PERSONALITY STRUCTURE AND RECALL OF PLEASANT
AND UNPLEASANT EVENTS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
(Counseling Psychology)
by
Jennifer René Freeman
SUMMER
2013
© 2013
Jennifer René Freeman
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
PERSONALITY STRUCTURE AND RECALL OF PLEASANT
AND UNPLEASANT EVENTS
A Thesis
by
Jennifer René Freeman
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lee Berrigan, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Larry Meyers, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Emily Wickelgren, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Jennifer René Freeman
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
PERSONALITY STRUCTURE AND RECALL OF PLEASANT
AND UNPLEASANT EVENTS
by
Jennifer René Freeman
It has been suggested that individuals recall memories in different ways. The current
study investigated possible differences between repressing or sensitizing personality
structure and recall of positive, negative, and neutral events. The interaction between
repression-sensitization and the Five Factor Model was also investigated to determine if
an individual’s repressing or sensitizing tendencies were related to each of the five
factors. Results indicated that repressors and sensitizers did appear to recall information
differently though in a somewhat unexpected manner than what was originally proposed.
Repressors and sensitizers also tended to score differently on the Five Factor Model as
well as on a locus of control measure. Future research may find that using subjective
(personal or autobiographical) events rather than objective events may help to obtain
results more consistent with earlier research findings regarding repression-sensitization
and memory.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Lee Berrigan, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank a few very important people who have helped or supported
me in completing this thesis. First, I want to recognize my husband, Matthew D.
Freeman, who constantly kept me motivated in his own unique way and continues to be
the light at the end of my tunnel as we journey through life together; without him, I may
not have accomplished what I have today. I would also like to thank my parents and my
in-laws who provided me with moral support and many meals while my husband and I
were completing separate masters programs in cities three hours away.
I especially want to thank a dear friend, Dorothy Donner, who helped me review
participant responses to vignettes, which made my workload immeasurably faster. On a
similar note, thank you Kristine Christianson. Without your extensive knowledge of
SPSS, I may still be analyzing my data, I appreciate your patience while walking me
through and teaching me how to use the functions of SPSS. You are both kind souls and
I am blessed to know you.
Finally, thank you to all three members of my committee: Dr. Lee Berrigan, Dr.
Larry Meyers, and Dr. Emily Wickelgren not only for agreeing to be my committee, but
also for countless hours spent working on the design as well as reviewing and editing this
thesis with me. Words alone cannot begin to convey how appreciative I am of all your
assistance and encouragement.
Thank you all for believing in me.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………..…………………………………….. 1
2. METHOD ............................................................................................................. 21
Participants ..................................................................................................... 21
Materials ........................................................................................................ 21
Procedure ....................................................................................................... 26
3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 28
Demographic Data ......................................................................................... 28
Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................... 28
Principal Components Analysis of Repression-Sensitization Scale .............. 30
Multivariate Analysis of Variance ................................................................. 31
Composition of the Interaction ...................................................................... 34
4. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 36
General Discussion ........................................................................................ 36
Limitations and Goals for Future Research ................................................... 39
vii
Appendix A. Pilot Survey ......................................................................................... 40
Appendix B. Vignette ............................................................................................... 42
Appendix C. Internal Control Index-Revised ........................................................... 46
Appendix D. Free Recall Task ................................................................................. 47
Appendix E. Specific Recall Questionnaire ............................................................. 48
Appendix F. Subjective Rating Scale ....................................................................... 52
Appendix G. Consent Form ...................................................................................... 55
Appendix H. Demographic Data Sheet ..................................................................... 56
References .................................................................................................................. 57
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
1.
Page
Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent
Variables………….……………………………………………………..……... 29
2.
Main Effects for Repression-Sensitization………………………………….…. 33
3.
Main Effects for Marlowe-Crowne………….……………………………….... 34
4.
Composition of the Interaction……………….…..……………………………. 35
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
For some time people have believed that the mind works like a camera capturing
photographs; however, we now know that memory is actively reconstructive (Schacter,
2001). Because it is reconstructive a number of processes related to this have been
investigated. One such process addresses the question of whether individuals
disproportionately remember pleasant or painful information or, stated alternatively, do
individuals recall failure or success more readily? Some of the literature surrounding this
topic (Boden & Baumeister, 1997) has suggested that individuals remember events by
focusing on different aspects of the information. Early research suggested that
unpleasant events simply dissipate from a person’s memory faster than pleasant
memories (Jersild, 1931). However this investigation has led to the inference that certain
unpleasant memories are forgotten simply because they are no longer painful; the
individual has coped with the event and thus has moved on (Jersild, 1931). Additionally,
individuals may not wish to dwell on negative events; thus, unpleasant events are not
primed for recall in the future. The opposite may not be true for pleasant memories.
Individuals tend to enjoy thinking about pleasant memories (Walker, Skowronski, &
Thompson, 2003). As Jersild (1931) stated, an individual “will choose to recount past
successes and joys rather than embarrassments, pains, and defeats” (p. 288). What Jersild
(1931) has suggested through his research is that negative memories fade through lack of
rehearsal. However, two instances come to mind where Jersild’s (1931) findings may be
2
limited. First, his findings may not account for traumatic events that are primed for
retrieval and may ultimately lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as these
events are “persistently reexperienced” and not merely forgotten (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000, p. 468). Jersild suggested that rehearsal creates strong memories
favoring the positive but with PTSD these memories are clearly not positive. Second,
Jersild’s findings do not account for forgotten pleasant memories, especially those that
may not have been rehearsed.
Rapaport (1943) compiled a thorough review of the research on memory and
emotions. He noted that imprinting, retention, recall and recognition occur not only as a
means of intentional learning, “but also continuously in everyday life, and that all psychic
processes imply one phase or another of memory functioning” (p. 234, italics in original).
Thus, even in the early 1940’s there was a clear understanding that memory is a
continuous process, as individuals are forming new memories at every moment.
Some of Rapaport’s (1943) review focused on early findings obtained through the
use of experiments. According to Rapaport, experiments were previously conducted to
determine how memories function in everyday life. The problem with this is that memory
experiments conducted in a laboratory setting limit generalizability because the
experimenter is limiting the available responses that a subject can give (Rapaport, 1943).
Rapaport also noted that slips of the tongue and memory, as well as certain instances of
forgetting, occur because the mind is attempting to bring about the memory and asserts
that this happens because “the theory of repression maintains that a striving which would
be painful to consciousness is therefore kept out of consciousness and that memories
3
connected with the striving become themselves unconscious” (Rapaport, 1943, pp. 238239). It is important to note that according to this theory, these memories are not
forgotten, but to the individual it seems as though they are (Rapaport, 1943). Under the
right conditions, such as hypnosis, these memories can be recovered (Rapaport, 1943).
Journaling studies in which participants kept diaries of unique events were also
completed with rather consistent results (Holmes, 1970; Thompson, 1985; Walker, Vogl,
& Thompson, 1997). Holmes (1970) had subjects write brief records of pleasant and
unpleasant events for seven days and score the level of pleasantness of each event.
Scores could range from one representing very pleasant to nine representing very
unpleasant (Holmes, 1970). These records were kept on index cards and the scores were
written on the back. One week later subjects were asked to recall the events by writing as
many as they could remember on a sheet of paper. Once that task was complete the
subject was given back his/her original cards and noted whether he/she had recalled that
particular event and rerated the level of pleasantness or unpleasantness of the event at that
time. Some events had become less emotionally intense between when they were
initially recorded and when they were rerated; these events were less likely to be recalled
(Holmes, 1970). Furthermore, unpleasant events were more likely to decrease in
emotional intensity than were pleasant events (Holmes, 1970).
Expanding Holmes (1970) work with journaling, both Thompson (1985) and
Walker, Vogl, and Thompson (1997) had subjects keep written journals of unique
personal events. As in the Holmes (1970) study, subjects rated the pleasantness or
unpleasantness of the events. Thompson’s study had subjects keep journals for three
4
months with journals being turned in once a week. After the three month journaling
interval subjects were tested during the 13th week on their recollection of the events in
random order. Thompson (1985) found that there was no effect for recall of pleasant or
unpleasant events. However, as with Holmes (1970) there did seem to be some
indication that an effect occurred in relation to the intensity of the event. In Thompson’s
(1985) study, events that were rated as highly emotional were remembered better than
were events that were rated as neutral. Participants were also asked to estimate when the
event occurred. Participants more accurately estimated when pleasant events occurred as
compared to unpleasant events.
In Walker et al.’s (1997) study, three separate retention intervals were examined:
three months, one year, and four and one half years. Participants kept journals for three
months, one and one half to two and one half years, and nine months respectively. As in
the previous studies, participants again assessed the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the
event at the time of journaling and then again at testing. Results indicated that, as
retention interval increased, the ratings of affect became less extreme, with the effect
being “larger for unpleasant events than for pleasant events” (Walker et al., 1997, p. 399).
The data from both studies seem to suggest that memory can be highly influenced by the
intensity of the emotion; more intense events are remembered better than are less intense
events (Walker et al., 1997). Based on the expanding retention intervals it appears that
with the passage of time, the intensity of emotions fades but negative event emotion fades
faster.
5
Walker, Vogl, & Thompson (1997) reviewed several articles in defense of what
has been referred to as the fading affect bias. The fading affect bias states “the affect
associated with unpleasant events fades faster than the affect associated with pleasant
events” (Walker et.al, 2003, p. 203). When reviewing Chwalisz, Diener, and Gallagher’s
(1988) study examining happiness of normal healthy individuals as compared to
wheelchair users, Walker et al. (2003) noted that both disabled and healthy subjects
reported being happy 50% of the time, unhappy 22% of the time and in a neutral mood
the other 28% of the time. Upon further investigation of the original article, it may be
important to note small but distinct differences between the healthy and disabled groups;
Walker et al. (2003) reported rounded numbers (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).
Additionally, the sample size of the disabled group was 32 subjects and the healthy group
was 23 subjects; perhaps if there had been more subjects or if the groups were more even
the results may have been different (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).
Waldfogel (1948) found similar results in a study examining autobiographical
memories from childhood where participants rated 50% of their events as pleasant, 30%
as unpleasant and 20% as neutral (as cited in Walker et al., 2003). It was also noted in
the original article, however, that while most participants had pleasant memories “some
reversed this trend” (Waldfogel, 1948, p. 34). Essentially, some of the participants in
Waldfogel’s (1948) study were noted as being somewhat pessimistic in their memory
recall and others as optimists. Clearly then, not all individuals would fit into the same
scale of happiness that Walker et al. (2003) are trying to illustrate throughout the review.
6
Suedfeld and Eich (1995) had participants spend one hour in a sensory
deprivation chamber; they were then asked to recall 12 memories and to make ratings for
each one. Sixty six percent were rated as pleasant and 33% were rated as unpleasant (as
cited in Walker et al., 2003). However in reviewing Suedfeld and Eich (1995), there is
no indication that 33% of the memories were rated as unpleasant. It may be an
assumption of Walker et al. (2003) that the remaining percentage was unpleasant rather
than neutral or a combination of neutral and unpleasant memories.
Bernsten (1996) implemented a journaling procedure where participants reported
a memory and the situation that triggered it; again 49% of these events were reported as
positive, 32% were neutral, and 19% were negative (Walker et al., 2003). A review of
the original article, revealed that memory ratings were reported on a five point scale
ranging from negative two to positive two representing highly negative to highly positive
respectively and zero representing emotionally neutral (Bernsten, 1996). In regard to
negative memory ratings, only a very small portion of memories, about five percent, were
reported as highly negative whereas nearly triple were reported as “-1” for negative,
about 14 percent (Bernsten, 1996). Why did participants have such a dramatic difference
in memories? Or was it just the ratings and not actually the intensity of the memories
themselves? Furthermore, 32.4 percent of memories were rated as “1” for positive in
comparison to 16.3 percent of memories rated as “2” for highly positive (Bernsten, 1996).
Is there a reason that participants rated almost twice as many memories as positive rather
than highly positive? One possible explanation, a potential confound, could be that
7
participants were more willing to rate memories as slightly negative or positive but less
inclined to rate on the extremes of the scale.
Similar results were reported in another journaling study by Thompson,
Skowronski, Larsen, and Betz (1996) where participants recorded one event each day, but
the exact numbers are not presented in Walker et al. (2003). However, it is noted that
report of pleasant events outweighed unpleasant events, which is consistent with the
Thompson et al. (1996) text. In all the studies Walker, Skowronski, and Thompson
(2003) reviewed, there were more pleasant than unpleasant events recalled (Chwalisz et
al., 1988; Waldfogel, 1948; Suedfeld & Eich, 1995; Bernsten, 1996; Thompson et al.,
1996; as cited in Walker et al., 2003). As can be seen in Walker, Skowronski, and
Thompson’s (2003) review, most people perceive life to be pleasant more often than
unpleasant. Walker et al. (2003) offer Taylor’s (1991) mobilization-minimization
hypothesis as a possible explanation for the pleasantness of an event changing once it has
been integrated into an individual’s autobiography.
Taylor’s (1991) mobilization-minimization hypothesis argues that suppressing
unpleasant emotions maybe a healthy coping mechanism (as cited in Walker et al., 2003).
The hypothesis states that the mobilization of an organism—that is the negative event—is
followed by the physiological, cognitive, and behavioral responses that minimize the
effect of the event on the individual (Taylor, 1991). Taylor suggests that this pattern is
stronger for negative events than it is for positive or even neutral ones. Clearly then, as
Walker et al.’s (2003) review illustrated, there is asymmetry in terms of the impact
positive and negative events have on autobiographical memory.
8
However, these are general findings and one variable that could influence
disproportionate pleasant versus unpleasant event recall could be personality type. If this
is true, several dimensions of personality could be investigated. One dimension that
could conceivably influence memory recall is repression-sensitization (Byrne, Barry, &
Nelson, 1963). This dimension consists of two extremes where on one end are
individuals referred to as repressors and at the other are individuals referred to as
sensitizers; individuals in the middle are commonly referred to as neutrals (Byrne, 1961;
Sinha & Naidu, 1977). These personality types are classified by an individual’s typical
reaction to “anxiety-evoking stimuli” (Byrne, Golightly, & Sheffield, 1965, p. 586).
The personality type of repressor involves the use of “avoidance defenses, such as
denial” as well as rationalization and of course repression in order to deal with
threatening situations (Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963, p. 323; Cook, 1985). Because of
their unique way of coping with perceived threat, repressors should “be susceptible to
immediate cognitive responding to obvious or striking stimuli”—their minds are ready to
react to threat and they should be able to use their avoidance defenses to cope (Pagano,
1973, p. 105). Repressors also have a tendency to “report low levels of anxiety and stress
even when physiological measures” suggest otherwise (Schacter, 2001, p. 84).
Alternatively, the personality type of sensitizer involves the use of “approach
defenses, such as intellectualization,” obsessiveness, or rumination (Byrne, Barry &
Nelson, 1963, p. 323; Cook, 1985). These individuals “should have well-articulated
memory schemata and prominent verbal skills and should be able to focus attention
9
sharply”—they pay attention to detail and should be able to reproduce it later (Pagano,
1973, p. 105).
Research suggests that the minds of repressors and sensitizers work differently
from one another (Pagano, 1973; Sinha & Naidu, 1977; Davis & Schwartz, 1987; Boden
& Baumeister, 1997; Newman & Hedberg, 1999; Boden & Dale, 2001; Schacter, 2001).
Pagano (1973) examined this using the Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, Barry, &
Nelson, 1963). Subjects consisted of 28 undergraduate students who were instructed to
remember the digits 0, 2, 5, and 8, referred to as the positive memory set (Pagano, 1973).
Subjects were presented with digits zero through eight on a Kodak Carousel 800
projector and asked to respond yes if the digit was part of the positive memory set or no if
it was not (Pagano, 1973). The apparatus also measured reaction time, which was
activated when the digit was displayed and ceased when the subject responded by
pressing a switch connected to the apparatus (Pagano, 1973). If they were correct,
subjects were informed of their reaction time but if they were incorrect, they were simply
told “wrong” (Pagano, 1973). It is important to note that the instructions to subjects
“stressed accuracy over speed” (Pagano, 1973, p. 107). Digits were presented in three
80 digit blocks consisting of half from the positive memory set and half from the negative
memory set, that is the remaining digits, 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 (Pagano, 1973). One of the
independent variables of the experiment was discriminability level of the digits being
displayed (Pagano, 1973). This was achieved by degrading the stimuli for the lowdiscriminability condition by placing “six sheets of artist’s tracing paper on the original
digit specimens prior to photographing the transparencies” to be used in the Kodak
10
machine (Pagano, 1973, p. 107). Of the three 80 digit blocks, half the stimuli of each
block consisted of low-discriminability and half consisted of high-discriminability stimuli
(Pagano, 1973).
Results indicated that the discrepancy between response times for repressionsensitization groups for “no” responses were considerably greater than was the
discrepancy for “yes” responses for blocks I and II. Additionally, sensitizers were
consistently faster in responding than repressors were in blocks I and II. However, these
discrepancy diminished by block three and repressors did not do any worse than
sensitizers at this point; they were essentially equal. Items from the positive memory set,
that is, items that were supposed to be answered “yes,” were more easily recognized and
recognized faster than were items from the negative memory set, that is “no” items.
Degraded items were recognized less easily by both groups overall. Sensitizers did not
outperform repressors overall. This study lends some support to the difference between
repressors and sensitizers on memory recognition tasks. Furthermore, the authors argue
that the differences occur at retrieval and not at encoding. However, this study does not
address painful versus pleasant stimuli; the study simply uses numbers as a method of
addressing differences between the two groups.
One study attempted to address this issue by including taboo and nontaboo words
rather than digits (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). Subjects were given a recognition and learning
task that consisted of the same set of words (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). In the experimental
condition, subjects received both taboo as well as nontaboo words whereas the control
condition received only the nontaboo words (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). Three separate lists
11
were created referred to as the high-taboo, the low-taboo, and the control lists, each
consisting of six words. Furthermore, each list had two-two letter words, two-three letter
words, and two-four letter words to eliminate a potential confound that could have been
caused by skewed word lengths (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). A set of six common words
were added to each list with the same word lengths in order to compare recognition of
taboo versus nontaboo words (Sinha & Naidu, 1977).
There were two parts to this study (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). In the first part, called
the perception experiment, Sinha & Naidu (1977) tested subjects by having them view
each word from his/her list under increasing illumination. When the subject though
he/she recognized the word or thought he/she knew what the word was, he/she was to say
“stop” (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). Subjects were permitted two practice trials before the
actual experimental trials began (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). In the second part, called the
learning and memory experiment, Sinha & Naidu (1977) asked each subject to “learn 12
associates which were formed by pairing the very word he had seen in the perception
experiment with nonsense CVC trigrams” (p. 222). Essentially nonsense syllable words
were paired with the original words from the previous part of the experiment; subjects
were to respond with the nonsense term when given the original term (Sinha & Naidu,
1977).
Additionally, repression-sensitization scores were calculated based on each
subject’s “performance in the perception experiment” (p. 222). Sinha & Naidu (1977)
classified subjects based on a calculation of “subtracting the mean threshold for the
common words from the mean threshold for the taboo words” (p. 222). If a subject had a
12
negative score, that is, a lower threshold for taboo words, this suggested sensitization
whereas a positive score suggested repression (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). There was also a
third group of subjects who had scores that fell between the lower and higher threshold
who were referred to as neutrals (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). The control condition (which
did not receive taboo words) threshold, was calculated by comparing the mean threshold
for the common words to that of the control words.
Results of this study indicated that there were no differences between the subjects
in the low taboo and high taboo conditions in terms of perception and learning, so for
further analyses these groups were pooled together (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). What was
discovered in this experiment was that a substantially greater number of repressors forgot
more taboo pairs whereas a greater number of sensitizers forgot more nontaboo pairs
(Sinha & Naidu, 1977). Additionally, neutrals forgot more taboo pairs, much like the
repressors did (Sinha & Naidu, 1977). The authors suggest that, since the neutral
subjects’ pattern of responding coincided more with repressors, and since this pattern did
not present itself in the learning phase of the experiment and only in the recall phase, it
appears that “repression was operating in retention, and the difference in recall was not
attributable to learning” (Sinha & Naidu, 1977, p. 225). It seems that results of this study
agree, at least in part, with Pagano’s (1973) study that the differences do occur at
retention.
Another study took the issue of emotionally relevant stimuli one step further.
Boden & Dale (2001) had participants view one of two films, either an emotionally
neutral film or an unpleasant film. The unpleasant film portrayed “sick and dying baby
13
parrots” whereas the emotionally neutral film portrayed “the effects of glaciers in
Scotland” (Boden & Dale, 2001). Before viewing a film, each participant completed a
measure of trait repressiveness; however the measure was not analyzed until after all
participants had completed the experiment but prior to data analysis to prevent
experimenter bias (Boden & Dale, 2001). Each participant’s mood was measured after
viewing the film through administration of the Brief Mood Introspection Scale (Mayer &
Gaschke, 1988 as cited in Boden & Dale, 2001); only the pleasant/unpleasant subscale
was used (Boden & Dale, 2001). Participants were asked to complete a memory recall
task in order to determine how much of the film they could recall. The task consisted of
a 15-item questionnaire pertaining to the details of the film the participant viewed.
Participants were instructed to only answer the questions they were sure they had the
correct answer for; they were not supposed to merely guess (Boden & Dale, 2001).
Results indicated that for those participants who viewed the unpleasant film,
repressors reported a more pleasant mood than the other groups after viewing the film
(Boden & Dale, 2001). There were no differences in reported mood between groups who
viewed the neutral film (Boden & Dale, 2001). Based on these mood differences, it
appears that repressors were able to regulate their emotions in response to the film
(Boden & Dale, 2001). In terms of a participant’s ability to recall details about the film
viewed, participants who viewed the unpleasant film recalled a “significantly greater
number of details” than did participants who viewed the neutral film (Boden & Dale,
2001, p. 129). However, repressors did not differ in their ability to recall details from the
unpleasant film in comparison to the nonrepressor groups (Boden & Dale, 2001).
14
Furthermore, repressors did not differ in their ability to recall details from the neutral film
in comparison to the nonrepressor groups either (Boden & Dale, 2001). The authors
discuss the lack of differences as possibly occurring due to repressors’ distraction
response. Boden and Dale (2001) note that “the distraction response might actually be
occurring at the stage of transfer to long-term storage” (p. 133). It seems then that even
in the case of visual stimuli, repressors may not be affected by negatively arousing
stimuli that are not personally relevant and they therefore may not recall information
differently than other groups.
Some studies have investigated autobiographical memories in terms of a
participant’s recall abilities (Davis & Schwartz, 1987; Newman & Hedberg, 1998).
Davis and Schwartz (1987) utilized the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Bendig, 1956 as
cited in Davis & Schwartz, 1987) and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964 as cited in Davis & Schwartz, 1987) as a means to
differentiate repressors from low anxious and high anxious individuals. Under a “general
recall condition,” subjects were asked to recall any “experience, situation, or event” from
childhood and to very briefly describe these to the experimenter. No indication was
given to the subjects as to the “nature of the experiences to be recalled” (Davis &
Schwartz, 1987, p. 157). After a subject reported an experience to the experimenter,
he/she was instructed to let his/her mind wander to another experience from his/her
childhood to report (Davis & Schwartz, 1987). Before this general recall condition
began, subjects completed a mood rating scale to determine how the subject was feeling
at that moment (Davis & Schwartz, 1987). At the end of the general recall condition,
15
“subjects were asked to describe the emotion or emotions they felt during each
experience and to rate how pleasant or unpleasant each experience was” (Davis &
Schwartz, 1987, p. 157). As a final measure for this condition, subjects were asked
which experience occurred first and how old they were when it happened (Davis &
Schwartz, 1987). In the “specific-emotion recall condition” subjects were presented with
five words in random order across subjects—happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and wonder
(Davis & Schwartz, 1987). Each word was presented one at a time and subjects had a
period of four minutes to freely recall as many experiences associated with the word as
they could until the experimenter instructed him/her that the recall period was over
(Davis & Schwartz, 1987). The mood rating scale was administered before and after
each recall period (Davis & Schwartz, 1987). Subjects were also asked to rate on a seven
point scale “the intensity of the emotion involved at the time each experience occurred”
as well as “the intensity of the emotion experienced now” (Davis & Schwartz, 1987, p.
157). For the latter, an eight point rating scale was used to allow for the chance that the
emotion was no longer experienced (Davis & Schwartz, 1987). Again, subjects were
asked which experience occurred first for each emotion as well as how old they were
when it occurred (Davis & Schwartz, 1987).
Results indicated that the three groups were very similar in their mood ratings
(Davis & Schwartz, 1987). Furthermore, the low-anxious group reported the most
memories overall and the repressors reported the fewest memories reported overall
(Davis & Schwartz, 1987). In terms of recall conditions, the general recall condition
resulted in the most memories (M = 15.63) followed by the specific-emotion recall
16
condition with the use of the word happy (M = 11.67) (Davis & Schwartz, 1987). The
earliest experience occurred in the general recall condition as well (Davis & Schwartz,
1987). Perhaps the general recall condition was able to produce the largest number of
memories because this condition was first for all participants. Another possibility is that
this condition did not put any constraints on the participants; they were able to freely
report any type of experience they wanted to. Results also indicated that repressors
reported fewer negative experiences (M = 18.80) than the low-anxious (M = 34.00) and
high-anxious (M = 25.70) subjects (Davis & Schwartz, 1987). Subjects rated all five
emotions as roughly equal in intensity “at the time of the original experience” (Davis &
Schwartz, 1987, p. 159). However, subjects rated all emotions as less intense at the time
of the experiment, with fear and anger having the least intense experience currently,
followed by sadness, then followed by wonder, with happiness having preserved the
greatest amount of intensity (Davis & Schwartz, 1987).
In a related study, Newman and Hedberg (1998) sought to go beyond Davis and
Schwartz’ (1987) methodology to assert that the reason repressors recall fewer negative
events is because of biased encoding. In study one of Newman and Hedberg’s (1998)
two part experiment, subjects were given the life event checklist, which was modified
from the one used in Seidlitz and Diener (1993) to include only subjective items. Items
were delivered to subjects in random order. Subjects were asked to place a check next to
each item on the list that they had personally experienced (Newman & Hedberg, 1998).
Results of study one indicated that repressors were less likely than non-repressors to
“report the occurrence of negative and potentially upsetting events” (Newman &
17
Hedberg, 1998, p. 48). In study two, the modified life event checklist (Seidlitz & Diener,
1993) was used again but with both subjective and objective questions (Newman &
Hedberg, 1998). The questions were separated into four categories: positive-subjective,
negative-subjective, positive-objective, and negative-objective (Newman & Hedberg,
1998). As in study one, items were delivered in random order and participants simply
placed a check next to each item on the list that they had personally experienced
(Newman & Hedberg, 1998). Results of study two indicated that repressors reported
having experienced fewer negative-subjective items than non-repressors and more
positive-subjective items than non-repressors (Newman & Hedberg, 1998). There were
no differences between groups in terms of reported objective items (Newman & Hedberg,
1998). The results of this study suggest, and the authors argue that, repressors may
indeed be biased in their interpretation and hence their encoding of negative life events
(Newman & Hedberg, 1998). Such a bias in encoding could account for the differences
in recall of negative events.
Another construct of interest in regard to the repression-sensitization continuum
may be the Big Five personality factors: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to
experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In a study by
Molnar (2004), the repressor construct was examined in relation to the NEO-Five Factor
Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) and the trait version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(Speilberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983 as cited in Molnar, 2004) were
used as the basis for analyzing participants as repressors or non-repressors. Molnar
18
(2004) found that repressors reported lower neuroticism, higher extraversion, higher
agreeableness, and higher conscientiousness than did non-repressors. There was no
difference between repressors and non-repressors on openness to experiences. It appears,
then, that the repressor construct is at least somewhat related to the Five Factor Model
and these distinct factors can help to highlight the differences that are seen in repressors
and non-repressors.
A final construct that may have some relation to the repression-sensitization
continuum may be locus of control. In a study by McCreary and Turner (1984),
participants were given Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control (I-E) scale
and the MMPI. Repression-sensitization scores were extracted through the MMPI scores
of the RS scale. It was found that participants with a greater tendency toward repression
also had more defensiveness, less anxiety, and, most notably, an internal locus of control.
Since the I-E scale correlated negatively with the RS scale, sensitizing was also found to
be an indication of external locus of control.
In a study by de Man and Ratti (1989) the concept of locus of control was
examined according to Levenson’s three dimensions of control: internal, powerful others,
and chance. Rather than having just a two dimensional approach to locus of control,
Levenson (1981) proposed that the external dimension should be divided further into two
separate entities. The first of these, powerful others, means that the world is ordered and
predictable but also that there are other powerful people who are in control (Levenson,
1981). The second, chance, means that the world is unpredictable and unordered and that
a person is subject to his/her own fate or chance (Levenson, 1981). The de Man and Ratti
19
(1989) study used this concept together with the RS scale and the I-E scale, finding a
moderate correlation between a sensitizing tendency and the two types of external
control; however this finding was only for men.
In a later study by de Man (1990) the RS was compared to level of adjustment
including locus of control. The author of the study believed that repressors are
characterized by utilization of defense mechanisms and would therefore be better
adjusted (i.e., have an internal locus of control) than would sensitizers. Again the I-E and
the RS were used as well as other scales to determine levels of adjustment. de Man
(1990) found that sensitizers “tend to report more conflict, lower self-esteem, greater
alienation, more anomic feelings, and an external locus of control” (p. 15) suggesting
that they are more maladjusted than other groups. Overall it would appear that repressors
have an inclination toward an internal locus of control and sensitizers an external locus of
control.
There were several hypotheses concerning the relationship between personality—
as measured by the interaction between the Repression-Sensitization Scale (RS; Byrne,
Barry, & Nelson, 1963) and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC; Crowne
& Marlowe, 1964)—and memory, locus of control, and the Five Factor Model.

First, it was predicted that individuals who scored low on RS and high on MC
would remember the least negative information from the vignette of all
individuals.
20

Second, it was hypothesized that individuals who scored high on RS and low on
MC would remember the most information overall from the vignette of all
individuals.

Third, it was predicted that individuals who scored low on RS and high on MC
would have lower reported neuroticism, higher extraversion, higher
agreeableness, and higher conscientiousness than individuals who scored high on
RS and low on MC.

Fourth, it was predicted that individuals who scored high on RS and low on MC
would have an external locus of control whereas those who scored in the opposite
direction would have an internal locus of control.
21
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Two hundred fifty male and female undergraduate students attending an
introductory level psychology course at California State University at Sacramento
participated in research for class credit. Each participant completed demographic
information including: sex, age, marital status, race/ethnic background, current
educational class level, and college major.
Materials
Vignette
A vignette was created after first piloting a survey of negative and positive items
to a class of 72 upper division undergraduate students. The survey was given in order to
determine the equivalency of the positive items to the negative items. The survey was
administered in nine different forms in order to counterbalance the events. A copy of one
of these versions can be found in Appendix A. Items were paired for use in the vignette,
one negative with one positive based on means and standard deviations for each item.
Not all items were used either because the variability for an item was too extreme or
because it was not possible to pair remaining items. Once this was accomplished, the
vignette was created with nine positive items, nine negative items, and nine neutral items.
A copy of the vignette can be found in Appendix B.
22
Repression-Sensitization Scale
The revised Repression-Sensitization Scale (RS Scale; Byrne, Barry, & Nelson,
1963) was developed using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI;
Hathaway & McKinley, 1951). One hundred eighty two items of the MMPI were used,
of which 127 are scored and 55 items act as buffer or unscored but tested items.
Extensive information regarding the reliability and validity of the RS Scale can be found
in Byrne (1961) which indicates a split-half reliability of .88 and a test-retest reliability
after six weeks also of .88 (p. 338).
The evidence generally appears to support the valid and reliable measurement of
two separate coping styles, sensitizing and repressing (with one proviso). Low scores on
the RS scale may actually be comprised of two groups: healthy individuals reporting the
occurrence of low problems, and true repressors. To differentiate these two groups, the
Marlowe-Crowne was also used (see discussion below).
Participants responded to each item of the RS scale with T (True or Mostly True)
or F (False or Not Usually True) relative to how the item applied to them personally.
Participants were instructed to give their own opinion of themselves and to try and
answer every question. Prior to analysis items were recoded according to the scoring
information provided by Byrne (1961). Accordingly, participants received a point
whenever they responded in the sensitizing manner and did not receive a point when they
responded in the repressing manner; buffer items were eliminated at this time. A total
score was then calculated for each participant by summing item responses.
23
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC Scale; Crowne & Marlowe,
1960) was originally believed to measure the attempt to fake good to others (social
desirability). However, after extensive research, it has been found that this scale
additionally measures a form of self deception, not just other deception; that is,
participants believe that they either do or should possess the highly socially desirable
attributes listed in the scale (Paulhus, 1984). This scale has been found to be reliable
based on the Kuder-Richardson formula 20, producing an internal consistency coefficient
of .88 (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). When it is used in conjunction with the RS scale,
individuals scoring low on the RS scale can be further separated into two groups, those
scoring high on the MC scale and those scoring low on the MC scale. Those who score
high on the MC scale and low on the RS scale are deemed “repressors” whereas those
scoring low on the MC scale and low on the RS scale are deemed “low-anxious”
(Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979, p. 370). These two groups comprise two
distinctly different kinds of individuals; one encompasses a seemingly unhealthy
population of repressors whereas the other encompasses a seemingly healthy group of
persons.
Participants responded to each item of the MC scale with a T (true) or F (false) as
it pertained to them personally. The MC scale also had to be recoded in a manner similar
to the RS scale using the scoring information provided by Crowne and Marlowe (1960).
Participants received a point for responding in a socially desirable manner and did not
24
receive a point for responding in the opposite direction. A total score was then calculated
for each participant by summing item responses.
NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Form-S)
The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Form-S) (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) is
a shorter version of the NEO-PI developed as a condensed, more convenient method of
analyzing the five major dimensions of normal personality—neuroticism, extraversion,
openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. The NEO-FFI contains 60 items to
which participants respond using a five point response scale ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Extensive information regarding the reliability and validity of
this scale can be found in Costa and McCrae (1992). Reliability for each of the five
factors of the scales has been reported there as .79, .79, .80, .75, and .83 for neuroticism,
extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness respectively.
Participants responded to each item of the NEO-FFI on a five-point Likert type
rating scale with response options of SD (strongly disagree), D (disagree), N (neutral or
could not decide), A (agree) SA (Strongly Agree) as it pertained to their opinion on the
item. Approximately half of the items on the NEO-FFI had to be reverse-scored
according to the scoring information provided in Costa and McCrae (1992).
Internal Control Index-Revised
The Internal Control Index-Revised (ICI-R; Williamson, 2012) was adapted from
the Internal Control Index (ICI, Duttweiler, 1984) using item response theory. The
original ICI contained 28 items and the resulting ICI-R was reduced to 11 items. The
ICI-R has been found to be valid based on summed scores of the ICI-R and summed
25
scores of the original ICI correlating, r(596) = .82, p < .001 (Williamson, 2012). This
scale was chosen since it was thought that sensitizers would tend to have an external
locus of control whereas repressors would have an internal locus of control. A copy of
the ICI-R can be found in Appendix C.
Participants responded on a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 (rarely or
occasionally) to 4 (usually) where a high score indicates an internal locus of control
(Williamson, 2012).
Only one item needed to be recoded on the ICI-R according to the
scoring information provided by Williamson (2012). Once the item was reverse-scored, a
total score was calculated for each participant by summing item responses.
Free Recall Task
A free recall task was created asking participants to rewrite as much of the
vignette as they could remember from beginning to end in as much detail as possible. A
copy of the free recall task can be found in Appendix D.
Scoring for the free recall task was accomplished in two ways. First, the vignette
was divided into smaller pieces or elements; participants received a score based on the
total number of elements they recalled. Second, participants received a secondary set of
scores based on the items in the specific recall questionnaire (see below). If participants
recalled an item, they received a point for that item.
Specific Recall Questionnaire
A specific recall questionnaire was created asking participants specific questions
about the vignette. There were nine questions asking about the positive items in the
vignette, nine questions asking about the neutral items in the vignette, and nine questions
26
asking about the negative items in the vignette. Questions were arranged in the same
order that they appeared in the vignette. A copy of the specific recall questionnaire can
be found in Appendix E.
Scoring for the specific recall task was accomplished via a subjective rating scale
constructed by this author. A list was made of acceptable and unacceptable answers to
the specific recall questions. Participants had to have at least a partially correct response
in order to receive a point for a particular item. No point was awarded for blank or
incorrect responses. A copy of the subjective rating scale can be found in Appendix F.
Procedure
When participants entered the research room and were seated, the researcher
distributed consent forms for them to sign (see Appendix G). After having been signed
by participants and returned to the researcher, the consent forms were placed together in a
separate envelope to ensure that they were not able to be traced back to the research
materials of particular participants. Next, participants completed a demographic data
sheet with the instructions written across the top that participants should not put their
names on any forms from this point forward (see Appendix H). They then read the
vignette created by the researcher. When participants finished reading the vignette, both
the demographic data sheet and the vignette were collected and participants were given a
packet containing the Repression-Sensitization Scale (Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963), the
Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), the NEO-Five Factor Inventory
(Costa & McCrea, 1992), and the Internal Control Index-Revised (Williamson & Meyers,
2012) presented in a different random order for each participant. Upon completion of the
27
packet, it was collected and placed in an envelope separate from the consent forms.
Participants were then given the free recall task to complete and given the oral instruction
to “do the best you can.” When participants were finished, the free recall task was
collected and participants then completed and returned the specific recall questionnaire.
Each packet had a researcher-created tracking number unique to the packet in that
participants completed portions of the materials separately and turned them in to the
researcher in order to obtain the next portions; it was necessary to be able to determine
which materials were tied to the same participant while at the same time maintaining
participant anonymity. Use of non-personally identifying tracking numbers met this goal.
Once participants completed the research materials, all materials were collected
and placed together in a different envelope from the one containing the consent forms;
this ensured that the packets were not linked to the specific participants. The researcher
then orally debriefed the participants, answered any questions the participants may have
had at the time, and handed out the debriefing page for participants to keep. Everyone
was then thanked for their participation and dismissed.
Data were entered and analyzed using the software program IBM Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences version 20 (SPSS; SPSS Inc., 2011).
28
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Demographic Data
All 250 participants completed a sufficient level of information to be included in
the final analyses. Participants included 78 males and 172 females ranging in age from
17 to 35 years old (M = 20.56, SD = 2.50). The majority of participants reported that
their marital status was single (94.4%), whereas a few reported being married (4.8%), and
even fewer reported being divorced (0.8%). Participants consisted of African American
(10.8%), Asian (20.0%), Caucasian (30.8%), Hispanic (23.6%), Native American (1.2%),
Pacific Islander (4.0%), or other ethnicities (9.6%). The “other” category typically
included a combination of two or more of the aforementioned groups as specified by
participants. Reported class levels of the participants consisted of freshmen (18.4%),
sophomores (32.4%), juniors (31.2%), seniors (16.8%), and graduate students (1.2%).
Many participants were psychology (34.8%), nursing (14.0%), or biology (6.4%) majors.
All other participants reported numerous other majors.
Descriptive Statistics
Prior to statistical analyses, the data were assessed to ensure that the data set
complied with the assumptions for multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
including checking for normality, homogeneity of variance, outliers, and sphericity. The
data met the requirements for MANOVA and analyses continued with no necessary
29
transformations or exclusions of participants. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table
1.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables
95% Confidence
Interval
α
M
SD
SEM
Lower
Upper
Limit
Limit
Independent variables
Repression-Sensitization
.95
53.17
Marlowe-Crowne
.77
17.87
Free recall overall total
—
Specific recall overall total
21.88
1.38
50.44
55.89
5.23 .33
17.22
18.52
14.64
3.49 .22
14.21
15.08
—
20.94
3.25 .21
20.53
21.34
Free recall positive total
—
4.32
1.44 .09
4.14
4.50
Free recall negative total
—
5.91
1.25 .08
5.75
6.06
Free recall neutral total
—
4.42
1.84 .12
4.19
4.64
Specific recall positive total
—
5.81
1.67 .12
5.60
6.03
Specific recall negative total
—
8.00
1.12 .07
7.87
8.14
Specific recall neutral total
—
7.12
1.29 .81
6.96
7.28
Internal control total
.72
34.75
4.57 .29
34.18
35.32
Neuroticism
.83
1.84
.71
.05
1.76
1.93
Extraversion
.76
2.59
.52
.03
2.52
2.65
Openness to experience
.67
2.35
.52
.03
2.28
2.41
Agreeableness
.75
2.60
.55
.03
2.53
2.67
Conscientiousness
.85
2.73
.56
.04
2.66
2.80
Memory variables
Personality variables
Note. N = 250.
30
For the original ICI-R, coefficient alpha was reported to have been .83, which was
higher than what found in the current study (.72). For the NEO-FFI, Cronbach’s alpha
was very similar in the current study to that in the original research with the exception of
openness to experience, which was about .13 lower in the current study. The other
factors typically differed by about .03 in either direction. The internal consistency for the
MC was substantially lower, by about .11, in this study than in past research.
Past research on the RS has reported a reliability coefficient of .88. The current
study obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .95. It should be noted that when a measure
contains a large number of items, as the RS does, Cronbach’s alpha is very likely to be
artificially inflated. Therefore the mean of the inter-item correlations was examined and
found to be .13, indicating relatively low homogeneity for this scale (Clark & Watson,
1995; DeVellis, 2011; Meyers, Gamat, & Guarino, 2013b).
Principal Components Analysis of Repression-Sensitization Scale
A principal components analysis was conducted on the RS scale to determine
dimensionality. Despite indication of unidimensionality in the research literature, no
clear factor structure emerged in the current study. A total of 42 components with
eigenvalues of greater than 1.00 were obtained, cumulatively accounting for 71.64% of
the variance in the RS scale. The first component accounted for three times more
variance (15.79%, with an eigenvalue of 20.05) than did any other component. To be
consistent with the existing literature (Byrne, Barry, & Nelson, 1963), the RS scale was
treated in all further analyses as though it was unidimensional.
31
Multivariate Analysis of Variance
Two 3 x 3 MANOVAs were conducted in order to treat memory and personality
as separate composites, despite possible inflation of type I error. In both analyses the
independent variables, RS and social desirability, were split into three equal groups based
on the measurement scale corresponding to high, moderate, and low levels of each trait.
In the first MANOVA, the dependent variables were individual and total scores on both
the free recall and specific recall tasks. In the second MANOVA, the dependent
variables were personality measures of internal control, neuroticism, extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.
In the first MANOVA, dependent variables included positive, negative, neutral,
and total scores on the free recall and specific recall tasks. No group differences were
found in the interaction between RS and social desirability for memory recall on either
the free recall or specific recall tasks, Wilks’ λ = .94, F(24, 824.52) = .64, p = .91.
Additionally, multivariate main effects were not found for RS, Wilks’ λ = .45, F(12, 472)
= 19.48, p = .38, nor social desirability, Wilks’ λ = .81, F(12, 472) = 4.49, p = .24.
However, because of the exploratory selection of variables in the current study, possible
trends in the univariate results were examined despite no significant multivariate effect.
Many researchers (i.e., Meyers et al., 2013a, 2013b) maintain that univariate results
should not be inspected in the absence of a multivariate effect. Therefore the following
results should be interpreted with caution.
In the analysis of the following univariate results, a Bonferoni correction was
used in order to control for possible accumulation of type I error. For RS, group
32
differences were found on the specific recall task for overall negative item totals, F(2,
247) = 3.53, p = .03, η2 = .03, with participants low on RS (M = 8.23, SD = .90)
performing better on the overall negative items in the specific recall task than those
participants who scored high on RS (M = 7.77, SD = 1.23). For social desirability,
significant group differences were found on the free recall task overall negative item
totals, F(2, 247) = 3.80, p = .02, η2 = .03,with participants low in social desirability (M =
6.12, SD = 1.23) performing better on the overall negative items in the free recall task
than those participants who scored moderately in social desirability (M = 5.69, SD =
1.20).
In the second MANOVA, dependent variables included internal control,
neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.
No group differences were found in the interaction between RS and social desirability for
internal control or the five personality variables, Wilks’ λ = .96, F(24, 824.52) = .44, p =
.99. However, significant multivariate main effects were found for RS, Wilks’ λ = .45,
F(12, 472) = 19.48, p < .05, and social desirability, Wilks’ λ = .81, F(12, 472) = 4.49, p
< .05.
In the analysis of the following univariate results, a Bonferoni correction was
again used in order to control for possible accumulation of type I error. For RS
significant group differences were found for each of the five personality factors as well as
internal control. The main effects for RS can be seen in Table 2. Those who scored high
on RS had significantly higher neuroticism than did those who scored moderate or low on
RS; those who scored moderate on RS also had significantly higher neuroticism than did
33
those low on RS. Those with low RS had significantly higher extraversion than did those
high on RS. Those with low RS were significantly higher in openness to experience than
were those high on RS. Those with low RS had significantly higher conscientiousness
than did those who scored moderate or high on RS; those with moderate RS also had
significantly higher conscientiousness than did those high on RS. Those with low RS had
significantly higher agreeableness than did those with moderate or high RS; those with
moderate RS had significantly higher agreeableness than did those with high RS. Those
with low RS had significantly higher internal control than did those with moderate or
high RS.
Table 2
Main Effects for Repression-Sensitization
Low RS
Variable
M
SD
Moderate RS
M
SD
High RS
M
SD
F(2, 247)
η2
Neuroticism
1.19
.44
1.81
.45
2.51
.50
131.63** .45
Extraversion
2.76
.42
2.58
.44
2.43
.61
5.12** .04
Openness to Experience
2.48
.45
2.29
.51
2.27
.57
5.25** .04
Conscientiousness
2.96
.52
2.69
.51
2.56
.59
4.16*
Agreeableness
2.84
.45
2.60
.48
2.36
.59
7.06** .04
Internal Control
36.20
4.16
33.96
3.95
34.08
5.18
4.26*
.03
.03
*p < .05, **p < .01.
For social desirability, main effects were found for the conscientiousness and
agreeableness factors of the NEO-FFI. The main effects for the MC can be seen in Table
34
3. Those who had high social desirability scored significantly higher on
conscientiousness than did those who scored moderately or low in social desirability;
those who scored moderately in social desirability had significantly higher
conscientiousness than did those who had low social desirability. Those who scored high
in social desirability were significantly higher in agreeableness than those scoring
moderate or low in social desirability; those who scored moderate in social desirability
scored significantly higher on agreeableness than did those who scored low in social
desirability.
Table 3
Main Effects for Marlowe-Crowne
Low MC
Variable
M
SD
Moderate MC
M
SD
High MC
M
SD
F(2, 247)
η2
.44
.00
Neuroticism
2.10
.70
1.89
.67
1.59
.67
Extraversion
2.52
.55
2.51
.46
2.70
.51
Openness to Experience
2.36
.60
2.30
.50
2.37
.46
Conscientiousness
2.47
.55
2.79
.55
2.92
.50
8.77* .06
Agreeableness
2.29
.55
2.62
.46
2.85
.46
15.99* .10
Internal Control
34.41
4.60
34.19
4.62
35.43
4.47
1.40
.21
.28
*p < .01.
Composition of the Interaction
A post hoc analysis of the interaction between the RS and the MC scales was
completed in order to determine the composition of the groups of interest. Analysis
.01
.00
.00
35
revealed there were 16 individuals who scored low on both scales (healthy individuals),
19 individuals who scored high on both scales (oversocialized; Weinberger, 1995), 52
individuals who scored high on the MC and low on the RS (repressors), and 45
individuals who scored high on the RS and low on the MC (sensitizers). This analysis
can be seen in Table 4 along with the compositions for the moderate groups.
Table 4
Composition of the Interaction
MC
RS
Low
Moderate
High
Low
16
15
52
Moderate
24
31
26
High
45
22
19
Note. N = 250.
36
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
General Discussion
Since the interaction between RS and MC was not significant, the hypotheses—
which were all based on this interaction—were not supported as stated. In the absence of
a significant interaction, univariate effects were then inspected with caution to explore
possible trends aimed to help guide future researchers.
With regard to the memory variables, there were some interesting findings.
Participants who scored low on the Byrne RS Scale (“repressors”) actually remembered
more negative information than did participants who scored high on the same scale
(“sensitizers”). Based on previous findings (Davis & Schwartz, 1987; Newman &
Hedberg, 1998), it would be anticipated that this former group would remember fewer
negative items than participants scoring high on RS, but that was not the case. It is
unclear why this occurred. It was thought that since the low Byrne RS group was
actually comprised of truly healthy individuals as well as true repressors, the healthy
individuals could compromise the individuals responsible for the greater recall. An
analysis of the composition of the groups revealed that this was not the case, as the low
Byrne RS group was actually found to be comprised of 52 true repressors (low RS high
MC) and 16 healthy individuals (low RS low MC). It is thus unclear why the low Byrne
RS group recalled significantly more negative events, because as noted this finding is in
37
opposition to previous research suggesting that sensitizers (high RS) recall more negative
events (Davis & Schwartz, 1987; Newman & Hedberg, 1998).
In connection with this finding, it should be noted that the composition of the four
most relevant groups (6.4% healthy, 20.8% repressor, 18.0% sensitizer, 7.6%
oversocialized) in the present study does not appear to represent a “sick” or “disturbed”
sample. It is in fact quite consistent with a number of epidemiological studies
(Pasamanick, 1961; Srole, Langner, Michael, Opler, & Rennie, 1962; Phillips, 1966;
Kessler et al., 1994; Fichter et al., 1996; Kessler et al. 2005; Kessler, Chui, Demler, &
Walters, 2005) examining the distribution of mental health in the general population. For
example, in perhaps the best known of these studies (Srole et al., 1962), of 1660
individuals assessed, 18.5% were judged to be well adjusted, 36.3% were mildly
impaired, 21.8% were moderately impaired, 13.2% were markedly impaired, 7.5% were
severely impaired, and 2.7% were incapacitated. More recent studies (Bourdon, Rae,
Locke, Narrow, & Regier, 1992; Fichter et al., 1996; Kessler et al., 1994; Kessler et al.,
2005; Kessler, Chui, et al., 2005) employing more specific diagnostic criteria, appear
consistent with the earlier research, suggesting that overall levels of adjustment in the
general population do not appear to have changed significantly. Thus the relatively lower
percentage in the present study of “truly healthy” individuals (6.4%) is not greatly out of
pattern with earlier research, and this may be more true if a median split or more precise
classification system for the RS and MC scales had been used to categorize subjects as
“healthy,” as has been the case in some previous studies (Hirsch & Dana, 1968), rather
than using the lowest one third for each category as in the present study. Similarly, if
38
repressors (20.8%) and sensitizers (18.0%) can be considered mildly impaired, their
combined 38.8% of the sample is very similar to the Srole et al. (1962) findings of 36.3%
in this category. Thus sample composition in the present study appeared fairly typical
and does not appear to explain the apparent paradoxical finding that the more “cheerful”
or “optimistic” repressors actually remembered more negative events than did the more
“worried,” “anxious,” or “pessimistic” sensitizers. This is a matter for further
investigation in future research.
With regard to the variables of the Five Factor Model and locus of control,
findings were mostly consistent with past research. Participants who scored low on the
Byrne RS Scale reported lower neuroticism, higher extraversion, higher openness to
experience, higher conscientiousness, higher agreeableness, and an internal locus of
control as compared to the other Byrne RS groups. Participants who scored high on the
Marlowe-Crowne reported higher conscientiousness and higher agreeableness as
compared to the other Marlowe-Crowne groups. Had the interaction of the RS and the
MC been significant, this information may have led to a confirmed hypothesis. Since it
was not, it would be erroneous to combine these findings together and assert that the
hypothesis was confirmed.
The reliability of the RS Scale was found to be far lower than what was originally
anticipated. Based on the inter-item correlation, the scale is rather unreliable but presents
as though it is based on a Cronbach’s alpha a .95. With such a low inter-item correlation,
the scale cannot be deemed reliable. The inflation of Cronbach’s alpha likely results
from the large number of items the RS Scale consisted of, much like the MMPI and other
39
large scales. Further investigation revealed a principal component analysis of 42
components with eigenvalues greater than one, further illustrating that this scale is
measuring more than just repression-sensitization but theoretically 41 other components
as well.
Limitations and Goals for Future Research
One of the major limitations of this study was the use of objective material. It has
been suggested (Davis & Schwartz, 1987; Newman & Hedberg, 1998) that the use of
subjective material might elicit results more like the ones anticipated in the present study.
When the information is personally relevant to the participant, he/she may be more likely
to repress a negative event or memory than when it is merely objective information,
positive or negative, presented in a vignette. Unfortunately, given the constraints of this
study it was not possible to use subjective information with the chosen sample. Had
subjective information been used, participants may have needed to have been referred to
counseling services or may have felt too uncomfortable to complete the study. If at all
possible, future studies should attempt to surmount this barrier by using subjective
information and having psychological services (counseling) readily available.
A word of caution must be noted in using the Repression-Sensitization Scale in
the future. Given the poor reliability of the scale combined with the 42 components
found in the principal component analysis in this study, future researchers may want to
employ a different approach to assessing repression-sensitization. The RS scale seems to
fall short of this researcher’s expectations and may disappoint future researchers as well.
40
APPENDIX A
Pilot Survey
Please rate the following events on the rating scale by circling the appropriate number
where 1 means the event produces very little emotion for you, 4 means the event
produces moderate emotion for you, and 7 means the event produces very much emotion
for you.
Getting a new car
Very Little
1
2
3
Moderate
4
5
Very Much
6
7
Being part of a wedding party
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Getting attacked by a dog
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Buying a home
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Losing your job
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Getting a speeding ticket
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Getting married
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Had car damaged in parking lot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Getting a new pet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
House burglarized
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Getting divorced/losing a spouse
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Getting a raise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Going on a trip to another country
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Child diagnosed with terminal illness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pet hit by a car and dies
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Having a baby
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Got an A in a class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Being arrested
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
41
Appointed godparents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Significant other drinks in excess
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Catching a thief
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Having night terrors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Getting a new job
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
42
APPENDIX B
Vignette
Emily is a 22 year old woman who works as a hairdresser at a local salon, where
she has been employed for the last three years. She recently married her high school
sweetheart, David. He is 25. David works as a salesman for a well known wine
distribution company and is doing well. For their honeymoon they drove to Canada for a
week. Shortly before their wedding, Emily and David moved their belongings into a
small rental home near their home town. Emily was able to start decorating it and her
friends finished it before Emily and David got back from their honeymoon. They have
been living there for about five months.
David came home from work to find that the home had been burglarized. It
seemed as though the burglar had broken the front window of the home and was able to
enter through the front door. After surveying the situation, David determined that the
burglar did not get away with very much: some trinkets, a clock, and a small amount of
money. David called the police to report the crime then called Emily to tell her what
happened.
When the police arrived to investigate, they discovered that Emily and David’s
dog, Max, may have helped run the burglar off. Max got into the house through the
doggie door after the burglar entered. Apparently, Max was able to not only scare the
burglar off but first get a piece of his clothing by going in for an attack as the burglar ran
43
for the door. This piece of clothing aided the police in finding the burglar at a nearby
hospital where he was being treated for a dog bite.
After such a close encounter in this particular neighborhood, Emily began having
trouble sleeping in the house. Together, they decided it was time to move. Emily began
looking in the paper and on the internet while David, trying to surprise his newlywed
wife, secretly began talking to a real estate agent. Soon Emily started showing David
house after house to which David would find a flaw for each one. Discouraged but
resilient, Emily kept searching. Then one day, David asked Emily to look at a house he
had found. She instantly fell in love with it and they decided to buy it. They were
thrilled. As soon as the house closed, they moved in.
It seemed that once they moved into their new home, luck was on their side.
David received a promotion at his job which included a substantial raise. This new
position also meant that David would have to be traveling farther daily. David’s car had
recently been hit in a parking lot and constantly had trouble starting. Emily and David
decided it was time to buy a new car. They bought a reliable car that gets good gas
mileage. With David’s new promotion, life was easy. Bills were coming in and quickly
being paid and they were able to save money on the side and enjoy their evenings and
weekends together frequently. Emily was so happy about how everything was going that
she became extremely excited when she found out she had some more news to share with
David, she was pregnant.
In June she delivered a healthy baby boy. Unfortunately, as a hairdresser, her
employer does not have a maternity leave program and business is based on serving her
44
clientele. Emily lost her job. Though she was upset at the loss of the job she had for so
long, she was happy to have the extra time to spend with her newborn baby. As it turned
out, she would treasure that time. It turned out that their baby had Tay-Sachs disease, a
disease that has no cure and typically takes the life of a child by age four. The symptoms
appeared when their son was about six months old and the couple relied heavily on the
love and support of their families to enjoy the time they had with their son.
Even with all the support, it just wasn’t enough. Although they had their love for
each other, Emily became very withdrawn after the death of their son. She blamed
herself for her son’s death—for being a carrier of the Tay-Sachs gene, and did not want
to risk having another child with David, who also carried the gene. They both wanted
children but they questioned the means by which to go about it. They considered
adoption, using other sperm or other eggs, but ultimately they decided to do nothing.
Emily and David tried to make the best of the situation. They continued on with
their lives, Emily got a job at another salon with better pay and things were going well.
Emily’s sister made David and Emily the godparents of her daughter. Unfortunately
things did not continue to go well for long. In the downturn of the economy, David was
laid off from work and they began using their savings to pay bills, but that wasn’t
enough. Their house went into foreclosure and they lost everything.
The pressure proved to be too much and soon, David began drinking excessively.
He became reckless in his habits and frequently put himself and others in danger by
driving while on one of his binges. Emily and David frequently argued about his
drinking until one night she left to stay with a friend for awhile. Shortly after she left,
45
David realized that Emily was right about his drinking and he got into his car to win her
back, speeding to catch up. As David turned around a blind corner, at first he didn’t see
Emily pulled over on the side of the road, looking for her cell phone. By the time he did,
it was too late. As his car smashed into hers, the impact took her life.
46
APPENDIX C
Internal Control Index-Revised
Please read each statement. Decide what your normal or usual attitude, feeling, or
behavior would be concerning the statement. Of course there are always unusual
situations in which this would not be the case, but think of what you would do or feel in
most normal situations. Write the number that describes your usual attitude or behavior
in the space provided using the scale below.
1 = Rarely or Occasionally
2 = Sometimes
3 = Frequently
4 = Usually
____
1.
I like jobs where I can make decisions and be responsible for my own
work.
____
2.
If I want something I work hard to get it.
____
3.
I like to have a say in any decisions made by any group I’m in.
____
4.
I consider the different sides of an issue before making any decisions.
____
5.
I enjoy being in a position of leadership.
____
6.
I am sure enough of my opinions to try to influence others.
____
7.
When something is going to affect me I learn as much about it as I can.
____
8.
For me, knowing I’ve done something well is more important than being
praised by someone else.
____
9.
I do what I feel like doing, not what other people think I ought to do.
____
10.
When part of a group I prefer to let other people make all the decisions.
____
11.
I enjoy trying to do difficult tasks more than I enjoy doing easy tasks.
47
APPENDIX D
Free Recall Task
In the space provided below, please rewrite the story you read at the beginning of this
study from start to finish in as much detail as you can remember.
Additional paper is available on the table if you need it.
48
APPENDIX E
Specific Recall Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
Q. What was the main female character’s (Emily) occupation?
A.
Q. What was the main male character's (David) occupation?
A.
Q. How long had Emily and David been together?
A.
Q. Where did Emily and David go on their honeymoon?
A.
Q. What did Emily and her friends do to her house before the couple moved in?
A.
Q. What did David come home to find?
A.
49
Q. What was missing?
A.
Q. What was Emily and David’s dog’s name?
A.
Q. How did the police find the man?
A.
Q. What started happening to Emily after the event?
A.
Q. What did the couple do to fix Emily’s problem?
A.
Q. What did David receive at work?
A.
Q. What happened to David’s car?
A.
50
Q. What kind of car did they get David?
A.
Q. What news did Emily share with David?
A.
Q. What was the sex of their baby?
A.
Q. What happened at Emily’s job when she had the baby?
A.
Q. What happened to the baby?
A.
Q. When did the symptoms appear?
A.
Q. What options did the couple consider to have another child?
A.
51
Q. What happened when Emily went back to work?
A.
Q. What did Emily’s sister do?
A.
Q. What happened to David’s job?
A.
Q. What happened to the house?
A.
Q. How did David cope?
A.
Q. What did Emily decide to do after arguing with David?
A.
Q. What happened after David saw Emily?
A.
52
APPENDIX F
Subjective Rating Scale
Acceptable answers
Q. What was Emily’s occupation?
Hairstylist or works at a salon
Q. What was David’s occupation?
Must include “wine” or “winery” in
response
Q. How long had Emily and David been
together?
Must include “high school” in
response
Q. Where did Emily and David go on their
honeymoon?
Canada
Q. What did Emily and her friends do to
her house before the couple moved in?
Decorated it
Q. What did David come home to find?
House burglarized or robbed
Q. What was missing?
Must have at least two of the correct
responses (watch, trinkets, money)
Q. What was Emily and David’s dog’s
name?
Max
Q. How did the police find the man?
Hospital
Being treated for a dog bite
Q. What started happening to Emily after
the event?
Couldn’t sleep
Night terrors
Scared
Q. What did the couple do to fix Emily’s
problem?
Moved
Bought a new house
Q. What did David receive at work?
Unacceptable answers
Unrelated occupations
Businessman or salesman
Does not include wine or winery
“A long time”
Specific number of years or “years”
Does not include “high school” in response
Other destinations
Remodeled it
House decorated
Less than 2 correct responses
Other items that were not in the vignette
Any other name or “M___”
Turned himself in
Fearful the house would be robbed again
Paranoid
Had a baby
53
A promotion or a raise
Q. What happened to David’s car?
It got hit
It wouldn’t start
Q. What kind of car did they get David?
A reliable one
One with good gas mileage
Q. What news did Emily share with David?
She’s pregnant or with child
Q. What was the sex of their baby?
Male or boy
Q. What happened at Emily’s job when she
had the baby?
She lost her job
She quit working
Q. What happened to the baby?
He died
He had Tay-Sach’s
Q. When did the symptoms appear?
6 months or less
Couple months
Q. What options did the couple consider to
have another child?
At least one correct answer
(adoption, using other sperm or
eggs)
In vitro fertilization
Q. What happened when Emily went back
to work?
Got a better job
Better pay
Q. What did Emily’s sister do?
Made them godparents of her baby
Had a baby
Q. What happened to David’s job?
He got laid off
Q. What happened to the house?
Went into foreclosure
They lost it
Had to sell it
Q. How did David cope?
Must include use of alcohol in
Got laid off
He wrecked/crashed it
He crashed it into Emily
Broke down
A new one
A better one
Answer unrelated to pregnancy
Female or other answer
She kept working
She got a raise
“Nothing”
Any answer greater than 6 months
None
Do nothing (lack of answering question)
Lost her job
David lost his job
No recall of sister
He got a raise
Bought another one
Not mention of alcohol in response
54
response
Q. What did Emily decide to do after
arguing with David?
Stay with a friend for the night
Q. What happened after David saw Emily?
He hit her
It was too late
She died
Leave to sisters or family members house
They lived happily ever after
“Nothing”
55
APPENDIX G
Consent Form
Consent to Participate as a Research Subject
I hereby agree to participate in research which will be conducted by Jennifer
Trujillo or her assistant. In this research, I will receive a packet of material containing
some demographic questions, some materials to read, and some inventories measuring
personality characteristics.
The research will take place in one of the research rooms on the third floor of
Amador Hall and will require approximately one hour of my time.
I understand that I will receive one hour of credit toward satisfying the
Psychology Department’s research participation requirement by participating in this
study.
I understand that this research may have the benefit of helping to increase my
knowledge of research methods.
I understand that there is a risk that I may have feelings of being uncomfortable
with some of the materials in this study. However, I understand that I may decline to
answer any of the questions, I may discontinue my participation at any time without
penalty other than loss of research credit, and that the investigator may discontinue my
participation at any time.
This information was explained to me by Jennifer Freeman or her assistant. I
understand that she or her assistant will answer any questions I may have now or later
about the research. Jennifer Freeman can be reached at jrt49@saclink.csus.edu.
Signature: ___________________________________
Date: __________________
56
APPENDIX H
Demographic Data Sheet
PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON ANY FORMS FROM THIS POINT
FORWARD!
Please mark (X) the appropriate line indicating your answer. Only mark one line for each
section.
Sex:
_____
_____
Male
Female
Age:
_____
Years old
Marital Status:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Single
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Race/Ethnic Background:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
African American
Asian
Caucasian
Hispanic
Native American
Pacific Islander
Other (please specify)_________________
Class level:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate Student
College Major (please fill in the blank): __________________________________
57
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Bernsten, D. (1996). Involuntary autobiographical memories. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 10, 435-454.
Boden, J. & Baumeister, R. (1997). Repressive coping: Using pleasant thoughts and
memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 45-62.
Boden, J. & Dale, K. (2001). Cognitive and affective consequences of repressing coping.
Current Psychology, 20 (2), 122-137.
Bourdon, K., Rae, D., Locke, B., Narrow, W., & Regier, D. (1992). Estimating the
prevalence of mental disorders in the U.S. adults from Epidemiological
Catchment Area survey. Public Health Reports, 107 (6), 663-668.
Byrne, D., (1961). The Repression-Sensitization scale: Rationale, reliability, and
validity. Journal of Personality, 29, 334-349.
Byrne, D., Barry, J., & Nelson, D. (1963). Relation of the revised RepressionSensitization Scale to measures of self-description. Psychological Reports, 13,
323-334.
Byrne, D. Golightly, C., & Sheffield, J. (1965). The repression-sensitization scale as a
measure of adjustment: Relationship with the CPI. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 29 (6), 586-589.
58
Chwalisz, K., Diener, E., & Gallagher, D. (1988). Autonomic arousal feedback and
emotional experience: Evidence from the spinal cord injured. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 820-828.
Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (1995). Construction validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
Cook, J. (1985). Repression-sensitization and approach-avoidance as predictors of
response to a laboratory stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
49(3), 759-773.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual: Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI).
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (4), 349-354.
Davis, P. J, & Schwartz, G. (1987). Repression and the inaccessibility of affective
memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 155-162.
de Man, A. (1990). Repression-sensitization and measures of adjustment. Social
Behavior and Personality, 18 (1), 13-16.
de Man, A. & Ratti, L. (1989). Repression-sensitization and multidimensional locus of
control. Social Behavior and Personality, 17 (2), 175-179.
DeVellis, R. F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications(3rd ed.) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
59
Duttweiler, P. C. (1984). The internal control index: A newly developed measure of
locus of control. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 209-221.
Fichter, M., Narrow, W., Roper, M., Rehm, J., Eltom, M., Rae, D., Locke, B., & Regier,
D. (1996). Prevalence of mental illness in Germany and the United States:
Comparison of the Upper Bavarian Study and the Epidemiological Catchment
Area program. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 184 (10), 598-606.
Jersild, A. (1931). Memory for the pleasant as compared with the unpleasant. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 14 (3), 284-288.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1951). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory; manual (Revised). San Antonio, TX US: Psychological Corporation.
Hirsch, C. & Dana, R. (1968). Repression-sensitization and psychological defenses.
Perceptual and Motor Skillws, 27 (1), 32.
Holmes, D. S. (1970). Differential change in affective intensity and the forgetting of
unpleasant personal experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
15 (3), 234-239.
Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K., Zhao, S., Nelson, C., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S.,
Wittchen, H., & Kendler, K. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSMIII-R psychiatric disorders in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry,
51(1), 8-19.
60
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K., & Walters, E. (2005).
Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the
national comorbidity survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(2),
593-602.
Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W., Demler, O., Walters, E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and
comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey
replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62 (6), 617-627.
King, J., & Hayslip, B. (2001). The media’s influence on college students’ views of
death. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 44(1), 37-56.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In
H. M. Leftcourt (Ed.), Research with the Locus of Control Construct (Vol. 1),
New York: Academic Press, 15-63.
McCreary, C. & Turner, J. (1984). Locus of control, repression-sensitization, and
psychological disorder in chronic pain patients’. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
40 (4), 897-900.
Meyers, L. S., Gamat, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013a). Applied multivariate research:
Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyers, L. S., Gamat, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013b). Performing data analysis using IBM
SPSS. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Molnar, C. (2004). A taxometric analysis of the latent structure of the repressor
personality construct (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University).
Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/6125/.
61
Newman, L. & Hedberg, D. (1999). Repressive coping and the inaccessibility of
negative autobiographical memories: converging evidence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 27, 45-53.
Pagano, D. (1973). Information-processing differences in repressors and sensitizers.
Journal or Personality and Social Psychology, 26 (1), 105-109.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (3), 598-609.
Pasamanick, B. (1961). A survey of mental disease in an urban population: IV. An
approach to total prevalence rates. Archives of General Psychiatry, 5(2), 151155.
Phillips, D. L. (1966). The “true prevalence” of mental illness in a New England state.
Community Mental Health Journal, 2(1), 35-40.
Rapaport, D. (1943). Emotions and memory. Psychological Review, 50 (2), 234-243.
Schacter, D. L. (2001). The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and
remembers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Seidlitz, L. & Diener, E. (1993). Memory for positive versus negative life events:
Theories for the differences between happy and unhappy persons. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (4), 654-664.
Sinha, D., & Naidu, R. (1977). Defense phenomenon in perception, learning, and
memory: An experimental study of cognitive consistency. The Journal of
General Psychology, 97, 219-226.
62
Srole, L., Langner, T., Michael, S., Opler, M., & Rennie, T. (1962). Mental health in the
metropolis. Midtown Manhattan study. Vol.1. New York: McGraw Hill.
Suedfeld, P., & Eich, E. (1995). Autobiographical memory and affect under conditions
of reduced environmental stimulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15,
321-326.
SPSS Inc. (Released 2011). PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Chicago:
SPSS, Inc.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The
mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
Thompson, C. (1985). Memory for unique personal events: Effects of pleasantness.
Motivation and Emotion, 9 (3), 277-289.
Thompson, C., Skowronski, J., Larsen, S., & Betz, A. (1996). Autobiographical
memory: Remembering what and remembering when. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Waldfogel, S. (1948). The frequency and affective character of childhood memories.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 62(4), i-39.
Walker, W. R., Skowrokski, J., & Thompson, C. (2003). Life is pleasant—and memory
helps to keep it that way! Review of General Psychology, 7 (2), 203-210.
Walker, W. R., Vogl, R., & Thompson, C. (1997). Autobiographical memory:
Unpleasantness fades faster than pleasantness over time. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 11, 399-413.
63
Weinberger, D. A. (1995). The construct validity of the repressive coping style. In J. L.
Singer (Ed.), Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality theory,
psychopathology, and health (pp. 337-386). Chicago, IL US: University of
Chicago Press.
Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G., & Davidson, R. (1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious,
and repressive coping styles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral and
physiological responses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88 (4), 369380.
Williamson, L. W. (2012). An item response theory revision of the Internal Control
Index (Master’s Thesis). Available from Sacramento State Scholarworks
Repository. URI:http://hdl.handle.net/10211.9/1617.