REFO R TRESUMESED 013 360 24 AA 000 212PERSONALITY AND CONFORmITY.SY- GORLOW, LEON BAROCAS, RALPHREPORT NUMDER CRP -S -021 PUB DATE 63 CONTRACT… [622878]

REFO R TRESUMESED 013 360 24 AA 000 212PERSONALITY AND CONFORmITY.SY- GORLOW, LEON BAROCAS, RALPHREPORT NUMDER CRP -S -021 PUB DATE 63 CONTRACT OEC-4-10-103ERRS PRICEMF-$0.50 118F.DESCRIPTORS- *BEhAVIORAL SCIENCE RErz:ARCH, *CONFORMITY,*PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, FACTOR ANALYSIS, *TEST VALIDITY,AN INVESTIGATION WAS MADE OF THE RELATIONSHIP 'BETWEENPERSONALITY FACTORS AND CONFORMITY. THE SUBJECTS tNERE 243RANDOMLY SELECTED STUDENTS ENROLLED IN COLLEGE PSYCHOLOGYCOURSES WHO WERE DIVIDED INTO GROUPS Cf 97, 96, AND 50SUBJECTS. A PERSONALITY FACTOP INVENTORY WAS CCTAINED FROMRESPONSES TO A LARGE LIST Cf TRUE-FALSE PERSONALITY ITEMSTATEMENTS. ITEMS FOR THIS MEASURE WERE DRAWN FRCk4 THECALIFORNIA PERSONALITY INVENTORY, INCLUDING THE CRUTCHFIELDCONFORMITY ITEMS, AND THE INDEPENDENCE CF JUDGEMENT SCALE. ACONFORMITY SCORE WAS INDIVIDUaLY OBTAINED FROM A TEST THATREQUIRED EACH SOJECT TD STATE WHICH ONE Cf A GRADUATEDSERIES OF ELEMENTS MATCHED A KEY ELEMENT. FROM THIS .TEST ACONFORMITY SCORE WAS OBTAINED BY TOTALING THE NUMBER OFANSWERS THAT DEVIATED FROM THE ELEMENT THAT MATCHED THE KEYTOWAR6 ANOTHER ELEMENT WHICH WAS INDICATED BY- THEINVESTIGATOR Tia BE THE CORRECT RESPONSE. BI-SERIALCORRELATIONS Or THE TWO SETS OF .VARIACLES THAT WERE COt.FUTEDFOR THE FIRST. TWO STUDENT: [anonimizat], FAR LESS THAN THE NUMDER EXPECTED. THELACK OF REPLICATED ITEMS PREVENTED THE APPLICATION OF FACTORANALYSIS PROCEDURES AND THERE WAS NO VALIDATION CF FACTDRS TOSE CONDUCTED WITH THE GROUP .CF 50. THE INVESTIGATOR CONCLUDEDTHAT THE STUDY CONSTITUTED A FAILURE IN THE EFFCRT TOIDENTIFY PERSONALITY FACTORS OPERATING IN THE SEHAVLOR CFYIELDING TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE. (AL)

S o/
:.d4:X-271=61
PERSONALITY AND CONFORMITY
Leon 3orlowThe Pennsylvania State UniversityandRalph BarocasUniversity of Rochester
(This research was carried out under U. S. Office of EducationContract OF-410-103 )

/4 PERSONALITY AND CONFORMITY,/
Leon GorlowThe Pennsylvania Stat.) University
andRalph BarocasUniversity of Rochester
(This research was carried out under U. S. Office of EducationContract OF – 71110 – 103)

ii
ACKNOWLED3MENTS
This study was supported by the Department of Health, Education,and Welfare, Office of Education Grant (S-042-64).The authors are indebted to many for continued assistance in allphases of this study. They wish to acknowledge Dr. Richard M. Lundy,Dr. J. E. Singer and Dr. Francis L. Whaley for their able and con-structive criticisms.The authors further wish to acknowledge the aid of the following
people:Daryl R. Bruce, Walter Dick, Peter Digiondomenico, Donald J.Gannon, Jack D. Glick, Burton I. Klinger, Lawrence H. Levine, JosephE. Murray, Robert A. Rath, Norman R. Simonson.The authors would also like to thank the United States Navy forthe loan of electronic equipment.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTSEatAcknowledgments ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures
Chapter,I.INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM… ……Review of Related Studies …… ……… ………Consistency of the Conformity ResponsePersonality Structure in ConformityStatement of the Problem133716
II.METHODS AND PROCEDURES 18General Design 18 Subjects.00000000 19Personality Measures 20The Yielding Situation 21The Stimulus Materials 29The Yielding Score 46Analysis of Data ………….. ……. ,0 48
III.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 50Results 50Discussion…….. ………… ….. 52
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . ……… , …….. . ..60Summary……… ……4….0…0..0 61Conclusions 62REFERENCES.0,1 ………. 00C1000 63
APPENDIX AItem sources and bi-ssrial correlations forboth validational groups. ……00000 67
APPENDIX BWiring diagrams for subject and experimenterconsoles 107

iv
LIST OF TABLESTable Page
1Analysis of Variance for Subject Position inLaboratoryStudy…………………, …… ,……… 23
2Distribution of Responses for All LaboratoryTrials….,.,…………,…. ,OGUOvOlOw404U.04U ….. .44
3Item (Critical Trial) Total Score Bi-serialCorrelations for the Critical Items IncludingItem Splits (N=70),.0…………….,… 47
4Distribution of Raw Scores, Cumulative Fre-quencies and Transformed T-scores (N=243)……, QOM49
5Cross-validated Items. 51
6Tetrachoric Intercorrelations for ValidatedItems (N=70)… 53
7Correlations Between Barron Independence ofJudgment Scale (IJS), Crutchfield ConformityItems (CCI) and Conformity in Two Samples…………. 54
8Percentages of Subjects Conforming on CriticalTrials (N=243). 59

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1Schematic Drawing of Laboratory Arrangement 22
2The Subject's Console 25
3The Experimenter's Console 26
4The Stimulus Figures 30

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Social psychologists are required to explain the over-whelming fact of social conformity in human behavior.Parents set models to which children conform; fashionsare models to which adults conform; and culture itselfis a model to which everyone (or nearly everyone con-forms.No problem in social psychology is more in-sistent (Allport, 1954, p. 21).
The problem of conformity which in its broadest sense is theproblem of social influence, is of central concern in contemporary
society.A larlse popular and professional literature attests to this.We live in an era where "brainwashing" is a household word (Sargent,1957; Meerloo, 1956); we speak of the "organization man" (Whyte, 1956);acknowledge the "hidden persuaders" (Packard, 1957); and we are allconcerned with the stifling of creativity (Farber & Wilson, 1961).The implications of understanding the nature of conformity are so farreaching that no aspect cf human social behavior is excluded. It wouldbe impossible to conceive a world without social influence because thatworld would necessarily be a world without people.Both psychological research and more general treatments describeindividuals who find themselves unable to pursue independent acts andwho are discovered always to be in positions of compromise. Theseindividuals, characterized by their susceptibility to social influence,have been designated as conformists; their opposites are labeled non-
conformists.Most of us fall somewhere on the dimension defined by
these two poles.

2
The problem under investigation in the present study was theidentification of the personality dimenJions associated with resistanceand capitulation to social pressure. More specifically, the hypothesisunder examination was the proposition that personality factors repre-sent reliable parameters of the conformity response. That is to saythat individual differences in response to social influence will befound to covary with individual differences in personality. Whilethere have been studies of this issue (Asch, 1951; Barron, 1953;Crutchfield, 1955; Tuddenham, 1956; DiVesta and Cox, 1960), the resultshave been equivocal and incon:lusive (Bernardin and Jessor, 1957;Endler, 1961; Hcllander, 1960; Appley and Moeller, 1963). The presentstudy was conceived as a basic one devoted to the identification andvalidation of personality factors present in the conformity situation.A large and complex vocabulary has emerged as a consequence of
the vast literature. Cronbach (1946) spoke of "acquiescence"; Asch(1951, 1952) spoke of "yielding", Crutchfield (1955) of "conformity",Deutsch and Girard (1955) of "compliance and conformity", Janis et al.(1959) "persuasibility", and Barber (1961, 1962, 1963) of hypno-tizability and suggestibility."All these terms are names for situations in which individualdifferences in response to social influence have been examined.Campbell (1961) suggested the following as a general framework withinwhich conformity could be considered:
it will be assumed that a situation of conflictexists between an individual dispositional source …and a social one Giving heavy weight to thesocial source will be regarded as synonomous withconformity, suggestibility, persuasibility, or

3
yielding, as these terms have been used in theliterature.It follows…that any strengtheningof an individual dispositional source will lead todecreased conformity, whereas, strengthening of asccial source will lead to increased conformity(p. 114, 1961).
The conflict situation employed in the present stu4y was thefamiliar one of placing an individual in a situation where a simulatedgroup consensus was at odds with his perceptions. Extent of conformitywas measured by examining the degree to which an individual moves inthe direction of the simulated norm.
Review of Related Studies
In the 1959 Annual Review of Psychology, Blake and Mouton stated:
With situational aspects of conformity dynamicsreasonably well understood, questions regarding contri-butions of personality are exciting more attention.Two kinds of issues are being raised. One has to dowith describing the personality structure of the personwho capitulates under social pressure.The other dealswith the degree of consistency of capitulation acrosstasks, over a range of conditions, and through time(p. 224, 1959) ,
These two issues cannot, of course, be genuinely dicho'zomized.One could not speak of the personality structure of the conformist un-less the conformity response did reveal some consistency in time aswell as across situations.
Consistencof the conformit res onseA review of studies concerned with the stability of the con-formity response through time, over a range of conditions and acrosstasks, follows.

4
Sherii (1935) clearly demonstrated that when individuals in anambiguous setting, the autokinetic (AK) situation, are required tomake judgments, they will develop their own point of reference ornorm.Onisubsequent occasions, they behave in a manner consistentwith that norm. Most relevant here is his report that individuals con-form to a group norm when examined at a later time under individualconditions.This latter finding is in agreement with the observationsof Bovard (1948) and Walter (1955) again using the AK situation.Bovard (1948) examined the effects of group norms on individual judg-ments 28 days after the group interaction and was able to report thesustained influence of the initial condition. Walter (1955) reportedthat the performance of subjects on four discrete occasions reflectedpersistent use of norms established on the first occasion.Asch (1951) focused on the conditions which caused an individualto capitulate or to resist group pressures. With the use of ac-complices, subjects were placed in a situation where group consensuswas contrary to veridicality. The subsequent conflict, and resolutionof this conflict was the critical response. Of the 50 subjects in theexperimental group, Asch reported:
One fourth of the critical subjects was completely in-dependent; at the other extreme, one third of thegroup displaced the estimates toward the majority inone-half or more of the trials (p. 182).
That is, some independent subjects were able to hold out con-sistently in successive critical trials, just as some yielding subjectscapitulated consistently.
Crutchfield (1955), pursuing the Asch paradigm, introduced someingenious modifications. Instead of employing accomplices for the

5
intentional distortion of norms, electrical consoles were employedwhereby the experimenter was able to simulate responses of the subjects.While Asch (1951) employed only visual items, that is, line judgments,Crutchfield's items ranged from "… factual to attitudinal, fromstructured to ambiguous, from impersonal to personal" (p. 193, 1955).For this group of 21 items, a corrected split-half reliability estimateof .90 was reported. These findings offer evidence of conformityoccuring across tasks. That is tc say, conformity, at least in someresearch, appears to be independent of content of tasks.Tuddenham (1956) with apparatus similar to Crutchfield (1955) aswell as similar domains of item content reported a range of odd-evencorrelations of .82 to .95 for total test reliability of 30 items. The30 item scale is composed of three ten-item subscales. The subscalesincluded visual items (i.e., size and area judgments), informationitems and opinion items. Tuddenham (1956) reported corrected inter-correlations of .52 to .94 for these subscales. Odd-even reliabilitiesin each of the three subscales ranged from .68 to .90. Tuddenhamconcluded:
Comparison of findings with visual, information andopinion items indicates that yielding was a rathergeneral propensity, though some variance was specificto the particular judgment concerned (1958, p. 240).
Therefore, Tuddenham's (1958) observations are in agreement withCrutchfield's (1955) suggesting that conformity behavior transcendssituations.Blake, Helson and Mouton (1956), using still another techniquefor the transmission of simulated information, reported an average

6
correlation of .87 for the three activities of counting metronomeclicks, response to opinions, and mental arithmetic. Here, the experi-menters had the subject listen to tape-recorded responses of ac-complices, thereby causing the subject to believe others were presentand responding in different cubicles. Here again, agreement is ob-served with the findings of Crutchfield (1955) and Tuddenham (1958).Rosner (1957), employing three different taks, viz., the Aschline series, a memory task, and a questionnaire, reported consistencyof response for yielders and non-yielders across experimental sessionsas well as within experimental series. Phi-coefficients ranging from.33 to .54 were reported between pairs of tasks.Thus, in light of these results, Blake and Mouton (1959) con-cluded that:
No exceptions to the rule have been indicated. Therule that seems to be emerging is 'once a conformer,always a conformer'… (p. 225, 1959).
Similarly, Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey (1962) reported con-forming tendencies to be an "interpersonal response trait." This isnot to say that there are no dissenters. There are researchers whosuggest that the conformity response is specific to the situation.For example, Appley and Moeller (1963) assert:
… Conformity per se is an act in the service of theindividual's motivations – a means to an end ratherthan an end in itself… (p. 290).
Furthermore, instances are reported in the literature where re-searchers have failed to sustain expected relationships between twomeasures of susceptibility to social influence. Notably, this has been

7
true in situations where paper and pencil measures of acquiescencewere related to laboratory performance. Foster (1955) and Endler(1961) were unable to demonstrate a relationship between acquiescentresponse set, the tendency to agree with a printed statement, and per-formance in a Crutchfield (1955) situation. Linton (1955) encounteredfailure in attempting to relate conformity in an AK situation andsusceptibility to attitude change as a function of social influence.In summary, the view expressed by Allport (1961) most accuratelyreflects the literature and is the position taken here:
We must likewise not forget that although conformityseems to be a measurable common trait, we must expectsituational factors, personal knowledge, and privatemotives to affect an individual's response in thisarea of social behavior (p. 433).
Personality structure in conformitySince the present study is concerned with personality dimensionsand yielding, review of studies relating personality and conformity
follows.The literature is not unequivocal.Asch (1951) characterized his subjects on the basis of inter-view data collected upon the completion of the experimental series.He was able to discriminate six types of subjects, three of them"independents" and three of them "yielders." One group of inde-pendents were those who through a high degree of "confidence" wereable to actively resist group pressure. A second group were "with-drawn."These individuals resisted, but iii a non-emotional way.Thefinal group of independents experienced "doubt", but having a high needto perform accurately, resisted the influence of the group.

8
The yielders, for the most part, thought their perceptions to beincorrect and those of the group to be accurate. Asch said of thisgroup:
These subjects suffer from primary doubt and lack ofconfidence; on this basis they feel a strong tendencyto jo4n the marjority (p. 184, 1951).
A second group, cognizant of their capitulation, did so in ordernot to appear deviant or inferior. The third and smallest group, Aschfelt, truly distorted. These individuals reported the false groupconsensus as the veridical alternative and experienced it as such.Asch (1951) concluded:
There were wide, and indeed, striking differencesamong individuals within the same experimentalsituation.The hypothesis was proposed that theseare functionally dependent on relatively enduringcharacter differences… (p. 190).
Thus, Asch was convinced not only of the consistency of the re-sponse, but also that it represented personality differences. Thereader will note, however, that his conclusion is drawn from relativelyuncontrolled interview material.Barron (1953) employed the Asch situation to define criteriongroups of yielders and non-yielders. An item analysis of the Goughadjective Check List (ACL), composed of 274 adjectives listed inalphabetical order, between adjective preference and yielding, reveal-ed 14 adjectives associated with non-yielding and 19 associated withyielding.On the basis of this performance on the ACL Barron
suggested that:

9
The self-descriptions of the independents seem to in-volve these factors: (1) a certain cathection ofintellect and cognitive originality… a spirit ofopen-mindedness (2) a high degree of personal in-volvement and emotional reactivity (3) a lack ofsocial ease, or an absence of the commonly valuedsocial virtues The yielders … strongly cathect(1) ease and helpfulness in interpersonal relations(2) personal effectiveness and planfulness in achievingsome goal(3) personal stability and healthymindedness (p. 290, 1953).
Encouraged by his work Barron prepared an 84 personality-type
item inventory and administered it to criterion groups. Twenty-two
items withstood item analysis, 20 of which were in the expected
direction; these items have become known as the Barron Independence of
Judgment Scale (IJS). As a function of performance on the IJS, Barron
was able to depict the non-yielders as individuals who value:
Creative work, in others and in themselves … theperson as an individual, and responds more to theinward integrity of another person than tosuperficially pleasing characteristics are in-dependent… areintraceptive like some un-certainty (pp. 295, 296, 1953).
Although neither the adjectives in the ACL nor the IJS werecross-validated by Barron, some successful use of them has been re-
ported by other researchers.Jacklon (1958) combin.x the Barron IJS items with the Crutchfield
conformity items (CCI), to be discussed below, and employed them as a
conformity inventory. Corrected split-half reliabilities of .44 for
women and .54 for .len are reported.Marlowe and Crowne (1961) re-
ported a correlation of -.54 between the IJS and a social desirability
inventory (SDI) of their own construction.

10
Strickland and Crowne (1962) administered the IJS and SDI, andutilized a conformity situation similar to that described by Blake,et al. (1956). They reported significant relationships in the ex-pected directions between social desirability and independencemeasured by the IJS, social desirability and conformity, andindependence and conformity.The studies cited above can be viewed as construct validationwork for Barron's IJS and generally would encourage the use of the
scale.Crutchfield (1955), related a wide range of variables to con-
formity.For example, intellectual functioning assessed by "staffrating of intellectual competence," and Terman Concept Mastery Testyielded correlations of -.63 and -.51 respectively. Barron's Ego-strength Scale correlated -.33. The California Personality Inventory(CPI) subscales of Tolerance, Social Pressure and Responsibilityyielded a range of correlations of -.30 to -.41. The CaliforniaFascism Scale (F-scale) correlated .39. Manifest authoritarianismrated by Crutchfield and his staff was correlated .35.Q-sort descriptions of the subjects by the Crutchfield staffyielded characterizations not unlike those of Barron (1953) for a non-yielder who:Is an effective personTakes an ascendant role in his relationsIs persuasiveIs turned to for adviceIs efficient, capableIs activeIs an expressive, ebullient person (p. 194).

11
The yielder, as characterized by the Q-sorts, is different from
Barron's yielder. He:has a narrow range.of interests …overcontrols his impulses; is inhibited …is unable to make decisions without vacillation …becomes confused, disorganized …under stressis suggestible …" (p. 195).
These obvious neurotic qualities, however, are not sustainedperformance on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).This result is consistent with Barron (1953) who also was unable todiscriminate yielders from non-yielders on MMPI performance.Crutchfield reported 25 personality-type items (CCI) which aresusceptible of discriminating yielders from non-yielders. Jackson(1958; 1962) and Sechrest and Jackson (1960) combined the IJS and CCIand were able to employ this "conformity inventory" in a meaningful
manner,Crutchfield (1955) further reports on two additional studies
that:Using the same procedures and the same items forjudgment, the conformity results for his …samplewere highly similar to those reported … (p. 196).
Elsewhere, Krech, et al. (1962) concluded on the basis of theCrutchfield results:
Study of the correlations of these measures with theconformity scores offer compelling evidence thatthere are numerous personality factors associatedwith tendency to conform (p. ,1962).
Tuddenham (1956; 1957 a; 1957 b; 1958 a-f; 1961) systematicallyinvestigated the relationships between a host of variables and their

12
relationships to yielding. Employing a situation similar to thatdeveloped by Crutchfield (1955), Tuddenham (1958) reported a wide rangeof personality data for four groups of subjects in the laboratory con-formity situation. Two groups, 'sne composed of 27 males and anothercomposed of 29 females, averaged 35 years of age. These groups repre-sented a good deal of variability in education and socio-economic
level.The remaining two groups were constituted of college males(N = 37) and females (N = 37).Thirty items derived from an interview rasing schedule yielded
the following results. Intelligence, introspection, and verbalfacility were significantly related to independence for both men and
women.Utilization of generalization in thought, educational level,and socio-economic level were found to be inversely related to yielding
for men.These latter relationships were not sustained with women.Generally, these results appear consistent with Crutchfield (1955).That is, "intelligence" is associated positively with independence.Tuddenham also studied the CPI performance of his subjects.Only a few of the 18 scales of the CPI were readily interpretable.Achievement via independence is inversely related to conformity forboth male groups as well as the younger female group. Capacity forsocial status is seemingly moderated by age as it is negatively re-lated for both older groups, but not the college samples. The re-maining correlations were generally not susceptible of interpretation.These results failed to replicate Crutchfield's findings.The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), not administer-ed to the college samples, failed to yield significant relationships
for the older age groups.

13
A group of scales derived from the MMPI (Taylor Manifest AnxietyScale; Welsh Anxiety Scale; Barron Ego-strength Scale; Welsh RepressionScale) all failed to discriminate yielders from non-yielders.However, the IJS was able to discriminate male but not femaleindependents from yielders. This is consistent with Barron's findingsin that Barron's sample was all males.On the basis of the performance of his subjects on the IJS andthe interview rating schedule, Tuddenham (1958) concluded:
Reports by Barron and Crutchfield on correlates ofyielding are in rather good general agreement withthese findings (p. 15).
DiVesta and Cox (1960) in a broad exploratory study, utilized agroup of paper and pencil measures of personality and intellectualfunctioning, and the Crutchfield conformity situation. The EPPSfailed to yield any meaningful relationships. Only a single scale,n Autonomy (n Au t) achieved significance, and this was thought to bechance.The Stern Activities Index (SAl) was somewhat more encouraging.Scale measures of submissive-restrained, outgoing-sociable, cautious-controlled, and theoretical-intellectual related to the criterion 23;-21; 22; and .24 respectively.Use of the ACL revealed fair agreement with Barron (1953) despitesome failures as reversals of adjectives characterizing non-yielderswere observed.DiVesta and Cox (1960) also reported that the F scale was re-lated to conformity which is again, in agreement with Crutchfield(1955) and Nadler (1959). However, Belof (1958) and Gorfein (1961)were unable to support this relationship

14
The Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale approached significance in theDiVesta and Cox study (1960) which is consistent with Tuddenham (1958).Their observation that women generally conform more than men alsosustains Crutchfield (1955) and Tuddenham (1956).The authors concluded that:
The data indicate the presence of consistent sourcesand dispositional characteristics which contributeto individual differences in susceptibility tosocial influences (1960, p. 262).
There are instances, however, where the personality-conformityhypothesis has not been sustained. It is also reasonable to believethat there are in the experience of many researchers failures to con-firm the hypothesis which go unreported.A group of studies attempting to investigate the relationshipbetween specific needs as assessed by the EPPS and the conformity re-sponse has left much to be desired.Bernardin and Jessor (1957) hypothesized that high need Autonomy(n Aut) and low need Deference (n Def) leads to more resistance tosocial influence and generally less dependence, than the opposite needrelationship.Using three different behavioral measures (approval;seeking help; Asch situation), they were unable to demonstrate reliablerelationships.Gisvold (1958) pursued these hypothesized relationships further.Employing a modified Crutchfield situation as the yielding criterion,he reports a significant correlation (-54) between n Aut and yielding.However, the expected relationships between n Def and yielding was notdemonstrated.

15
Izard (1960) reports a Significant correlation for men betweenn Aut and resistance to yielding (38) but an .05 correlation forwomen.Correlations for men and women between resistance to socialinfluence and n Def are -.24 and -.34. They were not significant.Endler (1961), using the Crutchfield laboratory paradigm con-cluded that there are reliable individual differences in conformity,but was unable to relate these to differences in personality structureas assessed by the EPPS.Appley and Moeller (1961) assessed the relationship between per-sonality and conformity using the Asch situation and the EPPS, CPI,and Gordon Personal Profile (GPP). Of all these possible measures,38 scales in all, one, n Abasement, was related to behavior in theAsch Situation. The authors argue that the relationship between per-sonality and conformity is complex and that:
Unless particular cues were present to elicit certaintypes of response modulities (e.g., defferencebehavior; succorant behavior; etc.) we would not ex-pect to find such behavior necessarily in therepertoire of an individual who in another situationconforms to the norm o the group response (p. 290).
Tuddenham (1958; 1960) comments that the relationship betweenresponse to social influence and personality for women is notdetermined to the same extent as for men.However, Appley and Moellerdiscard a feminine role explanation in preference for a more situationspecific model of explanation.
Hollander (1960) arrived at a similar position to that of Appleyand Moeller and suggested: "conformity does not appear to be a verymeaningful variable of personality" (p. 224).

16
Thus, it is clear that the relationship between personality and
yielding to social influence, although the subject of a large liter-
ature, is not clearly delineated. With the possible exceptions of the
relationships between intellectual functioning and sexual role and
conformity, all other relationships must be qualified. Many of the
standard personality inventories have proved fruitless in the in-
vestigation of personality functioning and response to social in-
fluence.The EPPS has failed, time after time, to be related to con-
formity in the laboratory. The MMPI, and derivative scales, generallyused as a clinical instrument, encounters the same fate as does the
EPPS.The CPI, although somewhat more promising than the inventories
cited above, is deficient also. Some encouragement, however, is to
be found in the use of the ACL, IJS, and the CCI.Generally, the methods of conformity assessment have been demon-
strated to be reliable. It would seem, however, that more reliable
modes of personality assessment are required. The literature reveals
little cross-validaticnal study of personality items. Furthermore,
with the exceptions of the IJS and the CCS, none of the personality
inventories employed in the conformity-personality literature em-
ployed item selection against a criterion of conformity.
Statement of the Problem
The present study is 5.n the context of efforts to define the re-lationship between personality factors and conformity behavior. The
literature which has now been reviewed has failed to provide clear

17
evidence for the hypothesis that personality factors account for someportion of the variance in yielding behavior. This is the hypothesis
under test here.The equiNacality, the inconclusiveness and the occasional andisolated positive result represented a need for a basic study devotedto identification and validation of personality factors present in
yielding behavior.It was anticipated that the ordinary psychometric procedures ofpersonality item selection and cross-validation would yield a pool ofitems which when examined by the procedure of factor analysis woulduncover the personality dimensions operating in conformity behavior.

18
Chapter II
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The present study was directed toward the investigation of therelationship between personality and conformity. The method ofempirical item selection and cross-validation was adopted, therebyrequiring the participation of a large number of subjects and theadministration of a large number of personality items.In addition,the procedure required a well-defined conformity criterion which wouldyield a reliable conformity score.
General DesignA large pool of personality item-statements in true-false formatwas administered to 243 subjects, The subjects were assigned to threegroups of 97, 96, and 50 each.Bi-serial correlations were computed in the first sample ofsubjects for each item against a yielding score derived from per-formance in a laboratory conformity situation.The second sample wasexamined in a manner consistent with conventional cross-validationalprocedures.The third sample (N = 50) was to be used as an additionalvalidational group. Factor analytic treatment of the cross-validateditems was intended so that the dimensions of personality inherent inthe items might be identified. Examination of the relationship betweenderived factor scores and the laboratory conformity scores was to havecompleted the study.

19
SubjectsThree hundred and seventeen male undergraduates were recruitedin such a manner that they had no awareness of the relationship betweenthe two assessment situations, that of personality and that of yielding.The subjects were recruited by accomplices of the experimenter fromamong students in introductory psychology at The Pennsylvania StateUniversity who are required to participate in six hours of psychologi-cal research.These students were told they were participating in a"study about personality."The experimenter then recruited a group of 243 subjects fromthis initial subject pool. They were asked to join him in anotherstudy of the "differences in ability to make judgments about theattributes of geometric figures." In other words, subjects were ledto believe that they were being recruited for a second and unrelatedstudy by still another experimenter. In order to assur- minimal lossof subjects from the initial subject pool, one dollar, and one hour'scredit were offered for participation in the half-hour yielding
situation.Of the 74 subjects who failed to participate or whose responseswere not employed in the final analysis of data, 27 failed to appearat the appointed time, two completed the personality inventory in-correctly, and three were lost because of apparatus failure. Theremaining subjects apparently had completed their six hour researchparticipation requirement and could not be interested in devoting moretime to research activities.The 243 subjects who completed both portions of the study wereassigned to three groups of 97, 96, and 50. The group of 50 was

20
selected on a random basis from the total subject population (N= 243).The remaining 193 subjects were then ranked on the basis of theircriterion scores and then assigned to the other groups in an ABBAmanner.Thus, the distribution of yielding scores for both groupswas similar.
Personality MeasuresAn inventory labeled "Personality Research Inventory, Form I"(PRI) was administered to all subjects. The inventory, composed of527 items in Yes – No format, required approximately one and one halfhours for completion (See Appendix A).The items were drawn from several sources.The CaliforniaPersonality Inventory (CPI) represented the largest source, 480 items,25 of which constitute the Crutchfield Conformity Items (CCI).Thisinventory, although it has encountered only moesrate success in thepersonality-conformity literature, has been successful in use withnormal college students.The Independence of Judgment Scale was also included. Thisparticular group of 22 items together with the CCI, has proven to beamong the most promising in the discrimination of yielders from non-yielders.The final set of items were derived from the Allport and Allport"A-S Reaction Study." This group of items were rewritten in a Yes – Noformat.These items were chosen with the expectancy that endorsementof an item in the ascendent direction would be associated with re-sistance to social influence.

21
The Yielding SituationThe laboratory apparatus for assigning criterion conformityscores to individuals represents a modification of the Crutchfield(1955) and Tuddenham equipment (1956). The apparatus is fully de-
scribed in Appendix B.Subjects participated in small groups, five in number. Inasmuchas the apparatus required the presence of five subjects, accompliceswere employed to complement the groups in the event thar .*re wereless than five subjects on a given occasion. The time ,.c1111.,..?.d for34 trials and a preliminary brief orientation period was approximately
25 minutes.A schematic representation of the laboratory seating appearsbelow in Figure 1. All subject consoles were clamped in a fixed
position.The room was in darkness except for the consoles, projector,and an experimenter's desk lamp required for the recording of responses.The reader will note that the positions of subjects varied frcmfive to eleven feet in distance from the screen. A question aroseabout the influence of chair position on the yielding response. Ananalysis of variance was carried out on samples of 15 persons in eachof five groups representing the five chair positions. These subjectswere drawn randomly from a total of N laboratory occasions where noaccomplices were employed and all chair positions were filled with"real" subjects. The analysis is reported in Table 1. It showsessentially that chair position does not influence yielding behavior.Upon entering the laboratory, subjects were involved in two
preliminary tasks. The purposes of these tasks were to maintain the

151322
screen
69
SubjectConsoles
OExperimenterts Console,and Signal Generator Projector
Figure 1. Schematic Drawing of Laboratory Arrangement

23
Table 1
Analysis of Variance for Subject Positionin Laboratory Setting
Source of Variation Sum of Squares dfMeanFpSquare
Between groups 28.99Within group 1169.55Total 1198.5447.25.434NS7016.70

24
deception that the study was devoted to individual differences invisual skills. Furthermore, they also served to reassure the subjectthat his visual abilities were adequate for the subsequent performancerequired of him. The first task required S to respond to a Snelleneye-chart which was placed 18 fent from him. The subject read withboth eyes, and with eye glasses if he customarily wore them, a linewhich required 20/25 vision at 20 feet. The second task consisted ofthe requirement that the subject count the number of lines in astimulus figure. It is of interest to note here that Tuddenham (1956)reports that yielding is unrelated to visual acuity.Each subject was then seated before a small console 19x19x9 1/2inches (See Figure 2). The consoles were constructed in such a waythat a subject was unable to view the display panel of any other sub-
ject.The panel was composed of ten columns of lights. The firstcolumn of five lights under the control of E, indicated to the subjecthis turn to respond. On non-critical trials, order of response wasvaried.On critical trials, all subjects responded in the fifthposition, having been led to believe that the experimenter's simulatedresponses were those of the other subjects. Subjects were instructedthat they would have an opportunity to respond from all positions.The nine remaining columns represented judgments as they were made byother subjects who preceded and followed.The experimenter's console 25x25x12 1/2 inches (See Figure 3)was composed of a set of lights which represent each subject's re-sponse position, five rotary switches for the assignment of a subject'sresponse position, a switch utilized on critical trials which prevents

Figure 20 The Subject's Console

Figure 3. Thee Experimenter's Console

1
27
the communication of a subject's responses to other subjects, and aset of 36 switches employed in the communication of simulatedjudgments in critical trials.The laboratory sequence consisted of the following steps. Sub-jects were seated before a console and given a short orientationdescribing their task requirements. Next, heaGphones were placed inposition and the following detailed instructions were communicatedto the subject via the headphones:
Let me describe what your job will be here this evening. Youwill see projected on this screen a series of slides on whichthere are drawings like this (Project Sample). The question is:"Which of the numbered diamonds is the same size as the un-numbered one?" You will notice that there are nine diamondsto choose from. Now look at the panel in front of you. Acrossthe bottom of the panel, you see nine switches labeled 1 through9.You will use these switches to i..!icate your answers. WhenI call on you, you will indicate your answer by turning on theswitch numbered the same as the 2iamond you choose. Be asaccurate as you can in making your choices, trying each timeto give the correct answer.You must answer in turn to avoid any possible confusion in myrecording.It is extremely important to await your turn be-fore switching on your answer. The light on the left of yourpanel tells you which is your turn. Sometimes you will answerfirst, sometimes second and so on. The other lights which arecontrolled by the switches, serve as signals to tell you whenit is time to take your turn. For example, if the 4th lightin the extreme left column of lights is on, you are fourthin turn and you are to wait until lights in rows 1, 2, and 3,come on b.r.fore you push your switch.Now lets try it –
Mr. A.- Your light should be on in row one – so you arefirst to answer. Choose the diamond that is the samesize as the unnumbered one – now find the switchwith the corresponding number and push it up. Fine –Now all your panels should show us Mr. A's response.
Mr. B.- Your light should be on in row two – so you aresecond to answer – make your choice – and push thecorresponding switch.

28
Mr. CMr. DMr. EAll of you should still have a switch in the on position. Pleasereturn them to an off position. Please move them gently andcarefully.Please don't let them snap off. This is importantfor proper recording and will increase the life of the equipment.On real trials a ready signal, a tone, will precede the slideby several seconds and will run through the whole period duringwhich the slide is exposed.Ok – Let's just review this. Your job is this –-
1.Look at the left hand column and see what row your lightis in.That tells you when it's your turn to answer.
2.Then wait until it is your turn – you will know when it isyour turn by watching the other person's answers indicatedon your panel.
3.Push the switch that corresponds to your choice on thescreen.That's it simply – Let's have one more sample – I think thatin most cases you will be able to make your judgments easily –Please remember to work the switches gently.
The complete laboratory instruction has now been described.An ethical question arose about the deception involved in simu-lating norms whereby individuals are led to believe that their per-ceptions are at variance with the perceptifns of others. Consider-ations of possible personal harm to subjects and considerations re-garding the security of the deception ?Po. to a deliberate decision notto reveal the laboratory manipulation. No untoward effects were ob°
served.

29
The Stimulus MaterialsThe stimulus materials represented line drawings of circles,
square, triangles, and diarr.,-yrds. Each image presented a standard un-numbered stimulus and nine numbered alternatives. These alternativescorresponded to the nine numbered response switches on each of thesubject consoles. The standard stimulus was varied in size from 5/8"to 1/4", and in some instances, by intervals of five degrees. Theposition of the standard stimulus relative to the comparison figureswas varied as well: that is, above, below, to the left and to theright of the comparison stimuli. The stimulus materials employed inthe study were similar to the visual items developed by Tuddenham
(1956).Figure 4 provides the reader with representation of thestimulus materials.Ten critical trials were embedded in 24 non-critical trials ina quasi-random fashion where the single restriction on randomness wasthat two critical trials coult" nt.t occur consecutively. The readerwill note again that on the ten critical trials, all subjects were inthe fifth position.
Pilot work identified the group of ten critical items. All 34stimulus figures were administered to a group or 30 subjects. On thebasis oZ the performance of this pilot group, ten critical items wereselected from the 34. These critical items were observed to yieldmodal judgments that coincided with the veridical. In order to insuresome variability of response, additional restrictions were imposed onthe selection of critical items. A requirement that the pilot group'sdistribution of scores be arrayed in more than one of the nine

Figure 4. The Stimulus Figures in Order of Presentation30
Sti:::UlUe Figure 18. Stimulus Figure 26, Critical Trial 1.
.2 3 4 5 67$9
Stimulus Figure 8.

Stimulus Figure 16.
12 3 4567
Stimulus Figure 30.

320000000002 3 456719O
Stimulus Figure 1, Critical Trial 2.
1.23456719
Stimulus Figure 6.
111111111123456719
Stimulus Figure 24, Critical Trial 3.

Ifa34567$
u933
Stimulus Figure 20. Stimulus Figure 33.
L\\\\\W\ \12345677 9
Stimulus Figura 2.

Stimulus Figure 7, Critical Trial 4. Stimulus Figure 34.
LLLLLLLNN12 3 k56719
Stimulus Figure 17.

35
1234111111611115719
Stimulus Figure 13.
Stimulus Figure 11, Critical Trial 5. Stimulus Figure 4.

stimulus Figure 3.
( it( flitsL234156719
Stimulus Figure 29.36

37
Stimulus Figure 21, Critical Trial 6.
\\\\N2 3 *7 19
Stimulus Figure 28.

38
1.23456719
Stimulus i'igure 9.
waft/1.23456719
Stimulus Figure 12, Critical Trial 7.

0000000000.2 3 * 567p9
Stimulus Figure 14.
666*nit
Stimulus Figure 22.L
1.23456719
Stimulus Figure 23, Critical Trial 8.9

il8k15/617/19
Stimulus Figure 15.
LI0/LIQ2C:'03N0*0oPNI00INO9
stimulus Figure 31. Stimulus Figure 27.40

Of02Os04006
07
01
OP
Stimulus Figure 5.–679
Stimulus Figure 10, Critical Trial 9.41
67 I9
Stimulus Figure S2.

–>–2I1……34567I9
Stiniulus Figure 19, Critical Trial 10. Stimulus Figure 25.

43
response classes, but less than five, with no single class containingmore than two-thirds of the group's judgments, was employed.Table 2 summarizes the pilot study providing for each criticaltrial, the veridical and modal response, and the selected simulated
norm (SN).The designation of a switch position for the SN followed thesuggestions of Tuddenham (1956). The switch position containing the93rd percentile of the pilot group's distribution of scores wasidentified for each critical trial. The position of the simulatednorm was established by adding two switch positions to the switchnumber of the 93rd percentile. Thus, the SN could be construed as adeviant response since less than one percent of the pilot populationperceived it as the veridical response. This technique for designatingthe SN introduced some variability in the number of switches thatdeviated from the modal and veridical responses. Although the positionof the critical items in the laboratory series was determined in aquasi-random fashion, the ordering of these items took into accountthe variability in distance from veridicality. Thus the critical itemwith the fewest switch deviations from veridicality was placed earliestin the series and the item with the most deviatioris was placed last.This arrangement was employed so that subjects would not be confrontedearly in the series with a startling discrepancy between their judg-ment and the simulated norm.

44
Table 2
Distribution of Responses for All Laboratory Trialsin Pilot-. Group(N= 30)
TrialNumberCriticalTrialNumber123456789
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
192
6
3
5
7213
1
15
SN
417
4
16
4
SN**
2
7
1816
1
1410
1
9
5
171
15
2
7
2
SN
14
SN2
1128
1
106
2
174
199
SN
3
1
1
6
46
2
5
13
275
115
1510
4
15
13
1
110
15
2
2
1415
10
712
18

45
Table 2 (Continued)
TrialCritical123456789NumberTrialNumber
20 6231
21418174SN22 721223 315111241 SN1014625 2010
26 1712
27 524128 2121
29 8694330 246
31 124532 82033 1314334 2226
* *Indicates
SNIndicatesVeridical Response
Simulated Norm

46.
The Yielding Score .A yielding score was assigned to each individual by summing thetotal number of switches deviating from the veridical-modal responsein the direction of the simulated norm across all critical trials.It was, then, considered important to examine the characteristicsof the critical items which were combined to produce the yieldingscore,Therefore, aspects of homogeneity and stability for theyielding score were investigated.Bi-serial correlations for an N of 70 drawn randomly from thetotal population w, -e computed between performance on each time andtotal score.Their correlations together with the item splits(proportions of subjects and conformity and remaining independent) arereported below in Table 3. An examination of the table reveals thatall of the items were related in a highly significant way to the totalconformity score and therefore justification exists for combining per-formance on the items into a single score. However, since the itemsplits on the first, second and eighth items were greater than 70 and30 percent, these items were not employed in the assignment of theyielding score. In the present study, therefore, an individual'syielding score is defined as the total number of deviations fromveridicality in the direction of the simulated norm for items three,four, five, six, seven, nine, and ten.On the issue of stability of yielding scores, a tetrachoriccorrelation of .45 is observed between performance on the third andninth critical items on the classification yielding and non-yielding.This suggests that some stability inheres in the conformity responseacross trials.

47
iteul3
Item (Critical Trial) Total Score Bi-SerialCorrelations for the CritJ.al ItemsIncludingObserved Proportions of Conforming and Non-conforming Responses(N= 70)
CriticalItemNumberCorrelation ConformityNon-conformityPercentages
1 .51 24-76
2 .74 20-80
3 .71 51-49
4 .94 47-53
5 .58 41-59
.62 53-47
7 .86 39-61
8 .76 29-71
9 .56 34-66
10 .52 41-59
*All correlations are significant well beyond the .01 level.

48
For the purposes of personality item selection, the raw yieldingU^Unlyinr St:OLCb weie normalized on Ln Ln"Lnormally distributed in the population. (See Table 4).
Analysis of DataThe data were reproduced on IMB cards and were examined on anIBM 7074 computer by an item-analysis program developed by ExaminationServices and Instructional Services, The Pennsylvania State University.The program output yielded bi-serial correlations between endorsementof an item and criterion scores.For the purposes of item selection and cross-validation, the243 subjects were assigned to three groups of 96, 97, and 50 in thefollowing manner. The group of 50 was randomly selected from thetotal population to serve as the factor validation group. The re-maining 193 subjects were ordered on the basis of their conformityscores and then assigned to two groups on an ABBA basis. In thismanner a ugh degree of similarity was achieved between the twodistributions of scores. These latter two groups constituted theempirical item selection group and the cross-validational group.

49
Table 4
Distribution of Raw Scores, Cumulative Frequenciesand Transformed T-Scores (N = 243)
Raw Score DistributionofRaw ScoresCumulativeFrequencyT-Score
22 0 243 8321 1 243 8320 0 242 7619 0 242 7618 2 242 7617 1 240 7316 0 239 7315 1 239 7214 8 238 7013 3 230 6612 7 227 6511 2 220 6310 7 218 63
9 10 211 618 15 201 59
7 4 186 576 17 182 57
5 29 165 554 29 136 523 40 107 482 36 67 44
1 25 31 390 6 6 30
M= 5.08 s2= 15.11

50
Chapter III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This ,.hapter represents a summary of the results obtained inthe effort to adduce personality factors associated with yielding
behavior.The plan of the study entailed empirical item selection againsta conformity criterion, cross-validation of these items, and a factoranalytic investigation of replicated items to identify dimensions ofpersonality.
Results
The program yielded bi-serial correlations for the two groupsof subjects, that is, for the item selection group and the crossvalidational group. The significance of the bi-serial correlationunder the conditions that the exact sampling, distribution is notknown was estimated by the method of R. F. Tate as reported by Walkerand Lev (p. 269, 1953) and is approximately .20 for an N of 100. Acomplete summary of all item-criterion bi-serial correlations for bothsamples of N = 96 and N = 97 appears in Appendix A.Table 5 summarizes those items that ha-re successfully withstoodcrosF-validational procedures. Inasmuch as the correlations were all inthe positive direction, an investigation of the relationship betweenacquiescence and conformity was undertaken. For a sample of 70 persons,

Table 5
Cross-Validated Items
ItemNumberItem Statement
60I am embarrassed bydirty stories.
135I much prefer symmetryto asymmetry.
201I would have been moresuccessful if people hadgiven me a fair chance.
282I believe women shouldhave as much sexualfreedom as men.
321I would like to be asoldier.Bi-SerialCorrelation(N . 96)Bi-SerialCorrelation(N97)
.20 .21
.25 .34
.36 .32
.20 .35
.36 .31

52
drawn randomly from the total subject population, a Pearscn product-moment correlation of -.03 was observed. Acquiescence was measured bynumber of positive endorseMents in the first 300 personality items.In addition, tetrachoric intercorrelations of the items whichwithstood validaciJn were undertaken. They are reported below in
Table 6.Inspection of these relationships do not suggest any singleunderlying dimension. However, because of the limited reliability ofthe tetrachoric correlation, interpretations must necessarily be
cautious.Subsequent studies might employ these items as a point ofdeparture by elaborating on the item themes represented here.Becalme of the dearth of replicated items, factor analyticprocedures could not be implemented. The study then constituted afailure in the effort to identify personality factors operating inyielding behavior.The effort to establish a relationship between yielding and per-sonality by examining the Independence of Judgment Scale items andCrutchfield Con-'nmity items, as scales, encountered a similar fate.The findings on two samples of 50 each drawn randomly from the totalsubject population is summarized below in Table 7.
Discussion
The current status of the personality-conformity literaturesuggested the research strategy undertaken here. The equivocality,the inconclusiveness, and the only occasional and isolated positive

53
Table 6
Tetrachoric Intercorrelations for Validated Items(N = 70)
Item 60Item 135Item 201Item 282Item 321
Item 60Item 135Item 201Item 282Item 321.05**-1.00
– .08
.21-.03
-.03
.16.26
.52-,03
*Items are given in Table 5.**This correlation is spurious because of absence ofobservations in one of the cells.

54
Table 7
Correlations BetweenBarron Independence of Judgment Scale (IJS),Crutchfield Conformity Items (CCI) and Conformityin Two Samples
I II(N = 50) (N = 50)
IJS .278 .096
CCI .150 .139
*p4.05

55
results relating personality to yielding behavior dictated the needfor a basic study devoted to the identification and validation ofpersonality factors present in the yielding situation.The study reported here was one that responded to this need.Stringent requirements such as large groups of subjects, cross-validation of personality items, and a validation of extractedfactors represented the original intent of the study. The study,despite its failure to confirm a relationship between personality andyielding, contained methodological attributes generally not found inthe personality-conformity literature. One may speculate that someof the significant findings reported elsewhere failed to appear herebecause of these vigorous methodological demands.In view of the negative results, the present study also does riotafford an unequivocal answer to the question of personality factorsoperating in conformity behavior. The finding that only a few itemsare sustained in cross-validation, makes it impossible to decidewhether the negative outcome was a result of the unreliability of thepersonality items, or represents a disconfirmation of the guidinghypothesis that personality accounts for part of the variance in con-formity behavior.The position taken here is that it is indeed difficult to con-ceive of social situations, such as the conformity setting, as nothaving personality components. That position would be alien to thepsychologist who readily recognizes that social behavior alwaysrepresents an interaction between the personality organization of theindividual and the demands of the environment. Therefore, to dismiss

36
personality or sociil needs of the individual as a deteLminant of be-havior is to assert a wholly mechanistic position where there are noindividual differences and where the stimulus completely determinesthe response.In other words, it seems more reasonable to believethat the lack of an observed relationship is due to the unreliabilityof an item, rather than the lack of any true relationship.On the other hand, one might argue that the five items found tobe related to conformity are not only very reliable but are alsorepresentative of some facets of the personality of the conformist.Then, it would therefore appear worthwhile in future research to pur-sue the development of items similar to those reported above inTable 5 and assess their relationship to yielding behavior.The primary intent of the study was to identify the dimensionsof personality present in the conformity situation, and not to con-struct an inventory for discriminating yielders from non-yielders.However, the possibility that unreliable individual items grouped andexamined as a single inventory score might discriminate yielders fromnon-yielders could not be overlooked.Therefore, another cross-validational study was undertaken.Sixty-seven items had been identified in the initial item selectionsample as significantly related to conformity. Individuals in thesecond cross-validational sample were given a score based on theirresponses to these 67 items. These scores were then correlated withconformity and the observed correlation was -.06. Consequentlyneither single items nor the inventory score yielded significant re-lationships with conformity.

57
Further research might consider other techniques of assessing
personality.These might well include peer ratings, standardizedsituations, objective performance tests, and observer ratings of inter-
personal behavior.In addition to the issue of the unreliability of personalitymeasurements, one must also consider the problem of intensity of
situational demands. There are instances no doubt where these demandsare so great that individual differences in personality have no impact
on outcomes.A crude analogy would be the assessment of prize-fighters' abilities to withstand blows of an opponent by hitting them
with a sledge hammer. All the prize fighters would fall down.Consequently, in investigations of individual differences,situations must be selected that permit differences to emerge. Inpsychophysics, for example, individual differences in weight dis-crimination do not emerge when the discrimination task is made too
difficult.A range of acceptable difficulty must be found. Possibly,
more subtle situational manipulations such as a less severely dis-torted norm, might have yielded a different distribution of scoreswhich then, in turn, could have been related to personality measures.Selection of the simulated norm, of course, represents thekeystone of this kind of conformity research. The simulated norm mustbe chosen so that it is beyond the limits of acceptable error, but at
the same time not absurd.Another point seems worth noting. An examination of the per-centages of individuals in the total sample yielding consistently onall seven trials, six trials, five trials, four trials, etc., provides

58
the data given in Table 8. It shows that only 2 per cent of thesample conformed over all the critical trials while only 2 per centremained independent over all trials. Fifty-eight per cent yielded
on three or more critical trials.For the most part, individuals in the conflict situation some-times resolve the conflict in the direction of group influence, andsometimes iv the direction of their own independent perceptions.While the Table gives evidence for some consistency in response, itmay be of interest in future research to study vacillation in yieldingand non-yielding behavior.

59
Table 8
Percentages of Subjects Conforming at Critical Trials(N = 243)
Number ofCritical TrialsPercentage
0 02
1 12
2 27
3 21
4 16
5 10
6 09
7 02

60
Chapte- IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the study was to define the personality factorsassociated with conformity behavior, and to seek their validation.The .relationship between personality and conformity, although thesubject of a large literature, is not fully determined andopportunities for clarifying research existed. The study was directedtowards accounting for that portion of the variance in conformitybehavior which may be attributed to personality factors. Individualdifferences in conformity are the consequences of a wide range ofvariables sucas intelligence, sex, age, etc., but the attention herewas focused on the personality domain u conformity behavior.Conformity behavior has been defined as the modification of aperson's position on some issue, attitude, opinion, etc., as afunction of social influence. Generally, there have been three majorareas of research in the literature of conformity : (1) studies havebeen directed toward specifying the situational variables influencingthe conformity response; (2) other research has been directed towardexamining the generality of the conformity response; and (3) of primeconcern here, the personality attributes of the conformist have beenstudied.
The research literature in this latter area is equivocal, andformed the background for the present effort to clarify the confusedrelationship between the personality domain and conformity currentlyexisting in the literature.

61
Summary
A large pool of personality item statements(N = 257) in Yes-Noformat were administered to 243 males subjects who were unaware thatthe personality portion of the study was related to an investigation
of conformity. These subjects then participated in a laboratory con-
formity situation. The laboratory situation represented a modifiedAsch (1951) situation and employed electrical communication consolessimilar in construction to those of Crutchfield (1955) and Tuddenham
(1956).The stimulus materials were line drawings. Subjects wererequired to select, in turn, one of nine comparison stimuli as beingidentical to a standard stimule,. On critical trials, the experimentersimulated responses such that the subject received information,apparently the responses of othel subjects, contrary to his own per-
ceptions.Scores for each subject were determined by assessing thedeparture from a veridical perception in the direction of the ex-perimenter's simulated norm.Subjects were then constituted ato three groups of 96, 97, and
50 persons.The first two groups represented an empirical item-selection group with laboratory performance serving as the criterionand a cross-validation group respectively. The latter group of 50persons was held in abeyance for validating factor scores derived froma factor analysis of the replicated items. However, factor analyticinvestigation could not be pursued because of the failure to identifya significant number of replicated items.A theoretical discussion of the implications of the failure wasundertaken and suggestions for further study offered.
1

62
Conclusions
The study constituted a failure to establish relationships be-tween the personality domain and conformity behavior. However,reliable individual difference in conformity were in evidence.

63
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W., The Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology,in The Handbook of Social Psychology, V.I Gardner Lindzey (Ed.).Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Cambridge: 1954.Allport, G. W., Pattern and Growth in Personality, New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.Appley, M. J. and Moeller, G., Conforming behavior and personalityvariables in college women, Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 1963, 66, 284-290.Asch, S. E., Effects of group pressure upon the modification anddistortion of judgments, Groups, Leadershipand_Mbn, HaroldGuetzkow (Ed.) Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh: 1951.Asch, S. E., Social Psychology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall,1952.Barber, T. X., Death by suggestion: A critical )te, PsychosomaticMedicine, Vol. XXIII, No. 2, March-April, 1961.Barber, T. X. and Calverly, D. S., Hypnotic behavior as a function oftask motivation, Journal of Psychology, 1962, 54, 363-389.Barber, T. X. and Calverly, D. S., Hypnotic-like suggestibility inchildren and adults, Journal of Abnormal Social 1963,66, 589-597.Barron, F., Some personality correlates of independence of judgment,Journal of Personality, 1953, 21, 287-297.Beloff, H., Two forms of social conformity: acquiescence and con-ventionality, Journal of Abnormal and. Social Psychology, 1558,56, 99-104.Bernardin, A. C. and Jessor R., A construct validation of the EdwardsPersonal Preference Schedule with respect to dependency, Journalof Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 68-72.Blake, R. R., Nelson, H. and Mouton, J. S., The generality of con-formity behavior as a function of factual anchorage, difficultyof task, and amount of social pressure, Journal of Personality,1956, 25, 294-305.Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S., Personality, Annual Review ofPsychology, P. R. Farnsworth and Q. McNemar (Eds.) Palo Alto:Annual Reviews, 1959.

Bovard, E. W., Jr., Social norms and the individual, Journal of Ab-normal and Social Psychology, 1948, 43, 62-69.
Campbell, D. T.havioraland B. M.64
,Conformity in psychology's theories of acquired he-dispositions, in Conformity and Deviation, I. A. BergBass (Eds.) New York: Harper and Bros., 1961.Cronbach, L. J., Response sets and test validity, Educational andPsychology Measurement, 1946, 6, 475-494.Crutchfield, R. S., Conformity and character, American Psychologist,1955, 10, 191-198.Deutsch, M. and Gerard H., A study of normative and informationalsocial ilfluences upon individual judgment, Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 629-636.DiVesta, F. J. and Cox, L., Some dispositional correlates of conformitybehavior, Journal of Social Psychology, 1960, 52, 259-268.Endier, N. S., Conformity analyzed and related to personality, Journalof Social Psychology, 1961, 53, 271-283.Farber, S. H. and Wilson, R. H. L., (Eds.), Control of the Mind, NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.Foster, R. J., Acquiescent response set as a measure of acquiescence,Journal of Abnormal and Social psycholoa, 1961, 63, 155-160.Gisvold, D., A validity study of autonomy and deference subscales ofthe APPS, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 445-447.Gorfein, D., Conformity behavior and the authoritarian personality,Journal of Social Psychology, 1961, 53, 121-125.Hollander, E. P., Reconsidering the issue of conformity in personality,in Perspectives in Personality Research, H. P. David and J. C.Brengelmann, (Eds.) New York: Springer Publishing Company,Inc., 1960.Izard, E., Personality characteristics associated with resistance tochange, journal cf Consulting Psychology., 1960, 24, 437-440.Jackson, D. N., Independence and resistance to perceptual field forces,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 279-281.
Jackson, D. N., Assessing conformity with desirability judgments.Mimeographed manuscript, The Pennsylvania State University, 1961.Janis, I., Hovland, C. I., Field, P. B., Linton,A. R., Rife, D., Abelson, R. P., Lesser, G.Personality and Persuasibility, New Haven:Press, 1959.H., Graham, E., Cohen,S., and King, B. T.,Yale University

65
Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S. and Ballachey, E., Individual in Society,New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.Linton, H. B., Correlates in perception, attitudes, and judgment,Journal, of Abnormal and Social Psychology., 1955, 51, 502-507,Marlow, D. and Crowne, D. P., Social desirability andceived structural demands, Journaltiny_Ey1961, 25, 109-115.response to per-, a Ps cholo ,
Meerloo, Joost A. M., The Rape of the Mind, New York:Compary, 1956.World Publishing
Nadler, E. B., Yielding, authoritarianism and authoritarian ideologyregarding groups, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1959, 58, 408-410.Packard, V., The Hidden Persuaders, New York: D. McKay Company, 1957.Rosner, S., Consistency of response to group pressures, Journal ofAbnormal apd Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 145-146.Sargent, W., Battle for the Mind, Baltimore: Doubleday and Company,Inc., 1957.Sechrest, L. B. and Jackson, D. N., Deviant re-ponse tendencies: Theirmeasurement and interpretation. Paper read at AmericanPsychological Association, Chicago, Septemoer, 1960.Sherif, M., A study of some social factors in perception, Archives ofPsychology, 1935, No. 187.Strickland, Bonnie R. and Crown, D. P., Conformity under conditions ofsimulated group pressure as a function of the need for socialapproval, Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 58, 171-181.Tuddenham, R. D., Macbride, P., and Zahn, J., Studies in conformityand yielding: I. Development of standard experimental series,Technical Report 1, Contract NR 170-159, University ofCalifornia, 1956.Tuddenham, R. D., Studies in conformity and yielding: II. The influenceupon judgment of a grossly distorted norm, Technical Report II,Contract NR 170-159, University of California, 1957.Tuddenham, R. D., Macbride, P., and Zahn, P., Studies in conformityand yielding: IV. The sex composition of the group as adeterminant of yielding to a distorted norm, Technical Report 4,Contract NR 170-159, University of California, 1958, A.Tuddenham, R. D., Studies in conformity and yielding: V. The influenceupon judgment of an avowedly distorted norm, Technical Report 5,Contract NR 170-159, University of California, 1958, B.

Tuddenham, R. D., Studies in conformity and yielding: VI. The influenceupon judgment of a moderately distorted norm, TechnisalBuort62Contract NR 170-159, University of California, 1958, C.Tuddenham, R. D., Studies in conformity and yielding: VII. The in-fluence upon judgment of a genuine group norm, Technical Report7, Contract NR 170-159, University of California, 1958, D.Tuddenham, R. D., Studies in conformity and yielding: VIII. Somecorrelates of yielding to a distorted group norm, Technical Re-port 8, Contract NR 170-159, University of California, 1958, E.Tuddenham, R. D., Studies in conformity and yielding: IX. The yieldingexperiment from the point of view of the subject, TechnicalReport 9, Contract NR 170-159, University of California, 1958, F.
Tuddenham, R. D., Studies in conformity and yielding: A summary andinterpretation, Technical Report, Contract NR 170-159, Universityof California, 1961.Walker, H. M. and Lev, J., Statistical Inference, New York: Holt andCompany, 1953.Walter, N., A study of effects of conflicting suggestions upon judg-ment of the autokinetic situation, Socimetry, 1955, 18, 138-146.Whyte, W. H., Jr., The Organization Man, New York: Simon and Schuster,1956.

APPENDIX A.Item sources and bi-serial correlations forboth validational groups.

68
APPENDIX A
Item Sources and Bi-Serial Correlationsfor Both Validatior.al Groups
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N.96N.97
1GI usually expect to succeed in -.120.051things I do.
2GI think I would like the work -.112.070of a librarian.
3GI should like to belong to .006.206several clubs or lodges.
4GI fall in and out of love -.435.161rather easily.
5GIf I am not feeling well I am .245.005somewhat cross and grouchy.
6GI often feel as if the world -.013.208was just passing me by.
7GI tend to be oi my guard with -.007.014people who are somewhat morefriendly than I had expected.
8GI become quite irritated when I -.047-.088see someone spit on the side-walk.
9GI gossip a little at times. -.119-.120
10GIn most ways the poor man is .051.275better off than the rich man.
11GIt takes a lot of argument to .015.211convince most people of thetruth.
12GI think I would like the work -.655-.077of a dress designer.

.M1111ItemItemNumberSourceItem N =96N =97
13GWhen a person 'pads" his in- -.207-.163come tax report so as to getout of some of his taxes, itis just as bad as stealingmoney from the government.
14GWhen in a group of people I have .008.004trouble thinking of the rightthings to talk about.
15GThe thought of being in anautomobile accident is veryfrightening to me.-.159-.025
16GIt makes me angry when I hear -.130-.117of someone who has beenwrongly prevented from voting.
17GMost people worry too much about -.109.061sex.
18GBefore I do something I try toconsider how my friends willreact to it.-.247.205
19BI don't understand how men irt .022.178some European countries can beso demonstrative to one another.
20GI would rather be a steady and -.019.082dependable worker than abrilliant but unstable one.
21GI would like to hear a great -.184-.109singer in an opera.
22GMost of the arguments or -.080-.045quarrels I get into are overmatters of principle.
23GI like tall women. .035-.041
24GI have strange and peculiar -.012.047thoughts.

70
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
25GSome of my family have quick .177.084tempers.
26GI wake up fresh And rested .071-.046most mornings.
27GI feel as good now as I ever .028.191have.
28GI have had blank spells in which -.214-.088my activities were interruptedand I did not know what wasgoing on around me.
29GWhen someone does me a wrong .022.054I feel I should pay him backif I can, just for theprinciple of the thing,
30CGCompared to your own self-respect, the respect ofothers means very little.
31GEvery citizen should take thetime to find out about nationalaffairs, even if it means givingup some personal pleasures..174-.027
.178-.027
32GI am fascinated by fire. .152-.030
33GI like adventure stories better .005-.313than romantic stories.
34GSometimes I feel like swearing. -.160.297
35GI like to boast about my -.306-.103achievements every now and then.
36GSometimes I have the same -.115.053dream over and over.
3/CGI always follow the rule: .090-.082business before pleasure.

71
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
38BThe unfinished and the imperfect .063.063often have greater appeal for methan the completed and polished.
39GI cannot keep my mind on onething.
40GI prefer a shower to a bathtub.
41GI like to listen to symphonyorchestra concerts on the radio.
42GI can honestly say that I do notreally mind paying my taxes be-cause I feel that's one of thethings I can do for what I getfrom the community.
43GSometimes I cross the streetjust to avoid meeting someone.
44GSchool teachers complain a lotabout their pay, but it seemsto me that they get as much asthey deserve.
45GIt is hard for me to start aconversation with st-angers.
46GI would like to Le a nurse.
47GIt is very hard for me to tellanyone about myself.
48GOnce a week or oftener I feelsuddenly I.Jt all over, withoutapparent cause.
49BI have seen some things so sadthat I almost felt like crying.
50GWhen i get bo red I like to stirup some excitement.
51GI have very few fears comparedto my friends..082-.090
.297.097
-.011.086
.106.210
-.123.010
-.144.075
-.020.094
.270-.045-.015.175
-018-.053
.024.175
-.195.228
-.208.224

ItemItem ItemNumberSource
52GI must admit that I often do aslittle work as I can get by with.
53GThe average person is not ableto appreciate art and musicvery well.
54GI can be friendly with peoplewho do things which I considerwrong.
55GI feel sure that there is onlyone true religion.
56GI would like the job of aforeign correspondent for anewspaper.
57GIt's a good thing to know peoplein the right places so you canget traffictags, and such thingstaken care of.
58GI usually feel nervous and ill atease at a formal dance or party.
59GThere are a few people who justcannot be trusted.
60GI am embarrassed by dirtystories.
61GI am afraid of deep water.
62GAt times I feel like picking afist fight with someone.
63GAt times I have worn myself outby undertaking too much.
64GIt is hard for me to find any-thing to take about when Imeet a new person.
65GI enjoy a race or game betterwhen I bet on it.72
N.96N =97
-.075-.030
-.101-.160
-.121-.105
-.136.075
.056.047
.128-.063
.095-.050
.157.189
.199.207
.125-.040
.092-.030
.073.098
.073.031
.141.054

73
ItsmItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
66GI must admit I often try to get -.105-.004my own way regardless of whatothers may want.
67CGI often feel as though I have .178.193done something wrong or wicked.
68GI very much like hunting. -.091-.033
69GI always try to consider the .117-.112other fellow's feelings beforeI do something.
70GOnce in a while I laugh at a -.255.083dirty joke.
71CGPeople pretend to care more about .087.268one another than they really do.
72GWomen should not be allowed -.083.238to drink in cocktail bars.
73CGMost people are honest chiefly .160.166through fear of being caught.
74GThe most important things to me .183.264are my duties to my job and tomy fellowman.
75GI certainly feel useless at times. .241 .071
76GI do not always tell the truth. -.098.023
77 I consider a matter from everystandpoint before I make adecision.
78GI read at least ten books a year..118-.080
.208.134
79CGI commonly wonder what hidden .087.110reason another person may havefor doing something nice for me.
80GI have frequently found myself, .178.123when alone, pondering such ab-stract problems as freewill,evil, etc.

ItemItem ItemNumberSource
81GI would disapprove of anyone'sdrinking to the point of in-toxication at a party.
82GI would like to write atechnical bock.
83BCGI like to fool around with newideas, even if they turn outlater tc be a total waste oftime.
84GI doubt whether I would make agood leader.
85GI like to be the center ofattention.
86GWhen things go wrong I some-times blame the other fellcw.
87GI am often said to be hotheaded.
88GThe idea of doing researchappeals to me.
89GI like to be with a crowd whoplays jokes on one another.90GI would do almost anything ona dare.
91GParents are much too easy ontheir children nowadays.92GMaybe some minority groupsdo get rough treatment, butit's no business of nine.93AI find it difficult to get ridof door-to-door salesmen.
94CGI often think, "I wish I were achild again."
95CGI am very careful about my mannerof dress.74
N=96N=97
.107.087
.145-.098'
-.021.165
.074-.056
-.093-.109
.076.224
.159.164
-.085.095
.204-.125
.163.161
-.298-.012
.057-.196
-.073-.049
-.175-.035
.047-.372

75
ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
96BI prefer team games to games .156.103in which one individual competesagainst another.
97GI think I would like to fight in -.152.152a boxing match sometime.
98GSometimes at elections I vote .111.-.026for men about whom, I know verylittle.
99GI take a rather serious attitude .082-.033toward ethical and moral issues.
100AAt a dull party I initiate -.017-.169activities to enliven it.
101GI seem to be about as capable -.242-.043and smart as most othersaround me.
102GI think Lincoln was greater -.186.145than Washington.
103GI have often met people who .172-.057were supposed to be expertswho were no better than I.
104GI would like to belong to a -.168.070discussion and study club.
105GA person does not need to .221-.043worry about other people ifonly he looks after himself.
106GI would be ashamed not to use .006.228my privilege of voting.
107GMost people are secretly -.015.077pleased when someone else getsinto trouble.
108GI like to keep people guessing .119-.057what I'm going to do next.
109CGWhen I meet a stranger I often -.015.018think that he is better than I am.

76
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
110GI am certainly lacking in self- -.105-.050confidence.
111GOne of my aims in life is to -.078.023accomplish something that wouldmake my mother proud of me.
112GSometimes I feel that I am about -.000.203to go to pieces.
113GI am so touchy on some subjects ,185-.016that I can't talk about them.
114GI like parties and socials. -.021.036
115GI do not mind taking orders -.025.076and being told what to do.
116GMy home life was always happy. -.108-.068
117GMy way of doing things is apt .116.040to be misunderstood by others.
118GIf given the chance I would make .037-.044a good leader of people.
119GMy sleep is fitful and disturbed. -.029-.166
120GFor most questions there is just -.124.201one right answer, once a personis able to get all the facts.
121GIt makes me uncomfortable to .028.206put on a stunt at a party evenwhen others are doing the samesort of thing.
122CGI don't like to work-on a prob- -.002-.067lem unless there is apossibility of coming out witha clear-cut and unambiguousanswer.
123GSometimes without any reason -.011.155or even when things are goingwrong I feel excitedly happy,"on top of the world."

77
ItemItem ItemNumberSourceN =9 6N=97
124GEvery now and then I get into -.041-.125a bad mood, and no one can doanything to please me.
125GI have often been frightened in .039.146the middle of the night.
126GI'm not the type to be a -.012-.074political leader.
127GThe trouble with many people -.176.024is that they don't take thingsseriously enough.
128AAs a youngster I was a "goat" .087-.018or the "butt" of jokes.
129GI work under a great deal of .150-.154tension.
130GThere seems to be a lump in -.059-.022my throat much of the time.
131GMy skin seems to be unusually -.009.067sensitive to touch.132GI would be very unhappy if I -.061.095was not successful at somethingI had seriously started to do.133GThe man who provides temptation -.341.082by leaving valuable propertyunprotected is about as muchto blame for its theft as theone who steals it.134GI often think about how I look -.095.164and what impression I ammaking upon others.
135GI much prefer symmetry to .251.335asymmetry.
136 I get nervous when I have toask someone for a job.-.010.053

78
ItemItem Item N=96N=97 NumberSource
137GMy parents wanted me to "make -.002.026good" in the world.138GAny man who is able and willing .044.247to work hard has a good chanceof succeeding.
139GI would be willing to give money -.081.022myself in order to right awrong, even though I was notmixed up in it in the first place.140GWhen I am feeling very happy -.069-.023and active someone who isblue or low will spoil it all.141GI sweat very easily even on .066-.123cool days.142GPeople who seem unsure and -.113-.111uncertain about things makeme feel uncomfortable.143GPeople often talk about me .063.149behind my back.
144GEven though I am sure I am in -.081-.037the right, I usually give inbecause it is foolish tocause trouble.
145GSociety owes a lot more to the .135-.137businessman and the manu-facturer than it does to theartist and the professor.
146GNo one seems to understand me..063.129147GIf I get too much change in a -.021.125store, I always give it back.148BScience should have as much to -.006.090say about moral values asreligion does.
149GI like to read about science. .212-.032

79
ItemItem Item N=96N =97NumberSource
150GI must admit I am a prettyfair talker.
151GA strong person will be ableto make up his mind even onthe most difficult questions.
152GI find it easy to "drop" or"break" with a friend.
153GI like to eat my meals quicklyand not spend a lot of time atthe table visiting and talking.154AIf lost on an automobile tripwith friends, I make thesuggestion as to what road tofollow.
155GI usually try to do what isexpected of me, and to avoidcriticism.
156GMost of the time I feel happy.
157GI have strong politicalopinions.158GI dislike to have to talk infront of a group of people.
159AI take an active part inassisting at the scene of anaccident.160GI would fight if someone triedto take my rights away.161GIf I saw some children hurtinganother child, I am sure Iwould try to make them stop.162GI get all the sympathy I should.163GMy table manners are notquite as good at home as whenI am out in company.-.069.082
.244-.016
-.093-.062
-.014-.069
-.214.002
-.105.179
.045-.091
.083-.097
.016.227
-.111-.055
.040.112
.078.009
-.017-.077
-.051.000

80
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N =96N =97
164GFrom time to time I like to .125.220get completely away from workand anything that reminds meof it.
165GI must admit I have no great .283.127desire to learn new things.
166GWhen a man is with a woman he -.251-.132is usually thinking aboutthings related to her sex.
167GI had my own way as a child. .064-.249
168GI have a natural talent for in- .103-.070fluencing people.
169GI like to read about history. -.075.294
170GI dread the thought of an -.132.063earthquake.
171AIf someone tries to push ahead .192.014of me in line, I tell him off.
172GThe members of my family were .366.174always very close to each other.
173CGA person needs to "show off" a -.162-.114little now and then.
174GI feel uneasy indoors. .037-.002
175GPeople have a real duty to -.056-.102take care of their agedparents, even if it meansmaking some pretty Lagsacrifices.
176GI find that a well-ordered mode -.223-.014of life with regular hours iscongenial to my temperPmant.
177GMost people inwardly dislike -.022-.147putting themselves out tohelp other people.

81
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N =96N =97
178GAlmost every day something .072-.083happens to frighten me.
179GI have used alcohol excessively. -.093-.066
180GMy parents never really under- .020 .39stood me.
181GIf the pay was right I would .048.199like to travel with a circusor carnival.
182GI get sort of annoyed withwriters who go out of theirway to use strange and un-usual words.-.090-.011
183GI have more trouble concen- .026-.031trating than others seem to have.
184GThere are times when I have .007.247been discouraged.
185GMy family has objected to the .162-.001kind of work I do, or plan to do.
186AIn a store when a clerk over- .208-.163looks me and waits on someoneelse, I call his attention to it.
187CGI am often so annoyed when .129-.061someone tries to get ahead ofme in a line of people that Ispeak to him about it.
188GI refuse to play some games .186-.221because I am not good at them.
189AI become irritated with bossy -.090.095chairmen at meetings.
190CGI am often bothered by useless .111.008thoughts which keep runningthrough my head.

82
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
191GI must admit thac it makes me .013-.102angry when other people inter-fere with my daily activity.
192GI am a very ticklish person. .063-.060
193GI must admit it would bother .228-.032me to put a worm on a fish hook.194GMost young people get too much .000.016education.
195GI like to talk before groups .119-.174of people.
196GI almost never go to sleep. -.077-.252
197
198I do not like to loan my things -.154.031to people who are careless inthe way they take care of them.I have no fear of water. .013.072
199GI like to plan out my -.154.020activities in advance.
200GI like science. .237-.222
201GI would have been more success- .361.317ful if people had given me afair chance.
202AI do not have patience with .057-.377minor officials.
203GI have never done any heavy -.027-.012drinking.
204GIt is annoying to listen toa lecturer who cannot seem tomake up his mind as to what hereally believes.-.152-.244
205GI would be uncomfortable in .054.060anything other than fairlyconventional dress.1

83
ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
206GEven when I have gotten into -.024-.014trouble I was usually tryingto do the right thing.
207BThe happy person tends always .186.106to be poised, courteous, out-going, and emotionally controlled.
208GI have reason for feelingjealous of one or moremembers of my family.
209AIn class I comment on otherstudent's erroneous state-ments..061-.010
.090-.243
210GI have been afraid of things -.185.075or people that I knew couldnot hurt me.
211GIt is hard for me to sympathize .021.103with someone who is alwaysdoubting and unsure about things.
212GI often start things I never -.056.054finish.
213GAt times I have been very -.256-.021anxious to get away from myfamily.
214GIf people had not had it in -.112.166for me I would have beenmuch more successful.
215GMy parents were always very .031.267strict and stern with me.
216GI am bothered by people out- -.067.138side, on streetcars, in stores,etc., watching me.
217GI enjoy many different kinds -.026.158of play and recreation.
218GA person is better off if he -.099-.132doesn't trust anyone

ItemItemNumberSourceItem
219GI set a high standard for my-self and I feel others shoulddo the same.
220GEducation is more importantthan most people Clink.
221GIt is very important to me tohave enough friends and sociallife.
222GI sometimes wanted to run awayfrom home.
223GI think I would like to he-long to a singing club.
224AI maintain my views in con-versing with older people, whomI respect, who assert opinionsdifferent than mine.
225CGIt is all right to get aroundthe law if you don't actuallybreak it.
226CGOnce I have my mind made up Iseldom change it.
227GI get pretty discourasadwith the law when a smartlawyer gets a criminal free.
228GLife usually hands me apretty raw deal.
229AI usually initiate groupdiscussion.
230GWe should cut down on our useof oil, if necessary, so thatthere will be plenty leftfor the people fifty or ahundred years from now.
231GI usually feel that life isworthwhile.84
N=96N =9 7
-.023-.033
-.142.068
-.121.390
-.063-.016
-.049-.139
.280-.037
-.047.295
.135-.174
-.135-.036
.270.021
.183-.063
-.274.132
-.169.322

ItemItem ItemNumberSource
232GI have never deliberatelytold a lie.
233GLawbreakers are almostalways caught and punished.
234GI do not read every editorialin the newspaper every day.
235GI don't think I'm quite ashappy as others seem to be.
236GI sometimes feel that I do notdeserve as good a life rs I have.
237GIf I am driving a car, I try tokeep others from passing me.
238GIt bothers me when somethingunexpected interrupts mydaily routine.
239GI must admit that I am a high-strung person.
240GWhen the community makes a de-cision, it is up to a personto help carry it out even ifhe had been against it.
241GI have a great deal of stomachtrouble.
242GIt seems that people used tohave more fun than they do now.
243BA person should not probe toodeeply into his own and otherpeople's feelings, but takethings as they are.
244GA strong person doesn't showhis emotions and feelings.
245GPeople pretend to care moreabout one another than theyreally do.85
N=96N=97
.114-.057
-.121-.164
-.114.075
-.012.201
-.138.094
-.065-.167
.057.008
.292.066
-.166.138
.052-.067
.041-.162
-.123.249
.187-.233
-.032-.079

86
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource.
246GEverything tastes the same. .05.7-.038
247GIn school most teachers treated .493.272me fairly and honestly.
248BWhat this country needs most, -.072-.007more than laws and politicalprograms, is a few courageous,tireless, devoted leaders inwhom the people can put theirfaith.
249GMy people treat me more like a .041.045child than a grown-up,250CGAt times I have been so enter-tained by the cleverness of acrook that I have hoped he wouldget by with it,
251GI often get disgusted with my- -.102.122self.
252GI must admit that people some- -.029-.047times disappoint me.
253GIn school I found it very hard -.080.190to talk before the class.
254GSometimes 1 feel like smashing -.098.236things.
255GSometimes I used to feel that -.144.033I would like to leave home.
256GI have no patience with people .047-.029who believe there is only onetrue religion.
257GI always tried to make the best -.111.031school grades that I could.
258 I have often gone against my -.117-.056parents wishes.

87
ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
259GI think I would like the work -.164-.024of a clerk in a large depart-ment store.
260GI usually don't like to talk -.063.147much unless I am with peopleI know very well.
261GI think I would like the work .012-.076of a garage mechanic.
262GOur thinking would be a lot -.215-.130better off if we would justforget about worts like"probably," "approximately,"and "perhaps."
263GI often do whatever makes me -.090.119feel cheerful here and now, evenat the cost of some distant goal.
264GIt is hard for me to act natural -.008.153when 1 am with new people.
265AI find it difficult to say "No" -.108.096to salesmen.
266GI am a better talker than a .116-.087listener.
267GAs a child I used to be able to -.083-.084go to my parents with myproblems.
268GI hate to be interrupted when I .042-.163am working on something.
269GI want to be an important person -.093.002in the community.
270 I have a very strong desire to -.034-.089be a success in the world.
271GI have nightmares every few .134.042nights.

88
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N =96N =97
272GI often get feelings like -.089.125crawling, burning, tingling,or "going to sleep" indifferent parts of my body.
273GI liked "Alice in Wonderland" -.136.200by Lewis Carroll.
274GI am afraid to be alone in the -.111.031dark.
275GUsually I would prefer to work -.057.088with women.
276CGSometimes I rather enjoy going .032-.011against the rules and doingthings I'm not supposed to.
277GIt is pretty easy for people to .056-.094win arguments with me.
278GI am sometimes cross and grouchy -.022.048without any good reason.
279GSuccess is a matter of will .125.201power.
280GI enjoy planning things, and de- .075.030ciding what each person should do.
281GI doubt if anyone is really happy. .270.034
282GI believe women should have as .203.352much sexual freedom as men.
283GMost people would be better off -.110-.038if they never went to schoolat all.
284GI like to have a place for every- .189.039thing and everything in its place.
285GI am bothered by acid stomach .093-.039several times a week.
286GClever, sarcastic people make me .087.056feel very uncomfortable.

89
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N =96N =97
287BI acquired a strong interest in -.086.109intellectual and aestheticmatters from my mother.
288AIf I see someone with a familiar .160.062face in a public place I inquireas to weather we have met before.
289GI never seem to get hungry. .074-.142
290AI expend a great deal of energy .060.177in extra-curricular activities.
291GA person should adapt his ideas -.020.000and his behavior to the groupthat happens to be with himat the time.
292GAs long as a person votes every .168-.038four years, he has done hisduty as a citizen.
293BI must admit that I would find -.213.261it hard to have for a closefriend a person whose mannersor appearance made him somewhatrepulsive, no matter howbrilliant he might be.
294GI feel like giving up quickly .011.187when things go wrong.
295 .t like to give orders and get .141.213things moving.
296GI must admit I try to see what -.081-.115others think before I take astand.
297GI'm pretty sure I know how we .284-.072can settle the internationalproblems we face today.I always try to do at least a .022 298G .075little better than what isexpected of me.

90
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
299GThere have been a few times when .050.109I have been very mean to anotherperson.300GI must admit that I have a bad .137.027temper, once I get angry.
301GI have had attacks in which I .119-.137could not control my movementsor speech, but in which I knewwhat was going on around me.302GI always see to it that my work -.117-.137is carefully planned and organized.
303GThe future is too uncertain for .119.008a person to make serious plans.304GPeople can pretty easily change .103-.027me even though I thought thatmy mind was already made up ona subject.
305GI have never been in trouble .106.180with the law.
306GIn school I was sometimes -.130-.111sent to the principal forcutting up.
307GPeople often expect too much .023.113of me.308GI like to go to parties and .013.190other affairs where there islots of loud fun.
309GIn a group of people I would not -.075.318be embarrassed to be called uponto start a discussion or give anopinion about something I knowwell.310AI feel that professors frequent- .275-.053ly talk too much in class andprevent me from expressin myown views.

91
ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
311AIf dissatisfied with the service .227-.061in a restaurant, I make thisdissatisfaction known.
312BI would rather have a few intense -.065-.004friendships than a great manyfriendly but casual relation-ships.
313GI do not like to see people 02,.034carelessly dressed.
314GWith things going as they are, .152-.023it's pretty hard to keep uphope of amounting to something.
315GI would like to be a journalist. -.146.179
316AI avoid people who are -.261.017dictatorial and domineering.
317CGIt is unusual for me to ex- .116.137press strong approval or dis-approval of the actions of others.
318 I have had very peculiar andstrange experiences.-.077.169
319GA person who doesn't vote is -.078-.072not a good citizen.
320GSome people exaggerate their -.073.343troubles in order to getsympathy.
321GI would like to be a soldier. .359.312322GI like to plan a home studyschedule and then follow it.-.079.167
323GI have sometimes stayed away .141.046from another person because Ifeared doing or saying somethingthat I might regret afterwards.
324GI sometimes pretend to know -.029.141more than I really do.

92
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
325GI am quite often not in on the .041.033gossip and talk of the groupI belong to.
326GI enjoy social gatherings .036.346just to be with people.
327GSometimes I feel as if I must -.083.054injure either myself or some-one else.328GI think I would like the work -.087-.061of a school teacher.
329GI would rather go without .105.109something than ask for a favor.330GIt's no use worrying my head .260-.071about public affairs; I can'tdo anything about them anyhow.
331GIn school my marks in deport- -.085-.117ment were quite regularly bad.
332GI am apt to show off in some -.124-.106way if I get the chance.
333GI keep out of trouble at all .038-.028costs.
334GSometimes I just can't seem to -.011.262get going.
335GWe ought to pay our elected .175.227officials better than we do.
336GMost people will use somewhat -.188.285unfair means to gain profit oran advantage rather than tolose it.
337GI am somewhat afraid of the dark. -.023-.225338GSometimes I think of things too .056.129bad to talk about.

93
ItemItem Item N=96N =97NumberSource
339GI am inclined to take things -.002-.020hard.
340ADespite the knowledge that my -.112.306opponent is superior in abilityto me in an athletic contest,I am determined to win.
341GI usually take an active part .042-.029in the entertainment at parties.
342GI set a high standard for my- .048.110self and I feel others shoulddo the same.
343GI often feel that I made a wrong -.032.083choice in my occupation.
344GMost people make friends be- -.084.193cause friends are likely to beuseful to them.
345GI seldom or never have dizzy -.239.306spells.
346BWhat the youth needs most is -.106.270strict discipline, rugged determination, and the will towork and fight for family andcountry.
347GI hardly ever get excited or .035.190thrilled.
348GI have a tendency to give up .106.073easily when I meet difficultproblems.
349GI think I would enjoy having -.039.298authority over other people.350GI enjoy hearing lectures on .149.238world affairs.
351GI feel nervous if I have to .070.096meet a lot of people.

94
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N.96N.97
352GI think I would like the work -.026-.045of a building contractor.
353GSeveral times a week I feel as .022-.090if something dreadful is aboutto happen.
354GI can remember "playing sick" -.216-.039to get out of something.
355GI think I am stricter about -.084-.098right and wrong than most people.
356GI think I would like to drive -.150.087a racing car.
357GI am likely not to speak to .026-.008people until they speak to me.
358GTeachers often expect too much .029-.039work from the students.
359GPeople today have forgotten -.130-.034how to feel properly ashamedof themselves.
360CGI wish that I could get over -.010.172worrying about things I havesaid that may have injuredother people's feelings.
361GI would like to see a bull- -.110.009fight in Spain.362GI find it hard to keep my .051.116mind on a task or job.363GI am very slow in making up .084-.191my mind.
364GI frequently notice my hand .046-.061shakes when I try to dosomething.
365GI would like to wear expensive -.167-.014clothes.

9.5
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
366GCriticism or scolding makes me -.139.214very uncomfortable.
367GI have the wanderlust and am .257-.008never happy unless I am roamingor traveling about.
368BYoung people sometimes get re- -.227-.005bellious ideas, but as theygrow up they ought to get overthem and settle down.
369AI feel self-conscious in the .075.030presence of superiors.370GI often act on the spur of the .219.064moment without stopping to think.
371GI think I could do better than .054.047most of the present politiciansif I were in office.372BThe best theory is the one that .086.356has the best practical appli-cations.373GI never make judgments about .141-.239people until I am sure of thefacts.
374GThere is something wrong with a .042.219person who can't take orderswithout getting angry of resent-ful.
375AAt a crowded ballpark I makeremarks which are audible topeople around me..013-.120
376GI do not have a great fear of .044-.048snakes.
377BKindness and generosity are the .063.045most important qualities fora wife to have.

96
ItemItem Item N =96N =97NumberSource
378GMy home life was always very -.081-.081pleasant.
379GDisobedience to any govern- .510.035ment is never justified.
380BI believe you should ignore .057-.067other people's faults and makean effort to get along withalmost everyone.
381GI often wish people would be .018.079more definite about things.
382GI like large, noisy parties. -.047-.040383GI get tired more easily than .087-.010other people seem to.
384BI could cut my moorings–quit -.168-.153my home, my family, and myfriends–without sufferinggreat regrets.
385GI sometimes tease animals. .008-.019
386GVoting is nothing but a -.238.002nusiance.
387CGI am in favor of very strict -.141-.134enforcement of all laws, nomatter what the consequences.
388GI am a good mixer. -.114.034
389GThe future seems hopeless to me. .114-.067390GI must admit I find it very hard -.050.027to work under strict rules andregulations.
391GI like poetry. .053-.054392AI haggle over prices with -.084-.161tradesmen and junkmen.

ItemItem ItemNumberSource
393GI get excited very easily.
394GI would never play cards(poker) with a stranger.
395GI have had no difficultyin starting or holding mybowel movement.
396 My parents have often disapprovedof my friends.
397GIn school I always looked farahead in planning what coursesto take.
398GIt makes me feel like a failurewhen I hear of the success ofsomeone I know well.
399GI dream frequently aboutthings that are best kept tomyself.
400GI have had no difficulty start-ing or holding my urine.
401GI am known as a hard andsteady worker.
402GI don't like things to be un-certain and unpredictable.403GI have a good appet4te.404GI get very nervous if I thinkthat someone is watching me.
405GI always like to keep mythings neat and tidy and ingood order.406GI know who is responsible formost of my troubles.
407GI am quite a fast reader.97
N=96N=97
-.010.005
.101-.158
.063.011
-.140-.044
.177-.045
-.190.174
-.062.006
.023.103
-.121-.024
-.335.093
-.189.197
-.047.001
.010.079
-.059.033
.216.094

98
ItemItem.NumberSourceItem N =96N.96N.97
408GWhen I am cornered I tell that -.088-.007portion of the truth which isnot likely to hurt me.
409GI have no dread of going into -.028-.049a room by myself where otherpeople have already gatheredand are talking.410GI love to go to dances. -.159.163
411GA windstorm terrifies me. -.012.022412AAt a reception or tea I seek .200.012to meet the important personpresent.413GWe ought to worry about ourown country and let the rest ofthe world take care of itself..034-.048
414GI believe we are made setter -.305.168by the trials and hardships oflife.
415GI must admit that I enjoy .032.n23playing practical jokes on people.416CGSometimes I am sure that other .098.073people can tell what I amthinking.
417GI get pretty discouraged -.047.153sometimes.418GIt is always a good thing to .049.015be frank.
419GI don't like to undertake any -.038.033project unless I have a prettygood idea as to how it willturn out.420GI don't blame anyone for trying .107-.118to grab all he can get in thisworld.

99
ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
421GPlanning one's activities in .150-.171advance is very likely to takemost of the fun out of life.422GI was a slow learner in school. .203.145423GIf a parson is clever, enough .124-.251to cheat someone out of alarge sum of money, he oughtto be allowed to keep it.424GA person should not beexpected to do anything for hiscommunity unless he is paid forit.-.068-.147
425GSome of my family have habits -.172-.086that bother and annoy me eerymuch,
426GThere have been times when -.123.193I have been very angry.427GI think most people would like -.015-.012to get ahead.428GI feel that I have often been .153-.028punished without cause.429GThere :lave been times when I -.045.127have worried a lot about some-thing that was not reallyimportant.430GI often lose my temper. .019-.008431GI used to keep a diary. .046.228432GI do not dread seeing a doctor .000.000about a sickness or injury.433GI never worry about my looks. .277-.132434GI have very few quarrels .070.108with members of my family.435GI am made nervous by .001.001certain aninals.

100
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N=96N=97
436GWhen in a group of people I .015.043usually do what the otherswant rather than make sug-gestions.437GEvery family owes it to the .061.160city to keep their sidewalkscleared in the winter and theirlawn mowed in the summer.438GI usually go to the movies .013.004more than once a week.439GI get very tense and anxious -.370.123when I think other people aredisapproving of me.440GMy parents have generally let .303-.036me make my own decisions.441GI would be willing to describe .045.004myself as a pretty. "strong"personality.442GI would like to be an actor on .073-.111the stage or in the movies.
443GI used to like it very much .134-.147when one of my papers wasread to the class in school.444GWhen I work on a committee .213.062I like to take charge of things.
445GI have had more than my share .041.076of things to worry about.446GWe ought to let Europe get out .176-.010of its own mess; it made itsbed, let it lie in it.447GIf I were a reporter I would .107-.105like very much to report newsof the theater.

101
ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
448GI have at one time or another .018-.298in my life tried my hand atwriting poetry.
449GI looked up to my father as -.031-.043an ideal man.
450GThe only interesting part of .084-.170the newspaper is the "funnies."
451GI like mechanics magazines .180-.226
452GOnly a fool would ever vote to .274.033increase his own taxes.
453GMost people would tell a lie if .064.085they could gain by it.
454GAt times I have a strong urge -.001.094to do something harmful orshocking.
455GI don't seem to care what .121-.007happens to me.
456GI wish I were not bothered by .114-.082thoughts about sex.
457GI have often felt guilty be- -.010-.061cause I have pretended tofeel more sorry about some-thing than I really was.
458GI have not lived the right -.071-.166kind of life.
459GI daydream very little. -.155.003
460GIt is more important that a -.064-.038father be kind than that hebe successful.
461CI am not afraid of picking up -.149-.182a disease or germs from door-knobs.

ItemNumber
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469ItemSourceItem
AIn class I state my opinionalthough it may be at oddswith that of the instructor.
GWhen I was going to schoolI played hooky quite often.
GI have been very angry.
GI liked school.There have been times when
GI can't really enjoy, a restor vacation unless I haveearned it by some hard work.
GI feel that I would be a muchbetter person if I could gainmore understanding of myself.
GMy mouth feels dry almost allthe time.GThere are certain people whomI dislike so much that I aminwardly pleased when they arecatching it for something theyhave done.
470BHuman nature being what it is,there will always be war andconflict.
471GI have often found peoplejealous of my good ideas, justbecause they had not thoughtof them first.
472GMy daily life is full of thingsthat keep me interested.
473GThere's no use in doing thingsfor people; you only find thatyou get it in the neck in thelong run.102
N=95N =97
.011-.139
-.112-.215
-.002.113
-.216-.123
-.038-.098
-.004.112
-.117-.279
.010.217
-.122-.151
.250-.117
-.019-.167
.340-.03G

103
ItemItemNumberSourceItem N=96N=97
474BCGPerfect balance is the essence .162.019of all good composition.
475GI seldom worry about my health. -.038.005476GI would rather have people -.006-.201dislike me than look downon me.477GI hardly ever feel pain in the .012.080back of the neck.478GI seem to do things that I .071-.188regret more often than otherpeople do.
479BSome of my friends think that -.005-.057my ideas are impractical, ifnot a bit wild.480AI would solicit funds for a -,015.011cause in which I am interested.481GI am embarrassed with people .035.066I do not know well.
482GAny job is all right with me, .101.163so 'long as it pays well.483GI sometimes feel that I am-a -.098.043burden to others.484GOnly a fool would try to change .185-.203our American way of life.485GWhen prices are high you can't -.087-.111blame a person for getting allhe can while the getting is good.486GThere are times when I act like -.036-.154a coward.487GAs a youngster in school I used -.069-.306to give the teachers lots oftrouble.488GEven the idea of giving a talk .012-.047in public makes me afraid.

ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
489GI have one or more bad habits .083-.031which are so strong that it isno use fighting against them.490GAt times I think I am no good .086.047at all.
491GI go out of my way to meet .006-.190trouble rather than try, toescape it.492GMuch of the time my head seems .084-.120to hurt all over.493GI have been in trouble one or -.256-.180more times because of my sexbehavior.494GIf a person doesn't get a few -.122-.093lucky breaks in life it justmeans that he hasn't been keep-ing his eyes open.495GPeople seem naturally to turn to .248-.019me when decisions have to bemate.496GI would never go out of my way .027-.124to help another person if itmeant giving up some personalpleasure.497GWhen I was a child I didn't care .455-.070to be a member of a crowd organg.498GI never cared much for school. .067.143499GI used to steal sometimes when -.014-.347I was a youngster.500GIt often seems that my life has .116.329no meaning.
501GI am troubled by attacks of .002-.228nausea and vomiting.

105
ItemItem Item N=96N=97NumberSource
502GPeople should not have to pay .035-.050taxes for the schools if theydo not have children.503GThe one to whom I was most -.158.100attached and whom I mostadmired as a child was awoman (mother, sister, aunt,or other woman).504GI think I am usually a leader .004.057in my group.
505GI cannot do anything well. .325-.167506GIn a group, I usually take the -.159-.112responsibility of gettingpeople introduced.
507GMy home as a child was lesspeaceful and quiet than thoseof most other people..011-.115
508GI don't really care whether .155-.283people like me or dislike me.
509GThe things some of my family -.228-.088have done have frightened me.510GI have felt embarrassed over -.139-.070the type of work that one ormore members of my familyhave done.511GI think I would like to belong .038-.003to a motorcycle club.512GI regard the right to speak my .000-.003mind as very important.
513GAs a youngster I was suspended -.128-.268from school one or more timesfor cutting up.514GI have never been in trouble .012.166because of my sex behavior.

106
ItemItem ItemNumberSourceN=96N=97
515GI could be perfectly happy .044-.131without a single friend.
516GA large number of people are -.150.103guilty of bad sexual. conduct.
517GI have never done anything .103-.087dangerous for the thrill of it.
518GI have never seen a vision. -.137-.145
519GIt is impossible for an horest .049-.315man to get ahead in the world.
520GIt is hard for me just to sit .208-.051still and relax.
521GI must admit I feel sort of .096.137scared when I move to a strangeplace.
522GPolice cars should be especially .321-.110marked so that you can alwayssee them coming.
523GI am afraid when I look downfrom a high place.524-.257-.032
It is easy for me to take orders .024.092and do what I am told.
525GI usually have to stop and think -.013-.042before I act even in triflingmatters.
526GI would rather not have very -.095-.099much responsibility for otherpeop
527GI am in favor of a very strict -.040-.048enforcement of all laws, nomatter what the consequences.
Item Source:Allport and Allport (A), Barron (B), Crutchfield (C),Gough (G)

1.07
APPENDIX B.Wiring diagrams for subject and experimenterconsoles.

12.1>24>47>
130>>1621>24>27>30>4>18>21>w2 +>27>30>4>it>21>24>27>30>1->I8.–2%>21>z7>30>4>RESPONSE NC. 1INDICATORS
68K SUBJECT DISPLAYINTERRUPT
AA16115 VAC TC ALLSUBJECT PANELSToALLPANELS
RESPONSE ORDERSELECTORS
SECTIONNO. PARTIAL SCHEMATICEXPERtMENTEWS C0HsoLEDR. BYD J GANNONCK. BYSCALEFN./DATE6 -20-64 CO

RESPONSE INDICATORSRESPONSE3016627815SEQUENCE14.II-11<-13274343597512284460761-1-24405672II-I-I-la<42 1-375369-1-4.22384-5470-1–1–9-
1834506t33193551674-41-:4414431476379
4710136538717477tttt
123456789RESPONS E SELECTORS
SECTIONNO. SUBJECT PANEL SCHEMATIC DR. BY D.J. GANNONCK. BYSCALE°N./DATE 6-14-640Ci