The relationship between self-actualization and rational thinking was examined using scores on the Personal Orientation Inventory variables and the Rational Behavior Inventory. Seventy-nine male and female college sophomores were administered both inventories. Thirty-eight subjects completed the Personal Orientation Inventory first followed by the Rational Behavior Inventory and 41 subjects completed the tests in the reverse order. Pearson coefficients were then calculated berween over-all scores on the behavior inventory and scores on the 14 variables of the Personal Orientation Inventory. Scores for Shostcorn's inventory were derived from Riesman's system of inner- and other-directedness, Maslow's concept of self-acrualization, and May's and Perls' concept of time orientation (3) .. The inventory indudes two ratio scales, the time and support scales, and 10 sub-scales. The support scale provides a measure of self versus reaction modes while the time scale indicates the degree to which the individual lives in the present versus the past or future. The behavior inventory provides an over-all index of rationality based upon rest scores for 11 factors measured by Gunman scales (2). The items were dweloped based on Ellis' cheory of Rational Emotive Therapy (1). Although practice based on self-actualization and rational thinking theories are often quite dissimilar, the humanistic philosophical base and central concepts of these approaches are strikingly similar. The hypothesis, that there would be significant correlations between the behavior inventory and the variables of the other scale, was supported for 13 of the 14 correlations. The correlarion for- synergy approached significance (p = .07). The following significant correlations were observed between the behavior inventory and Time integration ( -.37), Time competent (.37), Other-directed ( -.53), Inner-directed (SO), Selfacrualizing value (.33), Existentialiry (.31), Feeling reactivity (.25), Spontaneity (.33), Self-regard (.43 ) , Self-acceptance (.39), Nature of man (constructive) (.23 ) , Acceptance of aggression (.33), and Capacity for intimate contacts (.51). All p < .05, though values are only moderate to low in magnitude.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shorkey et al. (1978) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: