CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
THE INTEGRATION OF C. G. JUNG'S PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES
WITH DUVAL AND WICKLUND'S THEORY OF
OBJECTIVE SELF-AWARENESS
A Thesis subitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Anne Reed Ruiz
May 1987
The Thesis of Anne Reed Ruiz
California State University, Northridge
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Abstract
Introduction
• iv
Method
.17
v
1
Subjects
.17
Procedure
.18
Results
.20
Discussion
.28
References
.31
Appendix
• 33
iii
Tables
Page
Table
1
Instructions to Subjects for Part II and
Attributes in Responsibility Situations • • • • • • 34
2
Mean Percentages of Attribution to Self ANOVA 1 • • • • • •
22
3
Summary of ANOVA 1
4
Mean Percentage of Attribution to Self ANOVA 2 • • • •
• • 24
5
Summary of ANOVA 2
• • 25
6
Comparison of Mean Percentages of Attribution • • • 26
7
Summary of ANOVA 3
• 23
27
iv
ABSTRACT
THE INTEGRATION OF C. G. JUNG'S PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES
WITH DUVAL AND WICKLUND 1 S THEORY OF
OBJECTIVE SELF-AWARENESS
by
Anne Reed Ruiz
Master of Arts in Psychology
This experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that
introverts will attribute a greater proportion of blame to the
self than extroverts when in a state of objective self-awareness.
Self-awareness was manipulated by presence or absence of a mirror.
Nineth subjects were identified as extroverted, a mix of
extroverted and introverted or introverted on the basis of their
scores on the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory.
Subjects were asked
to attribute a percentage of responsibility for negative outcomes
to both themselves and to the other person in ten hypothetical
situations.
The results of the experiment failed to support
the hypothesis.
v
Introduction
A basic issue, historically centered in psychology, is
whether the causes of behavior are inside the person or in the
environment.
Personality theories, emphasizing individual
differences, have developed constructs of internal determinations
of behavior.
Personality, in this context, has been defined as
representing those characteristics of the person, or of people
generally, that account for consistent patterns of response to
situations (Pervin, 1980).
Personality research, therefore, is
the study of how individuals differ in their perception and how
these differences relate to their total functioning.
In contrast, behaviorists and learning theorists
characteristically place more emphasis on the environment or the
situations in which people find themselves as the primary cause of
behavior (Pervin, 1980).
Social psychology has evolved as an
interaction between individuals and environment and is defined as
a scientific study of individual behavior as a function of social
stimuli (Shaw & Costanzo, 1982).
Traditionally, propositions and
conclusions of social psychological research are based on
observations in relatively controlled situations.
It is the purpose of this study to integrate an aspect of
personality theory postulated by Carl Jung (1923) with a social
psychological theory developed by Duval and Wicklund (1972) in an
attempt to better understand and subsequently predict individual
behavior in
a
particular setting.
1
\~
2
One of the cornerstones of Jung's analytical theory was his
formulation of psychological types.
In the introduction to what
is now Volume 6 of his Collected Works, Jung presents a definition
based on causal attributional differences:
I have long been struck by the fact that besides the many
individual differences in human psychology, there are also
typical differences. Two types especially become clear to
me~ I have termed them the introverted and the extraverted
(sic) types.
When we consider the course of human life, we see how the
fate of one individual is determined more by the objects of
his interest, while in another it is determined more by his
own inner self, by the subject (1976, p.3).
Jung postulated that an individual relates to the world, to
people and to things, primarily in one of these two directions.
This becomes the individual's "habitual attitude".
Because Jung
recognized that there is no such thing as a pure type, he
described this typical attitude as one of relative predominance,
for the other direction always remains within the individual to a
greater or lesser degree.
Jung continued to work on and refine his formulation of
typology over the course of at least twenty years.
In a lecture
delivered at the Psychological Congress in Munich in September,
1913, Jung first proposed his terms of extroversion and
introversion.
We speak of extraversion when (an individual) gives his whole
interest to the outer world, to the object, and attributes an
extraordinary importance and value to it. ~~en, on the
contrary the objective world sinks into shadow, as it were,
or undergoes devaluation, while the individual occupies the
center of his own interest and becomes in his own eyes the
only person worthy of consideration, it is a case of
introversion (Jung, 1976, p. 500).
\
3
This earliest formulation was based on observations of his
patients.
Rather than personality traits, Jung was referring to
two modes of psychic reaction to the external world.
The
structure was of an energy model in which psychic energy (libido)
moves in alternate ways:
centrifugal or centripetal.
He
characterized the libido movement of the hysteric as centrifugal:
movement away from inner disagreeable memories and concentration
on the object in an attempt to blot out or repress inner
complexes.
The schizophrenic was characterized as centripetal:
his libido moving inward and concentrating wholly on his inner
complexes in an effort to become isolated from the external world.
Ten years later, concomitant with the publication of
Psychological Types (1923), Jung delivered a lecture in
Switzerland.
He spoke not only of an individual's center of
interest but of his motivating force.
Fbr example, we shall come upon individuals.who in all their
judgements, perceptions, feelings, affects, ~nd actions feel
external factors to be the predominant motivating
force ••• (contrasted by) another attitude which is motivated
chiefly by internal or subjective factors (1976, p. 515).
In 1931, Jung again spoke of the process of personality
dimension.
Introversion and extraversion, as a typical attitude means an
essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process,
establishes the habitual mode of reaction, and then
determines not only the style of behavior but also the
quality of subjective experience (Jung, 1976, p. 514).
In Psychological Types, Jung devoted nearly 500 pages of
exposition to the distinctions between the attitudes of the two
psychological types "grappling with the problem.of the role of the
\
4
subject and the object in perception and in experience" (Shapiro &
Alexander, 1975, p. 17).
But what of personality variables by
which these difference can be measured?
As Shapiro and Alexander
(1975) point out, the central chapter of Psychological Types is
over 100 pages long, yet there is little description of either the
introverted or extroverted attitude operating in an individual in
isolation.
In addition, Jung was keenly aware of cultural
interaction and observer bias.
He considered any trait expressed
by a type as a function of its interaction with a particular
culture (Jung, 1976).
Finally, in 1936, in his last formal lecture on typology,
Jung clearly characterized the types.
Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external
object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external
happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by
events, a need to join in and "get with it", the capacity to
endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them
enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the
cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully
selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the
figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a
show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of
life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective
nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience
is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral
misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." The
disinclination to submit his own motives to critical
examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not
long since shared with others. Should something
unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget
it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and
positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does
is displayed with conviction and warmth.
The psychic life of this type of person is enacted as it
were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and
through others~ all self-communings give him the creeps.
The introvert is not forthcoming, he is as though in
continual retreat before the object. He holds aloof from
external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike
5
of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people.
In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. The more
crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. he is not
in the least "with it" and has no love of enthusiastic
get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he
does in his own way, barricading himself against influence
from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming
inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain
brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or
some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to
people ••• He is easily mistrusted, self-willed, often suffers
from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also
envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to
fear, but due to the fact that it seems to him negative,
demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore
suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear
of making a fool of himself, and is usually very touchy ••• He
confronts the world with an elaborate defensive system
compounded of scrupulosity, pedantry, frugality,
cautiousness, painful conscientiousness, stiff-lipped
rectitude, politeness, and open-eyed distrust. His picture
of the world lacks rosy hues, as he is over-critical and
finds a hair in every soup.
Under normal conditions, he is pessimistic and worried,
because the world and human beings are not in the least good
but crush him, so he never feels accepted and taken to their
bosom ••• Fbr him self-communings are a pleasure. His own
world in a safe harbour ••• his own company is the best. He
feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made
by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on
his own initiative, and in his own way ••• Crowds, majority
views, public opinion, popular enthusiasm never convince him
of anything •••
His relations with other people become warm only when safety
is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive
distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the
number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted. Thus
/the psychic life of this type is played out wholly within
(1976, pp. 549-551}.
This paper has purposely avoided discussion of the four
conscious functions:
sensation, thinking, feeling, and intuition,
through which Jung felt the introvert/extrovert attitudes are
manifested.
Except for a brief explanation, it is felt that, for
\
6
the purposes of this paper, elaboration is not necessary as they
will not be integrated into the theory presented.
Jung explains
that:
Sensation is to establish that something exists, thinking
tells us what it means, feeling what its value is and
intuition surmises whence it comes and wither it goes
(1976, p. 553).
In spite of Jung's explicit characterization of introverts
and extroverts, different investigators have extracted
surprisingly dissimilar personality variables by which they test
for traits of introversion/extroversion.
It is felt that the
logical choice for this study is the instrument that most closely
embodies Jung's characterizations.
~ihile
Jung's formulation of psychological types deals with
innate (Jung, 1976, p. 516) or biologically based (Jung, 1974,
p. 331) differences in attitude so that an individual views the
world primarily through a focus on either self or object, Duval
and Wicklund's theory of objective self-awareness (1972) deals
with an individual's continually fluctuating focus on either self
or object.
Does one's predisposition to either internal or
external focus affect one's behavior and causal attributions in a
short term attention situation?
This is one of the questions that
this study hopes to answer.
Duval and Wicklund's theory is one of self-awareness and
self-evaluation.
Duval and Wicklund felt that exclusive attention
to description and analysis of the self leaves out a major
determinant of behavior:
on the self.
how the self reacts when made to focus
7
The theory of objective self-awareness has a single assumption
that consciousness is a dichotomous state:
an individual can
either focus on the self or away from the self.
Following this
assumption, the theory postulates a motivated state that results
from a condition of objective self-awareness.
Objective
self-awareness is defined as a state of self-focused attention
wherein the subject takes himself to be the object (Wicklund,
1981).
When an individual encounters self-focusing stimuli (e.g.,
a mirror, his own voice on a tape recorder, an audience) and
becomes focused on the self, a within-self discrepancy arises
between the person's image of his real self and his image of his
ideal self.
As originally postulated, this discrepancy was
assumed to be negative.
The amount of negative affect was
proposed to be a joint function of the proportion of time spent in
self-focus and the size of the real self/ideal self discrepancy.
In a later reexamination of their theory (Wicklund, 1975)
acknowledgement was made that in some cases, such as when a potent
success has been experienced, objective self-awareness in not an
aversive state.
If this experience exceeds the individual's
aspirations, a positive discrepancy can result although it is
likely that over time, this affect will diminish, recreating
negative discrepancies.
8
Duval and Wicklund further postulate that the immediate
consequence of negative discrepancy is self-evaluation.
Resultant
lowered self-esteem or self-criticism then motivates the
individual to either avoid further self-focusing or reduce the
discrepancy.
Self-evaluation and the motivational state are central to
Duval and Wicklund's philosophical outlook.
According to Duval
and Wicklund, self-awareness acts as a feedback system which
forces the individual to alter aspects of himself in the direction
of his conception of what a correct person should be.
In this latter respect, Duval and Wicklund's theory bears
strong similarities to role theory and indeed is sometimes
classified as such (Shaw & Costanzo, 1972).
Although one of the
classic issues in role theory has to do with the congruities
between a person's self and the roles s/he enacts in his/her
various social interactions and relationships (Shaw & Costanzo,
1974) is felt that Duval and Wicklund's concept of self-evaluation
is dissimilar in certain respects to this concept of role
conflict.
A role can be defined as the functions a person performs when
occupying a particular position within a particular social context
(Shaw & Costanzo).
Role conflict results when an individual holds
several positions that have incompatible demands (inter-role
conflict) or when a single role has expectations that are
9
incompatible (intra-role conflict).
Role expectations are
assumptions about the behavior of a person who holds a particular
role.
Sources of conflict can lie within the individual, in the
environment or in a combination of both.
When the conflict becomes
stressful to the extent that the individual feels he/she can no
longer fulfill role expectations, he/she seeks to resolve it.
It can be argued that role expectation equates with Duval and
Wicklund's concept of ideal self although subtle differences may
exist.
As reported earlier, Duval and Wicklund assume that
consciousness is a dichotomous state and only when an individual
is in the state of objective self-awareness does he/she engage in
self-evaluation.
Otherwise, the individual feels in control over
the environment; he experiences an at-oneness with the environment
such that he/she is the subject of forces that move the environment
(Duval & Wicklund, 1972).
Role theory makes no provision for an
unawareness of conflict once it has been initially perceived.
Additionally, although the source of conflict can arise from
within an individual, conflict is centered around expectations of
external behavior.
Conversely, although the theory of objective
self-awareness predicts resultant behavior, the discrepancy
elicited by self-evaluation is always based on personal standards.
Duval and Wicklund define a standard as a mental representation of
correct behavior, attitudes and traits (1972).
10
Finally, as previously stated, role conflict can arise from
within the individual without benefit of external stimuli.
Role
conflict is directly related to an individual's internal
perception of a situation.
In contrast, objective self-awareness
is dependent on external stimuli.
Perception is required only in
the sense that an individual must have the ability to see
him/herself as object. 1
Duval and Wicklund have postulated that self-focus initiates
the process of self-evaluation and that during this process of
self-evaluation an individual makes attributions which, except
when following a recent success, results in self-criticism.
It
will be recalled that negative evaluation will motivate an
individual to either avoid self-focusing
stimuli or reduce the
discrepancy between the real self and the ideal self.
Self-criticism, in this context becomes a method of discrepancy
reduction by changing one's image of the ideal self.
Research has shown (Ickes, Wicklund & Ferris, 1973) that
negative discrepancy results in lowered self-esteem, and
conversely, a positive discrepancy or self-aggrandizement from
favorable feedback results in increased self self-esteem.
These
reports have dealt with reducing discrepancy by changing the
ideal self.
1 i.e., Piaget, 1969, reports that children, before a certain age
are unaware of themselves as objects in the world •
• 11
Similarly, when responsibility for an outcome is in question,
Duval and Wicklund hypothesized that when an individual is in a
state of objective self-awareness s/he is more likely to attribute
responsibility to him/herself.
More precisely stated:
The attribution of responsibility for any event is determined
by the focus of the individual's attention; thus, if
attention is turned toward the self due to stimuli creating
the objective state or to the absence of forces that would
take attention away from the self, the individual will see
himself as causal for whatever events are to be explained.
Conversely, when subjectively self-aware, causality will be
located outside himself in whatever object, person, or
phenomenon is the focus of his attention (Duval & Wicklund,
1972, p. 194).
This definition bears strong resemblance to Jung's definition
of the causal attributional differences between introverts and
extroverts quoted
much earlier in this paper.
In general,
attribution relates to the process governing a perceiver's
attention to, thoughts about, and apprehension of, perceived
events (Shaw & Costanzo, 1982).
Self-focused attention has two potential outcomes when that
attention is inescapable.
An
individual can reduce the
discrepancy by changing either the real self or the ideal self.
When a negative
outcome has already been experienced, the
immediate response is to change the ideal self through increased
attribution of responsibility of self-blame.
Duval and Wicklund tested this hypothesis by inducing a state
of objective self-awareness in an experimental group and having
them attribute causality either to themselves or another in five
hypothetical situations.
Results were entirely consistent with
their hypothesis (Duval & Wicklund, 1972).
12
It is felt that a useful insight into individuals' behavior
under conditions of objective self-awareness can be gained by
applying Jung's principles of typology.
The central question
then, that this study attempts to answer is:
is behavior,
resulting from a state of objective self-awareness, as postulated
by Duval and Wicklund, mediated by Jung's personality construct of
introversion/extroversion?
Wicklund (1975) acknowledges that individual differences can
play a role iri susceptibility to objective self awareness, but in
the development of the theory, Duval and Wicklund preferred to
avoid potential ambiguities associated with individual differences
measured.
Since the theory's presentation however, individual
differences have been addressed.
Buss and Scheier (1976)
tested individual differences of high and low private
self-consciousness on self-attributions while in a state of
objective self-awareness. Using a 23-item scale devised by
Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss (1975), the authors did indeed find
that when made to self-focus by their unavoidable self image in a
mirror, subjects high in private self-consciousness attributed
significantly more blame to themselves for the outcome on negative
hypothetical situations.
To directly assess the central questions of the present
study, four hypotheses have been formulated.
Hypothesis A:
Ratings of self-blame are greater for an
introvert than for an extrovert.
13
In addition to the causal attributions already recalled, Jung
characterized the extreme extrovert as living outside himself,
very concerned with his reputation and dependent on others for
approval.
In any situation, the extreme extrovert, therefore, will
place blame outside himself.
Hypothesis B:
Ratings of self-blame are greater for an
individual when in a state of objective self-awareness.
This hypothesis is directly derived from the study reported
by Duval and Wicklund in their original theoretical presentation
reported earlier in this paper.
"When the situation is so
constructed that either the person or the other can be responsible
for the outcome, the locus of causal attribution is determined by
the direction of attention" (1972, p. 67).
Hypothesis C:
Effects of objective self-awareness are
greater for an extrovert than for an introvert.
From the Jungian standpoint, an introvert, as expressed in
Hypotheses A, attributes blame to himself in any psychological
state whereas conversely in a normal situation, an extrovert
attributes blame to another or to the environment.
It is
hypothesized in this study that being placed in the objective
self-awareness state will not significantly increase self-blame
for the introvert, whereas being placed in a state of objective
self-awareness could
significantly increase attribution of
self-blame for the extrovert.
that most
self~aware
Wicklund and Hormuth (1981) state
paradigms assume that some internal condition
il
'
14
of the subject will determine the response: that objective
self-awareness brings out the idiosyncratic qualities of the
subject.
How long will this effect last?
Is there evidence to suggest
that self-blame will have differential temporal carryover?
Jung has characterized the extrovert as more adaptable and
quicker to change his or her mind that the introvert.
The
extrovert "owes his normality ••• to his ability to fit into
existing conditions with comparative ease" (1976, p. 335) while
"majority views ••• never convince (the introvert) of anything"
(1976, p. 551).
Accordingly, in more recent studies, extroverts have been
found to be more suggestible than introverts: more inclined to
change their judgments under certain influences (Sinha & Ojha,
1963).
Will this reportedly greater adaptability of the extrovert
function under conditions of objective self-awareness?
Ickes,
Wicklund and Ferris (1973) accidentally found evidence of an
adaptation effect in an experiment designed to assess real/ideal
self discrepancies under conditions of high and low objective
self-awareness although this finding is in direct conflict with
the theory's original postulate that the greater the length of
time a persons spends in objective self-awareness, the greater the
tendency to attribute blame to the self (Duval & Wicklund, 1972).
An adaptation effect implies diminished self-focus which will, in
turn, diminish self-criticism.
Will the extrovert be quick to
adapt and once again attribute blame to the environment?
Wicklund
15
and Hormuth (1981) state that it is well researched that behavior
moves in the direction of idiosyncratic personality
characteristics, given that the behaviors are carried out under
self-focus producing conditions.
From a physiological perspective, differential levels of
arousal have been found in introverts and extroverts.
Eysenck
(1967) hypothesized that variations in introversion/extroversion
reflect individual differences in the functioning of the reticular
activation systems which is thought to be responsible for
producing nonspecific arousal in the cerebral cortex in response
to external stimulation.
On the basis of numerous laboratory
experiments, Eysenck postulated that introverts are more highly
aroused than extroverts given standard conditions of stimulation.
In one such experiment he assessed mean salivation increments of
five groups of male and female subjects, ordered according to
degree of introversion after placing four drops of lemon juice on
subjects' tongues.
Dimensions of introversion/extroversion had
been previously established by correlation on factor analysis
(Wilson, 1977)..
Wilson states that a fairly direct consequence of Eysenck's
arousal theory is that introverts would be more sensitive to
stimuli at all levels of intensity.
objective
self~awareness
From the perspective of
theory, there is some evidence that being
placed in a state of self-focus itself causes arousal (Carver &
Scheier, 1981: Paulus, Annis & Risner, 1978), but will introverts
sustain arousal longer than extroverts?
If Wilson's assessment
16
can be extended, introverts will sustain arousal when stimulated
in a state of objective self-awareness longer than extroverts.
These arguments form the basis of a fourth hypothesis.
Hypothesis D:
Over time, there will be a proportionately
greater decrease of self-blame for the extrovert than for the
introvert.
Method
A 2 x 3 x 10 mixed factorial design was used where the first
independent variable (A) was a between subjects variable of
personality type.
Tb assess a subject's degree of
introversion/extroversion, this study used the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator.
In the hope of creating homogeneous groups of
personality type, the analysis separated the subjects into three
levels:
extrovert, extrovert/introvert and introvert.
The second independent variable (B) was also a between
subjects variable of objective self-awareness vs. non-objective
self-awareness with resultant negative discrepancy between
real/ideal self. Subjects in the experimental group were seated in
front of a large reflecting mirror.
mirror was present.
In the control group, no
This manipulation has been used by Duval and
Wicklund to insure unavoidable self-focus.
The third variable (C) was a within subjects variable of ten
separate hypothetical situations on which attribution of
self-blame was assessed.
Table 1 of the Appendix contains the
attribution of responsibility situations.
Subjects
Subjects were 90 female volunteers, drawn from a university
subject pool..
17
18
Procedure
The procedure is an adaptation of a study conducted by Duval
and Wicklund and reported in their original theoretical
presentation (1972).
When both subjects arrived for the experiment, they were told
that they were being asked to help test a questionnaire being
developed by a professor in the Psychology Department.
First, one
of two experimenters administered the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory
(MBTI) to both subjects.
No mirror was present.
Subjects were
assured that there were no right or wrong answers on this
questionnaire and that they were being asked to make a choice
between equally valuable alternatives.
Although the MBTI estimates a proportionate E/I split in the
general population of 75/25, university student populations have
an E/I split of 60/40 for women.
For the first two weeks of
testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either the mirror or
no-mirror condition where self-blame on the ten hypothetical
situations was ascertained.
During the third week of testing, to
equalize the number of subjects in the cells of the between
subjects segment of the experiment, the MBTis for each pair of
subjects were scored before subjects placement in either the
mirror or no-mirror condition.
19
Two experimenters were used in the second part of the
experiment.
Each experimenter tested one subject in either the
mirror or no-mirror condition.
Experimenters were counterbalanced
between conditions.
Once seated, subjects were asked to imagine that they were
one of two people in each hypothetical situation. Their task was
to assign responsibility for negative outcomes.
Detailed
instructions to subjects for this part of the experiment are
presented in Table 1 of the Appendix.
Situations were randomly presented on 3 x 5 index cards, but
their sequence for each subject was recorded for later tabulation.
Each card was read by the experimenter so that subjects in the
mirror condition would not be distracted from the manipulation.
Subjects were partially debriefed and directed to inquire
further for complete debriefing when the study was finished.
Results
Analysis of variance with repeated measures was performed
through BMDP2V using default strategy which performs an unweighted
means analysis when sample sizes in cells are unequal.
Sample
sizes, shown in Table 2, came out fairly close to each other.
The assumption of normality of DV scores was evaluated for
each DV through BMDPAM and were found to be normally distributed.
There was, however, tremendous variability on each DV;
attributions of self-blame ranged between 0% and 100% on each
situation.
No univariate outliers were found on the basis of
extreme z-scores partially because of this extreme variability.
The assumptions of homogeneity of variance and covariance were
evaluated through BMDP2V.
The value of sphericity had a p ;>.05
which indicated that repeated measures ANOVA was tenable.
Research hypotheses A, B and C were tested by ANOVA 1.
The
order in which the ten situations were presented to each subject
was random so that some situation might appear in third place for
one subject.and in ninth place for another subject, etc.
percentages of attribution to the self appear in Table 2.
of ANOVA are presented in Table 3.
Hean
Results
None of the effects of the
ANOVA was significant.
Research Hypothesis D was tested by ANOVA 2.
This analysis
was identical to ANOVA 1 with the exception that responses for
situation 1 through 5 were averaged as Trial 1 and responses for
situations 6 through 10 were averaged as Trial 2.
20
Mean
21
percentages of attribution to self from this analysis are
presented in Table 4.
significant.
None of the effects of
M~OVA
2 was
The source table for ANOVA 2 appears in Table 5.
ANOVA 3 through BMDP2V \'las performed so that a comparison
with Duval and Wicklund (1973) and Buss and Scheier (1976) could
be made.
This analysis used the same situations, (DVs 6, 7, 8, 9,
10) in the same order as Duval and Wicklund and Buss and Scheier.
Situational sequence had been recorded for each subject so that
these six cold be pulled for this analysis.
(It will be recalled
that Buss and Scheier (1976) tested individual differences of
self-consciousness using these same hypothetical situations in a
mirror/no-mirror manipulation).
in Table 6.
Means from this analysis appear
The source table for the ANOVA appears in Table 7.
22
Table 2
Mean Percentages of Attribution to Self - ANOVA 1
Situation
Extrovert
Extro/lntro
NM
M
(n=14l
(n=18l
Introvert
M
NM
(n=15)
(n=15l
<n=14l
M
Cn=14)
55.71
51.79
56.07
54.67
65.00
47.00
2
43.57
48.93
47.64
55.28
51.33
54.27
3
63.21
55.00
52.50
57.78
50.87
62.00
4
42.29.
70.00
74.29
58.89
49.67
56.67
5
67.93
49.64
47.50
56.94
59.00
51.33
6
57.50
46.79
64.64
56.56
48.33
54.13
7
41.57
51.79
58.86
63.61
49.00
63.67
8
48.57
56.43
75.71
64.33
53.00
73.00
9
58.57
48.29
45.29
63.83
51.00
63.67
10
71.43
46.79
55.00
50.00
35.33
47.33
55.04
52.54
57.75
58. 19
51.25
57.31
NM
comb! ned
23
Table 3
Summary of ANOVA 1
Source of Variance
Mirror/No Mirror (A)
ss
OF
396.72
MS
F
396.72
.30
Persona I I ty (B)
3181.84
2
1590.92
1.21
Ax B
2757.56
2
1378.78
1.05
110715.86
84
1318.05
9126.88
9
1014.10
1.07
S/AB Error
Situations (C)
AX
c
8480.17
9
942.24
.99
B
C
15909.33
18
883.85
.93
23435.76
18
1301.99
1.37
718213.35
756
950.20
X
AX B
X
c
CxS/ AB Error
24
Table 4
Mean Percentage of Attribution to Self - ANOVA 2
Persona I I ty
1. Extrovert
n
No Mirror
14
M
n
Mirror
14
55.04
52.54
(I terns ( 1- 5)
54.54
55.07
(items (6-10)
55.53
50.02
2. Extro-1 ntro
14
3. Introvert
M
15
58.19
15
51.25
57.31
(Items 1- 5)
55.17
54.25
(Items 6-10)
47.33
60.36
53.15
54.93
comb! ned
{1 and 3)
53.79
18
57.75
M
Combined
54.28
25
Table 5
Summary of ANOVA 2
Source of Variance
Mirror/No Mirror (A)
ss
DF
79.34
MS
F
79.34
.30
Persona II ty (8)
636.37
2
318.18
1.21
Ax B
551.51
2
275.76
1.05
22143.17
84
263.61
S/AB Error
Items (C)
2.61
2.61
.01
Ax C
53.36
53.36
.28
c
271.10
2
135.55
.72
804.58
2
402.29
2.15
15733.01
84
187.30
B
X
AX BX
c
CxS/AB Error
26
Table 6
Comparison of Mean Percentages of Attribution
Main effects of mirror/no mirror
Source
n
Duval and
Wicklund
11
Buss and
Scheler
Present
Study
No Ml rror
n
Mirror
Tall Prob.
51.09
10
60.20
.02*
26
54.00
27
60.00
reported
non-slg.
43
57.93
47
61.26
Interaction of personality and mirror/no mirror
Buss and
Scheler
Private Self-Consciousness
Low
NM
comb! ned
Present
Study
comb! ned
53.00
(n=13l
53.30
Extrovert
NM
57.97
(n=23)
58.91
High
M
54.00
(n=17l
M
59.84
<n=24l
NM
M
55.00
66.00
(n=10)
(n=13l
60.50
Introvert
NM
M
62.69
57.88
(n=20)
(n=23)
60.29
.23
27
Table 7
Summary of ANOVA 3
Source of Variance
Mirror/No Mirror
ss
OF
MS
F
249.42
249.42
1.47
Persona I i ty
42.38
42.38
.25
Interaction
48.36
48.36
.29
Error
14547.24
86
169.15
Discussion
None of the hypotheses
were~supported.
Although marginal
means from Tables 2 and 4 are in the direction of the first two of
this study's hypotheses
A) introverts tend to blame themselves
more than extroverts and B) ratings of self-blame are greater for
an individual when in a state of objective self-awareness), the
differences were not reliable.
Because the attempt to experimentally ascertain the
attribution of self-blame for extroverts and introverts in a state
of objective self-awareness was novel, no direct comparison for
this study's results are available.
A pilot study for this
research had, however, field tested 19 managerial level
individuals from a large corporation on the personality variable
only.
The MBTI and responses to the ten hypothetical situations
\'lere self administered.
t-leans for percentage of self-blame were
57.21 and 65.00 for extroverts and introverts respectively.
Results of this pilot study, along with the significant
effect of a personality variable found by Buss and Scheier (1976),
had been encouraging for finding an effect for E/I in the present
study.
Although the study by Buss and Scheier (1976) failed to
find significance on the overall effect of the mirror and
no-mirror manipulation, Duvall and Wicklund had reportedly
achieved significance with this manipulation on more than one
occasion (Duval & Wicklund, 1972, 1973).
28
29
Perhaps the major cause for this
study's failure to find
significance for either main effect lies within the population
tested.
It is obvious that people are not all alike.
In
searching for the causes of behavior, the social sciences must
always be aware of these individual differences and deal with them
in research strategies.
Unfortunately, when within group
variability cannot be properly controlled, it can mask the effects
that seek to measure differences between groups.
CSUN is a commuter university, serving a diverse metropolitan
population.
Ethnocentric Asian, Middle-Eastern and Hispanic
cultures are highly represented in the university's subject pool,
along with middle and upper-middle class Blacks and Whites.
This
extreme variability may have served to mask the effects of E/I.
In contrast, the University of Texas, from which Duval and
Wicklund drew tl1eir population in their 1972 study, is a large,
wealthy, pre-vocational oriented university, totally integrated
into the small city (population
= 400,000)
of Austin.
student population, at present, is four percent.
The foreign
Buss and Scheier
drew their population from Carnegie Mellon, a small, private, very
competitive university on the outskirts of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Their
foreign student population in 1980 was 346
in an undergraduate population of 5500. 1
Had the extreme variability been anticipated, a more
sensitive design, using two within subjects variables, could have
been used.
Had all subjects experienced both the mirror and
1 university profiles were provided by the college guidance center
at Mira Costa High School in Manahattan Beach, California.
30
no-mirror conditions, instead of being randomly assigned to one or
the other, the within subject variance would have been reduced. A
latin square design, counterbalancing the two averaged DVs (Trial
1 and Trial 2) would have reduced the error variance even more by
effectively removing position effects.
Hypothesis C stated that effects of objective self-awareness
are greater for an extrovert than for an introvert.
this study do not support this hypothesis.
Results of
Indeed, cellular means
from Tables 2 and 4 suggest the opposite effect.
It appears that
overall, the extrovert is unaffected by mirror induced self-focus.
This result can be compared to the finding by Buss and Scheier
(1976) that there is no effect of mirror induced self-focus for
those low in private self-consciousness (see Table 4).
Hypothesis D stated that over time, there will be a
proportionately greater decrease of self-blame for the extrovert
than for the introvert.
Attributions of self-blame for the first
five items were averaged separately from attributions of
self-blame for items six through 10.
Means are reported in
Table 2.
Once again, results fail statistically to support the
hypothesis.
Although the interaction is not significant by
conventional criteria, extroverts do decrease self-blame in the
mirror condition while introverts increase self-blame in the
mirror condition.
Perhaps the variability in scores masked any
effects that might have shown up with a more homogeneous
population of subjects.
References
Buss, D. M. , & Scheier, r.;:. F. (1976). Self-consciousness,
self-awareness and self-attribution. Journal of Research in
Personality, 10, 463-468.
Carver, c. s., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention
induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 17.
Duval, S. & Wicklund, R. (1972). A theory of objective
self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.
Duval, S. & Wicklund, R. A. (1973). Effects of objective
self-awareness on attribution of causality. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 1r 17-31.
Eysenck, s. & Eysenck, H. (1967). Salivary response to lemon
juice as a measure of introversion. Perceptual Motor Skills,
24, 1047-1053.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private
self-consciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, !l(4), 522-527.
Ickes, W., Wicklund, R, & Ferris, C. (1973). Objective
self-awareness and self esteem. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1r 202-219.
Jung, c. G. (1976). Psychological types (Vol. 6). The collected
works. Princeton: First Princeton/College Paperback printing
with corrections.
Myers, I., & HcCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the
development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator.
Paulus, P. B., Annis, A. B., & Risner, H. T. (1978). An analysis
of the mirror-induced self-awareness effect. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 12.
Pervin, L. (1980). Personality: Theory, assessment and research
(3rd ed). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Piaget, J. (1969).
Books.
The mechanisms of perception.
New York: Basic
Shapiro, K. & Alexander, I. (1975). The experience of
introversion: An integration of phenomenological, empirical
and Jungian approaches. Durham: Duke University Press.
31
32
Shaw, M. & Costanzo, P. (1974). Theories of Social Psychology.
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Sinha, A., & Ojha, H. (1963). An experimental study of the
operations of prestige suggestions in extroverts and
introverts. Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 29-34.
Wicklund, R. (1975). Objective self-awareness. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. B. New
York: Academic Press.
Wicklund, R., Hormuth, s. (1981). On the functions of the self: A
reply to Hull and Levy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 1029-1037.
Wilson, G. (1977). Introversion/Extroversion. InT. Blass (Ed.).
Personality variables in social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965).
269-274.
Social facilitation.
Science, 149,
il
APPENDIX
33
.
34
·•·
Table 1
Instructions to Subjects for Part II.
In this part of the study, you are again asked to answer some
questions. These questions are actually hypothetical situations
and you are asked to imagine yourself in each of the situations
presented. Each hypothetical situation consists of two people
plus an outcome or event that would occur during the course of the
situation.
Please respond to each of the situations by indicating the
extent to which either you or the other person in the situation
would be responsible for the event in question. Please make sure
the combined percentages total 100 percent.
For example, when I ask you to estimate the extent to which
your behavior caused the event to occur and the extent to which
the other's behavior caused the event to occur, you might say
20 per cent for yourself and 80 per cent for the other or it might
be 60 percent to 40 percent or 40 percent to 60 percent. You can
use any combination of percentages as long as they add up to 100
percent • . Do you have any questions about what we are doing?
(Duval & Wicklund, 1973).
Attribution of Responsibility Situations
1.
You're diving off a diving board and just as you dive
off, someone swims up from under water and you land on top of
him/her.
2.
You're driving down the freeway when suddenly the
occupant of the car in front of you slams on the brakes and you
run into the back of the car.
3.
You're taking a test and you notice that the person
sitting next to you is copying every one of your answers. You
don't say anything or cover your paper. Pretty soon the teacher
takes up both papers and gives you both an F.
4.
You have to have a serious operation and the doctor
you've hired is reputable, but he's never performed this type of
operation before. You decide to let him proceed with the
operation, but afterwards you have severe internal bleeding, and
you're in much worse shape than you were to begin with.
35
5.
You have to get to campus one night, and you could walk
in about 20 minutes, but you've been working all day and you're
pretty tired, so you decide to hitchhike. Instead of taking you
to campus, the person who picks you up beats you up, takes all
your money and drops you on the other side of town.
6.
You pull up behind a bus that's stopped at a stop sign
and you want to turn right at this intersection. After waiting
for two minutes or so, the bus hasn't moved. Finally, not knowing
what it's going to do, you decide to pull out around it and have
to cut back in front to turn right at the corner. Just as you do,
the bus pulls out and runs into you.
7.
You bought a new shirt about a week ago. You've worn
it a few times so it needs washing. There are no directions on
the material from the manufacturer telling how to launder it, so
you go ahead and wash it like you usually do. Afterwards when you
put it on it's three sizes too small and the colors have faded.
8.
You have an 8:30 class and you're there every morning.
You have a report due the last Monday of classes and you've known
about it. One day you cannot possibly drag yourself out of bed,
so you stay horne. On that same day, the teacher changes the date
of the assignment to the Friday before that Monday. When you
return to class that Friday, you don't have your assignment and
your grade is lowered.
9.
You have a book checked put of the library and it's due
in about two days. A friend of yours wants to borrow it, so
instead of returning it, you let her use it. About three months
later you receive a notice that the book has never been returned
and you owe a huge fine.
10.
You're driving down the street about five miles over
the speed limit when a little kid suddenly runs out chasing a ball
and you hit him.
(Duval and Wicklund, 1973)