Person. m/i&l. Diff Vol 3. pp. 43 to 51. 1982 0191-8869.82 010043-09503 00 0 Printed in Great Brnam All nghts reserved Copyright 0 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd

PSYCHOTICISM, SOCIAL DESIRABILITY AND SITUATION SELECTION

ADRIAN FURNHAM*

Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford. South Parks Road. Oxford OX1 3UD, U.K.

(Receiced 5 June 1981)

Summary~Previous research on personality and activity preference has shown that extraverts have a significantly and meaningfully different pattern of activity preference from introverts. This finding was also true of high and low neurotics but not to the same extent. This study was designed to see whether the traits of psychoticism and social desirability are also related to situational selection. Subjects from a large group were divided first into high P and low P scorers. and then high L and low L scorers. They indicated how much time they had spent in leisure situations over the past week; rank ordered their preferences for activities related to some of Murray’s major needs and presses; rated their choice or avoidance of other abstractly described situations; and then stressful, anxiety-provoking, social situations. It was shown that both psy- choticism and social desirability are related to situation selection in meaningful and predictable ways. The implications for personality assessment are considered.

INTRODUCTION

Although a great deal of effort has recently been put into demonstrating the effects of the social and physical environment on behaviour (Endler and Magnusson, 1976) it has been argued that people seek out or change certain social situations, which reflect their per- sonality and needs (Argyle et al., 1981).

There is a fairly substantial literature concerned with preference for jobs, educational establishments, leisure pursuits, social relationships etc., which supports the point that a person’s pattern of choice and avoidance of certain situations reflects their personality. Certain individual differences have been investigated empirically with regard to their usefulness in predicting a person’s situational approach-avoidance behaviours. Christie and Geis (1970) have demonstrated that individuals high and low in Machiavellianism seek out different social situations to achieve their ends. Similarly Snyder (1981) has shown that high and low Self-Monitors seek out and avoid certain situations which best fit their interpersonal style. He argued that:

“the influence of individuals on their social situations suggests it may be possible to characterize individuals in terms of the social world that they construct for themselves to habitate.” (p. 8)

Furnham (1981) considered the established personality factors of Extraversion and Neur- oticism and demonstrated considerable differences between individuals on each extreme of both dimensions in their choice of leisure activities, needs-press activities and stressful situations. Extraversion, more than neuroticism, seemed to be an important determi- nation of situation selection. Extraverts appear to seek out stimulating social situations including those which involve assertiveness, intimacy and competitiveness, more than introverts; while neurotics tend to avoid situations involving competition and social interaction. This is of course to be expected given that the concept of extraversion is based on the construct of arousal (Eysenck, 1970).

Different experimenters have developed related theoretical constructs, and assessment instruments, stemming from the concept of levels of arousal or optimum levels of stimu- lation. Without doubt the most thoroughly investigated and validated is the Extraver-

* Present address: Department of Psychology. University College London, Gower Street. London WCIE 6BT. U.K.

43

44 ADRIAN FURNHAM

sion-Introversion factor of Eysenck (1970) which has been found to be both a stable and important aspect of individual differences (Eysenck and Eysenck. 1969). However there are various other related constructs. Mehrabian (1977, 1978) developed two measures of arousal which he called ‘arousal-seeking tendency’ and ‘screening’. The latter divides people into ‘screeners’ who are prone to become over-aroused in high-information rate situations and hence avoid them, and ‘non-screeners’ who are more arousable and seek out high-information rate situations. Mehrabian (1977) has maintained that this factor reveals individual differences in behaviours ranging from tolerance of stress to preference for drugs. Similarly Zuckerman (1978) has developed the sensation-seeking construct which has attracted a great deal of research by himself and others (Blankstein, 1978: Segal, 1973; Zuckerman ef al., 1978). High sensation-seekers like extraverts and non- screeners clearly choose to interact in situations that have an aspect of thrill and excite- ment, with a wide range of stimulus sensations, whereas low sensation-seekers. like introverts and screeners, actively avoid these situations. preferring those with a minimum of external stimuli.

A number of attempts have been made to look at the relationship between these obviously related constructs. Mehrabian (1977) found a significant negative (r = - 0.54) correlation between Neuroticism and stimulus screening but surprisingly no correlation (r = 0.01) between Extraversion and screening. However the relationship between Psy- choticism (P scale) and Social Desirability (L scale) was not studied. Studies comparing the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) and the Sensation-Seeking scale have found significant but fairly low correlations between Extraversion and Sensation Seeking, but nonsignificant correlations between Neuroticism and Sensation Seeking (Farley and Far- ley, 1970; Bone and Montgomery, 1970). Similarly Farley (1967) found no relationship between the L scale and Sensation Seeking. Eysenck and Zuckerman (1978) compared the four dimensions measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and the Sensation-Seeking scale in both American and British samples. They found that the various dimensions of Sensation Seeking were positively correlated with Extraversion and Psychoticism, and to some extent the Lie-scale scores, but not Neuroticism.

Hence it appears that both the P and L scale from the EPQ may be useful in determin- ing individuals’ situation selection. In view of the description of the high P scorer as a

solitary troublesome, cruel and insensitive person it may be expected that this type of person would have a different pattern of activity preference than a low P scorer. Similarly high L scorers who might be described as defensive and have high social desirability needs are likely to seek out situations which best fulfil those needs while those with low L scores might not deliberately seek out these situations. Yet it would appear that very little work has been done on psychoticism, social desirability and situation selection.

This study was therefore designed for three reasons. Firstly to establish whether there is a coherent and meaningful pattern of differences in preferences for a wide variety of social situations between those scoring high and low on both the Psychoticism and Lie scales. Secondly to determine whether these differences exist for situations which subjects had previously actually taken part in as well as hypothetical situations in which subjects anticipated interacting. Thirdly to determine whether these differences are apparent using stimulus situations described at various levels of abstraction from fairly specific to abstract-dimensional descriptions. A number of specific hypotheses were formulated after factor analysis of the scales used. However, the general hypothesis is that there will be a number of meaningful and significant differences between the social situations that high and low scorers on the P and L scales select and avoid.

Subjects

METHOD

In all there were 130 subjects drawn from three populations: 91 female second-year occupational therapy students (Mean age 20.0 yr, SD 3.2); 35 female second-year nursing students (Mean age, 21.1 yr, SD0.8); and 4 female polytechnic students (Mean age

21.0 yr, SD 4.0). All nature of the study.

The questionnuire

Psychoticism. social desirability and situation selection 4s

subjects were paid volunteers who were later debriefed as to the

The questionnaire was divided into five sections. (LI) The Eysenck Personulity Questionnaire (I 975). This 90-item, yes/no questionnaire

provides 4 scores per subject-Neuroticism, Extraversion, Psychoticism and Lie scale. (h) The Leisure Scale. A 21-item scale derived from the Opinion Research Corporation

study (1962) and Neulinger’s (1978) review of the psychology of leisure, which required subjects to report how much time they had spent in each leisure activity during the previous week.

(c) The Free Time Activity Scale. A 9-item rank order preference scale devised by Neulinger and Raps (1972) and based on the work of Murray (1938) and his needs-press construct.

(rl) A Social Situation Scale. A 30-item scale, piloted for this study, asking subjects to what extent they choose or avoid situation types-described primarily in terms of a major adjective and derived from dimension labels used in other studies (Argyle et al., 1981).

(e) A Stressfill Sitwtion Inventory. A 15-item scale devised and used by Furnham and Argyle (1978) asking subjects to indicate the extent to which they seek out and avoid stressful social situations.

Procedure

The questionnaire was administered in small groups of 15-20 people in the presence of an experimenter. The questionnaire which was completed anonymously took approxi- mately 1 hour to complete.

RESULTS

The results were analysed in three stages:

1. Firstly. it was decided to select equal groups scoring high and low on each of two independent variables; P and L on the EPQ. The mean and standard deviation of the psychoticism scale (Mean = 3.33, SD = 2.70) and the Lie scale (Mean = 5.26, SD = 2.92) were calculated. These results are similar to those reported by Eysenck and Eysenck (1975) who tested 1366 females between the ages of 20 and 29 (Psychoticism mean = 2.79, SD = 2.41; Lie-scale mean = 7.17, SD * 3.85). It was decided to use 0.5 of the standard deviation, rather than the mean to establish groups (Furnham, 1981). Thus subjects with a score of 7 and above were allocated to the High Psychoticism group, and those with a score of 0 to the Low Psychoticism group. Similarly those with a Lie-scale score of 8 and above were allocated to the High Lie group, and those with a score of 1 or 0 to the Low Lie group. Subjects were placed in either group and then discarded ran- domly until the two groups were of equal number. Thus 30 subjects were retained for analysis of the P data. and a different 30 subjects for the L data. The mean for the High Psychoticism group was 8.1 and 0 for the Low Psychoticism group. The mean for the High Lie group was 9.1 and 0.2 for the Low Lie group. The correlation between Psycho- ticism and Lie scale was then calculated and found to be nonsignificant and low (r = 0.09).

2. Secondly because of the large number of items in the Leisure scale (20) and the Social Situation scale (30) and the Stressful Situation Inventory (15) they were factor analysed using a varimax rotation. The Free Time Activity scale was not treated to a principal components analysis as it had only nine items which were rank ordered. Because of the possible instability of the factor solution due to the relatively small N, the factor analyses were done on the total populations data, and factor scores determined for the subjects though further analysis was performed on only those subjects who scored high and low on the P scale and L scale. A scree test was used to determine the main

46 ADRIAN FURNHAM

factors from each of the varimax rotations. Further, although four different independent scales were used, which each required a different format of response ranging from esti- mating the amount of time devoted to each activity over the previous week, to rank ordering activity preferences, it is likely that they were not totally independent of each other (Furnham, 1981). Hence a correlation was calculated between the first factor scores derived from each of the three factor analysed scales. The correlations were between 0.3 and 0.5 ranging from nonsignificant to significant at the 0.01 level, which indicates some similarity between the dependent measures. Nevertheless, as each scale had a different set of social situations described at different levels, each was able to more fully describe the relationship between the chosen personality variables and situation selection.

(N) The Leiswe scale

Table 1 shows the results for the factor analysis of the Leisure scale. Three factors were retained (with an eigenvalue of above 1.50) which together account for nearly 457; of the variance. The first factor seemed to involve primarily reading or watching and was labelled Passite Pursuits, while the second factor involved various activities and was labelled Media Actirities. The third factor seemed to involve specialized activities and was labelled Accdernic Interests. It was predicted that high P scorers would participate significantly more in the first and second types of leisure activity and significantly less in the third type than low P scorers. Similarly it was predicted that high L scorers would participate significantly more in the first and second types of leisure activity and signifi- cantly less in the third activity. than low L scorers. These predictions were made on the basis of the descriptions of typical people, responding either high or low on the P and L scale.

Table 2 shows the results for the Social Situations scale factor analysis. The first three factors (with eigenvalues above 2.50) accounted for nearly 35”/, of the total variance. The first factor was labelled Spontanrous because of the loading of such items as inconsistent

and unorganized. The second factor was called Stable because of the predictable and simple nature of the situation types loading on it. Finally the third factor was labelled Form~lntric~~te because of the loading on complex and skilful.

It was predicted that high P scorers would choose the first type of situations signifi- cantly more, and the second and third type significantly less, than low P scorers. Similarly it was predicted that high L scorers would seek out the first type of situation significantly more than those scoring low on the L scale, though the reverse for the second and third type of situations.

(c) The Stressfir Sitwtion Inr~entor~3

Table 3 shows the results for the Stressful Situation factor analysis. Three factors (with eigenvalues above 1) which accounted for nearly 40”, of the variance were retained. They were labelied Assertiveness. Counselling,fEntertuining and Focus of Attention, respectively. because of the items loading on them. It was predicted that those scoring high on the P scale would actively avoid all these situations significantly more than those scoring low on this scale.

3. Thirdly. a one-way ANOVA was calculated using the subjects high and low groups of factor scores, and each of the press variables in the Free Time Activity scale.

(0) Lei.swe .sc~~le

Only one of the three ANOVAs revealed significant differences between subjects high and low on the P scale. High P subjects participated significantly more in media activi- ties (Factor 2. F = 4.70, P < 0.05) than subjects who scored low on the P scale. Neither the other factors ANOVAs yielded significance (Factor 1, F = 1.14, N‘S: Factor 3, F = 0.39. NS).

Psychoticism, social desirability and situation selection 47

Table 1. Factor analysis (Varimax) results for the Leisure scale for the total population

Factor Item Loading* Eigenvaluet Variance

(%)

Passive 4. Reading magazines 0.47 4.89 24.5 pursuits 5. Reading books 0.60

6. Listening to records 0.69 14. Going to the movies 0.61 16. Going to dances, discos, parties 0.49

Media 1. Watching television 0.69 1.81 9.1 activities 3. Gardening 0.56

4. Reading magazines 0.50 7. Going pleasure driving -0.57

18. Going to lectures or talks 0.44

Academic interests

9. Special hobbies-collecting, crafts

12. Playing cards, checkers, board games

17. Going to plays, concerts

0.41 1.53 7.7

0.79 0.60

* Items with a loading of 0.4 were retained. t Eigenvalues of the principal components analysis.

Two of the three ANOVAs on the factor scores revealed significant differences between subjects who scored high and low on the L scale. High L subjects participated more in passive pursuits (Factor 1, F = 5.22, P < 0.05) and media activities (Factor 2, F = 9.24, P < 0.01) than Low L subjects. Though the factor scores were in the predicted direction on the third factor, academic interests, the results failed to reach significance (Factor 3, F = 1.78, NS).

(b) Social Situations scale

Two of the three ANOVAs revealed significant differences between subjects who scored high and low on the P scale, both in the predicted direction. High P scorers choose to interact in stable (Factor 2, F = 4.48, P -C 0.05) and formal/intricate (Factor 3, F = 4.40, P < 0.05) situations less than low P scorers. The first factor, spontaneous/ stimulating situations (Factor 1, F = 0.16, NS) failed to yield significant differences between the groups.

The second of the ANOVAs on the three factor scores revealed significant differences between subjects scoring high and low on the L scale. High L scorers appeared to choose stable situations less than Low L scorers as predicted (Factor 2, F = 4.71, P < 0.05). The first and third factors failed to yield significant differences (Factor 1, F = 0.53, NS: Factor 2, F = 0.93, NS).

(c) Stressful Situations scale

Only one of the three ANOVAs revealed significant differences between subjects who scored high and low on the L scale. Subjects scoring high on the L scale attempted to

situations (Factor 1, F = 4.45, P < 0.05) more than Low P subjects. Neither of the other factors ANOVAs yielded significance (Factor 2, F = 0.06, NS: Factor 3, F = 1.58, NS).

The first and third ANOVAs revealed significant differences between subjects who scored high and low on the L scale. Subjects scoring high on the L scale attempted to avoid assertiveness situations (Factor 1, F = 4.31, P x0.05) and situations in which they were the focus of attention (Factor 3, F = 4.09, P c 0.05) less than subjects scoring low on the L scale. The second factor counselling/entertaining revealed no significant differ- ence (Factor 2, F = 0.40, NS).

(d) Free Time Activity scale

Table 4 gives the ANOVA results, which were calculated after it was ascertained that the data met the assumptions of parametric analysis. Only one press (sentience) revealed

48 ADRIAN FURNHAM

barely significant differences between high and low P scorers, while two presses (sentience and understanding) revealed significant differences between high and low L scorers. It is perhaps not surprising that sentience revealed significant differences between the high and low P scorers as it was the most important press for the High Psychoticism scorers, whereas affiliation and nuturance were more important for Low Psychoticism scorers. It

Table 2. Factor analysis (Varimaxl results for the Social Situations scale for the toal population

Factor Item Variance

Loading* Eigenvaluet (“0)

Spontaneous/ I. stimulating

6.

8.

9.

12.

19.

20.

27.

Stable 21.

22.

23.

Formal, Intricate

7.

8.

IO.

13.

I~c~or~.\i.~enr: these are situations which are changing. ever changing from one moment to the next. unpredictable. never quite the same.

O~CW: These are situations that are unenclosed. pubhc. unconfined. undisguised. exposed.

Oryunizrd: these arc situations that have a given and orderly structure. where there are a specific set of arrangements.

St&/e: These are sttuations that are often very sensitive. where one is greatly affected by external expresslons especially those made by the opmions or emotions of others relative to oneself

L’~sual: These are situations that are unfamiliar. extraordinary. usually original. unique, unknown or at least uncustomary.

In/ormtr/: These are situations which are fairly irregular. free. unconstrained. casual: where there are not many rules or conventions. lrzrrinsic: These are situations that are socio-emotionally or activity oriented. and where things are geared towards the activity itself rather than the end product.

C’~~ryunizrd: These are sltuatlons that are not planned, or structured, and where there are no specific arrangements so people can choose to change them if they wish.

Co~tti.srr,~r: These are situations which are regular. constant. always the same. predictable. orderly. and normative.

L’~inro/~d: These are sttuations that do not demand much of one’s attention. that are perhaps fairly superficial, or of passing interest.

Yor Ski@r/: These are situations that do not demand any particular skill or ability. and where one does not need any special knowledge or expertise.

Complru: These are situations that are fairly complicated. intricate. elaborate. having many inter-related parts. roles. and activities.

Oryu~iz~d: These are situations that have a given and orderly structure. where there are a specific set of arrangements.

Srrious: These are sltuattons that are thoughtful. earnest. demanding consideration. Important. and not In any way frivolous or reckless.

Ski&t/: These are sttuatlons that demand some expertness. dexterit) or tact. They are situations where ability, Judgement and Rexibility are necessary to help one.

0.6 I 3.90 13.0

0.48

-0.43

0.53

0.50

0.42

0.56

0.67

0.72 3.12 10.4

0.56

0.75

0.50 2.51 8.4

0.40

0.58

0.75

* Items with a loading of 0.4 were retained. t Eigenvalues of the principal components analysis

Psychoticism. social desirability and situation selection 49

Table 3. Factor analysis (Varimax) results for the Stressful Situations scale

Factor Item Loading* Eigenvaluet Variance

(%)

Assertiveness

Counselling/ entertaining

Focus of attention

1. Complaining to a neighbour 9. Returning an unsatisfactory

article IO. Going to introduce yourself

to neighbours Il. Dealing with a difficult

disobedient child

3. Going for a job interview 5. Going to a funeral of a

close relative 6. Going round to cheer up a

depressed friend 7. Being the host/hostess at

a large party 15. Apologising to a superior for

forgetting an important errand

8. Giving a short formal speech 12. Going to a function with many

people from different cultures 13. Playing party games after

dinner

0.56 3.29 22.0

0.84

0.65

0.55

0.61 1.51 10.1

0.76

0.59

0.46

0.54

-0.59 1.37 9.2

- 0.43

-0.74

* Items with a loading of 0.4 were retained. t Eigenvalues of the principal components analysis.

is interesting to note that High Lie-scale scorers have high needs for nuturance and affiliation and relatively low needs for understanding. Overall however this scale did not distinguish very clearly between the two groups, a finding noted by Furnham (1981).

DISCUSSION

The main objective of this experiment was to determine the relationship between psychoticism and social desirability, as measured on the EPQ. and situation selection. Using groups at either end of these continua it was demonstrated that five of the nine ANOVAs in the case of the L scale and four of the nine ANOVAs in the case of the P scale computed on the factor scores from three different situational selection measures showed significant results, nearly always in the predicted direction. Overall it appears that high P scorers tend to choose unusual, inconsistent, situations requiring assert- iveness where they are able to manipulate people significantly more than low P scorers. High L scorers appeared to choose social simple, informal situations while avoiding those where they are the focus of attention. However the free time activity scale based on some of Murray’s need failed to distinguish between the groups, very extensively.

It therefore appears that the P and L scales, as well as the E and N scales from the EPQ are useful dimensions for predicting situation selection. This result may have been expected from the correlational analysis of Eysenck and Zuckerman (1978) who found significant positive relationships between the P scale and sensation seeking, and a signifi- cant negative relationship between the L scale and sensation seeking.

Furnham (1981) has listed four implications of the finding that certain personality types actually seek out and avoid certain everyday situations. Firstly that the person- situation debate has not taken sufficient cognizance of the functioning of the person variable in determining the situation variable. Secondly in the possible development of assessment techniques that measure personality functioning by assessing situational choice. Thirdly that volunteering subjects for psychological experiments may be of a

particular and not fully representative personality type, and fourthly that knowledge of situational choice may be useful in social skills training. P.A.1.D. 3-D

50 ADRIAN FURNHAM

Table 4. Means of the press of the nine Free Time Activities press variable*

Psychotlclsm F Lie scale F High Low level High Low level

I. Order: This activity gives you a chance to organize and arrange things. It demands precision and neatness. It requires a sense of planning. order and forethought.

2. A~tonotn,~: This activitv allows YOU to do as vou olease I .

regardless of rules and conventions. It provides for adventure, change and independence, involving a minimum of rules.

Senriett~: This activity provides for the engagement of aesthetic feeling and of sensuous impressions. It may mvolve the engagement of one or more of the arts and indulging sensory pleasure.

I!‘,,dcrsrurlding: This activity mvolves retIectlon. thinking. analysing and asking questions. It involves seeking scientific and philosophic truth and an understanding of life.

A~,/tiul.c,,,lrtlt: This activity enables you to tackle a difficult task and to achieve high standards. It offers recognition for your accomplishments. It involves determination and the WIII to succeed.

Se\-: This activity involves forming. furthering sexual relationships. It involves the enjoyment of feelings of love. It provides the opportunity for attracting others and flirting.

Afhlirrtiorl: This activity gives you a chance to be with others and meet new people. It provides the opportunity for co-operation with others and engaging with them in common activities.

.V~rr~tr~c~: This activity gives you the opportunity to help others who are in need and to protect and support them. It may involve being with children or taking care of animals.

Ac,ril-it!: This activity gives you a chance to be on the go. It relieves the feeling of hstlessness and provides for action. It keeps your mind off things because it requires your full attention.

4.60

4.20

6.46

5.33

5.66

6.13

0.45 4.88 5.80 0.67

3.48t 6.20 4.93 2.99*

0.65 7.06 5.83 5.831

0.87 5.26 5.40 0.1 I

I.71 4.86 4.84 0.01

2.24 4.13 3.26 0.78

0.29 3.13 4.00 1.03

0.72 4.86 4.80 0.01

* Low scores Indicate lxgh preference. t P < 0.09: :P < 0.05.

However there appear to be other implications of these findings. It has been shown that the P and L scale of the EPQ related to subjects’ situation selection. What is not certain is which other personality variables are equally able to distinguish between situation selection. Could locus of control, all of the 16 PF variables from Cattell’s Personality Factor Inventory. and repressor-sensitizer scale etc. all prove equally useful in distinguishing between subjects’ situational selection’! Clearly individual difference measures based on the concept of arousal would seem to be able to predict situational selection. yet others based on beliefs (locus of control) or cognitive style (divergent- convergent thinking) may be equally good. Empirical research could answer this ques- tion.

Secondly these results have implications for established personality inventories. A cursory glance over the most well validated and psychometrically assessed personality inventories. including the EPQ, reveals no clear pattern in the number or structure of questions concerning situation selection. For instance. in the EPQ consider questions (1) “Do you have many different hobbies ?“; (25) “Do you like going out a lot?‘, which seem to relate to situational selection. yet are fairly unspecific. Indeed it may be very profitable to provide more situational information in personality inventories in order to increase their external validity. This idea can be found in the work of Murray (19.38) among others who distinguished between needs and presses. It is interesting to note that the layman already appears to believe in the possibility of assessing personality by determin-

Psychoticism. social desirability and situation selection 51

ing situational choice, as evident in most application forms which contain questions on leisure-time pursuits and extra curricular activities.

Finally it should be remembered that situational selection is not due entirely to indi-

vidual differences alone. As Argyle et al. (1981) have shown role relationship, communi- cations, friendship networks and intergroup relations also partly determine a person’s situational selection.

Acknowledgements-I would like to thank Michael Argyle, Donald Broadbent, Gordon Claridge and Jos Jaspars for their comments and criticisms on this research project.

REFERENCES

ARGYLE M., FURNHAM A. and GRAHAM J. A. (1981) Social Situations. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. BLANKSTEIN K. (1978) The sensation seeker and anxiety reactivity: relationships between the sensation seeking

scales and activity preference questionnaire. J. c/in. Psycho/. 31, 677-681. BONE R. and MONTGOMERY D. (1970) Extraversion, neuroticism and sensation seeking. Psycho/. Rep. 26, 974. CHRISTIE R. and GEIS F. (Eds) (1970) Srudies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press, New York. ENDLER N. and MAGNUSSON D. (1976) Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Ps~chol. Bull. 83,

956-974. EYSENCK H. J. (1970) The Structure of Human Personalify. 3rd edn. Methuen, London. EYSENCK H. J. and EYSENCK S. B. G. (1969) Personulify Strucrure und Measurement. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

London. EYSENCK H. J. and EYSFNCK S. B. G. (1975) Ersenck Personaliry Questionmire Manual. Hodder & Stoughton,

London. EYSENCK S. B. G. and ZUCKERMAN M. (1978) The relationship between sensation-seeking and Eysenck’s dimen-

sions of personality. Br. J. Psychol. 69, 483487. FARLEY F. (1967) Social desirability and dimensionality in the sensation-seeking scale. Acta psychol. 26, 8996. FARLEY F. and FARLEY S. (1970) Impulsiveness, sociability and the preference for varied experience. Percepf.

Mor. Skills 31, 47-50. FURNHAM A. (1981) Personality and activity preference. Br. J. sot. PsTchol. 20, 5748. F~RNHAM A. and ARGYLE M. (1978) A social S-R inventory of anxiousness. In Social Situations (Edited by

ARGYLE M., FURNHAM A. and GRAHAM J.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1981). MEHRABIAN A. (1977) A questionnaire measure of individual differences in stimulus screening and associated

differences in arousability. Enoiron. Psycho/. non tierhal Behao. 1, 89-103. MEHRABIAN A. (1978) Characteristic individual reactions to preferred and unpreferred environments. J. Person.

46,717-731. MURRAY H. (1938) Explorcrrions in Person&r?. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. NEULINC~ER J. (1978) Thr Psychology of Leisure. 3rd edn. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. NEULINGER J. and RAPS C. (1972) Leisure attitudes of an intellectual elite. J. Leisure Res. 4, 196-207. OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION (1957) Survey. As described in S. DeGrazia: Of Time, Work und Leisure (1962)

Twentieth Fund, New York. SEGAL B. (1973) Sensation-seeking and anxiety: assessment of response to specific stimulus situations. J. consu/t.

c/in. Psychol. 41, 135-138. SNYDER M. (1981) On the influence of individuals on situations. In Cognirion, Social Interacrion and Personality

(Edited by CANTOR N. and KIHLSTROM J.). Erlbaum. Hillsdale. New Jersey. ZUCKERMAN M. (1978) Sensation-seeking and psychopathy. In Pspchoparhic Behariour (Edited by HARE R. and

SCHALLEY D.). Wiley, New York. ZUCKERMAN M., EYSENCK S. B. G. and EYSENCK H. J. (1978) Sensation seeking in England and America:

cross-cultural age and sex comparisons. J. consult. c[in. Psycho/. 46, 139-149.