INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microhlm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Aiix)r MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
THE REISS PROFILE OF MOTIVATION SENSITIVITY:
RELIABILITY, VALIDITY, AND SOCIAL DESIRABILITY
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Susan M. Havercamp, M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University 1998
Approved by
Dissertation Committee: Advisor Professor Steven Reiss, Advisor Department of Psychology
Professor Steven J. Beck, Co-Advisor
Professor Herbert L. Mirels Co-Advisor Department of Psychology UMI Number: 9900841
Copyright 199 8 by Havercamp, Susan Marie
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9900841 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by
Susan M. Havercamp
1998 A b s t r a c t
The Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities (Reiss provides Profile) a comprehensive assessment of motivation. This dissertation tested the psychometric properties of this newly developed instrument. TheReiss Profile is a 128-item self-report instrument that yields norm-referenced information on 16 fundamental motives. This instrument was developed to measure and test the theoretical predictions of the recently proposed sensitivity theory of motivation. Eleven independent samples of participants (n=813) were recruited to confirm the factor solution, assess its reliability and validity, and to determine the extent to which the scales are influenced by social desirability. The results support the stability, reliability, and validity of the Reiss Profile and suggest that it is relatively free from the biasing effects of social desirability.
The Reiss Profile was submitted to a confirmatory factor analysis and the 16-factor oblique solution provided an acceptable fit to the data (RMSEA=.053). Thus, the instrument was found to have a robust factor structure in a new sample. The inter-factor correlation matrix revealed that the 16 factors were relatively independent of one another (average r = .20). The test-retest reliability was found to be high over a four week interval (average r = .80). The instrument proved to be minimally affected (less than
3% total variance) by social desirability and correlated in the .55 to .60 range with instruments measuring similar constructs. Eight of the nine criterion validity tests were statistically significant. Motivational profiles were found to vary in meaningful ways across different participant groups. Overall, ±is research suggests that the Reiss Profile has sound psychometric properties.
-II- ACKNO WLEDGM ENTS
I would like to thank my friends and colleagues who provided invaluable support and encouragement throughout the completion of this dissertation. First and foremost, I wish to thank my advisor. Dr. Steven Reiss, for his guidance, support, and encouragement throughout my graduate training.
1 would like to thank my co-advisor. Dr. Steven Beck, for guiding my development as a clinician. I would also like to thank Dr. Herbert Mirels for his helpful comments throughout this dissertation. Additionally, I would like Drs. Michael Walker and Mohammed Rahman for their statistical advice. I could not have completed this dissertation without the help of my undergraduate research assistants Brian Allender,
Micheal Johnson, Vandana Mathur, and Sepna Shankar. I also wish to extend my appreciation to the many individuals who helped me recmit participants for this project.
Many people have contributed to my clinical training. I wish especially to thank Drs. Betsey
Benson and David Hammer for providing me invaluable clinical experiences and also for teaching clinical excellence by example. I am indebted to my fellow graduate students for their sense of humor and support.
In particular, my good friends Beth Turoff and Yona Lunsky have been very helpful and encouraging. I also wish to thank my classmates, Laura Allen, Amber Fain-Leslie, John O'Neil, and ShanePerrault. I extend my most sincere gratitude to Marc Tassé and to my fnends and family; I would not be where I am today without your love and encouragement - thank you.
- I l l - V it a
October 26, 1969 ...... Bom - Davenport, Iowa
1992 ...... B.S. Psychology, University of Iowa
1996 ...... M.A. Psychology, Ohio State University
1993-1994 ...... Course Assistant
The Ohio State University Psychology Department
1994-1997 ...... Graduate Research Associate
The Ohio State University Nisonger Center
1997-1998 ...... Research and Statistical Consultant
The Ohio State University Nisonger Center
1997-1998 ...... Psychology Intern, Muskingum County Board of
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
Zanesville, Ohio
P ublications
1. Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation; Factor structure of the Reiss Profiles. Psychological Assessment, 97-106. 10,
2. Havercamp, S. M., & Reiss, S. (1997). The Reiss Screen for Maladaptive Behavior: Confirmatory factor analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 967-971. 35,
-iv- 3. Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (1997). Sensitivity theory and mental retardation; Why functional analysis is not enough. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 553-566. 101.
4. Tassé, M. J., Havercamp, S. M., & Reiss, S. (1997). Home-of-Your-Own: Cooperative Living
Training Program. Santa Barbara, CA: James Stanfield Publishing Company.
5. Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (1996). The sensitivity theory of motivation: Implications for psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 621-632. 32,
6. Havercamp, S. M. & Reiss, S. (1996). Composite versus multiple-rating scales in the assessment of psychopathology in people with mental retardation. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 40,
176-179.
7. Piven, J., Arndt, S., Bailey, J., Havercamp, S. M., Andreasen, N. C., & Palmer, P. (1995). An MR! study of brain size in autism. American Journal o f Psychiatry. 1145-1149. 152,
F ie l d s o f S t u d y
Major Field: Psychology T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Page
Abstract ...... "
Acknowledgments ...... "i
V ita...... iv
List of Figures ...... x
Chapters:
1. Introduction...... i
Sensitivity Theory ...... 2
Fundamental Motives ...... -
Individual Differences...... 4
Risk Factors for Psychopathology ...... 2
Anxiety Sensitivity ...... 8
Fundamental Fears...... 9
Individual Differences...... 9
Risk Factor for Psychopathology ...... 11
Reiss Profile: Scale D evelopm ent...... 15
Scale Development: Study 1 ...... 15
Scale Development: Study 2 ...... 16
Scale Development: Study 3 ...... 17
Scale Development: Study 4 ...... 17
Scale Development: Study 5 ...... 18
-vi- General Discussion ...... 19
2. Confïrniatory Factor A nalysis ...... 21
M ethods...... 22
Participants ...... 22
Measures ...... 22
Procedures...... 23
Results and Discussion ...... 23
3. Test-retest Reliability ...... 26
M ethods...... 26
Participants ...... 26
Measures ...... 27
Procedure...... 27
Results and Discussion ...... 27
4. Social Desirability and Convergent Validity of Power, Order, and Aversive Sensations ...... 30
M ethods...... 31
Participants ...... 31
Measures ...... 31
Procedure...... 34
Results and Discussion ...... 34
5. Criterion Group Validity...... 38
Data Analysis ...... 38
Fraternity and Sorority (Greek) ...... 40
-vii- M ethods...... 40
Results...... 41
Philosophy Students...... 44
M ethods...... 44
Results...... 45
ROTC Cadets...... 48
M ethods...... 48
R esults...... 49
Persons with Disabilities ...... 52
M ethods...... 52
Results...... 53
V olunteers...... 56
M ethods...... 56
R esults...... 57
Dieters ...... 60
M ethods...... 60
Results...... 61
Varsity Athletes ...... 64
M ethods...... 64
R esults...... 65
Culinary Students...... 68
M ethods...... 69
Results...... 69
Seminary Students...... 72
M ethods...... 72
R esults...... 73
-viii- Discussion ...... 76
6. Conclusion ...... 77
Summary of Findings...... 77
Limitations of Ciurent Research ...... 79
Future Research Directions ...... 79
Last Word ...... 80
References ...... 82
A p p e n d i c e s
A. Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities...... 88
B. Demographic Questionnaire ...... 93
C. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Items, Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and t-scores for the Oblique Solution ...... 95
D. Reiss Profile: Inter-factor Correlation M atrix ...... 100
E. Recent Life Experiences Questiormaire...... 102
F. Items from the Dominance scale of the PRF and the Power scale of the Reiss Profile...... 104
G. Items from the Order scale of the PRF and the Order scale of the Reiss Profile...... 106
H. Items from the Anxiety Sensitivity Index and the Aversive Sensations scale of the Reiss Profiles . 108
I. Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ...... 110
J. Personal Reaction Inventory: Items from PRF order, PRF dominance, the AS I, and the MCSDS . 112
-IX- L is t o f F ig u r e s
Figure Page
1. Example Motivational Profile...... 6
2. Demographic Data for Scale Development Research Samples...... 20
3. Overall fit indices for the Reiss Profile confirmatory factor analyses (n=512) ...... 25
4. Four week test-retest reliability of 16 /’rq/i/e scales ...... 29
5. Pearson product moment correlations between A/C5DS and 16 Prq/?/e s c a le s ...... 36
6. Independent Samples t tests: Fraternity and Sorority (Greek, n=65) and Norm (n = 7 3 7 ) ...... 42
7. Motivational Profile of Fraternity and Sorority Members ...... 43
8. Independent Samplest tests: Philosophy Students (n=52) and Norm (n=737) ...... 46
9. Motivational Profile of Philosophy Students ...... 47
10. Independent Samples / tests: ROTC cadets (n=65) and Norm (n=737) ...... 50
11. Motivational Profile of ROTC Cadets...... 51
12. Independent Samples / tests: Persons with Physical Disabilities (n=56) and Norm (n = 7 3 7 ) ...... 54
13. Motivational Profile of Persons with D isabilities ...... 55
14. Independent Samples t tests: Volunteers (n=66) and Norm (n=737) ...... 58
15. Motivational Profile for Volunteers ...... 59
16. Independent Samples f tests: Dieters (n=44) and Norm (n=737) ...... 62
17. Motivational Profile of D ieters ...... 63
18. Independent Samples t tests: Athletes (n=71) and Norm (n=737) ...... 66
19. Motivational Profile for Varsity Athletes ...... 67
20. Independent Samples r tests: Culinary students (n=58) and Norm (n=737)...... 70
21. Motivational Profile for Culinary Students...... 71
-X- 22. Independent Samplest tests: Seminary students (n=49) and Norm (n-737) ...... 74
23. Motivational Profile for Seminary Students ...... 75
-XI- C h a p t e r 1
I ntroduction
A theory of motivation has recently been proposed that suggests new directions for research and
clinical practice (Reiss & Havercamp, 1996). The basic elements of this new “sensitivity theory” are that it
distinguishes between instrumental means (extrinsic motivation) and end purposes (intrinsic motivation); it
holds that pleasure is not the only end motive of human behavior; it posits individual differences in the
strength of various intrinsic motives; and it proposes that aberrant motivations are risk factors for
psychopathology. A rating scale has been developed to measure the motivational constmcts proposed in
the theory. The objectives of this study were to evaluate this instmment with respect to the following: 1 )
factorial stability; 2) test-retest reliability; 3) influence of social desirability; and 4) convergent and criterion group validity.
Sensitivity theory, while new, was not created in a vacuum. Throughout history, philosophers and psychologists have sought to understand human behavior. Motivation is central to this endeavor because it
is largely assiuned that people behave in order to get what they want. Understanding a person’s motivation
is the first step in understanding his or her behavior. Several aspects of sensitivity theory distinguish it
from other theories of personality and motivation. I will present the fundamental tenets of this new theory while drawing attention to its unique contribution to the study of motivation. Sensitivity theory is a generalization of certain principles embodied in the theory of anxiety sensitivity (Reiss & McNally, 1985).
1 In fact, motivation sensitivity has expanded the scope of anxiety sensitivity theory to encompass a broader range of motives. The theory of anxiety sensitivity and supporting research evidence will be briefly presented. Finally, the steps taken to develop the Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation
Sensitivities (Reiss Profile) will be expounded.
Sensitivity Theory
The sensitivity theory of motivation has been applied to psychopathology (Reiss & Havercamp,
1996) and to the field of mental retardation (Reiss & Havercamp, 1997). This theory represents a unique approach to understanding intrinsic motives, individual differences, and risk factors for psychopathology.
These points are discussed below.
Fundamental Motives.
What are the fundamental motives that drive human behavior? This question is of primary importance to theories of motivation. Sensitivity theory defines fundamental motives as intrinsic end desires that are relevant to understanding a significant amount of behavior displayed by a large percentage of people (Reiss & Havercamp, 1996). These motives are considered intrinsic, or ends, because they are sought for their own sake, not as a means of obtaining something else. By definition, fundamental desires are motivating, either rewarding or aversive, for nearly everybody. They also account for a substantial amount of everyday behavior. So, while drinking water may be intrinsically rewarding for nearly all persons, it is not included in Reiss and Havercamp s theory because only a small amount of behavior is devoted to the pursuit of drinking water by the average individual.
Reiss and Havercamp (1996) proposed 25 hypothetical motivators when they first introduced the theory. Since that publication, empirical work has suggested the presence of 16 fundamental motives. An initial questioimaire was developed over the coinse of four factor analytic studies with a total sample of
1520 subjects (Reiss & Havercamp, 1998). This scale has 15 factors thought to represent distinct fundamental motives. The motives (factor names) follow; Social Contact, Curiosity, Honor, Family, Independence, Power, Order, Citizenship, Social Prestige, Vengeance, Food, Sex, Physical Exercise,
Rejection, and Aversive Sensations. These factors are distinct and empirically consistent as evidenced by the low inter-factor correlations and their good internal reliability. Recently, the instrument was revised to
include items that refer to the desire to collect and save things. This lb"" scale is called “saving.” A detailed description of this revised instrument is provided in the section entitled, “Reiss Profile: Scale
Development.”
The concept of fundamental motive is not new to psychology. William McDougall (1926) and
Abraham Maslow (1987) proposed concepts similar to sensitivity theory. McDougall believed that goals have an instinctual basis and are common to all humans and their nearer relatives in the animal world. In keeping with McDougall (1926), Reiss and Havercamp (1998) suggest that fundamental motives have an instinctual basis. For example, the desire for human social contact may be seen as an expression of the herd instinct. According to McDougall, an instinct is inferred when the motive is a) seen in all humans, b) seen in some animals, and c) thought to have survival value. The Reiss Profile factors refer to universal end motives that, with the possible exception of “citizenship”, are seen in many animals and have been thought to have survival value. Accordingly, nearly all of the factors of the Reiss Profile meet
McDougall's (1926) criteria for an instinct.
Like sensitivity theory, Maslow attempted to identify the “ends and ultimate values o f the organism (Maslow, " 1987, p.35). However, Maslow assumes that needs are arranged along a universal hierarchy of priority or potency. Needs lower on the hierarchy are prepotent and must be satisfied before needs higher on the hierarchy are triggered. In contrast, all sensitivity motives are assumed to have equal a priori potency. Under sensitivity theory, prepotency is not universal but differs across individuals.
Neither McDougall nor Maslow developed a questioimaire to measure intrinsic motives. Maslow identified his hierarchy of needs through a qualitative investigation of exceptional people such as Thomas
Jefferson, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, as well as Maslow’s personal friends and relatives (Maslow,
1987, pp. 126-128). McDougall believed that instincts could be identified by directly observing behavior and inferring the goal towards which the behavior is directed. McDougall’s 13 instincts are based on his observations of human and animal behavior. Sensitivity theory may be unique in attempting to identify fundamental motives empirically. In the interest of facilitating research and theory-testing, the authors of the sensitivity theory developed a motivation rating scale. This rating scale was designed to measure a person’s motives and test various theoretical predictions.
Individual Differences.
Why do people behave differently under similar circumstances? Individual differences are at the heart of theories designed to explain human behavior. Personality theories have uniformly recognized that people differ in abilities, behavior, motives, and habits. Sensitivity theory posits that individuals differ in their “set points” for particular motives; that is, in the rate at which they satiate for a particular reinforcer.
For example, some people require a great deal of social contact to be satisfied whereas others prefer to be alone nearly all of the time. The amount of social contact a person desires is referred to as a set point. If the rate of social contact in a person’s life is less than that indicated by his or her set point, the individual is temporarily motivated to seek additional amounts of companionship (now a positive reinforcer). If the rate o f companionship in one’s life ismore than that indicated by one’s set point, the individual is temporarily motivated to avoid social contact (now a negative rein forcer). These set points are thought to be relatively stable across time.
Sensitivity theory posits a cognitive-behavioral-genetic model of end motivation. Because of genetic variations, individuals may differ in how much they enjoy each end goal. For example, variations in genetic factors may cause some people to experience sex as more pleasurable than do others. Like
McDougall and Maslow, sensitivity theory posits that motives are modified by cognition and learning.
For example, both the belief that sex is sin, and past punishment of sexual behavior, should subtract from the person’s overall enjoyment of sex. The net effect is the extent to which the individual is motivated by sex relative to other people, which we call the person’s set point for sex. Anxiety sensitivity is another case in point. All humans inherit genes that cause anxiety to be experienced as aversive and motivate flight from feared objects. Beliefs about the personal consequences of experiencing anxiety, however, vary from one person to the next, causing significant net differences in an individuals’ sensitivity to anxiety (Reiss &
McNally, 1985; McNally, 1994). This theory will be expounded in the section entitled, “Anxiety
Sensitivity." Similar assumptions can be made for each of the 16 fundamental motives identified by sensitivity theory.
A rating scale has been developed to estimate motivation set points (Reiss & Havercamp, 1998).
The Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities is a 128-item self-report questionnaire that measures the 16 fundamental motives previously mentioned. This scale takes approximately 15 minutes to complete and consists of items such as, "/love learning new skills. " "It upsets me greatly when things are out ofplace. ” and "I need frequent contact with other people. " The questions pertain to motives, what peoplewant as opposed to what they do. This is important because a person may engage in a behavior for many different reasons. For example, an avid golfer may not enjoy physical exercise at all.
Perhaps s/he is motivated by the social aspect of the game or by the perceived social prestige of belonging to a country club.
The Reiss Profile questionnaire yields a profile of motivation set points for each person relative to the population average (see Figure 1 for an example). Thus, set points can be compared both within and across individuals. Figure 1 depicts a motivational profile of an individual who is highly motivated (more than .5 standard deviation above average) by citizenship and social prestige and is also highly motivated to avoid aversive sensations. Sensitivity theory holds that the key to understanding important human phenomena are enduring differences in how much an individual likes that which everybody likes and dislikes that which everybody dislikes. If you know what a person wants, you are in a better position to predict what s/he will do. The fictional person depicted in Figure 1 might be expected to contribute to his or her community through service or financial donations, aspire to a socially prestigious career, and tend to avoid situations that could cause physical pain or anxiety. 5
1
0 75
0 5
25
0
•0 25
0 5
•0 75
1
Fictional Person 1 25 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Exercise Aversive Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex Rejection Motives
Figure 1. Example Motivational Profile Sensitivity theory is unique in advancing the concept of motivational set points. McDougall
(1926) observed that the irmate strength of motives may differ across individuals but he attached no significance to it. Maslow ( 1987) attributed individual differences in behavior to differences in current need state. His theory implies that when a person’s physiological needs are met, they no longer influence behavior. Sensitivity theory posits that some people are strongly motivated by food, even if they have always had plenty of food available. Neither McDougall nor Maslow account for this type of individual difference.
Risk Factors for Psvchopatholoev.
A person is said to be “sensitive” to stimuli in one of two ways: if s/he wants more of something that everyone likes or if s/he tolerates less of something everyone dislikes. If a person requires an unusually large amount of a reinforcer, s/he is said to be “sensitive” to that reinforcer and is at risk to develop aberrant behavior as a means of fulfilling this desire (Reiss & Havercamp, 1996, 1997). For example, children with a very high set point for attention (or social contact) may resort to misbehavior in the classroom because they are not satiated with the normative amounts of teacher attention received for appropriate behavior. Parallel predictions are made for negative reinforcement. If a person is too intolerant of anxiety, frustration, or pain, s/he is at risk to develop aberrant behavior to escape or to avoid even everyday amounts of these stimuli.
Motivation sensitivity bears some similarity to Maslow’s concept of need frustration. According to Maslow (1987), need gratification in childhood fosters resiliency in the face of need frastration; deprivation limits the person’s ability to deal with trauma later in life and predisposes the individual to psychopathology. Under sensitivity theory, aberrantly strong desires present a risk for maladjustment.
Maslow’s theory has no concept of aberrant needs.
Sensitivity theory has potentially significant implications for early diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of psychopathology. Emerging research on the concept of anxiety sensitivity provides a compelling example. Clinical psychologists soon may predict spontaneous panic attacks years before they occur (Mailer & Reiss, 1992; Schmidt, Lerew, & Jackson, 1997) and may even be able to predict panic attacks in adulthood based on data obtained in childhood (see Silverman, Fleisig, Rabian, & Peterson,
1991).
According to sensitivity theory, treatment efforts must address aberrant motivation to obtain durable and generalized treatment effects (Reiss & Park, in press). Reiss and Havercamp (1997) have suggested treatment strategies that, they speculate, may alter aberrant set points and lead to significant improvements in the person’s adjustment. These strategies include several conditioning techniques, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and medication. Cognitive-behavior therapy may alter motivation sensitivities by changing attitudes and beliefs about the consequences of various reinforcers (Reiss, in press). Research is needed to explore and validate these treatment approaches.
Anxietv Sensitivitv
Reiss and McNally (1985) developed the concept of anxiety sensitivity in an attempt to explain the fear of fear phenomenon. This refers to the clinical observation that some people with anxiety disorders develop a fear of anxiety or of panic attacks. Goldstein and Chambless (1978) proposed that fear of fear may result from interoceptive, Pavlovian conditioning. They hypotliesized that a person with a history of panic attacks learns to anticipate with dread the possibility of additional panic experiences. Reiss and McNally ( 1985) proposed that the fear of fear reflects individual differences in beliefs about, and hence tolerance of, anxiety symptoms. Therefore, while Goldstein and Chambless consider the fear of fear to be a consequence of panic experiences, Reiss and McNally regard the fear of fear as a consequence of several factors, including panic experiences, biological constitution, and personality needs to avoid embarrassment, to avoid illness, or to maintain control (Reiss, Peterson, Gursky, & McNally, 1986).
Unlike the fear of fear theory proposed by Goldstein and Chambless, anxiety sensitivity can precede or exist independently of panic experiences. According to Reiss and McNally, panic experiences are not necessary for the acquisition of negative beliefs about the effects of anxiety. For example, when a physician tells a patient to avoid excitement in order to minimize the risk of a fatal heart attack, the advice
8 should increase the patient's motivation to avoid any stimulus expected to evoke anxious arousal. Thus, the authors note, panic experiences are only one of several plausible ways in which negative beliefs about anxiety can be learned or strengthened.
Fundamental Fears.
Reiss and McNally (1985) observed that not everyone responds with equal fear to anxiety symptoms. In an attempt to develop a comprehensive theory of individual differences in fear, Reiss and
McNally proposed that panic attacks, phobias, and other fear reactions arise from three fundamental fears or sensitivities: injury/illness sensitivity, fear of negative evaluation, and anxiety sensitivity. Injury/illness sensitivity refers to fears of injury, illness, and death. Fear of negative evaluation refers to apprehension and distress about receiving negative evaluations from others, expectations that others evaluate oneself negatively, and avoidance of evaluative situations. Anxiety sensitivity is the fear of anxiety symptoms (or fear of fear) arising from beliefs that anxiety has harmful somatic, psychological, or social consequences.
It is this third fundamental fear, anxiety sensitivity, that is most relevant to the development of the sensitivity theory of motivation. Anxiety sensitivity will be the focus of this review.
Individual Differences.
Anxiety sensitivity is an individual difference variable (or trait) consisting of beliefs that the experience of anxiety/fear causes illness, embarrassment, or additional anxiety (Reiss et al., 1986). For example, persons with high anxiety sensitivity may believe that a pounding heart is a sign of an impending heart attack, whereas persons with low anxiety sensitivity may regard these sensations as an unpleasant but harmless experience that readily dissipates (McNally, 1994; Reiss, 1991). Beliefs about the personal consequences of experiencing anxiety vary from one person to the next, causing significant net differences in an individual’s sensitivity to anxiety. People with high anxiety sensitivity have a low capacity to cope with anxiety and are theoretically at risk of developing panic disorder, other anxiety disorders, and many ordinary fears (Reiss, 1987). On the other hand, people with low anxiety sensitivity have a high capacity to cope with anxiety. Anxiety sensitivity was hypothesized to increase the negative valence (or aversiveness) o f anxiety experiences. As such, it was predicted to increase alertness to stimuli signaling the possibility of becoming anxious, increase worry about the possibility of becoming anxious, and increase motivation to avoid anxiety-provoking stimuli (Reiss et ai, 1986).
Anxiety sensitivity theorists developed an instrument to measure this new theoretical construct. A
16-item self-report instrument, the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASl), was developed to measure fear of anxiety symptoms (Peterson & Reiss, 1992; Reiss et a i, 1986). The importance of this instrument in stimulating research and clinical applications of anxiety sensitivity carmot be overstated. This instrument made it possible to measure an individual’s degree of anxiety sensitivity and to test the various predictions made by the theory.
Anxiety sensitivity is conceptually distinct from trait anxiety (McNally, 1989). Anxiety sensitivity denotes the tendency to respond fearfully to anxiety symptoms, whereas trait anxiety denotes the tendency to respond fearfully to stressors in general. Anxiety sensitivity is indicated by beliefs that sensations of anxiety are personally harmful whereas trait anxiety is indicated by the frequency and intensity of past anxiety experiences (Reiss, 1997). As Reiss et a i ( 1986) explained, "it may be more important to know what the person thinks will happen as a result o f becoming anxious than how often the person actually experiences anxiety " (p. 1 ). Theories o f anxiety sensitivity and trait anxiety also differ in the perceptions of danger in phobic states. According to trait anxiety, phobics perceive many stimuli as dangerous. In contrast, anxiety sensitivity theorists hold that phobics sometimes view the feared object as harmless. Although some people with phobias fear heights because they fear falling, others fear heights because they think they will have a panic attack (Gursky & Reiss, 1987; Reiss, 1991, 1997).
Research has supported the distinction between anxiety sensitivity (as measured by the ASI) and general trait anxiety or fearfulness. Indeed, Reiss et al. (1986) reported correlations between the ASI and past anxiety frequency of .32 to .36. The shared variance (r^) between the ASI and the Trait form of the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T; Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983) ranged from 0 to 36% with a median of 21% across more than 11 data sets (Reiss, 1991; Taylor, Koch, &
10 Crockett, 1991). This conclusion held for psychiatric and college student samples. Factor analyses of items from the ASI and the STAI-T reveal two factors, one comprised of mainly items from the ASI, and the other comprised mainly of items from the STAI-T (Taylor et al., 1991). These findings support the view of anxiety sensitivity as distinct from, but related to, the concepts of trait anxiety and anxiety frequency. A person with high trait anxiety need not have a fear of anxiety symptoms themselves.
The ASI predicts variance in fearfulness beyond that predicted by measures of trait anxiety in both agoraphobics (McNally & Lorenz, 1987) and healthy volimteers (Reiss et a!., 1986), and predicts response to voluntary hyperventilation (Rapee & Medoro, 1994) and the frequency of panic attacks in phobic patients beyond that predicted by the STAI-T (McNally, 1994, p.l 17). Further evidence for the distinction between generalized fear (trait anxiety) and fear of fear comes from clinical interviews with phobic patients. McNally and Louro (1992) compared specific phobics and agoraphobics, who all had fears of flying. Agoraphobics were more likely to report they were frightened of flying because they feared that enclosure in the aircraft would precipitate a panic attack. In other words, fear of flying, as part of the agoraphobia syndrome, appeared to arise from anxiety sensitivity. Specific phobia patients were more likely to report they feared flying because o f fears the plane might crash (i.e., illness/injury sensitivity).
McNally and Steketee (1985) found that many patients with severe animal phobias were frightened of animals because exposure elicited panic attacks.
Risk Factor for Psvchopatholoev.
Anxiety sensitivity is hypothesized to be a cognitive risk factor for the development of anxiety disorders, especially panic disorder. This hypothesis has been extensively validated. I will briefly review this literature.
Several studies have shown that patients with panic disorder have higher ASI scores than control subjects (Rapee, Ancis, & Barlow, 1988; Reiss,et a!., 1986; Stewart, Knize, & Pihl, 1992), obsessive- compulsives (Zeitlin & McNally, 1993), and mixed samples of other anxiety disorders (Apfeldorf, Shear,
Leon, & Portera, 1994; Reiss et ai., 1986; Taylor et al., 1992). Compared to ASI norms (Peterson & Reiss,
11 1992), Taylor et al. (1 9 9 2 ) found that all patients representing a range of DSM-III-R anxiety disorders had significantly elevated ASI scores, except the group with specific phobia. Agoraphobic patients (especially those with panic) have been found to have significantly higher ASI scores than normal controls (Ahmad,
Wardle, & Hayward, 1992). In his review of this literature, Taylor (19 9 5 ) concluded that studies of clinical samples support the prediction that anxiety sensitivity is greater in panic disordered patients compared to patients with other anxiety disorders, and normal controls.
Anxiety sensitivity may underlie an anxious response to biological challenge. Although a person with high anxiety sensitivity may recognize that challenge-induced sensations are nothing but moimting
fear, the production of these symptoms ought to be panicogenic in those who fear the presumed consequences of anxiety. Challenge research reveals that healthy subjects with high ASI scores respond
like panic patients to voluntary hyperventilation, reporting more physical sensations and more anxiety than do subjects with low ASI scores (Holloway & McNally, 1987). This finding holds in subjects who have never had a panic attack (Asmundson, Norton, Wilson, & Sandler, 1994; Doimell & McNally, 1989) and
when the high versus low ASI groups are matched on trait anxiety scores (Rapee & Medoro, 1994) and on objective measures of heart rate (Asmundson et a i, 1994). Similar findings have been reported for COy
induced panic (Beck, Shipherd, & Zebb, 1996; Eke & McNally, 1996; Rapee, Brown, Antony, & Barlow,
1992) and for an arithmetic stress induction task (Shostak & Peterson, 1990).
Anxiety sensitivity is related to “nonclinical” history of panic attacks. Stewart, Knize, and Pihl
( 1992) found that high scores on the ASI were correlated with a positive history of panic attacks. Similar
findings have been reported in large samples of college students (Telch, Lucas, & Nelson,1989; Telch,
Shermis, & Lucas, 1989). Students who reported having frequent panic attacks had higher ASI scores than
did students who panic infrequently or not at all (Asmundson & Norton,1993; Cox, Endler, Norton, &
Swinson, 1991; Doimell & McNally, 1990). Findings from studies of nonclinical subjects generally
support the conclusion that elevated anxiety sensitivity is associated with an increased incidence of
unexpected and cued panic attacks.
12 Several studies found that as panic patients improve (have panic attacks less frequently), their scores on the ASI are reduced (McNally & Lorenz, 1987; Shear, Pilkcnis, Cloitre, & Leon, 1994). In a panic disorder treatment efficacy study of cognitive-behavior therapy and anxiolytic medication, Bmce,
Spiegel, Gregg, and Nuzzarello (1995) found that baseline to post treatment change in anxiety sensitivity predicted dmg status at a six month follow-up in 85% of the cases. The authors conclude that reduction in the fear of anxiety symptoms was the best predictor of patients’ ability to achieve and maintain therapeutic change. Schmidt, Lerew, and Trakowski (1997) found that following cogititive-behavioral treatment, parue patients scored lower on measures of anxiety sensitivity, body vigilance, anxiety symptoms, and overall disability. Pre-treatment anxiety sensitivity was the only clinical variable that predicted post-treatment body vigilance levels. Schmidt, Trakowski, and Staab (1997) reported that high ASI scorers were approximately eight times more likely to experience panic during a post-treatment CO^ challenge assessment. These findings are consistent with cognitive-behavioral conceptualizations of panic disorder, which predict that treatments failing to reduce fear of bodily sensations related to anxiety will have higher rates of relapse than treatments that do reduce that fear.
Anxiety sensitivity may constitute a cognitive risk factor for developing panic disorder. Mailer and Reiss (1992) conducted a 3-year follow-up study on college students who had scored either high
(n=23) or low (n=25) on the ASI. Relative to low-ASI subjects, those who scored high on the ASI in 1984 were five times more likely to qualify for a DSM-IIl-R anxiety disorder diagnosis in 1987. Three out of four subjects who experienced panic attacks for the first time during the follow-up period were from the original high-ASI group. This study provides preliminary evidence that elevated anxiety sensitivity constitutes a risk factor for anxiety disorders. In a 1-year follow-up study of panic attacks, Ehlers (1995) found that anxiety sensitivity at initial assessment was related to maintenance of panic disorder in untreated panic patients, maintenance of spontaneous panic attacks in infrequent panickers, and first occurrence of panic attacks in a combined group of controls and patients with simple phobias. Ehlers foimd that anxiety sensitivity showed incremental validity in predicting maintenance of panic attacks during follow-up beyond that attributable to previous panic attack frequency and trait anxiety.
13 A recent study provides further evidence that anxiety sensitivity is a specific vulnerability factor
in the pathogenesis o f panic attacks. Schmidt, Lerew, and Jackson {1997) evaluated over 1,172 cadets
during their initial five weeks of training in the United States Air Force. Basic training consists of highly
regimented training in the context of fairly extreme psychosocial stressors (e.g., isolation from family and
friends, constant monitoring and evaluation of behavior) as well as physical stressors (e.g., intense
exercise, limited sleep). In general, basic training is designed to continuously expose cadets to a variety of unpredictable and uncontrollable physical and mental stressors. Cadets are not given schedules and have
no access to clocks or watches. They cannot predict whether their next activity will be an academic evaluation, a military exercise, or a 5-mile nm. New stressors are continually introduced to ensure that each cadet is overtaxed. The authors note that these conditions make basic training an ideal environment
for engendering anxiety. Cadets completed assessment batteries dining their first few days of basic training and again 5 weeks later. Approximately 20% of those scoring in the upper decile on the Anxiety
Sensitivity Index experienced a panic attack during the five week period compared with only 6% for the remainder of the sample. Anxiety sensitivity also predicted anxiety symptomatology, functional impairment caused by anxiety, number of sick days, as well as visits to a peer counselor, counseling center, and health clinic. Trait anxiety did not predict panic occurrence nor did the STAI by ASI interaction term.
These data provide strong evidence for anxiety sensitivity as a risk factor in the development of panic attacks an other anxiety symptoms.
Evidence is mounting for the role of anxiety sensitivity as a predisposing factor in the development of adult anxiety disorders. Individuals who are at risk for panic attacks or other anxiety disorders can be identified with a brief questionnaire before they develop anxiety symptoms. The possibility of preventing some cases of anxiety disorders has stimulated researchers to develop an anxiety sensitivity instrument for children (Child Anxiety Sensitivity Index, Silverman, Fleisig, Rabian, & Peterson,
1991; Rabian, Peterson, Richters, & Jensen, 1993). Future research should investigate the possibility of intervention with children who have negative beliefs about the consequences of anxiety. Perhaps children
14 who have high anxiety sensitivity could be taught that symptoms of nervousness or anxiety are harmless.
Thus, anxiety sensitivity raises the exciting possibility of preventing some cases of anxiety disorder.
Reiss Profile: Scale Development
The Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities was developed over the course of five factor analytic studies. 1 will briefly describe the scale development procedures and present available psychometric data (see Reiss & Havercamp, 1998, for a detailed description).
Scale Development: Studv 1.
The first step in developing the scale was to generate a large list of items that refer to end motives.
A variety of sources were reviewed for ideas for items, including Murray’s (1938) theory of needs, motivational studies (e.g., Zigler, 1973), psychopathology articles and books (e.g., Bootzin, Acocella, &
Alloy, 1993), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4'*' ed.; APA, 1994), as well as colleagues, relatives, and friends. In total, 25 fundamental motives were identified; however, we subsequently deleted “thirst”, because this motive does not account for much everyday behavior. Except for in cases of polydipsia, the behavior motivated by thirst shows little variance.
S. Reiss OTote between 8 and 18 items to assess the usual strength of an individual’s desire for each of 24 motivational domains. The initial 328-item instrument was named the Reiss Profile of
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities (Reiss EveryProfile). item on the instrument was designed to measure the strength of an individual’s fundamental desire or fundamental aversion for a specific end motive. The item stems consisted of the phrases “I like...”, “I enjoy...”, and “It is important to me...”. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from -3 (Strongly Disagree) to +3 (Strongly Agree).
This questionnaire was completed by 401 adolescents and adults sampled from six sources in
Ohio and Pennsylvania. The demographic data for this Sample 1 are shown in Figure 2. The data were subjected to a series of exploratory factor analyses using maximum likelihood extraction method with
15 oblique direct oblimin rotations'. Oblique rotations were used because the theory implies that some
fundamental motives are inter-correlated, functioning both as end goals and as instrumental means for
other end goals. Twenty-four factors were expected theoretically and the scree plot suggested a 12-factor
solution. The first factor analysis extracted a 10-factor solution, the second extracted a 11-factor solution,
and so on up to 20 factors. Because the factor loadings for the 20-factor solution were very small, we did
not do further analyses to extract more than 20 factors. The 15-factor solution was easiest to interpret with
few items loading on multiple factors. A total of 110 items were retained, all having a .30 or higher
loading on 1 of the 15 factors and none having a loading of .30 or higher on more than 1 factor.
Scale Development: Studv 2.
This study was intended to provide a preliminary exploration of the factor structure of the revised
instrument. The Reiss Profile instrument was revised with the addition of 110 items with the aim of
supporting the 15 emerging factors by increasing to 8 the niunber of items on each factor. In addition, 42
o f the 110 retained items were modified to increase item variance. For example, the item “My personal
honor is very important to me” was reworded to “My personal honor is foremost in guiding my behavior.”
The reworded item was considered less likely to be universally endorsed.
The participants were 380 adolescents and adults sampled from nine sources in mostly Nebraska,
Ohio, and Permsylvania (see Figure 2). None of the participants served as subjects in Scale Development;
Study 1. The data were submitted to a series of factor analyses using the maximum likelihood method of
extraction with oblique, direct oblimin rotations. Factor solutions were examined extracting 12-20 factors.
The 17-factor solution was easiest to interpret. Items were retained that loaded .30 or higher on one of
these factors. In total, 113 items were retained and 107 items were deleted in accordance with the results of this factor analysis.
' All analyses reported in this dissertation were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows versions 7.0 and 8.0 (SPSS, 1995, 1998, respectively), unless otherwise indicated.
16 Scale Development: Studv 3.
The purpose of Study 3 was to provide an exploratory factor investigation of the second revision o f the Reiss Profile instrument. Twenty-four of the 113 retained items were re-worded in an effort to increase item variance. The second revision added 74 new items, bringing the new total to 187. Items were written to support the factor structure obtained in Scale Development; Study 2. Our goal was for each factor to have at least 8 items with a .30 loading or higher.
The participants were 341 adolescents and adults sampled from 14 sources in mostly Canada,
Connecticut, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (see Figure 2). None of the participants had served as subjects in either of the previous two studies. The data were submitted to a series of exploratory factor analyses using the maximum likelihood extraction method with oblique direct oblimin rotations.
Based on the scree plot and the results of Studies 1 and 2, exploratory factor analyses were conducted extracting 14-17 factors. The 15-factor solution was the easiest to interpret; this solution accounted for
52.9% of the variance. The eight items with the highest factor loadings on each factor were retained (all loadings were greater than .30). In total, 118 items were retained and 69 deleted.
Scale Development: Smdv 4.
The purpose of this study was to confirm the factor results obtained in Study 3 with a different sample of research participants. Only three new items were added, bringing the total to 121 items. All of the new items were intended to load on a single factor, “independence.” No items were re-worded. Thus,
118 of the 121 items used in Study 4 were also used in Study 3.
The participants were 398 adolescents and adults sampled from six sources in Iowa, Ohio, and
Illinois (see Figure 2). None of the participants had served as subjects in any of the previous studies. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the inter-item correlation matrix testing the fit of the 15- factor model using a generalized least squared discrepancy function. When the factors were allowed to correlate, the 15-factor solution yielded a close fit to the data, RMSEA = .047. This finding provided
17 evidence of a robust factor structure and was obtained despite the fact that Sample 4 contained fewer young adults (12.1 versus 24.6%) and a higher percentage of people aged 55 and older (46.2 versus 23.8%).
The factor names and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were as follows: “social contact” (.84),
“curiosity” (.79), “honor” (.77), “family” (.88), “independence” (.74), “power” (.81), “order” (.84),
“citizenship” (.77), “social prestige” (.79), “vengeance” (.92), “food” (.84), “sex” (.90), “physical exercise”
(.89), “rejection” (.82), and “aversive sensations” (.80). For the “independence” scale, the alpha coefficients were used to delete one of the three new items. The remaining two new items were added to the six previously-retained items, bringing the total for this scale to eight items. Thus, the instrument had
15 scales, each with eight items.
Scale Development: Studv 5.
Following the completion of the instrument, a significant omission was noted. Colleagues observed that the 15 factor Reiss Profile could not account for the behavior o f people who seem to relish saving or collecting objects (e.g., stamps) as an end in itself. There are great individual differences in the desire to collect and in the reluctance to discard belongings that are no longer being used. Our colleagues felt that this motive was not captured by our scale for “order” and would be important in explaining certain types of psychopathology. For example, some persons who have obsessive compulsive disorder collect seemingly invaluable objects with single-minded determination. Since the motive to save or collect explains a significant amount of human behavior, is universal, and can be traced to the hoarding behavior of certain animals (rodents, in particular), we decided to revise the instrument to include this motive.
The purpose of this study was to develop the “saving” scale and to distinguish it from conceptually similar scales on the Reiss Profile-, “order” and “social prestige”. An abbreviated form of the
Reiss Profile was constructed that consisted of the items from the “order” and “social prestige” scales as well as 18 new items written to measure the desire to save. Sample “saving” items included,"I hate throwing things away and ""I like to hold on to my money The total length of the abbreviated scale was
34 items.
18 The participants were 170 adolescents and adults sampled from five sources in Ohio (see Figure
2). The sources included a dental hygiene practicum setting, an undergraduate class on mental retardation, an urban nursing home, and a nnal county board of mental retardation and developmental disabilities.
Participants were solicited through friends, relatives, and colleagues, who offered no inducements.
Questionnaires were completed volimtarily, independently, and anonymously. None of the participants had served as subjects in any of the previous studies.
The data were submitted to an exploratory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood extraction method with an oblique direct oblimin rotation. Three factors were extracted based on the strong theoretical expectation of Order, Social Prestige, and Saving factors. Eight items were selected for the new “saving” scale based on the following considerations. Items were retained that loaded .30 or higher on the Saving factor and did not load highly on the Order or Social Prestige factors. An attempt was also made to select items that were not redundant with one another. For example, the item ‘7 value everything I own " was considered too similar to the item ‘7 place a high value on the things and I own " was not retained for this reason despite it’s adequate factor loading. The eight-item “saving” scale was not highly correlated with “order” (r=.31) nor with “social prestige” (r=.24). The Reiss Profile is provided in
Appendix A.
General Discussion
The results from the five factor analyses have shown that the Reiss Profile has a stable factor structure and good internal reliability. With only 128 items, the scale is administered in about 15 minutes and provides information about 16 distinct intrinsic motives. This instrument makes it possible to test the various predictions made by sensitivity theory. The final stage of scale development is to confirm the sixteen factor solution of the revised instrument, demonstrate the reliability and validity of the instrument, and to determine the extent to which the scales are influenced by social desirability response bias.
Because the instrument is intended to measure enduring individual differences, it is important to establish the stability over time. It is also necessary to show that the scales indeed measure what they
19 purport to measure; that is, do people who are curious obtain high scores on the curiosity scale? The purpose of this dissertation is to evaluate the psychometric properties of theReiss Profile. I will present
this project in a series of four studies. The first study assesses the factorial stability of the 16 factor revised
instrument. The second study reports the test-retest reliability for each of the scales. The third study evaluates the social desirability of all 16 scales and the convergent validity of three Reiss Profile scales:
“power”, “order”, and “aversive sensations.” The fourth study provides an assessment of the criterion validity of seven of the scales: “curiosity,” “honor,” “independence,” “citizenship,” “social contact,”
“food,” and “physical exercise.” Each of these studies will be presented and discussed in turn.
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
N 401 380 341 398 170
Male (%) 29.4 29.7 37.0 32.7 19.4
0-21 years (%) 20.0 59.2 38.7 15.8 30.6
22-55 years (%) 74.6 38.9 37.0 36.4 61.8
56+ years (%) 3.7 0.8 23.8 46.2 7.1
African American (%) 7.0 1.3 5.0 7.8 7.1
Asian American (%) 2.5 3.9 1.2 1.3 0.6
Caucasian (%) 84.0 87.1 80.6 78.1 84.1
Hispanic (%) 1.0 1.1 5.0 6.3 4.1
Figure 2. Demographic Data for Scale Development Research Samples
20 C h a p t e r 2
C onfirmatory F a c t o r A n a l y s is
The growing popularity of factor analytic techniques has introduced new psychometric standards for assessment instmments (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). For example, in addition to traditional reliability and validity, factor content validity and factorial stability are now considered. Factor content validity indicates the extent to which the empirically derived factors of an instrument resemble ‘rational’ or
‘clinical’ categories. The Reiss Profile has evidenced preliminary factor content validity through exploratory factor analyses. The Reiss Profile items, which are randomly presented in the questionnaire, consistently factor into the following rationally meaningful categories of motives: social contact, curiosity, honor, family, independence, power, order, citizenship, social prestige, vengeance, food, sex, physical exercise, rejection, aversive sensations, and saving.
Factorial stability is a measure of how robust a factor solution is across samples. This is most adequately established with confirmatory factor analytic techniques (Floyd & Widaman, 1995; Reise,
Widaman, & Flugh, 1993). For example, it may be important to evaluate whether or not a factor solution derived from a student sample fits reasonably well in a clinic or community sample. When a factor solution is stable, or fits reasonably well in an independent sample, we are assured that the factors measure true phenomena and are not the result of chance characteristics in the first sample.
A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the 15-factor solution had adequate factorial stability
(see Study 4 o f Introduction). However, a 16"’ factor (saving) has since been added and it is important to confirm the revised factor structure in an independent sample. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the factorial stability of the revised Reiss Profile.
21 Methods
Participants.
The samples from Chapter 5 were combined to obtain a sample large enough to support a confirmatory factor analysis (Gentler & Chou, 1987). This sample is different from the ones used to develop the instrument as reported in the introduction. A detailed description of each of these samples is provided in the section entitled “Chapter 5; Criterion Group Validity." Participants consisted of 512 adults solicited from several sources in urban and rural Ohio and Indiana. Approximately half (49.4%) of the sample were students at a large mid-western university. They were recruited through university organizations or activities such as athletic clubs, social fraternities and sororities, and the Reserved Officer
Training Corps. The remaining 259 participants were contacted through a variety of organizations including weight loss centers, seminaries, and disability advocacy or athletic groups.
Participants consisted of 254 males (49.6%) and 257 females (50.2%) and 1 person who neglected to specify his or her gender. Ages ranged from 18 to 76 with an average of 25.9 years (SD=9.98). The sample was predominantly Caucasian (n=450, 87.9%) from middle (n=266, 52.0%) or upper-middle
(n=198, 38.7%) class socio-economic backgrounds. They reported growing up in suburban (n=319,
62.3%), urban (n=72, 14.1%), and rural (n=l 15, 22.5%) geographic areas. High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=71, 13.9%), between 3.0 and 4.0 (n=285, 55.7%), between 2.0 and 3.0 (n=138, 27.0%), and below 2.0 (n=15, 2.9%).
Measures.
Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. This instrument was described in the introduction and is provided in Appendix A.
Demographic Questionnaire. A brief demographic questionnaire was developed for this study
(see Appendix B). Participants were asked to provide their age, gender, race, year in school, childhood geographic region (urban versus suburban versus rural), family’s socio-economic status (low versus middle
22 versus upper-middle versus high), and academic achievement (approximate high school grade point average).
Procedures.
Participants were recruited to participate in a study of motivation. They were told that participation was completely voluntary and anonymous and asked to complete the questioimaires independently, without consultation from others. Participants were offered no inducements for volunteering for the study.
Results and Discussion
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the inter-item correlation matrix using the
RAMONA program (Browne, Mels, & Coward, 1994) available in Systat 7.0 for Windows (SPSS, 1997).
The model was specified according to the 16 scales outlined in the introduction. Iteration proceeded according to ordinary least squares and was followed by generalized least squares (GLS) estimation. The
GLS discrepancy function was chosen because the sample correlation matrix was not positive definite.
There were no redundant parameters nor boundary estimate warnings for any of the analyses reported herein.
The Steiger-Lind Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Expected Cross-
Validation Index (ECVI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Normed Fit Index (NFI) were used to evaluate goodness of fit. Goodness of fit guidelines are as follows: RMSEA less than 0.05 is a close fit; less than 0.08 is a reasonable fit; and more than 0.1 is an imacceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1992).
ECVI is not evaluated independently but, when rank ordered, parallels the rank ordering according to the expected overall discrepancy (smaller values indicate closer fit; Browne & Cudeck, 1992). NFI and NNFI both range from 0 to 1 with values higher than .90 indicating close fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).
Figure 3 presents these fit measures for both orthogonal and oblique solutions. In summary, the oblique solution provided superior fit to the data according to all four fit indices. When theReiss Profile factors are allowed to correlate, the model provides a reasonable fit to the data. The items and
23 corresponding regression coefficients, standard errors of estimation, and r-scores for the oblique solution are presented in Appendix C.
Sensitivity theory predicts that certain factors will correlate, functioning both as end motives and as means to other end motives. The inter-factor correlation matrix is presented in Appendix D. As shown in this matrix, the correlations between factors were small (average r=.20) ranging from .01 to .58.
Correlations of this magnitude generally support the notion that theReiss Profile measures 16 distinct factors. The largest correlations were between the following scales; “social prestige” and “power” (r=.5S) and “social prestige” and “vengeance” (r=.54). It is not surprising to find that individuals who are driven by a desire for social prestige are also motivated by the desire to influence others and the desire for vengeance, or competition.
In conclusion, these results support the factorial stability of the 16-factorReiss Profile. An acceptable fit to the data was obtained despite the relatively large number of factors in the solution and despite the fact that the present sample was younger (average age: 25.9 versus 44.0 years) and had a higher proportion of university students (roughly 65.4% versus 12.0%) compared to the samples on which the instrument was developed.
24 RMSEA (90% Cl) ECVI (90% Cl) >/NFI NFI
null .163 231.735 (.162, .164) (229.568, 233.917)
orthogonal .127 145.083 .3940 .3769 (.126, .128) (143.392, 146.789)
oblique .053 38.962 .8944 .8379 (.052, .054) (38.176, 39.764)
Figure 3. Overall fit indices for the Reiss Profile confirmatory factor analyses (n=512).
25 C h a p t e r 3
T e s t - r e t e s t R e l ia b il it y
The Reiss Profile measures motivational constructs that are hypothesized to be stable personality traits. It is therefore important to establish the consistency of scores obtained by the same persons when reexamined with the same test on different occasions. This test-retest reliability coefficient gives an estimate of the error o f measurement, or the range of fluctuation likely to occur in a single individual’s score as a result of irrelevant, chance factors (Anastasi, 1988, pp.109-118). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the 16 Reiss Profile scales.
Methods
Participants.
Participants consisted of 123 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology courses at The Ohio State University. Participants were invited to volunteer for the study through the Research
Experience Program as one of many ways to fulfill a course requirement. Results are reported for individuals who completed the questioimaire on two occasions.
Participants consisted of 44 males and 79 females who professed fluency in English. The majority
(n=88, 71.5%) of the students were in their first year of college, 17 (13.8%) were in their second year, 12
(9.8%) in their third, and 6 (4.9%) participants were in their fourth year or above. Ages ranged from 17 to
31 with an average of 19.3 years (SD=2.04). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 72.4%
Caucasian (n=89), 13.8% African-American (n=17), 11.4% Asian (n=14), .8% Hispanic (n=l), and 1.6%
"other” (n=2). Participants were raised in suburban (n=69, 56.1%), rural (n=35, 28.5%), and urban (n=35,
15.4%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=3, 2.4%), middle
26 (n=68, 55.3%), upper-middle (n=47, 38.2%), and high (n=5,4.1%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=12, 9.8%), 3.0-3.9 (n=76, 61.8%), 2.0-2.9 (n=33, 26.8%), and below 2.0
(n=2, 1.6%).
Measures.
Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. This measure has been described previously and is provided in the appendices (Appendix A).
Demographic Questionnaire. This measures has been described previously and is provided in the appendices (Appendix B). TheDemographic Questionnaire was administered at Time 1 only.
Recent Life ELxperiences Questionnaire. Many life events and situations can occur that will adversely effect the stability of test scores over time. Thus, Barclay (1991) observed that both extraordinary events (e.g., fire, riot, etc.) and individual conditions of health, mental status, and a variety of other factors can militate against good test-retest reliability. For this reason, a brief experiential questionnaire was developed to screen for any major life changes during the month between Time 1 and
Time 2 assessments (see Appendix E). This questionnaire was administered only at Time 2.
Procedure.
Participants completed theReiss Profile twice, over a four week interval. This time interval was chosen to minimize the recall effect which could otherwise artificially inflate the test-retest correlation. To reduce the likelihood that participants would attempt to memorize their responses at Time 1, they were kept blind to the design and purpose of the study. That is, participants were not told that the same questioimaire would be administered at Time 2. Participation was anonymous except that participants were asked for their initials and the last four digits of their social security number so that the Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires could be paired.
Results and Discussion
Pearson product moment correlations were calculated between the raw scale score at Time 1 and
Time 2 for each of the 16 scales o f the Reiss Profile. Participants who indicated experiencing a “major”
27 life change during the four weeks between testings were separated from the rest of the sample.
Correlations are reported in Figure 4 for the entire sample and for the 85 participants who experienced no
“major" life change.
As shown in Figure 4, scale scores were highly stable over the four week interval. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients ranged from .69 to .88 with a mean of .80 for the entire sample and a mean of .82 for the 85 participants who did not experience a major life change. As predicted, test- retest correlations were somewhat improved when individuals were excluded who had experienced a major life change during the ensuing month. All correlations were statistically significant (p<.01).
These results compare favorably to those reported for other personality tests. For example,
Bentler (1964) reported intraclass coefficients for the Personality Research Form (FRF) over one-week ranging from .69 to .90 with an average o f .72 across subscales (as cited in Jackson, 1984). Hjelle and
Bernard (1994) evaluated the three-week test-retest reliability of the FRF in a sample of 75 undergraduate students. They reported correlations ranging from .32 to .78 with an average o f .60 across subscales.
Similarly, test retest reliability coefficients over a one-week interval were reported for the MMFf-2 scales as ranging from .58 to .92 with an average of .79 in a normative sample (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham,
Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). In conclusion, these results support the hypothesis that theReiss Profile measures relatively stable characteristics.
28 Entire Sample No Major Changes Scale (n=123) (n=85)
Social Contact .81** .82**
Curiosity .84** .84**
Honor .77** .79**
Family .79** .83**
Independence .72** .74**
Power .84** .86**
Order .81** .85**
Citizenship .69** .69**
Social Prestige .88** .88**
Vengeance .86** .86**
Food .82** .83**
Sex .87** .86**
Physical Exercise .82** .84**
Rejection .80** .82**
Aversive Sensations .74** .74**
Saving .80** .83**
** p < .01 (two-tailed)
Figure 4. Four week test-retest reliability of 16 Reiss Profile scales
29 C h a p t e r 4
S o c ia l D esirability a n d C o n v e r g e n t V a l id it y o f Po w e r , O r d e r , a n d A v e r s iv e S e n s a t io n s
The purpose of this study is twofold I) to explore the impact of social desirability on all 16 Reiss
Profile scales and 2) to evaluate the convergent validity of the following three scales: “power,” “order,” and “aversive sensations.”
Social desirability refers to the tendency of respondents to answer questions in a way that creates a favorable impression. A. L. Edwards ( 1957) was perhaps the first to investigate this bias. He concluded
that this tendency need not indicate deliberate deception on the part of the respondent. Rather, he conceptualized it primarily as a façade effect or a tendency to “put up a good front,” of which the
respondent is largely unaware. This tendency may indicate a lack of insight into one’s own characteristics, self-deception, or a need for social approval (Anastasi, 1988). Instruments have been developed to
investigate the contribution of the social desirability variable (Edwards, 1957; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
The correlation between such instruments and any personality test indicates the degree to which the personality test is influenced by a socially desirable response set. Edwards argued that insofar as social desirability is correlated with test scores, the effectiveness of the test in discriminating individual differences in specific, content-related traits is reduced.
Convergent validity refers to the extent to which a new instrument correlates highly in the
predicted direction with scores on older, more established, and already validated tests designed to measure
the same (or a similar) construct (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Phillips, 1996).
30 Methods
Participants.
Participants were 170 undergraduate students eiurolled in introductory psychology courses at The
Ohio State University. Participants were invited to volunteer for the study through the Research
Experience Program as one of many ways to fulfill a course requirement. Participants consisted of 86 males and 84 females who professed fluency in English. The majority (n=105, 61.4%) of the students were in their first year of college; 34 (19.9%) were in their second year, 19 (11.1%) in their third, and 12 (7.0%) participants were in their fourth year or above. Ages ranged from 18 to 34 with an average of 19.7 years
(SD=2.27). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 75.4% Caucasian (n=129), 9.9%
Aftican-American (n=17), 9.9% Asian (n=17), 1.2% Hispanic (n=2), and 2.9% “other” (n=5). Participants were raised in suburban (n=93, 54.4%), rural (n=42, 24.6%), and urban (n=35, 20.5%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=8, 2.7%), middle (n=92, 53.8%), upper- middle (n=58, 33.9%), and high (n=12, 7.0%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows:
4.0 (n=16, 9.4%), 3.0-3.9 (n=106, 62.0%), 2.0-2.9 (n=44, 25.7%), and below 2.0 (n=2, 1.2%).
Measures.
Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. A detailed description of this instrument was provided in the introduction and it is provided in Appendix A.
Demographic Questionnaire. This instrument has been described previously and is available in
Appendix B.
Personality Research Form (PRF). Douglas Jackson (1984) developed the PRF to measure the 20 needs identified by Murray (1938). Drawing on Murray’s empirical and theoretical literature, Jackson developed behaviorally-oriented, detailed descriptions of the constructs (needs) to be measured. In addition to the 20 scales for each of Miuray’s needs, Jackson included two validity scales, called
“desirability” and “infrequency.” He then formed a heterogeneous team of item-writers that generated over
100 items for each construct. An attempt was made to generate an approximately equal number of items reflecting the positive (having the trait) and negative (not having the trait) pole of each of the needs
31 (Wiggins, 1973, pp.409-415). Through a specially designed computer program, twenty items were selected for two parallel forms of each scale on the basis of high biserial correlation with total scale score and low correlation with scores on other trait scales and on the “desirability” scale. Items yielding extreme endorsement proportions were eliminated (Anastasi, 1988, pp.546-548).
The PRF is available in five formats, two 300-item parallel forms, two 440-item parallel forms, and a more recent Form E which consists of 352 items. Form E is comprised of all 22 scales each with 16
(instead of 20) items. Form E includes the best items from the previous forms, selected on the basis of high content saturation and mutual minimum redimdancy (Gynther & Gynther, 1976). Two scales,
“dominance” and “order”, from Form E will be used in this study.
The PRF has been found to have acceptable psychometric properties. Jackson reported Kuder-
Richardson 20 internal consistency coefficients as ranging from .80 to .94 across the 20 subscales
(Wiggins, 1973, p.411). Bentler ( 1964) reported test-retest reliability coefficients for a sample of 135 college students who took the form first during a class period and a second time one week later at home; these intraclass correlations ranged from .69 to .90 (as cited in Jackson, 1984). Convergent validity was demonstrated in a series of studies comparing self-ratings to global ratings-by-others (Jackson, 1984).
Convergent and discriminate validity has also been demonstrated with other personality inventories including the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Comrey Personality Scale, the Interpersonal
Style Inventory (Lorr, 1975), the California Personality /nvenro/y (Goldberg, 1977), and the Adjective
Check List (Bessmer & Ramanaiah, 1981). The test manual reports, but does not interpret, correlations between the 22 scales and the following Strong Vocational Interest Blank occupations: clinical psychologist, experimental psychologist, biological scientist, banker, army officer, engineer, and real estate sales associate. The “dominance” scale was found to predict social behavior (Jaccard, 1974) and preliminary criterion group validity was demonstrated in a study of undergraduate student activists (Pierce
& Schwartz, 1971).
32 In this study, I compare the Reiss Profile “power” scale to the PRF scale called “dominance” (see
Appendix F for a list o f items). I also compare the “order” scale tfom theReiss Profile to the PRF scale called “order” (see Appendix G for a list of items).
Anxiety Sensitivity Index. The ASI is a self-report questionnaire developed to measure the construct of anxiety sensitivity (Peterson & Reiss, 1992). The /15/contains 16 items and is rated on a 5- point Likert scale that ranges from 0 (“very little”) to 4 (“very much”). This instrument has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. Reiss, and colleagues (1986) reported the test-retest reliability for 127 undergraduate students; the Pearson product moment correlations were as follows: .71 (for 54 men), .74
(for 73 women) and .75 (for the entire sample of 127). A high degree of internal consistency has been reported, with alpha coefficients ranging from .82 to .91 (Peterson & Reiss, 1992). TheASI has been extensively validated. This literature was reviewed in the introduction of this dissertation.
The format of the ASI was modified for the purposes of this study. A True-False response format was used instead of the standard Likert-scale format. The items were otherwise unchanged. In this study, 1 will compare the Reiss Profile scale “aversive sensations” to the total score o f the modified-ASl (see
Appendix H for a list of items).
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability’ Scale (MCSDS). This instrument was developed to measure the tendency to endorse items that are culturally sanctioned and approved (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).
Drawing upon various personality inventories, the developers selected items based on the following four criteria: 1 ) content dealing with cultural approval, 2) avoidance of psychopathological content, 3) agreement among at least 9 out of 10 judges on the direction of keying for social desirability, and 4) substantial relationships to the scale total. The resulting instrument has 33 items which are scored using true and false response categories. The Marlowe-Crowne items are provided in Appendix 1.
The MCSDS has been found to have acceptable psychometric properties. Crowne and Marlowe
( 1960) reported a Kuder-Richardson 20 internal consistency coefficient of .88 for a sample of 39 college students. Thirty-one of these students took the scale on two occasions separated by a four week interval; a test-retest correlation of .89 was obtained. Crino, Svoboda, Rubenfeld, and White (1983) report alpha
33 coefficients ranging from .70 to .77 over three samples and a one-month test- retest correlation of .86 on a sample of 91 college students. Holden and Fekken (1989) report and alpha coefficient of .78 for a sample of 402 university undergraduate students.
The MCSDS has evidenced a statistically significant but weak positive relationship with the
Edwards Social Desirability Scale (r=.35, Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; r=.37, Tanaka-Matsumi & Kameoka,
1986; rs=.26, .39, Crino et a i, 1983; r=.26, Holden & Fekken, 1989). A weak positive correlation was also reported between the MCSDS and Jackson’s “desirability” scale from Form AA of the PRF (r=.27, Holden
& Fekken, 1989). These findings establish the convergent validity of the MCSDS; indicating that it taps a construct similar, but not identical, to other instruments purporting to measure social desirability. As intended, the MCSDS is relatively independent of psychopathology (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Tanaka-
Matsumi & Kameoka, 1986). Thus the MCSDS does not measure the extent to which a subject denies psychiatric symptoms; rather, it measures the extent to which behaviors are endorsed which are culturally approved, but occur rather infrequently. For example, one item,"My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant, while "not pathological, is probably untrue for most people.
Procedure.
In addition to the demographic questionnaire and theReiss Profile, a Personal Reaction Inventory was administered. The Personal Reaction Inventory was comprised of items, presented in a randomized order, from the MCSDS, the “dominance” and “order” subscales of the PRF. and the modified-ASl (see
.Appendix J). The entire battery consisted of 216 items and was administered to participants in groups of between 25 and 50 students. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and hypotheses of the study.
Results and Discussion
Scale scores were computed for the 16 scales of the Reiss Profile, the MCSDS, the “dominance” and “order” scales of the PRF, and the modified-ASl. Figure 5 shows the Pearson product moment correlations between the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and each of the 16 Reiss Profile
34 scales. For the most part, these correlations are small; they range from .01 to .39 with a median absolute value of .09 and an average o f. 16. This indicates that, on average, less than 3% of the total variance on the Reiss Profile scales can be explained in terms of the tendency to respond desirably. These findings compare favorably to those reported by Jackson (1984) for the PRF. Jackson took pains to control the effect of social desirability when developing his personality measure. He reported correlations between his
“desirability” scale and his content scales as ranging in absolute value from .01 to .44 with a mean of .22 and a median of .20.
A few Reiss Profile scales show moderate correlations with the social desirability variable. The scales for “curiosity,” “honor,” “citizenship” and, to a lesser extent, “family” are positively correlated with the MCSDS. The scales for “vengeance,” “sex,” and, to a lesser extent, “rejection” and “food,” are negatively correlated with social desirability. These findings suggest that the desire to respond in a culturally sanctioned manner is associated with certain other motives. It has been suggested (Nunnally,
1978; Anastasi, 1988) that social desirability may reflect a motive, such as the desire for social approval, that is itself an interesting personality trait. The role of social desirability, whether a response set or itself a motive, warrants further investigation. With respect to the Reiss Profile, evidence suggests that the role is minimal, accounting for less than 3% of the total variance in scale scores.
35 MCSDS Scale (n=171)
Social Contact .04
Curiosity .24**
Honor .39**
Family .19*
Independence -.08
Power -.07
Order .09
Citizenship .31**
Social Prestige -.08
Vengeance -.35**
Food -.16*
Sex -.26**
Physical Exercise .01
Rejection -.18*
Aversive Sensations -.02
Saving -.08
* p < .05 (two-tailed) ** p < .01 (two-tailed)
Figure 5. Pearson product moment correlations betweenMCSDS and 16 Reiss Profile scales
36 Convergent validity was assessed for the Reiss Profile scales of “power," “order,” and “aversive
sensations.” In general, moderately high correlations were foimd between the Reiss Profile scales and
similar scales on more established instruments. Pearson product moment correlations were computed as
follows; between the Reiss Profile scale called “power” and PRF “dominance” (r=.55), between the Reiss
Profile “order” and PRF “order” (r=.60), and between the Reiss Profile scale called “aversive sensations” and the modified-ASl (r=.5S). These correlations are all statistically significant (p<.01) and in the predicted direction. These correlations are especially high given that the instruments use different scaling methods.
The Reiss Profile uses a 7-point Likert-style scaling method while the PRF and modified-ASI items are rated as either “True” or “False.” This scaling difference limits the magnitude of the convergent validity correlations.
These convergent validity data compare favorably to those reported for other personality measures. For example, Edwards ( 1959) reported convergent validity coefficients between selected scales on his Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory (average absolute value r=.33). Bessmer and Ramanaiah (1981) reported convergent validity coefficients as ranging from .26 to .68 (average r=.43) between the PRF zad the Adjective Checklist. Data relevant to the question of convergent validity were reported in the /’^/'publication manual (Jackson, 1984). Pearson product moment correlation matrices were presented between the PRF and the California Personality Inventory
(CPI) as well as the Rentier Psychological Inventory. Unfortimately, Jackson merely presented these correlation matrices without providing a summary or interpretation. This author examined the matrices and judged that the PRF and the CP/ had seven scales that tapped similar constructs (e.g., sociability and affiliation). The average absolute value of these correlation coefficients was .37. Thirteen scales were judged similar between the PRF and the Rentier Psychological Inventory, the average correlation was .44.
In conclusion, these data suggest that theReiss Profile is minimally influenced by social desirability and supports the convergent validity of the tfuee Reiss Profile scales.
37 C h a p t e r 5
C r jt e r io n G r o u p V a l id it y
One way of providing evidence for the validity of the Reiss Profile is to demonstrate that scores on the test vary in a predictable way as a function of membership in some group. Criterion validity refers to the correspondence between a questionnaire and behavioral measures (Barclay, 1991). The behavioral measure of interest in this study is membership in organizations, clubs, or other groups. Participants were recruited for the study whose membership in particular groups indicates a strong desire for one of theReiss
Profile motives. Criterion validity will be supported if the Reiss Profile scales differ across groups in meaningful ways.
1 will present the motivational findings for nine participant groups. These groups were selected because members were hypothesized to be strongly motivated by one of the Reiss Profile motives. The participant groups and the scale that they were selected to validate follow; fraternity and sorority members
(social contact), philosophy students (curiosity), ROTC cadets (honor), persons with disabilities
(independence), community service volunteers (citizenship), dieters (food), varsity atliletes (exercise), culinary students (food), and seminary students (honor and citizenship). I will present the methods and findings for each group in turn.
Data Analvsis
Tests of significance (t tests) will be presented between each group and the norm. The norms
(n=739) were derived by combining two samples (Scale Development: Study 3 and Scale Development:
Study 4) that were described in the introduction of this dissertation. This normative sample is diverse with
38 respect to age, gender, occupation, and geographical area and is considered to be representative of the
general population. Because the “saving” scale was added after normative data were collected, it is not
included in this study.
One assumption of thet test is that the two samples being compared have equal variances. When
the sample sizes are unequal, the risk of Type I error increases when the smaller sample has more variance
(Kirk, 1982, pp.77-78). The following steps were taken to mitigate this risk. In cases where the standard deviation for the criterion group exceeded that for the normative group, a Levene’s test for equality of variances was performed. If a significant difference was found on the Levene’s test, the t test for unequal variances was performed. Except where indicated, / values for pooled variances are reported.
Each sample was hypothesized to score high on one or two (in the case of the Seminary group)
Reiss Profile scales. Plaiuied comparisons were performed to test for significant differences between each sample and the norm on the relevant scale. The significance level for these plaimed comparisons was set at p<.05. In addition to testing these hypotheses, multiplet tests were performed comparing each sample to the norm on each Reiss Profile scale. For these exploratory comparisons, a conservative p<.001 significance criteria is set to minimize the risk of Type I error. At this per comparison significance level, the familywise error rate is approximately .014 for each sample (Keppel, 1991, pp.164-184).
39 Fraternity and Sorority (Greek)
Undergraduate students who belong to social (as opposed to academic) fraternities or sororities were recruited to validate the “social contact” scale.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 65 members of social fraternities (n=21 ) or sororities (n=44) at
The Ohio State University. All participants were undergraduates; 8 (12.3%) of the students were in their first year of college, 17 (26.2%) were in their second year, 30 (46.2%) in their third, and 10 (15.4%) participants were in their fourth year or above. Ages ranged from 18 to 23 with an average of 20.3 years
(SD=1.06). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 95.4% Caucasian (n=62), 1.5% Asian
(n=l), 1.5% Hispanic (n=l), and 1.5% “other” (n=l). Participants were raised in suburban (n=49, 75.4%), rural (n=12, 18.5%), and urban (n=4, 6.2%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be middle (n=17, 26.2%), upper-middle (n=43, 66.2%), and high (n=5, 7.7%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=10, 15.4%), 3.0-3.9 (n=31, 47.7%), 2.0-2.9 (n=23, 35.4%), and below 2.0 (n=l, 1.5%).
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: the Reiss Profile o f
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. The Office of Greek Affairs provided a list of six sorority and six fraternity houses located near the Ohio State University campus. In total, four sorority houses and six fraternity houses participated in the study. Participants were contacted by this author or her research assistants during fraternity and sorority house meetings. The study was briefly described and individuals who lived in the house were invited to participate. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires independently and deposit them in a designated envelope for the researchers to collect at a later date. Fraternity and sorority house presidents were enlisted to distribute the Reiss Profile and a Demographic Questionnaire to members immediately following the meeting. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept
40 blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Thirty-three percent of distributed
questiormaires were returned.
Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Greek group (n=65) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figure 6, members of fraternities and sororities scored significantly higher than the normative group on “social contact” (p<.001). Significant differences were also found on scales measuring the desire for power, prestige, vengeance, food, sex, and exercise (ps<.001).
The motivational profile for the fraternity and sorority group is provided in Figure 7.
Standardized scores are presented in units of standard deviations from the population (normative group) average. This profile illustrates the motivational pattern of my sample of fraternity and sorority members as compared to the population at large. This motivational profile suggests that, as a group, these fraternity and sorority members are motivated not only by a desire for friends and social interaction, but also by desires for power, social prestige, vengeance, and sex (more than .5 standard deviations above the mean).
These findings demonstrate the ability of the Reiss Profile to generate a motivational profile that corresponds to criterion group membership.
41 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (p<) Social Contact Greek 37.24 6.11 -6 J3 , -2.42 -4 J9 .001 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Greek 36.59 6.58 -3.65, -.046 -2.02 .044 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Greek 35.09 5.77 -1.05,2.43 .78 .434 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Greek 36.02 9.48 -1.52,2.88 .51 .545 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Greek 24.40 7.53 -2.81, .79 -1.10 .271 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Greek 32.08 8.21 -9.19, -4.67 -6.01 .001 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Greek 32.03 9.82 -4.37, .08 -1.89 .059 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Greek 31.33 7.22 -1.36,2.33 .52 .605 Norm 31.81 7.26 Prestige Greek 31.86 8.21 -10.79, -6.12 -7.11 .001 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Greek 25.24 11.73 -10.47,-4.70 -5.16 .001 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Greek 32.75 9.33 -6.14,-1.69 -3.46 .001 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Greek 26.52 11.17 -9.93, -4.32 -4.99 .001 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Greek 33.28 8.72 -7.18, -2.11 -3.60 .001 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Greek 30.40 6.68 -3.80, .39 -1.60 .110 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations Greek 21.76 9.90 -1.23,3.25 .88 .377 Norm 22.77 8.71
Figure 6. Independent Samplest tests: Fraternity and Sorority (Greek, n=65) and Norm (n=737)
42 1 25
0 7 5
0 5 V
ta *0 2 5
-0 5
- 0 7 5
Fraternity and Soronty -1 2 5 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Exercise Aversive Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex R election M otives
Figure 7. Motivational Profile of Fraternity and Sorority Members
43 Philosophy Students
Undergraduate students majoring in philosophy and graduate students pursuing masters or doctoral degrees in philosophy were recruited to validate the “cimosity” scale.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 52 students who were currently pursuing graduate or undergraduate degrees in philosophy at The Ohio State University. Participants consisted of 29 males and
23 females. The majority of the sample consisted of upper-level undergraduate and graduate students; 2
(3.8%) students were first year undergraduates, 4 (7.7%) were in their second year, 10 ( 19.2%) in their third year, 15 (28.8%) in their fourth year, and 21 (40.4%) were either fifth year undergraduates or pursuing graduate degrees. Ages ranged from 18 to 41 with an average of 23.9 years (SD=4.52). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 92.3% Caucasian (n=48), 1.9% Asian (n=l), and 5.8% “other”
(n=3). Participants were raised in suburban (n=39, 75.0%), rural (n=8, 15.4%), and luban (n=5, 9.6%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=I, 1.9%), middle (n=27,
51.9%), upper-middle (n=23, 44.2%), and high (n=l, 1.9%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=l 1, 21.2%), 3.0-3.9 (n=35, 67.3%), 2.0-2.9 (n=4, 7.7.4%), and below 2.0 (n=2,
3.8%).
Measures. The following tv/o instruments were used in this study: the Reiss Profile of
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. This author contacted the faculty of six philosophy classes and asked permission to recruit students for a research project during class time. Philosophy classes were selected that were large
(20 students or more) and upper-level (600 or higher). This author visited all six classes and also left questionnaires in philosophy graduate student mailboxes. The sensitivity theory was briefly presented to the class and students were invited to volimteer for a study of motivation sensitivity. Majors and graduate students in philosophy who expressed interest in the study were given a letter describing the study, a Reiss
44 Profile, and a Demographic Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires independently and return them in a postage prepaid pre-addressed envelope. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Approximately 39% of distributed questiormaires were returned.
Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Philosophy group (n=52) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figure 8, philosophy students scored significantly higher than the normative group on “curiosity” (p<.001 ). These students also scored significantly lower than the norm on the following scales: “family,” “order,” and “aversive sensations” (ps
<.001).
The motivational profile for the Philosophy group is presented in Figure 9. This profile illustrates the motivational pattern of my sample of philosophy students as compared to the population at large. This figure largely corroborates the results of the f tests, indicating that this sample of philosophy students are interested in learning to the near exclusion of other pursuits. The fact that philosophy students score high on the Reiss Profile “curiosity” scale is evidence for the criterion validity of that scale.
45 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P < ) Social Contact Philosophy 28.83 10.48 1.07, 7.01 2.73' .009 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Philosophy 42.13 4.58 -9.26, -5.42 -7.51 .001 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Philosophy 32.88 7.31 .94, 4.86 2.90 .004 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Philosophy 29.35 10.31 4.42, 10.29 5.02' .001 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Philosophy 24.35 9.00 -3.52, 1.60 -.75' .455 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Philosophy 24.75 9.88 -2.14,2.94 .311 .756 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Philosophy 25.43 9.49 2.01, 6.92 3.57 .001 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Philosophy 30.78 7.55 -1.02,3.09 .99 .322 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige Philosophy 19.26 10.68 1.51,6.79 3.08 .002 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Philosophy 14.96 9.30 -.46, 5.84 1.68 .094 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Philosophy 26.88 9.36 -.52, 4.42 1.55 .121 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Philosophy 22.00 10.15 -5.68, .48 -1.66 .098 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Philosophy 28.02 10.21 -2.23, 3.46 .43 .670 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Philosophy 28.17 8.43 -1.83,2.88 .44 .663 Norm 28.70 8.34 Aversive Sensations Philosophy 16.52 7.09 3.82. 8.68 5.05 .001 Norm 22.77 8.71 a. t test for unequal variances reported.
Figure 8. Independent Samples f tests: Philosophy Students (n=52) and Norm (n=737)
46 1 25
0 7 5
g 0 2 5
M -G 2 5
0 5
•G 7 5
Philosophy students 1 2 5 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Exercise Aversive Curiosity Family Power Cltlzensnip Vengeance Sex Rejection M otives
Figure 9. Motivational Profile of Philosophy Students
47 ROTC Cadets
Undergraduate students pursuing a degree through the Reserve Officer Training Corps were recruited to validate the “honor” scale.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 65 students who were currently pursuing undergraduate degrees through the Army or Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at The Ohio State University.
Participants consisted of 54 males and 11 females; 20 (30.8%) were first year undergraduates, 10 (15.4%) were in their second year, 19 (29.2%) third year, 12 (18.5%) fourth year, and 4 (6.2%) were in their fifth year or above. Ages ranged from 18 to 30 with an average of 21.3 years (SD=2.75). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 93.8% Caucasian (n=61), 3.1% African-American (n=2), 1.9% Asian
(n=l), and 1.5% “other” (n=l). Participants were raised in suburban (n=47, 72.3%), rural (n=9, 13.8%), and urban (n=8, 12.3%) geographic regions (1 missing) and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=3, 4.6%), middle (n=37, 56.9%), upper-middle (n=24, 36.9%), and high (n=l, 1.5%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=4, 6.2%), 3.0-3.9 (n=41, 63.1%), 2.0-2.9
(n=19, 29.2%), and below 2.0 (n=l, 1.5%).
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: theReiss Profile o f
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. This author contacted faculty in the Army and Navy ROTC programs and asked for permission to recruit ROTC cadets for a research study during class time. Permission was granted to visit two Army ROTC classes and eight Navy ROTC classes. This author or her research assistants visited all ten classes. The sensitivity theory was briefly presented to the class and students were invited to volimteer for a study of motivation. Cadets who expressed interest in the study were given a cover letter describing the study, Reiss Profile, and a Demographic Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires independently during class time. In some cases (approximately 30%), sufficient class time
48 was not afforded and participants were asked to return questionnaires in a postage prepaid envelope.
Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Approximately 64% of distributed questionnaires were returned.
Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
ROTC group (n=65) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figure 10, the ROTC group scored significantly higher on “honor” than the norm (p<.05). Figures 10 and 11 show that the ROTC group also scored higher on “power,” “vengeance,” “sex,” and “exercise” (ps<.OOI). These ROTC cadets scored significantly lower on the “aversive sensations” scale indicating that they are less motivated to avoid pain and anxiety (p<.001 ). These findings provide evidence for the criterion validity of the Reiss Profile scales for “honor” “power,” “exercise,” and “aversive sensations.”
49 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P<) Social Contact ROTC 34.17 6.72 -3.27, .66 -1.31 .192 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity ROTC 37.38 6.07 -4.33, -.84 -2.90 .004 Norm 34.79 6.95 H onor ROTC 37.71 6.19 -3.67, -.17 -2.16 .031 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family ROTC 34.81 9.07 -.30, 4.08 1.70 .090 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence ROTC 24.24 8.02 -2.66, .96 -.92 .358 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power ROTC 33.14 7.01 -10.23, -5.75 -7.00 .001 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order ROTC 28.76 10.39 -1.11,3.37 .99 .322 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship ROTC 30.08 7.36 -.11,3.58 1.85 .065 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige ROTC 26.95 8.83 -5.89,-1.19 -2.96 .003 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance ROTC 24.68 11.04 -9.89, -4.16 -4.81 .001 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food ROTC 30.20 7.92 -3.56, .83 -1.22 .223 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex ROTC 28.03 11.37 -11.44, -5.82 -6.03 .001 Norm 19.40 10.34 Exercise ROTC 37.37 7.18 -11.24, -6.22 -6.83 .001 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection ROTC 29.68 9.01 -3.12, 1.15 -.90 .366 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations ROTC 15.61 9.14 4.94. -9.38 6.32 .001 Norm 22.77 8.71
Figure 10. Independent Samplest tests: ROTC cadets (n=65) and Norm (n=737)
50 1 25
O 75
0 5
o O 2 5
m O 2 5
-0 5
•O 75
ROTC cadets -1 2 5 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Exercise Aversive Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex Reiection M otives
Figure 11. Motivational Profile of ROTC Cadets
51 Persons with Disabilities
Adults who have physical disabilities were recruited to validate the “independence” scale.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 56 adults who had physical disabilities that interfered with their
mobility to some extent. Participants consisted of 35 males and 21 females. Ages ranged from 20 to 70
with an average of 40.4 years (SD=12.77). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 85.7%
Caucasian (n=48), 8.9% African-American (n=5), and 5.4% “other” or missing (n=2, n=I, respectively).
Participants were raised in suburban (n=24,42.9%), rural (n=22, 39.3%), and urban (n=9, 16.1%)
geographic regions (1 missing) and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=12, 21.4%),
middle (n=33, 58.9%), upper-middle (n=10, 17.9%), and high (n=l, 1.8%). High school grade point
averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=l, 1.8%), 3.0-3.9 (n=21, 37.5%), 2.0-2.9 (n=26, 46.4%), and
below 2.0 (n=5, 8.9%); 3 participants neglected to indicate their grade point average.
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: theReiss Profile of
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures
have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. Participants were contacted through wheelchair athletic clubs, disability advocacy
organizations, the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, and independent living centers in Central Ohio.
This author attended four athletic and three advocacy organizational meetings, briefly presented the
sensitivity theory, and invited attendees who had physical disabilities to volunteer for a study of
motivation. Three directors of independent living centers and two counselors at the Bureau of Vocational
Rehabilitation were contacted and asked to distribute questiormaires to their clients. Individuals who expressed interest in the study were given a cover letter describing the study, a Reiss Profile, and a
Demographic Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questioiuiaires independently and return them in a postage prepaid envelope. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind
52 to the purpose and specific hypotheses o f the study. Approximately 21% of distributed questionnaires were returned.
Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Disability group (n=56) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figures 12 and 13, the disability group did not differ significantly from the norm on the “independence” scale. In fact, the disability group did not differ significantly on any Reiss Profile scale. These findings indicate that the Reiss Profile did not detect a consistent motivational profile for persons with physical disabilities.
53 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P<) Social Contact Disability 34.53 6.88 -3.77, .45 -1.55 .123 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Disability 35.21 6.80 -2.30, 1.47 -.43 .665 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Disability 34.77 7.18 -.876, 2.91 1.06 .292 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Disability 36.49 8.43 -2.12,2.54 .18 .858 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Disability 25.25 7.03 -3.78, .06 -1.90 .057 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Disability 25.00 9.00 -2.28, 2.59 .125 .901 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Disability 29.09 8.41 -1.55,3.15 .67 .505 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Disability 30.84 9.50 -1.62,3.57 .75' .455 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige Disability 23.83 8.57 -2.81, 1.97 -.33 .743 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Disability 17.96 10.10 -3.14, 2.51 -.20 .840 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Disability 29.75 8.11 -3.17, 1.34 -.76 .447 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Disability 23.91 11.63 -7.74,-1.29 -2.94 .003 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Disability 30.98 8.13 -4.64, -.06 -1.70 .089 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Disability 29.57 8.83 -3.31, 1.56 -.75 .453 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations Disability 22.17 9.29 -1.97,3.16 .493 .622 Norm 22.77 8.71 a t test for unequal variances reported.
Figure 12. Independent Samplest tests: Persons with Physical Disabilities (n=56) and Norm (n=737)
54 1 25
0 7 5
«> 0 2 5
-O 2 5
•0 7 5
Persons with Disabilities 1 2 5 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Exercise Aversive Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex Rejection M otives
Figure 13. Motivational Profile of Persons with Disabilities
55 Volunteers
Volunteers for three service organizations (Peace Corps, Habitat for Humanity, and Ohio Stater,
Inc.) were recruited to help validate the “citizenship” scale.
Methods.
Participants. A total of 66 volunteers participated in the study (20 males and 46 females). Ages ranged from 18 to 76 with an average of 29.8 years (SD=I2.70). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 86.4% Caucasian (n=57), 7.6% African-American (n=5), and 6.1% Asian (n=4). Participants were raised in suburban (n=44, 66.7%), rural (n=12, 18.2%), and urban (n=10, 15.2%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=l, 1.5%), middle (n=37, 56.1%), upper- middle (n=25, 37.9%), and high (n=2, 3.0%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows:
4.0 (n=13, 19.7%), 3.0-3.9 (n=43, 65.2%), and 2.0-2.9 (n=10, 15.2%).
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: the Reiss Profile of
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. Participants were recmited for this study in three ways. First, recruiters for the
National Peace Corps Association on the Ohio State and Ohio University campuses were contacted by this author. These recruiters distributed cover letters and questioiuiaires to persons who were applying to volunteer for the Peace Corps. Second, this author or her research assistants attended Peace Corps. Habitat for Humanity, and Ohio Stater, Inc. organizational meetings (two meetings were attended for each organization), briefly presented the sensitivity theory, and invited volunteers to participate in a study of motivation. Third, an announcement describing the study and inviting Peace Corps volunteers to participate was posted to the Peace Corps electronic mail listserv. Individuals who expressed interest in participating were given a cover letter describing the study, a Reiss Profile, and a Demographic
Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires independently and return them in a
56 postage prepaid envelope. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Approximately 51% of distributed questionnaires were returned.
Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Volunteer group (n=66) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figures 14 and 15, the Volunteer group scored significantly higher on “citizenship” compared to the normative sample (p<.001). They also scored significantly higher on “curiosity” and significantly lower on the following six scales: “family,”
“independence,” “order,” “prestige,” “vengeance,” and “aversive sensations” (ps<.001). The finding that these volunteers scored high on the scale measuring the desire to contribute to society is evidence for the criterion validity of the “citizenship” scale.
57 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P<) Social Contact Volimteer 33.98 6.05 -3.06, .822 -1.13 .259 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Volunteer 38.74 5.38 -5.67, -2.22 -4.50 .001 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Volunteer 33.30 6.83 .74, 4.23 2.79 .005 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Volunteer 32.23 8.39 2.31,6.63 4.06 .001 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Volunteer 19.66 6.99 1.95, 5.51 4.11 .001 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Volunteer 25.60 7.02 -2.67, 1.78 -.40 .693 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Volunteer 25.42 9.53 2.26, 6.67 3.98 .001 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Volunteer 35.55 7.99 -5.58, -1.88 -3.97 .001 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige Volunteer 16.92 8.84 4.16, 8.82 5.46 .001 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Volunteer 12.26 10.05 2.56, 8.22 3.74 .001 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Volunteer 30.79 8.36 -4.14, .24 -1.75 .081 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Volunteer 17.65 9.91 -1.01,4.51 1.25 .213 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Volunteer 27.67 11.30 -1.60, 3.54 .74 .459 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Volunteer 27.73 9.18 -1.15,3.10 .90 .370 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations Volunteer 17.91 8.17 2.67, 7.05 4.36 .001 Norm 22.77 8.71
Figure 14. Independent Samplest tests: Volimteers (n=66) and Norm (n=737)
58 1 25
0 75
0» 0 2 5
-O 2 5
-0 S
•0 75
V o l u n t e e r » -1 2 5 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Exercise Aversive Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex Rejection M otives
Figure 15. Motivational Profile for Volunteers
59 Dieters
Individuals who were enrolled in weight loss or weight management programs were recruited to help validate the “food” scale.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 44 individuals who were currently on a reduced calorie diet to lose weight or to maintain recent weight loss. Participants consisted o f 9 males and 35 females. Ages ranged from 18 to 71 with an average of 30.6 years (SD=13.92). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 77.8% Caucasian (n=35), 20.0% African-American (n=9), and 2.2% “other” (n=l).
Participants were raised in suburban (n=20, 44.4%), rural (n=l 1, 24.4%), and urban (n=13, 28.9%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=4, 8.9%), middle (n=27,
60.0%), upper-middle (n=l 1, 24.4%), and high (n=2, 4.4%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=4, 8.9%), 3.0-3.9 (n=30, 66.7%), and 2.0-2.9 (n=7, 15.6%).
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: theReiss Profile o f
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. This author contacted nutritionists at the Ohio State University (Wilce Student Health
Center and Comprehensive Weight Management) and at nine community weight loss centers around the
Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area. These nutritionists were asked to help in recruiting participants for a study of motivation. Nutritionists at both Ohio State programs and at two of the nine community centers agreed to help recruit participants. They were given questionnaire packets and asked to distribute them to their clients who were trying to lose weight or maintain recent weight loss. In addition, this author was invited to recruit participants during weight loss classes offered through the Wilce Student Health Center at
Ohio State. 1 attended three of these classes, briefly presented the study to the students, and distributed questionnaire packets. Participant packets included a cover letter describing the study, a Reiss Profile, and a Demographic Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires independently and
60 return them in a postage prepaid envelope. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Approximately 41.9% of distributed questiotmaires were returned.
Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Dieter group (n=44) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figures 16 and 17, the Dieter group scored significantly higher on the “food” scale compared to the normative sample (p<.001). The Dieter group did not differ significantly from the norm on any other scale. The finding that people on diets are highly motivated by food supports the criterion validity of the “food” scale.
61 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P<) Social Contact Dieter 33.50 5.98 -2.96, 1.70 -.53 .595 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Dieter 37.76 6.17 -5.05, -.89 -2.80 .005 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Dieter 34.42 7.63 -.74, 3.47 1.37 .204 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Dieter 38.38 7.66 -4.25, .90 -1.28 .201 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Dieter 20.94 6.88 .32, 4.57 2.26 .024 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Dieter 25.93 8.00 -3.47, 1.90 -.57 .568 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Dieter 30.40 9.11 -3.13,2.10 -.39 .699 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Dieter 30.91 5.66 -1.26,3.07 .82 .413 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige Dieter 23.85 9.67 -3.24, 2.36 -.31 .759 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Dieter 18.69 9.51 -4.42, 2.34 -.60 .547 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Dieter 33.83 9.76 -7.64, -235 -3.71 .001 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Dieter 21.76 12.12 -5.67, .98 -1.39 .167 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Dieter 26.86 10.97 -1.28,4.83 1.13 .255 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Dieter 31.19 7.82 -5.01, .01 -1.96 .051 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations Dieter 19.98 7.99 .17,5.40 2.09 .037 Norm 22.77 8.71
Figure 16. Independent Samplesi tests; Dieters (n=44) and Norm (n=737)
62 1 2 5
0 7 5
o> 0 2 5
•0 2 5
0 7 5
Dieters 1 2 5 Social Contact Honor independanca Order PrasllQe Food Exorcise Aw Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex Refection M o tiv e s
Figure 17. Motivational Profile of Dieters
63 Varsity Athletes
Undergraduate students who compete in varsity athletics were recruited to validate the “physical exercise” scale.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 71 varsity athletes at Ohio State University. Participants consisted of 32 males and 39 females. All participants were undergraduates with 26.8% (n=19) first year, 26.8%
(n=19) second year, 23.9% (n=17) third year, 16.9% (n=12) fourth year, and 5.6% (n=4) were fifth year students or above. Ages ranged from 18 to 24 with an average of 20.0 years (SD=1.35). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 83.1% Caucasian (n=59), 8.5% Afncan-.American (n=6), 4.2%
Hispanic (n=3), and 4.2% “other” (n=3). Participants were raised in suburban (n=55, 77.5%), rural (n=9,
12.7%), and urban (n=6, 8.5%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=l, 1.4%), middle (n=31, 43.7%), upper-middle (n=36, 50.7%), and high (n=3, 4.2%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=10, 14.1%), 3.0-3.9 (n=41, 57.7%), 2.0-2.9 (n=19,
26.8%), and below 2.0 (n=l, 1.4%).
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: the Reiss Profile o f
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. Participants were recruited through the office of Student Athlete Support Services and the Department of Athletics at Ohio State University. Athletes were addressed during a student counsel meeting and during the following team practices: women’s soccer, men’s soccer, and women’s swimming.
The study was briefly described and athletes were invited to participate. They were given a cover letter describing the study, a Reiss Profile, and a Demographic Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires independently and to either return them to their coach or mail them in a postage prepaid envelope. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Approximately 79% of distributed questionnaires were returned.
64 Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Athlete group (n=71) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figure 18, the Athlete group scored significantly higher on scale for physical exercise (p<.001). The athletes also scored significantly higher on the following scales: “social contact,” “power,” “prestige,” “vengeance,” and “food” (ps<.001).
The motivational profile for the Athlete group is provided in Figure 19. This figure indicates that athletes are very highly motivated by exercise (approximately 1.25 SD above average) and also highly motivated by power, prestige, vengeance, and food (more than .5 standard deviations above average). The finding that varsity athletes obtain high scores on the Reiss Profile scale for “physical exercise” provides evidence for the criterion validity of this scale.
65 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P<) Social Contact Athlete 36.57 5.76 -5.57,-1.84 -3.89 .001 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Athlete 36.22 6.01 -3.11, .24 -1.68 .093 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Athlete 34.17 5.84 -.06, 3.28 1.89 .059 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Athlete 38.89 7.03 -4.25,-.12 -2.08 .038 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Athlete 22.53 8.00 -.89, 2.60 .96 .336 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Athlete 31.61 6.82 -8.60, -4.31 -5.91 .001 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Athlete 30.65 9.45 -2.89, 1.37 -.70 .485 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Athlete 31.04 6.94 -.99, 2.54 .858 .391 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige Athlete 29.56 8.79 -8.40, -3.90 -5.36 .001 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Athlete 23.85 11.16 -8.95, -3.44 -4.41 .001 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Athlete 33.28 7.06 -6.54, -2.36 -4.17 .001 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Athlete 22.04 11.63 -5.34, .07 -1.91 .056 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Athlete 41.23 6.01 -14.98, -10.20 -1 0 J5 .001 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Athlete 30.44 8.81 -3.79, .30 -1.67 .095 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations Athlete 20.75 9.31 -.12,4.16 1.85 .065 Norm 22.77 8.71
pLgure_I8. Independent Samplest tests: Athletes (n=7I) and Norm (n=737)
6 6 1 25
0 75
o 0 2 5
-O 2 5
O S
•0 75
^ 2 5 Social Contact Honor indapandance Ordar PrattiQa Food Exarciaa Avaralva Curiokity Fsmity Powar Citlzananip Vengaanca Sax Raiactlon M otives
Figure 19. Motivational Profile for Varsity Athletes
67 Culinary Students
A sample of culinary smdents were recruited to further explore the “food” scale.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 58 culinary students who were either enrolled in culinary arts vocational school or receiving training through culinary apprenticeships. Participants consisted of 34 males and 24 females. Ages ranged from 18 to 47 with an average of 25.0 years (SD=7.20). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows: 86.2% Caucasian (n=50), 6.9% Afncan-American (n=4), and
6.9% “other” (n=4). Participants were raised in suburban (n=21. 36.2%), rural (n=16, 27.6%), and urban
(n=18, 31.0%) geographic regions and reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=6, 10.3%), middle (n=36, 62.1%), and upper-middle (n=15, 25.9%). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0 (n=2, 3.4%), 3.0-3.9 (n=23, 39.7%), 2.0-2.9 (n=25, 43.1%), and below 2.0 (n=4, 6.9%); 4 participants neglected to indicate their grade point average.
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: the Reiss Profile o f
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. The American Culinary Federation provided a list of culinary arts programs and executive chef/instmctors in the Ohio area. Of nine instructors contacted, five agreed to participate in the study. The majority of participants (approximately 87.9%) were culinary students at the following two culinary schools: Columbus State and Hocking College. Culinary students and apprentices were invited to participate in a study of motivation by their executive chef/trainer or, in one case, during class by this author. They were given a cover letter describing the study, a Reiss Profile, and a Demographic
Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questiotmaires independently and were given the option of returning them to their executive chef/instructor or mailing them in a postage prepaid envelope.
Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Approximately 41% of distributed questionnaires were returned.
6 8 Results.
A series of r tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Culinary group (n=58) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figures 20 and 21, the Culinary group scored significantly higher on the “food” scale (p<.001). These students also scored significantly higher on scales for “vengeance” and “sex” (ps<.GO 1 ). This group scored significantly lower than the norm on the “honor” scale (p<.001 ). The finding that culinary arts students obtained high scores on the Reiss
Profile scale “food” supports the criterion validity of this scale.
69 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for I Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P<) Social Contact Culinary 32.74 8.33 -1.98, 2.23 .12 .907 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Culinary 37.32 6.02 -4.37, -.69 -2.70 .007 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Culinary 32.09 7.08 1.84,5.56 3.90 .001 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Culinary 37.08 8.45 -2.67, 1.91 -.33 .745 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Culinary 24.22 7.81 -2.74, 1.07 -.86 .390 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Culinary 28.16 7.69 -5.38, -.63 -2.48 .013 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Culinary 30.45 7.47 -2.89, 1.70 -.51 .613 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Culinary 29.14 8.43 .71,4.64 2.67 .008 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige Culinary 26.24 9.35 -5.33,-32 -2.22 .027 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Culinary 25.66 11.72 -11.04, -4.97 -5.17 .001 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Culinary 3338 7.46 -6.86, -2.24 -3.87 .001 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Culinary 29.55 10.12 -13.08, -7.22 -6.80 .001 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Culinary 28.10 11.11 -2.19,3.25 .38 .701 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Culinary 27.33 9.06 -.91,3.63 1.18 .239 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations Culinary 22.27 8.49 -1.85,2.85 .42 .676 Norm 22.77 8.71
Figure 20. Independent Samplest tests: Culinary Students (n=58) and Norm (n=737)
70 1 25
O 75
«> 0 2 5
O 2 5
O 75
Culinary atudents 1 2 5 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex R election M otives
Figure 21. Motivational Profile for Culinary Students
71 Seminary Students
Seminary students were recruited to further explore the “honor” and “citizenship” scales.
Methods.
Participants. Participants were 49 students enrolled in seminary schools in Central Ohio and
Eastern Indiana. Participants consisted of 26 males and 23 females. Ages ranged from 19 to 53 with an
average of 28.7 years (SD=6.02). Racial or ethnic groups were represented as follows; 89.8% Caucasian
(n=44), 2.0% African-American (n=I), 2.0% Asian (n=l), and 4.1% “other” (n=2). Participants were
raised in subiuban (n=24, 49.0%), rural (n=16, 32.7%), and urban (n=8, 16.3%) geographic regions and
reported their family socio-economic status to be low (n=2, 4.1%), middle (n=32, 65.3%), upper-middle
(n=14, 28.6%), and high (2.0%, n=l). High school grade point averages were reported as follows: 4.0
(n=16. 32.7%), 3.0-3.9 (n=26, 53.1%), 2.0-2.9 (n=6, 12.2%), and below 2.0 (n=l, 2.0%).
Measures. The following two instruments were used in this study: the Reiss Profile o f
Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities and the Demographic Questionnaire. These measures
have been described previously and are available in the appendices (Appendix A and B, respectively).
Procedure. Four seminary schools in Central Ohio and Eastern Indiana were contacted; the
following three schools agreed to participate: Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Methodist
Theological School in Ohio, and Trinity Lutheran Seminary. Faculty or office staff at these seminaries distributed questionnaire packets to students either during class or through student mailboxes. The questionnaire packet included a cover letter describing the study and inviting them to participate, aReiss
Profde, and a Demographic Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questiotmaires independently and return them in a postage prepaid envelope. Participation was anonymous and participants were kept blind to the purpose and specific hypotheses of the study. Approximately 32% of distributed questiotmaires were returned.
72 Results.
A series of t tests were performed on the scale scores to test for significant differences between the
Seminary group (n=49) and the normative sample (n=737). As shown in Figure 22, the Seminary group scored significantly higher on “citizenship” (p<.001) but not on “honor” relative to the normative group
(ns). The seminary group also scored significantly higher on “curiosity” and significantly lower on scales measuring the desire for family, independence, prestige, and avoidance of aversive sensations (ps<.001 ).
This sample of seminary students did not differ from the norm on any other Reiss Profile scale. The finding that seminary students score significantly higher on scales measuring the desire to learn
(“curiosity”) and the desire to contribute to society (“citizenship”) and significantly lower on the desire for social stams (“social prestige”) supports the criterion validity of these scales.
73 Scale Group Mean Standard 95% Cl for t Significance Deviation Mean Difference (P<) Social Contact Seminary 32.19 7.74 -1.59, 2.93 .58 .560 Norm 32.86 7.81 Curiosity Seminary 38.52 5.09 -5.71,-1.74 -3.69 .001 Norm 34.79 6.95 Honor Seminary 34J5 5.79 -.55,3.43 1.42 .157 Norm 35.78 6.94 Family Seminary 31.87 6.88 2.37, 7.29 3.86 .001 Norm 36.70 8.58 Independence Seminary 18.67 8.03 2.66, 6.78 4.49 .001 Norm 23.39 7.06 Power Seminary 27.32 8.67 -4.76, .42 -1.64 .101 Norm 25.15 8.96 Order Seminary 27.37 9.38 -.05, 5.04 1.96 .050 Norm 29.89 8.66 Citizenship Seminar) 37.28 5.16 -7.54, -3.40 -5.18 .001 Norm 31.82 7.26 Prestige Seminary 17.49 9.77 3.23, 8.62 4.31 .001 Norm 23.41 9.27 Vengeance Seminary 12.55 9.21 1.86, 8.35 3.09 .002 Norm 17.65 11.31 Food Seminary 27.75 8.88 -1.44,3.61 .84 .399 Norm 28.84 8.71 Sex Seminary 19.41 9.84 -3.17,3.16 -.01 .996 Norm 19.40 10.94 Exercise Seminary 25.59 10.34 .12, 5.97 2.04 .041 Norm 28.64 10.08 Rejection Seminary 31.15 7.61 -4.88, -.02 -1.98 .048 Norm 28.70 8.35 Aversive Sensations Seminary 17.96 8.18 2.27, 7.34 3.72 .001 Norm 22.77 8.71
Figure 22. Independent Samplest tests: Seminary Students (n=49) and Norm (n=737)
74 1 25
0 .7 5
OS
•0 .2 5 -O 5 -0 75 Seminary Students 1 25 Social Contact Honor independence Order Prestige Food Curiosity Family Power Citizenship Vengeance Sex Rejection M o tiv es Figure 23. Motivational Profile for Seminary Students 75 Discussion The findings from eight of the nine samples provide evidence for the criterion validity of the Reiss Profile. A visual inspection of these profiles reveals very different patterns of motives which vary in consistent ways with the participant group membership. With the exception of the Disability group, each of these groups scored significantly higher than average on the scale that they were selected to validate. Only the Disability group did not manifest a consistent motivational pattern. Persons with physical disabilities were unique in this study in that all other participants made a conscious choice to join their respective groups (e.g., fraternity and sorority, philosophy). This difference may account for the fact that the Reiss Profile did not detect a consistent motivational pattern for this group. One word of caution is warranted regarding the generalization of these findings. The group members in this study were not randomly selected. Therefore, these samples may not be representative of the various groups. This study provides criterion validity evidence for the following Reiss Profile scales: “social contact” (Greek group), “curiosity” (Philosophy , Volunteer, and Seminary groups), “honor” (ROTC), “power” (Greek and ROTC groups), “citizenship” (Volunteer and Seminary groups), “vengeance” (ROTC group), “food” (Dieter and Culinary groups), “exercise” (Athlete and ROTC groups) and “aversive sensations” (ROTC group). Certain of theReiss Profile scales did not distinguish between participant groups. For example, the scales for “family,” “independence,” “order,” and “rejection sensitivity” warrant further investigation. Finally, the “saving” scale was not included in this study. Research is needed to establish norms for this scale so that it’s validity can be assessed. 76 C h a p t e r 6 C o n c l u s io n Sensitivity theory offers a new approach to the study of human motivation. Drawing a distinction between extrinsic (means) and intrinsic (end) motivation, sensitivity theory has shown the existence of 16 fundamental intrinsic motives. The Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities measures these 16 motives. This dissertation has provided significant new evidence that the Reiss Profile has sound psychometric properties. First, the 16-factor structure was confirmed for a large new sample of participants. Secondly, scores on the Reiss Profde scales were shown to be relatively stable across time and minimally influenced by socially desirability. Significant evidence for the validity of the instrument was also presented. Three Reiss Profde scales were found to correlate significantly with other instruments measuring related constructs. Finally, motivational scores were found to vary in a meaningful way with significant life choices, especially the choice of college major and extra-curricular activities. Summarv o f Findings The purpose of this dissertation was to evaluate the psychometric properties of theReiss Profile. The specific objectives were to confirm the sixteen factor solution of the revised instrument, to assess its reliability and validity, and to determine the extent to which the scales are influenced by social desirability response bias. In the first study, I reported the results of a confirmatory factor analysis of the 16-factor revised instrument. The oblique solution yielded an RMSEA of .053, which indicates an acceptable fit to the data 77 (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). This finding supports the factorial stability of the 16-factor instrument. The sensitivity theory posits that the 16 motives are distinct from one another. This hypothesis was supported by the small inter-factor correlations between the 16 scales (average r=.20). The purpose of the second study was to investigate the temporal stability of each of theReiss Profile scales. Temporal stability is an important metric for sensitivity theory because the scales are purported to measure stable individual differences in motivation. I found the test-retest reliability coefficients for the 16 scales to be highly stable over a four-week interval. The Pearson product moment correlations ranged from .69 to .88 (average r=.80). These test-retest coefficients compare favorably to those reported for the Personality Research Form (Hjelle & Bernard, 1994) and the MMPl-2 (Butcher et a i, 1989). The objectives of the third study were to evaluate the influence of socially desirable responding and to assess the convergent validity of three Reiss Profile scales. It is important to investigate the role of social desirability in self-report instruments because a strong biasing effect would invalidate the findings. Social desirability response bias was found to have a minimal influence on the Reiss Profile scales, accounting for less than 3% of the variance in scale scores. This finding compares favorably to the estimates of desirable responding on the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1984). The convergent validity for three Reiss Profile scales was evaluated in Chapter 4. TheReiss Profile scales o f “power”, “order,” and “aversive sensations” correlated moderately with the PRF scales of “dominance” (r=.55), and “order” (r=.60), and the modified-Anxiety Sensitivity Index (r=.58), respectively. These convergent validity coefficients exceed those reported for the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959) and the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1984). These findings support the convergent validity of these three scales. The purpose of the fourth study was to investigate whether or not theReiss Profile scores vary in predictable ways as a function of behavioral measures. Criterion validity was assessed by recruiting participants whose membership in particular groups might result in a strong desire for at least one of the Reiss Profile motives. Motivational profiles were found to differ in meaningful ways across these nine 78 groups. Eight of the nine groups scored significantly higher than the norm on the scale that they were selected to validate. This study provided significant evidence for the criterion validity of the instrument. Limitations of Current Research One limitation of this dissertation research is that the majority of the participants (approximately 67%) were college students. This potentially limits the degree to which the findings generalize to populations that differ in age, education, and socio-economic status. The fact that several samples in Chapter 5 scored higher than average on the scales for “sex” (Greek, ROTC, and Culinary) and “vengeance” (Greek, ROTC, Athlete, Culinary) could be the result of an age bias, for example. Further research using the Reiss Profile in non-college samples is needed to explore these possibly confounding variables. Another limitation is that the participants on these studies were self-selected. They each volunteered to participate in a study of motivation. It is possible that the motivational profile of persons who volunteer for research studies is somewhat different from the general population. One might predict them to be more motivated by curiosity or perhaps the desire to help others (citizenship). However, the profiles generated for the nine samples in Chapter 5 are very different from one another indicating that a common motivational bias is not in operation. Future Research Directions Sensitivity theory predicts that persons who have aberrantly high motives are at risk for developing psychopathology. For example, a person who wants more of a motive than is available in a normative envirotunent is predicted to resort to extreme behavior to fulfill his or her desire. Persons who are too intolerant of anxiety or pain are at risk to develop aberrant behavior as a means of escaping even ordinary amounts of these stimuli. Research is needed to test the hypothesis that a high score on any Reiss Profile scale indicates risk for psychopathology. It may be that risk is predicted from high scores on only some of the scales. Research is also needed to empirically determine how high a score must be on the Reiss 79 Profile in order indicate a clinically significant risk. These are important future directions as early identification of mental illness is an important first step in the prevention of a disorder. The first step in testing the hypothesis of motivational risk factors is to collect Reiss Profile data on different psychiatric patient populations. A finding that psychiatric disorders are associated with statistically unusual motivational patterns would provide preliminary support for our hypothesis. The best way to investigate the predictive validity of the Reiss Profile is through a longitudinal study. In such a study, a large sample of participants drawn from the general population would complete theReiss profile and measures of psychopathology at several points in time. With this methodology, it is possible to test the hypothesis that high scores on Reiss Profile scales increase the probability of developing mental health problems. Such a finding would have important implications for the early identification and prevention of psychiatric disorders. Last Word In conclusion, the Reiss Profile generates comprehensive motivational profiles that provide norm- referenced information about 16 different motives. Our analyses to date have shown that this questiormaire has a stable factor structure, good internal reliability, temporal stability, convergent validity, and is minimally affected by the social desirably response bias. The Reiss Profile scores into motivational profiles that vary in consistent ways across groups o f individuals. The Reiss Profile has advantages over other personality and motivation instruments. With only 128 items, the scale is completed in about 15 minutes. In contrast, thePRF requires between 30 and 70 minutes, depending on the form (Jackson, 1984), and the 567-item MMPl-2 can take as long as 1.5 hours (Graham, 1990). In contrast to the complex two and three-code profile interpretation recommended for the MMPl-2, the Reiss Profile interpretation is straightforward. For example, a high score on theReiss Profile scale “curiosity” indicates that the person is highly motivated by curiosity or the desire to leam. The brevity and interpretation ease are significant advantages of this instrument. 80 The Reiss Profile was developed as a research tool that could be used to measure motivation sensitivity and to test the various predictions of sensitivity theory. Based on the results of this dissertation, it is now possible to use the Reiss Profile to evaluate the predictions that sensitivity theory has advanced. 8 1 R e f e r e n c e s Ahmad, T., Wardle, ]., & Hayward, P. (1992). Physical symptoms and illness attributions in agoraphobia and panic. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 30. 493-500. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4* ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6'*’ ed.). New York: Macmillan. Apfeldorf, W.J., Shear, M.K., Leon, A.C., & Portera, L. (1994). A brief screen for panic disorder. Journal o f Anxiety Disorders. 8. 71-78. Asmuiidson, G.J., & Norton, G.R. (1993). Anxiety sensitivity and its relationship to spontaneous and cued panic attacks in college students. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 31. 199-201. Asmundson, G.J., Norton, G.R., Wilson, K.G., & Sandler, L.S. (1994). Subjective symptoms and cardiac reactivity to brief hyperventilation in individuals with high anxiety sensitivity. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 32. 237-241. Barclay, J.R. (1991). Psychological assessment. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Beck, J.G., Shipherd, J.C., & Zebb, B.J. (1996). Fearful responding to repeated CO; inhalation: A preliminary investigation. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 34. 609-620. Bentler, P.M., & Bonnett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 88. 588-606. Bentler, P.M., & Chou, C.P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research. 16. 78-117. Bessmer, M.A., & Ramanaiah, N.V. (1981). Convergent and discriminant validity of selected need scales for the Adjective Check List and Personality Research Form. Psychological Reports. 49. 311- 316. Bootzin, R.R., Acocella, J R., & Alloy, L.B. (1993). Abnormal psychology: Current perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill. Browne, M.W., Mels, G., & Coward, M. (1994). Path Analysis: SYSTAT for DOS: Advanced applications (version 6). Evanston, IL: SYSTAT. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research. 21. 230-258. 82 Bruce, T.J., Spiegel, D.A., Gregg, S.F., & Nuzzarello, A. (1995). Predictors of alprazolam discontinuation with and without cognitive behavior therapy in panic disorder. American Journal of Psvchiatrv. 152. 1156-1160. Butcher, J.N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personalitv Inventorv-2 fMMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cohen, R.J., Swerdlik, M.E., Phillips, S.M. (1996). Psvchological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (3"* ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Cox, B.J., Endler, N.S., Norton, G.R., & Swinson, R.P. (1991). Anxiety sensitivity and nonclinical panic attacks. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 29. 367-369. Crino, M.D., Svoboda, M., Rubenfeld, S., White, M. (1983). Data on the Marlowe-Crowne and Edwards social desirability scales. Psychological Reports. 53. 963-968. Crowne, O.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consultinn Psychology. 24. 349-354. Donnell, C.,D., & McNally, R.J. (1989). Anxiety sensitivity and history of panic as predictors of response to hyperventilation. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 27. 325-332. Donnell, C.,D., & McNally, R.J. ( 1990). Anxiety sensitivity and panic attacks in a nonclinical population. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 28. 83-85. Ehlers, A. (1995). A 1-year prospective study o f panic attacks: Clinical course and factors associated with maintenance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 104. 164-172. Edwards, A.L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personalitv assessment and research. New York: Dryden. Edwards, A.L. (1959). Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Ehlers, A. (1995). A 1-year prospective study of panic attacks: Clinical course and factors associated with maintenance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 104. 164-172. Eke, M., & McNally, R.J. (1996). Anxiety sensitivity, suffocation fear, trait anxiety, and breath- holding duration as predictors of response to carbon dioxide challenge. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 34» 603-607. Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment. 7. 286-299. Goldberg, L.R. (1977). What if we administered the “wrong” inventory?: The prediction of scores on the Personality Research Form scales from those on the California Psychological Inventory, and visa versa. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1. 339-354. Goldstein, A.J., & Chambless, D.L. (1978). A reanalysis of agoraphobia. Behavior Therapy. 9. 47-59. 83 Graham, J.R. (1990). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press. Gursky, D.M., & Reiss, S. (1987). Identifying danger and anxiety expectancies as components of common fears. Journal of Behavior Theraov and Experimental Psvchiatrv. 18. 317-324. Gynther, M.D., & Gynther, R.A. (1976). Personality inventories. In I.B. Weiner (Ed.), Clinical methods in psvcholoev (pp. 187-279). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hjelle, L.A., & Bernard, M. (1994). Private self-consciousness and the retest reliability of self- reports. Journal of Research in Personalitv. 28. 52-67. Holden, R.R., & Fekken, G.C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Journal o f Research in Personalitv. 23. 180-191. Holloway, W., & McNally, R.J. (1987). Effects o f anxiety sensitivity on the response to hyperventilation. Journal of Abnormal Psvchologv. 96. 330-334. Jaccard, J.J. ( 1974). Predicting social behavior from personality traits. Journal of Research in Personalitv. 7. 358-367. Jackson, D.N. (1984). Personalitv Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and anaivsis: A researcher’s handbook (3"^ ed., pp. 164-184). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kirk, R. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for behavioral science (2"“* ed., pp. 77-78). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Lorr, M. ( 1975). Convergences in personality constructs measured by four inventories. Journal of Clinical Psvchologv. 31. 182-189. Mailer, R.G., & Reiss, S. (1992). Anxiety sensitivity in 1984 and panic attacks in 1987. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 6. 241-247. Mas low, A.H. (1987). Motivation and personalitv (3"* ed.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. McDougall, W. (1926). An introduction to social psychology (3"^ ed.). Boston: John W. Luce & Co. McNally, R.J. (1989). Is anxiety sensitivity distinguishable from trait anxiety? A reply to Lilienfeld, Jacob, and Turner (1989). Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 98. 193-194. McNally, R.J. (1994). Panic disorder: A critical anaivsis. New York: Guilford Press. McNally, R.J., & Lorenz, M. (1987). Anxiety sensitivity in agoraphobics. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psvchiatrv. 18. 3-11. McNally, R.J., & Louro, G.E. (1992). Fear of flying in agoraphobia and simple phobia: Distinguishing features. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 6. 319-324. 84 McNally, R.J., & Steketee, G.S. (1985). The etiology and maintenance of severe animal phobias. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 23. 431-435. Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fiftv men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press. Nunnally, J.C. (19781. Psychometric theory (2"'' ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ollendick, T.H. (1995). Cognitive behavioral treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia in adolescents: A multiple baseline design analysis. Behavior Therapy. 26. 517-531. Peterson, R.A., & Reiss, S. (1992). Anxiety Sensitivity Index Test Manual. Worthington, OH: IDS Publications. Pierce, R.A., & Schwartz, A.J. (1971). Personality styles o f student activists. The Journal of Psychology. 79. 21-231. Rabian, B., Peterson, R.A., Richters, J., & Jensen, P S. (1993). Anxiety sensitivity among anxious children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 22.441-446. Rapee, R.M., Ancis, J R., & Barlow, D.H. (1988). Emotional reactions to physiological sensations: Panic disorder patients and non-clinical Ss. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 26. 265-269. Rapee, R.M., Brown, T.A., Antony, M.M., & Barlow, D.H. (1992). Response to hyperventilation and inhalation of 5.5% carbon dioxide-enriched air across the DSM-III-R anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 101. 538-552. Rapee, R.M., & Medoro, L. (1994). Fear of physical sensations and trait anxiety as mediators of the response to hyperventilation in nonclinical subjects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 103. 693-699. Reise, S.P., Widamen, K..F., & Plugh, R.H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin. 114. 552-566. Reiss, S. ( 1987). Theoretical perspectives on the fear of anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review. 7. 585-596. Reiss, S. (1991). Expectancy model of fear, anxiety, and panic. Clinical Psvchologv Review. 11. 141-153. Reiss, S. (1997). Trait anxiety: It’s not what you think it is. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 11. 201-214. Reiss, S. (In press). The sensitivity theory of aberrant motivation. In S. Taylor (Ed.), Anxiety Sensitivity. New York: Erlbaum. Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S.M. (1996). The sensitivity theory of motivation: Implications for psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Theraov. 34. 621-632. Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S.M. (1997). Sensitivity theory and mental retardation: Why functional analysis is not enough. American Journal of Mental Retardation. 101. 553-566. 85 Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S.M. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation: Factor structure of the Reiss Profiles. Psvchological Assessment. 10. 97-106. Reiss, S., & McNally, R.J. (1985). Expectancy model of fear. In Reiss, S. & Bootzin, R.R. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in behavior therapv. San Diego: Academic Press. Reiss, S., & Park, L. (in press). Integrating applied behavior analysis and personality theory. In H. Switzey (Ed.), Personalitv and motivation: Self svstem processes. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers. Reiss, S., Peterson, R.A., Gursky, D.M., & McNally, R.J. (1986). Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency and the prediction of fearfiilness. Behavior Research and Therapv. 24. 1-8. Schmidt, N.B., Lerew, D R., & Jackson, R.J. (1997). The role of anxiety sensitivity in the pathogenesis of panic: Prospective evaluation of spontaneous panic attacks during acute stress. Journal of Abnormal Psvchoioev. 106. 355-364. Schmidt, N.B., Lerew, D R., & Trakowski, J.H. ( 1997). Body vigilance in panic disorder: Evaluating attention to bodily perturbations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchoioev. 65. 214-220. Schmidt, N.B., Trakowski, J.H., & Staab, J.P. (1997). Extinction of panicogenic effects of a 35% CO; challenge in patients with panic disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psvchologv. 106. 630-638. Shear, M.K., Pilkonis, P.A., Cloitre, M., & Leon, A.C. (1994). Cognitive behavioral treatment compared to nonprescriptive treatment for panic disorder. Archives of General Psvchiatrv. 51. 395-401. Shostak, B.B., & Peterson, R.A. (1990). Effects of anxiety sensitivity on emotional response to a stress task. Behaviour Research and Therapv. 28. 513-521. Silverman, W. K., Fleisig, W., Rabian, B., & Peterson, R.A. (1991). Childhood anxiety sensitivity index. Journal of Clinical Child Psvchologv. 20. 162-168. SPSS (1995). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows version 7.0 [Computer Software], Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. SPSS (1998). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows version 8.0 [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. SPSS ( 1997). Systat 7.0: Statistics [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P R., & Jacobs, G.A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxietv Inventorv. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Stewart, S.H. Knize, K., & Pihl, R.O. (1992). Anxiety sensitivity and dependency in clinical and non-clinical panickers and controls. Journal of Anxietv Disorders. 6. 119-131. Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Kameoka, V.A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popular self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psvchologv. 54. 328-333. Taylor, S. (1995). Anxiety sensitivity: Theoretical perspectives and recent findings. Behaviour Research and Therapv. 33. 243-258. 8 6 Taylor, S., Koch, W.J., & Crockett, D.J. (1991). Anxiety sensitivity, trait anxiety, and the anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxietv Disorders. 5. 293-311. Taylor, S., Koch, W.J., & McNally, R.J. (1992). How does anxiety sensitivity vary across the anxiety disorders? Journal of Anxietv Disorders. 6. 249-259. Telch, M., Lucas, J.A., & Nelson, P. (1989). Nonclinical panic in college students: An investigation of prevalence and symptomatology. Journal of Abnormal Psvchologv. 98. 300-306. Telch, M., Shermis, M.D., & Lucas, J.A., (1989). Anxiety sensitivity: Unitary construct or domain-specific appraisals? Journal of Anxietv Disorders. 3. 25-32. Wiggins, J.S. (1973). Personalitv and prediction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Zeitlin, S.B., & McNally, R.J. (1993). Alexithymia and anxiety sensitivity in panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. American Journal of Psvchiatrv. 150. 658-660. Zigler, E. (1973). Why retarded children do not perform up to the level of their ability. In R.M. Allen, A.D. Cortazzo, & R. Toister (Eds. ), Theories in cognitive development: Implication for the mentallv retarded. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. 87 A p p e n d ix A R e is s P r o f il e o f F u n d a m e n t a l G o a l s a n d M o t iv a t io n S ensitivities R eiss Pr o h l e of Fu n d a m e n t a l G oal s AND M otivation Sensitivities Important! Please read instructions carefully! Your answers are completely confidential- Do not put your name on this rating form. Instructions: Below are a number of statements that refer to your goals, wants, and values. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of these statements. If the item asks about something that has not happened in your life, try to imagine how you would react if the event did happen. For example, if you do not have children and are asked how much you enjoy raising children, answer on the basis of how much you think you would enjoy it if you had them. If you are confused by the wording of an item, have no opinion, or neither agree nor disagree, use the “0" or“NEUTRAL” rating. Thank you for your assistance. -3 S t r o n g l y D is a g r e e -2 D is a g r e e -I S l ig h t l y D is a g r e e 0 N e u t r a l 1 S l ig h t l y A g r e e 2 a g r e e 3 S t r o n g l y A g r e e D is a g r e e A g r e e 1. I prefer to do things in groups ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 2. I love learning new skills ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 3. My word is my bond ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4. I like being the b o s s ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 5. I hate giving up anything I ow n...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 6. It upsets me greatly when things are out of place ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 7. Making the world a better place is one of my most important life goals -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 8. 1 hate it when I owe another person a favor...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 9. Social status is very important to m e...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 10. I hate throwing things aw ay ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 11. I enjoy getting even with people who offend m e...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 12. Self-reliance is one of my most important goals ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 13. I love to ea t ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 14. Sex is very important to m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 15. I love being needed by my family ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 16. I try hard to persuade others of my opinions ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Reprinted with permission. 9 Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss. 89 17. Participating in sports is an essential part of my life ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 18. I am happiest when I am with others...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 19. My desire to keep things is very strong ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 20. I enjoy learning about something in depth ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 21. I try to behave in accordance with a Code of Conduct ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 22. Daily routines are very important to m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 23. I have a strong sense of social responsibility ...... -3 -2 -I 0 1 2 3 24. I enjoy saving things ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 25. Becoming rich is one of my most important life goals ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 26. I have a strong need for frequent se x ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 27. I believe that “revenge is sweet” ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 28. I don’t need any help from other people ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 29. I enjoy collecting things ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 30. I have a big appetite...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 31. Fitness is very important to me ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 32. 1 will make any personal sacrifice necessary to meet my family’s needs -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 33. I must have frequent physical activity to be happy ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 34. I have great difficulty dealing with rejection ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 35. I am trying to assume more of a leadership role ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 36. I can’t stand bodily aches and pains ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 37. I have a “thirst for knowledge” ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 38. I hate it when my things are wasted ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 39. I like to initiate conversations ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 40. My personal honor is foremost in guiding my behavior ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 41. Nearness is essential to m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 42. I am proud of my community service ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 43. Prestige is very important to m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 44. I will insult back anyone who insults m e ...... -3 -2 -I 0 1 2 3 45. I hate having to rely on others ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 46. I often think (or fantasize) about fo o d ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 47. 1 hate it when I run out of som ething...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 48. I enjoy directing group activities...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 49. My family is the most important part of my life ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 50. I fantasize a lot about s e x ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 51. 1 am happiest when I am physically active ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 52. I get upset when 1 make a social error...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 53. I place considerable value on public service ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 54, It scares me when my heart beats rapidly ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 55. 1 am proud of my athletic abilities ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 56. I place a very high value on the things I own ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 57. My intellectual life is essential to my well-being ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 58. I would rather lose my life than lose my h o n o r ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 59. 1 must do things in a precise m anner...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 60. Designer labels impress me ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 61. I love parties ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 62. 1 almost never seek advice ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 63. I try to retaliate when attacked ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 64. 1 love the aroma of food ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 65. I am happiest when spending time with my fam ily ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 66. I want all the sex I can g e t ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 90 67. I must avoid pain ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 68. I will not take any crap from others ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 69. Social causes are an essential part of my lif e...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 70. I very much want other people to like me ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 71. I enjoy physical exercise ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 72. Unusual body sensations scare m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 73. When I fail, I worry that others will not respect m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 74. Everything must be in its place for me to be com fortable ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 75. I enjoy intellectual conversations ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 76. I like to boast about my success ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 77. I don’t like it when other people try to help m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 78. I seek dominant r o le s ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 79. It scares me when I am nauseous...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 80. I am proud of my reputation for character...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 81. I enjoy meeting new p e o p le...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 82. I am proud of my sexual prowess ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 83. I enjoy taking care o f my family ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 84. 1 enjoy the sense o f power when in charge of oth ers...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 85. 1 often worry about the well being of society ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 86. When 1 get angry, 1 strike back ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 87. 1 often seek the company o f others ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 88. Eating is one of the most enjoyable activities of my d a y ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 89. 1 enjoy organizing th in g s ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 90. 1 want to live my life in accordance with the highest moral standards . -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 91. 1 like to buy only the b e st ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 92. 1 hate it when others show sympathy for m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 93. 1 like activities that challenge my strength ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 94. 1 worry about looking foolish ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 95. 1 am always thinking about my family’s needs ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 96. 1 especially like games that make me think (e.g., bridge, chess) ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 97. 1 am sexually uninhibited ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 98. Gaining acceptance from others is one o f my most important goals .. . -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 99. 1 should devote my life to the betterment of humankind ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 100. The social prestige of a job is important to me ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 101. Ethics/morality is very important to m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 102. 1 need frequent contact with other people ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 103. 1 make people pay for any trouble they cause me ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 104. 1 hate sloppiness...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 105. 1 try to get others to do my bidding ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 106. 1 love desserts...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 107. It is very important to me to be free of physical pain ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 108. 1 try to exercise at least one hour everyday ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 109. 1 worry that others will frnd fault with m e ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 110. My family comes first (my highest priority) ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 111. Thinking about great ideas is an important part of my life ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 112. 1 am trying to have sex more often ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 113. 1 worry about people less fortunate than me ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 114. It scares me when I am nervous...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 115. 1 love to go to restaurants...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 116. 1 definitely like p e o p le...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 91 117. I have a great deal of curiosity ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 118. Behaving morally is essential to my happiness ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 119. I pride myself in being organized ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 120. I (would) enjoy living in a prestigious neighborhood ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 121. I must have frequent sex ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 122. I try hard to please other people...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 123. I like to eat late at n ig h t ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 124. I feel very close to my family ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 125. I must get even with others ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 126. I almost never seek assistance from others ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 127. When my heart is beating rapidly, I worry that I might have a heart attack -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 128. I enjoy making decisions that affect other people ...... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 92 APPENDIX B D e m o g r a p h ic Q uestionnaire 93 DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE!! Do N Q I Write Your Name On This Form!!! Please provide the following information about yourself. If you are unsure of an answer, please guess! 1. What is your age? ______ 2. What is your gender? n male □ female 3. What year are you in college? □ first □ second □ third □ fourth □ fifth or above 4. What racial/ethnic group do you consider yourself? □ African American □ Asian □ Caucasian □ Hispanic □ Other (Please Specify) 5. How would you describe the geographic area where you grew up (spent most of childhood)? □ Rural □ Suburban □ Urban 6. How would you describe your family’s economic situation? □ low □ middle □ upper-middle □ high 7. What was your grade point average (GPA) in high school? □ 4.0 (straight A’s) □ Between 3.0 and 4.0 (mostly A’s and B’s) □ Between 2.0 and 3.0 (mostly C’s and B’s) □ Below 2.0 (mostly C’s and D ’s) 94 A p p e n d ix C C onfirmatory F a c t o r A n a l y s is : It e m s , R e g r e s s io n C oefficients , S t a n d a r d E r r o r s , a n d t - s c o r e s FOR THE O b l iq u e S o l u t io n 95 Items, Regression CoefTicients, Standard Errors, and r-scores for oblique solution * S o c ia l C o n t a c t P SE t 1. 1 prefer to do things in groups .423 .022 19.57 18. 1 am happiest when I am with others .612 .026 23.42 39. 1 like to initiate conversations .589 .026 23.07 61. 1 love parties .646 .027 23.90 81. 1 enjoy meeting new people .599 .026 23.23 87. 1 often seek the company of others .622 .026 23.57 102. 1 need frequent contact with other people 697 .028 24.54 116. 1 definitely like people .578 .025 22.89 ♦ C u r io s it y P SE t 2. 1 love learning new skills .389 .024 16.20 20. 1 enjoy learning about something in depth .616 .029 21.24 37. 1 have a "thirst for knowledge" .709 .031 22.54 57. My intellectual life is essential to my well-being .672 .030 22.06 75. 1 enjoy intellectual conversations .652 .030 21.78 96. 1 especially like games that make me think (e.g., bridge, chess) .307 .023 13.57 111. Thinking about great ideas is an important part of my life .506 .026 19.18 117. 1 have a great deal of curiosity .648 .030 21.72 • Ho n o r P SE t 3. My word is my bond .300 .020 15.03 21. 1 try to behave in accordance with a Code o f Conduct .572 .026 22.19 40. My personal honor is foremost in guiding my behavior .502 .024 20.86 58. 1 would rather lose my life than lose my honor .388 .022 17.99 80. 1 am proud of my reputation for character .572 .026 22.20 90. 1 want to live my life in accordance with the highest moral standards .721 .030 24.21 101. Ethics/morality is very important to me .674 .028 23.68 118. Behaving morally is essential to my happiness .675 .029 23.69 ♦ F a m il y P SE t 15. 1 love being needed by my family .676 .028 23.81 32. 1 will make any personal sacrifice necessary to meet my family’s needs .752 .030 24.74 49. My family is the most important part of my life .797 .032 25.20 65. 1 am happiest when spending time with my family .793 .032 25.16 83. 1 enjoy taking care of my family .748 .030 24.69 95. 1 am always thinking about my family's needs .767 .031 24.90 110. My family comes first (my highest priority) .808 .032 25.30 124. 1 feel very close to my family .672 .028 23.76 Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Reprinted with permission. 9 Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss. 96 * I ndependence P SE t 8. I hate it when I owe another person a favor .466 .025 18.81 12. Self-reliance is one of my most important goals .294 .022 13.68 28. I don't need any help from other people .691 .030 22.75 45. I hate having to rely on others .584 .028 21.19 62. I almost never seek advice .505 .026 19.69 77. I don't like it when other people try to help me .650 .029 22.21 92. I hate it when others show sympathy to me .528 .026 20.17 126. I almost never seek assistance from others .577 .027 21.07 * P o w e r P SE t 4. I like being the boss .630 .025 25.40 16. I try hard to persuade others of my opinions .565 .023 24.49 35. I am trying to assume more of a leadership role .647 .025 25.60 48. I enjoy directing group activities .544 .023 24.15 78. I seek dominant roles .746 .028 26.58 84. I enjoy the sense of power when in charge of others .797 .030 26.98 105. I try to get others do my bidding .517 .022 23.67 128. I enjoy making decisions that affect other people .585 .024 24.79 * O r d e r P SE t 6. It upsets me greatly when things are out of place .703 .028 24.84 22. Daily routines are very important to me .622 .026 23.73 41. Neatness is essential to me .751 .030 25.37 59. I must do things in a precise manner .741 .029 25.26 74. Everything must be in its place for me to be comfortable .794 .031 25.79 89. I enjoy organizing things .571 .025 22.90 104. I hate sloppiness .626 .026 23.79 119. I pride myself in being organized .697 .028 24.76 * CITIZENSHIP P SE t 7. Making the world a better place is one of my most important life goals .622 .027 23.36 23. I have a strong sense of social responsibility .681 .028 24.18 42. I am proud of my community service .541 .025 21.99 53. I place considerable value on public service .776 .031 25.22 69. Social causes are an essential part of my life .620 .027 23.34 85. I often worry about the well being of society .650 .027 23.77 99. I should devote my life to the betterment of humankind .636 .027 23.57 113. I worry about people less fortunate than me .515 .024 21.47 Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Reprinted with permission. B Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss. 97 * S o c i a l P r e s t ig e P SE t 9. Social status is very important to me .678 .025 26.74 25. Becoming rich is one of my most important life goals .794 .029 27.68 43. Prestige is very important to me .781 .028 27.59 60. Designer labels impress me .641 .024 26.36 76. I like to boast about my success .544 .022 25.05 91. I like to buy only the best .605 .023 25.92 100. The social prestige of a job is important to me .739 .027 27.28 120. 1 (would) enjoy living in a prestigious neighborhood .629 .024 26.22 * V e n g e a n c e P SE t 11. I enjoy getting even with people who offend me .780 .028 27.46 27. I believe that "revenge is sweet" .866 .031 28.06 44. I will insult back anybody who insults me .797 .029 27.60 63. 1 try to retaliate when attacked .745 .027 27.17 68. I will not take any crap from others .668 .025 26.40 86. When I get angry, I strike back .764 .028 27.33 103. I make people pay for any trouble they cause me .858 .031 28.02 125. I must get even with others .805 .029 27.65 * F o o d P SE t 13. I love to eat .682 .029 23.55 30. I have a big appetite .774 .031 24.60 46. I oflen think (or fantasize) about food .666 .029 23.33 64. 1 love the aroma of food .604 .027 22.39 88. Eating is one of the most enjoyable activities of my day .682 .029 23.55 106. I love desserts .444 .023 19.06 115. I love to go to restaurants .566 .026 21.73 123. I like to eat late at night .607 .027 22.44 * S e x P SE t 14. Sex is very important to me .668 .027 24.63 26. I have a strong need for frequent sex .862 .032 26.59 50. I fantasize a lot about sex .667 .027 24.62 66. I want all the sex I can get .858 .032 26.56 82. 1 am proud of my sexual prowess .749 .029 25.58 97. 1 am sexually uninhibited .343 .020 17.37 112. I am trying to have sex more often .724 .029 25.32 121. 1 must have frequent sex .919 .034 26.98 Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Reprinted with permission. ® Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss. 98 * P h y s ic a l E x e r c is e P S£ t 17. Participating in sports is an essential part of my life .761 .030 25.42 31. Fitness is very important to me .697 .030 25.26 33. I must have frequent physical activity to be happy .804 .031 25.83 51. I am happiest when I am physically active .837 .032 26.12 55. I am proud of my athletic abilities .785 .031 25.65 71. I enjoy physical exercise .647 .027 24.02 93. I like activities that challenge my strength .618 .026 23.59 108. I try to exercise at least one hour everyday .725 .029 25.03 * S e n s it iv it y t o R e je c t io n P SE t 34. I have great difficulty dealing with rejection .525 .024 21.59 52. I get upset when I make a social error .591 .026 22.81 70. I very much want other people to like me .708 .029 24.45 73. When I fail, I worry that others will not respect me .556 .025 22.19 94. I worry about looking foolish .534 .025 21.77 98. Gaining acceptance from others is one of my most important goals .817 .032 25.53 109. I worry that others will find fault with me .659 .028 23.83 122. I try hard to please other people .630 .027 23.42 • A v e r s iv e S e n s a t io n s P SE t 36. I can't stand bodily aches and pains .514 .025 20.41 54. It scares me when my heart beats rapidly .534 .026 20.81 67. I must avoid pain .654 .029 22.84 72. Unusual body sensations scare me .543 .026 20.98 79. It scares me when I am nauseous .697 .030 23.41 107. It is very important to me to be free of physical pain .643 .028 22.68 114. It scares me when I am nervous .666 .029 23.02 127. When I notice that my heart is beating rapidly, 1 worry that I might have a heart attack .574 .027 21.57 * Saving P SE t 5. I hate giving up anything I own .616 .025 24.51 10. I hate throwing things away .339 .018 18.50 19. My desire to keep things is very strong .709 .028 25.52 24. I enjoy saving things .526 .023 23.16 29. I enjoy collecting things .396 .020 20.27 38. I hate it when my things are wasted .372 .019 19.56 47. I hate it when I run out of something .565 .024 23.81 56. 1 place a very high value on the things 1 own .837 .032 26.46 Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Reprinted with permission. 0 Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss. 99 A p p e n d ix D R e is s P r o f i l e : In t e r - f a c t o r C o r r e l a t io n M a t r i x 100 Reiss Profile: Pearson product moment inter-factor correlation matrix, n=512 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1. Social 1.00 2. Curiosity .13** 1.00 3. Honor .27** .32** 1.00 4. Family .28** .06 .29** 1.00 5. Independ. -.13** .01 .09* -.13** 1.00 6. Power .38** .17** .25** .12** .23** 1.00 7. Order .13** .07 .19** .21** .16** .26** 1.00 8. Citizenship .23** .47** .48** .14** -.05 .14** .17** 1.00 9. Prestige .35** -.02 .17** .13** .26** .58** .39** -.03 1.00 10. Vengeance .10* -.11* -.04 .05 .42** .45** .20** -.27** .54** 1.00 11. Food .28** .12** .05 .13** .11* .30** .10* .09* .27** .26** 1.00 12. Sex .19** .03 -.019 .02 .21** .31** .09* -.09 .36** .37** .20** 1.00 13. Exercise .30** .03 .20** .23** .05 .23** .24** .03 .30** .20** .13** .17** 1.00 14. Rejection .19** .04 .27** .05 .15** .27** .23** .25** .36** .18** .17** .06 .06 1.00 15. Sensations .11* -.05 .07 .03 .23** .13** .25** .16** .28** .28** .25** .13** -.07 .31 ♦♦ 1.00 16. Saving .25** .05 .26** .24** .21** .38** .30** .06 44** .40** .25** .19** .29** .33 .24** 1.00 * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). A p p e n d ix E R e c e n t L if e E x p e r ie n c e s Q uestionnaire 102 R e c e n t L if e Experiences Q uestionnaire Think about your life over the past month. Has anything changed or caused you particular stress'? Please report any changes or stresses that have occurred in your life since you began this experiment. Indicate whether you consider this change or stress to be minor, significant, or major. Please check only one box for each line. L if e A r e a No C h a n g e s M in o r S ig n if ic a n t M a jo r C h a n g e C h a n g e C h a n g e 1. Family □ None □ Minor □ Significant □ Major 2. Friends □ None □ Minor □ Significant □ Major 3. Romantic Parmer □ None □ Minor □ Significant □ Major 4. Your Health □ None □ Minor □ Significant □ Major 5. School □ None □ Minor □ Significant □ Major 6. Other (please specify) □ None □ Minor □ Significant □ Major 103 APPENDIX F Items from the Dominance scale of the P R F a n d THE Pow er scale of the R e i s s P r o f i l e 104 PRF "dominance" items 9. I would enjoy being a club officer. 31. 1 am not very insistent in an argument. 53. 1 try to control others rather than permit them to control me. 75. 1 have little interest in leading others. 97. 1 feel confident when directing the activities of others. 119. 1 would make a poor judge because I dislike telling others what to do. 141. 1 am quite good at keeping others in line. 163. Most community leaders do a better job than 1 could possibly do. 185. 1 seek out positions of authority. 207. 1 think it is better to be quiet than assertive. 229. When 1 am with someone else 1 do most of the decision-making. 251. 1 would make a poor military leader. 273. When two persons are arguing, I often settle the argument for them. 295. 1 would not do well as a salesman because 1 am not very persuasive. 317. If I were in politics, 1 would probably be seen as one of the forceful leaders of my party. 339. 1 feel incapable of handling many situations. Reiss Profile “power” items 4. 1 like being the boss. 16. 1 try hard to persuade others of my opinions. 35. 1 am trying to assume more of a leadership role. 48. 1 enjoy directing group activities. 78. 1 seek dominant roles. 84. 1 enjoy the sense of power when in charge o f others. 105. I try to get others do my bidding. 128. 1 enjoy making decisions that affect other people. Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Items reproduced by permission. © Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss. Personality Research Form items are reproduced by permission of Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 610984, Port Huron, MI 48061-0984. 105 APPENDIX G Items from the O rder scale of the P R F a n d THE O rder scale of the R e i s s P r o f il e 106 PRF “order” items 15. I often decide ahead of time exactly what I will do on a certain day. 37. I don’t especially care how I look when I go out. 59. When I am going somewhere I usually find my exact route by using a map. 81. My personal papers are usually in a state of confusion. 103. 1 keep all my important documents in one safe place. 125. Most of the things 1 do have no system to them. 147. Before 1 go to work, 1 plan what I will need and get all the necessary materials. 169. 1 can work better when conditions are somewhat chaotic. 191. 1 dislike to be in a room that is cluttered. 213. 1 seldom take time to hang up my clothes neatly. 235. A messy desk is inexcusable. 257. 1 could never find out with accuracy just how 1 have spent my money in the past several months. 279. My work is always well organized. 301. 1 often forget to put things back in their places. 323. I spend much of my time arranging my belongings neatly. 345. 1 rarely clean out my bureau drawers. Reiss Profile “order" items 6. It upsets me greatly when things are out of place. 22. Daily routines are very important to me. 41. Nearness is essential to me. 59. 1 must do things in a precise manner. 74. Everything must be in its place for me to be comfortable. 89. 1 enjoy organizing things. 104. 1 hate sloppiness. 119. 1 pride myself in being organized. Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Items reproduced by permission. S Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss, Personality Research Form items are reproduced by permission of Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 610984, Port Huron, MI 48067-0984. 107 A p p e n d ix H Item s from the A n x i e t ySEN s m v n rI n d e x m i d THE A versive Sensations scale of th e R e i s s P r o f il e s 108 Anxiety Sensitivin’ Index items 1. It is important to me not to appear nervous. 2. When I cannot keep my mind on a task, I worry that I might be going crazy. 3. It scares me when I feel ‘shaky’ (trembling). 4. It scares me when I feel faint. 5. It is important to me to stay in control of my emotions. 6. It scares me when my heart beats rapidly. 7. It embarrasses me when my stomach growls. 8. It scares me when I am nauseous. 9. When I notice that my heart is beating rapidly, I worry that I might have a heart attack. 10. It scares me when I become short of breath. 11. When my stomach is upset, I worry that I might be seriously ill. 12. It scares me when I am unable to keep my mind on a task. 13. Other people notice when I feel shaky. 14. Unusual body sensations scare me. 15. When I am nervous, I worry that I might be mentally ill. 16. It scares me when I am nervous. Reiss Profile “aversive sensations” items 36. I can't stand bodily aches and pains. 54. It scares me when my heart beats rapidly. 67. I must avoid pain. 72. Unusual body sensations scare me. 79. It scares me when I am nauseous. 107. It is very important to me to be free of physical pain. 114. It scares me when I am nervous. 127. When I notice that my heart is beating rapidly, I worry that I might have a heart attack. Reiss Profile o f Fundamental Goals and Motivation Sensitivities. Items reproduced by permission. Ç Copyright 1995, 1996 Steven Reiss. Anxiety Sensitivity Index items are reproduced with permission by IDS Publishing Corporation, Worthington, Ohio. © Copyright 1987. All rights reserved. 109 A p p e n d ix I M a r l o w e -C r o w n e S o c i a l D esirability S c a l e 110 MCSDS Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally. Please mark your responses on the answer sheet provided. True = “A” False = “B." 1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. 2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone. 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. 7. I am always careful about my maimer of dress. 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. 9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. 10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. 11. I like to gossip at times. 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. 13. No matter who I’m talking to. I’m always a good listener. 14. I can remember “playing sick” to get out of something. 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. 16. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. 17. I always try to practice what I preach. 18. I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. 19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. 20. When I don’t know something I don’t at all mind admitting it. 21. 1 am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. 23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. 24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrong-doings. 25. I never resent being asked to return a favor. 26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. 27. 1 never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. 29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. 30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. 31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. 32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. 33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings. Note: From “A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology,” by D.P. Crowne and D. Marlowe, 1960, Journal of Consulting Psvchologv. 24. 349-354. Copyright 1960 by the American Psychological Association. Ill A p p e n d ix J P e r s o n a l R e a c t io n In v e n t o r y : It e m s f r o m FRF o r d e r , FRF d o m in a n c e , a n d t h e MCSDS 112 P e r s o n a l R e a c t io n I n v e n t o r y Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally. Please mark your responses on the answer sheet B" provided, False = “0” True = “1”. 1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. 2. 1 would enjoy being a club officer. 3. I am not very insistent in an argument. 4. 1 never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. 5. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. 6. 1 often decide ahead of time exactly what I will do on a certain day. 7. I don’t especially care how 1 look when 1 go out. 8. I have never intensely disliked anyone. 9. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. 10. It is important to me not to appear nervous. 11. When 1 cannot keep my mind on a task, 1 worry that 1 might be going crazy. 12. 1 sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. 13. 1 am always careful about my manner of dress. 14. 1 try to control others rather than permit them to control me. 15. 1 have little interest in leading others. 16. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. 17. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. 18. When 1 am going somewhere I usually find my exact route by using a map. 19. My personal papers are usually in a state of confusion. 20. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. 21. It scares me when I feel ’shaky’ (trembling). 22. It scares me when I feel faint. 23. 1 feel confident when directing the activities of others. 24. 1 would make a poor judge because 1 dislike telling others what to do. 25. 1 like to gossip at times. 26. There have been times when 1 felt like rebelling against people in authority even though 1 knew they were right. 27. 1 keep all my important documents in one safe place. 28. Most of the things 1 do have no system to them. 29. No matter who I’m talking to. I’m always a good listener. 30. It is important to me to stay in control of my emotions. 31. It scares me when my heart beats rapidly. 32. 1 can remember “playing sick” to get out of something. 33. I am quite good at keeping others in line. 34. Most commimity leaders do a better job than I could possibly do. 35. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. 36. Before I go to work, I plan what I will need and get all the necessary materials. 37. I can work better when conditions are somewhat chaotic. 38. I’m always willing to admit it when 1 make a mistake. 39. 1 always try to practice what I preach. 40. It embarrasses me when my stomach growls. 41. It scares me when I am nauseous. 113 42. I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. 43. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. 44. I seek out positions of authority. 45. I think it is better to be quiet than assertive. 46. I dislike to be in a room that is cluttered. 47. I seldom take time to hang up my clothes neatly. 48. When I don’t know something I don’t at all mind admitting it. 49. When I notice that my heart is beating rapidly, I worry that I might have a heart attack. 50. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. 51. When I am with someone else 1 do most of the decision-making. 52. I would make a poor military leader. 53. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. 54. It scares me when I become short of breath. 55. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. 56. A messy desk is inexcusable. 57. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrong-doings. 58. When my stomach is upset, I worry that I might be seriously ill. 59. I could never find out with accuracy just how I have spent my money in the past several months. 60. I never resent being asked to return a favor. 61. It scares me when I am imable to keep my mind on a task. 62. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. 63. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. 64. When two persons are arguing, I often settle the argument for them. 65. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. 66. I have almost never felt the inge to tell someone off. 67. My work is always well organized. 68. Other people notice when I feel shaky. 69. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. 70. I would not do well as a salesman because I am not very persuasive. 71. I often forget to put things back in their places. 72. Unusual body sensations scare me. 73. I have never felt that 1 was punished without cause. 74. If I were in politics, I would probably be seen as one of the forceful leaders of my party. 75. I spend much of my time arranging my belongings neatly. 76. 1 sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. 77. When 1 am nervous, I worry that I might be mentally ill. 78. 1 rarely clean out my biueau drawers. 79. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings. 80. It scares me when 1 am nervous. 81. 1 feel incapable of handling many situations. Anxiety Sensitivity Index items are reproduced by permission of IDS Publishing, Inc., Worthington, OH. ê Copyright 1987. All rights reserved. Personality Research Form items are reproduced by permission of Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 610984, Port Huron, MI 48067-0984. Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale Copyright © 1960 American Psychological Association. 114 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3) a // / % 1.0 ! r l 2 m Hi Im 2.2 !r UÂ !r bS 2.0 l . l 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 150mm V /APPLIED A IIWIGE . Inc 1 6 5 3 E a sMain t S t r e e t 0Î> •’> . • ^ = ~- Roctiester, NY 14609 USA % Ptione: 716/482-0300 —— Fax: 716/288-5989 O 1993. /Xpptied Image. Inc.. All Rights Reserved