H ____:_:: _::___,_:__:_:__ F795!“ - 3' C ln‘uTfl 7%": 5-9: I. ... a,“ r‘ {d «'1 3‘: Email; * O' D H MW. a; an“... m: .1 m3 ax. M? (u ' s THES‘S LIBRARY Michlgan State University ABSTRACT A atudy by Bailey (1952) renorts that early exnressions of understand have an adverse effect noon the acquisition of understanding of a nerson. The nroblem of how to study the acquisition of clinical understanding then arises, since early expressions of understandine are often essential to such investigation. The present study sought to (a) verify the adverse effects of early expressions of understanding, and (b) determine to what extent the effects of reneated exnressions of understanding are desendent noon the mode of exoression. The reneated.use of nersonality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts were comoared for their effects on subsequent understanding. The hypothesis that reneated expressions of understanding have an adverse effect on subsequent understanding was con- firmed when personality sketches, check lists, and 0 sorts were used as the measure of understanding. However, this hynothesis was not sunported when eleven multiple-choice ouestions, related snecifically to the provided nersonality data, were used to measure understanding. Thus, the early exnressions of under- standing apneared to affect primarily a seneral understanding of a person. No clear differences were found among the three modes of expression comnared, although there was some suggestion that the personality sketch.is the mode which least affects ”’ 1? 4 Approved: QQ/lab . (41 ,1_ Gommi/t t ee Chairman subsequent understanding. Date: "ay 17L 1°65 Thesis Committee: Joseph Reyher, Chairman Bertram Karon Donald Johnson THE ADVERSE EWFECTS 0F PEDEATED EYABUATIOYS UPOV'SUBSEQDEVT UNDERSTAVDIVG Paul Hyink A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1965 ,L‘) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to eXpress my gratitude to Dr. J. Reyher for his interest and helpful suggestions in conceptualizing and carrying out this research , and to Drs. Karon and Johnson whose comments and criticisms were a source of stimulation. I have also been helped by Bank Prince and Dion Hoeg who served as Judges. My appreciation is deepest to Kathy Scherrer whose continuous support and encouragement made this project a reality. ii TABLE OF CONTEETS Introduction ...... ........... . .......... ... 1 Method .. ....... .... ..... ................... 5 Results .......... ..... . ......... ........... 9 Discualon .................................. 14 Summary and Conclusions .... ..... ........... 21 References .. ..... ..... ...... ............... 23 Appendixes ... 24 iii As early as 1912, Freud (2) commented, "As soon as attention is deliberately concentrated in a certain degree, one begins to select from the material before one; one point will be fixed in the mind with particular clearness and some other consequently disregarded, and in this selection one‘s expectations or one's inclinations will be followed. This is just what must not be done, however; if one's expectations are followed in this select- ion there is the danger of never finding anything but what is already known, and if one follows one's inclinations anything which is to be perceived will most certainly be falsified.” In a slightly different context, these comments find support in the work done by Dailey, (1952). Dailey has shown that an observer is affected by his own judgment about a person. Judg- ments have a rigidifying effect which makes new data harder to assimilate. Confident observers also tend to mistake their inferences for facts in ambiguous situations. Moreover. Dailey observed a "tendency for understanding to decrease as it is expressed". Thus, initial Judgments appear to have an adverse influence upon the accuracy of subsequent Judgments based on additional data about the same person. Dailey's findings have particularly pertinent implica- tions for a growing number of experimental efforts aimed at studying clinical assessment and therapeutic processes. Such studies typically seek to measure the develOpment of clinical understanding by means of repeated Judgments, and so the results -2- obtained may in part be artifacts of the experimental design. In other words, if the early Judgments clinicians are asked to make in these studies affect their subsequent understanding, as Dailey suggests, such Judgments distort the very thing being muasured, namely the clinicians‘ understanding. A few cases in point will serve to illustrate. Heehl (1959) had therapists evaluate clients by means of the Qrsort technique after their first, second, fourth, eighth, sixteenth, and twenty- fourth sessions with their clients in order to measure the growth of the therapists' understanding. Meehl reports obtaining a curve which reached an asymptote around the second or fourth sessions. In other words, itappeared that the therapists' under- standing did not increase after the second or fourth sessions, at least as far as the items in his Q deck were concerned. Such a curve suggests the rigidifying phenomenon of Judgments observed by Dailey, (1952). In a study by Kelly and Fiske (1951), a slight increase in the validity of successive Judgments was noted as the amount of material was increased up to a limited amount. After this point understanding appeared to decrease‘with.subsequent expressions. Dailey's data (1952) again suggests this could be the simple result of repeated Judgments. A study by Sines (1959) is exemplary of efforts to measure the contributions of various sources of diagnostic data to clin- ical understanding by means of repeated Q sorting. Sines furn- ished biographical data, MMPI profiles, Rorschach protocols, and diagnostic interview data to five clinicians who performed Q sorts after receiving each type of data. In addition to noting the rapid stabilization of understanding, Sines found that over-all agreement with his criterion group of therapists was dependent upon the order in which the materials were presented. This too, suggests that the clinicians' understanding was being affected by something extraneous to the information Per se. Therefore, while such results are only suggestive in nature, it does seem possible that numerous studies concerned with meas- uring the deveIOpment of clinical understanding are being con- founded by the adverse effects of the repeated Judgments of measurements required by such investigations. The porblem of how to study the acquisition of clinical understanding then arises, however, since the earliest expressions of understanding are so essential to such investigations. The present investiga- tion sought to cast some light on ways of circumventing or alleviating the adverse effects of such initial Judgments inorder that the experimentalist might free himself of this methodolog— ical dilemma. It seemed reasonable to suppose the degree of adverse influence might be related to the mode by which Judgments are expressed since different modes have different "demand character- istics". For example, the Qrsort technique forces the user to make Judgments as to the relative descriptiveness of every state- ment in the Q deck. A personality sketch, on the other hand. leaves the writer free to make any sort of inferences he chooses to make. The effects of these "demand characteristics" on later understanding seemed particularly worthy of investigation since -4. from Dailey's work (1992) one can infer the influence of early Judgments would be most severe when early inferences are inaccurate. Therefore, the present study sought to (al verify the adverse effects of repeated Judgments on subsequent understand— ing, and (b) determine to what extent such influence is.depend- ent upon the mode used to express these early'judgments. The stort, personality check list,.and the personality-sketch were used as the modes of expression. The "demand characteristics" of the_Q sort and personal- ity sketch have been pointed out already. The personality check list differs from both these modes of expression by demanding a rather "loose", dichotomous judgment on specified statements. This Judgment is said to be "loose” because the failure to Judge a statement as descriptive is seldom taken to imply the converse when such ratings are evaluated. Thus, the check list procedure was considered to be less demanding than the Q-sort procedure while being more restrictive than the personality sketch. inTHDD Subjects and Instructions One hundred and five male and female subiects who were taking an introductory course in psycholOgy were used. The participation of these subjects was obtained by-presenting this study in their discussion groups as an attempt to determine how much information about a person is needed before it is possible to understand something about him. They'were told that they would be given a few statements about a man, and then would be asked to answer some questions about him. They'were told this process would be repeated until they had a chance to use all the personality data. . The subjects were then read the following statement, "Build an image of this man as you get information about him, rather than completely reconstructing it from scratch each time new statements are distributed. To aid you in doing this try not to refer back to the previous information once you are given additional information. Do not be afraid, however, to change your image of this_man, as you go along, if you think you are. on the wrong track.” The subjects were randomly assigned to one of five experi- mental groups. Those in the Standard (3) group received the personality data as an integrated whole, and studied them with- out interruption. They were then asked to respond to eleven multiple-choice questions, a personality check list, a Q—sort task, and finally they were asked to write a personality sketch. The subjects in the Personality Sketch (PS) group were asked to write a brief personality sketch after studying each -5- set of personality data, ie. after the statements.of "low import- ance", "medium importance", and "high importance". In like manner, the subjects in the Check List (CL) and o sort (09} groups were asked to express their Judgments by means of a check list and Q sort, respectively, after studying each set of personality data. The subjects in the Wait (V) group were simply asked to wait while those in the PS, CL, and 93 groups made their judgments after each set of data was presented. After the personality data had.been studied and all Judgments were completed, the subiects in the PS, CL, QS, and W groups were given eleven multiple-choice questions about the person under consideration. All the subjects received the personality data in exactly the same order. Four statements of "low importance" were presented first. Then, four statements of "medium importance” were presented, followed by four statements of "high importance”. This particular order was used because the adverse effects of early expressions of understanding were found to be most profound under such conditions by Bailey (1952). The subjects were allowed to study the person— ality data and make their Judgments at their individual work rates, although they were told before hand that about thirty minutes would be given for this task. Table 1 summarizes the experimental procedure. ttttt uqoaumosv ooaononeflaapaua nobbao 0:» on Quantum kHa0wzu when d anew guano nonopoxm new: con emu opanz nogppokm onwas uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu zooswphopafi gwwag Mo manoeopepm "HWme 9HCD C 055. news #ocxo out. hwpowpu when d pmaH xoogo nonoaoxn paw), owfi any away: anewvmosc oowcxo I4~¢wuras ca «mosses ualnua:u I: r I II: nnnnnnnnnnnn aooawpnopafi eawuoag mo apnoanapm "Huaww cont kflpowau when d pmHH xoogo spaces“ :swaxtccm awe). one can unsupoxa oafinx cEfiwceE: .33... we ounceepcpu ”ummmw : n: p I I uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u uuuuuu g announces“ >OH= mo upcoaopepm "_Hmmmw Say. We” . and no wm Aconcam HHe you n my oppose oped hpafinncoeop dobwooou uaoongpw sows: noun: usoapfidnoo oefim one H opra ...'7.. Multiple-choice Questions Forty statements were taken from the case of Tarnst found in Murray's Exnlorations 13_Personality (83. Wleven of these statements were randomly selected, and used as the answers to eleven, four-alternative, multiple-choice questions which re- lated to Earnst's life history and personality. The location of the autobiographical statement among the other three alter- natives which were composed by the experimenter was deter- mined randomly for each question. Success in selecting the autobiograp hical statement from among the four alternatives for each question was used as one indication of a high dearee of'understanding. Measurement of Personality Data for Importance From the twenty-nine autobiographical statements remaining after the eleven statements used for the multiple-choice.ques- tions were removed, twelve others were randomly selected. These were measured for "importance” as follows: (a) three copies of each statement were prepared, and thirtyhsix subjects were re- cruited from a freshman English course, (b) each of these subiects. was given Just one statement as the sole datum he had about Earnst, (c) the subjects were then presented with the eleven, four—alter- native, multiple-choice questions, and asked to select the one’ statement in each set of answers which.was most true of “arnst, (d) the nufiber of questions correctly answered by the three persons with the same single statement was then totaled. Each statement thus received a score referring to the number of multiple—choice questions it implied, and representing the "importance" of that statement. The twelve autobiographical statements were then arranged into three groups of four statements each to form "low import- ance", "mZeium importance", and "high importance” sets of personality data. Thirteen students in an introductory psychol- ogy course were then recruited and split into five groups. Three groups each composed of two subiects, received iust one of the three sets of personality statements, while a fourth group, of two subjects, was given both the "low” and the "mad- ium" sets. The five remaining subjects made up the fifth group and were given all three sets of personality data. All the . students then responded to the eleven multiple—choice ouestions. This procedure gave further support to the relative importance of these three sets of personality data (see appendix Al. Q-sort and Check List "aterials One hundred descriptive statements were collected from various Q-sort and report-type arrays available to the experi- menter. We statements using psychological terminology or words unlikely to be readily_available in the vocabularies of college freshmen were included. From this collection thirtyzfive were randomly selected and presented to three judges who independ- ently scored each statement true or false as it applied to Earnst. There was unanimous agreement concerning the truth of thirteen of these statements. These thirteen statements were then combined with fourteen of the statements considered to be false by all three Judges to form a 0-sort array of twentyb seven items which were to be sorted into a ?—3-5-7-S-?-? forced distribution. The same twentyaseven items were also organ- zed to compose the personality check list. RRWWDTS The above procedure made it possible to test the hypothe- sis that repeated Judgments have an adverse effect upon sub- sequent understanding using two different criteria of underb standing. First, the final personality sketches of group PS, the final check lists of group CL, and the final 0 sorts of group QS were compared with the personality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts of the Standard group. Personality Sketches The final personality sketches of group ?S were randomly paired with those of group S. These pairs were then submitted to two Judges who independently determined which of the sketches in each pair best described Earnst. The judges agreed on a total of seventeen pairs. Thirteen of the sketches judged.to be superior were written by subjects in the dtandard group. A sign test reveals this to be statistically significant at the .05 level for a two-tailed test. Check Lists Since the items on the check list were judged true or false, in terms of Earnst, at the time of their selection, an "understanding score" was derived by subtracting the number of false items checked from the number of true items checked. The check list scores of the CL group were then compared with those of group S by means of a test. As seen in Table 2, the scores of group S were again found to be significantly larger at the .02 level for a two-tailed test. Table 2 Comparison of the final check list scores of group CL with those of the Standard group Group CL Group S Io. of items checked 207 221 True items 120 145 False items 87 76 Score 83 69 n 21 69 Mean 1.57 3.29 $2 5.26 4.81 Observed t ratio —2.49' ‘significant at the .02 level for a two-tailed test. Q sorts In comparing the Q sorts of group QS with those of the Standard group, only the thirteen items Judged true at the time of their selection.were utilized. The seven columns in the 2-3-5-7-5-8-2— distribution were given scores of -3,-2,-l, 0.1.2.3, and each true statement was given the score of the column in which it was placed. These thirteen scores were then summed to yield an index of understanding. When the Q-sort scores of group QS were compared with those of group S, by means of a t test, the scores of group S were found to be significantly larger at the .02 level for a two- tailed test (see Table 8). These results support the general hypothesis that repeated evaluations have an adverse effect on subsequent understanding. -11- Table 3 Comparison of the final Q—sort scores of group QS with.those of group S Group QS Group S Total score 46 103 n 19 21 Mean 2.42 4.90 52 7.48 12.18 Observed t ratio -2.48* l significant at the .02 level for a two-tailed test. Since Dailey's (1952) results revealed a "tendency for under- standing to decrease as it is expressed", the present data were next surveyed to see if such a tendency could be found. In the case of the PS group. the three sketches written by each individ— ual in the group were randomly arranged, and presented to a Judge who ranked them according to their descriptiveness of Earnst. The resulting rank-totals did not reveal a tendency for under- standing to decrease. An analysis of variance of these ranks also failed to confirm any positive change in understanding over the three repeated evaluations. Table 4 shows the similar results obtained when the first, second, and third check list and Q sorts were scored for understanding. -12- Table 4 Understanding scores of the three repeated evaluations done by'groups PS, CL and Q3 Groups Evaluations 1st 2nd 3rd PS 34a 38a 488 CL 8 1 33b Q5 47 47 46 ascores represent rank-totals bnot statistically different from 2nd score at the .10 level. Thus, the above data did not reveal any tendency for under- standing to decrease as it is expressed. Rather, understanding appeared to simply stabilize after the first evaluation. Next, the eleven multiple-choice questions were scored for all five groups. The results in Table 5 reveal that when the PS, CL, QS. and W groups were compared with the Standard group by means of Dunnett's procedure (7) for comparing all means with a control, no statistically significant differences were obtained. Table 5 Comparison of the multiple-choice scores of groups PS, CL, and W with the Standard group‘s by Dunnett's procedure Groups rs CL qs w 5 Means 7.19 6.33 6.86 7.14 6.57 $3 1.66 3.63 1.83 1.43 2.26 t ratio3 1.38 -.53 .64 1.27 3 acritical t at .05 level is 2.52 -13- In fact, all but the CL group actually did better than group S. Obviously, the superiority of group S was not verified. This result is in marked contrast to that found earlier in this study as well as that found by Dailey (1952) when he used a new set of multiple-choice questions to measure understanding. An analysis of variance of multiple-choice scores of the five groups also failed to produce a significant F at the .05 level (see Table 6). Table 6 Analysis of Multiple-choice scores for the five experimental groups Scource of Variance SS DF MS Fa Methods 11.37 4 2.84 Experimental 216.19 100 2.16 a'critical F at .05 level is 2.46 DISCUSSION When the final personality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts of group OS, CL, and Q8, respectively, were compared with those of group S, it appeared that the repeated judgments made by groups PS, CL, and Q8 had an adverse effect on their subsequent under- standing. Yet, when the eleven multiple-choice questions were used as the criterion of understanding, groups PS, and Q8, as well as group W, actually had mean scores that were higher than the Standard group's. This result suggests a number of possibilities. For example, the adverse effects of previous Judgments demonstrated by the comparison between the final personality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts of groups PS, CL, and Q5, respectively, and those of the Standard group could be the result of response fixation. This possibility was investigated by selecting the check list responses and Q sorts of all those subJects whose understanding scores seemed to remain stable after the first or second Judgments. The check list responses were analysed item by item. Discarded and novel responses were noted as were responses that were repeated. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 7. -14. b -15- Table 7 Item annalysis of repeated check lists that yielded relatively stable scores Discarded Novel Repeated SubJects Evaluations Responses Responses Responses 2nd 7 8 5 f 2 3rd 11 9 2 2nd 7 5 8 #4 3rd 7 7 6 2nd3 1 3 11 #10 8rd 8 5 6 2nd 3 l 4 #14 3rd 3 8 2 athe only repeated evaluation where response fixation seems dominant In the six instances where the Q—sort scores reflected little change in understanding from one sort to the next, the two sorts were correlated to get a rough picture of whether response fixation had played a magor role. Since only the statements in the deck that were Judged true were utilized in the scoring of the Q sorts, the correlations included only these items. As shown in Table 8, two of the six correlations were significant at the .05 level. -15- Table 8 Correlations between Q sorts that produced relatively stable scores SubJects Evaluations Correlations # 3 let-2nd .51" # 8 let-2nd -,15 # 10 let-2nd .23 2nd-8rd .92** # 18 let-2nd -.28 2nd-8rd .39 so significant at the .05 level However, when the Q sorts were further analyzed it was observed that in one of these sorts only two of the thirteen statements were identically placed, while in the other sort only three statements were sorted identically. Hence, it did not seem plausible that the discrepancy between the final personality sketches, check lists. and Q sorts of groups PS, CL, and Q8, respectively, and those of the Standard group could be accounted for in terms of response fixation. The possibility exists, of course, that answering the multiple-choice questions in advance of the check list, Q sort and personality sketch tasks had a positive effect on the under— standing of the subJects in the Standard group which was reflected in their later performance. This is highly unlikely, however, in as much as the alternatives to the multiple-choice items allowed for a wide range of impressions about Earnst, and the content of -17.. these questions was not closely related to the items on the check list and in the Q deck. Then too, it should be remembered that the Standard group did not do very well on the multiple-choice items. According to Dailey's findings (1952) such wrong responses should produce anything but a positive affect on subsequent under- standing. Still a third possibility exists. The personality sketch, check list and.Q-sort items may require a somewhat broader under- standing than do the multiple—choice items. It should be recalled that the "importance“ of each personality statement was determined by the number of correct multiple-choice items it inferred. Thus, a high score on the multiple-choice items might conceivably demand a more specific use of each statement in the personality data. Such specific understanding might best be achieved by studying the personality in small sets with little interference between sets; the conditions under which the subJects in the PS and Wait groups studied the personality data. The items on the check list and in the Q—sort deck, on the other hand, were not specifically related to the statements in the personality data. Thus, it it is conceivable that these tasks as well as writing a personality sketch might best be carried out with a general, integrated understanding of Earnst. Such underb standing seemingly would best be achieved by studying the person- ality data as an integrated whole in the manner that the Standard group studied the personality date. Thus, it appears that the discrepancy between the results obtained when the final personality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts were'used as the criterion of understanding and the result s -l8- obtained when the multiple-choice items were used as the cri- terion of understanding may best be explained by the breadth of understanding these two criteria measure. If this is the case, it appears that repeated evaluations have their primary, adverse effect on the more general, integrated.understanding of a person. This interpretation of the reported results is not in con- flict with those reported by Dailey (1952). Although in Dailey's study the "importance" of each.personality statement was also determined by the number of other autobiographical statements it inferred, these specific autobiographical statements were not used as the final measure of understanding. Thus. Dailey's criterion of understanding conceiveably measured a general understanding of Earnst similar to that of the personality sket- ches, check lists, and Q sorts in the present study. Unfortunately, the present data do not furnish any adequate comparison of the effects of the repeated use of the personality sketch, check list, or Q sort on this general, integrated under- standing. Table four, however, shows the developmental course of understanding for each mode of evaluation used in this study. Only when the personality sketch was used for repeated Judgments, did understanding show any consistent tendency to increase with additional information. Understanding showed considerable fluctuation when the check list was used. 0n the other hand, understanding appeared to stabilize after the first evaluation when the Q sort was used to express understanding. While such results need to be interpreted very cautiously indeed, they suggest the effects of repeated evaluations on general under- -19- standing may be most severe when the Q sort is the mode used to express such evaluation. Moreover, the multiple-choice date (Table five) suggest that thez'epeated use of the personality sketch may actually enhance a more specific understanding of a person; that is understanding directly related to specific personality data. This may largely be due to the fact that it is easiest to re- call the specific data with the repeated use of personality sketches. . The present study did not uncover a "tendency for under- standing to decrease as it is expressed"; a phenomenon reported by Dailey, (1952). This difference might possibily be the re- sult of a slightly different procedure used in the present study. While the present study employed Dailey's procedure in determining the "importance" of each personality statement, an additional check was made to insure that the combined statements or the sets of personality data also varied in "importance". This additional procedure was thought to be significent since four statements of ”low importance", when combined to form a set of data, may contain as much information with respect to a given criterion of understanding as four statements of "high importance". For example, both the "low importance" set and the "high importance“ set could lead to the maximum amount of under- standing as measured by a given criterion of understanding. This is particularly true when the criterion of understanding is com- posed of a limited number of items. While in the present study there was some evidence to support -20- the notion that each set of personality data was more “import- and” than the set which preceded it, it is possible that in Dailey's study (1952) the sets of personality data did not, in fact, vary to any great extent in terms of "importance". What is suggested, is that understanding is directly related to the "importance" of the personality data, and inversely related to the amount of data. As long as additional data brings a gain in the "importance" of what is known, understanding should tend to increase. If, however, additional data do not add to the "importance" of what is known, they only tend to make things more complex, and thus may bring about a decrease in under- standing. This formulation is admittedly highly speculative, but may serve as a fruitful hypothesis for subsequent research. SUZ‘fl-iARY MID COHCLUSICIT Twelve statements were randomly selected from the case of Earnst found in Murray's Explorations in Personality (5), and combined to form sets of "low importance", "medium import- ance", and "high importance" personality data. These sets of personality data were then presented to five experimental groups composed of subJects in an introductory psychology class. Three groups were asked to make evaluations of Earnst by means of personality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts, respectively, after receiving each set of personality data. A fourth group did not make such repeated evaluations, but simply waited while the above groups made their decisions. These four groups then responded to eleven multiple-choice questions relating to Earnst's personality and life history. The final group received the personality data as an integrated whole after which they responded to the multiple-choice questions as well as the check list, Q sort, and personality sketch.procedures. It was found that the personality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts of those who studied the personality data as an integrated whole reflected a more accurate understanding of Earnst than did the final personality sketches, check lists, or Q sorts of the first three experimental groups. The superior understanding of those who studied the personality data as an integrated whole was not verified, however, when the multiple-choice items were analyzed for the five experimental groups. This discrepancy was further analyzed and discussed in terms of the breadth of the understanding measured by the 5Murray, H. A. Explorations EELPersonality, New York; Osford, 1937 -31- personality sketches, check lists, and Q sorts as Opposed to that measured by the mutliple-choice questions. In addition, it was suggested that understanding may be dir- ectly related to the "importance" of the statements in any one pool of personality data while inversely related to the number of such statements. This speculation was offered as one possible account of the "tendency for understanding to decrease as it is expressed"; a phenomenon reported by Dailey (1952) that was not found in the present study. Although further research is certainly needed, it appears that repeated evaluations have their greatest adverse effects on the general, integrated understanding of a person. Differences between the three modes of evaluation were not adequately measured in terms of such a understanding of Earnst. However, the data suggest the effects of repeated Judgments may be most severe when the Q sort technique is employed to make evaluations. The data further suggested that the repeated use of the personality sketch is slightly better than either the check list or Q sort when specific understanding is required. In this case, the re- peated use of the personality sketch may also be superior to re- ceiving the data as one integrated whole. This result may largely reflect the fact that such specific understanding is closely re- lated to the ability to recall the orginal personality statements. l. 2. 6. REFEREECES Dailey, C. A. "Effects of Premature Conclusion Upon the Acquisition of Understanding of a Person", M o_f Psycholog, 33, 1952 Freud, 5. Therapy and Technigpefllew York: Collier Books, 1963. Kelly and Fiske, Predictign 91 szformance _i_n_ Clinical Psychology, Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Press, 1951 i-‘eehl, P. E. "Some Ruminations on the Validation of Clinical Procedures", Canadian Journal 91 Psychology, 13, 1959. Murray, H. A. W; 13 Fe n lit , New York: Oxford, 1937 Sines, L. K. ”Relative Contributions of Four Kinds of Data to Accuracy in Personality Assessment", Journal 91; 99k ggltipg P holo , 23, 1959 Winer, B. J. Statistical Principleg _i_1_;1_ Experimental De 1 n, New York: McGraw-Hill Co. Inc., 1962 APPEND IXES .APPENDIX A The twelve statements about Earnst which were used as the personality data: "Low importance" set - He wants to be a research engineer. He has some of his father's traits, such as a bad temper, but they are not as extreme. He does not particularly like animals. His dad furnished the limitations and his mother supplied the ideas in his family. "Medium importance" set- He was born and raised on a farm in Wisconsin. His dad was a harsh sort of man. He is hardworking. He was on the honor list in college. “High importance" set- As a boy he was attached to his mother who died when he was fourteen. He now prefers to work for a large, impersonal organization. In the first grade he was ashamed of being a coward. He is somewhat feeble and extremely nervous. Table a Scores achieved on multiple-choice items by the thirteen subJects used to verify the relative importance of the three sets of personality data. E3! _s_g__ Medium get High 3131; £01 §:_ High setg LIL; 5 5 6 7 9, 9, 5 7 8 10 10, 10, 10 APPENDIX B The twenty-seven statements used for the personality check list and Qrsort deck: He handles criticism quite well. His aspirations typically exceed his performance. He expresses a reasonable amount of confidence in his abilities. He has achieved a comfortable separation from his parents. He is direct and unemotional. He admires his father. He is markedly depressed by adverse criticism. His range of expression of feelings is fairly wide. He tends to blame his mistakes on others. He is neat and orderly. He was the youngest child in the family. As a child he was overly active and energetic. As a child he had sex play with a neighbor girl. He is fairly religious. He had difficulty in grade school with his classmates. He gambles quite a bit. He is self-reliant. He has a definitely established gainful occupation. He has deep seated feelings of inferiority. His sexual needs are intense. His first three years were relatively untraumatic. His mother was a fairly stable, unexcitable person. He relied on his father for guidance. He has been on his own from a fairly early age. He was generally disinterested in school. -25.. He dated girls when he was in high school. He possess much drive and determination. -25- APPENDIX C The eleven multiple-choice questions relating to Earnst's personality and life history. 1. 3. As a child he spent most of his spare time, (a) reading, (b) playing by himself, (c) playing with the neighbor children, (d) taking long walks in the woods with a friend. As a boy he was, (a) often punished by'both mother and father, (b) seldom punished by either parent, (c) punished often by his father, (d) punished often by his mother. His work in school was, (a) of little interest to his parents. (b) encouraged by his mother, (c) encouraged by his father, (d) encouraged by both parents. He completed college, (a) with a large personal debt, (b) with financial help from his parents, (c) with financial help from friends of the family, (d) by working at odd Jobs. He (a) makes friends easily with everyone, (b) has primarily older friends, (c) does not make friends readily, (d) has primarily younger friends. In conflicts with his brothers, he (a) many times outwitted them, (b) usually got the short end, (c) would not fight back, (d) sought support from his mother. Inorder to gain recognition for himself, he (a) concentrated on getting good grades in school, (b) became a social wit, (c) tried out for the college track team, (d) sought the editorship of the school paper. He was (a) close to his father, (b) indifferent to his father, (c) proud of his father, (d) afraid of his father. -26.. -27 9. He is (a) unhappy with his work, (b) moderately enthusi- astic about his work, (c) almost completely preoccupied with his work, (d) indifferent towards his work. 10. Physically, he is (a) short and stocky, (b) tall and slender, (c) of medium build, (d) tall and very masculine. 11. When in a new social setting, he (a) makes friends quickly, (b) Joins civic organizations in order to meet others, (c) seeks out a few close friends on his own, (d) makes little attempt to meet others.