CORRELATION OF SELECTED OATB AND

SORT VARIABLES

APPROVED:

? iJt Major Professor

) / " )

y * ' " W -Minor prof@s«or

Dean of the School of Education

Dean of the Graduate School

CORRELATION OF SELECTED GATB AND

SORT VARIABLES

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirement®

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Richard T. McWilliam®. B. S.

Denton, Texas

August, 19@®

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

USX OF TABLES iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of Problem Description of Measure® Hypotheses Belated Literature Procedure

H. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20

m . SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 38

Conclusions

APPENDIX 43

BIBUOGRA PHY 48

in

LIST OF TABLEi

Table

I.

II.

m .

IV,

v»

VI.

VII.

VIII.

DC.

X.

Itf

dtmmm

XII.

XIII.

XIV. XV.

XVI.

Traits Measured by the GATB and the SORT . .

Means and Standard .

Correlations Belated to Hypotheses for Group I.

Group I Correlation® of GATB with SORT Variables

Means and Standard Deviations for Group II . .

Correlations Related to Hypotheses for Group II

Group II Correlations of GATB with SORT Variable®

Means and Standard Deviations of Group III . .

Correlations Related to Hypotheses for Group III

Group III Correlations of GATB with SORT Variables

Inte rsorrel ations of the GATB Variables of Group I

Intercorrelations of the GATB Variables of Group II

Intercorrelations of the GATB Variables of Group III

Intercorrelations of SORT Variables for Group I

Intercorrelations of SORT Variables for Group H

Intercorrelations of SORT Variables for Group IH

iv

Page

8

21

22

2$

28

28

SO

33

34

8S

43

43

44

43

40

47

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Few attempts have been made to relate toe concepts of person-

ality and aptitude. As Allen pointed out* most theories and studies of

personality have developed independently of theories and studies of

aptitude (2). Stevenson, although including a discussion of intelligence

in his study of personality, did not relate intelligence to personality

and did not include aptitude ia his study at all (22). More recently,

Coleman has also included some reference to intellectual ability in his

work in personality, but again failed to relate personality and intelli-

gence except as both are involved in the context of solving personal

problems and making decision® of a personal nature (8). Thus*

Coleman overlooked the involvement of intellectual ability in academic

and occupational situation® which, in essence, omitted the concept of

aptitude. Baughman and Welch viewed personality as the mental

characteristics other than those of a basically intellectual nature (§).

Their concept of personality <5) exemplified those definitions of person-

ality which basically ignore intellectual processes. Baughman and Welch

discussed intelligence and the measurement of intelligence to provide a

reference point for the discussion of personality measurement (5), but

1

omitted it as an aspect of personality. In studying the primary factors

of personality, Jenkins (16} found IS® scales measuring primary factors,

none of which measured intelligence level or areas of aptitude. He did

find, however, primary facton® of "theoretical thinking" and "spatial

disorientation" as personality components, the scales nearest to intelli-

gence or aptitude measures in his study <16).

Among the various studies available on aptitude# one of the most

unusual viewpoints is that of Broadley and Broadley (1% who placed person-

ality in a list of aptitude®. In contrast, Vernon <24) and Goslin (12)

viewed aptitude and personality as separate entities# with the only in-

volvement of the two being a rather one-sided situation in which person-

ality sometimes limits the full development of aptitude* This omitted a

positive or constructive relationship of the two. For these and other

writers# Bingham's (8) definition of aptitude as "potential ability in per-

formance" was probably adequate without basic change or elaboration.

These writers on personality and aptitude could# therefore# be described

as having viewed their respective subjects as separate entities which

were only slightly related to each other.

In a different perspective, several writers have considered

aptitude to be related to personality in very basic ways. Allport de-

fined personality as "the dynamic organization within the individual of

those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustment to

his environment" (3). While this definition by Allport encompassed

3

the concept# of personal i ty and aptitude as previously discussed, Allport

actually saw no definite re la t ionship between personal i ty and aptitude

<3). Nevertheless, his definition did not preclude such a relat ionship,

am did some definitions. Allen (2) objected to the lack of theore t ica l

proposals to explain the possible source of aptitude® in personality and

the relat ionship of aptitudes to personal i ty . While he recognized that

the relat ionship of emotional f ac to r s and intellectual factors l ike apti-

tude would not be s imple, he maintained the exis tence of such re la t ion-

ship# f o r s eve ra l reason® (2). One reason was that emotional exper i -

ences or condition* may inhibit aptitude development (2). Another was

that aptitudes s e e m to be modifiable to some degree by environmental

changes <2). These and other r easons can ted Allen to conclude that

aptitudes should be studied as " l ea rned way® of adjusting to the world,11

just as attitudes, values* and t emperament a r e studied as l ea rned

behavior pa t te rns f o r dealing with the environment (2). Along para l le l

l ine* of thought, Denton and Taylor <10) did a fac tor analytic study of

mental abil i t ies and personal i ty traits in which they found l imi ted

relationships between cer ta in fluency s c o r e s and some personality

s c o r e s . While the relat ionships found were not outstanding when con*

s ide red in light of the a lmost one- to-one relat ionship# found between

cer ta in aptitudes, they were significant in that they pointed toward the

existence of measurable relationship® which could f u r t h e r shed light on

the structure of personal i ty .

4

Another similar theoretical viewpoint was held by Guilford,

whose concept of personality contained a relationship of aptitudes and

personality, although no clear-cut explanation was given <13). To

Guilford, "an individual's personality is his unique pattern of traits"

(18)* In elaborating on his definition, Guilford explained that "a trait

ie any distinguishable, relatively enduring way in which one individual

differs from others" <13). It becomes apparent that this comprehen-

sive view of personality included not only temperament, interests,

and attitudes, but also aptitudes. Personality is no longer to be viewed

as one thing and aptitudes another, but aptitudes become a grouping of

t ra i ts which are only some of the many and diverse trai ts of the indi-

vidual's personality.

Statement of Problem

If, then, aptitude traits and personality t ra i ts of an individual

are all different aspects of an integrated whole personality, it i s possi-

ble that measurable relationship* exist between some of these t ra i ts .

The overall purpose of this study is, therefore, to determine if there

are measurable relationships between some specific aptitudes and certain

basic personality t rai ts .

Description of Measures

In trying to measure the basic traits of personality, a pro-

jective test, toe Structured-Objective Rorschach Test (SOKT), was

selected. Projective technique* are particularly useful for obtaining

an integrated picture of the personality rather than a random mixture

of isolated traits (17). The choice of the SORT as the projective instru-

ment was based on several factor®. First , the SORT in designed to

measure what the traditional Rorschach measures <21). This is im-

portant, because the Rorschach has been shown to have several de-

terminant# which are significantly correlated with intelligence. Altus

and Thompson (4) found that the number of whole blot responses (W)

and the number of human movement responses (M) were the most

valid and reliable measures of intelligence in the Rorschach test. By

using simple correlation, Abrams (I) was able to produce a formula

using the determinants W, M, F+% (good form percentage), and R

(total number of responses) of the Rorschach to give an IQ score which

i® highly correlated with the Wechsler-Bellevue Full Scale IQ score.

Therefore, since the Rorschach seems to measure intelligence# and

the SORT is designed to measure what the Rorschach measure® (21),

it is suggested that the SORT will measure intelligence. Further,

because aptitude seems to be partly the result of Interaction of

emotional and intellectual traits (6), the SORT, a basic personality

test measuring intellectual and emotional traits, should be particularly

weH suited for measuring aptitudes.

There are several differences between the Rorschach and the

SORT that must be kept in mind. The Rorschach provides only stimulus

card® to which the subject makes association® that are clarified in an

Inquiry following the association period, l a contrast, the SOET pro-

vide® lor each Mot thirty responses arranged in t r iads (23). The

subject chooses one response from each triad, giving ten responses

per blot or one hundred responses for the whole test (28). There is

no inquiry in the SORT, standardised keys being used to score r e -

sponses (23). These very differences, i. e . , objective scoring and

design for group testing, were the other reasons for the selection of

the SOET.

For measuring aptitudes, the General Aptitude Test Battery

(GATB) was chosen. The GATB was chosen because its validity and

reliability have been well established (11) and it was designed for

group testing. One other reason for the selection of the GATB was

that it requires less time for administration than other possibly more

sensitive aptitude tes ts . The time required for administration was

important, because subjects were available for only limited periods.

The GATB has twelve tests that provide nine aptitude measures .

Coordination and dexterity tests were omitted (See Table I) because

they were not believed to be as closely related to personality measured

by the SORT as intelligence factors would be. This was because no

dexterity is required on the SOET, while intellectual activity is .

Because general intelligence measures are designed to sample

various abilities (§), it was hypothesized that the GATB factor g

(general intelligence) would correlate significantly with SORT variable#

which should measure intelligence. Using intelligence related vari-

able# of the Rorschach (1;4) and the theoretical design of the SORT

(21), the GATE factor g should correlate significantly with the SORT

variables W, M, and F+* The variable F+ was used instead of F+%

because R is fixed on toe SORT, whereas it is variable on the Rorschach.

The SORT variable F- should also correlate significantly with GATB

factor g, because F- is an almost inversely proportional measure of

F+> although this is not a full description of F* by any means*

Since the GATB factors s» n» and v each contribute to the

factor g (see Table l>, it was hypothesized that M, W4 F+, and F - of

the SORT would correlate significantly with each of them (s* n* and v)#

although the correlations might be expected to be smaller* It was also

suspected that the GATB factor p would correlate significantly with

the SORT variables Dd, F+, and F- . The GATB factor p is measured

by having the subject pick an item which is identical in shape and detail

to the first item in a series of several similar items* Dd is the tenden-

cy to see detail* while F+ and F- show the tendency to have good or

poor form perception. A final relationship was suggested between the

GATB factor q and the SORT variable Dd, which measures the tenden-

cy to observe detail.

8

TABLE 1

TRAITS MEASURED BY THE GATB AND THE SORT

A. Tra i t s of the General Aptitude Test Battery, also showing the subtests providing the trait score.

1. g--Intelligence Far t 3—Three—Dimensional Space Par t 4--Vocabulary Par t 6--Arithmetic

2. v-~ Verbal Aptitude Par t 4- - Vocabulary

3. a—Numerical Aptitude Par t 2--Computation Par t 8--Arithmetic Reasoning

4. -Spatial Aptitude Par t 3--Three--Dimensional gpaee

5. p—Form Perception Pa r t 5--Tool Matching Par t 7 - -Form Matching

6. <j--Clerical Perception Part I - -Name Perception

Adapted from Chroribach (9}

B. Trai ts of the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test

7. Whole blot <W) 8. Major Mot detail (D) 9. Minor blot detail <Dd)

10. White space (S) 11. Good form <Ff) 12. Poor form (¥*} 13. Human movement <M) 14. Animal movement <FM) 15. Good form and eolor <FC) 16. Poor form and color <CF) 17. Shading (Fch) 18. Animal* part or whole (A) I B . Human, part or whole (H) 20. Modal responses <P) 21. Rare responses (O)

Adapted f rom Stone <28)

9

Hypotheses

In light of the above, the following hypotheses were advanced:

1. the GATB factor® g, n, v, and s will each correlate sig-

nificantly with each of the SORT variables W, M, F+, and F-;

2. the GATB factor p will correlate significantly with the

SORT variables Dd, F+, and F«; and

8. the GATB factor q will correlate significantly with the

SORT variable Dd.

Related Literature

Although personality has been studied extensively in relationship

to many variables, only infrequently has it been studied in relation to

aptitude* One of these was conducted by Benton and Taylor using tests

composed by Taylor and Guilford for the measurement of ability and

personality (10). In the factor analysis of the test results, six factor®

were obtained (10). Two of these factors had loadings of both person*

ality and aptitude items. One factor, which Denton identified as

Surgency, had loadings of Rhathymia .71, Social Extraversion . 51,

Cycloid Tendency . 42, and Verbal Versatility . 29 (10).. Surgency

corresponded approximately to "drive" in the sense of "initiative".

Rhathymia was best described by such terms as "happy-go-lucky,

carefree, and unconcerned" (13). Cycloid Tendency referred to ex-

tremes of emotional states (13). Social Extraversion was the result

10

of treating Social Introversion as a reflected variable <10). Items

dealing with "moodiness", as well m being "lost in thought" and

"self-conscious" , indicated the nature of Social Introversion (10).

Verbal versatility was measured by exercises dealing with similes (10).

In addition to this relationship, Denton and Taylor found that

there was a correlation of . 27 between Rhathymia and Verbal Versa-

tility (10). The only other factor which contained both aptitude and

personality items had loadings of Thinking Introversion . 54, -Social

Extraversion . 30, and Ideational Fluency . 28 (10). Denton and Taylor

were unable to identify this factor and the relationship of the variables

composing it. Denton and Taylor did notice, however, that both of

these factors contained aptitude variables involving the meaning of

words (10). The remaining personality variable, Depression, and

the other aptitude variables were not included in either of the factors

which involved both personality and aptitude variables.

In another factor analytic study* Khan found only one factor

with both personality and aptitude measures involved (IT), f o r

measuring personality, Khan used the Guilford-Zimmerman Temper*

ament Survey and the 80RT. Aptitude was measured by Seigal's

Multiple Aptitude Test. Positive loadings of Rare Response (0) . 39,

Spatial Relation (Three-Dimension) . 30, and Applied Science and

Mechanics . 33, as well as negative loadings of Popular Response (F)

- . 41 and Animal Response (A) - . 87 were found for this factor (17).

11

Khan identified this factor as spatial visualization because of the

aptitude* involved (1?). Original thinking was also involved as shown

toy the SOET variable® involved (17).

Guilford* Christensen, Frisk, and Merrifield (14) have also

tried to find relationships of personality variables to aptitudes. They

found that the personality trait impulsiveness correlated , 35 with

measures of expression®! fluency and . 22 with measures of ideational

fluency (14h This was interpreted by them as meaning that the

impulsive person has an advantage in speed tests of thinking (14). In

the same study, Guilford et. found that meditative thinking corre-

lated >. 20 with logical evaluation and expression®! fluency and - 22 and

. 25 respectively with semantic spontaneous flexibility and originality

(14). One unpublished stucty by Goedinghaus (13, p. 41$) reported

that for college women there was a correlation of 33 between their

masculinity scores and their aptitude®.

Using correlational techniques, Merrifield, Guilford,

Christensen, and Frick (19) found several relationships between apti-

tude factors and certain traits of motivation and temperament. While

none of the correlations were larger than . S3 and most were approxi-

mately aero, enough reached the level of statistical significance to be

beyond the number that should have been significant by chance (19).

Nine aptitude traits were found to have significant correlations with

traits of motivation andfor temperament. Examples of these include

12

expressions! fluency, which correlated . 25 with impulsiveness, . 21 with

meditative thinking, and . 16 with aesthetic expression. Again, verbal

comprehension correlated . 25 with aesthetic expression, . 21 with toler-

ance of ambiguity, *% 33 with meticulousness, 22 with the need for

discipline, - . 22 with general activity, 21 with cultural conformity,

and - .17 with autistic thinking. These and other relationships found in

their study caused Merrifield jg* al. to conclude that the trait® of person-

ality have a rather email role in determining aptitudes of a person (19).

Since intelligence is very closely related to aptitude, a sample

of studies dealing with the relationship of personality and intelligence is

included here. One such study was conducted by Wren, Ferguson, and

Kennedy, in which it was found that the personality traits self-sufficiency

and dominance were related to intelligence (20). Critical ratios of 6.8

and 7.73 were obtained for the men and women respectively when com-

paring scores on the personality variables self-sufficiency and intelli-

gence of the two group# of extremely divergent intelligence levels; i . e . ,

more intelligent groups had greater self-sufficiency than less intelli-

gent groups (25). Among this same group of junior college students*

there was a definite tendency for the mentally inferior group of men to

be more dominant than the mentally superior group (23). The domi-

nance was a compensatory mechanism for lower intelligence (25).

Conversely, the self-sufficiency of the higher intelligence group may

have been due to the greater success experienced by the more gifted

13

group (23).

Some intelligence- personality studies have included the use of

promotive techniques to measure personality aad intelligence* Altus

and Thompson (4), using college studemtts, determined thst there ware

several indicators of intelligence in the Rorschach Test . M correlated

• 43 with Measures of Verbal Aptitude and * 43 with the Ohio Psychological,

separating the number of M*s into two groups, 0-8 and 4-*(4). W

correlated . 13 with the Measure of Vermel Aptitude end »$$ with the

Ohio Psychological,separating the number of W*s scored into two

groups 0*4 and §-*(4). Altus and Thompson believed that to significant

relationship was found between F*% and intelligence because the group

tested was composed of college students and therefore not composed of

a wide range of intelligence (4), Abrams, wording along these same

lines, found a formula lor an !Q equivalent to the Wechsler-Bellevue

Full Scale IQ (1). The Full Soale IQ correlated . 364 with Borschaoh

F*%, . 3*0 with M« .356 with f » and . 329 with B <1). Using these

variables* the formula produced an IQ score correlated . 528 with the

Wechsler-Bellevue Full Scale IQ.

Another related a rea of study involves achievement and person*

aiity. Achievement i s only related to aptitude in the ra ther Indirect

way of achieveme nt*s being limited by the level of intelligence. In a

study of achievement in mathematics, overachievers emerged with

more favorable personality ratings then underachievers (IS). Such

14

terms as cooperative, conscientious, responsible, honest, sincere,

outgoing, independent, etc*, described over&chievers, while self-

eentered, aloof, stubborn, opinionated, resentful, conventional, in-

hibited, etc#, described the under&chievers <18), Holland, in at-

tempting to predict and understand the nature of academic achievement,

discovered that nonintellectual variables such as Superego, Persistence,

tad Deferred Gratification were indispensable (15)< Pierce, studying

high achieving boy#, described them as having more favorable person-

ality traits than low achieving boys <20). Among the characteristics

he lifted for overachievers were a greater sense ol responsibility,

greater tolerance, higher motivation, greater involvement in achievement

tacks, and more school related interests than the unde rachievers <20),

Overahcievers also took greater responsibility for homework, showed

greater independence, and had mothers who fostered independence in

them <20),

Procedure

Two sections of introductory psychology classes and two

sections of advanced psychology classes were chosen for testing on

the basis of availability. The advanced classes were included to pro-

vide a specialised group to contrast with the introductory classes, which

were believed to contain a more generalised cross-section of students.

Those subjects with special knowledge of either tests were excluded

from the data, providing Si introductory and 43 advanced students for

15

a total of 101 subjects. No attempt was made to control age# eex ratio,

classification, or major, other than the the selective factors inherent in

the courses themselves. Two different class period® were required

for testing each section. The GATE test® were administered f i rs t to

all student®, followed by the SORT, the only explanation being that the

data would be used in research and that each person*® ©core® would b#

kept in confidence. The two advanced class#® were able to take all

seven parts of the GATB in one period, while the introductory classes

took parts one through five the f i rs t period and part® seven and eight

during the second period of testing. During all testing, standard

procedures were followed very closely. For the SOBT, the Wot®

were projected on a screen and the appropriate directions in the manu-

al were followed for that method of administration.

One variable involving the students' motivation was introduced

in one of the introductory sections when the instructor allowed several

student* who had not participated in the f i r s t testing session to leave

just as the second session ol testing was about to begin. This variable

has been evaluated and is discussed in the resul ts and discussion

sections of this stuffy. All tests were hand-scored# using standard keys.

The converted s c o w s of the GATB were used in order to obtain

the six aptitude factors from the seven tes ts . Eaw scores of each of

the fifteen variables of the SORT were then correlated with each of the

six GATB factors by simple correlation. Each correlation was then

tested for significance, using J. The scores of the advanced classes

were computed only as a tingle group* but the score# of the intro-

ductory classes were computed both together and separately because

of the variable introduced by the instructor ©f one class. The corre-

lations of the introductory classes were then compared for significant

difference in the groups. And finally, the correlations of the intro-

ductory group and the correlations of the advanced group were checked

for significant difference.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abrams, Elias N., "Prediction of Intelligence from Certain Rorschach Factors ," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XI (January* 1955), 81-83,

2. Allen, Dean A.» "Aptitudes and Personality," Harvard Educational Review, XXVI (Winter, li§§), 17-23, '

8. AUport, Gordon W., Personality, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1937.

4. Altue, W. D. and Grace M. Thompson, "The Rorschach as a Measure of Intelligence," Journal of C o i n i n g , Psychology, XHI < 1949), 341-347.

5. Baughman, ES. Earl and George S. Welch, Personality; ^ Behavioral, Science, Englewood Cliffs/ New Jersey, Prentice*-Hall, Inc., 1962.

S. Bingham, Walter Van Dyke, Aptitudes and Aptitude Testing, Hew York, Harper and Brothers, 1917."

7. Broacttey, Charles V, and Margaret B. Broac&ey, Know Your Real Abilities, Mew York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1§48.

8. Coleman, James C. , Personality Qynamics and Effective Behavior, Chicago* Scott, Foresman and Company, 1960.

9. Cronbach, Lee J . , Essentials of Psychological Testing, New York, Harper and Row, 1900.

10. Denton, J. C. and C. W. Taylor, "A Factor Analysis of Mental Abilities and Personality Trai ts ," Psychometrika. XX (March, 1955), 75-81.

11. Dvorak, Beatrice J . , "The General Aptitude Test Battery," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXV (November, 1956), 145-152.

17

18

12. Goelin, David A*, The Search for Ability# New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 19®l.

1$, Guilford, Joy P . , Personality, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc . , 1949.

14. Guilford, Joy P . , P. R. Christensen, J. W. Frick, and P . R. Merrifleld, "The Relations of Creative-Thinking Aptitudes to Non-Aptitude Personality Traits," The University of Southern California, Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, Number 20 (December, 1957).

15. Holland, John L., "The Prediction ©f College Grade* from Personality and Aptitude Variables," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Lg (October, I960), 145-254.

1®. Jenkins. Thomas H., "Measurement of the Pr imary Factor# of the Total Personality," j£he Journal of Psychology, LIV (October, 1882), 417*442,

17. Khan, Lilian, "Factor Analysis of Certain Aptitude and Person-ality Variables," Indian Journal of Psychology, XXXVII (Part I, 1902), 27-38.

18. Keimowits, Robert I. and Heinz L. Ansbacher, "Personality and Achievement in Mathematics*" Journal of Applied Psychology, XIV (M«gr, 1960), 84-87.

I f , Merrifield, P . R . , J . P . Guilford, P. R. Christensen, J . W. Frick, "Interrelationships Between Certain Abilities* and Certain Trait* of Motivation and Temperament," Journal of General. Psychology, LXV (July, 1981), 57-74.

20. Pierce , Jamee V. , "Personality and Achievement Among Able High School Boy*," Journal of Individual Psychology, XVUX (May. 1961), 102-107.

21. Slegel, Laurence, "Test Reviews,1' Journal of Counseling Psychology, VI (Spring, 1959), 72-73.

22. Stevenson, George H., Personality and | t s Deviations, Toronto, The Ryereon Press, 1947.

28. Stone, Jolcs B . , JhO Rorschach Test , Los Angeles* California Test Bureau, 1958.

la

24. Vernon* Philip D. , The Measurement of Abilitita, New York, Philosophical Library, 1081.

25. Wrenn, C. Gilbert, Leonard W. Ferguson and John L. Kennedy, L«vel and Personality," Journal of Social

Psychology, m (August, 1030), 301-308.

CHAPTER II

RESULTS AN© DISCUSSION

Before preventing the results* a short resume of the hypotheses

advanced la given here. First , it was hypothesized that each of the

factors g, n, v, and s would correlate with each of the variables W,

M, F+, and F - . It was also suggested that p would correlate with Dd,

F+, and F - . Finally, it was hypothesised that q would correlate with

Dd. The results are presented for each group in the same order as

the hypotheses, with a brief survey of the unpredicted correlations

included at the close of each discussion of hypotheses.

Because it was suspected that the two introductory psychology

classes were not equivalent, correlations were calculated for both

groups separately. The correlation# reaching the level of significance

in one class did not correspond to any of the significant correlations

in the other class. A comparison of these two groups with the advanced

class revealed that none of the significant correlations in any one class

corresponded to any of the correlations in any other class. Thus, the

results from each group are presented and discussed separately before

an overview of the three classes is presented. In aU data reported,

those correlations marked with a single asterisk (*) reach or exceed

20

21

the . OS level of significance, and those marked with a double aster isk

(••) reach or exceed the . 01 level of significance.

The f i r s t group reported here is the advanced psychology

class , hereaf ter r e f e r r ed to as Group I. So that the composition of this

TABLE II

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOE GROUP I#

Variable Mean Deviation

& v

GATB n 8 P <1

123.58 110.01 119.74 124. 26 117.87 114.65

13.51 10.5® 12.14 18.14 19.70 11.88

W D Dd S F+ F~

SORT M FM FC CF Fch A H P O

31.00 54.72 13. SO 13.32 30.72 12.33

8.74 10.33 12.03 7.44

18.19 33.84 23.05 §4.85

3.79

5. 73 4. 30 3.88 2. 80 §.57 2.98 3.40 2.12 2.13 2. 25' 4.04 4. 84 4.48 8.07 2.88

•composed of 43 subjects

22

group may be better understood, the means and standard deviations of

each variable are reported in Table H. Table III shows the hypothesized

TABLE HI

CORRELATIONS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES FOR GROUP I

SORT Variables

GATB V ariable©

SORT Variables

g V a s P <1

W Dd F+ F-M

*. 044

.080 -.378**

.210

.158 - .118 -.OSS

.072

. 166 -.431**

.180

*»• 067

-.077 -.430**

.343*

.210

. o s i -.073

». 038

' ' *• ' j| m signifies ant at the . 0 is level *# is significant at the , 01 level

correlations for Group I, with significant correlations appropriately

marked.

The correlation between g (Intelligence) and F- was found to be

significant at the .01 level. Thus* the null hypothesis (i. e . , that there

was m correlation between the variable#} was rejected for g with F- ,

but was retained for g with W (Whole blot), P+ (Good form), and M

(Human movement).

The reason or reasons for the correlation of g with F- and not

with W, M, and F», may lie with (1) the traits measured by the two

23

tes t s , (2) the nature of the two teste, (3) the nature of the group, o r

(4) some unknown variable. It if possible that In a group of above-

average intelligence, the sca les W, F+, and M a re not am sensit ive

as is the F - scale . Since F - and F+ together a re supposed to be r e -

flecting the accuracy of form perception, it is unclear why the f o r m e r

should be sensitive to variations of intelligence and the l a t t e r should

not. Nevertheless, some relationship i s indicated between the tenden-

cy to see poor form and the level of intelligence as measured by the

SORT and GATB respectively.

The fa i lure to find the correlation® of W, M* and F+ with the

general intelligence, factor g, a® Abrams (1) found the Rorschach

variables W, M, and F+% correla ted with the Wechsler-Bellevue

measure of intelligence, might be due to differences in the t e s t s used.

In other words, the SORT may not measure what the traditional

Rorschach measures* and the GATB may not measu re aspect® of

intelligence s imi la r enough to the Wechsler-Bellevue for comparison.

Also affecting the comparability of Abrams* study to this one is the

fact that he used clinical patients as subjects , while this study dealt

with college level psychology students.

The correlat ions found between Verbal Aptitude (v), and Whole

blot <W), Good form <F+), Poor form (F-), and Human movement <M),

did not reach the level of significance; thus the null hypothesis (that

there were no significant correlat ions between them) was retained.

24

These correlations* as well as those of a (Numerical Aptitude) and s

{Spatial Aptitude) with W, M, F+, and F - , had been predated because

of the fact that v, n, and s, each contribute to the variable g. However,

the complete absence of expected correlations with the variable v may

indicate that the relationship® do not exist or that they are too small

lor the tests to measure.

Of the possible relationships between a and each variable W,

M, F+, and F- , only a and F~ reached the level of significance. A

similar situation was noted a moment ago in the correlation of g with

F - . There are several possible explanations for such a result. For

example, the same trait measured by g and n may also be measured

by F-i or perhaps F - measures separate aspects of two distinct traits.

It seems likely* however, that F- is a measure of a general intelli-

gence trait that is measured to some degree by several of the GATE

scales.

Although relationships were proposed for s with W, M, F+,

and F- , only the correlations of s with F - and with M reached the

level of significance. Since s contributes to g, the correlation of F-

with both s and g suggests the possibility that F* measures a trait

common to both s and g. This might also be the same trail which is

reflected in the correlation of F- and n. M is a measure of mental

agility, and s is a measure of the ability to visualise a three-dimen-

sional figure from the unfolded, flattened, two-dimensional figure.

25

The theoretical relationship of s and M might therefor® be one in which

mental agility is involved with mentally manipulating drawn figure*.

The absence of suggested relationships of s with F+ and W may be

accounted for in terms of group composition and what the tests

measure. This has been presented in the preceding discussion and is

not repreated here.

None of the correlations of p (Form Perception ) with Dd (Minor

blot detail), F+ (Good form), and F-(Poor form) reached the level of

significance. The proposed relationship of p and Dd may not have been

found because, although p measures the ability to see detail, Dd

measures only the tendency to see detail. The difference in p and Dd

would therefore be one of ability and tendency, i. e . , the ability to see

detail might have nothing to do with the tendency of an individual to

exercise or not to exercise the ability. The tendency might be de-

termined by personality factors unrelated to ability. F* and f * may

not have been involved with p due to the fact that the general form or

outline of the items in any one question designed to measure p is

constant. Therefore, the ability to distinguish between the different

internal details of the items is probably the determining factor and

would not be measured by F+ and F-, which measure the tendency to

see good or poor form.

The final correlation proposed was between Clerical Perception

(q) and Minor blot detail (Dd). Since this correlation did not reach the

26

level of significance, it i s again assumed that the ability to see detail,

this t ime measured by q, is not closely related to the tendency to see

detail, as measured by Dd. Thus, it would again seem that propensi-

t ies and potentials a re not related in this a rea of perception.

In viewing the correlations of the SORT variable# with the

GATE variables (see Table IV), it will be seen that there are some

TABU! IV

GROUP I CORRELATIONS OF GATB WITH SORT VARIABLES

SORT GATB " J 1 " L

Variables Variables s •y* n s P q

W 044 - .228 - 072 - .087 236 .048 D , 020 . 127 00® .007 . 051 - . 015 Dd ,014 . 11S - ,096 .003 . 210 - .038 S 14® .083 .011 - .306* , 146 - , 012 F , 080 . 156 ,167 - .077 ,061 .010 y . - ,378** 118 - , 411** - .430** 073 242 M • 210 - . 0 8 3 ,108 .348* ,032 —. 233 FM ,120 . 266 - ,016 - . 052 - ,037 2 i i FG .177 - .188 ,08$ ,124 , 042 - . 056 CF - , i t s 156 - ,29S* .063 «116 - .044 Feb 101 - .124 ,008 .000 204 - .151 A 100 .457** ,061 - . 024 ,004 .161 H - .120 - .254 - ,0§3 . 101 .072 ,227 P - . 1 1 1 - . 1 7 3 ,014 - .166 196 - .057 O . 057 .260 «120 .133 . 274 .112

* is significant at the . 05 level ** is significant at the . 01 level

significant correlat ions that were not hypothesized. One of these was

27

v (Verbal Aptitude) with A (Animal, part or whole ). Ability with

vocabulary gives the v measurement. A is interpreted as an indicator

of intelligence or anxiety (2). Since there is a positive correlation be-

tween v and A# it i t likely that the relationship if an involvement ol

anxiety and verbal ability. With an increase in intelligence* A de-

creases (2), giving a negative correlation between v and A if A is

measuring intelligence. The positive correlation thus indicates that A

is not measuring intelligence, Weiss* as quoted by Brothers* has found

that there is an association between emotional impairment* high verbal

aptitude, and withdrawal from college (3). This would be similar to a

relationship between v and A as found in this study.

The next unpredicted finding was the negative relationship be-

tween n (numerical Aptitude) and CF (Poor form and color). There is

no obvious theoretical reason for this finding, which may indicate that it

i s only a chance correlation. However, Keimowit* and Ansbacher found

that overachievers in mathematics have more desirable personality

t ra i ts than underachievers in mathematics (4). Thus, the emotionally

dominated trait measured by CF might be expected to correlate nega-

tively with increased mathematically aptitude, as was found here .

The final unpredicted correlation reaching the level of signifi*

canoe occurred between s (Spatial Aptitude) and § (White space). S

theoretically measures self* will, a t rai t that becomes one of contrar-

iness or negativeness (2) or even rigidity as it increases above average

23

(5). The negative correlation of s and S might therefore he interpreted

as indicating that as rigidity increases, the ability to visualize three-

dimensional figures from two - dimensional figures decrease®.

The correlation® for Group II (an introductory psychology class),

TABLE V

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOE GROUP n*

Variable Mean Standard Deviat ion

& 117.47 13.09 V 110.50 11.53 n 110.79 13.17 s 110.21 10.50 P 115.91 10.04 q i i a . i i 12.32

w 28. 62 6 . 22 D 33.44 4.02 Dd 14.09 2.02 S 12.91 3.12 F+ 10.47 4.98

IS. 06 3.50 M, 8.02 3.04 FM 1 0 . 8 0 2. 38 FC 11.97 2.54 CF 7.08 2.21 Feh 10.00 3. 07 A 33.02 3.79 H 22.32 5.31 P 51.44 0. 20 O 0.79 2.00

* Composed of 34 subjects

as

while different from those in Group 1, seem to include some relation-

ships with both statistical and theoretical significance. To provide a

more complete picture of this group, Table V contains means and

standard deviations of the variables of Group II. Table VI contains

the correlation® obtained which relate to the stated hypotheses.

TABLE VI

CORRELATIONS BELATED TO HYPOTHESES FOE GROUP II

SORT GATB Variables Variables

g V n P <1

W a § 8 *.9§S .088 . 354* Dd 110 F+ .002 . 189 -.052 - .036 -.04® F- *. 241 -.009 - . 264 - .312 -.058 M .232 .081 .275 . 239

* is significant at the . 05 level

In this group only one predicted correlation was found to reach

the level of significance. The correlation of Spatial Aptitude (s) and

Whole blot (W) might be explained in terms of the relationship of W to

intelligence and, then, 6 to intelligence. However, an explanation in

these terms would create more discrepancies (in considering why the

other hypothesized relationships between g and W, v and W, and n and

W did not also appear) than it would answer.

30

la looking at all of the correlations of GATB with SOKT

variables (see Table VH), there were several variable® which corre-

lated at a significant level, which had not been predicted. Taking g

TABLE VII

GROUP O CORRELATIONS OF GATB WITH SOET VARIABLES

SORT Variables

GATB Variables

W D m s F F-M wm FC CF Fob A H P O

* split

g

.189

.034 •.214 .458** .032 .241 .232

' .004 .226

•.,113 -.113 .045 . a i s .213

*• 143

•.085 . 115 .020 .300* .189

..009 .081 .OSS .038

-.053 -.234 -.040 .004

•.184 -.021

n

088 ,025 ,181 304* 052

275 019 110 112 077 063 848* 192 184

4 is significant at the . 05 level is significant at the . 01 level

384* 288 287 188 038 312 258 009 287 088 079 058 182 398* 222

128 054 129 183 048 088 187 018 225 010 184 182 028 220 289

T

•.231 .298 .110 .203 . 271

•. 008 .111

•.187 -.012 -.088 •.219 .011 • 058

-.181 -.040

with S, (White space) v with S, and n with S, there is perhaps a contusion

factor reflected in these correlations. There is , however, no obvious

theoretical explanation of this relationship, but there are explanations

which make it difficult to see how these correlations occurred. For

SI

example, the rigidity represented by S might be expected to lower

the flexibility often, put forth as conducive to learning new and different

material, thug being negatively correlated to intelligence rather than

positively correlated as was found here.

In the area of intellectual functioning, S is interpreted m

rigidity (5). In the area of temperament, S is interpreted as per-

sistence (3). It then becomes possible that the effect of increased S

could be destructive in terms of intellectual functioning and constructive

in terms of temperament. Thus, if the effect of persistence more than

offsets the rigidity produced as 8 increases, then there could possibly

be a net positive effect on intellectual performance.

Another correlation reaching the level of significance was

between n (Numerical Aptitude and H <Human movement). Stone found

a positive correlation of f irst-year college grade-point averages and

H on the 80RT <5). Beck maintained that human responses on the

Rorschach were Indicative of intelligence level <2). There is, there-

fore, theoretical background for this finding. The problem in accepting

an n with H correlation would be why a similar correlation was not

found with other variables in tee QATB and the variable H. This

might be due to the fact that the aspect of general intelligence which

Beck observed to be related to H might be involved in the mathematical

area of general intelligence.

32

The relationship of s (Spatial Aptitude) and P (Popular response)

may indicate that some increase in contact with reality increases the

ability to visualise three-dimensional figures from two*dimensional

ones. It may mean that the two are related to a third common variable

which is not measured directly by either test. Of course, any of these

relationships for this group could be due to the composition of the group,

or some other uncontrolled factor. The underlying assumption that

the GATB and the SOET are measuring the same traits is also subject

to close scrutiny, since only one the hypothesised correlations was

found. Again, there is the possibility that these findings were due to

chance.

The other class of introductory students, Group HI, produced

results different from either of the two preceding groups. This group

was subject to one variable that the other two groups were not. This

variation in procedure involved releasing some of the students from the

testing situation in M l view of the remaining subjects just before the

second session of testing began. This variation was unavoidable, and

therefore this group has been retained to compare it with the other two

groups. In Table VIII, the means and standard deviation® of the varia-

bles are presented for comparison to the other two groups. There is

the possibility, for example, that the intelligence levels of the three

groups differ enough to cause some variation in the results. However,

upon casual inspection, the remaining variables show little difference

33

among the group®. Nevertheless, further investigation of the effects

of differences in the groups might b# worthwhile.

TABLE VIIl

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF GROUP in*

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

I v

GATB « s p

%

98

13.58 11.91 10,47 14* 77 15.02 0. 70

W D Dd S F+ F -

SOET M FM FC CF Feh A H F O

31.08 31.82 IS* 58 12. 28 27.17 11. 21 10, #8 10,0$ 12,87 8,17

17,25 34.08 23,33 56.00 3.9®

4, 38 4, 73 2,88 3, 40 4,7? 2,84 4, 23 2.01 2,40 1,79 3.48 4,00 4.78 @,@0 2.07

• composed of 24 subjects

Of the predicted cor relatione for this group, none reached the

level of significance (see Table IX). Therefore, the discussion will be

34

devoted to a consideration of why the predicted findings were absent

and to the consideration of the correlations found which reached the

level of significance.

TABLE IX

CORRELATIONS RELATED TO HYPOTHESES FOR GROUP HI

SORT GATE Variables Variables

g V n s P <1

W •» 108 . 026 -.303 031 m - . 240 -.172 F+ .000 -.008 .0§1 -.042 - .035 F - - .O i i .035 -»133 -.119 - . 058 M .018 -.099 -.096 .201

It is possible that this group wa§ unique to the extent that none

of the expected results were found. The different treatment of this

group may account in part for the result® obtained for this group.

Table X contain® all of the correlations obtained for the GATB

with SORT variables. Although several of these can easily be seen

to reach the level of significance# for the most part they lack obvious

theoretical explanations. A negative correlation was found between g

(Intelligence) and Dd (Minor blot detail). This correlation might be a

result of the interference of intellectual functioning with concentration

on detail at the expense of an overall picture.

35

There Is no obvious theoretical explanation lor the correlation

of n and D (Major Wot detail), in te rms of what D or n measures . This

lack of explanation i® also present in the correlations for s with Dd and

O (Original response). In all of thee® finding#, chance might account

will m "%r sMMJUJm Jk

GROUP HI COBJUS LA HONS OF GATE WITH SOBT VARIABLES

SOBT GATB Variables Variables Variables

: 8 V n B P <i

W 100 . 026 - .303 - .031 - .170 - .335 0 . 208 . 068 .401* . 323 .259 .424* Dd 380* - .804 1 - . 248 -.53?** - .240 - . 172 S 4 030 .000 •» 13® - .088 . 208 . 177 F ,000 ». 003 • 051 - .042 - .035 • 180 F - - .056 . 033 158 - .119 - .058 - .045 M . 019 - .099 - .098 .201 .080 - .071 FM . 048 - .232 .318 .008 - . 110 - .104 FC 190 .089 - .265 : - .142 308* - .208 CF «• no 185 - . 048 - .150 . 024 .008 Fch .258 . 232 .303 . 072 . 383* . 188 A .09? . 137 .078 .145 - .204 - .002

IS .021 - .055 - . 133 . 182 —. 0a0 - .215 P .210 .019 .180 .181 . 289 . 113 o - .118 - .010 .032 -.544** . 005 .289

* is significant at the . OS level ** i t significant at the .01 level

for the results. The correlations of p (Form Perception) with PC

(Poor form and color and Fch (Shading) as well as q (Clerical Perception)

with 0 , a re also lacking obvious theoretical background other than their

36

being the result of chance.

In an overview of all three groups, some similarities were

noticed between Groups I and II, while Group HI was seen to be singu-

lar in it® general characteristics. Groups I and II had significant

correlation® of the aptitude factor# g, v, n, and s with personality

variables, but no significant correlations of p and q with personality

variable#. Since the aptitudes g, v, n, and e seem to involve the

ability to manipulate and understand abstraction® on a higher level than

the more perceptual aptitudes p and q, it might be that personality

trait® are m .re closely related to those aptitudes involving greater

abstraction than to those involving little depth of abstraction.

On a more specific level, the inconsistencies observed from

group to group may indicate that chance has contributed highly to the

results. For further comparisons of the groups, tables of the inter-

correlations of GATE variables and intercorrelations of SOET vari-

ables are presented in the appendix.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abrams, Elias N., "Prediction of Intelligence from Certain Rorschach Factor®,M Journal of Applied Psychology, 3CI (January, 195&), 81-83.

2. Beck, Samuel J . t A Variety of Personality Pictures, Vol. U of Rorschach* s Tfst, <3 Volumes), New York. Grime and Stratton, 1847.

3. Dailaa Morning Mews, April 8, 1988.

4. fteimowitz, Robert I. and Heinz L. Ansbacher, "Personality and Achievement in Mathematics," Journal of Applied Psychology, XIV (May, 19C0), 84-87.

6. Stone, Jolcs B . , ®*Q Rorschach Test, Los Ang@l#8« California Test Bureau, 1958.

37

CHAPTER III

SUMMARY* CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although relatively few studies of the relationship of person-

ality and aptitude have been made, there are theoretical and empirical

indication® that some relationship® might exist between certain aspects

of personality and some aptitudes. This study was made to determine

if such relationships do exist. The General Aptitude Test Battery and

the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test were chosen as the instru-

ments to measure aptitude and personality traits respectively. On the

hates of theoretical implications and previous findings, the following

hypotheses were made; each OATB factor g, n, v, and s would corre-

late with each SORT variable W, M, F+ and F-; The OATB factor p

would correlate significantly with SORT variables Dd, F+, and F-; and

the GATB factor % would correlate significantly with the SORT variable

Dd.

The procedure involved testing classes of introductory psycholo-

gy students and advanced psychology students with the GATB and SORT

during two different class periods. The scores of 101 subjects (58

introductory and 43 advanced) were correlated as three groups. The

advanced class comprised Group I and the introductory classes comprised

38

38

Groups I and II. A division of the introductory classes was mad® on

the basis of different treatment of the two classes before the second

session of testing began. When correlations between variable® in one

group were compared with correlations between variables in the other

groups, the correlations were found to be unique for each group. Thus

each group was treated independently of the others.

Several of the correlations hypothesized for Group 1 were found,

although most were not. Significant negative correlations were found

between F* (Poor form) and each of the GATB variables g (Intelligence)*

n (Numerical Aptitude), and s (Spatial Aptitude). This was interpreted

as meaning that the tendency to see poor form may be related to a

general intelligence trait. Human movement (M) was found to corre-

late with s . Thus, Spatial Aptitude seems to be related to mental

agility as measured by M. Several correlations reached the level of

significance, but had not been hypothesized. Verbal Aptitude (v) and

Animal, part or whole (A) were significantly related, perhaps indicating

that there is some relationship between emotional maturity and verbal

ability. Numerical Aptitude (n) and Poor form and color (CF) showed a

significant relationship. Finally, s was negatively correlated with §

(White space) showing a possible inverse relationship between Spatial

Aptitude and rigidity as measured by S.

Group II. an introductory class, had only one correlation of

those predicted that reached the level of significance. Spatial Aptitude

40

(s) and Whole blot (W) were correlated, perhaps indicating that the

ability to organize a whole blot into a meaningful whole may be related

to Spatial Aptitude* Unpredicted correlations occurred between each of

the variable® g {Intelligence), v (Verbal Aptitude), n (Numerical Aptitude),

and the SORT variable S (White space). Thin was interpretable in terms

of an increase in intelligence due to an increase in persistence as

measured by S. Also unpredicated were correlations between n and H

(Human* part of whole), and that between s and P (Popular response).

The last group was felt to have been treated differently enough

from the other two to cast doubt on it® comparability to the other two.

Thus, the finding that Group III had no predicted correlations reach the

level of significance was not completely surprising. Even more signifi-

cant may be the fact that the correlations obtained were very difficult to

interpret in terms of theories used to explain the other two groups'

results. The negative correlation of Dd with g and with a might be in-

terpreted as indicating that the tendency to concentrate on minor details

reduces intellectual functioning in a general way and more particularly

in the area of Spatial Aptitude. The correlations of s and q (Clerical

Aptitude) with D (Major blot detail), p (Form Perception) with FC

(Good form and color) and Fch (Shading), and s with O (Original response)#

are not readily explained.

The three groups were not similar on the whole, but Groups I

and II showed a general overall pattern in one respect. Both I and II

41

had correlations between personality variables and the GATB variables

g, n, v, and s, and had none with p and q. The variables g, n, v, and

8 are similar in that they all involve a symbolic manipulation on a much

Mgher level than that of p and q» which measure perceptual aptitude®#

This might, therefore* be interpreted as indicating that personality is

more closely related to aptitudes involving greater abstractions than

those of l e t t e r abstractions. The differences in the results of the groups

may indicate that they could also be accounted for by chance* i . e«. the

tests don't actually measure the same traits and the correlations re-

sulted by chance.

Conclusions

The conclusions which may be drawn are limited by two

considerations. First, the results may be due to change and therefor#

lack meaning. Second, the conclusions must be limited in application

to other groups by consideration of the composition of the groups in this

study* Even if the results are not due to chance, this second concept

must be kept in mind. The conclusions presented here are based on

the assumption that the findings are not due to chance.

While the specific relationships of personality awl aptitudes

may not be stable, there is the tendency for personality to be more

closely related to aptitudes involved in greater abstraction than to

aptitudes of less abstraction. This was suggested by Groups I and !L

Group III is not considered because of the variation in procedure

42

previously noted. From the advanced group, F - appears to be related

in a general way to intelligence involved in mathematical and spatial

abstraction. From Group U# S seems to be related in a general way to

verbal and mathematical aptitudes. However, the most meaningful

conclusion from this etudy might be that the relationships between

personality and aptitude® cannot be measured with reliability unlng the

GATB and SORT, if such relationship® exist at all.

APPENDIX

TABLE XI

INTERCORRELATIONS OF THE GATB VARIABLES OF GROUP t

g n at P Q

g .412 .725 . 5 8 1 .378 . 120 V * 308 .044 i2W .135 n . 234 • i 270 . 2 2 3 » *472 . 0 9 9

P .447 q

TABLE XU

INTERCORRELATIONS OF THE GATB VARIABLES OF GROUP II

* V a § P q

S .612 ,780 . 736 .'57$ .470 V .339 .288 . 408 .•545 a .431 .534 .535 s < 523 .30®

P . 646 Q

43

44

TABLE Kill

INTERGGRRELATIONS OF THE GATB VARIABLES OF GBO0P III

8 V n a P f|

g . ?3S . s o t .835 . 384 . a i t V .420 . 463 . 32? .356 n .$21 .427 .419 a .343 .081 P • 743

'

S3

<

Jm o

u

sa %

pgi

m

CI

45 © N n o D ' c o S i f l N e a x N u o g tfSNi.OPJiAHOOW^StflSO* • • • • • • • • • • • • « * t l i l t # I

"W'H ^ "ifiai ^ © o» i i S o S m m m & h o «*$ © 51 *4 m

i i

i «

c* 55 tj» CM €*i 10 «fr 00 ** o ̂ m S © o

««( SSI

I I » * i i

I** £H M © *• -to

I I I

e* e* r* e*s ^ ^ <*l «*4 $* O C* M ©

• • « 9 I I 9

t i l * t

<# m © **# *• m © m m m m m m $** © o « ^ W H I i t » f

CO *• C* 490 ct *1 **i # <& «0( ** 9 © © a «* e« o ©

S U 3 8 3 5 *» <p*t « eg ^

tw <# o «S N K5 e<9 *4 «* ©

® OJ © 1(5 8 SI IP © Ci w • • • »

© 10 o

tf» **l W H # • * *

* I *# (ft f* #| r* €i

* *

i «

a C0

S4- , _ § Q fc "§ SQte feS^faOpE»<l f f l f t .O

i> H

m H

2 « ™ 8

o

1 m t SB

0

s N o o w s e ^ s ^ O T i H c ^ t o c - a i a i j - ' ^

• • • • • • • • • • • • • »

1 1 1 1 1 4 I t

ft*

5 $ $ 1 2 5 ^ $ 8 3 3 2 S 8 1 t « i « I «

» « * i a * » t i * f 5 < & o o t » o 0 0 9

• « • • * • • • • • • •

1 I 1 1 t t 1 1 1 t

< • • • * • • « • • • • 1 1 i 1 1

Fch

j i 1

tttj)0f«0O«0OO

• • • * • # • • • • t I « I t t i

fo Q

Q O < # * t f t ' 0 * t » 0 * c » O • • • • • • • • •

i i t i t

8 € ^ 0 3 ^ c i f l o c s | i « f • « • • • • • •

I I f i l l

FM

q> & m m m m m o o o S w o n • • • • • • •

i i i i §

91

m m n m m &* 5 u l M ^ co 00 * 9 ( f t C9 O v * O • • • * • •

1 1 1 « 1

1

f ® ^ H CSJ £ * o© c** * 0

• * * * «

1 1 1 1

1 fa

m «# m m m m m *# * # m m

' * * # •

i

m

«*$ m t f i mom m « * m '% • •

•

S $* * < &

0! *4 CD C* » •

*

ft

m m • i

£ • a t » S y fe o

^ Q Q c f t f r f e S f e f e U f e ^ S & O

46

M H

s s 3 8

3 §

o

s

0

op»NH « o « a i f l « « o « o i f iHN#ci>f ( f l o ) o o n « N p • « * • * • • • * • « • • •

i i i i i i i

A*

fA 0) ^

» • • • • * • • • • • • » 1 i l l 1

33 t i i i i t § i

• • • * • • • • * » • § t i t t i

€ fc

^cftCi#*wt^3§c-»G»c5 * • ' • • • • • • • •

i » i i i §

f&t

u

<*0*OC*<#C»tt<NfC*

• * • • ' • • • • •

» l I I » i

I FC

j

1H WCtOiHO^O J|» » ii '* » • • •

t 1 I I I

g

f**t c*9 «•* **t CM €5

m m *& m m m m

O H H H CO H H

1 1 1 1 «

Sf

<M f# £<* O ̂ «*

m m @* & *Hi **4 <*sp t?» 10 09 % • • • • *

1 1 1

1

fa

*o m o ^ c* tn f*«t o 0 i i H et 5 ^ ci » * 'it '» • # t «

£ m m <«$ m 51 eg <# to # S • • • •

i

w

*# M"> fr»

m m m *4 *<4 m • • *•

i «

s

o o

• * t i

Q

m m * # . i

*

£ © 2 01 £ i X S O & «3 H ft. 0

47

BIBLIOQBAFHY

Books

Allport, Gordon W., Personality. New York, Henry Holt and Company, 193?.

Baughman, B. Sar i and George S. Welch, Personality: Ji Behavioral Science, Englewood Clifffc, Hew Jersey, Prentice-Hall, lac., 1962.

Beck* Samuel 9»» & Variety of Personality Pictures. Vol. 11 of Rorschach's Test. <3 volumes), New York, Grune and Stratton, 1947.

Broadley, Charles V. and Margaret E. Broadley, Know Your Real Abilities, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, lac . , 1048.

Coleman, James C. * Personality Dynamics and Effective Behavior, Chicago, Scott, Foresman and Company, 1090.

Cronbach, l#ee J . , Essentials of Psychological Testing, New York Harper and Bow, 1909.

Goslin, David A., The Search (or Ability. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1903.

Guilford, Joy P . , Personality, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1019.

Stevenson, George H., Personality audi ts Deviations, Toronto, The Ryerson Press , 1947.'

Stone, Joics B . , 8*0 Rorschach Test, Los Angeles, California Test Bureau, 19S8,

Vernon, Philip D. , The Measurement of Abilities. New York, PhUosophical Ubrary, 1981.

48

Article®

Abrams, Elias N*, "Prediction of Intelligence from Certain Rorschach Factor*," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XI (January, 1959), 31*83.

Allen* Dean A. , "Aptitudes and Personality," Harvard Educational Review, XXVI (Winter, 1938), 17-23.

Altus, W. 0 . and Grace M. Thompson, "The Rorschach as a Measure of Intelligence," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIH (1848), S4I-S47.

Bingham, Walter Van Dyke, Aptitude* and Aptitude Testing, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1937.

Denton, J. C. and C. W. Taylor, "A Factor Analysis of Mental Abilities and Personalities Traits," Psychometrlka. XX (March, 1055), 70-81.

Dvorak, Beatrice J . , "The General Aptitude Test Battery," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXV (November, ItSS), 14§*1S2.

Guilford, Joy P . , P. R. Christeruen, J . W. Frick, and P. R. Merrifield, "The Relations of Creative-Thinking Aptitudes to £ion* Aptitude Personality Traits," The University of Southern California, Reports from the Psychological Laboratory. Number 20 (December, 1887).

Holland, John JU, "The Prediction of College Grades from Personality and Aptitudes Variable®," The Journal of Educational Psychology, U (October, lifO), 245-254.

Jenkins, Thomas N., "Measurement of the Primary Factors of the Total Personality," The Journal of Psychology, LJV (October, 1962), 417-442.

Khan, Lilian, "Factor Analysis of Certain Aptitude and Personality Variables," Indian Journal of Psychology. XXXVII (Part I, 1902), 27*38.

Keimowitz, Robert I. and Heinz L. Ansbacher* "Personality and Achievement in Mathematics,n Journal of Applied Psychology, XIV (May, I960), 84-87.

50

Merrifield, P. R., J, P. Guilford, P. E. Christ® neen, J. W. Frlek, ''Inter r elationships Between Certain Abilities and Certain Traits of Motivation and Temperament," Journal of Psychology, L3CY (July, 10$!*, SI-74.

Pierce, James V., "Personality and Achievement Among Able High School Boy®,M Journal of Individual Psychology, XVtH (May* 19C1), 102-10?.

Siegel, Laurence, "Test Reviews," Journal, of Counseling Fgyeholog *»88>, n«n.

Wreaa, C. Gilbert, Leonard W. Ferguion, and John L. Kennedy* "Intelligence Level end Personality," Journal of Social Psychology, VII (August, 1»S8), 301-308.

Newspapers

Dallae Morning l|gw§* April ®, 186®.