Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and
private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without
the permission of the Author.
I
'l'ffE EFFECTS OF EXTRA1Jl'.'.RSION AND r.,:;_:UR(·~'ICISM C'~: SUB~CT'S GRAPHIC EXPRESSIVE BSHAVIC'UR AJ\:D PR1~F11'.R'SFCSS FC'R GRAPHIC
STIMULI
A Thesis presented in :par·tiaJ. f'uJ.fiJmr;Et of E1e requirements :for ·the Degr>ee of l:r1::wte1· of Arts in fsycho1ogy at ?fassey Universitye
Enid i.;. Rober·ts,
I9T7.
Acknowledgements.
I shouJ d. likE; to ex:press my grG. teful thanks to al 1 those people who have a:Lded me in tte p:r-oduction of this
thesis. In particuJ.sr, I \•vish to tLnnk t.1r. Ker·ry Chamberla:Ln, who helped me cl 8Pify my original idens, o.nd ~.'.I's. Beryl E.esketh, whose encourae;ement ar,d sue.ces tioni> for the improvement of the experiment2l design and :::;tatist.:.ca1 o.nr,.lysis were invaJxable. I should also l ikt: to U,&n'.: L:r:.. Dor-oth;,: C.:olJ jns for vsliontly typing the final manuscript, nnd lAstly, all those staff and patients of the Maru-1waroa Centre for Fsycholorical Medicine who willingly gave their· time and co-operction to make this research
possible.
Abstract Chapter 1
2
3 4
5 6
7
III
Traits or Personality Dimensions Extraversion - Introversio~
Neurotic ism
IntE:;raclion of Extraversion, ~curoticism and Environment
Expressive Behaviour
Psycholof.::>r of Art and Ex1ierimental Aest.retics
Artistjc Ex1n·ession nnd T'ersonalit;y
8 Extraversion and In!eracticn wilh Neurotic ism
9
1 0 11
Hethod ResuJ. ts
Discussion and Conclusion
References
Appendices
Page
VI
1
5
1 2
14
1 7
20
29
38
45
82
89
Table I
Table II Table III
Table IV Table V
Table VI
Table VII Table VIII
'I'abl e IX Table X
IV
LIST OF 'l'A3LF.S
Page BriU.sh Norms for F.PI com:i:;ared with mean
scores of American sample 48
EPI Score for Eysenck's (J 964) psychiatric
gr·oups oncl the preser:."v s~unple 55
r/4e2n and SD of N s.ncl E scores, 8nd age for present groups
ANCVA of Expansiveness combined scores Mean of combined expansiveness scores for each group
ANOVA of Complexity scores for each
gr·oup
Mean complexity scores for each group Correlations between Age and Dependent variables
ANOVA results for prefer•cr.c e for snguJa.:·:i t;y score..::
Uenn number er ar,(~t·Jr::· c~.oices for each grou3;_1
58
61
62 63 63 66
67 68
I
I I
I I I
IV
V
VI
VII
V
API'ENDICES
Raw Scores fer each S antl Keens a~d SDs for eacl1 group UH , v,TE, Ifi\TI 811 d T-INS
Me~rn and SD of An 6rulari ty, coJ cur and t ime for introverted and extraverted croups
Correlationel Matrix
Correl~tion~ and partial correlations between Extraversion and the dependent variables
Graph of ages of subjects
Scoring Sheet
Paj_red desj£J1'., in crder of rrr:,s·_;ntnti on
Page
89
93 94
95
96
97 98VI
Much research har, investi£ated the po~;sibility of generalised personality dimensi. ons, and two tlin t hn ve been most frequently
demonstrated by fac tor-nnaJ.yti cal s t1.,:dies a :r·e those of :Sxtr·aversion- Introversion and Nm:iroticic''.m-Stabi] H;y ~ ?hysiolcgical and
perceptual rescDrch have produced cV .i.J enc e suggesting that extra- verts have a rd.2.;her ~.ensor-y tr._reshold than intr·overt s , wh\ch prob- ably causes behaviour·al dtf'ferences between h1div:iduals at the extr·ernes of the Etr·avt:rf;:ion-Introven:;i on cor:t iritrnm. Other studies have indicated tLat ~xtr·:::,vers:i.on ar:d lfouroU.cism may intE::ract to produce OVt:r·t behsviour· t.:12.t is co::,'..!"lCJict.or•y to tLe behav·iour
that would be expected for an indivijual1s recoraed ~xtraversion level.
I t i s recognh;ed that ar·List'lJ pr·oduce wopk v1it11 an individ- 1 11 t 1,!1 ' ' ·tc: "'·l ~ · ·. c:-1.-, · • ., r; ' ·y 1 • •·.' ·'='l ~ t · i , : , c , b-·
ua s y e , aLc. 1 ~ r,._al,1un..a1 .. 11 • \.11,.1 J,cr..or1c __ .L,;y 11-,,., t,en investigated. Also, the ef'fect or' 1,·:o:·k~: cf' art as pc;rceivt~d sensory stimuli has been exa1nined '}Y"H1 tLccr:i.es have evolved to explain t~e sensory arousal experi~nced with different types of stimuli. T:te leveJ of sensory stimul8 U on required to produce optimum arousal is hiF:her in extraver·ts than intr·overt.s, and
personality resenrch has shown that extrsverts tend to prefer rnor•e complex, angular stimuli, which have more arousal potential, than
introverts.
This need for greater· sensory stimuJ at ion leads to more active, impulsive behaviour being produced by extraverts, and t his is
demonstrated graphically by mor·e expansive expressive movement s. The present study is an attempt to. exHmine the differences between extravert s and i.ntrover·ts in gr-aphic expressive movements and in preference for sensory stimulation. ! t also attempts to investi- gate the effect on these differences of higher or lower levels of Neuroticism.
VII
Subjects for the study were patients at the psychiatric unit of a publjc hos:pi ta1, v1ho presented vm·ying levels of'
Neuroticisrn as measured by the Eysenck Per~,onali ty Inventory.
No sie.,mificant resu1 ts we.r>e obtainec., but trends tended to support previou~., reseo.l'ch that indic at t-d extraverts :prc-:ferred more complex and angu1c=~r stimuli tban ir:troverts, and that high levels of Neuroticism altered this !"'ClD.Li.ow .. ,hip. Inf'ormf1tion was also produced which gene:. rated hypothe sec, f'or future research
and indicated irrrprovemen ts in
t.r ..
e exre 1·imer.:. te.l design which might produce mor·e sie,n:L:f'icant result::;.1
CB.APTER I
TRAITS OR PERSONALITY DD{ENSI ONS
Regardless of the different emphases of various theor- i sts , there is a core of agreement in com; idering persona1-· i ty as an integration of traits which can be investie,Bted and described in order to render an account of' the unique quality of an individual (Chaplin, 1970).
Theories on tht~ st1-uc ture o:f personality have been put forward :for centuries. Hippocrates , and later Gal en, divi- ded individuals into four types: choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic. These groupings he :formulated from a supposed predominance o:f one of the bodily hL~ours:
yellow bil e, blc1ck biJ e, blood and rhlegrn (l:iscl:el, 1971).
More recently l inks were soui-ht hetween per sonality and somatic type by such theorists as 'Hlliam Sheldon (1942). He looked for associations between body build and t empera- ment, pos tu1 a ting Uir ee types: endomorphic, me somorphic and
ectomorphic.
"Type" t heories, however, tend to assume discrete, dis- continuous categories , yet it i s virtually impossible to classify individual persons into one or another clear- cut category. There seem to be overlaps between an indeterminate number of polar-continuum type personality dimensions. This encouraged certain theorists to develop the idea of person- ality "traits" which include such dimensions as aggressiveness and dependency.
Guilford
(1 959 ,
p.6)
def ined a trait as "any disting- uishable, relat ively enduri ng way in which one individual2
varies from another": Allport ( 1937) defined. traits as
"determining t endencies" or "predispositions to respond"
in an individual, that account for the consistenc_i of his behaviour. He states th8 t a trait is a it generalised and focali sed neuropsychic system (:peculiar t0 the indi vidua1)
with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equiv- alent, and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behaviour" (Allport, 1937, p. 295). Adaptive behaviour is coping behaviour - the way in which an indi v ldual reRches his gonls s.r~d completes his taskso Expressive behaviour includes body movements,
activity level, a~d possibly response to stimulation. These
may be recorded in such activities as artistic nroductions and handwri tin,;.
Although Allport emphqsiscs the structure of :person-
ality as determining behavio'H', he :1lso includes environ- mental inf'luences. "One person m:::.y owe a given trait prim- ar ily to inheritance, another per::;on primarily t o learning.
One person may be reclusive and reti.rj_n0 chiefly because of
his temperament, another because of conflict with his envir- onment" (Allport, 1965, p. 69).
Environment, or culture, as Allport uses it, is in part a set of inventions that have arisen in various parts of the
world (or with subgroups of population) to make life etti-- cient and intelligible for individuals who have to struggle
with the same basic problems of-life: birth, growth, and death. The solutions are passed on from one generation t o another. Handwriting is a good example of the compromise we all reach between personal ity structure and the effects
3
of culture. Traditional letter forms are learned but are adapted to suit the tem11erament of the indj_vidual. No two people have identical handwriting as no tv/0 people have
idenU.cal personali tit:s. However, then-.: a1)pear to be gener- al ised simil srities in handwritine, such as size and slope, which wculd suggest some genera] i~; ed personality dimensions.
A common trait is, accordinu: to Allp01·t (1965, :p. 349),
"a category for cJ.sssifyine; :funcltonally equivalent forms of behaviour in a genera] population of people. Though influ- enced by nomjnRl and artif'actual considerations, a common trait, to some extent, reflects veridical and comparable dis- positions ir: many personalities, who, becouse of a comrr.on human na t ..;r·e 2nd common cu1 t ure, 11evel op ~;i tr:i] s r modes of adjusting to thej r cnvironmer:t, thoq--;r. in vaPyin,s degrees".
For Cattell (1965) the t~att i~ nlso r basic unit of personality which is in.f'er-red from beh'1V l cur, and accounts for behavioural regularity and consj st ency. He emphasises source traits, or underlying dimensions, that affect varia- tions in behaviour, and he distinguishes between "environ- mental-mold" tr•ai ts, which reflect environmental conditions, and "constitutional" traits VJhich reflect constitutional factors.
Eysenck
(1 947 , 1957, 1967)
has carried this search for personality dimensions further, to inc]ude the area ofabnormal behaviour, and has also studied the associations between a person's status on certain personality dimensions and tiis scores on a variety of other personality and intell- ectual measures.
In spite of disagreement about basic dimensions, there is some overlap in the findings of different trait theorists.
4
The two dimensicns that seem to be found most consistently involve extraversion-introversj_on and adjustrnen t and inte- grati on as opposed to disor eanj_sation and anxiety (Vernon, 1964). For example, ~ysenck puts :forward a personality theory that is based on two orthoe;onnl dimensions: Extra- version 2nd Neuroticism, Cattell (Cattell and Sheirer, 1961) has Invia-Exvi1;1. as one o:f his second-crcler state factors.
This a:r;pears similP-r to Extraversjon-Introversion and, al - though Cattell feels that it does not vary in a per·son over time and from occasion to occasiont a good deal of the int er- personal variability is constitutional.
Trait theories, therefore, ful fi l l the need for some structure on which to base perf,onsli ty. A structure which gives account of thR relative st~biJity of an individual's personality over time in diffE;r-ent f,:;tuaUc1,FJJ fields. It al so indicates a basis for common rersonnlity dimensions throughout a general population or culture.