Embedded figures performance as an indicator of relative proneness to shame and guilt

Abstract

The present study represents a first attempt using a clinically well sample to test the hypothesis that subjects differing in degree of field-dependency also differ in several personality characteristics associated with relative proneness to shame and guilt. A second purpose was to attempt to provide a conceptual bride between Gestalt field theory and certain psychoanalytic tenets. Subjects for the study were 308 freshman college students at Texas A&M University and John Carroll University. Research was conducted during the Fall semester, 1974. In the initial phase of the study, the Group Embedded Figures Test was administered to the entire sample. By this procedure, 20 field-dependent and 20 field-independent subjects were identified and selected for further study. In the second phase of the study measuring relative proneness to shame and guilt, the field-dependent and field-interdependent groups completed a test battery consisting of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Anger Direction Questionnaire, and the Early Memories Test. Three hypotheses were tested to be analyses pf variance using a two-factor design. Independent variables were groups (field-dependent and field-interdependent) and sex of group members. The hypotheses tested were: 1. Field-dependent and field-interdependent groups differ in mean score on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory clinical scales 2 (Depression), 3(Hysteria), 6(Paranoia), and 0 (Social Introversion). 2. Field-dependent and field-interdependent groups differ in mean score on the Anger Direction Questionnaire intropunitive, extrapunative, and impunative measures. 3. Field-dependent and field-interdependent groups differ in mean scores for shame and guilt as measured by the Early Memories Test..