DOT/FAA/AM-97/17

Office of Aviation Medicine

Washington, D.C. 20591

Personality Characteristics

of Pre/Post-Strike AirTraffic

Control Applicants

David J. Schroeder

Carolyn S. Dollar

Civil Aeromedical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

July 1997

Final Report

Approved tea public leiealfl

Qiaxxusvaiao. ua&niwd

This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

O

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

19970912 020

L»TIC QUALITY IKSF3CTBP f
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AM-97/17

2. Government Accession No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Personality Characteristics of Pre/Post-Strike Air Traffic Control Applicants

7. Author(s)

Schroeder, DJ., and Dollar, C.S.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Office ofAviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address

15. Supplemental Notes

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date

July 1997

6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

16. Abstract

The 16 Personality Factors (16PF) test has been routinely administered to personnel applying for Air Traffic Control

Specialist (ATCS) positions within the Federal Aviation Administration for more than 3 decades. This study was

designed to assess the relationship between personality characteristics of a group of post-strike applicants (1984) with

data gathered in the late 1960s to early 1970s (Karson and O'Dell, 1974). Additionally, the comparisons provide a

baseline with which to assess characteristics ofthe new controllers who will start to enter the workforce as the post-strike

workforce begins to retire following the year 2000. Outcomes were consistent with previous findings, in revealing that

female and male ATCS applicants are brighter than the average individual. When compared with the general population

norms, the applicant groups are less anxious, report higher self-discipline, and are more emotionally stable. They are also

more self-reliant and assertive. These characteristics appear to be ideally suited for applicants to an occupation that

requires quick decision-making and calm, thoughtful responses during emergencies.

17. Keywords

Ar Traffic Controller Applicants, Personality,

Post-ATC Strike, 16PF

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

18. Distribution Statement

Document is available to the public through the

National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

21. No. of Pages

20

Reproduction of completed page authorized

22. Price
PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF PRE/POST-STRIKE

AIRTRAFFIC CONTROL APPLICANTS

INTRODUCTION

Cattell (1949) developed the 16 Personality Factors (16PF) test to measure normal aspects of adult

personality. Since the early 1960s, the 16PF has been

routinely administered to personnel applying for Air

Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) positions within

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The test

has been used to identify applicants who may have

potential psychological difficulties.

Karson and O'Dell (1974a) reported on the results

of a comparison of the personality characteristics

between male and female ATCS applicant groups.

Since their study, changes in recruitment efforts and

selection procedures may have significantly altered

the applicant pool. Firings following the air traffic

controllers' strike of 1981 created an increased demand for applicants. While recruitment prior to the

strike was more often focused on attracting former

military air traffic controllers, the post-strike efforts

led to increased use of special advertisements and

other more active recruitment efforts, including specific

attemptsto attract more minority and female applicants.

Another post-strike change was the implementation of a new selection battery by the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) in 1981. Both of

these changes may have affected the characteristics of

the applicant pool. Detailed demographics ofATCS

applicants are not available (currently or from Karson

and O'Dell, 1974a) however, an analysis ofthe demographics of personnel who enter training at the FAA

Academy is most likely representative of changes in the

pool ofindividuals (applicants) who are eligible for hire.

Table 1 illustrates several significant differences in

the demographic composition ofAcademy entrants in

1968-1970 (Cobb, Matthews, & Lay, 1972) from

those in 1984 and 1985. More of the 1984-85 entrants had a college degree but fewer had previous

ATCS experience. The applicant group comprised a

greater number or persons under age 30, and there was

also a much higher percentage of females (14.7%

compared with 2.2% in 1968-1970). These changes

in the demographics of Academy entrants/ATCS

applicants may also be reflected in the overall personality profile.

A potential difficulty associated with the interpretation of personality dimensions concerns the influence ofresponse sets on the personality measure. Krug

(1978), in commenting on the administration of

personality questionnaires to job applicants, and

Dolgin and Gibb (1988), in reviewing the relationship between personality measurement and aircrew

selection, refer to the role of the "social desirability"

response set. This refers to the tendency of applicants

to respond in a positive way so as to create a favorable

image of themselves. Using an older, and now outdated measure ofsocial desirability, Karson and O'Dell

(1974b) found that male ATCS applicants had higher

TABLE 1 - SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS OF FAA ACADEMY ATCS STUDENTS

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLE 1968-1970 1984-1985

EDUCATION - COLLEGE DEGREE

PRIOR EXPERIENCE - ATCS

AGE - UNDER 30

GENDER - MALE

10.1% 44.9%

62.2% 21.0%

70.4% 88.8%

97.8% 85.3%
average scores than a comparison group of journeymen tower controllers (a mean of 6.48 for applicants

versus 5.31 for tower controllers). Winder, O'Dell,

and Karson (1975) reported on the development of

two validity scales for the 16PF: motivational distortion (MD) and fake bad (FB). MD refers to the

tendency ofthe respondent to present him/herself in

a favorable light ("fake good"). FB is a measure ofthe

tendency for individuals in certain settings to deliberately present themselves in an unfavorable manner,

("fake bad").

Data analyses were designed to determine if: (a) the

personality characteristics of the 1984 ATCS applicant group differed significantly from the Karson and

O'Dell (1974a) group, (b) the male and female ATCS

applicants in 1984 differed from each other on any of

the personality dimensions, (c) the 16PF profiles of

applicants and those of the general population and

college normative groups were different, and (d) the

higher order factor structure for the 1984 16PF scores

differed significantly from that reported by Karson

and O'Dell (1974a). Profiles were also evaluated to

determine the presence of a response set. In addition

to providing the above comparisons, data collected

from the 1984 group can also serve as a baseline with

which to assess characteristics of the new controllers

that will start entering the workforce following the

year 2000.

METHODS

Applicants completed the 16PF (1967 version of

Forms A and B) following notification oftheir selection for entrance into the ATCS training program and

during their interview at selected sites within each of

9 FAA geographical regions. All of the 1984 16PF

records were manually entered into a computerized

database.

The sample used in this study was comprised of

3,468 applicants from 1984, 18% of whom were

women. Karson and O'Dell (1974a) reported on

results from the administration of the 1962 version of

the 16PF to a sample of 10,103 applicants, ofwhom 2%

were women.

Raw scores for each of the 16 primary factors

(Forms A and B combined) and standard scores (stens)

were computed, using the appropriate female or male

general population adult norms (IPAT, 1970). In

addition to the primary factors, scores were also computed for the two validity scales, MD and FB. A list of

the factors and adjectives typically used to describe

high and low scores are contained in Appendix A.

(Scale descriptors for the 16 primary personality factors are those used by Krug (1981).) Descriptive

statistics included means, standard deviations, and

correlations. Differences between the average raw

scores on the 16PF for the 1974 and 1984 applicant

groups, female and male comparisons for the 1984

sample, and differences between the 1984 applicant

groups and the normative groups were determined

through use of multiple t-tests based on the pooled

variances ofthe groups. Risk ofType 1 errors for the

multiple comparisons was minimized through the use

of Dunn's test (Howell, 1987).

The large sample sizes resulted in a number of

statistically significant differences that were of limited practical significance. Cohen's (1988) index of

effect size (d) was used to determine which of the

differences were of practical significance. Only differences with a medium effect size (.50) or greater are

discussed in this report. A second measure of practical

significance, the Common Language Effect Sizes (CL;

McGraw & Wong, 1992) was also used. The CL

measures the significance of any difference based on

the number of times out of 100 that a randomly

selected entry-level controller will have a higher score

on a given personality scale than a randomly selected

person from the general population or from one ofthe

other controller groups. For example, a CL of 75 on

the Warmth scale means that, for any random pairing

of a controller with a member of the general, normative population, the controller would have a higher

score 3 out of 4 times. For the purposes ofthis study

CL levels of >70 and <30 were selected as providing

evidence of a practical difference between the 1984

ATCS applicants and comparison groups.
Results from this study were submitted to a factor

analytic procedure similar to that used by Karson and

O'Dell (1974a); an oblim rotation forcing the 16PF

variables into 6 factors. A program developed by

Hebbler (1989) was used to determine the coefficients

of concordance for the female and male 1974 and

1984 comparisons and for comparing the 1984 female-male outcomes.

RESULTS

1974 and 1984 Female Comparisons. Raw score

means, standard deviations, and effect sizes (d and

CL) of 16PF scores for female ATCS applicants from

this study and those from Karson and O'Dell (1974a)

are presented in Table 2. Differences in the average

scores for 11 ofthe 16 factors were statistically significant (p<.01). Differences for the Warmth, Intelligence, Conformity, Suspiciousness, and Shrewdness

factors were not significant. Differences for the Emotional Stability, Dominance, Boldness, Insecurity,

Radicalism, Self-sufficiency, and Self-Discipline factors had medium or larger effect sizes. Ofthose with

significant t values and effect sizes (d), only the

Dominance, Radicalism, Self-Sufficiency, and SelfDiscipline comparisons had CL values in the designated ranges (CL of>70 or <30). Female applicants in

1984 exhibited higher scores on the measures of

Emotional Stability, Dominance, Boldness, and SelfDiscipline than their counterparts in 1974. Compared with the Karson and O'Dell (1974a) sample,

they are significantly lower in Insecurity, Radicalism,

and Self-Sufficiency.

Thus, female applicants in 1984 are less anxious

and insecure and appear to have greater resources to

copewith anxietywhen it does arise. They also appeared

more self-assertive, adventuresome, independent, and

imaginative than the 1974 female applicants.

Results of the 1984 factor analysis of the female

16PF scores were similar to those noted by Karson and

O'Dell (1974a). The higher-order factors correspond

to what Karson and O'Dell (1974a) called: Anxiety,

TABLE 2 - 16PF FORM A + B RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD

DEVIATIONS FOR 1974 AND 1984 FEMALE ATCS APPLICANTS

1974(N=217) 1984(N=624)

FACTOR MEAN SD MEAN SD t d CL

A (WARMTH) 18.82 6.37 18.98 6.14 -0.32 .03 49

B (INTELLIGENCE) 17.65 2.42 17.88 2.75 -1.16 .08 48

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY) 37.57 6.94 40.72 6.27 -5.89* .50 37

E (DOMINANCE) 20.38 5.94 25.64 6.27 -11.05* .84 27

F (IMPULSIVITY) 28.63 7.76 31.38 6.93 -4.61* .40 40

G (CONFORMITY) 31.03 4.69 30.51 4.84 1.39 .10 53

H (BOLDNESS) 30.17 9.50 35.51 9.70 -7.08* .55 35

I (SENSITIVITY) 19.59 5.59 21.54 5.23 -4.49* .37 40

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS) 12.59 4.74 11.45 4.87 3.02 .23 57

M (IMAGINATION) 21.23 5.59 23.63 5.10 -5.56* .47 37

N (SHREWDNESS) 22.02 3.39 21.27 4.65 2.30 .16 35

0 (INSECURITY) 16.00 6.40 12.36 6.62 7.14* .55 66

Q1 (RADICALISM) 20.38 4.02 17.08 4.79 9.88* .69 70

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY) 21.55 5.30 16.91 5.53 10.96* .84 73

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE) 26.32 4.78 30.62 4.71 -11.44* .91 26

Q4 (TENSION) 16.63 8.33 13.91 8.67 4.09* .31 59

MD (DISTORTION) 8.20 3.00

FB (FAKE BAD) 0.91 1.10

* p < .01

d .50 or higher for medium effect size

CL > 70 or < 30
Extroversion, Independence, Cortical Alertness,

Obsessive-Compulsivity, and Intelligence, which primarily involved a single scale (B). However, Extroversion and Independence (the second and third factors

in 1974) reversed order to become the third and

second factors in the 1984 sample. Using a program

developed by Hebbler (1989), coefficients of concordance were determined to compare the factor solutions from the two samples. Provided the order ofthe

factors is adjusted for the differences noted above, the

coefficients of concordance for the comparisons; .91,

.93, .86, .86, .92, and .94 suggest that the underlying

factor structure is highly similar.

1974 and 1984 Male Comparisons. Raw score

means, standard deviations, and effect sizes of the

scores on the 16PF for male ATCS applicants in 1984

and from the Karson and O'Dell (1974a) study are

presented in Table 3. All differences in the average

scores for the 16 comparisons were statistically significant (p<.01).

Six differences in the factor scores were ofmedium

effect size or greater. Male ATCS applicants in 1984

had higher scores on the Emotional Stability, Dominance, Imagination, and Self-Discipline factors than

those in the Karson and O'Dell (1974a) study. Their

average 16PF scores were lower on the Insecurity and

Radicalism factors. Ofthese comparisons, only Dominance, Imagination, Radicalism, and Self-Discipline

had CL values in the prescribed ranges.

The general pattern ofdifferences in the 16PF from

1974 to 1984 for men was quite similar to those noted

for women: less tension and insecurity, along with

greater self-assertiveness, self-discipline, and emotional stability. 1984 applicants clearly report less

anxiety and appear to have greater resources to cope

with anxiety than 1974 applicants.

Comparisons of the 1984 factor analysis of the

16PF scores for male ATCS applicants with that of

Karson and O'Dell (1974a) were identical to that

noted for females. Once again, the order for factors

TABLE 3 - 16PF FORM A + B RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD

DEVIATIONS FOR 1974 AND 1984 MALE ATCS APPLICANTS

1974(N=9886) 1984 (N=2844)

FACTOR MEAN SD MEAN SD t d CL

A (WARMTH) 18.06 6.52 17.17 6.20 6.68* -.14 54

B (INTELLIGENCE) 16.98 2.54 17.88 2.59 -16.43* .35 40

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY) 38.26 6.42 41.33 6.06 -23.54* .51 36

E (DOMINANCE) 22.58 5.69 27.19 6.04 -36.39* .76 29

F (IMPULSIVITY) 28.04 7.13 30.53 6.95 -16.77* .36 40

G (CONFORMITY) 31.87 4.49 30.43 4.70 14.57* .31 59

H (BOLDNESS) 31.37 9.27 35.43 9.57 -20.12* .42 38

I (SENSITIVITY) 15.05 5.13 16.19 5.38 -10.08* .21 44

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS) 13.64 4.93 11.59 4.83 19.89* .42 61

M (IMAGINATION) 17.82 4.95 22.93 5.15 -47.12* .99 24

N (SHREWDNESS) 21.99 3.79 20.77 4.31 13.68* .28 58

0 (INSECURITY) 15.01 6.04 11.12 6.07 30.21* .64 67

Q1 (RADICALISM) 20.73 4.24 17.21 4.79 35.47* .73 71

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY) 19.85 5.18 17.28 5.78 21.42* .44 63

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE) 27.11 4.37 30.86 4.44 -39.91* .84 27

Q4 (TENSION) 15.25 7.37 12.09 7.68 19.55* .41 62

MD (DISTORTION) 8.27 2.94

FB (FAKE BAD) 1.05 1.14

*p<.01

d .50 or higher for medium effect size

CL > 70 or < 30
two and three was reversed for the 1984 sample.

Coefficients ofconcordance (following reversal ofthe

two factors) yielded rates consistent with those noted

for females: .92, .96, .77, .97, .71, and .98 for each of

the 6 higher order factors. Thus, despite differences in

the overall profile between the two samples, the underlying factorstructure has remained generally stable.

1984 Male and Female Comparisons. Table 4

illustrates the raw score means, standard deviations,

and effect sizes for the male and female ATCS applicants in 1984. While 5 of the comparisons reached

statistical significance, only the difference on the

Sensitivity factor had a medium or greater effect size

(d and CL). These results are consistent with those of

Karson and O'Dell (1974a) in revealing little difference between the personality profiles of male and

female ATCS applicants. Results are also generally

consistent with those of a recent meta-analysis of

gender differences in personality conducted by

Feingold (1994). He reported that when compared

with men, women exhibited higher scores on scales

measuring extroversion, anxiety, trust, and

tendermindedness.

Outcomes for the factor analysis ofthe 1984 male

and female results are presented in Table 5, along with

the respective coefficients of concordance. The factor

structure for the 2 groups was essentially identical,

with the coefficients ofconcordance ranging from .91

for the cortical alertness factor to .99 for anxiety,

extroversion, and compulsivity.

Comparisons of 1984 Female ATCS Applicants

With the General Population and College Norms.

Average 16PF profiles for the 1984 female ATCS

applicants and the general population normative

sample are presented in Table 6. Female ATCS applicants were significantly different from the normative

group on 13 of the 16 factors. Differences on the

Imagination, Shrewdness, and Radicalism factors were

notsignificant. Differences in the average factor scores

that had a medium effect size or greater included the

TABLE 4 - 16PF FORM A + B RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD

DEVIATIONS FOR 1984 FEMALE AND MALE ATCS APPLICANTS

FACTOR

A (WARMTH)

B (INTELLIGENCE)

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY)

E (DOMINANCE)

F (IMPULSIVITY)

G (CONFORMITY)

H (BOLDNESS)

I (SENSITIVITY)

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS)

M (IMAGINATION)

N (SHREWDNESS)

O (INSECURITY)

Q1 (RADICALISM)

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY)

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE)

Q4 (TENSION)

MD (DISTORTION)

FB (FAKE BAD)

'p<.01

d .50 or higher for medium effect size

CL > 70 or < 30

FEMALE ATCS MALE ATCS

APPLICANTS APPLICANTS

MEAN SD MEAN SD t d CL

18.98 6.14 17.17 6.20 6.66* .29 58

17.88 2.75 17.88 2.59 0.00 .00 50

40.72 6.27 41.33 6.06 -2.21 .10 47

25.64 6.27 27.19 6.04 -5.63* .25 43

31.38 6.93 30.53 6.95 2.78 .12 54

30.51 4.84 30.43 4.70 0.38 .02 50

35.51 9.70 35.43 9.57 0.19 .01 50

21.54 5.23 16.19 5.38 23.02* 1.02 76

11.45 4.87 11.59 4.83 -0.66 .03 50

23.63 5.10 22.93 5.15 3.09 .14 54

21.27 4.65 20.77 4.31 2.46 .11 53

12.36 6.62 11.12 6.07 4.29* .19 56

17.08 4.79 17.21 4.79 -0.61 .03 49

16.91 5.53 17.28 5.78 -1.50 .07 48

30.62 4.71 30.86 4.44 -1.16 .05 48

13.91 8.67 12.09 7.68 4.84* .21 56

8.20 3.00 8.27 2.94

0.91 1.10 1.05 1.14
TABLE 5-1984 MALE VS. FEMALE APPLICANT FACTOR LOADINGS ROTATED BY OBLIM

Coefficient of Concordance .99 .95 .99 .91 .99

FACTOR

Anxiety Independence Extroversion Cortical Obsessive- In elligence

Alertness Compulsivity

I II III IV V VI

M F M F M F M F M F M F

A (Warmth) -02 -03 -03 -01 76 73 26 26 12 14 06 -08

B (Intelligence) 01 01 01 -01 04 -01 -06 00 03 13 100 100

C (Emotional Stability) 86 87 -01 05 06 03 -05 -07 05 02 02 05

E (Dominance) -01 -19 80 63 16 17 -14 -37 04 -03 -06 -05

F (Impulsivity) -02 -13 27 15 69 71 -14 -11 -29 -27 -06 02

G (Conformity) -08 -09 01 00 12 08 -00 00 90 91 -00 06

H (Boldness) 42 37 26 26 58 61 00 -17 16 13 -05 -04

I (Sensitivity) -16 -19 -10 07 18 12 90 90 06 -00 -02 -03

L (Suspiciousness) -77 -83 38 27 -02 -02 -11 -03 15 17 -05 -08

M (Imagination) 31 34 46 68 -16 -10 55 26 -20 -23 03 12

N (Shrewdness) 20 25 -48 -29 -14 -11 10 25 28 33 -06 -21

0 (Insecurity) -81 -80 -20 -22 -13 -13 09 09 -08 -08 -03 01

Q1 (Radicalism) -01 -03 74 76 -12 -04 11 -01 01 08 11 05

Q2 (Self-Sufficiency) -12 -14 18 29 -79 -80 03 -01 -05 -05 05 -03

Q3 (Self-Discipline) 40 50 03 05 -13 -12 -01 -04 68 58 -00 -04

Q4 (Tension) -82 -83 -01 -08 -01 -00 02 07 -19 -16 05 11

.96

factors ofWarmth, Intelligence, Emotional Stability,

Dominance, Impulsivity, Conformity, Boldness, Sensitivity, Suspiciousness, Insecurity, Self-Discipline,

and Tension. CL levels again appeared to be somewhat more conservative in that only 8 out of the 11

comparisons that had significant d values also had CL

values in the designated ranges.

Female ATCS applicants, when compared with

females in the general population, are more intelligent, emotionally stable, and assertive. They are also

more enthusiastic, venturesome, and have greater selfconfidence and self-control. Their self-reported level

of tension or anxiety is clearly lower than that of the

average woman; ATCS applicants are also less insecure and sensitive.

Table 7 illustrates the raw score means, standard

deviations, and effect sizes ofthe female ATCS applicants and those of the female college student normative group. Differences between the ATCS applicant

group and the college student group were similar to

differences between the applicants and the general

population. Average scores on the Intelligence factor

are an exception, with the female ATCS applicant

mean score (17.88) only slightly higher than that of

college students (17.50). Female college students

(33.32) are more impulsive than the general population (26.57) and, to a lesser extent, more impulsive

than ATCS applicants (31.38). Forseveral factors, the

spread of scores across the groups was somewhat

greater. On the Tension factor, ATCS applicants had

a mean factor score of only 13.91, compared with

25.96 for the general population and 28.26 for college

students. Ofthe ATCS applicant-college student comparisons with significant t scores, all but 4 were of

medium or greater d value. A smaller number reached the

appropriate ranges for a significant CL level.

Comparisons of 1984 Male ATCS Applicants

With the General Population and College Norms.

Raw score means, standard deviations and effect sizes

of the 1984 male ATCS applicants and normative

male data for the 16PF are presented in Table 8. Male

ATCS applicants were significantly different from the

normative group on 15 of the factors; the difference

on the Dominance factor was not significant. Considering only those differences that met the effect size

criterion, male ATCS's are like the general population

males on about half of the 16PF factors. Male ATCS

applicants are less outgoing, suspicious, insecure,
TABLE 6 - 16PF FORM A + B RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR

1984 FEMALE ATCS APPLICANTS AND FEMALE GENERAL POPULATION

ATCS GENERAL

APPLICANTS POPULATION

FACTOR

(N=624) (N=468)

MEAN SD MEAN SD t d CL

A (WARMTH) 18.98 6.14 22.88 5.91 -10.60* .64 32

B (INTELLIGENCE) 17.88 2.75 14.08 3.72 18.59* -1.18 79

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY) 40.72 6.27 30.73 8.39 21.60* -1.38 83

E (DOMINANCE) 25.64 6.27 21.39 7.22 10.17* -.63 67

F (IMPULSIVITY) 31.38 6.93 26.57 7.35 10.96* -.68 68

G (CONFORMITY) 30.51 4.84 26.44 5.61 12.56* -.78 71

H (BOLDNESS) 35.51 9.70 25.69 10.49 15.79* -.98 75

I (SENSITIVITY) 21.54 5.23 25.78 5.22 -13.26* .81 28

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS) 11.45 4.87 14.05 5.33 -8.27* .51 36

M (IMAGINATION) 23.63 5.10 24.54 6.79 -2.43 .15 46

N (SHREWDNESS) 21.27 4.65 21.44 4.53 -0.61 .04 49

0 (INSECURITY) 12.36 6.62 23.18 8.33 -23.13* 1.46 16

Q1 (RADICALISM) 17.08 4.79 16.24 5.01 2.79 -.17 55

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY) 16.91 5.53 18.44 6.02 -4.29* .27 43

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE) 30.62 4.71 22.93 6.38 21.95* -1.40 83

Q4 (TENSION) 13.91 8.67 25.96 8.93 -22.32* 1.37 17

MD (DISTORTION) 8.20 3.00

FB (FAKE BAD) 0.91 1.10

*D< .01

d .50 or higher for medium effect size

CL > 70 or < 30

TABLE 7 - 16PF FORM A + B RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

FOR 1984 FEMALE ATCS APPLICANTS AND FEMALE COLLEGE STUDENTS

ATCS COLLEGE

APPLICANTS STUDENTS

FACTOR

(N=624) (N=1182)

MEAN SD MEAN SD t d CL

A (WARMTH) 18.98 6.14 22.98 6.04 -13.23* .66 32

B (INTELLIGENCE) 17.88 2.75 17.50 2.94 2.72 -.13 53

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY) 40.72 6.27 31.19 7.10 29.30* -1.40 83

E (DOMINANCE) 25.64 6.27 22.56 7.30 9.36* -.44 62

F (IMPULSIVITY) 31.38 6.93 33.32 7.96 -5.37* .25 43

G (CONFORMITY) 30.51 4.84 25.33 5.99 19.87* -.92 75

H (BOLDNESS) 35.51 9.70 26.66 11.07 17.53* -.83 76

I (SENSITIVITY) 21.54 5.23 26.65 5.18 -19.79* .98 24

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS) 11.45 4.87 15.51 5.22 -16.42* .80 28

M (IMAGINATION) 23.63 5.10 25.24 6.49 -5.79* .27 42

N (SHREWDNESS) 21.27 4.65 19.66 4.32 7.16* -.36 60

O (INSECURITY) 12.36 6.62 23.16 7.67 -31.16* 1.47 47

Q1 (RADICALISM) 17.08 4.79 17.17 5.11 -0.37 .02 50

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY) 16.91 5.53 16.94 5.98 -0.11 .01 50

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE) 30.62 4.71 22.18 5.96 32.93* -1.52 87

Q4 (TENSION) 13.91 8.67 28.26 8.65 -33.45* 1.66 12

MD (DISTORTION) 8.20 3.00

FB (FAKE BAD) 0.91 1.10

*D< .01

d .50 or higher for medium effect size

CL > 70 or < 30
TABLE 8 - 16PF FORM A + B RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

FOR 1984 MALE ATCS APPLICANTS AND MALE GENERAL POPULATION

FACTOR

A (WARMTH)

B (INTELLIGENCE)

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY)

E (DOMINANCE)

F (IMPULSIVITY)

G (CONFORMITY)

H (BOLDNESS)

I (SENSITIVITY)

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS)

M (IMAGINATION)

N (SHREWDNESS)

O (INSECURITY)

Q1 (RADICALISM)

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY)

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE)

Q4 (TENSION)

MD (DISTORTION)

FB (FAKE BAD)

*p<.01

d .50 or higher for medium effect size

CL > 70 or < 30

ATCS GENERAL

APPLICANTS POPULATION

(N=2844) (N=1242)

MEAN SD MEAN SD t d CL

17.17 6.20 20.36 6.32 -14.93* .51 36

17.88 2.59 14.08 3.72 32.71* -1.28 81

41.33 6.06 34.69 8.18 25.69* -.98 74

27.19 6.04 26.71 6.37 2.25 -.08 52

30.53 6.95 28.40 7.45 8.58* -.30 58

30.43 4.70 26.88 5.78 19.07* -.70 68

35.43 9.57 30.30 10.26 15.01* -.52 64

16.19 5.38 18.25 5.75 -10.74* .37 40

11.59 4.83 14.78 5.48 -17.73* .63 33

22.93 5.15 25.86 6.36 -14.32* .53 36

20.77 4.31 19.76 4.37 6.83* -.23 56

11.12 6.07 17.60 8.49 -24.32* .94 27

17.21 4.79 18.20 4.88 -6.00* .20 44

17.28 5.78 18.25 5.78 -4.94* .17 45

30.86 4.44 25.24 6.01 29.62* -1.13 77

12.09 7.68 20.61 9.41 -28.09* 1.03 24

8.27 2.94

1.05 1.14

imaginative, and tense than other men. They also have

higher scores on factors measuring Intelligence, Emotional Stability, Conformity, Boldness, and Self-Discipline.

Thus, ATCS men, in contrast to men in the general

population norms, are brighter, experience less anxiety, and have greater resources to cope with stress.

Furthermore, they are more adventuresome, assertive,

self-disciplined, and self-assured. Differences in the

factor scores ofthe female and male ATCS applicants

from the general population 16PF norms are illustrated in Figure 1.

Data presented in Table 9 compare the results of

the 1984 male ATCS applicant group with normative

data from male college students. In most cases, the

differences noted between male ATCS applicants and

the general population are also true between those

ATCSs and college students. Average scores for the

Intelligence and Impulsivity factors are 2 exceptions.

The 1984 ATCS applicant mean (17.88) on Intelligence is only slightly above that of college students

(17.50). The college student mean for Impulsivity

(32.34) is above that ofboth ATCS applicants (30.53)

and the general population (28.40). While most ofthe

ATCS applicants have attended college, they differ

from the normative college group in that applicants

report less suspiciousness, radicalism, and considerably less insecurity and anxiety. They also are more

emotionally stable and have greater self-discipline.

Differences discussed above are evident in comparing

16PF profile elevations for the female and male ATCS

applicant groups and are shown in Figure 2.

Validity Scale Comparisons. While average MD

scores of 1984 male and female ATCS applicants were

nearly identical (8.20 for females and 8.27 for males),

they were clearly above the average value (6.06) for the

general population (Krug, 1978). In his validation

study of the MD scale, Krug reported average
FIGURE 1 -1984 APPLICANT 16PF PROFILE

= FEMALE D = MALE

1

STANDARD SCORE

^Average ^"

2 3 4 5 6 7

- GENERAL POPULATION NORMS

(STEN)

8 9 10

RESERVED

LOW INTELLIGENCE

EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY

SUBMISSIVENESS

SERIOUSNESS

NON-CONFORMING

SHYNESS

TOUGH-MINDEDNESS

TRUST

PRACTICALITY

NAIVETE

SELF-ASSUREDNESS

CONSERVATISM

GROUP DEPENDENCY

UNDISCIPLINED

RELAXED

WARM

HIGH INTELLIGENCE

EMOTIONAL STABILITY

DOMINANCE

IMPULSIVITY

CONFORMING

BOLDNESS

EMOTIONAL SENSITIVITY

SUSPICIOUSNESS

IMAGINATION

SHREWDNESS

INSECURITY

RADICALISM

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

SELF-DISCIPLINED

TENSE

TABLE 9 - 16PF FORM A + B RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

FOR 1984 MALE ATCS APPLICANTS AND MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS

FACTOR

A (WARMTH)

B (INTELLIGENCE)

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY)

E (DOMINANCE)

F (IMPULSIVITY)

G (CONFORMITY)

H (BOLDNESS)

I (SENSITIVITY)

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS)

M (IMAGINATION)

N (SHREWDNESS)

O (INSECURITY)

Q1 (RADICALISM)

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY)

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE)

Q4 (TENSION)

MD (DISTORTION)

FB (FAKE BAD)

*p<.01

d .50 or higher for medium effect size

CL > 70 or < 30

ATCS COLLEGE

APPLICANTS STUDENTS

(N=2844) (N=1517)

MEAN SD MEAN SD t d CL

17.17 6.20 19.72 6.92 -12.02* .39 40

17.88 2.59 17.50 2.94 4.24* -.14 54

41.33 6.06 31.36 7.19 46.02* -1.54 86

27.19 6.04 27.89 7.11 -3.26* .11 47

30.53 6.95 32.34 8.28 -7.26* .24 44

30.43 4.70 24.27 6.25 33.66* -1.16 79

35.43 9.57 27.45 10.96 23.92* -.79 71

16.19 5.38 17.71 6.46 -7.83* .26 43

11.59 4.83 17.83 5.19 -38.76* 1.26 19

22.93 5.15 24.79 6.79 -9.34* .32 41

20.77 4.31 17.80 4.26 21.85* -.69 69

11.12 6.07 20.57 7.91 -40.61* 1.40 17

17.21 4.79 19.91 5.26 -16.66* .54 35

17.28 5.78 18.30 6.26 -5.27* .17 45

30.86 4.44 22.64 5.60 49.49* -1.69 87

12.09 7.68 25.75 8.63 -51.72* 1.70 12

8.27 2.94

1.05 1.14
FIGURE 2-1984 APPLICANT 16PF PROFILE - COLLEGE POPULATION NORMS

f= FEMALE | = MALE

STANDARD SCORE (STEN)

^Average3 4 5 6 8 9 10

RESERVED

LOW INTELLIGENCE

EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY

SUBMISSIVENESS

SERIOUSNESS

NON-CONFORMING

SHYNESS

TOUGH-MINDEDNESS

TRUST

PRACTICALITY

NAIVETE

SELF-ASSUREDNESS

CONSERVATISM

GROUP DEPENDENCY

UNDISCIPLINED

RELAXED

WARM

HIGH INTELLIGENCE

EMOTIONAL STABILITY

DOMINANCE

IMPULSIVITY

CONFORMING

BOLDNESS

EMOTIONAL SENSITIVITY

SUSPICIOUSNESS

IMAGINATION

SHREWDNESS

INSECURITY

RADICALISM

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

SELF-DISCIPLINED

TENSE

scores of 5.71 for females and 6.36 for males, and

recommended using a raw score of 10 as the criterion

for determining when the overall 16PF profile may be

unduly influenced by an individual's attemptto present

him/herselfin a favorable light. Distributions ofMD

scores for female and male ATCS applicants, as well as

for the sample from Krug (1978), are presented in

Table 10. Comparisons ofthe male and female ATCS

distributions with that of Krug (1978) reveal the

skewed nature ofthe applicant responses for both the

MD and FB measures. Using Krug's (1978) criterion,

responses for 33.0% of the female and 35.2% of the

male ATCS applicants suggested the presence of a

"Fake Good" response set. Krug (1978) found that

only 12.5% ofthe overall group met that criterion. M.

Rieke (personal communication, February 1, 1994)

suggests that Krug's cutoff for the MD is too low and

should be closer to two standard deviations above the

mean, corresponding to a sten of 9. Even with this

higher criterion, approximately 24% ofthe women and

men scored above the cutoff.

As could be expected, given the high MD scores,

there was little evidence of any "Faking Bad" on the

16PF for the ATCS applicants. The average FB scores

for ATCS applicants (0.91 for females and 1.05 for

males) were clearly below the average of2.82 reported

for the general population norms. Using the criterion

of a raw score of 6 or higher (Krug, 1978), only 0.5%

of each ofthe female and male ATCS applicants were

in the "Fake Bad" range.

Correlations between the validity scales and the

16PF primary factors are presented in Table 11. Consistent with Krug's (1978) results, MD scores are most

closely related to the Emotional Stability, Conformity, Boldness, Suspiciousness, Insecurity, Self-Discipline, and Tension factors. Individuals who attempt

to present themselves in a positive light on the 16PF

will report less tension, insecurity, and suspiciousness, and greater emotional stability, conformity,

boldness, and self-discipline. Itis noteworthy that, on

many of these same factors, female and male ATCS

groups differ most from their respective normative

groups. Correlations between the FB scores and the 16

primary factors were relatively low. The highest correlations were within the .22 to .27 range. FB was

negatively correlated with Emotional Stability, Boldness, and Self-Discipline. Positive correlations were

evident between FB and scores on the Suspiciousness,

Insecurity, Self-Sufficiency, and Tension factors.

10
TABLE 10 - PERCENTAGES OF VALIDITY SCALE

SCORES FOR FEMALE AND MALE ATCS APPLICANTS

FAKE GOOD (MD) FAKE BAD (FB)

RAW ATCS % KRUG 1978 ATCS % KRUG 1978

SCORE FEMALE MALE STEN PERCENT FEMALE MALE STEN PERCENT

0 0.2 0.1 1 0.0 43.8 37.3 1 19.7

1 0.3 0.5 2 3.7 34.0 36.6 2 24.5

2 1.3 1.7 3 6.6 14.7 15.9 3 19.2

3 2.6 3.0 3 9.2 4.8 6.4 4 11.4

4 6.9 5.6 4 10.8 1.8 2.4 5 9.5

5 7.9 7.9 5 13.6 0.5 0.8 6 5.8

6 12.2 10.4 6 13.1 0.2 0.4 7 3.9

7 12.9 11.5 6 12.1 0.0 0.1 8 2.9

8 11.1 12.6 7 9.8 0.3 0.0 9 1.7

9 11.9 12.6 7 7.6 0.0 0.0 10 0.9

10 9.3 11.3 8 5.6 0.0 0.0 10 0.4

11 8.0 8.4 9 3.7 0.0 0.0 10 0.0

12 6.9 7.6 10 1.9 0.0 0.0 10 0.0

13 3.4 5.0 10 0.8 0.0 0.0 10 0.0

14 4.6 2.0 10 0.4 0.0 0.0 10 0.0

15 0.8 0.9 10 0.1 0.0 0.0 10 0.0

TABLE 11 - CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE

16PF FACTOR SCORES AND THE VALIDITY SCALES

FAKE GOOD (MD) FAKE BAD (FB)

FACTOR FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE

A (WARMTH) .15 .25 -.06 -.11

B (INTELLIGENCE) .13 .02 -.03 -.04

C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY) .56 .56 -.24 -.25

E (DOMINANCE) .07 .06 .13 .05

F (IMPULSIVITY) -.13 -.06 -.00 -.04

G (CONFORMITY) .43 .44 -.07 -.16

H (BOLDNESS) .41 .47 -.19 -.26

I (SENSITIVITY) -.20 .01 -.02 -.11

L (SUSPICIOUSNESS) -.35 -.40 .27 .23

M (IMAGINATION) .11 .09 -.04 -.06

N (SHREWDNESS) .26 .24 -.10 -.09

O (INSECURITY) -.54 -.56 .25 .22

Q1 (RADICALISM) .04 -.06 .09 .09

Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY) -.15 -.24 .19 .22

Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE) .57 .55 -.24 -.22

Q4 (TENSION) -.60 -.62 .25 .23

11
CONCLUSIONS

These data support the findings of Karson and

O'Dell (1974a) in revealing that female and male

ATCS applicants have highly similar personality profiles. Despite a number ofchanges in the demographic

composition of the ATCS applicant groups since the

Karson and O'Dell (1974a) study, the basic 16PF

profiles are quite similar. Results from current data

were generally consistent with prior studies. For example, 1974 ATCS applicants (Karson and O'Dell,

1974a,b) controllers on the job (Karson and O'Dell,

1974 b; Rose, et al., 1978), and applicants in 1984

were found to be brighter than the average individual.

Elevations in scores for several ofthe other factors

were also consistent with previous findings for both

controller and applicant groups (Karson and O'Dell,

1974a,b; Rose, et al., 1978). While controllers were

less anxious, as evidenced by lower scores on the

Tension, Insecurity, and Suspiciousness factors, they

had correspondingly higher scores on the Self-Discipline and Emotional Stability factors. They were also

more self-reliant and assertive. In his review of research on the aptitudes, interests, motivations, personality, and attitudes of air traffic controllers, Smith

(1994) provides a similar description of their salient

characteristics.

The higher MD scores for female and male ATCS

applicants suggest that the elevations of certain 16PF

factors may be partially attributable to the tendency of

applicants to present themselves in a favorable light.

However, when a correction (IPAT, 1970) for elevated MD scores is applied to the relevant 16PF

factor scores, the overall profile is found to be essentially the same. It is also possible that some vocational

objectivity (awareness) or self-selection may be responsible for part of the results, as a person with high

levels of anxiety and insecurity is not likely to choose

air traffic control as a career option. On the other

hand, while social desirability has generally been interpreted to be a situationally-based response set,

there are indications (Furnham, 1986) that social

desirability may be a relatively stable trait. Ones,

Viswesvaran, and Reiss (1996), in their recent metaanalysis of the social desirability literature, support

Furnham (1986) in demonstrating that social desirability has a consistent relationship with the personality dimensions of Emotional Stability and

Conscientiousness. Additionally, they found that social desirability is less pervasive than anticipated and

exhibits little influence on the relationship between

various personality measures and job performance. If

this is true, it suggests that the higher MD scores

exhibited by the ATCS applicants may be reflective of

more positive psychological adjustment in that group.

These results present a positive picture of ATCS

applicants: their intellectual capacity and analytical

skills are high; they have sufficient resources to cope

with stressful events; and they are assertive enough to

make effective decisions.

REFERENCES

Cattell, R.R. (1949). The Sixteen P.F. Questionnaire

(1st ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality

and Ability Testing.

Cobb, B.B., Matthews, J.I., and Lay, CD. (1972). A

comparative study offemale and male Air Traffic

Controller Trainees. Washington, DC: FAA Office

of Aviation Medicine, Report No. FAAAM-72-

22. ADA747991.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysisfor the BehavioralSciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

and Associates.

Dolgin, D.L., and Gibb, G.D. (1988). A review of

personality measurement in aircrew selection. Naval

Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Report.

NAMRL Monograph 36, July.

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429-

56.

Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability,

and dissimulation. Personal andIndividualDifferences, 1, 385-400.

Harman, H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago,

IL:University of Chicago Press.

Hebbler, S.W. (1989). A basic program for computing

the coefficient of concordance, re. Education and

Psychological Measurement, 49_, 615-18.

12
Howell, D.C. (1987). Statistical methodsforpsychology.

Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

IPAT (1970). Norms for the 16PF, Forms A and B.

Tabular Supplement No. 1, (1967-68 Edition),

Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

IPAT staff (1986). Administrators manualfor the 16

Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL:

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Karson, S., and O'Dell, J.W. (1974a). Personality differences between male and female Air TrafficController applicants. Aerospace Medicine, 41, 596-8.

Karson, S., and O'Dell, J.W. (1974b). Personality

makeup of the American Air Traffic Controller.

Aviation Medicine, 45_, 1001-7.

Karson, S., and O'Dell, J.W. (1976). A guide to the

clinical use ofthe 16PF. Champaign, IL: Institute

for Personality and Ability Testing.

Krug, S.E. (1978). Further evidence on 16PF distortion

scales. Journal of'Personality Assessment, 42, 513-18.

Krug, S.E. (1981). The 16PF Primer. Champaign, IL:

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

McGraw, K.O., and Wong, S.P. (1992). A common

language effect size statistic. PsychologicalBulletin,

111. 361-5.

Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C, and Reiss, A.D. (1996).

Role ofsocial desirability in personality testing for

personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 81, 660-79.

Rose, R.M., Jenkins, CD., and Hurst, M.W. (1978).

Airtraffic controller health study. Washington, DC:

FAA Office ofAviation Medicine Report, Report

No. FAA-AM-78-39. ADA063709.

Smith, R.C. (1994). A realistic view ofthe people in air

traffic control. Washington, DC: FAA Office of

Aviation Medicine Report, Report No. FAA-AM74-12. ADA006789.

Winder, P., O'Dell, J.W., and Karson, S. (1975). New

motivational distortion scales for the 16PF. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 22., 532-7.

13
APPENDIX A

FACTOR A (WARMTH)

LOW SCORE

RESERVED

DETACHED

CRITICAL

COOL, ALOOF

FORMAL

RIGID

HIGH SCORE

OUTGOING

WARMHEARTED

EASYGOING

PARTICIPATING

LIKES PEOPLE

ADAPTABLE

FACTOR B (INTELLIGENCE)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

LESS INTELLIGENT

CONCRETE THINKING

MORE INTELLIGENT

ABSTRACT THINKING

BRIGHT

FACTOR C (EMOTIONAL STABILITY)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

AFFECTED BY FEELINGS

EMOTIONALLY LESS STABLE

EASILY UPSET

WORRYING

EMOTIONALLY STABLE

FACES REALITY .

CALM

MATURE

UNRUFFLED

FACTOR E (DOMINANCE)

LOW SCORE

HUMBLE

MILD

ACCOMMODATING

CONFORMING

EASILY LED

OBEDIENT

SUBMISSIVE

HIGH SCORE

ASSERTIVE

AGGRESSIVE

STUBBORN

COMPETITIVE

BOSSY

DOMINANT

HEADSTRONG

Al
FACTOR F (IMPULSIVITY)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

SOBER

PRUDENT

SERIOUS

TACITURN

RESTRAINED

SILENT, INTROSPECTIVE

HAPPY-GO-LUCKY

IMPULSIVELY LIVELY

ENTHUSIASTIC

EXPRESSIVE

TALKATIVE

FACTOR G (CONFORMITY)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

EXPEDIENT

DISREGARDS RULES

FEELS FEW OBLIGATIONS

SELF-INDULGENT

UNDEFENDABLE

CONSCIENTIOUS

PERSEVERING

STAID

MORALISTIC

RULE BOUND

RESPONSIBLE

FACTOR H (BOLDNESS)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

SHY

RESTRAINED

TIMID

THREAT-SENSITIVE

HESITANT

VENTURESOME

SOCIALLY BOLD

UNINHIBITED

SPONTANEOUS

RESPONSIVE

FACTOR I (SENSITIVITY)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

TOUGH-MINDED

SELF-RELIANT

REALISTIC

NO-NONSENSE

HARD

TENDER-MINDED

CLINGING

OVER-PROTECTED

SENSITIVE

KINDLY, GENTLE

INSECURE

A2
FACTOR L (SUSPICIOUSNESS)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

TRUSTING

ADAPTABLE

FREE OF JEALOUSY

EASY TO GET ALONG WITH

PLIANT TO CHANGES

SUSPICIOUS

SELF-OPINIONATED

HARD TO FOOL

SKEPTICAL

DISTRUSTFUL

FACTOR M (IMAGINATION)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

PRACTICAL

CAREFUL

CONVENTIONAL

REGULATED BY EXTERNAL REALITIES

PROPER

"DOWN-TO-EARTH" CONCERNS

IMAGINATIVE

WRAPPED UP IN URGENCIES

CARELESS OF PRACTICAL MATTERS

BOHEMIAN

ABSENT-MINDED

UNCONVENTIONAL

FACTOR N (SHREWDNESS)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

FORTHRIGHT

NATURAL

ARTLESS

UNPRETENTIOUS

OPEN

GENUINE

SPONTANEOUS

SHREWD

CALCULATING

WORLDLY

PENETRATING

SOCIALLY AWARE

POLISHED

FACTOR O (INSECURITY)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

SELF-ASSURED

CONFIDENT

SERENE

FREE OF GUILT

SECURE

COMPLACENT

APPREHENSIVE

SELF-REPROACHING

WORRYING

TROUBLED

GUILT-PRONE

LONELY, BROODING

A3
FACTOR Q1 (RADICALISM)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

CONSERVATIVE EXPERIMENTING

RESPECTING ESTABLISHED IDEAS LIBERAL

TOLERANT OF TRADITIONAL DIFFICULTIES ANALYTICAL

FREE-THINKING

OPEN TO CHANGE

REBELLIOUS

FACTOR Q2 (SELF-SUFFICIENCY)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

GROUP-DEPENDENT

A "JOINER" AND SOUND FOLLOWER

DECISIONS

LISTENS TO OTHERS

SELF-SUFFICIENT

PREFERS OWN

RESOURCEFUL

FACTOR Q3 (SELF-DISCIPLINE)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

UNDISCIPLINED SELF-CONFLICT

FOLLOWS OWN URGES

CARELESS OF PROTOCOL

UNCONTROLLED

LAX

CONTROLLED

SOCIALLY PRECISE

FOLLOWING SELF-IMAGE

COMPULSIVE

FACTOR Q4 (TENSION)

LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE

RELAXED

TRANQUIL

UNFRUSTRATED

COMPOSED

TENSE

FRUSTRATED

DRIVEN

OVERWROUGHT

FRETFUL

Descriptive information for the factors was taken from the 16PF test profile (1967),

Karson & O'Dell (1976), and the Administrator's manual for the 16PF (1986).

A4

ftu.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997 - 559-079/60020