Cur:-4~V\J Major Professor

$Cur:-4~V\J Major Professor$

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF COMPETITION

UPON THE PERSONALITY ADJUSTMENT

OF HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS

APPROVED:

» ' / CUr:-4~V\J Major Professor

or Pfofessor

••r- Director of the Department oy Health, Physical Education and Recreation

Dean of the Graduate School A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF COMPETITION UPON THE PERSONALITY ADJUSTMENT OF HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Theresa Walterscheid, B. S, Denton, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . 1

Statement of the Problem Definition of Terms Purpose of the Study Limitations of the Study- Sources of Data

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9

III. PROCEDURES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY . 18

Preliminary Procedures Selection of the Test Description of the Test Selection of Subjects General Procedures in Test Administration Treatment of Data

IV. ' FINDINGS 25

Discussion of the Findings

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 40

APPENDIX 44

BIBLIOGRAPHY 52

ill LIST OF TABLES

Table Page I. Comparison of Scores from the Basketball Group with Mean Standard Scores of the California Psychological Inventory .... 26 II. Comparison of Scores from the Debate Group with Mean Standard Score of the California Psychological Inventory 28 III. Comparison of Scores from the Drill Team Group with Mean Standard Score of the California Psychological Inventory 30 IV. Comparison of Scores from the Band Group with Mean Standard Score of the California Psychological Inventory 32 V. Comparison of Scores from the Control Group with Mean Standard Score of the California Psychological Inventory 34

IV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page 1. Personality Profile of Basketball Group 46 2. Personality Profile of Debate Group 47 3. Personality Profile of Drill Team Group 48 4. Personality Profile of Band Group 49 5. Personality Profile of Control Group 50 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

American society may be characterized today by competition which is present in all phases of a person's life. The individual reacts to numerous situations with competitive rather than cooperative behavior. Whether this is good or bad, it must be accepted that competition is a factor that is a part of social relationships and it has an effect on every individual. There are varied opinions on the concept of competition and how the competitive impulse develops within'the person. Competition may seem to consist of several and varied characteristics of behavior independent of each other, or it may be considered to be a complete personality trait within itself. The desire to compete or excel may be considered a human trait which develops along an orderly course, or the desire to excel and compete may be related to or determined by the activity in which the person is participating (2, p. 148). It is generally believed that competition is learned, that it is not an inborn tendency (4, p. 578). Humans learn competitive behavior at an earlier age than they learn to cooperate or work toward a group goal (1, p. 33). Because 2 our modern culture is so highly competitive, by the time children enter the elementary school they realize that in order to gain prestige and approval they must be able to do things better than others can do them (4, p. 578). Since the children are a part of this competitive culture, they should be prepared to effectively participate in society during their maturity. Therefore, it would be unrealistic for the school to exist without incorporating the culture's value standards into its curriculum. It is a responsibility of the school and the teachers to assist the children in learning how to compete in the most socially beneficial manner (5, p. 273). Competitive activities that are experienced in school require an intermingling of competitive and cooperative effort analogous to that found in trade, business and other life situations (3, p. 156). Thus the school is a model world, in which the child becomes gradually accustomed to conditions that he will have to face in life.

Besides the many and varied experiences of a competitive nature that the school offers, the child has the opportunity to participate in many competitive activities outside the school environment. One example of this is the controversial athletic programs for very young children that have come about in the last decade and are sponsored by various community service organizations. Many towns have city-wide leagues in football, basketball and softball for children, nine years 3 of age and older. Thus many children at a very early age are placed in highly competitive situations at school as well as other places. [Competition has been shown to increase speeds on learning tasks as well as to increase general performance. So, for most individuals, competition can be said to provide a great incentive for learning. Also an individual's feeling of self- V worth may be greatly enhanced, through achievement in competitive situations. In the type situations which involve conflict between groups, cooperative behavior may be developed within each group. Competitive situations may also foster team work, fair play and sportsmanship (^, p. 579).

This is not to say that only good may be expected, to come from competitive situations. Some types of competition may be detrimental to certain individuals. Competition is not beneficial to those who never succeed and to those who are excluded from the programs. Hostility may become con- nected with competition, as may feelings of inferiority and rejection by those who do not succeed in competition. Some who excel in competitive endeavors may have the tendency to develop a sense of arrogance due to their success. Great harm can come from competitive experiences that are not planned or supervised wisely. There is also a concern about the feelings, attitudes and social behavior associated with competition (*+, p. 579). 4

It can thus be seen that competition can have an im- portant effect on the character development of an individual.

Each competitive activity in which he participates will lead

to the development of change within himself.

Since competition in many activities may play an im-

portant part in the life and. personality development of almost

every person, there is a need, to study the outcomes, either

desirable or undesirable, that might be associated with compe-

titive programs in high school. Such a study might serve as

a basis for justification of existing extra-curricular programs,

and knowledge gained could serve as a guide in planning new

and meaningful experiences for high school students; and indi-

viduals could be channeled into programs that are shown to

further the development of desirable personality traits.

It is hoped, that as a result of this study further

knowledge will be provided for those interested in the effects

of competitive experiences on personality trait development.

Statement of the Problem

This study sought to determine whether significant differ-

ences existed, in the personality traits of high school girls

who had undergone different types of competitive experiences.

Those considered, were interscholastic league basketball, debate,

drill team and. school band.. A group of girls who had not en-

gaged in competition was also included. 5 Definition of Terms The following operative definitions were accepted as applicable to this study:

1. Interscholastic basketball teams.--Persons who are members of a group that play organized basketball games as the representatives of their schools in a pre-planned schedule of games. They participate in organized practice periods under the supervision of a salaried coach.

2. Debate Teams.--Persons who are members of a group that have participated in debate competition as representatives of their schools. They have a pre-planned schedule of competition with representatives from other schools and are under the direction of a faculty sponsor.

3* Drill teams.--Persons who are members of a group that have as their function the performance of drill routines in public and in competitive situations where their performances are judged. Membership and promotion in the group are on the basis of scholastic achievement and performances before judges.

4. School band.--Persons in a school who play musical instruments. This group has participated in individual and. group contests, and, promotion to higher levels within the organization is on a competitive basis. 5. Significant difference.--A difference of such magni- tude that the mean for each group for each personality factor 6 measured by the California Psychological Inventory will fall more than one standard deviation above or below the mean present in the norms for the California Psychological In- ventory. 6. Competition.--participation in an activity in order 1/ to achieve a goal or a superiority that is also being sought by others.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to determine the effect competition of various types had on the personality adjustment of certain high school girls. Specifically the following null hypotheses were tested.:

1. There will be no significant difference in personality traits of girls who have competed on interscholastic basketball teams as compared, to the norms established for the California Psychological Inventory.

2. There will be no significant difference in personality traits of girls who have competed on debate teams as compared to norms established for the California Psycho- logical Inventory. 3. There will be no significant difference in personality traits of girls who have competed on drill teams as compared to norms established for the California Psycho-

* logical Inventory. 7

There will be no significant difference in personality traits of girls who have competed, in the school band, as compared to norms established for the California Psycho- logical Inventory. 5. There will be no significant difference in personality traits of girls who have not experienced formal competition as compared to norms established for the California Psychological Inventory.

Limitations of the Study The study was limited to 121 girls who played on the interscholastic league basketball team, debated with the school debate team, performed with the school drill team, or performed with the school band. The subjects were students at seven high schools in the Denton, Texas, area.

Sources of Data One hundred twenty-one girls presently participating in basketball, band, drill team and. debate competition in seven Texas high schools were the human sources of data in this study.

This chapter presented an introduction to the study. Included were (1) a statement of the problem, (2) definition of terms, (3) purpose of the study, (4) limitations of the study, and (5) sources of data. CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Cratty, Bryant J., Social Dimensions of Physical Activity, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, PrentTce-HalL, Inc., 1967. 2. Dahlstrom, W. Grant, "What Stand on Competition? View of a Psychologist,".Children in Focus: Their Health and. Activity, Yearbook of the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1954. 3. Hein, Fred V. , "What Stand, on Competition? View of a Health Educator," Children in Focus: Their Health and Activity, Yearbook of the American Association for Health, Physical Education and. Recreation, 1954. 4. Layman, Emma M. , "Contributions of Exercise and. Sports to Mental Health and. Social Adjustment," Science and Medicine of Exercise and, Sports, edited , by Warren R. Johnson, New York, Harper and. Brothers Publishers, 1960. 5. Lindgren, Henry C., Mental Health in Education, New York, . Henry Holt and Company, 1954.

8 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A thorough survey of the literature concerning compe-, tition and its role in personality development was undertaken prior to the beginning of this study. Fraleigh, who also had reviewed writings concerning competition, observed that "skill- ful participation in the normal pattern of social and competitive play is generally associated with better adjustment, while participation in individualized, less competitive play is associated with poorer adjustment" (6, p. 495). Along these same lines, Bell (1) found that significant differences existed in some personality traits between girls who had participated in high school interscholastic league basketball and girls who had not played basketball. The girls who had played basketball were less feminine, more impulsive and. had a higher degree of social pressure and self- acceptance than the girls who had not played basketball. The girls who played basketball were selected more frequently by their classmates, both boys and girls, in a sociometric test involving situations of friendship and, leadership than were non-players. The player group also held more elective offices and. participated in more extra-curricular activities than did the non-players. 10 Johnson (10) used two projective tests, the Rorschach and the House-Tree-Person, to see if champion athletes possess certain exceptional personality traits. The tests were administered to twelve national champion athletes, then evaluated by two experienced, psychologists. It was concluded that the champions were easily distinguishable as exceptional when compared to norms that were established, for the tests. The outstanding personality characteristics of, the group were (I) extreme aggression, (2) uncontrolled affect (emotions lacking strict controls), (3) high and generalized anxiety, (4) high level of intellectual aspiration, and (5) exceptional feelings of self-assurance.

Sperling (14) found statistically reliable differences in personality patterns of groups of college males who participated in varsity and, intramural athletics as compared to groups who were non-athletes. The athletes were higher in personality adjustment, extroversion and ascendance, and, lower in theoretical orientation and, aesthetic appreciation. No significant personality trait differences existed between the varsity and intramural groups. Garter and Shannon (4) semi-objectively compared male high school athletes and, non-athletes in regard, to social adjustment and personality traits. The Symonds Adjustment Questionnaire was used as a measure of social adjustment. Each subject was also rated, by his coach, principal and two 11 classroom teachers, using a constructed personality rating form. It was found that the non-athletes excelled in the more "academic" items, such as adjustment to teachers, curriculum, and administration, The athletes excelled in the more "social" items such as social life at school, other 7 J pupils and home and family. The athletes were rated higher on the personality check list than were the non-athletes. Henry (7) investigated personality differences in athletes, physical education students and. aviation students. He used a personality schedule from the Thurstone Neurotic Inventory and ascendance-submission questions. In the extreme groups the physical education students were significantly lower than a group of weight-lifters in total score. They were also lower in traits concerning social intro- version, inferiority, hypersensitivity, and hypochondriac and neurasthenic syndromes. In the intermediate groups the aviators and athletes scored nearly identically. They were more neurasthenic than the physical education majors and less hypochondriac and. introverted, than the weight-lifters. Skubic (13) studied the effects of competition on the emotionality of Little League baseball players. A group of boys who participated in Little League competition was compared^ by means of the Galvanic Skin Response Test, with a group who competed only in physical education class situations. It 12 was found the Little League type competition is no more emotionally stimulating than that experienced, in class. Flemming (5) conducted a study to determine what, if any, traits of personality are associated with the type of girl who is considered to be athletic. To ascertain who the athletic girls were and to get data on the other traits studied, at least three teachers checked a list for each girl, marking each item on the list of forty-six traits, including athletic, that could be attributed to each girl. In order to determine the pleasingness of the personality of each girl, every other girl and three teachers rated each subject on a ten-point scale which indicated the amount of personality that each girl possessed. For a measure of leadership, every position of responsibility that was held by the girls during their three years in high school was considered. It was concluded that among girls of high school age there is a positive tendency for athletic participation to be associated with positive personality traits such as pleasingness of personality and. leadership.

Keogh (11) did a study to more adequately differentiate between the teams athletic participation and motor ability in their relationship to measurable personality traits. One part of the study dealt with the differences in personality characteristics as measured between groups with different levels of athletic participation. Each subject was classified 13 as non-athlete,• intramural athlete, or varsity athlete. The responses of these groups on the California Psychological

Inventory were such that it was concluded that athletic participation on varying levels did not appear to have any effect upon the traits studied.

When Peterson, Weber and Trousdale CI2) compared personality traits of women who had competed in team sports and women who had competed in individual sports, it was found that those who competed as individuals were more dominant, adventurous, sensitive, introverted, radical and self- sufficient. They were found, to be less sophisticated; but no differences were noted between the two groups in sociability, stability, intelligence, conscientiousness, guilt- proneness, suspecting, high self-sentiment, or high ergic tension.

Husman (8) conducted a study that was primarily concerned, with the effects of competition upon boxers, wrestlers, cross- country runners and non-athletes. By using projective techniques, he found that these groups had several distinguishing characteristics. The cross-country runners expressed their aggression more outwardly than did the boxers. The boxers # had less intensity of aggression than did the other groups, but more superego than did the control group. '

Eight members of a college wrestling team were studied by

Hutton and Johnson C9) in order to learil the degree to which participation in a violent sport affects the dynamics of personality. The House-Tree-Person projective type test was given to the eight subjects under three conditions: (1) three weeks prior to the first wrestling match to establish a "normal" personality evaluation for each; (2) four to five hours before the first competitive match of the season to determine the influence of anticipatory stress upon personality dynamics; and (3) the morning after competition. It was concluded that several group tendencies were noted from condition to condition, outstanding among which were decrement of functioning intelligence, increased aggressive feelings and increased neurotic sign before a match.

Booth (3) used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to determine that differences in personality do exist between athletes and. non-athletes, and between par- ticipants in individual sports, in team sports, and in team- individual sports. Bentson and Summerskill (2) studied a group of college students who won varsity letters and a group who did. not win varsity letters in intercollegiate athletics in order to determine whether observable differences in certain aspects of social, health, and scholastic adjustment existed between the groups. They used health data obtained, from the student medical center, scholastic data from college records and social adjustment data from an interview with each subject 15 to draw the following conclusions: (1) success in intercollegiate athletics is related to certain characteristics of athletes which are present upon entering college, (2) success in intercollegiate athletics does not have a generalized effect upon the adjustment of these students, (3) success in intercollegiate athletics increases the risk of injury, (4) success in intercollegiate athletics per se is not related to academic performance, (5) success in intercollegiate athletics is related to attitudes about athletics and self. Letter winners expressed strong feelings of personal satisfaction resulting from their success in varsity competition. They also expressed deep satisfaction with the social interaction and. feelings of team spirit they had experienced. The values which the athletes labeled "character development," "team spirit," "social development," and "ability to accept other people," they felt^were gained through their athletic participation, and they expected them to continue to be of importance.

In reviewing the literature, it.can be concluded that competition can indeed, be a factor 'in personality development. . Further research and study in this area is needed in order that future programs can be developed which will enable the individual to obtain the maximum benefit. CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bell, Mary M. , ''Measurement of Selected Outcomes of Par- ticipation in.Girls' High School Interscholastic Basketball," Dissertation AbstractsXV (1955), 1544. 2. Bentson, T. B. and John Summerslcill, "Relation of Suc- cess in Intercollegiate Athletics to Certain Aspects of Personal Adjustment," Research Quarterly, XXVI (March, 1955), 8-14. 3. Booth, E. G., "Personality Traits of Athletes as Measured by the MMPI," Research Quarterly, XXIX (May, 1958), 127-138. 4. Carter, Gerald C. and J. R. Shannon, "Adjustment and Personality Traits of Athletes and Non-Athletes," School Review, XLVIIII, (1940), 127-130. 5. Flemming, Edwin G., "Personality and the Athletic Girl," School and Society, XXXVIIII (February, 1934), 166-169. 6. Fraleigh, W. P., "The Influence of Play upon Social and Emotional Adjustment with Implications for Physical Education," Dissertation Abstracts, XVI (1956), 495. 7. Henry, Franklin, "Personality Differences in Athletes and Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological Bulletin, XXXVIII (1941), 745. 8. Husman, B. F., "Aggression in Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques," Research Quarterly, XXVI (December, 1955), 421-425. 9. Hutton, Daniel C. and Warren R. Johnson, "Effects of a • .Combative Sport upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Projective Test," Research Quarterly, XXVI (March, 1955), 49-53. 10. Johnson, Warren R., "Personality Traits of Some Champion Athletes as Measured by Two Projective Tests: Rorschach and H-T-P," Research Quarterly, XXV (December, 1954), 484-485. .

16 17 11. Keogh, Jack, "Relationship of Motor Ability and Athletic Participation in Certain Standardized Personality- Measures,11 Research Quarterly, XXX (December, 1959), 438-445. 12. Peterson, Sheri L., Jerome C. Weber, and William W. Trousdale, "Personality Traits of Women in Team Sports vs. Women in Individual Sports," Research Quarterly, XXXVIII (December, 1967), 686-690. 13. Skubic, Elvera, "Emotional Responses of Boys to Little League and Middle League Competitive Baseball," Research Quarterly, XXVI (October, 1955), 342-352. 14. Sperling, Abraham P., "The Relationship Between Person- ality Adjustment and Achievement in Physical Education Activities," Research Quarterly, XIII (October, 1942), 351-363. CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY

The problem of this study was to determine what effect competition of various types played in the personality development and adjustment of high school girls.

Preliminary Procedures As a preliminary procedure literature concerning competition and its role in personality adjustment was thoroughly reviewed. Information was also obtained on various standardized personality tests in order to determine which was the most desirable for use in this study. Previous studies related to the present study were surveyed..

Selection of the Test It was decided that the most practical and the best method, for determining the strength of personality traits of subjects would be through the use of a standardized, personality test. After a review of such available tests, the California Psychological Inventory was chosen. It has been accepted, professionally as one of the best instruments in the area of personality research and. it has been used extensively. The California Psychological Inventory was developed on the

18 19 basis of a series of empirical studies^ and the evidence for the validity of its scales is extensive. The norms for females rest on over 7000 cases, which include a wide range

' # of ages, socioeconomic groups and geographic areas (2, p. 169). Other determining factors in the choice of the California Psychological Inventory are its ease of administering, scoring and interpreting.

Description of the Test The California Psychological Inventory contains 480 items. If the person being tested agrees with a statement

^ {{ JJ; 4 or feels it is true about him, he marks it true. If'he dis- agrees with a statement or feels that it is not true about ft tt . . him, he answers false. The California Psychological Inventory contains eighteen scales, each of which covers one facet of interpersonal psychology. The eighteen scales with a description of each are as follows: 1. Do (dominance).--To assess factors of leadership ability, dominance, persistence, and social initia- tive. 2. Cs (capacity for status).--To serve as an index of an individual's capacity for status (not his actual or achieved status). The scale attempts to measure the personal qualities and attributes which underlie and lead to status. 3. Sy (sociability).--To identify persons of outgoing, sociable, participative temperament. k. Sp (social presence).--To assess factors such as poise, spontaneity, and self-confidence in personal and social interaction. 20 5. Sa (self-acceptance).--To assess factors such as sense of personal worth, self-acceptance, and capacity for independent thinking and action. 6. Wb (sense of well-being).--To identify perlsons who minimize their worries and complaints, and who are relatively free from self-doubts and disillusionment. 7. Re (responsibility).--To identify persons of consci- entious, responsible, and dependable disposition and. temperament. 8. So (socialization).--To indicate the degree of social maturity, integrity, and rectitude which the individual has attained. 9. Sc (self-control).--To assess the degree and adequacy of self-regulation and. self-control and freedom from impulsivity and self-centeredness. 10. To (tolerance).--To identify persons with permissive, accepting, and non-judgmental social beliefs and attitude. 11. Gi (good, impression) .--To identify persons capable of creating a favorable impression and who are concerned. about how others react to them. 12. Cm (communality).--To indicate the degree to which < an individual's reactions and responses correspond to the model ("common") pattern established, for the inventory. 13. Ac (achievement via conformance).--To identify those factors of interest and, motivation which facilitate achievement in any setting where conformance is a positive behavior. Ik. Ai (achievement via independence).--To identify those factors of interest and, motivation which facilitate achievement in any setting where au- tonomy and independence are positive behaviors. 15. Ie (intellectual efficiency).--To indicate the degree of personal and intellectual efficiency which the individual has attained. 21 16-. Py (psychological-mindedness).--To measure the degree to which the individual is interested in, and responsive to, the inner needs, motives, and experiences of others. 17. Fx (flexibility).--To indicate the degree of flexibility and adaptability of a person's thinking and social behavior. 18. Fe (femininity).--To assess the masculinity or femininity of interests (1, pp. 10-11).

Selection of Subjects The subjects consisted of 121 high school girl students at seven high schools in the Denton, Texas, area who were participating in basketball, drill team, band, and debate as well as some who were not involved in any organized competitive situation. The specific schools were Slidell High School, Slidell, Texas; Muenster High School, Muenster, Texas; Sacred Heart High School, Muenster, Texas; L. D. Bell

i High School, Hurst, Texas; Sam Houston High School, Arlington, Texas; Arlington High School, Arlington, Texas; and Nolan High School, Fort Worth, Texas. These particular schools were chosen because they sponsor what is considered to be highly competitive programs in the areas considered. The subjects were selected for the study by using information derived from an information form (Ap- pendix A) that each potential subject completed. The information concerned areas of competition in which each had participated, and from this screening, the girl was either 22 eliminated from the study or placed into the competition group or the control group.

General Procedures in Test Administration Since the California Psychological Inventory is for the most part self-administering and basic instructions are printed on each test booklet, very little instruction was required. Each person who took the test was given a brief explanation concerning the purpose of the study as well as general instructions for taking the test. Groups who had a regularly scheduled meeting time during the day took the test during that class period. Oral instructions were given them by the investigator. Those groups who did not meet as a whole during the day were given the test by their sponsor. Each test booklet was accompanied by a written explanation and instructions from the investigator. These individuals completed the test and returned, it to their sponsor at a later time. Each person who took the test completed at the same time an information form that provided information for determining the various groups.

Treatment of the Data A mean score was determined from the raw scores for each competition group and. then these means were compared to the norms for the California Psychological Inventory in order to ascertain if significant differences were present. 23 This chapter presented the procedures followed in this study. It included (1) preliminary procedures, (2) selection of the test, (3) description of the test, (4) selection of the subjects, (5) general procedures in t&st administration, and (6) treatment of the data. CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Gough, Harrison G., Manual for the California Psycho- logical Inventory, Palo Alto, California, Consulting PsychologistsPress, Inc., 1964. 2. Kelley, E. Lowell, The Sixth Mental Measurements Year- book, edited by Oscar Buros, Highland Park, New Jersey, Gryphon Press, 1965.

2k CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

This chapter presents an analysis and interpretation of the findings of the study. The California Psychological Inventory was administered to 121 high school girls who were participating in basketball, debate, drill team or band competition, as well as one group who had not experienced competition in order to determine whether or not these groups revealed, significant differences in the strength of personality traits as compared to norms established for the test.

The personality profiles for the four competition groups and the control group as compared to the norms are in the Appendix. The mean standard score for each scale is 50, with a standard deviation of 10. Mean scores which fall more than one standard deviation above or below the mean present in the norms are considered to be scores of a significant difference. Expressed in standard scores, any mean score 10 points above or below the mean standard score of 50 is considered to be a score of significant difference.

Table I reveals information concerning those who had experienced competition in interscholastic league basketball. This group indicated a significant difference in ten of the eighteen traits measured by the California Psychological Inventory.

25 26 TABLE I COMPARISON OF SCORES FROM THE BASKETBALL GROUP WITH MEAN STANDARD SCORE OF THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY

N = 36 Mean Standard Score = 50 Group Mean difference fr< Score (from Standard Mean Standar< Trait raw scores) Scores Score Do 22.0 41.0 9.0 Cs 14.4 34.2 15.8 * Sy 21.6 44. 2 5.8 Sp 33.3 48.6 1.4 Sa ' ' 20.2 50.6 0.6 Wb 30.1 33.2 16.8 * Re 25.9 36.8 13.2 * So 34.4 40.8 9.2 Sc 20.8 34.6 15.4 * To 14.6 30.2 19.8 * Gi 12.1 38.0 12.0 * Cm 25.1 46.5 3.5 Ac 19.7 30.4 19.6 * Ai 13.8 37.4 12.6 * le 31.4 34.8 15.2 * Py 7.2 36.6 13.4 * Fx 9.4 51.2 1.2 Fe 22.5 48.5 1.5

IE ' """" "" 1 — norms of the California Psychological Inventory. 27 Scales in which no significant differences were found were Do (dominance), Sy (sociability), Sp (social presence), Sa (self-acceptance), So (socialization), Cm (communality), Fx (flexibility), and Fe (femininity).

The standard score for the basketball group in Cs (capacity for status) was 34.2. This denotes a significant difference of 15.8 standard scores below the mean. The standard score for Wb (sense of well-being) was 33.2, showing a significant difference of 16.8 standard scores below the mean. Re (responsibility) had a standard score of 36.8 with a significant difference of 13.2 standard scores below the mean. Sc (self-control) showed a standard score of 34.6, making a significant difference of 15.4 standard scores below the mean. The standard score for To (tolerance) was 30.2, with a significant difference of 19.8 standard scores below the mean. Gi (good impression) had a standard score of 38.0 and a significant difference of 12.0 standard scores below the mean. Ac (achievement via conformance) had a standard score of 30.4, indicating a significant difference of 19.6 standard scores below the mean. The standard score for Ai (achievement via independence) was 37.4, denoting a significant difference of 12.6 standard scores below the mean. Ie (intellectual efficiency) showed a standard score of 34.8, with a significant difference of 15.2 standard scores below 28 TABLE II COMPARISON OF SCORES FROM THE DEBATE GROUP WITH MEAN STANDARD SCORE OF THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY

N - 17 'Mean Standard Score = 50 Group Mean Difference froi Score (from Standard Mean Standard Trait raw scores) Score Score Do 32.0 59.0 9.0 Cs 20.8 51.6 1.6 Sy 27.0 55.0 5.0 Sp 35.9 52.9 2.9 Sa 24.2 61.6 11.6 * Wb 34.1 42.2 7.8 Re 31.2 48.4 1.6 So 37.0 45.0 5.0 Sc 22.6 37.2 12.8 * To 20.9 44.8 5.2 Gi 16.2 43.4 6.6 Cm 25.6 49.0 1.0 Ac 27.0 47.0 3.0 Ai 19.6 51.2 1.2 Ie 38.3 48.6 1.4 Py 11.0 50.0 0.0 Fx 9.7 52.1 2.1 Fe 22.9 49.7 0.3

^Denotes traits which show a significant difference from the norms of the California Psychological Inventory. 29 the mean. The standard score for Py (psychological- mindedness) was 36.6, indicating a significant difference of 13.4 standard scores below the mean. Table II provides a eomparison of scores from the debate group with the mean standard score of the California Psycho- logical Inventory. The debate group showed a significant difference in only two of the eighteen traits. Those traits in which no significant differences were noted were Do (dominance), Cs (capacity for status), Sy (sociability), Sp (social presence), Wb (sense of well-being), Re (responsi- t bility), So (socialization), To (tolerance), Gi (good impression), Cm (communality), Ac (achievement via conformance), Ai (achievement via independence), Ie (intellectual efficiency), Py (psychological-mindedness), Fx (flexibility) and Fe (femininity). The standard score for the debate group in Sa (self- acceptance) was 61.6, making a significant difference of 11.6 standard scores above the mean. Sc (self-control) had a standard score of 37.2, with a significant difference of 12.8 standard scores below the mean. Data in Table III presents the comparison of scores from the drill team group with the mean standard score of the California Psychological Inventory. Five traits of the eighteen measured revealed significant differences from the norms. Those traits in which no significant difference was noted 30 TABLE III COMPARISON OF SCORES FROM THE DRILL TEAM GROUP WITH MEAN STANDARD SCORE OF THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY

N 25 Mean Standard Score - 50 Group Mean Difference frot Score (from Standard Mean Standard Trait raw scores) Score Score

Do 26. 4 49.4 0.6

Cs 16.7 40.4 9.6

Sy 23.9 48.8 1.2

Sp. 33.3 48.6 1.4

Sa 22.2 56.4 6.4

Wb 30 .4 33.8 16.2 * Re 29.4 44.8 5.2

So 37.6 46.2 3.8

Sc 21.4 35.4 14.6 *

To 18.4 39.2 10.8 *

G?-. 12.3 37.3 12.7 * Cm 25.9 50.5 0.5

Ac 24.1 41.2 8.8

Ai 15.3 40.6 9.4

Ie 34.7 41.4 8.6

Py 8.2 39.8 10.2 *

Fx 9.0 50.0 0.0

Fe 23.6 51.8 1.8 norms of the California Psychological Inventory, 31 were Do (dominance), Cs (capacity for status), Sy (sociability), Sp (social presence), Sa (self-acceptance), Re (responsibility), So (socialization), Cm (communality), Ac (achievement via conformance), Ai (achievement via independence), le (intellectual efficiency), Fx (flexibility) and Fe (femininity).

The standard score for the drill team group in Wb (sense of well-being) was 33.9; thus a significant difference of 16.2 standard scores below the mean was shown. Sc (self- control) had a standard score of 35.4, making a significant difference of 14.6 standard scores below the mean. To (tolerance) showed a standard score of 39.2. This made a significant difference for this trait of 10.8 standard scores below the mean. The standard score for Gi (good impression) was 37.3 with a significant difference of 12.7 standard scores below the mean. Py (psychological-mindedness) had a significant difference of 10.2 standard scores below the mean with a standard score of 39.8.

Table IV presents the comparison of scores of the band group with the mean standard score of the California Psycho- logical Inventory. Significant differences were found in six of the eighteen traits for those who had competed in the band. Those traits with no significant differences were Do (dominance), Sy (sociability) Sp (social presence), Sa (self-acceptance), Re (responsibility), So (socialization), 32 TABLE IV COMPARISON OF SCORES FROM THE BAND GROUP WITH MEAN STANDARD SCORE OF THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY

N = 24 Mean Standard Score = 50 Group Mean Difference frot Score (from Standard Mean Standard Trait raw scores) Score Score Do 26.4 49.4 0.6 Cs 16.2 39.4 10.6 * Sy 22.3 45.6 • 4.4 Sp 31.0 44.0 6.0 Sa 21.2 53.6 3.6 Wb 30.3 33.6 16.4 * Re 30.0 46.0 4.0 So 37.5 46.0 4.0 Sc 21.2 35.2 14.8 * To 17.7 37.4 12.6 * Gi 11.3 35.6 14.4 * Cm 25.9 50.5 0.5 Ac 22.2 36.4 13.6 * Ai . 16.8 44.4 5.6 f Ie 34.3 40.6 9.4 Py 9.1 43.3 6.7 Fx 9.7 52.1 2.1 Fe 24.2 53.6 3.6 norms of the California Psychological Inventory. 33 Cm (communality), Ai (achievement via independence), Ie (intellectual efficiency), Py (psychological mindedness), Fx (flexibility) and Fe (femininity). Cs (capacity for status) did show a significant difference from the norm. The standard score for this scale was 39.4, making the significant difference of 10.6 standard score below the mean. The standard score for Wb (sense of well-being) was 33.6. The significant difference was 16.4 standard scores below the mean. Sc (self-control) had a standard score of 35.2 and a significant difference of 14.8 standard scores below the mean.

To (tolerance) showed a significant difference of 12.6 standard scores below the mean. The standard score for the scale was 37.4. The significant difference for Gi (good impression) was 14.4 standard scores below the mean; the standard score was 35.6. Ac (achievement via conformance) had a standard score of 36.4 and a significant difference of 13.6 standard scores below the mean.

Table V presents data that shows the comparison of scores from the control group with the mean standard score of the California Psychological Inventory. Twelve of the eighteen scales were significantly different from the norms. Those with no significant difference were Do (dominance), Sp (social presence), Sa (self-acceptance), Cm (communality), Fx (flexibility), and Fe (femininity). 34 TABLE V COMPARISON OP SCORES FROM THE CONTROL GROUP WITH MEAN STANDARD SCORE OF THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY

N = 19 Mean Standard Score = 50 Group Mean i Difference frot Score (from Standard Mean Standard Trait raw scores) Scores Score Do 22.0 41.0 9.0 Cs 15.0 36.0 14.0 * Sy 19.9 39.8 10.2 * Sp 29.8 42.6 7.4 Sa 19.8 49.4 0.6 Wb 27.3 26.6 23.4 * Re 27.3 39.6 10.4 * 1 * {— 0 f— ' So 33.1 38.2 • Sc 19.5 32.5 17.5 * To 13.9 28.8 21.2 * Gi 11.2 35.4 14.6 * Cm 25.6 49.0 1.0 Ac 19.0 29.0 21.0 * Ai 14.1 38.2 •11.8 * le 29.4 30.8 19.2* Py 7.1 36.3 13.7 * Fx 9.5 51.5 1.5 Fe 24.8 55.4 5.4

... ^ ^ JI • norms of the California Psychological Inventory. 35 Cs (capacity for status) showed a significant difference of 14.0 standard scores below the mean; the scale had a standard score of 36.0. The standard score for Sy (sociability) was 39.8, with a significant difference of 10.2 standard scores below the mean. Wb (sense of well-being) had a standard, score of 26.6, making a significant difference of 13.4 standard scores below the mean. The signifi- # cant difference for Re (responsibility) was 10.4 standard scores below the mean. The trait had a standard score of 39.6. The standard score for So (socialization) was 38.2, the significant difference being 11.8 standard scores below the mean. Sc (self-control) had a standard score of 32.5 and a significant difference of 17.5 standard scores below the mean. To (tolerance) showed a significant difference of 21.2 standard scores below the mean; it had a standard score of 28.8. The standard score for Gi (good impression) was 35.4. The significant difference was 14.6 standard scores below the mean. Ac (achievement via conformance) had a significant difference of 21.0 standard scores below the mean. The scale had a standard score of 29.0. The standard score for Ai (achievement via independence) was 38.2, making a significant difference of 11.8 standard scores below the mean. Ie (intellectual efficiency) had a standard score of 30.8 and 36 a significant difference of 19.2 standard, scores below the mean. The standard score for Py (psychological-mindedness) was 36.3; the significant difference was 13.7 standard scores below the mean.

Discussion of the Findings Each of the five groups represented in the study showed significant differences from the test norms on several of the scales. The control group had the highest number of scales that deviated significantly from the norms. Twelve of the eighteen scales' did show such deviation. All the traits with significant deviations were below the norms. Some, including Wb (sense of well-being), To (tolerance) and Ac (achievement via conformance), fell more than two standard deviations below the norms. The control group consisted of girls who had indicated on the information sheet that they had not participated in formal competitive activities, which could be a possible reason for the large number of traits that deviated from the norms.

The basketball group had the next highest incidence of traits significantly different from the mean; ten of the eighteen scales showed such a difference. Two of these were Cs (capacity for status) and Wb (sense of well-being), both of which fell significantly below the mean. This is possibly due to the insecurity that might develop when an individual is constantly trying to maintain a position on a team. 37 The basketball group fell significantly below the norms in four of the five traits on the California Psychological Inventory which are designed to measure maturity and responsibility. The specific traits were Re (responsibility), Sc (self- control) , To (tolerance) and Gi (good impression). This is indicative of a person who is impulsive, aggressive and uncon- cerned with the needs and wants of others. Girls who play basketball may tend, to be this way because they have been taught that winning is of primary importance. This desire for victory may result in aggressive actions as well as a tendency to be self-centered and overemphasizing of personal pleasure and. self-gain. A possible confirmation of this idea may be indicated when it is noted that the group was also significantly below the mean in Py (psychological-mindedness), which measures the degree of interest that a person has in the inner needs, of others. * The scales which measure achievement potential and intellectual efficiency are Ac (achievement via conformance), Ai (achievement via independence) and Ie (intellectual efficiency). The basketball group showed significant differences on these three scales, each of which fell below the mean. This seems to indicate that the group may feel insecure and lack self-understanding and self-direction. The feeling of insecurity may again be caused byJthe effort the girl must make to maintain her berth on the team despite challenges from other players while 38 dependence on a coach may retard the development of self- understanding and self-direction. The band had- six traits significantly different from the mean, while the drill team had five traits that showed such difference. Four of these traits were the same and each fell f below the mean. The measures were- Wb (sense of well-being), Sc (self-control), To (tolerance) and Gi (good impression). The band.also fell below the mean in Ac (achievement via conformance) and Gs (capacity for status), while the drill team was below the mean in Py (psychological-mindedness). The similarity of the profiles of these groups could be due to the fact that these groups have a similar purpose and that they perform together on many occasions. The scores on the measures that demonstrated a significant difference from the norms tend to indicate that girls in band and drill team may be aggressive, suspicious and self-centered. This may possibly be due to the constant competition from within the group that they must face in order to advance in their organization. The great amount of exposure that band and drill team members have to the public may also contribute to the tendency to be self-centered. The debate group had the fewest number of traits that were significantly different from the mean. One trait, Sc (self-control^ was significantly below the mean. This tendency to be shrewd, aggressive and assertive is possibly 39 due to the type of activity in which debaters engage, and these traits could possibly be assets to the individual. Sa (self-acceptance) was significantly above the mean. This is an indication of a sharp-witted, persuasive and verbally fluent person. These traits are readily associated with persons involved in debate competition.

Test of Hypotheses The hypotheses concerning all the study groups stated that there would be no significant differences in personality traits of the subjects comprising the groups as compared to norms established for the California Psychological Inventory. Since significant differences did occur within each group, all hypotheses are therefore rejected.

This chapter has presented the findings of this study. Included were Cl) a comparison of scores of the basketball group with the norms of the California Psychological In- ventory, (2) a comparison of the scores of the debate group with the norms of the California Psychological Inventory, (3) a comparison of the scores of the drill team group with the norms of the California Psychological Inventory, (4) a comparison of the scores of the band group with the norms of the California Psychological Inventory, (5) a comparison of the scores of the control group with the norms of the California Psychological Inventory, (6) a discussion of the findings, and (7) a test of the hypotheses. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the problem, an analysis of the results, and conclusions and recommendations based upon the results of the study.

The study was designed to determine what effect different kinds of competitive activities had upon the personality adjustment of high school girls. Data for determining whether or not significant differences existed between the group mean scores of the various groups and the norms established for the test were obtained from the administration of the California Psychological In- ventory to 121 high school girls who were participating in basketball, debate, band and drill team competition as well as a group who had not experienced competition. The subjects were students at seven Texas high schools.

An analysis of the scores compared with test norms showed that each group had significant differences on several of the scales. The basketball group revealed significant differences in ten of the eighteen scales, each of which was below the mean. The band varied significantly from the norms in six of the scales, all below the mean; the drill team was below the mean in five of the eighteen scales. The debate group

40 / 41 indicated significant differences in two of the eighteen, one trait above and one below the mean; and significant differences in twelve of the eighteen scales, all falling below the mean, occurred in the control group.

The results based upon this study appear to justify the following conclusions:

1. Competition does have an effect upon the personality adjustment of high school girls.

2. Different kinds of competition will have different effects upon the personality adjustment of high school girls.

3. Competition of the type experienced in interscholastic league basketball has a detrimental effect on some phases of personality adjustment of high school girls.

k. Competition of the type common to participation in debate activities has a detrimental effect on one phase of personality adjustment of high school girls and a desirable effect on one phase of personality adjustment of high school girls.

5. Competition of the type associated with drill teams has a detrimental effect on some phases of personality adjustment of high school girls.

6. Competition of the type found in school bands has a detrimental effect on some phases of personality adjustment of high school girls. k2 As a result of this study, the following recommendations seem appropriate: 1. That persons in positions of planning competitive activities in the schools should weigh the effects of competition and offer the opportunity to each child to participate in as broad and sound a program of competition as possible. 2. That a similar study be conducted utilizing high school boys. 3. That a similar study be conducted utilizing college men and women to evaluate the lasting effects of competition in high school. k. That a similar study be conducted comparing individuals who have experienced intense competition in selected activities with individuals who have participated in the same activities but under less intensely competitive conditions. APPENDIX APPENDIX A

INFORMATION SHEET

Please fill in as completely as possible.

Name School . Age Grade A. Activities Check all activities in which you have participated that have been of a competitive nature. (Include participation in elementary and junior high as well as high school.) f~J Band CJ Basketball [J Drill Team Debate Team No. of years No. of years No. of years No of years _ PI Other Areas of Competition (Literary Events and/or Other Sports, Cheerleader, etc.) 1. No. of years 2. No. of years 3. No. of years 4. No. of years 5. No. of years B. Awards - Honors Check all awards for achievement which you have received for participation in competitive events. (Check only those which you have received as an individual.) n Letters f~7 Medals (List each activity in (List each activity in which which you lettered) you have won a medal) 1. No. of years 1. No. of years. 2. No. of years 2. No. of years 3. No. of years 3. No. of years k, No. of years 4. ______No. of years

44 k5 f~7 Trophies /~7 Other (List each activity in which (List other awards which 1 you have won a trophy.) you have received.) 1. No. of times 1. No. of times No. of times 2. No. of times ____ 3. No. of times 3. No. of times 4. No. of times k. No. of times G. Additional Information Were you ever selected to be on an all-district team? n yes f~7 no No. of times Were you ever selected to be on an all-tournament team? f~7 yes f~~7 no No. of times ^ Were you ever selected to be a member of all-state band? /~7 yes r~7 no No. of times Did you ever receive another type of recognition? n yes n no What was it? No. of times Did yo'ti ever serve as an officer or captain of your organization? HI yes /~1 no What office or position? How long did you hold the position? Check how you reached this position: /~1 elected f~7 appointed f~l try-outs f~l other ways (explain) k6

<* m Pn oo

X CM \Xi i—I > m

KO•

V0 , CO P

e 00 H ct CO

•H < Cu CO d o O u < bO O CO «—' in cd ,Q v£> •P O

•H CO cd 00 CO

G tw o CM o EH o 0) CO r—J •H a VsQ tw 00 O d" u co Cu .>> o 00 oo •-Hp O 4* cd 0) 00• £ 0 co CO 0) CM• 1 £ CO I cd CO

vO bO 1 o •H iT) Pn S

P KO W • 00 4" I tex OO v\ CM \ w CM

C -3*

o CO O •• • J • o r-1 -3* a a o o o o o o o o ON 00 vo m CO CM r—i k7 c—— Pn as 4*

X Pn CM tO >> O « o m

•r-l CM < Cu m d o o o < bO

-3- CD -P £ ctf o rO o\

-d* CM co O

G i—l

o 00 •H EH •tf O k CL, o CM CO -p

co •H , r~i 0 05 00 d m 0 -3" ' uCO

b CM

CM bO -3" #r-l

W & • a if L _ MD \ CO VD \ a ON 00 CM >> UO

/ 00 m m CO vD \ o tn r\ / o Q ON m o o a o o o o o O o o\ 00 V0 m 00 cs| 48

Ft, r-l m

~~1\ X

o m j\ 00 a co P e

f" 1 H 4*

•H MD J • C O 4"

CN Cu o « J d <3 r-l 0 •4" U [/ bO m e •

o o 1 m

co •r-l •

O r^. co •H r u O OA* X) H Os tw CO o

0 ("3 r-J CO in • r-l co CM O cn U n 04 CO KO >> 4" •p if •r>| 00• r~j oi 4* ctf 4- d 0 V CO 00 rO • U > CO in ' bO VJD •H a, hT 00 00 4* >> / 00 • C/D 00 \ 4- m Q o 4*

n O as 4- o o o o o O o o o o Ch 00 rv vD m 4- CO CM 49

0) VD pL, CO * lO

\ Pm \ CM m !x co k PH -tcof

n tH ) O H r-x U CO Cu >> o Cs•| I CO •P / if) CO r—I Ctf o £ CO" 0 VD CO

,£> VD a bO V •H CO CO Pn w

X a VD• 00 N CO a \ CO -d* -3*

VD CO ( m -d- \ CO a o\ CO

/ """""""".. . ' /"V/""S » P as

O o o o cr O o o o o CP* 00 r% V0 tn 4- co CM 50

a) fa m LO X to fa to CO• fa VO 00 0) 00 0 H Qeo

CM • a < 00 d CO o u O O• bO < ON CM o u S 4J £ O' o ON a cw •H o LO

G 00

° 00• •H 00 O CM T . ! c LO• CM ••PH

s 00 R-4

° CM • cd CO a / 00 0 00 w fl) vo 0) fa c* 00 1 to ,0 v£>• VO bO CM S' cd 00 -dON- a, v£> 00 -3CM* « >, 00• 00 0% 00 CO 0

O \o 00 o p o 1 R-1 4 o o o o o a o o o o ON 00 r-% KO CO CI BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Cratty, Bryant J., Social Dimensions of Physical Activity, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Gough, Harrison G., Manual for the California Psychological Inventory, Palo Alto, California, Consulting Psycholo- gists Press, Inc., 1964. Kelley, E. Lowell, The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited by Oscar Buros, Highland Park, New Jersey, Gryphon Press, 1965. Layman, Emma M. , "Contributions of Exercise and. Sports to Mental Health and. Social Adjustment," Science and Medicine of Exercise and Sports, edited by Warren R. Johnson, New York, Harper and Brothers Publishers, I960. Lindgren, Henry C., Mental Health in Education, New York, Henry Holt and, Company"! 1954.

Articles Bell, Mary M., "Measurement of Selected Outcomes of Partici- pation in Girls' High School Interscholastic Basketball," Dissertation Abstracts, XV (1955), 1544. Bentson, T. B. and John Summerskill, "Relation of Success in Intercollegiate Athletics to Certain Aspects of Personal Adjustment," Research Quarterly, XXVI (March, 1955), 8-14. Booth, E. G., "Personality Traits of Athletes as Measured by the MMPI," Research Quarterly, XXIX (May, 1958), 127-138. Carter, Gerald C. and. J. R. Shannon, "Adjustment and Personality Traits of Athletes and Non-Athletes," School Review, XLVIIII (1940), 127-130.

51 52 Flemming, Edwin G. , "Personality and the Athletic Girl," School and Society, XXXVIIII (February, 1934), 166-169. Fraleigh, W. P. , 11The Influence of Play upon Social and Emotional Adjustment with Implications for Physical Education," Dissertation Abstracts, XVI (1956), 495.

Henry, Franklin, "Personality Differences in Athletics and. Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological Bulletin, XXXVIII (1941), 745. . Husman, B. F., "Aggression in Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques," Research Quarterly, XXVI (December, 1955), 421-425. Hutton, Daniel C. and Warren R. Johnson, "Effects of a Combative Sport upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Projective Test," Research Quarterly, XXVI (March, 1955), 49-53. Johnson, Warren R., "Personality Traits of Some Champion Athletes as Measured by Two Projective Tests: Rorschach and H-T-P," Research Quarterly, XXV (December, 1954), 484-585: Keogh, Jack, "Relationship of Motor Ability and. Athletic Participation in Certain Standardized Personality Measures," Research Quarterly, XXX (December, 1959), 438-445. Peterson, Sheri L., Jerome C. Weber and, William W. Trousdale,. "Personality Traits of Women in Team Sports vs. Women in Individual Sports," Research Quarterly, XXXVIII (December, 1967), 686-690. Skubic, Elvera, "Emotional Responses of Boys to Little League and Middle League Competitive Baseball," Research Quarterly, XXVI (October, 1955), 342-352.

Sperling, Abraham P., "The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement in .Physical Education Activi- ties," Research Quarterly, XIII (October, 1942), 351- 363. 53

Publications of Learned Organizations Dahlstrom, W. Grant, "What Stand on Competition? View of a Psychologist,".Children in Focus: Their Health and Activity, Yearbook of the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1954. Hein, Fred V., "What Stand on Competition? View of a Health Educator,".Children in Focus: Their Health and Activity, Yearbook of the American Association for Health, Physi- cal Education and Recreation, 1954.