- Email: [email protected]
Differences in questionnaire responses between English and German nationals
BY
J. 6.
N
hstitute of Psychiatry,
k Hill, L,onclon,S..E.S
This paper reports MI a comparison between English and erBlan samples on a variety of questionnaire res-=m yulrses which include measures Of extraversion, neuroticism, rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatism and positive extreme response set. These measures may be considered t0 fall into two parts: personality test responses in the narrower sense (extraversion and neuroticism) and “disposition” or “rigidity” variables (other measures). The data stem from an analysis undertaken to validate
Anglo-American questionnaires in Germany (4, 5). Scientific inquiries into national differences in Europe are few. Eysenck (6) administered a 40-item social attitude inventory to 263 Germans and factor analysed the intercorrelations. e two resulting factors, termed servatism/radicafis;m”, “tough-mindedness/tender-mindedness” were found to be similar to factors obtained m English, Swedish and level were, however,, not American populations. Variations in respo discussed. Kaldegg (11) discusses the differential responses of 79 German (6) and 129 English (E) secondary school boys to Raven’s “Controlled re of a boy of tile same Projection” Test. This aest consists of one estions were required such age as the Ss. Responses to standardized as: What did he like doing? Whom did he like playing with? Considerable Merences in attitude ;owa.rds tie test were found. The E boys were tbe test as a “rnae detached and te+conscious” and the G boys “t life situation and dealt with it very seriously”. While &be boys seemed QYbe in *search of a “righ$” answer, the E boys looked for an “easy” one and were not always serious. Furthermore, G boys showed a “marked tendency to conventionalism and rigidity” in their test responses. In a second study (12), ald.egg administered .an attitude test similar to the one discussed above to 53 G and 53 E woman student teachers. The SOUP Rorschach was also given to 23 of each group. Results ‘were considered basicay similar to the ones obtained with the secondary 339
J. C. BRENGEEMANN
340
interpretation,, however, was now guided by Jung’s and Rmjla&‘s &eories of introversion/extraversion. The E: students were con&e& “‘mire diretzt and objeotive” and tie G students “more indirect and sub$ctive”. This interpretation, reminiscent of the olti objectivity/ subje&vity typology, permitted, in terms of Jung’s theory, the E to be de&bed Z-Xmore efiraverted and the G as more introverted. Although this &erpretation hardly um,fixms with relevant popular notions, the author WLSapparently forced to this conclusion by the Morschach resubs. Those showed the Ci students to be “more introversial” (lower output, high M/C), in Rorrichach’s own words “lesSsadaptive to outer reality and more intense”, and the E students (higher output, low M/C) to be “more adaptable to outer reality and more spread out than intense”.
shady
w,v;.
‘Ttle
Thus, iu the second study, the author attributes the various attitudislal attitudes oi iutensity, rigidity, serioidsimplicatim of the lindings-i.e., ness, and SQ forth-to extraversion/introversion. Yet another interpretation appears possible. Ta ala, Pitl&en, and
Ka~artinen (18) obtaii highly significant dift’erences between normal and maladjasted boys and girls, partly diagum& as “neurotic”‘, the disturbed children’s social attitudes being more tensed, conflictful, aggresi,vc and more boastful of achievement and iraealistic success. !koring procedure was somewhat diHerent from Kaldegg’s experiments. Nowever, the higher achievement phantasies, guilt feelings and extremeness in expressing views in the disturbed child may suggest that rigid attitudes of the End investigalted in the present experiment are related to abnorma&ty, possibly of the neurotic kid. This hypothesis receives support by the ffollowing investigation. Strikiig ktiierences on nearly all MMPI sub-scales were obtained
between American and German students by Sundberg (17). The G responses were consistently more in the abnormal dire&on. As, in the author’s opinion, “personal observation suggests no reason to believe that the German students suffer from more psychopathology than American students”, results are first interpreted as due to ,translation, the German version being ‘9nilder” or less extreme in implication, However, the author considers the possibility of differences in testtaking attitude or of some kind of “more fundamental psycholqicalcultu al di&rences”~ The supgesticws drawn from these experiments may now be summarized as follows. Although the factorial pattern of social attitudes appears to be simgar for E and G nationals, differences in the degree of certain atitudes a~ 4ikely to exist. G nationals are said to rank higher on tie
IN QUi3T~ONNAJRE
RESPONSES
owing descript
s: serious in testtaking, oonventional, stereotyped, rigid, subjective and intense @r-r hypothesis). hypothesis has been e due to their greater introversi e third hypothesis may be considere at at least some of *ihe erence8 quoted are due to a higher degree of abnormality on the part of the G. Failing ‘this the fowrh hypothesis may be advanced that attitudinal ditferences discussed are not reducible ,to extraversion or abnormality but form a characteristic of th.eir in the case of questionnaire studies, the possibility must that no true cli@rences exist and that appartnt differences are caused by variations due to translation. ese hypotheses were tested by administering qu,estionnaires of extraversion ), neuroticism (Nj, and rigidity-intensity-intolerancedogmatism ( CL -j-2 and WCL, 3-2) to suitable E and G samples. The latter are dso summarily referred to as “rigidity” variables. An intelligence test was administered to one G sample. TESTS
The following test,s were used.
- extraversion: EIPI, 24 items (‘7). - rigidity: 28 items (13, I4). ventory of Rigidity: 14 - California Psychological items (10). Do - dogmatism: 3,6 items (15). - intolerance serfambiguity: 20 items (13, 14). I.4 PFCL +2 - personal fri.end check list, positive extremes: 00 items. WCL +2 - wish check list, positive extremes: 100 items. - neuroticism: MPI, 24 items (7). N Intelligence - Nuffemo Level Test: ,drne limit 30 minutes ;a).
Ex NR CPIR
The Ex and N scales of the Maudsley Persona.lity
considered to be mutually independent criteria of Eysenck’s dimensions of extraversion and neuroti~cism.The NR, CPIR, Do and IA scales were taken from Nigniewiszky”s studies on rigidity (13, I4), in which these scales were found to intercorre1at.e ,positively and to form a general factor of rigidity. They also were shown to be essentially independent of Ex and pt+ped version of a. prewiously used N. The PFCL represents a further dv.y check list (2, 3), and ‘was originally derived from Soueif’o “pers:Bn friend” check list (16). Ss describe how much they like or dislike
34::
J.
C.. BRENGELMet4NN
personal friends of their own sex to have certain characteristics like “‘agreenlg”, ‘“dependable”, “witty”, etc. The following five grades are used: +2, +1, 0, -1, and -2. The PFCL +2 score, as a measure of intensity of set, was originally designed to correlate positively with The actual correlation was 0.40 (N - 48). Very Similar results been detained more recently with much larger samples. The WCL was adapted from Wilde’s “Wunschprobe” (20) so as to be identical. with the PFCL in terms of number of items and scoring procedure. This check list was intended to throw some light on tie generality of respons modes of this kind. Actually it turned out to provide rather different results, the implications of which are discussed further below. As the instructions are of great importance they are now quoted in full. ‘.Tfyea died and it were only possible to continue Itie in the following different forms, how would! you consider your future existence? me:ans of 2he scale below, please indicate your preference of EACH item”. Items which would be extremely pleasant _ . . . . . . . ,Y 9, just: ,, 99 Y, neither pleasant nor unpleasant ,, just unpleasant . . . . . ,, . . . . . 9, ?, extremely ,,
score +2 $9
4-l
,, ,, ,,
0 -1 -2
Then followed a list of 100 items like: advertisement, bathroom, cathedral, cemetery, garter, lantern, orderly system, shark, etc., which had to be responded to. Ail questionrUes were of the “yes”, “no’, and “?” type. Two marks were giveu for an answer in the key& direction and one mark for a ?-response. of the two check lists only the number of positive extreme responses (+2) was used as score. Full descriptions of the above techniques are prepared for publication dsewhere.
The hollowing four groups of Ss were used. E 1. Male apprentices of an Englbh motor car &m (N - 77). E 2. AD. maie English group of mixed occupations (N - 88). G 3. Predominantly male German group of mixed occupations (A!- 100, 79 of them male). 4. Pretiomiuantly male German group of primary school teachers [N - 100, 67 of them male).
ires used, part of the analysis is e~~Iusiv~~ly
in age between I6 and 2 erent from all other grottps. years. 63 was younger and 64 01&r groups used in the t-ra.tio e mam conciusion:, zrz based, are sho&a erences between whereas, those between E2 and G4 are highly si
s 37.24 29.13 40 I5
12.01 10.46 Il.71
InrteUgence is known to be lowly and negatively related to the rigklity type of questionnaires. This factor was assessed by administering the N-Seno Level Test (ciL/2C.46, 8) to G4. CkcupafiomZ status is expected to play a greater role with respect. to ‘the rigidity questionnaires. Contributions of this factor to test score variations are assessed in a separate analysis. El and 64 are, within hnd 63 are each divid themselves, homogeneous as to occupations. into four sub-categories, as fohws. student nurses and unskilled hospital staff (N = 17). skilled group (craftsmen and technicians, N = 35). business owners,or executives, and travelling agents (N := 15). academic group (doctors, ~,eterinary surgeons, dentists, etc., but no psychiatrists, N = 21). GI : farmers (N - 37). GII : skilled occupations, similar to EII (N - 17). GUI: business occupations, similar to EIII (N = 11). GIV: academ.ic group, similar to EIV (N = 28).
EI : EII : EIII: EIV :
The remaining seven 63 Ss, which are not classified, are housewives without ;my other occupation or training. ‘Their scores were most similar to the I md II categories. Apart from EI and GI, the remaining categories appear reasonably well equated for occupational status. From the educational training point of view, GI is considered superior to
344
J. C. BRENGEL
fK sons of proportion of the former category were land owners and a number of them had received 6ome hi& sch Regiod
diflerences were less well controlled. El Ss were drawn tilrn
the metropo.!itan fringe of London, while the E2 group Ss were practi&y dfl Condoners. Both %h&G3 and G4 groups were sampled in and around small towns of the former count-- of OMenburg, Lower Saxony. It is uncertain to what extent these differences affect the results. owever, :ti’this effect were very pronounced it would have become apparent k a El and E2 which it did not in practice. Additiorkally, study of regional difkrences does not support the assumption that &is factor may obscure the prment results. RESULTS
The relationships between all individual pairs of scores were inspected graphically and were found to be essentially lhsear, with the extiptioti of WCL +2 (see discussion). Intercorrelations are shown for G3 and TABLEI Intercorrelations of quesitionnaire scores. Upper fig,ures: G3 (N = 100) Lower figures: 64 (N= N
NR
CPIR
DO
IA
PFCL, 4-2
Ea.. N
. .
. . . .
NR
. . .
CPIR
. *
no . . . IA..
. .
PFCL+2
-01 -14
-16 -29*+ 01 01 03 43 13-06 41** s1**
07 -21* 12 22’ 259 m OS 05 34+* 22* 31** 40.0 32+* 500’ 44*e 4a*+ 43** 45**
WCL
100) Age
+2
-01 05 -07 41 14 13 05 13 48 45 32*’ 13 37** 17 M:bO 13 33’0 10 35** 09 45*+ 19 30’0 10 52*+ 28+*
+2
Intellis=
07 08 -15 41 23* 02 -11 37’0 03 22” -18 18 -37’C +
-
11 -
-07 -11 -10 -14 1.-08 -
-28”* 17 -34’b 0 -15
11 -04
Sijwifkanur: levels: * = 5 %, ** = 1%
1 groups are discussed
patios
ost
fur publication. gidity type of variables,
this rule, although coefficients tend to be consistently provided unexpected results. Ex
ity variables, whic.h contradicts Gng the fourth hypothesis. ependent traits: Ex, N and s intercorrelate inconsistently Rcients obtained for
lysik of nutiond d&rences
using bii Ss
Test score distributi,ons of Ex and N were roughly syLmmetric and similar for El. plus 2 a.nd G3 plus 4. Striking differences, however, were
0
8
Fig. 1. Garmazls (G) score higher otl rigidity type of variables than English (E).
41.C.
346
BRENQELMANN
obtained for rnmt of the rigidity scores, as shown in Figure 1. All Ss compkkd the NR, CPIR,, Do and IA scales. El did not complete PFCL +2 arId WCL i-2 as the:= lists had not been developed when this group was tested. Using a cutthg @nt midway between the E and G means, correct clussifcatima of nationality was as follows. E = = N NR CPKR =
DO
PFCL +2 WCX +2 -
52.9% 52.9% 74.8% 72.3%
83.6% 84.4% 66.3% 51.2%
When tested by c&square
all differences between E azid G were sign&ant at the one per cent level except Thor for IEx, N and WCL +2. IToelucidate this result further, a t-ratio analysis applied to selected male groups was carried out, as sun in the second subsection below. Andy&
within nationar! samples and between sexes
A t-ratio analysis between El and EZ revealed no significant differences for Ex, NR, CPIR and IA. El scored, however, significantly higher on N (r = 3.58, P
Comparison between sexes and between G3 and 64 males. t-ratios
G3 males 64 males
1:x
. . . . . . .
N.S.
N
. . . . . . .
2.33+ N.S. 2.60’ N.S. N.S. 2.47* 2.00*
NR . . CPIR . Do . . M . . PFCL+2. wcz+2
. . . .
” . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
L
.
. . . . . .
(f) (f) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
N.S. (f)
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
(f) (m) (m) (m) (m)
(m) (f)
2.45* 1.76 N.S N.S. 3.93’* + 2.82* * N.S. 3.81***
Levels of si&ificance: + = 5%, ** = J%, *+* = 0.1 yO Brackets indic&e groups scoring higher. f = female, m = male.
(G3) (G4) (63) (04) (G3) (63) (G3) (ri3)
DIFFERENCES IN QIJElSTIONNAIRE R
Ml
for significance. hese results are shown in Table Il. Qnly &-ratios significant at the ten er cent level and higher are shown. onsistently lower in Ex and N but scored, with the cas of 64, consistently higher on the e five per cent level of signifknce was reached in three instances. As the educational level of G3 is judged to be lower than that of to be higher for the former group. This expectation is largely borne out. Differences between 3 and G4 are relatively low. Selected analysis between male groups
1 on the grounds of its low mean age and its absence of PFCL +-2 and WCL 3-2, and the females because of their tendency to score low on the rigidity variables, the main analysis is now based on an all male comparison between E2 on the one hand and 63 and G4 on the other. These results are shown in Table III. TABLEIII All malt,:comparison of E2 vs. G3 and E2 vs. 64. E2, 85 w.ales .-
Ex . . . . N . . . . NR . . . CPIR . . Do.. . . IA . . . . PFCL -t- 2 VlCL -I- 2
x 23.61 17.39 22.84 14.51 20.76 13.99 12.93 10.53
SD 9.12 10.82 10.98 5.41 11.71 7.57 9.38 8.92
G3, 79 males
64, 67 males
x 26.00 17.10 33.99 20.26 40.89 27.66 22.67 16.71
w 22.70 19.72 32.03 19.69 35.12 25.16 20.76 9.36
SD 8.30 8.93 9.68 5.02 8.34 5.44 la.93 13.1li
SD 7.87 8.92 7.21 5.51 9.42 5.19 9.68 9.53
p-ratios E2 .G3 1.76 0.57 6.92*** 7.10*** 12.66*** 13.26*** 6.20+** 3.55+**
E2.G4 0.65 I .06 5.93*** 5.17*** 8.21*** 10.35*** 5.88+*” 0.27
Significance level: * ** = 0.1 “/b
Regardless of the G sample used E2 scores for the rigidity variables are considerably lower, again with the exception of WCL +2 in the case of the G4 comparison. At the same time, no significant di%rences are obtained for Ex and N. These results, in a more systematic manner, confirm previous suggestions $that Germans have much stronger attitudes of response intensity and extremeness than English people have. TZle first hypothesis 4 Hypotheses 2 and 3, derived from the is therefore amply supporte&,. literature, are contradioted. The attitudinal differences can neither be ascribed to extraversion nor to abnormality as measured by a neuroticism questionnaires. The latter point is elaborated in the discussion.
36 30 24 18 12 6
24 18 12 6
I
frnxE
XHJe
2. of some rigidity variables with of others not.
I
.
e ~t~ri~tio~
6
~~-“-----
-
--
22.53
33.27
7.13
c
x
3.33” 3.29 6.59
3.69
IS.13 27.09 %I7 5.45 0.93
85.79 4.7
8.51
18. 39.55 8.18 2. Q.78”$”
5.71 3.95
29.70 4.67
t
-
t
t w s
i5.71*** 15.88 12.
26.39 .61
13. 25.2 9.08 12.93 4.28””
15.65 19.70 9.99 13.87 1.0
10.23 20.59 8.98 13.71 3.2-I**
1
F
Significance
levels:
Panalysis
+ = 5 “/c9 * * = il y/,,
of variant:
related
to
10.73 18.45 18.11 9.11 1.8 7.28 5.37 0.79
7.5 6.3 .15
J. C. BRENCELMANN
350
This is confirmed by analyses of variance, carried out separately for questionnaire variables, yielding the following F-ratios (Table Y). No si&ficant &#erencm between status categories are obtained for NIX and CPlR, whereas all other scores varj significantly with occupa,tional status. This information is presented ‘because it may be useful iu future research in this area. It is not further discussed in the present context. IscussloN Correlation analysis Firstly, results shown amply corroborate the unpublished findings of
Nigniewitzky, &~ussed earlier on in ,the test section. It has been confirmed that the rigidity variables intercorrelate significantly and that they are essentially independent cjf Ex and N. Of the two extreme resposlse set variables, added by the present author, ‘she PFCL, +2 score is very similar in results to the other rigidity scales. The general conclusion is that the differences obtained between E and G are due to a rigidity factor sui generig and are uot Educible to other variables so far assessed. Further analysis appears more promising in refining the concept of rigidity rather than attempting an interpretation in terms of other personality factors, as suggested in the following section. Heterogeneous concept of “rigidity” The similarity in size of coefficients between the various rigidity scores
is not reflected in their relationship to external criteria. There are strikmg differences in their sensitivity of di@erentiAon between E and Q (Table III) and they are differentially affecte by variations in occupational status (Figure 2, Tables IV and V). This seems to agree with the frcquendq, expressed ophrion that the complex usually referred to as “ri@dity” 2:: of a heterogeneous nature, insofar as it is modifiable by certain c,.oaditions. It is, of course, beyand the scope of the present diicussion to dcterminqthe various components of the ri,gidity complex. However, IW qvationj i factors like extreme response set and intensity of response 13), an-ii1 stimulus factors like ambiguity and “reasonableness” of the statemems endorsed may generate rather specific effects. A further analysis of such factors may, in view of :he var!ying degrees of discriminatioiinnbetween E and G, define the differences obtained in a more specific manner. Eflecti of translation h translating the questionnaires, the author was aware of the problei 1s
involved 2nd has paid particular attention to correct representation of
DIFFERENCES
IN QUESTIQNNAI
~S~QNS~S
3
intensity of statements as well as of other a scales, and N included. bias in transl it should affect the Ex and N scales as demonstrated lack of di.Berentiation with regard to Ex and N would then lation had no significant distorting effect. IS argument rules out the possibiiity of speci-k ore convincing in this respect appear the results achieved by PFCL +2. This test score is based on responses made to single words and the extremeness of response is expressed in ratings of the ncmverbal In this case the significantly higher score of can hardly be attri to translation. The role of abroormality
One reason for considering the hypothesis that greater rigidity in Germans is due to a higher degree of abnornJity would be provkkd if abnormal: were shown to be more rigid than normals, when drawn from the same national background. Corresponding, as yet unpublished, resuhs are shown in Table VB. Comparison
TABLE VI English abnormals (neurotics and psychotics) and controls. Abnormals score significantly higher.
between
88 m controls t-ratios
vs.
39 f abnormals NH; . . CPlR . Do . . IA . . PFCL+2.. WCL-+2
. . . I. . . . . * , . . . . . . . ,a
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . l
3.29**
3.40*** 4.42*‘“* 2.59+* 4.08*** 2.74* *
3.01** 3.85*** 5.84*+* 3.97*** 4.75***
Significance levels: ** = 1 yO%*** = 0.1 %. m= male, f == female.
table demonstrates indeed a much higher degree of ri@dity in abnolmals. Yet, on closer examination, results may be used to support further the argument #that ditferences between E and G are not due to varkions in the degree of abnormality. I[f factors providing for an increase in abnormality wei- exclust’vely responsible the pattern of differentiation between E and 0 might be expected to resemble that between the El:controls and E abnormaJs. This is not the case. Variations in the size of the t-ratios are slight for tihe E normal/abnormal comparison Thits
(Table VI), as compared with the highly sigtificant variations found for the E/G comparison (Table III). This suggests that factors other than abnormality may be held responsible, Dismssion of ‘WCL +2 results ms
scarf:,designed .to be analogous to I?FCL f-2, yielded unexpected
and ra;ther complex results. Thou& sigGficantly related to PFCL +2 (Table I) it correlated much lower with the other ri@dity scores. The E/G differentiation by means of WC’L +2 was in&$ficant in one instance (E2/G4, Table III) and significant dffferenczs between the G samples were found in contrast to PFCL +2 (Table: II). Of the vardcus possible explanations, the following one may be thought of. Alexander and Adlerstein (1) found PGR responses in a word association experiment to be sign%ca&ly kgber for words ‘konnec::ed with death” than for neu’tral wore , qgesting a high &ective meaning ~4 death words. When carefully selected groups of religious and religious Ss were tested for the “m~:aning” of death words, using Osg semantic space technique, the religious Ss placed death words “more to the ‘bad’ end of the evaluative f&or”. Thii nega:ti.veefkct of death on religious Ss may be used to explain the discuss
PFCL iz2 63 G4
. . . . *.........
. . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L
-II
,-2
-_I
-2
---20.2 22.7 18.1
16.7 18.4 23.5
10.6 22.1 17.5
.- 13.1 20.5 25.7
A test of significance om the pooled -l/---2
responses is shown in
TABLE VII
Negative responses to the WCL, in comparison to the PFCI 1 increase for G and decrease for E (all male comparison.)
score:-1
PFCL
WCL G3
plus -2 . . . . . . SD . . . . . I . t-ratio YS. E2 . . .
8.04 -
9.17 3.06
6.80 3.48
15.46 -
64
42.14 18.33 7.06
43.00 24.64 5.98
Significance: all t’s < 0.001. N: E2 = 88, G3 = 79, 64 = 67.
As expected the G scored significantly highest !hroughout, but t-ratios are considerably higher for WCL than for PFCL, Additionally, in am= are higher for WCL than for PFCL. This contrast to E, the G me,_,, relationship may be expressed in Qrms of score variation from I?F to WC!,, as follows. Change from PFCL to WCL (---I j-2)
-_-Increase or no change . . . . . . . . . . Decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E2
63
14 74
40 39
32 35
N....................
88
79
67
--
G4
Chi-square: E2/G3 = 23. 9, U/G3 = 18.44. 0.J = 1, significance: 0.1 % in each case.
It is seen that the negative response to the WCL, in comparmison to the PFCL, is much higher for G than for E. The prediction derived from Alexander and Adlerstein is thus confirmed though, of course, tiis does not prove their hypothesis. Many other factors, including the greater brutality of war experiences in Germany, the prolonged period of Nazi oppression, and the complete economical post-war breakdown, may have caused this result. In addition, curvilirzar relationships, peculiar to Do in G, may be speculated upon. Both low and high dogmatic Ss scored significantly lower on WCL +2 than the medium portion. Such analyses, however, must be left to an investigation of the WCL proper. Suffice it to state now that the WCL is a highly complex test, the components of which require further analysis before use in contexts similar to the present one is warranted.
354
J. C. BRFiNGELMANN
rscmalityrigidity tandeducation The high degree of rigidity found in G school teachers
to whau effect it may have on educational attitudes. ,t,hepopular notion is expressed that upbringing in Germany occurs in a relatively authoritarian framework. This is in fact supporte e recently Tausch (19) h studies of Kaldegg quoted earlier on. preseioted 43 educational experts (p sors, senior lecturers an educational officers) with pictorial tests showing ch;rdren offending certaii standards of behaviour. The experts had to rank order four types of treatment as to their appropriateness in dealing with the children. The “soci,al-integrative”’ treatment ranked highest and the “autocratic” (reprimand and punishment) treatment clearly lowest. However, when 73 practising teachers, 88 per cent of whom were teaching in primary schools,, were tested 91 per cent of these reacted with treatments of the autocratic kind. This was considerably higher than a. corresponding figure obtained in an American investigation. At thii point the question may well be asked whether “autocratic” educational attitudes of school teachers are a function of their personality rigidity rather than of their teacher’s training.
que:stiion as
SUMMARY
Questionnaires of extraversion, neuroticism, rigidity, dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity and extreme (positive) response set were administered to 165 English and 200 German subjects. No significant differences were obtained as regards extraversion and neuroticism. Highly significant differences were found with the remaining; scales, correct classification in two instances amounting to about 85 p:r cent. The rigidity type of variables intercorrelated positively and signiticantly but proved practically independent of extraversion and neuroticism, which were in themselves not significantly correlated. Significant interactions were found between occuptitional status on the one hand and some of the rigidity variables ori the other, whereas others remained insignificant in this respect. Results obtained with abnormals were discussed in relation to the above findings.
Alexander,, I. I?. and Adlerstein, A. M., Studies in the psychology of death. In H. P. David and J. C. Brengelmann (Eds.), Perspectives 01 personality research. New York: Basic Books, 1959. (To appear.1 2. Brengelmann, J. C., The effects of exposure time in immediate recall o’:‘I abnormal and questionnaire criteria of personality. J. metzt. b.zi,, 1958, X04, 665-680. 1.
3.
rengelmann, J. C., Abnarmal and personality correlates of certainty. 1. iment. Sci., 1359. (January issue.) - and Brenge’.mann, L., Deutsche Validieru von Fragebogeu der Extraversion, neurotischen Tendenz und giditPt. Submitted to: 2. exp. 8 arxgew. Psychol. ‘3eutsche Validierung von Fragebogen dogmatischer und intoleraarer Einstellungen. Submitted to: Z. exp. & angew. Psychol. Primary social attitudes: a comparison of attitude patterns in and, Germany and Sweden. b. abnorm. sot. Psych& 1953,
4.
5.
questionnaire measurement of extraversion and neuroticism. iv. psychol., 1956, 50, 113-140. D., ManuolP of Nuflerno speed tests. London: Nartional Foundation of Educational Research, 1955 Goodstein, L. D., Regional differences in PI responses among male college dents. J. corr~lr!?. Psychol., 1954, 18, J37-441,. Gou The development of a rigidity scale. Berkeley: Of Califoraih Institute of Personality Assessme& and Research, 1952. (Mimeographed). Karldegg, A., Responses of German and English secmoodary school boys to a projection tesl. Brit. J.. Paychol., 1948, 3!9, 30-53. and English teacher traihring students by , A study of German means of prqjective techniques. &-it. 3. Pqchol., 1.95Ii, 42, 56-l 13. Nigniewitzky, W. IX, A statistical study of rigidity as a per,sonality variable. . A. Thesis, Univer. of London, 1955.. f ri;$dity in relation ------, A statistical and experimental investiyotio to personality and social attitudes. Ph. Thc!sis, Univer. of London, 1956. determimrnts of cognition. tism and rigidity ichigan State Colle I., Extreme response sets as a measure of intolerance of ambiguity. Brit. J. Psychol., 1958, 49, 329-334. Sundberg, N. D., The use of the MMPI for cross-s:ultural personality study: a preliminary report on the German translation. J. abnorm. sot. Psycho/., 1956, 52, 281-283. ., Pitklinen, P. and Kaartiaen, A., A modification of Raven’s Story Talcala, Completion Test. Res. Rep., Dept. of 1‘sychol., Inst. of Pedag., Jyvhkylii (Finland). Number 23, 1958. Tausch, Anne-Mmie, Empirische Untersuchuugen iiber das Verhalten von Lehrern gegeniiber Kindern in erziehungsschwierigen Situationen. 2. exp. & angcw. Psychol., 1958, 5, 127-163. Wilde, K., Die Wunschprobe. Psychol. Rundschau, 1950, I, 213-224.
--=--->
9. lo.+
11.
12. 13, 14.
17.
18.
19.
20.
+
References
10 and 15 are quoted by Nigniewitzky
(13).
J. 6.
N
hstitute of Psychiatry,
k Hill, L,onclon,S..E.S
This paper reports MI a comparison between English and erBlan samples on a variety of questionnaire res-=m yulrses which include measures Of extraversion, neuroticism, rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatism and positive extreme response set. These measures may be considered t0 fall into two parts: personality test responses in the narrower sense (extraversion and neuroticism) and “disposition” or “rigidity” variables (other measures). The data stem from an analysis undertaken to validate
Anglo-American questionnaires in Germany (4, 5). Scientific inquiries into national differences in Europe are few. Eysenck (6) administered a 40-item social attitude inventory to 263 Germans and factor analysed the intercorrelations. e two resulting factors, termed servatism/radicafis;m”, “tough-mindedness/tender-mindedness” were found to be similar to factors obtained m English, Swedish and level were, however,, not American populations. Variations in respo discussed. Kaldegg (11) discusses the differential responses of 79 German (6) and 129 English (E) secondary school boys to Raven’s “Controlled re of a boy of tile same Projection” Test. This aest consists of one estions were required such age as the Ss. Responses to standardized as: What did he like doing? Whom did he like playing with? Considerable Merences in attitude ;owa.rds tie test were found. The E boys were tbe test as a “rnae detached and te+conscious” and the G boys “t life situation and dealt with it very seriously”. While &be boys seemed QYbe in *search of a “righ$” answer, the E boys looked for an “easy” one and were not always serious. Furthermore, G boys showed a “marked tendency to conventionalism and rigidity” in their test responses. In a second study (12), ald.egg administered .an attitude test similar to the one discussed above to 53 G and 53 E woman student teachers. The SOUP Rorschach was also given to 23 of each group. Results ‘were considered basicay similar to the ones obtained with the secondary 339
J. C. BRENGEEMANN
340
interpretation,, however, was now guided by Jung’s and Rmjla&‘s &eories of introversion/extraversion. The E: students were con&e& “‘mire diretzt and objeotive” and tie G students “more indirect and sub$ctive”. This interpretation, reminiscent of the olti objectivity/ subje&vity typology, permitted, in terms of Jung’s theory, the E to be de&bed Z-Xmore efiraverted and the G as more introverted. Although this &erpretation hardly um,fixms with relevant popular notions, the author WLSapparently forced to this conclusion by the Morschach resubs. Those showed the Ci students to be “more introversial” (lower output, high M/C), in Rorrichach’s own words “lesSsadaptive to outer reality and more intense”, and the E students (higher output, low M/C) to be “more adaptable to outer reality and more spread out than intense”.
shady
w,v;.
‘Ttle
Thus, iu the second study, the author attributes the various attitudislal attitudes oi iutensity, rigidity, serioidsimplicatim of the lindings-i.e., ness, and SQ forth-to extraversion/introversion. Yet another interpretation appears possible. Ta ala, Pitl&en, and
Ka~artinen (18) obtaii highly significant dift’erences between normal and maladjasted boys and girls, partly diagum& as “neurotic”‘, the disturbed children’s social attitudes being more tensed, conflictful, aggresi,vc and more boastful of achievement and iraealistic success. !koring procedure was somewhat diHerent from Kaldegg’s experiments. Nowever, the higher achievement phantasies, guilt feelings and extremeness in expressing views in the disturbed child may suggest that rigid attitudes of the End investigalted in the present experiment are related to abnorma&ty, possibly of the neurotic kid. This hypothesis receives support by the ffollowing investigation. Strikiig ktiierences on nearly all MMPI sub-scales were obtained
between American and German students by Sundberg (17). The G responses were consistently more in the abnormal dire&on. As, in the author’s opinion, “personal observation suggests no reason to believe that the German students suffer from more psychopathology than American students”, results are first interpreted as due to ,translation, the German version being ‘9nilder” or less extreme in implication, However, the author considers the possibility of differences in testtaking attitude or of some kind of “more fundamental psycholqicalcultu al di&rences”~ The supgesticws drawn from these experiments may now be summarized as follows. Although the factorial pattern of social attitudes appears to be simgar for E and G nationals, differences in the degree of certain atitudes a~ 4ikely to exist. G nationals are said to rank higher on tie
IN QUi3T~ONNAJRE
RESPONSES
owing descript
s: serious in testtaking, oonventional, stereotyped, rigid, subjective and intense @r-r hypothesis). hypothesis has been e due to their greater introversi e third hypothesis may be considere at at least some of *ihe erence8 quoted are due to a higher degree of abnormality on the part of the G. Failing ‘this the fowrh hypothesis may be advanced that attitudinal ditferences discussed are not reducible ,to extraversion or abnormality but form a characteristic of th.eir in the case of questionnaire studies, the possibility must that no true cli@rences exist and that appartnt differences are caused by variations due to translation. ese hypotheses were tested by administering qu,estionnaires of extraversion ), neuroticism (Nj, and rigidity-intensity-intolerancedogmatism ( CL -j-2 and WCL, 3-2) to suitable E and G samples. The latter are dso summarily referred to as “rigidity” variables. An intelligence test was administered to one G sample. TESTS
The following test,s were used.
- extraversion: EIPI, 24 items (‘7). - rigidity: 28 items (13, I4). ventory of Rigidity: 14 - California Psychological items (10). Do - dogmatism: 3,6 items (15). - intolerance serfambiguity: 20 items (13, 14). I.4 PFCL +2 - personal fri.end check list, positive extremes: 00 items. WCL +2 - wish check list, positive extremes: 100 items. - neuroticism: MPI, 24 items (7). N Intelligence - Nuffemo Level Test: ,drne limit 30 minutes ;a).
Ex NR CPIR
The Ex and N scales of the Maudsley Persona.lity
considered to be mutually independent criteria of Eysenck’s dimensions of extraversion and neuroti~cism.The NR, CPIR, Do and IA scales were taken from Nigniewiszky”s studies on rigidity (13, I4), in which these scales were found to intercorre1at.e ,positively and to form a general factor of rigidity. They also were shown to be essentially independent of Ex and pt+ped version of a. prewiously used N. The PFCL represents a further dv.y check list (2, 3), and ‘was originally derived from Soueif’o “pers:Bn friend” check list (16). Ss describe how much they like or dislike
34::
J.
C.. BRENGELMet4NN
personal friends of their own sex to have certain characteristics like “‘agreenlg”, ‘“dependable”, “witty”, etc. The following five grades are used: +2, +1, 0, -1, and -2. The PFCL +2 score, as a measure of intensity of set, was originally designed to correlate positively with The actual correlation was 0.40 (N - 48). Very Similar results been detained more recently with much larger samples. The WCL was adapted from Wilde’s “Wunschprobe” (20) so as to be identical. with the PFCL in terms of number of items and scoring procedure. This check list was intended to throw some light on tie generality of respons modes of this kind. Actually it turned out to provide rather different results, the implications of which are discussed further below. As the instructions are of great importance they are now quoted in full. ‘.Tfyea died and it were only possible to continue Itie in the following different forms, how would! you consider your future existence? me:ans of 2he scale below, please indicate your preference of EACH item”. Items which would be extremely pleasant _ . . . . . . . ,Y 9, just: ,, 99 Y, neither pleasant nor unpleasant ,, just unpleasant . . . . . ,, . . . . . 9, ?, extremely ,,
score +2 $9
4-l
,, ,, ,,
0 -1 -2
Then followed a list of 100 items like: advertisement, bathroom, cathedral, cemetery, garter, lantern, orderly system, shark, etc., which had to be responded to. Ail questionrUes were of the “yes”, “no’, and “?” type. Two marks were giveu for an answer in the key& direction and one mark for a ?-response. of the two check lists only the number of positive extreme responses (+2) was used as score. Full descriptions of the above techniques are prepared for publication dsewhere.
The hollowing four groups of Ss were used. E 1. Male apprentices of an Englbh motor car &m (N - 77). E 2. AD. maie English group of mixed occupations (N - 88). G 3. Predominantly male German group of mixed occupations (A!- 100, 79 of them male). 4. Pretiomiuantly male German group of primary school teachers [N - 100, 67 of them male).
ires used, part of the analysis is e~~Iusiv~~ly
in age between I6 and 2 erent from all other grottps. years. 63 was younger and 64 01&r groups used in the t-ra.tio e mam conciusion:, zrz based, are sho&a erences between whereas, those between E2 and G4 are highly si
s 37.24 29.13 40 I5
12.01 10.46 Il.71
InrteUgence is known to be lowly and negatively related to the rigklity type of questionnaires. This factor was assessed by administering the N-Seno Level Test (ciL/2C.46, 8) to G4. CkcupafiomZ status is expected to play a greater role with respect. to ‘the rigidity questionnaires. Contributions of this factor to test score variations are assessed in a separate analysis. El and 64 are, within hnd 63 are each divid themselves, homogeneous as to occupations. into four sub-categories, as fohws. student nurses and unskilled hospital staff (N = 17). skilled group (craftsmen and technicians, N = 35). business owners,or executives, and travelling agents (N := 15). academic group (doctors, ~,eterinary surgeons, dentists, etc., but no psychiatrists, N = 21). GI : farmers (N - 37). GII : skilled occupations, similar to EII (N - 17). GUI: business occupations, similar to EIII (N = 11). GIV: academ.ic group, similar to EIV (N = 28).
EI : EII : EIII: EIV :
The remaining seven 63 Ss, which are not classified, are housewives without ;my other occupation or training. ‘Their scores were most similar to the I md II categories. Apart from EI and GI, the remaining categories appear reasonably well equated for occupational status. From the educational training point of view, GI is considered superior to
344
J. C. BRENGEL
fK sons of proportion of the former category were land owners and a number of them had received 6ome hi& sch Regiod
diflerences were less well controlled. El Ss were drawn tilrn
the metropo.!itan fringe of London, while the E2 group Ss were practi&y dfl Condoners. Both %h&G3 and G4 groups were sampled in and around small towns of the former count-- of OMenburg, Lower Saxony. It is uncertain to what extent these differences affect the results. owever, :ti’this effect were very pronounced it would have become apparent k a El and E2 which it did not in practice. Additiorkally, study of regional difkrences does not support the assumption that &is factor may obscure the prment results. RESULTS
The relationships between all individual pairs of scores were inspected graphically and were found to be essentially lhsear, with the extiptioti of WCL +2 (see discussion). Intercorrelations are shown for G3 and TABLEI Intercorrelations of quesitionnaire scores. Upper fig,ures: G3 (N = 100) Lower figures: 64 (N= N
NR
CPIR
DO
IA
PFCL, 4-2
Ea.. N
. .
. . . .
NR
. . .
CPIR
. *
no . . . IA..
. .
PFCL+2
-01 -14
-16 -29*+ 01 01 03 43 13-06 41** s1**
07 -21* 12 22’ 259 m OS 05 34+* 22* 31** 40.0 32+* 500’ 44*e 4a*+ 43** 45**
WCL
100) Age
+2
-01 05 -07 41 14 13 05 13 48 45 32*’ 13 37** 17 M:bO 13 33’0 10 35** 09 45*+ 19 30’0 10 52*+ 28+*
+2
Intellis=
07 08 -15 41 23* 02 -11 37’0 03 22” -18 18 -37’C +
-
11 -
-07 -11 -10 -14 1.-08 -
-28”* 17 -34’b 0 -15
11 -04
Sijwifkanur: levels: * = 5 %, ** = 1%
1 groups are discussed
patios
ost
fur publication. gidity type of variables,
this rule, although coefficients tend to be consistently provided unexpected results. Ex
ity variables, whic.h contradicts Gng the fourth hypothesis. ependent traits: Ex, N and s intercorrelate inconsistently Rcients obtained for
lysik of nutiond d&rences
using bii Ss
Test score distributi,ons of Ex and N were roughly syLmmetric and similar for El. plus 2 a.nd G3 plus 4. Striking differences, however, were
0
8
Fig. 1. Garmazls (G) score higher otl rigidity type of variables than English (E).
41.C.
346
BRENQELMANN
obtained for rnmt of the rigidity scores, as shown in Figure 1. All Ss compkkd the NR, CPIR,, Do and IA scales. El did not complete PFCL +2 arId WCL i-2 as the:= lists had not been developed when this group was tested. Using a cutthg @nt midway between the E and G means, correct clussifcatima of nationality was as follows. E = = N NR CPKR =
DO
PFCL +2 WCX +2 -
52.9% 52.9% 74.8% 72.3%
83.6% 84.4% 66.3% 51.2%
When tested by c&square
all differences between E azid G were sign&ant at the one per cent level except Thor for IEx, N and WCL +2. IToelucidate this result further, a t-ratio analysis applied to selected male groups was carried out, as sun in the second subsection below. Andy&
within nationar! samples and between sexes
A t-ratio analysis between El and EZ revealed no significant differences for Ex, NR, CPIR and IA. El scored, however, significantly higher on N (r = 3.58, P
Comparison between sexes and between G3 and 64 males. t-ratios
G3 males 64 males
1:x
. . . . . . .
N.S.
N
. . . . . . .
2.33+ N.S. 2.60’ N.S. N.S. 2.47* 2.00*
NR . . CPIR . Do . . M . . PFCL+2. wcz+2
. . . .
” . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
L
.
. . . . . .
(f) (f) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
N.S. (f)
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
(f) (m) (m) (m) (m)
(m) (f)
2.45* 1.76 N.S N.S. 3.93’* + 2.82* * N.S. 3.81***
Levels of si&ificance: + = 5%, ** = J%, *+* = 0.1 yO Brackets indic&e groups scoring higher. f = female, m = male.
(G3) (G4) (63) (04) (G3) (63) (G3) (ri3)
DIFFERENCES IN QIJElSTIONNAIRE R
Ml
for significance. hese results are shown in Table Il. Qnly &-ratios significant at the ten er cent level and higher are shown. onsistently lower in Ex and N but scored, with the cas of 64, consistently higher on the e five per cent level of signifknce was reached in three instances. As the educational level of G3 is judged to be lower than that of to be higher for the former group. This expectation is largely borne out. Differences between 3 and G4 are relatively low. Selected analysis between male groups
1 on the grounds of its low mean age and its absence of PFCL +-2 and WCL 3-2, and the females because of their tendency to score low on the rigidity variables, the main analysis is now based on an all male comparison between E2 on the one hand and 63 and G4 on the other. These results are shown in Table III. TABLEIII All malt,:comparison of E2 vs. G3 and E2 vs. 64. E2, 85 w.ales .-
Ex . . . . N . . . . NR . . . CPIR . . Do.. . . IA . . . . PFCL -t- 2 VlCL -I- 2
x 23.61 17.39 22.84 14.51 20.76 13.99 12.93 10.53
SD 9.12 10.82 10.98 5.41 11.71 7.57 9.38 8.92
G3, 79 males
64, 67 males
x 26.00 17.10 33.99 20.26 40.89 27.66 22.67 16.71
w 22.70 19.72 32.03 19.69 35.12 25.16 20.76 9.36
SD 8.30 8.93 9.68 5.02 8.34 5.44 la.93 13.1li
SD 7.87 8.92 7.21 5.51 9.42 5.19 9.68 9.53
p-ratios E2 .G3 1.76 0.57 6.92*** 7.10*** 12.66*** 13.26*** 6.20+** 3.55+**
E2.G4 0.65 I .06 5.93*** 5.17*** 8.21*** 10.35*** 5.88+*” 0.27
Significance level: * ** = 0.1 “/b
Regardless of the G sample used E2 scores for the rigidity variables are considerably lower, again with the exception of WCL +2 in the case of the G4 comparison. At the same time, no significant di%rences are obtained for Ex and N. These results, in a more systematic manner, confirm previous suggestions $that Germans have much stronger attitudes of response intensity and extremeness than English people have. TZle first hypothesis 4 Hypotheses 2 and 3, derived from the is therefore amply supporte&,. literature, are contradioted. The attitudinal differences can neither be ascribed to extraversion nor to abnormality as measured by a neuroticism questionnaires. The latter point is elaborated in the discussion.
36 30 24 18 12 6
24 18 12 6
I
frnxE
XHJe
2. of some rigidity variables with of others not.
I
.
e ~t~ri~tio~
6
~~-“-----
-
--
22.53
33.27
7.13
c
x
3.33” 3.29 6.59
3.69
IS.13 27.09 %I7 5.45 0.93
85.79 4.7
8.51
18. 39.55 8.18 2. Q.78”$”
5.71 3.95
29.70 4.67
t
-
t
t w s
i5.71*** 15.88 12.
26.39 .61
13. 25.2 9.08 12.93 4.28””
15.65 19.70 9.99 13.87 1.0
10.23 20.59 8.98 13.71 3.2-I**
1
F
Significance
levels:
Panalysis
+ = 5 “/c9 * * = il y/,,
of variant:
related
to
10.73 18.45 18.11 9.11 1.8 7.28 5.37 0.79
7.5 6.3 .15
J. C. BRENCELMANN
350
This is confirmed by analyses of variance, carried out separately for questionnaire variables, yielding the following F-ratios (Table Y). No si&ficant &#erencm between status categories are obtained for NIX and CPlR, whereas all other scores varj significantly with occupa,tional status. This information is presented ‘because it may be useful iu future research in this area. It is not further discussed in the present context. IscussloN Correlation analysis Firstly, results shown amply corroborate the unpublished findings of
Nigniewitzky, &~ussed earlier on in ,the test section. It has been confirmed that the rigidity variables intercorrelate significantly and that they are essentially independent cjf Ex and N. Of the two extreme resposlse set variables, added by the present author, ‘she PFCL, +2 score is very similar in results to the other rigidity scales. The general conclusion is that the differences obtained between E and G are due to a rigidity factor sui generig and are uot Educible to other variables so far assessed. Further analysis appears more promising in refining the concept of rigidity rather than attempting an interpretation in terms of other personality factors, as suggested in the following section. Heterogeneous concept of “rigidity” The similarity in size of coefficients between the various rigidity scores
is not reflected in their relationship to external criteria. There are strikmg differences in their sensitivity of di@erentiAon between E and Q (Table III) and they are differentially affecte by variations in occupational status (Figure 2, Tables IV and V). This seems to agree with the frcquendq, expressed ophrion that the complex usually referred to as “ri@dity” 2:: of a heterogeneous nature, insofar as it is modifiable by certain c,.oaditions. It is, of course, beyand the scope of the present diicussion to dcterminqthe various components of the ri,gidity complex. However, IW qvationj i factors like extreme response set and intensity of response 13), an-ii1 stimulus factors like ambiguity and “reasonableness” of the statemems endorsed may generate rather specific effects. A further analysis of such factors may, in view of :he var!ying degrees of discriminatioiinnbetween E and G, define the differences obtained in a more specific manner. Eflecti of translation h translating the questionnaires, the author was aware of the problei 1s
involved 2nd has paid particular attention to correct representation of
DIFFERENCES
IN QUESTIQNNAI
~S~QNS~S
3
intensity of statements as well as of other a scales, and N included. bias in transl it should affect the Ex and N scales as demonstrated lack of di.Berentiation with regard to Ex and N would then lation had no significant distorting effect. IS argument rules out the possibiiity of speci-k ore convincing in this respect appear the results achieved by PFCL +2. This test score is based on responses made to single words and the extremeness of response is expressed in ratings of the ncmverbal In this case the significantly higher score of can hardly be attri to translation. The role of abroormality
One reason for considering the hypothesis that greater rigidity in Germans is due to a higher degree of abnornJity would be provkkd if abnormal: were shown to be more rigid than normals, when drawn from the same national background. Corresponding, as yet unpublished, resuhs are shown in Table VB. Comparison
TABLE VI English abnormals (neurotics and psychotics) and controls. Abnormals score significantly higher.
between
88 m controls t-ratios
vs.
39 f abnormals NH; . . CPlR . Do . . IA . . PFCL+2.. WCL-+2
. . . I. . . . . * , . . . . . . . ,a
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . l
3.29**
3.40*** 4.42*‘“* 2.59+* 4.08*** 2.74* *
3.01** 3.85*** 5.84*+* 3.97*** 4.75***
Significance levels: ** = 1 yO%*** = 0.1 %. m= male, f == female.
table demonstrates indeed a much higher degree of ri@dity in abnolmals. Yet, on closer examination, results may be used to support further the argument #that ditferences between E and G are not due to varkions in the degree of abnormality. I[f factors providing for an increase in abnormality wei- exclust’vely responsible the pattern of differentiation between E and 0 might be expected to resemble that between the El:controls and E abnormaJs. This is not the case. Variations in the size of the t-ratios are slight for tihe E normal/abnormal comparison Thits
(Table VI), as compared with the highly sigtificant variations found for the E/G comparison (Table III). This suggests that factors other than abnormality may be held responsible, Dismssion of ‘WCL +2 results ms
scarf:,designed .to be analogous to I?FCL f-2, yielded unexpected
and ra;ther complex results. Thou& sigGficantly related to PFCL +2 (Table I) it correlated much lower with the other ri@dity scores. The E/G differentiation by means of WC’L +2 was in&$ficant in one instance (E2/G4, Table III) and significant dffferenczs between the G samples were found in contrast to PFCL +2 (Table: II). Of the vardcus possible explanations, the following one may be thought of. Alexander and Adlerstein (1) found PGR responses in a word association experiment to be sign%ca&ly kgber for words ‘konnec::ed with death” than for neu’tral wore , qgesting a high &ective meaning ~4 death words. When carefully selected groups of religious and religious Ss were tested for the “m~:aning” of death words, using Osg semantic space technique, the religious Ss placed death words “more to the ‘bad’ end of the evaluative f&or”. Thii nega:ti.veefkct of death on religious Ss may be used to explain the discuss
PFCL iz2 63 G4
. . . . *.........
. . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L
-II
,-2
-_I
-2
---20.2 22.7 18.1
16.7 18.4 23.5
10.6 22.1 17.5
.- 13.1 20.5 25.7
A test of significance om the pooled -l/---2
responses is shown in
TABLE VII
Negative responses to the WCL, in comparison to the PFCI 1 increase for G and decrease for E (all male comparison.)
score:-1
PFCL
WCL G3
plus -2 . . . . . . SD . . . . . I . t-ratio YS. E2 . . .
8.04 -
9.17 3.06
6.80 3.48
15.46 -
64
42.14 18.33 7.06
43.00 24.64 5.98
Significance: all t’s < 0.001. N: E2 = 88, G3 = 79, 64 = 67.
As expected the G scored significantly highest !hroughout, but t-ratios are considerably higher for WCL than for PFCL, Additionally, in am= are higher for WCL than for PFCL. This contrast to E, the G me,_,, relationship may be expressed in Qrms of score variation from I?F to WC!,, as follows. Change from PFCL to WCL (---I j-2)
-_-Increase or no change . . . . . . . . . . Decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E2
63
14 74
40 39
32 35
N....................
88
79
67
--
G4
Chi-square: E2/G3 = 23. 9, U/G3 = 18.44. 0.J = 1, significance: 0.1 % in each case.
It is seen that the negative response to the WCL, in comparmison to the PFCL, is much higher for G than for E. The prediction derived from Alexander and Adlerstein is thus confirmed though, of course, tiis does not prove their hypothesis. Many other factors, including the greater brutality of war experiences in Germany, the prolonged period of Nazi oppression, and the complete economical post-war breakdown, may have caused this result. In addition, curvilirzar relationships, peculiar to Do in G, may be speculated upon. Both low and high dogmatic Ss scored significantly lower on WCL +2 than the medium portion. Such analyses, however, must be left to an investigation of the WCL proper. Suffice it to state now that the WCL is a highly complex test, the components of which require further analysis before use in contexts similar to the present one is warranted.
354
J. C. BRFiNGELMANN
rscmalityrigidity tandeducation The high degree of rigidity found in G school teachers
to whau effect it may have on educational attitudes. ,t,hepopular notion is expressed that upbringing in Germany occurs in a relatively authoritarian framework. This is in fact supporte e recently Tausch (19) h studies of Kaldegg quoted earlier on. preseioted 43 educational experts (p sors, senior lecturers an educational officers) with pictorial tests showing ch;rdren offending certaii standards of behaviour. The experts had to rank order four types of treatment as to their appropriateness in dealing with the children. The “soci,al-integrative”’ treatment ranked highest and the “autocratic” (reprimand and punishment) treatment clearly lowest. However, when 73 practising teachers, 88 per cent of whom were teaching in primary schools,, were tested 91 per cent of these reacted with treatments of the autocratic kind. This was considerably higher than a. corresponding figure obtained in an American investigation. At thii point the question may well be asked whether “autocratic” educational attitudes of school teachers are a function of their personality rigidity rather than of their teacher’s training.
que:stiion as
SUMMARY
Questionnaires of extraversion, neuroticism, rigidity, dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity and extreme (positive) response set were administered to 165 English and 200 German subjects. No significant differences were obtained as regards extraversion and neuroticism. Highly significant differences were found with the remaining; scales, correct classification in two instances amounting to about 85 p:r cent. The rigidity type of variables intercorrelated positively and signiticantly but proved practically independent of extraversion and neuroticism, which were in themselves not significantly correlated. Significant interactions were found between occuptitional status on the one hand and some of the rigidity variables ori the other, whereas others remained insignificant in this respect. Results obtained with abnormals were discussed in relation to the above findings.
Alexander,, I. I?. and Adlerstein, A. M., Studies in the psychology of death. In H. P. David and J. C. Brengelmann (Eds.), Perspectives 01 personality research. New York: Basic Books, 1959. (To appear.1 2. Brengelmann, J. C., The effects of exposure time in immediate recall o’:‘I abnormal and questionnaire criteria of personality. J. metzt. b.zi,, 1958, X04, 665-680. 1.
3.
rengelmann, J. C., Abnarmal and personality correlates of certainty. 1. iment. Sci., 1359. (January issue.) - and Brenge’.mann, L., Deutsche Validieru von Fragebogeu der Extraversion, neurotischen Tendenz und giditPt. Submitted to: 2. exp. 8 arxgew. Psychol. ‘3eutsche Validierung von Fragebogen dogmatischer und intoleraarer Einstellungen. Submitted to: Z. exp. & angew. Psychol. Primary social attitudes: a comparison of attitude patterns in and, Germany and Sweden. b. abnorm. sot. Psych& 1953,
4.
5.
questionnaire measurement of extraversion and neuroticism. iv. psychol., 1956, 50, 113-140. D., ManuolP of Nuflerno speed tests. London: Nartional Foundation of Educational Research, 1955 Goodstein, L. D., Regional differences in PI responses among male college dents. J. corr~lr!?. Psychol., 1954, 18, J37-441,. Gou The development of a rigidity scale. Berkeley: Of Califoraih Institute of Personality Assessme& and Research, 1952. (Mimeographed). Karldegg, A., Responses of German and English secmoodary school boys to a projection tesl. Brit. J.. Paychol., 1948, 3!9, 30-53. and English teacher traihring students by , A study of German means of prqjective techniques. &-it. 3. Pqchol., 1.95Ii, 42, 56-l 13. Nigniewitzky, W. IX, A statistical study of rigidity as a per,sonality variable. . A. Thesis, Univer. of London, 1955.. f ri;$dity in relation ------, A statistical and experimental investiyotio to personality and social attitudes. Ph. Thc!sis, Univer. of London, 1956. determimrnts of cognition. tism and rigidity ichigan State Colle I., Extreme response sets as a measure of intolerance of ambiguity. Brit. J. Psychol., 1958, 49, 329-334. Sundberg, N. D., The use of the MMPI for cross-s:ultural personality study: a preliminary report on the German translation. J. abnorm. sot. Psycho/., 1956, 52, 281-283. ., Pitklinen, P. and Kaartiaen, A., A modification of Raven’s Story Talcala, Completion Test. Res. Rep., Dept. of 1‘sychol., Inst. of Pedag., Jyvhkylii (Finland). Number 23, 1958. Tausch, Anne-Mmie, Empirische Untersuchuugen iiber das Verhalten von Lehrern gegeniiber Kindern in erziehungsschwierigen Situationen. 2. exp. & angcw. Psychol., 1958, 5, 127-163. Wilde, K., Die Wunschprobe. Psychol. Rundschau, 1950, I, 213-224.
--=--->
9. lo.+
11.
12. 13, 14.
17.
18.
19.
20.
+
References
10 and 15 are quoted by Nigniewitzky
(13).