Alexandra Wiltshire Thesis Self Esteem & Need For Approval PDF

SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
FACULTY OF ARTS
Self Esteem and the Demand for

Approval in Theatrical Performers
by
Alexandra Pauline Carroll Wiltshire
1991/1992
SUBMITTED IN PART1A1- FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

TILL GRADUATE D J P L O M A EN Af-PLlED PSYCHOLOGY
SWINBURNE LIBRARY
'
03001015^2
SELF ESTEEM AND THE DEMAND FOR APPROVAL
IN THEATRICAL PERFORMERS
Alexandra Pauline Carroll Wiltshire

Bachelor of Science
AY413
Thesis Submitted: 1991/92
Supervisor: Mr Roger Cook

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study was to determine whether there is a relationship between
3elf-e3teem, the need for approval and membership of specialised occupational groups in the
performing arts. The sample consisted of four groups currently employed as (1) Pit
musicians (2) Onstage Performers (including actors, singers and dancers)
(3) a group of financially-oriented workers (consisting of bankers, accountants, and related

financial occupations) and (4) members of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra.
Subjects completed a 20-minute pencil-and-paper questionnaire which included:
a modified version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Index, the Demand for Approval factor from
the Irrational Beliefs Test, the Rosenberg Sensitivity to Criticism scale,
the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale, and two subscales of the Fenigstein
Self-Consciousness scale. It was hypothesised that there would be groups differencesin levels
of self-esteem , demand for approval and sensitivity to criticism , and that due to the
"socially-sensitive" nature of the variables, a social desirability response and different levels
of private and public self-consciousness between groups may affect the results. Without
considering possible confounds, very few of the primary hypotheses were statistically
significant, most results falling just outside accepted probability levels. A significant negative
correlation was found , however, between self-esteem and the demand for approval ,
corroborating a similar finding by Daly & Burton (1983). Onstage performers and pit
musicians had statistically significant higher mean levels of private self-consciousness

compared with non-performers. A significant positive correlation was found between self-
esteem and social desirability suggesting the confound was affecting the responses. Further
interpretation of this response set was carried out using median-split percentage
comparisons, due to small cell frequencies preventing further parametric computations .

3
Other significant results included some supplementary findings across the total sample.
Those who spent time alone and recall feeling lonely as a child had significantly lower
self-esteem levels and higher private self-consciousness levels than their counterparts.
Those rating maternal career approval a3 important had significantly higher mean levels of
the demand for approval factor, the private self-consciousness variable and the sensitivity to
criticism factor than other subjects. Discriminant validity was evidenced in the lack of a
significant correlation between the social desirability variable, often seen as "a need for
approval*, and the demand for approval factor .

4
DECLARATION
i declare that this report does not incorporate without acknowledgement any materia]
previously submitted for a degree in any University, College of Advanced Education, or other
educational institution; and that, to the best of m y knowledge and belief, it does not contain any
material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is
made in the text.
I further declare that the ethical principles and procedures specified by the Psychology
Department's document on human research and experimentation have been adhered to in the
p re pa rati o n of t hi s re po rt.
A.P.C.Wiltshire 20/1/1992
ACKHOWLEDGEHEHT
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of cast and orchestral members of the
Australian stage production of 'The Phantom of the Opera' , members of the Mel bourne
Symphony Orchestra, Kim Trengove and associates, and performers at the Australian college
of Entertainers for their Willingnes to participate in the present study.

CONTENTS
Page No.
TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CONTENTS 6
INTRODUCTION 7
Background Psychological Research 8
Performer-Focussed Research 12
Rationale 24
Methodological issues
- Social Desirability 25
- Self-knowledge 27
Research Design 29
Hypotheses 29
- Primary 30
- Secondary 31
Demographic Variables 32
METHOD Subjects
Procedure 34
Materials 35
RESULTS Reliability coefficients 41

Primary Variables 42
Social Desirability Response Set
and its effect on main variables 46
Self-knowledge variable 61
Social Factors 67
Demographic Variables 69
Factor Intercorrelations 71
Supplementary Findings 72
DISCUSSION 77
REFERENCES
tt - rt, J
7
SELF ESTEEM AND THE DEMAND FOR APPROVAL IN THEATRICAL PERFORMERS
You look at all the great painters, great musicians, people who in some way affect the rest
of society through entertainment or through their art, and often they 're quite faulted as
individuals. In fact, its the faults that work for them.
Chris Haywood ( Trengove, 1991)
There are certain intrinsic requirements, for most occupations that pre-select the type
of person intending to perform them . Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1973)
on the personality of artistic performers .
*********
Self-e3teem and the demand for approval in performers
What makes someone choose performing as a career? What motivates an individual to spend
between 10 and 20 years learning a specialised craft, often with little financial support and
limited opportunity for employment at the end of the "apprenticeship"? Is it merely talent and
ambition, or are there emotional needs that spur someone on to a performing career?
Further more, is the choice of a career performi ng on stage i n front of an audience night after
night, indicative of a need for attention or recognition, hitherto unavailable from other
sources? Could this apparent preference to 'be in the spotlight" suggest a lack of 'inner
approval' or low self-esteem? These and other analogous questions provided a general
framework within which the present study evolved.

Background Psychological Research
The choice of a particular occupation is an expressive act which reflects a persons
motivation, knowledge, personality and ability ' (Holland ,1985). Holland's theory of
vocational choice (Holland, 1985a ;1985b) holds that different occupations require
'different abilities, identifications, values and attitudes'. Rather than merely a set of isolated
work functions or skills, an occupation is viewed by Holland as encompassing a certain way of
life, an envi ronment which can "furnish different ki nds of gratifications or satisfactions"
(Holland ,1985). To the extent that an individual perceives their own abilities, values and
attitudes as commensurate with a particular career path and to the extent that this career will
meet the individual's needs and offer acceptable gratification, an occupational choice will be
made (Brockner ,1988). All things being equal, an individual can then presumably assess his
needs, wants and abilities appropriately , and choose a career path accordingly. However,
many other situational or external variables may affect the ultimate manifestation of that
decision. Social pressures from family members, friends, or society at large may channel
individuals into careers that are personally alien to them. Alternatively, market conditions
may force a choice of vocation less desirable and incongruous with these needs and abilities.
Korman (1966; 1967) has suggested that vocational choice i3 affected not only by external
factors as previously mentioned, but also by internal factors, in particular, an individual's
self-esteem. The construct of self-esteem has been defined in a variety of different ways,
with a reasonable concensus of opinion pointing to the existence of two types : global and
situation-specific self-esteem . Situation-specific (Brockner, 1 9 8 8 ) or 'outer self-esteem'
(Campbell, 1 9 9 0 ) refers to temporary feeli ngs of self- regard that vary over situations,
roles (Burke ,1980), feedback (Ditte3, 1 9 5 9 ) , events and the reflected appraisals of others
(Hewitt & Goldman, 1974; Coopersmith , 1967).

9
Self-esteem ctd
Global or trait self-esteem is defined as an inner personal judgement of worthiness
(Campbell, 1990), a self-evaluation (Tesser & Campbell, 1983, in Campbell, 1990), that
appears to form relatively early in the course of development, remains fairly constant over
time (0"Malley & Bachmann,1983) and is resistant to change (Epstein,1983, in
Campbell, 1990). Certai n people show a generalised tendency to eval uate thei r identities,
behaviours and cognitions positively, whereas others do not (Brockner, 1988).
Many personality theorists have primarily focussed on the factors and processes which
specifically influence the development of self-esteem and seern to agree (Brockner, 1988)
that "early experience" has a major impact on personality development in general, arid self-
esteem in particular (Rosenberg, 1979). Several empirical studies (Coopersmith,1967;
Gecas & Schwalbe,1986; Peterson, Southworth & Peters, 1983) have shown that the more
parents foster a psychological climate that heightens childrens' perception of their own
competence and or worthiness, by granting them a reasonable amount of autonomy, by being
supportive, and by spending "quality time" with them , the more likely they are to develop
high global self-esteem (Brockner, 1988). Without such a supportive environment, low
levels of self-esteem can easily result.

10
Studies which have primarily investigated the connection between self-esteem and
occupational choice (Brockner, 1979a ; Brockner, 19?9b ; Brockner, 1985) and
self-esteem as predictive of job-3earching tendencies (Ellis & Taylor, 1983) have generally
occurred within the area of organisational psychology . The results of such empirical research
have shown that a multitude of factors, both internal and external to individuals may affect the
choice of a particular occupation. Korman ( 1 9 7 0 ) suggests that individuals act and think in
ways that reinforce, or are consistent with, their existing level of self-esteem.
High self-esteem individuals therefore are seen to differ from their low self-esteem
counterparts in the ways that they think, feel and behave (Brockner , 1988). I n one study
(Shamir, 1986), low 3elf-esteem subjects were found to be more willing than high
self-esteem subjects to consider job offers that compromised their needs about two important
features of their job: professional content and level of pay. In another study (Korman , 1968),
it was found that of industrial foremen low in self-esteem were more likely to report that
their parents supervised their jobs and tasks than were the foremen high in self-esteem.
In this instance, one could hypothesise that the external (parental) influence may have had a
greater impact on the vocational choice of the low self-esteem subjects as compared with the
high self-esteem subjects. From this type of research, it appears that high se1f-e3teem
subjects are more likely to base their vocational choice on internal factors , or their own
self-evaluation, whereas low self-esteems' choices and behaviours can be viewed as more
influenced by external factors . Brockner, Derr, & Laing (1987) caution, however, that it
may be misleading to hypothesise that self-esteem causally effects occupational choice and
notes that most studies that incorporate self-esteem as an independent variable are
correlational in nature. Indeed, 3elf-esteem has generally been considered as an interactive
(ie. self-esteem x situation) rather than a main effect determinant of individual's work
attitudes and behaviour (Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Misehel, 1973).

11
The tendency of certain individuals to be easily influenced by external factors has been coined
"behavioural plasticity'(McGui re, 1 9 7 2 ) . This theory derives from a social psychological
framework and proposes that individuals' attitudes and behaviours will be influenced by
external cues to the extent that individuals attend to those external cues, comprehend the
meaning of those cues, and yield to the cues. Linking behavioural plasticity with self-esteem,
it is proposed that persons lacking self-confidence or certainty in their own beliefs and
behaviours may be more likely to be attentive to external or social cues, regard these cues as
guides for appropriate thought and action, be more adept at extracting greater understandings
of the cues' meanings and be more yielding (Brockner ,1988) or 'behaviourally plastic" than
their high self-esteem counterparts. Several studies (Dittes, 1959; Brockner, Derr & Laing,
1987; Shrauger & Sorman, 1977 ) have indicated that' attentiveness" or reactions to
negative appraisals or cues given to subjects by other group members were considerably
heightened in those with low self-e3teem when compared with those of high 3elf-esteem. It
may also be reasonable to suggest that those with low self-esteem may be reactive to negative
external or social cues in the form of criticism ( Rosenberg, 1965).
Se?t:->*sfo?m jntff&e>Jtyr$ptvM/
It could be hypothesised that those with low self-esteem may wish to avoid negative appraisals
that serve to " heighten* or reinforce their negative self-evaluation and seek ways of eliciting
more positive evaluations for themselves. One way to elicit such positive evaluations might be,
by their own reasoning, to conform to, or be influenced by, the beliefs and behaviours of
significant others (Jones, 1964). Proponents of self-presentation theory (Snyder ,1981,
in Brockner, 1988; Baumei3ter, 1 9 8 2 ) argue that 3ome individuals often go to great lengths
to portray particular images of themselves in the minds of significant others.
It is reasoned that low self-esteem individuals would 3eern to have a greater need for others"
approval than high self-esteemed subjects and therefore are more likely to engage in a self-
presentational strategy of conformity by going along with or being influenced by the behaviour
and attitudes of significant others.

12
Self-Esteem and Approval ctd.
A similar notion was proffered by Crowne & Marlowe (1964) in describing the disposition to
conduct oneself in a socially desirable fashion to be commensurate with a 'need for approval",
accordingly assessed by responses on a social desirability scale. Indeed, in a study (Hewitt &
Goldman, 1974) using this measure in combination with evaluations, both positive and
negative, from "strangers" (experimental confederates), those with high scores on both the
Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy te3t( 1954) and the Crowne-Marlowe measure of social
desirability showed similar reaction patterns to those subjects who reported having low self-
esteem. Ina later study (Daly & Burton, 1983), "demand" (not defined a3 "need") for approval
was one of four specific irrational beliefs (Ellis ,1969; Jone3 ,1968) found to be useful
predictors of low self-esteem, as measured by the Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale

(Janis, 1954; Eagly, 1967).
Performer-Focussed Research
Previous psychological research using performers1 as subjects has spanned several
perspectives,including: cognitive-behavioural (Steptoe & Fidler ,1987),social

psychological (Lipton, 1987; Young & Col man, 1979) and personality (Taft ,1961;
Bell &Cresswell, 1984; Kemp, 1981a ;1981b ;1981 c; Kemp ,1982). The present author
found research to be rather sparse in the area of interest for this specialised group of
subjects. However, studies that ostensibly bear some relevance will be cited for three groups
of performers, namely musicians, singers and actors. No studies of personality variables in
dancers were found.
1 Performer as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition) 1989 Oxford Univ. Press.
One who performs a part in a play, a piece of m u s i c as a public exhibition of art or skill; one who
gives or takes part in a performance, or public entertainment, an actor, player, or singer.

13
Nuskisns
Research under the "umbrella" of "psychomusicology", proposed by Brown ( 1 9 8 1 ) as the
scientific discipline derived from the alliance between music and psychology, has been
dominated by cognitive, perceptual and physiological aspects of musical performance
(Deutsch, 1982, Dowli ng & Bartlett, 1981; Shepard, 1982), with some of the focus also
being shared by studies of musical ability and achievement (Seashore, 1938; Wing, 1962;
Shuter-Dyson, 1982).
Research which has attempted to define a relationship between personality and musical ability
has not always been greatly successful. In 1972, both Schleuter and Thayer(in Lipton, 1987)
used the Musical Aptitude profile , the Iowa Test of Musical Literacy and the High School
Personality Questionnaire in separate studies and found their results to be inconclusive.
However, in a series of studies by Kemp( 1981a; 1981 b;1981 c; 1982), he concluded that
" all musicians share a common core of traits which may be interpreted as musicianship-
linked". Intelligence introversion, self-sufficiency and sensitivity , were amongst the traits
found to be stable from childhood through to professional life (Kemp, 1981a). Most groups of
instrumentalists, as opposed to singers, showed a consistent tendency towards introversion,
suggesting that the trait might be somehow linked with the development of instrumental skilb
(Kemp, 1981b).
Ina small study of music students, Lehrer (1981,in Steptoe & Fidler,1987) identified five
cl usters of self-statements, amongst which were a lack of confidence and a fear of social
disapproval.
Another study, from the personality perspective, used projective tests to compare thirty
top-ranking musicians and composers in India with a group of non-musicians matched for sex,
age, education, race, intelligence and socio-cultural background (Gilchrist, 1 9 7 2 ) . Ratings
on fifty personality variables were made by two clinicians on the basi3 of the projective test
responses. The musicians differed from the control group most significantly on variables
indicative of emotional breadth, flexibility of thinking and psychological complexity.

14
Musicians ctd.
Traditional social psychology research in a musical context ha3 been relatively rare in
comparison (Konencni,1982; Upton ,1987). One study (Young & Col man, 1 9 7 9 ) however,
has applied some of the findings of 3mall-group research from the social psychological
literature on conflict, cooperation, attraction, leadership and group dynamics, to the
interaction of mernber3 of a string quartet, noting that an exceptionally high degree of
interpersonal awareness and mutual awareness appears to be fundamental to ensure the
smooth 'functioning* of the musical ensemble.

A rather unique study of 'mutual awareness", as reflected i n the attitudes and stereotypes of
musicians, was presented from the social psychological perspective by Davies ( 1 9 7 8 ) who
studied an orchestra in Glasgow, Scotland, and provided 3ome insight into the stereotypes that
members of each orchestral section (i.e. brass, strings, woodwinds, and percussion) have of
each other. For example, the strings perceived the brass, as "heavy boozers" and "slightly
oafish and uncouth", and the bras3 characterised the strings as "oversensitive and touchy **,
"weaklings'", "like a flock of bloody sheep", noting that they think they are "God's gift to
music" (Davies, 1978). A virtual replication of Davies' study, by Builione and Lipton
( 1 9 8 3 ) found responses to open-ended questions yielded strong stereotypes of the strings and
woodwinds as being "intelligent," "feminine" and "introverted* and the brass players and
percussionists' being "extroverted", "masculine" and "3exual".
An in-depth examination of the 'freelance musician'1 (Frederickson & Rooney ,1988),
although taken from the sociological perspective, provides considerable insight into conflicts
of group membership, roles, status, and recognition experienced by those choosing to
•freelance" rather than belonging to a permanent group , such as a symphony orchestra.
Freelancers are viewed as professionally trained artists who lack permanent membership in
any musical organisation.
' A freelancer, for the purposes of the present study, is defined ss an artist, (in the widest
context) , who sells his or her services to a variety of employers for short periods of time.
(The Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary, Oxford: Text Bay Books, p330).

15
Musicians ctd.
Although trained to be creative artists, the majority of performances by free-lancers instead

take place in the orchestra pit1, where the musicians provide supporting music for operas,
ballets and solo performers on stage, or background music at dinners and receptions. In
opera3, ballets and musical shows, one group is placed on stage claiming the audience's
undivided attention while the orchestra is placed in the pit, shielded from the audience - and
normally required to wear black-, to ensure that the primary focus is upon the stage. As a
result of this working concensus, the musicians' art i3 subordinated to stage needs, and
musicians thus forego most claims to recognition. Indeed (as compared with a symphony
musician), pit musicians are rarely listed in the programs and not usually reviewed by
critics. In fact, they need not even be in the actual performance hall. For example, the pit
musicians for the Sydney production of "Cats' (1985-86), were relegated to a small room
off-stage and, as a consequence, many patrons could not be blamed for assuming that the music
was pre-recorded.2
The basic spatial organisation within a theatre can be seen as establishing a certain order of
dominance which, coupled with the lack of prestige and direct attention received from
audiences and critics, effectively relegates pit-orchestra members to a 'non-person" role
(Goffman, 1959) within the stage-audience interaction. The concept of 'personhood*, referred
to by Frederickson & Rooney (1988) in their study, might roughly be equated with the
psychological term of'3elf-concept'or *3elf-image" from an organisational psychological
perspective.
' Pit as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition) 1989 Oxford University Press.
That part of the auditorium of a theatre which is on the floor of the house; now usually restricted
to the part of this behind the stalls; later transferred to the people occupying this space.
2 FVesent author was employed as a full-time conductor and repetiteur for Australian production of
"Cats" 1985-1986 in Sydney.

16
Musicians ctd.
Bei rig deprived of recognition from outside sources, the free-lance musician turns to a
different source of self-appraisal, his peers. Bensman ( 1 9 6 6 , in Frederickson & Rooney,
1988) notes that 'regardless of the social status of the musicians i n the society at large,
another system of social status exists withi n the smaller community which is more relevant to
the members of the status community than their status within the larger society'. Ironically,
however, this source of esteem is threatened by the stereotypes free-lancers often hold of
themselves and their work. The lack of acknowledgement assigned freelance musicians by
society is thus redirected inwardly in the disrespect and contempt of their fellow players,
irrespective of their technical skill and expertise, as i3 reflected by the following excerpt.
You should see these people talk about each other. (They) put each other down,
put each other's playing down, put each other's personality down. It's symptomatic
of free-lance musicians - the hypercritical state - Hypercritical, destructive negation.
I think that's why people are insecure. Being critical all the time...A lot of it stems from
basic dissatisfaction with the basic work situation which you're going to have unless you're
a soloist or in a symphony. ( Frederickson & Rooney, p232)
In long-running show seasons, for example, pit musicians play the same show, at virtually
the same speeds, day after day, sometimes for months or even years, and come to view their
work as a sort of musical assembly line, performing routine task3 with very narrowly defined
job roles.
Thus, rather than serving an aesthetic purpose, pit musicians' performances are viewed in a
more functional way, with spontaneity in interpretation being extremely limited or
impossible. Despite the repetitive nature of this work, however, the technical skill required,
whether the musician is in the pit playing SwmLake or on 3tage playing a Schubert quartet,
is generally on a par, but the social recognition is not.

17
Musicians otd.
Chamber music, for example, is given the highest respect, even if the technical ability
required for a given piece is relatively modest. The chamber musician in contrast to the pit
musician is in full view of the audience, is heard individually, and is listened to for his or her
artistic interpretation and expression.
For the pit musician, frustration of being relegated to an artistically subordinate role, when
all the discipline, extensive training and socialisation has been dedicated to an ideal of
ultimate artistic accomplishment and recognition, can often precipitate constant attempts to
apply for work in more esteemed circles , symphony orchestras.
i don't think anyone ever sets out to be a free-lancer. Everyone starts out with the
ambition to be in an orchestra...There just aren't enough jobs around. It (freelancing) is part
of the purgatory for musicians. (Frederickson & Rooney, p228)
One player, for example, who was planning to audition for a 3ymphony orchestra position
explained why he "wanted out' of freelancing:
I tell you the main reason isn't economic. I just want some recognition...
it's just that, you know, if you're a free-lance player, people just assume
you're a crummy player. (Frederickson & Rooney, p232)
This minimal respect is often further compounded by the treatment of free-lance musicians
by artistic managements. This is reflected in such comments as:
There are no social re wards...you don't get the benefit of social functions..
we're treated like shit down there....("down there' referring to the pit)
(Frederickson & Rooney p232)
We're just servants. We come in, play, and never get any thanks.
You're not the stars, just the cogs in the machine..You're a nameless faceless thing.
(Frederickson & Rooney p229)

18
Musicians ctd.
Although these examples are of American musicians, the author of the present study recalls a
threat of strike action during the Sydney production of 'Cats' as a result of musicians and
backstage crew, not being invited to a social function celebrating the '100th performance'.
It seems rather odd celebrating a 'musical success* without the musicians !
This type of research suggests that skill level and 'personhood' or social prestige have become
independent variables, which runs contrary to a long-standing assumption in Western

culture, that increased skill level, prestige, and autonomy within employment settings are
positively related (Frederickson& Rooney ,1988). increasingly, technological specialisation,

not only in music, but also in the areas of engineering and accounting has resulted in support
roles requiring more highly developed skills, accompanied, however, by a considerable loss of
autonomy, individual input and recognition (Bell, 1973, in Frederickson & Rooney, 1988).
Thus, it appears that the occupation of free-lancing musician, in many ways serves as a
negative reference group for its members. Unfortunately, the number of full-time positions
in symphony orchestras is far short of the number of well trained performers. As with actors,
and other performers , the supply of musicians far exceeds the market's demands - S % of
performance-oriented work force are employed in Australia at any given time (Actor's Equity,
1991). It might therefore be reasonable to suggest that free-lancers, having to compromise

with the lack of opportunity elsewhere, and, therefore, low prestige, might ultimately
manifest lower self -esteem, and, at the same time, a need for recognition or approval. As
mentioned earlier, subjects who compromised on matters of pay and professional content in
thei r work were found to have low self-esteem (Shami r, 1986).
This is the main rationale behind the inclusion of pit musicians to be compared with on-stage
symphony musicians in the present study.

19
Singers
The few psychological studies found that examined singers in particular were fairly
speculative. Onl y two were vaguel y relevant, the fi rst (Kemp , 1981 c), a3 previousl y cited,
noted a bias towards extraversion and adjustment in singers as compared with

instrumentalists. The other study of vocal performers , examined stereotypes and
personality traits in English opera singers and found higher voiced singers to be more
emotional, difficult, unreliable, and conceited (Wilson, 1984) when compared with
lower-voiced singers. Whether being difficult and conceited could be perceived as a means of
drawing attention to oneself or seeking recognition or approval can only be surmised.
Actors
Actor-focu3sed psychological research is almost as rare as that of singers. What is published

is generally found within the area of personality and, occasionally, studies of creativity.
Only two studies appeared to be concerned with self-identity or self-concept in actors per se.
Taft (1961), in comparing a group of Western Australian professional actors with a
non-random sample of university students, found high scores on psychopathological indices of
the MMPI, and an unusual incidence of 'nervous' complaints in their medical histories.
Taft states that:
The results establish clearly that the "theatricals" score high on the pathological
indices, especially measures of anxiety...They prefer expression of impulses rather than
suppression. Probably related to that ire their comparatively poor results on the
social responsibility, leadership potential and ego-strength scales.
(in Gilchrist, 1972 p72)
Ego-strength is defined, in Freudian terms, as the capacity to adapt to reality, to reconcile
i mpulse3 and conflicti ng aspects of the psyche , with one another, and with the demands of the
environment. The resulting adequacy of personal functioning is the task of the ego, and the
effectiveness of such ego functioning is referred to a3 ego strength (Gilchrist, 1972 ).

20
Taft's (1961) study showed that actors who scored low on the ego strength scale were aware
of their weaknesses and sensitive to social criticism, a pattern somewhat commensurate with
behavioural plasticity theory, that low self-esteem subjects are more sensitive to external
cues.
in his study of student and professional American actors, Henry ( 1 9 6 5 ) suggested that
the actor in the process of acting and playing roles is actually searching for an identity.
Utilising a concept derived from one of Erikson*s( 1963) stages of psycho-social development
which hold3 that 'the central task of adolescence is to crystallise a stable, and ideall y, positive
self-concept" (Eskilson & Wiley, 1987), Henry ( 1 9 6 5 ) noted that professional actors
showed a high level of, what was termed, "identity diffusion". "Diffusion* of identity is defined
as the lack of appropriate identity development during adolescence ultimately leading to
uncertainty of self-concept and consequent low self-esteem (Campbell ,1990 ). Furthermore,
Henry found that when the actors were ranked in terms of relative reknown and success (as
defined by regular employment), the successful (renowned)group evidenced more identity
diffusion. "Identity diffusion, if you will, predicts success ..." (Henry ,1965 p21).
Thus, it could be suggested that an actor is more likely to achieve 'success' through the lack of
a strong self-concept, of which 'affect' or self-evaluation (ie. self-esteem) is deemed a major
structural component ( Campbell, 1990), from which could logically follow the notion that
low self-esteem, in this instance, may lead to greater 'success' (Henry, 1965).
This appears contrary to findings by classical (Adler, 1959; Allport, 1961) and
contemporary personality theorists (Marcia,1980, in Campbell, 1990), that higher levels of
identity , as measured by achievement, 3tatu3 and integration, are associated with higher (not
lower) levels of self-esteem.
Actors, in Henry's ( 1 9 6 5 ) study, also appeared to be somewhat lacking in other qualities
ostensi bl y requi red for a fi r m identity, namel y, trust, autonomy, i ntegrity and i nti macy. 1 n
this regard, Henry (1965, pi 3) observed that the lives of actors appear to have been marked
by disjunction experiences, especially th03e calling attention to role differences in intimate
family members and to distinctions between inner feelings and overt behaviour in such
figures.
21
Without appropriate role models, the basic trust and confidence needed to develop a strong
sense of self or identity is lacking. The actor, according to Henry, tries to develop an identity
by repeatedly portraying the lives of others . Henry( 1965) cites a reported excerpt of an
interview with actress Ingrid Bergman, reflecting this possibility.
It is only when I am acting a role (of another) that I feel I am really ME.
(in Arasteh,1968 p97)
Ane&totet Sources
A very informative anecdotal source of criterion validity for some of these findings was found
ina recently-published book, entitled "Out of Character". Author KimTrengove,an

Australian actor and journalist, interviewed 16 well-known Australian actors concerning
thei r 'reasons for choosi ng to become actors" (Trengove, 1991 ).

One pertinent reason for the choice of an acting career is given by Angela Punch McGregor as
follows: I think it (acting) attracts people who have a poor image of themselves, and acting,
they believe, boosts that image. That's why it's full of a lot of troubled people.
Angela Punch-McGregor, Trengove p59
Several common themes seem to recur throughout the book, notably, lack of identity, self-
denigration, low self-esteem, a lack of confidence, a need for approval, and a fear of failure.
Henry's( 1965) premise of more identity diffusion as characteristic of the more successful
actors could be given some credence with the following excerpts if lack of confidence and low
self-esteem are deemed factors in identity diffusion.

There is a paradox in wanting to be up there and confident but actually not possessing a lot of
self worth. Angela Punch-McGregor, Trengove p54
I wander around aimlessly feeling as if I don't really exist, that I've almost disappeared.
Julia Blake, Trengove p38
I really don't have anything to offer-not a very healthy ego at all.
Peter Carroll, Trengove pi 9
I'm not a very interesting person
Norman Kaye, Trengove pix

22
Actors ctd.
A strong impression given by these interviews is that certain situations or events in early life
experience (similar to Henry's (1965) study) have necessitated an escape from reality, an
alternative means of expression for feelings that were somehow parentally unacceptable or
unheard by significant others. Both Peter Carroll and Angela Punch McGregor recall the rigid
discipline of their Catholic upbringing.
It was a wonderful, ecstatic and terrifying world Peter Carroll, Trengove p14
I was Catholic and I suppose I had certain inhibitions.. Acting was a kind of private, secret
door, ..you could kid yourself that no-one really knew who you were and you wouldn't be
condemned for anything you did. Angela Punch McGregor, Trengove p54
In creativity studies, higher creativity has been associated with low overt expressions of
maternal warmth (Amabile,1983) and father's absence or death (Albert, 1980). This
distanced interaction or grief experience could be a factor in precipitating loneliness or
aloneness in childhood. These two themes were also evident in Trengove's (1991)book.
I was such a lonely girl, very lonely inside Angela Punch McGregor, Trengove p54
I do like to be a bit solitary Ruth Cracknell, Trengove p11
I'm very much a loner Julia Blake , Trengove p32
Parental pressure to conform to predetermined career paths, or to 'mirror images' of their
parents in early childhood years could also be a possible factor in the need for approval in
later years.
When I left school, I auditioned for N.I.D.A and I got in but my Dad was very against it..
....so that was the end of that. I went to work in the probate office.
Peter Carroll Trengove pi 5
I did it (acting) out of a desire to prove something to somebody
John Bell Trengove, pi 02

23
Actors ctd.
Needing validation and recognition, yet fearing failure or being judged "lacking" also appears
characteristic of many actors' perceptions throughout the interviews.
I felt self-conscious that I would be judged and found to be wanting
Peter Carroll Trengove, p23
It's that childish fear that people might discover you to be a phoney
Julia Blake Trengove, p34
Perhaps applause every night from an undiscerning mass gives an actor the attention, love and
recognition hitherto lacking in his own life.

A lot of theatre performers love the feedback from the audience
because it makes them feel loved. Noni Hazlehurst Trengove, p108
I love a set up where nobody in the audience has heard of you or knows you
Julia Blake Trengove, p33
We sre allowed to be important for two hours every night - but a lot fall apart at the end of
that two hours because nobody "s looking at them or listening to them.
Angela Punch McGregor Trengove, p59
Further anecdotal evidence (Lidde11,1991) describes the rather 'bumpy* road to success
experienced by 3ome notable American actors and indicates the resourcefulness and facility
with which they adapted to adverse conditions, along with the apparent willingness to
surmount any obstacles in order to succeed, or realise their goal.
Dustin Hoffman recalls his days at a New York drama school..

I got a scholar ship-by cleaning the toilets. I slept at the school's theatre-studio
in a bed - on the stage. Dustin Hoffman (New Idea 28/9/91 pi 2)
Jack Klugman ("Odd Couple* TV series) describes how he and Charles Bronson paid their rent
in New York...
We even sold our blood, AS often is they would let us, for $5 a pint.
Jack Klugman (New Idea 28/9/91 p12)

Adaptability in this instance could be likened to "plastic* behaviour, as delineated by Brockner
(1987)in individuals with low self-esteem (Korman 1968). This type of resourcefulness
was also observed in a study (Weiss & Knight, 1980) in which subjects with low self-esteem
performed significantly better than high self-esteemed participants on a problem-solving
task, in which searching for relevant information, prior to its undertaking was functional for
successful task performance. Perhaps, high 3elf-esteem subjects do not doubt their ability to
solve the task with the least possible application, thus neglecting to cover all contingencies.
Rsiiomte
in summary, there certainly appears to be reasonable evidence, albeit considerably

anecdotal, to merit examining performers as a group in terms of the two variables of interest,
self-esteem and demand for approval.
Understanding the personality dynamics of performers, whether they be musicians, actors,

dancers or singers, could, for example, be particularly helpful in the treatment of stagefright
and performance anxiety. Studies (Shrauger, 1972; Carver & Scheier, 1978) have found that,
to the extent that an individual focuses on him/herself rather than on the task at hand,
subjects with low self-esteem perform less well than those with high self-esteem.
Those with low self-esteem have also been found to respond more favourably to manipulations
designed to facilitate, rather than interfere , with performance (Brockner, 19?9a;
Brockner & Hulton, 1978). Task-focu3 inductions, for example, have found to have a more
facilitative effect on the task performances of individuals with negative, rather than positive,
evaluations (Strack, Blaney, Ganellen & Coyne, 1985), lending further support to the
behavioural plasticity theory of low self-esteem subjects being more responsive to external
cues . Thus, performers with low self-e3teem may be more likely to respond to intervention
strategies designed to assist in the reduction of performance anxiety and stage-fright than
those with high self-esteem. Further research could perhaps shed light on whether
performers with low self-esteem are perhaps more likely than their high self-e3teem
counterparts to suffer from performance anxiety and stage fright.
The lack of Australian psychological research in these areas constituted further justification
for undertaking the present study.

25
Before delineating the specific hypotheses of interest, it is important however to consider

several methodological issues that may impact on the outcome of the study.
Methodological Issues
The field of personality psychology has long been 'plagued' by respondents' unwillingness or
inability to describe themselves accurately on standardised self-report inventories

(Brockner, 1 9 8 7 ) . As a consequence, the correlation between 3elf-reports and predicted
behaviour is rather low, usually between r_=.2 and r_= .3 (Scheier, Buss & Buss, 1978).
Completing a self-esteem measure seems to place respondents in a face-saving dilemma. Given

the choice between honesty and presenting themselves in a favourable light, respondents often
pick the latter, rather than divulge their own appraisals.
Baumei3ter, Tice & Hutton ( 1 9 8 9 ) contend that, 3elf-esteem scales, rather than measuring
intrapsychic cognitions, are really assessing the willingness to endorse favourable statements
about the self. In their review of self-esteem literature1, Baumeister et al.( 1989)
consistently observed the tendency for distributions of self-esteem scores to be negatively-
skewed, with scores typically located in the upper range of the distribution of possible scores
and the sample midpoint being higher than the conceptual midpoint. In view of this trend,
which was found to be similar in several studies, using different self-esteem scales (ie. T5BI,
Janis-Field, Rosenberg) Baumeister et al. further assert that the choice of intermediate
answers might indicate several possibilities. Intermediate answers might signify a neutral,
well-balanced or middle-of-the-road attitude, or , alternatively, an unwillingness to admit to
true feelings of low self-esteem. A person who wanted to reveal as little as possible about him
or herself while filling out a self-esteem scale would most likely proceed by selecting the
middle option on every item. Self-presentation theorists ( Wolfe, Lennox & Cutler, 1986;
Baumeister et al., 1 9 8 9 ) describe this procedure as a 'non-committal, evasive,
low-disclosure pattern of presenting oneself .
See Appendix C-3

26
Methodological Issues — Response Set Confound ctd.
Cialdini, Levy, Herman, and Evenbeck( 1973) found that peoples* attitude statements would
shift toward the middle of the scale when they expected to have to defend their attitudes.
Cialdini et al. reasoned that several advantages are enjoyed by such intermediate responses,
including being less vulnerable to attack and di3confirmation than extreme positions.
Other reasons for intermediate responses might be those with high self-esteem not wishing to
go against the cultural norms that discourage 'show-off3* or braggarts (Powers & Zurkoff,
1988). Similarly, choosing to rate self-esteem more conservatively on a scale, may prevent
the risk of future events disproving exaggerated claims about the self (Schlenker, 1975;
Bradley, 1978; Weary & Arkin( 1 9 8 1 ) , in Baumei3ter et al. 1989). Another interesting
possibility is that a pattern of moderate self-criticism may elicit favourable reactions from
others, such as initial liking without engendering burdensome expectations for competent
performance (Powers & Zurkoff, 1988). The tendency to express conservative, socially
acceptable responses, which may not be one's true attitude, is termed 'social desirability
response set" (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964).
in order to detect this response set, the present study included the Crowne-Marlowe (1960)
Social Desirability scale . Those scoring high on social desirability and high on self-esteem,
may in the 'truer' sense, be persons of low self-esteem 'saving face", as per Hewitt &
Goldman*s study ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Those scoring high on social desirability and intermediate or low on
the measure may be more difficult to interpret in view of the above findings. Those with low
social desirability with high or low self-esteem scores are theoretically presumed to be
describing themselves with accurate intention.

27
Self- knowledge cenfeund
Another less-notated confound (Brockner ,1988) is that individuals may be unable to report
their true self-esteem, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of intelligence or
introspection. Much social psychological research has focussed on self-awareness as a
"situational" variable that can be manipulated -- ie. attention can be directed either inward
toward the self or outward toward the environment. Indeed, induced 3elf-awareness ( as
measured by exposure to a mirror or not) was found to magnify the correlation between
self-report and actual behaviour (Wicklund, 1975). It was postulated , however (Fenigstein,
Sheier & Buss , 1975) that there might also be a personality disposition to focus inward, a
'consistent' state' of self-awareness, termed the 'trait' of self-consciousness.
Fenigstein et al (1975) hypothesised that individual differences in self-consciousness vary
along a continuum of self-focussed attention, ranging from those persons who constantly
scrutinse their behaviour to the other extreme of persons, who appear to have no
understanding of either, their own motives, or, of how they appear to others.
The self-consciousness scale designed to measure this trait consists of 2 major components -
Private Self-Consciousness - the extent to which a person habitually reflects upon personal
thoughts, feelings and motives; and Public Self-Consciousness - habitual concern about
oneself as a social object, including social appearance and the impression one makes upon
others. Studies by Turner (1978)and Scheier, Buss & Buss (1978) examined the
hypothesis, that those highly 'aware' or high in Private Self-Consciousness would show
greater accuracy in their 3elf-reports, and therefore a higher predictive validity between
behaviour and self-reports. In Turner's study, the correlations between actual behaviour and
reported behaviour for subjects low in Private Se1f-Con3ciousness was r= 0.33 and for High
Self Conciousness subjects, r= 0.66. There was virtually no correlation between 3elf-report
and actual behaviour in high Public Self-Conscious respondents.

28
Self-Knowledge Confound ctd.
High Public Self-Consciousness correlated with predictively invalid self-reports in a
replication study by Turner & Peterson (1977). In Scheier et al's ( 1 9 7 8 ) study , the
difference in correlations between self-report and behaviour were even more marked, with
r = 0.69 (High) Private and r= 0.09 (Low) private self-consciousness respondents.
In the latter sample, it was noted that, should the private self-con3ciousriess factor be ignored
in data analysis, the self-report / behaviour correlation would be reduced to only 0.34.
These results suggest the futility of trying to predict from a self-report measure
the behaviour of a person who rarely reflects on his behaviour, or is very concerned
about his appearance to others (Turner, 1978 p 131)
Thus, it appears that self-reported trait measures may have criterion predictive validity for
only a subset of individuals (Alker, 1972; Bern & Allen, 1 9 7 4 ; Fenigstein, Scheier & Buss
1975), only those individuals who are found to be high in Private self-consciousness, or low
in Public Self-Con3ciousness. In view of these findings, it is surprising that while response
styles, for example, social desirability (Edwards ,195?)and yea-3aying (Goldsmith, 1987)
have been extensively investigated (Cronbach, 1970; Edwards ,1970), the effect of varying
levels of habitual self-reflection on the predictive validity of self-reports has not received
nearly as much attention (Turner, 1978). Greenwald, Belleza & Banaji( 1987, in Brockner,
1988) commented that 'researchers in self-esteem may well benefit by including measures
of self-knowledge', with the hypothesis that individuals will be better able to report their
level of self-esteem to the extent that they are dispositional^ self- knowledgeable.
In the present study, subjects primarily scoring low on social desirability, high on private
3elf-consciousnes3 and low on public self-consciousness will ideally be describing their level
self-esteem (or any other 'sensitive' personality variable) more accurately and more
honestly than other subjects.
This is a rationale for including the Private & Public Self-Consciousness index in the present
study.
29
Research Design
The present study in collecting data via a 3elf-report questionnaire utilises aspects of several
research methods: causal-comparative or 'ex-post facto' method, in the investigation of
possible cause and effect by observing existing consequences and probing back for
causes(between subjects design), the correlational method in examining the relationships
between two or more factors(within-subjects) design and the descriptive method in the use of
questionnai res to descri be an area of i nterest i n a systematic manner(Gotts, 1990). The
convenience sampling of "pre-assembled groups that are similar and selected as available' is
indicative of the non-randomised control group pre-test/post-test design.
Hypotheses
Performer-focussed psychological research has described both musicians and actors to be

sensitive to social criticism, to lack confidence, and to be "interpersonally* aware, all possible
indicators of low self-esteem. More specifically, "successful* actors are characterised as

having 'identity diffusion*. Pit musicians are viewed as having low prestige and limited job
satisfaction. These patterns seem to be encompassed by the 'plasticity' theory of low self-
esteem. Singers have been described 83 extravert, emotional and difficult, showing a need for
attention that may indicate low self-esteem and a high need for approval. The available
anecdotal evidence concerning actors paints a profile of a lonely, needy individual, lacking in
self-confidence and self-worth , but craving attention and perhaps validation, from an
anonymous source.
30
Hypotheses ctd.
The previous findings suggested the following hypotheses:
(1.) that performers as a group will show a lower level of self-esteem than
non-performers.
(2) that on-stage performers will show a lower level of self-esteem than both groups of
musicians.
(3) that pit musicians will show a lower level of self-esteem than symphony musicians.
(4) that performers as a group will show a higher demand for approval than
non-performers.
(5) that pit musicians and onstage performers will 3how a higher demand for approval than
symphony musicians and subjects from the financial industry.
(6) that performers will 3how a greater sensitivity to criticism than non- performers.
(7) that pit musicians and onstage performers will show a greater sensitivity to criticism
than symphony musicians and subjects from the financial industry.
(8) that there is a negative correlation between sensitivity to criticism and self-esteem.
Other procedures will include checking for the response set confound of social desirability on
the main factors and examining data for any effects. The hypothesis that onstage performers
will show higher levels of both private and public self-consciousness than symphony and pit
musicians will also be investigated.

31
Secondary Hypotheses
Some further questions regarding loneliness, perceived parental approval, perceived
emotional closeness, and career satisfaction were included in the study and give rise to the
following secondsry hypotheses:
(9) that a greater percentage of on-stage performers will show childhood loneli ness and/or
aloneness than other performers and non-performers.
(10) that on-stage performers will show a lower percentage of parental emotional closeness
than other performers and non-performers.
(11) that on-stage performers will 3how a lower percentage of parental career approval
than other performers and non-performers.
(12) that on-3tage performers will show a higher percentage of the i mportance of parental
career approval than other performers and non-performers.
(13) that pit players will show a higher percentage of a different preferred work
environment, compared with symphony players.

(14) that pit players will show greater career dissatisfaction than other groups.
(15) that a higher percentage of pit musicians prefer working on-stage than symphony
players prefer working off-stage.

Demographic Variables
Demographic variables including sex, age and educational qualification attained will be
evaluated for any effects across the total sample (N = 126).
Some previous findings that will investigated to ascertain whether they are confirmed by the
present study will include:

-- whether there is a negative correlation between demand for
approval and self-esteem (Daly & Burton, 1983).
-- whether a negative correlation is found between self-esteem
and subscales of the self-consciousness measure ( Turner, Scheier, Carver & lckes,1978).
--whether 'demandfor approval'(Daly & Burton, 1983) is
correlated with the "need for approval* (Hewitt & Goldman, 1974) a3 measured by the
Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scale (ie. are they sampling the same construct?).
-- whether the measure of public self-consciousness correlates
with the measure of social desirability, that i3, does concern about making a good impression
(Turner et al.,1978) correlate with the tendency to present oneself in a favourable light
(ie. concurrent or discriminant validity .
Other supplementary findings that emerge from the study will be discussed, if suitably
relevant.
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were chosen from several non-random 'convenience samples' made available to the
author by virtue of her own employment situation1 and general professional network.
The participant sample (N = 126) consisting of 6 8 males and 5 8 females, comprised four
main groups: Group (1) professional pit musicians (n = 33) employed in the Australian
production of the Phantom of the Opera, currently playing in Melbourne , Group (2) employed
stage performers (n = 36)(including actors, singers and dancers) drawn primarily from the
Phantom of the Opera production, but also inclusive of members of the Australian College of
Entertainers, and several actor colleagues, Group (3) a mixed group of bankers, accountants,
and related financial occupations 2, (n = 3 2 ) (including tax analysts, financial auditors,
consultants) obtained through personal and professional network and

Group (4), professional symphonic musicians (n = 2 5 ) , presently employed as members of
the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. All subjects had to be regularly-employed (Appendix
C-1) in order to participate in the study, to preclude the possible confound of low self-esteem
due to lack of economic security .

The rationale for selecting a comparative group, whose work concerned financial computation,
derives from the occupational classifications outlined in Holland's (1985) Revised

Self-Directed Search. Holland( 1985) postulates that voational choice can fall within any one
of six possible occupational categories, namely, Realistic (R) Investigative (I) Artistic (A)
Soei8l (S) Enterprising (E) and Conventional (C) and that a particular choice is a function of
a correspondingly-matched personality profile.
In the present study, it was hypothesised that those who seem primarily to access their
emotional resources during work activity might exhibit different 'weightings' on the factors
under investigation compared with those who are deemed to utilise mainly logical and
arithmetic skills during work-related activity.

1
Present author is employed as a part-time keyboardist/repetiteur for the Australian production of
' The Phantom of the Opera".
2 For the purposes of the present study, the term "accountants' will be operationally used to
describe all subjects in Group 3, collectively
Method ctd.
Holland's inventory outlines the Artistic (A) type as someone who likes artistic jobs ,
such as 'musician, stage director, actor/actress, but who often lacks clerical skills'
(Holland, 1 9 8 5 p 3 ) .
The Conventional (C) type likes conventional jobs such as bookkeeper, financial analyst,
banker, tax expert, has clerical and arithmetic ability, but often lacks artistic abilities.
(Holland, 1 9 8 5 p 3) .
Internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson) coefficients for the artistic and conventional scales
are .87 and .88 respectively.
The experimental groups were the three performing groups (Groups 1, 2 & 4 ) , and the
control or comparative group, the accountants (Group 3).

Participants were selected on the basis of whether they volunteered or not. In total, 126 out of
160 questionnaires were returned, effecting a response rate of 7955 .
Procedure
After explaining the purpose of the study, the author gave colleagues, (Groups 1 & 2) and
affiliated profes3ionals(Groups 3 & 4 ) , questionnaires in sealed envelopes, requested that
they be completed as 30on as possible and then returned, sealed, to either, the designated box at
their place of work, or, by post. Instructions as to the nature of the task, its confidentiality
and anonymity were stated on the front page of the questionnaire.
Respondents were requested :
- to complete the questionnai re at a ti me when they were free from outside distractions
- to try to be as honest a3 they could
- to anawer all questions
- not to confer with others
Respondents were assured of confidentiality and reminded that they were free to withdraw
from participating at any time.

Materisls
( 1) Self-Esteem Measure
The 8-item index used in the present study is a modified version of Rosenberg's (1965)
original 10-item Guttman scale, which aims to assess 'global self-esteem', an overall
judgement of personal worth (Rosenberg, 1965).
Reliability
The original Rosenberg measure has been shown to demonstrate high levels of reliability
(Rosenberg, 1965; Silber & Tippet, 1965), specifically, the test-re-test reliability in
Rosenberg's study, normed on randomly-selected New York high school students [N=5,024)
was .93. O'Malley & Bachman( 1979) employed the modified Rosenberg Self- Esteem
measure, which is U3ed in the present study, in their examination of the relationship between
years of education and self-esteem levels in high school students. Their sample consisted of a
nationwide selection of 3,383 male and female high school students who were compared
with 1,175 males from a previous study (Bachman & O'Malley, 1977).
Coefficient, alphas for the 1979 study, calculated separately for males and females, were .79
and .83 respectively. Coefficient alpha for the males in thel 9 7 7 study, was .79, the same as
for the males in the 1979 study. This modified self-esteem measure has been similarly
utilised in a number of other applied studies (Weiss & Knight, 1980; Arnold, 1988).
Present Study
In the present study, respondents were asked to indicate, on a 5-point Likert scale, the extent
of thei r agreement, or disagreement, with items as descri ptive of themselves.
The response categories - Strongly agree, Disagree, Neither agree or disagree, Agree,
Strongly Agree - were coded from 1 to 5, with higher values assigned to responses indicating
higher self-esteem (This is opposite to Rosenberg's original coding system). Four items
(1,3,5,7) were positively worded, and four items (2,4,6,8) negatively worded, and later
reverse-scored for analysis.

36
(2) Irrational Beliefs Test (IBT)
The IBT is one of the earliest and most frequently used cognitive assessment measures.
Developed by Jones( 1 9 6 8 ) , the IBT derives its theoretical framework from the work of
Albert Ellis, the founder of rational-emotive therapy, who delineated a theory of irrational
beliefs as the underlying cause of emotional disturbance( Ellis, 1969). The instrument
consists of 100 items measuring ten irrational beliefs (or attitudes) in separate scales, each
assessing the degree of adherence to Ellis' core ideas.
Reliability and Validity
In Jones's( 1 9 6 8 ) study, cros3 validation of construct was made with a heterogeneous sample
of 4 2 7 subjects. The factor structure upon which the test was based was replicated
satisfactorily and construct validities in the construct validation sample ranged from .66 to
.80 with a mean of .74, based on intercorrelations of item scores and scale scores. Temporal
stability based on 2 4 hour teat- re-test correlations of scores was .92 for full scale, and
ranged from .67 to .87 for individual scales. More recently, Lohr & Bonge ( 1 9 8 2 )
essentially replicated the factorial structure of the IBT in the original test construction and
also reported the IBT to have considerable temporal consistency.
Age was not found to be significantly related to factors of the IBT, although significant
relationships were obtained on the 16PF measure between specific IBT scales and the
variables of sex and education level (Jones, 1968). The latter findings were replicated by
Richie( 1 9 7 5 ) who, in assessing concurrent validity of the IBT with the California
Psychological Inventory suggested that, in general, irrational beliefs appear to have a
significant inverse relationship with an individual'3 level of emotional and psychological
adjustment.
(2) Irrational Beliefs Test - ( ctd. )
Present Study - The Demand for Approval factor
The present study employs the Demand for Approval factor, which along with another of the
original IBT factors , the High Self-Expectation factor, are claimed to be predictors of low
self-esteem (Daly & Burton,1983). In their study of 251 university students, Daly and
Burton( 1983) noted a significant negative correlation, ( r = -.51, p_<.0001) between the
Jani3-Field measure of self-esteem and the IBT. Four factors, representing four discrete
beliefs, or attitudes, were found to be predictive of low self esteem, one of the highest
correlations being for the Demand for Approval factor (r=.44 Total sample; x = - 4 0 Males;
r=.46 Females).
In previous studies, items are phrased in general belief statements, with respondents
indicating their degree of concensus with each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Higher scores
are presumed to reflect in this instance, a high demand for approval,.
In the present study, it was decided to U3e an endorsement method (Alden & Safran, 1978),
dichotomous scores of Agree/Disagree . This method was chosen mainly as a control for the
divergent validity of the 'demand for approval' factor (ie. measuring the same construct with
the same method; Campbell & Fiske ,1959) in comparison with the similarly-scored
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale , deemed to be measuring the 'need for approval"
(Hewitt*. Goldman, 1974).
Reverse-scoring for 5 negatively-worded items in the Demand for Approval factor was
carried out prior to analysis.
(3) Sensitivity to Criticism measure
This index , in its original form, consisted of 3 items, one of which was double-barrelled.
In the present study, to avoid ambiguity,the item was changed into two separate items. Scoring
was 1 to 5 on a Likert scale, with Items 2 & 3 negatively worded and later reverse-scored
prior to analysis.
38
(3) Sensitivity to Criticism - (ctd.)
Reliability
The instrument was normed on a sample of 5,024 high school students, from 10 randomly
selected public schools. The psychometric properties of the original instrument were stated
as:Scalability (Individuals) 95.7%Scalability (Items) 9 4 . 6 % Reproducibility 98.8SS.
These coefficients were considered satisfactory in terms of the criteria established by

Guttman, and Menzel, respectively (in Rosenberg, 1965). Otter comparative studies using
this scale were not found.
4) The Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS)
As an alternative model to the Edwards Social Desirability scale (Edwards, 1957) the MCSDS
was developed by Crowne & Marlowe (1960) as a measure of the social desirability response
set, a 'non-test relevant determinant' long viewed as a characteristic confound of personality
test scores (Wiggins & Rumril, 1959). In its construction, the MCSDS borrowed several
item3 from the M M P ! and contains one exact and four approximate replications of L(Lie
Scale) items, and one repetition of a K(Correction score) item, as well as selected items from
other personality inventories. The population from which MCSDS items were drawn was
defined by behaviours deem culturally-sanctioned and approved but improbable of

occurrence(Crowne & Marlowe 1960). High scores on the Crowne-Marlowe Social
Desirability Scale are purported to represent ' a high need for the approval of others* and
high 'defensiveness', in view of the positive correlations found for the MCSDS with M M P I "K"
scale [r=.65;p<.Oil.
The MCSDS has had considerable use since its publication in 1960 and several studies have
been specifically geared to testing reliability and validity and to developing shorter versions
of the scales for ease of U3e (Strahan & Gerbasi,1972; Crino, Svoboda & Rubenfeld ,1983;
Ray, 1984; Tanaka-Matsumi & Kameoka, 1986; Fraboni & Cooper, 1989; Ballard, Crino &
Rubenfeld, 1 9 8 8 ) .
39
(4) The Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale - (otd).
Australian studies
Considerable validity generalisation was evidenced in a series of Australian studies carried out
by the University of New South Wales (Ray, 1984) in which a shortened version of the MCSDS
was administered to various randomly selected heterogeneous groups as follows: 9 5 S3 living
in the Sydney Metropolitan area, two random mail-out surveys in New South Wales [N=122;
N= 213, respectively], a random doorstep sample of 2 0 0 Sydney Ss, a Sydney community
sample of 8 7 Ss, and, lastly, after translation into German, random doorstep sample of 136 Ss
in Munich, West Germany. All alpha reliabilities fell between .65 and .77, quite adequate for
a short scale (McLennan ,1990).
Very different reliabilites were found , however, ina sample of Australian army conscripts,
with reliabilities falling between .16 and .36 for the three shortened versions and .46 for the
full 33-item version. It is suggested (Ray, 1984) that these findings may be due to the
"peculiar institutional position of the subjects" and the effect of coercion on social desirability
responding. This type of outcome may well be a feature of specialised groups , the present
study possi bl y i ncl uded.
Present Study - Social Desirability
The original 33-item scale is utilised in the present study. Of the 33 items, 18 are keyed
True and 15, Fatee, to control for acquiescence or 'yeasaying' (Goldsmith,! 9 8 7 ) . Scores in
the original study closely approximated a normal distribution. Normed on 3 9 university
students, the internal consistency coefficient ( K R 2 0 ) for the scale was .88, with test-re-test
reliability correlation , over a month period , K D 2 0 = .89. The original dichotomous scoring
procedure is used . 18 scores coded True, given a score of 1; 15 coded False, given a score of 1.
Questionnaires were marked prior to analysis, scoring 1 on socially desirable item3 (as
above), and the total SD score to be computed as a composite score out of 33, given that the
alpha appears reliable on the sample.
(5) Private and Public Self Consciousness Measure
The 23-item version of the Self-consciousness scale (Fenigstein, Scheier & Buss, 1975) was
derived through a principal-components factor analysis of 3 8 items, which sampled
behaviours that ostensibly constituted the domain of self-consciousnes3 , as judged by 130
undergraduate women and 8 2 undergraduate men (Nie, Bent & Hull, 1970). The following
classification was constructed: (a) a preoccupation with past, present and future behaviour;
(b) sensitivity to inner feelings; (c) recognition of one's positive attributes;
(d) introspective behaviour (e) a tendency to picture or imagine oneself (f) awareness of
one's physical appearance and presentation; and (g) concern over the appraisal of others.
A large proportion of the variance ( 4 3 % ) was accounted for by the first three factors that
emerged, namely, private self-consciousnes3, public self-consciousness and a subscale of
social anxiety.
Discriminant validity of the the three scales was indicated by the low intercorrelations
between the three factors(Campbell 1960; Campbell & Fiske, 1959).Various revisions of the
scale were given to nine different samples during a series pilot studie3, with a total N of
1,821; the same three factors emerged. The final 23-item version was rated on a scale of 0
(Extremely Uncharacteristic) to 4 (Extremely characteristic).
Temporal consistency was tested U3ing a sample of 84subjects, with a 2-week interval
between admi ni3trations. Test- re-test correlations for the subscales were as follows:
Public Self-consciousne3s = .84; Private Self-Consciousness = .79; Social Anxiety =.73
Present Study
Only the first two sub3cales, Private and Public self-consciousnes3 are used in the present
data analysis . Items are scored from 1 to 5, rather than 0 to 4 as per the original scoring
system.
41
RESULTS
RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR MEASURES USED
Before proceeding with data analysis, reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were
calculated for the measures used . Although previous studies using these instruments had
satisfactory reliability coefficients, the non- random selection of specialised groups i n the
present study may have rendered these measures less reliable for this sample. Selected items
had to be therefore eliminated to increase reliability for data analysis in the present study.
Reliability coefficients, before and after adjustment, plus alpha coefficients from previous
studies and the specific coded item removed from each 3cale, are presented in Table 1.
In those cases where 'None' appears , alpha would not have increased significantly if items
were removed. The final number of items used in data analysis for each scale is stated in
brackets.
Table ! Reliability correlation coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) for measures used.
Measure Alpha Previous Alpha Item

Used Before Study After Deleted
Item Alpha Item From
Deleted Deleted Scale
Self-Esteem .79 .79 .81 SE4

(7 items)
Demand for .79 .80 .80 APPDEM10
Approval
(9 Items)
Sensitivity to .65 Not .65 None
Criticism Available
(4 Items)
Social .78 .88 .78 None
Desirability
(33 Items)
Private Self- .69 .79 .69 None
Consciousness
(10 Items)
Public Self- .70 .84 .73 PUBLIC6
Consciousness
(6 Items)
42
Reliability Estimates (ctd).
The reliabilities for the measures of self-esteem and demand for approval on this sample are
comparable with previous reliabilities, however, the social desirability and private and
public self-consciousness scales show slightly lower reliability coefficients than previous
studies. The Sensitivity to Criticism scale has no comparative reliabilities but 3hows an
acceptable reliability coefficient (0.65) for this number of items. Minimum recommended
reliabilities (McLennan, 1990) for scales are approximately: 0.6 for 4-7 items, 0.7 for
8-10 items and 0.8 for 11 - 2 0 + items. Most of the above reliabilities appear acceptable in
this regard, although the social desirability measure falls slightly short of recommended
coefficent leveb.
PRIMARY VARIABLES
Data analysis1 for each of the primary variables has been undertaken both on performers as a
group in comparison with non-performer3(which for the present study are accountants), and
on individual groups of pit musicians, symphony musicians, stage performers and accountants
Self-Esteem
Descriptive Data
Means and standard deviations for the variable of self-esteem are shown in Table 2.
Tsbte 2 Means and Standard Deviations - Self- Esteem
M SD No. Cases
Performers 27.44 4.62 94

Non-Performers 27.59 3.97 32
Pit Musicians 26.79 4.45 33
Onstage Performers 28.00 5.13 36
Symphony musicians 27.48 4.55 25
Accountants 27.59 3.97 32
Total Sample 27.48 4.48 126
Please see appendices (separate folder) for printouts of variable distributions, descriptive data and
statistical analyses for primary and secondary variables.

43
Descriptive Data — Self-Esteem Variable (ctd).
With the total sample mean equal to 27.48 and the median and mode both being 28 , the sample
distribution of the self-esteem variable would seem to approximate a normal Gaussian curve.
(Norusis ,1988 p .195). However, the kurtosis value is +1.08, indicating slightly heavier
tails than those of a normal distribution. This is perhaps due to the disparity between the
conceptual median (21) of the 3e1f-esteem variable distribution and the sample median(28).
The conceptual median was calculated as follows:
3 5 - 7 (ie. 7 items x 5 = Maximum 3core/itern - 7 items x 1 = Minimum score/item) = 28.
Divide 28 by 2 = 1 4 . Adding 14 to the m i n u m u m possible score of 7, gives the conceptual

mid-point of 21.
In a non-3kewed distribution, the sample median should be reasonably near the conceptual
midpoint. However, with the median being 28, and the conceptual median being 21, the
variable distribution on this sample is quite negatively-skewed (Skewness = -.82)
a phenomenon, quite commonly observed in self-esteem literature (Baumeister, 1982).

(See Appendix C- 3 for a copy of Baumeister's fi ndi ngs).
Analysis
Table 2 3hows performers, collectively, having only a slightly lower mean level of self-
esteem than non-performers. A t-test analysis (Table 3) found no statistically significant
difference between the two groups. Individually, on-stage performers appear to have a higher
mean level of self-esteem than symphony players, accountants and pit musicians,
respectively. In addition, pit musicians appear to have a lower mean level of self-esteem than
symphony musicians. An analysis of variance however, found no significant difference between
means for the four groups (Table 4).
Table 3 T-test Values for Self-Esteem Table 4 Analysis of Variance for Self- Esteem
Performers/NonPerformers Pit/Symphony/Onstage/Accountants
t value p* F ratio F prob* Df
Self Esteem -.19 .85 Self-Esteem .43 .73 3;122
*p > .05 and is not statistically significant *p > .05 and is not statistically significant
Demand for Approval
Descriptive data
Means and standard deviations for the demand for approval factor are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Means and standard deviations -• Demand for approval
M SD No. Cases
Symphony Musicians 2.96 2.49 25
The total sample mean is 3.72, and the median is 3. However, with a mode of 1, there appears
to be a high concentration of scores on one end of the distribution, as indicated by a kurtosis
val ue of -1.11. The sample median (3) bei ng less than the conceptual median of 5 poi nts to a
positively-skewed distribution (Skewness = .27).
Little difference is seen between means for performers and non-performers on the demand for
approval variable. On-stage performers show a mean of 4.45 and pit musicians, a mean of
4.00, both higher than symphony musicians (2.96) and accountants (3.21).
Results oft-test and analysis of variance analysis are presented in Table 6 and Table 7 for the
demand for approval variable.
Table 6 T- test Val ues for Demand Table ? Anal ysis of Variance for Demand
for Approval for Approval
Perforrners/NonPerforrners Pit/Syrnphony/Onstage/Accountants
t value p* F ratio F prob* Df
Demand for 1.21 .23 Demand for 2.25 .08 3;121

Approval Approval
*p > .05 and is not statistically significant *p > .05 and is not statistically significant
A t-test analysis was not statistically significant for differences between means on the demand
for approval variable for performers and non-performers. Similarly, an analysis of variance
for this variable between the individual sample groups did not reach statistical significance.
Sensitivity to Criticism
Descriptive Data
Means and standard deviations for the variable sensitivity to criticism are shown in Table 8.
Table S Means and Standard Deviations for Sensitiviti to Criticism
M SD No. of Cases
Symphony Musicians 13.69 2.94 23
The distribution of this variable appears relatively normal, with the mean (13.36), median
(13.5) and mode( 14.00) all similar in magnitude. Skewness is stated as - .001, and
kurt03i3i3 +.33.
Analysis
Only slight differences separate the mean score3 for both performers and non-performers,
and individual sample groups, for the sensitivity to criticism variable and are not statistically
significant.
A significant (p_< .001) negative correlation of r_= -.34 i3 observed, however, between
self-esteem and sensitivity to criticism, across the total sample .

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE-SET CONFOUND
Social Desirability
Descriptive Data
Means and standard deviations for the social desirability variable are shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Mean3 and Standard Deviations for Social Desi rability
M SD No.ofCase3

Onstage performers 14.54 5.67 33
Symphony musicians 16.41 4.73 24
The distribution of the variable of social desirability appears relatively normal, with a
skewness of -. 12, and a kurtosis of - .58. The total sample mean is 15.90, the median is 16
and the mode is 10.00 .
Analysis
Performers, collectively, appear to have a slightly lower mean score of social desirability
than non-performers, although a t-test analysis was not statistically significant.
Individually, on-stage performers show a lower mean 3core of social desirability than the
other 3 groups, although an analysis of variance between groups did not reach statistical
significance.
Using a "quasi* median-split method 1 , frequencies of social desirability greater than and less
than the median2 (16) are presented i n Table 10.
Table W Group Response Frequencies of Social Desirability

(1) Less Than and (2) Greater than the Sample 2 Median (16)
(1) Social Desirability < 16 (2) Social Desirability > 16
Frequency % Sample Gp Frequency % Sample Gp

Performers 42 42/88=47% Performers 41 41/88=46%
Non-Performers 11 11/29=3858 Non-Performers 15 15/29=51%
Pit Musicians 12 12/31=39% Pit Musicians 15 15/31 =48%

Onstage Perfs 21 21 /33=64% Onstage Perfs 12 12/33=36%
Symphony Perfs 9 9/24=37% Symphony Perfs 14 14/24=58%
Accountants U 11 /29=38% Accountants 15 15/29=51%
Analysis
Collectively, performers show virtually equal percentages of high and low social desirability,
with non-performers showing a slightly larger percentage in the high social desirability
category. In individual groupings, however, onstage performers show a much higher
percentage of respondents in the low social desirability category than other groups, with
symphony performers showing the highest percentage of respondents in the high social
desirability category.
1
!n the present study, comparisons were made by separating groups into greater than and less than
the sample median, leaving out those equal to the sample median in order to lessen the effect of
central tendency.
2
The conceptual median (16.5) for the social desirability variable is close to the sample median (16);
the latter was used to separate the two halves of the distribution.
48
Self-esteem and the Social Desirability variable
Several reasons w h y the self-esteem variable has a negatively-skewed distribution with the
sample mean (27.47)and median (28) having a much higher value than the conceptual
median(21) are examined further in the discussion section. One possible cause, often viewed
as a common confound i n self- rated personality i nventories, could be the tendency for
subject.3 to respond in a manner that is deemed socially appropriate.
Tables 11,12 and 13 depict group frequencies1 of the self-esteem variable, both greater than
and less than the conceptual median (21), and with and without social desirability scores
greater than or le3S than the median (16).

Researchers (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) have suggested that those subjects with low social
desirability scores are more likely to describe themselves as they truly perceive themselves,
on 'socially sensitive' variables, than those with high social desirability scores.
1
Small cell frequencies, remaining after the response set confound w a s accounted for, limited
further use of parametric statistics (ie. n < 25). Instead, trends were examined using frequencies
and relative percentages.

(Offtgh S#fF-£sfa?m — Using Conceptual Median ie. Scores > 21
Table 11 presents those in each grouping with scores greater than the self-e3teem conceptual
median(21) in column (1) and those scoring both more than 21, and less than the social
desi rability sample median of 16 i n Col umn (2).
Table / / (1) Group Response Frequencies Greater than Self- Esteem Conceptual Median (21)
Compared With
(2) Group Response Frequencies Greater than Self-Esteem Conceptual Median
AND Less than Social Desirability Sample Median (16)
(1) Self Esteem > 21 (2) Self-Esteem > 21 AND Social Desirability < 16
Performers 84 84/94 = 8 9 % Performers 34 34/94=36%

Non-Performers 30 30/32 = 9 3 % Non-Performers 10 10/32=31%
Pit Musicians 30 30/33 = 9 0 % Pit Musicians 9 9/33=27%

Onstage Perfs 32 32/36 = 8 8 % Onstage Performers 1? 17/36=47%
Symphony Perfs 22 22/25 = 8 8 % Symphony Performers 8 8/25=32%
Accountants 30 30/32 = 9 3 % Accountants 10 10/32=31%
Analysis
Before social desirability is considered, all groups appear to have very high percentages of
high self-esteem scores, the largest relative percentage being observed in accountants, when
using the conceptual median to partition-off high and low self-esteem categories.
After the social desirability condition is applied, however, onstage performers (47%)appear
to have the largest relative percentage of high self-esteem responses, at least 1 9 % higher
than the other 3 groups. Large drops are evident when comparing percentages in column (1)
with column (2), for example, both pit musicians and accountants have discrepancies of
around 6 0 % .
(H) Low S*lf-Esfom— Using Conceptual Median ie. Scores < 21
A positive correlation of _r = 0.25, p < .01 is observed between 3elf-esteem and social
desirability scores across the total sample, suggesting that high self-esteem scores are
coupled in some instances with high social desirability scores.

It has been shown (Hewitt & Goldman, 1974) that subjects scoring high on both social
desirability and self-esteem measures behave in a similar manner to subjects attributed with
low self-e3teem. It could be hypothesised therefore that those in the present study with this
particular combination of scores may be erroneously reporting their self-esteem scores ina
more positive direction than is actually the case. Table 12 shows percentages of respondents in
each group with high social desirability and high 3elf-esteem scores.
Table 12 Group Response Frequencies of Self- Esteem scores Greater than

Conceptual Median (21) AND Greater than Social Desirability Sample Median( 16)
Self Esteem > 21 AND Social Desirability > 16
Frequency % Sample Gp
Performers 39 39/94=41%
Non-Performers 15 15/32=47%
Pit Musicians 15 15/33=45%

Onstage Performers 12 12/36=33%
Symphony Perfs 12 12/25=48%
Accountants 15 15/32=47%
Analysis
At least 41 % of performers and 47% of non-performers may have lower self-esteem than
they have stated. All of the individual groups, except on-stage performers have around 45%
of their respondents" scores falling in the high social desirability and high self-esteem
combined category. Onstage performers show the lowest relative percentage(33%), 12% less
than the next highest percentage.

51
Percentages of inferred low self-esteem added to those who actually scored themselves in the
low category for self-esteem scores are presented in Table 13.
Table 13 (1) Group Response Frequencies Less than Self- Esteem Conceptual Median (21)
(2) Group Response Frequencies Less than Self-Esteem Conceptual Median (21) ADDED TO
Group Frequencies Greater than Self-Esteem Conceptual Median AND
Greater than Social Desirability Sample Median( 16)
(1) Self Esteem < 21 (2)SelfEsteem<21 Plus

Self Esteem >21 AND Social Desirability > 16

Performers 9 9/94=9% Performers 48 48/94 = 5 1 %
Non-Performers 2 2/32=6% Non-Performers 17 17/32 = 5 3 %
Pit Musicians 3/33=9% Pit Musicians 18 18/33 = 5 4 %

Onstage Performers 3 3/36=8% Onstage Perfs 15 15/36 = 4 2 %
Symphony Perfs 3 3/25=12% Symphony Perfs 15 15/25 = 6 0 %
Accountants 2 2/32=6% Accountants 17 17/32 = 5 3 %
Analysis
Percentages are all quite small (6%-12%) for those who have scored less than 21,
acknowledging low self-esteem. Performers show a very small margin percentage over non-
performers, as do symphony players over the other 3 sample groups.

If those with scores high on social desirability and high on 3e1f-esteem are equated with "low"
self-esteem and these frequencies are then added to those in column (1 )(ie. stated low self-
esteem) , the outcome suggests percentages of low self-esteem may be much larger than i3
first apparent. Virtually, half of all performers, collectively, and non-performers could
thU3 be classified as having low self-esteem. Similarly, all individual groups fall within a
range of 42% (onstage performers) to 60% (symphony players) of composite estimates of
low self-esteem.
If Column (2) of Table 11 is compared with Column (2) of Table 13, group percentages of
low self-esteem generally appear to be somewhat larger than percentages for high self-
esteem; completely the reverse scenario is evident when social desirability is not accounted
for (ie. comparing Column (1) of both Table 11 and Table 13).
Ratios of high/low esteem percentages, accounting for social desirability are as follows:
Performers - 36:51 Non-Performers - 31:53

Symphony performers - 32:60 Pit. Musicians - 27:54,
On-stage Performers - 47:42 Accountants- 31:53
Onstage performers appear to have a larger percentage of high self-esteem scores and a
smaller percentage of low self-esteem scores when compared with the other groups.
Symphony musicians show the largest relative percentage of low self-esteem 3core3, both
before and after the condition of social desirability. Onstage performers show a much smaller
disparity (ie. 4 7 % : 4 2 % = 5 % ) between proportions of high and low 3elf-e3teem than do

other groups( eg. symphony performers, 3 2 % : 6 0 % = 2 8 % ) .
If social desirability were behaving like a constant for the 3elf-esteem variable, then U3ing
the sample median(28) rather than the conceptual median as a high/low cut-off point and
comparing relative frequencies may yield similar results. Table 14 presents self-esteem
scores greater than and less than the sample median (28).
Table 14 (1) Group Response Frequencies Greater than Self-Esteem Sample Median (28)
(2) Group Response Frequencies Less than Self-Esteem Sample Median (28)
(1) Self Esteem > 28 (2) Self-Esteem < 28



Onstage Perfs 18 18/36 = 5 0 % Onstage Performers 16 16/36=44%
Analysis - Self-Esteem scores > 2 8 (ctd).
Using the 3ample median, rather than the conceptual median as a cut-off point, ratios of
high/low esteem percentages are as follows:
Symphony performers - 52:36 Pit Musicians - 36:51 ,

On-3tage Performers - 50:44 Accountant3- 37:41
Relative frequencies using the sample median appear somewhat different in comparison with
results using the conceptual median. In this instance, not only onstage performers but also
symphony performers have larger high self-esteem percentages than low self-esteem
percentages. As before, pit musicians have larger percentages of low self-esteem scores
compared to high self-esteem scores, in a comparatively similar ratio. Accountants have less
disparity between high and low self-esteem frequencies with the sample mean than with the
conceptual mean.
The Demand for Approval and the Social Desirability variable
A3 previously noted, the sample median of 3 for the demand for approval factor i3 le3s than the
conceptual median of 5 , effecting a positive1y-3kewed distribution. The demand-for-approval
variable, like self-esteem, could also be viewed as "socially sensitive" and therefore prone to
socially-desirable response set; in this case, a tendency not to endorse items that suggest a
need for approval, resulting in a greater number of low scores i n the distribution.
This can be viewed as a further generalisation from the evidence of Hewitt & Goldman ( 1 9 7 4 )
but no published research was found specifically examining this possibility.
The same process 83 before is undertaken to assess the hypothesised effect of the response 3et
for this variable.

(i) Low tteavmrftotApproval— Using Conceptual Median ie. Scores < 5.
Those i n each group with a score less than the conceptual median of 5 (10 items , scored 1 or
zero . 10/2 = 5)) are compared with those scoring less than 5 and less than 16 on the social
desirability index, the latter combination theoretically representing 'truer' responses.

These frequencies are presented in Table 15.
Table 15
(1) Group Response Frequencies Less than Demand for Approval Conceptual Median (5)
Compared With
(2) Group Response Frequencies Less than Demand for Approval Conceptual Median
(1) Demand For Approval < 5 (2) Demand for Approval < 5 AND Social Desirability < 16


Analysis
Table 15 shows non- performers to have a slightl y larger relative percentage of low "demand
for approval scores' ( 6 2 % ) than do performers ( 5 6 % ) .
Initially, symphony players appear to have the highest proportion of low'demand for approval"
scores ( 7 2 % ) , and onstage performers, the lowest relative proportion ( 4 3 % ) . When social
desirability response set is accounted for, both symphony players and finance subjects show a
considerable drop of about 4 0 % respectively in 'low demand for approval' score percentages.
All individual groups have percentages ranging between 2 0 % (onstage performers) and 2 4 %
(pit arid symphony musicians) of ostensibly 'authentic' low demand for approval scores, a
much different profile than without considering social desirability (Table 15 , Column 1).
55
(ii) tfyh fymxrffyr Apptvvj? — Using Conceptual Median ie. Scores > 5.
As with self-esteem, it may be reasonable to suggest that those with high social desirability
scores and low demand for approval scores may actually be masking higher levels of the
demand for approval factor. Those scoring more than the social desirability sample
median( 16) and less than the demand for approval conceptual median(5) are presented in
Table 16.
Table 16
Group Response Frequencies Less than Demand for Approval Conceptual Median (5)
AND Greater than Social Desirability Sample Median (16)
Demand For Approval < 5 AND Social Desirability > 16
Performers 24 24/93 = 2 6 %
Non-Performers 11 11/32 = 3 4 %
Pit Musicians 8 8/33 = 2 4 %

Onstage Perfs 5 5/35 = 1 4 %
Symphony Perfs 11 11 /25 = 4 4 %
Accountants 11 11 /32 = 3 4 %
Analysis
Non-performers 3how a higher relative percentage of inferred high 'demand for approval'
scores than performers. On-stage performers show by far the smallest ratio of ostensibly
'high* demand for approval scores combined with high scores for social desirability ( 1 4 % ) .
Symphony performers have the highest ratio ( 4 4 % ) of these combined scores.

56
These 'gue3timates* of actual high demand for approval scores are added to those frequencies of
high demand for approval originally acknowledged as such on the questionnaire and presented
in Table 17.
Table 17
(1) Group Response Frequencies Greater than Demand for Approval Conceptual Median (5)
(2) Group Response Frequencies Greater than Demand for Approval Conceptual Median (5)
ADDED TO Group Response Frequencies Les3 than Demand for Approval Median (5) A N D
Greater than Social Desirability Sample Median (16)
(1) Demand For Approval > 5 (2) Demand for Approval > 5 Plus
Demand for Approval < 5 AND Social Desirability > 16

Performers 29 29/93 = 3 1 % Performers 53 53/93 = 5 7 %
Non-Performers 7 7/32 = 2 2 % Non-Performers 18 18/32 = 5 6 %
Pit Musicians 9 9/33 = 2 7 % Pit Musicians 17 17/33 = 5 1 %

Onstage Perfs 15 15/35 = 4 2 % Onstage Perfs 20 20/35 = 5 5 %
Symphony Perfs 5 5/25 = 2 0 % Symphony Perfs 16 16/25 = 6 4 %
Accountants 7 7/32 = 2 2 % Accountants 18 18/32 = 5 6 %
Analysis
High demand for approval 3cores, actually acknowledged on the questionnaire, were greatest
amongst onstage performers ( 4 2 % ) , the lowest, being symphony musicians(27%). However,
if the inferred high demand for approval scores are added, all groups except onstage
performers, increase their percentages of high 'demand for approval' scores by upwards of
2 4 % . Whereas before, symphony musicians had the lowest percentage ( 2 0 % ) of high demand
for approval scores, they now have the largest score of inferred high demand for approval
scores ( 6 4 % ) . Onstage performers show a difference of only 1 3 % .
Using the conceptual median, the ratios of high /low demand for approval scores in comparing
column 2 of both Table 15 and Table 17 are as follows:
Performers - 57: 31 Non-Performers - 56:22
Pit Musicians - 51:27 Onstage Performers - 55:42
Symphony musicians - 64:20 Accountants - 56:22.

57
Frequencies of scores less than and greater than the sample median (3), not the conceptual
median, were calculated to see whether relative group positions remain the same after social
desirability is considered, and these are presented in Table 18.
Table 18 (1) Group Response Frequencies Less than Demand for Approval Sample Median (3)
(2) Group Response Frequencies Greater than Demand for Approval Sample Median (3)
(1) Demand for Approval < 3 (2) Demand for Approval > 3

Pit Musicians 11 11 /33 = 3 3 % Pit Musicians 20 20/33=61%

Onstage Perfs 12 12/35 = 3 4 % Onstage Performers 21 21 /35=60%
Analysis
Using the sample median, rather than the conceptual median as a cut-off point, ratios of
high/low demand for approval percentages are as follows:

Pit Musicians - 61:33, Onstage Performers - 60:34,
Symphony players - 32:60 Accountants - 41: 47
Pit musicians and onstage performers show greater percentages of high/ low demand for
approval scores than symphony players and finance subjects, whereas, accounting for social
desirability and using the conceptual mean shows symphony players to have the highest ratio
of high /low demand for approval scores (64: 20). Relative frequencies using the sample
median thus show a slight disparity from those ratios calculated by using the conceptual
median combined with the social desirability factor.

58
Sensitivity to Criticism and the Social Desirability variable.
In the present study, a negative correlation of r_= -.34 (p_< .001 )was observed between self-
esteem and sensitivity to criticism . It therefore might be reasonable to hypothesise that
'sensitivity to criticism" scores correlating with self-esteem (itself a correlate of social

desirability), might al30 be affected by the social desirability response set. As with the other
two main variables of self-esteem and demand for approval, some people may "in Veritas" be
sensitive to negative feedback, or criticism, but not actually wish to admit it, and consequently
not acknowledge it on a questionnai re.
(.()finynS#nsitmty foCritMsm — Using Conceptual1 Median ie. Scores > 12.
Those with low scores on the 'sensitivity to criticism' variable may well be masking "true"
high scores. Table 19( 1) presents group frequencies of scores greater than the conceptual
median( 12) and in column (2) are found 3core frequencies less than the conceptual
median( 12) and greater than the social desirability sample median (16).
Table 19
(1 )Group Response Frequencies Greater than Sensitivity to Criticism Conceptual Median( 12)
(2)Group Response Frequencies Less than Sensitivity to Criticism Conceptual Median( 12)
AND Greater than Social Desirability Sample Median (16)
(1) Sensitivity To Criticism > 12 (2) Sensitivity To Criticism < 12

AND Social Desirability > 16

Non-Performers 19 19/32 = 5 9 % Non-Performers 3 3/32= 9 %
Pit Musicians 20 20/33 = 60% Pit Musicians 6 6/33=18%

Onstage Perfs 23 23/36 = 69% Onstage Performers 5 5/36=14%
Symphony Perfs 14 14/23 = 61% Symphony Performers 4 4/23=17%
Accountants 19 19/32 = 59% Accountants 3 3/32= 9 %
1
Sensitivity to Criticism Conceptual Median = 20 - 4 (4 items x 5 - Max. score - 4 items x 1 - Min.
score) = 1 6 . Divide 16 by 2 = 8. Add 8 to minimum score (4) = 12. Conceptual Median =12.]
Analysis— Sensitivity to Criticism ctd.
Looking at Table 19( 1), performers and non- performers have almost equal percentages of
high sensitivity to criticism scores . individual sample groups show on-stage performers as
having the greatest percentage of high criticism sensitivity scores, followed by pit musicians
and accountants.
Those who checked low sensitivity to criticism responses and had high social desirability
scores, were found in at least 2 5 % of three of the sample groups, the onstage performing
group, however, showing only a 1 7 % percentage of these combined scores.
If Column (2)of Table 19 i3 assumed to 'truly' represent high, and not low, sensitivity to
criticism, then adding the two columns together gives a total "guestimate" of frequencies of high
sensitivity to criticism, as 3hown in Table 20.
Table 20 Esti mate of High Sensitivity to Criticism Group Frequencies

High Sensitivity To Criticism
Performers 72 72/92 = 7 8 %
Non-Performers 22 22/32 = 6 9 %
Pit Musicians 26 26/33 = 7 9 %

Onstage Perfs 28 28/36 = 7 7 %
Symphony Perfs 18 18/23 = 7 8 %
Accountants 22 22/32 = 6 9 %
Analysis
Table 2 0 shows all groups to have inferred high percentages of sensitivity to criticism when
social desirability is considered. Finance subjects show the overall lowest relative percentage
of scores ( 6 9 % ) relative to all performing groups.

00"low S*nsrtmfy to CritKism — Using Conceptual Median ie. scores < 12.
Table 21, col umn (1), presents group frequencies of scores less than the conceptual median
(12) and in column (2) are found score frequencies less than the conceptual median( 12) and
less than the social desirability sample median (16).
Table2f
(1 )Group Response Frequencies Less than Sensitivity to Criticism Conceptual Median( 12)
(2)Group Response Frequencies Less than Sensitivity to Criticism Conceptual Median( 12)
(1) Sensitivity To Criticism < 12 (2) Sensitivity To Criticism < 12

AND Social Desirability < 16

Performers 24 24/92 = 2 6 % Performers 8 8/94= 9%
Non-Performers 9 9/32 = 2 8 % Non-Performers 5 5/32= 1 6 %
Pit Musicians 8 8/33 = 2 4 % Pit Musicians 2 2/33= 6%

Onstage Perfs 11 11 /36 = 3 0 % Onstage Performers 5 5/36=14%
Symphony Perfs 5 5/23 = 2 2 % Symphony Performers 1 1/23= 4 %
Finance Subjects 9 9/32 = 2 8 % Finance Subjects 5 5/32=16%
Analysis
Before social desirability is accounted for (Col umn 1), between 20% and 30% of each group
have low sensitivity to criticism scores. Overall, non-performers 3how a larger percentage of
low sensitivity scores than performers. Individually, onstage performers show the largest
relative percentage of low sensitivity scores. Selecting only those respondents with low social
desirability (Column 2) percentages radically drop by at most 18% in the pit musicians, the
least, difference, being 12% in accountants, leaving onstage performers and accountants with
the largest percentages of "true* low sensitivity scores. These percentages are effectively the
complement of those presented in Table 19.

SELF-KNOWLEDGE CONFOUND
Private and Public Self-consciousness

As mentioned previously, those highly "aware* or high in private self-consciousness have
been found to have greater accuracy in self-reports, and consequently greater predictive
validity between behaviour and self-reports than those low in private self-consciousness
(Turner, 1975 ; Scheier et al. 1978). Furthermore, those high in public self-consciousne3s
have been found (Turner & Peterson, 1977) to have predictively invalid self-reports, and
low or non-existent behaviour/report correlations. Different levels of awareness may be

characteristic of different occupational groups; in the present study, the primary hypothesis
is that performers will show greater private "awareness" than non-performers, and further,
that onstage performers will show higher levels of private self-con3ciousness than other
performing groups, it is also possible, however, that onstage performers will show greater
public self-consciousness, due to the nature of their particular occupational environment.
Descriptive Data
Means and standard deviations for the variables of private and public self-consciousne3s are
3howninTable22.
Table 22 Means and Standard Deviations

Private Self-Consciousness and Public Se1f-Consciousnes3
(1) Private Self-Consciousne3s (2) Public Self-Consciousness
M SD No. Cases M SD No. Cases
Performers 34.81 6.26 94 Performers 21.08 4.54 94

Non-Performers 30.70 4.69 30 Non-Performers 19.42 4.67 31
Pit Musicians 34.48 6.26 33 Pit Musicians 20.94 4.41 33
Onstage Performers 36.08 5.46 36 Onstage Perfs 21.89 4.44 36
Symphony Players 33.40 7.16 25 Symphony Perfs 20.12 4.80 25
Accountants 30.70 4.69 30 Accountants 19.42 4.67 31
Total Population 33.81 6.16 1 2 4 Total Population 20.67 4.61 125
Descriptive Data ~ Private and Public Self-Consciousness variables (ctd.)
The distribution of the private self-consciousnes3 variable appears relatively normal, with a
mean of 33.81, a mode of 32 and a median of 33. Skewness = .06, and kurtosis =.31.
The distribution of the public self-consciou3ness variable also appears relatively normal with
a skewness of -. 12, and a kurtosis of - .06. Mode and median are both 20.
Performers and non-performers are compared on both private and public self-consciousness
variables using a statistical t-test, and individual groups are similarly examined using
analysis of variance, with a Tukeys-b post-hoc comparison. Results are presented in Table 23
and Table 24, respectively.
Table23 T-test Values for Table 2 4 Analysis of Variance for

Private and Public Self-Consciousness Private and Public Self-Consciousnes3
Performers/NonPerformers Pit/Symphony/Onstage/Accountants
t value P F ratio F prob. Df

Private 3.83 .000** Private 4.75 .003** 3; 120
Public 1.21 .09 Public 1.79 .15 3;121
** p < .001 and is statistically significant ** p < .01 and is statistically significant
Analysis
Statistical t-test analysis shows a significant difference (p_= .000) between performers and
non-performers on the variable of private self-consciousness. Similarly, a one-way analysis
of variance, using a post-hoc Tukey-b multiple comparison test, reflected a significant

difference (JJ. = .003) between accountants and both pit musicians and onstage performers.
Means for the public 3elf-consciousness variable appear fairly similar and are not
significantly different on the t-test statistic between non-performers and performers
Neither are any significant differences found on this variable using a one-way analysis of
variance between individual sample groups.

63
Private and Public Self-consciousness and the Social Desirability variable.
Self-report inventories of high private self-consciou3 persons and low public 3elf-conscious
persons are theorised to have greater predictive validity than the reports of those low in
private self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al., 1975; Turner, 1978).
However, it could be surmised that being attentive to one's inner feelings, or alternatively
having a high level of private self-consciousness, might, in the current 'new age* climate, be
considered 'socially desirable'. Similarly, not admitting to being overly concerned about the
impressions one makes on others(public 3e1f-conseiou3ness) may also be a function of

culturally characteristic behaviour, for example, the "tall poppy syndrome', reasonably
evident in Australia. Therefore, it is possible that a socially-desirable response set may

affect the relative percentages of those with high private, or low public, self-consciousness.
(i) Private Self-Consciousness
In order to assess whether particular groups have 'true* high private consciousness, (and
therefore more accurate 3elf-descriptions on self-reports), frequencies of those subjects
scoring greater than the conceptual1 median of private self-consciousness combined with
those scoring low in social desirability are presented in Table 25, along with those with high
private self-consciousness scores , without considering social desirability.
Table 25
(1) Response Frequencies Greater Than Private Self-Consciou3ness Conceptual Median(> 3 0 )
(2)Response Frequencies Greater Than Private 5elf-Con3ciou3ne33 Conceptual Median (> 18)
AND Less than Social Desirability Sample Median (<16)
(1) Private Self-Consciousness > 30 (2) Private Self-Consciousness > 30
Pit Musicians 27 27/33 = 81% Pit Musicians 9 9/33=27%

Onstage Perfs 28 28/36 = 77% Onstage Performers 19 19/36=53%
Symphony Perfs 17 17/25 = 68% Symphony Performers 7 7/25=28%
Accountants 15 15/30 = 50% Accountants 6 6/30=20%
1
Conceptual Median - Private Self-Consciousness
Private SelfCs = 50 (10 items x 5 - Maximum score ) - 10 (10x1 - Minimum score) = 40.
Divide by 2 = 20. Add to minimum score (10) = 30. Conceptual Median = 30.
Analysis — Private Self-Consciousness and Social Desirability (ctd).
Performers(76%) show greater percentages of high private 3elf-consciousness scores than

non-performers(47%), both before and after social desirability is accounted for.
Initially, both pit musicians and onstage performers claim the highest private self-
consciousness scores. However, in Column 2, onstage performers clearly have the largest
relative percentages of private self-consciousness ( 5 3 % ) , other groups dropping their
frequencies by more than 3 0 % .
(ii) Public Self-Consciousness and Social Desirability
Frequencies of those 3ubject3 scori ng scori ng less than the conceptual2 median of public self-
consciousness and combined with those scoring low in social desirability are presented in
Table 26.
Table 26
(1)Response Frequencies Less Than Public Self-Consciousness Conceptual Median (< 18)
(2)Response Frequencies Less Than Public Self-Consciousness Conceptual Median (< 18)
AND Les3 than Social Desirability Sample Median (< 16)
(1) Public Self-Consciousness < 18 (2) Public Self-Consciousness < 18


Non-Performers 8 8/31=26% Non-Performers 4 4/31=13%
Pit Musicians 8 8/33=24% Pit Musicians 4 4/33=12%

Onstage Perfs 5 5/36= 1 4 % Onstage Performers 3 3/36= 8 %
Symphony Perfs 9 9/25=36% Symphony Performers 4 4/25=16%
Accountants 8 8/31 = 2 6 % Accountants 4 4/31= 1 3 %
2
Conceptual Median - Public Self-Consciousnesss
Public SelfConsciousness = 30 (6 items x 5 - Maximum score) - 6 (6 x 1 - Minimum score) = 24.
Divide by 2 = 12. Add to minimum score (6) = 18. Conceptual Median = 1 8 .

65
Analysis— Public Self-Consciousness ctd.
Performers and non-performers show equally-small relative percentages of low public self-
consciousness scores before and after accounting for social desirability.
Individually, onstage performers appear to have the smallest percentages, both in column 1
and column 2, although cell frequencies are very small (< 5 per cell) possibly magnifying
apparent discrepancies.
Theoretically, subjects with low public 3elf-consciousness or high private 3elf-consciousness
scores (Turner, 1975; Scheier, Buss & Buss, 1978) will be portraying their responses on
sensitive" variables more accurately than other subjects. Thus far, onstage performers show
the largest percentage of high private self-consciou3ness scores ( 5 3 % ) , and symphony

performers show the highest relative percentage of low public self-consciousness scores
( 1 6 % ) when selecting for low social desirability.
However, in Table 27, which delineates high public self-consciousnes3 and combinations of
low social desirability and high public self-consciousness scores, on-stage performers also
show a large percentage of high public self-consciousness scores ( 4 2 % ) . Large percentages of
both high private and low public self-consciousness scores in onstage performers precludes
generalising about response accuracy (Turner, 1975) as a function of sample group for both
the public and private self-consciousness variables.
Table27 (1)Response Frequencies Greater Than Public Self-Consciousne3s Median (> 18),
(2)Response Frequencies Greater Than Public Self-Consciousness Median (> 18),
And Less than Social Desirability Median (<16)
(1) Public Self-Consciousness > 18 (2) Public Self-Consciousness >18


Non-Performers 19 19/31=61% Non-Performers 6 6/31=19%

Accountants 19 19/31=61% Accountants 6 6/31=19%
66
Analysis - Private and Public Self-consciousness and Social Desirability (ctd).
For the present study, it may be that only those with a combination of both low public and high
private self-consciousness scores and low social desirability scores are describing themselves
accurately and would therefore show predictive validity , if comparative behavioural criteria
were available. Those with this profile are presented in Table 28.
Table 28
Response Frequencies Greater Than Private 3elf-Con3ciousne33 Conceptual Median (> 30),
Less Than Public Self-Consciousnes3 Conceptual Median (< 18)
And Less than Social Desirability Sample Median (<16)
Private Self-Consciousness > 30, Public Self-Consciousness < 18 AND Social Desirability < 16
Performers 8 8/94= 8%
Non-Performers 1 1 /31 = 3%
Pit Musicians 2 2/33= 6%

Onstage Perfs 3 3/36= 8%
Symphony Perfs 3 3/25 = 1 2 %
Accountants 1 1/31=3%
Analysis
Any interpretation of such small cell frequencies( < 5) as depicted in Table 28, is undertaken
with some caution. It is at least apparent that only a small percentage, 3% of non-performers
and 8% of performers, meet the three criteria previously suggested as being conducive to
more authentic self-de3cription and hypothesised predictive validity.

67
SOCIAL FACTORS
Social factors included in the questionnaire were analysed in terms of percentages, due to
small cell frequencies. Several of these variables, namely, loneliness, perceived emotional
closeness to father and mother, and the importance of parental career approval, that were
rated 1 to 5 on a Likert 3cale in the questionnaire, were collapsed into 3 ordinal categories for
analysis.
Feeling Lonely as a cbild
Of those who felt lonely, 36.7% were onstage performers, the highest percentage compared
with the 3 other groups. Of those who were performers, 30.6% 3aid they felt lonely, as
compared with 47.2%, not feeling lonely.
Freetime spent alone
Of those who spent their time alone as a child, 43.5% were onstage performers, the highest
percentage compared with the 3 other groups. Of onstage performers, 27.8% spent their
time alone, compared with 38.9% spending time with family and 2 5 % with friends.
Emotional Closeness to Parents
41 % of finance subjects were not emotionally close to their fathers. All other groups showed
percentages greater than 3 6 % , i n terms of emotional closeness to thei r fathers.
Of those not emotionally close to their mothers, 38.9% were onstage performers.
Parental Career Approval
Of the small number (ie.8 subjects -6.5% of total sample) whose mother does not approve of
their career choice, 5 0 % (4subjects) were pit musicians. Similarly, only 7 subject3"(5.7%
of total sample) lacked perceived paternal approval. 13.9% of the sample did not know
whether or not they had paternal approval. None of the finance subjects stated that their
mother or father did not approve of thei r career.

68
Social Factors (ctd.)
Importance of Parental Career Approval
3 2 . 4 % of those who felt paternal approval of their career to be i rnportant, were onstage
performers, the highest percentage out of the other groups. 3 6 . 4 % of symphony musicians
felt it important to have paternal approval for their career, 5 0 % did not think it important.
Of those who felt it important to have maternal approval for their career, 3 5 % were onstage
performers and 3 2 . 5 % were pit musicians. Of the total sample of fi nance subjects, 6 1 . 3 %
thought it unimportant to have maternal approval for their career choice.
All social factors were found to be statistically independent of individual sample group
membershi p (usi ng the chi -squared statistic). The lowest probability level noted was 0.10,
in examining the importance of maternal career approval as a function of each sample group.
The result is therefore not statistically significant at the required level (.05) of probability.
Career Satisfaction /Preferred work environment/Preference for on or off-stage performing
Dissatisfaction with career has the highest percentage, 5 4 . 5 % , amongst finance 3ubject3.
However, when looking at preferred work environment, 3 9 . 4 % of pit musicians would rather
be members of a permanent orchestra or play in concerts, as compared with 15.2%
preferring musicals or opera pit playing.

4 0 % of symphony players showed a preferred work environment as members of an orchestra,
and 8 % , playing concerts. None of the symphony players chose the musicals/opera category as
a preferred work environment.
5 1 . 5 % of pit musicians show a preference for on-stage performing as compared with 1 8 . 2 %
preference for offstage performance. 9 2 % of symphony musicians prefer on-stage
performing , 8 % have no preference. None of the symphony players showed a clear preference
for off-stage performing.
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Sex
Of the total sample of 126, 4 6 % (58) are female , 5 4 % (68) are male. (See Appendix G-1)
Collectively, performers consisted of comparatively similar proportions of males and
females, 51 % and 4 9 % respectively. A greater male/female ratio wa3 observed, 6 2 % : 3 8 %
for non-performers.
Onstage performers and pit musicians had a larger percentage of females ( 5 4 % and 5 5 %
respectively) whereas symphony musicians and finance subjects were largely male
dominated, 6 8 % and 6 2 % , respectively.
Differences between male and female mean scores were examined by t-test analysis for each of
the primary variables. Means, t values and probability levels are presented in Table 29.
Table 29 Mean Differences on Variables of Self- Esteem, Demand for Approval,

Sensitivity to Criticism, Social Desirability, Private and Public Self-Consciousness
for Males and Females across total sample (N.= 126)
Female ( M ) Male (M) t value P
Self Esteem 26.64 28.19 -1.97 .051

Demand for Approval 4.29 3.22 + 2.32 .02**
Sensitivity to Criticism 13.91 12.89 + 1.90 .06
Social Desirability 15.38 16.32 -0.93 .35
Private Self-Con3ciousness 34.46 33.28 + 1.09 .28
Public Self-Consciousness 21.82 19.70 + 2.60 .01**
* * p < .05 and is statistically significant
Analysis
Statistical t-tests showed mean sex differences for two primary variables, namely, demand
for approval, and public self-consciousness, indicating that females(4.29) generally rated
higher scores than males(3.22) on both the demand-for-approval and self-consciousness
measures. Self-esteem and sensitivity to criticism also exhibited probability levels in the
vicinity of .05, but were not statistically significant.

Age
Mean age for the total sample is approximately 34, the median is 31 and the distribution is
positively-skewed (1.31)ranging between 2 0 and 69 years. Individual sample means are 3 0
for pit musicians, 3 4 for onstage performers, 36 for symphony musicians and 35, for
accountants. An analysis of variance between sample group means shows p_= .058, falling
outside statistical significance. However, when accountants are not i ncluded, p_ = .02, which
is statistically significant at p <.05 level, using Tukey-b post-hoc comparisons, showing a
difference between pit and symphony musicians in mean age.

Mean age also differs significant! y (p_ = .009) between ma1es( 36.00) and females (31.6).
A negative correlation (r_= -.21, p <.01)between age and public self-consciousness was the
only significant relationship found between the age variable and the primary variables.
level of Education
Largest relative percentages for all individual sample groups, are found to be those subjects
who have completed tertiary studies.
These are as follows : Pit musicians - 24/33 = 7 3 % , onstage performers - 17/36 = 4 7 % ,
symphony musicians - 14/25 = 5 6 % and accountants - 16/32 = 5 0 % . Of the total number

of female subjects, 38/58 = 6 5 % have completed tertiary studies, a greater relative
percentage than that of the males, who show only 33/68 = 4 8 % . No statistically significant
effects were found for educational level with any of the mai n variables .
71
FACTOR INTERCORRELATIONS
Correlations between the primary variables are presented in Table 30.
Table 50 I ntercorrelations between variables across total sample group [ N_ = 126]
Self Approval Sensitivity Social Private Public

Esteem Demand Criticism Desirability Self-Consciousness Self-Consciousness
Self-Esteem 1.00
Demand For -.28** 1.00

Approval
Sensitivity -.34** .49** 1.00

To Criticism
Social .25**-.18 -.22* 1.00

Desirability
Private Self- .04 -.19 .33** -.19 1.00

Consciousness
Public Self- -.09 .41** .35** -.07 .38** 1.00

Consciousness
** p < .001 and is statistically significant.

* p < .01 and is statistically significant.
Analysis
Significant negative correlations are found between self-e3teem and demand for approval
(r_= -.28, p_<.001), and between 3e1f-esteem and sensitivity to criticism ( r = -.34,
p<.001). Sensitivity to criticism is also negatively-correlated with social desirability

(r_=-.22,p<.001).
Significant positive i ntercor relations are observed between the following pairs of variables:
self-e3teem and social desirability, demand for approval and sensitivity to criticism, demand
for approval and public self-consciousness, private 3elf-consciousness and sensitivity to
criticism, and public self-conciousness and sensitivity to criticism.
In addition, both self-consciousness 3ub-scales, private and public, are significantly

positively correlated, r = .38 (p_< .001).
72
SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS
Several trends were evident across the total sample between some of the social factors and
several primary variable means. These are presented in Tables 31 through to Table 35.
Variable combinations not included are due to small cell sizes or non-significant results.
Self-Esteem and Social Factors
Mean levels of self-esteem for several social factors are shown in Table 31.
Table 31 Mean Self- Esteem For Levels of

Loneliness , Aloneness, Parental Career Approval,
Importance of Parental Career Approval, Career Satisfaction
M 3D No. Cases F Value p

Loneliness as a child
(i) Lonely 25.80 5.73 30 4.86 .009**
(ii) Neutral 26.09 4.54 21
(iii) Not Lonely 28.41 3.56 70
Freeti me spent as a child
(i) Alone 25.17 6.16 23 3.68 .023**
(ii) With friends 27.71 3.05 39
(iii) With family 27.94 4.09 58
Importance of Maternal Career Approval
(i) Not Important 27.62 4.15 53 1.94 .15
(ii) Neutral 28.62 3.16 29
(iii) Important 26.55 5.24 40
Importance of Paternal Career Approval
(i) Not Important 27.37 4.56 60 2.81 .06
(ii) Neutral 29.04 3.14 28
Career Satisfaction
(i) Dissatisfied 23.45 7.39 11 Cells too small
(ii) Undecided 28.54 3.55 11 for 1 -way anova
(iii) Satisfied 27.81 3.89 100
**P < .05 and is statistically significant, using a oneway analysis of variance and Tukeys-b post-hoc
comparisons.
73
Analysis - Self-esteem and social factors ctd.
Mean self-esteem levels appear to be lower for those who are dissatified with their career,
and those who view parental career approval as important, but. differences are not
statistically significant. However, an analysis of variance produces statistically-significant
differences (p < .05), between those who felt lonely as children and those who did not feel
lonely, and differences between those who spent time alone and those who spent time with
family, lower self-esteem seemingly associated with being alone or spending time alone.
Demand for Approval and Social Factors
Mean levels of demand for approval for varyi ng degrees of the i mportance of parental career
approval are shown in Table 32.
Table 32 Mean Demand for Approval for

Importance of Parental Career Approval Levels
Mean SD No. Cases F Value p

(i) Not Important 3.08 2.62 52 5.55 .005**
(ii) Neutral 3.31 2.43 29
(i) Not Important 3.51 2.60 59 2.89 .059
(ii) Neutral 3.14 2.46 28
**p < .05 and is statistically significant, using a oneway analysis of variance and Tukey-b post-hoc
comparisons.
Analysis
Demand for approval means appear higher for those considering maternal and paternal
approval important for their careers, however only the maternal mean differences are found
to be significantly higher at p< .05 level.

Sensitivity to Criticism and Social factors
Mean sensitivity to criticism scores are shown for several social factors in Table 33.
Table 33 Mean Sensitivity to Criticism
for Levels of Loneliness, Aloneness, Importance of Parental Career Approval
Mean SD No.Cases F Value p
2.75 70
(i)1.56 .20
Not Lonely 12.90
(ii) Neutral 13.48 3.29 21
(iii) Lonely 14.23 7 51 30
Freetime spent as a child
(i) Alone 15.04 3.18 23 5.13 .007**
(i) Not Important 12.37 3.07 53 8.43 .004**
(ii) Neutral 13.00 2.00 29
(i) Not Important 12.90 3.45 60 1.44 .24
(ii) Neutral 13.43 2.02 28
* * p < .05 and is statistically significant, using a oneway analysis of variance and Tukeys-b post-hoc
comparisons.
Analysis
Sensitivity to criticism means appear high for the following categories : those who see
parental career approval a3 important (14.75 & 13.97), those who spent time alone (15.04)
or those who felt lonely as child (14.75). However, only two variables had statistically
significant differences between means, those who spent their free time alone compared with
those who spent time with family or friends, and those who value their mother's approval of
their career as important in contrast with those who do not.

75,
Social Desirability and Social factors
Mean social desirability scores for different leveb of loneliness and aloneness are presented
in Table 34.
Table 54 Mean Social Desi rability for Levels of Loneli nes3 and Alonenes3
Mean SD No. Cases F Value P

(i) Not Lonely 16.59 5.58 66 1.12 .34
(ii) Neutral 15.60 4.59 20
(iii) Lonely 14.37 3.51 27
Freeti me spent as a child
(i) Alone 13.65 5.84 23 3.41 .03**
** p < .05 and is statistically significant, using a oneway analysis of variance and Tukeys-b
post-hoc comparisons.
Analysis
Mean social desirability levels are lower, both in those who were lonely as children and those
who spent time alone, than in other categories. Differences were only statistically significant
for those who mainly spent time alone, in comparison with those who spent time with others.
Private Self-Consciousness and Social factors
Mean private self-consciousness scores for loneliness, aloneness and the importance of career
approval are presented in Table 35.
Table 35 Mean Private Self-Consciou3ness

for Levels of Lonelinessi, Aloneness, Importance of Parental Career Approval
Mean 3D No. Cases F Value P

(i) Lonely 36.60 5.92 30 2.93 .03**
(ii) Neutral 33.14 6.28 21
(iii) Not Lonely 32.95 6.08 68
Freeti me 3pent as a child
(i) Alone 35.69 5.04 23 2.17 .18
(i) Important 36.27 4.95 40 5.96 .003**
(ii) Neutral 31.38 5.38 29
(iii) Not Important 33.35 6.92 52
(i) Important 34.91 5.42 34 1.52 .22
(ii) Neutral 32.21 5.11 28
(iii) Not Important 34.07 6.97 59
**p < .05 and is statistically significant, using a oneway analysis of variance and Tukey's -b
post-hoc comparisons.
Analysis
Higher mean private 3elf-consciousness scores are found in those who were alone and spent
time alone as children, and in those who value parental approval for their career choice.
Only two sets of differences were statistically significant, namely, those who valued maternal
career approval as important as compared with those who did not, and those who felt lonely as
children compared with those who did not.

DISCUSSION
Before examining whether different levels of 3elf-esteem and demand for approval are found to
be characteristic of specialised occupational groups in the performing arts, demographic
factors across the total sample were investigated as possible covariates. Relationships were
also explored between primary variables across the total sample.
Firstly, statistically significant effects for the gender variable were found across the total
sample with two of the primary factors, namely, demand for approval and public self-
consciousness . Females were found to have higher means for the demand for approval
variable, consistent with the common perception that women are more likely than men to seek
approval from otters (Eskilson & Wiley, 1987; Hoffman, 1972). Females were also found to
have higher mean levels of public 3elf-consciousness, suggesting greater awareness of
physical or overt self (Turner & Gilliland, 1981), this finding being contrary to the lack of
gender differences observed in a study by Fenigstein et al., 1975). The self-esteem variable
appeared to reflect a lower mean level for females, again commensurate with community
concensus (Eskilson & Wiley, 1 9 8 7 ) , but did not reach statistical significance. Similarly, the
female mean for sensitivity to criticism was higher than the male mean, but fell outside
required probability levels for significance.

For individual sample groups, a significant difference between mean age levels was found when
omitting accountants from the calculation. Pit musicians appeared to be somewhat younger
than symphony musicians. However, on closer inspection, this may have been due to outliers,
ie. several older subjects, as the sample group age distributions were otherwise quite
comparable.
A significant negative correlation between age and public 3elf-eonsciousness was evident,
perhaps suggesting that the older the age, the less is the concern with the impression being
made upon others in a social situation.
In terrn3 of the education factor, completed tertiary qualifications were quite evenly
represented in all sample group3, with a slightly higher percentage of tertiary degrees being
found for femaies as compared with males, across the total sample.
78
Discussion ctd.
No significant interaction effects between sample groups v/ere found for demographic factors
with the primary variables of interest. Several significant factor i ntercor relations were
found, however, for the primary variables across the total sample. A significant negative
correlation was found between self-esteem and demand for approval, confirming the previous
findings of Daly & Burton ( 1 9 8 3 ) , although the absolute magnitude of their correlation
(r_ = - .44, p_ < .001) was somewhat higher than i n the present study .
Significant positive correlations were also found between self-e3teem and social desirability ,
which, according to McCrae & Costa ( 1 9 8 3 ) , could be interpreted in two ways, namely that
the trait measure may be subject to the operation of the response bias measured by the social
desirability scale, or that the social desirability 3cale may include content related to the trait.
The correlation val ue at r_=.25 is not i ndicative of a large 'substance overlap', suggesti ng
rather that the response bias is operative. Substance overlap may, however, be a factor in the
large significant positive correlation (.41) found between demand for approval and public
3elf-consciousness, suggesting a degree of convergent validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959)
between the two measures, it might further be expected that the demand for approval measure
would correlate with the social desirability measure, given that the social desirability
measure has also been viewed by some as a 'need for approval* (Hewitt & Goldman, 1 9 7 4 ) , a
construct in its own right(McCrae & Costa, 1 9 8 3 ) , rather than just a response style
(Rock, 1981). Nevertheless, there is no correlation between these two factors in the present
study, implying that, in this instance, the two measures are not sampling the same construct.
In a similar vein, it might be assumed that scale scores of those who are particularly aware of
their social 3elf-aspects and sensitive to the impressions that they create on others(public
self-consciousne3s) would be correlated with scores of those who have the tendency to present
themselves, at least on paper, in a favourable light (social desirability).

79
Discussion ctd.
However, no significant correlation between public self-consciousness and social desirability
is observed either by Froming & Carver( 1 9 8 1 ) or in the present study, again ill ustrati ng
discriminant validity between, what could be viewed, by definition, as two similar concepts.
.."This social concern seems to be based on 'a sort of social pragmatism rather than a need for
approval*"(Fromi ng & Carver, 1981 p161). It appears that persons high in public self-
consciousness are concerned with their self-presentation so as to facilitate social exchange,
rather than to solicit favourable personal evaluations.
Significant negative correlations emerged between sensitivity to criticism and self-esteem

(in support of Hypothesis 8 ) , and sensitivity to criticism and social desirability.
Sensitivity to criticism was further found to be significantly positively correlated with public
and private self-consciousness, and with the demand for approval.
Comparative correlational studies for the sensitivity to criticism variable were not found
amongst the research literature .
Both self-consciousness sub-scales, private and public, are positively intercorrelated at a
statistically significant level, although they do not show a significant negative correlation
with self-esteem, as previously found by Turner et al.( 1978).
Due to the 'socially sensitive' nature of the main variables under investigation, analysis
concerning the primary hypotheses was undertaken in two stages. Firstly, utilising
parametric procedures, without considering the possible confounds, and secondly, accounting
for probable response-set bias and levels of self-knowledge, using frequencies and relative
percentages, due to the remaining 3mall cell sizes.
The first three hypotheses, which focussed on levels of 3elf-esteern amongst groups of
performers and one comparative group of accountants, did not reach statistical significance.
80
Discussion ctd.
The negatively-skewed distribution of the self-esteem with the sample mean (27.47)and
median (28) having a much higher value than the conceptual median (21) is considered an
integral part of these non-significant results, and could be interpreted in several ways.
Firstly, all respondents may in actuality have very high self-esteem, in which case, one could
say there is no statistical evidence to suggest differences between sample groups on the
variable of self-e3teem . On the other hand, respondents may not admit to having low
3elf-esteem , possibly because they do not know what they feel, that is, they are not
'self - conscious (Scheier et al. 1978). Or, perhaps, they are just unwilling to acknowledge
low self-esteem (Baumeister et al. 1 9 8 9 ) , or, they may even rather say what is deemed
socially appropriate. The latter option, the social desirability response style has, hitherto,
been viewed as one of the most common confounds (Costa & McCrae, 1983) i n self- rated
personality inventories. All primary variables in the present study were therefore
considered to be "vulnerable* to this response set and, despite initial non-significant results,
were further examined for trends.
Hypothesis 1, that performers as a group will 3how a lower mean level of self-esteem than
non-performers and Hypothesis 2, that on-stage performers will show a lower mean level of
3elf-esteem than both groups of musicians were not statistically supported, in fact, both
performers, collectively, compared with non-performers, and onstage performers compared
with the other 3 groups, showed a higher, rather than lower, mean level of self-esteem and
had proportionately more scores in the high self-esteem category after accounting for social
desirability. This finding appears contrary to Henry's( 1 9 6 5 ) notion that 'successful' 'in-
work' actors are usually characterised with high identity diffusion, a concept akin to that of
low 3elf-esteem. However, the onstage sample group was comprised of other types of
performers(ie. dancers, 3ingers) as well as actors, perhaps diffusing the effect.

81
Discussion ctd.
Hypothesis 3, that pit musicians will show a lower level of self-esteem than symphony
musicians (although non-significant) was partially reflected both in mean scores and in lower
3elf-esteem score percentages when accounting for social desirability , suggesting 3ome
concurrence with Frederickson & Rooney's ( 1 9 8 8 ) contention , that pit players perceive
themselves as lower in status than symphony players.

That performers will show a higher mean demand for approval than non-performers
(Hypothesis 4) was not statistically supported . Proportionately more performers do 3how

high demand for approval scores, however, before accounting for social desirability.
That pit musicians and onstage performers will show a higher demand for approval than
symphony musicians and accountants(Hypothesis 5) seems to be reflected in their respective
group means, but falls outside of statistical significance . This hypothesis is also reflected in
the proportions of scores in the high demand for approval category , but cell frequencies are
too small to draw firm conclusions. W h e n inferred high demand for approval scores are added
(ie. high social desirability plus low demand for approval scores) to high demand for approval
scores then all groups show a high percentage of scores (> 5 0 % ) for this variable, including
accountants, indeed, in this instance, symphony players have the largest proportion of high
demand for approval score3 ( 6 4 % ) .
Hypothesis 6, that performers as a group will 3how a greater sensitivity to criticism than
non-performers is not statistically supported, with mean scores showing little difference.
Hypothesis 7, that pit musicians and onstage performers will show a greater sensitivity to
criticism than symphony musicians and accountants is slightly reflected in their means ,
perhap3 lending some support to hypotheses of high sensitivity to criticism in musicians
(Davie3, 1978; Kemp, 1981a). Differences are non-significant, however. Accountants show
a somewhat lower percentage of high sensitivity to criticism scores relative to all other-
performing groups.
82
As for the social desirability variable, per se, no significant differences were found between
group means on this variable. However, symphony musicians have the largest relative
percentage of high social desirability scores which echoes the sentiments of the "fear of social
disapproval", characteristic of musicians noted by Lehrer (1981 )in his study of music
students. In contrast, onstage performers appear to have the largest percentage of low social
desirability scores in comparison with the other groups.

Researchers (Crowne & Marlowe, 1 9 6 4 ) suggested that those subjects with low social
desirability scores are more likely to describe themselves as they truly perceive themselves,
on "socially sensitive* variables, than those with high social desirability score3, theoretically,
lendi ng greater accuracy to thei r self- report i nventories. Although the i mpact of the social
desirability factor on results generally appears considerable, particularly on self-esteem
percentages after the social desirability condition is applied, there i3 still some difference of
opinion as to whether controlling for this measure is at all useful. McCrae & Co3ta ( 1 9 8 3 )
contend that, for most traits, "correcting" for social desirability reduces, rather than
increases, the predictive validity of the self-reports as measured against an external

criterion. Other researchers, for example, Gordon & Gross (1978, in McCrae & Co3ta,
1983) advise that if the scores of all individuals are uniformly inflated or decreased by
social desirability, it will make no difference in interpreting scores, 3ince rank order and
position in a distribution are unaffected, which , for the present study, was examined by
comparing the effect of the social desirability response on the self-esteem variable, using
both the conceptual and sample medians as cut-off points, respectively. Gordon & Gross
(1978) further assert that it is only when social desirability affects individual scores
differentially, that it becomes a source of distortion, which was found to be the case for the
present study. Indeed, using the sample median as the cut-off point (without social
desirability) did not create the same relative positions for self-esteem levels, which are
apparent using the conceptual median coupled with the social desirability variable. For
example, using the sample median, symphony musicians have the greatest percentage of low
self-e3teem scores, whereas the conceptual median-3plit has pit musicians with the largest
percentage of low self-e3teem score3 and symphony musicians with the smallest percentage.
So where possible, external objective criteria should be used if there is reason to question the
validity of responses; otherwise, extreme caution should be exercised in the interpretation of
results pertaining to "socially sensitive' variables.

The second suggested confound was the respondents' possible lack of awareness or self-
knowledge that may also give rise to spurious results. This self-consciousness variable was
similarly considered to be 'vulnerable* to social desirable response set due to the current
new-age' climate , which is increasingly reflected i n the glut of self-awareness books and
workshops presently available for general consumption.

The private self-consciousness variable showed statistically significant mean differences
between both pit musicians and onstage performers, and accountants, the highest mean score
being observed in onstage performers. Onstage performers abo show a considerably larger
proportion of high private self-consciousness scores than other sample groups, after social
desirability is considered. These findings regarding 'inner awareness" appear to support Taffs
(1961) observation that actor3 3coring low on the M M P i ego-strength 3cale, were
nevertheless still 'aware of their weaknesses'. The lowest relative proportion of high private
3elf-consciousne3s scores is found in accountants, with or without the social desirability set.
Although not statistically significant, performers, collectively, show a higher mean on the
public self-consciousness variable. For individual groups, the highest mean score was for
onstage performers. If extraversion could be considered an extreme level of public
3elf-consciousnes3, then high public self-consciousne3s for onstage performers lend3 support
to Kemp's (1981c) observation that singers are generally more extraverted than musicians.
Differences, however, were not statistically significant.
As with the private self-consciousness variable, the biggest proportion of high public self-
consciousness scores is seen in onstage performers. Symphony performers show the smallest
relative percentage of high public 3elf-consciou3nes3 scores and the largest relative
percentage of low public self-conseiou3ness scores, whether the social desirability factor is
considered or not. These low levels of public self-consciousness could be a reflection of the
tendency toward introversion, a trait stable over time, found characteristic of musicians by
Kemp (1981a).
Discussion ctd.
It has been noted (Turner, 1 9 7 8 ) that those with high private self-con3ciousness or low
public self-consciousness are more likely to describe themselves accurately on self-report
inventories. However, private self-consciousness may be confounded by the social desirability
response set by those who could consider it appropriate to 'confess* great self-understanding
in this new age' even if it is not the truth. Public 3elf-consciousness also may be confounded
by those who do not wish to admit to being concerned with the impression they make on others.
Onstage performers were found to have high levels of private self-consciousness, and
symphony musicians, to have low levels of public 3elf-con3ciousness, which, would
theoreticall y attri bute greater predictive validity of behaviour (Turner, 1 9 7 8 ) to the self-
reports from these sample groups. However, high public self-consciousness proportions are
also quite large for onstage performers, which would suggest that for the present study, more
accurate responses can not be seen as function of a particular sample group . Instead, using
those with a combination of low public self-consciousness , high private self-consciousness
and low social desirability, from whichever sample group , would increase the chances of
more accurate outcomes if behaviour were to be predicted.

Several hypotheses pertaining to social factors regarding recalled loneliness and aloneness as
children, parental closeness, parental career approval and its importance, career satisfaction
and work environment were also examined for trends using percentages.
The highest percentage of those who felt lone! y as children and of those who spent thei r ti me
alone as a child, compared with the 3 other groups, were onstage performers. These findings
lend 3orne support to Hypothesis 9, that a greater percentage of on-stage performers will
acknowlege childhood loneliness and/or aloneness than other performers and non-performers.
85
Discussion ctd.
Hypothesis 10, that on-stage performers will show a greater percentage of low parental
emotional closeness than other performers and non-performers was partly substantiated by
the finding that, of those not emotionally close to their mothers, the largest relative
percentage were onstage performers . In terms of those not emotionally close to their fathers,
the greatest percentage was found in accountants.

Only 7 subjects stated a lack of paternal career approval , 4 of which were indeed onstage
performers , as postulated by Hypothesis 11. Those whose mother doe3 not approve of
3ubject3* career choice numbered 8, 4 of which were pit musicians, a finding not supportive
of Hypothesis 11, that onstage performers will show a lower percentage of parental career
approval. Cell frequencies are nevertheless too small to draw any firm conclusions.
The highest relative percentage of those who felt parental approval of their career to be
important were onstage performers, in support of Hypothesis 12.
Hypothesis 13, that pit players will 3how a greater career dissatisfaction was not supported.
Rather, accountants proved to be the most dissatisfied with their careers. However, pit
players do express a high percentage of a preferred work environment other than the pit,
(Hypothesis 1 4 )and a higher percentage of pit players expres3 the preference to work
on-3tage, than the percentage of symphony performers wishing to work off-3tage, effectively
supporting Hypothesis 15. Not one symphony player expressed a preference for a work
environment in the musicals or opera category.
Most of the above findings reiterate the profile described earlier, derived from Trengove*s
(1991)recentl y- published interviews with Australian actors. Actors, i ncl uded i n the
onstage group, appear to share experiences of feeling lonely and spending time alone as
children, feeling emotionally-distant from a parent, and wanting parental validation for their
career choice, a3 a result of being blocked, restricted or thwarted in some way in early life.
86
Discussion ctd.
Several significant supplementary findings drawn from the sample as a whole, were
associated with feeli ngs of loneli ness and aloneness i n childhood, the greatest i ncidenee of
which, was found amongst onstage performers.

Those who felt lonely as children had a significantly lower mean level of self-esteem, and a
significantly higher mean level of private self-consciousness than other subjects. Those who
spent ti m e alone, rather than with family or friends, had significant! y lower levels of self-
esteem and social desirability and significantly higher mean levels of sensitivity to criticism
and private self-consciousness than other subjects.

This profile could suggest that while less social interaction might heighten an individual's
awareness of him/herself and encourage independent, rather than socially-desirable
behaviour, lower self-e3teem and increased sensitivity to criticism appear to be the
by- products of such isolation.
Significantly higher mean levels for both the demand for approval factor and the sensitivity to
criticism variable are found in those who rate their mother's approval for their career as
important, again the greatest percentage of which, are onstage performers. Perhaps it is
parental approval, rather than societal approval, that is being measured (or sampled) by the
demand for approval construct, which may explain the lack of a significant correlation
between social desirability and the demand for approval factor.
Significantly higher mean leveb of private self-consciousne3s are al30 found in those who
state maternal approval of their career choice as important, the majority of these being
onstage performers. Whether a lack of maternal approval of career choice has prompted a
heightened inner-awareness as a consequence, or whether the subject has experienced a
positive maternal role model in terms of career decision-making and self-knowingness,

cannot be determined from the present study.
87
Discussion ctd.
Limitations of the study are several. Non-random selection of samples and too small sample
sizes limit both the generalisability of results and the use of parametric statistics and
multivariate analysis. Familiarity with some of the respondents, particularly the pit
musicians (ie.work colleagues) could have jeopardised the honesty of responses. Some may not
have wished to divulge 'sensitive ' information, fearing the possibility of recognition, even
though anonymity and confidentiality were assured. Familiarity with the respondent may have
al30 i nfl uenced those who i nitiall y vol unteered to fill i n the questionnai re, i ncreasi ng the
non- representative component of the convenience sample.
As previously discussed, examining self-esteem and the other socially sensitive variables,
using only a questionnaire, without comparative behavioural or other appropriate criteria,
can make meaningful interpretation rather spurious, due to the confounds of social
desirability, levels of self-knowledge, and the individual's motivation to give accurate
responses. Lack of control over the time and place when the questionnaire is filled out may
particularly affect, whether the self-esteem measure is acce33ing trait or state self-esteem.
For example, the high self-esteem scores, which were unexpectedly the largest in onstage
performers could reflect a contentment due to regular employment ( 1 - 2 years), long-term
employment being quite an uncommon state for most actors and musicians ( 5 % employment at
any one time - Actor's Equity, Australia, 1991).
A possible recommendation for future research could be to administer a series of
questionnaires, before and after performance, and perhap3 during a period of non-performing
may provide a more global picture of 3elf-esteern levels. Using a number of different self-
esteem measures could be more profitable, in order to make allowance for the arbitrarily
defined -intervals of the Likert scale, which essentially treat a construct, as
uni-dimensional, a criticism often levelled at this method of information gathering
(Gotts,1990, Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton, 1976).

88
Discussion - Recommendations ctd.
Using larger samples may help to counteract the effects of variability often resulting from
non- random selection.

A different comparative group , randomly-selected, may provide more contrasting results,
with perhaps, a focu3 on one type of performer, rather than several, to see if personality
variables can be further isolated, according to performance activities. For example, assessing
dancers, who appear to be externally-focussed, on variables of private and public
self-consciousness, along with verbal versus motor skills, could be an interesting project.
The use of interviews to elicit life history, family dynamics, significant life events, family
interaction and communication style may provide additional comparative criteria for future
studies in this rather 'sparsely-served' area of psychological research.

The results of the present study, though by no means conclusive, have confirmed m y own
belief that many performers, particularly those on-stage, are on a therapeutic journey,
somehow seeking a way of communicating their individuality through the medium of theatre
and music, expressing feelings and emotions that were not perceived by the individual as
having been validated by significant others early in life . Through performing, they are getting
the recognition, attention and 'approval' for themselves that will assist in the development of
their 3elf-worth and identity.
The object of theatre (is) to show mankind to himself.
This contribution., to the fabric of life is underrated.
Kennedy (Trengove ,1991 p 63)

REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Alden, L. & Safran, J. (1978) Irrational beliefs and nonassertive behaviour.
Cognitive Therapu and Research 2 357-364.
Alker, HA (1972) 13 personality situationally specific or intrapsychically consistent?
Journal of Personality 40 1-16.
All port, G. (1961) Pattern and growth in oersonalitu New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Amabile, T.M. (1982) Social Psychology of Creativity : A consensual assessment technique
•Journal of Personalitu &. Social Psucholoqu 45 997-1013.
Amabile, T.M. (1983) The social psychology of creativity : A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personalitu and Social Psuchologu 45 357-376.
Amabile, T.M.( 1985) Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation and
evaluation on creative writers. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 48
393-399.
Amabile, T.M. Hennessey ,B.A. & Grossman, B.G.( 1986) Social influences on creativity:
The effects of contracted for reward. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 50
14-23.
Amabile, T.M. (1987) Art for Art's Sake Psucholoqu Todau 21(9)52-57.
Anastasi, A (Ed.) (1965) The nature and nurture of creative talent: Individual Differences
New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Anastasi, A. (Ed.) (1988) Psucholooical Testing (9th Edition) USA: Macmillan Publishing Co.
APA (1983) Publication Manual of the American Psuchological Association (Third Edition
Wisconsin: George Banta Company, Inc.
Arasteh, A.R. (1968) Creativitu in the life cucle: An Annotated Bibliooraohu Netherlands: Brill
Arasteh, A.R. & Arasteh J.D (1976) Creativitu In Human Development Cambridge: Schenkman
Arnold, J.( 1988) Do Self- Ideal Discrepancies and Global Self- Esteem Amount to the Same
Thing?: an empirical investigation. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling
16(2) 190-202.
Australian Government Publication - 1986 Cen3U3.
Bachmann , J.G. & O'Malley, P.M. (1977) Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis
of the impact of educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personalitu and Social
Psucholoqu 55 365-580.
Ballard, R., Crino, M.D. & Rubenfeld, S. (1988) Social desirability response bias and the
Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Psychological Reports 65 227-237.
Barron, F. & Welsh G.S.( 1952) Artistic perception as a possible factor in personality style
Journal of Psucholoqu 35,199-203.
Battle, J.( 1977) Comparison of two 3e1f-report inventories. Psucholoqical Reports 41
159-160.
Battle, J., Hawkins, W.L., Carson, N.G., Ord.L.C. & Precht,D.( 1986) Standardisation of the lie
3cale of the culture-free self-esteem inventory. Psucholoqical Reports 59 892-894
Baumei3ter, R.F. (1982) A self-presentational view of social phenomena.
Psuchological Bulletin 81 3-26.
Baumeister, R.F., Tice, D.M. & Hutton, D.G. (1989) Self-presentational motivations and
personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personalitu 57(5) 547-579.
Bell, C.R. & Cresswell, A. (1984) Personality differences among musical instrumentalists.
Psucholoqu of Mu3ic 12 85-95.
Bern, D.J. & Allen, A.( 1974) On predicti ng some of the people some of the ti me:
The search for cross-situational consistencies in behaviour. Psucholoqical Review 81
506-520.
Block, J. (1990) More remarks on social desirability. American Psucholoqist 45(9)
1076-1077.
Bradley, G.W. (1978) Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A re-examination
of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 56 56- 71.
Brockner, J. (1979a) Self-esteem self-consciousness and task performance: Replications,
extensions and possible explanations. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 57
447-461.
Brockner, J. (1979b) The effects of self-esteem success-failure, and self-consciousness on
task performance. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 57 1752-1741.
Brockner, J. (1985) The relation of self-esteem and positive inequity to productivity.
Journal of Personalitu 55 517-529.
Brockner, J. (1988) Self-esteem at work. USA. Lexington Books
Brockner, J., Derr, W.R. and L8ing, W.N. (1987) Self-esteem and reactions to negative
feedback: Towards greater generalisability. Journal of Research in Personalitu
2J.318-355.
Brockner, J. & Hulton, A.J.B. (1978) How to reverse the vicious cycle of low self-esteem:
The importance of attentional focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psucholoqu
14 564-578.
Brown, R. (1981) Do we need a psychomusicology? Psuchomusicoloqu 1 7-11.
Builione, R.S. & Lipton, J.P. (1985) Stereotypes and personality of classical musicians.
Psuchomusicoloqu 5 56- 45.
Burke, P.J. (1980) The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective.
Social Psucholoqu Quarterly 45 18-29.
Buss, D. & Scheier, M.F.( 1976) Self-consciou3ne3S, Self-awareness, and Self-Attribution.
Journal of Research in Personalitu 10 469-477.
Campbell, J.D. (1990) Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personalitu and
Social Psucholoqu 59 538-549.

Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D.W. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multi-trait-
multimethod matrix. Psucholoqical Bulletin 56 81-105.
Carver, C.S. & Glass, D.C. (1976) The Self-consciousness scale: A discriminant validity study.
Journal of Personalitu Assessment 40(2) 169-172.
Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (1978) Self-focussing effects of dispositional self-consciousness,
mirror presence, and audience presence.
Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 56 524-552.
Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (1981) Self-consciousness and reactance.
Journal of Research in Personalitu 15 16-29.
Cialdini, R.B., Levy, A.S. Herman, C.P. & Evenbeck, S. (1975). Attitudinal politics: The strategy
of moderation. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 25 100-108.
Coopersmith, S. (1967) The Antecedents of Self Esteem San Francisco: Freeman
Costa, P.T. Jr. McCrae R.R. & Holland J.L.( 1984) Personality and vocational interests in an
adult sample. Journal of Applied Psucholoqu 69 590 - 400.
Crino, M.D., Svoboda, M., Rubenfeld, S. & White, M.C.( 1985) Data on the Marlowe-Crowne and
Edwards social desirability scales. Psucholoqical Reports 55 963-968.
Cronbach, (1970) Essentials of psucholoqical testing. New York: Harper & Row.
Cross, P.G. Cattell, R.B. & Butcher, H.J.( 1967) The personality pattern of creative artists:
British Journal of Educational Psucholoqu 57,292-299.
Crowne, D.P. & Marlowe, D. (1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of
psuchopatholoou. Journal of Consulting Psucholoqu 24 549-554.
Csikszentmihalyi, M & Getzels, J.W. (1975) The personality of young artist3: An empirical and
theoretical exploration . British Journal of Psucholoqu 91 -104.

Daly, M.J. & Burton, R.L.( 1985) Self-esteem and irrational beliefs: An exploratory
investigation with implications for counselling. Journal of Counselling Psucholoqu
50(5)561-356.
Davies, J.B. (1978) The psucholoqu of music London: Hutchi nson
Deutsch, D. (1982) The processing of pitch combinations. The Psucholoqu of Music
271-316. New York : Academic Press
Dittes, J. E. (1959) Attractiveness of group as a function of self-esteem and acceptance group.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Pgscholoqu 59 77-82.
Dowling, W.J. & Bartlett, C. (1981) The importance of interval information in long-term
memory for melodies. Psuchomusicoloqu (1) 30-49.
Drevdahl, J.E. & Cattell, R. B. (1958) Personality and creativity in artists and writers
Journal of Clinical Psucholoqu 14,107-111.
Eagly, AH. (1967) Involvement as a determinant of response to favourable and unfavourable
information. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 7(3) Whole No. 643.
Ediuson, B.T. (1958) Artists and non-artists: A comparative study .
Journal of Personalitu 26 13-28.
Edward3, A.L. (1957) The social desirabilitu variable in personalitu assessment and research.
New York: Dryden
Edward3, A.L. (1970) The measurement of personalitu traits bu scales and inventories.
New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ein3tein, G.O. & Nock3, E.C. (1987) Learning to Use SPSSx New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Ellis, A. (1969) The essence of rational psuchotherapu: A comprehensive approach to treatment.
New York: Institute for Rational Living.
Eskilson, A. & Wiley, M.G. (1987) Parents, Peers, Perceived Pressure, and Adolescent
Self-concept: is a Daughter a daughter all of her life ?
Sociological Quarterly 28 (1). 135-145.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F. & Buss, A.H.( 1975) Public and Private Self-Consciousness.
Journal of Consulting Psuchologu 45 522-527.
Fraboni, M. & Cooper, D. (1989) Further validation of three 3hort forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne scale of social desirability. Psucholoqical Reports 65 595-600.
Frederickson, J. & Rooney, J.F.( 1988) The free-lance musician 33 a type of non-person:
an extension of the concept of non- personhood. British Journal of Socioloqu 29
221-59.
Fromi ng, W.J.( 1981) Divergent influences of private and public self-consciousness in a
compliance paradigm. Journal of Research in Personalitu 15 159-171.
Gardner, H. (1973) The arts and human development: A psychological study of the artistic
process . New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gecas, V. & Schwalbe, ML. (1986) Parental behaviour and adolescent self-e3teem.
Journal of Marriage and the Familu 48 37- 46.
Getzels, J.W. & Jackson, P.W.( 1961) Family environment and cognitive style.
American Sociological Review 26 351-559.
Gilchrist, M . (1972) The Psychology of Creativity Dai Nippon Printing Company Ltd.
Goldsmith, R.E.( 1987) Two studies of yeasaying. Psucholoqical Reports 60 259-244.
Gotts, G. (1990) Personal Lecture notes. Research design and analysis AY401.
Grams, W. C. & Rogers, R.W. (1989) Power and personality: Effects of machiavellianism, need
for approval, and motivation on use of influence tactics. Journal of General Psucholoqu
117(1). 71-82.
Hedderson, J. (1987) SPSSx Made Simple California: Wadsworth Inc.
Henry, W. E.( 1965) Identity and Diffusion in Professional Actors. (Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, September 1965.)
American Psucholoqist September p494.

Hewitt, J. & Goldman, M.( 1974) Self-Esteem, Need for Approval, and Reactions to Personal
Evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psucholoqu J_p_ 201-210.
Hoffman, L.W. (1972) Early childhood experiences and women's achievement motivation.
Journal of Social Issues 28(2) 129-155.
Hogan, R. & Nicholson, R.A.( 1988) The meaning of personality test scores.
American Psucholoqist 45 621-626.
Holden, R.R. & Fekken, G.C.( 1989) Three common social desirability scales: Friends,
acquaintances or strangers? Journal of Research in Personalitu 25(2) 180-191.
Holland, J.L. (1985) Vocational Preference Inventoru (VPI) 1985 Revised Edition
Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Holland, J.L. (1985a) Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments (2nd Ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J.L.( 1985b) The Self-Directed Search: A Guide to Educational and Vocational Planning.
California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Janis, 1.(1954) Personality correlates of susceptibility to persuasion. Journal of Personalitu
2 2 504-518.
Jones, R.G. (1968) A factored measure of Ellis" irrational belief system with personality and
maladjustment correlates.(Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Technical College, 1968) in
Dissertation Abstracts I nterational (1969) 29( 11 - B) 4579-4580.
Jones, S.C. (1975) Esteem versus consistency theories. Psucholoqical Bulletin 79 185-199.
Kemp, A. (1982) The personality structure of the musician. (IV) Incorporating group profiles
into a comprehensive model. Psychology of Mu3ic 11 2 - 6 .
Kemp, A. (1981) The personality structure of the musician. (Ill) The significance of 3ex
differences. Psucholoqu of Music 10 48-58.
Kemp, A. (1981) The personality structure of the musician. (1) Identifying a profile of traits
for the performer. Psucholoqu of Music 10 2-15.

Konecni, V.J. (1982) Social interaction and musical preference. In D. Deutsch (Ed.) The
psucholoou of music (PD.497-51 6) New York : Academic Press.
Korman, A.K.( 1966) Self-e3teem variable in vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psucholoqu
50 479-486.
Korman, A.K. (1967) Self-esteem as a moderator of the relationship between self-perceived
abilities and vocational choice. Journal of Applied Psucholoqu 51 65- 67.
Korman, A.K. (1968) Self-esteem as a moderator in vocational choice: Replications and
extensions. Journal of Applied Psucholoqu 55 188-192.
Korman, A.K.( 1969) Self-esteem as a moderator in vocational choice: Replications and
extensions. Journal of Applied Psucholoqu 55 188-192.
Korman, A.K. (1970) Toward an hypothesis of work behaviour.
Journal of Applied Psychology 54 51-41.
Liddell, G. (1991) When the stars were down on their luck. New Idea September 28 p.15.
Lipton, J.P. (1987) Stereotypes concerning musicians within symphony orchestras.
Journal of Psucholoqu 121 85-93.
Lohr, J.M. & Bonge, D.( 1982) The factorial validity of the irrational Beliefs Test:
A D3uchometricinvestigation.Cognitive Therapuand Research 6(2) 225-230.
Lohr, J.M. & Bonge, D.( 1981) On the distinction between illogical and irrational beliefs and
their relationship to anxiety. Psucholoqical Reports 48 191 -194.
McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T.Jr.( 1983) Social desirability scales: More substance than style.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psucholoqu 51 882-888.
McLennan, J. (1990) Personal lecture notes. Assessing Persons and Environments. AY420
Magnusson, D., & Endler, N.S. (1977) Personalitu at the crossroads. Current i3sue3 in
interactional psucholoqu. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Martin, H.J. & Greenstein, T.N. (1983) Individual differences in status generalisation:
Effects of need for social approval, anticipated interpersonal contact,
and instrumental task abilities. Journal of Personalitu 45 (3) 641-662
Mast, S. (1987) Stages of identity: a 3tudy of actors. British Journal of Socioloou 58
591-592.
Mischel, W. (1975) Towards a cognitive social learning re-conceptualisation of personality.
Psychological Review 80 252-285.
Nie, N., Bent, D.H. & Hull, C.H. (1970) Statistical package for the social sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Norusis, M.J. (1988) SPSS/PC* Studentware USA: SPSS Inc.
Norusis, M.J. (1987) The SPSS Guide to Data Analysis for SPSSx USA: SPSS inc.
O'Malley, P.M. & Bachman, J.G. (1979) Self-esteem and Education: Sex and cohort comparisons
among high school seniors. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoou 57 (7)
1155-59.
Peterson, G.W., Southworth, L.E. & Peters, D.F. (1985) Children's self-esteem and maternal
behaviour in three low-income samples. Psychological Reports 52 79-86.
Powers,T.A. & Zuroff, D.C. (1988) Interpersonal consequences of overt self-criticism:
A comparison with neutral and self-enhancing presentations of self. Journal of Personalitu
and Social Psucholoqu 54 1054-1062.
Prola, M. (1985) The Social Desirability of Irrational Beliefs. Perceptual and Motor Skills
6_L 356-538.
Ray, J.J. (1984) The reliability of short social desirability scales.
Journal of Social Psucholoqu 123 155-4.
Richie, D.R. (1975) The relationship between irrational beliefs, as measured by the Irrational
Beliefs Test, to psychological adjustment, as measured by the California Psychological
Inventoru. Dissertation Abstracts International 55 6109-B.

Rock, D.L. (1981) The confoundi ng of two self- report assertion measures with the tendency to
give socially desirable responses in self-description. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 49 745-744.
Roe,A.(1946) Artists and their work. Journal of Personalitu 15 . 1-40.
Rogers, C.R. (1961) On becoming a person Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rosenberg, M. (1965) Societu and the adolescent self-image. Princeton Univ. Press:New Jersey.
Rosenberg, M. (1979) Conceiving the self New York: Basic books.
Sabourin, S., Laferriere,N., Sicuro, F., Coallier, J., Cournoyer, L. & Gendreau, P.( 1989)
Social Desirability, Psychological Distress, and Consumer Satisfaction with Mental
Health Treatment. Journal of Counselling Psucholoqu 56(5) 352-356.
Scheier, M.F., Buss, A.H. & Buss, D.M.( 1978) Self-Consciousness, Self-Report of
Aggressiveness, and Aggression. Journal of Research in Personalitu 12 133-140.
Shamir, B. (1986) Self-esteem and the psychological impact of unemployment.
Social PsucholoquQuarterlu 49 61-72.
Schlenker, B.R. (1975) Self-presentation: Managing the impression of consistency when
reality interferes with self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
52 1050-1057.
Shepard, R.N. (1982) Geometrical approximations to the structure of musical pitch.
Psucholoqical Review 89 505-555.
Shrauger, J.S. (1972) Self-esteem and reactions to being observed by others.
Journal of Personality and Social Psucholoqu 23 192-200.
Shrauger, J.5.& Sorman, P. (1977) Self-evaluations, initial success and failure, and
improvement as determinants of persistence. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psucholoqu
45 784-795.
Shuter-Dyson, R. (1982) Musical ability. In D. Deutsch (Ed.) The psucholoqu of music
(pp. 391-412) New York: Academic Press

Silber, E., & Tippett, J.S. (1965) Self-esteem: Clinical Assessment and Measurement
Validation. Psucholoqical Reports 16 1017-1071.
Silverstein, A.B.( 1983) Validity of random short forms: the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirabilitu scale. Journal of Clinical Psucholoou 39 582-584.
Simonton, D.K. (1984a) Artistic Creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within
generations. Journal of Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 46.1273-1286.
Steptoe, A. & Fidler, H. (1987) Stage fright in orchestral musicians: A 3tudy of cognitive and
behavioural strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal of Psychology 78 241-9.
Strack, S., Blaney, P.H. Ganellen, R.J. & Coyne, J.C. (1985) Pessimistic self-preoccupation,
performance deficits, and depression. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 49
1076-1085.
Strahan, R. & Gerbasi, K (1972) Short, homogenous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psucholoqu 28 191-195.
Taft, R. (1961) A psychological assessment of professional actors and related professions.
Genetic Psychology Monographs 64 509-585.
Tanaka-Matsumi, J. & Kameoka, V.A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popular
self-report measures of depression, anxiety and social desirability.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psuchology 54(5) 528-p335.
Terman, L.M. (1954) The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent.
American Psucholoqist. 9, 221-250.
Trengove, K. (1991) Out of Character: Conversations with Australian actors. Australia: Penguin
Turner, R.G. (1978) Consistency, self-consciousness, and the predictive validity of typical and
maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in Personalitu 12 117-152.
Turner, R.G., Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F. & Ickes, W. (1978) Correlates of self-consciousne33.
Journal of Personality Assessment 42 (5) 285-289.

Turner, R.G. & Gilliland, L.( 1981) Self-consciousness, evaluation of physical characteristics,
and physical attractiveness. Journal of Research in Personalitu 15 182-190.
Turner, R.G. & Peterson, M. (1977) Public and private self-consciousness and emotional
expressivity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psucholoqu 45 490-491.
Weis3, H.M. & Knight, PA (1980) The Utility of Humility: Self-esteem, information search
and problem-solving efficiency. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance 25
216-223.
Whiteman, V.L.( 1978) Validation testing of the Rational Behaviour Inventory.
Educational and Psucholoqical Measurement 58 1145-1149.
Wiggins, J.S. & Rumrill, C.( 1959) Social desirability in the MMPI and Welsh's factor scales
A and £ Journal of Consulting Psucholoqu 25 100-106.
Wing, H.D. (1962) A revision of the Wing Musical Aptitude Tests. Journal of Research in Music
Education 10 59-46.
Wolfe, R.N., Lennox, R.D. & Cutler, B.L. (1986) Getting along and getting ahead. Empirical
support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of
Personalitu and Social Psucholoqu 50 556-561.
Young, V.M. & Colman, A.M. (1979) Some psychological processes in 3tring quartets.
Psucholoqu of Music 7 12- p 18.
Zook, A. & Gipps J.( 1985) Cross-validation of a short form of the Marlowe-Crowne social
desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psucholoqu 41 256-258.
Zuckerman, DM. (1985) Confidence and aspirations: Self-esteem and 3elf-concepts as
predictors of students' life goals. Journal of Personalitu 55( 4) 545- 560.

APPENDICES
SUINSURKE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
FRCULTV OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
Research Study : Attitudes towards the self and others with a focus on performing artists.
PLEASE READ THIS PAGE THOROUGHLY BEFORE COMMENCING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
About this study

The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather and compare information on how people generally
view themselves i n relation to others.
This study forms part of the requirements for the Graduate Diploma of Applied Psucholoqu and has
been approved by the Ethics Committe of Swinburne Institute Of Technology.
Completing the questionnaire

This questionnai re is anonumous and therefore all responses a re confidential.
Names are not required on the questional re and no names will be recorded at anu point in the
study.
The questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes to complete and comprises 6 sections.
I nstructions on how to answer questions are at the beginning of each section.
Please do not confer with others as it is your.opinion that is required.
It is advisable that you complete the questionnaire at a time when you are free from outside
distractions.
Please answer all questions and try to give your first response rather than dwelling on any
particular question. " _.
Please be as honest as uou can. There are no right or wrong answers in this studu.
If at anu time uou wish to withdraw from participating, uou are free to do so.
Please ensure that you have completed all sections before returning the questionnaire.
Completed questionnaires can be returned to M3. Alex Wiltshire personally, or as otherwise
arranged.
Name of Researcher: Ms Alex Wiltshire B.Sc. L.R.S.M.

Name of Supervisor: M r Roger Cook B.Sc.(Hons) M.Ed. MAP.S.
If you have any queries or require further information, plesse feel free to contact Alex Wiltshire,
on 570-7817, or Roger Cook, c/-. Psychology Department , Swinburne Institute of Technology,
on 819-8105.
Should you be interested in the results of the study, uou may wish to contact M3. Wiltshire on
570-7817, at the conclusion of the current semester (ie. December 1991 /January 1992).
Thank you for participating in this study.

SECTION ONE
Listed below are statements that concern self-perception.

Please circle on the scale 1 to 5 how characteristic each of these statements are of uou .
I = Extremely uncharacteristic
2 = Fairly uncharacteristic
3 = Neither uncharacteristic or characteristic
4 = Fairly characteristic
5 = Extremely characteristic
i. I'm alway trying to figure myself out 2 5 4 5

2. i 'm concer ned about my style of doi ng thi ngs 2 5 4 5
3 Generally, I'm not very aware of myself. "R-^>- 2 3 4 5
4. It takes me ti me to overcome my shyne33 i n new situations. 2 3 4 5
PEAT'S 5. I don't reflect about myself a lot. ^ *s . 2 3 4 5
6. I "m concerned about the way I present myself. 2 3 4 5
7 I "m often the subject of my own fantasies. 2 3 4 5
8. I don't have trouble working when someone is watching me. "R-s 2 3 4 5
5(21VAT6 9. I never scrutinise myself. Q-^> 2 3 4 5
SCUAL-3 10.1 don't get embarrassed very easily, r^s 2 3 4 5
1 I'm not self-conscious about the way I look. R-S. 2 3 4 5

2.1 don't find it hard to talk to strangers. K-S- 2 3 4 5
5.1 'm generall y not attentive to my i nner feeli ngs. £. -<s 2 3 4 5
4.1 usually worry about making a good impression. 2 3 4 5
5.1'm constantl y exami ni ng my motives. 2 3 4 5
6.1 feel anxious when I speak in front of a group. 2 3 4 5
PUBLICS 7. One of the last things I do before I leave my house
is look in the mirror 2 3 4 5
'f-ftwrrs 8.1 sometimes have the feeling that I'm off somewhere
watching myself 2 3 4 5
9. I'm not usually concerned about what other people think of me. £~S- 2 3-4-5
20.1 'm alert to changes i n my mood. 2 3 4 5
PU6U£~i 21. I'm usually unaware of my appearance. US. 2 3 4 5

P&VATIO 22.1 'm aware of trie way rny mi nd works when I work
through a problem 2 3 4 5
SX*AUO 23. Large groups make me nervous. 2 5 4 5
GO TO NEXT PAGE
2-S- '^fiUVSir' <Sc^-t.rC<rA T^-C^s.-te.-vvê L «-V \°W5

SECTION TWO
This section comprises several statements that descri be feeli ngs about oneself.
Please circle the appropriate number on the scale 1 to 5 to show to what extent you agree or
disagree with these statements in describing uourself.
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
5 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
SEV 1. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 3
^£-2. 2. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. R>s

7
I feel I a m a person of worth on an equal plane
with others
<se^v 4. Sometimes I think that I a m no good at all. R , s .
seb 5. I am able to do things as well as mo3t people.
SE t 6. I feel that I can't do anything right. 15 s> - 2 3 4 5

t
se i 7. On the whole I a m satisfied with myself. 2 -5 4 5
SJ?^ 3. I feel that my life is not very useful. "v^-'S
«S\\R£ 9- General! y, I feel very sure of myself.
iMj&eo-^^ 10.1 often have feelings of insecurity.
s^^'^î 11. I'm extremely sensitive to criticism.
setî^'^2- 12.1 am not disturbed when people laugh at me.
<££rjc,vrv>3 1 J. I do not feel hurt when people criticise me.
stjoi, i-fv1^ 12.1 am extremely upset when I am blamed for

something I have done wrong
GO TO NEXT PAGE
" ^ \ < > . - '\2^^<r-.-'J^ 'C_JC-C*--^

SECTION THREE
Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item
and circle whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally.
3p) 1. Before voti ng I thoroughl y i nve3tigate the qualifications of all the candidates. (j) F
>oZ 2.1 never hesitate to go out of my way to hel p someone i n trouble. (j) F
>v> v^ 3. It 13 someti mes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. T (T)
4
So3 - I have never intensely disliked anyone. (Y) F
S D ?o 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed i n life. T (f)
c^ 2\ 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. T (j)
^04. 7. I 8m always careful about my manner of dress. (j) F
£p 5 3. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out i n a restaurant. (j) F
spax 9. If I could get i nto a movie without payi ng and be sure I was not seen I would
probably do it T (f)
so a.3 i o. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too
little of my ability T (?)
11.1 like to gossip at times. T (f)
12. There have been ti mes when I felt li ke rebelli ng agai nst people i n authority
even though I knew they were right T (f)
SDh 13. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. ^ (j) F
Sp24> 14.1 can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. T (?)
S.D21 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. T Qj
<&^ 16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. (j) F
^P s n.l always try to practice what I preach. (j) F

• S D ^ 18.1 don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud-mouthed,
obnoxious people (j) F
•&D2«r 19.1 sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. T (F)
S D ^ O 20. When I don't know something, I don't at all mind admitting it. (j) F
S o n 21.1 am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. (j) F
"->$> o.<\ 22. At ti mes I have reall y i nsisted on havi ng thi ngs my own way. T (Y)
•so 3<=> 23. There have been occasions when I felt li ke smashi ng thi ngs. T (j)
-3D v-2. 24.1 would never think of letting someone else be punished for my
wrongdoings .(0 F
GO TO NEXT PAGE
v*
-c> I / O V A / i.* e. Moylci^c- ODCOsA J^CS-i ".wbilol-t^

Section Three ctd.
Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item
and circle whether the statement is true or fsts* as it pertains to uou personally.
<5o v.3 25.1 never resent being asked to return a favour.

26.1 have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from
(D *
my own ..£> F
27.1 never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. & F
28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. T (?)
29.1 have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. (J) F
30 ! am sometime irritated by people who ask favours of me. T ©
31. i have never felt that I was punished without cause.
•,? i sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they
® F
deserved T e
33.1 have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. F
—C* \rxK\s*~e-
(D
)*J*=> \ *e*A
SECTION FOUR
Please read each of the following statements and circle "A" if you Agree with the statement O R
circle "D" if uou Disagree with it.
ftft>p6*-t \1. it is i mportant to me that others approve of me. O) D
2. It is annoying, but not upsetting to be criticised. A coy
D
3. I find it hard to go against what others think.
?fi p oe^-^H4. Although I like approval, it*3 not a real need for me.
MA (&
D
5. I have considerable concern with what people are feeling about me. <D
ftrppcM t 6. I like the respect of others, but I don't have to have it. A <&
7. I want everyone to like me. CA} D
8. If others dislike me, that's their problem, not mine. A <b) 6esr)
<3?
9. I often worry about how much people approve of and accept me.
10.1 can like myself even when many others don't. A cl
11.1 hate to fail at anything.
12. i don't mind competing in activities in which others are better than I.
Stv^t*P2 13.1 avoid things I cannot do well.
14.1 like to succeed at somethi ng, but I don't feel I have to. lrv\k
15. It is highly important to me to be successful in everything I do.
<>£cPfr-x.f t 1 s. I enjoy activities for their own sake, no matter how good I am at them.
Sf- (_e<s-*f 4- 17 it bothers me when others are better than I am at something.
S & L (-c-f- f i<- 18. I'm not afraid to do things which I cannot do well.
-sû^f =r 19 K upsets me to make mistakes.
s^rc x f t 20.1 often become quite annoyed over little things.
GO TO NEXT PAGE
Ufi-i TVO& i& K.eoH^SUCiiO'& &jue& t C W W fir*£&
r<kj>T irsJcXJy^Q^t> cryj C*rtT»t ^-4Ssr FliE_
Copyright 1989, Midwest Research Institute
PERSONAL STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE
Here are some statements that describe different characteristics of people. Please read each
statement carefully and decide whether the statement is T R U E or F A L S E as it applies to you.
Then indicate your decision by writing a T or F in the space provided.
1. I think w e should let the future look after itself.
2. I usually make decisions based on my long-term goals.
3. I have long-term life ambitions.
4. I regularly think of the future.
5. If I have extra time, I prefer to spend it accomplishing

something important.
6. I often take risks.
_ 7. I usually make decisions based on the way I feel at the

time.
8. I like being in unpredictable situations.
9. I usually do things just for fun.
10. I generally do not take anything too seriously.
11. I am an adventurous sort of person.
12. I usually enjoy thinking about my long-term goals.
13. I almost never like to take chances.
14. I usually like to have peace and quiet.
15. I am a serious-minded person.
PLEASE CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE

page 2
16. Usually, m y leisure activities have no specific purpose.
17. I often do things just for excitement.
18. I like to take each day as it comes.
19. I usually take life seriously.
20. I think it is important to plan for the future.
21. I prefer leisure activities that have a serious purpose.
22. I seldom make long-term plans.
23. I prefer my life to be predictable and orderly.
24. I prefer a peaceful, quiet environment.
25. I make decisions based on what I expect my future needs

to be.
26. In my free time, I prefer activities with no serious

purpose.
27. I would rather think about the present than the future.
28. I prefer to go through life safely.
29. I tend to be impulsive.
30. I prefer to think in the long term.

srtrnoH FIVE
The follow!ng questions relate to your general family background. Please circle the one response
most appropriate to you.
1. n general how do you recall feeling emotionally, as a young.child between the ages of 4
&±\ md 10 years? (Please rate on the scale between 1 and 5 - Circle one. number only)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all lonely Very lonely
^rOM^ 2. As a child, do you recall spending most of your free time
1.. .Alone 4 Other

2. With friends 8 Don't know
3. ..With family
tw^^cr 3. In general, how do you recall feeling emotionallu towards your father between the ages
of 4 and 10 years?
1 2 3 4 5
Very close Not very close
IX^Mcrr 4. In general, how do you recall feeli no emotionall u towards your mother between the ages
of 4 and 10 years?
1 2 3 4 5
Very close Not very close
nwPP 5. In general, would you say that your mother approves/ed of your present career choice?
1 Yes 2 No 8 Don't know

•HAff* 6. In general, would you say that your father approves/ed of uourpresent career choice?
1 .Yes 2 No 8 Don't know
££AMP 7. How important to you now is it that your mother approves/ed of your present career
otwtat? <PU«* rjt» importance between \ end 5 - Circle one number only)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all important .Very important
u£fA 8. How important to you now is it that your father approves/ed of your present career
choice? (Please rate importance between 1 and 5 - Circle one number only)
12 3 4 5
Not at all important Very important
*>u&- 9. In general, how satisfied are you with your career choice? (Circle one number only)
12 3 4 5
Extremely Quite Undecided Reasonably Extremely
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied
fin T O NEXT PECrF.

SECTION SIX
Some background details are needed to obtain a profile of all the people who have helped in the
study. Please circle the response which applies to you.
S»-< A. Sexi 1 Female 2 Male
A<ê- 8. Please write your age in years years.
{pHPtc^yô C. Are you currently employed? 1 Yes 2 No
'j*&±?et\\ D. Are you currently employed in the career.of your choice? (ie. uour preferred career)
1 Yes 2 No
If "No" what is your preferred career? (Please specify)
IF YOU ARE NOICURRENTLY EMPLOYED AS A PERFORMING ARTIST
(ie. ACTOR,DRAMA DIRECTOR, SINGER, MUSICIAN, MUSICAL DIRECTOR, DANCER)
PLEASE GO TO QUESTION "M" (LAST PAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE) ->
K)<£TJ^ fX*^ E. Please circle one work environment in which you prefer/or would prefer your main
employment to lie.
1. Musical Theatre/Opera 5. Concerts/Recitals - Classical/Pop/Jazz

2. Dramatic Theatre - ie. plays, poetry 6. Orchestral Membership
3. On-screen ie. Fil m/Television 7. Combi nation (Category nos.)
4. Ballet 8. Other (Specify)
A^yr&HrJ F. Have you received any specialised training relevant to your performing career?
1 Yes 2 No
H0S.TJ2A1M >f "aw" please circle the category in your performing career that you have had the
most training in?
I Ac ti ng
2 Singing - classical ie. opera, oratorio etc.
3 Singing - contemporary ie. jazz, pop, etc.
4 Instrumental - classical
5 Instrumental - contemporary
6 Dance - classical
7 Dance - contemporary eg. jazz ballet
8 Combination (Please specify cateqoru nos.onlu)
9 other
" (Please specify)
GO TO NEXT PAGE
«u»rHnn six ctd.
(MR- HflM-PERFORMINC ARTISTS fin TO QUESTION "M" OVER PAGE ->)
-?edf G. What lype.of activity do UOJLgenerally do when employed in your chosen career?
(Please circle one category only)
1. Acting 4 Playing an instrument

2. Singing 5. Directing - Orchestral/ Dramatic/Ballet
3 Dancing 6. Combination (Category nos. only)
7. other (Please specify)
f:&7i.e H. How would you describe your chosen occupational role?
1. Actor 4. Dancer
2. Si nger 5. Combi nation (Specify category noL.onl y)
3 Musician 6.Other'. (Please specify)
ffetf- I. Generallu. would uou prefer to perform:
1 On-Stage/or street theatre(ie. in front of a live audience)

2 Off-stage -(ie. not in direct view) but with a live audience eg. pit playing
3 .On-screen (ie. with an anonymous audience) eg. film or television
4. As a recording artist (ie. without a live' audience)eg. on radio, compact disc etc.
5 No preference
8 Don't know
pteec j. Have you ever been in a directorial position in your chosen career eg. musical director,
drama director?
J Yes 2 No
foSfO K What occupational position do uou/would you generally prefer?
1 Non-directorial position
2 Directorial position
3 No preference
8 Don't know
asuM- L. Which ONE of the categories below BEST descri bes your highest educational
qualification obtained so far? (Circle one category only.)
1 Some secondary 4 Completed tertiary degree

2 Completed secondary 5 Completed TAFE course/trade certificate
3 Partly completed tertiary degree 6. Other (Specify)
THANKYOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY
NB: NON-PERFORMING ARTISTS GO TO QUESTION "M" OYER PAGE ->

This section to be completed bu N O N - P E R F O R M I N G A R T I S T S O N L Y
MK?£&rO M. Please state your present occupation
"VN^TNC^P N. Have you received anu specialised training relevant to your current occupation?
eg. computer courses, tertiary training, trade certificates etc.
1 Yes .No
If yes, please specify.
fh>uf&£.F- 0. Have you ever been employed as a performing artist? (ie. dancer, singer, musician,
actor)
1 Yes .No
If ues. please specify
rvKv^t-oc p. If you were given an opportunity to change your occupation, would you
1 Remain in the same occupation

2 Become a performing artist
3 Change to a different occupation. .(Please specify)
8 Don't know
Ar\u^M£R Q. Have you ever been in a directorial or managerial position in your chosen career?
eg. business manager, head of department, etc.
1 .Yes .No
Nfff&^fO R. What occupational position do you/would you generally prefer?
1 Non-directorial/non-managerial position
2......Di rectorial/managerial position
3 No preference
8 Don't know
îêea.-vuS. Which ONE of the categories below BEST describes your highest educational
qualification obtained so far? (Circle one category only.)
I Some secondary 4 Completed tertiary degree

2 Completed secondary 5 Completed TAFE course/ trade certificate
3 Pa r tl y co m pi eted te r ti a r y deg ree 6. Other (Specify)
THANKYOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY

id 1--3 Be;: 5 Ago 7-8 B a m p l g p .1.0 Employed 12
Carr-orrh 1.4 Wlptrvprf 16 Anytrain 18 M O B train 20 Typeperf 2 2
P p rfrnlp 24 Pei l'|>i pf 26 A n y d i r p c 2 8 Prefposn 3 0 Educqual 3 2
Otherodu 34 Monpoi • To 36 A n y t n g n p 3 8 Anypert 4 0 C h a n g e o c 4 2
Anymgr 44 M p p r o f p o <16 Burp 48 Insecure 49
Bon<- i t v I 5I Sen'--- t I v2 52 B p n ^ i t v 3 53 Sen si tv4 54
Lonely 56 f r o r t i m o 58 fathomo! 6 0 Mothemot 6 2 M o t h a p p 6 4
Fathapp ^6 Career me 6 8 Carrrr fa 7 0 Satiscar 72 RECORD! 75 /
S E I 5 B F 2 6 sr - v sr-i 8 BI-5 9 SE6 10 SE7 11 S E S 12
APPPtllf 14 Of P0I IF' 7u APP0ETI3 16 APPDEM4 22 APPDEM5 18
APPDFM6 .1? ( '
.r TI>I 11 / 23 OPPDtTIS 21 APPDEM9 17 APPDEPiiO 15
BEFf-XPl 25 SFtf->:P3 27 BFI.FXP3 29 SEPFXP4 31 SELFXP5 33
SEI...FXP6 34 81" I IXF7 26 BFI FXFO 28 BEI FXF9 30 SELFXP10 32
81)1 3/> 81)2 37 81) :' "W 81.)4 42 81)5 43 81)6 48 BD7 51 BOB 52
81)7 r^:r: 81)10 'r^ 8 P M 56 81)12 5? 31)13 60 BD14 61 SD15 62
81)16 64 8017 hf- 801R 68 8019 38 SI.)20 40 BD21 41 SD22 44
8023 4 5 SD24 4 6 81)25 47 81)26 49 SD27 50 SD28 54
RI..V29 _5 7 BIF'o 58 8071 63 8032 65 81.)33 67 REC0RD2 75/
P r i v a l 1 5 P r i v a I 7 7 P r j. v a I:. 3 9 P r i v a t. 4 .1 1 P r i v a 1 5 1 3 P r i v a, 1
P r i v a I; 7 1 9 P r i. val 8 2 2 I' r i v a I (;? 2 4 P r i v a t 10 2 6
Public! 6 Pi.ih].ir2 1 0 P u b l i c 3 1 5 Public.4 1 8 P u b l i c s 2 1
P u b I i < 6 2 3 P u h l it: 7 2 5
Bo i i a I 1 8 Social 2 12 Bo rial. 3 14 Social 4 16 Social 5 20
Social 6 2 7 R E C O R D 3 7 5 .
11 i a b .1. e !.. a b e .1 s .- —
id ' Identification number '
Be>; "Responded I:.' s Be::"
B a tit p 1 g p 8 a m p I e gr o u p '
E m p I.oyed ' C u r r e i > I I y e m p 1 e y e d '
C a r e e r c 11 ' E m f.> .1. o y e d 1 n c h o s e n c ,^r<s(=r '
Wkenvpi f 'Preferred work e n v i r o n m e n t '
Any train ' Bpeci a I. i sed training in performing'
N o s train 'Area of most training
I y p e p e r f ' U s u a I. I y \:>e o f p e r f o rman c:e a c t :i. v i t y '
pi?r f r o I e ' D e s c r i p I i o n o f p e r f o r m a n c e rr.31 e '
Per fprof 'Pro fee for on ar off stage performing'
A n y d i r e c 'Any directorial e x p e r i e n c e P e r f o r m e r '
Prefposn P r e f i e for occupational position F'erf '
E d u r q u a I ' Educa l:..i.onal qual if ica tion '
Ut.horoc.lu 'Other qualification?-;'
M o n p n r fo 'Non-por former o c c u p a t i o n '
Any I nqn p ' 8f>e<:: i a I :i sed training rion-performer'
A r i y p e if 'An y p e r (o r m i n g e m p .1 o y m e n t n o n p e r f o r m e r '
C ban g eo c ' A11 y d e s i re to c ha n g e o c c u pn Mon Pe r f o rm '
Anymar 'Any managerial e x p e r i e n c e N o n P e r f '
Np pr••«•;? f po ' 0cci.< pa 1 iona 1 posit i.on prefce NonPerf '
Sure 'Feeling sure of self'
f 1i s e c u i- e ' F e e .1 i n g s o f i n s e c u r i t y '
S e n s i t v l ' S'Bfisi t i v i ty t o c r i t i c i s m '
B e n s i I: v 2 ' B e n s i 11 v 1 I: y t o c r i. t i. c i s m '
Sens it. v3 "SensiIivity to criticism'
gP |, c=. j t v 4 'Beiiei. I: i v i t y t o c r i t i c i. s m '
I o11e1y ' f- e e Pi n g 1 o n e l y a s a c h i l d '
F: r e e t i m e ' F::' r o o t i m e s p e n t a 1 o n e o r n o 1.'
ralhemot. 'Recalled feelings toward father'
Mot homot 'Recalled feePings toward m o t h e r '
M o 1:11 a | > p " M a 11 > e r ' ,::: a p p r,o v a 1 • r e c a r e e r " ,
F a t ha f*p " f a t h e r ' ,::: a p p r o v a I. r q c a r e e r''
Cai-• e e r m a " I m p o r I.ai.ce o f mo111ei ' s a p p r o v a 1;''
Career-fa "Jmpoi I nncii of fattier's a p p r o v a l "
S a t i scar ' 8 a t i s f a r t i'on w i t h c a r e e r c h o i c e ' ,
BF.1 10 B E 8 ' 81 • I f e s t e e m a t t i t u d e m o a s u r e '
APPOi l-f I | (j APPDEI-Ilu ' D e m a n d for a p p r o v a l m e a s u r e '
BFI.rXPI 18 BPI P >:pl'> ' S e l f e M p o c t a t i o n m e a s u r e '
8DJ l(i 81)18 ' B o r i a ! do«--; i r a h i Pi. I y m e a s u r e True'
8D.t^ T O C07>3 ' S o d al de- i r af> i I i ty i n e a s u r e f-'alse'
ri^tVfitT\ 7Q f-f?NVAT«0 " f Y i v ^ l e s e l fconsc.i.ousnes'S m e a s u r e '
n.'BLJCJ. 'I' Pl'l.'l ' C 7 Pufrlie s o l l e o n s c i o u s n e s s m e a s u r e '
SfJf: I A L l I 0 8110 f Al 16 ' 8o<: i a 1 an:: i e ty m e a s u r e '
%4i^
labels Sex 1 Female' 2 'Male'

/Age 99 'Missing data'
/Samplgp i Pit musicians' 2 'Onstage perfs' 3 'Finance Ss"
4 MSO musicians'
/Employed 1 Yes' 2 'No'
/Careerch 1 Yes' 2 'No' 9 'Missing data'
/Wkenvprf 1 Musicals Opera' 2 'Drama Theatre' 3 'Onscreen'
4'Ballet' 5 'Concerts' 6 'Orchestral Members'
- 7'Combination S 'Other' 9 'Missing data'
/Anytrain .1 Yes' 2 'No' 9 'Missing data'
/MOBtrain 1 Acting' 2 'Classical singing' 3 'Contemp sing'
4
Classical Instr' 5 'Contemp instr'
6
Classical ballet' 7 'Contemp dance'
8
/Typeperi 1 'Combination' 9 'Missing data'
5Acting' 2 'Singing' 3 'Dancing' 4 'Instrument'
9'Directing' 6 'Combination' 7 'Other'
/Peri role 1 'Mi s s i ng data'
Actor' 2 'Singer' 3 'Musician' 4 'Dancer'
/Perfpref 1 'Combination' 6 'Other' 9 'Missing data'
Onstage' 2 'Offstage' 3 'Onscreen' 4 'Recording
/Anydirec .1 'No prefce' 8 'Do not know' 9 'Missing data'
/Prefposn 1 Yes' 2 'No'
8 Nondirectorial' 2 'Directorial' 3 'No prefce'
'Do not know' 9 'Missing data'
/Educqual 1 'Some secondary' 2 'Completed secondary'
3 'Partial tertiary' 4 'Completed tertiary'
5 'TAPE./Trade Cert' 6 'Other'
/Nonperfo 1 'Bank Officer' 2 'Accountant' 3 'Other finance'
/Anytngnp 1 "Yes' 2 'No' /Anyperf 1 'Yes' 2 'No'
/Changeoc 1 'Remain' 2 'Be performer' 3 'Change occupn'
8 'Do not know' 9 'Missing data'
/Anymgr 1 'Yes' 2 'No' 9 'Missing data'
/Npprefpo 1 'Nondirectmgrl' 2 'Direct/mgr1' 3 'No prefce'
8 'Do not. know' 9 'Missing data"
/Sure 1 'Strongly Disagree' 2 'Disagree' 3 'Undecided'
4 'Agree' 5 'Strongly Agree'
/Insecure i 'Strongly Disagree' 2 'Disagree' 3 'Undecided'
/Sensitvl TO Sens.itv4 i 'Strongly Disagree' 2 'Disagree"
3 'Undecided' 4 'Agree' 5 'Strongly Agree'
^K &**&)
s\&\
UT-W-S^-WO
/SE1 TO BE8 1 'Strongly Disagree' ', Disagree'
3 'Undecided' 4 'Agree'
5 'Strongly Agree' 9 'Missing data'
/PRIVATi TO PRIVAT10 1 'Very Uncharact' 2 'Uncharact
3 'Undecided' 4 'Charact' 5 'Very Charact'
/PUBLIC! TO PUBLIC? 1 'Very Uncharact' 2 'Uncharact
/SOCIAL! TO S0CIAL6 1 'Very Uncharact' 2 'Uncharact'
3 'Undecided' 4 'Charact' 5 'Very charact'
/SD! TO SD18 1 rue Social Des' 0 'False' 9 'Missing data
/SD19 TO SD33 1 False Social Des' 0 'True 9 'Missing data
/APPDEM.1 TO APPDEM5 1 'Agree' 0 Disagree 9 'Missing data
/APPDEM6 TO APPDEM10 1 'Disagree' 0 'Agree 9 'Missing data
/SELFXPi TO SELFXP6 1 'Agree' 0 Disagree 9 'Missing data
/SELFXP7 TO SELFXP10 1 'Disagree' 0 'Agree 9 'Missing data
/Lone.I y 1 Not at all lonely' 2 'Not usu lonely' 3 Undecided'
4 Lonely' 5 'Very lonely' 9 'Missing data'
/Freetime 1 4 Other
Alone' 2 'With friends' 3 'With family'
8 Do not know' 9 'Missing data'
/Fathemot 1 4 'Not close
Very close' 2 'Close' 3 'Undecided
5 Not at all close' 9 'Missing data' ..*.,
/Mothemot 1 Vevy close'
2 'Close' 3 'Undecided
4 'Not close' 5 'Not at all close' 9 Missing data
/Fathapp 1 Yes' 2 'No' 8 'Do Not Know'
/Mothapp 1 Yes' 2 'No' 8 'Do Not Know'
/Careermo 1 Not at all impt' 2 'Not usu impt 3 'Undecided
4 Important' 5 'V e ry i m portant
/Careerfa 1 Not at all impt' 2 'Not usu i m3p t 'Undecided
4 Important' 5 'Ve ry i mportant
/Satiscar 1 Very Dissat ' 2 ' D i s s a t i s f i e d3 'Undecided'
4 Satisfied' 5 'Very Satisfied
*/scn
r\y^c^,
samplgp ne 3) perform = 1. " ~

samplgp = 3) perform = 2. •
B Labels Perform .1 'Performer' 2 'Non-performer',
de SE2 SE4 SE6 SE8 (1=5) (2=4) (4=2) (5=1).
de Sensitv2 Sensitv3 (1=5) (2=4) (4=2) (5=1).
de Privat2 Privat.3 PrivatS Privat.6 Public'3 Public6 Public7 Social2
Social3 Socia.1.4 (1 = 5) (2=4) (4=2) (5=1).
Lite SelfEstm = SE1 + SE2 + SE3 + SE5 + SE6 + SE7 + SE8.
Lite SocDesTr = SD1 + SD2 + 8D3 + SD4 + SD5 + SD6 + SD7 + SD8 + SD9 +
SD10 i SD11 + 8D12 + SD13 + SD14 + SD15 + SD16 + SD17 + SD18.
ute SocDesFa = 8D19 + SD20 + SD21 + SD22 + SD23 + SD24 + SD25 + SD26 +'
S.D27 + SD28 + SD29 + 8D30 + SD31 + SD32 + SD33.
ute BocialDs = SocDesTr + SocDesFa.
ute Privat.SC = Privatl + Privat2 + Prival3 + Privat.4 + PrivatS + Privat6 ' +
Privat'7 -i- PrivatS + Privat9 + PrivatlO.
ute PublicSC - Public! + Public2 + Public3 + Public4 + Publics + Public/.
ute Critcism = Sensitvl + Bensitv2 •+• Sensitv3 + Sensitv4.
ute AppdemAg == Appdeml +( Appdem2 + Appdem3 + Appdem4 + AppdemS.
iute AppdemDs = Appdem6 + Appdem7 + AppdemS + Appdem9.
>ute DemandAp — AppdemAg -+• AppdemDS.
iute Lonecat = Lonely.
de Lonecat (1 thru 2=1) (3=2) (4 thru 5 = 3 ) .
e Labels Lonecat 1 'Not lonely' 2 'Neutral' 3 'Lonely'.
rule EmotCatF = Fathemot.
'de EmotCatF (1 thru 2=1) (3=2) (4 thru 5 = 3 ) .
ie Labels EmotCatF 1 'Close' 2 'Neutral' 3 'Not Close'.
iute EmotCatM = Mothemot.
•de EmotCatM (.1 thru 2=1) (3=2) (4 thru 5=3).
,e Labels EmotCatM 1 'Close' 2 'Neutral' 3 'Not Close'.
iute FaCareer = Careerfa. x}
ide FaCareer (1 thru 2=1) (3=2) (4 thru 5 = 3 ) .
ie Labels FaCsreer 1 'Not Important' 2 'Neutral' 3 'Important.:.
iute MoCareer = CareerMo.
ide NoCareer (1 thru 2=1) (3=2) (4 thru 5 = 3 ) .
ie Labels MoCareer 1 'Not Important' 2 [Neutral' 3 'Important'.
»ute CarSatis = Batiscar.
ide CarSatis (1 thru 2=1) (3=2) (4 thru 5 = 3 ) .
ie L.abe 1 s Car Sa t i s 1 ' Di ssa t i s f ied ' 2 ' tindecided ' 3 'Satisfied' .
' outfile = 'myfile.sys' .
M
DfYTfl L4£T *
1. 25 1116 1 4 4 3 12 1 4 24 3223 2 3 4 4 2 13
13343242 100100001.1 .10.110001.11 0.1001101001000111.1100011111000010
24133243322414253135413
2 26 1 1 1 6 .1 4 4 3 .1 2 3 4 42 3344 2 3 3 1 1 8 3
4 1434131 1010101001 1000000011 011101100101011110011111111100111
14213443342414352124152
1 26 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 5 2 1 4 22 4223 1 3 3 1 1 1 2
52434221 10.11.1.01000 .1.00000011.1 011000.1.11101011111010101111001.101
25.122511221424144125141
1 30 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 4 43 4223 1 3 2 4 1 1 2
43444242 1000011001 0000000000 111000010000011111111001101100110
442223423225345222444 51
1 30 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 2 2 1 4 25 4322 4 1 2 2 1 1 5
32342323 1110.101001 101100.1011 000000001000011110110011000000010
44433322122324 254144444
2 33 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 4 15 5 1 . 1 5 3 1 4 2 1 1 4
11114511 1111100011 1010000011 000000000000000111110101101010001
52151411111111115542445
2 21 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 8 3 42 2343 1 3 3 2 1 1 3
41524242 1100100000 10 0000011 0 ill01000111011110111101111001101
24443232223424344344443
2 20 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 1 1 2 3 33 3343 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
414.1.4151 1111101110 0010000111 00010111110100110111.1111110010101
25141532131145415112134
1 30 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 4 42 3333 4 3 1 3 1 1 4
42443233 1011100000 0 0000 10 0101001.1.1000011110.11101111110 Oil
54221434243414444325252
1 26 1 1 2 3 1 8 4 3 4 1 2 4 34 4123 1 4 4 .1 .1 .1 5
42435141 1011101011 1 01100010 00010010 100110111010001001000000
54132441111215355314144
2 30 1 1 1 5 1 5 4 3 1 2 3 4 33 3434 4 2 2 2 2 1 2
42444241 .10 0110 0111 0 0 010 0 0 011 0 0.110.1.01101110111.111.10 0111110 010.1
55141343133314522425255
1 29 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 5 2 1 4 24 4213 1 2 3 1 1 1 4
42545242 1011101011 1110001011 111100110101011111111011101001011
541414421424.14444224134
2 29 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 5 2 1 3 34 3433 1 2 4 1 1 1 4
43433323 1000001000 000000001.1 010000000101000001101001101001110
43432424233443242242342
2 29 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 5 2 1 6 42 3223 3 3 4 3 1 1;5
42234242 100010.1010 100000101.1 011110110100.101111.1100.1.1111011000
34342433233323433134443
2 60 1 1 1 3 2 4 3 4 2 3 2 42 2442 1 2 2 2 1 1 2
4 211224.1 10 0 0 0 0110 O 10 0 0 0 O 0 0 01 0 0 ! 11.10.1.10 0110 0110.1.11011111110 0 01
12414344444542122144221
2 30 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 5 2 3 4 24 3223 3 3 1 1. 2 1 1
33444223 1000100011 0000001O11 011001101101100111110111101100000
4521241224142 51111244 4 4
2 44 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 3 2 1 2 4 34 4222 2 2 5 2 1 8 3
42444232 1101101110 11.1.0 011011 010 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 01010 0 0 0110 0 0 01010
34212312233123311134341
1 35 1 1 1 1 1 8 4 3 2 1 3 4 34 5115 4 1 2 2 2 1 4
41524241 10 0110 O 0 0 0 111011101.1 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0110 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 O 0 0
53141432121412314324225
1 32 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 4 33 5423 4 1 5 1 1 8 4
24252224 0.10 0 0 0 0.10 0 01101.11111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.110 010101111110 0101110 0.10 0
4
2
42141342142111341445254
24374 414.1
1 1 1 in.-w
7 .1i 4,.[n
4 to
3 1IP2lull
.1 40 I I 0 00.1 0000.11011111111111011101011011
24 4222 1 3 3 1 1 2 3
;|. 27 1 1 2 7 1 4 4 3 1 1 8 4 44 3333 2 3 5 1 1 8 3 1 4 1
'; .1 7.4 4 2 41 1011010 010 10 0 010 0 0 0.1 010.10 0110 0 0 O 0 01111.1.1110110110 0 011
47743523322224353134143 » 3
1 31 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 2 2 1 4 24 532.2 2 3 5 1 1 8 3 1 4 1
22454142 1011.111011 OOO1000010 01000000.1.001000liiili 111111100000 2
^744451222444254123235 3
2 36 .1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 2 4 42 2422 5 1 2 2 1 8 4 2 5 1
514.1.3151 1000101010 1000101010 11010001001100111011101111100.1001 2
M\ 43435125414332225451 3
1 29 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 .1 2 3 4 45 4115 5 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 4 1
? 1.454432 1111111110 100.11000.11 010101100001100111111101101000000 2
55431553131415124214144 3
.1 32 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 2 2 1 4 22 2422 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
42525252 .1010 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 01 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 010 0 011110 0 011010 01010 2
22454324452424242444422 3
1 23 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 3 42 5211 2 3 2 1 1 1 4 3 4 1
42555122 1100100000 100.11000.11 1100000.10000010111010001101001010 2
441224442225211424252 51 3
1 35 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 22 4242 5 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 1
42444242 0000001000 10.10000011. 011000.100000000110111001111001010
4474.^424424424444294244 3
2 25 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 3 43 4323 2 2 3 2 1 1 4 4 4 1
44444242 1000100000 10011010.10 11000001OOOOOOO111010001100001000 2
3
44757432423225451415344
2 26 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 1 2 3 52 4345 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 5 1
52143121 1000000000 0010000011 0101000.11011101011000001101100010
3
14313345353533331351551
1 27 1 1 1 5 1 4 4 3 4 2 2 4 43 3442 1 2 4 4 1 1 3 5 4 .1
4 5 515421 0000100000 1 OOOOOOO 11 011.110.10110.1111.110111001 J. 01100011
3
23123424242334253244451 -
1 26 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 4 42 1142 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 x,
42425144 1 lOOOOOOOO 1110100010 010.1100.11111101011100011110101001 2
3
11325314132422121142431 -
2 30 1 1 1 6 1 4 4 5 5 1 3 4 34 5222 2 2 4 2 1 1 4 3 4 1
41515151 1000000000 1 OOOOOOO 10 011.1101 i0000000000101011111100011 2
3
44232443222424444424252 ,
1 27 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 5 1 3 4 24 4324 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 4 1
2 3525223 101.11.10 0.10 10 0 0 O O 0 011 010 0 0 0.1110 0 0 0 O 0 011010 0111110 O1U10 2
3
45341534542445355115153
1 50 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 24 4334 1 3 5 1 1 8 5 5 4 1
53333322 111.111101.1 1010100011 Oil 101001111011.110111.1 ill 1010 lull 2
3
53431314113355443315353
2 31 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 5 1 1 1 4 24 2112 4 1 4 2 1 1 4 4 2 1
33343322 1010.111111 11100! 1111 0.11000011000000110100001101000000 2
3
24224292122535414414321
1 35 2 1 2 7 1 7 7 2 1 1 2 6 44 54.15 5 1 5 4 1 1 3 3 4 1
14 534 241 1011111111 1011101111 010101101100001101111101110001011 2
3
241425351213151131.14 5 2 4
1 38 2 1 1 7 1 2 6 5 1 1 3 4 42 3244 4 1 2 4 2 2 2 3 4 1
41445242 1000000000 1000111110 010100001100100010111U11101OOOOUO
6X.
44242422222424323424242
2 45 2 1 1 1 1 7 2 2 1 1 1 6 S2 4431 3 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1
51525152 1000.100000 0000000011 00100010100010011101 OOO 11101OOOOO
54111451111514411445551 c. c.
2 24 2 1 I' 1 1 2 6 5 1 2 3 6 34 4421 1 3 2 1 1 . 5 b 5
41534141 1001101110 0001100010 0110011110010011101100011U1U1U10'J
23244424344224324324253
••• 23
2 '.'.-I2/73434i74^L344
42344242 1 1011111110
1 .1 1 2 6 243234
5.101.1110110
5 2 1 4 -%4 4 i 4 ° *-*-*• -•- -1- 1 a D *f
00100111100010100.1111011111OOOO10
7^4*3
31 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 \ 55 4214 1 1 5 5 1 1 5 5 4 1
i 1532341 1100101110 100100001.1 000010111100100111111101110110001 2
i4124515144444441125241 3
37 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 33 4322 2 2 4 2 1 1 3 3 5 1
12443241 1101101010 010000000.1 010000001001100011100001100000110 2
14244234223224322.145454 3
I. 23 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 I 2 1 4 24 4124 3 8 2 3 1 1 1 4 5 1
53253333 1111111111 1111111111 000000010100010101000001100000010 2
24453441211125344224225 3
1. 22 2 1 1 9 9 9 6 2 1 1 3 4 43 2244 1 3 4 3 1 1 3 3 5 1
42424232 0100001000 10000000.11 0.1000000 100001011000011101OOOOOO 7
24242524212435342144232 3"
2 39 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 5 1 2 3 2 43 4424 4 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 4 i
11513141 0000001000 10.11.110110 OiOlOliiiOiOOlOiiii 11101111001110 • 2
14132445241114343424241 3
2 52 2 1 1 1 1 8 2 2 1 .1 1 4 51 3433 4 3 3 2 1 8 2 2 4 1
41515151 1000000000 00O0000010 00,11,100.11100100010111001001000010 2
43232435144432223444342 3
2 43 2 1 1 7 1 8 1 1 1 .1 3 4 35 3225 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1
23454132 .1001100000 0000000000 000001011101100011110111001000010 2
44212435153112151424241 3
2 40 2 1 1 7 2 15 2 12 3 33 3433 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 1
32434232 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 01.1 Oil 0 0 0 0 0 010110 010 0 010 0 01101101010 2
34335334343423323344433 3
2 54 2 1 1 7 1 1 6 1 1 1 2 9 44 2242 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 5 1
42444142 100O0O00O1 1010000111 000000110000000011010010101000000 2
44222444244422444292244 3
1 29 2 1 1 5 1 8 2 5 5 1 3 4 44 4322 5 1 5 5 1 2 3 1 5 1
42444 34.1 100010O O O O O010 O O O O OO 0.1.10 0 O O 0.10 O010O 0101100010 0OO OO010 2
55.1315541315.15525145123 3
1 56 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 44 2442 5 3 5 5 8 8 1 1 5 1.
4 2 4 2 4 222 010 0 0 010 01 10 O0 O 0 0 011 010 0 01.1110 0 010 01111110 011110 0 0101 2
14! 1251 5251 5441.1 5125111 3
1 36 2 1 1 7 1 2 6 5 1 2 1 1 25 5225 5 1 1 1 1 - 2 5 5 1 1
14 2 42415 10 0 0111010 01.10 011111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0110 0 010 0 0 0 010 010 0 0 0 0 0 2
55151551111111153191115 3
2 30 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 4 . 25 5115 3 3 2 1 1 2 5 2 4 1
22444244 110110101.1 1111111101 0.10000111000100111010001111000000 2
5514152411141254 5114124 3
1 27 2 1 1 5 1 8 2 2 1 2 1 4 42 5222 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 1
51424151 1101111010 1111110110 0.10110101001000011111000110001010 2
55131524141415145125152 3
1 37 2 1 1 1 1 8 6 2 2 J. 2 1 53 354.1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1
41544251 1000011000 0000000000 iiilliiilOOlOliilOllliiiililOiiii 2
55155525231545344135245 3
2 30 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 5 1 2 1 4 51 1551 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1
51515151 0000000000 0000000000 1.11010010100011111011001 ill 100010 2
21424444354412231155241 3
2 39 2 1 1 7 1 1 6 5 1 1 1 5 43 4114 9 1 3 3 2 1 4 3 5 1
515.13141 .101011011 0 O 0 0 010 0 0 01 0 010 0 011101010 0101.110 0 010 01010110 2
25525555115511511115444 3
2 32 2 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 44 4412 4 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 4 1
52544241 1001001010 10011000.10 000000010101000111111 01011001010 2"
55111554241513544325152 3
M
w* ^ i T
i 30 2 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 , 35 3 1 3 4 1 2 1 1 1 8 4 3 3 1
424 5 4332 1.101110110 10 0 0 0 0 O 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.1110 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
43145453134314344424445 3
2 32 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1. 1 2 1 6 44 44.24 2 8 3 2 1 1 3 5 5 1
41 54 5151 111OOOOOOO 1 O O O O O O O 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
54221441121313454225132 3
i 39 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 4 34 4 1 2 3 4 1 4 1 1 8 3 1 5 1
4j 444241 1011lOOOi1 1.111011111 l O O O O O O O O O O O i O O O O i O O O O O i O O i O O O O O O 2
3.224 4 4425434443 4 3 9 2 4 4 2 4 3
1 31 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 41 4 5 4 3 3 9 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1
51515151 10 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0.10 0 O O 01.1011.10 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 O 0 1 1 1 1 0 01 0 0 2
44151413133415552394345 3
2 22 2 1 1 4 1 6 3 4 1 2 3 1 35 1225 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 4 5 1
414 3 5114 110 011 i 110 10 010.10 0 01 10.10.1.110110 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0111 i 0 1 1 0 010.1 t 2
43133443133325551414452 , ' 3
1 28 2 1 1 1 1 8 3 4 1 2 1 4 22 2222 2 3 3 2 1 1 4 5 5 1
4244 3 343 101110111.1 .10 0 0 0 0 0 011 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 1 1 0 0.10 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 2
55151542222224342344.1.44 ' 3
1 22 2 1 1 1 1 6 3 4 1 2 8 6 15 5524 1 3 3 2 1 1 5 3 3 1
415 43142 1011101011 11111101.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
44254551222425455114212 3
1 27 2 1 1 8 1 6 3 6 1 2 8 4 44 3332 1 2 2 2 1 1 4 4 4 1
22344331 iOOilUOlOl 10010001 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 i O l O l O l O i i O O i O 1 1 1 0 7
45142442133224534424253 3
1 30 2 1 1 1 1 8 3 6 1 1 8 4 24 4223 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 4 1
242 54222 1100100.1.11 10000001 i 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ill 0 1 0 iii 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
23141434132214441114242 3
2 33 2 1 1 7 1 6 5 4 1 1 2 3 42 2333 2 3 5 1 1 8 5 2 5 1
41515151 0 0 1 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O0 0 0 O O O O O O 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2
112242222244324431.54442 3
1 37 2 1 1 4 1 6 3 4 1 1 2 1 43 4 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 5 1
415 34241 1011101010 10 0.1.10 0 0.11 011010.1.011010 O O 0 1 1 0 0.1011.111.0 0 0101 2 ~
23534524335415344314145 3'-'
1 47 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 33 4324 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 4 1
42434242 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 01 i000101101011110111111111000011. 2
222434453223242451 2 2 3 4 3
• 2 26 3 1 2 . 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 42 2242 3 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 4 1
• 42444242 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
> 12434212454242231124242 3
i 2 29 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 8 1 2 44 4 3 2 3 9 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 4 1
> 52424241 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1001.100001 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
> 23442423332223424344244 3
' 2 3.1. 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 8 2 3 33 3 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 4 1
' 42434242 1.111001010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 i i i l i O i i O O O O O O O i i i O i O O O i i i i O O l l O O 2
' 34444434233443344324334 3
i 2 51 3 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 2 42 3222 1 1 4 4 1 8 1 1 4 1
* 42424242 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
J 44242444222123341334242 3
> 2 26 3 1 2 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 34 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1
? 23444222 10011.10101 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
r 44342345324233341123324 3
> 1 23 3 1 1 4 1 1 2 8 2 2 41 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1
-"' 42414141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Oil 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ill 1100111 2
3
-' 1213243424232234519
1 2 28 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 8 2 2 42 3443 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 4 1
1 43434243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 ! 10.1.1.111101101101110100101110010.10 2
1 23322412334534321133232 3
2 1 42 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 43 3 3 3 3 4 2 5 3 8 8 2 2 4 1
2 41424241 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 i i i O O O O O i i l O l i O O i i O i O O i l l O . 2
3
2 12322533224543323292232
3 2 22 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 24 3 2 1 2 4 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 4 1
• J J ' ' J | ^• lJLl l l 1 | j 1 '•--" j OOO I 1 I 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 iii 000001 2
UitsAtfs) f\-LO'vV^:U\v;e
2 68 3 1 1 5 2 1 2 .1 ,1 2 51 5414 1 3 1 1 1 .1 5 5 5 1
41415151 1001101100 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11i 010111100111i11010011111101i11
.12922211342412122112142
• "q* r-i,-y i~, **^
2 69 3 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 2 4: 1. 1 1 1. 3
51514151 10 0 0 1 0 O O O O 10110 O O 0.11 00101001010010011111100011010.11 i 1
13142413333434311323334
1 28 3 1 1 4 2 1 2 3 2 2 24 5215 4 13 2 112 2 1 .1
34343424 iilllOlOlO 1111111111 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34143541111224455314135
2 36 3 1 J. 4 3 1 2 1 1 2 43 3223 13 4 1111 1 4 1
41414151 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 010 00.1100101101111111110001100000010
23243335413234353143334
.1 29 3 1 1 4 2 12 8 2 2 43 4224 3 2 4 4 112 2 4 1
515 34 245 1i 01111111 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 OOO 11.1110100 ill 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 i 0 1 1 1 0
34234432233444434334333
1 3.1. 3 1 1 4 3 12 112 43 2434 3 2 12 111 3 4 1
42424242 O l O n o O O O o O 1 0 0 0 U O 0 O 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
342134313444323 3114 4 351
2 29 3 1 1 4 2 12 112 34 4224 3 3 4 2 112 2 4 1
i 32343343 1011101011 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10010011.1010100111010001101000101
i 4 5242432222224342343244
2 31 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 1 2 44 4244 3 3 3 2 114 4 2 1
32424242 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1010 0 00.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
43132434242434212234242
: 2 37 3 1 2 4 2 12 3 1 2 51 3222 13 11114 4 2 1
! 51515.151 O I O O U O I O O O l O O i U O O O o ! 011 o 10 ! 111100.1 i 11101000111010 i 011 .A-
•-\
! 111222255433111211544 54
: 2 46 3 1 1 6 2 12 8 12 33 4423 13 3 2 113
'• 4 2 214242 10.1010.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 01
: 24343323323234242193232
2 22? 3 1 1 4 112 2 12 42 2322 9 2 5 4 8 11 1 3 1
i 42444231 0 1 0 0 0 ! O o o o 0 O 0 0 0 0 U O 0 U 0 0.1.11.10 0.10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
34214423444523224293221
1 1 ''' Cj •"> '"• ~.r~.' T'-JTO 1 *•? T '"> i \ A
1
x.. J:. ._.' .s X JL\
.1 i. r-. o ..::. •<•• •-••-> :>JZ.:>JL J. J:. •-• xi J. .1 H
4 3 1
i 42514143 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 1 0 0.11 (J 0 0 0 011000001000010000Oil00000000
'< 54221432221224443124131
i 2 49 3 1 1 5 1 i 2 3 11 32 4332 4 14 2 111 12 1
- 51434242 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 01.100111.1100.1011111100 ill 01.10 i 111
> 55141534225414 5 5 4 1 3 4 2 3 3
' 2 44 3 1 1 4 2 12 112 23 3422 4 15 2 11!
' 42424222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 00110000000001100 ill00111000010i1
' 44452424212224442224245
i 1 45 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 34 4334 2 3 4 4 112
I 32324242 1000101011 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 11010 11100i 010110111101111101101
I 244434323443344 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
' 2 55 3 1 1 4 2 12 112 42 3224 1. 2 5 3 1 1 3 3 4 1
' 41534242 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .11100111.1101111111110011101000011 o
> 44242424231412121144451
' 2 42 3 1 1 4 2 12 3 12 44 2441 13 3 2 111 1 4 1
1
51525242 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 .100000111000000111010001100000000
1
11523121355541121115541
L 1 38 3 1 1 2 12 2 113 24 4221 2 2 12 113 4 1
I. 43344233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0111011.11111001111111001111001111
I 1135441422551351113424 5
? 1 21 3 1 1 1 12 2 12 1 32 5223 2 3
2 42444142 1101111111 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 01000010110000011101100110.1000110
2 23243524224443223 4 4 4 2
5
1 30 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 8 35 5115 5 3 1 3 1 1 5 4 1
•'• 43222434 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 11000010.100000011101000.11110 ill 01
| 44434444231 5 7 4 4 5 S 1 2 £ 2 i Z
1 I 77 3 i I. 2 2 8 2 2 44 4224 1 3 4 2 .1 1 1 14 1
•] •_'l .'4 '.: .A 7 " M >i i<>< >nO> )< > HnOQ'"n,> i l n < > I (.).'"..»•.".' I ..(. 10'-' 1 <..'l 1 ••'• <•••'•••' 1 o o o i 1 1 -'• '"-> i J i o
: r (
R^4i3
1 24 3 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 22 2 14 2242 1 3 3 4 1 1 2 2 4 1
434 54132 1011111111 1010001011 00010000100000001010000011OOOOOOO 7
33223553231444352111323 3
2 36 4 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 55 4233 5 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 I
41455151 0000000000 10101000.11 1110011.11101000111110001 iOJL JLOOiOi ?
25141525134313414125151 J
2 32 4 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 3 42 3222 2 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 5 1
42424141 1000100000 00100000.10 011100101001111 i 11111001101000000 2
43333444243334242234243 3
1 27 4 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 4 42 5215 2 2 4 1 1 8 4 1 5 1
42343323.1101111111 1011010011 101000000000000011111001100000010 2
44141532111315344444144 _ 3
2 39 4 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 1 3 4 33 4223 2 3 1 1 i 4 1
33333533 1001000000 .1010000010 00ill 0001000100011 i 11001101000110 * 2
15153511333333351133155 3
2 34 4 1 1 5 1 4 4 3 1 1 2 4 42 3225 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 '
41414141 1010000000 0000000000 010011111101001110011101111000011 2
45131453152414244544152 3
2 45 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 4 25 4225 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 .1
24441434 10 ill01110 1000101011 010001011011010110011101111011101 2
34352455431115431112535 3
2 46 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1. i 2 4 43 4224 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1
41534141 100010.1000 1000 i 000.11 11100111.1000010111111001101000111 2
45131444224424525534152 3
2 27 4 1 1 8 1 4 4 3 1 2 2 3 45 2243 2 3~ 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1
44344134 0000000000 1111110000 000000001001100011010001110000000 2
54234251133 513 53111533 5 3
1 34 4 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 1 3 4 35 5125 .13 1 1 1 .1 4 4 4 .1
41555311 1011101010 0010001010 01010010100111111 111011111011011 2
543325311124153 5 5214134 3
1 29 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 3 42 2222 5 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 .
42534242 110010 0 0 0 0 0110 0 i 0.111. 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 011110 0 0110 0 0 01010 2
55132322144414432345252 3
1 29 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 .1 1 2 4 44 232.2 1 3 1 1 1 - 1 5 5 5 1
42444252 1000101i10 1OOOOOOO10 i1110011010000ill0ill001111101010 2
34253544224224345524242 3
2 35 4 lr1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 2 4 . 32 2222 3 2 2 3 1 1 4 4 5 1
42442242 1000100000 1011001111 001101111000111111110001101000100 2
34332424121124234123242 3
2 44 4 1 1 6 2 4 3 1 2 1 4 32 4232 4 3 3 2 1 8 1 1 4 1
42414222 1000000000 1011110111 111010101010111011010001101100010 2
23444314324424241143442 * 3
2 34 4 1 2 5 1 4 4 3 1 2 2 6 43 4223 3 2 4 2 2 1 4 4 4 1
31524242 11111010.10 0100011111 0000101001010100011010.10000000010 2
44242552223525522224444 3
1 31 4 1 2 8 1 4 4 3 5 1 2 4 52 2333 3 1 5 2 1 1 2 4 3 1
52514142 0000000000 10100000.10 01111100001111101110! 111.1111111 i 1 2
42251224223241243154355 3
2 34 4 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 2 2 6 34 4243 1 2 3 1 1 8 2 2 5 1
42444242 1000100011 1000001011 110100100110010111110001011001010 2
34342424324222244422424 3
2 24 4 1 1 7 1 4 4 3 1 1 3 3 51 4441 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 5 i
r>
51525151 1000000000 1 OOOOOOO 10 010.101111000011111111101111000001 2
11455425522515255.151221 3
2 29 4 1 1.6 1 4 4 3 1 2 8 4 41 3333 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 4 1
52533154 0000000000 1010000000 0010010100001001ill11001101001000 2
22333323333433131133331 3
2 45 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 1 33 2442 3 3 2 4 1 1 1 1 4 . 1
24333343 0001000000 0001000001 101000011111011111110001101101000 2
___________ . ' \
1 28 4 1-1714431214 33 3434 235111113 1

42434242 0000.10000.1 1000000000 00100001100011101111001100Q001000 2
23242232224423451144344 3
2 37 4 1 1 7 1 8 4 3 1 1 2 4 34 4425 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 4 .1
51413142 1110100000 0001000000 010 i00001100001111111101100001001 2
2334234232423424.1122233 3
2 62 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 3 43 5243 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 4 1
42424342 1010101010 1010100011 110100.110011011111111011011010100 2
34434552321324344334222 3
1 46 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 2 41 3534 2 4 5 1 2 1 2 1 3 1
52535252 0000100001 1010000000 0010001100011101i1100110000000100 2
2324224223442344.1244345 . 3
1 40 4 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 .1 .1 3 4 35 5125 .13 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1
42534242 1100100000 1000000010 111100.110100001110111001111101010 2
522412252232 51213141354 3
.1,
(^x^^^^^cA ^[e~ ^%e^se- 1Û^\o U'ftcA Q»^zÛ2-
file = ,' mv.fi le. dat' /

id l-o. bex 5 Aqe 7-8 Samplgp 10 Employed 12
Careerch 14 Wkenvprf 16 Anytrain 18 Mostrain 20 Typeperf 22
Perfrole 24 Perfpref 26 Artydirec 28 Prefposn 30 Educqual 32
Otheredu 34 Nonperfo 36 Anytngnp 38 Anyperf 40 Changeoc 42
Anymgr 44 Npprefpo 46 Sure 48 Insecure 49
Sensitvl 51 Sensitv2 52 Sensitv3 53 Sensitv4 -54
Lonely 56 Freetime 58 Fathemot 60 Mothemot 62 Mothapp 64
Fathapp 66 Careermo 68 Careerfa 70 Satiscar 72 RECORD! 75 /
SEi 5 SE2
APPDEM1 146 APPDEM2
8E3 7 SE4 8.SE5 9 SE6
20 APPDEM3 10 SE7 22
16 APPDEM4 11 APPDEM5
SE8 12 18
APPDEM6 19 APPDEM7 23 APPDEM8 21 APPDEM9 17 APPDEM10 .15
SELFXP.1 25 SELFXP2 27 SELFXP3 29 SELFXP4 31 SELFXP5 33
8ELFXP6 34 SELFXP7 26 SELFXP8 28 SELFXP9 30 SELFXP10 32
SDl 36 i3D2 37 SD3 39 SD4 42 SD5 43 SD6 48 SD7 51 SD8 52
SD9 53 I 3D10 55 SD11 56 SDl2 59 SDl3 60 SDl4 61 SDl5 62
SDl6 64 SDl7 66 SDl8 68 SDl9 38 SD20 40 SD21 41 SD22 44
SD23 45 SD24 46 SD25 47 SD.26 49 SD27 50 SD28 54
SD29 57 SD30 58 SD3.1 63 SD32 65 SD33 67 REC0RD2 75/
F-'rivati 5 Privat.2 7 Privat3 9 Privat4 11 PrivatS 13 Privat.6 17
Privat7 19 PrivatS 22 Privat9 24 PrivatlO 26
Publicl 6 Public.2 10 Public3 15 Public4 18 Publics 21
Public6 23 Public7 25
Social1 8 Social2 12 Social3 14 Social4 16 Social 5 20
Social6 27 REC0RD3 75.
Va I U P a be Is Se-: 1 ' F piiin I f •• ,' ' Ma le - #
/Age Q9 'Mis s i. 11 g d aha' . v
/Samp igp 1. 'Pit musicians' 2 'Onstage perfs' 3 'Finance 3s'
4 ' MS0 inu s i clans'
/EmpIoyed 1 ' Yes' 2 'No'
/Careerxh L Yes' 2 'Mo' 9 'Missing data'
/Wkenvprf 1 Musicals Opera' 2 'Drama Theatre' 3 'Onscreen'
4 'Bailer:' 5 'Concerts' 6 'Orchestral Members'
7 'Combination ' 8 'Other' 9 'Missing data'
/ An y t rain L Yes 2 'No' 9 'Missing data'
/Mostrain L Acting' 2 'Classical, singing' 3 'Contemp sing'
4 Classical Instr' 5 'Contemp instr'
6 Classical ballet' 7 'Contemp dance'
'Combination' 9 'Missing data'
/Typeper f I. Acting' 2 'Singing' 3 'Dancing 4 'Instrument'
'Directing' 6 'Combination' 7 Other'
'Miss inq da ta'
/Per fro I. e Actor' 2 'Singer' 3 'Musician' 4 'Dancer'
' C o m b i r 1 c i t i o n ' 6 ' 0 t fie r ' 9 'Missing data'
/Perfpref Gnstaoe' 7 'Offstaae' 3 Onscreen' 4 'Recording
No prefce' 8 'Do not know' 9 Missing data'
/Anyd i rec Yes' 2 'No'
/Prefpo«ii Mondirectorial' 2 'Directorial' No 3 prefce
/EducguaI Some secondary' 2 'Completed secondary'
' Fc^rti^l tertiary' 4 'Completed tertiary'
'TAFE/Trade Cert' 6 'Other'
/Nonper fo Bank Officer' 2 'Accountant' 3 'Other finance
/Any tnqnp 'Yes' .2 'No' /Any perf 1 "Yes' 2 'No'
/Changeoc 'Remain' 2 'Be performer' 3 ' Change occupn
/Anymgr 'Yes' 2 'No' 9 'Missing data'
/Nppre fpo 'Nondirectmgr!' 2 'Direct/mgrl 'No prefce'
'Do not know' 9 'Missing data
/Sure 1 Strongly Disagree' 2 'Disagree' Undecided'
/ Insecure 1 Strongly Disagree' 2 'Disagree' 'Undecided
/Sensitvl "0 Sensitvl ! 'Strongly Disagree' 2 'Disagree
'Undecided' 4 'Agree' 5 'Strongly Agree'
/SE1 TO SEB 1 'Strongly Disagree' 2 'Disagree'
3 'Undecided' 4 'Agree'
5 'Strongly Agree' 9 'Missing data'
/PRI VAT 1 TO PRIVAT10 1 'Very Uncharact' 2 'Uncharact'
/PUBLICI f'O PUBL1C7 1 'Very Uncharact' 2 'Uncharact'
/SOCIAL! TO S0CIAL6 i 'Very Uncharact' 2 'Uncharact'
3 'Undecided' 4 'Charact' 5 'Very charact'
/SDl TO SD18 1 'True Social Des' 0 'False' 9 'Missing data
/SDl9 TO SD: 53 1 'Fa Is e Social Des 0 'True 9 'Missing data
/AFPDEMI TO APPDEM5 1 'Agree' 0 Disagree 9 'Missing data'
/APPDEM6 TO APPDEM10 1 'Disagree' 0 'Agree 9 'Missing data
/SELFXPI TO SELFXP6 1 'Agree' 0 Disagree 9 'Missing data'
/SELFXP7 TO SELFXP10 1 'Disagree' 0 'Agree 9 'Missing data
/Lonely 1 'Not at all lonely' 2 'Not usu lonely' 3 'Undecidec
4 ' Lone.l.y ' 5 Very lonely' 9 Missing data
/Free time 1 'Alone' 2 'With friends' 3 'With family' * 'Other'
8 'Do not know' 9 'Missing data'
/Fathemot 1 'Very close 2 'Close' 3 'Undecided 4 'Not close
5 'Mot at all close' 9 'Missing data'
/Mothemot I 'Very close 2 'Close' 3 'Undecided
4 Not close' 5 'Not at all close' 9 'Missing data'
/Fat frapp 1 'Yes' 2 'No B 'Do Not Know'
/Mofchapp .1 'Yes' 2 'No' 8 'Do Not Know'
/Careermo I No t at a I I impt' 2 'Not usu impt' 3 'Undecided
4 Importflii t ' 5 'Very important'
/Career fa i lln I a I .-. I Iimp! 7 'Not usu impt' 3 'Undecided'
4 f m p o r i.fli 1 1 ' 5 Very irriportanr.
/Sat israr I V e r y D i. s s a I ' 2 'Dissatisfied' Jndecided
5" <«-w-s-f-i\?o* 57 v \Jtff «s> £e*Hsf^<So/ (
îzjpft
able Labels
id Identification number'
Sex 'Respondent's sex"
Samplgp Sample group'
Employed Currently employed'
Careerch Employed in chosen career'
Wkenvprf Preferred work environment'
Anytrain Specialised training in performing'
Mostrain Area of most training'
Typeperf Usual type of performance activity'
Perfrole Description of perfomance role'
Perfpref Prefce for on or off stage performing'
Anydirec Any directorial experience Performer'
Prefpdsn Prefce for occupational position Perf'
Educqual Educational qualification'
Otheredu Other qualifications'
Nonperfo Non-performer occupation'
Anytngnp Specialised training non-performer'
Anyperf Any performing employment nonperformer'
Changeoc Any desire to change occupn NonPerform'
Anymgr Any managerial experience NonPerf'
Npprefpo Occupational position prefce NonPerf'
Sure Feeling sure of self'
Insecure Feelings of insecurity'
Sensitvl Sensitivity to criticism'
Sensitv2 Sensitivity to criticism'
Lonely Feeling lonely as a child'
Freetime Free time spent alone or not'
Fathemot Recalled feelings toward father'
Mothemot Recalled feelings toward mother'
Mothapp Mather's approval re career"
FatLapp Father's approval re career"
Careermo Importance of mother's approval"
Career!a Importance of father's approval"
Satiscar Satisfaction with career choice'
APPDEM1 TO APPDEM10 'Demand for approval measure'
SE1 TO SES ' Se 1 f esteem a111 tude measure-'— —
SELFXPi TO SELFXP10 'Self expectation measure'
SDl TO SD18 'Social desirability measure True'
SD19 TO SD33 'Social desirability measure False'
PRIVAT1 TO PRIVAT10 'Private selfconsciousness measure
PUBL I CI TO PUBLIC7 '.Public sel f consciousness measure'
SOCIAL! TO S0CIAL6 'Social anxiety measure'
\
ite Agegroup=age. _
le Agegroup (18 thru 28=1) (29 thru 35=2) (36 thru 40=3)
(41 thru 49=4) (50 thru 59=5) (60 thru 70=6) (Else=9).'
ie SE2 SE4 SE6 SE8 (1=5) (2=4) (4=2) (5=1).
ie Sensitv2 SensitvS (1=5) (2=4) (4=2) (5=1).
ie Privat2 PrivatS PrivatS Privat6 Public3 Public6 Public7 Social2
Social3 SociaI4 (1=5) (2=4) (4=2) (5=1).
.ite SelfEstm = SE1 + SE2 + SE3 + SE4 + SE5 + SE6 + SE7 •+• SE8.
.ite SECateg = Selfestm.
je SECateg (7 thru 23=3) (24 thru 30=2) (31 thru 40=1) (else=9)-.
» Labels''SECateg 3 'Low' 2 'Medium' 1 'High'.
jte SocDesTr = SDl + SD2 + SD3 + SD4 + SD5 + SD6 + SD7 + SD8 + SD9 + SD10
+ SDil + SD1.2 + SD13 + SD14 + SD15 + SD16 + SD17 + SD'IS.
jte SocDesFa = SDl9 + SD20 + SD21 + SD22 + SD23 + SD24 + SD25 + SD26 +
SD.27 + SD.28 + SD29 + SD30 + SD31 + SD32 + SD33.
ute SocialDs = SocDesTr + SocDesFa.
ute SDCateg = SocialDs.
de SDCateg (0 thru 11 =3) (12 thru 22=2) (22 thru 33=1) (else=9).
e Labels SDCateg 3 'Low' 2 'Medium' .1 'High'.
ute MCSDS1 = SD2 + SD3 + SD10 + SD11 + SD12 + SD21 + SD25 + SD26 •*• SD31
+ SD32.
ute MCSDS2 = SD7 + SD8 + SD13 + SD14 + SDiS + SD24 + SD27 + SD28 + SD29
+ SD30.
ute PrivatSC = Privatl + Privat2 + PrivatS + Privat4 + PrivatS + Privat6 +
Privat7 •+• Private •+• Privat9 + PrivatiO.
ute PrivtCat = PrivatSc.
de PrivtCat (10=5) (11 thru 23=4) (24 thru 36=3) (37 thru 49=2) (50=1)
(else=9).
e Labels PrivtCat 5 'Lowest' 4 'Medium-Low' 3 'Undecided'
2 'Medium-High ' i 'Highest'.
ute PublicSC = Public! + Public2 + Public3 + Public4 + Publics + Public6'h
+ Public7.
ute PublcCat = PublicSc.
de PublcCat (7=5) (8 thru 14=4) (15 thru 27=3) (28 thru 34=2) (35=1).
e Labels PublcCat 5 'Lowest' 4 'Low-Medium' 3 'Undecided'
2 'Medium-High' 1 'Highest'.
ute SoclAnx = Sociall + Social2 + Social3 + Social4 + SocialS + Social6.
mte SoclACat = SoclAnx.
ide SoclACat (6=5) (7 thru 14=4) (15 thru 21=3) (22 thru 29=2) (30=1).
ie Labels SoclACat 4 'Lowest' 3 'Low-Medium' 2 'Medium-High' 1 'Highest'.
iute Critcism = Sensitvl + Sensitv2 + Sensitv3 + Sensitv4.
iute CritCat = Critcism.
»de CritCat (4=5) (6 thru 10=4) (11 thru 13=3) (14 thru 19=2) (20=1).
ie Labels CritCat 5 'Lowest' 4 'Low-Medium' 3 'Undecided'
2 'Medium-High'^ 1 'Highest'.
>ute AppdemAg = Appdeml +• Appdem2 + Appdem3 + Appdem4 •+• AppdemS.
'ute AppdemDs = Appdem6 + Appdem7 + AppdemS + Appdem9 + AppdemiO.
Jute DemandAp = AppdemAg •+• AppdemDS.
Jute DemndCat = DemandAp.
Jde DemndCat (0 thru 3=3) (4 thru 6=2) (7 thru 10=1) (Else=9).
•ie Labels DemndCat 3 'Low' 2 'Medium' 1 'High'.
iute Expectn = Selfxpi + Selfxp2 + Selfxp3 + Selfxp4 + SelfxpS + *rielfxp6
+ Selfxp7 + SelfxpS + Selfxp9 + SelfxpiO.
3ute ExpctCat = Expectn.
3de ExpctCat (0 thru 3=3) (4 thru 6=2) (7 thru 10=1).
-te Labels ExpctCat 3 'Low' 2 'Medium' 1 'High'.
? outfile * 'myfile.sys' .
iabi 1 it.v/var~hii:.:..1. to SE8/statistics scale
mmary - correlations total/scale ( al pha ) ::::: a I 1 /model=al pha . l&-\)
**** METHOD 2 (COVARIANCE MATRIX) WILL BE USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS ******
He*** 1064 BYTES OF SPACE REQUIRED FOR RELIABILITY ******
SPSS/PC+ 12/5/9.1
E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S y u M (ALPHA)
Self esteem attitude measure

OI2. si Self esteem attitude measure
" • \Z. -...' Self esteem attitude measure
SE4 Self esteem attitude measure
SE5 Self e s t e e m a 11 i t u d e im e a s u r e
SE6 Self e31eem a11itude measure
SE7 S e1f es teem a 11 i tude measure
SE8 Se 1 f est.eem a 11 i tud e measure
e 4 12/5/91
: E L I A B I L I T Y N A L Y S I S S C A L E (A L P H A)
# OF CASES = 126.0
# Uh
iTISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
O (
_.- f~1 L.. 12 26.2009 5.1187 8
ER-ITEM
[RELATIONS MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE MAX/MIN VARIANCE
.3493 .1234 .5144 .3911 4.1703 .0089
e 5 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
.' E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L. Y S I 8 8 U A L E (A L PHA)
'.M-TOTAL STATISTICS
SCALE SCALE CORRECTED

MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- SQUARED ALPHA
IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM
DELETED DELETED CORRELATIOh CORRELATION DELETED
26.7302 20.8546 .5485 -3' •*:«• ""/ "«•

.7696
26.jjl/ 20.4270 „ 5883 .3814 . 7634
26.5556 20.8409 . 5298 .3691 .7719
27.4762 19.7874 .3656 . 1598 . 8Iii8
Zh.666 7 22.2720 . 4339 .3143 .7857
26.5000 20.5560 „ 5949 ,,3950 .7631
26.9286 19.5869 . 6064 .4119 .7588
26.5000 20.7960 . 5016 .7758
e
6 SPSS/PC-* 12/5/91
^LIABILITY A N A L Y S I S B C A L E ( A L P H A )
IABILITY COEFFICIENTS 8 ITEMS
HA = .7976 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA 8111

(B-A)
jabilitY/var= appdemi to appdemiO/statistics scale/
mmary^correlations total/scale(alpha)=al1/model=alpha
YE AL NI A
A BL IY LS II TS S C A L E (ALPHA)
APPDEMI Demand for approval measure
APPDEM2 Demand for approval measure
APPDEMS Demand for approval measure
APPDEM6 Demand for approval m erasure
APPDEMS Demand for approval measure
B 9 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
ELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA)
1 •~,c:. /"i
# OF CASES =
# OF
TISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
SCALE 4.0240 7.4752 2.7341 10
ER-ITEM
RELATIONS MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE MAX/MIN VARIANCE
.2759 .0406 .5736 .5331 14.1430 .0165
e 10 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
EL I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S S C A L E (ALPHA)
M-TOTAL STATISTICS
i—1'.— 'f"i I — CZ. SCALE CORRECTED
IF ITEM IF ITEM T0TAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM
DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
DEMI 3.2400 6.3613 .4526 .3514 .7785

DEM2 3.5600 6.1032 n T *..*'-.».1-. . 2924 .7786
DEM3 3.7200 , _!._r._v..j.
. 4000 . Jio4ji' .7845
DEM4 3.5920 5.5015 .7399 . 5840 .7400
DEM5 3.4160 5.9062 . 5577 . 4286 .7651
DEM6 3.8160 6.4417 .4194 M d£.,£i,'~$*T . 7820
DEM7 3.7360 6.4217 .3675 .1941 .7881
DEM8 3.7920 6.3274 .4541 .7782
DEM9 3.6240 b. &1/Z. . 5969 . 4099 .7599
3EM10 3.7200 6.7194 • JC -ti~ O CD .0854 .8041
- ———
3 11 SP 3S/PC+ 12/5/91
E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S C A L E (ALPHA)
[ABILITY COEFFICIENTS 10 ITEMS

HA = .7945 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .7921
C&--3)
= liability/var=sensitvi to sensitv4/summary = correlations total/'
-ale (alpha) = al1/model = alpha.
****** METHOD 2 (COVARIANCE MATRIX) WILL BE USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS ******
344
****** BYTES OF SPACE REQUIRED FOR RELIABILITY ******
\qe 8 SPSS/PC-i- 12/5/S
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS C A L E CA L P H A )
1. SENSITVI Sensitivity to criticism

2. SENSITV2 Sensitivity to criticism
3. SENSITV3 Sensitivity to criticism
4. SENS IT V4 S e n s i t i v i t y t o critic i sm
# OF CASES = 124.0
ITER-ITEM
IRRELATIONS MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE MAX/MIN VARIANCE
, 3244 . .16 / 3 .4774 .3101 2.8533 . 0099
ge 9 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/9
RELIABILITY A N A L Y SIS S C A L E (A L P H A)
EM-TOTAL STATISTICS

NSITV1 9.9032 5.4702 . 4632 .2871 .5686

NSITV2 9.9839 5.9997 . 3376 .1495 .6512
NSITV3 9.8548 5.3771 . 5224 . 3069 . 5304
^SITv4 10.3226 5 ,,2284 .4299 . 1939 . 5935
-IABILITY COEFFICIENTS 4 ITEMS
^HA = .6552 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .6577

(6-
liability/var=sdl to sd33/summary=correlations total/
nle(alpha)=al 1/model =al pha.
***** METHOD 2 (COVARIANCE MATRIX) WILL BE USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS ******
<**** 14264 BYTES OF SPACE REQUIRED FOR RELIABILITY ******
je 20 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/9i
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - S C A L E (ALPHA)
Social
L. desirability
SDi measure True
2. SD2 Social desirability measure True
5. SD3 Social desirabil i t y ineas u re True
». SD4 Social desirability measure True
5. SD5 Social desirability measure True
b. SD6 Socia1 desirabi1ity measure True
7, SD7 Social desirabi I i ty measu.re True
3. SD8
Social desirability measure True
?. SD9 S o <::: i a 1 d e s i r a b i 1 i t y m e a s u r e "i" r u e
"). SD10 Socia1 desi rabiIi ty m e a s u r e True
L. SD.11 Social desi rab iii ty m e a s u r e T rue
2. SDl 2 Social d e s i r a b i 1 i t y m e a s u r e T rue
SDl 3 Social desirability m e a s u r e True
4. SD14 Social desirability m e a s u r e True
5. SD15 Social d e sir a b iIi ty mea sure T rue
b. SDl 6 Social desirability m e a s u r e True
7. SDl 7 S ocial d e s i r atai 1 i t y m e a s u r e T ru e
3. SDl 8 Social desirability m e a s u r e True
9. SDl 9 Soc i a 1 d es .1 ra b i I i ty iiieasu re False
:>. SD20 Soc i a1 de s irab ilit y mea sur e F a1se
l. SD21 S> o c i a I d e s i r a b i 1 i t y m e a s u r e False
3e 21 SPSS/PC-i- 12/5/91
RELIABILITY A N A L Y S I S - S C ALE (ALPHA)
2.
Social SD22
desirability measure False
5. SD23 Social desirability measure False
». SD24 Social desirability measure False
5. SD25 Social desirability measure False
t
3. SD26 S o c i a 1 d es i ra b i 1 i ty measu r e Fa 1 se
7. SD27 S o c i a1 d e s i r a biIi t y m e a s u r e False
3. SD28 Soc i a 1 desira bi1i ty m e a s u r e False
?. SD29 Socia1 desirabi1ity measure False
). SD30 Soc i a1 des i ra b i1i ty measure False
L. SD31 Social desirability measure False
?_
SD32 Social desirability measure False
•' i
SD33 E3ocia 1 ciesirabi 1 ity measure Fa 1 se
)e 22 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
! E
L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A I... PHA)
# OF CASES = 117.0
'ER-ITEM
DELATIONS MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE MAX/MIN VARIANCE
.0975 -,.3380 .4120 .7501 -1.2189 .0154
t$~A cM)
E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y C A L E (A L P H A)
M-TOTAL STATISTICS

15.6496 JL / . ,..< -...1 / JL. .1704 .4124 .7795

15.3162 26.4078 „ 3708 . 5438 .7705
15.5385 26.6817 .3235 .41.14 . 7729
15.3761 26.6849 . 3086 .4721 .7735
1 w' . Z O Z 1 27.2215 .2120 . 3464 .778.1
15.4615 29.6300 ••-.2475 .4265 .7992
15.2137 26.1867 .4495 .5389 .7672
15.0598 27.4188 .2593 .2915
.7759
15.1624 28.8096 -.0994 . 3o53 . 7905
.0 15.0855 27.1133 .3170 . 4237
.7737
.1 15.4103 26.6061 .3235 . 4088
14.9915 27.7844 .2267 .3648 . 7726
9
15.0684 27.1505 .3229 .4787 . 7774
15.4444 ~~i i. — cr •"", jr
.3757 . 4875 . 7736
. 7703
.5 1 i= r>r>r>' _ ? 26.5192 . 3736 . 3382 . 7706
.6 15.8034 27.9524 .1518 .2845 .7794
7 15.5556 26.9215 . 2782 . 3299 .7750
,8 15.5470 25.6292 . 5480 . 4590 B /oî 1.
,9 i5.4359 26.1273 .4207 . 5025 . 7680
!0 15.6581 Z/.O/ld .2824 .3954 . 7748
!1 15.5897 26, 2>647 „ 4069 . 3646 .7691
\2 15.3248 27.4108 . 1692 .2979 . 7802
15.4786 Z.6>» 64'ciZ .3196 .3125 . 7730
15.7179 27.0318 . 3304 .3861 .7731
15.5043 26.6142 . 3302 . 35-_':>i .7725
16 i5.5470 26.8017 . 3 OO 8 .4347 . 7739
:7 15.5128 25.6658 . 5287 .4582 • 7oZo
a 15.2821 27.4456 . 1671 .4217 . 7802
15.6838 27.3905 . Z Z .1 o . 4039 . 7773
15.5726 27.1606 • 2329 .3524 . 7770
;i 15.6154 26.4801 . 3934 . 3782 .7698
•2 15.5128 27.1141 . 2309 .4.106 .7772
15.3675 27.5448 . 1406 .3646 .7816
. — -- - —
ie 26 Sf"'SS/PC+ 12/5/9:
P L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S S C A E (A H A)
•IABILITY COEFFICIENTS 33 ITEMS
'HA = .7805 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = 7809

(6-S)
\;E L I A B I L I T Y A N A Y : C A L E (A L P H A)
1. PRIVAT1 Private s e l f c o n s c i o u s n e s s measure

PRIVAT2 Private se1f c o n s c i o u s n e s s m e a s u r e
PRIVAT3 Private s e1f cons c iousn es s measure
PRIVAT4 Private se1f consciousness measure
3. PRIVATS Private s e 1 f c o n s c i o u s n e smeasure
s
3. PR IVAT6 Private s e 1 f c o n s c i o u s n e s smeasure
7. PRIVAT7 Private seIf consc i o u s n e s s measure
3. PRIVATS Private se1f con s c i o u s n e s s measure
?. PRIVAT9 Private se1f c o n s c i o u s n e s s measure
PR1VAT10 Private s e 1 f c o n s c i o u s n e s smeasure
je 29 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
'< E L I A B I L I - ANALYSIS S C A L E (A L P H A)
# OF CASES = 124.0
# OF
VTISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
8145 37.9084 6.1570 10
TER-ITEM
DELATIONS MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM RANGE MAX/MIN VARIANCE
,1834 -.1737 .4752 . 6489 -2.7350 .0137
je 30 SPSS/PC-r 12/5/91
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A Y S I S U A L E (A L P H A)
IM-TOTAL STATISTICS

IF ITEM IF ITEM T0TAL MULTIPLE IF ITEM
VAT1 30.6613 28.1120 . 5500 .3805 • i^ZZ'J

VAT2 29.9677 -.. -j c;''-,'"/ A
.3587 . 2237 .6631
VAT3 30.2661 .3753 .3154 . 6603
VAT4 30.7903 32.4272 „ Z. :'}.' 5.1 .2537 . 6886
VATS 29.9758 31.2758 .4829 .3112 .6444
VAT6 30.0000 32.4878 . 3432 .1577 «o6o--'
VAT7 30.8306 31.5239 .3560 .1884 . 6636
VAT8 31.6532 31.4804 .2915 .1447 .6778
VAT9 30.0081 33.4064 • 2984 .1859 .6736
VAT 10 30.1774 33.8544 .2224 .1824 .6859
e 31 SP:3S/PC-I- 12/5/91
E
L I A B I L I T Y A N A C A L E (A L P H A)
IABILITY COEFFICIENTS 10 ITEMS

HA
= .6884 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA 6919
LB-6
liabil A "•"'' vra' i-"-> <•> ••• •»• '••• •••- •-<• PI.IIJJ. j.*../''statistics s c a l e /
wnaryst;orre 1 a t i o n s t o t a 1 / s e a l e ( . a 1. p h a )=al 1 /'mode 1 = a 1 p h a .
K**** METHOD 2 (COVARIANCE MATRIX) WILL BE USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS ******
***** 848 BYTES OF SPACE REQUIRED FOR RELIABILITY ******
1* 35 12/5/9.1
E L I A B I L I A N A L Y S I C A E (A L P H A)
L. PUBLIC! P u b I i c se I f con s c i ou sn e ss me a su r e
2. PUBLIC2 Pu b 1 i c se 1 f con s c i ou sn e s s ineasu re
7 PUBLICS Public s e l f c o n s c i o u s n e s s measure
». PUBLIC4 P u b l i c s e l f c o n s c i o u s n e s s measure
5. PUBLICS P u b1i c se1f con sc i ousn es s measure
b. PUBLIC6 P u b1i c self con sc i ousn ess me a su re
7. PUBLIC? Pub1i c se1f consc iousness measu re
3e 36 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/9.
RELIABILITY ANAL Y S I S S C A L E (A L P H A)
# OF CASES = 123.0
# OF
RUSTICS FOR MEAN VARIANC S'!"D DEV VARIABLES
SCALE 24.3333 28.814 5.3679 7
FER-ITEM
^RELATIONS MEAN MINIMUM 4AXIMUM RANGE MAX/MIN VARIANCE
. 2837 -.0007 ,,4612 .4619 -641.6477 .0111
]e 37 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS S C A L E (ALPHA)
EM-TOTAL STAT I ST ICS

JLIC1 20./398 .£..<£« O J O V . 5196 . 3078 .6503
JLIC2 20.5041 22» 5963 .5769 .3634 .6438
3LIC3 20.9512 z. •„:•. •_• JL ...' -...< .3470 .1966 . 6880
JLIC4 20.8049 23.0764 .3971. .2212 .6764
JLIC5 21.4797 20.6615 .4732 • x*. O •.!> J. .6555
M-IC6 20.6911 21.3628 .2639 . 1300 . 7353,
JLIC7 20.8293 22.0936 .4871 . 293& .6549
_... _
je 38 SF SS/PC+ 12/5/91
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L V S S C A E (ALPHA)
LABILITY COEFFICIENTS 7 ITEMS
'HA = .7050 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = 7349

Lc-\)
va r De r f o r m sa m p I g p .
** Memory allows a total of .12148 Values, accumulated across all Variable

There also may be up to 15.18 Value Labels for each Variable.
e SPSS/PC+
FORM
Val id Cum
alue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent. Percent
former 1.00 94 74.6 74 .6 74.6

-performer 2.00 32 25„4 25„4 .100.0
10'T'AL. i:,:::6 100 „ 0 J.O0 . 0
id Cases 176 M i ss i n q Cases
e 4 ;PSS/PC+
IPLBP Sample group
Val id Cum
'alue Label V a I ue F req uen < Percent. Percent F'ercent
. musicians i 3; x'lo » .*- 26.2 Z6>. Z

tage perfs .1™fc>M £> 28.6 54 .8
iance Ss 25.4 25.4 80. 2
i musicians 4 2: 19.8 19.8 100.0
TOTAL 126 100,0 100.0
id Cases •:a Missinq Cases <
? v&r employed.
*** Memory allows a total of 1.2148 Values, accumulated across all Variables
je 113 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
'LOYED Currently employed
Valid Cum
^lue Label V a1u e F requency Percent Percent Percent
1 126 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 126 10 0.0 100.0
•id Cases lzi6 Missing Cases 0

(c-a)
iQwe-
Coun t Midpoint
1 11.0 |
0 1 '"> S '
0 14.0 !
£. 15.5 i
1 17.0 J
18.5 :
4 20.0 !
"•!• 21. s :
6 23.0 !
14 24.5 ;
12 26.0 !
25 27.5 ',
11 29.0 ',
30. 5 !
9 32.0 i
-it* -y d i
9
4 35.0 i
I .1 + J. +.
0 5 .10 IS 20
Histogram Frequency
jge 48 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/9
[LFESTM
(lid Cases Missinq Cases
1FESTM
an 27.476 Std Err

de . 396 Med i an 28.000
28.000 Std Dev U
rtosis 4 „ 448 •/a n a n c e 19.787
1.078 S E Kurt
E Skew . Z16 .428 Skewness -. 820
Range 24.000 Minimum 11.000
ximum 35.000 Sum 3462» 000
lid Cases 126 Mis* iinq (j

,3565
<
S g \ ^ ' g-SJjgfcM/^v V<s\*<Apc>\~»JrS CtPxôgy^^
CC-2,)
C o m p a r i s o n of C o n c e p t u a l Midpoints With S a m p l e Midpoints in Published Studies
Is the conceptual midpoint

Conceptual lower than the m e a n and/or
lUthors Scale midpoint Means Median SD median?
pence, Helmreich, & Texas Social Behavior 64 81. 54 (males) Yes
Stapp (1975) Inventory (TSBI) 83.24 (females)
(Helmreich, Stapp,
& Ervin, 1974)
;ampbell(1986) TSBI 64 83.5 Yes
lelmreich & Stapp (1974) TSBI-short form 32 40 (males) Yes
41 (females)
4cFarlin, Baumeister, & TSBI-short form 32 42 Yes
BIascovich(l984)
down, Collins & Schmidt TSBI-short form 48 58.5 Yes
(in press)
)aumeister&Tice(1985) Silverman's (1964) 48 56.1 59 Yes
version of the Janis &
Field (1959) scale
)aumeister(1974) Silverman's (1964) 48 60 Yes
Field (1959) scale
Conceptual lower than the mean and/or
Authors Scale midpoint Means Median SD median?
Baumeister (1982b) Silverman's (1964) 48 60 Yes
Field (1959) scale
Tennen, Herzberger, & Janis & Field (1959) 69 73.85 Yes
Nelson (1987)
Gibson (1986) Fleming & Courtney 108 135.2 142 28.15 Yes
(1984) version of
Janis & Field
Shrauger & Sorman (1977) Self-Description 50 66.8 12.0 Yes
Inventory adapted
from Diggory (1966)
Tennen etal. (1987) Self-Description 50 68.82 13.75 Yes
Inventory adapted
from Diggory (1966)
Campbell &Fairey( 1985) Unpublished measure 378 428 434.5 Yes
developed by
O'Brien (1980)
Feather (1969) Semantic differential 12 15 Yes
measure
Conceptual lower than the m e a n and/or
Scale midpoint Means Median SD median?
Authors
8 11 Yes
Feather (1969) Self-perceived general
competence
12.5 16.11 4.87 Yes
Tennen et al. (1987) Coopersmith (1967)
3 1.5 Yes"
Schneider & Turkat (1975) Rosenberg (1965)"
29.4 5.0 Yes
Shrauger & Sorman (1977) Rosenberg (1965) b 25
>30d Yes
Crocker & Schwartz Rosenberg (1965) 25
(1985)
34 Yes
Crocker etal. (1987) Rosenberg (1965)b 25
Yes
Hansson(1986) Rosenberg (1965)" 25 c 32.8 (males)
28.2 (females) Yes
30.3 Yes
Campbell, Fairey, & Fehr Rosenberg (1965)b 25 30.83
(1986)
7.98 2.22 Yes
Tgnnen etal .(1987) Rosenberg (1965)b
Note. A conceptual midpoint lower than the sample mean and/or median (thus, "Yes" in farrightcolumn) indicates that the sample's average self-esteem
score is in the high self-esteem range in anjabsolute sense.
a- The Rosenberg (1965) scale, in its originally published form, was scored such that high scores denote low self-esteem.
h. I hrsc ".indies jw;t^*WS18awiauuji ...scnhcrg scale, such (hat high scores denote high self-esteem.
(C-A)
test groups = perf orm (1, 2 )/var--sel f estm d e m a n d a p

ge 41 bPb'S/ PU-f- 12/5/9
dependent samples of PERFORM
oup 1: PERFORM EG 1.00 8roup 2s PERFORM EQ .OU
test for: 8 EL.FESTM
Number Standard St andard

of Cases Mean Deviation Error
Group 1 94 27.4362 4.618 .476

™ r t—t
Group .£ 27,5938 3.975 . 703
Pooled Variance Estimate J Separate Variance Estimate
F 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail ! t Degrees of 2-Tail

Value Prob. Value Freedom Prob, I Value Freedom Prob.
1.35 .346 -.17 124 . 863 19 61.69 ,852
mmaries of SELFESTM
.levels of SAMPLGP >ample group
Value Label
Mean Std Dev Sum of >q Cases
1 Pit musicians
2 Onstage perfs
za , 7879 4„0908 535.5152 .Ji.J>
28, 0000 5.138.1 924.0000
3 Finance Ss .... ...7 5938 36
.£. / , 3.9746 489. 7.188
4 MSO musicians 4800 4.5563 498.2400
:hin Groups Total
7.4762 4.4790 2447.4739 i. .J£ O
iterion Variable SELFESTM
ft n a .'I. y s i s o f V a r i a n c e
Sum of Mean
-tree
Squares D. F Square bic
:ween Groups 25.9547 8.65.16 43i; .7310

thin Groups 2447.4739 122 20.0613
Eta = 1024 Eta Squared = .0105

tcs)
jcess if samplgp ne 3,
»way seifestm by s a m p l g p i i , 4 ) .
je bh'bb/l-'L> 1/187
••- U N t. W A V
Variable SELFESTM
By Variable SAMPLGP S a m p l e group
Analysis of Variance
bum ot Mean F F
Source Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
tween Groups 3619 12.6809 .5894 .5567
thin Groups v: "/ O / . /Dtj.,::! 21.5138
tal V.J. 1983.117C
test groups = samplgp (i,4)/var ™ seifestm.
ge 3 SPSS/PC+ 1/ltf/
dependent, samples of SAMP1...GP Sample group
sup 1: SAMPLGP EQ 1 Group 2s SAMPLGP EG 4
test for: SELFESTM
Number 8 tandard 'Standard

of Cases Mean De viation Error
Group 1 •:v •'.,

26.7879 4 ,,091 .712
Group 2 25 27 „ 4800 4 ,,556 ,911
! Pooled Variance Estimate J Separate Variance Estimate
F
2-Tail t Degrees of 2 Tail i t Degrees of 2-Tail
•'alue Prob. VaIu e F re e do m Prob„ i Value F reed om P r o b.
CC-G)
DEMANDAP
COUNT VALUE
11 . OU
1 .00
20 2.00
10 3.00
9 4.00
17 5.00
16 6.00
7 7.00
10 8.00
'-' 9 .00
I i. I I .1
0 5 10 15 20 25
H i s t og r a m F req uen cy
Valid Cases Missing Cases
1ANDAP
an 3.720 Std Err . X. .y .r~. Median 3.000

ie 1.000 Std Dev 2. 592 Variance 6.719
'tosis J- n ..'_ S. ./I.. S E Kurt n 430 Skewness .275
I Skew n .ill. -A. / Range 9 .000 Minimum . 000
•iimurri 9 .000 Sum 4<:>5»000
.id Cases 1 •£. >-' Missina C ... „ ..„ ._

i
£»)
lependent samples of PERFORM
)up 1J PERFORM EG 1 .00 Group 2: PERFORM EG d. 00
:est for: DEMANDAP
Number Standard Standard

Group 1 93 3.8925 2.517 .261
Group 2 3.2188 v 7*7*9 .491
J-. u / t /
Pooled Variance Estimate ', Separate Variance Estimate

F 2-Tail Degrees of 2-Tail ; Degrees of i-Tail
/alue Prob,, 'alue Freedom Prob. ' Value Freedom Prob.
1 OO
J. • J-J-
465 1.27 . 206 49.64
imaries of DEMANDAP
levels of SAMPLGP Sample group
Value Label Mean Std Dev Sum of bq Cases

1 P i t mus i c i an s 4„0000 2.2079 156.0000
2 Onstage perfs 4.4571 2 . 6827 24 4 . 68 5 7
3 Finance Ss 3,2188 2.7794 239.4688
4 MS0 musicians 2.9600 2.4913 148.9600
•bin Groups Total /Z'.j'.J 789.1145 125
terion Variable DEMANDAP
bum DT Mean
rce Squares D. F. Square F Sig
ween Groups 44.0855 14.6952 2.2533 .0856
bin Groups 789.1145 121 6.5216
t.a 23O0 a Squared - .0529

(c-§)
»u./^ "£.
va r c r i t c i s m/f o rma t notable/hi stog ram n o rma 1/statistics a1
C* Memory allows a total cr 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variables
There also may be up to 15.1.8 Value Labels for each Variable.
/PC"!" 12/8/91
re ISM
COUNT VALUE
1 4.00
0 5.00
0 6.00
..... .._. n
7.00
8 „ 00
9.00
ii 10.00
13 11.00
15 12.00
14 13.00
zz .14.00
14 15 .00
11 16.00
4 17.00
4 18.00
4 19.00
20.00 I . . . .... I ......... I 1 . . I
() 5 .1.0 15 25
H i s toq r am F rea uen cy
SPSS/PC+ 12/8/91
TCISM
n 13.355 Std Err .266 Median 13.500

e 14.000 Std Dev 2 ,. 966 Variance 8.800
tosis . 334 S E Kurt .431 Skewness -.00.1
Skew .217 Ranae 1 6 „ 000 Minimum 4.000
lrnum 20.000 Sum .16;:. 6 . '• >'•..><• ]
id Cases 1224 Missing Cases

B
8 SPSS/PC-I- 12/8/91
s procedure was completed at 20 s 22!;; 25

(c-°i)
est groups - perf orm( .1, 2)/var = critcism
e 35 i SPSS/PC+• 12/8/9
ependent samples of PERFORM
up 1: PERFORM EG 1.00 Group PERFORM EG OO
est for: L;R.[ TCISM
Number Standard St andard

Group 1 92 i:3.42259 3.028 .316
Group 2 32 .1.:3.1563 2.818 . 498
! Pooled Variance Estimate { Separate Variance Estimate

F 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Ta:L t Degrees of 2-Tail
alue Prob. V a1ue Freedom pro b ' a 3. u e F ree d o m P rob.
1.15 .666 .44 122 ,,662 .4 D/ . 652
maries of CRJTuISM
Value Label Mean Std uev Sum of bq Cases
1 P i t m u s i c i a n s 13.4545 2.8733 264.1818

2 Onstage perfs 13.2222 3.2786 376.2222 36
3 Finance Ss 13.1563 2 ,,8183 246.2188
4 MSO musicians 13.6957 2.9455 190.8696
bin GrouDs Total 125 . 3548 2 . 9965 1077 . 4924 124
a SPSS/PC+ 12/8/91
terion Variable CRITCISM
A n a l y s i s of Variance
Sum of Mean
*ce Squares D. h Square F Sig
"een Groups 4„8947 1.6316 1817 .9086
lin Groups 1077.4924 ,20 8.9791
ta -- .0672 Eta Sauared 004!

fp-l )
var socialds/format notable/histogram normal/statistics all.
1% Memory allows a total of 1:2148 Values, accumulated across all Variables

There also may be up to .1518 Value Labels for each Variable.
10 SPSS/PC+ 12/S/9J
[AIDS
Count Midpoint
1 4»0
5 5.5
.c'~ "7.0
5 8.5
10 .10.0
9 11.5
7 13.0
14 14.5
8 16.0
16 17.5
7 .19.0
17 JC'.'U n O
5 22 .0
5 23. 5
^ 25.0
•.!*' 2 6 . tj
i 28.0
I •!".„.. I . . „ . + .„.„ I .... + .... I +
0 4 3 12 .1.6 ;u
H i s toq r a m F r ea u en cy
3 11 SPSS/PC-i- 12/8/91
tALDS
i 15.906 Std Err .494 Median 16.000

3
10.000 Std Dev 5.342 Variance 28.534
:csis -. 580 S E Kurt .444 Skewness -.117
Skew .224 Range 24.000 Minimum 4.000
.mum 28.000 Sum 1861„000
•d Cases 117 Missing Cases 9

£p~i 1
»st qroups = perform(1,2)/var-socia1ds.
a 19 SPSS/PC+ 12/28/'
»pendent samples of PERFORM
.ip 1: PERFORM EG 1.00 Group PERFORM EG 2 .00
»st for: SOCIALDS
Number 'Standard Standard

Group 1 88 15.7500 c, ••;;,••'•.', /j.

.557
Group JCH 29 16.3793 5.753 1 .068
I Pooled Variance Estimate ! Separate Variance Estimate
F 2-Tail ; t Degrees of 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail

jlue Prob., I Value Freedom Prob. Va1ue Freedom Prob.
L.21 .492 lb <~. a A

584 i 44 .23 . 604
ns socialds by samp.Igp/statistics 1.
t* Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS,
SPSS/PC+ 12/8/9
e 13
maries of S0CIALDS
iable Value Label Mean Std Dev C ases
15.9060 5.3417 1.17

Entire Population
16.5.161 5.0058 31
PLGP .1 P i t music i a n s ...y ...,.
PLGP 2 Onstage perfs .14.5455 5.6739

16.3793 5.7533 29
PLGP 3 Finance Ss
16.4167 4.7358 24
PLGP 4 MSO musi cians
otal Cases = 126

sing Cases = 9 OR 7.1 PC*
terion Variable SOCIALDS
An a 1 y s i s o f V a r i a n ce
Sum of Mean
-ce Squares D. F Square F Sig
*<een Groups O w1 » •.'.'•8.1 1 28.4604 .9973 .3969
"'in Groups ^224.5847 113 28.52!'6i

»cess if socialds It 16,
iDral
? var perform samplgp.
= 15 SPSS/PC+
•own
Valid Cum
•due Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Former 1.00 42 79.2 79.2 79.2
•performer 2.00 11 20.8 20.8 100.0
TOTAL 53 100.0 100.0
id Cases 53 Missinq Cases o
» 16 SPSb/PC-t-
>LBP Sample group
Valid Cum
ilue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 12 y... J- a O OO JL
22.6
:age perfs 21 39.6 39.6 62.3
ince Ss 11 20.8 20.8 83.0
musicians 4 9 17.0 17.0 100.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
,d' Cases 53 Missinq Cases f .1
icess if socialds gt 16,

? Var perform samplgp.
3 18 SPSS/PC+
FORM
Valid Cum
alue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
former 1.00 41 •7 ~r
/ •„• •
T'
J~
73.2 73.2
•performer 2.00 .15 26. 8 26 . 8 100.0
TOTAL 56 iOO.O 100.0
i-d Cases 56 Missing Cases u

3 19 SPSS/PC+ 12/30/9
'LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
»lue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 1 15 JCÔ * O 26.8 26.8

:a 21.4 21.4 48.2
Qe perfs 12
'•nee Ss 15 i6 • o 26 • 8 75.0
musicians .14 25.0 ^5 O 100.0
TOTAL 56 iOO.O 100.0
•d Cases ses (j
ft>-4)
:e5S if seifestm It 21.
var perform samplgp.
PSS/PC+
co ot 12/30/S
•ORM
Valid Cum
due Label Value Frequency Percent l: 'ercent Percent
former 1.00 •-/ 81.8 81.8 81.8

•performer 2.00 18.2 18 „ 2 100.0
TOTAL 11 100.0 .1.00.0
Ld Cases 11 Missinq Cases
10 SPSS/PC+ 12/30/'
^LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
alue Label Value F r e q u ency 'ercent Percent Percent
.—, "7 ™p
musicians 1 3 27.3 27.3
tage perfs 27.3 27.3 54.5
ance Ss 18.2 18 M JL 72.7
musicians 4 27.3 27 . 3 100.0
TOTAL 11 100.0 100.0
Ld Cases .1.1 Missinq bases (j
:ess if seifestm gt 21
59 'PC + 1/13/'
:
0RM
Valid Cum
»lue Label Value Frequency Percent. F 'ercent Percent
'ormer 1.00 84 73.7 73.7 73.7

•performer 2.00 30 26.3 26.3 100.0
TOTAL 114 .00.0 100 .0

v
•d Cases 114 lissing Cases u
? 60 SPSS/PC+ 1/13/9
1GP Sample group
Valid Cum
rtue Label Value Freeluency p ercent. Percent Percent
musicians 1 30 26.3 26.3

:a
Qe perfs * '"• V *' .i-;!o .» 1 28.1 54.4
mce Ss 3 30 80.7
musicians 4 Z JL 19.3 19.3 100.0
TOTAL 114 100.0 100.0

Co-^)
iCt if (seifestm gt 2.1 and socialds gt 16 J .
"var perform samplgp.
raw data or transformation pass is proceeding
54 cases are written to the uncompressed active file.
1/13/'
?0RM
Valid Cum
former 1 • 00 39 / .£'. a j£ •' J- . J~
-performer 2.00 15 .£./ I.G 27.8 100.0
TOTAL. 54 100.0 100.0
Ld Cases 54 Missing Cases 0
3 7 SPSS/PC+ i/13/':
^LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
musicians i 15 27.8 7.8 27.8

tage perfs 2 12 J~ m £* 50.0
ance Ss 3 15 27.8 7.8 77.8
musicians 4 12 .£*, -C - JLf XL m SL 100.0
TOTAL 54 100.0 100.0 54 100.0
id Cases 54 Missing Cases

Jet if (seifestm "gt 21 and soc i a 1 d T l t 1 6 ) .
-ORM
Valid Cum
former 1.00 34 77.3 77.3 77.3
•performer 2.00 .10 O O "7 22.7 100.0
TOTAL 44 .100.0 100.0
•d Cases 44 Missing Caises 0
» 50 SI::'SS/PC+ 1/13/9
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
Lle
Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 9 20. 5 20.5 20.5

;a
Qe perfs 17 38.6 38.6 59.1
nee Ss 10 22.7 81.8
musicians 8 18.2 18.2 100.0
.„_..... _.. _.. .™
T0 TAL 44 10 0 .0 .10 0 .0
d
Cases ses 0
CD-6;
^ s V if seifestm It 28,
> var perform samplgp.
SPSS/PC+ 12/30/':
:0RM
Valid Cum
alue Label V a1u e F requenc Percent Percent Percent
Former 1 .00 42 76.4 76.4 76.4

-performer 2.00 13 Z-~>»6 100.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
Ld Cases 55 Missing bases u
; 37 SPSS/PC+ 12/30/ c
=1BP Sample group
Valid Cum
alue Label Value requency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 1 17 30.9 30. 9 30.9

tage perfs 16 29.1 60.0
ance Ss 13 d*™v> n O 83.6
musicians 4 9 16.4 16.4 iOO.O
TOTAL 55 100.0 100. 0
Ld Cases 55 Missinq Cases

cess if seifestm gt 28.
SPSS/PC-*- 12/28/v
? 34
:
0RM
Valid Cum
Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
alue Label
43 78.2 78.2 78.2
Former i . 00
12 jtL J. « o 21.8 100.0
-performer 2.00
TOTAL. 100.0 100.0
Ld Cases Missing Cases

12/28/9
? 35 SPSS/PC-i-
J
LBP Sample group
Valid Cum
*lue Label Va 1 ue I- r e q u ency Percent percent Percent
"l 12 j£X m O 21.8 21.8

musicians 32.7 54.5
âge perfs 18 J*xL. n /
3 12 21.8 21.8 76.4

*nce Ss 23.6 100.0
4 13 23.6
musicians — • • * " • "~* • — • — * - " •
TOTAL 55 100.0 100.0

a>-7;
lCess xi demandap It 5.
,v a r perform samplgp.
; 13 SPSS/PC-t-
:QRM
Va lid Cum
:
ormer 1.00 52 72.2 72.2 72.2
•performer 2.00 20 27.8 27.8 100.0
" TOTAL 72 100.0 100.0
,d Cases 72 Missing Cases 0
; 14 SPSS/PC*
4.BP Sample group
Valid Cum
slue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 1 19 26.4 26.4 26.4

tage perfs 2 15 20.8 20.8 47.2
ance Ss 3 20 27.8 27.8 75.0
musicians 4 18 25.0 25.0 100.0
TOTAL 72 100.0 100.0
id Cases 72 Missinq Cases 0

L "
frss if demandap gt 5~7~~
Var perform samplgp.
3 16 SPSS/PC+
r
0RM
Valid Cum
former 1.00 29 80.6 80.6 80.6

-performer 2.00 7 19,4 19.4 100.0
TOTAL 36 100.0 100.0
i-d Cases 256 Missing Cases 0
5 17 SPSS/PC-i-
"i-SP Sample group
Valid Cum
"»lue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 1 9 25.0 25.0 25.0

tage perfs 2 .15 41.7 41.7 66.7
ance Ss 3 7 19.4 19.4 86.1
musicians 4 5 13.9 13.9 100.0
TOTAL 36 100.0 100.0
T-d Cases ses 0

(t>-g)
set if (demandap It 25 and s o c i a l d s gt 16

var perform s a m p l g p . 1/13/
-ORM
Valid Cum
alue Label V a 1. u e F req u e n c y Percent Percent Percent
former 1.00 24 68.6 68.6 68.6

-performer 2.00 11 31.4 31.4 100.0
_~ _-. „. ™. „™ _ ™
TOTAL 100 .0 100.0
id Cases Missinq Cases (j
20 SPS8/PC+ 1/13/
^LSP Sample group
Valid Cum
musicians 1 8 OO Q OO Q JLX. a V
.£.. .£.. m 7
tage perfs CJ 14.3 14.3 37.1
ance Ss ii 31.4 31.4 68.6
musicians 11 31.4 31.4 100.0
TOTAL. 100.0 100.0
id Cases Missinq Cases n
set if (demandap It 5 and socialds It 16).

:
0RM
Valid Cum
slue Label Va 1 ue F-" r e a u e n c y Percent Percent Percent
former 1 .00 ,£L X 75.0 75.0 75.0

-performer 2 .00 ..... 25.0 25.0 100.0
TOTAL 28 100.0 100.0
id Cases 28 Missinq Cases (.)

-a 28 1/13/
4.GP Sample group
slue Label Value F-'requency Percent Percent r-'ercen
musicians 1 8 28.6 28.6 J!.'.8 a 6
tage perfs t--' 7 25.0 25.0

a
nce Ss 3 7 25.0 25,0 78.6
musicians 4 6 21.4 21.4 100.0
TOTAL. 28 100.0 100.0

id
Cases nc8 Missinq l2ases 0
(I>^)
»ss if demandap It •
/ar perform samplgp
Valid » Cum
ue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
rrmer 1 .00 ..:>8 71.7 71.7 71.7

ierformer .1.5 T53 "T •""*CJ "P"
100 ,0
2.00 s.- (J . •_> .£~0 m -Ji
TOTAL 5 100. 0 100.0
i Cases 53 Missing Cases (j
4 SPSS/PC+ . 1/19/9.
.GP Sample group
Valid Cum
lue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent.
nusicians 1 11 20.8 20.8 20.8.

age perfs 12 22.6 y-sL m O
43.4
r
~.'Q ~*.
ice Ss 15 28.3 71.7
•nusicians 4 15 28.3 28.3 100 „ 0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
d Cases 53 Missing Cases ()
ess if demandap gt 3.
var perform samplgp. ^
* Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variable-;
There also may be up to 1518 Value Labels for each Variable.
ORM
Valid Cum
lue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
•rmer .1.00 49 79.0 79.0 /9.0
performer 2»OO 13 21.0 21.0 100.0
TOTAL 62 100.0 100.0
d Cases 622 M i s s i ng Cases 0
7 SPSS/PC-i- 1/19/9:,
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
!ue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 1 20 \JSjL m •-.'" •_' JL. n *_* ..:>2 „ ..::•

a
Qe perfs 21 33.9 33.9 66. .1
nee Ss 13 21.0 21.0 87,1
musicians 4 8 12.9 12.9 .100.0
62 .100.0 100.0
To-io)
ess if critcism It 122.
# Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variables

There also may be up to .1.5.18 Value Labels for each Variable.
SPSS/PC+ l/ii/'2
ORM
Valid Cum
brmer i . 00 24 f jL n 7 72.7 72.7
•performer 2 „ 00 9 j£ / n •.!.« 100.0
TOTAL. 33 100.0 100.0
,d Cases 33 Missing Cases 0
? 4 SPSS/PC+ l/ll/c
'LGP Sample group

Valid Cum
due Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
r
8 •-.iA
musician? i >A ""> '~>A -~'
:age perfs 2
x:! .11
11 33.3 33.3 57.6
ance Ss --
3 9
9 27.3 27.3 84.8
musicians 4
4 5
5 15.2 1 b. 2 lOO. O
100.0 100.0 TOTAL 33
id Cases 33 Missing Cases 0

• " • • • '" I'M tjm " • • • • • » »' aaâ—.a— , . , ., -j.-n I » • . M U I JIU i. , J-
ess if critcism gt 3>-£.

Valid Cum
ormer 1.00 57 75.0 75.0 75.0
performer 2.00 19 25.0 25.0 100.0
TOTAL 76 100.0 100.0
d Cases 76 Missing Cases 0
7 SPSS/PC+ 1/11/9:
LBP Sample group

Valid Cum
musicians 1 20 '"JJL. "!'

2 6 > •.'.' JLO a O
a 30.3 30.3 %_'6 a 6
Qe perfs .r.:. it* • '*'
..... 19 25.0 25.0 81.6

nee Ss •...'•
musicians 4 14 18.4 18.4 100.0
GTAL 76 .100,0 100 .0
d Cases -es 0
(D-'O
set if (critcism It 12 and socialds gt 1 6 ) .

Valid Cum
due Label Value Frequency Percent Percent. Percent
!
ormer 1.00 15 83.3 83.3 83.3
•performer 2.00 3 16.7 16.7 100.0
TOTAL 18 100.0 100.0
.d Cases .1.8 Missing Cases 0
» IS SPSS/PC-i- 1/11/c
>LBP Sample group
Valid Cum
due Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians ' ' "" "*"" ~" ~"~" "*

1 6 •-VJ> . .J> c--j>. •:> ^••J:> a 0»
:age perfs 2 5 2 / . 'd 27. o 61.1

ince Ss 3 3 16.7 16.7 77.8
musicians 4 4 ..*.:'..£. • Xla <lL JC . JlL 100.0
OTAL 18 100.0 100.0
.d Cases 18 Missinq Cases 0

FT Cb-ix)
»ct if (socialds It .16 and critcism It .1.2

ORM
Valid Cum
ormer 1.00 8 61.5 61.5 61.5
performer 2.00 38. 5 38.5 100.0
TOTAL 13 10 0.0 .100 a 0
d Cases 13 Missinq Cases (J
10 SPSS/PC+ 1/11/9
LBP Sample group
Valid Cum
lue Label Va 1 ue F r e q u e n c y Percent Percent Percent
musicians 1 2 15.4 15.4 15.4
age perfs •id *..* 38.5 38.5 53.8
nee Ss '-.'• l".'.'l 38.5 38.5 92.3
musicians 4 1 7.7 7 .7 100.0
TOTAL 13 100.0 100.0
i Cases 13 Missinq Cases 0
set if (critcism gt 12 and socialds It 1 6 ) .

:
0RM ' ' -—--.. -• •
Val id Cum
due Label alue Frequency Percent Percent Percent
:
ormer 1.00 28 87. 5 87. 5 87.5
•performer 2.00 4 12.5 12.5 100.0
_ „ „. , „. „. __
TOTAL 32 100.0 100.0
•d Cases 32 Missing Cases 0
• 14 SPSS/PC-i- 1/11/9
IBP Sample group
Valid Cum
:
'lue Label Va1ue Frequency 'ercent Percent Percent
musicians 1 9 28. x 28.1 26. 1

:a 46.9 75.0
9e perfs 15 46.9
>nce Ss 4 12.5 12.5 87.5
musicians 4 4 12.5 1 "."' 5 100.0
X ... . w
„. „... „„ „_ „„.
-. ..
OTAL 100.0 100.0
•d Cases ses 0
^-l)
\UV<2- <£
nt Midpoint
0 17
1 19
21
7\ Jl V>
4 25
7 27
12 29
17 31
**«** T
19
11 35
9 37
15 39
9 41
8 43
4 45
1 47
49
, I .... + .... I . ... + .... J. .I , +, I
u 4 8 12 .16 10
H i s t o g r a m F' r e q u e n c y
58 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/9
'ATSC
,d Cases 124 Missing Cases
1 •_••_> » O J. i-' Std Err .553 Median 33.000

a 32.000 Std Dev 6.157 Variance 37.90S
tosis -. 307 S E Kurt .431 Skewness .065
imum 48.000 Sum 4193.OOO
id Cases 1.24 Missing (2,ases 22

Ce-i)
tt\/£- 6.
[CSC
ount Midpoint
i 6.0 ; —
0 7.5 , .
0 9.0 , .
1 10. 5 ; -
1 12.0
9 13.5 j —
6 15.0 ; __.
12 16.5 i —
10 18.0 1 —
17
19.5 < _—
9 21.0 ; —
20 • . —
7 24.0 I-
11 25.5 ; _.._..
7; 27.0 ; -
9 28. 5 ;
'-' 30.0
I. . . + .... J. .... + .. . . I . . . . + . . . . I , I
o 5 10 15 2<J !5
Hi stog ram Frequen cy
t 6: 3PSS/PC+ 12/5/91
.ICSC
.d Cases Missinq Cases
-ICSC
t 20.672 Std Err ,,412 Median 20.000

3
20.000 Std Dev 4 . 609 Variance 2 1 «2'1'>8
:osis -. 060 S E Kurt .430 Skewn ess- ~. 116
Skew .217 Ranae 24.000 Mini mum 6.000
Lfnum 30.000 Sum 2584 »000
id C a s es 125 Missinq (2 a s55 1

£E-V)
jpendent samples of PERFORM
,p 1; PERFORM EQ 1.00 Group PERFORM EQ 2.00
for: PR IVATSC
Numbe r £ tc"m d arti Standard

of Cas es Mean De V .1.ation Error
Group 1 94 34.8085 6.257 .645

Group 2 30 30„7000 4 »692 .857
Pooled Variance Estimate I Separate Variance Estimate
F 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tai1 : t Degrees of 2—Tai1

ilue Prob. Va 1ue F r e e ci o m Prob. i Value Freedom F:'rob.
.. 78 .080 ;.i . 001 , -.:>. 6*-.1'' 64 „ 76 . 000

—
lanes oT PRIVAlSC
eve Is of SAMPLGP b a m p j. e g r o u p
able Value Label Mean Std Dev C ases
Entire Pooulation 33.8145 6.1570 124
1GP i Pit musicians 34.4848 6.22606 oo

LGP 2 Onstage perfs 36.0833 5.4583 36
ISP 3 F i n an ce Ss 30,7000 4.6915 30
LGP 4 MS0 musicians 33»4000 7.1647 25
•tal Cases = 126

ing Cases = 2 OR 1.6 PC
0 N E W A Y
Variable PRIVATSC
Jy Variable SAMPLGP Sample group
A n a 1 y s i s o f V a r i a n c e
bum or He an F F
Source D. F. Squares riquares Ratio Prob.
'sen Groups 495 „ 44.1.4 165.1471 4.7555 .0036
In Groups .2 O 4167.2924 34.7274

.1 1 •->"•:
4662.7339
x -i*.. •..*
Variable PRIVATSC
(Continued)
8 G G 6
r r r r
p P P P
Mean Group 3 4 12
30.7000 6rp 3
33.4000 Grp 4
34.4848 R p- re 1
136.0833
CEH-)
est groups = per f orro (1, 2 ) / var :

publiesc
e 5 SPSS/PC+ 1/1.
:,
e pen dent samples of F ERFORM
up 1: PERFORM EQ 1.00 Group 2: PERFORM EQ 2. OO
est for: PUBLIuSC

of Uases Mean Deviation Error
Group 1 94 21.0851 4 . 52:18 .468
Group 2 31 19.4194 4 .667 ,. 838
Pooled V a r i a n c e E s t i m a t e I Separate V a r i a n c e Estimate
F 2—Taii t D e g r e e s of 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail

alue Prob. Va 1ue F r e e ci o m Fr-' r o b „
V alue Freedom Prob.
1.06 .810 1. 12; osi C'O . o' . 089
varies of h'UBLJCSC
.eveIs of SAMPLGP Sample group
table Value Label Mean Std Dev C ases

Entire Population 20.6720 4.6085 125
>LGP 1 Pit m u s i ci a ns 20.9394 4.4084 — v—i-
H.GP 2 Onstage perfs 21.8889 4.4451 36

'LGP 3 Finance Ss 19.4194 4.6674 31
>LSP 4 MS0 mu s i c i a n s 20.1200 4.8073 25
Jtal Cases ~ 126

sing Cases = 1 OF . 8 PCT.
0 N E W A
Variable PUBLICSC
V Variable SAMPLGP Sample group
bum of Mean F F
Source u. \- Squares Squares Ratio Prob,
sen Groups 111.9293 37.3098 1.7903 .1526
lir
' Groups 2521.6227 20.8399
il 1.24 2633.5520
(E-s)
Jêss if p r i v a t s c It 3 0 .
» var perform s a m p l g p .
. 44 SPaS/PC+ i/ii/ c
'ORM
Valid Cum
tlue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
:
ormer 1.00 16 55.2
•performer 2.00 13 44.8 44.8 100.0
TOTAL 29 100.0 100.0
d Cases 29 Missing Cases «.)
45 SFbS/PU"t- 1/11/=
•LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
musicians 1 6 20.7 20.7 20.7

;age perfs -^ 10.3 10.3 31.0
mce Ss 13 44.8 44.8 75.9
musicians 7 24.1 24.1 100.0
TOTAL 29 100.0 100.0
d Cases 29 Missinq Cases t>
ess if privatsc gt 30.

^•8 S P S S / P C •+• 1/11/9
ORM
Valid Cum
ormer 1.00 72 82.8 82.8 82.8

performer 2.00 15 17.2 17.2 iOO.O
TOTAL 87 100.0 100.0
d Cases 87 Missing Ciases 0

-
39 SPS S/PC-i- 1/11/9
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
!ue Label V a1ue F requency Percent Percent Percent
w-'sicians 1 27 31.0 31.0 31.0

a
9e perfs 28 •...'.IL. it J^. •„'X. . y-
nee Ss 15 17.2 1 7 • .it. 80.5

musicians 4 17 19.5 .19.5 100.0
~... „.- «-
TOTAL 87 .oo.o 100.0

r
d Cases
(B-yi
ct if (socialds It 16 and privatsc gt 30';.,
âr perform samplgp.
3RM
Valid Cum
srmer 1.00 35 85.4 85.4 85.4

serf ormer 2.00 6 14.6 14.6 100.0
TOTAL 41 100.0 100.0
5 SPSS/PC+ 1/11/9
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
musicians 1 9 22.0 22.0 22.0

r~,
age perfs .19 46.3 46.3 68.3
nee Ss ..... 6 14.6 14.6 82.9
musicians 4 7 17.1 i7.i 100.0
TOTAL 41 100.0 100 .0
d Cases 41 Missing Ca ses 0

—
;ct if (socialds gt 16 and privatsc gt 3 0 ) .
'ORM
Valid Cum
ormer 1.00 29 85.3 85.3 85.3
performer 2.00 5 14.7 14.7 100.0
TOTAL 34 100.0 100.0

d
Cases 34 issing C,a&es 0
1
25 SP SS/PC+ 1/11/9
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
e
"lusicians 1 13 38.2 38.2 T O <-)

;a
Qe perfs 7 20.6 20.6 58 a 8
mce Ss ."?,1 5 14.7 14.7 73.5
mu
sicians 4 9 26.5 i6 • 5 100.0
TOTAL 34 100 .0 100.0

C^-sj
•ess if publicsc It 18.
41 SPSS/PC-I- 1/11/v
ORM
Valid Cum
lue Label V a 1 ue F- r e q u e n c y Percent Percent Percent
ormer 1.00 / 3.3 73.3 / •-> . O

performer 2.00 8 26.7 26.7 100.0
TOTAL i-O 100 .0 100.0
d Cases 30 Missino Cases
42 SPSS/PC+ l/ii/-
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
musicians 1 8 26. 7 jd6. / jti'o • /
age perfs 16.7 16.7 43.3

ince Ss 8 26.7 JL.O m / 70.0
musicians 4 30 .0 30 a 0 100.0
-...»-.™ _—.....™ ™
OTAL So 100.0 100.0
.d Cases >0 Missing Cases
ess if publicsc gt IB
47 SPSS/PC+- 1/11/9
ORM
Valid Cum
lue Label Va 1 ue Fr r e q u e n c y Percent Percent Percent
ormer .1.00 66 77.6 77.6 77.6
performer 2.00 19 22.4 22.4 100.0
OTAL 85 1 00 » 0 100.0
d Cases 85 Mi s s i n q Cases
4S 1/11/'
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
!ue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
musicians 24 xid m y. Z.O . yl

a
9e perfs 27 •.::• i . 8 31.8 60 . 0
n
ce Ss 19 22.4 22.4 8j!i. 4
miJ
sicians 4 15 .17.6 17.6 100.0
TOTAL 85 100.0 100.0
d Cases
a.
ct if (socialds It 16 and publicsc It .18).
va r perform samplgp.
ra w data or transformation pass is proceedino
DRM
Valid Cum
—7™r ™v
ormer 1.00 11 /3.3 73.3
performer 2.00 4 26.7 i6. 7 100 .0
TOTAL 15 100 .0 100.0
17 SPSS/PC+ 1/11/9
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
musicians 1 4 26.7 26.7 j£.6 a 7
age perfs 2 3 20.0 20.0 46.7

nee Ss 3 4 26.7 26.7 / •-> a O
musicians 4 4 26.7 26.7 100.0
TOTAL 15 100.0 100.0
d Cases 15 Missinq Cases 0
?ct if (socialds It 16 and publicsc gt. I S ) .

'ORM
Valid Cum
ormer _t. 00 27 81.8 81.8 81.8
performer 2.00 6 18.2 18.2 100.0
TOTAL 33 100.0 100.0
d Cases .33 Missing Cases 0

13
SPSS/PC+ 1/11/
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
Ue
""-isicians 1 7 z'l .^ JLX m JC. •-> 1 •-?

y—\- . y..
age perfs 2 .1.5 45.5 45.5 66.7
mce Ss 3 6 _L 'd - J.-."' 18a 2 84.8
musicians 4 i:-
15.2 15.2 100.0
"OTAL 33 100.0 100.0
;d Cases es <j
(6-JO)
act if (socialds It 16 and privatsc It 3 0 ) .

Var perform samplgp.
ra w data or transformation pass is proceeding
DRM
Valid Cum
,lue Label Value Frequency F'-'ercent Percent Percent
ormer 1.00 62. 5 62.5 62. 5

•performer 2.00 37. 5 37.5 100.0
TOTAL 8 100.0 100.0
d Cases 8 Missing Cases u
j 9 SPSS/ PC + 1/!!/•-
1GP Sample group
Valid uum
due Label Value Frequency Percent 'ercent Percent
musicians 1 3 37.5 37. 5 37. 5

>nce Ss 37.5 37. 5 75.0
musicians 4 2 25.0 25.0 100.0
TOTAL a 100.0 100.0
Ld Cases « Missinq Cases (j
set if (privatsc gt 30 and publicsc It 1 8 ) .

2ss if socialds It 16.
/ar perform samplgp.
• 2S SPSS/PC+ l/ll/(
'ORM
Valid Cum
ilue Label Value F requency Percent Percent Percent
ormer 1.00 b 88.9 88.9 88.9
performer 2.00 1 11.1 11.1 100.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

d Cases Missing Cases (>
SPSS/PC+ 1/11/9
LGP Sample group
Valid Cum
'lue Label Value Frequency 'ercent Percent Percent
"nusicians 1 2
:a
9e perfs 2 3 ~y "?'
55.6
ir
Ke Ss 3 1 11.1 11.1 66.7
Nusicians 4 3 •«.* - — * U * 100.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
•^ Cases liSSaiEfciiiiMMJHnCv L»( »es (.)

t*M)
stabul ation s LONECAT
By SAMPLGP Sample gf "oup
Coun t 'Pit musi :onstage ;F inance :M SO musi- 11

LSP-> Row Pet ! cians !perfs !Ss i clans 1
Row
l
Col Pet 1 1 2 3 i
i 4 t Total 1
1
l
t l
ECAT -+- .4.

1 i
1.00 f 2X .17 1
1 18 i
14 1
1 70
t lonely ! 30.0 i
24.3 1
t 25.7 ! 20.0 1
56.5
1
i(
1 6-J.-' a 6 i
47 „ 2 1
1 56.3 1 60 a 9 1
1
• " J —
2.00 1
\ 4 i
i 7 1
1 6 1
1 4 1
l -£. X
1
utral 1 19.0 < 7% 3 3 1
( 28.6 1
.19.0 1
f 16.9
1
1 X J*."- a X
i
!
19.4 f 18.8 1
1 17-4 J
1
+- -4.™.
3.00 i
i 8 1
I 11 I
I 6 1
\ 5 1
l 30
nely i j£.6 a /
1
f 36.7 i
f 20.0 1
1 16 a 7 1
1
i
ji!*r « .td
1
1 250.6 1
1 18.8 1
1 ifl« / 1
1
+-
9.00 i
i
1
r 1 t
1 2 I
1
I
l .5
i
i
l
i
713. 3 1
1 66.7 1
I
}
1 2.4
1
i
i
i 2.8 1
1 6.3 1
1
Column 36 •.-. j£ •j.- •»» 124

Total J£.6 -6 29.0 25.8 18.5 100.0
ter of Missing Observations =
•tabulation : FREETIME Free time spent alone or not

By SAMPLGP Sample group
Count Pit musi!Onstage ! Finance MS0 musi!

.GP-> Row Pet cians ;perfs 1 Cr-
cians ! Row
Col. Pet 1 4 ! Total
TIME —+.
6 i 10
>ne 26.1 i 43.5 21.7 8.7 i 18.
18.2 i 27.8 15.6 8.7 I
ll 9 : 12 7 39
:h friends .£. w a JC 23.1 ! 30.8 17.9 31.5
25.0 ! 37.5 30.4
-I'- —(.
15 14 J 15 14 58
•h family 25.9 jL "T • X 1 JZ i..' a T 24.1 46.8
45.5 38.9 ! 46.9 60.9
1
1
1 1
ler 100 ,0 8
,0
-+
8
not know 100.0 1.6
5.6
4 —+
.1 1
5s
ing data 100.0 .8
2.8
Co1umn 124
Total 26.6 29.0 5.8 18, 100.0
Cf-3.)
Btabulation: LMOTuATF
Coun t IP it musi ', Onstage Il-xnance ; ntJU musi

LGP-> Row Pet ', cians ;perfs lss \cians Row
X '— 4 Total
Col Pet 4
•••-
-i— ~+— -+ —(-

TCATF 8 45
1.00 13 14 10 i
I
31 .1 17*8 36.9 I
ose 28.9 I
39.4 38.9 36.4 I

i
+-• - i — -+- -+
Q 10 8 I
i
6 33
o OO 1
27.3 30 „ 3 24.2 18-2 27.0
utral 27.8 25.8 I
t 27 - 3
13 8 44
3. OO 11 X JL
t Close 25.0 29. 5 18.2 36.1
33.3 41.9 36.4
„4_
36 31 122
Co1umn 100 a0 .
27.0 29.5 25.4 18.0
Total
ier of Missing Observations 4
stabu 1 ation : EMOTCATM

Coun t Pit musi Onstage Finance MSO musi

-GP-> Row Pet cians perfs Ss cians Row
Col Pet 1 4 Total
rCATM
1.00 26 24 21 17 88
3se 29. 5 27 .3 zc-. ~r 19.3 71.5
78.8 66.7 67 .7 73.9
2.00 4 5 17
itral 17.6 ! 29.4 23.5 .ii. I a ^* 13.8
9.1 ! 13.9 12.9 S~ X . /
3.00 1 4 ! 7 ! 6 ! 1 18
:
Close •^•8.9 , •.:>•.::>»-^> i a. 6 14.6
12.1 ; 19.4 : 19.4 : 4.3
Column 33 36 31 23 1 O"?
J. x-O
Total 26.8 29.3 25.2 18.7 100.0
r
of Missing Observations ~-
C>- sj
;5tabs fathapp mothapp by sampIgp/oot.ions 3 4/statistic x
(#* Given WORKSPACE allows for 8909 Cells with

2 Dimensions for CROSSTAB problem *****
b
! SPSS/PC-t- 12/8/9-
stabulation; FATHAPP Father's approval re career
Coun t Pit musiiunstage !Finance \MSO musi

LGP-:: Row Pet cians ;perfs !Ss ;cians Row
Col Pet ••(• i ./_ • •_•• , 4 Total
HAPP
26 | 26 ; 29 | 17 98
26.5 1 26.5 ! 29.6 ', 17.3 80.3
78.8 J 72.2 ! 93.5 i 77.3
Is 4 ' ' ~> 7

14.3 i 57.1 | j 28.6 5.7
3.0 I 1.1.1 ; | 9.1
o 6 ! 6 ! 2 ! 3 17
Not Know 35.3 | 35.3 ! 11.8 \ 1.7.6 13.9
1«.2 ! 16.7 \ 6.5 ! 13.6
Column 33 3 A "", 1 -f-i X J.*.. JL.
Total 27.0 29.5 25.4 18.0 100.0
stabu 1ation: MOTHAPP Mother's approval re career

Count [Pit musi !Onstag Finance MSO musi[

LGP-> Row Pet !cians J perfs Ss cians I Row
Col Pet. : I 4 [ Total
HAPP
' inl 1
1 ! 29 21 I 1 J::!
c
! 25.9 ! 29. 5 .18.8 ', 91.1
i 87.9 91.7 91.3 ;
2 ! 4 8
i 50.0 I o •=} ("1 25.0 ! 6.5
1
! 12.1 S JL 8.7 ;
~-~i -••+•
8
Not Know a '._• | 66 2.4
,8 ; 6
Column 36 X JC-S-I
Total 26.8 29 >i *.-* 25 18.7 .00.0

tabulation: FACAREER
Count 'Pit musi Unstage [Finance MSO musi

GP-> Row Pet [cians perfs JSs cians Row
Col Pet ,' 1 4 Total
REER 4
1.00 15 16 18 11 60
Important 25.0 26.7 30.0 18.3 49.2
45.5 44.4 58.1 50.0
2.00 9 7 >8
tral 22.1 0 10.7
17.?• : 5.0 e> 13.6
-+
3. ou 11 8 34
ortant 26. 5 32. 4| 17.6 T? c 27.9
•-"."7 "?"
30.6 19.4 36.4
+- -+-
Column 36 31 122
Total .1.0 ^7 : j.4 18.0 100.0
r of Missing Observations =
tabulation. MOuAREER
Coun t [P i t mu s i[On s t a g e [F i n a n c e [MSO musi

.SP-> Row Pet [cians [perfs [Ss [cians Row
Col Pet ' 1 ' 2 ' 3 ! 4 "otal
, x i y- i i
IREER
1.00 9 [ 14 19 11 53
:
Important 17.0 [ 26.4 35.8 20.8 43.4
'", "7 '".'• I
.£. / . -.-• ( 38.9 61.3 50.0
1-_... + 1-
11 ! 8 7 29
1
Jtral 37 .9 [ 27.6 24.1 10 3 ' 23.8
-J* O «» •-* i 22 .6 [ 13.6
. 00 is : 14 : s i 40
Portant '-•til * *»' I 12.5 [ 20.0 [ 32.8
39.4 [ 38.9 16.1 [ 36.4 [
Column 36 31 1 nn
JL .,'_ x-
Total 27.0 29. 5 25.4 18.0 .00.0
\4 k/( •
O-s-J)
istabulation: CARSATIS
Count
"LGP-/- Row Pet Row
Col Pet Total
ISATIS +
1 .00 11
ssatisfied 9.0
, ou 11
decided 9.0
3. Ou 100
tisf ied 82.0
Co1umn XJLJL
Total 100.0
10 SPSS/PC+ 12/8/91
-Square D. F . Significance Min E.F'
3.49363 .2041 1.984 8 OF 12 ( 66.77.)
3r of Missino. Observations
<f-fe)
•ess if samplgp = 1. CpIT HllSl£i»=^s")

y
var wkenvprf .
,% Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variables

, 91 SPSS/PC+ 12/5/91
IVPRF Preferred work environment
Valid Cum
cals Opera 1 5 15.2 15.2 15.2

ireen 2 .6.1 6.1 Ji-X a y-
terts 5 JL 6.1 6.1 27.3

lestral Members 6 11 -..••.J. . •_•• C O . •-> 60.6
lination 7 13 39.4 39.4 100.0
._,. _,.
TOTAL L iOO.O 100 .0
355 if samplgp = 4. L S ^ H P U o M ^ VîASTc-im^sT)

âr wkenvprf .
* Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variabl pc

mere also may be up to 1518 Value Labels for each Variable.
SPSS/PC+ 12/28/9.
/PRF Preferred work environment
l Valid Cum
"e Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
wts 5 8.0 8.0
}
y.'.
8.0
stral Members 6 10 40.0 40.0 48.0
nation 7 11 44.0 44.0 92.0
8 2 8.0 8.0 100.0
— - —
TOTAL yl,J 100.0 100.0
Cases Missinq C-ases 0
(F--n
cess if samplgp = 1. ( p \ r H u S ^ i ' f t ^ ^

var perf pref.
** Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variable-

8
SPSS/PC+ j 2/8/9
:
PREF Prefce for on or off stage performing
Valid Cum
slue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent.
:a e
9 1 17 51.5 51. 5 51.5
>ta9e 2 6 18.2 18.2 69.7
irding 4 ;-:; 9.1 9.1 78.8
irefce .1— JL M .C~ 100.0
TOTAL 33 100.0 100.0
,d Cases 33 Missina Cases 0
:ess if samplgp = 4. (suMp HTCXNJLX w o i ^ wC~w=u^s)

var perf pref.
* Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variables

! lt:>
SPSS/PC+ 12/8/91
PREF Prefce for on or off stage performing
Valid Cum
iue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
:age 1 92.0 92.0 92.0
irefce 5 2 8.0 8.0 100 .0
TOTAL L ZD 100.0 100.0
•d Cases 25 Missina Cases

£*--»)
istabulation; SEX F;: e s p o n d e n t' s s e;
By PERFORM
Count IP.erforme [Won-perf[

'ORM- Row Pet [r [ormer [ Row
Col Pet 1.00 [
i
i 2.00[ Testa I
1 46 1 12 [ 58
•male
i
i 79.3 [ 20.7 [ 46.0
i
i 48.9
+~- + (
_
r~.
48 ! 20 [ 68
le
i
< 70.6 ; 29.4 : 54.0

t
i 51.1 [ 62.5 [
H—
Co1umn 94 32 126
Total 74.6 25.4 100.0
er of Missing Observations =
55 tabs sex by samplgp/opt ions 3 4/statistic
S * # Given W 0 R K S P A C E a l l o w s for E< 9 0 9 C e 1 1 s w i t h

2 Dimensions for C R O S S T A B problem *****
SPSS/PC+ 1/16/*
istabulation. SEX R e s p o n d e n t' s s e x
Count IP it mus i[Onstage I Pinance [MSO mus i[

LGP-> Row Pet [cians [perfs 1 Ss [cians 1
Row
Col Pet < .1 I X'. ! 4 1
Total
i ~%
_H ....( -+
i < IS [ 20 : 12 : s ) 58
I
male i
31.0 [ 34.5 [ 20 „ 7 : 13.8 I
t 46 a 0
< 54. 5 [ 55.6 [ 37. 5 1 32.0 1
1
-| ___i -•+• — --i -4.

JH. t 15 : i6 ! 20 ! 17 1
1 68
le i
t .il„ .('_'. a X [ 29 „ 4 ti •—. rz y\ 1
54 a 0
yL iJ « 'J I
{ 45.5 44.4 l
(
j '••;L::
6jt . •...' ! 68.0 1
f
-1 ~H •-i - --•- .4 »+•
Column ".,•..,. 36 32 25 126

Total .it. a . .ei 283.6 25.4 19.8 .100.0
"Square D. F . Significance Min E.F ;ells with E.F.< 5
5 19
' 625 3 .1580 11.508 None
•r of Missing Observations =
£2Va)
gt groups = sex (.1,2)/var = seifestm demandao critcism,
18 SPSS/PC+ 1/11/91
pendent samples of SEX Respondent's sex
P 1: SEX EQ 1 Group 2: SEX EQ 2
for: S ELFESTM

Group 1 58 26.6379 4 .467 .587

Group 68 ^8.1912 4.337 . 526
Pooled Variance l-stimate [ Separate Variance Estimate

i
F 2~Tai1 t Degrees of 2-Tail [ t Degrees of 2-Tail

lue Prob. Value Freedom Prob. [ Value Freedom Prob.
.06 ,813 -1,98 124 , 050 - 1 . V7 119.69 ,051
pi: SEX EQ 1 Group 2s SEX EQ 2
st for: DEMANDAP
Number Standard S tandard

Group 1 58 4.2931 2.715 .356

Group 2 67 3.2239 2.392
Pooled Variance Estimate Separate Variance Estimate
F 2-Tail t Degrees of z~fail t Degrees of 2-Tail

lue Prob. Value Freedom Prob. Value Freedom Prob.
.29 , •_' y- X 22.34 1 '~yz

X y~ •-.'
.021 114.65 .01
P 1: SEX EQ 1 Group 2: SEX EQ 2
!
*t for: CRITCISM

Group 1 56 13.9107 3.047 . 407

Group 2 68 12.8971 2.840 . 344

h t Degrees of 2-Tail
2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail
Jlu Value Freedom Prob.
e Prob. Value Freedom Prob.
fc15 .579 ^=V -- - .058 1.90 113.96 . 060

<&K
est groups = sex (1,22)/var = socialds privatsc publicsc,
e 22 SPSS/PC+ 1/11/
ependent samples of SEX Respondent's sex
jp i: SEX EQ 1 Group 2: SEX EQ 2
for: S OCIALDS

6roup 1 52 15.3846 5.747 .797

j . "j. !— '-y .
Group 2 65 16.oiol 5.000 . 620
F 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail

lue Prob. Value Freedoiri Prob. Value Freedom Prob.
7 C t
.32 .290 -.94 ii: 347 ,93 101.74
•pendent samples of SEX F:;;espondent' s sex
p 1: SEX EQ 1 Group 2s SEX E LI 2
Bt for: PRIVATSC

Group 1 56 34.4643 5.470 . 731

Group 2 68 33.2794 6 .662 . 808
F 2—Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail

lue Prob. Value Freedom Prob. Value Freedom Prob.
.48 1.07 1 T 288 1.09 122.00 .279

1 y~j
pendent samples of SEX F:;; e? s p o n d e n t' s sex
P 1: SEX EQ 1 Group 2: SEX EQ
st for: PUBLICSC

Group 1 57 21.8246 4.733 . 6.*L7
Group y. 68 19.7059 4.302 m w «C •»—
F
2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail t Degrees of 2-Tail
llJ V alue Freedom Pro b. Value F-'reedom Prob.
e Prob.
F21 .453 - - — .010 2.60 114.52 .oil

(£~4)
vat" age/format notable/histogram normal.
% Memory allows a total of 12.148 Values, accumulated across all Variables

37 SPSS/PC+ l/li/9
Count Midpoint
T
20
.$
13 26
17 29
26
15 35
13 38
12 41
4 44
6 47
4 50
53
56
1 59
i 62
0 65
68 , I .... •+•.... I . . . . -i".... I , . I • .I
1 ,
0 6 12 18 24 30
Hi stog ram Frequency
•v " • - - .
33.976 Std Err . t< 7 2 Median 31.000

30.000 Std Dev 9.786 Variance 95.767
osis 1 .860 S E Kurt .428 Skewness J. » O'l x"!
Skew .216 Range 49.000 Minimum 20 a 000
inum 69.000 Sum 4 28.1. .000
1 Cases 126 Missing Cases o

€-*0
15 age by samplgp/statistics all.
|tf Given WORKSPACE allows for 74224 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS.
SPSS/PC+ i/ll/<
laries of AuE
evels of SAMPLGP Sample group
able Value Label Mean Std uev C ases
Entire Population 3.9762 9.7861 I2t

.,,..,
'LGP 1 Pi t mus ic ia ns 0.1818 7.1565
1GP 2 0nstage perfs 4.2778 9.0320 3t
U3P 3 Finance Ss 5.9063 12.7819 -y .—
1GP 4 MSO musicians 6.0800 H . 42i_'8 •"*;« in:
ital Cases = i26
» 43 Sl-'bS/FUH- i/il/c
laries of AGE
evels of SAMPLGP Sample group
Value Label Mean Std Dev bum of Sq Cases
1 Pit musicians 30.1818 7.1565 1638.9091

2 Onstage perfs 34.2778 9.0320 2855.2222 :>6
3 Finance Ss 35.9063 .12.7819 5064.7188
4 MSO musicians 3«6.0800 8 . 4.2 58 1703. 8400
tin Groups Total 32!-. V/62 9.6082 11262.6V01 126
! 44 SPSS/PC+ i./il/S
Priori Variable AGE
Analysis of Va r ia nee
Sum of Mean
"ce Squares D. F. Square F Sig
<een Groups 708.2385 3 236.0795 i"2. m v-* \-' / *—* .0583
toearity 584.8894 1 584.8894 6 . •->:*<.'/ .0151

3V
- from Linearity 123.3491 •:'! 61.6745 .6681 .514^
R -- .2210 R Squared = .0489
^ Groups 11262.6901 122 92.3171
bta 2432 Eta Sciuared = .0592

cess if samplgp ne 3.
cs-o
way 3Q e ^y samplgp( 1, 4 ) /ranges btukey
70 SPSS/F-'C+ i/ll/(
• O N E W A Y
Variable AGE
3y Variable SAMPLGP Sample group
An a1ys i s o f Va riance
Sum of Mean F F
Source .F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
ieen Groups 2 548.4542 yi. / 4 . 2 2 / 1 4.0263 ,02ii
iin Groups 9.1 6197.9713 68.1096
il 93 6746.4255
—
» 71 SPSS/PC+ 1/11/
~™ «™ ... - O N E W A Y
Variable AGE
ty Variable SAMPLGP Sample group
:iple Range Test
>y-B Procedure
|es for the .050 level -
3.10 3.37
ranges above are table ranges.
value actually compared with Mean (J )--Mean ( I ) is,
5.8356 * Range * Sqrt(l/N(I) + 1/N(J))
Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level
72 SPSS/PC+ i/ii/S
0 N E W A Y -
Variable AGE
(Continued)
G G G
r r r
p p p
Mean Group 1 2 4
30 • 1818 Grp 1
34.2778 Grp 2
36
-0800 Grp 4
<$n)
less if samplgp = 1.
var age/statistics all.
\% Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Varia ble?
30.182 Std Err 1 .246 Median 29.000

30.000 Std Dev 7.157 Variance \3 X m J~ 1 6
05 is 8.990 S E Kurt . 798 Skewness 2.448

Skew . 409 Range 40.000 Minimum 20.000
mum 60.000 Sum 996.OOO
,d Cases Missing cases n
:ess if samplgp = 'X.

var age/format notable/statistics all
1 34.278 Std Err 1 . 505 Median 32.000

1
30.000 Std Dev 9.032 Variance 81.578
:osis .175 S E Kurt . 768 Skewness .771
Skew .393 Range 2>4 „ 0 0 0 Minimum 22.000
iinum 56.000 Sum 1234.000
•d Cases 36 Missing Ca s e s 0
—.--—. — __*«.„„
:es5 if samplgp = 3.
var age/statistics all/format notable
) 35.906 Std Err 2 . 260 Median 31.000

23.000 Std Dev 12.782 Variance 163.378
t05i5 .719 S E Ku r t . 809 Skewness 1.097
imum 69.000 Sum 1149,000
td
Cases Missing Cases 1.>
ces
s if samplgp = 4.
v
ar age/format notable/statistics all.
36.080 Std Err 1.685 Median

5 34.000
34.000 Std Dev 8 „ 426 Variance
tosis 70.993
2.270 8 E Kurt . 902 Skewness •i •-*. -Vr ~T
Skew .464
1 . yl-_>._•>
Flange 38.000 Minimum 24.000
62.000 Sum 902?. 000
u?- 1.)
<$-*)
st groups = sex (1,2)/var - age,
7 SPSS/PC+ /1//9
pendent samples of SEX Respondent's s-ex
D 1; SEX EQ 1 Group 2; SEX EQ 2
;t for: AGE

Group 1 58 31.6034 7.238 .950

Group 2 68 36.UO00 11.184 1.356
; Pooled Variance Estimate ! Separate Variance Estimate

:
2-Tail t uegrees of 2-Tail ! t Degrees of 2-Tail
lie Prob. Value Freedom Pr ob. ; Value Freedom Prob.
39 ,001 124 Oil - 2 . toD 116.06 U09

<£-f)
Elation age seifestm.
, 7 SPSS/PC-*- i/lS/S
•elationss AGE SELFESTM
IE 1.0000 .1063
'LFEBTM .1063 1.0000
cases: 126 1-tailed Sign if: % - .01 ** ••- .001

efation age demandap.
9 SPSS/PC+ 1/18/S
elations: AGE DEMANDAP
E 1.0000 -.1686
!MANDAP -.1686 1.0000
cases: 125 i--tailed Sign if. * .0.1 ** ••- .001

•elation age critcism.
SPSS/PC-i-
> 11 i/18/<
-elations: AGE CRI TC
3E 1.0000 ••-.0399
UTCISM -. C>399 1.0000
f cases: 124 1-tailed 'Signif: * .01 ** - -001

elation age socialds.
' 17 SPSS/PC+ 1/18/9
elations: AGE SOCIALDS)
£ 1.0000 .1544
CIALDS .1544 1.0000
cases: 117 1 -1 a i 1 ed S i a n i f s * - . 01 * * - . 001
elation age privatsc. " "
* 13 SPSS/ PC +• 1/18/9
elations: AGE PRIVATSC
'E 1.0000 -. 11622

fIVATSC -.1162 1.0000
' cases: 124 1 --1 a i 1 ed S i a n i f s % •-- . 01 * * - . 001
"e 1 a t i on a g e pu b 1 i cs c .
3
15
Elations: AGE PUBLICSC

J
E i m QOOO ""« 2113 *
J
BLICSC -.2113* 1.0000
peases: 125 1-tailed Signif; * .01 ** - .001

%-">)
Ees5 if se;-: - 1.
var educqual .
It Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variable?

There also may be up to 1518 Value L a b e l s for each V a r i a b l e .
3 3 SPSS/PC+ i/ll/c
;QUAL Educational qualification
Valid Cum
* secondary 1 / 12.1 12.1 X jL m X
pleted secondary .id 8 13.8 13.8 25.9

tial tertiary ".•".; 3 5.2 5.2 31.0
pleted tertiary 4 ., o 65.5 65.5 96.6
sr 6 2 3.4 3.4 100.0
TOTAL L 58 100.0 10 0.0
id Cases 58 Missing Cases 0
ess if sex = 2. *y
var educqual .
* Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variables

S P S S / F-' C + 1 /11 / 9 ^
SUAL Educational qualification
Valid Cum
!"e Label Value Freq uen cy l-'ercen
l-'e r cen t Pe rcent Pe r cen t
secondary 1 4 5 '-? 5. V 5.9
|eted secondary Xl 7.4 7.4 1 "T O
X •_> . y~
lal tertiary •Si* 14 20.6 20.6 0-_> a D
leted tertiary 4 -._'* ••I'1 48 „ 5 48. 5 82.4
/Tl
"ade Cert 5 •.::'< 4.4 4.4 86.8
r 6 8 11 .8 11.8 98. 5
9 1 1.5 1.5 100 .0
TOTAL 68 100.0 100.0

d
Cases 68 Missing C ases 0
:B5S if samplgp = 1. £ W " ^ u * , ' e,VK ?
s var educqual
<* Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variable?
;QUAL Educational qualification

Valid Cum
ilue Label Value
Value Frequency
F-req uency Percent
l-'ercen Percent Percent
pleted secondary •~> yl 6.1 6.1 6.1

tial tertiary 71 6 18.2 18.2 24.2
pleted tertiary 4 24 72.7 72.7 97.0
6 1 3.0 3.0 100.0
sr
TOTAL. 33 100.0 100.0
Id Cases 33 Missing Cases 0
cess if samplgp = 2'. ( J ^ « ^ £ ^ tw^**^*)

var educqual .
** Memory allows a total of 12148 Values, accumulated across all Variable-

ICDUAL Educational qualification
Valid Cum
'alue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
•B secondary 1 5 13.9 13.9 13.9

'Pleted secondary .<:.*. 3 Q a •.-*' Q "if J-\/*-) 4"",
'tial tertiary
••;.*
3 8.3 8.3 30.6

"Pleted tertiary 4 17 47.2 47.2 77.8
'c/Trade Cert 5 1 2.8 2.8 80.6
ler 6 6 16.7 16» / 97.2
9 1 2.8 2.8 100.0
TOTAL. 36 100.0 100.0
lid C a s e s 36 Missing Ca ses 0

sess if samplgp = 3. \Y\tv*y*Cie- ot/JaêUsrS j
var educqual. ^
it Memory allows a total of 12.148 Values, accumulated across all Variables

;0UAL Educational qualification
Valid Cum
:
alue Label V aIue Frequency 'ercent Percent Percent
i secondary 1 4 X X- n u.' 12.5

dieted secondary .—', 6 18 «o 18.8 31.3
-jr
tial tertiary 3 9.4 9.4 40.6
pleted tertiary 4 16 50.0 50.0 90.6
E/Trade Cert. 5 Xl 6.3 6.3 96.9
er 6 i 3.1 3.1 100.0
TOTAL 100.0 i 00.0
id Cases Missing Cases t.)
ocess if samplgp = 4. ^ ^ v , p h o » ^ \t\"&k>a>«sj

i var educqual .
K** Memory allows a total of 12.148 Values, accumulated across all Variables
jlCOUAL Educational qualification
Valid Cum
telue Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
ne secondary 1 2 8.0 8.0 8.0

"Pleted secondary 2 xl. 8.0 8.0 16.0
ftial tertiary 7:, 5 20.0 20.0 36.0
"Pleted tertiary 4 14 56.0 56.0 92.0
her 6 ./.'.. 8.0 8.0 100.0
~
TOTAL 25 100.0 100.0
lid Cases 25 M issing Cases o

OH)
elation seifestm demandap.
13 SPSS/PC+ i/12/9:
elations: SELFESTM DEMANDAP
LFESTM 1. OOOO - „ 2850 * *

WANDAP -. 2850 * * 1. 0000
cases: 125 1-tailed Signif: * .01 ** - .001
dation seifestm critcism.
15 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/92
jlations: SELFESTM CRITCISM
.FESTM 1.0000 •- » 3388 * *

ITCISM - . 3388* * 1. 0000
cases: 124 i-tailed Signif: * .01 ** - .001
=lation seifestm socialds.
17 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9;
elations: SELFESTM SOCIALDS
LFESTM 1.0000 .2533*

CIALDS .2533* 1.0000
cases: 117 1-tailed Si g n if: * - .01 * * - .001
'elation seifestm privatsc.
5 19 SPSS/PC* i/12/s
relations: SELFESTM PRIVATSC
(LFESTM 1.0000 .0431

R1VATSC . 0431 1 . 0000
"elation seifestm publicsc.
, 21 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9
'elations: SELFESTM PUBL I CSC
iLFESTM 1.0000 -.0943

JBLICSC -.0943 1.0000
f cases: 125 1--tailed Signif; * ~ .01 ** ~ .001

Elation demandap critcism,
e 23 SPSS/PC+
relations: DEMANDAP CRITCISM
EMANDAP 1.0000 .4891**

RITCISM .4891** 1.0000
f cases: 123 l~tai'ied Signif:
•elation demandap socialds.
i 2 5 SPS b / P C "'"
•elations: DEMANDAP SOCIALDS
•MANDAP 1.0000 -.1801

3CIALDS -.1801 1.0000
f cases: ii6 .1 •-1 a i I e d S i a n i f :
relation d e m a n d a p privatsc.
SPSS/PC+
relations: DEMANDAP PRIVATSC
EMANDAP 1 a 0000 . 1869

RIVATSC .1869 1.0000
f cases: 123 .1 •••-1 a i .1. e d S i g n i f : *
r
e 1 a t i on d e m a n ci a p p u b 1 i c s c .
e
29 SPSS/PC+
T
el ations s DEMANDAP PUBL I CSC
'EMANDAP l. 0000 .4101 * *

>U
BLICSC . 4101 * * 1.0000
Jf cases: 124 i-tailed Signif: *
H-3)
re 1 a t i o n cr.it: c .1. s m s o c .1 a 1 cl s .
; 31 SPSS/PC-i- i/12/c
-elations: CRITCISM SOCIALDS
ilTCISM 1.0000 -.2182*

jCI ALDS -.2182* 1 .0000
'cases: 115 i-tailed Signif: * - .01 ** - .001
•elation critcism privatsc.
> 33 SPSS/PC+ l/12/c
•elations: CRITCISM PR IVATSC
UTCISM 1.0000 .3282* *

f I VATSC . 3282* * 1. 0000
leases: 122 1-tailed Signif: * -• .0.1 ** - .001
elation critcism publicsc.
35 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9
elations: CRITCISM PUBLICSC
1TCISM 1.0000 .3456**

IBLI CSC . 34 56 * * 1 . 0000
cases: 123 1-tailed Signif: * - .01 ** - .001
" is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed
•elation socialds privatsc.

1/12/9
, 37 SPSS/PC+
•elations: SOCI ALDS PR IVATSC
JCIALDS 1.0000 -. 1872

ii VATSC -.1872 1.0000
f cases: 115 1-tailed Signif: * - .01 ** - -OOi
•elation socialds publicsc.

1/12/91
i ^ o S P s S / P c •+•
'elations: SOCIALDS PUBLICSC
3CIALDS 1.0000 •••-.0661

UBLICSC -.0661 1.0000
f cases: 116 i-tailed Signif. * - -01 ** " -001
""relation privatsc publicsc.

3e 41 SPSS /PC+ l/12/':
delations: PRIVATSC PUBLICSC

PR
IVATSC 1 - 0000 - 3829 * *
PL)
BLICSC . 3829* * 1 - 0000
1
if cases: "::'A i-tailed Signif: * .01 ** - .001
^J-l)
paries of SELFESTM
levels of LONECAT
âble Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases
Entire Population 27.3636 4.4926 12i
ECAT 1.00 Not lonely 28.4143 3.5570 70

ICAT 2.00 Neutral 26.0952 4.5377 21
ECAT 3.00 Lonely 25.8000 5.7319 30
stal Cases = 121

3S5 if lonecat ne 9.
iy seifestm by lonecat (1, 3)/ranges btukey
- O N E W A Y -
Variable SELFESTM
3y Variable LONECAT
Sum of Mean F F
D. F . Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Source
2 184,. 4048 92 . 20.'24 4.8623 .0094
ueen Groups
tun Groups 118 .... ,... ...,. ...... L-; f- ,;;- /-,
18.9627
al 120 2422.0000
Variable SELFESTM
By Variable LONECAT
tiple Range Test
,ey-B Procedure
ges for the .050 level -
3.09 3.36

value actually compared with Mean(J)-Mean(I) is..
3.0792 * Range * Sqrt(l/N(I) + 1/N(J))
Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at. the .050 level
._ .... ... .... .... - --ONEWAY • ..-------
Variable SELFESTM
(Continued)
8 G G
r r r
P P P
.....
Mean Group 2 i
\ 25.8000 Srp 3
L 26.0952
CZ-3L)
jcess if freetime It 4.
^seifestm by freetime/statistic 1.
it Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS.
, 65 SPSS/PC+ 12/7/9i
laries of SELFESTM
evels of FREETIME Free time spent alone or not
.able Value Label Mean Std Dev Uases
TIME 1 Alone 25.1739 6.1692 X*. •—'
TIME 2 With friends 27.7179 3.0517 39

TIME 3 With family 27.9483 4.0929 58
3tal Cases 120
i 66 SPSS/PC+ 12/7/91
naries of SELFESTM
levels of FREETIME Free ti
time spent, alone or not.
Value Label Mean Std Dev Sum of Sq Cases
1 Alone 25.1739 6.1692 837.3043 20>

2 With friends 27.7179 3.0517 353.8974 39
3 With family 27.9483 4.0929 954.8448 58
hin Groups Total 27.3417 4.2828 2146.0466 120
ie 67 SPSS/PC+ 12/7/91
terion Variable SELFESTM
Sum of Mean
irce Squares D.F. Square F Sig.
**W Groups 134.9451 2 67.4725 3.6785 .0282

;h
in Groups 2146.0466 117 18.3423
Eta = .2432 Eta Squared = .0592

£r-s)
:e55 if free time It 4.

iay sel f estm by f reetime (1.3)/ ranges btukey
92 SPSS/PC+ ./12/9
•- 0 N E W A Y
Variable SELFESTM
y Variable FREETIME Free time spent alone or not
Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob,
een Groups 2 134.9451 67.4725 3.6785 .0282
iin Groups 117 2146.0466 18.3423
il 119 2280.9917
i 93 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9
0 N E W A Y
Variable SELFESTM
Sy Variable FREETIME Free time spent alone or not
biple Range Test
jy-B Procedure
3es for the .050 level -
3.09 3. .56

value actually compared with Mean(J) Mean(I) i
3.0284 * Range * Sqrt<1/N<I) + 1/N(J))
Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level
B 94 SPSS/PC+ /12/9
0 N E W A Y
Variable SELFESTM
(Continued)
G G G
r r r
P P P
Mean Group
25.1739 Grp 1
27.7179 Grp 2 *
27.9483 t-i „- r-. "? *
6x^v)
faries of SELFESTM
levels of EMOTCATM
1.00 Close 27.6136 4.7981 2002.8636 88

2.00 Neutral 26.8824 4.3715 305.7647 17
3.00 Not Close 26.9444 2.7326 126.9444 18
hin Groups Total 27.4146 4.5052 2435.5728 123
naries of SELFESTM
[evels of EMOTCATF
1.00 Close 27.2667 4.9424 1074.8000 45

2.00 Neutral 28.4848 3.7924 460.2424
3.00 Not Close 26.9545 4.2969 793.9091 44
hin Groups Total 27.4836 4.4239 2328.9515 122
Sum of Mean
tree Squares D.F. Square F Sic
:ween G r o u p s 47.5157 2 23.7578 1.2139 .3007
:hin Groups 2328.9515 119 19.5710
Maries of SELFESTM
levels of M0THAPP Mother's approval re career
1 Yes 27.4375 4.4898 2237.5625 X X y~
2 No 26.8750 5.3302 198.8750 8

~r
8 Do Not Know 28.0000 2.0000 8.0000
thin Groups Total 27.4146 4.5133 2444.4375
Binaries of SELFESTM
tevels of FATHAPP Father's approval re career
1 Yes 27.6327 4.2484 1750.7755 98

2 No 25.4286 6.8278 279.7143 7
8 Do Not Know 27.4706 4.4317 314.2353 17
»thin Groups Total. 27.4836 4.42!;89 2344.7251 122
C=S-*)
n5 seifestm by mocareer iacareer mothapp fathapo/statistic 1.
U Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS.
e 25 SPSS/PC+ l/12/c
naries of SELFESTM
levels of MOCAREER
iable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases
Entire Population 27„5032 4.3754 122
QREER 1.00 Not Important. 27.6226 4.1474 53

IREER 2 . 0 0 Neutral 28.6207 3.1557 29
&REER 3.00 Important 26.5500 40
otal Cases = 126

sing Cases = 4 OR 3.2 PCT.
terion Variable SELFESTM
Sum of Mean
tree Squares D. F . Square F Sic
:ween Groups /3.3114 2 36.6557 1.9446 .1474,
:hin Groups 2243.1804 119 18.8503
Eta = .1779 E ta Squar•ed .0316

._ — ~~
•aries of SELFESTM
levels of FACAREER
i.00 Not Important 27.3667 4.5583 1275.9/=;-^ 60

2.00 Neutral 29.0357 3.1445 266.9643 78
-••00 important 26.4118 4.8500 776.2353 34
lhin Gr
oups Total 27.4836 4.3667 2269.1329 122
r 30 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9.
•terion Variable CSELFESTM
An a I y s i s o f Va r i a n c e
Sum ot Mean
Jrce
Squares D.F. Square F big ,
tl,
een Groups 107.3343 53.6671 2.8145 . 0639
thin
Groups 2269.12529 119 19.0683
ir +- -. —
Eta Sauared = .045S
(cr-4>)
is seifestm by carsatis/statistic 1. —
** Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS
SPSS/PC-i- 1/12/9
jaries of SELFESTM
levels of CARSATIS
1.00 Dissatisfied 23.4545 7.3941 546.7273 11

2.00 Undecided 28.5455 3.5599 126.7273 11
3.00 Satisfied 27.8100 3.8943 1501.3900 100
hin Groups Total 27.4836 4.2750 2174.8445 122
^3-V)
nS demandap by mocareer facareer/statistic 1.
I* Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS.
e 98 SPSS/PC+ 12/7/9J
maries of DEMANDAP
level5 of MOCAREER
AREER 1.00 Not. Important 3.0769 2.6260 52

AREER 2.00 Neutral 3.3103 2.4364 29
AREER 3.00 Impor tan t 4.7500 y- . \ - ' J L . O O 40
otal Cases =126

ising Cases = 5 OR 4.0 PCT.
terion Variable DEMANDAP
Sum of Mean
irce Squares D.F Square F Sig
:ween Groups 68.6669 34.3335 5.5544 .00SO
:hin Groups 729.3992 118 6 .1S1 il>
C. T- d ~~ a Xl 7 •—* O Eta Squared = .0860
(imaries of DEMANDAP
levels of FACAREER
riable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases
f" Entire Population 2.5917 121
CAREER- 1.00 Not Important 3.5085 •=.o

CAREER 2.00 Neutral 3.1429 2.4603 ilO
(CAREER 3.00 Important 4.5882 2 • 5-~>60 34

T
°tal Cases = 126
S5
ing Cases = 5 OR 4.0 PCT.
terion V a r i a b l e D E M A N D A P
A n a l y s i s of Variance
Sum of Mean
\>
fee Squares D.F Square F Sig
fo
''een Groups 37.5904 18.7952 i 886-. 05*?7
ith,ifi Groups 768.4096 116 6.5119
Eta Squared = .0466

cx-e
jcessîf.samplgp ne 3.
tns demandap by facareer mocareer
imaries of DEMANDAP
levels of FACAREER
iable Value Label Mean Std Dev UaSfzS
Entire Population 9556 2.5348 90
AREER 1.00 Not Important 4878 2.3992 41

AREER 2.00 Neutral 4286 *: t 6 l o o 21
AREER : 3.00
- Important 0357 2.4111 28
otal Cases = 94
3
— — m m
way demandap by facareer (1,3) /'ranges btukey.
e 142 SPSS/PC+ 12/7/91
0 N E W A Y
Variable DEMANDAP
By Variable FACAREER
Sum or Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
:ween Groups 2 47.4712 23.7356 3.9382 .0231
hin Groups 87 524.3510 6.0270
Al 89 571.8222
e 143 SPSS/PC* 12/7/91
O N E W A Y
Variable DEMANDAP
By Variable FACAREER
itiple Range Test
<ey-B Procedure
'Ses for the .050 level
O N E W A Y
Variable DEMANDAP
(Continued)
G G G
r r r
P P P
Mean Group
3.4286 Grp 2
1-4878
M 0357
Zarfi)
naries of DEMANDAP
levels of MOCAREER
table Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases
Entire Population 9000 90
tfEER 1.00 Not Important 9091 xl . J O O / 33

«EER 2.00 Neutral 5909 xi. 61^.4
i~\r—,
Xlxl
WEER 3.00 Important 0286 Xl . XL XL I •».» 35
jtal Cases = 94
way demandap by mocareer( 1,3)/ranges btukey
s 147 SPSS/PC+ 12/7/91
O N E W A Y
Variable DEMANDAP
By Variable MOCAREER
Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
ween Groups .£l 79.0831 39.5416 7.0636 .0014
:hin Groups 87 487.0169 5.5979
:al 89 566.1000
ie 1 4 G SPSS/PC+ 12/7/9.1
Variable DEMANDAP
By Variable MOCAREER
Itiple Range Test
key-B Procedure
"Qes for the .050 level
O N E W A Y
Variable DEMANDAP
(Continued)
G G G
r r r
P P P
Mean Group
2.9091 Grp 1
3.5909 Grp 2
y.0286
6s-+v)
icess if lonecat ne 9.
ins critcism by lonecat emotcatf emotcatm fathapp mothapp/statistic 1
%t Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dime

mensxons for MEANS
SPSS/PC-i- 1/17/*
maries of CRITCISM
levels of LONECAT
iable Value Label Mean Std Dev C,ases

Entire Population 13•.3306 2.9648 121
SCAT 1.00 Not. lonely 12'.9000 2.7513 70
ECAT 2.00 Neutral 13 .4762 3.2957 X~ X
ICAT :3.00 Lonely 14 . 2 32:- 3 3.0926 30
total Cases 121
=
ie 4 SPSS/PC-i- 1/17/'
raaries of CRITCISM
levels of LONECAT

1.00 Not lonely 12.9000 2.7513 522.3000 70
2.00 Neutral 13.4762 3.2957 217.2381 21
3.00 Lonely 14.2333 3.0926 277.3667 30
:hin Groups Total 13.3306 2.9356 1016.9048 121
SPSS/PC+ l/17/':
iter ion Variable CRITCISM
Sum of Mean
urce Squares [). F Square Sic
tween Groups 37.8721 18.9360 2.1973 1156
în Groups .016.9048 18 8.6178
Et< 1895 Eta Squared ~ .0359

£s-u
cess if freetime It 4.
nS critcism by freetime/statistic 1.
it Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS
B 81 SPSS/PC-i- 1/12/9
maries of CRITCISM
levels of FREETIME Free time spent alone or not

ETIME 1 Alone 15.0435 3.1835 .£.•-•

ETIME 2 With friends 12.8205 xi n Q X t~*£> 39
ETIME 3 With family 12.9828 :i* M ^_' Xl •-T* -Ji% 58
total Cases = 120
|e 82 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/S
imaries of CRITCISM
1 Alone 15.0435 3.1835 y-y...cl . 7 J O J Xl'Z*
2 With friends 12.8205 2.4156 221.7436 39

3 With family 12.9828 3.0232$ 520.9828 58
thin Groups Total 13.3250 2.8729 965.6829 120
9e 83 SPSS/PC+ l/12/t
iterion Variable CRITCISM
St.: Sum of Mean

Jurce Squares D. F. Square F Sic
'tween Groups 84.6421 2 42:1.3211 5.i275 . 0073
'thin Groups 965.6829 117 8.2537
= .2839 E ta Squ a red . 0806

CT-iX)
varies of CRITCISM
levels of FATHAPP Father's approval re career

i Yes 13.1579 3.0082 850.6316 95
2 No 15.8571 2.7946 46.8571 7
8 Do Not Know 13.0000 2.4749 98.0000 17
hin Groups Total 13.2941 2.9295 995.4887 119
e 14 '6P'66/F'C + 1/17/9
terion Variable CRITCISM
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e
bum ot Mean
irce Squares D. F - Square •F Sig
|ween Groups 49.2172 24.6086 2 .86 />.' . 060
:hin Groups 995.4887 116 8.5818
!ta = .2171 E t a Sq u a red = . 0 4 /1
baries of CRITCISM
[levels of M0THAPP Mother's approval re career-
; Value Label Mean Std Dev Sum of Sq Cases

|
| 1 Yes 13.2613 2.9441 953.4234 1.1.1
2 No 15.0000 2.7080 44.0000 7
8 Do Not Know 10.0000 2.8284 8.0000 -ill
thin Groups Total 13.3083 9314 1005.4234 120
i?e 17 SPSS/PC+ 1/17/5

iter ion V a r i a b l e CRITCISM
An a I y s i s o f V a r i an c e
Sum of Mean
urce •Squares D „ F. Square F sic
tween Groups 42.1682 2 21.0841 2.4535 04.

, o y«i
ttlir
> Groups )05.4234 117 8.5934
Eta =- »2006 E ta Squa red = .0403

6s- *)
is critcism by facareer mocareer carsatis/statistic 1.
Hie Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS,
» 85 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9
naries of CRITCISM
[evels of FACAREER
[able Value Label Mean Std Dev C ases
Entire Population 13 .3197 2.9772 Xxlxl
AREER 1.00 Not Important 1.2 . 9000 3.4577 60

AREER 2.00 Neutral 1.3 .4286 2.0263 28
AREER 3. 0 0 I m po r tan t 1.3 . 9706 2.6456 34
otal Cases = x .£.6

sing Cases = 4 OR PC
e 86 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9
imaries of uRITCIsM
levels of FACAREER
Value Label Mean btd Dev Sum of Sq Cases
1.00 Not Important 12.9000 3.4577 705.4000 60

2.00 Neutral 13.4286 2.0263 110.8571 2o
3.00 Important 13.9706 2.6456 230.9706 34
:hin Groups Total 13.3197 2.9665 1047.2277 122
fe 67 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9
iterion Variable CRITCISM
S3 urn of Mean
irce Squares D. F, Square F Sig
;w
een Groups Xl >_• a -..'V.' \-*X 12.OJ2 D 1.4377 .2416
^n Groups 1047.2277 119 8.8002

Cs-Ue)
nmaries of CRITCISM
levels of MOCAREER
-iable Value Label Mean Std Dev C 3 £>te? 5

-Entire Population 3037. xl » 7 0 / . 0 1 OO
X x.. x~
IAREER 1.00 Not. Important 12.3774 3.0774 53

:AREER 2.00 Neutral 13.0000 2.0000 29
:AREER 3.00 Impo r t a n t 14.7500 2.8890 40
Total Cases = JL 26
ssing Cases = 4 OR 2 PCT.
ge 89 SPSS/PC+ l/12/c
Binaries of CRITCISM
levels of MOCAREER
Value Label Mean Std Dev Sum of Sq Case?

1.00 Not Important 12.3774 3.0774 492.4528
2.00 Neutral 13.0000 2.0000 112.0000 29
3.00 Important 14.7500 2.8890 325.5000 40
ge 90 fciPSfcj/PC"!- 1/12/9
(terion Variable CRITCISM
A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e
Sum of Mean
Surce Squares D.F'. Square F Sig
'tween Groups 131.8259 65.9129 8 . 4344 .000^*
thin Groups 929.9528 119 7.8147
Eta Squared : 1 OAO

Et< = .3524 M Jt. .It- T U^m
tcT'isO
ocess if lonecat ne 9.
ans socialds by lonecat/statistic 1.
ttt Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with i Dimensions for MEANS.
ge 19 SPSS/PC+ 1/17/'
umaries of buCIALDS
levels of LONECAT
riable Value Label Mean Std Dev C ci :n>G &
r Entire Population 15.8850 5.4112 113
IECAT 1.00 Not lonely 16.5909 5.5801 66

ECAT 2.00 Neutral 15.6000 4.5929 20
ÊCAT 3.00 Lonely .1.4.3704 5.4005 27
Total Cases = 121

ising Cases = 8 OR 6.6 PCT
,ge iU SPSS/PC+ i/17/<
Maries of '60CIALDS
levels of LONECAT
Value Label (ean Std 12>ev Sum of bq Cases
1.00 Not lonely :<909 5.5801 2023.9545 66

2.00 Neutral i 5.6000 4 . 5929 4 0 0. 8 0 0 0 20
3.00 Lonely 14.3704 5.4005 758.2963 27
e 21 SPSS/PC-i- 1/17/9
Sum of Mean
Jrce Squares D. F. Square F Sig
:w
een Groups 96.4536 j:.. 48.2268 1.6666 .193
pin Groups 183.0508 110 28.922-68
Eta = .1715 Eta Sou a red :== . 0294

6s-u>)
icess if f r e e t i m e It 4.
irtS socialds by freetime/statistic .1
i** Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS.
je 118 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/'
imaries of SOCIALDS
•iable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases
•Entire Population 16.0088 5.3427 113
iETIME 1 Alone I-...- . tiZsZ.il 5.8435 23

JET I ME 2 With friends .1. 5. 9444 5.3181 36
[ETIME 3 With family 17.0556 4.3929 54
Total Cases = 1.20

king Cases = 7 OR 5.8 PCT.
js 119 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9
mmaries of SOCIALDS
levels of FREETIME Free time spent, alone or not

I
i
i Alone 13.6522 5.8435 751.2174 23

2 With friends .15.9444 5.3181 989.8889 36
3 With family .17.0556 4.8929 1268.8333 54
e 120 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9

Su Sum of Mean
rce Squares I). F. Square F Sig
"sen Groups 187.0515 2 93.5258 3.4180 . 0363
win Groups 009. i:/396 110 27.3631
Eta = .2419 E ta Squ a red = .0585

.
Cs-n)
rocess if lonecat ne 9.
»ans privatsc by lonecat / s t a t i s t i c 1.
i*|* Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Di

D i m e n s i o n s for M E A N S .
,ge 2-> SPSS/PC •••'

1/17/'
Maries of PRIVATSC
levels of LONECAT
riable Value Label

Mean Std Dev Cases
r Entire Population
33.9076 O a .£.xl\D / 119
ECAT 1.00 Not lonely 322. 9559 6.0826 68
€CAT 2.00 Neutral 33.1429 6.2872 21
CCAT 3.00 Lonely 256.6000 >..' . I x. .& Z' 30
Total Cases = 121
isinq Cases = 2 OR 1.7 PCT.
iterion Variable PRIVATSC:
A n a I y s i s o f V a r i an c e
bum of Mean
jrce Squares L > . f- , Square F 6ig
tween G r o u p s 291,3441 145,6721 3.9420 . 022|
thin Groups 4286.6391 116 36.9538
Eta = .^-..<. ••_•.•._•• Eta Squared = „ 063t>
mmaries of PRIVATSC

1 Alone 35.6957 5.0402 558.8696
2 With friends 34.0000 6.7424 1682.0000 36
3 With family 32.6140 6.0319 2037.5088 57
fan Groups Total 33.6610 6.0994 4278.3783 118
i 170 SPSS/PC* 1/12/5

Srion Variable PRIVATSC
Sum of Mean
he Squares D.F'. Square F Sig
*een Groups i62.0623 81.0312 2.1781 .117*j*
ni
i 37.2033
Groups 4278.3783 115
Eta Squared = .0365

CS-\^
aries of PRIVATSC
evels of MOCAREER
able Value Label. Mean Std Dev Cases

*EER 1.00 No t Im por t an t 33.3462 6.9250 52

3EER 2.00 Neutral 31.3793 5.3813 29
SEER 3.00 Importan t 36.2750 4.9562 40
tal Cases =126

ing Cases = 5 OR 4.0 PCT.
177 SPSS/PC+ 1/12/9

rion Variable PRIVATSC
bum or Mean
Squares D. F . Square F Sig
r-j 4 f-, "7'->-"J A
en Groups 425.4447 xi. -i~ -L J— u / Xl Xl " 5.9558 . 0034
n Groups 4214.5718 118 35.7167
i privatsc by facareer mocareer carsatis/statistic 1.
: Given WORKSPACE allows for 7424 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS.
172 SPSS/PC-f- 1/12/9
iries of PRIVATSC
fvels of FACAREER
ible Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases
1EER i . 00 hio t Important 4.0678 6.9676 59

EER 2.00 Neutral 2.2143 5.1089 xl&
EER 3.00 Important 4.9118 5.4293 34
al Cases = 126
ng Cases = 5 OR 4.0 PCT
rion Variable PRIVATSC
Sum of nean
Squares D. F. Square F Sig .
? 115.9621 2 57.9811 JL H v-< X.. X~ I . y-.y-.y~. \

n Groups
1 4493.1784 118 38.0778
Groups
E ta Squared .0252

Alexandra Wiltshire Thesis Self Esteem & Need For Approval PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alexandra Wiltshire Thesis Self Esteem & Need For Approval PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Self Esteem and the Demand for

Alexandra Pauline Carroll Wiltshire

SUBMITTED IN PART1A1- FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

Alexandra Pauline Carroll Wiltshire

Thesis Submitted: 1991/92

Supervisor: Mr Roger Cook

musicians (2) Onstage Performers (including actors, singers and dancers)

(3) a group of financially-oriented workers (consisting of bankers, accountants, and related

Subjects completed a 20-minute pencil-and-paper questionnaire which included:

musicians had statistically significant higher mean levels of private self-consciousness

comparisons, due to small cell frequencies preventing further parametric computations .

approval*, and the demand for approval factor .

made in the text.

of Entertainers for their Willingnes to participate in the present study.

RESULTS Reliability coefficients 41

SELF ESTEEM AND THE DEMAND FOR APPROVAL IN THEATRICAL PERFORMERS

individuals. In fact, its the faults that work for them.

Chris Haywood ( Trengove, 1991)

of person intending to perform them . Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1973)

on the personality of artistic performers .

Self-e3teem and the demand for approval in performers

framework within which the present study evolved.

The choice of a particular occupation is an expressive act which reflects a persons

work functions or skills, an occupation is viewed by Holland as encompassing a certain way of

situation-specific self-esteem . Situation-specific (Brockner, 1 9 8 8 ) or 'outer self-esteem'

(Hewitt & Goldman, 1974; Coopersmith , 1967).

Global or trait self-esteem is defined as an inner personal judgement of worthiness

time (0"Malley & Bachmann,1983) and is resistant to change (Epstein,1983, in

behaviours and cognitions positively, whereas others do not (Brockner, 1988).

competence and or worthiness, by granting them a reasonable amount of autonomy, by being

levels of self-esteem can easily result.

occupational choice (Brockner, 1979a ; Brockner, 19?9b ; Brockner, 1985) and

correlational in nature. Indeed, 3elf-esteem has generally been considered as an interactive

attitudes and behaviour (Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Misehel, 1973).

"behavioural plasticity'(McGui re, 1 9 7 2 ) . This theory derives from a social psychological

external or social cues in the form of criticism ( Rosenberg, 1965).

to portray particular images of themselves in the minds of significant others.

and attitudes of significant others.

Self-Esteem and Approval ctd.

predictors of low self-esteem, as measured by the Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale

perspectives,including: cognitive-behavioural (Steptoe & Fidler ,1987),social

of performers, namely musicians, singers and actors. No studies of personality variables in

dancers were found.

gives or takes part in a performance, or public entertainment, an actor, player, or singer.

Research under the "umbrella" of "psychomusicology", proposed by Brown ( 1 9 8 1 ) as the

dominated by cognitive, perceptual and physiological aspects of musical performance

Personality Questionnaire in separate studies and found their results to be inconclusive.

age, education, race, intelligence and socio-cultural background (Gilchrist, 1 9 7 2 ) . Ratings

indicative of emotional breadth, flexibility of thinking and psychological complexity.

literature on conflict, cooperation, attraction, leadership and group dynamics, to the

interaction of mernber3 of a string quartet, noting that an exceptionally high degree of

interpersonal awareness and mutual awareness appears to be fundamental to ensure the

smooth 'functioning* of the musical ensemble.

An in-depth examination of the 'freelance musician'1 (Frederickson & Rooney ,1988),

of group membership, roles, status, and recognition experienced by those choosing to

•freelance" rather than belonging to a permanent group , such as a symphony orchestra.

any musical organisation.

(The Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary, Oxford: Text Bay Books, p330).

Although trained to be creative artists, the majority of performances by free-lancers instead

audiences and critics, effectively relegates pit-orchestra members to a 'non-person" role

psychological term of'3elf-concept'or *3elf-image" from an organisational psychological

"Cats" 1985-1986 in Sydney.