a study of personality characteristics of under-achievers ...ir.amu.ac.in/2129/1/ds 1721.pdf · a...

A STUDY OF PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF UNDER-ACHIEVERS ACROSS ANY TWO

SCHOOL DISCIPLINES

DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF

dllagter of ^fiilos^opfip IN

EDUCATION

BY

Mrs. SWAPNA NEGG

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

ALIGARH (INDIA)

1 990

''^^^^idw^^'y

DS1721

Phone: 2704

DR. NAJMUL HAQ fMf^^\ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Reader P ^ C ^ I M ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

AUGARH, 202002, U.P.

CERTIFICATE

T h i s i s t o c e r t i f y t h a t t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n e n t i t l e d ' A STUDY OF PERSONALITY CHARACTERIST I C S OF UNDER-ACHIEVERS ACROSS ANY TWO SCHOOL D I S C I P L I N E S ' , s u b m i t t e d b y M r s . S w a p n a N e o g , i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f M . P h i l . ( E d u . ) d e g r e e o f A l i g a r h M u s l i m U n i v e r s i t y , A l i g a r h , i s h e r o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n . S h e p r e p a r e d t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n u n d e r my ' g u i d a n c e a n d s u p e r v i s i o n .

I c o n s i d e r t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n f i t f o r s u b m i s s i o n f o r t h e d e g r e e o f M . P h i l . i n E d u c a t i o n .

1 . 9 . 1 9 9 0 (DR.) NAJMUL HAQ

S u p e r v i s o r ,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the very out-set I offer my heartiest thanks and deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Najinul Haq, Reader, Department of Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, not only for his inspiration and keen interest, but also for stimulating discussion and suggestions throughout the course of this investigation repor-ted herein,

I am grateful to Professor Mohd. Sharif Khan, Chairman, Department of Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for his moral support and various suggestions from which I have been greatly benefitted.

I convey my heartful thanks to the teachers and students of High and Higher Secondary Schools, Nagaon, Assam, for their cooperation at the time of data collection.

I must acknowledge with thanks the help and inspiration extended to me by Sjt. Bimal Kr. Borah, Principal, Nowgong Girls' College, Nagaon, Assam^ and my senior colleagues and friends during the course of study.

I shall be failing in ray duty if I did not acknowedge the help and cooperation that I received frc»n Mr. Mashhood Alam Raz and his family. I aia also thankful to Mr. Raz for the typing of the manuscript.

Last but not the least I am very much grateful to my husband, Mr. B.K.Borah, whose keen Interest and encouragement inspired me to carry on this work.

(MRS.) SWAPNA NEOG

ii

CONTENTS

List of Tables ... iii

Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

Chapter V

Chapter VI

INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES 11

METHOD AND PROCEDURE 40

ANALYSIS OP RESULTS 52

DISCUSSION 121

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 147

Bibliography 157

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Measure of Intelligence

Measure of Personality

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Significance of difference between the means of over-achievers in English and over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors ... 55

2 Significance of difference between the means of under-achievers in English and under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors ... 61

3 Significance of difference between the means of over-achievers in English and under-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors ... 64

4 Significance of difference between the means of over-achievers in Mathematics and under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 69

5 Significance of difference between the means of.male over-achievers in English and male over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 77

6 S i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e between the means of male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh and male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Mathematics on four teen p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s 80

7 S i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means of male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Eng l i sh and male xander-ach ieve r s in Eng l i sh on fou r t een p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s 84

8 S i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means of male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics and male under -a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics on four t een p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s 87

IV

9 Significance of difference between the means of female over-achievers in English and female over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 90

10 Significance of difference between the means of female under-achievers in English and female under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 94

11 Significance of difference between the means of female over-achievers in English and female under-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors 96

12 Significance of difference between the means of female over-achievers in Mathematics and female under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 99

13 Significance of difference between the means of the mal over-achievers in English and over-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors. io3

14 Significance of difference between the means of male over-achievers in Mathematics and female over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 107

15 Significance of difference between the means of male xander-achievers in English and female under-achievers in English on fourteen personality factors 111

16 Significance of difference between the means of male under-achievers in Mathematics and female under-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality factors 116

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Achieving not up to the expected level has now

become a menacing problem not only in India but also

in the schools of the most advanced countries of the

world (Writh, 1977; Clark et al., 1981; Garlet £t al.,

1985; Dianne, 1986), It is quite recently that the

research workers in the field of academic achievement

have come to realise the growing danger of under-

achievement (Ridding, 1966; Saxena, 1972; Haq, 1987).

India, where illiteracy has assumed gigantic shape

(64 %), under-achievement is adding a new dimension

to the problem.

Though the problem of under-achievement among

the students can be traced back to the inception of the

concept of measured intelligence, it was objectifiably

comprehended and statistically recognised with metho

dological accuracy by Throndike in 1963. Baffled by the

failure of prediction in relation to the discrepant

achievers, the workers in the field focussed their

attention on finding out the causal and concomitant

factors of over-achievement, that is achieving above

the expected level and under-achievement, that is

achieving below the level expected on the basis of

intelligence. In the words of Throndike, "It is

necessary to define over- and under-achievement as

discrepancies of actual achievement from the predicted

achievement, predicted upon the basis of the regression

equation between aptitude and achievement" (Throndlke,

1963, p.13).

As it happens with all conceptual and methodo

logical phenomena at the beginning stage, the new

found-land, i.e., the over-under achievement phenomenon

generated much confusion in research operations. Over-

and under-achievement being methodologically very

•tricky' got muddled up with high and low achievement

or success and failure in many a research work (curry,

1961; Parsley et _al., 1964, Jaygopal, 1974; Tandon,

1978), while the two concepts are vitally different

from each other.

It has by now become an established fact that

intelligence and academic achievement are so closely

related to each other — as it has been evidenced by a

very large number of investigations (McCandless et al.,

1972; Mehryar and Khajavi, 1973; Chaterji and Mukerji,

1974; Kohli, 1976; Crano et al., 1979; Glossop et al,,

Nagpal, 1979; Roberge and Flexer, 1981; Yule et al.,

1982) — that it can be safely said that intelligence

is the most iniportant predictor of academic achieve

ment. However, the relationship between the two

variables has never been found to be perfect. A

chunk of population has in such studies always remained

unpredicted that is either the subjects have fallen

above or below their predicted levels. This kind of

discrepant achievement was realised by the early workers

in the field like pintner (1922) , Peters (1926) , and

Burt (1937) also, but they failed to identify exactly

what caused the failure of prediction in such cases.

Believing in the perfect relationship between intelli

gence and achievement they held some methodological

error in testing itself as responsible for the failure

of prediction. However it was Burt (1937), that

indicated the role of schools in contributing towards

the over- and under-achievement of the pupils — caused

by the 'pull and push' force of the schools. Since

that time the research workers have been trying to

find out factors responsible for discrepant achieve

ment going unpredicted by intelligence.

The research workers have explored the problem

from different directions. A large n\imber of studies

were carried out to find out the extent of relation

ship between academic achievement and different

dimensions of personality, extraversion and neuroti-

iism (Savage, 1966; Menon, 1972); anxiety (Rai, 1974;

Tandon, 1978; Vora, 1978; Traxih, 1984) ; adjustment

(Srivastava, 1967; Sharma, 1972; Kumawat, 1984);

peed achievement (Rao, 1963; Koul, 1978; Rxihland,

Gold and Fled, 1978) and study habits (Vanarasi, 1970;

Saxena, 1972), Some investigators found out the

relationship between environmental climate and

scholastic achievement (Curry, 1961; Tiegland et al.,

1966; Miner, 1968; Jain et al., 1985).

These explorations did reveal quite significant

relationship between academic achievement and certain

personality factors as well as certain environmental

factors. In these studies the high achieving groups

have been found to be more adjusted, more prone to

introversion, possessing better study habits and

having lower level of anxiety. The low achieving

groups have been found to be less adjusted, more prone

to extroversion, possessing poor study habits and high

level of anxiety. Environmental conditions at home

and school have also been found to be playing a vital

role in the academic performance of the children.

Many a research work has been done in this field

with conceptual and methodological misconception. The

workers tried to find out the personality character

istics of high and low achievers but perhaps due to

some misunderstanding referred them as over- and

under-achievers. Some research workers in this field

have derived the individual discrepancies from the

group achievement mean scores and dubbed as over- and

under-achievement (Parsley et al., 1964; Jarvis, 1965).

Many other investigators calculated the discrepant

achievement from a single comparison between ability

and achievement scores (Shaw and McCuen, 1960; Curry,

1961) and some other investigators worked out over-

and under-achievement following some arbitrary norms

for their studies (Joygopal, 1974; Tandon, 1978).

As such these studies, though provided quite consi

derable data on the relationship of personality and

achievement, did not study the phenomenon of over- and

under-achievement as it precisely stands for.

Any research work demands a clear conception of

the phenomenon from both the definitive and methodo

logical point of views. As stressed by Throndike,

over- and under-achievement should be defined in terms

of actual achievement from the predicted achievement,

•predicted upon the basis of the regression equation

between aptitude and achievement' (Throndike, 1963, p.13)

On the basis of intelligence, the most important

predictor of achievement, the over achievement would

refer to positive discrepancy and under-achievement to

negative discrepancy of the actual achievement from the

predicted value.

After 1963, when Throndike clarified the conceptual

and methodological phenomenon of over- and under-

achievement many a research worker exploring the non-

intellectual factors tried to find out the personality-

characteristics of over- and tmder-achievers (Rao,

1963; Taylor, 1964; Morrison, 1969; Vanarasi, 1970;

Dhaliwal, 1971; Agarwal, 1976).

These studies on discrepant achievement discovered

some personality factors like better adjustment, good

study habits, emotional stability going with over-

achievement and social adjustment^ poor study habits and

emotional instability with under-achievement. Though

these few studies have definitely made a break

through in the area, they have completely ignored the

possible intra-individual differences in academic

achievement.

In all these studies, the investigators have tried

to derive over- and under-achievement from the averaged

achievement scores of the subjects and not from the

scores in individual school sxibjects — when it is

almost an established fact that achievement in different

subjects is generally not uniform. An over-achiever

in one sxibject may not be over-achiever in all the

other subjects and the same is true about the under-

achievers.

Some investigators have empirically observed

the intra-individual differences in academic achieve

ment (Blair, 1956; Anastasi, 1958). Their findings

give a clear evidence that a high or low achiever in

one subject is not a high or low achiever in all othe:i;;

school sxibjects respectively.

Individual differences among people have long

been recognised. The over- and under-achieving

students in different school s\ibjects show different

dimensions of personality. Ridding (1966) made an

investigation on personality variables which were

related to over- and under-achievement in English and

Arithmetic. His findings showed that over-achievers

in English were more dominant and extrovert and in

Arithmetic more surgent than the under-achievers.

Saxena (1972) found over-achievers in Science more

adjusted than the under-achievers. Haq (1987) found

over-achievers in Hindi more enthusiastic than under-

achievers. In his study the over-achievers in English

were found to be more obedient and submissive than the

under-achievers. In Mathematics the over-achievers

were found to be more relaxed and the under-achievers

tense.

Haq (1987) also investigated the sex differences

among the students in academic performance and

found that the male over-achievers in different subjects

8

were found to be more intelligent, emotionally stable

than the female over-achievers. In English over-

achieving boys were found to be more intelligent

and emotionally stable than over-achieving girls in

the same subject. The female over-achievers in Hindi

were found to be more excitable and far more tense

while the over-achieving boys in Hindi were emotionally

stable and adventurous. In Mathematics and Science,

the over-achieving boys showed higher intelligence,

greater emotional stability and more adventurousness than

the over-achieving girls.

In case of under-achievement almost same differences

were found among under-achieving boys and girls in the

four knowledge areas.

Thus the over as well as under-achievers in each

of the four school sxibject areas were specifically

been found to be having their own personality character

istics set •«.- quite different from the over- and

under-achievers of the other school subject areas.

Thxis the investigations carried out by Ridding

(1966) and Haq (1987) give a clear indication of the

intra-individual differences existing in the phenomenon

of over- and under-achievers along different subjects.

The present study was taken up for further exploita

tion in the realm of intra-individual differences,

indicated by the findings of the above two studies

in the field of over- and under-achievement in

specific knowledge areas, here being English and

Mathematics.

The main purpose of the present investigation

is thus to identify the personality differences

between over-achievers and under-achievers within

each of the two subjects on one hand and between over-

achievers as well as under-achievers across the two

subjects, English and Mathematics, respectively.

Against the theoretical background presented

in the preceding few paragraphs of this chapter, the

present investigation was taken up with the following

objectives and hypotheses:

The major objectives of the present investiga

tion would be:

1, To find out the personality differences between

the over-achieving groups in different school

subjects,

2, To find out the differential personality factors

going with over- and under-achievers in

different school sxibjects.

3, To find out the personality factors differen

tiating the male and female subjects in

different knowledge areas both among over- and

unde r-achi eve rs.

10

Hypotheses

1. The over-achievers in English would be different from the over-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.

2. The under-achievers in English would also be different from the under-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.

3. The over- and under-achieving boys in English would differ from the over- and under-achieving boys in Mathematics along their personality characteristics.

4. The over- and under-achieving girls in English would also exhibit personality differences when compared with the over- and under-achieving girls in Mathematics respectively.

5. The male over- and under-achievers would differ from the female over-under achievers in each of the two school subject areas respectively.

Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES

AS already mentioned in the first chapter, the

present study was carried out to investigate the dis

tinctive personality characteristics of the under-

achievers in English and Mathematics. Some valuable

work has certainly been done in the area of over- and

under-achievement yet the personality characteristics

going with under-achievement in specific subjects

have been taken up by only a few investigators, A

brief survey of the related studies would perhaps

provide a factual base for understanding the present

problem.

Studies of Intelligence and Academic Achievement

Intelligence is a major predictor of academic

performance. Quite a large number of studies have

been carried out to ascertain the extent of relationship

between intelligence and academic achievement since the

very beginning of the concept of measured intelligence.

Some important studies are reviewed here.

McCandless/ Roberts and Sterns (1972) studied

11

12

intelligence in relation to scholastic achievement.

They carried out their investigation on 443 VII grade

students and tried to obtain intelligence scores

through California Test of Mental Maturity. The corre

lation between intelligence and academic achievement

was found to be .56. From their study it is clear that

intelligence is significantly related to academic

achievement.

Mehryar and Khajavi (1973) also conducted a

valuable investigation on intelligence in relation to

scholastic achievement. The Persian form of the EPI

and Eysenck's Psychoticism Scale were administered to

a large group (23,000) of Iranian secondary school

students.

Analysis of results for two randomly selected

groups of boys and one group of girls revealed a

consistently negative correlation between measures of

cognitive performance and psychoticism. A somewhat

less consistent but positive correlation was observed

for the extraversion scale. There was little corre

lation between neuroticism and measures of intelligence

or achievement.

Chaterji and Mukerji (1974) investigated the

achievement through the Differential Aptitude Test

Battery Scores. They studied upon 1,042 VIII grade

students.

13

Significant relationship was found at .01 level.

The correlation of coefficients ranged from .21 to .49,

Kohli (1976) carried out a study on behavioural

and environmental correlates of academic ^achievement

of over- and under-achievers at different levels of

intelligence.

The study was conducted on a sample of 264 over-

achievers, 276 average and 219 under-achievers. The

tools employed were the Raven's Standard Progressive

Matrices, the Jalota*s Group Test of General Mental

Ability, the Mittal's Adjustment Inventory, the

Cattell's Jr-Sr High School Person'ality Questionnaire,

the Joshi and Pande's Test of Study Habits and

Attitudes, a Projective Test of Achievement Motivation

and the Socio-economic Status Scale by Jalota, Pande,

Kapoor and Singh.

The major findings were:

1. The spectnam of some of the non-intellectual behaviour-environmental factors was related to academic achievement.

2. Certain factors were common to those groups which differed widely in achievement.

Glossop, Appleyard and Roberts (1979) also

conducted a valuable study on intelligence in relation

to scholastic achievement. They argued that achieve

ment and accomplishment quotients which were used in

14

early studies of under-achievement would yield mis

leading results by over-estimating the nxomber of

under-achievers of high IQ and under-estimating those

of low IQ in any group of children.

Four indices of achievement relative to a measure

of general intelligence were constructed for a sample

of 178 adolescents.

Using reliability estimates for two achievement

tests, reading comprehension and mathematics and for

intelligence test^ it was calculated that 69 per cent

of the variance in the regression residuals for reading

comprehension and 56 per cent in that for Mathematics

were independent. Analysis of the relationships

between the essay and Mathematics, v;ith intelligence

controlled, suggested the involvement of two independent

skills.

Crano, Messe and Rice (1979) carried out a study

on the predictive validity of mental ability for class

room performance. They conducted their investigation

upon 5,200 elementary school children. They used the

Standardised Achievement Test Battery and NFER mental

ability test to find out achievement and ability

scores. The coefficients of correlation was found

between .474 to .505.

Nagpal (1979) carried out a study on Non-

15

intellectual characteristics of over-under achievers.

He used Questionnaires of Wig, Nagpal and Kapoor, the

students' personal Problems Index (SPPI) of Wig and

Kagpal. Shostrom's personality Orientation Inventory

consisting of 150 two-choice comparative value and

behaviour judgement item was used for measuring self-

actualisation.

The result shows that the ability measures accounted

for a limited proportion of the total variance in

academic achievement.

The prevailing academic adjustment v;as important

correlate of over- or under-achievement. Under-

achievers reported a greater number of emotional

problems. Non-intellectual factors related to acquisi

tion of knowledge resulted in over- or under-achieve

ment. Socio-economic variables related to students

determined selection but were not relevant to subse

quent academic performance.

Roberge and Flexer (1981) carried out a study on

the relationship between intelligence and scholastic

achievement. They found that both reading and

Mathematics were correlated with intelligence. Mental

ability and scholastic performance both vjere inter

related. The correlation of coefficients in their

study was found to be .58 to .61.

16

Yule, Lansdown and Urbanowiez (1982) carried out

an investigation on prediction of educational attain

ment through intelligence. To measure intelligence

they used Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

(WISC-R) and Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, Vernon

Graded Arithmetic Mathematic tests were used to measure

achievement of the children.

They carried out their investigation on 160

children and found a high relationship between intelli

gence and achievement. The correlation between intelli

gence and academic achievement was found to be .457

to .911.

From the studies discussed above it can clearly

be concluded that intelligence is a very reliable

predictor of academic achievement. However, it is

also borne out that the relationship between the two

phenomenon is never perfect or one to one. As such a

portion of population always remains unpredicted which

is generally dubbed the 'residuals'.

Studies on Personality and Other Non-cognitive Factors in Relation to Academic Achievement

The problems of 'residuals' has very often attracted

the attention of the investigators. They have tried

to explore the non-cognitive factors which could be

responsible for the failure of prediction through

17

intelligence.

R.D.Savage (1966) conducted a study on 93 school

children of both sexes to investigate the relationship

between extraversion and neuroticism and the intellec

tual level and school achievement. The Mental Ability

Test, Alpha Form A or Form B (1937) randomly and

Eysenck Personality Inventory (1965) were used.

It will be seen that there is a mildly significant

relationship between extraversion and IQ (.267) between

extraversion and AQ (.235) whilst the extraversion RQ

(.191) relation fails to reach the 5 per cent signi

ficant level by only .009.

It would appear therefore that high extraversion

is related to a brighter intellectual level and higher

academic attainment in these children.

The relationship between neuroticism and academic

attainment is also of interest in this sample. The

neuroticism scores were significantly related to RQ

in a negative direction but were not significantly

related to intelligence.

Eysenck and Cookson carried out a study on

scholastic performance and personality variables. The

study was conducted on a large sample of 4,000 eleven

year, old boys and girls.

18

They used Moray Houst Test and Schonell General

Word Reading Test to measure ability and achievement.

The results showed a very close inter-relationship

between scholastic performance and personality

dimensions.

Rai (1974) also carried out a study on the rela

tionship of anxiety with academic achievement. He

conducted investigation upon 1,000 Biology students.

Sinha's Anxiety Scale was used to measure anxiety and

the examination marks were taken as achievement measure.

The results showed a negative relationship between

anxiety and academic achievement/ but high leve-ls of

anxiety were related to low achievement and low levels

of anxiety went with high achievement.

Koul (1978) also carried out an investigation to

make a comparison between low and high achievers in

Mathematics on a number of Murray* s personality needs

to see if these needs could be used as possible non-

cognitive predictors of achievement in Mathematics.

The sample comparised 200 high-achieving students

equated on socio-economic status. The tools consisted,

of Socio-economic Status Scale, Questionnaire of Jalota

and others and Hindi version of Edward's Personal

Preference Schedule (EPPS).

The major findings of the study were: the high-

19

achievers in Mathematics differed significantly from

low-achievrs on eight of Murray's needs. The low-

achievers in Mathematics were more exhibitory succorant,

hetrosexual and aggressive. Several Scale of EPPS,

discriminated between the high and the low-achievers

in Mathematics and could be used as possible non-

academic predictors of achievement in Mathematics.

R\ihland, Gold and Feld (1978) carried out a study

on motivation and scholastic achievement. They inves

tigated 154 primary level children and found a significant

relationship between scholastic performance and

motivation.

Vora (1978) investigated the anxiety level of 200

VIII grade students in relation to academic achievement.

He used Patel's Reading Ability Test and Test Anxiety

Scale to find out ability score and anxiety level. His

findings indicated a negative correlation between

achievement and anxiety.

Khurshid Mohammad and Fatima Rafat (1984) made a

comparative study of personality traits of high- and

low achievers.lhey compared personality traits of 45 low-

achievers and 45 high-achievers selected from 408

students in class VII and class VIII of A.B.Inter

College, Aligarh. Students were selected on the basis

of their final examination grades and were matched with

20

regard to age, grade level and socio-economic status.

Results of R.B.Cattell*s HSPQ reveal that high-

achievers and low-achievers differed significantly

on 7 personality factors. In comparison to low-

achievers, higher achievers were more reserved, inte

lligent, obedient, conscientious, adventuresome, self-

sufficient and self-controlled.

Traxib (1984) carried out a study on shyness,

depression and anxiety in relation to academic per

formance. He investigated 187 under-graduates and

found shyness positively correlated with depression

and anxiety. But in his investigation it was also

found that shy people possessed higher achievement

mean score than the non-shy pupils.

Kumawat (1985) carried out a study on certain

factors related with high- and low-achievement in

college students. The investigator administered the

Culture Pair Intelligence Test, a concept formation

test, an adjustment inventory, a values measure and

a self-report job performance measure to 300 high and

low achieving male undergraduates in the college of

Science and Agriculture Science and Agricultural

Engineering at an Indian university. Results show the

following:

21

(a) High achievers in all 3 academic groups had higher intellegence scores.

(b) High achievers in Science and Engineering had better concept formation ability than low achievers,

(c) There were no significant differences between the adjustment scores of high and low achievers in the 3 groups.

(d) High achievers in Science and Agricultural Science had better scientific attitude than low achievers.

(e) There were no significant differences between high and low achievers with regard to contact personality factors in any of the 3 groups.

(f) High achievers had job values related to self-expression and social service while low achievers endorsed the values of profit and social service.

(g) Both high and low achievers' job performance were for administrative and agro-industrial position.

Pal, Jain,Penni and Tiwari (1985) investigated

the self concept and level of aspiration in high and

low achieving higher secondary pupils. They examined

the effect of the personality variables,self-concept

and level of aspiration on the scholastic achievement

of 240 high school students. The effect of sex and

socio-economic status (SES) on level of aspiration

was also investigated.

Results of students'scores on Rastigi's Self-

Concept Scale and Singh and Tiwari's Level of Aspira

tion Scale indicate that high achieving students

22

pcesessed better self-concepts than did low achievers.

Scholastic achievement, sex and SES independently as

well as simultaneously were found to significantly affect

level of aspiration. Middle SES males displayed the

highest levels of aspiration. Males surpassed females

in level of aspiration. Middle SES males diaplayed the

highest level of aspiration. Males surpassed females

in level of aspiration while male and female middle SES

students surpassed their same sex high SES counter

parts in this variable.

Thus it can be concluded from the findings of

the above studies that there is a very close inter

relationship between scholastic performance and certain

personality dimensions.

The over-achievers in these studies were found

to be more intelligent, consientious, self-sufficient

and self-controlled.

The under-achievers on the other hand were found

to be more warmhearted, assertive, socially group

dependent and relaxed.

The results also showed that high level of anxiety

Ve$ related to low achievement and low level of anxiety

went with high achievement.

In case of extraversion-intraversion it was

23

found that extraversion was related to a brighter

intellectual level and higher academic attainment.

Studies on Personality Factors in Relation to Academic Success and Failure^ Termed Qver-and Under-Achievement.

Some investigations have been done on personality

factors Influencing on over- and under-achievement,

but much of the work has suffered from the definitive

misconceptions of the phenomenon.

Some of these studies are presented here to

provide a historical background:

Curry (1961) carried out a study to identify

over-achievers and under-achievers. By using Cali

fornia Test of Mental Maturity he identified that

sxobjects whose achievement scores were higher than

intelligence scores were termed as over-achievers

and whose achievement scores were below the inteJligenoe score

were termed as under-achievers. His findings showed

that greater portion of underachievers came from

upper socio-economic group.

Parsley^ Powel and Oconmer (1964) attempted to

find out sex differences among over- and under-achievers.

They studied five different IQ groups of boys and girls

by using California Achievement test.

Their findings showed that girls in all groups wer6

24

found to be superior than ooys in their achievement

scores.

Jarvis (1965) carried out a study to find out

sex differences in academic achievement. He carried

olit his study on a large sample of 347 girls and 366

boys. He divided them into three IQ groups — bright,

average and dull. His results also confirrrijy showed

that girls were superior to boys in scholastic

achievement at the same age level,

Jaygopal (1974) investigated low high achievers

in relation to personality. He used Cattell's HSPQ

Test to find out personality factors. Out of 14

factors of Cattell's HSPQ Test only three factors

A (warmhearted) , E (assertiveness) and 1 (tender-

minded) were associated with high achievement. Only

two factors J (circumspect individualism) and H

(adventuresomeness) were related to academic achieve

ment in case of low achievers.

The results showed that the higher achievers

were reseirved, humble and tenderminded whereas under-

achievers were zestful and more social.

Tandon (1978) carried out a study on 400 High

school failures both male and female. He used Sinha's

Anxiety Scale to measure anxiety level of both over-

and under-achievers.

25

The findings showed no significant difference

among boys and girls. Both the male and female under-

achievers possessed high level of anxiety. It is clear

from his study that anxiety is closely related to

scholastic underachievement by which he really meant

the low achievement.

From these above studies it is clear to us that

high achievers exhibit low level of anxiety. They are

humbleminded and reserved. The high achieving girls

showed superior scholastic achievement. Low achiever^

possessed high level of anxiety. They were found to

be zestful and more social. Low achievement is mainly

a problem of male sex.

Studies on personality Factors in Relation to Over- and Under-Achievement Based on Composite Achievement Scores

Some valuable studies are based on a clear concept

of over- and under-achievement. The studies tried to

find out the non-intellective personal factors of

over-achievers and under-achievers.

Rao (1963) carried out a study on adjustment in

relation to academic performance. He predicted the

university students' achievement scores through Regre

ssion Equation/ calculated the positive and negative

discrepancies and identified the over- and under-

26

achievers precisely.

The results showed that over-achievers were more

adjusted than the under-achievers. The under achievers

weire rather poorly adjusted.

Taylor (1964) investigated the relationship

between academic achievement and personality traits.

From his findings it is clear that over-achievers are

more confident, possess high self-esteem, higher

power of self-decision and leadership, acceptance of

authority, good habit and interest in academic values

and are guided by realistic gosls. But in case of

under achievers, the investigator found high anxiety,

negative self-concepts, poor adjustment, disrespect

towards authority and unrealistic goal orientation as

their differential characteristics.

Srivastava (1967) carried out an investigation

into the factors related to educational under achieve*

ment. The stuay was conducted on a sample of 1,837 male

pupils studying in class X and c^ss XI of nine

secondary and higher secondary schools of Patna.

On the basis of verbal and non-verbal tests of

intelligence the data were collected. The data were

analysed using product-moment correlation, analysis of

variance, 't' test, chi-square and phi coefficient.

Findings indicate that:

27

(1) Under achievement was related to (a) poor study habits, (b) ppor reading ability, (c) low ,^ academic motivation, (d) poor health, (e) poor social and emotional adjustment

(2) No significant relationship found to exist between under-achievement and intactness of parental structure, hobbies, interest in games sports and music and attitude towards school.

Morris (1969) carried out a study on under achieve

ment in relation to passive aggression. He employed

California Test of Mental Maturity upon 164 boys from a

public school. He divided the whole sample into three

groups — over-achievers, achievers and under-achievers.

The findings showed that under-achievers possessed

higher passive aggression in relation to other two

groups.

Vanarasi (1970) studied 77 pairs of normal and under-

achievers and tried to find out relationship of study

habits of the two groups. The investigator employed

Sinha's personality Test. The achievement record of

annual examination of IX and X classes were also used.

The results showed that over-achievers were

significantly superior to under-achievers on study

habits.

Bhaduri (1971) investigated some psychological

factors of the over- and under-achievers. The inves

tigator used total marks of annual examination as the

measure of achievement.

!8

The result showed significant psychological

differences between over- and u" ier-achievers. The

over-achievers were found less neurotic and less

anxious than the under-achievers.

Dhaliwal (1971) carried out a study on some factors

contributing to academic success and failure among

high school students — personality correlates of academic

over-under achievement.

The study was completed in two phases. The pilot

study was carried out on a sample of 441 school

students. In the main study a large sample comprising

887 subjects was taken up

Raven's Progressive Matrices and the two forms of

Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Scale 2)

were employed for measuring intelligence. To measure

personality, Cattell's fourteen factors of personality

was employed.

The results clearly indicate that superior study

habits reseirvedness, higher verbal ability, home

emotional and school adjustment, poor social adjustmerft

and security feeling corresponded with over-achievement,

whereas inferior study habits, outgoing tendencies,

low verbal ability, emotional instability, assertive-

ness, happy go lucky like temperament, poor adjustment

in home, emotional and school areas, good social

29

adjustment and insecurity feelings were associated

with academic under-achievement.

Anxiety and need for achievement bore a curvili

near relationship with the so called over- and under-

achievement.

Sharma (1972) carried out a comparative study

of adjustment of over- and under-achievers. The

study has been carried out in two phases — preliminary

and final studies. The preliminary study was based on

a sample of 98 subjects while the main study was on a

large sample of 525 subjects of several institutions.

Sxibjects of both the studies were male students of

grade VIII of age range from 13 to 15 years.

Mehta's Verbal Intelligence Test and examination

marks were-used for the study. The major findings were:

(1) The over achievers had better adjustment than the under achievers in the school, home, social and religious and miscellaneous areas.

(2) Intelligence was related to adjustment in all these areas which implied that adjustment was at least partly dependent upon intelligence.

Menon (1972) also investigated the relationship

between under achievement and certain personality

factors such as social activity, extraversion-intro-

version, tolerance, certain motivational traits like

academic interest, areas of interest like outdoor.

30

aesthetic, scientific, mechanical and social service.

The sample was made up of 1,245 boys and 1,155

girls. The tools used in the study were: two

parallel forms of an intelligence test. General Mental

Ability Test - Verbal Form A and B, a personality

inventory, a motivational inventory, an interest

inventory and a general data questionnaire.

The main findings of the study were: the over-

achieving boys and girls were less extrovert and less

maladju.sted than under achievers and showed greater

academic interest and endurance. Over-achieving

girls of general ability showed strongest interest

in aesthetic social and mechanical activities. The

socio-economic status markedly influenced over- and

under-achievement, urban residence was related to

high achievement.

Passi and Lalithama (1973) carried out a study on

self-concept and creativity of over- and under-

achievers. The sample was consisted of 117 tenth

grade students from Baroda High Schools and divided

as over, normal and under achievers. They employed

Patel's Intelligence Test and Passi Test of Creativity

and personality Word List.

The results showed that over achievers possessed

more creativity than the other two groups. But in

31

case of self concept, there were no significant

differences among the three groups,

Agarwal (1976) investigated some personality

factors in relation to academic under-achievement.

The investigator employed Cattell's HSPQ test to find

out thft personality variables.

The results showed that over-achievers possessed

these factors: C (emotional stability), G (super

ego strength) / H (adventuresomensss), Q^ (self

sufficiency) , and Q_ (self control). In case of under-

achievers/ I, J and Q factors namely tendermindedness,

circumspect individualism and tenseness were higher

than over-achievers, respectively.

McRae, Loren James (1982) conducted investiga

tion on the relationship between various personality

characteristics and academic achievement. The specific

purpose was to better understand the underachievers.

The design for this study included theoretical

interpretation through Maslow's personality Syndrom

Theory and interviews with randomly selected subjects.

The sample for this study was composed of 187

undergraduates of about an equal number of males

and females. The four instruments were administered to

the sample. This yielded 34 measures of personality

for each subject.

32

The data analysis indicated that underachievers

were more likely than overachievers to be hedonistic

socially active, averse to being along, expressive

and intimate. Overachievers were conformists while

underachievers were more likely than average achievers

to be counter-authority. Women over-achievers were

aditionally self-disciplined and group active as well

as more socially active than men overachievers.

Stockhard and Wood (1984) carried out a study on

sex differences in academic under-achievement. They

employed California Test of Mental Maturity upon 287

male and 283 female graduate students. The results

showed that under-achievement is mainly a problem of

male sex than that of female sex.

It has been found from the studies discussed

above that over-achievement generally goes with

superior study habits, poor social adjustment and

security feelings and under-achievement with good

social adjustment, insecurity feelings and unrealistic

goal orientation.

Studies on Personality Factors in Relation to Over-and Under-Achievement in Specific Knowledge Areas

Under this heading individual's achievement in

individual school subjects is taken as the basis for

33

deriving over- and under-achievement. A few investi

gators have attempted to study in this field.

Ridding (1966) made an investigation on personality

variables which were related to over- and under-

achievement in English and Arithmetic. The sample

consisted of 600 boys and girls aged 12+ from

Manchester schools.

The children completed Forms A & B of Cattell's HSPQ,

and Children's Questionnaire adapted from Eysenck's

M.P.T, which gives two measures — Neuroticism and

Extraversion.

He classified the sample as over-achievers, under-

achievers and average achivers on the basis of pre

diction through verbal intelligence. The results

showed that:

(1) The over-achieving girls showed more neuroticism in English than the over-achieving boys.

(2) The under-achieving girls were more extroverted in Arithmetic than the underachieving boys.

(3) The over-achieving girls were more surgent than the average achievers in English.

(4) The over-achieving girls possessed more conscientiousness than the under-achieving girls in Arithmetic.

(5) The over-achieving boys were more surgent than the average and under-achievers in Arithmetic.

34

(6) The trait of conscientiousness was associated with over-achievement in Arithmetic.

(7) There was no significant relationship between over- and under-achievement and emotional stability as well as anxiety.

Saxena (1972) carried out a study on adjustment

problem of over- and under-achievers. He selected

sample randomly from XI grade students of 15 years

from Science, Arts and Commerce streams of higher

secondary schools at Allahabad.

Mooney's problem Check List was used to measure

adjustment problems. The normal over- and under-

achievers were identified by Regression Equation.

The results showed that the under-achievers

possessed more adjustment problems than over-achievers

in all the streams.

Haq (1987) conducted a valuable study on personality

in relation to scholastic achievement. The study was

conducted on a large sample of 650 VIII and IX grade

school children from Aligarh Muslim University Boys'

and Girls* schools.

The Investigator employed Cattell and Cattell's

'Culture Fair' test (Scale 2, Form A) for testing

intelligence and for the achievement measure the

investigator had to depend upon the school records. The

Indian adaptation of Cattell and Beloff's H S P Q (Form A)

35

was employed for measuring personality. The results

showed that:

(1) The male over-achievers in Hindi were more prone to be enthusiastic, less excitable and less tough minded than the male under-achievers in Hindi.

(2) The male over-achievers in English were more prone to obedience, submissiveness and accommodating temperament while the under-achievers in the same subject were more inclined to be assertive, competitive and aggressive.

(3) The male over-achievers in Mathematics were found to be relaxed and the under-achievers tense.

(4) In English the over-achieving girls were found to be more assertive, more enthusiastic, more inclined to toughmindedness and more prone to be self-sufficient. The under-achieving girls in English on the other hand, were comparatively less assertive, less enthusiastic and less toughminded but more intelligent, more prone to circumspect individualism and more sociably group dependent.

(5) The female over-achievers in Mathematics were found to be more self-sufficient and ehthusiastic than under-achievers.

(6) Among the girls, over-achievers in Science were more inclined to be reserved and self-sufficient than the under-achievers,

(7) Over-achieving boys in Hindi were found to be more intelligent, emotionally stable, adventurous and individualistic. The over-achieving girls on the other hand were more excitable, more apprehensive and far more tense.

(8) In English over-achieving boys were found to be more intelligent, emotionally stable and obedient while the over-achieving girls were found to be more assertive, self-sufficient and tense.

36

(9) In Mathematics the over-achieving boys were found to be emotionally stable, enthusiastic and adventurous while the female over-achievers were more apprehensive and self-sufficient.

(10) The over-achieving boys in Science showed higher intelligence, greater emotional stability, more adventurous than the over-achieving girls. The female subjects on the other hand, were more assertive, more apprensive, more self-sufficient and tense,

(11) The under-achieving boys in Hindi were found to be more reserved, emotionally stable, adventurous and tough minded than the underachieving girls.

(12) In English the under-achieving boys were emotionally more stable, excitable, more assertive, sober, tough minded, apprehensive and socially more dependent than the underachieving girls.

(13) In Mathematics, the male under achievers were found to be intelligent, emotionally stable, adventurous, tough minded and self-controlled while the female subjects were prone to be assertive and tense.

(14) In Science the male under-achievers were more reserved, emotionally more stable and more tough minded, self-assured and relaxed while the female under-achievers were emotionally less stable, tenderminded and more tense.

There are only a few such studies on over- and

under-achievement in specific school subjects. From

these studies it can be concluded that over-achievers

are more adjusted, more conscientious and more enthu

siastic in different school subjects than under-

achievers.

37

Studies on Remedial^Measures of Under-Achievement

The problem of under-achievement has now become

a burning problem in our educational system. Some

studies have been conducted on remedial measures for

under-achievement,

Writh (1977) carried out a study on effects of

a remedial reading and counselling programme on under-

achieveing students. He carried out his study on 190

under-achievers from 3rd and 6th grade students. He

divided the sample into two groups — one was'treated

group' and another was 'control group'.

The investigator used the Intellectual Achieve- ,

ment Responsibility Scale (lARS) for pre- and post-

test comparison. The results showed significant

differences between the control group and treated group/

the differences going in favour of the treated group.

Clark, Ronald Bide (1981) investigated the

effects of selected counselling approaches on low

achieving grade X students. The purpose of this

study was to determine which of the selected approaches

of counselling was most effective in terms of improv

ing the self-concept/ scholastic achievement, class

room behaviour, attitude towards school and attendance

of low achieving grade X students.

38

Results indicate that:

(1) The low achieving grade X students could be assisted through individual counselling to Improve in attitude towards school.

(2) The low-achieving student could be assisted through individual counselling, to improve his attendance at school.

(3) The factors of self-concept, scholastic achievement and classroom behaviour of low-achieving students were affected similarly when the students were counselled either in groups or individually.

Garler, Kinney and Anderson (1985) carried out

a study on "effects of counselling on classroom perfor

mance". They carried out their study on 41 under-

achievers from III and IV grade and this was the

treated group. Another group consisted 24 under-

achievers and this group was control group.

From their findings, it is clear that the treated

group in comparison to control group gains more in

classroom behaviour through counselling.

Miller and Dianne (1986) investigated the effect of

small group counselling on under-achievers. They

studied the effect of small group counselling sessions

on 47 IV graders, classified as under-achievers.

Students were assigned randomly to a treatment or

control group. Treatment students participated in small

group sessions twice a week for nine weeks.

39

Group session consisted of discussion and

activities in four areas — self-appraisal and self-

concept/ study skills and following directions,

listening skills and goal setting.

There was a statistically significant difference

only in the mean change scores between the two groups

on the Elementary Guidance Behaviour Rating Scale for

teachers. The results indicate that small group

intervention may improve student's classroom behaviour

and work habit as judged by teachers,

A perusal of the studies on over- and under-

achievement, would, thus reveal that very little work

has been done in the area of discrepant achievement -io

the area of concomitant personality factors of dis

crepant achievement with reference to specific

knowledge areas. The present study is therefore an

attempt to explore and identify the personality

characteristics going with under-achievement in English

and Mathematics only.

The method and procedure of the present investi

gation is described in the next chapter.

Chafpter III

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

As mentioned in the foregoing chapters, the

present investigation aimed at finding out the perso

nality characteristics associated with under-achieve-

ment in English and Mathematics. The present chapter

deals with the methodological and procedural aspects

of the investigation.

Tools of the Study

Before embarking upon any research work it has

to be ascertained that the tools and measures are

reliable and valid. In the present investigation

the Investigator employed th^ following standard tools

and measures:

(1) The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Scale 2) .

(2) Cattell and Beloff's HSPQ Test (Kapoor and Mehrotra Form A, 1973) .

For achievement scores of 30S students in two specific

school subjects the investigator had to rely upon the

school achievement records.

40

41

Measure of Intelligence

The Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test

(Scale 2) is designed to find out the most consistent-

score of basic capacity which many researches have

shown to be largely inborn/ a relatively constant

characteristic of the individuals and operative in

quite different areas, e.g., verbal, numerical and

social skills. The authors claim that the test is

highly suitable for the varied research situations,

especially for those in which general ability is the

variable to be controlled or experimentally manipulated,

The scale consists of 4 sub-tests which contain

46 problems in all,presented in single-line diagrams

involving series, classifications matrices and condi

tions. The test-wise division of items is 12, 14, 12

and 8 respectively. In the arrangement of the sub-

testa, a comparatively well known easy-to-grasp test

has been chosen to start the subject off. The first

sub-test which has 12 series of items and time allotted

for it is 3 minutes. The second sxib-test contains 14

items and the time allotted for it is 4 minutes. The

third sub-test contains 12 classifications and the

allotted time is 3 minutes. The fourth sub-test

has 8 items and 2 /2 minutes are allotted for it.

42

A brief instruction is given before each sub

test so that the subjects Qan easily treat them.

Reliability of the Intelligence Measure

The reliability of the test has been evaluated

both in terms of the Dependability Coefficient and the

Consistency Coefficient. The Dependability Coefficients

for the full test were .82 to .85. In split half method

Consistency Coefficients were found between .95 to .97

(Technical Suppliment for the Culture Fair Intelligence

Test, Scale 2 and Scale 3, 1973, p.2) .

V lj.ditv of the Intelligence Measure

The validity for the 12 series items of the first

sub-test of Culture Fair Intelligence Test is .76. For

the second sub-test which consists fj 14 items, the

coefficient is .54. The coefficient of the third sub

test of 12 matrices is .76 and for fourth sub-test

which consists 8 topology, the coefficient is .51. For

the whole 46 items, the validity coefficient was found

to be .85 (Technical Suppliment, 1973).

In the manual it is also reported that the concrete

validity coefficients for four tests of intelligence —

the Wechsler Adult,Revised Beta, Otis Group Test and

43

Coloured Progressive Matrices — were found to be .74

for first sub-test, .76 for second sub-test, and .71

for third sub-test. The average coefficient for all »•

these four sub-tests was found to be .70 (Manual,

1973, p.11).

The Measure of Achievement

Due to the non-availability of the standardized

achievement tests, the investigator had to depend on

the school records of examination marks. The achieve

ment records of one whole year have been taken for

this purpose. It would be better if any standardized

achievement test could be employed for the school

subjects chosen for the study. There was another

alternative to construct an achievement test and

standardise it. The reliability and validity of the

achievement test in such case could have been ensured.

The achievement record of the school is not so reliable

but due to the non-availability of achievement tests,

the investigator had to depend upon school records.

To get better reliability of achievement scores,

results of two tests were taken (one half yearly

and one annual) in the two selected school subjects,

English and Mathematics.

44

Measure of Personality

To investigate the personality characteristics

of the over- and under-achievers, the present investi

gation employed Indian adaptation of Cattell and

Beloff's HSPQ (Kapoor and Mehrotra, Form A, 1973).

The author claims that these fourteen measures

have been found to cover almost the total personality.

It is a comprehensive test of personality consisting

of 114 items.

Cattell and Beloff's HSPQ test was found to be

suitable for this study at the first place it was

suitable for the age group taken for the study and

secondly it was easy to administer within a school

period.

The 14 factors of personality on the HSPQ are

represented^by different alphabets. Out of these 14

factors, 10 factors are ranging from A to J and last

four are 0, Qj/ Qo and Q-, All factors are bipolar.

One pole represents low score and another pole

represents the high score. The characteristics of each

pole are opposed to each other. Given below is the

detailed list of personality characteristics in which.

left pole represents the low score and the right pole

represents the high score:

45

A. Reserved

(Critical/ aloof and stiff)

Warmhearted

(Outgoing, participating, easy going)

B. Less intelligent

(concrete thinking, low scholastic mental capacity)

More intelligent

(abstract thinking, higher mental capacity)

C. Affected by feeling

(easily upset, low ego strength)

Emotionally stable

(mature, calm, high ego strength)

Undemonstrative

(deliberate, inactive stodgy)

Excitable (impatient, overactive, unrestrained)

Obedient (mild, docile, accommodating)

Assertive (aggressive, competitive, stub bors)

F, Sober (taciturn, serious)

Enthusiastic

(heedless, happy go lucky)

G. Disregard rules

(expedient, weaker super ego strength)

Conscientious (persistent, stronger super ego strength)

H. Shy

(timid, restrained threat sensitive)

Adventurous (thick skinned, social ly bold, does not see danger)

I . , Tough-minded (rejects i l lus ion , s e l f - r e s t r a in t , responsible)

Tende r-minded (sensit ive, dependent, over protected)

J . Zestful (likes group action)

CircxOTspect individualism

(reflective, internally restrained)

46

0 . Self-assured (placid , secure , untroubled)

Socia l ly group dependent ( jo iner , sound follower)

Uncontrolled (follows own urges , ca re less of soc i a l rules)

Relaxed (tranquil, unfrus-trated, cortiposed)

Apprehensive

(self-repreaching, insecure)

Self-sufficient (resourceful, prefers own decision)

Controlled (exacting will power, socially precise)

Tense (driven, frustrated fretful)

Reliability of Personality Measure (HSPQ)

To find out the reliability of HSPQ, Form A, the

authors have indicated the test-retest agreement for

each of the fourteen factors. The reliability co

efficient is ranging from .74 to .91 and after six

months ranging from ,53 to- .69 and after one year the

reliability coefficient ranging from .38 to .69

(Manual for HSPQ, 1974, p.4) .

Validity of personality Measure (HSPQ)

According to the authors, "what matters crucially

is good intensive measurement of the personality

factors in the first place and therefore the HSPQ

scales are meant to stand or fall by their construct

47

validity" (Manual-for HSPQ, 1973, p.5) . Here

validity coefficients ranged from .57 to .75. There *

should be no difficulty in obtaining the reliabilities

and validities here indicated, but it should still be

obseirved that at present the HSPQ is apparently

systematically better at measuring some factors than

others (Manual for HSPQ, p. 11) .

Population

Three hundred and two students of class X were

selected from four girls' and one boys' higher

secondary schools of Nagaon, Assam, The ages of the

students ranged from 14 to 16 years. The mean of the

students' age is 15. The students generally came from

middle class from the socio-economic point of view and

were studying under the auspices of one and the same

educational administrative body, the Secondary Education

Board of Assam (SEBA) .

Administration of the Test and Collection of Data

The administration of both the tests — Catteil's

Culture Fair Intelligence Test and HSPQ test — was

completed in four days in each school. Instructions

given by the author were strictly followed while

administering the two tests.

48

Being a novel experience for the students both

the tests proved to be very involving for the subjects.

They did the whole task very seriously.

For scoring both the tests, the keys provided by

the authors were used. Thus scores on intelligence and

fourteen personality factors were obtained. For render

ing the intelligence and achievement schores, statisti

cally more comparable, all the intelligence and achieve

ment scores were converted into Z scores (Best,1977,p.238)

Identification of Over- and Under-achievement

The data having thus been collected, the principal

task for the investigator was to identify the over-

and under-achievers in specific school subjects,

namely English and Mathematics. Now there was the

problem regarding the prediction of 'the expected

achievement', upon which the positive and negative dis

crepancies, symbolising over- and under-achievement

respectively, were to be computed. The terms over-

achievement and under-achievement are relevant and

meaningful only in comparison with some standard of

achievement predicted or expected. For the statistical

recognition of over- and under-achievement in each of

the two school subjects, the regression equation between

intelligence scores and achievement scores as

49

suggested by Throndike (1963) was used by the inves

tigator. The formula for regression equation was:

y = r -2-JL. (X - M ) + My

In this equation/ the factor r -—^ is called the

regression coefficient. When the two variables (i.e.,

the predictor and the criterion have equal variability

(i.e., <r"x = d y) , the correlation coefficient, i.e.,

r is identical with the regression coefficient (cf.

Walker and Lev, 1958, p.l44). As regards other

Symbols:

y = the predicted value of criterion (achievement) .

r = the coefficient of correlation between the predictor (intelligence) and the criterion (achievement) variables.

cry = standard deviation of the criterion scores,

o"X = standard deviation of the predictor scores.

X = individual predictor scores.

Y = individual criterion scores,

Mx = mean of the predictor scores.

My = mean of the criterion scores.

(Garrett, 1981, p. 158)

The mean and the standard deviations of the

predictor and criterion variables were worked out and

50

the coefficient:of correlation between intelligence

and achievement scores were found out. Thus the

expected achievement scores were found^ predicted on

the basis of intelligence.

Having obtained the predicted scores, the inves

tigator calculated the discrepancies between the actual

achievement scores and predicted values, for each

individual in two specific school subjects.

For more precise identification of the over- and

under-achievers and to avoid statistical errors, the

standard error of estimate was used. One SDe above

their predicted score were recognised as over-achievers

and one SDe below the predicted level were identified

as under-achievers. The formula for standard error of

estimate was as follows:

SDe = SD/ 1-(r) (Garrett, 1981, p. 161)

Thus following the above procedures, the over-

and under-achievers among male and female subjects

were recognised iq the two spec i f i c knowledge a r eas .

Both over-achievers and under-achievers were divided

in to following 12 groups:

1, Over-achievers in English.

2, Over-achievers in Mathematics,

3, Under-achievers in English.

51

4. Under-achievers in Mathematics.

5. Male over-achievers in English.

6. Male under-achievers in English.

7. Male over-achievers in Mathematics.

8. Male under-achievers in Mathematics.

9. Female over-achievers in English.

10. Female under-achievers in English.

11. Female over-achievers in Mathematics.

12. Female under-achievers in Mathematics.

Procedure for Determining Group Differences on Fourteen Personality Factors

To find out the differences between the over-

aa well as under-achievers in each of the two knowledge

areas on the fourteen personality factors were tested

for significance by the 't'-test. It, on any

personality variable, the differences in the mean scores

for the groups of over-achievers as well as under-

achievers were found to be significant in an ascending

or a descending order, then a positive or negative

linear relationship was suspected. The formula for 't'

value is given below:

t = — 2 2

/^l . 2 (McNemar/ 1962, p. 102)

The results of the present investigation thus

obtained, have been presented in the next chapter.

" l •

^1

- " 2

^2

^2

Chapter IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

As Stated earlier in the preceding chapters,

the main objective of the present investigation is

to find out the personality differences between

the over- and under-achievers in two major school

subjects, namely, English and Mathematics. The data

for this study were collected from a sample of 302

students of both the sexes from five schools.

The over- and under-achievers were identified

both among boys and girls in each of the two subject

areas — English and Mathematics — and the follow

ing pairs of groups were compared along fourteen

personality dimensions on Cattell's H.S.P.Q.:

(1) Over-achievers in English Vs Over-achievers ^ in Mathematics.

Under-achievers in English Vs Under-achievers in Mathematics. Over-achievers in English Vs Under-achievers in English. Over-achievers in Mathematics Vs under-achievers in Mathematics.

52

53

(2) -Male Over-achievers in English Vs Male Over-achievers in Mathematics. Male Under-achlevers in English Vs Male Under-achievers in Mathematics. Male Over-achievers in English Vs Male Under-achievers in Engl ish. Male Over-achievers in Mathematics Vs Male Under-achievers in Mathematics.

(3) Female Over-achievers in English Vs Female Over-achievers in Mathematics, Female Under-achlevers in English Vs Female Underachieve rs in Mathematics, Female Over-achievers in English Vs Female Under-achievers in English. Female Over-achievers in Mathematics Vs Female Under-achievers in Mathematics.

(4) Male Over-achievers in English Vs Female Over-achievers in English. Male Over-achievets in Mathematics Vs Female Over-achievers in Mathematics, Male Under-achievers in English Vs Female Under-achievers in English. Male Under-achievers in Mathematics Vs Female Under-achievers in Mathematics.

As mentioned in the previous chapter , the study

employed the ' t* t e s t to find out whether the pe r sona l i t y

differences between the compared groups were s i g n i f i c a n t

or not . The r e s u l t s of the ' t ' t e s t are presented in

t ab le s 1 to 16.

54

Comparison Between Over-achievers In English and Over-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)

Table 1 shows the differences between the over-

achievers in English and Mathematics on fourteen

personality factors.

As can be seen from Table 1, the over-achievers

in the two specific school subjects, differ signifi

cantly on eight personality factors, namely Reserved

vs Warmhearted (A), Less intelligent vs More

intelligent (B), Affected by feeling vs Emotionally

stable, (c). Sober vs Enthusiastic (F) , Disregard

rules vs Conscientious (G), Shy vs Adventurous (H),

Tough minded vs Tenderminded (I) , Sociably group

dependent vs Self sufficient (Q2) and Uncontrolled

vs Controlled (Q^).

On factor A, Reserved vs Wairmhearted, the means

of the over-achievers in English and Mathematics are

10.87 and 8.17 while the SDs are 3.29 and 2.85

respectively. The 't' value is found to be 5.4 which

is highly significant, i.e., at .01 level.

The results clearly show that the over-achievers

in Mathematics are more warmhearted than the over-

achievers in English.

On factor B. Less intelligent vs More intelligent,

(U

0}

u >

•H J2 U <0 I (0

u u 0) -H > +» O (0

E

o x: §= 0) C S - H

(U 01

> c <o Q) -H

4J <t> Q) I

cq i^

0) >

o o c 2 1 Q) ID

m -< x:

•H W Q T»

H o c

H 0) o

I 03

0) o

>w c O (0

o

>-H a> c •J en

•H 0)

0) - s> - <0

>

w u

(0 2 R

55

o r C 2!

0)

01 M 0) U3 > 01 0) "H OX >r| r-l VO

u a II

§J

M

O • P O <d

4J

(0 C

o 0) 0) 04

i-i r-i ID

o o o in in H rH o o o o O O

CO r- 00 o c>4 M 0\ VO 0\ TJ<

in in ^ iH

f- t*- in vD in 00 CM r o VO CTt O \ 0 CO CO

H f M r M r o f N J O O r o f N j

< 7 » i n ^ o o r o i n i n < * o « ; » « r H o c o o c M i n » H o \ i n o r - ) c g c o o o 0 \ Q O i n o

n c N i n c M c a r o f o n c ^ i c M C N j c M r o r o

t- in r~ CM 00 in cr\ ON

r H i n r o O t j " i - i o o ' * i n i n • « f n < M i n o O r - j ' « i ' c o < D O

o » o o o o o v o < T > f H o r ~ o o o o r - o j a »

in 00

» - f c O ' * r * i n i n n m ' « i » v o o o i n O N r H c n c o r o o o > H o \ i n o o v O r j * n o o

0 < C N < M C > 4 r M < M n C M < v i O J C M C M f O C N

r > a i o > H i n r « r ^ f n i n o o H c ^ ' 5 i ' c ^ i - J ^ O N H v O H C f t l O i r J O ' H H C M n

o o ^ o o c o t n o o a \ o o v o o o t ^ v o . - i o o

0)

It)

• P 01 B OJ > i

e

• P C 0) •ri V

•H

0 01

0)

O s I

c 0)

•H

0)

C

c o -p

(U

g u 1 en c •H

H 4

<

^ •p -rH

q X M 1

0)

> •H -P ft)

•P 01

c 0 E a> -d c D

0) > •H

ti 0) 0}

^ 1

4J C (1) •H •0 0) XJ o

0) (0 Ul (0 0) 0)

^ C Q U Q W P M O D C H h i O oa en ^ I

a a a I

56

the means of the over-achieving groups in English and

Mathematics, are 6.55 and 4,49 and S.Ds. are 2.55 and

2.11 respectively. The 't' value is found to be 5.28

and it is again significant at .01 level. It clearly

shows that the over-achiervers in Mathematics are more

intelligent than their counterparts in English.

On factor C, Affected by feeling vs Emotionally

stable, the mean scores of the over-achievers in English

and Mathematics are 8.9 and 9,87 while the S.Ds. are

2.98 and 3.14 respectively. The •t' value is found to

be 1.97 which is significant at .05 level. The high

scorers in this factor are emotionally stable while th^

low scorers affected by feeling.

It can be concluded from the results on factor C,

that over-achievers in Mathematics are emotionally

more stable than the over-achievers in English.

On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the high

scores represent enthusiastic and low scores sober and

calm characteristics. On this personality factor, the

mean of the two over-achieving groups in English and

Mathematics are 9.35 and 8.17 while the S.Ds. are 3.05

and 2.85 respectively. The 't' value is found to be

2.42 which is significant at .05 level.

It can be concluded from the results shown in

57

Table 1 tha t the over-achievers in Mathematics are more

incl ined to be en thus i a s t i c and happy go lucky while

the over-achievers in English are l ess incl ined to the

en thus ia s t i c nature .

On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious, the

means of the two over-achieving groups of English and


and 3.15 respec t ive ly . The ' t ' value i s found to be

2.37 and i t i s s i gn i f i can t at .05 l e v e l .

The trend of r e l a t ionsh ip between over-achievers

in English and over-achievers in Mathematics on fac tor

G/ Disregard rules vs Conscientious dimension of

pe r sona l i ty as borne out by the r e s u l t s in Table 1, the

over-achievers in Mathematics are tending to be more

conscientious while over-achievers in English are less

conscientious and d is regarding r u l e s .

On factor H, Shy vs Adventurous, the means of

the over-achievers in English and Mathematics are

10.50 and 8,63 while the S.Ds. are 3.24 and 2.93 r e s

pec t ive ly . The ' t ' value i s found to be 3.67 which

i s highly s i gn i f i c an t , i . e . , a t .01 l e v e l .

The r e s u l t s thus c l e a r l y ind ica te t h a t the over-

achievers in Mathematics are far more adventurous than

the over-achievers in English.

58

On factor 1/ Toygh minded vs Tenderminded/ the

high scorers are tenderminded and sensitive while the

low scorers are tough minded and reject illusions.

The means of the over-achievers in English and Mathe

matics on this factor are 7,84 and 6.55 while the S.Ds.

are 2.8 and 2.55 respectively. The 't' value is found

to be 2,95 which is significant at .01 level.

The results clearly show that the over-achievers

in Mathematics are found to be more tender minded and

sensitive than the over-achievers in English.

On factor Qj/ designated as Sociably group dependent

vs Self sufficient, the two over-achieving groups

significantly differ from each other. The means of the

two groups in English and Mathematics are 7.84 and 6.17

while the S.Ds. are 2,8 and 2,48 respectively. The 't'

value is found to be 3,88 and it is significant at .01

level.

The results clearly indicate that the over-

achievers in Mathematics are more self-sufficient

while the over-achievers in English are sociably group

dependent.

On factor Q^, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the

means of the over-achievers in English and over-

achievers in Mathematics are 11.24 and 12.85 while the

59

S.Ds. are 3,58 and 3.-35 respectively. The 't* value

is found to be 2.82 and it is significant at .01

level.

As such it may be concluded that the over-achievers

in Mathematics are more controlled than the over-


On the rest six factors as can be seen from Table 1,

the differences between the two groups are insignificant.

The results presented in the Table 1 may be

summarised as under:

The over-achievers in English are found to be:

(1) Less warmhearted

(2) Less intelligent

(3) Emotionally less stable

(4) Less enthusiastic

(5) Less conscientious

(6) Less adventurous

(7) Less tenderminded

(8) Sociably group dependent

(9) Less controlled

The over-achievers in Mathematics are found to be:

(1) More warmhearted

(2) More intelligent

(3) Emotionally stable

(4) More enthusiastic

(5) More conscientious

60

(6) More adventurou;s

(7) More tenderminded (8) More s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t (9) More c o n t r o l l e d

Comparison Between Under-achievers in English and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors CHSPQ)

Table 2 shows the differences between the

under-achievers in English and under-achievers in

Mathematics on fourteen personality factoirs. As can be

seen from the Table 2, the differences between the two

groups are significant on three personality dimensions,

namely. Tough minded vs Tenderminded (I), Self-

assured vs Apprehensive (0) / and Uncontrolled vs

Controlled (Q,) .

On factor I, Tough minded vs Tender minded, the

high scorers are tendermineded and sensitive. The low

scorers on the other hand are tough minded. The mean

scores of the under-achieving groups in English and



4.97 which is highly significant at .01 level.

The results clearly indicate that the under-

achievers in English are tender-minded and sensitive

while under-achievers in Mathematics are prone to

c •H

2 a> > 

0) C T H

a (0 +> 1 0) M m 0)

•d 0) C O ID a 0) -O (H C 0) Id m •wx: •H 9) Q -H

H <H D» 0 C

H lU 0

§ 0

•H ^ •H C 0>

W

OJ o

M C O ff)

o

> - H

•H

n 0)

- (0 >

0) W4

$ > • o\ U (0 m s li .1

w c a •« -H ^-^

Q (0

0) H (0 Z

IQ

u 0) > J C - ^ 0) <0 VO • H - H O J C H H O 0> (tf C B 1 W

u z a) c w 'g-^ &

Q W

«> rH (D S

(0 M 5 O (0

PM

> i

+> •H H

0 (Q Wi 4) 04

r-o o

ON r» OJ

<N CO •

t ^

o CO

rg

i n CO

r-

-d (V •p M OJ 0)

s fd S 1 'd 0)

t (i) (0 0) a:



r* o CvJ

CM rt

• « *

4J c OJ C7>

-H rH r ^

a> +J c -a 0) M o S 1

4J

o» •H H r-l

 i

rH rH (TJ C 0

•H

+> 0 S' U 1 o» c

•rl rH 0) 0) tl4

> 1

SX

-d 0)

+> o 0) 44 m «<

o

o VO

O

r-f^

CM

CO VO •

r-

H CD

CM

•-\ a\ r-

0) H

-§ 4J •H O X M 1

% •rl 4J rt) U -P 0) c g 0) •d c !=>

Q

r~ a\ o

rH i n

CM

m CO •

VO

00 i n

CM

VO vO

VO

4) >

•H

ti V 0)

^ 1

-P a o

•H •d

^ o

M

«o Ti*

O

CM H

ro

VO r* •

o\

i n r ^

CO

VO a\ a\

o •H

+»

•H

3 x: 4J c u 1 M 4) 43 0 to

1^

CO ' i '

o

i n o\ CM

i n t^ •

00

0 \ a\ CM

i n 0 \

CO

0) 3 0

•H •p c 4)

•H 0 (0 c 0 u 1 4)

rH

2 to -d u (d D> g (0

•rl Q

e>

CM o\ H

CO Ov

CM

00 "f •

00

'd' o fO

c CM

<

CQ SI 0 M 3 •P C 4) > '5 <

1 > i

Xi CO

X

o •

r-o\ • ^

a\ ro

CM

tn r-

• i n

^ r-CM

CM i n

r-

•d 4) XJ c

•rl S ^ 4> -d c 0) 6H 1 'd a> •d c

•H E

x: en d 0

B

H

i n r-o

VO VO

CM

0 \ O •

r-

•^ r-CM

t^ n

f -

6 0) •H rH (d :3

TJ •H >

•rl T3 C

•H

4-> O 4) 0< « p 0 u

•H U 1

H ;3 m -p m 4)

tcj

o

rH O

•

i n r-<

n

CM r~ CM

o "# •

r-

ro c CM

o vO

CO

0) >

•H W c 0)

x: 4} u a ^ 1

TJ

P M D (Q U) (tf

<4-» H 4) CO

O

P» C~

o

C--i n

CM

ro VO •

vO

CM VO

CM

H o\ VO

P c 4)

•rl

IM VM 31 CO

»w H 4) to 1

•P c 4) T3 C 4) D* 4) •d

& 0 p M D> > i

rH ^ (0

•rl (J 0 to

CM a

o •

ro ^ 00 a\

CM O

VO CTN <JN t^

CM CJ

O CM 00' CO • •

00 r -

VO VO H CO

ro CM

0\ 00 a\ rH

Ov 00

-d 4)

rH H

a •p c 0

u 1 4) "d to 4) C

rH 4) '-< 6H 0 1 U Xi •P 0) C X O (0 O rH a 4) D an

a a 1

61

62

tough-mindedness.

On factor 0 Self assured vs Apprehensive, the

mean scores of the two under-achieving groups in

English and Mathematics are 8.60 and 7,40 and the S.Ds.

are 2.93 and 2.72 respectively. The 't* value is

found to be 3.15 which is highly significant at ,01

level.

Since the mean score of the under-achievers in

English is significantly greater than that of under-

achievers in Mathematics, it can be concluded that the

under-achievers in English are more apprrehensive than

the under-achievers in Mathematics.

On factor Q,, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the

means of the under-achievers in English and Mathematics

are 9.99 and 8.80 while the S.Ds. are 3.16 and 2.96

respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.83

which is significant at .01 level.

The results thus clearly bring out that the under-

achievers in English are more controlled while the

under-achievers in Mathematics are less controlled.

On the remaining 11 factors, the differences

between the under-achievers in English and Mathematics

are insignificant.

63

The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d in Tab le 2 may be concluded

as under:

The uDder-achlevers In English are:found t o be:

(1) More tender minded

(2) More apprehensive

(3) More controlled

The under-achievers in Mathematics are found to be:

(1) Less tender minded

(2) Less apprehensive

(3) Less controlled

Comparison Between Over- and Under-achievers in English on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)

Table 3 shows the significance of difference

between over-achievers in English and under-achievers

in English on fourteen personality factors.

As can be seen from Table 3, the over-under

achievers in English differ significantly on seven

personality factors, namely. Affected by feeling vs

emotionally stable (C), Obedient vs Assertive (E),

Sober vs Enthusiastic (F), Disregard rules vs Cons

cientious (G)t Tough minded vs Tender minded (I),

3elf assured vs Apprehensive (0) , and Uncontrolled

vs Controlled (Q.) .

CO

Xi V)

•H H o» C M C

•H

(Q U

o (0 I

en

o u 0) C

0) 0) CO

x:

0) I ? n -P 0) 0) -O n B 0 , ^ 013 c c 0) rtf M 0) * < •H Q >w o 0) o c (0 o

•H *w •H C cn

• H CO

0) o

O It)

o

>-^ •H

0) - 3 4J H - (0

>

64

to

(U

0) w ^ •H -H O J S H O O O^rH

(1) c ^

C

(0

u > m ^

•H H VO

(0 U I M C

> o

(0

o

CM

>1 4J

c o (0 M 0)

o in rH in 0 0 0

in o

in o

o C7S o \ o 4 O 0 ' * c o i n r - o < x ) ^ o i £ ) i n r o ' * i n i n o c s c M i n H r ~ • ' ^

• • * * * • • • • • • • O M * O O < * 1 O C ^ < * > r M r H C M r H r 0 H O

o t 00 O

CM rH iH in 0\ CO in H o\

• J* •^ •<* C O CM v O v O

o r- r- a> vo H 00 C N r > j c o c > i c M n c M r o c M C N < N j c s j n c M

i n c N r o r H v o v D i n t ^ c M r - o H C 0 c ^ v o o ^ v O C ^ O ^ C M l n ^ ^ v o o ^

0\ CO 0\ H

r ^ T T o r > - ' ^ c ^ o o c y > r ^ t ^ c o ^ £ > O N O O

i n H c O ' * r - m i n r o i n < < j » v o o o i n a \ C 0 > ^ O ^ C 0 n C 0 r ^ O ^ l n C 0 V O ^ J ' ^ O C 0

C M f N l C M O l C M C M r O C M C N C M C N C v J f O O )

c ^ < y > o H i n r > - r * r o i n c o < H r ^ 5 i < r ^ r - < T l < 0 \ r H V O H a » l O t n O H r H r > a f O

C O ' ^ C O C O L O O O C ^ C O v D C O r - V O r H C O

t ) Q)

ti (d •H i - (

rH (U •P C

•H

(0 U] i 4a -d 0) •P 0 0)

4-» IW

<

0) .H jQ <d -P •H 0 X u 1

 •H

+) (d u -p CO c 0 g 0) 'O c ID

0)

> •H -P U (U CO

^ 1

4J G 0) •H •d (1) ^ 0

0 •r<

+> %

•r(

m :3 x: •p B M

1 M (U X( 0 to

CO P 0

4J B (U •H 0 CO G 0 u 1 CO <D r-i :i

« CO

Td u m Di

P u CO

•rH

«

CO p 0 M P -P B (U > -d < 1

> i ^ CO

•d (U XJ B

•H

e u flj

TJ B CU B 1

-d •H

-d B

•H

•P 0 1) CU CO

E 3 0 M

•H U 1

rH P

»H -P (0 CD

oa

9> > •H CO B OJ x: a> M

a 9-< 1 x j >1

H

^ •H 0 0 CO

-d CU r-{ H 0 U +J c 0

V XJ CU

rH iH 0 u -p B 0 0 B 13

CU CO B CU E-i 1

TJ (U

S H CU 05

<c cQ u p w oi m ^

( x , o K H b o a a a

65

On factor C, Affected by feeling vs emotionally

stable, the means of the over-achievers in English

and underachlevers in English are 8.9 and 10.63 while

the S.Ds. are 2.98 and 3.26 respectively. The 't'

value is found to be 3.39 which is significant at

.01 level.

The results thus reveal that the over-achievers

in English are emotionally less stable while the under-

achievers in the same subject are emotionally more

stable.

Factor E, on which high scorers are counted as

more assertive and low scorers less assertive, obedient

and sxibmissive, the over-achievers in English have

lower mean scores than the vmder-achievers in English,

Their mean scores are 5.65 and 6.66 while the S.Ds.

aire 2.37 and 2.51 respectively. The 't* value is ,

found to be 2,5 which is significant at .05 level.

The results thus clearly indicate that the over-

achievers in English are obedient while the under-

achievers in English are prone to be assertive and

dominant.

On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the means of

the two groups are 8.17 and 9.96 and S.Ds. are 2.85

and 3,15 respectively. The 't' value is found to be

66

3.58 which is significant at ,01 level.

The results thus evidently bring out that the

under-achievers with their high mean score in English

are more enthusiastic while the over-achievers in

English are less enthusiastic.

On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious,

the means of the both over- and under-achieving groups

in English are 9.97 and 8.95 while the S.Ds. are 3.15

and 2.99 respectively. The 't' Value is found to be

2,04 and it is significant at ,05 level.

The results indicate a trend of positive linear

relationship between over-under achievement. The

over-achievers show significantly greater ability of

conscientiousness than the under-achievers in English,

On factor I, Tough-minded vs Tender-minded, the

means of the over-under achieving groups in English

are 6,55 and 7,52 and S,Ds, are 2.55 and 2.74 res

pectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.25 which

is significant at .05 level.

The results on this personality dimension thus

clearly indicate that the under-achievers in English

with their high mean score are more tender-minded

than the over-achievers in English.

Comparison between over- and under-achieving

67

groups in English on factor 0, Self-assured vs Appre

hensive also shows significant difference between the

two groups. The mean scores of the groups are 7,11

and 8.60 and S.Ds. are 2.66 and 2.93 respectively.

The »t« value is found to be 3.10 which is significant

at .01 level.

As such it may be concluded that the over-achievers

in English on this factor are less apprehensive while

the under-achievers are more apprehensive.

On factor Q^/ Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the

means of the over-achievers in English and under-

achievers in the same subject are 11.24 and 9.99 while

the S.Ds. are 3.35 and 3.16 respectively. The 't*

value is found to be 2.40 which is significant at .05

level.

The results on this factor clearly indicate that

over-achievers in English are more controlled while

the xinder-achievers in the same subject are found to

be less controlled.

On the rest seven factors the differences between

over- and under-achievers in English are insignificant.

The findings shown in Table 3 are summarised

as follows:

68

The over-achievers J-n English are found to be:

(1) Emotionally less stable.

(2) Obedient and submissive.

(3) Less enthusiastic and less happy go lucky,

(4) More conscientious.

(5) Less tenderminded.

(6) Less apprehensive.

(7) More controlled.

The under-achievers in English are found t o be:

(1) Emotionally stable.

(2) Prone to be assertive and dominant.

(3) More enthusiastic and happy go lucky.

(4) Less conscientious.

(5) More tenderminded.

(6) More apprehensive.

(7) Less controlled.

Comparison Between Over- and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)


between over- and under-achievers in Mathematics on

fourteen personality factors. As can be seen from

Table 4, the over-achievers in Mathematics differ

significantly from under-achievers in the same stobject

on eleven personality factors, namely. Reserved vs

Warm-hearted (A), Less intelligent vs More intelligent

(B), Undemonstrative vs Excitable (D), Disregard

0)

(0 O

• H •P (fl S 0)

(0 2 c

•H

0} M Q) >

•H ^ W O O (0 -H » +>

M <0 0) g > 8 O JC

o s w c C H (0 0) (0

0) >

-p -H JC

c o 0) Id Q) I ^ u +> 

0)

o O OJ

O r-» -rl Q) U-4 > -H OJ C

• H W

(1) - 3

>

0)

0) >

X! -P 0\ U t) i t ) S II

69

a> •

x: <D II

(0 Z I C

0) > O

o o

0

o 0] M

o o o H H H i n i n H H r - l o o o o o o o o

in 00 CO ro

O o o c M a ) a \ o 4 r M r o i n c o < 7 » r ^

v o ^ O O < M O O ' * ' ! j « i r ) r g r M C M CM

o \ i f > i n r » H c » J i n H o \ \ o c M r - v o c r i a ^ O H t ^ i n H O N C ^ r o v o c ^ i n c h r *

< M 0 J n C > J ( N n f M C M C > 1 0 1 C v J C N ( N r M

r o r j r » - c o n v O i r > o o n < 7 > o r o o c > i o o ( N i ( y > v o r o t ^ r « ' * r » o - 5 i ' v o o o a )

r - « ! j < o \ i > v o c n o o ( n i r > r - t - v o o o ! ^

o ^ i n ' i j ' C O f n i n m ' ^ O ' i ' r H o c o o < M i n r - t < T » i n o r o c M c o c O C T H C o i n o r o c M n c N j o i n c o r o c N C N J C M c s j r o n

r~ in r- CM rM 00 in 00 <T» -*

i n r o o ^ H o O ' ^ i n i n n c N i n o O ' - i r i ' o o c o o

o vD en 00 *o Oi rs

(0

CO - P C

0) 4J C

• H

(1) M O

•P C 0)

H

-P C

(0 C O

•H -P O e M t -H

0t O C X

H

P

• H

0) 0)

m

 • H -P

0) >

ti 01

(0

o • H 4J C Q)

• H O w c o

o u •H I

0) 0) n CO

-p to q

O S 0)



n m

o r^ CO 00 CO cN cTi

p c 0)

• H U

• H >W

(0 I

m H (U w I

c 0)

T3 C a> a 0)

a

6 w

• H

no

M 0)

(0

•d

-d c

• H

- P O

^ i •o p TJ C

a en

> i

•H O O

O t O Q W E - t N C O C O

•H O

•H I

M

O

I >> o

0 •p in 0)

0) >

• H to C <u

42 a Q, -CI

I

a m

m

m

r-l O M -p c O

0) iH H O

•P C o o c

G

H

<: p o Q M CM n ^

frtOEHboaaa

70

rules vs Conscientious (G), Shy vs Adventurous (H),

Tough minded vs Tender minded (I), Zestful vs Circum

spect Individualism (J)/ Self assured vs Apprehensive

(0)/ Sociably group dependent vs Self-sufficient

(Q2)/ Unctontrolled vs Controlled (Q^)/ and Relaxed

vs Tense (Q ) .

On factor A, Reserved vs Warm-heairted, the mean

scores of over- and under-achieving groups in Mathe

matics are 10.87 and 7.83 while the S.Ds. are 3.29



It can be concluded from the results on this

factor^ that the over-achievers in Mathematics with

their significantly higher mean score are far more

warm-hearted than their under-achieving counterparts.

On factor B, Less intelligent vs More intelligent,

the means of the both over- and under-achieving

groups in Mathematics are 6.55 and 4.22 and the S.Ds.

are 2.55 and 2.05 respectively. The 't* value is found

to be 6.33 which is again highly significant at .01

level.

The results clearly indicate that on factor B,

the over-achievers in Mathematics with their higher

mean score are more intelligent while the under-

achievers are less intelligent.

71

Comparison between over- and under-achievers in

Mathematics on factor D, designated as Undemonstrative

vs Excitable also shows significant difference between

the two groups. The means of both over- and under-

achievers in Mathematics are 8.92 and 7«68 while the

S.Ds.are 2,98 and 2,77 respectively. The 't' value is

found to be 2.81 which is highly significant, at ,01

level.


achievers in Mathematics are more excitable while the *

under-achievers in the same subject are less excitable.

On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious, the

means of the two groups are 11,23 and 8,75 while the

S.Ds. are 3,35 and 2.95 respectively. The 't' value

is found to be 4,92 which is once again significant at

.01 level.

It can be concluded from the above results that

the over-achievers in Mathematics are more conscientious

while the tinder-achievers are less conscientious and

disregard rules.

On factor H, Shy vs Adventurous, the high scores

represent adventurous and the low scores represent

shy nature. On this personality factor the mean

scores of the over-achievers and under-achievers in

Mathematics are 10.50 and 8.48 while the S.Ds. are

72

3.24 and 2.91 respectively. The 't' value is found

to be 4.29 which is highly significant at .01 level.

The results thus clearly bring forth that on

factor H, the over-achievers in Mathematics with their

significantly higher mean score are far more adven

turous than the under-achievers in the same subject.

On factor 1, Tough minded vs Tender minded, the

mean scores of the over- and under-achieving groups in

Mathematics are 7.84 and 5.73 and S.Ds.are 2,80 and

2.39 respectively. The 't' value is found to be 5.17

which is again highly significant.

The results thus clearly bring out that the over-

achievers in Mathematics are more inclined to tender

mindedness while the under-achievers in Mathematics

can be described as more inclined to tough mindedness.

The comparison between over- and under-achievers

in Mathematics on factor J, designated as Zestful vs

Circumspect individualism, shows the significant

difference between the two groups. The mean scores of

both the groups are 8.11 and 7.09 while the S.Ds. are


to be 2.37 and it is significant at .05 level.

The results in this particular personality

dimension clearly indicate that the over-achievers in

Mathematics are more prone to circumspect individualism

73

while the under-achievers in Mathematics are less

prone to circumspect individualism and internally

restrained temperament.

On factor 0, Self-assured vs Apprehensive, the

means of the over- and under-achieving groups in

Mathematics are 8.84 and 7.40 and S.Ds.are 2.91 and

2.72 respectively. The't" value is found to be 2.51

which is significant at ,05 level.

It can be concluded therefore that the over-

achievers in Mathematics are more apprehensive while

the under-achievers in the same subject are less

apprehensive.

On factor Qj/ Sociably group dependent vs Self-

sufficient, the means of over- and under-achievers in

Mathematics are 7,84 and 6.63 and S.Ds. are 2,80 and

2.57 respectively. The 't* value which is significant

at .01 level is found to be 2,88.

The results thus clearly show that the over-

achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean score

are more prone to be self-sufficient, reflective and

prefering own decisions while the under-achievers in

Mathematics are less prone to self-sufficiency.

On factor Q^, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the

means of the over- and under-achievers in Mathematics

74

are 12.85 and 8.80 and S.Ds. are 3.58 and 2.96

respectively. The 't' value is found to be 7.94 v/hich

is highly significant at .01 level.

As can be seen from the results of this particular

personality factor, the over-achievers in Mathematics

with their high mean score are more controlled than the

under-achievers with their low mean score.

On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the high scores

represent more tense temperament and low scores relaxed

and tension free. On this personality dimension, the

mean scores of the over- and under-achieving groups in

Mathematics are 9.05 and 7.82 and S.Ds. are 3,00 and

2.79 respectively. The 't' value is again highly

significant at .01 level.

The results clearly give evidence that the over-

achievers in Mathematics are more tense while the

under-achievers in the same sxibject are comparatively

less tense.

The results presented in Table 4 thus reveal that

over-achievers in Mathematics are:

(1) More warmhearted


(3) More excitable


(5) More adventurous

75

(6) More i n c l i n e d t o tender -mindedness

(7) More prone t o c i rcumspec t i n d i v i d u a l i s m

(8) More apprehens ive

(9) More prone t o be s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and r e s o u r c e f u l

(10) More c o n t r o l l e d (11) More t e n s e

The under-achievers in Mathematics are found

to be:

Less warm hearted

Less intelligent

Less excitable

Less conscientious

Less adventurous

More prone to tough mindedness

Less prone to circumspect individualism

Less apprehensive

Less prone to be self-sufficient

Less controlled

Less tense

On the rest three factors as can be seen from

Table 4, the differences between the two groups are

insignificant.

Besides the above mentioned over all comparison

between the over-achievers of the two subjects as well

as the under-achievers in two subjects, and within

the subject/ between over- and under-achievers, com

parisons were also made on the basis of sex,that is,

within the same sex area and between the two sexes

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

76

both for the over- and under-achievers in English

and Mathematics.

Comparison Between Male Over-achievers in English and Male Over-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors(HSPQ)

AS stated earlier in the preceding chapters,

one major objective of this investigation is to find

out the differences among over-achieving groups in

English cind Mathematics on fourteen personality

dimensions.

Table 5 shows the significance of differences

between over-achievers in English and over-achievers

in Mathematics on fourteen personality dimensions.

As revealed by the results shown in Table 5,

the male over-achievers in English differ from male

over-achievers in Mathematics on factors. Reserved

vs Warmhearted (A) , Sober vs Enthusiastic (F) , and

Relaxed vs Tense (Q.) .

On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted, the

means of the over-achieving groups in English and



to be 1.99 which is significant at .05 level.

The results thus indicate that the over-achievers

77

u 0) > 0)

i n

Q) H ^ <9 H

o m I

U CO (D O > -H O -P

(ti 0) S H 

0) 0) x : -H 4J J3

0 a (0 0) I 0) t-i ^ 0) +J > (U o CD

(U Q) H 0 (0 c S 0) M -a 0) C 4- fl HA •H 42 Q n

•H H-t M o a>

c (U W 0 c to

o • r \

^ •H c D

y)

QJ O

H-l C O (0

a

> -H

0) C

J en

w - p

>

CO

u 0) • > w o

u <o x: > » ^ ®-H in

0) ^ iH H H 43 D» flJ O C II S (dW

> o

M O

o m

c o (0

in o

in o

OS 00 -^ r^ 00 H ON v£) o r^ a\ CN

i n v O i n r ^ a » c N v O " * o o y 3 L n a \ a \ f H v o r o n a s o o i n i n ' ^ CTv

in • *

H

in o

i n CM rH •* CM o

^ 00 CM

i n 00

CM o

r-CM

i n CM

O O O O C M O O O O O O O C M

in

C M r H r O C M C V l n C M C M C M C M C M C M r O C M

i n i n i n i A i n i n o o o o i n i n o o c T i c ^ c o c ^ o ^ ^ - H C O ' ^ ^ ~ v D o r ^ c ^ oo

o o r ^ c ^ ^ l n ^ ^ c o c o y ^ ^ ' ^ u ^ c ^ ^ ~

r ~ C O v O O v O v D C O O O C M O ( 7 ^ C ? \ O

v o o i H i n c M O i c ^ c o v o i o v O i n o i n C M C M f O C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M m C M

n c i o o v o c n n i o o ^ o n o c M H r o o f M i H o o c y > c o o o c n o o r - v o o i^ 1* o vo in CO c o r ~ v o v D v o ^ c ^ u J

-0 OJ 4->

w fO 4) 4:3

a (0 3 1

-0 (U > u Q) W 0) Oi

•P C

0) 4J C

•H

0) H 0

s 1 4J C 1 <-l

c 0

•H -P 0

E W 1

tj>

c •H H i 43

'd 0) 4J 0 (U ^ 'w <

01 r^

-§ •P •H 0 X w 1 0) > •H -P (0 ^ 4J 0)

c 0

e Q) 'O C D

Q) >

•H

ti 0) (0

^ 1

•p

c 0) •H t J (U ;Q 0

0 •H •P

« (fl

•rl CO 3

4: •P c M 1 M (U ^ 0 CO

CO

0 -H -P c Q) •H 0 (0 c 0

V CO cu

r-( 3 05

CO t ( u (0 D> Q) M CO

•H Q

CO 3 0 Ul p) •p

c 0) >

"CI -< 1

> 1

sx CO

^

'O (U t ) c

•H

e u (U -d c (1) H 1

t J 0) ' d c

•H

e x: 01 ;3 0 H

e CO

rH IT)

> •H T3 C

•H

-P 0 (U

a CO

£ P 0 u

• r \

U 1

H 3 m -P CO Q) ISl

0) >

•H

« C (U x: 0) ^ OA

Q< < 1

T) a> u 13 CO (0 (0

IW rH QJ CO

4-> C 0) •H U

-H

CO

CO 1

+> c (U T3 C CD

a CU 13

a 3 0 W cn

> i

r-\ 43 (0

• H U 0 CO

•v> OJ H H 0 W 4J C 0 u 1

•n QJ

rH r-i 0 U •P

c 0 0 c n>

0) CO

c 0) H 1

n (U

^ H Hi 05

r>J r n «;}<

< m u P w P ^ o K H b o O ( a a

78

in Mathematics are of more warmhearted, outgoing,

easy going and participating characteristics than the

over-achievers in English.

On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the high

scores represent enthusiastic and happy go lucky

and the low scores less enthusiastic and sober type

of temperament. On this personality dimension the

means of male over-achievers in English and Mathe

matics are 8,8 and 11.15 and the S.Ds.are 2.96 and

3.32 respectively. The 't' value is found to be

2.21 which is significant again at ,05 level.

Since the mean score of the over-achievers in

Mathematics is significantly greater than that of

over-achievers in English, it is concluded that the

male over-achievers in Mathematics are more enthu

siastic while the over-achievers in English are less

enthusiastic.

On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the means of the

over-achieving groups in English and Mathematics are

6.02 and 7,89 while the S.Ds. are 2.50 and 2.75

respectively. The 't' value which is significant

at ,05 level is found to be 2.25.

The results once again indicate that the male

over-achievers in Mathematics with their high mean

score are more tense while the male over-achievers in

79

English are l ess t e n s e .

On the r e s t eleven factors the differences

between male over-achievers in English and Mathe

matics are i n s i g n i f i c a n t .

The r e s u l t s shown in Table 5 may be concluded

as under:

The over-achievers in English are found to be:

(1) Less warmhearted"


C3) Less tense

The over-achievers in Mathematics are found to be:

(1) More warmhearted, outgoing and easy going

(2) More enthusiastic/ happy go lucky

(3) More tense

Comparison Between Male Under-achievers in English and Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)

Table 6 shows the differences between male under-

achievers in English and male under-achievers in

Mathematics on fourteen personality factors. The

differences between the two groups are significant

on three personality dimensions, namely Reserved vs

Warmhearted (A) , Zestful vs Circumspect individualiq^m

(J) and Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q_).

0) H

c •H

to M 0) > 0)

• H x: o (0 I

M W Q) O C -P tD m

e (U 0)

(d -p

o c (0 C (Q 0) Q)

S > Q)

•P O <0

C I (U M

0) a>

+> c CQ

0) 0) <H O (0 C £ -rH (U C

-H W

0) - 3 -P H » (0

>

W M 0) > • 0) W ^

0) -H x: CN -H x: -p r-(O O (tJ S (OS II

I M C 25 <D -H ^ -n c 3

> - l (U

>x: 0) 0) ^

0) -H -H <N •H x : <Hr-(0 O D» S <t» C II

i M U 2 Q) C —'

XJ-H c p

M M 0

•P (J

•P •H rH (0 c O 01 0) Q4

o o

r ^ ^ o ( ^ l C D < H r ^ ^ - m r - a ^ o ^ -m v D o j m r g r - r o r o o o o r o o

<N

O 00

" t O O O o o o o v o H o n

vo i n CM ON a \ CM

r O C M C M r O C M C S C N C N C N C N C N C s l

C D > H r - i n t n c < 4 0 v o c o c r v r o a > i n r - ' O N O O r o i D ' ^ M c r t c D o m ^ L n v o t ^

00 n o r- v D o i n o o t ^ t i ' ' X > v o r ~ r -

i n r o o N r H r o o ( T > ' 4 ' v o « * r - r ^ O L n v o o H r ^ v o c s i f o O N ^ v o v D i n o o o f M C N ) n < M r N J n ( N C M C N < N r M ( M r O C M

t i ' v o o o o m o i n o N ' H c N c o o j ^ j ' i n O H c M f o o N n r - v o r H O H y D O ' H

t-» -"i* o r- v o o L D O O r - r - r - v o c h c o

T> OJ

4J

^ (0 0) ^ ^ n (d 'S 1

-d 0)

^ (U w (1) 05

<:

-p

c 01 •H rH 0) -P c

•H

Q) M 0 2 T •P

c 1 r-l r-i ft) C 0

•H 4-» 0

e w 1 0 1

c •H rH 0) i X!

TJ 0) •P 0 0) >« 4-1 •H

-P (0 M

•P m a 0 B 0)

'a c 0

a

0) >

•H

1 0) CO

m <: 1

•p c Q)

•H t 3 <2> X> 0

U

0 •H JJ (0 fO

•H CO 3 x: -p c; u 1 M n <

1 N x: CO

K

t j 0) T3 c

•rj g M (U 13 C (U

e-< 1 Xi 0) -a c

•H

e x: 0^ 3 0 i^

H

e CO

• H r-i

p

•H >

•H -0 c

•H

+J 0 0) D* to p

3 0 i-i

-H U 1

r-f

D 4-( •p to (U N

b

(U >

•H to c Q) x: i

rH

^ •H 0 0

CO

CN

a

-d 0)

r H r H 0 M 4J

c 0

V t ) <u

r H r H 0 M -P G 0 U C

a

0) to c 0) H 1

TJ Q)

?3 r H Q)

a

81

On factor A/ Reserved vs Warmhearted, the means

of the male underachieving groups in English and


2,65 and 2.96 respectively. The 't' value is found

to be 4.31 which is significant at .01 level.

It can be concluded therefore, that the male

under-achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean

score tend to be more warmhearted, out going, easy

going and of participating nature. The mean score of

the under-achievers in English being significantly

lower,they are prone to be less warmhearted.

On factor J, Zestful vs Circumspect individualism,

the high scorers are more individualistic, reflective

and internally restrained and low scorers are more

zestful.

The means of the under-achieving boys in English

and Mathematics, as can be seen from Table 6, are

7.02 and 4.59 and S.Ds. are 2.64 and 2.14 respectively.

The 't* value is found to be 6.39 and it is highly


The results clearly bring out that the under-

achievers in English are more prone to circumspect

individualism, reflecting and internally restrained

nature while the under-achievers in Mathematics are

more zestful.

82

On factor Q-., Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the

means of the both under-achieving groups in English

and Mathematics are 9.04 and 7.65 while the S.Ds.

are 3.00 and 2.76 respectively. The 't' value is

found to be 3,02 which is again significant at .01

level.

It can be concluded from the results shown in

Table 6 that the male under-achievers in English are

more controlled and male under-achievers in Mathe

matics are less controlled.

On the rest eleven factors, the differences

between the two under-achieving groups in Mathematics

are insignificant.

The findings shown in Table 6 may be summarised

as under:

The male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h a r e found t o be :

(1) Less warmhearted

(2) More prone to circumspect individualism, reflective and internally restrained nature

(3) More controlled

The male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics are found t o b e :

(1) More warmhearted and easy going

(2) More z e s t f u l

(3) Less c o n t r o l l e d

83

Comparison Between Male Over- and Under-Achlevers in English on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)

Table 7 shows the differences between male over-

and under-achievers in English on fourteen personality

dimensions.

AS seen from the Table 7, male overachievers in

English differ significantly from male under-achievers

in English on three personality dimensions/ namely^

Obedient vs Assertive (E) , Sober vs Enthusiastic (F) ,

Disregards Rules vs Conscientious (G).

On factor E, Obedient vs Assertive, the means of

the male over- and under-achievers in English are

5.13 and 6.95 while the S.Ds. are 2.26 and 2.63 res

pectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.8 and it is


Since the mean score of the over-achievers in

English is significantly lower than that of under-

achievers in English, it can be concluded that the

male over-achievers in English are prone to be of

obedient, temperament while the under-achievers in

English are prone to be assertive.

The comparison between over- and under-achieving

boys in English on factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic

shows significant difference between the two groups.

The means of the over- and under-achieving boys in

84

c • H

V) M d) > (1)

•rH

x: o (0 1

M 0) x: > 01 Ci -H

H 0) en

rH C (0 w s c 4-1 -H 0

(0

to M C 0) (0 > 0) 0) S - H

X! 0) U X ro • ^ » , '

(4

c a> 0) tJ 0) C >. ^ -p 0) 0) PQ "H

<0 >w x: 4-1 to •H -H P H

Cn 4^ C 0 U 

•<-{

w

a) o c (0 u

r-t ^ 0) M-l > -H 0) C

-H to

0) - ;3 4J H - (0

>

to

u 0) > £ (1) (» <^

•H -H (N 0) x: rH r-• H O W m 0) c II S 1 a

M 2! -H IT) Q) rH «-!

0) -H D> H X C II ro O W S n» Z

1 C - - ' U T 4 0) > o

Q to

c nj

a> s

to M 0

4J O rtJ

CC4

> 1 4J • H r H

(0 c o to u (V cu

rH CM

O

i n vO

(N

•<* o

r-

r-vo CM

m r H

r~

TJ 0) •P U (0 0) x: E M ITJ S »

'd OJ

t Q) W 0) CiJ

<

as ( N

o

m o OJ

v£» r H

^

CO o CM

n ro

'^

-P C 0) D>

•H / H rH 0) J j C

• H

0) V 0

s 1 •p

c 0) w

• H H

^ (U •p c •H (0

to (U J

CQ

CM O

O

cr> r H

ro

O CM

O r H

^ rH

m

o o

o H

l

r-i r H

m c 0

• H •P

O E W

1 cn c:

• H r-i

d) i XI

'0 (U •p o Q) MH MH



•r(

+J fO

M •p to c o e 0) •d c p

Q

o •

o 00

CM

CO vO

CM

i n cn

«^

vD CM

CM

n r-i

i n

0) >

•H 4J M tu to

^ 1

+J C <u

• H . ^3 (U X) o

w

i n o •

CO t ~

r-i

o CM

fO

o n

o r H

VO

cn CM

o CO

00

0 • H

+J to (t)

• H to 3 x: 4-1

c M 1 M -d << « N x: CO

K

CM

•>*

O

vD VO

CM

r H r H

r>

o VD

CM

o 00

VD

-d 0) -d c

• H g M 0) 'd c 0) £H 1

T) m TJ c

- H

e x: O i ;3 0 H

H

ro OJ

O

-* VO

CM

CM O

C^

CM VO

CM

VO 00

vO

e to • H H to 3 TJ •rt

> • H 'd c

• H

+J 0 0) cu to £ 3 a u

•r»

o 1

H ;3

i p

-p to Q> (SJ

t ^

CN i n

o

r~-VO

CM

00 r-i

r-

o vD CM

O CO

VO

QJ >

• H to q ti) x: (U M a Q , <

1 TJ 0) u 3 CO (0 (0 1

4H r H QJ CO

O

•* r H

o

r-i n

CM

CM VO

VO

cn i n

CM

ro r-VO

-p c (U •w o

•ri m m 3 to 1

H-i r-i

0) CO

1 •p c Q) -d c (U a Q)

• d

a 3 0 u 0 1

> t r H

X) nJ

• H

o o

CO

CM

a

CM VO

o

o o

ro

•<* O

<y\

a\ o

ro

O VD

Ch

d Q)

r H rH 0 u 4-> C

0 u

1 'd 0)

H r-i O U -P c 0 0 c

ro a

r~-rH

H

in CO

CM

i n r-i

00

as vO

CM

VO CM

r-

(U CO c (U E-i

1 'd (U

1 r-i Q)

a

^ a 1

85

English are 8.8 and 10.30 while the S.Ds. are 2,96


1.78 which is significant at ,05 level.

Thus it can be inferred from the results that the

male over-achievers in English with their low mean

score are prone to be less enthusiastic and male

under-achievers with their high mean score prone to

be more enthusiastic and happy go lucky.

On factor G, Disregards rules vs Conscientious^ •,

the means of the over-under achieving boys in English

are 8,93 and 5.75 and the S.Ds, are 2.98 and 2.39

respectively. The 't' value which is highly signi

ficant at .01 level is found to be 3.92.

The results thus clearly indicate that the over-

achievers in English are more conscientious while the

under-achievers are prone to be disregarding rules

and neglecting the bindings.

On the rest eleven factors the differences

between over- and under-achieving boys in English are

insignificant.

The findings shown on Table 7 may be concluded as

follows:

The over-achieving boys in English are found to be:

(1) Less assertive, less dominant and less aggressive.

86



The under-achievers are found to be:

(1) More assertive and aggressive

(2) More enthusiastic and happy go lucky

(3) Less conscientious and disliking rules

Comparison Between Male Over- and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)

Table 8 shows the differences between male over-

achievers in Mathematics and male under-achievers in

Mathematics, on fourteen personality factors. The

differences between the two groups are significant

on three personality factors, namely. Disregard rules

vs Conscientious (G), Zestful vs Circumspect indi

vidualism (J) and Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q ) .

On factor G, Disregard rules vs Conscientious

the high scores represent conscientiousness and

low scores a disregard for rules. The means of the

over- and under-achieving boys in Mathematics are 8.8

and 5.90 and S.Ds. are 2.96 and 2.42 respectively.

The 't' value is found to be 3.97 which is highly


The results thus give a clear evidence that the

over-achieving boys in Mathematics are conscientious

00

0) H

u > 0)

•H

0 (l> (n I U

U -H Q) 4-> > (0 o g

0) 0) J3

rH 4J (0 0

a 2 4-1 C O-H

(0 (0 C M nj 0) 

•H 0) £

• a I

G Wi

(u -a •p := 0)

c

u "^

u-t m 0) •H O Q -H

•p

o e 0)

c (0

u •H M-l -rl c en

•H CO

0) u

IW C o ta

o r-i -H 0) 4^ > - H 0) C

•H (0

- ;3 •P rH - to

>

0)

0) > 0) • •H to ^

H o -p r> rt) ffl (0 S I S «

0) C Z

C ID

W U

> •

•H ^ O o

87

w M O 4J o m

^4

> i 4J -H H /O C o Cf]

o o

o r- t~ in o ^

<H -^ o r- >* t -o o ' * C3N o i n

o o o -H

(7* C>1 " y 00 rH a> csj 00 00

• • • • CO n o o o4 •

i n i n o 4 5 j < n C T v c M r ^ v O ' 4 ' r ^ v o v o o o o c ^ c N r - i n r H ' » j < c r i v D r H u n i n r ~ c ^ r s l r H c n C M O 4 n O J < N C M O J C v i 0 > J O l C M

i n r H r - i n i n c N O v o o o o N r o o s i n r -o c o r o i n - « i * c N O ^ o o o L n v O L n i o r ^ r - n o t ~ * ' X > o i n c o t - t j < n O C T * i H v O f o O C T > o o i n i n ' < * m r H r -< N J r H n C S J < N n C M 0 4 C M C S C N C M r O C M

00 in in in in in o o CO a\ CJN r* rH oo

o o o in in o o rH r- v£) o r~ o\ tn

^ * r o o ^ v O l n o ^ o o c o v o ^ o ^ o v o o ^

T) 0) -P M 03 Q) ^ g G (0 3 1

Xi (U

c; -H r H r H 1

^ -0 (U •p 0 0)

I M MH •H •P (t) M •P W C 0 g 

• H •P U Q) 0}

^ i .

+> B 0)

^

ii O

u

o •H +J w <0

•H n 3 ^ •P

c M 1 U

^ 0 w

fu

0 •H -p G <D •rl 0 (0 C O U 1

tn 

• ^ < 1

> i 42 en

tc

T) 0)

^3 c

• r l

e tH 0) TJ C (U £H 1

t3 (U 73 C

• r l

£ J: a> ;3 o B

H

e m

•rH r H

•r |

> •r l T) C

• r l

•P 0 Q) a U) s 3 u u

•r l

u 1

r-^

3 m +J U) 0)

N

• ^

0) >

• r l W C (D x: <i) u a 9< < 1

-d 0) SH 3 w w no

i p r H 0) CO

O

•P C Q)

•H O

•H 4H 4H

m

rH

CO

1 -P C 0) TD C (1) D^ 0)

T3

Q. 3 0 U C^

:> i

H XI (0 •H U 0 CO

a

no 0)

r H r-i 0 n 4J c 0 u 1

Xi (1)

<-{

r-i 0 M +J c 0 0 c ID

a

a> W c 0) fH 1

t i 0)

% H (U

a

88

and the under-achievers in the same subject disregard

rules.


the mean scores of both the over- and under-achieving

groups in Mathematics are 6,6 and 4,59 while the S.Ds.


found to be 3.19 which is again highly significant at

,01 level.

From results on this particular factor, it can be

concluded that the over-achievers in Mathematics are

characterised by circumspect individualism, reflective

ness and internally restrained temperatment. The under-

achieveirs are markedly zestful and internally less

restrained.

On factor Q-,, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the

means of the over- and under-achieving boys in Mathe

matics are 9,9 and 7,65, the S,Ds. are 3,14 and 2,76




achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean score

tend to be more controlled and under-achievers in the

same subject tend to be less controlled.

On the remaining eleven factors, the differences

between both over- and under-achieving boys in

89

Mathematics are insignificant.

It can, thus be concluded from the results

shown in Table 8 that the over-achieving boys in

Mathematics are:


(2) More prone to circumspect individualism

(3) More controlled

The under-achieving boys are found to be:

(1) Disregarding rules

(2) More zestful

(3) Less controlled

Comparison Between Female Oyer-achievers in English and Female Over-achievers ip Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)


between over-achieving girls in English and Mathe

matics on fourteen personality factors, AS can be seen

from Table 9, the differences between the two female

over-achieving groups are significant on three

personality factors, namely, Reseirved vs Warmhearted

(A), Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q^) and Relaxed

vs Tense (Q^) .

On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted, the high

scorers are more v/armhearted, out going, easy going

and of pari:icipating characteristics. The low scorers

0) r-l

B

2 > 0)

• H

nj I

M 

o C (t) (U I

jt 0)

-p > 0) O CQ

0) 0) <-l O (0 c E

<D

• « C •H fl3 Q

m o n V c (0

o

•rl

c

cn

o o <t)

o 0) U-l > -H 0) C

•H 0)

- SJ

. (0

to

> <0 (U

0) ^

(0 j3 + » i n (0 o

(0 I

> o

to u

> n ^ 0) -H H i n

-H ^ D»

(t) o c n g (0 M _ 0) I Z

0) -H

to M O

•P 0 (0

&«

•P •H H (fl C o to u Q) OK

i n o

CN

00

Xi 0)

4-> U (tJ 0) x:

I

> M 0)

w 0)

cm

in r-l

o o

O H O i n i n O i n t s o r o c D o i i n r - i

o o o H o O O O CM fS

i n og Ti< 00 O •^ O CD

• " I ' t ^ C ^ O O r o C T i n r O O O

' * o o c 4 o o r - r - c o r - r o r - t

m c M f g o i c v j C M m o j t N C M o j o a m n

o o n O n v O t - f O i n t ^ o J i n t T v i n v o n o r - m O N C O l ^ f O - ^ C O O v C r o v o

a ^ i n c o c o i n r - o o o r - 00 r- <H en

vo 00 > in r^ 00 o o> Oi •* a\

00 iH r- vo vo in »X) CO o in CO r^ vD r-l CD

( N < N C M C N J ( N C M r O r O < N C M 0 4 ( N r O C N )

o j i n c~- •<* CN) tN f<> CO C~ rH

vO 01 CN O ^ H rH vO <M VO

CO 00 vO

<D

i n

00 O ON vO

ro O <N O O csj

00 r- O CO

4J c 0)

Q)

c

o s I

-p c 0)

• H

0) -p c

•H

to to

• J

-3 •p (A

c o

-p

i M

I

to

o •o

e to

-H (0 3

•r^

c (1) fH

o

iw 0 to

iW rH

to

•H 0> 0 C X

H (U (1) 0) >

i « -H •P

• H - P M Q) to

CO to

tu •P O

4H ^0 0) MH q ^ < p» o

I •p c 0)

•H

0 •H -P to (tJ

•tH to 0 x: -p Q M 1 u ^ 0 tn

4J c 0> •H 0 to c 0 C) 1 I/! 

•^ < 1

> l

s: w

0) Tl c

•ri

g

M 0) '0 c (U H 1

Tl 0) T) C

•H (=

x: m :3 0 H

> •H Xl C

•H

-P 0 

•r^

to

0) x: OJ i-i Q, a < 1

a Q) M 3 to CO (0

m H 0) to

( • p

c 0)

c 0) a, Q) '0

9* 3 0 M a> > i

r H

^ -r^

u 0 en

'a 0) rH rH 0 M •P C 0 0 1

XJ Q)

rH r H

0 M -P C 0 u « H)

0) to G (U H 1

T) 0)

S r H (U cC

< CQ U Q W

<N n ^

91

on the other hand, are more reserved, aloof, critical

and stiff in temperament.

The means of the over-achieving girls in English

and Mathematics are 8.22 and 9,38 while the S.Ds. are


to be 2,10 and it is significant at .05 level.

The results thus indicate that the over-achieving

girls in Mathematics are warmhearted, easy going, out

going and of participating characteristics. On the

other hand, the female over-achievers in English are

more reserved, aloof,critical and stiff in temperament.

On factor Qo, Uncontrolled vs Controlled, the

means of both female over-achieving groups in English

and Mathematics are 10.00 and 9,66 and the S,Ds,are

3,16 and 3,30 respectively. The 't' value is found

to be 2,25 which is moderately significant at .05

level.

It can be concluded, therefore, that the over-

achieving girls in English are less controlled while

the over-achieving girls in Mathematics are more

controlled.

The comparison between both female over-achieving

groups in English and Mathematics on Q designated as

Relaxed vs Tense also shows significant difference

92

between the two groups. The means of the over-

achieving girls in English and Mathematics are 8.22

and 9.66 while the S.Ds. are 2.88 and 3.10 respec

tively. The 't' value is found to be 2.61 which is


The results thus give a clear indication that

the female over-achievers in English are far less

tense than the over-achievers in Mathematics, the

latter thus being more tense, frustrated and

fretful.


between the over-achieving girls in English and

Mathematics are not significant.

The resul ts presented in Table 9 thus reveal

that the over-achieving g i r l s in English are:

(1) Less warm hearted

(2) Less controlled

(3) Less frustrated, less tense

The over-achieving girls in Mathematics are:

(1) More warmhearted, easy going and of participating characteristics

(2) More controlled

(3) More tense, frustrated and fretful

93

Comparison Between Female Under-achlevers in English and Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)


between the female under-achieving groups in English

and Mathematics on fourteen personality dimensions.

As can be seen from Table 10 the female under-achieving

groups in English and M athematics differ significantly

on two personality dimensions, namely. Sober vs

Enthusiastic (F), and Tough minded vs Tender minded.

On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic the mean scores

of both female under-achieving groups in English and

Mathematics are 8.88 and 5.90 and the S.Ds. are 2.97

and 2,42 respectively. The 't' value is found to be


It can, therefore, be concluded from the results

that the female under-achievers in English are

enthusiastic while the female under-achievers in

Mathematics are sober.

On factor I, Tough minded vs Tender-minded the

means of the two female under-achieving groups in

English and Mathematics are 5.12 and 8.09 while the

S.Ds. are 2.29 and 2.84 respectively. The 't' value

is found to be 4.12 which is again significant at

.01 level.

c •H

cn U 0) >

• H x: o 03 I W

u o C a)

^1 0) ^

H 4J « (0

1^ PM C

•H

O 01 U

(0 0)

S > 0) -H

o

• c • •P U

« •H C Oi

•H CO

0) 14-1 U

o c rt)

>-( U Q) -H > M-l

tJ C D<

•H 0)

0) - 3 +J H - fO

>

(0 ^ (U >

H -H £ r^ flj £ 4J rM sum 0) (OS n

14 C Z ti a 13

94

2 a> > J2 (l> 0) ^

Q) -H -H ^ rH ^ iH n (« O Cn " • C II e (0 Q) I

0)

w o -p

5^ > i •p •H t - l (d c o 0) M 0)

H O

c o v D o i n ^ a j i n t n c M f o o o o m i n O v D T j « C N n o v O r j ' H O c > j m c O f n

H O O O O ' * r H O " ^ 0 0 ' - ( 0 0

( N r O 0 0 C r i ' < * ' < * ' 5 j ' C D C 0 C 0 O \ v O r > 4 vO

r O C M C S l C M C M C N j n C M C M C M C N J C M f O O

O O C O n ' H f - < O v O ' * O N ' ' l < t - » O r H

(7> CM

m f M C M ( N C M f N j n c ^ ) c C 0)

en

0) P M (6 Q)

s I

TJ Q)

0) CO CO CO (U (U 05 h l

p CO

Id c o

• r (

•P O

6 w,

I

cu rH X) (d -p

0)

c

C X •H W

I 0) >

• H P CO U

P CO c o E 0)

cu o

0) 0)

M-i

x>

cu p o 0)

4J M CD

CO Id

CO CO

ip c

CO

I - P c cu

•H

O

3

P

c M

I

O CO

CO

o •H -P C (U

• H O W c o u

I CO ( 0

o u ^ p c CU

>

cu

2

Id

cu

c

e

cu •d c cu

c

CJ>

s CO

•H Q

'Tl < 1

> i

JZ CO

0 0 £H

g CO

• H H Id

> •H '0

c •H

•P o cu a CO o M

U I

H :3

ip 4-) CO 0) eg

> •H

m H cu

CO I

•P c cu

CO T J

cu x: cu

u a

cu

a 0)

I -a cu M

W CO Id

(U

3 0 n en

> i <~{ XI fO

• H U

o CO CO

CU

o u p a o o

I -o 0)

-H rH

p c o o c

o <x>

o i n c o c D t n i n r H c o c o c D c o v o o r H rH r^

^ r o o xj* CO CO CO m CO

CM

c o o 00 CM in in o

c 7 ^ l n Q O o o v D c o o c O l n c o o o ^ - c ^ r-

P c cu

•H O

•H * P ip

CO

(U CO c cu

I

cu

(U

o j n ' *

95

It is thus evident from the results shown in

Table 10 that the female under-achievers in English

are tough minded while the female under-achievers in

Mathematics are tender minded.

On the rest twelve factors the differences

between the female under-achieving groups in English

and Mathematics are not significant.

The findings shown in Table 10 may be concluded

as under:

The under-achieving g i r l s in English are found to be:

(1) En thus ia s t i c , happy go lucky (2) Tough minded

The under-achieving g i r l s in Mathematics are found to be:

(1) Sober

(2) Tender minded

Comparison Between Female Over- and Under-Achievement in English on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)


between female over- and under-achievers in English

on fourteen personality dimensions. As seen in

Table 11, the over- and under-achieving girls differ

significantly on three personality factors designated

c •H

a > Qi

• H x: o (0 I

M Q) X > 0) O •<-•

H q 2 M 8 C

«M 01 O U

0) to >

B 0)

0) fX

^ A •P 0)

TJ C C - H 0) C •J D>

•H W

- 3 +> H - (t)

>

n 0) > JC

•H H •«l' J3 H fO

E nj c u

tt) I M _

0) C '

O

9 6

0)

1-1

 1

p • H H (0 a 0 to M 0) 04

IT)

o

0 0

o o r H

O IT)

ir> (N i H

fO

o CO i n

04

00

a:

O •<* << 00 CX) CO lO CT> H r- r- ch

o o o o o

CO n CM vo o (M en o\

CM O in <N in o in CO

•^ 00 VO O fM rH 00 o i n r-i

vO

vo 00 r- in CO O <7N O

<H CO rH r» vo vo i n ^D o i n 00 t^ vo H

' # o o o o " ^ o o o c h v D o o r - - r -

4J C

0)

+j

to

>. r H H fO C O

T 3 C

•H r H •w • p

C •H

0)

> •H •P M 0) (0

t % -P I

<t> w •P 4) C C 4J P 1 0

to

o -p c 0)

>

I > 1

CO

0) - d c

M (U T3 C (U

c •rl

cn

o H

e CO •H rH (0

T> •H > 0)

•H >

c to •H q

•p x : O 0) 0) M 04 a to a g < 3 I U "d M

•H U I

2J

p

c 0) •H O

•d

m

to IH « CO I

•p 0) Q)

C "H (U O a M O -P XJ C

0 a u 3 I O TJ

4-1 •p to 0) 0)

3 to (0 (d I

4-1

XI (0

CD

a •p c o

in o

CM O O O O CN

r ^ t ^ i O r - 4 ( y » ' < : i < r ~ - o c j \ v o • • * O \ < N O \ C M 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o u 3

r O C M C M C N C M O J r O C M C N C M C M C M r O C N )

O O CO in in o

c n i n o o o o ' ^ o o o o o i n o o r ~ - t ~ - c 7 \ f ^

o o o c

M CO CO D

CO CO

{ N C N r v J r M f N j f M r o n C N C N i r v J f M r O f M

f M i n r - ^ c N ' - H v o c M o j O ' c j ' n o c N < S f O C O t ~ > H i n H r - t i D r > ) v D O O ( ^

O 00

to c 0)

I

r-l 0)

< l : m U Q M ( * ^ O K H ^ 0 CN n • ^

o a a a

97

as Reserved vs Warmhearted (A) , Tough minded vs

Tender minded (I) and Relaxed vs Tense (Q.) .

On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted the main

scores of over- and under-achieving girls in English

are 8.22 and 9.52 and S.Ds. are 2.86 and 3.08

respectively. The 't' value is found to be 2.03

which is significant at .05 level.

The results thus indicate that the over-achieving

girls in English are less warm hearted. The under

achieving girls on the other hand are more warmhearted,

out going and easy going.

On factor I, Tough minded vs Tender minded the

means of the over- and under-achieving girls in English

are 6,62 and 5.12 while the S.Ds. are 2.57 and 2.29



It may be concluded from the above results that

the over-achieving girls in English are more inclined

to be tender minded while the under-achieving

girls are tough minded.

The comparison between the over- and under

achieving girls in English on factor Q., the mean of

the over- and under-achieving girls in English are

8.22 and 7.08 and the S.Ds. are 2.88 and 2.66 respec

tively. The 't' value is found to be 2.01 which is

98


The results therefore indicate that the over-

achieving girls in English are more tense, frustrated

and fretful than their under-achieving counterparts

in English.


between the both over- and under-achieving girls

are not significant.

The findings as shown on Table 11 may be sxammarised

as follows:

The female over-achievers in English are found to be:

(1) Less warmhearted, easy going and out going

(2) More inclined to be tender minded

(3) 5ore tense, frustrated and fretful

The female under-achievers in English are found to be:

(1) More warmhearted, easy going, out going.

(2) Tough minded

(3) Less tense and less frustrated

Comparison Between Female Over-achievers and Under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPQ)


between over- and under-achieving girls in Mathematics

on fourteen personality dimensions. As can be seen

99

<NJ H

Q) rH

-s B

U 0 > 0) •H

0) +J > (d o g

(0 (0 E S (1) &< c

-H 4^ 0 CQ

U

C >

n) 0) 2 .C

o 4) (d J3 1 -P M

0) C Xi 0) C 0) : D

+J Q) 0) H

 C (0 <ti S V

•A 4-1 •rH C

o> •H W

0

0 (d O

0) >44



(0 i^ 0)

(d 0 4J CM g (d Id 0) 1 S U PM M

w 0) >

0) 0) 0) ^ <-< -H jCC^ (9 jz -P ir> g o (d <i) fd s II CM I

> o

0)

u 0 +J 0 fd U4

>i •P -H H (d c 0 (0 V4 <1> 04

Q CO

§ 0) 2

Q CO

C rd

2

vO (M

rH

CNJ CM

m

00 ro

O f - l

VD 00

(M

00 n OS

TD 0)

t: <0 0) •S g H (d s 1

•n Q)

^ 0) 0) (V OS

<:

CM vo o

r-i m 04

00 ro ir>

00 o CN

n o in

•P c 0)

•r(

H 0) +J C

-H

0) U O 2 T •P c 0) a>

•H iH rH 0) -P c

•H

OJ W (U t^

«

i n vo o

vo CO

c j

ro CM

00

r-CTv

CM

O r-co

9) r-i

-§ -P 0}

>1 rH H (d c 0

•H •P 0 g M 1 cn c

-H rH a> Q) vw N /5 X) (U •P 0



•M •P Id (H +J CO c 0 g as 'V c D

Q

00 o o

CM •^J"

eg

rH a> i n

c~ -* OJ

vo c i n

0) >

•H -P V4 (U CO

3 1

•p c 0)

TH

x) <u rO o

w

rH

o •

r-o fO

CM • ^

CM

O CTi

i n

rH <y\

CM

I -CO

r-

u •H •P 05 Id

•rt CO ;3

x: -p

c w 1 M ^ 0 CO

fr)

in o •

00 cr\ rH

rH • *

n

\o CJ\

rH H

00 rH

n

n r»

o

rH

CO

3 0

• H 4J

c 0)

•H U CO c 0 o 1 CO 0)

r~{

2 -D U (d 0 P u CO •H Q

O

Ov CM

O

i n 00

CNI

• ' 1 ' rH

CO

H o ro

i n m CO

(» 3

o u 0 •p c 0) > V. <

1 >< s: CO

K

00 CO

o

•=# CO

CN

c o CO

r-i n

CM

C--• *

-a 0) TJ C

•H

s M d) T) C (U H I

TJ Q) T) C

•H g

x: 01 3 o B

H

'^ <• O

m 00

Csl

•* r-i

CO

vo 00

CM

OJ 00

g CO

• H H Id

•H

> •H 'C5 C

-H

P U Q)

a U} g 3 u M

•H

u 1 rH

0 4-( +J (0 0) !S1

:)

CO i n

o

.H c CM

r~ • > *

CO

vD r-CN

i n o CO

0)

> •H CO c 0)

x: (U M

a 9< <c I

-o 0) M P CO (0 fd

IH rH (P

CO

o

CTi CO

O

CN VO

<N

o o\ vO

i n vO

CM

a\ • < *

•P c d) •H 0

•H iP IP

W

>P rH a> CO

1 4J n (U ' 0 c 0)

a 0) ' d

a 0 0 ( en >t

rH

-§ •H o 0

CO

CM

a

•

t - vo CO vo

o c*»

r~- 0^ CM r-

n CM

rH O t^ 00

o r-rH

vo 00 rH CO

n CN

in vo CO vo

rH

T3 0)

r-i r-i

o u -p c o u 1 0) Xi CO <u c

rH 0) rH fH 0 1 U xi -P Q)

0 (d O H C 0) n3 OJ

en ^

a a

100

from Table 12^ the female over-achievers in Mathe

matics differ significantly from female under-

achievers on three personality factors, namely. Sober

vs Enthusiastic (F) , Disregard rules vs Conscientious

(G) and Relaxed vs Tense (Q.) .

On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic the means of

over- and under-achieving girls in Mathematics are

7.87 and 5.90 and S.Ds.are 2.91 and 2,42 respectively.

The 't' value is found to be 3,07 which is significant

at .01 level.

The results thus clearly exhibit that the female

over-achievers in Mathematics are enthusiastic while

the female under-achievers in Mathematics are sober

and taciturn.


the mean scores of both over- and under-achieving

girls in Mathematics are 10,73 and 11.96 while the

S.Ds. are 3.18 and 3.41 respectively. The 't' value

is found to be 1.98 which is significant at .05

level.

Since the mean of the female over-achievers in

Mathematics is lower than that of the under-achievers,

it can be concluded that the female over-achievers in

Mathematics are less conscientious than the female

under-achievers in the same subject. The female under-

101

achieving subjects are, therefore, more conscientious

than their over-achieving counterparts.

On factor Q./ Relaxed vs Tense, the mean scores

of over- and under-achieving girls in Mathmatics are

9.66 and 7.80 and the S.Ds. are 2.88 and 2.79



The results thus clearly bring out that the female

over-achievers in Mathematics are more tense while

the under-achievers are less tense.

On the remaining eleven factors, the differences

between female over- and under-achieving girls are

not significant.


as under:


(1) More e n t h u s i a s t i c (2) Less c o n s c i e n t i o u s (3) More t e n s e ^

The under-achieving girls in Mathematics are:

(1) Sober


(3) Less tense

102

CcMTiparison Between Male Over-achievers in English and Female Over-achievers in English on Fourteen Persona l i ty Factors (HSPQT

As already mentioned, comparisons were also made

to find out personal i ty differences between male and

female over-achievers as well as under-achievers in

both the school subjec ts , namely, English and Mathe

matics . The r e su l t s of such comparisons are given

in Tables 13 and 16.

Table 13 shows the s igni f icance of difference

between male and female over-achievers in English on

fourteen personal i ty f ac to r s .

As can be seen from Table 13, the male over-

achievers d i f f e r s i gn i f i c an t l y from female over-

achievers in English on four persona l i ty f ac to r s ,

namely Undemonstrative vs Exci table (D), Shy vs

Adventurous (H), Zestful vs Circumspect individua

lism ( J ) , and Relaxed vs Tense.

On fac tor D, Undemonstrative vs Exci table , the

means of the over-achieving male and female groups

in English are 6.26 and 8.74 while the S.Ds.are 2.50

and 2.95 respec t ive ly . The 't* value i s found to be

3.30 which i s s ign i f i can t a t .01 l e v e l .

The r e s u l t s give a c l ea r evidence tha t the female

over-achievers in English with t h e i r higher mean scores

are moire exc i tab le while the male over-achievers in the

103

n H

<V

EH

C

> 0)

^ O (0 I

0) £ > w O -H

0) Cn r H CJ

K 4-1 -H O

to (0 M C Q) fd > 0) <1>

= 3 0) U

4J » U

C 0) 0) > <o o •P 0)

OQ g (U § U Px c U C 0) ID

4 j x :

H

o c w

0) o c u •rl •H C

•H

0) o

4-1 C O (t)

O H -H (U 4-1 > - H 0) C :) cn

• H CO

0) - 3 •P -< - ro

>

(0 u x:

Q) fl) 01 ^ H -H -rH ' *

(0 JC H If) B O 01 0) r0 C It fe ,1 W

0) C ^ > - H O

0) M

> 0) ^

« -H »-< r-( H x : 0*

(0 O C II

I Z t4 C — > o

to

o +J o

•p •H r-t

(0 c o (0 0)

i n o

IT)

o

n H O r-l

vo CO r* i n r>- rH 00 CO o o\ o i ^c cn H

CM

r H t ^ VD VO i n VO

o in 00 r- vD H

CO "* o o o o v o o o o a i v D o o t - - r - o rH r-l

H O

c r \ c N i n o t - ' < * H o o ^ o o •<3<r r O O C N f O ' 5 l ' f O ' * C r \ C N f M r H < ; l t v t < C T \

O O CN

00 CO

C M C N J C N C M C N C N r O n C M C M C M C M f O C M

r N j t n r ~ - ^ r M f - f v £ > c N ( M O ' ^ r o o c M C N d 0 0 r ~ H L n r H H U ) C M « X ) O O C N

00

^ ^ 0 0 ' ^ O v O ^ O C O O O c ^ ^ O C ^ C ^ O « x > O H i n ( N O i c r » c o v D v o v o i n o L n

C M C S n C M C N C M O J C N C M C M C N C N n C M

n c O O V O f O O r O V O O v O O n O C M H r O O C M i H C O C n c O C O C O C O r ^ v O O

r > ^ o v D i n o o c o r ^ ^ v o ^ v O ( T i v o

'0 Q) ^ M ITJ 0)

g Q (d 3: 1

TJ 1 •-t

(0 c 0

+1 0 E M T cn c •H

r-l

 i ^

'0 0) -P o (U 4-1 4-1 <

Q) r-l X} (d 4-> •rl U X w 1 a> >

•H -P (D-M •P 01 c 0 £ 0} -0 c D

0) >

•H •P Wl 0) to

^ 1

•p c tl)

^

,8 o

u •H -P to 0)

•rl to 3

J C -P

c w 1 M (U X) 0 CO

to ;:» o

-w •p c QJ

•H U to C o u 1

0) H

s to T l u to

on 0) M to

•H Q

to 3 0 U 3 -P

c d) > V. <

1 >l £. W

TJ c •H

e M di T3 C 0)

£H 1

T3 0) T) C

•H

e x: cn 3 0 H

e to

•rl r-\ (0

-d

•rl 'O c H

-P CJ dJ

a to

s p 0 t-l •H

o 1 r-l 3

4H •P to 0) N

0 >

•r\

to

c dJ x: fi a a < 1

T) 0) M 3 to (0

(t 4-1 r-l (U CO

c •H u

• H 44 4-1

to

4-t r-< (U CO

1 -p

c i

r-l XI (0

•H 0 0 CO

•d 0)

r-l r^ 0 U •P

c 0 u 1

•d Q)

r-l f~\

p u •p

c 0 CJ c t2

Q) to c a>

EH 1

-d 0) X (d

«H tu «

< : CQ CJ Q W CM n Tjt

( i i O K H b o a a a

104

saroe subject are less excitable.

On factor H, Shy vs Adventurous, the mean scores

of both the over-achieving boys and girls in English

are 7a86 and 9.12 and the S.Ds. are 2.80 and 3.01

respectively, the 't' value being 1.98 which is sig

nificant at .05 level.

Since the mean score of over-achieving girls in

English is higher than that of the other group, it

can be concluded that female over-achievers in English

are more adventurous than their male over-achieving

counterparts in English.

The comparison between the male and female over-

achieving groups in English on factor J, Zestful vs

Circumspect individualism, the means of the over-

achieving male and female groups in English are 6.86

and 8.20 while the S.Ds. are 2.62 and 2.86 respectively,

The 't' value is found to be 2.20 and it is signi

ficant at .05 level.

The results thus indicate that the female over-

achievers in English are more inclined to individualis

tic, reflective and internally restrained temperament

while the male over-achievers are less inclined to the

individualistic temperament.

On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the means of the

over-achieving male and female groups in English are

105

6.02 and 8.22 and S.Ds. are 2.50 and 2.88 respec

t i v e l y . The ' t* value i s found to be 2.97 which

i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l .

The r e s u l t s thus c l ea r ly br ing out tha t on

fac tor Q., the over-achieving g i r l s in English with

t h e i r s i gn i f i can t ly higher mean score are more tense ,

f rus t r a t ed and f r e t fu l than the over-achieving boys

in Engl ish. The over-achieving boys are thus l e s s

tense and l e s s f r u s t r a t ed .

On the r e s t ten fac to r s , the dif ferences between

the over-achieving male and female groups in English

are i n s i g n i f i c a n t .

The r e s u l t s presented in Table 13 thus reveal

t ha t the over-achieving males in English a re :

(1) Less excitable

(2) Less adventurous

(3) Less individualistic

(4) Less tense and less frustrated

The female over-achievers are:

(1) More excitable

(2) More adventurous

(3) More individualistic

(4) More tense and frustrated

106

Comparison Between Male Over-achievers in Mathematics and Female Over-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen Personality Factors (HSPQ)


between male over-achievers in Mathematics and female

over-achievers in Mathematics on fourteen personality

factors.

AS can be seen from the results shown in Table 14,

the male over-achievers differ significantly from

female over-achievers in Mathematics on six personality

factors, namely. Less intelligent vs More intelligent

(B), Affected by feeling vs Emotionally stable (C),

Undemonstrative vs Excitable (D), Sober vs Enthusias

tic (F), Disregard rules vs Conscientious (G) and

Relaxed vs Tense (Q ).

On factor B, Less intelligent vs More intelligent,

the means of the both male and female over-achieving

group In Mathematics are 3,85 and 5.03 and the S.Ds.

are 1.96 and 2.42 respectively. The 't' value is

found to be 2.22 and it is significant at .05 level.

It can be concluded from the results, therefore,

that the over-achieving girls in Mathematics are more

intelligent than the over-achieving boys in the same

subject.

On factor C, Affected by feeling vs Emotionally

107

CD

6 ^

C

•ri

(0

u

> 0)

•H 0) £ O 0 - H «J 4J I (0 M 6 0) (I)

^ s (0 C S - H

M-l 01 0 H

0) CO > C 0) n) -H (U J3 S O

0) x: •p

(0

M 0) >

C O a>

-P (0 (U g

0) O t a c c

S 0 ) CO

>w o

Q (?

o x:

to o

-H 44 •H C

o> • H W

<3)

o c

H O Q) -H > (4-1 0) -H J C

D> •H to

0) - 73 •P rH - (0

>

0)

> • 0) (U 0)

(d 43 -p in e o (0 0) (0 2 n • I

»4 C 2

> O

0) > • 0 ) CO ^

0) H x: o m 0 n) 2 nj s n

14 C Z

> O

(>4

CO u o -p o (0

•p

10 c o CO M (U 0.

in en in O o o

H in o o

v O c > J c ^ H " 5 t i n r - " ? i < r i J O rO CM O <H

a \ t n o o o o L n r * - o o o rH

i n vD 0^ <T>

i n i n i n i n i n m o o o C T i o o a N C T > r - H c o r H r -

0)

o •rl •P

CO

•H H

CO

O •H +J

n 0)

T 4

o CO c o u (0

•a G

•H

e M (V -o G

CO V

6 CO

(0

-a

> •H

c

•H

O

3 o ^

0)

> • H CO C

x : 

I > i

CO

0) x» G

x:

o

o (4

•H U 1

H

i « •P CO

t

CO (0 (0

.H (1)

44 44 D CO

44 rH Q)

CO I

0) Q)

C rH 0) O

a M 'O C

o a u

o •x^ u 0)

c o

in o

r~- o t^ i n r~ H VD •<*

o o o c

N CO CO D

CN

i n c M ' * C D < c j < r - r « c D f O O \ n r n o o 0 " < ^ c r » c O ' < < ' C D C M O o t ^ f ^ c o r - m H

n c N J C N C M C M C N f O C s j c N c s r M C M r o n

o o m o n v D r ^ f o t n r ^ c M i n C N i n v o n O C ~ - n < ^ C D r ^ r o - < 4 « c o O - ^ r o v O

00 c~» rH a \

l n ^ o < 3 ^ c N v O r t c D ' J ^ l n c J ^ ' # l n r H v O r o c n c T i ( D i n i n ' ; » « t n r H r ^

C > ) r H r O C N l < N m ( N C M C M < M C M ( N n C M

o in in CO cr> vo o r- CTi CO

0 0 f O O N i O i n r H 0 0 C D ^ > X ) U 3 v O ( T > r -

4->

c •H

o

CO

c

I 'd

rH 0)

< : C Q U Q W l i « O l H b O O J CO «:d«

a a a

108

stable, the means of the male over-achievers and

female over-achievers in Mathematics are 9.95 and

8.70 and S.Ds. are 3.15 and 2.94 respectively. The

•t* value is found to be 1,97 which is significant

at ,05 level.

The results thus point out that the male over-

achievers in Mathematics with their higher mean scores

are emotionally more stable, calm, and of higher ego

strength than the female over-achievers in Mathematics.

On factor D, Undemonstrative vs Excitable, the

high scorers are more excitable and low scorers on

the other hand are undemonstrative.

The means of the over-achieving male and female

groups in Mathematics on this factor,as shown in

Table 14, are 6.95 and 8.33 while the S.Ds. are 2.63


2,01 which is significant at .05 level.

The results thus indicate that on factor D, the

female over-achievers in Mathematics are more excitable

than the over-achieving boys in the same subject.

On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic,the means of

the male over-achievers and female over-achievers in


3.32 and 2.87 respectively. The 't' value is found to

be 3.95 which is highly significant at .01 level.

109

I t can, there fore , be safe ly concluded tha t

the over-achieving boys in i^athematics are more en

t h u s i a s t i c while the female over-achievers in the

Same subject are l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c .

On factor G, Disregard ru les vs Conscientious,

the means of the male and female over-achieving

groups in Mathematics are 8,00 and 10.73 while the

S.Ds. are 2.96 and 3.27 re spec t ive ly . The ' t ' value

which i s s i gn i f i can t at .05 leve l i s found to be 2.47,

I t can be concluded from the r e s u l t s , the re fore ,

tha t the over-achieving g i r l s in Mathematics with

t h e i r higher mean scores are more prone t o be con

sc ien t ious while the over-achieving boys are l e s s

conscient ious .

On factor Q., Relaxed vs Tense, the high scorers

are more tense and f ru s t r a t ed . The low scorers on

the other hand, are relaxed and l e s s fmastrated.

The means of the over-achieving boys and g i r l s

in Mathematics are 7.89 and 9.66 while the S.Ds, are

2,75 and 3.10 re spec t ive ly . The ' t* value i s found

to be 2,45 which i s s i gn i f i can t a t .05 l e v e l .

I t can be concluded from the above r e s u l t s t ha t

the female over-achievers in Mathematics are more

f rus t r a t ed , tense and f r e t f u l . On the other hand,

the male over-achievers in the same subject are l ess

110

tense and less frustrated.

On the irest seven factors the differences between

male and female over-achieving groups in Mathematics

are insignificant.

The results presented in Table 14 show that the

over-achieving boys in Mathematics are:

(1) Comparatively less intelligent.

(2) Emotionally stable

(3) Less excitable



(6) Less tense


(1) More i n t e l l i g e n t (2) Emotionally l ess s t ab l e (3) More exc i tab le (4) Less en thus i a s t i c (5) More conscientious (6) More tense and f rus t ra ted

Comparison Between Male and Female Under-achievers in English on Fourteen Personal i ty Factors (HSPQ)

Table 15 shows the s igni f icance of differences

between male and female under-achievers in English on

fourteen persona l i ty f ac to r s .

As can be seen from Table 15, the under-achieving

in

0)

C •M

01 M (U > 0)

•H

•g (0 , « - ^ M (0 0) -H -O H

a ot 3 C

M 0)

O M

0) > C 0) (d TH

^ u

c c 0) D (U ^ 0) •P rH 0) (U

m a 0)

o c -d (U C i-l <0

^ s: M-l tQ •H -H Q - < <4-l C O M

 - H OJ C

to

0) - 3 +> H - (0

>

w M 0) ,C > to

© d) H «!• H "H H ro

g u c n 0) Id M

CM I Z M B no C t3

CO U (U

a) 0) ^ 0) TH iH CM

H ^ <Hr -

I w

OT M 0 4J 0 (0 4-1

> 1

4J •H

T3 0) •P M (tj 0) x:

(0 a o to n a)

111

r-t in o o in H o o

r o i n v D ' < * ( N ( T » v O i H ' * T j 

o •^ O rH

C M ( 7 \ C M C 0 Q 0 0 0 r O 0 0

n C N C M C M C M C M r o C M C M C M C M C M f O C M

c M o i n c M ' ^ o o v o o o j i n o i n o O ' H o o o i n r H

r-i a\ o o 00 rH CM i n i n o

o ^ l n c o o o v o o o o o O l n o o o o ^ » c ^ t ^

i n n c r i r H r o o < T \ ' v D v O ' X ) i n

o o

• « * ^ o o o i n o L n o > r H c M O r - H C M r o ( T » r o r - U 3 r H O

r - ' * o r ^ v o o i n c o r - r ~

0) r H

4->

m •P c 0) 0 1

OJ • •p c

•H

o 2 I

4J

c (U 0>

•H

c o

•H p o e w

I

0) H

en o

p c

xs

m w 0) 0) « J

• H r H 0) 0) 4-1

•>, n

(1) •p u 0)

w I

•r1 •p (0 M V 0) c o E 0)

4-1 T3 4H C <: D

> •rt

u T H

4J

n

0 o

•p

c 0)

• H 0 w c o u

J CO CO

E CO

• H r H

:i •xi •rl >

c • H

CO CO CO <

c (U

•H

0)

o

3 x: c w

I u % o

cu

u 0

3 o u 0 c 0) >

Di TJ

c;

c

e u o -o c d) (0 H S

cu T3 c

e

^ n B cu

4J X! U tt) 0) (H a On

I

-o

0)

CO

CO

cu r H

8

o u •p c o

a u 0 I O T3

0) H

I

•H x ; Q to

cu CO

u 1

r-i 3

4H 4J CO H

cu +

o C-H ISl IW

^ 4J c

H O o o o

CO

B :3

in 00

C M C N r O C N C M r O C M C M C M C M C N C M O O C M

CO CM •<* i n r^ \0 O r-i

vo cyi 00

4-> c cu

•H u

•H I H 4H

p

CO

4H

f-^

(U CO

I +J c cu

T3 c 0)

cu XJ

cu CO

q cu

EH I

XJ cu

r H

cu 05

< m u Q M C M 0 3 : ^ o CM n •<*

a a a

112

boys in English differ significantly from under

achieving girls in English. On six personality di

mensions, namely. Reserved vs Warmhearted (A), Affected

by feeling vs Emotionally stable (C), Undemonstrative

vs Excitable (D), Sober vs Enthusiastic (F), Dis

regards rules vs Conscientious (G) and Tough minded

vs tender minded (I) .

On factor A, Reserved vs Warmhearted, the means

of both male and female under-achieving groups in

English are 7.04 and 9.52 and the S.Ds.are 2.65 and

4.08 respectively. The 't* value is found to be 4.13

which is highly significant at .01 level.

The results thus clearly indicate that the female

under-achievers in English are more warmhearted and

easy going. The male underachievers on the other hand

are less warm hearted.

Comparison between under-achieving boys and girls

in English on factor C, Affected by feeling vs Emo

tionally stable, also shows significant difference between

the two groups. The mean scores of the male and female

under-achievers in English are 10.20 and 8.55 and

S,Ds. are 3.19 and 2.92 respectively. The 't' value

is found to be 2.66 which is again significant at .01

level.

It can be concluded from the results therefore

113

that the male underachievers in English are emotionally-

more stable^ calm and of higher ego-strength. The

female under-achievers in the same subject are emo

tionally less stable and possess lower ego strength.

On factor D, Undemonstrative vs Excitable, the

means of the male and female under-achieving groups

in English are 7.38 and 8.82 while the S.Ds. are 2.71

and 2,96 respectively. The 't* value is found to be

2,44 and it is significant at .05 level.

The results thus indicate that the female under

achievers in English are more excitable while the

male under-achievers in English are less excitable.

On factor F, Sober vs Enthusiastic, the means of

the male and female under-achievers in English are

10.30 and 8.88 and S.Ds. are 3,20 and 2,97 respectively.

The 't' value is found to be 2.29 which is signi

ficant at ,05 level.

The results, therefore, indicate that the male

under-achievers in English are more enthusiastic and

happy go lucky while the female under-achievers are

less enthusiastic.


the mean scores of male and female under-achieving

groups in English are 5.75 and 10,06 and the S,Ds.

114


found to be 7.06 which is highly significant at .01

level.

It can be therefore, concluded from the results

that the female under-achievers in English with their

high mean score are more conscientious. The male

under-achievers on the other hand, with their lower

mean scores are less concientious in the same subject.

On factor 1, Tough minded vs Tender minded, the

means of the male under-achieving and female under

achieving groups in English are 7.11 and 5.12 and S.Ds.

are 2.66 and 2.29 respectively. The 't' value is found

to be 4.14 which is once again highly significance at

.01 level.

The results thus clearly bring out that on factor

I, the under-achieving boys in English with their

significantly higher mean score are tender minded

while the under-achieving girls in English with their

lower mean score are tough minded.

On the remaining eight factors, the differences

between the male and female under-achieving groups in

English are not significant.


as under:

115

The male under-achievers in English are found to be:


(2) Emotionally more stable

(3) Less excitable



(6) More tender minded

The female under-achievers in English are found to he;

(1) More warm hearted, out going and easy going


(3) More excitable



(6) Less tender minded.

Comparison Between Male and Female under-achievers in Mathematics on Fourteen personality Factors (HSPoT


between male and female under-achievers in Mathematics

on fourteen personality factors.

As can be seen from table 16, the male under-

achievers in Mathematics differ significantly from

female under-achievers in Mathematics on seven per

sonality factors, namely Reserved vs Warm hearted (A),

Less intelligent vs More intelligent (B), Affected

by feeling vs Emotionally stable (C), Disregard rules

vs Conscientious (G) , Zestful vs Circxamspect

1 1 6

H

0)

<0 M

>

x: u m a) u



s ^ o

0)

J3

0) 0)

B (1> CQ ( 0

(U

c

l-l C

>« CO •H O

o g

o +>

•H

•H C Dt

to

0) o

IW C O flJ

o OJ m > - H (1) C

• H W

0) - P -P H - (0

>

(0

ID > •

« ^ 4JCM H o to V (ft X tt

-d B

n u > 0)

(0 £ II

xi o HJ I

M

T^ -H ' - ' B

U O •P o (0

4-1

a o en u Q)

i n <H rH o o o o o

CM n n H

<N fH V£> n (M CM fO CO CTi •<*

O C O r H H v O r o O - ^ C v J

m Tj" t n iH CM r~ 00 CO 00 (^ vD CM

^o i n cN (7\ CTi CM

CM

ro

4J CO B 4) >(

13 0)

u ft)

rt)

I

c; (1) 0) (0 (Q 0) 0)

0) • p c

• H

0)

O

=? 4J B 0)

cn • H H r- l Q) +J B

• H

E O

•H • P O E U

0)

-3 p H

0» O B X

W I

>

H 0) 0)

P

M •P tn E O 6

0) +> O

E

0) >

• H -P U (U CO

^ I

4J B CU

• H

cp < O

CO

o •H +1 B 0)

•H O CO B

O O •H U •P I CO en

• H r-i

to

x: p B M M CU

2 n u (0 a\ (D u

Xi to O -H

to 3

3 p B CU >

 1 x: to

T3 (U

TJ B

• H

E

(U

x> B 0) EH

I -O 0)

' O B

• H

a x: o» 3 O

E to

•d

xs B H

O CU

(U >

• H CO E CU

x: 0)

CO Q i

B 0)

• H O

• H t - l

:3 CO

(U CO I

•p B (U

•O B 0) CU (U 'd

CU

•p c o

c n C M O l C N C M O l n C M C M C M C M O J r O O ^

O O C O r o r H ( H O v D ' « l ' C n s f P > 0 ' - t O

f O f o c M v o c ^ o ^ v O r ^ O l H • < * c 3 ^ r - c o

O L n c o o o i n m r H o o c o c o c o v o o c ^ rH H fH

( ^ c ^ r « i r ~ v O M < r - v o v o o o i / i r H ^ c h y j r - j i n i n r ^ r -

f O o a c M r n c M C M r s i c v j o i c M C N i r v )

o o H r ^ i n i n c M O v o o o c 3 \ f n c T i i n t - ^ c ^ o o c o i n T t c M C ^ Q O O m ^ O i n y D r ^ o o r o o t ~ - v o o i n c o t ~ - ' * ' ^ > ^ c - - r ^

<moQatuox

1 o 1>I

•H C> 1

H P

i p +J cn CU ^3

b

< 1

-d ?> ui 3 cn (0 (d

i p r H (U to

o

§ 0 u a\ > i

H X) fd

•H u 0 to

CM

a

o 1

TJ CU

rH r H

O U •P E 0 0 B P

( a

(U CO B CU H I

Xi i)

S H 0) DH

^ a

117

individualism (J) , Self-assured vs Apprehensive (0)

and Uncontrolled vs Controlled (Q ).

On factor A, Reserved vs Warm hearted, the

means of the male and female under-achievers in Mathe

matics are 8,98 and 10.38 and S.Ds, are 2.96 and 3.22



The results thus indicate that the female under-

achievers in Mathematics are more warm hearted, out

going and more easy going while the male under-achie

vers are less warm hearted.

On factor B, Less intelligent vs More inte.

gent, the mean scores of both male and female under-

achievers in Mathematics are 3.81 and 5.38 while the

S.Ds. are 1.95 and 2.31 respectively. The *t* value

is found to be 3.38 and it is significant at .01 level.

It is thus concluded from the results presented

in Table 16 that the female under-achievers in

Mathematics are more intelligent than their male

counterparts.

Comparison between the male and female under

achieving groups in Mathematics on factor C, Affected

by feeling vs Emotionally stable, the means of the

male and female under-achieving groups are 10.37 and

8.23 while the S.Ds. are 3.22 and 2.86 respectively.

118

The 't' value is found to be 3.50 and it is again

highly significant at .01 level.

The results give a clear evidence that the

female under-achievers with their low mean score are

emotionally less stable. The male under-achievers on

the other hand, with their higher mean score, are

emotionally more stable, calm and of higher ego-

strength.

On factor G, Disregards rules vs Conscientious,

the mean scores of male and female under-achievers

in Mathematics are 5-. 90 and 11.66 while the S.Ds. are

2,42 and 3.41 respectively. The 't' value is found

to be 8.75 which is highly significant at .01 level.

It can be concluded that the under-achieving

girls in Mathematics are conscientious while the

under-achieving boys in the same stobject are less

conscientious and disregard rules.


the mean scores of male under-achievers and female

under-achievers in Mathematics are 4.59 and 8,14 and

S.Ds. are 2.14 and 2.85 respectively. The 't* value

is found to be 6.69 which is again highly significant

at .01 level.

It can be concluded from the results presented in

factor J, that the male under-achievers in Mathematics

119

are prone to be zes t fu l while t h e i r female counter

pa r t s are prone t o be circumspect individual ism.

On factor 0, Self-assured vs Apprehensive, the

high Scores represent apprehensive while the low

Score se l f -assured temperament. Here mean scores for

male and female under-achievers in Mathematics are

6.63 and 8.47 while the S.Ds.are 2.57 and 2.91 r e s

pec t ive ly . The ' t ' value i s found t o be 3.22 which

i s once again highly s i g n i f i c a n t .

The r e s u l t s thus c l ea r ly ind ica te tha t the female

under-achievers in Mathematics are more apprehensive

while the male under-achievers in same subject are

l e s s apprehensive.

On factor Q-,/ Uncontrolled vs Control led, the

mean scores of the male and female under-achieving

groups in Mathematics are 7.65 and 10.71 and S.Ds. are

2,76 and 3,27 re spec t ive ly . The • t ' value i s found

to be 4,78 which i s s i gn i f i c an t a t .01 level once

again.

Since the mean score of the female under-achievers

in Mathematics i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y g rea t e r than tha t of

male under-achievers in Mathematics, i t i s concluded

tha t the female under-achievers in Mathematics are more

cont ro l led while the male under-achievers in Mathematics

are l ess con t ro l l ed .

120

On remaining seven f ac to r s , the differences

between the male under-achievers and female under-

achievers in Mathematics are i n s i g n i f i c a n t .

The r e s u l t s shown in Table 16 may be summarised

as under:

The male under-achievers are found to be:


(2) Less intelligent

(3) Emotionally more stable


(5) Prone to be zestful

(6) Less apprehensive

(7) Less controlled

The under-achieving girls are found to be:

(1) More Warm-hearted, out going and of participating characteristics




(5) More prone to circximspect individualism

(6) More apprehensive

(7) More controlled

The discussion on the findings of the present

study is presented in the following chapter.

Chapter V

DISCUSSION

The p r e s e n t s t u d y , as s t a t e d e a r l i e r , was

c a r r i e d ou t mainly t o f ind out d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r

s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in

Eng l i sh and Mathematics wi th t h e assxomption t h a t t h e

c a u s a l and concomitant p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s might©

p o s s i b l y be d i f f e r e n t f o r i inder-achievement i n two

d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , one l i t e r a r y t h e o t h e r s c i e n t i f i c

o n e .

The s t a t i s t i c a l t r e a t m e n t of t h e d a t a r evea l ed

t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s

between o v e r - a c h i e v e r s and u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s ; between

t h e groups of o v e r - a c h i e v e r s as w e l l as u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s

a c r o s s d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , namely Eng l i sh and Mathe

m a t i c s . Marked d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o found between

male and female s u b j e c t s both in the a r e a of the

over -achievement as w e l l as under-achievement in t h e

two s u b j e c t s .

To f ind o u t whether x inder-achievers were d i f f e r e n t

from o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h , comparisons were made

between the two groups along four t een p e r s o n a l i t y

d imens ions . The o v e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh i n c l u d i n g

122

both male and female subjects were found to be more

conscientious and obedient while the under-achievers

in the same siibject were less conscientious and less

obedient rather prone to assertiveness and dominance.

These two results are corroborated by the findings of

Ridding (1966) and Haq (1987) . It also seems quite

convincing that the more conscientious and obedient are

more likely to achieve higher than those who are less

obedient and less responsible and less conscientious.

The other results also fall in line with the

above conclusions. The over-achievers in English

have been found to be more controlled and the under-

achievers less controlled. It is quite resonable

that those who are more self-controlled their behaviour

would be more goal oriented and well-programmed. The

absence of such characteristics would naturally lead

to achieving below expectation.

Besides being less controlled the under-achievers

in English have also been found to be more appre

hensive, a characteristic which would never allow a

person to reach up to the mark what to say of going

beyond expectation in achievement. The over-achievers

in English being less apprehensive are quite naturally

prone to achieving excellence even beyond the expected

level.

123

The result that the over-achievers in English

are not so happy go lucky as their counterparts/ the

under-achievers, also happens to be a reasonable

corollary of the above results. One can easily under

stand that the over-achievers being more conscientious,

obedient and controlled can hardly over be happy go

lucky fellows like their under-achieving counter

parts; the hallmark of the over-achievers being

responsibility, obedience and conscientious etc. It is

only the under-achievers that would feel contented

with their happy go lucky behaviour.

That the under-achievers in English are more

tender-minded and over-achievers less tender-minded

is also quite understandable. For greater and higher

achievement too much of tendermindedness is not very

much helpful. One has to be a bit toughminded for the

consistency in decision for rising up and going

above the expected level. The earlier result of greater

apprehensiveness found in under-achievers seems to

anticipate the characteristics of greater tender

mindedness going with under-achievement and lesser

tendermindedness going with the over-achievement in

English.

Literature in general and English literature in

particular is in the real sense of the term are

124

expression and appreciation of human feelings and

emotions. Quite naturally those who over-achieve in

English language and literature, would be more sen

sitive to feelings and emotions. Emotional stability

or the characteristic of being unaffected by feelings

and emotions would never correspond with over-achieve

ment in a beautiful language like English. The under-

achievement would certainly go with unaffectedness and

stability of emotions.

The over-achievers in Mathematics including both

boys and girls have been found to be, as the subject

itself demands, more intelligent, more conscientious

and responsible as well as more adventurous, self

reliant and more controlled than the under-achievers

in the area. The result is quite understandable as a

scientific subject like Mathematics possess challenges

to the mental abilities and perseverance of the person.

If any one over aspires to gain excellence in Mathe

matical subjects one has to have a high level of

intelligence, sincerity of purpose and a controlled

and self-reliant demeanour. One has also to be

adventurous, ready to accept the challenges of mathe

matical problems. The lack of such characteristics

would surely throw one into the ditch of under-achieve-

ment in Mathematics, as the present findings have

quite vividly shown the phenomenon.

125

Due to almost a constant mental preoccupation,

the over-achievers in Mathematics who are more devoted

to and involved in the subject become tense and some

times excitable and tenderminded. They are also

apprehensive of unnecessary interaction and distur

bances. They want to rem^n occupied in their indivi

dual problems. Hence characteristics such as tense

ness, excitability, tender-mindedness, individualism

and apprehensiveness may also be quite reasonably

the concomitant factors going with over-achievementlxi Maths,

The under-achievers following the same logic will

quite understandably be less intelligent, less con

scientious, less adventurous and less controlled.

They would not be so preoccupied mentally and tense as

were their counterparts. They would also not be very

sensitive to distracting elements and very much

individualistic and self-involved.

What is a bit surprising in the greater warm

heartedness of the mathematics over-achievers, a

deeper understanding of the phenomenon would reveal

that the high achievers and those who achieve even

higher than their expected level are more likely to be

well adjusted and warmhearted (Srivastava, 1967;

Sharma, 1972; Kumawat, 1984) .

Quite naturally the under-achievers in Mathematics

126

_ would-be less adjusted and less warmhearted.

For having a clearer understanding of the diffe

rential personality phenomenon of the over- and under-

achievers in English and Mathematics, comparisons were

also made between male over- and under-achievers as

well as female over- and under-achievers in both the

subjects separately along the fourteen personality

dimensions on the HSPQ.

While cc«nparing the personality characteristics

of the male over- and under-achievers in English, the

over-achievers were found to be more obedient and more

conscientious. They are also less enthusiastic. The

results on these three dimensions of personality appear

to be quite convincing — the obedient and concientious

pupils are more likely to gain from their teaching-

learning situation. Those who are more obedient and

serious about their responsibility would be very

enthusiastic.

AS a corollary of the above discussion, under-

achievement would quite convincingly be more associated

with assertion and aggression greater out bursts of

enthusiasm as well as a lack in sincerity and con

scientiousness. These characteristics quite signi

ficantly differentiate the total population of over-

and under-achievers in English also as can be seen

127

from Table 3, There are other s tud ies a lso t h a t

support the present findings to a g rea t e r ex ten t .

(Ridding^ 1966; Haq, 1987) .

The comparison between male over- and iinder-

achievers in Mathematics yielded s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences

on three pe rsona l i ty f a c t o r s . The over-achievers in

Mathematics were a l so found to be moire conscient ious

than the under-achievers as was the case with male

over-achievers and under-achievers in English. As

such the r epe t i t i on of discussion may be avoided for

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r dimension. The over-achievers in

Mathematics have been found to be more cont ro l led and

i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c while the xinder-achievers are l e s s

cont ro l led and l e s s se l f - involved . There seems to be

an i n t e rna l v a l i d i t y in these r e s u l t s when compared

with the persona l i ty c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the over- and

under-achievers in Mathematics including both the

sexes as given in Table No.4.

I t i s not su rpr i s ing the re fo re , t h a t the male

over-achievers in Mathematics are more conscientious

and the under-achievers are l e s s conscient ious ; the

over-achievers are more se l f - involved and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c

and under-achievers in Mathematics are l e s s involved;

the male over-achievers in Mathematics are more

cont ro l led and male under-achievers in Mathematics

are l e s s con t ro l led . Psychological s tud ies as well as

128

our school experiences seem to buttress the present

findings (Ridding, 1966; Saxena, 1972; Haq, 1987).

Comparisons were also carried out between the

over- and under-achievers among the female subjects

in English and Mathematics separately.

In the area of English the female over-achievers

were found to be less warmhearted and under-achievers

more warmhearted. On the factor of tendermindedness

the over-achieving girls in English proved to be more

tenderminded than the under-achievers. On the per

sonality dimension of tenseness, the over-achievers

were found to be more tense while the under-achieving

girls in English were found to be less tense.

Warmheartedness, tendermindedness and tenseness

which are generally the female characteristics

(Dhaliwal, 1971; McRae et al., 1982; Haq, 1987) are

found to be going with both the female over- and

under-achieving subjects but only with varying

degrees. Both the groups are warmhearted but the

over-achievers being more preoccupied and tense, are

quite naturally less warmhearted than their under

achieving counterparts. With greater tenseness,the

over-achievers greater tendermindedness is also quite

understandable. Once again it can be said that English

language and literature being more akin to feeling

the over-achievers in English are likely to be

129

more tenderminded than the under-achievers in the

same sub jec t .

As can be seen from tab le 12, the female over-

achievers in Mathematics are more en thus i a s t i c and

tense than the under-achieving g i r l s in Mathematics.

Mathematics has yet not become a favour i te subject of

the g i r l s in India . As can be seen from t h e i r very

low enrolment as compared to tha t of boys in depar t

ments involving the mathematical sc iences .

Mathematics being not a subject of the t e s t , keeps

the over-achieving g i r l s far more tense than the

under-achieving g i r l s . They are a lso not very s incere

and conscientious although they have t o exhib i t a l o t

of ex te rna l e f fo r t and enthusiasm for higher achieve

ment and achievement beyond expecta t ion. The under

achieving g i r l s seem to be qu i te contented with t h e i r '

under-achievement as they f a i l to show much enthusiasm

about the subject . Consequently they are less tense

than the labourious over-achievers who go very much

against t h e i r w i l l and conscience. The under-achievers

have reasonably being found to be more conscient ious

than the over-achievers in obeying the d i c t a t e s of

t h e i r conscience, feel ing not much concern about the

subject against t h e i r t a s t e .

AS s ta ted e a r l i e r , the main object ive of the

present inves t iga t ion was to discern the d i f f e r e n t i a l

130

personality character is t ics of over-achievers as well

as under-achievers across the two selected subjects

namely English and Mathematics. I t was hypothesised

that the over-achievers in English would exhibit some

personality differences from those of over-achievers

in Mathematics. I t can be seen from the previous

chapter that each of the two groups of over-achievers

has emerged with quite different combination of

personality charac ter i s t ics .

Including both boys and g i r l s , t he over-achievers

in English and Mathematics were found significantly

different from each other on nine out of fourteen

personality factors .

Where the differences are very much significant

and glaring/ the over-achievers in English have been

found to be less warmhearted, less adventurous and less

tenderminded. They are also less sel f -suff ic ient and

less controlled than the i r counterparts, the over-

achievers in Mathematics. These combinations of

differential personality character is t ics seem to have

an internal coherence and a re la t ive importance.

In corrparison to English, Mathematics demands a

greater control and greater self-sufficiency which has

been found to be quite convincingly the mark of over-

achievers in Mathematics, As has already been discussed.

Mathematics i s a challenging subject and demands a

131

grea te r amount of adventurousness and a high l eve l

of In te l l igence which the over-achievers in Mathematics

have r igh t ly been found to possess .

Mathematics being a more object ive and s c i e n t i f i c

sxibject/ the achievement in the area brings in g rea te r

confidence in the s tuden t . This g r ea t e r confidence

generatesin him the qua l i ty of b e t t e r adjustment and

higher warmheartedness which has been found to be a prone

d i spos i t ion of over-achievers in Mathematics and not

so much of the over-achievers in English.

There are three other fac tors out of nine where

the differences are of the moderate kind yet follow

ing the l ine of the more marked d i f f e r e n t i a l cha rac te r

i s t i c s of the over-achievers of English and over-

achievers of Mathematics,

I t i s qu i t e understandable t h a t the over-achievers

in Mathematics who have a g rea te r cont ro l are a lso

emotionally more s t ab le than over-achievers in Engl ish .

English l i t e r a t u r e being a t reasure of feel ings and

emotions, renders the more involved person, more

sens i t ive to fee l ings and emotions. I t i s t he re fo re ,

qui te understandable t h a t the over-achievers in

English are more prone to fee l ings and lack of emotional

s t a b i l i t y .

A d i f f i c u l t siibject l i ke Mathematics c a l l s for a

132

higher sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and conscientious

than the subjects from the area of humanit ies . I t i s

therefore qui te na tura l t h a t t he over-achievers in

Mathematics are more conscientious and responsible than

those in Engl ish.

I t seems qu i te convincing t h a t the challenges of

Mathematical problems are met with the g rea te r

enthusiasm of the over-achievers in Mathematics. The

grea ter enthusiasm of the over-achievers in Mathe

matics qui te understandably f a l l s in l ine with t h e i r

marked grea ter adventurousness and v ice-versa for the

English over-achievers . Thus the d i f f e r e n t i a l per

sona l i ty c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s going with over-achievers in

English and over-achievers in Mathematics qui te con

vincingly seem to form the d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

s e t s for the two compared groups.

When comparisons were made between over-achievers

in English cind over-achievers in Mathematics only

among boys, the two groups were found to be d i f f e r en t

on three persona l i ty dimensions but qu i te moderately.

AS has already been discussed the male over-

achievers in Mathematics were found t o be more warm

hearted and en thus i a s t i c than the male over-achievers

in English qui te corresponding to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

foiind in general with the over-achieving subjec ts in

133

Mathematics including both boys and girls. As such

the same logic applies here too/ to explain why the

over-achievers in Mathematics have greater warmth and

enthusiasm than the over-achieving boys in English.

The results that over-achieving boys in Mathe

matics are more tense than the over-achieving boys

in English,needs a little explanation. Mathematics

being a more difficult and tension creating subject

than English language and literature, would quite

convincingly make over-achievers in Mathematics more

tense than the over-achievers in English.

When comparisons were made between the over-

achieving girls in English and Mathematics,they were

also found to differ on three personality dimensions.

Just like the boys the over-achieving girls in Mathe

matics were also found to be more tense than the over-

achieving girls in English. And the same explanation

for the difference, as given in case of boys^ may also

be presented here. But the repetition would simply

prolong the discussion.

Similar is the case of greater warmheartedness

of the over-achieving girls in Mathematics and the

lesser warmheartedness of the over-achieving girls in

English. Both boys and girls have been found to

differ in the same direction and thus it would be

134

needless to repeat the logic already presented in

the case of boys.

The resul t that the over-achieving g i r l s in

Mathematics are more controlled than the over-achieving

gi r l s in English, i s quite interest ing and r a t iona l i s t i c .

Those who are familier with the greater objectivity

of the mathematical subjects than that found in

l i t e ra tu re , can easily understand that Mathematics

demands greater control on the part of students than

does any other s\±>ject from ar t and l i t e r a tu r e . I t i s

therefore, not surprising that the over-achieving

g i r l s in Mathematics are more controlled than the

over-achieving g i r l s in English.

As one of the objectives of the present study was

also to see the male-female differences of the over-

as well as under-achievers in English and Mathematics,

comparisons were made f i r s t between the male-female

over-achievers. In English the male over-achievers

were found to be different from the i r female counter

parts on four out of fourteen personality factors .

In case of English over-achievement, the boys

were found to be less excitable and far less tense

than the g i r l s . The boys were also found to be,

though quite moderately, less adventurous and less

individual is t ic than the over-achieving g i r l s in

135

English. Studies on personality dimensions of boys

and girls give evidence of quite higher neuroticism^

excitability and tenseness to be found in girls in

comparison to the boys (Ridding, 1966; Dhaliwal,

1971; Haq, 1987) .

It is found in life experiences also that the

women subjects are more irritable and tense than the

men in general. It is, therefore, quite convincing

that the over-achieving girls are more excitable and

tense than the over-achieving boys in English. The

boys are less individualistic than the girls is very

much evidenced by our social experiences. Boys are

more gregarious and more exposed to group activity

than girls who generally prefer to remain inside their

homes or at least do not mix up with others as freely

as the boys do. Thus the greater individualism of the

girls is quite understandable.

Quite interesting to note, the girls who have

over-achieved in English have been found to be more

adventurous than the over-achieving boys in English.

This point reflects a gradually emerging recent change in

ti>je interest of girls. Girls have been found to be

aspiring for adventuresome activities which had not

been the area of interest in the olden days (Blair,

1956; Parsley, et al., 1964; Jarvis, 1965).

136

Now-a-days the girls are ready to accept even

military services and participate with full enthu

siasm in open field games and sports. It has now

become an international phenomenon. It is therefore

not surprising that the over-achieving girls in

English who are more akin to western culture exhibit

greater adventuresomeness than the boys.

While comparing the male over-achievers in Mathe

matics with the female over-achievers one personality

factor emerges where the difference is of high signi

ficance and it is on the factor of enthusiasm. The

over-achieving boys have been found to be far more

enthusiastic than the over-achieving girls in Mathe

matics and it seems to be quite natural as enthusiasm

especially shown against challenging situation is

more a part of the male subjects. Mathematics being

rather a male area of interest is more enthusiasm

provoking for the boys than for the girls.

There are other five factors on which over-

achieving boys and girls in Mathematics show some

differences but only on a moderate level, i.e., .05

level. Boys have been found to be emotionally more

stable than the girls. And it is almost a general

phenomenon as discussed earlier (Ridding, 1966; Dhali-

wal, 1971; Menon, 1972; Haq, 1987).

137

AS fotind in the case of over-achieving boys

and girls in English, in Mathematics also the boys

have been found to be less excitable and less tense

than the over-achieving girls. As such the same

logic given in the case of English over-achieving

boys and girls may also be applied here.

Girls have been generally found to be more

devoted, responsible and concentrative in their school

work than the boys. It is therefore quite understandable

that the over-achieving girls in Mathematics are more

conscientious than the over-achieving boys in the

present findings.

It is quite interesting to find that the over-

achieving girls in Mathematics have been found to be

a bit more intelligent than the boys, psychological

studies <Blair, 1956) have failed to find any signi

ficant superiority of males or females in general

intelligence. As such a little superiority of girls

over the boys or of the boys over the girls would not

matter very much.

As it was stated at the very outset, the main

thrust of the present investigation was on finding

out if there were any personality differences between

the under-achievers across the two selected subjects

namely English and Mathematics, in this regard.

138

conrparisons were made between the under-achieving

subjects including both the sexes in the two subjects

as well as between the under-achievers of the two

subjects within the same sex and a l so i n t e r - s e x .

When the under-achievers in English (overa l l

boys and g i r l s ) were compared with the under-achievers

in Mathematics, i t was found tha t the English under-

achievers were far more tender minded and appre

hensive than the \ander-achievers in Mathematics, As

discussed in the case of over-achievers , these

differences seem to be sub jec t -o r ien ted , AS i t i s not

the comparison between over- and under-achievement

but a comparison between the under-achievers of the

two subjec ts , i t appears to be qui te convincing t h a t

the English subject i s more prone to s e n s i t i v i t y of

fee l ings and emotions; and the re fore , are more tender-

minded and apprehensive than the cases in Mathematics,

which by the v i r t u e of being more an object ive and

s c i e n t i f i c subjec t ,has l i t t l e to do with the emotional

s ide of l i f e , AS such, the Mathematics s tudents are

not su rpr i s ing ly l e s s tender-minded and less appre

hensive than t h e i r counterpar ts in English.

A strange phenomenon seems to occur when the f e e l

ing prone under-achievers in English appear to be

more control led than t h e i r counterpart 's in Mathematics

139

but a deeper analysis of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c com

p lex i ty would reveal t h a t the s i t u a t i o n of swinging

between the two extremes or contradic tory charac ter

i s t i c s crea t ing a dilemma would never be helpful for

academic achievement. The outcome of t h i s dilemma

would qui te na tura l ly be under-achievement, whether i t

i s English or Mathematics. However, the difference

l i e s in the d i rec t ion of swinging between the two

stibject a reas . The English under-achievers swinging

between more control led and more tender-mindedness while

the under-achievers in Mathematics swinging between

l e s se r control led and l e s s e r tenderroindedness.

The comparisons between the male under-achievers

in English and Mathematics yielded s i g n i f i c a n t

differences on three pe r sona l i ty dimensions. The under-

achievers in Mathematics were found to be more warm

hearted and zes t fu l than the under-achievers in

Engl ish. The l a t t e r in t h e i r turn were found t o be more

i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c and l e s s warmhearted. These two r e s u l t s

seem t o be qui te convincing as more zes t fu lness of

the under-achievers in Mathematics would go qui te

reasonably with warmheartedness; and individualism of

the under-achievers in English with l ess warmhearted

ness . The t h i r d r e su l t seems to be a coro l la ry of the

above two f indings. The more warmhearted and zes t fu l

140

pupils would quite naturally be less controlled as

it appears in case of under-achievers in Mathematics;

and the more individualistic and less warmhearted pupil

would quite expectedly exhibit greater control as

can be seen in the case of under-achievers in English.

The reason why the Mathematics students are more

zestful,warmhearted and less controlled and the under-

achievers in English more individualistic, less warm-

hearted and more controlled, may be traced in the

nature of the school subjects themselves. Mathematics

being a more challenging subject evokes greater

enthusiasm, warmth and freedom than literary

subject like English with lesser challenges.

The findings concerning the personality chara

cteristics going with female under-achievers in

English and Mathematics, are very much in consonance

with earlier results in the two subjects. Girls

being more enthusiastic about language matters have

quite reasonably been found to be more enthusiastic than

those in Mathematics. The greater enthusiasm quite

naturally goes with lesser tendermindedness. The

girls in English are also less tenderminded than

their counterparts in Mathematics.

The comparisons between under-achieving boys and

girls in English has yielded very significant

differences on four personality factors and moderately

141

significant differences on other two personality

factors.Where the personality difference is sharper

between the two sexes the male under-achievers in

English have been found to be less warmhearted, less

conscientious but emotionally more stable and more

tenderminded than the female under-achievers in

English. The male under-achievers in English have

shown moderately significant differences on excita

bility and enthusiasm. They have been found to be less

excitable but more enthusiastic than the female under-


What has been said about the overall under-

achievers in English seems to be true for the male and

female under-achievers in English also. Both the male

and female cases seem to suffer from the dilemma of

opposing characteristics. The male under-achievers in

English have been found to be less warmhearted but

more enthusiastic, emotionally more stable but also

more tenderminded. Such contradictory characteristics

would make them swing between the two extremes and .

only contribute towards their growing under-achievement.

The same thing can be said about the female under-

achievers in English who are just the reverse of boys

along the six different personality characteristics.

Both male and female cases seem to suffer from self

contradiction and thus fail to achieve upto their

.42

expectations. As contradiction would never allow one

to remain one directional or goal oriented what had

happened to Hamlet, happens to every undecisive

personality: "... to be or not to be that is the

question", a perfect sign of a certain failure in

achievement in general.

The comparison between male and female under-

achievers in Mathematics yielded highly significant

differences between the two sexes on six personality

dimensions. The female cases were found to be more

intelligent, conscentious and individualistic than

their male counterparts. At the same time they were

also found to be more controlled than the male under-

achievers in Mathematics. However, the female cases

emerged as more apprehensive and emotionally less

stable than the male under-achievers in Mathematics.

A difference of moderate significance was also

found on the factor of warmheartedness. The girls were

found to be more warmhearted than the boys.

Emotional instability and greater warmhearted

ness seem to be quite common characteristics with the

female under-achievers. Almost similar differences

have been found both in Mathematics and English, with

the under-achieving girls. It is also quite convinc

ing that the emotionally less stable would quite

143

logically be more apprehensive as in the case of the

female under-achievers in Mathematics, The reverse

being true for the male cases they were emotionally

more stable and less apprehensive. With the male

under-achievers in Mathematics being low in intelli

gence and being less controlled and less conscien

tious all such characteristics are quite understandable

against the background of their under-achievement.

Mathematics being a difficult subject specially for

the girls (Ridding, 1966; Haq, 1987), a subject

in which they are generally not interested, it is

quite reasonable why they have failed to achieve up

to the expected standards in spite of their some

favourable characteristics like greater control and

conscientiousness and higher intelligence in comparison

to the male cases.

It can thus be inferred from the foregoing

discussion of the present findings that both the

groups of over-achievers in English and Mathematics

have quite different personality characteristics —

each of the two groups having distinctive chara-

cteriestic combinations. Thus the results on

personality dimensions of over- and under-achievers

confirmed the first hypothesis of the present work

that "The over-achievers in English would be different

144

from the over-achieyers in Mathematics in their

personality characteristics".

AS can be seen from the above discussion/ the

under-achievers in English also exhibit significant

differences from the under-achievers in Mathematics

on different personality factors. As such the second

hypothesis of present investigation, "the under-

achievers in English would also be different from the

under-achievers in Mathematics in their personality

characteristics," stands confirmed.

The results emerging from the comparison along

.fourteen personality dimensions between male over-

and under-achievers in English as well as in Mathe

matics show distinctive personality characteristics

going with each group of over- and under-achievers

in both the subjects. Thus it can be reasonably said

that the results on differences between over- and

under-achieving boys in both the subjects confirmed

the third hypothesis of the present investigation,

that is "the over- and under-achieving boys in English

would differ from the over- and under-achieving boys

in Mathematics along their personality character

istics".

AS can be seen from the results on the personality

characteristics of over- and under-achieving girls

145

in English as well as in Mathematics, the over-

achievers have been found clearly differing from

the iiftder-achieving girls in both English and Mathe

matics with reference to their combination of

personality characteristics, AS such the findings

in this regard confirmed the fourth hypothesis of

the present study, that is "the over- and under

achieving girls in English would also exhibit per

sonality differences when compared with the over-

under achieving girls in Mathematics respectively."

The results of comparison between male and

female over- and under-achievers in English as well

as in Mathematics have clearly shown that male over-

achievers in English differ from female over-achievers

in English, male over-achievers in Mathematics

differ from female over-achievers in Mathematics in

their personality characteristics. As for the under-

achievers the male under-achievers in English differ

from the female under-achievers in English and the

male under-achievers in Mathematics differ from the

female under-achievers in Mathematics on different

personality factors each group having its own

distinctive characteristic combinations. Thus the

result on sex differences in both the subjects —

English and Mathematics — confirmed the fifth

146

hypothesis of the present investigation,that is

"the male over- and under-achievers would differ

from the female over- and under-achievers in each

of the two school subject areas respectively."

Chapter VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of the present investigation was

primarily to identify the personality differences

between the under-achievers in English and Mathematics.

In order to get at these differential characteristics,

the study was conducted on differences between over-

and under-achievers on one hand and between over-

as well as under-achievers across the two subjects,

namely English and Mathematics on the other. Over-

achievement, in this regard, refers to the positive

discrepancy and under-achievement to the negative dis

crepancy between actual achievement score and the

score predicted on the basis of intelligence. Both

the phenomena have been recognised as psychological

problems, but under-achievement is becoming far more

menacing and damaging in the realm of education.

Achieving below the level predicted through intelligence

is a clear wastage of the individual's potentials and

an irrepairable loss of hxoman resource.

The review of related studies which is presented

in Chapter II would reveal that intelligence, being

147

148

very closely associated with academic achievement is

the most reliable predictor of school achievement

(Dhaliwal, 1971; McCandless et al., 1972; Glossop,

et al., 1979; Roberge and Flexer, 1981; Yule et al.,

1982). However, the correlations between the two

variables have never been found to be perfect. As

such a portion of population always remains unpre-

dicted through intelligence, which is generally dubbed

the 'residuals'.

The problems of the 'residuals' have very often

attracted the attention of the investigators. They

have tried to explore the non-cognitive factors which

could be responsible for the failure of prediction

through intelligence. The investigators in this field

satisfied themselves with exploring personality and

environmental factors going with academic achievement. '

These studies at best have indicated the relationship

between certain non-cognitive factors and high and

low achievement but do not indicate the extent of

operation of these factors on achievement when the

effect of intelligence is accounted for (Savage, 1966;

Rai, 1974; Koul, 1978; Vora, 1978; Khurshid

Mohammad and Fatima Rafat, 1978; Traiib, 1984; Kumawat,

1985) .

Some studies based on the clear concept of over-

and under-achievement, have tried to find out the non-

149

intellective personal factors of over- as well as

under-achievers (Rao, 1963; Taylor, 1964; Srivastava,

1967; Morrison, 1969; Bharudi, 1971; Dhaliwal, 1971;

Sharma, 1972; Menon, 1972; Agarwal, 1976; McRae,

et al., 1982; Stockhard and Wood, 1984). It has

been found from these studies that over-achievement

generally goes with superior study habits, poor

social adjustment and security feelings and under-

achievement with good social adjustment, insecurity

feelings and unrealistic goal orientation. Although

these studies of over- and under-achievement have

provided valuable data regarding the differential

personality characteristics of over- and under-

achievers, yet have derived over- and under-

achieveroent from the total achievement scores of the

subjects, which hardly represent the achievement

level of the individual in specific subjects.

Only a few investigators have attempted to study

the individuals' achievement in individual school

subjects and tried to find out personality factors

which are intimately correlated with academic

performance (Ridding,1966; Saxena, 1972; Haq, 1987).

These few studies have indicated some differential

characteristics going with over-achievement and under-

achievement in different school subjects. The

findings call for further empirical evidences as well

150

as serve as a threshold for a new dimension of

exploration, i.e., the identification of personality

characteristics of over-achievers as well as under-

achievers across different school sxibject areas.

The present work,-as such, was therefore carried

out with the following objectives:

(1) To find out the personality differences between the over-achieving groups in different school subjects.

(2) To find out the differential personality factors going with over- and under-achievers in different school sxibjects.

(3) To find out the personality factors differentiating the male and female subjects in different knowledge areas both among over- and under-achievers.

The hypotheses formulated for the present study

were as under:

(1) The over-achievers in English would be different from the over-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.

(2) The under-achievers in English would also be different from the under-achievers in Mathematics in their personality characteristics.

(3) The over- and under-achieving boys in English would differ from the over- and underachieving boys in Mathematics along their personality characteristics.

(4) The over- and under-achieving girls in English would also exhibit personality differences when compared with the over- and underachieving girls in Mathematics respectively.

151

(5) The male over-,and under-achievers would differ from the female over-under achievers in each of the two school subject areas respectively.

The present study was conducted on a sample of

302 students from X class of boys' and girls' high

and higher secondary schools frcxn Nagaon, Assam,

In the present investigation the investigator

employed the following standard tools and measures:

(1) The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Scale 2)

(2) Cattell and Beloffs HSPQ Test (Kapoor and Mehrotra, Form A, 1973)

For achievement scores of 302 students in two

specific school svibjects, the investigator had to rely

upon the school achievement records.

For further statistical treatment/ the intelli

gence and achievement scores were converted into '2'

scores.

The over- and under-achievers in both English

and Mathematics were identified with the help of

regression equation as suggested by Throndike (1963).

After obtaining the predicted achievement scores,

discrepancies between the actual and predicted scores

were calculated to find out the cases falling above

and below the predicted scores in each of the two

152

sxibject a reas . Those who were lying one S.De above

the predicted score were designated as over-achievers

and those lying one SDe below as under-achievers in

each of the two sub jec t s , among boys and g i r l s

separa te ly .

Following were the s ixteen p a i r s of groups for

mulated for comparisons of fourteen persona l i ty

dimensions:

Overall Comparisons

1. Over-achievers in English vs Over-achievers in Mathematics

2. Under-achievers in English vs under-achievers in Mathematics

3 . Over-achievers in English vs under-achievers in English

4. Over-achievers in Mathematics vs xinder-achievers in Mathematics

Among Boys

5. Male over-achievers in English vs Male over-achievers in Mathematics

6. Male under-achievers in English vs male under-achievers in Mathematics

7. Male over-achievers in English vs Male under-achievers in English

8. Male over-achievers in Mathematics vs Male under-achievers in Mathematics.

153

Among Gi r l s

9i Female over-achievers in English vs female over-achievers in Mathematics

10. Female under-achievers in English vs female under-achievers in Mathematics

11. Female over-achievers in English vs female under-achievers in English

12. Female over-achievers in Mathematics vs female under-achievers in Mathematics

Sex differences among over- and under-achievers

13. Male over-achievers in English vs female over-achievers in English

14. Male over-achievers in Mathematics vs female over-achievers in Mathematics

15. Male under-achievers in English vs female under-achievers in English

16. Male under-achievers in Mathematics vs female under-achievers in Mathematics

The ' t* t e s t was employed to find out the s i g n i

ficance of differences between the s ix teen pa i r s of

groups. The r e s u l t s of the ' t* t e s t have been

presented in Tables 1-16.

The findings of the present inves t iga t ion may be

summarised as follows:

(1) The over-achievers in English were found t o be more prone t o be warmhearted (A), l e ss

154

intelligent (B),, emotionally less stable (C) ,

less enthusiastic (F) , less conscientious (G)/

less adventurous (H), less tenderminded (I) ,

socially group dependent (Q-), and less

controlled (Q^) than the over-achievers in

Mathematics.

(2) The under-achievers in English were more prone

to tendermindedness (I) , apprehensive (0) and

controlled than the under-achievers in

Mathematics.

(3) Over-achievers in English differed from under

achieve rs in English on seven personality

factors. The over-achievers in English were

found to be emotionally less stable (C),

assertive (E), enthusiastic (F), conscientious

(G), less tenderminded (I), less apprehensive

(0) and more controlled (Q-) .

(4) The differences between over- and under

achieve rs in Mathematics were found on eleven

factors. The over-achievers in Mathematics were

found to be more warmhearted (A), more inte

lligent (B), less excitable (D), more con

scientious (G) , more adventurous (H) , more

tenderminded (I), more individualistic (J) ,

apprehensive (O) , self sufficient {Q2) , more

controlled (Q^) and more tense (Q.) than the

under-achievers in Mathematics.

(5) The male over-achievers in English were found

to be less warrohearted (A), less enthusiastic

(F) and less tense (Q.) than the male over-

achievers in Mathematics.

155

(6) Male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n E n g l i s h d i f f e r e d from male x inder-achievers i n Mathematics only on t h r e e p e r s o n a l i t y measures . The u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh were found t o be l e s s warmhearted (A), more i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c (J) and more c o n t r o l l e d

(Qo) than t h e u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Mathemat ics ,

(7) The male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h d i f f e r e d from male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in same s u b j e c t on t h r e e p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . The male o v e r -ach ieve r s in Engl i sh were found t o be l e s s a s s e r t i v e (E ) , l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c (P) and more c o n c i e n t i o u s than the male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in E n g l i s h ,

(8) The male o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics were found t o be more prone t o be c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s (G)/ i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ( J ) , and more c o n t r o l l e d (QO) than t h e male u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Mathem a t i c s .

(9) The female o v e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh were more prone t o warmheartedness (A) , l e s s c o n t r o l l e d (Q-) and l e s s t e n s e (Q ) w h i l e the female o v e r -a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics were more i n c l i n e d t o be r e s e r v e d , more c o n t r o l l e d and more t e n s e .

(10) The female u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s i n Eng l i sh e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on two out of f ou r t een p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . The female u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in Engl i sh were found t o be more e n t h u s i a s t i c (P ) , and l e s s tenderminded (I) whi le the female u n d e r - a c h i e v e r s in Mathematics were found t o be l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c and more tough minded.

(11) Among g i r l s , o v e r - a c h i e v e r s in Eng l i sh were

more i n c l i n e d t o warmheartedness (A) , t e n d e r -

156

minded (I) and tense (Q ) than the under-


(12) The female over-achievers in Mathematics

exhibited significant differences on three

out of fourteen personality factors. The over-

achieving girls were found to be more enthu

siastic (F)/ less conscientious (G) and more

tense (Q.) than the under-achieving girls in

Mathematics.

(13) The over-achieving boys in English were found

to be less excitable (D), less adventurous (H), less individualistic (J) and less tense than the

female over-achievers in English.

(14) In Mathematics the over-achieving boys were

emotionally stable (C), less intelligent (B),

less excitable (D) , more enthusiastic (F) , less

conscientious (G) and less tense (Q.) than the

female over-achievers in Mathematics.

(15) The under-achieving boys in English were found

to be less warmhearted (A) , emotionally more

stable (C) , less excitable (D), more enthusiastic

(F), less conscientious (G) and more tenderminded

than the under-achieving girls in Mathematics.

{16) In Mathematics the under-achieving boys were

found to be less warmhearted (A), less inte

lligent (B), emotionally stable (C)/ less con

scientious (G) , more zestful (J) , less appre

hensive (0)/ and less controlled (Q^) than the

under-achieving girls in Mathmatics.

156

The findings of the present study thus empirically

reveal certain personality characteristics going with

under-achievement in English and Mathematics specifi

cally as different from those going with over-achieve

ment both among boys and. girls ;and as such the study

serves as a threshold for further research work in

the realm of identification and early prediction of

under-achievement to prevent the loss of human

resource, to an extent, through remedial measures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, M. (1974) . Some factors irelating to under-achievement in English of Secondary School Pupils. Ph.D., Edn. Kernataka University.

Abraham, P.A, (1969) . An experimental study of certain personality traits and achievement of secondary school pupils, Ph.D., Psy., Kernataka University.

Agarwal, S.K. (1976). A psychological study of academic underachievement, 1, Dissertation Abstracts, July-Dec, 1981, Vol. X, No, 3, 4, 311-315.

Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Anastasi, (1958). Differential Pshchology, Macmillan Pxiblishing Co., New York.

Asbury, C.A. (1974). Selected factors influencing over- and under-achievement in young school age children. Review of Edu. Research, V. 44 (4), 409-158:

Batchtold, L.M. (1969), Personality differences among high ability under achievers. Jour. Edu. Res., 63, 9-18.

Best, J.W. (1977). Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.

Bhaduri, A. (1971). A comparative study of c e r t a in psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the over-and under-achievers , D . p h i l . , Psy . , Cal . Univers i ty ,

B l a i r , G.M. (1956), Diagnostic and remedial teaching. Macmillan Pxib. Co., I n c . , N.Y.

157

158

Burt, C. (1937). The backward child, Univ. of London Preis, London.

Burt, C. (1957). Letter to the Editor, Education, 109, p.507.

Burt, C, (1959). The accomplishment quotient: A reply. Brit. Jour. Edu. Psychol., 29, 259-260.

Cattell, R.B. and Cattell, M.D. (1973). Technical supplement for the Culture Fair Intelligence Tests, Scales 2 & 3, The psychology Centre, New Delhi.

Cattell, R.B. and Cattell, M.D. (1973). Measuring intelligence with the Culture Fair Tests, Manual for Scales 2 and 3, The psychology Centre, New Delhi.

Cattell, R.B. and Beloff, H. (1973). Manual for the HSPQ, Inst, of personality and Ability Testing, Illinois (Printed in India) , psychology Centre, New Delhi.

Chatterji, S. and Mukerji, M. (1974) . predictive ability of a differential aptitude test battery : A follow up study. Jour, of Edu. & Psychol., vol. 33, No,2

Clark, R.B. (1981). The effects of selected counselling approaches on low achieving grade ten students. Dissertation Abstracts (Inter), vol. 42, 3707, A.

Crano, W.D., Messe, S.R. and Rice, M. (1979). Evaluation of the predictive validity of tests of mental ability. Jour. Edu. Psychol., vol.71, 2, 233-241.

Curry, R.L. (1961) . Ceirtain characteristics of under achievers and over achievers, Peabody Jour, of Edu., 39, 41-45.

159

Curry/ R.L. (1962). The effects of socio-economic status on t]ie scholastic achievement of sixty-grade children. Brit, Jour.of Edu. Psychol.»

Dhaliwal, A.S. (1971). A study of some factors contributing to academic success and failure among high school students (Personality Correlates of academic over-under achievement), Doctoral Thesis, psychology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

Dianne, M. (1987) . The effect of small group counselling on under-achievers. Psy.Abstract (July), vol.74, 7, 20334.

Eysenck, H.J.(1974). Students selection by means of psychological tests: A critical survey, Brit. Jour.of Edu.Psychol., 17, 20-39.

Garler, E.R., Kinney, J. and Anderson, R.F. (1985). The effects of counselling on classroom performance. Special Issue,Multimodal Approaches, 23(4), 155-165.

Garrett,H.E. (1981). Statistics in psychology and Education, Vakils, Feffer and Simons Ltd., Bombay.

Glossop, J.A., Appleyard, R. and Roberts, s. (1979). Achievement relative to measure of general intelligence. Brit. Jour, of Edu. psychol., 49, 249-257

Guilford, J.P. and Fruchter. (1978). Fundamental statistics in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill, Kogakushia, Tokyo.

Haq, N. (1987). A study of certain personality correlates of Over-Under Achievement in Different school subjects. Ph.D. Thesis, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

Jain, S.K. (1967). Study habits and academic attainment in Uttar Pradesh Colleges. Doctoral Thesis, Psychology, Agra University.

Jarvis, Oscar T. (1965). Boy-girl ability differences in elementary school language arts. Childhood Education, 42, 198-200.

160

Jayagopal, R, (1974). personality profile of the under and high achievers of some of the schools in the city of Madras, Dept.of psychology, Madras University.

Kohli, T.K. (1976). Characteristic behavioural and environmental correlates of academic achievement of over and under achievers at different level of intelligence, Ph.D., Patna University,

Koul, L, (1978). personality needs of high and low achievers in Mathematics. H.P.U., Himachal Pradesh.

Khurshid, M. and Fatima, R. (1984). A comparative study of personality traits of high and low achievement. Postgraduate College, Rampur, Asian Jour.of Psychol, and Edu.,vol. 13(2-4), 41-44.

Kulshrestha, S.K. (1956). A study of intelligence and scholastic attainment of X and XI class students in Uttar Pradesh, Doctoral Thesis, Phil., Allahabad university.

Kumawat, U. (1985). A study of certain factors related with high and low achievement in college students. Sukhadia Univ., Udaipur, Asian Jour, of Psychol, and Edu. (Dec.) , 15(4) , 1-7.

McCandless, R.B., Roberts, A. and Sternes, T. (1972). Teachers' marks, achievement test scores and aptitude relations with respect to social class, race and sex. Jour, of Edu.Psychol./ 63, 153-159.

McRae, James L. (1982). Academic achievement and personality syndromes. Temple Univ., Dissertation Abstracts (Inter.), vol. 44(1), July, 4029A.

Mehryar and Khajavi (1973). Some personality correlates of intelligence and educational attainment in Iran, Brit. Jour, of Edu. Psychol., 43(1), 8-16.

161

Menon, S.K, (1973). , A comparative study of personality characteristics of over achievers and under achievers of high ability, Ph.D., Ker. Univ.

Morrison, E. (1969). Under achievement among pre-adolescent boys considered in relation to passive aggression. Jour. Edu. Psychol. 60(1) , 168-173.

Nagpal, R. (1979). A study of non-intellectual characteristics of over and under achieving engineering students, Ph.D., Human,, IIT, New Delhi.

Pal, R., Jain, P. and Tiwari. (1985), Self-concept and level of aspiration in high and low achieving higher secondary pupils. Agra Psychol, Research Cell, perspective in Psy. Research (Oct,), vol, 8(2), 49-53.

Parsley, K,M,, Powel, M. and Oconner, H.A. (1964). Further investigation of sex differences in achievement of under, average and over achieving students within five IQ groups in grade four through eight. Jour, of Edu, Res., 57, 268-270.

Rai, P.N. (1974), A comparative study of a few differential personality correlates of low and high achievement. Doctoral Thesis, Agra university.

Ralph, E.G. and Charles, J,H, (1980). Test anxiety and academic performance; The effect of study-related behaviour. Jour, of Edu. Psychol., 72(1), 16-20.

Rao, D.G, (1965). A study of some factors related to scholastic achievement. Doctoral Thesis, Education, Delhi University,

Ridding, L,W. (1966). An investigation of personality measures associated with over and under achievement in English and Arithmetic. Abstract of Thesis, 1966, Manchester University, British Jour, of Edu. Psychol,, February, 1967, 37, 397-398,

162

Roberage^ J.J, and B.K. Flexer (1981). Re-examination of covariation of field independence, intelligence and achievement, Brit. Jour. of Edu. Psychol., 51, 235-236.

Savage, R.D. (1966). personality factors and academic attainment in junior school children, Univ. of Newcastle, British Jour, of Edu. Psychol., vol. XXXVI, Part (1) , 90-92.

Saxena, P.C. (1972). A study of interest, need pattern and adjustment problem of over and under achievers. D. phil., Edu., Allahabad University.

Sharma, K.G. (1972). A comparative study of adjustment of over and under achievers. Doctoral Thesis, Edu., Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

Shaw, M.C. and McCuen, J.T. (1960). The onset of under achievement in bright children. Jour. of Edu. Psychol., 51, 103-108.

Srivastava, A,K. (1967). An investigation into the factors related to under achievement. Doctoral Thesis, psychology, Patna University.

StocXhard,J, and Wood, J,W. (1984). The myth of female under achievement: A re-examination of sex differences in academic under-achievement, Amer. Edu. Research Jour., 21(4), 825-835.

Tandon, S. (1978). A psychological and ecological study of under-achievers. Doctoral Thesis, Education, Banaras Hindu University.

Taylor, R.G, (1964) . personality trait and discrepant achievement: A review. Jour, of Counselling Psychol,, 11, 76-82.

Throndike, R.L. (1963). The concepts of over and under achievement. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univ., N.Y.

163

Traub, G.S. (1984). Correlation of shyness with depression/ anxiety and academic perfor-mance, Psychol. Abstracts/ 71(3), 723.

Vanarasi/ S.j. (1970). Ability and scholastic under achievement. Doctoral Thesis, Psychology/ Poona University.

Vora, I.A. (1978). A study of reading achievement in relation to sex, attitude and anxiety. Jour. Edu. and Psychol., 36(1 & 2), 41-53.

Wirth/ S. (1977). Effects of multifaceted reading programme on self concept. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling, 1977 (Oct.), 12(1) 33-40.

Yule/ W. (1984). The operationalising of "under achievement". Doubts dispelled. Brit. Jour, of Clinical Psychol./ 23(3), 233-234.

Yule, W., Lansdown, R. and Urbanowiez, M.A. (1982). Predicting educational attainment from WISCR in a primary school sample, Brit. Jour. of Clinical Psychol., 21, 43-46.

D AT APPMDIX-A

Test of "g": CULTURE FAIR Scale 2, Form A

Prepared by R. B. Cattell and A. K. S. Cattell

Name. Sex. First

Name of School (or Address).

Last (Write M or F)

Today's Date- Grade (or Class)-

Date of Birth-Month Day Year

Age. Years Months

Test

1

2

3

4

Score Remarks

Total Score

M

Do not turn thfl( page.Mntil.told,to do so

Copyrighi o by The luMuule for Her .onahty & Abil»1» 1 e s l . n j , 1949, 1957 Int tmal ional copyright in all cauatnea under the Benie Union, . , " " " ' , ' / , t ^ „ ? ,."""•"'•, " ? ' ' "" ' ' ' f"" ' Copyright Convontions All property rights reserved by The laautute lor Pe r . on .U ty « Ability l eb lmg, 1602-04 Coronudo Drive. Champoign, I l l inois , U S A l^nnted in I n d i a .

TEST 1

Examples

4

4 7 -:,i X 0 Q- (3'G> (D

> niswers

m

D

D

I.

2.

3.

4.

? 2 ?

• • • • • • • •

OO

! /

\j' I

• • • •

/ » / ^

oO o

D

D

n

n

D

1.

Go on to tkrn tttxt pagv.

6. 0

o

o

o-

10.

h 11. e-

o

I 1

\ >

c ^

n

^IX M

» t 12.

- J

Answers

o 0

• c

0 oo Q

1

• a n V V A

X X X

X X

t 1^

«=>0<=» -^^^-^ ( ^ ^ — ^ ^ ^ TBM»

z:s ^ (:x Q

^ ? id C?l <>

n

•

D

D

EndofTcsll

2.

STOP! Do not turn tb« pagt until told to do so

TEST 2

Examples 1 5 Answers

0

D

2.

' 1

2

j . - '

6.

n

D

D

n

D

D

Oo on to tht next page.

7.

8.

9.

10.

3. ;

D

LI.

L2.

1

< «

1

K)

2

2

(0

3

v\/v

3

(I)

4

4

0)

5

5

( ) (

Answers

D

n

n

D

D

D

n

n End of Test 2

STOP' Do not turn the page until told to do so

TEST 3 f- X MM.

1.

I.

3.

4.

b.

1 ! 1 1

L.. 1 _J r-—1 ''—•"'

^ / ^

L ) I

>1J,

' !'-ll] r - - - 1

IlliL

kll : A 1 ;

I 1 c , _ . i

X!±-r - 1 1 — - 1

4 ', ' 1 , 1 1

1 1

•

1

/

1

1

I J

1 1 1

1 1

1

A

1

ix

1

•X!

2

• •

2

g2 2

>

2

• • •

2

111 2

A

2

2

~

3

• •

3

I I

3

f ^

3 • •

"^

1 .!

A

3

"

3

..xj

4

%

4 s 4 a 4 • •

4

t 4

A

4

\

4

X ... _ ..

5 • •

5

IJ

5 m

5

•

5

^

5

A

5

\

5

-f

Answers

3

D

D

D

D

D

D

a 5.

Go on to ih« next page

6. mm — 1 1 — 1

n i i I I

7. 1 r 1 • • L I

8. \

o°

. • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i

ea] a I I

>• . J

10.

11.

BOLT

12.

End of Test 3

1

•

1

o

1

^ #

1

B

ti

1

i

2

f

2

•

2

°o

2

2

2

2

1

3

D

3

•

3

-.

3 a 3 '

3

3

X

4

•

4

o 4

• •

iij

4

4

[XJ

5

0 5

•

5

^

5

5

5

5 m

Answers

D

n

D

n

n

D

n 6.

STOP! Do not turn the poge onfi/ to/J fo </o so.

TEST 4 Examples

O o

$ > ^ ® 3 4

^

Answers

D

D

I.

m 3. T-i

5.

6.

7,

8.

m

^.

M r /

_3

I I

i

© ^ (S) (Dl

5 _

^ " ' ^ , , . I \ * ^ . I ' fc I • i i i i - " J ^ • ' • • I I.I • • •••

End of Test I 7.

Jr.-Sr. FORM A (Revised)

H. b» r • Q« K V C J 1967 Hindi Edition

Prepared by : A P P E N D I X - B S . O. Kapoor and K. K. M«hrotra

( Original Test Authors are Dr. R. B. Cattell and Hallo Setoff)

(«p) 3€a«fiT5r5r » trsjTJTfr'IPT*JT, (^) ^rnrft w, («r) »^-^r?r "fs^r 1

%i^s^ 5T <T<Ht ^^ *5fM "Hct ITT fl»Tis?r g>, ^^m ^^ grrr H ^ fftr ^ v ^ 1 s r ^ vn % eftf iwrf if % i?it gr rc g^^l ^ T fîtiT srt tilii^ ^ x(^ 5 ^ ^ fs j ^tV^ ^q^tfi ?T^T I ag: 5T?5T« JJ H % Wt p? ^ 1 ^ 3 ^ ^ % ^tf> ^ ^ 'TT

' fTT-q' if ^^ gq; n f (Box) % vf%x qv H|V ^ ( / ) f^TH ir^w Hnrw^ 1

fSTH ST^T % Sr?^ 3WT r?^ ni^ I 1% |(t srgg ^ 5T5 5^ jfeTVT * teTC 5 « t ^ ft^ I «W 51?% q«n "TW2

«p> *fr rrq a> "Tf% sr f 155: <>?> %^K v^ ?r* ^rt^ T ^ arncft 1 s i^ ffi ^ t ^ «»T^ ^ ftreft wnif qr «!TTH ^ «Tr'SRTTT I :—

(?) sr Hlf % j T a=5^f ^ a«Tr ffrf^'*>^ m^ % ift, wffv T TW gtiT ^ ^ 5 ^ T T ^ $ ?TITIT 5TJ(! | I 5»T ^^?t «n ^m VK^ ?> ^WT ?*> g^T irt I IT? »r5r fft^> Pn ^ ' ^TT ^ T ^^'m % 1

(^) ir«rfcr m n^Tr wt % ftrt vt^ HUIT fsift' r îi %,, fTsr vV 5»T sr pfff vr rtrr 5ftWOT % ^ I ^ vnm fi jhr ft' -fq TT ! ^ «ft <I WT %V^ »T5T if WTIT 5^ fîT^ % m^[x «nc «ft I fs i snpr ITJF 5 ^ % frrsr - jq^ irr^p

T?% t "TT?5 *"J< ifV ^ sT fT r 5Tf?r qR % T ^ 11 «?r; g ^ g^r »ft ww«T-W5r«T ?t H ^ j 1

(^) ^ 'nfTT 9 TT «T«Tffr "iTfsTfii r" (JTT '^') ^^^ ?nfT> JTIT 'T if nuft sr ft? «T5?r irr vr? r?r ^ mc "CT ^^mr fr?Tf«T *T?p--*T ff I «T?r: x^f^wf^\ %' (JTT 'IC'O Hflf' {m 'n') % 3 ^ §1 sTiTt«T *f «TTSIT ^ f ? ^ 1

(V) fip t ?fy 5T?5T vt Tg- Bjtft I xmx. ^ STW «p?cT: 5*T qT m^ «T?t ?f ur 5 ^ ^ ^^ *^«55FH T ft, %^ {nftgn •<TfsTfWer' (qr •^') % ?ft% «T^ Jf ffr^nf iTinft 1

*nT^ 51C5 f«"][«j!!T ^ rft «T^ «(^ iP^ ?t, iftr ITPJ WW if <rrt* w^Sî fcn^ f t «rt «fif WVT 59 fr»^ ft I fapyg ^Ji5r ^ ? ^ ffT«ft <f?t « T ^ ! T W V d 1

Copyright © 1967 by The Psycho-Centre, T-22, Green Park, New Delhi-16 (India>, ana also 1958, 1962, 1963 by the Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, 1602-04 Coronado Drive, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. Ail rights reserved. International Copyriglit in all countries under the Berne Union, Buenos Aires, and Universal Copyright

Conventions, and all Bilateral Copyright Agreements. Printed in India.

t ^ j

t. fsrr fnHtti »t vnT: ^ T?T t . wr yr!??? ^ v % ^«»; <rt f t ? \J?^^, (^) wrfft^cT, (T) Sfflf I

5?. Jifir 5*r f v ^ PrifpTv if n^ ft 5f>, wr «ftf Hijir * f^fJr:

( ' ) ft, (T) iT?Tf I

(«) fsrft^fr f>?rr | , (w) iJW % ^^ n, (»r) ff fiF-^rf?-^ f>arr t ?

^. 3ra nJt ^nr 1 ^ wTf ft«iT sffT iT I ?ft t^rm ^^ 5 rT% %, ^^t | T ?fWlf «n: f?r «Frtft(H ft sn f f> ? (v) «PWT, 4 ^ ) *>fy-^nft, (n) i5rrii«f ft «>ft 1

(s. ff^ PTT % rar Ttf 8f n^^< f>^ TT, wr ^ T ?r«r r's^ f^^fTt qr> ^^f^ftr sq^ ^ft ^^^ f* vff 'J^^t w^Tr?flt

("R) ft, (^) m^K, (T) !Tft I

(V) ft, i ^ , {m) HTtTT ffmpiT, (T) STgt I

( T ) ft, (^) ^>fy. nft, (n) ^ft I

t •. fTPTf?rfe5 vtat Jf ^ ^H # fTs 5*51^ 5«i%?^ qr wF^v srr f>«t \ ? (v) ftreTfff iftnT ^ r , (^) Jftsif % «t^ ft, (n) ^ ^ if ^zx T irm^r 1

(v) f t , (^) iim^, (n) !f^ I

t'?. f^r fffncT «itwif qr ip\^ SPTTT gf'^^ ?"t?rr | ?rt Jir 5»T ^t^!r ft fP ^^ <TT f f fu r f^??rrii f^^fsi ?5t | ? (T) f t , (^) 5T(»T?, («l) JTft I

t?. €f f>5»ff j m «% f ^ r i^nv 91 '^rft, ?it >»irT §«T fTfrr f f rar ft? ^ ^ rmT «nT?< ?«% ft ? (V) f t , (^) 5rT«T?, (ir) !nPf I

tv. firr 5^ fft^rr %n^ ^resf^^ vrr ^Twt ^ ^ i ^ ft <?r?TT Hv?f ft, ^ 51T »R: nft f t irt %'w ?rtt ft iift ft ? (T) f t , (w) i!Tm<, (T) «rft I

?X. w r 5^ nt^^ ft ftr nriT w^ TT ^^\\ qv srRrs ?TtT nrtspfiTa a rftB ^ ^ vt f%fT H»ii^'n t ? ("P) f t , (W) WfJT?, CF) »fft I

t S. smr.' f»f r<!r<rft w*P(fn^ )f*r?rr v'ct $ grsrft wM? f»T«rft «nr wr 5«r«t <rr M^m | J^ inaii Tv % v t t fmat ft T I ft ? (•(f) ft, (W) 5IIJT?, (^j T ^ < .

, ^ ^ • • I

tv». f ^ 5»T -(fT tft ftt 5»T l?Tft ft awf^fT iTT ?nrt fsrn r fv 5»T F^WT >i«?t at u t i 5*51^ fcro ^ ? (V) f t , (^) 5TR?, ( n ) ' ^ ^ ! . ' '" / ' ' -

<c, ftrstft vm ft q ^ ! i t j ryw VT^ TT, WT 5^ : " , ' (V) 5«[ ^ ^^ vT ^rf% ft %m %ft ft, (^) «rfiif?^cr, 'Cti ls^^-g;^ ft*m *it ft ?

U- ^"ir y^ r t wm f«Pfft ft ftm »r3riT fpqr % fsr wt nr? ft ft ^M^ «««|tm1i^'f' • (*) f t , {m) ^ - v ^ t , (ir) Tfl i

[ ^ J

( * ) | r , ( « ) 'frffft'^cT, ( T ) 5T?1f!

- 3. f^pf if 3ft -^ q rrar orrrrr ^ Jfrr cr% ^ T 7fr ar^ % ITVK ^^ f> ?

^ y, f err ^>'ilf pr ^?^r ^ ffr 5T ^HV-ÎTV rr TT r %(\x st^-arr^r & T ? ^ ?t, 2T«rf<T ^JT% fi^^R 8f 5H « « ^ WT% ?> ? ( T ) St, - (i^) 5IR^, ( T ) ifi\ I

( T ) St. ('^l 5TR?, ( T ) JT|f I

3 c JTJTr gT f=fiifr m JTS ^^r^r fffffst ^^^ s i f«P g ^rq^-qBi^^ ?r trm r ^ r ? (^) SI, (^) 5P>i>-T>fV, (IT) ^Tr I

= €. Km?i)x qr ^r? «Pt 5»i% t |? i src^-'*^* «ri ?g?r «"> «f)^-^l^ ?)5icir t eft ^RT 5«? Îv ^ sir¥> ^RT ^ T ?(r? f> ? (fT) St, (^) 'P^'V-^, (T) H 'V I

(^) V. ( ' ') 'Tw?, ( 1 ) .r?V I

^^. F"P?fl' pi^'fV fffsJir ^ ?r»iir eji » R : w r ^^^rr q?r?ff TTtit ?

^ ^. w i q5r«>- Ht 5*1 JT? n^T^ gt % 5r>»T tn^ IX^TH\ | f^ ^rs wt'ft «rHif | T T < ^ Hi^ ^ ^ t

(ir) ?rrir^, f?T) n m ? , (ir) ?r?jr Tttf t ' / t

V'(. ijtrr rjiTTt f ^ - V H t fhTT 5riicTf ^ ftr ?|»r ^f^r « r ^ «irfffi ^rst ft, iVt fr *ift ^'i^ »T?f«t^ (frpf v\% ^t ?

{^) Bt. ( « ) «rrifif^, ( 1 ) nff I

V/. "T|ff> t;wt Sr WT 5»? fiffi nt * sff? »f% f^fi = % «ri?r ^ ?

?^. WT gJI iP»I% iTV ^^•<^ ^ Tf^ %«r.7 ffffHJj' ^^^ «> fip ^^ J7>»T fiTT » ^ I ?

(•f) ^t, C^) 51(11=?, (If) ^Tf I

(* ) ?if. (w) 5 i m , ( T ) Hp I

?'^. iwi g»Tf;> Hiî ^ OP g^xu'V irf^vt?! w? ir*?TiT|r ^ ^ j j ^ ^ ^ ^ f ^ 5t?ft T ? ^ ^ ?

[ '' 1

H . w?ft?r «TT sfw if WT 511 !Tt larir Tf JTTff ^ nrwfjft ^ ?ft« ?^ 5 ?

(T) ?t, («) "p^t-ffiiY, («r) !i|Tf I

v: . !Tr s jp irt iqr "^^ («ffTT) «nt tn? ^T pt wafV? Hint | ?

("p) | t , (^) ^ H V - ^ ^ , (T) ^ ^ I

(^) flrr v i ^ f ?r?t STIT îp nftir gi^ wt TA?? ^ T , ^^) ffiHMrcf, (T) «r 7«T «PirRr 1

(vj f f 5T Jf ^^& 5ft f5ra ftmîff, (^) ?rf*Tf5 «T, (n) ?f?fftnT ifirTc^ Tmr fjRrnff 1

">fv». !ift tft p ^ ^ 5I VTI gfl% Jnt it ^? f ih fs ft B K^,^ ? (V) win^ nt T ift, (fr) 'F>»V-^, (T) îrtrr 1

(v) 5t, («) (snJi , (»r) ! i ^ I

K«>. wr g^«t 5»^ SHT %^ * nmn f ^ ^«r r trsssr 5r«i?rr | ?

xt, iffir v^f 5»frt srftr ft^'msT ft?:m win 5) ?ft WT 5«r TO <n: Hrnar % fiisiro * t * TOVt «(* «ftT wraTi%J> ?

51 . ^^l ^^ Hnnr | ^F ^x wWsra vr} vt »T& gt gn 5tv-5TT WT ^ ft ? (») (jt, («) m^, (T) Hi l l

XX. wr fT iK»»%*'ft wwrnw «t ffW t ^ i f % ftiq STOT fir^r'r 5 ^ ft ? (v) ft, («) <TPW^, («J) wifr I

X . BW 5»T afffijv "Pfpft q?% ?t, ?ft <WT: (m) ^ « * i«r»«n «Rr % f?Tt PTf*»9 xf& ft, («) wfHfi?^, («v) Vfr^t % «if«t if wmf^ %% ft ?

«c». anr 5^ PRft iT(pjrj# %<r Jf 5^ ?rrf fr f f t arr?t f t , rft wr 51? : (*) f r 0 ft f% iTf ?ft % ^ *»f ?[, («r) fffifm, (»r) »rTtnr ftwi?t j jt(rftrinit imvt f w n ^ | t ?

[ ^ ]

i q. Kw 5n JTir 5ftnf ^ jftf Jf arrJr 5*, nt w r : (v ) 5fiw ft 5«Ti5> w«i?rT I np (?T) 9ti> % 'Tt'T Jr, (»r) ?T>T> vt arT5T% ^ fi^ innr ?nr?iT | ?

^% « f "Ft 5Ti int jft,

(^) <Tt«!TTsit, (^) ftTT, (n) Ijfjr % I

ô. "f^rr" «Fr "55q" ^ JTjt si^r^ I ait " ^ ? a w " ^ : CF) 5f?aT, (w) ?f?r?m, (n) Sf?PF % 11

(v) ?t, (^) ir T'fnjr, (n) sTftf i

%^,. 5«:$T tpt? = 3r f nf Tf qit t WTflt ?nTT fBi ^ j j 5rm m xf^Hv i«s f t wTqf wt w r 51T wrwr Tf «rT?r ft ? (c) |f, (^) 51TJTIT, («r) H(S, f% ^ flftw mwr 1 1

^ . wr grr^ q ^ icrr-fqcrr ^ <!;>?> vl- JT V^T t OP f i ^ ?T«irT^ ' l ^ fV ya% <B5rT % | iftr 'rf wrsppH % ^^^ft ^ ( ?r 5»T isftr gif i^ 9t??i) Hfl*R T?t qr^ ? '^

(ip) f t , (^) ^rrg?, (n) »rf71

^Y. if Iff 5»T ^^ wsJTrT 'i vt rftr P T^?? ? T ^ ft sft j^ript rm? ft? vm %ff ?Rf «R^r ^ f f i t ? (^) ft, (^) "SIR!?, («r) Jif71

vc. fzrr 5JT ^ ?!>«)> 8r ?t f> aft «r<T t fjnT-»!f»?ft *r f^-JT'î'P % f % fmr r * T & | ? (v ) 5T, (^) OTiir, («r) TfTf I •

^ . fjrr 5»T 5if?r ?RTTf * r ^ ^^ ^ 4 ^ "ffftr^^r »II'T TIST ^ r ^ Jr ^ frr f t [V^TR ?H% fip w€t THT uPrwj ^ uT«r5 "P?iT«ft % T^^ vw[%ft] ?

• (T) f t , (jsr) 5Tr>T«f, (T) nft 1

V9. CTTT 5ft«t1f vt s m fffT^ T R TT ?mt ft, fisT ^ f rr 5^ fwTr i r f ^ ^fbit ftSt »T^ <r«# ?Ptf v r ?r«F f t ? (T) f t , {tg) mvf^ (ir) 5Tfif I

\^. far ft>^ ^5r % ?TT3rm% if ^^f ' ff ft?rr t ^ 5«Tfrt "HTT ft % 3 ^ ^T?RT 1 ^ | ? (v ) f t , (?T) iSTfre, (*r) 5r^ I

(V) iftiTff, (w) wfnft^w, (IT) «Tff?iT:

50. 3rw 5^ WT t f»T'T-»f»?ft *f f t^ ft 5fr nf^T ^^^ ftjHJr wrat«r JF RT ft ? (V) «fl«ft VT aTfr?n ?t% Jf, (9r) «rfjrft ?T, ( f ) aft ft TfT | g% w% W t

vs?. >f«Tr 5»T ^Jift iTf ^ '^ I ftr wnr ?afHTT ft %«RT 5»T ft crv wrfts Tf amft ?ft WT vrtit ? (V) ijt, (W) «rfJTpW?r, (H) 5T^ I

\»^. ffpirft * «T HT% qr ^ r ^gt sr 5»T »ft ^tgsnst ?T»T& ft ? (v ) ft, (w) "Rrnrfwijr, (n) sr^ 1

("F) 55ff TT fTR?^ mx^T, («r) w^f^^nr, (u) H^T* f«Bt% 9<« *^ «Tnff * T mm fl«TT 1

V9V. ? ^ Jr wTfiT T (fiT^ft ^«r) % mif ^ wr vfi»t ? (V) crm %Ht't, (w) wHrft^, (ir) ^ * firt iit *nr fii?rT 19<ni^ mct r ?

( T ) f JT r?rc[fT *FT^ ft fm wr stv | , («r) irf^ft^w, («r) aHt fftr «Tt<r «inc t Îr f t w^ ft ?

vs . sriT gq ff^ft ^THTT Tjft Jf HH T | f t^ f t ?Tt "PH W^^ fTfft nRTT | ft? Vtf g^^fm «ftw VT tfT I ?

(^) ?t, (?T) 5rTire, («T) »r|[ 1

[ ^ ]

•jv>. ^^ »Ff t TgTr 7?rf5 mx]it ?

(sp) ^>fy-y»fy, ( ^ ) ifTsrr, (»r) ?J9I I .

( « ) ?t, (^ ) «Tm , (IT) qff I c t ^Fs 'r 5^^ ?nTJT t;nx ^r^r^ - ryr ?»>' fi r 5^^ T ^m fiM f, -^"i ?-vr .-

t;^. nfer 5T 3ft?-f^5iR % f ffV Fjr?ri«ff ^ m«f ?>^ -JT f^fj^ri tri gti^r f^^Jf irftrqir msff^ u i i i T ?

T^jf Jr, JTT ^r?eT ^ T ^ ft I

("P) f t , (fT) 5Trii5, (^) ^^t I

cY. HUTF^^ trt^r^twlt it 5 1 F«w ¥ q S »r«r w.rnj 7 H ? ? ^7~in ''

( ? ) ?t, (^) WTT , ( « ) anft I c S . WT 5»T tTTsfr ipwr % «TJT fsfflT f » # «r)»TT?e xOx ^\m^ % ^ ijli t « > if> ?

{^) §t, (^) 5Tm?, (w) «nfif I CVS, ^ T 5n«t rnsTr t Fit ? j ^ Sf 5*gT^ laitJTrq^ :

( v ) 51^ 5fT 5> I , (i^) wF^frâr, ( n ) 'P^rif^ i j ^ sn*!^ ift T ?r1f

qq, snr 5»T F^RT ir «P1| î^ i\ j g ? q?5TT 3 » ^ ?> fTt la l :

(«P)5»t '"5' f* 'p'T"i^'"' t5^ fT tjMr t , (<3r) iiFflF5^?T, (iT)5»Tni YftF^«i5îrat%'r?T»T?<TfJi^t' e g . w«iT ^ti ^nr q m " ? ^ '= 1 n Fâr STT JT f>, «> I T I WÂT g t ^ ^ ??? 15% ^ q^^rnft êft t f« :

{f) %^ r«T ij.'t ?»T «-? rrtn FTT?!irr ipT #»t, {^) ffF'f^T, ^n) <f f«Jf iifi^ftTfr »»^ ?t3;'«ii ? t o . ^'^ *f *»V% FJT^ » 1 T k <?F'ar?f?f if: F iif g^ W<TJI> anrFi ? 't '

( « ) ip«n Jf Fqeif^ sirir F-iwrfTirt rrt {HI) vUf^^^, (I) vî^vivM^ "CT t f | 5 « R r«pn arm 1 ff^fi wmi' ^-niA ^TQ[', '* ,

t< 'ff g'?'^ ^TT m5^'T-5r^^ '^q ft g> ^^ "r, JUT «HJT ^ T :

{%) STTI: l^ff ft TO.'T q?^ fI, {?») «TfTF5 =T, (n) Hfl ^ HH W5r ^ T 5«rT % «!ftff Tf* fff ?

t ^ . WT JT »T «5ff ft fftni TI ffTu |f\ irt nT»jTT ft ft F«r3r?ft ^^w;^ ft f s i r^ arr^ ^ ?

( * ) ?t, (w) 5TW, (n) ^ ^ I

t < . fiT ?i,K ^ ^ ?t Fi; nf^TT) Fuflr-4T># FT^TT^ sfi FT^T|U ftn> | % fipift tr^ wrfiflB % T^m- ft '^fjar inft i v\x

( * ) ?t, (?r) ?rw?r, ( '?)T?!ti

tV, F««t T R *> rfhr f ^ T ?flft qT WT rl,»T jft TT IT?!* ?t, Hl5f ^«ft fBi OT ^ ^ T fft ?

(f!) 5t, ( w ) tortw, (T) sT?nf I

eK. TF?J >!?I| ?r»^rt FfîTi ft wflr?*rff if>, ?ft WT g;jT:

( « ) »T*> TTT ^ T ft *T^ ^ ?>, (^) »rfM»w?r, (nj ^ft *i"THi c[ft ?t?f ir? ftft VT H H T ^ft f ?

[ * ]

e s. ?[!T TR wJTf Jt ?rt: 5 %, OT'PJ, 3^T, <ft?&, ^ Jf I "ptsTflrr ?ri[ li? | aft iftfr ^ iW ir^ mm ^ ?

(sp) 5f>%, («) "fV ^, (»») fsT^ •

• ( T ) ?t, (^) fffJTf?^?, (n) JT Vi

ee. «r^ iptf gT?>- ffr y ir srtr "Pfe ^rq vt ?:% ^ fH^ «Pf5Tr t , eft în 5*r:

( T ) ipr f1!» ?t «V^ ?m\ «Tt*TaT ^T (€f) 'srin?, (T) ^ irîw "PT^ jjt fe v^ n«w?

Tft' nT ^ ?>, T ft !îr ?

?o0. êrr ^ 5^ lit H^T VT ^TTT 1% % f?r sr? 5^ wf r sipfli % ffT«r rT ^5i& ft, ?ft zrr T # r ^ ft sn^ ft ?

(jp) i;>?t-iJ>it, Cir) v^x T^t, (n) îrt Tft 1

\o\. ?f?r if 5»T ^^'( ^THT q«'? ^Ttir ^

(^) Wffllr ^Tf ift ipT ff Vt ^fr^ft T TTT, (^) wf^ft^cT, (it) ? ^ VH\^ ffTf^ «r|4 VTTr I

( * ) r!(«rTWt?T, (^) «fTTlf * ift^ ^. («r) %JlT5ft?T I

\ ov. ipwr ^ ^ Ht at? !FT % «Tf% fzrr %n ai^grft ?r f???^ ^ ^ ft fv tRr irft | ?

(V) fJrwr, (^) WtmTfrrcT: ( T ) » R : Tjft I

(^) vf^x, (?r) ^TTt-v^ft, (ir) *>ft ^ t « • . ?nTT g r f i ^ ^ f ^ n r : '',

(^) wfiT nt ^3i> qT TJtRcft Tfcft t, (^) TTffT * 9\^ Jf, (ff) ijffjrr fft * r f ? ^ ^5ilf «rc anr «rf I ?

? o\s. af? fFfTTT fJtf ^r?i^ f»i^ Ppwt fiT$r«r ?pnrc »TT g^frft u ^ fipfft <T?«r arffB wm«r irftrv q««f <R{rr , at wr îr:

(V) fr& ftrsETq^ TT^ ft fip 55% (^) ^tTt * ^t^ Jf, (IT) «t<l% ft pF tt T «ft f ^ W^f | ?

^r^Kt 3%6Tr iPt t

\oQ. Hi'jffV are-f^T?!t W Jir g»T wwT nfg T 'PT?r ft ft;:

(v) gTfT7:r qe? ir^ f>T?!T | , («) rHrf?^ , (tr) aifnr iw w% %« «mT t ?

Xoi. «r*r ^ v t «rfT if <jTt fts?T srftiwr v^sft <r?iTt | eft JTT ^ T JTR:

(v) ^ ^ % sfjftwT s; ^ ft, (^) vr^r^^, (n) ipft^ ft 33* ft iftr fwnr « f flJt * n%arT%^«t^f t?

\Xo. Hz(i e trvt ?Tr 5rinrr | f«P frfiTt ra^Tir grsft ^ j n't ^ % 55T tt«rft ? (<P) WWT, («) T^t-ll^t, (n) VtT? ft T»ft I

t < t 5»T ff^r JTvit ^ ?t??r «T«r?? "Ret f> ?

(T) 3ft ^W5?t i f ^ ^ ft , (?r) «W5^?T, (u) vfBt nnfti (11 n ^ . fitr f»r «ift^ f> ftr OR-W ft% % fsnt Tf ffr^wv | f«»r wTift î^Tiifr qt ^ nm^ #wr WR ?

(*) |t , (?i) wrir?, (»r) ^ 1

n ? . f i i #^t-?{ta <T 9nfTirt % 51T »^-?Tft f T H»r ft ariet ft, fi?iTf* 5?? wm^ itf^^w^ » r f f ^ «ift | ?

Hv . f^r §»» fTft ier ft fv gn^ 5r?itv sr sr »i gwr I f ar | ?

CP) ^» - (^) 5ruT?, (»r) ^ft I

^ <V tf .«• < « r ' ; : : v < * A tf •«•-«• < - « ^ - »

• J O D O D D Q D a O O a D O D D D O D D ^

i D D D D D Q a a a a a a a n a n a D D S

lo a D D D a a D D n a a D O D D o a D ^ :

t

^ A}

D D a D D D D D D D D D

a a a a a a a n a a a D D D o D O D a o a D n q

D D D n D D D D a a D D D a n D n D n n o D D a n D a O D O C D a c n D

(S > ^ ^

D D a n n a D a n a a a D a D D D a a D D D D D D D n D D n D D n n a a

A> ^ A* ^ Ai ^ •C -«• >i> « •

D D Q D O D

D D D a D D

D D D D O D

«< <K < < < *« •< AU ^ <w o J*

a D D D a a

• D a D G a

D D D D 0 O

-«" >« ^ <l« Jp ^

•^' . M •^^ i> » • tS

o a D a D a

a a • D D a

o D D n a n

IT 1

D ^

H

^ *%

< .

a

D D D D D D a D D D D D n n a D O

a D a a a a n D a o a c i a D a D D a a a D D Q D a D a a n a n a n o

«

c D *

D ' T 1

K ' u i <<).<« • ^ < s i ^ ; r « < « > . M • •• ^ ^

• *• <v *

o

a a a a p n a a a o a D D a a a n D D a a a D D D D D D D D D D D D D D a a a a D n D D D D D o a a D

D

J*

o

D 3

i

&>

1%

9 9 Q o W i - X o •n m D O o> >

i

FACTOR

«

i

*• a o mo

1

I

a study of personality characteristics of under-achievers ...ir.amu.ac.in/2129/1/ds 1721.pdf · a...

Documents