,7 - digital library/67531/metadc... · the t test values for all guilford-zimmerman trait scales...
TRANSCRIPT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND VOCATIONAL
INTERESTS IN THE CHOICE OF FIELD OF STUDY OF
SELECTED JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS
IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
APPROVED:
Graduate Committee:
A Major Professor
Minor Professor
,7 C i, • y '"" /.• •>
Copimittee Mefnber
er
Dean of the School of Education
Dean of the Graduate School
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND VOCATIONAL
INTERESTS IN THE CHOICE OF FIELD OF STUDY OF
SELECTED JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS
IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
By
Evelyn R. Grace, B. S., M. A.
Denton, Texas
August, 1969
Copyright by
Evelyn Randall Grace
1969
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page LIST OF TABLES V
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem Statement of the Purpose Hypotheses Definition of Terms Assumptions Significance of the Study Use of Comparison Groups Delimitations of the Study Chapter Bibliography
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND FOR HYPOTHESES AND A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11
Rationale for the Formulation of Hypotheses
Review of Related Literature Research Concerning Personality as
Related to Occupational Choice or Major Field of Study
Research Concerning Interests as Related to Occupational Choice or Major Field of Study
Research Concerning Personality and Interests as Related to Choice of Occupation or Major Field of Study
Chapter Bibliography
III. PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY 42
Subjects The Instruments Procedures for Collecting Data Procedures for Treating Data Chapter Bibliography
111
Chapter
IV.
V.
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . .
Comparison of Mean Scores of the GZTS Factors for Students in Four Major Areas
Comparison of Specific Students' GZTS Factors with the GZTS Norming Group
Comparison of Mean Scores of the GZTS Factors for Students and Experienced Business People
Comparison of Mean Scores on SVIB Interests of Student Majors and Experienced Business People
Comparison of "High-Interest" Students and Experienced Business People on Their GZTS Factors
Chapter Bibliography
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page
57
. 98
Summary Discussion of Findings Implications Recommendations
APPENDIX I 108
APPENDIX II 109
APPENDIX III 110
APPENDIX IV Ill
APPENDIX V 112
APPENDIX VI 113
APPENDIX VII 114
APPENDIX VIII 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY 116
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of the Scores on the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey for Four Major Fields of Study 59
II. The t Test Values for Specific Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales of Accounting Students Versus the Other Three Freshmen Groups 62
III. The t Test Values for Specific Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales of Data-Processing Students Versus the Other Three Freshmen Groups 64
IV. The t Test Values for Specific Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales of Management Students Versus the Other Three Freshmen Groups 66
V. The t Test Values for Specific Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales of Office Practice Students Versus the Other Three Freshmen Groups 68
VI. The ,t Test Values for Specific Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for All Student Major Groups Versus the Guilford-Zimmerman Norming Groups 70
VII. Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of the Scores on the GuiIford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey for Students and Experienced Business People 73
VIII. The t Test Values for Specific Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Students and Experienced Business People 75
IX. Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of the Interest Scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Students and Experienced business people 78
Table
X.
Page
XI.
XII.
XIII.
xrv.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX,
Summary Table for Analysis of Variance of the Scores on the GuiIford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey for High SVIB Interest Groups
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Students and Experienced Business People Showing High Interest Scores on the SVIB. . . .
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Experienced "High Interest" Accountants and Other "High Interest" Business People . . . .
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Experienced "High Interest" Data-Processing and Other "High Interest" Business People .
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Experienced "High Interest" Managers and Other "High Interest" Business People . . . .
82
84
87
90
93
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Experienced "High Interest" Office Practice Women and Other "High Interest" Business People 95
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Accounting and Data-Processing Students 110
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Accounting and Management Students Ill
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Accounting and Office Practice Students 112
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Data-Processing and Management Students . . . 113
The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Data-Processing and Office Practice Students . 114
VI
Table Page
XXI. The t Test Values for All Guilford-Zimmerman Trait Scales for Management and Office Practice Students 115
\71 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The emerging recognition on the part of businessmen
that the personality and interests of an individual are of
prime importance in his job success emphasizes the importance
that should be attributed to it by educators.
American businesses spend millions of dollars every
year sending personnel recruiters to talk to college
graduates. They have definite ideas on what they are
seeking (8). Nearly every company—Armstrong Cork
Company, Xerox Corporation, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, United Air Lines, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and
others—are searching for young people who are capable,
intelligent, and personable. Versatility, breadth of
interest, the positive outlook, ability to express oneself,
"high energy" people, leadership, socially conscious,
personality projectors, quiet enthusiasm, promotable types—
those are the personal qualities so many companies are
looking for in their new recruits.
Statement of the Problem
The problem in this study was the relationship of
personality factors and interests to the choice of major
fields of study.
2
Statement of the Purpose
The purposes of this study were
1. To determine the relationship between and within
freshmen junior college students who selected accounting,
data-processing, management, or office practice as their
major field of study, and their personality profiles as
measured by the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey and
their interests as measured by the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank.
2. To compare the freshmen junior college students with
men and women who were already employed in each of the areas
in regard to personality and interest relationships.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses to be tested were
1. Accounting
a. Students majoring in accounting would have
significantly higher scores in "Objectivity"
and "Thoughtfulness" and significantly lower
scores in "Friendliness" and "Sociability"
than each of the other three freshmen groups.
b. Students majoring in accounting would score
significantly higher on the traits of
"Objectivity" and "Thoughtfulness" and
significantly lower on "Friendliness" and
"Sociability" than the norming group.
3
c. Freshmen students majoring in accounting would
show no significant differences in their scores
on "Objectivity," "Thoughtfulness," "Friend-
liness, " and "Sociability" from a comparison
group of practicing accountants in business.
d. Freshmen students majoring in accounting would
show no difference on their preference for
accounting from a comparison group of practicing
accountants in business, as measured by their
scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank.
Data-Processing
a. Students majoring in data-processing would have
significantly higher scores in "General Activity"
and "Restraint" and significantly lower scores
in "Personal Relations" and "Ascendance" than
the other three freshmen groups.
b . Students majoring in data-processing would score
significantly higher on the traits of "General
Activity" and "Restraint" and significantly
lower on "Personal Relations" and "Ascendance"
than the norming group.
c. Freshmen students majoring in data-processing
would show no significant differences in their
scores on the traits of "General Activity,"
"Restraint," "Personal Relations," and
"Ascendance" from a comparison group of employed
people in data-processing.
4
d. Freshmen students majoring in data-processing
would show no difference on their preference for
data-processing from a comparison group of
employed people in data-processing, as measured
by their scores on the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank.
Management
a. Students majoring in management would have
significantly higher scores in "Ascendance"
and "Personal Relations" and significantly
lower scores in "Restraint" and "Thoughtfulness"
than the other three freshmen groups.
b. Students majoring in management would score
significantly higher on the traits of
"Ascendance" and "Personal Relations" and
significantly lower on "Restraint" and
"Thoughtfulness" than the norming group.
c. Freshmen students majoring in management would
show no significant differences in their scores
on "Ascendance," "Personal Relations,"
"Restraint," and "Thoughtfulness" from a
comparison group of employed management
personnel.
d. Freshmen students majoring in management would
show no difference on their preference for
management from a comparison group of employed
5
management personnel, as measured by their
scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank.
4. Office Practice
a. Students majoring in office occupations would
have significantly higher scores in "Friendli-
ness" and "Emotional Stability" and
significantly lower scores in "Objectivity"
and "General Activity" than the other three
freshmen groups.
b. Students majoring in office occupations would
score significantly higher on the traits of
"Friendliness" and "Emotional Stability" and
significantly lower on "Objectivity" and
"General Activity" than the norming group.
c. Freshmen students majoring in office occupations
would show no significant differences in their
scores on "Friendliness," "Emotional Stability,"
"Objectivity," and "General Activity" from a
group of employed people in office occupations.
d. Freshmen students majoring in office occupations
would show no difference on their preference
for office occupations from a comparison group
of employed people in office occupations, as
measured by their scores on the Strong Vocational
Interest Blank.
6
Definition of Terms
Specific terms used in this study were defined as
follows
Trait—A distinctive pattern of behavior which is
more or less permanent; or the tendency, due to habit,
attitude, or other proponent factor, toward a certain type
of behavior.
Personality Traits—A term used in conjunction with
the traits contained in the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament
Survey.
Interest Inventory—Questionnaire in which items are
given an experimentally determined weight, yielding a score
that represents a pattern of interest, or of likes and
dislikes (7).
Vocational Choice—Kind of projection of self in
total imagination into the occupational role as perceived
by the individual (6).
Technical, Vocational Program—A core of sixty hours
of specific post-secondary education courses in technical
skills, vocationally oriented to occupational proficiency
in the world of work, for which an Associate in Applied
Science degree is awarded.
University Parallel Program—A core of sixty hours
of general education offerings consisting of humanities,
social science, foreign language or mathematics, natural
science, physical education, and electives, for which an
Associate in Arts degree is awarded.
7
Assumptions
This study was based on the assumptions that the
responses to the questions on the measuring instruments
would be true feelings of the respondents and given in good
faith, and that vocational choices and major areas of study
expressed by the students would be as nearly accurate as they
were able to express them or as they understood them to be.
Significance of Study
A great many research studies have been concerned with
securing a better understanding of the relationship between
different personality traits and interest of college
students and the areas of study being pursued by these stu-
dents, because they provide a more effective basis upon which
to assist the individual in his choice of a field of study.
Discussing the importance of personality in this area,
Cattell (2) states
It is a sad illustration of the meager harvest accruing to pure science from comparatively heavy expenditure on applied science that, in spite of the enormous attention vouchsafed in the last forty years to the psychology of vocational guidance, we still have no figures even for the means of occupations in regard to the principal personality factors . . . (p. 418)
Enrollment in the wrong field of study seems to be one
of the causes of failure or withdrawal of college students.
It represents a real service to guide the student into the
field for which he is best suited both intellectually and
temperamentally.
8
In his study of the factors related to the change of
major by college students, Firkins (3) found that although
vocational and educational guidance is, to a certain extent,
available to most high school and college students, many
freshmen enter college without an adequate appraisal of
their ability to cope mentally with the type of college work
required for successful study of their chosen field. Firkins
study was particularly related to the appraisal of junior
college students.
This problem becomes more and more acute, when
increased enrollments are facing every college. Education is
almost overwhelmed by the sheer mass of students—from
3,500,000 in 1960 to an estimated 6,800,000 in 1970 seeking
admission to and graduation from colleges and universities
each year (1). It becomes most important then that the
facilities, both faculty and plant, be utilized efficiently.
Obviously, with 50 percent of the students dropping out of
college in the first two years (5), there is some question
whether in all cases colleges are using their facilities
wisely.
Limited data (4) are available on the causes or reasons
for college dropout, but among many factors which might be
related, one would surely include academic competence or
unsuitability related to the student's major field of study.
9
Use of Comparison Groups
Experienced business people in the areas of accounting,
data-processing, management, and office occupations were
compared with junior college freshmen on personality traits
and interests. Fifty (50) business people were selected in
each of these occupations on the basis of at least three years'
experience considered successful by their supervisors, and
because of their willingness to cooperate in this study.
The purpose of this comparison was to determine if the
personality factors and interests of the junior college fresh-
men in each of the major fields of study related to those of
experienced business people in these occupations.
Delimitations of the Study
This study was delimited to the following
1. A representative sampling of fifty (50) students
randomly chosen from the total freshmen enrollment in each
of the major areas of accounting, data-processing, management,
and office occupations, at Tarrant County Junior College
District, Fort Worth, Texas, during the fall semester of
the academic year 1968-69.
2. The personality factors of the subjects were those
measured by the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey:
General Activity, Restraint, Ascendance, Sociability, Emotional
Stability, Objectivity, Friendliness, Thoughtfulness, and
Personal Relations.
3. The interests of the subjects were those measured
by the Strong Vocational Interest Blank.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ashworth, Kenneth/ H., "Urban Renewal and the University," Journal of Higher Education, XXV (December, 1964), 493.
2. Cattell, Raymond B-, Personality, New York, McGraw-Hill; 1950.
3. Firkins, Curtis, "Factors Related to Change of Major by College students," unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1961.
4. Howard, Maurice Lloyd, "A Study of Under-Achieving College Students With High Academic Ability from the Phenomenological Frame of Reference," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1961.
5. Kauffman, Joseph K-, "Student Personnel Service," The Educational Record, XLV (Fall, 1964), 363. i
6. Morrison, R. L., "Self-Concept Implementation in Occupational Choices," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 9, (1962), 255-260.
7. Roe, Anne, Psychology of Occupations, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 83.
8. Slappey, Sterling G., "What Companies Want Most From Young People," Nation's Business, February, 1968, 89-90.
10
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND FOR HYPOTHESES AND
A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Rationale for the Formulation of Hypotheses
An investigation of the relationships that exist
between personality characteristics, choices of major field
of study in business, and academic performance was made by
Pilgrim (40) in 1965, with 357 upperclassmen enrolled in
a university school of business administration. Seven
fields of business were included in her study: accounting,
business education, banking and finance, insurance manage-
ment, marketing, and secretarial administration. She found
that significant differences among the major fields existed
with respect to scores on the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament
Survey in "General Activity," "Restraint," "Ascendance,"
"Sociability," "Objectivity," and "Friendliness." When she
ranked the mean scores of all areas, accounting majors
were highest in "Thoughtfulness" and "Restraint," and
lowest in "Sociability" and "Personal Relations." Manage-
ment majors ranked highest in "Objectivity," "General
Activity," and "Emotional Stability," and were never lower
than fourth rank in any trait. Secretarial administration
majors ranked highest in "Friendliness," and lowest in
11
12
"Objectivity" and "Ascendance." She did not study ata-
'rocessing majors, an area which is included in this study.
Her findings were carefully considered in the formulation of
hypotheses for the areas of accounting, office occupations,
and management in this study.
Earlier studies by Knapp and Goodrich (30), Roe (42,
43, 45), Farwell (17), and others (13, 16) have shown that
there is a correlation between personality and vocation.
Although there have been some unsuccessful efforts to
differentiate members of nonprofessional occupations by use
of the Bernreuter Personality Inventory, later studies by
Dodge (11, 12) did succeed in differentiating clerical
workers and retail sales people on the social dominance
scales of the Bernreuter. However, they had no success in
separating the good from the poor clerical workers on items
drawn from the personality inventory.
A direct relationship between "Social. Activity" and
vocational interest was found by Lanna (32) . Male students
who differed in personality tended to have differentiated
vocational interest patterns. Those who were relatively
socially inactive tended to be more interested in
scientific-technical (nonperson-oriented) activities, while
students who were relatively socially active tended to be
interested in business contact-persuasive activities.
In prediction of academic success in a college of
13
business administration, Watley (62) found "Restraint" and
"Thoughtfulness" traits on the Guilford-Zirnmerman Temperament
Survey were identified as the most effective of test measures
for prediction purposes.
Finance managers were studied by Pederson (37), who
found them to be interested in making order out of chaos,
highly capable in quantitative reasoning but less so in
verbal, and critical, as well as having little imagination
and creativity. In studying accountants, Harrell (23) found
the average accountant to be very capable, especially with
numbers, but with relatively little imagination and
creativity. Also, he found that the accountant values
security more than others, is pessimistic and at times
depressed, values independence in the work situation, and
does not like to interact with others.
In a study of the psychological components related to
success and failure of Sears Executives, Bentz (3) found
that sales managers were interested in power, status, in
persuading people, and that they were optimistic, masculine,
enthusiastic, and dominant.
Dunnette and Kirchner (14) in studying the psycho-
logical test differences between industrial salesmen and
retail salesmen found that the retail salesman placed heavy
emphasis on planning, hard work, and persuading other people
of his point of view or way of doing things. The success of
the retail salesman was predicted not by a measure of his
14
reasoning ability but rather by the level of his motivation
toward selling and toward gaining a dominant position in
inter-personal relationships.
Perry and Cannon (38, 39) in 1964 and again in 1966,
investigated the vocational interests of computer programmers
using the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. In the first
study, 1,378 computer programmers participating included
186 females. In the second study, scores of 293 female
computer programmers on the Strong for men were found to be
quite similar to those of male programmers, although
interests of women were somewhat higher in aesthetic and
scientific fields and lower in technical and technical-
supervision occupations. Female programmers indicated
interest in all forms of mathematics and lack of interest
in people, especially in activities involving responsibility
for helping people. The similarity of the profiles for men
and women was apparent, emphasizing the similarity of
interests of male and female programmers. The female
programmers as differentiated from women in general, were
more interested in physical science and technical
activities and less so in natural and social science and
literature. They preferred independent, non-routine work.
In a study concerned with scores on an interest blank
and scores on a personality inventory, using the Strong
Vocational Interest Blank and the Guilford—Martin
Personality Inventory among salesmen, Thomas (56) attempted
15
to classify a group of subjects by means of the SVIB in
essentially a similar manner as they were classified by the
GuiIford-Martin. A highly significant relationship between
the two was obtained. All correlations were significant
except "Agreeableness." The highest was "Social Intro-
version." Seven of the thirteen traits were .50 or higher.
The interests of accountants differed from those of
other business alumni in a study by Shaffer and Kuder (50).
Accountants were higher in the computational and clerical
scales, and lower in,social services and persuasive. Like-
wise, Huttner and others (27) studied accounting executives
and found that they showed the least signs of original
thought or creativity, were the least optimistic group, and
had more frequent indications of overt depression.
In a study to develop and evaluate methods for isolating
factors that differentiated between successful and unsuc-
cessful executive trainees in a large multibranch bank,
Scholl (47) used the GZTS, and found it was possible to
isolate factors that differentiated between successful and
unsuccessful trainees, to appraise, relative effectiveness of
executive trainees, to isolate biographical data items, and
to measure by psychological tests characteristics which
differentiated between successful and unsuccessful executive
trainees.
Trying to isolate non-intellectual personality traits of
high achievers in college, Raley (41) found high-achieving
16
students score significantly "higher than moderate-achieving
students on the Occupational Level of the SVIB, indicating
greater similarity of interest to managerial and professional
persons. He also found high-ability students' scores
consistently higher on the Specialization Level scale of the
SVIB, indicating this scale is more closely associated with
ability than achievement.
Investigating the vocational interests and personalities
at two levels of management, Bedrosian (2), using the SVIB
and the Wesman Personnel Classification Test, found that
field of work is an important variable in the study of
managerial interest, that difference in the clarity of the
pattern of interest was related to the level and field of
work, and that the interests of top management were more
like business and professional men than were those of mid-
management, but there was no difference in decisiveness of
expressions of vocational interests.
In examining the relationship between passivity of
personality and certain personal factors which influenced
the choice of ministry as a vocation, Whitlock (63) found
that the "Passive" ministerial candidate tended to be
unrealistic in his vocational goal, and had a tendency to
seek ego-oriented values. He was more dependent on
immediate gratification, more easily deflected from future
vocational plans, and more sensitive to ego-satisfaction not
directly relevant to work itself. There was some evidence
17
that "passive" students scored higher on the Ministry Scale
of the SVIB, but idealized self-image.
Investigating possible significant relationships between
personal characteristics of counseling trainees and their
performance in counseling interviews, Brown (7) used several
measuring instruments: Ohio State University Psychological
Test, GZTS, Edwards PPS, SVIB, Ed. Int. Inv., MMPI, and a
sociometric scale. A performance rating scale, rated by
judges who were advanced graduate students, was the criterion
for performance. His results support the conclusion that
performance of Guidance Institute Trainees at their stage
of development is not dependent on temperament traits except
for "General Activity," "Ascendance," "Sociability," and
"Thoughtfulness" on the GZTS. The results did suggest that
performance in counseling was related to verbal ability
and also outgoing behavior in social activities.
Studying the relationship between measured interest and
differential academic achievement, Johnson (28) selected SVIB
interest scales correlated with scores received on four parts
of the ACT, used with 1,875 university freshmen males. He
found interest scores had much greater power to show the
differences between achievement than to show the achievements
themselves. The relationship between interests and differ-
ential achievement might be shown to be even greater if the
variables were corrected for attenuation and used in
combination.
18
Analyzing junior executive training programs in depart-
ment stores in Texas in 1960, Ermert (15) implied that the
requirements for executive competency apparently depends
primarily on the prospective executive trainees possessing
certain temperamental and personality characteristics which
enable them to work with others.
Review of Related Literature
This review of related literature is concerned with
the following three areas of research
1. Research concerning personality as related to
choice of occupation or major field of study.
2. Research concerning interests as related to
choice of occupation or major field of study.
3. Research concerning personality and interests
as related to choice of occupation or major field of study.
Research Concerning Personality as Related to Occupational Choice or.Major Field of Study
Many research studies show an awareness of the impor-
tance of personality factors as related to occupational
choice or major field of study. There is a general
assumption in these studies that personality factors may
be determinants of measured interest, of occupations
entered, or of occupational success.
The idea of a theory of occupational choice is quite
recent. It was probably given its greatest impetus by
19
Ginzberg and his associates in their study in the early
19501s (19). Ginzberg emphasized that intensive research
should be undertaken to study the role of specific emotional
factors in occupational choice determination. He states,
"It is our position that even though no psychological theory
can adequately explain the choice process, emotional factors
are inherent in it; since relatively little is known about
this fundamental relation, we strongly rejcommend further
research (p. 201)."
Hoppock's theory (24, 25) of occupational choice is
based on the psychological principles of needs. He feels
that the occupations that are chosen will be the individual's
choice on the basis of what he feels will best satisfy his
needs, which may be perceived intellectually, or be emotion-
ally felt. He places emphasis on the influence of feelings
and emotions. When emotion or feeling produce the need,
the intellectual phase comes into action and plans a course
of action which will meet the psychological needs. The
degree of complexity of the needs determines the level of
aspiration of the individual.
The "developmental self-concept" theory of vocational
development by Super (54) is mentioned or discussed in
almost every piece of literature written on this subject
today. His theory finds its origin in the "life stages"
of Charlotte Bucher and more recently Ginzberg. Super
points out that vocational development is an important
20
phase of one's total personal development and cannot be
separated from the development of the whole personality.
It is a medium through which the total personality can
manifest itself.
While no truly comprehensive work has been done with
personality tests as such in the field of occupational
psychology, Roe (44, p. 80) says there nevertheless seems
to be no doubt that some specialized occupations attract
persons who resemble each other in some personality
characteristics showing some regular patterns. She also
states that certain kinds of people are genuinely unsuited
to some kinds of occupations, and personality is of major
importance in determining this.
In an address before the New York Academy of Sciences,
Roe (45) took the position that there is a close relationship
between the needs of the individual and the vocation he
selects. She says, "There is more to working than earning
a living; and there is more to choosing a job than just
finding one. Herein, then lies the basis for the idea that
interests reflect ways of perceiving and valuing events."
Roe's findings (42, 43) offer insights into the dynamics
of vocational choice and adjustment, but more importantly,
they reveal personality correlates in which groups tend to
differ. She stresses that the only way to understand the
role of occupational choice in the life of an individual
is to first understand the individual and his personality
needs.
21
Further importance of the study of personality traits
in relation to vocational choice was stressed by Forer (18)
who puts the focus on the personality of the college student
by stating:
There is a growing awareness among vocational counselors, as well as among clinical psychologists, that the selection of one's occupation is not basically a fortuitous process. While the limits and pressures of uncontrollable external circumstances play a part, the general psychological factors listed below are of major causal importance.
1. Choice of a vocation is not primarily rational or logical, but is a somewhat blind, impulsive, emotional, and automatic process and is not always subject to practical and reasonable considerations.
2. Primary reasons for selecting a particular vocation are unconscious in the sense that when the individual is pressed to elaborate beyond the supervicial rationalization of economic advantage or opportunity, he is forced to admit that he does not know why he simply has to build bridges or he can't stand paper work. These activities have immediate appeal or distaste for him. We are saying that interests and references have uncon-cious roots.
3. Both of these factors point ultimately to the purposive nature of occupational choice. Obviously it is necessary for most persons to find gainful employment. But the economic motive is secondary. Occupational choice, or choice of a major field of study, is an expression of basic personality organization and can and should satisfy basic needs.
4. Selection of a vocation, like the expression of other interests, is a personal process, a culmination of the individual's unique psychological development.
5. Evidence indicates that persons of different kinds of personality seek to enter occupations which are peculiarly important to them by dove-tailing with the ways in which they characteristically handle their problems.
22
That personality evaluation is a very important element
of vocational placement, and that there is a need to identify
those personality factors most related to a certain selection
of major study area, Beamish states (1):
Personality difficulties account for far more job failures than lack of ability to do the job. It has been the experience at this company, and it has been the conclusion reached by every research study with which this writer is familiar.
Even among employees who could be considered failures, comprehensive personality evaluations point out numerous and substantial opportunities to improve job performance, increase job satisfaction, reduce absenteeism and turnover, and generally improve harmony and efficiency of the work group.
The fact that accurate personality evaluation is difficult to obtain is an argument for more, not less, effort to obtain it. Indeed, unless the above considerations can be refuted completely, any selection program which ignores personality evaluation can attempt to do only a small portion of the job that needs to be done.
Personality tests, used in conjunction with all other available data and with full recognition of their limitations, can make a great contribution to the evaluation of personality in an industrial setting.
That traits of personality and character are important
determinants of achievement in both academic and vocational
pursuits was found by Critchfield and Hutson (8), and
Goodstein and Heilbrun (21). In 1957, Scholl (47) also
found that it was possible to measure characteristics
which differentiate between successful and unsuccessful
executive trainees through psychological tests.
College students who had already expressed their
23
preference for a major field of study but who had not been
in the field long enough for it to affect their personalities
were studied by Teevan (55) His investigation was conducted
to determine whether or not personality factors correlated
significantly with choice of major field of college. The
broad groupings of college majors were compared on scores
derived from the Blackey Pictures. He concluded that corre-
lations between personality and vocation previously found by
Roe (42, 43) for professional groups can be demonstrated
during the period preceding entry into a profession.
Osipow (36) also studied entering college students by
testing the adequacy of Holland's theory of vocational choice.
The students evaluated themselves in terms of the six person-
ality styles and vocational choices. Relationships between
the personality styles and vocational choices were studied
for groups of d'ecided, tentative, and undecided students. The
data possessed sufficient consistency to indicate that the
personality identifications these students made in Holland's
frame of reference were related to their initial vocational
choices. The results support the prediction that students
choose occupations consistent with their personality type,
although not uniformly so. The categories of occupational
choices made by the students do not appear to occur in a
random fashion. Examination of the data reveals that although
large proportions of the subjects make their choices in a
manner consistent with Holland's theory, many do not. However,
24
the theory does appear to anticipate the choices of enough
of the students to be of value in predicting vocational
behavior. Maximum support for the theory is likely to derive
from data on those who are "certain" of their choices.
In terms of number of investigations and volume of
published results, there is little question but that the
salesman is one of the most extensively studied men in the
business world. The literature contains numerous reports of
sizable correlations between various test and personal history
measures and indexes of sales performance. Yet, our knowledge
of what it is about a man that makes him a successful salesman
as opposed to his colleague who never seems to reach quota
has not progressed very far. Research in this area has
contributed little that might serve as a basis for the
development of any comprehensive theory of occupational
performance. Miner's (35) study was undertaken because
management wanted to improve the effectiveness of its sales
force through better selection, and it was hoped that the study
would yield not only a satisfactory prediction equation, but
also some insight into the nature of the interaction between
personal qualities and job demands. Miner found that test
measures of dependence, sociophilia, self-confidence and
happiness were to be associated with successful sales
performances; measures of low aggression, sociophobia, and
strong superego were found in association with poor
performance. In the nature of the cause-effect relationship,
25
however, there is a question. The personality character-
istics may be a result rather than a cause of superior
performance. The data do not provide a clear-cut answer (64).
Many studies have been made concerning the relationship
between achievement and personality factors. Using the GZTS,
Howard (26) found that the roots of under-achievement are
deep-seated in the personality structure of the student, and
that changes in the under-achiever1s performance must be
preceded by changes in his phenomenal field. On the GZTS,
he revealed significant relationships between academic
achievement and personality characteristics measured by
"Restraint," "Social Interest," and "Personal Relations"
scales.
Watley (62) also studied achievement. To determine
effectiveness of certain measures, he used the SAT, GZTS,
Allport-Vernon-Lindsey Study of Values, SVIB, Bruce Business
Judgment Test, Bruce Supervisory, Revised Minnesota Paper
Form Board Test, and high school rank. On the GZTS, he found
that academically successful males were significantly higher
on "General Activity," "Restraint," "Ascendance," and
"Thoughtfulness." The SVIB was not related to academic
success.
Numerous other studies by Knapp and Goodrich (30),
Farwell (17), Dunnette (13), Estes and Horn (16), Kaback (29),
Golden (20), and Tomkins (58), have undertaken through the
use of projective techniques, interesting experimental studies
26
in the relation of personality factors to occupational choice
and have shown that there is a correlation between personality
and vocation.
Research Concerning Interests as Related to Occupational Choice or Major Field of Study
Interests are important in occupational psychology
because occupations can be differentiated in these terms.
While interests are sometimes considered an aspect of
personality, they can be measured separately. One of the
best known instruments for measuring interests is the Strong
Vocational Interest Blank, (SVIB).
Men and women engaged in particular occupations have
been found to have a characteristic set of likes and dislikes
which differentiate them from persons following other pro-
fessions. The SVIB is a device by means of which such
patterns of interests can be determined. It does not
determine ability, including intelligence—it only measures
interests. Evidence seems to be growing that, consciously
or unconsciously, occupational choice is determined to a
large degree prior to completion of high school. Interest
scores have been found significant on many high school
juniors and seniors (53).
There are major agreements among Darley (9), Thurstone
(57), Vernon (61), Strong (53), Kuder (31), Guilford (22),
and Tyler (59) on interest factors. They all separate
interests into scientific, linguistic, social and business
27
interests. It should be noted that naming factors is some-
what impressionistic—different meanings are often given the
same words by different investigators.
Sex differences in interests is a well-observed fact
and they are one of the earliest differences to become
apparent in children (59). Children, know what things are
appropriate for them to do before they are influenced by
interests, however. In the first grade (60), boys begin
to formulate differentiated roles in reference to their
occupational responsibilities.
There have been extensive studies with interest
inventories but the basic findings in earlier studies by
Strong (53), in 1943, and Super (54), in 1947, have been
extended rather than altered.
Interests are not completely independent psychological
entities, they are multiple determined (44). They are the
things the individual likes, pays spontaneous attention to,
observes, thinks about, or does with satisfaction and
enjoyment. People are, on the whole, more alike than they
are different in interests, but the differences are
important. Strong summarizes this as follows:
Because research regarding interests has been largely concerned with group differences, it has not been realized that likenesses among the interests of individuals are far more striking than differences. All groups so far studied agree very well in their interests. Men regardless of age and economic or occupational status agree on all types of items to a high degree. There is also good agreement between the interests of men and those of women of corres-ponding ages. Only when differences in age and sex
28 are both involved do we find correlations approximating zero for certain groups and adult women. Even here the correlation is .48 when all items on the inventory of interests are considered (p. 46).
Interests change with age, but become relatively
stabilized in post-adolescence. They have some relationship
to abilities, but are more closely related to attitudes.
Studying interest patterns as related to fields of
concentration among engineering students, Estes and Horn (16)
showed that students in specialties within a curriculum can
be differentiated, and that an individual scale for the
mechanical engineer, for example, could be designed.
Dunnette (13) also studied vocational interest differ-
ences among engineers in their different functions, producing
differentiating keys for four groups of engineers: pure
research, applied research and development, process and
production, and sales and technical.
Measuring vocational interests in relation to intra-
occupational proficiency in 1960, Stone (52) concluded that
an intraoccupational interest scale can be constructed for
subgroups of a given occupation by use of a standardized
interest inventory, on the basis of statistically signifi-
cant differentiation in group response, and that members
of an occupational group can be classified on the basis
of interest, and respect to quality of occupational
performance.
29
Research Concerning Personality and Interests as Related to Occupational Choice or Major Field of Study
In her book, Roe (44, pp. 100-199) states that we do not
have occupational data based upon an adequate theory of the
nature and development of personality, but we do have strong
indications that occupational preferences are closely related
to different aspects of personality. This relationship has
so far been most thoroughly studied in terms of interests.
These are more important as determiners of the kinds of
occupations that an individual will enjoy and be successful
at than are intellectual factors. In addition, attitude
and masculinity-feminity scales have shown such relationships.
A beginning has been made with clinical studies, and these
offer many promising leads for a better understanding of
these relationships.
The extent to which college students with various interest
scores differed on structured personality tests was shown
by Darley (9, 10), who published statistically significant
data in his 1941 monograph. He presented interesting statis-
tically significant evidence, suggesting that the personality
tests used differentiated student groups differing in interest
patterns. He states,
On the average, the less mature, socially adept, more "masculine" cases may be expected to show "technical" interests. The economically conservative, socially aggressive, physically robust individuals will probably have "business contact" interest. The more "feminine," slightly "feminine" student and the
somewhat less socially aggressive liberal students will be interested in "welfare" and "uplift" jobs.
30
Berdie (4, 5, 6) studied relationships between number
of "likes" and "dislikes" checked on the SVIB with the ACE,
scores for morale, social adjustment, and emotionality from
the MMPI, and grade standing, and found correlations between
the various personality tests and the responses on the SVIB.
He concluded that the extent of "likes" and "dislikes" is
closely related to personality and vocational interests.
In 1940, a study by Sarbin and Berdie (46) examined
the relationship between personality and interests by
using the Allport-Vernon Study of Values. Although the
study presented only a small number of cases, fifty-two,
considerable relationship between occupational interest
patterns and the individual1s dominant value systems
appeared. However, Launer (33) in studying the relationship
of given interest patterns to certain aspects of personality
states that their results could be that %
. . . theoretical man seeks truth by way of empirical, rational, critical measures; economic man involves himself with what is practical and useful; aesthetic man looks upon form and harmony as his paramount concern and finds his chief interests in the artistic experience of life; political man seeks power in interpersonal relations, not necessarily in politics; and religious man is mystical and seeks unity in his experience.
In 1946, Kabach (29) studied vocational personality
by applying the Group Rorschach Method to accountants and
pharmacists and students preparing for these occupations.
No personality-type differences emerged from the study
because of apparent overlap in her groups. Since that
31
study, though, Schwebel (48), in 1951, studied pharmacists,
putting them into the business-detail group, of which
accountants are members, thus accounting for the lack of
difference in Kabach's study.
A psychoanalytic analysis of personality factors in
vocational choice was made by Segal (49) on two divergent
occupational groups—accountants and creative writers. He
chose fifteen advanced students in each of his occupational
groups; both samples showed clear differences in patterns of
interest on the SVIB. Two projective tests were used in the
appraisal of personality—a concept formation test and a
vocational autobiography. On the basis of two psychoanalytic
premises, the significance of earlier emotional experiences
and the role of the unconscious in determining behavior, he
concluded that
. . . vocational choice is not a peripheral decision of the individual made on a chance or necessarily a realistic basis, but is a concrete expression of personality development and emotional experiences within the framework of the environmental pressures and opportunities with which an individual is confronted. Therefore, vocational choice is a resultant of the emotional development of the individual and is in part an expression of the individual's method of adjusting to his environment (p. 205).
. . . there, is need for job-analysis data which reveal something about the personality needs gratified by a particular occupational outlet and the socially defined role of the worker in the community, i. e., the status value of the job (p. 203).
Another study investigating the relationships between
personality and vocational interest, using the California
32
Test of Personality, Secondary, Form A , by Melton (34),
concluded that there are definite measurable relationships
between personality and vocational interest. He recommended
that it would seem good psychological procedure to include
the use of personality inventories as a "must" in guidance
testing programs and at as early a stage in an individual1s
career as is practicable.
Summary
This part of the chapter is divided into three sub-
sections. In the first sub-section, although the evidence
isn't extensive, behavioral scientists nevertheless seem to
have no doubt that personality characteristics related to
occupational choice or major field of study do appear in *
regular patterns in some specialized occupations. Studies
of college students show that correlations between personality
and vocation can be demonstrated prior to entry into a
profession. It is recommended that intensive research
should be undertaken to study the role of specific emotional
factors in occupational choice determination and that identi-
fication of specific personality factors most related to
a certain selection of major study area should be obtained,
because personality tests, used in conjunction with all other
available data can make a great contribution to the guidance
of students.
In the second sub-section, various authorities were
cited concerning the importance of interests in occupational
33
psychology, since men and women engaged in particular
occupations have been found to have a characteristic set of
likes and dislikes which differentiate them from persons
following other professions. Evidence seems to be mounting
that occupational choice is determined to some extent in
high school, but changes of interest with age are relatively
mild between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, and change
very little after the age of twenty-five. Interest patterns
also have been differentiated within a field of concentration,
such as with four kinds of engineers.
Since men and women in different jobs have different
interests, the Strong Vocational Interest Blank has been
successfully used to identify such differences among those
occupations that college students usually enter. The results
have been particularly useful in guidance situations where
counselors are helping young people plan their futures into
areas of interest where they will find their greatest job
satisfaction.
Although there is some substantial relationship between
interest and quality of performance, it is not at present
well understood. Interest ratings appear to be better
indices of job persistence than of job success, at present.
A beginning has been made with clinical studies of
interests and personality relationships, as discussed in
sub-section three. Correlations between selected personality
characteristics and responses on the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank have shown definite measurable relationships.
34
So, it appears that vocational choice is not a
peripheral decision made by chance or perhaps even on a
realistic basis, but rather a concrete expression of
personality development and emotional experiences to be
considered within the framework of the environmental
pressures and opportunities of an individual.
In view of the above research and theories, the
hypotheses of this study were formulated, as set forth in
Chapter I.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Beamish, John C., "Personality Tests Highly Valued," Personnel Journal, XXVII (June, 1958), 64-65.
2. Bedrosian, Hrach, "An Analysis of Vocational Interests at Two Levels of Management," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York, New York, 1962.
3. Bentz, V. J., "A Study of Psychological Components Related to Success and Failure of Sears Executives," unpublished study compiled for Sears, Roebuck and Company, Chicago, Illinois, n. d.
4. Berdie, Ralph F., "Factors Related to Vocational Interests," Psychological Bulletin, XLI (October, 1944), 237-257.
5. , "Factors Associated with Vocational Interests," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIV (November, 1943), 257-277.
6. , "Likes, Dislikes, and Vocational Interests," Journal of Applied Psychology, SSVII (September, 1943), 180-189.
7. Brown, Donald James, "An Investigation of the Relation-ships Between Certain Personal Characteristics of Guidance Counselors and Performance in Supervised Counseling Interviews," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1960.
8. Critchfield, Jack B. and Percival W. Hutson, "Validity
of the Personality Record," College and University, XL (Fall, 1964), 41.
9. Darley, John G., Clinical Aspects and Interpretations of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, New York, New York, The Psychological Corporation, 1941.
10. , "A preliminary Study of Relations Between Attitude Adjustment and Interest Tests," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXIV (April, 1938), 467-473.
35
36
11. Dodge, A. F., "Social Dominance of Clerical Workers and Sales Persons as Measured by the Bernreuter Personality Inventory," Journal of Educational Psychology, XX (January, 1937), 71-73.
12. , "What Are the Personality Traits of Successful Clerical Workers and Sales Persons as Measured by the Bernreuter Personality Inventory, Journal of Applied Psychology, XXIV (October, 1940), 576-586.
13. Dunnette, Marvin D., "Vocational Interest Differences Among Engineers in Different Functions," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLI (March, 1957), 273-278.
14. , and Wayne K. Kirchner, "Psycho-logical Test Differences Between Industrial Salesmen and Retail Salesmen," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 2 (April, I960), 121-125.
15. Ermert, Gene Oliver, "An Analysis of Junior Executive Training Programs in Department Stores in Texas," unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1960.
16. Estes, Stanley G. and Daniel Horn, "Interest Patterns as Related to Fields of Concentration Among Engineering Students," Journal of Psychology, VII (January, 1939), 29-36.
17. Farwell, E. D and others, "Student Personality Characteristics Associated with Groups of Colleges and Fields of Study," College and University, XXXVII (Spring, 1962), 229-241.
18. Forer, Bertram R., "Personality Factors in Occupational Choice," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XIX, (Summer, 1959), 361-366.
19. Ginzberg, Eli, and Associates Sol W. Ginzburg, M. D , Sidney Axelrad, and John L Herma, Occupational Choice, An Approach to a General Theory, New York, Columbia University Press, 1951.
20. Golden, A. L, "Personality Traits of Drama School Students," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVI (1940), 564-575.
37
21. Goodstein, Leonard D., and Alfred B. Heilbrun, Jr., "Prediction of College Achievement from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule at Three Levels of Intellectual Ability," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI, (May, 1962), 317-320.
22. Guilford, J. P., P. R. Christensen, N. A, Bond, Jr., and M. A. Sutton, "A Factor Analysis Study of Human Interests," Psychological Monograph, 1954, Vol. 68, No. 4.
23. Harrell, Thomas W., Managers' Performance and Personality, Dallas, Texas, Southwestern Publishing Company, 1961.
24. Hoppock, R., Job Satisfaction, New York, Harper, 1935.
25. , and D. E. Super, Vocational and Educational Satisfaction. In Fryer, D. H. and E. R. Henry (eds.) Handbook of Applied Psychology, New York, Rinehart, 1950, Vol. I, 126-134.
26. Howard, Maurice Lloyd, "A Study of Under-Achieving College Students with High Academic Ability from the Phenomenological Frame of Reference," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1961.
27. Huttner, L. and others, "Further Light on the Executive Personality," Personnel, XXVI (July, 1959), 42-50.
28. Johnson, Richard Wilbur, "The Relationship Between Measured Interests and Differential Academic Achievement,11 unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1961.
29. Kabach, G. R-, "Vocational Personalities," Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 924, 1946.
30. Knapp, R. H. and H. Goodrich, Origins of American Scientists, Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press, 1952.
31. Kuder, G. F., Manual to the Kuder Preference Record, Chicago, Illinois, Science Research Associates, 1939, 1946.
38
32. Lanna, Mathew George, "Vocational Interests in Relation to Some Aspects of Personality and Adjustment, 11 unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1962.
33. Launer, Philip T., "The Relationship of Given Interest-Patterns to Certain Aspects of Personality," unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York, 1963.
34. Melton, W. R., "An Investigation of the Relationships Between Personality and Vocational Interest, 11
Journal of Educational Psychology, (March, 1956), Vol. 47, 163-174.
35. Miner, John B., "Personality and Ability Factors in Sales Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1962), Vol. 46, 6-13.
36. Osipow, Samuel H., J. D. Ashby, and H. W. Wall, "Personality Types andVocational Choice, A Test of Holland's Theory," Personnel and Guidance Journal, (September, 1966), 37-42.
37. Pederson, C. A., "A Case Study of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation's Program for the Selection of Management Personnel," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1946.
38. Perry, Dallis K. and William M. Cannon, "Vocational Interests of Computer Programmers," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1967), 28-34.
39. / "Vocational Interests of Female Computer Programmers," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1968), 31-35.
40. Pilgrim, Mary A., "Relationships Among Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Profile, Choice of Field of Study in Business, and Academic Performance of Upperclassmen in Business Administration," unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1965.
41. Raley, Coleman LeVan, "Personality Traits of High Academic Achievers at Oklahoma Baptist University, 1958-1959," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1960.
39
42. Roe, Anne, "A Psychological Study of Eminent Biologists," Psychological Monograph, LXV, No. 14 (1961), 1-95.
43. , "A Psychological Study of Eminent Physical Scientists," General Psychology Monograph, XLIII, No. 10, (1951), 121-139.
44. , The Psychology of Occupations, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956,
45. , "A Psychological Study of Eminent Psychol-ogists and Anthropologists, and a Comparison With Biological and Physical Scientists," Psychological Monograph, LXVII, No. 2, (1953), 1-89.
46. Sarbin, T. R. and R. F. Berdie, "Relation of Measured Interests to the Allport-Vernon Study of Values," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXIV (April, 1949), 287-296.
47. Scholl, Charles Elmer, Jr., "The Development and Evaluation of Methods for Isolating Factors That Differentiate Between Successful and Unsuccessful Executive Trainees in a Large, Multibranch Bank," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1957.
48. Schwebel, Milton, The Interests of Pharmacists, New York, King's Crown Press, 1951.
49. Segal, Stanley J., "A Psychoanalytic Analysis of Personality Factors in Vocational Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology, VIII (Fall, 1961), 202-210.
50. Shaffer, R. H., and G. F. Kuder, "Kuder Interest Patterns of Medical, Law and Business Alumni," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXVII, (Mav, 1953). 367-369.
51. Spencer, L. M., "Portrait of Company Presidents," Young Presidents' Organization Third Annual Survey Report, New York, Young Presidents' Organization, 1955.
52. Stone, Vernon W., "Measured Vocational Interests in Relation to Intraoccupational Proficiency," Journal 21. Applied Psychology, (April, 1960) Vol. 44, No. 2, 78-82.
40
53. Strong, E. K , Jr., Vocational Interests of Men and Women, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1943.
54. Super, D. E , The Psychology of Careers, New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957.
55. Teevan, R. C-, "Personality Correlates of Under-Graduate Fields of Specialization," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVIII (June, 1954) 212-214.
56. Thomas, Edwin Russell, "The Relationship Between the Strong Vocational Interest Blank and the Guilford-Zimmerman Survey Among Salesmen," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, , New York, 1958.
57. Thurstone, L. L., "A Multiple Factor Study of Vocational Interests," Personnel Journal, (1931), Vol. 10, No. 3, 198-205.
58. Tomkins, S. A., The Thematic Apperception Test, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1948.
59. Tyler, L. E., "Relationships between Strong Vocational Interest Scores and Other Attitude and Personality Factors," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1945), 58-67.
60. , "The Relationship of Interests to Abilities and Reputation Among First-grade Children," Educational Psychological Measurement, (Summer, 1951), Vol. 11, No. 2, 255-264.
61. Vernon, P. E., "Classifying High-grade Occupational Interests," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, (1949), 85-96.
62. Watley, Donivan Jason, "Prediction of Academic Success in a College of Business Administration," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, 1961.
63. Whitlock, Glenn Everett, "The Relationship Between Passivity of Personality and Personal Factors to the Choice of Ministry as a Vocation," unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1959.
41
64. Witkin, A. A-, "Differential Interest Patterns in Salesmen," Journal of Applied PsycholoqV/ (October, 1956), 338-340.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY
This chapter includes a description of the subjects,
the measuring instruments, the procedures for collecting
the data, and the procedures for treating the data.
Subj ects
The 839 subjects included in this study consisted
of 639 students and 200 experienced business people. The
students represented approximately the total enrollment
of full-time freshmen students in the Department of
Business Administration, Tarrant County Junior College
District, Fort Worth, Texas, during the fall term of the
1968-69 school year, who indicated a definite major area
of study in business. These students were classified
as follows: 140 accounting majors, 149 data-processing
majors, 216 management majors, and 134 office Practice
majors. These groups were randomly reduced to fifty
students in each major area of study, by mesans of random-
ization tables (11), and a total of 200 were used. The
experienced business people were selected in the
occupational areas of accounting, data-processing,
management, and office practice, on the basis of at least
42
43
three years' successful experience. Of the total of 200
experienced business people, fifty (50) were chosen in
each of the four selected areas from retailing, wholesaling,
Manufacturing, Warehousing, and service business estab-
lishments in Tarrant County, Texas.
The total sample involved men only (no female majors)
in the areas of accounting and management, and women subjects
only (no male majors) in office practice. The women subjects
were eliminated from the data-processing area because no
current scale was available to determine their Strong
Vocational interests in data-processing.
The final total subjects considered in the study thus
became 400, of which 200 were students and 200 were
experienced business people.
Although all subjects included indicated definite
major areas, the data does not reveal if they were enrolled
in the technical, vocational areas, or in the University
parallel program.
The following summary shows the range of ages of the
students and experienced business people, and the average
age of the groups.
STUDENTS EXPERIENCED
Age Average Age Average Range Age Range Age
Accounting 18-45 23 25-50 32 Data-Processing 18-37 26 25-53 30 Management 18-42 25 25-54 39 Office Prac. 17-33 21 25-54 36
44
The Instruments
"J1*1® Gui If or d- Zimmerman Temperament Survey, hereafter
referred to as the GZTS, was the instrument used in this
study to measure personality traits of the subjects. The
GZTS is composed of 300 items which measure ten personality
traits: Ascendance, General Activity, Restraint, Socia-
bility, Emotional Stability, Objectivity, Friendliness,
Thoughtfulness, Personal Relations, and Masculinity-
Femininity. These ten traits appear to be those most
frequently mentioned by literature, surveys, and studies,
and individuals as the traits most desirable among employees
in the four areas of this study.
The GZTS was constructed with the following objectives
in mind: (1) a single booklet of items; (2) a single answer
sheet; (3) an efficient scoring method; (4) a coverage of
the traits proven to have the greatest utility and
uniqueness; and (5) condensations and omissions of trait
scores where the inter-correlations were sufficiently
high (3, p. 1).
Guilford (3) and others have variously identified the
ten major traits by factor analysis, which were hitherto
included in separate inventories: Nebraska Personality
Inventory (SEM), Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors GAMIN,
Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory l_, and Inventory of
Factors STDCR.
45
The GZTS gives a very favorable impression of a well-
rounded, carefully worked out method of evaluating an
important portion of the total personality (10). The
reliability with which each of the traits is assessed is
shown to be of the order of .80; and their intercorrelations
are, as the authors say, "gratifyingly low," the implication
being that all are approximately orthogonal in factor terms,
that is, that "unique traits" are involved (8).
By using 300 items, thirty items for each of the ten
traits, the instrument may be adapted to a standard IBM
answer sheet, in which there are thirty item spaces per
column. Scoring convenience is achieved by using only two
stencils for hand-scoring; one for the front and one for the
back of the answer sheet. The simplicity of the scoring
eliminates the possibility of errors.
The instrument has clarity and individuals understand
the items with little variation in their responses related
to interpretation. Items in the test are stated affirma-
tively rather than in a question form in inventories of
this type, and the second-person pronoun is used except
when unavoidable. Examples are: "You find it easy to make
new acquaintances," and "You give little thought to your
failures after they are past." The alternative responses
to each item are the familiar "yes," and "no." "Yes"
and "no" are preferred to "true" and "false" for the reason
that with the latter responses, some examinees become too
46
concerned about the actual truth of statements where
actually their more spontaneous responses, dictated to some
extent by feelings, would probably be more diagnostic.
Using the response of the "?" was determined by the results
of an unpublished polling study of students toward different
kinds of response alternatives, who expressed a preference
for an opportunity to avoid being forced to reply in one
direction or the other to all items (3).
The scores upon which the norms of the GZTS are based
were obtained from 523 college men and 389 college women in
a southern California university and two junior colleges,
for all except trait "T," which was introduced into the
survey later. The final form of the survey was administered,
with the "T" items included, to a group of seniors in a
southern California high school and to their parents. It
was found that there were no significant differences in
mean scores of parents and their high school offspring, so
they were combined for norm purposes.
Interpretations of the traits measured by the Guilford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey are given in the manual as
1. G—General Activity. A high score indicates strong
drive, energy and activity; a low score indicates anemia or
inactivity.
2. R—Restraint. A high score indicates an over-
restrained or over-serious individual; a low score indicates
a carefree, impulsive individual.
47
3. A—Ascendance. Ascendance is a relative matter,
and the need for it varies according to the personalities
of those to be supervised and the extent of face-to-face
contacts required. It would seem that C scores below six
should be avoided in selecting foremen and supervisors.
4. S—Sociability. The high and low scores indicate
the contrast between the person who is at ease with others,
enjoys their company and readily establishes intimate rapport,
versus the withdrawn, reserved person who is hard to get
to know.
5. E—Bnotional Stability. A high score indicates
optimism and cheerfulness. A very low score is a sign of
poor mental health in general or a neurotic tendency.
6. 0—Objectivity. High scores mean less egoism; low
scores mean touchiness or hypersensitivity.
7. F—Friendliness. A high score may mean lack of
fighting tendencies to the point of pacifism, or it may
mean a healthy, realistic handling of frustrations and
injuries. A low score means hostility in one form or
another—a fighting attitude.
8. T—Thoughtfulness. A high score indicates an
introvert, and the low score that of an extrovert with a
dislike for reflection and planning.
9. P—Personal Relations. A high score means tolerance
and understanding of other people and ability to get along
well with others. A low score indicates fault-finding and
criticalness of other people.
48
10. M—Masculinity. A high score means that the
person behaves in ways characteristic of men and that he is
likely to be more acceptable to them. A very high score may
indicate that the person is somewhat unsympathetic and callous.
Women who score toward the masculine end of this dimension
may have had masculinizing experiences through long
association with the opposite sex or they may be rebelling
against the female role.
Although many years have passed since the publication
of this survey in 1949, it has become possible to apply
fresh yardsticks to its evaluation (6). Because the
instrument has appeared to merit relatively widespread use,
substantial practical experience has been accumulated and
begun to be reported. Its demonstrated utility for
individual evaluation and in personality research has been
widespread. For many years users of the GZTS have found it
to be of value, and validation studies from many sources have
provided objective testimony to support their confidence in
it. Shaffer (7) says that, "the Survey is a superior
instrument of its kind. As the outstanding omnibus instru-
ment based primarily on factor analysis, the Survey will have
usefulness for screening, rapid evaluation, and research."
The stability of the GZTS personality measures was
demonstrated by Jackson (4) who concluded that the test was
measuring relatively persistent characteristics of persons
tested. The scores demonstrated considerable stability over
49
time, and high test-retest reliability, except perhaps in
extreme changes occurring in the life situation of a subject,
such as marriage for a quite young girl, markedly affecting
her emotional stability, femininity, and security. " The GZTS
showed promise as a potential management aid in the, selection
of personnel for jobs in two commercial telephone office, as
found by Jackson.
The Strong Vocational Interest Blank, Revised for Men
and Women, is recommended for ages seventeen and over. It
has 64 scoring scales (54 occupations, 6 occupational group
scales, and 4 nonvocational scales) . Astin (1), reporting in
the Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, states that
"Recent major research studies now make it clear that the
SVIB is useful in predicting membership in given occupations
over long periods of time . . . there is still little doubt
that the SVIB remains as the best constructed and most
thoroughly validated instrument of its kind."
Also, Furst (2) says the vitality of the SVIB has
continued undiminished since its inception in 1959, that
the scores show high retest consistency in late adolescence
and adulthood, and that high and low scores on many scales
correlate with outside ratings of personality. The basic
merit of the SVIB is that it gives scores on specific
occupational scales through a comprehensive inventory.
Layton (5) edited an excellent report about the SVIB
in perhaps as complete an account of the historical and
operational use of the instrument and the research studies
50
conducted with it as one can possibly imagine. It is well
documented, and a particularly valuable paper is that of
Ralph Berdie, who reports on the validities of it. Another
is that of John Darley, who discusses the theoretical basis
of interests. Remaining papers are of equally high caliber
and serve to round out rather well a most complete and
comprehensive symposium on the research and uses of the SVIB.
A criticism frequently made of the SVIB is that scoring
is tedious and costly. However, several commercial firms
now provide rapid and accurate scoring at a minimal cost.
In 1958, a national committee was established to provide
a clearing house and depository to facilitate research on
the blank and to insure continuing evaluation of it; and
in 1962, Strong announced that a revised blank was to be
published. The purposes, theory, and techniques (2) remain
essentially the same in the new revised blanks. Strong still
holds to his original position that the objective is not to
measure interests as such, but to differentiate men (and
women) engaged in different occupations and thus to aid
young persons to find the jobs best suited to them.
An inspection of the 399 items on the SVIB, the vast
majority of which are answered "like, " "indifferent, 11 and
"dislike," reveals that most of them elicit attitudes about
a great variety of stimuli not primarily vocational in
content. Some of the items could just as well appear on
a personality inventory, so it is not at all surprising
51
that the scores on many of the scales correlate with outside
ratings of personality.
The SVIB is probably still preferable to its leading
rival, the Kuder Vocational, but the latter has its own
special advantages and uses. In any case, the two instru-
ments differ enough so as to justify using both in some
cases. To be a truly multi-stage instrument, the SVIB
provides additional scales which permit finer differentiation
of interests. With its 399 items, as against 100 in the
Kuder Occupational (Form D), it appears to have splendid
potential for this. It is perhaps still too early to
compare the SVIB and the Kuder Occupational (Form D), as
the latter is relatively new.
The extensive revision of the Men's form of the SVIB
published in 1966 was instigated by Strong and carried out
primarily by David P. Campbell, with the advice and counsel
of Ralph Berdie and Kenneth Clark, over an eight-year
period (9). The revision involved recalculating all the
basic SVIB empirical data, as well as performing many types
of analyses not employed before. At each stage in the
development, reports to the psychological profession
resulted in feedback that helped guide the further work of
the revision. Some of the more important changes were the
updating of the items in the booklet, expansion of the
profile to include several more scales, development of a
simpler hand-scoring system, and establishment of a new
52
reference group of men-in-general drawn from men with a wide
variety of professional and interest patterns and tested over
a wide time span, 1927-1964. The 1966 edition of the Manual,
about twice the size of the former edition, contains, besides
more extensive data on validity and reliability characteristics
of the SVIB, information on, the stability of interest patterns
within occupations, a report of the development of a new
scale related to academic achievement, and more extensive
data on the changes in interests with age. Further research
on a sustaining basis should continue to provide the SVIB
with a firm empirical base.
Procedures for Collecting Data
Through the cooperation of the instructors in the
freshmen business administration classes at Tarrant County
Junior College District, approximately all the full-time
freshmen took the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey soon
after mid-term of the fall semester 1968-69. The students
were asked to put the following information on a data sheet
accompanying their answer sheet: name, date, sex, classifi-
cation, class in which they were administered the test,
college hours completed to date, if any, and major field
of study. This information made it possible to sort the
answer sheets into areas of study without duplication of
subjects.
Fifty (50) subjects were then chosen randomly (11) from
each major area of study, and these students were then
53
administered the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Raw
scores were tabulated and prepared for examination by use of
statistical analysis.
The 200 experienced business people were selected from
Tarrant County businesses from each of the occupational areas
of accounting, data-processing, management, and office practice.
Personnel directors or executives were contacted in each of
several retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, warehousing,
and service businesses, for their approval to administer the
GZTS and the SVIB to selected employees, who had been with the
companies three years or longer, and who were interested and
cooperative in this study. It was explained to these employees
that participation was entirely voluntary, and that taking the
tests was a personal favor to the investigator. Also, it was
emphasized that the information would not become a part of
their personnel files. Most of the subjects asked eagerly to-
have the results interpreted to them, which was done.
Procedures for Treating Data
After the data had been collected, it was tabulated,
and analysis of variance designs were used to test hypothesis
"a" in each of the four major areas of study to determine
whether significant differences existed between and within
the four groups with respect to mean scores on the specific
personality characteristics. If the differences were
significant, the material was re-examined and investigated
by use of a t ratio to determine where the difference lay.
54
and the hypotheses were retained or rejected. The .05 level
of confidence was used.
Hypothesis "b" in each of the four major areas of study
was tested by use of the t ratio to determine if the students
scored significantly higher or lower on selected personality
traits than the norming group.
Hypotheses "c" and "d" in each of the four major areas
of study were also tested by use of the t ratio to determine
if there were any significant differences between the students
and experienced business people in their personality traits
and/or interests.
The results obtained by following these procedures
were then tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted. The next
chapter reports the findings, analyses, and the interpre-
tation of these data.
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Astin, Alexander W., "The Strong Vocational Interest Blank," The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook/ New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1965.
2. Furst, Edward J., "The Strong Vocational Interest Blank," The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1965.
3. Guilford, J. P. and Wayne S Zimmerman, The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, Manual of Instructions and Interpretations, Beverly Hills, California, Sheridan Supply Company, 1949.
4. Jackson, Jay M., "The Stability of Guilford-Zimmerman Personality Measures," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, Vol. 45, No. 6, 431-434.
5. Layton, Wilbur L., Editor, The Strong Vocational Interest Blank: Research and Uses, Papers From the Institute on the SVIB Held at the University of Minnesota in February, 1955. Minnesota Studies in Student Personnel Work, No. 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, 1960.
6. Saunder, David R., "The Guilford-Zimmerman Survey," The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1959.
7. Shaffer, R, H. and G. F. Kuder, "Kuder Interest Patterns of Medical, Law and Business Alumni," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (May, 1953), 367-369.
8. Stephenson, William, "The Guilford-Zimmerman Survey," The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1953.
9. Strong, Edward K., Jr., revised by David P. Campbell, Strong Vocational Interest Blanks Manual, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1968.
55
56
10. Van Steenberg, Neil, "The Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory," The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1953.
11. Weast, Robert C , Samuel M. Selby, and Charles D. Hodgman, Handbook of Mathematical Tables, second edition, Cleveland, Ohio, The Chemical Rubber Co., 1964, 285-291.
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
The findings of this study are presented in five
sections. The first section reports data assembled to show
the comparison of freshmen junior college students, who
selected accounting, data-processing, management, or office
practice occupations as their major field of study, and
their personality profiles as measured by the Guilford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey, (GZTS). This section deals
with the "a" hypotheses for each of the four occupations.
The second section reports the results of a comparison of
specific GZTS traits for each student group with the norming
group for the GZTS. This section deals with the "b"
hypotheses for each occupational area. The third section
reports the findings related to the "c" hypotheses in all
four parts of the hypotheses and deals with the comparison
of personality profiles between students, in each of the
four business areas of major study, with experienced
business people employed in each of these areas. The
fourth section compares the student majors and experienced
business people, on their preference, interest in, or
"liking" for their major area as measured by the Strong
57
58
Vocational Interest Blank, (SVIB). Data related to the "d"
hypotheses in all four parts is reported here. The final
section presents additional treatment of data for which
no hypotheses were made, but it includes information which
has considerable meaning for the study as a whole. It
presents a comparison of those students showing a high
interest in their major area and experienced business people
with high interest in the same area as measured by the SVIB
on their GZTS traits. This would be indicative of the
personality requirements of the vocations into which the
students will very likely be entering upon graduation, as
evidenced by their high scores on the SVIB.
All hypotheses were tested by comparing the mean scores
through an analysis of variance design, by computing Fisher's
t (2, p. 103), and consulting an appropriate table to
determine the level of significance (2, p. 430) . The
statistical computations were made at the Computer Center
at North Texas State University. The .05 level of signifi-
cance was used to test all hypotheses.
Comparison of Mean Scores of the GZTS Factors for Students in Four Major Areas
The analyses data, presented in Table I, are for nine
of the trait scales of the GZTS, by major field of study.
The M—Masculinity scale was eliminated because it was not
considered appropriate for the study.
59
TABLE I
SUMMARY TABLE FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES ON THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY FOR
FOUR MAJOR FIELDS OF STUDY
Source Sum of df Variance F P Squares Estimate
General Activity
Major field 461.20 3 153.73 5.11 NS Within cells 5891.28 196 30.05
Total 6352.48 199 •
Restraint
Major field 95.42 3 31.80 1.45 NS Within cells 4292.80 196 21.90
Total 4388.22 199 • * •
Ascendance
Major field 1842.82 3 614.27 24.40 .05 Within cells 4933.96 196 25.17
Total 6776.78 199 • m •
Sociability
Major field 293.45 3 97.81 3.05 NS Within cells 6276.74 196 32.02
Total 6570.19 199 • •
Emotional Stability
Major field 473.69 3 157.89 5.04 NS Within cells 6131.26 196 31.28
Total 6604.95 199 • • •
TABLE I, Continued
60
Source Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Objectivity
Major field Within Cells
Total
732.29 5541.58
3 196
244.09 28.27
8.63 .05 Major field Within Cells
Total 6273.87 199 * • *
Friendliness
Major field Within cells
Total
258.77 4879.58
3 196
86.25 24.89
3.46 NS Major field Within cells
Total 5138.35 199 • •
Thoughtfu1ness
Major field Within cells
Total
90.42 4120.36
3 196
30.14 21.02
1.43 NS Major field Within cells
Total 4210.78 199 • m m
Personal Relations
Major field Within cells
Total
505.24 5185.08
3 196
168.41 26.45
6.36 NS Major field Within cells
Total 5690.32 199 . • •
The general hypotheses "a" in each of the four parts
was that there would be significant differences between the
student groups, in their respective major fields of study,
in their mean scores on four selected GZTS trait scales.
61
This was not supported, because an examination of the data
in Table I reveals that significant differences between
major fields were found in only two of the nine scales of
the GZTS, namely, Ascendance, with an F-Ratio of 24.40^ and
Objectivity, with an F-Ratio of 8.63, both of which were
significant at better than the .05 level.
Part 1 Hypothesis "a"
This hypothesis stated that accounting majors would
have significantly higher scores in Objectivity and Thought-
fulness and significantly lower scores in Friendliness and
Sociability than each of the other three freshmen groups.
In examining the t ratios in Table II, to discover
wherein the differences are between the groups, management
majors were significantly higher than accounting majors in
Objectivity, at the .01 level, and data-processing majors
were significantly higher than accounting majors, at the
.05 level. So, accounting majors did not score signifi-
cantly higher than the other groups in Objectivity.
In Thoughtfulness, the accounting majors were not signi-
ficantly different from the data-processing and management
majors, but they were significantly higher than the office
practice majors at the .05 level. In Friendliness,
accounting majors did have the lowest score of all the
groups which was significant at the .05 level for data-
processing and management, and at the .01 level for office
62
H H
W •3
CO
i CO
fa P # H R fa U CO W FJ3 Oi CD W W A G
H FFI & EH EH O G fa 5
CO 8 B 8 §
fa O
EH CO W EH
•PI W as EH
(1) m co m co 0) .H co m m 0 O l Z i O l 2 i 0 o ^ o o a * • G ft • « « id fd
ft u u •H MH
•H MH
•HI H <Ti vD O *H O rH CN ^ G O H C M C O G VD v£> rH CM
P I • * • » tr> +»I • t • • •H CN rH CM •H CN CM CM CO { ( i CO 1 1 1
o o o o o o o o 2; LO m m m m m m m
8 1 S-i
•H -p CQ • rH 00 O C* £ CO * f O O C M h (0 CQ CQ KQ CO CD -P Q m or* CM m 0 -P • * * * E G u a « ^ ^ i n m CD 0 • m m m 0 CD :o t n n 3 CO U Tf fd d ft d G -P 1 -P fd co
fd co g -P \D vo 00 ^ 00 td G 00 <J* CN VD G CO LO rH 00 Q fd I * * * fd • • • •
0 oo oo i n o\ CD 0 \ CTi m rH g rH i—1 i—I i—I g 1—1 rH 1—1 CM
o o o o O O O O 3 m i n i n m !3 m i n m i n
t P t n G CD G co
-H -P • vo VD ^ O •H -p • kD ko ^ o -P G r-* vo ^ <x> -P G Q v£> ^ \o a 0 • • • i G CD » • • • 3 ^ • m r o ^ KD d n3 • i n co ^ vd 0 3 sx 0 d CO 0 -P 0 -P O CO O CO < C
^ V D M O ^ \D CM O G m o o c o G i n o o co fd • • • • fd * • • • CD vo o co a* CD VO O CO Cft g i—1 CM rH rH g H CM rH rH
CO CO CO CO 0 CO CD CO C co ^ > i G CO >
- p rH 0 . p . p «-t 0 4-> •H d G -H •H d G *H
0 |> m *H i—I 0 > MH *H rH rH -H -p rH -H rH •H -p rH *H rQ •H & 8 rQ -P rG T* rQ fd O t n G fd fd O D I G (d •H 0 d 0 -H •H 0 d 0 -H U **~1 0 -H O i-J "r-j 0 *H U fd rQ rC M 0 (0 rQ rG SH 0 > O EH fa CO > O EH fa CO
0 co m »H co 0 53 o o a G & -• ' •
fd -
u
IW •H rH 00 00 rH G
-PI ^ <J| O vo
-PI • • * •
•H rH rH CO CO 1
o o o o 13 m m m m
0 0 •H -P • rH VO O CO Q 00 00 ^ fd -P • • * * U G * ^ ^ ^ ft 0 CO
0 d O -P
•H CO 44 o ^ o o MH G i n CM rH VD O fd • • • •
0 ^ 00 vo 00 g rH rH rH rH
o o o o a M M ID m
G CO •H 4^ * \D \D o -P G p l> VD ^ vD G 0 1 1 1 * d ^ • m co \o 0 0 CO O 4J q co <
^ VD CN O G m o o co rd < » * *
0 vO O CO CT* g rH CM rH rH
CO CQ 0 CQ
> i G CO > H 0 -p
•rH d G *H 0 J> 4-j -H rH
rH •H 4-> «H -H rQ -P rG TJ ,Q fd O t p G fd -H 0 d 0 -H u • n O ' i H 0 fd rQ rG U 0 > O EH fa CO
63
practice. The accounting majors were not significantly
different from data-processing and office practice students
on Sociability, but management students were significantly
higher than the accounting students, at the .05 level. There-
fore, the hypothesis is accepted only in part—accounting
majors did score significantly lower in Friendliness than the
other three groups. The rest of the hypothesis is rejected.
Part 2 Hypothesis "a"
This hypothesis stated that students majoring in
data-processing would have significantly higher scores in
General Activity and Restraint and significantly lower
scores in Personal Relations and Ascendance than the other
three freshmen groups. Table III reveals that data-processing
students were not significantly higher in General Activity
than the accounting and management students, although they
were significantly higher than the office practice students,
at the .05 level. There was no significant difference on
Restraint between the accounting students and the other
three groups. On Personal Relations, data-processing
students did not differ significantly from the management
students, but they were significantly higher than the
accounting students, at the .01 level, and the office practice
students, at the .05 level. On Ascendance, data-processing
students were not significantly different from the
accounting students, though they were significantly lower
64
H H
m a §
55!
0 0 CO CO H t o c O i 13 53 O 13 fd • 0
• H M-l
<N ^ £
- p . 0 0 O i 0 o \
t r - p | • • • « • H 0 0 CO
O O O O a i n m i n i n
Cn Cn C w
* H - p • m 0 0 v o - P C P 0 ^ CN CO cr» £ 0 * 1 1 1 3 ncf • t n m m i n 0 3
t n m m i n
U - P O CO ^3
\ o ^ ^ £ 0 ^ c n fd • • 1 1 0 a \ vO ^ vO S 1—1 1—1 i—1 r H
O O O O a m m m m
t jn a
* H CO • 00 CN c n c n CO CO p ^ CTi 0 r H 0 - P 1 * 1 1 0 a * m m m 0 0 CO
m m m
u a * 3
td c o 4J CN CN CN Kp fd £ ^ 0 0 ^ r -P fd • I • •
0 t r * i > 0 m a r H i H r H r H
CO G
> 1 0 - P * H •H +J > fd
•H r H 4-> 0 0 0 1 C 4 J a
0 a r H a r H 1 h - h fd (d rQ fd fd a u fd U u 0 c H 0 - P CO 0 j k i £ CO u 0 rd 0 0 0 C Q * > 1 0 & cu <5
03 I c ; a C \
- p c 0 §
« j p C +3 g c o
c C14J
* r
! 3
t n C •H CO CO CO a> - P u c o a) m « d a * 3
4J\ f d CO • p
fd P
P
CO
( 3
I / }
0 r H rQ id
* H u m >
W CO t o o 121 I S g O
00 ^ vO ^ r - o v o oo
I « t CO
o o o o m i n l o i n
H CO CM O O H CN H
* • • i IT) "sf» LO ^
00 00 o o CO CN H vO • •
r H l > CO CTk CN r H r H pH
o o o o m i n i n l o
CO CN CTi o\ <J\ o r H
• • I • m ^ m i n
CN CM CN ^ ^ CO 1> • * I *
cr> o i > m H H H H
CO a
> 1 0 - p • H
• P > fd
* H r H 4-) 0 Q Oh 0 C - p
Oh a
c r H c 1—1 - H fd fd <d fd G n d u u 0 c 0 -P CO 0 a CO M u 0 0 0 O Ot <
0 0 £ rd a
• H
•H
c 0 ]
• H CO
0
j * H I -P i 0
! fd , u
' 0 o
* H 1*4-1 MH O
H1
- H
I w
CO CO 0 +>; O £ o 0
k i |P4
, * •*•*! fd co •P td P
PM
• P I
P
CO
m co m o c 13 o o
r H <J\ CO VO H r - CN I D • • • •
CN H CN ^
O O O O m i n m m
i n r - c h c o CN H o CO • * • •
i n ^ ^
P
co
0 r H rQ fd
* H u td >
O ^ CN VO H VO r H H • • « •
r*- m m «h r H 1—{ r H 1—I
O O O O m i n i n i n
CO CN <Jt <J\ ^ Ch O H • • « *
m ^ m m
CN CN CM ^ ^ r o ^ O • • • •
cr> o i > i n I—I r H 1—! 1—|
CQ c 0
• H • H - P > fd
• H H - P 0 O ct: 0 < - p 0
c r H C r H *H fd fd fd fd £ t 5 1M u 0 a 0 4J CO 0 c CO U V 0 0 0 CO 0 oc! 04 <
65
than the management students, at the .001 level, and
significantly higher than the office practice students, at
the -001 level. Therefore, this hypothesis is rejected.
Part 3 Hypothesis "a"
This hypothesis stated that students majoring in
management would have significantly higher scores in
Ascendance and Personal Relations and significantly lower
scores in Restraint and Thoughtfulness than the other three
freshmen groups. In Table IV, on Ascendance, the manage-
ment majors were significantly higher than the other three
groups—the accounting group, at the .01 level, and the data-
processing and office practice groups, at the .001 level, so
this part of the hypothesis is accepted. On Personal Rela-
tions, management students were significantly higher than
accounting students, at the .001 level, and the office
practice students, at the .01 level, but they were not
significantly different from the data-processing students.
On Restraint and Thoughtfulness, the management students
were not significantly different from the other three groups.
Therefore, this hypothesis may only be accepted in part—
that management majors do have significantly higher scores
in Ascendance than the other three groups. The remainder
of the hypothesis is rejected because management majors
are not significantly higher than the other three groups on
Personal Relations and not significantly lower in Restraint
and Thoughtfulness.
66
> H
W a
co
<D rH U H o CO CO a PU O O IS 13 rd • « u •H MH •H LO LO <Jk H G oo r - co vo On -Pi • • « « •H CM CO CO
o o o o a LO LO LO LO
& £ cq * ^ 0 0 0 ^ 0 •H -P A Ch 00 CM kO -P G • • • t ^ 0 • LO LO LO 00 3 < d CO 0 2 a 4J q w <
^ ^ VD G r- cm ^ o rd t i l l 0 KO \Q o g rH rH r-H CM
o o o o 13 in lo m lo
-p G w « O CM 00 O 0 -P Q i—1 CN •—1 CF> e ^ • 0 • * a) a> • ^ LO ^ CO m d ^ -p 03 CO g
O O 00 o a VD H OJ LO rd • • * * 0 a\cot>o\ g i—1 rH i—1 i—I
CO G 0
•rH •P CO rd to rH 0 a> a
<D & rH a -P 3
a) g h g mh rH rd fd -h 4j & U C fd rC fd C O M tJi -H CD CQ -P 3 $H O M CQ 0 <d w 0 0 ,£ > ^ At Oh B
1 Q> rH O CO CO CO
£ a. O S5 a g fd *
0 •H MH •H vO •<* 00 g
•pi co vo o in
CP •pi • • • •
•rH 00 CO
o o o o a LO in LO LO
tr» £
•H CO CO w * a* o* <n ro 0 -P Q rH O CTv vD 0 G • • • •
0 0) • LO LO "st1
SH'd CO P4 3
1 -P fd co -P fd CM CN VO Q g I> ^ 00 Ch
fd • * » •
<D LO {> l> 00 g r-H i—1 i—i i—1
o o o o S3 LO LO LO LO
-P G w • O CM ro o 0 -P p H CM H 6 G • * • •
a> a) • LO ^ CO
(d d G -P m co g
O O 00 o G H CM LO fd • i * i 0) a \ co r - as g rH i—( i—1 rH
01 G 0
•H -P CQ fd CQ r-H 0 0) G
0 Dh rH o -P d
a) G rH G LW rH fd cd -H -p
G fd rG fd G 0 ^ tJ •H 0 CQ -P 3 u U SH CQ 0 fd cn a) 0 & > < PM a; EH
a> rH Q O rH CO CO G 04 o o a a fd • • u •H MH •H rH cr> LO t> G
-PI 00 h ro
CP -PI • t • • •H 00 CM rH rH CO
O O O O 53 lo in lo to 0)
a •iH -P 0 CQ • 00 OM> ^ fd -P Q 00 O rH 00 M G * • • • 04 0 * ^ ^ ^
*d CO 0) 3 O 4J •rH CO m MH VD CN ^ ^ O G rH rH \£) CM
fd # • * * 0 H LO LO CO g i—1 rH i—I i—1
a o o o o
a LO LO LO LO
«P G CQ • O CN 00 O 0) -P Q i—1 CN i—1 <J\ e c • « • • <u a) • ^ LO ^ ^ CO (d s C -P rc) co S
O O 00 o G ^0 H CN LO fd i i i i a) & 00 l> C\ g rH rH rH rH
CQ G 0 •H 4-» CQ fd CQ rH 0 0 G
0 & rH O +> 3
0 c h c i h rH m rci -H +3 rQ c m ,c: fd C O t i Di •rH (1) M +i 3 u o u m o fd CO <U 0) rC > <! Ot 01 EH
67
Part 4 Hypothesis "a"
This hypothesis stated that students majoring in
office practice would have significantly higher scores in
Friendliness and Emotional Stability and significantly
lower scores in Objectivity and general Activity than the
other three freshmen groups. Table V shows no differences
from the data-processing and management majors in Friend-
liness, although the office practice majors were signifi-
cantly higher than the accounting majors, at the .01 level.
On Emotional Stability, the office practice students were
not significantly different from the accounting students,
but they were significantly lower than the data-processing
students, at the .001 level, and lower than the management
students, at the .01 level. On Objectivitity, the office
practice students showed no significant difference from
the accounting students, but were significantly lower
than the data-processing management students, at the
.001 levels. On General Activity, the office practice
students showed no significant difference from the accounting
students, but were significantly lower than the data-
processing and management students, at the .001 level. This
hypothesis is rejected.
In summary, the first section has dealth with the data
assembled to show the comparison of freshmen junior college
students who selected accounting, data-processing, management,
or office practice as their major field of study, and their
68
w a
CQ
iH rH (!) i CO O O ID u a o o o a P4 • • •
fd o *H MH •H i CM 00 rH c 00 CQ 0\ «H
i 01 •PI i i i t CO CO CM
CO 1 f 1
O O O O ID LO LO LO
S1 c
I *H to • O ^ H ro CO CO fi ^ rH 00 ^ a> +> • • • •
u a • LO LO ^ LO 0 0 CO U TJ P4 3 1 +> fd CO
H-* 00 00 00 CM fd £ CM l> ^ Q fd • • • •
a) m oo co cr» S rH rH rH rH
o o o o a LO LO UD m
0 0 ] -H
1+3 • rH CD l> LO a to Q v£) vD CO CM rd +> • • • •
M £ • ^ LO p4 0 CO
|| 0) 3 k> +> •H CO |m O O O O m a rH O ID rH P fd t • • • CP \o to ^ r-
S rH rH rH rH
>1 +> •H rH J> -H +> A -H fd >
CO +> -H W CO >i+J <D +> q C rH -rH <J
a> •H fd > rH H C *H H
0 +J fd C -H 0 M
•H 0 +> 0 0 u -«H 0 (0 > fa a o o
rH i—I 0 1 CO rH o O u i 12 O O O a cu • • • fd o •H iw •H 1 kO O 00 o a 1 crv cm in as tr •Pi • • • • *H oo oo CO \ 1 t
o o o o a ID in ID ID
+> C CO • CM O 00 rH 0 +> Q CM ID LO O e c i • • • » <d a) • LO in ID ID cnncf CO fd 3 £ +> fd c/j 4 ^ 00 00 00 a rH ID 00 00
fd • i i i 0 m oo ch <h g rH rH rH CM
o o o o a ID ID ID m
d) o
+J • rH 00 r- LO U CO Q KO v o 0 0 CN
fd +> • 1 1 1 in a • ^ ID o« 0 CO
*a a> s 0 +> •H CO 1 4H o o o o MH £ rH O LO «H O fd * « i i 0 vo ID ^ r** g rH rH rH rH
> 1
+J •H rH £>* •rH +> ,0 -H td >
CO + J ' H CO CO > i + J
a) -p o £ rH H < 0 • h fd > rH rH Jm * H rH & r& 0 +> fd fd £ -H U M
• H 0 +> 0 0 JH - H 0 ) £
fd k E r Q f l )
> fa 0 o o
69
personality profiles as measured by the Guilford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey.
Comparison of Specific Students' GZTS Factors With the GZTS Norming Groups
The analyses data, presented in this section, are for
the specific trait scales of the Guilford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey for each of the four student groups
compared with the GZTS norming groups (1, p. 7).
Part 1 Hypothesis "b"
This hypothesis stated that students majoring in
accounting would score significantly higher on the traits
of Objectivity and Thoughtfulness and significantly lower
on Friendliness and Sociability than the norming groups.
The hypothesis must be rejected because there is no
significant difference between the groups on the traits
of Objectivity, Friendliness, and Sociability, in Table VI.
However, the accounting majors were significantly higher in
Thoughtfulness than the norming group, at the .05 level.
Part 2 Hypothesis "b"
This hypothesis stated that students majoring in
data-processing would score significantly higher on the
traits of General Activity and Restraint and significantly
lower on Personal Relations and Ascendance than the norming
70
m a § Eh
CO W
a u CO
CO
P4
-PI
a
*
p CO
G fd
I
P
CO
c fd 0) S
0) rH fd
•H U (d >
0) a CO LO CO CO £ S3 O 125 55 fd •
a *H UH *H iH vD vD a CO O O O t r * 1 1 1 •H rH CM i—1 rH CO 1 1
00 VO 00 00 CM rH CM CM LO rH LO LO
CO H l> I> tn <Jl rH O Ch C ft • l i t •H 3 LO LO VO e o LO LO VO M M 0 o 13
o o o o av ^ co cNi
# • • •
r- 00 00 GO rH rH rH i—I
o o o o lO LO LO LO
tr* vO vO O £ co r** vo vo •H -p * 1 1 1 -p fi LO 00 ^ VO £ 0 LO 00 ^ VO 3 «U 0 3 U +) O CO < ^ VD CMO
to o O oo * t t • V0 O co C?t
H CM H H
CO CO 0) CO >1 £ CO >i
-p HI (D -p -H 3 £ -H > MH -H H •H -p *H *H •P rC 'd rQ U tn G aJ a) s <D -H 'nO-H 0 rQ M O O En CO
<D 0 rH CO CO CO £ O 25 £ 2! <d • a •H <4H
o t> vo oo £ a* io ch h t r • * 1 »
•H CM CO 1
00 00 00 00 CM CM CM CM LO LO LO LO
^ ^ LO ^ tn vo Ch O 00 £ ft • • • •
LO LO LO e o M M 0 O 12
o o o o o o m >
• 1 1 1 O VO VO LO H H H H
o o o o LO LO LO LO
tn rH £i
•H CO 00 CM CF> <T» CO CO O ^ O H 0) -p • • * 1 o a LO ^ LO LO 0 0)
Pk 3 Pk 3 1 -p
fd co -p CM CM CM ^ fd ^ oo P • * « •
<ji r - r - i o rH i—I rH i—1
CO a
>i 0 -P -H •H -p > rd
"H rH •p a) u & a> C +J o
fl H fi rH *H fd fd fd fd £ Jh JH 0 £ <D -P CO (D £ CO Jh U a) a> a) co O DH p4 <1
(D rH U O CO CO CQ £ o i s a l a fd •
0 *H HH •H r» vo c>j oo £ co co in cvi t r • • • •
•H rH rH CO
00 00 00 vo CM CM CM «H LO LO LO <H
^ LO ^ iH Gn CO O CTi rH a ft • * * • •H 3 LO LO ^ LO E 0 LO LO ^ LO
to U 0 o 121
o o o o <T» G\ ^
* • * *
io vo VO 00 rH pH rH rH
O O O O LO LO LO LO
•P O CM 00 o £ CO HCMHOi a) -p * « * i 6 £ ^ LO a) a) t n ^ f rrj rj IU i-J G -P id co £ O O 00 o
vo rH CM LO * • • • cri oo r - <y\
t—1 rH i—I rH
CQ a 0 •H -P CO fd co rH (D 0) £
<D Ph rH U 4J 5 C H fllM fd (d -h -p
ns £ fd , £ £ 0 ^ tn 0 co -p d o u CO 0 CO CD 0 rC ^ Pk GcJ EH
0) 0 CO CO rH CO £ 13 13 O 13 fd • a i •ri MH
-H LO 00 O CM a LO LO 00 H t r -H CM CO 1 I
o\ <y\ <J\ 00 CO 00 00 00 00 00 00
(T* VO C* O i> l> 00 CM a ft « t « * •H ^ ^ LO LO LO e o
u u 0 o h-7-
o o o o MO 00 O * 1 * 1 lO LO vo l>
rH i—1 rH i—1
O O O O LO LO LO LO
a) a a -H +> rH 00 LO 0 CO vo VO 00 CM (d 4-> • • # • u a ^ ^ ^ LO A <D ^ ^ ^ LO
TS a) d a) d 0 4J •H CO MH o o o o
rH O LO rH O * • • • vo uo r -H H H i—1
>i •P •H rH >i -H 4 rQ "H id >
CO 4J -H CO CO >i+J 0 -P g C rH -H <£{ •H fd > 1—1 -r| H ^ o 4J fd £ -H u M 0) -P <D (D -H 0 •»*n C Sh E rQ 0)
W O O
71
group. The hypothesis must be rejected because there is
no significant difference between the groups on three of
the traits—Restraint, Personal Relations, and Ascendance.
However, the data-processing majors were significantly
higher in General Activity than the norming group, at the
.01 level.
Part 3 Hypothesis "b"
This hypothesis stated that students majoring in
management would score significantly higher on the traits
of Ascendance and Personal Relations and significantly
lower on Restraint and Thoughtfulness than the norming
group. The hypothesis must be rejected because there is
no significant difference between the groups on the traits
of Personal Relations, Restraint, and Thoughtfulness.
However, the management majors were significantly higher
in Ascendance than the norming group, at the .001 level.
Part 4 Hypothesis "b"
This hypothesis stated that students majoring in
office practice would score significantly higher on the
traits of Friendliness and Emotional Stability and signi-
ficantly lower in Objectivity and General Activity than
the norming group. This hypothesis must be rejected because
there is no significant difference between the groups on
the traits of Friendliness, Emotional Stability, and
72
General Activity. However, the office practice majors were
significantly lower in Objectivity than the norming group,
at the .01 level.
This section has reported the results of a comparison
of specific GZTS traits of the students with the norming
groups. The students were more like than unlike the
norming groups except in one trait in each of the variable
groups.
Comparison of Mean Scores of the GZTS Factors for Students and Experienced Business People
This section deals with the "c" hypotheses in all four
parts of the hypotheses and shows a comparison of specific
personality traits between students in each of the four
major areas of study with experienced business people
employed in each of these four business areas. Significant
differences exist in five of the personality traits—
General Activity, Ascendance, Emotional Stability,
Objectivity, and Personal Relations. The F-Ratios are
shown in Table VII.
Part 1 Hypothesis "c"
This hypothesis stated that freshmen students majoring
in accounting would show no significant differences in their
scores on Objectivity, Thoughtfulness, Friendliness, and
Sociability from a comparison group of practicing accountants
73
TABLE VII
SUMMARY TABLE FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES ON THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY FOR STUDENTS
AND EXPERIENCED BUSINESS PEOPLE
Source Sura of Squares
df Variance Estimate
General Activity
Between Groups 985-78 7 140.82 4.74 .05 Within Cells 11626.10 392 29.65
Total 12611.88 399 • •
Restraint
Between Groups 441.10 7 63.01 2.98 NS Within Cells 8276.34 392 21.11
Total 8717.44 399 • • m
Ascendance
Between Groups 2802,83 7 400.40 13.61 .001 Within Cells 11527.48 392 29.40
Total 14330.31 399 • 0
Sociability
Between Groups 784.82 7 112.11 3.09 NS Within Cells 14193.62 392 36.20
Total 14978.44 399 * • 41
Emotional Stability
Between Groups 1084.66 7 154.95 5.21 .05 Within Cells 11658.34 392 29.74
Total 12743.00 399 • • m
TABLE VII, Continued
74
Source Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
Objectivity
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
1028.12 10749.64
7 392
146.87 27.42
5.35 .05 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 11777.76 , 399 m »
Friendliness
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
333.91 10317.84
7 392
47.70 26.32
1.81 NS Between Groups Within Cells
Total 10651.75 399
Thoughtfu lness
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
337.88 7707.42
7 392
48.26 19.66
2.45 NS Between Groups Within Cells
Total 8045.30 J 399 •
Personal Relations
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
1543.00 10251.78
7 392
220.42 26.15
8.42 .01 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 11794.78 ; 399 • • •
in business. Table VIII shows that experienced accountants
were significantly more Objective than accounting students,
at the .05 level. However, the accounting students were
significantly higher than the experienced accountants in
the traits of Thoughtfulness and Sociability, at the .01
and .05 levels respectively. There was no significant
75
w CO CO w 13 13 13 a
W CO LO 03 K 13 O 13
CD CO CO LO O 13 a O
m H100 CM 00
r - H IrH PO 00 jZJlCM ^ CN
n 4 rO fO ^ KO r* r-\
•> 00 O CM CN ^ r o (Ti
HjCN (N H H col I
O O O O l o m i n i n
o o o LO LO LO
o o o o m m l o i n
o o o m i n i n
<D o H
-P O i o cn m
^ CO 0 - p | r H (J\ CM o fn (i—i i n <xi £J fd I • • « 0 - P i i n ^ ^ vo
H ^ rH ID ^ iX)
LO cn H 00 m ^ ^ cm (u|VO 00
d) m m H M CD a> a ft
iw
i n m i n ^
< K f ^ ^ CN VO O I*- 00 <T>
O CN O CN 00 VO ^ CO
H VO CM M-4 00 VO ^ O oo m co
(T> c \ CTk o H H H CM
i n vo t o rH
H H
H O W
O O O O m i n m i n
o o o o l o l o i n i n
o o o o m i n i n m
o o o o m m m i n
9 CQ t o 0> k o kO O
C CO J t \£> VO H 4 J ,
i n oo ^ vo
00 CN Q\ G\ O CN 00 O CM rH Cn
00 i> VO VO CO
•P ^
i n i n
VO CM m o o
CN CN CM ^ ^ r o ^ o
O O 00 o VO rH CN i n
vo o po cn H CM H vo i n ^
rH rH
CO CO > i - p - p H
rH H
CO
76
difference between the two groups on Friendliness. This
hypothesis is therefore rejected.
Part 2 Hypothesis "c"
This hypothesis stated that freshmen students majoring
in data-processing would show no significant differences
in their scores on the traits of General Activity, Restraint,
Personal Relations and Ascendance from a comparison group of
employed people in Data-Processing. Table VIII shows that
there were no significant differences on these traits, so
the null hypothesis is accepted.
Part 3 Hypothesis "c"
This hypothesis stated that freshmen students majoring
in management would show no significant differences in their
scores on Ascendance, Personal Relations, Restraint, and
Thoughtfulness from a comparison group of employed manage-
ment personnel. Table VIII shows that there were no
significant differences between the two groups on General
Activity, Personal Relations, and Thoughtfulness, so the
null hypothesis may be accepted in part. However, the
experienced management personnel showed a significantly
higher score on Restraint than the students, at the .05
level.
77
Part 4 Hypothesis "c"
This hypothesis stated that freshmen students
majoring in office practice would show no significant
differences in their scores on Friendliness, Emotional
Stability, Objectivity, and General Activity from a group
of employed women in office practice. This null hypothesis
can be accepted in part because Table VIII shows that there
were no significant differences between the two groups on
Friendliness and Emotional Stability. However, the
experienced office practice women were significantly higher
than the students, at the .05 level, on Objectivity and
General Activity.
This section has shown the relationship of specific
personality traits between students in each of the four
major areas of study with experienced business people
employed in each of these four business areas.
Comparison of Mean Scores on SVIB Interests of Student Majors and Experienced Business People
The analyses data, presented in Table IX, are for
the interest scores on the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank comparing student interests with those of experienced
business people in the same major areas.
All the "d" hypotheses in Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4
stated that freshmen students majoring in a specific area
78
TABLE IX
SUMMARY TABLE FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE INTEREST SCORES ON THE STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK FOR STUDENTS
AND EXPERIENCED BUSINESS PEOPLE
Source Sum of df Variance F P Squares Estimate
Accounting
Major Field 18.49 1 18.49 .17 NS Within Cells 10278.02 98 104.87
Total 10296.51 99 • * •
Data-Process ing
Major Field 295.84 1 295.29 2.18 NS Within Cells 13258.80 98 135.29
Total 13554.64 99 * • •
Management
Major Field 174.24 1 174.24 1.21 NS Within Cells 14082.32 98 143.69
Total 14256.56 99 • #
Office Practice
Major Field 104.04 1 104.04 1.91 NS Within Cells 5332.40 98 54.41
Total 5436.44 I 99 • • *
79
would show no difference on their preference for that area
from a comparison group of experienced business people
working in the same area.
Table IX shows that the F-Ratios for accounting,
data-processing, management, and office practice were not
significant, indicating that there was agreement on interests
between the students and experienced business people. All
of the "d" hypotheses may therefore be accepted.
Comparison of "High-Interest" Students and Experienced Business People on their GZTS Factors
This section presents additional treatment of data for
which no hypotheses were made. It presents a personality
factor comparison of students and experienced business
people, who had scores in the upper third on their Strong
Vocational Interest Blank profile forms. The upper third
of the scores begin just above the shaded area on the
profile form and represent the upper-third of the men-in-
general group. Considerable research has shown that a
person with this rating has interests similar to those
of people successfully engaged in that occupation and that
these people enjoy that work.
It is interesting to note that 100 percent of the office
practice students showed high-interest in office practice
activities, while only 90 percent of the experienced women in
office practice showed high-interest or liking for office
practice. The following summary shows the number and
80
percentages of the students and experienced business
people with the high interest rating according to the
criterion stated above.
Students Experienced N* % N* %
Accounting 32 64 33 66
Data-Processing 34 68 41 82
Management 32 64 36 72
Office Practice 50 100 45 90
*N = 50 in each group
The criterion for inclusion in the experienced group
was the same as those used for the derivation of the Strong
Vocational Interest Blank comparison groups: 1. The person
was between 25 and 55 years old; 2. He (or she) must have
been employed in the occupation for three years or more,
(this is taken as the minimum standard of success); 3. He
(or she) must have indicated that he liked his work. There-
fore, the range of high-interests within the experienced
group from 66 to 90 percent would indicate that some of
the people in these occupations would be happier doing some-
thing other than the jobs they hold, or at most, they are
indifferent to occupational activities of their group. The
data cannot indicate the probability of this. The student
groups ranged from 64 to 100 percent, the lower percentages
being in accounting and management. This may show an
indecisiveness in their choices of a college major, a need
for further testing, or a need for additional counseling
81
to help them prepare for a major field in which they show
a higher interest, if any.
Further comparison of the high-interest students with
high-interest experienced business people revealed that
their Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey traits were
significantly different within the eight groups, as shown ,
in Table X, in seven of the nine personality characteristics,
General Activity, Restraint, Ascendance, Sociability,
Emotional Stability, Objectivity, and Personal Relations.
The only factors in which the eight groups did not show
significant differences were in Friendliness and Thought-
fulness .
An examination of the t test values within the groups,
Table XI, shows that the data-processing students were more
like experienced data-processing people than any of the
other business groups. Their only significant difference
was in the area of Sociability, where the students were
significantly more Sociable than the employed data-processing
personnel. The least alike groups were the accounting
students and experienced accountants. These groups showed
significant differences in four characteristics: Ascendance,
Sociability, Thoughtfulness, and Personal Relations. The
students were higher in Ascendance, Sociability, and
Thoughtfulness than the experienced accountants, and the
accountants were higher in Personal Relations than the
students. The management groups showed no differences
82
TABLE X
SUMMARY TABLE FOR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE SCORES ON THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY FOR
HIGH SVIB INTEREST GROUPS
Source Sum of Squares
df Variance Estimate
F P
General Activity
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
904.40 8571.98
7 295
129.20 29.05
4.44 .05 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 9476.38 302 « • m
Restraint
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
503.27 6538.17
7 295
71.89 22.16
3.24 .05 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 7041.45 302 m •
Ascendance
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
2849.63 8316.01
7 295
407.09 28.18
14.44 .001 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 11165.65 302 • •
Sociability
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
1327.78 10037.16
7 295
189.68 34.02
5.57 .05 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 11364.94 302 • •
Emotional Stability
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
940.52 8486.92
7 295
134.36 28.76
4.67 .05 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 9427.45 302 • •
Objectivity
Between Groups Within Cells
Total
887.96 8086.41
7 j 126.85 295 27.41
4.62 .05 Between Groups Within Cells
Total 8974.38 302 •
TABLE X, Continued
83
Source Sum of df Variance F P Squares Estimate
Friendliness
Between Groups 200.98 7 28.71 1.04 NS Within Cells 8115.27 295 27.50
Total 8316.25 302 • • •
Thoughtfulness
Between Groups 360.58 7 51.51 2.66 NS Within Cells 5709.41 295 19.35
Total 6069.99 302 • •
Personal Relations
Between Groups | 832.84 7 118.94 4.58 .05 Within Cells 7661.99 295 25.97
Total | I 8494.84 302 • * 0
except in the areas of Sociability and Restraint. The
students were significantly higher in Sociability, at the
.01 level/ than the experienced managers, and the experienced
managers were significantly higher than the student^ at the
.05 level, in Restraint. In the office practice groups, the
experienced women were significantly higher than the
students, at the .05 level, in Restraint, and in Personal
Relations, at the .001 level.
In general, it appears that students are more Sociable,
less Restrained, and less capable in the area of Personal
84
H X
m a § Eh
CO CO
W W
^ as N 04
CD U G fd a
• h M-l *H
Cn •H CO
P4
- P i
«d w
ft o $ £
C td <D a
g> C to
•H -P c 0 o V V CO <
£ rd 0) a
<u r H rQ tU
*H u fd >
c o c o m i H c o c o c o m o J Z i i Z l O O l Z J S ^ O O
O v O O O O O m v O L O C M O C N r O r H I > " ^ L D L O L r ) V £ >
H H CN] ( N t 1 I 1
CM 00 I
o o r o c o c o r o c o r o o o o o cncocococococococo
v o v o m v o ^ r ^ - s t c M c o r H i > c x ) r - o i r ) r H i r > c r k • • • • • • • • •
m ^ m v o ^ m m ^ ^
c ^ r - O L n i n r o v o < T i O r O C O r O h h ^ O O O O
H H H H H H H C N l
CMCMCMCMCMCNCMCMCN o o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o
C h O O ^ C N r H O O C h r o r -
o vo m o co < h o o co
^ i n l o v d v o m ^ « r o i n
o o o o o c o m o ^ ^ r o O C N i r H t ^ r H C f t C O O O ' s i 1
» • t * t t * I I i > i > r o o>i LO
i—I r H r H i—li—!i—I i—it—I
>1--P •H >
•H -P Q
K*1 -P •H
OJ C -P O
a a rH -H fd fd <d n3
*4 £ a) 0 a co u 0 a) m CD Oi <
A fd • p
> tCO -P •H «—I rH fd
CO
- H - p u o o it co 0
CO >iCO
-P CD -H c > -H
•H rH • P n 3 u c CD CD
• r - y H
OPq
co fd d) rH a cd rH &
cn O a CO o u
rC CD B 04
a> o c fd u
•H
•H c t5 l
*H CO
H1 r d -H (D CO U CO C 0 CD O
•H 0 M u CD O! ft I
fd • p
fd Q
•H to CO CO 0) +> u c 0 CD u <d 01 3
I - p fd co - p
fd Q
tU
•PI
o
CO
C O C O C O l O C O C O C O C O C O £ jz; S o 13 iz; £ ; i s £
v D v O O v D v O r ^ r H r H O o c m o c m o o c m o
CM I I
rH i—I p-H H rH rH rH i—E i—(
L O O ^ C T k r H ^ ^ D ^ O O O « • • « • • • • •
m ^ m k o m m m ^ m
^ CM l o ^ h o m o r o r 0 O ^ r Q C 0 00 0 Q I > [ >
o o o o m v o o o o o ^ o f > I—I H r H i—! I—1 rH CM
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ cocococncococococo
KO cm go *£> r o cm Ch r -r H C M C N ^ C O v O i H C M L O • • • » • • • » •
m m m m ^ ^ m ^ ^
r - i > i > r H c r » r - r o i > ( ^ ) i—t ^ ^ CM ^ 1>
* • • • • • • • #
o v £ > m a > o o c o m < x > i > CM rH rH I—I rH I—I i—I i—I i—I
>1 - p
•P
> •H
q
CD a rH r H -H rQ fd fd fd u u
•H CD M C CO fd 0 CD > 0 p i
•H •Q fd • p
> iCO CD 4-> " H rH
CO >1 CO
0 c fd *H £
T f rQ O a fd -H CD *H «p o a o
o B CO 0 a
- p •H > •H •p u CD
• f - v H rQ M O
CO CO 0) £
rH 3
4-1 4J & t n 3 o
r p H Oj
85
"O Q) B 4J C o u
H X
0 a g td 0 •H U-l •H £ 01 •H CO
nd 0 -P •
o a o G 0) 0 g •
•h a) CO M & 0 m ft c >1 (d 0 S
0^3 fd 3 a -p fd co 2
P4
•Pi
a) rH (d *H f0 >
C O L O C O H C O C O C O C O C O 13 O S50 £5 !3 !S £ S
r-«tfoooma>rHG\o O^vDOOrOrHHOrH
CM I I CN i rH H
I I
vDv0vOvOv£)vO O 0vO cococococococococo
O H L D O O O ^ M ^ C N rHinr-ooOLOor-o • i t i i i i t i ^ ^ L n ^ r o ^ i n r o ^
voroocNOOr cr»vDCM rOrHOOLOCX} DoOLn * » * * * * * i * CN o a ^ o o w o a * CN C4 H H (N i—1 rH CN H
CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 00 CO CO OL CO CO CO OL CO
CTiC rOvOI>OOCnv£>CO CF*CNHLOHv£>HLnCN • • • • • • • » •
^^(NOCNr-WCOlT) rOrO^OiOHhOOHH • • • • * • * • « Hr-OCQCT>aWG\00 CN •—I CN CN <—ii—i i—I i—1 i—I
-P •H > *H •P $ rH (0 U a> a 0 o
a) -P u a G *H td fd fd M £ -P 0 cq u ® - A &
>i -P to •H G H 0 •H •H A CQ fd CQ (d -P CQ 0 H
>iW >i CQ G 0 -p -P 0 H Ctf •H H •H C 2 H fd > -H M-l H •H C •H H -P fd rQ O -P TJ rC a cd -h u A D> 0 •H -P 0 0 d CQ O 0 •r-vH 0 U o e •Q M 0 co w O EH &
0 u c m u •H m •H a ol •H CO
0 o
<D -P U U a rd 0 •H M a> 0 01 O *H
4-1 o
£
CM
•PI
w m w w w m w w o ISIOISSJSOJSJZJO
r-ovDOcoro^cNO Lnror-mmH^r-co rH CN rH rH CN I I i i i I rH CO
I I
LOLnLnmiOLOLnLnm '"sf '"st* ^ ^ ^
LnC VDCvlCNoO OCTt COrH- C^ChrOOrHm • • • • • • • * «
^^DOOOOOOCMO^ OOOOOCNVOOOVOOOLO • • * . I « • • • •
OOr COOvOvOlOCTiOQ H H H H H H H H H
o o o o o o o o o mmmmLOLnLnioi/i
Lnc^oovooor-H^o* CNrHrovOvOOOvOOOO • • • • • * • • • ID ^ ^ ^
O ^ i O O O O O ^ M HvOHvO OLOrHCNrH » * • • • • • » * r^mrHcx)LO^vooom H H H H H H H H H
-P *H > *H -P V < -P
0 £ H H -H £ fd fd (d M M •H 0 -P U £ CQ rd 0 0 > a PS
>1 -p CQ •H C H 0 •H *H rQ CQ fd CQ (d -p CQ 0 H
>1 CO >1 CQ a 0 0 -p -P 0 H O -H H •H £ 3 Jm h fd > *H M-4 H fd *h a •H H -P fd nd rQ 0 4-> ^ C G fd -H u c Di 0 0 -H •p 0 0 d CQ a u 0 ) -H 0 CQ 0 ^ M rC 0 < CO w O Eh OA
86
Relations than experienced people. These areas showed the
more significant differences within the business groups.
In three groups, data-processing, accounting, and manage-
ment, the students showed significantly more Sociability
than the experienced people. In two of the groups,
management and office practice, the experienced groups
showed significantly higher scores in Restraint than the
students. Experienced accountants and office practice
women showed higher scores in Personal Relations than the
students, at the .001 level of significance.
A further comparison within the experienced business
groups in Table XII compares high-interest accountants with
all the other high-interest business people on the GZTS
traits. The accountants were significantly lower in
Thoughtfulness than all of the other groups, the data-
processing group, at the .001 level, the management group,
at the .01 level, and the office practice women, at the .01
level. The accountants were less Ascendant than the office
practice women, at the .05 level of significance. Accountants
were lower than the management group in General Activity,
at the .001 level, Restraint, at the .05 level, Sociability,
at the .01 level, and Emotional Stability, at the .05 level.
The accountants were most like the data-processing group
in their personality characteristics, differing only in
Thoughtfulness, as mentioned above.
87
H
X w
I
fk|
U ffi CO O
IE
0) U C fd a
•H
•H a 0 1
•H CO
H 1
h s -H d) CQ u w a 0 a) o
• h o
0) pL, , &
[ S 3 fd Q
• d w 0) u c (1)
-r4 M 0)
•P C rd •P c 3 o
, ft a
Pk
a
p
CO
O
CO
0 H rQ fd
•H
fd >
c o c o c o c o c o c o c o o c o i z i s i z i j z i i a j s a o s
i O r o r o c M ( J \ o o ^ H O I > r H O > ^ C O r H ^ O L O C T >
I I I I I I CO rH
I I
H H I—{ I—I I—I i—} I—I)—(rH
m c n a ^ r H ^ v o ^ ^ o r - ^ ^ - ^ C N ^ C T k C O ^ • • • • • • • • »
L O ^ L O v D i n m L n ^ L O
• ^ o a v o ^ r - o m o c o r o o ^ r o a o o o c o o r -• • • • • • • • •
c n o o L n ^ D o o c o ^ o r -r H r H r H r H r H r H r H C N I t—J
cncncnmcncncncncn cococococococococo
v D ^ L D v D ^ t ^ ^ C N r O « H r ^ c o i > o t o H L j O c n
v D ^ t n v o v o i n L n ^ ^
^ r ^ o m i o r o v D d v o r O d O f O h h v D O O O • • • • • • • » *
i > i > ^ L n r ^ o o ^ r - o h h h h h h h h c n
>i -P •iH > H - P
3 +> a £ £
•H (d fd rd n3 Sh SH £ 0) 4-» a> a to a a) a> eg o os <J
> i •P *H rH •H A fd -P
> . c o •P •H rH
rd
CO >1 CQ •P 0) •H £ > -H
•H rH -P n3 u £ a> a)
-r-, -H rQ u O fa
t n O si w
9 ^ r £ CD Eh P4
a> a £ fd a
*H
•H a B l
•H CO
' d a> +J •
a a Q a <D <D g »
•H d) CO SH Dl a> fd FT £H
W S
nd CO
A U
£ 3
Oi
CO
a> rH rQ fd
*H M fd >
rH rH O I D O H I D C O H C O C O O O 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3
O 4 C K O O O O 4 V 0 O 0 O O O C Q a > c O v 0 " t f v O O r o u r >
r O r H CM CM 1 1 ( 1 1
co i
VOVOVOVDVDVOVOVOVO c o c o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
t > r H L D O C O v X ) l > C M I > • H L o i > o o o L o r - i > c ^ • • • § • • • • •
^ f ^ u i L n c o ^ c o ^ 1 LO
v£>00 O <N CO t > <£> <\J O o o h oo m co co m \ o
* * * « » • » • I C N O C T i C h O C n O C h ^ C N C M H H C N r H C N r H r H
m r o r o no oo n r o m co r o r o r o r o r o r o c o r o r o
v o v o m ^ ^ c ^ c N r o ^ H c ^ c x ) r ^ O L o m a k r H • • • • • • • • •
v o ^ i o v o v o m ^ ^ LO
a ^ r - o l o l o r o ch o vo O O O D O O I > I > V O O O O
i > i > ^ m i > oo r - o ^ «H rH rH rH rH r—I rH CN! rH
>1 - P •H >
H •P Q
^ 4 J a
r H H fd fd U M <D-P £ CQ 0) <D
>1 0 - p O -H £ rH fd -H
^ rQ £ fd 0) -H o v
o CO
>1 - p
•H rH •H •Q fd •p
CQ Ci o
•H m +J ca rd a) H
w > i a <u •p - h «
•H -H s to > IW <H C -H +J fd o - p rC c <rJ
•H o t n o c •P (D 3 to (1) O ' n O I) ' H
rQ & a) O B 04 Pn
88
n3 0) §
•H
O o
w §
d) u wcotncocoWHW G PL, IZIJSIOJSSJZIOISI fd • *
o T'l " •H r r-iOvOCQCTkOOrH £ •Pi
HomoomcNvocN Di •Pi « i * i * * * i •H t—1 CN rH rl CM H W i f f i
Lf) LO LO lO LO LO LO Lf) ^ ""st1 ^ 0) a
*d -H' <D -P U 0 • LDO DCM OOVDCJ G fd P C0»HCT>CftrOf>rHpo a> m •H ft • ^^lOinLO^^LO u CO a> a) ft u x -H W 4-J
^ ^ O C O O M O h o £ OOCX)CNvDOOvOOOm fd • • • « • • « •
0) COOCnvD DLDCnCO S H r H H H H H H H
mrororoporororo a cncncnmcncncncn
nd co 0) -P * MDkDlD r- CNlrO o a Q Ht^COOLOHiTXTi £ fd 0) -P • vD^LnvOLnun^^ *H C CO vD^LnvOLnun^^ M 3 <D 0 ft 0 y w ><; OM>omcnKO<j\C>
£ oooooor-voooo fd
r-r-«i'i>oori'r-o S H H H H H H H C S
•P 01 •H G t>i iH O •P -H -H •H ,Q CO -P > (d to It) •H +J ffl ®H +j co >, ra a aj Q O 4-> <D "H Oh < -P O rH -H fi 3
0) c c td > -H m H i H rH -H fd C-rlrl+J (d rd id tj o -p >d ,£ c a? h^C'HUCtJiO H <D4J(D4-»<D(D3C0 U G Ol O O *TH O >-I fd A) <D in Sfl (D i > OoSsWOfeEHft
89
A comparison of the high-interest data-processing
employees with the other high-interest business people
on the GZTS traits revealed a similar situation to that
of the accountants "because these groups were most alike,
as mentioned above. The only difference between accountants
and data-processing people was in the Thpughtfulness area,
where the data-processing people are higher, at the .001
level. Table XIII shows the data-processing people lower
than the management people in four characteristics, General
Activity, at the .01 level, Restraint, at the .05 level,
Ascendance, at the .001 level, and Sociability, at the .05
level. Experienced high-interest data-processing people
are more Ascendant than office practice women, at the .05
level, and less Sociable than the office practice women,
at the .05 level. As a group, the data-processing men
showed less significant levels of differences from the
other three groups than in any of the group comparisons.
The experienced management high-interest men showed
more significant levels of differences from the other three
experienced high-interest groups in personality character-
istics than any of the compared business groups. Managers
were significantly higher than all the other experienced
high-interest groups in General Activity, Restraint, and
Ascendance. They were significantly higher in Sociability
than the experienced accountants and data-processing people
90
X m a
x m
o a*
cu
ta
0 o c fd o -H M-l •H c &l -H CO
Tf 03 0 -P U £ 0 -P H 0 O ft O
$ £
H1
-h a) w U 03 £ <D 0 a H o 0 pm ft i
<d P
cu
-P
Q
to
t o t o w t o w t o w o r a S S i S l Z I I Z i l Z i a o a
LnrOOOCNCTirO^rHO r-r-i<jk^corHvx>Lncn * * * * * « < « CO H
I
oororororoooromro cococococococococo
vovOLDvo^r^^cNro rHt>COr-OLOrHlOC^ • • • * * * * I •
vo^ iDvovDtnLn^^
o ^ r - o m m r o v D c ^ o r o o o r o o r - v D o o o • * • • * < » * r - i > ^ L n i > c o ^ i > o «H rH J—I rH i—I i—| r—t i—1 (\J
rH rH rH rH rH i—! rH '—I
LO<T»ChrH^uD^COO • * * * t I * * I
Ln^f invomiDLO^m
^ < M v o ^ r - o m o r o mo^rooocooor -c^ COCOtn^OCOCO^Ol> H H H H H H H M H
-P •H > •H -P g < «P
0 £ rH rH "H rQ fd fd fd J-i ^ •H 0 +i M £ to cd 0 0 > a &
-P •H
0 0 a fd -h T* rQ G fd 0 -H u a
o co 3
-p CQ *H £ rH O •H *H •Q CQ -P fd CQ fd •P 03 0 |H CO >1 CQ £ 0
-P 0 rH & i—i •H C 3
&
(d > -H M-J rH £ -H rH •P fd O -P HJ r£ £ *H u a tn O -p 0 0 3 0] o *r-) -H O JH Pj rQ U ,a 0 s O Pm EH
0 u £ fd u •H m •H £ 01 -H CO
*3 0 .p u a -
a 0 Q 0 £ -H 0 •
U CO 0 (d ft a
& w s
H1
ncf *H 0 co u 03 £ 0 0 a •h o u u 0 a. ft i
itl P
&
!3
H i n o m m w M w r a o o o o 2 l s i a 2 i z ;
vOvOOOOWirid'tf'tf cNa>Lnrovomr-)nm
• • • • l i t *
rOHoOCMH I I I I I f
MDvOvOUDvOvOv£) 0vO cococococococococo
r^rHinooovor^r^cNj Hinr-OOOLOI>I>1> ^ ^ L D ^ r o ^ L O r o ^
v0r0OCN00r^G\vDCM rOrHOOLOCO^vDrOLD • • • • • • • • • <NOCTiChOCh^OCTk CNNHHCNHHCNH
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
LO <J\ <7* rH I> ^VD^COO
CN ^ ch ^
m ^ L n ^ L n m m ^ m
^ CN VD ^ CO O ^ ro
t * • •
CO 00 LT) v£> rH rH i—I i—I
l> O LO O CO CQ 00 00 O l> • • • • • co oo o i—I i—I H (N H
>i
>1 -p -H > •H -P a 0 < 4-> O
0 a c rH rH *H fd rQ fd fd fd M a -H 0 0 M a 03 0 fd 0 0 CQ >
-p CQ •H G rH 0 *H -H ,Q CQ +J (d CQ fd 4 CQ 0 rH
>iC0 >1 03 C 0 -p -P 0 rH Dh •H rH *H C rH a? > -H M-J rH •H C! •H rH -P fd rQ O -P ,r: a fd "H U G Di 0 •H -P 0 0 3 CQ U 0 •r-j -H 0 u 0 jgj rQ ^ rC 0 CO s O EH PH
91
0
3 •H - P £ o
u
H H H
X
§
E-*
0 O G fd u
•H MH •H G 5^
W
0 O
TS -H a> - P D O c fd 0 U
•H pui U 0) 0 ft V
M-4 o
$ f d *H (D W o w G 0 0 u
•H O Sh U 0 &
0 1 I
a s fd p
04
-PI
Q
CO
0 rH
fd •H
fd >
w w m m w w w w w ^ i ! 2 S O O l 2 1 ^ ^ ^ ^
r o i D i > \ X ) C ^ r - i > L n v £ ) ^ r H O C N 0 0 l > M ) C r » l >
CM CN rH rH I I I I
L O L O L O L O L O L n L D l j O L O ^ xj* ^ ^
L O C T k ^ v O C N C N r o v D O k C O r H ^ c r \ c r i r o i > r H r o • • • * • • • • •
^ ^ L n L n i n m ^ ^ i n
^ V D O O O C O O C M O I > O O O O O O i v D O O ^ D C D L O
I * * I * * 4 I • c o r ^ n o ^ v o v D m a k O O H i—I H i—! i—1 i—I i—I i—I
rH rH i—I i—I i—| i—1 i—1 rH rH
m C T t C n r H ^ v O ^ C O O
. L n ^ i n v O L n L O i n ^ L D
^ ( N ^ ^ h o i n o r o c o o ^ r o o o o o o o r - r -
i • * * * t * i i o o c o m \ £ > o o o o ^ o i > H H H H H H H C N H
>i - P •H >
•H -P
rH fd u 0 £ 0 0
>1 +> CO «H C rH 0 •H •H •Q CO +> fd to fd +J CO 0 rH
> i w >1 CD a 0 0 4-> •P 0 rH Dn o *H rH •H C 3 £ i—1 fd > -H M-| rH fd •H c •H rH -P fd
*d rQ O -P 13 rC C c fd •H u a Cn 0 0 *H -P 0 0 d ca u O 0 "r~"i -H 0 M 59 0 E rQ U rC 0 < CO W O IH PM
92
but not different from the office practice women as shown
in Table XIV. Managers were significantly higher in
Emotional Stability than the accountants and office practice
women, but showed no significant difference from the data-
processing men. On Objectivity, the managers showed that
they were significantly higher than office practice women.
In Friendliness and Personal Relations, managers were not
significantly different from any of the three other groups.
They were significantly more Thoughtful than the accountants,
but they were least like accountants in their total person-
ality characteristics as measured by the GZTS.
The experienced high-interest office practice women
compared with the other three experienced high-interest
groups of men were only higher in Sociability in their
differences, but only significantly higher than two of
the groups—accountants and data-processing people, at
the .05 level. The women were lower in Thoughtfulness than
the accountants, at the .01 level, and lower than the data-
processing men in Ascendance, at the .05 level, and managers,
at the .001 level. Table XV shows that office practice
women differed most from managers in General Activity, at
the .01 level, in Restraint, at the .05 level, in Ascendance,
at the .001 level, in Emotional Stability, at the .001 level,
and in Objectivity, at the .05 level, five personality
characteristics in all.
93
> H
X
w a
CD o g <d o •H
•H G D>
•H CO
fk o %
a
CD o CO G M CD CD
p . g
a
&
•PI
d) rH
id •H u fd >
rH rH o m O H I O o o o o o
W CO H £ I2i O
c m g ^ o c o c m ^ o c o c o O O O v r O v O ^ v O L O O r o
CO «H Kf* CM CM CO
r o r o r o o o r o r o r o r o r o o o c o o o r o c o r o c o r o r o
vo i> rH 00 • *
vD ^
LD KQ r - ^ CM CO oo o t o «h l o <j\ • • • • • • •
l o ko KO LO m ^ ^
a^t^ommcnKDCPiO r o c o r o r - o v o o o o
o i > ^ L o r ^ o o ^ i > o H rH rH i—I i—I i—i H i—ICM
v D v O ^ O v D ^ D ^ v D v D ^ o r o r o r o o o r o r o r o r o o o
r - rH rH LO
ID O 00 v£> !> r - <N r - O CO LD
^ ^ L D v D r O ^ L D r O ^
V O o O O C M O O I > a k V O C M r O i H O O i n O O ^ v O o O i n * • • • • * • «
c M o c ^ c r i o c r k ^ o c r k c n c n h h c n h h c m h
-P G
•H (d iM +> w 0)
o «
+> CQ •H G rH O •H •H A CO -P fd CQ fd •P CQ CD iH
>tCO >1 CQ G (D - p 4J 0 rH OS •H i—i •H G 3
OS
rH fd > -H M-l rH •H G •H i—1 -P fd rQ O Jp rd rG G fd *H O G tyi 0 •H -P <D CD 3 CQ o O -r-j-H 0 0 P u rG CD CO 0 O &H Ol
a) a a (d u
•H IW •H g
*H co
H1
f d -H a> cq 0 CQ a 0 0) o
•H o
0) Ot 01 I
fd •p
fd p
3
<d a) a m G CD a>
ft fd •" a &
04
•Pi
p
CO
P
CO
H t n O L O C O C O C O C O C O o o o o J S S Z I J Z I J Z ; ^ ;
v D v O O O C T i ^ L n r o ^ ^ f C M O ^ L O r O ^ D L O r H r O t i l
r o «H r o CM »H I f
rH rH rH rH rH pH rH rH H
L O C ^ a k t H ^ v D ^ O O O
i n ^ L n v O L O i n i n ^ m
^ c M v D ^ t > o m o r o r o o ^ r o c o c o o o r - i > * • • • • • « • •
C O O O m v D O O C O ^ O O H H H H H H H C M H
v D v O v D v D v O v O v D v D v D r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o
l > r H i n O 0 C > U 3 O O C M r H m r ^ o 0 0 L 0 i > i > i >
^ ^ m ^ D r o ^ L n r o ^
V O C O O C M O O I > C n v O < N r O r H O O L O O O ^ V O O O L O
C M O C h C h O O ^ ^ O O ^ C M C M H r H C M H H C M H
•P •H >
•H •P n < «P O
0) G G rH rH *H fd
fd fd »d fd M u G •H CD -P CD M G CQ U fd CD CD eg > O <
> i -P CQ *H G iH O •H •H
w •P fd CO fd -P cq 0 rH
>iCO > i w G CD •P -P CD rH OH •H rH -H G
OH rH fd > "H rH -H G •H rH fd •Q O -P <d rG G fd •H U G 0 -H -P CD 0) d CQ O 0 "Ti 'H 0 u 0 J? A U rG (D CO S O fa B PL,
94
»d 0) s •H +> £ o u
x w 1-3 9
-H C 01 •H W
u (D 0) A o H-
id
'd 0) U to a M 0 0) H 01 ^ fd 0) G ftfd a 2
cm
•PI
Q
w
S3
P
CO
<D rH XI (d •H M fd >
i—I iH H i n o M o m w w w ooo!2;oo!3^!2;
iHininmooooNE^ro o r-ivjocMincMc inoo CM CM LT) ro CN
mLni/)inmminmm
mCh^VOCNCNrOVOCTk OOiH^CTiCnoOOrHrO • • • • • • • • * •^•^LnininLn^^ir)
^^UOOOOO(NO> (30 CO O CM vD CO VO 00 in • « • • • • • • • C30r-oO< vOvDLO<JiOO H H r H H H H H H H
vOvOvOvDvD^kDvOvO rocororororofocon
l> rH LO rH LO l> o a) v£) r- cm
OOOinhhh ^xhLOvDro^tnro^
vono ro rH CD • • • CN O CT> CM CN rH
CN CO r- Ch v£> CN if) CO v£> ro If) « * * » • « , <T» O Ch Xh o <T* H CN H H CN H
-P •H rH •H •Q fd •P CO
>i W >1 CO -P o & a
H -H fd fd fd M U C a) -p a) cq a (D Q)
0 (D CQ a: <5
-P *H rH rH fd •H C rQ O fd *h •H -p o o O E CO 0
-P 0 -h a > -H •H rH -P TJ U C 0) 0 -r-j -H rQ M O
ca w a) a rH 3 4-1 +3 pd tn 3 O £ EH pL|
95
w a a
< W a: is ^ H g a.
55 o w § & pLf
2 w w w o w £ H pq
a H CO E>
< &
g CM CP
o w U H CO
H M D P<4
O " 0 i4 =
*Q CO m
Ph & o w ^ &
S3 CO H
W E-« K H
B tu i 3 CD < H > B
E h CO m eh
-p i
w
B
0 0 a (d u •H
-H c 01 •H CO
d cq 0 -p a £ £ fd 0 -P •w a
ft a
0 -P O O c fd 0) M •H pL| M 0 <D ft O
M-l O
ft
-Pi
Q
CO
S3
a) •—1 fQ fd -H M fd >
COCOCOLOCOCOCOrHCO
r - - i > c n r - v o o Q c r > o o r H rHOCf tLOCOLDCMvOCM * • • • • • * • *
rH CM rH rH CN rH I I I f ( I
r o r o r o r o r o r o c o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o r o o o r o
V D v D m v D ^ r ^ ^ C M C O H i ^ o o r ^ o i o H i n o ^ • • • • # • • • •
v D ^ t n v D L O L n L n ^ ^
C 7 » r * - O L O t T ) O O v D O ^ O n o o m r ^ h k o o o o • • • • • • • • •
I > l > ^ i 0 l > c 0 ^ l > 0 1—I 1—I rH 1—(1—I 1—(1—IrHCSj
L O L O L n L n i n i O L o m i r ) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
m O k ^ v D c M o a c o v D C h o o r - i ^ c r > c h r o r ^ r - i r o
t i i i i i * * * ^ K t L O l O L O l O ' ^ i ^ L O
^ v D C O O C O O N O h QOOOOCNvQOQVDCOLO
* t * * 1 • • 1 1 COt>cO&KD\Qin<J\CO 1—1 rH rH 1—I )—I rH 1—I rH 1—i
-P £
•«H fd U •P CQ CD
0 OS
>1 CQ
•H CJ rH 0 •H •H
CQ -P fd CQ fd •P CQ 0 rH
>iCO >1 CQ a 0 a) -p «P CD rH OS U -H rH *H G d Ch rH fd > -H M-l 1—1 fd *h C *H rH -p fd
^ rO 0 -P & a a fd •H O fi t n O CD -H -P CD CD CQ a 0 0 "r~l *H 0 M CQ 0 E rQ i-1 0 < CO W O Pq EH
CD U £ fd a •H M-| •H
tJi -H CO
P I
C U -fH 0 CQ U to c a> a) a •H 0 in Jh 0) ft ft I
8 3 fd Q
CD a
fd *H 0) -P u a a fd 0) Jh •H ft M 0) 0) ft U
S i d MH o
r o L o r ^ v D C T i r ^ i > L n v D ^ i H O c m c o o v d o > I >
CM CM rH rH I f f I
S3'
pi
0 rH rO A3 •H M fd >
c o c o m m c o c o c o c o c o 5 3 i 3 o o J 3 J 3 ! 3 i 3 J 3
rH rH rH rH rH rH ""sh "sf *st* ^
rH rH rH ^
ID CF* CT* rH o ^ ^
^ VD CM ^
^ 0 0 0 (J\ ^
L O ^ m v D L O L O L n ^ L O
^ CM VD ro o ^ PO • • • •
00 00 LO VD
l> o 00 C30
CO 00 rH rH
m O 00 00 r - r -• • •
^ • 0 0 rH CM rH
ininuninmmmunm ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
m O i ^ v D C M C M P O v D C ^ C O r H ^ a i C h r o r ^ r H r o * # • • • • • « *
^ ^ L o m L n m ^ ^ L D
^ v D O O O O O O C M O r -OOOOOCMvDOOvDCOLO
* * 1 1 * 1 1 1 1 o o i > o o o > v D v D m c h o o H H H H H H H H H
>i -P -H > *H -P
rH fd U a) c <D O
<D O
a a •h rd fd U M C +J (U w u ® - s 0{
>1 «p •H rH *H rQ fd
phCO
*H rH rH fd •h a A o fd -h •H -p o o o § CO w
'•—1 *H rQ ^ O
w a o •H
01 4J CQ (d <U rH G CD 1—f
*W rH -P fd ^ a tj> o 3 CQ o ^
rC CD H 0^
<D 2 C •H •P c 0 u
CD rH rH U Hino WOLOCOWCO G CU ;0 0 0 l 3 0 0 2 2 2 rd • * • * «
0 •r-( 4-j •H HLOtr)LOOODCM>PO G -pj C^H voojinoiMna) & -pj •H CN CN LD fO CN CO I I J i 1 I II
v£>v£>v0vOvOv£>vOvO<£>
nd
S3 rorororooorooororo
nd 0) -P u c « r*.Hmooovor-c^o4 C (D Q rHLO!>OCOtr)I>t l> <D g • * * • • « • • •
•H <1> • ^^LO^PO^LDoO^ S4 tn w 0) (d Oi £ K W g
v£)rOO<NCDl>cr»vD<N £ roHcomcD^vDrom m <L> oiocTkcrkOcrk^oc^ a (NOJrHi—iCNJi—1 i—ICNrH
121 121 ^ ^ ^ ^
<D O
nd -H nd -H 0) u u • tnCTk vOOJCNcQvoa* a rd Q COrH CTkCriror tHro 0) u * • * < 1 * * * 1 •H 04 * • C'd'munLnLn j'in CO 0) 0) o, n *1 V,
X *H 0 M-l M-l *tiOCOOOOOCNOI> O c OOCOOOJVOOOvOCOin rd * ( • * ( * * ( «
CD cot rocrfc ovomchcx) £ rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
>1 •P ra •rH G
>1 rH O •P -H -H •H ,Q CO 4-> > rd ra <d •H -P EQ ID H •P >iCQ >i CO C tt) O <D +j 4J (1) rH Oi <1 4-> O -H rH -rH £ 3
<D C CjrH (0 ^-HMHrH iH rH -H (d -rH C! -rH rH -jj (tJ rQ (d(dT)rQO-p
,r}^:c rd MIHCIU-HOCCPO *H J)4JID-H4J(D(D3ra U CmOOO-rrHOtH (d dKDtaOifl^^l!) > OCKl^WWObEnPLi
96
CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Guilford, J. P. and Wayne S. Zimmerman, The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, Manual of Instructions and Interpretations, Beverly Hills, California, Sheridan Supply Company, 1949.
2. McNemar, Quinn, Psychological Statistics, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
97
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are four sections in this chapter. The first
section presents a summary of the problem, the procedures
employed, and the findings. A discussion of the findings
is presented in the second section. The third section
gives some of the implications for counseling staffs in
assisting students in choice of major area of study. The
final section is concerned with presentation of several
recommendations.
Summary
The primary purpose of this investigation was to
determine if there was a relationship between personality
and interests in the choice of major fields of study
by junior college freshmen. Students in the major areas
of accounting, data-processing, management, and office
practice were compared with each other and also with
experienced business people in each of these areas.
Th® GuiIford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey was
administered to 858 freshmen students in the late fall,
soon after mid-term, of the 1968-69 school year. The
98
99
219 students who did not indicate a major field of study .
on the data sheet which accompanied their answer sheet were
eliminated from the study. The remaining 639 students were
separated into their major areas of study: 140 accounting
students, 149 data-processing students, 216 management
students, and 134 office practice students. These groups
were randomly reduced to fifty students in each group, and
Strong Vocational Interest Blank was administered to
each student. Both of the tests were also administered to
experienced business people in each of the four major areas
under study, fifty in each area for a total of 200. The
final total of subjects thus became 400, of which 200 were
students, and 200 were experienced business people.
The mean scores within and between the groups were
tested by simple analysis of variance and Fisher t tests.
Levels of significance were determined for all F-Ratios
and t values. The hypotheses were analyzed and the
principal findings were as follows.
A. Accounting students—
1. scored significantly lower than all of the
other student groups on Friendliness;
2. scored significantly higher than the norming
group on Thoughtfulness, but showed no difference from the
norming group on Objectivity, Friendliness, and Sociability;
100
3. scored significantly lower than experienced
accountants in Objectivity, but significantly higher than
experienced accountants in Thoughtfulness and Sociability.
The two groups showed no difference on Friendliness;
4. showed no difference on their interest in and
liking for accounting from the experienced accountants
on the SVIB;
5. showed a 64 percent "high interest" or liking
for accounting within their group, compared to a 66 percent
"high interest" within the experienced accountants;
6. were less like experienced accountants on
GZTS factors than any of the other paired groups. Students
were significantly higher than experienced accountants in
Ascendance, Sociability, and Thoughtfulness, and signifi-
cantly lower in Personal Relations.
B. Data-processing students—
1. scored significantly higher than office
practice majors in General Activity, but showed no
difference from the accounting and management students;
2. scored significantly higher in Personal
Relations than the accounting or office practice majors,
but were not different from the management students;
3. were significantly higher than the norming
group on General Activity, but the same as the norming
group on Restraint, Personal Relations, and Ascendance;
4. showed no differences from experienced
101
data-processing people in General Activity, Restraint,
Personal Relations, or Ascendance;
5. showed no differences from the experienced
data-processing people in their interest in and liking for
data-processing on the SVIB;
6. showed that only 68 percent of their group had
a "high interest" in and liking for data-processing, compared
with an 82 percent "high interest" within the experienced
data-processing group;
7. were more like the experienced data-processing
people than any of the other paired student and business
groups. Their only difference was in Sociability, where
students scored significantly higher.
C• Management students—
1. scored significantly higher than the other
student groups on Ascendance;
2. scored significantly higher in Personal
Relations than the accounting and office practice students,
but showed no difference from the data-processing students;
3. were like experienced managers in General
Activity, Personal Relations, and Thoughtfulness, but
were significantly lower in Restraint;
4. showed no significant difference from the
norming group on Personal Relations, Restraint, and
Thoughtfulness, but were significantly higher in
Ascendance;
102
5. showed that only 64 percent within their group
had a "high interest" for management in comparison with 72
percent "high interest" within the experienced manager
group, on the SVIB;
6. were not significantly different from
experienced managers in their interest in and liking for
management, on the SVIB;
7. were significantly higher in Sociability, and
significantly lower in Restraint than experienced managers.
D. Office practice students—
1. were significantly lower on Objectivity and
General Activity than data-processing and management
students, but not different from accounting students;
2. were significantly lower in Objectivity than
the norming group, but the same as the norming group in
Friendliness, Emotional Stability, and General Activity;
3. were significantly lower in Objectivity and
General Activity than experienced office practice women,
but not different in Friendliness and Emotional Stability;
4. were like experienced women in their interest
in and liking for office practice, on the SVIB;
5. showed a 100 percent "high interest" within
. their group for office practice, compared, to 90 percent
"high interest" within the experienced office practice
women;
103
6. were significantly lower in Restraint and
Personal Relations than the experienced women.
E. In general—
1. only two significant differences were found
between the student groups on the GZTS scores—in Ascendance
and Objectivity. Of the remaining seven GZTS character-
istics, many of the differences were in the predicted
direction, but did not reach significant levels;
2. comparing all students and all business
people on all GZTS factors, the students were signifi-
cantly different from experienced business people in
five personality traits—General Activity, Restraint,
Ascendance, Sociability, Emotional Stability, Objectivity,
and Personal Relations;
3. comparing all "high interest" students and
all "high interest" business people, seven of the nine
GZTS scores differed—General Activity, Restraint, Ascendance,
Sociability, Emotional Stability, Objectivity, and Personal
Relations;
4. a range of from 64 to 100 percent "high interest"
on the SVIB within the student groups showed that about
one-third of the students were not in a major area of study
in which they were interested;
5. comparing "high interest" groups within their
specific business areas on the SVIB showed the students to
be more like than different from experienced people;
104
6. three "high interest" student groups were
significantly higher on Sociability than their experienced
group—accounting, data-processing, and management;
7. experienced "high interest" managers and
office practice women were significantly more Restrained
than their corresponding student groups;
8. experienced "high interest" accountants and
office practice women were significantly higher in Personal
Relations than students in their same areas.
Discussion of Findings
In a review of the findings, these appear to be the
more pertinent aspects in this study.
1. The specialized occupations appear to attract persons
who resemble each other in some of their personality
characteristicsj so these factors appear to be determinants
of the occupations entered, as has been evidenced in other
studies. For example, the data-processing students showed
no differences in their personality traits from experienced
data-processing people. This might partially be accounted
for by the similarity of age between the two groups, or by
the similarity of vocational, technical training which
they have had.
2. Students were found to be higher in Sociability,
lower in Restraint, and lower in Personal Relations than
experienced business people within their same occupational
105
areas. This might be interpreted to indicate that contact
with the business world may cause people to become more
restrained and less sociable, and that business experience
may increase personal relations ability. It might also
indicate that young people who were high in Sociability,
low in Restraint/ and Personal Relations did not enter these
business areas.
3. Data-processing and accounting students were found
to be more alike than different in their personality traits,
indicating that the likenesses in the work details in these
occupations may appeal to both of these groups.
4. Accounting majors were found to have the lowest
scores of all the student groups on Friendliness, indicating
their probable preference to work alone rather than in
situations where interaction with other people is necessary.
5. Accounting students were found to be least like
experienced accountants in personality factors. Resemblances
and differences between students and experienced business
people on personality factors might be explained by the
differences between technical, vocational training that
some of the students are experiencing and the kinds of
college training which the experienced business people
have had.
6. Based on this study, and as evidenced in other
studies, the approximately one-third of the students found
not to have a "high interest" in their major area of study
106
would lead to the prediction that this group may contribute
to the student dropouts in the ensuing year, or that they
may change their majors. It may also indicate that many
of the students have selected major fields for reasons
other than interest or liking.
7. The fact that the student groups showed no
significant differences on their preference for their
occupational areas compared with experienced business
people would indicate the probability that there is a set
of likes and dislikes which does differentiate them from
persons following other professions. Even though interests
are known to change with age, the students in this study
appear to be relatively stabilized in their occupational
interests.
8. This study indicates that both the Guilford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey and the Strong Vocational
Interest Blank seem to be discriminating measures of
temperament factors and interests and appear to be of value
in determing relationships to major areas of study.
Implications
The results of this study imply that more research
is needed if personality factors are to be used to help
students more realistically select their major area of
study in college. With about one-third of the business
students majoring in fields of study in which they show
low interest or liking, there is an indication that more
107
and better counseling is needed. Since personality
difficulties account for probably more job failures than
lack of ability to do the job, educators must be concerned
with accurate personality evaluation.
Recommendations
The results of this investigation indicate a need for
further research in the areas suggested below.
1. There should be extensive study of the use of
objective techniques in identifying personality character-
istics of students and their choice of major field of study
in other junior college populations. How interest, motivation,
and personality factors are related should also be studied.
2. A longitudinal study should be conducted four or
five years from the date of this study to determine whether
the students majoring in specific areas actually entered
these business areas or if they have changed to another
field. Further comparisons could be made on their personality
structures at that time to determine what if any changes have
occurred, and if they are exhibiting success in their chosen
field with the personality structure with which they entered.
3. Longitudinal studies to identify early deter-
minants of choice of field, personality changes during
college as a function of curriculum, and studies of people
who switch from one field to another, should also be made.
APPENDIX I
STUDENT DATA SHEET
Name Age Sex
Class in which test was administered
Number of hours completed to date in college_
Number of hours attempting this semester
What is your major area of study?
Accounting
Data-Processing
Management
Office Practice
Other
What?
Do you plan to enter this occupation after graduation?_
If not, what are your plans?
108
APPENDIX II
DATA SHEET FOR EXPERIENCED BUSINESS PEOPLE
Name
Firm where employed_
What do you do?
Occupational Group: (Check one)
Accounting
Data-Processing
Management
Office Practice
How many years have you been in this job?_
How did you choose this kind of employment?_
Would you like to have the results of these tests
interpreted to you?
To what address do you wish them mailed?_
109
110
<D 0 CO CO CO CO CO m in co h a A Z S5 a 53 Z o o Z o td • • •
0 m •H CNI CTi O LO iH vo a> <x> c -PI CO Ch 0 CO 00 O N H O
On -PI « * • • • • 111 •H i—1 CM CM rH no to f 1 I 1 i I 1
& o o o o o o O O O & LD in m m m m m in in
tn a •H CQ CO CQ •
<D -P Q CO CM <x> a» rH O CO Cft o c Ok rH CO rH 00 vO O o a> * * • • • • • * * •
u*a CO LO 4 5 5 5
in m 04 3 i -p fd co i -p fd co -p fd CM CM CO 00 00 VO CM O £ ro £> vo c VO cm cr» fd • « • • • • * * •
a> 0 r- m ch co 00 in oo S i—1 i—1 rH i—1 rH rH H H rH
53 o o o o o O o o o
53 m m m m in m m in m
tn •
a CQ Q LO 0\D0h vO vo o •H 4-* as cm a* vo m i> vo 00 -P C • • * • « * * • * i g a) CO LO 5
5
6 6
m ^ co m 3 *0 0 3 0 3 0 -p y co < vO 'JOO CM vo a O *4" c~> m in O O CM cd • • • • • •
• 1 1 (D <J\ vD vO VO vO CO c w £ rH i—{ i—i i—! PH rH «—( CM rH
+J CQ £ rH 0
-P •H •H •H •Q CQ -P > (d CQ fd •H -p CQ 0 HI •P >iC0 >1 CQ £ 0) q a) -p •P <D rH OS ^ -P U -H i—1 •H a
a) C £ rH fd > •H MH rH rH rH •H fd -H a -H rH 4-) fd rQ fd fd tj # o •P T3 & £ fd M £ fd -H a C tn 0 -H 0) 4-> (D -H -p 0 a) ^ co y £ CQ U O 0 •r-> •H 0 l-l td a> <D CQ 0 E rQ M rC <U > 0 o$ < co m O EH CM
Ill
ft K
w ft
Si
H
W
0) rH u m CO rH UD CO rH in CO 0 G ft o 1 2 0 0 ^ 0 0 13 O fd • • • • • •
o •H
*H rH cr» irw co r-CM rH in £ i—1 00 00 M <D vO rH vo r-
• • • * • • • • *
•H CM CM CM rH CM CM cn CO I 1 1 1 1 1 1 \
O o o o o o 0 0 0 Z m m m m m in in m in
-P •
£ CO p H co o i> r- co CM 0 CM 0) -P O rH r-n in in m CM a\ cm g c • « * • * i • • • t 0) 0) co m ^ ^ m in to m in Cn'd (0 d rj ij *H -H fd to £ CO 00 O CD 00 0 0
c CO cn vd oo m co 1—1 m •—1 fd * • « « * * • • •
aj rH r- (Jk H 00 <Tk m 0 00 a CN rH i—1 CM rH i—1 1—1 rH rH
o o o o o o 0 O O a in m in m in m in in in
S1 •
C co Q m O VO O l> VO vo 0 -H 4J o» cm <r* vo m o vo 00 -P C • •
• « • * « • • •
C <D CO in m in vo vo m co in d »0 o d O +) q co <5 vo ^ o O CM vo
c o ^ r* co r-* in O O CM rd * • • i t * * • •
<D o\ vO vO <7* vO vO co 0 a i—i rH H i—I i—I i—{ rH CM rH
>1 -P CQ •H C rH 0
-p •H •H •H fit W -P > fd 03 fd •H -P CQ 0) rH -P >tC0 >i CO a a) U a> p .p a> rH 0$ < 4J 0 -rH 1—I -r-f a d
0) fin (d > *H MH rH rH rH •rH fd *H £) *H rH -P fd rQ td (d nd rQ 0 -P U rC a
M u £ fd -h a c tP 0 •H <D «P Q) -H -p 0 CD d w
£ (0 O O o-n •H 0 SH fd <d 0 W 0 rC <U > o 04 < CO 0 0 EH 0.
B
§ W P4 a
a> rH o CO coocococoHinco £ Pk a 2iolziiai3ool2; fd * • •
o •ri vw •HI 00 lO Qi—li—li—1 CO 00 LO G -Pi
r- comvDinc^ocrico tr -Pi *
•H HI in rH rH PO 1—1 CO 1 1
& O o o o o o o o o
& if) m m m m t n m m m 0) u •H -P O CO •
fd -P Q m r^00v£)00l>rH^C% M a CM i—IrovOvDOOvOOOO ft 0) * • ft n3 CO m ^ ^ ^ "sh ^ a> 3
o -P .1-4 CO •n CO «+4
o ^ l O O O O O ^ C M O c rH VO rH V0 O m rH CNI rH
fd * • • • • • • • •
a> r- LOrHcx)in ocx)Ln s rH i—1 i—ii—! i—1 i—1 i—1 i—IrH
if o O O O O O O O O
!3 in LOiommLnmioir)
D> •
CO Q m •H +J cMcn^Dmo^^oo 4-> £ » • • * • • • • • •
a 0 CO IT) inmvovOLn^rom 3 <a 0 3 o -P 9 CO < vD ^ O O ^ C N ^ ) ^ a O ^ h r o M n o o o i
fd • • • • « • • • •
0) as KDKD&^QKQCOO^ A i—i I—i i—1 i—1 i—1 «—J i—1 oi i—1
¥^i -P CQ -H a •H O
-P •H -H •H ,Q CQ -P > fd CQ fd •H •P CO 0) rH -P >ico CQ a a> u 0) 4J -P (D H p£ < 4J *H »H -H & Z3
0) £H £H i—1 (d t>*HM-|rH «H rH *H fd *H JZ} *H rH -p fd •Q fd rd^d^ O-PTJ^ c fd u Md(d*HUCtJio -H 0) •P(D-H4J(D(1)^(Q a co o a o -«-VH o m fd 0) (DCQOErQMr^a) > 0
112
113
H >
B
w 0. si
X w
0) rH u CO CO o CO CO CO CO CO CO G 53 5 o z 13 a g a IS fd •
o *H M-l -H CD ^ E- LO CX) VO G -MI
r-O 00 <Tk rH vO iH LO VD Cm -MI * *
•H fH ro i—I CO 1 II 1 1 1
O O O O O O O O O a Ln LO LO LO IT) LO LiO LO LO
-p •
G to p «H 00 O O l> CO CN O CM 0 -p O rH rH LO LO LO CM CT* cm £ G • « • • • • • • # •
0) 0 CO 5 4
4
5
5 5 5 4
LO O O fd 3 G 4-> fd co S CO CO O rf 00 00 o o G CO (N VD 00 LT) m rH in rH fd • •
0 <Hi>cr>,Hcocr>Lna\ 00 a CM rH H CM H RH iH rH rH
o o o o o o o o o a IT) LO LO LO LO LO LO lO m tn G •H CQ CO CO • <D •P Q CO CN cn OW H o PO Ch O G 0 «H ro H 00 <0 o 0 0) • • • « • • • # » •
SH t* O. i~<
CO LO i -p CO -P fd CMCNKF COOOOOVO CM Q G no kq \d cm cr»
fd • •
<D c r Locrioacotnoor-a fH H rH rH rH H rH rH i—1
>i -P CQ •H G
>i rH 0 •P •H *H -H W -P > fd co fd
JJ CQ <D i—i -P CO >i CQ G CD o <D -P -P (D iH OS CD 4J 0 -H H -H G d
OS CD G G rH fd > -h m 1—{ fH iH •H fd -H G -H H 4J fd A fd fd 0 -P ncf rG G fd *H M £ fd -H O G tn 0 *H 0) -P <D -H -P <D (D 3 CQ G to O CJ 0 *n -H 0 u fd <D Q) CQ 0 E rQ U rG Q) > O oi < CO 0 O Ixi Eh &
114
H >
g w fa
a
*4-1 •HI
a
• H CO
H1 • H CO CO CO
U t J fa 3
I - P fd t o + )
fd P
04
- P i
CO
P
w
t i ^ i n t o o w o o w w m O 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 ^ 0
r H a \ V D r H r ^ C O C M G 0 C O r H r - L n c r » o o c r » c 0 J > ( N
cn no no CM
o o o o o o o o o i n L n m i n i n i n L n i n m
m i > o o v o c x > r - H ^ a k C M r H P O v O v O C O v O C O O « « • * • « • • •
i n ^ ^ ^ ^
O ^ i D O O O O ^ f M pH ^ O H v O O i n H O J H • • • • • • • • •
r - m r H o D L n ^ v o c O L n r H r H i—( i—{ i—1 i—I i—I i—| r—j
O O O O O O O O O m m m L n m m m m m
00 C M O i O ^ ^ H O r O O ^ ^ C ^ H r O H C O ^ v ^ O • • • • • • • • •
O 4 O 4 ^ ^ C 0 C 0 C 0 v D ( N r o r - \ X ) { > v o c v J c n ^ • • • » • • • • •
o ^ £ > m c T k C 0 C 0 L n 0 0 { > r H H i—i I—I i—I i—I i—{ I—{«—{
> i - p •iH >
•P q <D < P o
CD c c r H r H -rH fd A fd fd ^ id M M d
*rH 0 - P CD u c w a fd 0) 0) m > O
>i • p
- H H • H fit fd
- P > i C O
- p •rH r H r H fd • H a
W > i 0)
- P (D • H £ > - H
"H r H
«p r d u c <D <D
*r~> *H rQ U O fa
03 C O
• H CQ - P to rd
0)
t n O 3 CO O M
rC (3) EH fa
115
H H
H
m 04
a
*•3
(D O a fd U •H MH •H & "H CO
o CO o H H O w W H P4 | O 12S O O O O ^ l ^ O
a) o •H -P a u
0) O P •H CO *w
hw o
w P a 0) •d
-Pi
o m HvoocDvor -cTk CT» O ^OOO4LD0^rOOO « • CO H <x> CA CO ^ ^ H CM
o o o o o o o o o m m m m in in in m in
q I m i> oo CX) l> rH ^ (Ji CN fH CO vO V0 00 VO 00 O
I I t I • • • • • • • co m ^ ^ ^ ^ jh ^
•p £ 03 CD P e ' a) tP'd (d d C P m co a
c fd 0 a
o ^ D O O O O ^ C M rH \£> H VO O LO H OJ H • • # « • • • * *
r- in h co in ^ vo oo m rH rH i—1 i—1 rH «—I 1 1 fH
o o O O O O O O O ^ I m m m m m m m m m
p I rH CO o t ^ c ^ r o c M O c a O H H m m m M O ^ c N
( i « i • • • • • • • co in ^ ^ m m m m m
C fd d) a
oooo o ^ o o o o ^ o o r o d 03 lo m H m h
t I » # • • • • • rH l> rH 00 <T> m <T* 00 CNI rH rHOlrHrHrHrHrH
>1 -P
0) rH
fd
fd >
P •H > •H -P U <C -P
G rH *H m nJ
3 -P
>|C0 0) -P U -H H G H (d
•H
U CD £
£l C fd
a> <D o &
o H
<d -h p a o "
o co a
03 >1 (A •P 0) -H Jm > -H *H rH P n3 O £ CD CD
H rQ U O Pt,
O * ri
m C O -H
W P cq fd 0) a <D rH Dh 3 MH rH -P rd ^ 6 en o 3 CO o u A CP &
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Astin, Alexander W., "The Strong Vocational Interest Blank," The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1965.
Cattell, Raymond B., Personality, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1950.
Darley, John G., Clinical Aspects and Interpretations of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, New York, The Psychological Corporation, 1941.
Furst, Edward J., "The Strong Vocational Interest Blank," The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1965.
Ginzberg, Eli, and Associates Sol W. Ginzburg, M. D., Sidney Axelrad, and John L. Herman, Occupational Choice, An Approach to a General Theory, New York, Columbia University Press, 1951.
Guilford, J. P. and Wayne S. Zimmerman, The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, Manual of Instructions and Interpretations, Beverly Hills, California, Sheridan Supply Company, 1949.
Harrell, Thomas W., Managers' Performance and Personality, Dallas, Texas, Southwestern Publishing Company, 1961.
Hoppock, R., Job Satisfaction, New York, Harper, 1935.
, and D. E. Super, Vocational and Educational Satisfaction, Handbook of Applied Psychology, edited by D. H. Fryer and E. R. Henry, New York, Rinehart, 1950.
Kaback, G. R., Vocational Personality; An Application of the Group Rorschach Method, New York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1946.
116
117
Knapp, R. H. and H. Goodrich, Origins of American Scientists, Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Kuder, G. F., Manual to the Kuder Preference Record, Chicago, Illinois, Science Research Associates, 1946.
Layton, Wilbur L., Editor, The Strong Vocational Interest Blank: Research and Uses, Papers From the Institute on the SVIB Held at the University of Minnesota in February, 1955. Minnesota Studies in Student Personnel Work, No. 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, 1960.
McNemar, Quinn, Psychological Statistics, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956.
Roe, Anne, The Psychology of Occupations, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956.
Saunder, David R., "The Guilford-Zimmerman Survey," The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1959.
Schwebel, Milton, The Interests of Pharmacists, New York, King's Crown Press, 1951.
Stephenson, William, "The Guilford-Zimmerman Survey," The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1953.
Strong, Edward K., Jr., revised by David P. Campbell, Strong Vocational Interest Blanks Manual, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1968.
, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1943.
Super, D. E., The Psychology of Careers, New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957.
Torrikins, S. A., The Thematic Apperception Test, New York, Grune and Stratton, 1948.
Van Steenberg, Neil, "The Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory," The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1953.
118
Weast, Robert C., Samuel M. Selby, and Charles D. Hodgman, Handbook of Mathematleal Tables, second edition, Cleveland, Ohio, The Chemical Rubber Co., 1964.
Articles
Ashworth, Kenneth, H., "Urban Renewal and the University," Journal of Higher Education, XXV (December, 1964), 493.
Beamish, John C., "Personality Tests Highly Valued," Personnel Journal, XXXVII (June, 1958), 64-65.
Berdie, Ralph F., "Factors Related to Vocational Interests," Psychological Bulletin, XLI (October, 1944), 237-257.
, "Factors Associated with Vocational Interests," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIV (November, 1943), 257-277.
, "Likes, Dislikes, and Vocational Interests, " Journal of Applied Psychology, XXVII (September, 1943) 180-189.
Critchfield, Jack B. and Percival W. Hutson, "Validity of the Personality Record," College and University, XL (Fall, 1964), 41.
Darley, John G., "A Preliminary Study of Relations Between Attitude Adjustment and Interest Tests," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXIX (April, 1938), 467-473.
Dodge, A. F., "Social Dominance of Clerical Workers and Sales Persons as Measured by the Bernreuter Personality Inventory," Journal of Educational Psychology, XX (January, 1937), 71-73.
"What Are the Personality Traits of Successful Clerical Workers and Sales Persons as Measured by the Bernreuter Personality Inventory," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXIV (October, 1940).
Dunnette, Marvin D., "Vocational interest Differences Among Engineers in Different Functions," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLI (March, 1957), 273-278.
_, and Wayne K. Kirchner, "Psychological Test Differences Between Industrial Salesmen and Retail Salesmen," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 2 (April, 1960), 121-125.
119
Estes, Stanley G. and Daniel Horn, "Interest Patterns as Related to Fields of Concentration Among Engineering Students," Journal of Psychology, VII (January, 1939), 29-36.
Farwell, E. D. and others, "Student Personality Character-istics Associated with Groups of Colleges and Fields of Study," College and University, XXXVII (Spring, 1962), 229-241.
Forer, Bertram R., "Personality Factors in Occupational Choice," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XIX, (Summer, 1959), 361-366.
Golden, A. L. "Personality Traits of Drama School Students," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVI (1940), 564-575.
Goodstein, Leonard D., and Alfred B. Heilbrun, Jr., "Prediction of College Achievement from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule at Three Levels of Intellectual Ability," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI, (May, 1962), 317-320.
Guilford, J. P., P. R. Christensen, N. A. Bond, Jr., and M. A. Sutton, "A Factor Analysis Study of Human Interests," Psychological Monograph, Vol. 68, No. 4, 1954.
Huttner, L. and others, "Further Light on the Executive Personality," Personnel, SSVI (July, 1959)., 42-50.
Jackson, Jay M., "The Stability of Guilford-Zimmerman Personality Measures," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 6, 1961, 431-434.
Kauffman, Joseph K., "Student Personnel Service," The Educational Record, XLV (Fall, 1964), 363.
Melton, W. R., "An Investigation of the Relationships Between Personality and Vocational Interest," Journal of Educational Psychology,(March, 1956), 163-174.
Miner, John B., "Personality and Ability Factors in Sales Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1962), 6-13.
Morrison, R. L., "Self-Concept Implementation in Occupa-tional Choices," Journal of Counseling Psychology, (1962), 255-260.
120
Osipow, Samuel H., J. D. Ashby, and H. W. Wall, "Personality Types and Vocational Choice, A Test of Holland's Theory," Personnel and Guidance Journal, (September, 1966), 37-42.
Perry, Dallis K. and William M. Cannon, "Vocational Interests of Computer Programmers," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1967, 28-34.
, "Vocational Interests of Female Computer Programmers," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1968), 31-35.
Roe, Anne, "A Psychological Study of Eminent Biologists," Psychological Monograph, LXV, No. 14 (1961), 1-95.
, "A Psychological Study of Eminent Physical':" Scientists," General Psychology Monograph, XLIII, No. 10, (1951), 121-139.
"A Psychological Study of Eminent Psycholo-gists and Anthropologists, and a Comparison with Biological and Physical Scientists," Psychological Monograph, LXVII, No. 2, (1953), 1-89.
Sarbin, T. R. and R. F. Berdie, "Relation of Measured Interests to the Allport-Vernon Study of Values," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXIV (April, 1949), 287-296.
Segal, Stanley J., "A Psychoanalytic Analysis of Personality Factors in Vocational Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology, VIII (Fall, 1961), 202-210.
Shaffer, R. H., and G F Kuder, "Kuder Interest Patterns of Medical, Law and Business Alumni," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXVII, (May, 1953), 367-369.
Slappey, Sterling G-, "What Companies Want Most From Young People," Nation's Business, (February, 1968), 89-90.
Stone, Vernon W., "Measured Vocational Interests in Relation to Intraoccupational Proficiency," Journal of Applied Psychology, (April, 1960), 78-82.
Teevan, R. C., "Personality Correlates of Under-Graduate Fields of Specialization," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XVIII (June, 1954) 212-214.
121
Thurstone, L. L., "A Multiple Factor Study of Vocational Interests," Personnel Journal, (1931), 198-205.
Tyler, L. E., "Relationships between Strong Vocational Interest Scores and Other Attitude and Personality Factors," Journal of Applied Psychology, (February, 1945), 58-67.
, "The Relationship of Interests to Abilities and Reputation Among First-grade Children," Educational Psychological Measurement, (Summer, 1951), 255-264.
Vernon, P. E., "Classifying High-grade Occupational Interests," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (1949), 85-96.
Witkin, A. A., "Differential Interest Patterns in Salesmen," Journal of Applied Psychology, (October, 1956), 338-340.
Report
Spencer, L. M., "Portrait of Company Presidents," Young Presidents' Organization Third Annual Survey Report, New York, Young Presidents' Organization, 1955.
Unpublished Materials
Brown, Donald James, "An Investigation of the Relationships Between Certain Personal Characteristics of Guidance Counselors and Performance in Supervised Counseling Interviews," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1960.
Ermert, Gene Olivers, "An Analysis of Junior Executive Training Programs in Department Stores in Texas," unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1960.
Firkins, Curtis, "Factors Related to Change of Major by College Students," unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1961.
Howard, Maurice Lloyd, "A Study of Under-Achieving College Students with High Academic Ability from the Pheno-. menological Frame of Reference," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1961.
122
Johnson, Richard Wilbur, "The Relationship Between Measured Interests and Differential Academic Achievement," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1961.
Lanna, Mathew George, "Vocational Interests in Relation to Some Aspects of Personality and Adjustment," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1962.
Launer, Philip T., "The Relationship of Given Interest-Patterns to Certain Aspects of Personality," unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York, 1963.
Pilgrim, Mary A., "Relationships Among Gui1ford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Profile, Choice of Field of Study in Business, and Academic Performance of Upper Classmen in Business Administration," unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas, 1965.
Raley, Coleman LeVan, "Personality Traits of High Academic Achievers at Oklahoma Baptist University, 1958-1959," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1960.
Scholl, Charles Elmer, Jr., "The Development and Evaluation of Methods for Isolating Factors That Differentiate Between Successful and Unsuccessful Executive Trainees in a Large, Multibranch Bank," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1957.
Thomas, Edwin Russell, "The Relationship Between the Strong Vocational Interest Blank and the Guilford-Martin Personality Inventory Among Salesmen," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 1958.
Watley, Donivan Jason, "Prediction of Academic Success in a College of Business Administration," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver Colorado, 1961.
Whitlock, Glenn Everette, "The Relationship Between Passivity of Personality and Personal Factors to the Choice of Ministry as a Vocation,11 unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1959.