Selections from Unpublished PIT Dissertations

Motivation Analysis is looking for a few good minds

New - an essay discussing basic problems of world cultures: "The Combative Dominance Syndrome"

Four unpublished dissertations that used the Picture Identification Test (PIT) provided data for this report. The college student groups selected for study in these dissertations varied in levels of adjustment. For all the analyses in this report, the normal or better adjusted groups were expected to have motivation structures more like the PIT target model than the less well adjusted groups. (For background information about the PIT target model and procedures for obtaining the motivational structure of a group or an individual, see The Synchronic Motivation System and the Target Model. For those who can't tear themselves away from this page we present a brief synopsis of this material below.)

A pair of needs with very similar ratings across the 12 PIT stimulus pictures produce a closely associated need dyad (pair of needs) whereas two needs with opposite ratings produce a distantly associated dyad. There are, of course, many degrees of dyad similarity between the extremes. The 22 PIT needs produce a similarity matrix of 231 dyads. A subject's association dyad scores form a matrix that can be used for multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis. MDS analysis determines the number of dimensions that best account for the variations within a similarity or distance matrix. The PIT target model is based on the association matrices of 800 normal subjects (400 female; 400 male). This model is relatively culture and gender free. Since the differences between male and female models were slight, male and female models were combined for the target model. Deviations from the PIT target model have consistently predicted deviations from normal behavior (see PIT Publications). The target model has three dimensions (see The Synchronic Motivation System). Each of the 22 PIT needs has a location in the motivation system designated by its locations in the three dimensions. This is analogous to locating objects in space. For example, the room you are in has three dimensions and any object in the room can be located by its position in the front-back dimension, the left-right dimension, and the up-down dimension. Each of the three PIT motivation dimensions has been named according to the arrangement of the needs in the dimension. For example, the combative dimension has combative needs at one end and noncombative needs at the other end; the personal-social dimension has personal-social needs at one end and impersonal needs at the other; the competitive dimension has competitive needs at one end and noncompetitive needs at the other (see PIT Target Model).

Thirty-one pairs of groups that had different adjustment levels between the pair were selected from four dissertations The INDSCAL multidimensional scaling analysis was applied to the need association matrices of each group. INDSCAL finds a dimensional structure for the combined similarity or distance matrices of a group. A deviation score was computed for each group. The deviation score for a group was the sum of the (absolute) differences between the 22 target model need locations for each dimension and the group MDS need locations. The deviation scores were used to compare pairs of groups for differences from the target model. The hypothesis of this meta analysis was: For two groups differing in adjustment level, the more poorly adjusted group would have a greater deviation score than the better adjusted group. All groups compared were drawn from the same dissertation and were of the same sex. The 22 PIT needs produce a similarity matrix of 231 dyads. The dissertation adjustment levels for the groups were used to predict closeness to the target model . For example, from the Gold depression-suicide study (see below for group descriptions) the normal control female group was expected to be less pathological than the depressed female group and therefore the normal group should be closer to the target model. In turn, the depressed female group was expected to be less deviant than the suicidal female group and therefore the depressed group should be closer to the target than the suicidal group.

Predictions were made for 31 pairs of groups. Predictions were correct for 27 of the pairs (87%) and incorrect for 4 pairs. Assuming chance prediction would be 50%, the ratio of correct to incorrect prediction was highly significant. (Chi Square = 15.6; df = 1; p < .001). In addition to the total deviation score, a deviation score for each of the three dimensions was computed. For the combative dimension, correct prediction was 87% (Chi Square = 15.6; df = 1; p < .001). For the personal-social dimension, correct prediction was 71% (Chi Square = 4.64; df = 1; p <.05). For the competitive dimension, correct prediction was 74% (Chi Square = 6.32; df = 1; p < .02). The results are analyzed more specifically below. Viewers who develop vertigo, migraine, or other psychosomatic symptoms when exposed to such detail may skip to section "So What" or they can turn to other thoughts and activities from which, we hope, they will return at some future time.

Dissertation: A personal need system analysis of parasuicidal behavior in male and female college students by Edward S. Gold, completed at William and Mary in 1985. There were six adjustment rated groups in the Gold study: Group 1 Female Normal: A group of 50 college females screened to exclude those with any history of psychiatric or psychopathological disorders. Group 1 Male Normal: A group of 50 college males; same selection process as for Group 1 Female Normal.. Group 2 Female Depressed: A group of 50 college females selected from Counseling Center and Medical Center clients who were treated for depression without suicide intent or history of attempt. Group 2 Male Depressed: A group of 50 college males with same selection process as for Group 2 Female. Group 3 Female Suicidal: A group of 32 college females selected from Counseling Center and Medical Center clients treated for suicide attempt. Group 3 Male Suicidal: A group of 16 college males with same selection process as for Group 3 Female. For each sex, Normal groups were compared with Depressed and Suicidal groups and Depressed groups were compared with Suicidal groups. Considering the normal groups to be the best adjusted and the suicidal groups the least well adjusted, all six of the predictions were correct except that male depressed students had higher target deviation scores than did male suicidal students.

Dissertation: An analysis of the personal need systems of obese college freshmen by Lila L. Annaloro, completed at William and Mary in 1986. Obese college students were assumed to be less well adjusted than average weight college students. Weight classifications were based on the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company weight tables. Obese subjects were at least 15% above average for their gender and height. Average weight students were in the 45% to 65% mid weight range for their gender and height. There were two studies of groups from two different admission years. Female Average Weight. Study 1 N = 49; Study 2 N = 45. Male Average Weight: Study 1 N = 44; Study 2 N = 59. Female Over Weight: Study 1 N = 25; Study 2 N = 18. Male Over Weight: Study 1 N = 27; Study 2 N = 23. The deviation score results were as expected in three out of the four paired comparisons. The exception was that the female obese Study 1 group was closer to the target model than the female average weight group. The Sikes-Nova Interpersonal Adjective Scale - Revised (IAS-R) Discrepancy Study Dissertation: The relationship between needs and interpersonal problems of women in four interpersonal categories by Valarie Sikes-Nova, completed at William and Mary in 1989. Seventy five female clients in four Virginia University Counseling Centers and 22 counselors participated in the study. Subjects were assigned to groups by the discrepancy between self vs. counselor IAS-R Intensity Scores. Those who agreed with their counselor regarding the intensity of their problems were placed in the Equal Group (N = 39); those who rated themselves more negatively were placed in the Negative Group (N = 21); and those who rated themselves more positively were placed in the Positive Group (N = 15). The Equal Group was considered to be the best adjusted of the three groups with the Negative Group second and the Positive Group third. The Positive Group was considered to be the most deviant on the assumption that their overly positive self appraisal (relative to the counselor's evaluation) would hinder self- improvement efforts. The Equal Group was closest to the target model with the Negative Group second and the Positive Group third. Thus, all three results were as predicted.

Dissertation: The personal need systems of college students: An analysis of the poorly adjusted freshman by Kenneth M. Saad, completed at William and Mary in 1990. All subjects were administered the Picture Identification Test as entering freshmen. Study 1 and study 2 subjects were from different entry years. Normal Group subjects had no record of clinical, academic, or disciplinary problems through their junior year. Clinical Group subjects received counseling at sometime during their first three years. Discipline Group subjects were subjected to disciplinary action during their freshman-sophomore years (there were insufficient female disciplinary cases to form a meaningful female group). Academic Problem Group 1 students had one or two semesters of academic probation in their first five semesters. Academic Problem Group 2 students had three or more semesters of academic probation in their first five semesters. Group data are as follows: Female Normal Groups: Study 1 N = 161; Study 2 N = 195. Female Clinical Groups: Study 1 N = 42; Study 2 N = 24. Female Acad. Prob. 1 Groups: Study 1 N = 36; Study 2 N = 36. Female Acad. Prob. 2 Groups: Study 1 N = 14; Study 2 N = 18. Male Normal Groups: Study 1 N = 161; Study 2 N = 126. Male Clinical Groups: Study 1 N = 30; Study 2 N = 12. Male Acad. Prob 1 Groups: Study 1 N = 33; Study 2 N = 45. Male Acad. Prob. 2 Groups: Study 1 N = 35; Study 2 N = 27. Male Discipline Groups: Study 1 N = 61; Study 2 N = 41. Comparisons were made between the following pairs of groups. The better adjustment level group is listed first. Predictions that proved to be incorrect are marked with asterisks. Female Normal Study 1 vs. Female Clinical Study 1. Female Normal Study 2 vs. Female Clinical Study 2. Male Normal Study 1 vs. Male Clinical Study 1. Male Normal Study 2 vs. Male Clinical Study 2. Female Normal Study 1 vs. Female Acad. Prob. 1 Study 1. *** Female Normal Study 2 vs. Female Acad. Prob. 1 Study 2.*** Male Normal Study 1 vs. Male Acad. Prob. 1 Study 1. Male Normal Study 2 vs. Male Acad. Prob. 1 Study 2. Female Normal Study 1 vs. Female Acad. Prob. 2 Study 1. Female Normal Study 2 vs. Female Acad. Prob. 2 Study 2. Male Normal Study 1 vs. Male Acad. Prob. 2 Study 1. Male Normal Study 2 vs. Male Acad. Prob. 2 Study 2 Female Acad. Prob.1 Study 1 vs. Female Acad. Prob. 2 Study 1 Female Acad. Prob.1 Study 2 vs. Female Acad. Prob. 2 Study 2 *** Male Acad. Prob. 1 Study 1 vs. Male Acad. Prob. 2 Study 1.*** Male Acad. Prob. 1 Study 2 vs. Male Acad. Prob. 2 Study 2. Male Normal Study 1 vs. Male Discipline Study 1. Male Normal Study 1 vs. Male Discipline Study 2. As indicated above, only two of the sixteen predictions were incorrect.

This study shows that the degree of deviation of group motivation system structures from the PIT target model can predict differences in group adjustment levels. As you can tell from the dates of the dissertations used in this meta analysis (1985 - 1990), the data were collected and analyzed some time ago. Since that time, clinical use and statistical analyses have extended these findings considerably. Not only can target model deviations of groups indicate differences in degree of adjustment or pathology between groups but the motivation structure of individuals can also be reliably analyzed for degree of pathology. What is most important: The location of deviations in an individual's motivation system can point to which dimension is most conflicted and which needs in a dimension are the greatest sources of conflicts. Such information can be very helpful in collaborative therapy and counseling.

The Picture Identification Test (PIT) is a psychological instrument based on the Murray need system. The PIT uses multidimensional scaling to provide an analysis of needs (motives). It indicates needs that are being met or expressed ineffectively. The PIT can be administered to subjects ages twelve and older.

• Motivation Analysis - Theory developed from Picture Identification Test research and from the general systems point of view.
• Essays - Observations and thoughts about motivation, beliefs, values, purpose and meaning.
• Needs (Motives) - Discussion of 22 Murray based needs as they relate to three major motivation dimensions.

For further information about the Picture Identification Test contact
Jay L. Chambers, PhD: ibis@kalexres.kendal.org
160 Kendal Drive Apartment #205
Lexington, Virginia 24450
Phone: 540.462.3874

The Motivation Analysis web site has three sections:

Motivation Analysis: General Systems Point of View | Combative Dimension | Personal Social Dimension | Competitve Dimension | PIT Scores | PIT Publications | PIT Dissertations | Motivation System Target Model | Target Model Reliability | GPA Predications | Need & Cluster Definitions | Links

Essays: Combative Dominance Syndrome (new) | Political Motivation | Mental Sets | Symbolic Thinking, Values, Motivation & Religion | Needs, Values, Philosophy & Religion

Needs (Motives): Abasement | Achievement | Affiliation | Aggression | Autonomy | Blame Avoidance | Counteraction | Defendance | Deference | Dominance | Exhibition | Gratitude | Harm Avoidance | Inferiority Avoidance | Nurturance | Order | Play | Rejection | Sentience | Sex | Succorance | Understanding

URL: http://www.overbooked.org/motivation/ma/dissertations.html

Hosted by Overbooked (Book Links) on Central Virginia's Community Online.
Overbooked is a volunteer project undertaken by Ann Chambers Theis,
Collection Management Administrator, Chesterfield County (VA) Public Library
P.O. Box 297, Chesterfield, VA, 23832. Phone: 804.748.1760.