Download Personality integration and the theory of open systems PDF

TitlePersonality integration and the theory of open systems
LanguageEnglish
File Size4.4 MB
Total Pages126
Document Text Contents
Page 1

PERSONALITY INTEGRATION AND THE THEORY OF OPEN SYSTEMS
A CROSS SUBCULTURALAPPROACH

By

MARTIN AMERIKANER

A DISSERTATION PRESENTEDTO THE GRADUATECOUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE
DEGREEOF DOCTOROF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1978

Page 2

ACKNOWLEDGiMENTS

Many people provided support and help at various

stages of this dissertation, from the discouraging initial

contacts with countless military and seminary institutions,

through my long distance, cross-country finish.

My entire committee was understanding and helpful

well beyond the limits I would have allowed myself.

Dr. Franz Epting, my chairman, was consistently

supportive, and most importantly, available, especially

during my two week write-a-thon.

Dr. Robert Ziller, my co-chairman, provided enthusi-

asm, support, and stimulating conversation, both during the

dissertation project, and throughout my graduate student

career.

Dr. Paul Schauble, my first counseling supervisor

and unofficial "training director," was an important teacher

and collaborator in many ways, and his use of imagery and

metaphor has had continuing growthful impact on my work as

a therapist.

Dr. Harry Grater was continually stimulating, sup-

portive, and challenging in all of our interactions, and I

thank him for each.

Though I worked less closely with Dr. Ellen Amatea,

she was consistently interested and enthusiastic about the

ii

Page 63

55

Page 64

56

Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations

for each of the dependent variables, categorized by Group and

by level of PI, as well as the total sample.

Table 5 presents the results of t tests performed on

the dependent variable scores for which directional, a priori

hypotheses had been made. The results indicate that the

complexity of the self-concept variable produced the only

scores on which the PI and contrast subjects differed in the

predicted direction. The Openness and PI subscale (TSCS)

scores approached significance (£ < .07), while all others

were clearly nonsignificant differences.

Hyp. 3: PI subjects, compared to contrast subjects,

will demonstrate greater complexity of the

self-concept by scoring higher on the Ziller

complexity of the self-concept instrument.

Table 6 presents the results of the ANOVA analysis

performed on the complexity of self-concept scores. The

results indicate a significant difference between levels of

PI in the predicted direction, giving support to Hypothesis

3. No significant differences between Groups and no signifi-

cant Group X PI interaction were found.

Hyp. 4: PI subjects, compared to contrast subjects,

will demonstrate greater cognitive differ-

entiation by having higher FIG scores on the

Bieri grid.

Page 125

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.

December 1978

Dean, GraduateSchool

Page 126

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 08553 0003

Similer Documents