The complex domain of personality has been subjected to numerous attempts at simplification through factor analytic techniques, but the results of these efforts have been somewhat disappointing to those who had hoped in this way to achieve major conceptual advances. Comparison of a sample of such studies often leaves the reader somewhat disheartened at the lack of continuity that he finds.Careful reviews, such as that of Eysenck (1953), suggest, however, that the picture may be less black than it seems. Eysenck stresses the frequency with which the same two major personality factors have been isolated by investigators working with very different kinds of instruments and variables. He points out that similarities in results are often masked by variations in rotation positions, or by failure to carry out second-order analyses of oblique solutions. Even when solutions are similar, differences in the conceptualization of the factors imply a greater disparity between experiments than actually exists.The first of the two recurrent factors observed by Eysenck suggests a dimension of ego-weakness vs. ego-strength, or, in Eysenck's terms, "general neuroticism" vs. "will." The second factor seems best defined by Jung's bipolar conception of introversion-extraversion (Jung, 1924; Eysenck, 19S3, p. 318).Factorial studies of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory have until recently failed to approximate this general trend. A recent volume by Welsh and Dahlstrom (1956, p. 264) lists eight factorial studies of the MMPI, and Welsh comments:1 This research was carried out under the direction of Robert F. Bales. The larger project of which the study is a part was facilitated by the Laboratory of Social Relations, Harvard. Funds were supplied by the Rockefeller Foundation.
In 1962, a group of U.C.L.A. sociologists conducted a survey of staff members of the California Department of Corrections. Data were gathered on staff attitudes in relation to job and insti tutional variation. Factor analytic reduction of 28 items measur ing authoritarian orientation, preference on severity of penalties, optimism or pessimism regarding treatment outcome, and pre ferred social distance vis-à-vis parolees, resulted in measures of authoritarianism, pessimism, social distance, and recommenda tions regarding treatment programs when security is affected. Cross tabulations of the factoral measures with the respondent's job and education were consistent with the hypothesis that cus todial jobs were more traditional in outlook than treatment positions. It was expected that differences in institutional setting would have an influence on staff views of management of inmates and probable outcome of treatment. To test this assumption, eight prisons were ranked on selected characteristics of their inmate populations according to age, criminal history, and prison be havior. Four types of prisons were delineated based on various combinations of these characteristics. It was hypothesized that staffs from institutions housing a rela tively large proportion of inmates involved in serious prison in cidents would be more authoritarian, pessimistic and distant to ward inmates than staffs at institutions with less volatile inmates. Also, the staffs at institutions holding older inmates with histories of prior commitments and parole violations would be more tra ditional in outlook than staffs at other institutions. Mean values of scores, combining all jobs, were averaged for each pair of prisons representing the four types of prisons. The results only partially confirm the hypothesis. All four scores showed significant differences by institution when tabulated sep arately. Pessimism is highest in prisons housing younger inmates with little prior confinement and few incidents. Readiness to withhold treatment is highest among prisons for younger (not older) men with incident rates. However, authoritarianism and social distance scores varied as predicted. Within prisons, jobs continue to differ significantly in expressed attitudes. The finding that pessimism is characteristic of prisons with young offenders and few incidents indicates a need for further study of institutional contexts, beyond the scope of this survey.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.