- Email: [email protected]
The conceptual commonality between impulsiveness as a personality trait and as an ego development stage
f
0191-8869;83.030265-IOS03.00,0
Copyright c’ 19X3Pergamon
Press Ltd
THE CONCEPTUAL COMMONALITY BETWEEN IMPULSIVENESS AS A PERSONALITY TRAIT AND AS AN EGO DEVELOPMENT STAGE RAYMOND
University
of Wisconsin
Center,
H.
STARRETT
Marshfield/Wood (Rewired
County,
12 October
Marshfield.
WI 54449,
U.S.A
1982)
Summary-This research was an attempt to demonstrate the conceptual commonality between impulsiveness as a trait and as an ego development stage through correlations on measures of both. An Eysenckian measure of broad trait impulsiveness (Imp,) consisting of four impulsiveness subscales. the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT) of ego development were administered to 62 male students and 101 female students distributed across three different educational levels (Junior High, Senior High and College). Significant correlations between Imp, and the WUSCT (-0.23 for the males and -0.31 for the females) supported the hypothesized commonality. Correlations between the WUSCT and the four impulsiveness subscales indicated that Narrow Impulsiveness and Risk-taking were more indicative of ego development than Non-planning or Liveliness. Age trends in the patterns of correlations demonstrated that the commonality between trait impulsiveness and ego development was limited to the early stages of ego development. Sex differences on a number of trait measures and on the WUSCT indicated that males lag behind females in ego development during adolescence. It was hypothesized that the aspect of impulsiveness most indicative of ego development was an unsocialized aspect which might be captured by Eysenck’s dimension of psychoticism (P). Correlations between P and WUSCT supported this hypothesis (- 0.49 for the males and -0.29 for the females). P apparently has more concept commonality with ego development than has trait impulsiveness. Age trends and sex differences in impulsiveness, psychoticism. and aggressiveness were discussed. It was argued that these personality characteristics would be better understood if explored within a developmental framework such as ego development.
INTRODUCTION
From different perspectives of personality theory, impulsiveness has been identified both as a personality trait (Barratt, 1965, 1972) and as an ego development stage (Loevinger, 1966, 1976). To the writer’s knowledge there has been only a single attempt to demonstrate conceptual commonality of impulsiveness between these divergent perspectives. That attempt by the writer (Starrett, 1978) was based on correlations of measures from each of these perspectives and had a marginal success. In the research described in the present article, the conceptual commonality was again investigated with modifications to the earlier design. In addition, relationships between ego development and Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1977) P dimension were also explored. A number of factor-analytic studies have demonstrated the multifaceted characteristics of impulsiveness as a personality trait. Three of these studies show consistency in identifying characteristics of impulsiveness and will be used to define and describe the facets of impulsiveness explored in the present study. In an early study Twain (1957) had 142 college women respond to a set of 16 tests that included both laboratory situation measures and self-report measures. Of the six factors extracted by Twain the Physical Stature factor and the unidentified sixth factor are not of present interest but the other four factors are as follows: Flexible Motor Control (erratic motor behavior in laboratory tests), Positive Progressiveness (happy-go-lucky and action oriented on self-rating scales), Aggressive Instability (aggressive and negative on self-rating scales), Tenacious Self-Control (lack of persistence in laboratory tests). Based on an extensive line of research using data provided by life experiences, self-reports, laboratory behavioral measures and physiological measures: Barratt identified six factors of impulsiveness. The six factors are represented by subsets of items on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and are described as: “ (1) motor control, for example, I usually act before I think .; (2) intraindividual variability, for example, I change my plans often . . ; (3) impulsive interests, for example, I like work that has lots of excitement. ;
RAYMONU
II.
STAKKLIT
: (4) risk taking, for example, I like to take a chance just for the excitement. impulsive interpersonal relationships, for example, I let myself ‘go’ at a party : (5) cognitive impulse control, for example. I make up my mind quickly .” (1972. (6) p. 199) Barratt notes that his subscales or factors are quite similar to the factors reported by Twain. In a more recent factor-analytic investigation of self-descriptive items, Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) identified four factors of impulsiveness in the broad sense (Imp,): Narrow lmpulsivencss (Imp,), Risk-taking (Risk), Non-planning (No-plan) and Liveliness (Lively). Based on the characteristics usually associated with the labels for each of the Eysenck’s factors and the content of the items associated with each factor, it would seem that the major components of Twain’s early effort and Barratt’s more extensive treatment are found in the Eysencks’ factors. For this and other reasons to be offered below, the Eysencks’ experimental four-subtest scale was used as the impulsive trait measure in the present research. Some researchers concerned with impulsiveness have taken a broader view of the pervasive characteristics of impulsiveness as dominating a personality. Shapiro ( 196.5), for example. discussed impulsive styles and included many kinds of personality disorders such as the psychopathic alcoholics and other drug addicts. The characteristic in common for Shapiro was a style of cognition that provides subjective experience that “revolves around an impairment of normal feelings of deliberateness and intention” (p. 134). Wishnie (1976) defined the impulsive personality as a person with destructive character disorders and focused on certain types of criminals and addicts. In terms of diagnostic categories (DSM-2), Wishnie included paranoid, schizoid. explosive. antisocial and passiveeaggressive personality disorders. The perspective of ego development in the present investigation was represented by the stage theory of Loevinger (1966. 1976) in which she presents ego development as the ‘master trait’. Master trait in the way that Loevinger is using the term identifies the mode or style of a person’s functioning across four intrapersonal and/or interpersonal characteristics: impulse control, interpersonal style. conscious preoccupations and cognitive style. Loevinger’s position is that some of the characteristics of personality that have traditionally been identifiied as traits such as impulsivity and conformity would be more appropriately identified as milestones along a path of ego development in which different patterns of interacting with one’s social environment wax and wane. There are six major milestones or developmental stages in Loevinger’s stage theory with some transitional stages between the four intermediate major stages. Each stage has been given a label that identifies the dominant style of functioning such as Impulsive, Conformist etc. Table 1 lists five of the major stages (the first stage, I-l. is not applicable to the present study) and four transitional stages. The area of functioning that is of central interest in the present investigation is the area of impulse control or what would be called character development within a broader perspective. Progression through the stages is characterized by changes in each of the four areas of intra- and interpersonal functioning. Progress in character development is dominated by the problem of developing control over impulses at the lower stages, but impulse control becomes
Impulsiveness
261
automatic and is no longer a problem at the higher stages of ego development. Summaries of this progression in impulse control with the associated stage are given in Table 1. For summaries of this progression in the three other areas of ego development see Loevinger (1966, 1976). The commonality of the label ‘impulsive’ whether used to identify a personality trait or a stage of development does not guarantee commonality of content. However, the difference in usage does not appear to be a disagreement on the behavioral characteristics involved or modes of thought inferred but one of identifying which is the more ‘appropriate’ perspective from which individual differences can most effectively be viewed. As noted above, Loevinger (1966) has argued that it is more appropriate to consider such characteristics as impulsiveness and conformity as milestones (stages) in a developmental progression in which the characteristic will have a ‘peak’ period but may not continue to dominate the personality in the enduring trait sense. Some trait theorists (Cattell, 1973; Eysenck, 1969) have attempted to describe trait development and decline over time, but the writer is not aware of any extensive effort to describe changes in impulsiveness over time. Sanford (1962) has presented a diagrammatical representation of the developmental trends in impulse and ego based on the psychoanalytic literature. In these curves Sanford depicts ego development on a linear increase from infancy to early adulthood and impulse on a curvilinear increase but always of lesser strength during the same period. Impulse is shown as having a sharp rise during adolescence such that the ratio of ego to impulse decreases to a narrow margin. During late adolescence, impulse is shown as reaching a plateau which provides an increasing ratio on into early adulthood. Impulse control is represented by the ratio and the margin is narrow in the late high school to early college years. Control during this time is described as uncertain and rigid by Sanford. As the margin increases during the college years, control becomes more flexible because there is little danger of loss of control. The greater margin and the experience of control provides more freedom and contributes to an increase in impulse expression. According to Sanford’s description it would be expected that trait measures should show an age trend of decreasing impulsiveness during the adolescent years as impulse control comes under increasing stress. However, that age trend should discontinue sometime in late adolescence or early adulthood and may even reverse directions. In an earlier attempt to relate trait and stage impulsiveness, the writer (Starrett, 1978) used 30 items from the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1963) and the 16 Personality Factors (16 PF; Cattell, 1965) to form an experimental scale to measure impulsiveness. The Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT; Loevinger and Wessler, 1970) was used to measure ego development. It was hypothesized that scores on these two measures would show a significant negative correlation based on a subsample of subjects who scored at the pre-conformity (Impulsive or Self-protection Stages) or conformity (Conformity or ConscientiousConformist Stages) levels of ego development. The rationale for not including post-conformity subjects was that the relationship was expected to be non-linear as Sanford has suggested. Beyond the Conformity Stage in ego development theory, there is assumed to be a spontaneity of thought and behavior that is suggestive of impulsiveness and thus would tend to attenuate the correlation. Out of a sample of 53 male college students, 40 were identified as either pre-conformists or conformists and were used in the hypothesis test. A correlation of -0.14 was obtained and the hypothesis was rejected. This hypothesis was but one of eight in that study and for most of these hypotheses the data from 43 subjects was complete and could be used. For that 43 subject sample with none excluded due to level of ego development, the correlation was -0.28 (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the correlation between WUSCT and Barratt’s Impulsiveness Scale which was used as a validation measure for the experimental scale, was -0.31 (P < 0.05) on that sample. These significant correlations do provide support for the central notion of a commonality between trait and stage impulsiveness though it would appear that it would be advisable to use subjects with a greater diversity of ego development. The present study is designed to correct that problem. The first hypothesis of the present study was that a significant negative correlation would be exhibited between a measure of trait impulsiveness and scores on an ego development measure. Another limitation of the writer’s earlier study was that a single score measure of impulsiveness was used. It was argued above that trait impulsiveness has at least four major facets (factors). From the Eysencks’ descriptions of these facets it would seem that the Imp, factor would be the one that is most similar to the impulse control problem in ego development. The second hypothesis of this
study was that the Imp, subscale scores will exhibit a stronger negative correlation with a measure of ego development than any of the other subscales. As noted above, both Shapiro and Wishnie treat extreme impulsiveness as a personality disorder such as psychopath or alcoholic. Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) have presented a substantial amount of evidence supporting an observation that their personality dimension (trait) P captures much of the same patterns of thought and behavior as impulsive style implies. In earlier work Eysenck and Eysenck (1969) contended that extraversion (E) has two major components with impulsiveness being one and sociability being the other. In the factor analytic explorations discussed above, the Eysencks found that both Imp, scores and Imp, scores showed a stronger association with P than with E. Indeed. it is the Eysencks’ position that P is a more central dimension of personality than impulsiveness and one which captures the antisocial aspects of personality in a broader sense than does impulsiveness. It is also a broader sense of personality that Loevinger is presenting in her rendition of ego deve!opment. The lack of impulse control and retarded character development associated with the early stages of ego development takes a stronger antisocial turn as the non-developmentally progressive individual is more and more ostracized by his peers as they progress socially and he does not. Thus. what starts out as a problem due to weak impulse control development without hostile intent may become a disdain for or a rejection of impulse control with hostile intent that makes the adolescent or adult impulsive style a personality disorder that appears to be characteristic of high-P scorers. In summary. it would seem likely that scores on P would exhibit a significant negative correlation with a measure of ego development. That proposition was the third hypothesis of this study.
METHOD
The participants of this study were from the school system of a small city in the Midwest of U.S.A. of both sexes and from three different age groups. There was a Junior High group that had 26 males (mean ace = 13.7 yr) and 17 females (mean age = 13.5). a Senior High group that had I7 males (mean a& = 17.0) and 18 females (mean age = 16.9); and a College group that had I9 males (mean age = 18.4) and 46 females (mean age = IX. 1). All testing was done in class time on a group basis but participation was voluntary.
The items used to define the four impulsiveness traits were from the Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) study. There were I3 items defining Narrow Impulsiveness. 1 I items defining Risk-taking, I3 items defining Non-planning and 6 items defining Liveliness. These 43 items were combined into a single form and labeled “Experimental Personality Trait Scale”.
Mccr.wres of’ E~~.serdc‘s
prsot~ulit~~
ciinwmions
The EPQ (Eysenck and Eysenck. 1975) was used to measure E, N. P and L in the Senior High and College participants. The Junior EPQ was used for measuring the same traits in the Junior High participants.
The measure of ego development was the WUSCT (Loevinger and Wessler, 1970). Two forms of the 36-item WUSCT are published for each sex. There is a junior form in which the five sexrelated items of the adult form arc deleted and non-sex-related items are substituted. Because of the cross-age comparisons being made in this study the junior forms were used for all participants. Based on the stage ratings of the 36 sentence completions, the S’s ego development stage is assigned by ;I given rule evaluation of the distribution of stage ratings. An alternative method of scoring. noted by Loevingcr and Wesslcr (1970). isto use the mean of the item ratings. The latter scoring method was judged to be more appropriate for the psychometrics of the present study. In this method each sentence completion is rated on a 9-point scale corresponding to the nine stages given in Table I starting with the Impulsive Stage = I.
Impulsiveness Table 2. Mean scores on all measures
269
for both sexes and all age groups
Males Jr Hi. (N = 26) Imp, Risk No-plan Lively Imp, P E N L WUSCT
Sr Hi. (N = 17)
7.5 7.5* 6. I 3.8 24.9 6.5*+ 18.0 11.9 5.4 3. I *t
6.9 7.7 6. I 4.5t 25.2t 6.lt
IX.W 12.4 5.5 4.2t
Females Coil. (N = 19)
All (N = 62)
Jr Hi. (N = 27)
Sr Hi. (N = 28)
COIL (N = 46)
All (N = 101)
6.X 5.x* 5.5 3.9 22.0 4.1*t 15.7 II.lt 4.6 4.4*
7.1 7.0t 5.9 4.01 24.0 5.61_ 17.3t I l.8? 5.2 3.w
7.7 6.8” 6.9 3.8 25.2* 3.2’r 19.2* 11.9*t 6.4 3.7*t
5.5 6.4 5.6 3.3t 20.w 3.3.t 14.4t 13.2 6.2 4.7t
6.5 5.3* 5.7 3.3 20.7* 2.5t 14.2* I s.o*‘r 5.6 4.6*
6.6 6.01 6.0 3.4t 21.9 2.9t l5.6t 13.7t 6.0 4.4t
*P i 0.05 for age comparisons. tP < 0.05 for sex comparisons.
Procedures
Two experimental sessions were used to obtain the required measures. One session was used for the 133 trait items of the impulsive trait measures and the EPQ. A separate session was used for the WUSCT. Anonymity was maintained by having the participants identify their tests with fictitious names.
RESULTS deviations for all three age groups and for each of the sexes are The means and standard for the combined age groups for each of the sexes are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Correlations presented in Table 4.
Table 3. Standard
deviations
on all measures
for both sexes and all age groups
Males
Imp, Risk No-plan Lively Imp, P E N L WUSCT
Jr Hi. (N = 26)
Sr Hi. (N = 17)
Cell. (N = 19)
All (N = 62)
Jr Hi. (N = 27)
Sr Hi. (N = 28)
Coil. (N = 46)
All (N = 101)
3.2 I.8 2.0 1.5 5.7 3.9 3.9 4.6 4.2 0.6
2.4 2.2 2.7 1.3 6.4 2.x 2.2 4. I 2.5 0.4
2.6 2.x 3.1 I.6 7.6 2.7 4.6 4.3 3.0 0.4
2.8 2.4 2.5 I.5 6.6 3.4 3.8 4.3 3.4 0.7
2.x 2.5 3.1 I.5 7.5 3.5 3.9 4. I 4.8 0.4
3.2 2.1 2.2 I.6 5.9 2.0 5.0 5.1 3.6 0.5
3.3 2.6 2.8 1.5 7.5 I.9 4.8 4.0 2.7 0.4
3.2 2.5 2.8 1.5 7.3 2.4 5.1 4.5 3.6 0.6
Table 4. Correlations Imp, Imp, Risk No-plan Lively Imp, P E N L WUSCT
Females
among all measures
for the combined
Risk
Lively
49*** 47*** 43*** 19* x1*** 36*** 19* 25** -48*** _30***
38*** I6 73*** 39*** 41*** 05 _33*** -24**
No-plan 42*** 53*** 35*** 77*** 36*** 23* -21* _23* -17*
-08 08 21 48*** 27** 45*** -34*** 05 -13
Imp, 76*** 80*** 8l*** 30** 49*** 41*** -02 _40*** -31***
Junior
High, Senior High and College groups P
51*** 43*** 42**+ 09 56*** ?I* -07 -2*** _29***+
E 10 I9 07 32** 21* 02 -16 -06 -39***
N
L
WUSCT
48*** 27* -03 -27* 23* I5 -31**
- 30** -16 -4o*** 03 -34** -26* -23* 24*
-27* -3o** -II I6 -23x _49***
_32*** 07
07
Correlations for males are in the upper-right triangle and for females in the lower left. Decimal points omitted. *P < 0.05 (one-tailed test); **P < 0.01 (one-tailed test); ***P < 0.001 (one-tailed test).
~ 22* PII -02
270
RAYMONI)
H. STAKKI TI
The hypothesized significant negative correlational relationship between trait impulsiveness and ego development stage was supported for both males and females. The correlations in Table 4 indicate that the relationship was substantially stronger for females than for males with correlations between Imp, and the WUSCT of -0.31 (P < 0.001) and -0.23 (P < 0.05). respectively. These marginal to modest correlations replicate the correlations found by the writer in his earlier study discussed above. It was assumed that in the present study with a greater age range and thus, probably, greater range of ego development levels. there would be stronger correlations exhibited. An inspection of the pattern of age-group correlations. however. revealed some non-linearities in these relationships that undermine that assumption. For both the males and the females, the correlations were modest in the Junior High groups. -0.34 (P < 0.05) and - 0.39 (P < 0.05). respectively: essentially zero in the Senior High groups; and weak in the College groups, -0.24 and -0.17. respectively. This non-linear age trend in the correlations appears to be the result of non-linear age trends in both of the variables for both of the sexes. An inspection of Table 2 shows that although the means of the Imp, scores decrease from Junior High to College and the WUSCT scores increase in general, the major change in the Impulsiveness scores is between Senior High and College for the males and between Junior High and Senior High school for the females. The advance in ego development shows more similarity between the sexes with a substantial increase between Junior High and Senior High and little difference between the Senior High and College scores. The lack of difference between Senior High and College scores should be considered in this study with caution for two reasons. Both the Senior High and the College students were in psychology classes. but the Senior students were mot-c self-selected by taking psychology as an elective course whereas for most of the College students. it was required. Furthermore, the mean age difference between the two groups was only a little more than a year due to the combination of age groups in the classes and the time of year of testing. The second hypothesis was that Imp, scores would show stronger correlations with ego development scores than any of the other impulsiveness scales. Because it was assumed that all four of the impulsiveness subscales would show substantial intercorrelations, it was no: expected that these differences in their correlations with the WUSCT would be significant. The hypothesis was supported in the female data (r = -0.30) but not in the male data where Risk showed the strongest correlation with the WUSCT (r = -0.30 as opposed to I’ = -0.27 for Imp,). Considering the individual age groups, the only significant correlations between the WUSCT and the impulsiveness subscales were found with Imp, and Risk, although Senior High and College males showed some deviation from this pattern with non-significant correlations. Substantial support was found for the hypothesized significant negative correlation between P and the WUSCT. For the males the correlation was -0.49 (P < 0.001). and for the females the correlation was -0.29 (P < 0.01). In considering the pattern of correlations within each age group and sex combination, the correlation was higher between the WUSCT and P than the WUSCT and any other measure with the single exception of College males on No-plan. The XX and age trends in mean P scores were generally as expected. For each age group the males were higher than the females. The age trends generally followed the expected decrease across the age groups, but again. non-linearities were exhibited with the Junior High and Senior High females not showing a difference in P and the males of these age groups showing very little difference. The male age trends in P wet-c closer to the age trends in ego development than was true for the females which offers a partial explanation for the substantially higher correlation found for the combined age groups between P and the WUSCT for males than for females. Indeed, when the age groups were combined for the females the correlation between the WUSCT and E was higher than for P. DISCUSSION
In the process of normal ego development the individual establishes control over his impulses. Within Loevinger’s (1966. 1976) theory, both the degree and the method of impulse control varies. The method of control is assumed to follow a trend from control via immediate rewards and punishments to control through external rules to control responding to internalized standards. Each of these progressions in method is assumed to be accompanied with an increased effectiveness in control and. at least in the early stages. a decrease in impulsiveness. The age range of subjects
Impulsiveness
271
in the present study was selected such that substantial variation in both the degree of impulsiveness and in the method of impulse control was expected. Within this age range it was hypothesized that progression away from the Impulsive Stage would be correlated with a decrease in traits characterized as impulsive. This hypothesis was modestly supported and some evidence was thus supplied for the conceptual commonality between impulsiveness as a personality trait and as an ego development stage. It was also hypothesized that Imp, would show a higher correlation with the WUSCT across the age groups than any of the other impulsiveness subscales. This hypothesis was supported by the data for the females, but for the males the correlation between the WUSCT and Imp, was exceeded slightly by the correlation between the WUSCT and Risk. When it is noted that Risk and the WUSCT also exhibited a highly significant correlation in the combined female sample. then it would appear that risk-taking is just as strongly related to ego development as is the facet of impulsiveness tapped by Imp,. It is the writer’s opinion that the aspects of trait impulsiveness that are most indicative of ego development are those of an unsociahzed or antisocial nature. This point of view will be repeated with additional evidence and arguments later in this discussion. As an initial rationale for this argument it would seem that the general nature of the behaviors tapped by the items on the Imp, and Risk subscales identify behaviors that are more likely to bring a person into conflict with others than is true of the items on the No-plan and Lively subscales. For example, “Do you need to use a lot of self-control to keep out of trouble’?” from the Imp, scale or, “Do you quite enjoy taking risks. 7” from the Risk scale would appear to be suggestive of more antisocial behaviors than a lack of planning or a personal style of liveliness. Thus, it should not be too surprising that the social immaturity tapped by low scores on the WUSCT would have more in common with Imp, and Risk than with the other two facets of impulsiveness included in this study. While some support has been provided for these two hypotheses, an inspection of the pattern of correlations and mean scores for both the trait measures of impulsiveness and the WUSCT reveals some interesting age trends and sex differences that are indicative of limitations in the hypothesized trait and stage commonality. The age trends will now be discussed, but the sex differences will only be noted for now and given a more detailed consideration later in this paper. An inspection of the correlations of each of the three age groups revealed that only the Junior High students demonstrated a nearly consistent pattern of significant correlations between the WUSCT and the impulsiveness measures: Imp,, Imp, and Risk. The pattern of age trends between the WUSCT and Imp, suggested a possible linear age trend progression of decreasing correlations with increasing age: -0.38 (P < 0.05) -0.18, -0.1 1 for the males and -0.45 (P < -O.Ol), - 0.13, - 0. IO for the females. However, for Risk the age trend was non-linear with the correlations for the Senior High students substantially less than those of the other two groups: -0.41 (P < 0.05) 0.01, -0.25 for the males and -0.25, 0.01, -0.28 (P < 0.05) for the females. The age trend for Imp, also suggested a non-linearity in both sexes with only the Junior High groups demonstrating significance: -0.34 (P < 0.05), 0.04, -0.24 for the males and -0.39 (P < 0.05) 0.03, - 0.17 for the females. The female groups exhibited a corresponding inversion in the mean scores on Imp, with an age trend pattern of 7.7, 5.5, 6.5 from Junior High through College students. The significantly lower Imp, scores of the Senior High girls compared to the Junior High girls (t = 3.7, P < 0.001) is consistent with the hypothesized age trend of increasing impulse control. However, the higher Imp, scores of the College women compared to the Senior High girls is not consistent with that hypothesis but is more consistent with Sanford’s (1962) observations on Vassar College women two decades ago in which there was an increase in impulsiveness from the freshman year to the senior year. It is not being suggested that the College women of the present study had achieved the same reversal of increased impulsiveness associated with more advanced ego development that was shown in the Vassar study, the negative correlations of the present study indicate otherwise. However, some kind of inversion of self-described impulsiveness is evident in these data. As a summary of these age trends, it would appear that scores on measures of trait impulsiveness are limited as indicators of ego development to persons who are socially immature. This limitation would seem to be an example of what Loevinger (1966) identified as the inappropriate use of a polar trait as an indicator of what she called a ‘milestone’ or stage in development in which the characteristic will, “tend to rise and then fall off in prominence as one
ascends the scale of ego maturity” (p. 201). Control of impulses in Loevinger’s theory would normally be expected to follow such a curvilinear path which complicates the interpretation of a specific level of impulsiveness. With regard to the attempt to measure levels of impulsiveness that would be considered normal in a child but abnormal in an adult, Loevinger states: “On tests designed to measure variables such as psychopathology, impulsivity of low ego Icvels arc confounded with the toleration at high Icvels.” (1-1.203)
the weakness and of inner life found
Loevinger has an important point with respect to the developmental aspects of impulse control. But. it should be remembered that it is because of the level of impulsiveness in corrymrison to ugc> peers that an adolescent would be identified as abnormal while a young child with similar behavior patterns would be considered normal. Age trends are important in understanding the development of individual differences whether the dimensions of comparison are in terms of traits, developmental stages or other tertns. In the present study. the age trends in the mean scores on the measures of trait impulsiveness and ego development were in general consistent for both sexes. However, there were also some sex ditferences in these data that appear to be indicative of some important developmental differences in the mean scores between the two sexes. An inspection of Table 2 shows that the differences in the mean scores between the Junior High students and the College students on both Imp, and the WUSCT demonstrated some interesting sex differences in the related age trends that underly the first hypothesis. The age trend was stronger for males when viewed through the WUSCT scores, although both sexes had a significant age-group difference. However. for females the trend was stronger when viewed through Imp, scores where the females’ scores were significantly different between the Junior High and College students. and the differences for the corresponding male age groups did not reach significance. Interestingly. the mean scores on Imp,, for the College students of this study were strikingly similar to those reported by Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) (22.6 for the males and 21.7 for the females) on U.K. adults which provides additional evidence for the generality of both studies. Another sex difference in the WUSCT scores that is quite noteworthy is found in the significantly higher mean scores of the females for Junior High students, Senior High students and the combined age groups. This sex difference will be used as part of a tnore general argument about developmental sex difference that will be presented below. The noteworthiness of this sex difference to be now considered is that it is in contradiction to an earlier report of Loevinger and Wessler (1970). Loevinger and Wessler reported no significant sex differences in their presentation of E. V. Sullivan’s data on 101 male and I00 female Toronto school children aged 9-18. In contrast, Block (1973) reported substantial sex differences in a study that included ego development assignment in High School students using the WUSCT. Block categorized 144 males and I41 females into three levels of ego development: Impulsive and Self-protective. Conformity, Conscientious. Thirty-six per cent of the males were identified at the Impulsive and Self-protective level as compared to only suggests a lagging in ego development for a substantial 13”,, of the females which certainly proportion of the male sample. In a more recent study of subjects ranging from Grade 7 to university students. Gfellner ( I98 I ) found modal ego development levels a step higher (on the scale of nine gradations used in the present study) for females than for males at grades 7. 8. 9. I I and 12 but not in the university students. There would appear to be enough evidence of females scoring higher than males of the same age on the WUSCT to suggest that males lag behind the females on ego development during the adolescent years. However, more studies designed to investigate the specific question of sex differences will be required before definitive evidence has been provided for this suggested sex difference. In contrast to the inconsistent sex differences in the mean scores on Imp, and Imp, over the age range of this study, the sex differences in the Eysencks’ measure of P for all three age groups showed the malts scoring signiticuntly higher than the females. These mean scores are in agreement with Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1975) standardization data both in the age trends and in the consistency for the tnales scoring higher than the females. In their conceptual description of high-P scorers, Eysenck and Eysenck ( 1975) include such descriptive phrases as: cruel, often troublesome. altogether insensitive. aggressive etc. These terms are highly suggestive of the unsocialized or
Impulsiveness
273
antisocial aspects of impulsiveness. Indeed, it would seem that P might be a better measure than Imp, of those unsocialized aspects of impulsiveness as a personality disorder or as an indicator of lagging ego development. It was because of this possibility that the exploratory third hypothesis relating P and the WUSCT was proposed. The discussion of P will start with its relationship to Imp, and E. Then the relationship between P and ego development will be considered. It was noted above in the discussion of impulsiveness as a personality disorder that Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) found that P had a stronger correlation with Imp, than with E (0.55 and 0.35, respectively, for males; 0.59 and 0.48, respectively. for females). In Table 4 there is a similar pattern of correlations linking P with both Imp, and E. Since these two studies were based on subjects from two different countries and on two different age groups (Eysencks’ subjects age range was 20-30). the similarity in the pattern of P related correlations is quite remarkable. There are important facets in Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1976) description of P and its measurement that are supported by the similarity of these data patterns. There are also interesting developmental aspects of P that are suggested by the age-sex trends in these data and by some of the relationships between P and WUSCT scores. Firstly, additional support has been provided for the robustness of the measures and the validity of the trait relationships tapped by Imp,, P and E. Secondly, some evidence has been provided for the stability of these patterns of trait relationships from early adolescence through adulthood. This evidence supports the notion that there are correlational patterns or factor structures of individual differences in children that are stable on into adulthood such as those of E and N shown by Eysenck (1969). It should be acknowledged, however, that this stability evidence in the present study is weakened by the inconsistencies in the correlation of the Senior High samples. Of course the stability of the correlational patterns that are found across ages is not to be interpreted as indicative of stability of the magnitudes of the respective traits. Indeed, these magnitude changes with age are central to the present study. Thirdly, evidence has been provided for the stability of sex differences in these patterns of trait relationships. It is in the combination of age and sex differences in P and in WUSCT scores that the most meaningful interpretation of the relationships between P, WUSCT and developmental processes are to be found and is now offered. In her excellent general discussion of impulse control, Maccoby (1980) makes this point about the development of control over emotional expression: “. the acquisition of controls is not automatic and is a central part of the socialization process” (p. 180). The fact that Loevinger (1966) identifies the first measureable stage of ego development as Impulsive and notes impulse control as one of the four major facets of ego development, testifies to the centrality of impulse control in her theory, at least in the early stages of ego development. In describing the Impulsive stage she notes that uninhibited expressions of impulses are normal for the infant but indicative of maladjustment in the adolescent and certainly in the adult. Stated in Loevinger’s own succinct words, ‘I. unsocialized expressions of sexual and aggressive drives are pathognomic for the stage” (1966, p. 199) and “. pathological examples [of the Impulsive Stage] are the impulse-ridden personalities and what have been called her ps&zopaths ” (1976, p. 415). Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) present a substantial array of studies identifying their concept of P as closely related to criminality and antisocial behavior in both children and adults. The types of antisocial behaviors that the Eysencks have identified with high-P scorers appear to be quite similar to those of certain types of criminals and drug addicts that Wishnie (1976) identified as having an impulsive personality disorder. From this writer’s perspective, an overview of the observations of these researchers would be that unrestrained impulsiveness is indicative of inadequacies in the development of self-control during the socialization process. It also appears that there are some important sex differences in the development of this control, and that the differences may have biological bases which are amplified by sex differences in child rearing practices. These sex differences are reflected in the pattern of sex differences in the scores on personality measures in this study and in others. Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) contend that there is a biologically based and culturally supported characteristic of ‘maleness’ that contributes to the finding that, “. males tend to have much higher P scores than females” (p. 143). A number of psychophysiological studies are cited by the Eysencks which suggest that the onset of full male sexuality (Gray, 1973) with its increase in testosterone production and the higher levels of serum uric acid (Mikkelsen, Dodge and Valkenburg, 1965; cited in Eysenck and Eysenck. 1976) in males
27-l
RAYMONII H.
STAKKFTT
are contributing factors associated with high P scores. For a detailed treatment of this ‘biological’ argument. the reader is referred to the Eysencks’ work. Block (1973) and others have provided evidence for the often made assertion that the child rearing practices for males emphasize achievement and competition while those for females emphasize personal relationships and being supportive. Block found that these sex differences in socialization emphasis were even stronger in America than was true in five other Western technologically advanced cultures. ..
significantly more emphasis was placed on competitive achievement; and signilicantly less importance was attached to the control of aggression in American malts.” (p. 520) It would seem highly probable that the sex differences in child rearing reported by Block have contributed substantially to the higher levels of aggressiveness in males documented in the literature reviews of Maccoby (1966) and Maccoby and Jacklin (1974). The relative contribution of biology and environment to the sex differences in aggressiveness summarized by Maccoby is a debate that will continue for years and is outside the concerns of the present paper, however making a connection between the extensive research on sex differences in aggrcssi\~cness and sex dilfcrcnces in the socialization process is of concern here. Furthermore. it i\ being suggcstcd hcrcin that :I bcttcr understanding of sex differences in aggressiveness could be pined hv studvinrr. context and within the framework of _ L those ditYcrences in ;I developmental ego dc\elopmcnt. Indeed. SLIC~I :I dcvelopmcntal framework offers substantial opportunity for further claritication of the commonality among the trait concepts of aggressiveness. psychoticism and inipulsi\cncs4.
0191-8869;83.030265-IOS03.00,0
Copyright c’ 19X3Pergamon
Press Ltd
THE CONCEPTUAL COMMONALITY BETWEEN IMPULSIVENESS AS A PERSONALITY TRAIT AND AS AN EGO DEVELOPMENT STAGE RAYMOND
University
of Wisconsin
Center,
H.
STARRETT
Marshfield/Wood (Rewired
County,
12 October
Marshfield.
WI 54449,
U.S.A
1982)
Summary-This research was an attempt to demonstrate the conceptual commonality between impulsiveness as a trait and as an ego development stage through correlations on measures of both. An Eysenckian measure of broad trait impulsiveness (Imp,) consisting of four impulsiveness subscales. the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT) of ego development were administered to 62 male students and 101 female students distributed across three different educational levels (Junior High, Senior High and College). Significant correlations between Imp, and the WUSCT (-0.23 for the males and -0.31 for the females) supported the hypothesized commonality. Correlations between the WUSCT and the four impulsiveness subscales indicated that Narrow Impulsiveness and Risk-taking were more indicative of ego development than Non-planning or Liveliness. Age trends in the patterns of correlations demonstrated that the commonality between trait impulsiveness and ego development was limited to the early stages of ego development. Sex differences on a number of trait measures and on the WUSCT indicated that males lag behind females in ego development during adolescence. It was hypothesized that the aspect of impulsiveness most indicative of ego development was an unsocialized aspect which might be captured by Eysenck’s dimension of psychoticism (P). Correlations between P and WUSCT supported this hypothesis (- 0.49 for the males and -0.29 for the females). P apparently has more concept commonality with ego development than has trait impulsiveness. Age trends and sex differences in impulsiveness, psychoticism. and aggressiveness were discussed. It was argued that these personality characteristics would be better understood if explored within a developmental framework such as ego development.
INTRODUCTION
From different perspectives of personality theory, impulsiveness has been identified both as a personality trait (Barratt, 1965, 1972) and as an ego development stage (Loevinger, 1966, 1976). To the writer’s knowledge there has been only a single attempt to demonstrate conceptual commonality of impulsiveness between these divergent perspectives. That attempt by the writer (Starrett, 1978) was based on correlations of measures from each of these perspectives and had a marginal success. In the research described in the present article, the conceptual commonality was again investigated with modifications to the earlier design. In addition, relationships between ego development and Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1977) P dimension were also explored. A number of factor-analytic studies have demonstrated the multifaceted characteristics of impulsiveness as a personality trait. Three of these studies show consistency in identifying characteristics of impulsiveness and will be used to define and describe the facets of impulsiveness explored in the present study. In an early study Twain (1957) had 142 college women respond to a set of 16 tests that included both laboratory situation measures and self-report measures. Of the six factors extracted by Twain the Physical Stature factor and the unidentified sixth factor are not of present interest but the other four factors are as follows: Flexible Motor Control (erratic motor behavior in laboratory tests), Positive Progressiveness (happy-go-lucky and action oriented on self-rating scales), Aggressive Instability (aggressive and negative on self-rating scales), Tenacious Self-Control (lack of persistence in laboratory tests). Based on an extensive line of research using data provided by life experiences, self-reports, laboratory behavioral measures and physiological measures: Barratt identified six factors of impulsiveness. The six factors are represented by subsets of items on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and are described as: “ (1) motor control, for example, I usually act before I think .; (2) intraindividual variability, for example, I change my plans often . . ; (3) impulsive interests, for example, I like work that has lots of excitement. ;
RAYMONU
II.
STAKKLIT
: (4) risk taking, for example, I like to take a chance just for the excitement. impulsive interpersonal relationships, for example, I let myself ‘go’ at a party : (5) cognitive impulse control, for example. I make up my mind quickly .” (1972. (6) p. 199) Barratt notes that his subscales or factors are quite similar to the factors reported by Twain. In a more recent factor-analytic investigation of self-descriptive items, Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) identified four factors of impulsiveness in the broad sense (Imp,): Narrow lmpulsivencss (Imp,), Risk-taking (Risk), Non-planning (No-plan) and Liveliness (Lively). Based on the characteristics usually associated with the labels for each of the Eysenck’s factors and the content of the items associated with each factor, it would seem that the major components of Twain’s early effort and Barratt’s more extensive treatment are found in the Eysencks’ factors. For this and other reasons to be offered below, the Eysencks’ experimental four-subtest scale was used as the impulsive trait measure in the present research. Some researchers concerned with impulsiveness have taken a broader view of the pervasive characteristics of impulsiveness as dominating a personality. Shapiro ( 196.5), for example. discussed impulsive styles and included many kinds of personality disorders such as the psychopathic alcoholics and other drug addicts. The characteristic in common for Shapiro was a style of cognition that provides subjective experience that “revolves around an impairment of normal feelings of deliberateness and intention” (p. 134). Wishnie (1976) defined the impulsive personality as a person with destructive character disorders and focused on certain types of criminals and addicts. In terms of diagnostic categories (DSM-2), Wishnie included paranoid, schizoid. explosive. antisocial and passiveeaggressive personality disorders. The perspective of ego development in the present investigation was represented by the stage theory of Loevinger (1966. 1976) in which she presents ego development as the ‘master trait’. Master trait in the way that Loevinger is using the term identifies the mode or style of a person’s functioning across four intrapersonal and/or interpersonal characteristics: impulse control, interpersonal style. conscious preoccupations and cognitive style. Loevinger’s position is that some of the characteristics of personality that have traditionally been identifiied as traits such as impulsivity and conformity would be more appropriately identified as milestones along a path of ego development in which different patterns of interacting with one’s social environment wax and wane. There are six major milestones or developmental stages in Loevinger’s stage theory with some transitional stages between the four intermediate major stages. Each stage has been given a label that identifies the dominant style of functioning such as Impulsive, Conformist etc. Table 1 lists five of the major stages (the first stage, I-l. is not applicable to the present study) and four transitional stages. The area of functioning that is of central interest in the present investigation is the area of impulse control or what would be called character development within a broader perspective. Progression through the stages is characterized by changes in each of the four areas of intra- and interpersonal functioning. Progress in character development is dominated by the problem of developing control over impulses at the lower stages, but impulse control becomes
Impulsiveness
261
automatic and is no longer a problem at the higher stages of ego development. Summaries of this progression in impulse control with the associated stage are given in Table 1. For summaries of this progression in the three other areas of ego development see Loevinger (1966, 1976). The commonality of the label ‘impulsive’ whether used to identify a personality trait or a stage of development does not guarantee commonality of content. However, the difference in usage does not appear to be a disagreement on the behavioral characteristics involved or modes of thought inferred but one of identifying which is the more ‘appropriate’ perspective from which individual differences can most effectively be viewed. As noted above, Loevinger (1966) has argued that it is more appropriate to consider such characteristics as impulsiveness and conformity as milestones (stages) in a developmental progression in which the characteristic will have a ‘peak’ period but may not continue to dominate the personality in the enduring trait sense. Some trait theorists (Cattell, 1973; Eysenck, 1969) have attempted to describe trait development and decline over time, but the writer is not aware of any extensive effort to describe changes in impulsiveness over time. Sanford (1962) has presented a diagrammatical representation of the developmental trends in impulse and ego based on the psychoanalytic literature. In these curves Sanford depicts ego development on a linear increase from infancy to early adulthood and impulse on a curvilinear increase but always of lesser strength during the same period. Impulse is shown as having a sharp rise during adolescence such that the ratio of ego to impulse decreases to a narrow margin. During late adolescence, impulse is shown as reaching a plateau which provides an increasing ratio on into early adulthood. Impulse control is represented by the ratio and the margin is narrow in the late high school to early college years. Control during this time is described as uncertain and rigid by Sanford. As the margin increases during the college years, control becomes more flexible because there is little danger of loss of control. The greater margin and the experience of control provides more freedom and contributes to an increase in impulse expression. According to Sanford’s description it would be expected that trait measures should show an age trend of decreasing impulsiveness during the adolescent years as impulse control comes under increasing stress. However, that age trend should discontinue sometime in late adolescence or early adulthood and may even reverse directions. In an earlier attempt to relate trait and stage impulsiveness, the writer (Starrett, 1978) used 30 items from the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1963) and the 16 Personality Factors (16 PF; Cattell, 1965) to form an experimental scale to measure impulsiveness. The Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT; Loevinger and Wessler, 1970) was used to measure ego development. It was hypothesized that scores on these two measures would show a significant negative correlation based on a subsample of subjects who scored at the pre-conformity (Impulsive or Self-protection Stages) or conformity (Conformity or ConscientiousConformist Stages) levels of ego development. The rationale for not including post-conformity subjects was that the relationship was expected to be non-linear as Sanford has suggested. Beyond the Conformity Stage in ego development theory, there is assumed to be a spontaneity of thought and behavior that is suggestive of impulsiveness and thus would tend to attenuate the correlation. Out of a sample of 53 male college students, 40 were identified as either pre-conformists or conformists and were used in the hypothesis test. A correlation of -0.14 was obtained and the hypothesis was rejected. This hypothesis was but one of eight in that study and for most of these hypotheses the data from 43 subjects was complete and could be used. For that 43 subject sample with none excluded due to level of ego development, the correlation was -0.28 (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the correlation between WUSCT and Barratt’s Impulsiveness Scale which was used as a validation measure for the experimental scale, was -0.31 (P < 0.05) on that sample. These significant correlations do provide support for the central notion of a commonality between trait and stage impulsiveness though it would appear that it would be advisable to use subjects with a greater diversity of ego development. The present study is designed to correct that problem. The first hypothesis of the present study was that a significant negative correlation would be exhibited between a measure of trait impulsiveness and scores on an ego development measure. Another limitation of the writer’s earlier study was that a single score measure of impulsiveness was used. It was argued above that trait impulsiveness has at least four major facets (factors). From the Eysencks’ descriptions of these facets it would seem that the Imp, factor would be the one that is most similar to the impulse control problem in ego development. The second hypothesis of this
study was that the Imp, subscale scores will exhibit a stronger negative correlation with a measure of ego development than any of the other subscales. As noted above, both Shapiro and Wishnie treat extreme impulsiveness as a personality disorder such as psychopath or alcoholic. Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) have presented a substantial amount of evidence supporting an observation that their personality dimension (trait) P captures much of the same patterns of thought and behavior as impulsive style implies. In earlier work Eysenck and Eysenck (1969) contended that extraversion (E) has two major components with impulsiveness being one and sociability being the other. In the factor analytic explorations discussed above, the Eysencks found that both Imp, scores and Imp, scores showed a stronger association with P than with E. Indeed. it is the Eysencks’ position that P is a more central dimension of personality than impulsiveness and one which captures the antisocial aspects of personality in a broader sense than does impulsiveness. It is also a broader sense of personality that Loevinger is presenting in her rendition of ego deve!opment. The lack of impulse control and retarded character development associated with the early stages of ego development takes a stronger antisocial turn as the non-developmentally progressive individual is more and more ostracized by his peers as they progress socially and he does not. Thus. what starts out as a problem due to weak impulse control development without hostile intent may become a disdain for or a rejection of impulse control with hostile intent that makes the adolescent or adult impulsive style a personality disorder that appears to be characteristic of high-P scorers. In summary. it would seem likely that scores on P would exhibit a significant negative correlation with a measure of ego development. That proposition was the third hypothesis of this study.
METHOD
The participants of this study were from the school system of a small city in the Midwest of U.S.A. of both sexes and from three different age groups. There was a Junior High group that had 26 males (mean ace = 13.7 yr) and 17 females (mean age = 13.5). a Senior High group that had I7 males (mean a& = 17.0) and 18 females (mean age = 16.9); and a College group that had I9 males (mean age = 18.4) and 46 females (mean age = IX. 1). All testing was done in class time on a group basis but participation was voluntary.
The items used to define the four impulsiveness traits were from the Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) study. There were I3 items defining Narrow Impulsiveness. 1 I items defining Risk-taking, I3 items defining Non-planning and 6 items defining Liveliness. These 43 items were combined into a single form and labeled “Experimental Personality Trait Scale”.
Mccr.wres of’ E~~.serdc‘s
prsot~ulit~~
ciinwmions
The EPQ (Eysenck and Eysenck. 1975) was used to measure E, N. P and L in the Senior High and College participants. The Junior EPQ was used for measuring the same traits in the Junior High participants.
The measure of ego development was the WUSCT (Loevinger and Wessler, 1970). Two forms of the 36-item WUSCT are published for each sex. There is a junior form in which the five sexrelated items of the adult form arc deleted and non-sex-related items are substituted. Because of the cross-age comparisons being made in this study the junior forms were used for all participants. Based on the stage ratings of the 36 sentence completions, the S’s ego development stage is assigned by ;I given rule evaluation of the distribution of stage ratings. An alternative method of scoring. noted by Loevingcr and Wesslcr (1970). isto use the mean of the item ratings. The latter scoring method was judged to be more appropriate for the psychometrics of the present study. In this method each sentence completion is rated on a 9-point scale corresponding to the nine stages given in Table I starting with the Impulsive Stage = I.
Impulsiveness Table 2. Mean scores on all measures
269
for both sexes and all age groups
Males Jr Hi. (N = 26) Imp, Risk No-plan Lively Imp, P E N L WUSCT
Sr Hi. (N = 17)
7.5 7.5* 6. I 3.8 24.9 6.5*+ 18.0 11.9 5.4 3. I *t
6.9 7.7 6. I 4.5t 25.2t 6.lt
IX.W 12.4 5.5 4.2t
Females Coil. (N = 19)
All (N = 62)
Jr Hi. (N = 27)
Sr Hi. (N = 28)
COIL (N = 46)
All (N = 101)
6.X 5.x* 5.5 3.9 22.0 4.1*t 15.7 II.lt 4.6 4.4*
7.1 7.0t 5.9 4.01 24.0 5.61_ 17.3t I l.8? 5.2 3.w
7.7 6.8” 6.9 3.8 25.2* 3.2’r 19.2* 11.9*t 6.4 3.7*t
5.5 6.4 5.6 3.3t 20.w 3.3.t 14.4t 13.2 6.2 4.7t
6.5 5.3* 5.7 3.3 20.7* 2.5t 14.2* I s.o*‘r 5.6 4.6*
6.6 6.01 6.0 3.4t 21.9 2.9t l5.6t 13.7t 6.0 4.4t
*P i 0.05 for age comparisons. tP < 0.05 for sex comparisons.
Procedures
Two experimental sessions were used to obtain the required measures. One session was used for the 133 trait items of the impulsive trait measures and the EPQ. A separate session was used for the WUSCT. Anonymity was maintained by having the participants identify their tests with fictitious names.
RESULTS deviations for all three age groups and for each of the sexes are The means and standard for the combined age groups for each of the sexes are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Correlations presented in Table 4.
Table 3. Standard
deviations
on all measures
for both sexes and all age groups
Males
Imp, Risk No-plan Lively Imp, P E N L WUSCT
Jr Hi. (N = 26)
Sr Hi. (N = 17)
Cell. (N = 19)
All (N = 62)
Jr Hi. (N = 27)
Sr Hi. (N = 28)
Coil. (N = 46)
All (N = 101)
3.2 I.8 2.0 1.5 5.7 3.9 3.9 4.6 4.2 0.6
2.4 2.2 2.7 1.3 6.4 2.x 2.2 4. I 2.5 0.4
2.6 2.x 3.1 I.6 7.6 2.7 4.6 4.3 3.0 0.4
2.8 2.4 2.5 I.5 6.6 3.4 3.8 4.3 3.4 0.7
2.x 2.5 3.1 I.5 7.5 3.5 3.9 4. I 4.8 0.4
3.2 2.1 2.2 I.6 5.9 2.0 5.0 5.1 3.6 0.5
3.3 2.6 2.8 1.5 7.5 I.9 4.8 4.0 2.7 0.4
3.2 2.5 2.8 1.5 7.3 2.4 5.1 4.5 3.6 0.6
Table 4. Correlations Imp, Imp, Risk No-plan Lively Imp, P E N L WUSCT
Females
among all measures
for the combined
Risk
Lively
49*** 47*** 43*** 19* x1*** 36*** 19* 25** -48*** _30***
38*** I6 73*** 39*** 41*** 05 _33*** -24**
No-plan 42*** 53*** 35*** 77*** 36*** 23* -21* _23* -17*
-08 08 21 48*** 27** 45*** -34*** 05 -13
Imp, 76*** 80*** 8l*** 30** 49*** 41*** -02 _40*** -31***
Junior
High, Senior High and College groups P
51*** 43*** 42**+ 09 56*** ?I* -07 -2*** _29***+
E 10 I9 07 32** 21* 02 -16 -06 -39***
N
L
WUSCT
48*** 27* -03 -27* 23* I5 -31**
- 30** -16 -4o*** 03 -34** -26* -23* 24*
-27* -3o** -II I6 -23x _49***
_32*** 07
07
Correlations for males are in the upper-right triangle and for females in the lower left. Decimal points omitted. *P < 0.05 (one-tailed test); **P < 0.01 (one-tailed test); ***P < 0.001 (one-tailed test).
~ 22* PII -02
270
RAYMONI)
H. STAKKI TI
The hypothesized significant negative correlational relationship between trait impulsiveness and ego development stage was supported for both males and females. The correlations in Table 4 indicate that the relationship was substantially stronger for females than for males with correlations between Imp, and the WUSCT of -0.31 (P < 0.001) and -0.23 (P < 0.05). respectively. These marginal to modest correlations replicate the correlations found by the writer in his earlier study discussed above. It was assumed that in the present study with a greater age range and thus, probably, greater range of ego development levels. there would be stronger correlations exhibited. An inspection of the pattern of age-group correlations. however. revealed some non-linearities in these relationships that undermine that assumption. For both the males and the females, the correlations were modest in the Junior High groups. -0.34 (P < 0.05) and - 0.39 (P < 0.05). respectively: essentially zero in the Senior High groups; and weak in the College groups, -0.24 and -0.17. respectively. This non-linear age trend in the correlations appears to be the result of non-linear age trends in both of the variables for both of the sexes. An inspection of Table 2 shows that although the means of the Imp, scores decrease from Junior High to College and the WUSCT scores increase in general, the major change in the Impulsiveness scores is between Senior High and College for the males and between Junior High and Senior High school for the females. The advance in ego development shows more similarity between the sexes with a substantial increase between Junior High and Senior High and little difference between the Senior High and College scores. The lack of difference between Senior High and College scores should be considered in this study with caution for two reasons. Both the Senior High and the College students were in psychology classes. but the Senior students were mot-c self-selected by taking psychology as an elective course whereas for most of the College students. it was required. Furthermore, the mean age difference between the two groups was only a little more than a year due to the combination of age groups in the classes and the time of year of testing. The second hypothesis was that Imp, scores would show stronger correlations with ego development scores than any of the other impulsiveness scales. Because it was assumed that all four of the impulsiveness subscales would show substantial intercorrelations, it was no: expected that these differences in their correlations with the WUSCT would be significant. The hypothesis was supported in the female data (r = -0.30) but not in the male data where Risk showed the strongest correlation with the WUSCT (r = -0.30 as opposed to I’ = -0.27 for Imp,). Considering the individual age groups, the only significant correlations between the WUSCT and the impulsiveness subscales were found with Imp, and Risk, although Senior High and College males showed some deviation from this pattern with non-significant correlations. Substantial support was found for the hypothesized significant negative correlation between P and the WUSCT. For the males the correlation was -0.49 (P < 0.001). and for the females the correlation was -0.29 (P < 0.01). In considering the pattern of correlations within each age group and sex combination, the correlation was higher between the WUSCT and P than the WUSCT and any other measure with the single exception of College males on No-plan. The XX and age trends in mean P scores were generally as expected. For each age group the males were higher than the females. The age trends generally followed the expected decrease across the age groups, but again. non-linearities were exhibited with the Junior High and Senior High females not showing a difference in P and the males of these age groups showing very little difference. The male age trends in P wet-c closer to the age trends in ego development than was true for the females which offers a partial explanation for the substantially higher correlation found for the combined age groups between P and the WUSCT for males than for females. Indeed, when the age groups were combined for the females the correlation between the WUSCT and E was higher than for P. DISCUSSION
In the process of normal ego development the individual establishes control over his impulses. Within Loevinger’s (1966. 1976) theory, both the degree and the method of impulse control varies. The method of control is assumed to follow a trend from control via immediate rewards and punishments to control through external rules to control responding to internalized standards. Each of these progressions in method is assumed to be accompanied with an increased effectiveness in control and. at least in the early stages. a decrease in impulsiveness. The age range of subjects
Impulsiveness
271
in the present study was selected such that substantial variation in both the degree of impulsiveness and in the method of impulse control was expected. Within this age range it was hypothesized that progression away from the Impulsive Stage would be correlated with a decrease in traits characterized as impulsive. This hypothesis was modestly supported and some evidence was thus supplied for the conceptual commonality between impulsiveness as a personality trait and as an ego development stage. It was also hypothesized that Imp, would show a higher correlation with the WUSCT across the age groups than any of the other impulsiveness subscales. This hypothesis was supported by the data for the females, but for the males the correlation between the WUSCT and Imp, was exceeded slightly by the correlation between the WUSCT and Risk. When it is noted that Risk and the WUSCT also exhibited a highly significant correlation in the combined female sample. then it would appear that risk-taking is just as strongly related to ego development as is the facet of impulsiveness tapped by Imp,. It is the writer’s opinion that the aspects of trait impulsiveness that are most indicative of ego development are those of an unsociahzed or antisocial nature. This point of view will be repeated with additional evidence and arguments later in this discussion. As an initial rationale for this argument it would seem that the general nature of the behaviors tapped by the items on the Imp, and Risk subscales identify behaviors that are more likely to bring a person into conflict with others than is true of the items on the No-plan and Lively subscales. For example, “Do you need to use a lot of self-control to keep out of trouble’?” from the Imp, scale or, “Do you quite enjoy taking risks. 7” from the Risk scale would appear to be suggestive of more antisocial behaviors than a lack of planning or a personal style of liveliness. Thus, it should not be too surprising that the social immaturity tapped by low scores on the WUSCT would have more in common with Imp, and Risk than with the other two facets of impulsiveness included in this study. While some support has been provided for these two hypotheses, an inspection of the pattern of correlations and mean scores for both the trait measures of impulsiveness and the WUSCT reveals some interesting age trends and sex differences that are indicative of limitations in the hypothesized trait and stage commonality. The age trends will now be discussed, but the sex differences will only be noted for now and given a more detailed consideration later in this paper. An inspection of the correlations of each of the three age groups revealed that only the Junior High students demonstrated a nearly consistent pattern of significant correlations between the WUSCT and the impulsiveness measures: Imp,, Imp, and Risk. The pattern of age trends between the WUSCT and Imp, suggested a possible linear age trend progression of decreasing correlations with increasing age: -0.38 (P < 0.05) -0.18, -0.1 1 for the males and -0.45 (P < -O.Ol), - 0.13, - 0. IO for the females. However, for Risk the age trend was non-linear with the correlations for the Senior High students substantially less than those of the other two groups: -0.41 (P < 0.05) 0.01, -0.25 for the males and -0.25, 0.01, -0.28 (P < 0.05) for the females. The age trend for Imp, also suggested a non-linearity in both sexes with only the Junior High groups demonstrating significance: -0.34 (P < 0.05), 0.04, -0.24 for the males and -0.39 (P < 0.05) 0.03, - 0.17 for the females. The female groups exhibited a corresponding inversion in the mean scores on Imp, with an age trend pattern of 7.7, 5.5, 6.5 from Junior High through College students. The significantly lower Imp, scores of the Senior High girls compared to the Junior High girls (t = 3.7, P < 0.001) is consistent with the hypothesized age trend of increasing impulse control. However, the higher Imp, scores of the College women compared to the Senior High girls is not consistent with that hypothesis but is more consistent with Sanford’s (1962) observations on Vassar College women two decades ago in which there was an increase in impulsiveness from the freshman year to the senior year. It is not being suggested that the College women of the present study had achieved the same reversal of increased impulsiveness associated with more advanced ego development that was shown in the Vassar study, the negative correlations of the present study indicate otherwise. However, some kind of inversion of self-described impulsiveness is evident in these data. As a summary of these age trends, it would appear that scores on measures of trait impulsiveness are limited as indicators of ego development to persons who are socially immature. This limitation would seem to be an example of what Loevinger (1966) identified as the inappropriate use of a polar trait as an indicator of what she called a ‘milestone’ or stage in development in which the characteristic will, “tend to rise and then fall off in prominence as one
ascends the scale of ego maturity” (p. 201). Control of impulses in Loevinger’s theory would normally be expected to follow such a curvilinear path which complicates the interpretation of a specific level of impulsiveness. With regard to the attempt to measure levels of impulsiveness that would be considered normal in a child but abnormal in an adult, Loevinger states: “On tests designed to measure variables such as psychopathology, impulsivity of low ego Icvels arc confounded with the toleration at high Icvels.” (1-1.203)
the weakness and of inner life found
Loevinger has an important point with respect to the developmental aspects of impulse control. But. it should be remembered that it is because of the level of impulsiveness in corrymrison to ugc> peers that an adolescent would be identified as abnormal while a young child with similar behavior patterns would be considered normal. Age trends are important in understanding the development of individual differences whether the dimensions of comparison are in terms of traits, developmental stages or other tertns. In the present study. the age trends in the mean scores on the measures of trait impulsiveness and ego development were in general consistent for both sexes. However, there were also some sex ditferences in these data that appear to be indicative of some important developmental differences in the mean scores between the two sexes. An inspection of Table 2 shows that the differences in the mean scores between the Junior High students and the College students on both Imp, and the WUSCT demonstrated some interesting sex differences in the related age trends that underly the first hypothesis. The age trend was stronger for males when viewed through the WUSCT scores, although both sexes had a significant age-group difference. However. for females the trend was stronger when viewed through Imp, scores where the females’ scores were significantly different between the Junior High and College students. and the differences for the corresponding male age groups did not reach significance. Interestingly. the mean scores on Imp,, for the College students of this study were strikingly similar to those reported by Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) (22.6 for the males and 21.7 for the females) on U.K. adults which provides additional evidence for the generality of both studies. Another sex difference in the WUSCT scores that is quite noteworthy is found in the significantly higher mean scores of the females for Junior High students, Senior High students and the combined age groups. This sex difference will be used as part of a tnore general argument about developmental sex difference that will be presented below. The noteworthiness of this sex difference to be now considered is that it is in contradiction to an earlier report of Loevinger and Wessler (1970). Loevinger and Wessler reported no significant sex differences in their presentation of E. V. Sullivan’s data on 101 male and I00 female Toronto school children aged 9-18. In contrast, Block (1973) reported substantial sex differences in a study that included ego development assignment in High School students using the WUSCT. Block categorized 144 males and I41 females into three levels of ego development: Impulsive and Self-protective. Conformity, Conscientious. Thirty-six per cent of the males were identified at the Impulsive and Self-protective level as compared to only suggests a lagging in ego development for a substantial 13”,, of the females which certainly proportion of the male sample. In a more recent study of subjects ranging from Grade 7 to university students. Gfellner ( I98 I ) found modal ego development levels a step higher (on the scale of nine gradations used in the present study) for females than for males at grades 7. 8. 9. I I and 12 but not in the university students. There would appear to be enough evidence of females scoring higher than males of the same age on the WUSCT to suggest that males lag behind the females on ego development during the adolescent years. However, more studies designed to investigate the specific question of sex differences will be required before definitive evidence has been provided for this suggested sex difference. In contrast to the inconsistent sex differences in the mean scores on Imp, and Imp, over the age range of this study, the sex differences in the Eysencks’ measure of P for all three age groups showed the malts scoring signiticuntly higher than the females. These mean scores are in agreement with Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1975) standardization data both in the age trends and in the consistency for the tnales scoring higher than the females. In their conceptual description of high-P scorers, Eysenck and Eysenck ( 1975) include such descriptive phrases as: cruel, often troublesome. altogether insensitive. aggressive etc. These terms are highly suggestive of the unsocialized or
Impulsiveness
273
antisocial aspects of impulsiveness. Indeed, it would seem that P might be a better measure than Imp, of those unsocialized aspects of impulsiveness as a personality disorder or as an indicator of lagging ego development. It was because of this possibility that the exploratory third hypothesis relating P and the WUSCT was proposed. The discussion of P will start with its relationship to Imp, and E. Then the relationship between P and ego development will be considered. It was noted above in the discussion of impulsiveness as a personality disorder that Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) found that P had a stronger correlation with Imp, than with E (0.55 and 0.35, respectively, for males; 0.59 and 0.48, respectively. for females). In Table 4 there is a similar pattern of correlations linking P with both Imp, and E. Since these two studies were based on subjects from two different countries and on two different age groups (Eysencks’ subjects age range was 20-30). the similarity in the pattern of P related correlations is quite remarkable. There are important facets in Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1976) description of P and its measurement that are supported by the similarity of these data patterns. There are also interesting developmental aspects of P that are suggested by the age-sex trends in these data and by some of the relationships between P and WUSCT scores. Firstly, additional support has been provided for the robustness of the measures and the validity of the trait relationships tapped by Imp,, P and E. Secondly, some evidence has been provided for the stability of these patterns of trait relationships from early adolescence through adulthood. This evidence supports the notion that there are correlational patterns or factor structures of individual differences in children that are stable on into adulthood such as those of E and N shown by Eysenck (1969). It should be acknowledged, however, that this stability evidence in the present study is weakened by the inconsistencies in the correlation of the Senior High samples. Of course the stability of the correlational patterns that are found across ages is not to be interpreted as indicative of stability of the magnitudes of the respective traits. Indeed, these magnitude changes with age are central to the present study. Thirdly, evidence has been provided for the stability of sex differences in these patterns of trait relationships. It is in the combination of age and sex differences in P and in WUSCT scores that the most meaningful interpretation of the relationships between P, WUSCT and developmental processes are to be found and is now offered. In her excellent general discussion of impulse control, Maccoby (1980) makes this point about the development of control over emotional expression: “. the acquisition of controls is not automatic and is a central part of the socialization process” (p. 180). The fact that Loevinger (1966) identifies the first measureable stage of ego development as Impulsive and notes impulse control as one of the four major facets of ego development, testifies to the centrality of impulse control in her theory, at least in the early stages of ego development. In describing the Impulsive stage she notes that uninhibited expressions of impulses are normal for the infant but indicative of maladjustment in the adolescent and certainly in the adult. Stated in Loevinger’s own succinct words, ‘I. unsocialized expressions of sexual and aggressive drives are pathognomic for the stage” (1966, p. 199) and “. pathological examples [of the Impulsive Stage] are the impulse-ridden personalities and what have been called her ps&zopaths ” (1976, p. 415). Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) present a substantial array of studies identifying their concept of P as closely related to criminality and antisocial behavior in both children and adults. The types of antisocial behaviors that the Eysencks have identified with high-P scorers appear to be quite similar to those of certain types of criminals and drug addicts that Wishnie (1976) identified as having an impulsive personality disorder. From this writer’s perspective, an overview of the observations of these researchers would be that unrestrained impulsiveness is indicative of inadequacies in the development of self-control during the socialization process. It also appears that there are some important sex differences in the development of this control, and that the differences may have biological bases which are amplified by sex differences in child rearing practices. These sex differences are reflected in the pattern of sex differences in the scores on personality measures in this study and in others. Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) contend that there is a biologically based and culturally supported characteristic of ‘maleness’ that contributes to the finding that, “. males tend to have much higher P scores than females” (p. 143). A number of psychophysiological studies are cited by the Eysencks which suggest that the onset of full male sexuality (Gray, 1973) with its increase in testosterone production and the higher levels of serum uric acid (Mikkelsen, Dodge and Valkenburg, 1965; cited in Eysenck and Eysenck. 1976) in males
27-l
RAYMONII H.
STAKKFTT
are contributing factors associated with high P scores. For a detailed treatment of this ‘biological’ argument. the reader is referred to the Eysencks’ work. Block (1973) and others have provided evidence for the often made assertion that the child rearing practices for males emphasize achievement and competition while those for females emphasize personal relationships and being supportive. Block found that these sex differences in socialization emphasis were even stronger in America than was true in five other Western technologically advanced cultures. ..
significantly more emphasis was placed on competitive achievement; and signilicantly less importance was attached to the control of aggression in American malts.” (p. 520) It would seem highly probable that the sex differences in child rearing reported by Block have contributed substantially to the higher levels of aggressiveness in males documented in the literature reviews of Maccoby (1966) and Maccoby and Jacklin (1974). The relative contribution of biology and environment to the sex differences in aggressiveness summarized by Maccoby is a debate that will continue for years and is outside the concerns of the present paper, however making a connection between the extensive research on sex differences in aggrcssi\~cness and sex dilfcrcnces in the socialization process is of concern here. Furthermore. it i\ being suggcstcd hcrcin that :I bcttcr understanding of sex differences in aggressiveness could be pined hv studvinrr. context and within the framework of _ L those ditYcrences in ;I developmental ego dc\elopmcnt. Indeed. SLIC~I :I dcvelopmcntal framework offers substantial opportunity for further claritication of the commonality among the trait concepts of aggressiveness. psychoticism and inipulsi\cncs4.