Table Of ContentAN EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF A BIGIDITY SCALE
AGAINST A CBITEHION OF RIGXDITJ? IN AN
XmBFSN&OMAL SITUATION
toy
Stanley Moldawsky
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Psychology in the
Graduate College of the State
University of Iowa
August 1951
ProQuest Number: 10598622
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10598622
Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
kQKmmmmmms
The w riter wishes to express his sincere
gratitude and appreciation to Dr. W. Or&nt Dahl*
strom under whose direction th is investigation
was undertaken. His generous donation of time
and effo rt greatly fa c ilita te d conducting th is
research. Many thanks are due Dr. Harold P.
Bechtoldt fo r his aid in the sta tistic a l analy
sis . Appreciation is extended to Dr. Irving
Barnett fo r his s te lla r role*playing as the
“reluctant buyer.n The w riter is grateful to
Mrs. Leona Dahlstrom, Mr. Hod Kabriek, Mr. Mar
tin Krakauer, Mrs. Margaret Lawrence, and Miss
Alma Nicholas fo r th eir assistance as judges.
The w riter is especially Indebted to his
wife and colleague, Pat, for her continual aid
and encouragement.
ii
TABLE OF COOTKOTS
Page
Introduction 1
Procedure .* 8
ResuIts .... 14
Discussion * 34
Summary .•.* 43
References * 49
Appendix A * 38
Appendix B * 63
Appendix C • 72
Appendix D - 75
Appendix E • 78
Appendix F * @2
Appendix G . 91
Appendix H • 98
Appendix I . 101
Appendix J *« 106
i l l
TABLE OF TABLES
Tabl^ Page
X Analysis of Variance fo r Five Haters and
66 Subjecta and the R eliab ility C oeffl-
elents Obtained from I t . . . . . . . . ............................ 16
XX R eliab ilities of Judges Ratings on Eight
Subscores of Rating S c a le ........... . . . 13
XXI Means and standard deviations of the
Four Groups on the ¥ford Fluency Tests in
Terms of Standard Scores ..........* . . . ............... 19
XV Simple Analysis of Variance of the Dif
ferences between Mew Verbal Fluency
Scores of 66 Subjects (in Terms of Mor*
mallaed standard Scores) ............. 20
V Intercorrelations of Mon-Experimental
Variables (Sentence Fluency and Similes
Testa) with Composite Ratings and R
Scale ............... . . ................... 22
VX Means and Standard Deviations of Similes
and Sentence Fluency Scores of Individ
uals Scoring in Top or Bottom 20$ of
R Scale 24
VII Means and Standard Deviations of Similes
and Sentence Fluency Scores of Individu
als Rated Rigid and Flexible in the
Spontanelty Test ............. 26
VIII Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings
of Individuals With and Without Previous
Selling Experiences .................. 28
IX Chi Square Test of Independence of S ell
ing Experience and R Scale . • • .................... 30
iv
Table Page
X Means and Standard Deviations of Com**
posit© Bating© from Five Judges fo r
Four Conditions ................................... 31
XX Analysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Bating© of R igidity In the
Spontaneity Test ................................ ♦ 32
XII Analysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Ratings of (Subscore 7)
A bility to Handle the "Surprise® in the
Spontaneity Test «»*»**•**.*«*•»»,*,*.................... 33
X III Means and Standard Deviations of Scores
on the "Hew R igidity Scale** fo r Rated
Rigid, Rated F lexible, normal, and Cross-
V alidation Croups ...................• .•••••*•«•• 104
XIV A nalysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Ratings of (Sub-score 1)
"Bat© In Acceptance* in Spontaneity
T e s t ■ ............................****♦...............107
XV A nalysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Eatings of (Sub-score 2}
"Tries D ifferent Approaches® in Spon
taneity Test »•*»»•»*.*.......... 108
XVI Analysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Ratings of (Sub-score 3)
"D ifferent Verbal Expressions* In Spon
taneity Teat .............. 109
XVII A nalysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Ratings of (Sub-score 4)
"Perseveretea in Approaches" in Spon
tan eity Test *.......................................................................110
v
gfcto* Zsea
XVX11 Analysis of Variance ©f the D ifference
between Mean Ratings of (Sub-score 5)
"Novelty in Approaches” in Spontaneity
feet ............................................. I l l
XIX Analysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Bating© of (Sub-score 6}
"Appropriateness of Response11 In Spon
tan eity feet ............................ *......... 113
XX A nalysis of Variance of the D ifference
between Mean Ratings of (Sub-score 8)
"Length of Time” in Spontaneity Test *»..**« 113
vi
TABLE OP FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Assignment of subjects to groups .................. 8
8 Frequency d istrib u tio n s of the four
groups (Hated Rigid* Rated Flexible*
iorm&l, and Cross-V alidation groups)
on the "new rig id ity seals** ............ 108
1
Chapter I
lOTRODUmOH
Although rig id ity has been studied In many con
texts In the analysis of human behavior there Is no unani
mity In the fie ld as to its nature nor any consistency in
Its use as a construct. Some of the follow ing formula
tions have been advanced and I t can be observed that the
concepts are quite heterogeneous* R igidity has been
thought of as a general personality tr a it, a defense
against anxiety, as an in te lle c tiv e a b ility , as due to
co rtical pathology or simply as a perseveratlng response
tendency.
Ihe facto r analysts, notably Spearman and his
students (29) have Isolated a perserveration facto r, (?),
in tasks involving altern atio n of simple motor responses,
altern atio n of creative e ffo rt or persistence in single
a c tiv ity . Thurston© sim ilarly isolated a facto r (E),
which he labelled a b ility to sh ift set* (53) Both of
these are sim ilar however to the rig id ity concept u tilize d
by C atto ll (6). Based on tasks involving altern atio n of
creative e ffo rt, C a tte ll^ ’’D isposition R igidity" facto r
is found in tasks demanding a new approach to an old
2
situation* Ha considers i t is a general personality char
a c te ristic not necessarily related to intelligence# Thus
facto r analysts conceive of rig id ity sometimes as an in
te lle c tiv e a b ility and a t other times as a general person
a lity trait*
O oldstein (12) has conceptualized rig id ity pre
dominantly in terms of neuropathology. But he emphasizes
two kinds* primary rig id ity and secondary rig id ity * P ri
mary rig id ity refers to H .••• sequelae of an abnorm ality
of the E instellung mechanism, most frequently observed in
lesions of the subcortical ganglia* Each performance in
action immediately becomes so rig id th at responses to ex
traneous stim uli cease* Secondary rig id ity is due to a
primary defect of the higher mental processes occurring in
co rtical damage and co rtical m alform ations, such as feeble
mindedness* I t occurs only if the individual is confront
ed w ith tasks beyond his cap ab ilities* ** (12, p. 223) 2his
la tte r concept O oldstein admits may be true of normal peo
ple also, th at is , they may exhibit rig id ity when In per
formances beyond th e ir cap acities. ‘This conception is
also developed by the fie ld th eo rists in discussing stereo
typed behavior (14, 16, 20). Lack of v aria b ility and
ad ap tab ility are behavioral indications of th is rigidity*
