The purpose of this study was to compare the differences in energy commitments between a group of more actualized individuals and a group of less actualized individuals. Level of self-actualization was determined by means of the Personal Orientation Inventory by Everett Shostrum and energy commitment level was assessed by means of an individual interview developed by Hollis and Hollis. The study was an investigation along lines of theory in energy commitment by Hollis and Hollis.Energy commitment as defined in this study is the planned use of time and energy directed toward the maintenance or accomplishment of some level of desired action or feeling. Energy commitment is divided into three general categories: direction, strength (thrust), and flexibility. The direction category was subdivided into three subcategories: people, objects, and ideas. Further subdivision of the major category of thrust yields the categories of priority of commitment, force of commitment, and amount of energy necessary for maintenance of commitment.The population selected to be inventoried by the Personal Orientation Inventory was required to be female, thirty years old or less, a senior at Ball State University, caucasian, unmarried, Indiana resident, and not engaged in student teaching or internship during the quarter of the study. One hundred fifty students who met the criteria were inventoried to establish a range of actualization scores. The actualization score was a combination of inner directed scale and time competence scale raw scores from the POI. The students with the highest twenty-five scores were known as the more actualized group and students with the lowest twenty-five scores were known as the less actualized group. Each of the fifty individuals was assessed by means of a standardized individual interview to determine her energy commitments.Eight hypotheses were proposed relating to the difference between groups based upon direction of the commitments, force of the commitments, amount of energy required to maintain the commitments, flexibility of the commitments, and hypothetical energy commitments.The treatment of the data included use of t-Tests to compare the mean values of each group on sub-categories, chi square in assessing significance of differences in frequencies, and subjective observation of differences in summaries of results.No differences which could be labeled significant were found when the direction, force, amount, and flexibility categories of the two groups were compared. The two groups differed in the events which could hypothetically interfere with energy commitments. No significant difference was found in the conditions which kept each individual from committing hypothetical energies. Both groups saw the antecedents which brought about their energy commitments similarly. When boundaries and restrictions were removed which would limit the individual, the groups were very dissimilar in the hypothetical energy commitments identified.None of the t-Test and chi square results were statistically significant at the .05 level. However, a thread of similarity was maintained in all categories in the difference between the two groups and their commitments to objects when the means of groups were compared on commitment priority, force, amount of energy required to maintain the commitment, and flexibility. This was a finding which was neither hypothesized nor expected in the comparatively large amount observed. This finding led the investigator to indicate the need for a measure of energy commitment of greater refinement with which the nature of the observed differences could be subjected to closer scrutiny.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/175846 |
| Date | January 1971 |
| Creators | Dickson, Sam W. |
| Contributors | Hollis, Joseph W. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | vii, 116 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds