REACTIONS OF CHINESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS TO
ROSENZWE間'S PICTUR閉關 FRUSTRATION
STUDyl
CHIEN倆位OU HWANG
INTRODUCTION
37
No one in this world can ever expect to have all his needs ful位led. From time to time
,
his progress toward a certain goal may be blocked,
delayed or interfered with. In other words,
he may encounter frustrations of some kind. The sources of frustration may be classi益ed into the following categories:1. Obstacles in the physical world…This refers to any real and objective obstacle exists in the environment. For instance: a speaker may 益nd the micro-phone out of order or a group of young people who are going for a picnic may
琵nd the road is blocked by a road.slide. N atural disasters may also become barriers.
2. Limitation of one's abi1ity
,
physical or mental- In these cases,
the goal is beyond the capacity of an individua1. A child may find the candy.box is placed in a high place beyond his reach; a boy may find himself baftled by someone who looks bigger and stronger than himself; or a student may find the mathematics toodi而cult for him and he can hardly understand the method to solve the problems. 3. Obstacles due to the psychological make-up of an individual- In many occasions
,
personal attitude toward or value systems in regard to some matters may prevent him from reaching his goal though there is no obstruction otherwise. Prejudice against somebody or speci詣1 fears toward certain objects are frequently found examples. Conflicts are also important causes of frustration. To make a choice between two jobs sometimes creates a very di血cult problem to an individual. 4. The social environment may becoll1e an obstac1e …This refers to the laws, regulation、 mores， customs and taboos，臨的 exist in a given culture. Not infre-quently these stand in one's way which leads to satisfaction of a certain need. For example,
some re1igious groups have regulations in regard to food.habit,
to marriage or to practices of birth-contr仗，When an individual is frustrated
,
a tensio紋 state wi1l be created,
a person wi11 become confused, ba血絲， and annoyed. He wi1l thus try to find some way of adjustment,
attempt to dissolve the aroused tension. Of course,
there are a great variety of responses that may be adopted 部 tension幽reduction mechanisms withimmen鋪 individual differences.
In a study of refugees from Nazi Germany
,
Allport and his associates (1953: cl為ssi在ed the reactions to frustrations into nine categories:1. Resignation and other defeat reactions.
1. This study is supported by a research grant from National Council on Scíence
2. Adoptation of temporary frames of reference 3. Highte能 d in-group feelings.
是. Shifts in level of aspiration. 5. Regression and fantasy. 6. Conformity to the regime. 7. Changes in philosophy.
8. Planning and direct action.
9. Aggression and displaced aggression.
DolIard and others proposed the so called the frustration儡 aggression hypothesis (1939). They felt that the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression and that the occurrance of aggression presuppose the existence of frustration. This seems to be an over幽generalized conception and one of the authors soon amended the theory by saying that aggression is but one of the ways reacting to frustration. He maintained
,
however,
that aggression is always caused by frustration (Mi11er, 19是1).Rosenzweig (19是1) cIassified the reactions to frustration according to whether the fate of a frustrated segmental need or the fate of the personality as a whole is considered. The former occurs invariably after frustration (need-persistive) while the latter occurs only under conditions of ego-threat (ego-defensive). Fur-thermore, he divided the reactions based on their directions of aggression:
1. Extrapunitive responses-Those in which the individual aggressively attri. buted the frustration to someone or something in external world
,
avoiding blaming oneself. The associated emotions are anger and resentment.2. 1ntropunitive responses一-Those in which the individual aggressively attri. butes the frustration to himself. This is perhaps a consequence of inhibition of its outward expression. Associated emotions are guilt and remorse.
3. 1mpunitive responses…Those are situations in which the aggression does not supply the motivating force; instead
,
more socialIy directed drives are at work. The frustrati發g situation seems to be over1ooked (gloss over) and the emotional reaction repressed; neither oneself nor another person is blamed.Following the above也mentioned theory
,
Rosenzweig developed in 19是5 a test to stuðy the reactions to frustration. He named it Picture-Frustration Study which has been regarded as a projective technique. It has been useð by a good number of psychologists in their researches related to the problem of frustration. This test is the main instrument used in the present 汶口dy.THE PROCEDURE OF THE PRESENT STUDY 1. The Material U攝ed for the 8tudy
In the present study
,
Rosenzweig's Picture Frustration Stuðy (The P-F Test) (1947) has been used. This is a projective test with a booklet containing twenty偷39
the drawings
,
there are two main chúa'cters,
one of them is saýing something of frustrating significa綜ce to the other individual. The subject is asked to write down the verbal response that would be made by the second 'person involved (Rosenzweig et a1. 1倍7). It is a test easy to administer and subjects often find it interestíng to work on it. They are usually told to work as fast as possible and most of them can finish the task 泊 1令部 minutes though some cautious persons may need moretime to do it.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the reactions of Chinese university students to the P-F‘ Test. The Test had been carefully examined before it was put to use in the present study. All the cartoons have been re-drawn so that the figures would look like Chinese rather than 有~esterners; other related elements are also modified in the same manner.
In fact
,
several items have been completely revised (Items 8,
9,
19 and 23) because the original themes are not common in Chinese cu1ture. An example is added on the cover of the booklet to show the proper way of making responses. 2. The SubjectsThe subjects participated in the present study are students from National Tai. wan Normal University
,
mostly freshmen. The test was given during the class period of Introductory Psychology and it was the instructor of that class who administered the test. This arrangement,
based on past experience,
often gain good cooperation from the students. 320 students participated the study with 13是 menand 186 women.
THE RESULTS
The P-F records of the Chinese university students are scored according to th已
procedure and instructions set by Rosenzweig. The resuIts are given in the following:
1. Responses to Eaeh Carb蛤，n of the P-F Study
One would expect that people wi1l give a good variety of responses to each of the cartoons. Ho可vever， when the responses are scored
,
there appears to be a tendency that most of the response to one drawing fal1 in a cert器in category of scoring suggested by Rosenzweig. For instance,.
over 74% of the male subjects give impunitive response (M) to Cartoon 1 and 82% of them show intropunitive responses (1) to Cartoon II. Table 1 presents an analysis of scores of male subject on a11 2是 cartoons while those of females are given in Table 2.One may also notice that the differences between male and female subjects are neglectable in this study. Among the 264 comparisons
,
only 3 show difference at P<0.01 level and 12 at P<0.05 level while alI rest of them do not show significant differences. When there is sex difference,
it seems that girls tend to be more intropunitive and less extrapunitive than the boys in relating to certain cartoon-situations.Table 1. Reactions to lndividual Cartoon (Male N =峙的
前!
Et.5'0 1'，:;咐EM|| 蚵!%
i~6'蚓1 2.99 0.75 2.2是 O 。 74.63 孤獨 0.75 0.75 2 11.94 5.97 o 0.75 82.09 。 O O o 是6.27 O 3 41.79 8.96 2.24 i 8.21 是.是8 7.46 O 14.18 9.70 至是.93 O 4 6.72 主 24 2.99 I 10.45 8.96 o 。 39.55 7.46 15.67 29.10 5 5.22 1.是§ 2 1.6晶 1.49 O 1.是§ 6.72 63.43 1.49 6 20.90 2.99 3.73 1 2.99 17.16 0.75 1.49 0.75 8.21 50.75 2.會9 7 17.16 2.24 2.24 I 26.87 4.48 0.75 0.75 14.93 1謹.93 1.是9 22.39 8 7.46 11.19 5.22 0.75 O 14.18 20.90 17.91 23.88 g 11.94 6.72 2.24 I 2.24 2.24 I 0 O 2.99 6.72 70.15 0.75 10 1.49 1.49 1.49 是0.30 2.99 點。。 0.7在 0.75 1.49 0.75 O 11 。.75 O 2.24 i 24.63 0.75 1.49 O 喜氣是$ 28.36 O O 12 16.42
i
0 4.是8 I 23.88 O 0.75 O 8.96 16.42 27.61 4.48 13 7.華6 I 0.75 1.49 I 36.57 0.75 O O 10.45 55.22 7.毒6 3.73 14 4.是8 I 0 0.75 28.36 0.75 O O 55.22 O 4.48 30.60 1 弓 9.70 2.24 2.99 6.72 18.66 4.48 O 47‘76 6.72 0.75 2.24 16 2.99 2.2是 O 26.87 32.84 9.70 22.39 0.75 1.49 主99 O 17 13.是3 26.87 1.是9 7.是§ 23.13 5.22 。 o 1.49 36.57 1.49 18 5.22 2.24 8.21 2.99 1.晶9 。 O 10.45 22.39 24.63 26.12 主§ O 2.99 o 4.48 50.00 么會9 21.6是 0.75 5.97 26.87 2.立是 20 0.75 O O 12.69 15.67 O 。 70.15 0.75 0.75 。 21 。 53.73 1.49 4.48 14.18 O O 60.是5 O 22 5.22 7.善惡 2.99 26.87 51.49 0.75 。 2.99 0.75 O O 23 2會.10 2.99 0.75 ! 22.39 2.24 。 o I 4.48 10.45 1是.18 16.42 24 1.49 0.75 3.73 I 9.70 0.75 O 。?是.f:3 10.45 14.18 5.97Table 2. Reactions to lndividual Cartoon (Female N:= 186) 志tion E',% IFf4 M'F4 E% I 15'6 E'J.{,. 1';6 M,.:; e;-0 1 1.61 1.61 8.06 3.76 2.15 。 。 82.80 11.83* 1.08 O 2 9.68 2.15 O 2.15 76.34 0.54 1.08 1.61 0.5是 44.62 O 3 是3.01 話.06 2.15 5.91 6.99 么 15* 。 9.14 12.90 23.12 1 岫 是 6.99 0.54 3.76 4.8是 lG.22 O O 3925 6.45 27.42* 32.26 5 5.91 0.54 0.54 25.27 19.35 1.61 。 0.54 5.91 72.0是 0.54 6 13.44 是.84 2.69 1.61 19.35 O 2.69 1.08 6.是5 60.75 1.61 7 13.98 2.15 1.。在 25.81 5.91 O 1.08 23.12 12.37 3.76 1學.82 8 13.98* 10.22 4.30 3.23 8.60 O o 11$3 18.28 20.是3 15.59 9 9.68 6.45 1.61 4.30 6.99* 1.61 O 1.08 7.53 67.7垂 O 10 2.69 。 2.15 36.56 2.69 50.54 1.61 1 總 0.54 。 O 11 2.15 O 3.23 25.27 0.54 O O 64.52 26.88 0.54 O 12 21.51 1.61 是.30 25.27 O 1.08 O 8.60 11.83 31.72 6.是5 13 i&06 0.5是 O 31.72 1.08 O O 9.1是 53.76 4.84 3. 76 1 是 6.99 O 2.69 21.51 O 。 O 55.91 0.54 11.29* 34.是1 15 10.22 2.15 2.69 9.14 22.。是 8.06 O 38.17 2.69 1.61 2.15 16 。* 1.61 0.54 11.83* 44.62* 6.99 30.65 1.08 1.08 6.99 O 17 8.06 詣，能 0.5是 5.91 30.65 5.91 1.61 0.5是 1.08 37.‘63 3.76 18 5.91 5.91 9.14 1.61 1.08 O O 6.45 25.27 32.息。* 18.28 19 2.15 2.15 O 2日 5 45.70 2.69 15.05 3.23 2.15 39.78* 。.54 20 0.54 10.75 22.58 1.08 O 61.83 1.61 么 15 O 21 0.5是 54.30 0.5是 5.91 12.90 0.5是 o 0.54 0.54 62.37 O 22 3.76! 6.99 2.69 27紛 45.16 1.08 O 10.22* 1.61 O 0.5是 23 32.26 告.68* 。均是 19.89 9.68* O O 2.69 14.52 11.29 7.53* 2是 3.23 I 0.5是 4.30 8.06 。.54 O O 的1.11 8.60 18.82 2.69
4J
2. The Major &0討ng Categories
When the frequency of occurrence of each of these major factors are entered in the scoring blank designed by Rosenzweig, it becomes convenient to calculate the percentages of each of the types of responses as wel1 as the directions of aggression of an individua1. Their central tendencies are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Direction of Aggression an是 Types of Reaction of Chinese Subjects
|-Jfl「1
FEMALE 5至.eaction t Mean S.D. 一 E fd 35.84 1氣。5 33.11 13.19 1‘77 1 ;:'0 37.40 10.53 是 1.36 10.25 3.45*** M~b 28.30 10.20 26.95 8.95 1.24 O 如 D% 16.72 8.93 16.44 8.94 0.27 E豆"。于五 52.25 9.66 51.60 9.11 0.60 N-P:.'a 32.88 11.83 33.60 11.29 0.55紳*Differ日nceStatistically significant at P<O.OI level
Since the scores of male and female subjects are listed together, one can see
c1ear1y that there is no significant sex difference in all but one of the six factors. The only exception is that gir1 tend to give more intropunitive responses when they are frustrated. Bernard (1949) once found that a greater degree of outwarded aggression is attributed to the male than to the female. The same tendency is found in the present study but the difference is not statistically significant.
Table 4. Reactions of Chinese vs. American Norms by Rosenzweig
Chinese Americans Reaction t 其fean S.D. Mean S.D. Male subjects E,.: 35.84 14.05 45 13.3 一 6.14寧寧* 1 ~b 37.46 10.53 28 8.25 8.96*** MJ0 28.30 10.20 27 9.45 1.21 。 -D~~ 16.72 8.93 20 7.8 3.55*** E-D,.;; 52.25 9.66 53 11.3 1.08 N 呵 P~& 32.8B 11.83 27 10.3 是.在1*** Female subjects E% 33.11 13.19 45 13.1 一說 12*** 1 ~G 是1.36 10.25 28 6.6 15.33寧寧* M,,, 26.95 8.95 28 10.2 1.11 O-D% 16.44 8.9是 22 8.1 … 6.54*** E-DJ~ 51.60 9種 11 52 10.2 O.矗立 N-P;:,6 33.60 11.29 26 10.3 7.06***
3. Comparison of the Data of Present Study with the Resul鞠 Found in Other Culture.s
To investi紋ate the possible cultural difference in reactions to frustration, wè have compared the results of the present study with Rosenzweig's normative data
(1947) and those reported by Jaþanése researchers (SumÍ俑， et al. 1957).
ln Table 4, it is indicated that Chinese boys show definitely less extrapunitive and more intropunitive responses to frustrating situations than their American counterparts. Meanwhile
,
Chinese boys seem to be signi宣cantly Iess occupied by the obstacles or barriers than Americans, but they are more need-persistent than the latter. These trends exist among the female subjects 我s well.The data of this study háve also been compared with the norms of Japanese subjects established by Sumita and his associates (Table 5). Sigr諒我cant difference is found in almost every category between scores of Chinese and those of Japanese. Chinese people, in gener剖， give less extrapunitive and impunitive responses, but more intropunitive ones to frustrating situations. Unlike Japanese subjects, Chinese university students do not put so much emphasis on obStàcles they confront with
,
but tend to be more persistent in regard to need-fulfi lIr闊的 Chinese girls, in general,
do not give so many ego-defensive responses as Japanese women do.Table 5. Reactions of Chinese Students vs. Japanese Norms
Chinese ]anpanese Reaction t Mean S.D. 孔，lean S.D. Male subjects E% 35.8是 14.05 垂0.3 13.1 … 3.47*** 1% 37.是§ 10.53 27.0 7.92 11.12*** M% 28.30 10.20 33.1 7.70 一 5.17*學* O 輛 D% 16.72 8.93 2哇.8 9.6。 … 7.岳王*** E 悔。?互 52.25 9.66 51.3 10.00 1.07 了句 -P% 32.88 11.83 23.1 11.3 7.08.*. Fema1e subject海 E ，~ 33.11 13.17 35.8 13.3 且是3* 1 ~~ 是1.36 10.25 30.8 7.32 吟。6.*. M~'; 26.95 8.95 3么? 9.20 - 7.酌*** Q-D% 1 6.是4 8.94 2β.5 9.43 9.29*** E-D% 51.06 9.11 54.7 10.1 一 3.95." N-P%, 33.60 11.29 21.7 11.1 12.61"'''
"'Difference statistically significant at P<O.05 level.
制*Difference 泌的 isticaIIy significant at P<O.∞1 level.
4. 四J.e Analy咐。.f Sub.Scores
Rosenzweig has suggeste往 nine main scoring categories and their meaning can be easily ShOWD in the iollowing box:
4B
Extrapunitive Intropunitive Impunitive
Obstac1令。ominant 怒， l' M'
Ego. Defensive E E M
Need.Persistent e 1 m
For the present study, the mean of these scores are given in Table 6 along with Rosenzweig's normative data.
A quick glance of Table 6 reveals that 話， 1 and M have about the same m統g
nitude. This indicates that in defending onese話， only one third of the responses
tend to be aggressive toward external objects while in majority of the cases, either the blame is directed toward oneself or the frustration is glossed over and the expression of aggression is evaded.
Table 6. The Sub.category Scores of Chinese and Americans Subjects
其fALE FEMALE
且丸Cd l，;. LIUn
Chinese U.S. t Chinese U.S. t
E' Mean 2.31 2.0 1.76* 2.26 2.2 0.41 S.D. 1.50 1.39 1.50 1.48 E 孔fean 4.50 6.6 … 7.48*** ι。是 6.5 一 9.91*** S.D. 2.35 1.39 2.28 2.75 e 其fean 2.37 2.0 2.52* 么 19 1.8 么83** l' Mean 1.垂8 1.3 1.58 1.42 1.3 1.21 S.D. 1.10 1.97 1.09 0.87 I Mean 3.81 2.在 7.83*** 是.嗨 2.6 10.21'"粵* S.D. 1.是6 1.37 1.66 1.18 i 游fean 4.但 2.6 7.69*** 5.19 2.6 13.15*** M' Mean 〈已78 1.4 一 6.61*"'* 。.78 1.6 一 9.23"''''''' S.D. 0.81 1.06 0.75 1.05 M Mean 4.78 3.2 8.15"''''''' 4.70 3.1 9.27"'*'" S.D. 187 1.65 1.76 1.71 m Mean 1.81 1.8 O.儡 1.35 1.學 2.19* S.D. 1.14 1.25 1結 1.23
'" Difference signiftcant at P<0.05 level. ** Difference signiftcant at P<0.01 level. "''''''' Differ.仰ce signific晶晶t at P<0.OO1 level.
In an attempt to overcome the frustration
,
Chinese people tend to lay most of the responsibi1ities upon themselves; thus it is noticeably higher 'i' than both 'e'and 'm', In al1 the間 cases， significant di宜erence exists between Chinese and
Ame-rican subjects.
5. ComparÌ帥n with Re齡nons of a Delinquent Group
The P.F Test has also been given to 163 delinquent boys of a reformatory school. Their scores are compared with those of university students. Contrary to general belief, the delinquents are not different significantly from the students in
concerned, simi1arity seems to be more impressive than the difference which occurs only in the case of ego-defensiveness (Table 7).
Table 7. Reactions of University Students Compared with those of Delinquents and Criminals
Students 。elinquents Reactions Mean S.D. 其是ean S.D. E% 35.84 14.05 34..79 13.81 0.6生 1% 37.46 10.53 3底是8 10.92 … 0.80 M% 滋包30 10.20 28品 9.83 - 0.0是 O-D% 16.72 8.93 18.32 7.62 一 1.60 E-D% 52.25 9.66 49.55 11.07 2.21* N-P% 32.88 11.83 33.66 10.51 0'53 .~
* Difference significant at P <0.05 level.
DISCUSSION
1. ApplicabiIity of the P-F Test among Chin棚e Sl1bjeets
Although this is the 的rst study for the application of the P-F Test in Chin札
all the students who took the test appeared to enjoy it and were very cooperative during its administration. With an exampleωits front page, the Test can be given with simple instruction. This test was also included in a battery with other instruments such as CPI, TAT, and Progressive Matrices Test for Chinese Family Study Program*. The tests were given to a sample of general population in Taipei.
It w的 found that the P-F was the best weIcomed test. Hence, there seems no problem in using this test in China provided a local norm can be established.
2. 如le Problem績。f Cul個ral Fae切，rs
The result~ of the present study is found different signi益cant1y from the norma-tive data provided by Rosenzweig. This is not at alI surprising because of the existed cultural differences. The P.F Test is not a culturaHree instrument and in fact, it seems to be very sensitive to culturaI factors. Lyon and Vinacke (1955)
found that Hawaiians react to P.F different from the
“
mainland" Americans. McCary (1956) aIso noticed that there are differences in both the direction of aggression and in the types of responses between Northern and Southern Ameri-cans. He then suggested that“
separate normative data should be obtained for various geographic訟， racial and sex groups". If differences exist within the Am抄rican culture it認lf， one would naturally expect even greater difference between American subjects and Chinese people.
We all realize that to all human beings
,
fru封閉tion is an essential and usual experience. What we are primary concerned with is not the frustration itself, but one'5 reaction to it. In most cas忍心 su.ch reactions are learned and 50 cu1tural1y45
determined. Among the traditional teachings of Chinese classics, a good deal of emphasis has been given to frustration tolerance. It is generally thought that a great man is brought up through hardships and frustrations. This concept is best il1ustrated in a paragraph said by 挺encius:
“Shun rose from among the channelled 食elds. Fu Yueh was called to 0斑ce
from the midst of his bui1ding frames; Chiao-ko from his fish and salt; Kwan I-wu from the bands of his gaoler; Sun-shu Ao from his hiding by the sea shore; and Pai-Ji Hsi from the market place."
“
Thus,
when Heaven is about to confer a greet 0葫ce on any man,
it fir前 exer“ ci的 s his mind with suffering, and his sinews and bones with toil. It exposes his body to hunger, and subjects him to extreme poverty. It confounds his undertakings. By all these methods it stimulates his mind仇 hardens his nature,
and suppli的 his incompetencies."....
“
From these things we see life springs from sorrow and calamity,
and death from ease andpleasu 吉思" (Mencius,
Bk. 4, Pt. 2, Ch. 15.)Deeply infiuenced by this philosophy
,
Chinese people have long been encouraged to tolerate frustrations as much as they can.τhis may explain at least partly the low percentage of Q-D in this study. Chinese people . are often taught torestrain themselves from blaming others because it has been said that“
The superior man does not murmur against Heaven, nor grudge against men." (Mencius, Bk. 2, Pt. 2,Ch. 14.) Thus they tend to be less extrapunitive and consequently
,
they show a greater trend in directing their aggression inwardly against themselves.According to Mencius
,
when a great man. is treated with perverse and unrea. sonable manner,
all he would 徒。 is to turn round upon himself,
examining if he is wanting in benevolence or in propriety. (接encius， Bk. 4, 1九 2， Ch.28.) Self examÍ' nation has been very much emphasized in Chinese philosophy. Tseng-tzu, one of Confucius' diciples, once said that he daiIy examined hi鈴self on three points: faithfulness in working for others,
sincerity to friends,
and deligent in lessons. (Analects,
Bk. 1.). Trained in this manner,
it s旱的ns. understandable that Chinese subjects are more intropunitive than 電vesterners.3. Test ResuIt惡為s Predietors of Overt Behavior
The fact that in this study, no difference has been foúnd between the university students and the delinquents is worth noticing. People often expect that the delir
vior. This is what test validity means. The question whether the P-F Test is a satisfactory predictor to overt behavior has been studied by several researchers. A review of their studies seems to yield unfavorable conclusions.
Mehlman and Whiteman (1955) studied the relationship between three pictures of the P都F and their corresponding behavior situations. They found that the corre-lations were such as could be secured on a chance basis alone. Holzberg and others
,
(1951,
1兮52) after having found no recognizable patterns of reactions to fru. strations in delinquents and criminal population. concluded that the P-F Test does not appear to be related to aggressions in overt behavior. lnstead,
the Test seems to be a measure of fantasied aggression. Winfield and Sparker (1953) made a study on those who attempted suicide and found that those subjects were not more intro竭pttnitive th 在n controls. This again is contrary to general belief.
Like those abovementioned scholars, the present author is also somewhat pessi. mistic in regard to the use of p. F Test as a predictor of overt behavior. ln deve. loping the P-F Test, Rosenwzeig fe1t that it could be used as a projective test and that a subject would identîfy himself with the frustrating figure in the cartoon. That is certainly possible
,
but cannot be guaranteed. There is also a chance that the subject may identify with the frustrator instead. Or the reaction is made as partly a result of reasoning instead of an unconscious process of projection. ln the 'case of Rorschach or T A T,
the subject usually does not know the significance of his responses nor the way that they are interpreted. Hence, he has no way to control his responses and the chance of faking is therefore limited. But the car. tòons in the P.F Test are not so ambiguous as the inkblot惡 and So the desirability of ones responses is not thoroughly covered.ln other words,
the factor of social âésirability is not wel1 controlled. The subjects than would have a' tendency to react in such a way that is acceptable to himself according to the social standard. It would be natural for Chinese people to give more I's and less E's in test situa. iions. .ln everyday life situation,
things wi1l be different as frustration often would arouse emotional reaction which require some way of relief; and aggression would be a quick outlet. Hence, one would expect more aggressive responses in actual life situations是?
∞ntrolIed. They may not accept wi1lingly the moral and behavioral standard set by the authorities, but -often they will try to impress the latter that they are
“
reformed" or well.behaved. In the P.F Te仗， they will give social1y acceptable responses just as normal subjects or even do it 1n an exaggerate manner. Thus People do not find difference between the delinquent and 錄。rmal subject and some. times the difference is in revers♀ with what is expected. lt is therefore thought that the P.F Test would not be a useful instrument for either prediction or diagnosis of delinquent behavior.SUMMARY
1. A revised form of Rosenzweig's P.F Test has been given to 320 Chinese university students. The general tendency of their responses are analysed accord. ing to the procedure suggested by Rosenzweig.
2. It is found that females subjects show greater tendency on intropunitiveness.
Besides this
,
however,
there is no sex difference conceming the responses tofrustrationg situations.
3. The male students do not differ from subjects in reformatory schools in either the direction of aggression or in the {ypes of responses except that the normal group show greater ego.defensive tendencies.
4. The reactions of Chinese subjects are greatly different from the norms
estabIished by Rosenzweig and those published by ]apanese scholar惡﹒ Chinese
subjects are far more intropunitive-:and significantly less extrapunitive when they are confronted with frustrating situations. It is suggested that such differences are due largely to cultural factots. Becausé of cultural dîfferences in responses to
P.F Test, norms for various cu1tural groupsare necessary. However, the Test
does nof seem to be a very valid preditor ofrela:ted overt behavior. REFERENCES
(1) ALLPORT, CORDON 可.，.，.， .Bl主 UNE況， J. 忌， and J ANDORl司， E. 1\吼:“Penìonality lJnder Social CataQtrophe: Ninty Life Hístorie3 of the Nazi Revolution" in Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Murray, eds. Pers'Jnality in Naturé, Society and Culture, 2nd rev. ed., New York, Alfred A. Knopf. Inc., 1953, pp. 是36-455.
(2) BERNARD. JACK 人 The Rosenzweig Pícture“Fru3tration Study: 1. Norms, Reliabìlity, and Sta~isticatEvaluation. l Psychol., 19唾兮， 鉤， 325-332.
(3) DOLLAJ主兮， J吋 DOBB, L. W ~ MILLE聾， N.E刊 MOWR您認， O. H. and S3AR5. R. 1ζ Frustrati胡 。揖d Aggression, New York, Yale UnÍv告rsity Pre:::s, 1939.
(是) FRY. FRANKL YN D.: A Study of Re在ction1 to Frustrations 約 235 CoIIege Students and in
2的 Inmates of State prísons. J. Psyc.%o/. 19蛾 28. 甚27-í38.
(5) HOLZB自良心 J. D. and HAHt哥， F.: The Picture.Frustration Technique aQ a Measure of Hostility and Guilt Re單位 ion3 in Adole:Jcent Psycho;Jaths. Amer. J. Orthoþsychiß止. 1952, 22. 776-795.
(6) HOLZB弓絞G，J. D. an:i P05咒發控， 1記 T;le J乏必ationJhips.of ElCtra]lunitiven3:Js on the Rosenz.
weig Picture-Frustration Study to Aggre:J3Ìon in Overt Behavior an丑 Fantasy. Amer. J. Orthoþsychi!1t., 1951， 鈕. 767-779.
(7) KARLIt哇， LAWRENCE and SCHWARTZ, MIL'I、ON M.: Social and General Intelligence ancl Performance on the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study. J. consult. PSJ悅。1吋 1953，我 293-296.
(8) LAGGE, J兔絲路 The Chinese Classics: 1. Confucian Analect器" 2. The work of lVIenciu!1.
( 9) LYON, WILLIAl\產品nd VINACK茗，就 EDGAR: Picture-Frustration Study Responses of Insti. tutionaliz酷d and Non-institutionalized 諒。ysin HawaiL J. soc. Psychol., 1955， 徊， 71“83.
(10) MCGARY, J. L.: Picture-Frustration Study Normative Data for Some Cultural and Racial Groups. J. clin. Psychol., 1956, 18, 19令195.
(11) MEIlL:MAN, B日N]AMIN and WHITEMAN, STEPHEN LEE.: The Relationship between Certain Pictures of the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study and Corresponding Behavior Situa. tions. J. clin. Psychol., 1955， 正1， 15-19.
(12) MILLER, N. E. : The Frustration-Ag，發ression }主 ypothesis. Psychol. Rev., 1941, 48, 337-342.
(13) NORM.t\L, RALPH D. and KLEINFELD, C終決ALD J.: Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study Results with Minority Group Juvenile Delin這uents. J. Gzn. Psychol., 19弱，紹， 61-67. (1是) Ros路立的IG， 5.: Ne錯-Persistive and Ego-defensive Reactions 論如必tration as Demon.
strated by an Experiment on Repression. Psycho., Rev吋錯. 1941 ，給弘349.
(15) ROSENZWEIG，怠， FLEMING, E. 缸.， and CLARK話，日. J.: Revised Scoring Manual for the R03enzweig Picture不rustration Study. J. Psychol., 1947， 鈕. 165-208.
(16) SmUTA, KATSUM.I, KATSUZO HAYAS間. and TSUYOSHl ICHITANI.: Rl?vised MrJmω101 P.F
Study (in JψanesíJ). 1957.
(17) WIKFIELD. DON L. and SPARKER, P.J.: Pre1iminary R雪port of the Ros思nzweig P.F Stlldy in Attempted Suicides. J. clin. Psychol.. 1953, 9, 379-383.
我圓大學生對于挫折情境反應的分折
黃 駱 l學
擒 單草
本研覽館和用錢嗨，報單緊接雅克足 (S. Rosenzweig) m囑 Picture-Frustration Study (畫畫
稱 P-F Test) 接討發潰，大學生警告於盤折躊撓的紋路情潑。 車產主乏宮、為控訴情纜，每嘉軒起攻擊盤}5l.J!.麓，豆豆賞了旁聽三三種倩影一為「黨入反麟 J (攻擊說譴責 權入或丹真事務) ;一為 f 瓷己反應 J (51咎於己說內嘆之感) ;一為「免費反麒 J (智清遇控訢 探不加追究懿斐) 0 問時提i文躊兮兮蹺寶說為搔瞬時獵存在;說即重觀自尊心志防衛;直立即力求捕 敘指妞，藉可滿足本身帶瓣。 本研究進行時，曾先將織氏之 P-F Test 依照枝頭.社會文化情品宇間修訂，建名為「修訂通 欄對話反應圖偷 J 其中起合卡蘊式闡謹二十八鵝， (驗總民服者測驗新增閥緒，梅新增者之分析未 知本報告內)。受黨會聽我聽犬學生320人，其反鸝純依照盤氏龍骨之三令式予取至于智。 報攘本研究買得轄槳，我擴女盤犬學生辯護現之3毫毛主鼓藤較勢住處多;推除此之舟，車p無其通 籲導能銓豆豆美翼。 這注2守主客研霓立結果與韓氏所提悔之藥頁常種友說本學會E奇觀音了之自本常攝相比較時:我圈六學 生掛喜是現之 f 實己 }5l.Jj醫 J 麗質驗為多;而「責人灰廳 J 間接奮較為低。此種差別，很係提文化底黨之影 髒。碧藍我間向崇「京如咒， ::F，三令人 J 觀念，遇有挫折，恆混臥「反求諸己 J 搗毀樹立;如是對逆境 月8 有順受之反應。 本研究中骨且同一轉驗論之提銜，立移E盟少年輔育館之學及監野之史無j人，聽聽說離z Jil:J!.麗與 男體火學生無聽著差異; ~後一，鍛六學生之間設話衛l支撐，稍高掰 Bo 成與菩λ 野黨斜苦學三拉著農符告。該 議此議結果，吾人位可推華聲:聽氏之 P-Fì起j議說不食;當作碧藍錢鑽章:丹衰朽為之主 o
