Thesis (Ph. D.)--Lehigh University, 1997. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-110).

Thesis--Catholic University of America. / Published also as Catholic University of America. Educational research monographs, v. 15, no. 3. Bibliography: p. 37-38.

Thesis--Catholic University of America. / Published also as Catholic University of America. Educational research monographs, v. 15, no. 3. Bibliography: p. 37-38.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1972. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1946. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 50-51).

This study was designed to test the theoretical interpretation of the Field-Independence Dimension of intellectual functioning. Witkin (1962, 1964, 1965) and Silverman (1968) proposed that consistent individual differences, which were found when subjects responded to the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) and the Embedded Figures Test (EFT), reflected differences in ability to analyse a complex perceptual field and to resist the attraction of irrelevant elements of the field. Field-independent (FID) subjects were thought to be highly analytic and highly resistant to distraction whereas field-dependent (FD) individuals were thought to be overwhelmed by the complexity of the perceptual field. Elliott (1961) suggested that the responses of field-independent and field-dependent persons were determined by brain function and were not affected by the nature of the perceptual field. A discriminant identification task was designed so that the effect of variations in stimulus input could be studied in relation to FID, intermediate (N) and FD groups of subjects. The subjects were 96 male volunteers who were divided into FID, N and FD groups on the basis of their combined scores on the RFT and EFT. They were presented with complex visual arrays and were asked to focus upon a designated part (or item) of each array. Their task was to name a feature of the designated item which distinguished that item from all other items on the array. The stimuli were altered in three specific ways: firstly there were either three or six separate items; secondly each item carried either three or six attributes (e.g. shape, size and colour of the central figure, colour of the background, number and design of borders); thirdly the subject's chance of finding a correct response by "luck" (chance) could be either one in three (high) or one in six (low). Thus the amount of input that the arrays carried was varied in two ways (items, attributes) and the need to analyse complexity was also varied (probability of chance success). The response measures were latency of response and the number of errors. On the basis of Witkin's and Silverman's interpretations, increases in the amount of stimulus input or in the need for stimulus analysis should cause differential changes in the response latencies and error scores of FID, N and FD subjects. The FID-Group should show least increase in latencies of response and in error scores and the FD-Group should show the greatest increase on these measures. The response latencies and error scores of the N-Group should increase to an intermediate degree. The alternate interpretation which Elliott proposed generated the prediction that changes in stimulus parameters would not cause differential changes among FID, N and FD groups. According to this author, all changes on response measures should be of the same magnitude and in the same direction. The results of the study supported Elliott's interpretation of Field Independence. There was no interaction between increased stimulus input and level of field dependence, or between decreased probability of success and level of field dependence. The results showed that there were significant differences among the FID, N and FD groups with respect to latency of response (.025) and error scores (.05). The differences were in the predicted direction. Changes in the amount of stimulus input and in the probability of success by chance were also reflected in significant differences in response latencies (items, p<,001; attributes, p<.001; probability of success, p<.001). Error scores were a less sensitive measure of stimulus manipulations. There was a significant effect, in the predicted direction, which was due to probability of success (p<.001), but the other significant effects (items, p<.05; attributes, p<.001) were in the opposite direction to that which had been predicted. Fewer errors were made when the amount of stimulus input was increased. When the amount of stimulus input was varied, the number of errors appeared to be a function of the latency of response. Less than 10% of responses were error responses. It was concluded that differences between FID, N and FD groups do not reflect differential responsiveness to external stimulation, and it was suggested that more attention should be paid to consideration of the manner in which stimulus inputs are processed. / Arts, Faculty of / Psychology, Department of / Graduate

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Kent State University, 2007. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Nov. 21, 2007). Advisors: Donald L. Bubenzer, Martin J. Jencius. Keywords: individual psychology, Adlerian psychology, social interest, BASIS-A. Includes bibliographical references (p. 126-140).

M.A. (Counseling Psychology) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Grossarth-Maticek and colleagues presented longitudinal evidence for personality Type being related to disease. Type 1s (cancer prone) and Type 2s (CHD prone) were proposed to be dependent on others, in contrast to the autonomous Type 4s, who had a lower mortality rate at follow-up. Stress was the mechanism proposed to account for the effects of personality on disease, yet this claim has not been systematically investigated. Four studies compared responses of Type 1, 2 and 4 individuals to stress and non-stress tasks. Types 1 and 2 showed increased salivary cortisol responses to an uncontrollable maths stress task (relative to control) compared to Type 4s, and scored higher on perceived stress, state-anxiety, and measures of negative mood, consistent with the implications of the Grossarth-Maticek hypothesis. No significant differences were evident between the Types in response to progressive muscle relaxation, suggesting stress is necessary for Type differences to emerge. Further, Types 1 and 2 responded differently to different stressors (maths vs. exam), arguing against criticisms that Types 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. The relation between Grossarth-Maticek Type subscales was further clarified through their correlations with each other (controlling for mood, stress and social desirability), and with the Lifestyle Defense Mechanisms (LDM) inventory, a psychometric refinement of the Grossarth-Maticek scales. A prospective study examining mortality rates in a sample exposed to environmental noise stressors revealed no prediction of death or cause of death by Grossarth-Maticek Type. This may have been due to the relative youth of the sample, short (7 year) follow-up period, and consequently low death rate. The current research is the first to show different responses to different stressors between Types 1 and 2, and revealed converging evidence for the claim that stress is the mechanism for Type effects on disease. Additionally, theoretical issues in conceptions of stress, and models of the relation between the Types, stress and disease were considered. This project suggests that after a history of criticisms, the Grossarth-Maticek typology should be re-considered for its public health implications, and along with the LDM inventory, should be considered for further investigation of the relation between personality variables and disease.