A STUDY OF PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BLIND AND SIGHTED CHILDREN

BY HAMED A. S. ZAHRAN. (University of London Institute of Educatzon)

SUMMARY. In the literature there are two different points of view regarding the possible personality differences between the blind and the sighted. The first considers that blindness leads to compensatory behaviour, possibly accompanied by personality maladjustment and introversion. The second implies that in regard to basic personality variables the process of adjustment in blind persons is not significantly different from that of the sighted.

The writer carried out an experiment with matched groups of blind and sighted children to offer quantitative data on this problem. The Williams’ Intelligence Test for Children with Defective Vision and Vernon’s Abstraction Test of Intelligence were used for assessing the I.Qs. For personality assess- ment, the writer prepared a Blind Children’s Structured Interview, a Sentences Completion Test and a Semantic Differential. The Junior Maudsley Person- ality Inventory was also used.

After a pilot study and administration of the tests, the data were analysed and almost all the test results agreed with each other in giving statistically non-significant differences in means in favour of the sighted, thus supporting the second point of view.

I.-INTRODUCTION. PSYCHOLOGICAL guidance is particularly important for blind children. In the present study* one of the main objectives was to develop an understanding of psychological adjustment and counselling of blind children. The writer also attempted to develop personality measures which could be appropriate to testing blind children.

Examining the literature it was found that two different points of view are commonly held regarding the possible differences between the blind and the sighted. The first considers that a physical handicap, such as blindness, will lead to compensatory behaviour possibly accompanied by personality maladjustment or by introversion. This implies that the blind will exhibit a larger number of atypical responses to items of personality adjustment measures than a comparable group of sighted subjects. Examples of studies supporting this trend are by Brown (1938 and 1939), Dean (1958), Jervis (1959), and Dent (1 962).

The second point of view suggests that, in regard to basic personality variables and dimensions, the process of adjustment in blind persons is not significantly different from that of sighted people. Examples of studies support- ing this are by Sommers (1944), Scholl (1953) and Cowen and others (1961).

The writer offers some quantitative data onlthe problem whichrmay help in the psychological guidance of blind children.

II.-THE POPULATION TESTED.

The population of the main study included 100 children in two groups : (1) A group of fifty blind children, (2) A group of fifty sighted children, who were matched for age, sex, I.Q. and socio-economic background according to the father’s occupation.

* For the detailed study, see : ZAHRAN, HAMED A.S., 1964.

329

330 Personality of Blind Children

The age groups of the study were chosen to represent the upper classes of the primary stage and the lower forms of the secondary stage, i.e., from 9 years to 13 years 11 months. The original number of the subjects of the blind sample was eighty-seven, being the whole school population between these ages in an all-age residential school for the blind in Kent. In addition, thirteen children randomly chosen from the Sheffield School for the Blind made a group of 100 blind children. All of them were congenitally blind, educationally blind*, and institutionalized and had no additional or secondary handicaps. Such cases, in fact, represent the majority of blind children of school age.? It was intended that an equal number of sighted children would form the control group of the investigation, however, it was more convenient to keep the controls to fifty children drawn from a primary and a secondary modern school in Middlesex which could be considered one school since they were in the same building, and to select fifty from the blind group using a Table of random numbers. Nevertheless, the original group was found useful in supplying general data about education, attitudes, needs and problems in a structured interview designed for this purpose. The two groups consisted of equal number of both sexes.

III.-THE TESTS The Williams’ Intelligence Test for Children with Defective Vision, which

is the most widely used test throughout this country, was used in testing the intelligence of the blind group (Williams 1956). It includes some items from the Terrnan-Merrill 1937 revision, chiefly from form M, a number from Valentine’s Intelligence Test for children, some from Burt’s Reasoning Tests, a few from group tests, modified slightly for individual testing, and the Vocabulary Tests from Wechsler’s Children’s Scale.

An Abstraction Test of Intelligence, constructed by P. E. Vernon was used in testing the sighted group. It includes a variety of items such as word, letter and number series. The subject is provided with a certain number of dots in each item and is instructed to write the missing letters or numbers wherever he sees a dot, e.g. (1 1 22 33 44 . .). Professor Vernon considers such a test to illustrate Spearman’s eduction of relations and correlates. He also reports that its dependence on g is very high and at the same time its dependence on verbal ability or education is very low.

The writer prepared a “ Blind Children’s Structured Interview ” aiming at obtaining first-hand data concerning each child’s home and family, school, his needs, his interests, his general problems, his adjustment and his attitudes. The interview was conducted in the form of free discussion with the child. Examples of items are :

Do you think that you have more troubles than most blind boys and girls

Do you think that you have more trouble than most sighted boys and

Do you feel ashamed of your blindness ? Would you like some help with your personal troubles ? If you are troubled, to whom would you go for help ? etc.

* The 1944 Education Act defines them as those who have no sight or whose sight is or is likely to become so defective that they require education by methods not involving the use of sight.

t Ministry of Health, 1963, Register of the Blind, National Statistics (England and Wales), London, H.M.S.O.

you know ?

girls you know ?

HAMED A. S. ZAHRAN 331

The Junior Maudsley Personality Inventory (Furneaux and Gibson, 1961) was used to measure extraversion and neuroticism as two dimensions of person- ality, and was given orally.

In view of the dependence of personality inventories on the subjects’ attitudes (Vernon, 1964), the various projective approaches to personality were considered. Pictorial techniques would be inapplicable with blind children, hence it was decided to develop a Sentence Completion Test which could be given orally as a projective test to obtain an overall adjustment score and to locate specific adjustment difficulties within five broad areas of adjustment. Sentence stems were structured around adjustment in the following areas : Home adjustment, Social adjustment, Emotional adjustment, School adjust- ment, and Physical Health adjustment. Examples of the sentence stems are :

This achool ........................ At home .......................... My personal appearance. ............... etc.

In scoring, all the responses were examined and classified into (1) Positive responses indicating healthy adjustment, (2) Negative responses indicating maladjustment, and (3) Neutral responses falling clearly into neither of the above two categories.

The writer also developed a Semantic Differential to give an objective measure of the connotative meaning of ten selected concepts as perceived by the blind and the sighted subjects. This method was developed by Osgood and others (1 952, 1954, 1957 and 1962), for studying the connotative meanings that people apply to different concepts. A subject is given a list of concepts such as myself, my father, school, etc., and asked to rate each one on a series of adjectival scales, e.g. strong vs. weak, quick vs. slow, etc.

Osgood has shown that these ratings can be factor analyzed to reveal the main dimensions which underly the subject’s attitudes to the concepts, and that these can usually be interpreted as : (1) Evaluative, (2) Activity, (3) Potency. Thus it becomes possible to plot each concept on these three main dimensions and to study their relative positions in the subject’s own ‘ semantic space.’ For example he may regard ‘ his self ’ as highly potent but bad, or his ‘ father ’ as ‘ active ’ and ‘ good.’

Ten concepts were chosen to fall in the following areas : Three Home concepts, (Home, My Father, and My Mother), Two School concepts, (Teachers, and Lessons), Two Social concepts, (Parties, and Other Sex), and Three Self-concepts, (My Dreams, Myself Now, and Myself When I’m

Grown Up). Ten scales were also used : good-bad, strong-weak, happy-unhappy, nice- awful, big-little, quick-slow, hot-cold, successful-unsuccessful, interesting-dull, and wise-silly.

Each item (i.e., pairing of a specific concept with a specific scale) presents the following situation : CONCEPT polar term X : - -:- - -:- - -:- - -: - - - : - - - : - - - : polar term Y : in which the scale positions have already been defined for the subjects as : (1) Extremely X (e.g., Very Good).

332 Personality of Blind Children

(2) Quite X (e.g., Quite Good). (3) Slightly X (e.g., Slightly Good). (4) Neither X nor Y, Equally X and Y (e.g., Neither Good nor Bad, Equally

Good and Bad). (5) Slightly Y (eg., Slightly Bad). (6) Quite Y (e.g., Quite Bad). (7) Extremely Y (e.g., Very Bad). Thus, on these scales the subject’s checks indicate both the direction and the intensity of his association.

In testing blind subjects, the writer devised a seven-step wooden scale fixed on a board. The same scale was used with the sighted subjects. It was also found useful to construct ten informative cards which could be fixed easily on the scales and the board. The positive and the negative adjectives of the scales were typed on these cards for the sighted and printed in Braille for the blind. This helped the subject to follow the change in positions of the positive and negative ends of the scales. The subject fixes his fingers on the scale using three fingers of his left hand and three fingers of his right hand. The middle space is left where thumb can be used.

Pilot Study: A brief pilot study preceded giving the tests which the writer had devised ; this resulted in some rearrangement, rephrasing and modification of the tests.

Testing Procedure : In general the tests were given individually in a special room free from noise and interruptions, with no member of the school staff present. Only the Abstraction Test of Intelligence was administered as a group test since it was necessaryzto test all the children in both the primary and the secondary schoo1s:falling in the age range of 9 years to 14 years to choose fifty children among them having equivalent I.Qs. to the blind group. It was difficult to give this test individually since the number of children tested was over 300.

IV.-ANALYSIS OF DATA

Data obtained from the tests were analysed. The Semantic Differential in particular was factor analysed.

On the Junior Maudsley Personality Inventory, the results show that many of the blind subject5 tended to be more introverted than the sighted. The means being 1 1-52 and 12.30. This difference was not statistically significant (C.R. 1.59) There was no significant difference between boys and girl2 in either blind or sighted group. On neuroticism, a larger number of the blind subjects tended to score high. The means being 8-04 and 7-02. This difference in favour of the sighted again was not statistically significant (C.R. 1.59). Taking sex into account, it was found that blind boys as well as blind girls tended to score higher than the sighted. In both groups the girls scored lower on neuroticism than boys. The notion that females tend to score higher than males on neuroticism was not confirmed in this study. Comparing Furneaux’s sample with our two groups we find that the means of our sighted group are almost the same as Furneaux’s on both Extraversion and Neuroticism, whereas the blind group’s mean on Extraversion was lower and their mean on Neuroticism was higher than Furneaux’s sample.

HAMED A. S. ZAHRAN 333

__ Extraversion

Neuroticism

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . t TABLE 1

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF FURNEAUX’S SAMPLE COMPARED WITH OUR Two GROUPS.

Mean S.D.

12-39 3.46

7-35 3.54

___-

I I Furneaux’s sample

Mean

11.52

8.04

S.D. Mean S.D.

2-53 12.30 2.39

3.34 7-02 3.06

-~~~

Bling droup I Sighted group

On the Sentence Completion Test, a larger number of the blind subjects had low scores-indicating that they were less adjusted than the sighted. The means being 6.88 and 8.54. This difference was not significant (C.R. 1-11). With regard to sex, there was no difference between blind and sighted girls. A clear difference was found between blind and sighted boys, the sighted scoring higher than the blind. It is also noticeable that in all the areas except Home adjustment, the blind group means are lower than those of the sighted, especially in the Emotional area.

The data taken from the Semantic Differential were given to the University of London Computor Unit to calculate intercorrelations and principal com- ponents :

(a) for the blind children,

( b ) for the sighted controls.

Having ten variables (i.e., the ten scales), the score matrix for each analysis in fact was 500 x 10.

A score matrix was drawn from each analysis=c x s x n where c=concepts , s=scales, and n=subjects. Each subject provided a complete set of ten judgments on each of ten concepts, one judgment on each scale. Since both subjects and concepts are replicated it was possible to obtain separate matrices of scale intercorrelations for individual subjects (summing over concepts) as well as for individual concepts (summing over subjects). However, €or the purpose of the present analysis of the Semantic Differential scores, it was then decided to sum over both subjects and concepts and to analyse the correlations between the ten scales.

Inspection of the correlational matrix leading to our factor analysis sug- gested the presence of a general factor which made all correlation coefficients positive.

Hotelling’s principal component analysis method was applied to the matrix of correlations. The aim of obtaining principal components is to reduce the meaning of each concept, as conveyed by ten adjectival scales, to a few major dimensions which represent the average attitudes of the subjects.

334

1. Good-bad ............ 2. Strong-weak .......... 3. Happy-unhappy ...... 4. Nice-awful ............ 5. Big-little ............ 6. Quick-slow .......... 7. Hot-cold . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Successful-unsuccessful 9. Interesting-dull ......

10. Wis+silly. ............

Personality of Blind Children

-727 .639 *736 a837 484 *656 .434 .794 -797 4328

Four principal components were extracted from the fust analysis (Blind) and five principal components were extracted from the second analysis (Sighted). However, it was found difficult to interpret the component loadings as they stand without rotation, though certain groupings similar to those claimed by Osgood appeared to be present. Thus the extracted components were rotated into simple structure.

The results for the blind were found to yield different structure from those for the sighted. For the blind, there were three satisfactorily significant factors and the fourth factor did not contribute to the interpretation of the scales, so rotation was confined to the first three. For the sighted, all the five factors were rotated.

In the blind group, the first rotated factor was labelled the General Evaluative Factor. Its high loadings are on good-bad, happy-unhappy, nice-awful, successful-unsuccessful, interesting-dull, and wise-silly. The second factor is an Activity Factor, since the scales which had high loadings on it are big-little, quick-slow, and hot-cold. The third factor appears to be a Potency Factor. The most distinctively loaded scales axe strong-weak, and big-little. Note however, that there is an overlap between the second and the third factors on big-little.

For the sighted group, the first factor was also found to be a General Evaluative one, by listing scales which had high loadings on it, good-bad, happy-unhappy, and nice-awful. A prominent group factor was found to be a Cleverness Factor, the scales which had high loadings on it being successful- unsuccessful, interesting-dull, and wise-silly. This factor could not be separated off in the blind analysis. The third factor was similar to that for the blind, namely a Potency group factor. Scales which had high loadings on it were strong-weak and big-little. The fourth and the fifth factors were found to be more specific. The fourth was an Activity Factor specific to quick-slow. The fifth factor represents another type of Activity being specific to hot-cold.

TABLE 2

TZE ROTATED PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS LOADINGS (BLIND GROUP).

scales I Loadings for 3 Components* 1

-046 - *221

*227 a205 *524 -412 a730 -185 a262 -185

-231 -614 *257 -015 *622 .136 -122

- $078 -088

- so26

.584

.834 a660 .743 4310 *619 *736 -67 1 -712 -721

I I

* The number of superscripts shows the number of rotations of each component.

HAMED A. S. ZARHAN

TABLE 3

THE ROTATED PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS LOADINGS (SIGHTED GROUP).

a209 *274

- -168 a135

451 .089

*285 -177 a067 *384

335

a031 -el48

*076 --016

--090 *206

417 -122 -078 *138

Scales

1 . Good-bad . . . . . . . . . . 2. Strong-weak . . . . . . . . 3. Happy-unhappy . . . . . 4. Nice-awful .......... 6. Quick-slow .......... 7. Hot-cold .......... 8. Successful-unsuccessful 9. Interesting-dull ....

10. Wisesilly ..........

5. Big-little . . . . . . . . . .

14

423 a471 *87 1 424 -463 -369 a418 f 597 -592 *542

Loadings for 5 Components

112 I 1114 I 1v4 I va so66

- -004 -el60

.203 -.126 - so58

*085 660 -590 -473

- el52 .667 -047

-732 *195 -161 -161 -263 a128

- - 1 17

ha

.749 -764 -821 -752 417 *909 -957 .743 -779 -700

Thus, it is evident that the factorial structure in the two groups is different. The semantic space in the blind group is less structured than in the sighted. In order to get comparable factor scores in the two groups it was decided to take into account only the General Evaluative factor, scored on good-bad, happy-unhappy, nice-awful, quick-slow, hot-cold, successful-unsuccessful, interesting-dull, and wise-silly, and the Potency group factor scored on strong- weak, and big-little, since these factors were identified in both groups. This leads to simplifying the semantic space on to two dimensions.

The results of this factor analysis of the Semantic Differential suggest that the two groups differed in terms of the underlying dimensions of judgments they used in differentiating among concepts. They differed in the number of factors required to account for their judgments as well as in the relative weights referring to the same set of factors. It is also important to note that the two groups differed in the dominant Evaluative factor and that the blind subjects seemed to rely more heavily on general evaluation.

Calculating the mean factor scores for Evaluative and Potency factors, there was a clear similarity between the two groups in perceiving “ Father, Home, Parties, Lessons, Dreams, Other Sex, and Teachers.” The two groups differed slightly in perceiving “Mother.” A marked difference was found in Self evaluation between the two groups “ Myself Now and Myself When I’m Grown Up,” which was statistically significant. (See Figures 1 and 2.)

Considering similarities and differences between the sexes, we find general similarity between blind boys and sighted boys except that the blind boys more strictly rejected blind girls and perceived them as definitely bad and weak, while they were more valuable and a little stronger for the sighted. Blind and sighted girls perceived ‘ Other Sex ’ more favourably than did the boys. It may seem that the Semantic Differential provides more suggestive information about the attitudes of blind and sighted children than did the single scores on accepted personality tests.

Almost all the test results agreed with each other in giving differences in means in favour of the sighted, the significance of these differences were not significant, apart from differences on the Semantic Differential indicative of Self-Evaluation and confidence in the future.

336

4 5

Personality of Blind Children

4 5 i

P-Parties. F-My Father. H-Home. M-My Mother. T-Teachers. LLessons. D-My Dreams.

0.S.-Other Sex. S.N.-Myself Now. S.G.-Myself When I’m

Grown Up.

FIGURE 1 SEMANTIC SPACE FOR BLIND GROUP.

Eva lu a

HAMED A. S. ZAHRAN 337

V.-DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.

Our experimental work was followed by a survey of what is being done for blind children in England and Wales with special attention to guidance services. As a step towards a proposed plan of a guidance programme and depending mainly upon the results of the Blind Children’s Structured Interview and the writer’s personal observations, some characteristics of blind children were analysed. These included basic needs, interests, problems, adjustment and attitudes.

Finally, the findings of the study were considered as a necessary background for the development of a flexible outline of a psychological guidance programme for schools for the blind.

The main conclusion of the study was that although blind children deviate in sensory characteristics, they possess much the same personality character- istics, the same drives, motives, needs and capacities as the sighted. There are no distinct personality problems produced by blindness, but problems frequently arise from the reactions of the blind to their social environment. This confirmed that blind children are and should be looked upon as ordinary children who cannot see. This also calls for the need for research in the field of personality and personal adjustment of blind children, particularly for studies of effective methods for changing public attitudes towards the blind and for experiment- ation in educating blind children in ordinary schools.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.-Hearty acknowledgments are due to Professor Philip E. Vernon who gave me regular guidance, direction, inspiration and encouragement.

I am very grateful to Mr. R. P. Bolton, Mr. I?. H. G. Tooze, Mr. M. Price and Mr. A. B. H. Brigden, headmasters of the primary and secondary schools where the experimental study was conducted. Hearty acknowledgments are also due to their staffs.

The blind and sighted pupils who answered the tests deserve thanks for the wholehearted way in which they entered into it.

I am also grateful for the help I have received from the Library staff of the University of London, the Institute of Education, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. My thanks are also due to the University of London Computer Unit staff for their help.

I should like to express my gratitude to Miss M. Williams, Mr. W. D. Furneaux, Mr. T. R. Holland, and Mrs. M. Morris as well as my wife.

I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the Government of the U.A.R. for the grant which has made possible this research.

VI.-REFERENCES BROWN, P. A. (1938). Responses of blind and seeing adolescents to an introversion-

BROWN, P. A. (1939). Responses of blind and seeing adolescents to a neurotic inventory.

COWEN, E. L.. UNDERBERGE, R. P., VERILLO, R. T., and BENHAM, F. G. (1961). Adjust- ment to Visual Disability in Adolescents. New York : American Foundation for the Blind.

DEAN, S. I. (1958). Some experimental findings about blind adjustment. New Outlook for the Blind, 52, 182-184.

DENT, 0. B. (1962). An investigation of attitudes toward work adjustment of the blind. New Outlook for the Blind, 56, 357-362.

EYSENCK. H. J. (1947). Dimensions ofPersonality. London : Kegan Paul.

extraversion questionnaire. J. Psychol., 6, 137-147.

J . Psychol., 7,211-221.

338 Personality of Blind Children

EYSENCK, H. J. (1952). The Scientific Study of Personality. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul.

EYSENCK, H. J. (1957). An Experimental Application _ _ - of Modern Learning Theory to Personality. London : Routledge and

The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria :

Kegan Paul. EYSENCK, H. J. (1959). Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory. London : Univ.

of London Press. EYSENCK, H. J. (Ed.) (1960). Experiments irz Personality. Vol. I . Psychogenetics and

Psychopharmacology, and Val. I I , Psychodiagnostics and Psychodynamics. London Routledge and Kegan Paul.

I EYSENCK, H. J. (1962). Uses and Abuses of Psychology. London : Pelican. IILEYSENCK, H. J. (1963). Comment on the relation of neuroticism and extraversion to

intelligence and attainment. Brit. J . Educ. Psychol., 33, 192. ~LFURNEAUX, W. D., and GIBSON, H. B. (1961). A children’s inventory designed to measure

neuroticism and extraversion. Brit. J . Educ. Psychol., 31, 204-207. I JERVIS, F. M. (1959). A Comparison of Self Concepts of Blind and Sighted Children,

Guidance Programmes for Blind Children. A Report of a Conference. Edited by i Davis, C. J., Watertown, Mass., Perkins School for the Blind, 19-25.

JUNG, C. G. (1923). PsychologicaZ Types. Translated by Banes , H. G. Harcourt : Brace and Co.

OSGOOD, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychol. Bull., 49,

OSGOOD, C. E. (1962). Studies on the generality of affective meaning systems. Amer.

OSGOOD, C. E., and LURIA, Z. (1954). A blind analysis of a case of multiple personality using the semantic differential. J . Abnorm. SOC. Psychol., 49, 579-591.

OSGOOD, C. E., SUCI, G. J., and TANNENBAUM, P. H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning Urbana, Ill. : Univ. of Illinois Press.

SCHOLL, G. (1953). Some notes on the use of two personality tests with visually hand capped students. New Outlook for the Blind, 47, 287-295.

SOMMERS, V. S. (1944). The Influence of Parental Attitudes and Social Environment on the Personality Development of the Adolescent Blind. New York : American Founda- tion for the Blind.

VERNON, P. E. (1963). Personality Assessment : A Critical Survey. London : Methuen. VERNON, P. E., and PARRY, J. B. (1949). Personel Selection in the British Forces

University of London Press. WILLIAMS, M. (1956). Williams’ Intelligence Test for Children with Defectove Vision.

Birmingham : Univ. of Birmingham, Institute of Education. ZAHRAN, H. A. S. (1964). An Investigation of Some Aspects of Personality with Reference

to the Psychological Guidance of Blind Children. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of London.

197-237.

Psychologist, 17, 10-28.

(Manuscript received 7th January, 1965.)