Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Masters Theses & Specialist Projects Graduate School 5-1974 A Comparison of the Intellectually Gifted, Average, and Below Average High School Subjects on the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Lyda Parker Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses Part of the Child Psychology Commons, and the Education Commons Recommended Citation Parker, Lyda, "A Comparison of the Intellectually Gifted, Average, and Below Average High School Subjects on the Guilford- Zimmerman Temperament Survey" (1974). Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1809. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1809 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses & Specialist Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COM PARISON OF THE INTELLI, CT UALLY GIFTlm. AVEHAGIC. ANI) BELOW AVPHAGE UIG U SCUOOL SUBJ ECTS ON T il E GUILFORD- ZIiVI MERMAN TEMPE RA l\'Il!: NT SUn VEY A Thes is P ,'escntcd to the Faculty of th e Depa rtme nt of Psychology W este rn K entucky Unive r sity Bowling Green, K entucky In P3rtial F ulfillment of the Require me nts for th e Degree Master of Arts by Lyda P. Parker May 1974 A CO~ IP i\HI SON OF T il E INT ELLECT UALLY GIFTED, AVEHAGIO, AND BELOW AVEHAGE I /IGH SC/looL S B.JECTS ON THE GUILFOHD-ZIM:\H-:Ri\'I AN TEMPEHAi\'IENT SU nVEY Approved ;/- 2 <2 · 14 (Date ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gener ::t lly rind "Acknowledgements" to be J r amatic . som e wh a t embal'rassi ng. just plnin old "corny , " a nd devoid of humor . So it is Ilt the expense of presenting myself in s uch a manner that I do acknowledge the following pel' sons a nd do so s incer e ly , but hopefully , with hUlllor. I would especially like to tI'ank my com m ittee c ha irman. Or. David ~ \' 5 e k, fo r the contimml encour agement. patience. a nel intere.st he has shown not o nly with I'cgar d to th is pape r . but a lso throughout my under g r a d uate and gra duate training. lie has g iven f .. eely of his ti me. knowleclce. e nthusiasm, and suppor t thl'oughout these years; a nd his assis ta nce has been invuluable . Dr. Le r oy lVletze has a lso been most he lpful through the pnst years. a nd especia n y in the produc tio n of this paper. He spent many long hours from a n extremely c r o wded sche dule in r eview and a ppreciated discussion of the s tudy. For the invaluable contributio n of the da ta ba nk used in his docto r a l disserta tio n. J would like to acknowledge Dr . Albe r t Laird who a lso sel'ved a s a committee member. Without the lise of these data . the present s tudy would not have been 'D OS s ible . iii I would like to tha nk my mothe r' for taking c art:! of the typing of the m a nu script. my fathe r fo r ta king (,3re of the c opying of the manuscript, a nd my hu s bn.nd-to-h ~ fo ro taking c are of m e! Without the ir c ons t'lnt help and e ncoul"n. ge m e nt this pape r would neve r have been c omplet ed, Las tly . I wou ld like to tha nk myself fOJ" le arning. caring . and being s tubborn a nt.! aggressive e nough to fina lly finis h this paper! TA U f E U F CONT EN'I'S Chaptc r I. INTHODUCTION ...... II. llEV /F;1V OF THE L l'l' EHATUH r:: 8 Gu iJfo rd~Zimm e rman Tempe ramcnt Survey 8 GZ'l'S Fac tor Gencr'al Ac ti vit y 10 CZTS Fac tor' R C~ Ir '~l illt .. 12 CZ'l'S Facto r l\ scendancc . 1·1 CZTS Fac to r Sociabil ity 16 CZTS Factor Emotional S tab ility . 19 CZTS Factor Objcctivity . 2 1 GZTS Factor Friendliness 23 GZ1'S PactaI' Thoughtfulness 24 GZTS Fac tor Pe rsonal Hc la ti ons 26 GZTS Fac tor !\'TascuJinity . 27 Ove rv iew of the Litenllure 30 III. METHOD ANU pnOCEOUHE . 34 Selec tio n and Use o f Subjects. 34 l\luHiplc Groups Design. 36 Proc edure . .. .. 3P Statis tical Treatment of Data 39 v IV. HESULT S . ..... ..... 4 1 V. DISCUSSION AND I~IPLICATIO NS . 45 Disclission . 45 Implica tions 48 REFERENCES •.. .... 52 vi ;\ COi\l P All: lSON O F Til E INT ELLECTUA l LY G IFTED. ,I\VEHAGE, A 10 B ELO W AV EHAG I!: HI G II SCIIOOI SUBJECT S ON T il E GUl LFOHJ)· Z l i\l~ I E R Mj\N TEl\J PERAl\IENT SIJRV!:;Y I yda p , !':lI'kCI' i\ lay l H7<1 56 pages Uir'cctcd by: I). A . Shi c k. 1, 1' . :l.tel:l'.c . and A . W . I.aird Depa l'lme nl of P sycho l ogy \Veste rn Ke ntucky lI nivel's ity Thc plll' pose of the s tudy was to investiga tc the I' cla lionship between inlc llt.'ctlla l ahility of 276 high schoo l s tude nts a nd pe r'sona lity as measur ed by the GUiIrol'd-Z imrne r'lllnll ·,· ... "" pcl·amcnt SUI've}, (GZTS) ' fa c to r' s . The 10 GZTS tr:lits util ized WC I'C: G e ne r'al Ac tivity. Il c s tra int. i\ sccndance. Sociability . Emotiona l St:,lbility. Objectiv ity . Friendliness. Thollghtrulness. Per sona l Il e la ti ons . a nd l\'iasclIlinity. The study was d esigned to t est for the r el a tionship be tween thl'ce IQ groups (high. middle . and low) a nd each of 10 GZTS persona lity fa cto r s . 1\ multiple g l'oups dpsign was used . in which the th,'ce g " oups of subjects we r c blo c ked :.IC I'OSS inte llig(mce . Tcn one · way :1Ilalyses o f varia nce wer e pC l'formed to d e te r nline if s ignific a nt diffe r ences be tween the IQ g,'ollps e xist ed o n the 10 GZTS fac tors. None of the a nalyses yielded s ignific a n t findings . That is . no s ignificant diffe r ences in pe r sonality ;:\C I'OSS lQ g .,oups we r e obta ined . S even non- s i ~n ifi ea nt trends b (! tween in tellig e nce level and s pecific personnlity fa c to r s arc presented and d isc ussed. Chapter I Introduction In order that he might func tion. m an is self-cent el'ed. lie does not live unless he eats. d rinks . a nd breathes. In his earliest form . he did not live unless he could protect himself a nd had e nough abil ity to find food a nd water. He had to and s tU1 has to be self- a ware. for hi s awareness a nd self- concern t ell him when he s hou ld seck food. dl'ink, or s leep, If man we r e 110t £I e lf-cente r ed, he could not survive. These ve r y basic self-concerns ha ve l ed man to ques tion his needs. and through his r easoning to evaluate himself. Through the eons m an has progrC"ssed from merely evalua ting how he must find water fo r himself to exis te ntia l questioning or Jds own value . 1\-lal1 . then. rrom whatever eon, of wha te ver inte lligence . is a self­ e va lua ting bC'ing. "Man is a socia l creatu re (Eertrand, 1967. p. 6J. " He seeks out th e companions hip o r other m e n--men who like himself al'e self- evalua ting. self-a ware b e ings. Early ma n began being "other-aware" wh e n he had to battle humans for food a nd protec tio n. ane lat e r when he bec ame sociah ..:ed. living a nd e lUng together 2 with othCl'S, II c learne d to eva luat(' h Lq peer s --who was the s tronges t , the best hunter, the best food pre pare r, Man the n moved to mor e s ophis tic ated methods of "othe r -evaluation." lie found it necessar y lo establis h government s. laws. r e ligion. a nd values. The r e fore, man is today pic tul'ed as n self- and othe r- evalua ting organism. with h is e valuative processes falling o n a continuum from ba sic to sophis ticated methods of e va luation. Man has developed systems of investigating specia l abilities o n social. intellectua l. a nd phys ical levels . He s peaks of his fellow m;'ln as a "gr eat persona lity . " a " r eal IlI'ain." 0 " a "supe r a thelete . " Kelly ( J 063) ~ t ated tha t m an cons ta ntly r. ':tluates himself and othe r s through his own construc t syste m s .