The Strelau Temperament Inventory as a Broad ... - CiteSeerX

Archrves ojClrnrcd Neuropsychology, Vol. 2, pp 307-327, 1987 O&37-6177/87 $3 00 + ,013

Prmted I” the USA All rights reserved CopyrIght ‘L 1987 National Academy of Neuropsychologlsts

The Strelau Temperament Inventory as a

Broad Classification System

James R. Barclay

Unrversny of Kentucky

The Strelau Temperament Inventory (STI) is an instrument designed by Jan

Strelau to measure broad characteristics of the central nervous system. In a study

reported here an Amerrcan version of it was admrnistered to a group of introduc-

tory psychology students, along with the 16PF test and an adJective check list.

The findings of this study suggests that the ST1 does measure high and low

reactrvrty m individuals and may have potentral uses for the classiftcatron of

temperament characteristics in indrvrduals, particularly as a process of determin-

ing approprrate learning or behavroral strategies designed to enhance learnrng.

There is a rising interest in the exploration and definition of the nature of temperament. Although American studies have by and large avoided the formulation of Allport (1961) viewing temperament as a biologically-anchored set of characteristics and concentrating on observed and psychometric properties associated with temperament, (Barclay, 1983a; Buss & Plomin, 1975; Thomas & Chess, 1977) recently there has been an effort to formulate what are the core notions of temperament in a round-table discussion between Goldstein et al. (1987). Some of the conclusions reached in this interactive session were: (a) the construct of temperament is helpful despite the inability to define precisely how it interacts with environmental influ- ences (one observer noted that we have the same problem with the construct of intelligence); (b) temperament includes elements of activity (energy, intensity, vigor and pace of movement in both speech and thought, but not their contents), (c) temperament is characterized by varying degrees of reac-

I am indebted to Dr. Robert Baker of the Psychology Department at the University of Kentucky

in making his class available for the testing involved in this study.

Requests for reprints should be sent to James R. Barclay, Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of Kentucky, 251 Dickey Hall, Lexington, KY 40506.

307

at Penn State University (Paterno L

ib) on September 11, 2016

http://acn.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

http://acn.oxfordjournals.org/

308 J R. Barclay

tivity, in terms of approach or withdrawal from stimuli, including emo- tionality and sociability; (d) temperament has its origins in biological predis- positions, and (e) temperament shows above all a unifying element in individual differences that tends to manifest a high degree of behavioral stability over time.

One of the major gaps in this symposium cited by one commentator, was the ignoring of the contributions of Eastern Bloc countries, particularly the work of Jan Strelau (1983). Strelau and other Russian and Polish colleagues have done a considerable amount of research relating to the properties of the central nervous system and temperament. Strelau has developed an inventory (The Strelau Temperament Inventory) that is anchored in physiological reactions. The purpose of this paper is to critique some of the research already done with this instrument and to report a study using a modified form of the ST1 along with an adjective check-list (Barclay, 1983a) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Test (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970; Krug, 1981).

RATIONALE

The Problem of Measuring Biologically-Anchored Characteristics

A great part of the difficulty in temperament studies is related to two problems. The first of these is the tendency of American psychometric research to foster a horizontal analysis of personality as most usually depicted in profiles. This approach tends to support an observational or empirical tradition in this country that views all traits as equal. This position also tends to analyze traits in terms of high and low scores and to classify individuals into categories or bins that are seen more or less to be permanent structures. Judgments about categories to be assigned are often part of an internal set of rules (take the highest three scales yielding a code) or fit the characteristics into a structural system based on another discipline (DSM- III, American Psychiatric Association, 1980).

An alternative approach is to view observable or empirical traits as specific manifestations of larger more centrally organized components of the central nervous system. This approach tends to view personality as hierar- chically-ordered and manifesting itself in dimensions that are subject to modification and change within a given range of biologically anchored components. This approach is much more relevant to the construct of temperament and is the one favored by Royce (1973, Royce & Mos, 1979), Powell, (1975), and Strelau (1983).

But when one chooses the hierarchical approach, the second problem is immediately evident, that is, how to determine psychometric properties of biologically anchored dimensions. Although no one really denies the fact




ownloaded from


Temperament Classification 309

that there are biological components to personality and behavior, the difficulty is identifying such characteristics from brain operation (Powell, 1979).

Given the fact that the brain appears to operate in a hierarchy of components that involve cell stimuli and response, assemblies that work together, interlocking components in terms of specific neural centers, hemispheres, and multiple enervation of parts to the whole, it is virtually impossible to match up any of the known sources of measurement, for example, electro- chemical ones, responsive behavior, and psychometrics, to any specific brain function. Thus as Powell has observed we are almost always constrained to make inferences about linkages between observed behavior and brain opera- tions.

Nonetheless, both British researchers such as Eysenck (1957, 1970) and Gray (1970, 1972) as well as the Russian and Eastern Bloc research reported by Strelau have tried to anchor empirically-observable characteristics to elements of the central nervous system. Strelau (1983, p. 117) argued with some Russian scientists over the question of whether psychologists should be concerned about central nervous system components. He points out that Pavlov’s use of the term “behavior” was in his thinking a synonym for “higher nervous activity.” Psychologists should be conversant with such processes states Strelau because the equilibrium between the organism and its environment is regulated through conditioned reflex activity that has its anatomical basis in the central nervous system. In addition, if we are to consider the research of Bandura (1977) and Kelvin (1969) it is most likely that our original (as well as continuing) behavior is shaped strongly by implicit interpersonal expectations imposed on us by our parents, peers, mentors, and models. These expectations provide a continual barrage of implied threats and social pressures, and it is most likely because of individual differences in arousal, excitation and inhibition that dispositional patterns of coping become stabilized over time.

Differences Between Eastern and Western Theories

Eysenck’s theory (1957, 1970) postulates direct neural connections relative to the constructs of extroversion and introversion. But his theory was advanced initially as a set of hypotheses. Eysenck maintains that extroverts differ from introverts, with respect to the speed with which excitation and inhibition are produced, the strength of excitation and inhibition obtained, and the speed with which the inhibition is dissipated. These differences are related to stimulus-response connections and properties of the physical structure of the brain. Individuals in whom excitatory potential is generated slowly and in whom excitatory potentials so generated are relatively weak, are predisposed to develop extroverted patterns of behavior; individuals in




ownloaded from


310 .I R. Barday

whom excitatory potentials are strong are predisposed to develop introverted patterns of behavior.

Crucial to the understanding of Eysenck’s theory is an understanding of what is meant by excitation and inhibition. Excitation concerns the ease with which impulses can travel from neuron to neuron in a very general sense, but it also includes the growth of connections between specific neurons (learning). Inhibition includes both Pavlov’s distraction by an external source or an internal gradual buildup of resistance to a conditioned reflex. Eysenck’s theory has been the most prominent Western view on the biological components and characteristics of temperament. And yet there has been a tendency to equate the biological components with psychometric properties. Thus, for example, extroversion and introversion are seen as points along a psychometric continuum. This leads in test interpretation to the categorization of individuals as either extroverts or introverts. Powell (1979) has faulted this tendency pointing out that one must consider excitation, inhibition, strength of arousal and intensity of arousal as a complex of interacting biological components that actually lead to a matrix of 32 cells, only one of which represents the classical introvert and another one the classical extrovert .

Soviet and Eastern Bloc researchers from Pavlov on have been interested in identifying the characteristics of temperament as a form of nervous system typology. Until recently, they have had little interest in relating this body of research to psychometrics. According to Strelau (1983) the work of Neby- litsyn (1972) has summarized Eastern Bloc studies by suggesting a division of nervous system properties into primary and secondary ones. There is much agreement on the primary properties, but considerable disagreement on secondary ones. Rather than take this discussion far afield, our focus will be with the primary ones.

The four primary ones are identified as strength, mobility, dynamism, and lability. Gilliland (1985, p. 161) provides a succinct description of these primary properties: “The strength property refers to the endurance of work- ing capacity of the nerve cells. Traditionally, the term strength of the nervous system has referred to excitatory neural process strength with reference to inhibitory neural process strength as such. Mobility is believed to reflect the speed in substituting one process for another, that is the ability to relearn or recondition rapidly. Lability represents a property that mediates the gen- eration or termination rate of nervous processes. The fourth property, dynamism, reflects the speed and ease of conditioned response formation mani- fested in the initial adaptation capacity of the organism” (italics are mine not the author’s).

Each of these four primary properties are derived from the two major components of excitation and inhibition. Thus each primary property represents (in psychometric terms) a continuum somewhere on an intersect be-




ownloaded from


Temperament CIassification 311

tween excitation and inhibition. One of the most important derived elements of Strelau’s formulation of these components is what he calls “balance” or a ratio of the sum of excitation responses divided by the sum of inhibition responses. The ratio obtained from these two major forces provides an index as to how individuals are governed in terms of their ability to do long-lasting and intensive work, and their ability to regain control and restrain them- selves from such activities. Individuals who have an equal excitation and inhibition thrust tend to show an index of 1 .OO. Individuals who are energetic and uninhibited tend to have an index greater than 1.00, and those who are more inhibited tend to have indices lower than 1 .OO.

The ratio score or what Strelau terms “balance” appears to provide a good means of distinguishing between high reactive and low reactive individuals. Although the comparison between Eysenck’s terminology and Stre- lau’s is not exact, individuals who are highly reactive (i.e., with low ratio scores and a poor balance between excitation and inhibition) tend to be introverts, sensation avoiders, more anxious with regard to punishment, more impulsive with regard to rewards, and more efficient in learning. Indi- viduals who are low on reactivity (i.e., with high ratio scores favoring con- siderably excitation over inhibition) tend to be extraverts, sensation-seekers, low anxious with regard to punishment, less impulsive with regard to rewards, and less efficient in learning.

A number of studies highlight differences between high reactive and low- reactive individuals. Kozlowski (1977) found in a study of decision-making that low-reactive individuals tended to favor precipitous and hazardous decisions, whereas high-reactive ones tended to be cautious. In terms of learning tasks where such tasks were analyzed as primary direct ones or auxiliary indirect ones that modify, enhance or explain the primary ones, Materska (1978) found that high school students who were low-reactive tended to favor the primary direct tasks over the auxiliary indirect and exploratory ones. On the contrary, high-reactive individuals tend to show more auxiliary responses. In addition, Strelau (1983) reported that low-reactive individuals tend more often to be mountain climbers, and glider pilots, basketball and volleyball players, and high-reactive individuals more often non-sportsmen.

Strelau ‘s Temperament Inventory

One of the problems in Eastern Bloc research is that studies of temperament involve physiological measures and laboratory situations. Given the thrust of research with central nervous system properties, Strelau formula- ted an inventory based as closely as possible on the findings of laboratory studies. He constructed a 150 item questionnaire that is derived mainly from laboratory research with central nervous system properties.

Since the common biological components recognized by many research-




ownloaded from


312 J. R. Barclay

ers were: strength of excitation, strength of inhibition and mobility, Strelau focused on these three major dimensions. He also included one secondary property which he called “balance” and was the ratio obtained when the score of inhibition was divided into the score of excitation.

Strelau defined strength of excitation as: “the ability to do long-lasting intensive work, speed of recovery after fatigue and intensive activity, persist- ence and ease in coping with obstacles.” Strength of inhibition is defined as “the ability to regain control, the ability to refrain from a given activity, and restrained speech.” Finally, mobility of the nervous system is defined as “ease of passing from one activity to another, ability to organize behavior in situations requiring different kinds of activity, and uninhibited social con- tacts” (Strelau, 1983, p. 116).

Strelau attempted first in the development of his instrument to associate his findings with laboratory experiments. Many of these experiments used measures of arousal and conditioning. This was certainly consistent with the work of Hebb (1955) and Berlyne (1960) and the formulation of Gray (1964) that suggested arousability to be at the source of high and low reactive individuals. In Eastern Bloc terminology a weak nervous system was equated with high reactivity and a strong nervous system with low reactivity. Though there are differences relative to the physiological mechanisms involved in such laboratory studies, it would seem that a consensus indicates that the reticular-formation cortex loop and the limbic system of the brain are the basic sources of the reactivity dimension (Strelau, 1985).

Strelau’s formulation of his inventory (STI) used the measures of excitation, inhibition, mobility and balance (ratio) that were consistent with laboratory research. There were four studies which directly related to the validity of his scales. He found that there were correlations between his scales and the referent extinction with reinforcement method as regards GSR (Khalik, 1972), strength of excitation measured in a CR eyelid procedure (Samonov, 1974) and two other studies that examined correlations done by Russian psychologists who compared the estimation of strength as diagnosed by the Strelau with the diagnosis of excitation and inhibition by the method of change of simple RT under repeated applied stimuli (Dorfman, 1976, Vyatkin & Chekirov, 1976). Strelau reports all correlations of ST1 scales with physiological measures to be significant at the .05 level or better (Strelau, 1983, p. 135).

In addition Terelak (1974) looked at pilots who had both high and low alpha indices and found that there were positive correlations between excitation and balance (suggesting that the higher the level of excitation, the higher the ratio score or preponderance of excitation over inhibition). Zar- zycka (1980) examined the ST1 scores of train drivers who have accidents and those who do not. She was able to identify 59 accident makers in a random sample of 174 drivers but also found negative correlations between




ownloaded from



excitation and balance, suggesting that the higher the excitation score, the lower the ratio score, thus leading perhaps to more rash decisions and impulsive behavior.

Recently, there have been other studies reported. Carlier (1985) did a factor analysis of Strelau’s scales and related them both to the Eysenck Personality Inventory and Cattell’s Anxiety Questionnaire. Gilliland (1985) presents data showing correlations between the STI, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Zuckerman sensation seeking scales. Relatively small samples of students were used in most of these studies. However, the ST1 excitation scale loads both on neuroticism and anxiety as well as inhibition and mobility, and for those who wish to identify the biologically based variable of excitation with specific psychometric variables, these findings appear problematic.

One of the major contributions of Strelau’s work is that he has attempted to anchor the psychometric properties of his inventory on laboratory research findings. In so doing, however, he has had to compromise one of the three major criteria of value in the methodological domain. This is precision. Every researcher has to attempt to meet the criteria of generalizability, precision and realism (Brinberg & McGrath, 1985). If one utilizes the laboratory, great precision and control of behavioral variables can be had. But the generalizability and realism of the findings are suspect. If one chooses the field setting, there may be more realism, and possibly more generalizability, but less precision. Notwithstanding this fact, Strelau’s inventory is more laboratory based than any other presently known instrument.

Thus far, in evaluating the STI, the European studies appear to be highly supportive of relationships to physiological studies. The studies of Carlier and Gilliland in relating the ST1 in a linear way to certain Western psychometric scales are somewhat ambivalent. This may well be that the ST1 is based on laboratory studies whereas many Western scales are derived from a logical-rational point of construction. Because of these conflicting findings, the present study sought to relate the ST1 to the 16 PF, perhaps the most rigorous of factor-analytic derived inventories and to the adjectival ratings section of the Barclay Classroom Assessment System (Barclay, 1983a) that forms part of a three-fold input to a multi-trait, multi-method approach to estimating temperament.

METHOD

The ST1 was translated into English as included in the appendix to Stre- lau’s (1983) book. Permission was obtained from the author to use the inventory. The English of the translation was British-English and was therefore slightly modified in certain words by the writer to be more consistent with the American usage of English. Two items were not appropriate to




ownloaded from


314 .l R. Barclay

American culture and were dropped. In this study, the two shorter forms were used and randomly distributed to the sample. One was called form A and the other form B. In addition to the STI, the 16 Personality Factor test was administered as well as an adjective checklist developed by Barclay (1983a) as a part of the Barclay Classroom Assessment System.’

The adjective checklist consists of a series of adjectives which are present- ed to the individual and the individual rates the extent to which the adjective is descriptive of his or her personal characteristics. For example, an individual would be asked whether the adjective “optimistic” could be applied to his or her behavior. A “yes” response would mean that the adjective is generally applicable and appropriate, a “no” response would mean that the adjective is seldom or never appropriate. A ? (question) response means that the adjective is sometimes appropriate. This same format is the one used by the STI. The adjectives are grouped into four scales: PHL, for phlegmatic or stable introverted traits; SAN, sanguine for extroverted stable traits; MEL, melancholic for introverted unstable traits; and CHL, choleric for extroverted unstable traits. The ST1 yields four scores: excitation, inhibition, mobility, and a composite ratio score which indicates the proportion between excitation over inhibition.

These three tests were administered to a group of 85 beginning introduc- tory psychology students at the University of Kentucky in the fall semester of 1985. There were 45 males and 40 females who completed all testing materials. The majority of these individuals ranged in age from 19 to 24. The testing was administered during class time and all students earned credit for the class by completing the STI, the 16PF, and the adjective check-list.

The data analysis included correlations between the 16 PF variables and the eight proceeding variables. It also included correlations with the second- order factors of the 16 PF and a factor analysis of all variables.

A comparison of the two forms of the Strelau Inventory indicated that there were no significant differences observed between them. Comparisons between males and females indicated that there were no significant differences between males/females in seven of the eight scales. The eighth scale, the ratio between excitation and inhibition, showed a significant difference between males and females. Therefore in computing T-scores for each of the scales, the total sample was used in all cases except the ratio score where separate sex norms were developed. For the 16PF, the raw scores were used for correlations. However, in the computation of second-order factors the separate published norms for males and females were used.

‘Supplementary materials including copies of the Strelau and Barclay Adjectival Ratings may

be obtained from the author. In addition, information on the tentative norms developed for these scales and a micro-computer program for estimating temperament dimensions drawn

from these sources may also be obtained.




ownloaded from


Temperament Classification 31s

RESULTS

Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of the correlations obtained between certain variables. For clarity purposes, only significant correlations are reported and those in a zero-order format. Table 1 provides a summary of zero-order correlations for the four adjective-checklist variables, and Table 2 provides a summary of zero-order correlations for the ST1 variables.

Table 1 provides some interesting information about the relationship of self-reported adjectives to the STI. Both stable scales (PHL and SAN) show positive correlations with the ST1 excitation scale, whereas the unstable scales (MEL and CHL) show negative correlations. The differences between the stable scales are also highlighted by the ST1 inhibition, mobility and ratio correlations. Introverted stable high scorers (PHL) tend to show a significant correlation with inhibition, but no significant correlations with mobility or the ratio score, suggesting that they are stable, controlled, not very flexible and balanced in their excitation and inhibition thrusts. Outgo- ing stable individuals (SAN) tend to show a high score on mobility, and higher ratio scores. The rest of the correlations suggest that this is because they are venturesome, outgoing, happy-go-lucky, self-assured, and relaxed.

The findings for the unstable scales (MEL and CHL) show that high scorers on these self-reported adjectives tend to have low scores on both inhibition and excitation. MEL is associated with apprehensiveness, tense- ness, passivity, and undisciplined behavior. CHL is associated with suspi- ciousness, tough-mindedness, and emotional instability.

Table 2 provides some descriptive analyses of what the ST1 dimensions appear to be related to. Excitation is associated with a high level of energy and it is also associated with high outgoing stable traits, the ability to shift, a venturesome uninhibited response association, internal stable traits, emotional stability, enthusiasm, assertiveness, competition, and self-sufficiency. It also shows a significant relationship to higher levels of inhibition. Other correlations reflect an experimental free-thinking approach, an outgoing warm-hearted, forthright, genuine, and relaxed stance towards others.

Inhibition appears to be closely related to introversion, but stable trait characteristics. It shows a significant relationship to emotional stability, to a tender-minded sensitivity to others, to mild characteristics, to a trusting and accepting point of view and to a relaxed stance. It is definitely not related to unstable behavior.

Mobility appears to be related to a large extent to extroversion, since a higher score on mobility tends to be associated with venturesome, bold, enthusiastic, assertive, aggressive, outgoing, and dominant behavior. Mobil- ity also shows a high relationship to excitation, and a tendency to be a joiner and follower in the sense that individuals with a high mobility score tend to be more socially attuned to others.




ownloaded from


TA

BL

E

1

Zer

o-O

rder

C

orre

latio

ns

for

Adj

ectiv

e Se

lf-R

atin

gs

PHL

(I

ntro

vert

ed-S

tabl

e)

SAN

(E

xtro

vert

ed-s

tabl

e)

ME

L

(Int

rove

rted

-Uns

tabl

e)

CH

L

(Ext

rove

rted

-Uns

tabl

e)

Var

iabl

e R

D

escr

tptto

n V

aria

ble

R

Des

crip

tton

Var

iabl

e R

D

escr

iptio

n V

aria

ble

R

Des

crip

tion

SAN

.6

6*

Q3

.42*

E

X

.40*

IN

36

A

.3

3

err

.27

2 ;2

-

.22

0 ~

.31

44

- .3

9 M

EL

~

.44*

CH

L

~ .5

7*

Ext

rove

rted

- St

able

C

ontr

olle

d ST

1 E

xcit

ST1

Inhi

b.

Out

goin

g C

onsc

ient

ious

D

epen

dent

Se

lf-A

ssur

ed

Rel

axed

U

nsta

ble

Intr

over

sion

U

nsta

ble

Ext

rove

rsio

n

PHL

.6

6*

H

.60*

E

X

.60*

A

.5

3*

MO

.5

0*

F .4

5*

:3

.40

.31

RA

TIO

.3

7

Ql

.25

Q4

- .2

6

0 -

.32

CH

L

p.35

Q2

- .3

9 M

EL

-

.53*

Intr

over

ted

Stab

le

Ven

ture

som

e ST

1 E

xcit.

O

utgo

ing

ST1

Mob

. H

appy

-go-

Luc

ky

Stab

le

Con

trol

led

ST1

Rat

io

Exp

erim

enta

l

CH

I

0 Q4

H

:3

A

MO

F H

Rel

axed

IN

Self

-Ass

ured

U

nsta

ble

Ext

rove

rsio

n G

roup

D

epen

dent

U

nsta

ble

Intr

over

sion

PHL

-

.44’

St

able

In

trov

ersi

on

EX

~

.52*

ST

1 Ex

cit

SAN

c

.56*

.44*

.4

0*

.22

~ .2

1 -

.25

- .3

3 -

.34

- .3

4 ~

.39

- .4

1*

~ .5

3 -

.58*

Ext

rove

rted

U

nsta

ble

Gui

lt-Pr

one

Ten

se

Uni

nhib

ited

Pass

ive

Und

isci

plin

ed

Det

ache

d ST

1 M

ob.

Sobe

r,

Seri

ous

Shy,

Thr

eate

ned

ST1

Inhi

b

Stab

le

Ext

rove

rsto

n E

mot

iona

l

ME

L

44

L

0 1 G

EX

SA

N

43

IN

C

PHL

~

.57*

St

able

In

trov

ersi

on

.41*

35

.2

9 -

.21

- .2

8 -

.32

- .3

5 -

.37

- .4

6*

Intr

over

ted

Uns

tabl

e T

ense

Su

spic

ious

A

ppre

hens

tve

Self

-Rel

iant

E

xped

ient

ST

1 E

xcit.

E

xtro

vert

ed-S

tabl

e U

ndis

ctpl

ined

ST

1 In

hib.

- .4

8*

Em

ot.

Inst

abili

ty

N=

85

*

=p

at

.OO

Ol;

all

othe

r co

rrel

atio

ns

stgm

fica

nt

at

.05

or b

ette

r.

at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on September 11, 2016http://acn.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from


TA

BL

E

2 Z

ero-

Ord

er

Cor

rela

tion

s w

ith

ST1

Scal

es

Exc

itatio

n In

hibi

tion

Mob

ility

R

atio

(B

alan

ce)

Var

iabl

e R

D

escr

iptio

n V

aria

ble

R

Des

crip

tion

Var

iabl

e R

D

escr

iptio

n V

aria

ble

R

Des

crip

tion

SAN

MO

H

PHL

C

E

F Q3

; A

:4

CH

L

0 ME

L

.60*

St

able

E

xtro

vers

ion

.59*

ST

1 M

ob.

.55*

V

entu

reso

me

.55*

ST

1 B

alan

ce

.40*

St

able

In

trov

ersi

on

.38

Em

ot.

Stab

i. .3

5 A

sser

tive

.28

Ent

husi

astic

.26

Self

-Suf

fici

ent

.26

ST1

Inhi

b.

.24

Exp

erim

enta

l .2

2 O

utgo

ing

- .2

1 Fo

rthr

ight

~

.24

Rel

axed

-

.32

Uns

tabl

e E

xtro

vers

ion

- .3

7 Se

lf-A

ssur

ed

- .5

1*

Uns

tabl

e In

trov

ersi

on

PHL

C

I EX

E

L

ME

L

CH

L

44

Rat

io

.36

Stab

le

Intr

over

sion

.2

8 E

mot

iona

l St

abili

ty

.27

Sens

itivi

ty

.26

ST1

Exc

it.

- .2

6 H

umbl

e-M

ild

- .3

0 T

rust

ing

- .4

0*

Uns

tabl

e In

trov

ersi

on

- .4

6*

Uns

tabl

e E

xtro

vers

ion

- .5

8*

Rel

axed

-

.62*

ST

1 B

alan

ce

H

EX

F PHL

R

atio

E

A Q1

.56*

V

entu

reso

me

.54*

ST

1 E

xcit.

.53*

E

xtro

vers

ion

.50*

St

able

In

trov

ersi

on

.34

ST1

Bal

ance

.32

Dom

inan

t .2

9 O

utgo

ing

.29

Exp

erim

enta

l

- .2

2 Fo

rthr

ight

-

.26

Follo

wer

EX

E

H

SAN

M

O

44

B

I IN

.53*

ST

1 E

xcit.

.44*

A

sser

tive

.39

Ven

ture

som

e .3

7 St

able

E

xtro

vers

ion

.34

ST1

Mob

.

.30

Ent

husi

astic

.2

8 E

xper

imen

tal

.25

Ten

se,

Dri

ven

- .2

8 C

oncr

ete

Thi

nkin

g -

.3 1

Se

lf-R

elia

nt

- .6

2*

ST1

Inhi

bitio

n

N=

85

*

=p

at

.OO

OI,

othe

r co

rrel

atio

ns

sign

ific

ant

at

.05

or b

ette

r,



318 .I R. Barclay

The ratio score shows some very interesting relationships. As will be recalled the ratio score is the product of the division of inhibition into excitation. Thus a low ratio (less than 1 .OO) would indicate that inhibition is higher than excitation and a high ratio score that excitation is higher than inhibition. High ratio scores are associated with higher levels of excitation, assertive aggressive behavior, uninhibited adventuresome behavior, external stable traits, higher levels of mobility and traits of enthusiasm, experimental free-thinking, tense and driven behavior. Higher ratios are also associated negatively with factor B of the 16 PF suggesting a concrete mode of thinking. Higher ratio scores are also characterized by high levels of tough-minded self-reliance and lower levels of inhibition.

Tables 3-5 present further analyses. Table 3 provides the correlations between ST1 scales and the second-order factors of the 16 PF. In addition the total positive adjective scales (PHL and SAN) were combined to represent TOT + and the negative scales (MEL and CHL) to represent TOT - . A second ratio score was obtained by dividing TOT - into TOT + (ratio 2).

Table 4 provides regressions run using the non-ST1 variables as dependent ones and ST1 mobility and ratio scores as independent ones. The ratio score was used in these analyses because it provides a composite of excitation and inhibition indices. Finally, Table 5 presents the varimax rotation of the factor analysis of the adjectival ratings, the ST1 scales and the 16 PF scales.

In Table 3 of primary interest is the fact that mobility appears to show an equal positive relationship both to the ST1 excitation scale and the 16 PF extroversion factor. It also shows a positive relationship to positive adjective descriptors and a negative relationship to anxiety. Thus it would appear that mobility is related to positive self-evaluation, and reasonably high levels of excitation and extroversion. The ST1 ratio score correlates positively with extroversion, but does not show any significant relationship to either anxiety or the composite ratio of adjectival descriptors. It would thus seem that the ratio score represents a variety of components that can be centered on the notion of flexibility, lack of rigidity and sensitivity to contextual settings.

The regressions suggest that both mobility and the ST1 ratio score show relatively good prediction of unstable or stable behavior. Perhaps this is so because these two sets of adjectives most directly reflect flexibility either in a negative way (MEL) or in a positive manner (SAN). From the rest of the regressions it is apparent that the ST1 ratio score shows a high degree of prediction for all of the 16 PF second-order factor scores.

Finally, the factor analysis in Table 5 identifies four factors: emotional stability, extroversion, activity, and what appears to be interpretable as a kind of driven compulsion. Mobility and the ST1 ratio score appear to load on factors 2, 3, and 4 whereas only the ST1 excitation score loads on factor 1. Such findings might suggest that emotional stability is more of a contextual dimension, influenced more often by social situations. If this interpreta-




ownloaded from


TA

BL

E

3 C

orre

lati

ons

Bet

wee

n ST

I,

2nd

Ord

er F

acto

rs

of

MP

F

and

Sum

mar

y A

djec

tive

Sc

ales

M

IN

EX

R

AT

IO’

EX

T

AN

X

TM

IN

D

TO

T +

T

OT

-

RA

TIO

*

Mob

ility

.0

6 .z

_3

J .5

3 -.2

4 .3

8 .2

5 .3

8 -

.28

.29

Inhi

bitio

n -

.27

- .6

1 -.

Is

-.42

-.G

-.G

.z

- .G

-

Exc

itatio

n -

.g

.44

-Z

.36

.z

- .4

8 .5

3

Rat

iolE

/I

- .4

2 .G

.C

I

.u

.56

.E

.25

.G

.G

Ext

rove

rsio

n -

- .2

3 .z

.x

.4

3 -

.29

- .0

6 -.4

2 .5

8

.z

Anx

iety

-

- .0

3 -

.z

Tou

gh

Min

dedn

ess

- .2

0 .1

8 -.G

.1

9

Inde

pend

ence

-

.22

- .I

8 -

.g

Tot

al

Adj

ectiv

es

+ -

- s9

- .F

T

otal

A

djec

tives

-

- -.8

4 R

atio

? T

OT

+ /

TO

T

- -

M

SD

M

SD

Mob

ility

28

.12

6.31

E

xtro

vers

ion

5.85

2.

27

Inhi

bitio

n 29

.72

6.45

A

nxie

ty

5.45

1.

80

Exc

itatio

n 30

.14

7.31

T

ough

M

inde

dnes

s 5.

69

2.13

R

atio

’ 1.

06

.34

Inde

pend

ence

5.

79

1.71

T

otal

A

dj.

+ 48

.71

6.31

T

otal

A

dj.

- 19

.67

7.85

R

atio

2 3.

00

1.56

Not

e.

Cor

rela

tions

si

gnif

ican

t at

.0

5 le

vel

or b

ette

r un

derl

ined

. p>

.O

l = 2

.67;

p>

.05

= 2

.05.

N

=

85.



320 J R. Barclay

TABLE 4 Summary of Regressions

Dependent Variable Predictors Coefficient Beta Wgt. Multiple RZ -

MEL (unstable introvert characteristics)

PHL (stable introvert Mobility ,008 ,161 characteristics) Constant 20.64

SAN (stable extrovert characteristics)

Mobility ,268 ,420 Ratio’ 2.654 .225 Constant 15.43

CHL (unstable extrovert characteristics)

EXTROVERSION (second- order 16 PF factor)

ANXIETY (second-order 16 PF factor)

TOUGH MINDEDNESS (second- order 16 PF factor)

INDEPENDENCE (second- order 16 PF factor)

Mobility Ratio’ Constant

Ratio’ Mobility Constant

Ratio* Sex Mobility Ratio Constant

Ratio2 Sex Mobility Ratio’ Constant

Ratio2 Sex Mobility Ratio’ Constant

Ratio’ 1.95 ,177 Sex 4.64 ,135 Mobility ,371 ,136 Ratio’ 6.84 ,135 Constant 27.48

- ,266 - ,388 1.811 .I43

15.39

3.05 ,229 - .163 - ,226 11.15

3.67 ,252 4.18 ,092 1.24 ,344

19.78 ,296 - 14.58

- ,656 - ,567 7.881 ,219

- ,442 - ,154 8.46 ,159

66.13

.849 ,062 10.98 ,258

.85 ,252 16.06 ,255 - 2.800

.365 ,133

.161 ,026

,540 ,292

,261 ,068

,643 ,414

3624 ,390

.498 .248

.346 .120

tion is accurate, the ST1 contributions to factors 2, 3, and 4 may reflect more trait characteristics than factor 1. Since Strelau (1983, p. 176) suggests that excitation is primarily a measure of reactivity, that is, determining the stability of reactions to different stimuli, with high reactivity being associated with low excitation, it is possible that factor 1 represents more of a set of state characteristics than traits. What this suggests is that patterns of stable and unstable behavior may be more susceptible to psychotherapy and change. Such a conclusion would favor the notion that extroversion, activi-




ownloaded from


TA

BL

E

5

Fac

tor

Ana

lysi

s (V

arm

imax

R

otat

ion)

Fact

or

1

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

Fact

or

2 Fa

ctor

3

Loa

ding

E

xtro

vers

ion

Loa

ding

A

ctiv

ity

Fact

or

4

Dri

ven

Loa

ding

C

ompu

lsio

n L

oadi

ng

C

Q,

EX

SA

N

L

CH

L

ME

L

44

0

Em

otio

nal

Stab

ility

C

ontr

olle

d E

xcita

tion-

activ

ity

Stab

le

Ext

rove

rsio

n T

rust

ing-

acce

ptin

g U

nsta

ble

Ext

rove

rsio

n U

nsta

ble

Intr

over

sion

R

elax

ed

tran

quil

.716

A

.413

.3

29

.308

-.

3ll

- ,3

97

- .5

57

- .6

32

Self

ass

ured

~

,761

F H

SAN

M

O

E QZ

Out

goin

g .7

29

EX

E

xcita

tion

.758

R

atio

’ R

atio

E

/l

,754

Hap

py-g

o-lu

cky

.633

M

O

Ven

ture

som

e/bo

ld

.586

H

St

able

,5

16

Rat

io’

Mob

ility

,3

82

F A

sser

tive/

,3

05

SAN

co

mpe

titiv

e Fo

llow

er/jo

iner

-.6

57

Q,

Mob

ility

V

entu

reso

me/

bold

R

atio

E

/l

Hap

py-g

o-lu

cky

Stab

le

Ext

rove

rsio

n

.591

Q

4 .5

86

E

.475

C

HL

,4

35

INH

,3

50

Ten

se

.394

A

sser

tive

Com

petit

ive

,332

U

nsta

ble

Ext

rove

rsio

n ,3

01

Inhi

bitio

n -

.848

Exp

erim

enta

l Fr

ee-t

hink

ing

Ass

ertiv

e C

ompe

titiv

e Fo

rthr

ight

/ ge

nuin

e U

nsta

ble

Intr

over

sion

,316

E

N

ME

L

,305

- .3

6l

- .3

82

Eig

enva

lue

%

Var

ianc

e %

Cum

ulat

ive

Var

ianc

e

5.49

3.

65

1.38

1.

27

39.2

26

. 9.

9 9.

1

39.2

65

.3

75.1

84

.2

Not

e.

Loa

ding

s of

.3

0 an

d ab

ove

repo

rted

. N

=

85.



322 J. R. Barclay

ty, and driven compulsion are more appropriately viewed as trait characteristics linked directly to the central nervous system.

DISCUSSION

From the data analysis it would appear that the Strelau scales can be clarified as to what they represent by the correlational analyses with the self- report adjectives and the 16 PF scales. Excitation is clearly related to stable behavior rather than being dichotomously associated with extroversion. There are a number of correlations that establish this fact. But a balance between excitation and inhibition appears also to be related to stable behavior. Clearly it would seem that excitation without some inhibition leads to hazardous and rash decision-making and most likely to poor interpretations of reality leading to unstable behavior. This is demonstrated in the significant negative relationships between CHL, and MEL and excitation. The same relationship exists with CHL and MEL and inhibition.

The factor analysis reported is also very interesting in that the factor structure of the adjective scales, the 16 PF and the ST1 is virtually identical with the common factor structure of the CPI and the 16PF determined by Stroup and Manderscheid (1977). In their first factor (general adjustment) the significant loadings from the 16 PF are 43, 0, 44, and L. All of these are included in the present factor analysis for factor 1. In addition, the Strelau Excitation scale correlates significantly with Q3, 0, and 44. Like- wise, for Stroup and Manderscheid’s (1977) second factor (extroversion-introversion) the significant loadings from the 16 PF are found in A, F, 42, and H. Excitation also correlates significantly with A, F, and H, and loads on this factor.

What is most interesting about this analysis is that by including the Strelau, the commonality of the base of the factor structure is extended. The CPI probably represents the best instance of a rationally-derived personality inventory. The 16 PF probably represents the best instance of a factor- derived personality inventory. By including the Strelau and arriving at virtually the same configuration of factors and components, a biologically-derived instrument is included. The conclusion that appears most warranted from this judgment is that personality inventories carefully developed from the rational, factor-analytic and physiological frameworks yield a set of common dimensions that provide a basis for a usable classification system in psychological assessment.

To illustrate the meaning of this last statement Figure 1 provides a two- dimensional nine cell grid to represent the descriptive dimensions of this classification system. The horizontal plane represents a broad categorization of extroversion versus introversion, and the vertical plane, good adjustment versus neurotic adjustment. Figure 2 provides the CPI, and 16 PF




ownloaded from


FIGURE 1. Interpretation of scales and factors loading on two principal common factors of the CPI, 16 PF, and STI.

scales that load on each of these cells. 16 PF variables that are underlined correlate significantly with certain Strelau variables, and those are identified in the footnote.

This broad classification system has two major implications for further research and study. First of all, by gradually identifying the components that exist in each of the extreme quadrants of this grid, and extending them to other tests and instruments, we may become more clearly aware of exactly what are the biological mechanisms involved. There is a general agreement today that the reticular-activating loop with involvement in the limbic system is at the core of differences in arousal, speed of reaction, and duration of reaction. There is also the hypothesis that such differences are really related to an abundance of brain connections in introverts or high reactive individuals, and a lesser number of such connections in extroverts or low


Cautious. Inhibited

Persistant. Ambitious.

Serious, Active, Introverted.

Anxious. Tender-Mmded.

Follower, Flexible, Controlled,

Low Reactive. HI Ratlo

Energetvz. Thorough,

Practical. Organtzed.

Aggresswe, Ambmous.

Responsible, Enthwatlc,

Extroverted, Self-Confident.

Tough-MInded. Leader,

Flexible, Controlled

Low Reactive, HI Ratlo

Cautious. Changeable,

MoodyJnhlblted, Restricted

I” Outlook, Defenwe.

Self-AbasIng, Introverted.

Anxious. Sensltwe.

Follower. RIgId,

High Reactwe, Lo Ratlo

Energetic. Impulwe,

Aggresswe. Ambltlous.

Restricted I” Outlook.

Defenwe, Demanding,

Inflexible,

High Reactwe, Lo Ratlo

Note. The two fwst factors of the common factor analysts are mdlcated

here The mterpretatlons are drawn from CPl.lEiPF. and STI scales




ownloaded from


324 J. R. Barclay

lntroverslon Factor 2 Extroversion

1% - SD 1.m +

CPI WB-,RE-,SC-, AC-.GI- CPI WB-,RE+.SC+, AC+,GI+

DO+,CS+,SO+,SP+.SA+ D)+,CS+.S)+.SP+.SA+

16PF a-.O+.Q~+,L+,~+,F+ 16PF m+,)-.aQ-,L-,n+,F+

Q2- H+ C- _*_* &- Q2- H+ C+ - 1-3 Extra+

Am+ TM- IND_

STI -‘-’

Am- TM+, IND+

M+.EX+.IN a” Ratlo a” STI -‘- M+,EX+.IN-, Ratlo+

Ad] PHL Ad1 SAN

CPI WB-,RE-SC-, AC-

GI-DO-,CS-,SO-,SP-

SA-

16PF Q3-.0+,(34+,L+&,F_

C- Q2+.H- a- t__* Am+ TM-. IND_

STI -‘- M-.EX-,IN+, Ratlo low

Adj. MEL

CPI WB+.RE+,SC+. AC+,Gl+

DO-,CS-,SO-.SP-,SA-

16PF Q3c.O.,a@-,L-

A- F- Q2+ H- -1-e_ _I Extra+

Am- TM+, IND+

STI -‘- M-,EX+.IN-, R&o+

Adj. CHL

Note. The two first factors of the common factor analym are Indicated

here The loadings for the CPI and 16 PF scales are from Stroup and Mandersheld

(1977). The factor scores of the 16 PF(2nd order) are Indicated

Those vmables underlined correlate also with various scales of the STI

FIGURE 2. Scales and factors loading on two principal common factors of the CPI, 16 PF, and STI.

reactive individuals. This appears to be substantiated by a number of studies that relate to lesions on emotional circuits or cingulectomies. Lesions have been reported to have inhibited emotionally instigated behaviors, and cingulectomies, using a stereotaxic freezing technique have reported marked im- provement in a number of cases (See Powell, 1979 for details of these studies). In addition, the redundance hypothesis seems to explain why depressants tend to accelerate introverted behavior, and stimulants tend to accelerate extroverted behavior (Powell, 1979).

As surgical procedures or therapy approaches are utilized, interventions




ownloaded from



could be more precisely related to such a classification system. In addition, the use of social learning procedures could be added to this framework, thereby building a more coherent set of data.

The second implication may relate at this time to interventions with school aged children. Strelau (1983) cites findings that: (a) with regard to poor grades given, individuals with low reactivity reacted by an increase in arousal, effort, and behavior, while those with a high reactivity tended to give up; (b) in terms of the use of defense mechanisms, individuals with low reactivity need them less, and those with high reactivity needed them more; (c) with regard to the need for stimulation, those with low reactivity needed this less, and those with high reactivity needed stimulation more; (d) with regard to Machiavellianism, individuals with low reactivity were more prone to such behavior and those with high reactivity less prone; (e) with regard to sensitivity and what Strelau terms “soft touch,” individuals with low reactivity were less likely to be sensitive and those with high reactivity were much more likely to manifest these characteristics; (f) in terms of aspiration level, low reactivity individuals showed a greater thrust than high reactivity children; and finally, (g) with regard to sensitivity-endurance, low reactive individuals were higher on endurance and lower in sensitivity while high reactive individuals were higher on sensitivity and lower on endurance.

Temperament is not a construct that can be ignored in dealing with adults or children. For the biologically-anchored characteristics of temperament specify a range of potential behavior and mediate learning. The Russian psychologist Merlin (1967, 1970) has made statements that are of the utmost importance to researchers concerned with maximizing learning in the schools. He has suggested that given the known differences in temperament characteristics: (a) we may either ignore such differences (with the conse- quences that stem from such ignoring) or (b) accommodate learning envi- ronments to temperaments (manifestly not very feasible), or (c) teach individuals how to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses and accommodate their own temperament styles to the demands of learning.

Barclay has argued that prevention in the sense of early intervention in differential strategies of learning and adjustment will not become a part of education until there is systematic methodology, that is, computer technology, to examine individual differences at an early age (Barclay, 1983~). Over the course of 25 years, Barclay has developed a multi-trait, multi-method system that can screen the temperament characteristics of classrooms of children by one testing (Barclay, 1983a, 1983b). A portion of this system was used in this study (the adjective check-list scales). In addition, in a later study (Barclay, 1987), the relationship of the Strelau to a sample of children tested on the Barclay Classroom Assessment System will be discussed with particular reference to the biological basis of sociometric choices.




ownloaded from


326 J. R. Barclay

SUMMARY

This study has looked at the relationship of adjectival ratings and the 16 PF to the Strelau Temperament Inventory. It is apparent from the analysis of the data that there are strong relationships between temperament components as identified by Strelau in terms of excitation, inhibition, mobility, and self-reported characteristics of stable and unstable extroversion and introversion. The complementary relationships expressed in this study provide a possible broad classification system for further research and development.

REFERENCES

.4llport, G. W. (1961). Pafrern and growlh m personalrfy. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Win-

ston.

American Psychtatrtc Association. (1980). Dlagnostrc and siarrstrcal manual of mental drsor-

ders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychtatrtc Association.

Bandura, A. (1977). Socral learning fheory. Englewood Chffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barclay, J. R. (1983a). Manual of the Barclav classroom assessment system. Los Angeles:

Western Psychological Services Inc.

Barclay, _I. R. (1983b). A meta-analysts of temperament-treatment interactions wtth alternative

learmng and counseling treatments, DevelopmenIal Review, 3, 410-443.

Barclay, J. R. (1983~). Movmg towards a technology of prevention: a model and some tentative

fmdings Inwted lead article for a special issue on personality assessment. School Psycholo-

gy Review, 12, 228-239

Barclay, J. R. (1987). The temperament basrs of socromelrrcperceplion. Manuscript in prepara- tion, University of Kentucky.

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brtnberg, D., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Vahdity and the research process. Los Angeles: Sage

Publications. Bus,. A. H., & Plomm, R. (1975). A remperament theory of personality development. New

York: John Wiley.

Carlier. M. (1985). Factor analysis of Strelau’s questionnatre and an attempt to validate some of

the factors. In J. Strelau, F. Farley, & A. Gold (Eds.), The brologlcal bases ofpersonahfy

and behavror (Vol. 1). Washington DC: Hemtsphere Publishing Co.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W. and Tatsuoka, M. N. (1970). Handbook of ihe 16PF. Champaign,

Ill.: IPAT. Dorfman, L. Y. (1976). The effect of music’s tempo and harmony on the dynamics of efficiency

restitution after physical overload, dependmg on the strength of the nervous system, B. A.

Vyatkin (Ed.), in Temperament andsport (Vol. 3). Perm [In Russian and cited from Strelau,

1983.1 Eytenck, H. J. (1957). Dynamics and anxrefv and hysferia. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul. Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personalrfv. London: Methuen.

Gtlliland, K. (1985). The temperament Inventory: relattonship to theoretically similar Western personality dimensions and construct validity. In J. Strelau, F. Farley, &A. Gale (Eds.) The

brologrcal bases of personahfy and behavror (Vol. 1). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publish-

tng Co. Goldsmtth, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M., Thomas, A., Chess, S., Hinde, R.

A., & McCall, R. B. (1987). Roundtable: what is temperament? Four approaches. Chdd

Development, 58, 505-529.




ownloaded from



Gray, J. A. (1964). Pavlov’s typology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Gray, J. A. (1970). The physiological basis of introversion-extraversion, Behavior Research and

Therapy, 8, 249-266.

Gray, J. A. (1972). The psychophysiological nature of introversion-extraversion: A modifica-

tion of Eysenck’s theory. In V. D. Nebylitsyn & J. A. Gray (Eds.), Ecological bases of

rndrvidual behavior. New York and London: Academic Press.

Hebb, D. 0. (1955). Drives and the C.N.S. (conceptual nervous system). Psychologrcal Revrew,

62, 243-254.

Khalik, A. V. (1972). The influence of different sources of stress on the sportsman’s kinesthetic

sensitivity in relationship to strength of the nervous system. In B. A. Vyatkin (Ed.), Temper-

ament andsport (Vol. 1). Perm [In Russian and cited from Strelau, 1983.1

Kelvin, P. (1969). The bases of social behaviour. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kozlowski, C. (1977). Demand for stimulation and probability preferences in gambling deci-

sions, Polish Psychological Bullefin, 8, 67-73 [Cited in Strelau, 1983).

Krug, S. E. (1981). Interpreting 16 PFprofflepatferns. Champaign, IL: IPAT. Materska, M. (1978). [Arttcle in Polish cited in Strelau, 1983.1

Merlin, V. S. (1967). The interrelation between social-typological and individual factors in

personality. Voprosy Psrkhologii, 13, 34-43 [In Russian].

Merlm, V. S. (1970). The relationship between type and individual features of temperament. Voprosy Psikhologii, 16, 21-27 [In Russian].

Nebylitsyn, V. D. (1972). Fundamental properlies of the human nervous system. New York &

London: Plenum Press.

Powell, G. (1979). Brain andpersonahfy. New York: Praeger.

Royce, J. R. (Ed.), (1973). Multivariate analysrs and psychologrcal theory. London & New

York: Academic Press.

Royce, J. R., & Mos, L. P. (Eds.). (1979). Theoretrcal advances in behavror genefus. Alphan aan den Rijn, the Netherlands: Sjthoff and Noordhoff.

Samonov, A. P. (1972). The influence of nervous system properties on activity in extreme

conditions. In B. A. Vyatkin (Ed.), Temperamenr andsport (Vol. 1). Perm [In Russian and

cited from Strelau, 1983.1

Strelau, J. (1983). Temperamenf, actrvrfy, personality. London & New York: Academic Press.

Strelau, J. (1985). Diversity of personality dimensions based on arousal theories: Need for

integration. In J. T. Spence & C. E. Izard (Eds.). Personalrty dimensions based on arousal

theorres. North-Holland, the Netherlands: Elseviere Science Publishers.

Stroup, A. L., & Manderscheid, R. W. (1977). CPI and 16 PF second-order factor congruence.

Journal of Clinrcal Psychology, 34, 1023-1026. Terelak, J. (1974). [Article in Polish cited from Strelau, 19831. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and developmenl. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Vyatkin, B. A., & Chektrov, M. M. (1976). Typologtcal differences in the Influence of compett- ttve stress on voluntary regulation of activity in wrestlers and individualization of voluntary

training. In B. A. Vyatkin (Ed.), Temperament and Sporf (Vol. 32) Perm [In Russian and

cited from Strelau, 1983.1 Zarzycka, M. (1980). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Warsaw. [Cited in Strelau, 1983.1

Nofe. In the interests of accuracy in the development of the physiological bases of the Strelau inventory, some citations are listed and cited from Strelau’s book. Some of these citations were simply not available to the author even through the U.S. Library of Congress.




ownloaded from


The Strelau Temperament Inventory as a Broad ... - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of The Strelau Temperament Inventory as a Broad ... - CiteSeerX