Relationship Between Tendency to Be Involved in Social Conflicts (Conflict Potential) and Locus of Control Beliefs (Two Types: Intermal/External) as Well as Two Types of Typology (Introversion/Extraversion).
The present study contributes to the understanding of the causalities of conflicting behaviour in adult males and females. The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between tendency to be involved in social conflicts (conflict potential) and locus of control beliefs (two types: intermal/external) as well as two types of typology (introversion/extraversion). Based on the previous studies (Holloran, Doumas, 1999; Benjamin, 1999; Williams and Vantress, 1969) it is hypothesised that that 1) there will be a significant difference between locus of control, extraversion and conflict potential; 2) introverts will score higher on group adaptation scale than extraverts; 3) externals will score lower on group adaptation scale than internals. Two more hypotheses derived from the earlier findings (Bookwala, Sabine and Zdaniuk, 2005; Harris and Bohnhoff, 1996): 4) the results will differ between age and gender groups; 5) with the increase of age the conflict potential will decrease.
The findings of the study suggest that locus of control (β=-1.146, p<0.01) and typology (β=.816, p<0.01) are strong predictors of conflict potential. Despite the fact that results differed between age and gender groups, no significant age (β =1.09, p>0.01) or gender (β =-4.523, p>0.01) effects on conflict potential were found. It was found that extraverts and those with external locus of control scored significantly lower on group adaptation scale thus showing more conflict potential. In comparison to internals and introverts, extraverts and persons with an external locus of control are more likely to respond to frustration aggressively.
2. Introduction The problem of conflict situations and conflict behaviour in the interpersonal relations is the subject of long-term studies in psychology, but it still retains its topicality. One of the premises for study of individual tendency for conflict interaction is complication of relation system of the individual with its subjective and social environments, growth of the role of the subjective factor in the life of our society. The topicality of the problem is determined by the meaning currently gained by studies of integrative development of a human in the united inhabitable environments and his social space; lack of working out of social interaction issues, sources and causes of conflict situations in the interactions determined the recourse to the problem. (Ovcharenko, 1994). The current research is intended to study the conflict potential of the individual that becomes apparent as reactions to behaviour of the individual and causing conflict interactions as one of contradiction types.
The psychological dictionary (1983) determines the conflict as an ‘interaction related to strong emotional experiences that are difficult to adjust’. For this purpose, interpersonal, interpersonal and intergroup conflicts are distinguished as forms therefore. Conflict as one of significant occurrences of the human mental life is directly related to problem of mental well-being that is the fundamental problem of the psychological science as a whole that is settled by different subjects therefore in different ways (Darendorf, 1994). Some definitions available in the psychological literature, research approaches and theoretical concepts of conflicts may be divided into three groups: psychodynamic, situational and cognitive approaches. (Deutch and Shikman, 1991). The concept of a conflict as an intrapsychical phenomenon finds the most evident expression in the psychodynamic approaches that base their concepts of individual and development therefore upon concepts of contradictions and conflicts between different spheres of individual. The tradition of such understanding is laid by Freud (1901) who was the first who characterised the psyche as a battlefield among uncompromising powers of instinct, mind and consciousness. According to Freud (1901), a human is in the condition of permanent internal and external conflict with one’s associates and the world as a whole. ‘Conflict is the primary and permanent form of clash of opposite principles, inclinations, ambivalent aspirations etc. in the psychoanalysis, that express inconsistency of the human nature’ (Ovcharenko, 1994). It is clear that the internal, or the so called ‘mental conflict’ that is ‘the permanent element of the mental life of a human that is characterised by uninterrupted clash of inclinations, desires, psychic systems and spheres of the individual’ is a primary conflict from all the possible conflicts a human may experience (Ovcharenko, 1994). Conflicts are a part of the inner life of the individual; the origin therefore naturally accompanies its development. Horney (1937) was especially interested in the issue of inner conflicts. A normal conflict presumes an option among different possibilities, positions, beliefs etc; a human settles the conflict by the way of the option. A neurotic conflict is always a subconscious one: inner contradictions absorb a person, they leave no option, make him helpless. Horney (1937) describes the conflict this way: ‘… a conflict situation of a neurotic person derives from the desperate fixed wish to be the first and from the fixed inducement to suppress him that is strong as much. If he did something successfully, so he is forced to do it badly next time. A bad lesson follows a good one, a relapse follows in the improvement in the course of treatment and bad impression upon people follows a good one. Such consequence recurs all the time and raises the feeling of despair in the fight against superior forces’. According to Horney (1937) a neurotic doesn’t lose his ability to look into himself and his wishes, he becomes unable to settle his inner problems and that is the main source of the conflict.
The conception by Erickson (1968) is one that differs from the position by Freud with respect to conflicts on principle. Erickson’s idea that every personal and social crisis is some kind of challenge leading the individual to the personal growth and overcoming of obstacles in his life, and the knowledge of the way the person masters important problems in his life is the only key to understanding of his life is set off to the pessimistically coloured psychoanalytical conception of a human that is torn by contradictions and conflicts. Erickson (1968) accentuates eight psychosocial stages in the general life cycle. Each of the stages is accompanied by a crisis considered by the author as a turning point originating upon achievement of some certain level of psychological maturity and social requirements set for the individual. That means that some specific problem that should be solved rises on each stage of age. Successful settlement of a crisis is the guarantee for further development of a sound individual and necessary factor of efficient experience of next stages (Erickson, 1968).
The opposition for understanding of conflicts as an occurrence of intrapsychical origin is the transfer of the accent on the external determinants of the origin therefore. Situational approaches to study of conflicts are introduced by the behaviourist tradition. According to behaviourist paradigm, the main methodological principle of behaviour study presumed search for connections between interactions (stimuli) and reaction (response) of a human (Zimmel, 1994). Hence the main scheme of behaviourism ‘stimulus - response’ appears that was checked on the sample of one of private cases ‘frustration – aggression’ sounds to be applicable to conflicts as a ‘situation - conflict behaviour’. Consequently, if the question is the conflict behaviour or interaction, so the sources of origin therefore might be found by means of analysis of situation factors. This way the conflict becomes an occurrence of situational nature. First studies that formed the tradition of conflict study as a response to external influence are study works on aggression and finding of concept for frustrative determination of aggression. The beginning of the works was set by series of studies made in the 30th-50th by a group of specialists of Yale University (Dollard, Doob, Miller, 1939). The direct study of conflicts as a response to one or another peculiarity of the external situation is related to experimental works by Deutsch (1985) in study of interpersonal conflicts and by Sheriff (1967) in the field of intergroup conflicts. Levin (2000) is not without reason considered to be the proclaimant of codnitivism who introduced the conception of environments of an individual that differs from that of behaviourists in principle. According to the field theory, description of a situation must be rather ‘subjective’ than ‘objective’, i.e. the situation must be described from the position of the individual whose behaviour is being studied and not from the position of an observer. Thus Levin (2000) overcame the opposition ‘inner-external’ in the interpretation of social behaviour sources: if the psychoanalysis considered intrapsychical, ‘inner’ factors as the mean ones in the regulation of behaviour, and the behaviourism gave the priority to situative, ‘external’ ones, Levin (2000) combined them practically and gave an ‘inner’, subjective character to ‘external’ (objective in the interpretation of behaviourism) factors. Today it is rightful to talk about the final approval of the approach that presumes taking into account subjective attitude of a person towards one or another event in the development thereof in the psychology as a whole. The classical psychology offered several versions of understanding of conflicts: 1) as an occurrence which nature is determined through intrapsychical processes and factors; 2) as an occurrence which origin and peculiarities are determined by the situation first of all; 3) as an occurrence for understanding of which knowledge of personal peculiarities or objective description of the situation is not enough, but that needs understanding of the cognitive component- a subjective interpretation of what is going on (Grishina and Petrovskaya, 2003). Mansurov (1970) describes the causes of the inner contradictory of an individual in some other aspect. In all cases of contradictions, in Mansurov’s opinion, there is a discrepancy among the subjective world of the individual, his behaviour and mass public and psychological occurrences, including: discrepancy between the direct and indirect experience of the individual; discrepancy between the subjective world of an individual and reality; discrepancy between the subjective world of an individual and new being conditions etc. Shugurov (1994) treats conflict from the individual’s position, as a kind of social activity the individual becomes a social subject within the limits of. A radical social conflict is creation of some new norms, institutions, relations and social values on the part of the individual. Conflict is not only a background, a form of social innovation, it is also the way of social measurements that secures some deep changes in the individual; in point of fact- it is a space of self-realisation of the individual, field of existence of his social and spiritual qualities (Shugurov, 1994). It should be stated, that in spite of diverse outcomes of conflicts anyone of them is related to inner tension and discomfort for participants of the conflict interaction, this blocks personal growth in its turn. In Sulimova’s (2008) opinion, the decisive influence upon selection of behaviour in the conflict exerts the individual himself- his needs, aims, habits, mode of thinking, behaviour pattern, his former experience of problems and behaviour in conflicts. It should be stressed, that morality is a significant factor that allows preventing of development of a conflict, transition into extreme emotional forms and also do decrease possibility of development of the interpersonal conflict (Marr and Fliaster, 1994). The conflict type of an individual can be characterised by lack of conformity between natural needs, impulses and subjectives of will, too high self-esteem and fear for not proving it, not achieving the aims set according to the self-esteem that is too high. Besides that, there is some deformation of personality, pathology of psyche, stereotypeness of relations, behaviour, mutual prejudices, psychical discomfort, availability of lacking in self-confidence etc. The concept ‘proneness to conflict of an individual’ means the state of readiness of the individual to conflicts, his involvement level into development of conflicts (Sulimova, 2008). There are some concepts in the psychology the essence of that is acknowledgement of biological natural determination of conflict behaviour: the human nature is aggressive, conflict and it’s impossible to change it simply, that’s why conflicts are unavoidable. So, Zimmel (1994) states, that the conflict is not only a clash of interests, but something more- something that origins on the basis of hostility instincts. Such conflicts may become aggravated due to clash of interests or grow softer- both due establishing of harmony of relations and due to love instinct. And at last, according to Zimmel (1994), one of the final sources of conflict is the biological nature of people- ‘actors’. It is possible to judge about conflictness of an individual by characteristics of frustration reactions. By peculiarities of emotional experience and behaviour caused by objectively irresistible difficulties (or difficulties that are subjectively perceived like this) rising on the way towards the set aim. Frustration is described as emotional reaction (Berkowitz, 1962) or a specific behavioural response (Marx, 1956). Frustrative tolerance is an important characteristic of behaviour in such situations, i.e. ability to resist diverse life difficulties, ability to survive failures. There are 3 mains types of reaction in the state of frustration: extrapunitive (external reasons), the most conflict, intropunitive (to oneself), impunitive (the situation is considered as unimportant) (Rosenzweig, 1976). Pursuant to objectives of the present study, a number of psychological characteristics of the individual should be distinguished that exert influence upon conflict behaviour, i.e. conflict potential of the individual, locus control and extraversion.
Rotter (1966) deduced the idea of locus of control from his conception of social learning where control is determined as a stable disposition of the individual to appraisal of life events in some certain way. The central place in the conception by Rotter (1966) is allotted to formation in the process of socialisation (social learning) of the system of generalised expectations that the certain behaviour shall lead to some reward and the reward is of psychological value in the particular situation. According to peculiarities of expectation the person may form two types of strategies of interaction with the environments, two types of localisation, or locus control: inner and external one. In the first case, for planning his activity and making some particular decisions, the person appraises how much the achievement of set objectives depends on him personally, on his attempts and abilities and is the naturally determined result of his own activity. In the second case, the person is sure, that his success or failures are the result of such external powers as luck, chance and other people, i.e. powers beyond his control. Any individual occupies some certain position in the continuum set by the polar types of locus control (Rotter, 1966). It is necessary to state, that the theory of locus of control allowed formulating the regulation on locus of control as a characteristic independent from particular events and situations the person has to clash with. Despite the fact that the results of many researches proved the relationship between locus of control and aggressive behaviour, there are still many contradictions. Halloran and Doumas (1999) found that for girls aggressive behaviour was positively related to internal locus of control, while for boys aggressive behaviour was negatively related to external locus of control. According to the results of their study internal locus of control was associated with less aggressive behaviour. On the opposite, findings of Dengerink, O’Leary and Kasner (1975) showed that people (adults) with internal locus of control behaved more aggressively when provoked. Their findings were consistent with the research by Benjamin (1999). In the studies carried out by Williams and Vantress (1969) and Sadowski and Wenzel (1982) externals scored significantly higher on aggression-hostility inventory than did internals. Moreover, Brissett and Nowicki (1973) found that internals responded to frustration with increased effort and reported less overall frustrations than did externals. It is predicted that externals will have more conflict potential (score lower on group adaptation scale) than internals.
The terms extraversion- introversion are related to works by American psychologists Eysenck (1957) and Jung (1921). According to Eysenck and Jung, two main directions and life attitudes of the individual are distinguished: extraversion and introversion. The theory by Jung (1921) suggests that both orientations coexist in the person simultaneously, but one of them usually becomes a dominant one. The interest for the external world displays orientation of the interest towards the external world- other people and subjects. The extravert is lively, talkative, enters into relations and starts affections very quickly; external factors are the motive power for him. The introvert is on the contrary plunged into the internal world of his thoughts, feelings and experience. He is contemplative, restrained, strives for solitude, disposed to retrieval from objects; his interest is focused on himself. Jung (1921) claims that there is no extravert and introvert attitude in an isolated form. Usually they both are present and are in opposition to each other: if one of them evidences as a leading and rational one, so another is an auxiliary and irrational one. The outcome of the combination of the leading and auxiliary ego-orientation is individuals whose behaviour patterns are definite and predictable. Eysenck (1957, 1964) argued that extraverts are more likely than introverts to engage in antisocial behaviour. And again, as with locus of control the results of the researches related to extraversion and antisocial behaviour are conflicting. Frost (1969) reported that extraversion had nothing in common with antisocial behaviour. However, Bending (1962) found that extroversion was positively correlated with aggression. Moreover, Powell (1964) found the significant relation between extroversion and the amount of electric shock participants prepared to deliver to another individual. What is more, Edmunds (1977) proved that assault was related to extraversion as well. Consequently, it is expected that introverts will score higher on group adaptation scale, thus showing less conflict potential than extraverts.
The age and gender differences may also have effect on antisocial behaviour and reactions to frustration. Bookwala, Sobine and Zdaniuk (2005) found that younger people tend to use more maladaptive conflict resolution strategies engaged in more physical arguments. Females used calm discussions less than males and treated arguments more. More young and middle-age women than men reported that they sustained injuries at the hands of their partners. According to the results, younger were more likely to argue and shout than middle-age adults, while middle-age adults were more likely to use this strategy than older adults. For indirect aggression females score significantly higher than males do (Edmunds, 1977). In their study Harris & Bohnhoff (1996) also proved that with the increase of age the aggressiveness decrease in both genders. In addition, it was found that levels of aggression, impulsivity and driving anger decreased with age (Smith, Waterman and Ward, 2006). These findings are consistent with the study of Baron and Richardson (1994) and driving aggression literature (Parker, Lajunen and Summala, 2002). In the present study it is also predicted that the results will differ between age and gender groups. Moreover, it is foreseen that with the increase of age the conflict potential will decrease. Psychological features and characteristics (locus of control and extraversion) may define and be correlated with conflict potential of the individual. It should be stated, that under diversity of attitudes towards study of conflict issue there is lack of studies revealing correlation of psychological characteristics and conflict potential of the individual as well as time dynamics of the latter. This is the subject of the current research. It is hypothesised that:
1) there will be a significant difference between locus of control, extraversion and conflict potential;
2) introverts will score higher on group adaptation scale than extraverts;
3) externals will score lower on group adaptation scale than internals;
4) the results will differ between age and gender groups;
5) with the increase of age the coefficient of group adaptation will increase.
3. Methodology
3.1. Design
Cross sectional design where it is measured how the coefficient of group adaptation is affected by two independent variables: locus of control (1) and extraversion (2). The first independent variable has two levels: internal/external; second independent variable has also 2 levels: extravert/ introvert. Non-experimental repeated measures design. Regression analysis was carried out to find out the best predictor of coefficient of group adaptation. Further correlational analysis was done to find out the significance between dependent and independent variables.
3.2. Participants
A total of 100 participants (N=100) took part in the study. The participation was voluntary and participants were selected randomly in the University of Bedfordshire. Participants ranged in age and were classified in four age groups: 18-25; 25-35; 35-50; 50+. All in all 56 females and 44 males took part in the study. 30 participants belonged to the first age group (18-25), 23 to the second (25-35), 34 to the third (35-50) and 13 to the fourth age group (50+).
3.3 Materials
The results of the study are based on the data obtained using questionnaire. The questionnaire included Picture-Frustration Test by Rosenzweig, Locus of Control Scale by Rotter and Introversion Scale by McCroskey.
Picture-Frustration Test. In this study the Picture-Frustration Test was used to measure the coefficient of group adaptation (conflict potential). The test was developed by Rosenzweig (1976) and consists of 24 cartoon pictures each showing two persons in frustrating scenarios. Each picture has two ‘speech balloons’, a filled one for the ‘frustrator’ and blank one for the frustrated person (subject). The subjects are asked to response to the situation as shortly and quick as they can and to provide their answers in the blank ‘balloon’. The scoring instructions are provided (Appendix 4). The higher the coefficient of group adaptation the better person is able to adapt to social environment and avoid conflicts. Contrary, low coefficient of group adaptation indicates that person has adaptation difficulties and reacts aggressively in frustrating situations, thus causing conflicts. Locus of Control Scale. The scale developed by Rotter (1966) was used to assess the locus of control of subjects. The scale includes 29 items each with 2 statements. The participants were asked to choose either statement (a) or (b) that best described their point of view. The scale refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. The scoring instructions are provided (Appendix 3).
Introversion Scale. The scale developed by McCroskey (1970) was used to find out whether subjects are extroverts or introverts. The scale consists of 18 statements that people sometimes make about themselves. Subjects were asked to evaluate each statement. Internals are concentrated on their own thoughts, feelings and experience, while for the externals external factors are the motive power. The scoring instructions are provided (Appendix 2).
The SPSS 12.0.1 and SPSS 16.0 for Windows computer program were used to analyse the obtained data.
3.4. Procedure
Participants were asked to take part in the study and to complete the provided questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed directly to randomly selected subjects. Each questionnaire was provided with detailed instructions of how it should be filled in. The duration and place of completing the questionnaires were not taken into account so there was no time limitation. When the questionnaires were filled in the protocols were completed for all participants. The scoring was done using standard instructions provided with each scale (Appendix 1). After that the data from protocols was entered into SPSS computer programme and analysed using particular statistical tests.
3.5. Ethics
Participants (N=100) over 18 years old were involved in the study. The experiment took place in the University of Bedfordshire so no permission of gatekeepers was required. No financial inducements were offered for participating in the study. All participants were informed about the objectives of the research and were asked to sign consent form before the experiment. Everybody was fully debriefed to be able to complete understanding of the nature of the research. The research did not investigate any aspect of illegal activity. No sensitive topics were involved in the questionnaires, so participation did not cause the distress to participants. The participants were only asked to fill in the questionnaires and no blood, tissues and etc. samples were taken from them. Information was treated as confidential, so no names were used in the study. Participants were able to leave the experiment at any time and not provide the results of the questionnaires and/or personal information. In case anybody had any further questions related to the study or wished to withdraw the research data, contact details of researcher and supervisor were provided in the consent form. The research has been approved by the Psychology Research Committee at the University of Bedfordshire.
4. Results
According to the results of descriptive statistics 100 participants took part in the study, 44 males and 56 females. All participants were divided in to 4 age groups. There were 30 participants in age group from 18-25, 9 of them were males and 21 females, 23 participants (13 males and 10 females) in age group from 25-35, 34 (17 males and 17 females) in age group from 35 to 50 and 13 (5 males and 8 females) participants in age group from 50+ (see below Table 1). Table 1. Gender in all age groups. Gender | Age | Frequency | Percent | Male | Valid | 18-25 | 9 | 20.5 | | | 25-35 | 13 | 29.5 | | | 35-50 | 17 | 38.6 | | | 50+ | 5 | 11.4 | | | Total | 44 | 100.0 | Female | Valid | 18-25 | 21 | 37.5 | | | 25-35 | 10 | 17.9 | | | 35-50 | 17 | 30.4 | | | 50+ | 8 | 14.3 | | | Total | 56 | 100.0 | Seventy participants out of 100 were categorised as introverts and 30 as extraverts. There were 18 introverts and 12 extraverts in the first age group (18-25), 16 introverts and 7 extraverts in the second (25-35), 24 introverts and 10 extraverts in the third (35-50) and 12 introverts and 1 extravert in the fourth age group (50+). All in all there were 40 introvert and 16 extravert females and 30 introvert and 14 extravert males (see below Table 2, 5). Table 2. Typology in gender groups. Gender | Typology | Frequency | Percent | Male | Valid | introversion | 30 | 68.2 | | | extroversion | 14 | 31.8 | | | Total | 44 | 100.0 | Female | Valid | introversion | 40 | 71.4 | | | extroversion | 16 | 28.6 | | | Total | 56 | 100.0 |
Table 5. Typology in all age groups. Age Group | | Frequency | Percent | 18-25 | Valid | introversion | 18 | 60.0 | | | extroversion | 12 | 40.0 | | | Total | 30 | 100.0 | 25-35 | Valid | introversion | 16 | 69.6 | | | extroversion | 7 | 30.4 | | | Total | 23 | 100.0 | 35-50 | Valid | introversion | 24 | 70.6 | | | extroversion | 10 | 29.4 | | | Total | 34 | 100.0 | 50+ | Valid | introversion | 12 | 92.3 | | | extroversion | 1 | 7.7 | | | Total | 13 | 100.0 | Sixty five participants had internal locus of control (26 males and 39 females) and 35 had external locus of control (18 males and 17 females). In the first age group (18-25) there were 18 participants with internal and 12 with external locus of control, in the second age group (25-35) there were 18 participants with internal and 5 with external locus of control, in the third age group (35-50) there were 19 participants with internal and 15 with external locus of control and in the forth age group (50+) there were 10 participants with internal and 3 with external locus of control (see below Table 3, 4). Table 3. Locus of Control in gender groups. Gender | Locus of Control | Frequency | Percent | Male | Valid | internal | 26 | 59.1 | | | external | 18 | 40.9 | | | Total | 44 | 100.0 | Female | Valid | internal | 39 | 69.6 | | | external | 17 | 30.4 | | | Total | 56 | 100.0 |
Table 4. Locus of Control in age groups. Age Group | | Frequency | Percent | 18-25 | Valid | internal | 18 | 60.0 | | | external | 12 | 40.0 | | | Total | 30 | 100.0 | 25-35 | Valid | internal | 18 | 78.3 | | | external | 5 | 21.7 | | | Total | 23 | 100.0 | 35-50 | Valid | internal | 19 | 55.9 | | | external | 15 | 44.1 | | | Total | 34 | 100.0 | 50+ | Valid | internal | 10 | 76.9 | | | external | 3 | 23.1 | | | Total | 13 | 100.0 | The results show that generally males scored higher on picture-frustration scale (M=67.04, SD=17.79) than females did (M=62.31, SD=22.05) (see below Table 6), however further analysis showed that the effect of gender (when taken separately) was not significant (β=-4.523, p>0.01) (see below Table 7). The highest coefficients of group adaptation (M=72.34, SD= 21.06) were found in 25-35 age group and the lowest in 18-25 age group (M=58.58, SD=20.33). The results in other two age groups were quite similar: (M=64.91, SD= 17.88) in the 35-50 age group and (M=62.36, SD=22.51) in the 50+ age group (see below Table 8). When analysing separately the effect of age on coefficient of group adaptation was not significant (β=1.09, p>0.01) (see below Table 7). Overall, for coefficient of group adaptation (M=64.39, SD= 20.33) (see below Table 16). Table 16. General descriptive statistics. | | Mean | Std. Deviation | N | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | 64.3950 | 20.33294 | 100 | Typology | 36.7100 | 12.94690 | 100 | LocusControl | 11.2000 | 5.48460 | 100 | Table 6. Gender and Coefficient of Group Adaptation. | gender | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | male | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | 44 | 32.20 | 96.50 | 67.0477 | 17.79258 | | Valid N (listwise) | 44 | | | | | female | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | 56 | 14.40 | 96.50 | 62.3107 | 22.05931 | | | 56 | | | | | Table 7. Regression analysis: Gender/Age and Coefficient of group adaptation. | Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | | B | Std. Error | Beta | | | 1 | (Constant) | 68.927 | 8.465 | | 8.143 | .000 | | age | 1.098 | 1.978 | .056 | .555 | .580 | | gender | -4.523 | 4.122 | -.111 | -1.097 | .275 |
Table 8. Age and Coefficient of Group Adaptation. Age | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | 18-25 | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | 30 | 17.90 | 90.00 | 58.5867 | 20.33822 | | Valid N (listwise) | 30 | | | | | 25-35 | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | 23 | 28.60 | 96.50 | 72.3478 | 21.06211 | | Valid N (listwise) | 23 | | | | | 35-50 | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | 34 | 14.40 | 93.00 | 64.9176 | 17.88884 | | Valid N (listwise) | 34 | | | | | 50+ | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | 13 | 17.90 | 96.50 | 62.3615 | 22.51683 | | Valid N (listwise) | 13 | | | | |
For typology (M= 36.7, SD=12.94) (see above Table 16). Regression analysis showed that the effect of typology (introversion/extraversion) is significant (β=.816, p<0.01) (see below Table 9). The positive coefficient indicates that the higher scores of typology are related to higher levels of group adaptation. The correlational analysis showed that there is a significant difference between typology and coefficient of group adaptation (r=.560, p<0.01) (see below Table 10, Graph 1). The R2= .313 and means that about 30% of the variance (coefficient of group adaptation) is accounted for by typology (see below Table 11). Table 9. Regression analysis. Typology/Locus of Control and Coefficient of Group Adaptation. | Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | Correlations | | B | Std. Error | Beta | | | Zero-order | Partial | Part | 1 | (Constant) | 47.262 | 6.142 | | 7.695 | .000 | | | | | Typology | .816 | .124 | .520 | 6.593 | .000 | .560 | .556 | .515 | | LocusControl | -1.146 | .292 | -.309 | -3.920 | .000 | -.376 | -.370 | -.306 | Table 10. Correlattions between Coefficient of Group Adaptation and Locus of Control/ Typology. | | | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | LocusControl | Typology | Coefficient of Group Adaptation | Pearson Correlation | 1.000 | -.376** | .560** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | | .000 | .000 | LocusControl | Pearson Correlation | -.376** | 1.000 | -.129 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | | .199 | Typology | Pearson Correlation | .560** | -.129 | 1.000 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .199 | |
Table 11. Regression analysis. Typology and Coefficient of Group Adaptation. | Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | | | | | | R Square Change | F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | 1 | .560a | .313 | .306 | 16.93451 | .313 | 44.722 | 1 | 98 | .000 |
Table 12. Regression analysis. Locus of control and Coefficient of Group Adaptation. | Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | | | | | | R Square Change | F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | 1 | .376a | .142 | .133 | 18.93389 | .142 | 16.171 | 1 | 98 | .000 |
Graph 1. Effect of typology on coefficient of group adaptation.
Generally, for locus of control (M=11.2, SD=5.4) (see above Table 16). The locus of control (internal/external) was found to be a significant (β=-1.146, p<0.01) predictor of coefficient of group adaptation as well (see above Table 9). The negative coefficient shows that the higher scores of locus of control are related to lower level of group adaptation. According to correlational analysis there is a strong negative correlation (r=-.376, p<0.01) between locus of control and coefficient of group adaptation (see above Table 10, Graph 2). The R2= .142; approximately 10% of the variance (coefficient of group adaptation) is explained by locus of control (see below Table 12). In comparison to locus of control the typology is the stronger predictor of coefficient of group adaptation. The regression of typology and locus of control (when testing together) was R2=.407, thus making these two factors strong predictors (40%) of coefficient of group adaptation (see below Table 13).
Table 13. Regression analysis. Locus of control/Typology and Coefficient of Group Adaptation. | Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | | | | | | R Square Change | F Change | df1 | df2 | Sig. F Change | 1 | .638a | .407 | .395 | 15.81479 | .407 | 33.324 | 2 | 97 | .000 |
Graph 2. Effect of locus of control on coefficient of group adaptation.
No significant effect of age neither on typology (β=2.32, p> 0.01) (see below Table 14) nor on locus of control (β=.211, p>0.01) was found (see below Table 15). There were no significance between gender and typology (β=1.315, p>0.01) (see below Table 14) as well as between gender and locus of control (β=1.372, p>0.01) (see below Table 15).
Individual and psychological differences are distinguished among factors that have a destructive effect upon communication and raise conflicts of different kinds. In the analysis of the nature of the conflict and conflict relations, the attention is being concentrated on inclinations, needs and dispositions of the individual (Havenmey, 1986). Conflicts stipulated by personal features of opponents are not purposeful; they have no object and are the end in itself for the subject of the conflict interaction. Exactly this kind of conflicts is especially complicated for analysis and constructive settlement. The initiator of such conflict is the individual, conflict interaction is the way of settlement of the internal contradiction for, doesn’t comprehend this, but ascribes responsibility for that what happens to the opponent or circumstances. The self-estimation adequacy degree and level of aspirations of the individual plays a special role in the origin and aggravation of conflict conditions as stated above. (Havenmey, 1986). The psychological nature of conflict situations in the adolescence is related to the development of consciousness and self-consciousness of children, this is the base of realizing themselves as individuals and development of an adequate or, in the contrary, an inadequate self-esteem and corresponding level of aspirations as well. The need for some certain level of aspirations and satisfaction with it assures normal well-being and social adaptation to the individual.
The current study aimed to examine the predictors of conflict behaviour of individuals. The relationship between locus of control, typology and conflict potential was tested. It was predicted that there will be a significant difference between locus of control, extraversion and coefficient of group adaptation; the results will differ between age and gender groups; with the increase of age the coefficient of group adaptation will increase; introverts will score higher on group adaptation scale than extraverts; externals will score lower on group adaptation scale than internals. The results of the study proved that there is a significant difference between locus of control, typology and coefficient of group adaptation (conflict potential). As it was predicted externals did score lower on group adaptations scale than internals did. The prediction that introverts will score lower on group adaptation scale than extroverts was proved as well. The results of the study replicated the findings of Hall (2006), Oesteman et al.(1998) and Weinefield (1981) showing that higher levels of external control were related to higher levels of aggression.
Despite the fact that results differed between age and gender groups no significant age and gender effect was found. However, the absence of significance could be influenced by the number of participants in each age and gender group; the number of participants in each group was not the same. The highest coefficients of group adaptation were found in the second age group (25-35), suggesting that at this particular age people tend to adapt to social environment more easily and avoid creating and being involved in conflict situations. The coefficient of group adaptation was used to identify the level of adaptation to social environment. Thus, those having low coefficient of group adaptation (below 30%) are more likely to be involved in conflict situations and have adaptation difficulties. They cannot adapt to their social environment. Characteristics of a conflict individual may be disclosed in the descriptions of temperament types (Eysenck, 1957 and Rusalov, 1963). Based on the studies of temperament conducted during the last years the classification of temperaments was developed. According to Rusalov (1963), the structure of temperament is stipulated by correlation of active and communicative spheres. Thereupon following characteristics are distinguished: subjective ergicity, social ergicity, subjective plasticity, social plasticity, speed or tempo, social tempo, emotionality, social emotionality. People with some certain temperament characteristics are subjectively perceived by one’s associates as those having “bad temper”. This is a low social ergicity, low social plasticity, high values of subjective and social sensibility. These characteristics of temperament as internal conditions exert strong influence upon perception of diverse contradictions and difficulties in the interpersonal relations. People having those characteristics of temperament (Eysenck, 1957 and Rusalov, 1963) are obviously predisposed to conflicts. Conflict individuals are accentuated in the majority of cases (Ganushkin, Yepiphantsev and Konyukhov, 1991). Contrary, high coefficients of group adaptation (over 60%) mean that the person is easily socially adaptable and are not conflicting.
In this study the Picture-frustration method (Rosenzweig, 1976) was used to measure the coefficient of group adaptation (conflict potential). In comparison to many other projective methods, the picture frustration test is a well-structured method designed to measure the particular types of behaviour and has got comfortable, easy to use scoring scale that can be used for statistical analysis. What is more, this method is highly valid. On the other hand the subjects during the experiment can be in control of themselves and their behaviour, thus the real reaction to frustration will not occur. Additionally to this the importance of the frustrating person (to the subject) is not taken in to account, although this can affect the reaction of the subject. In this study the picture-frustration test was used only to measure the coefficient of group adaptation and further analysis of the reaction types used by subjects from various groups was not carried out. The reaction types and strategies used while confronting with frustrating situation may differ between age and gender groups as well as between externals/internals and introverts/extroverts. Moreover, scoring of the picture-frustration test was partially subjective; it was carried out by one person who was familiar with the hypothesis of the experiment. For further researchers it would be suggested to analyse the reactions types in order to get better understanding of the behaviour strategies used by individuals with internal/external locus of control beliefs and introverts/extraverts. The scoring should be done by more than one person, preferable blind to the hypothesis of the study.
The current data was not longitudinal. It is believed that locus of control is subject to change, it is modifying with one’s life experiences and age (Lefcourt, 1976; Steitz, 1982), however the results of this study showed no significant effect of age and gender on locus of control. According to Elder et al. (1983), Eron, Huesman and Zelli (1991), Farington (1991) and Walden (1997) aggression is stable across the life span. The current study did not find significant age effect on conflict potential, although the results differed between age groups. The absence of significance can be explained by the fact that number of participants in each age group was not the same. Regardless many previous findings giving evidence that gender differences have impact on aggressive behaviour (Bandura and Walters, 1959; Edmunds, 1997; Bookwala, Sabine and Zdaniuk, 2005; Harris and Bohnhoff, 1996), no significant gender effect on coefficient of group adaptation (conflict potential) was found. This factor also requires further investigation. Additionally, cross sectional studies carried out in US suggested that such factors as extraversion and openness to experience decrease with the age increase (McCrae and Costa, 2000). This means that the coefficient of group adaptation should increase with the age. Further research studies concentrating on gender differences should be carried out.
The research aimed to study the conflict potential of the individuals. In modern psychological literature it is known as contradictions, that is reactions to particular behaviours during social interactions and leading to conflict situations (conflicts). Locus of control (internal/external) and particular personality types (introversion/extraversion) were found to be significant predictors of unsocial behaviour (conflict potential). The possible explanations of the origin of conflicts and conflict behaviours were discussed. Some limitations of the study as well as suggestions for the future researchers were provided. The findings and conclusions of the current study give deeper understanding of the nature of conflicts and can be applicable in psychology as well as in the area of human recourses management in order to understand factors stimulating conflict behaviour and to teach people how to control themselves and avoid conflicts, how to deal with conflicting individuals in general and to develop conflicts preventing programmes in the workplace.
6. Conclusion
The current research was carried out in order to get the better understanding of reasons of conflict behaviour of adults within different age and gender groups. It was predicted that some personality characteristics (locus of control beliefs and extraversion/introversion) may have effect on conflict potential of the adult person. Five hypotheses have been tested during the research, three of them have been supported, it was found that both locus of control and extraversion are significant predictors of conflict potential. It was also proved that extraverts and those with external locus of control beliefs are more predisposed to be involved in conflicts than internals and introverts. These results are in the line with those from earlier researches (Holloran, Doumas, 1999; Benjamin, 1999; Williams and Vantress, 1969). However, contrary to the previous researches (Bookwala, Sabine and Zdaniuk, 2005; Harris and Bohnhoff, 1996) the findings of the present study suggested that conflict potential is not affected by gender and it does not decrease with the age increase. Taking everything in to consideration, the findings of the research contributed to the understanding of the nature of conflict behaviour providing evidence that conflict potential can be partially (40%) explained and predicted by locus of control beliefs(external) and typology type (extraversion).
7. References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioural Change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A., Walters, R.H. (1959). Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press.
Baron, R.A., Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human Aggression. New York:Plenum
Bending, A.W. (1962). A Factor Analysis of Personality Scales Including the Buss-
Durkee Hostility Inventory. Journal of General Psychology, 66, 179-183.
Benjamin A.J. (1999). The Influence of Locus of Control and Aggressiveness of Rock Music Videos on Aggression: A reanalysis and Methodological Critique of Wann and Wilson (1996). Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, vol.14 (2), 491-498.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bookwala, J., Sobin, J., Zdaniuk, B. (2005). Gender and Aggression in Marital Relationships: A Life-Span Perspective. Sex Roles, 52.
Coasta, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (2002). Looking Backward: Changes in the Mean Levels of Personality Traits from 80 to 12. In Cernove, D. And Mischel, W. Advances in Personality Science, 219-237. New York: Guilford.
Dangerink, H.A., O’Leary, M.R., Kasner, K.H. (1975). Individual Differences in Aggressive Responses to Attack: Interna-external Locus of Control and Field Dependence- Independence. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 191-199.
Darendorf, R. (1994). Elements of the Theory. Social Conflict. Sociological Researches, 5, 142-147.
Deutch, M., Shikman, S. (1991). Conflict: Socio-Psychological Perspective. Social Conflict: Modern Researches, 70-74. Moscow
Dollard, J., Doob, L.B., Miller, N.E., Mower, O.H., Sears, R.R. (1939). Frustration and Aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Edmunds, E. (1977). Extraversion, Neuroticism and Different Aspects of Self-Reported Aggression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 1.
Elder, G.H., Gaspi, A., Downey, G. (1983). Problem Behaviour and Family Relationships: Life Course and Intergenerational themes. Human Development: Interdisciplinary Perspective, 93-118.
Erikson, E. (1968). Adulthood. New York.
Eron, L.D., Huesmann, L.R., Zelli, A. (1991). The Role of the Parental Variables in the Learning of Aggression. The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, 169-188.
Eysenck, H.J. (1957). The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, S.B. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press.
Farrington, D.P. (1991). Aggression, Questionnaire Hostility Scale Predicts Anger in Response to Mainstreatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 87-97.
Frost, B.P. (1969). Extraversion and Educational Achievement. Western Psychologist, 1, 5-18.
Ganushkin, G., Yepiphantsev, J., Konyukhov, Z. (1991). Conflict in the Process of Communication with Collegues. Communication as a Pedagogical Problem. Moscow.
Grishina, N.V. (2000). Psychology of the Conflict. St. Petersburg.
Hall, C.W. (2006). Self-Reported Aggression and the Perception of Anger in Facial Expression Photos. The Journal of Psychology, 140(3), 255-267.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A Further Evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire. Issues of Validity and Reliability. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Holloran E.C., Doumas D.M., John R.S., Margolin G. (1999). The Relationship Between Aggression in Children and Locus of Control Beliefs. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160(1), 5-21.
Horney, K. (1937). The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. Norton.
Koh, N.A. (2003). Freud, S. Conflictlogy. Jekaterinburg.
Koh, N.A. (2003). Jung, C. Conflictlogy. Jekaterinburg.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1976). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Hills dale: Earlbaum.
Levin, K. (2002). Social Conflicts. Moscow.
Mansurov, N.S. (1970). Social Psychology About Reasons of Conflictness of Personality. Moscow.
Marr, R., Fliaster, A. (1994). Organizational Psychology. Moscow.
Marx, M.M. (1956). Some Relations Between Frustration and Drive. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
Nowicki, S., Duke, M.P. (1974). A Locus of Control Scale for Non-college as well as College Adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 136-137.
Osterman, K., Bjorqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Charpentier, S., Pastorelli, C. (1997). Locus of Control and Three Types of Aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 14.
Osterman, K., Bjorqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S.F.,
Fraczek, A., et al. (1998). Cross-Cultural Evidence of Female Indirect Aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 24, 1-8.
Parker, D., Lajunen, T., Summala, H. (2002). Anger and Aggression Among drivers in three European countries. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 229-235.
Petrovskaya, L.A. (2003). Introduction to Practical Social Psychology, 7-21. Moscow.
Powell, J.T. (1964). The Expression of Aggression in Introverts and Extraverts: An Experimental Investigation. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. State University of New York at Buffalo.
Rosenzweig, S. (1976). Aggressive Behaviour and the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 885-891.
Rotter, J.B. (1996). Generalizing Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80.
Ruslov (1963). Aggression. Moscow.
Sadowski C.J., Wenzel D.M. (1982). The Relationship of Locus of Control Dimensions to Reported Hostility and Aggression. The Journal of Psychology, 112, 227-230.
Sheriff, M. (1967). Experiments in Social Psychology. Moscow.
Shugurov, L. (1994). Conflict and Protection. Moscow.
Smith, P., Waterman M., Ward N. (2006). Driving Aggression in Forensic and Non-Forensic Population: Relationship to Self-Reported Levels of Aggression, Anger and Impulsivity. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 387-403.
Steitz, J.A. (1982). Locus of Control as a Life-Span Development Process: Revision of the Construct. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 5, 299-316.
Sulimova, P. (2008). Psychology of Interpersonal Relations Between Employees and Organization. Journal ‘Psych’, 11(3).
Walden, T.A. (1997). Emotional Regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 21(1), 7-25.
Wenefield, H.R. (1981). Anger Expression in the Picture-Frustration Study Under Stress Conditions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 4.
Williams, C.B., Vantress, F.E. (1969). Relation Between Internal-External Control and Aggression. Journal of Psychology, 71, 59-61.
Zimmel, G. (1994). Human as an Enemy. Journal of Sociology, 2, 114-119.
Appendix 1. The questionnaire
Consent Form
I am a final year undergraduate student conducting a study to on the relationship between individual differences (some aspects of personality) and social adaptation and I would like you to participate.
The questionnaire provided will measure various aspects of personality and levels of social adaptation that is the extent to which people adapt to different social situations. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary and obtained data will be confidential and used only for this particular study. The data will be treated with confidentiality so no names are required. You are free to withdraw at any time or refuse to participate at all.
Should you have any further questions related to the study or should you wish to withdraw the data, please do not hesitate to contact me: 0605701@beds.ac.uk or my supervisor: theodora.dallas@beds.ac.uk
As a sign of the consent form please tick the box below and proceed to answer the questionnaire.
|
Thank you for your time.
Nadezda Zamiatina 0605701
Some facts about you.
1. Gender
{ }Male { }Female
2. Age
{ }18-25 { }25-35 { }35-50
{ }50+
Picture-frustration test. This test assesses personality characteristics. Imagine that you are involved in the following scenarios. Please respond as shortly and quick as you can. Please provide your answers in the empty boxes.
Rosenzweig S. (1948).
Introversion scale.
There are 18 statements that people sometimes make about themselves. Please indicate whether or not you believe each statement applies to you by marking whether you:
Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree 2; are undecided =3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5 _____1. Are you inclined to keep in the background on social occasions?
_____2. Do you like to mix socially with people?
_____3. Do you sometimes feel happy, sometimes depressed, without any apparent reason?
_____4. Are you inclined to limit your acquaintances to a select few?
_____5. Do you like to have many social engagements?
_____6. Do you have frequent ups and downs in mood, either with or without apparent cause?
_____7. Would you rate yourself as a happy-go-lucky individual?
_____8. Can you usually let yourself go and have a good time at a party?
_____9. Are you inclined to be moody?
_____10. Would you be very unhappy if you were prevented from making numerous social contacts?
_____11. Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends?
_____12. Does your mind often wander while you are trying to concentrate?
_____13. Do you like to play pranks upon others?
_____14. Are you usually a "good mixer?"
_____15. Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and sometimes very sluggish?
_____16. Do you often "have the time of your life" at social affairs?
_____17. Are you frequently "lost in thought" even when you should be taking part in a conversation?
_____18. Do you derive more satisfaction from social activities than from anything else?
McCroskey (1970). Locus of Control Scale. This scale refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Please choose either statement (a) or (b) that best describes your point of view. 1. a. Children get into trouble because their patents punish them too much. b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them. 2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. 3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in politics. b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. 4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he tries. 5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 6. a. Without the right breaks, one cannot be an effective leader. b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. 7. a. No matter how hard you try, some people just don't like you. b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others. 8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality. b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like. 9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. b. Trusting fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action. 10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely, if ever, such a thing as an unfair test. b. Many times, exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in really useless. 11. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.
12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. 13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. 14. a. There are certain people who are just no good. b. There is some good in everybody. 15. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. 16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability - luck has little or nothing to do with it. 17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor control. b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events. 18. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. b. There really is no such thing as "luck." 19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes. b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. 20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are. 21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. 22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption. b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. 23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. 25. a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. 26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you. 27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school. b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
28. a. What happens to me is my own doing. b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. 29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level.
Rotter J. (1954).
Appendix 2. Introversion Scale Scoring
1. Add scores for items 1 & 4
2. Add the scores for items 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, & 18
3. Complete the following formula:
Introversion = 12 - Total from Step 1 + Total from Step 2
The score should be between 12 and 60. If a score is outside that range, a mistake in computing the score has been done.
Note: Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 17 are not used in computing the introversion scale.
Individuals scoring between 24 and 48 are introverted; those scoring below 24 are extraverted.
Appendix 3. Locus of Control Scoring
Score one point for each of the following: 2.a, 3.b, 4.b, 5.b, 6.a, 7.a, 9.a, 10.b, 11.b, 12.b, 13.b, 15.b, 16.a, 17.a, 18.a, 20.a, 21.a, 22.b, 23.a, 25.a, 26.b, 28.b, 29.a. 13-23 External Locus of Control 0-12 Internal Locus of Control
Appendix 4. Picture-Frustration Test Scoring
Scores are assigned to each response according to two dimensions: direction of reaction and type of reaction. (external reasons), the most conflict, (to oneself),
There are three types of direction of reaction:
Extrapunitive (E), aggression is turned onto the environment;
Intropunitive (I), aggression is turned by the subject onto him- or herself;
Impunitive (M), aggression is evaded in an attempt to gloss over the frustration.
There are three types of reaction:
Obstacle-dominance (OD), the harrier occasioning the frustration stands out in the response;
Ego- defence (ED), the ego of the subject predominates to defend itself;
Need-persistence (NP), the solution of the frustrating problem is emphasized by pursuing the goal despite the obstacle.
The combination of these six categories results in nine scoring factors.
1. Find out the direction of reaction and mark it as M, I or E
2. Find out the type of reaction and mark it as OD, ED or NP
3. If direction of reaction M, I or E combines with OD reaction type it is marked as E’, I’, M’. If direction of reaction M, I or E combines with ED reaction type it is marked as E, I, M. If direction of reaction M, I or E combines with NP reaction type it is marked as e, i, m.
4. The coefficient of group adaptation is calculated while comparing results with standard answers. Only 14 situations are used for comparison.
Standard answers (adults) Nr. | OD | ED | NP | 1 | М’ | Е | | 2 | | I | | 3 | | | | 4 | | | | 5 | | | i | 6 | | | e | 7 | | Е | | 8 | | | | 9 | | | | 10 | | Е | | 11 | | | | 12 | | Е | m | 13 | | | е | 14 | | | | 15 | Е’ | | | 16 | | Е | i | 17 | | | | 18 | Е’ | | е | 19 | | I | | 20 | | | | 21 | | | | 22 | М’ | | | 23 | | | | 24 | М’ | | | * If there are two standard answers only one of them is identical with participant’s answer it is also marked as ‘+’. * The answer that is not identical with standard is marked as ‘-‘. * If the answer is identical to standard answer it is marked as ‘+’. * If there are two participant’s answers and one of them is identical with standard answer it is marked as ‘0,5’ (half point).
5. Score 1 point for each ‘+’ and 0 point for each ‘-‘.
6. Transfer points into %
