944. Personaty
and the behavor dsorders. New
York: Ponad Press. See ateson
(1944), Guthre (1944), ewn and
others (1944), Maer (1944), Mer
(1944), Mowrer and uckhohn
(1944), Posenzweg (1944), Shedon
(1944). hte (1944).
unt, . ., see ands and unt
( 939)-
untey, C. . 1940. |udgments of
sef based upon records of e pressve
behavor. |. abnorm. soc. Psycho.,
35- 39 -4 7. - 546, 547. 54 . 549
Israe1, N. 1932. The soca psychoogy
of tme. |. abnorm. soc. Psycho., 27,
209-13. 262
|enk1ns, . 0., and Staney, |. C
1950. Parta renforcement: a revew
and crtque. Psycho. u., 47, 193-
34- 345, 361, 453
|ers1d, . T. 1942. Chd psychoogy
(Pev. d.). New York: Prentce- a.
-447
|ones, . 1944. The psychoogy of re-
gon. In S. orand ( d.), Psycho-
anayss today. New York: Interna-
tona Unv. Press. 505
| Cknat, M. 1937. estung, nspruchs-
nveau, und Sebstbewusstsen. (Un-
tersuchungen zur andungs- und
ffectpsychooge: . d. by urt
ewn.) Psycho. orsch. 22, 9-179.
-42
ahorn, |., see adwn and others
945. 1949)-
aro1ner, ., and others. 1945. The
psychoogca fronters of socety.
New York: Coumba Unv. Press.
627
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
PDIN P, . (Contd.)
305, 334, 335, 336, 344, 347, 356, 366,
36 , 429
S NIN, |., see anfmann and asa-
n ( 937).
T , D.. and P , . . 1933. er-
ba stereotypes and raca pre|udce.
In T. M. Newcomb and . . art-
ey ( ds.). Peadngs n soca psy-
choogy. New York: ot, 1947.
94, 95
T , . 1947. 0n the matrc anayss
of soco1netrc daa. Socometry, 10,
233-41. -2 0
U M N, P. ., and P IMY, . C.
1949. Two methods of assessng ther-
apeutc progress. /. abnorm. soc. Psy-
cho., 44, 379- 5. -31
IST P, M. 193 . ehavor of young
chdren n faure. In P. Updcgraff,
and others. Studes n pre-schoo
educaton. Unv. a. Stud. Chd e-
fare, 14, 29- 2. 5/9, 520, 6/5
Y, D. M. 1947. 22 ces n Nurem-
berg a psychatrst e amnes the
Naz crmnas. New York: Green-
berg. 1
Y, . . 1949. The effects of e -
pectatons upon frst mpressons of
persons. mer. Psycho ., 4, 252.
93, 294, 325
Y, P. M., see opfer and eey
094 ).
ND , M. G. 194 . Pank correaton
methods. ondon: Grffn. 24
NN DY, |. C., see Carmchae and
others (1949).
IN, G. S., and SC 0 N D, N. 1941.
The nfuence of ego-nvovement on
confdence. |. abnorm. soc. Psycho.,
36, 249-5 . 227, 4 , 61
0P P, ., and Y, P. M. 1942.
The Porschach technque. Yonkers-
on- udson, New York: ord ook
Co. - 53
UC 0IIN, C. 1946. Personaty for-
maton among the Navaho Indans.
Socometry, 9, 12 -32. 349
UC 0IIN, C. 1947. Some aspects of
Navaho nfancy and eary chdhood.
In G. Pohem ( d.), Psychoanayss
and the soca scences. New York:
Internatona Unverstes Press. I,
37- 6. - 366
UC 0 N, C. 19-19. Mrror for man.
New York: McGraw- . /
UC 0 N, C., and UC 0 N, . P.
1947. mercan cuture: genera/ed
orentatons and cass patterns. Chap-
ter 9 n Confcts of power n mod-
ern cuture. Symposum of Confer-
ence n Scence, Phosophy, and
Pegon. 260, 261, 26 , 1, 301,
340
UC 0 N, C., and IG T0N, D. 1947.
The Navaho. Cambrdge, Mass.:
arvard Unv. Press. 2)1, 2 1, 304,
3 5, 337- 33 , 359
UC 0 N, C., and M0 P .P, 0. .
1944. Personaty and cuture: a con-
ceptua scheme. mer. nthrop.,
46, 1-29. 240
UC 0 N, C., and MUPP Y, . .
194 . Personaty n nature, socety,
and cuture. New York: nopf.
64, 35s, 379, 4 9, 439
UC 0 N, C., see aso Gottschak and
others (1945), eghton and uck-
hohn (1947), Mowrer and uck-
hohn (1944).
UC 0 N, . P. 1950. Domnant and
substtute profes of cutura oren-
tatons: Ther sgnfcance for the
anayss of soca stratfcaton. Soca
orces, 2 , 376-93. 255, 256, 262,
263, 264, 260, 303
UC 0 N, . P., see aso uckhohn,
C., and uckhohn, . P. (1947).
N PP, P. . 194 . perments n
sera reproducton and reated as-
pects of the psychoogy of rumor.
Unpubshed Ph.D. thess. arvard
Unv. 401, 493
N PP, P. ., see aso Goodrch and
napp (1950).
0 , . 1935. Prncpes of Gestat
psychoogy. New Y ork: arcou1t.
race. 224, 244
0M P0 S Y, M., and S PG NT, S. S.
1949. Pesearch nto subcutura n-
fuences upon personaty. In S. S.
Sargent and M. . Smth ( ds.),
Cuture and personaty. New York:
kng und. 292
0P Y S I, fred. 1941. Scence and
santy. ancaster, Pa.: Scence Press.
-752
62
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
P C , D., and CPUTC I D, P. S.
194 . Theory and probems of soca
psychoogy. New York: McGraw- .
- 22, 239, 5 4
M PT, . . 1950. The acquston
and e tncton of nstrumenta re-
sponse sequences n the behavor of
chdren and rats. Unpubshed Ph.D.
thess, arvard Unv. 493
NDIS, C., and UNT, . . 1939. The
starte pattern. New York: arrar
Pnehart. 467
NG P, . C. 1943. Psychoogy and
human vng. New York: ppeton-
Century. 535
S P, G. . 1947. The effects of par-
ta starvaton on somatotype. mer.
|. phys. nthrop., 5 (New Seres),
323-33. -121
C Y, Prescott. 1945. Sef-consstency,
a theory of personaty. New York:
Isand Press. 403
, D. D. 1940. ngustc approach
to a system of vaues. In T. M. New-
comb and . . artey ( ds.),
Peadngs n soca psychoogy. New
York: ot, 1947. 252
P P, P. . 194 . motvatona
theory of emoton to repace emo-
ton as dsorganzed response. Psy-
cho. Pev., 55. 5-21.-477
I T0N, D., and UC 0 N, C. 1947.
Chdren of the Peope. Cambrdge,
Mass.: arvard Unv. Press. || ,
339- 347
IG T0N, D., see aso uckhohn and
eghton (1947).
I IN , . M., see Chd and others
( 946).
INS0N, D. |., see dorno and others
( 95 ).
Y, D. M. 1937. Prmary affect hun-
ger. mer. |. Psychat., 94, 643-5 .
- 35 , 356
Y, D. M. 1943. Materna overprotec-
ton. New York: Coumba Unv.
Press. 356
Y, |., and MUNP0 , P. 193 . The
happy famy. New York: nopf.
515
Y, M. |., see bere and other
095 )-
IN, . 1935. dynamc theory of
personaty. New York: McGraw-
. -456, 47 , 5o1, 579
IN, . 1946. ehavor and deveop-
ment as a functon of the tota stua-
ton. Chapter 16 n . Carmchae
( d.), Manua of chd psychoogy.
New York: ey. 405
IN, ., D M 0, T., STING P, .,
and S PS, P. S. 1944. eve of aspra-
ton. Chapter 10 n |. Mc . unt
( d.), Personaty and the behavor
dsorders. New York: Ponad Press.
-223, 464, 564, 565, 5
IN, ., see aso arker and others
(1940).
IS, 0. 1949. usbands and wves
n a Me can vage: a study of roe
confct. mer. nthrop., 51, 602-10.
-322
I PM N, . M., see McCeand and
berman (1949).
I M N. |. . 1946. Peace of mnd.
New York: Smon and Schuster. 4
INDS Y, . D. 1935. Introducton to
Pato s Pepubc. New York: very-
man s brary, Dutton, 1942. 5
INT0N, P. 1945. The cutura back-
ground of personaty. New York:
ppeton-Century. 75, 295, 296, 297,
29 , 451, 452
INT0N, P. 1949. Probems of status
personaty. In S. S. Sargent and
M. . Smth ( ds.), Cuture and
personaty. New York: kng und.
- 290, 303, 317
00MIS, . M., see Thomas and others
( 933).
0PG , I. 1949. The semantc count of
the 570 commonest ngsh words.
New York: ureau of Pubcatons,
Teachers Coege, Coumba Unv.
-251
0 , C. 1944. The effects of speca
constructon of test tems on ther
factor composton. Psycho. Monogr.,
56, No. 6. 777
0 , . . 1950. methodoogca
study of pro|ectvey measured
achevement motvaton. Unpub-
shed M. . thess. Mddetown,
Conn.: eseyan Unv. 4 2
0 , . ., see aso McCeand and
others (1950).
629
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
UND PG, G. . 1926. Case work and
the statstca method. Soca orces,
5, 61-65. __ I05
Mc u- ST P, D. P. 1941. ater as a
dscpnary agent among the Crow
and ackfoot. mer. nthrop., 42,
593-604- - 41, 333
MCC PY, P. ., and PUS, P. S.
1949. utonomc dscrmnaton wth-
out awareness: an nterm report.
/. Personaty, 1 , 171-79. 504
MCC ND, D. C. 1942. unctona
autonomy of motves as an e tnc-
ton phenomenon. Psycw. Pev., 49,
272- 3. 21
MCC ND, D. C.. and PIC ,
. S. 1945. functona cassfcaton
of verba reactons to e permentay
nduced faure. /. abnorm. soc. Psy-
cho., 40, 376-90. 42, 01, 507, 509,
520
MCC ND, D. C., and T INS0N,
|. . 194 . The pro|ectve e presson
of needs. I. The effect of dfferent
ntenstes of the hunger drve on
percepton. /. Psycho., 25, 205-32.
- 7 , 227, 4 6, 4 9, 492
McC ND, D. C., T INS0N, |. .,
and C P , P. . 1949. The pro|ec-
tve e presson of needs: III. The
effect of ego-nvovement success and
faure on percepton. /. Psycho.,
27, 311-30. 490
McC ND, D. C., T INS0N, |. .,
C P , P. ., and 0 , . .
1950. The achevement motve. Un-
pubshed monograph. 473, 4 0,
522
MCC ND, D. C., 1PN Y, P. C., and
P0 Y, T. . 1950. The effect of an -
ety on magnaton. Unpubshed
paper read at the astern Psycho-
ogca ssocaton Meetngs. 371,
464, 4 0, 505
McC ND, D. C., C P , P. .,
P0 , T. ., and T INS0N, |. .
1949. The pro|ectve e presson of
needs. I . The effect of the need for
achevement on thematc appercep-
ton. /. e p. Psycho., 39, 242-55.
23 30, 33, 1 , t- 2, 5. 439, 464,
4 0, 4 2, 4 6, 493, 494, 523
MCC ND, D. C., and I PM N,
. M. 1949. The effect of need for
achevement on recognton of need-
reated words. |. Personaty, 1 , 236-
51. - 5, 465, 4 1, 490, 49
MCC ND, D. C., and McGowN.
D. P. 1950. The effect of non-specfc
food renforcement on the strength
of a secondary reward. Unpubshed
paper. - 345, 454, 455
MCC ND, D. C., see aso tknson
and McCeand (194 ), Cark and
McCeand (1950), Pecken and Mc-
Ceand (1950).
M CC0P U0D , ., and M , P. .
194 . 0n a dstncton between hypo-
thetca constructs and ntervenng
varabes. Psycho. Pev., 55, 95-107.
-63, 4
McG 0C , |. . 1942. The psychoogy
of human earnng. New York: ong-
mans, Green. 216, 21 , 332, 341,
342, 344, 4 2, 4 5
McGowN, D. P., see McCeand and
McGown (1950).
McGP , M. . 1935. Growth: a study
of |ohnny and |mmy. New York:
ppeton-Century. 365, 446
McGP , M. . 1939. ater deveop-
ment of chdren specay traned n
nfancy. Chd Devetopm., 10, 1-19.
-446
M C 0D, P. . 1947. The phenome-
noogca approach to soca psycho-
ogy. Psycho. Pev., 54, 193-210. 6,

M I P, N. P. . 1949. rustraton. The
study of behavor wthout a goa.
New York: McGraw- . 435, 459.
460, 505, 520
M P, |. . 1944. Personaty ets.
Chapter 5 n |. Mc . unt ( d.).
Personaty and the behavor dsor-
ders. New York: Ponad Press. 1 6
M NN, T. 194 . Doctor austu. New
York: nopf. 77
M P UIS, D. G., see gard and Mar-
qus (1940).
M P UIS, D. P. 1941. earnng n the
neonate: the modfcaton of behav-
or under three feedng schedues.
/. e p. Psycho., 29, 263- 2. -343
M S 0 , . . 1943a. theory of hu-
man motvaton. Psycho. Pev., 50,
370-96. - 410
630
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Masow, . . 1943b. Confct, frustra-
ton and the theory of threat. Chap-
ter 45 n S. S. Tomkns ( d.), Con-
temporary Psychopathoogy. Cam-
brdge, Mass.: arvard Unv. Press,
1943-50 s. 5 5, 54
Masow, . . 194 . Some theoretca
consequences of basc need gratfca-
ton. /. Personaty, 16, 402-16.
42, 410, 411
Masow, . ., and M1ttemann, .
1941. Prncpes of abnorma psycho-
ogy. New York: arper. 42
Matthews, . 1902. The nght chant,
a Navaho ceremony. New York:
Memors of the mercan Museum
of Natura story, o. 6. 412
May, M. ., see artshorne and May
(19 ).
Mead, . C, see Carmchae and others
( 949)-
Mead, M. 1942. nd keep your powder
dry. New York: Morrow. 302, 3 9,
617
M m1.. P. ., see MacCorquodae and
Meeh (194 ).
Meton, . . 1942. earnng. In
. S. Monroe ( d.), ncycopeda
of ducatona Pesearch. New York:
Macman, 667- 6.-4 3
Meton, . ., and von ackum,
. |. 1941. Petroactve and proac-
tve nhbton n retenton: evdence
for a two-fac|pr theory of retroactve
ntuton. mer. |. Psycho., 54, 157-
--345
Merr1, . 1946. measurement of
mother-chd nteracton. / abnorm.
soc. Psycho., 41, 37-49.-27, 2 , 3o,
35, 4 - 51. 5
Merton, T. 194 . The seven storey
mountan. New York: arcourt,
race. v
M1, |. S. 1 73. utobography. New
York: ot. o, 10
M1er, G. ., and r1ck, . C. 1949.
Statstca behavorstcs and se-
quences of responses. Psycho. Pev.,
56, 311-24.
M1er, |. G. 1942. Unconscousness.
New York: ey. qq
M1er, N. . 1944. permenta stud-
es of confct. Chapter 14 n |. Mc .
unt ( d.), Personaty and the be-
havor dsorders. New York: Ponad
Press. 456, 461, 462, 501
M1er, N. . 194 . Studes of fear as
an acqurabe drve: I. ear as mot-
vaton and fear reducton as ren-
forcement n the earnng of new
responses. |. e p. Psycho., 3 , 9-101.
-434
M1er, N. . 1950. earnabe drves
and rewards. Mmeographed chapter
for S. S. Stevens ( d.), andbook
of permenta Psychoogy. New
York: ey. 431, 432, 437, 43
M1er, N. ., and Doard, |. 1941.
Soca earnng and mtaton. New
aven: Yae Unv. Press. 346, 403,
435, 436, 46 . 467, 47
M1er, N. ., see aso Doard and
others (1939).
M1s, T. 1950. Interacton process
anayss apped to T T stores. Un-
pubshed paper. 32, 307
M1ttemann, ., see Masow and Mt-
temann (1941).
Montcomery, P. P., see u and
Montgomery (1919).
Moore, . 1939. Psychoogy for bus-
ness and ndustry. New York: Mc-
Graw- . - 4 2
Moreno, |. . 1946. Psychodrama. o.
I. New York: eacon ouse. 326
Morcan, C. D., see Murray and Mor-
gan (1945).
Morcan, C. T. 1943. Physoogca psy-
choogy. New York: McGraw- .
5, 4 2, 4 9, 490
Mowrer, 0. . 1939. stmuus-
response anayss of an ety and ts
roe as a renforcng agent. Psycho.
Pev., 46, 553-65. 434, 470
Mowrer, 0. . 1940. n e permenta
anaogue of regresson wth nc-
denta observatons on reacton-
formaton. /. abnorm. soc. Psycho.,
35, 56- 7.- 3, 50
Mowrer, 0. . 1947. 0n the dua na-
ture of earnng a renterpretaton
of condtonng and probem-
sovng. arvard duc. Pev., 17,
102-4 . 43 , 446
Mowrer, 0. ., and uckhohn, C.
1944. Dynamc theory of personaty.
Chapter 3 n |. Mc . unt ( d.),
Personaty and the behavor dsor-
631
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
0df1ed, P. D., and ancw1, 0. .
1942. ead s concept of the schema
and ts appcaton n contemporary
rtsh psychoogy. Part II. Crtca
anayss of ead s theory. Part III.
artett s theory of memory. rt. |.
Psycho., 33, 5 -64: 113-29.-2
0son, . C. 1929. The measurement
of nervous habts n norma chdren.
Mnneapos: Unv. Mnn. Press-
26
0ransky, . 1949. Infant care and
personaty. Psycho. u., 46. 1-4 .
- 362, 377- 4ot-
0rne, M. T. 1949. n e permenta
study of hypnotc age regresson. Un-
pubshed onors thess. arvard
Unv. 324
0.S.S. ssessment Staff. 194 . ssess-
ment of Men. New York: Pnehart.
-5 . T, 7 74. 9y9 , 326
0verstreet, . . 1949. The mature
mnd. New York: Norton.
Parsons, T. 1949. ssays n socoog-
ca theory. Gencoe, 111.: The ree
Press. 13, 297, 311, 312
Parsons, T. 1950. Toward a socoogv
of cuture. Unpubshed manuscrpt.
259, 266, 269, 270, 272, 27
Pasca, G. P. 1943a. andwrtng pres-
sure: ts measurement and sgnf-
cance. Character Pers., 11, 235-54.
32 t.
Pasca, G. P. 1943b. The anayss of
handwrtng: a test of sgnfcance.
Character Pers., 12, 123-44.
136
ders. New York: Ponad Press. 56,
57, 75- 36 , I62
Mowrer, 0. ., see aso Doard and
ohers (1939). Doard and Mowrer
(1947), uckhohn and Mowrer
(1944), htng and Mowrer (1943).
Munroe, P. . 1945. Three dagnostc
methods apped to Say. | abnorm.
soc. Psycho., 40, 215-27. /50
Munroe, P. ., see aso evy and Mun-
roe (193 ).
Murray, . . 1933. The effect of fear
upon estmates of macousness of
other personates. /. Psycho., 4,
310-39,-
Murray, . . 193 . poratons n
Personaty. New York: 0 ford Unv.
Press. -33, 34, 45, 4 , 2, 135, 193,
214, 252, 256, 257, 300, 35 , 360, 3|9,
3 4, 393, 405, 406, 407, 40 , 400, 410,
414, 43 , 453, 516, 519, 549, 56 , 596,
619
Murray, . . 1943. Thematc pper-
cepton Test manua. Cambrdge,
Mass.: arvard Unv. Press. 550
Murray, . . 1949. Thematc pper-
cepton Test. Stores gven by 6 sub-
|ects. Cambrdge, Mass.: arvard
Psychoogca Cnc. 507
Murray, . ., and Morcan. C. D.
1945. cnca study of sentments.
Genet. Psycho. Monogr., 32, 3-311.
64, 65, 163, 2 0
Murray, . ., see aso uckhohn
and Murray (194 ).
Naecee, . D. 1949. rom De Tocque-
ve to Myrda: research memo-
randum on seected studes of mer-
can vaues. Comparatve study of
vaues workng papers, No. 1. ab-
oratory of Soca Peatons, arvard
Unv. 260
Nfwcomb. T. M. 1943. Personaty and
soca change. New York: Dryden
Press. 600, 603
Nr.wcoM , T. M., and artey, . .
( ds.). 1947. Peadngs n soca psy-
choogy. New York: ot. 251, 252,
254, 270, 294. See aso ateson (1942),
ogardus (192 ), Centers (1947),
rcson (1947), romm (1941b), atz
and ray (1933), ee (1940), and
horf (1940).
Paterson, D. G. 1930. Physque and
nteect. New York: ppeton-Cen-
tury. n7, 131
Patr1ck, |. P. 1934. Studes n ratona
behavor and emotona e ctement:
II. The effect of emotona e cte-
ment on ratona behavor of human
sub|ects. /. comp. Psycho., 1 , 153-
95--4 3
Pavov, I. P. 1927. Condtoned refe es
(trans, by G. . nrep). ondon:
0 ford Unv. Press. 449
Peters, . N. 1946. The mrror-tracng
test as a measure of soca n1aadap
taton. /. abnorm. soc. Psycho., 41.
437-4 . - |72
632
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Pacet, |. 1926. The anguage and
thought of the chd (trans, by ar-
den). ondon: egan Pau. 352
P1acet, |. 1930. The chd s concepton
of physca causaty (trans, by Ga-
ban). New York: arcourt, race.
- 352, 539
Poansky, N. . 1941. ow sha a fe-
hstory be wrtten Character Pers.,
9, 1 -207. o#, 405
Postman, . 1947. The hstory and
present status of the aw of effect.
Psycho. u., 44, 4 9-563. 525
Postman, ., and runer, |. S. 194 .
Percepton under stress. Psycho.
Pev: 55- 314- S--5
Postman, ., runer, |. S., and Mc-
G1nn1es, . 194 . Persona vaues as
seectve factors n percepton. /. ab-
norm. soc. Psycho., 3, 14 -53.
46. 49
Postman, ., and Soomon, P. 1950.
Perceptua senstvty to competed
and ncompeted tasks. /. Personaty,
. 347-57- -494
Postman, .., see aso runer and Post-
man (1949), runer and others
(1950).
Potter, . ., see Chd and others
( 946).
Pressey, S. . 1921. group scae for
nvestgatng the emotons. /. ab-
norm. soc. Psycho., 16, 55-64.-04
Pr1ce, T. 1949. cutura devce for
the heghtenng of e perence. Un-
town, Conn.: eseyan Unv. 463
Padke, M. |., and Tracer, . G. 1950.
Chdren s perceptons of the soca
roes of Negroes and htes. /.
Psycho., 29, 3-33.-525
Pa1my, . C, see auffman and Pamy
0949)-
Pay, . S. 1947. n nstructona fm
for use n the fdety of report e -
perment. |. Psycho., 24, 293-312.
26
Phodes, . . 194 . Psychoanaytc
theory and transcendent regous n-
vovement n thrty young men. Un-
town, Conn.: eseyan Unv. 2 4,
3 9
P1chards, T. . 1946. Modern cnca
psychoogy. New York: McGraw- .
106
P1ckers-0vs1ank1na, M., see anfmann
and others (1944).
P1ecken, . . 1950. Changes n att-
tudes and personaty among partc-
pants n a work servce program.
Unpubshed Ph.D. thess, arvard
Unv. 56
P1ecken, . ., and McCeand,
D. C. 1950. aue categorzaton of
wrtten matera. Unpubshed paper.
33, 56
Poberts, |. . 1950. survey of the
contro of hs own cuture possessed
by each of four ndvduas n four
dfferent cutures. Unpubshed pa-
per. 260
Poby, T. ., see McCeand, rney,
and Poby (1950), Sheffed and Poby
(1950)-
Podr1cues, |., see runer and others
(195 )-
Poe, . 1949. Psychoogca e amna-
tons of emnent boogsts. /. con-
sut. psycho., 13, 225-46. 13, 147
Poeth1sbercer, . |., and D1ckson,
. |. 1939. Management and the
worker. Cambrdge, Mass.: arvard
Unv. Press. 4 2
Pocers, C. P. 1942. Counseng and
psychotherapy. New York: oughton
Mffn. 529, 531, 561
Pocers, C. P. 1947. Some observatons
on the organzaton of personaty.
mer. Psychoogst, 2, 35 -6 . 3 0,
53 - 542. 561
Pocers, C. P. 194 . comprehensve
theory of personaty and behavor.
Unpubshed tentatve draft. 403,
539, 545, 55 , 559
Posenb1th, |., and h1te, . 1949.
The nfuence of meanng on sze
|udgments n young chdren. Un-
pubshed paper. 32
Posenzwe1c, S. 1943. n e permenta
study of represson wth speca
reference to need-persstve and ego-
defensve reactons to frustraton. /.
e p. Psycho., 32, 64-74. 22
Posenzwe1c, S. 1944. n outne of
frustraton theory. Chapter 11 n |.
Mc . unt ( d.), Personaty and
633
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Posenzwe1c (Contd.)
Ponad Press. 54/
Posenzwe1c, S., and em1nc, . .
1949. ppercepton norms for the
Thematc ppercepton Test. II. n
emprca nvestgaton. /. Persona-
ty, 17, 4 3-503.-570
Posenzwe1c, S., em1nc, . ., and
Carke, . |. 1947. Pevsed scorng
manua for the Posenzweg Pcture-
rustraton Study. |. Psycho., 24,
165-20 . 2f
Posenzwe1c, S., see aso Sarason and
Posenzweg (1942).
Poura Parea, |. 194 . mundo
hstorco soca. Me co, D. .: Inst-
tuto de nvestgacones socaes, Un-
versdad Nacona. 67
Pust, P. M. 194 . Some correates of
the movement response. /. Persona-
ty, 16, 369-401.-59, 4, 1 7
Sachs, . 1944. reud, master and
frend. Cambrdge, Mass.: arvard
Unv. Press. 12, 562
Sachs, . 194 . Masks of ove and hate.
Cambrdge, Mass.: Sc- rt Press.
Satzmann, I. |. 1949. Maze earnng
n the absence of prmary renforce-
ment: a study of secondary renforce-
ment. /. comp. physo. Psycho ., 42,
161-73. -432
Sanford, . . 1942a. Speech and per-
sonaty. Psycho. u., 39, 11-45.
22, /52, 15 3, /55
Sanford, . . 1942b. Speech and per-
sonaty: a comparatve case study.
Character f Pers., 10, 169-9 . 151,
2
Sanford, P. N. 1937. The effects of
abstnence from food upon magna
processes: a further e perment. /.
Psycho, 3, 145-59. -49
Sanford, P. N., see aso dorno and
others (1950).
Sarason, S. ., and Posenzwe1c, S.
1942. n e permenta study of the
tradc hypothess: reacton to frus-
traton, ego-defense, and hypnotz-
abty. II. Thematc ppercepton
pproach. Character Pers., 11, 150-
65.-519
Sarb1n, T. 1944. The ogc of predc-
ton n psychoogy. Psycho. Pev., 51,
210-2 . 99, 10 5
Sarcent, S. S., and Sm1th. M. . ( ds.).
1949. Cuture and personaty: Pro-
ceedngs of an nterdscpnary con-
ference. New York: kng und. Ste
omarovsky and Sargent (1949), n-
ton (1949).
Sch1der, P. 1935. The mage and ap-
pearance of the human body. oo-
don: Pau, Trench, Trubner. 542,
543
Schoenfed, N., see en and Schoen-
fed (1941).
Schrod1ncer, . 1945. hat s ft
New York: Macman. 204
S1 brook. . . 1940. tchcraft, ts
power n the word today. New York:
arcourt, race. 1y
Sears, P. S. 1940. eve of aspraton n
academcay successfu and unsuc
cessfu chdren. /. abnorm soc. Psy-
cho., 35, 49 -536. - 46
Sears, P. S. 1941. eve of aspraton n
reaton 10 some varabes of person-
aty: cnca studes. /. Soc. Psycho..
14, 311-36. 464, 402
Sears, P. S., see aso ewn and others
(1944)-
Sears, P. P. 1936. permenta studes
of pro|ecton: I. ttrbuton of trats.
/. soc. Psycho., 7, 151-63. 5|2
Sears, P. P. 1937. Intaton of the re-
presson sequence by e perenced
faure. /. e p. Psycho., 7, 151-63.
42, 14 , 4
Sears, P. P. 1941. Non-aggressve re-
actons to frustraton. Psycho. Pev.,
4 , 343-46.-50/
Sears, P. P. 1942. Success and faure:
a study of motty. Chapter 15 n
. McNemar and M. Merr ( ds.).
Studes n personaty. New York:
McGraw- . 16, 26, 55, 42
Sears, P. P. 1943. Survey of ob|ectve
studes of psychoanaytc concepts.
New York: Soca Scence Pesearch
Counc. 55, 95, 396, 51
Sears, P. P. 1950. orms of fantasv
aggresson n young chdren. Un-
pubshed paper devered at ast-
ern Psychoogca ssocaton Meet-
ngs.-505
634
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Sears. P. P., and h1t1nc, |. . M.
1950. Pro|ecton and dspacement n
do pay. Unpubshed paper. 360
Sears, P. P., and 1se, G. . 1950.
Peaton of cup feedng n nfancy
to thumbsuckng and the ora drve.
mer. |. 0rthopsychat., 20, 123-3 .
357. 39
Sears, P. P., see aso Doard and others
(1939), Doob and Sears (1939), ov-
and and Sears (193 ).
Sheen, . |. 1949. Peace of sou. New
York: httesey ouse. 4
Sheff1ed, . D., and Poby, T. . 195o.
Peward vaue of a non-nutrtve
sweet taste. /. cotnp. physo. Psycho.,
43. 471- 1.-440
Shf don, . . 1944. Consttutona
factors n personaty. Chapter 17 n
|. Mc . unt ( d.), Personaty and
Ponad Press. ny
Shedon, . ., and Stevens, S. S.
1942. The varetes of temperament.
New York: arper. 11 , 121, 122,
12 , 124, 125, 126, 12y, 12 , 2 , 1 ,
620
Shedon, . ., Stevens, S. S., and
Tucker, . . 1940. The varetes
of human physque. New York:
arper. 11 , 119, 120, /59
Sher1f, M. 1936. The psychoogy of
soca norms. New York: arper.
24
Sher1f, M. 194 . n outne of soca
psychoogy. New York: arper.
434. 49
Sher1f, M., and Cantr1, . 1947. The
psychoogy of ego-nvovements. New
York: ey. 15, 312, 346
S1mmons, . ( d.). 1942. Sun Chef the
autobography of a op Indan.
New aven: Yae Unv. Press. v,
4S, 3 9, 3 , 34
S1mon, . Case notes on ar. 119,
374- 426
S1r|amak1, |. 1947. footnote to the
anthropoogca approach to the
study of mercan cuture. Soca
orces, 25, 253-63. 260
Snyder, . U. ( d.). 1947. Casebook
of non-drectve counseng. oston:
oughton Mffn. 530
Soomon, P., see Postman and Soomon
( 95 )-
S1 ence, . . 1947. The roe of second-
ary renforcement n deayed reward
earnng. Psycho. Pev., 54, 1- . 477
Spence, . . 194 . The postuates and
methods of behavorsm. Psycho.
Pev., 55, 67-7 . - 1, 2
SrenCe, . ., see aso ergmann and
Spence (1944).
Sperry, M., see oenberg and Sperry
(195 )-
Sprancer, . 192 . Types of men (trans,
by |. . Pgors). ae (Saae), Ger-
many: Nemeyer. 66, 67, 257
Stacner, P. 1937. Psychoogy of person-
aty. New York: McGraw- . 74,
463
Staney, |. C, see |enkns and Staney
(195 )-
Stevens, S. S., see Shedon and others
(1940, 1942).
Stoddard, G. D. 1943. The meanng of
ntegence. New York: Mac1nan.
-16 3
Stone, . . 1950. The effect of sanc-
toned overt aggresson on tota nst-
gaton to aggressve responses. Un-
pubshed onors thess, arvard
Unv. 36, 42|, 490, 16, 524
Stouffer, S. . 1949. n anayss of
confctng soca norms. mer.soco.
Pev., 14, 707-17.-323, 32
Strodtbeck, . 1950. study of hus-
band-wfe nteracton n three cu-
tures. Unpubshed Ph.D. thess.
arvard Unv. 326, 417
Stronc, . ., |r. 1931. Change of n-
terests wth age. Stanford Unv.,
Caf.: Stanford Unv. Press. 3 2
Stronc, . ., |r. 193 . ocatona n-
terest bank for men. Stanford Unv.,
Caf.: Stanford Unv. Press. //2,
5U, 605
Stronc, . ., |r. 1943. ocatona n-
terests of men and women. Stanford
Unv., Caf.: Stanford Unv. Press.
- 227, 316, 332
Sutton, . ., see bere and others
(195 )-
Symonds, P. M. 1931. Dagnosng per-
sonaty and conduct. New York:
ppeton-Century. 22, 23, 24, 2 ,
26
635
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Svz, . 1937. Pecovery from oss of
mnemc retenton after head trauma.
|. gen. Psycho., 17, 355- 7.-5
Tayor, |. . 194 . The effect of n-
geston of de edrne on eve of
aspraton. Unpubshed paper. Md-
detown, Conn.: eseyan Unv.
4 )2
Thomas. D. S., oom1s, . M., and
rr1ncton, P. . 1933. 0bservatona
studes of soca behavor. o. I.
Sofa/ behavor patterns. New aven:
Insttute of uman Peatons, Yae
Unv. 26
Thouess, P. . 1931. Phenomena re-
gresson to the rea ob|ect. rt. |.
Psycho., 21, 339-59-2 9
Th1rsto.ne, . . 193 . Prmary menta
abtes. Chcago: Unv. of Chcago
Press. /7/, 1y2, 173, 174, ty6, 100
Tn1rsr0ne, . . 1914- d factora
study of percepton. Chcago: Unv.
of Chcago Press. 1y6
Thurstone, . . 1947. Mutpe-factor
anayss. Chcago: Unv. of Chcago
Press. - yS
Toman, . C. 194 a. Cogntve maps
n rats and men. Psycho. Pev., 55,
1 9-20 . 242
Toman, . C. 194 b. The wants of
men. erkeey. Caf.: ssocated Stu-
dents Store. (Mmeographed.) 59
Tomk1ns, S. S. ( d.). 1943. Contem-
porary psychopathoogy. Cambrdge,
Mass.: arvard Unv. Press. 597,
30 . See aso rckson (1939), ag-
gard (1943), Masow (1943b), of
( 943)-
Tomk1ns, S. S. 1917. The Thematc p-
percepton Test. New York: Grune
S: Stratton. 23, 415
Tracer, . G., see Padke and Trager
( 950)-
Troand, . T. 192 . The prncpes
of psychophysoogy. New York: an
Nostrand. 467
Tucker, . ., see Shedon and others
0940).
von ackum, . |., see Meton and
von ackum (1941).
aer, . 1932. The socoogy of
teachng. New York: ey. 292
ater, . ., see Carmchae and
others (1932).
ebb, . . 194 . motvatona
theory of emotons . . . . Psycho.
Pev., 55, 329 35. - 77
echser, I). 1944. The measurement
of adut ntegence (3rd d.). at-
more: ams and kns. 164,
erthf1mer. M. 19(5- Productve
thnkng. New York: arper. 244
h1te. ., see Posenbth and he
(1949)-
h1te, P. . 1947. ack oy: vaue
anayss. /. abnorm. soc. Psycho..
42. 440-61. -33, 41
h1te. P. . 1943. The personaty of
|oseph dd. Character Pers., 11,
1 3-20 31 -60. 359
h1te, P. . 1944. Interpretaton of
magnatve productons. Chapter 6
n |. Mc . unt ( d.), Personaty
and the behavor dsorders. New
York: Ponad Press. 4
h1te, P. ., Tomk1ns. S. S.. and
per, T. G. 1945. The reastc syn-
thess: a personaty study. |. ab-
norm. soc. Psycho., 40, 22 -4 . 64,
5
h1tehead, . N. 1925. Scence and the
modern word. New York: Macm-
an. 9, 06
h1tf1ed, |. . 1949a. Patterns of
random behavor. Persona commu-
ncaton. 44
h1tf1ed, |. . 1949b. Unpubshed
communcaton on medca research
conducted n Germany after ord
ar II for the rtsh government.
494
h1t1nc, |. . M. 1950. ffects of con-
fct on drve. Unpubshed paper.
506. 5o
h1t1nc, |. . M., and Ch1d, I. I_
1950. Chd tranng practces and
theores of dsease: a cross-cutura
study of personaty deveopment.
Unpubshed manuscrpt. /, 334,
356, 357, 36 - I66- 367, 371
h1t1nc. |. . M., and Mowrfr. 0. .
1943. abt progresson and egres
son a aboratory study of some fac-
tors reevant to human socazaton.
/. comp. Psycho., 36, 229-53. 35S
636
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
ITING, |. . M., see aso Sears and
htng (1950).
0P , . . 1940. Scence and n-
gustcs. In Newcomb and artey
( ds.), Peadngs n soca psychoogy.
New York: ot, 1947. 250
IS , G. ., see Sears and se (1950).
IT IN, . . 1949. The nature and
mportance of ndvdua dfferences
n percepton. /. Personaty, 1 , 145-
70. 15 , 1 2, 263
0 , . 1943. The dynamcs of the
seectve nhbton of specfc func-
tons n neuross. Chapter 31 n S. S.
Tomkns ( d.), Contemporary psy-
chopathoogy. Cambrdge, Mass.:
arvard Unv. Press. 363, 445
0 , |. . 1936. ffectveness of
token rewards for chmpanzees.
Camp. Psycho. Monogr., 1t, No. 60.
-433
0 , . 1933. The e permenta
study of forms of e presson. Char-
acter r Pers., 2, 16 -76. 546
0 , . 1943. The e presson of per-
sonaty. New York: arper. 14 ,
543
0 , . 1947. The personaty of
the preschoo chd. New York:
Grune Stratton. 134, 136, 156,
57
00D 0PT , P. S. 191 . Dynamc psy-
choogy. New York: Coumba Unv.
Press. 3/7
00D 0PT , P. S. 193 . permenta
psychoogy. New York: ot. 25|,
46 , 469
PIG T, . . 1942. trusm n ch-
dren and the perceved conduct of
others. /. abnorm. soc. Psycho., 37,
21 -33. 566
PIG T, . . 1937. The nfuence of
barrers upon strength of motvaton.
Duke Unv. Seres, Contr. to Psycho.
Theory., 1. No. . 463
PIG T, P. 1946. ack boy. New York:
arper. v
Y0UNG, |., see G. . port, and
others (194 ).
Y0UNG, P. T. Motvaton of behavor.
New York: ey. - 467, 4 3
Y0UNG, P. T. 1949. ood-seekng drve,
affectve process, and earnng. Psy-
cho. Pev., 56, 9 -121. 440, 441
NG I , ( .. see 0dfed and ang-
w (1942).
/ M /MS. |. 1949. The effect of the need
for achevement on nqustc be-
havor. Unpubshed M. . thess.
Mddetown, Conn.: eseyan Unv.
-33,154,4
IG PNI , . 1927. Uber das ehaten
von eredgten und uneredgte1t
andungen, Psycho. orsch., 9, 1-
5- -97
I 00PG, G. 1941. hstory of medca
psychoogy. New York: Norton. r|
637
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
Sub|ect Inde
btes, 1 0 see aso Integence
and trats compared, 167
types of, 19
bnorma psychoogy
and norma personaty, 599. 61
reaton to theoretca personaty
constructs,
bstract and concrete thnkng, 16 ,
1 2, 200
cceeraton-ndfference, n parent be-
havor, 349, 355
cceptance-re|ecton, 34 -49, 353. 355
chevement, 55, 62, 1- 7, 45
and abnorma ambton, 9
cnca and magnatve measures of,
6
cutura defntons of, 9, 269, 5 3
dervaton of n chevement score,
1- 7
effects on magnaton, 4 2, 4 6, 490,
49 93. 52224
fear of faure, 423-25, 497-9
magnatve measures of, and per-
formance, 91, 93
and ndependence tranng, 367
nterreaton among aspects of, 5 6-
7
and eve of aspraton, 566
and mastery probems of chdhood,
359
as a motve, 5 4- 6
and phenomenoogy of strvng, 9
as a schema, 5 2- 4
surpus meanngs of, 5
as a trat, 5 1- 2
ctvty eve, 43 -39
daptaton eve, 245
doescent roes, 310-12
ffecton
competton for, 304, 350
as a socazaton probem, 349-50
stages n ob|ect choce, 350, 37
ffectve arousa, 466-70
ffectve assocatons, 445, 451, 466-67
fectve neutraty, 13, 14 see aso
0b|ectvty
ge, as a determnant of soca roes,
97. 299, 310, 320, 327
ggresson
as an ety-reducng, 45 , 512-17
catharss theory of, 512-14, 516-17
dspacement, 514
n footba, 499-500
from frustraton, 45 , 503, 505, 510,
512-17
goa-response, and nstrumenta-act,
5 3. 513. 524
nhbton, by punshment, 92, 520
as a motve, 499-500, 505-506
and motve strength, 92, 503
permtted by the op, at dfferent
ages, 320
as probem-sovng, attack response.
51 . 5 3
aganst the sef, 514-17
greement
coeffcents, among observers, 23, 27-
2 , 30, 36
mpossbe, wth dfferent facts, 53
coho, drnkng habts, 613-15, 620
port- ernon Study of aues Test.
17 - 257-59, 2 2, 490
orese vew of fe, 335-37
trusm n chdren, 566-67
mbvaence, 94
mercan cutura deoogy see Ideas
na character, 55, 337, 552-53
as ad|ustment to fear, 340
among the Navaho, 337-39
nayss n personaty study
and personaty as a whoe, 9
unts of, 100-101
used by a good |udge, 102
weaknesses of, 9 -100
n ety
creatve, 4 5
dsruptve, 145, 4 5
639
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
n ety (Contd.)
reud s vew, 392-93
n hand movements, 136
modes of reducng. 507-50
aggresson and punshment, 512-19
converson and mtaton, 509-12
wthdrawa, 50 -509
and motve ntensty, 492-96, 502-503
reducton n, as renforcement, 435,
4373
and rgdty, 459-60, 4 3, 504
sources of
confcts of motves, 501, 505-507
fear, 503-505
motve ntensty, 492-96, 502-503
perodc renforcement
n parent behavor, 345, 361-62, 453
ppette, 440-41
pproach, and avodance motves, 434-
35, 441-42, 45 -66, 497-99, 506
rtst and novest vs. scentst, 63, 69,
72
spraton see eve of aspraton
ssocaton groups, as determnants of
soca roes, 297, 29 , 300, 311,
3 314
ssumed status questonnares, 315,
316, 324
ttack, as frustraton response, 501,
507, 510, 513
tttude
and beef, as schemata, 242
scaes, and deoogy, 2 0
and persona document approach,
47
uthorty fgures, 270-71, 305, 309
utocracy-permssveness, n parent be-
havor, 349, 353. 355
utoknetc phenomenon, 24
utonomc nervous system n motva-
ton, 446-47
vodance see pproach, Peef
ehavora envronment, 91-92, 224
ehavora vs. e perenta personaty
scence, 35
eongngs test, 5 , 75
enecepton, 467
ernreuter Personaty Inventory, 44,
1 5
oogca nhertance, as source of
schemata, 240-41
ody mage, 543
ody anguage, 396-99. 415
Case method, n reaton to theor,
105: see aso aws n personas
scence
Castraton fear, 397, 415, 422, 429-30
Catharss of aggresson, 512-14. 516-17
Causaton see aso aws n personas
scence
and motvaton, 3 3- 4, s -S9, 479
n psychoogca aws, 96
Centrasts, 4
Centra tendency effect, n successve
stmuaton, 244-45
Centrfuga group factor, n e pressve
movements, 133
Cerebrotona, 122
Character, 56 see aso vauaton
as a deductve evauatve scheme, 60
and personaty, 59-63
Check st, 22. 4
Chdhood see aso Parent behavor
patterns, Socazaton
eary deveopment, mportance of
n motve formaton, 339-401, 443-
4 . 473
reasons for, 341-46
forgettng unkey, 344-45
generazed earnng, 345-46
prmacy, 341-42
repetton, 343-44
symboc processes undeveoped,
34 43. 574
events, effect on socazaton, 34 -49
Chd-rearng practces, 27-2 , 41 see
aso Parent behavor patterns.
Socazaton
Chdren
behavor of, n nursery schoo, 20 -
12, 363-64
questons of, 251-52
readng of, effects on schemata, 252-
53
Ceanness tranng, 33 -39 see aso
na character
Cnca approach to motvaton, 411-1
checkng nterpretatons, 417-1 , 479-
0
by empathy and recpathy, 414-15
by free assocaton, 413-14
by ogca nference, 415-16
by reactons to frustraton, 615-1
by symbosm, 415
Cnca practce and psychoogca
theory, 103-104, 599
640
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Cosure tests, 171-74
factor anayss of, 174-77
Cogntve content, of one man s mnd,
239. 277-79
Cogntve maps, 242
Coege cuture, 600-603
Coege grades, predctons of, 99
by ntutve |udge, 99
by mutpe regresson equatons, 99
Common motves, 474-75
Common trats
cassfcaton of, 231
weaknesses and strengths, 230-34
and ndvdua trats, 207-13
nter- and ntra-ndvdua consst-
ency, 20 -10
promse and mtatons of, 212-13
and uncommon trats, 224-26
Compromse, as a reacton to frustra-
ton, 501-502
Concepts, theoretca, 50-56
adequacy of, crtera for, 7- 9
as shorthand for facts, 51
sources of
cause and effect, 55-56
observaton, 51-53
smartes, 53-54
soca groups, 54-55
vaues, 56
used nductvey or deductvey, 61
usefuness of a sorts, 6
vadty of, 61
Concrete and abstract thnkng, 16 ,
1 2, 200, 231
Condtona ove, 359, 426, 42 , 617
Confesson, 511, 517
Confdent sef-e presson, 194, 231
Confct see aso n ety, rustraton
n producng tenson, 501, 505-507
n roe ad|ustment, 317
Conformty, 193, 231, 232
Conscence, 573 see aso Super-ego
Consstency of trats
nter- and ntra-ndvdua, 20 -209
and trat generaty, 22 -29
Content anayss, 30-35
dscomfort-reef quotent, 31
frequency of assocaton of deas, 34
nteracton process anayss, 32
need-sequence anayss, 33
semantc anayss, 32-33
symboc anayss, 34
vaue anayss, 33
Contro, of antsoca mpuses, as a
probem n socazaton, 351-52
Contro of the response, n e permen-
taton, 3 , 43-47
effcent responses, 44
e permentay mted responses, 45
mutpe choce, 43
spontaneous responses, 46
Contro of the stuaton, n e permen-
taton, 39-43
e permenter contro, 42-43
natura contro, 40-42
parta contro, 43
symboc contro, 39-40
Contro over nature by man, 17, 261,
264-65
Converson of fact, as defense aganst
an ety, 509-12
Converson symptoms, 511, 512
Courage
physca, for combat, 124
as a vrtue, 274
Covaraton, as a method of defnng
smarty, 54, 201-202, 222
Cover personates, 326
Crtcsm, reaton to personaty study,
67-6
Cross-cutura survey, 255, 366
Cutura anthropoogy
reaton to theoretca personaty
constructs,
and socazaton process, 333-41
Cutura patterns
mercan, 256, 279- 0, 2 1
n chdren s readng, 252-53
of astern men s coege, 600-603
functon n schemata formaton, 247-
49
outne of, for cross-cutura survey,
55. 366
profes of orentaton, 255-56, 2 0,
2 1
n roe defnton, 316
D-score, n eve of aspraton, 565
Death nstnct, 393-94
Death of personaty, 75
Defense mechansms
aggresson, 510, 512-17
choce of, 519-21
cassfcaton of, 510-11, 51 -19
compromse, 501-502
confesson, 511, 517
converson symptoms, 511, 512
641
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Defense mechansms (Contd.)
soaton, 511, 512
mtaton, 509-12
masochsm, 513, 514
and motves, 521-22
phobas, 50
pro|ecton, 511, 512
punshment, 514-17
reacton formaton, 50
regresson, 510, 511, 51 -19
reparaton, 517
and sef-reevant vaues, 562, 570
undong, 512
wthdrawa, 50 -509
Descrptve vs. e panatory psychoogy,
66
Desrabty as a schoo chd, 20 -13
Determnants of behavor
basc personaty varabes |onty,
593-99, 611-12
envronment, 594-97, 607-60
functona equaton for, 579, 5 1,
593-95. 6 - 6 9
heredty, 130, 15 , 593, 620
motves, 613-15
schemata, 613
trats, 612-13
Determnsm and free-w, 95-96 see
aso Causaton
Dscomfort-reef quotent, 31
Dsease, e panatons of, and chd-
rearng practces, 366-69
Dspacement of aggresson, 514
n Domnance, 409
Dora case, 94
Dreams, 42 see aso antasy and The-
matc ppercepton Test
Drves see aso Motve, Motves
and gradent of prmary renforce-
ment, 477
and motves, 471-72
secondary, 435-3 . 475
and secondary rewards, 432-34, 436,
475
as strong stmu, 435
Dynamc and e pressve trats, 213-15
port s vew, 214
ctomorphy, 119
ffectve ntegence, 196-9
go-dea, 572-74, 57
go-nvovement, 42, 61
effect on reca, 497-9
effect on wrtten stores, 1- 3
go-strength
good form response as an nde of, 52
from sef-consstency, 55 -59. 57
moton
contro of, as a trat, 192, 231
and motvaton, 466-67, 477
mpathy, 414-15
mphass, as a movement trat, 134
mprca deas, mercan, 259-66
future orentaton, 262, 264
growth, 261, 263
sze, 261, 264-65
ndomorphy, 11
ntropy, 394
nvronment
as determnant of behavor, 594-97,
607-60
as source of schemata, 241-42, 313-16
quaton, for predctng behavor. 579,
5 1. 593-95, 61 , 619
vauaton of peope, 76
from ndvduastc or sococenrc
standpont, 64-65
for a recommendaton. 62
n terms of a systematc, normatve
framework, 66-67
pansveness, as a movement trat,
133, 216-17
permentaton n personaty study,
3 -4
contro of response n, 43-4
contro of stuaton n, 39-43
knds of contro possbe, 3
narrow nterpretaton of, 4
possbtes of, 37
panatory psychoogy vs. descrptve
or comparatve psychoogy, 66
pressve trats, 117-61
defnton of, 156
n movement, 131-3
n percepton, 139-4
based on physque, 117-30
reaton to other parts of personaty,
56-57
sef-characterzaton of, 546-49
n speech, 152. 154-55
tratensveness, 203
actor anayss, 171- 0
Catte s fve types of factors, 1 0
of chdren s behavor n nursery
schoo, 20 -12
choce of measurements for, 179
of cosure tests, 174-77
642
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
of nter- and ntra-ndvdua re-
sponses, 20 -10
n varance of oadngs n, 17
msceany of tests n, 17
of personaty ratngs, 191-94
and psychoogca theory, 17 - 0
reducng varabes wth, 1 6
weaknesses of, 177-7
amy status, as a determnant of so-
ca roes, 297, 299, 301-10
antasy see aso Thematc ppercep-
ton Test
e permenta changes n, 4 0- 1
nterpretaton of, 411-1 , 42 , 429,
60 -10
motvatona effects on, 464, 4 2-500
sef n, 551
ather mage, 304-305, 30 -309
ather-son reatonshp, 301-304, 305,
30
atgue, effects on performance, 45
ear
ana compe of trats as an ad|ust-
ment to, 340
and an ety, 503-505
of e pressng aggresson, 373-74, 421,
425-27, 499-500, 614
of faure, 423-25, 4979
rst- and second-born chdren, 94
rst mpressons of persons, 19-20
e bty-rgdty, 174-77, 1 0, 1 3,
1 5, 200, 231
uency, 1 3, 1 5
as speed, 1 0
n use of words, 176
ootba, and e presson of aggresson,
499-500
orgettng
of competed and ncompeted tasks,
46, 497-99
of eary chdhood e perences, 344-
45. 456-5
of earned motves, 432-35
of earned trats, 21 -20
motvated by an ety
e permenta study, 497-99
reud s approach, 3 5- 7 .
of a snge mpresson, 245-47
ree assocaton, 3 7, 3 9-90, 413-14,
429
ree w
and determnsm, n personaty sc-
ence, 95-96
and sef-potency, 539-40
reudan motvatona scheme, 3 6,
3 -401
bdo theory, 350, 37 , 393-401
unversaty of compe es, 395-96,
42930
reudan Pevouton, 11-16
rustraton see aso n ety, Confct
and aggresson, 45 , 503, 505, 510,
512-17
anma studes of, 45 -60
as an avodance motve, 460, 505-507
ncreased by punshment, 460,506,520
from motve confcts, 505-507
reactons, 507, 510-11, 615-1
sources of, 501, 505, 513, 515
vaue of, for motvatona anayss,
615-16
rustraton-toerance, 515, 541, 577
unctona autonomy
of motves, 403-404, 434
1 of trats, 217-20, 234
unctona prerequstes
of a personaty system, 379
of a socety, 37 -79
Generaty and consstency of trats,
22 -29
Generazed earnng, 345-46, 442-45,
451-5
Genotype, 3 4, 390
Geography, as a source of schemata,
240-41
Gestat psychoogy
and anayss of personaty, 100-101
prncpes of, n schemata formaton,
243-44
and stress on schema varabe, 5 3- 4
Goa-drected trats, 213-15
Goa responses and nstrumenta act
responses
n aggresson, 503, 513, 524
n regresson, 51 -19
God, concepton of, n Protestantsm,
275-76
Gradents
for approach and avodance, 461-63,
506
near goa, 4 7
of prmary renforcement, 477
Graphoogy see andwrtng
Gut see aso Super-ego
and dena of ove as punshment
technque, 367
and psychoogca dscpne, 360
643
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
andwrtng, 134-3
and an ety, 136
and e pressve movements, 132-34
and other personaty varabes, 134,
135. 159
emer and awk cases, 64-65
eredty, as determnant of behavor,
130, 15 , 240-41, 593, 620
erarchy
of defense mechansms, 519-21
of motves, 410-11
of sef-reated assocatons, 543-44,
577
of symboc approaches, 1 2, 200
onesty, 60, 204-207
tests of, 204-205
unger, 79, 4 2, 4 6, 4 9, 491, 492, 494,
495. 525
ypnoss, 619
ypothetca constructs, 0, 166 see
aso arabes
n chevement, 2- 3
ntegence, 3
nterpoated actvty, 0
and ntervenng varabes, 3, 177
M on the Porschach, 3- 4
needed for ntegratve aws, 77, 7
for personaty theory, summary, 5 0
n reaton to feds of knowedge,
7- 9
n the S-P and P-P types of aws, 0
Ideas, 239- 0
n mercan cuture, 256, 279- 0, 2 1
aesthetc, 26 -69
on authorty, 270, 305
economc, 266-6
emprca, 259-66
potca, 269-72
regous, 275-77
soca, 272-75
summary, 279
n one man s mnd, 239, 2 0
Identfcaton, 303-304, 549-52
Ideogram, 2 0
Idographc aws, 9, 90, 105
Imagnaton see antasy and The-
matc ppercepton Test
Imtaton, 301-304
Incompeted tasks, memory for, 46, 497-
99
Indvdua case and genera aws see
aws n personaty scence
Indvdua dfferences
compared wth S-P aw, 7 -79
and theory of personaty, 101
unsuted for study of personaty as
a whoe, 9
Indvdua trats see Common trats
Indugence-nonchaance, n parent be-
havor, 34 , 353. 355
Inqurng nteect, 193, 231
Instnct theory of motvaton, 393-401
Integence, 3
effectveness of, 196
and evauaton of performance, 163.
16
nherted or acqured, 199
n fe stuatons, 196-9
and performance trats, 167-6 , 199
tests of, 165-66
dscrmnatve vs. descrptve pow-
er, 167
Interacton process anayss, 32, 307-30
Interest Maturty scae, 327-2
Interpoated actvty, 0
Interpretaton see aso Concepts, theo-
retca
adequacy of, n personaty theory.
70-72
dsproof of, 71, 594, 610, 619
of fantasy, 411-1 , 42 , 429, 60 -10
how arrved at, 56-59
nductve vs. deductve approach. 59-
63
for over-a personaty synthess. 69,
9 -104, 579. 5 7-93
of sef-mage, n pro|ecton, 549-5
varabes needed for, 579- 6
Interreaton of responses, as an effect
of motvaton, 390, 4 5-
Intervenng varabe and hypothetca
construct, 3, 177
Introspecton. 525
Intuton n personaty study
advantages of, 9 -99
and anaytc approach, 100-101
and cnca practce, 103-104
Iowa Sent Peadng Test, 169-70
Isoaton, as a defense mechansm. 511,
51
|udgment, mprovements n, 22-25
aso Patng
ar
n basement, 425
n chevement, 424-26, 522, 539, 555
644
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
ar (Contd.)
achevement-nadequacy thema, 421,
423-24, 523, 60 -10
achevement test scores, 16
aesthetc deas, 26 -69, 2 2
n ffaton, 420, 426, 53 , 545, 551,
55 . 557. 59 . 614, 617
n ggresson, 373-77, 421, 425-27, 614
port- ernon Study of aues Test
scores, 265-66, 26 , 271, 274, 277,
2 2
assocatons, n word recognton test,
3 9 9
atttude toward superorty n others,
270-72, 577-7
autobographca e cerpts, 106-10
coege ad|ustment, 607-1
n freshman year, 612-13
key acts to be accounted for, 611
predcton and postdcton, 60 -10
schoastc performance, 616-17
coege envronment of, 600-603
deaths n T T, anayss of, 371-77
.deserton-aggresson thema, 372, 375-
76, 419-20, 60 -10
and drnkng partes, 613-15
economc deas, 266-6 , 279
emprca deas, 263-66, 279
e troverson see ar, outer vs. n-
ner orentaton
father s roe ad|ustments, 299-301
see aso ar, parents
fear of hs hostty, 373-74, 421, 425-
27, 614
fear of re|ecton, 375, 420, 53 , 545,
557, 60 -10, 614, 616
possbe reasons for, 376
fraternty atttude toward, 613
handwrtng, 137-3
deoogy, ntegraton of, 277-79
mtaton of father, 301-304
Iowa Sent Peadng Test scores, 169-
70
mother see ar, parents
motves, 373-77, 41 -27
n magnaton, 522-24
summary, 425, 5 9, 614
and vaues, 575-76
norma product of cuture, 61
0edpus thema, 421-24
outer vs. nner orentaton, 13 , 143,
144- 155- 159. 3
parents
ar (Contd.)
behavor of, as socazng agents,
374-75
characterstcs of, as rated, 306
mages of, 306-309
mtaton of father, 301-304
physque, 119-21
and temperament, 126-27
potca deas, 270-72, 279
predcton
of a partcuar response, 596-9
for smar occasons, 59 -99
questonnare for, 110-13, 603-60
psychatrst s descrpton, 426
regous deas, 276-79, 2 3- 6, 60 ,
617
roe ad|ustments, 29 -302, 310-12
e tent of conformty, 327-2
summary, 32 -31
Porschach Test resuts, 140-41, 170,
372. 426
nterpreted, 142-46
schemata see ar, deoogy ar,
roe ad|ustments
schoastc ad|ustment to coege, 616-
17
sef-descrpton, n autobography.
531
scored for mpct vaues, 56
sef-pcture
n magnaton, 551-52
negatve facts omtted, 537, 557
negatve opnon of sef, 550-51,
560
n Sentence Competon Test, 553-
5
sef-ratngs, on Strong ocatona In-
terest Test, 532-37
summary anayss, 535
and trat summary, 536
Sentence Competon Test, 553-5
achevement statements, 554-55
securty statements, 556-57
Soca Dstance scae, 270
soca reatons deas, ove reaton-
shps, 273-74, 27 -79, 372, 375-
76, 419-20, 592, 60 -10
socazaton, as refected n magna-
ton, 369-77
schematzed, 376
speech characterstcs
ora, 160
wrtten, 153-55
645
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
ar (Contd.)
Strong ocatona Interest Test re-
suts, 265, 26 , 271, 274, 277, 2 7-

responses to ndvdua tems, 532-
34
and student roughhousng, 611-12
summary conceptuazaton, 5 7-93
envronmentay determned trats,
593
nadequacy of measures, 5
st of ma|or trats, schemata, and
motves, 5 9
synthess, 591
temperament ratngs, 122-23, 125-26
Them as
of achevement-nadequacy, 421,
423-24, 523, 60 -10
of deserton-aggresson, 372, 375-
76, 419-20
of 0edpus confct, 421-24
summary of, 5 9
Thematc ppercepton Test resuts,
307-309. 317- 33 . 369-77. 416.
419. 4 5- 551 5
trats
e pressve
movement, 137-3
percepton, 140-46
speech, 153-55
performance, 1 4- 5
soca, 192-94
summary of, 229-31
compared wth sef-descrpton,
536
temperament, 122-23, 125-26
vaues, 277-79, 56 -69 see aso ar,
port- ernon Study of aues
Test resuts ar, vces
reaton to motves, 575-76
vces, sef-ratngs on, 2 2- 3 see aso
ar, vaues
anguage see aso Symbo systems
effects on schemata, 250-52
anut Case, 167, 1 2
aws n personaty scence
and causaty, 0, 96
dervaton from ndvdua cases, 94
dffcutes n appyng to ndvdua
cases, 9-93
ncorrect statement of aw, 93
meetng assumptons of aw, 91
testng a aws at once, 92
dographc and nomothetc. 9. 90.
105
and ndvdua dfferences approach.
79
P P type, 7
S-P type, 77
and tempora sequence. 3 4
ayers of personaty, 590-91
earnng
avodance, 434-35, 441-42. 45 -66, 506
frequency of reward n, 44 -51
generazed, 345-46, 442-45, 451-5
of motves, 432-35, 441-5 , 466-67
and personaty constructs, 7
punshment n, 359-61, 367. 460-61
and roe ad|ustment, 319. 331
and socazaton, 341-46, 34 -51
tenson-reducton, as e panaton of,
dffcuty wth, 437-3
and trats, 216-17
eve of aspraton
and motves, 464. 491-92
and sef-reevant vaues, 563-6
technque, 46, 564
modfcatons, 565-6
as a trat, 223
bdo see reudan motvatona
scheme. Motve
mtaton, as a defense aganst an -
ety, 509-12
terary characterzaton, 74
tte ans Case, 94
ogc, n anayss of magnaton, 415-
16
ove, 272-74, 27 -79, 372, 375-76. 419-
20, 592, 60 -10 see aso ffecton
M on the Porschach, 3- 4
Manc-depressve psychoss, 517
Mascunty- emnnty scae, 327-2
Masochsm, 513, 514
Mastery
as a socazaton probem, 350-51
stages n deveopment, 351. 37
Matchng dfferent aspects of person-
aty, 149-50
Memory see orgettng
Mesomorphy, 119, 620
Mora code see aues, ces
Mother-chd reaton see aso Parent
behavor patterns
n magnaton, 305-30
nadequacy of, n or, 335-36
quanttatve records of, 27-2 , 49
646
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Mother mage, 305-306, 307-30
Mother-son reatonshp, 307-30
Motve see aso Drves, Motves
acquston, 441-5 , 466-67
as affectve assocaton, 445, 451, 466-
67
n anma e permentaton, 431-35
and autonomc nervous system, 446-
47
confcts, 505-507
and defense mechansm, 521-22
defnton, 390, 406, 466, 5 0, 5 5
and determnsm, 3 3- 4, 3 - 9, 479,
6131
dsrupton, 470-71
as dynamc trat. 214-15
and eary chdhood, 399-401, 443-4 ,
473
effects on behavor, 463-66, 4 2-94
an ety, 492-94
nstrumenta actvty, 4 2- 5
nterreatedness, 390, 4 5-
senstzaton, 4 -92
and emoton, 466-67, 477
forgettng, 432-35
future reference, 4 6
generaty, factors nfuencng, 442-
45- 45 1-5
rreguarty n earnng, 453-56
symbozaton, 452
unearnng condtons, 456-5
vagueness n consequences, 452-53
as nstnct, 394-96
and eve of aspraton, 491-92
and bdo theory, 393-401
measurement, 33, 411-1 , 473-74. 479,
4 1, 522, 5 0, 5 4- 6
checkng nterpretatons, 417-1 ,
479- 0
by empathy and recpathy, 414-15
by e permenta changes n fan-
tasy, 4 0- 1
by free assocaton, 413-14, 429
by frustraton-reacton anayss,
615-1
by ogca nference, 415-16
by symboc anayss, 396-99, 415,
42
and performance, 465, 4 2- 5, 525
persstence, 391, 473
as earnng theory probem, 432-35,
441-5
n roe ad|ustment, 31
sataton, 470
and schema, 241, 592
and stuatona factors, 499-500
somatc patternng of, 396-99, 415
strength
effects at dfferent eves of, 494-
500
factors nfuencng, 441, 445-51
autonomc nervous system, 446-
47
frequency, 449-51
prmacy, 445-46
tme dscrmnaton, 447-4
as tenson reducton, 392-93, 435-41
ob|ectons to, 437-41
theory
der, 402
port, 214-15, 403-404
reud, 3 6, 3 -401
Godsten, 403, 541
orney, 402
ecky, 403
ewn, 404-405
Murray, 405-10
Pevson proposed, 466-75
Pogers, 403
n trat defnton, 226-29
two-factor theory, 45 -66
and vaue, 575-76
Motves, varetes of see aso Motve,
Drves
achevement see chevement
aggresson, 499-500, 505-506 see aso
ggresson
an ety, 392-93, 435, 437-41 see aso
n ety
confct-produced, 501-22
creatve, 4 5
modes of reducng, 507-22
and motve ntensty, 492-94
sources of, 502-507
approach and avodance, 45 -66, 46 -
7
cassfcaton, by status ams, 40
common, 474-75
death nstnct, 393-94
n Domnance, 409
n free assocaton, 3 7, 3 9-90
frustraton, 45 -60, 505-507
herarchy of, 410-11
hunger, 79, 4 2, 4 6, 4 9, 491, 492,
494- 495. 5 5
dosyncratc, 475
n memory apse, 3 5- 7
postve and negatve, 439-40
647
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Motves, varetes of (Contd.)
approach and avodance. 434-35,
441 -42. 45 66, 497-99, 506
peasure and pan, 46 -70
secondary, 435, 475
securty, 402, 42
sef-consstency, 403, 543-59
sef-esteem, 42
sef-preservaton, 393, 42
n socazaton, used by parents, 35 -
60
thrst, 496
unconscous, 391-92
Motor mpuson, 45
Movement trats, 131-3 , 159, 161
centrfuga group factor, 133
emphass, 134
e pansveness, 133
e perments n e pressve movement,
13
Mythca personates, 6
Navaho
phosophy of fe, 2 1, 337-39
tae of strcken twns, 412-13
Need-push, 595, 59
Needs, 405-10 see aso Drves, Motve,
Motves
Nemessm, 514
Neurophysoogy, reaton to theoret-
ca constructs n personaty,
Noccepton, 467
Nomothetc aws, 9, 90, 105
dographc appcaton of, 9o
Nonemprca assumptons, ther vaue
for personaty scence, 17-1
0b|ectvty, 14
by aesthetc, apprecatve atttude, 15
and affectve neutraty, 13-14
by assumng scentfc atttude ony
one approach, 15
by avodng centra areas of person-
aty, 14
and cnca psychoogy, 15
dffcut, toward personaty, 3
by dske of peope, 15
hstory of beef n, for personaty
study, 7-11
0bservaton of behavor, 25-3
perceptua mtatons, 21
presence of the observer, 2 -29
and ratngs, 194-96
recordng the data, 2 -36
smpfcaton of, 26-27
tme sampng, 26
tranng the |udges, 26
0ccupatona eve scae. 327-2
0ccupatona status, as a determnant
of soca roes, 291-92, 297, 300,
3 . 327
0edpus compe , 94, 95, 304, 400
dffcutes wth, n e panng mot-
vaton, 421-22
0utne of cutura materas, 2 , 255
Pan, 46 -70 see aso Motves, postve
and negatve
Parent behavor patterns, 34 -49. 352-
62
acceeraton-ndfference, 349. 355
acceptance-re|ecton, 34 -49. 353. 355
autocracy-permssveness, 349, 353.
355
dmensons and syndromes, 353
effects on personaty, 333-41, 363-69
case study method, 333. 365
cross-cutura approach, 366
doubts about, 363, 377-7
e panatons of dsease, 366-69
psychoanaytc approach, 334-41
schoo behavor, 363-64
e tremes, 356, 3 0
dea, 360-61, 379
ndugence-nonchaance, 34 , 353,
355
observed vs. reported, 27-2 , 49, 379
profes, for dfferent homes, 354
reguarty n, 361-62
n roe percepton, as a gude, 304-
309
n roe performance, as a gude, 301-
3 4
sequences of, 357-5
stabty of, 352-53
Parent fgures n magnaton, 304-300,
335
Perceptua trats, 139-4 , 161
Performance, as affected by motvaton,
465, 4 2- 5, 525
Performance trats, 162
evauaton of, 163, 16
and ntegence tests, 167-6 , 199
n fe stuatons, 1 6-9
n tests, 164- 6
summary of, 1 0- 4, 19 94
Perpherasts, 47
64
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Perseveraton, 1 0 see aso Pgdty-
fe bty
Persstence
of motves, 391, 432-35, 441-5 , 473
as a trat, 104, 177, 1 0, 1 3, 1 5
Personaty see aso Interpretaton,
aws, Theory, arabes, etc.
defntons, 69-70, 74-75
portrats, 60
of Gton, 74
of ar, 5 7-93
of the sergeant, 72-74
questonnares, 1 5- 6
ratng scae, 1 7-91
scence, fath n, 6-11
mtatons of, 16
orgns of nterest n, 3-7
scentsts, characterstcs of, 13-17
ways of knowng, 57-59
Phantasy see antasy
Phenomenoogy, 6,
and symboc processes, 4 1
Phenotype, 3 4, 390
Phobas, 50
Physque, 117-30
permanence of a soma tot ype, 121
and temperament, 126-30
bas n ratng, 127-2
cause and effect reaton, 130, 15
mtatons for descrpton of tota
personaty, 129
hgh correatons found by She-
don and Stevens, 126
typng of, 11 -21, 159
Pcture-frustraton study, 519, 524
Peasure, 46 -70 see aso Motves, pos-
tve and negatve
Postdcton see Predcton
Postura schemata, 244
Predcton see aso Determnants of
behavor
of coege grades, 99
dffcutes encountered, 71, 607-10
for everyday fe, 71, 97, 607
functona equaton for, 579, 5 1,
59395. 61 , 619
of ar s behavor, 110-13, 603-60
for known and controed stuatons,
97, 607-60
of a partcuar response, 595-9 , 607
from personaty aone, 71, 594
and postdcton, 594, 60 -10
from the stuaton aone, 594, 596-97
of surprsng responses, 599, 61
as test of personaty nterpretaton,
71, 594, 610, 619
Preference technque, for measurng
vaues, 563
Press, 256-57
Prmacy
and mportance of chdhood e pe-
rences, 341-42
and motvatona assocatons, 445-46
Prmary menta abtes tests, 1 5
Probabty, human concepton of, 44
Proctor roe, 322-23
Profes of cutura orentaton, 255,
2 0, 2 1
Pro|ecton
as a defense, 511, 512, 552-53
of sef-attrbutes, 549-5
Pro|ectve systems
ardner s vew, 334-37
and socazaton procedures, 36 -69
Protecton, as a socazaton probem,
S47-4
Protestant ethc, 275, 27 -79
Proto-percepton, 44 , 457
Psychoanayss
and eary chdhood, mportance of,
334-41. 362. 399401
and father-reatonshp, 301-309
and reudan motvaton theory, 3 -
401
hstorca sgnfcance of, 11-12
bdo theory n, 350, 37 , 393-401
and motvated forgettng, 3 5- 7
and socazaton, probems stressed
n, 334-41, 34 -49. 362. 399-401
theoretca weaknesses of, 6, 94-95,
396-99. 479
and theores of dsease, 36
unversaty of compe es n, 95, 395-
96, 429-30
Psychodagnostcs
based on handwrtng, 134, 159
based on percepton, 146-47
based on physque, 129-30
based on speech characterstcs, 152-
53
Psychodrama, 31 , 326
Psychotherapy, 447
non-drectve, 530
and sef-consstency, 559
and sef-potency, 542
surprse-vaue n, 53
Punctuaty, 204
Punshment
649
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Punshment (Contd.)
for aggresson nhbton, 520
and an ety ncrease, 460-61, 506,
515 5
n earnng, 359-61, 367, 460-61
need for, 514-15
and tenson-reducton, 514-17
uestonnares
deveopment of, by contrastng
groups, 41
mutpe choce n, 43
for personaty study, 1 5- 6
for quanttatve treatment of fe
hstores, 49
soca roe, 322-24
as verba representatons of stua-
tons, 40
for what others thnk, 315, 316, 324
Paca stereotypes, 294-95
Patng
from controed observaton, 194-96
mprovements n, 22-25
of performance trats, 1 6-9
reabty, 125, 19 , 352-53
scae, 23, 4
for personaty, 1 7-91
for vces, 2 2- 3
of sef, 546-49, 56 -70
Peacton formaton, 50
Peadng, roe n schema formaton,
5 -53. 314
Peason, fath n power of, for under-
standng man s nature, 6-11
rtsh assocatonst vew, 9-10
reud s vew, 12-13
|ob s vew, 6
Medeva vew, 7
Pato s vew, 6, 7
Penassance vew, -9
Pecpathy, 414-15
Pecommendaton, 61-62
based on varous methods of observa-
ton, 62
as a deductve evauatve scheme, 61
Pecordng behavora data, 29-37
moton pcture recordng, 36-37
phonographc recordng, 35-36
wrtten persona documents, 30-35
Pecurrent response pattern, n trat
defnton, 215-16
Pegresson, 510, 511, 51 -19
Peabty
of observatons, 23, 27-2 , 30, 36
of parent behavor ratngs, 352-53
of Porschach categores. 146
of a snge response, 607
of trat ratngs, 125, 19
Peef, from tenson, 392-93. 43541,
45 - 495-96- 5 5-21 see aso Mo-
tves, postve and negatve
Pegous atttude nventory, 2 4- 6
Peparaton, 517
Pepetton, as a reason for mportance
of chdhood e perences. 343-44
Peputaton, 59, 6
Pesponse smarty, 220-22
Pewards
acqured, 432-34, 436. 471-72. 475
heghtened by deprvaton, 463
socazaton use, 35 -61
Pgdty-fe bty, 174-77, 1 0, 1 3,
1 5, 200, 231
and an ety, 459-60, 4 3. 504
Poe
acquston, 313-21
ad|ustment, factors n, 316-21
carty of defnton, 316
confct, 317
motvaton, 31
transton, 319
appercepton test, 324-25
characterstcs of, 293-97
conformty, 327
defnton, 293, 316
modes, 301-304
percepton, 304-309
measurement of, 321-26
producng a change n. 331
performance, 301-304
compared wth roe percepton, 301
dea and typca, 331-32
measurement of, 326-27
as personaty construct, 6 , 241, 290-
91
questonnares, 322-24
recproca nature of, 292-93
sources of nformaton about, 313-16
and status, 290
and trat, 291-92, 331
varatons, day, 29
Poes, varetes of, 297-301
adoescent, 310-12
age, 297, 299. 310, 320, 327
assocaton group, 297, 29 , 300, 311
authorty, 305, 309
650
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
day varatons, 29
famy, 297, 299, 301-10
occupatona, 291-92, 297, 300, 311,
327
parenta, 299-306
proctor, 322-23
raca stereotypes, 294-95
Sam Spade, 2 9
schooteacher, 291-92, 321
se , 295, 297, 299, 310, 327
soca cass, 312-13
unmarred, 295
Porschach Test, 43, 44, 52, 3- 4, 139-
4 , 170, 203, 372, 426
admnstraton procedure, 140-42
M response, meanng of, 3- 4
psychodagnoss from, 146-4
record nterpreted, 142-46, 372
whoe-deta sequence, 170
P-P aw, 7 , 0, 96
Sam Spade, 2 9
Sanctons
generazed, effects on motvaton,
45 53
postve and negatve, n socaza-
ton, 360-61
Sataton, 470
Schemata, persona
aesthetc, 26 -69
and mercan cutura deoogy, 256,
259- 0
on authorty, 270-71, 305, 309
and beefs, 242
characterstcs, 252, 293-94, 5 2- 4,
613
and cutura patterns, 241-43, 5 3
means of transmsson, 242
economc, 266-6
emprca, 259-66
deas and vaues, 239- 0
anguage nfuence on, 250-52
mantenance and deveopment con-
ceptons, 241, 333-77
measurement technques, 325-26, 5 0,
5 2- 4
memory, 247
potca, 269-72
postura, 244
prncpes of formaton, 243-54
cutura patterns, 247-49
fed organzatona factors, 243-44
snge mpressons, 245-47
successve stmuaton, 244-45
summary, 253-54
symbo systems, shapng effect, 249-
53
chdren s readng, 252-53, 314
regous, 275-77
of sef, 542-45 see aso Sef
of soca reatons, 272-75
and soca roes, 241, 2 9-331
sources of, n envronmenta stmua-
ton, 241-42, 313-16
summary, for an mercan, 27 - 0
and trat defnton, 222-26
Schematzaton process, 242-54
Schzophrena, 509, 512, 540
Schoo behavor
as affected by parent behavor, 363-
64
factor anayss of, 20 -12
Schooteacher roe, 291-92, 321
Scentst vs. artst and novest, 63, 69,
72
Securty drves, 402, 42 ,
Sef
and body-mage, 543
and ego-dea, 572-74, 57
e tenson of, 53 -40
and free w, 539-40
and frustraton-toerance, 515, 541,
577
n magnaton, 551
and not-sef, 539, 543, 573
pro|ecton of attrbutes of, 549-5
as schema, 529
emergent character, 540, 544, 561-
62
herarchy of responses n, 543-44,
577
measurement of, 577
by pro|ecton, 549-5
vadaton methods, 550-52
by sentence competons, 553-5 ,
560
by unrecognzed |udgments, 546-
49. 55 53. 569
structure of, 543-45
and super-ego, 572-75, 57
unconscous portons of, 544-49, 552-
53. 561-62, 569-75
Sef-actuazaton drve, 541
Sef-aggresson, 514-17
Sef-consstency, 542-59 see aso Sef, as
schema
and ego-strength, 55 -59, 57
651
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Sef-consstency (Contd.)
as a motve, 403, 55
and psychotherapy, 559
Sef-descrpton, 530-35, 560-61
Sef-esteem drves, 42
Sef-evauaton, 559-76
e ampes, 560-61
measurement of, 57
by aspraton eve, 563-6
by defense mechansms, 570-72
by sef-|udgment, 56 -70
by preferences, 563
and motves, 575-76
unconscous, 561-62, 569-72, 574
Sef-e presson, unrecognzed, 546-49,
569
Sef-|udgment, 546-49, 56 -70
Sef-potency, 513, 53 -42, 576-77
mnmum eve necessary, 540-41,
577
and psychotherapy, 542
Sef-preservaton nstncts, 393, 42
Senstzaton, as an effect of motvaton,
4 -92
Sentence Competon Test, 553-5 , 560
Sentence ppercepton Test, 616
Sentment, 2 0
Sergeant s personaty, descrpton of,
72-74
Sera reproducton e perments, 59,
24547
Se , as a determnant of soca roes,
295. 297, 299, 310, 327
Smarty, n defnng trats
and covaraton, 54, 201-202, 222
of motvaton, 226-29, 235
of responses, 220-22
of stuatons, 222-26
standardzaton n, 223
ways of defnng, 222-23
Stuatona test, 195-97
Soca adaptabty, 192, 231
Soca cass roes, 312-13
Soca norms
and common trats, 203-13
n perceptua e perments, 24 , 325-
26
n roe formaton, 315
and schemata formaton, 247-49
Soca stmuus vaue, 67, 6 , 75
Soca structure, as a source of sche-
mata, 240-42
Soca tras, 192-94, 231
confdent sef-e presson, 194
conformty, 193
emotona contro, 192
nqurng nteect, 193
soca adaptabty, 192
Socazaton see aso Chdhood, Par-
ent behavor patterns
ceanness, tranng n, 337-39
motves used for, by parents, 35 -60
probems for the chd, 34 -49
affecton, 349-50
contro, 351-52
mastery, 350-51
protecton, 347-4
psychoanaytc vew of, 334-41, 361.
395-96
resuts, n ater deveopment, 333-41.
363-69
e panatons of dsease, 366-69
schoo behavor, 363-64
sanctons, postve and negatve, 360-
61
Socogram, 2 0
Socopha, 123-24
Scotophoba, 124
Somatotona, 122
Somatotype, 119, 159: see ao Physque
Speech and personaty. 151-55, 160
anayss of speech stye, 32-33. 152
type-token rato, 151, 154
Speed of percepton, 176
S-P aw, 77, 96
Starte pattern. 467
Status, 290 see aso Poe
Status personaty, 290
Stereotype
n roe characterstcs, 294-95
n sef-schema, 544
Stngness, pro|ecton of, 552-53
Strong ocatona Interest Test, 41.
111-12, 265, 26 , 271, 274, 2 7- ,
327, 604-605
Structurast schoo, of Ttchener, 100
Study of aues Test, 17 , 257-59, 2 2.
49
Stye, 14 -5
dfferent aspects matched, 149-50
n speech, 151-55, 160
Substtuton
of aggressve responses, 516-17
as frustraton response, 501, 507, 511
Super-ego, 572-75. 57
Surpus meanng, 4, 6, 166
of n chevement, 5
of M on the Porschach, 4
652
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
of persstence. 104
of psychoanaytc concepts, 6
sub|ectve or phenomenoogca, 6
Symbo systems
advantages of studyng, 4 1
ack of deveopment, n nfancy, 342-
43. 443-44. 447-4 . 45 . 473
n psychotherapy, 447
shapng effect on schemata, 249-53
on sef-schema, 544-45
used n thnkng, 1 2, 200, 231
Symboc anayss of magnaton, 34,
396 99. 4 5. 42
Syndromes, of parent behavor, 353
Temperament, 121-27, 15 see aso
Physque and temperament
cerebrotona, 122
nde of, 124
shortened scae for ratng, 122-23
somatotona, 122
typng, 121
reaton of sub-trats n, 124
vscerotona, 122
Tenson-reducton see n ety, Peef
Tests
of cosure, 171-74
dscrmnatve vs. descrptve power,
167
for evauatve purposes, 163, 16
of honesty, 204-205
of ntegence, 164-67, 196-9
performance trats refected n, 1 0-
4
of prmary menta abtes, 1 5
stuatona, 195-97
Thnkng, mode of approach n, 1 1
domnant symbo type, 1 2, 200, 231
whoe-part, 1 1, 1 3, 1 5, 231
Themas
of achevement-nadequacy, 421, 423-
24, 523, 60 -10
n chdren s readng, 253
of deserton-aggresson, 372, 375-76,
419-20, 60 -10
of 0edpus confct, 421-24
summary, for ar, 5 9
Thematc ppercepton Test, 23, 30,
43. 49- 4 2. 616
n dervaton of n chevement score,
1- 3, 522-25
father and mother fgures n, 307-30
nterpretve dffcutes, 550-52, 60 -10
motves refected n, 41 -27, 522-25,
5 0, 5 4
for roe percepton, 324
sef refected n, 550-52
socazaton refected n, 369-77
Theory of personaty see aso ypo-
thetca constructs, Interpreta-
ton, aws, arabes
and case method, 105
and cnca practce, 103-4, 599
dffcuty of, - v, 77
and factor anayss, 177- 0
and ndvdua dfferences, 101
need for fe bty n, 5
for one person, 90
varabes needed for, 579- 6
Thrst, 496
Tme
cutura orentaton toward, 261-62,
264
dscrmnaton of, n nfants, 447-4
future reference of motves, 4 6
Tme sampng
n study of mother-chd nteracton,
26-2
n study of nervous movements, 4
Trat, theoretca treatment of, 201-30,
5 1- 2, 612-13
common vs. ndvdua, 207-13, 224
consstency and generaty, 22 -29
as covaraton of behavor eements,
201-202
defntons, 203, 216, 229, 5 0, 5 1- 2
forgettng of. 21 -20
functona autonomy of, 217-20, 234
as earned response, 216-20
as recurrent response pattern, 215-16
and roe, 291-92
and smar motvaton, 226-29
and smar responses, 220-22
and smar stuatons, 222-26
smpfcaton, n treatment of, 230
Trats, varetes of
common trats, 207-13, 224
cassfcaton of, 230-34
desrabty as a schoo chd, 20 -13
dynamc, 213-14
goa-drected, 213-15
e pansveness, 216-17
e pressve, 117-5 , 213 see aso -
pressve trats
defned, 156
reaton to other parts of persona-
ty. 156-57
653
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
SU | CT IND
Trats, varetes of (Contd.)
e tratensveness, 203
honesty, Go, 204-207
nteectua, 165-70, 196-9
eve of aspraton, 223
n movement, 131-3
n percepton, 139-4
n performance, 162-200
summary of, 1 0- 4
and physque, 117-30
punctuaty, 204
soca trats, 192-94
and soca norms, 203-13
n speech, 152, 154-55
summary cassfcaton, 230-34
Type-token rato, n speech anayss,
151. 154, 161
Unconscous
motves, 391-92 ,
portons of the sef-schema, 544-49,
552-53. 56 -6 . 569-75
Undong, 512
Unqueness of personaty, 9, 90, 106
Unversaty
of earnng stuatons, 224-25, 346-52
of psychoanaytc compe es, 95, 395-
96. 429-30
Unmarred status, 295
adty
meanng for personaty study, 60-61,
34-37. 56-5
of Porschach categores, 146-4
aues
mercan, 256
cogntve, 576, 57
defnton of, 257, 2 0, 57
and motves, 575-76
n sef-descrpton, 33, 56
n sef-schema, 572-75
G N P 00 INDING C0.
013
. I
U ITY C0NTP0 M P
and sentments, 2 0
Spranger s, 257-59
Test, port- erno1 , 17 . 257-5
2 2, 490
unverbazed. 574
and vces, 2 2- 3, 571-72
arabty of performance, as a trat,
1 0, 1 3, 1 5. 231
arabes, basc to personaty theory,
579- 7 see aso Determnants of
behavor, ypothetca con-
structs
determnants of, 5 0
nterreaton of, 579, 5 1, 5 3, 5 4,
5 6- 7, 611-15, 6
measures of
for motves, 5 0, 5 4- 6
for schemata, 5 0. 5 2- 4
for trats, 5 0, 5 1- 2
ces, 2 2- 3, 571-72
gotzky Test, 1 3/ 6
scerotona, 122
ocatona Interest ank see Strong
ocatona Interest Test
ater, as a dscpnary agent, 333
eanng dsturbance, 557
echser- eevue Integence Scae.
165-66
hoe-part approach n thnkng, 1 1,
1 3, 1 5, 231
sh fufment, 490-91, 495-96
and covert tra and error, 525
tchcraft n the Mdde ges, . 17
thdrawa, as defense aganst an ety,
50 -509
rtten persona documents, 30, 47
methods of categorzaton, 30-35
Yerkes-Dodson aw, 4 3
G012
654
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

|
a
m
e
s

I
v
e
n
u
k

(
U
n
v
e
r
s
t
y

o
f

C
h
c
a
g
o
)

o
n

2
0
1
2
-
0
4
-
0
2

1
7
:
0
2

G
M
T

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
h
d
.
h
a
n
d
e
.
n
e
t
/
2
0
2
7
/
m
d
p
.
3
9
0
1
5
0
0
2
3
9
3
6
4
6
P
u
b
c

D
o
m
a
n
,

G
o
o
g
e
-
d
z
e
d

/

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
h
a
t
h
t
r
u
s
t
.
o
r
g
/
a
c
c
e
s
s
_
u
s
e
#
p
d
-
g
o
o
g

McClelland Personality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McClelland Personality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G

Gets rrtabe or resentfu f

Ideas and aues

ar s Motves. Iff practce the cnca psychoogst s thoroughy

3. hat e acty s meant by a prmary drve and what s the dffer-

Check n the frst, second, or thrd coumn at the rght accordng as

You might also like