Page 1

PSYCHOLOGY LIBRARY EDITIONS:

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 4

PERSONALITY VARIABLES IN

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Page Intentionally Left Blank

PERSONALITY VARIABLES IN

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Edited by

THOMAS BLASS

Vp Psychology Press

M.

Taylor & Francis Croup

LO N D O N AN D NEW YORK

First published in 1977

This edition first published in 2015

by Psychology Press

27 Church Road, Hove BN3 2FA

and by Psychology Press

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Psychology Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 1977 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised

in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or

hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information

storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to

infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-138-83092-9 (Set)

ISBN: 978-1-315-69455-9 (Set) (ebk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-85462-8 (Volume 4) (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-315-72095-1 (Volume 4) (ebk)

Publisher’s Note

The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but

points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer

The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome

correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

PERSONALITY VARIABLES

IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Ed it e d b y

THOMAS BLASS

University of Maryland Baltimore County

l§& LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

1977 Hillsdale, New Jersey

DISTRIBUTED BY THE HALSTED PRESS DIVISION OF

JOHN WILEY & SONS

New York Toronto London Sydney

Copyright © 1977 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in

any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other

means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

62 Maria Drive

Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642

Distributed solely by Halsted Press Division

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Personality variables in social behavior.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

1. Personality and situation. 2. Social psychology.

I. Blass, Thomas. [DNLM: 1. Personality.

2. Social

behavior. BF 698 P469]

BF698.9.S55P47

301.11*3 77-3538

ISBN 0-470-99133-X

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Preface

ix

1. ON PERSONALITY VARIABLES, SITUATIONS, AND

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Thomas Blass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Epistemological Status of Personality Descriptions and

Definition of the Situation

6

Personality Measures and Operational Definitions

8

Transsituational Consistency

11

The Person X Situation Interaction

13

The Contents of This Book

14

Conclusions

19

References

21

2. MOTIVATION FOR ACHIEVEMENT

John W. Atkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

Experimental Validation of Thematic Apperceptive

Measurement of Motivation

28

Preliminary Evidence of Interaction of Personality and

Situational Determinants of Motivation

34

A Theory of Achlilvement Motivation

37

Motivation and Efficiency of Performance

66

v

CONTENTS

The Dynamics of Action Applied to Achievement-Related

Action

74

Motivation and Achievement

88

Personality and Behavioral Processes

98

References

99

AUTHORITARIANISM

Frances Cherry and Donn Byrne .......................................

The Search for a Reliable Measure of

Authoritarianism

111

The Search for the Correlates and the Antecedents of

Authoritarianism

116

Background: Personality and Situational Determinants of

Authoritarian Behavior

121

The Interaction of Personality and Situation: Three

Examples

124

Summary

129

Acknowledgments

129

References

129

PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION

Stephen A. Karp ..................................................................

History

136

Measures of Field Dependence-lndependence

141

Field Dependence-lndependence and Social Behavior

142

Overview

167

References

169

INTROVERSION/EXTRAVERSION

Glenn W ilson......................................................

Historical Background to the Concept

179

Measurement of Extraversion Today

180

The Extraversion Dimension in Context

183

Two Major Components of Extraversion

184

Extraversion and Abnormal Behavior

185

The Genetic Basis of Extraversion

187

CONTENTS

vii

Eysenck's Arousal Theory

189

Sensitivity to Reward and Punishment; Gray's

Theory

194

Intelligence

196

Education

198

Occupational Psychology

201

Risk Taking and Accident Proneness

201

Criminality and Antisocial Behavior

202

Social and Political Attitudes

203

Sexual Attitudes and Behavior

204

Social Influence

204

Affiliation

206

Birth Order

207

Attraction

208

Person Perception

209

Social Class Differences

210

Cross-National Differences

211

Psychotherapy

212

Conclusion

213

References

214

6. INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL OF REINFORCEMENT

Bonnie R. S trickland..........................................................

Theoretical Background

220

Major Areas of Research

230

Problems and Issues

262

Acknowledgments

264

References

264

7. DOGMATISM

Ralph B. Vacchiano

..................................................

Dogmatism, Authoritarianism, and the Dogmatism

Scale

282

Dogmatism, Attitudes, and Beliefs

289

Personality, Defensiveness, and Maladjustment

296

Interpersonal and Group Behavior

301

Summary

306

References

307

219

281

viii CONTENTS

8. APPROVAL MOTIVATION

Bonnie R. S trickland...................

Theoretical Background

317

Major Areas of Research

317

Problems and Issues

348

Acknowledgments

350

References

350

9. SEX DIFFERENCES

Kay Deaux ............................................................

The Status of Sex as a Personality Variable

357

Self-Presentation Strategies

360

Sex-linked Task Characteristics

366

Sex Differences: When, Where, and Why?

370

Acknowledgments

373

References

373

315

357

Author Index

379

Subject Index

397

Preface

In the fall semester of 1974, I offered a seminar in social psychology dealing

with the relationship between personality and social behavior. Although a

cognitively-oriented social psychologist, I have also had a continuing interest in

personality differences and a conviction that, by taking personality variables into

account - especially as they interact with situational variables —we may be able

to make more precise statements about social behavior. This interest and

conviction originated during my graduate school days in the late 1960s when, in

my dissertation research, I predicted and found tolerance for cognitive im­

balance to be an interactive effect of a personality dimension I developed, and a

characteristic of the situation. In line with this approach, one of my goals in that

seminar was to show how specific personality constructs can be valuable in the

prediction of social behavior, when the behavior to be predicted has a concep­

tual link to the personality variable. I was thinking of the number of important

theory-based personality variables developed within the last two or three

decades —such as authoritarianism, locus of control, and approval motivation —

which have relevance for various domains of social behavior.

Early in 1974, as I planned the seminar and compiled a reading list for it, I

realized that with notable exceptions, e.g., locus of control, there was a lack of

up-to-date theoretical statements and reviews on the most important and widely

used personality constructs in psychology today. It then became apparent to me

that there was a need for a book that would bring together authoritative

presentations on these personality variables, not only to provide a solid introduc­

tion to them, but also to disseminate information about current theoretical and

research developments. The volume then would serve as a useful sourcebook

both for the relative newcomer to the topic (such as the upper-level undergradu­

ate) and for the graduate student, teacher, or researcher in personality and

social psychology who has some prior familiarity with earlier developments.

ix

X

PREFACE

This volume is meant to fill that need. All the chapters, except my own, are

devoted to specific individual difference variables and are by authorities whom I

invited to write on their topics. To maximize the usefulness of the book to the

researcher, I have asked authors, where feasible and relevant, to include the

personality scales dealt with in their chapters. Thus, in addition to the theoreti­

cal presentations and literature reviews which comprise the heart of the book, the

reader will also find the following personality scales reproduced in this volume:

The California F Scale

Byrne’s Balanced F Scale

Levenson’s Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale

The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children

Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

Crandall, Crandall, and Katkovsky’s Children’s Social Desirability Scale

In addition to the chapters dealing with specific personality variables, there is

an introductory chapter in which I discuss a number of issues I feel need to be

considered when assessing the relative value of personality variables and situa­

tional factors in accounting for social behavior. My intent in that chapter, in

addition to providing a context for the chapters that follow, is to argue for the

increased recognition by social psychologists of the importance of looking at

social behavior as a function of both personality and situation.

My acknowledgments to Stanley Feldstein and Jonathan Finkelstein for read­

ing and commenting on my chapter. Thanks also to my wife, Anne, whose extra

efforts and forbearance made it possible for me to be oblivious to everything

going on in the house while I was working on this book, and for her help, as well

as that of Helen Feldman, with some of the details necessary to get a manuscript

into final form.

Th o m a s Bl a s s

1

On Personality Variables,

Situations, and Social Behavior

Thomas Blass

University of Maryland Baltimore County

Since its beginnings as a scientific discipline, psychology has embraced two

contrasting approaches to the study of behavior. These distinct orientations have

had a variety of overlapping designations, such as: experimental versus correla­

tional (Cronbach, 1957); mind-in-general versus mind-in-particular (Allport,

1937); situational versus dispositional. Whatever its specific label, the dichotomy

is one between a search for general principles of behavior that would account for

most people’s behaviors most of the time versus an attempt to provide a

systematic account of differences among individuals, and perhaps even of per­

sonal uniqueness (mind-in-particular). It is, also, a methodological distinction

between observing responses to experimentally created differences in the envi­

ronment and the study of relationships between observed or measured character­

istics of individuals and their other characteristics or behaviors. The situational

versus dispositional dichotomy involves, additionally, assumptions about the

primary causes of behavior: the characteristics of the situation the person finds

himself in or the personal characteristics he brings into the situation. According

to the situational view, changes in a person’s behavior over time as well as

differences among individuals are seen as resulting from environmental or situa­

tional influences. The second approach, the dispositional one, has been guided

by the belief that, while it is true that there may be general principles of

behavior that apply to most people, it is no less true that people differ among

each other in a variety of ways. In order to properly account for the diversity of

behavior, according to this view, it is necessary to provide some systematic

framework for understanding individual differences. For the most part, this has

involved the development of constructs encompassing some relatively stable

predispositional attributes of the individual such as his abilities, personality

traits, beliefs, attitudes, or motives, and the construction of measures of these

1

2

T. BLASS

attributes. These contrasting approaches to the study of behavior were already

present in the earliest days of psychological research. Even in the pioneering

experimental psychology laboratories of Wilhelm Wundt in the late 1800s, there

were researchers interested in studying the variation they found among their

subjects (Tyler, 1963, p. 26).

Contemporary social psychology has tended to favor the situational approach

over the dispositional one. Even a brief glance at the journals in the field will

reveal that in most cases the major variables under focus have been operationally

defined by systematically varying some characteristics of the immediate environ­

ment (such as the experimenter’s behavior, instructions, or the physical setting)

and then randomly assigning subjects to conditions which represent some speci­

fic combinations of these experimental manipulations. Less frequently do we

find in the literature a personality variable, or any other kind of “chronic”

dimension, playing a focal role in testing hypotheses about the antecedents of

social behavior. There are two major reasons for the preferential treatment given

to situational manipulations in social psychological research: historical and

practical.

Contemporary experimentally oriented social psychology is a product of two

important theoretical traditions. It has been primarily influenced by Gestalt

psychology (especially the Lewinian version of it) and, secondarily, by behav­

iorism. The imprint of the former can be seen in the recognition given by most

social psychologists to the importance of cognitive organizing principles in

accounting for the individual’s behavior in relation to his social environment,

while the impact of the latter is evidenced in the meticulousness with which

social psychologists try to operationalize concepts. We can also recognize a

related contribution of behaviorism in the following quote from Berger and

Lambert’s (1968) discussion of contemporary S-R theory :

Although all psychologists accept order when it is found, S—R theorists tend to pursue

analysis until the conditions controlling the behavior under analysis have been either

experimentally elucidated or at least theoretically postulated according to the most

probably relevant hypothesis or data at hand [p. 95].

Both Kurt Lewin’s approach and behaviorism place considerable importance

on situational determinants of behavior —but for somewhat different reasons.

For the behaviorist, his simultaneous aversion to mentalistic concepts and his

stress on physically observable events made environmental events the logical

candidates as the primary determinants of behavior, both as cues for the

elicitation of behavior and as reinforcers for their maintenance. For Lewin,

maximal explanation for a person’s current behavior was to be attained not by

turning to past occurrences in his life history, but through a precise specification

of what is “real” for him at this particular time, i.e., his psychological life space

(Lewin, 1935, 1936). The life space, according to Lewin, is comprised of both

the person and the environment. Thus, “every psychological event depends upon

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

3

the state of the person and at the same time on the environment, although their

relative importance is different in different cases” (Lewin, 1936, p. 12). Lewin

(1935) saw his task as providing “a workable representation of a concrete

psychological situation according to its individual characteristics and its associ­

ated functional properties, and of the concrete structure of the psychological

person and its internal dynamic facts [p. 41].” Although, as these quotes

indicate. Lewin viewed behavior as being dependent on both the characteristics

of the person and the environment -B = f{P E) (Lewin, 1936, p. 12) - with

notable exceptions (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Hornstein, 1972; Rokeach, 1960)

social psychologists have generally not built on Lewin’s conceptualizations about

the person, but have limited themselves to the environmental component of his

equation. Noteworthy in this regard, is that Heider’s (1959, pp. 108-119)

discussion of Lewin’s concept of the life space focuses almost completely on the

environmental component, with only a passing mention of the way the person is

represented in the life space.

On the practical side, the preference for situational manipulations over correla­

tional variables in social psychological research is no doubt due to the greater

potential for payoff inherent in the former as far as causal inferences are

concerned. It is almost an axiom of psychological research that the experimental

method, because of its feature of random assignment of subjects to treatments,

is the most powerful technique available to the researcher, since it allows him to

specify the nature of the causal link between the variables he is studying.

Although recent advances in statistical procedures, such as the cross-lagged

correlation technique and time series analyses1, added to such earlier techniques

as partial correlations, have made it increasingly possible to extract causal

statements from nonmanipulated variables, it nonetheless still remains true that

the experimental method provides the most direct and unambiguous information

about the causal relationship between variables (but see Bowers, 1973; Rubin,

1974). At the same time the secondary status of correlational variables in terms

of causal inference has led investigators to overlook their value in other areas,

such as in the prediction of behavior. Yet, in principle, correlational relation­

ships contain as much predictive information as do experimentally derived causal

relationships. Let us suppose, for example, that you have generally found that

whenever your pet’s fur was unusually thick a cold winter followed. If your dog

is especially shaggy this year, it would be a good idea to stock up on extra logs

and longjohns in spite of the fact that the animal’s extra coat obviously does not

1 An interesting recent social psychological application of the cross-lagged correlation

technique can be found in a study on the relationship between group cohesiveness and

performance in a field study of isolated groups (Bakeman & Helmreich, 1975). A recent use

of time series analysis can be seen in a study on the effects of the Kennedy assassination and

of the murder of eight nurses on the nationwide incidence of violent crime (Berkowitz &

Macaulay, 1971).

4

T. BLASS

cause the cold. More seriously, though, the point is that a predictive link, even in

the absence of specification of causality, can provide important information

(Blass, 1976, Chapter 8).

Intuitively, we are aware of this, since in our everyday perceptions of people

we rely on both causal and predictive inferences. Specifically, I am referring to

two major organizing principles in person perception, the attribution process and

the balance tendency (Heider, 1958), which rely on causal inference and predic­

tive inference, respectively. The attribution process refers to the perceiver’s

tendency to trace observable behaviors to their underlying causes in the rela­

tively stable features of the person or the environment. The tendency toward

balance in person perception, on the other hand, need only involve assumptions

about co-occurrence or covariation in the perceived person’s characteristics. More

specifically, the balance principle refers to our tendency for simplicity, har­

mony, and homogeneity in our perceptions of others. One consequence of this is

“that if several parts, or traits, or aspects, of a person are considered, the

tendency exists to see them all as positive, or all as negative” (Heider, 1958, p.

183). This tendency to form unitary impressions of others has also been referred

to as the halo effect (Bruner & Tagiuri, 1954). Whatever the name one uses, the

defining mechanism is one of assumed co-occurrence of certain traits or charac­

teristics in the other person. Knowing the existence of one attribute in the other

person, we predict that he possesses others. There is in most cases no assumption

of a causal link between attributes. It would be unnecessary, since knowledge

about the co-occurrence of certain traits in the other person should be sufficient

to allow the perceiver to predict the other’s behavior without his having to know

whether or not they are causally related. Thus, for example, to the extent that

perceivers assume that certain personal characteristics co-occur with beauty

(Dermer & Thiel, 1975; Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972), they probably do so

without any additional assumptions about a causal link between beauty and

personality characteristics.

Thus, one reason social psychologists have tended to favor situational manipu­

lations over personality variables in testing hypotheses about social behavior is

because the latter, as one class of correlational variables, do not permit as

unambiguous inferences about causality as do the former. This is in spite of the

fact that personality variables should be potentially as useful as situational

variables as predictors of behavior. As Helmreich (1975) aptly put it: “Classic,

laboratory social psychology has generally ignored individual differences, choos­

ing to consider subjects as equivalent black boxes or as two-legged (generally

white) rats from the same strain [p. 551].” Yet, over the years there have been

researchers both within the field, as well as in the neighboring disciplines of

personality, motivation, and clinical psychology who have been developing

personality constructs to provide systematic accounts of behavioral variation

among individuals. A primary purpose of this book is to provide concrete

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

5

evidence for the usefulness of taking individual differences into account in

making more precise predictions about social behavior, by presenting in the

subsequent chapters several of these important personality variables which have

relevance for social behavior.

No attempt to account for the relative neglect of personality variables by

social psychologists would be complete without mentioning the impact of

criticisms which have been leveled periodically at the concept of transsituational

personality dispositions or traits (e.g., Bern, 1972; Guthrie, 1944; Mischel, 1968,

1969; Wallace, 1966). Guthrie (1944), for example, stated: “The search for

universal traits, or traits that attach to all of an individual’s behavior, is mistaken

in its conception and bound to fail [p. 63].” My intent in this introductory

chapter is to provide a context for the chapters that follow by presenting salient

issues that enter into a consideration of the relative roles of personality and

situational factors in accounting for social behavior. While I will take up some of

the issues involved in the “trait versus situation” controversy and hopefully

provide some new perspectives on it, is not my primary purpose to wade deeply

into the fray. Articulate presentations of predispositional viewpoints of personal­

ity have been given by a number of writers (e.g., Alker, 1972; Allport, 1937,

1961, 1966; Averill, 1973; MacKinnon, 19442; Wachtel, 1973). In particular,

Bowers’ (1973) insightful criticism of “situationism” has provided some impor­

tant logical and philosophical arguments to offset the impact which behavioristic

views of personality functioning have apparently had on current thinking about

personality.

The position taken here is that individuality - both in others and in

ourselves —has a phenomenal reality for us in our everyday social interactions.

To overlook such a salient aspect of our cognitions about our social environment

is to give an incomplete picture of the potential determinants of social behavior.

While there are problems in “capturing” or measuring this individuality, these

problems are logically not different from the kind of difficulties one normally

encounters in attempting to operationalize some abstract conceptual variable

(Aronson & Carlsmith, 1968) by means of a concrete situational manipulation.

A broader perspective, one that looks to both the person and the situation as

potential sources of behavioral variation, is necessary if we hope to have a more

complete understanding of the determinants of social behavior.

This chapter, then, will attempt to provide an assessment of the relative value

of situational factors and individual difference variables, in particular personality

2 John W. Atkinson (personal communication, July 7, 1975) has remarked on the “stale­

ness” of contemporary discussions in personality. Indeed, MacKinnon’s (1944) chapter,

which he brought to my attention, contains a presentation of theoretical approaches to the

study of personality that has a remarkably contemporary ring to it.

6

T. BLASS

constructs, in understanding social behavior by examining their characteristics in

terms of the following issues and topics:

1. the epistemological status of personality descriptions and definition of the

situation;

2. personality measures and operational definitions;

3. transsituational consistency;

4. the Person X Situation interaction.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS OF PERSONALITY DESCRIPTIONS

AND DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION

The data of everyday experience has provided valuable heuristic tools with

which to build more systematic analyses of many psychological phenomena.

This is no less the case with the concept of personality. The reason why many

theorists have taken the notion of personality as a unified structure seriously is

because in the “naive psychology” of our everyday interpersonal relations, to

use Fritz Heider’s (1958) term, we do. Individuality and distinctiveness are the

salient features of persons we interact with. What we remember most about

people are not the ways they are similar to everyone else, but their character­

istics and styles of behavior that make them different from everyone else. While

all of us have in common a basic set of anatomical and physiological features,

some of us walk more slowly, think more clearly, get angry more quickly, are

more generous, less condescending, and more likely to be spellbound by the wail

of a blues harmonica, than others. Part and parcel of our phenomenal experience

of the other’s distinctiveness is the sense of unity and coherence in the other’s

characteristics that is communicated to us. We do not think of most people as

stimulus bound, reactive, disjointed, or inconsistent in their patterns of traits

and behaviors. If we did, we would have to reacquaint ourselves with our friends

every time we met them. While there are potential hazards in overestimating the

unity of personality (Ichheiser, 1949, 1970, pp. 49-51, nonetheless it is the

qualities of continuity and consistency in others that create the necessary

stability and predictability in our interpersonal relations. Asch (1952) has

described the perception of unity in others as follows: “Although he possesses

many tendencies, capacities, and interests, we form a view of one person, a view

that embraces his entire being or as much of it as is accessible to us [p. 206]

But how do the other person’s inner characteristics become accessible to us?

Several writers have suggested that our phenomenal experience of personal

qualities in others can provide information about the actual nature of these

qualities. Kohler (1947/1959) felt that the psychological states of others are

accessible to us through immediate experience as are other perceptual pheno­

mena. He argued that “as a matter of principle facts of inner life and perceptual

facts may have certain traits in common. ... Behavior.. . tends to be seen as

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

7

organized in forms which copy the organization of corresponding inner develop­

ments [pp. 135, 137].” The examples Kohler uses to develop his argument

about the structural similarity between observed behaviors and inner states, such as

hesitation and uncertainty, indicate that the “inner developments” he was

addressing directly were relatively transient states, and it is not clear whether or

not he would have extended his argument to cover more stable personality

dispositions (see also Allport, 1937, pp. 534—536). Other, more contemporary,

phenomenologically oriented investigators in the area of person perception, even

if they may acknowledge the reality of personality traits, have generally limited

themselves to the study of perceived personality characteristics in attempts to

develop systematic conceptualizations of the principles by which perceivers form

and organize their impressions of others, perhaps agreeing with Heider (1958)

that “the study of common-sense psychology may be of value because of the

truths it contains [p. 5].”

According to Allport (1937), understanding the other’s personality involves

both intuition and inference.

Our understanding of personality comes. . . partly from without, but partly also from

within. The first cues come from the structuration of the outer field; where these prove

insufficient (as they usually do) then memory, imagination, and abstract conceptualiza­

tion come to aid the process. We obtain what organization we can from the outer field

and supply the remainder from within [p. 548].

Bowers (1973) has provided a conceptualization of the process of knowing the

other person which, although couched in Piagetian terms, is quite compatible

with Allport’s view. According to Piaget’s genetic epistemology (Bowers, 1973),

“reality emerges out of a balanced relationship between the knower and the

known, between assimilation and accommodation [p. 333].” Bowers argues that

if the process of acquiring knowledge involved only assimilation there would

indeed be the danger, as some writers have claimed, that the characteristics

attributed to the person perceived would be primarily a reflection of the

perceiver’s categories of cognitive organization. It is the process of accommoda­

tion that prevents “our conceptual spectacles” from serving as our “perceptual

blinders.” “It is the accommodative aspects of adaptation that puts us in touch

with the ‘out-thereness’ of things. And it is accommodation that makes us

sensitive to the various particularities of individuals and situations [p. 328]

In a more recent presentation, Allport (1966) proposed an approach he calls

heuristic realism, as an “epistemological position for research in personality.” He

described heuristic realism, as applied to the study of personality, as a position

that

holds that the person who confronts us possesses inside his skin generalized action

tendencies (or traits) and that it is our job scientifically to discover what they are. Any

form of realism assumes the existence of an external structure (“out there”) regardless

of our shortcomings in comprehending it. Since traits, like all intervening variables, are

never directly observed, but only inferred, we must expect difficulties and errors in the

process of discovering their nature [p. 3].

8

T.BLASS

To a great extent, whether or not, or to what degree, one agrees with this or a

similar “trait” view is not an empirical issue, but rather is derivable from one’s

more general theoretical position regarding the primary determinants of behavior

as well as one’s position about the acceptability of inferred variables as explana­

tory concepts. Regarding the latter, Wylie (1974) has noted:

The theoretical constructs or inferred variables of the personality theorist fulfil the same

role as the theoretical constructs in other psychological theory. That is these constructs

are introduced to help explain behavior variations which occur under constant external

stimulation, and similarities of behavior which occur under varying external stimulating

conditions [p. 18].

Thus, personality characteristics have the epistemological status of other infer­

red intervening structures or processes which have been of value in psychology,

such as “intelligence,” “cognitive dissonance,” and so on.

Inherent in the preference of social psychologists for situational manipulations

over personality variables as independent variables is the implicit assumption of

an epistemological distinction between the two. Situational variables, since they

are usually operationalized by means of some physically observable variations in

the experimental setting or experimenter’s behavior, are viewed as having an

objective existence that is lacking in inferred states such as personality character­

istics. Closer examination, however, reveals that this distinction between situa­

tional variables and personality variables is overdrawn. While it is true that

situational variables have greater veridicality by virtue of their having been

created by the experimenter, the nature of their impact or their meaning for the

subject is ultimately an inference. The use of self-report measures as manipula­

tion checks does not completely alter the inferential nature of the effects of the

experimental manipulation since no rating scale can tap all the possible meanings

the situation has for the subject. Besides, by the experimenter’s relying on

response-based information as a check on his manipulations, his situational

manipulation is no longer a truly independent variable and he is in a sense

dealing with correlational data. While most social psychologists, even among

those that are behaviorally oriented (Berkowitz, 1963; Mischel, 1973b), agree on

the necessity for defining stimulus inputs cognitively —that is, the subject’s

interpretation and understanding of the situation is crucial —the epistemological

and methodological implications of this point are not usually recognized (but see

Bowers, 1973).

PERSONALITY MEASURES AND OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

The failure of many personality measures to predict behavior reliably has been a

major problem in the systematic study of individual differences. Although the

poor performance of many measures is indisputable, the reasons for this pheno­

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

9

menon are open to question. For some theorists (e.g., Bern, 1972; Mischel, 1968,

1969)3 the failure of personality variables as predictors has been considered as

evidence against the existence of durable transsituational personality character­

istics. Yet there are several equally plausible alternative explanations. Let us

consider some:

1. The ease with which a paper-and-pencil measure of personality can be

administered in contrast to the amount of effort that goes into experimental

manipulations has often resulted in the use of the former in a scatter-gun

manner. That is, personality variables have often been used to attempt to predict

behaviors which have no conceptual link to the personality variable measured.

No one would expect a laboratory-created independent variable to be applicable

to all behavioral domains, yet personality variables have often been pressed into

service when there was only the most tenuous theoretical link to the behavior to

be predicted. Even one of the staunchest defenders of the trait concept, Gordon

Allport (1937), recognized the fact that “traits are often aroused in one type of

situation and not in another [p. 331].” Thus, at least some of the failure of

personality variables as predictors of behavior is attributable to their relative

indiscriminate use. A similar point has been made by Blass (1974), regarding the

relationship of personality variables to differential tolerance for cognitive imbal­

3 It should be noted that both these authors have in their more recent writings (Bern &

Allen, 1974; Mischel, 1973a,b) moved away from the strongly situationist viewpoints

expressed in these earlier writings. Thus, Mischel (1969), after presenting some findings

from a longitudinal study on delay of gratification in children, concluded:

Some significant prediction of length of voluntary delay of gratification can certainly be

made from individual differences data; but the most powerful predictions by far come

from knowledge of the cognitive and incentive conditions that prevail in the particular

situation of interest. These results are not at all atypical. ... I am more and more

convinced . . . hopefully by data as well as on theoretical grounds, that the observed

inconsistency so regularly found in studies of noncognitive personality dimensions often

reflects the state of nature and not merely the noise of measurement [p. 1014].

Recently, however, Mischel (1973b) has stated that “it would be wasteful to create

pseudo-controversies that pit person against situation in order to see which is more

important. The answer must always depend on the particular situations and persons

sampled” [pp. 255-256].

Similarly, in 1972 Bern stated:

we implicitly adopt Mischel’s position that inconsistency is the norm and that it is the

phenomenon of consistency which must be explained (or constructed) [p.

21]... .There was nothing silly about the initial assumption of personologists that

everything was glued together until proved otherwise. But since it has now proved

otherwise, it seems only fair to give a sporting chance to the counterassumption that

nothing is glued together until proved otherwise [p. 25].

More recently, however, Bern (Bern & Allen, 1974) has argued that, in addition to attending

seriously to situations as recently advocated by several writers, “personality assessment must

also begin to attend seriously to persons [p. 518]

10

T. BLASS

ance, and by Strickland (Chapter 6 in this volume) in reference to use of the

locus of control construct without an awareness of its theoretical underpinnings.

Thus, in seeking to understand why a personality variable is a poor predictor, it

is necessary to broaden the scope of one’s search to include not only the

personality characteristic or its measure, but also the behavior to be predicted.

As Borgatta (1968) said regarding people’s reactions to the poor performance of

personality inventories in prediction: “People usually raise the question of what

is the matter with the personality inventory rather than examining whether or

not they have established an appropriate prediction task [p. 514].” Although his

point was directed at personality inventories, it is applicable to personality

measures in general.

2. A personality variable may not reliably predict behavior because the con­

struct it is meant to be a measure of may not in fact be a stable individual

difference characteristic. To accept the possibility that there are stable person­

ality dispositions that distinguish individuals does not mean that every personal­

ity characterization that is available in the language or that every personality

construct proposed by an investigator actually corresponds to a stable personal­

ity trait. Furthermore, even with personality characteristics which may describe

fairly stable dispositions, there may be problems of measurement if the charac­

terization is not relevant to all individuals. This is illustrated in an early study by

Conrad described in Allport (1937) in which three teachers were required to rate

preschool children on 231 traits, “thus being forced to make the assumption

that all children did possess exactly these self-same qualities in some degree [p.

3 0 1 ] Degree of agreement among teachers ranged from +.14 to +.78, with the

median being +.48. The teachers were also asked to “star” their ratings of the

characteristics they felt to be of “central or dominating importance in the child’s

personality.” On this task there was much greater degree of agreement among

the teachers’ judgments with their ratings on these starred traits correlating from

+.93 to +.96.

3. When an experimenter fails to obtain a predicted effect of his independent

variable on the dependent variable, one possible reason may be that his manipu­

lation did not provide an adequate operationalization of his independent vari­

able. Analogously, one reason why a particular personality measure does not

adequately predict behavior may be because it is not a valid measure of the

personality construct it is meant to measure. The point is that in an experiment,

failure to confirm a hypothesis is not automatically regarded as a disconfirma-

tion of the hypothesis since the fault may lie in the operationalization of

concepts. In the same vein, failure of a personality measure to predict need not

necessarily imply that the conceptualization of the personality construct is

incorrect, but rather that the measure may be poor.

In noting the parallel between measurement problems with personality vari­

ables and the problem of operational definitions with experimentally manipu­

lated variables, it is important to note a problem inherent only in the latter:

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

11

specifying the nature of the similarities and differences among situations. In

order for an experimenter to be able to generalize his findings beyond his

laboratory, he needs to be able to state the degree of similarity between the

situation confronting the subjects in the laboratory and other situations. With­

out an adequate way of categorizing or scaling the attributes of situations, the

failure of replication attempts to reproduce an effect remains a puzzle (see, for

example, Storms & Nisbett, 1970; and then, Kellogg & Baron, 1975). The need

for a systematic description or measurement of situational inputs has been

stressed by social and personality psychologists (e.g., Cherry & Byrne, Chapter 3

this volume; Gergen & Marlowe, 1970; Milgram, 1965; Mischel, 1969). For

example, Milgram (1965) stated: “Ultimately, social psychology would like to

have a compelling theory of situations which will, first, present a language in

terms of which situations can be defined; proceed to a typology of situations;

and then point to the manner in which definable properties of situations are

transformed into psychological forces in the individual [p. 74].” Attempts at

solving the problem of systematic description of situations have mainly come

from investigators interested in studying the environmental context of naturally

occurring behaviors, exemplified in the ecological psychology approach of Roger

Barker (1960) and colleagues. Although much of the work in the area has

focused on relatively molar units, such as the various kinds of school environ­

ments, recent reviews (Ekehammar, 1974; Frederiksen, 1972; Moos, 1974)

contain also some potentially useful approaches for categorizing the smaller

types of situational units that experimental social psychologists are primarily

interested in.

TRANSSITUATIONAL CONSISTENCY

The assumption that the person’s behavior is characterized by transsituational

consistency or congruency has been a central one for dispositional views of

human functioning. In fact, the observation of consistency in the pattern of a

person’s behavior across different situations is the primary basis for inferring the

existence of a personality trait (Allport, 1937, p. 330). At the same time, the

concept of consistency has been very bothersome for the empirically oriented

personologist since the actual evidence for transsituational consistency has been

rather weak.

Historically, the heaviest blow against the concept of transsituational personal­

ity traits has come from a large-scale study of deception involving close to eleven

thousand school children, conducted by Hartshorne and May (1928) as part of

their Character Education Inquiry. Since their work invariably comes up in

discussions of behavioral specificity and consistency, discussing it in some detail

would be worthwhile. In that study children were given a battery of tests and

put into a variety of situations designed to provide opportunities for dishonest

12

T. BLASS

behavior. The settings were classrooms, athletic contests, parties, and the home;

and the kinds of deception tapped were cheating, stealing, and lying. Hartshorne

and May found that the children were fairly consistent in the level of deception

among the various tests within a particular category, ranging from r = .440 for

level of cheating on speed tests to an r = .836 for the various measures of lying

(Hartshorne & May, 1928, p. 382, Table 71). However, their level of consistency

across the various kinds of testing situations was low. For example, the average

correlation between cheating at puzzles and lying was .208, and between stealing

and lying was .132. Although all the correlations (with the exception of one r of

-.003) were positive, the highest was only .312 (p. 383, Table 72). On the basis

of these findings, Hartshorne and May concluded that “honesty appears to be a

congeries of specialized acts which are closely tied up with particular features of

the situation in which deception is a possibility and is apparently not greatly

dependent on any general ideal or trait of honesty [p. 15].” Also: “Most

children will deceive in certain situations and not in others. Lying, cheating, and

stealing as measured by the test situations used in these studies are only very

loosely related [p. 411 ].”

Although some writers have agreed with Hartshorne and May’s conclusions and

consider their study as providing powerful evidence against the view of personal­

ity traits as relatively global transsituational dispositions, others have disagreed

with them. Allport (1961) presents the following arguments, among others.

Firstly, the fact that there were low correlations among various measures of

deception or dishonesty is not evidence that children lack traits, but that

dishonesty, as measured in the study, may not itself be a trait. The particular

behaviors studied may, in fact, be consistent with other behaviors not studied by

the investigators and, therefore, they may be part of as yet undiscovered traits or

dispositions. Taking as an example the low correlation between lying and

stealing mentioned earlier, Allport suggests the following kinds of possibilities:

A child who has the habit of stealing pennies may do so because he is saving up to buy a

tool kit; or because he is revengeful in an anti-social way; or because he feels socially

inferior and wishes to buy candy to curry favor from his playmates. A child who lies

may do so because he is fearful of punishment; because he does not wish to hurt the

teacher’s feelings. [Another child] may lie because he has a chronic hunger for praise and

approval [p. 316].

In a similar vein, Asch (1946) stated that the failure of Hartshorne and May to

consider the psychological content of the children’s behaviors “introduces a

serious doubt concerning [their] conclusions [p. 288].”

A final point about Hartshorne and May’s work. It is interesting to note that,

although Hartshorne and May saw behavioral specificity in the dimensions of

character they studied and their work is often cited by critics of the trait

concept as supporting evidence, one of the participants in the Character Educa­

tion Inquiry, Mailer, apparently did not view the evidence in this manner. For

Mailer (1944), the fact that all the correlations among the four groups of

character tests used in the Character Education Inquiry, measuring honesty,

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

13

cooperation, inhibition, and persistence, were positive, provided evidence for a

general trait which he called factor C and defined as “the readiness to forego an

immediate gain for the sake of a remote but greater gain [p. 179]” (see also

Allport, 1961, and MacKinnon, 1944).

No matter how one views Hartshorne and May’s findings, however, the fact is

that today, almost half a century later, the issue of consistency it highlighted is

still unresolved. Empirically the evidence for transsituational consistency “has

not been inspiring,” to use Block’s (1968) phrase, who goes on to suggest some

explanations for what he considers is only an apparent inconsistency. On the

other hand, the evidence for what might be called cross-personal consistency,

that is, the ability for a particular kind of situation to evoke a consistent pattern

of responding, is not much more inspiring. If the reader disagrees with the latter

point, I suggest considering the number of experimental paradigms in social

psychology using situational manipulations which have failed to yield consistent,

replicable effects. Although such an appraisal should lead to a more modest view

regarding the accomplishments of a situational approach, it should not deter us

from attempting to refine our methods so that more precise and consistent

results can be obtained from situational variables. One approach to refining

situational predictions is the recognition of the possibility that a particular

variation in the situational input may have different effects on individuals with

different personality, or other stable, characteristics. Analogously, the weak

empirical evidence for consistency of personality should not hamper efforts at

refining concepts and measures of personality to make them more meaningful

and useful in the prediction of behavior. An important step in accomplishing this

goal is a conceptualization of personality dispositions that recognizes that only a

limited number of situations may arouse a particular disposition, and that a

behavior must be logically linked to the personality disposition in order for a

measure of that disposition to be a predictor of that behavior.4

THE PERSON X SITUATION INTERACTION

An experimental approach suggested by these considerations, as well as those in

earlier portions of this chapter regarding the relative strengths and weaknesses of

personality and situational approaches, is one which looks at behavior jointly as

a function of personality and situational variables. Several writers have argued in

favor of this interactional or moderator variable approach (e.g., Alker, 1972;

4 Another approach, which shows promise in increasing the predictive power of personal­

ity variables, is to consider the possibility that behavioral consistency may itself be an

individual difference characteristic. Empirical support for this possibility comes recently

from a number of interesting studies (Bern & Allen, 1974; Campus, 1974; Snyder &

Monson, 1975) although in 1937 Allport had already referred to attempts “to determine

whether consistency (or its opposite, variability) is itself a consistent attribute of personality

[p. 356]”

14

T. BLASS

Bern, 1972; Bowers, 1973; Ekehammar, 1974; Endler, 1973) although others

have expressed their reservations (e.g., Argyle, 1975; Carlson, 1975; Wallach &

Leggett, 1972; Zedeck, 1971). My own view is that studies which allow the

assessment of the interactive effects of the characteristics of the individual and

of the situation can only serve to increase the precision of our predictions about

social behavior.

This view has guided my work on the development of the personality con­

struct of objectivity—subjectivity. Thus, in an attitude-change study (Blass,

1969) I predicted and found attitude change in response to cognitive imbalance

to be an interactive effect of a personality variable —objectivity-subjectivity as

measured by the Blass Objectivity Subjectivity Scale (BOSS) - and a situational

variable, the relevance of the source to the communication. More recently (Blass,

1974), among students in an introductory psychology course I found the

positive relationship between a student’s test grade and evaluations of the

teacher and the course to be moderated by the student’s degree of objectivity-

subjectivity. Thus, although for the group as a whole there were significant

positive correlations between grade received on a midterm exam and course

evaluations on six out of nine evaluation items, a more precise account emerged

when students’ degree of objectivity-subjectivity was taken into account. The

group of subjects was dichotomized on the basis of their scores on the BOSS

into an objective group (high BOSS scorers) and a subjective group (low BOSS

scorers) and correlations between grades and evaluations were computed sepa­

rately for the two groups. Among the subjective individuals the six correlations

were still significant (and, in fact, numerically higher than those for the group as

a whole), but among the more objective persons only two of the grade-

evaluation correlations were significant.

An increasing recognition by social psychologists of the necessity of taking

individual differences, in addition to situational factors, into account would also

be in line with the dictum of the father of experimental social psychology, Kurt

Lewin (1935): “The dynamics of environmental influences can be investigated

only simultaneously with the determination of individual differences and with

general psychological laws [p. 73].” In this regard, it is encouraging to note that

there is recent evidence that social psychologists are increasingly designing

studies which allow the determination of the interaction between individual

difference and situational variables (Sarason, Smith, & Diener, 1975).

THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK

The chapters that follow provide concrete evidence for the importance of taking

individual differences into account in understanding social behavior. Each of the

chapters (with the exception of the one on sex differences) deals with a

personality construct whose durability and ability to generate research attest to

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

15

its usefulness. It is to a brief preview of each of the chapters that we will now

turn.

Motivation for Achievement

Achievement motivation has been one of the most durable constructs in psychol­

ogy. In his chapter, Atkinson provides a personal account of its evolution,

beginning with the development of a thematic apperception measure of need for

achievement in the 1940s, through the formulation of a theory of achievement

motivation and the work it led to in the 1950s and 1960s, to its current status

within a more general theory of action.

Aside from its intrinsic interest, the work described here exemplifies the value

of an explicitly formulated theory for guiding research and for providing an

explanatory framework to encompass a wide array of behavioral phenomena.

The need for achievement is distinguishable from the other personality constructs

dealt with in this book, in several ways. While a person’s position on the other

dimensions (with the exception of psychological differentiation) is determined

by his responses to items on a self-report scale, the primary measure of need for

achievement is a TAT—like projective test. Although some criticisms have been

leveled at this measure on psychometric grounds, Atkinson reaffirms its validity

and reliability and in the process raises some questions about some generally

unquestioned assumptions of traditional psychometric theory.

Another noteworthy feature of work on the need for achievement construct is

that from its very beginnings it took seriously Kurt Lewin’s dictum, mentioned

above, about behavior being viewed as a function of the person and the

situation. First, it can be seen as early as Atkinson’s (1953) dissertation in which he

found the Zeigarnik effect (the tendency to recall more incompleted than

completed tasks) to be an interactive effect of personality —i.e., the subject’s

need for achievement level —and the situation —i.e., the kind of task orienta­

tion provided for the subject by means of the instructions. Secondly, and more

generally, the theory of achievement motivation sees the achieving tendency as

comprised of both a relatively stable or “chronic” individual-difference charac­

teristic and also a more transient or “acute” state evoked by the situation.

Formally, this is indicated by the equation Ts =M$ X Ps X /s, in which Ts (the

tendency to achieve success) is seen to be a function of the relatively stable

disposition,

(the motive to achieve success), and two attributes of the

immediate situation, Psand/s (which stand for the strength of expectancy about

success at the task and the incentive value of success, respectively).

Authoritarianism

The search for the Authoritarian Personality grew out of an attempt to under­

stand and prevent the recurrence of the horrors of the Nazi era during which

millions of Jews were killed by the Germans in a systematic program of

16

T. BLASS

genocide. In order to accomplish this goal, a group of researchers, with the

support of the American Jewish Committee, began a series of investigations at

the end of the Second World War to determine the personality characteristics

associated with anti-Semitic and antidemocratic tendencies. Their investigations

culminated in the publication of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno,

Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), which presented the results of

their efforts.

In their chapter, Cherry and Byrne discuss some of the issues of measurement

that concerned early work on authoritarianism, as well as studies on the parental

antecedents of authoritarianism. The main thrust of their chapter is, however, on

the necessity of conceptualizing authoritarian behavior as a function of both

personality and situation. As Cherry and Byrne note, the authors of The

Authoritarian Personality did consider situational factors as well as intrapsychic

influences. However, they were referring to situations in a more global sense —

the socioeconomic and political conditions at a given time - and not to the

characteristics of the more immediate environment which experimental social

psychologists usually focus on. Cherry and Byrne point up the value of an

interactive approach to authoritarianism by applying it to illustrative studies

from three conceptually relevant behavioral domains: conformity and obedience

to authority, aggression and punitiveness, and reactions to erotica.

Psychological Differentiation

A major contribution of Gestalt psychologists has been to demonstrate the

operation of certain organizing principles in perception. They showed that, in

order to account for the close correspondence between what is “out there” and

our perception of it, it is necessary to postulate that the organism imposes some

structure of its own on the stimulus input. This active structuring process is

assumed to follow certain principles, such as similarity and proximity. Although

recognizing the importance of going beyond the stimulus, and of the necessity of

taking into account the contribution of the perceiver, Gestalt psychologists were

primarily interested in formulating general principles of perception. Thus, they

did not systematically explore the possibility that there might be individual

differences in reliance on certain perceptual principles. The workofWitkin and

his colleagues on the personality dimension of psychological differentiation or

field dependence—independence represents a systematic attempt at looking at

individual differences in perceptual styles and the implications these differences

have for various areas of personality functioning. In his chapter, Karp traces the

theoretical development of the construct, describes the various measures of

psychological differentiation that have been used, and then reviews the literature

on the relationship between field dependence and various domains of social

behavior.

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

17

Introversion/Extraversion

The distinction of introversion/extraversion is among the oldest descriptions of

personality. As Wilson points out in his chapter, by the late nineteenth century

its everyday meaning was similar to current common usage —an innerdirected-

ness versus an outerdirectedness - although a similar distinction can be traced to

ancient times. The person most responsible for transforming these terms into a

scientifically rigorous personality construct is Hans Eysenck. It is mainly to

Eysenck’s theory and the research that evolved from it that the chapter by

Wilson is devoted, although a more recent formulation of Gray is also presented.

Among the measured personality variables considered in this book, introver­

sion/extraversion is clearly the most nativistic. Hereditary factors are assumed to

account for a sizable portion of the variance among people on this characteristic.

The focus on the biological basis of introversion/extraversion has manifested

itself in two ways in research on this personality variable: (1) in the use of twin

studies to determine the relative magnitude of the contributions of genetic and

environmental factors in introversion; and (2) in the specification of explicit

neurophysiological models to account for behavioral differences between intro­

verts and extraverts.

Internal—External Control of Reinforcement

Unquestionably, the most widely used personality variable in contemporary

research in personality and social psychology is Rotter’s construct of internal-

external control of reinforcement (I—E), or locus of control. In her chapter,

Strickland provides a historical perspective on the development of the construct

within a social learning framework, discusses the major issues confronting

research with I—E, and provides an extensive review of the literature on I—E,

especially as it relates to social behavior. Strickland stresses the importance of

maintaining cognizance of the theoretical roots of the I—E construct within

social learning theory. Within that theoretical model, I—E is seen as only one of

the possible determinants of behavior, the others being the nature of the

situation in terms of its potential for providing reinforcements, and the im­

portance for the individual of receiving reinforcements in that particular situa­

tion. The possibility of losing sight of the underpinnings of the I-E construct

within a theoretical model stressing the Person X Situation interaction is en­

hanced by the fact that I-E, having been included in so many studies, some­

times predicts behavior even when there is no apparent theoretical reason to

expect it to do so.

How does one know in which situations I—E —or for that matter, any other

personality construct —will serve as a predictor of behavior? To a great extent,

the domains of relevance of the construct can be derived deductively from the

theory the personality construct is embedded in. As research progresses with a

18

T. BLASS

personality variable, the accumulated empirical evidence should, in turn, result

in a more refined and precisely differentiated conception of the domains of

relevance of the measure. Strickland’s chapter reviews the predictive ability of I—E

within a number of important domains of social behavior and thereby provides

substantive material with which the process of refinement can progress.

Dogmatism

Among the various criticisms that were leveled at The Authoritarian Personality

soon after its publication was that the measure of authoritarianism, the Cali­

fornia F scale, was not a pure measure of authoritarianism, but rather that it was

confounded with a politically conservative ideology. Arguing that authoritarian­

ism can characterize the belief systems of adherents of left-wing, as well as

right-wing, ideology, Rokeach developed the Dogmatism scale (or D scale) as an

ideology-free measure of authoritarianism. Rokeach’s early work on dogmatism,

as well as his theory on the nature of belief systems within which the construct

of dogmatism is embedded, was described in his book, The Open and Closed

Mind (1960). In his chapter, Vacchiano5 reviews the current status of dogmatism

research with a primary focus on social behavior. His chapter serves to update his

earlier review (Vacchiano, Strauss, & Hochman, 1969) and to pinpoint the

assumptions of dogmatism theory which have continued to receive empirical

support and those which have not.

Approval Motivation

Psychologists have long been aware that individuals, when placed in a situation

in which they may be evaluated (such as when taking a personality test or

participating in an experiment), will tend to present themselves in as favorable a

light as possible. The possibility that there may be individual differences in this

tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner led Edwards (1957) and then

Crowne and Marlowe (1960) to create scales to measure this tendency. As

Strickland points out in her chapter, Crowne and Marlowe (1964) later formu­

lated a motivational construct —the need for approval —in order to understand

these differential tendencies to respond in a socially desirable manner. Strick­

land’s chapter presents the theoretical background of the construct, reviews the

major areas of research on approval motivation, and presents some of the

problems and issues that confront the researcher in this area. Among other

things, Strickland demonstrates the value of the need for approval dimension in

moderating the effects of situational variables. Thus, for example, she shows

that, in studies using the Asch-type conformity paradigm which have incorpo­

rated the Marlowe—Crowne Social Desirability Scale, need for approval was a

significant predictor of degree of conformity.

5 It is with sadness that I note the death of Ralph B. Vacchiano on August 15,1976.

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

19

Sex Differences

The focus of the final chapter of the book is on an individual difference

variable —sex —which differs from the personality variables presented in several

ways. As Deaux points out, unlike the usual personality variable, “sex is (1)

descriptive rather than conceptual; (2) dichotomous rather than continuous; and

(3) readily identifiable to most observers.” Perhaps because of its pervasiveness

and distinctive status as an individual difference variable, social psychologists

have generally tended to ignore sex as a variable or generalize from one sexto the

other, in spite of continuing evidence for the existence of sex differences in

social behavior. In her chapter, Deaux presents a two-dimensional conceptual

framework to account systematically for observed sex differences in social

behavior which takes into account the importance of both person and situation.

Males and females are seen, firstly, as differing in the self-presentation strategies

they adopt, with different situations having either a facilitating or inhibiting

effect on the emergence of one or another mode of self-presentation. Secondly,

they are seen as differing in terms of task familiarity, with some tasks having

generally male associations while others are typically more familiar for females.

Deaux demonstrates the value of her conceptual scheme by using it as an

organizing framework for the findings on sex differences in many areas of social

behavior, and by bringing it to bear on some general issues in sex differences

research and on the importance of considering both personality and situational

influences on social behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary social psychology has tended to favor experimental manipula­

tions over measures of personality dispositions to test hypotheses about the

determinants of social behavior. That the use of experimentally manipulated

variables allows the investigator to draw causal inferences from his results makes

that preference an understandable one. Yet, in making experimental manipula­

tions the research strategy of choice, social psychologists have overlooked the

potential value of personality variables as predictors of behavior. No doubt the

behavioral tendency to overlook the predictive value of personality variables has

also been maintained by earlier contentions (e.g., Mischel, 1968, pp. 82—83,

1969) that situational factors are more powerful predictors of behavior than

individual difference variables. It is now generally agreed that the question of the

relative predictive power of persons or situations is a pseudoissue, and that

persons and situations each account for smaller proportions of the variance than

the Person X Situation interaction (Argyle & Little, 1972; Bowers, 1973; Endler,

1973; Mischel, 1973b). Thus, in Bowers’ (1973) survey of 11 articles published

20

T. BLASS

since 1959, which permitted the determination of the percentage of variance

accounted for by persons, situations, and the Person X Situation interaction, the

average percentage of variance due to situations was 10.17%; to persons, 12.71%;

and to the Person X Situation interaction, 20.77%.

The “amount of variance” question is further complicated by the fact that a

somewhat different picture emerges when we consider studies that have exam­

ined the effects of measured individual difference variables rather than individ­

uals, per se (as had the studies reviewed by Bowers), in relation to situational

effects. Sarason, Smith, and Diener (1975) examined 102 studies involving 138

analyses of variance which appeared in the 1972 issues of the Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology and the Journal of Personality and in the

1971 and 1972 issues of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

They found that the average percentage of variance accounted for by either

personality or situational variables alone was relatively small (8.7 and 10.3%,

respectively), but that the average percentage of variance due to Personality X

Situation interactions was even smaller —only 4.6%. Although this is much

smaller than the 20.77% average for Person X Situation interactions reported by

Bowers, as well as the averages reported by other similar analyses, Sarason et ah

did not find it surprising, for the following reasons. Firstly, their low percentage-

of-variance figure represents an average derived from studies which varied widely

in terms of the theoretical relevance of the individual difference variable used, to

the situational variable or to the behavior being studied. One could reasonably

expect a higher proportion of the variance to be accounted for by the Person X

Situation interaction the more theoretically relevant the personality variable is.

Second, a basic difference between the studies summarized by Bowers and by

Sarason et ah is that the former computed Person X Situation interactions (i.e.,

in which individuals constitute one of the variables in the design), whereas the

figures in Sarason et ah (1975) are based on measured Personality X Situation

interactions. One would expect the Person X Situation interactions to account

for higher proportions of the variance than measured Personality X Situation

interactions because the former are “composite [s] of all possible Personality X

Situation interactions for the particular situations of interest” [Sarason et ah,

1975,p.204].

A portion of Sarason et ah's (1975) discussion of their findings is worth

quoting for its general relevance for research in personality and social psychol­

ogy:

Our survey reveals surprisingly low percentages of variance accounted for by all classes

of variables investigated: situational, personality, demographic, and interactions among

these variables. If our somewhat negative evaluations of this result is reasonable, then

many of the theoretical disputes that permeate the personality literature are explicable

in terms of the narrow margin by which..results are regarded as psychologically meaning­

ful. Attainment of the .05 level of statistical significance may not provide a sufficiently

firm base upon which to erect crisp psychological interpretations and powerful theories.

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

21

From another perspective, however, by what standard is accounting for, say, only 10%

of the variance a poor or disappointing performance? It appears that most current

studies are directed toward the investigation of relatively subtle psychological phe­

nomena, so that we might expect the present results. If an independent variable is truly

powerful (i.e., accounts for a massive proportion of the variance), it is generally also too

obvious to be of “theoretical” interest. In any event, no matter how one views the

results of the present survey with regard to the potency of individual variables, the state

of affairs for situational variables alone is only slightly more favorable [p. 203].

Clearly then, the amount of variance accounted for is not the primary

consideration. What is crucial is that we provide as precise an account of social

behavior that is feasible given our state of knowledge. Thus, the possibility that

a particular behavior may be a function of both personality and situational

factors should be a heuristically useful assumption whatever one’s theoretical

persuasion. The recent surge of interest in and increasing advocacy of interac-

tionism cited earlier is encouraging and suggests that more and more investi­

gators are taking Lewin’s6 dictum seriously. By increasing our understanding of

some of the most important and durable personality constructs, the chapters of

this book, it is hoped, will provide meaningful input toward increased considera­

tion of the person, as well as the environment, as important determinants of

social behavior.

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. T., & Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian

personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1950.

Alker, H. A. Is personality situationally specific or intrapsychically consistent? Journal of

Personality, 1912,40, 1-16.

Allport, G. W. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, 1937.

Allport, G. W. Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

1961.

Allport, G. W. Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 1-10.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships.

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

Argyle, M. Predictive and generative rules models of P X S interaction. Paper presented at

the Symposium on Interactional Psychology, Stockholm, June 1975.

Argyle, M. Predictive and generative rules models of P X S interaction. Paper presented at

Theory of Social Behaviour, 1972,2, 1-35.

Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E.

Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). Reading, Mass.: Addison-

Wesley, 1968.

6 While Kurt Lewin’s interactionist position is the most well known and has probably been

the most influential, Ekehammar’s (1974) useful historical survey shows that other impor­

tant psychologists have also espoused interactionist viewpoints. Many of these were them­

selves undoubtedly influenced by Lewin.

22

T. BLASS

Asch, S. E. Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol­

ogy, 1946,41, 258-290.

Asch, S. E. Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1952.

Atkinson, J. W. The achievement motive and the recall of interrupted and completed tasks.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46, 381-390.

Averill, J. R. The dis-position of psychological dispositions. Journal of Experimental

Research in Personality, 1973, 6, 275-282.

Bakeman, R., & Helmreich, R. Cohesiveness and performance: Covariation and causality in

an undersea environment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 478-

489.

Barker, R. G. Ecology and motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on

Motivation (Vol. 8). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1960.

Bern, D. J. Constructing cross-situational consistencies in behavior: Some thoughts on

Alker’s critique of Mischel. Journal of Personality, 1972, 40, 17-26.

Bern, D. J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for

cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 506-520.

Berger, S. M., & Lambert, W. W. Stimulus—response theory in contemporary social psychol­

ogy. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1).

Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

Berkowitz, L. Social psychological theorizing. In M. H. Marx (Ed.), Theories in contem­

porary psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1963.

Berkowitz, L., & Macaulay, J. The contagion of criminal violence. Sociometry, 1971, 34,

238-260.

Blass, T. Personality and situational factors in tolerance for imbalance. Doctoral disserta­

tion, Yeshiva University, 1969 (University Microfilms, No. 69-15, 207).

Blass, T. Measurement of objectivity-subjectivity: Effects of tolerance for imbalance and

grades on evaluations of teachers. Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 1199-1213.

Blass, T. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychology: Representative readings. Itasca, Illinois: F.

E. Peacock, 1976.

Block, J. Some reasons for the apparent inconsistency of personality. Psychological Bulletin,

1968, 70, 210-212.

Borgatta, E. F. Traits and persons. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of

personality theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.

Bowers, K. S. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review,

1973, 80, 307-336.

Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of

social psychology (Vol. 1). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

Campus, N. Transnational consistency as a dimension of personality. Journal of Personal­

ity and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 593-600.

Carlson, R. Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 1975, 26, 393-414.

Cronbach, L. J. The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 1957,

12, 671-684.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psycho­

pathology, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960,24, 349-354.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New

York: Wiley, 1964.

Dermer, M., & Thiel, D. L. When beauty may fail. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 1975,31, 1168-1176.

Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 1972,24, 285-290.

1. PERSONALITY VARIABLES

23

Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New

York: Holt, 1957.

Ekehammar, B. Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological

Bulletin, 1974,57, 1026-1048.

Endler, N. S. The person versus the situation - A pseudo issue? A response to Alker.

Journal of Personality, 1973,47, 287-303.

Frederiksen, N. Toward a taxonomy of situations. American Psychologist, 1972, 27,

114-123.

Gergen, K. J., & Marlowe, D. Personality and social behavior. In K. J. Gergen & D. Marlowe

(Eds.), Personality and social behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

Guthrie, E. R. Personality in terms of associative learning. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Person­

ality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1). New York: Ronald Press, 1944.

Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. Studies in the nature of character. I: Studies in deceit. New

York: The Macmillan Company, 1928.

Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

Heider, F. On Lewin’s methods and theory. Psychological Issues, 1959, 7(3), 108-119.

Helmreich, R. Applied social psychology: The unfulfilled promise. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 1975,7, 548-560.

Hornstein, H. A. Promotive tension: The basis of prosocial behavior from a Lewinian

perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28(3), 191-218.

Ichheiser, G. Misunderstandings in human relations: A study in false social perception.

American Journal of Sociology, 1949, 55 (2, Pt. 2), 1-70.

Ichheiser, G. Appearances and realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970.

Kellogg, R., & Baron, R. S. Attribution theory, insomnia, and the reverse placebo effect: A

reversal of Storms and Nisbett’s findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1915,32, 231-236.

Kohler, W. Gestalt psychology. New York: Mentor, 1959. (Originally published by Liveright

Publishing Corporation, 1947.)

Lewin, K.^4 dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935.

Lewin, K. Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

MacKinnon, D. W. The structure of personality. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the

behavior disorders (Vol. 1). New York: Ronald Press, 1944.

Mailer, J. B. Personality tests. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders

(Vol. 1). New York: Ronald Press, 1944.

Milgram, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations,

1965,18, 57-76.

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.

Mischel, W. Continuity and change in personality. American Psychologist, 1969, 24, 1012

-1018.

Mischel, W. On the empirical dilemmas of psychodynamic approaches. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 1973,52, 335-344. (a)

Mischel, W, Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psycho­

logical Review, 1973,50, 252-283. (b)

Moos, R. H. Systems for the assessment and classification of human environments: An

overview. In R. H. Moos & P. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in social ecology: Human milieus. Palo

Alto: National Press Books, 1974.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Rubin, D. B. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized

studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 688—701.

Sarason, I. G., Smith, R. E., & Diener, E. Personality research: Components of variance

24

T. BLASS

attributable to the person and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

1975,32, 199-204.

Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. Persons, situations, and the control of social behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32, 637-644.

Storms, M. D., & Nisbett, R. E. Insomnia and the attribution process. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 1970,76, 319-328.

Tyler, L. E. Tests and measurements. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Hochman, L. The open and closed mind: A review of

dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 261-273.

Wachtel, P. L. Psychodynamics, behavior therapy, and the implacable experimenter: An

inquiry into the consistency of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82,

324-334.

Wallace, J. An abilities conception of personality: Some implications for personality mea­

surement. American Psychologist, 1966,21, 132-138.

Wallach, M. A., & Leggett, M. I. Testing the hypothesis that a person will be consistent:

Stylistic consistency versus situational specificity in size of children’s drawings. Journal of

Personality, 1912,40, 309-330.

Wylie, R. C. The self-concept (Vol. 1, Rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,

1974.

Zedeck, S. Problems with the use of “moderator” variables. Psychological Bulletin, 1971,

76, 295-310.

References

1 1. ON PERSONALITY VARIABLES,

SITUATIONS, AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

the most influential, Ekehammar’s (1974) useful historical

survey shows that other impor

tant psychologists have also espoused interactionist

viewpoints. Many of these were them

selves undoubtedly influenced by Lewin.

Asch, S. E. Forming impressions of personality. Journal o f

Abnormal and Social Psychol ogy, 1946,41 , 258-290 .

Asch, S. E. Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, 1952.

Atkinson, J. W. The achievement motive and the recall of

interrupted and completed tasks. Journal o f Experimental

Psychology, 1953, 46, 381-390 .

Averill, J. R. The dis-position of psychological

dispositions. Journal o f Experimental Research in

Personality, 1973, 6, 275-282 .

Bakeman, R., & Helmreich, R. Cohesiveness and performance:

Covariation and causality in an undersea environment.

Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 4 7

8 489.

Barker, R. G. Ecology and motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 8). Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 1960.

Bern, D. J. Constructing cross-situational consistencies in

behavior: Some thoughts on Alker’s critique of Mischel.

Journal o f Personality, 1972, 40, 17 -26 .

Bern, D. J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of the people

some of the time: The search for cross-situational

consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81,

5 0 6 -520 .

Berger, S. M., & Lambert, W. W. Stimulus—response theory in

contemporary social psychol ogy. In G. Lindzey & E.

Aronson (Eds.), The handbook o f social psychology (Vol.

1). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

Berkowitz, L. Social psychological theorizing. In M. H.

Marx (Ed.), Theories in contem porary psychology. New

York: Macmillan, 1963. Berkowitz, L., & Macaulay, J. The

contagion of criminal violence. Sociometry, 1971, 34, 23

8-260 . Blass, T. Personality and situational factors in

tolerance for imbalance. Doctoral disserta tion, Yeshiva

University, 1969 (University Microfilms, No. 6 9 -1 5 ,

207). Blass, T. Measurement of objectivity-subjectivity:

Effects o f tolerance for imbalance and grades on

evaluations of teachers. Psychological Reports, 1974, 34,

1199-1213. Blass, T. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychology:

Representative readings. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock,

1976. Block, J. Some reasons for the apparent inconsistency

of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 2 1

0-212 . Borgatta, E. F. Traits and persons. In E. F.

Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook o f personality

theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968. Bowers,

K. S. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a

critique. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 307-336 . Bruner,

J. S., & Tagiuri, R. The perception of people. In G.

Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook o f social psychology (Vol. 1).

Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Campus, N.

Transnational consistency as a dimension of personality.

Journal o f Personal ity and Social Psychology, 1974, 29,

5 9 3-600 . Carlson, R. Personality. Annual Review o f

Psychology, 1975, 26, 393-414 . Cronbach, L. J. The two

disciplines of scientific psychology. American

Psychologist, 1957, 12, 67 1 -6 8 4 . Crowne, D. P., &

Marlowe, D. A new scale of social desirability independent

of psycho pathology, Journal o f Consulting Psychology,

1960 ,24 , 349-354. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. The

approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New

York: Wiley, 1964. Dermer, M., & Thiel, D. L. When beauty

may fail. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1975 ,31, 1168-1176. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E.

What is beautiful is good. Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology, 1972,24, 285-290. Edwards, A. L. The

social desirability variable in personality assessment and

research. New York: Holt, 1957. Ekehammar, B.

Interactionism in personality from a historical

perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 1974,57, 1026-1048.

Endler, N. S. The person versus the situation A pseudo

issue? A response to Alker. Journal o f Personality,

1973,47, 287-303. Frederiksen, N. Toward a taxonomy of

situations. American Psychologist, 1972, 27, 114-123.

Gergen, K. J., & Marlowe, D. Personality and social

behavior. In K. J. Gergen & D. Marlowe (Eds.), Personality

and social behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

Guthrie, E. R. Personality in terms of associative

learning. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Person ality and the

behavior disorders (Vol. 1). New York: Ronald Press, 1944.

Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. Studies in the nature o f

character. I: Studies in deceit. New York: The Macmillan

Company, 1928. Heider, F. The psychology o f interpersonal

relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Heider, F. On Lewin’s

methods and theory. Psychological Issues, 1959, 7(3),

108-119. Helmreich, R. Applied social psychology: The

unfulfilled promise. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 1975,7, 548-560 . Hornstein, H. A. Promotive

tension: The basis of prosocial behavior from a Lewinian

perspective. Journal o f Social Issues, 1972, 28(3),

191-218. Ichheiser, G. Misunderstandings in human

relations: A study in false social perception. American

Journal o f Sociology, 1949, 55 (2, Pt. 2), 1 -7 0 .

Ichheiser, G. Appearances and realities. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1970. Kellogg, R., & Baron, R. S. Attribution

theory, insomnia, and the reverse placebo effect: A

reversal of Storms and Nisbett’s findings. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1915,32, 231-236 .

Kohler, W. Gestalt psychology. New York: Mentor, 1959.

(Originally published by Liveright Publishing Corporation,

1947.) Lewin, K.^4 dynamic theory o f personality. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1935. Lewin, K. Principles o f

topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

MacKinnon, D. W. The structure of personality. In J. McV.

Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol.

1). New York: Ronald Press, 1944. Mailer, J. B. Personality

tests. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior

disorders (Vol. 1). New York: Ronald Press, 1944. Milgram,

S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to

authority. Human Relations, 1965,18 , 5 7 -7 6 . Mischel,

W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.

Mischel, W. Continuity and change in personality. American

Psychologist, 1969, 24, 1012 -1018 . Mischel, W. On the

empirical dilemmas of psychodynamic approaches. Journal o f

Abnormal Psychology, 1973,52, 335-344 . (a) Mischel, W,

Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of

personality. Psycho logical Review, 1973,50, 252-283 . (b)

Moos, R. H. Systems for the assessment and classification

of human environments: An overview. In R. H. Moos & P. M.

Insel (Eds.), Issues in social ecology: Human milieus. Palo

Alto: National Press Books, 1974. Rokeach, M. The open and

closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Rubin, D. B.

Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and

nonrandomized studies. Journal o f Educational

Psychology, 1974, 66, 688—701. Sarason, I. G., Smith, R.

E., & Diener, E. Personality research: Components of

variance attributable to the person and the situation.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,32 ,

199-204 .

Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. Persons, situations, and the

control of social behavior. Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology, 1 975 ,32, 6 3 7-644 .

Storms, M. D., & Nisbett, R. E. Insomnia and the

attribution process. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1970,76, 3 1 9 -328 .

Tyler, L. E. Tests and measurements. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Hochman, L. The open

and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological

Bulletin, 1969, 71, 261-273 .

Wachtel, P. L. Psychodynamics, behavior therapy, and the

implacable experimenter: An inquiry into the consistency

of personality. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82,

324-334 .

Wallace, J. An abilities conception of personality: Some

implications for personality mea surement. American

Psychologist, 1966,21 , 132-138 .

Wallach, M. A., & Leggett, M. I. Testing the hypothesis

that a person will be consistent: Stylistic consistency

versus situational specificity in size of children’s

drawings. Journal o f Personality, 1912,40, 309-330 .

Wylie, R. C. The self-concept (Vol. 1, Rev. ed.). Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 1974.

Zedeck, S. Problems with the use of “moderator” variables.

Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 2 9 5-310 .

2 2. MOTIVATION FOR ACHIEVEMENT

Atkinson, J. W. Personality dynamics. Annual Review o f

Psychology, 1 9 6 0 ,11, 22 5 -2 9 0 .

Atkinson, J. W.^4« introduction to motivation. Princeton,

N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964.

Atkinson, J. W. The mainsprings of achievement-oriented

activity. In J. Krumboltz (Ed.), Learning and the

educational process. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965.

Atkinson, J. W. Comments on papers by Crandall and' Veroff.

In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related motives in

children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969. (a)

Atkinson, J. W. Measuring achievement-related motives.

Unpublished final report, NSF Project GS-1399, University

of Michigan, 1969. (b)

Atkinson, J. W. Motivational determinants of intellective

performance and cumulative achievement. In J. W. Atkinson

& J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement.

Washington, D.C.: Winston, 1974. (a)

Atkinson, J. W. Strength of motivation and efficiency of

performance. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.),

Motivation and achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston,

1974. (b)

Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. The dynamics o f action. New

York: Wiley, 1970.

Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. The dynamics of

achievement-oriented activity. In J. W. Atkinson & J. W.

Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement. Washington,

D.C.: Winston, 1974.

Atkinson, J. W., Bongort, K., & Price, L. H. Explorations

using computer simulation to comprehend TAT measurement of

motivation. Mo tivation and Emotion, 1977,7, 1 -2 7 .

Atkinson, J. W., & Cartwright, D. Some neglected variables

in contemporary conceptions of decision and performance.

Psychological Reports, 19 6 4 ,14, 5 7 5-590 .

Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (Eds.). A theory o f

achievement motivation. New York: Wiley, 1966.

Atkinson, J. W., Heyns, R. W., & Veroff, J. The effect of

experimental arousal of the affiliation motive on thematic

apperception. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology,

1954, 49, 4 0 5 -4 1 0 . Also in J. W. Atkinson (Ed.),

Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton; N.J.:

Van Nostrand, 1958.

Atkinson, J. W., Lens, W., & O’Malley, P. M. Motivation and

ability: Interactive psychologi cal determinants of

intellective performance, educational achievement, and each

other. In W. H. Sewell, R. M. Hauser, & D. L. Featherman

(Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society. New

York: Academic Press, 1976.

Atkinson, J. W., & Litwin, G. H. Achievement motive and

test anxiety conceived as motive to approach success and

to avoid failure. Journal o f Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1960, 60, 5 2 -6 3 . Also in J. W. Atkinson &

N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory o f achievement

motivation. New York: Wiley, 1966. Atkinson, J. W., &

McClelland, D. C. The projective expression of needs. II.

The effect of different intensities of the hunger drive on

thematic apperception. Journal o f Experi mental

Psychology, 1948,38 , 643-658 . Atkinson, J. W., &

O’Connor, P. A. Effects o f ability grouping in schools

related to individual differences in achievement-related

motivation. Project 1283 of Cooperative Research Program

of the Office o f Education, United States Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, 1963. (Microfilm or copies

available from Photoduplication Center, Library of

Congress, Washington, D.C.) Atkinson, J. W., & O’Connor, P.

A. Neglected factors in studies of achievement-oriented

performance: Social approval as an incentive and

performance decrement. In J. W. Atkin son & N. T. Feather

(Eds.), ,4 theory o f achievement motivation. New York:

Wiley, 1966. Atkinson, J. W., & Raphelson, A. C. Individual

differences in motivation and behavior in particular

situations, Journal o f Personality, 1956 ,24 , 349-363.

Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (Eds.). Motivation and

achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston (Halsted

Press/Wiley), 1974. Atkinson, J. W., & Reitman, W. R.

Performance as a function of motive strength and

expectancy of goal attainment. Journal o f Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 361-366 . Also in J. W.

Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society.

Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. Atkinson, J. W., &

Walker, E. L. The afflliative motive and perceptual

sensitivity to faces. Journal o f Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1956, 53, 3 8 -4 1 . Bachman, J. B., Kahn, R.

L., Mednick, M. T., Davidson, T. N., & Johnston, L. D.

Youth in transition. Vol. 1. Blueprint for a longitudinal

study o f adolescent boys. Ann Arbor: Survey Research

Center, Institute for Social Research, 1967. Benedict, R.

Patterns o f culture. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1934.

Birch, D. Shift in activity and the concept of persisting

tendency. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The

psychology o f learning and motivation: Advances in

research and theory (Vol. II). New York: Academic Press,

1968. Birch, D. Measuring the stream of activity. Michigan

Mathematical Psychology Publication. MMPP 72-2. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan, 1972. Blankenship, V. Computer

simulation of achievement risk preference assuming

substitution. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Michigan, March 10, 1976. Bongort, K. Revision of program

by Seltzer and Sawusch: Computer program written to

simulate the dynamics of action. Unpublished program,

University of Michigan, Septem ber 4 ,1975 . Bradburn, N.

M., & Berlew, D. E. Need for achievement and English

economic growth. Economic Development and Cultural Change,

1 9 6 1 ,10, 8 -2 0 . Broadhurst, P. L. The interaction of

task difficulty and motivation: The Yerkes-Dodson Law

revived. Acta Psychologica, 1959 ,16 , 321-338. Cartwright,

D., & Festinger, L. A quantitative theory of decision.

Psychological Review, 1943,50, 595-621 . Clark, R. A. The

projective measurement of experimentally induced levels of

sexual motivation. Journal o f Experimental Psychology,

1952, 44, 391-399. Conant, J. B. Science and common sense.

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1951. Crandall, V.

C. Sex differences in expectancy of intellectual and

academic reinforcement. In C. P. Smith (Ed.),

Achievement-related motives in children. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation, 1969. Crandall, V. J. Achievement. In H.

W. Stevenson (Ed.), Child psychology, the 62nd yearbook o

f the national society for the study o f education (Part

1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Crockett,

H. J., Jr. The achievement motive and differential

occupational mobility in the United States. American

Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 191-204. Also in J. W.

Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), ,4 theory o f

achievement motivation. New York: Wiley, 1966. Crockett, H.

J., Jr. Social class, education, and motive to achieve in

differential occupational mobility. Sociological

Quarterly, 1964,5, 231-242 . Crockett, H. J., Jr., &

Schulman, J. L. Achievement among minority Americans: A

conference report. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publ., 1973.

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal

structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334 .

Cronbach, L. J. The two disciplines of scientific

psychology. American Psychologist, 1957, 12, 671-684 .

deCharms, R., & Moeller, G. H. Values expressed in American

children’s readers: 1800-1950. Journal o f Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 136-142. Descartes, R.

Discourse on method (1637). In J, Veitch (translator),

Religion o f Science Library No. 38. Chicago: Open Court

Publ., 1935. Duncan, O. D., Featherman, D. L., & Duncan, B.

Socioeconomic background and achieve ment. New York:

Seminar Press, 1972. Edwards, A. L. Edwards personal

preference schedule manual New York: Psychological

Corporation, 1954. Edwards, W. The theory of decision

making. Psychological Bulletin, 1954 ,51, 380-417 . Entin,

E. E. The relationship between the theory of achievement

motivation and perfor mance on a simple and a complex

task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Michigan, 1968. Entin, E. E. Effects of

achievement-oriented and affiliative motives on private and

public performance. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor

(Eds.), Motivation and achievement. Washington, D.C.:

Winston (Halsted Press/Wiley), 1974. Entwistle, D. R. To

dispel fantasies about fantasy-based measures of

achievement motiva tion. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 77,

377-391. Eysenck, H. J. Personality and experimental

psychology. British Psychological Society Bulletin,

1966,19 , 62, 1 -2 8 . Feather, N. T. Subjective

probability and decision under uncertainty. Psychological

Review, 1959,66 , 150-164 . Feather, N. T. The

relationship of persistence at a task to expectation of

success and achievement related motives. Journal o f

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 55 2 -5 6 1 .

Feather, N. T. The study of persistence. Psychological

Bulletin, 1 962 ,59, 9 4 -1 1 5 . Also in J. W. Atkinson &

N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory o f achievement motivation.

New York: Wiley, 1966. Feld, S. C., & Lewis, J. The

assessment of achievement anxieties in children. In C. P.

Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related motives in children. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969. Feld, S., & Smith, C.

P. An evaluation of the objectivity of the method of

content analysis. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in

fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, N.J.: Van

Nostrand, 1958. Feshbach, S. The drive reducing function of

fantasy behavior. Journal o f Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1955,50 , 3—11. French, E. G. Some

characteristics of achievement motivation. Journal o f

Experimental Psychology, 1955, 50, 232-236 . Also in J. W.

Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society.

Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. French, E. G.

Motivation as a variable in work partner selection. Journal

o f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956 ,53, 9 6 -9 9 .

French, E. G. Development of a measure of complex

motivation. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy,

action, and society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958.

French, E. G., & Thomas, F. H. The relation of achievement

motivation to problem-solving effectiveness. Journal o f

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 4 6 -4 8 . Haber,

R. N., & Alpert, R. The role of situation and picture cues

in projective measurement of the achievement motive. In J.

W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and

society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. Hamilton, J.

O. Motivation and risk taking behavior: A test of

Atkinson’s theory. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 19 7 4 ,29, 856-864 . Hayashi, T., & Habu, K. A

research on achievement motive: An experimental test of the

“thought sampling” method by using Japanese students.

Japanese Psychological Research, 1962,4 , 3 0 -4 2 .

Heckhausen, H. Hoffnung und Furcht in der

Leistungsmotivation. Verlag Anton Hain: Meisenheimam Gian,

1963. Heckhausen, H. The anatomy o f achievement

motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1967. Heckhausen, H.

Achievement motive research: Current problems and some

contributions towards a general theory of motivation. In

W. J. Arnold (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol.

16). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1968.

Heckhausen, H. Intervening cognitions in motivation. In D.

E. Berlyne & K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, reward,

preference: Their nature, determinants, and role in

behavior. New York and London: Academic Press, 1973.

Heckhausen, H., & Weiner, B. The emergence of a cognitive

psychology of motivation. In P. Dodwell (Ed.), New

horisons in psychology. London: Penguin Books, 1972.

Hermans, H. J. M. A questionnaire measure of achievement

motivation. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1970,54,

353-363. Hoffman, L. Early childhood experiences and

women’s achievement motives. Journal o f Social Issues,

1972, 28 (2), 129-155. Homer, M. Sex differences in

achievement motivation and performance in competitive and

noncompetitive situations. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Michigan, 1968. Horner, M. S.

Feminity and successful achievement. In J. Bardwick, E. M.

Douvan, M. S. Homer, & D. Gutmann (Eds.), Feminine

personality and conflict. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole,

1970. Horner, M. S. The measurement and behavioral

implications of fear of success in women. In J. W.

Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement.

Washington, D.C.: Winston, 1974. (a) Horner, M.S.

Performance of men in noncompetitive and interpersonal

competitive achieve ment-oriented situations. In J. W.

Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and

achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston, 1974. (b) Huber, R.

M. The American idea o f success. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1971. Hull, C. L. Principles o f behavior. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D.

J. National character: The study of modal personality and

sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),

The handbook o f social psychology (Vol. 4). Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. James. W. The principles o f

psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Holt, 1890. Jones, E. E.,

Rock, L., Shaver, K. G., Goethals, G. R., & Ward, L. M.

Pattern of performance and ability attributions: An

unexpected primacy effect. Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology, 1968,70, 317-340 . Kagan, J., & Moss,

H. A. Birth to maturity. New York: Wiley, 1962. Kardiner,

A. Psychological frontiers o f society. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1945. Katz, I. The socialization of

academic motivation in minority group children. In D.

Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15).

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Klinger, E.

Fantasy n Achievement as a motivational construct.

Psychological Bulletin, 1966,56, 291-308. Kluckhohn, C.

H., & Murray, H. A. (Eds.). Personality in nature, society

and culture. New York: Knopf, 1948. Kolb, D. A.

Achievement motivation training for under-achieving

high-school boys. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1965,2, 783-792 . Kuhn, T. S. The structure o f

scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1962. Kukla, A. Foundations of an attributional

theory of performance. Psychological Review , 1972, 79, 45

4 -4 7 0 . Lansing, J., & Heyns, R. Need affiliation and

frequency of four types of communication. Journal o f

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959 ,58, 365-372 . Lehman,

H. C. Age and achievement. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1953. Lesser, G. S. Achievement motivation in women.

In D. C. McClelland & R. S. Steele (Eds.), Human

motivation: A book o f readings. Morristown, N.J.: General

Learning Press, 1973. Lesser, G. S., Krawitz, R. N., &

Packard, R. Experimental arousal of achievement motiva

tion in adolescent girls. Journal o f Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1963, 66, 5 9 -6 6 . Lewin, K. Conceptual

representation and measurement o f psychological forces.

Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1938. Lewin, K.

Defining the “field at a given time.” Psychological Review,

1943 ,50 , 2 9 2-310 . Lewin, K. Behavior and development

as a function of the total situation. In L. Carmichael

(Ed.), Manual o f child psychology. New York: Wiley, 1946.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. Level

of aspiration. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the

behavior disorders (Vol. 1). New York: Ronald Press, 1944.

Linton, R. The cultural background o f personality. New

York: Appleton-Century, 1945. Lipset, S. M. The first new

nation. New York: Basic Books, 1963. Lipset, S. M.

Anglo-American society. In D. Sills (Ed.), International

Encyclopedia o f the Social Sciences (Vol. 1). New York:

Macmillan & The Free Press, 1968. Lipset, S. M., & Bendix,

R. Social mobility in industrial society. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1959. Litwin, G. H.

Motives and expectancies as determinants of preference for

degrees of risk. Unpublished honors dissertation,

University of Michigan, 1958. Litwin, G. H. Achievement

motivation, expectancy of success, and risk-taking

behavior. In J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A

theory o f achievement motivation. New York: Wiley, 1966.

Lowell, E. L. The effect of need for achievement on

learning and speed of performance. Journal o f

Psychology, 1952,33 , 3 1 -4 0 . Mahone, C. H. Fear of

failure and unrealistic vocational aspiration. Journal o f

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 253-261 .

Mandler, G., & Cowen, J. E. Test anxiety questionnaires.

Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1958,22 , 228-229 .

Mandler, G., & Sarason, S. B. A study of anxiety and

learning. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology,

1952,47 , 166-173. Maslow, A. H .Motivation and

personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1954. McClelland, D.

C. Personality. New York: William Sloane, 1951. McClelland,

D. C. Some social consequences of achievement motivation.

In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation

(Vol. 3). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1955.

McClelland, D. C. Methods of measuring human motivation. In

J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and

society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. (a)

McClelland, D. C. Risk-taking in children with high and low

need for achievement. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in

fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, N.J.: Van

Nostrand, 1958. (b) McClelland, D. C. The use of measures

of human motivation in the study of society. In J. W.

Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society.

Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. (c) McClelland, D. C.

The achieving society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1961.

(Reissue, New York: Irvington, Publishers, Inc., 1976.)

McClelland, D. C. Toward a theory of motive acquisition.

American Psychologist, 1965, 20, 321-333 . McClelland, D.

C. Assessing human motivation. Morristown, N.J.: General

Learning Press, 1971. (a) McClelland, D. C. Motivational

trends in society. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning

Press, 1971. (b) McClelland, D. C., & Atkinson, J. W. The

projective expression of needs. I. The effect of different

intensities of the hunger drive on perception. Journal o f

Psychology, 1948, 25, 205-232 . McClelland, D. C.,

Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. The

achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,

1953. (Reissue. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.,

1976.) McClelland, D. C., Baldwin, A. L., Bronfenbrenner,

U., & Strodtbeck, F. L. Talent and society. Princeton;

N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. McClelland, D. C., Clark, R. A.,

Roby, T. B., & Atkinson, J. W. The projective expression of

needs. IV. The effect of need for achievement on thematic

apperception. Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1949,39

, 242-255 . McClelland, D. C., & Liberman, A. M. The effect

of need for achievement on recognition of need-related

words. Journal o f Personality, 1949 ,18, 236-251 .

McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. Motivating economic

achievement. New York: The Free Press, 1969. McKeachie, W.

J. Motivation, teaching methods and college learning. In M.

R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 9).

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Mead, M. Sex

and temperament in three primitive societies. New York:

Morrow, 1935. Mead, M. Male and female. New York: Morrow,

1949. Mehrabian, A. Male and female scales of tendency to

achieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

1968,25, 493-502. Mehrabian, A. Measures of achieving

tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

1969,29, 4 4 5 -4 5 1 . Miller, N. E. Liberalization of

basic S -R concepts: Extensions to conflict behavior,

motivation, and social learning. In S. Koch (Ed.),

Psychology: A study o f a science (Vol. 2). New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1959. Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. A method

for investigating fantasy. The Thematic Apperception Test.

Archives o f Neurology and Psychiatry, 1935 ,34, 289-306 .

Morris, J. Propensity for risk-taking as a determinant of

vocational choice. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1966, 3, 328-335 . Moulton, R. W. Effects of

success and failure on level of aspiration as related to

achievement motives. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1965, 1, 399-406 . Also in J. W. Atkinson & N.

T. Feather (Eds.), A theory o f achievement motivation.

New York: Wiley, 1966. Moulton, R. Motivational

implications of individual differences in competence. In J.

W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and

achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston, 1974. Moulton, R.

W., Raphelson, A. C., Kristofferson, A. B., & Atkinson, J.

W. The achievement motive and perceptual sensitivity under

two conditions of motive arousal. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.),

Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, N.J.:

Van Nostrand, 1958. Murray, H. A. The effect of fear upon

estimates of the maliciousness of other personalities.

Journal o f Social Psychology, 1933,4, 310-329. Murray, H.

A. Techniques for a systematic investigation of fantasy.

Journal o f Psychology, 1937, J, 115-143. Murray, H. A.

Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1938. Murray, H. A. Thematic Apperception Test

manual.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1943.

Mussen, P. H., & Scodel, A. The effects of sexual

motivation under varying conditions of TAT sexual

responsiveness. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1 9 5 5

,19, 90. O’Connor, P., Atkinson, J. W., & Horner, M.

Motivational implications of ability grouping in schools.

In J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory o f

achievement motivation. New York: Wiley, 1966. Peak, H.

Attitude and motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska

Symposium on Motiva tion (Vol. 3). Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press, 1955. Raphelson, A. C. The relationship

between imaginative, direct verbal, and physiological

measures of anxiety in an achievement situation. Journal o

f Abnormal and Social Psychol ogy, 1 957 ,54, 1 3 -1 8 .

Raynor, J. O. Future orientation and motivation of

immediate activity: An elaboration of the theory of

achievement motivation. Psychological Review, 1969, 76,

606-610 . Raynor, J. O. Relationships between

achievement-related motives, future orientation, and

academic performance. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1 9 7 0 ,15, 2 8 -3 3 . Raynor, J. O. Future

orientation in the study of achievement motivation. In J.

W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and

achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston (Halsted

Press/Wiley), 1974. (a) Raynor, J. O. Motivation and career

striving. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.),

Motivation and achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston

(Halsted Press/Wiley), 1974. (b) Raynor, J. O., Atkinson,

J. W., & Brown, M. Subjective aspects of achievement

motivation immediately before an examination. In J. W.

Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and

achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston (Halsted

Press/Wiley), 1974. Raynor, J. O., & Rubin, I. S. Effects

of achievement motivation and future orientation on level

of performance. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 19 7 1 ,17, 3 6 -4 1 . Reitman, W. R.

Motivation induction and behavioral correlates of the

achievement and affiliation motives. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Michigan, 1957. Reitman, W. R.

Motivation induction and the behavioral correlates of the

achievement and affiliation motives. Journal o f Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 8 -1 3 . Revelle, W., &

Michaels, E. J. The theory of achievement motivation

revisited: the implica tions of inertial tendencies.

Psychological Review, 1 976 ,83, 394-404 . Riccuiti, H. N.,

& Claik, R. A. A comparison o f need-achievement stories

written by experimentally “relaxed” and

“achievement-oriented” subjects: Effects obtained with new

pictures and revised scoring categories. Princeton, N.J.:

Educational Testing Service, 1954. Rosen, B. C., Crockett,

H. J., Jr., & Nunn, C. Z. Achievement in American society.

Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publ., 1969. Rotter, J. B.

Social learning and clinical psychology . Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954. Sales, S. M. Some effects of

role overload and role underload. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 592 -6 0 8 . Sanford, R.

N. The effects of abstinence from food upon imaginal

processes: A preliminary experiment. Journal o f

Psychology, 1 9 36 ,2, 129-136 . Sarason, S. B., Davidson,

K. S., Lighthall, F. F., Waite, R. R., & Ruebush, B. K .A

nxiety in elementary school children. New York: Wiley,

1960. Sawusch, J. R. Computer simulation of the influence

of ability and motivation on test performance and

cumulative achievement and the relation between them. In J.

W. Atkin son & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and

achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston, 1974. Sears, R. R.

Success and failure: A study of motility. In Studies in

Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1942. Sears, R. R. A

theoretical framework for personality and social behavior.

American Psychol ogist, 1951,9, 476-483 . Seltzer, R. A.

Simulation of the dynamics of action. Psychological

Reports, 1973, 32, 859-872. Seltzer, R. A., & Sawusch, J.

R. A program for computer simulation of the dynamics of

action. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation

and achievement. Washington, D.C.: Winston, 1974. Sewell,

W. H. Inequality of opportunity for higher education.

American Sociological Review , 1971,36, 793-809 . Sewell,

W. H., Hauser, R. M., & Featherman, D. L. (Eds.). Schooling

and achievement in American society. New York: Academic

Press, 1976. Shipley, T. E., and Veroff, J. A projective

measure of need for affiliation. Journal o f Experimental

Psychology, 1952,43 , 349-356. Smith, C. P. Situational

determinants of the expression of achievement motivation in

thematic apperception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Michigan, 1961. Smith, C. P. The influence of

testing conditions and need for achievement scores and

their relationship to performance scores. In J. W.

Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory o f achievement

motivation. New York: Wiley, 1966. Smith, C. P. (Ed.).

Achievement-related motives in children. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation, 1969. (a) Smith, C. P. The origin and

expression of achievement-related motives in children. In

C. P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related motives in

children. New York: Russell Sage Founda tion, 1969. (b)

Smith, C. P., & Feld, S. How to learn the method of content

analysis for n Achievement, n Affiliation, and n Power. In

J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and

society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. Spence, K.

W. Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1956. Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.). Anxiety

and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Stein, A. H.,

& Bailey, M. M. The socialization of achievement

orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 1913,80,

345-366 . Taylor, J. A., & Spence, K. W. The relationship

of anxiety level to performance in serial learning.

Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1952, 44, 6 1 -6 4 .

Thomas, E. J., & Zander, A. The relationship of goal

structure to motivation under extreme conditions. Journal

o f Individual Psychology, 1959,75, 121-127. Tolman, E. C.

Collected papers in psychology. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1951. Tolman, E. C. Principles of

performance. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 315-326.

Veroff, J. Development and validation of a projective

measure of power motivation. Journal o f Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 1957 ,54, 1 -8 . Veroff, J. Thematic

apperception in a nationwide sample survey. In J. Kagan &

G. S. Lesser (Eds.), Contemporary issues in thematic

apperceptive methods. Springfield, 111.: Charles C.

Thomas, 1961. Veroff, J. Theoretical background for

studying the origins of human motivational disposi tions.

Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 1965,77, 3 -1 8 . Veroff, J.

Social comparison and the development of achievement

motivation. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related

motives in children. New York: Russell Sage Founda tion,

1969.

Veroff, J., Atkinson, J. W., Feld, S., & Gurin, G. The use

of thematic apperception to assess motivation in a

nationwide interview study. Psychological Monographs, 1960,

74 (12, Whole No. 499).

Veroff, J., & Feld, S. Marriage and work in America. New

York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold, 1970.

Veroff, J., Feld, S., & Crockett, H. Explorations into the

effects of picture cues on thematic apperceptive

expression of achievement motivation. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1966,5, 171-181 .

Veroff, J., Feld, S., & Gurin, G. Achievement motivation

and religious background. Ameri can Sociological Review,

1962,27, 20 5 -2 1 7 . Veroff, J., & Veroff, J. B.

Reconsideration of a measure of power motivation.

Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 78, 279-291 . Veroff, J.,

Wilcox, S., & Atkinson, J. W. The achievement motive in

high school and college-age women. Journal o f Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 1953 ,48, 103-119 . Vitz, P. The

relation of aspiration to need achievement, fear of

failure, incentives, and expectancies. Unpublished honors

thesis, University of Michigan, 1957. Vroom, V. H. Work and

motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Walker, E. L., &

Atkinson, J. W. The expression of fear-related motivation

in thematic apperception as a function of proximity to an

atomic explosion. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in

fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, N.J.: Van

Nostrand, 1958. Weiner, B. New conceptions in the study o f

achievement motivation. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in

experimental personality research (Vol. 5). New York:

Academic Press, 1970. Weiner, B. Theories o f motivation.

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972. Weiner, B. Achievement

motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, N.J.:

General Learning Press, 1974. (a) Weiner, B. An

attributional interpretation of expectancy-value theory. In

B. Weiner (Ed.), Cognitive views o f human motivation.

New York: Academic Press, 1974. (b) Weiner, B., & Kukla, A.

An attributional analysis of achievement motivation.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1 9 7 0 ,15,

1 -2 0 . Weinstein, M. S. Achievement motivation and risk

preference. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1969,13 , 153-172 . Whalen, R. E. Sexual

motivation. Psychological Review, 1966, 73, 151-163 .

Winter, D. The power motive. New York: Free Press, 1973.

Winterbottom, M. The relation of childhood training in

independence to achievement motivation. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1953. Also

in J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and

society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1958. Yerkes, R.

M., & Dodson, J. D. The relation of strength of stimulus to

rapidity of habit formation. Journal o f Comparative and

Neurological Psychology, 1 9 0 8 ,18, 4 5 9 -4 8 2 .

3 3. AUTHORITARIANISM

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., &

Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York:

Harper & Row, 1950.

4 4. PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION

Loewenstein, A. P. Cognitive style and empathic behavior in

counseling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Miami, 1971.

MacKinnon, D. W. The personality correlates of creativity:

A study of American architects. In G. Nielson (Ed.),

Proceedings o f the XIV International Congress o f

Applied Psychology (Vol. 2). Personality research.

Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1962.

Marcus, E. S. The relationship of psychological

differentiation to the congruence of temporal patterns of

speech (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1970).

Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1970, No.

70-19,016.

Marlowe, D. Some psychological correlates of field

independence. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1958,22,

334.

Marino, D. R., Fitzgibbons, D. J., & Mirabile, C. S., Jr.

Attention deployment in field dependence and autokinetic

movement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970,57, 155-158 .

Martin, P. L., & Toomey, T. C. Perceptual orientation and

empathy. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

1973,47, 313.

Mausner, B., & Graham, J. Field dependence and prior

reinforcement as determinants of social interaction in

judgment. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1970, 16, 4 8 6 -4 9 3 .

McCarrey, M. W., Dayhaw, L. J., & Chagnon, G. P. Attitude

shift, approval need, and extent of psychological

differentiation. Journal o f Social Psychology, 1971, 84,

141-149 .

McFarland, H. B. Comparison o f perceptual field

independence and personality scale o f independence (Report

No. 24). Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami, 1966.

McGilligan, R. P. Psychological differentiation, abilities,

and personality (Doctoral disserta tion, St. Louis

University, 1971). Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms,

1971, No. 72-23,970.

Meskin, B. B., & Singer, J. L. Daydreaming, reflective

thought, and laterality of eye movements. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 6 4 -7 1 .

Messick, S., & Damarin, F. Cognitive styles and memory for

faces. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology,

1964,69 , 313-318 .

Messick, S., & Fritzky, F. J. Dimensions of analytic

attitude in cognition and personality. Journal o f

Personality, 1963,57, 346-370 .

Morf, M. E., Kavanaugh, R. D., & McConville, M. Intratest

and set differences on a portable rod and frame test.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1971, 52, 727-733 .

Murphy, D. F. Sensory deprivation, suggestion, field

dependence, and perceptual regression. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1966 ,4, 289-294 .

5 5. INTROVERSION/EXTRAVERSION

Hendrick, C., & Brown, S. R. Introversion, extraversion,

and interpersonal attraction. Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology, 1971 ,20, 3 1 -3 6 .

Hilgard, E. R., & Bentler, P. Predicting hypnotizability

from the Maudsley Personality Inventory. British Journal o

f Psychology, 1963 ,54, 6 3 -6 9 .

Hill, A. B. Extraversion and variety seeking in a

monotonous task. British Journal o f Psychology, 1975,6(5,

9 -1 3 .

Holmes, D. S. Pupillary response, conditioning, and

personality. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1967,5, 9 8 -1 0 3 .

Howarth, E., & Eysenck, H. J. Extraversion, arousal, and

paired associate recall. Journal o f Experimental Research

in Personality, 1968,5, 114-116 .

Iwawaki, S., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J.

Differences in personality between Japanese and English.

Journal o f Social Psychology, 1977, in press.

Jessup, G., & Jessup, H. Validity of the Eysenck

Personality Inventory in pilot selection. Occupational

Psychology, 1971,45, 111-123 .

Jung, C. G. Psychological types. New York: Harcourt-Brace,

1923. Kendon, A., & Cook, M. The consistency of gaze

patterns in social interaction. British Journal o f

Psychology, 1969, 60, 481-494.

Kleinsmith, L. J., & Kaplan, S. Paired associate learning

as a function of arousal and interpolated interval.

Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 190-193 .

Lang, P. J., & Lazovik, A. D. Personality and hypnotic

susceptibility. Journal o f Consulting Psychology,

1962,26 , 317-322 . Laverty, S. G. Sodium amatyl and

extraversion. Journal o f Neurology, Neurosurgery and

Psychiatry, 1958, 21, 5 0 -5 4 .

Leipold, W. D. Psychological distance in a dyadic interview

as a function of introversion- extraversion, anxiety,

social desirability, and stress. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1963.

Leith, G. O. M. Individual differences in learning:

Interactions of personality and teaching methods.

Association o f Educational Psychologists 1974 Conference

Proceedings, London, 1974. Ludvigh, E. J., & Happ, D.

Extraversion and preferred level of sensory stimulation.

British Journal o f Psychology, 1974,65, 359-365 .

Lynn, R., & Hampson, S. L. National differences in

extraversion and neuroticism. British Journal o f Social

and Clinical Psychology, 1 9 7 5 ,14, 2 2 3-240 .

Mann, R. D. A review of the relationships between

personality and performance in small groups. Psychological

Bulletin, 1959,56, 2 4 1 -270 .

McCormick, K., & Baer, D. J. Birth order, sex of subject,

and sex of sibling as factors in extraversion and

neuroticism in two-child families. Psychological Reports,

1975, 57, 259-261 . McPeake, J. D., & DiMascio, A.

Drug-personality interaction in the learning of a nonsense

syllable task. Journal o f Psychiatric Research, 1965, 5,

105-111 .

Walker, E. L. Action decrement and its relation to

learning. Psychological Review, 1958, 65, 129-142.

Wankowski, J. A. Temperament, motivation and academic

achievement. University of Birmingham Educational Survey

and Counselling Unit, 1973.

Weisen, A. Differential reinforcing effects of onset and

offset of stimulation on the operant behavior of normals,

neurotics, and psychopaths. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Florida, 1965.

Williams, J. L. Personal space and its relation to

extraversion-introversion. Unpublished master’s thesis,

University of Alberta, 1963.

Williams, J. L. Personal space and its relation to

extraversion-introversion. Canadian Journal o f

Behavioral Science, 1971,5, 156-160.

Wilson, G. D., & Gregson, R. A. M. Effects of illumination

on the perceived intensity of acid tastes. Australian

Journal o f Psychology, 1 9 6 7 ,19, 6 9 -7 3 . Wilson, G.

D., & Nias, D. K. B. The mystery o f love. New York:

Quadrangle, 1976. Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation.

Science, 1 9 6 5 ,14, 269-274.

6 6. INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL OF

REINFORCEMENT

deCharms, R. Personal causation: The internal affective

determinants o f behavior. New York: Academic Press,

1968. DeGood, D. E. Vascular effects of locus of control

during shock avoidance performance in humans. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 1972, 52, 6641-6642 . DeWitte, L.

L. Parental antecedents of adolescent beliefs in

internal-external control of reinforcement. Unpublished

master’s thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1970. Diamond,

M. J., & Shapiro, J. L. Changes in locus of control as a

function of encounter group experience. Journal o f

Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 514-518. Dies, R. R.

Electroconvulsive therapy: A social learning theory

interpretation. Journal o f Nervous and Mental Disease,

1968,746, 334-342 . Dinardo, Q. E. Psychological adjustment

to spinal cord injury. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 1972,52, 4206-4207 . Doctor, R. M. Locus of

control of reinforcement and responsiveness to social

influence. Journal o f Personality, 1971,59, 5 4 2-551 .

Driver, J. Personality differences in the elderly as a

function of type and length of residence. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1974. Dua,

P. S. Comparison of the effects of behaviorally oriented

action and psychotherapy re-education in

intraversion—extraversion, emotionality, and

internal-external control. Journal o f Counseling

Psychology, 1970,7 7, 5 6 7-572 . DuCette, J., & Wolk, S.

Locus of control and extreme behavior. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972,59, 253-258 .

DuCette, J., & Wolk, S. Cognitive and motivational

correlates of general expectancy of control. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 4 2 0 -426 .

DuCette, J., Wolk, S., & Friedman, S. Locus of control and

creativity in black and white children. Journal o f

Social Psychology, 1972, 88, 297-298 . Duke, M. P., &

Mullins, C. Interpersonal distance as a function of locus

of control in hospitalized schizophrenics and

non-schizophrenics. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1913,41, 230-234 . Duke, M. P., & Nowicki, S.

Personality correlates of the Nowicki-Strickland locus of

control scale for adults. Psychological Reports, 1973, 55,

267-270 . Duke, M. P., Shaheen, J., & Nowicki, S. The

determination of locus of control in a geriatric

population and a subsequent test of the social learning

model for interpersonal distance. Journal o f Psychology,

1974,56, 277-285 . Dweck, C. S. The role of expectations

and attributions in the alleviation of learned

helplessness. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1975, 57, 674-685 . Dweck, C. S., & Repucci, N.

D. Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in

children. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1973, 25, 109-116. Efran, J. S. Some personality

determinants of memory for success and failure. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963.

Eggland, E. T. Locus of control and children with cerebral

palsy. Nursing Research, 1973, 22, 329-333 . Eisenman, R.

Experience in experiments and change in internal-external

control scores. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1972, 59, 4 3 4 -435 . Eisenman, R., & Platt,

J. Birth order and sex differences in academic achievement

and internal-external control. Journal o f General

Psychology, 1968, 78, 278-285. Epstein, R., & Komorita, S.

S. Self-esteem, success-failure, and locus of control in

Negro children. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 4, 2 -8 .

Erikson, R. V., & Roberts, A. H. Some ego functions

associated with delay of gratification in male deliquents.

Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 56,

378-382 . Feather, N. T. Some personality correlates of

external control. Australian Journal o f Psychology,

1967,79, 252-260 . (a)

Feather, N. T. Valence of outcome and expectation of

success in relation to task difficulty and perceived locus

of control. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1967, 7, 3 7 2-387 . (b)

Feather, N. T. Valence of success and failure in relation

to task difficulty: Past research and recent progress.

Australian Journal o f Psychology, 1968 ,20, 111-122.

Felton, B., & Kahana, E. Adjustment and situationally-bound

locus of control among the institutionally aged. Journal o

f Gerontology, 1974, 29, 295-301 .

Felton, G. S. Teaching internalization to middle-level

mental health workers in training. Psychological Reports,

1913,32, 1279-1282 .

Felton, G. S., & Biggs, B. E. Teaching internalization to

collegiate low achievers in group psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1972, 9, 28

1 -2 8 3 .

Felton, G. S., & Biggs, B. E. Psychotherapy and

responsibility: Teaching internalization to black low

achievers through group therapy. Small Group Behavior,

1973,4, 147-155 .

Felton, G. S., & Davidson, H. R. Group counseling can work

in the classroom. Academic Therapy, 1973,5, 4 6 1 -4 6 8 .

Felton, G. S., & Thomas, L. J. How to beat the failure

syndrome: A process-oriented learning program for

collegiate low achievers. College Student Journal

Monograph, 1972, 6, 1 -1 3 .

Ferguson, B., & Kennelly, K. Internal-external locus of

control and perception of authority figures. Psychological

Reports, 1974,54, 1119-1123. Fink, H. C., & Hjelle, L. A.

Internal-external control and ideology. Psychological

Reports, 1973,55, 9 6 7 -9 7 4 .

Fitz, R. J. The differential effects of praise and censure

on serial learning as dependent on locus o f control and

field dependency. Dissertation Abstracts International,

1971, 31, 4310.

Forward, J. R., & Williams, J. R. Internal—external control

and black militancy. Journal o f Social Issues, 1970,26(1),

7 5 -9 2 .

Foss, R. Personality, social influence, and cigarette

smoking. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 1 9 7 3

,14, 2 7 9 -2 8 6 .

Fotopoulos, S. Internal versus external control: Increase

of heart rate by thinking under feedback and no-feedback

conditions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 31,

3703-3704 . Franklin, R. D. Youth’s expectancies about

internal versus external control of reinforce ment related

to N variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue

University, 1963.

Friedman, M. L., & Dies, R. R. Reactions of internal and

external test anxious students to counseling and behavior

therapies. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

1974, 42, 921. Garrity, T. F. Vocational adjustment after

first myocardial infarction: Comparative assess ment of

several variables suggested in literature. Social Science

and Medicine, 1973, 7(9), 70 5-717 . Garza, R. T., & Ames,

R. E., Jr. A comparison of Anglo- and Mexican-American

college students on locus of control. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 919. Getter,

H. A. A personality determinant of verbal conditioning.

Journal o f Personality, 1966,54, 397-405 . Gillis, J.

S., & Jessor, R. Effects of brief psychotherapy on belief

in internal control: An exploratory study .Psychotherapy:

Theory, Research, and Practice, 1970, 7, 135-136 . Gilmore,

T. M., & Minton, H. L. Internal versus external attribution

of task performance as a function of locus of control,

initial confidence and success-failure outcome. Journal o f

Personality, 1974,42, 159-174 . Gold, D. Preference for

skill or chance tasks and I-E scores. Psychological

Reports, 1966, 79, 1279-1281. Goodstadt, B. E., & Hjelle,

L. A. Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the use

of power. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1973, 27, 190-196. Gore, P. M. Individual differences in

the prediction of subject compliance to experimenter bias.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University,

1962. Gore, P. M., & Rotter, J. B. A personality correlate

of social action. Journal o f Personality, 1963,57, 5 8 -6

4 . Gorman, B. S. An observation of altered locus of

control following political disappointment. Psychological

Reports, 1968,25, 1094. Goss, A., & Morosko, T. E. Relation

between a dimension of internal-external control and the

MMPI with an alcoholic population. Journal o f Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 1910,34, 189-192. Gozali, H.,

Cleary, T. A., Walster, G. W., & Gozali, J. Relationship

between the internal-ex ternal control construct and

achievement. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 1973, 64,

9 -1 4 . Granberg, D., & May, W. I-E and orientations

toward the Vietnam war. Journal o f Social Psychology,

1912,88, 157-158. Gruen, G. E. The development of an

internal-external control scale. In J. W. Asher, J. F.

Feldhausen, G. E. Gruen, R. G. Kane, E. McDaniel, M. I.

Stephens, J. Towler, & G. H. Wheatley (Eds.), The

development o f new measures o f cognitive variables in

elementary school children (Phase II). Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Office of Education, 1971. Gruen, G. E., Korte, J. R.,

& Baum, J. F. Group measure of locus of control.

Developmental Psychology, 19 7 4 ,10, 6 8 3-686 . Gurin,

P., Gurin, G., Lao, R., & Beattie, M. Internal-external

control in the motivational dynamics of Negro youth.

Journal o f Social Issues, 1969, 25(3), 2 9 -5 3 . Gurin,

P., & Katz, D. Motivation and aspiration in the Negro

college (Final Report, Office of Education, Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare). Washington, D.C.: United

States Government Printing Office, 1966. Hale, W. D.

Dimensions of locus of control and self-reported

depression. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern

Psychological Association, New York, April 1975. Hamsher,

J. H., Geller, J. D., & Rotter, J. B. Interpersonal trust,

internal-external control, and the Warren Commission

Report. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1968, 9, 210-215 . Harris, W. G. An investigation of the IE

scale’s predictability using the bogus pipeline.

Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts,

1975. Harrison, F. I. Relationship between home background,

school success, and adolescent attitudes. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 1968,74, 331-344 . Harrow, M., & Ferrante, A.

Locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969,55, 582-589 .

Harvey, J. H., Barnes, R. D., Sperry, D. L., & Harris, B.

Perceived choice as a function of internal-external locus

of control. Journal o f Personality, 1974, 4 3 7-452 .

Harvey, J. H., & Harris, B. Determinants of perceived

choice and the relationship between perceived choice and

expectancy about feelings of internal control. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,57, 101-106.

Harvey, J. H., & Johnston, S. Determinants of the

perception of choice. Journal o f Experimental Social

Psychology, 1973,9, 164-179. Heider, F. The psychology o f

interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hersch, P.

D., & Scheibe, K. E. On the reliability and validity of

internal-external control as a personality dimension.

Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1967, 57, 609-613 .

Hill, R. A., Chapman, M. L., & Wuertzer, V. J. Achievement

competence training: A report, Part X: Locus o f control:

A study o f the correlates. Philadelphia: Research for

Better Schools, 1974.

Hiroto, D. S. Learned helplessness and locus of control.

Journal o f Experimental Psy chology, 1 9 7 4 ,102(2),

187-193 .

Hjelle, L. A. Internal-external control as determinant of

academic achievement. Psycho logical Reports, 1970 ,26 ,

326.

Hjelle, L. A. Social desirability as a variable in the

locus of control scale. Psychological Reports, 1911,28,

807-816 .

Hochreich, D. J. Internal—external control and reaction to

the My Lai court martials. Journal o f Applied Social

Psychology, 1972, 2, 3 1 9-325 .

Hochreich, D. J. Defensive externality and attribution of

responsibility. Journal o f Per sonality, 1914,42, 5 4

3-557 .

Hochreich, D. J. Defensive externality and blame projection

following failure. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1975, 32, 54 0 -5 4 6 . (a) Hochreich, D. J.

Sex-role stereotypes for internal—external control and

interpersonal trust. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1975 ,43, 273. (b) Holden, K. B., & Rotter, J.

B. A nonverbal measure of extinction in skill and chance

situations. Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63,

519-520.

Holmes, D. S., & Jackson, T. H. Influence of locus of

control in interpersonal attraction and affective

reactions in situations involving reward and punishment.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1915,31,

132-136 . Holmes, T. H., & Masuda, M. Life change and

illness susceptibility. In J. P. Scott & E. C. Senay

(Eds.), Separation and depression: Clinical and research

aspects. Washington, D.C.: Publication No. 94 of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1973.

Hsieh, T. T., Shybut, J., & Lotsof, E. J. Internal versus

external control and ethnic group membership: A

cross-cultural comparison. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1969,33 , 122-124 . Ireland, R. E.

Locus of control among hospitalized pulmonary emphysema

patients. Dis sertation Abstracts International, 1913,33,

6091. James, W. H. Internal versus external control of

reinforcement as a basic variable in learning theory.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University,

1957. James, W. H., Woodruff, A. B., & Werner, W. Effect on

internal and external control upon changes in smoking

behavior. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1965,29,

184-186 . James, W. H., & Rotter, J. B. Partial and 100

percent reinforcement under chance and skill conditions.

Journal o f Experimental Psychology, 1958,55, 397-403 .

Joe, V. C. Review of the internal-external control

construct as a personality variable. Psychological

Reports, 1911 ,28 , 6 1 9 -6 4 0 . Johnson, F. Y. Political

attitudes as related to internal and external control.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Ohio State University, 1961.

Johnson, J. E., Leventhal, H., & Dabbs, J. M. Contribution

of emotional and instrumental response processes in

adaptation to surgery. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1911,20, 6 5 -7 0 . Johnson, R. C., Ackerman,

J. M., Frank, H., & Fionda, A. J. Resistance to temptation

and guilt following yielding and psychotherapy. Journal o

f Consulting and Clinical Psy chology, 1968,32 , 169-175

. Johnson, R. K., & Meyer, R. G. The locus of control

construct in EEG alpha rhythm feedback. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974 ,42, 913.

Jolley, M. T., & Spielberger, C. D. The effects of locus of

control and anxiety on verbal conditioning. Journal o f

Personality, 1913,41, 443—456.

Jones, E. E., Worchel, S., Goethals, G. R., & Grumet, J.

Prior expectancy and behavioral extremity as determinants

of attitude attribution. Journal o f Experimental Social

Psy chology, 1971, 7, 5 9 -8 0 . Jones, R. A. Volunteering

to help: The effects of choice, dependence, and anticipated

dependence. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1 970 ,14, 121 -12 9 . Julian, J. W., & Katz, S. B.

Internal versus external control and the value of

reinforcement. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1968 ,8, 8 9 -9 4 . Kaplan, K. J., & Moore, M.

Loss of freedom versus luck as determinants of externality:

Failure to replicate the MacArthur draft lottery findings.

Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1972,5, 39

-4 5 . Karabenick, S. A. Valence of success and failure as

a function of achievement motives and locus of control.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21,

101-110. Katkovsky, W., Crandall, V. C., & Good, S.

Parental antecedents of children’s belief in

internal—external control of reinforcement in intellectual

achievement situations. Child Development, 1967,55,

765-776 . Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social

psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on

Motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press, 1967. Kiehlbauch, J. B. Selected changes over time

in internal-external control of expectancies in a

reformatory population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Kansas State University, 1967. Kilmann, P. R. Direct and

non-direct marathon group therapy and internal-external

control. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 1974 ,21,

380-384 . Kilmann, P. R., & Howell, R. J. Effects of

structure of marathon group therapy and locus of control

on therapeutic outcome. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1974,42, 912. Kilpatrick, D. G.,

Miller, W. C., & William, A. R. Locus of control and

adjustment to long term hemodialysis. Paper presented at

the meeting of the American Psychological Associa tion,

Honolulu, September 1972. Kirscht, J. P. Perceptions of

control and health beliefs. Canadian Journal o f

Behavioral Science, 1974,4, 225-237 . Krovetz, M. L.

Explaining success or failure as a function of one’s locus

of control. Journal o f Personality, 1974,42, 175-189.

Lambley, P., & Silbowitz, M. Rotter’s internal-external

scale and prediction of suicide contemplators among

students. Psychological Reports, 1973,55, 5 8 5-586 . Lao,

R. C. Internal-external control and competent and

innovative behavior among Negro college students. Journal

o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1 970 ,14, 263-270

. Lefcourt, H. M. Internal versus external control of

reinforcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 65,

206-220 . Lefcourt, H. M. Effects of cue explication upon

persons maintaining external control expectancies. Journal

o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1967,5, 372-378 .

Lefcourt, H. M. Recent developments in the study of locus

of control. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental

personality research (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press,

1972. Lefcourt, H. M. Locus o f control: Current trends in

theory and research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Assoc., 1976. Lefcourt, H. M., Antrobus, P., & Hogg, E.

Humor response and humor production as a function of locus

of control, field dependence, and type of reinforcement.

Journal o f Personality, 1974,42, 632-651 . Lefcourt, H.

M., Gronnerud, P., & McDonald, P. Cognitive activity and

hypothesis forma tion during a double entendre word

association test as a function of locus of control and

field dependence. Canadian Journal o f Behavioral Science,

1973,5, 161-173. Lefcourt, H. M., Hogg, E., Struthers, S.,

& Holmes, C. Causal attributions as a function of locus of

control, initial confidence, and performance outcomes.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,52,

391-397 . Lefcourt, H. M., Lewis, L., & Silverman, I. W.

Internal versus external control of reinforce ment and

alteration in a decision making task. Journal o f

Personality, 1968 ,36, 66 3 -6 8 2 . Lefcourt, H. M.,

Sordoni, C., & Sordoni, C. Locus of control and the

expression of humor. Journal o f Personality, 1974,42,

130-143 . Lefcourt, H. M., & Wine, J. Internal versus

external control of reinforcement and the development of

attention in experimental situationsl. Canadian Journal o f

Behavioral Science, 1969,7, 167-181 . Lerner, M. J. Social

psychology of justice and interpersonal attraction. In T.

L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations o f interpersonal

attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Lessing, E. E.

Racial differences in indices of ego functioning relevant

to academic achieve ment. Journal o f Genetic Psychology,

1969,775, 153-167. Levenson, H. Distinctions within the

concept of internal-external control: Development of a new

scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the American

Psychological Association, Honolulu, September 1972.

Levenson, H. Multidimensional locus of control in

psychiatric patients. Journal o f Consult ing and

Clinical Psychology, 1973,47, 39 7 -4 0 4 . (a) Levenson,

H. Perceived parental antecedents of Internal, Powerful

Others, and Chance locus of control orientations.

Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 2 6 0-265 . (b)

Levenson, H. Reliability and validity of the I, P, and C

scales: A multidimensional view of locus of control. Paper

presented at the meeting of the American Psychological

Associa tion, Montreal, September 1973. (c) Levenson, H.,

& Miller, J. Multidimensional locus of control in

sociopolitical activists of conservative and liberal

ideologies. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1976, 33, 199-208 . Lichtenstein, E., & Crain, W. The

importance of subjective evaluation of reinforcement in

verbal conditioning. Journal o f Experimental Research in

Personality, 1969,5, 2 1 4 -2 2 0 . Lipp, L., Kolstoe, R.,

James, W., & Randall, H. Denial of disability and internal

control of reinforcement: A study using a perceptual

defense paradigm. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1968, 52, 1 2 -1 S. Liverant, S., & Scodel, A.

Internal and external control as determinants of decision

making under conditions of risk. Psychological Reports,

1960, 7, 5 9 -6 7 . Lottman, T. J., & DeWolfe, A. S.

Internal versus external control in reactive and process

schizophrenia. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1972,59, 344. Ludwigsen, K., & Rollins, H.

Recognition of random forms as a function of source of cue,

perceived locus of control, and socioeconomic level. Paper

presented at the meeting of the Southern Psychological

Association, Atlanta, April 1972. MacArthur, L. A. Luck is

alive and well in New Haven. Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology', 1 9 7 0 ,16, 316-318 . MacDonald, A.

P. Internal—external locus of control and the practice of

birth control. Psychological Reports, 1970, 27, 206.

MacDonald, A. P. Internal-external locus of control:

Parental antecedents. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1911,37, 141-147 . MacDonald, A. P. More on the

Protestant Ethic. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1972,59, 116-122 . MacDonald, A. P.

Internal-external locus of control. In J. P. Robinson & P.

R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures o f social psychological

attitudes. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social

Research, University of Michigan, 1973. MacDonald, A. P., &

Games, R. G. Ellis’ irrational values. Rational Living,

1972, 7, 2 5 -2 8 . MacDonald, A. P., & Hall, J.

Internal-external locus of control and perception of

disability. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1911,36, 338-343 . Martin, R. D., & Shepel, L.

F. Locus of control and discrimination ability with lay

counselors. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1974,42, 741. Massari, D. J., & Rosenblum, D.

C. Locus of control, interpersonal trust, and academic

achievement. Psychological Reports, 1912,31, 355-360 .

McGhee, P. E., & Crandall, V. C. Beliefs in

internal-external control of reinforcements and academic

performance. Child Development, 1968, 39, 91 -1 0 2 .

McGinnies, E., Nordholm, L. A., Ward, C. D., &

Bhanthumnavin, D. L. Sex and cultural differences in

perceived locus of control among students in five

countries. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

1974,42, 451 -4 5 5 . McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D.

Persuasibility as a function of source credibility and

locus of control: Five cross cultural experiments. Journal

o f Personality, 1974,42, 360-371. Melges, F. T., & Weisz,

A. E. The personal future and suicidal ideation. Journal o

f Nervous and Mental Disease, 1911,153, 244-250 .

Midgley, N., & Abrams, M. S. Fear of success and locus of

control in young women. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1974,42, 737. Minton, H. L., & Miller,

A. G. Group risk-taking and internal-external control of

group members. Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 4 3 1-436

. Mirels, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external

control. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

1970,54, 226-228 . Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. B. The

Protestant Ethic as a personality variable. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1911,36, 4 0 -4 4 .

Mischel, W., Zeiss, R., & Zeiss, A. Internal-external

control and persistence: Validation and implications of

the Stanford pre-school internal-external scale. Journal o

f Personality and Social Psychology, 1974,29, 265-278 .

Naditch, M. P. Locus of control, relative discontent, and

hypertension. Social Psychiatry, 1974,9, 111-117. Naditch,

M. P. Locus of control and drinking behavior in a sample of

men in army basic training. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1975,43, 96. Naditch, M. P., Gargan,

M., & Michael, L. B. Denial, anxiety, locus of control, and

the discrepancy between aspirations and achievements as

components of depression. Journal o f Abnormal

Psychology, 1975,54, 1 -9 . Nowicki, S. Predicting academic

achievement of females from a locus of control orientation:

Some problems and some solutions. Paper presented at the

meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Montreal, September 1973. Nowicki, S. Factor structure of

locus of control in children. Journal o f Genetic

Psychology, in press. Nowicki, S., & Barnes, J. Effects of

a structured camp experience on locus of control in

children. Journal o f Genetic Psychology, 19 7 3 ,122,

247-252 . Nowicki, S., & Blumberg, N. The role of locus of

control of reinforcement in interpersonal attraction.

Journal o f Research in Personality, 1975, 9, 4 8 -5 6 .

Nowicki, S., Bonner, J., & Feather, B. Effects of locus of

control and differential analogue interview procedures on

the perceived therapeutic relationship. Journal o f

Consulting and. Clinical Psychology, 1 972 ,38, 43 4 -4 3

8 . Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. A locus of control scale for

college as well as noncollege adults. Journal o f

Personality Assessment, 1974,55, 136-137. , (a) Nowicki,

S., & Duke, M. P. A pre-school and primary locus of control

scale. Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 4 ,10, 874-880 .

(b) Nowicki, S., & Hopper, A. Locus of control correlates

in an alcoholic population. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1974,42, 735. Nowicki, S., &

Roundtree, J. Correlates of locus of control in secondary

age students. Developmental Psychology, 1971,4, 479.

Nowicki, S., & Segal, W. Perceived parental

characteristics, locus of control orientation, and

behavioral correlates of locus of control. Developmental

Psychology, 1 9 7 4 ,10, 33-37.

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. A locus of control scale

for children. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1973,40, 148-155 . Nowicki, S., & Tanner, E.

Racial preference behavior in black children as mediated by

locus of control of reinforcement. Journal o f Social

Psychology, in press.

Platt, E. S. Internal-external control and changes in

expected utility as predictions of the change in cigarette

smoking following role playing. Paper presented at the

meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,

Philadelphia, April 1969.

Platt, J. J., & Eisenman, R. Internal-external control of

reinforcement, time perspective, adjustment, and anxiety.

Journal o f General Psychology, 1968, 79, 121-128. Powell,

A., & Vega, M. Correlates of adult locus of control.

Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 4 55-460 . Prociuk, T. J.,

& Breen, L. J. Locus of control, study habits and

attitudes, and college academic performance. Journal o f

Personality, 1974,55, 9 1 -9 5 . Prociuk, T. J., & Breen,

L. J. Defensive externality and its relation to academic

perfor mance. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1975, 31, 5 4 9 -556 . Ransford, H. E.

Isolation, powerlessness, and violence: A study of

attitudes and participa tion in the Watts riot. American

Journal o f Sociology, 1968, 73, 581-591 . Ray, W. J. The

relationship of locus of control, self-report measures, and

feedback to the voluntary control of heart rate.

Psychophysiology, 1974, 77, 5 2 7-534 . Reid, D. W., &

Ware, E. E. Multidimensionality of internal-external

control: Implications for past and future research.

Canadian Journal o f Behavioral Science, 1973,5, 264—271.

Reid, D., & Ware, E. E. Multidimensionality of internal

versus external control: Addition of a third dimension and

non-distinction of self versus others. Canadian Journal o f

Behavioral Science, 1974,6, 131-142. Reimanis, G. Effects

of locus of reinforcement control modification procedures

in early graders and college students. Journal o f

Educational Research, 1974, 65, 124-127. Reitz, H. J., &

Groff, G. K. Comparisons of locus of control categories

among American, Mexican, and Thai workers. Paper presented

at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Honolulu, September 1972. Ritchie, E., & Phares, E. J.

Attitude change as a function of internal-external control

and communicator status. Journal o f Personality, 1969,

37, 42 9 -4 4 3 . Rosen, B., & Sailing, R. Political

participation as a function of internal-external locus of

control. Psychological Reports, 1971,29, 880-882 . Roth,

S., & Bootzin, R. B. The effects of experimentally induced

expectancies of external control: An investigation of

learning helplessness. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1974,29, 253-264 . Rotter, J. B. Social

learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:

Prentice-Hall, 1954. Rotter, J. B. Generalized

expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (1,

Whole No. 609). Rotter, J. B. Some problems and

misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus

external control of reinforcement. Journal o f Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, 5 6 -6 7 . Rotter, J.

B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. Applications o f a

social learning theory o f personality. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston, 1972. Rotter, J. B., Liverant, S., &

Crowne, D. P. The growth and extinction of expectancies in

chance controlled and skill tasks. Journal o f Psychology,

1961 ,52, 161-177 . Rotter, J. B., & Mulry, R. C. Internal

versus external control of reinforcement and decision

time. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,

2, 59 8 -6 0 4 . Ryckman, R. M., Rodda, W. C., & Sherman,

M. F. Locus of control and expertise relevance as

determinants of changes in opinion about student activism.

Journal o f Social Psy chology, 1972,55, 107-114 .

Ryckman, R. M., & Sherman, M. F. Locus of control and

perceived ability level as determinants of partner and

opponent choice. Journal o f Social Psychology, 1974, 94,

103-110 . Sanger, S. P., & Alker, H. A. Dimensions of

internal-external locus of control and the women’s

liberation movement. Journal o f Social Issues, 1972,

25(4), 115-129. Sank, Z. B., & Strickland, B. R. Some

attitudes and behavioral correlates of a belief in

militant or moderate social action. Journal o f Social

Psychology, 1973, 90, 337-338 . Schiavo, R. S. Locus of

control and judgements about another’s accident.

Psychological Reports, 1973,52, 4 8 3 -4 8 8 . Seeman, M.

Alienation and social learning in a reformatory. American

Journal o f Sociology, 1963,69 , 27 0 -2 8 4 . Seeman, M.

& Evans, J. W. Alienation and learning in a hospital

setting. American Sociological Review, 1962,27, 7 7 2 -783

. Segal, S. M. & DuCette, J. Locus of control and

pre-marital high school pregnancy. Psychological Reports,

1973,55, 887 -8 9 0 . Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and

learned helplessness. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz

(Eds.), The psychology o f depression: Contemporary theory

and research. Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston, & Sons,

1974. Sherman, S. J. Internal-external control and its

relationship to attitude change under different social

influence techniques. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1973, 25, 2 3 -2 9 . Shipe, D. Impulsivity and

locus of control as predictors of achievement and

adjustment in mildly retarded and borderline youth.

American Journal o f Mental Deficiency, 1971, 1, 1222.

Shores, R. E. Motivated determinants and performance of

learning disabled and normal children from differing

social classes. Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 28, 4494.

Shybut, J. Time perspective, internal versus external

control and severity of psychological disturance. Journal

o f Clinical Psychology, 1968, 24, 312-315. Shybut, J.

Internal versus external control, time perspective and

delay of gratification of high and low ego strength

groups. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 1 970 ,26, 4 3 0

-4 3 1 . Silvern, I. E., & Nakamura, C. Y. Powerlessness,

social-political action, social-political views: Their

interrelation among college students. Journal o f Social

Issues, 1971, 27(4), 137-157 . Skinner, B. F. Beyond

freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf, 1971. Smith, C. E.,

Pryer, M. W., & Distefano, M. K., Jr. Internal-external

control and severity of emotional impairment among

psychiatric patients. Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 1

9 7 1 ,2 7 ,4 4 9 -4 5 0 . Smith, R. E. Changes in locus of

control as a function of life crisis resolution. Journal o

f Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 75, 3 2 8 332. Smithyman, S.

D., Plant, W. T., & Southern, M. L. Locus of control in two

samples of chronic drug abusers. Psychological Reports,

1974, 34, 1293-1294. Snyder, C. R., & Larson, G. R. A

further look at student acceptance of general personality

interpretations. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1972 ,38, 384-388 . Sobel, R. S. The effects of

success, failure, and locus of control of postperformance

attribution of causality. Journal o f General Psychology,

1974, 91, 2 9 -3 4 . Solomon, D., Houlihan, K. A., Busse,

T. V., & Parelius, R. J. Parent behavior and child

academic achievement, achievement striving and related

personality characteristics. Gene tic Psychology

Monographs, 1971,55, 173-273. Sonstroem, R. J., & Walker,

M. I. Relationship of attitudes and locus of control to

exercise and physical fitness. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 1973 ,36, 1031-1034. Sosis, R. H. Internal-external

control and the perception of responsibility of another for

an accident. Journal o f personality and Social

Psychology, 1974, 50, 393-399. Steiner, I. D. Perceived

freedom. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press,

1970. Steiner, I. D. Benevolent versus malevolent views of

the world. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Massachusetts, 1975. Stephens, M. W. Cognitive and cultural

determinants of early IE development. Paper presented at

the meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Washington, Septem ber 1971. Stephens, M. W. Cultural

differences in early socialization of internal-external

control expectancies. Paper presented at the meeting of

the XXth International Congress of Psychology, Tokyo,

August 1972. (a) Stephens, M. W. Locus of control as

mediator of cognitive development. Paper presented at the

meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Honolulu, September 1972. (b) Stephens, M. W. Dimensions of

locus of control: Impact of early educational experiences.

Paper presented at the meeting of the American

Psychological Association, Montreal, August 1973.

Stephens, M. W., & Delys, P. A. A locus of control measure

for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 1973,9,

5 5 -6 5 . Stokols, D. The reduction of cardiovascular

risk: An application of social learning perspec tives.

Paper presented at the American Heart Association

Behavioral Science Conference on Cardiovascular Risk,

Seattle, Washington, 1974. Straits, B., & Sechrest, L.

Further support of some findings about the characteristics

of smokers and non-smokers. Journal o f Consulting

Psychology, 1963, 27, 282. Strassberg, D. S. Relationships

among locus of control, anxiety and valued goal expecta

tions. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

1973, 2, 319. Strickland, B. R. The prediction of social

action from a dimension of internal-external control.

Journal o f Social Psychology, 1965, 66, 353-358 .

Strickland, B. R. Individual differences in verbal

conditioning, extinction, and awareness. Journal o f

Personality, 1970,55, 364-378 . Strickland, B. R. Delay of

gratification as a function of race of the experimenter.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1 972 ,22,

108-112 . (a) Strickland, B. R. Locus of control and

competence in children. Paper presented at the meeting of

the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, September

1972. (b) Strickland, B. R. Delay of gratification and

internal locus of control in children. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973 ,40, 338. (a)

Strickland, B. R. Locus of control: Where have we been and

where are we going? Paper presented at the meeting of the

American Psychological Association, Montreal, August 1973.

(b) Strickland, B. R. Locus of control and health-related

behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Inter-American Congress of Psychology, Bogota, Colombia,

December 1974. Strickland, B. R., & Hill, J. N. An

investigation of some personality variables in male

children with severe reading problems. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Massa chusetts, 1974.

Strickland, L. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Katz, A. M. Temporal

orientation and perceived control as determinants of

risk-taking. Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology,

1966, 2, 143-151 .

Thomas, L. E. The I -E scale, ideological bias, and

political participation. Journal o f Personality, 1970, 38,

273 -2 8 6 .

Tolor, A. An evaluation of the Maryland Parent Attitude

Survey. Journal o f Psychology, 1967,(57, 6 9 -7 4 .

Tolor, A., & Jalowiec, J. E. Body boundary, parental

attitudes, and internal-external expectancy. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968,52, 20 6 -2 0 9 .

Ude, L. K., & Vogler, R. E. Internal versus external

control of reinforcement and awareness in a conditioning

task. Journal o f Psychology, 1969, 73, 6 3 -6 7 .

Vuchinich, R. E., & Bass, B. A. Social desirability in

Rotter’s locus of control scale. Psychological Reports,

1974,34 , 1124-1126.

Walls, R. T., & Miller, J. J. Perception of disability by

welfare and rehabilitation clients. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 1970, 31, 7 9 3 -794 . Walls, R. T., & Smith, T. S.

Development of preference for delayed reinforcement in

disadvantaged children. Journal o f Educational

Psychology, 1970, <57, 118-123 . Wallston, K., Maides, S.,

& Wallston, B. Health related information seeking as a

function of health related locus of control and health

value. Journal o f Research in Personality, 1976, 10, 2 1

5-222 . Wallston, B. S., Wallston, K. A., Kaplan, G. D., &

Maides, S. A. Development and validation of the health

locus of control scale. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, in press. Wareheim, R. G. Generalized

expectancies for locus of control and academic performance.

Psychological Reports, 1972,50, 314. Wareheim, R. G., &

Foulds, M. L. Perceived locus of control and personal

adjustment. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1971,57, 250-252 . Waters, D. Differential

effects of skill and chance instructions on persistance

times and attention breaks as a function of locus of

control in elementary school children. Unpub lished

doctoral dissertation, Emory University, 1972. Watson, D.

Relationship between locus of control and anxiety. Journal

o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 9 1 -9 2

. Weaver, R. Internality, externality, and compliance as

related to chronic home dialysis patients. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Emory University, 1972. Weiner, B.,

Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.

M. Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E.

Jones, D. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins,

& B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes o f

behavior. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1971.

Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. An attributional analysis of

achievement motivation. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1 9 7 0 ,15, 1 -2 0 . Wendland, C. J.

Internal-external control expectancies o f institutionally

physically disabled. Rehabilitation Psychology, 1973,20,

180-186 .

Wichern, F., & Nowicki, S. Independence training practices

and locus of control orientation in children and

adolescents. Developmental Psychology, in press.

Williams, A. F. Personality and other characteristics

associated with cigarette smoking among young teenagers.

Journal o f Health and Social Behaviors, 1 9 7 3 ,14,

374-380 .

Williams, A. F. Factors associated with seat belt use in

families. Journal o f Safety Re search, 1912,4(3),

133-138. (a)

Williams, A. F. Personality characteristics associated with

preventive dental health practices. Journal o f A merican

College o f Den tists, 19 7 2 ,39, 2 25 2 34. (b)

Williams, C. G., & Nickles, J. B. Internal-external control

dimension as related to accident and suicide proneness.

Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969,33,

485-494 .

Wolfe, R. N. Perceived locus of control and prediction of

own academic performance. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1 972 ,38, 8 0 -8 3 .

Wolk, S., & DuCette, J. Intentional performance and

incidental learning as a function of personality and task

dimensions. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,

1974,29, 9 0 -101 .

Wolk, S., & Kurtz, J. Positive adjustment and involvement

during aging and expectancy for internal control. Journal

o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1915,43, 173-178.

Zytkoskee, A., Strickland, B. R., & Watson, J. Delay of

gratification and internal versus external control among

adolescents of low socioeconomic status. Developmental Psy

chology, 1911,4, 9 3 -9 8 . Page Intentionally Left Blank

7 7. DOGMATISM

Costin, F. Dogmatism and the retention of psychological

misconceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

1968,28 , 5 2 9 -5 3 4 .

Costin, F. Dogmatism and conservatism: An empirical

follow-up of Rokeach’s findings. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 1971,57, 1007-1010.

Cronkhite, G., & Goetz, E. Dogmatism, persuasibility, and

attitude instability. Journal o f Communication, 1971,27,

342 -3 5 2 .

Dembroski, B. G., & Johnson, D. L. Dogmatism and attitudes

toward adoption. Journal o f Marriage and the Family, 1969,

57, 78 8 -7 9 2 .

White, B. J., & Alter, R. D. Dogmatism, authoritarianism,

and contrast effects in judgment. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 19 6 5 ,20, 9 9 -1 0 1 .

White, B. J., Alter, R. D., & Rardin, M. Authoritarianism,

dogmatism, and usage of conceptual categories. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,2, 29 3 -2 9 5 .

Zagona, S. V., & Zurcher, L. A. Participation, interaction,

and role behavior in groups selected from the extremes of

the open-closed cognitive continuum. Journal o f Psychol

ogy, 1964,58 , 255 -2 6 4 . Zagona, S. V., & Zurcher, L. A.

Notes on the reliability and validity of the dogmatism

scale. Psychological Reports, 1965,76, 1234—1236. (a)

Zagona, S. V., & Zurcher, L. A. The relationship of verbal

ability and other cognitive variables to the open-closed

cognitive dimension. Journal o f Psychology, 1965, 60, 21

3 -2 1 9 . (b) Zurcher, L. A., Willis, J. E., Ikard, F., &

Dohme, J. A. Dogmatism, future orientation, and perception

of time. Journal o f Social Psychology, 1967, 63, 205-209.

8 8. APPROVAL MOTIVATION

Allaman, J. D., Joyce, C. S., & Crandall, V. C. The

antecedents of social desirability response tendencies of

children and young adults. Child Development, 1972, 43,

1135-1160. Altrocci, J., Palmer, J. Heilman, R., & Davis,

H. The Marlow-Crowne, Repression-Sensi- tizer, and

Internal-External Scales, and attribution of unconscious

hostile intent. Psycho logical Reports, 1968,25,

1229-1230. Banikiotes, P. G., Russell, J. M., & Linden, J.

D. Social desirability, adjustment, and effectiveness.

Psychological Reports, 1971,29, 5 81-582 . Barthel, C. E.,

& Crowne, D. P. The need for approval, task categorization,

and perceptual defense. Journal o f Consulting

Psychology, 1962, 26, 547-555 . Berger, S. E. The

self-deceptive personality. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Miami, 1971. Bernhardson, C.

S. The relationship between Facilitation-Inhibition and

Repression-Sensi tization. Journal o f Clinical

Psychology, 1967 ,23, 4 48-449 . Brannigan, G. G.

Comparison of Y es-N o and True-False forms of the

children’s social desirability scale. Psychological

Reports, 1974, 34, 898. Brannigan, G. G., Duchnowski, A.

J., & Nyce, P. A. Roles of approval motivation and social

reinforcement in children’s discrimination learning.

Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 4 ,10, 843-846 . Breger,

L. Further studies of the social desirability scale.

Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1966,30 , 281. Bryan,

J. H., & Lichtenstein, E. Effects of subject attitudes in

verbal conditioning. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1966, 3, 188-189. Buckhout, R. Need for social

approval and attitude change. Journal o f Psychology,

1965, 60, 123-128. Burhenne, D., & Mirels, H.

Self-disclosure in self-descriptive essays. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1910,35, 409-412.

Byrne, D. Repression-sensitization as a dimension of

personality. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in

experimental research (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press,

1964. Calhoun, L. G., & Mikesell, R. H. Biodata antecedents

of the need for approval in male college freshmen.

Developmental Psychology, 1972, 7, 226. Conn, L. K., &

Crowne, D. P. Instigation to aggression, emotional arousal,

and defensive emulation. Journal o f Personality, 1964,32

, 163 — 179. Crandall, V. Personality characteristics and

social achievement behaviors associated with children’s

social desirability response tendencies. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psy chology, 1966,4 , 4 77-486 .

Crandall, V., Crandall, V. J., & Katkovsky, W. A children’s

social desirability questionnaire. Journal o f Consulting

Psychology, 1965,29 , 2 7 -3 6 . Crowne, D. P., Holland, C.

H., & Conn, L. K. Personality factors in discrimination

learning in children. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1 9 6 8 ,10, 420-430 . Crowne, D. P., &

Marlowe, D. A new scale of social desirability independent

of psycho pathology. Journal o f Consulting Psychology,

1960 ,24, 349-354 . Crowne, D. P., & Marlow, D. The

approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New

York: Wiley, 1964. Crowne, D. P., & Strickland, B. R. The

conditioning of verbal behavior as a function of the need

for social approval. Journal o f Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1961, 63, 395-401. Cruse, D. B. Socially

desirable responses in relation to grade level. Child

Development, 1963, 34, 777-789 . Cruse, D. B. Socially

desirable resonses at ages 3 through 6. Child Development,

1966,37 , 909-916 . Dies, R. Need for social approval and

blame assignment. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1970,55, 311-316 . Dittes, J. Birth order and

vulnerability to differences in acceptance. American

Psychologist, 1961,16 , 358. (Abstract)

Dixon, T. Experimenter approval, social desirability, and

statements of self-reference. Jour nal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1970,55, 40 0 -4 0 5 .

Doster, J. A., & Slaymaker, J. Need approval, uncertainty

anxiety, and expectancies of interview behavior. Journal o

f Counseling Psychology, 1 9 7 2 ,19, 522-528.

Doster, J. A., & Strickland, B. R. Disclosing of verbal

material as a function of information requested,

information about the interviewer, and interviewee

differences. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1971,57, 187-194 .

Edwards, A. L. The relationship between judged desirability

of a trait and the probability that the trait will be

endorsed. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1953,37 , 9 0 -9

3 .

Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in

personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden,

1957.

Efran, J. S., & Boylin, E. R. Social desirability and

willingness to participate in a group discussion.

Psychological Reports, 1961,20, 402.

Ettinger, R. F., Nowicki, S., & Nelson, D. A. Interpersonal

attraction and the approval motive. Journal o f

Experimental Research in Personality, 1 970 ,4, 9 5 -9 9 .

Farley, F. H. Field dependence and approval motivation.

Journal o f General Psychology, 1914,91, 153-154 .

Feder, C. A. Relationship of repression-sensitization to

adjustment status, social desirabil ity, and acquiescence

response set. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 19 6 7

,31, 4 0 1 -4 0 6 .

Fisher, G. Normative and reliability data for the standard

and the cross-validated Marlowe- Crowne Social

Desirability Scale. Psychological Reports, 1963, 20, 174.

Fisher, G., & Parsons, T. H. The performance of male

prisoners on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.

Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 1962 ,18 , 140-141 .

Fishman, C. G. Need for approval and the expression of

agression under varying conditions of frustration. Journal

o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1965 ,2, 80 9 -8 1

6 .

Ford, L. H. A forced-choice, acquiescence-free, social

desirability (defensiveness) scale. Journal o f

Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 475.

Ford, L. H., & Rubin, B. A social desirability

questionnaire for young children. Journal o f Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 1970,55, 195-204 .

Golding, S. L., & Lichtenstein, E. Confession of awareness

and prior knowledge of decep tion as a function of

interview set and approval motivation. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1910,14, 21 3 -2 2 3 .

Gorman, B. S., & Wessman, A. E. The relationship of

cognitive styles and moods. Journal o f Clinical

Psychology, 1914,30, 1 8 -2 5 .

Gorman, B. S., Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. Social

desirability and self-reports of mood: A rejoinder.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1975 ,40, 272-274 .

Greenwald, H. J., & Clausen, J. D. Test of relationship

between yea-saying and social desirability. Psych ological

R eports, 1970,27, 139-141 .

Greenwald, H. J., & Satow, Y. A short social desirability

scale. Psychological Reports, 1970,27, 131-135 .

Harris, W. G. An investigation of the IE scale’s

predictability using the bogus pipeline. Unpublished

master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts, 1975.

Harter, S. Mastery motivation and need for approval in

older children and their relationship to social

desirability response tendencies. Developmental Psychology,

1915,11, 186-196 .

Hewitt, J., & Goldman, M. Self-esteem, need for approval,

and reactions to personal evaluations. Journal o f

Experimental Social Psychology, 1914,10, 201 -2 1 0 .

Hjelle, L. A. Social desirability as a variable in the

locus of control scale. Psychological Reports, 1911,28,

807-816.

Hoffmann, H. Depression and defensiveness in

self-descriptive moods of alcoholics. Psycho logical

Reports, 1910,26, 2 3 -2 6 .

Hollander, E. P., Julian, J. W., & Haaland, G. A.

Conformity process and prior group support. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 852-858 .

Holstein, C. M., Goldstein, J. W., & Bern, D. J. The

importance of expressive behavior, involvement, sex, and

need-approval in inducing liking. Journal o f Experimental

Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 534-544 .

Jacobson, L. I., Berger, S. E., & Millham, J. Individual

differences in cheating during a temptation period when

confronting failure. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1970,75, 4 8 -5 6 .

Jacobson, L. I., & Ford, L. H. Need for approval, defensive

denial, and sensitivity to cultural stereotypes. Journal o

f Personality, 1966 ,34, 59 6 -6 0 9 . Johnson, P. B.

Birth order and Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scores.

Psychological Reports, 1973,52, 536.

Jones, S. C., & Schneider, D. J. Certainty of

self-appraisal and reactions to evaluation from others.

Sociometry, 1968,57, 395-403 .

Jones, S. C., & Tager, R. Exposure to others, need for

social approval, and reactions to agreement and

disagreement from others. Journal o f Social Psychology,

1972, 86, 111120.

Kahn, M., and Schill, T. Anxiety report in defensive and

nondefensive repressors. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1971 ,36, 300.

Kanfer, F. H., & Marston, A. R. Characteristics of

interactional behavior in a psychotherapy analogue.

Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 4 5 6-467 .

Kasl, S. V. Relationship of distortion in self-reports of

grades and extracurricular activities to the

Crowne—Marlowe measure of approval motive. Psychological

Reports, 1972,50, 252-254 . Katkin, E. S. The

Marlowe—Crowne Social Desirability Scale: Independent of

psycho pathology? PsychologicalReports, 1964,75, 703-706 .

Klassen, D., Homstra, R. K., & Anderson, P. B. Influence of

social desirability on symptom and mood reporting in a

community survey. Journal o f Consulting and Ginical

Psychol ogy, 1975,45, 44 8 -4 5 2 .

Klein, E. B., Gould, L. J., & Corey, M. Social desirability

in children: An extension and replication. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 55, 128.

Lahaderne, H. M., & Jackson, P. W. Withdrawal in the

classroom: A note on some educational correlates of social

desirability among school children. Journal o f

Educational Psychology, 1970,67, 9 7 -1 0 1 . Lefcourt, H.

Need for approval and threatened negative evaluation as

determinants of expressiveness in a projective test.

Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 55,

9 6 -1 0 2 . Lichtenstein, E., & Bryan, J. H. CPI

correlates of the need for approval. Journal o f Clinical

Psychology, 1966, 22, 4 5 3 -4 5 5 .

Marlowe, D. Need for social approval and the operant

conditioning of meaningful verbal behavior. Journal o f

Consulting Psychology, 1962 ,26 , 7 9 -8 3 . Marlowe, D.,

Beecher, R. S., Cook, J. B., & Doob, A. N. The approval

motive, vicarious reinforcement, and verbal conditioning.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964,79, 523-530 . Marlowe,

D., & Crowne, D. P. Social desirability and response to

perceived situational demands. Journal o f Consulting

Psychology, 1961, 25, 109-115. Masterson, M. L. Family

structure variables and need approval. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971,56, 12 -1 3 .

McCarthy, B. W., & Rafferty, J. E. Effect of social

desirability and self-concept scores on the measurement of

adjustment. Journal o f Personality, 1971,55, 576-583 .

Miklich, D. R. Social desirability and “acquiescence

response set.” Psychological Reports, 1966, 79, 887-890 .

Milburn, T. W., Bell, N., & Koeske, G. F. Effect of censure

or praise and evaluative dependence on performance in a

free-learning task. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology, 1970,75, 4 3 -4 7 .

Millham, J. Two components of need for approval score and

their relationship to cheating following success and

failure. Journal o f Research in Personality, 19 7 4 ,8,

378-392 .

Miller, N., Doob, A. N., Butler, D. C., & Marlowe, D. The

tendency to agree: Situational determinants and social

desirability. Journal o f Experimental Research in

Personality, 1965,7, 7 8 -8 3 .

Moran, G. Ordinal position and approval motivation. Journal

o f Consulting Psychology, 1967,57, 3 1 9-320 .

Natale, M. Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic

communication as a function of social desirability.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,52, 79

0 -8 0 4 .

Nowicki, S. Ordinal position, approval motivation, and

interpersonal attraction. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1971,56, 26 5 -2 6 7 .

Palmer, J., & Altrocci, J. Attribution of hostile intent as

unconscious. Journal o f Person ality, 1967,55, 164-177 .

Pervin, L. A., & Lilly, R. S. Social desirability and

self-ideal self ratings on the semantic differential.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1967,27, 845-853

. Petzel, T. P. Approval motivation and self-estimates of

academic performance. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1972,59, 199-201 . Posavac, E. J. Need for

approval as a moderator of interpersonal attraction based

on attitude similarity. Journal o f Social Psychology,

1971,55, 141-142 . Riesman, D. The lonely crowd. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1950. Rosenfeld, J. M. Some

perceptual and cognitive correlates of strong approval

motivation. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1967,57, 5

0 7 -5 1 2 . Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in

behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts,

1966. Rotter, J. B. Social learning and clinical

psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus

external control of reinforcement. Psychological

Monographs, 1 966 ,80 (1, Whole No. 609). Rotter, G., &

Tinkleman, V. Anchor effects in development of behavior

rating scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

1970,50, 3 1 1-318 . Rozelle, R. M., Evans, R. I., Lasater,

T. M., Dembroski, T. M., & Allen, B. P. Need for approval

as related to the effects of persuasive communications on

actual, reported and intended behavior change A viable

predictor? Psychological Reports, 1973, 55, 719-725 .

Rump, E. E., & Court, J. The Eysenck Personality Inventory

and social desirability response set with student and

clinical groups. British Journal o f Social and Clinical

Psychology, 1971,70, 4 2 -5 4 . Schachter, S. Birth order

and sociometric choice. Journal o f Abnormal and Social

Psychol ogy, 1964,68 , 4 5 3 -4 5 6 . Schachter, S. The

psychology o f affiliation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford

University Press, 1959. Scherer, S. E., Ettinger, R. F., &

Murdick, N. J. Need for social approval and drug use.

Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972,55,

118-121 . Schill, T. Need for approval, guilt, and sexual

stimulation and their relationship to sexual responsivity.

Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1972,55, 3

1 -3 5 . Schill, T., & Pederson, V. Effects of instructions

on free associative sexual responses of subjects varying

in need for approval. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1973,40, 490. Schneider, D. J., & Turkat, D.

Self-presentation following success or failure: Defensive

self esteem models. Journal o f Personality, 1975, 9,

85-95. Shrauger, J. S., & Jones, S. C. Social validation

and interpersonal evaluations. Journal o f Experimental

Social Psychology, 1968,4, 315-323 . Shriberg, L. D.

Descriptive statistics for two children’s social

desirability scales, general and test anxiety, and locus

of control in elementary school children. Psychological

Reports, 1914,34, 863-870 . Silber, L. D., & Grebstein, L.

C. Repression-sensitization and social desirability

responding. Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1964,25,

559. Skolnick, P., & Heslin, R. Approval dependence and

reactions to bad arguments and low credibility sources.

Journal o f Experimental Research in Personality, 1971, 5,

199-207. Smith, R. E., & Campbell, A. L. Social anxiety and

strain toward symmetry in dyadic attraction. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1973 ,28, 101-107.

Smith, R. E., & Flenning, F. Need for approval and

susceptibility to unintended social influence. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971 ,36, 383-385 .

Spielberger, C. D., Berger, A., & Howard, K. Conditioning

of verbal behavior as a function of awareness, need for

social approval, and motivation to receive reinforcement.

Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963,67,

241-246 . Staub, E., & Sherk, L. Need for approval,

children’s sharing behavior and reciprocity in sharing.

Child Development, 1970,47, 243-252 . Stone, L. A.

Relationships between response to Marlowe-Crowne social

desirability scale and MMPI scales. Psychological Reports,

1965,7 7, 179-182. Strickland, B. R. Need approval and

motor steadiness under positive and negative condi tions.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965,20, 66 7 -6 6 8 .

Strickland, B. R. Individual differences in verbal

conditioning, extinction, and awareness. Journal o f

Personality, 1910,38, 364-378 . Strickland, B. R., &

Crowne, D. P. Conformity under conditions of simulated

group pressure as a function of the need for social

approval. Journal o f Social Psychology, 1962,5 8 ,

171-181. Strickland, B. R., & Crowne, D. P. Need for

approval and the premature termination of psychotherapy.

Journal o f Consulting Psychology, 1963,27 , 9 5 -1 0 1 .

Strickland, B. R., & Jenkins, O. Simple motor performance

under positive and negative approval motivation.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 79, 5 9 9 -605 . Taylor,

S. Aggressive behavior as a function of approval motivation

and physical attack. Psychonomic Science, 1970,75, 195-196

. Tedeschi, J., Berrill, D., & Gahagan, J. Social

desirability, manifest anxiety, and social power. Journal

o f Social Psychology, 1969, 77, 231-239 . Terris, W., &

Milburn, T. W. Praise, evaluative dependence, and the

experimenter as factors in a free-learning task. Journal o

f Psychology, 1972, 57, 183-194. Thaw, J., & Efran, J. S.

The relationship of need for approval to defensiveness and

goal setting behavior: A partial replication. Journal o f

Psychology, 1967, 65, 41. Tulkin, S., Muller, J., & Conn,

L. Need for approval and popularity: Sex differences in

elementary school students. Journal o f Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 35-39 . Vuchinich, R. E., &

Bass, B. A. Social desirability in Rotter’s locus of

control scale. Psychological Reports, 1974,54, 1124-1126.

Walker, C. E., & Tahmisian, J. Birth order and student

characteristics: A replication. Journal o f Consulting

Psychology, 1961,31, 219. Walsh, J. A., Tomlinson-Keasey,

C., & Klieger, D. M. Acquisition of the social desirability

response. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1974,59, 241-272 .

Wareheim, R. G., & Jones, D. Social desirability responding

and self-report of immediate mood affect states.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1912,35, 190. Wessman, A., and

Ricks, D. F. Mood and personality. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston, 1966. Wheelis, A. The quest for

identity. New York: Norton, 1958. Whyte, W. H., Jr. The

organization man. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.

Willingham, A., & Strickland, B. R. Need for approval and

simple motor performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

1965,27, 87 9 -8 8 4 . Wiesenthal, D. L. Some effects of

the confirmation and disconfirmation of an expected

monetary reward on compliance. Journal o f Social

Psychology, 1974, 92, 3 9 -5 2 . Wright, C. E. Relations

between normative and ipsative measures of personality.

Unpub lished doctoral dissertation. University of

Washington, 1957.

9 9. SEX DIFFERENCES

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley,

1968. Monahan, L., Kuhn, D., & Shaver, P. Intrapsychic

versus cultural explanations of the “Fear of Success”

motive. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1

974 ,29, 6 0 -6 4 . Montanelli, D. S., & Hill, K. T.

Children’s achievement expectations and performance as a

function of two consecutive reinforcement experiences, sex

of subject, and sex of experimenter. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1 9 6 9 ,13, 115-128 .

Nemeth, C. A critical analysis of research utilizing the

Prisoner’s Dilemma paradigm for the study of bargaining.

In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press, 1973.

Nguyen, M. L., Nguyen, T. D., & Heslin, R. The meaning of

touch as a function of sex and marital status. Unpublished

manuscript, Purdue University, 1974. Osgood, C. E., Suci,

G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement o f meaning.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Piliavin, J.

A., & Martin, R. R. The effects of the sex composition of

groups on style of social interaction. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Wisconsin, 1974. Piliavin, I. M.,

Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. Good Samaritanism: An

underground phenome non? Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology, 1 9 6 9 ,13, 28 9 -2 9 9 . Pomazal, R.

J., & Clore, G. L. Helping on the highway: The effects of

dependency and sex. Journal o f Applied Social

Psychology, 1973 ,3, 150-164 . Primmer, C., Jaccard, J.,

Cohen, J. L., Wasserman, J., & Hoffing, A. The influence of

the sex-appropriateness of a task on helping behavior in

the laboratory and the field. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Illinois, 1974. Sermat, V., & Smyth, M.

Content analysis of verbal communication in the development

of a relationship: Conditions influencing self-disclosure.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,26,

332-346 . Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. Social psychology.

New York: Harper & Row, 1956. Sistrunk, F., & McDavid, J.

W. Sex variable in conforming behavior. Journal o f

Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 7 7, 2 0 0-207 .

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. Ratings of self

and peers on sex-role attributes and their relation to

self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,52, 2 9

-3 9 .

Stein, A. H., & Bailey, M. M. The socialization of

achievement orientation in females. Psychological

Bulletin, 1973,50, 345-366 .

Stein, A. H., Pohly, S. R., & Mueller, E. The influence of

masculine, feminine, and neutral tasks on children’s

achievement behavior, expectancies of success and

attainment values. Child Development, 1971,42, 195-207 .

Strodtbeck, F. L., & Mann, R. D. Sex role differences in

jury deliberations. Sociometry, 1956,19 , 3 -1 1 .

Taylor, S. P., & Epstein, S. Aggression as a function of

the interaction of the sex of the aggressor and the sex of

the victim. Journal o f Personality, 1967, 35, 474—486.

Terman, L. M., & Tyler, L. E. Psychological sex

differences. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), A manual o f child

psychology. New York: Wiley, 1954.

Thayer, S. The effect of interpersonal looking duration on

dominance judgements. Journal o f Social Psychology,

1969, 79, 285-286 .

Thorne, B., & Henley, N. Sex differences in language,

speech, and nonverbal communica tion. Unpublished

manuscript, November 1973.

Vinacke, W. E. Sex-roles in a three-person game.

Sociometry, 1959,22, 343-360.

Weitzman, L. J., Eifler, D., Hokada, E., & Ross, C.

Sex-role socialization in picture books for pre-school

children. American Journal o f Sociology, 1972, 77,

1125-1150.

Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. P. A cross-cultural analysis of

sex differences in the behavior of children aged three

through eleven. Journal o f Social Psychology, 1973, 91,

171-188.

Wicker, A. W., & Bushweiler, G. Perceived fairness and

pleasantness of social exchange situations: Two factorial

studies of inequity. Journal o f Personality and Social

Psy chology, 19 7 0 ,15, 63 -7 5 .

Women on Words and Images, Dick and Jane as victims: Sex

stereotyping in children's readers. Princeton, N.J.: Women

on Words and Images, 1972. Page Intentionally Left Blank