Self-image and personality

Person. indkid. LJijJ Vol. II. No. 4. pp. 321-326. Printed m Great Britain. All rights reserved

1990

0191-8869 90 53.00+0.00 CopyrIght c 1990 Pergamon Press plc

SELF-IMAGE

AND PERSONALITY

BRUCE KIRKCALDY Psychologische Beratung und Diagnostik, Jagerei I, 4 Dusseldorf 13, F.R.G. (Received I2 June 1989)

Summary-This study attempts to relate the self-image scales (derived from the Giessen Test) constructed on the basis of psychoanalytical and sociopsychological theory. and the personality dimensions. Psychoticism. Extraversion and Neuroticism (EPQ-R). Factorial analysis revealed that two major self-descriptive factors emerge from the GT sub-scales labelled social anxiety and ‘conformism’. Psychoticism and Social Desirability were intimately related to Dominance and Self-control. variables which loaded on the higher order dimension, ‘Conformism’. Underlying mood (hypomanicdepressive) social (im)potency and submissiveness were related to Neuroticism. Extraversion was associated with positive affect, reflected in elevated scores on the scales, Dominance, Permeability and Social potency. The implications of these findings are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The structure of the Giessen Test (GT: Beckmann, Braehler & Richter, 1983) purportedly differs from contemporary personality inventories as a consequence of the psychoanalytical and sociopsychological premises which were intrinsic in its construction. The GT is primarily intended to gain information concerning the persona1 characteristics an individual ascribes to him- or her-self (self-image) or to another person (other-image), that is, it focuses on internal and external attributions. The test initially began in the ‘other-image’ form, emanating from the research context on counter-transference in psychoanalytical diagnostics. More recently, the self-image form has evolved as the most representative questionnaire mode. Initially, the resulting standard scales have been demonstrated to be difficult to replicate (sample-dependent) and unsatisfactory in terms of consistency (Angleitner, 1976; Kuda, 1976; Liepmann & Hoppe. 1976). In a more recent, large scale study, Braehler and Beckmann (1981) countered previous methodological and statistical shortcomings, and were able to verify the consistency, generality. and stability of a 5 or 6 factor solution. The Giessen Test scales are a highly differentiated series of intraindividual and psychosocial attribute-complexes which are relevant for a contemporary, psychoanalytical diagnostic. They yield information of internal structures, diverse instincts and their levels of organisation, ego and superego relationships, and details of defence mechanisms. Several items are associated with complex, emotional states such as depression and anxiety; others relate to specific, fundamental ego-qualities involving fantasy, introspection, self-critical evaluation, persistence and permeability. The majority of statements focus on issues of social relationships. incorporating basic features of social sensitivity (proximity, trust and dependency) and social resonance (Beckman & Richter, 1972). The selected statements purposely omit characteristics of bodily sensation, particularly physical symptoms. It is claimed that the GT does not measure neurotic tendencies in the forma1 sense that traditional concepts of genera1 autonomic lability do (e.g. MMQ, MPI, FPI, etc.), since it is assumed that neurotic tendencies cannot be reduced to a single, global dimension. These standard scales are supplemented by two measures, M(id) and E(xtreme) responses. The tendency to respond with ‘0’ middle responses (indifference) has been shown to correlate negatively with all MMPI scales with the exception of Hypochondriasis and Hysteria, and positively with the validation (L and K) scales (cf. Beckmann & Richter, 1972). The latter finding is consistent with the notion that Lie scales may be assessing socially desirable or defensive responding. Extreme responding style (preference for ’ + 3’ or ‘ - 3’ ratings on a 7-point graded scale) was significantly positively correlated with F, Schizophrenia, Psychopathic deviance, Hypomania and Paranoia. In another study, Zenz, Braehler and Braun (1975) suggest that extreme responding may be a measure of ‘effusive’ behaviour. 321

312

BRUCE KIRKCALD’I

There are a number of reasons for assuming that these self-image scales do indeed represent manifestations of stable underlying personality constructs. Research in personality and differential psychology have frequently demonstrated that the vast variety of traits or personality attributes, for instance. sociability, dominance, depression, tension, excitability. liveliness. etc, are interrelated, and do not display conceptual or statistical independence. There is a general consensus that elements of personality are hierarchically structured, that is, primary traits are inclined to coalesce in the form of higher-order type constructs, which themselves are theoretically independent. Unfortunately, few studies are available relating the Giessen Test to other personality inventories. The primary purpose of the present study is (1) to assess the extent of independence between the standard GT scales, (2) to examine the degree of conceptual similarity between the self-image measures assessed by the Giessen Test and substantive personality traits as measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), and (3) to verify whether extreme and ‘defensive’ responders of the self-image ratings display specific personality characteristics. In this manner, it is hoped to enhance the understanding of the constructs implicit in the GT. Correlational patterning and factorial analyses were used to explore these relationships.

METHOD

A group of 72 normal healthy Ss, 38 males [mean age 34.79 (SD 10.36) years] and 34 females [mean age 30.65 (SD 6.78)], were recruited to participate in the study involving administration of the revised German version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) together with the Giessen Test (Beckmann et al., 1983). Ss were selected from a variety of occupations (all with the exception of one person, were employed at the time of participation), and were residents in the area of North-Rhine Westfalen, F.R.G. They were all paid. The EPQ-R (Eysenck, Eysenck & Barrett, 1985) comprises 122 items (indicating the original 101 EPQ items plus 22 novel Psychoticism items), each of which loads on one of four personality dimensions, P(sychoticism), E(xtraversion), N(euroticism), and Social Desirability (Lie Scale). Ss are requested to respond to each statement in a yes/no (forced choice format) manner. The questionnaire has been widely implemented in diverse settings including clinical, social and industrial and is well-established in psychometric assessment. The Giessen Test represents one of the more popular German inventories. used extensively for counseliing, diagnostic and therapeutic purposes (psychosomatic and psychoneurotic disorders). Beckmann and Richter (1972) claim that it differs from conventional personality inventories in that it was constructed on the basis of psychoanalytical and socio-psychological theoretical underpinnings. It consists of 40 statements (items) presented in bipolar form; Ss being required to respond on a 7-point graded scale according to the direction and magnitude that a particular statement reflects an accurate self-description. The inventory supposedly assesses emotional states (anxiety, underlying mood and self-control), basic interpersonal states (trust, emotional proximity, and dependency), ego qualities (permeability, introspection and imagination), social reactions, and responses by others. The actual scales are defined in Table 1.

RESULTS

The means and standard deviations for all scales were comparable to those reported for the population norms. The intercorrelations between the 6 Giessen Self-Image Scales (Table 2) reveals that 4 of the 15 correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r) were statistically significant. Correlations ranged from -0.26 (Social response and Underlying mood) through 0 to +0.37 (Permeability and Social potency). Factor analysis was implemented in order to explore the pattern of relationships between the various scales. The principal component analysis (Varimax rotation for an orthogonal solution) was used to decide how many factors would be retained; subsequently 2 factors emerged with eigenvalues exceeding unity. The first (latent root = 1.83) accounted for approx. 30% of the variance and was characterised by high positive loadings on permeability,‘retentive (0.72) socially

Self-image

323

and personality

Table I. The six scales of the Giesse”

Test (cf. Beckman”

cf (I/. 1983)

Right side of scale

Left side of scale

Srole I: Sociul Rrsponsu Positive social response (PR): attractive. popular. respected. praised at work, self-assertwe. interested in outward appearance &u/e 2: Dominance Dominant (DO1 Submissive (SE): often in arguments. aelf-uilled, likes domineering. good rarely in arguments. submissive. likes subordinating. at actrng. ditficult in clove co-operation. impatient acting. easy in close co-operation. patient

Neptne social

mponse (SR) u”attract,\e. unpopular. disregarded. criticized at work. low self-aahertlo” uninterwcd I” out\rard appearance

Uncontrolled (UCI: bad with money. untid:. easy-going. inconsictent. able to let go

SW/e 3: Se!~-rollrrol Compulsive (CO): tendency to lie, good with money. over-tidy, sistmt. unable to let go

over-zealous

truth-Fanatic.

Sule 4: L’n
bad at

con-

very

Scnle 5: Punnenhilit~ Permeable (PE): Retentive (RE): open. close to others. self-disclosing. need for love closed. removed from others, not self disclosing, need for expressed openly. trusting capacity for intensive exlove withheld. mistrustful, little experience in love perience I” lo\e

Socially potent (PO): sociable. relaxed in heterosexual contact, capable of lasting relationhhip. imaginative

SC& 6: Social Putenq Socially impotent (IP): competitive. unsociable. awkward in heterosexual contact, uncompetitive, hardly capable of lasting relationship, unimaginative

Table 2. Intercorrelations between the six Giessen Test scales (NR-PR. negative-positive social response; DO-SU. dominant-submissive; UCXO. uncontrolled-zompulsive; HM-DE. h)poma”icAepressive: PE-RE, permeable-retentive: PO-IP, socially potentimpotent) NR-PR

DO-SU

NR-PR DO-SU UC-CO HM-DE PE-RE PO-IP ‘P

co.05

- 0.03

UC-CO

HM-DE

PE-RE

PO-IP

0.24’ 0.16

-0.26. 0.03 -0.18

-0.14 0.03 -0.14 0.26*

-0.18 0.00 -0.12 0. I5 0.37**

and l*P i 0.01.

potent/impotent (0.66), and hypomanic/depressive (0.61) and a moderate negative loading on social response (-0.54). This factor can clearly and unambiguously be labelled as a dimension of ‘negative emotion in social contexts’. The second factor demonstrated substantial positive loadings on the submissive/dominance (0.76) and uncontrolled/compulsive dimension (0.70); it accounted for about 20% of the variance, and appears to represent ‘Social conformism’. The correlational analysis for the entire sample between the traits, P(sychoticism), E(xtraversion). N(euroticism), and Social Desirability (Lie), and the GT self-description variables are shown in Table 3. Nine of the resulting 24 correlation coefficients reached statistical significance. These are all quite predictable (on the basis of the content scale descriptions). The magnitude of the correlations ranged from -0.31 (Extraversion and Submissive) through to +0.65 (N and Depressive). The only GT scale which does not emerge as significantly correlated with any of the Table 3. Pearson product-moment correlations between the four personality dimensions and the 6 scales of the Gtessen Test. as well as the frequency of mid (0) and extreme (3) scorers

) Social Response Submissive Compulsive Depressive Retentive Socially Impotent hlid-scorers Extreme scorers (+

Psvchoticism

Extraversion

-0.11 -0.59*** -0.51*** 0.21 0.06 0.03 -0.13 0.07

0.17 -0.31** - 0.03 -0.18 -0.47.” -0.47”’ -0.33.1 0.21

lP < 0.05. l*P < 0.01 and l**P

< 0.001.

Neuroticism -0.21 -0.22’ -0.17 0.65*** 0.1 I 0.2 I -0.02 - 0.24’

Lie-Scale -0.12 0.44*** 0.349. 0.03 -0.02 -0.12 0.14 -0.11

324

BRUCE KIRKCALDY Table 4. The best oersonalitv oredictors of the Giessen self-inuee sc&s Coefficient I

GSB scale and trait ( +) Social Response Submiwve: Extravers~on Psychoticism

-0.22’ -0.47***

Compulsive: Psychoticthm

-0.48***

Depressive: Extraversion Neuroticism

-0.19. 0.64”.

Retentive: Extraversion

-0.49’”

Socially Impotent: Extraversmn Neuroticism

-0.50*** 0.24’

R

R?

0.34 0.64

0.12 0.4 I

2.20 I l.61***

F

0.52

0.27

6.06’**

0.69

0.47

15.04***

0.50

0.25

5.4s***

0.56

0.3 I

7.49=**

*P c 0.05 and l**P < 0.001.

four trait concepts is Social response, and even here there is some indication that N is negatively associated with positive social response. Six separate multiple regression analyses were performed to select those personality variables which were good predictors of the GSB scales. Social response was the only scale which did not seem to relate to personality. The Submissive and Compulsive scales were negatively correlated to P. The remaining 3 GSB scales (depressive, retentive and socially impotent) were associated with introversion and neuroticism (anxiety): These regression analyses accounted for between 12 and 47% of the variance in the GSB scales. In order to assess the degree to which the personality dimensions may themselves relate in some manner to responding style on a (7-point) rating scale, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed between the traits and frequency of mid- and extreme scores on the GT. Psychoticism and Social conformity (Lie-scale) appeared unrelated to these response variables, but Extraversion was significantly negatively correlated with mid-scoring rates, indicating that introverted individuals show a tendency towards ‘defensive’ responding. In addition, Neuroticism was negatively correlated with extreme scoring rate (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

The pattern of correlations between the Giessen Test’s standard scales is consistent with that reported by Kuda (1976) and Hobi and Richter (1973). The latter study for instance, reported correlations ranging from +0.46 (social impotency and retentiveness) to -0.41 (depression and social resonance). Hence, there does appear to be a lack of psychometric and contextual independence of the GT standard scales. The results can be interpreted as suggesting that introversion, particularly combined with emotional instability, share substantial common variance with those GSB scales which load on the (social) anxiety factor (Underlying Mood/depression, Social Impotency and Permeability involve both an anxiety and interpersonal component), Neuroticism, and to a lesser degree introversion, emerges as associated with depression (e.g. “I feel frequently depressed”, “I have the feeling that I worry about my personal problems a great deal”, and “I think that I tend to suppress my anger”), and social impotency. This is congruent with Hobi and Richter’s (1973) identification of a major bipolar factor (which they felt corresponded with Eysenck’s dimension Emotionality-Stability) loading positively on Extraversion (MPI), sociability and positive social resonance, and negatively on depressivity, neuroticism, nervousness, excitability and inner tension. It fits in well with the description of the scale Neuroticism and the associative state descriptions, “ . . . low in concentration, de-aroused, numb, reserved, less self-assured, less good-spirited, more excitable, sensitive, angry, fearful, depressive and elevated dreaminess” (Kirkcaldy, 1984). Indifferent responding (mid-responses) was not related to Neuroticism, but extreme responding style was: less stable individuals were less likely to select the very extreme (+ 3 and - 3) ratings, which indicate that they may have been more defensive in their responding styles.

Self-image

and personality

325

Extraversion was not only related to /r_~ppomanicand sociuf potency (e.g. “I believe I can offer much love to a partner”, “ I believe that compared to others I have a very good imagination”, and “I think I tend to seek the company of others”), but with permeability as well. The items which constitute the latter GSB scale have a pronounced ‘affiliative’ content (e.g. “I think I have very great trust in others, ” “I have the feeling that I show my need for love very strongly”, and “I seem to feel very close to other people”) and bear conceptual similarity with EPQ E-items. Extraversion is also related to dominance (impatient, lacking in intimate cooperation and egoistic). Permeability and Social potency were the two most loaded on the first higher-order factor to be extracted on the basis of a principal components’ analysis of the GT intercorrelation matrix. This anxiety dimension ranges from positive to negative affect (cf. Watson & Clark, 1984; Emmons & Diener, 1985). The positive pole (permeable and socially potent) matches the description of the extravert as “sociable, lively, outgoing, carefree, changeable, impulsive, assertive, physically active and optimistic, in contrast to the introvert who is quiet, passive, careful, thoughtful, reliable, mentally active and pessimistic . . . ” (Wilson, 1976). The cautious, defensive attitude of introverts was further substantiated by the negative correlation between Extraversion and rate of mid-(defensive) responding. Psychoticism correlated significantly along two of the GT self-image scales. High P was associated with dominance (e.g. “I think I get involved in arguments very often”, “I seem to find it quite hard to work closely with other people”, and “I have the feeling that I am relatively impatient”), and less control (e.g. “I think that compared to others I am rather bad at dealing with money”, and “I believe that compared to others I find it very hard to keep my mind on one thing”). Overall, these attributes are coherent with Beckmann and Richter’s findings (1972) in which institutionalised male offenders (P+?) displayed exaggerated instinctive drives, features of demoralisation, and neglect (diminished self-control), negative social response, elevated dominanceaggression, and distrustful-paranoid tendencies (retentive). Furthermore, they fit in well with Eysenck’s (1973) description of the behavioural facets of high Psychoticism scorers as including a non-caring attitude to others, a disregard for danger, liking for odd and unusual things, a satisfaction from upsetting others, and a lack of feelings. Such individuals are inclined to be solitary, troublesome, cruel, inhumane, sensation-seeking, insensitive, aggressive, hostile, opposed to conventional social concepts, and prefer minimal social interaction. The Lie-scale has been considered a dimension which may be the obverse of Psychoticism (Claridge, Robinson & Birchall, 1983). It was originally intended to assess response style, but appears to reflect a stable, consistent, underlying trait relabelled Social adjustment or Need for Approval. It is evident that inventories such as the GT, which primarily are intended to assess indices related to mental health such as dominance, self-concept, and depression, will be particularly susceptible to response distortion (cf. Furnham, 1986). It is interesting that the magnitude and direction of the correlation coefficients computed between P and the GT-scales, and L and the GT-scales are approximately equal and opposite (cf. Table 3, Dominance and Self-control). Social Conformity (L) was related to submissice (e.g. “I believe I tend to be dominated by others”, and “I think in my behaviour towards others I am fairly submissive”), and compulsive characteristics. It could equally be argued that the scales Dominance and Self-control are more sensitive to ‘distortion’ through social desirable responding (remaining scales being more immune to effects of social desirability), for reasons such as face validity, multidimensionality, or item complexity (Furnham, 1986). In addition to the couple of statistically significant correlations between L and GT-scales, Social Desirability (Lie scale) was positively associated with the tendency to select the middle response on the 7-point graded scale (cf. Beckmann & Richter, 1972), but the correlation failed to reach statistical significance). The multiple regression analyses revealed that it was Psychoticism, rather than social desirability, which was effective in predicting self-image scores, since in none of the multivariate analyses did L emerge as a significant predictor variable. There are clearly limitations in the generalizability of these results. Nevertheless, the comparison of the Giessen Self-Image Test Scales with Eysenck’s personality traits does offer insight into conceptual similarities between the various scales. Both inventories derived from different origins (GT developed out of psychodynamic theory, whereas the EPQ focused on normally distributed trait dimensions), and differ in terms of length (EPQ is approximately three times as long as the

326

BRUCE KIRKCALDY

GT, and assesses 4 as opposed to 6 scales), item-content, and response format (GT is a 7 point graded scale using bipolar items, in contrast to the EPQ which uses a forced-choice mode of responding). The self-image scales and personality traits do appear, however, to share considerable similarity in psychological construct. and it is questionnable whether the Giessen Test really assesses anything ‘unique’ other than social anxiety and nonconformity. Acknorledgemenr-My thanks go to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Bonn, F.R.G. who supported the research project conducted at the Rehabilitation Clinic (Director, Professor Dr K. A. Jochheim), University of Cologne.

REFERENCES Angleitner.

A.

(1976).Methodische

und theoretische

Probleme

bei

totter besonderer

Beruecksicht-